WSCC Addition Draft EIS

8/20/2019 WSCC Addition Draft EIS

1/515

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

for the

WASHINGTON STATE

CONVENTIONCENTER

ADDITION

Mas ter Use Perm it Projec t Nos. 3018096, 3020176, 3020177

February 26, 2016

prepared by the

Washington State Convention CenterSeattle, Washington


2/515

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

for the

WASHINGTON STATE

CONVENTION CENTER

ADDITION

Seattle Master Use Permit Project Nos. 3018096, 3020176, 3020177

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Washington State Convention Center Addition hasbeen prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, RevisedCode of Washington); the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197-11, Washington

Administrative Code); and Resolution No. 2010-13 adopted by the Washington State Convention Centerimplementing SEPA. Preparation of this DEIS is the responsibility of the Washington State Convention Center(WSCC). WSCC has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriatemethodology and WSCC has directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken in preparation of thisDEIS. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation foran action. In its final form – as a Final EIS – it will accompany the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1 or 4.1) of thisDEIS -- or such other alternative that may be identified as part of the FEIS -- and will be considered in making finaldecisions concerning the project and permits/authorizations for this project.

Date of Draft EIS Issuance ................................................................February 26, 2016

Date of Draft EIS Public Meeting ...........................................................March 29, 2016(Refer to pg. x of this Draft EIS for time, location and intended meeting format)

Date Comments are Due on the Draft EIS ..............................................April 11, 2016


3/515


4/515

--PREFACE--

The purpose of this Draft EIS (DEIS) is to evaluate potential sites and site development alternatives that couldmeet the operational objectives of WSCC associated with the proposed WSCC Addit io n . Key considerationsof this DEIS are to:

identify and evaluate probable, significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from

development associated with King County Site Work, Preferred Alternatives for the Washington StateConvention Center Addit io n , other possible development alternatives, and the No Action Alternative;

identify measures to mitigate environmental impacts that are identified; and

identify unavoidable significant adverse impacts that may occur.

The range of environmental impacts that are analyzed in this DEIS include: direct, indirect, cumulative, andconstruction-related impacts. As such, this DEIS is a disclosure document. It does not authorize a specificaction or alternative nor does it recommend for or against a particular course of action; it is one of several keydocuments that will be considered by WSCC, the City of Seattle, and other permitting/approval agencies in thedecision-making processes for this project. A list of expected licenses, permits and approvals is contained inthe Fact Sheet of this DEIS (pages v-vii). The Final EIS (FEIS) will accompany the applications specificallyassociated with the permit processes and will be considered as the final environmental (SEPA) documentrelative to those permit applications.

The environmental elements that are analyzed in this DEIS were determined as a result of the formal, publicEIS scoping process that occurred February 18, 2015, through March 11, 2015, and was later extendedthrough May 15, 2015. A SEPA Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice was mailed to 109 agencies andorganizations informing them that an EIS would be prepared for this project and requesting commentsregarding alternatives and environmental issues that should be analyzed in this DEIS. An EIS ScopingMeeting was held March 3, 2015 at the Washington State Convention Center to provide an opportunity tobetter understand the proposed project and to present testimony concerning the scope of the proposed EISDuring the EIS Scoping period, WSCC received written comments, as well as oral comments at the public

meeting, concerning the scope of this DEIS. WSCC subsequently determined that two preferred alternativesfive design alternatives, and the No Action Alternative should be analyzed in light of 17 areas of environmentareview, including: earth, air quality / greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian-level wind, waterenvironmental health (site assessment), noise, energy, land use, historic resources, recreationpopulation / housing, aesthetics (height, bulk, scale), aesthetics (viewshed), light/glare/shadows , publicservices, utilities, and transportation/circulation .

Organizationally, this DEIS consists of four major sections:

Fact Sheet (immediately following this Preface) – This section provides an overview of the PreferredAlternatives (Alternative 1 and 4.1 ), other alternatives including the No Act ion Al ternat ive , the project locationproject approvals that would be required, contact information, and the Table of Contents;

Section I (starting on page S-1) – This section summarizes the description of each of each of the alternatives andcontains a comprehensive, comparative matrix that identifies adverse environmental impacts, mitigationmeasures, and potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the alternatives;

Section II (beginning on page 2-1) – This section provides a detailed description of each of the alternatives thatare analyzed in this DEIS; and

Sectio n III (page 3-1) – This section contains an analysis of probable adverse environmental impacts that couldresult from implementation of any of the alternatives. Also included in this section are possible mitigationmeasures and potential significant adverse environmental impacts.


5/515

Washing ton State Conven tion Center Add it ion FACT SHEET

Draft EIS

i

FACT SHEET

Name of Proposal ashington State Convention Center

Addition

Proponent Washington State Convention Centerc/o Pine Street Group L.L.C.1500 Fourth Ave., Suite 600Seattle, WA 98101

Location The site is in Downtown Seattle’s Denny Triangle UrbanCenter Village,2 approximately one block northeast of theexisting Washington State Convention Center. Dependingupon the alternative (described below), the site comprisesan area of up to three blocks3 -- Site A, B and C. The 3-block site is bounded by Howell St. on the north, Boren

Ave. on the east, I-5 on the southeast, Pine St. on thesouth and Ninth Ave. on the west (see inset ). Olive Waybisects the 3-block site area in an east-west direction andTerry Ave. bisects the two north parcels – Site B and SiteC – in generally a north-south direction.

As depicted, the largestparcel is bounded byOlive Way on the north,Boren Ave. on the east,I-5 on the southeast,Pine St. on the south,

and Ninth Ave. on thewest. Other than thebuilding associatedwith a former autodealership located inthe northeast portion ofSite A, this parcelcurrently serves as King County Metro’s Convention PlaceStation (CPS). It is expected that buses will continue touse CPS and operate in the tunnel until at least September2018. Washington State Convention Center proposes toacquire this site from King County.

2 The area is part of the Downtown Denny Triangle Urban Center (Seattle, 2005 [UV17 and UV18]). See theReferences section of this DEIS for the complete citation.

3 Also referred to in this EIS as parcels.


6/515


Draft EIS

ii

Alternatives Eight alternatives are analyzed in this DEIS, comprisingdifferent site areas and development considerations. It isanticipated that with the exception of the No Act ionAlternative , all alternatives could be developed as aPlanned Community Development (PCD)4 or under theCity’s bonus system. Most alternatives would involve

vacation of City rights-of-way and most would involve aWSDOT ground/air rights lease of property.

To allow Metro buses to use CPS until buses come out ofthe Downtown Transit Tunnel, WSCC and King County arediscussing options for completing site work in order toprepare the CPS site for sale. Three alternatives (A, B and C) have been identified and are evaluated in thisDEIS.

In terms of schedule, King County Site Work may begin in2016, construction of the proposed WSCC Add it ion would

commence in 2017, and it is proposed that the WSCCAddi t ion be operational by 2020.

The following describe the Preferred Alternatives, OtherDevelopment Alternatives, and the No Act ionAlternative .

Preferred Alternatives Two Preferred Alternatives are proposed: Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development andAlternative 4.1 – Preferred Alternative With Co-Development. The following briefly describes each.

Alternative 1 –

Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development – Total development associated with thisalternative would approximate 1,511,700-sq.-ft. on thethree parcels noted above. Included with this alternativewould be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addit ion thatincludes: approximately 37,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses5 (including but not limited to retail, restaurants andentertainment uses); parking for 700-800 vehicles; fullvacation of three City rights-of-way, a subterraneanvacation, and either full or subterranean vacation of anadditional City right-of-way; and a WSDOT ground/airrights lease.

Alternative 4.1 – Preferred Alternative With Co-Development – Total development associated with thisalternative would approximate 2,390,550-sq.-ft. on thethree parcels noted above. Included as part of this

4 Seattle Municipal Code 23.49.0365 This amount includes square footage on Site A and Site C.


7/515


Draft EIS

ii i

alternative would be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addit ion,which includes 43,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses;6 co-development on Site B of a 29-story, 400-unit residentialtower and co-development on Site C with a 16-story,515,700 sq. ft. office tower; parking for 700-800 vehicles;full vacation of three City rights-of-way, a subterranean

vacation, and either full or subterranean vacation of anadditional City right-of-way; and a WSDOT ground/airrights lease.

Other Development

Alternatives

Alternative 2 – Alternative With Site A-DevelopmentOnly – Total development associated with this alternativewould approximate 1,370,000-sq.-ft. on only one of theparcels noted above – Site A. Included with thisalternative would be a 1,370,000-sq.-ft. WSCC Addit ion,which includes 14,900-sq.-ft. of street-level uses; no co-development is proposed; parking for 650 – 750 vehicles;full vacation of one City right-of-way; and a WSDOT

ground/air rights lease.

Alternative 3 – Alternative Without Co-Development,Without the WSDOT Land/Air Lease, and Without theRequirement for FHWA Action When Paired with KingCounty Site Work Alternative B – Total developmentassociated with this alternative would approximate1,485,700-sq.-ft. on the three parcels noted above.Included with this alternative would be a 1,473,700-sq.-ft.WSCC Addit ion , which includes approximately 35,000-sq.-ft. of street-level uses;7 no co-development; parking for690 – 790 vehicles; full vacation of three City rights-of-way,

a subterranean vacation, and either full or subterraneanvacation of an additional City right-of-way; and no WSDOTground/air rights lease.

Alternative 4.2 – Alternative With Site B Co-Development – Total development associated with thisalternative would approximate 1,876,850-sq.-ft. on thethree parcels noted above. Included with this alternativewould be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addit ion , whichincludes approximately 45,000-sq.-ft. of street-level uses;8 co-development on Site B of a 29-story, 400-unitresidential tower; no major co-development on Site C;

parking – same as Alternative 1 ; full vacation of three Cityrights-of-way, a subterranean vacation, and either full orsubterranean vacation of an additional City right-of-way;and a WSDOT ground/air rights lease.

6 This amount includes square footage on Site A, Site B and Site C.7 This amount includes square footage on Site A and Site C.8 This amount includes square footage on Site A, Site B and Site C.


8/515


Draft EIS

iv

Alternative 4.3 – Alternative With Site C Co-Development – Total development associated with thisalternative would approximate 2,025,400-sq.-ft. on thethree parcels noted above. Included with this alternativewould be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addit ion , whichincludes 35,000-sq.-ft. of street-level uses;9 co-development on Site C of a 16-story, 515,700-sq.-ft. officetower and no co-development on Site B; parking – sameas Alternative 1 ; full vacation of three City rights-of-way, asubterranean vacation, and either full or subterraneanvacation of an additional City right-of-way; and a WSDOTground/air rights lease

Alternative 5 – Convention Place Station Site With NoVacations – Total development associated with thisalternative would approximate 1,611,700-sq.-ft. on Site A only. Included with this alternative would be a 1,379,300sq. ft. WSCC Addit ion , which includes approximately14,900-sq.-ft. of street-level uses; no co-development;parking for 600 - 700 vehicles; no vacation of City rights-of-way; and a WSDOT ground/air rights lease.

No Action Alternative Alternative 6 – No Action Alternative -- This alternativewould not involve development of the proposed WSCCAddi t ion. In all probability, once King County Metro nolonger needs the CPS site (Site A), subsequent,commercial or residential development would occur. Suchdevelopment would comply with existing development

standards and be consistent with potential, futuredevelopment that was envisioned in Seattle’s DowntownHeight and Density Changes Final EIS for the CPS site. 10 That analysis anticipated a mixed-use complex of buildingsthat included: 900 residential units; a 600,000-sq.-ft. officetower; and an 800-room, 400,000-sq.-ft. hotel. Similarly,Site B and Site C could also be expected to beredeveloped – consistent with the DMC 340/290-400zoning that exists. No City rights-of-way would be vacated.This alternative would not include a WSDOT ground/airrights lease.

9 This amount includes square footage on Site A and Site C.10 Seattle, Department of Planning and Development. 2005. Appendix D. (see References for the complete

citation).


9/515


Draft EIS

v

SEPA Lead Agency Washington State Convention Center 11

SEPA Responsible

Official

Jeff BlosserPresident / CEOWashington State Convention Center

EIS Contact Person Jane LewisWSCC Addition Project Coordinatorc/o Pine Street Group L.L.C.1500 Fourth Ave., Suite 600Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: 206.340.9897 Fax : 206.428.3000E-mail : [email protected]

City of Seattle

Master Use Permits

Site A -- SDCI12 MUP No.: 3020176 – 1600 Ninth Ave.

Site B -- SDCI MUP No.: 3018096 – 920 Olive Way

Site C -- SDCI MUP No.: 3020177 – 1711 Boren Ave.

King County Site Work -- SDCI MUP No.: 3022912

Required Approvals

and/or Permits

Preliminary analysis indicates that the following approvalsand/or permits may be required from agencies withurisdiction13 for either of the Preferred Alternatives, the Other Design Alternatives, or the No Action Alternative.

Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the

review process associated with specific elements of theproject.

Federal Agen cies

U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalAviation Administration – Notice of Construction or Alteration --

associated with the construction of a proposedtower(s)

11 Washington State Convention Center is a King County Public Facilities District.12 SDCI was created through Ordinance No.118502 as a result of the City’s 2016 Budget. The department derives

from the City’s former Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and is responsible for administering Cityordinances that regulate building construction, land use, and housing.

13 An agency with jurisdiction is “an agency with authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of a nonexemptproposal (or part of a proposal)” (WAC 197-11-714 (3). Typically, this refers to a local, state or federal agencywith licensing or permit approval responsibility concerning the proposed project.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


10/515


Draft EIS

v i

– Notice of Construction or Alteration --associated with the construction crane(s) for thetower(s)

– Aeronautical Study

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Aviation Administration (continued ) – Notice of Construction or Alteration --

associated with FAA’s charting requirements forthe tower(s)

U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration – Authorization of a land lease (at-grade and

below-grade) and an airspace lease over aportion of I-5 (not required for Alternative 3 or Alternative 6 )

State Agencies

Department of Transportation – Coordination/Authorization of the FHWA review

process

Department of Labor & Industries – Elevator Permits

Department of Health – Commercial Kitchen

Regional Agencies

King County – Approval of Purchase and Sale Agreement – Closure of the Convention Place Station

(passenger terminal) – Removal of busses from the Downtown Seattle

Transit Tunnel prior to the anticipated timing ofapprox. 2021

– Relocation of essential tunnel and trolley-related equipment

– Additional on-street layover during construction

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency – Asbestos surveys (associated with building

demolitions) – Demolition Permits


11/515


Draft EIS

vii

Seattle – King County Department of Health – Plumbing Permits

City of Seatt le

City Council – Approval of proposed street and alley

vacation(s)

Seattle Design Commission – Recommendations to City Council regarding

proposed street and alley vacation(s)

Department of Neighborhoods – Historical Review (Appendix A) regarding each

of the three on-site buildings

Department of Construction and Inspections14 – Planned Community Development (PCD)15 – Master Use Permits (including Design Review

[recommendations concerning project designand design departures] and Zoning Review)

– Demolition Permits – Grading / Shoring Permits – Building Permits for the

– proposed WSCC Addi t ion – proposed co-development (pertains to

certain alternatives) – Traction Power Substation (TPSS), together

with related construction approvals – Structural Permit for the TPSS pad – Mechanical Permits for the

– proposed WSCC Addi t ion – proposed co-development (pertains to

certain alternatives)

– Electrical Permits for the – proposed WSCC Addi t ion – proposed co-development (pertains to

certain alternatives) – Traction Power Substation (TPSS), together

with related construction approvals

– Certificates of Occupancy for the

– proposed WSCC Addi t ion

– proposed co-development (pertains tocertain alternatives)

– Sign Permits for the proposed WSCC Addit io n

14 op cit.15 A PCD is being considered under SMC 23.49.036.


12/515


Draft EIS

vi i i

Department of Construction and Inspections (continued )

– Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan Approvals

– Large-Parcel Drainage Control Plans with

Construction Best Management Practices andErosion and Sediment Control Approvals

Department of Transportation – Processing of proposed street and alley

vacation(s) – Street Improvement Approvals (e.g., curbcut

and/or sidewalk modifications) – Street Use Permits (temporary – construction-

related)

Fire Department

– Underground Storage Tank(s) Removal

( possibly required)

Seattle City Light

– Electrical Power

Seattle Public Utilities – Water/Wastewater – Recycling

Authors and Principal

Contributors tothis EIS

This WSCC Addit io n DEIS has been prepared under thedirection of the Washington State Convention Center.

Research and analysis for this EIS were provided by thefollowing consulting firms:

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC – lead EIS consultant; document preparation;environmental analysis – land use, population/ housing/environmental justice, aesthetics (viewshed), light/ glare/shadows, recreation, public services;

LMN – EIS alternatives, project design, aesthetics (inputto height/bulk/scale, viewshed photosimulations), andshadow diagrams;

Transpo Group, Inc. – transportation, circulation,loading and parking;

Gustafson Guthrie Nichol – landscape design;

Heffron Transportation, Inc. -- parking;

MKA – water, sewer, stormwater;


13/515


Draft EIS

ix

ARUP – electrical power, natural gas,telecommunications;

Nicholson Kovalchick – historic resources;

RAMBOLL / ENVIRON – air quality, greenhouse gasemissions, pedestrian-level wind, and noise analyses;

Skanska USA Building and Hunt Construction Group – construction input; and

Tree Solutions, Inc. – tree survey.

Location of Background

Data

Washington State Convention Center800 Convention Place

Administration OfficeSeattle, WA 98101

Telephone: 206.694.5000Hours : 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday

Date of Issuance of this

DEIS

February 26, 2016

Date Draft EIS

Comments Are Due

April 11, 2016

Written comments may be submitted to theWashington State Convention Center at the followingaddress:

Postal Address:

Jane Lewis

WSCC Addition Project Coordinatorc/o Pine Street Group L.L.C.1500 Fourth Ave., Suite 600Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: 206.340.9897 Fax : 206.428.3000

E-mail Address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


14/515


Draft EIS

x

Date of Draft EIS Public

Meeting

A public meeting concerning this DEIS is scheduled for5:30 PM, Tuesday March 29, 2016 at

Washington State Convention Center800 Convention Place, Room 206

Seattle, WA

The purpose of this public meeting is to provide anopportunity for agencies, organizations and individuals topresent testimony regarding the proposed WSCCAddi t ion DEIS, as well as an additional opportunity tosubmit written comments. The intended format of themeeting is:

5:30 pm -- opening remarks, overview of the EISalternatives, and overview of the DEIS

5:45 pm – public comments

Availability of this

Draft EIS

Copies of this DEIS have been distributed to agencies,organizations and individuals noted on the Distribution List(Appendix A to this document). This DEIS can bereviewed at the Seattle Public Library – Central Library(1000 Fourth Ave.) and the document is available forreview and downloading on the WSCC Addit io n website – wsccaddition.com.

In addition, a limited number of complimentary CDs of thisDEIS are available – while the supply lasts -- from PineStreet Group L.L.C. (1500 Fourth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle,WA 98101)


15/515

Washington State Convent ion Center Addi t ion TABLE OF CONTENTS

Draft EIS

x i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

FACT SHEET .............................................................................................................. i

I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

and OTHER ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Proponent/Project Location .................................................................................. 2-12.2 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 2-52.3 Background Information ....................................................................................... 2-62.4 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 2-112.5 Community Outreach ......................................................................................... 2-13

2.6 Description of the King County Site Work / Construction,Preferred Alternatives, Other Development Alternatives, andthe No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 2-17King County Site Work ....................................................................................... 2-17Construction ...................................................................................................... 2-25EIS Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-28 Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development ....................... 2-29 Alternative 4.1 – Preferred Alternative With Co-Development ......................... 2-39 Alternative 2 – Alternative With Site A Development Only ............................... 2-55 Alternative 3 – Alternative Without Co-Development and Without

the WSDOT / FHWA Land/Air Lease ............................................................ 2-64 Alternative 4.2 – Alternative With Site B Co-Development .............................. 2-75

Alternative 4.3 –

Alternative With Site C Co-Development .............................. 2-83 Alternative 5 – Convention Place Station With No Vacations .......................... 2-91 Alternative 6 – No Action – Downtown EIS Alternative .................................. 2-100

2.7 Alternatives Considered by not Advancedfor Purposes of SEPA Analysis........................................................................ 2-104

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES

and UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

3.1 Earth ................................................................................................................. 3.1-1

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3.2-13.3 Pedestrian-Level Wind ...................................................................................... 3.3-13.4 Water ................................................................................................................ 3.4-13.5 Environmental Health ....................................................................................... 3.5-13.6 Noise ................................................................................................................ 3.6-13.7 Energy .............................................................................................................. 3.7-13.8 Land Use (Land Use Patterns and Relationship to Plans,

Policies and Regulations................................................................................... 3.8-1


16/515


Draft EIS

xii

3.9 Historic Resources ............................................................................................ 3.9-13.10 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 3.10-13.11 Population / Housing / Environmental Justice ................................................. 3.11-13.12 Aesthetics (Height, Bulk, Scale and Transition) .............................................. 3.12-13.13 Aesthetics (Viewshed) .................................................................................... 3.13-13.14 Light / Glare / Shadows .................................................................................. 3.14-1

3.15 Public Services ............................................................................................... 3.15-13.16 Utilities ............................................................................................................ 3.16-13.17 Transportation, Parking, Loading .................................................................... 3.17-1

REFERENCES........................................................................................................ R-1

APPENDICES

A. Distribution ListB. Convention Place Station Bus Terminal Flyover Ramp – Magnusson Klemencic

Associates Review

C. King County Site Work –

Alternative D LettersD. Greenhouse Gas Emissions WorksheetsE. PCD Public Benefits LettersF. Arborist ReportG. Historic Resources – Appendix A ReportsH. Transportation Discipline Report


17/515


Draft EIS

xi i i

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 EIS Alternatives – Development Summary………………………………1-32-1 Number of Events Held at WSCC – 2011 - 2014 ............................................ 2-72-2 Total Event Attendance at WSCC (All Event Types) – 2011 – 2014 ............... 2-72-3 Site Evaluation – Seattle Center Site .......................................................... 2-1063.2-1 AM Peak Period Intersection Conditions ..................................................... 3.2-83.2-2 PM Peak Period Intersection Conditions ..................................................... 3.2-93.2-3 WASIST Calculated co Concentrations at Fairview/Mercer Intersection .... 3.2-113.2-4 Alternative Areas and Units Considered in GHG Tabulation ...................... 3.2-123.2-5 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3.2-133.3-1 Beaufort Wind Force Classes ...................................................................... 3.3-33.6-1 Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources .................................. 3.6-23.6-2 Seattle Exterior Sound Level and Construction Noise Limits ....................... 3.6-4

3.6-3 Typical Noise Levels From Construction Equipment (DBA) ......................... 3.6-83.10-1 Existing Parks & Recreational Facilities in Immediate Site Vicinity ............ 3.10-23.11-1 Population and Demographic Characteristics ............................................ 3.11-23.11-2 Housing Characteristics............................................................................. 3.11-33.11-3 Employment Characteristics ...................................................................... 3.11-33.11-4 Residential Development in Vicinity of the Proposed WSCC Addition ....... 3.11-43.11-5 Rental Market Vacancy and Average Rent: All Units ................................. 3.11-43.11-6 Subsidized Housing Units and Income Limits ............................................ 3.11-53.11-7 WSCC Addition – Project Event Attendance and Employment .................. 3.11-93.11-8 Project Ancillary Development and Co-Development ................................ 3.11-93.15-1 Police Service Responses to the WSCC Addition Site .............................. 3.15-33.15-2 Police Service Responses to the Existing WSCC ..................................... 3.15-3

3.15-3 Seattle Fire Department Emergency Response Totals .............................. 3.15-43.17-1 Alternatives Analysis Framework .............................................................. 3.17-23.17-2 Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary .................................... 3.17-63.17-3 Arterial Level of Service Summary – Existing ......................................... 3.17-113.17-4 Arterial Level of Service Summary – Existing and 2021 Baseline ........... 3.17-133.17-5 Pedestrian Volumes and Level of Service along Ninth Avenue –

Existing and 2021 Baseline .................................................................... 3.17-193.17-6 WSCC Parking Supply ........................................................................... 3.17-213.17-7 WSCC Existing (2014) Parking Demand ................................................ 3.17-213.17-8 Parking Supply and Utilization for Garages within One-quarter Mile of

WSCC Addition ...................................................................................... 3.17-233.17-9 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type – Alternative 1 ..................... 3.17-263.17-10 Arterial Level of Service Summary – Alternative 1 .................................. 3.17-293.17-11 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes - Alternative 1 .... 3.17-303.17-12 Alternative 1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Ninth Ave. ................. 3.17-313.17-13 Alternative 1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Project Frontages ..... 3.17-323.17-14 Parking Demand for Alternative 1 ........................................................... 3.17-333.17-15 Boren Avenue Service (Freight) Access - Average Inbound Pre-event/

Post-event Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 3.17-353.17-16 Terry Avenue Service (Freight) Access Average Outbound Pre-event/Post


18/515


Draft EIS

x iv

-event Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 3.17-353.17-17 Level of Service Summary – Alternative 1 General Purpose Site

Access Driveway .................................................................................... 3.17-383.17-18 Transportation Concurrency Analysis – Alternative 1 ............................. 3.17-413.17-19 Intersection Level of Service for Restrictions of General Purpose

Traffic to Convention Place ..................................................................... 3.17-47

3.17-20 King County Site Work Closures and Transit Access for Alternative C ... 3.17-483.17-21 Construction Phasing Closures and Transit Access for Alternatives

A, B and C .............................................................................................. 3.17-593.17-22 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type – Alternative 2 ..................... 3.17-623.17-23 Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Comparison ....... 3.17-633.17-24 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Comparison ....... 3.17-643.17-25 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type – Alternative 3 ..................... 3.17-673.17-26 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type – Alternative 4.1 .................. 3.17-703.17-27 Arterial Level of Service Summary – Alternative 4.1 ............................... 3.17-73

3.17-28 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes – Alternative 4.1 3.17-743.17-29 Alternative 4.1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Ninth Ave. .............. 3.17-75

3.17-30 Alternative 4.1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Project Frontages .. 3.17-763.17-31 Transportation Concurrency Analysis – Alternative 4.1........................... 3.17-783.17-32 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips – Alternative 4.2 ...................................... 3.17-803.17-33 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips – Alternative 4.3 ...................................... 3.17-833.17-34 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips – Alternative 5 ......................................... 3.17-863.17-35 Vehicle Trips – No Action ....................................................................... 3.17-89

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2-1 Regional Map ................................................................................................ 2-22.2 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................... 2-32-3 Denny Triangle Neighborhood Boundaries and Project Site Aerial................. 2-42-4 Existing Site Plan ......................................................................................... 2-102-5 Existing Bus Ingress and Egress at Convention Place Station ..................... 2-182-6 King County Site Work – Alternative A ......................................................... 2-222-7 King County Site Work – Alternative B ......................................................... 2-232-8 King County Site Work – Alternative C ......................................................... 2-242-9 Alternative 1 – Level 0.0 and Level -1 ......................................................... 2-332-10 Alternative 1 – Level 0.1 and Level 0.2 ........................................................ 2-342-11 Alternative 1 – Level 1 and Level 2 .............................................................. 2-352-12 Alternative 1 – Level 3 and Level 4 .............................................................. 2-362-13 Alternative 1 – Building Cross-Section ......................................................... 2-372-14 Alternative 1 – Aerial Architectural Depictions – Conceptual Massing .......... 2-382-15 Alternative 4.1 – Level 0.0 and Level -1 ....................................................... 2-422-16 Alternative 4.1 – Level 0.2 and Level 0.1 ..................................................... 2-432-17 Alternative 4.1 – Level 1 and Level 2 ........................................................... 2-44


19/515


Draft EIS

xv

2-18 Alternative 4.1 – Level 3 and Level 4 ........................................................... 2-452-19 Alternative 4.1 – Building Cross-section ....................................................... 2-462-20 Alternative 4.1 – Aerial Architectural Depiction – Northwest Viewpoint ........ 2-472-21 Aerial Architectural Depiction – Ninth Ave. and Pine St. ............................... 2-482-22 Alternative 4.1 – Street-Level Architectural Depiction – Ninth and Pine ....... 2-492-23 Alternative 4.1 – Street-Level Architectural Depiction – Boren and Pine. ..... 2-50

2-24 Alternative 4.1 – Cross-Section Through Site B and Site C Looking North .. 2-512-25 Alternative 4.1 – Cross-Section Through Site B and Site A Looking East ... 2-522-26 Alternative 4.1 – Co-Development Site B Elevations ................................... 2-532-27 Alternative 4.1 – Co-Development Site C Elevations ................................... 2-542-28 Alternative 2 – Level -1 and Level 0 ............................................................. 2-582-29 Alternative 2 – Level 0.1 and Level 0.2 ........................................................ 2-592-30 Alternative 2 – Level 1 and Level 2 .............................................................. 2-602-31 Alternative 2 – Levels 3, 4 and 5 .................................................................. 2-612-32 Alternative 2 – Building Cross-Section ......................................................... 2-622-33 Alternative 2 – Aerial Architectural Depictions – Conceptual Massing .......... 2-632-34 Alternative 3 – Level 0.0 and Level -1 .......................................................... 2-682-35 Alternative 3 – Level 0.2 and Level 0.1 ........................................................ 2-69

2-36 Alternative 3 – Level 1 and Level 2 .............................................................. 2-702-37 Alternative 3 – Levels 3, 4 and 5 .................................................................. 2-712-38 Alternative 3 – Building Cross-Section ......................................................... 2-722-39 Alternative 3 – Aerial Architectural Depictions – Conceptual Massing .......... 2-732-40 Alternative 3 – Architectural Detail at Southeast Corner ............................... 2-742-41 Alternative 4.2 – Level -1 and Level 0.0 ....................................................... 2-772-42 Alternative 4.2 – Level 0.1 and Level 0.2 ..................................................... 2-782-43 Alternative 4.2 – Level 1 and Level 2 ........................................................... 2-792-44 Alternative 4.2 – Level 3 and Level 4 ........................................................... 2-802-45 Alternative 4.2 – Building Cross-Section ...................................................... 2-812-46 Alternative 4.2 – Aerial Architectural Depictions – Conceptual Massing ....... 2-822-47 Alternative 4.3 – Level -1 and Level 0.0 ....................................................... 2-85

2-48 Alternative 4.3 – Level 0.1 and Level 0.2 ..................................................... 2-862-49 Alternative 4.3 – Level 1 and Level 2 ........................................................... 2-872-50 Alternative 4.3 – Level 3 and Level 4 ........................................................... 2-882-51 Alternative 4.3 – Building Cross-Section ...................................................... 2-892-52 Alternative 4.3 – Aerial Architectural Depictions – Conceptual Massing ....... 2-902-53 Alternative 5 – Level -1 and Level 0 ............................................................. 2-932-54 Alternative 5 – Level 0.1 and Level 0.2 ........................................................ 2-942-55 Alternative 5 – Level 1 and Level 2 .............................................................. 2-952-56 Alternative 5 – Level 3 and Level 4 .............................................................. 2-962-57 Alternative 5 – Level 5 and Level 6 .............................................................. 2-972-58 Alternative 5 – Building Cross-Section ......................................................... 2-982-59 Alternative 5 – Aerial Architectural Depictions – Conceptual Massing .......... 2-99

3.3-1 Downwashing Flow (left) and Chaneling Flow (right) .................................. 3.3-13.3-2 Wind Comfort and Safety Criteria................................................................ 3.3-23.3-3 10-Year Average Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution .......... 3.3-43.3-4 Histogram of Beaufort Class Frequency...................................................... 3.3-53.8-1 Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project Site ................................................ 3.8-33.8-2 Development Projects in the Site Vicinity .................................................... 3.8-63.9-1 Alternative 4.1, Aerial Architectural Depiction as

Viewed from Ninth Ave. and Pine St. .......................................................... 3.9-7


20/515


Draft EIS

xvi

3.9-2 Ninth Avenue Looking South ....................................................................... 3.9-83.9-3 Pine Street Looking West ........................................................................... 3.9-93.9-4 Pine Street Looking East .......................................................................... 3.9-103.9-5 Ninth Avenue Looking South ..................................................................... 3.9-123.9-6 Ninth Avenue Looking North ..................................................................... 3.9-133.9-7 Alternative 5 – Ninth Avenue Looking South ............................................. 3.9-15

3.9-8 Alternative 5 – Pine Street Looking West .................................................. 3.9-163.9-9 Alternative 5 – Pine Street Looking East ................................................... 3.9-173.9-10 Alternative 5 – Ninth Avenue Looking South ............................................. 3.9-183.9-11 Alternative 5 – Ninth Avenue Looking North .............................................. 3.9-193.13-1 Viewpoint Location Map ............................................................................ 3.13-23.13-2 Viewpoint 1 – Volunteer Park .................................................................... 3.13-63.13-3 Viewpoint 2 – Bhy Kracke Park ................................................................. 3.13-83.13-4 Viewpoint 3a – Plymoth Pillars Park – North ........................................... 3.13-103.13-5 Viewpoint 3b – Plymouth Pillars Park – South ........................................ 3.13-123.13-6 Viewpoint 4 – Kerry Park ........................................................................ 3.13-143.13-7 Viewpoint 5a – Paramount Theatre West –

Looking West on Pine St. ........................................................................ 3.13-16

3.13-8 Viewpoint 5b – Paramount Theatre East – Looking East on Pine St. ......................................................................... 3.13-18

3.13-9 Viewpoint 6a – Camlin South – Looking South on Ninth Ave. ................. 3.13-203.13-10 Viewpoint 6b – Camlin North – Looking North on Ninth Ave.................... 3.13-223.13-11 Viewpoint 7 – I-5 From Denny Way Overpass......................................... 3.13-243.13-12 Viewpoint 8 – Olive Way from Yale Avenue ............................................ 3.13-263.14-1 8 AM, March 21st - Vernal Equniox – Pacific Daylight Savings Time ......... 3.14-53.14-2 5 PM, March 21st - Vernal Equniox – Pacific Daylight Savings Time ......... 3.14-73.14-3 8 AM, June 21st – Summer Solstice – Pacific Daylight Savings Time ........ 3.14-93.14-4 5 PM, June 21st – Summer Solsitce – Pacific Daylight Savings Time ...... 3.14-103.14-5 8 AM, Sept. 21st - Autumnal Equniox – Pacific Daylight Savings Time .... 3.14-123.14-6 5 PM, Sept 21st - Autumanl Equniox – Pacific Daylight Savings Time ..... 3.14-14

3.14-7 8:30 AM, Dec 21st – Winter Solstice – Pacific Standard Time ................. 3.14-153.14-8 4 PM, Dec 21st – Winter Solstice – Pacific Standard Time ...................... 3.14-163.14-9 8AM March 21st - Vernal Equniox –

Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Alt. 3 ....................................................... 3.14-183.14-10 5 PM March 21st - Vernal Equniox –

Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Alt. 3 ....................................................... 3.14-193.14-11 8 AMJune 21st – Summer Solstice –

Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Alt. 3 ....................................................... 3.14-203.14-12 5 PM, June 21st – Summer Solsitce – Pacific Daylight Savings Time ...... 3.14-213.14-13 8 AM, Sept. 21st - Autumnal Equniox –

Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Alt. 3 ....................................................... 3.14-223.14-14 5 PM, Sept. 21st - Autumnal Equniox –

Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Alt. 3 ....................................................... 3.14-233.14-15 8:30 AM, Dec 21st – Winter Solstice – Pacific Standard Time, Alt. 3 ....... 3.14-243.14-16 4 PM, Dec 21st – Winter Solstice – Pacific Standard Time, Alt. 3 ............ 3.14-253.14-17 Shadow Analysis – Existing Conditions .................................................. 3.14-303.14-18 Shadow Analysis – Alternative 1 ............................................................ 3.14-323.14-19 Shadow Analysis – Alternative 4.1 ......................................................... 3.14-363.14-20 Shadow Analysis – Alternative 2 ............................................................ 3.14-373.14-21 Shadow Analysis – Alternative 3 ............................................................ 3.14-38


21/515


Draft EIS

xvi i

3.14-22 Shadow Analysis – Alternative 4.2 ......................................................... 3.14-393.14-23 Shadow Analysis – Alternative 4.3 ......................................................... 3.14-403.14-24 Shadow Analysis – Alternative 5 ............................................................ 3.14-413.15-1 Fire and Police Stations Closest to Site .................................................... 3.15-23.17-1 Study Area and Intersections .................................................................... 3.17-33.17-2 Arterial Classification in the Study Area .................................................... 3.17-5

3.17-3 Existing (2016) Weekday Intersection level of Service Summary ............ 3.17-103.17-4 Existing/Baseline Weekday 2021 Intersection

Level of Service Summary ...................................................................... 3.17-123.17-5 Existing Transit Service in the Site Vicinity .............................................. 3.17-153.17-6 Existing Peak Period Transit Service near WSCC Addition Site .............. 3.17-163.17-7 Existing and Proposed Site Access – Alternative 1 ................................. 3.17-273.17-8 Alternative 1: Proposed Alley Vacations.................................................. 3.17-393.17-9 Alternative A DSTT Site Access Plan ...................................................... 3.17-433.17-10 Transit Pathways during WSCC Addition Construction ........................... 3.17-453.17-11 King County Site Work Roadway Modifications ....................................... 3.17-463.17-12 Option 1: Phased Offsets Construction, Phase 1 .................................... 3.17-503.17-13 Option 1: Phased Offsets Construction, Phase 2 .................................... 3.17-51

3.17-14 Option 1: Olive Way On-Site Reroute ..................................................... 3.17-533.17-15 Option 3: Reroute to Howell Street, Phase 1 ........................................... 3.17-553.17-16 Option 3: Reroute to Howell Street, Phase 2 ........................................... 3.17-563.17-17 Howell Street Cross Section between Ninth Ave and Boren Ave ............ 3.17-573.17-18 Existing and Proposed Site Access – Alternative 2 ................................. 3.17-623.17-19 Alternative 4.1: Weekday Intersection LOS Summary ............................. 3.17-723.17-20 Transportation Management Strategies .................................................. 3.17-913.17-21 Pronto Cycle Share Locations ................................................................. 3.17-92


22/515

SECTION I

SUMMARY


23/515

Washington State Convent ion Center Addi t ion Sect ion I

Draft EIS Summ ary

1-1

SECTION I

SUMMARY

This section is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the WSCCAddi t ion . It briefly describes the Proposed Actions and Project Alternatives and it highlightsresults of the environmental impact analysis. A matrix in this chapter contains a comparativeoverview of significant environmental impacts identified for the alternatives and is followed by alist of applicable mitigation measures.

Purpose

This Draft EIS evaluates the environmental consequences of various alternatives regarding the

development of the WSCC Addit io n on a site in Downtown Seattle’s Denny Triangle UrbanCenter Village,1 approximately one block northeast of the existing Washington State ConventionCenter. Depending upon the alternative (described below), the site comprises an area of up tothree blocks -- Site A, B and C. The 3-block site is bounded by Howell St. on the north, Boren

Ave. on the east, I-5 on the southeast, Pine St. on the south and Ninth Ave. on the west.

Preferred Alternatives

The applicant indicates that two Preferred Alternatives are proposed: Alternative 1 is thePreferred Alternative Without Co-Development, and Altern ative 4.1 is the Preferred AlternativeWith Co-Development.

Alternative 1 – Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development – Total developmentassociated with this alternative would approximate 1,511,700-sq.-ft. on the three parcels notedabove. Included with this alternative would be a 1,256,500-sq.-ft. WSCC Addit ion ;approximately 37,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses including but not limited to retail, restaurantsand entertainment uses; below-grade parking for 700 to 800 vehicles; full vacation of four Cityrights-of-way and a subterranean vacation; and a WSDOT air rights/ground lease.

Alternative 4.1 – Preferred Alternative With Co-Development – Total developmentassociated with this alternative would approximate 2,390,550-sq.-ft. on the three parcels notedabove. Included as part of this alternative would be a 1,473,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addit io n ; 43,000sq. ft. of street-level uses; co-development on Site B of a 29-story, approximately 400-unit

residential tower and co-development on Site C with a 16-story, approximately 516,000 sq. ft.office tower; below-grade parking for 700 to 800 vehicles; full vacation of four City rights-of-wayand a subterranean vacation; and a WSDOT air rights/ground lease.

1 The area is part of the Downtown Denny Triangle Urban Center (Seattle, 2005 [UV17 and UV18]). See theReferences section of this DEIS for the complete citation.


24/515

Washington State Convent ion Center Addi t ion Sect ion I

Draft EIS Summ ary

1-2

Other Alternatives

In order to aid in the decision-making process associated with the development of the site, fiveother development alternatives are evaluated in this Draft EIS in addition to the two Preferred

Alternatives and a No Action Alternative . These other alternatives include the following:

Alternative 2 .............Alternative With Site A Development Only;

Alternative 3 Alternative Without Co-Development, Without the WSDOTLand/Air Lease, and Without the Requirement for FHWAAction When Paired with King County Site Work AlternativeB;

Altern ative 4.2 ..........Alternative With Site B Co-Development;

Altern ative 4.3 ..........Alternative With Site C Co-Development;

Alternative 5 .............Convention Place Station Site With No Vacations; and

Alternative 6 .............No Action Downtown EIS Alternative.

Table 1-1 contains a summary comparing the development area under EIS Altern atives 1-5 .

Summary Matrix

Table 1-2 provides a comparative summary of the alternatives and highlights results of theenvironmental impact analysis for each element of the environment that is evaluated in thisDraft EIS, based on each of the alternatives. This summary table is not intended to be asubstitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Section III .Following the matrix is a list of potential mitigation measures.


25/515

Washingto n State Conventio n Center Add it ion Sect ion I

Draft EIS Summ ary

1-3

Table 1-1

EIS Alternatives – Development Summary

Alternative1

Alternative4.1

Alternative2

Alternative3

Alternative4.2

Alternative4.3

Alternative5

WSCC Addition

Ballroom 60,000 sq. ft. 60,000 sq. ft. 60,000 sq. ft. 59,000 sq. ft. 60,000 sq. ft. 60,000 sq. ft. 60,00 sq. ft.

Meeting Room120,000 sq. ft. 120,000 sq. ft. 110,000 sq. ft. 120,000 sq. ft. 120,000 sq. ft. 120,000 sq. ft. 110,000 sq. ft.

Exhibit Halls 250,000 sq. ft. 250,000 sq. ft. 200,000 sq. ft. 249,000 sq. ft. 250,000 sq. ft. 250,000 sq. ft. 240,000 sq. ft.

# of Active LoadingBays2 19 19 15 19 19 19 15

Total WSCC Addition Area 1,256,500 sq. ft. 1,256,500 sq. ft. 1,141,000 sq. ft. 1,233,750 sq. ft. 1,256,500 sq. ft. 1,256,500 sq. ft. 1,379,300 sq. fAncillary Development

Parking 237,000 sq. ft. 237,000 sq. ft. 220,000 sq. ft. 230,000 sq. ft. 237,000 sq. ft. 237,000 sq. ft. 217,500 sq. ft.Parking Count 700 to 800 700 to 800 650 to 750 690 to 790 700 to 800 700 to 800 600 to 700Retail 25,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. 14,900 sq. ft. 23,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. 14,900 sq. ft.Total Gross Area 1,499,700 sq. ft. 1,499,700 sq. ft. 1,370,000 sq. ft. 1,473,700 sq. ft. 1,499,700 sq. ft. 1,499,700 sq. ft. 1,611,700 sq. ft.Co-Development Sites B and C

RetailSite BSite C

012,000 sq. ft.

8,000 sq. ft.10,000 sq. ft.

00

012,000 sq. ft.

8,000 sq. ft.12,000 sq. ft.

010,000 sq. ft.

00

Co-Development Area

Site B (29-stories)Site C (16-stories)

00

357,150 sq. ft.515,700 sq. ft.

00

00

357,150 sq. ft.0

0515,700 sq. ft.

00

Total Development Area 1,511,700 sq. ft. 2,390,550 sq. ft. 1,370,000 sq. ft. 1,485,700 sq. ft. 1,876,850 sq. ft. 2,025,400 sq. ft. 1,611,700 sq. f

2 Represents the number of active loading bays used for freight activities. Additional loading bays are provided, but utilized for trash and recycling.


26/515

Table 1-2

Summary Matrix – Potential Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

Washington State Convent ion Center Addi t ion Sect ion

Draft EIS Summary

1-4

Alternative 1

Preferred Alternative

WSCC Addi t ion Without

Co-Development

Alternative 4.1


WSCC Addi t ion With

Co-Development

Alternative 2

Al ternative w i th

Site A Developmen t

Only

Alternative 3

Al ternat ive w i thout

Co-Development and

wi thout WSDOT

Land/Air Lease

Alternative 4.2

Al ternat ive w i th Si te B

Co-Development

Alternative 4.3

Alternative with Site C

Co-Development

Alternative 5

Conventio n Place Station

Site with No Vacations

Alternative 6

No Act ion Al ternat ive

EARTHKing CountySite Work

Some excavation couldoccur, but would likely belimited in degree and depth,and minimal earth impactswould be expected.

Impacts would be asdescribed for Al ternative 1 .






King County Si te Work

could occur as describedunder Al ternative 1 .

Grading Approximately 574,000cubic yards of soil would beexcavated, andapproximately 28,700 trucktrips would be required totransport material from thesite. Site excavations may

have the potential to createlocalized erosion.Construction BMPs andErosion and SedimentControl measures would beundertaken.


Less earthwork would beneeded under Al ternative2 , since construction wouldonly occur on Site A.




Less earthwork would beneeded under Al ternative5 , since construction wouldonly occur on Site A, andno alley or street vacationswould occur.

Less earthwork would beneeded, since constructionwould only occur on Site A.

BuildingSupport

The building would besupported on spread or matfoundations withconventional slabs-on-gradeoutside the core matfoundation. Foundationswould be lower thansurrounding roadways,utilities, and sidewalks andno impacts to those facilitieswould be anticipated.








AIR QUALITY A ND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSKing CountySite Work

Demolition of the existingCPS facilities and otheractivities could result intemporary, localizedincreases in particulateconcentrations due toemissions fromconstruction-relatedsources. Impacts would be

similar to but less thanthose described below forconstruction.










27/515

Table 1-2



Draft EIS Summary

1-5

Alternative 1



Co-Development

Alternative 4.1



Co-Development

Alternative 2

Al ternative w i th

Site A Developmen t

Only

Alternative 3


Co-Development and

wi thout WSDOT

Land/Air Lease

Alternative 4.2


Co-Development

Alternative 4.3


Co-Development

Alternative 5



Alternative 6


AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – con’t Construction Construction activities such

as excavation anddemolition could result intemporary, localizedincreases in particulateconcentrations, andpotentially contact withasbestos-containingmaterials. Other short-termemissions anticipatedinclude emissions fromconstruction equipment andtraffic congestion in the site

vicinity and odorsassociated with activitiessuch as paving. Nosignificant adverse impactsare expected.








Operation Emissions would increasedue to vehicular traffic andtrucks transporting materialsto the facility, as well asemissions from exhaustrelated to on-site foodpreparation and exhaustvents within the facility. Nosignificant adverse impactsare expected.








GreenhouseGas Emissions

Factors contributing togreenhouse gas emissionsinclude residential, retailand office space, and publicassembly, and no significantclimate change impactswould be expected due tofacility-related GHGemissions.








PEDESTRIAN LEVEL WINDKing County

Site Work

King County Si te Work is

not expected to causedirect, pedestrian level windimpacts.

Impacts would be as

described for Al ternative 1 .

Impacts would be as


Impacts would be as


Impacts would be as


Impacts would be as


Impacts would be as




Construction Construction activities arenot expected to cause anydirect, significant pedestrianlevel wind impacts.









28/515

Table 1-2



Draft EIS Summary

1-6

Alternative 1



Co-Development

Alternative 4.1



Co-Development

Alternative 2

Al ternative w i th

Site A Developmen t

Only

Alternative 3


Co-Development and

wi thout WSDOT

Land/Air Lease

Alternative 4.2


Co-Development

Alternative 4.3


Co-Development

Alternative 5



Alternative 6


PEDESTRIAN LEVEL WIND – con’t Operation The use of large massing

and overhead canopiesalong sidewalks preventshigh winds at pedestrianlevels, therefore, nosignificant acceleration ofwinds is expected to occur.








WATER

King County

Site Work

No direct, significant water-related impacts would beexpected. A temporaryerosion and sediment

control plan (TESCP), bestmanagement practices(BMPs) and StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) would beimplemented as required.









Construction

Impacts –

Groundwater

Temporary dewateringwould be necessary tomanage perchedgroundwater.Implementation of aTESCP, BMPs and SWPPPwould occur to prevent orminimize impacts to waterresources.








Construction

Impacts -

Stormwater

Exposed soils wouldincrease the risk of erosionand sediment transport, withincreased risk during wetweather. A Large ProjectConstruction StormwaterControl Plan would beprepared to provide waterquality treatment andprotect downstreamresources. Constructionphase stormwater discharge

would be accommodated byre-using existing sanitary orstorm drain side sewers.

Impacts would be similar tothose described forAl ternative 1 .

Impacts would be similar tobut less than thosedescribed for Al ternative 1 ,because less earthworkwould be necessary (andconsequently there wouldbe less erosion potential)since only Site A would bedeveloped.




Impacts would be similar tobut less than thosedescribed for Al ternative 1 ,because less earthworkwould be necessary (andconsequently there wouldbe less erosion potential)since only Site A would bedeveloped.

Impacts would be similar tobut less than thosedescribed for Al ternative 1 ,because less earthworkwould be necessary (andconsequently there would beless erosion potential) sinceonly Site A would bedeveloped.


29/515

Table 1-2



Draft EIS Summary

1-7

Alternative 1



Co-Development

Alternative 4.1



Co-Development

Alternative 2

Al ternative w i th

Site A Developmen t

Only

Alternative 3


Co-Development and

wi thout WSDOT

Land/Air Lease

Alternative 4.2


Co-Development

Alternative 4.3


Co-Development

Alternative 5



Alternative 6


WATER – con’t

Operational

Impacts –

Stormwater

A below-slab stormwaterdetention vault would beprovided in the WSCCAddi t ion , and stormwaterwould be collected andconveyed to four 8-inchdedicated storm drain sidesewers. Green StormwaterInfrastructure could beincorporated and used foron-site flow control andwater quality treatment.


Impacts would be similar tothose described forAl ternative 1 , except thatfewer dedicated storm drainside sewers would beinstalled (two).


Impacts would be similar tothose described forAl ternative 1 , except thatfewer dedicated storm drainside sewers would beinstalled (three).

Impacts would be similar tothose described forAl ternative 1 , except thatfewer dedicated storm drainside sewers would beinstalled (three).

Impacts would be similar tothose described forAl ternative 1 , except thatfewer dedicated storm drainside sewers would beinstalled (two).

Permanent stormwatercontrol systems would bedesigned and constructedon Site A in accordancewith City of Seattle DrainageCode, similar to thosedescribed for Al ternative 1 .

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHKing County

Site Work

Any excavations that occurwould be expected to belimited in degree and depth. Any contaminated soil orUSTs encountered would beremoved and disposed of inaccordance with State andFederal guidelines.









Construction All existing buildings onSites B and C would bedemolished; prior todemolition, any asbestos,PCBs, lead-based paint,etc. that could beencountered would beremoved and disposed of bya qualified abatementcontractor in accordancewith State and Federalguidelines. Soil excavationwould occur on Sites A, B and C, and anycontaminated soil and USTsencountered would beremoved and disposed of inaccordance with State andFederal guidelines.

Impacts would be generallyas described for Al ternative1 .

Development would onlyoccur on Site A, andimpacts on Site A would begenerally as described forAl ternative 1 .Contaminated soil wouldremain beneath Sites B andC. Remedial activities couldoccur as the result of f uturedevelopment at Sites B andC, but not as a result ofAl ternative 2 .




Development would onlyoccur on Site A, andimpacts on Site A would begenerally as described forAl ternative 1 .Contaminated soil wouldremain beneath Sites B andC. Remedial activities couldoccur as the result of futuredevelopment at Sites B andC, but not as a result ofAl ternative 5 .

Contaminated soil wouldremain beneath Sites B andC, as described forAl ternative 2 . It is assumedthat excavation, removaland disposal of anycontaminated soils or USTswould occur as described forAl ternative 1 in accordancewith State and Federalguidelines.


30/515

Table 1-2



Draft EIS Summary

1-8

Alternative 1



Co-Development

Alternative 4.1



Co-Development

Alternative 2

Al ternative w i th

Site A Developmen t

Only

Alternative 3


Co-Development and

wi thout WSDOT

Land/Air Lease

Alternative 4.2


Co-Development

Alternative 4.3


Co-Development

Alternative 5



Alternative 6


NOISE

King County

Site Work

Removal of the passengerfacilities entails fairlyminimal construction workthat is not expected tocause significant noiseimpacts. Installation of theTPSS would occur within atunnel, and noise from thisactivity would not beexpected to affect receiversoutside of the tunnel.Overall, no significant noiseimpacts would be expected.





Impacts would be as


Impacts would be as




Construction Construction-related noisewould be associated withdemolition, excavation,foundation work, steel frameerecting, and variousfinishing activities and hasthe potential to affect nearbyreceivers – particularlynoise-sensitive commercialuses and residences nearthe site. Noise resulting fromconstruction activities wouldbe subject to timingrestrictions and sound levellimits of the Seattle NoiseCode, minimizing thepotential for significantimpacts.

Impacts would be asdescribed for Al ternative 1 with additional noiseassociated with constructionof co-development on SitesB and C, with additionalpotential impacts to noise-sensitive receptors locatednorth of Sites B and C.

Impacts would be similar tobut slightly less than thosedescribed for Al ternative 1 .

Impacts would be as similarto, but slightly less thanthose described forAl ternative 1 .

Impacts would be similar tobut less than underAlternat ive 4.1 with co-development only occurringon Site B.

Impacts would be similar tobut less than underAlternat ive 4.1 with co-development only occurringon Site C.

Impacts would becomparable to thosedescribed for Al ternative 1 .

Impacts would comparableto those described forAl ternative 1 .


31/515

Table 1-2



Draft EIS Summary

1-9

Alternative 1



Co-Development

Alternative 4.1



Co-Development

Alternative 2

Al ternative w i th

Site A Developmen t

Only

Alternative 3


Co-Development and

wi thout WSDOT

Land/Air Lease

Alternative 4.2


Co-Development

Alternative 4.3


Co-Development

Alternative 5



Alternative 6


NOISE – con’t

Operation Potential sources of noiseassociated with theoperation of the proposedWSCC Addi t ion includenoise from WSCC activities,the facility truck loadingdock, increased vehiculartraffic to and from the site,outside HVAC and othermechanical equipment, andemergency powergenerators. WSCC activitieswould general occur inside

the building, and truckloading would occur belowgrade, and no significantnoise impacts would beexpected. Mechanicalequipment and generatorswould be subject to codelimits. No noise impacts areanticipated from changes intraffic volumes due to theproposed project.

Impacts would be asdescribed for Al ternative 1with additional noise fromresidential and office useson Sites B and C. Noisefrom human activitiesassociated with co-development would beexpected to produce soundlevels similar to whatalready occur in Downtownand would not be expectedto result in significant noise

impacts.



Impacts would be similar tobut less than underAlternat ive 4.1 with co-development only occurringon Site B.

Impacts would be similar tobut less than underAlternat ive 4.1 with co-development only occurringon Site C.


Impacts would comparableto those described forAl ternative 1 .

ENERGY

King County

Site Work

Other than relocation of theTPSS, King County Si teWork is not expected toimpact electrical or naturalgas services surroundingthe site.









Construction Some interruptions toelectrical and natural gasservices to the site and sitevicinity could occur,particularly duringinstallation and connectionof service to the newdevelopment.







Impacts could becomparable to thosedescribed for Al ternative 1 .


32/515

Table 1-2



Draft EIS Summary

1-10

Alternative 1



Co-Development

Alternative 4.1



Co-Development

Alternative 2

Al ternative w i th

Site A Developmen t

Only

Alternative 3


Co-Development and

wi thout WSDOT

Land/Air Lease

Alternative 4.2


Co-Development

Alternative 4.3


Co-Development

Alternative 5



Alternative 6


ENERGY – con’t

Electrical The WSCC Addi t ion wouldhave a calculated load ofapproximately 20,000kilowatts (kW). Anemergency/standby powergenerator would beprovided with a totalcalculated load of 2,500 kW.Onsite generation of powerfrom renewable sourceswould include a 100 kWphotovoltaic system orequivalent hot water

system.

Electrical loads for theWSCC Addi t ion would bethe same as Al ternative 1 .Site B co-development(residential bldg.) loadrequirements would beapproximately 2.8megawatts (MW), and SiteC co-development (officebldg.) load requirementwould be approximately 3.2MW.

Electrical loads,emergency/standby powerand renewable powerfeatures for the WSCCAddi t ion would be thesame as described underAl ternative 1 .

Electrical loads,emergency/standby powerand renewable powerfeatures for the WSCCAddi t ion would be similar toor less than those describedunder Al ternative 1 ,because total developmentarea for the project wouldbe slightly reduced withoutthe WSDOT/ land/air lease.

Electrical loads,emergency/standby powerand renewable powerfeatures for the WSCCAddi t ion and for Site B co-development, would be thesame as for Alternativ e 4.1 .No co-development wouldbe provided on Site C.

Electrical loads,emergency/standby powerand renewable powerfeatures for the WSCCAddi t ion and for Site C co-development, would be thesame as for Alternati ve 4.1 .No co-development wouldbe provided on Site B.

Electrical loads,emergency/standy powerand renewable powerfeatures for the WSCCAddi t ion would be thesame as described underAl ternative 1 .

Potential future developmentwould require new electrical,connections to provideservice and would becoordinated with the existingpurveyors.

Natural Gas Gas service would beprovided by Puget SoundEnergy, and would besupplied to mechanicalboilers, domestic hot waterheaters serving the kitchenspace, exhibit hall spaceand retail space. A 4-inch,high pressure (10 psi)natural gas connectionwould serve the project.

Natural gas service andload requirements for theWSCC Addi t ion would besimilar to Al ternative 1 .Load requirements for co-development would betypical of downtown urbanoffice and r esidentialdevelopment.

Natural gas service andload requirements for theWSCC Addi t ion would besimilar to Al ternative 1 .


Natural gas service andload requirements for theWSCC Addi t ion and forSite B co-development,

would be the same asAlternat ive 4.1 . No co-development would beprovided on Site C.

Natural gas service andload requirements for theWSCC Addi t ion and forSite C co-development,

would be the same asAlternat ive 4.1 . No co-development would beprovided on Site B.


Potential future developmentwould require new electrical,connections to provideservice and would becoordinated with the existingpurveyors.

LAND USEKing County

Site Work

Demolition, site preparation,excavation, andconstruction would generateland use impacts on-site aswell as some short-termimpacts to adjacent landuses, such as nearbyresidential properties.









WSCC Addition Draft EIS

Documents

Transcript of WSCC Addition Draft EIS