0% found this document useful (0 votes)
442 views

Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement

The document is a factsheet for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed renovation of KeyArena in Seattle into a modern multi-purpose arena. The proposal would renovate the arena to accommodate concerts, sports, and other events, including meeting NBA and NHL standards, as well as continuing current uses like the Seattle Storm WNBA team. The EIS analyzes potential environmental impacts of renovating the arena and considers alternatives. The lead agency is the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and the EIS will inform various permit approvals required for the project.

Uploaded by

branax2000
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
442 views

Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement

The document is a factsheet for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed renovation of KeyArena in Seattle into a modern multi-purpose arena. The proposal would renovate the arena to accommodate concerts, sports, and other events, including meeting NBA and NHL standards, as well as continuing current uses like the Seattle Storm WNBA team. The EIS analyzes potential environmental impacts of renovating the arena and considers alternatives. The lead agency is the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and the EIS will inform various permit approvals required for the project.

Uploaded by

branax2000
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 379

VOLUME

SEATTLE CENTER ARENA


RENOVATION PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PREPARED FOR
City of Sea�le Department of Construc�on and Inspec�ons
IN COOPERATION WITH
Sea�le Center, Office of Economic Development,
and Sea�le Department of Transporta�on
PREPARED BY
Environmental Science Associates, Fehr & Peers AUGUST 2018
August 30, 2018

Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Affected Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties:

The City of Seattle (City) is proposing to renovate the existing KeyArena at Seattle Center to provide a
modern multi-purpose entertainment and sports center that will host concerts, sporting events, family
shows, community-oriented events, and numerous other events, and that could accommodate a
professional National Hockey League (NHL) and/or National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise. The
proposal would also continue to accommodate many current uses including the Seattle Storm Women's
National Basketball Association (WNBA) franchise. For the purposes of this Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), the renovated arena is referred to as the "Seattle Center Arena."

The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) is the Lead Agency under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the proposal and has prepared this Final EIS to analyze potential
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed renovation of KeyArena. Seattle Center, the Office of
Economic Development (OED), and Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) are consulting agencies
and partners in the EIS process for the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project. The City proposes to
enter into a lease and development agreement with a private developer, Oak View Group, LLC (OVG),
that would design, construct, and operate the arena during the lease term.

This Final EIS incorporates the information contained in the Draft EIS, comments received on the Draft EIS
during the public review period, responses to these comments, and additional information developed in
response to comments.

The Final EIS will be used by the City of Seattle to inform various decisions and approvals, including:
 Permitting for renovation of the arena infrastructure, buildings, and other related
improvements, and associated permits for all other land-altering, building, and construction for
the proposed project.
 Approval of a Lease, Development Agreement, and Seattle Center Integration Agreement.
 Possible night-time construction work variance pursuant to the Seattle Noise Control Code
(Seattle Municipal Code [SMC 25.08]).
 Possible variance requests, waivers, or departures associated with various code standards,
including: through-block pedestrian connection requirements, open space standards, curb cut
and driveway standards, accessory surface parking area and lot requirements, building setback
requirements, structure width and depth requirements, and landscaping standards between the
street and front façades.
 Certificates of Approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board.
 Amendment to the sign code (SMC 23.55), by the Seattle City Council.
 Street Improvement Permits, Street Use Permits, Term Permits, and Utility Relocation and
Development Permits from SDOT.

700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 | PO Box 34019 | Seattle, WA 98124-4019 | 206-684-8600 | seattle.gov/sdci
The scope of the Draft and Final EIS has been determined in accordance with the Seattle SEPA Ordinance
(SMC 25.05). In September 2017, a public meeting was held to provide opportunity for the public to
discuss and identify probable significant environmental impacts that should be addressed in the Draft EIS.
Comments received during the scoping period were used by SCDI to inform the issues and alternatives
evaluated in the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS was issued on April 23, 2018, and included a 45-day comment period, which ended on June
7, 2018. A public hearing was held on May 14, 2018 at the Seattle Center, with approximately 30
individuals in attendance. During the Draft EIS comment period, comments were submitted through public
testimony at the Draft EIS hearing and written comments, including email and electronic submission to the
project website. More than 440 comments were received from 80 individuals, organizations, agencies, and
other stakeholders. These comments and responses to the comments are included in Appendix I,
Volume 3.

Comments received were broad in scope and topics, but several themes emerged in the comments:
 Transportation impacts, including construction and operational impacts to transportation
network operations, parking, transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and other aspects of regional
transportation systems.
 Noise, particularly construction noise, and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors at Seattle
Center and adjacent residents.
 Disruption to Seattle Center tenants during construction, associated with reduced access, noise
and dust, and increased traffic congestion.
 Loss of the skatepark at Seattle Center.
 Long-term impacts to Seattle Center tenants resulting from the increased frequency of arena
events and associated congestion.
 Requests for specific detailed mitigation measures for transportation impacts, construction
impacts, and measures to reduce impacts to existing Seattle Center tenants.
 Air quality impacts during construction.

Major comment themes are summarized under Common Responses, found in Appendix I, Volume 3,
Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS. The text of the Final EIS has been revised to reflect new
analysis, and to address comments received.

Three alternatives are analyzed in the Final EIS, including the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1: The
Oak View Group (OVG) Proposal, and Alternative 2: Modified Proposal.

The Final EIS describes the affected environment, potential impacts of the three alternatives, and
potential measures to reduce impacts for the following topics: land use, transportation, earth, historic
and cultural resources, recreation, noise and vibration, visual resources, air quality and greenhouse
gases, public services and utilities, plants, and cumulative impacts. Key environmental issues are primarily
related to potential construction and operations impacts to traffic and transportation, as well as historic
and cultural resources, noise and vibration, recreation, and visual resources.
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

FACTSHEET
Project Name

Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project - Project Number 3029061

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) is to renovate KeyArena into a modern multi-purpose arena to
accommodate concerts, entertainment, community-oriented events, and sports events, including
meeting National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Hockey League (NHL) standards, as well as
continuing current uses. The proposal includes an amendment to sign regulations in Seattle Municipal
Code (SMC) Chapter 23.55 to establish a Seattle Center sign overlay district that would regulate the
number, size, type, content, location, brightness, and operation of signs for the renovated arena, the
Northwest Rooms, and the south parcel. Alternative approaches to the proposed renovation and to the
sign regulations are described in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Modified
Proposal (Alternative 2).

Project Proponent

City of Seattle

SEPA Lead Agency

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI)


700 5th Ave, Suite 2000
P.O. Box 34019
Seattle, WA, 98124-4019
Contact Person: John Shaw
[email protected], 206-684-5837

SEPA Responsible Official

Nathan Torgelson, Director

Date of Issue

August 30, 2018

Proposed Schedule (estimated dates are subject to change)

 Publication of a Master Use Permit (MUP) decision may occur in September 2018.
 City Council approval of Transaction Documents may occur in September 2018.
 Other permits and approvals may occur at various times, largely during the fourth quarter of
2018.
 Construction may begin in October 2018.
 City Council action on proposed sign code amendment may occur in the fourth quarter of 2018
or first quarter of 2019.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page FS-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Document Availability

The Final EIS is available online at http://www.SeattleCenterArenaEIS.org,


http://www.seattle.gov/arena, and the SDCI webpage: http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms under Permit
and Property Records for Project Number 3029061.

Printed copies of the Final EIS are available for review at no charge at:

SDCI Public Resource Center


700 5th Ave, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98124
*Open 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and 10:30 AM to 4:00 PM on
Tuesday and Thursday.

Seattle Public Library, Central Library


1000 4th Ave
Seattle, WA 98104

Seattle Public Library, Queen Anne Branch


400 W Garfield St
Seattle, WA 98119

For questions or to obtain a copy of the document contact the SDCI Public Resource Center at the
address listed above, referencing Project Number 3029061.

Permits, Licenses, and Approvals Likely Required for Proposal

The following would be required from the City of Seattle:

 Permitting for renovation of the arena infrastructure, buildings and other related
improvements, and associated permits for all other land-altering, building, and construction
activities for the proposed project, potentially include the following from SDCI: Master Use
Permit (MUP), Demolition Permits, Building/Grading/Shoring Permits, Mechanical Permit and
Electrical Permits, and Tree and Vegetation Removal Permit.
 Approval of a Significant Structure Term Permit by the City Council for construction of a
vehicular tunnel beneath Thomas St. Council action will occur at a public meeting. The meeting
date has not been identified.
 Possible variance requests, waivers, or departures from code standards, including through-block
pedestrian connection requirements, open space standards, curb cut and driveway standards,
accessory surface parking area and lot requirements, building setback requirements, structure
width and depth requirements, and landscaping standards between the street and front
façades.
 Amendment to the sign code SMC 23.55, by the Seattle City Council. The City Council will hold a
public hearing but the date of hearing has not been identified.
 Possible variance(s) to allow night-time construction work pursuant to the Seattle Noise Control
Code (SMC 25.08) from SDCI. A public hearing will be held on September 13, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page FS-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Street Improvement Permits, Street Use Permits, Term Permits, and Utility Relocation and
Development Permits from the Seattle Department of Transportation.
 Lease Agreement, Development Agreement, and Seattle Center Integration Agreement
approvals by the City Council. A City Council public meeting may occur in September 2018.
 Certificates of Approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board. Landmarks Preservation Board
action on Certificates of Approval will occur at a public meeting but the date of meeting(s) has
not been identified.

Authors and Contributors

A list of authors and contributors is provided in Chapter 15 of the Final EIS.

Location of Background Materials

Background materials used in the preparation of this Final EIS are listed in Chapter 16, References. All
references cited that are not available through public libraries or websites are available through SDCI;
contact the SDCI Public Resource Center at the address listed above to request copies. No prior EIS exists
for this proposal. However, the EIS for the proposed SODO arena (2015) included analysis of potential
impacts from a hypothetical replacement of KeyArena.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page FS-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1-1


1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVE ..........................................................................................................................1-5
1.4 SEPA SCOPING PROCESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT ............................................................................1-5
1.5 SEPA REVIEW PROCESS .....................................................................................................................1-6
1.6 DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD .....................................................................................1-7
1.7 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE FINAL EIS...................................................................................1-7
1.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES, AND KEY FINDINGS .......................1-8
1.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................1-25
1.10 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ............................................................................1-25
1.11 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELAYING THE PROPOSAL ....................................................1-25
1.12 SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY ..........................................................1-26
1.13 POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL .........................................1-27
1.14 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED .................................................................................................................1-27

2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................................2-1


2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: OAK VIEW GROUP (OVG) PROPOSAL .....................................................................2-3
2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: MODIFIED PROPOSAL.............................................................................................2-9
2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................2-11
2.5 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS .....................................................................................................................2-19
2.6 CONSTRUCTION ..............................................................................................................................2-19

3.1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................3-1


3.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................3-2
3.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................3-2
3.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .........................................................................................................................3-9
3.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .........................................................3-15
3.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON LAND USE ............................................3-16
3.7 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS ...............................................................3-16

4.1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................4-1


4.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................4-5
4.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................4-5
4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................4-38
4.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................4-128
4.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION .............................4-135

5.1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................5-1


5.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................5-1
5.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................5-2
5.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .........................................................................................................................5-3
5.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...........................................................5-8
5.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................5-9

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page i August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

6.1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................6-2


6.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................6-3
6.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................6-4
6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................6-12
6.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .........................................................6-19
6.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON HISTORIC AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................................6-21

7.1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................7-1


7.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................7-1
7.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................7-4
7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .........................................................................................................................7-9
7.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .........................................................7-13
7.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON RECREATION ........................................7-14

8.1 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE .........................................................................................................8-3


8.2 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................8-5
8.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................8-5
8.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................................................................8-10
8.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................8-12
8.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .........................................................8-27
8.7 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NOISE AND VIBRATION .......................8-30

9.1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................9-1


9.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................9-2
9.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................9-3
9.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .........................................................................................................................9-9
9.5 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES .....................................................................................9-25
9.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .........................................................9-26
9.7 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON VISUAL QUALITY, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND
LIGHT AND GLARE ............................................................................................................................9-28

10.1 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................10-1


10.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................10-4
10.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................................................................10-7
10.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................10-9
10.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................10-16
10.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY AND GHG EMISSIONS ...10-17

11.1 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................11-1


11.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................11-1
11.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................................................................11-2
11.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................11-3
11.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .........................................................11-7
11.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES .........11-9

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page ii August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

12.1 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................12-1


12.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................12-2
12.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................................................................12-2
12.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................12-3
12.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .........................................................12-7
12.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PLANTS ................................................12-7

13.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................13-1


13.2 LAND USE ........................................................................................................................................13-3
13.3 TRANSPORTATION ..........................................................................................................................13-3
13.4 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................13-3
13.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION ...................................................................................................................13-4
13.6 VISUAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................13-4
13.7 AIR QUALITY AND GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................................................13-4
13.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES .....................................................................................................13-4
13.9 PLANTS ............................................................................................................................................13-5

APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY AS VOLUMES 2 AND 3)


Appendix A: 2020 Background Conditions – Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

Appendix B: Land Use

Appendix C: Transportation

Appendix D: Historic and Cultural Resources

Appendix E: Recreation

Appendix F: Noise Monitoring

Appendix G: Sign Code Amendment and Sign Proposal

Appendix H: Supplemental Information: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

Appendix I: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS (Bound Separately as Volume 3)

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page iii August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map of the Seattle Center .......................................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 2-1. No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................................. 2-2


Figure 2-2. Alternative 1: OVG Proposal .................................................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-3. Architectural Elements of the Arena ....................................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-4. Alternative 1: OVG Proposal –Cross Section – Showing Arena and Underground Parking Garage and
Loading Dock............................................................................................................................................ 2-6
Figure 2-5. Alternative 1: OVG Proposal – Schematic Drawing ................................................................................. 2-7
Figure 2-6. Proposed Site Designs ............................................................................................................................. 2-7
Figure 2-7. Summary of Proposed Alternative 1 Signage and Lighting Plan .............................................................. 2-8
Figure 2-8. Alternative 2: Modified Proposal .......................................................................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-9. Schedule of Events at the Arena............................................................................................................ 2-19
Figure 2-10. Proposed Construction Schedule ........................................................................................................ 2-20
Figure 2-11. Construction Logistics and Phasing ..................................................................................................... 2-28
Figure 2-12. Proposed Haul Routes ......................................................................................................................... 2-30

Figure 3-1. Land Use Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 3-3


Figure 3-2. Buildings and Some Surrounding Uses .................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-3. Land Use Zoning in the Land Use Study Area .......................................................................................... 3-8

Figure 4-1. Existing Roadway Network ...................................................................................................................... 4-3


Figure 4-2. Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4-3. Intersection Level of Service – Existing Weekday Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Conditions .... 4-11
Figure 4-4. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – Existing Weekday Pre-Event
Peak Hour (5:30–6:30 PM) Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-14
Figure 4-5. Existing Weekday/Saturday Evening Curb Space Permitted Usage ...................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-6. Existing Regional Transit Routes in the Study Area ............................................................................... 4-23
Figure 4-7. Existing Bus Routes and Stops Near the Project Site ............................................................................. 4-25
Figure 4-8. Existing Ferry and Water Taxi Routes .................................................................................................... 4-28
Figure 4-9. Existing Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................................ 4-29
Figure 4-10. Existing Pedestrian Network................................................................................................................ 4-32
Figure 4-11. Existing Parking Supply ........................................................................................................................ 4-33
Figure 4-12. Existing Parking Occupancy During Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour ................................................... 4-34
Figure 4-13. Existing Parking Occupancy During Saturday Pre-Event Peak Hour .................................................... 4-36
Figure 4-14. Seattle Center Attendance Scenarios .................................................................................................. 4-41
Figure 4-15. 2020 Street Network ........................................................................................................................... 4-50
Figure 4-16. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – 2020 No Action Alternative –
Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour Conditions .................................. 4-53
Figure 4-17. Project Traffic Growth on Key Corridors – 2020 .................................................................................. 4-63
Figure 4-18. Intersection LOS Summary – 2020 Conditions with Average Seattle Center Attendance ................... 4-64

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page iv August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-19. Impacted Intersections – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event
and Post-Event Peak Hour Conditions ................................................................................................... 4-67
Figure 4-20. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average
Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour Conditions ................................................ 4-69
Figure 4-21. Intersection LOS Summary – 2020 Conditions with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ....... 4-70
Figure 4-22. Impacted Intersections – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday
Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Conditions .................................................................................. 4-71
Figure 4-23. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-
Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour Conditions .................................. 4-74
Figure 4-24. Pedestrian Flows – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event
Peak Hour Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 4-80
Figure 4-25. Pedestrian Flows – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Post-Event
Peak Hour Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 4-81
Figure 4-26. Intersection LOS Summary – 2035 Conditions with Average Seattle Center Attendance ................. 4-104
Figure 4-27. Impacted Intersections – 2035 Alternative 1 –Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday
Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Condition .................................................................................. 4-105
Figure 4-28. Intersection LOS Summary – 2035 Conditions with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ..... 4-108
Figure 4-29. Impacted Intersections – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday
Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Condition .................................................................................. 4-109

Figure 6-1. Historic and Cultural Resources Study Areas ........................................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6-2. Aboveground Historic Resources in the Study Area ................................................................................ 6-7
Figure 6-3. Historic Property Inventory Map ........................................................................................................... 6-11

Figure 7-1. Recreational Attractions at Seattle Center .............................................................................................. 7-6


Figure 7-2. Recreation in Uptown .............................................................................................................................. 7-7

Figure 8-1. Perceptible Noise Thresholds .................................................................................................................. 8-2


Figure 8-2. Noise Monitoring Locations..................................................................................................................... 8-6
Figure 8-3. Construction Noise Time Limits for Projects in Low-rise, Mid-rise, and High-rise, Residential-
Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial Zones under the City of Seattle’s Noise Ordinance .......... 8-8
Figure 8-4. Unmitigated Construction Noise Contours for Overlap of Phase 3 and Phase 4 of Project Construction
at an Elevation of 60 feet, Between 10 PM – 11 PM, 5 AM – 7 AM ...................................................... 8-17
Figure 8-5. Mitigated Construction Noise Contours for Overlap of Phase 3 and Phase 4 of Project Construction
at an Elevation of 60 feet, Between 10 PM – 11 PM, 5 AM – 7 AM ...................................................... 8-17

Figure 9-1. Study Area for Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 9-4


Figure 9-2. Prominent Structures within the Visual Quality Study Area ................................................................... 9-6
Figure 9-3. Scenic Views, Scenic Routes, and Landmarks Map ................................................................................. 9-8
Figure 9-4. Existing Light Conditions at KeyArena ................................................................................................... 9-10
Figure 9-5. Highlights of Proposed Signage with Light and Glare Impacts .............................................................. 9-18
Figure 9-6. Potential Signage and Lighting Conditions ............................................................................................ 9-19
Figure 9-7. Proposed Conditions from Thomas St looking North ............................................................................ 9-23

Figure 12-1. Trees to be Removed under Alternative 1 .......................................................................................... 12-5

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page v August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Potential Construction Impacts and Potential Measures to Reduce Impacts ...................... 1-9
Table 1-2. Summary of Potential Operations Impacts and Potential Measures to Reduce Impacts ....................... 1-18

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 2-11


Table 2-2. Construction Activities for Alternatives 1 and 2 ..................................................................................... 2-22

Table 3-1. Existing Buildings on the Project Site ........................................................................................................ 3-5


Table 3-2. Current KeyArena Tenants ........................................................................................................................ 3-5
Table 3-3. Current KeyArena Tenants Temporarily Displaced Due to Construction ............................................... 3-11
Table 3-4. Permanent Displacement of Uses on the Project Site ............................................................................ 3-14
Table 3-5. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan Relevant Goals and Policies ............................................................. 3-18
Table 3-6. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan Queen Anne (Uptown) Relevant Goals and Policies ........................ 3-19
Table 3-7. Land Use Code Nonconformities for Alternatives 1 and 2...................................................................... 3-22

Table 4-1. Regulations and Guidelines Applicable in the Study Area ........................................................................ 4-5
Table 4-2. Level of Service (LOS) and Delay Thresholds for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections .................... 4-9
Table 4-3. Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 4-10
Table 4-4. Intersection Collision History .................................................................................................................. 4-15
Table 4-5. Fixed Route Bus Services in the Study Area – Existing Conditions.......................................................... 4-21
Table 4-6. Parking Supply and Occupancy – Existing Conditions (Pre-Event Peak Hour) ........................................ 4-35
Table 4-7. Available Parking – Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-37
Table 4-8. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance ................. 4-54
Table 4-9. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ...... 4-54
Table 4-10. Parking Occupancy – 2020 No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance .................... 4-57
Table 4-11. Parking Occupancy – 2020 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ........ 4-58
Table 4-12. Expected Mode Share for Arena Attendees in 2020 ............................................................................ 4-60
Table 4-13. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed Arena (Alternatives 1 and 2) in 2020 ....................... 4-61
Table 4-14. Trip Origin/Destinations of Attendees .................................................................................................. 4-62
Table 4-15. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance ............................. 4-66
Table 4-16. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance.................. 4-73
Table 4-17. Transit Capacity – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance ...................................... 4-77
Table 4-18. Transit Capacity – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ........................... 4-78
Table 4-19. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance .................................. 4-83
Table 4-20. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ...................... 4-84
Table 4-21. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 2 – Average Seattle Center Attendance .................................. 4-91
Table 4-22. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ...................... 4-92
Table 4-23. 2020 Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2 Significant Impacts to the No Action Alternative ............... 4-94
Table 4-24. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 No Action Alternative –- Average Seattle Center Attendance .............. 4-97
Table 4-25. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance .... 4-97
Table 4-26. LINK Light Rail Reserve Capacity – No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance ........ 4-98

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page vi August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-27. LINK Light Rail Reserve Capacity – No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance........................................................................................................................................... 4-99
Table 4-28. Parking Occupancy – 2035 No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance .................. 4-101
Table 4-29. Parking Occupancy – 2035 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance ...... 4-101
Table 4-30. Expected Mode Share for Arena Attendees in 2035 .......................................................................... 4-103
Table 4-31. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed Arena (Alternatives 1 and 2) in 2035 ..................... 4-104
Table 4-32. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance ........................... 4-107
Table 4-33. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance................ 4-111
Table 4-34. LINK Light Rail 2035 Reserve Capacity – Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance ........... 4-112
Table 4-35. LINK Light Rail Reserve Capacity – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance 4-113
Table 4-36. Parking Occupancy – 2035 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance ................................ 4-116
Table 4-37. Parking Occupancy – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance .................... 4-117
Table 4-38. 2035 Comparison of Alternative 1 and 2 Significant Impacts to the No Action Alternative .............. 4-123

Table 6-1. Designated Landmarks in the Aboveground Historic Resources Study Area ............................................ 6-8
Table 6-2. Historic Property Inventory Results ........................................................................................................ 6-10
Table 6-3. Buildings and Structures Proposed for Alterations Under Alternative 1 ................................................ 6-14

Table 8-1. Vibration Impact Level Limits for Land Uses ............................................................................................. 8-9
Table 8-2. Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria for Structures ................................................ 8-9
Table 8-3. Comparison of Leq and Lmax outside of the Astro Apartments at Street Level between 5:00 PM and
11:00 PM on Non-Event days and Event Days ..................................................................................... 8-11
Table 8-4. Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ............................................................................... 8-15
Table 8-5. Predicted Noise Levels and Modified Noise Limits for Residential Receptors ........................................ 8-19
Table 8-6. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels (PPV Metric) ......................................................................... 8-20
Table 8-7. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels (VdB Metric) ......................................................................... 8-21
Table 8-8. Noise Construction Impact Summary ..................................................................................................... 8-22
Table 8-9. Vibration Construction Impact Summary ............................................................................................... 8-23

Table 9-1. Changes to Visual Character Under Alternative 1 .................................................................................. 9-14

Table 10-1. Maximum Annual Construction-related Emissions for Alternative 1 ................................................. 10-10
Table 10-2. Maximum Annual Operational Emissions for Seattle Center Arena Renovation ............................... 10-13
Table 10-3. Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons [MT] of CO2e per year) ..................................................... 10-14

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page vii August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


A/NT formerly known as Art/Not Terminal Gallery
AAMP Arena Access Management Plan
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ARMP Archaeological Resources Monitoring Plan
AVO average vehicle occupancy
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP best management practice (also Bicycle Master Plan)
BPSA Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CAV connected autonomous vehicle
CC Community College
cd/m² candela per square meter
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
City City of Seattle
CMP Construction Management Plan
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DCP Dust Control Plan
DR Director’s Rule
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Science Associates
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
GMA Growth Management Act
gpm gallons per minute
GPS global positioning system
GWMA groundwater management area
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz hertz
I-5 Interstate 5
IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page viii August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America


in/sec inches per second
L10 noise levels equaled or exceeded 10% of a specified time period
L90 noise levels equaled or exceeded 90% of a specified time period
Ldn day-night sound level
LED light-emitting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
lm/m² lumens per square meter
Lmax maximum sound level
LOS Level of Service
M (Richter) Magnitude
Metro King County Metro
MMT million metric ton
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MoPOP Museum of Pop Culture
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MOVES MOtor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
MPH miles per hour
MUP Master Use Permit
MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Mw Moment Magnitude
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NBA National Basketball Association
NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association
NHL National Hockey League
NMMP Noise Management and Mitigation Plan
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWFL Northwest Folklife
OED Office of Economic Development
ORCA One Regional Card for All
OVG Oak View Group
P&R Park and Ride
PAR Protected Archaeological Resource
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter)
PM2.5 particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter)
PPV peak particle velocity
PSCA Puget Sound Clear Air Agency
PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RFID radio-frequency identification
RPZ Restricted Parking Zone
SBCC (Washington) State Building Code Council

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page ix August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SCL Seattle City Light


SCT Seattle Children’s Theatre
SDCI Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections
SDOT Seattle Department of Transportation
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SIFF Seattle International Film Festival
SMC Seattle Municipal Code
SM-UP Seattle Mixed-Uptown
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoDo South of Downtown
SPD Seattle Police Department
SPR Seattle Parks and Recreation
SPS Seattle Public Schools
SPU Seattle Public Utilities OR Seattle Pacific University
SR State Route
ST2 Sound Transit 2
ST3 Sound Transit 3
SWPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAP toxic air pollutant
TC Transit Center
TCO Traffic Control Officer
TCP Transportation Control Plan
TNC Transportation Network Company
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VdB vibration decibel
VMT Vehicle miles travelled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data
WNBA Women’s National Basketball Association
WTD (King County) Wastewater Treatment Division

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page x August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.0 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY


1.1 INTRODUCTION
Seattle Center is a regional center for performance, arts, sports, and recreation. It is home to more than
30 arts, cultural, sports, and entertainment organizations, family attractions, and tourist amenities in the
heart of Seattle (see Figure 1-1). The KeyArena building (which is a designated Seattle Landmark) is one
of the most prominent structures on the Seattle Center campus and serves as a multi-purpose
entertainment and sports venue hosting concerts, sports, and a variety of other events.

As owner of KeyArena, the City of Seattle (City) is proposing to renovate the arena to provide a modern
multi-purpose entertainment and sports center that will host concerts, sporting events, family shows,
community-oriented events, and numerous other events, and that could accommodate a professional
National Hockey League (NHL) and/or National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise. The proposal
would also continue to accommodate many current uses, including the Seattle Storm Women’s National
Basketball Association (WNBA) franchise. The proposed project also provides a number of upgrades,
including improvements to enhance accessibility (such as improvements under the Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA]) and meeting a minimum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
threshold.

The City proposes to enter into a lease and development agreement with a private developer, Oak View
Group, LLC (OVG). OVG would, at its cost, renovate the arena including designing and obtaining permits
for the renovation and operation of the arena during the lease term.

The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) is the Lead Agency under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the proposal and has prepared this Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Final EIS) to analyze potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
renovation of KeyArena. Seattle Center, the Office of Economic Development (OED), and Seattle
Department of Transportation (SDOT) are consulting agencies and partners in the EIS process for the
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project.

In this EIS, the renovated arena is referred to as the “Seattle Center Arena” to distinguish it from the
existing KeyArena and to reflect that a new name, as part of new sponsorship, is anticipated for the
renovated arena.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND


The building at Seattle Center known as KeyArena has gone through a number of renovations, name
changes, and programming uses over the past 56 years. The structure was originally built for the 1962
Seattle World’s Fair as the Washington State Coliseum and was paid for by the State of Washington. The
Coliseum was designed by noted Seattle architect Paul Thiry, the lead architect for the World’s Fair, and
was home to the “World of Tomorrow” exhibit. After the World’s Fair, the City purchased the Coliseum
from the state, and the building underwent an 18-month conversion into a venue for sports, concerts,
and trade shows, including installation of a seating bowl. The building became known as the “Seattle

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Center Coliseum.” An early tenant was the Seattle Totems of the Western Hockey League. In 1967, the
Coliseum became the home of the Seattle SuperSonics (“Sonics”), an expansion franchise of the NBA.
The Coliseum was a multi-purpose arena that also hosted concerts, trade shows, circuses, and other
family events.

The Coliseum was renovated again in 1994/1995 to modernize the arena and keep it competitive for
multi-purpose uses and retain the NBA Sonics franchise as the anchor sports tenant. Increasing the
capacity of the building within the same footprint and roofline required lowering the floor of the
building by 38 feet. The superstructure of the old Coliseum was reused, and the roofline and curtain wall
structure were preserved, with most of the significant changes occurring below grade. The project also
included construction of a 650-stall parking garage south of the Coliseum, called the 1st Ave N Garage.
Construction for the renovation began in June 1994 and was completed in October 1995. Renamed
“KeyArena” as part of a title sponsorship agreement with KeyBank, the renovated facility saw overall
attendance of about 1.2 million annually.

In the mid-2000s, after failing to find public funding to renovate KeyArena to meet current NBA
standards or to construct a new arena in the Seattle area, the Sonics moved to Oklahoma City. Thus,
NBA programming at the Seattle Center ended before the 2008–2009 season. While its major tenant,
the Sonics, no longer played at KeyArena, it continues to be a venue in Seattle for concerts and other
types of shows. It is also home court for basketball teams, including the Seattle Storm and Seattle
University and has continued to host a variety of sporting events, concerts, and other types of events. In
2016 and 2017, there was an average of 102 events and average annual expected attendance was
approximately 640,000.

In 2015, the City Council commissioned a study of the existing condition of and future operating and
renovation prospects for KeyArena (AECOM, 2015). The study found that the building, although
“generally in good condition,” was aesthetically dated and in need of modernization. Factors that affect
the arena’s utility included its small size, limited concourse space, and limited backstage, rigging, and
loading facilities. Additionally, its configuration was deemed unsuitable for NHL hockey and unable to
generate revenues comparable to other NBA arenas. The 2015 study analyzed alternative entertainment
and recreation concepts for KeyArena, and found that “the potential revenue that could be generated
from other attraction concepts is largely offset by the additional costs of basic operations and
maintenance of the KeyArena facility,” leaving the City at a deficit (AECOM, 2015, page 16). The study
suggested that if sports or concert uses were not viable, the City could explore the possibility of
demolishing the structure and using the site for other purposes.

Subsequently, the City decided to solicit proposals to renovate KeyArena (City of Seattle, 2017a). In
response, the City received 2 submittals, 1 from OVG and 1 from Seattle Partners. To choose between
them, the Mayor considered input from City review teams, the recommendation of a City Executive
Team, and feedback from a Community Advisory Panel. On June 7, 2017, OVG’s proposal was chosen
and the City began negotiations to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with OVG for the
renovation. The City Council approved the MOU on December 4, 2017 (City of Seattle and OVG, 2017).
The MOU outlines certain business terms upon which: (1) the City would offer a portion of KeyArena and
the surrounding area for lease by OVG; and (2) OVG, as tenant, would seek the necessary permits and
approvals and construct leasehold improvements and operate the arena. The “project site” as analyzed
in this Final EIS is defined as the proposed lease area, which consists of the area including and
surrounding KeyArena, a parcel to the south that contains the Bressi Garage and the 1st Ave N Garage
(referred to as the “south parcel”), and the location of a truck-loading access tunnel underneath Thomas
St.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map of the Seattle Center

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The MOU provides that final terms would be contained in various Transaction Documents, which include
the following:

 Lease: The proposed lease establishes the terms upon which OVG can occupy, improve, and
operate the arena and the 1st Ave N Garage parcels. The lease also requires that OVG enter into
other related Transaction Documents addressing construction and operation phases and
commitments for community benefits.
 Development Agreement: The proposed Development Agreement between OVG and the City
will address OVG’s mitigation commitments with the City, Seattle Center, and its tenants during
construction. This agreement includes construction impact mitigation plans and community
benefit provisions (described below).
 Seattle Center Integration Agreement: This agreement establishes a framework for
coordinating procedures and infrastructure across the arena premises and the Seattle Center
campus to better integrate City and OVG operations throughout the term of the lease. The
Seattle Center Integration Agreement includes provisions for regular communication and
sharing of event scheduling information, coordinating management and operations of the
campus parking garages, and coordinating security, traffic control, use of curb space, marketing,
and sponsorship.
These agreements, all of which are being informed by the preparation of this EIS, will be transmitted to
the Seattle City Council for possible approval in September 2018. These documents will be posted when
they are completed.

A Community Benefits Summary was developed and includes key ideas that are incorporated within the
Transaction Documents listed above. The Arena MOU calls for the development of community benefits
to allow for meaningful and ongoing community dialogue and partnerships with OVG during
construction and once the renovated arena is operational. The City, OVG, the community, and Seattle
Center tenants have agreed on a structure and a series of specific investments by OVG and the City to
support community institutions during both construction and operation. The summary establishes an
Arena Community Development Fund that will support youth, arts, music, and culture, and also touches
on areas of broad community benefit including organizational capacity building and local economic
development. It also includes establishing an OVG Community Liaison, who was hired in June 2018, as
well as an ombudsperson, who would be a Seattle Center staff member to act as conduit for the
community. The Community Benefits Summary is available for viewing at
https://www.seattle.gov/arena.

On August 2, 2017, the City’s Landmarks Preservation Board voted to designate KeyArena/the
Washington State Coliseum and Bressi Garage as Seattle Landmarks. In coordination with the City, OVG
nominated KeyArena/the Washington State Coliseum for listing in the Washington Heritage Register. On
March 8, 2018, the Washington State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation formally listed KeyArena
on the Washington Heritage Register and recommended it eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). This recommendation was submitted to the National Park Service, which
administers the NRHP, for final approval. It was approved by the National Park Service and listed in the
NRHP on May 10, 2018. In soliciting proposals for the renovation of KeyArena, the City expressed a
preference for preserving the iconic exterior of the KeyArena.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVE


The objective of the project is to renovate KeyArena at Seattle Center into a modern multi‐purpose
arena to accommodate music, entertainment, and sports events, including meeting NBA, NHL, and
WNBA league standards, as well as continuing current uses.

1.4 SEPA SCOPING PROCESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT


A Notice of Application, Issuance of Determination of Significance, and Request for Comments on the
Scope of the EIS for the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project was initially issued by SDCI on
September 7, 2017 (City of Seattle, 2017c). The Notice was reissued on September 14 and 18, to reflect
a change in the date of the public scoping meeting. All comments received were considered in the
development of the scope of the EIS.

Scoping comments included oral testimonies and written comment forms received at the scoping public
meeting, as well as emails and mailed comment letters sent to SDCI. Approximately 24 members of the
public attended the public meeting held on September 28, 2017, at Seattle Center. An oral testimony
period offered the public an opportunity to provide input about the alternatives being considered, areas
of the environment to be included in the EIS, likely impacts, potential mitigation, and other concerns
about the process.

A total of 41 comment letters and oral testimonies were received during the scoping period. These
letters included a total of 182 individual comments. Public comments were used to inform the
alternatives and elements of the environment to be included in this EIS. At the conclusion of scoping,
SDCI determined the issues and alternatives to be analyzed in this EIS. Ten broad areas of environmental
review are evaluated, including:

 Land Use (Uses, Plans and Policies, Zoning, Neighborhood Character)


 Transportation, including Parking
 Earth (Geology and Soils)
 Historic and Cultural Resources
 Recreation
 Noise and Vibration
 Visual Resources (including Public Views, Light, and Glare)
 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
 Public Services and Utilities
 Plants (Trees)
As provided by SEPA (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11-440(6)(a)), elements of the
environment that are not significantly affected do not need to be included in an EIS. After considering
the scoping comments and SEPA requirements to inform the appropriate scope of analysis for the
proposed project, the Lead Agency determined that the following elements of the environment would

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

not be significantly affected by the project and are not analyzed in this EIS: Water, Energy and Natural
Resources, Animals, and Environmental Health (except for the Noise component).

Transportation impacts were the most frequently cited concern during scoping. Other scoping
comments identified concerns about potential impacts from construction and operation to nearby
businesses associated with increased traffic congestion, parking, and noise impacts. Some commenters
stated that the South of Downtown (SoDo) area was preferable for an arena because they believe that
area does not have the same congestion concerns, and some commenters asked that an off-site location
be considered as an alternative. Because the objective of the project is the renovation of KeyArena, an
off-site location is not evaluated in the EIS. Based on the scoping comments received, no other social or
economic issues are evaluated in this EIS. More details on comments received (including the full text of
the scoping comments received during the scoping process) can be found in Scoping Comment
Summary, Seattle Center Arena (City of Seattle, 2017b) available at: http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms;
project number: 3029061.

1.5 SEPA REVIEW PROCESS


The Draft and Final EIS were prepared pursuant to the state SEPA rules (WAC 197-11), Seattle Municipal
Code (SMC) 25.05, and Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21c. This project-level EIS describes
potential adverse environmental impacts of each alternative and describes potential mitigation
measures to reduce adverse impacts. The SEPA process is designed to inform decision-makers and the
public regarding reasonable alternatives, potential adverse environmental impacts, and reasonable
mitigation measures associated with a proposal. This EIS document is not an authorization for an action,
nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for an action.

The following actions for the proposed renovation of KeyArena are encompassed by this EIS:
 Permitting for renovation of the arena infrastructure, buildings, and other related
improvements, and associated permits for all other land-altering, building, and construction
activities for the proposed project, potentially including the following from SDCI: Master Use
Permit (MUP), Demolition Permits, Building/Grading/Shoring Permits, Mechanical Permit and
Electrical Permits, Tree and Vegetation Removal Permit.
 Approval of a Significant Structure Term Permit by the City Council for construction of a
vehicular tunnel beneath Thomas St. Council action will occur at a public meeting. The meeting
date has not been identified.
 Possible variance requests, waivers, or departures from code standards, including through-block
pedestrian connection requirements, open space standards, curb cut and driveway standards,
accessory surface parking area and lot requirements, building setback requirements, structure
width and depth requirements, and landscaping standards between the street and front
façades.
 Amendment to the sign code, SMC 23.55, by the Seattle City Council. Possible variance(s) to
allow night-time construction work pursuant to the Seattle Noise Control Code (SMC 25.08)
from SDCI.
 Possible variance(s) to allow night-time construction work pursuant to the Seattle Noise Control
Code (SMC 25.08) from SDCI.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Street Improvement Permits, Street Use Permits, Term Permits, and Utility Relocation and
Development Permits from the SDOT.
 Lease Agreement, Development Agreement, and Seattle Center Integration Agreement
approvals by the City Council.
 Certificates of Approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board.

1.6 DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD


The Draft EIS was issued on April 23, 2018, and included a 45-day comment period, which ended on June
7, 2018. A public hearing was held on May 14, 2018 at the Seattle Center, with approximately 30
individuals in attendance. During the Draft EIS comment period, comments were submitted through
public testimony at the Draft EIS hearing and written comments, including email and electronic
submission to the project website. More than 440 comments were received from about 80 individuals,
organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders. These comments and responses to the comments are
included in Appendix I, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS, Volume 3.

Comments received were broad in scope and topics, but several themes emerged in the comments:

 Transportation impacts, including construction and operational impacts to transportation


network operations, parking, transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and other aspects of regional
transportation systems.
 Noise, particularly construction noise, and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors at Seattle
Center and adjacent residents.
 Disruption to Seattle Center tenants during construction, associated with reduced access, noise
and dust, and increased traffic congestion.
 Loss of the skatepark at Seattle Center.
 Long-term impacts to Seattle Center tenants resulting from the increased frequency of events
and associated congestion.
 Requests for specific detailed mitigation measures for transportation impacts, construction
impacts, and measures to reduce impacts to existing Seattle Center tenants.
 Air quality impacts during construction.
Major comment themes are summarized under Common Responses, found in Appendix I. The text of
the Final EIS has been revised to reflect new analysis, and to address comments received.

1.7 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE FINAL EIS


Three alternatives are analyzed in this Final EIS:
 No Action Alternative
 Alternative 1: Oak View Group (OVG) Proposal
 Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

See Chapter 2 for detailed descriptions of each of these alternatives, and a description of the changes to
the design, construction methods, and proposed code amendments that have been made following
release of the Draft EIS.

1.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, POTENTIAL MITIGATION


MEASURES, AND KEY FINDINGS
Table 1-1 summarizes the potential construction impacts from the action alternatives evaluated in this
Final EIS, as well as potential mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate construction impacts. Potential
impacts and measures to reduce construction impacts are described in more detail in Chapters 3
through 12.

Table 1-2 summarizes the potential operations impacts from the alternatives evaluated in this Final EIS,
as well as potential measures to reduce or eliminate impacts. Potential operations impacts and
measures to reduce impacts are described in more detail in Chapters 3 through 12.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 1-1. Summary of Potential Construction Impacts and Potential Measures to Reduce Impacts

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Land Use
Impacts  Demolition of some existing structures, the skatepark, and surface parking in  Similar to Alternative 1, except no night work
the project site. would occur, there would be no night-time noise
impacts, and a noise variance would not be
 Temporary displacement of some existing uses from the project site.
required.
 Some construction-related noise and/or vibration impacts would be
 Land Use Code amendment for Alternative 2
significant to adjacent uses, such as recording studios.
would not allow video display signs facing 1st Ave
 Curb cut and driveway width, atrium depth, and certain street-level N, and the roof signs would not be larger than
development standards including pedestrian connection, open space, surface existing conditions.
parking area and lot requirements, building setback and structure width and
 Indirect impacts to businesses/properties due to
depth, and landscaping fall outside of current zoning and Land Use Code
construction-related loss of parking, noise, and
standards under Title 23 and would require variances. congestion would last 6 months longer than
 Amendment to the sign code (SMC 23.55) could allow more and brighter Alternative 1.
signage at the Seattle Center Arena.
 Variance(s) to the Seattle Noise Control Code (SMC 25.08) to allow night-time
construction.
 Indirect impacts during construction to nearby businesses/properties due to
construction-related loss of parking, noise, and congestion.
Measures to reduce  Identify measures to maintain access, reduce noise and dust during Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts construction, and reduce disruption.
 Contribute $500,000 toward a robust community marketing plan.
 Relocation of the skatepark to a nearby location.
 Advance notice to existing Seattle Center tenants of the construction period.
 Coordination with displaced tenants. Assistance in identifying alternative
locations to hold games, concerts, and other events.
 Assistance in publicizing the relocation of programming to the potential
attendees.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 Close coordination with residents and businesses in the area to provide
advance notice of construction schedules and potential detour routes.
 Develop and implement a robust public outreach and marketing plan that
promotes businesses and organizations prior to and throughout construction.
 Support the OVG Community Liaison as described in the Community Benefits
Summary.
 Appoint a Seattle Center staff person to act as an ombudsperson for the
community.
 Follow design guidelines prescribed by the City and follow the City procedures
for variances.
 Follow code amendment process required for some of the signage.

Transportation
Impacts  Closure of streets, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, bus stops, bus layover space, Same as Alternative 1, except duration of intense
and parking/loading areas, and reduced bus/truck staging during construction construction-related impacts would increase by at
would cause the greatest impacts. Degraded traffic operations and pavement least 6 months.
deterioration related to truck hauling are also potential impacts.
Measures to reduce  Street use permits and other agreements to provide temporary locations for Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts the following displaced facilities/uses: Metro bus layover and bus stop; school
bus parking; bicycle facilities; pedestrian access; parking; and curb space event
loading/unloading.
 Construction Management Plan (CMP) addressing: truck haul routes and hours,
staging areas, employee parking, shifts, and transportation demand
management measures; street closure procedures; coordination with large
events; and point of contact for neighbors.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Earth
Impacts  Erosion, vibration, slope stability, and other construction-related impacts Same as Alternative 1.
associated with excavation and other earthwork.
 Some dewatering likely, which may change groundwater patterns.
Measures to reduce  Construct project in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) and Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts applicable permit, safety, and building requirements.
 Adhere to excavation safety standards.
 Conduct geotechnical hazard evaluations (by licensed geotechnical engineer)
and incorporate recommendations into project design.
 Monitor vibration at Northwest Rooms, Bressi Garage, and other sensitive
structures within 100 feet of earthwork to identify any signs of structural
damage.
 Conduct dewatering in accordance with permit requirements and design final
drainage system in accordance with City requirements.

Historic and Cultural Resources


Impacts  Significant impacts to 3 designated Landmarks: KeyArena, the Northwest  Impacts from removal of the south curtain wall, a
Rooms (including the International Fountain Pavilion and the International larger cupola, and the new atrium lobby are the
Plaza), and Bressi Garage are expected. same as Alternative 1; these impacts would be
significant. The signs on top of the arena would
 Designated Landmark features of KeyArena could be impacted by the atrium
be similar in size and brightness to the existing
lobby, new sign on top of the arena, larger cupola, and removal of the south
signs.
curtain wall. Impacts to Landmark-designated features would be significant.
 Potential impacts to Bressi Garage are less than
 The KeyArena site would be impacted by the alterations to the surrounding
from Alternative 1 because tunneling would be
plazas; impacts would be significant.
adjacent to rather than underneath the building.
 Vibration levels from construction near Bressi Garage could result in vibration
 Impacts to Landmark-designated features of the
impacts to the building exterior, a designated Landmark feature. These impacts
Northwest Rooms would be the same as
would be significant.
Alternative 1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 The Northwest Rooms and International Plaza would be impacted by the  Potential impacts to belowground cultural
southeast and southwest portions of the buildings and construction of an ADA resources are the same as Alternative 1, except
ramp in the plaza. Excavation and shoring could result in vibration impacts. that construction of the loading-dock access
These impacts would be significant. tunnel in Alternative 2 could impact different
belowground cultural resources than described
 There is a potential to impact the depositional integrity of belowground
for Alternative 1.
cultural resources, if present, although the likelihood is low for the arena site
and adjacent Northwest Rooms.
 The portion of the project site at and surrounding Bressi Garage could contain
belowground cultural resources (e.g., the remains of former building
foundations, refuse, or privies) that could be disturbed during construction.
 Dust from night-time truck hauling along vacated Harrison St has the potential
to impact the International Fountain; the outdoor sculpture Typewriter Eraser,
Scale X; and the HVAC intakes for the Museum of Pop Culture (MoPOP), which
houses museum collections. Increased dust and exhaust emissions could result
in damage to the surfaces of the sculpture as well as the museum items inside
the MoPOP building.
Measures to reduce  Consistency with Seattle Historic Preservation Program’s Certificate of Same as Alternative 1, except vacated Harrison St
or eliminate impacts Approval process for the KeyArena, Northwest Rooms, and Bressi Garage. would not be used; thus, measures to reduce dust
would not be needed for Typewriter Eraser, Scale X,
 Stabilize buildings as needed.
Armory, Memorial Stadium, and MoPOP.
 Restore Bressi Garage exterior as needed.
 Reduce dust and exhaust emissions along vacated Harrison St.
 Clean Typewriter Eraser, Scale X as needed.
 Restore or repair damage to International Fountain, Armory, and Memorial
Stadium, as needed.
 Provide higher grade HVAC filters for MoPOP during construction.
 Prepare and implement an Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the project.
 Prepare and implement an Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the project.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Recreation
Impacts  KeyArena would be closed to recreational events during the construction Same as Alternative 1, except the duration of
period, requiring events to be held elsewhere. construction-related impacts to recreation would
be longer and there would be no night-time noise
 Visitors to recreational programming (such as concerts, film screenings, and
impacts.
classes) at Seattle Center tenants in the Northwest Rooms and Bressi Garage
could be impacted by visible and audible construction, relocations, or
unavailable programming.
 Seattle Center tenants that would have some of their operations significantly
impacted from construction noise and/or vibration include KEXP, the Seattle
International Film Festival (SIFF) Film Center, and The Vera Project. This
significant noise and/or vibration impact would also affect recreational
programming and visitors to these organizations during the construction
period.
 The DuPen Fountain would be closed to visitors during the construction period.
 Visitors to the International Fountain and Lawn, and South Fountain Lawn
could be impacted by visible and audible construction activities.
Measures to reduce  The Development Agreement would outline measures to minimize impacts to Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts Seattle Center visitors during construction.
 To avoid conflicts with scheduled events, Seattle Center is no longer scheduling
events at the arena during the planned construction period, and is working to
reschedule events already planned during that period.
 Impacts to recreational programming at tenants in the Northwest Rooms and
Bressi Garage are described under Land Use and Noise and Vibration.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Noise and Vibration


Impacts  Day-time stationary construction activities would temporarily increase ambient Impacts similar to Alternative 1, except night-time
noise levels, but would be less-than-significant. construction would be consistent with code limits,
and would be less-than-significant. The overall
 Night-time construction, including truck staging and loading, would
duration of construction-related noise would be at
significantly impact residential receptors. However, with potential mitigation
least 6 months longer.
and approval of a Noise Management and Mitigation Plan (NMMP), these
impacts would be less-than-significant for residential receptors.
 Construction noise would significantly impact the night-time operations of
KEXP, The Vera Project, and the SIFF Film Center.
 Noise impacts to Seattle Children’s Theatre would be significant; these impacts
could be reduced to less-than-significant with implementation of noise
mitigation measures.
 There would be additional noise from truck pass-by events during construction,
especially during the first 6-months. This would be a less-than-noticeable
increase of ambient noise levels during daytime hours, and an increase of
4 dBA during night-time, which is less than readily perceptible. Trucks would be
routed through the Seattle Center campus at night to avoid sensitive
residential receptors.
 Vibration-inducing construction equipment could result in building damage to
sensitive structures (Northwest Rooms and Bressi Garage), which would be
significant.
 Vibration-inducing construction equipment could significantly impact some
operations of KEXP, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project.
Measures to reduce  Develop and implement a Noise Management and Mitigation Plan. Same as Alternative 1, except mitigation for night-
or eliminate impacts time would not be needed.
 Construct 12-foot high noise barriers on the north, west, and south sides of the
construction site.
 Stationary noise sources located as far as possible from adjacent receptors and
muffled to the greatest degree feasible and/or enclosed.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 Notify building owners and occupants prior to disruptive construction
activities.
 Project-based diesel engines use silencers during night-time hours.
 Project site-based backup warning devices should be the broadband type or an
alternative that is allowed by WAC 96-155-610(2)(e).
 Not allow trucks to use compression brakes, except for safety reasons.
 Coordinate with KEXP, SIFF Film Center, The Vera Project, and other Seattle
Center tenants to identify which areas of operation are most directly impacted
and develop specific mitigation.
 Prohibit impact work such as auger shaking, jack hammering, hoe ram use, or
vibratory compacting during night-time hours.

Visual Resources
Impacts  Construction staging and material storage, detours and associated signage,  Same as Alternative 1, except that the need
scaffolding and fences, temporary vegetation clearing, and the increased for night work lighting would be reduced.
presence of construction vehicles, equipment, materials, and personnel would  Views of Landmark-designated structures
result in temporary construction impacts to visual quality. would be obscured for longer because of the
 Construction equipment would obscure views of the designated Landmarks extended construction schedule.
during construction. Scenic views of KeyArena, Bressi Garage, and the
Northwest Rooms could be impacted during construction.
 Increased light and glare from night-time construction lighting could affect
residents of Astro Apartments and residents of Sacred Heart shelter, visitors to
Fisher Pavilion, and drivers and pedestrians on 1st Ave N and Thomas St.
 These impacts would be less-than-significant.
Measures to reduce  Restore staging areas following project completion. Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts
 Replant vegetation.
 Reduce timeframe that construction activities would obscure public views.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 Implement a construction lighting plan to limit light and glare impacts from
evening and night work.
 Shield or direct construction lighting to restrict light spillage.
 Limit night-time construction.

Air Quality and GHG Emissions


Impacts  Construction activities would generate dust, air emissions, and GHGs. The total emissions would be the same as
described Alternative 1.
 Construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants would be below
applicable thresholds in King County of 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide
or fine particulate matter (PM10).
Measures to reduce  Control fugitive dust from construction activities. Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts
 Cover haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site.
 Remove visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads.

Public Services and Utilities


Impacts  Emergency response time to Seattle Center may increase slightly due to Same as Alternative 1.
increased congestion on roads affected by construction.
 Nearby residents, Seattle Center tenants, as well as the Center School and the
Downtown School may experience sporadic and temporary disruptions during
construction.
 Short-term disruptions to all utilities and garbage/recycling pick-up could
occur.
 Rodent populations could increase in the construction zone during active
construction, particularly demolition.
Measures to reduce  Conduct construction in compliance with the City Fire Code. Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts
 Coordinate with utility providers to reduce utility outages to area businesses
and residences.
 Provide advance notice of any planned temporary service outages.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 Implement rodent control measures a minimum of 15 days prior to any
clearing or demolition.

Plants
Impacts  Construction activities near exceptional, legacy, or street trees could damage Same as Alternative 1, except fewer trees would be
tree roots or canopy. removed (up to 10 exceptional, legacy, and/or
street trees).
 Removal of up to 13 exceptional, legacy, and/or street trees.
 Removal of existing landscaping including approximately 60 non-exceptional or
legacy trees.
Measures to reduce  Develop a Tree, Vegetation, and Soil Protection Plan. Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts
 Follow protection measures outlined in Director’s Rule 30-15 and the Street
Tree Manual (SDOT, 2014).
 Compliance with City’s Tree Protection Ordinance would reduce impacts to
trees.
 Comply with Executive Order 03-05 to replace trees at least a 2:1 ratio.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 1-2. Summary of Potential Operations Impacts and Potential Measures to Reduce Impacts

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
No Action
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Land Use
Impacts No direct land use  Permanent displacement and demolition of some buildings on the Same as Alternative 1, except a
impacts. project site. woonerf on Thomas St would be
closed to car and truck traffic
 The potential more than doubling of the number of days during the
during events.
year with highly attended events at the renovated arena would be
noticeable in neighboring areas and may be a quality of life
consideration for some residents; associated congestion could
affect businesses and institutions.
Measures to reduce None  Implement provisions outlined in the Community Benefits Same as Alternative 1, except
or eliminate impacts Summary. that advanced notice would be
provided to indicate when the
 Provide relocation and financial assistance for permanent
woonerf would be closed.
displacements from the project site.
 Develop an Arena Access Management Plan (AAMP).

Transportation
Impacts  The proportion of  Potentially significant impacts to intersection operations would  Intersection LOS and I-5 off-
intersections operating occur during both pre-event and post-event peak hours. ramp queue spillback similar
at Level of Service to Alternative 1, although
 The I-5 off-ramp vehicle queue would spill back onto the I-5
(LOS) E or F is modestly better adjacent to
mainline at the Mercer St exit.
projected to increase the arena due to reduced off-
from 22% under  Buses would experience travel time and reliability degradation due street parking supply
existing conditions to to increased intersection delay. Crowding impacts would occur on compared to Alternative 1.
61% under 2020 No bus routes to U District and Ballard, and on LINK light rail.
 Safety impacts to bicyclists
Action conditions with Ridehailing vehicles dropping off before events could temporarily
and pedestrians associated
average Seattle Center block transit access.
with ridehailing after events
attendance.
 Significant pedestrian impacts are expected at the 5th Ave would be better than No
 During the weekday N/Harrison St crosswalk due to high demand. Action because ridehailing
evening peak period, would be more dispersed.
over-capacity  Ridehailing vehicles could temporarily block bicycle facilities before
conditions in the events, resulting in safety impacts.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-18 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
No Action
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
eastbound directions  Drivers circling for parking before events could increase conflicts  Decreased off-street parking
of Mercer St and with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehicles. supply immediately south of
Denny Way would the arena during events would
result in longer queues increase competition for
and reduced travel parking elsewhere, increasing
speeds as compared to modal conflicts.
current conditions.
 Bus travel time and
reliability are expected
to degrade as
congestion increases.
 On-street parking is
expected to remain
similar to existing
conditions.
Measures to reduce None  Develop and implement an AAMP identifying street/lane closures, Similar to Alternative 1. AAMP
or eliminate impacts placement of traffic control officers, signal timing, curb space strategies would be adjusted to
management, and temporary signage and equipment. Event reflect different parking and
management measures could include attendance thresholds to ridehailing locations.
trigger plan elements, performance metrics, and monitoring
program.
 Develop and implement event demand management measures to
reduce private auto and ridehailing trips as part of the AAMP.
 Implement traffic signal improvements.
 Develop a ridehailing pick-up/drop-off plan to reduce conflicts.
 Install bicycle parking and bicycle facility improvements.
 Provide pedestrian crossing improvements.
 Implement additional bus, light rail, and/or Monorail service.
 Implement bus stop improvements.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-19 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
No Action
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 Develop and implement off-site Parking Facility Reservation and
Best Practices System, real-time parking garage information, on-
street parking management revisions, and shuttle program to
remote lots.
 Implement transit speed and reliability improvements.

Earth
Impacts None  Potential to change groundwater patterns and affect the structural Same as Alternative 1.
stability of buildings.

Measures to reduce None  Develop monitoring and maintenance program that includes Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts inspection and reporting on structural stability.

Historic and Cultural Resources


Impacts None None None

Measures to reduce None None None


or eliminate impacts
Recreation
Impacts KeyArena would  Seattle Center Pavilion would be demolished and not replaced, Same as Alternative 1.
continue to be an causing loss of event space.
undersized facility not
 The skatepark would be demolished and replaced off-site, displacing
suitable for NHL or NBA
this recreational amenity at Seattle Center.
teams.
 Temporary loss of skatepark would occur, resulting in programming
impacts for Skate Like a Girl. Seattle Center would accommodate
Skate Like a Girl’s 2019 programming on the Seattle Center campus,
using temporary equipment as appropriate.
Measures to reduce None  Replace the skatepark at an off-site location. Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-20 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
No Action
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Noise and Vibration


Impacts None  Exterior noise levels would not increase more than 5 dBA Leq over Same as Alternative 1.
existing arena events, which already exceed standards.
 There would be an increase in the frequency of noise-generating
events.
 There may be an increase in outdoor noise levels for special events
such as playoffs.
Measures to reduce None  Comply with SMC noise regulations. Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts
 Deploy temporary noise mitigation measures during noisiest
concerts.

Visual Resources
Impacts None  The atrium lobby would be a departure from existing visual Similar to Alternative 1, except
character as it would be a more modern structure. Alternative 2 would have reduced
potential for driver distraction
 Atrium lobby glass and use of metal for egress/mechanical buildings
along 1st Ave N. Video displays
have the potential for glare impacts.
would not be allowed facing 1st
 Landmark features would be removed (e.g., the curtain wall on the Ave N.
south wall of the arena) and substantially altered (e.g., the
International Plaza and the Northwest Rooms). Roof signs would be similar to
 The cupola may be wider but not taller than current conditions, existing conditions in size and
increasing the profile of the arena. brightness.

 The roof signs would be larger than existing conditions.


 Signs would be larger and more numerous than at present or
currently allowed under the sign code (SMC 23.55), and could add
visual clutter to the site.
 Night-time lighting would increase due to larger, brighter, and more
numerous signs, including a larger and brighter digital sign on 1st

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-21 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
No Action
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
Ave N, larger and brighter roof signs, and a large video display or
several smaller displays visible through the glass atrium lobby.
 Glare from the digital sign next to 1st Ave N would be limited by the
restrictions in the new sign code amendment.
 The visibility and length of video messages on the video display sign
adjacent to 1st Ave N and the length of video messages on that sign
could distract drivers and pedestrians and pose a safety risk, and
would be a significant impact.
 Light spillover from project signs could affect the Astro Apartments
across 1st Ave N from the project site.
 Potential inconsistency with the Uptown Design Guidelines and
Century 21 Guidelines resulting from proposed signage.
Measures to reduce None  The sign code amendment proposed under Alternative 1 would Similar to Alternative 1, except
or eliminate impacts include measures to reduce impacts from glare and distraction, such that the Alternative 2 sign code
as the following: amendment would limit video
displays facing arterial roadways
o Use static images on the 1st Ave N sign and place restrictions on
such as 1st Ave N, reducing
the length and type of video display allowed for the other
potential driver distraction.
proposed signage.
o Place changing image signs located high enough above the
street so that drivers are not as easily distracted. Measures to reduce driver
distraction would not be
o Adjust light levels emitted from signs to respond to ambient
applicable.
conditions.
o Field verify cumulative light levels and adjust as needed to
ensure that cumulative lighting levels do not cause glare
impacts for drivers.
o Restrict digital displays from having large areas of reflective
elements.
 New fixtures and light sources could focus light on-site.
 Fixtures could be LED and shielded.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-22 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
No Action
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 Trees canopy could be increased to reduce glare from the south-
and west-facing façades of the atrium lobby.
 Cladding material and geometry for all new structures could be
designed to reduce glare impacts.

Air Quality and GHG Emissions


Impacts None  Operational activities would generate air emissions and GHGs. Same as Alternative 1.
 Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants would be below
federal thresholds for carbon monoxide and PM10 in 2020 and
would decline further by 2035.
 Operational GHG emissions would initially reach approximately
28,400 metric tons/year, of which vehicle emissions constitute 95%.
 Emissions would decline annually to approximately 24,000 metric
tons/year by 2035.
Measures to reduce None  Mitigation is not necessary for criteria air pollutants. Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts
 Measures to reduce total volume of vehicles arriving to events
would help reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources.

Public Services and Utilities


Impacts None  Additional Seattle Police Department officers may need to work Same as Alternative 1.
during major arena events to assist with traffic flow and parking
enforcement.
 Increased demand for water and wastewater service due to
increased attendance and frequency of events, as well as increased
garbage and recycling volume generation.
Measures to reduce None  Seattle Center Integration Agreement could include coordination of Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts public services and utilities during arena operation.
 Install low-flow plumbing fixtures to reduce water and wastewater
demand.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-23 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
No Action
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 If modeling determines that additional sewer system capacity is
needed, provide additional capacity or storage.
 Incorporate water-efficient and bio-retention landscaping.
 Include energy-efficient fixtures to reduce utility demand.

Plants
Impacts None  Temporal loss of tree canopy from the removal of mature trees and Same as Alternative 1.
replacement with younger, smaller trees.
Measures to reduce None  Design landscaping to be consistent with the Seattle Center Same as Alternative 1.
or eliminate impacts Landscape Management Plan.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-24 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS


Cumulative impacts result from the incremental consequences of a project when added to reasonably
foreseeable future actions. The cumulative effects may be undetectable when viewed individually, but
when added to impacts from other projects may cause measurable environmental impacts. The Uptown
area has experienced substantial redevelopment in the past several years, and this trend is anticipated
to continue. Construction activities from the project would contribute to construction impacts that may
occur from other projects. The renovation of the Seattle Center Arena would contribute to increased
traffic congestion during construction and operation of the facility, adding to traffic accompanying other
development projects, and contributing to GHG emissions in the city. The project would contribute to
increased lighting levels and overall noise in the area, adding to increased lighting levels and noise
associated with other development projects. For additional information and analysis of cumulative
impacts, see Chapter 13.

1.10 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS


Significant unavoidable adverse impacts are those for which mitigation measures would be unable to
reduce impacts to a level of non-significance. Significant unavoidable impacts are identified for both
construction and operation.

Construction: Under Alternatives 1 and 2, alterations to Landmark-designated features of KeyArena and


the Northwest Rooms (which includes the International Fountain Pavilion and International Plaza) would
result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts.

Under Alternative 1, significant unavoidable adverse night-time noise impacts would occur at KEXP, The
Vera Project, SIFF Film Center, and Seattle Children’s Theatre. Vibration impacts would be significant
unavoidable adverse for sensitive receptors (recording studios and performance spaces) at the
Northwest Rooms for both Alternatives 1 and 2.

Operation: Under Alternatives 1 and 2, significant unavoidable impacts to traffic operations, transit, and
parking are expected to occur, resulting from increased traffic volumes associated with events at the
renovated arena.

1.11 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELAYING THE


PROPOSAL
The EIS must discuss the benefits and disadvantages of delaying implementation of the proposal (WAC
197-11-440(5)(c)).

If the City of Seattle chooses to delay renovation of the arena and associated improvements, potential
benefits would include the following:

 Delaying construction impacts and perhaps avoiding conflicts with other construction projects,
including residential and multi-use development projects occurring in Uptown.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-25 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Providing more certainty regarding future traffic conditions associated with implementation of
planned/proposed improvements to public transportation and transit (e.g., additional Metro
routes, Sound Transit LINK light rail to near the arena, potential Monorail service expansion, and
other improvements).
The disadvantages of delaying the arena renovation project include the following:

 There would be a delay in meeting the City’s objective to renovate KeyArena.


 The site may remain in its existing condition and require maintenance to avoid deterioration.
The site would retain the existing structures and uses, unless or until some other renovation is
proposed and approved. The City would incur the cost of delayed major maintenance required
to keep KeyArena in use as a sports and entertainment venue. Public money would be needed
to fix operational, structural, and maintenance issues that arise from retaining KeyArena in its
existing condition.
 Due to its small size, bowl configuration, and other limitations, the site would have less capacity
to provide recreational sport viewing opportunities compared to peer venues, and would not be
a viable location for NBA or NHL teams (AECOM, 2015), with the resulting loss of jobs and
economic stimulus that major sports franchises could provide.
 A delay could result in the loss of private funding by OVG to renovate KeyArena.
 Construction costs could increase, and there may be a need for new environmental, economic,
and design studies, depending on the length of delay and changes in other conditions.

1.12 SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND


UNCERTAINTY
Controversy around the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project has focused largely on the potential for
significant traffic and parking impacts in an already congested area, particularly the Mercer St and
Denny Way corridors. These issues have been raised prior to and during EIS scoping, the Draft EIS
comment period, and during neighborhood meetings, and have resulted in a comprehensive, detailed
evaluation of transportation impacts in the Final EIS.

Comments on the Draft EIS identified issues related to the direct and indirect impacts during
construction, including noise/vibration, congestion-related inconvenience and disruption, and the
effects on access to recreational programming at Seattle Center. These commenters expressed concern
that over the long term, non-profits and other programming aimed at children, diverse populations, and
at-risk youth would be displaced by entertainment opportunities for higher income patrons.

Areas of uncertainty relate to the timing and effectiveness of proposed transportation system
improvements such as Sound Transit LINK light rail, opening of the State Route (SR) 99 tunnel, and
reconnection or “re-knitting” of streets across SR 99, which are anticipated to alleviate traffic
congestion. Delay in construction of these regional transportation system improvements could delay the
anticipated congestion relief associated with these projects.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-26 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.13 POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH


THE PROPOSAL
In response to requests from the Seattle Design Commission, OVG has conducted conceptual massing
and bulk/scale studies under applicable zoning and land use plans to determine that the proposed
access tunnel would not preclude future development at the parcel of land currently housing Bressi
Garage and the 1st Ave N Garage, referred to as the south parcel. At this time, the only improvements
planned on the south parcel are those accessory to the Seattle Center Arena use: construction of the
tunnel, the related curb cut on 1st Ave N, and accessory screening; realignment of curb cuts on John St
for access to the 1st Ave N Garage; and installation of equipment on the roof of the 1st Ave N Garage.
Those accessory use improvements are within the scope of the project evaluated in this EIS. No other
development is planned on that site. The conceptual studies demonstrate that future development of
the site is not precluded by the improvements described above, and does not indicate any current
planned development. Any development proposed in the future would comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, including SEPA.

1.14 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED


The location of the relocated skatepark has not been determined at the time of Final EIS publication.
The City is working with the skatepark community to relocate the skatepark; see Chapter 7, Recreation,
for details.

A Draft of the AAMP has been released concurrently with the publication of the Final EIS, available at
https://www.seattle.gov/arena. The Final AAMP will be completed in the fall of 2018.

Additionally, Transaction Documents for the Seattle Center Arena will be finalized after the publication
of the Final EIS including:

 Seattle Center Integration Agreement


 Development Agreement
 Lease Agreement

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 1-27 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES


This chapter provides an overview of the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project and the alternatives
being considered in the EIS. The alternatives described include the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1
(the OVG Proposal), and Alternative 2 (Modified Proposal). Some information has been updated from
that presented in the Draft EIS to reflect the latest design details and construction methods.
The proposed project is the renovation of the arena at Seattle Center and associated improvements to
create a modern multi-purpose entertainment and sports center that would host concerts, sporting
events, family shows, community-oriented events, and numerous other events, and that would meet
NHL and NBA league standards. The project would accommodate many current uses including the
Seattle Storm WNBA franchise. The project would include redesigned, reconstructed, and expanded
interiors within the arena’s existing building envelope to enhance the experience for sports and
entertainment events. The renovation would support Seattle Center’s mission to serve as a regional
destination. Seating capacities would range from approximately 17,300 for hockey games to
approximately 18,600 for basketball games, and up to approximately 18,800 for concert configurations.
(These numbers have been modified since the Draft EIS; the seating capacities have decreased by less
than 2% for hockey and concerts, and increased by less than 2% for basketball games.) The outer
structural elements of the existing arena would be maintained, including the Landmark-designated roof
structure and the support structures (pylons). Other renovations include a new atrium lobby and
expanded parking capacity.
The project site is on City-owned property within the Seattle Center campus and includes the existing
KeyArena, surrounding plazas, and associated buildings; as well as the south parcel, which includes
Bressi Garage, 1st Ave N Garage, and the adjacent surface parking lot. Thomas St between KeyArena and
the south parcel is not part of the area to be leased, but an access tunnel is proposed below the surface
of Thomas St to provide access to the underground loading dock.
Changes from the Draft EIS – Updated information in this chapter of the Final EIS includes the following:
 Revised site design, including equipment and facility locations.
 Revised signage plan and proposed sign code amendment.

 Additional details about construction methods, including scheduling and the use of the
International Plaza during construction. See Section 2.6, Construction, for construction details.

2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE


Analysis of the No Action Alternative is required under SEPA and serves as the baseline condition against
which the action alternatives are evaluated and compared. Under the No Action Alternative, KeyArena
would not be renovated, the buildings on the site would remain (with the exception of possible
renovations associated with planned maintenance), and no new buildings would be constructed except
as directed by existing or proposed Seattle Center planning efforts. Factors that affect the arena’s utility
(its small size, limited concourse, and limited backstage, rigging, and loading facilities) would remain
(AECOM, 2015). In addition, there would be no change to parking or loading (Figure 2-1). Maintenance
and ongoing activities and operations at KeyArena would continue as guided by the Seattle Center
Master Plan (Seattle Center, 2008).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-1. No Action Alternative

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The No Action Alternative represents the future in the absence of the proposed arena renovation
project; it is not the same as existing conditions because a number of projects not associated with the
arena are expected to be completed by 2020 (or “Opening Day” as defined for Alternatives 1 and 2). The
No Action Alternative was developed based on reasonably foreseeable projects that would be in place
by 2020, the majority of which are transportation projects (such as the opening of the SR 99 tunnel, and
reconnection of streets across SR 99). The Seattle Opera at Seattle Center on the former Mercer Arena
site will be completed in 2018, and other developments such as a new residential building west of the
Mercer St Garage are expected to be completed by 2020. Projects considered as part of background
conditions for 2020 are listed in Appendix A. See Section 2.4, Comparison of Alternatives, for a side-by-
side comparison of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: OAK VIEW GROUP (OVG) PROPOSAL


Alternative 1 is the renovation of KeyArena to meet NHL and NBA league standards for a professional
hockey and basketball arena while maintaining the building’s Landmark-designated design. See Section
2.4, Comparison of Alternatives, for a side-by-side comparison of the alternatives.

Changes from the Draft EIS – Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, OVG refined its proposed design
and changed the locations of egress (exit) stairs as well as intake and exhaust mechanical equipment.
These changes affected the south ends of the Northwest Rooms, moved structures to the southeast
corner of the project site, changed the box office, and affected signage. OVG also updated the sign plan
to change the location, size, and orientation of signs. Rather than a variance from sign code standards, a
sign code amendment is proposed by SDCI. Changes to construction methods are described in Section
2.6, Construction.

The key infrastructure, building, and other proposed project elements included in Alternative 1 are
summarized below. Figure 2-2 provides an overview of Alternative 1.

 Landmark-designated arena features would be preserved or restored as required by the City,


including the roof and edge beam structure and pylons, and the north, west, and east curtain walls
(Figure 2-3).
 The arena would be expanded below-grade to make the interior of the arena wider and deeper (see
Figures 2-2 and 2-4).
 An atrium lobby would be added to the south of the arena, which would be the main entrance to
the arena (Figure 2-5).
 Five buildings (West Court Building, NASA Building, Blue Spruce Building, Seattle Center Pavilion, and
Restroom Pavilion), the Seattle Center Skatepark, a surface parking lot, and the loading/marshalling
area to the south of the arena, as well as the plazas to the west and east of the arena, would be
demolished (Figure 2-5).
 The exterior plaza level would be returned to a condition similar to its original 1962 grade by
removing the below‐grade entrances and associated stairs (Figure 2-5). This redesign would make
the exterior plazas ADA compliant and would include spaces for recreation, performance, and
gathering.
 A new building would be constructed in the south plaza to house a box office, garage egress stairs,
and mechanical exhaust (see Figures 2-5 and 2-6).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 In the southeast corner, a new building would be constructed to house an elevator, egress (exit)
stairs, and mechanical intake/exhaust. The roof of the egress stairs would be an open exterior
platform flush with the surface elevation at the intersection of 2nd Ave N and Thomas St (Figure 2-6).
 Northwest Rooms – The southeast end of the Northwest Rooms would be dismantled and replaced
with a new structure that would house mechanical intake/exhaust and egress stairs (Figure 2-6).
 Northwest Rooms (near KEXP) – An extension would be added to the southwest end of the
Northwest Rooms that would house a mechanical intake (west portion) and egress stairs (east
portion) for the arena (Figure 2-6).
 An underground parking garage for approximately 450 vehicles would be built below the south
plaza, south of the arena, with a 2-lane driveway entrance/exit from Thomas St (Figures 2-2 and 2-
4).
 A loading dock with approximately 8 loading bays would be built underground below the south plaza
with access off 1st Ave N. The loading dock would be accessed from 1st Ave N through a tunnel under
the Landmark-designated Bressi Garage (Figures 2-2 and 2-4).
 The driveways to the existing 1st Ave N Garage would be reconfigured (Figure 2-2).
 A number of variances from zoning and Land Use Code standards would be needed for Alternative 1.
 Transportation network company (TNC) ridehailing service would be unrestricted during drop-off
(i.e., pre-event). After a large event at Seattle Center, including Transportation Network Company
an event at the renovated arena, TNCs would be managed by (TNC) - TNCs are ridehailing companies
geofencing. Within the geofence, post-event pick-up would such as Uber and Lyft.
only be allowed to occur at designated locations.
Geofence - A geofence is a virtual
 The Sign Plan would include up to 70 signs ranging from small geographic boundary, defined by global
static image signs to large digital and illuminated signage positioning system (GPS) or radio-
(Figure 2-7). Proposed new signage and lighting would include frequency identification (RFID)
the following: technology, that enables software to
o The 4 existing roof signs (the KeyArena signs) would be trigger a response when a mobile
replaced with larger and brighter signs. device enters or leaves a particular
area.
o The existing digital sign on 1 Ave N would be removed and
st

replaced with a larger digital video display sign (Sign I-1 on


Figure 2-7).
o Also on 1st Ave N, there would be 3 new large signs and a number of smaller signs. The 3
additional signs include a large site identity sign (Sign E) adjacent to the sidewalk that would be
static, and 2 digital display wall signs without video (Signs I‐2 and I‐3) placed on the west and
south faces of the mechanical structure.
o Six digital reader boards are proposed throughout the project site (Sign D).
o A large digital display or several smaller displays would be visible outside through the glass
atrium lobby.
o Accent lighting would be added on the roof and building façades.
o Illuminated signs with static messages would be placed above entry doors. Light pole banners,
pedestrian direction pylons, digital display signs, and other signs and features, some of which
would include sponsor advertising, would be placed throughout the project site.
Additionally, SDCI is proposing a sign code amendment to the Land Use Code (SMC 23.55) to create a
new sign overlay district and other changes that would regulate the number, size, type, content,
location, brightness, and operation of signs, including signage for the renovated arena, the Northwest
Rooms, and the south parcel.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Construction activities associated with this alternative are described in Section 2.6, Construction.

Figure 2-2. Alternative 1: OVG Proposal

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-3. Architectural Elements of the Arena

Figure 2-4. Alternative 1: OVG Proposal –Cross Section – Showing Arena and Underground Parking
Garage and Loading Dock

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-5. Alternative 1: OVG Proposal – Schematic Drawing

Figure 2-6. Proposed Site Designs

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Note: (#) indicates how many of that type of sign is proposed for the project site.

Figure 2-7. Summary of Proposed Alternative 1 Signage and Lighting Plan

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: MODIFIED PROPOSAL


Alternative 2 would maintain the design of the arena’s Landmark-designated features and include the
same exterior plaza redesign, atrium lobby, and loading dock as described for Alternative 1 (see
Figure 2-8). However, Alternative 2 includes modifications to reduce potential transportation and visual
impacts, and eliminates outdoor construction at night to reduce night‐time construction noise impacts
(although the overall construction duration would increase).

Changes from the Draft EIS – Changes to Alternative 2 are similar to Alternative 1, except the signage
plan has more restrictions on signage and reflected in the proposed alternative to the sign code
amendment.

See Table 2-1 for a side-by-side comparison of the alternatives. Alternative 2 differs from Alternative 1
as summarized below.

Transportation:

 Underground parking spaces below the south plaza would be fewer than Alternative 1 (200
spaces provided).
 The driveway to the loading dock access tunnel would be from 1st Ave N, but farther north than
under Alternative 1. The access tunnel would be under the 1st Ave N Garage, to the east of
Bressi Garage, rather than under it.
 Thomas St between 1st Ave N and Warren Ave N would be a “woonerf,” a street with a raised
street-bed where pedestrians and bicyclists have priority over motorists. Before, during, and
after arena events, this section of Thomas St would be closed to vehicles.
 The driveway to the 1st Ave N Garage would be moved to John St, similar to Alternative 1, except
that the driveway would be larger and closer to 1st Ave N.
 Parking use in the 1st Ave N Garage would be capped at 400 spaces (approximately 65% of its
current capacity).
 After any large event at Seattle Center, including an event at the renovated arena, TNC would be
managed by geofencing and not allow pick-ups to occur anywhere inside a geofence. Alternative
2 would not include the specific pick-up locations within the geofence that are part of
Alternative 1. TNC drop-off would be unrestricted, the same as for Alternative 1.
Signage:

 Alternative 2 would include a sign code amendment similar to Alternative 1 allowing additional
signs, but with provisions to reduce the potential visual impacts of the proposed signs. Digital
video display signs facing the street would not be allowed under Alternative 2, and the
allowable size and height of the roof signs would not be increased over current conditions.
Therefore, Sign I-1 would either not be allowed to use video, or it would have to face away from
1st Ave N. The existing changing image sign on 1st Ave N may remain, and the roof signs would
remain approximately the same size and brightness as the existing signs (see Figure 2-7).
Construction activities associated with this alternative are described in Section 2.6, Construction.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-8. Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES


The different components of the No Action and action alternatives are listed and summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

KeyArena Building
KeyArena No change  Internal renovations. Same as Alternative 1.
(designated
 Landmark-designated features preserved or restored
Landmark)
including the roof, edge beam structure, pylons, and the
north, west, and east curtain walls (Figure 2-3). The glass
in the north, west, and east curtain walls would be
replaced with glazing that is the same color, transparency,
and reflectivity as the existing curtain wall glass.
 Larger cupola on top of the roof for additional exhaust
fans (could be up to 50% larger, but not taller, than the
existing cupola).
 Atrium lobby would encase the existing pylon.
 The south façade glass would be removed and not
replaced.
 Approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board would
be required.
Atrium Lobby No atrium  A new glass atrium lobby would be added to the south of Same as Alternative 1.
the renovated arena.
 Main entrance to the arena.
 The atrium lobby walls would be primarily glass, would
protect the integrity of the historic roof line, and would
not extend beyond the outside west and east edges of the
arena.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
Arena Interior 360,000 750,000 (the arena would be expanded below-grade to make Same as Alternative 1.
Square Footage the interior of the arena wider and deeper.)
Leadership in No change – does  Project is targeting LEED-BD+C v4 Certification. Same as Alternative 1.
Environmental not currently meet
 Energy performance of at least 6% over the ASHRAE 90.1*
Energy and Design LEED standards.
2010 baseline.
(LEED)
 Reduce potable water use by at least 35% over baseline.
 Minimize potable water used for landscape irrigation.
 On-site waste management would meet or exceed the
75% or more construction waste diversion.
 Implement increased air quality strategies, demand
response ventilation, and low emitting material
specifications.
 Innovative strategies include low-mercury lighting and
waste reduction plan, educational outreach program with
signage, and occupant comfort survey and commitment
plan.
ADA Design and No change – does not Would meet ADA requirements. Same as Alternative 1.
Facilities meet all ADA
requirements.
Plazas and Structures Surrounding KeyArena
Blue Spruce No change Removed and not replaced – tenants relocated. Same as Alternative 1.
Skatepark No change Removed and replaced off-site – City is working with the Same as Alternative 1.
skateboard community to find a new site.
Seattle Center No change Removed and not replaced – events that use this facility may Same as Alternative 1.
Pavilion relocate to other event spaces on the Seattle Center campus.
West Court Building No change Removed. A new box office and retail space would be located Same as Alternative 1.
(existing Box Office) in the south plaza.
NASA Building No change Removed and not replaced – storage moved to another Same as Alternative 1.
location on Seattle Center campus.
Restroom Pavilion No change Removed and not replaced. Same as Alternative 1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
Bressi Garage No change  Loading dock access tunnel under Bressi Garage.  Loading dock access tunnel to the east of
(designated Landmark; Bressi Garage.
houses Seattle Center  Approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board would
maintenance shop and be required.
storage facility and
Pottery Northwest)
Signage No change  The 4 existing roof signs (KeyArena signs) would be  Signage would be the same as Alternative
replaced with larger (approximately 700 square feet each) 1, with the following modifications:
and brighter signs.
o New signs on top of the arena would be
 The existing digital sign on 1st Ave N (which features similar in size and brightness as the
approximately 50 square feet of digital display) would be existing signs.
replaced with a larger 140 square-foot digital video o The sign code amendment would be
display (Sign I‐1 on Figure 2-7) on 1st Ave N at least 40 feet similar to Alternative 1 except video
from the right‐of‐way. display signs would not be allowed facing
1st Ave N, and the roof sign would not be
 A large digital display or several smaller displays would be
increased.
visible through the glass atrium lobby from outdoors and
from Thomas St.
 A static and internally illuminated site identity sign (Sign E
on Figure 2-7) would be adjacent to the sidewalk on 1st
Ave N near the southwest corner of the site. It would be
8 feet tall and 50 feet wide.
 Two wall signs (Signs I‐2 and I‐3 on Figure 2-7) would be
placed on the west and south faces of the mechanical
structure near 1st Ave N. Sign I‐2 (on the west face) would
be 15 feet tall and 43 feet wide. Sign I‐3 (on the south
face) would be 15 feet tall and 20 feet wide. The signs
would be changing image digital displays, but not video
displays.
 Accent lighting would be added on the roof and building
façades.
 Illuminated signs with static messages would be placed
above entry doors. Light pole banners, pedestrian

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
direction pylons, digital display signs, and other signs and
features, some of which would include sponsor
advertising, would be placed throughout the project site.
 The sign code (SMC 23.55) would be amended to create a
new Seattle Center sign overlay district and other changes
that would regulate the number, size, type, content,
location, brightness, and operation of signs, including
signage for the renovated arena, the Northwest Rooms,
and the south parcel.
Trees No change  Up to 13 trees designated as exceptional, legacy, and/or  Up to 10 trees designated as exceptional,
street trees would be removed. legacy, and/or street trees would be
removed.
 Trees replaced 2:1 or greater ratio.
 Legacy trees in the International Plaza
 Approximately 100 new trees would be planted on the
would not be removed.
project site.
 Trees replaced at 2:1 or greater ratio.
Plazas / Outdoor No change  All plazas would be redesigned and landscaped to provide Same as Alternative 1.
Space an open, pedestrian-friendly setting.
 The exterior plaza level would be returned to a condition
similar to its original 1962 grade by removing the below‐
grade entrances and associated stairs. Grade would be
more level, meet ADA requirements, and would include
spaces for recreation, performance, and gathering.
Northwest Rooms No change  Approximately 40 feet of the southeast end of the Same as Alternative 1.
(designated Northwest Rooms would be removed, and stairs and
Landmark) mechanical structures (intake and exhaust) constructed
within the same footprint. The reconstructed portion
would be clad with re-installed original Paul Thiry panels
on the south and west. Glazing and doors on the east
would be subject to approval from the Landmarks
Preservation Board.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 An approximately 22-foot extension would be added to
the southwest end of the KEXP portion of the Northwest
Rooms. The extension would house egress stairs and
mechanical intake. The extension would be clad in a
contemporary material but designed to honor the original
Paul Thiry design. Space for the KEXP donor wall would be
included on the building exterior.
 Approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board would
be required for changes to the Northwest Rooms.
International Plaza No change  In the International Plaza, the existing hardscape and Similar to Alternative 1; however, the 2 legacy
(designated select landscaping and trees would be removed and trees would not be removed.
Landmark) replaced with landscape, hardscape, lighting, and way-
finding to create a consistent 360 degree pedestrian
experience around the arena, an east-west oriented ADA
ramp would be installed, and the DuPen Fountain and the
Thiry-designed planter would be maintained. Approval
from the Landmarks Preservation Board would be
required.
 Two legacy trees would be removed, and specimen trees
would be planted in the same location.
New Box Office NA  The new building south of the arena would house a box Same as Alternative 1.
office, garage egress stairs, and mechanical exhaust.
 The garage stairs would be on the east side of the
building and exit level with the sidewalk along Thomas St.
 The new box office building would be clad in storefront or
translucent panels to hide office or mechanical functions.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
New Building in the NA  The new building would house an elevator vestibule, Same as Alternative 1.
Southeast Corner of egress (exit) stairs, and mechanical intake/exhaust. The
the Site roof of the egress stairs would be an open exterior
platform or “overlook” flush with the surface elevation at
the intersection of 2nd Ave N and Thomas St (Figure 2-6).
Artwork within the No change  Artwork would be removed and/or relocated in Same as Alternative 1.
Project Site accordance with SMC 3.14.840 (Deaccessioning and
Disposition of Surplus Artworks).

Transportation Related
On-site Parking No on-site parking  450 spaces on-site below the south plaza.  200 spaces on-site below-grade.
 2-lane driveway entrance/exit from Thomas St.  2-lane driveway entrance/exit from
Thomas St.
1st Ave N Garage 1st Ave N Garage -  The 1st Ave N entrance would be removed.  Same as Alternative 1, except 1st Ave N
620 spaces Garage use capped at 400 spaces before,
 The existing exit on John St would be expanded to the
during, and after events.
west to serve as both an entrance and exit.
 The garage may be structurally modified to
 The existing driveway on Warren Ave N (which is
accommodate the loading dock tunnel.
currently closed) would be reopened and used as an
entrance and exit.
 The existing parking garage would not be changed
structurally.
 Equipment to be located on the roof deck of garage
would remove some parking spaces.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
Truck Loading On Warren Ave N,  Below-grade.  Below-grade.
Thomas St, and 2nd
 8 loading bays.  8 loading bays.
Ave N and in parking
lot directly south of  Entrance to the loading dock from 1st Ave N.  Entrance to the loading dock would be
KeyArena. farther north along 1st Ave N than
 Access tunnel under the Landmark-designated Bressi
Alternative 1.
Garage and Thomas St.
 Access tunnel under the 1st Ave N Garage
 The SDOT/Seattle Center Memorandum of Agreement
and Thomas St.
(MOA) for Event Curbside Management (2011) would be
renegotiated.  The SDOT/Seattle Center MOA for Event
Curbside Management would be
renegotiated.
TNC (Transportation No TNC Plan TNC Plan –TNC drop-off is unregulated (no geofencing); after a TNC Plan – TNC drop-off is unregulated; after a
Network Companies) large event at Seattle Center, pick-up by TNCs would be large event at Seattle Center, pick-up would be
managed by geofencing. Within the geofence, post-event restricted to outside the geofence, and there
pick-up would only be allowed at designated locations. All would be no pick-ups inside the geofence.
other pick-up would be outside of the geofence.
Woonerf Not provided Not provided. Woonerf on Thomas St between 1st Ave N and
Warren Ave N, which would be closed to
vehicles during arena events.
Street Closures to Occasionally (e.g., for Same as No Action Alternative. Thomas St between 1st Ave N Same as Alternative 1.
Vehicles during large events and and Warren Ave N may be closed to vehicles before and after
Events festivals) large events at the renovated arena.
Operations

Seating Capacity: 10,442 17,300 Same as Alternative 1.


Hockey
Seating Capacity: 17,072 18,600 Same as Alternative 1.
Basketball

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action: Alternative 1: Alternative 2:


Specifications
2020 Scenario OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Seating Capacity: 17,459 18,800 Same as Alternative 1.


Concerts
Outside Events Infrequent Infrequent Infrequent
associated with an
Event at the Arena

Number of Events at the Arena (Approximate)1

NBA Games/Year 0 50 Same as Alternative 1.


NHL Games/Year 0 50 Same as Alternative 1.
WNBA/Year 19 23 Same as Alternative 1.
Concerts/Year 29 40 to 55 Same as Alternative 1.
Other Show Types 22 43 Same as Alternative 1.
(e.g., Family Shows)
or Sporting Events/
Year: Attendance
5,000 to 15,000
Community Events 7 14 Same as Alternative 1.
(Hosted by the City)
2
Other Events/ Year: 25 22 Same as Alternative 1.
Attendance up to
5,000
Total Events/Year 102 242 to 257 Same as Alternative 1.
3
Average Events / 2 to 3/week 4 to 5/week Same as Alternative 1.
Week
* American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE, 2016).
1 The number of events for the No Action Alternative is based on data for 2016 and 2017 provided by Seattle Center. For Alternatives 1 and 2, the number of events proposed by OVG

reflects a schedule including pre-season and playoff games with WNBA, NBA, and NHL teams.
2 Other events include corporate events and speakers.
3 Does not consider seasonal variations; thus, some times of the year would have more events.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-18 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.5 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS


Figure 2-9 summarizes the general schedule of events at the arena, which would be the same for both
action alternatives. The solid lines indicate season games, and the dashed lines indicate pre- and post-
season games, including playoffs. The No Action Alternative would be the same, but without NBA and
NHL games.

Figure 2-9. Schedule of Events at the Arena

2.6 CONSTRUCTION
Changes from the Draft EIS – OVG has generally provided more information, clarified construction
phasing, changed haul routes and hours that streets would be used, reduced street closures, and
provided mitigation to reduce noise.

Construction for Alternative 1 is proposed from approximately October 2018 to October 2020, a
duration of approximately 24 months. Because of the dynamic nature of construction, the sequencing,
extent, and timing of construction activities would vary, and timelines shown are approximate,
representing the currently proposed schedule. The Development Agreement (an agreement between
the City and OVG) will identify protocols to minimize effects of construction on existing activities at
Seattle Center. This agreement is proposed to be finalized after publication of the Final EIS; the Final EIS
will be used to inform that agreement.

Construction for Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, except no night work would occur
outside of the arena building (including no night truck hauling). This would extend the demolition and
excavation period by at least 6 months, and total construction would take at least 30 months under
Alternative 2. Work involving impact equipment would occur during “daytime,” between 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM on weekdays, and between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekends and legal holidays (SMC
25.08.425). Truck hauling would be further restricted to avoid peak periods. Additionally, street closures
for Alternative 2 would be different than with Alternative 1. See Table 2-2 for a side-by-side comparison
of alternatives and Chapter 4, Transportation, for construction activities specific to that element.

Construction is generally divided into 4 overlapping phases (see Figure 2-10 for the schedule). Phase 1:
Demolition and Excavation would be the most intense (disruptive) phase. Figure 2-11 (a and b) shows
proposed construction logistics, including street closures and construction site fencing. Figure 2-12
shows the proposed haul routes. The construction phases are summarized below.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-19 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-10. Proposed Construction Schedule

Phase 1: Demolition and Excavation


 Work would include interior and exterior demolition, excavation to the perimeter of the existing
roof footings, removal of demolished and excavated materials from the site, and installation of
earth retention systems including soldier piles immediately outside of the foundation walls
around the perimeter of the arena. Soldier piles would be placed using a drilling method,
followed by a concrete pour; no pile driving would occur. Hazardous materials in the buildings to
be demolished or renovated have been identified and would be removed and disposed of in
accordance with SDCI regulations.
 Excavation of the arena building below-grade would begin on the north side of the arena (see
Figures 2-2, 2-4, and 2-8 for the extent of building below-grade).
 Demolition of exterior structures (Blue Spruce Building, skatepark, Seattle Center Pavilion, West
Court Building [existing box office], Restroom Pavilion, and NASA Building) and plaza hardscape
and vegetation is proposed to occur from approximately October 2018 to mid-November 2018.
 Most demolition and excavation materials would be stockpiled at the south ends of the
Northwest Rooms, on the west and east sides of the arena.
 For Alternative 1, up to 200 workers would work 2 extended or 3 shifts daily (between 400 and
600 total daily construction workers); Alternative 2 would be limited to 1 extended or 2 shifts
daily.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-20 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 With night-time work, truck hauling would occur 7 days a week, 18 hours a day, for
approximately 6 months. For daytime-only truck hauling operations, truck hauling would be
limited to daytime, non‐peak hours (approximately 8 hours a day or less).
 Truck hauling on vacated Harrison St within the Seattle Center campus is proposed to occur
between 11:30 PM and 6:30 AM.

Phase 2: Loading Dock Access Tunnel Construction


 The loading dock tunnel would be dug out using a mining‐style method that would leave Bressi
Garage undisturbed. The mining method would involve horizontal drilling with perforated pipes.
The pipes would be pressure-grouted to form a shell of grout and enhanced soils. Soils would be
removed by hand in 3- to 4-foot increments. The tunnel footings and structure would be built as
the tunnel advances.
 Trucks would access the site using the current parking lot access on 1st Ave N. Once the loading
dock access tunnel is complete, it would serve as the main access point for deliveries.

Phase 3: Structure Construction I


 Excavation for the underground parking garage would be completed and construction of the
parking garage and atrium would begin.
 Interior construction would occur including concourse structural work, erection of bridge-level
trusses, upgrades to the roof structure, and installation of the rigging structure.
 Retaining and shear wall installation at the parking structure would begin.
 Three cranes would be located on the project site. Deliveries to the southern crane would occur
on the closed portion of Thomas St.

Phase 4: Structure Construction II and Interiors


 The remainder of the arena structure would be built and the interiors of the arena installed.
 The rooftop platform and equipment would be installed.
 All levels of the new underground parking garage would be built.
 The plazas, signage, and landscaping would be completed.
 Trucks would enter and exit the project site through the loading dock tunnel.
Table 2-2 lists the construction activities for Alternatives 1 and 2. No construction is anticipated under
the No Action Alternative.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-21 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-2. Construction Activities for Alternatives 1 and 2

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
Specifications
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Construction Approximately 24 months. At least 30 months.


duration

Night Work

Night work1 (as Night work for the duration of the project (24 months). Night Night work only as allowed under SMC 25.08.425.
defined in SMC work would be the most intense during the demolition and
25.08.425) excavation phase (approximately 6 months). Night-time work
would include truck hauling (summarized under the
Transportation heading below).
During Phase 1: Exterior and interior night-time construction
would include excavation.
During Phase 2: No night-time exterior construction activities are
proposed.
Phases 3 and 4: Night-time work would include structure
construction and interior finish work.

Impact equipment Impact equipment may be used during the day and night inside Same as Alternative 1, except no night-time use of impact equipment
and outside of the arena. A sound‐deflecting border would be unless allowed under SMC 25.08.425.
installed along the north, west, and south sides of the project for
the duration of construction.
During Phase 1, the following equipment would be used:
 Excavator-mounted concrete breakers
 Hoe rams
 Hand-held jack hammers
 Robotic demo breakers
 Soldier pile drill rig
 Tie-back drill rig

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-22 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
Specifications
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
 Pneumatic tools
 Impact hammers
 Concrete saws
 Concrete cutters
 Vibratory compactors
 No pile driving is proposed
During Phases 3 and 4, the following impact equipment would be
used:
 Impact wrenches for steel erection
 Vibratory compactors

Excavation

Arena The arena would be excavated an additional 15 feet (to 53 feet Same as Alternative 1 (Figure 2-8).
deep). Excavation would also occur laterally, extending the inside
of the arena to out beyond the base of most of the pylons
(Figures 2-2 and 2-4). The arena and adjacent Northwest Rooms
would be stabilized prior to construction.
Loading dock The access tunnel would be excavated using a mining method and Construction method would be the same as Alternative 1. The access
access tunnel is estimated to take 7 months. Bressi Garage would be stabilized. tunnel would pass under the 1st Ave N Garage, east of Bressi Garage.
See Figure 2-2 for tunnel location. See Figure 2-8.
Underground Excavation would be open pit, and take 4–5 months (Figure 2-4). Same as Alternative 1.
parking garage,
underground
loading dock, and
atrium lobby
Excavation volume Approximately 500,000 cubic yards. Same as Alternative 1.
(cubic yards)

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-23 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
Specifications
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Transportation

Truck loading and Most demolition and excavation materials would be stockpiled at No loading at night.
stockpiling1 the 2 south ends of the Northwest Rooms before being removed
from the site.
Conveyors would be used to load material into trucks. No truck
loading is proposed on the west side of arena after 10 PM.
Estimated number  Approximately 135,500 total truck trips.  Approximately 135,500 total truck trips.
of truck trips2
 Approximately 25,820 truckloads = 51,640 truck trips for  Approximately 51,640 truck trips for months 1–12. Restriction of
months 1–6. night truck trips could extend the duration of truck hauling
beyond 12 months.
 73,000 truck trips for months 7–18.
 73,000 truck trips for months 13–24.
 10,800 truck trips for months 19–24.
 10,800 truck trips for months 25–30.

Estimated number  290 per day for months 1–6.  130 per day for months 1–12.
of truck trips2 (per
 80–100 per day for months 7–18.  80–100 per day for months 13–24.
day)
 20–30 per day for months 19–24.  20-30 per day for months 25–30.

Truck hauling1 Truck hauling could occur up to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week Truck hauling during daytime, non-peak hours only (approximately 8
during Phase 1, but would change based on time of day to avoid hours a day or less), 7 days a week. Construction duration would be
AM/PM peak periods and sensitive night-time receptors. Hauling extended by at least 6 months.
during other phases would be less.
Phase 1: truck-hauling on vacated Harrison St between 11:30 PM
to 6:30 AM and as allowed under an approved noise variance.
Phase 2: Some deliveries may occur at night.
Phases 3 and 4: Some deliveries would occur between 11 pm and
5 am (Monday through Friday).
Truck haul routes Would use major (arterial) truck streets. Same as Alternative 1, except no truck hauling at night and would not
(see Figures 2-11a Trucks would access the project site primarily from 1 st Ave N and occur on the Seattle Center campus. Hauling would likely only occur
and 11b, and 2-12)1 2nd Ave N. However, site access points would change based on between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-24 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
Specifications
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
construction phase (see text above and Figures 11a and 11b).
Truck haul routes are subject to SDOT approval.
Most night-time hauling would route trucks through the Seattle
Center campus using vacated Harrison St, except during the
following campus-wide events in 2018, 2019, and 2020:
 Installation of Fisher Pavilion Ice
 New Year’s Eve
 Removal of Fisher Pavilion Ice
 Northwest Folklife Festival
 Pride Festival
 Seafair
 Bite of Seattle
 Bumbershoot
OVG would provide crosswalks with flaggers to allow pedestrians
to cross vacated Harrison St during night hauling.
Lane and sidewalk Closed for the duration of construction, unless otherwise Closed for the duration of construction (30 months or longer):
closures (see specified (approximately 24 months):
 Thomas St between 1st Ave N and Warren Ave N; closures would
Figure 2-11)  On Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N, the north- be the same as Alternative 1.
side parking lane and sidewalk would be closed. In Phase 4  Thomas St between Warren Ave N and 2nd Ave N north curbside
only, the north-side travel lane (west-bound) may be closed lane and north travel lane closed; south travel lane and south
for a period of time to complete the parking garage. Flaggers curbside lane would be available for event support.
would be used to ensure traffic circulation.
 West half of vacated 2nd Ave N from Thomas St to the south edge
 Phase 1 only: The western half of vacated 2nd Ave N from of the intersection of vacated Harrison St; closures would be the
Thomas St to the south edge of the intersection of vacated same as Alternative 1.
Harrison would St be closed. The western half of vacated 2nd  On 1st Ave N, the east curbside parking lane between John St and
Ave N would be reopened for the following: New Year’s Eve, the King County Metro Bus stop closed for the majority of the
Northwest Folklife Festival, Pride Festival, Seafair, Bite of project and intermittently for the last 6 months or longer;
Seattle, Bumbershoot, and the installation and removal of location the same as Alternative 1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-25 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
Specifications
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
the Fisher Pavilion ice. It may also be open during the day on  Duration of closures could be extended due to night-time hauling
other dates. restrictions.
 On 1st Ave N, the east parking lane and sidewalk between
Thomas St and the south end of the King County Metro bus
stop would be closed (the bus stop would remain open).
 The King County Metro bus stop along 1st Ave N, immediately
north of John St would be closed.
 The bus layover area on 1st Ave N would be closed.
 Phases 2, 3, and 4: East parking lane and sidewalk of 1st Ave
N between John St and Thomas St closed.

Truck staging  On Thomas St, between Warren Ave N and 2nd Ave N, in Same as Alternative 1.
(see Figure 2-11a) north parking lane.
 On 1st Ave N between John St and the King County Metro Bus
stop, in east parking lane.
 On 2nd Ave N between John St and Thomas St only after 10
PM.

Deliveries  Materials would be delivered on a just‐in‐time basis, and Same as Alternative 1.


thus on-site materials stockpiling would be minimal.
 Deliveries would be scheduled to the closest route leading to
the installation point.

1st Ave N Garage  The existing 1st Ave N Garage would be used for construction Same as Alternative 1.
and adjacent worker parking. OVG and the construction manager would
surface parking lot work with Seattle Center tenants to make excess spaces
available for their events. The roof of the 1st Ave N Garage
would be used for construction trailers. The adjacent surface
parking lot would be closed for the duration of construction.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-26 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
Specifications
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Construction  On the north, south, and west sides of the arena building, the Same as Alternative 1.
logistics construction fence would be a 12-foot noise-deflecting
(see Figure 2-11) barrier. Art and windows may be placed on the noise barrier.
 For short periods and periodically, work would occur outside
of perimeter fencing including tieback of construction.
Tieback work would be drilled from inside the site and should
not be noticeable from street level outside the site.
 For the access tunnel and utility work, construction
easements would extend into the adjacent streets. Such
work would require excavation, including within the existing
road right-of-way.

Other

Northwest Rooms  The south portion of the International Plaza would be closed Same as Alternative 1.
and International during construction for the duration of construction.
Plaza  The construction fence would be south of the DuPen
Fountain. The fountain would be closed by Seattle Center
during construction.
 Shoring may extend into the International Plaza and adjacent
to the Northwest Rooms.

Seattle Center  Pottery Northwest (the tenant in Bressi Garage) and tenants Same as Alternative 1.
tenant relocation in the Northwest Rooms (KEXP, The Vera Project, SIFF, and
A/NT Gallery) would not need to relocate during
construction, unless a building inspector determines the
building would be unsafe during construction.
1 Timing of night-time work is subject to review by the City (including Seattle Center), and may be changed to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors. For more information, see
Chapter 4, Transportation, and Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration, as well as OVG’s Construction Noise Variance Application available at http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms.
2 The number of truck trips for demolition and excavation is estimated based on the volume of excavated material and volume of material that would need to be removed from

demolition of a 360,000 square foot building. Assumed approximately 20 cubic yards/truck load (1 truck load = 2 truck trips). CalEEmod model determined that a 360,000 square foot
building would result in 818 truckloads of material. This number does not include other types of construction vehicles. To calculate the number of truck trips per day for demolition
and excavation for Alternative 1, 180 days (approximately 6 months) was assumed; for Alternative 2, 360 days (approximately 12 months) was assumed.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-27 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-11a. Construction Logistics and Phasing

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-28 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-11b. Construction Logistics and Phasing

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-29 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Note: Specific night-time hours are subject to review and approval by the City through the noise variance process.
Figure 2-12. Proposed Haul Routes

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 2-30 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.0 LAND USE


This chapter provides an analysis of land uses within the study
Key Findings for Land Use
area and potential land use impacts from the proposed project.
A discussion of the project’s consistency with existing plans and Direct Impacts: Alternatives 1 and 2 propose
zoning is also included. Land use is a broad topic that intersects to demolish several buildings, and the tenants
with other elements of the environment, including recreation, may be temporarily or permanently
traffic, and noise. The potential traffic impacts are more fully displaced. The skatepark would be
analyzed in Chapter 4, Transportation, potential impacts on permanently removed and replaced. Seattle
visitors to Seattle Center in Chapter 7, Recreation, potential Center tenants, neighboring residents,
noise impacts in Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration, and potential businesses, and institutions would experience
visual quality impacts in Chapter 9, Visual Resources. construction impacts for about 24 months
under Alternative 1, and 30 months or longer
Changes from the Draft EIS – This chapter has been revised under Alternative 2.
since issuance of the Draft EIS to provide additional Alternatives 1 and 2 include requests for
information on construction-related impacts to Seattle Center variances from zoning and Land Use Code
tenants (also referred to as resident organizations) and standards. An amendment is proposed to
neighbors based on new information. Since the Draft EIS, OVG SMC 23.55 to create a sign overlay district
has incorporated measures into Alternative 1 to avoid, and other changes to regulate signage. OVG
minimize, or mitigate for some of the construction-related has requested a variance for night-time
impacts that could lead to land use impacts. These measures construction noise under the Seattle Noise
include reduction of the construction footprint and Ordinance, Title 25. Alternative 2 does not
implementation of a construction noise barrier; reducing (or include the noise variance. Alternative 2
changing the hours of) closures along Thomas St and 2nd Ave N; includes a sign code amendment that would
and proposing a mining construction method for the tunnel have fewer visual impacts from signage than
Alternative 1.
under Bressi Garage, rather than a tunneling method.
Significant impacts to land use are not
The chapter was also revised to acknowledge that while there expected because the project would follow
would be significant construction-related noise and vibration the City procedures for variance and code
impacts, these would result in less-than-significant impacts to amendments.
land use. Revisions were also made to clarify text and add
additional information to figures. Indirect Impacts: Under Alternatives 1 and 2,
the increase in the frequency of events at the
renovated arena would add to the congestion
and overall activity in Uptown and
3.1 METHODS surrounding areas.

Current zoning and land uses were identified by reviewing


local, state, and regional maps and planning documents, including online resources and plans from the
City and Seattle Center. Construction impacts were analyzed by identifying construction activities that
could temporarily limit, disrupt, or displace current land uses in the study area. Operations impacts were
analyzed by identifying long-term activities associated with the renovation of the arena that could affect
existing on-site or adjacent land uses.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT


The proposed project is subject to land use review under SEPA regulations, the Seattle Municipal Code
(SMC), City regulatory plans, and other local, state, and regional codes. Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 197-11-440 (6)(d)(i) requires a summary of existing plans (for example, land use and shoreline
plans) and zoning regulations applicable to the proposal, and how the proposal is consistent and
inconsistent with them. Consistency with regulatory plans and policies is described in Section 3.7,
Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations.

3.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


3.3.1 Land Use Study Area
The land use study area is generally bounded by Mercer St to the north, 5th Ave N and Broad St to the
east, Denny Way to the south, and Queen Anne Ave N to the west (see Figure 3-1) and includes adjacent
areas beyond the boundaries of Seattle Center. The northern boundary extends to Roy St to include the
Mercer St Garage. The area is near the north boundary of the Downtown Urban Center in Uptown.
Uptown is surrounded by Interbay to the west, South Lake Union to the east, Denny Triangle to the
southeast, and Belltown to the south.

3.3.2 Existing Land Uses on the Seattle Center Campus


The project site is on the Seattle Center campus. Land within the Seattle Center campus is owned by the
City or private entities and is currently developed with a variety of existing uses including performance,
entertainment, sports, recreation, museum, commercial, office and storage buildings, and surface and
structured parking (see Figure 3-2). The Seattle Center campus includes public spaces such as open lawn
areas that contribute to Seattle Center’s park-like feel, and large paved public spaces important for
festival and exhibition programming, performance and artistry, informal enjoyment of the out-of-doors,
and small and large gatherings. Major buildings at Seattle Center include the Armory, Museum of
Popular Culture (MoPOP), the Seattle Children’s Theatre, the Space Needle, Seattle Opera, Memorial
Stadium, McCaw Hall, Pacific Science Center, Chihuly Garden and Glass, Phelps Center/Exhibition Hall,
Cornish Playhouse, Seattle Repertory Theatre, and KeyArena. Some of the buildings are operated by
Seattle Center (e.g., KeyArena and the Armory), and others are privately operated (e.g., Space Needle,
Memorial Stadium, Pacific Science Center, and MoPOP). See Appendix E, Recreation, for a list of
buildings and activities at Seattle Center.

Main entrances to the Seattle Center campus include 2nd Ave N and Thomas St, 1st Ave N, Seattle
Monorail Terminal on 5th Ave N, W Harrison St and 5th Ave N, 3rd Ave N and Mercer St, and Warren Ave
N and Republican St (August Wilson Way).

The project site, which includes the existing KeyArena building and adjacent areas proposed for the
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project, comprises approximately 11 acres of the Seattle Center
campus. KeyArena currently has a capacity of approximately 17,000 persons depending on the type of
event. Buildings that are currently located on the project site are listed in Table 3-1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-1. Land Use Study Area

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Source: Prepared by ESA, 2018.

Figure 3-2. Buildings and Some Surrounding Uses

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-1. Existing Buildings on the Project Site

Building Name Current Use

KeyArena Performance, entertainment, and sports venue.

KeyArena Box Office/ West Court


Ticketing services and offices.
Building

Seattle Center Pavilion A flexible 5,300-square foot space that is rented for events.

Repurposed apartment building that currently functions as office space for


Blue Spruce
nonprofit organizations.

Seattle Center Skatepark Recreational skatepark.

Restroom Pavilion Public access restrooms.

Bressi Garage - Pottery Half of the building is used as a ceramics studio by tenant Pottery Northwest.
Northwest and Seattle Center Seattle Center maintenance and grounds staff use the other half of the building
Maintenance Facility for office space and storage for equipment, including maintenance vehicles.

NASA Building Repurposed building used for storage.

Seattle Center public parking, constructed for use by KeyArena during


1st Ave N Garage
1994/1995 renovation.

Tenants currently programmed at KeyArena are listed in Table 3-2.


Table 3-2. Current KeyArena Tenants

Current KeyArena Tenant Programming

Seattle Storm (WNBA) The Storm hosts 17 regular season games, 1 pre-season game, and a variable
number of post-season games at KeyArena (WNBA, 2017).

Seattle University Men’s The Seattle University Men’s Basketball Team plays Division I National
Basketball Team Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball, with KeyArena as their home
court. The team played at the Seattle Center Coliseum from 1964–1980 and
returned to KeyArena in 2008.

Pac12 Women’s Basketball The PAC12 Women’s Basketball Tournament has been held in KeyArena since
Tournament 2013.

Concerts and Special Events Variety of schedules for entertainment.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.3 Land Uses Adjacent to the Project Site


The uses directly adjacent to the project site include the following (see Figure 3-2):

North of KeyArena: The Northwest Rooms house KEXP, Seattle International Film Festival (SIFF) Film
Center, The Vera Project, and A/NT Gallery (formerly known as Art/Not Terminal Gallery), and the
International Plaza (which includes the DuPen Fountain), and are immediately north of the project site
on the Seattle Center campus. The International Plaza is also called the Northwest Courtyard(s). These
uses include other ancillary uses such as a coffee shop and record store that sublease from KEXP. To the
north of those buildings are Republican St, the Seattle Repertory Theatre, and the Expo Apartments.

South of KeyArena: Thomas St is immediately south of the arena and north of the south parcel. Across
Thomas St to the south is the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic Church and Rectory, the Sacred Heart
Shelter, and the Downtown (Lakeside) School (scheduled to open fall 2018). Southeast of the arena is
the Seattle Children’s Theatre. John St is south of the existing 1st Ave N Garage and surface parking.
South of John St are condominiums and apartments.

East of KeyArena: The Fountain Lawn, International Fountain, South Fountain Lawn, and Fisher Pavilion
on the Seattle Center campus are east of the project site.

West of KeyArena: 1st Ave N is west of the project site. Adjacent to 1st Ave N are apartments and
condominiums, including the Astro Apartments, MightyKidz Daycare, Dalmasso Apartments, several
surface parking lots, Uptown Inn, and the Queen Anne Post Office Building (also known as the Queen
Anne Station).

3.3.4 Land Uses Within the Land Use Study Area


Most of the study area to the east and north of the project site is within Seattle Center. West and south
of the project site, the neighborhood character transitions to smaller lots, a regular street grid, and a
mix of mid-rise and low-rise commercial, residential, and institutional uses. Queen Anne Ave N from
Denny Way to the south to Mercer St to the north forms the center of a pedestrian-oriented commercial
district that includes dining, entertainment, shopping, and offices that extends for several blocks along
both of these arterial streets. Uses within and adjacent to the land use study area include those listed
below and found on Figure 3-2:

North Boundary of the Land Use Study Area: Mercer St and Roy St form the north boundary of the land
use study area and are adjacent to apartments and condominiums, single-family residential, commercial
retail, parking, and utility uses.

South Boundary of the Land Use Study Area: Denny Way creates the south boundary of the land use
study area. First United Methodist Church, Pacific Science Center, apartments and condominiums,
surface parking, and commercial retail establishments are adjacent to Denny Way to the south.

East Boundary of the Land Use Study Area: 5th Ave N and Broad St border the east boundary of the land
use study area. KCTS 9, MoPOP, surface parking, and a variety of commercial retail establishments are
along the east boundary of the land use study area.

West Boundary of the Land Use Study Area: Queen Anne Ave N from Mercer St to the north to Denny
Way at the south forms the west boundary of the land use study area and is adjacent to a mix of
commercial, retail, offices, apartments, condominiums, restaurants, and parking.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

In addition to a few single-family residences, there are approximately 24 multi-family developments in


the land use study area, totaling approximately 1,650 housing units. These units are predominantly
rental units. Table B-1 in Appendix B lists many of the multi-family housing units in the land use study
area.

Two religious institutions in the land use study area provide religious and social services: the Sacred
Heart of Jesus Catholic Church, Rectory, and Shelter at 205 2nd Ave N; and the First United Methodist
Church and Blaine Center at 180 Denny Way. Religious services and other programming are listed in
Table B-2 in Appendix B.

Several new development projects are proposed or under construction in the land use study area.
Proposed projects include those that have received land use and/or construction permits, or are
currently undergoing SDCI review. At the time of Draft EIS preparation, a variety of permit applications
were listed in the SDCI permit tracking system including several permit applications for proposed large
apartment or condominium buildings in the land use study area. The permit application list has been
updated since the Draft EIS, but only the largest development projects are listed below. There are also a
number of smaller developments in the area. The permit numbers and addresses for projects in the
building application system that may be starting up or be in progress at the time of the proposed arena
renovation include the following (City of Seattle, 2018):

 Permit #3015549, 124 Denny Way, 6-story building with 75 units.


 Permit #3015680, 101 Denny Way, 6-story building with 82 units (with an estimated completion
date of November 2018).
 Permit #3025946, 225 Roy St, 2 apartment buildings, one 8-story and one 7-story, with a total of
269 units.
 Permit #3028550, 631 Queen Anne Ave N, 6-story building with 46 units.
 Permit #3024089, 320 Queen Anne Ave N, 7-story building with 69 units.
 Permit #3021477, 215 1st Ave N, 5-story building with 71 units.
 Permit #3025155, 714 1st Ave W, 6-story building with 50 units.
 Permit #3018158, 19 W Harrison St, 6-story building with 50 units.

3.3.5 Current Land Use Zoning


The entire land use study area is zoned Seattle Mixed-Uptown (SM-UP) with varying height limits, as
shown in Figure 3-3. The project site on the Seattle Center campus is listed as SM-UP 95, which
designates a height limit of 95 feet for the parcels in that zone. The area south of Thomas St (the south
parcel) where additional project work is planned is zoned SM-UP 85. Other parcels in the land use study
area have height limits ranging from 40 to 85 feet.

The SM-UP zoning designation, adopted in October 2017, aims to create a more walkable, livable, and
dense Uptown. The SM-UP zone provides for a wide range of uses in medium- to high-density mixed-use
development, and includes regulations for the following:

 Maximum building height, width, and façade standards.


 Street-level use and parking standards.
 Maximum and minimum development density.
 Mandatory affordable housing contributions.
 Incentive zoning for provision of public amenities.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-3. Land Use Zoning in the Land Use Study Area

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


This section evaluates potential impacts to land uses for the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1
and 2.

3.4.1 Construction Impacts


Potential short-term land use impacts from construction are characterized as less-than-significant or
significant. Potentially significant impacts are defined below; impacts that do not reach that threshold
are determined to be less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts: The impacts of construction activities would be significant
if disruptive (e.g., noise, dust, visual impediments, access limitations) and of long enough duration to
result in a change in the current land use in the land use study area.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no demolition or construction at the site for a
renovated arena or associated improvements. The existing KeyArena would remain as is.

Direct Impacts and Indirect Impacts

No direct or indirect land use impacts would be expected from the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Alternative 1 proposes to renovate the interior of KeyArena for sports and entertainment events with a
design that would accommodate NHL and NBA teams. The project includes demolition and construction
on the project site to renovate the facility. See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of Alternative 1.
Construction activities are described in Section 2.6, Construction. The sequencing, extent, and timing of
the proposed construction activities may vary and details are subject to review by the City.

Direct Impacts

Construction activities would involve the demolition of existing structures, day- and night-time noise,
temporary street closures, temporary closures of portions of Seattle Center grounds, and temporary
displacement of existing programming or uses. The activities would individually and cumulatively affect
neighboring uses. Construction activities are generally not expected to be disruptive enough to adjacent
land uses to cause a change in land use, and thus would not be significant, but would cause
inconveniences and curtailment of some activities of these uses. As described in Tables 8-8 and 8-9, in
Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration, construction-related noise and vibration impacts would be significant to
some Seattle Center tenants.

Demolition of Existing Structures: Five buildings (West Court Building [KeyArena Box Office], NASA
Building, Blue Spruce Building, Restroom Pavilion, and Seattle Center Pavilion), the skatepark, the
surface parking lot and loading/marshalling area south of the arena, and plazas to the west and east of
the arena would be demolished. The demolition of the Blue Spruce Building was supported in the
Century 21 Master Plan (Seattle Center, 2008). An extension would be added to the southwest portion
of the Northwest Rooms to house mechanical equipment and egress stairs for the arena. The southeast
portion of the Northwest Rooms would also be disassembled and rebuilt to house mechanical

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

equipment and egress stairs. See Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Alternative 1: OVG Proposal, and Section 2.6,
Construction.

Temporary Street Closures: Streets around Seattle Center may have lane or sidewalk closures or be used
for haul routes during construction. Streets proposed for lane or sidewalk closure for the duration of
construction (approximately 24 months) would impact current Seattle Center tenants, visitors, and
neighboring land uses by requiring detours or changes in access to the Seattle Center, residences, and
businesses. These inconveniences could result in reduced visitation of Seattle Center businesses.

See Section 2.6, Construction, for lane and sidewalk closures and haul routes. All street use requires a
permit by SDOT. See Appendix B for detailed information on Seattle Center programming that may be
affected by street use for construction activities.

Access would be maintained to businesses, residences, and institutions during construction.

Temporary Construction Impacts on Seattle Center and Adjacent Uses: Seattle Center averages 12
million visitors per year and hosts approximately 5,000 events and performances. A number of these
events would have some level of disruption, depending on the location and timing of the programs or
events, for the 2‐year construction duration. Impacts may result from the following:

 Construction of mechanical structures on the south ends of the Northwest Rooms (abutting
KEXP and AN/T Gallery).
 Vacated Harrison St on the Seattle Center campus would be used for night-time truck hauling
under Alternative 1. Flaggers would be used at pedestrian crossings and alternative walking
routes would be supported.
 The west half of vacated 2nd Ave N between Thomas St and vacated Harrison St would be closed
during Phase 1, except during certain campus-wide events.
 The north parking lane and the sidewalk on Thomas St would be closed during construction,
which would result in a loss of some event-related curb space on Thomas St.
 The 1st Ave N Garage would be closed and used for construction worker parking and trailers. The
adjacent surface lot would also be closed.

 Closure of a portion of the International Plaza north of the arena during construction.

See Section 2.6, Construction, for a full of list of closures and more details about construction. See
information on noise and vibration in Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration, Section 8.6, Avoidance,
Minimization, and Mitigation Measures, and also Table 8-8, Noise Construction Impact Summary.

Temporary Displacement of Existing Programming/Uses During Construction: Renovation of the arena


would temporarily displace some existing uses for approximately 24 months. Current KeyArena activities
would either discontinue during the renovation or would take place in temporary venues until they
could shift back to the renovated arena. The tenants of KeyArena that would be temporarily displaced
are listed in Table 3-3.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-3. Current KeyArena Tenants Temporarily Displaced Due to Construction

Current KeyArena Tenant Proposed Temporary Venue

Seattle Storm (WNBA) The Storm would likely relocate to the Alaska Airlines Arena at University
of Washington in Seattle (capacity 10,000), the Tacoma Dome in Tacoma
(capacity 23,000 depending on the seating arrangement), Angel of the
Winds Arena in Everett (capacity 10,000), or the ShoWare Center in Kent
(capacity 6,500).

Seattle University Men’s Basketball The Seattle University campus features the Connolly Center, a 999-seat
Team arena with an NCAA-regulation court. The men’s basketball team would
play at the Connolly Center during the construction period.

Pac12 Women’s Basketball The Pac12 Women’s Basketball Tournament would relocate outside the
Tournament City for the duration of the construction period. The Pac12 has
announced that the tournament will move to Las Vegas during
construction (Allen, 2018).

Concerts and Special Events The Tacoma Dome (capacity 23,000 depending on the seating
arrangement) frequently hosts concerts on the same scale as those held
at KeyArena. The Tacoma Dome is currently being renovated, and
renovations will be complete by fall of 2018 (Tacoma Dome, 2016). Other
arenas in the greater Seattle area that could host concerts during the
construction period include the Angel of the Winds Arena in Everett
(capacity 10,000), the ShoWare Center in Kent (capacity 6,500), or the
Event Center at CenturyLink Field.

Pottery Northwest (a tenant in Bressi Garage) and Seattle Center tenants in the Northwest Rooms
(KEXP, The Vera Project, SIFF, and A/NT Gallery) would not need to relocate during construction, unless
a building inspector determines a building would be unsafe during construction.

Because other regional spaces/venues have the capacity to support displaced Seattle Center tenant uses
during the approximate 24-month construction period, and because Seattle Center has refrained from
scheduling events in KeyArena during the proposed construction period, impacts to land use would be
temporary and would be considered less-than-significant.

Variances/Code Amendments: The following items have been identified as potential variance requests,
waivers, or departures from the Land Use Code for Alternative 1, relating to: providing a through-block
pedestrian connection; open space requirements; surface parking lot screening and separation from
other uses; number and width of curb cuts; allowable maximum width for driveways; setback for the
street-facing façade of proposed buildings; structure width and depth greater than the allowable 250
feet; and modifications to landscaping standards between the street and front façades.

An amendment to Seattle’s sign regulations in the Land Use Code (SMC 23.55) is proposed, creating a
new Seattle Center sign overlay district and other changes that would regulate the number, type,
content, location, and operation of signs, including signage for the renovated arena. See Section 9.4.2,
Operations Impacts (Visual Resources), for details on proposed signage and the sign code amendment.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 also includes a request for a variance from night-time construction noise under the Seattle
Noise Ordinance, Title 25. See Section 3.7, Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations, for details.

Indirect Impacts

During construction, indirect impacts to nearby properties and businesses could occur from the loss of
on-street parking, construction noise, and construction-related traffic congestion. Indirect impacts from
construction noise would also occur at night due to exterior night work. These disturbances would
create intermittent inconvenience and access limitations to some businesses and residents that could
ultimately contribute to some residents or business patrons deciding to leave the area, or businesses
deciding to relocate.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Construction for Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1, except that no exterior night work
(including no night truck hauling) would occur. This could extend the demolition and excavation period
by at least 6 months, and total construction would take 30 months or longer. Impacts would decrease at
night but would occur for an additional 6 months of daytime.

Alternative 2 includes variance requests, waivers, or departures under Title 23, similar to Alternative 1.
However, a noise variance for night work would not be needed. As with Alternative 1, a sign code
amendment is proposed; the Alternative 2 amendment includes restrictions on video displays facing the
street (the video display would either not be allowed, or would not be allowed to face toward 1 st Ave N)
and the proposed size of the signs on top of the arena would be similar to existing conditions. See
Section 9.4.2, Operations Impacts (Visual Resources), for details on proposed signage.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The land use impacts (both direct and indirect) due to construction under Alternative 2 would be similar
to Alternative 1 during daytime construction. However, the absence of exterior night-time work would
prolong the period of daytime construction impacts and associated construction-related traffic
congestion impacts by approximately 6 months or more under Alternative 2. Excluding exterior night-
time construction work would avoid noise impacts during the night-time hours for adjacent neighbors.
Excluding exterior night-time construction work would also prolong the construction noise during the
day for Seattle Center tenants, neighbors, and visitors to the campus by at least 6 additional months.

These differences would not substantively change land use impacts from those described for Alternative
1, and because the impacts would not result in permanent land use changes, the impacts would be less-
than-significant.

3.4.2 Operations Impacts


This section describes potential long-term land use impacts from the proposed Seattle Center Arena
Renovation Project. Potentially significant land use impacts are defined below; impacts that do not
reach that threshold are determined to be less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts: Impacts would be significant if the project would result in
permanent, substantial direct or indirect land use changes that adversely affect neighborhood character,
such as blight or disuse of properties.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action Alternative

Direct Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no expected change from existing land use conditions
in and around the project site and vicinity.

Indirect Impacts

In general, land uses within the land use study area for the No Action Alternative would be expected to
continue along current trends, without influence from changed activity at KeyArena. The No Action
Alternative would not allow Seattle Center to achieve the economic benefits of providing expanded
KeyArena facilities, and may result in KeyArena becoming less attractive as a venue to major sporting
and entertainment events.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal

Direct Impacts

Alternative 1 includes the permanent removal or alteration of several buildings on the project site,
permanently displacing the uses in those buildings. Alternative 1 would maintain the Landmark-
designated features of KeyArena. See Table 3-4 for a summary of these changes.

Relocation and financial assistance for the permanent displacements from the project site and the
inclusion of an OVG Community Liaison are included as part of the project. The full-time Community
Liaison was hired by OVG in June 2018 and is working with affected stakeholders. The project would
provide relocation support through the Transaction Documents, as described in Section 1.2. Therefore,
the impacts would be less-than-significant.

The skatepark removal and relocation are described in Chapter 7, Recreation.

See Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Alternative 1: OVG Proposal, for additional information on infrastructure and
buildings.

Indirect Impacts

Alternative 1 would more than double the frequency of major events and provide increased seating
capacity and amenities at the renovated arena. Seating capacities under Alternative 1 would range from
approximately 17,300 (for hockey games) to 18,800 (for concert configurations). See Chapter 2,
Description of Alternatives, for a detailed list of proposed events.

The increased frequency in events under Alternative 1 would increase visitation on the Seattle Center
campus and neighboring areas. The experience for residents and businesses in the area would not
substantially change on a daily basis, given that this area is currently a highly used sports, recreation,
and entertainment destination. However, the increased number of days during the year with highly
attended events at the Seattle Center campus would be noticeable in neighboring areas and may be a
quality of life consideration for some residents.

Restaurants, bars, and other concessions at and around the Seattle Center campus would likely see an
increase in use due to the increased attendance at the arena from the more frequent scheduling of
major sporting and entertainment events at the arena. Continued growth and expansion of retail,

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

restaurants, and entertainment within and around Seattle Center would support surrounding residential
and job growth targets, and would likely be seen as a benefit to retail and restaurants operating in the
area. KeyArena is a major revenue generator supporting Seattle Center’s operational expenses. A
renovated arena would represent a long-term investment that would enhance Seattle Center’s ability to
meet its goal of bringing people together through a diverse set of activities and events.

Table 3-4. Permanent Displacement of Uses on the Project Site

Building Name Current Use Use Under Alternative 1

KeyArena Box Office/ Ticketing services. Removed and replaced. A new freestanding
West Court Building box office would be constructed in the south
plaza.

Seattle Center Pavilion The building is a flexible 5,300-square Removed and not replaced. Events that were
foot space that is rented for events. It held in this venue could be held in the
can be set up theater-style, classroom Armory Lofts or other Seattle Center event
style, or banquet style. venues in the future.

Blue Spruce Repurposed apartment building Removed and not replaced, consistent with
currently used as office space for the Seattle Center Century 21 Plan. Four of
nonprofit organizations. the 6 Blue Spruce Building tenants would be
relocated on the Seattle Center campus, 3 in
the Armory (Northwest Folklife, Skate Like a
Girl, and Teen-Tix). Book-It Theater would be
relocated to the KCTS facility. The other
tenants are not specifically tied to operating
at Seattle Center and would relocate to off-
site locations.

Skatepark Public recreation area. Removed. See discussion in Chapter 7,


Recreation, regarding replacement.

Restroom Pavilion Public access restrooms. Removed and not replaced.

NASA Building Used for storing facilities maintenance Removed and not replaced. Items stored in
equipment. NASA Building would be relocated to other
storage facilities.

Southeast end of the A portion of the Northwest Rooms is The southeast end of the Northwest Rooms
Northwest Rooms currently the space occupied by the would be dismantled and replaced with a
A/NT Gallery. new structure that would house mechanical
intake/exhaust and egress stairs. Following
construction, the space leased by A/NT
Gallery would be smaller.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

Direct Impacts

Direct impacts for Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 and would be less-
than-significant.

Indirect Impacts

The indirect impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 and would
be less-than-significant.

3.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
3.5.1 Construction
Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are implemented to lessen or eliminate the adverse
impacts associated with a proposed action. Such measures can be proposed by the applicant or required
as a condition of approvals for construction permits. These potential measures have been updated since
publication of the Draft EIS and will be used to inform the Transaction Documents, including the Lease
Agreement, Development Agreement, and Seattle Center Integration Agreement. The agreements will
contain provisions to enable existing organizations and businesses to continue to operate throughout
construction.

OVG has committed to contributing $500,000 to Seattle Center’s operation and development of an
“open for business during construction” marketing campaign.

Potential measures to address displacement of Seattle Center tenants during construction include the
following:

 Implement the Development Agreement between OVG and the City to address OVG’s
commitment with the City, Seattle Center, and its tenants during construction. This agreement
will include construction impact mitigation plans and community benefit provisions, including
providing an OVG Community Liaison, holding monthly meetings, appointing a Seattle Center
staff person to act as an ombudsperson, and providing meeting space for community
organizations.
 Support the OVG Community Liaison as described in the Community Benefits Summary. OVG
has hired a full-time Community Liaison to work with Seattle Center tenants and affected
Uptown businesses to ensure the public is aware that businesses are open during construction.
The OVG Community Liaison was hired in June 2018, and the position will continue after
construction is complete and into project operation.
 Develop and implement a robust public outreach and marketing plan that promotes businesses
and organizations prior to and throughout construction; monitor implementation of the plan
and adjust as needed to ensure that businesses are well advertised.
 Provide advance notice of the construction activities to Seattle Center tenants and neighboring
properties.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Coordinate with tenants who would be displaced. Provide assistance in identifying alternative
locations for holding games, concerts, and other events.
 Follow the City procedures for variances and code amendments.
Measures for construction traffic, parking, noise, and aesthetic impacts are described in their respective
sections (see Section 4.5.1 in Transportation; Section 8.6.1 in Noise and Vibration; and Section 9.6.1 in
Visual Resources).

3.5.2 Operations
Potential measures to reduce impacts from arena operations for Alternatives 1 and 2 include the
following:

 Seattle Center Integration Agreement: This agreement establishes a framework for


coordinating procedures and infrastructure across the arena site and the Seattle Center campus
to better integrate City and OVG operations throughout the term of the lease. The Seattle
Center Integration Agreement includes provisions for regular communication and sharing of
event scheduling information, coordinating management and operations of the campus parking
garages, and coordinating security, traffic control, use of curb space, marketing, and
sponsorship.
 Continue to support the OVG Community Liaison and Seattle Center ombudsperson, as
described in the Community Benefits Summary, in working with the community.
 Develop an Arena Access Management Plan (AAMP).
Additional measures for operations traffic, parking, noise, and aesthetic impacts are described in their
respective sections (see Section 4.5.2 in Transportation; Section 8.6.2 in Noise and Vibration; and
Section 9.6.2 in Visual Resources).

3.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


LAND USE
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide mitigation for temporary or permanent displacement of uses, adhere to the
Seattle Municipal Code (Alternatives 1 and 2 would follow the proper procedures and standards for
request for variances and a sign code amendment), and provide mitigation for temporary construction
impacts that would impact neighboring residents, businesses, and institutions in the area. Therefore,
there would be no significant and unavoidable adverse land use impacts expected from either of the
action alternatives.

3.7 RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS


This section of the EIS provides a summary and consistency analysis. Unlike potential impacts to the
physical environment described in other chapters of the EIS, this section summarizes the general extent
to which the alternatives are consistent with zoning regulations and plans. The following analysis
focuses on project consistency with relevant goals and policies of the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan
(City of Seattle, 2016a) and the Queen Anne (Uptown) Neighborhood Element of the Plan, the Uptown

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Rezone Plan Ordinance, and the Seattle Center 21 Master Plan (Seattle Center, 2008). The proposed
project is not in a shoreline area or in or nearby an environmentally critical area. Therefore, those
policies are not analyzed.

3.7.1 Consistency with the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan (2016)


Summary: The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan establishes future land use designations to guide
growth within the City of Seattle and includes goals and policies that guide general development in the
City (City of Seattle, 2016a). The Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project is located at Seattle Center in
Uptown. The Comprehensive Plan designates Uptown as 1 of 6 urban centers in the city, and is 1 of the
4 contiguous urban centers referred to as Center City. Urban centers have the highest density
neighborhoods in the city and are regional centers that provide a diverse mix of uses, housing, and
employment opportunities. Accordingly, Uptown is a key component in the City’s housing and job
growth strategy.

The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan states that growth in Uptown should be planned in a way that
improves pedestrian access and safety, creates more ground-level open space, increases the supply of
affordable housing, improves the connection between the neighborhood and Seattle Center, preserves
historic buildings and architectural styles, and leverages a multi-modal transportation system (City of
Seattle, 2016a). The future land use for the entire land use study area is commercial/mixed use.
Table 3-5 lists the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relevant to the No Action
Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 for the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project.

Discussion: Alternatives 1 and 2 generally support the goals and policies listed in Table 3-5 because the
project preserves the existing Landmark-designated portions of the KeyArena building, which maintains
the city’s cultural identity and heritage as stated in goal LU G14.

Policy LU 5.10 provides general guidance on what should be considered in regulating signage. The
proposed sign code amendment (SMC 23.55) will be considered by the City Council. Consistent with this
policy, the visual analysis in Chapter 9 of the Final EIS provides information on visual and safety impacts
to consider when making that decision. The proposed amendments increasing the video display size and
allowing more dynamic video displays could adversely affect safety, in conflict with this policy. The
proposed amendment for Alternative 2 includes modifications that would reduce the potential safety
impact associated with the video display, requiring the sign to either eliminate the video component or
face away from 1st Ave N. Potential measures to address visual and safety impacts are also described in
Chapter 9, Visual Resources.

The project supports the ED 1.4, P G1, P 1.3, P G2, and P 4.3 goals and policies through a project design
that supports pedestrian walkways, plazas, gathering spaces, and support for recreational opportunities.
The project also includes coordination with transportation planning efforts and investments. These
project elements may be included as part of the project proposal and/or through the Transaction
Documents.

The project supports goal GS G3 and policy GS 3.9 by preserving or restoring the Landmark-designated
arena features as required by the City, including the roof and edge beam structure and pylons, and the
north, west, and east curtain walls. This preserves characteristics that contribute to the general identity
of the community, such as architectural or social significance.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-5. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan Relevant Goals and Policies

Goal/Policy No. Relevant Land Use Goals and Policies

LU G14 Maintain the city’s cultural identity and heritage.

Enrich the vibrancy of neighborhood business districts through the integration of design,
ED 1.4 public art, public space, historic preservation, small locally owned businesses and cultural
spaces and programming.

Maintain and enhance Seattle’s unique character and sense of place, including its natural
GS G3 setting, history, human-scaled development, and community identity, as the city grows and
changes.

Encourage the preservation and expansion of the tree canopy throughout the city for the
aesthetic, health and environmental benefits trees provide, considering first the residential
GS 3.8
and mixed-use areas with the least tree canopy in order to more equitably distribute the
benefits to residents.

Preserve characteristics that contribute to communities’ general identity, such as block and
GS 3.9
lot patterns and areas of historic, architectural, or social significance.

Design public spaces that consider the nearby physical context and the needs of the
GS 3.26
community.

Regulate signage to encourage reasonable identification of businesses and to communicate


LU 5.10 information of community interest while limiting visual clutter, protecting the public interest,
and enhancing the city’s appearance and safety.

Provide a variety of outdoor and indoor spaces throughout the city for all people to play,
P G1
learn, contemplate, and build community.

Provide urban trails, green streets, and boulevards in public rights-of-way as recreation and
P 1.3 transportation options and as ways to connect open spaces and parks to each other, to
urban centers and villages, and to the regional open space system.

Continue to provide opportunities for all people across Seattle to participate in a variety of
P G2
recreational activities.

Recognize that visitors to major regional attractions can impact the neighborhoods
P 4.3 surrounding those facilities, and look for ways to limit those impacts, including through
enhanced walking, biking, and transit connections.

The project does not comply with policy GS 3.8 in terms of preserving all of the existing trees.
Alternative 1 would remove up to 13 trees designated as exceptional, legacy, and/or street trees, and
Alternative 2 would remove up to 10 trees. The trees would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio or greater as
required by Executive Order (EO) 03-05 (Tree Replacement). The removal of large trees would result in a
temporal loss of tree canopy because replacement trees take many years to grow to mature size. Trees
would be protected to the greatest extent practicable during construction by following the protection
measures outlined in Director’s Rule (DR) 30-2015 (Standards for Landscaping, including Green Factor)

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-18 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

and the Street Tree Manual (SDOT, 2014). A Tree, Vegetation, and Soil Protection Plan could be
developed for the project. Historic markers may be installed to recognize the legacy of the removed
trees, and steps may also be taken to preserve other legacy trees on the campus.

The project supports policy GS 3.26 because it designs the public spaces considering the nearby physical
context and the needs of the community. Pedestrian circulation would be enhanced around the arena
and plazas, and the paths would be designed to be universally accessible. The current service area south
of the arena would be redesigned into a new atrium and plaza for event and community use. The
redevelopment would enhance pedestrian connections between Seattle Center and the neighborhoods
west of the arena. All vistas and view corridors currently associated with adjacent street rights-of-way
would be maintained.

3.7.2 Consistency with the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan Queen Anne
(Uptown) Neighborhood Element
Summary: The Queen Anne (Uptown) Neighborhood Element is a subset of the Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan. Table 3-6 lists the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan Queen Anne (Uptown)
Neighborhood Element goals and policies relevant to the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2
for the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project.

Discussion: Many of the Queen Anne (Uptown) Neighborhood Element goals and policies listed in
Table 3-6 directly address the interaction between the neighborhood and Seattle Center and the
importance of maintaining a positive relationship, which supports the goals of the neighborhood as well
as those of Seattle Center.

The No Action Alternative would maintain current conditions and would not be inconsistent with the
goals and policies for Uptown.

Table 3-6. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan Queen Anne (Uptown) Relevant Goals and Policies

Goal/Policy No. Queen Anne (Uptown) Element Land Use Goals and Policies

The Urban Center is a vital residential community as well as a viable and attractive commercial/
QA-G3 employment center and mixed-use neighborhood that enjoys a strong relationship with Seattle
Center.

Queen Anne recognizes the impacts that traffic congestion may have on the community’s
QA-G7 quality of life and strives to address traffic and transportation issues while improving the
efficiency of the local and regional transportation system.

Seek to create and maintain attractive pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and enhance Queen
QA-P1 Anne’s community character with open space, street trees, and other vegetation.

Seek ways to ensure that Seattle Center remains a vibrant and valuable community resource
QA-P15
and a premier regional amenity.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not change land uses, but both action alternatives would provide project
elements that result in moving forward or working toward goals listed in Table 3-6.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-19 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Both Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with goal QA-G3 because both propose to maintain a strong
relationship between the vitality of the neighborhood and Seattle Center by renovating KeyArena to
attract major league sports back to the area. This, in turn, would support commercial/employment
center goals.

Goal QC-G7 recognizes challenges with existing traffic congestion but does not address or contemplate
the expansion of major sports events as expected under Alternatives 1 and 2. As noted in Chapter 4,
Transportation, transportation impacts from this project could be significant even with an AAMP.
Consistent with goal QA-G7, the City, OVG, and Seattle Center would continue to work with the
community to improve efficiency in the local and regional transportation system.

Both Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with policy QA-P1 because the design of the project site
includes open space pedestrian plazas with landscaping to the south of the arena. The streetscapes and
landscapes in both Alternative 1 and 2 are designed to enhance transitions between Seattle Center and
Uptown, and the project would preserve and enhance existing park and open spaces.

Both Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with policy QA-P15 because they would make the renovated
arena a more attractive venue for professional sports, concerts, and other events, increasing the
number of events held at Seattle Center and contributing to the vibrancy of the Seattle Center as a
premier regional amenity.

Depending on the perspective, some may view Alternatives 1 and 2 as a benefit to the City and Uptown
and adjacent neighborhoods, while some may see the project as an inconvenience and a contributor to
congestion and loss of neighborhood character in Uptown.

Based on a review of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies above and the recognition that the City
may negotiate additional project elements that would help meet the goals and policies, Alternatives 1
and 2 are generally consistent with the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Queen Anne (Uptown)
Neighborhood Element.

3.7.3 Consistency with the Uptown Rezone Plan Ordinance and Land Use Code
(2017)
Summary: The Uptown Rezone amended SMC 23.30.10 to provide for rezoning in Uptown, which
includes the entirety of the land use study area. The Uptown Rezone Plan, “[…] seeks to advance the
principles set out in the Uptown Urban Design Framework, which are the result of a multi-year
community planning process” (City of Seattle, 2017). The rezone and companion changes to
development standards were an outgrowth of a neighborhood-wide urban design framework (City of
Seattle, 2016b). Zoning changes focused on creating a more walkable, livable, and dense Uptown.
Regulatory requirements built into the new SM-UP zone (SMC 23.48.002) would apply to Uptown and
would apply to the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project.

Discussion: The No Action Alternative presents no change from existing conditions. Except for the
existing non-conforming structures on the project site, both Alternatives 1 and 2 are generally
consistent with the set of regulations in the Uptown Rezone Plan Ordinance. Compliance with Land Use
Code standards, including relevant sections of SMC 23.48, would be determined through zoning review
of the building plans for the project. Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, OVG would make a mandatory
housing affordability payment to the City, as required by the City’s Land Use Code.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-20 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

KeyArena is a unique structure with use that is unlike the general type of structures and uses that are
contemplated when zoning standards are adopted for an area in the city, such as conventional
residential or commercial buildings. The existing KeyArena, 1st Ave N Garage, and Bressi Garage
structures and sites do not entirely conform to code under existing conditions. Accordingly, the project
would not conform with all general zoning development standards. Alternative 1 would require
variances, waivers, or departures for through-block pedestrian connection, surface parking lot
screening, landscaping standards, the number and width of curb cuts and driveways, atrium depth,
maximum setback for arena accessory structures, street‐level design features, and night‐time
construction, as well as other Land Use Code nonconformities described in Section 3.4. The variance
process and City Council Land Use Action process (SMC 23.76) are designed to provide flexibility in
development standards when a project is otherwise consistent with the spirit and purpose of the Land
Use Code. The proposed land use nonconformities are summarized in Table 3-7. A variance would also
be requested for night-time construction work under Title 25. Alternative 2 as proposed would not
require a noise variance.

Signage would change under both Alternatives 1 and 2, including new and larger digital and illuminated
signage. An amendment to Seattle’s sign regulations in the Land Use Code (SMC 23.55) is proposed,
creating a new Seattle Center sign overlay district and other changes that would regulate the number,
size, type, content, location, brightness, and operation of signs, including signage for the renovated
arena. The amendment would add specific requirements for the project site and the Northwest Rooms.
See Table G-1, Appendix G for a summary of the proposed changes. These proposed changes would
allow for more dynamic signage options at Seattle Center while limiting the effects that signs would
have on adjacent uses and the general public on and near Seattle Center. The sign code amendment
would allow an increase in the number of signs, increase the allowable sizes of signs, and allow larger
digital wall signs as described in Chapter 2. See Chapter 9, Visual Resources, for an analysis of the visual
and safety impacts of these signs. Alternative 2 would limit video display signs, and the size of the signs
on top of the arena would be similar to existing conditions.

Consistency with Land Use Code

The project is an allowable use in the SM-UP zone and would comply with most applicable use and
development standards. The No Action Alternative would not change any uses or structures; therefore,
a Land Use Code analysis is not required. Table 3-7 provides a summary of the current Land Use Code
sections that Alternative 1 would not comply with. These aspects of the project may be allowed through
variance approval or City Council Land Use Action pursuant to SMC 23.76.

City sign regulations (SMC 23.55) currently limit the number, size, type, illumination, video display,
commercial content, and other characteristics of signs associated with the arena. An amendment to
SMC 23.55 is proposed that would create a Seattle Center sign overlay district that would regulate the
number, size, type, content, brightness, location, and operation of signs, including signage for the
renovated arena, the Northwest Rooms, and the south parcel (see Appendix G). Chapter 9, Section
9.4.2, Table 9-1, and Figure 9-5 provide detailed information on the proposed signage and amendment.

Alternative 2 would need the same set of variances as Alternative 1, except no noise variance would be
needed. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would require a code amendment for signage. The
proposed amendment for Alternative 2 would reduce the potential safety impact associated with the
video display by requiring the sign to either eliminate the video component or face away from 1st Ave N,
and maintains the existing size and brightness of the signs atop the arena.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-21 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-7. Land Use Code Nonconformities for Alternatives 1 and 2

Proposed Variance or
Section Summary of Code
Land Use Code Amendment

SMC 23.54.030.F Limits the number and width of curb cuts Alternative 1: The curb cut on 1st Ave N for
Curb Cuts based on use, zone, and street classification. the driveway entrance to the access tunnel
Curb cuts for non-residential uses are and the new location for the driveway
generally limited to 25 feet in width to entrance to the 1st Ave N Garage on John St
accommodate 2-way traffic. A width of up to would not adhere to code and would require
30 feet may be allowed if necessary for safe variances.
access, or if truck and auto access are Alternative 2: Same as Alternative 1.
combined.

SMC 23.54.030.D Width limit for driveways. Alternative 1: Would exceed the driveway
Driveways width limit for the 1st Ave N tunnel access
driveway.
Alternative 2: Same as Alternative 1.

SMC 23.55 Limits the type, number, size, location, and Alternative 1: A sign code amendment has
Signs other aspects of signs. been proposed for the Seattle Center
campus to regulate signage (see Appendix
G).
Alternative 2: Alternative 2 includes a similar
amendment that would have less impacts.

SMC 23.48.740 Provides street-level development standards Alternative 1: New accessory structures set
Street Level that apply to all streets in the SM-UP zones. back from street exceed 12 feet, and the
Development The standards address street-facing façades, areas between those structures and the
Standards setbacks, required outdoor amenity spaces, street property line are not landscaped, and
and maximum usable space. the project requests modifications to
landscaping standards between the street
and front façades. Open space requirements
and pedestrian access requirements do not
meet code for the south portion of the site
because the project would not provide a
through-block pedestrian connection.
Alternative 2: Same as Alternative 1.

SMC 23.48.732 Provides allowable maximum width and Alternative 1: The existing arena does not
Width and Depth depth of structures in SM-UP zones. conform to the width and depth standards in
Standards this code provision. Adding the atrium
structure at the south façade of the arena
increases the depth or width of the structure
as measured from 1st Ave N or Thomas St
frontage.
Alternative 2: Same as Alternative 1.

SMC 23.48.755 Parking is not permitted at street level Alternative 1: The project requests
Surface parking lot unless it is screened from the street by other allowance for a reduction in screening of a
screening uses. surface parking lot.
Alternative 2: Same as Alternative 1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-22 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.7.4 Consistency with the Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan (2008)
Summary: The Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan as adopted by the City articulates a vision for the
future of Seattle Center over a 20-year period (Seattle Center, 2008). KeyArena is a major revenue
generator supporting Seattle Center’s operational expenses. The Century 21 Master Plan goals for the
KeyArena Zone (pages 28 and 29) include the following:

 KeyArena is a major revenue generator supporting Seattle Center.


 KeyArena will continue to be the premiere venue in Seattle for touring concerts and family
shows.
 KeyArena maintains its competitive edge among similar local venues and expands into new lines
of business in the future.
 The area encircling KeyArena is ripe for public/private partnerships.
Discussion: Under the No Action Alternative, KeyArena would continue to host programming unless a
different project is proposed in the future.

Both Alternatives 1 and 2 would fulfill many of the goals in the Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan,
including making improvements to the existing KeyArena building to enhance the building’s
performance systems, providing opportunities that could generate ongoing revenues for Seattle Center,
and maintaining a competitive edge among similar venues. Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the
Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 3-23 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.0 TRANSPORTATION
This chapter describes the potential effect of a renovation of
Key Findings for Transportation
KeyArena on the transportation system. A variety of travel
modes are addressed, including auto, freight, bicycles, Traffic conditions in the study area are
pedestrians, and transit. Parking, curb space management, and expected to worsen with or without the
safety are also analyzed. The chapter begins with the Methods arena renovation since a substantial
section, which describes the analysis methodologies and data amount of new development is
relied upon in the study. It then presents the Regulatory approved and forecasted in the area.
Context, which outlines various regulations and guidelines that In the near-term, the project would
govern traffic operations and construction activities. Next, the worsen traffic conditions, increase the
Affected Environment section is presented, which describes the demand for parking, and also cause
transportation system as it currently functions. The Potential localized impacts to non-auto modes.
Impacts section describes conditions under a No Action
Alternative and 2 renovation alternatives for the years 2020 A variety of mitigation measures, if
and 2035. The Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation implemented, would improve the
efficiency of the transportation network
Measures section describes potential approaches to mitigate
to accommodate project trips.
the impacts of the 2 arena renovation alternatives, and the final
Measures proposed include
section identifies impacts that are likely to be significant and implementation of an Arena Access
unavoidable. Management Plan (AAMP), a parking
reservation system, and construction of
Changes from the Draft EIS – Based on comments received on physical improvements near the project
the Draft EIS, this chapter of the Final EIS was revised as site.
follows:

 The Construction Impacts and Construction Mitigation sections were updated based on more
recent information regarding construction staging, haul routes, and transportation facility
closures.
 A discussion of 2025 mode share and an overview of potential impacts related to an increased
transit mode share have been added to Section 4.4.3, Operations Impacts.
 The operations analysis has been updated to include the integration of 6 additional study
intersections into the microsimulation model.

4.1 METHODS
The study area selected for the transportation impact analysis includes the intersections and corridors
most likely to be affected by project traffic, covering the area from Queen Anne Ave N to Interstate 5 (I-
5) and Roy St to roughly half a mile south of Denny Way (Figure 4-1). The pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and
parking analysis is more narrowly focused on the area surrounding the project site.

Data sources for the analysis include the following:


 SDOT – data on signal timings; parking supply and occupancy; freight, pedestrian, and bicycle
networks; and collisions. Planned capital projects from the City’s modal plans (Pedestrian,

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Bicycle, Freight, and Transit Master Plans) and project websites (City of Seattle 2017a, 2017b,
2016a, and 2016b, respectively).
 SDCI – current and planned land use development data (SDCI, 2016a, 2016b, 2017).
 Seattle Center – event attendance, Monorail ridership.
 King County Metro – route maps, frequencies and capacities, transit ridership.
 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) – planned improvements near the SR
99 North Tunnel Portal; timing of improvements.
 Traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle volume; corridor travel time; parking supply and occupancy data
collected for this analysis.
 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) – project travel demand model based on PSRC’s regional
travel demand model (PSRC, 2017; Fehr & Peers, 2018).
This chapter includes a multimodal analysis of project effects on the roadway, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian networks, as well as an evaluation of effects on freight and goods movement, ferry service,
roadway safety, and truck staging and loading. Traffic operations (vehicles, buses, pedestrians in
crosswalks, and bicycles crossing streets) were evaluated using micro-simulation software for
transportation operations.

The simulation was conducted using the Vissim and Synchro/SimTraffic software packages, which use
inputs that include current and future traffic/pedestrian/bicycle volumes, transit operations, and traffic
signal timings (Trafficware, 2014; PTV Group, 2017). These models were calibrated to reflect existing
conditions and then applied to the future year alternatives. Various data can be extracted from micro-
simulation models including average delay experienced by vehicles at intersections, corridor travel
times, bus travel times, interactions between pedestrians/bicycles at intersections, and queue lengths.
More details are found in Appendix C, Tech Memo 4, Affected Environment/Existing Conditions. In
addition, transit capacity, pedestrian capacity, bicycle facilities, and on-street and off-street parking
occupancy under existing and future conditions were evaluated.
The transportation analysis differs from the other chapters in this EIS in 2 important ways:
 Cumulative Condition: The transportation analysis is performed for years 2020 and 2035. Year
2020 is assumed to be the year of opening of the arena, and year 2035 provides a longer term
horizon year that is consistent with the City’s land use and transportation plans, as well as
regional plans including LINK light rail expansion. Both analysis years represent a cumulative
condition that includes background traffic growth and other planned transportation
improvements that would occur regardless of the proposed arena renovation project. This
background growth is included in all alternatives—the only difference between the No Action
Alternative and the action alternatives is the proposed project. Therefore, the difference
between the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 indicates the direct impacts of the
proposed project.
 Multiple Scenarios: The project is on the Seattle Center campus, which is home to many
attractions and venues with widely varying degrees of activity over the course of a year. To
reflect the spectrum of conditions in the study area, 2 scenarios are considered for each project
alternative: a day with Average Seattle Center Attendance (based on the 50th percentile of
Seattle Center attendance, i.e., attendance is below this level half of the time and above this
level half of the time), and a day with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance (based on the
90th percentile of Seattle Center attendance; i.e., 9 out of 10 days have attendance below this
level).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-1. Existing Roadway Network

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT


The project must comply with existing regulations and guidelines. Those that govern traffic operations
and construction activities within the transportation impact analysis study area are listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Regulations and Guidelines Applicable in the Study Area

Document or Regulation Name Description

Construction activities that affect the city’s transportation system are


subject to SDOT’s street use and construction use regulations. The City
Street Use Permits (SMC 15.04)
works with developers/contractors to ensure adequate use of the right-
of-way for transportation purposes during construction.

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Agreement between SDOT and Seattle Center regarding procedures to
for Event Curbside Management reserve right-of-way curb space for loading, unloading, and staging of
(SDOT and Seattle Center, 2011) vehicles for events at Seattle Center (including KeyArena).

Seattle Streets Illustrated, Right-of-


Provides design guidance, standards, and processes on how to design,
Way Improvements Manual (City of
build, and manage within the right-of-way.
Seattle, 2018)

Defines standards used by agencies nationwide to install and maintain


Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
traffic control devices on public streets, highways, bikeways, and private
Devices (MUTCD) (2009 with
roads open to public traffic. The MUTCD is a compilation of national
revisions incorporated 2012)
standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway
(Federal Highway Administration,
signs, and traffic signals. The MUTCD includes standards for signs,
2012)
flagging, and barricades in temporary construction work zones.

4.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


4.3.1 Study Area
The project site is on the west side of Seattle Center in the Uptown Urban Center, which is bordered by
Belltown to the south, South Lake Union to the east, Queen Anne to the north, and Elliott Bay to the
west. Transportation conditions in the study area reflect the area’s dense mixed-use urban setting with
a variety of available travel modes and congested conditions during peak hours. The transportation
impact analysis study area varies depending on mode, but generally stretches east to I-5, west to Queen
Anne Ave N, north to Roy St, and south to roughly a half-mile south of Denny Way. Because the study
area encompasses key routes used to access residential areas such as Uptown and Queen Anne, project-
related effects to travelers originating from or destined to these areas are considered in the analysis.

4.3.2 Traffic Operations


Figure 4-1 displays the existing roadway network in the study area. Regional access to the project site is
provided by I-5 and SR 99. The key surface streets that provide access to the project site are Mercer St,
Denny Way, 2nd Ave, 4th Ave, and the 1st Ave N/Queen Anne Ave N couplet. Both Mercer St and Denny
Way are major east-west arterials connecting the project site to I-5 to the east and Western Ave and
Elliott Ave to the west. Both corridors feature closely spaced signalized intersections. Denny Way and
Roy St also provide access from southbound SR 99.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Between Denny Way and Mercer St, 1st Ave N and Queen Anne Ave N operate as a 1-way couplet with
1st Ave N consisting of 2 northbound lanes (a third lane is added approaching Mercer St) and Queen
Anne Ave N consisting of 2 southbound lanes. These streets facilitate travel within Uptown and are also
prominent bus routes. South of Denny Way, the street grid shifts to a northwest/southeast orientation.
Some streets allow 2-way travel while others are 1-way only.

The City designates Denny Way, Mercer St, and SR 99 as major truck streets and Broad St and 5th Ave N
as minor truck streets (SDOT, 2018). Major truck streets serve as primary routes for movement of goods
and services; they accommodate significant freight movement through the City, and to and from major
freight traffic generators. Minor truck streets provide secondary connections to major truck streets,
tend to carry lower volumes of trucks, and may have more restrictions in terms of oversized vehicles.

Construction is underway to replace the Battery St Tunnel and the elevated Alaskan Way Viaduct with a
new tolled tunnel with access points north and south of Downtown. New street connections across the
existing SR 99 will be constructed east of the project site. These improvements will be complete by
2020, and are assumed in the Opening Day (2020) conditions analysis. See Appendix C, Tech Memo 3,
Year 2020 and 2035 Background Transportation Network for full details of the transportation network
assumptions.

Figure 4-2 displays the study area including the 65 existing intersections chosen for analysis for each of
the following 3 “peak hour” analysis periods:

 Weekday from 5:30 to 6:30 PM (Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour) – Represents the pre-event
peak hour for a future scenario that evaluates a sold-out 18,350-person NBA Basketball Game
that starts at 7 PM. NHL hockey games would have slightly less seating capacity than a
basketball game, but similar travel characteristics based on observations by Fehr & Peers at
other urban arenas that host NHL hockey including facilities in San Jose, California and
Washington, DC.
 Weekday from 9:30 to 10:30 PM (Weekday Post-Event Peak Hour) – Represents the post-event
peak hour for a future scenario that evaluates a sold-out 18,350-person NBA Basketball Game
that starts at 7 PM. NHL hockey games would have slightly less seating capacity than a
basketball game, but similar travel characteristics.
 Saturday from 6:00 to 7:00 PM (Saturday Pre-Event Peak Hour) – Represents the pre-event
peak hour for a future scenario that evaluates a sold-out 19,125-person concert that starts at
7:30 PM. Post-event traffic on Saturday is not analyzed because the results are expected to be
similar to the weekday post-event condition.
These 3 analysis periods were selected based on traffic volume counts in the study area and event
arrival patterns at KeyArena and other comparable venues; additional information is found in Appendix
C, Tech Memo 1, Selection of Time Periods.

The revised design of the arena includes slightly different seating capacities than were studied in the
Draft EIS. The design includes 250 more seats for NBA sporting events (18,600 now proposed), 200
fewer seats for NHL sporting events (17,300 now proposed), and 325 fewer seats for concerts (18,800
now proposed). Because the reduction in seating capacity for NHL and concert events does not increase
the impacts that were studied in the Draft EIS, no additional analysis is warranted as a result of those
reductions. The increase in seating capacity for NBA games from 18,350 seats to 18,600 is an increase of
1.4% and is not expected to substantially change the nature of impacts described in the Draft EIS.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-2. Study Intersections

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Final EIS includes a supplemental evaluation of the seating capacity change for NBA games; see the
Modified Arena Seating Capacity Evaluation in Section 4.4.3.
During the pre-event peak hour, substantial recurring congestion is present in both directions of I-5 and
SR 99. Eastbound traffic on Mercer St queues back to 5th Ave N due to congestion on I-5 and high
volumes of vehicles joining the corridor at key cross streets. Similar conditions exist in the eastbound
direction of Denny Way. The off-ramp from northbound I-5 to Mercer St can also be busy in the
weekday pre-event peak hour because of the sharp curve and limited sight distance in the tunnel under
the southbound lanes. While busy, no other off-ramps in the study area experience congestion in the
weekday pre-event peak hour or the other study time periods.
Intersection operations were measured using the intersection Level of Service (LOS) scale that ranges
from LOS A (which represents minimal delay) to LOS F (which represents high delay and severe
congestion). LOS is defined by the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual – HCM (Transportation Research
Board, 2010). Table 4-2 displays the range of delays corresponding to each LOS grade. For this analysis,
the average delay and LOS at signalized intersections are the weighted average of all vehicles passing
through a given intersection (i.e., on all approaches of the intersection). For side-street stop sign-
controlled intersections, the average delay and LOS are reported for the worst minor street movement.
For all-way stop intersections, the average delay and LOS are reported for the entire intersection.
Average delay values are rounded to the nearest integer.
Table 4-2. Level of Service (LOS) and Delay Thresholds for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections

Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections


LOS
Delay per Vehicle (seconds) Delay per Vehicle (seconds)

A < 10 < 10

B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15

C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25

D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35

E > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50

F > 80 > 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010).

All study intersections along and north of Denny Way were analyzed using the Vissim micro-simulation
model. This software program considers numerous roadway conditions (e.g., volumes, signal timings,
lane utilization, pedestrian flows, transit vehicles, blockages caused by pick-up/drop-off activity, etc.), all
of which influence traffic operations. The model underwent a thorough validation process to accurately
replicate existing conditions such as the back of the vehicle queue on eastbound Mercer St, flow rates
onto I-5, and average travel times/speeds. Study intersections south of Denny Way were analyzed using
Synchro/SimTraffic due to their specific conditions (i.e., level of traffic, congestion, pre-timed/
coordinated conditions, etc.). Additional detail is found in Appendix C, Tech Memo 4, Affected
Environment/Existing Conditions.
Table 4-3 summarizes the existing average delay and LOS by location for the 3 analysis periods. Traffic
counts were collected in September and October 2017 and May 2018 on dates identified by Seattle

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Center and SDOT staff as representative of typical activity at Seattle Center. These dates did not include
an event at KeyArena so the LOS results presented here represent conditions without arena activity.
Additional detail is found in Appendix C, Tech Memo 4, Affected Environment/Existing Conditions.

Table 4-3. Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions

Number of Intersections

Corridor / Number of Level of Weekday Weekday Saturday


Description Pre-Event Post-Event Pre-Event
Subarea Intersections Service
5:30–6:30 9:30–10:30 6:00–7:00
PM PM PM
D or better 11 16 16
From Elliott Ave
Mercer St
W to Fairview 16 E 3 0 0
Corridor
Ave N (Inclusive)
F 2 0 0

From Queen D or better 5 9 7


Anne Ave N to
Roy St Corridor 9 E 2 0 2
Fairview Ave N
(Inclusive) F 2 0 0

Between (but D or better 8 8 8


Queen Anne
not including)
Ave N and 1st 8 E 0 0 0
Denny Way and
Ave N Couplet
Mercer St F 0 0 0

Between (not D or better 5 5 5


5th Ave N and including)
5 E 0 0 0
Broad St Denny Way and
Mercer St) F 0 0 0

From Western D or better 11 14 14


Denny Way Ave W to
15 E 1 1 1
Corridor Stewart St
(Inclusive) F 3 0 0

D or better 11 12 12

Other Various 1 12 E 1 0 0

F 0 0 0

D or better 51 64 62

Total 65 E 7 1 3

F 7 0 0
1. Includes
intersections in Belltown, Downtown, and near I-5 (on Yale Ave and Howell St).
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018, based on data collected in September and October 2017. Results from VISSIM and SimTraffic analyzed
using the methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010).

Figure 4-3 shows the intersections operating below the City’s LOS threshold (LOS E or F for signalized
intersections, and LOS F for unsignalized intersections).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-3. Intersection Level of Service – Existing Weekday Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Because overall intersection delay is averaged among all approaches for signalized intersections (as
shown in Table 4-3), delay results may not align with a driver’s experience driving the corridor since they
are traveling on a single approach. Figure 4-4 shows the directional LOS along eastbound and
westbound Denny Way and Mercer St for weekday pre-event conditions.

As shown, the eastbound approaches are routinely in the LOS F range, while westbound approaches are
typically at LOS C or better, which represents relatively uncongested travel toward Seattle Center and
KeyArena. This occurs as a result of traffic congestion on I-5, which limits the flow of traffic onto the
freeway from the eastbound travel directions on Mercer St and Denny Way. Some blocks reflect better
directional LOS than may be expected with the congested conditions; this is because the delay is spread
among multiple closely spaced signals.

The congested conditions on eastbound Mercer St and Denny Way between 5th Ave N and I-5 result in
substantial queuing on some side-street approaches to those corridors. Observations revealed
substantial queues in the southbound left-turn and northbound right-turn lanes along Mercer St at
Dexter Ave N, 9th Ave N, Westlake Ave N, Terry Ave N, Boren Ave, and Fairview Ave N. Substantial
queues were also observed on side-streets approaching Denny Way including Aurora Ave N, Battery St,
Westlake Ave N, Fairview Ave N, and on all approaches at the closely spaced Denny Way/Stewart St and
Yale Ave/Stewart Ave intersections.

The LOS results for intersections along the 1st Ave N and Queen Anne Ave N couplet show less
congestion than the intersections farther to the east. This is principally because the queuing that stems
from I-5 congestion generally does not reach that far west into Uptown.

Collision Analysis
Collision history data provided by SDOT at the study intersections is summarized in Table 4-4. The total
number of collisions and the annual average collisions from October 2014 through October 2017 are
shown. The table lists collisions that were injury-related, those involving bicyclists or pedestrians, and
the most common collision type. None of the reported collisions caused a fatality.

The City designates intersections as “high collision locations” if there are an average of 10 or more
reported collisions per year for signalized intersections or an average of 5 or more reported collisions
per year for unsignalized intersections. Intersections with this designation are targeted for future safety
improvements to reduce the frequency of collisions.

Based on the reported collision data, none of the study intersections reached the collision frequency
threshold to be considered a high collision location. The Mercer St/Fairview Ave N, 5th Ave/Olive Way,
Mercer St/Queen Anne Ave N, Denny Way/Stewart St, and Denny Way/Dexter Ave N signalized
intersections each averaged 6 or 7 collisions over the 3-year period. The highest number of collisions
involving bicyclists or pedestrians occurred at the Mercer St/Queen Anne Ave and Denny Way/Westlake
Ave N intersections.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-4. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – Existing Weekday
Pre-Event Peak Hour (5:30–6:30 PM) Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-4. Intersection Collision History


Most Common
Number of Collisions
Collision Type 2
3- Year Totals
ID Intersection 1 Average
Per Involving
Total Injury
Year Pedestrians or
Collisions Collisions
Bicyclists
1 Mercer St/Queen Anne Ave N 6 19 9 7 Pedestrian
2 Mercer St/1st Ave N 2 5 4 2 Pedestrian
3 Mercer St/Warren Ave N 2 7 2 1 Left Turn
4 Mercer St/2nd Ave N 2 5 3 1 NA
5 Mercer St/3rd Ave N 1 4 1 0 Rear Ended
6 Mercer St/4th Ave N 2 7 4 1 Angles
7 Mercer St/5th Ave N 3 8 3 2 Sideswipe
8 Mercer St/6th Ave N None Reported
9 Mercer St/Dexter Ave N 1 3 0 0 NA
10 Mercer St/9th Ave N 4 11 4 3 Bicycles, Angles
11 Mercer St/Westlake Ave N 3 9 1 0 Angles
12 Mercer St/Terry Ave N 2 7 4 3 Pedestrian
13 Mercer St/Boren Ave N 1 2 1 1 NA
14 Mercer St/Fairview Ave N 7 22 7 2 Left Turn
15 Queen Anne Ave N/Republican St 1 3 1 1 NA
16 1st Ave N/Republican St 1 3 1 1 NA
17 5th Ave N/Republican St None Reported
18 Queen Anne Ave N/Harrison St 1 3 0 0 Left Turn
19 1st Ave N/Harrison St 2 6 0 1 Left Turn
20 5th Ave N/Harrison St 0 1 1 0 Left Turn
21 Queen Anne Ave N/Thomas St (U) 1 2 1 0 NA
22 1st Ave N/Thomas St (U) 3 9 1 1 Angles
th
23 5 Ave N/Thomas St/Broad St 1 3 2 1 Other
24 Queen Anne Ave N/John St (U) 1 4 1 0 Angles
25 1st Ave N/John St (U) 1 3 2 1 NA
26 Broad St/John St None Reported
27 5th Ave N/John St (U) 1 4 1 0 Angles, Left Turn
Denny Way/Queen Anne Ave
28 2 6 2 1 Sideswipe
N/Western Ave
29 Denny Way/1st Ave N 2 7 0 1 Sideswipe
30 Denny Way/Warren Ave N (U) 2 6 3 0 Angles, Left Turn
31 Denny Way/2nd Ave N3 2 5 2 0 Angles
32 Denny Way/Broad St 1 2 1 0 Angles
33 Denny Way/5th Ave N 4 13 4 2 Angles
34 Denny Way/Taylor Ave N 0 1 1 1 Angles
35 Denny Way/6th Ave N 1 3 0 0 NA
36 Denny Way/Aurora Ave N/7th Ave 4 12 2 1 Angles

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Most Common
Number of Collisions
Collision Type 2
3- Year Totals
ID Intersection 1 Average
Per Involving
Total Injury
Year Pedestrians or
Collisions Collisions
Bicyclists
37 Denny Way/Dexter Ave N 6 17 5 4 Left Turn
38 Denny Way/Bell St/9th Ave N 2 6 4 0 Angles, Right Turn
39 Denny Way/Westlake Ave N 4 12 8 6 Pedestrian
40 Denny Way/Fairview Ave N 4 12 2 0 Angles, Left Turn
41 Denny Way/Stewart St 6 17 7 5 Left Turn
42 Yale Ave/Stewart St 3 10 3 1 Left Turn
43 Broad St/2nd Ave 3 10 7 1 Angles
44 6th Ave/Battery St None Reported
45 6th Ave/Bell St 0 1 1 1 Pedestrian
46 Yale Ave/Howell St/I-5 SB on-ramp 1 4 1 1 NA
47 4th Ave/Battery St 4 12 4 0 Angles
Left Turn,
48 6th Ave/Olive Way 3 9 3 1
Sideswipe
49 5th Ave/Stewart St 3 9 2 0 Angles
50 5th Ave/Olive Way 7 21 5 1 Left Turn
51 4th Ave/Olive Way 1 4 1 1 Sideswipe
52 2nd Ave/Virginia St 3 10 6 1 Angles
53 2nd Ave/Stewart St 4 11 2 2 Sideswipe
54 Queen Anne Ave N/Roy St 1 3 0 0 NA
55 1st Ave N/Roy St None Reported
56 3rd Ave N/Roy St 1 3 3 3 Bicycles
57 4th Ave N/Roy St 0 1 0 0 Left Turn
58 5th Ave N/Roy St 1 2 1 1 NA
70 Mercer St/Taylor Ave N 3 9 5 3 Angles
71 W Mercer Pl/Elliott Ave W 2 5 1 0 Sideswipe
72 Roy St/Dexter Ave N 2 6 3 3 Bicycles
73 Roy St/9th Ave N 3 9 4 1 Angles
74 Valley St/Westlake Ave N 1 4 3 2 Bicycles
75 Valley St/Fairview Ave N 1 4 0 0 Other
1. Intersections 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 30 are unsignalized (U).
2. “Angles” are multi-vehicle collisions in which the vehicles collide at an angle (most often head-on). “Pedestrian” are when a motor vehicle
strikes a pedestrian. “NA” means no single common collision type.
3. The Denny Way/2nd Ave N intersection was reconfigured in late 2017 to convert 1 of the southbound receiving lanes into a bicycle lane.

Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018 based on data provided by SDOT.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Curb Space Management


Figure 4-5 displays a block-by-block inventory of the currently permitted usage of curb space along the
frontage of Seattle Center. This includes both sides of the street along 1st Ave N, Warren Ave N, Mercer
St, 4th Ave N, Republican St, 5th Ave N, Broad St, Denny Way, 2nd Ave N, and Thomas St. The figure shows
the permitted usage of curb space for a weekday evening; Saturday evening restrictions are generally
the same as weekdays with minor exceptions. Several signs along 1st Ave N and Thomas St have curb
space signage that expire or transition at 6:00 PM, but Figure 4-5 is generally representative of curb
space restrictions starting at the 5:30 PM pre-event analysis period. This figure shows that a variety of
different curb space uses are designated including:
 Loading/unloading zones
 King County Metro (Metro) bus stops and layover areas
 Passenger loading/unloading only
 Charter bus parking
 School bus parking
 Designated disabled parking
 2-hour metered parking (expires at 6:00 PM)
 4-hour metered parking (expires at 8:00 PM)
 Taxi zones
 Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) parking
 Unpaid, unrestricted parking
 Unpaid, time-limited parking
Figure 4-5 indicates that passenger loading/unloading (from private vehicles, ridehailing or
Transportation Network Companies [TNCs] such as Uber and Lyft, or taxis) is permitted along portions of
1st Ave N, 2nd Ave N, and Mercer St. Parking is prohibited along the vast majority of 5th Ave N, Broad St,
and Denny Way. Time limits and paid parking are not in effect on Sundays.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Seattle Center and SDOT describes the process to
reserve curb space on specific streets for the purposes of loading, unloading, and staging events at
Seattle Center (SDOT and Seattle Center, 2011). The term of the MOA is indefinite unless amended or
replaced by agreement of both parties. The MOA allows curb space reservations along a number of
streets around Seattle Center including Thomas St, Republican St, Roy St, Warren Ave N, and 2nd Ave N,
as shown in Figure 4-5. Due to channelization changes on Roy St since the MOA was signed, Roy St is no
longer used for truck staging, thereby increasing the loading, unloading, and staging demand on the
remaining MOA streets. Bus/truck staging activities have priority over all other uses of the curbs covered
by the MOA.

4.3.3 Transit Routes and Operations


The proximity of the project site to the Downtown Seattle core transit network allows for access to a
range of local and regional transit services. This section describes the existing transit services within the
study area, including fixed route bus, Monorail, streetcar, light rail, and ferry facilities and services.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fixed Route Bus Service


King County Metro is the primary operator of fixed route bus services in the vicinity of the project site.
Figure 4-6 illustrates the existing fixed route bus services within the study area. As shown in Figure 4-6,
buses operate north-south along the 1st Ave N / Queen Anne Ave N couplet immediately west of the
project site. East-west bus service is present on Denny Way and on Mercer St west of 1st Ave N. Several
roadways accommodate north-south bus service through the study area, including Elliott Ave W, 5th Ave
N, 3rd Ave, and Aurora Ave N. Table 4-5 summarizes the existing weekday, Saturday, and Sunday
frequency and span of service for Metro bus routes in the study area.

Metro and the City are collaborating on the implementation of additional RapidRide lines (RapidRide
Lines C, D, and E are already in operation in or near the study area). RapidRide bus routes provide
service at least every 10 minutes during the morning and evening peak periods and also provide late
night and early morning service every day of the week. RapidRide buses allow faster boarding than
typical buses (through off-board payment and boarding through multiple doors) and often travel along
routes with transit priority treatments. Metro is planning to have RapidRide H (Burien–Downtown
Seattle) in service by 2020; Madison Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is currently scheduled to open in 2021. By
2035, an additional 5 RapidRide lines would be in service (Roosevelt, Rainier, Market, Fremont, and
23rd), several of which would serve South Lake Union and/or Downtown.

Figure 4-7 displays bus services and individual stop locations in the Seattle Center vicinity. Denny Way
carries the highest bus volumes in the vicinity, with 71 weekday pre-event peak hour bus trips
(eastbound and westbound combined) on the segment between Western Ave and 3rd Ave. The Queen
Anne Ave N and 1st Ave N couplet also accommodates high bus volumes, with 32 weekday pre-event
peak hour bus trips on each roadway (64 total peak hour trips).

As shown in Figure 4-7, existing bus stops in the vicinity of the project site are located on Queen Anne
Ave N, 1st Ave N, 5th Ave N, and Denny Way. Some bus stops have pullouts while others stop in the travel
lane. Shelters and benches are provided at many, but not all, locations. Buses along Denny Way often
experience congestion. To address this situation, a bus-only queue bypass lane will be implemented in
2018 on eastbound Denny Way between Fairview Ave N and Stewart St. This project is included in the
Opening Day (2020) conditions analysis. Refer to Appendix C, Tech Memo 3, Year 2020 and 2035
Background Transportation Network, for details.

Fixed Bus Route Capacity

Fixed bus route capacity was evaluated for all routes with stops within one- Passenger load is the
quarter mile of the project site. Reserve capacity was calculated based on number of passengers on
the existing service levels, vehicle types, and ridership levels. This analysis a bus at a single location
was conducted for 2 locations along each route: at Seattle Center and at or point in time.
the point on the route with the maximum passenger load. Details are Accounting for both
presented in Appendix C, Tech Memo 4, Affected Environment/Existing seated and standing
Conditions. Under non-event conditions, all of the Metro routes in the passengers, a crush load
study area have reserve capacity (i.e., room for additional passengers) at is defined as the
Seattle Center and at the route’s maximum passenger load point on passenger load exceeding
weekdays during the pre- and post-event analysis periods (King County either 125% or 150%
Metro, 2017). (depending on bus type)
of the seated capacity of
the bus.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-18 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-5. Existing Weekday/Saturday Evening Curb Space Permitted Usage

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-19 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-5. Fixed Route Bus Services in the Study Area – Existing Conditions

Weekday Saturday Sunday


Metro
Route Description
Service Type Frequency (Peak/ Frequency (Peak/ Frequency (Peak/
Span of Service Span of Service Span of Service
Off-Peak) Off-Peak) Off-Peak)

1 Kinnear to Downtown Very Frequent 15/20 5 AM–1 AM 20/20 6 AM–1 AM 30/30 5:30 AM–1 AM
2/13 SPU to Downtown to Madrona Park Very Frequent 10/15 4:30 AM–2 AM 15/15 5 AM–2 AM 15/15 5:30 AM–2 AM
3/4 SPU to Downtown to Judkins Park Frequent 10/15 4 AM–3:30 AM 15/15 4 AM–3:30 AM 30/30 4 AM–3:30 AM
5 Shoreline CC to Greenwood to Downtown Very Frequent 12/15 24 hrs 15/15 24 hrs 15/15 24 hrs
8 Mt. Baker TC to Cap. Hill to Seattle Center Very Frequent 10/12 5 AM– 1 AM 15/15 5:30 AM–1 AM 20/20 6 AM–1 AM
19 West Magnolia to Downtown Peak 20/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
24 West Magnolia to Downtown Local 15/30 5 AM–1 AM 30/30 6 AM–1 AM 30/30 6 AM–1 AM
29 Ballard to SPU to Downtown Peak 15/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
32 Magnolia to Fremont to University District Local 15/30 6 AM–1 AM 15/30 6 AM–1:30 AM 30/30 6 AM–1 AM
33 Discovery Park to Downtown Local 30/30 5 AM–12 AM 30/30 6 AM–11 PM 30/30 6 AM–11 PM
40 Northgate TC to Ballard to Downtown Very Frequent 8/15 5 AM–2 AM 15/15 6 AM– 2 AM 15/15 6 AM–2 AM
62 Sand Point to Green Lake to Downtown Peak 10/15 5 AM–2 AM 15/15 6 AM–2 AM 15/15 6 AM–2 AM
63 Northgate TC to Cherry Hill Peak 20/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
70 University District to Eastlake to Downtown Very Frequent 10/15 24 hrs 15/15 24 hrs 15/15 24 hrs
5X Shoreline CC to Greenwood to Downtown Peak 12/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
15X Blue Ridge to Crown Hill to Downtown Peak 10/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
17X Sunset Hill to Ballard to Downtown Peak 15/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
18X North Beach to Ballard to Downtown Peak 15/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
26X Northgate TC to Green Lake to Downtown Peak 10/30 5 AM–2 AM 30/30 6:30 AM–2 AM 30/30 6:30 AM–2 AM
28X Broadview/Carkeek Park to Downtown Peak 10/30 5 AM– 1 AM 30/30 6 AM–1 AM 30/30 6 AM–1 AM
64X Jackson Park to Cherry Hill Peak 20/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
309X Kenmore P&R to First Hill Peak 30/-- Peak Only -- -- -- --
C Line Westwood Village to South Lake Union RapidRide 6/12 24 hrs 12/12 24 hrs 15/15 24 hrs
D Line Crown Hill to Ballard to Uptown to RapidRide 8/12 24 hrs 12/12 24 hrs 15/15 24 hrs
Downtown
E Line Aurora Village to Downtown RapidRide 5/10 24 hrs 12/12 24 hrs 15/15 24 hrs
All frequencies shown in minutes. SPU = Seattle Pacific University; TC = Transit Center; CC = Community College; P&R = Park and Ride.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018. Ridership data provided by King County Metro for spring 2016 (King County Metro, 2017).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-21 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-6. Existing Regional Transit Routes in the Study Area

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-23 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-7. Existing Bus Routes and Stops Near the Project Site

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-25 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The amount of reserve capacity varies by route and direction, particularly during the pre-event peak
hour when bus routes serving evening commuters leaving Downtown have less reserve capacity than
those traveling in the opposite direction toward Downtown. During the late evening hours, fewer buses
operate and the frequency of trips is lower when compared to the pre-event peak hour. This reduction
in frequency corresponds with a decrease in available reserve capacity for outbound bus service leaving
the study area during the post-event peak hour. Metro’s data reflect the average peak loading during
the peak hour. Some buses would be full and pass-up passengers during the peak hour, but Metro data
indicate that over the entire peak hour there is reserve capacity on all routes serving the Seattle Center
area. See Appendix C, Tech Memo 4, Affected Environment/Existing Conditions, for details of existing
peak hour trips, total capacity, and reserve ridership capacity by route.

Streetcar
As shown in Figure 4-6, the South Lake Union Line of the Seattle Streetcar operates along Westlake Ave
N and Terry Ave N between Westlake Station and the South Lake Union neighborhood. This line is about
two-thirds of a mile east of the project site. On weekdays, the line operates with a 10-minute frequency
from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and a 15-minute frequency from 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM to 9:00
PM (11:00 PM on Fridays). On weekends, the frequency is 15 minutes running from 6:00 AM to 11:00
PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. In general, the streetcar carries
moderate ridership and is not typically overloaded.

Monorail
Monorail service is available between Seattle Center and Westlake Station in Downtown Seattle, as
depicted in Figure 4-6. At Seattle Center, passengers can board and alight (exit) the Monorail
approximately 1,000 feet east of the project site (less than a 5-minute walk). Typical operations include
service every 10 minutes from 7:30 AM to 11:00 PM. The Monorail alignment carries passengers along a
grade-separated track between the 2 termini. The 1-way travel time is less than 2 minutes, with an
additional 2 minutes of dwell time at each terminus for passenger boardings and alightings. For large
events, Monorail service can be ramped up to 5-minute frequencies, providing capacity for
approximately 3,000 passengers per hour (250 passengers per train) in each direction. The actual
volume of Monorail boardings varies considerably depending on the time of the year and level of
activities at Seattle Center. For instance, daily boardings on days without large events at Seattle Center
ranged from 10,000 to 16,000 persons in late July 2016 to 3,000 to 9,000 persons in late April 2016.
Anecdotally, ridership on the Monorail increases during large Seattle Center events, although exact
figures vary due to the range of events at the campus. Riding the Monorail currently requires a separate
ticket purchase. However, the City is working with the Monorail operator on a plan to integrate the
Monorail into the ORCA (One Regional Card for All) fare system.

Light Rail
Sound Transit operates LINK light rail service between the University of Washington and Angle Lake in
SeaTac, with a total of 16 stations. Typical operations include 6-minute peak frequencies and 10- to 15-
minute off-peak frequencies, 7 days a week, with service available between 5:00 AM and 1:00 AM. Off-
peak and weekend service details are as follows:

 Weekday service frequencies drop to every 10 minutes beginning at 6:30 PM and to every 15
minutes beginning at 10:00 PM.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-26 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Saturday service is available from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM, with 10-minute frequencies until 10:00
PM, at which point headways drop to every 15 minutes.
 Sunday service is available from 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM, with 10-minute frequencies provided
until 10:00 PM, at which point headways drop to every 15 minutes.
Currently, the station nearest the project site is Westlake Station, about 1.1 miles to the south. At
Westlake Station, light rail riders may transfer to the south Monorail terminus or use a variety of fixed
route bus services to connect to the arena.

Sound Transit 3 (ST3), the ballot measure passed in November 2016 to expand the regional transit
system, will extend the light rail system to West Seattle and Tacoma by 2030 and to Ballard by 2035
(Sound Transit, 2016). The Ballard extension will include a station planned in close proximity to
KeyArena. Construction of Sound Transit 2 (ST2) projects is already underway with light rail extensions
north to Lynnwood, south to Federal Way, and east to Redmond scheduled to open by 2024. As the ST2
light rail extensions open, Seattle Center visitors from a broad regional area would be able to travel via
light rail to Westlake Station and complete their trip to Seattle Center using the Monorail or other
modes.

Ferry and Water Taxi Service


Figure 4-8 displays the ferry and water taxi/passenger-only ferry routes. Washington State Ferries
operates a fleet of ferries from Colman Dock in Downtown Seattle, about 1.5 miles from the project site.
Existing ferry service from Downtown Seattle (serving both walk-on passengers and vehicles) serves
Bremerton and Bainbridge Island. Ferries often reach vehicle carrying capacities during summer months,
particularly during pre-event times, but in the outbound (leaving Seattle) direction. Ferries have high
passenger capacities and rarely are overloaded. Metro operates 2 passenger-only water taxis from
Downtown Seattle, serving Vashon Island and West Seattle. A separate passenger-only ferry operated by
Kitsap Transit serves Bremerton. The Kitsap ferry experiences high outbound demand in the pre-event
period and operates on a reservation system. However, the inbound trip is generally not full in the
afternoons. Passenger-only ferry service between Kingston and Downtown Seattle is planned to begin in
late 2018 and passenger-only ferry service between Southworth and Downtown Seattle is planned to
begin in summer 2020.

4.3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities


The project site is in a dense urban area with relatively high pedestrian and bicycle mode shares (the
proportion of travel by those modes). This section summarizes the pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the
vicinity of Seattle Center.

Bicycle Network
Existing bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 4-9 and consist of multi-use off-street trails, protected off-
street bicycle lanes (2-way), protected in-street bicycle lanes, in-street bicycle lanes, and sharrows (a
pavement marking indicating that the roadway is shared by both vehicles and bicycles). A number of
other bicycle facilities and amenities are located within the project vicinity including bicycle crosswalks,
bicycle signals, bicycle signal detection, and green skip-striping (to indicate areas of potential conflict) of
on-street lanes through intersections and across driveways. Bicycling is permitted across the Seattle
Center campus. Bicycle racks with a capacity to accommodate approximately 95 bicycles are provided
adjacent to KeyArena along the west, north, and east sides.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-27 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-8. Existing Ferry and Water Taxi Routes

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-28 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-9. Existing Bicycle Network

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-29 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Racks accommodating roughly 20 bicycles are located a short distance away (across 1st Ave N and near
the Armory). During crowded festival conditions, Seattle Center adds bicycle corrals at the perimeter of
the campus for additional bicycle storage.

The bicycle network in the vicinity of Seattle Center is well developed along some corridors. Good
connectivity is provided between Seattle Center and the Dexter Ave N bicycle facilities via the Mercer St
protected off-street bicycle lanes. Additionally, bicycle connectivity to the east will be enhanced by the
reconnection of John St, Thomas St, and Harrison St across SR 99 to Dexter Ave N in 2020 after the SR 99
Tunnel project opens. An additional proposal for a trail, known as Lake to Bay, would connect Lake
Union to Elliott Bay with connections along 5th Ave N, Broad St, and Thomas St on the periphery and
through the Seattle Center campus. Portions of this trail are complete, such as the section along Mercer
St between 5th Ave N and Dexter Ave; portions are on the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) Implementation
Plan (SDOT, 2017b), such as the protected bicycle lane along Broad St between 5th Ave N and the Elliott
Bay Trail; and portions of the trail are not yet planned.

1st Ave N and Queen Anne Ave N are key north-south connectors with in-street bicycle lanes. Preferred
bicycle routes connecting to Downtown include 2nd Ave, 6th Ave, and 7th Ave due to the designated
spaces for bicycle travel. Roy St connects bicycle trips to and from the east, but bicyclists must divert
south to the Mercer St underpass to cross SR 99. East of SR 99, Roy St connects to the Dexter Ave N in-
street bicycle lanes and Westlake Ave N off-street 2-way protected bicycle lane, which are key routes to
neighborhoods north of the Ship Canal and into Downtown.

Dexter Ave N carries substantial volumes of bicyclists during peak periods given its connectivity between
Downtown and residential areas to the north, as well as convenient and comfortable bicycling facilities.
It also provides access to the protected off-street bicycle lane on Mercer St to the west. Bicyclists often
have difficulties crossing Mercer St during peak periods due to vehicles that block intersections (despite
the presence of “Do Not Block Intersection” signs).

Three bike share companies operate in the City; 1 of the companies offers electric-assisted bikes in
addition to regular bicycles. All operate with a dock-less set-up, meaning bicycles are available
throughout many parts of the city and can be used through a mobile app. Bicycles can be rented for $1
to $4 per hour. Bike share bicycles are sometimes parked/stored outside of the sidewalk’s furniture
zone (the area between the curb and the through zone where street furniture and amenities are
located), which can affect pedestrian flows during busy periods.

Protected bicycle lanes recently opened on 2nd Ave south of Denny Way. The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan
Implementation Plan 2017–2021 (April 2017) includes a variety of new facilities in the project vicinity.
Bicycle lanes are planned on Thomas St east of 5th Ave N with a connecting bicycle facility along the Vine
St/Taylor Ave/Taylor Ave N corridor. Protected bicycle lanes are planned for portions of 1st Ave N, Queen
Anne Ave N, 8th Ave, 9th Ave, Roy St, Dexter Ave N, 4th Ave, Broad St, Bell St and/or Blanchard St, and
Alaskan Way.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-30 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pedestrian Network
The pedestrian network surrounding Seattle Center is very well developed as shown on Figure 4-10. This
figure also displays the various pedestrian access routes used to enter/exit Seattle Center. The vast
majority of streets have complete sidewalks, although some sidewalks are temporarily closed due to
adjacent property construction. Intersections near Seattle Center and on main arterials have crosswalks.
Some signalized crosswalks are activated by pedestrian push buttons while others operate on auto recall
(i.e., operate each phase regardless of a pedestrian call). Pedestrian countdown signals (equipment at an
intersection that includes a display counting down the number of seconds remaining in the pedestrian
flashing “don’t walk” phase) are provided at many signalized intersections.

Many sidewalks have street signs, tree wells, bus shelters, parked vehicle encroachment (i.e., vehicles
overhanging the sidewalk), and other features that limit the effective width of the walkway. Some
intersections have curb bulbs to expand waiting areas for pedestrians, while others are more limited in
size. Within Seattle Center, many sidewalks and walking paths accommodate travel through the campus
and to the venues within the campus.

4.3.5 Parking
The parking study area was defined based on the expected distance that typical arena visitors would be
willing to walk from their vehicle, based on experience with other urban arena projects and knowledge
of the neighborhood. Figure 4-11 shows the supply of on-street and off-street parking within the parking
study area. Parking supply data were collected from a variety of sources including SDOT and Seattle
Center (SDOT, 2017a; Seattle Center, 2017a). The data shown on Figure 4-11 represent parking that is
currently expected to be open to the general public during a typical evening event. For off-street
locations, garages or lots consisting of 50 spaces or greater were surveyed. A number of smaller garages
and surface lots also serve the study area. Additional parking is provided around South Lake Union as
well as in garages south of Denny Way, although those locations require walking a greater distance to
reach the project site. By 2020, additional parking garages are expected to be constructed along the
Dexter Ave N corridor, which could provide additional parking opportunities for arena attendees.

Figure 4-11 indicates there are 8,229 publicly available parking spaces in the parking study area. Off-
street lots/garages represent 62% of the total parking supply. The 3 garages operated by Seattle Center
(Mercer St Garage, 1st Ave N Garage, and 5th Ave N Garage) consist of a combined 2,944 spaces, which is
58% of the total off-street supply shown on Figure 4-11.

Figure 4-12 and Table 4-6 display the estimated evening peak parking occupancy for a typical weekday
when an event is not being held at KeyArena (SDOT, 2017a; Seattle Center, 2017a). Parking occupancy is
summarized by the subareas shown in Figure 4-11. As shown, the total weekday evening (between 5:30
PM and 7:00 PM) peak parking occupancy was 2,691 vehicles, which represents 33% of the total
available supply. On-street parking was occupied to a much greater degree than off-street parking (67%
versus 11%, respectively). These findings are consistent with the 2017 Uptown & Seattle Center
Strategic Parking Study (Seattle Center, 2017b), which found there is an excess of off-street parking
during most daytimes and evenings, and that overall parking occupancy for evening conditions is about
35%.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-31 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-10. Existing Pedestrian Network

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-32 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-11. Existing Parking Supply

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-33 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-12. Existing Parking Occupancy During Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-34 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-13 and Table 4-6 display the estimated peak parking occupancy for a typical Saturday when an
event is not being held at KeyArena (based on data collected for this EIS in September, October, and
November 2017; Idax Data Solutions, 2017). Saturday evening peak parking occupancy was 3,630
vehicles, which represents 44% of the total available supply. The garages and lots surrounding Seattle
Center were modestly utilized (22%), but had twice the occupancy as during the weekday condition. The
overall on-street parking occupancy also increased relative to the weekday condition (from 67 to 81%).
Time limits and paid parking are not in effect on Sunday, and Sunday parking studies have shown higher
parking occupancy than any other study day.

Currently, most Seattle Center venue employees park in off-street garages because parking passes are
offered at an inexpensive, monthly rate to employees. The number of employee vehicles occupying
spaces in the garages varies depending on the events.

Table 4-6. Parking Supply and Occupancy – Existing Conditions (Pre-Event Peak Hour)

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea Parking Supply
Occupancy Occupancy

East 105 73 (70%) 69 (66%)

North 1,489 1,055 (71%) 1,356 (91%)

On-Street South 1,056 637 (60%) 708 (67%)

West 481 348 (72%) 390 (81%)

Subtotal 3,131 2,113 (67%) 2,523 (81%)

East 2,183 264 (12%) 272 (12%)

North 1,377 113 (8%) 481 (35%)

Off-Street South 1,442 175 (12%) 349 (24%)

West 96 26 (27%) 5 (5%)

Subtotal 5,098 578 (11%) 1,107 (22%)

On-Street &
Total 8,229 2,691 (33%) 3,630 (44%)
Off-Street
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018 based on data collected in September–November, 2017.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-35 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-13. Existing Parking Occupancy During Saturday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-36 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-7 shows the availability of weekday and Saturday evening parking spaces by subarea. This table
shows that there are 5,538 currently available spaces for a weekday evening when there is no event at
KeyArena. Similarly, there are 4,599 currently available spaces for a Saturday evening. The vast majority
of parking availability is north, east, and south of the project site. Parking availability influences
directionality of pre-event and post-event pedestrian flows.

Table 4-7. Available Parking – Existing Conditions

Weekday Evening Available Saturday Evening Available


Parking Type Subarea
Parking Spaces Parking Spaces

East 32 36
North 434 133
On-Street South 419 348
West 133 91
Subtotal 1,018 608
East 1,919 1,911
North 1,264 896
Off-Street South 1,267 1,093
West 70 91
Subtotal 4,520 3,991
East 1,951 (35%) 1,947 (42%)
North 1,698 (31%) 1,029 (23%)
On-Street & Off-Street
(% of total by geographic South 1,686 (30%) 1,441 (31%)
area)
West 203 (4%) 182 (4%)
Total 5,538 4,599
Includes only publicly available spaces that could potentially be open to arena attendees for evening events at KeyArena or the
proposed Seattle Center Arena. Does not include any planned facilities east of SR 99 that may be open by 2020 and accessible
via the street grid reknitting. Such facilities are considered in the analysis as part of the Opening Day 2020 conditions analysis.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Seattle Center and its tenants employ several hundred staff, both full-time and intermittent, who
regularly use parking in the 3 garages currently operated by Seattle Center. Many staff travel from
outside the Seattle city limits and work off-peak hours due to their event-related schedule. Existing labor
agreements include provisions for Seattle Center staff parking at below-market rates for the
neighborhood. As a result of these circumstances, a portion of available parking in Seattle Center
garages is often occupied by staff.

4.3.6 Ridehailing
Ridehailing vehicles, also known as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft, are
a rapidly growing mode of motorized urban transportation in the United States. They operate on a
business model where a smartphone app connects a passenger traveling to a predetermined destination
with a driver willing to transport them for a fare exchanged via the app. Based on a visitor survey

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-37 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

conducted at the September 27, 2017 Janet Jackson concert at KeyArena, 15% of attendees used a
ridehailing vehicle to arrive at the venue. Roughly 660 of the 9,200 concert attendees were surveyed.
While a much smaller proportion of travel, taxis and other for-hire vehicles are also analyzed as
ridehailing vehicles in this EIS.

Ridehailing vehicles typically involve passenger loading/unloading along a public street. Figure 4-5 shows
that 3- or 5-minute passenger loading/unloading zones are present along portions of 1st Ave N, Mercer
St, and 2nd Ave N in the vicinity of Seattle Center. Observations before and after events at KeyArena
indicate that those areas are frequently used for ridehailing activity. During congested conditions (i.e.,
during events at KeyArena), ridehailing vehicles have been observed to stop in travel lanes (i.e., double
park) along 1st Ave N and Queen Ave N to pick-up and drop-off passengers. They have also been
observed to use curb space dedicated for buses and bicycle lanes. A decision by a patron to order an
Uber, Lyft, or a taxi results in both an inbound trip and an outbound trip to the area, which means more
vehicle trips being generated for that single patron’s trip versus travel via private vehicle.

4.3.7 Other Modes


Observations at Seattle Center indicate that patrons arrive and depart from Seattle Center in a variety of
travel modes beyond those described previously. Examples of these other modes include:

 Taxis
 Limousines
 Chartered buses
 Paratransit
 Car share services with either free floating (e.g., Car2Go) or designated parking (e.g., ZipCar)
models
 Self/assist-powered wheeled devices such as scooters, Segways, etc.
A taxi zone exists along the Broad St frontage of Seattle Center. Designated staging for charter buses is
also provided along Broad St. Paratransit is required by ADA to provide direct and convenient
connections for disabled patrons. This typically means identifying curb space that is close to the venue
entrance/exit and is designed to meet ADA requirements (cross slope, ADA-compliant ramps, etc.).

The Seattle Police Department manages traffic flow on certain streets near KeyArena after large events
through 2 Event Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) – 1 related to the egress of the 1st Ave N Garage and the
other related to egress from the Mercer Garage. These TCPs include event attendance thresholds that
identify when police officer control is warranted and how many officers are likely required.

4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


This section describes potential transportation impacts of the alternatives related to construction
activities in the short term, and operational impacts in both the short and long term. Impacts can be
directly or indirectly caused by the alternative. Note that transportation impacts are, by their nature,
considered in a cumulative context. Transportation impacts are evaluated when considering the new
transportation demand layered on top of current and future foreseeable background traffic conditions.
The direct impacts caused by the proposed project are evaluated by comparing the performance of the
transportation system with and without the project.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-38 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.4.1 Scenarios Evaluated


For transportation impacts, 2 horizon years are analyzed: 2020 and 2035. As described in Section 4.3,
Affected Environment, 3 analysis periods are analyzed: weekday pre-event (5:30 to 6:30 PM), weekday
post-event (9:30 to 10:30 PM), and Saturday pre-event (6:00 to 7:00 PM). These time periods were
selected to align with 2 specific types of events: a sold-out NBA basketball game on a weekday, and a
sold-out concert on a Saturday. These are the 2 largest events expected to occur regularly at the
renovated arena; NHL hockey games would have slightly less seating capacity than an NBA basketball
game, but similar travel characteristics. Saturday post-event conditions would generally be comparable
to weekday post-event conditions so that time period is not analyzed, except for transit capacity.

In addition to studying the No Action Alternative, 2 project alternatives are analyzed, as described in
Chapter 2 and summarized below.

 Alternative 1: OVG Proposal. This alternative is the design proposed by OVG. This includes a
new 450-space below-grade garage and loading dock adjacent to the arena (just north of
Thomas St), and full utilization of the 1st Ave N Garage (620 parking spaces). The parking garage
driveway would be on Thomas St and consists of a 2-lane driveway. Within a geofence boundary
around Seattle Center post-event ridehailing pick-ups would be restricted to several designated
locations. Pick-ups outside of the geofence would be unrestricted.
 Alternative 2: Modified Proposal. This alternative would have different design elements to
reduce the potential impact of the project. For transportation, the major difference related to
Alternative 2 is a smaller parking garage under the south plaza (200 rather than 450 parking
spaces), and lower utilization of the 1st Ave N Garage (400 rather than 620 parking spaces). The
underground loading dock and 1st Ave N Garage driveway access points would function nearly
the same as Alternative 1. Ridehailing pick-ups would be regulated such that they occur outside
a designated geofence boundary around Seattle Center with no required designated pick-up
locations.
Both alternatives would provide access to the underground loading dock from a new driveway on 1st Ave
N. The current driveway that serves the 1st Ave N Garage would be removed. As a result, all access
to/from the 1st Ave N Garage would occur from Warren Ave N and John St.

Activity at Seattle Center varies widely depending on the events taking place on campus, ranging from
days with very few scheduled events to days with multiple and/or large events. High attendance on the
campus is generated in a variety of ways, for example a single large festival or an event at KeyArena, or a
combination of more moderately sized events occurring simultaneously on the campus. To reflect the
variability in activity at Seattle Center, 2 different conditions are evaluated in the transportation
chapter: Average Seattle Center Attendance and Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance.

The Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario reflects the 50th percentile of daily Seattle Center
visitors, and the Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario reflects the 90th percentile of daily
Seattle Center visitors. The details of the determination of these 2 activity levels are described in
Appendix C, Tech Memo 2, Background Attendance Levels at Seattle Center. For simplicity, these
conditions can be considered as follows:

 Average Seattle Center Attendance: Typical Seattle Center attendance of daily visitors and
several small scheduled events. This attendance level does not include an event at KeyArena.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-39 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance: Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance of daily


visitors plus 1 or more large events. This attendance level includes an average-sized event at
KeyArena.
Figure 4-14 summarizes how these Seattle Center attendance levels relate to the proposed arena
renovation project. The No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario represents
a typical day at Seattle Center (i.e., no major events). Alternative 1 or 2 with Average Seattle Center
Attendance represents the No Action condition plus the addition of a sold-out arena event (18,350 to
19,125 additional visitors depending on whether a sporting event or concert is held). In contrast, the
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario reflects a busy day at Seattle Center including events
at KeyArena as well as other venues. Because the renovated Seattle Center Arena would replace
KeyArena, some of the attendees assumed under the No Action Alternative would be “replaced” by
attendees of the renovated Seattle Center Arena. Therefore, the difference in total Seattle Center
attendance between No Action and Alternatives 1 or 2 represents a change in visitors that is less than
the sold-out arena capacity.

4.4.2 Construction Impacts


This section summarizes the potential transportation impacts related to the construction of the Seattle
Center Arena Renovation Project. The following defines potentially significant impacts from
construction, which are short term. Impacts not reaching these thresholds are considered less-than-
significant.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts to Transportation:

 Construction activity results in modifications to transportation facilities, which could


substantially increase the number of conflicts between modes.
 Construction activity results in the long-term loss of bus/truck staging areas identified in the
MOA between SDOT and Seattle Center (see Curb Space Management in Section 4.3.2).
 Construction activities would result in significant traffic operations or parking impacts as defined
in Section 4.4.3, Operations Impacts.
Construction in the city may result in the temporary closure of sidewalks, transit facilities, bicycle
facilities, and vehicle lanes, all of which require a street use permit from SDOT. These types of closures
are not considered a significant impact since they are common throughout areas like Uptown, South
Lake Union, and Downtown.

No Action Alternative
No construction is proposed at the project site under this alternative, so there would be no
construction-related transportation impacts.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-40 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

1. Average Seattle Center Attendance is the 50th percentile of daily attendance and is assumed not to include an event at
KeyArena.
2. Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance is the 90th percentile of daily attendance and is assumed to include a moderately-

size event at KeyArena.

Figure 4-14. Seattle Center Attendance Scenarios

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Based on information from OVG, construction for Alternative 1 is expected to take approximately 24
months and would start in October 2018. Under Alternative 1, construction would occur throughout the
day and night, including truck hauling at night. The greatest construction-related impacts would be
related to the closure of transportation facilities (lanes, streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, bus stops,
etc.) to facilitate demolition, movement of materials, truck staging, and construction. Up to 200 workers
at a time are expected to be on-site, working in 2–3 shifts per day (between 400 and 600 total daily
construction workers). The project would generate a substantial number of truck trips during portions of

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-41 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

construction to haul away material from the construction site. Per the information in Section 2.6, truck
trips are not anticipated during the AM or PM peak periods, except for periods that require continuous
concrete pours. Section 2.6 includes more information regarding the planned activities for each
construction phase. Key transportation elements and their effects are described in this section.

OVG has identified several potential haul routes, although they are still preliminary (as the routes largely
depend on the truck destination) and subject to approval by SDOT and by Seattle Center for those
roadways on the campus. These haul routes are shown in Figure 2-12 and include travel on the following
streets:

 To and from I-5 via 2nd Ave N and Denny Way.


 To I-5 via Thomas St, 1st Ave N, and Mercer St.
 To SR 99 via 6th Ave N and Harrison St through the Seattle Center campus.
 To Interbay via 1st Ave N and Mercer St/W Mercer Pl.
 To Interbay via 2nd Ave N, Denny Way, and Elliott Ave W.
To limit impact to Seattle Center events, patrons, and tenants, Seattle Center and OVG would establish
mutually agreed-upon time limits for haul routes on vacated 2nd Ave N and vacated Harrison St through
the Seattle Center campus. When the haul route through the campus is in use, the OVG construction
manager will use flaggers to allow pedestrians to cross the haul route. Barricades will also be placed
along the haul route through campus, with breaks in the barricades to allow pedestrians to cross. The
time limits for hauling are subject to review and approval from the City as part the Noise Variance
application process.

Figure 2-11 summarizes the current plans for construction; the figure depicts the fence line, access
routes, and facility closures. Based on information from OVG, the following closures are expected for
some portion of construction:

 The parking/loading lane and sidewalk along the east side of 1st Ave N between Thomas St and
the north end of the KeyArena plaza (just south of the Metro bus stop) for the duration of
construction.
 The parking/loading lane and sidewalk along the east side of 1st Ave N between John St and
Thomas St.
 The north parking lane and sidewalk along Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N for the
duration of construction. During Phase 4, the north travel lane may be closed for a period of
time to complete the parking garage; during that time, flaggers would be used to allow traffic to
circulate safely.
 Temporary lane restrictions are also planned along streets adjacent to the construction site for
curb cut revisions, access tunnel construction, and utility work.
 The western half of vacated 2nd Ave N from Thomas St to the south edge of the intersection of
vacated Harrison St would be closed, during Phase 1. The western half of vacated 2nd Ave N
would not be closed for the following campus-wide events: New Year’s Eve, Northwest Folklife
Festival, Pride Festival, Seafair, Bite of Seattle, and Bumbershoot, as well as the installation and
removal of the Fisher Pavilion ice.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-42 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Additional areas may be used for truck staging such as 1st Ave N between John St and the King County
Metro bus stop; on Thomas St between Warren Ave N and 2nd Ave N; and on 2nd Ave N between John St
and Thomas St only after 10 PM. Truck staging requires a street use permit from SDOT.

Traffic Operations

The primary traffic operations impacts are related to the closure of streets and traffic lanes identified
above and when truck hauling is operating at its highest frequency. Because the parking/loading lane
along 1st Ave N between John St and the north end of the KeyArena plaza does not provide any vehicle
travel capacity, no traffic operations impacts are anticipated from the closure of this lane; however,
some short-term traffic operations impacts could be caused by flaggers restricting traffic in travel lanes
to allow trucks to enter/exit the curbside lane. Short-term traffic operations impacts to traffic flow on
2nd Ave N, John St, Warren Ave N, and Thomas St are also likely. Maintaining travel lanes on Thomas St
would allow school buses to continue to load and unload on the east side of 2nd Ave N (adjacent to
Seattle Children’s Theatre) and then turn west on Thomas St to exit the area.

In addition to the closures identified above, the EIS Consultant Team considered the potential for trips
generated by construction workers, and trucks to impact traffic operations. Construction activities
would occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The 200 construction workers on-site are not anticipated to
cause significant impacts to area traffic operations. No substantial traffic operations impacts from trucks
are anticipated since they would operate during off-peak periods (except for occasional activity during
continuous concrete pours). The heavy truck traffic could deteriorate the pavement quality on the
potential haul routes, but this degradation of pavement is not expected to be severe enough to result in
a significant traffic operations impact.

Transit

Construction activity is expected to close the following transit facilities:

 The bus layover area at the north end of the parking/drop-off lane on 1st Ave N (at the north end
of the KeyArena plaza) for the duration of construction. This layover area is approximately 100
feet long and typically accommodates a single bus.
 The bus stop along 1st Ave N just north of John St (affecting Routes 1, 2, 8, 13, and RapidRide D)
from December 2018 through the completion of construction. (The bus stop along 1st Ave N, just
south of Republican St, would remain open).

Pedestrian

Construction activity is expected to close the following sidewalks:

 The sidewalk along the east side of 1st Ave N from the south end of the Northwest Rooms to
Thomas St for the duration of construction.
 The sidewalk along 1st Ave N from John St to Thomas St.
 The north sidewalk along Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N for the duration of
construction.
 The sidewalks along Warren Ave N (west side of street) and John St (north side of street)
adjacent to the 1st Ave N garage intermittently throughout the duration of construction for curb
cut refinements and utility relocations.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-43 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pedestrian access to Seattle Center to and from the west would be affected by the construction because
access would be limited between Republican St and John St. A portion of 2nd Ave N, north of Thomas St,
is vacated as a public street, but is used as a part of the Seattle Center campus for loading/unloading as
well as events. The western half of the vacated portion of 2nd Ave N would be closed, except for during
campus-wide events such as New Year’s Eve, Northwest Folklife Festival, Pride Festival, Seafair, Bite of
Seattle, and Bumbershoot, as well as the installation and removal of the Fisher Pavilion Ice. See
Appendix B, Table B-3 for a list of events/performances that use vacated 2nd Ave N on the Seattle Center
campus.

The haul route through the Seattle Center campus on vacated Harrison St may introduce modal conflicts
and decrease connectivity for pedestrians that are accustomed to using that corridor for travel in the
late evening and early morning hours. Vacated Harrison St would not be used during campus-wide
events such as New Year’s Eve, Northwest Folklife Festival, Pride Festival, Seafair, Bite of Seattle,
Bumbershoot, and the installation and removal of the Fisher Pavilion Ice.

Bicycle

Construction activity is expected to close the following bicycle facility for the duration of construction:

 The bicycle lane along 1st Ave N from the north end of the KeyArena plaza to John St.
The haul route through the Seattle Center campus on vacated Harrison St may introduce modal conflicts
and decrease connectivity for bicycles that are accustomed to using that corridor for travel in the late
evening and early morning hours. Vacated Harrison St would not be used during campus-wide events
such as New Year’s Eve, Northwest Folklife Festival, Pride Festival, Seafair, Bite of Seattle, Bumbershoot,
and the installation and removal of the Fisher Pavilion Ice.

Parking

The street and lane closures described above would impact on-street parking during construction. The
following on-street parking closures are expected:

 East side of 1st Ave N between Harrison St and John St.


 North side of Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N.
 West side of Warren Ave N between Thomas St and Johns St.
 North side of John St between 1st Ave N and Warren Ave N.
The parking areas along Thomas St and 1st Ave N are expected to be closed for the duration of the
construction activities (except for the portion of 1st Ave N between Thomas St and John St, which may
not close until December 2018). Depending on how pedestrian and bicycle traffic is accommodated
through the construction area, it is possible that parking could be eliminated throughout the duration of
construction on both sides of 1st Ave N to allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel through the
construction area. Parking closures on Warren Ave N and John St are anticipated to be of shorter
duration and intermittent to facilitate curb cut and utility modifications.

In addition to the on-street parking, OVG is planning to use the 1st Ave N Garage for construction worker
vehicle parking. During the busiest phases of construction, it is possible that some construction workers
would need to park at off-site lots and garages. OVG would work with the construction manager and
Seattle Center tenants to make any excess spaces available to accommodate tenant events. The roof of

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-44 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

the 1st Ave N Garage would be used for the construction manager’s construction trailers. The surface lot
adjacent to the 1st Ave N Garage would be closed for the duration of construction.

Bus/Truck Staging

Charter buses and trucks currently stage using curb space in the vicinity of the project site in accordance
with the SDOT and Seattle Center MOA for Event Curbside Management (SDOT and Seattle Center,
2011). Through that agreement, Seattle Center reserves curb space on Thomas St, Warren Ave N, 2nd
Ave N, Republican St, and 4th Ave N for loading, unloading, and staging of events.

The partial closure of Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave N would result in the loss of the
bus/truck staging area used for event loading/unloading identified in the MOA on the north side of the
street. This closure would last the duration of the construction period, which would be a significant
impact to bus/truck staging. The closures on Warren Ave N and John St are temporary and not
considered a significant impact. Construction truck staging on 2nd Ave N would only occur after 10 PM;
however, there could still be impacts to other vehicles accessing the campus during those times.
Because this condition would be temporary and occur when traffic is limited, this is not considered a
significant impact. See Appendix B, Table B-4 for a list of events/performances that use Thomas St.

Safety

The closures of parking/loading lanes, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities all could result in a substantial
increase in modal conflicts within the study area. The Harrison St haul route through the Seattle Center
campus could also cause modal conflicts in the late evening and early morning hours.

Summary of Transportation Impacts During Construction under Alternative 1

As described above, construction to renovate the arena would result in a variety of impacts to transit
facilities, pedestrian, bicycle, parking, truck/bus staging, event loading/unloading, and safety. Some of
the impacts would result in an inconvenience during construction, for example requiring travelers to
find another route or another location to park, but do not rise to a significant level of impact due to their
type of effect and temporary nature. However, safety impacts related to the closed pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, and the reduction in bus/truck staging areas are all significant impacts.

Mitigation measures for the construction-related impacts are identified in Section 4.5.1, Construction
Mitigation.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Construction-related transportation impacts of Alternative 2 are similar to Alternative 1; however,
construction activities would be conducted between 7 AM and 7 PM, with potential further time
restrictions on truck hauling (e.g., truck hauling could be restricted to 9 AM to 3 PM, to avoid peak
hours). The reduced construction window would change several conditions related to construction
impacts on transportation:

 The overall construction duration would increase beyond 24 months, to at least 30 months.
 The partial closure of Thomas St between Warren Ave N and 2nd Ave N would include the north
curbside and north travel lane. The south travel lane would be open for 1-way vehicle

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-45 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

circulation, and the south curbside lane would be available for loading/parking. The closure
between 1st Ave N and Warren Ave N would be the same as Alternative 1.
 The duration of demolition activities would increase by 6 months or more, which would increase
the length of time that some facilities are closed.
 There would be fewer truck trips per day since the demolition period is extended over more
months; however, there may be more mid-day truck trips. Truck trips are not expected to
impact traffic operations to any substantial degree.
 Up to 200 workers at a time are still expected to be on-site, but would be limited to 1–2 shifts
per day (between 200 and 400 total daily construction workers).
Significant construction impacts on the transportation system from Alternative 2 are expected to be the
same as for Alternative 1: safety impacts from the closed pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and the
reduction in bus/truck staging areas from construction activities. However, the duration of closures and
the impacts associated with those closures would be longer under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1.

4.4.3 Operations Impacts


Two horizon years are analyzed in this section: 2020 and 2035. Year 2020 is assumed to be the year of
opening of the arena, and year 2035 provides a longer term cumulative condition that is consistent with
the City’s land use and transportation plans, as well as regional plans including LINK light rail expansion.

Thresholds of Significance
The following defines long-term (operations) impacts to the transportation system. The No Action
Alternative is the baseline against which impacts of the action alternatives are evaluated. Potential
significant operations impacts to transportation are defined as follows, and impacts not reaching these
thresholds are considered less-than-significant.

Traffic Operations

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts on Traffic Operations:

 A signalized intersection operates acceptably (i.e., LOS D or better) under the No Action
Alternative, but under Alternative 1 or 2 the operation of that signalized intersection is
unacceptable (i.e., LOS E or F) and that signalized intersection would have an additional delay of
at least 5 seconds per vehicle.
 A signalized intersection operates unacceptably (i.e., LOS E or F) under the No Action
Alternative, and under Alternative 1 or 2 that signalized intersection would have an additional
delay of at least 5 seconds per vehicle.
 Alternative 1 or 2 would cause a substantial increase in delays (i.e., well into a LOS F condition)
and also result in modal conflicts at an unsignalized intersection due to the magnitude of traffic
generated by the arena, proximity to major arena entrances/garage access points, and other
conditions.
 Alternative 1 or 2 would cause the average corridor travel speed on Mercer St or Denny Way to
decrease to 40% or less of the free-flow speed during the weekday pre-event peak hour.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-46 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Free-flow speeds on Mercer St or Denny Way under the No Action Alternative are already 40%
of the free-flow speed, and Alternative 1 or 2 would further decrease the average corridor travel
speed by another 5% during the weekday pre-event peak hour.
 Alternative 1 or 2 would cause freeway off-ramp queues that spill back onto the I-5 mainline.
 Freeway off-ramp queue spills back onto the mainline under the No Action Alternative, and
Alternative 1 or 2 would result in a substantial increase in freeway off-ramp queue length.
These criteria were developed based on conditions unique to the project and its location, as well as past
practices of the City on other EISs. The City typically considers LOS D as the minimum desired operating
condition in downtown urban areas. A 5-second increase in delay is frequently used in transportation
assessments because it is considered a value beyond which the public may perceive a noticeable
difference in traffic conditions. Given the highly directional nature of athletic and other special events,
directional travel time is important to consider because signalized intersection LOS measures the overall
operation of an intersection versus a single approach. The use of 40% of the free-flow speed is
supported by the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Freeway off-ramp
queuing is important because under certain conditions, traffic spillbacks can adversely affect freeway
operations and/or cause speed differentials in adjacent lanes, which could affect safety.

In 2016 and 2017, Fehr & Peers staff visited stadiums/arenas in urban areas of San Diego, CA, Portland,
OR, Washington, DC, Salt Lake City, UT, San Francisco, CA, Atlanta, GA, and Denver, CO. Observations
focused on a variety of operational strategies, ranging from the use of advanced signage, lane closures,
parking best practices, special TNC pick-up/drop-off locations, expanded transit service, special
accommodation for travel by bicycle and walking, and other considerations. These observations were
insightful in understanding how these factors can influence urban stadiums/arenas operations. They
were also used in the development of significance criteria for the travel modes described below.

Ridehailing

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts from Ridehailing:


Arena Access Management Plan
 If ridehailing vehicles or other pick-up/drop-off vehicles block (AAMP)
vehicle through lanes to pick-up/drop-off passengers (unless As is described in detail in Section
regulated by an Arena Access Management Plan [AAMP] that 4.5.2, Operations (Avoidance,
safely permits such activities). Minimization, and Mitigation
Measures), OVG will work with
 If ridehailing vehicles wait in bicycle facilities or bus pullouts to
the Seattle Police Department,
pick-up/drop-off passengers.
SDOT, SDCI, King County Metro,
These criteria were selected based on observed travel conditions and Seattle Center to develop
during events at KeyArena and other venues. When vehicle pick- and implement an AAMP. The
ups/drop-offs occur in travel lanes, congestion can quickly form and AAMP includes traffic, parking,
and travel demand management
pedestrians may walk between idling vehicles. The traffic operations
strategies that would be put in
impacts associated with ridehailing vehicles are accounted for in the
place before, during, and after
traffic and transit operations impact thresholds. In other words, the events and is referred to
traffic and transit delays caused by ridehailing vehicles accessing the throughout this EIS.
arena, circulating to pick-up/drop-off passengers, etc. are identified
in the traffic and transit impacts sections.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-47 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transit

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Transit:

 Additional ridership would cause a transit route (including buses, Monorail, or LINK light rail)
serving the project site to exceed its crowding threshold.
 A transit route serving the project site travels through intersections whose LOS has been
significantly impacted as defined in the Traffic Operations section, resulting in additional delay
for that route.
The crowding thresholds are based on Metro and Sound Transit guidelines; the traffic operations
threshold is consistent with that used for other vehicle traffic above.

Pedestrians

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Pedestrians:

 Pedestrian demand on a sidewalk or crosswalk exceeds capacity, causing pedestrians to walk on


streets that are open to vehicular or bicycle traffic.
This criterion reflects the inherent differences in safety for persons walking versus traveling in a vehicle
(private, TNC, or bus). Pedestrian flows that repeatedly spill onto streets can cause conflicts between
travel modes, and often require proactive pedestrian flow management as part of an AAMP.

Bicycles

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Bicycles:

 Bicycle facilities are consistently (i.e., for the majority of the analysis period) blocked by
pedestrian overflows from corners, sidewalks, or bus stops, resulting in conflicts between
bicycles and other modes.
 On-street bicycle facilities are consistently blocked by vehicles picking up or dropping off
patrons at the project site resulting in conflicts between bicycles and other modes.
 Insufficient bicycle parking is provided for event attendees or employees.
These criteria reflect the inherent differences in safety for persons biking versus traveling in a vehicle
(private, TNC, or bus). Bicycle flows that consistently spill into vehicle lanes or sidewalks can cause
conflicts between travel modes, and often require proactive management as part of an AAMP.
Insufficient bicycle parking may lead to bicycles parked in locations that cause modal conflicts.

Parking

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Parking:

 The demand for parking would substantially increase, which then causes adverse effects to
other travel modes such as vehicles blocking crosswalks/driveways; vehicle conflicts with buses,
pedestrians, or bicycles; and vehicles circulating for multiple blocks looking for parking.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-48 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Bus/Truck Staging

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Bus/Truck Staging:

 Charter buses/trucks used for event loading/unloading stage on study area streets without
obtaining SDOT permits, resulting in modal conflicts between authorized curb space users that
were displaced.
This threshold is based on the existing MOA regarding curb space management between Seattle Center
and SDOT.

Paratransit

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Paratransit:

 Paratransit vehicles lack designated loading/unloading curb space adjacent to the project site.
 Paratransit vehicles are blocked from accessing designated loading/unloading curb space by
non-transit vehicles.
This threshold is in place to ensure ADA-compliant access to the arena.

Safety

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Safety:

 There is a substantial increase in the collision rate at an intersection identified as a high collision
location.
 Pedestrian or bicycle safety is compromised as a result of modal conflicts identified by the
pedestrian and bicycle impact thresholds.
These thresholds are based on City standard practices to address safety concerns.

2020 Impacts
The transportation system will change substantially by 2020 due to growing traffic volumes and the
opening of the SR 99 Tunnel and reknitted streets across SR 99. Refer to Figure 4-15 for configuration of
the reknitted roadway network between 5th Ave N, Dexter Ave N, Mercer St, and Denny Way. This figure
displays 11 additional intersections selected for micro-simulation study in this area based on the
reknitted street grid (Intersections 59–69).

In addition to the reconnected street grid, which would serve all modes, a variety of pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit projects are expected to be built by 2020. See Appendix C, Tech Memo 3, Year 2020 and
2035 Background Transportation Network, for more details on the projects planned to be in place by
2020.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-49 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-15. 2020 Street Network

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-50 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action Alternative

This section describes the conditions of the transportation system under the No Action Alternative in
which KeyArena is not renovated. The No Action Alternative is the baseline against which the impacts of
the project are assessed. In other words, the 2020 No Action Alternative represents the anticipated
transportation conditions in 2020 without the proposed project, while Alternatives 1 and 2 represent
conditions with a renovated arena.

Under the No Action Alternative, KeyArena would continue to hold events, although those events would
be smaller and less frequent than under Alternatives 1 and 2. The Average Seattle Center Attendance
scenario represents a day with no event taking place at KeyArena, and the Above-Average Seattle
Center Attendance scenario represents a day with an event at KeyArena.

Traffic Operations
Traffic volume forecasts were developed for 2020 conditions using the PSRC regional travel demand
model. The forecasts take into account existing volumes, planned land use growth within the immediate
study area (as well as throughout the city and region), and changing traffic patterns associated with
planned projects such as the SR 99 Tunnel. These forecasts represent changing travel demand and travel
patterns that would occur with no renovation at KeyArena (and assuming an event is not being held at
KeyArena). The following describes the expected growth in traffic between existing and 2020 No Action
Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions for the weekday pre-event peak hour:

 Mercer St – The eastbound direction is forecast to experience traffic growth in the range of 150
to 225 vehicles over existing conditions. This represents a modest increase (13%) near Fairview
Ave N, but a fairly sizeable increase (45%) west of Queen Anne Ave N. Since traffic levels on
eastbound Mercer St west of Queen Anne Ave N are only 15% of the volume present at Fairview
Ave N, similar increases in added vehicles across the corridor show larger percentage increases
to the west. Traffic growth on westbound Mercer St is in the 10% to 15% range, with a net
increase of 75 to 150 vehicles depending on the location.
 Denny Way – The eastbound direction is forecast to experience traffic growth in the range of
175 to 225 vehicles, which would represent a 20% to 33% increase over existing conditions.
Traffic growth on westbound Denny Way is in the 5% to 15% range, with a net increase of 25 to
125 vehicles depending on the location.
Average Seattle Center Attendance
Percent demand served is
Intersection delay and corridor travel times are expected to increase defined as the proportion of
substantially by 2020 independent of arena renovation. Overall, the the hourly vehicle demand that
proportion of intersections operating at LOS E or F during the weekday is able to travel through the
pre-event peak hour would increase from 22% under existing street network. When percent
demand served falls well below
conditions to 61% under 2020 No Action – Average Seattle Center
100%, there is more demand
Attendance conditions.
than capacity and some
vehicles would not be able to
Eastbound travel operations of Mercer St and Denny Way are
enter the model’s street
expected to experience greater queue spillback due to additional
network. This results in a
traffic growth. Results from the Vissim model output show that the longer period with congested
percent demand served on these corridors drops well below 100%, traffic conditions (i.e., peak
indicating over-capacity conditions that would result in a longer period hour spreading).
of major congestion on study area roadways.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-51 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

During the weekday post-event peak hour in 2020, the Denny Way/Stewart St intersection would
operate at LOS E. All other intersections would operate at LOS D or better. During the Saturday pre-
event peak hour, 4 intersections would operate at LOS E and 3 intersections would operate at LOS F:

 Denny Way/Stewart St (LOS E)


 W Mercer Pl/Elliott Ave W (LOS E)
 Roy St/Dexter Ave N (LOS E)
 Valley St/Westlake Ave N) (LOS E)
 Mercer St/Dexter Ave N (LOS F)
 Mercer St/Taylor Ave N (LOS F)
 Valley St/Fairview Ave N (LOS F)
The weekday post-event and Saturday pre-event peak hours do not experience the same percent
demand served issues that are present during the weekday pre-event peak hour. In other words, even
with growth in the area, the additional traffic would be able to travel through the study area with
relatively little congestion. This is because congestion on I-5, which impedes the flow of eastbound
traffic on each corridor during the pre-event peak hour, is not present to the same degree during the
weekday post-event and Saturday pre-event peak hours.

Travel time along Mercer St and Denny Way was analyzed to identify corridor travel speed impacts.
Table 4-8 summarizes projected travel speeds by 2020. Refer to Figure 4-16 for directional LOS on
segments of Mercer St and Denny Way between Seattle Center and I-5. This table reveals the following
findings:

 A comparison of Figure 4-16 with Figure 4-4 indicates that average travel speeds on Mercer St
between Seattle Center and I-5 would be unchanged relative to existing weekday pre-event
peak hour conditions. However, greater levels of queue spillback occur in the eastbound
direction, so it would take a motorist more time (in 2020 versus existing conditions) to travel the
entire Mercer corridor from Elliott Ave W to I-5.
 On Denny Way, the average eastbound travel speed between Seattle Center and I-5 decreases
from 3 miles per hour (MPH) under existing conditions to 2 MPH under 2020 No Action
Alternative conditions. The westbound travel speed decreases from 9 MPH under existing
conditions to 7 MPH under 2020 No Action Alternative conditions. This means the average travel
speed would decrease from 90% to 70% of the base free-flow speed.
See Appendix C, Tech Memo 6, 2020 Analysis Results for Roadway and Pedestrian Systems for detailed
traffic operations analysis results for the 2020 condition.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-52 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-16. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – 2020 No Action
Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-53 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-8. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance

2020 Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Corridor Eastbound Westbound

Average Travel % of Free Flow


Average Travel Speed % of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed

Mercer St 2 20% 10 100%

Denny Way 2 20% 7 70%


MPH = miles per hour. Average free-flow travel speed of 10 MPH assumed given the presence of controls and measured speeds
in this range under mostly free-flow conditions on these corridors.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Due to the additional increment of visitors to the Seattle Center campus, the Above-Average Seattle
Center Attendance scenario would result in operations that are worse than those expected with Average
Seattle Center Attendance.

On a day with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, the proportion of intersections operating at
LOS E or F during the weekday pre-event peak hour would increase from 61% (under 2020 No Action –
Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions) to 68%. Further, the number of these intersections
operating at LOS F would increase from 36 to 45. Refer to Appendix C, Tech Memo 6, 2020 Analysis
Results for Roadway and Pedestrian Systems, for more detail.

Eastbound travel time along Mercer St and Denny Way would remain similar to the Average Seattle
Center Attendance scenario, but the additional traffic would degrade westbound travel speed on
Mercer St from 10 MPH (under 2020 No Action – Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions) to 4
MPH. Table 4-9 summarizes projected travel speeds by 2020.

Table 4-9. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance

2020 Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound
Corridor
Average Travel % of Free Flow Average Travel Speed
% of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed (MPH)

Mercer St 2 20% 4 40%

Denny Way 2 15% 7.5 75%


MPH = miles per hour.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-54 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ridehailing
Under the No Action Alternative in 2020, ridehailing is expected to operate the same as it does today.
Pick-ups and drop-offs would occur in those locations most convenient to drivers and passengers rather
than in a designated area.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, pick-up and drop-off activity would not
consistently block through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, more visitors are traveling to Seattle
Center, and ridehailing would occur within a more congested traffic environment. Drivers may have a
more difficult time finding appropriate curb space for loading and unloading, resulting in more
frequently blocked through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts. This condition is expected to be
similar to what currently occurs during major events at Seattle Center and at large KeyArena events.

Transit

Average Seattle Center Attendance


As noted in Appendix C, Tech Memo 4, Affected Environment/Existing Conditions, a variety of King
County Metro bus routes currently serve Seattle Center. All routes currently have peak rider loads that
are less than the route’s crowding capacity threshold. However, many of these routes are well utilized,
and standing is not uncommon. Under the No Action Alternative in 2020, ridership levels would be
similar, if not slightly greater (e.g., 5%) than current levels due to continued development in the area,
which adds ridership demand. This increase would not cause ridership levels to reach the crowding
threshold based on the current reserve capacity of each line. Similarly, the Monorail would have ample
reserve capacity under the No Action Alternative in 2020.

Buses would continue to operate on roadways such as Denny Way that are currently congested.
Moreover, the traffic operations analysis results indicate worsening congestion on 1st Ave N and Queen
Anne Ave N between Denny Way and Mercer St during the weekday pre-event peak hour under the No
Action Alternative in 2020. Therefore, bus travel time and reliability would degrade as congestion
increases.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under the 2020 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, Seattle Center
events (including those at KeyArena) would cause surges in transit ridership before and after events.
Although the reserve capacity on an hourly basis is capable of accommodating the surges, post-event
attendees may need to wait longer to board a bus with available capacity, as some buses could fill at the
Seattle Center stops. Additionally, post-event traffic congestion on 1st Ave N would degrade travel times
and cause buses difficulty accessing bus stops.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-55 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pedestrian Travel

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Observations of pedestrian activity on a typical day with Average Seattle Center Attendance suggest that
no sidewalks or crosswalks routinely have demand exceeding capacity during the analysis periods.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Observations of pedestrian activity on a typical day with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance (for
example, a mid-sized event at KeyArena) suggest that no sidewalks or crosswalks routinely have demand
exceeding capacity. However, it is noted that large events (i.e., over 10,000 persons) can temporarily
result in such conditions at certain locations near the event venue (which could be KeyArena or another
Seattle Center venue, depending on the large event location).

Bicycle Travel
As described previously, all 2020 scenarios would result in greater degrees of congestion on most streets
when compared to existing conditions. The congestion on portions of 1st Ave N, Queen Anne Ave N, 5th
Ave N, and Dexter Ave N are particularly notable as these streets have on-street bicycle lanes. Bicyclists
may feel less comfortable traveling on these streets when adjacent lanes experience “stop-and-go”
traffic. Such conditions can result in side-street vehicles encroaching into the major street to merge,
thereby temporarily blocking the bicycle lane. Conversely, further reductions in auto travel time
reliability could make travel to the venue by bicycle more attractive.

The reknitting of east-west streets (Harrison St, Thomas St, and John St) between 5th Ave N and Dexter
Ave N would provide new east-west bicycle facilities that could encourage bicycle travel. These facilities
may be particularly desirable given the lack of bicycle facilities on Denny Way between 1st Ave N and
Aurora Ave N. Bicycle parking supply would remain the same as existing conditions under the No Action
Alternative.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, no bicycle facilities are expected to be
consistently blocked by pedestrian overflows or vehicles dropping off or picking up patrons.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, no bicycle facilities are expected to be
consistently blocked by pedestrian overflows from sidewalks or crosswalks. However, vehicles
(ridehailing or otherwise) are likely to temporarily block bicycle facilities when dropping off or picking up
passengers.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-56 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parking
On-street parking supply in 2020 is expected to remain similar to existing conditions. New developments
within the study area would add some off-street supply within a walkable distance to the project site,
particularly to the east. The Seattle Center employee parking demand is expected to remain similar to
current conditions, with a large percentage of employees parking in off-street garages because parking
is provided at an inexpensive, monthly rate.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-10 summarizes parking occupancy under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions. Total
on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 67% on a weekday and 81% on a Saturday. Total off-
street parking occupancy is expected to be 12% on a weekday and 23% on a Saturday.

Table 4-10. Parking Occupancy – 2020 No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy
East 73 (70%) 69 (66%)

North 1,055 (71%) 1,356 (91%)

On-Street South 637 (60%) 708 (67%)

West 348 (72%) 390 (81%)

Subtotal 2,113 (67%) 2,523 (81%)

East 273 (13%) 275 (13%)

North 147 (11%) 532 (39%)

Off-Street South 190 (13%) 364 (25%)

West 26 (27%) 5 (5%)

Subtotal 636 (12%) 1,176 (23%)

On-Street & Off-Street Total 2,749 (33%) 3,699 (45%)


Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-11 summarizes parking occupancy under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions.
With above-average attendance, parking occupancy would increase for both on-street and off-street
facilities, although most of the additional demand is expected to use off-street parking due to its close
proximity to various Seattle Center venues. Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 69% on
a weekday and 82% on a Saturday. Total off-street parking occupancy is expected to be 46% on a
weekday and 53% on a Saturday.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-57 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-11. Parking Occupancy – 2020 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance
Weekday Evening Saturday Evening
Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 73 (70%) 69 (66%)


North 1,085 (73%) 1,386 (93%)
On-Street South 657 (62%) 728 (69%)
West 348 (72%) 390 (81%)
Subtotal 2,163 (69%) 2,573 (82%)
East 688 (32%) 895 (41%)
North 1,130 (82%) 1,082 (79%)
Off-Street South 580 (40%) 740 (51%)
West 26 (27%) 5 (5%)
Subtotal 2,424 (46%) 2,722 (53%)
On-Street & Off-Street Total 4,587 (56%) 5,295 (64%)
Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Bus/Truck Staging
Charter buses and trucks currently stage using curb space in the vicinity of the project site in accordance
with the SDOT and Seattle Center MOA for Event Curbside Management (SDOT and Seattle Center,
2011). Through that agreement, Seattle Center reserves curb space on Thomas St, Warren Ave N, 2nd
Ave N, Republican St, and 4th Ave N for loading, unloading, and staging of events. It is assumed this
arrangement stays in place and all KeyArena charter bus and truck staging consistent with that
arrangement is permitted by SDOT. In other words, there are no changes related to charter buses or
truck staging under the No Action Alternative.

Paratransit
Under the No Action Alternative, paratransit vehicles would continue to load and unload along the east
side of 1st Ave N adjacent to KeyArena, as well as on 2nd Ave N just south of KeyArena. This designated
passenger loading/unloading curb space would be available under both Seattle Center attendance
conditions. However, with an unregulated ridehailing system, it is likely that the passenger
loading/unloading space used by paratransit would sometimes be blocked by non-transit vehicles during
periods of high demand.

Safety
No study intersections are identified as high collision locations.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-58 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, pick-up and drop-off activity generally does not
block through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts so bicycle facilities are not expected to be affected
from a safety perspective.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, bicycle safety may be affected by vehicles
(ridehailing or otherwise) temporarily blocking bicycle facilities when dropping off or picking up
passengers.

Summary of Transportation Conditions in 2020 – No Action Alternative


During an Average Seattle Center Attendance condition (i.e., no event at KeyArena), substantial
intersection delay and low eastbound travel speed on Denny Way and Mercer St result in traffic
operations falling below the City’s standards. The degraded intersection LOS and travel speed are
caused by local and regional growth in the area. Although transit capacity is expected to be sufficient
under 2020 No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance, the traffic operations conditions
indirectly affect transit service during the weekday pre-event peak hour. These conditions are related to
commute traffic throughout the Uptown, South Lake Union, Belltown, and Downtown Urban Centers.

During an Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance condition, such as a mid-sized event at KeyArena or
another Seattle Center venue, more localized effects are experienced in the study area in addition to the
degraded traffic operations and transit conditions described above. Because ridehailing vehicles would
not have regulated loading and unloading locations under the No Action Alternative, it is expected that
they would frequently block through lanes, bicycle facilities, and bus pullouts during events, adversely
affecting transit, bicycle travel, paratransit, and safety (similar to what currently exists at KeyArena
during events).

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal

With a renovated arena, Alternative 1 would result in larger and more frequent events that could affect
the transportation system. This section describes the potential impacts to transportation that are likely
under Alternative 1.

The travel characteristics of arena attendees are key to understanding how the project may affect the
transportation system. These characteristics include considerations such as the mode of travel an
attendee uses, their origin and destination, and when they choose to travel. The EIS Consultant Team
considered a variety of data to estimate project travel characteristics, including KeyArena attendee
mode share, KeyArena attendee geographic distribution, and travel characteristics at comparable sports
and concert arenas such as mode share, trip origin and destination, temporal distribution, and average
vehicle occupancy. Table 4-12 summarizes the mode share estimates for attendees of the arena.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-59 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-12. Expected Mode Share for Arena Attendees in 2020

Weekday Weekday Saturday


NBA Game NBA Game Concert Pre-
Travel Mode Notes
Pre-Event Post-Event Event Peak
Peak Hour Peak Hour Hour

Some of these trips may also include


longer walks or bike share bicycle travel
Private Vehicle 63% 67% 68%
to the arena to/from a remote
lot/garage.
Reflect transit trips to/from routes
adjacent to Seattle Center. Bus/LINK light
Bus 8% 6% 6% rail to Westlake & ferry trips are assumed
to arrive to arena by walk, bicycle, TNC,
Monorail, or bus.
Taxi/TNC/Other
15% 12% 15% Percentages represent final primary
Drop-off
mode of travel to/from Seattle Center
Walk 10% 10% 8% vicinity. Travel by ferry, or bus/LINK light
Monorail 3% 4% 2% rail to Westlake Station is associated with
some of these trips.
Bicycle 1% 1% 1%
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018. Refer to Appendix C, Tech Memo 5, Project Travel Characteristics – Year 2020.

An average vehicle occupancy (AVO) factor is necessary to estimate the total number of vehicles that
would transport attendees to the arena based on the mode share percentages in Table 4-12. Based on
observations at KeyArena and comparable venues, the following estimates are applied for arena
attendees in 2020 (refer to Appendix C, Tech Memo 5, Project Travel Characteristics – Year 2020, for
more details):

 Weekday NBA Game:


o 2.3 persons per vehicle during pre-event peak hour.
o 2.45 persons per vehicle during post-event peak hour (higher AVO due to shift in
TNC/bus mode in pre-event to private vehicle, i.e., carpooling on the return trip).
 Saturday Concert:
o 2.4 persons per vehicle during pre-event peak hour.
Temporal distribution estimates of arrivals and departures are also required to determine the trip
generation during the analysis periods. Observations at KeyArena and comparable venues were used to
develop the following estimates for arena attendees in 2020:

 Weekday NBA Game:


o 60% of vehicles arrive during pre-event peak hour.
o 95% of vehicles depart during post-event peak hour.
 Saturday Concert:
o 50% of vehicles arrive during pre-event peak hour.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-60 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Note that not all the attendees arrive or leave the venue via vehicle within the pre- or post-event peak
hour. This reflects the fact that many patrons arrive early to the neighborhood to eat, drink, or socialize.
While less common in the post-event condition, some patrons would also stay late after an event to
“wait out” traffic congestion, likely at area restaurants and bars.

Table 4-13 summarizes the arena trip generation estimates using the mode share, AVO, and temporal
distribution estimates described above. These estimates reflect the sold-out capacity for the renovated
arena and apply to both Alternatives 1 and 2. During the weekday pre-event peak hour, attendees
arriving to the venue by TNC, taxi, or other drop-off would result in approximately 720 outbound vehicle
trips, some of which would be added to the peak eastbound travel directions on Mercer St and Denny
Way.

Table 4-13. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed Arena (Alternatives 1 and 2) in 2020

Weekday NBA Game Weekday NBA Game Saturday Concert Pre-


Pre-Event Peak Hour Post-Event Peak Hour Event Peak Hour
Traveler Type Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips

In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total


Attendees traveling by private
3,016 0 3,016 0 4,776 4,776 2,709 0 2,709
vehicle

Attendees traveling by
718 718 1,436 910 910 1,820 598 598 1,196
TNC/taxi/drop-off vehicle

Employees traveling by private


30 0 30 0 60 60 30 0 30
vehicle

Employees traveling by
2 2 4 4 4 8 2 2 4
TNC/Taxi/Drop-off

Miscellaneous1 15 5 20 5 10 15 15 5 20

Total 3,7812 725 4,506 919 5,7602 6,679 3,354 605 3,959

1.Miscellaneous trips include delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, utility vehicles, etc.
2. Weekday pre-event inbound trips and weekday post-event outbound trips are not equal due to differing mode share
assumptions, AVO, and temporal distribution of travel for each analysis period.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

The distribution of trips to the arena would be different for weekday NBA games versus Saturday
concerts due to different attendee geographic and demographic characteristics, familiarity with
different modes of travel, and frequency of visiting the area. Additionally, the effects of weekday home-
to-work travel, which result in a greater likelihood of some Downtown workers traveling to the arena
directly from Downtown, also influence both mode split and trip distribution. Spatial distribution of
ticket purchases for a variety of KeyArena events were reviewed to develop a geographic distribution
estimate. Table 4-14 summarizes the estimates used for this EIS analysis, and a full discussion of the
process is found in Appendix C, Tech Memo 5, Project Travel Characteristics – Year 2020.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-61 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-14. Trip Origin/Destinations of Attendees

Origin/Destination Weekday NBA Game 1 Saturday Concert

Northwest Seattle / Shoreline 2% 1.5%


North Seattle / Lake Forest Park 1.5% 2%
Kenmore / Bothell / Woodinville 2% 2%
Ballard / Crown Hill 6% 4.5%
Northeast Seattle 4.5% 2.5%
Kirkland / Redmond 12% 5%
Magnolia / Queen Anne 2% 2%
Westlake / South Lake Union / Uptown 3% 2%
Capitol Hill / Central District 4.5% 4.5%
Downtown / Belltown 3% 2%
Bellevue / Mercer Island 8.5% 3%
West Seattle / South Seattle / Renton 5% 6.5%
SeaTac / Tukwila / Kent 3% 5.5%
Renton/Covington 5% 4%
Sammamish / Issaquah 7% 4%
Snohomish / Millcreek 5% 4.5%
Everett / Edmonds 3% 5%
Other 23% 39%
1.NBA weekday basketball game percentages do not reflect the patrons who work in Downtown, South Lake Union, or Uptown
and who are less likely to travel from home to attend a game. These workers were accounted for in the trip generation and
mode share calculations – see Appendix C, Tech Memo 5. Some patrons are also likely to arrive early and/or stay late prior to
event. This table does not account for their location immediately prior or after an event. However, this temporal pattern is
described above and is accounted for in the analysis.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

For more details on project travel characteristics, see Appendix C, Tech Memo 5, Project Travel
Characteristics – Year 2020.

Traffic Operations
Traffic volumes associated with the renovated arena, as described above, were layered on top of the No
Action Alternative forecasts for the traffic operations analysis. This approach is conservative in that it
assumes no redistribution of background traffic away from the streets near Seattle Center during event
evenings. Figure 4-17 displays the traffic growth (over the No Action Alternative) on key corridors
resulting from Alternative 1. This figure indicates that the greatest increase in inbound travel occurs
along Mercer St from I-5. However, a number of other roadways also experience increases in traffic.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-62 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-17. Project Traffic Growth on Key Corridors – 2020

This analysis scenario does not assume any formalized traffic management strategies to accommodate
arriving attendees during the pre-event peak hour. Assumptions include the following: Signals operate in
normal mode, no turning movement restrictions are present, advanced signage is not provided to direct
motorists to available parking, traffic control officers are not present at intersections, parking garage
occupancy levels are not managed, no changes to existing on-street parking management are
implemented, ridehailing vehicles are not restricted in their passenger drop-off behavior, and no
measures are taken to encourage attendees to travel by non-auto modes.

Seattle Center and SDOT currently use several traffic management strategies during the post-event
period after KeyArena events; these would continue under Alternative 1 or 2. These strategies include
the following:
 Placement of traffic control officers at the 2nd Ave N/Denny Way intersection to assign right-of-
way and accommodate the heavy southbound flow on 2nd Ave N. Left-turns onto eastbound
Denny Way are prohibited.
 Closure of Thomas St between 1st Ave N and Warren Ave N.
 Westbound right-turn prohibited from Harrison St and the north driveway of the 5th Ave N
Garage onto northbound 5th Ave N to discourage travel toward Mercer St corridor.
 Special event signal timings on the Mercer St and Denny Way corridors.
Average Seattle Center Attendance
Figure 4-18 displays the number of intersections operating at LOS D or better, LOS E, and LOS F for
Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions under the No Action Alternative and with Alternatives 1

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-63 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

and 2 (Alternative 2 is described in a subsequent section). Note that Western Ave W/Denny Way and
Denny Way/Queen Anne Ave N are considered separate intersections (and labeled 28 and 28a on Figure
4-2 and subsequent figures) so the number of total intersections is 76. Key findings from this figure
include the following:
 Under weekday pre-event peak hour conditions, the number of intersections operating at LOS E
or F would be similar between the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. However, Alternative
1 would cause a number of significant intersection impacts due to added delays at intersections
already operating unacceptably under the No Action Alternative.
 Under weekday post-event peak hour conditions, the number of intersections operating at LOS
E or F would increase dramatically, from 1 under the No Action Alternative to 39 under
Alternative 1.
 Under Saturday pre-event peak hour conditions, the vast majority of intersections would
continue operating at LOS D or better. The proportion operating at operating at LOS E or F
would increase from 9% under the No Action Alternative to 14% under Alternative 1.

Figure 4-18. Intersection LOS Summary – 2020 Conditions with Average Seattle Center Attendance

During the weekday pre-event peak hour on a day with Average Seattle Center Attendance, 22
intersections would be impacted by the project. For intersections that operate acceptably under the No
Action Alternative, this is defined as dropping to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) and adding 5 or more
seconds of delay for signalized intersections and adversely affected unsignalized intersections based on
degree of congestion increase, modal conflicts, and other considerations. For intersections that operate
unacceptably under the No Action Alternative, this is defined as Alternative 1 adding at least 5 seconds

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-64 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

of delay. These impacted intersections are shown in Figure 4-19 and listed in Appendix C, Tech Memo 6,
2020 Analysis Results for Roadway and Pedestrian Systems.

Figure 4-20 shows the directional LOS on segments of Mercer St and Denny Way between Seattle Center
and I-5. This figure indicates that Alternative 1 would cause westbound travel on these roadways to
experience moderate to substantial delay increases when compared to the No Action Alternative (refer
to Figure 4-16 for comparison). Refer to Appendix C, Tech Memo 6, 2020 Analysis Results for Roadway
and Pedestrian Systems, for more detail.

The micro-simulation models used to evaluate traffic operations suggest that not all of the travel
demand under Alternative 1 could be served on westbound Mercer St and Denny Way due to
bottlenecks to the east (principally the I-5 off-ramp merge). Because only a portion of that traffic is
expected to be able to travel through those corridors, some intersections may operate slightly better
than would otherwise be expected. Conversely, queues would spill back from bottlenecks, affecting the
LOS at upstream intersections.

During the weekday pre-event peak hour, traffic exiting I-5 (from the north and south) onto westbound
Mercer St would exceed the capacity of the Mercer St/Fairview Ave N intersection, causing traffic to spill
back onto the freeway mainline. This is caused primarily by the large influx of project-related vehicle
trips. While it is accurate to report that the off-ramps cannot serve the projected demand, it is also true
that capacity limitations on I-5 may constrain travel demand from reaching the off-ramps. (In other
words, the significant queues on southbound I-5 north of the Ship Canal and westbound I-90 and SR 520
could limit how many vehicles could arrive at the Mercer St off-ramps during the pre-event peak hour.)

During the weekday post-event peak hour on a day with Average Seattle Center Attendance, 37
intersections would be impacted under Alternative 1. These impacted intersections are displayed in
Figure 4-19 and listed in Appendix C, Tech Memo 6, 2020 Analysis Results for Roadway and Pedestrian
Systems. During the Saturday pre-event peak hour on a day with Average Seattle Center Attendance, 8
intersections would be impacted under Alternative 1. The impacted intersections are:
 Mercer St/Dexter Ave N
 Mercer St/Fairview Ave N
 Mercer St/Taylor Ave N
 W Mercer Pl/Elliott Ave W
 Denny Way/Stewart St
 Roy St/5th Ave N
 Roy St/Dexter Ave N
 Valley St/Fairview Ave N
Table 4-15 summarizes projected travel speeds along Mercer St and Denny Way under Alternative 1 –
Average Seattle Center Attendance.

This table shows the following findings:


 Average travel speeds on eastbound Mercer St between Seattle Center and I-5 would be
unchanged relative to the No Action Alternative. Westbound travel speeds on Mercer St would
be reduced from 10 MPH under the No Action Alternative to 5 MPH under Alternative 1 –

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-65 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Average Seattle Center Attendance. As noted above, the Mercer St/Fairview Ave N intersection
meters the flow of westbound traffic into the corridor, thereby limiting further reductions in
travel speed (i.e., vehicles are queued on the I-5 off-ramps).
 On Denny Way, the average eastbound travel speed between Seattle Center and I-5 would be
unchanged relative to the No Action Alternative. The westbound travel speed would decrease
from 7 MPH under the No Action Alternative to 5.5 MPH under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle
Center Attendance.
 As was the case in the No Action Alternative, the fact that the eastbound travel times do not
change is more of a reflection of the complete saturation of eastbound lanes due to the
bottleneck caused by I-5. Under Alternative 1, the percent demand served is lower than under
the No Action Alternative, which indicates that the congested peak period would extend in
duration.
Table 4-15. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound
Corridor
Average Travel % of Free Flow
Average Travel Speed % of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed

Mercer St 2 20% 5 50%

Denny Way 2 20% 5.5 55%


MPH = miles per hour. Average free-flow travel speed of 10 MPH assumed given presence of controls and measured speeds in
this range under mostly free-flow conditions on these corridors.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.
This scenario would result in traffic queuing back onto the I-5 freeway mainline from the Mercer St off-
ramps.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Figure 4-21 displays intersection LOS for Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions under the
No Action Alternative and with Alternative 1. This figure indicates that a greater percentage of
intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the weekday pre-event peak hour under
Alternative 1 than under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 2 operations are described in a
subsequent section). This occurs for several reasons. First, the project would add greater amounts of
traffic in the non-peak directions of Mercer St and Denny Way. In some instances (e.g., Mercer St/9th
Ave N), this causes the weighted average delay for all movements at the intersection to be reduced,
thereby causing a better LOS result. Additionally, Alternative 1 causes bottlenecks at certain upstream
intersections, thereby causing delays to be reduced at downstream intersections due to fewer
approaching vehicles. Despite these findings, a visual inspection of the traffic simulation shows that
there is additional traffic congestion under Alternatives 1 and 2 when compared to the No Action
condition, consistent with expectations.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-66 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-19. Impacted Intersections – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-67 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-20. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – 2020 Alternative 1
– Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-69 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-21. Intersection LOS Summary – 2020 Conditions with Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance

During the weekday pre-event peak hour on a day with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, 20
intersections would be impacted by the project. For intersections that operate acceptably under the No
Action Alternative, this is defined as dropping to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) and adding 5 or more
seconds of delay for signalized intersections and adversely affected unsignalized intersections based on
the degree of congestion increase, modal conflicts, and other considerations. For intersections that
operate unacceptably under the No Action Alternative, this is defined as Alternative 1 adding at least 5
seconds of delay. These impacted intersections are displayed in Figure 4-22 and listed in Appendix C,
Tech Memo 6, 2020 Analysis Results for Roadway and Pedestrian Systems. During the weekday post-
event peak hour on a day with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, 34 intersections would be
impacted under Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative assumes a mid-sized KeyArena event that does
not result in widespread poor operations during the post-event peak hour when background traffic is
minimal). These impacted intersections are displayed in Figure 4-22 and listed in Appendix C, Tech
Memo 6, 2020 Analysis Results for Roadway and Pedestrian Systems.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-70 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-22. Impacted Intersections – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-71 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

During the Saturday pre-event peak hour on a day with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, 14
intersections would be impacted under Alternative 1. The impacted intersections are:

 Mercer St/4th Ave N


 Mercer St/5th Ave N
 Mercer St/Dexter Ave N
 Mercer St/Taylor Ave N
 W Mercer Pl/Elliott Ave W
 Denny Way/Warren Ave N
 Denny Way/Fairview Ave N
 Denny Way/Stewart St
 Roy St/4th Ave N
 Roy St/5th Ave N
 Roy St/Dexter Ave N
 Roy St/9th Ave N
 Valley St/Westlake Ave N
 Valley St/Fairview Ave N
Table 4-16 summarizes projected travel speeds along Mercer St and Denny Way under Alternative 1 –
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance. This table indicates that westbound travel speeds on Mercer
St would remain similar to the No Action Alternative because the travel speed comparison begins
downstream of the Mercer St/Fairview Ave N bottleneck. Hence, the volume served and speed of traffic
passing through the corridor under each scenario are similar. Figure 4-23 shows the directional LOS on
segments of Mercer St and Denny Way between Seattle Center and I-5.

Table 4-16. Corridor Travel Speed – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance

Eastbound Westbound
Corridor
Average Travel % of Free Flow
Average Travel Speed % of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed

Mercer St 2 20% 5 50%

Denny Way 2 20% 4.5 45%


MPH = miles per hour.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

The following conclusions are drawn regarding traffic impacts of Alternative 1 under the Average and
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance scenarios:

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-73 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-23. Directional Level of Service and Travel Time on East/West Roadways – 2020 Alternative 1
– Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-74 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

 Alternative 1 impacts are measured against the No Action Alternative as follows:


o For Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, no major event occurs at KeyArena
or Seattle Center. Thus, for this scenario, the Alternative 1 impacts are based on the
entirety of the project’s travel effects.
o For Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, greater levels of background
attendance are assumed at Seattle Center, including an event at KeyArena under the No
Action Alternative. Thus, when Alternative 1 conditions are compared against the No
Action Alternative, the net increase in overall traffic is less than when comparing the
same scenarios under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions.
o Under both scenarios, conditions along Mercer St and Denny Way are over-saturated,
with vehicle queue spillbacks extending onto various north-south streets. The net effect
is the same number of impacted intersections caused by Alternative 1 under Average
and Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, although impacts do occur at
different locations.

Weekday Post-Event Peak Hour

 The severity of Alternative 1 impacts (nearly half of all intersections are impacted) is similar
under Average and Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions because neither
assumes an AAMP. As a result, queue spillbacks occur from multiple intersection bottlenecks,
adversely affecting the overall roadway network in a similar manner for each condition.

Saturday Pre-Event Peak Hour

 Alternative 1 causes significant impacts at 14 intersections under the Above-Average Seattle


Center Attendance scenario, versus 8 under the Average Attendance scenario.

Ridehailing
Ridehailing vehicles tend to drop off passengers in accordance with their selected destination and often
at whatever specific block location the passenger requests. Alternative 1 would not alter this typical
drop-off behavior—drop-offs tend to be more dispersed than pick-ups in both time (people stagger their
arrival more than their departure) and in space (people drop off at more locations and tend to be picked
up near the exit door). However, based on input from SDOT, the City would regulate post-event pick-ups
to only occur at a handful of locations surrounding and at the perimeter of the Seattle Center campus.

Under this plan, during pre-determined event times (to be coordinated by Seattle Center and SDOT),
customers requesting a ride from the geofenced area encompassing Seattle Center would have to meet
their vehicle at 1 of the designated pick-up locations during post-event conditions. Specific geofence
boundaries would be determined and periodically updated in the AAMP. Ridehailing activity would
result in a substantial number of “deadhead” trips added to the area because each pick-up or drop-off
results in 2 trips: 1 carrying the arena attendee(s) and 1 trip with only the driver (unless the ridehailing
vehicle is connected with another passenger in the vicinity of the arena). The impacts of the ridehailing
trips are analyzed as part of the traffic and transit operations impacts.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-75 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance, the renovated arena would attract substantial
ridehailing activity during events such as an NBA game or concert. Drop-off activity would be similar to
that observed during large KeyArena events, which sometimes results in ridehailing vehicles blocking
through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts, particularly along 1st Ave N between Harrison St and
Republican St. Some of the designated ridehailing pick-up locations may temporarily repurpose a
parking or travel lane, but this would be in accordance with an AAMP in coordination with SDOT to
minimize the effects to other modes.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, ridehailing would occur within a
slightly more congested traffic environment. Drivers may have a more difficult time finding appropriate
curb space to drop off passengers, resulting in more frequently blocked through lanes, bicycle facilities,
or bus pullouts during the pre-event peak hours, particularly along 1st Ave N between Harrison St and
Republican St. Some of the designated ridehailing pick-up locations may temporarily repurpose a
parking or travel lane, but this would occur in accordance with an AAMP in coordination with SDOT to
minimize the effects to other modes.

Transit

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-17 displays the number of event attendees that are expected to ride a bus directly to the
renovated arena during each peak hour under Alternative 1 (i.e., this does not include bus riders who
stop at Westlake Station or other locations and then complete their trip to the arena by another mode).
This table also shows similar information for Monorail ridership. The following describes the analysis
performed for each of these travel modes.

Travel by Bus

A detailed ridership estimate and capacity analysis (by individual route) was conducted for weekday and
Saturday conditions. As described in the table footnotes, the analysis concluded that buses with stops
at/near Seattle Center have adequate reserve capacity to accommodate the additional riders associated
with Alternative 1 during the weekday and Saturday pre-event peak hour.

During the weekday post-event peak hour, the analysis shows that project-related riders would
consume approximately half of the reserve capacity. However, demand to travel northbound to the
University District and Ballard would exceed the crowding threshold on routes serving these areas. Note
that while the majority of the routes would have capacity during the post-event peak hour, some
individual trips could reach capacity and turn away riders. A description of Saturday post-event
conditions is included in the impact summary section.

Buses would continue to operate on roadways such as Denny Way that are currently congested. Under
both pre-event and post-event conditions, 1st Ave N and Queen Anne Ave N between Denny Way and
Mercer St are expected to operate under congested conditions. Transit travel time and reliability would
be adversely affected under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance during all 3 peak hour
analysis periods. Additionally, ridehailing vehicle drop-offs could occasionally block bus stops or layover
areas, which could delay bus riders or interfere with transit operations.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-76 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-17. Transit Capacity – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Travel by Bus (Directly to/from


Travel by Monorail (to/from Arena)
Arena)
Percent Usage
Time Period of Overall
Number of Number of
Reserve
Arena Attendee Arena Attendee Evaluation
Capacity by
Riders 1 Riders 1
Arena
Attendees 2
Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour 881 37% 330
Demand can be
Weekday Post-Event Peak Hour 1,046 51% 697 accommodated by
existing service 4
Saturday Pre-Event Peak Hour 3 574 N/A 191
1. See
Appendix C, Tech Memo 5, Project Travel Characteristics – Year 2020. These totals refer only to added riders that would
board or alight at or near Seattle Center (on either bus or Monorail), not total transit usage.
2. Toassess usage of individual bus routes that stop at Seattle Center, bus riders were assigned to individual routes based on the
relative proportion of bus trips expected to originate/be destined from areas such as Downtown, Uptown/Belltown, Queen
Anne, Mercer West, east of I-5, and points to the north that feature direct bus service. Then, additional ridership demand was
evaluated against unused seats (in the appropriate travel direction) to determine adequacy of transit capacity.
3. Sincebus ridership data were not available for Saturday conditions, this evaluation focused on the relative change in bus
service on Saturdays versus weekdays. It was found that Saturday pre-event peak hour service levels (for routes arriving to/near
Seattle Center) are about 62% of weekday service levels. Since Saturday pre-event peak hour project attendee ridership is 65%
of weekday pre-event peak hour ridership, the proportional scaling back of project ridership and service levels from weekday to
Saturday conditions suggests that findings regarding project ridership for weekday pre-event conditions would also apply to
Saturday.
4. TheMonorail operates on 10-minute headways that can carry 250 persons per train. Under Average Seattle Center
Attendance conditions, evening ridership is well below train capacity. The maximum demand for ridership would occur after an
event. Assuming 75% of the demand arrives within a 30-minute window, 523 persons would need to be accommodated in 3
trains. In all likelihood, first train would be completely full, second train would be mostly occupied, and third train would be
uncrowded.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Capacity at nearby bus stops was also considered. The northbound stop at 1st Ave N and Republican St is
expected to have adequate capacity because riders could spill back into the arena plaza during periods
of highest demand. However, the southbound stops along Queen Anne Ave N are more constrained due
to sidewalk width and street furniture, particularly at John St and Harrison St. This could lead to riders
blocking other pedestrians trying to travel along the sidewalk while waiting for buses during the post-
event peak hour.

Travel by Monorail

As shown in the table, Monorail ridership by project attendees would be greatest after an event. During
the post-event peak hour, project-related riders could be accommodated via normal service (i.e., 10-
minute headways). However, some passengers may have to wait up to 20 minutes due to Monorail train
capacity constraints. While the train capacity over the course of the post-event peak hour is sufficient,
improvements to the ingress, egress, and operating hours of the Monorail could make it a more
attractive option for event attendees to make the first/last mile connection to the arena with less delay
to board post-event, thereby mitigating some of the traffic congestion impacts caused by private autos
and ridehailing. This analysis assumes that the Monorail capacity remains the same as existing
conditions because there is no current funding commitment to improve capacity and convenience.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-77 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-18 summarizes the transit capacity findings for Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance. Below is a description of the findings for bus and Monorail.

Table 4-18. Transit Capacity – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance

Travel by Bus (Directly to Arena) Travel by Monorail (to/from Arena)

Percent Usage
Time Period
Number of New of Overall Number of New
Evaluation
Riders 1 Reserve Riders 1
Capacity 2

Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour 881 41% 330


Demand can be
Weekday Post-Event Peak Hour 1,046 54% 697 accommodated by
existing service 4
Saturday Pre-Event Peak Hour3 574 N/A 191
1,2,3,4 See the notes as presented in Table 4-17.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Travel by Bus

The number of bus riders generated by the arena would be the same regardless of the attendance levels
on the Seattle Center campus. However, reserve capacity on buses would be lower because some of
that space would be occupied by other Seattle Center visitors. The bus riders generated by the arena
would take up a larger percentage of the reserve capacity, but could still be accommodated on most
routes without overcrowding.

During the weekday post-event peak hour, demand to travel northbound to the University District and
Ballard would exceed the crowding threshold on routes serving those areas. While the majority of the
routes would have capacity during the post-event peak hour, some individual trips could reach capacity
and turn away riders. A description of Saturday post-event conditions is included in the impact summary
section.

Buses would operate on congested roadways such as Denny Way, 1st Ave N, and Queen Anne Ave N.
Transit travel time and reliability would be adversely affected under Alternative 1 – Above-Average
Seattle Center Attendance during all 3 peak hour analysis periods.

As described above, the southbound bus stops along Queen Anne Ave N are somewhat constrained,
particularly at John St and Harrison St. This could lead to riders blocking other pedestrians trying to
travel along the sidewalk while waiting for buses during the post-event peak hour.

Travel by Monorail

Monorail ridership by project attendees would remain the same under Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance conditions. Although the background reserve capacity would be lower, it is expected that
the Monorail could still accommodate all riders over the course of the post-event peak hour. However,
some passengers may have to wait up to 20 minutes due to Monorail train capacity constraints.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-78 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pedestrian Travel
The pedestrian system evaluation focuses on the adequacy of existing facilities to accommodate surges
in pedestrians associated with large events. The 6th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
includes a detailed methodology to calculate whether crosswalks and sidewalks can accommodate
projected pedestrian flows (Transportation Research Board, 2016). For this study, the metric used to
determine facility adequacy is average pedestrian space, which considers average walk speeds, hourly
pedestrian flows, and effective sidewalk width (i.e., the width of the sidewalk that is not obstructed by
trees, overhanging vehicles, utility poles, etc.). At signalized crosswalks, it also considers the length of
the walk interval, crosswalk width, and signal cycle length. Per HCM recommendations, a threshold of 13
square feet per pedestrian for sidewalks, and 11 square feet per pedestrian for crosswalks is applied as a
threshold to determine whether the project may result in pedestrians overflowing onto streets, which
can cause conflicts with moving vehicles and other forms of travel. A detailed discussion of this
methodology and results is found in Appendix C, Tech Memo 6, 2020 Analysis Results for Roadway and
Pedestrian Systems.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Figures 4-24 and 4-25 display expected pedestrian flows for Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center
Attendance during the weekday pre-event and weekday post-event peak hours, respectively. Results are
not shown for Saturday pre-event conditions because a concert would generate fewer peak hour
pedestrian trips due to a more uniform arrival pattern when compared to a basketball game (60% of
basketball game attendees are expected to arrive during the pre-event peak hour compared to only 50%
for a concert; see Appendix C, Tech Memo 5, Project Travel Characteristics – Year 2020). These estimates
include pedestrians who walk directly from their origin as well as those who arrive to the study area by
another mode, but then walk to the arena from their parked car, ridehailing drop-off, or transit stop.
The volumes shown also include background pedestrian activity that is unrelated to the arena.
Background activity is lower during the post-event peak hour so some locations would have lower total
volumes despite the increase in project pedestrian volumes. The pedestrian volumes on these figures
are not shown for all sidewalks/crosswalks, but rather for those anticipated to carry the highest volumes
of pedestrians.

Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, all sidewalks would have sufficient capacity to
carry the pedestrian demand without overflow into adjacent streets. The facility nearest the capacity
threshold would be 2nd Ave N between John St and Denny Way. Some signalized intersections in the
vicinity of the project provide sizeable areas for pedestrians to wait to cross the intersection. Examples
exist along portions of 5th Ave N (e.g., at Harrison St). Other intersections have limited size waiting areas
to accommodate pedestrians, such as the 1st Ave N/Mercer St and 1st Ave N/Harrison St intersections.

The project site plan shows pedestrian facilities along 1st Ave N and Thomas St, including wide sidewalks
with frequent access points to the arena plaza. These facilities would provide more capacity than
existing sidewalks, particularly along Thomas St, and would be sufficient to serve the pedestrian
demand. Event attendees would walk through Seattle Center from nearly all of its public street access
points. These facilities are of substantial width to accommodate large events.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-79 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-24. Pedestrian Flows – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-
Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-80 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-25. Pedestrian Flows – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday
Post-Event Peak Hour Conditions

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-81 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Demand would exceed capacity at one crosswalk: the north leg of the 5th Ave N/Harrison St intersection.
This crosswalk is projected to accommodate 1,150 pre-event peak hour pedestrians and 2,100 post-
event peak hour pedestrians. The high pedestrian flows are due to the crosswalk’s proximity to the 5th
Ave N Garage as well as its usage to travel from the project site (through Seattle Center) east along
Harrison St to new parking garages on Dexter Ave N. Several other crosswalks would have volumes
nearing capacity, but would typically not result in pedestrians walking outside of crosswalks (although
they may feel very crowded). Increased demand across 1st Ave N is expected at the unmarked,
unsignalized crossings at Thomas St and John St.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, the majority of the added pedestrian travel
(beyond Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions) would occur between the Mercer St, 1st Ave N,
and 5th Ave N garages and Seattle Center venues east of the arena. Few additional sidewalks and
crosswalks would be affected by a direct trip between these parking facilities and the arena. In other
words, the sidewalks and crosswalks between these parking facilities and the Seattle Center venues tend
to have capacity, with the exception of the 5th Ave N/Harrison St north leg crosswalk, which would be
further impacted by people parking east of Seattle Center and traveling to campus venues. Attendees
who visit nearby restaurants may result in additional sidewalk/crosswalk use, but this travel would not
result in sidewalks/crosswalks exceeding capacity.

Although some crosswalks do not have capacity constraints from a pedestrian demand perspective, they
would cause operational issues in which the flow of vehicular traffic is restricted by frequent pedestrian
crossings. Some examples include crosswalks along the north side of Denny Way between 1st Ave N and
2nd Ave N, and the east side crosswalk at the Mercer St/3rd Ave N intersection. These pedestrian flow
impacts to traffic operations are integrated into the results presented earlier.

Bicycle Travel
Assuming a 1% mode share for event attendees, the bicycle parking demand would be for roughly 190
bicycles (which could be personal bicycles or bike share bicycles). OVG’s design accommodates bicycle
racks for approximately 102 bicycles. OVG has committed to providing bike valet services at the site,
with locations and conditions to be established through the AAMP in coordination with Seattle Center,
SDCI, and SDOT.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, vehicles (ridehailing or otherwise) could
temporarily block bicycle facilities when dropping off passengers during the pre-event peak hours. While
temporary, the blockage would create a challenging environment for bicyclists who must pull into a
vehicle lane to move around a stopped vehicle blocking the bicycle facility. Post-event blockages are
unlikely to occur because SDOT would designate ridehailing pick-up locations such that they would not
routinely interfere with bicycle facilities.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


With Above-Average Attendance on the Seattle Center campus, including an event at the arena, vehicles
(ridehailing or otherwise) could temporarily block bicycle facilities when dropping off passengers during
the pre-event peak hours. This would likely be more frequent given the increased congestion during an
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance condition. While temporary, this blockage would create a

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-82 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

challenging environment for bicyclists that must pull into a vehicle lane to move around a stopped
vehicle blocking the bicycle facility. Post-event blockages are unlikely to occur because SDOT would
designate ridehailing pick-up locations such that they would not routinely interfere with bicycle facilities.

Parking
Vehicle trips generated by the renovated arena were assigned to on-street and off-street parking
locations that are currently anticipated to be available for public parking. This includes 510 employees of
the arena who are expected to arrive primarily by private vehicle. Locations were selected based on the
origin/destination of the trip; for example, a trip arriving via I-5 is likely to park to the east of the arena
while a trip arriving via Elliott Ave is expected to park to the west of the arena.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-19 summarizes parking occupancy under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance.
Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 88% on a weekday and 94% on a Saturday. Total off-
street parking occupancy is expected to be 79% on a weekday and 91% on a Saturday. Since no formal
wayfinding program or parking reservation system is currently proposed, Alternative 1 would most likely
result in occupancies on both weekdays and Saturdays that cause a substantial number of vehicles to
circulate for multiple blocks looking for parking and increasing conflicts with other modes. Because paid
parking and time limits are not in effect on Sundays, on-street parking occupancies would likely be
higher than reflected for weekdays and Saturdays.

Table 4-19. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 98 (93%) 99 (94%)


North 1,315 (88%) 1,426 (96%)
On-Street South 897 (85%) 958 (91%)
West 448 (93%) 450 (94%)
Subtotal 2,758 (88%) 2,933 (94%)
East 1,508 (69%) 1,959 (90%)
North 1,177 (85%) 1,308 (95%)
Off-Street South 1,620 (86%) 1,724 (91%)
West 76 (79%) 75 (78%)
Subtotal 4,381 (79%) 5,066 (91%)
On-Street & Off-Street Total 7,139 (82%) 7,999 (92%)
Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea. Includes the 450-space garage beneath the renovated arena.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-83 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-20 summarizes parking occupancy with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions.
Under Alternative 1 on a weekday, Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance would result in roughly
800 more vehicles parking within the study area than with Average Seattle Center Attendance. On a
Saturday, the increase is approximately 300; this smaller increase reflects that less parking is available
on a Saturday in the study area so more visitors would park in more remote locations, such as along
Dexter Ave N, South Lake Union, or Westlake Center parking facilities.

Table 4-20. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 98 (93%) 99 (94%)


North 1,365 (92%) 1,416 (95%)
On-Street South 947 90%) 978 (93%)
West 448 (93%) 450 (94%)
Subtotal 2,858 (91%) 2,943 (94%)
East 1,888 (86%) 2,096 (96%)
North 1,308 (95%) 1,308 (95%)
Off-Street South 1,792 (95%) 1,851 (98%)
West 86 (90%) 92 (96%)
Subtotal 5,074 (91%) 5,347 (96%)
On-Street & Off-Street Total 7,932 (91%) 8,290 (96%)
Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea. Includes the 450-space garage beneath the renovated arena.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 91% on a weekday and 94% on a Saturday. Total off-
street parking occupancy is expected to be 91% on a weekday and 96% on a Saturday. Again, lacking any
formal wayfinding program or parking reservation system, Alternative 1 would most likely result in
occupancies on both weekdays and Saturdays that cause a substantial number of vehicles to circulate
for multiple blocks looking for parking and increasing conflicts with other modes. Because paid parking
and time limits are not in effect on Sundays, on-street parking occupancies would likely be higher than
reflected for weekdays and Saturdays.

The Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario reflects a situation in which there are multiple
events occurring on campus of varying size and timing. Visitors arriving for an earlier event would be
more likely to find parking at the most convenient lots, while those arriving for a later event may find
those lots full. Because of the dynamic nature of event scheduling at Seattle Center, this would affect
venues differently depending on the other events on campus on any particular day.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-84 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Bus/Truck Staging
Charter buses and trucks currently stage using curb space in the vicinity of the project site in accordance
with the SDOT and Seattle Center MOA for Event Curbside Management (2011). Through that
agreement, Seattle Center reserves curb space for loading, unloading, and staging of events on Thomas
St, Warren Ave N, 2nd Ave N, Republican St, and 4th Ave N. While most of those locations would remain
available with a renovated arena, charter buses would not be staged on Thomas St due to the new south
plaza and underground parking garage entrance on Thomas St. Alternative 1 has additional underground
truck/bus storage compared to the space available south of KeyArena today. However, given the larger
(both in terms of attendance and on-stage equipment) shows that would be accommodated by the
renovated arena, it is likely that on-street staging would still be required. Seattle Center and SDOT
would likely modify the MOA to include other nearby locations for staging with a similar permitting
process as is currently used, such that enough staging space is available whether Seattle Center is
operating at an average or above-average attendance level. This process would likely be part of a
broader review of curb space management in the area by SDOT. Renegotiation of the MOA could affect
on-street parking supply if curb space currently used for general on-street parking is regularly reserved
for event staging.

Paratransit
Under Alternative 1, it is expected that paratransit vehicles would continue to load and unload along the
east side of 1st Ave N adjacent to the arena as well as on 2nd Ave N just south of KeyArena. This
designated passenger loading/unloading curb space would be available under both the average and
above-average conditions. Although ridehailing pick-ups would be regulated, drop-offs during the pre-
event peak hours would remain unregulated. Based on observations of current drop-off activity at
KeyArena, passenger loading/unloading space used by paratransit would sometimes be blocked by non-
transit vehicles during periods of high demand, such as drop-offs before an event at the renovated
arena.

Safety
No study intersections are currently identified as high collision locations. Under both Average and
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, bicycle safety may be affected by vehicles
(ridehailing or otherwise) temporarily blocking bicycle facilities when dropping off passengers during the
pre-event peak hour. Pedestrian safety could be affected at the 5th Ave N/Harrison St crosswalk where
pedestrians may spill out of the crosswalk into vehicle lanes to cross the street.

To enhance the understanding of potential pedestrian and bicycle conflicts at study intersections,
additional collision data were evaluated. This supplemental information will be considered to inform the
AAMP in terms of where additional measures could be implemented to improve the pedestrian and
bicycle experience around the arena. In 2016, SDOT completed a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis
(BPSA) (SDOT, 2016). That report studied 8 years of citywide data to identify the roadway designs and
user behavior characteristics most highly correlated with collisions involving people walking or bicycling.
Key findings from that work included the following:

 Most bicycle and pedestrian crashes occur at intersections.


 75% of bicycle crashes and 80% of pedestrian crashes occur on arterial streets.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-85 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Pedestrian intersection crashes are more likely at signalized intersections, although caution was
urged regarding interpretation of this finding (due to lack of controlling for signal phasing and
vehicle volumes).
 The most common types of bicycle and pedestrian crashes were “left hook,” “right hook,” and
angle crashes. Left and right hook collisions involve vehicles turning left or right in front of a
bicyclist or pedestrian. Angle collisions involve vehicles and bicycles/pedestrians approaching
one another from perpendicular directions.
The BPSA analysis ranked intersections based on a variety of factors, including past crash history and
other significant crash risk predictors. For this evaluation, those BPSA intersections were cross-
referenced against study intersections, and 14 of those were selected for further analysis given the
expected increase in vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian travel at each during major events at Seattle Center
Arena. The 14 study intersections are listed below:

 Queen Anne Ave N / Mercer St


 Queen Anne Ave N / Republican St
 Queen Anne Ave N / Harrison St
 Queen Anne Ave N / Thomas St
 1st Ave N / Mercer St
 1st Ave N / Republican St
 1st Ave N / Denny Way
 2nd Ave N / Denny Way
 Broad St / John St
 5th Ave N / Mercer St
 5th Ave N / Harrison St
 5th Ave N / Thomas St
 5th Ave N / John St
 5th Ave N / Denny Way
WSDOT crash records for 2011 through May 2018 were requested for these intersections, and each
bicycle or pedestrian involved accident was reviewed (WSDOT, 2018). The crash circumstance that
appeared most frequently was a vehicle turning left or right into a bicycle or pedestrian who had the
right-of-way. Given the results of the BPSA report in terms of factors affecting crash likelihood, the 14
identified BPSA intersections in the project vicinity, and the EIS results pertaining to project-related
increases in vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic, the following locations were identified as candidates
for additional traffic management during events (and have identified management strategies included in
the AAMP).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-86 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 1st Ave N / Mercer St


o Expected surges in post-event attendees using the east leg crosswalk would conflict with
a heavy expected northbound right-turn movement.
 1st Ave N / Republican St
o Expected surges in post-event attendees using the east leg crosswalk would conflict with
vehicles that may attempt to use Republican St and Warren Ave as a short-cut to access
eastbound Mercer St.
 5th Ave N at Mercer St, Republican St, and Harrison St
o Heavy pedestrian volumes across 5th Ave N would conflict with auto volumes stemming
from the 5th Ave N garage.
 Denny Way / 2nd Ave N
o Pedestrian volumes across the north leg crosswalk would conflict with westbound right-
turning vehicles.
The AAMP is a living document and subject to change depending on observed conditions and changes in
the background environment. As part of the planning and design process that would lead up to the
arena’s opening, OVG and the City may explore expanded traffic management, particularly focusing on
Queen Anne Ave N / Mercer St, 1st Ave N/Denny Way, and 5th Ave / Thomas St, all of which are BPSA
intersections.

Summary of Transportation Impacts in 2020 – Alternative 1

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, Alternative 1 would result in adverse impacts
when compared to the No Action Alternative. This comparison reflects how the transportation system
would be affected on a day without a KeyArena event versus a day with a sold-out event at the
renovated arena. Alternative 1 would cause significant impacts at 22 intersections during the weekday
pre-event peak hour, 37 intersections during the weekday post-event peak hour, and 8 intersections
during the Saturday pre-event peak hour. During the weekday pre-event peak hour, the average travel
speed on westbound Mercer St from Fairview Ave N to Seattle Center would be reduced from 10 MPH
(under No Action Alternative) to 5 MPH (under Alternative 1). Although this is not classified as a
significant impact, the additional delays would be noticeable to westbound motorists. Alternative 1
would also cause traffic exiting both directions of I-5 at Mercer St to queue back toward the mainline.

Transit would experience significant impacts due to overcapacity conditions on some routes, as well as
travel time and reliability degradation associated with degraded traffic operations. Because ridehailing
vehicles would not have regulated unloading locations during the pre-event peak hours, they would
sometimes block through lanes, bicycle facilities, and bus pullouts, resulting in significant impacts to
transit, bicycle travel, and safety. No significant impacts related to ridehailing are expected during the
post-event peak hours. Some of the traffic and transit delays described above are attributable to
ridehailing traffic (drop-off, pick-up, deadhead, and circulating activities).

Significant pedestrian impacts are expected at the 5th Ave N/Harrison St crosswalk due to high demand.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-87 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parking occupancy levels on weekdays and Saturdays suggest that a substantial number of motorists
could circulate for multiple blocks looking for parking. This would increase conflicts with other modes,
thereby causing a significant impact. Because paid parking and time limits are not in effect on Sundays,
parking impacts are also expected on Sundays.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


With Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, traffic operations would be congested under
both the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, although Alternative 1 would result in additional
delays on key corridors and intersections. This comparison reflects how the transportation system would
change from a high activity day at Seattle Center including a KeyArena event to a high activity day at
Seattle Center with a sold-out event at the renovated arena.

The impacts described for the Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario would be exacerbated under
the Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario. Alternative 1 would cause significant impacts at
20 intersections during the weekday pre-event peak hour, 34 intersections during the weekday post-
event peak hour, and 14 intersections during the Saturday pre-event peak hour. During the weekday
pre-event peak hour, the average travel speed on westbound Denny Way from Fairview Ave N to Taylor
Ave would be reduced from 7.5 MPH (under No Action Alternative) to 4.5 MPH (under Alternative 1).
Although this is not classified as a significant impact, the additional delays would be noticeable to
westbound motorists. Alternative 1 would also cause traffic exiting both directions of I-5 at Mercer St to
queue back toward the mainline. Transit is expected to experience significant impacts due to
overcapacity conditions on some routes, as well as travel time and reliability degradation associated
with the traffic operations findings.

Compared to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance would
improve the weekday post-event condition related to ridehailing, bicycle travel, and paratransit.
However, significant impacts are still expected during the pre-event peak hours because ridehailing
vehicles would not have regulated unloading locations. Significant pedestrian impacts are expected at
the 5th Ave N/Harrison St crosswalk due to high demand. Lastly, Alternative 1 would result in parking
impacts to both on-street and off-street parking that would not occur under the No Action Alternative.

Saturday post-event conditions were also considered although not analyzed for all modes because
conditions would be similar to weekday post-event conditions. The exception would be transit, which
includes lower service levels for some routes on the weekends. The combined transit capacity of routes
during the Saturday post-event peak hour serving the project site is 85% of the weekday post-event
peak hour. Frequencies of the routes with potential overcrowding (to the University District and Ballard)
are the same between the weekday and Saturday post-event peak hours so no additional crowding
impacts on those routes are expected. No additional impacts are expected on routes serving the
renovated arena during the Saturday post-event peak hour even with reduced weekend capacity.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

This section describes the potential impacts to transportation that would likely occur under Alternative
2. The transportation-related assumptions for Alternative 2 differ from Alternative 1 in the following key
ways:
 Less underground parking (200 spaces instead of 450 spaces) beneath the arena.
 Parking before, during, and after events at the 1st Ave N Garage would be capped at 400 spaces.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-88 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Thomas St between 1st Ave N and Warren Ave N would function as a “woonerf” (a street with a
raised street-bed where pedestrians and bicyclists have priority over motorists), or urban
curbless street as defined in the City’s Right-of-Way Improvements Manual (City of Seattle,
2018), and would be closed to traffic before, during, and after events.
 Ridehailing would be regulated such that no pick-ups may occur after events within the
geofenced area encompassing Seattle Center (specific geofence boundaries would be
determined and periodically updated in the AAMP). No regulation of drop-offs would occur.

The travel characteristics (mode share, origin/destination, etc.) of attendees at the renovated arena
under Alternative 2 would be the same as under Alternative 1 given their similar proposed
transportation conditions and the fact that the arena capacity is the same.

Traffic Operations
Traffic volume forecasts for Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1. The differences are focused
on the locations where parking would be limited: the garage beneath the arena and the 1st Ave N
Garage. Because less parking would be provided in those garages compared to Alternative 1, less traffic
is projected in the area immediately south of the arena under Alternative 2. However, volumes along
the key corridors accessing the arena would be equivalent to Alternative 1. The ridehailing regulations
would also disperse some traffic from the area immediately surrounding the arena to other nearby
corridors during post-event conditions.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


The traffic operations findings for Alternative 2 are similar to Alternative 1 in most locations. However,
by providing fewer parking spaces south of the arena, the amount of time to empty garages/streets in
this area after events would be reduced. While there would be a modest traffic increase on other streets
associated with this displaced parking (largely expected to be east or south of Seattle Center), this would
most likely occur a considerable distance from the site where parking is available and congestion is less
severe. Similarly, traffic volumes associated with ridehailing activity would be shifted to areas outside
the ridehailing pick-up boundary. Therefore, Alternative 2 is expected to result in a slight improvement
(relative to Alternative 1) in traffic conditions at intersections adjacent to and south of the arena.
However, the intersection LOS degradations identified under Alternative 1 would also occur at most
locations with Alternative 2 given their similar travel characteristics. Similarly, Alternative 2 would result
in comparable degradations in travel times and freeway off-ramp queues as described for Alternative 1.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, conclusions regarding traffic
operations would be similar to those described for the Average Seattle Center Attendance condition.
However, Alternative 2 would offer some beneficial circulation effects during the post-event condition
because traffic would be more dispersed due to the adjacent parking garage capacity limits and
restrictions on post-event passenger pick-ups near the arena.

Ridehailing
Under Alternative 2, ridehailing drop-offs would occur in those locations most convenient to drivers and
passengers rather than in a designated area. However, pick-ups would be regulated using a “geofence,”
which is a virtual geographic boundary. Customers that request a pick-up while in the geofence would
be limited in where they can meet their car. During pre-determined event times (to be coordinated by

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-89 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Seattle Center and SDOT), customers requesting a ride from the geofenced area encompassing Seattle
Center would have to meet their vehicle outside of that restricted area. The Alternative 2 geofence
differs from the Alternative 1 geofence in that Alternative 2 does not have designated pick-up locations
within the geofence. Rather, under Alternative 2, people using a ridehailing vehicle after an event would
have to walk outside of the geofence for pick-up. Specific geofence boundaries would be determined
and periodically updated in the AAMP. This approach would reduce the amount of vehicle traffic in the
immediate vicinity of the project site and Seattle Center relative to Alternative 1. Ridehailing activity
would result in a substantial number of “deadhead” trips added to the area because each pick-up or
drop-off results in 2 trips: 1 carrying the arena attendee(s) and 1 trip with only the driver (unless the
ridehailing vehicle is connected with another passenger in the vicinity of the arena). These deadhead
and pick-up/drop-off trips are accounted for in the traffic and transit delays described above.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 2 – Average Seattle Center Attendance, the renovated arena would draw substantial
ridehailing activity during events such as an NBA game or concert. Drop-off activity would be similar to
that observed during large KeyArena events, which sometimes results in ridehailing vehicles blocking
through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts, particularly on 1st Ave N between Thomas St and
Republican St. Although ridehailing pick-up locations would not be allowed within the geofence, those
ridehailing vehicles may stop in travel lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts outside that area, causing
congestion and blockages to other modes.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, ridehailing would occur within a
slightly more congested traffic environment. However, findings would be similar to those described for
the Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario.

Transit
The transit impact findings described for Alternative 1 are also representative of conditions for
Alternative 2.

Pedestrian Travel
Alternative 2 would include a woonerf, or urban curbless street, along Thomas St between 1st Ave N and
Warren Ave N that would be closed to vehicle traffic before, during, and after events. This street design
would make crossing Thomas St more comfortable for pedestrians due to the decreased conflicts with
vehicles.

Alternative 2 would limit the parking capacity at the 1st Ave N Garage to 400 spaces and the capacity in
the underground garage to 200 spaces. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in more dispersed parking
(relative to Alternative 1), primarily in areas east and south of the arena. This would require attendees
to walk longer distances to reach the arena and increase pedestrian flows on some sidewalks and
crosswalks. However, the overall change in volume at any 1 facility is expected to be modest given the
large number of alternative parking areas, and therefore the pedestrian impacts described for
Alternative 1 are representative of conditions under Alternative 2.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-90 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Bicycle Travel
As described above, Alternative 2 would make crossing Thomas St more comfortable for bicyclists due to
decreased conflicts with vehicles. Aside from this benefit, the bicycle impact findings described for
Alternative 1 are representative of conditions for Alternative 2.

Parking
Alternative 2 would limit the parking capacity at the 1st Ave N Garage to 400 spaces and the capacity in
the underground garage to 200 spaces. Therefore, under Alternative 2 more than 400 vehicles would
need to park in a different location than under Alternative 1. This section presents parking occupancy
tables reflecting that change.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-21 summarizes parking occupancy under Alternative 2 – Average Seattle Center Attendance.
Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be the same as Alternative 1. Total off-street parking
occupancy is expected to be 86% on a weekday and 94% on a Saturday. This assumes that some vehicles
that would park within the parking study area under Alternative 1 would find parking outside that area
under Alternative 2, particularly on a Saturday evening when off-street occupancy is higher. Because
paid parking and time limits are not in effect on Sundays, on-street parking occupancies would likely be
higher than reflected for weekdays and Saturdays.

Table 4-21. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 2 – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 98 (93%) 99 (94%)

North 1,315 (88%) 1,426 (96%)

On-Street South 897 (85%) 958 (91%)

West 448 (93%) 450 (94%)

Subtotal 2,758 (88%) 2,933 (94%)

East 1,708 (78%) 2,015 (92%)

North 1,292 (94%) 1,308 (95%)

Off-Street South 1,305 (92%) 1,343 (94%)

West 76 (79%) 85 (89%)

Subtotal 4,381 (86%) 4,751 (94%)

On-Street & Off-Street Total 7,139 (87%) 7,684 (94%)


Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Includes the 200-space garage
beneath the renovated arena.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-91 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-22 summarizes parking occupancy under Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance. Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be the same as Alternative 1. Total off-
street parking occupancy is expected to be 95% on a weekday and 96% on a Saturday. Under Above-
Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, the majority of displaced vehicles (relative to Alternative
1) would find parking outside the study area. Because paid parking and time limits are not in effect on
Sundays, on-street parking occupancies would likely be higher than reflected for weekdays and
Saturdays.

Table 4-22. Parking Occupancy – 2020 Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 98 (93%) 99 (94%)

North 1,365 (92%) 1,416 (95%)

On-Street South 947 90%) 978 (93%)

West 448 (93%) 450 (94%)

Subtotal 2,858 (91%) 2,943 (94%)

East 2,074 (95%) 2,096 (96%)

North 1,308 (95%) 1,308 (95%)

Off-Street South 1,356 (95%) 1,375 (97%)

West 86 (90%) 90 (94%)

Subtotal 4,824 (95%) 4,869 (96%)

On-Street & Off-Street Total 7,682 (94%) 7,812 (95%)


Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Includes the 200-space garage
beneath the renovated arena.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Bus/Truck Staging
The charter bus and truck staging impact findings described for Alternative 1 are also representative of
conditions for Alternative 2.

Paratransit
The paratransit impact findings described for Alternative 1 are also representative of conditions for
Alternative 2.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-92 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Safety
The safety impact findings described under Alternative 1 are also representative of conditions for
Alternative 2.

Summary of Transportation Impacts in 2020 – Alternative 2


Impacts to the transportation system under Alternative 2 would generally be similar to those identified
for Alternative 1. The differences relate to traffic operations, ridehailing, and on-street and off-street
parking. Due to more dispersed traffic caused by limiting off-street parking availability south of the
arena and the ridehailing regulations, there would be fewer and/or less severe impacts at locations
immediately surrounding the arena, particularly on the south side. The significant impact findings
described under Alternative 1 related to ridehailing during the pre-event peak hours are also
representative of conditions under Alternative 2. During the post-event peak hours, the ridehailing
activity would shift to nearby corridors, where impacts could occur during the post-event peak hours
due to blockages of travel lanes, bicycle facilities, and/or bus pullouts. However, because the blockages
would be temporary and considerably more dispersed compared to an unregulated condition, these
impacts are not considered significant.

The decreased off-street parking supply immediately south of the arena would result in more
competition for on-street and off-street parking, with some patrons having to park farther from the
arena. Parking occupancy levels on weekdays and Saturdays suggest that a substantial number of
vehicles would circulate for multiple blocks looking for parking and increasing conflicts with other
modes; this would be a significant impact. Because paid parking and time limits are not in effect on
Sundays, parking impacts are also expected on Sundays.

Frequency of Events

The preceding analysis focuses on the magnitude of impacts that could occur during typical weekday
and Saturday evening periods associated with sold-out events held at a renovated arena. The frequency
of these conditions is also an important factor when considering the overall impact to the transportation
system. Under the No Action Alternative, KeyArena would have roughly 102 events per year, or 2 to 3
per week. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the frequency of arena events would increase to between 242
and 257 per year, or roughly 4 to 5 times per week. Events such as family shows, community events,
WNBA, and other types of smaller sporting events are expected to stay constant among the alternatives.
The increase in event frequency would be primarily due to NBA and NHL games (roughly 50 each per
year) and large concerts, which are expected to increase from 25 per year under the No Action
Alternative to between 40 and 55 under Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, the impacts described in this
chapter relating to large events at the project site would be more frequent (i.e., twice as often over the
course of a year) under Alternatives 1 and 2 than under the No Action Alternative. Moreover, with the
increase in arena events, there would be more days of the year when an arena event coincides with
another large event on the Seattle Center campus.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-93 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of Significant Impacts in 2020 by Alternative

The following table summarizes the significant impacts identified for Alternatives 1 and 2.

Table 4-23. 2020 Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2 Significant Impacts to the No Action Alternative

Significant Impacts
Mode No Action Alternative
Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Traffic LOS E/F intersections: Impacted intersections: Modestly improved traffic


Operations  Average Seattle Center  Average Seattle Center operations adjacent to arena
Attendance: 46 weekday Attendance: 22 weekday pre- because of dispersal of traffic
pre-event, 1 weekday post- event, 37 weekday post- volumes due to off-street
event, and 7 Saturday pre- event, and 8 Saturday pre- parking limits.
event. event. Same as Alternative 1 beyond
 Above-Average Seattle  Above-Average Seattle arena site.
Center Attendance: 52 Center Attendance: 20
weekday pre-event, 11 weekday pre-event, 34
weekday post-event, and weekday post-event, and 14
11 Saturday pre-event. Saturday pre-event.
Slow eastbound speeds on Queues spill back onto I-5
Mercer St and Denny Way. mainline at Mercer St.
Ridehailing Unregulated pick-up/drop- Impacts to transit, bicycles, and Impacts to transit, bicycles,
off system may cause safety before events due to the and safety before events due
blockages before and after potential of unregulated drop- to the potential of unregulated
large events. offs that block facilities. drop-offs that block facilities.
No impacts and improved No impacts after events
conditions after events due to because activity is dispersed
designated pick-up locations. from arena.
Transit Transit speed and reliability Transit speed and reliability Same as Alternative 1.
affected by congested traffic impacted by poor traffic
operations and ridehailing operations and ridehailing
pick-up/drop-off activities. drop-off activities.
Sufficient total bus capacity Crowding impacts on buses to
although many routes have U District and Ballard.
standing room only. Bus stop blockage impact from
Ample Monorail capacity. ridehailing before events;
Occasional transit blockages improved conditions after
by ridehailing vehicles. events (see ridehailing section).
Pedestrian Generally acceptable with Impact at 5th Ave N/Harrison St Impact at 5th Ave N/Harrison St
occasional capacity issues crosswalk. crosswalk.
during large events. More comfortable to cross
Thomas St due to woonerf.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-94 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Significant Impacts
Mode No Action Alternative
Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal

Bicycle Occasional blockages caused Bicycle lane blockage impact Impact from ridehailing before
by ridehailing vehicles during from ridehailing before events; events; improved conditions
large events. improved conditions after after events (see ridehailing
events (see ridehailing section). section).
More comfortable to cross
Thomas St due to woonerf.
Parking Overall sufficient capacity Impacts due to modal conflicts Same as Alternative 1.
with higher on-street caused by motorists circulating
occupancies than off-street for parking (high occupancy
occupancies. levels would cause more
cruising for parking).
Charter Bus/ Accommodated via MOA for No significant impacts. No significant impacts.
Truck Staging Event Curbside
Management.
Paratransit Accommodated in existing No significant impacts, Same as Alternative 1.
passenger loading zones. although ridehailing could
cause delays in curb space
availability in the pre-event
period.
Safety Occasional, temporary Modal conflict impact from Same as Alternative 1.
effects from ridehailing ridehailing before events;
vehicles. improved conditions after
events (see ridehailing section).
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

2035 Impacts
The roadway network in place in 2035 is expected to be very similar to 2020. However, the expansion of
the LINK light rail system would have a major effect on how people travel within the region. By 2035,
Sound Transit LINK light rail service is to be extended north to Ballard and Lynnwood, east to Bellevue
and Redmond, and south to Tacoma. This includes a new line extending from Westlake Station toward
Seattle Center, Magnolia, and Ballard. These expansions would create a more robust light rail system
that provides direct access to the proposed Seattle Center Arena via a new station near the northwest
corner of Seattle Center (the precise location has yet to be determined). Bus networks would also be
restructured to coincide with LINK light rail expansion.

A variety of pedestrian and bicycle projects are expected to be built by 2035, including the Lake to Bay
streetscape improvements along Broad St, Thomas St, and Terry Ave N; green street improvements on
Thomas St; and protected bicycle lanes on the 1st Ave N/Queen Anne Ave N couplet. See Appendix C,
Tech Memo 3, Year 2020 and 2035 Background Transportation Network, for more details on the projects
planned to be in place by 2035.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-95 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action Alternative

This section describes the conditions of the transportation system under the 2035 No Action Alternative
in which KeyArena is not renovated. The 2035 No Action Alternative is the baseline against which the
impacts of the project in 2035 are assessed. In other words, the 2035 No Action Alternative represents
the cumulative transportation condition in 2035 without the proposed project, and Alternatives 1 and 2
represent that cumulative condition plus the proposed project. A comparison of the No Action
Alternative versus Alternatives 1 and 2 indicates the direct impacts of the proposed arena.

Traffic Operations
As with the 2020 analysis, traffic volume forecasts were developed for 2035 conditions using the PSRC
regional travel demand model. The forecasts take into account existing volumes, planned land use
growth within the immediate study area (as well as throughout the city and region), and changing traffic
patterns associated with planned projects. These forecasts represent changing travel demand and travel
patterns that would occur with no renovation at KeyArena. Although the transit mode share within the
City and the surrounding region is expected to grow with the light rail expansion, the continued growth
throughout the region is nonetheless expected to result in a roughly 10% increase in pre-event peak
hour traffic on Denny Way and Mercer St compared to 2020.

Connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs) could be widespread by 2035. But it is currently unknown
whether they would be privately owned or would take the form of a subscription service in which
individuals do not own a vehicle but rather use one from a pool of vehicles. It is also unknown whether
government policies would result in increased vehicle occupancies (i.e., pooled rides), less
“deadheading” (i.e., traveling to a destination with no one in the vehicle for a pick-up), managed curb
space, parking restrictions, and other transportation effects. Some planners believe CAVs would reduce
congestion and parking demand in urban areas, while others believe that if unregulated, they could lead
to further suburban sprawl and growth in vehicle travel. Given the speculative nature of this evolving
form of transportation, this study applies a “business as usual” approach and assumes that CAVs may be
in the vehicle fleet by 2035 but operate in a similar way to current private vehicles. That said, it is
expected that ridehailing would serve a greater percentage of trips under Alternatives 1 and 2 under
2035 conditions versus 2020 based on this mode’s recent growth in the Seattle area, combined with the
potential that if ridehailing vehicles became autonomous, the cost per ride would likely decrease (due to
removal of the driver), further incentivizing its use. However, ridehailing vehicles are not assumed to be
ubiquitous in 2035.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Intersection delay and corridor travel times are expected to continue increasing between 2020 and 2035
independent of the arena renovation. On a day with Average Seattle Center Attendance, the number of
intersections operating at LOS E or F would increase from 46 intersections in 2020 to 51 intersections in
2035 during the weekday pre-event peak hour. Additionally, eastbound travel operations of Mercer St
and Denny Way are expected to experience greater queue spillback due to additional traffic growth.
During the weekday post-event and Saturday pre-event peak hours in 2035, 2 and 10 intersections,
respectively, would operate at LOS E or F.

Travel time along Mercer St and Denny Way was analyzed to identify corridor travel speed impacts.
Table 4-24 summarizes projected travel speeds in 2035. Average travel speeds in the westbound
directions of this streets would further degrade due to background traffic growth.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-96 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-24. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 No Action Alternative –- Average Seattle Center Attendance

2035 Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound
Corridor
Average Travel % of Free Flow
Average Travel Speed % of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed

Mercer St 2 20% 5.5 55%


Denny Way 1.5 15% 7.5 75%
MPH = miles per hour. Average free-flow travel speed of 10 MPH assumed given the presence of controls and measured speeds
in this range under mostly free-flow conditions on these corridors.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Due to the additional increment of visitors to the Seattle Center campus, the Above-Average Seattle
Center Attendance scenario would result in operations that are slightly worse than those expected with
Average Seattle Center Attendance (Table 4-25).

Table 4-25. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance
2035 Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound
Corridor
Average Travel % of Free Flow
Average Travel Speed % of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed

Mercer St 2 MPH 20% 5 MPH 50%


Denny Way 1.5 MPH 15% 5.5 MPH 55%
MPH = miles per hour.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Ridehailing
Under the No Action Alternative in 2035, ridehailing is expected to operate the same as it does today,
although the overall share of trips is expected to increase as ridehailing increases in popularity. Pick-ups
and drop-offs would occur in those locations most convenient to drivers and passengers rather than in a
designated area.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, pick-up and drop-off activity is not expected to
routinely block through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-97 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, more visitors are traveling to Seattle
Center, and ridehailing would occur within a more congested traffic environment. Drivers may have a
more difficult time finding appropriate curb space for loading and unloading, resulting in more
frequently blocked through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts. This condition is expected to be
similar to, or slightly worse than, what currently occurs during major events at Seattle Center. The area
along 1st Ave N between Harrison St and Republican St would be the most affected.

Transit
As described earlier, the regional light rail transit system will
Transit is poised to expand
expand substantially by 2035, with a station near the northwest
significantly between 2024 (when
corner of Seattle Center. Specific bus routing and service levels the ST2 expansion projects are
are not as certain, but based on historic service level changes, it complete) and 2035 (when the
is assumed that bus frequencies would be higher in the future. Ballard extension is complete). In
METRO CONNECTS, King County Metro’s long range transit the interim period, however, the
vision (King County Metro, 2016), anticipates that transit service new ST2 LINK light rail extensions
hours (i.e., total hours of bus service provided to riders) could (east to Redmond, south to Federal
roughly double between 2016 and 2040. Way, north to Lynnwood) could
significantly shift how people reach
Average Seattle Center Attendance the arena. These regional lines
converge at Westlake Station and
Reserve capacity on the LINK light rail was estimated based on could substantially add to “last
Sound Transit’s 2035 ridership demand model and the best mile” trips between Westlake and
available information regarding Sound Transit’s service level the arena via the Monorail, 3rd Ave
bus routes, bike share, walking, or
plans (Sound Transit, 2018). Reserve capacity under the No
ridehailing. This is discussed in more
Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario detail at the end of Section 4.4.3,
is summarized in Table 4-26. These values pertain specifically to Operations Impacts.
the new line that would extend from Westlake Station north
through the study area, toward Ballard. For all analysis periods
studied, reserve capacity is expected to be available on LINK light rail in both directions.

Table 4-26. LINK Light Rail Reserve Capacity – No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center
Attendance

Reserve Capacity
Service Assumptions
(Number of Passengers)
Analysis Period
Headway To/From the To/From the
Cars per Train
(minutes) South North

Weekday Pre-event Peak Hour 6 4 2,901 6,784


Weekday Post-event Peak Hour 10 3 1,050 2,992
Saturday Pre-event Peak Hour 10 4 2,458 2,587
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-98 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Metro is expected to restructure bus routing and service levels in the future to match regional growth
and the light rail expansion. As is the case under 2020 conditions, it is projected that bus service would
be provided such that ridership would not routinely reach crowding thresholds, although individual trips
during the highest demand times may exceed those thresholds. The Monorail is also expected to have
reserve capacity under the No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance in 2035.

However, buses would be affected by the worsening congestion on study area corridors during the
weekday pre-event peak hour under No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance in 2035.
Therefore, bus travel time and reliability would degrade as congestion increases.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


During Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, the additional increment of visitors to the
campus would result in increased ridership on LINK light rail and nearby bus routes. Reserve capacity
under the No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance is summarized in Table
4-27. For all analysis periods studied, reserve capacity is expected to be available on LINK light rail in
both directions.

Table 4-27. LINK Light Rail Reserve Capacity – No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance

Reserve Capacity
Service Assumptions
(Number of Passengers)
Analysis Period
Headway To/From the To/From the
Cars per Train
(minutes) South North

Weekday Pre-event Peak Hour 6 4 2,399 6,664


Weekday Post-event Peak Hour 10 3 725 2,914
Saturday Pre-event Peak Hour 10 4 2,097 2,500
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

With the additional influx of visitors to Seattle Center, individual bus trips during the highest demand
times are more likely to exceed crowding thresholds. The Monorail is also expected to have reserve
capacity under No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance in 2035.

Buses would be operating in more severe congestion on study area corridors during the weekday pre-
event peak hour under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions. Bus travel time and
reliability would degrade as congestion increases.

Pedestrian Travel

Average Seattle Center Attendance


As the city’s population and employment continue to grow, pedestrian activity in the study area would
increase. The sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area are expected to accommodate that growth in
the coming years, with no facilities routinely having demand exceed capacity.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-99 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Observations of pedestrian activity on a typical day with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance (for
example, a mid-sized event at KeyArena) suggest that no sidewalks or crosswalks routinely have demand
exceeding capacity. Even with additional background growth in pedestrians by 2035, these conditions
are not expected to substantively change. However, it is noted that large events (i.e., over 10,000
persons) can temporarily result in such conditions at key locations near the event venue (which could be
KeyArena or another Seattle Center venue, depending on the large event location).

Bicycle Travel
All 2035 scenarios would increase congestion on most streets compared to 2020. The congestion on
portions of 1st Ave N, Queen Anne Ave N, 5th Ave N, and Dexter Ave N are particularly notable as these
facilities have on-street bicycle facilities. Bicyclists may feel less comfortable traveling on these streets
when adjacent lanes experience “stop-and-go” traffic because such conditions can result in side-street
vehicles encroaching into the major street to merge, thereby temporarily blocking the bicycle facilities.
Conversely, further reductions in auto travel time reliability could make travel to the venue by bicycle
more attractive.

Bicycle parking supply would remain the same as existing conditions under the No Action Alternative.
The City has plans to construct protected bicycle lanes along the 1st Ave N and Queen Anne Ave N
couplet by 2035. Under either attendance scenario, no bicycle facilities are expected to be consistently
blocked by pedestrian overflows or vehicles dropping off or picking up patrons.

Parking
SDOT will continue to adjust its management of on-street parking supply to ensure that curb space is
designated appropriately for the changing conditions. In particular, SDOT would proactively manage
parking within roughly a quarter-mile of light rail stations to discourage commuter parking, which would
include much of the parking study area. New developments in the study area would add some off-street
supply within a walkable distance to the arena site, but it would be speculative to estimate which
locations and how much parking would be publicly available. For the purposes of this analysis, the
parking supply is expected to remain the same as 2020. Overall, background parking occupancy is
expected to increase by 10% over 2020 conditions, which is commensurate with overall vehicle trip
growth.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-28 summarizes parking occupancy under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions. Total
on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 74% on a weekday and 88% on a Saturday. Total off-
street parking occupancy is expected to be 14% on a weekday and 25% on a Saturday.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


The mode share of visitors to Seattle Center will change substantially by 2035 as private vehicle use
decreases in favor of light rail and ridehailing trips. This change in travel behavior would result in lower
parking demand from Seattle Center visitors. Table 4-29 summarizes parking occupancy under Above-
Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions. Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 75%
on a weekday and 89% on a Saturday. Total off-street parking occupancy is expected to be 35% on a
weekday and 44% on a Saturday.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-100 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-28. Parking Occupancy – 2035 No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 80 (76%) 76 (72%)


North 1,161 (78%) 1,477 (99%)
On-Street South 701 (66%) 779 (74%)
West 383 (80%) 429 (89%)
Subtotal 2,325 (74%) 2,761 (88%)
East 300 (14%) 303 (14%)
North 162 (12%) 585 (42%)
Off-Street South 209 (14%) 400 (28%)
West 29 (30%) 5 (5%)
Subtotal 700 (14%) 1,293 (25%)
On-Street & Off-Street Total 3,025 (37%) 4,054 (49%)
Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Table 4-29. Parking Occupancy – 2035 No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 80 (76%) 76 (72%)


North 1,178 (79%) 1,477 (99%)
On-Street South 713 (68%) 809 (77%)
West 383 (80%) 429 (89%)
Subtotal 2,354 (75%) 2,791 (89%)
East 549 (25%) 675 (31%)
North 752 (55%) 915 (66%)
Off-Street South 443 (31%) 626 (43%)
West 29 (30%) 5 (5%)
Subtotal 1,773 (35%) 2,221 (44%)
On-Street & Off-Street Total 4,127 (50%) 5,012 (61%)
Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-101 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions for the No Action Alternative, weekday evening
off-street parking occupancy increases from 12% under 2020 conditions to 14% under 2035 conditions.
In contrast, under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, the weekday evening off-street
parking occupancy decreases from 46% under 2020 conditions to 35% under 2035 conditions. This
decrease is caused by a greater percentage of Above-Average Seattle Center event attendees shifting to
non-private auto modes of travel (i.e., less parking demand) between 2020 and 2035.

Bus/Truck Staging
Charter buses and trucks currently stage using curb space in the vicinity of the arena site in accordance
with the SDOT and Seattle Center MOA for Event Curbside Management (2011). Through that
agreement, Seattle Center reserves curb space on Thomas St, Warren Ave N, 2nd Ave N, Republican St,
and 4th Ave N for loading, unloading, and staging of events. It is assumed this arrangement stays in place
and all KeyArena charter bus and truck staging consistent with that arrangement is permitted by SDOT.
In other words, there are no changes related to charter buses or truck staging under the No Action
Alternative.

Paratransit
Under the No Action Alternative, paratransit vehicles would continue to load and unload along the east
side of 1st Ave N adjacent to KeyArena, as well as on 2nd Ave N just south of KeyArena. This designated
passenger loading/unloading curb space would be available under both Seattle Center attendance
conditions. However, with an unregulated ridehailing system, the passenger loading/unloading space
used by paratransit would sometimes be blocked by non-transit vehicles during periods of high demand.

Safety
No study intersections are identified as high collision locations. With the implementation of protected
bicycle lanes along 1st Ave N, pick-up/drop-off activity is not expected to block through lanes, bicycle
facilities, or bus pullouts.

Summary of Transportation Conditions in 2035 for the No Action Alternative


Despite the extension of LINK light rail to the study area by 2035, continued land development in the
area would result in an approximately 10% increase in vehicle traffic over 2020 conditions. This results in
marginally worse overall intersection operating conditions and a decrease in travel times on primary
east-west corridors. Although bus capacity is expected to be sufficient under the 2035 No Action
Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario, the traffic operations conditions affect transit
service during the weekday pre-event peak hour. These conditions are related to commute traffic
throughout the Uptown, South Lake Union, Belltown, and Downtown Urban Centers and would degrade
bus speeds and schedule reliability. LINK light rail would have reserve capacity during all analysis periods
under the No Action Alternative – Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario.

During an Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance condition, more localized effects are experienced
in the study area in addition to the degraded traffic operations and transit conditions described above.
Because ridehailing vehicles would not have regulated loading and unloading locations under the No
Action Alternative and the number of ridehailing vehicles would increase by 2035, it is expected that
they would regularly block through lanes, bicycle facilities, and bus pullouts before and after events,
adversely affecting transit, bicycle travel, paratransit, and safety. LINK light rail would have reserve
capacity during all analysis periods under the No Action Alternative – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance scenario.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-102 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal

This section describes the potential impacts to transportation that are likely under Alternative 1. The
travel characteristics of attendees at the arena would change by 2035. In particular, light rail is expected
to carry nearly one-quarter of arena attendees, with a slight decrease in bus ridership as some transit
users shift from bus to light rail. The growth of ridehailing is expected to continue, carrying one-quarter
of arena attendees by 2035. As the mode share of light rail and ridehailing grows, private vehicle use by
arena attendees would drop to 35%. Table 4-30 summarizes the mode share estimates for attendees of
the arena in 2035. Details are presented in Tech Memo 7, Project Travel Characteristics – Year 2035.

Table 4-30. Expected Mode Share for Arena Attendees in 2035


Weekday NBA Weekday NBA Saturday
Game Pre- Game Post- Concert Pre-
Travel Mode Notes
Event Peak Event Peak Event Peak
Hour Hour Hour
Some of these trips may also
Private Vehicle 35% 38% 41% include longer walks or bike share
travel to arena.
Some of these light rail trips may
Light Rail to/from
23% 23% 20% require transfers at Westlake
Seattle Center Arena
Station.
Percentages reflect bus trips
Bus to/from Seattle
6% 5% 5% to/from routes that have access
Center Arena
directly adjacent to Seattle Center.
Taxi / TNC / Other
25% 22% 25%
Drop-off
Walk to/from Nearby Percentages represent final mode
8% 8% 6%
Origin of travel in/out of study area.
Monorail 2% 3% 2%
Bicycle 1% 1% 1%
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018. Refer to Appendix C, Tech Memo 7, Project Travel Characteristics-Year 2035.

Table 4-31 summarizes the arena trip generation estimates using the mode share described above. AVO
and temporal distribution estimates are expected to remain the same as described for 2020. These
estimates reflect the sold-out capacity for the renovated arena and apply to both Alternatives 1 and 2.
The distribution of trips to the arena would be the same in 2035 as 2020 (see Table 4-14).

Traffic Operations
Traffic volumes associated with the renovated arena are layered on top of the No Action Alternative
forecasts for the traffic operations analysis. Similar to 2020 conditions, this scenario does not assume
any formalized traffic management strategies to accommodate arriving attendees during the pre-event
peak hour or departing vehicles during the post-event peak hour beyond what is currently in place.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Figure 4-26 displays the intersection LOS for Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions under the No
Action Alternative and with Alternative 1 (Alternative 2 is described later). Figure 4-27 displays the
intersections impacted under 2035 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-103 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-26. Intersection LOS Summary – 2035 Conditions with Average Seattle Center Attendance

Table 4-31. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed Arena (Alternatives 1 and 2) in 2035
Weekday NBA Game Weekday NBA Game Saturday Concert Pre-
Pre-Event Peak Hour Post-Event Peak Hour Event Peak Hour
Traveler Type Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Attendees traveling by private
1,676 0 1,676 0 2,653 2,653 1,634 0 1,634
vehicle
Attendees traveling by
1,197 1,197 2,394 1,667 1,667 3,334 996 996 1,992
TNC/taxi/drop-off vehicle
Employees traveling by private
16 0 16 0 32 32 16 0 16
vehicle
Employees traveling by
5 5 10 10 10 20 5 5 10
TNC/Taxi/ Drop-off
Miscellaneous1 15 5 20 5 10 15 15 5 20
2 2
Total 2,909 1,207 4,116 1,682 4,372 6,054 2,666 1,006 3,672
1. Miscellaneous trips include delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, utility vehicles, etc.
2. Weekday pre-event in and weekday post-event are not equal due to differing mode share assumptions, AVO, and temporal
distribution of travel for each analysis period.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-104 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-27. Impacted Intersections – 2035 Alternative 1 –Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Condition

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-105 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

For intersections that operate acceptably under the No Action Alternative, this is defined as dropping to
an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) and adding 5 or more seconds of delay for signalized intersections or
adversely affecting unsignalized intersections based on the degree of congestion increase, modal
conflicts, and other considerations. For intersections that operate unacceptably under the No Action
Alternative, this is defined as Alternative 1 adding at least 5 seconds of delay.

Alternative 1 would cause westbound travel on these roadways to experience moderate to substantial
delay increases when compared to the No Action Alternative. Refer to Appendix C, Tech Memo 8, 2035
Analysis Results for Roadway and Pedestrian Systems, for more detail. As described in the 2020 analysis
section, the number of intersections within the study area operating at LOS D or better actually
increases under the weekday pre-event peak hour for Alternatives 1 and 2. As was the case before, this
is more of a technical anomaly than a description of actual conditions. Some intersections toward the
center of the study area would experience better LOS because congestion entering the network (e.g.,
existing I-5, traveling from the west, etc.) will constrain the traffic that reached downstream
intersections. Additionally, because intersection LOS is the average of delay experienced on all
approaches, higher westbound traffic volumes will reduce the average overall delay along the Mercer St
and Denny Way corridors.

During the weekday pre-event peak hour on a day with Average Seattle Center Attendance, 26
intersections would be impacted under Alternative 1. During the weekday post-event peak hour, 21
intersections would be impacted under Alternative 1. During the Saturday pre-event peak hour, 11
intersections would be impacted under Alternative 1. The impacted intersections are listed in Appendix
C, Tech Memo 8, 2035 Roadway System Analysis Results. Table 4-32 summarizes projected travel speeds
along Mercer St and Denny Way under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance.

Table 4-32. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Pre-Event Peak Hour

Eastbound Westbound
Corridor
Average Travel % of Free Flow
Average Travel Speed % of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed

Mercer St 2 MPH 20% 4.5 MPH 45%

Denny Way 1.5 MPH 15% 3.5 MPH 35%


MPH = miles per hour. Average free-flow travel speed of 10 MPH assumed given presence of controls and measured speeds in
this range under mostly free-flow conditions on these corridors.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

This table reveals the following findings:

 Average travel speeds on eastbound Mercer St and Denny Way between Seattle Center and I-5
would be unchanged relative to the No Action Alternative. Westbound travel speeds on Mercer
St would be reduced from 5.5 MPH under the No Action Alternative to 4.5 MPH under
Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance. The westbound travel speed on Denny Way
would decrease from 7.5 MPH under the No Action Alternative to 3.5 MPH under Alternative 1 –

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-107 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Average Seattle Center Attendance. Because the westbound travel speed would degrade from
above to below 40% of the free flow travel speed, this is a significant impact.
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance
Figure 4-28 displays the number of intersections operating at LOS D or better, LOS E, and LOS F for
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions under the No Action Alternative and with
Alternative 1. Impacted intersections are shown in Figure 4-29. For intersections that operate acceptably
under the No Action Alternative, this is defined as dropping to an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) and
adding 5 or more seconds of delay for signalized intersections or adversely affecting unsignalized
intersections based on the degree of congestion increase, modal conflicts, and other considerations. For
intersections that operate unacceptably under the No Action Alternative, this is defined as Alternative 1
adding at least 5 seconds of delay.

Figure 4-28. Intersection LOS Summary – 2035 Conditions with Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance

Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance would cause significant impacts at 15


intersections during the weekday pre-event peak hour, 23 intersections during the weekday post-event
peak hour, and 13 intersections during the Saturday pre-event peak hour. The impacted intersections
are listed in Appendix C, Tech Memo 8, 2035 Roadway System Analysis Results.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-108 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4-29. Impacted Intersections – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance Weekday Pre-Event and Post-Event Peak Hour Condition

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-109 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-33 summarizes projected travel speeds along Mercer St and Denny Way under Alternative 1 –
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance. During the weekday pre-event peak hour, the average travel
speed on westbound Denny Way from Fairview Ave N to Taylor Ave would be reduced to less than 40%
of its free-flow speed. Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance would also cause traffic
exiting both directions of I-5 at Mercer St to queue back toward the mainline.

Table 4-33. Corridor Travel Speed – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance

Eastbound Westbound
Corridor
Average Travel % of Free Flow Average Travel Speed
% of Free Flow Speed
Speed (MPH) Speed (MPH)

Mercer St 2 20% 4.5 45%

Denny Way 1.5 15% 3 30%


MPH = miles per hour.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Ridehailing
Ridehailing is expected to become more prevalent by 2035, and its regulation would be the same in
2035 as in 2020. Ridehailing vehicles would drop off passengers in accordance with their selected
destination and often at whatever specific block location the passenger requests. The City would
regulate post-event pick-ups to only occur at a handful of locations surrounding and near the perimeter
of the Seattle Center campus.

Under this plan, during pre-determined event times (to be coordinated by Seattle Center and SDOT), a
customer requesting a ride from the geofenced area encompassing Seattle Center would have to meet
their vehicle at 1 of the designated pick-up locations during post-event conditions. Specific geofence
boundaries would be determined and periodically updated in the AAMP. Ridehailing activity would
result in a substantial number of “deadhead” trips added to the area because each pick-up or drop-off
results in 2 trips: 1 carrying the arena attendee(s) and 1 trip with only the driver (unless the ridehailing
vehicle is connected with another passenger in the vicinity of the arena). Some of the traffic and transit
delays described above are attributable to ridehailing traffic (drop-off, pick-up, deadhead, and
circulating activities).

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance, the renovated arena would attract substantial
ridehailing activity during events such as an NBA game or concert. Drop-off activity would be similar to
that observed during large KeyArena events, which sometimes result in ridehailing vehicles blocking
through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts, particularly along the arena frontage along 1st Ave N.
Some of the designated ridehailing pick-up locations may temporarily repurpose a parking or travel lane,
but this would be in accordance with an AAMP in coordination with SDOT to minimize the effects to
other modes.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-111 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, ridehailing would occur within a
slightly more congested traffic environment. Drivers may have a more difficult time finding appropriate
curb space to drop off passengers, resulting in more frequently blocked through lanes, bicycle facilities,
or bus pullouts during the pre-event peak hours, particularly along 1st Ave N. Some of the designated
ridehailing pick-up locations may temporarily repurpose a parking or travel lane, but this would occur in
accordance with an AAMP in coordination with SDOT to minimize the effects to other modes.

Transit

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-34 lists the number of event attendees and employees that are expected to ride LINK light rail to
the renovated arena during each peak hour under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance.
During the weekday post-event peak hour, nearly 3,900 attendees and employees are expected to leave
the arena heading south via light rail. This demand is well in excess of reserve capacity, assuming 10-
minute headways and 3 cars per train (typical Sound Transit service levels for the evening). To serve this
post-event surge in demand, LINK light rail would need to operate 4 cars per train at 7-minute
headways. All other analysis periods and directions could accommodate the attendee demand over the
course of the peak hour.

Table 4-34. LINK Light Rail 2035 Reserve Capacity – Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance

To/From the South To/From the North

Percent Usage Percent Usage


Analysis Period Number of Number of
of Overall of Overall
Arena LINK Arena LINK
Reserve Reserve
Riders Riders
Capacity Capacity

Weekday Pre-event Peak Hour 2,432 84% 128 2%


Weekday Post-event Peak Hour 3,861 368% 203 7%
Saturday Pre-event Peak Hour 1,844 75% 97 4%
Service level assumptions are the same as shown for the No Action Alternative.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Travel by Monorail

The findings for 2020 would also apply to 2035 because Monorail ridership is expected to be slightly
lower than in 2020 (due to the more direct connection from other transit service via light rail). In
summary, the largest demand would occur after an event, with the first train completely full, the second
train mostly occupied, and the third train uncrowded. During the post-event peak hour, project-related
riders could be accommodated via normal service (i.e., 10-minute headways). However, some
passengers may have to wait up to 20 minutes due to Monorail train capacity constraints. While the
train capacity over the course of the post-event peak hour is sufficient, improvements to the ingress,
egress, and operating hours of the Monorail could make it a more attractive option for event attendees
to make the first/last mile connection to the arena with less delay to board post-event, thereby
mitigating some of the traffic congestion impacts caused by private autos and ridehailing. This analysis

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-112 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

assumes that the Monorail capacity remains the same as existing conditions because there is no current
funding commitment to improve capacity and convenience.

Travel by Bus

As stated under the No Action Alternative, Metro is expected to restructure bus routing and service
levels such that ridership would not routinely reach crowding thresholds, although individual trips
during the highest demand times may exceed those thresholds. Project demand for buses would
decrease somewhat by 2035 because some of the transit demand would shift to LINK light rail.
Therefore, bus capacity effects of the project would be less than those stated for 2020. However,
increasing congestion would adversely affect bus speeds and reliability in 2035. Additionally, ridehailing
pick-up and drop-off activities have the potential to block bus stops and layover areas, slowing bus
travel and interfering with transit operations.

Capacity at nearby bus stops was also considered. The northbound stop at 1st Ave N and Republican St is
expected to have adequate capacity because riders could spill back into the arena plaza during periods
of highest demand. However, the southbound stops along Queen Anne Ave N are more constrained due
to sidewalk width and street furniture, particularly at John St and Harrison St. This could lead to riders
blocking other pedestrians trying to travel along the sidewalk while waiting for buses during the post-
event peak hour.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-35 lists the number of event attendees and employees that are expected to ride LINK light rail to
the renovated arena during each peak hour under Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance. The number of riders generated by the renovated arena would remain the same, but there
would be lower reserve capacity available because of the additional ridership generated by other events
at Seattle Center.

Table 4-35. LINK Light Rail Reserve Capacity – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance

To/From the South To/From the North

Percent Usage Percent Usage


Analysis Period Number of Number of
of Overall of Overall
Arena LINK Arena LINK
Reserve Reserve
Riders Riders
Capacity Capacity

Weekday Pre-event Peak Hour 2,432 101% 128 2%


Weekday Post-event Peak Hour 3,861 532% 203 7%
Saturday Pre-event Peak Hour 1,844 88% 97 4%
Service level assumptions are the same as shown for the No Action Alternative.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Again, the weekday post-event peak hour would not have enough reserve capacity to the south to
accommodate the ridership surge with typical evening service. To serve this post-event surge in
demand, LINK light rail would need to operate 4 cars per train at 7-minute headways. With Above-
Average Seattle Center Attendance, the additional riders during the weekday pre-event peak hour
would slightly exceed the reserve capacity from the south. Because the trains would already be

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-113 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

operating at peak hour service levels, this indicates that without staging additional trains, LINK light rail
would be beyond the crowding threshold for at least an hour and some riders would need to wait for
the next train to board. All other analysis periods and directions could accommodate the attendee
demand over the course of the peak hour.

Travel by Monorail

Monorail ridership by project attendees would remain the same under Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance conditions. Although the background reserve capacity would be lower, the Monorail should
still accommodate all riders over the course of the post-event peak hour. Some passengers may have to
wait up to 20 minutes due to Monorail train capacity constraints.

Travel by Bus

As stated under the No Action Alternative, Metro is expected to restructure bus routing and service
levels such that ridership would not routinely reach crowding thresholds, although individual trips
during the highest demand times may exceed the thresholds. Project demand for buses would decrease
somewhat by 2035 because some of the transit demand would shift to LINK light rail. Therefore, bus
capacity effects of the project would be less than those stated for 2020. However, increasing congestion
would adversely affect bus travel time and reliability in 2035.

As described above, the southbound bus stops along Queen Anne Ave N are somewhat constrained,
particularly at John St and Harrison St. This could lead to riders blocking other pedestrians trying to
travel along the sidewalk while waiting for buses during the post-event peak hour.

Pedestrian Travel
In 2035, fewer people would walk between parking lots and the arena due to the decreased private
vehicle mode share, but more people would walk to the nearby LINK light rail station and the designated
ridehailing pick-up locations. The largest shift in pedestrian flows would be due to the new LINK light rail
station, so the 2035 analysis focused on the capacity of nearby sidewalks and crosswalks to
accommodate that demand. The specific station location is unknown, but for the EIS analysis, the
project demand was distributed across the crosswalks at 2 nearby intersections to test the capacity if
arena attendees crossed an adjacent street to reach the station (in other words, no station portal was
assumed to be east of 1st Ave N).

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions with Alternative 1, all sidewalks would have
sufficient capacity to carry the pedestrian demand without overflow into adjacent streets. The facility
nearest the capacity threshold would be 2nd Ave N between John St and Denny Way. Some signalized
intersections in the vicinity of the project provide sizeable areas for pedestrians to wait to cross the
intersection. Examples exist along portions of 5th Ave N (e.g., at Harrison St). However, other
intersections have limited size waiting areas to accommodate pedestrians. Examples include the 1st Ave
N/Mercer St and 1st Ave N/Harrison St intersections.

As noted in the 2020 analysis, pedestrian flows at 1 crosswalk (the north leg of the 5th Ave N/Harrison St
intersection) are expected to exceed capacity. Increased demand across 1st Ave N is expected at the
unmarked, unsignalized crossings at Thomas St and John St. Lastly, the new light rail station planned
near Seattle Center by 2035 would be used by some arena attendees. Assuming a station location west
of 1st Ave N, the east-west crosswalks that most directly access the station (likely Republican St or

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-114 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Harrison St) would not meet the travel demand. Additionally, the corner waiting areas at the west sides
of these intersections may be too small to accommodate pre-event surges.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, the majority of the added pedestrian travel
(beyond Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions) would occur between the LINK light rail
stations, Mercer St, 1st Ave N, and 5th Ave N garages and Seattle Center venues east of the arena. Few
additional sidewalks and crosswalks would be affected by a direct trip between these parking facilities
and the arena. In other words, the sidewalks and crosswalks between these parking facilities and the
Seattle Center venues tend to have capacity, with the exception of the 5th Ave N/Harrison St north leg
crosswalk, which would be further impacted by people parking east of Seattle Center and traveling to
campus venues. Attendees who visit nearby restaurants may result in additional sidewalk/ crosswalk
use, but this travel would not exceed capacity. As described earlier, the same crosswalks and corner
waiting areas that provide access between the LINK light rail station and the arena are likely to be too
small to meet demand under 2035 Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions with the
renovated arena.

Bicycle Travel
Assuming a 1% mode share for event attendees, bicycle parking demand would be for roughly 190
bicycles (which could be personal bicycles or bike share bicycles). OVG’s current design accommodates
bicycle racks for approximately 102 bicycles. OVG has committed to providing bike valet services at the
site, with locations and conditions to be established through the AAMP in coordination with Seattle
Center, SDCI, and SDOT.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, vehicles (ridehailing or otherwise) could
temporarily block bicycle facilities when dropping off passengers during the pre-event peak hours. While
temporary, this blockage would create a challenging environment for bicyclists that must pull into a
vehicle lane to move around a stopped vehicle blocking the bicycle facility. Post-event blockages are
unlikely to occur because of the designated ridehailing pick-up locations.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


With above-average attendance on the Seattle Center campus, including an event at the arena, vehicles
(ridehailing or otherwise) could temporarily block bicycle facilities when dropping off passengers during
the pre-event peak hours. This would likely be more frequent given the increased congestion during an
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance condition. While temporary, this blockage would create a
challenging environment for bicyclists that must pull into a vehicle lane to move around a stopped
vehicle blocking the bicycle facility. Post-event blockages are unlikely to occur because of the designated
ridehailing pick-up locations.

Parking
Parking demand generated by Alternative 1 would decrease by 2035 (compared to 2020) commensurate
with the decrease in private vehicle trip generation. Parking assignments were completed in the same
way as described for 2020: vehicle trips generated by the renovated arena were assigned to on-street
and off-street parking locations that are currently anticipated to be available for public parking. Again,

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-115 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

parking that would occur outside of the parking study area (for example at lots along the Dexter Ave N
corridor) is not reflected in the following tables.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-36 summarizes 2035 parking occupancy under Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center
Attendance. Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 86% on a weekday and 96% on a
Saturday. Total off-street parking occupancy is expected to be 50% on a weekday and 65% on a
Saturday. Compared to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 would result in on-street occupancies
that cause a substantial number of vehicles to circulate for multiple blocks while looking for parking and
increasing conflicts with other modes. Because paid parking and time limits are not in effect on Sundays,
on-street parking occupancies would likely be higher than reflected for weekdays and Saturdays.

Table 4-36. Parking Occupancy – 2035 Alternative 1 – Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 94 (90%) 94 (90%)


North 1,307 (88%) 1,419 (95%)
On-Street South 847 (80%) 1,029 (97%)
West 439 (91%) 465 (97%)
Subtotal 2,687 (86%) 3,007 (96%)
East 992 (45%) 1,269 (58%)
North 739 (54%) 1,095 (80%)
Off-Street South 1,010 (53%) 1,216 (64%)
West 57 (59%) 47 (49%)
Subtotal 2,798 (50%) 3,627 (65%)
On-Street & Off-Street Total 5,485 (63%) 6,634 (76%)
Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea. Includes the 450-space garage beneath the renovated arena.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Table 4-37 summarizes parking occupancy with Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions.
Compared to the Average Seattle Center Attendance condition, Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle
Center Attendance would result in a slight increase to on-street parking because the occupancies are
already quite high. Larger increases would occur for off-street parking.

Total on-street parking occupancy is expected to be 88% on a weekday and 96% on a Saturday. Total off-
street parking occupancy is expected to be 59% on a weekday and 68% on a Saturday. Alternative 1 –
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance would result in on-street occupancies that cause vehicles to
circulate for multiple blocks while looking for parking and increasing conflicts with other modes.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-116 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Because paid parking and time limits are not in effect on Sundays, on-street parking occupancies would
likely be higher than reflected for weekdays and Saturdays.

Table 4-37. Parking Occupancy – 2035 Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance

Weekday Evening Saturday Evening


Parking Type Subarea
Occupancy Occupancy

East 94 (90%) 94 (90%)


North 1,335 (90%) 1,425 (96%)
On-Street South 875 (83%) 1029 (97%)
West 439 (91%) 465 (97%)
Subtotal 2,743 (88%) 3,013 (96%)
East 1,221 (56%) 1,356 (62%)
North 928 (67%) 1,131 (82%)
Off-Street South 1,045 (55%) 1,256 (66%)
West 63 (66%) 53 (55%)
Subtotal 3,257 (59%) 3,796 (68%)
On-Street & Off-Street Total 6,000 (69%) 6,809 (78%)
Includes only publicly available spaces that are expected to be open to attendees for evening. Refer to Figure 4-11 for each
geographic parking subarea. Includes the 450-space garage beneath the renovated arena.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

The Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario reflects a situation with multiple events
occurring on campus of varying size and timing. Visitors arriving for an earlier event would be more
likely to find parking at the most convenient lots, while those arriving for a later event may find those
lots full. Because of the dynamic nature of event scheduling at Seattle Center, this will affect venues
differently depending on the other events on campus on any particular day.

Bus/Truck Staging
Charter buses and trucks currently stage using curb space in the vicinity of the project site in accordance
with the SDOT and Seattle Center MOA for Event Curbside Management (2011). Through that
agreement, Seattle Center reserves curb space on Thomas St, Warren Ave N, 2nd Ave N, Republican St,
and 4th Ave N for loading, unloading, and staging of events. While most of those locations would remain
available with a renovated arena, charter buses would not be staged on Thomas St due to the new south
plaza and underground parking garage entrance on Thomas St.

Alternative 1 would have additional underground truck/bus storage compared to the space available
south of KeyArena today. However, given the larger shows accommodated by the renovated arena, on-
street staging would still likely be required. Seattle Center and SDOT would likely modify the MOA to
include other nearby locations for staging with a similar permitting process as currently used, such that
enough staging space is available whether Seattle Center is operating at an average or above-average
attendance level. This would likely be part of a broader review of curb space management in the area by

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-117 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SDOT. Renegotiation of the MOA could affect on-street parking supply if curb space currently used for
general on-street parking is regularly reserved for event staging.

Paratransit
Under Alternative 1, paratransit vehicles would continue to load and unload along the east side of 1st
Ave N adjacent to the arena, as well as on 2nd Ave N just south of KeyArena. This designated passenger
loading/unloading curb space would be available under both the average and above-average conditions.
Although ridehailing pick-ups would be regulated, drop-offs during the pre-event peak hours would
remain unregulated. Based on observations of current drop-off activity at KeyArena, passenger
loading/unloading space used by paratransit would sometimes be blocked by non-transit vehicles during
periods of high demand, such as drop-offs before an event at the renovated arena.

Safety
No study intersections are currently identified as high collision locations. Under both Average and
Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, bicycle safety may be affected by vehicles
(ridehailing or otherwise) temporarily blocking bicycle facilities when dropping off passengers during the
pre-event peak hours. Depending on the final location and design of the LINK light rail station,
pedestrian safety could be affected by large surges of pedestrian demand between the arena and the
station.

Summary of Transportation Impacts in 2035 – Alternative 1

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions in Year 2035, Alternative 1 would result in adverse
impacts when compared to the No Action Alternative. This comparison reflects how the transportation
system would be affected on a day without a KeyArena event versus a day with a sold-out event at the
renovated arena. Alternative 1 would cause significant impacts at 26 intersections during the weekday
pre-event peak hour, 21 intersections during the weekday post-event peak hour, and 11 intersections
during the Saturday pre-event peak hour. During the weekday pre-event peak hour, the average travel
speed on westbound Denny Way from Fairview Ave N to Taylor Ave would be reduced to less than 40%
of its free-flow speed, which would be a significant impact. Alternative 1 would also cause traffic exiting
both directions of I-5 at Mercer St to queue back toward the mainline.

Transit would experience significant impacts due to overcapacity conditions on southbound LINK light
rail trains in the post-event condition, as well as travel time and reliability degradation associated with
the traffic operations findings. Because ridehailing vehicles would not have regulated unloading
locations during the pre-event peak hours, they would sometimes block through lanes, bicycle facilities,
and bus pullouts, resulting in significant impacts to transit, bicycle travel, and safety, particularly along
1st Ave N. No significant impacts related to ridehailing are expected during the post-event peak hours.

Compared to No Action Alternative, Alternative 1– Average Seattle Center Attendance would improve
the weekday post-event condition related to ridehailing, bicycle travel, and paratransit because
ridehailing vehicles would only pick-up in designated spaces. Significant pedestrian impacts are expected
at the 5th Ave N/Harrison St crosswalk due to high demand and at the pedestrian crossings and western
corners of the intersection that provides the most direct access to LINK light rail.

On-street parking occupancy levels on weekdays and Saturdays suggest that a substantial number of
vehicles would circulate for multiple blocks looking for parking and increasing conflicts with other

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-118 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

modes; this would be a significant impact. Because paid parking and time limits are not in effect on
Sundays, parking impacts are also expected on Sundays.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


With Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, traffic operations would be congested under
both the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, although Alternative 1 would result in additional
delays on key corridors and intersections. This comparison reflects how the transportation system would
change from a high activity day at Seattle Center including a KeyArena event to a high activity day at
Seattle Center with a sold-out event at the renovated arena.

The impacts described for the Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario would be exacerbated under
the Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario. Alternative 1 would cause significant impacts at
15 intersections during the weekday pre-event peak hour, 23 intersections during the weekday post-
event peak hour, and 13 intersections during the Saturday pre-event peak hour. During the weekday
pre-event peak hour, the average travel speed on westbound Denny Way from Fairview Ave N to Taylor
Ave would be reduced to less than 40% of its free-flow speed, which would be a significant impact.
Alternative 1 would also cause traffic exiting both directions of I-5 at Mercer St to queue back toward
the mainline. LINK light rail would experience significant impacts due to overcapacity conditions on
northbound trains during the weekday pre-event peak hour and southbound trains in the weekday post-
event peak hour. Transit is expected to experience significant impacts due to overcapacity conditions on
some bus routes, as well as travel time and reliability degradation associated with degraded traffic
operations.

Compared to the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance would
improve the weekday post-event condition related to ridehailing, bicycle travel, and paratransit.
However, significant impacts are still expected during the pre-event peak hours because ridehailing
vehicles would not have regulated unloading locations. Significant pedestrian impacts are expected at
the same intersections identified for the Average Attendance with Alternative 1 condition.

Saturday post-event conditions are expected to be similar to weekday post-event conditions for all
modes. While bus frequencies would likely be somewhat less on Saturdays in 2035, it is likely that there
would be reserve capacity in the post-event condition. Post-event crowding on LINK light rail would be
similar as described for the Average Seattle Center Attendance condition.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

This section describes the potential impacts to transportation in 2035 under Alternative 2. The
transportation-related assumptions for Alternative 2 differ from Alternative 1 in the following key ways:

 Less underground parking (200 spaces instead of 450 spaces) at the renovated arena.
 Parking before, during, and after events at the 1st Ave N Garage would be capped at 400 spaces.
 Thomas St between 1st Ave N and Warren Ave N would function as a “woonerf” (a street with a
raised streetbed where pedestrians and bicyclists have priority over motorists), or urban
curbless street as defined in the City’s Right-of-Way Improvements Manual, and would be
closed to traffic during events.
 Ridehailing would be regulated such that no pick-ups may occur after events within the
geofenced area encompassing Seattle Center. The Alternative 2 geofence differs from the

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-119 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 geofence in that Alternative 2 does not have designated pick-up locations within
the geofence. Rather, under Alternative 2, people using a ridehailing vehicle after an event
would have to walk outside of the geofence for pick-up. Specific geofence boundaries would be
determined and periodically updated in the AAMP. No regulation of drop-offs would occur.
The travel characteristics (mode share, origin/destination, etc.) of attendees at the renovated arena
under Alternative 2 would be the same as under Alternative 1 given their similar proposed
transportation conditions and the fact that the arena capacity is the same.

Traffic Operations
Traffic volume forecasts for Alternative 2 are similar to Alternative 1. The differences are focused on the
locations where parking would be limited: the garage beneath the arena and the 1st Ave N Garage.
Because less parking would be provided in those garages compared to Alternative 1, less traffic is
projected in the area immediately south of the arena under Alternative 2. The ridehailing regulations
would also disperse some traffic from the area immediately surrounding the arena to other nearby
corridors during post-event conditions.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


The traffic operations findings for Alternative 2 are similar to Alternative 1 in most locations. However,
by providing fewer parking spaces south of the arena, the amount of time to empty garages/streets in
this area after events would be reduced. While there would be a modest traffic increase on other streets
associated with this displaced parking (largely expected to be east or south of Seattle Center), this would
most likely occur a considerable distance from the site where parking is available and congestion is less
severe. Additionally, with fewer private vehicles traveling to the arena, the number of dispersed vehicles
is lower than under 2020 conditions. Similarly, traffic volumes associated with ridehailing activity would
be shifted to areas outside the ridehailing pick-up boundary. Therefore, Alternative 2 is expected to
result in a slight improvement (relative to Alternative 1) in traffic conditions at intersections adjacent to
and south of the arena. However, the intersection LOS degradations identified under Alternative 1
would also occur at most locations with Alternative 2, given their similar travel characteristics. Similarly,
Alternative 2 would result in comparable degradations in travel times and freeway off-ramp queues as
described for Alternative 1.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, conclusions regarding traffic
operations would be similar to those described for the Average Seattle Center Attendance condition.
However, the relative improvements under Alternative 2 would likely be greater during post-event
conditions because traffic would be more dispersed due to the adjacent parking garage capacity limits
and restrictions on post-event passenger pick-ups.

Ridehailing
Under Alternative 2, ridehailing drop-offs would occur in those locations most convenient to drivers and
passengers rather than in a designated area. However, pick-ups would be regulated using a “geofence,”
which is a virtual geographic boundary. Customers that request a pick-up while in the geofence would
be limited in where they can meet their car. During pre-determined event times (to be coordinated by
Seattle Center and SDOT), a customer requesting a ride from the geofenced area encompassing Seattle
Center would have to meet their vehicle outside of that restricted area. The Alternative 2 geofence
differs from the Alternative 1 geofence in that Alternative 2 does not have designated pick-up locations

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-120 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

within the geofence. Rather, under Alternative 2, people using a ridehailing vehicle after an event would
have to walk outside of the geofence for pick-up. Specific geofence boundaries would be determined
and periodically updated in the AAMP. This approach would limit the amount of vehicle traffic in the
immediate vicinity of the project site and Seattle Center. Ridehailing activity would result in a substantial
number of “deadhead” trips added to the area because each pick-up or drop-off results in 2 trips: 1
carrying the arena attendee(s) and 1 trip with only the driver (unless the ridehailing vehicle is connected
with another passenger in the vicinity of the arena). These deadhead and pick-up/drop-off trips are
accounted for in the traffic and transit delays described above.

Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 2 – Average Seattle Center Attendance, the renovated arena would draw substantial
ridehailing activity during events such as an NBA game or concert. Drop-off activity would be similar to
that observed during large KeyArena events, which sometimes results in ridehailing vehicles blocking
through lanes, bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts, particularly along 1st Ave N. Although ridehailing pick-up
locations would not be allowed within the geofence, those ridehailing vehicles may stop in travel lanes,
bicycle facilities, or bus pullouts outside that area, causing congestion and blockages to other modes.

Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance


Under Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center Attendance, ridehailing would occur within a
slightly more congested traffic environment. However, findings would be similar to those described for
the Average Seattle Center Attendance scenario.

Transit
The transit impact findings described for Alternative 1 in 2035 are also representative of conditions for
Alternative 2.

Pedestrian Travel
Alternative 2 would include a woonerf, or urban curbless street, along Thomas St between 1st Ave N and
Warren Ave N. This street design would make crossing Thomas St more comfortable for pedestrians due
to the decreased conflicts with vehicles.

Alternative 2 would limit the parking capacity at the 1st Ave N Garage to 400 spaces and the capacity in
the underground garage to 200 spaces. Under Alternative 2, more than 400 vehicles would need to park
farther from the arena than under Alternative 1, requiring passengers to walk longer distances to reach
the arena and add volumes on some sidewalks and crosswalks. However, the overall change in volume
at any 1 facility is expected to be modest given the large number of alternative parking areas and lower
overall private vehicle mode share compared to 2020; therefore, the pedestrian impacts described for
Alternative 1 are representative of conditions under Alternative 2.

Bicycle Travel
As described above, Alternative 2 would make crossing Thomas St more comfortable for bicyclists due to
decreased conflicts with vehicles. Aside from this benefit, the bicycle impact findings described for
Alternative 1 are representative of conditions for Alternative 2.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-121 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parking
Alternative 2 would limit the parking capacity at the 1st Ave N Garage to 400 spaces and the capacity in
the underground garage to 200 spaces. Under Alternative 2, more than 400 vehicles would need to be
parked in a different location than under Alternative 1. In 2035, the off-street parking occupancies
indicate that those vehicles could shift to alternate garages within the same geographic subarea rather
than search for parking farther away. With the reduction in parking supply, off-street parking
occupancies for Alternative 2 – Average Seattle Center Attendance would be 55% on weekdays and 71%
on Saturdays. Off-street parking occupancies for Alternative 2 – Above-Average Seattle Center
Attendance would be 64% on weekdays and 75% on Saturdays. These totals represent about a 5%
increase over the values for Alternative 1.

Bus/Truck Staging
The charter bus and truck staging impact findings described for Alternative 1 are also representative of
conditions for Alternative 2.

Paratransit
The paratransit impact findings described for Alternative 1 are also representative of conditions for
Alternative 2.

Safety
The safety impact findings described under Alternative 1 are also representative of conditions for
Alternative 2.

Summary of Transportation Impacts in 2035 – Alternative 2


Impacts to the transportation system under Alternative 2 would be similar to those identified for
Alternative 1. The differences relate to traffic operations, ridehailing, and both on-street and off-street
parking. Due to the dispersed traffic caused by limiting off-street parking south of the arena and the
ridehailing regulations, there would be fewer and/or less severe impacts at locations immediately
surrounding the arena, particularly on the south side.

The significant impact findings described under Alternative 1 related to ridehailing during the pre-event
peak hours are also representative of conditions under Alternative 2. During the post-event peak hour,
the ridehailing activity would shift to nearby corridors, where impacts are expected due to blocked
travel lanes, bicycle facilities, and/or transit facilities. Given the substantial increase in ridehailing mode
share in 2035 compared to 2020, there could be potentially significant adverse impacts related to
blocked travel lanes, transit facilities, or bicycle facilities just outside of the geofence.

The decreased off-street parking supply adjacent to the renovated arena would create more
competition for on-street and off-street parking. However, patrons would find alternative parking
locations within the parking study area. On-street parking occupancy levels on weekdays and Saturdays
suggest that a substantial number of vehicles would circulate for multiple blocks looking for parking and
increasing conflicts with other modes; this would be a significant impact. Because paid parking and time
limits are not in effect on Sundays, parking impacts are also expected on Sundays.

2035 Summary of Significant Impacts by Alternative

The following table summarizes the significant impacts identified for Alternatives 1 and 2.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-122 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 4-38. 2035 Comparison of Alternative 1 and 2 Significant Impacts to the No Action Alternative

Significant Impacts
Mode No Action Alternative Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
LOS E/F intersections: Impacted intersections: Modestly improved traffic
 Average Seattle Center  Average Seattle Center operations adjacent to arena
Attendance: 51 weekday Attendance: 26 weekday pre- because of dispersal of traffic
pre-event, 2 weekday post- event, 21 weekday post- volumes due to off-street
event, and 10 Saturday event, and 11 Saturday pre- parking limits.
pre-event. event. Same as Alternative 1
 Above-Average Seattle  Above-Average Seattle beyond arena site.
Traffic
Center Attendance: 57 Center Attendance: 15
Operations
weekday pre-event, 7 weekday pre-event, 23
weekday post-event, and weekday post-event, and 13
13 Saturday pre-event. Saturday pre-event.
Slow eastbound speeds on Speed impact on westbound
Mercer St and Denny Way. Denny Way.
Queues spill back onto I-5
mainline at Mercer St.
Impacts to transit, bicycles,
Impacts to transit, bicycles, and
and safety before events due
Increased ridehailing activity safety before events due to the
to the potential of
in 2035. potential of unregulated drop-
unregulated drop-offs to that
Ridehailing Unregulated pick-up/drop-off offs that block facilities.
block facilities.
system may cause blockages No impacts and improved
No impacts after events
before and after large events. conditions after events due to
because activity is dispersed
designated pick-up locations.
from arena.
Transit speed and reliability
Transit speed and reliability impacted by poor traffic
affected by congested traffic operations and ridehailing drop-
operations and ridehailing off activities.
pick-up/drop-off activities. Crowding impacts on
Sufficient total bus and LINK northbound LINK before Same as Alternative 1.
Transit
capacity though many routes weekday events and
have standing room only. southbound LINK after events.
Ample Monorail capacity. Bus stop blockage impact from
Occasional transit blockages ridehailing before events;
by ridehailing vehicles. improved conditions after
events (see ridehailing section).
Impact at 5th Ave N/Harrison
th
Generally acceptable with Impact at 5 Ave N/Harrison St St crosswalk and crossings to
Pedestrian occasional capacity issues crosswalk and crossings to LINK LINK station.
during large events. station. More comfortable to cross
Thomas St due to woonerf.
Impact from ridehailing
Bicycle facility blockage impact before events; improved
Occasional blockages caused
from ridehailing before events; conditions after events (see
Bicycle by ridehailing vehicles during
improved conditions after ridehailing section).
large events.
events (see ridehailing section). More comfortable to cross
Thomas St due to woonerf.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-123 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Significant Impacts
Mode No Action Alternative Alternative 1: Alternative 2:
OVG Proposal Modified Proposal
Impacts due to modal conflicts
Overall sufficient capacity
caused by motorists circulating
with higher on-street
Parking for parking (high occupancy Same as Alternative 1.
occupancies than off-street
levels would cause more
occupancies.
cruising for parking).
Charter
Accommodated via MOA for Same as Alternative 1.
Bus/ Truck None.
Event Curbside Management.
Staging
No significant impacts expected,
although there could be delays
Accommodated in existing Same as Alternative 1.
Paratransit in curb space availability caused
passenger loading zones.
by ridehailing in the pre-event
period.
Modal conflict impact from
Occasional, temporary effects ridehailing before events; Same as Alternative 1.
Safety
from ridehailing vehicles. improved conditions after
events.
Source: Prepared by Fehr & Peers, 2018.

Changing Travel Behavior between 2020 and 2035


Transit service will expand significantly between 2024 when the ST2 light rail expansion projects are
complete, and 2035 when the Ballard extension (including a station adjacent to the Seattle Center
Arena) is complete. By 2024, the new ST2 LINK light rail extensions (east to Redmond, south to Federal
Way, and north to Lynnwood) will provide a more convenient transit option for many Seattle Center
Arena visitors. Based on the expected geographic distribution of attendee visitors, roughly two-thirds of
those in regions slated to gain access to LINK light rail between 2020 and 2035 would have that access
by 2025. Therefore, much of the potential benefit of increased use of LINK light rail transit to Westlake
could be realized within 5 years of the Seattle Center Arena opening.

The ST2 regional light rail lines will converge at Westlake Station and could add to “last mile” trips
between Westlake and the arena via the Monorail, 3rd Ave bus routes, bike share, walking, or
ridehailing. In particular, the City and Seattle Monorail Services have studied improvements to station
configuration, accessibility, and transit integration that have the potential to increase capacity of the
Monorail to transport major event crowds. According to the Seattle Center Monorail Stations
Reconfiguration Evaluation Report (VIA Architects et al., 2018), event ridership on the Monorail could
triple if the improvements to station configuration, accessibility, and transit integration are
implemented. In addition to that increase in Monorail mode share for the last mile connection, bus,
walk, bicycle, and ridehailing shares would also increase as LINK light rail riders choose a variety of
modes to complete the last mile connection. Accordingly, private vehicle mode share is expected to
decrease by 2025 as attendees shift from private vehicles to transit. However, because ridehailing
(which involves use of private vehicles) is projected to continue to grow in popularity independent of
transit connection changes, the associated decrease in total vehicle trip generation would be
moderated.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-124 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

For example, compared to 2020, it is estimated that 240 fewer vehicles would access the arena vicinity
during the pre-event peak hour in 2025. The modest change is due to the decrease in private vehicle
traffic being largely offset by the potential for increasing ridehailing activity, which generates 2 vehicle
trips (to and from Seattle Center Arena vicinity) rather than the 1 generated by a private vehicle that
parks near the arena. The continued rise in ridehailing would create even more demand for the limited
curb space around the project, which would result in increasing adverse effects on traffic congestion and
modal conflicts.

The increase in Monorail mode share would bring ridership to approximately 1,000 during the weekday
pre-event peak hour, which could be accommodated by the system. Buses between Westlake Station
and Seattle Center would already be quite full during the afternoon commute; therefore, additional
ridership from LINK light rail riders would result in overcrowded conditions. However, as noted earlier,
the Monorail has excess capacity (up to 3,000 riders per hour per direction) and could serve more of
that demand with an improved connection with Westlake. This capacity is also sufficient during the
post-event surge, which could reach nearly 1,800 by 2025.

Transit Mode Share Sensitivity Analysis


The preceding analysis does not assume any demand management strategies aimed at shifting trips
from autos to transit. If such strategies are pursued (as is discussed in Section 4.5.2, Operations), transit
ridership could be higher and potentially require additional service to accommodate the demand.

To evaluate the degree of transit ridership increases that would result in additional crowding threshold
exceedances, a sensitivity test was performed in which the transit mode share was iteratively increased
until additional transit routes experienced significant crowding. The results indicate that routes from
Downtown Seattle to the Seattle Center are fairly close to exceeding the crowding threshold during the
pre-event peak hour during both weekday and Saturday conditions. This is notable given the very high
frequencies on these routes (a bus comes every few minutes). A 2% increase in the transit mode share
(from 8 to 10%) would result in crowding on these routes in the weekday condition, and a 1% increase in
transit mode share would result in crowding on Saturday during the pre-event condition. Note that
many other routes could serve people traveling from Downtown Seattle to the arena, including the
Monorail and routes heading north from Downtown via Aurora or Dexter Ave, which while relatively
crowded could absorb some of the overflow.

No additional crowding threshold exceedances would be expected in the post-event condition. The
routes to Ballard and the U District would be even more crowded in these conditions, which could cause
a shift to other routes, but these are expected to have adequate capacity to absorb the additional riders.

Modified Arena Seating Capacity Evaluation


As stated above, the revised design of the arena includes slightly different seating capacities than were
studied in the Draft EIS. The design includes 250 more seats for NBA events, 200 fewer seats for NHL
events, and 325 fewer seats for concerts. Because the reduction in seating capacity for NHL and concert
events does not increase the impacts that were studied in the Draft EIS, no additional analysis is
warranted as a result of those reductions. The increase in seating capacity for NBA games from 18,350
seats to 18,600 is an increase of 1.4% and is not expected to substantially change the nature of impacts
described in the EIS. However, the following section provides a transportation mode-by-mode
evaluation of potential effects of this seating capacity change for NBA games.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-125 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The proposed change for NBA games is not expected to alter any of the project’s travel characteristics
(i.e., mode split, average vehicle occupancy, arrival/departure periods, route choices, etc.). Based on the
trip generation data contained in Table 4-13, the proposed design change would generate 62 additional
vehicle trips during the pre-event peak hour and 92 additional vehicle trips during the post-event peak
hour under 2020 conditions. By 2035 (when the project is expected to have a reduced private vehicle
mode share as compared to 2020), the proposed design change would generate 57 additional vehicle
trips during the pre-event peak hour and 84 additional vehicle trips during the post-event peak hour.
Based on a review of all intersection LOS and delay results, 3 additional intersections could be impacted
by the increase in volumes, although the additional delay would be very minor and likely not perceptible
for most drivers. The proposed design change would also result in marginally increased usage of
pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and parking facilities.

Roadway Network

Additional vehicle trips resulting from the proposed design change for NBA games could result in
marginally increased delay at some intersections and potential changes to LOS; this could result in
additional intersections being impacted. A systematic review was conducted to identify those
intersections that were on the cusp of being impacted previously and may be impacted by the
incremental increase in project trips. Intersections meeting this criterion typically were either at the
cusp of operating unacceptably (i.e., signalized intersections reported at LOS D, but nearly in the LOS E
range) or were already unacceptable but just short of experiencing a 5-second increase in delay. Based
on this in-depth review, the following additional intersections are expected to be impacted as a result of
the proposed design change for NBA games:
 2020 Average Seattle Center Attendance Conditions

o One intersection (Denny Way/Aurora Ave/7th St) impacted during pre-event peak hour
conditions, and no additional intersections impacted during post-event conditions.
 2020 Above Average Seattle Center Attendance Conditions

o No additional intersections impacted during pre-event and post-event peak hour


conditions.
 2035 Average Seattle Center Attendance Conditions

o No additional intersections impacted during pre-event peak hour, and 1 intersection (1st
Ave N/Harrison St) impacted during post-event peak hour conditions.
 2035 Above Average Seattle Center Attendance Conditions

o No additional intersections impacted during pre-event peak hour, and 1 intersection


(Mercer St/3rd Ave N) impacted during post-event peak hour conditions.
These additional intersection impacts represent a very small proportion of the total number of impacted
intersections, which is to be expected given that the proposed design change would result in a 1.4%
increase in project vehicle trips. Moreover, the additional delay caused by the additional vehicles is
expected to result in only a few seconds of additional delay, which would likely not be perceptible for
most drivers. (The additional delay referred to here is between the NBA event with 18,350 versus 18,600
attendees.) The strategies described in the Draft EIS for mitigating intersection impacts would also apply
to these intersections because they are within the arena vicinity and would directly benefit from the

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-126 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

traffic and demand management measures contained within the AAMP, which is a potential mitigation
for the project’s transportation impacts.

Parking Occupancy

Under 2020 conditions, the proposed design change for NBA games would increase parking occupancy
in the project’s vicinity by 62 spaces during the weekday evening. This would increase the total on-street
and off-street parking occupancy from 82% to 83% under 2020 Average Seattle Center Attendance
conditions. Under 2020 Above Average Seattle Center Attendance conditions, the proposed design
change would increase the total on-street and off-street parking occupancy from 91% to 92%. Parking
occupancy increases under 2035 would be incrementally less due to a lower anticipated private vehicle
mode split. The proposed design change would incrementally increase the modal conflicts due to drivers
circulating for parking, but would not change any Draft EIS conclusions with respect to parking-related
impacts.

Transit Ridership

Under 2020 conditions, an additional 12 bus riders would be expected for NBA games during the pre-
event peak hour, and an additional 15 bus riders would be expected during the post-event peak hour. By
2035, the additional bus riders for the pre-event and post-event peak hours are expected to be 9 and 12,
respectively. This would result in small increases in demand on the already impacted routes to Ballard
and the University District, but no additional routes are expected to be impacted. The Monorail would
carry an additional 5 riders during the pre-event peak hour and an additional 10 riders during the post-
event peak hour. This increase could be served by the reserve capacity of the Monorail without resulting
in an impact. Under 2035 conditions, the proposed design change would cause a 35 passenger increase
in light rail demand during the pre-event peak hour and a 55 passenger increase during the post-event
peak hour. This would not change any EIS conclusions with respect to LINK light rail impacts. Therefore,
the proposed design change is not expected to result in any changes to transit impacts and potential
mitigation measures as identified in the EIS.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

While most of the 250 additional attendees for NBA games would become pedestrians for their last
connection to the arena, 15 are expected to walk as their primary mode during the pre-event peak hour,
and 24 are expected to walk as their primary mode during the post-event peak hour. When these
additional pedestrians are distributed throughout the network, they would have little to no noticeable
impact on overall pedestrian flow. Further, they would not cause any pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks
or crosswalks) to have pedestrian densities that would cause spillover onto adjacent streets.
Approximately 3 additional attendees are expected to travel to and from the arena by bicycle. This
would not change any EIS conclusions with respect to bicycle impacts beyond the slight increase in
needed bicycle parking. Therefore, the proposed design change is not expected to result in any changes
to the pedestrian or bicycle impacts and potential mitigation measures as identified in the EIS.

In conclusion, although the small increase in potential attendees for NBA games would slightly increase
some intersection traffic impacts, and potentially impact 3 additional intersections, the EIS already
identifies significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic operations, transit, and parking. This conclusion
is unchanged by the change in seating capacity described above.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-127 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
4.5.1 Construction
This section describes potential measures to reduce the magnitude of the construction impacts to the
transportation system. Most of these measures will be developed as part of the permitting process with
the City. The City and OVG are also negotiating Transaction Documents including the Development
Agreement, Seattle Center Integration Agreement, and Lease, all of which will reference transportation
impacts and associated mitigation commitments. Construction mitigation measures would be the same
for both action alternatives.

Street Use Permits and Other Agreements


SDOT issues street use permits when construction activities encroach and impact the ability to use the
public right-of-way. Through the Street Use Right-of-Way Construction Use Permit process, SDOT seeks
to accommodate construction activities and maintain the mobility functions of the right-of-way. As part
of the street use permitting process and the development of other agreements, it is recommended that
SDOT, Seattle Center, and OVG identify the following measures to reduce the significance of the
construction-related transportation impacts:

 An adequate location for a temporary King County Metro bus layover facility to replace the
layover space at the north end of the arena plaza. This may result in the loss of some on-street
parking spaces and would require coordination with King County Metro and Seattle Center.
 An adequate location for a temporary loading zone to serve school buses that use the 1st Ave N
loading zone along the arena plaza.
 A temporary bus stop to replace the stop just north of John St along 1st Ave N. This may result in
the loss of additional on-street parking and would require coordination with King County Metro.
 Temporary bicycle lane accommodations to replace any loss of the on-street bicycle lane along
1st Ave N between John St and the north edge of the arena plaza. Potential alternatives could be
shifting the lanes along 1st Ave N to the west to accommodate all existing bicycle and vehicle
lanes. This could also be designed as a protected bicycle lane along the west side of the street.
This would require the temporary loss of on-street parking and may require traffic signal
modifications.
 A plan to ensure adequate pedestrian access around the construction zone. This could require a
safe pedestrian pathway to be accommodated along Thomas St between 1st Ave N and 2nd Ave
N, or an alternative pathway with appropriate detour signage. Improved pedestrian crossings,
an alternative pathway (which could require the shifting of bicycle and travel lanes to the west),
or advanced signage may be added to accommodate pedestrian travel along 1st Ave N between
John St and Republican St.
 A construction outreach plan and implementation to businesses and residences along 1st Ave N
if the temporary flex zone (i.e., on-street parking) loss occurs.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-128 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 If construction worker parking is not fully accommodated in the 1st Ave N Garage, potential
accommodations could include an agreement for construction workers to park outside of the
area (more than 0.5 mile) and shuttle in.
 Revise the MOA for Event Curbside Management between SDOT and Seattle Center to
accommodate construction activities, events, and loading needs for Seattle Center. Examples
include 1-way operations of Thomas St to allow continued curb space use between Warren Ave
N and 2nd Ave N, or identification of new curb space in the immediate vicinity that Seattle Center
can use (along with necessary accommodations to address neighborhood parking impacts). See
Appendix B, Tables B-3 through B-8 for a list of events/performances that use curb space
reservation via the MOA.
 OVG would repair project related roadway damage on haul routes through Seattle Center
campus and on designated non-arterial haul routes, to the satisfaction of SDOT and/or Seattle
Center.
 Signal timing modifications during heaviest periods of truck hauling.

Construction Management Plan


Prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits, OVG would work with SDOT, Seattle Center,
King County Metro, and SDCI to prepare a Construction Management Plan (CMP). The plan should
include (but not be limited to) items such as:

 Guidance on the number and size of trucks per day entering and leaving the project site.
 Identification of arrival/departure times that would minimize traffic impacts.
 Approved truck circulation patterns.
 Locations of truck staging areas.
 Locations of employee parking and methods to encourage carpooling and use of alternative
transportation.
 Methods for partial/complete street closures (e.g., timing, signage, location and duration
restrictions).
 Criteria for use of flaggers and other traffic controls.
 Preservation of safe and convenient passage for bicyclists and pedestrians through/around
construction areas.
 Monitoring for roadbed damage and timing for completing repairs.
 Best management practices for control of dust and debris from trucks (e.g., wheel washing);
restoration of mid-campus haul route on a daily basis after night-time hauling.
 Coordination with Seattle Center and limitations on construction activity and parking restrictions
during peak/holiday weekends and special events.
 Points of contact for nearby residents and businesses to obtain construction information, have
questions answered, and convey complaints.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-129 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.5.2 Operations
This section describes strategies to reduce the magnitude of the operations impacts to the
transportation system. Mitigation measures would be the same for both action alternatives. The City
may consider additional measures as conditions of approval for project permits. The City and OVG are
also negotiating Transaction Documents including the Development Agreement, Seattle Center
Integration Agreement, and Lease, all of which will reference transportation impacts and associated
mitigation commitments. These potential mitigation measures are described in the remainder of this
section.

Measures for Traffic Operations Impacts


The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potential traffic operations impacts identified
in this EIS analysis. Final mitigation measures will be determined by SDOT, SDCI, and Seattle Center.
 OVG would work with Seattle Police Department, SDOT, SDCI, King County Metro, and Seattle
Center to develop and implement an Arena Access Management Plan (AAMP). The Draft AAMP
is available at https://www.seattle.gov/arena.
o The AAMP would identify street/lane closures, placement of traffic control officers
(TCOs), special signal timings, prohibited turn movements, curb space management,
specified locations for ridehailing pick-up/drop-off activity with supportive programming
and enforcement, and placement of permanent and/or temporary signage and
equipment (e.g., barricades, portable signs, dynamic or changeable message signs, etc.).
o The AAMP would include attendance thresholds that consider both the arena and other
events at Seattle Center, which would identify a range of management strategies that
become increasingly expansive as the combined attendance levels at the arena and
Seattle Center increase.
o The AAMP would include performance metrics that describe the intended effectiveness
of the program. It would also describe a periodic monitoring program to measure its
performance. The AAMP would be updated annually based on the results of the
monitoring program and changing traveler preferences and events at the arena. The
parties to the AAMP may make more frequent operational changes as needed.
 OVG would work with SDOT, SDCI, and King County Metro to develop demand management
strategies as part of the AAMP to reduce the number of private auto and ridehailing trips to the
arena to reduce the traffic impacts associated with these travel modes.
o The AAMP could contain thresholds/targets like private auto/ridehailing mode shares or
total pre-event/post-event peak hour vehicle trip targets. To achieve these goals, the
AAMP could include incentives like subsidized transit/Monorail/bike share passes, and
first/last mile access to major transit hubs. In addition, regulatory/pricing mechanisms
could be employed (some of which would need to be managed by the City) including,
but not limited to, minimum parking fees at arena-controlled garages, peak period
ridehailing surcharges, and reservation-based parking bundles at remote parking
facilities with a shuttle/Monorail/transit pass/bike share credit.
o The AAMP would include strategies for both arena attendees and employees. Employee
demand management strategies could include subsidized transit passes, carpool
matching services, a requirement that employees pay full market rate for off-street
parking, and a commute trip reduction program manager. When developing an

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-130 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

employee AAMP, it may be beneficial to coordinate with Seattle Center to determine if


a larger-area employee AAMP can be developed that covers both arena and Seattle
Center employees.
o Specific performance metrics and targets would be defined in the AAMP and a periodic
monitoring program would also be defined. It recommended that the AAMP be updated
annually to respond to changing travel preferences, transit system changes, and events
at the arena.
o To accommodate the additional patron and employee demand for non-auto travel,
some physical investments could also be identified in the AAMP. Examples include
bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding signs, and improved access to transit service and
transit reliability.
 OVG would work with SDOT to improve traffic flow and pedestrian progression at the 1st Ave
N/Thomas St and potentially other locations along either 1st Ave N or Queen Anne Ave N. This is
primarily an issue in post-event conditions. Improvements could include new traffic signals.
These signalized intersections should include marked crosswalks on all approaches, pedestrian
signal countdown heads (i.e., remaining seconds of the flashing “don’t walk” phase are shown),
and “blank out” signs installed on poles and mast arms where necessary to advise motorists of
temporarily prohibited turn movements to avoid pedestrian conflicts. These signalized
intersections would be interconnected with adjacent traffic signals to allow for coordinated
signal operations. Alternatively, these intersections could be manually controlled.
 OVG would work with SDOT to investigate opportunities for improving pre- and post-event
traffic operations impacts on affected area roadways like Mercer St, Denny Way, 1st Ave N,
Queen Anne Ave N, Harrison St, 5th Ave N, Dexter Ave, Westlake Ave, Fairview Ave, etc.
Potential improvements could include new traffic signal timing plans, implementation of
adaptive signal control, “blank out” signs to temporarily restrict turning movements, red light
cameras to improve compliance of keep-clear areas, etc. OVG would work with SDOT to make a
fair-share contribution to these traffic control improvements.
 OVG would work with SDOT and WSDOT to investigate opportunities to monitor and potentially
reduce off-ramp queuing from Mercer St onto I-5. A review of the Vissim model indicates that
simple fixes like traffic signal retiming would not be successful because SDOT already operates
the SCOOT adaptive traffic signal system on the corridor and it is processing a high volume of
traffic. Potential solutions include directions to the arena that include alternative routes to area
garages (Stewart St, Seneca St, etc.), a garage reservation system that includes customized
directions to the garages that avoid Mercer St, free transit tickets and directions to regional
park-and-ride lots as part of a game/event ticket, and free Monorail ticket with directions to
Downtown and Westlake area parking and transit options.
 OVG has hired a Community Liaison to coordinate with Seattle Center regarding event
scheduling logistics. Seattle Center is home to multiple organizations that regularly host
performances and events beginning in the same window of time as proposed arena events. In
past years, Seattle Center has encouraged cooperation between these organizations to stagger
event start times when possible and to plan for traffic officers at congested locations when
multiple events start or end simultaneously.
 OVG would partner with Seattle Center and Seattle Monorail Services to implement high priority
Monorail improvements recommended in the Seattle Center Monorail Stations Reconfiguration
Evaluation Report. These recommendations would improve the boarding and egress experience

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-131 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

at both stations (which would help attract more riders) and increase the Monorail’s capacity.
Coupled with a program to encourage parking around Westlake Center, these improvements
would help mitigate traffic operations and parking impacts of the arena by providing a
convenient last mile connection.

Measures for Ridehailing Impacts


The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potential ridehailing impacts identified in this
EIS analysis.
 OVG would work with Seattle Police Department, SDOT, SDCI, King County Metro, and Seattle
Center to develop, implement, and periodically update the AAMP.
o The AAMP could identify the placement of TCOs, curb space management among
ridehailing and other modes, specified locations for ridehailing pick-up/drop-off activity
with supportive programming and enforcement, and placement of temporary signage
and equipment (e.g., barricades, portable signs, changeable message signs, etc.).
o In particular, the AAMP could address pre-event drop-off congestion along 1st Ave N
(and other locations identified after the arena begins operations) that could result in
modal conflicts from drop-offs that might occur in the travel lanes, bicycle facilities, or
transit stops. TCOs could be on-site to ensure appropriate use of the curb space.
o The AAMP is integral to the successful management of ridehailing vehicles and their
adverse transportation impacts. The AAMP would identify the amount of curb space
required to accommodate pick-up and drop-offs, and SDOT would manage this curb
space to ensure adequate ridehailing pick-up and drop-off capacity. In addition, the
AAMP could identify a target ridehailing mode share or number of ridehailing trips that
reduces the traffic and transit operations impacts from this mode and the potential
modal conflicts that arise from pick-ups and drop-offs.

Measures for Bicycle Impacts


To address potential impacts to bicycle facilities, the following mitigation is recommended:
 To accommodate potential bicycle parking, it is recommended that OVG provide at least 200
free short-term bicycle parking spaces during high-attendance events like sports events or
concerts. This amount of bicycle parking could accommodate the expected 1% of bicycle event
arrivals for large events. Various bicycle parking locations would accommodate bike share
bicycles. As part of the periodic AAMP review process, OVG could recalculate the amount of
bicycle parking provided as modal preferences change. OVG could also work with the bike share
providers to ensure there are adequate bicycles after an event to meet demand and that the
bicycles are distributed around the arena (but out of the right-of-way) to ensure convenient
access to the bicycles.
 OVG would work with SDOT to implement bicycle improvements along and connected to 1st Ave
N to address the modal conflicts between drop-offs and bicycles in front of the arena.
Improvements could include a protected bicycle lane on the west side of the roadway.
 OVG would work with SDOT to implement other bicycle safety projects that arise from increased
modal conflicts between bicycles and arena traffic. In particular, intersections with high turning
vehicle conflicts could benefit from physical improvements like curb bulbs, temporary turning

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-132 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

restrictions, or management strategies like temporary crosswalk closures, traffic control officers,
etc.

Measures for Pedestrian Impacts


The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potential impacts to pedestrian facilities:

 OVG would work with SDOT to improve the pedestrian crossing at the 5th Ave N/Harrison St
intersection to accommodate heavy pedestrian flows during pre- and post-event conditions.
Recommended improvement would be to widen the crosswalk from 11 feet to 15 feet, or signal
retiming or manual traffic control.
 OVG would work with SDOT to identify intersection corners that are subject to crowding and
would benefit from curb extensions or barricades to reduce the risk of pedestrians spilling into
the intersection during the pre- and post-event conditions. Potential intersections that could
benefit from additional corner space or barricades include, but are not limited to: the NW
corner of Harrison St/5th Ave N, the SW corner of Mercer St/1st Ave N, the NW corner of
Harrison St/1st Ave N, and the NW and SW corners of Republican St/1st Ave N.
 OVG would work with SDOT to implement other pedestrian safety projects that arise from
increased modal conflicts between pedestrians and arena traffic. In particular, intersections with
high turning vehicle conflicts could benefit from physical improvements like curb bulbs,
temporary turning restrictions, or management strategies like temporary crosswalk closures,
traffic control officers, etc.

Measures for Transit Impacts


The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potential impacts to transit crowding and
speed and reliability:

 OVG would work with King County Metro and other transit providers to determine whether
additional bus route service could be provided to the arena on days with large events, and fund
that service if warranted. Service could include both routes that directly serve the arena and
regional routes that serve Westlake Station (e.g., routes that access regional park-and-ride lots).
To accommodate this additional service, OVG would work with King County Metro to identify
additional passenger accommodations or bus layover space. A substantial amount of lead-time
is required to implement additional transit service, so early coordination would be required.
 OVG would coordinate with Seattle Center Monorail and Sound Transit to determine the need
for and provision of additional high-capacity service to accommodate surges in pre-event and/or
post-event riders during large events.
 OVG would work with SDOT and King County Metro to identify and implement transit
speed/reliability/pedestrian amenity physical improvements to address pre-event and post-
event traffic congestion that slows bus service around the arena and high demand for transit
caused by events. Routes that use Queen Anne Ave N, 1st Ave N, 5th Ave N, and Denny Way are
most likely to require speed/reliability improvements. Improvements could include
reconfiguration of parking/travel lanes to accommodate bus-only lanes, transit signal priority,
queue jump lanes, revised transit stops/shelters, bus bulbs, pedestrian lighting at shelters, etc.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-133 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 OVG would work with SDOT and King County Metro to address potential bus stop crowding
during the post-event peak period at the bus stops along Queen Anne Ave N south of Harrison St
and John St. Potential improvements could include the removal of existing transit shelters and
replacement with canopies to clear obstructions on the sidewalk, or relocation to adjacent bus
stops with more pedestrian capacity. New benches toward the back of the sidewalk could also
be installed. This mitigation is similar to what was recently built at the stop along Queen Anne
Ave N south of Mercer St.

Measures for Parking Impacts


To address potential modal conflicts caused by reduced on- and off-street parking supply, the following
mitigation measures are recommended:

 OVG would work with SDOT, Seattle Center, and private garage owners/operators to develop an
“Off-Site Parking Facility Reservation and Best Practices System.” This system could allow
attendees to reserve parking in advance of an event via a website or mobile app. This system
can be operated so that parking occupancy can be managed (and limited if necessary) to enable
post-event traffic to be able to exit the garage in a reasonable period of time and to spread
traffic to areas with more capacity, like Downtown/Westlake Center.
o Private garage owners/operators may opt into this reservation system, provided they
agree to operate their garages during events according to a series of “best practices,”
which include ways to minimize pre-event on-street queuing to enter the garage,
accommodation of pedestrians walking across garage driveways, and maximum
permitted occupancy levels to improve surrounding traffic operations.
o Garages could include sites beyond the study area if they have convenient access to
transit or shuttle service. The garages around Westlake Center are potential candidates
given the Monorail and frequent transit along 3rd Ave. Monorail tickets should be
bundled with any parking near Westlake Center.
 OVG would work with SDOT to improve the availability of real-time off-street parking garage
information to arena attendees. This could be achieved by expanding the City’s ePark guidance
system through additional participating garages and new dynamic message signs installed in the
vicinity of the arena.
 OVG would work with SDOT to explore and implement improvements to the on-street parking
management program in the area. Examples of potential changes to on-street parking
management could include changes to the Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) boundaries,
modifications to the hours where paid parking is enforced, new paid parking areas,
implementation of paid parking on Sundays, or parking fee changes.
 OVG would work with SDOT and Seattle Center as they revise and update the MOA for Event
Curbside Management around Seattle Center to address the needs for charter bus/truck staging
for events at the renovated arena, recognizing the existing use of the curbside for Seattle Center
events.
 As part of the AAMP for employees at the arena (and potentially Seattle Center as well),
alternative remote lots could be included to reduce the amount of parking consumed by arena
employees during events. A shuttle program may be required to access the remote lots if transit

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-134 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

does not provide a frequent connection (this may be an issue in the post-event condition when
transit service in the area is less frequent).

4.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO


TRANSPORTATION
This section summarizes the significant and unavoidable adverse transportation impacts for both
construction and operations of the proposed arena.

4.6.1 Construction
There are potential construction-related transportation impacts to pedestrian and bicycle safety, and
bus/truck staging areas. The recommended mitigation measures would adequately address all of the
construction-related transportation impacts so that they are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.6.2 Operations
The extensive mitigation measures proposed above would reduce the magnitude of all transportation
impacts. However, the large number of events (number of days an event would occur) and large number
of attendees would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to traffic operations, transit,
and parking during major events (NBA/NHL and large concerts/events) at the renovated arena, even
with the extensive mitigation program implemented. This degree of impact would occur on many more
days during the year than under the No Action Alternative because the renovated arena would attract
higher-profile events like NBA/NHL games and larger concerts than can be accommodated by KeyArena.
While an extensive program to manage parking demand and direct patrons to less-congested parking
areas is recommended, there is no guarantee that the numerous private parking operators in the area
will work with OVG to coordinate parking demand and the associated modal conflicts caused by patrons
cruising for available on or off-street parking.

With the implementation of the AAMP, impacts related to ridehailing, pedestrian, bicycle, and safety are
expected to be brought to a less-than-significant level during pre-event and post-event conditions.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 4-135 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

5.0 EARTH
Geology, soil, and groundwater considerations important to
the project include the underlying geological characteristics Key Findings for Earth
and properties of subsurface materials, soil characteristics, and Construction would require substantial
hydrogeology, as well as seismic and other related quantities of earthwork, which if not
geotechnical hazards. Regional geology and seismicity would adequately designed and implemented,
not change as a result of the project, but they influence how could create safety hazards for
the project is designed and constructed. These considerations construction workers. Compliance with
affect the type of construction methods used for the project excavation safety standards and shoring
and, if not adequately considered during project design, could requirements would ensure that
affect the long-term safety of the project. Any dewatering construction impacts are minor. Seismic
and geotechnical hazards, including
activities from the project could also have an impact on
ground shaking, liquefaction, slope
groundwater levels in the area. Analysis in this chapter focuses stability, and other hazards, would be
on erosion, slope failure, seismic hazards, liquefaction, addressed through a final design-level
unstable soils, and groundwater (including dewatering). geotechnical analysis and report.
Impacts would be minor with
Changes from the Draft EIS – Information about dewatering implementation of final geotechnical
was added to this chapter for the Final EIS. recommendations in accordance with
regulatory requirements.

5.1 METHODS
Potential impacts were determined by identifying the geologic, soils, and hydrogeologic conditions at
the project site and vicinity, and evaluating how the proposed improvements might be affected for both
the construction and operation phases. Existing conditions related to seismicity were obtained from a
number of sources, including publicly available information from the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR, 2004) and a peer-reviewed Geological Society of America paper (Troost and Booth,
2008). In addition, site-specific conditions were based on boring logs completed as part of a preliminary
geotechnical investigation for the project by Hart Crowser geotechnical engineers in 2017 (Hart Crowser,
2017), and the Draft Geotechnical Engineering Design Report (Hart Crowser, 2018).

5.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT


Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW Chapter 36.70A) requires all cities and
counties to identify critical areas within their jurisdictions and to formulate development regulations for
their protection. Among the critical areas designated by the GMA are geologically hazardous areas,
which are areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geologic events. These hazards
could affect the design, construction, and operation of the project and, if not considered appropriately,
could pose a risk to public safety.

The Washington State Building Code Council (SBCC) was created to advise the Legislature on building
code issues and to develop the building codes used in Washington State. These codes ensure that
buildings and facilities constructed in the state are safe and healthy for building occupants, workers, and
the public. The State Building Code is modeled on the 2015 International Building Code and other

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

national model codes that are adopted by reference and combined with Washington State
Amendments.

In accordance with the GMA, each city must include codes regulating development in or near
geologically hazard areas. These policies and codes require measures to address hazards such as
liquefaction or unstable fill materials unless a geotechnical investigation can demonstrate feasibility with
recommendations for appropriate site preparations and foundation design. Other hazards such as
erosion and ground shaking are addressed through implementation of regulatory requirements (e.g.,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]) and building code standards that include
seismic design measures, while erosion hazards are typically addressed through drainage control
requirements both during construction and post-construction.

Construction dewatering discharge to the sewer system is permitted through the King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks/Industrial Waste Program under King County Ordinance No.
11-34 (Document Code No. PUT 8-14 (PR)). Discharge rates and maximum volumes are also set by the
County for construction dewatering, with strict restrictions during the wet season.

The SMC contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for the earth element.
Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 generally provide that the City’s policy is to protect life and
property from loss or damage from landslides, strong ground motion, liquefaction, soil creep,
settlement/subsidence, erosion, and other hazards related to earth movement and instability. SMC
25.05.675 also provides the authority to apply mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to earth
movement or instability.

5.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


5.3.1 Geologic Setting
The greater Seattle area is part of the Puget Sound Lowland, an elongate structural and topographic
basin between the Cascade Range to the east and the Olympic Mountains to the west. The Puget Sound
Lowland area has been affected by repeated glaciation in the past 2.4 million years, along with crustal
deformation related to the Cascadia subduction zone. The present landscape has been formed by
repeated cycles of glacial scouring and deposition, tectonic activity, landsliding, stream erosion and
deposition, volcanic mudflows, and also human activity (Troost and Booth, 2008).

Tectonic deformation associated with the subduction zone results in a north-south shortening producing
east-west trending folds and faults. Three major bedrock structures characterize the greater Seattle
area, which include (from south to north) the Seattle uplift, the Seattle fault zone, and the Seattle basin.
The Seattle fault zone is an approximately 4-mile wide zone
that runs east-west across the south part of the city. During a Moment magnitude (Mw) is related to
large earthquake about 1,100 years ago, land north of the the physical size of a fault rupture and
fault subsided by as much as 3 feet, and areas south of the movement across a fault. Moment
fault uplifted as much as 20 feet (Troost and Booth, 2008). magnitude provides a physically
The surface rupture that occurred 1,100 years ago resulted meaningful measure of the size of a
faulting event, whereas the Richter
from an estimated moment magnitude (Mw) 7.5 earthquake.
Magnitude (M) is a relative
The estimated probabilities of an earthquake with a
measurement of an earthquake to the
magnitude of greater than magnitude (M) 6.5 occurring on reference 3.0 earthquake.
the Seattle fault zone or another shallow-crustal source in the

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Puget Sound region are approximately 5% in 50 years (also referred to as a 1,000-year recurrence
interval) to as much as 15% in 50 years (333-year recurrence interval). These probability estimates have
large uncertainties due to the limited data.

The surficial deposits of Seattle are generally grouped into the following categories: postglacial deposits,
late glacial deposits, Vashon glacial deposits, pre-Vashon deposits, and bedrock. Most of these deposits
are fine-grained but also include coarser-grained deposits (Troost and Booth, 2008). According to a
liquefaction susceptibility map produced by WDNR, the project site is in an area with a very low to low
potential for liquefaction (WDNR, 2004).

King County has 5 groundwater management areas (GWMAs) within the county boundaries: East King
County, Issaquah Creek Valley, Redmond Bear Creek Valley, South King County, and Vashon-Maury
Island. The project site is north of the South King County GWMA and outside of any GWMA boundary.
Groundwater in the region is not a potable source of water supply. Water supply in the region is
provided from the Cedar River and Tolt River watersheds and delivered across the region by a network
of pipelines.

5.3.2 Geology, Soils, and Groundwater at the Project Site


Soils at the project site have been reworked and disturbed by previous development and are no longer
in their native condition. According to the boring logs completed as part of the preliminary geotechnical
investigation, the project site is underlain by approximately 10 to 30 feet of artificial fill that consists
primarily of poorly graded silty sand (Hart Crowser, 2017 and 2018). The fill material is underlain by
sequences of gravels, sands, and silts with varying sediment sizes that are generally dense or stiff. Below
this layer is a unit of very stiff to hard fine-grained deposits at depths of 60 to 80 feet below ground
surface.

Groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths ranging from approximately 23 to 32 feet below
ground surface (elevation of between 95 and 105 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988
[NAVD88]). The boring explorations went to a maximum depth of 186 feet below ground surface, and no
bedrock was encountered. These observations are consistent with previous borings conducted in 1994
for the previous arena renovation but may not be representative of natural conditions due to the
drainage system at the site (Hart Crowser, 2018). In general, saturated, loose unconsolidated materials
are potentially liquefiable if encountered within 50 feet of ground surface. Groundwater is present at
depths within 50 feet; however, the density of the sandy layers and other conditions present at the site
indicate that the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced hazards is very low (Hart Crowser,
2018).

5.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


Impacts can be short-term related to construction activities, or long-term related to the permanent
structure and operation of the project.

5.4.1 Construction Impacts


The magnitude of the potential construction (short-term) impacts to earth resources from the project
would be characterized as significant if the impacts meet the definition below. Impacts that do not reach
this threshold are characterized as less-than-significant.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts: Significant impacts on earth resources could occur if the
project construction resulted in substantive injury or death to workers or visitors or damage to the
proposed or adjacent improvements during or following construction, and as such would not meet
applicable regulatory requirements and industry standards for construction. Significant impacts would
also occur if substantive changes to hydrogeologic conditions (including a temporary lowering of the
groundwater table) would result from construction.

No Action Alternative
There would be no construction impacts, as no construction would occur under the No Action
Alternative.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Erosion. Alternative 1 would result in a less-than-significant impact for erosion associated with
construction activities. Alternative 1 would disturb more than 1 acre and thus is required to obtain a
General Construction Permit through the NPDES program. Such projects must include construction best
management practices (BMPs), as detailed in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). These
BMPs are developed on a project-specific basis and may vary depending on the activities involved.
Typical examples of construction BMPs include the installation of silt fences, use of hay bales, covering
trucks that haul soils, or application of soil stabilization measures that are designed to minimize the
potential for erosion on exposed areas. In general, these water quality and construction BMPs are
effective in minimizing erosion and the loss of topsoil such that additional protection measures are not
necessary.

Slope Failure. Alternative 1 would conform with existing building code requirements, which would result
in a less‐than‐significant impact for excavation activities during construction. Construction activities
would involve substantive earthwork, including excavation, tunneling, grading, and stockpiling of soils.
Excavation for the subterranean levels of the arena would extend approximately 15 feet below the
current floor level, which if not managed appropriately could be susceptible to caving and slope
instability or cause vibration to levels that damage nearby improvements or property. An estimated
500,000 cubic yards would be excavated as part of the renovation. The access tunnel under Bressi
Garage would be constructed by a mining-style method, which would also generate soils for disposal.
Off-site disposal would result in temporary truck traffic, dust, road runoff, and other indirect
construction-related impacts. In addition, any stockpiled soils could become exposed to winds and water
flows that can result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil.

Excavation safety standards for construction work are defined in WAC 296-155 Part N (Excavation,
Trenching, and Shoring). Part N applies to all open excavations including trenches, which shall not
damage underground installations, surface improvements, or
adjacent structures. Excavations that are classified as trenches Excavation Hazards
are required to have a safety system. Additional requirements
for safety systems that apply to adjacent structures including Deep excavations can leave sidewalls
monitoring for vibration are defined in WAC 296-155 Part Q susceptible to instability; however,
excavation safety standards required by
(Underground Construction). A registered professional engineer
WAC 296-155, which require shoring
is responsible for ensuring that adjoining buildings, walls,
safety standards, would be
sidewalks, pavement, and appurtenant structures are not implemented to minimize those
undermined or otherwise damaged by vibration, and are hazards.
adequately supported with shoring, bracing, or underpinning.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Shoring is a means of supporting the earth in a trench or vertical cut for building and roadway
construction or other underground installation activities. There are many types of shoring and ground
support techniques for earth reinforcement or support of excavations. A properly installed shoring
system for excavation is critical for maintaining the structural integrity of the adjacent roadway
structures and underground utility infrastructure. Construction work would include the installation of
earth retention systems with soldier piles immediately outside of the foundation walls at the perimeter
of the existing arena, and new shoring/foundation elements to support the roof structure during
excavation. The City of Seattle Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction
(Standard Specification 2-04) also provide specific information on general trench shoring requirements
(City of Seattle, 2014). Adherence to these stringent excavation and shoring requirements would protect
adjacent structures and improvements and minimize sidewall instability hazards.

Seismic Hazards. Adherence to building code and regulatory requirements would reduce potential
seismic hazards during construction to less‐than‐significant levels. Seismic activity will likely occur during
the life of the proposed improvements and could include the construction period. A seismic event could
be substantial, resulting in significant damage, injury, and death, if the construction activities and
facilities are not designed appropriately. Grading and construction would adhere to the specifications,
procedures, and site conditions contained in the final design plans, which would fully comply with the
seismic recommendations of the State Building Code (based on the 2015 International Building Code)
and any local building code amendments. Construction methods and employee and site safety measures
would also be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory standards.

Liquefaction. Site preparation measures as determined in a final design‐level geotechnical report would
further reduce identified potential liquefaction impacts during construction, which are expected to be
less‐than‐significant. Liquefaction of soils during an earthquake could result in substantive damage and
injury if improvements are not designed appropriately. The liquefaction potential of the site would be
confirmed during the geotechnical investigation of the site as required by law, but the site is mapped in
an area with very low to low potential for liquefaction, confirmed by the geotechnical investigation
(WDNR, 2004; Hart Crowser, 2018).

Unstable or Unsuitable Soils. Similar to the liquefaction hazards described above, unstable or unsuitable
soils would be addressed during the site preparations in accordance with the findings of the
geotechnical report. Existing soils at the site include artificial fill, which could be unsuitable for use as
structural fill. Removal of any identified soils not suitable for the proposed improvements would occur
during excavation activities. Therefore, implementation of the construction measures within the final
design-level geotechnical report consistent with current building code requirements would reduce
potential impacts related to unsuitable soils to less-than-significant levels.

Groundwater. Some temporary dewatering is anticipated during construction activities, which may
result in changes to groundwater patterns, potentially causing any off-site contaminants, if present, to
migrate onto the project site. However, considering the temporary nature of the dewatering, that water
is already collected and discharged off-site as part of current operations as well as permit requirements
for dewatering during construction, it would cause less-than-significant impacts to groundwater quality.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Alternative 2 would require the same amount of excavation as Alternative 1, and be susceptible to
similar excavation stability hazards. As with Alternative 1, the existing excavation safety standards would
apply and with oversight by a registered geotechnical engineer, there would no change in impact

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

severity compared to Alternative 1. Conformance to current excavation and building code requirements
would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant.

5.4.2 Operations Impacts


Potentially significant operations impacts on earth resources are defined as follows. Impacts that do not
reach this threshold are characterized as less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts: The magnitude of the potential operations impacts to
geology and soils from the project would be significant if operation of the project could cause earth-
related hazards that could cause substantive injury or death to occupants and visitors, or damage to the
proposed or adjacent improvements following construction, and as such would not meet applicable
regulatory requirements and industry standards. Significant impacts would also occur if substantive
changes to hydrogeologic conditions (including a permanent lowering of the groundwater table) would
result from the project, causing a change to groundwater flow patterns.

No Action Alternative
There would be no long-term impacts on earth resources under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Erosion. Redevelopment of the site could alter drainage patterns and potentially expose soils to the
erosive effects of wind and water. However, once the project is constructed, the site would continue to
be largely covered in impervious surfaces with some minor vegetated landscaping, and would not result
in a substantial change from existing conditions; the potential impact would be less-than-significant.

Slope Failure. Unstable soils or subgrade walls could result in failure of some structures or parts of
structures. Following construction, the risk of instability of the excavated sidewalls would be eliminated
by completion of the retaining walls and foundation improvements. The foundation improvements
would be designed and constructed in accordance with the final design parameters consistent with the
final geotechnical recommendations and with current building code. The project site is otherwise
located in a developed area with relatively gentle topography that is not susceptible to slope instability.
As a result, the project would not be susceptible to damage from slope instability during operation, and
the potential impact would be less-than-significant.

Seismic Hazards. Seismic activity will likely occur during the life of the proposed improvements and
could be substantial, resulting in significant damage, injury, and death, if the facilities are not designed
appropriately. The proposed improvements (including site preparation, foundation design, walkways,
and utility connections) would be required to be designed in accordance with a final design-level
geotechnical report prepared by a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer. The final design-level
geotechnical report would include recommendations to design the project facilities to withstand
probable seismically induced ground shaking in accordance with the seismic design criteria contained in
the current building code. Grading and construction would adhere to the specifications, procedures, and
site conditions in the final design plans, which would fully comply with the seismic recommendations of
the State Building Code and local building code amendments. Adherence to these building code
requirements would reduce potential seismic hazards to less-than-significant levels.

Liquefaction. Liquefaction of soils during an earthquake could result in substantive damage and injury if
improvements are not designed appropriately. The liquefaction potential of the site would be confirmed

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

during the geotechnical investigation of the site as required by law, but the site is in an area with very
low to low potential for liquefaction (WDNR, 2004). Design of structures to resist seismic forces and
secondary effects such as liquefaction in accordance with the current building code would be required.
Implementation of site preparation measures as determined in a final design-level geotechnical report
would reduce any identified potential liquefaction impacts to less-than-significant.

Unstable or Unsuitable Soils. Development on unstable or unsuitable soils could result in the failure of
some structures or parts of structures. Existing soils that cannot support proposed improvements,
cannot be reused as structural fill or landscape material, or could cause corrosion of subsurface
improvements and be a source of damage to the new facilities over the operational life of the project
would need to be either replaced with engineered fill or treated to meet geotechnical requirements.
The final geotechnical investigation would identify underlying materials and their engineering
characteristics. Soils identified as unsuitable for use as structural fill, such as improperly compacted
artificial fill, expansive soils, or compressible soils, would require off-site disposal. The site is underlain
by artificial fill that would likely be removed during excavation activities. Therefore, implementation of
the recommendations of the final design-level geotechnical report consistent with current building code
requirements would reduce potential impacts over the operational life of the project related to unstable
soils to less-than-significant levels.

Groundwater. The proposed redevelopment would lower the depth of improvements, which could
potentially bring the foundation floor below the existing perched groundwater table. Groundwater
conditions at the site are currently influenced by the existing drainage system at the site, which collects
water at a sump and pumps it to a storm drain (Hart Crowser, 2018). The proposed foundation design
would similarly include a permanent drainage system with redundant pumps. Even with waterproofing
the foundation slab, use of drainage board against the wall, perimeter drains, and drainage fill beneath
the foundation slab directing perched groundwater into a collection system, pumping the water out
would be necessary to ensure that hydrostatic pressures do not build up. Therefore, dewatering would
likely be required for the improvements; however, the collection system would largely collect
groundwater passively similar to the existing system, which would reduce the potential for substantive
changes to groundwater patterns. According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation estimates
(Hart Crowser, 2018), the site will have a permanent drainage rate of 50 gallons per minute (gpm). On
April 17, 2018, the inflow rate into the existing groundwater pumping system was measured at 15 to 20
gpm. OVG’s engineers have recommended that the pumps be sized for 50 gpm. In addition, all
extraction of groundwater would be done in accordance with City requirements, which would ensure
that the site does not discharge any contaminants, if present. The proposed design would be subject to
City Director’s Rules (City of Seattle Stormwater Manual [City of Seattle, 2017]), which can limit the
volume of water entering the City storm drains. OVG would continue to work with the City’s civil
engineer on the final discharge requirements. The proposed foundation would be designed with
improvements to the drainage system and implementation of a waterproofing system to minimize the
amount of dewatering required. Therefore, the proposed design, in accordance with City requirements,
would ensure that there would be no impact to groundwater levels related to the operations of the
renovated arena.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


There would be no change in the potential impact severity of Alternative 2 when compared to
Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would encounter the same existing geotechnical hazards, and with
adherence to current building code requirements would have less-than-significant impacts on earth
resources.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

5.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
5.5.1 Construction
Potential construction measures are the same for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 and include the
following recommendations to address geotechnical and erosional hazards at the site.

 Confirm that a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer conducts geotechnical hazard


evaluations for proposed elements addressing ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and
landslides, and that geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the project
design.
 Conduct construction activities in accordance with BMPs within the required SWPPP, consistent
with the NPDES General Construction Permit.
 Design proposed project components in accordance with the design recommendations
presented in a final design-level project geotechnical report. This would ensure that facilities are
designed to State Building Code standards, which are based on International Building Code
seismic standards.
 Conduct excavation activities in accordance with WAC and City requirements and include
required shoring and safety systems.
 Monitor earthwork activities to ensure that conditions encountered are consistent with the
findings of the final design-level geotechnical report, using a Washington-licensed geotechnical
engineer.
 Conduct vibration monitoring for the Northwest Rooms and International Plaza, Bressi Garage,
and any other sensitive structures within about 100 feet of earthwork activities to ensure that
the structural integrity of these buildings is not compromised. Any signs of foundation or
pavement cracking or displacement shall require suspension of construction activities in
accordance with oversight from the construction geotechnical engineer and the City.
 Conduct any dewatering necessary in accordance with permit requirements.
 Establish protocols for the contractor to work with the OVG Community Liaison during the
construction period to help address concerns raised by the public or agencies in accordance with
the community benefits provisions in the Transaction Documents.

5.5.2 Operations
Potential operations measures are the same for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 and include the
following recommendations to address geotechnical and erosional hazards.

 Implement required storm drainage features to reduce the potential for erosion. City drainage
control requirements would be required and included as part of the final design plans.
 Develop a monitoring and maintenance program that includes inspection and reporting on
structural stability. Monitor all improvements for changes in conditions such as cracking
foundations or observed settlement that could reduce the ability of structures to resist seismic
disturbances.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 If changes are identified during future inspection and monitoring of conditions, implement
additional measures as directed by a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer to reduce or
minimize those impacts.
 Design the final drainage and waterproofing system for the walls and slabs in accordance with
the City’s Director’s Rules to ensure that any discharge of collected groundwater is in
accordance with City requirements.
 Continue to provide a Community Liaison to help address concerns raised by the public or
agencies, in accordance with the community benefits provisions in the Transaction Documents.

5.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


GEOLOGY AND SOILS
There would be no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to geology and soils from either action
alternative.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 5-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

6.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES


This chapter provides a project-level analysis of potential
Key Findings for Historic and
impacts to known and probable historic and cultural
Cultural Resources
resources in the study area. Historic and cultural resources
can exist belowground and aboveground and can be There are 3 designated Seattle
archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, buildings, Landmarks in the aboveground historic
structures, objects, or districts. resources study area: KeyArena, Bressi
Garage, and the Northwest Rooms (this
To be considered a historic resource, the resource generally includes the International Fountain
must meet minimum age requirements. However, historic Pavilion and the International Plaza).
resources are not defined solely by their age but also by Significant impacts to all 3 Landmarks
criteria related to their historic or cultural importance; this is are expected under both Alternatives 1
known as “significance.” Significant historic resources and 2.
represent important themes, cultures, or patterns in our past. The character-defining elements of
The significance of a resource may be at the national, state, these Landmarks could be preserved
or local level. For this analysis, the criteria used to evaluate through the Seattle Historic
the significance of a historic resource are established by the Preservation Program’s Certificate of
City’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (SMC Chapter Approval process. This process is
25.12). intended to preserve and maintain
designated features of Landmarks
The evaluation status of a historic resource can vary. A according to the Secretary of the
historic resource can be listed in a historic register, Interior’s Standards.
recommended eligible for listing, or determined eligible for
There are no recorded belowground
listing. Resources that have been evaluated and were
cultural resources, traditional cultural
determined to be not eligible for listing do not require properties, or districts on the project
consideration. site. Precontact-era resources are
unlikely to be present due to the
Belowground cultural resources can also be listed in historic previous development of the site.
registers. Under Washington State law, a historic However, the area may contain historic-
archaeological resource must be eligible for listing in the era resources associated with the early
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) before it is residential and commercial uses,
considered “protected,” but all precontact cultural resources especially at Thomas St and Bressi
are protected regardless of eligibility determinations. Historic Garage. If resources are identified
archaeological resources that are determined to be eligible during construction, compliance with
for listing in the NRHP and precontact cultural resources are state law could result in less-than-
significant impacts.
collectively referred to hereafter as “protected archaeological
resources” (PARs).

Changes from the Draft EIS – Based on comments received on the Draft EIS, this Final EIS chapter has
been revised to include additional discussion of the historic property inventory results, as well as
potential impacts to Pottery Northwest’s ceramic art collection, the MoPOP museum collection, the
Typewriter Eraser, Scale X outdoor sculpture, the International Fountain, the Armory, and Memorial
Stadium. The Final EIS includes additional analysis of potential vibration impacts to buildings during
construction and additional potential mitigation measures for these potential impacts. A historic
property inventory was prepared by BOLA Architecture + Planning, and a cultural resources assessment
was prepared by ESA. The historic property inventory report was submitted to the Department of

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) for review


prior to publication of the Final EIS. The cultural resources Key Terms – Cultural and Historic
assessment was submitted to DAHP prior to publication of Resources
the Final EIS.
Precontact Cultural Resource: A
resource that predates the point of
contact between Native and non-Native
6.1 METHODS peoples (including explorers, fur
traders, and military personnel). In King
The EIS Consultant Team reviewed historic registers, historical County, the precontact era ended in
maps, photographs, and other documents to analyze past use 1792 with the arrival of explorer
of the aboveground historic resources study area and Captain George Vancouver. Non-Native
settlement of the Seattle area began
belowground cultural resources study area. In addition, all
with the Denny Party in 1851.
recorded belowground cultural resources within the study
area were reviewed to determine the sensitivity for Protected Archaeological Resource
additional, unrecorded belowground cultural resources. (PAR): A term developed for this
analysis to encompass the types of
Information on the age of historic resources in the resources protected under state law: a
aboveground historic resources study area was compiled historic archaeological site eligible for
from the King County Department of Assessments and listing in the NRHP and any precontact
records provided by the Seattle Center. Because construction archaeological site, regardless of NRHP
could begin as soon as October 2018, this analysis primarily eligibility status.
addresses aboveground buildings, structures, and objects that
Register-Listed: A resource that is listed
were built in or before 1968 (50 years old or older at the time on a national, state, or local historic
of construction). However, for consideration as a potential register or is a designated Seattle
Seattle Landmark, a property must be at least 25 years old or Landmark.
older; for this project, that would apply to resources
constructed in or before 1993. Traditional Cultural Property: A
property that is eligible for listing in the
The study area for aboveground historic resources is defined NRHP based on its associations with the
as the project site and the Northwest Rooms and traditional cultural practices, traditions,
International Fountain Pavilion, which includes the beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social
institutions of a living community.
International Plaza (collectively referred to hereafter as
“Northwest Rooms”). There are 17 aboveground historic
resources adjacent to the aboveground historic resources study area; BOLA Architecture + Planning
conducted a reconnaissance-level inventory of these resources in March 2018 for OVG with updates in
July 2018 (BOLA Architecture + Planning, 2018). This report was submitted to DAHP on May 24, 2018
and is still in review to date. The study area for belowground cultural resources is a 0.5-mile radius from
the project site.

Data Sources: The analysis relied on records provided by the Seattle Center; King County Department of
Assessments (2018); Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data
(WISAARD) (DAHP, 2017); the Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model (DAHP, 2010; Kauhi, 2013);
national, state, and local historic registers; existing cultural resources assessments; geological and
historical maps (United States Surveyor General, 1859; USGS, 1895, 1897); geotechnical logs (Hart
Crowser, 2017, 2018); local histories; and published ethnographic resources.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Impact Analysis
Potential impacts to historic and cultural resources can be direct or indirect. Examples of direct and
indirect impacts that could occur during the project are:

 Aboveground Historic Resources: Direct impacts could occur from demolition, vibration, or
physical alterations that minimize a resource’s integrity of design, materials, or workmanship.
Indirect impacts to a resource’s integrity of location, setting, feeling, or association are not
anticipated.
 Belowground Cultural Resources: All impacts would be direct. These could occur from ground
disturbance or modifications to the ground surface. No indirect impacts would occur.

6.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT


This project is subject to historic and cultural resources review under SEPA regulations, the Seattle
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (SMC 25.12), and Washington State archaeological resources laws.
The City has adopted substantive SEPA policies to address historic and cultural resources issues (SMC
Chapter 25.05.675(H)). Cultural resources are defined as historic buildings, special historic districts, and
sites of archaeological significance.

Historic properties in Seattle may be recognized at the local level for their historical significance through
the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (SMC 25.12). The ordinance defines historic and cultural
resources as objects, sites, or improvements (buildings, structures, or objects) that are at least 25 years
old and have “interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the
City, state, or nation, if it has integrity or the ability to convey its significance” and that meet at least 1 of
6 categories of significance (SMC 25.12.350). Changes to designated Seattle Landmarks are managed
through a Certificate of Approval process with the Seattle Historic Preservation Program within the
City’s Department of Neighborhoods. This process is intended to manage change and find a reasonable
approach that will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Landmarks Preservation
Board, 1987).

Four Washington State cultural resources protection laws would apply to this project during
construction. These laws apply to all projects in Washington State, including those subject to SEPA:
Archaeological Sites and Resources (RCW 27.53), Indian Graves and Records (RCW 27.44), Abandoned
and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves (RCW 68.60), and Human Remains (RCW 68.50). If a project
requires work within the boundaries of a PAR, an excavation permit is required from the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). Information regarding
archaeological site locations is exempt from public distribution and disclosure under Washington State
law (RCW 42.56.300).

OVG is applying for federal historic rehabilitation tax credits from the Federal Historic Preservation Tax
Incentives Program. However, this project does not constitute a federal undertaking that would require
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. The project is not subject to compliance with
federal cultural resources regulations because no federal funds, federal permits, or federal lands are
involved.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

On March 8, 2018, the Washington State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation formally listed
KeyArena on the Washington Heritage Register and recommended it eligible for listing in the NRHP. This
recommendation was forwarded to the National Park Service, which administers the NRHP, for final
approval. It was approved by the National Park Service and listed in the NRHP on May 10, 2018.

6.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


This analysis uses 2 study areas: 1 for belowground cultural resources and 1 for aboveground historic
resources (Figure 6-1). The study area for belowground cultural resources is a 0.5-mile radius from the
project site. This study area provides context for an analysis of potential impacts within the project site
by incorporating information about previous archaeological investigations and recorded archaeological
sites with project-specific geotechnical information. The study area for aboveground historic resources
includes the project site and the Northwest Rooms.

6.3.1 Geology and Soils


Geotechnical logs indicate that the project site is broadly covered by placed fill ranging from
approximately 10 to 30 feet in thickness (Hart Crowser, 2018). The lack of substantial natural deposition
during the Holocene epoch, coupled with extensive site preparation to construct KeyArena, suggests
that the project site has a low likelihood to contain buried, intact archaeological sites. For more detail,
see Appendix D.

6.3.2 Precontact and Ethnographic Eras


Archaeological and historical records document Native American use of the belowground cultural
resources study area, suggesting a potential for ephemeral belowground archaeological resources in the
study area. A Native American trail known as scHákWsHud (“trail to the beach”) trail passed
immediately north of the project site, roughly following the alignment of today’s Republican St (United
States Surveyor General, 1859). The trail led from Lake Union to Elliott Bay. The Duwamish village of
babáqWab / báqWbaqWab or “Little Prairie / Large Prairie” was located along the trail, in the vicinity of
Belltown (Hilbert et al., 2001; Thrush, 2007; Waterman, 1922). The village consisted of at least 2
longhouses measuring 48 by 96 feet (Thrush, 2007). Historical accounts of the village’s exact location
vary, but it appears to have been within 0.5 mile of the project site (Bass, 1937; Lewarch et al., 2004).
For more detail, see Appendix D.

6.3.3 Historic Era


This section provides a brief history of development of the aboveground historic resources study area
and belowground cultural resources study area in order to provide context for analysis of the potential
that belowground cultural resources are present within the project site, as well as to provide context for
the existing buildings in the aboveground historic resources study area. Non-Native development of the
belowground cultural resources study area began in the early 1890s (Sanborn Map Company, 1893;
USGS, 1895, 1897). The earliest detailed maps of the project site date to 1893 and show it as sparsely
residential with a few stores and a Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Density increased through the late
1890s, and by 1905 the project site featured single-family and multi-family residences, a drug and meat
store, and a cigar factory.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 6-1. Historic and Cultural Resources Study Areas

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The area became known as the Warren Avenue neighborhood. The neighborhood was dominated by the
large 1903 Warren Avenue Public School on Block 35, which is now the northeast quadrant of the
KeyArena site. The school served as a neighborhood anchor until its demolition in 1959. By 1917, more
stores were located in the project site on Block 30, along 1st Ave N (blocks are shown in Figure 6-2). The
mostly working class neighborhood continued to sustain a mix of residential and commercial uses
through the 1950s (Artifacts Architectural Consulting, 2013).

When Seattle voters approved construction of a Civic Center in 1957 to host the 1962 World’s Fair, the
Warren Avenue neighborhood changed drastically. The World’s Fair, also known as the Century 21
Exposition (Exposition), changed the once residential and small-scale commercial setting into a planned
complex of futuristic buildings, structures, and objects (Becker et al., 2011). Residents moved away from
the neighborhood and within a few years nearly all existing resources were demolished to make way for
the complex. Several buildings on the project site remained: Bressi Garage, Blue Spruce Apartments, and
the West Court Building (known then as the Western Pacific Insurance Company offices). These buildings
were repurposed for the Century 21 Exposition, with the exception of Bressi Garage, which continued to
operate in its original capacity until the City purchased the property in 1966 (Pratt, 2017).

After the Exposition ended, the grounds became a City-owned cultural and recreational facility. Some of
the buildings and structures erected for the Exposition have been renovated or demolished, and new
buildings have been added over time. Commercial growth within Uptown during the late 1960s and
early 1970s was met with resistance from residents who sought to retain neighborhood views and
character (Lentz and Sheridan, 2005). More waves of construction took place in the 1990s and included
the renovation of KeyArena in 1994–1995 and construction of the 1st Ave N Garage in 1998. Within the
last decade, several large mixed-use buildings were erected in the neighborhood, including the block-
long Astro Apartments building in 2014 along 1st Ave N between Thomas St and Harrison St.

6.3.4 Aboveground Historic Resources


Project Site
The aboveground historic resources study area contains 3 designated Seattle Landmarks: the
KeyArena/Washington State Coliseum (referred to in this EIS analysis as “KeyArena” for clarity), Bressi
Garage, and the building complex known as the Northwest Rooms and International Fountain Pavilion,
which includes the associated International Plaza (referred to collectively in this EIS analysis as the
“Northwest Rooms”). The Northwest Rooms, International Fountain Pavilion, and International Plaza
were designated as Seattle Landmarks together (Table 6-1, Figure 6-2). Bressi Garage is currently
occupied by Pottery Northwest, which stores its ceramic art collection in the building.

Three other buildings in the aboveground historic resources study area were reviewed by the Landmarks
Preservation Board in 2017 and were denied designation as Seattle Landmarks: the West Court
Building/Western Pacific Insurance Company (built in 1953), NASA Building/Century 21 NASA Pavilion
(built in 1962), and the Blue Spruce Apartments/Century 21 Administration Building (built in 1956)
(Landmarks Preservation Board Meeting Minutes, August 2, 2017). No further analysis of these 3
resources is warranted for this Final EIS.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 6-2. Aboveground Historic Resources in the Study Area

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 6-1. Designated Landmarks in the Aboveground Historic Resources Study Area

Controls and
Map Year Incentives
Landmark Name Designated Features
No. 1 Built Agreement
Status
1, 2 Northwest Rooms2 1962 “a portion of the site (delineated in Attachment Finalized 2014
A [see Appendix] and the exteriors of the
building”3
3 KeyArena/Washington 1962 “the site and exterior”4 Finalized 2018
State Coliseum
6 Bressi Garage 1923 “the exteriors of the two former garage buildings, Finalized 2018
and the interior roof trusses and decking”3
1See Figure 6-2.
2 The Northwest Rooms include the International Fountain Pavilion and International Plaza.
3 Controls and Incentives Agreement, April 2014 (Nellams and Gordon, 2014).
4 Landmarks Preservation Board Meeting Minutes, August 2, 2017.

Proposed changes to designated Landmarks would be subject to Controls and Incentives Agreements.
These agreements state what alterations would require a Certificate of Approval from the Landmarks
Preservation Board and include specific lists of exceptions (e.g., in-kind maintenance or repairs of the
site and exterior).

The Controls and Incentives Agreements for KeyArena and Bressi Garage were finalized in 2018 (see
Appendix D). The Controls and Incentives Agreement for the Northwest Rooms was signed in 2014. This
agreement is included in Appendix D.

Vacated Harrison St Haul Route


Two aboveground historic resources are located along the vacated Harrison St haul route that are listed
or determined eligible for listing in a historic register. The first is the Washington National Guard Armory
(aka Center House, Food Circus, Seattle Center House), which is a designated Seattle Landmark and was
determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2000 (Wickwire, 2000). The second is Memorial Stadium,
which was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2003 (ENTRIX, Inc., 2003).

The haul route would also pass by the International Fountain, built in 1962 and renovated in 1995 (BOLA
Architecture + Planning, 2018; City of Seattle, 2018). The International Fountain was surveyed in 2000
and 2018. Both surveys acknowledge that the fountain was renovated extensively in 1995; however, the
2000 survey found it to still retain its basic form, character, and intent of the original design (City of
Seattle, 2018). The 2018 survey found the fountain to retain its overall form, but considered there to be
insufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP or as a Seattle Landmark (BOLA
Architecture + Planning, 2018).

Lastly, the haul route would pass in front of the outdoor sculpture Typewriter Eraser, Scale X by Claes
Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen (1999). It was moved from the Seattle Art Museum's Olympic
Sculpture Park to its current location on the Seattle Center campus in 2016. The sculpture is located in
the northwest corner of the MoPOP building, in the center of the vehicular turnaround. The haul route is
adjacent to the MoPOP building, which stores and exhibits museum collections.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Adjacent to Project Site


In March 2018, BOLA Architecture + Planning conducted a reconnaissance-level historic property
inventory for OVG of historic resources adjacent to the project site (BOLA Architecture + Planning,
2018). The inventory was submitted to DAHP in May 2018 and updated July 2018. The inventory
identified 17 historic-aged resources (Table 6-2, Figure 6-3). BOLA evaluated these resources for their
potential eligibility for designation as Seattle Landmarks and for listing in the NRHP, following DAHP
standards (DAHP, 2018).
The inventory recommended 12 of the historic resources as potentially eligible for designation as Seattle
Landmarks and for listing in the NRHP; 3 of these are already designated Landmarks (the Northwest
Rooms, the International Plaza, and Bressi Garage). The inventory recommended 5 of the resources as
not eligible for designation as Seattle Landmarks nor for listing in the NRHP.

6.3.5 Belowground Cultural Resources


A draft cultural resources assessment was prepared for this project and was submitted to the City for
review; the final assessment will be submitted to DAHP for comment prior to publication of the Final EIS.
No subsurface testing was conducted as part of this assessment due to the high degree of existing
impervious surfaces. The assessment will be submitted to DAHP for comment. The assessment
recommends that some elements of construction be monitored by a professional archaeologist under
the terms of an Archaeological Resources Monitoring Plan (ARMP). OVG contracted with Willamette
Cultural Resources Associates to prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP), which was submitted to
the City and DAHP for review on June 22, 2018. The assessment recommends that the finalized IDP be
included as an appendix to the ARMP and that OVG submit the ARMP for review by the City, DAHP, and
affected Tribes prior to construction.

No belowground cultural resources are recorded within or immediately adjacent to the project site
(DAHP, 2017). No previous subsurface archaeological investigations have been conducted on the project
site. To assess the affected environment for belowground cultural resources and the potential for
previously unidentified belowground cultural resources at the project site, the belowground cultural
resources study area was reviewed to provide context.

Numerous previous cultural resources assessments have been completed within the belowground
cultural resources study area (see Appendix D). These were conducted between 1997 and 2015 and
included both subsurface surveys and non-fieldwork management documents. They were prepared for
unrelated projects.

There are 3 previously recorded historic archaeological sites between 0.12 mile and 0.5 mile of the
project site (see Appendix D). One of the sites also included a potential precontact component. Two of
the sites relate to City infrastructure, and the third is the location of ruins of former residential and
commercial properties. None of the sites have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 6-2. Historic Property Inventory Results

Map Resource Name Address Year Built1 BOLA Seattle Landmark BOLA NRHP Eligibility
No. Eligibility Recommendation Recommendation
1 Northwest Rooms & International 305 Harrison St / 1961–1962 Eligible (already designated) Eligible
Fountain Pavilion2 354-472 1st Ave N
2 International Plaza2 --- 1961–1962 Eligible (already designated) Eligible
3 International Fountain 215 Harrison St 1961–1962 Not Eligible Not Eligible
(renovated 1995)
4 Nile Shrine Temple / 21 Club 201–229 Thomas St 1956, 1995, 1999– Not Eligible Not Eligible
(Seattle Children’s Theatre) 2000
5 Sacred Heart Parish, School 160 John St 1927 Eligible Eligible
(Building A)
6 Sacred Heart Parish, Convent / 167 Thomas St 1929 Eligible Eligible
Child Care Center (Building B)
7 Sacred Heart Parish Rectory 205 2nd Ave N 1959 Eligible Eligible
(Building C)
8 Sacred Heart Parish, Church 231 2nd Ave N 1960 Eligible Eligible
(Building D)
9 Pittsburgh Apartments (A) 117 John St 1907–1908 Eligible Eligible (already determined
eligible by DAHP)
10 Pittsburgh Apartments (B) 125 Warren Ave N 1907-1908 Eligible Eligible (already determined
eligible by DAHP)
11 Fionia Apartments 122 1st Ave N 1922 Eligible Eligible
12 Avalon Apartments 22 John St 1908 Eligible Eligible (already determined
eligible by DAHP)
13 Multi-Family Residence 209 1st Ave N 1908 Not Eligible Not Eligible
14 Office Building 215 1st Ave N 1958 Not Eligible Not Eligible
15 Uptowner Apartments 229 1st Ave N 1908 Not Eligible Not Eligible
16 Delmasso Apartments 26 Harrison St 1930 Eligible Eligible (already determined
eligible by DAHP)
17 Bressi Garage 226–232 1st Ave N 1923 Eligible (already designated) Eligible
1
Obtained from King County Department of Assessments
2
These properties were inventoried individually; however, the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board considers them 1 property and designated them as a single Landmark.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 6-3. Historic Property Inventory Map

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Precontact Cultural Resources Potential


DAHP maintains a predictive tool – the Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model – used by
archaeologists and planners to evaluate the risk for precontact archaeological sites (DAHP, 2010). The
model was developed to statistically evaluate multiple environmental factors (e.g., elevation, slope
percent, aspect, distance to water, soils, and landforms) to predict where precontact archaeological
resources might be found on a broad scale (Kauhi, 2013). An important limitation of the model is that it
generally does not incorporate data regarding historical and recent land use.

Although the Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model classifies the project site as Very High to High
Risk for containing precontact archaeological sites (the 2 highest possible classifications), due to the
extensive historical and recent development of the project site, it is highly unlikely that precontact
archaeological sites, if ever present on the project site, remain intact. Urbanization and development
frequently destroy precontact archaeological sites, particularly those on landforms with little to no
natural deposits, such as the project site.

Historic-Era Cultural Resources Potential


The Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model does not assess risk for encountering historic-era
archaeological resources. The potential for the presence of historic-era archaeological resources is
based on the review of known past development. The project site has contained buildings, structures,
and objects since at least 1893; therefore, it is possible that archaeological remains from the historic-era
exist within the project site. However, it is highly likely that the development of KeyArena, including
widespread grading and deep excavation into glacial-aged deposits, severely disturbed or completely
removed any earlier historic-era archaeological remains that may have been present within this portion
of the project site. It is highly likely that construction of the 1st Ave N Garage severely disturbed or
completely removed any earlier historic-era archaeological remains that may have been present in this
location. However, the sediments below Bressi Garage and the existing surface parking lot to the south
of Bressi Garage may be less disturbed because minimal excavation would have been needed for
construction of these facilities.

6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


Impacts can be related to construction activities or to the operation of the project.

6.4.1 Construction Impacts


Potentially significant construction impacts to historic and cultural resources are defined as follows.
Impacts not reaching the threshold would be less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts to Aboveground Historic Resources: The impacts to
aboveground historic resources would be significant if construction were to demolish or permanently
alter a Landmark’s designated features.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts to Belowground Cultural Resources (Protected


Archaeological Resources): The impacts to belowground cultural resources would be significant if

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

construction were to modify the depositional integrity (i.e., distribution of artifacts in relation to each
other) of the resources.

No Action Alternative
No construction impacts to historic and cultural resources are anticipated, as KeyArena would not be
renovated; the buildings on site would remain (with the exception of possible renovations associated
with planned maintenance); no new buildings would be constructed except as directed by existing and
proposed Seattle Center planning efforts; and there would be no change to Bressi Garage or the
Northwest Rooms. Future modifications to KeyArena, the Northwest Rooms, and Bressi Garage would
be managed through the Seattle Historic Preservation Program’s Certificate of Approval process.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal

Aboveground Historic Resources

KeyArena
Potential construction impacts to KeyArena’s Landmark-designated features under Alternative 1 include
changes to the existing building exterior and site. Changes to the interior would also occur from redesign
and reconstruction, but KeyArena’s interiors are not Landmark-designated features. Alternative 1 would
preserve and restore KeyArena’s roof and edge beam structure, pylons, and the north, west, and east
curtain walls. The south façade, including the curtain wall, would be removed and not replaced. Roof
panels, which were last replaced during the 1994/1995 renovation, may require replacement. On the
south of the building, a primarily glass atrium lobby would be built and would modify and enclose the
south pylon and V-shaped support columns. The atrium lobby would not be wider than the existing
façade and roofline or taller than the existing roofline. Digital signage would be visible through the glass.
The design includes accent lighting strips on the roof.

Additional exhaust fans may make the cupola on the roof up to 50% wider, but not taller, than the
existing cupola. A larger and brighter sign than currently exists would be placed on top. The existing
display adjacent to 1st Ave N would be replaced by a larger 140 square-foot digital video display south of
the location of the existing sign. A site identity sign would be adjacent to the sidewalk on 1st Ave N near
the southwest corner of the site. Two signs would be placed on a mechanical structure on the southwest
portion of the arena site. Additional digital signs would be installed on the east and south plazas (see
Figure 2-7 in Chapter 2, Project Description, for more information about proposed signs). In addition to
the roof, accent lighting would be added to the building and throughout the site (see Chapter 9, Visual
Resources, for more information about signs and lighting).

Potential construction impacts to the exterior of KeyArena could also result from vibration from
construction (see Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration). Alterations to the KeyArena site would occur through
the demolition of adjacent buildings (Table 6-3), 1 surface parking lot and loading/marshalling area to
the south of KeyArena, and open-space pedestrian plazas to the west and east of KeyArena that would
be replaced with new open-space pedestrian plazas that approximate the grade and elevations of the
original 1962 design. A belowground parking garage would be constructed below the south plaza with
vehicle access from Thomas St.

The proposed atrium lobby, new sign on top of KeyArena, and demolition of existing surrounding
buildings and open-space pedestrian plazas would permanently alter KeyArena’s exterior and site,
resulting in significant impacts to its Landmark-designated features. However, according to the

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

KeyArena Controls and Incentives Agreement, some of these changes (such as changes to signage)
would not diminish the building’s character-defining elements if the signage changes are consistent with
a building/property signage plan approved by the Landmarks Preservation Board. Other changes would
require review and approval from the Seattle Historic Preservation Program through the Certificate of
Approval process. Refer to Appendix D for the full text of the Controls and Incentives Agreement and a
more detailed description of the Certificate of Approval process.

Table 6-3. Buildings and Structures Proposed for Alterations Under Alternative 1

Potential Direct Seattle Landmark Potential Impact


Map No. 1 Building / Structure
Impact Status Magnitude

1, 2 Northwest Rooms (includes Alterations to Designated Significant


International Fountain Pavilion Building and Site
and International Plaza)
3 KeyArena/Washington State Vibration and Designated Significant
Coliseum Alterations to
Building and Site
4 Seattle Center Pavilion Demolition N/A – less than 25 N/A – not historic
years old
5 Blue Spruce Apartments Demolition Denied N/A – not historic
6 Bressi Garage Alterations to Designated Less-than-
Building and Site significant
6 Kiln Shed at Bressi Garage Demolition Excluded (a non- N/A – not historic
designated feature
of Bressi Garage)
7 NASA Building Demolition Denied N/A – not historic
8 West Court Building Demolition Denied N/A – not historic
-- Skatepark Demolition N/A – less than 25 N/A – not historic
years old

-- Restroom Pavilion Demolition N/A – less than 25 N/A – not historic


years old
1 See Figure 6-2.

Northwest Rooms
Alternative 1 would significantly impact the Landmark-designated features of the Northwest Rooms (the
exterior and a portion of the site). Impacts would occur from excavation immediately adjacent to the
east and west ends of the Northwest Rooms, changes to or partially blocking the southeast and
southwest designated façades by the construction of an addition on the south façade of the portion
occupied by KEXP, removing the existing exterior stairs near KEXP, the permanent installation of an ADA
ramp in the International Plaza, and deconstruction and reconstruction of approximately 40 feet of the
International Fountain Pavilion portion of the Northwest Rooms (A/NT Art Gallery) to enclose a
mechanical structure and egress stairs. Impacts could occur from the removal and replacement of
existing hardscape, removal of 2 legacy trees, and removal of artwork (which would be stored and
reinstalled). OVG will stabilize the south sides of the Northwest Rooms during adjacent excavation.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The analysis presented in Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration (Table 8-2) identifies thresholds for potential
building damage from vibration based on building structural type (e.g., reinforced-concrete, steel, or
timber buildings and unreinforced masonry buildings). The Noise and Vibration analysis found that the
Northwest Rooms can be exposed to groundborne vibration peak particle velocity (PPV) levels of up to
0.5 inches per second (in/sec) without experiencing structural damage (Section 8.5.1) and that
construction activities may result in vibration levels above this level. Vibration impacts to the Northwest
Rooms would be significant. See Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration, for a description of potential measures
for vibration.

Bressi Garage
The Landmark-designated features of Bressi Garage are its exterior and interior trusses and roof
decking. The analysis presented in Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration, found that Bressi Garage can be
exposed to groundborne vibration PPV levels of up to 0.2 in/sec without experiencing structural damage
(Section 8.5.1). Proposed tunneling under Bressi Garage for Alternative 1 would result in vibration levels
below this level (see Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration). However, other construction methods could result
in vibration levels above this level and thus may result in impacts to the exterior of Bressi Garage or
Pottery Northwest’s ceramic art collection. Impacts to the exterior of Bressi Garage would be significant.
If needed, the building would be stabilized during excavation by OVG. For unreinforced masonry
buildings like Bressi Garage, the masonry units (bricks) could break or be damaged during construction
and would require replacement.

Pottery Northwest stores a ceramic art collection in Bressi Garage. This collection will be packed and
relocated prior to construction. Packing and transporting the collection would be temporary and thus
would not be a significant impact. OVG will pay to remove and store the Pottery Northwest ceramic art
collection to protect it during construction activities.

Armory, Memorial Stadium, and International Fountain


Proposed truck hauling on vacated Harrison St would pass next to the Landmark-designated Armory
building and the determined-eligible Memorial Stadium. Both buildings are reinforced-concrete
structures and, as such, the level of vibration from truck hauling would be below the threshold for
potential building damage. Truck hauling could increase the amount of dust and exhaust emissions;
however, these increases would not result in significant impacts as increased dust and exhaust
emissions on the building exteriors could likely be removed through cleaning, and thus would not be
permanent.

Truck hauling along vacated Harrison St would also pass directly adjacent to the International Fountain,
a daily Seattle Center attraction. Increased dust and exhaust emissions could damage the surface of the
fountain; however, because surface cleaning could likely remove this build-up, the damage would not be
permanent and thus would not be a significant impact. Mitigation measures are proposed to minimize
dust along the haul route (see Section 10.5.1 in Air Quality and GHG Emissions).

Typewriter Eraser, Scale X


Increased dust and exhaust emissions could damage the surface of this sculpture; however, this damage
could likely be removed though surface cleaning. Because dust and exhaust emissions could be
removed, they would not be permanent and thus would not be a significant impact. Mitigation
measures for minimizing dust along the haul route are proposed in Chapter 10, Air Quality and GHG
Emissions. The vibration levels produced by truck hauling would be below the threshold for structural

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

damage to the sculpture. If the sculpture is damaged, OVG would clean and restore the object as
needed after construction is complete.

MoPOP Museum Collections


Increased dust and exhaust emissions along the vacated Harrison St haul route could enter the MoPOP
building through the museum’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system intakes.
Increases in dust and exhaust within a museum interior could damage the museum’s historic objects
collection. Damage could be permanent, depending on the severity of exposure and the object’s
material type. If MoPOP’s current HVAC filtration system uses filters with a MERV rating (i.e., Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Value) of less than 9, OVG could upgrade the filter to MERV 12 for the duration of
the construction, with monthly replacement. MERV 12 filters have a 90% capture rate for particles of 3
to 10 microns in diameter.

Adjacent Buildings and Structures


Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration, does not identify potential vibration impacts to the adjacent buildings
and structures inventoried by OVG.

Summary
In summary, construction of Alternative 1 would significantly impact designated Landmarks. Proposed
work would impact the exterior and site of KeyArena and the exterior and site of the Northwest Rooms.
Vibration from construction could impact the exterior of Bressi Garage. Buildings will be stabilized if
needed to protect their Landmark-designated features. The construction would be undertaken to be
consistent with requirements of the Seattle Historic Preservation Program’s Certificate of Approval
process, which is intended to preserve and maintain designated features of Landmarks.

Belowground Cultural Resources

Alternative 1 has the potential to impact the depositional integrity of precontact-era and historic-era
belowground cultural resources, if present within the project site. All potential construction impacts to
belowground cultural resources would be direct and permanent. Construction impacts could occur from
excavation, compaction, or vibration. No subsurface testing has been conducted within the project site
to date, and no belowground cultural resources are known to exist. The majority of the project site has
been highly disturbed during multiple construction projects.

While recorded archaeological sites and documented trails and villages are in close proximity to the
project site, historic development of the area (including widespread grading and deep excavation into
glacial-aged deposits for the original construction of KeyArena) has likely severely disturbed or
completely removed any precontact archaeological remains that may once have been present. Any
precontact archaeological sites remaining within the project site would meet the definition of a PAR,
resulting in impacts under Alternative 1; however, such resources, if present, would likely consist of
sparse artifact scatters that would not require intensive investigation to mitigate.

The project site, in particular the Bressi Garage area, has the potential to contain resources related to
the early development of the Warren Avenue neighborhood, which could be represented by the
archaeological remains of building foundations, domestic and commercial refuse, or privies. The
proposed access to a new underground parking garage off Thomas St and a tunnel under Bressi Garage
parallel to 1st Ave N would pass through the former locations of single-family residences and associated
automobile garages present from 1905–1917 until c.1957. If present, the nature, extent, and age of

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

these historic archaeological resources would determine whether they meet the definition of a PAR, and
thus result in impacts under Alternative 1. Based on the types of archaeological remains that could be
present (partial building foundations, domestic and commercial refuse, or privies), it is probable that
these would not meet the criteria for consideration as a PAR based on DAHP’s evaluation of similar
types of resources.

The KeyArena portion of the project site could contain remains related to the Warren Avenue Public
School, Seventh Day Adventist Church, or the many former residences and stores within the project site.
The potential that intact cultural resources exist in these portions of the project site is unlikely due to
the amount of disturbance during construction of KeyArena and the Northwest Rooms. Although
unlikely, if belowground resources are encountered, the impact would be significant. For potential
mitigation measures relating to belowground cultural resources, see Section 6.5.2.

Temporary construction easements may extend outside of the project site for tieback of construction
walls and/or placement of crane(s) for garage construction. To the north and east of KeyArena,
construction easements would extend outside of the project site into the Seattle Center campus. To the
west and south of KeyArena, the construction easements may extend into the immediately adjacent
streets. For tunnel and utility work, construction easements would extend into adjacent streets,
particularly Thomas St. Such work would require excavation, including for utility work within existing
road right-of-way. Excavation could impact the depositional integrity of belowground cultural resources,
if present.

In summary, Alternative 1 has the potential to impact the depositional integrity of belowground cultural
resources, if present. As noted above, it is unlikely that belowground cultural resources are present in
the KeyArena and Northwest Rooms portion of the belowground cultural resources study area, which
has already been highly disturbed. However, the Bressi Garage portion could contain the remains of
former building foundations, domestic and commercial refuse, or privies. For potential mitigation
measures relating to potential belowground cultural resources, see Section 6.5.2.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

Aboveground Historic Resources

KeyArena
Potential construction impacts to KeyArena and buildings on the KeyArena site would be the same as
those under Alternative 1, with the exception of the sign on the top of the arena and the digital sign on
1st Ave N. The sign on the top of the arena would have a similar size and brightness as the existing sign.
The digital sign on 1st Ave N would either not be allowed to use video, or it would have to face away
from 1st Ave N. Alternative 2 would have signs similar to Alternative 1, with similar impacts.

Northwest Rooms
Potential construction impacts to the Northwest Rooms would be the same as those under Alternative
1, with the exception of retaining the 2 legacy trees.

Bressi Garage
Potential construction impacts to Bressi Garage would be the same as those under Alternative 1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Armory, Memorial Stadium, and International Fountain


Under Alternative 2, no truck hauling would occur on vacated Harrison St; therefore, no potential
construction impacts to the Armory, International Fountain, or Memorial Stadium would occur.

Typewriter Eraser, Scale X


Under Alternative 2, no truck hauling would occur on vacated Harrison St; therefore, no potential
construction impacts to the Typewriter Eraser, Scale X sculpture would occur.

MoPOP Museum Collections


Under Alternative 2, no truck hauling would occur on vacated Harrison St; therefore, no potential
construction impacts to the MoPOP museum collections would occur.

Adjacent Buildings and Structures


Potential construction impacts to the adjacent buildings and structures would be the same as those
under Alternative 1.

Summary
In summary, Alternative 2 would result in significant impacts to aboveground historic resources.
Proposed work would impact the exterior and site of KeyArena and the exteriors of the Northwest
Rooms, and vibration from construction could impact the exterior of Bressi Garage. Changes to
Landmark-designated features would be undertaken in a way that is consistent with requirements of the
Seattle Historic Preservation Program’s Certificate of Approval process, which is intended to preserve
and maintain designated features of Landmarks.

Belowground Cultural Resources

Potential construction impacts to belowground cultural resources at the Thomas St underground


parking garage entrance would be the same as Alternative 1. The potential construction impacts from
the new loading dock access tunnel off 1st Ave N would be similar to Alternative 1 but have the potential
to affect different belowground cultural resources. The tunnel would pass through the locations of
single-family residences built in 1904 and 1905 and their associated detached automobile garages,
multi-family dwellings, and the Victor Garage built in 1917. All structures and houses were extant until
c.1957. Additionally, potential impacts to belowground cultural resources from temporary construction
easements would be the same as Alternative 1.

In summary, Alternative 2 has the potential to impact the depositional integrity of belowground cultural
resources, if present. As noted above, it is unlikely that belowground cultural resources are present in
the KeyArena portion of the belowground cultural resources study area, which has already been highly
disturbed. However, the Bressi Garage portion could contain the remains of former building
foundations, domestic and commercial refuse, or privies. For potential mitigation measures relating to
potential belowground cultural resources, see Section 6.5.2.

6.4.2 Operations Impacts


Potentially significant operations impacts to historic and cultural resources are defined below. Impacts
not reaching the threshold would be less-than-significant.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-18 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Aboveground Historic Resources: The impacts of
operations activities would be significant if they were to result in ongoing modifications to historic
resources that derive their historic significance from their integrity of setting, feeling, or association and
which cannot be mitigated.

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts to Belowground Cultural Resources: Operations


impacts to belowground cultural resources would not occur. Any impact would occur during
construction, as described in Section 6.4.1.

No Action Alternative
No operations impacts to historic and cultural resources are anticipated, as impacts to historic and
cultural resources occur during construction, not operation, and no construction is proposed.
Additionally, no operational changes are proposed.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal

Aboveground Historic Resources

No operations impacts to aboveground historic resources are anticipated, as impacts to KeyArena, the
Northwest Rooms, and Bressi Garage would occur during construction, not during operation.
Additionally, the buildings and structures would retain their same functions after construction is
complete.

Belowground Cultural Resources

There would be no operations impacts to belowground cultural resources. All potential impacts to
belowground cultural resources would occur during construction, as described in Section 6.4.1.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

Aboveground Historic Resources

Potential operations impacts to aboveground historic resources are anticipated to be the same as those
under Alternative 1.

Belowground Cultural Resources

There would be no operations impacts to belowground cultural resources. All potential impacts to
belowground cultural resources would occur during construction, as described in Section 6.4.1.

6.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
6.5.1 Aboveground Historic Resources
It is City policy to maintain and preserve significant historic sites and structures; for projects involving
designated Landmarks, the City considers compliance with the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance as

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-19 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

compliance with this policy (SMC 25.05.675(H)(2)), but does not consider this compliance to be a
mitigation measure. Additionally, for projects that are adjacent to or across the street from a Landmark,
such as KeyArena’s adjacency to the Northwest Rooms, the City may require mitigation to reduce
impacts on the adjacent Landmark. Subject to the City’s Overview Policy (SMC 25.05.665), potential
mitigating measures are limited to the following (SMC 25.05.675(H)(2)(d)):

 Sympathetic façade treatment.


 Sympathetic street treatment.
 Sympathetic design treatment.
 Reconfiguration of the project and/or relocation of the project on the project site.
Significant impacts to KeyArena, the Northwest Rooms, and Bressi Garage under Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 could be managed through the Certificate of Approval process, which is a process to
manage change in such a way that it will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Consistency with this process would preserve character-defining elements of the designated features of
these Landmarks. A Controls and Incentives Agreement exists for the Northwest Rooms, KeyArena, and
Bressi Garage. Additionally, impacts to the exteriors of KeyArena, the Northwest Rooms, and Bressi
Garage could be minimized through building stabilization. Impacts to the exterior masonry walls of
Bressi Garage could be minimized through restoration (e.g., in-kind tuck-pointing and cleaning) as
necessary. OVG could conduct vibration monitoring for the Northwest Rooms and Bressi Garage. Dust
and particulate impacts to the International Fountain and sculpture adjacent to the vacated Harrison St
haul route could be reduced by implementation of a dust control program, and regular cleaning of the
sculpture and fountain area.

6.5.2 Belowground Cultural Resources


If an archaeological resource is identified during project construction, mitigation measures will be
developed through consultation with the SEPA Lead Agency, DAHP, and affected Tribes. DAHP has
certain regulatory authority over archaeological resources in Washington State. In accordance with state
law (RCW 27.53), an archaeological resource identified during construction is protected until DAHP
determines whether or not it is eligible for listing in the NRHP; isolated (single) artifacts, either
precontact or historic-era, are not protected because they do not meet the definition of a “site” under
state law [WAC 25-48-020(9)]. If human remains are discovered during construction, OVG will follow
procedures dictated by state law (RCW 27.44).

It is City policy to maintain and preserve significant historic sites and structures and to provide the
opportunity for analysis of archaeological sites; for projects with potential archaeological significance,
the City may require an assessment of the archaeological potential of the site (SMC 25.05.675(H)(2)(e)).
Subject to the City’s Overview Policy (SMC 25.05.665), measures that may be required to mitigate
adverse impacts to an archaeological site include but are not limited to the following (SMC
25.05.675(H)(2)(e)):

 Relocation of the project on the site.


 Providing markers, plaques, or recognition of discovery.
 Imposing a delay of as much as 90 days (or more than 90 days for extraordinary circumstances)
to allow archaeological artifacts and information to be analyzed.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-20 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Excavation and recovery of artifacts.


OVG hired Willamette Cultural Resources Associates to prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) for
the project. The IDP was submitted to the City and DAHP for comment on June 22, 2018. Once finalized,
OVG will implement the IDP during construction. The IDP establishes the procedures to follow if any
subsurface historic or cultural resources are encountered during project construction. The IDP follows
state law and local ordinances specific to the protection of archaeological resources. The cultural
resources assessment prepared for this project recommends that OVG also prepare an Archaeological
Monitoring Plan that will be implemented by a professional archaeologist during construction.

6.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to
aboveground historic resources. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would impact the Landmark-designated
features of KeyArena and the Northwest Rooms through alterations to their exteriors and sites.
Alternatives 1 and 2 could also impact the Landmark-designated features of Bressi Garage. It is likely
that potential impacts can be managed through compliance with the Seattle Historic Preservation
Ordinance, which is intended to manage change and find a reasonable approach that is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, but the City does not consider this process to be mitigation. No
significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to belowground cultural resources are anticipated by the
project.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 6-21 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

7.0 RECREATION Key Findings for Recreation


During the construction period, the
This chapter provides a project-level analysis of potential
Seattle Center Arena Renovation
impacts to recreation from the Seattle Center Arena
Project would temporarily displace
Renovation Project. Recreation includes current uses of recreational events (such as concerts
KeyArena and other recreational facilities at the project site; and Seattle Storm basketball games)
facilities, uses, and events at Seattle Center; and other that currently take place at KeyArena.
recreational uses in Uptown. Because the project is located However, these events could be
within Seattle Center (an arts, culture, sports, and accommodated elsewhere in the
entertainment campus), recreation evaluated in this section greater Seattle area. The DuPen
includes performance and entertainment events as well as Fountain would be closed during the
public parks and open space. Impacts to recreation-related duration of the construction period.
Construction activity on 2nd Ave N
Seattle Center tenants (such as Pottery Northwest) are
would impact the International
addressed in Chapter 3 (Land Use). This Recreation chapter
Fountain and Lawn, and loss of curb
describes impacts to users of recreational programming space due to road closure would affect
associated with those tenants. event load-in and load-out as well as
school bus unloading. Construction
Changes from the Draft EIS – This chapter has been revised noise would be audible to recreationists
since the Draft EIS to provide additional clarification on at Seattle Center facilities, including
impacts to the Seattle Center Skatepark based on new programming at KEXP, SIFF Film Center,
information, and to reflect updated information about noise The Vera Project, Seattle Children’s
impacts to KEXP and other Seattle Center tenants. Theatre, Seattle Repertory Theatre, and
the Cornish Playhouse, as well as at
campus-wide festivals and events such
as Folklife, Pride, Bite of Seattle, and
7.1 METHODS Bumbershoot. Recreationists at KEXP,
SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project
Recreational facilities, amenities, and uses were identified by would experience significant noise
gathering maps and programming information for recreational impacts.
features in the recreation study area from online sources and Operational impacts would include the
from Seattle Center. Construction impacts were analyzed by permanent removal of the Seattle
identifying construction activities that could temporarily limit, Center Pavilion. However, other events
disrupt, or displace recreational facilities, activities, or spaces on the Seattle Center campus
programming in the study area. Operations impacts were (such as Fisher Pavilion and the
analyzed by identifying the recreational facilities proposed in Exhibition Hall) could accommodate
the alternatives and by considering how existing programming events currently held at the pavilion.
would (or would not) be able to use those facilities. The Seattle Center Skatepark would also
be removed but would be replaced
elsewhere.

7.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT A renovated arena would provide


Seattle Center and the city with an
updated sports and entertainment
The proposed project is subject to SEPA regulations, the Seattle arena that could accommodate NHL and
Municipal Code, and other local plans. NBA teams, and would provide an
upgraded recreational experience for
existing uses such as concerts and
Seattle Storm games.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

7.2.1 Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan


The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan sets goals and policies for various planning elements, including
Parks and Open Space, and for neighborhoods, including Queen Anne (Uptown). The Parks and Open
Space element of the plan lists Seattle Center as a “unique urban amenity that offers both open space
and a wide variety of cultural activities.” Goal P-G1 in the plan is to “[p]rovide a variety of outdoor and
indoor spaces throughout the city for all people to play, learn, contemplate, and build community” (City
of Seattle, 2016).

The Queen Anne (Uptown) element of the plan includes Goal QA-G5: “Queen Anne is a neighborhood
that meets the parks and open space needs of its population by maintaining existing parks, identifying
future needs, providing connections between parks and the community, and enhancing historic Queen
Anne Boulevard.”

The element also includes the following policies related to recreation:

 QA-P14: Encourage Seattle Center to plan and implement development that will enhance the
quality of life in the Queen Anne neighborhood.
 QA-P15: Seek ways to ensure that Seattle Center remains a vibrant and valuable community
resource and a premier regional amenity.
 QA-P19: Seek to maintain Queen Anne parks and open spaces and replace aging parks facilities
used by the public, and seek to ensure no net loss of parks, park facilities, or open spaces while
recognizing the need for a citywide balance in ongoing maintenance and investment.
 QA-P20: Accommodate a range of uses in parks to meet the needs and interests of the Queen
Anne population.
 QA-P21: Strive to meet the open space and parks and recreation needs of the Queen Anne
population, including the Urban Center.
 QA-P22: Strive to provide trails and non-motorized linkages throughout and around Queen
Anne.
 QA-P23: Seek to provide abundant green spaces and streetscapes throughout Queen Anne.
 QA-P28: Ensure that public park lands are retained and maintained for public use.
 QA-P38: Strive to provide a system of bicycle facilities and routes within and around Queen
Anne to encourage increasingly safe and convenient commuter and recreational bicycle use as
an alternative to motorized travel (City of Seattle, 2016).

7.2.2 Seattle Parks and Recreation 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan
The Seattle Parks and Recreation 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan (Seattle Parks and Recreation [SPR],
2017a) sets goals and policies and analyzes gaps in the park system.

The goals in the plan are to:

1. Provide a variety of outdoor and indoor spaces throughout the city for all people to play, learn,
contemplate, and build community.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2. Continue to provide opportunities for all people across Seattle to participate in a variety of
recreational activities.
3. Manage the City’s park and recreation facilities to provide safe and welcoming places.
4. Plan and maintain Seattle’s parks and facilities to accommodate park users and visitors.
5. Engage with community members on Parks and Recreation plans, and design and develop parks
and facilities, based on the specific needs and cultures of the communities that the park is
intended to serve.
The Gaps in Walkability analysis in the Seattle Parks and Recreation Gap Analysis web portal associated
with the Parks and Open Space Plan shows that there are no Parks and Recreation facilities in Uptown
that are greater than 10,000 square feet in size (the cutoff chosen by Parks and Recreation for the
walkability analysis). The majority of Uptown is mapped as having a gap in walkability to recreation
facilities. Taking Seattle Center (which is not owned or operated by Parks and Recreation) into account
as a recreational facility, the majority of Uptown is shown as within walking distance of a recreational
facility; however, 4 areas still show gaps in walkability to recreation facilities (SPR, 2017b).

7.2.3 Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan


The Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan articulates a vision for the future of Seattle Center (Seattle
Center, 2008). The Master Plan includes the following goals:

 Enhance Seattle Center’s position as the Nation’s Best Gathering Place.


 Dramatically increase open space.
 Connect Seattle Center’s dynamic facilities into a synergistic whole.
 Provide capacity for existing and future arts, cultural and recreational programs, to be nurtured,
grown and developed.
 Create program and design that captivates and attracts private funding partners.
 Build on the history of Seattle Center while creating the flexible framework to provide for the
needs of the future.
 Integrate environmental sustainability in design, construction and operations to reduce energy
demands and serve as a model for sustainable development.
 Enrich and connect to the fabric of adjacent neighborhoods through welcoming design,
programming and operations.
 Increase accessibility to the center of the grounds for all users.
 Encourage greater mass transit use and easier non-motorized connections.
 Improve pedestrian safety.
 Provide the programs and destinations to attract a larger and increasingly diverse number of
visitors (Seattle Center, 2008).

7.2.4 City of Seattle Citywide Skatepark Plan


SPR and the Skatepark Advisory Task Force developed the City of Seattle Citywide Skatepark Plan (2007)
in response to a City Council resolution “recognizing skateboarding as a healthy and popular recreation”
(SPR, 2007). The Skatepark Plan recommended development of skateparks at 26 sites in the city and
established a system of types of skateparks:

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Skatedots, or integrated skateable terrain, of 20 to 1,500 square feet.


 Skatespots, neighborhood facilities ranging from 1,500 to 10,000 square feet.
 District facilities, meant to serve a larger area and ranging in size from 10,000 to 30,000 square
feet.
 Regional facilities, larger than 30,000 square feet and attracting users from around the region.
When the Skatepark Plan was written, the SeaSkate Park at Seattle Center had been closed for
development of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Campus, and the City was looking for a
replacement location. One of the recommendations of the Skatepark Plan was to collaborate with
Seattle Center to “find a replacement site for SeaSkate somewhere in the downtown core” (SPR, 2007).

7.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


7.3.1 Study Area
The primary study area for recreation is Seattle Center (Figure 7-1), and the secondary study area is
Uptown (Figure 7-2). Recreational facilities within the project site, including KeyArena, Seattle Center
Skatepark, and the Seattle Center Pavilion, are described in Section 7.3.2. Recreational facilities adjacent
to the project site are described in Section 7.3.3. Other recreation at Seattle Center is described in
Section 7.3.4, and other recreation in Uptown is described in Section 7.3.5.

7.3.2 Recreation Within the Project Site


KeyArena
KeyArena is a sports, entertainment, and concert arena with an approximate 11,000 to 17,500-seat
capacity, depending on the type of event. The arena was the home arena for the Seattle SuperSonics
from 1967 to 2008. KeyArena is owned by the City and currently operated by AEG Facilities (Seattle
Center, 2017c).

Recreational events at KeyArena, based on the 2016 and 2017 Seattle Center Events Attendance Rosters
(Seattle Center, 2016, 2017b), include the following:

 Concerts. A range of artists perform at KeyArena, which hosted over 20 concerts in 2016
(including Adele, Bruce Springsteen, Rihanna, and The Who) and over 25 in 2017 (including
Arcade Fire, Janet Jackson, and Macklemore, among other major acts).
 PAC12 Women’s Basketball Tournament. The PAC12 Women’s Basketball Tournament has
been held in KeyArena since 2013 and was under contract to be held in KeyArena through 2019.
 Seattle Storm (WNBA). The Seattle Storm is a franchise in the Women’s National Basketball
Association (WNBA). The Storm was founded in 2000 and has used KeyArena as its home arena
for its entire history. The Storm hosts 17 regular season games, 1 pre-season game, and a
variable number of post-season games at KeyArena (WNBA, 2017).
 Seattle University Men’s Basketball. The Seattle University Men’s Basketball Team play
Division I National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball, with KeyArena as their

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

home court. The team played at the Seattle Center Coliseum from 1964–1980 and returned to
KeyArena in 2008.
 Other. KeyArena hosts a variety of other events. In 2016: The International (Dota 2 esports
tournament), the Harlem Globetrotters, Kellogg’s Tour of Gymnastics, Marvel Universe Live, the
Comedy Get Down, and WWE Raw. In 2017: Big3 Basketball, the Game of Thrones Live Concert
Experience, the Harlem Globetrotters, Jim Gaffigan (comedy), Stars on Ice, the WNBA All Star
Game, and WWE Smackdown.
In addition to the recreational events listed above, KeyArena has hosted several non-recreational
events, including the annual Seattle/King County Clinic, high school graduations, WE Day, and a Bernie
Sanders rally in 2016. KeyArena also hosts occasional private events.

Seattle Center Skatepark


The Seattle Center Skatepark, also known as “SeaSk8,” is directly southeast of KeyArena. The skatepark
opened in 2009 and features 10,000 square feet of skating elements, including ledges, stairs, and
transitions for various skill levels and structural glass riding surfaces (Seattle Center, 2017a). The
skatepark is a free, accessible, and highly used recreational amenity open to the public.

The skatepark is open to the public during daylight hours. The skatepark occasionally hosts events. For
example, in 2016, the skatepark hosted Go Skateboarding Day and a series of Skate Like a Girl classes
(Seattle Center, 2016). Skate Like a Girl is a nonprofit organization that hosts free youth clinics, summer
camps, and other programming at the Seattle Center Skatepark.

The original skatepark at Seattle Center was removed in 2007 for construction of the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation Campus (SPR, 2007). The current location was constructed to replace that skatepark.

Seattle Center Pavilion


The Seattle Center Pavilion is a 5,300 square foot pavilion with 2 meeting rooms, a lobby, and
restrooms. The Pavilion includes exhibit and trade-show space for up to 60 booths and hosts cultural
events, workshops, gaming events, exhibitions, conventions, and craft events (Seattle Center, 2016,
2017b, 2017d). No permanent concessions, businesses, or other recreational facilities are located in the
Seattle Center Pavilion.

Pottery Northwest
Pottery Northwest is a nonprofit arts organization located in the historic Bressi Garage building on the
Seattle Center campus. Pottery Northwest, founded in 1966, hosts artist residences, exhibitions, classes,
and lectures. The facility features a kiln yard, electric and gas-fired kilns, a variety of equipment, a glaze
area, and recently upgraded heating, lighting, and air filtration systems.

7.3.3 Recreation Adjacent to the Project Site


Recreational facilities adjacent to the project site include the DuPen Fountain (Fountain of Creation), the
International Fountain and Lawn, and South Fountain Lawn. Additionally, Seattle Center tenants in the
adjacent Northwest Rooms program recreational activities. Portions of the Northwest Rooms are not
part of the project site but are within the construction footprint (see Section 2.6, Construction, for more
information).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 7-1. Recreational Attractions at Seattle Center

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 7-2. Recreation in Uptown

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The DuPen Fountain is directly north of KeyArena. The fountain consists of a bronze and stone water
garden and is used for wading. It was created by Everett DuPen in 1962 and renovated in 1992. The
International Fountain and Lawn and South Fountain Lawn are east of KeyArena. The International
Fountain is a large concrete fountain accessible for wading.

Seattle Center tenants in the Northwest Rooms, including KEXP, The Vera Project, the SIFF Film Center,
and the A/NT Gallery, draw visitors for recreational events including live music performances and
concerts, classes, exhibitions, lectures, film screenings, and art viewing.

7.3.4 Seattle Center


Seattle Center is a 74-acre campus in Uptown featuring arts, cultural, sports, and entertainment
attractions. Seattle Center is 1 of the top attractions in the region, welcoming millions of visitors
annually. Seattle Center was opened in 1962 as the site of the 1962 World’s Fair. Seattle Center is
owned and operated by the City.

Seattle Center features over 40 recreational attractions. Major recreational features at Seattle Center
include the Seattle Repertory Theatre, Marion Oliver McCaw Hall (home of the Seattle Opera and Pacific
Northwest Ballet), Memorial Stadium, the Armory, the Museum of Pop Culture (MoPOP), Seattle
Children’s Theatre, the Mural Amphitheatre, Chihuly Garden and Glass, the Space Needle, the Artists at
Play playground, the Seattle Children’s Museum, and the Pacific Science Center. A variety of
recreational, entertainment, sports, and performance events are held at venues around Seattle Center,
including film screenings, theater performances, opera, ballet, sports events, and summer camps.
Appendix E includes more information on recreational attractions at Seattle Center and the events held
there.

Seattle Center hosts a number of recurring Seattle Center-wide events that draw large crowds, including
the Northwest Folklife Festival, Bumbershoot, Seattle PrideFest, the Seafair Torchlight Fanfest, the Bite
of Seattle, and Winterfest. Appendix E includes more information on Seattle Center events.

7.3.5 Uptown
As described above in Section 7.2.2, most of Uptown is not within walking distance (defined as a 5-
minute walk within an Urban Village) of an SPR park greater than 10,000 square feet in size (SPR,
2017b). Including Seattle Center, the majority of the neighborhood is within walking distance of a
recreational facility, although 4 areas of Uptown are still not within walking distance of a park (SPR,
2017b). While Seattle Center provides extensive open space and a range of recreational attractions,
Uptown still lacks some recreational features typically provided by city parks, such as athletic fields and
basketball hoops.

The only City park in Uptown is Counterbalance Park at the corner of Queen Anne Ave N and Roy St. The
park, opened in 2008, is a flat lot with gravel and benches. At night, the park features multi-colored light
shows on the concrete walls along 2 sides of the park (SPR, 2017c). As a densely populated residential
neighborhood, Uptown is also the site of informal recreational use of roads and sidewalks for walking,
jogging, and biking. Commercial areas on Queen Anne Ave N, 1st Ave N, and Mercer St and surrounding
Seattle Center include restaurants, bars, shops, the On the Boards performance venue, and the SIFF
Cinema Uptown theater (operated by the Seattle International Film Festival), all of which are frequented
by visitors to Seattle Center and are a recreational draw to the neighborhood in their own right.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

In 2017, Uptown was designated an Arts & Cultural District by the Office of Arts & Culture because of its
concentration of arts and culture spaces and activities. The Uptown Arts & Culture Coalition advocates
for the neighborhood as an Arts & Cultural District.

7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


7.4.1 Construction Impacts
Potential short-term impacts on recreation include the loss of a recreational use during construction
activities. The magnitude of the potential impact on recreation is classified as less-than-significant or
significant. Significant impacts are defined below, and impacts not reaching that threshold are
considered less than significant.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts: The impacts of construction activities would be significant
if construction were to displace recreational features or programming that cannot be accommodated
elsewhere in the greater Seattle area or for which equivalent recreational opportunities are not
available.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no major construction would occur at the KeyArena site. Construction
associated with other projects at Seattle Center, private development in Uptown, and transportation
projects in the area could cause noise, traffic, and detours that would be noticeable to people using
Seattle Center for recreation.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Recreational features within the project site include KeyArena, the Seattle Center Skatepark, and the
Seattle Center Pavilion. Impacts to the Seattle Center Skatepark and Seattle Center Pavilion would be
permanent and are therefore described in Section 7.4.2, Operations Impacts. During the approximately
24-month construction period, KeyArena would be closed and no arena would be available at Seattle
Center. This would impact concerts, the PAC12 Women’s Basketball Tournament, the Seattle Storm, the
Seattle University Men’s Basketball Team, and other recreational events currently held at KeyArena.

Arena-scale concerts and other recreational events would not be held at Seattle Center during the
approximately 24-month construction period. This impact would be less-than-significant because
capacity at other arenas in the greater Seattle area is sufficient to absorb concert dates that would
otherwise have been scheduled at KeyArena during the construction period. The Tacoma Dome in
Tacoma is an arena with a capacity of 23,000 (depending on the seating arrangement) that frequently
hosts concerts on the same scale as those held at KeyArena (Tacoma Dome, 2016). The Tacoma Dome is
currently being renovated, and renovations will be complete by fall of 2018 (Tacoma Dome, 2016).
Other arenas in the greater Seattle area that could host concerts during the construction period include
the ShoWare Center in Kent (capacity 6,500) and Angel of the Winds Arena in Everett (capacity 10,000).
There would be no arena venue for concerts within the City of Seattle, although other concert venues of
various sizes are available in the city. People seeking to see concerts could travel to Tacoma, Kent, and
Everett to attend arena concerts. This could be inconvenient or impractical for some concert goers and
more convenient for others. Larger events at Seattle Center, such as Bumbershoot, sometimes use

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

KeyArena as 1 of a number of venues on the campus. During construction, these events could be
accommodated in other Seattle Center facilities.

The Seattle Storm would not be able to play in an arena at Seattle Center for up to 2 seasons (in 2019
and 2020). The Storm would likely relocate to Alaska Airlines Arena (capacity 10,000), the Tacoma
Dome, Angel of the Winds Arena, or the ShoWare Center during the construction period. Temporary
relocation of the team would inconvenience some fans and could potentially decrease attendance.
However, the team draws attendance from the greater Seattle area, so relocation of the team could be
more convenient for other fans. This impact would be temporary, and it is common for professional
sports teams to relocate during arena or stadium construction timeframes. Because the team could be
accommodated elsewhere in the greater Seattle area and because the relocation would be temporary,
this would be a less-than-significant impact.

Because KeyArena would not be available in 2019, the PAC12 Women’s Basketball Tournament would
relocate. The PAC12 has announced that the tournament will move to Las Vegas during construction
(Allen, 2018). College basketball fans could attend Washington Huskies men’s or women’s basketball
games at Alaska Airlines Arena, or Seattle University men’s or women’s basketball games at the Connolly
Center. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.

The Seattle University Men’s Basketball Team also would be displaced from KeyArena during the
construction period. The Seattle University campus features the Connolly Center, a 999-seat arena with
an NCAA-regulation court. The men’s basketball team would be expected to play at the Connolly Center
during the construction period, where it played until 2008 and where the Seattle University Women’s
Basketball Team currently plays. Because the Connolly Center is available, displacement of the team
during the construction period would be a less-than-significant impact.

Construction would also affect recreation adjacent to the project site and elsewhere at Seattle Center.
The DuPen Fountain and the International Plaza (also referred to as the Northwest Courtyards) would be
closed to the public during a portion of or the full duration of the 24-month construction period.
Because other fountains are available on the Seattle Center campus, including the International
Fountain and the Fountain of the Northwest, this would be a less-than-significant impact.

Construction impacts to Seattle Center tenants in the Northwest Rooms and Bressi Garage are described
in Chapter 3, Land Use, and Chapter 8, Noise and Vibration. Some recreational programming provided by
those tenants, such as concerts at KEXP and The Vera Project, pottery classes at Pottery Northwest, and
art viewing at A/NT Gallery, may be less accessible, less frequent, or unavailable during the construction
period. Because the Seattle Center tenants would continue to offer programming throughout the
construction period, and because other concerts, art classes, and galleries are available in the Seattle
area, this would be a less-than-significant impact. Pottery Northwest would not need to relocate during
the construction phase, and programming would continue to be available to students and recreationists
at the current location. Although not expected, it is possible that a building inspector may determine
that it is unsafe for Pottery Northwest to remain in the building during construction. If that were to
occur and if the recreational activities could not be accommodated elsewhere, impacts would be
significant.

Table 8-7, Noise Construction Impact Summary, in Section 8.5.1, Construction Impacts (Noise and
Vibration), summarizes construction noise impacts. Seattle Center tenants that would have some of
their operations significantly impacted from construction noise and/or vibration under Alternative 1
include KEXP, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project. This significant noise and/or vibration impact

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

would also impact recreational programming and visitors to these three organizations during the
construction period.

Construction activities, including the use of the western half of vacated 2nd Ave N and the night-time use
of vacated Harrison St on the Seattle Center campus for truck access, would be audible and visible for
visitors to recreational programming in the Northwest Rooms and potentially for visitors to the
International Fountain and Lawn and South Fountain Lawn. Disruption from visible and audible
construction activities would be temporary and would be a less-than-significant impact.

Construction of the Seattle Center Arena would also be noticeable and potentially distracting to
recreationists at other facilities and amenities at Seattle Center (such as Seattle Children’s Theatre) and
attendees at major events like the Bite of Seattle, Folklife, Bumbershoot, Festál, parades, walks, and
runs. Construction noise would be audible at other Seattle Center facilities; additional information on
potential noise construction impacts is included in Section 8.5, Noise and Vibration. The City and OVG
would enter into a Development Agreement that would outline how construction activities would be
managed to minimize impacts to Seattle Center visitors. Disruption from construction activities would
be temporary and would be a less-than-significant impact. Recreational visitors at many Seattle Center
amenities, such as Seattle Children’s Theatre, are a different demographic than likely attendees for the
renovated arena and include children, families, and people of varying physical abilities and mobility.
Seattle Center and OVG will work with tenants to ensure that free or low-cost recreational and cultural
opportunities for families are accessible at Seattle Center during and following arena renovation.
The western half of vacated 2nd Ave N and vacated Harrison St on the Seattle Center campus would be
used for night hauling, except during certain campus-wide events. The haul routes are adjacent to the
International Fountain and Lawn, South Fountain Lawn, the Armory, Memorial Stadium, and MoPOP.
Truck hauling on vacated Harrison St would occur at night and would not occur during certain campus-
wide events. Portions of streets around Seattle Center could be closed or used for haul routes during
construction. Street closure would require permits from SDOT and would affect event load-in/load-out
and school bus parking. The 1st Ave N Garage would be closed and used for construction worker parking
and construction trailers. See Section 2.6, Construction, for details regarding construction logistics.
Access to Seattle Center facilities and other parking garages would be maintained throughout
construction. However, some visitors to Seattle Center would notice, and could be temporarily delayed
by, construction use of adjacent streets during the 24-month construction period. These impacts would
be short-term and less-than-significant.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Construction impacts of Alternative 2 on recreation would be similar to those described for Alternative
1, but the duration of construction would be approximately 6 months longer, increasing the amount of
time recreation in the area would be impacted. As there would be no night work, there would be no
hauling on the Seattle Center campus.

7.4.2 Operations Impacts


Potential impacts on recreation include the loss of a recreational use or a substantive change in the
overall user enjoyment or recreational experience. Significant impacts are defined below, and impacts
not reaching that threshold are considered less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts: The impact of operations activities would be significant if
operations were to permanently displace current KeyArena programming or sports teams that cannot

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

be accommodated elsewhere in the greater Seattle area; or to cause a loss of a recreational use at
Seattle Center that is not replaced or available elsewhere at Seattle Center or in the vicinity of Uptown.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, KeyArena would continue to be the venue of a number of recreational
activities, including concerts, the Seattle Storm, and the Seattle University Men’s Basketball Team. The
PAC12 Women’s Basketball Tournament could take place in KeyArena in 2019.

KeyArena would continue to be an undersized facility that is not suitable for NHL or NBA teams, as
determined in a 2015 study (AECOM, 2015). The study also found the arena is unlikely to support
alternative entertainment and recreation concepts (AECOM, 2015). KeyArena, which was last renovated
in 1995, would continue to age, reducing its ability to compete with other venues as a regional
recreational facility. The arena would require an investment in deferred major maintenance.

Recreational activities would continue to occur at the Seattle Center Skatepark and the Seattle Center
Pavilion.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


A renovated arena would provide Seattle Center and the City with an updated sports and entertainment
arena that could accommodate NHL and NBA teams. The Seattle Center Arena would provide an
upgraded facility for existing recreational events such as concerts and the Seattle Storm. The Seattle
University Men’s Basketball Team would not return to the Seattle Center Arena following construction
but would likely play in the Connolly Center. The Seattle Center Arena could potentially also be the
home arena for NHL and NBA teams, bringing new recreational opportunities to the greater Seattle area
and the State of Washington.

The Seattle Center Pavilion would be demolished and not replaced. This would cause a loss of 5,300
square feet of pavilion space. However, other exhibition space is available at Seattle Center that could
hold events. The Armory Loft meeting rooms accommodate similarly sized events to those currently
held at Seattle Center Pavilion. In addition, Fisher Pavilion features 12,500 square feet and the Exhibition
Hall features 34,000 square feet. No permanent concessions, businesses, or recreational facilities are
located in the Seattle Center Pavilion that would be displaced by demolition of the building. Because
recreational uses at the Seattle Center Pavilion can be accommodated elsewhere at Seattle Center, this
would not be a significant impact.

The Seattle Center Skatepark would also be demolished in fall 2018. However, part of the MOU for the
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project includes funding to the City to replace the skatepark off-site.
The site of the replacement skatepark has not yet been determined, but 3 potential sites have been
identified in Uptown and South Lake Union. Depending on the site selected, the skatepark may have a
different configuration than at the current location. There would be a time gap between demolition of
the existing skatepark and opening of the new skatepark. Although the existing skatepark would be
demolished in fall 2018 and a date for opening of the new skatepark has not been determined, the
recreational use (skateboarding) would be replaced. Because the replacement skatepark would be
within or adjacent to Uptown, the impact would be less-than-significant; however, if the skatepark is not
replaced within the vicinity of Uptown, impacts would be significant.

The City is working with the skateboarding community in Seattle to identify a location for the
replacement skatepark. The new skatepark would likely be located on an existing site owned by the City

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

of Seattle, such as a park. The new skatepark would displace whatever use is currently occurring at that
location, likely a recreational use if the skatepark is located in a park. However, it would likely be
possible to site the skatepark in an open space area of an existing park that would feature other open
space areas that could continue to be used by recreationists. The addition of a skatepark would increase
the recreational amenities and uses available at the site where it is installed. However, it may be
considered an impact by existing users of the site. Seattle Center would consider these benefits and
impacts for all potential skatepark sites.

Events at Seattle Center Arena could cause noise that would be noticeable and potentially distracting at
other Seattle Center facilities, particularly adjacent facilities like the DuPen Fountain, KEXP, SIFF Film
Center, The Vera Project, and A/NT Gallery. NHL and NBA games would most frequently be held in the
evening, when outdoor activities at Seattle Center are generally less frequent, reducing the number of
recreationists who would be subject to noise from operation of the new Seattle Center Arena. The noise
from events at the arena would not be noticeably louder than existing conditions, but events would be
more frequent. More detail on noise impacts is included in Section 8.5, Noise and Vibration. These
impacts would not displace any recreational activities and therefore would be less-than-significant.

The Seattle Center Arena would be consistent with the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and 2017 Parks
and Open Space Plan, and would contribute to meeting the goal (in each plan) of providing a variety of
indoor recreation spaces. The project was not planned for in the vision for KeyArena included in the
Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan; however, the project is consistent with and would contribute to
meeting the goals of the plan. Removal of the skatepark is not consistent with the goals of the Citywide
Skatepark Plan; however, finding a replacement site for the skatepark would be consistent with the
Skatepark Plan.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Recreational impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative 1.

7.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
7.5.1 Construction
Potential measures for construction traffic, parking, noise, and aesthetic impacts are described in
Section 4.5.1, Transportation, Section 8.6.1, Noise and Vibration, and Section 9.6.1, Visual Resources.
The project would obtain permits and approvals required by the City of Seattle for construction
activities, including traffic and noise. Seattle Center and OVG are working on a Development Agreement
that will outline how construction activities would minimize impacts to Seattle Center and its tenants
during construction.

During construction, the DuPen Fountain would be renovated and reopened when the arena opens.
Seattle Center is coordinating the design of the renovations with stakeholders, including the adjacent
Seattle Center tenants, the Landmarks Preservation Board, the Office of Arts and Culture, and the family
of the artist, Everett DuPen, who created the original bronze sculptures within the fountain. To avoid
conflicts caused by the unavailability of KeyArena during construction, Seattle Center is no longer
scheduling events during the planned construction period, and is working with already scheduled events

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

that would need to be moved. The contract between the Seattle Storm and the City includes funding
allocated to the Storm to cover relocation costs.

7.5.2 Operations
As described in Section 7.4.2, the City would replace the skatepark. Seattle Center would accommodate
Skate Like a Girl’s 2019 programming on the Seattle Center campus, using temporary equipment as
appropriate. OVG would assume the City’s lease with the Seattle Storm or develop a new agreement
with the team. To ensure that there would be no long-term impacts to recreational programming, OVG
would provide the City with rent-free use of the arena for up to 14 non-consecutive days per calendar
year for community events, including the Bumbershoot festival.

Potential measures for operations impacts to traffic and parking are described in Section 4.5.2,
Transportation, and mitigation measures for operations impacts to noise are described in Section 8.6.2,
Noise and Vibration.

7.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


RECREATION
Section 8.5.1, Construction Impacts (Noise and Vibration), describes a significant construction noise
and/or vibration impact to operations at KEXP, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project; this significant
noise and/or vibration impact would also impact recreational programming and visitors to these 3
organizations during the construction period. If the replacement skatepark cannot be located within or
adjacent to Uptown as currently planned, this recreational use would be lost for the neighborhood,
which would be a significant impact. However, this impact could be avoided if a location for a
replacement skatepark can be found within the vicinity of Uptown. There would be no other significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts on recreation from either action alternative.

Although not expected, it is possible that a building inspector may determine that it is unsafe for Pottery
Northwest to remain in the Bressi Garage building during the construction phase. If that were to occur
and if the recreational activities could not be accommodated elsewhere, impacts would be significant.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 7-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION


This chapter describes terminology and concepts
used for analyzing noise and vibration, provides Key Findings for Noise and Vibration
a synopsis of the regulations as they pertain to During day-time construction for both Alternatives 1
noise exposure in the City of Seattle, and and 2, the project would temporarily and noticeably
increase noise, but the increases would be consistent
describes the methodology employed for with the restrictions of the SMC for daytime
assessing noise and vibration impacts. construction activities.
Construction-related and operational noise and
vibration impacts are assessed and mitigation The SMC establishes separate noise standards for
daytime and night-time construction activities. Night-
identified, as appropriate. time construction noise with Alternative 1 would be
above the limits established in the SMC, which would
Changes from the Draft EIS – Based on result in significant impacts to some sensitive
comments received on the Draft EIS, this chapter receptors. A proposed noise barrier and other
was updated in the Final EIS to include the identified measures would reduce night-time noise
following: (1) sound level monitoring of existing impacts for residential uses and the Seattle Children’s
Theatre to less-than-significant, but impacts to KEXP,
conditions at additional receptors in the project The Vera Project, and the SIFF Film Center would be
vicinity, (2) inclusion of a technical appendix significant and unavoidable. Noise impacts from
(Appendix F) where the bulk of noise monitoring construction trucks on local roadways would be less-
data can be found, (3) impact assessment for than-significant.
additional sensitive receptors in the project During construction, vibration impact equipment
vicinity, (4) addition of a graphic presenting would generate vibration levels below the Federal
noise contours associated with construction Transit Administration (FTA) threshold levels at
activities, and (5) additional mitigation measures residential receptors, which would result in less-than-
to further address significant and unavoidable significant impacts. Vibration levels could exceed
structural damage criteria at Bressi Garage and the
construction-related noise and vibration impacts Northwest Rooms, which would be a significant impact.
identified in the Draft EIS. Two summary tables Vibration levels would be above FTA thresholds
have been added (Table 8-8, Noise Construction established for the sensitivity of recording studios and
Impact Summary, and Table 8-9, Vibration concert halls, resulting in a significant impact to KEXP,
The Vera Project, and the SIFF Film Center. With
Construction Impact Summary) to clarify which implementation of identified mitigation measures,
sensitive receptors would be impacted. these impacts would be reduced to less-than-
significant.
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by
pressure waves through a medium such as air. Under Alternative 2, no night-time construction would
Noise is defined as unwanted sound, which is occur; thus, there would be no significant noise
impacts. Vibration impacts would be similar to
characterized by various parameters such as the Alternative 1, but construction would be at least 6
rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), months longer in duration.
the speed of propagation, and the pressure level
or energy content (amplitude). The sound For operations, the number of events would more than
double, but the noise levels within a single hour would
pressure level is the most common descriptor be similar to levels that currently occur and would not
used to characterize the loudness of an ambient constitute an impact. Levels are already above the 75
sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in dBA Lmax limit set by SMC 25.08.410(B). Operation of
decibels (dB), a logarithmic loudness scale with any amplified equipment at the arena would be
required to comply with the Seattle Municipal Code.
0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of
human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding
to the threshold of pain (Figure 8-1). Because sound pressure can vary by over 1 trillion times within the
range of human hearing, the logarithmic loudness scale is used to calculate and manage sound intensity
numbers conveniently.
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-1 August 2018
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum.
Therefore, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that
deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to
the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency
mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of
A-weighted decibels (dBA). All quantified decibel estimates in this EIS analysis are in reference to A-
weighted decibels.

Given the variation of community noise level from instant to instant, community noise levels must be
measured over an extended period of time to characterize a community noise environment and
evaluate cumulative sound impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described
using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are as follows.

Steady-state sound is sound for which average characteristics remain constant in time (e.g., the sound
of an air conditioner, fan, or pump) and is typically described using the Leq descriptor. Impulse sound is
sound generated over a relatively short duration (e.g., a car horn or back-up alarm). Impulsive sound is
typically characterized using the Lmax.

Source: Caltrans, 2009.

Figure 8-1. Perceptible Noise Thresholds

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.1 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE


The effects of noise on people can be placed into 3 categories:
Key Terms for Noise Analysis
(1) subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and
dissatisfaction; (2) interference with activities such as speech, Leq: The average noise exposure level
sleep, and learning; and (3) physiological effects such as hearing for a given time period, generally
loss or sudden startling. measured in dBA.

Because of the variation in individual noise thresholds, an Lmax: The instantaneous maximum
important way of predicting human reaction to a new or noise level measured during the
changed noise environment is the way the noise levels compare measurement period of interest,
to the existing environment to which one has adapted, or the generally measured in dBA.
“ambient” noise level. In general, the more a new noise
exceeds the existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be to the individual.
Evaluations conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are widely used to characterize
the relationships relative to increases in A-weighted noise levels.

With regard to increases in A-weighted noise levels, the following relationships occur (FHWA, 2011):

 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by the
human ear.
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.
 A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would
be expected.
 A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause an
adverse response.

8.1.1 Vibration Fundamentals and Descriptors


Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be
described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Groundborne vibration causes buildings to
shake and generates audible rumbling sounds (FTA, 2006). Vibration levels can also result in interference
or annoyance impacts at residences or other land uses where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.
Some common sources of groundborne vibration, such as construction activities, involve operating
heavy earth-moving equipment. Vibration intensity is generally expressed as peak particle velocity (the
maximum speed that the ground moves while it temporarily shakes, referred to as PPV). Since ground-
shaking speeds are very small, PPV is measured in inches per second (in/sec). The PPV is defined as the
maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is frequently used to describe physical
vibration impacts on buildings. Another useful vibration descriptor is known as vibration decibels, or
VdBs. VdBs are generally used when evaluating human response to vibration, as opposed to structural
damage (for which PPV is the more commonly used descriptor). Vibration decibels are established
relative to a reference quantity, typically 1 x 10-6 in/sec (FTA, 2006).

Types of construction activities associated with groundborne vibration include the use of hoe rams for
demolishing large concrete structures, and drilling. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by
human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.1.2 Sensitive Receptors


Noise
Sensitive receptors for noise (FTA, 2006) nearest the project site are residential uses, church uses,
recording studios, concert halls, theaters, and a school. The nearest residences are the Astro, Dalmasso,
and Expo Apartment buildings (Figure 8-2). The Astro Apartments is a multi-use structure that includes a
daycare (MightyKidz) on the first floor with residents above, and is approximately 30 feet west of the
project site and 175 feet west of the arena on 1st Ave N. The Dalmasso Apartments are located west of
Seattle Center, a similar distance from the project site as the Astro Apartments. The Expo Apartments
are located across Republican St, approximately 115 feet north of the project site and 250 feet north of
the arena. The nearest church, Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic Church, which includes a shelter for
women and children with 30 beds, is 250 feet south of the arena and approximately 40 feet south of the
closest portion of the project site. Concert halls and recording studios include KEXP, which has multiple
audio and video recording studios, a radio broadcast facility, and event space and is immediately
northwest of the existing arena (in the U-shaped Northwest Rooms); and The Vera Project, which
provides artistic performance space, operates a recording studio, and provides instruction in silk
screening and audio engineering. The Northwest Rooms range from approximately 50 feet to
immediately adjacent to the project site and approximately 30 to 115 feet from the arena (the
Northwest Rooms house KEXP, The Vera Project, and the SIFF Film Center). The SIFF Film Center, Seattle
Children’s Theatre, Seattle Repertory Theatre, and Cornish Playhouse are all multi-purpose performance
spaces and are considered sensitive receptors. The nearest school facility, the Downtown (Lakeside)
School at 204 Warren Ave N, is about 200 feet east of the 1st Ave N Garage and 300 feet south of Seattle
Center, and is scheduled to open in fall 2018.

Vibration
The designation of vibration-sensitive land uses depends not only on the type of activities commonly
associated with a given land use, but also considers nearby structures that could be damaged by
vibration-inducing activities. High-sensitivity uses include land uses where vibrations would interfere
with interior operations and include hospitals, research operations, television and recording studios, and
concert halls. The KEXP recording studios are a high-sensitivity use with respect to vibration. Residential
uses or other uses where people normally sleep are also vibration-sensitive, particularly during night-
time hours. The nearest such uses are the Astro Apartments (and daycare), the Dalmasso Apartments,
the Expo Apartments, and the shelter at Sacred Heart Church. However, some special buildings (such as
concert halls, TV and recording studios, and theaters) can be very sensitive to vibration and noise but do
not fit into typical assessment categories. Because of the sensitivity of these buildings, they usually
warrant special attention during an environmental assessment. Art galleries are not considered sensitive
receptors, but the A/NT Gallery is described because of its proximity. The silk screen operations of The
Vera Project, while not identified as a vibration-sensitive use in vibration assessment guidance, for this
project is evaluated as sensitive the same as The Vera Project’s recording operations.

Several structures that may be structurally sensitive to vibration-inducing construction activities are
adjacent to proposed excavation and shoring activities. These buildings include Bressi Garage
(unreinforced masonry building) and the Northwest Rooms.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.2 METHODS
To assess potential construction and operations noise impacts, the EIS Consultant Team measured noise
levels to characterize the existing environmental noise conditions of the existing arena, and estimate
changes to the noise environment from the project’s increased frequency and size of events. It is
anticipated that the future operational noise levels will be similar to existing levels as the project is the
modification of an existing arena, and would not introduce a new noise source. Environmental noise
conditions were assessed by reviewing policies in the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan (2016) and SMC
25.08 Noise Control regulations for construction and operation noise level limits.

For identifying the thresholds of impact for operational noise from events, exterior standards
established in SMC 25.08.410(A) are applied. A 5-dBA increase over ambient is applied as an impact
threshold for noise increases from construction haul trucks on public roadways (FHWA, 2011).
Construction-related noise from equipment on construction sites is assessed using standards in SMC
25.08.425 as well as standards historically implemented through the City’s Noise Variance process.

The City of Seattle does not regulate vibration levels. As such, assessment of vibration impacts is
commonly based on guidelines within the Federal Transit Administration’s 2006 Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2006). A general assessment of potential vibration impacts
on sensitive land use categories was conducted, based on the FTA Vibration Impact Criteria. Vibration
levels would depend on the construction equipment used, the distance to the sensitive categories, and
whether the vibration event is transient or continuous.

8.2.1 Noise Monitoring


The existing noise environment was characterized based on short- and long-term noise monitoring
conducted in the study area. Noise monitoring was conducted on non-event days and multiple event
days in 2017 and 2018. The monitoring results establish a baseline. Short-term monitoring was
conducted at multiple locations during multiple concert events at KeyArena and during non-event days.
Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 8-2. Please refer to Appendix F, Noise Monitoring, for detailed
information on sound level measurements conducted at multiple sensitive receptor locations
surrounding the project site.

8.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT


Noise impacts are listed as elements that may be examined through the SEPA process, as designated by
SMC 25.05.675(B) and (L). Impacts from vibration are also included in this analysis because of its
connection with noise-generating construction equipment. Disruption caused by noise and vibration
were identified as areas of concern in the scoping comments; both elements are therefore covered in
both the Draft EIS and this Final EIS.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 8-2. Noise Monitoring Locations

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.3.1 Noise
Washington State Noise Control Act of 1974
Recognizing the harm that excessive noise can have on public health, safety, and well-being, the State of
Washington established rules to abate and control noise pollution (RCW 70.107). The regulations on
Maximum Environmental Noise Levels (WAC 173.60) apply to a variety of activities and facilities
including general construction activities, park-and-ride lots, and maintenance facilities; exemptions
include electrical substations, mobile noise sources, vehicles traveling in public right-of-way, as well as
safety warning devices such as bells. The exterior noise standards established in WAC 173.60 align with
those established by the City in SMC 25.08.410.

Seattle Municipal Code 25.08 - Noise Control

Construction Noise Standards

SMC 25.08 establishes exterior sound level limits for specified land use zones or “districts,” which vary
depending on the district generating the sound and the district affected by the sound. The project site
and surrounding study area are zoned Seattle Mixed-Uptown (SM-UP) (see Section 3.3.5 in Chapter 3,
Land Use). SMC 25.08.100 classifies SM zones as commercial districts. The exterior sound level limit
applicable to the project site would need to meet the 60 dBA Leq standard for a commercial district
generating the sound and a commercial district receiving (or affected by) the sound during construction.

Certain types of construction equipment operating in commercial districts are allowed to exceed
exterior sound level limits between 7 AM and 10 PM on weekdays and between 9 AM and 10 PM on
weekends and legal holidays (SMC 25.08.425). The types of equipment that would usually exceed the
exterior sound level limit of 60 dBA are loaders, excavators, and cranes. The code allows for an
exceedance of the 60 dBA standard in commercial zones when measured at a reference distance of 50
feet by up to 25 dBA (an 85 dBA standard) between 7 AM and 10 PM on weekdays and between 9 AM
and 10 PM on weekends and legal holidays (Figure 8-3). Use of impact equipment, such as a concrete
breaker, is restricted to 8 AM to 5 PM on weekdays and 9 AM to 5 PM on weekends and legal holidays,
and limited to a continuous noise level of 90 dBA and a non-continuous maximum noise level of 99 dBA
Lmax when measured at a reference distance of 50 feet (Figure 8-3).

Operation Noise Standards

The operational exterior noise level applicable to the project site is 60 dBA Leq pursuant to SMC
25.08.410, which also allows maximum noise levels of up to 15 dBA beyond this standard (up to 75 dBA
Lmax), provided the average hourly noise level attains the 60 dBA standard, meaning that particular
activities could be louder than the 60 dBA limit for short durations within a given hour.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Source: Prepared by Environmental Science Associates.

Figure 8-3. Construction Noise Time Limits for Projects in Low-rise, Mid-rise, and High-rise,
Residential-Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial Zones under the City of Seattle’s Noise
Ordinance

8.3.2 Vibration
Construction Vibration Standards

Human Annoyance and Sensitive Equipment

There are no adopted state or local policies or standards for groundborne vibration with regard to
human annoyance; however, the FTA has established standards for acceptable levels of vibration
associated with impact equipment as experienced by sensitive receptors. Those criteria are established
in terms of vibration velocity decibel level (VdB) by land use category (Table 8-1).

Category 1 buildings typically include land uses such as research and manufacturing, hospitals with
vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. The vibration limits for Category 1
are based on acceptable vibration for moderately vibration-sensitive equipment such as microscopes
with vibration isolation systems (FTA, 2006).

Buildings such as concert halls, TV studios, and recording studios are considered special buildings that
can be sensitive to noise and vibration and are evaluated using the same vibration impact levels as for
Category 1 land uses (FTA, 2006). Theaters and auditoriums are also considered special buildings but
have a higher vibration impact level.

Building or Structure Damage

There are no adopted state or local policies or standards for groundborne vibration with regard to
structures. However, the FTA establishes acceptable levels of vibration associated with equipment
potentially causing groundborne vibration on structures. The criteria are established by Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) in in/sec (Table 8-2).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 8-1. Vibration Impact Level Limits for Land Uses

Vibration Impact Level for Vibration Impact Level for


Land Use Category
Frequent Events (VdB)1 Infrequent Events (VdB)1

General Assessment Land Use Categories

Category 1: Buildings where low ambient


65 65
vibration is essential for interior operations

Category 2: Residences and buildings


72 80
where people normally sleep

Category 3: Institutional land uses with


75 83
primarily daytime use

Special Buildings

Concert halls, TV studios, recording


65 65
studios

Auditoriums, theaters 72 80
1FTA defines “Frequent events” as 70 or more per day. “Infrequent events” are fewer than 70 per day. “Events” are defined as
a vibration occurrence. VdB=vibration velocity level in decibels.
Source: FTA, 2006.

Table 8-2. Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria for Structures

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (PPV),


Structure Type and Condition
inches per second (in/sec)

Fragile buildings 0.12

Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2

Engineered concrete and masonry buildings 0.3

Reinforced concrete steel or timber buildings 0.5


Source: FTA, 2006.

Operational Vibration Standards


The City has not established regulations with respect to vibration levels. Consequently, this EIS analysis
applies the same standards for operational vibration impacts as for construction. In general, operational
vibration impacts result from sources such as transit and railroad operations, and mining and blasting
activities, and would not be associated with events from the arena.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


8.4.1 Study Area
The study area for the noise and vibration analysis is shown in Figure 8-2 and is comprised of mixed-use
zones that include recreational, commercial, residential, and parking uses, all of which generate and
receive noise, and which also receive groundborne vibration. Sensitive receptors for noise and vibration
are described in Section 8.1.2.

8.4.2 Existing Noise Environment


KeyArena is in a downtown urban area characterized by activities typical of commercial businesses and
dense residential areas. The predominant noise source in the area is vehicular and bus traffic on roads
adjacent to the project site. During events at KeyArena, pedestrian activity on the surrounding sidewalks
increases just prior to an event start and shortly after its completion. Other typical urban noise sources
include emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and individuals visiting nearby businesses.

Existing ambient night-time noise levels were monitored over a week at the nearest residential uses in
May, June, and July 2018. Measurements were conducted at the rooftop of the Expo Apartments, both
ground level and rooftop of the Astro Apartments, and at the ground level of the Sacred Heart Shelter.
As shown in Table F-7 in Appendix F, average exterior ambient noise levels at the Expo Apartments, the
Astro Apartments, and the Sacred Heart Shelter during the 10 PM to 11 PM and 5 AM to 7 AM periods
averaged 58 dBA, 60 dBA, and 60 dBA, respectively. The ground level noise level at the Astro
Apartments building during this time period averaged 68 dBA. At these same measurement locations,
average ambient noise levels during the 12 AM to 5 AM period averaged 54 dBA, 56 dBA, and 54 dBA at
the Expo Apartments, Astro Apartments, and Sacred Heart Shelter, respectively.

The noise monitoring methods are described in detail in Appendix F, Noise Monitoring, including the
results of the short-term ambient noise measured in the study area during multiple arena events. The
first concert event monitored was the A Perfect Circle concert on Friday, December 1, 2017. The concert
doors opened at 6:30 PM, the opening act began at 7:30 PM, A Perfect Circle began at 8:30 PM, and the
event ended at approximately 10:15 PM. The second concert event monitored was the Lorde concert on
Friday March 9, 2018. The concert doors opened at 6:00 PM, the opening act began at 7:00 PM, and the
event ended at approximately 10:25 PM. The third concert event was the Paul Simon show on Friday,
May 18, 2018. The doors opened at approximately 7:00 PM, and the event ended at approximately
10:30 PM.

As shown in Table F-4 in Appendix F, the occurrence of an event at KeyArena did not meaningfully affect
the noise levels averaged over the entirety of daytime or night-time periods. The results also indicate
that the noise levels were consistent throughout the day and night due to exposure to the same
predominant noise source – traffic on a wet surface.

Table 8-3 shows the differences in Leq and Lmax at the street-level of the Astro Apartments between
the peak activity hours of 5:00 PM and 11:00 PM for each of the events monitored. Lmax values can vary
widely in urban environments and can result from sporadic individual events such as car doors slamming
shut, motorcycle pass by-events, and emergency vehicle sirens. The data in Table 8-3 compare noise
levels with and without an event. These data indicate that concert events have little to no effect on local
noise levels at areas surrounding the arena, with some no-event days experiencing higher noise levels
than on days when events occur, likely the result of traffic or other urban sources dominating the noise
environment.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 8-3. Comparison of Leq and Lmax outside of the Astro Apartments at Street Level between 5:00
PM and 11:00 PM on Non-Event days and Event Days

Time dBA, Leq dBA, Lmax

Thursday Friday Thursday Friday


Nov. 30, 2017 Dec. 1, 2017 Nov. 30, 2017 Dec. 1, 2017
(non-event) (event) (non-event) (event)
5:00 PM 70 69 90 87
6:00 PM 70 69 89 84
7:00 PM 68 69 86 88
8:00 PM 68 68 90 81
9:00 PM 68 71 83 100
10:00 PM 73 68 103 82
11:00 PM 67 69 85 88
Thursday Friday Thursday Friday
March 8, 2018 March 9, 2018 March 8, 2018 March 9, 2018
(non-event) (event) (non-event) (event)
5:00 PM 72 70 85 83
6:00 PM 72 70 91 86
7:00 PM 71 69 90 88
8:00 PM 69 69 83 83
9:00 PM 69 67 86 84
10:00 PM 68 68 87 84
11:00 PM 66 67 82 82
Thursday Friday Thursday Friday
May 17, 2018 May 18, 2018 May 17, 2018 May 18, 2018
(non-event) (event) (non-event) (event)
5:00 PM 71 70 91 87
6:00 PM 69 68 85 85
7:00 PM 67 68 81 85
8:00 PM 73 68 101 82
9:00 PM 67 66 83 83
10:00 PM 68 70 89 97
11:00 PM 67 68 86 86
Source: Field monitoring conducted by Environmental Science Associates, 2017, 2018.

The results of both the short-term and long-term noise measurements generally reflect existing noise
conditions, which are noisy and influenced by typical activities surrounding mixed-use residential and
commercial land uses in a downtown urban area.

Noise measurement data sheets for noise monitoring are included in Appendix F.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


The project would increase the frequency and capacity of sporting and entertainment events,
potentially increasing ambient noise levels to nearby sensitive land uses. This analysis evaluates the
potential increase in noise and vibration from both construction and operation of the project and the
project’s compliance with applicable regulations.

8.5.1 Construction Impacts


Potential short-term noise and vibration impacts from construction are characterized as less-than-
significant or significant. Potentially significant impacts are defined below; impacts that do not reach
that threshold would be less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Noise Impacts During Construction: Noise generated from standard construction
equipment (including off-highway trucks) that would expose people to, or generate, noise levels that
would result in sustained and substantial annoyance and disruption of activities for receptors, exceeding
the limits for commercial districts, as defined in SMC 25.08.425(A) and SMC 25.08.425(B) would be
significant. For daytime construction activities, the threshold for a significant impact from activity within
a commercially zoned district on receptors within a commercially zoned district is 85 dBA for all
equipment excluding impact equipment.

For night-time construction noise impacts, the City generally considers that noise levels should not
exceed 6 dBA over the operational (non-construction) permissible noise limit of 60 dBA when
considering a noise variance for an activity within a commercially zoned district on receptors within a
commercially zoned district. However, monitoring at both the Astro Apartments and the Expo
Apartments indicates that this noise level is already exceeded at these receptors even during the
quietest night-time hours.

Impact equipment that would only operate during daytime hours, such as jackhammers and hoe rams,
would expose people to, or generate, noise levels that could result in sustained and substantial
annoyance and disruption of activities for receptors, and would exceed the limits defined in SMC
25.08.425(C), 90 dBA per hourly Leq. As described in Section 2.6, Construction, pile driving is not a
proposed method of construction, and proposed soldier piles would be installed using a drilling method.

Construction truck trips along roadways are considered separately from off-road equipment because
they are not regulated by the City’s noise ordinance. Therefore, to assess noise increases along
roadways used as the proposed haul routes, this analysis applies a noise increase of 5 dBA that the
FHWA recognizes as the increase required before any noticeable change in human response would be
expected.

Criteria for Significant Vibration Impacts During Construction: Construction activities would generate
vibration levels substantial enough to potentially damage nearby structures or buildings, or result in
sustained vibration levels established by FTA as an annoyance to sensitive residential land uses and
other uses where people normally sleep during night-time hours or during all hours at land uses with
vibration-sensitive operations such as recording studios.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, noise and vibration levels associated with KeyArena would remain as
they are; no construction would occur and no construction noise or vibration would occur.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


The impacts of construction on noise and vibration would vary by construction phase, as each phase of
construction would involve different levels of intensity and equipment types. Periods would occur when
construction of multiple phases could overlap. Construction phasing for the noise analysis differs from
the phasing presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 presents phasing based on broader construction logistics.
The construction phasing for the noise analysis is based on when overlap of noise-generating activities
would occur.

 Phase 1 (October 2018 to March 2019): Demolition, shoring, and excavation of existing arena.
 Phase 2 (November 2018 to June 2019): Loading dock tunnel excavation and construction.
 Phase 3 (February 2019 to June 2020): Structure construction.
 Phase 1–3 overlap: January 2019 to March 2019.
 Phase 4 (September 2019 to September 2020): Interior buildout.
 Phase 3–4 overlap (September 2019 to June 2020).

Noise

Mobile Sources
Mobile sources involved with construction activities primarily include trucks using public roadways to
haul demolition materials and excavated soils off-site. Phase 1 is the most intense phase of construction
with respect to excavation, demolition, and truck hauling activities and would occur over a period of
approximately 6 months. Mobile source noise impacts on local roadways during other phases would be
less than during Phase 1; thus, Phase 1 is the worst-case and the focus of the evaluation for mobile
source noise impacts. Demolition and construction activities that require the use of heavy trucks to off-
haul demolition waste and excavation materials would increase hourly noise levels on nearby streets.
During construction, the delivery/haul trucks, as well as employee vehicles, would travel to and from the
project site daily, although hauling during the AM/PM peak traffic hours is not planned and construction
shifts would be staggered to avoid shift changes during AM/PM peak hours. For more information on
haul routes and impacts related to AM/PM peak hour traffic, see Section 2.6, Construction, and Chapter
4, Transportation.

Demolition and excavation would occur during approximately the first 6 months of construction (Phase
1), and would generate approximately 290 truck trips per 24-hour work day, 7 days a week. For Phase 1,
truck hauling could occur 7 days a week, 18 hours a day, for approximately 6 months but would avoid
AM/PM peak periods. Figure 2-12 shows the proposed haul routes for construction trucks, which include
1st Ave N, 2nd Ave N, Thomas St, Mercer St, Denny Way, and vacated Harrison St. The primary haul
routes during the day would be north on 1st Ave N to Mercer St or south to Thomas St, then north on 1st
Ave to Mercer St. At night (proposed between 11:30 PM and 6:30 AM), the primary route would be east
on vacated Harrison St through the Seattle Center campus to 5th Ave N to Mercer St or to SR 99. Routes
on the Seattle Center campus would not be available during specific campus-wide events (see Table 2-2
for list of events). From 10:00 PM to 11:30 PM, the primary haul route would be south on vacated 2nd
Ave N, west on Thomas St, then north on 1st Ave N and east on Mercer St. These primary haul routes
would locate truck traffic past multiple apartment/condominium buildings on 1st Ave N, Mercer St, and
Denny Way (e.g., Arkona, Astro, Dalmasso, Expo Apartments, Century, Taylor Verve, the Matae), as well
as Seattle Center campus performance spaces (Seattle Children's Theatre). See Section 2.6, Construction,
for more information. Truck loading activities are considered separately below as a stationary source of

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

construction noise. Timing of night-time hauling is subject to review by the City (including Seattle
Center), and may be changed to reduce impacts.

The proposed off-haul route would increase truck pass-by events per hour, especially over the first 6-
month period. Because trucks would use separate routes to and from the freeway and each trip reflects
either a trip to the project site or a trip away from the project site, the increase in pass-by events for any
given receptor along the route in a given hour is conservatively estimated as 12. Using the FHWA (2004)
Traffic Noise Model, noise contributions of these truck trips are estimated to be an hourly Leq of 58.1
dBA at a receptor 33 feet from the center of the roadway (1st Ave N). Under existing daytime conditions,
ground-level noise levels at the Astro Apartments on 1st Ave N average 69 to 74 dBA, Leq; the addition
of truck traffic would not result in a noticeable increase of ambient noise levels. During night-time
periods when the ground-level hourly Leq was monitored to be as low as 62 dBA during the quietest
hours, the contribution of truck traffic would result in an increase of 2 dBA. Such an increase would be
less than the 5 dBA increase that is considered a readily perceptible change (FHWA, 2011), and the
impact of adding 12 truck trips per hour would be less-than-significant during the quieter night-time
periods. Most night-time hauling would be east across the Seattle Center campus to avoid sensitive
residential receptors.

Stationary Sources
Stationary construction-related activities, which are non-transportation related activities likely using the
construction equipment listed in Table 8-4, would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the study
area; see Appendix F for additional ambient monitoring data. Construction noise levels surrounding the
project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, location, and duration of use of
various pieces of construction equipment. Construction noise levels would depend on the type of
construction activity on a given day and the equipment used, the distance between construction
activities and the nearest receptors, intervening structures (e.g., noise barrier), and the existing noise
levels around the site.

For stationary noise sources, Phase 1 and the overlap of Phase 3 and Phase 4 of project construction
would be the most intense periods of construction, and analysis of noise levels impacts is provided for
both of these peak periods. Construction of Alternative 1 is proposed to occur from October 2018 to
October 2020, or approximately 24 months. Construction would occur 24 hours per day and 7 days a
week, except for Phase 2 work.

Phase 1, the initial demolition and excavation phase, would be a high noise-intensive scenario during
daytime, with occasional use of impact equipment lasting approximately the first 6 months. After the
first 6 months, impact equipment would still be used but would be infrequent. As described in Section
2.6, Construction, pile driving is not a proposed method of construction, and proposed soldier piles
would be installed using a drilling method. Because of the dynamic nature of construction, the
sequencing, extent, and timing of construction activities would vary to some degree. Table 8-4 shows
the type of equipment that would likely be used for construction of the project.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 8-4. Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment


Noise Level
Construction Equipment Night-time Use? (dBA, Leq
at 50 feet)
Hoe ram (concrete breaker) (impact equipment) No 90 a
Concrete saw No 83 a
Jack hammer (impact equipment) No 89 a
Auger drill Yes 73b,c
Excavator Yes 81
Generator Yes 81
Roller No 73
Concrete mixer Yes 81
Conveyer Yes 62
Dump truck Yes 69
Crane, mobile Yes 81
Paver No 77
Backhoe/loader Yes 74
Air compressor Yes 78
Impact wrench Yes 85c
a Impact equipment metric in terms of Lmax, consistent with SMC noise limits. Both equipment types have a usage factor of
20%
b Noise level from auger drill is reported for engine noise only. Auguring can also generate noise from shaking the bit to remove

sticky soils.
c Leq noise level based on monitoring by Ramboll (2018).

Source: Ramboll, 2018; FHWA, 2006.

Daytime: As shown in Table 8-4, all of the equipment identified as likely to be used for Alternative 1
would operate at less than 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet, except for the hoe ram, concrete saw,
and jack hammer. The SMC 25.08.425(C) specifically addresses impact equipment, including hoe rams
and jackhammers, by establishing separate time restrictions and noise standards for such equipment. As
indicated in Table 8-4, impact equipment operates at a maximum noise level of up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50
feet, which would be below the maximum noise level restriction of 99 dBA Lmax and would not exceed
the daytime continuous noise level restriction of 90 dBA Leq (averaged over the daytime construction
period). Impact equipment, including hoe rams, may be required for construction, but their operation
would be below the maximum noise level restriction of 99 dBA Lmax, as they have a standard usage
factor of 20% (FHWA, 2008). Therefore, construction activities at the project site under Alternative 1
would comply with the restrictions of the SMC 25.08.425 during daytime hours.

On the north, south, and west sides, the temporary construction fence is proposed to be a 12-foot
noise-deflecting barrier that would reduce noise levels to sensitive receptors.

Night-time: Under Alternative 1, construction on the interior of the building as well as excavation, truck
loading and staging, and truck hauling would occur during night-time hours. Night-time construction
activities would require the use of construction equipment within 175 feet of the Astro and Dalmasso
Apartments, 200 feet of the Expo Apartments, and 135 feet of the shelter at Sacred Heart Church.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Three-dimensional noise modeling was conducted for the project construction as a part of the Noise
Management and Mitigation Plan (NMMP) (Ramboll, 2018). This modeling considers the simultaneous
operation of multiple pieces of equipment as well as on-site truck movements at loading areas and
along vacated Harrison St heading east. Figure 8-4 presents estimated unmitigated night-time noise
level contours from peak night-time construction activity, which occurs during the overlap of Phase 3
and Phase 4 of construction. Contours shown in Figure 8-4 do not reflect the presence of the proposed
noise barrier, while Figure 8-5 presents the mitigated noise contours that include the presence of the
noise barrier and other mitigation measures described in Section 8.6. Noise contours presented in
Figures 8-4 and 8-5 represent noise levels at 60 feet in elevation, reflecting the worst-case noise levels at
the top story for the Astro Apartments and Expo Apartments buildings where the noise reduction
potential of the proposed noise barrier would be least effective. For receptors at lower elevations, such
as the tenants of the Northwest Rooms, Sacred Heart Shelter, and Seattle Children’s Theatre, noise
levels would be less than indicated in these figures. The Seattle Children’s Theatre has events that may
conclude between 10 PM and 11 PM and is considered a potential night-time receptor during these
hours.

Construction activities requiring grading and earth movement would necessitate material and soil to be
excavated and loaded onto haul trucks. To achieve the proposed excavation rate, haul trucks would
need to be staged and ready to accept materials outside of the enclosed arena where excavation would
occur. Trucks would be loaded to the west of the arena adjacent to 1st Ave N and to the east of the arena
on or adjacent to vacated 2nd Ave N (see Figure 2-11, in Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives).

Truck staging would occur on 1st Ave N and on Thomas St between Warren Ave N and 2nd Ave N; at-night
staging may also occur on 2nd Ave N north of John St to mid-block on 2nd Ave N. Truck loading is not
proposed to occur on the west side of the arena adjacent to 1st Ave N after 10 PM. These locations are
within 100 feet of the Astro and Dalmasso Apartments. Timing of night-time work is subject to review by
the City (including Seattle Center), and may be changed to reduce impacts.

Excavation of the new underground parking garage and the loading dock immediately south of the arena
would be open-pit (non-enclosed). Staging at the 1st Ave N Garage could also be a source of noise. The
project would generate approximately 290 daily truck trips over a 6-month period for excavation and
demolition, 80–100 daily trips for the next year, and 20–30 daily trips for the last 6 months. These
construction activities under Alternative 1 would not comply with the restrictions of the SMC 25.08.425
during night-time hours and could disturb occupants of residential land uses, which would be a
significant impact.

Night-time construction work would require a variance from the restrictions of the noise ordinance for
non-conforming activities affecting residential uses. The potential to exceed the noise limits in SMC
25.08.425 during night-time construction activities, including truck loading, would be a non-conforming
activity, and therefore would be a significant impact to the closest residential uses. Noise reduction
measures identified by the variance process are described in the mitigation measures in Section 8.6,
which is a process that applies only to residential uses although they would also benefit surrounding
non-residential uses as well. Substantial night-time noise increases could also impact non-residential
uses such as KEXP, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project when their programming occurs at night.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 8-4. Unmitigated Construction Noise Contours for Overlap of Phase 3 and Phase 4 of Project
Construction at an Elevation of 60 feet, Between 10 PM – 11 PM, 5 AM – 7 AM

Figure 8-5. Mitigated Construction Noise Contours for Overlap of Phase 3 and Phase 4 of Project
Construction at an Elevation of 60 feet, Between 10 PM – 11 PM, 5 AM – 7 AM
Source: Ramboll, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

As shown in Figure 8-4, unmitigated night-time noise levels of up to 80 dBA are predicted to occur at the
top (6th) floor of the Astro Apartments while noise levels of between 65 and 70 dBA Leq are estimated to
occur at the top (6th) floor of the Expo Apartments. Noise levels of between 71 and 76 dBA Leq are
estimated to occur at the Dalmasso Apartments, while levels up to 69 dBA are predicted for the Sacred
Heart Shelter. These values are predicted for between the hours of 10 PM and 11 PM and 5 AM to 7AM.
Noise levels between 11 PM and 5 AM would be reduced due to fewer activities during these hours.

These resultant night-time noise levels would have the potential to result in sleep interference at the
nearest receptors, and would be significant. The Expo Apartments are approximately 300 feet north of the
west loading area (and 400 feet from the east loading area), and noise from loading could be noticeable if
windows were open. Commenters have noted that the Expo Apartments do not have air conditioning,
resulting in windows being open during warm weather. Night-time loading would be approximately 600
feet from the Sacred Heart Church and Shelter.

Night-time construction noise has the potential to impact KEXP, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project
immediately north of KeyArena in the Northwest Rooms, which are active during the evening and some
night-time hours. Additionally, evening performances of the Seattle Children’s Theatre to the southeast
and outdoor festival performances at the Fountain and South Fountain Lawns could also be significantly
impacted. Excavation activities would abut the south ends of the foundation of the Northwest Rooms,
and would be approximately 100 feet south of the remainder of the U-shaped building (see Figure 2-2 in
Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives). As indicated in Figure 8-4, unmitigated night-time noise levels of
75 to 85 dBA could be experienced at the outside of the buildings. The A/NT Gallery would also
experience night-time construction noise impacts, but it is not considered a sensitive receptor.
Unmitigated night-time noise impacts to KEXP, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project would be as much
as 31 dBA over existing exterior evening noise levels and would be a significant impact. Reduced, but
potentially significant, impacts could also occur at more distant receptors such as the Seattle Children’s
Theatre.

MightyKidz Daycare, Seattle Repertory Theatre, and the Cornish Playhouse either do not operate during
evening hours or are far enough away that they would not be significantly impacted by the construction
noise.

Potential mitigation measures to reduce these predicted significant night-time noise impacts are
identified in Section 8.6. OVG has committed to installing a temporary 12-foot noise-deflecting barrier as
a construction fence on the north, south, and west sides of the project perimeter. These measures will
substantially reduce predicted resultant noise levels at surrounding sensitive receptors, as indicated in
Figure 8-5. Table 8-5 presents the modeled mitigated noise levels at the nearest residential receptors and
compares them to the modified noise limits (6 dBA over quietest night-time ambient) for each of the
proposed construction phases, as requested in OVG’s Construction Noise Variance Application. The
uppermost floors of both the Astro Apartments and Expo Apartments would receive limited benefit of the
proposed noise barrier and would experience night-time noise levels equivalent to, but not exceeding, the
respective modified noise limits. All other floor levels of these nearest apartment buildings would
experience greater noise attenuation from the proposed noise barrier.

Mitigated noise levels at the Sacred Heart Shelter would be greatest during Phase 1 excavation and
demolition and hauling activities but would still be well below the applicable modified noise limit of 66
dBA. Consequently, with mitigation, night-time noise levels at surrounding residential land uses would be
less-than-significant.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-18 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 8-5. Predicted Noise Levels and Modified Noise Limits for Residential Receptors
Modeled Sound Levels
(unmitigated/mitigated)
Exceeds Limit
Sensitive Receptor Floor Construction Phases 3 Modified Limit with
Construction Phase 1 - (dBA)
and 4 – Peak mitigation?
Peak Excavation
Equipment Operations
(dBA)
(dBA)
2nd 70/59 80/62 72 No
3rd 72/63 80/67 71 No
Astro Apartments 4th 72/63 80/67 70 No
5th 72/63 80/67 69 No
6th 72/64 79/67 67 No
2nd 59/52 67/59 64 No
3rd 61/54 67/61 64 No
Expo Apartments 4th 63/55 69/63 64 No
5th 63/56 70/64 64 No
6th 63/57 69/64 64 No
1st 63/58 64/57 66 No
Sacred Heart Shelter
2nd 65/62 68/58 66 No
Note: Noise levels presented in this table are specific to the elevation of the receptor (floor) location. Consequently, values at lower
elevations will differ from those shown in Figure 8-5, which are at an elevation of 60 feet, representing the 6th floor.
Source: Ramboll, 2018.

As indicated in Figure 8-5, mitigated night-time construction noise impacts to KEXP, SIFF Film Center,
and The Vera Project immediately north of KeyArena in the Northwest Rooms could be 70 to 75 dBA
outside of the buildings, although these values are conservative as they reflect noise levels at a 60-foot
elevation. The A/NT Gallery would also experience night-time construction noise impacts, but it is not
considered a sensitive receptor. Mitigated night-time noise impacts to KEXP, SIFF Film Center, and The
Vera Project would be as much as 22 dBA over existing exterior evening noise levels intermittently
during peak periods of construction and would be a significant impact. These peak periods would most
likely occur during the overlap of Phases 3 and 4 if activity is concentrated on the north side of the
arena. Therefore, night-time construction noise impacts at uses in the Northwest Rooms would be a
significant and unavoidable impact. Noise levels at more distant non-residential receptors such as the
Seattle Children’s Theatre would be reduced to below a 6 dBA increase over existing ambient levels.

Vibration

There are no adopted state or local policies or standards for groundborne vibration. However, the FTA
has published guidance relative to vibration impacts for construction, and this guidance is commonly
applied to assess potential vibration impacts from construction. The average person is quite sensitive to
ground motion, and levels as low as 0.02 in/sec can be detected by the human body when background
noise and vibration levels are low. Vibration intensity is expressed as PPV, the maximum speed at which
the ground moves while it temporarily shakes.

Building Damage
Since groundshaking speeds are very slow, PPV is measured in inches per second. According to the FTA,
non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, such as Bressi Garage and the Sacred Heart Church, can
be exposed to groundborne vibration PPV levels of up to 0.2 in/sec without experiencing structural
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-19 August 2018
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

damage, while reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber buildings, such as the Astro Apartments and
Northwest Rooms, can be exposed to PPV levels of up to 0.5 in/sec (FTA, 2006). The nearest structures
to vibration-intensive equipment/activities are Bressi Garage and the Northwest Rooms. Excavation
under the KeyArena building would extend to the north of the arena structure into the International
Plaza and abut the south ends of the Northwest Rooms (see Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, Description of
Alternatives). However, this assessment focuses on vibration-intensive equipment/activities as identified
in guidance documents (FTA, 2006), which does not identify excavators and backhoes as major sources
of construction-related vibration. The Addendum to the Final EIS for the Seattle Center Master Plan
(Seattle Center, 2016) indicates that the Northwest Rooms underwent structural improvements and
modifications to the building shell and core.

Table 8-6 presents reference vibration levels at 25 feet as reported by FTA as well as vibration levels at
the nearest structure, the Northwest Rooms (at an approximately 30-foot distance to reflect potential
impacts from drill rig operations for pile installation activities at the arena footprint). Installation of piles
may be a necessary feature of building renovation during construction but would not involve impact or
vibratory pile driving. The potential exists for building damage to occur if certain equipment types (hoe
rams, vibratory rollers, or drill rigs) were operated close to buildings, which would be a significant
vibration-related impact. For example, operation of a vibratory roller within 25 feet of an older or
historic structure, such as Bressi Garage, would generate a PPV of 0.21 inch/second, which would be
over the standard of 0.2 inch per second for such structures (see Table 8-2). This would be a potentially
significant impact to Bressi Garage. The Northwest Rooms are immediately adjacent to construction
activities and although vibration levels are not anticipated to be over 0.5 in/sec at 25 feet, because of
proximity of construction, vibration may be sufficient for structural damage and could result in a
significant impact. All other structures are sufficiently distant from the proposed work areas to avoid
structural damage. Consequently, mitigation is identified in Section 8.6 to establish performance
standard buffer distances for vibration-generating construction equipment to address these potential
impacts. KeyArena, the Northwest Rooms, and Bressi Garage are designated as Seattle Landmarks; see
Section 6.4, Historic and Cultural Resources for a discussion of potential impacts to these Landmark-
designated structures.

Table 8-6. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels (PPV Metric)


Vibration Level
Reference Vibration Level Vibration Level
Construction Equipment (PPV at nearest
(PPV at 25 feet) (PPV at 30 feet)1
residence; 135 feet)
Vibratory roller 0.210 0.17 0.032
Hoe ram 0.089 0.073 0.014
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.073 0.014
Jackhammer 0.035 0.029 0.005
130 feet is the approximate minimum distance between the arena roofline and KEXP.
Source: Developed by ESA based on FTA, 2006.

Human Annoyance/Sensitive Building Operations


The closest land uses where people would be expected to sleep are the Expo Apartments
(approximately 115 feet north of the active construction area of the project site), the Astro Apartments
and the Dalmasso Apartments (approximately 30 feet west of the project site and 175 feet from the
arena), and the Sacred Heart Shelter (approximately 40 feet south of the closest potion of the project
site). The KEXP recording studio is approximately 30 feet from the northwest side of the arena, the A/NT
Gallery is approximately 25 feet from the northeast side of the arena, and The Vera Project and SIFF Film

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-20 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Center are approximately 115 feet to the north. The FTA identifies groundborne vibration criteria
relative to human disturbance or sensitive equipment operations in terms of VdB, instead of the PPV
metric. For both residential land uses where people normally sleep as well as recording studios, the FTA
identifies the types of construction activities associated with propagation of groundborne vibration
including impact equipment (such as hoe-rams) for demolishing large concrete structures, and caisson
drilling. Impact equipment such as hoe rams and jackhammers is not proposed for use during night-time
hours and therefore would not result in annoyance impacts when most people are trying to sleep.

Table 8-7 presents reference vibration levels at 25 feet in the VdB metric as reported by the FTA, as well
as estimated vibration levels at KEXP and at a 135-foot distance from potential impact equipment or
vibratory roller use to reflect potential impacts to the nearest receptors where people would be
expected to sleep. While excavation would abut the south ends of the foundation of the U-shaped
Northwest Rooms where KEXP and the A/NT Gallery are located, equipment involved with excavation
activities such as excavators and backhoes which may generate some vibration is not typically associated
with vibration impacts. Vibration-inducing construction equipment such as those identified in Table 8-7
could have an impact on operations of KEXP, as well as the other Seattle Center tenants in the
Northwest Rooms: A/NT Gallery, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project. Even at a distance of 100 feet,
the 65 VdB threshold for recording studios and concert halls (performance spaces) would be exceeded
by drill rig operations. Consequently, operation of vibration-inducing construction equipment could
result in an impact by disrupting the operations of KEXP and the A/NT Gallery, SIFF Film Center, and The
Vera Project if such equipment were to operate within 100 feet. These impacts would be significant for
KEXP, The Vera Project, and for SIFF Film Center, because these uses are sensitive receptors whose
operations require vibration-free conditions. Impacts to the nearest residential uses could also occur if
operation of vibration-inducing construction equipment were to occur within 75 feet during night-time
hours; however, no such uses would be this close to active construction areas, and vibration-related
annoyance impacts to residences or other areas where people would be expected to sleep would be
less-than-significant. Section 8.6 presents mitigation measures to address significant construction-
related vibration impacts. Identified significant vibration impacts would be reduced to less-than-
significant levels with the inclusion of the mitigation measures.

Table 8-7. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels (VdB Metric)


Vibration Level
Reference Vibration Vibration Level
Construction Equipment (VdB at nearest
Level (VdB at 25 feet) (VdB at 30 feet1)
residence; 135 feet2)
Vibratory roller 94 92 72
Hoe ram 87 85 65
Caisson drilling 87 85 65
Jackhammer 79 77 57
FTA Criteria Threshold (VdB) for Occasional Events
Category 1 Land Use
(Concert Halls, TV Studios, 65
and Recording Studios)
Category 2 Land Use
80
(Nearest Residence)
130 feet is the approximate minimum distance between the arena roofline and KEXP.
2135 feet is the approximate minimum distance between the work areas and Sacred Heart Church.
Source: Developed by ESA based on FTA, 2006.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-21 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Construction Impacts Summary for Alternative 1

Significant impacts associated with construction of Alternative 1 would include construction noise from
excavation, truck loading, and operation of impact equipment during night-time hours that require a
variance from the City’s noise ordinance. During the day, construction noise would be within the limits
of the SMC and impacts would be noticeable but less-than-significant for all surrounding uses. During
the night-time periods, impacts to the operations of the KEXP recording studio, The Vera Project, SIFF,
and the Seattle Children’s Theatre would be significant. The impacts are summarized in Table 8-8.

Table 8-8. Noise Construction Impact Summary

Will
Sensitivity
Sensitive Construction
Land Use/Building during Day, Significant Equipment/Activity
Receptor? Noise Be
Occupant Night, or Impact?1 (Y/N) Causing Impact
(Y/N) Noticeable?1
Both
(Y/N)
Night: Y Demolition, excavation;
KEXP Y Both Y
Day: N haul truck traffic
Night: N
A/NT Gallery N Both Y Demolition, excavation
Day: N
Night: Y Demolition, excavation;
SIFF Film Center Y Both Y
Day: N haul truck traffic
Night: Y
The Vera Project Y Both Y Demolition, excavation
Day: N
Night: Y
Impact equipment,
Sacred Heart Shelter Y Night Y Night (mitigated): N
demolition, excavation
Day: N
Night: Y
Demolition, excavation;
Expo Apartments Y Night Y Night (mitigated): N
haul truck traffic
Day: N
Night: Y Demolition, excavation,
Astro Apartments Y Night Y Night (mitigated): N truck loading; haul truck
Day: N traffic
Night: N
MightyKidz Daycare Y Day Y None-
Day: N
Night: Y Demolition, excavation,
Dalmasso
Y Night Y Night (mitigated): N truck loading; haul truck
Apartments
Day: N traffic
Night: Y
Seattle Children’s Demolition, excavation,
Y Both Y Night (mitigated): N
Theatre truck loading
Day: N
Seattle Repertory Night: N
Y Both Y None
Theatre Day: N
Night: N
Cornish Playhouse Y Both Y None-
Day: N
1Only construction noise that exposes people to noise levels that would result in sustained and substantial annoyance and
disruption of activities for receptors and/or exceeding the limits as defined in SMC 25.08.425(A) – (C) is considered a significant
impact. Construction noise may be noticeable to residents, workers, and visitors to buildings and spaces in the vicinity of the
project site, but not rise to a level that would make it a significant impact.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-22 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Vibration generated by impact equipment could also result in significant impacts to some sensitive
receptors. These impacts are summarized in Table 8-9.

Table 8-9. Vibration Construction Impact Summary


Sensitive Category of
Vibration
Land Use/Building Receptor? (Y/N Receptor for Significant? Equipment/Activi
Impact?
Occupant and Type of Use-Based (Y/N) ty Causing Impact
(Y/N)
Receptor)1 Receptors2

Y (use- recording Y Hoe rams, rollers,


KEXP 1 Y
studio) (mitigated): N drill rigs
Hoe rams, rollers,
A/NT Gallery N - Y N
drill rigs
Y Hoe rams, rollers,
SIFF Film Center Y (use) 1 Y
(mitigated): N drill rigs
Y (use – Y Hoe rams, rollers,
The Vera Project 1 Y
recording studio) (mitigated): N drill rigs
Y (use and Y Hoe rams, rollers,
Sacred Heart Shelter 2 Y
building type)3 (mitigated): N drill rigs
Y Hoe rams, rollers,
Bressi Garage Y (building type)3 - Y
(mitigated): N drill rigs
Y Hoe rams, rollers,
Northwest Rooms Y (building type) - Y
(mitigated): N drill rigs
Expo Apartments Y (use) 2 N N None
Astro Apartments Y (use) 2 N N None
MightyKidz Daycare N - N N None
Dalmasso Apartments Y (use) 2 N N None
Seattle Children’s
Y (use) 1 N N None
Theatre
Seattle Repertory
Y (use) 1 N N None
Theatre
Cornish Playhouse Y (use) 1 N N None
1 Sensitive receptors to vibration are determined in 2 different categories: land use and whether the structure itself could be
impacted by vibrations. Land use-based vibration receptors include locations where vibrations would interfere with interior
operations. Structure-based vibration receptors include buildings that are constructed with materials that are sensitive to
vibrations, or are of an age that makes them vulnerable.
2 FTA-generated vibration impact categories by land use. Category 1 uses are buildings where low ambient vibration is essential

for interior operations, and will be impacted by vibrations of 65 VdB for both frequent and infrequent events. Category 2 uses
are residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and are impacted at 72 VdB for frequent events and 80 VdB for
infrequent events (FTA, 2006).
3 Both Bressi Garage and the Sacred Heart Shelter are unreinforced masonry buildings.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

Noise

Daytime construction-related noise levels generated by Alternative 2 would be similar to those


described for Alternative 1. The location of construction equipment used for Alternative 2 would be the
same; however, Alternative 2 would result in a longer construction period since work hours would be
limited to daytime, those allowed under SMC 25.08.425. Under Alternative 2, construction would take at
least 6 additional months, and thus the types of daytime noise impacts described for Alternative 1 would
be experienced for a longer duration. The A/NT Gallery would also be impacted by construction noise.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-23 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

However, as there would be no night-time work (except work allowed inside the arena under
SMC 25.08.425) under Alternative 2, there would be no night-time noise impacts. All construction noise
impacts under Alternative 2 would be less-than-significant for all receptors.

Vibration

Construction vibration impacts for Alternative 2 would be no greater than those described for
Alternative 1. However, as there would be no night-time work outside the arena under Alternative 2,
there would be no night-time impacts. The locations and type of construction equipment used for
Alternative 2 are anticipated to be similar to Alternative 1, although the duration of construction would
be longer. Like Alternative 1, vibrations generated by impact equipment could impact the Northwest
Rooms and result in significant impacts to the building as well as operations of the KEXP recording
studio, SIFF Film Center, and The Vera Project.

8.5.2 Operations Impacts


The magnitude of the potential noise and vibration impacts from the project during operations is
classified as less-than-significant or significant. Significant impacts are defined as meeting the following
threshold. Less-than-significant impacts fall below this threshold. Impact characterization is based on
consistency with noise regulation criteria, which are based on potential annoyance and disturbance to
receptors.

Noise
Criteria for Significant Noise Impacts: The applicable exterior noise standard established in SMC
25.08.410(A) are applied to operational noise impacts. The anticipated exterior noise level standard is
increased by 5 dBA over existing ambient noise levels when the ambient noise levels already exceed
SMC 25.08.410(A) during the hosted events at the project site. The increase of traffic volumes during
events would also be considered in this threshold pursuant to FHWA’s definition of a readily perceptibly
increase in traffic noise levels.

Vibration
Vibration is primarily a construction-related issue. During project operations, vibration is anticipated to
be similar to existing conditions and is therefore not analyzed further as part of the EIS.

No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would not increase noise levels over existing conditions, which range between
approximately 63 and 69 dBA Leq for a 24-hour period (both on a day with and without an event based
on recent monitoring). Impacts would be less-than-significant.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Project operations would increase the frequency of existing noise sources, both stationary and mobile,
within the study area. Stationary noise sources would include the operation of public address systems
and amplification equipment, not only inside the arena but also for occasional outdoor performances
and events. Mobile noise sources would include increased traffic and crowd ingress and egress noise on
local streets.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-24 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Noise

The project is within an existing arena and event center that is surrounded by a characteristically noisy
urban environment where the existing noise level exceeds the current 60 dBA allowable limit for
commercial uses in SMC 25.08.410(A), as indicated by the results of the long-term measurements
revealing between 63 and 69 dBA Leq for a 24-hour period (both on a day with and without an event).
Additionally, all building infrastructure and equipment, including HVAC systems and vents, must adhere
to the Seattle Noise Control limits found in SMC 25.08.

Event-Related Noise
Amplified sound, either interior or exterior, would be required to be consistent with the noise
ordinance. Comparison of noise monitoring data of hourly Leq during a concert event and a non-event
indicated that only the 7:00 PM, 9:00 PM, and 11:00 PM hours reflected a measureable 1 dBA to 3 dBA
Leq increase in noise levels during a concert event (see Table 8-3).

The project would generate exterior noise levels similar to existing conditions, and thus would not
meaningfully add to the existing ambient noise levels in the study area. The project would be consistent
with the restrictions of the noise ordinance. In addition, the anticipated exterior noise levels would not
increase more than 5 dBA Leq over existing ambient noise levels when the ambient noise levels already
exceed those specified in SMC 25.08.410(A). Event-related noise is anticipated to be a less-than-
significant impact.

Frequency of Events
Operation of the project would increase the frequency of events. The existing arena hosts approximately
2 or 3 events per week on average. Upon completion, the Seattle Center Arena would host
approximately 4 or 5 events per week, depending on season, introducing NHL and NBA games, in
addition to continued concert events and WNBA games. Noise sources that currently exist (such as
amplified sound, outdoor events, and plaza programs for both pre-and-post events) would occur more
often. Exterior noise data indicate that the increase in noise levels during an event was minor and of
short duration, often related to vehicular or foot traffic of the crowd upon arrival and exiting (see
discussion under Event-Related Noise, above). In commercial districts, the allowable noise level can
increase up to 75 dBA Lmax for short durations within a given hour. Noise monitoring revealed that
Lmax levels during the events ranged from 69.4 dBA Lmax to 86.8 dBA Lmax. Although the number of
events would approximately double, the noise level within a single hour already exceeds the 75 dBA
Lmax limit set by SMC 25.08.410(B). These Lmax values can be associated with common urban activities
including sirens and car horns. Therefore, the increase in frequency of events at the arena would be a
less-than-significant impact.

Outdoor Plaza Events


Portions of the proposed outdoor plazas may be equipped with video screens and speakers during
certain events. This could accommodate activities such as outdoor festivals up to 2 hours before doors
open and 1 hour after event end; overflow crowds watching a sold-out game via boards and fan festivals
in the plaza area outside the venue; pre-concert radio booth/small stage with local support band before
larger indoor concert; and festivals that encompass inside and outside stages. Equipment for these
events could operate prior to and/or after some games or events.

While most of these activities would attract ticketed attendees for the arena event, some have the
potential to draw visitors in excess of the arena capacity, resulting in the need for and use of outdoor
screens and sound amplification. However, these instances are expected to be infrequent, such as a
local team participating in a playoff or championship game. The operator of the amplified equipment
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-25 August 2018
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

would be required to comply with SMC 25.08.520, which necessitates sound-control monitoring for
amplified sound at public parks and places such as the Seattle Center. Because the frequency of such
events would be low, and outdoor amplification currently occurs associated with events such as fun
runs, outdoor concerts, and gatherings, this would be a less-than-significant impact.

Traffic-Related Noise
Alternative 1 would increase the number of events at KeyArena. Current event-related traffic is
generated by about 100 events a year (2–3 a week); this would increase to about 240–260 annually (4 to
5 a week). Consequently, event-related traffic and its associated noise would not, by itself, increase with
the proposed project, but rather the frequency of event-related traffic days would increase.

Event-related noise, including roadside traffic, in the study area is captured in the monitoring data
presented in Table 8-3. The results of both the short-term and long-term noise measurements generally
reflect existing noise conditions, which are noisy and influenced by typical activities surrounding mixed-
use residential and commercial land uses in a downtown urban area. Table 8-3 indicates that while
hourly average Leq noise levels during an event can be as much as 3 dBA greater than those during the
same hour without the event, noise levels during most other hours were recorded to be similar to those
without an event. Consequently, the increase in the number of events under Alternative 1 would result
in additional hours per year where roadside noise levels would be increased, but the magnitude of those
increases would be at a level characterized as barely perceptible and would be a less-than-significant
impact.

Stationary Source Noise


Alternative 1 would construct ancillary structures adjacent to each of the 4 corners of the arena that
would house air intake and exhaust portals for the arena’s ventilation system. These would include an
approximately 22-foot extension to the southwest end of the Northwest Rooms that would house a
mechanical intake tower (west portion) and stairwell (east portion) for the arena. This intake portal
would be approximately 1 foot taller than flat rooftop of the existing building and, while adjacent to
KEXP, would not be directed toward any receptors. Additionally, a new building would be constructed in
the south plaza to house a box office, garage stairs, and a mechanical exhaust portal. Mechanical
functions would be flush with the flat rooftop of the box office building at an elevation of approximately
15 feet and approximately 160 feet east of the nearest receptor (Astro Apartments). This new box office
structure would replace the existing box office and NASA Building, the latter of which has 3 existing
street-side mechanical exhaust louvers directly facing the Astro Apartments at a distance of
approximately 80 feet to the west. Alternative 1 would replace the existing mechanical exhaust
equipment with newer equipment positioned farther away from the Astro Apartments. An intake in the
southeast corner of the project site would be approximately 165 feet from the nearest receptor (Sacred
Heart Shelter).

Mechanical equipment for the project would be subject to the maximum permissible operational noise
limits of SMC 25.08.410, which establishes a 60 dBA noise limit for commercially zoned properties
impacting other commercially zoned properties. The limits of the noise ordinance would not be
exceeded by the proposed project.

Operational Impacts Summary for Alternative 1

Based on the EIS analysis, operations noise impacts would be less-than-significant for event-related
noise, outdoor plaza noise, and event-related traffic.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-26 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal

Noise

Operations noise impacts for Alternative 2 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1.

8.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
OVG will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, including variance conditions. OVG is
working with the City to finalize Transaction Documents that specify commitments. Refer to Section 1.3
for additional discussion of the Transaction Documents.

8.6.1 Construction
Measures to Reduce Construction Noise Impacts
To address impacts related to the proposed construction activities outside of normal weekday hours,
OVG has applied for a Construction Noise Variance, which includes a Noise Management and Mitigation
Plan (NMMP). OVG’s Construction Noise Variance Application available at
http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms. The NMMP contains a description of the exterior sound level limits
of the chapter of the code expected to be exceeded, estimates of the amount(s) by which these levels
are expected to be exceeded and by what equipment, the exterior sound level limits that will be in
effect during the variance, the time periods during which the pre-variance exterior sound level limits
may be exceeded, and the expected sources of the sound during each of the time periods (e.g., types of
equipment or activity causing the exterior sound level limits to be exceeded). Additionally, the NMMP
includes measures and provisions to be taken to avoid exceeding the exterior sound level limits of the
chapter of the code expected to be exceeded; provisions to mitigate sounds that exceed the exterior
sound level limits and that cannot otherwise be avoided; and a process for informing the public in the
affected areas about the provisions of the variance.

It is recommended that construction contractors use the following standard best practices during both
daytime and night-time construction:

• Perform construction activity within the existing building shell when feasible to provide shielding
to noise-sensitive receptor locations.
• Reduce ramp grades from maximum possible slopes to reduce vehicle engine power needed to
ascend roadways.
• Prohibit compression brakes.
• Construct enclosures around stationary equipment that is outside the existing shell of the arena.
• Perform particularly noisy operations during daytime hours and/or schedule several noisy
operations to occur concurrently rather than separately.
• Employ time constraints for noisy operations to reduce potential impacts during sensitive time
periods.
• Train supervisors to increase awareness of construction noise as it relates to the noise-sensitive

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-27 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

surroundings and the requirements of the NMMP.


• Use properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers (if feasible), and engine
enclosures (if feasible).
• Turn off idle equipment after no more than 5 minutes.
• Line truck beds with rubberized, shock- and noise-absorbing material when used to load and haul
heavy materials such as concrete debris.
• Maintain and/or lubricate material conveyors to ensure they do not squeak.
• Provide a 24-hour construction noise monitoring system to log construction site noise.
• Use strobe warning lights, flaggers, or broadband backup alarms, in lieu of pure-tone alarms,
during night-time hours.
• Restrict truck hauling during the AM and PM peak traffic hours (typically between 7 and 10 AM
and between 4 and 7 PM, Monday through Friday).
• Work with affected Seattle Center tenants to identify which areas of operation are most directly
impacted by construction noise and offer methods of soundproofing that dampen the noise to
acceptable levels to meet their operational needs.
• Use OVG’s full-time Community Liaison to coordinate with affected organizations during the
construction phase to reduce noise-related impacts, including to events at the Fountain and
South Fountain Lawns and the surrounding community, and follow up regularly with affected
stakeholders.
For impacts caused by construction noise, the following potential measures are identified in the NMMP
to be implemented between 10 PM and 7 AM weekdays and 10 PM and 9 AM weekends and legal
holidays:

• Construct 12-foot high noise barriers on the north, west, and south sides of the construction site.
• Use conveyors to load excavated material into trucks for off-site transport.
• Use a quieted loader on the west side of the arena for activities related to the off-site transport
of excavated materials (75 dBA at 50 feet) for construction Phases 1 through 3.
• Operate concrete mix or pump trucks in the northeast corner of the north plaza construction
area or, alternatively, around the nearest corners to the east.
• Prohibit mobile crane use west of the arena during night-time hours.
• Reduce impact wrench noise by 10 dBA when operating north, west, or south of the arena, by
using quieter equipment, portable noise barriers, enclosures, or combinations thereof.
• Prohibit impact work such as auger shaking, jack hammering, hoe ram use, or vibratory
compacting during night-time hours.
• Use drilling methods in lieu of impact driving methods for shoring (i.e., soldier pile walls) and pier
installation.
• Prohibit concrete saw use during night-time hours.
• In lieu of pure-tone, mobile equipment backup alarms, use strobe warning lights or flaggers when
possible. When the use of strobe warning lights or flaggers is not feasible, the construction
contractor will use broadband backup alarms. Also, create site logistics that minimize the need
for mobile equipment to reverse.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-28 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Conduct continuous noise monitoring at locations representing sensitive receptors in the vicinity
of the site to ensure that night-time construction activities comply with the proposed modified
night-time construction noise limits. Submit weekly monitoring reports to SDCI. This function
could be implemented by an independent noise monitor, which would be an individual, firm, or
contracted staff member within SDCI independent from the contractor whose responsibility is to
oversee the monitoring of sound levels from construction covered by the Construction Noise
Variance and to report directly to the SDCI Coordinator for Noise Abatement.
• Use OVG’s full-time Community Liaison to coordinate with affected organizations during the
construction phase to reduce noise-related impacts, including to events at the Fountain and
South Fountain Lawns and the surrounding community, and follow up regularly with affected
stakeholders.
Additional noise mitigation measures may be offered to locations where bedroom/sleeping room
windows would be exposed to levels over the 60-dBA standard night-time limit due to night-time
construction as follows:

• For buildings more than 20 years old, new bedroom/sleeping room windows may be offered.
Current construction plans and predictive noise modeling identify that the following older
buildings may receive night-time construction sound levels in excess of 60 dBA:
○ The Dalmasso Apartments facing 1st Ave N and the construction site.
○ The Sacred Heart Shelter facing the construction site.
• For buildings without central air conditioning (i.e., all buildings except the Astro Apartments,
where air conditioning is available), offer to purchase portable or window air conditioning units
for bedrooms/sleeping rooms where predicted levels exceed 60 dBA.
○ Floors 2 through 5 of the Expo Apartments facing Republican St.
○ The Dalmasso Apartments facing 1st Ave N.
○ The Sacred Heart Shelter facing the construction site.

Measures to Reduce Construction Vibration Impacts


The City may require the contractors to implement the following vibration control measures related to
impact equipment and excavation activities:

• Require that contractors use non-vibratory excavator-mounted compaction wheels and small,
smooth drum rollers for final compaction of any asphalt base and asphalt concrete. If needed to
meet compaction requirements, smaller vibratory rollers will be used to minimize vibration levels
during repaving activities where needed to meet vibration standards.
• Prior to commencing impact equipment operations, require the contractor to notify Seattle
Center and affected tenants of the dates, hours, and expected duration of such activities.
• Structures sensitive to vibration may require stabilization during construction and/or repair after
construction.
• Require ongoing vibration monitoring of Bressi Garage, the Northwest Rooms, and KEXP
throughout construction in conjunction with the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board, as
needed. Submit weekly Monitoring Reports to SDCI when active demolition, drilling, or heavy-
duty compaction is to occur. This function could be implemented by an independent vibration
monitor.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-29 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Prior to commencement of any construction activities and at the completion of construction


activities, retain the services of qualified structural engineer to perform pre- and post-
construction assessments of the Bressi Garage, Northwest Rooms, and KEXP buildings to
document building conditions, including written and photographic descriptions of the existing
condition of exterior and interior locations.
• Use the OVG full-time Community Liaison to coordinate with local community organizations
during the construction phase to minimize vibration-related impacts to the surrounding
community, and follow up regularly with affected stakeholders.

8.6.2 Operations
By complying with SMC noise regulations and deploying temporary noise measures during the noisiest
concert events (e.g., a noise dampening curtain), noise impacts from operations of the arena would be
reduced to levels that are less-than-significant. To ensure that noise levels from stationary sources such
as ventilation intakes and exhaust comply with applicable regulations, mitigation measures are
identified below.

Measures to Reduce Stationary Source Noise Impacts


It is recommended that OVG provide any necessary controls to ensure that noise from mechanical
equipment intakes or exhaust portals associated with arena operations does not exceed a performance
standard of 60 dBA at the nearest commercially zoned land uses, as required by SMC 25.08.410.
Potential measures to achieve this standard may include but are not limited to:

• Use of sound absorptive barriers or enclosures.


• Installation of duct silencers.
• Installation of intake air sound baffle.

8.7 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


NOISE AND VIBRATION
Significant unavoidable adverse impacts from noise may result, even after implementation of mitigation
measures, due to the exceedance of the allowable noise levels in SMC 25.08.425. Night-time
construction would require a noise variance from the City; however, the granting of a variance, although
it requires implementation of an NMMP, would be unlikely to decrease the night-time construction
sound to levels conducive to recording studios and other activities at KEXP, The Vera Project, and the
SIFF Film Center over the duration of the construction period. Identified significant vibration impacts
would be reduced to less-than-significant levels after inclusion of identified mitigation measures.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 8-30 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

9.0 VISUAL RESOURCES


This chapter describes the visual character surrounding the
project site and the potential for the project to result in reduced Key Findings for Visual Resources
visual quality, impacts to scenic views, and increased light and
Construction-related impacts on visual
glare.
quality, scenic views, and light and glare
would be less-than-significant due to
Changes from the Draft EIS – This chapter has been revised since
the short duration of construction and
issuance of the Draft EIS to provide additional information about
use of a construction lighting plan.
project features that have been refined or changed, and to refine
information on potential light and glare impacts. Substantive Operational impacts on visual quality
revisions have been made to reflect additional evaluations would be less-than-significant as long as
relating to impacts to drivers from video signage, to clarify text, the project is designed to meet City and
and to add information to figures. The proposed signage plan has neighborhood design guidelines.
been revised by OVG, accompanied by a detailed lighting analysis
Operational impacts on scenic views
based on the updated proposal. These evaluations were would be less-than-significant because
reviewed by the EIS Consultant Team and incorporated as the project would not obstruct or
appropriate into the Final EIS. substantially change existing scenic
views.
Alternative 1 (the OVG Proposal) includes a proposed sign code
amendment to SMC 23.55, proposed by SDCI, that would create Operational impacts on light and glare
a Seattle Center sign overlay district and other changes that are anticipated to be significant under
would regulate the number, size, type, location, brightness, Alternative 1 because video signage
content, and operation of signs, including signage for the associated with the project could impair
renovated arena, the Northwest Rooms, and the south parcel the safety of drivers through
distraction. Alternative 2 eliminates the
(see Appendix G). Alternative 2 includes a modified version of
video feature to reduce impacts to
the proposed sign code amendment, as described below. The drivers.
potential effects of the code amendment are analyzed in the
Final EIS. Unmitigated light spillover could
adversely affect adjacent residential
uses.
9.1 METHODS Indirect and cumulative impacts on
visual quality, scenic views, or light and
This analysis includes potential impacts: (1) on visual quality, (2) glare are anticipated, but these
on scenic views, and (3) from light and glare. additional impacts would themselves be
less-than-significant, and would not add
Visual Quality to the severity of the operational
impacts that were considered
To assess impacts on visual quality, changes in the height, bulk, potentially significant.
scale, and character of the proposed project were reviewed for
consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations identified in Section 9.2, Regulatory Context.

Scenic Views
Potential impacts on scenic views were evaluated through a review of the project design, Google Street
View, and field observations.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Light and Glare


Impacts from increased light and glare were assessed Key Terms and Concepts
qualitatively in the Draft EIS, comparing existing light and
glare conditions with proposed light conditions (based on the Visual Quality – How well the overall
increased use of light and lighted fixtures) and the potential visual character of an area or field of
view meets viewer preferences. It is the
for glare based on building materials. For the Final EIS, a
aggregate of the visible attributes of a
quantitative analysis of light spill and light glare was prepared scene or object, including natural and
for OVG (RWDI, 2018). The findings of that analysis are built features. In urban settings, the
incorporated into this revised Final EIS chapter. In addition, visual character is influenced primarily
Fehr & Peers evaluated driver distraction, taking into account by the land use type and density, urban
the RWDI study as well as other research on driver distraction landscaping and design, and topography.
related to illuminated and changing image signs (Appendix C, For this analysis, high visual quality is
Tech Memo 9, Evaluation of Potential Effects of Proposed assigned to development that meets
Digital Sign on Distracted Driving). An analysis of shade and City regulations for height, bulk, and
shadow is not warranted because the project would not scale; transparency, setbacks, and
landscaping; and neighborhood and City
create shade or shadow impacts on any existing public open
design guidelines and design review
space due to the solar orientation of the new open space and requirements.
the small scale of structures that would be placed within the
new open space. This is described in further detail in Section Scenic Views – Views of Mount Rainier,
9.4.2, Operations Impacts. the Cascade and Olympic Mountain
ranges, Puget Sound, Lake Washington,
Lake Union, the Ship Canal, and the
Downtown skyline, including protected
9.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT public viewpoints (as identified in the
Seattle SEPA regulations), public views
The City has adopted SEPA policies and regulations for height, of Landmarks, view corridors, and
bulk, and scale (SMC 25.05.675.G); public view protection scenic routes.
(SMC 25.05.675.P); and light and glare (SMC 25.05.675.K). Glare – Glare occurs when a viewer
Regulations related to aesthetics and light and glare are also observes a source of light to which their
codified within the Land Use Code (SMC Title 23). eyes are not sufficiently adapted. Glare
can be disabling (i.e., physically
A number of City plans and policies are intended to set an prevents a viewer from effectively
aesthetic standard for development that aligns with City and perceiving objects) or can create
neighborhood visions for the appearance of the built distraction through visual discomfort.
environment. The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan (City of Luminance – The amount of visible light
Seattle, 2016a) provides an overview of aesthetic values emanating from a surface. Typically
citywide; the Queen Anne (Uptown) Neighborhood Plan measured in candela per square meter
provides neighborhood-specific policies (City of Seattle, (cd/m²); this unit is also referred to as
2016a); the Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan (Century “nits.” A common candle emits light
21 Plan) outlines a 20-year vision for redevelopment at with roughly 1 candela luminous
Seattle Center (Seattle Center, 2008); and the Century 21 intensity.
Design Guidelines provide a set of guidelines specific to Illuminance – The amount of visible
Seattle Center (Seattle Center, 2009). The City’s Uptown light falling onto a surface. Measured in
Urban Design Framework also describes the desired lumens per square meter (lm/m²),
neighborhood character and urban form for Uptown (City of which is also called “lux.” The lux value
Seattle, 2016b), with the assumption that the Century 21 Plan varies depending on the distance the
would be implemented. There is also a green street concept measurement is taken from a light
plan for Thomas St (also called an Urban Village source and the orientation of the
surface relative to the light source.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Neighborhood Access Street) (DPD and SDOT, 2013); the concept plan includes principles to
complement existing neighborhood character and promote visual quality. Compliance with the plan is
voluntary, and therefore consistency with this plan is not evaluated in the Final EIS.

The Seattle Design Guidelines (City of Seattle, 2013a) and Uptown Neighborhood Design Guidelines (City
of Seattle, 2013b) are used by the Seattle Design Commission to review projects. The Seattle Design
Commission reviews public projects and makes recommendations in the areas of urban design merit,
street vacation, public access, open space planning, integration of public art, and streetscape design.
The City is in the process of updating the Uptown Neighborhood Design Guidelines, which are expected
to be submitted to the City Council in late 2018 or early 2019 (City of Seattle, 2018).

Height, bulk, and scale requirements for Seattle Mixed (SM-UP) zones are detailed in SMC 23.48.702.
Height and bulk controls and other zoning regulations are used to protect scenic views; however,
project-specific review is often required to adequately assess impacts to public scenic views identified in
SMC 25.05.675.P. This includes public views of Historic Landmarks, which “contribute to the distinctive
quality or identity of their neighborhood or the City.” Specified view corridors are protected through
setback requirements in the Land Use Code. Light and glare from land uses in the Seattle Mixed zone are
regulated through SMC 23.47A.022. Light and glare from signs are regulated through SMC 23.55.016.

Signage for the project is regulated under Land Use Code section SMC 23.55. A comparison of the
applicable existing code provisions with proposed amendments is included in Appendix G. SDCI is
proposing to create a new sign overlay district and other changes that would regulate the number, size,
type, content, location, brightness, and operation of signs, including signage for the renovated arena,
the Northwest Rooms, and the south parcel. The existing KeyArena structure and rooftop signage
exceed current zoning height limits for rooftop signage, but this nonconforming signage is legally
established (see Chapter 3, Land Use).

9.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


The affected environment is described according to the existing visual quality, scenic views, and light
and glare.

9.3.1 Study Area


The study areas for visual quality, scenic views, and light and glare are shown on Figure 9-1.

Visual Quality
The visual quality study area is the 1 to 2 blocks surrounding the project site. This is based on the
developed nature of the area, which restricts the sight distance for viewers in the immediate vicinity.
Impacts to visual quality are most likely to occur where the site is most visible. However, all of Seattle
Center is included in the visual quality study area in recognition of the fact that there are plans and
guidelines for consistent visual quality at the Seattle Center (Seattle Center, 2008, 2009). Although the
renovated arena would be visible from areas outside of the study area, changes to height, bulk, and
scale would not be visible (except for changes to the cupola [the structure at the top of the roof] and
roof signage). Changes to the roof and the cupola are considered as part of the scenic views assessment.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 9-1. Study Area for Visual Resources

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Scenic Views
The study area for scenic views is the area within 1/2 mile of the project site parcels. The arena is visible
outside of this study area, but the potential for view change or alteration is low due to the relative scale
of the project within the urban landscape and the likelihood that views would be obscured by
topography and existing development. The study area used to assess impacts on public views of
Landmarks is the same as the study area used for the Historic and Cultural Resources assessment of
aboveground resources (see Chapter 6). The Landmark study area is also shown on Figure 9-1. The scale
of development would not obstruct views of Landmarks outside of the project site, so this analysis
focuses on changes to the Landmarks themselves and potential impacts to public views.

Light and Glare


The study area for light and glare includes the streets and buildings adjacent to the project site. The
project is in an urban environment with existing light and glare, as well as buildings that limit the
distance of light and glare impacts.

9.3.2 Existing Visual Quality, Scenic Views, and Light and Glare
This section describes existing conditions for visual quality, scenic views, and light and glare.

Visual Quality
KeyArena is a prominent structure on the west side of the Seattle Center campus in Uptown, a mixed-
use area between residential development on Queen Anne Hill to the north and larger scale
development in Downtown Seattle to the south. The topography of the study area and project site
slopes generally to the southwest, except for the east boundary of the site, where the topography
slopes downhill to the north. Vegetation in the study area includes mostly street trees and urban
landscaping (e.g., a variety of deciduous trees, grass, and flowering and non-flowering shrubs and
bushes). Seattle Center is a prominent feature in the study area and has its own unique built
environment, hosting a variety of architectural styles, larger buildings than the immediate surroundings,
and 40 acres of landscaped and green open space (City of Seattle, 2016a). This EIS analysis focuses on
the visual character of the built environment within and immediately adjacent to the project site. Figure
9-2 illustrates the prominent structures in the surrounding built environment.

Scenic Views
The following section describes the scenic views from protected public viewpoints and scenic routes,
public views of Landmarks, and private scenic views.

Public Views

SMC 25.05.675.P identifies protected viewpoints within the city. City policy protects public views of the
Space Needle from a number of public places, including selected local parks. There is 1 protected public
viewpoint within the scenic views study area from which the project would be perceptible: Kerry Park.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 9-2. Prominent Structures within the Visual Quality Study Area

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Although Myrtle Edwards Park and Bhy Kracke


Park are also in the study area, a field visit in
November 2017 determined that changes to
the arena would not be visible from either of
these locations due to topography and the
density of development. As shown in Photo 9-
1, Kerry Park provides scenic views of Seattle
Center, Downtown, Elliott Bay, and West
Seattle.

Scenic Routes

City of Seattle Ordinances #97025 (Scenic


Routes identified by the Seattle Engineering
Department’s Traffic Division) and #114057
Photo 9-1. View of KeyArena and Elliott Bay from
(Scenic Routes identified as protected view
Kerry Park
rights-of-way by the Seattle Mayor’s April
1987 Open Space Policies Recommendation) identify specific scenic routes throughout the city where
protection of views is encouraged. Some streets around the arena are designated as scenic routes by the
City for their territorial views of the city and surrounding mountains and water bodies as well as for their
views of structures within Seattle Center. The scenic routes with views of KeyArena are Mercer St, 2 nd
Ave N, Thomas St, and 1st Ave N (Figure 9-3).

Landmarks

City policy protects public views of Historic Landmarks designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board
(SMC 25.05.675.P). Four Landmarks are evaluated in the Landmark study area: KeyArena, Bressi Garage,
the Northwest Rooms, and International Plaza. This assessment evaluates changes to Landmark-
designated sites and building exteriors that would alter how the Landmark contributes to the distinctive
quality or identity of the neighborhood or the city. Consistency with the Landmarks Preservation
Ordinance is evaluated in Chapter 6, Historic and Cultural Resources.

Private Scenic Views

Mount Rainier, the Cascade and Olympic Mountain ranges, Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Union,
the Ship Canal, and the Downtown skyline can be seen from private properties throughout the study
area. However, the potential for private scenic view impacts from the project is greatest where the
arena is in the foreground. Due to the surrounding topography, impacts would most likely occur to
scenic views of the Downtown skyline from residences on Queen Anne Hill, where changes to the roof
would be most noticable.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Note: Although the adopted scenic route designation covers the entire length of Broad St to its intersection with Aurora Ave N,
the portion of Broad St north of Thomas St was permanently closed in 2014 to accommodate construction of the north portal
for the new SR 99 tunnel.

Figure 9-3. Scenic Views, Scenic Routes, and Landmarks Map

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Light and Glare


The project site is in an urban area with many sources of night-time lighting, as well as buildings with
surfaces that reflect both sunlight and artificial lighting at night. RWDI prepared a study of existing day
and night-time lighting levels in the vicinity of the project site for OVG (RWDI, 2018). Ambient light at
night varied from relatively dark streets and pathways on the north, east, and south sides of KeyArena
(2 lux), to relatively bright night-time conditions along 1st Ave N, ranging from 6 to 14 lux (RWDI, 2018).
Night-time lighting levels along 1st Ave N are typical for the level of commercial and mixed-use
development in the immediate vicinity and in Downtown Seattle. Street lights, building lights, vehicle
headlights, signage, and security lighting are all present in the study area. The luminance of existing light
sources ranges from 500–5,000 candela per square meter (cd/m2) for retail lighting, to 90,000 cd/m2 for
streetlights, and up to 120,000 cd/m2 for vehicle headlights (head on) (RWDI, 2018). (Note that units of
measurement differ for luminance, which uses cd/m2 or nits, and illuminance, which uses lux. These
units are defined under Key Terms and Concepts on page 9-2.)

The project site, as it exists today, includes the following light sources (some of which are shown in
Figure 9-4):

 Lighted signs (KeyArena sign, the digital sign on 1st Ave N, etc.).
 Light fixtures under building overhangs.
 Light from the interior of KeyArena shining through the glass windows.
 Street lights.
 Pedestrian-scale lighting along sidewalks (1st Ave N) and pathways within the Seattle Center.
 Landscape lighting.
 Security lighting.
Glare also occurs during the daytime when sunlight reflects from glass or metal surfaces. Sources of
glare in the study area are largely reflections from building façades. The roof of the arena can also
produce a moderate amount of glare, depending on the position of the sun and the viewer (RWDI,
2018).

9.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


Impacts can be short-term related to construction activities, or long-term related to the permanent
structure and operation of the project.

9.4.1 Construction Impacts


Although impacts on visual quality as a result of construction are not expected to be significant due to
their temporary and short-term nature, potential impacts are described briefly below. The magnitude of
potential impacts on scenic views or light and glare as a result of construction would be characterized as
significant as follows. Impacts that do not reach this threshold would be less‐than‐significant.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Note: These photos were taken at twilight (4:30 PM in mid-December) to show lighting conditions in the study area. Twilight is
an ideal time to photograph light conditions because it is light enough for viewers to identify surrounding buildings, but dark
enough that the light and glare impacts are fully shown.
Figure 9-4. Existing Light Conditions at KeyArena

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts: The impacts of construction activities would be significant
if construction would largely block or obstruct a scenic view for more than 3 years, or if construction
produced light and glare that would impair the safety of nearby drivers and pedestrians.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the arena, surrounding buildings, or the
arena property. No significant impacts on visual quality, scenic views, or light and glare would occur.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal

Visual Quality

Potential impacts on visual resources can result from construction staging and material storage; detours;
fencing around the perimeter of the construction area; signage, including wayfinding signs for vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians; land use notices; construction company signage; scaffolding; temporary
vegetation clearing; and the increased presence of construction vehicles, equipment, materials, and
personnel. Overall, construction-related significant impacts to visual quality are not anticipated due to
the limited geographic extent of impacts and their temporary nature.

Scenic Views

Construction of the project is expected to take approximately 24 months. Construction activities visible
from Kerry Park would be minimal and would be associated with installing a larger cupola and new signs
on top of the arena. The majority of construction activities (e.g., demolition of existing structures,
construction staging, etc.) would be visible from locations along 1st Ave N, 2nd Ave N, and Thomas St.
Views from these scenic routes would be slightly altered for much of the construction period. As
described in Section 9.2, Regulatory Context, public views of Landmarks are protected as a scenic
resource because they contribute to the distinctive quality and identity of the neighborhood and city.

KeyArena, Bressi Garage, the Northwest Rooms, and International Plaza are designated Landmarks.
Construction activities would likely obscure views of these Landmarks during active construction.
Dismantling of Bressi Garage was considered in the Draft EIS, but OVG has since determined that the
tunnel would be constructed using a mining method that does not require dismantling of the building.
Only the east portion of the Pottery Northwest kiln shed would be removed. Modification to the south
ends of the Northwest Rooms, the curtain wall on the south façade of the arena, and the International
Plaza would affect the appearance of those portions of the Landmarks during construction (See Section
2.6, Construction, for more information). During construction, staging and construction equipment could
obscure or detract from the enjoyment of these Landmarks although the impacts would be temporary.
Permanent impacts to designated Landmarks would be subject to the City’s Certificate of Approval
process. The project would comply with any restoration required as part of that approval.

Due to the 2-year duration of construction, construction impacts to scenic views would be less-than-
significant.

Light and Glare

Night work outside of the arena would occur during the first 6 months of construction and periodically
for the remainder of construction, requiring lighting. This would include light-emitting diode (LED)
perimeter lighting, lights from construction vehicles, and lighting on cranes that would be pointed

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

downward and inward toward the site. Light from night work would be most noticeable to residents of
the Astro Apartments and the shelter at Sacred Heart Church, which face the project site. These
residents would see lighting for demolition of the buildings south of KeyArena and excavation of the
underground parking garage and loading dock. Seattle Center tenants at the Northwest Rooms would
see lighting from work in the plaza north of the arena. The lighted construction area would also be
noticeable from the Seattle Center campus to the east including Fisher Pavilion, 1st Ave N, and Thomas
St; however, the presence of existing trees would partially shield construction lighting. With the
exception of construction lighting for work on the roof of the arena, lighting would be less visible north
of the project site because the Northwest Rooms building would prevent spilling of construction lighting
onto adjacent properties. Construction lighting would be shielded or directed (to the extent feasible) to
avoid light trespass that could create light and glare issues for passing drivers and pedestrians. Because
they would not last 3 years or longer or result in impacts to pedestrian or driver safety, these impacts
would be less-than-significant.

With implementation of a construction lighting plan that would limit light spillage, as described in
section 9.6.1 Construction, impacts from increased light and glare would be less-than-significant.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Construction impacts on visual quality, scenic views, and light and glare would be similar to those
described for Alternative 1; however, there would be no night work and thus less impact from night-
time lighting. Because of the short daylight hours in the winter in Seattle, some construction lighting
would likely be necessary, even for normal daytime work. Also, construction would last at least 30
months, and impacts would occur over a longer period of time. Impacts would be less-than-significant
due to their limited geographic extent and temporary nature.

9.4.2 Operations Impacts


The following defines long-term (operations) impacts on visual quality, scenic views, and light and glare.
The project could have an impact if it caused a substantial disruption or change to the existing or future
visual environment. The magnitude of the potential impacts would be classified as significant as defined
below. Impacts that do not reach this threshold would be less‐than‐significant.

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts: The project would have a significant impact if it resulted in a
substantial decrease in visual quality to the point that it would not align with the City and neighborhood
visions for the visual environment as expressed through applicable plans, policies, and guidelines;
substantially and permanently changed a scenic view; or produced light and glare that would impair the
safety of drivers and pedestrians.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the arena, surrounding buildings, or the
arena property. No significant impacts on visual quality, scenic views, or light and glare would occur.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Proposed Sign Code Amendment
Impacts associated with Alternative 1 are described in
terms of impacts on visual quality, scenic views, and light City sign regulations currently limit the
and glare. number, size, type, illumination, video
display, commercial content, and other
Visual Quality characteristics of signs associated with
the arena. As part of Alternative 1, the
Table 9-1 describes anticipated changes in visual character City is proposing a sign code amendment
under Alternative 1. to the Land Use Code (SMC 23.55), to
create a new Seattle Center sign overlay
The atrium lobby would be a departure from the existing district and other changes that would
visual character by introducing a glass-walled structure regulate the number, size, type, location,
with a more modern appearance. However, it has been brightness, content, and operation of
signs for the renovated arena, the
designed to fit within the width (to the west and east) of
Northwest rooms, and the accessory
the existing façade. Overall, the bulk and scale of the
parking sites to the south.
project would be reduced because 5 structures and the
skatepark would be removed. The new box office and
stairs/mechanical buildings would be similar in height, bulk, and scale to the existing buildings on the
south plaza. Under Alternative 1, the height of the arena would be unchanged.

Alternative 1 would result in views across the site being more open and less obstructed because
buildings adjacent to the lot line, existing gates, and loading dock equipment would be removed, and
new buildings would be constructed more centrally within the site. In addition, the grade on the south
side of the site would be leveled to provide a flat plaza that is at-grade with the street and the arena,
retaining open views across that portion of the site. More public open space would be provided, which
would include landscaping and urban design features that meet City and neighborhood design
guidelines.

The increased number and size of allowable signs, banners, and lights could lead to additional visual
clutter.

Overall, the visual quality of the project site would change as a result of the project. Some people would
find the modernized appearance of the site to be more aesthetically pleasing than others. It is not
anticipated that there would be a substantial decrease in visual quality to the point that the project
would not align with the City and neighborhood visions for the visual environment. Therefore, impacts
to visual quality would be less-than-significant.

Scenic Views

Most of the changes to the project site would not be visible from the protected view at Kerry Park.
Changes to the roof (i.e., the larger and brighter signs, larger cupola on top of the arena, and accent
lighting on the roof) would not significantly impact views of Downtown because they would not obstruct
or hinder views from Kerry Park. In addition, construction of larger signs would not result in a long-term
perceptible change to the view of the arena from Kerry Park. Impacts to private views from residences
on Queen Anne Hill would likely be similar to those from Kerry Park, except the arena may be more
centrally located within some residential views. The project would also be visible from protected
viewpoints outside of the study area. However, it is unlikely that views would be substantially altered
due to the relative scale of the project within the urban landscape. In addition, the project would not be
visible from many of the viewpoints due to topography, vegetation, or existing development.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9-1. Changes to Visual Character Under Alternative 1


 Wider cupola (may be up to 50% wider but not taller).
 Larger roof signs (approximately triple in size; the maximum proposed area for
each of the 4 roof signs is 700 square feet).
 Full-color digital display wall signs on the west and south façades of a new
mechanical equipment structure approximately 28 feet from 1st Ave N.
 A digital display sign facing 1st Ave N (replacing the existing free-standing digital
display sign), with video capability.
 A new static site identity sign adjacent to the sidewalk along 1st Ave N near the
southwest corner of the site.
 Addition of a glass atrium on the south side of the arena. The atrium would
Changes to Height, include a large digital display, or several smaller displays totaling approximately
Bulk, and Scale 2,400 square feet, which would be visible through the glass walls of the atrium,
including from Thomas St.
 NASA Building, West Court Building (existing box office), Blue Spruce Building,
Seattle Center Pavilion, Restroom Pavilion, and skatepark demolished.
 Addition of new box office building (approximately 50 feet by 62 feet and 15 feet
tall), which would also house stairs and mechanical structures.
 Building equipment (e.g., envelope cooling towers) added to the rooftop of the
1st Ave N Garage.
 Equipment in the southeast portion of the Northwest Rooms (A/NT Art Gallery)
would be replaced with mechanical equipment and egress stairs.
 The southwest portion of the Northwest Rooms (adjacent to KEXP) would be
extended to house mechanical equipment and egress stairs.
 Less obstructed views across site due to removal of buildings, existing gates, and
loading dock equipment, and placement of new buildings more centrally within
the site.
 Additional on-site pedestrian sidewalks and open spaces along north side of
Thomas St allow increased visibility.
 New trees, low-level planting, and furnishings (e.g., seating and bicycle racks).
 Trees removed would be replaced according to mitigation requirements.
 Grade of the south side of the site would be leveled, replacing the depressed
grade of the current loading area with a flat plaza that is at-grade with street and
Changes to the arena.
Transparency,  Elevations of west and east plazas would be restored to elevations more
Setbacks, Site Fixtures, consistent with the arena as it existed in 1962.
Sign Operation, and
 Public artwork on the project site would be removed in accordance with
Landscaping
SMC 3.14.840 (Deaccessioning and Disposition of Surplus Artworks).
 Increased size and abundance of signs, banners, and light fixtures.
 Video display signs would have images and video that change more rapidly than
currently allowed by code, and would be visible from adjacent streets.
 Brightness of all illuminated signs, including changing image and video displays,
would be restricted to no more than 0.3 foot-candles over ambient conditions at
specified distances, which vary by sign size.
 Security gates, railings, loading dock equipment, and security lighting in the
service area south of the arena removed.
 Other parking accessories removed in the south parcel surface parking.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Public views from scenic routes could be improved from


Key Lighting Terminology:
Thomas St, 1st Ave N, and 2nd Ave N with the removal of
buildings, gates, and equipment on the south and west sides Sources used both metric and non-metric
of the arena and new structures being placed away from the units for describing light intensity. The
City’s existing sign code uses a metric
lot line, allowing for more open views of Seattle Center. The 3
measure, and the proposed code
digital signs and a large site identity sign proposed along 1st amendment uses a non-metric unit. These
Ave N, along with the other proposed signage and lighting, terms are explained below.
would change the views of the arena from 1st Ave N. What is a candela?
However, they would not result in significant scenic view
A candela is a non-metric unit of light
obstruction or alteration because they would be surrounded
(luminous intensity), roughly equivalent to
by open space, and the majority of the west plaza of the the luminous intensity emitted by a
arena would remain visible from the street. Sign I-1 would be common candle.
140 square feet and have video display. The other 2 digital What is a nit?
display signs (I-2 and I-3) would be on the west and south
A metric unit of luminance, defined as
walls, respectively, of a new mechanical structure and would
candela (luminous intensity) per square
have digital displays but not video. The site identity sign meter (cd/m2). Nits quantify surface
would be adjacent to the sidewalk on 1st Ave N and would be brightness, or the amount of light an object
illuminated, with the potential to change color. The new signs gives off.
would attract the eye of passersby, especially when video Outdoor Advertising Association of America
imagery is displayed. However, due to the scale of the arena recommendations for digital billboard
and surrounding plaza, a proposed required setback of 25 luminance = 300–350 nits.
feet from the face of the curb for the video display signs, and The Illuminating Engineering Society of
the street trees on 1st Ave N that would remain, these signs North America (IESNA) recommendations
would not detract from the existing scenic views along the for digital billboard luminance = 250 nits
adjacent streets. (day), 125 nits (night). [Source: Young,
2010]
The proposed roof signs would not result in significant In Seattle, SMC 23.55.005A.10 states:
adverse impacts to scenic views from designated viewpoints “between dusk and dawn the video display
due to the placement of the signs in a developed setting with shall be limited in brightness to no more
taller, lighted buildings in the background. than 500 units.” Because “units” are not
defined in the code, for the purposes of
Impacts to scenic views of designated Landmarks would this EIS, we assume that the units are nits.
occur. However, they are considered significant only if they What is a foot-candle?
would result in a Landmark no longer contributing to the A foot-candle is non-metric measure of the
distinctive quality and identity of the neighborhood and city. amount of light cast on a surface
Additionally, all changes to designated Landmarks would be (illuminance) by a 1-candela source 1 foot
subject to Landmarks Preservation Board review and away. In the U.S., foot-candles are the
approval. The proposed accent lighting along the roof would commonly used metric for measuring light
change the visual character of the roofline (a designated in buildings and outdoor spaces.
feature of the Landmark). However, the lighting would not The proposed amendment to the sign code
substantially change views of the arena because the would use foot-candles as a measure of the
symmetry of the roof would be the same and the lighting brightness of light emitted by illuminated
would not make the roof unrecognizable from existing signs, because illuminance is more easily
conditions. measured than luminance, and because
light meters that measure illuminance in
The new atrium lobby would change the south façade of the foot-candles are relatively inexpensive and
easy to use for enforcement purposes.
arena building but would preserve the view of Landmark-
designated pylon and V-shaped support columns. The south
façade, including the curtain wall (the curtain wall is a

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Landmark-designated feature), would be removed for the new atrium lobby. Because other Landmark-
designated features would remain in place, removal of the south curtain wall would not eliminate the
visual integrity of the structure. Therefore, the structure would still convey its historical significance.

The new extension to the Northwest Rooms (adjacent to KEXP) for egress stairs and mechanical
equipment would change the visual character of the Northwest Rooms by extending the building farther
to the south. The building extension design would emulate the existing height, bulk, and scale of the
Northwest Rooms; therefore, it is not expected to adversely affect the character of the site or vicinity.
The proposed sign code amendment would also allow a new “ticker tape” sign proposed by KEXP,
adding a new feature at the northwest corner of the Northwest Rooms that would attract the viewer’s
eye. The sign would not significantly change the overall character of the rest of the building and would
be a relatively small-sized (1.5 feet in height) and minor visual feature in the context at the corner of 1st
Ave N and N Republican St. Note that the ticker tape sign is proposed by KEXP and is not part of the
Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project; it is included in this discussion because it would be allowed
under the proposed sign code amendment.

Changes would also be made to the International Plaza north of the existing arena. Changes include
removal and replacement of the existing hardscape, art, lighting, and 2 legacy trees, and installation of
an ADA ramp. As a result, the appearance of the plaza would substantially change. However, the plaza
does not currently contribute to the distinctive quality and identity of the neighborhood and city due to
its limited visibility; therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.

Under Alternative 1, the exterior of the Bressi Garage building would be preserved during construction.
Removal of the east portion of the kiln shed would increase visibility of the Bressi Garage Landmark.
Adverse impacts to Bressi Garage are not anticipated. These changes would be less-than-significant.

In addition, all changes to designated Landmarks would be subject to Landmarks Preservation Board
review and approval. This review helps ensure that any impacts to designated Landmarks would not be
significant.

In summary, no significant impacts to scenic views would occur.

Light and Glare

The project would add new night-time lighting on the project site, increasing the illumination levels of
the existing setting. Figure 9-5 shows the proposed signage at Seattle Center, with the various types of
signs and lighting components indicated by letters A–N. Proposed placement of the sign types is
indicated in the figure. See Figure 9-5 and the Seattle Center Arena Exterior Sign Proposal in Appendix G.
The major signage and lighting components include the following:

 Four internally illuminated crown identity or roof signs (approximately 16 feet high by 43 feet
wide) that could change color for different events (sign A on Figure 9-5).
 A 140-square foot digital display sign with video capability near the intersection of 1st Ave N and
Harrison St (sign I-1). The sign would face 1st Ave N and would replace the existing 50-square
foot digital display at the arena.
 The mechanical structure southwest of the arena would have a 645-square foot digital display
wall sign on the west façade (sign I-2) facing toward 1st Ave N, and a 300-square foot digital
display sign on the south façade of the structure (sign I-3). (Under existing code requirements, a
wall sign could be up to 672 square feet.)

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Accent lighting on the roof would be approximately 6 inches wide by 160 feet long (lighting
feature labeled as “C”).
 Digital signage would be displayed in the atrium lobby and visible outside of the arena through
the glass.
 Illuminated signs would be placed above entry doors with static messages, and light pole
banners (approximately 30 square feet per sign face), pedestrian direction pylons
(approximately 3 feet wide by 11 feet high), and 2-sided digital reader boards or digital wall
signs (approximately 10 feet high by 5 feet wide) would be placed throughout the site.
Under the proposed sign code amendment, the maximum number of ground, roof, and projecting signs
along the frontage on public rights-of-way could be allowed to increase from 6 to approximately 24 signs
if the amendment is adopted as proposed (see Appendix G). Also, up to 35 poles with pole-banner signs
could be placed in outdoor areas, along with a variety of wall signs. Such an increase in signs of various
types would change the appearance of the arena; more lighting and dynamic signs would make the
arena a more prominent focal point within the visual environment, contrasting with surrounding
development. Because the existing arena is a unique land use, there is already a high degree of contrast
in the lighting and signage. However, the collective effect of these proposed changes would be to
sharpen the contrast even more. Individually and collectively, the signage allowed under the proposed
sign code amendment and included in the project design would add new light sources that could cause
both spillover light and glare.

Figure 9-6 is a rendering of what the renovated arena might look like from Fisher Pavilion, with a digital
reader board in the foreground and the digital atrium signage.

Sign Brightness
In general terms, glare occurs when a viewer observes a source of light to which their eyes are not
sufficiently adapted. Glare can be disabling (i.e., physically prevents a viewer from effectively perceiving
objects) or can create distraction through visual discomfort. Glare depends on the physiology and
psychology of the viewer as well as the luminance levels within their field of view, and has been studied
sufficiently to understand what light levels are generally found offensive or considered a safety risk
along roadways (Lighting Sciences, 2008).

Luminance refers to the surface brightness of an object, and is not dependent on either the distance of
the viewer or the ambient light levels. The current sign code (SMC 23.55) limits sign luminance at night
to reduce the likelihood of glare and spillover light.

The proposed sign code amendment would establish brightness limits based on measurement of foot-
candles. The brightness of any illuminated sign, including a changing image or video display sign, would
be limited to 0.3 foot-candles measured at a specified distance from the sign face, depending on the size
of the sign. This limit would allow signs that are bright enough at night to be readable, but would limit
the apparent brightness to a level that individually should not cause significant glare from the specified
distance, which varies with sign size.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Source: Provided by Populous 2018

Figure 9-5. Highlights of Proposed Signage with Light and Glare Impacts

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-18 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 9-6. Potential Signage and Lighting Conditions

Using the assumption that the proposed signs would meet the proposed brightness limits, RWDI
calculated maximum night-time luminance for each of the large signs along 1st Ave N, using the “nit”
metric currently found in SMC 23.55.005A.10 for video signs (Munn, 2018). Based on the proposed sign
sizes and these brightness limits, the largest signs proposed, including those adjacent to 1st Ave N, would
generally have luminance that is lower than the 500-nit dusk-to-dawn limit established in SMC
23.55.005A.10. The proposed video display sign (I-1) could be as bright as 520 nits at night, a slight
increase from the current code limit, but not a large difference in brightness. At these levels and given
the ambient light levels at the arena along 1st Ave N, new signs along this street would generally not
cause glare problems at night (Lighting Sciences, 2008). However, the proposed standard does not
address the cumulative effect of multiple signs in the same location, so it is possible that glare could
occur when several signs are clustered within a particular view. OVG has proposed some smaller signs
around the arena that could have a night-time luminance up to 1,400 nits (RWDI, 2018); however, due
to their limited size and the ambient light within the project site, none of these is expected to cause
glare issues on adjacent streets.

RWDI also analyzed the potential for night-time glare affecting drivers on 1st Ave N, by calculating the
veiling luminance ratio, a measure that examines the light from a light source relative to ambient light
levels. Generally, a ratio of 30% or lower is acceptable (RWDI 2018; Appendix C: Tech Memo 9). In all
cases except one, the ratios were below 30%. The instance where the ratio was at 48% was from a
position approximately 1 block south of the site identity sign and the 2 large digital display signs on the
mechanical building. The ambient light level would be relatively low from this position, and the arena
signs would form a bright spot on the right side of 1st Ave N for drivers. However, within a half a block,
the ratio drops substantially; thus, exposure would be very short. In addition, the model used did not
include street trees, the trunks of which would somewhat obscure the view of the signs from this
distance. Based on these findings, glare would not likely impair vision during the night-time in a

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-19 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

significantly adverse manner and thus would not likely impact the safety of drivers or pedestrians. The
signs could contribute to driver distraction, however, as described below under Changing Image Signs.

During the daytime, signage luminance would increase so as to remain above ambient light levels, but
would be limited at all times to no more than 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light levels (a restriction
that is not included under current regulations). This would ensure that the proposed luminance levels
would not cause glare that would impair vision in a manner that would significantly impact the safety of
drivers or pedestrians in the daytime. However, the proposed luminance levels could contribute to
driver distraction, as described below.

The amendment to the sign code would allow some smaller Qualitative Descriptions of Light
signs to be brighter than the current code would allow, but Spillover Effects
overall would limit sign brightness to levels that are not The RWDI analysis compared the light
expected to cause glare impacts. spillover levels with a number of
qualitative metrics from various studies
Light Spillover from Signs
that examined “visual comfort.” While
Site lighting and brightly lit signs, especially those with visual comfort is subjective, these
dynamic displays that change in light intensity, could affect studies developed various metrics to
the interior light levels in adjacent buildings, in the worst case quantify impacts on visual comfort. For
possibly affecting sleep and general enjoyment for occupants its analysis, RWDI looked at the level of
impacts using the various metrics and
of those buildings. RWDI analyzed the level of probable light
summarized into 4 subjective glare
spillover from all of the light sources proposed with the rankings: imperceptible, perceptible,
project. disturbing, and intolerable.
The east and north sides of the arena face internally toward
other uses at Seattle Center. Because spillover light in those directions would be very limited and of low
intensity, and because those uses are not considered sensitive to spillover light, the project would not
adversely affect adjacent uses within Seattle Center. The roof of the arena is visible from the Expo
Apartments to the north. This means the proposed rooftop accent lighting and the enlarged illuminated
roof signs would be visible to Expo Apartments residents. RWDI found that light spillover levels from the
project would not adversely affect the Expo Apartments (RWDI, 2018).

The west side of the arena faces residential and commercial uses and an arterial street, and the south
side faces a church and shelter. In these areas where the signs and other lighting would be visible, the
general public and these adjacent uses could be adversely affected by brightly lit signs and video
displays that could operate throughout the day and into the early night for many nights of the year.

The proposed limits on glare were developed based on a methodology originally developed to limit
spillover light or light trespass in a report produced by Lighting Sciences (2008). As the report states,
“(t)he limitation values were determined from an extensive human factors research project into the
levels of light trespass that may or may not be considered objectionable in the various zones. Application
of the limits would keep light trespass to a low level that is unlikely to be considered objectionable to
most persons” (Lighting Sciences, 2008). The proposed sign code amendment includes a table based on
this methodology that specifies the distance from an illuminated sign at which the specified limit of
0.3 foot-candles over ambient light levels must be measured.

RWDI also modeled the potential light levels from the arena renovation project where they reach
adjacent uses, which are generally closer than the distances in the sign code amendment. They found
that none of the light levels would be high enough to be disturbing when site conditions were taken into
account (RWDI, 2018). In all areas surrounding the project, light spillover from the project would be low

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-20 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

and similar to existing conditions, with the exception of the sidewalk west of the site identity sign on 1st
Ave N, and at the east façade of the Astro Apartments across 1st Ave N from the large digital signs and
site identity sign, as described below.

The light spillover on the sidewalk would create an area of brightly lit sidewalk surface but would not
adversely affect adjacent uses.

The Astro Apartments building has units on the 2nd through 6th floors. The RWDI model showed that if
signs were lit and unobstructed, light levels on the façade of the Astro Apartments could be as high as 7
foot-candles, which is potentially bright enough to be disturbing. Because 1st Ave N is lined with large
street trees, RWDI analyzed light levels with trees in leaf and without. This analysis found that trees,
even without leaves, would sufficiently screen the light such that light levels would be perceptible but
not disturbing (RWDI, 2018). This analysis assumed that the branching on the trees would be uniform
and did not consider if some trees might have few lower limbs. Thus, it is possible that light levels at the
lower-level apartments could be near or above a level that could be disturbing. These light levels could
be reduced with interior window coverings or by dimming the light levels.

The new atrium lobby would include video-capable digital signage that could be up to 30% of the size of
the glass atrium wall (with a video display or displays totaling approximately 2,400 square feet). Because
of the distance from the street, light spillover from this signage would not adversely affect adjacent
properties.

The name and logo on the roof signs would change from existing conditions, but the signs would not be
brighter than currently allowed at night. Accent lighting on the roof would be added. The upper floors of
the Expo Apartments to the north have views of the upper portion of the arena, including the internally
illuminated roof signs. The closest point of the Expo Apartments is approximately 450 feet horizontally
north and 50 vertical feet below the existing roof signs. Accent lighting would consist of light reflected
off of the concrete beams that support the roof of the arena and embedded lights at the roof seams and
eaves, and is not expected to cause adverse impacts, although it would make the beams, seams, and
eaves more visible at night. Depending on the combined luminance of the roof signs and accent lighting
at night, the apartments could experience a noticeable increase in light spillage, but it is not expected to
adversely affect residents.

Proposed changes to the sign code would limit night-time luminance from all illuminated signs to
0.3 foot-candles over ambient light levels; the current sign code only limits the brightness of video signs.
The sign code does not regulate the brightness of accent lighting. The sign code amendment would also
increase the size and number of pole, ground, roof, and projecting signs. Overall, the added limit to sign
brightness would reduce the potential for individual signs to be the cause of any light spillover, but
would leave the possibility that the combined effect of more and larger signs could lead to light
spillover.

Changing Image Signs


Changing image signs include any type of sign on which the display image can change, either
mechanically or digitally. The proposal includes a number of digital changing image signs. Digital
changing image signs include displays of static images that change intermittently, as well as video
displays where the images move as on a television screen. Under Alternative 1, larger and more
numerous changing image signs are proposed on the site. Some of the signs proposed could distract
drivers.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-21 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

With frequent changes in color, light intensity, and motion, the changing image signs on 1st Ave N, even
those without video, could distract drivers on 1st Ave N and Harrison St, and at 1st Ave N and Thomas St.
In particular, the sign with video display capability (sign I-1) has the potential to impair the safety of
drivers and pedestrians, and therefore significant impacts could occur.

Non-video changing image signs could be operated 24 hours a day. Video displays would be limited to
operating between 7 AM and 10 PM on non-event days. On event days, video displays could also be
used until 1 hour after the event ends regardless of the time of day. The proposed changing image
displays would be visible from neighboring streets and properties, and could display messages up to 10-
seconds in length before a still or blank image is displayed. There would be 10 seconds of a still or blank
image between videos. The changing image displays on 1st Ave N would each be several times larger
than the existing digital display on the site, and closer to the street.

Proposed video display(s) on, or visible through the atrium lobby may be up to 30 feet above the
ground, and equal to 30% of the area of the glass atrium wall, or about 2,400 square feet. The sign or
signs would be visible from outside the atrium and would likely attract the attention of pedestrians and
drivers on Thomas St. However, impacts would likely be reduced by trees that would be planted in the
plaza, some of which would hold leaves year-round (see Figure 9-7) as well as the elevation difference
between Thomas St and the atrium, which would likely block portions of the sign or signs.

Under SMC 23.55.005, the maximum duration of a video display message is 5 seconds, video signs may
not face a street or adjacent property, and video signs are limited to 1,000 square inches (approximately
7 square feet). The proposed amendment to SMC 23.55 under Alternative 1 would allow video signage
at the arena project site to face a street, increase the allowable length of video, and increase the
allowable size of video display to 150 square feet. The combination of these changes would increase the
likelihood of driver distraction. Studies have shown that drivers look at digital billboards significantly
longer than other signs, with the digital signs often taking a driver’s eyes off the road for more than 2
seconds (Dukic et al., 2012; Appendix C: Tech Memo 9). Anything that takes a driver’s eyes off the road
for more than 2 seconds increases the risk of a crash, with nearly 80% of all crashes involving driver
inattention just prior to (within 3 seconds) of the crash (Virginia Tech, 2006).

The use of video displays and digital images close to and facing 1st Ave N has the potential to impair
driver safety through distraction.

Reflective Surfaces
The project would introduce a new potential source of reflective glare (the glass atrium lobby), which
could result in glare impacts. Due to the orientation of the sun and angle of the windows, vertical
windows on the south sides of buildings cannot cast sun glare far from the building. Similarly, vertical
windows on the east and west sides of buildings have limited capability to cast glare. However, if a
building window is angled, it could cast reflections of the sun horizontally for large distances or even
upward into the sky. Glare from sunlight reflected from east-facing or west-facing windows and metallic
materials would be limited, occurring only when the sun is very low in the sky, primarily in the first half-
hour after sunrise or the last half-hour before sunset. Glare in the early morning would be directed
eastward and downward, toward the Fisher Pavilion. Glare just before sunset would be directed
westward and downward, toward the development south of Thomas St and west of 1st Ave N. Due to
the angle of the atrium lobby surface facing south, surrounding streets and open space areas would not
experience significant glare impacts. Although glare may be visible to drivers on 1st Ave N, it would likely
be off-axis and not bright enough to distract attention or impair vision.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-22 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 9-7. Proposed Conditions from Thomas St looking North

Glare impacts to the Astro Apartments could


occur in summer during the late morning
when the sun is high above the horizon and
east of the atrium lobby. Due to the building’s
location to the west of the renovated arena
and its height, light reflected up from the
atrium roof might strike the upper floors of
the Astro Apartments. However, glare impacts
would likely be reduced by the presence of
trees, which would have their leaves during
the summer months when this high sun angle
would occur (see Photo 9-2). The shelter at Source: Google Earth, 2018
Sacred Heart is not expected to be impacted Photo 9-2. View of Astro Apartments from 1st Ave N
because it is located to the south and is a looking North
single-story building.

Due to the topography of the site and the lack of taller buildings that would be exposed to reflective
glare, no significant glare impacts would occur as a result of reflective glare. In addition, trees would
reduce light and glare impacts and would be included on all sides of the structure facing streets.

It is possible that polished metal panels may be used on the egress and mechanical buildings. This
limited use of polished metal paneling would not result in adverse impacts.

Shadows on Open Spaces


No significant impacts from shadows on open spaces are expected. Existing structures would be
removed and replaced with smaller structures (e.g., the new box office) on the south portion of the
plaza. In addition, the atrium lobby, which would be the largest new structure, would be made of glass
and would not produce shadows onto the plaza.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-23 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Indirect Impacts

No significant indirect impacts on visual resources are expected as a result of the project. If the type of
businesses in the study area shift toward ventures that cater to the new activities supported by the
arena (such as NBA and NHL games), they would likely either take over existing commercial space, or
build new spaces. Any new buildings would be expected to be consistent with adopted land use plans
for the area.

Summary of Operational Impacts from Alternative 1

Changes to the project site would not significantly impact the visual quality of the study area. There
could be some increase in visual clutter due to new signs, but there would also be more open space
after removal of 5 buildings on the site. Overall, the project is expected to align with the City and
neighborhood visions for the visual environment.

Changes to the roof would not significantly impact views of Downtown from Kerry Park, the nearest
protected viewpoint that could be affected. Although there would be some changes to views of
designated Landmarks, none would substantially affect the distinctive quality and identity of the
neighborhood and city.

Light and glare impacts would arise primarily due to increased signage. While glare impacts are unlikely
due the project design, significant impacts from illuminated signs could occur due to spillover light and
driver distraction.

The proposed amendment to the sign code (SMC 23.55) would allow more and larger signs, and would
allow video signs to face a street. Given the scale of the arena renovation project site, the additional
signs allowed by the amendment would not result in adverse impacts on visual quality or scenic views.
By allowing video to face a street, a potentially significant impact on driver distraction could occur. The
amendment would also include limits on sign brightness and frequency of changing images on all
changing image signs, not just video signs. Brightness limits and limiting the frequency of changing
images for non-video changing image signs would limit the potential impacts from the increased
presence of signs allowed under the regulations. Brightness limits would not take into account the light
spillage or glare formed by multiple signs in close proximity, which could lead to adverse impacts,
including both driver distraction and spillover light reaching adjacent residential uses. For video display
signs, the amendment would allow larger and longer video images with shorter periods between clips,
contributing to the potential for significant impacts.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Impacts from Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, except that video display would not be
allowed to face the street. Therefore, the proposed sign on 1st Ave N (sign I-1) would either not be
allowed to include video, or would not be allowed to face the street, which would eliminate the
potential for driver distraction from the video display. Roof signs would not be allowed to be larger or
brighter than the existing roof signs.

Other aspects of signage under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1. The proposed code
amendment would allow Alternative 2 to have additional and larger signage, similar to Alternative 1,
and would include the brightness limits for illuminated signs that are proposed under Alternative 1.
Video display signs would be allowed to face non-arterial streets, so the atrium sign or signs would be
allowed, as in Alternative 1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-24 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

In addition, the legacy trees in the International Plaza would remain, preserving the existing views of
those trees.

Overall, the changes proposed for Alternative 2 would result in fewer adverse visual impacts than
Alternative 1, and would not result in potentially significant impacts to driver safety associated with
distracted driving.

9.5 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES


This section analyzes pertinent plans, policies, and regulations that guide or inform the Seattle Center
Arena Renovation Project. These include the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City of Seattle, 2016a); the
Queen Anne (Uptown) Neighborhood Plan (City of Seattle 2016a); the Seattle Center Century 21 Master
Plan (Seattle Center, 2008); Century 21 Design Guidelines (Seattle Center, 2009); the Uptown
Neighborhood Design Guidelines (City of Seattle, 2013b); and the City-adopted SEPA policies and
regulations for height, bulk, and scale, public view protection, and light and glare.

The project alternatives were reviewed for consistency with each of these plans and policies. The new
atrium lobby, the new box office, and the new stairs/mechanical buildings would conform to zoning
requirements for height, maximum structure width and depth, and floor area ratio. The existing
KeyArena exceeds current zoning standards for height (see Chapter 3, Land Use). This would continue to
be the case under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2.

Under Alternative 1, there is the potential for inconsistency with the Uptown Neighborhood Design
Guidelines, which state that “throughout Uptown tasteful signs designed for pedestrians (as opposed to
passing vehicles) are preferred. Backlit signs, animated reader boards and similar signs are discouraged.
Blade signs, wall-mounted signs, signs below awnings, and similar signs are preferred.” Design guidelines
would be considered by the Seattle Design Commission during review of the project. The Uptown
Neighborhood Design Guidelines are being updated to incorporate consideration of contemporary
design approaches, and this may translate into revised guidelines regarding reader boards and signage.
As proposed, the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project would be inconsistent with the current City
sign code. City sign regulations (SMC 23.55) currently limit the number, size, type, illumination, video
display, commercial content, and other characteristics of signs throughout the city. Under Alternative 1,
the project includes a request to modify many of the restrictions of the sign regulations as they apply to
this project (see Appendix G, Table G-1). Mitigation of adverse impacts would be part of the decision-
making process.

The proposed signage may be inconsistent with the Century 21 Design Guidelines. The guidelines include
“key and fundamental tenets for integrating electronic technology and a digital media network into the
Seattle Center campus,” including restrictions barring LED displays from internal portions of the campus,
size and color limitations for reader boards associated with a single campus facility, and signage design
that is consistent campus-wide. Additionally, the Century 21 Design Guidelines state that proposed
updates or changes to the campus perimeter digital reader boards “comply with the Seattle sign code,
be sensitive to and minimize any impacts on neighbors, and be mindful of a spare and uncluttered design
aesthetic for perimeter streets that surround Seattle Center” (Seattle Center, 2009).

Under the Land Use Code, glare diagrams that identify potential adverse glare impacts on residential
zones and on arterials are required when a proposed structure has a façade of reflective coated glass or
other highly reflective material, and the structure is less than 200 feet from a residential zone or is 400

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-25 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

feet from an arterial with more than 15,000 vehicle trips per day. This does not apply to the project
because it is not within 200 feet of a residential zone or 400 feet from an arterial with more than 15,000
vehicle trips per day. However, once the design is refined, further glare analysis may be conducted to
better quantify adverse impacts from glare. Adverse impacts could be reduced through design changes
to the angles of the building and use of glare-resistant materials.

Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 in regard to these applicable policies. Alternative 2 would
be more consistent with the Century 21 Guidelines because the video display would not be allowed or
would not be allowed to face the street, and the area on the west side of the arena could appear less
cluttered as viewed from the street. Retaining the current size of the roof signs would not likely affect
the consistency with any of these policies, other than complying with the current sign code.

9.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
9.6.1 Construction
The following are potential measures during construction to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to
visual resources:

Visual Quality

 Restore staging areas as quickly as possible following project completion to reduce impacts on
visual quality from construction staging and material storage.
 Replant vegetation removed for construction activities to reduce impacts on visual quality from
temporary vegetation clearing.
 Place art on the construction fences surrounding the site.
 Add signage to fencing to increase awareness and wayfinding.
Scenic Views

 To the extent practicable, reduce the timeframe that construction activities would obscure
public views to reduce impacts on scenic views.
Light and Glare

 To address light and glare impacts associated with night-time construction:


o Develop and implement a construction lighting plan.
o Ensure that all lighting related to construction activities is shielded or directed to restrict
direct illumination onto properties located outside of the project site.
o Minimize fugitive light from portable sources used for construction.
o Limit night-time exterior construction work as much as possible.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-26 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

9.6.2 Operations
As part of the design and approval process for the project, visual impacts will be considered by the
Landmarks Review Board, the Seattle Design Commission, and Seattle Center. This includes evaluating
consistency of the project with area plans, policies, and design guidelines, as well as reviewing any
changes to scenic views of designated Landmarks. To limit visual impacts, the following potential
measures for Alternative 1 or 2 (note that measures related to video displays facing the street would not
be necessary for Alternative 2, since street-facing displays would not be allowed under that alternative):

Visual Quality

 Install new public art as part of the proposed project to mitigate impacts associated with the
removal of existing artwork.
Scenic Views

 Minimize alterations to the Bressi Garage exterior to the greatest extent practicable to lessen
impacts associated with changes to views of the Bressi Garage façade.
Light and Glare

The following measures are based on design guidelines and code requirements for lighting and video
display.

 To reduce potential driver distraction from changing image signs that are visible from streets,
place signs high enough above street level so that a driver cannot easily see the display as they
near the sign.
 To reduce potential driver distraction from changing image signs that are visible from streets,
display static images only on digital display signs (i.e., restriction for any type of sign that
contains images, text, parts, or illumination that flash, change, move, blink, or otherwise refresh
in whole or in part). Static images would change after a safe duration of 2 to 5 seconds,
consistent with research that indicates that distraction of a driver for more than 2 seconds
creates a potential safety hazard.
 To reduce potential glare impacts to drivers from illuminated signs, in addition to limiting the
brightness of individual signs as specified in the proposed sign code amendment, conduct a
cumulative measurement where 2 or more signs would be in view simultaneously to adjust
lighting levels below the threshold.
 To mitigate light and glare impacts from illuminated signs of all types, adjust light levels emitted
to respond to ambient conditions, and thereby avoid excessive brightness that could spill to
neighboring uses. The transition from day to night-time brightness could occur gradually, to
prevent a sudden change in perceptible brightness levels by pedestrians and drivers.
 To mitigate glare from new signage, restrict digital displays from having large areas of reflective
elements.
 To mitigate the potential for spillover light from new exterior lighting, design new fixtures and
light sources to focus light on-site.
 To limit impacts to dark sky, use fixtures that are LED and shielded.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-27 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 To limit glare to pedestrians and adjacent properties, plant and retain trees along Thomas St and
1st Ave N to reduce direct sunlight falling on the south- and west-facing façades of new
structures.
 To reduce glare to the street and neighboring buildings, design cladding material and geometry
for all new structures to reduce impacts.
 To reduce or avoid potential for glare, spillover light and driver distraction, signs could be
relocated or re-oriented.

9.7 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


VISUAL QUALITY, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND LIGHT AND GLARE
There would be no significant unavoidable impacts on visual quality and scenic views from either of the
action alternatives. There would be significant adverse impacts on light and glare under Alternative 1 as
currently proposed, due to potential driver safety impacts from distraction. However, these impacts
could be reduced through restrictions on luminance and the frequency and length of video display.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 9-28 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

10.0 AIR QUALITY AND GHG EMISSIONS


This chapter analyzes quantitatively how the project
alternatives may increase air pollutant emissions or contribute Key Findings for Air Quality and GHG
to global climate change through greenhouse gas (GHG) Construction would generate temporary
emissions related to increases in transportation and energy emissions of criteria air pollutants, but
demand. Transportation systems contribute to air quality they would be below federal thresholds
reduction primarily through the emissions of ozone precursors for CO and PM10.
and particulate matter. Transportation systems contribute to
climate change primarily through the emissions of certain Temporary GHG emissions from
construction would be less than the
GHGs (carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous oxide
level that Ecology recognizes as a
[N2O]) from nonrenewable energy (primarily gasoline and
significant impact.
diesel fuels) used to operate passenger, commercial, and
transit vehicles. Land use changes contribute to climate change Operational air pollutant emissions
through construction and operational use of electricity and would be below the federal thresholds
natural gas, water demand, and waste production. for CO and PM10 in 2020 and decline
further by 2035.
GHG emissions, as they contribute to climate change, are of a
global concern, while criteria air pollutants are a regional Operational GHG emissions would
concern. Consequently, the air quality and GHG study area initially reach approximately 28,400
metric tons per year, of which emissions
generally consists of the proposed arena renovation area but
from vehicles constitute over 99%.
also considers the indirect increase in vehicle miles travelled Emissions would decline annually to
throughout the Puget Sound region resulting from the project. approximately 24,000 metric tons per
year by 2035.
Changes from the Draft EIS – Based on comments received on
the Draft EIS, additional information about hazardous
materials that may be released during construction and potential measures related to dust control have
been added to this chapter of the Final EIS. Additional references have been added, and the text has
been clarified in some sections. The analysis also addresses refinements to the project, including floor
area and seating capacity changes that have been developed since the Draft EIS was published.

10.1 METHODS
The EIS Consultant Team reviewed the following sources of information on air quality and GHG
emissions and local climate action efforts:

 Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2010–2013 (Ecology, 2016).


 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MOtor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
(version 2014a) (EPA, 2014).
 NONROAD 2008 Model (version 2014b) (EPA, 2014).
 Our Nation’s Air (EPA, 2017).
 U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Final Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Climate Change Impacts (CEQ, 2016; withdrawn 2017).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (King County, 2015).


 City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan 2035 (City of Seattle, 2016a).
 City of Seattle Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2014 (City of Seattle, 2016b).
 City of Seattle Climate Action Plan (2013 CAP) (City of Seattle, 2013a).
 City of Seattle Climate Action Strategy (City of Seattle, 2018a).
 City of Seattle Executive Order 2018-01: Climate Impact Assessment (City of Seattle, 2018b).
 City of Seattle Drive Clean Initiative, Resolution 31696 (City of Seattle, 2016c).
 City of Seattle Resource Conservation Management Plan, Resolution 31491 (City of Seattle,
2013b).
 City of Seattle Resolution 31326 Sustainable Buildings and Sites Policy (City of Seattle, 2011).
 City of Seattle Greenhouse Gas Ordinance 122574 (2007).
 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) Air Quality Data Summary (PSCA, 2017).
 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association [CAPCOA], 2017).
The City developed a GHG worksheet in 2007 to calculate GHG emissions; however, this worksheet was
developed for general land use development projects and contains older emission factors and therefore
was not suited for estimating emissions from an arena renovation project. Consequently, the above
sources were used to develop project-specific emission estimates.

10.1.1 Analysis of Construction Impacts


Short-term construction activities generate temporary emissions from the use of heavy-duty
construction equipment, vehicle trips hauling materials, and construction workers traveling to and from the
project site. The assessment of construction-related air quality impacts considers each of these sources
and recognizes that construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the
level of activity, the specific type of operation, and (for dust) the prevailing weather conditions. Fugitive
dust emissions were estimated using EPA’s AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4 methodology for fugitive emissions
from loading, road dust, and dumping of demolition and excavation material (EPA, 2006).

The City has a worksheet for GHG analysis that applies to common types of construction. The project is
both an atypical use and an existing building that would be renovated, conditions that are not addressed
in the worksheet. Therefore, the worksheet was not used. The Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) previously identified resources for methods and protocols for calculating and evaluating GHG
emissions for SEPA analyses. There are no other Seattle or Washington State-specific guidelines for GHG
emission analysis under SEPA, but the Ecology website refers to a methodology published by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017). (In 2016, Ecology withdrew its “Guidance for
Ecology Including Greenhouse Gas Emissions in SEPA Reviews.”) The BAAQMD methodology was
generally applied in determining GHG sources to be considered for this EIS analysis, because it addresses
construction-related GHG emissions similar to those expected by the arena renovation project.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

The anticipated project-specific schedule and


CalEEMod default off-road equipment assumptions Pollutants of Concern
were used to determine emissions. CalEEMod is a The main criteria pollutants of interest
land-use emissions model used in California that for project construction are carbon
includes default construction equipment based on the monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM),
size of construction project as determined from ozone precursors, volatile organic
surveys of construction sites. Emissions factors for off- compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides
road equipment were determined using EPA’s (NOx). Both federal and state standards
NONROAD model, specific to King County. regulate these pollutants.

Emissions factors generated by the EPA MOVES model CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually
formed as the result of the incomplete
(version 2014a) were used in conjunction with
combustion of fuels. The single largest
estimated truck trip data for excavation activities
source of CO is motor vehicles. The
provided by OVG to calculate construction-related on- federal CO standards have not been
road emissions. The EPA NONROAD model was used in exceeded in the Puget Sound area for
conjunction with construction equipment estimates the past 20 years (PSCAA, 2011).
from the CalEEMod model to calculate construction- However, the Puget Sound region
related emissions associated with the action continues to be designated as a
alternatives. For construction, worker, vendor, and maintenance area for CO until EPA
hauling vehicle class emission factors were changes this designation.
determined, and CalEEMod default estimates for the
PM is measured in 2 size ranges: PM10
number of trips and trip lengths were used to and PM2.5. Fine particles are emitted
determine vehicle miles traveled, with an exception directly from a variety of sources,
for hauling trips; hauling trips during excavation are including wood burning, vehicles, and
estimated to be 290 trips per day for the anticipated 6 industry. The federal annual PM2.5
months of excavation. standard has not been exceeded in the
Puget Sound area since monitoring
Emissions were calculated for every year in which an began. All 4 counties in Puget Sound
action alternative is under construction using off-road have been below the daily and annual
and on-road emissions factors. The total sum of PM10 federal standards from the early
construction emissions for a given year was then 1990s until monitoring was ceased in
compared to the federal general conformity de 2006 (PSCAA, 2008). However, the Puget
Sound region continues to be designated
minimis thresholds applicable in King County for air
as a maintenance area for PM10 until
quality. For GHG, Ecology retracted its prior guidance
EPA changes this designation.
regarding significant impacts, and therefore there is
currently no threshold established for GHG emissions Ozone is a secondary air pollutant
for SEPA or other regulatory compliance. For produced in the atmosphere through a
reference, GHG impacts are compared to thresholds complex series of photochemical
for reporting GHGs. reactions involving VOCs and NOx. The
main sources of VOC and NOx, often
referred to as ozone precursors, are
10.1.2 Analysis of Operations Impacts combustion processes (including motor
Long-term air and GHG emission impacts would be vehicle engines) and the evaporation of
associated with the operation of the renovated arena solvents, paints, and fuels. The Puget
and mobile sources associated with changes in Sound region is designated as an
attainment area for the federal ozone
permanent use of the project site. Long-term
standard.
emissions are primarily mobile source emissions from
an increase in vehicle trips associated with the project.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

Any new stationary sources (such as natural gas heaters or backup generators) and uses would also
result in pollutant emissions. Emissions factors generated by the MOVES model were used to estimate
operational emissions, adjusted to match estimates of alternative-specific vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
developed for Section 4.4, Transportation. The MOVES model run included model defaults appropriate
for the area such as vehicle age distribution, average speed distribution, fuel supply, fuel formulations,
fuel usage fractions, alternative vehicle and fuel technology, meteorology, and road type distribution.
Remaining stationary source emissions were estimated using natural gas demand rates, water demand
rates, and solid waste disposal rates specific to arena land uses (CAPCOA, 2017). The total sum of
operational emissions for the build-out year was then compared to the federal general conformity de
minimis thresholds applicable in King County for air quality. As noted above, for GHG, Ecology retracted
its prior guidance regarding significant impacts, and therefore there is currently no threshold established
for GHG emissions for SEPA. For reference, GHG impacts are compared to thresholds for reporting to
Ecology (WAC 173-441).

10.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT


The following briefly describes the regulatory setting for both air quality and GHG emissions relative to
the proposed project. Please see Appendix H for a more detailed discussion of the regulatory setting.

10.2.1 Air Quality Regulations


Air quality in the Puget Sound region is regulated and enforced by federal, state, and local agencies—the
EPA, Ecology, and the PSCAA; each has its own role in regulating air quality.

Environmental Protection Agency


EPA has identified 6 criteria air pollutants that are pervasive in urban environments and for which state
and federal health-based ambient air quality standards have been established: Ozone, carbon monoxide
(CO), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Additionally,
subsets of PM have been identified for which permissible levels have been established; these include
PM10 (matter that is less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (matter that is less than or
equal to 2.5 microns in diameter). See Table H-1 in Appendix H for details.

The Clean Air Act established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the public
health and welfare from air pollution, which are also specified in Appendix H.

The Puget Sound region is currently classified as a maintenance area for the CO and PM10 NAAQS, which
indicates that EPA requires that these pollutants be considered in environmental analysis. These
designations are used in assessing significance with respect to emissions of criteria air pollutants.

Washington State Department of Ecology


Ecology maintains an air quality program with a goal of safeguarding public health and the environment
by preventing and reducing air pollution. Ecology strives to improve air quality throughout the state by
overseeing the development of and conformity with the State Implementation Plan (40 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] Part 52.2470(e)), which is the state’s plan for meeting and maintaining NAAQS.
Ecology has maintained its own air quality standard for 1-hour ozone concentrations and established its
own more stringent air quality standards for annual NO2, SO2, and PM concentrations.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency


PSCAA has local authority for setting regulations and permitting of stationary air pollutant sources and
construction emissions. PSCAA also maintains and operates a network of ambient air quality monitoring
stations throughout its jurisdiction.

10.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Policies and Regulations


Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.235.020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
In 2008, RCW 70.235.020 established goals for GHG emissions reduction. These goals include the
following:

The state shall limit emissions of GHGs to achieve the following emission reductions for Washington
state:

 By 2020, reduce overall emissions of GHGs in the state to 1990 levels.


 By 2035, reduce overall emissions of GHGs in the state to 25% below 1990 levels.
 By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall
emissions to 50% below 1990 levels, or 70% below the state's expected emissions that year.
The Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project is not subject to the reporting requirements of Chapter
173-441 WAC – Reporting of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases because its emissions from stationary on-
site sources are well below the threshold for reporting.

RCW 47.01.440 Adoption of Statewide Goals to Reduce Annual per Capita Vehicle Miles
Reducing vehicle miles generally results in lower GHG emissions. RCW 47.01.440 establishes the
following goals for reductions in annual per capita vehicle miles traveled, using 2004 as a baseline:

 Decrease the annual per capita vehicle miles traveled by 18% by 2020.
 Decrease the annual per capita vehicle miles traveled by 30% by 2035.
 Decrease the annual per capita vehicle miles traveled by 50% by 2050.

City of Seattle GHG Evaluation Requirement


In 2008, Seattle adopted Ordinance 122574, which requires City planning staff “to evaluate climate
impacts, including but not limited to those pertaining to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
when reviewing the environmental impacts of public or private proposals.” The ordinance does not
establish any thresholds, standards, or restrictions regarding GHG emissions. Executive Order 2018-01
directs staff to develop an assessment methodology.

City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan 2035


The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan 2035 addresses climate change within its Environmental
Element (City of Seattle, 2016a). Climate change-related goals and policies within the environmental
element of the current Comprehensive Plan are listed in Appendix H. Specifically, Goal EN G3 calls for

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

Seattle to reduce GHG emissions by 58% from 2008 levels by 2030, and become carbon neutral by 2050.
Related policies include methods for reducing GHG emissions.

Other City of Seattle GHG-Related Policies and Ordinances


Seattle became the first city in the nation to adopt a green building goal for all new municipal facilities,
and in 2001 the City created a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) incentive program
for private projects. LEED is a rating system to evaluate the environmental performance of a building,
which includes energy conservation measures among other measures. The green building goals for
municipal facilities were updated in 2011. The City of Seattle Sustainable Buildings and Sites Policy,
Resolution 31326, sets goals for City-owned properties. Goals include that new construction and major
renovations meet LEED Gold and key performance requirements, and that projects follow best
management practices.

City Resolution 30144 established Seattle City Light’s long-term goal of meeting all of Seattle’s electrical
needs with zero net GHG emissions. Seattle City Light achieved GHG neutrality in 2005 through
eliminating and reducing emissions, inventorying remaining emissions, and offsetting the remaining
emissions, and has maintained GHG neutrality since that date (City of Seattle, 2013a). Consequently, as
Seattle City Light is the local electricity provider for the project area, electrical demand in the project
area is not a source of GHG emissions.

The City of Seattle Resource Conservation Management Plan (2013b) was adopted to improve resource
efficiency across the City of Seattle's building portfolio. The Building Tune-Ups Ordinance (SMC 22.930)
was adopted in 2016, and requires periodic building energy tune-ups for certain nonresidential
buildings. In conjunction, Resolution 31652 requires municipal buildings to meet the requirements for
Building Tune-Ups, and would apply to the arena project.

Seattle also established the Drive Clean Seattle electrification initiative, which contains a municipal fleet
emissions reduction strategy, calls for infrastructure investment by Seattle City Light to use Seattle’s
electrical assets to move Seattle and overall accelerates transportation electrification in Seattle.

City of Seattle Climate Action Plan


In 2011, the City Council adopted a long-term climate protection vision for Seattle (through Resolution
31312), which included achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 and preparing for the likely impacts
of climate change. To achieve these goals, the City prepared a Climate Action Plan (2013 CAP) that
focuses on City actions to reduce GHG emissions while also supporting other community goals. City
actions in the 2013 CAP focus on road transportation, building energy, and waste, which comprise the
majority of local emissions. With 2008 as the baseline year, the 2013 CAP identifies the following
applicable targets by 2030:

 20% reduction in vehicle miles travelled.


 75% reduction in GHG emissions per mile of Seattle vehicles.
 10% reduction in commercial building energy use.
 45% reduction in commercial building emissions.
The CAP goals also address residential development energy use, but this project does not relate to
residential energy use.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

City of Seattle Climate Action Strategy


In April 2018, Seattle adopted the Climate Action Strategy, which lays out specific goals to help Seattle
achieve its overall long-term climate action goals. These include a goal of 40% reduction in municipal
building energy use and GHG emissions by 2025. The strategy also proposes initiatives to increase
electric vehicle usage, such as developing Shared Mobility Hubs, increasing awareness of charging
infrastructure, and requiring charging in all new and major renovations to parking structures, with a goal
of 30% of light duty vehicle being electric citywide by 2030.

10.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


10.3.1 Climate and Air Quality
Seattle is in the Puget Sound lowland, which is buffered by the Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges
and Puget Sound. The Puget Sound lowland has a relatively mild, marine climate with cool summers and
mild, wet, and cloudy winters.

The prevailing wind direction in the summer is from the north or northwest. The average wind velocity is
less than 10 miles per hour. Persistent high-pressure cells often dominate summer weather and create
stagnant air conditions, which occasionally contribute to the formation of photochemical smog.

Although the Puget Sound lowland area is the most densely populated and industrialized area in
Washington, there is enough wind most of the year to disperse air pollutants released into the
atmosphere. If poor dispersion persists for more than 24 hours, the PSCAA can declare an “air pollution
episode” or local “impaired air quality.”

10.3.2 Air Quality Pollutants of Concern


Air quality is affected by pollutants that are generated by both natural and manmade sources. In
general, the largest manmade contributors to air emissions are transportation vehicles and power-
generating equipment, both of which typically burn fossil fuels. The main criteria pollutants of interest
for land use development are CO, PM, ozone, and ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds [VOCs],
and oxides of nitrogen [NOx]). Both federal and state standards regulate these pollutants, along with 2
other criteria pollutants, SO2 and lead. However, the Puget Sound region is in attainment and not a
maintenance area for ozone, NO2, lead, and SO2 (EPA, 2018).

The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of
the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions,
and there would be no lead emissions associated with development under the Seattle Center Arena
Renovation Project. Emissions of NO2 associated with the project are estimated because they are a
precursor to ozone formation and assessed relative to their potential impact on ozone concentrations.
SO2 emissions have dropped over the past 20 years because control measures were added for some
sources, some larger SO2 sources shut down, and the sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuel was cut
by nearly 90% (PSCAA, 2011). SO2 emissions would not be appreciably generated by development under
the project and, given the unclassified status of the region, are not further considered in this EIS
analysis. The largest contributors of pollution related to development under the project are construction
equipment, motor vehicles, and off-road construction equipment. The main pollutants emitted from

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

these sources are CO, PM, ozone precursors (VOC and NOx), GHGs, and Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs). For
more information on these pollutants and their health effects, see Appendix H.

10.3.3 Air Quality Information Sources, Monitoring, and Trends


The PSCAA monitors criteria air pollutant concentrations at 5 facilities within the Seattle city limits. The
primary monitoring station within Seattle is in Beacon Hill, which is 4 miles from the project site. This
station collects data for ozone, CO, NO2, and SO2. In 2014, PSCAA began operating a new station at 10th
Ave S and S Weller St near I-5. PSCAA no longer monitors PM10 but is focusing its efforts on PM2.5
because PM2.5 is associated with the most serious health effects. Based on the most recent 3 years of
available monitoring data at these locations, the air pollutant concentration trends for these pollutants
remain below the NAAQS (PSCAA, 2017) (also see Appendix H).

Emission projections and ongoing monitoring throughout the central Puget Sound region indicate that
the ambient air pollution concentrations for CO and PM2.5 have been decreasing over the past decade.
Measured ozone concentrations, in contrast, have remained fairly static. Regulations on fuel and motor
vehicles reduced ozone concentrations from 1990 by more than 22% by 2016 (EPA, 2017).

10.3.4 Study Area


GHG emissions, as they contribute to climate change, are of a global concern and criteria air pollutants
are a regional concern. However, the geographic scope of the air quality and GHG analysis focuses on
project-related emissions. Consequently, the study area generally is the project site but also considers
the indirect increase in vehicle miles travelled throughout the Puget Sound region resulting from the
project.

10.3.5 Sensitive Receptors in the Study Area


Air quality does not affect every individual in the population in the same way, and some groups are
more sensitive to adverse health effects than others. Population subgroups sensitive to the health
effects of air pollutants include the elderly and the young; populations with higher rates of respiratory
disease, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and populations with other
environmental or occupational health exposures (e.g., indoor air quality) that affect cardiovascular or
respiratory diseases. Land uses and facilities such as schools, children’s daycare centers, hospitals, and
nursing and convalescent homes are more sensitive than the general public to poor air quality because
the populations associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress.

Residential areas are more sensitive to air quality conditions compared to commercial and industrial
areas because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with proportionally
greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions.

Workers are not considered sensitive receptors because all employers must follow regulations set forth
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ensure the health and well-being of their
employees relative to their own operations.

The sensitive land uses nearest the project site include the overnight shelter at Sacred Heart Church and
multi-family residential uses and a daycare, along 1st Ave N and along Republican Way W and north of
the site.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pedestrians and outdoor recreational users at Seattle Center are not necessarily more sensitive to air
quality impacts but can be more susceptible to irritation from fugitive dust and particulates than
building occupants, because buildings often have windows closed and filters for outside air.

10.3.6 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Washington


Ecology estimated that in 2013, Washington produced about 94 million gross metric tons (MMTCO2e;
about 104 million U.S. tons) of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) (Ecology, 2016). (The abbreviation for “million
metric tons” is MMT; thus, million metric tons of CO2 equivalents is written as MMTCO2e.)
Transportation is the largest source, at 43% of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by residential,
commercial, and industrial energy use at 22%, and electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state)
at 19%. The sources of the remaining 16% of emissions are agriculture, waste management, and
industrial processes.

10.3.7 Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Seattle


The City updated its inventory of GHG emissions in 2016, which reflects emissions generated in 2014.
Primary sources (core emissions) of GHG emissions include on-road transportation, building energy, and
waste generation. Transportation sources comprise approximately 66% of inventoried emissions, while
building energy (electricity generation and natural gas and other fuel combustion) comprise an
additional 32%. Core GHG emissions of GHGs declined from 3.7 MMTCO2e in 2008 to 3.5 MMTCO2e in
2014, a 6% decline. This decline occurred despite an overall increase in population of 13% during the
same period (City of Seattle, 2016b).

10.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


Impacts can be short term related to construction activities, or long term related to the permanent
structure and operation of the project.

10.4.1 Construction Impacts


For the air quality and GHG analyses, the magnitude of construction-related impacts was classified as
being either less-than-significant or significant. Significant impacts are defined below; impacts that do
not meet that threshold are defined as less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts: The impact of construction-related criteria pollutants
would be significant if total construction-related emissions were at or above the federal general
conformity de minimis thresholds applicable in King County of 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide or
fine particulate matter (PM10).

For the GHG analysis, as noted above, since Ecology retracted its prior guidance regarding significant
impacts for GHG, there is no established quantitative threshold for GHG emissions for SEPA.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no major construction would occur at the KeyArena site; therefore,
there would be no construction-related emissions from this project. Construction associated with other

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

projects at Seattle Center, private development in Uptown, and transportation projects in the area could
cause increases in emissions.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Short-term construction impacts related to Alternative 1 would result from temporary emissions
associated with construction. Construction would generate air emissions through the use of heavy-duty
construction equipment, from vehicle trips hauling materials, and from construction workers traveling to
and from the project site. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these
sources and recognizes that construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on
the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and (for dust) the prevailing weather conditions.
These sources would also result in the emissions of GHGs.

Alternative 1 would include renovation of the interior of KeyArena, while maintaining the building’s
outer structural elements, including the Landmark-designated roof structure. The existing 1st Ave N
Garage would be used for temporary staging and laydown during construction activities.

Excavation and demolition activities would require off-road equipment and trucks to off-haul excavated
materials. Approximately 500,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and hauled from the site.
As described in Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives, construction of Alternative 1 would take
approximately 24 months. During this period, air emissions would be generated from the use of heavy-
duty construction equipment, from vehicle trips hauling materials, and from construction workers
traveling to and from the project site. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOX, would be generated
from the use of construction equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, wheeled loaders, and cranes.
The off-hauling of excavated materials would be the predominant source of on-road emissions.

Construction-Related Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions were calculated for every year in which an action alternative is under
construction. Table 10-1 shows the “worst-case” year or the maximum annual emissions for the project.

The construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions from development under Alternative 1 (Table
10-1) would be well below annual emission thresholds and would be considered a minor, temporary
impact on air quality. Although temporary, fugitive dust could also affect adjacent residents,
pedestrians, and outdoor recreation users. No significant air quality impacts with respect to emission of
criteria air pollutants are anticipated for sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project.

Table 10-1. Maximum Annual Construction-related Emissions for Alternative 1

Maximum Annual Emissions


Year (tons/year)
VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2018 0.53 6.81 2.47 4.75 1.34
2019 1.71 17.24 8.88 5.41 2.08
2020 1.50 13.80 8.02 1.95 1.19
1 1
De minimis threshold for Puget Sound airshed N/A N/A 100 100 N/A
1Notwithstanding the continued attainment of federal CO and PM 10 standards, the Puget Sound region continues to be
designated as a maintenance area for CO and PM10 and, therefore, is subject to the application of the de minimis threshold for
CO and PM10 maintenance areas until EPA changes these designations to attainment.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fugitive Dust

Demolition, excavation, grading, and other construction activities from the project may cause wind-
blown dust that could contribute PM into the local atmosphere. Construction-related dust emissions
would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the
weather. In the absence of mitigation, dust generated from construction activities may result in adverse
impacts on a temporary and intermittent basis during the construction period, particularly at
immediately adjacent land uses. Therefore, BMPs for control of fugitive dust are included as a mitigation
measure. Given the proximity of Seattle Center tenants in the Northwest Rooms to dust-generating
activities, several potential additional dust control and monitoring measures are identified to reduce the
potential for significant dust-related impacts.

Hazardous Materials

Due to the age of the buildings to be demolished, it is likely that hazardous materials, such as asbestos-
containing materials, lead-containing paint/components, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) light ballasts,
and mercury-containing light tubes, are present. Where hazardous materials are present, construction
would comply with applicable regulations for removal and disposal. The majority of hazardous materials
are removed or abated from the building prior to demolition of the building. Demolition of areas
containing hazardous materials would be encapsulated or wetted to contain the dust.

A hazardous materials consultant for the project would test for any regulated hazardous materials and
prepare bid documents for safe removal, handling, and disposal. The removal of any hazardous
materials will be in accordance with federal, state, and City regulations including adherence to WAC
173-303, which regulates hazardous materials, as well as 40 CFR Part 761.62, which regulates PCBs.

Construction-Related GHG Emissions

Construction-related GHG emissions would also be emitted by the use of off-road construction
equipment as well as by haul truck, vendor truck, and construction worker vehicle trips. Maximum
annual GHG emissions would occur during the first full year of construction (2019) totaling
approximately 4,572 metric tons of CO2e. For comparison, Washington’s GHG reporting threshold for
facilities is 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year. The State of Washington GHG reporting threshold applies
only to stationary sources and is exclusive of mobile sources. It is used in this analysis for reference
because there is no quantitative threshold suggested by either EPA or the State of Washington with
regard to construction-related GHG emissions.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1 with regard to total emissions. Emissions for
2018 would be slightly lower due to fewer trucks hauling excavated material, and slightly higher in 2019
and 2020, reflecting the longer construction schedule associated with Alternative 2.

10.4.2 Operations Impacts


For the air quality and GHG analyses, the magnitude of operations-related impacts was classified as
being either less-than-significant or significant. Significant impacts are defined below; impacts that do
not meet that threshold are defined as less-than-significant.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts: The operations


Seating Capacity, Vehicle Miles
impacts associated with the project would be significant if they
Traveled (VMT), and Floor Area
were to result in operational emissions at or above the federal
Assumptions Used for GHG Analysis
general conformity de minimis thresholds applicable in King
County of 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide or fine Seating capacity estimates were
particulate matter (PM10). changed after the Draft EIS. The revised
design of the arena includes slightly
For the GHG analysis, as noted above, since Ecology retracted more seats for NBA events, and slightly
its prior guidance regarding significant impacts for GHG, there fewer seats for NHL events and
is no established quantitative threshold for GHG emissions for concerts. In the GHG analysis for the
SEPA. Final EIS, the VMT assumptions were
not adjusted to address these changes,
because they would have resulted in a
No Action Alternative
very small reduction in annual GHG
Under the No Action Alternative, operations at the KeyArena from vehicles compared to the Draft
EIS. In addition, the analysis of
site would continue as currently managed, with no increase in
operational GHG emissions was revised
annual events resulting from physical improvements to
in the Final EIS to correct an outdated
KeyArena or policy changes. Under the No Action Alternative, number used in the Draft EIS for the
sporting events, concerts, and other events would generate design floor area, resulting in a small
approximately 29.2 million VMT per year. Future operations of increase from stationary sources of
other projects at Seattle Center, private development in GHG, as compared to the Draft EIS.
Uptown, and transportation projects in the area could cause
increases in emissions.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


The project would result in additional annual concerts, sporting events, family shows, community-
oriented events, and other events, and would also increase capacity of the arena. Consequently, the
increase in events would generate new vehicle trips to and from the event by attendees as well as by
workers and supporting delivery trucks and buses for vendors and performers.

Data provided by the transportation consultant analyst estimate that each weekday sporting event
would result in generation of approximately 311,274 VMT, while each weekend concert event would
generate approximately 549,255 VMT (Fehr & Peers, 2018). Based on an increase of 100 sporting events
and 30 concert events per year, total annual VMT is predicted to increase by approximately 47.6 million
miles per year. The final design of the arena includes 250 more seats for NBA events, 200 fewer seats for
NHL events, and 325 fewer seats for concerts. These changes also affect the total annual VMT,
decreasing it slightly.

Resulting increases in annual air pollutant and GHG emissions from mobile sources were calculated
using the increase in VMT and composite emission factors developed for years 2020 and 2035.

The project would also result in increased GHG emissions from heating and cooling, solid waste
handling, water use, and wastewater treatment.

Operational Air Pollutant Emissions

Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants from the increase in the number and attendance of
events at Seattle Center Arena are presented in Table 10-2 for the first year of operation (2020) as well
as for the future year (2035) used in the transportation analysis. As can be seen from the table, the only

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

pollutant that would come close to the 100 ton per year de minimis emission threshold would be CO,
which would fall just below this value in year 2020. By year 2035, improvements to the statewide motor
vehicle fleet would result in significant reductions to air emissions from the project, with CO emissions
dropping by more than 50%. Because the project would not result in operational emissions at or above
the federal general conformity de minimis thresholds applicable in King County of 100 tons per year for
CO or PM10, air pollution emissions would result in a less-than-significant impact. It is acknowledged,
however, that the estimated emissions for CO in 2020 are just under the threshold, and without
expected reductions associated with fleet improvements, or trip reduction strategies recommended as
part of transportation mitigation, significant impacts could occur.

Table 10-2. Maximum Annual Operational Emissions for Seattle Center Arena Renovation

Maximum Annual Emissions


(tons/year)
Year of Analysis
VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

2020 – First Year of Operation 3.28 46.18 99.46 28.11 6.53


2035 0.84 14.89 37.77 26.89 5.40
De minimis threshold for Puget Sound airshed N/A N/A 1001 1001 N/A
1Notwithstanding the continued attainment of federal CO and PM 10 standards, the Puget Sound region continues to be
designated as a maintenance area for CO and PM10 and, therefore, is subject to the application of the de minimis threshold for
CO and PM10 maintenance areas until EPA changes these designations to attainment.
CO = carbon monoxide; N/A = not applicable; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = particulate
matter; VOC = volatile organic compounds.

Operational GHG Emissions

Increased GHG emissions from the greater number and attendance of events during operation of the
project include sources such as transportation, increased solid waste disposal, increased water usage,
and increased wastewater generation. Table 10-3 presents the estimated GHG emissions associated
with the project for each source type.

Transportation-related (mobile source) emissions were estimated with the same methodology used in
the analysis of air quality emissions. Mobile source emissions represent over 99% of total emissions.
These mobile emissions reflect the substantial trip lengths that event attendees would travel as the
NBA, NHL, and concert events would draw from throughout the northwest region.

VMT was based on average trip lengths as described in the transportation analysis. These were based on
residence zip codes from sports and concert databases. The concert database also includes some long
distance trips from Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia that influence average trip length.
A high percentage of the trips less than 5 miles would likely involve travel by modes other than private
vehicle and could skew the average lower, so these relatively short, non-private vehicle trips were
excluded from the calculation of average trip length. The average trip length was then multiplied by the
total projected daily trips by private vehicles to arrive at VMT for private vehicles, resulting in a
conservative estimate.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-13 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 10-3. Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons [MT] of CO2e per year)

Total Emissions (MT/Year)


Emission Source
Total CO2e

Mobile Sources (2020) 26,751

Mobile Sources (2035) 22,372

Solid Waste 3.8

Water 110

Wastewater 189

Natural Gas 1,332

Total 2020 28,385

Total 2035 24,007


Note: Columns may not total precisely due to rounding.
Source: Prepared by ESA, 2018.

As can be seen from Table 10-3, the project would initially result in GHG emissions exceeding 28,000
metric tons per year in its first full year of operation (fall 2020 to fall 2021) if the arena provided events
for both an NBA and an NHL team. Of these emissions, approximately 95% would be from vehicles.
Implementation of clean air requirements for motor vehicles in Washington State would reduce GHG
emissions over time. By 2035, this would reduce GHG emissions from the project by an estimated 16%
as compared to 2020.

As described above, the City prepared a Climate Action Plan (City of Seattle, 2013a), and the
Environment Element of the City’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan targets a 20% reduction in VMT by 2030
(using 2008 as a baseline). Additionally, Washington State targets a reduction in statewide VMT of 18%
by 2020 and 30% by 2030 (using 2004 as a baseline).

The project would increase VMT in the region and within the Seattle city limits, and since these vehicles
would generate additional GHG, this would be inconsistent with the City’s goal of becoming carbon
neutral by 2050 (Goal EN G3) and Washington State goals of reducing VMT as a strategy for reducing
GHG emissions. The increase in GHG emissions that would result from this is equivalent to
approximately 0.03% of the total GHG emissions statewide (comparing the projected 2020 emissions
from the project to the 2014 GHG emissions estimate). Assuming that up to 50% of the VMT would
occur within Seattle city limits, GHG emissions from the project are equivalent to approximately 0.4% of
the total GHG emissions citywide (comparing the projected 2020 emissions from the project to the 2014
GHG emissions estimate).

Relative to all building energy GHG emissions from the portfolio of City-owned buildings, the project
represents an increase in GHG emissions of approximately 3%.

The project would also produce additional demand for electricity, solid waste disposal, water,
wastewater treatment, and natural gas. Seattle City Light achieved GHG neutrality in 2005 (City of
Seattle, 2013a) and, as Seattle City Light is the local electricity provider for the project area, electrical

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-14 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

demand in the project area is not a source of GHG emissions. Remaining stationary source emissions
were estimated using natural gas demand rates, water demand rates, and solid waste disposal rates
specific to arena land uses (CAPCOA, 2017). Because the existing arena generates stationary source
emissions from these sources, it was assumed that the proposed project increment was 50% of those of
a renovated arena of 750,000 square feet. Relative to the portfolio of City-owned buildings, the
stationary source GHG emissions represent an increase of approximately 3%, largely due to the increase
in natural gas consumption.

Electricity use can produce GHG emissions if the electricity is generated by the combustion of fossil fuel.
As described relative to the City CAP above, the local electricity provider, Seattle City Light, is carbon
neutral and has been for over a decade. Consequently, there would be no incremental GHG emissions
associated with the increased electrical demand of the project.

Resulting emissions associated with waste generation and disposal in landfills are indirect. Landfills emit
anthropogenic methane from the anaerobic breakdown of material.

Water and wastewater generation rates and solid waste generation rates specific to arena land uses
(CAPCOA, 2017) were used to estimate GHG emissions, in lieu of the availability of data specific to
arenas in Washington State and, therefore provide a conservative estimate. The additional events that
would occur as a result of this project would constitute roughly 50% of the total events that would occur
at the arena annually. Therefore, it was conservatively estimated that the additional demand from the
increased number of events under Alternative 1 would generate 50% of the operational, water,
wastewater, and solid waste typically associated with a typical arena of this size. No reduction was
assumed for increased resource conservation at the renovated arena.

Water and wastewater demand generate GHG emissions through the electricity used for the treatment
and transport of both water and wastewater, which may occur outside the service area of Seattle City
Light. Indirect emissions from increased electricity associated with water and wastewater use were
estimated using Puget Sound Energy’s CO2 emission factor for electricity applied in King County’s GHG
emission inventory, as this was the more conservative assumption. Consequently, an emission factor of
1,034 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour was used (King County, 2012).

Natural gas use results in the emissions of 2 types of GHG: methane (the major component of natural
gas) and CO2 from the combustion of natural gas. Based on similar assumptions as used for water
consumption, it was conservatively assumed that the additional demand resulting from the increased
number of events from the project would generate 50% of the estimated operational natural gas
consumption for an arena of this size, based on national data.

These assumptions are conservative, because the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project would meet a
minimum LEED threshold, and would therefore likely generate somewhat less than these estimates from
national data

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Operations impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-15 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

10.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
10.5.1 Construction
The following potential measures could be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to air quality.

Prior to obtaining a grading, excavation, site, building, or other permit from the City that includes soil
disturbance activities, OVG would obtain approval of a Dust Control Plan (DCP) from the City.
Compliance with the DCP shall be required as a condition of the permit.

The DCP would be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the beginning of construction, and
OVG must ensure the implementation of all specified dust control measures throughout construction.
The DCP may include the following specific measures to the extent deemed necessary by the City to
achieve no visible dust at the property boundary:
 Establish a hotline for surrounding community members who may be potentially affected by
project-related dust. The contact person shall respond to and take corrective action within 48
hours. Post publicly visible signs around the site with the hotline number and make sure the
numbers are given to adjacent tenants, residents, shelters, schools, and businesses.
 Prescribe methods to keep all graded and excavated areas, areas around soil improvement
operations, visibly dry unpaved roads, and parking and staging areas wetted as needed daily
during construction to prevent visible dust emissions from crossing the property line. Increased
watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour.
 Analyze wind direction and place particulate dust monitors upwind and downwind.
 Hire an independent third party to conduct inspections for visible dust and keep records of
those inspections.
 Set requirements for shutdown conditions based on wind, dust migration, or if dust is contained
within the property boundary but not controlled after a specified number of minutes.
 Install dust curtains and windbreaks on the windward and downwind sides of the property lines,
as necessary. Windbreaks on the windward side should have no more than 50% air porosity.
 Halt all construction activities that could generate exterior dust during periods of sustained
strong winds with hourly average wind speeds of 25 miles per hour or greater.
 Limit the area subject to construction activities at any 1 time.
 Limit the amount of soil in trucks hauling soil around the job site to the size of the truck bed and
cover with a tarpaulin or ensure the soil contains adequate moisture to minimize or prevent
dust generation during transportation.
 Enforce a 15 mph speed limit for vehicles entering and exiting construction areas.
 Wash down all equipment before moving from the project site onto the Seattle Center campus
or a paved public road. Install and use wheel washers to clean truck tires.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-16 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Clean all visible track-out soil from the paved public road and the Seattle Center campus by
street sweeping or a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter equipped vacuum device within
24 hours.
 Apply soil stabilization methods to inactive areas.
 Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored on-site.
 Adequately wet all storage piles, treat with chemical dust suppressants, or cover piles when
material is not being added to or removed from the pile.

10.5.2 Operations
No additional mitigation is recommended for impacts to air quality from criteria air pollutants.
Mitigation described in Chapter 4, Transportation, to reduce the total volume of vehicles arriving to
events would also provide mitigation for GHG emissions from mobile sources. The following measures
could reduce the total GHG from the project over time:

 Meet a minimum LEED threshold for the arena renovation, which may include:
o Achieve a modeled energy use intensity performance that is a minimum of 15% more
efficient than a baseline building meeting the 2009 Seattle Energy Code.
o Achieve projected water use performance that is a minimum of 30% more efficient (not
including irrigation) than a baseline building meeting the 2009 Uniform Plumbing Code.
o Provide bicycle parking and changing/showering facilities appropriate to accommodate
expected future demand.
 Operate the arena to comply with Resolution 31326.
 Conduct Building Tune-ups – Building tune-ups are a recent City requirement that all non-
residential buildings over 50,000 square feet have a building energy “tune-up” every 5 years, to
optimize energy and water performance. The first required tune-up for the renovated arena
would be in 2028.
 Implement carpool incentive programs for employees (as described in Chapter 4,
Transportation).
 Implement waste diversion at KeyArena.

10.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


AIR QUALITY AND GHG EMISSIONS
There would be no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality or GHG emissions from
either action alternative.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 10-17 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

11.0 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES


This chapter considers the potential impacts the proposed
project may have on the provision of public services and Key Findings for Public Services
utilities. Public services addressed in this section include fire, and Utilities
police, and school services. Utilities evaluated include water,
sewer, stormwater, and electricity. Existing local and regional emergency
services are expected to be adequate to
Changes from the Draft EIS – Based on comments received on address any increased demand from the
renovated arena. Impacts on response
the Draft EIS, this chapter was updated in the Final EIS to
times to incidents at the Seattle Center
include additional information about rodent abatement (in
during construction are expected to be
both the construction impacts and mitigation sections), clarify less-than-significant. Seattle Center and
compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements, and OVG will coordinate with existing utility
provide an update regarding water and wastewater capacity service providers to ensure that
serving the project. No other substantive changes were made adequate utility service is available.
to the analysis or conclusions.

11.1 METHODS
Public service providers and utility services in the study area were obtained from online sources and
from Seattle Center. Construction impacts were analyzed by identifying construction activities that could
temporarily limit, disrupt, or displace public services and/or utilities or impact public health in the study
area. Operations impacts were analyzed by identifying the services and utilities proposed in the
alternatives and by considering how existing services would (or would not) change following
implementation.

11.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT


Public services in the State of Washington, including the City of Seattle, are governed by the Growth
Management Act and local comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans describe general provisions for
police, fire, and emergency services, as well as schools and public utilities such as water, wastewater,
stormwater, and garbage pickup.

Public services are provided under Article VI (Police) and Article X (Fire) of the Charter of the City of
Seattle, enacted as law, for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the health, safety, environment,
and general welfare of the people and to enable the municipal government to provide services and
meet the needs of the people efficiently.

SMC 15.52 requires crowd control for events, as determined by the Special Events Committee. The
committee can require a special events permit, which may include the following provisions related to
public services and utilities:

 Crowd control, traffic control, safety, and security.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Compliance with health and sanitary regulations as required by the Seattle-King County Health
Department for the event.
 Coordination with the Fire Department or medical personnel for emergency treatment and
evacuation of people who may need immediate care, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, or
ambulance service.
 Emergency communications, fire suppression equipment with structures, and maintenance of
unobstructed emergency passageways.
 Proper waste, recycling, and compost receptacles and a disposal plan as explicated by Seattle
Public Utilities, as well as a clean-up plan.

Section 3303 of the 2015 Seattle Building Code requires initiation of rat eradication a minimum of 15
days prior to the start of demolition or any clearing and grading conducted for the project.

11.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


11.3.1 Study Area
The primary study area for public services and utilities is the Seattle Center, and the secondary study
area is Uptown (Figures 7-1 and 7-2, respectively, in Chapter 7, Recreation).

11.3.2 Current Public Services


Police and Security
The Seattle Police Department (SPD) provides police protection services to the City of Seattle, including
the Seattle Center. The Seattle Center is served by the West Precinct, located at 810 Virginia St.

Seattle Center provides campus security, including for emergencies and disaster response. Seattle
Center staff are trained in preparedness policies and procedures to respond to emergencies of various
types (Seattle Center, 2018).

Fire
The Seattle Fire Department provides fire and rescue response, fire prevention and education, fire
investigation, and emergency medical services throughout the city, including the Seattle Center.
Emergency medical services include basic life support and advanced life support. Fire Station 2, located
at 2334 4th Ave, serves the Seattle Center.

Schools
Seattle Public Schools (SPS) serves nearly 52,000 students in 97 schools throughout the City of Seattle.
Seattle Center is within the Hay Elementary and Queen Anne Elementary attendance area for
elementary school, McClure attendance area for middle school, and the Ballard High School attendance
area for high school (SPS, 2018). The Seattle Center site contains 1 public school, the Center School,
within the Center House. The Center School is a high school for approximately 300 students in grades 9
through 12 (SPS, 2018). The Downtown School, at 204 Warren Ave N, is a private high school that is

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

slated for opening in the fall of 2018. This school, owned and operated by Lakeside School, is anticipated
to accommodate 160 students at full enrollment (The Downtown School, 2018).

11.3.3 Current Utilities


The original electrical, water, and wastewater utility infrastructure was built in 1962 as part of the
World’s Fair campus. Some of the current utilities serving Seattle Center are likely original, while others
have been added and upgraded over the years.

Electricity
Electricity is provided to the City of Seattle, including the Seattle Center area, by Seattle City Light (SCL).
SCL is an electric utility owned by the City of Seattle. With the completion of the Denny Substation
project, the existing Broad Street Substation and transmission infrastructure is expected to meet future
needs through 2035 (Seattle City Light, 2015). SCL is planning to construct a utility vault and relocate
utilities on Thomas St. It is anticipated this work would be completed in 2018.

Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Garbage


Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) operates a regional water supply system that provides drinking water to
most of King County, including the City of Seattle. A network of water supply pipes is located throughout
Seattle Center to supply water to the entire campus.

Local sewer and stormwater collection service to Seattle Center is provided throughout the campus in
lines owned and maintained by SPU and transported to wastewater treatment facilities owned and
operated by King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD). The pipelines surrounding the Seattle
Center are combined sewer and storm drainage lines. King County WTD also owns and operates a 72-
inch brick sewer, the Lake Union Tunnel constructed in 1894, beneath the southeast portion of the 1st
Ave N Garage.

Garbage and recycling pickup service is managed throughout the city by SPU.

Communications
Cable television, internet connectivity, and telephone service in the area are provided by private utility
companies (Comcast, Wave Broadband, CenturyLink, and others). Comcast and Wave Broadband have
franchise agreements with the City for placement of their cable transmission lines within the public
right-of-way. Free Microsoft Wi-Fi is currently available at Seattle Center.

11.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


Impacts can be short-term related to construction activities, or long-term related to the permanent
structure and operation of the project.

11.4.1 Construction Impacts


Potential short-term impacts on public services and utilities include the loss or delay of a service during
construction activities. The magnitude of the potential impact on public services and utilities is classified

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

as less-than-significant or significant. Significant impacts are defined below; impacts that do not meet
that threshold are defined as less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts: The construction impacts would be significant if they
caused: (1) a disruption in emergency service response time that results in a substantial delay of service;
(2) a disruption or delay in a utility service that results in lengthy, widespread, or substantial loss of
service or in loss of business; or (3) restoration of the utility would be lengthy and/or difficult, resulting
in lengthy service loss.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no major construction would occur at the KeyArena site. Construction
associated with other projects at Seattle Center, private development in Uptown, and transportation
projects in the area could cause noise, traffic, and detours that could cause emergency response delays
or utility disruptions to the Seattle Center.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


During construction, emergency response time to the Seattle Center for police and fire may increase
slightly. Non-emergency response times could also increase, primarily due to temporary street changes,
construction vehicles and equipment, and by increased traffic and congestion on roads affected by
active construction. Refer to Chapter 4, Transportation, for a more detailed analysis of construction-
related impacts relating to traffic and congestion. The increased congestion and delays would have an
impact on emergency vehicle access to and from the construction area. The Seattle Center Integration
Agreement will include coordination of public services and utilities during construction (and operation)
of the arena. Because of the plan to coordinate construction activities and public services, and the
temporary nature of these impacts, they would be less-than-significant.

The Center School and The Downtown School may experience disruptions during construction. Students
may experience some delay reaching school due to temporary construction detours, or experience
increased noise during active construction. These impacts would be sporadic and temporary and would
be less-than-significant.

As noted by OVG, electric, water, and wastewater utilities that are currently networked through
connections that serve the Seattle Center campus will be separated to allow the renovated arena to
operate under new, upgraded utility connections.

During construction, short-term disruptions to utilities, including communications, could occur due to
construction activities or the need for relocation of underground systems. These disruptions may impact
Seattle Center tenants, as well as nearby areas, and are anticipated to be short-term and intermittent,
while the alternate connection is made. The City’s electric, water, and wastewater utility providers are
identifying utility separation and system upgrade needs to avoid or minimize disruptions to services
during construction activities. Inadvertent damage to underground utilities could occur during
construction if utility locations are uncertain or misidentified. Although such incidents are infrequent,
such a disruption could result in a longer service outage than a planned outage. Because of the
temporary nature of these impacts, they would be less-than-significant.

To ensure that construction-related impacts to King County’s 120-year-old 72-inch brick lined sewer do
not occur, the project designers will coordinate with King County WTD. With proper planning and utility
sizing, impacts to the County’s sewer system would be less-than-significant. Construction-related

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

stormwater at the site will be managed in accordance with SPU requirements, to minimize off-site
discharge of stormwater.

Garbage and recycling pickup locations may need to be temporarily relocated as a result of construction
activities, depending on where active construction is occurring. Because the temporary relocation would
not result in a lack or reduction of service, this impact would be less-than-significant.

A number of comments on the Draft EIS identified the potential for rodent infestation during
construction, particularly during building demolition. To control rodents during construction, the project
will comply with the requirements outlined in Section 3303 of the 2015 Seattle Building Code. Initiation
of rat eradication measures is required a minimum of 15 days prior to the start of demolition or any
clearing and grading conducted for the project. The rat eradication program must be approved by a
qualified pest control agent and in compliance with Seattle-King County Public Health Department
guidelines and approved by the SDCI building official prior to demolition permit issuance (2015 Seattle
Building Code).

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Construction impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1.

11.4.2 Operations Impacts


Potential impacts on public services and utilities include the loss of, or a significant delay in, a service or
utility.

The following defines long-term (operations) impacts to public services and utilities. The project would
have an adverse impact on these elements if it caused a substantial disruption or change to existing or
emergency service providers or to public utility service in the area. The magnitude of the potential
public services and utilities impacts is classified as less-than-significant or significant. Significant impacts
are defined below; impacts that do not meet that threshold are considered less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts: The operations impacts would be significant if they caused a
permanent increase in demand for public services, or permanent changes in response times that could
tax the ability to provide adequate emergency response services; or a loss of utility service or
inadequate utility capacity through operation of the facility that cannot be mitigated.

No Action Alternative
Operations impacts to public services and utilities would remain unchanged from existing conditions
under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


As with other events throughout the city, SPD may need additional traffic flow and parking enforcement
officers to staff events at the Seattle Center Arena during, or after, major events since traffic will be
congested and parking in the area is limited. These events are typically staffed with off-duty police
officers. Because of the scheduled nature of events at the arena and the ability to plan well in advance
for large events, this increase in police activity would be less-than-significant. The increases in event
traffic volumes related to an arena event would have an impact on emergency vehicle access and
circulation to the arena as well as through the area. This may require emergency response vehicles to

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

use on-board flashing lights and sirens to navigate through the congestion and reduce delays. In
addition, during periods of heavy congestion, manual traffic control may be necessary to facilitate the
passage of emergency vehicles.

Operations impacts to schools would not change as a result of the project. Events such as major
concerts and sporting events would largely be scheduled when school is out of session (i.e., in the
evenings or on weekends).

Increased demand for water and sewer service would periodically occur as a result of operation of the
larger arena facility. Increased attendance at events at the arena would result in corresponding
increased demand in water and sewer service, as well as increased refuse/recyclable material
generation. Increased demand for electricity would occur as a result of more events held at the arena
each year. Based on information available at the time of Final EIS preparation and discussions with SPU,
it is anticipated that adequate water is available to meet demand, including for fire flow. There are
several combined (storm and sanitary) sewers in the vicinity. SPU is conducting modeling to confirm that
adequate sewer capacity is available to convey the increased wastewater flows from the expanded
arena. SPU is modeling the available downstream capacity to the south and west of the arena. The
available downstream capacity will determine the available points of connection for the sanitary sewer
leaving the arena. If the modeling indicates that downstream sewer capacity is not available for peak
flows, the project would be required to either detain peak flows on-site or upsize downstream pipelines.

Utility system upgrades would result in additional capacity as well as greater opportunities to reduce or
manage service demands. Separating arena electric, water, and sewer service demands from the
existing Seattle Center campus facilities would provide greater capacity to Seattle Center, including the
arena. The upgraded systems will likely be sufficient to meet increased demand from the larger arena
and more frequent events, and will also create additional capacity and redundancies for the remaining
Seattle Center systems. Updated utility systems would incorporate higher efficiency systems, which
would result in lesser demand on the utilities serving the arena.

The water and wastewater demands of the project will be calculated during project design, and
reviewed and approved by SPU and King County WTD. If needed, the final design could include storage
to meet project requirements of the facility. In accordance with the City of Seattle’s Stormwater Code
contained in SMC 22.800 to 22.808, on-site stormwater management BMPs (which include green
stormwater infrastructure) will be implemented to the extent feasible to detain stormwater on-site
(SPU, 2018).

Additional garbage and recyclables pickup can be accommodated by providers with advanced notice.
Community members in Uptown have expressed concerns about garbage and recycling pickup
extending into the neighborhood following larger and more frequent events at the renovated arena.
Because of the ability to plan for and accommodate these services, this increase in utility demand would
be less-than-significant.

OVG will provide 5G and Wi-Fi coverage for visitors to the arena and into the surrounding plazas. Major
cellular service providers will also be engaged to bring their services to the renovated arena for coverage
inside and outside the facility. The coverage will also provide the necessary connectivity for life safety
communications purposes.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Because the arena capacity and number of events would be the same as Alternative 1, impacts to public
services and utilities would be identical to Alternative 1.

11.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
11.5.1 Construction
Potential measures for construction traffic impacts are described in Transportation, Section 4.5.1. The
following measures are recommended to reduce the impacts described above. The project would obtain
permits and approvals required by the City of Seattle for construction activities, including traffic, which
would minimize the delay of emergency vehicles to the Seattle Center and surrounding area. All
construction would be conducted in compliance with the City of Seattle Fire Code, which is based on the
International Fire Code and provides minimum standards for fire and life safety for buildings, access
roads, and fire protection equipment installation (SDCI, 2015). Workplace safety and construction site
BMPs, such as fencing, designated pedestrian walkways, business access points, signage, etc., would be
used to protect construction workers, pedestrians, and visitors to Seattle Center during active
construction.

Rat eradication measures will begin a minimum of 15 days prior to the start of clearing or demolition to
minimize the potential for rat infestation in neighboring areas in accordance with demolition permit
requirements as approved by the Seattle-King County Public Health Department and the SDCI building
official. Additional rodent control measures may be developed as part of the Development Agreement
to be implemented prior to, and during, construction.

Close coordination with utility providers and utility separation work would reduce utility outages to area
businesses and residences, including Seattle Center tenants. Potholing and utility location and
identification would be conducted in advance of any construction activity to minimize the potential to
inadvertently disrupt underground utility services.

Construction drawings of the project will be sent to King County WTD for review prior to construction.
Coordination with SPU and King County during project design would reduce the potential for
construction-related impacts to existing pipes or other facilities.

Communication to area users, including Seattle Center tenants, in advance of any planned temporary
service outages would allow users and residents to plan accordingly, thus minimizing the impact of a
temporary service outage.

OVG has hired a full-time Community Liaison to coordinate with local community organizations during
the construction phase to minimize impacts to the surrounding community.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

11.5.2 Operations
Alterative 1: OVG Proposal
In addition to the Seattle Fire Code described above, adequate fire flow will be provided to serve the
arena, as well emergency access requirements as prescribed under the Fire Code provisions. The Seattle
Center Integration Agreement will include coordination of public services and utilities during operation
of the arena.

Police and Security

Operation of the arena would be conducted in a manner that promotes a safe experience for all
attendees. Both the NBA and NHL strive to adhere to their respective codes of conduct for fans. Below
are excerpts from the NBA Fan Code of Conduct that would result in orderly sporting events and the
reduced need for police activity. The NHL has a similar fan conduct code.

NBA Fan Code of Conduct


The NBA and team arenas are committed to creating a safe, comfortable, and enjoyable sports &
entertainment experience (NBA, 2018). NBA fans have a right to expect an environment where:

 Guests will enjoy the basketball experience free from disruptive behavior, including foul or
abusive language or obscene gestures.
 Guests will consume alcoholic beverages in a responsible manner. Intervention with an
impaired, intoxicated, or underage guest will be handled in a prompt and safe manner.
 Guests will not engage in fighting, throwing objects, or attempting to enter the court, and those
who engage in any of these actions will immediately be ejected from the game.
 Guests will comply with requests from arena staff regarding arena operations and emergency
response procedures.
The arena staff will be trained to intervene where necessary to ensure that the above expectations are
met, and guests are encouraged to report any inappropriate behavior to the nearest usher, security
guard, or guest services staff member.

As required by SMC 15.52, a Special Events permit is required for major events, which requires
coordination with fire, police, and emergency services.

Utilities

As part of the proposal, OVG is planning to install low-flow plumbing fixtures to reduce the amount of
water and wastewater demand during events. The project will incorporate water-efficient and bio-
retention landscaping where feasible, and rainwater harvesting/irrigation reuse will be studied during
design to reduce peak stormwater runoff. The project will comply with the City’s stormwater regulations
and peak rate flow control discharge rates. All collected stormwater from the site will be conveyed to
the proposed on-site stormwater management BMPs and detention facilities. The renovated arena will
include modern water- and energy-efficient fixtures, which will reduce the demand on electrical and
water and wastewater utilities. The project will comply with the City’s Energy Code requirements to
achieve energy savings.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

OVG has hired a full-time Community Liaison who will run outreach operations, including coordinating
with local community organizations, to minimize impacts to utilities associated with operation of the
renovated arena. Ensuring adequate garbage and recycling collection and overall neighborhood
cleanliness are efforts that the liaison would oversee.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Measures would be the same as those described for Alternative 1.

11.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
There would be no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on public services or utilities from either
action alternative.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 11-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

12.0 PLANTS
This chapter provides an analysis of potential impacts to
Key Findings for Plants
plants within the study area. Consistency of the alternatives
with relevant plans, policies, and regulations is also provided. Construction Impacts: Alternative 1
Because the KeyArena site is an existing facility within an would remove up to 13 trees
urban area, it provides minimal habitat to animals that are designated as exceptional, legacy, and/
not adapted to urban environments. or street trees. Alternative 2 would
remove up to 10 trees designated as
Changes from the Draft EIS – There have been no substantive exceptional, legacy, and/or street trees.
changes to this chapter from the Draft EIS. Additional trees Trees would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio
were assessed after the publication of the Draft EIS. Some of or greater. Removal of trees would not
the trees within the arena project site that were identified for be significant.
removal in the Draft EIS have now been classified as
Operations Impacts: Removal of large
exceptional trees. This results in an increase in the number of trees would result in a temporal loss of
exceptional trees to be removed, but not in an increase in the tree canopy because replacement trees
overall number of trees to be removed under Alternative 1. take many years to grow to mature size.

12.1 METHODS
Potential impacts were evaluated by reviewing the documents and other sources listed below. Given the
urban nature of the environment, the analysis focuses on exceptional, legacy, and street trees (as
defined in Section 12.3.4, below). The study area is limited to the project site and immediately adjacent
streets (Figures 2-2 and 2-8 in Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives).

The following data sources were reviewed:

 Arborist Report (Urban Forestry Services, 2018a,b).


 Memorandum re: Appraisal of Trees to be Impacted (Tree Solutions, 2018).
 Century 21 Design Guidelines, Chapter 2: Landscape Management Plan (Seattle Center, 2009).
 Urban Forest Stewardship Plan (City of Seattle, 2013).
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS, 2018).
 Washington Natural Heritage Program Database (WDNR, 2018).
 Priority Habitats and Species Database (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW],
2018a).
 Washington State Species of Concern Lists (WDFW, 2018b).
 Geographic Information System (GIS) data from SDCI (City of Seattle, 2018).
 Seattle Tree Inventory Map (SDOT, 2017).
The study area is urbanized, with most of the area covered with impervious surfaces. However, there
are several large trees that surround the site as well as smaller shrubs and landscaped areas that
provide habitat for urban-adapted wildlife such as crows, gulls, some songbirds, raccoons, and rodents.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 12-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

There are no Priority Habitats and Species (WDFW, 2018a), State Species of Concern (WDFW, 2018b),
and no critical areas (City of Seattle, 2018) within or immediately adjacent to the study area. There is no
critical habitat for federally threatened species listed for the area. Bald eagles may be seen in the study
area, but there are no known bald eagle nests in the study area (USFWS, 2018; WDFW, 2018a). No
populations of threatened or endangered plant species are documented in the study area (WDNR,
2018). Due to the urban nature of the study area, animals and non-protected plants are not addressed
further in this EIS analysis.

12.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT


Trees on the Seattle Center campus are protected by SMC 25.11 and Executive Order (EO) 2017-11 (Tree
Protection), EO 03-05 (Tree Replacement), Director’s Rule (DR) 30-2015 (Standards for Landscaping,
including Green Factor), and DR 16-2008 (Designation of Exceptional Trees). Street trees in the public
right-of-way, are regulated by SMC 15.43, Tree and Vegetation Management in Public Places. Trees
(especially the management of canopy trees) are an important element of the Seattle Center Century 21
Master Plan (Seattle Center, 2008), Landscape Management Plan (Seattle Center, 2009), and the Urban
Forest Stewardship Plan (City of Seattle, 2013).

12.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


12.3.1 Study Area
The study area includes the project site and to the centerline of immediately adjacent streets (including
vacated 2nd Ave N to the east of KeyArena) (Figures 2-2 and 2-8 in Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives).

The study area is urbanized, with most of the area covered with impervious surfaces. However, there
are several large trees that surround the site as well as smaller shrubs and landscaped areas.

Trees (especially the management of canopy trees) are an important element of the Seattle Center
Century 21 Master Plan (Seattle Center, 2008), Landscape Management Plan (Seattle Center, 2009), and
the Urban Forest Stewardship Plan (City of Seattle, 2013). Trees shape the character of Seattle Center
and ensure that it is a dynamic and engaging public space and an important component of the
aesthetics, feel, and history of Seattle Center.

Seattle Center recognizes “exceptional trees,” “legacy trees,” and “dedicated trees” on the campus.

12.3.2 Exceptional Trees


Exceptional trees are defined in SMC 25.11. An exceptional tree designation is given when a tree or
group of trees that, because of unique historical, ecological, or aesthetic value, constitutes an important
community resource. The purpose of SMC 25.11 is to encourage the protection of trees over a certain
size and exceptional trees, which are trees with unique historical, ecological, or aesthetic value to the
community. There are approximately 19 exceptional trees in the study area (Urban Forestry Services,
2018a,b).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 12-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

12.3.3 Legacy and Dedicated Trees


A legacy tree is a Seattle Center designation given to a tree or group of trees that are considered
important community resources because of unique or noteworthy characteristics or values; some of
these legacy trees pre-date the 1962 World’s Fair. Legacy trees can also be exceptional or street trees. A
dedicated tree has a plaque, marker, or other documentation on file to commemorate its prominence.
There are 70 legacy trees and no dedicated trees within the study area. The Landscape Management
Plan identifies 3 potential legacy trees in the International Plaza north of the existing KeyArena. Two of
these 3 trees are also considered exceptional under SMC 25.11. The London plane trees that line
vacated 2nd Ave N to the east of KeyArena and the International Fountain Pavilion are also legacy trees.
All London plane trees on the Seattle Center campus are legacy trees. Seattle Center’s policy is to retain
legacy and dedicated trees if possible, but allows for the removal or relocation of these trees if other
options are infeasible (Seattle Center, 2009).

12.3.4 Street Trees


Street trees are “trees located in public places which includes public right-of-way and the space above or
beneath its surface, whether or not open or improved, including streets, avenues, ways, boulevards,
drives, places, alleys, sidewalks, planting strips, squares, triangles, and plazas that are not privately
owned” (SDOT, 2014). Street trees are regulated under SMC 15.43. Street trees are located around the
perimeter of the study area and along Thomas St. Street trees that may be affected by the project line
1st Ave N, Thomas St, Warren Ave N, and John St (SDOT, 2017).

12.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS


This section evaluates potential impacts to trees for the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2.

12.4.1 Construction Impacts


Criteria for determining short-term potential impacts to plants from construction are characterized as
less-than-significant or significant. Potentially significant impacts are defined below; impacts that do not
reach this threshold are determined to be less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Construction Impacts: The impacts of construction activities would be significant
if they would be disruptive and/or continue long enough to result in a permanent loss of exceptional,
legacy, dedicated, or street trees or other vegetation that cannot be mitigated.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no demolition or construction at the site. There would
be no expected changes to exceptional, legacy, or street trees, other than regular management. If a tree
becomes unhealthy, dies, or a hazard to public safety, it may be removed. Impacts to plants (trees)
would be less-than-significant.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal


Trees would be protected during construction in accordance with SMC 25.11, DR 30-2015, and the
Street Tree Manual (2014) to avoid impacts to the extent possible. Construction activities near
exceptional, legacy, or street trees have the potential to damage a tree’s roots or canopy.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 12-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

For Alternative 1, up to 13 exceptional, legacy, and/or street trees would be removed during
construction. See Figure 12-1 for exceptional, legacy, and/or street trees that are proposed for removal.
Installation of the foundation walls at the north end of the arena and its expanded underground
footprint would require the removal of 3 trees: 1 exceptional/legacy tree, 1 exceptional tree, and 1
legacy tree in the International Plaza.

Construction of the underground parking garage entrance on Thomas St would require the removal of 1
legacy/street tree. Construction of the garage entrance on John St would require the removal of 1
legacy/street tree, and 1 street tree would be removed for the loading dock tunnel entrance on 1st Ave
N. One legacy tree on Thomas St would be removed for the tunnel, and the roots of street trees along
Thomas St may be impacted by tunneling under the street (under the trees), depending on the depth of
the tunnel. Depending on the depth, tunneling activities could destroy tree roots, which in some cases
could ultimately kill the trees.

Additionally, all existing landscaping, shrubs,


and trees including 7 trees that are
exceptional within the project site would be
removed (approximately 60 trees). Figure 12-
1 shows trees to be removed within the
project site. The removal of legacy,
exceptional or street trees would be a less-
than-significant impact because they can be
replaced with mitigation. All plazas would be
redesigned, and new landscaping would
include a number of trees. Preliminary
landscape drawings include at least 100 new
trees.

SMC 25.11.090 requires tree replacement at


a ratio of at least 1:1. However, EO 03-05
(Tree Replacement) requires all City
departments to replace every tree removed
from City-owned land with 2 new trees (2:1
ratio). EO 2017-11 (Tree Protection) clarifies
that trees may be replaced at a higher ratio
at the request of SDOT (for street trees) or Photo 12-1. Legacy Trees Proposed for Removal
Seattle Center (for all other trees). City plans Under Alternative 1
promote the retention of existing trees and
tree canopy on City-owned land but allow for their removal if certain conditions are met.

The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan has a policy to “Enhance wildlife habitat by restoring forests and
expanding the tree canopy on City-owned land” (City of Seattle, 2016). With planned mitigation, the
project would be consistent with this plan.

The Urban Forest Stewardship Plan (City of Seattle, 2013) supports a healthy and regenerative urban
forest across Seattle’s public and privately owned lands; maintaining existing trees and planting new
trees are priority actions. Although the removal of existing mature trees is not consistent with this plan,
the replanting of trees is consistent with the plan.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 12-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 12-1. Trees to be Removed under Alternative 1

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 12-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Landscape Management Plan (Seattle Center, 2009) outlines a management philosophy and
framework for Seattle Center’s landscape and outdoor spaces. It aims to retain legacy or dedicated trees
when possible, but they can be removed with approval from the Director of Seattle Center. With
planned mitigation, the project would be consistent with this plan.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Alternative 2 would likely require the removal of 10 exceptional, legacy, and/or street trees. The north
end of the arena would be redesigned to avoid removal of the 2 legacy trees in the International Plaza
that would be removed under Alternative 1. However, the roots of these trees may be compromised
from foundation construction, which could ultimately kill the trees. The third tree east of 1st Ave N on
the north side of Thomas St would remain under Alternative 2. Roots of street trees may also be
impacted by tunneling. As with Alternative 1, 3 trees would be removed for driveways: 1 legacy/street
tree on Thomas St would be removed for construction of the entrance to the underground parking
garage, 1 legacy/street tree on John St for the relocated driveway to the 1st Ave N parking garage; and 1
street tree on 1st Ave N for the loading dock access tunnel driveway. The trees removed on John St and
1st Ave N would be different from Alternative 1 because the driveways are in different locations. As with
Alternative 1, all existing landscaping, shrubs, and trees larger than 6-inches diameter at breast height
that are not exceptional, legacy, or street trees on the arena parcel of the project site would be removed
(approximately 60 trees).

12.4.2 Operations Impacts


This section describes potential operations impacts to trees from the proposed Seattle Center Arena
Renovation Project. Potentially significant impacts are defined below. Impacts that do not reach this
threshold would be less-than-significant.

Criteria for Significant Operations Impacts: An impact would be significant if it resulted in a permanent
loss of exceptional, legacy, dedicated, or street trees or other vegetation that cannot be mitigated.

No Action Alternative
No impacts are expected to plants (trees) from operation of the existing KeyArena under the No Action
Alternative.

Alternative 1: OVG Proposal and Alternative 2: Modified Proposal


Trees removed during construction would be replaced at a ratio of at least 2:1 as described above.
However, there would be a temporal loss of tree canopy from the removal of mature trees and
replacement with younger, smaller trees. Tree canopy would be replaced over time as replacement
trees mature.

The operational impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, except that effects on
tree canopy would be less.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 12-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

12.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION


MEASURES
12.5.1 Construction
Alternatives 1 and 2
Potential measures include the following: Comply with the tree protection measures outlined in DR 30-
2015 and the Street Tree Manual (SDOT, 2014). A Tree, Vegetation, and Soil Protection Plan is
recommended to be developed for the project. OVG has committed to tree replacement at a 2:1 ratio as
required by EO 03-05 (Tree Replacement). Historic markers may be installed to recognize the legacy of
the removed trees, and steps may also be taken to preserve other legacy trees on the campus. OVG has
committed to planting approximately 100 new trees on the project site, including specimen trees to be
planted in the same location as the 2 legacy trees that would be removed from the southeast portion of
the International Plaza.

12.5.2 Operations
Alternatives 1 and 2
Potential measures include the following: Develop a landscape plan in coordination with Seattle Center,
and the landscape design for the project would be consistent with the Seattle Center Landscape
Management Plan (Seattle Center, 2009). Over time, tree canopy would be replaced as new planted
trees mature.

12.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON


PLANTS
There would be no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to plants.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 12-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

13.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS


This chapter evaluates and summarizes the potential cumulative impacts of the project alternatives.
Cumulative impacts are impacts that could result from the incremental consequences of an action (in
this case, the project alternatives) when added to other reasonably foreseeable future actions. When
impacts of an action are viewed individually, they may appear minor, but when considered
collectively (cumulatively) with the impacts of other actions (especially over a period of time), the
impacts can be more significant. The purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis is to ensure that
decision-makers consider the full range of consequences for the proposed project, including the
project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on the environment. The analysis includes
only the elements of the environment for which cumulative impacts occur.

13.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT


SEPA directs lead agencies to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of proposed
actions. This cumulative impact analysis is prepared in accordance with SMC 25.05.670, SEPA (RCW 43-
21C), the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-060 and 197-11-792), and the SEPA Handbook (Ecology, 2003).

13.1.1 Methods
This analysis provides a broad assessment of potential cumulative impacts related to implementing
the project. An array of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions near the
project site were reviewed. The cumulative impact analysis used the following approach:

 Identification of geographic boundaries (i.e., the study area). The preceding chapters of this
Final EIS describe the potential impacts of the project on elements of the environment. As
described in those chapters, the study areas are the areas where the project has the potential to
affect elements of the environment. In general, the study areas include the project site and
surrounding areas. The cumulative impact assessment uses the same study area for each
element of the environment, as the study areas represents the area where the project, in
combination with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, could result in
cumulative impacts.
 Identification of reasonably foreseeable future projects and actions within the geographic and
time-based boundaries.
 Analysis of the cumulative impacts of these reasonably foreseeable future projects and actions
together with the direct and indirect impacts of the project.

13.1.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects


Reasonably foreseeable future major construction and development projects in the vicinity of the
project that are known or are projected to occur during approximately the same time frame as the
proposed project were considered in this cumulative impact analysis and are summarized below. The
projects considered include both public and private projects. The Seattle Center Arena Renovation

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 13-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Project is in an area that is rapidly growing, and it is difficult to project future developments and
redevelopments with accuracy.

A number of transportation improvements and projects were considered as part of the transportation
analysis included in Chapter 4, Transportation. Additional details on roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit projects considered for the transportation analysis are included in Appendix C, Tech Memo #3
(Year 2020 & 2035 Background Transportation Network). Some major projects, such as the extension of
LINK light rail north to Lynnwood Transit Center and the Ballard to West Seattle extension, will affect
transportation impacts and are described in Chapter 4, Transportation.

 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project. SR 99 tunnel open to traffic with tolls, Alaskan Way
Viaduct would be closed and demolished, and Alaskan Way/Elliott Ave W surface streets would
be reconstructed.
 “Reknitting” or reconnection of surface streets across SR 99, including Harrison St, Thomas St,
and John St.
 Waterfront Seattle.
 Expedia Campus Major Phased Development.
 Redevelopment activities at the Seattle Center campus, including potential modifications to
Memorial Stadium, potential construction of a new high school facility, and potential
renovations to the KCTS 9 site.
 LINK light rail extended north to Lynnwood Transit Center and Ballard, west to West Seattle, and
east to Redmond. Includes a station near Seattle Center.

In addition, new residential and commercial development in Uptown, Belltown, and South Lake Union
may occur in the same or near timeframe. At the time of Final EIS preparation, 6 permit applications
were listed in the SDCI permit tracking system for proposed large apartment or condominium buildings
within 2 blocks of the project site.

None of the above activities are functionally related to the project (i.e., one could proceed without the
other). Each of the projects would be required to conduct separate, project-specific SEPA environmental
review, as appropriate. Mitigation measures for each project would decrease the potential for
cumulative impacts.

If any of these projects were constructed at the same time as the arena renovations, there is a
potential for a cumulative impact from construction-related congestion, parking demands, noise and
dust, and associated inconveniences to Seattle Center tenants as well as adjacent residents and
business. These impacts would occur over the approximately 24-month construction period for
Alternative 1, or the approximately 30-month construction period for Alternative 2. Construction
management of the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project would include coordination with other
developments to reduce the potential cumulative construction impacts on Seattle Center tenants,
neighboring residents, and businesses; however, construction-related inconveniences would likely occur
throughout the construction period.

There are no cumulative impacts associated with the No Action Alternative for any element of the
environment. Potential cumulative impacts would be the same for Alternatives 1 and 2, as described
below. Only those environmental elements with cumulative impacts are described.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 13-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

13.2 LAND USE


During construction, there may be indirect impacts to nearby properties, Seattle Center tenants,
residents, and businesses from the loss of on-street parking, construction noise, and construction traffic.
These disturbances, concurrent with other construction projects in the study area, would create
intermittent inconvenience to Seattle Center tenants, businesses, and residents that could ultimately
contribute to some residents or patrons deciding to avoid or leave the area, or businesses deciding to
relocate.

Both action alternatives would increase the frequency of major events, resulting in a greater number of
visitors during the year to the Seattle Center Arena, Seattle Center campus, and neighboring areas. This
could make the area more attractive to sports and entertainment-related businesses, but could make it
less attractive for businesses and non-profit organizations not associated with sports or entertainment.

The potential for more parking and traffic congestion would be cumulative with the increased
development density planned for in the Uptown and surrounding neighborhoods. Numerous comments
were received on the Draft EIS noting this trend as a negative impact, characterizing the increased
densification of the area as a contributor to a loss of neighborhood character, reduction in affordable
housing availability, and a detriment to long-time businesses in the area not associated with sports or
entertainment.

Surrounding businesses may see an increase in demand for services as a result of the increase in
frequency of programming and subsequent number of visitors during the year. Businesses that could
experience increased demand based on the increased frequency of events include nearby restaurants,
coffee shops, and some retail uses. This could be seen as a positive or negative impact, depending on
the perspective of existing businesses in Belltown, Uptown, and South Lake Union.

13.3 TRANSPORTATION
Chapter 4, Transportation, includes analysis of both a 2020 and 2035 scenario, which includes trips and
parking demand from other anticipated development in the study area. The Transportation analysis
presents the results of a cumulative analysis. See Section 4.4, Potential Impacts, for details. In general,
increased vehicle trips associated with event attendees at the renovated arena would add to congestion
on area streets, resulting in significant impacts to traffic operations. This increased traffic and associated
congestion would contribute to the trend of increasing regional traffic congestion. Numerous comments
were received on the Draft EIS expressing concern about the proposed project contributing to the
worsening congestion in the study area.

Depending on which alternative is implemented, the inconvenience and disruption associated with the
24- to 30-month construction period would cumulatively add to the other construction projects in the
study area.

13.4 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES


The increased frequency of events associated with the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project
alternatives could cumulatively contribute to accelerated change in the character of adjoining

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 13-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

neighborhoods, as the area undergoes a transition toward higher density development, and existing,
older buildings are demolished and replaced.

13.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION


Noise and vibration from construction of the project would contribute to an already noisy environment,
including construction activities from other projects if they occur nearby. These cumulative increases
would be most noticeable at night, particularly to residents of apartments and housing shelters near
Seattle Center. Noise analysis is by nature cumulative; higher ambient noise levels affect how new noise
is perceived. Overall, the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project would contribute to a noisier
environment caused by sports fans, amplified outdoor broadcasts, and a higher level of activity prior to
and following events. The increased frequency of these events would cumulatively add to other noisy
events in the study area.

13.6 VISUAL RESOURCES


Increased lighting associated with signage would contribute to higher levels of lighting in Uptown, as the
area increases in density and businesses install signage and outdoor lighting. Proposed signage,
including video signage proposed for Alternative 1, would add to driver distraction as drivers travel near
Seattle Center.

13.7 AIR QUALITY AND GHG EMISSIONS


Cumulative impacts on air quality would be related to short-term increases in construction activity
associated with the project along with other proposed construction projects in the area. Cumulative
impacts on GHG emissions would result from the operation of the renovated arena. Long-term
cumulative increases in traffic volumes, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion would result from the
increased number of events and from future growth in traffic from other future projects in the area. The
increased vehicular traffic associated with the greater number of events at the renovated arena would
contribute to GHG emissions from background traffic in the area that is also expected to increase, which
would cumulatively contribute to inconsistency with the City’s GHG reduction goals. Near Seattle
Center, air pollution emissions could increase from vehicular traffic diverted by tolling the new SR 99
tunnel, Waterfront Seattle, and new residential and commercial development in Uptown, Belltown, and
South Lake Union, although over time, improvements in vehicle emissions should reduce most air
pollutants from vehicles.

13.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES


Renovation of the arena and the associated increased number of events would contribute to the general
trend of increased demand on public services and utilities throughout the city, particularly water and
sewer utilities. Congestion associated with larger events and other proposed developments in the area

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 13-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

could create delays for emergency vehicles that would cumulatively add to the potential for increased
congestion-related delays on study area roadways.

13.9 PLANTS
The removal of large trees would contribute to an overall temporal decrease in canopy cover that has
been occurring in the city as the result of development, which is inconsistent with City policies to retain
large trees and increase tree canopy cover.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 13-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

14.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST


The following parties have received copies of the full Final EIS:

Tribal Governments

Duwamish Tribe

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

Snoqualmie Tribe

Stillaguamish Tribe

Suquamish Tribe

Tulalip Tribes

Regional

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

Puget Sound Regional Council

Sound Transit

Washington State

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

Department of Ecology SEPA Register

SEPA Public Information Center

Libraries

Central Branch

Queen Anne Branch

Local

King County Executive’s Office

King County Metro Transit

King County Wastewater Treatment Division

Seattle Center

Seattle City Council Legislative Department

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 14-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Seattle City Light

Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections

Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, Historic Preservation Program

Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation

Seattle Department of Transportation

Seattle Design Commission

Seattle Fire Department

Seattle Law Department

Seattle Office of Economic Development

Seattle Office of the Mayor

Seattle Public Schools

Seattle Public Utilities

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 14-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

15.0 LIST OF PREPARERS


Name and Organization
City of Seattle
Jill Crary, Seattle Center
Julia Levitt, Seattle Center
John Shaw, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections
Karl Stickel, Office of Economic Development
Consultant Team
Brian Boxer, Project Director, ESA
Molly Adolfson, Project Manager, Reviewer, ESA
Claire Hoffman, Project Manager, Reviewer, ESA
Peter Carr, Technical Editor, ESA
Julie Bayer, Graphics, ESA
Jonny Kemp, GIS, ESA
Lucas Edens, GIS, ESA
Colin Struthers, GIS, ESA
Land Use
Anne Minihan, Author, ESA
Pam Xander, Author and Reviewer, ESA
Transportation
Ariel Davis, Author, Fehr & Peers
John Gard, Author, Fehr & Peers
Chris Breiland, Author, Fehr & Peers
Linda Amato, Reviewer, ESA
Earth
Eric Schniewind, Author, ESA
Historic and Cultural Resources
Katie Wilson, Author, ESA
Chris Lockwood, Author and Reviewer, ESA
Paula Johnson, Author and Reviewer, ESA

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 15-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name and Organization


Recreation
Spencer Easton, Author, ESA
Noise
Malia Bassett, Author, ESA
Anne Minihan, Author, ESA
Chris Sanchez, Reviewer, ESA
Visual Resources
Jessica Conquest, Author, ESA
Mark Johnson, Reviewer, ESA
Air Quality and GHG Emissions
Chris Sanchez, Author, ESA
Mark Johnson, Author and Reviewer, ESA
Public Services and Utilities
Lisa Adolfson, Author, ESA
Plants
Claire Hoffman, Author, ESA

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 15-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

16.0 REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
AECOM. 2015. Identification and Evaluation of Options for the Future of KeyArena. Prepared for the
Seattle City Council. June 2015.

City of Seattle. 2017a. The City of Seattle Request for Proposals for Redevelopment of KeyArena at
Seattle Center. Produced by the Office of Economic Development. January 2017. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/arena/history.

City of Seattle. 2017b. Scoping Comment Summary, Seattle Center Arena. November. Prepared by
Environmental Science Associates. Available: http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/. (Permit #
3029061).

City of Seattle. 2017c. Notice of Application, Issuance of Determination of Significance, and Request for
Comments on the Scope of the EIS for the Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Issued by
SDCI on September 8, 2017, and reissued on September 18, 2017. Available:
http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/. (Permit # 3029061).

City of Seattle and OVG (Oak View Group). 2017. Memorandum of Understanding (Arena at Seattle
Center). Seattle, WA. December 2017. Available:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/economicDevelopment/Attachment%20A%
20-%20Executed%20MOU.pdf.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014. Street Tree Manual. Available:


https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/sdot/about/documentlibrary/streettreeman
ualweb.pdf. December.

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
AECOM. 2015. Identification and Evaluation of Options for the Future of KeyArena. Prepared for the
Seattle City Council. June 2015.

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.) 2016. Standard
90.1-2016 – Energy Standard for Buildings (Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings). IP Edition.
Available: https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-90-1.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation) and Seattle Center. 2011. Memorandum of Agreement for
Event Curbside Management.

Seattle Center. 2008. Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan. Adopted August 2008. Available:
http://www.seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-1 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

LAND USE
Allen, Percy. 2018. “Pac-12 women’s basketball tournament leaving Seattle and moving to Las Vegas in
2019.” Seattle Times. March 8, 2018. Available: https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-
husky-basketball/pac-12-womens-basketball-tournament-leaving-seattle-and-moving-to-las-
vegas-in-2019/.

City of Seattle. 2016a. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan: Managing Growth to Become an Equitable and
Sustainable City 2015–2035. November 2016. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/ongoing-
initiatives/seattles-comprehensive-plan#projectdocuments.

City of Seattle. 2016b. Uptown Urban Design Framework. Published May 2016. City of Seattle
Department of Planning and Community Development.

City of Seattle. 2017. Uptown Rezone Recommendation, Director’s Report. City of Seattle Office of
Planning and Community Development. July 2017.

City of Seattle. 2018. Department of Construction and Inspections Permit Application Database and Map
(June 29, 2018).

City of Seattle and OVG (Oak View Group). 2017. Memorandum of Understanding (Arena at Seattle
Center). Seattle, WA. December 2017. Available:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/economicDevelopment/Attachment%20A%
20-%20Executed%20MOU.pdf.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014. Street Tree Manual. Available:


http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/Trees/StreetTreeManuaWEB.pdf.

Seattle Center. 2008. Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan. Adopted August 2008. Available:
http://www.seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx.

Tacoma Dome. 2016. City of Tacoma Announces Plans to Renovate the Tacoma Dome. Media Release.
November 30, 2016.

WNBA (Women’s National Basketball Association). 2017. Seattle Storm. Available:


http://storm.wnba.com/. Accessed: November 20, 2017.

TRANSPORTATION
City of Seattle. 2016a. City of Seattle Freight Master Plan. Prepared by the City of Seattle Department of
Transportation. September 2016.

City of Seattle. 2016c. Transit Master Plan Final Summary Report. Prepared by the City of Seattle
Department of Transportation.

City of Seattle. 2017b. City of Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan. Prepared by the City of Seattle
Department of Transportation. June 2017.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-2 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

City of Seattle. 2017b. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan 2017-2021 Implementation Plan. Prepared by the
Seattle Department of Transportation. April 2017.

City of Seattle. 2018. Seattle Streets Illustrated Right-of-Way Improvements Manual. Available:
http://streetsillustrated.seattle.gov/. Accessed: March 14, 2018.

Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways. May 2012.

Fehr & Peers. 2018. Travel Demand Model based on PSRC 4k Model Framework. 2018.

Idax Data Solutions. 2017. Excel data provided to Fehr & Peers, Seattle, WA, by Idax Data Solutions,
Renton, WA.

King County Metro. 2016. METRO CONNECTS Long-Range Plan, Adopted January 2017.

King County Metro. 2017. Excel ridership data provided to Fehr & Peers, Seattle, WA, by King County
Metro Transit, Seattle, WA.

PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2017. Land Use Vision Version 2. January 2017.

PTV Group. 2017. Vissim Version 10.00-03. Available: http://vision-traffic.ptvgroup.com/en-


us/products/ptv-vissim/release-highlights/.

SDCI (City of Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections). 2016a. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Expedia Campus Major Phased Development. Appendix E, Transportation
Analysis. Prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. December 14, 2016.

SDCI (City of Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections). 2016b. Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the South Lake Union Height and Density Alternatives
prepared for 625 Boren Avenue N. Development. Appendix J, Transportation Analysis. Prepared
by Heffron Transportation, Inc. December 5, 2016.

SDCI (City of Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections). 2017. Draft Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS prepared
for 2205 Seventh Avenue Development. Appendix E, Transportation Analysis. Prepared by
Heffron Transportation, Inc. September 2017.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2016. City of Seattle Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Analysis. September 30, 2016. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/besupersafe/bicyclepedestriansafetyanalysis.
pdf. Accessed: July 2018.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2017a. GIS and Excel data provided to Fehr & Peers,
Seattle, WA, by SDOT, Seattle, WA.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2017b. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan 2017-2021
Implementation Plan, April 2017. Available:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/BicycleMast
erPlan/BMP_Imp_Plan_2017_vr32.pdf. Accessed: July 27, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-3 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2018. Description and map of major and minor truck
streets. Available: https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-
programs/programs/freight-program/truck-streets. Accessed: March 12, 2018.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). In Preparation. North Downtown Mobility Action Plan.
Final Mobility Action Plan scheduled for release in September 2018. Information available at:
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-
planning/north-downtown-mobility-action-plan. Accessed July 2018.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation) and Seattle Center. 2011. Memorandum of Agreement for
Event Curbside Management.

Seattle Center. 2017a. Excel data provided to Fehr & Peers, Seattle, WA, by Seattle Center, Seattle, WA.

Seattle Center. 2017b. Uptown & Seattle Center Strategic Parking Study. Prepared by Seattle Center and
Transpo Group. January 2017.

Sound Transit. 2016. Sound Transit 3 The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound. Adopted
June 23, 2016.

Sound Transit. 2018. Sound Transit Ridership Forecasting Model, EMME Version 4.3.3. Received
February 2018.

Trafficware. 2014. Synchro Version 9 plus SimTraffic Signal Timing & Analysis Software. Available:
http://www.trafficware.com/4-trafficware-releases-synchro-9-plus-simtraffic-version-90.html.

Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal
Mobility Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

VIA Architecture, Seattle Center, Seattle Center Monorail Services, DCW Cost Management,
Enviroissues, Jensen Hughes, Fast + Epp, and Swift Company. 2018. Seattle Center Monorail
Stations Reconfiguration Evaluation Report. 2018. Available:
http://www.seattlemonorail.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/VIA-Architecture-Monorail-
Reconfiguration-Evaluation-Report-FINAL-AS-PUBLISHED.pdf. June 2018.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2018. Excel data provided to Fehr & Peers,
Seattle, WA by WSDOT.

EARTH
City of Seattle. 2014. 2014 Edition City of Seattle Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@engineering/documents/webcontent/02
_030778.pdf. Accessed: January 26, 2018.

City of Seattle. 2017. City of Seattle Stormwater Manual (Protecting Seattle’s Waterways). Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p3495552.p
df. Accessed: July 2018. August 2017.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-4 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hart Crowser, Inc. 2017. Draft Geotechnical Boring Logs for Seattle Center Arena, December. Prepared
for Oak View Group.

Hart Crowser, Inc. 2018. Draft Geotechnical Engineering Design Report for Seattle Center Arena, Seattle,
Washington. Prepared for Oak View Group, LLC. January 12, 2018.

Troost, K.G., and D.B. Booth. 2008. Geology of Seattle and the Seattle Area, Washington, The Geological
Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology XX, 2008.

WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2004. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of King
County, September 2004. Available: ftp://ww4.dnr.wa.gov/geology/pubs/ofr04-20/ofr2004-
20_sheet33_king_liq.pdf.

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES


Artifacts Architectural Consulting. 2013. Seattle Center Historic Landmark Study. Prepared for City of
Seattle, Seattle Center Redevelopment Department.

Bass, S.F. 1937. Pig-Tail Days in Old Seattle. Binfords & Mort Publishers. Portland, OR.

Becker, P., A.J. Stein, and the HistoryLink Staff. 2011. The Future Remembered: The 1962 Seattle World’s
Fair and Its Legacy. Seattle Center Foundation. Seattle, WA.

BOLA Architecture and Planning. 2018. Arena DEIS, Historical Survey. Prepared for Oak View Group, LLP
by BOLA Architecture and Planning. On file at ESA Seattle office.

City of Seattle. 2018. Seattle Historical Sites Database – 305 Harrison St / Parcel ID 1988200380.
Available: http://web6.seattle.gov/DPD/HistoricalSite/QueryResult.aspx?ID=167961024.
Accessed: July 27, 2018.

DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2010. Statewide Predictive Model. Last
updated 2010. Available: https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/find-a-historic-place.
Accessed: November 2, 2017.

DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2017. Washington Information System for
Architectural and Archaeological Records Data. Restricted Database. Available:
https://dahp.wa.gov/project-review/wisaard-system/the-secure-side-of-wisaard. Accessed:
December 2017.

DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2018. Washington State Standards for
Cultural Resources Reporting: Updated August 15, 2018. Available:
https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/CR%20Update%20August%202018%20final_1.pdf.
Accessed: June 2018.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2003. Seattle High School – Memorial Stadium Historic Property Inventory Form. Available:
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.

Hart Crowser. 2017. Draft Geotechnical Boring Logs for Seattle Center Arena, December. Prepared by
Hart Crowser, Inc., for Oak View Group.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-5 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hart Crowser. 2018. Draft Geotechnical Engineering Design Report for Seattle Center Arena, Seattle,
Washington. Prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc., for Oak View Group, LLC. January 12, 2018.

Hilbert, V., J. Miller, and Z. Zahir. 2001. Puget Sound Geography: Original Manuscript from T.T.
Waterman. Lushootseed Press. Federal Way, WA.

Kauhi, T.C. 2013. Statewide Predictive Model. Prepared for the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation by GeoEngineers, Tacoma, WA. Available: Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.

King County Department of Assessments. 2018. iMap. Available at:


https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/. Accessed: February 28, 2018.

Landmarks Preservation Board. 1987. Rules and Regulations, Code of Ethics, and Procedures.
Regulations adopted May 3, 1978, with amendments through March 4, 1987. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Neighborhoods/HistoricPreservation/Landm
arks/LandmarksPreservationBoard/LPB-Rules-and-Regulations.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2018.

Landmarks Preservation Board. 2017. Landmarks Preservation Board Meeting Minutes, August 2, 2017.
Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Neighborhoods/HistoricPreservation/Landm
arks/LandmarksPreservationBoard/AgendasAndMinutes/LPBminutes8-2-17.pdf. Accessed
February 28, 2018.

Lentz, F.K., and M. Sheridan. 2005. Queen Anne Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the Seattle
Department of Neighborhoods, Historic Preservation Program and the Queen Anne Historical
Society.

Lewarch, D.E., G.A. Kaehler, L.A. Forsman, and L.L. Larson. 2004. Part 1 – Seattle Monorail Project Green
Line, King County, Washington Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places
Assessment. Prepared for Seattle Monorail Project by Parametrix, Kirkland, WA. Available:
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.

Nellams, Robert, and Karen Gordon. 2014. Controls and Incentives Agreement: Northwest Rooms &
International Fountain Pavilion [includes International Plaza], 305 Harrison Street. On file, ESA.

Pratt, K. 2017. Landmarks Preservation Board Nomination for the Bressi Garage. Available: Seattle
Department of Neighborhoods, Historic Preservation Program, Seattle, WA.

Sanborn Map Company. 1893. Seattle, Vol. II, Sheets 64B, 71B. Sanborn Map Company. New York, NY.

Thrush, C.P. 2007. Native Seattle: Histories from the Crossing-Over Place. University of Washington
Press. Seattle, WA.

United States Surveyor General. 1859. Township 25 North, Range 4 East - Survey Map. Available:
https://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPlatView1_2.php?path=PWA&name=t250n040e_
001.jpg. Accessed: November 2, 2017.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1895. Snohomish, WA. 30’ Series Quadrangle. United States
Geological Survey. Reston, VA.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-6 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1897. Snohomish, WA. Land Classification Sheet. 30’ Series
Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey. Reston, VA.

Waterman, T.T. 1922. The Geographical Names Used by the Indians of the Pacific Coast. Geographical
Review 12 (2):175-194.

Wickwire, C. 2000. Washington National Guard Armory/Food Circus/Center House Historic Property
Inventory Form. Available: Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Olympia, WA.

RECREATION
AECOM. 2015. Identification and Evaluation of Options for the Future of KeyArena. Prepared for the
Seattle City Council. June 2015.

Allen, Percy. 2018. “Pac-12 women’s basketball tournament leaving Seattle and moving to Las Vegas in
2019.” Seattle Times. March 8, 2018. Available: https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-
husky-basketball/pac-12-womens-basketball-tournament-leaving-seattle-and-moving-to-las-
vegas-in-2019/.

City of Seattle. 2016. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan: Managing Growth to Become an Equitable and
Sustainable City 2015-2035. November 2016. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/ongoing-
initiatives/seattles-comprehensive-plan#projectdocuments.

Seattle Center. 2008. Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan. Adopted August 2008. Available:
http://www.seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx.

Seattle Center. 2016. Seattle Center Expected Event Attendance. Excel file.

Seattle Center. 2017a. Seattle Center Skatepark. Available: http://www.seattlecenter.com/skatepark/.


Accessed: November 8, 2017.

Seattle Center. 2017b. Seattle Center Expected Event Attendance. Excel file.

Seattle Center. 2017c. KeyArena at Seattle Center: Arena Information. Available:


https://www.keyarena.com/arena-information. Accessed: November 20, 2017.

Seattle Center. 2017d. Seattle Center Pavilion. Available:


http://www.seattlecenter.com/locations/detail.aspx?id=58. Accessed: November 22, 2017.

SPR (Seattle Parks and Recreation). 2007. City of Seattle Citywide Skatepark Plan. January 31, 2007.

SPR (Seattle Parks and Recreation). 2017a. 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan. Adopted: August 7, 2017.
Resolution: 31763.

SPR (Seattle Parks and Recreation). 2017b. 2017 Gap Analysis Update Vol 1. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/ArcGIS/SMSeries_GapAnalysisUpdate2017/index.html. Accessed:
November 16, 2017.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-7 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SPR (Seattle Parks and Recreation). 2017c. Counterbalance Park. Available:


https://www.seattle.gov/parks/find/parks/counterbalance-park. Accessed: November 21, 2017.

Tacoma Dome. 2016. City of Tacoma Announces Plans to Renovate the Tacoma Dome. Media Release.
November 30, 2016.

WNBA (Women’s National Basketball Association). 2017. Seattle Storm. Available:


http://storm.wnba.com/. Accessed: November 20, 2017.

NOISE AND VIBRATION


Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Available:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf. Accessed: January 23, 2018.

City of Seattle. 2016. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan: Managing Growth to Become an Equitable and
Sustainable City 2015-2035. November 2016. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/ongoing-
initiatives/seattles-comprehensive-plan#projectdocuments.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 550/9- 74-
004. Washington, D.C.: Office of Noise Abatement and Control. March.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. Traffic Noise Model. Available:


https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/. Accessed: February 26,
2018.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. Prepared by U.S.
Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Publication
# FHWA-HEP-06-015 August. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/. Accessed:
December 13, 2017.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2008. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM)
Version 1.1. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/. Accessed: August
2018.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2011. Noise – Analysis and Abatement Guidance. Three-Part
Approach to Highway Traffic Noise Abatement.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,
Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/fta-
noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment. Accessed: October 12, 2017.

Ramboll. 2018. Seattle Center Arena, Major Public Project Construction Noise Variance Application,
August 3, 2018.

Seattle Center. 2016. Seattle Center Master Plan, FEIS Addendum. June 2016. Available:
http://seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx. Accessed: February 26, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-8 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

VISUAL RESOURCES
City of Seattle. 2013a. Seattle Design Guidelines. City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Development. December 2013.

City of Seattle. 2013b. Uptown Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Adopted 2009. Revised 2013. City of
Seattle Department of Planning and Development.

City of Seattle. 2016a. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan: Managing Growth to Become an Equitable and
Sustainable City 2015-2035. November 2016. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/ongoing-
initiatives/seattles-comprehensive-plan#projectdocuments.

City of Seattle. 2016b. Uptown Urban Design Framework. Published May 2016. City of Seattle
Department of Planning and Community Development.

City of Seattle. 2018. Uptown: Framework for the Future. City of Seattle Office of Planning & Community
Development website. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/ongoing-initiatives/uptown-
framework-for-the-future. Accessed: August 13, 2018.

DPD (City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development) and SDOT (City of Seattle Department of
Transportation). 2013. Thomas Green Street Concept Plan. Summer 2013.

Dukic, Tania, Christer Ahlstrom, Chris Patten, Carmen Kettwich, and Katja Kircher. 2012. Effects of
electronic billboards on driver distraction. Traffic Injury Prevention. GCPI-2012-0104.R1. July 8,
2012.

Google Earth. 2018. Elevation data and 3D Buildings. Elevations and building footprints calculated on
January 17, 2018.

Lighting Sciences. 2008. Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional


Billboards. Report to Outdoor Advertising Association of America. Prepared by Ian Lewin Ph.D.,
FIES, L.C. of Lighting Sciences Inc. Dated October 1, 2008.

Munn, Jason. 2018. Luminance values simulated for signage on 1st Ave N. Documented in email to Mark
Johnson, Kris Wilson, and Ryan Thomas. Received July 30, 2018 10:54 AM (PDT).

Populous. 2018. Seattle Center Arena Site Wayfinding: Sign Location Planning Documents. August 19,
2018.

RWDI. 2018. Seattle Center Arena Renovations Light Spill and Night Glare Analysis. Prepared by RWDI
Group, Inc. July 30, 2018.

Seattle Center. 2008. Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan. Adopted August 2008. Available:
http://www.seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx.

Seattle Center. 2009. Century 21 Design Guidelines. 2009.Available:


http://www.seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx.

Virginia Tech. 2006. Transportation institution releases findings on driver behavior and crash factors.
April 20, 2006. Accessed on 4/4/2018. Available: https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2006/04/2006-
237.html.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-9 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Young, G. 2010. Scenic America, sign brightness, measuring sign brightness.


www.scenic.org/storage/documents/EXCERPT_Measuring_Sign_Brightness.pdf.

AIR QUALITY AND GHG EMISSIONS


BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines., updated May
2017. Available: www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa-
guidelines_final_may-2012.pdf?la=en. Accessed November 2, 2017.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2017. California Emissions Estimator
Model, version 2016.3.2. Available: http://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed November 2017.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on
Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National
Environmental Policy Act Reviews, August, 1, 2016(Withdrawn, March 28, 2017). Available:
https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ceq_guidance_nepa-ghg-climate_final_guidance.html. Accessed
November 20, 2017.

City of Seattle. 2011. City of Seattle Sustainable Buildings and Sites Policy, Resolution 31326. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/environment/climate-change/building-energy/city-
facilities/sustainable-buildings-and-sites. August 2011.

City of Seattle. 2013a. Seattle Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/FinalCAPImplementationStrategy.pdf.
October 2013.

City of Seattle. 2013b. City of Seattle Resource Conservation Management Plan, Resolution 31491.
Available: http://www.seattle.gov/environment/climate-change/building-energy/city-
facilities/resource-conservation-initiative. October 2013

City of Seattle. 2016a. City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan 2035, Managing Growth to Become an
Equitable and Sustainable City. Environment Chapter, Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/OngoingInitiatives/SeattlesComprehen
sivePlan/SeattleComprehensivePlanCouncilAdopted2017.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2017.

City of Seattle. 2016b. City of Seattle Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2014. Available:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/ClimateDocs/2014GHG%20inventorySe
pt2016.pdf. Accessed: November 22, 2017.

City of Seattle. 2016c. Drive Clean Seattle Initiative, Resolution 31696. Available:
http://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2811912&GUID=9E735C1F-A4C2-4358-
B5EF-6007CE47D037. October 7, 2016.

City of Seattle. 2018a. Seattle Climate Action Strategy. Available: http://durkan.seattle.gov/wp-


content/uploads/2018/04/SeaClimateAction_April2018.pdf. April 2018.

City of Seattle. 2018b. City of Seattle Executive Order 2018-01: Climate Impact Assessment. Available:
http://durkan.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Executive-Order-2018-01-Climate-
Impact-Assessment.pdf. April 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-10 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Report to the Legislature on Washington
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 1990–2010. October.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. AP-42 5th Edition Volume 1, Chapter 13,
Miscellaneous Sources. Available: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/index.html.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. MOVES MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator, 2014a.
Also Includes ON-ROAD mode, 2014b. Available: https://www.epa.gov/moves.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Ozone Trends website. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ozone-trends. Accessed: November 22, 2017.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. Greenbook website current as of March 31, 2018.
Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-book.

Fehr & Peers. 2018. Personal Communication. e-mail correspondence from John Gard, F&P, Seattle; to
C. Sanchez, ESA, San Francisco, CA. February 20, 2018.

King County. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Tracking Framework for King County: 2010 Update. Prepared by
Peter Erickson and Chelsea Chandler, SEI. Published August 2012. Available:
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/services/environment/climate/documents/2010_King_C
ounty_Core_GHG_Emissions.ashx?la=en.

King County. 2015. Strategic Climate Action Plan. June 2015.

PSCAA (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency). 2008. 2007 Air Quality Data Summary. Available: http://www.
pscleanair.org. Accessed May 20 2013.

PSCAA (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency). 2011. 2010 Study of Air Toxics in Tacoma and Seattle. February.

PSCAA (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency). 2017. Air Quality Data Summary Appendices 2013–2016.
Available: http://www.pscleanair.org/documentcenter/view/2761. Accessed: 2017.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES


NBA (National Basketball Association). 2018. NBA Fan Code of Conduct. Accessed: January 22, 2018.
Available: http://www.nba.com/nba-fan-code-of-conduct#/.

SDCI (Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections). 2015. 2015 Seattle Fire Code. 2015
International Fire code as Amended by the City of Seattle.

Seattle Center. 2018. Safety and Security at Seattle Center. Available:


http://www.seattlecenter.com/about/safety.aspx. Accessed: January 26, 2018.

Seattle City Light. 2015. Denny Substation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for
Seattle City Light, January 22, 2015.

SPS (Seattle Public Schools). 2018. The Center School. Available:


https://centerhs.seattleschools.org/about/about_center_school. Accessed: January 22, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-11 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SPU (Seattle Public Utilities). 2018. Stormwater Code Compliance. Available:


http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/Projects/GreenStormwaterInfrastructur
e/StormwaterCode/index.htm. Accessed: June 29, 2018.

The Downtown School. 2018. The Downtown School (a Lakeside School) website. Available:
https://www.downtownschoolseattle.org/.

PLANTS
City of Seattle. 2013. Urban Forest Stewardship Plan. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/2013%20Urban%20Fores%20Stewardship%20Plan%200911
13.pdf.

City of Seattle. 2016. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan: Managing Growth to Become an Equitable and
Sustainable City (2015 – 2035). November 2016. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplanning/completeprojectslist/comprehensiveplan/documents
/default.htm.

City of Seattle. 2018. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) GIS data. Available:
http://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f822b2c6498c4163b0
cf908e2241e9c2. Accessed: February 23, 2018.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014. Street Tree Manual. Available:


http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/Trees/StreetTreeManuaWEB.pdf.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2017. Seattle Street Trees. Available:


http://web6.seattle.gov/SDOT/StreetTrees/. Accessed: March 9, 2017.

Seattle Center. 2008. Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan. Adopted August 2008. Available:
http://www.seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx.

Seattle Center. 2009. Century 21 Design Guidelines: Chapter 2: Landscape Management Plan. Published
January 2009. Available: http://www.seattlecenter.com/mediainfo/topics/century21.aspx.

Tree Solutions, Inc. 2018. Appraisal of Trees to be Impacted by Proposed Construction, KeyArena,
Seattle Center. Memo to Beth Duncan and Keiko Nungesser, Seattle Center; prepared by
Katherine Taylor, ISA Certified Arborist PN-8022A. Project No. TS – 6273. March 8, 2018

Urban Forestry Services, Inc. 2018a. CAA ICON – Seattle Center Key Arena Project Draft ISA Level 2 Basic
Tree Assessment, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for CAA ICON. April 9, 2018.

Urban Forestry Services, Inc. 2018b. CAA ICON – Seattle Center Additional Tree Inventory and
Assessment Report, Seattle, Washington. Prepared for CAA ICON. June 22, 2018.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Mapper.
Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed: February 23, 2018.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018a. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the
Web. Review of PHS data set for sensitive fish and wildlife species. Available:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Accessed: February 23, 2018.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-12 August 2018


Seattle Center Arena Renovation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018b. Washington State Species of Concern
Lists. Available: https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/All/. Accessed: February 23,
2018.

WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2018. Washington Natural Heritage Program GIS
Data Set. Available: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata. Accessed: February 23, 2018.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2003. State Environmental Policy Act Handbook.
Ecology Publication # 98-114. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. SEPA Unit,
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Available:
https://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html. September 1998 (Updated 2003).

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Page 16-13 August 2018

You might also like