WSCC Addition Draft EIS

DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

for the
WASHINGTON STATE
CONVENTION
CENTER
ADDITION
Master Use Permit Project Nos. 3018096, 3020176, 3020177
February 26, 2016

prepared by the
Washington State Convention Center

Seattle, Washington
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 has
been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised
Code 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 Center
implementing 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 appropriate
methodology and WSCC has directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken in preparation of this
DEIS. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for
an action. In its final form as a Final EIS it will accompany the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1 or 4.1) of this
DEIS -- or such other alternative that may be identified as part of the FEIS -- and will be considered in making final
decisions 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
--PREFACE-The purpose of this Draft EIS (DEIS) is to evaluate potential sites and site development alternatives that could
meet the operational objectives of WSCC associated with the proposed WSCC Addition. Key considerations
of 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 State
Convention Center Addition, 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, and
construction-related impacts. As such, this DEIS is a disclosure document. It does not authorize a specific
action or alternative nor does it recommend for or against a particular course of action; it is one of several key
documents that will be considered by WSCC, the City of Seattle, and other permitting/approval agencies in the
decision-making processes for this project. A list of expected licenses, permits and approvals is contained in
the Fact Sheet of this DEIS (pages v-vii). The Final EIS (FEIS) will accompany the applications specifically
associated with the permit processes and will be considered as the final environmental (SEPA) document
relative to those permit applications.
The environmental elements that are analyzed in this DEIS were determined as a result of the formal, public
EIS scoping process that occurred February 18, 2015, through March 11, 2015, and was later extended
through May 15, 2015. A SEPA Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice was mailed to 109 agencies and
organizations informing them that an EIS would be prepared for this project and requesting comments
regarding alternatives and environmental issues that should be analyzed in this DEIS. An EIS Scoping
Meeting was held March 3, 2015 at the Washington State Convention Center to provide an opportunity to
better understand the proposed project and to present testimony concerning the scope of the proposed EIS.
During 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 alternatives,
five design alternatives, and the No Action Alternative should be analyzed in light of 17 areas of environmental
review, including: earth, air quality / greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian-level wind, water,
environmental health (site assessment), noise, energy, land use, historic resources, recreation,
population / housing, aesthetics (height, bulk, scale), aesthetics (viewshed), light/glare/shadows, public
services, 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 Preferred
Alternatives (Alternative 1 and 4.1), other alternatives including the No Action Alternative, the project location,
project 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 and
contains a comprehensive, comparative matrix that identifies adverse environmental impacts, mitigation
measures, 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 that
are analyzed in this DEIS; and
Section III (page 3-1) This section contains an analysis of probable adverse environmental impacts that could
result from implementation of any of the alternatives. Also included in this section are possible mitigation
measures and potential significant adverse environmental impacts.
FACT SHEET
Name of Proposal
Proponent
Location

Addition
c/o Pine Street Group L.L.C.
1500 Fourth Ave., Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101
The site is in Downtown Seattles Denny Triangle Urban
Center Village,2 approximately one block northeast of the
existing Washington State Convention Center. Depending
upon the alternative (described below), the site comprises
an area of up to three blocks3 -- Site A, B and C. The 3block 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 (see inset). Olive Way
bisects the 3-block site area in an east-west direction and
Terry Ave. bisects the two north parcels Site B and Site
C in generally a north-south direction.
As depicted, the largest
parcel is bounded by
Olive Way on the north,
Boren Ave. on the east,
I-5 on the southeast,
Pine St. on the south,
and Ninth Ave. on the
west. Other than the
building
associated
with a former auto
dealership located in
the northeast portion of
Site A, this parcel
currently serves as King County Metros Convention Place
Station (CPS). It is expected that buses will continue to
use CPS and operate in the tunnel until at least September
2018. Washington State Convention Center proposes to
acquire this site from King County.
The area is part of the Downtown Denny Triangle Urban Center (Seattle, 2005 [UV17 and UV18]). See the
References section of this DEIS for the complete citation.
Also referred to in this EIS as parcels.
Washington State Convention Center Addition

Draft EIS
i
FACT SHEET
Alternatives
Eight alternatives are analyzed in this DEIS, comprising

different site areas and development considerations. It is
anticipated that with the exception of the No Action
Alternative, all alternatives could be developed as a
Planned Community Development (PCD)4 or under the
Citys bonus system. Most alternatives would involve
vacation of City rights-of-way and most would involve a
WSDOT ground/air rights lease of property.
To allow Metro buses to use CPS until buses come out of
the Downtown Transit Tunnel, WSCC and King County are
discussing options for completing site work in order to
prepare the CPS site for sale. Three alternatives (A, B
and C) have been identified and are evaluated in this
DEIS.
In terms of schedule, King County Site Work may begin in
2016, construction of the proposed WSCC Addition would
commence in 2017, and it is proposed that the WSCC
Addition be operational by 2020.
The following describe the Preferred Alternatives, Other
Development Alternatives, and the No Action
Alternative.
Preferred Alternatives
Two Preferred Alternatives are proposed: Alternative 1

Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development and
Alternative 4.1 Preferred Alternative With CoDevelopment. The following briefly describes each.
Alternative 1 Preferred Alternative Without CoDevelopment Total development associated with this
alternative would approximate 1,511,700-sq.-ft. on the
three parcels noted above. Included with this alternative
would be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition that
includes: approximately 37,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses5
(including but not limited to retail, restaurants and
entertainment uses); parking for 700-800 vehicles; full
vacation of three City rights-of-way, a subterranean
vacation, and either full or subterranean vacation of an
additional City right-of-way; and a WSDOT ground/air
rights lease.
Alternative 4.1 Preferred Alternative With
Development Total development associated with
alternative would approximate 2,390,550-sq.-ft. on
three parcels noted above. Included as part of
4
5
Cothis
the
this
Seattle Municipal Code 23.49.036

This amount includes square footage on Site A and Site C.

Draft EIS
ii
FACT SHEET
alternative would be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition,

which includes 43,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses;6 codevelopment on Site B of a 29-story, 400-unit residential
tower 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 an
additional City right-of-way; and a WSDOT ground/air
rights lease.
Other Development
Alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative With Site A-Development

Only Total development associated with this alternative
would approximate 1,370,000-sq.-ft. on only one of the
parcels noted above Site A.
Included with this
alternative would be a 1,370,000-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition,
which includes 14,900-sq.-ft. of street-level uses; no codevelopment 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 the
Requirement for FHWA Action When Paired with King
County Site Work Alternative B Total development
associated with this alternative would approximate
1,485,700-sq.-ft. on the three parcels noted above.
Included with this alternative would be a 1,473,700-sq.-ft.
WSCC Addition, which includes approximately 35,000sq.-ft. of street-level uses;7 no co-development; parking for
690 790 vehicles; full vacation of three City rights-of-way,
a subterranean vacation, and either full or subterranean
vacation of an additional City right-of-way; and no WSDOT
ground/air rights lease.
Alternative 4.2 Alternative With Site B CoDevelopment Total development associated with this
would be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition, which
includes approximately 45,000-sq.-ft. of street-level uses;8
co-development on Site B of a 29-story, 400-unit
residential tower; no major co-development on Site C;
parking same as Alternative 1; full vacation of three City
rights-of-way, a subterranean vacation, and either full or
subterranean vacation of an additional City right-of-way;
and a WSDOT ground/air rights lease.
6
7
8
This amount includes square footage on Site A, Site B and Site C.

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

Draft EIS
iii
FACT SHEET
Alternative 4.3 Alternative With Site C CoDevelopment Total development associated with this
would be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition, which
includes 35,000-sq.-ft. of street-level uses;9 codevelopment on Site C of a 16-story, 515,700-sq.-ft. office
tower and no co-development on Site B; parking same
as Alternative 1; full vacation of three City rights-of-way, a
subterranean vacation, and either full or subterranean
vacation of an additional City right-of-way; and a WSDOT
ground/air rights lease
Alternative 5 Convention Place Station Site With No
Vacations Total development associated with this
alternative would approximate 1,611,700-sq.-ft. on Site A
only. Included with this alternative would be a 1,379,300
sq. ft. WSCC Addition, which includes approximately
14,900-sq.-ft. of street-level uses; no co-development;
parking for 600 - 700 vehicles; no vacation of City rights-ofway; and a WSDOT ground/air rights lease.
No Action Alternative
9
10
Alternative 6 No Action Alternative -- This alternative

would not involve development of the proposed WSCC
Addition. In all probability, once King County Metro no
longer needs the CPS site (Site A), subsequent,
commercial or residential development would occur. Such
development would comply with existing development
standards and be consistent with potential, future
development that was envisioned in Seattles Downtown
Height and Density Changes Final EIS for the CPS site. 10
That analysis anticipated a mixed-use complex of buildings
that included: 900 residential units; a 600,000-sq.-ft. office
tower; and an 800-room, 400,000-sq.-ft. hotel. Similarly,
Site B and Site C could also be expected to be
redeveloped consistent with the DMC 340/290-400
zoning that exists. No City rights-of-way would be vacated.
This alternative would not include a WSDOT ground/air
rights lease.

Seattle, Department of Planning and Development. 2005. Appendix D. (see References for the complete
citation).

Draft EIS
iv
FACT SHEET
SEPA Lead Agency
Washington State Convention Center11
SEPA Responsible
Official
Jeff Blosser
President / CEO
EIS Contact Person
Jane Lewis
WSCC Addition Project Coordinator
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206.340.9897
Fax: 206.428.3000
E-mail: wscc@pinest.com
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 approvals

and/or permits may be required from agencies with
jurisdiction13 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 the
project.
Federal Agencies
11
12
13
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Aviation Administration
Notice of Construction or Alteration -associated with the construction of a proposed
tower(s)
Washington State Convention Center is a King County Public Facilities District.

SDCI was created through Ordinance No.118502 as a result of the Citys 2016 Budget. The department derives
from the Citys former Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and is responsible for administering City
ordinances that regulate building construction, land use, and housing.
An agency with jurisdiction is an agency with authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of a nonexempt
proposal (or part of a proposal) (WAC 197-11-714 (3). Typically, this refers to a local, state or federal agency
with licensing or permit approval responsibility concerning the proposed project.

Draft EIS
v
FACT SHEET
Notice of Construction or Alteration -associated with the construction crane(s) for the
tower(s)
Aeronautical Study

Aviation Administration (continued)
Notice of Construction or Alteration -associated with FAAs charting requirements for
the tower(s)

Highway Administration
Authorization of a land lease (at-grade and
below-grade) and an airspace lease over a
portion 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 of
approx. 2021
Relocation of essential tunnel and trolleyrelated equipment
Additional on-street layover during construction
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

Asbestos surveys (associated with building
demolitions)
Demolition Permits

Draft EIS
vi
FACT SHEET
Seattle King County Department of Health

Plumbing Permits
City of Seattle
City Council
Approval of
vacation(s)
and
alley
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 design
and design departures] and Zoning Review)
Demolition Permits
Grading / Shoring Permits
Building Permits for the
(pertains
to
proposed WSCC Addition

proposed co-development (pertains to
certain alternatives)
Traction Power Substation (TPSS), together
with related construction approvals
Certificates of Occupancy for the

proposed co-development
Electrical Permits for the

proposed co-development (pertains to
Traction Power Substation (TPSS), together
with related construction approvals
Structural Permit for the TPSS pad

Mechanical Permits for the
15
street
14
proposed

proposed co-development
(pertains
to
Sign Permits for the proposed WSCC Addition
op cit.
A PCD is being considered under SMC 23.49.036.

Draft EIS
vii
FACT SHEET
Department of Construction and Inspections

(continued)
Authors and Principal

Contributors to
this EIS
Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan

Approvals
Large-Parcel Drainage Control Plans with
Construction Best Management Practices and
Erosion 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 constructionrelated)
Fire Department
Underground Storage Tank(s) Removal
(possibly required)
Seattle City Light

Electrical Power
Seattle Public Utilities

Water/Wastewater
Recycling
This WSCC Addition DEIS has been prepared under the

direction of the Washington State Convention Center.
Research and analysis for this EIS were provided by the
following 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 (input

to height/bulk/scale, viewshed photosimulations), and
shadow diagrams;
Transpo Group, Inc. transportation, circulation,

loading and parking;
Gustafson Guthrie Nichol landscape design;
Heffron Transportation, Inc. -- parking;
MKA water, sewer, stormwater;

Draft EIS
viii
FACT SHEET
ARUP electrical power, natural gas,

telecommunications;
Nicholson Kovalchick historic resources;
RAMBOLL / ENVIRON air quality, greenhouse gas

emissions, 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

800 Convention Place
Administration Office
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206.694.5000
Hours: 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 the
Washington State Convention Center at the following
address:
Postal Address:
Jane Lewis
WSCC Addition Project Coordinator

Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206.340.9897
Fax: 206.428.3000
E-mail Address: wscc@pinest.com

Draft EIS
ix
FACT SHEET
Date of Draft EIS Public

Meeting
A public meeting concerning this DEIS is scheduled for

5:30 PM, Tuesday March 29, 2016 at
800 Convention Place, Room 206
Seattle, WA
The purpose of this public meeting is to provide an
opportunity for agencies, organizations and individuals to
present testimony regarding the proposed WSCC
Addition DEIS, as well as an additional opportunity to
submit written comments. The intended format of the
meeting is:
Availability of this
Draft EIS
5:30 pm -- opening remarks, overview of the EIS

alternatives, and overview of the DEIS
5:45 pm public comments
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 be
reviewed at the Seattle Public Library Central Library
(1000 Fourth Ave.) and the document is available for
review and downloading on the WSCC Addition website
wsccaddition.com.
In addition, a limited number of complimentary CDs of this
DEIS are available while the supply lasts -- from Pine
Street Group L.L.C. (1500 Fourth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle,
WA 98101)

Draft EIS
x
FACT SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
FACT SHEET .............................................................................................................. i

I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
and OTHER ALTERNATIVES........................................................................ 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Proponent/Project Location.................................................................................. 2-1

Project Overview ................................................................................................. 2-5
Background Information ....................................................................................... 2-6
Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 2-11
Community Outreach ......................................................................................... 2-13
Description of the King County Site Work / Construction,
Preferred Alternatives, Other Development Alternatives, and
the No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 2-17
King County Site Work ....................................................................................... 2-17
Construction ...................................................................................................... 2-25
EIS 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
Alternatives Considered by not Advanced
for Purposes of SEPA Analysis........................................................................ 2-104
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES

and UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Earth ................................................................................................................. 3.1-1

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3.2-1
Pedestrian-Level Wind ...................................................................................... 3.3-1
Water ................................................................................................................ 3.4-1
Environmental Health ....................................................................................... 3.5-1
Noise ................................................................................................................ 3.6-1
Energy .............................................................................................................. 3.7-1
Land Use (Land Use Patterns and Relationship to Plans,
Policies and Regulations................................................................................... 3.8-1

Draft EIS
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
Historic Resources............................................................................................ 3.9-1

Recreation ...................................................................................................... 3.10-1
Population / Housing / Environmental Justice ................................................. 3.11-1
Aesthetics (Height, Bulk, Scale and Transition) .............................................. 3.12-1
Aesthetics (Viewshed) .................................................................................... 3.13-1
Light / Glare / Shadows .................................................................................. 3.14-1
Public Services ............................................................................................... 3.15-1
Utilities ............................................................................................................ 3.16-1
Transportation, Parking, Loading .................................................................... 3.17-1
REFERENCES........................................................................................................ R-1
APPENDICES
A. Distribution List
B. Convention Place Station Bus Terminal Flyover Ramp Magnusson Klemencic
Associates Review
C. King County Site Work Alternative D Letters
D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheets
E. PCD Public Benefits Letters
F. Arborist Report
G. Historic Resources Appendix A Reports
H. Transportation Discipline Report

Draft EIS
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1-1
EIS Alternatives Development Summary 1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
3.2-1
3.2-2
3.2-3
3.2-4
3.2-5
3.3-1
3.6-1
3.6-2
3.6-3
3.10-1
3.11-1
3.11-2
3.11-3
3.11-4
3.11-5
3.11-6
3.11-7
3.11-8
3.15-1
3.15-2
3.15-3
3.17-1
3.17-2
3.17-3
3.17-4
3.17-5
Number of Events Held at WSCC 2011 - 2014 ............................................ 2-7

Total Event Attendance at WSCC (All Event Types) 2011 2014 ............... 2-7
Site Evaluation Seattle Center Site .......................................................... 2-106
AM Peak Period Intersection Conditions ..................................................... 3.2-8
PM Peak Period Intersection Conditions ..................................................... 3.2-9
WASIST Calculated co Concentrations at Fairview/Mercer Intersection .... 3.2-11
Alternative Areas and Units Considered in GHG Tabulation ...................... 3.2-12
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3.2-13
Beaufort Wind Force Classes ...................................................................... 3.3-3
Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources .................................. 3.6-2
Seattle Exterior Sound Level and Construction Noise Limits ....................... 3.6-4
Typical Noise Levels From Construction Equipment (DBA) ......................... 3.6-8
Existing Parks & Recreational Facilities in Immediate Site Vicinity ............ 3.10-2
Population and Demographic Characteristics ............................................ 3.11-2
Housing Characteristics............................................................................. 3.11-3
Employment Characteristics ...................................................................... 3.11-3
Residential Development in Vicinity of the Proposed WSCC Addition ....... 3.11-4
Rental Market Vacancy and Average Rent: All Units ................................. 3.11-4
Subsidized Housing Units and Income Limits ............................................ 3.11-5
WSCC Addition Project Event Attendance and Employment .................. 3.11-9
Project Ancillary Development and Co-Development ................................ 3.11-9
Police Service Responses to the WSCC Addition Site .............................. 3.15-3
Police Service Responses to the Existing WSCC ..................................... 3.15-3
Seattle Fire Department Emergency Response Totals.............................. 3.15-4
Alternatives Analysis Framework .............................................................. 3.17-2
Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary .................................... 3.17-6
Arterial Level of Service Summary Existing ......................................... 3.17-11
Arterial Level of Service Summary Existing and 2021 Baseline ........... 3.17-13
Pedestrian Volumes and Level of Service along Ninth Avenue
Existing and 2021 Baseline .................................................................... 3.17-19
WSCC Parking Supply ........................................................................... 3.17-21
WSCC Existing (2014) Parking Demand ................................................ 3.17-21
Parking Supply and Utilization for Garages within One-quarter Mile of
WSCC Addition ...................................................................................... 3.17-23
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type Alternative 1 ..................... 3.17-26
Arterial Level of Service Summary Alternative 1 .................................. 3.17-29
Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes - Alternative 1 .... 3.17-30
Alternative 1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Ninth Ave. ................. 3.17-31
Alternative 1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Project Frontages ..... 3.17-32
Parking Demand for Alternative 1 ........................................................... 3.17-33
Boren Avenue Service (Freight) Access - Average Inbound Pre-event/
Post-event Traffic Volumes..................................................................... 3.17-35
Terry Avenue Service (Freight) Access Average Outbound Pre-event/Post
3.17-6
3.17-7
3.17-8
3.17-9
3.17-10
3.17-11
3.17-12
3.17-13
3.17-14
3.17-15
3.17-16

Draft EIS
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-event Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 3.17-35

3.17-17 Level of Service Summary Alternative 1 General Purpose Site
Access Driveway .................................................................................... 3.17-38
3.17-18 Transportation Concurrency Analysis Alternative 1 ............................. 3.17-41
3.17-19 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 ... 3.17-48
3.17-21 Construction Phasing Closures and Transit Access for Alternatives
A, B and C .............................................................................................. 3.17-59
3.17-22 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type Alternative 2 ..................... 3.17-62
3.17-23 Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Comparison ....... 3.17-63
3.17-24 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Comparison ....... 3.17-64
3.17-25 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type Alternative 3 ..................... 3.17-67
3.17-26 Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type Alternative 4.1 .................. 3.17-70
3.17-27 Arterial Level of Service Summary Alternative 4.1 ............................... 3.17-73
3.17-28
3.17-29
3.17-30
3.17-31
3.17-32
3.17-33
3.17-34
3.17-35
Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes Alternative 4.1 3.17-74

Alternative 4.1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Ninth Ave. .............. 3.17-75
Alternative 4.1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Project Frontages .. 3.17-76
Transportation Concurrency Analysis Alternative 4.1........................... 3.17-78
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips Alternative 4.2 ...................................... 3.17-80
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips Alternative 4.3 ...................................... 3.17-83
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips Alternative 5 ......................................... 3.17-86
Vehicle Trips No Action ....................................................................... 3.17-89
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2-1
2.2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
Page
Regional Map ................................................................................................ 2-2
Vicinity Map ................................................................................................... 2-3
Denny Triangle Neighborhood Boundaries and Project Site Aerial................. 2-4
Existing Site Plan ......................................................................................... 2-10
Existing Bus Ingress and Egress at Convention Place Station ..................... 2-18
King County Site Work Alternative A ......................................................... 2-22
King County Site Work Alternative B ......................................................... 2-23
King County Site Work Alternative C ......................................................... 2-24
Alternative 1 Level 0.0 and Level -1 ......................................................... 2-33
Alternative 1 Level 0.1 and Level 0.2 ........................................................ 2-34
Alternative 1 Level 1 and Level 2 .............................................................. 2-35
Alternative 1 Building Cross-Section ......................................................... 2-37
Alternative 1 Aerial Architectural Depictions Conceptual Massing .......... 2-38
Alternative 4.1 Level 0.0 and Level -1 ....................................................... 2-42
Alternative 4.1 Level 0.2 and Level 0.1 ..................................................... 2-43
Alternative 4.1 Level 1 and Level 2 ........................................................... 2-44

Draft EIS
xiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24
2-25
2-26
2-27
2-28
2-29
2-30
2-31
2-32
2-33
2-34
2-35
2-36
2-37
2-38
2-39
2-40
2-41
2-42
2-43
2-44
2-45
2-46
2-47
2-48
2-49
2-50
2-51
2-52
2-53
2-54
2-55
2-56
2-57
2-58
2-59
3.3-1
3.3-2
3.3-3
3.3-4
3.8-1
3.8-2
3.9-1

Alternative 4.1 Building Cross-section ....................................................... 2-46
Alternative 4.1 Aerial Architectural Depiction Northwest Viewpoint ........ 2-47
Aerial Architectural Depiction Ninth Ave. and Pine St................................ 2-48
Alternative 4.1 Street-Level Architectural Depiction Ninth and Pine ....... 2-49
Alternative 4.1 Street-Level Architectural Depiction Boren and Pine. ..... 2-50
Alternative 4.1 Cross-Section Through Site B and Site C Looking North .. 2-51
Alternative 4.1 Cross-Section Through Site B and Site A Looking East ... 2-52
Alternative 4.1 Co-Development Site B Elevations ................................... 2-53
Alternative 4.1 Co-Development Site C Elevations ................................... 2-54
Alternative 2 Level -1 and Level 0 ............................................................. 2-58
Alternative 2 Levels 3, 4 and 5 .................................................................. 2-61
Alternative 3 Level 0.0 and Level -1 .......................................................... 2-68
Alternative 3 Levels 3, 4 and 5 .................................................................. 2-71
Alternative 3 Architectural Detail at Southeast Corner............................... 2-74
Alternative 4.2 Level -1 and Level 0.0 ....................................................... 2-77
Alternative 4.2 Building Cross-Section ...................................................... 2-81
Alternative 4.2 Aerial Architectural Depictions Conceptual Massing ....... 2-82
Alternative 4.3 Level -1 and Level 0.0 ....................................................... 2-85
Alternative 4.3 Building Cross-Section ...................................................... 2-89
Alternative 4.3 Aerial Architectural Depictions Conceptual Massing ....... 2-90
Alternative 5 Level -1 and Level 0 ............................................................. 2-93
Downwashing Flow (left) and Chaneling Flow (right) .................................. 3.3-1
Wind Comfort and Safety Criteria................................................................ 3.3-2
10-Year Average Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution .......... 3.3-4
Histogram of Beaufort Class Frequency...................................................... 3.3-5
Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project Site ................................................ 3.8-3
Development Projects in the Site Vicinity .................................................... 3.8-6
Alternative 4.1, Aerial Architectural Depiction as
Viewed from Ninth Ave. and Pine St. .......................................................... 3.9-7

Draft EIS
xv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.9-2
3.9-3
3.9-4
3.9-5
3.9-6
3.9-7
3.9-8
3.9-9
3.9-10
3.9-11
3.13-1
3.13-2
3.13-3
3.13-4
3.13-5
3.13-6
3.13-7
3.13-8
3.13-9
3.13-10
3.13-11
3.13-12
3.14-1
3.14-2
3.14-3
3.14-4
3.14-5
3.14-6
3.14-7
3.14-8
3.14-9
3.14-10
3.14-11
3.14-12
3.14-13
3.14-14
3.14-15
3.14-16
3.14-17
3.14-18
3.14-19
3.14-20
3.14-21
Ninth Avenue Looking South....................................................................... 3.9-8

Pine Street Looking West ........................................................................... 3.9-9
Pine Street Looking East .......................................................................... 3.9-10
Ninth Avenue Looking South..................................................................... 3.9-12
Ninth Avenue Looking North ..................................................................... 3.9-13
Alternative 5 Ninth Avenue Looking South ............................................. 3.9-15
Alternative 5 Pine Street Looking West .................................................. 3.9-16
Alternative 5 Pine Street Looking East ................................................... 3.9-17
Alternative 5 Ninth Avenue Looking South ............................................. 3.9-18
Alternative 5 Ninth Avenue Looking North.............................................. 3.9-19
Viewpoint Location Map ............................................................................ 3.13-2
Viewpoint 1 Volunteer Park .................................................................... 3.13-6
Viewpoint 2 Bhy Kracke Park ................................................................. 3.13-8
Viewpoint 3a Plymoth Pillars Park North ........................................... 3.13-10
Viewpoint 3b Plymouth Pillars Park South ........................................ 3.13-12
Viewpoint 4 Kerry Park ........................................................................ 3.13-14
Viewpoint 5a Paramount Theatre West
Looking West on Pine St. ........................................................................ 3.13-16
Viewpoint 5b Paramount Theatre East
Looking East on Pine St. ......................................................................... 3.13-18
Viewpoint 6a Camlin South Looking South on Ninth Ave. ................. 3.13-20
Viewpoint 6b Camlin North Looking North on Ninth Ave.................... 3.13-22
Viewpoint 7 I-5 From Denny Way Overpass......................................... 3.13-24
Viewpoint 8 Olive Way from Yale Avenue ............................................ 3.13-26
8 AM, March 21st - Vernal Equniox Pacific Daylight Savings Time ......... 3.14-5
5 PM, March 21st - Vernal Equniox Pacific Daylight Savings Time ......... 3.14-7
8 AM, June 21st Summer Solstice Pacific Daylight Savings Time ........ 3.14-9
5 PM, June 21st Summer Solsitce Pacific Daylight Savings Time ...... 3.14-10
8 AM, Sept. 21st - Autumnal Equniox Pacific Daylight Savings Time .... 3.14-12
5 PM, Sept 21st - Autumanl Equniox Pacific Daylight Savings Time ..... 3.14-14
8:30 AM, Dec 21st Winter Solstice Pacific Standard Time ................. 3.14-15
4 PM, Dec 21st Winter Solstice Pacific Standard Time ...................... 3.14-16
8AM March 21st - Vernal Equniox
Pacific Daylight Savings Time, Alt. 3 ....................................................... 3.14-18
5 PM March 21st - Vernal Equniox
8 AMJune 21st Summer Solstice
5 PM, June 21st Summer Solsitce Pacific Daylight Savings Time ...... 3.14-21
8 AM, Sept. 21st - Autumnal Equniox
5 PM, Sept. 21st - Autumnal Equniox
8:30 AM, Dec 21st Winter Solstice Pacific Standard Time, Alt. 3 ....... 3.14-24
4 PM, Dec 21st Winter Solstice Pacific Standard Time, Alt. 3 ............ 3.14-25
Shadow Analysis Existing Conditions .................................................. 3.14-30
Shadow Analysis Alternative 1 ............................................................ 3.14-32
Shadow Analysis Alternative 4.1 ......................................................... 3.14-36

Draft EIS
xvi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.14-22
3.14-23
3.14-24
3.15-1
3.17-1
3.17-2
3.17-3
3.17-4
3.17-5
3.17-6
3.17-7
3.17-8
3.17-9
3.17-10
3.17-11
3.17-12
3.17-13
3.17-14
3.17-15
3.17-16
3.17-17
3.17-18
3.17-19
3.17-20
3.17-21

Fire and Police Stations Closest to Site .................................................... 3.15-2
Study Area and Intersections .................................................................... 3.17-3
Arterial Classification in the Study Area .................................................... 3.17-5
Existing (2016) Weekday Intersection level of Service Summary ............ 3.17-10
Existing/Baseline Weekday 2021 Intersection
Level of Service Summary ...................................................................... 3.17-12
Existing Transit Service in the Site Vicinity.............................................. 3.17-15
Existing Peak Period Transit Service near WSCC Addition Site .............. 3.17-16
Existing and Proposed Site Access Alternative 1 ................................. 3.17-27
Alternative 1: Proposed Alley Vacations.................................................. 3.17-39
Alternative A DSTT Site Access Plan ...................................................... 3.17-43
Transit Pathways during WSCC Addition Construction ........................... 3.17-45
King County Site Work Roadway Modifications....................................... 3.17-46
Option 1: Phased Offsets Construction, Phase 1 .................................... 3.17-50
Option 1: Phased Offsets Construction, Phase 2 .................................... 3.17-51
Option 1: Olive Way On-Site Reroute ..................................................... 3.17-53
Option 3: Reroute to Howell Street, Phase 1 ........................................... 3.17-55
Option 3: Reroute to Howell Street, Phase 2 ........................................... 3.17-56
Howell Street Cross Section between Ninth Ave and Boren Ave ............ 3.17-57
Existing and Proposed Site Access Alternative 2 ................................. 3.17-62
Alternative 4.1: Weekday Intersection LOS Summary ............................. 3.17-72
Transportation Management Strategies .................................................. 3.17-91
Pronto Cycle Share Locations................................................................. 3.17-92

Draft EIS
xvii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I
SUMMARY
SECTION I
SUMMARY
This section is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the WSCC
Addition. It briefly describes the Proposed Actions and Project Alternatives and it highlights
results of the environmental impact analysis. A matrix in this chapter contains a comparative
overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the alternatives and is followed by a
list of applicable mitigation measures.
Purpose
This Draft EIS evaluates the environmental consequences of various alternatives regarding the
development of the WSCC Addition on a site in Downtown Seattles Denny Triangle Urban
Center Village,1 approximately one block northeast of the existing Washington State Convention
Center. Depending upon the alternative (described below), the site comprises an area of up to
three 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 the
Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development, and Alternative 4.1 is the Preferred Alternative
With Co-Development.
Alternative 1 Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development Total development
associated with this alternative would approximate 1,511,700-sq.-ft. on the three parcels noted
above.
Included with this alternative would be a 1,256,500-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition;
approximately 37,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses including but not limited to retail, restaurants
and entertainment uses; below-grade parking for 700 to 800 vehicles; full vacation of four City
rights-of-way and a subterranean vacation; and a WSDOT air rights/ground lease.
Alternative 4.1 Preferred Alternative With Co-Development Total development
associated with this alternative would approximate 2,390,550-sq.-ft. on the three parcels noted
above. Included as part of this alternative would be a 1,473,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition; 43,000
sq. 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-way
and a subterranean vacation; and a WSDOT air rights/ground lease.
The area is part of the Downtown Denny Triangle Urban Center (Seattle, 2005 [UV17 and UV18]). See the
References section of this DEIS for the complete citation.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-1
Other Alternatives
In order to aid in the decision-making process associated with the development of the site, five
other 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 WSDOT
Land/Air Lease, and Without the Requirement for FHWA
Action When Paired with King County Site Work Alternative
B;
Alternative 4.2 .......... Alternative With Site B Co-Development;
Alternative 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 Alternatives 1-5.
Summary Matrix
Table 1-2 provides a comparative summary of the alternatives and highlights results of the
environmental impact analysis for each element of the environment that is evaluated in this
Draft EIS, based on each of the alternatives. This summary table is not intended to be a
substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Section III.
Following the matrix is a list of potential mitigation measures.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-2
Table 1-1
EIS Alternatives Development Summary
Alternative
1
Alternative
4.1
Alternative
2
Alternative
3
Alternative
4.2
Alternative
4.3
Alternative
5
WSCC Addition
Ballroom
Meeting Room
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.
120,000 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.
19
1,256,500 sq. ft.
19
1,256,500 sq. ft.
15
1,141,000 sq. ft.
19
1,233,750 sq. ft.
19
1,256,500 sq. ft.
19
1,256,500 sq. ft.
15
1,379,300 sq. ft.
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.
# of Active Loading
Bays2
Total WSCC Addition Area
Ancillary Development
Parking
Parking Count
Retail
700 to 800
700 to 800
650 to 750
690 to 790
700 to 800
700 to 800
600 to 700
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.
Co-Development Sites B and C
Retail
0
Site B
12,000
sq. ft.
Site C
Co-Development Area
0
Site B (29-stories)
0
Site C (16-stories)
1,511,700
sq. ft.
Total Development Area
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.
8,000 sq. ft.

10,000 sq. ft.
0
0
0
12,000 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.

12,000 sq. ft.
0
10,000 sq. ft.
0
0
357,150 sq. ft.

515,700 sq. ft.
0
0
0
0
357,150 sq. ft.

0
0
515,700 sq. ft.
0
0
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. ft.
Represents the number of active loading bays used for freight activities. Additional loading bays are provided, but utilized for trash and recycling.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-3
Table 1-2
Summary Matrix Potential Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives
Alternative 1
Preferred Alternative
WSCC Addition Without
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Alternative with Site B
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Alternative with Site C
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Convention Place Station
Site with No Vacations
King County
Site Work
Some excavation could

occur, but would likely be
limited in degree and depth,
and minimal earth impacts
would be expected.
Impacts would be as
described for Alternative 1.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
King County Site Work

could occur as described
under Alternative 1.
Grading
Approximately 574,000
cubic yards of soil would be
excavated, and
approximately 28,700 truck
trips would be required to
transport material from the
site. Site excavations may
have the potential to create
localized erosion.
Construction BMPs and
Erosion and Sediment
Control measures would be
undertaken.
Impacts would be as
Less earthwork would be

needed under Alternative
2, since construction would
only occur on Site A.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

needed under Alternative
5, since construction would
only occur on Site A, and
no alley or street vacations
would occur.

needed, since construction
would only occur on Site A.
Building
Support
The building would be

supported on spread or mat
foundations with
conventional slabs-on-grade
outside the core mat
foundation. Foundations
would be lower than
surrounding roadways,
utilities, and sidewalks and
no impacts to those facilities
would be anticipated.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Alternative 6
EARTH
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

King County
Site Work
Demolition of the existing

CPS facilities and other
activities could result in
temporary, localized
increases in particulate
concentrations due to
emissions from
construction-related
sources. Impacts would be
similar to but less than
those described below for
construction.
Impacts would be as

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-4
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS cont

Construction
Construction activities such

as excavation and
demolition could result in
temporary, localized
increases in particulate
concentrations, and
potentially contact with
asbestos-containing
materials. Other short-term
emissions anticipated
include emissions from
construction equipment and
traffic congestion in the site
vicinity and odors
associated with activities
such as paving. No
significant adverse impacts
are expected.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Operation
Emissions would increase

due to vehicular traffic and
trucks transporting materials
to the facility, as well as
emissions from exhaust
related to on-site food
preparation and exhaust
vents within the facility. No
significant adverse impacts
are expected.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Factors contributing to
greenhouse gas emissions
include residential, retail
and office space, and public
assembly, and no significant
climate change impacts
would be expected due to
facility-related GHG
emissions
.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL WIND

King County
Site Work
King County Site Work is

not expected to cause
direct, pedestrian level wind
impacts.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Construction activities are

not expected to cause any
direct, significant pedestrian
level wind impacts.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-5
Table 1-2
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
The use of large massing

and overhead canopies
along sidewalks prevents
high winds at pedestrian
levels, therefore, no
significant acceleration of
winds is expected to occur.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
King County
Site Work
No direct, significant waterrelated impacts would be

expected. A temporary
erosion and sediment
control plan (TESCP), best
management practices
(BMPs) and Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) would be
implemented as required.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Impacts
Groundwater
Temporary dewatering
would be necessary to
manage perched
groundwater.
Implementation of a
TESCP, BMPs and SWPPP
would occur to prevent or
minimize impacts to water
resources.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Construction
Impacts Stormwater
Exposed soils would

increase the risk of erosion
and sediment transport, with
increased risk during wet
weather. A Large Project
Construction Stormwater
Control Plan would be
prepared to provide water
quality treatment and
protect downstream
resources. Construction
phase stormwater discharge
would be accommodated by
re-using existing sanitary or
storm drain side sewers.
Impacts would be similar to

those described for
Alternative 1.

but less than those
described for Alternative 1,
because less earthwork
would be necessary (and
consequently there would
be less erosion potential)
since only Site A would be
developed.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

but less than those
consequently there would
be less erosion potential)
since only Site A would be
developed.

but less than those
consequently there would be
less erosion potential) since
only Site A would be
developed.
Alternative 1
Co-Development
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL WIND cont

Operation
WATER

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-6
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Impacts would be as

those described for
Alternative 1, except that
fewer dedicated storm drain
side sewers would be
installed (two).
Impacts would be as

those described for
installed (three).

those described for
installed (three).

those described for
installed (two).
Permanent stormwater
control systems would be
designed and constructed
on Site A in accordance
with City of Seattle Drainage
Code, similar to those
WATER cont
Operational
Impacts
Stormwater
A below-slab stormwater
detention vault would be
provided in the WSCC
Addition, and stormwater
would be collected and
conveyed to four 8-inch
dedicated storm drain side
sewers. Green Stormwater
Infrastructure could be
incorporated and used for
on-site flow control and
water quality treatment.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
King County
Site Work
Any excavations that occur

would be expected to be
limited in degree and depth.
Any contaminated soil or
USTs encountered would be
removed and disposed of in
accordance with State and
Federal guidelines.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
All existing buildings on

Sites B and C would be
demolished; prior to
demolition, any asbestos,
PCBs, lead-based paint,
etc. that could be
encountered would be
removed and disposed of by
a qualified abatement
contractor in accordance
with State and Federal
guidelines. Soil excavation
would occur on Sites A, B
and C, and any
contaminated soil and USTs
encountered would be
removed and disposed of in
accordance with State and
Federal guidelines.
Impacts would be generally

as described for Alternative
1.
Development would only

occur on Site A, and
impacts on Site A would be
generally as described for
Alternative 1.
Contaminated soil would
remain beneath Sites B and
C. Remedial activities could
occur as the result of future
development at Sites B and
C, but not as a result of
Alternative 2.

1.

1.

1.

generally as described for
Alternative 1.
C. Remedial activities could
occur as the result of future
development at Sites B and
C, but not as a result of
Alternative 5.

C, as described for
Alternative 2. It is assumed
that excavation, removal
and disposal of any
contaminated soils or USTs
would occur as described for
Alternative 1 in accordance
with State and Federal
guidelines.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-7
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
King County
Site Work
Removal of the passenger

facilities entails fairly
minimal construction work
that is not expected to
cause significant noise
impacts. Installation of the
TPSS would occur within a
tunnel, and noise from this
activity would not be
expected to affect receivers
outside of the tunnel.
Overall, no significant noise
impacts would be expected.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Construction-related noise
would be associated with
demolition, excavation,
foundation work, steel frame
erecting, and various
finishing activities and has
the potential to affect nearby
receivers particularly
noise-sensitive commercial
uses and residences near
the site. Noise resulting from
construction activities would
be subject to timing
restrictions and sound level
limits of the Seattle Noise
Code, minimizing the
potential for significant
impacts.
Impacts would be as
described for Alternative 1
with additional noise
associated with construction
of co-development on Sites
B and C, with additional
potential impacts to noisesensitive receptors located
north of Sites B and C.

but slightly less than those
Impacts would be as similar

to, but slightly less than
those described for
Alternative 1.

but less than under
Alternative 4.1 with codevelopment only occurring
on Site B.

but less than under
on Site C.
Impacts would be
comparable to those
Impacts would comparable

to those described for
Alternative 1.
Alternative 6
NOISE

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-8
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Potential sources of noise

associated with the
operation of the proposed
WSCC Addition include
noise from WSCC activities,
the facility truck loading
dock, increased vehicular
traffic to and from the site,
outside HVAC and other
mechanical equipment, and
emergency power
generators. WSCC activities
would general occur inside
the building, and truck
loading would occur below
grade, and no significant
noise impacts would be
expected. Mechanical
equipment and generators
would be subject to code
limits. No noise impacts are
anticipated from changes in
traffic volumes due to the
proposed project.
Impacts would be as
described for Alternative 1
with additional noise from
residential and office uses
on Sites B and C. Noise
from human activities
associated with codevelopment would be
expected to produce sound
levels similar to what
already occur in Downtown
and would not be expected
to result in significant noise
impacts.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

but less than under
on Site B.

but less than under
on Site C.

those described for
Alternative 1.
Impacts would comparable

to those described for
Alternative 1.
King County
Site Work
Other than relocation of the

TPSS, King County Site
Work is not expected to
impact electrical or natural
gas services surrounding
the site.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Some interruptions to
electrical and natural gas
services to the site and site
vicinity could occur,
particularly during
installation and connection
of service to the new
development.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts could be
comparable to those
Alternative 6
NOISE cont
Operation
ENERGY

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-9
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
ENERGY cont
Electrical
The WSCC Addition would

have a calculated load of
approximately 20,000
kilowatts (kW). An
emergency/standby power
generator would be
provided with a total
calculated load of 2,500 kW.
Onsite generation of power
from renewable sources
would include a 100 kW
photovoltaic system or
equivalent hot water
system.
Electrical loads for the

WSCC Addition would be
the same as Alternative 1.
Site B co-development
(residential bldg.) load
requirements would be
approximately 2.8
megawatts (MW), and Site
C co-development (office
bldg.) load requirement
would be approximately 3.2
MW.
Electrical loads,
and renewable power
features for the WSCC
Addition would be the
same as described under
Alternative 1.
Electrical loads,
and renewable power
Addition would be similar to
or less than those described
under Alternative 1,
because total development
area for the project would
be slightly reduced without
the WSDOT/ land/air lease.
Electrical loads,
and renewable power
Addition and for Site B codevelopment, would be the
same as for Alternative 4.1.
No co-development would
be provided on Site C.
Electrical loads,
and renewable power
Addition and for Site C codevelopment, would be the
same as for Alternative 4.1.
No co-development would
be provided on Site B.
Electrical loads,
emergency/standy power
and renewable power
Addition would be the
same as described under
Alternative 1.
Potential future development

would require new electrical,
connections to provide
service and would be
coordinated with the existing
purveyors.
Natural Gas
Gas service would be

provided by Puget Sound
Energy, and would be
supplied to mechanical
boilers, domestic hot water
heaters serving the kitchen
space, exhibit hall space
and retail space. A 4-inch,
high pressure (10 psi)
natural gas connection
would serve the project.
Natural gas service and

load requirements for the
similar to Alternative 1.
Load requirements for codevelopment would be
typical of downtown urban
office and residential
development.



WSCC Addition and for
Site B co-development,
would be the same as
Alternative 4.1. No codevelopment would be
provided on Site C.

WSCC Addition and for
Site C co-development,
Alternative 4.1. No codevelopment would be
provided on Site B.

Potential future development

would require new electrical,
connections to provide
service and would be
coordinated with the existing
purveyors.
King County
Site Work
Demolition, site preparation,

excavation, and
construction would generate
land use impacts on-site as
well as some short-term
impacts to adjacent land
uses, such as nearby
residential properties.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Under Alternative 1,
development would be
consistent with trends that
are occurring in the site
vicinity. Construction of the
WSCC Addition would
substantially intensify onsite development, including
meeting rooms, exhibition
halls, a ballroom, as well as
retail uses and structured
parking.
Impacts would be as
with additional land use
impacts resulting from
development of Sites B and
C.

or less than those discussed
for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 4.1.


for Alternative 2.
Future development
consistent with trends
occurring in the site vicinity
would result in impacts
comparable to Alternative
1.
LAND USE

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-10
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Impacts would be as
with additional population
increases resulting from
development of Sites B and
C.

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.



for Alternative 2.
Future development
consistent with trends
occurring in the site vicinity
would result in impacts
1.
Alternative 6
LAND USE cont

Operation
Under Alternative 1,
additional building uses
would result in an increased
on-site population and
activity levels in the
surrounding neighborhood.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
King County
Site Work
No direct impacts to historic

resources would occur as a
result of King County Site
Work. The existing building
in the northeast corner of
Site A would remain in
place during stage of work.
Landmarks adjacent to the
site could be minimally
affected by dust and
vibration.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
The Citys Historic

Preservation Officer would
review Appendix A reports
associated with the three
existing buildings on Sites
A, B and C to determine
Landmark status. Assuming
the buildings are not
designated Landmarks, no
direct impacts to historic
resources would result from
their demolition for site
development.
Landmarks adjacent to the
site (Camlin Hotel and
Paramount Theatre) could
experience indirect and/or
temporary construction
impacts including structural
instability and dust, that
could be managed with preconstruction monitoring and
Impacts would be the same

1.

1. Existing buildings on
Sites B and C would
remain.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

1. Existing buildings on
Sites B and C would
remain.
Construction impacts would

be comparable to
Alternative 1.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-11
Table 1-2
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
The project would visually

alter views to adjacent
Landmarks by introducing
new development on the
site with greater height, bulk
and scale. However, the
project has been designed
to respect and respond to
adjacent Landmarks
through the use of street
level and upper level
setbacks, view angles and
massing.

1.
Because of the smaller site

area under Alternative 2
(Site A only) the floorplate
of the WSCC Addition
would need to be
maximized and no street
level or upper level setbacks
would be provided adjacent
to the Camlin Hotel or
Paramount Theatre. The
building would be less
visually compatibility with
adjacent historic buildings.

1.

1.

1.
Because of the smaller site

area under Alternative 5
(Site A only, with no street
vacations) the floorplate of
the WSCC Addition would
need to be maximized and
no street level or upper level
setbacks would be provided
adjacent to the Camlin Hotel
or Paramount Theatre. The
building would be less
visually compatibility with
the adjacent historic
buildings.
Given the amount of

development that is possible
on Site A, impacts would
likely be comparable to
those described for
Alternatives 2 and 5.
King County
Site Work
No direct impacts to parks

or recreational facilities in
the vicinity would be
anticipated.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Impacts
No direct impacts to parks

or recreational facilities in
the vicinity would be
anticipated due to the
distance between these
areas and the site and
intervening land uses.

be similar to but more
intensive than under
Alternative 1 because codevelopment would occur.
As with Alternative 1, no
direct impacts to parks or
recreational facilities would
be anticipated.

1.

1.

but less than those
described for Alternative
4.1 because codevelopment would only
occur on Site B.

but less than those
4.1 because codevelopment would only
occur on Site C.

1.

likely be similar to those
4.1.
Operational
Impacts
Increased demands on park

and recreational facilities
(primarily for passive open
space) could result from
additional WSCC Addition
employees and convention
center visitors on the site.
On-site open space would
be developed and would be
accessible to employees
and visitors, and could
lessen demands on off-site
facilities.
Impacts relative to the

Co-development on Sites B
and C could further increase
park and recreational facility
demands with 2,900 more
people associated with
office and residential
development. Open space
consistent with zoning
requirements would be
provided on Sites B and C.

1.

1.

but less than Alternative
4.1, because codevelopment would only
occur on Site B.

occur on Site C.

1.
The site could be developed

with a mixed-use complex of
buildings, increasing
demands on park and
recreational facilities in the
vicinity. Office and/or
residential development
would be required to provide
open space consistent with
zoning. It is likely that less
open space would be
provided with the
development alternatives.
Alternative 1
Co-Development
HISTORIC RESOURCES cont

Operation
RECREATION

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-12
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
POPULATION / HOUSING / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

King County Site
Work
Construction activities would

result in new temporary
construction employment
opportunities, as well as
temporary construction
related impacts relative to
air quality, noise, traffic, etc.
Overall, due to the
temporary nature of the
King County Site Work, no
significant impacts would be
expected.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Construction would result in

new temporary employment
opportunities, and nearby
businesses could
experience an increase in
patronage as a result. Also,
temporary impacts could
occur to nearby businesses
including: rerouting of traffic,
increased traffic, utility
disruptions, dust, increased
noise and increased parking
demand.

be generally similar to
Alternative 1, although the
intensity and/or overall
duration of construction
activity would be longer as a
result of the greater amount
of development that is
proposed as part of Sites B
and C. The greater amount
of development could result
in increased constructionrelated employment
opportunities for minority
and/or low-income
populations

be comparable to those


be comparable to but less
than those described for
Alternative 4.1, because
co-development would only
be built on Site B.

be comparable to but less
than those described for
Alternative 4.1, because
co-development would only
be built on Site C

Construction activity impacts

could approximate that of
the proposed WSCC
Addition.
Housing
No new housing would be

provided and the supply of
housing in the site vicinity
would not change. It is
possible that staffing levels
associated with new uses
on the site could increase
housing demands.
Under Alternative 4.1, a

residential building with 406
units on Site B would
contribute to a net gain in
housing units for the Denny
Triangle Neighborhood.
With the WSCC Addition
and ancillary development,
new employment
opportunities would be
created, and could increase
housing demands.
Impacts would be
comparable to or less than
those associated with
Alternative 1. Fewer
employees could be needed
due to the smaller project
area and decreased gross
floor area, resulting in less
off-site housing demand.
Impacts would be
Alternative 1 due to the
slightly smaller project area
and decreased gross floor
area.
Housing impacts would be

4.1, except that no codevelopment would be
provided on Site C (office
building), and housing
demand associated with
new office employees would
be less.
Housing impacts would be

4.1, except that no codevelopment would be
provided on Site B
(residential building), and no
new residential units would
be built on the site.
Impacts would be
comparable to those
associated with Alternative
1. Without the site
efficiencies conveyed by the
alley vacations, the WSCC
Addition would need to be
larger, but less retail space
would be provided.
Up to 900 housing units

could be built, resulting in a
net gain in housing units in
the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-13
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
POPULATION / HOUSING / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE cont

Employment
New employment
opportunities would be
created to operate the
WSCC Addition; depending
on the type of event, from
100 to 650 employees
would be required. Also,
visitors associated with
conferences, conventions
and meetings would
increase pedestrian traffic,
and nearby businesses
could experience an
increase in patronage.
Employment impacts
associated with the
would be the same as noted
for Alternative 1. Also, an
additional 2,444 new jobs
co-development on Sites B
and C.
Impacts would be
Alternative 1. Fewer
employees could be needed
due to the smaller project
area and decreased gross
floor area.
Impacts would be
those under Alternative 1
as slightly less development
project area would result in
a smaller gross floor area,
less street-level uses and
less employment.
Employment impacts would

be similar to but less than
Alternative 4.1 as codevelopment (residential
building) would only occur
on Site B. Approximately
152 additional new jobs
co-development on Site B.
Employment impacts would

be similar to but less than
Alternative 4.1 as codevelopment (office
building) would only occur
on Site C. Approximately
2,418 additional new jobs
co-development on Site C.
Impacts relative to
employment would be
comparable to and less than
Alternative 2.
Employment opportunities,
based on the conceptual
program that could be
developed on the site, could
approximate that of the
other WSCC Addition
alternatives (a 600,000-sq.-ft
office building could result in
2,400 employees alone).
Environmental
Justice
Alternative 1, is not
expected to adversely affect
the community cohesion of
low-income or minority
groups. Public access to
the site -- in the form of
street uses and publiclyaccessible open space
would be available following
redevelopment. The
and ancillary development
would result in increased
employment opportunities
and it is possible that
qualified minorities and lowincome personnel could be
encouraged to seek these
new employment
opportunities.

those described under
Alternative 1.

Alternative 1.

Alternative 1.

Alternative 1.

Alternative 1.

Alternative 1.
Environmental justice
considerations are
anticipated to be
comparable to those noted
for Alternative 1 and
Alternative 4.1, although
without the WSCC Addition
presumably less public open
space would be provided
and consequently less
public access to the site
would be available as
compared to the

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

AESTHETICS (HEIGHT, BULK, SCALE AND TRANSITION)

King County
Site Work

would be temporary, would
primarily occur below the
street grade, and would not
cause any direct, significant
height, bulk or scale-related
impacts.

1.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-14
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
AESTHETICS (HEIGHT, BULK, SCALE AND TRANSITION) cont

Construction

be ongoing for extended
periods and could
temporarily affect the
aesthetic character of the
site and surrounding area.
Measures to control air,
noise, light intrusion and
other construction related
disturbances could lessen
aesthetic impacts.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

those described for
Alternative 1.
Operation
Alternative 1 would
encompass Sites A, B and
C with approximately
1,511,000 sq. ft. of
development. The building
height would be well below
that allowable by code and
compatible with nearby
buildings, but the building
massing would be much
larger than surrounding
buildings. Design features
would be employed to
enhance compatibility with
surrounding land uses and
minimize potential height,
bulk, and scale related
impacts.
Height, bulk and scalerelated impacts would be

the same as Alternative 1
relative to the WSCC
Addition. Sites B and C
would contain high-rise
buildings that would be
consistent with development
that is occurring north of
Howell St., and building
heights would be below
those allowed by zoning.
The design approach would
also effectively link the
mixed-use program to the
neighborhood, similar to
Alternative 1.

similar to Alternative 1 for
Site A; no development
would occur on Sites B or
C. The overall height and
mass of Alternative 2 would
be greater than Alternative
1, and no setbacks and
limited modulation would be
possible. Additionally, active
street-level uses and
building transparency would
be reduced on Olive Way
due to the location of
parking and truck access.
Height, bulk, and scalerelated impacts would be

similar to Alternative 1, but
would not include the
WSDOT land/air rights
lease. Therefore, the
southeast building corner
would not connect to the
intersection, leaving a void
in the streetscape. The
transition and connectivity
with neighborhoods in the
vicinity would not occur, and
the overall area of the
project, including retail
space, would be reduced.

similar to Alternative 4.1,
except that co-development
would only occur on Site B.

similar to Alternative 4.1,
except that co-development
would only occur on Site C.
Height, bulk, and scalerelated impacts would be

similar to Alternative 2,
except that no vacations
would occur. The overall
height and mass of
Alternative 5 would be
greater than Alternative 1,
and no setbacks would be
possible. Additionally, active
street-level uses and the
pedestrian experience
would be reduced due to the
footprint of the building, and
parking and truck access on
Olive Way.
Building heights on Site A

would likely be taller than
development assumed
under Alternatives 1-5.
Without knowing tower
locations on-site or tower
configuration and massing, it
is not possible to determine
whether height, bulk and
scale-related impacts from
the development would have
a greater or lesser impact on
adjacent development.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Alternative 1 would
redevelop a site that is
underutilized in terms of
above-grade development,
and help connect the facility
with the existing WSCC, the
Citys retail core, and highrise office and residential
uses of Denny Triangle
neighborhood and the PinePike neighborhood.
AESTHETICS (VIEWSHED)
King County
Site Work

would primarily occur below
the grade of surrounding
streets and would be
temporary; no significant
viewshed-related impacts
would be expected.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-15
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
AESTHETICS (VIEWSHED) cont

Construction

be ongoing for extended
periods of time and could
temporarily affect the
aesthetic character of the
site and surrounding area.
However, no significant
viewshed-related impacts
are expected.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

be comparable to
Alternative 1.
Operation
Alternative 1 would not

result in any significant
impacts to designated
scenic views, landmarks, or
scenic routes. Views of the
Downtown skyline, the
Space Needle, the Olympic
Mountains and adjacent
water areas would still be
possible from designated
public viewpoints.
View impacts related to the

however, Alternative 4.1
would also include codevelopment on Sites B
and C that would increase
the visual density of
buildings on the site.
Overall, no significant
impacts to protected
viewpoints would occur.


Alternative 1.

occur on Site B, resulting in
one less high-rise tower on
the site.

occur on Site C, resulting in
one less high-rise tower on
the site.
Without the right-of-way

vacations, no street level or
upper level setbacks would
be provided on Ninth Ave.
or Pine St., resulting in less
visual compatibility with the
adjacent Paramount
Theatre and Camlin.
Given the size of the site

and the amount of
development that is
conceivably possible, it is
expected structures could
approximate the 340-foot
height that is allowed in this
zone for commercial
buildings and 400 ft. for
residential structures. As
such, development would be
more prominent than that
associated with the other
alternatives.
LIGHT / GLARE / SHADOWS

King County
Site Work
None of the King County

Site Work alternatives is
expected to cause any
significant light and/or glarerelated impacts
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Construction could result in

localized, temporary light
and glare-related impacts
during build-out of the
project site, both from
stationary sources and
mobile sources, particularly
at night and at times of the
day with low light levels.
Lighting would conform to
City of Seattle regulations
that limit the daily timeframe
of construction activities.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be
1.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-16
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
LIGHT / GLARE / SHADOWS cont

Operation Glare

as those described under
Alternative 4.1, except for
potential glare related to the
co-development structures
on Sites B and C. No
significant long-term light or
glare impacts are
anticipated.
Reflected solar glare could

extend from the faades of
the WSCC Addition and codevelopment buildings and
extend into the Boren Ave.
and I-5 roadways
periodically. While
noticeable, this glare is not
expected to cause
significant problems for
motorists, nor differ
substantially from periodic
glare that motorists typically
experience from stationary
and mobile sources.
Residential units within the
Paramount Theatre, the
Olivian Apartments, the
Nine and Pine Apartments,
and Olive8 could also be
occasionally temporarily
affected by solar glare. No
glare impacts are
anticipated.

Alternative 1, and no
glare impacts are
anticipated.

not include the WSDOT
land/air rights lease, and
therefore the southeast
corner of the building would
be truncated to coincide
with the lease area
boundary. Glare from this
portion of the building could
temporarily affect residential
units east of the site on
Capitol Hill. Other solar
glare impacts would be
similar to those described

Alternative 4.1 except for
co-development structure
on Site C. No significant
long-term light or glare
impacts are anticipated.

Alternative 4.1 except for
co-development structure
on Site B. No significant
long-term light or glare
Impacts associated with this

alternative would be similar
to those described under
Alternative 1. No
glare impacts are
anticipated.
It is anticipated that building

heights on Site A would be
taller than development
assumed under
Alternatives 1-5. Without
knowing tower locations onsite or tower configuration
and massing, it is not
possible to determine
whether light and glarerelated impacts from the
development would have a
greater or lesser impact.
Operation Shadows
Shadows could contribute to

shading of the off-leash dog
area at Plymouth Pillars
Park on the vernal equinox,
autumnal equinox and
summer solstice at 5 PM.
This area of the park is
already entirely shaded
under existing conditions on
the vernal and autumnal
equinoxes and, only
shading on the summer
solstice would be a new
impact. Shading would not
prevent dog walkers from
continuing to use the offleash dog area, and overall,
shadow-related impacts are
typical of Downtown
highrise development and
no significant impacts are
anticipated. No shadows
from the WSCC Addition
are expected to extend to
Denny Park.
Shadow-related impacts
associated with the
Alternative 1. However,
because of the codevelopment on Sites B
and C, the length of
shadows associated with
buildings on those sites
would be longer and would
extend to Denny Park.
Shadow impacts relative to
parks in the vicinity of the
site would be comparable to
those described for
Alternative 1, due to the
location of buildings on the
site relative to nearby parks.
Development associated
with Alternative 2 would be
except that development
would only occur on Site A,
rather than on all three
sites. Shadow impacts
would be comparable to
those described for
Alternative 1. No significant
Shadow impacts would be

similar to Alternative 1, but
would not include the
WSDOT air rights lease,
reducing the square footage
of the development area.
Shadow impacts relative to
parks in the vicinity of the
site would be comparable to
those described for
Alternative 1. No significant

those described for
Alternative 4.1 because codevelopment would only
occur on Site B.

those described for
Alternative 4.1 because codevelopment would only
occur on Site C.

comparable to those
No significant impacts are
anticipated.
It is anticipated that building

heights on Site A would be
taller than development
assumed under
Alternatives 1-5 for the
proposed WSCC Addition.
Without knowing tower
locations on-site, it is not
possible to determine
whether shadow-related
impacts from the No Action
Alternative would have a
greater or lesser impact on
nearby parks.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-17
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
PUBLIC SERVICES - POLICE

King County
Site Work
Some additional, temporary

demand for police services
for traffic management
could be required, but
existing Police Dept. staffing
is expected to be sufficient
to handle any additional
service needed, with
appropriate interagency
coordination.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Construction could result in

a temporary increase in
demand for police services
due to potential construction
site theft or vandalism. The
construction site would likely
be secured with fencing for
the duration of construction,
and existing staff would be
sufficient to respond to any
increased demands. It is
also possible that police
staffing and resources
would be needed for traffic
management during
construction activities.

those described for
intensity and/or duration of
construction could be
greater due to the addition
B and C.

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.

or slightly less than those
occur on Site B.

occur on Site C.

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.
Operation
New development on the

site could result in
associated demands for
police services. Police
demands could be reduced
or managed by the use of
private security and certain
building controls. Streetlevel retail included in the
project would increase
lighting levels on the site
and establish a more
constant level of activity,
contributing to site safety.

or incrementally greater
than Alternative 1 due to
the addition of codevelopment on the Sites B
and C. To the extent that
the SPD has planned for
gradual increases in service
demands, no significant
impacts would be
anticipated from the
proposed co-development,
which represents a typical
urban land use for
Downtown Seattle (office
and residential buildings).

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.

occur on Site B.

occur on Site C.

for Alternative 1.
Police service calls could

increase incrementally,
however, to the extent that
the SPD has planned for
gradual increases in service
impacts would be
operation of a hotel, office
building and residential
building on the site.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-18
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
PUBLIC SERVICES - FIRE

King County
Site Work
Some additional,
temporary demand for
Fire Dept. services for
could be required to
respond to potential fires,
accidents and/or injuries
associated with
demolition and removal
of existing facilities, but
existing Fire Dept.
staffing is expected to be
sufficient to handle any
additional service
needed.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Construction
Inspection of construction
projects onsite and
response to potential
construction-related
accidents, injuries or fires
could increase Fire Dept.
calls. Existing staffing and
equipment are expected to
be sufficient to handle any
increased service needed.
Construction will also
require temporary, long term
street closures, which could
necessitate longer response
routes and therefore longer
response times. However,
the Fire Dept. indicates that
this will not materially impact
emergency response.

those described for
intensity and/or duration of
construction could be
greater due to the addition
B and C.

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.

occur on Site B.

occur on Site C.

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.
Operation
Demands for all types of

services provided by the Fire
Dept., including fire
protection, BLS and EMS
could increase. The Fire
Dept. indicates that they
have sufficient capacity and
resources to absorb potential
increased calls, although
large events may require
additional emergency
response personnel staff
(likely off-duty staff would be
sufficient).
Operational impacts would

be similar to or
incrementally greater than
Alternative 1 due to the
addition of co-development
on the site. To the extent
that the SFD has planned
for gradual increases in
service demands, no
significant impacts would be
proposed co-development,
which represents a typical
urban land for Downtown
Seattle (office and
residential buildings).

for Alternative 1.

for Alternative 1.

occur on Site B.

occur on Site C.

for Alternative 1.
Fire Dept. service calls

could increase
incrementally, however, to
the extent that the SFD has
planned for gradual
increases in service
impacts would be
operation of a hotel, office
building and residential

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-19
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
UTILITIES
King County
Site Work

would not affect existing
utilities.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Potable Water
Existing SPU metered water

services serving the site
would support construction
activities. Some short-term
interruptions of water
service could occur,
particularly during the
installation and connection
of service to the new
development. The ten
existing water service
feeder lines that serve the
project site would be retired
and three new 6-inch
domestic water service lines
and three 8-inch fire water
services would be installed.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
with fewer water lines (one
domestic and one fire
service line) due to the
decreased amount of
development.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
with fewer water lines (two
domestic and two fire
service lines) due to the
decreased amount of
development.
Impacts would be as
4.2.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Sanitary Sewer
Sewer improvements would

include upgrades to the
sanitary sewer, combined
sewer mains and
stormwater control system.
Approximately 20 existing
sanitary side sewers are to
be retired for the project and
the existing 12-inch sanitary
sewer line that crosses the
site would be rerouted.
Interruptions of sewer
services to current users
would be minimized to the
maximum extent possible.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.

those described for
Alternative 1.
Telecommunications
Telecommunication service
would be provided from new
service lines located within
the public right-of-way
surrounding the sites.
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as
Impacts would be as

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-20
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
With development on Site A

only, the number of
driveways along Olive Way
will decrease from 6 to 3.
Other roadway modifications
such as the two-way Ninth
Ave, the modifications of
Terry Ave. between Howell
St. and Virginia St, and the
intersection modifications at
Terry Ave./Virginia St, are
consistent with Alternative 1.
Changes to the roadway

network are similar to those
noted for Alternative 1.

noted for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Three access points along

Olive Way are proposed.
Freight access would be
provided via the signalized
intersection at Terry
Ave./Olive Way. Two access
points for the parking garage
would be provided east and
west of the freight access
along the Olive Way
frontage. Modifications and
impacts associated with the
Terry Ave and Ninth Ave
modifications would be the
same as noted for
Alternative 1.
The existing alleys would be

retained.
TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, PARKING

Changes to
Roadway
Network
Existing access points for

all three sites would
decrease from 17 to 4. In a
subterranean vacation of
Terry Ave, the portion
south of the Site C access
point would be converted to
two-way operations. Ninth
Ave is proposed to be
converted to two-way traffic
between Olive Way and
Pike St. Intersection
modifications are also
proposed at the Terry
Ave./Virginia Street
intersection to
accommodate the truck
maneuvering through the
intersection. Minor
modifications are required
to the future improvements
planned for Terry Ave.
between Howell St. and
Virginia St.
The number of access

points proposed with Alt 4.1
are the same as Alt 1 with
the exception of an
additional loading dock
access on the west side of
Terry Ave to serve Site B.
Modifications and impacts
associated with the Terry
Ave and Ninth Ave
modifications would be the
same as noted for
Alternative 1.

Draft EIS

noted for Alternative 4.1
with the exception that
access to Site B would be
eliminated.
Section I
Summary
1-21
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
WSCC Addition
Without
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
With development on Site A

only, the weekday AM peak
hour trip generation would
be less than Alternative 1.
During the weekday AM
peak hour, a total of 391
trips (62 less than Alt 1)
would be generated. During
the weekday PM peak hour
a total of 484 trips (83 trips
less than Alt 1) would be
generated.
With development on Site

A only, the weekday AM
peak hour trip generation
would be less than
Alternative 1. During the
weekday AM peak hour, a
total of 447 trips (6 less
than Alt 1) would be
generated. During the
weekday PM peak hour a
total of 559 trips (8 trips
less than Alt 1) would be
generated.
With the co-development

(Site B only), the weekday
AM and PM peak hour trip
generation would decrease,
relative to 4.1 The AM peak
total 503 trips (240 less than
Alt 4.1), the PM peak hour
would total 625 trips (230
trips less than Alt 4.1).
With the co-development

(Site B only), the weekday
generation would
decrease, relative to 4.1
The AM peak hour trip
generation would total 694
trips (49 less than Alt 4.1),
the PM peak hour would
total 797 trips (58 trips less
than Alt 4.1).
The AM and PM peak hour

trip generation would
decrease, relative to
Alternative 1. The AM peak
total 433 trips (20 less), the
weekday PM peak hour
would total 533 trips (34 trips
less than Alternative 1).
Alternative 6
TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, PARKING cont

Trip
Generation

result in additional traffic
demands to the
transportation system.
Different events at the
WSCC Addition would result
in variances in daily and
weekday AM/PM peak hour
trip generation. The analysis
included a review of 6
different events. Based on
the timing of the events,
projected attendance, and
model split assumptions, a
peak event in the AM peak
hour would be a breakfast
event and the PM it would
be a consumer/trade show
(typical). The AM peak hour
trip generation would total
453 trips, the PM peak hour
would total 567 trips. If
multiple events were to
occur concurrently at the
Addition, the combined
magnitude of these events
would likely be within those
attendance figures assumed
for the larger events,
because the size of the
smaller events that would
occur more regularly.
As a result of codevelopment, the weekday

generation would increase
as compared to Alt 1. The
AM peak hour trip
generation would total 743
trips, the PM peak hour
would total 855 trips.

Draft EIS
Trip generation associated

with these sites were
estimated at 412 weekday
AM peak hour trips and 441
weekday PM peak hour
trips.
Section I
Summary
1-22
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Impacts on traffic operations

are similar to those
summarized for Alternative.
1. Weekday AM and PM
peak hour trip generation is
62 trips less than Alternative
1 in the AM peak hour and
83 trips less in the PM peak
hour.
Impacts on traffic
operations are similar to
those summarized for
Alternative. 1. Weekday
generation is 62 trips less
than Alternative 1 in the
AM peak hour and 83 trips
less in the PM peak hour.

would be less than those
identified for Alternative 4.1
based on the overall
decrease in project related
trip generation.
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Impacts on traffic
operations would be less
than those identified for
Alternative 4.1 based on
the overall decrease in
project related trip
generation.

are similar to those
summarized for Alternative.
1. Weekday AM and PM peak
hour trip generation is 20 trips
less than Alternative 1 in the
AM peak hour and 34 trips
less in the PM peak hour.
Impacts on intersection
operations under the No
Action Alternative would be
less than those noted for
the development
alternatives based on the
increase in trip generation
associated with each.

Traffic
Operations
AM Peak Hour:
Of the 35 study area
intersections, 12 would
operate at LOS D or worse
in the baseline case. With
Alt 1, 12 intersections would
operate at LOS D or worse;
2 of the 12 intersections
degrade from LOS D to LOS
E.
PM Peak Hour:
Alt 1, 18 intersections would
operate at LOS D or worse;
1 additional intersection is
projected to operate at LOS
D and LOS E.
AM Peak Hour:
Alt 4.1, 11 intersections
would operate at LOS D or
worse due to optimization of
signal timing in the future; 3
of the 12 intersections
degrade from LOS D to LOS
E. No additional
intersections would operate
at LOS F.
PM Peak Hour:
Alt 4.1, 18 intersections
would operate at LOS D or
worse; 1 additional
intersection is projected to
operate at LOS D and LOS
E. No additional
intersections would operate
at LOS F.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-23
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
The impacts to traffic safety

would be similar to those
Mitigation measures
identified along Terry Ave as
noted for Alternative 1 have
also been identified for this
alternative.

Mitigation measures identified
along Terry Ave as noted for
Alternative 1 have also been
identified for this alternative.

4.1 due to a reduction on
generation associated with
this alternative. Mitigation
measures identified along
Terry Ave as noted for
Alternative 1 have also
been identified for this
alternative.

4.1 due to a reduction on
generation associated with
this alternative. Mitigation
measures identified along
Terry Ave as noted for
Alternative 1 have also
been identified for this
alternative.

Mitigation measures identified
along Terry Ave as noted for
Alternative 1 have also been
identified for this alternative.
Alternative 6

Traffic Safety
With the increase in traffic,

the potential for vehicle
collisions increases
proportionally. With the
project, the number of
access points along the
project site decreases from
17 to 4 removing up to 13
potential
pedestrian/vehicle/bicycle
conflict points. The four
access points proposed
would be designed
consistent with City of
Seattle standards including
pedestrian and vehicle sight
lines. Mitigation measures
that include the minor
widening of Terry Ave.
between Howell St. and
Virginia St. have been
identified to provide
additional separation
between the vehicle travel
lanes and the pedestrian
zones.

However, with a larger
increase in traffic volumes,
the potential for collisions
increases proportionally.
Mitigation measures
identified along Terry Ave as
noted for Alternative 1 have
also been identified for this
alternative.

Draft EIS
Traffic safety was not

specifically addressed by
the Downtown EIS.
Section I
Summary
1-24
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Transit ridership would be

similar based on the size of
the development Alternative.
Impacts to transit would be
similar to Alternative 1 as
the DSTT layover loop is
consistent among all
Alternatives.

the development Alternative
similar to Alternative 1 as the
DSTT layover loop is
Alternatives..
Transit ridership would

decrease with the
elimination of development
on Site C. Impacts to transit
would be similar to
Alternative 4.1 as the
Alternatives.

decrease with the
elimination of development
on Site B. Impacts to
transit would be similar to
Alternative 4.1 as the
Alternatives.

the development Alternative.
similar to Alternative 2 as
the DSTT layover loop is
Alternatives.
Alternative 6

Transit

increase as a result of this
project. Existing layover
space on the Convention
Place site would be removed
with the project. King County
Metro and the City are
currently working on
identifying long term
locations and strategies. In
the short term, while buses
are operating in the DSTT,
Convention Place between
Union St and Pike St will be
closed to general purpose
traffic and restriped to
accommodate layover space
for Metro. This re-routing will
add additional travel time to
the buses, impacting nonrevenue service. Temporary
stops will be established on
surface streets to
accommodate the closure of
the CPS passenger facilities
when impacted by
construction. These
temporary stops would
remain operational while the
buses are operating in the
DSTT. Interim conditions for
the buses between the
closure of the DSTT to joint
operations and the reduction
in routes, truncated by light
rail service to the north, is
being addressed by King
County Metro, Sound Transit
and the City of Seattle in the
City Center Mobility Plan
which is currently underway
and will be completed by
summer 2016.

increase relative to
Alternative 1 with the
introduction of the residential
and office uses. Impacts to
transit would be similar to
Alternative 1 as the DSTT
layover loop is consistent
among all Alternatives.

Draft EIS
The office, residential, and

hotel uses assumed in the
Downtown EIS would
generate 5,910 daily transit
trips.
Section I
Summary
1-25
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6

Non-Motorized
Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the

area are adequate to
accommodate the future
demand. Enhancements to
Ninth Ave. connecting the
existing WSCC facilities and
the Addition are being
explored as part of the
public benefit package, but
are not needed for project
mitigation.
Impacts on non-motorized
facilities are similar to those
The analysis shows that the
non-motorized facilities as
proposed are adequate to
accommodate the projected
demand.
4.1.
facilities are similar to
those described for
Alternative 4.1.
Non-motorized facilities
were not specifically
addressed by the
Downtown EIS.
Site Access
and Truck
Loading
Truck volumes vary by size

of the event. Total PM peak
period (3 PM 7 PM)
volumes are estimated to be
between 5 and 25 trucks
depending on the freight
level of the show. Inbound
freight access is proposed
via Boren Ave. Outbound
freight access is proposed
via Terry Ave. Access to the
parking garage is proposed
via a fourth leg at the Terry
Ave./Olive Way signal as
well as a right-in/right-out
access point along Boren
between Pine St. and Pike
St.
Parking garage and freight

access for Alternative 4.1 is
the same as Alternative 1
with the exception of an
additional access point for a
service dock on Site B.
Freight volumes would be
similar as Alternative 1 as
the exhibition space is
consistent. Truck volumes
for the site would increase
as a result of the residential
and office uses. These uses
would utilize the dock on
Site B and Site C.
Parking garage and freight

access for Alternative 2
includes a freight access
point aligned with the Terry
Ave./Olive Way signal as
well as two access points to
the parking garage, located
on Olive Way, mid-block to
the east and west of the
Terry Ave./Olive Way
intersection. Freight volumes
would be slightly less than
Alternative 1 as the
exhibition space is
approximately 50,000 gsf
less.

1.

as described for
Alternative 4.1 as the size
of the WSCC elements and
the maximum parking
garage capacity is the
same.
Impacts would be the

same as described for
Alternative 4.1 as the size
of the WSCC elements
and the maximum parking
garage capacity is the
same.
The site access configuration

for the parking garage and
truck loading is generally
consists tent with Alternative
2. The freight volumes will be
slightly higher due to the
larger exhibition space.
Site access and truck

loading were not
the Downtown EIS.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-26
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6

Parking
Impacts
The peak demand

generated by most events at
be accommodated by the
proposed parking supply.
The exception would be the
largest consumer/trade
shows. If such a show were
held only at the Addition, it
could generate a peak
demand of 1,706 vehicles.
Parking demand on
weekdays could be reduced
through parking
management measures.
The peak parking demand

inclusive of the codevelopment uses is higher
than noted in Alternative 1.
No parking will be provided
exclusively for the codevelopment uses. Codevelopment will share the
800 stall garage being
constructed on Site A.
During conditions when
large events are planned,
transient parking would be
restricted and redirected offsite. A parking management
plan has been identified that
accommodates the
overlapping demand.
Parking utilization data in the
areas shows there is
adequate parking to
accommodate these peak
overlapping periods.
The peak demand

generated by most events at
be accommodated by the
proposed parking supply.
The exception would be the
Parking demand on
through parking
management measures.
The peak demand generated

by most events at the WSCC
Addition would be
accommodated by the
proposed parking supply. The
exception would be the
Parking demand on
through parking management
measures.

inclusive of the codevelopment use is higher
than noted in Alternative
1. During conditions when
restricted and redirected
off-site. A parking
management plan has
been identified that
accommodates the
overlapping demand.
Parking utilization data in
the areas shows there is
adequate parking to

inclusive of the codevelopment use is higher
than noted in Alternative
1. During conditions when
restricted and redirected
off-site. A parking
management plan has
been identified that
accommodates the
overlapping demand.
Parking utilization data in
the areas shows there is
adequate parking to
The peak demand generated

by most events at the WSCC
Addition would be
accommodated by the
proposed parking supply. The
exception would be the
Parking demand on
through parking management
measures.
Parking was not specifically

addressed by the
Downtown EIS.
Alley Vacation
3 alleys are being vacated

with the development of Alt
1. An analysis, considering
non-motorized impacts,
transit impacts, access and
circulation impacts. While
the vacation of the alleys
removes north/south
connectivity at two locations,
the adjacent facilities of
Boren Ave., Terry Ave. and
Ninth provide redundant and
better overall connectivity in
the grid.

1.
The alley located in Site A

extends from Olive Way
south, but does not connect
to Pine St. Although the
alley is proposed to be
vacated the site access
location for this alternative
generally aligns with the
existing condition.
3 alleys are being vacated

with the development of Alt 1.
An analysis, considering nonmotorized impacts, transit
impacts, access and
circulation impacts. While the
vacation of the alleys
removes north/south
connectivity at two locations,
the adjacent facilities of
Boren Ave., Terry Ave. and
Ninth provide redundant and
better overall connectivity in
the grid.

as described for
Alternative 1.

as described for
Alternative 1.
The alley located in Site A

extends from Olive Way
south, but does not connect
to Pine St. Although the alley
is proposed to be vacated the
site access location for this
alternative generally aligns
with the existing condition.
Alley vacations were not

the Downtown EIS.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-27
Table 1-2
Alternative 1
Co-Development
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition With
Co-Development
Alternative 2
Alternative with
Site A Development
Only
Alternative 3
Alternative without
Co-Development and
without WSDOT
Land/Air Lease
Alternative 4.2
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3
Co-Development
Alternative 5
Alternative 6

Street
Vacation
No long-term significant
impacts were identified with
either the Olive Way
subterranean street vacation
of the full or subterranean
vacation of Terry Ave.
between Olive Way and
Howell St. Short-term
impacts as a result of the
project under Olive Way will
occur. Several methods for
constructing these project
elements have been
identified. The extent of
mitigating the short-term
impacts vary by construction
method.
The impacts with respect to

the alley vacations would be
No subterranean or full
street vacations are being
requested for this
alternative.

1.

as described for
Alternative 1.

as described for
Alternative 1.
No subterranean or full street

vacations are being
requested for this alternative.
Street vacations were not

the Downtown EIS.
Cumulative
Impacts
The analysis of the WSCC

Addition included traffic
associated with
development projects in the
project vicinity that are
underway as well as a
general background growth
rate to account for future
development projects
outside the immediate study
area defined for this project.

1.

1.

1.

as described for
Alternative 1.

as described for
Alternative 1.

1.

as described for
Alternative 1.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-28
Potential Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would ensure that Alternatives 1-5 would not lead to an
adverse effect on resources analyzed in this Draft EIS.
A.
Earth
The following general mitigation measures are recommended for construction and operation of
the proposed project, regardless of the alternative.
More complete and detailed
recommendations are included in the geotechnical report prepared for this project.
The proposed WSCC Addition would be designed using International Building Code
(IBC) 2012 parameters for either Site Class C or Site Class D. A site-specific
measurement of shear wave velocity has recently been completed and would be used to
define the final design Site Class once the results are available.
The proposed WSCC Addition would be designed to comply with provisions of the
Seattle Building Code.
As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Draft EIS, the proposed WSCC Addition would be
subject to approval from the Citys Department of Construction and Inspections relative
to Construction Best Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control.
A performance-based seismic design study would be completed to develop the sitespecific design response spectrum and earthquake time histories for use in structural
modeling of the co-development towers portion of the development.
Based on a review of previous borings, the base of the planned excavations for the
current development plan would not extend below the static groundwater elevation. As a
result, no active temporary dewatering is anticipated. Sumps and pumps would be
required for perched groundwater, where encountered, and for stormwater.
Due to existing site constraints, temporary shoring for the site excavation is anticipated
to be completed using four different shoring cases. Optional approaches are described
below:
Conventional soldier pile and tieback shoring.
Soil nail shoring utilizing existing cylinder piles as full-depth vertical elements.
Underpinning the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) cut-and-cover portal

and shoring the exposed vertical face below. The option preferred at this time
would consist of installing uniformly spaced underpinning piles below the tunnel
opening and incorporating tiebacks affixed to the underpinning soldier piles for
lateral support of the vertical cut. A second option would consist of installing three
underpinning piles (below the outer walls and center support of the tunnel) and
shoring the exposed vertical space with soil nails. For both options, the load from

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-29
a portion of the transit tunnel would be directly supported on the underpinning

piles.
B.
Utilizing the existing cylinder pile wall along Pine St. and adding tiebacks, where
needed, to support 20 ft. of excavation below the existing CPS grade. The Sound
Transit stub tunnel is adjacent to the western half of the Pine St. wall. In addition,
the twin-bored tunnels extend from the cut-and-cover tunnel to the southwest. As
such, performance-based design (PBD), using numerical modeling, would be
required in order to evaluate deformations resulting from proposed excavation and
shoring.
The glacially consolidated soil deposits represent competent bearing soils for shallow
foundations. It is anticipated that the building can be supported on spread or mat
foundations with a design bearing pressure of 18 kips per square foot (ksf).
Conventional slabs-on-grade are considered appropriate for the structure outside of the
core mat foundation and may be underlain by a layer of clean crushed rock separated
from the subgrade by non-woven geotextile fabric.
If a shoring wall is selected to temporarily support Olive Way (or a relocated alignment of
Olive Way) during construction (not applicable to Alternative 2, 5 or 6), either soil nailing
with full depth vertical elements or conventional shoring consisting of soldier pile and
tieback walls with timber lagging are feasible.
Air Quality and GHG
The analyses described above indicate that the proposed project would be unlikely to result in
any significant adverse air quality impacts. Other than the implementation and use of best
management practices required by City policies, no additional specific mitigation measures are
required. Examples of emission control best practices and sustainability measures that may be
implemented are discussed below.

Significant air quality impacts are not anticipated due to the King County Site Work.
Construction contractors would be required to comply with all relevant federal, state, and local
air quality regulations. In addition, implementation of best management practices would reduce
emissions related to the demolition of existing facilities on Site A and activities associated with
the King County Site Work alternatives.
Construction
Although significant air quality impacts are not anticipated due to construction of the proposed
WSCC Addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with all relevant federal,
state, and local air quality regulations. In addition, implementation of best management
practices would reduce emissions related to the construction phase of the project. Management
practices for reducing the potential for air quality impacts during construction include measures
for reducing both exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. The Washington Associated General
Contractors brochure Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects and the
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-30
PSCAA suggest a number of methods for controlling dust and reducing the potential exposure
of people to emissions from diesel equipment. A list of some of the control measures that could
be implemented to reduce potential air quality impacts from construction activities follows:
Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition.
Require all off-road equipment to have emission reduction equipment (e.g., require
participation in Puget Sound Region Diesel Solutions, a program designed to reduce
air pollution from diesel, by project sponsors and contractors).
Use car-pooling or other trip-reduction strategies for construction workers.
Implement restrictions on construction truck and other vehicle idling (e.g., limit idling to
a maximum of 5 minutes).
Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PM and
deposition of particulate matter.
Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that would be exposed for long periods.
Cover all trucks transporting materials, wetting materials in trucks, or providing

adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed), to
reduce PM emissions and deposition during transport.
Provide wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried
off-site by vehicles in order to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area
roadways.
Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris.
Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to

reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction.
Other than direct construction equipment and activity emissions that would be addressed as
described above, the largest potential emissions source related to facility construction would be
traffic-related emissions associated with disrupted and/or rerouted traffic in the site vicinity. City
of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) policies will require that the WSCC Addition
project construction planning/permitting include a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for
traffic. This CMP will be developed in cooperation with SDOT and DPD to minimize traffic
impacts from construction activities and traffic.
Facility Operations
The screening analysis described above indicates that operation of the proposed facility would
not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts. Consequently, no specific additional
mitigation is necessary or proposed.
GHG and Sustainability

The proposed WSCC Addition would embrace multiple sustainable design, construction, and
operational practices targeting a LEED Certification and the Seattle 2030 District goals, and

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-31
would be designed to comply with provisions of the City's Energy Code. 3,4 In addition, the
following measures could be employed to further reduce energy use, increase sustainable
building design, and reduce GHG emissions. Key measures that are being explored include:
C.
High performance glazing could be installed with low-E coatings to further reduce heat
gain.
There could be a reflective roof surface treatment to reduce the 'heat island effect' on the
roof of the facility.
Drought resistant and tolerant planting could be planted in landscaped areas to minimize
irrigation requirements.
Maximize use of outside air for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.
Efficient light fixtures could be on occupancy and daylight sensors, as well as nighttime
sweep controls.
Low flow plumbing fixtures could result in a 30 percent reduction of water consumption.
Low VOC emitting materials could be used for finishes, adhesives primers and sealants.
Recycled content and rapidly renewable materials could be incorporated into project
design, including: concrete, steel and fibrous materials (bamboo, straw, jute, etc.).
Construction waste management could include salvaging demolished material and

construction waste for recycling.
Commitment to the Seattle 2030 District pilot program to reduce energy and water
consumption, as well as CO2 emissions from auto and freight traffic.
Pedestrian Wind
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of the Site A building. Such
canopies would divert downwash flow from pedestrian level and minimize the potential for
significant pedestrian-level wind impacts along the sidewalks and entries of Pine St. and Olive
Way. The design, therefore, meets or exceeds any mitigation measures suggested for
pedestrian wind protection.
Alternative 4.1
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of Site A, Site B, and Site C
buildings. Such canopies would divert downwash flow from pedestrian level and minimize the
potential for significant pedestrian-level wind impacts along the buildings sidewalks and entries.
LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. This is a Green Building rating system that that is
published by the U.S. Green Building Council to address energy efficiency largely in the areas of building siting,
design and operation.
The Seattle 2030 District is an interdisciplinary public-private collaborative working to create a groundbreaking
high-performance building district in downtown Seattle that seeks to develop realistic, measurable, and innovative strategies to assist district property owners, managers, and tenants in meeting aggressive goals that reduce
environmental impacts of facility construction and operations. http://www.2030district.org/seattle/

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-32
The design, therefore, meets or exceeds any mitigation measures suggested for pedestrian
wind protection.
Alternative 4.2
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of the Site A and Site B
wind protection.
Alternative 4.3
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of the Site A and Site C
wind protection.
D.
Water
Measures that could be implemented to reduce the potential for impacts associated with the
proposed WSCC Addition include the following:
A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management
practices (BMPs), would be implemented during construction, in accordance with City of
Seattle requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be
implemented.
A permanent stormwater control system would be installed, in accordance with the City
of Seattle requirements.
Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be included
in the stormwater control systems, to the greatest extent possible:
- Roof downspout control;
- Porous concrete, asphalt or pavers;
- Rain gardens; or
- A green roof.
E.
Environmental Health
Potential mitigation measures associated with the proposed WSCC Addition could include the
following:
As noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS, asbestos surveys would be conducted and
demolition permits would be obtained from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency prior to
commencement of demolition activity.
All identified environmental site hazards
associated with the buildings and contents would be removed prior to building
demolition.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-33
A Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) and an Environmental Construction Contingency Plan

(ECCP) will be prepared prior to starting soil removal at the WSCC Addition. The CAP
and ECCP will include protocol for the proper handling and disposal of contaminated soil
from the property. The protocol will include the following:
-
F.
require contractors present during excavation to have health and safety plans in
place that address the risks associated with contaminated soils;
require excavation contactors to have 40-hour HAZWOPER trained individuals
available, if necessary, to excavate contaminated soils;
GeoEngineers will oversee any work that becomes necessary in response to
contaminated soils; and,
comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the handling, removal, transport,
and disposal of USTs and any contaminated soils.
Conduct site cleanup in accordance with applicable MTCA requirements.
Document site remediation activities and, if necessary, obtain guidance and opinions
from the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Noise
Construction
To mitigate potential construction-related impacts, the proposed WSCC Addition would develop
a Construction Management Plan (CMP). Among other things, the aim of the CMP would be to
ensure that construction noise complies with the Seattle noise limits by anticipating and
reducing potential noise impacts from construction activities on adjacent properties. Management practices should be established and at a minimum include the following: noise control
measures to reduce the amount of sound generation; reduce the transmission of demolition and
construction noise to off-site receivers through sound-containment measures; and coordinate
with Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) on haul routes and street use permits. This
plan would be coordinated with the DPD Noise Abatement Office (DPD) and SDOT.
The CMP would include the following elements:
1. Construction Communication - including a Contact and Community Liaison;
2. Construction Hours and Sensitive Receivers identifying demolition and construction
activities within permissible construction hours;
3. Construction Noise Requirements all demolition and construction activities shall conform
to the Noise Ordinance, except as approved through the variance process;
4. Measures to Minimize Noise Impacts list of measures to be implemented to reduce or
prevent noise impacts during demolition and construction activities during standard and
non-standard working hours;
5. Construction Milestones a description of the various phases of demolition and construction, including a description of noise and traffic generators, and anticipated construction
hours for each phase;
6. Construction Noise Management identify techniques to minimize demolition and
construction noise including: timing restrictions, noise reduction construction technologies,
process modifications. These techniques may go beyond code requirements and could
include the following:
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-34
Using properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine
enclosures, and turning off idle equipment. Construction contracts can specify that
mufflers be in good working order and that engine enclosures be used on equipment
when the engine is the dominant source of noise.
Stationary equipment could be placed as far away from sensitive receiving locations as
possible. Where this is infeasible, or where noise impacts are still significant, portable
noise barriers could be placed around the equipment with the opening directed away
from the sensitive receiving property. These measures are especially effective for
engines used in pumps, compressors, welding machines, and similar equipment that
operate continuously and contribute to high, steady background noise levels. In addition
to providing about a 10-dBA reduction in equivalent sound levels, the portable barriers
demonstrate to the public the contractor's commitment to minimizing noise impacts
during construction.
Substituting hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jack hammers, rock
drills and pavement breakers could reduce construction and demolition noise. Electric
pumps could be specified if pumps are required.
Although, as safety warning devices back-up alarms are exempt from noise ordinances,
these devices emit some of the most annoying sounds from a construction site. One
potential mitigation measure would be to ensure that all equipment required to use
backup alarms utilize ambient-sensing alarms that broadcast a warning sound loud
enough to be heard over background noise but without having to use a preset,
maximum volume. An even better alternative would be to use fixed volume or ambientsensing broadband backup alarms instead of typical pure tone alarms. Broadband
alarms have been found to be very effective in reducing annoying noise from
construction sites.
Requiring operators to lift rather than drag materials wherever feasible can also minimize
noise from material handling.
In areas where construction would occur within about 200 ft. of existing uses (such as
residences and noise-sensitive uses), effective noise control measures (possibly
outlined in a Construction Noise Management Plan) should be employed to minimize the
potential for noise impacts. In addition to placing noise-producing equipment as far as
possible from residences and noise-sensitive uses, such controls could include using
quiet equipment, placing temporary noise barriers to shield sensitive uses, and orienting
the work areas to minimize noise transmission to sensitive off-site locations.
Operation
For HVAC and other rooftop mechanical equipment within direct line-of-site of neighboring
residential uses, operational noise would need to be carefully considered during facility design.
Such HVAC units may need to be oriented and/or enclosed to ensure compliance with the City
noise limits.
The cooling tower on the northeast corner of the building is expected to be enclosed by an
opaque wall, with an opening sufficient for adequate airflow. The unit would need to be installed
so that noise from the opening does not exceed the applicable Seattle Noise Code limits.
Depending on the size and capacity of the cooling tower, consideration of noise impacts at
neighboring commercial receivers may also be required. Cooling tower noise can be mitigated
by blocking line-of-sight to receiving locations using absorptive panel barriers and/or other intervening structures.
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-35
Exhaust vents for all underground parking facilities could be located and controlled to reduce
noise at off-site residential uses and to ensure compliance with the City noise limits.
G.
Energy
As noted above, development of the WSCC Addition and co-development on Site B

and Site C under the alternatives would create additional demand for gas,
telecommunications and natural gas. New development would comply with applicable
regulations (2012 Seattle Energy Code, SCL requirements, Seattle Plumbing Code, etc.)
and would coordinate with existing purveyors (SCL, Comcast, PSE, etc.) regarding
service to the new development. In addition, renewable energy features would be
provided, consistent with the applicable requirements of the 2012 Seattle Energy Code.
Construction of improvements to electrical and natural gas services to serve

development under Alternatives 1 5 would be scheduled and coordinated with other
infrastructure and utilities improvements for the WSCC site, to the extent feasible.
To minimize the potential for service disruption during the construction process, WSCC
would coordinate with electrical and natural gas purveyors.
No additional energy-related mitigation measures would be necessary.
H.
Land Use
No significant land use impacts are anticipated from development of the proposed WSCC
Addition and, therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
I.
Historic Resources
No significant impacts are anticipated. Any potential construction impacts to the Camlin and
Paramount Theatre building could be mitigated with pre-construction surveys. These surveys
could include inspecting building foundations, exterior walls, and some interior finishes to
document preexisting defects such as cracks and settlement. Defects would be noted and, if
appropriate, would be monitored.
J.
Recreation
No significant recreation impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Future
increases in employment and population at the site under Alternatives 1-6 would be
accompanied by increases in demands on park and recreational resources both onsite and in
the site vicinity.
A portion of the tax revenues generated from development of the site potentially
including construction sales tax, retail sales tax, business and occupation tax, property
tax, utilities tax, leasehold excise tax, and other fees from City licenses and permits
during site redevelopment would accrue to the City of Seattle and could help offset
demands for public services, including parks and recreation.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-36
Residential and office development that occurs on Site B or C relative to most WSCC
Addition alternatives, as well as Site A in conjunction with Alternative 6, would be
required to provide open space, consistent with the existing provisions of the DMC
340/290-400 zone that the sites are located within.
It is anticipated that increases in employees, visitors and resident population onsite over
the buildout period, along with general growth in this area of the City, would be planned
for through the Citys ongoing comprehensive plan and capital facility planning
processes.
K.
Population and Housing
No significant population, housing or environmental justice impacts have been identified and
therefore no mitigation is necessary. Measures that could be implemented to further reduce the
potential for impacts associated with the proposed WSCC Addition could include the following:
L.
King County required an affordable housing component in the project as a condition of

sale of the Convention Place Station land to WSCC. This requirement could be met with
on-site housing or the project may contribute to an existing affordable housing fund.
WSCC would continue, throughout the entitlement and construction processes

associated with the project, to provide opportunities for public awareness and
involvement to help ensure that affected populations have a voice in the decision-making
process associated with this development.
While construction activity would affect portions of the Citys street grid proximate to the
site, WSCC proposes to provide information to the public through various media in order
to minimize temporary disruption of vehicular and pedestrian flow in the immediate
vicinity of the site, as well as adverse, temporary effects associated with reduction in
community cohesion.
WSCC will institute a strong, voluntary commitment to partnering with diverse and
disadvantaged construction trades, service companies, and architectural and
engineering companies in development and construction of the proposed WSCC
Addition. These include minority-, small-, veteran-, disadvantaged- and women-owned
businesses.
Aesthetics Urban Design
The project would be required to adhere to all current, applicable City Land Use Code
requirements and the project is subject to the Citys design processes, including review by the
Downtown Design Review Board and the Seattle Design Commission.
M.
Aesthetics Viewshed
All alternatives would be designed to be consistent with provisions of the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood Plan, existing Land Use regulations, and the Citys Downtown Design Guidelines.
In addition, on-site project design is subject to review by the Citys Downtown Design Review
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-37
Board and vacation of public rights-of-way is subject to review by the Citys Design Commission
with final approval by City Council. No significant adverse viewshed-related impacts are
anticipated from the proposed WSCC Addition and no mitigation is necessary.
Aesthetics Light, Glare, and Shadows
Light and Glare

No significant, long term reflected solar glare-related environmental impacts are anticipated for
motorists as a result of the proposed WSCC Addition project and no mitigation measures are
necessary. The following measures, however, could further reduce the potential of light and
glare-related impacts from the project as it relates to neighborhoods surrounding the site.
As noted previously, while building faade materials are in the process of being finalized,
the facades of the proposed building could consist of a metal and glass window wall
structure with glass spandrel panels. The Citys Downtown Design Review Board is
currently reviewing project-related design elements. Reflectivity of the glazing will be
dictated by the nature of glass that is employed and the requirements set forth by the
City's Energy Code. At this point in the design review process, it is anticipated that no
excessively-reflective surfaces (i.e. mirrored glass, or polished metals) that go beyond
what is required to meet energy-related code provisions are proposed anywhere on the
exterior of the project buildings.
Building faade modulation is proposed for the WSCC Addition, which could reduce the
effect of any potential reflected solar glare.
Proposed street trees, as well as the use of building materials with relatively lowreflectivity at street-level could minimize reflective glare-related impacts to pedestrians,
motorists and nearby residents. To an extent, vegetation can lessen potential
environmental impacts of reflected solar glare from glazing. Such can occur if these
mitigating factors are located between the sun and the glass or specular surface, or
between the reflective surface of the faade and the area potentially affected by
reflected solar glare. While coniferous and/or evergreen vegetation typically afford the
greatest amount of mitigation, at times deciduous vegetation can also restrict the amount
of solar glare that is reflected from glazing -- from approximately late April to late
October when leaves are present. Any on-site trees and street trees that are proposed
for the project site would most likely be deciduous. Between late October and late April,
while the amount of glare restriction afforded by deciduous trees is substantially less
(influenced by the density of the branches), even during this time of the year they can
partially restrict the amount of reflected solar glare emanating from glazed surfaces
below a height of 20-30 ft.
Pedestrian-scale lighting would be provided consistent with code, function and safety
requirements. Exterior lighting would include fixtures to direct the light downward and/or
upward and away from off-site land uses.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-38
Shadows
As noted, redevelopment of the project site under Alternatives 1-5 would new cast shadows on
the off-leash dog portion of Plymouth Pillars Park at approximately 5 PM during the summer
solstice. However, much of this park is already shaded from existing buildings throughout the
year and shading would not prevent dog walkers from continuing to use the off-leash dog area.
Overall, shadow-related impacts are typical of Downtown highrise development and no
significant impacts would occur to Downtown areas where shadow impacts may be mitigated.
No mitigation is necessary.
O.
Public Services
Police Services
The following possible mitigation measures would address potential impacts to police services
resulting from the proposed WSCC Addition.
Increases in population and employment would be accompanied by increases in

demand for police services under all of the EIS alternatives. A portion of the tax
revenues generated from development of the site including construction sales tax,
retail sales tax, business and operation tax, property tax, utility tax and other fees,
licenses and permits - would accrue to the City of Seattle and could help offset demand
for police services.
The portions of the site that are under construction during redevelopment of the site
could be fenced, lit, and monitored by surveillance cameras to help prevent construction
site theft and vandalism.
Permanent site design features could be included to help reduce criminal activity and
calls for service, including: providing adequate lighting and visibility onsite.
Fire and Emergency Services

The following possible mitigation measures would address potential impacts to fire and
emergency services resulting from the proposed WSCC Addition.

demand for fire/EMS services under all of the EIS alternatives. A portion of the tax
revenues generated from redevelopment of the site including construction sales tax,
for public services.
All new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the Fire Code, which is
composed of the International Fire Code with Seattle amendments.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-39
P.
Utilities
Construction management associated with the proposed WSCC Addition would coordinate with
service providers to identify land uses proximate to the site that could be affected by temporary
service interruptions. To the best of their ability, WSCC Addition construction management
would inform land uses proximate to the site of the time and duration of expected service
interruptions.
Utility location and right-of-way width requirements will be determined through coordination with
City Department within the SIP process.
Water
The design and construction of all water distribution facilities would comply with the City
of Seattle regulations for extensions and improvements to the Citys water system.
All such connections would require City approval.
Sanitary Sewer
The design and construction of sanitary sewer systems would comply with the City of
Seattle standard plans and specifications for extensions and improvements to the Citys
sewer system.
Telecommunications
Q.
The design and construction of telecommunication facilities in support of the WSCC

Addition and possible co-development would comply with terms of the Citys franchise
agreement.
Transportation
The following summarizes the recommended mitigation measures for the WSCC Addition
focusing on the short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts of the
project. Mitigation measures, both operational and programmatic are identified for each of the
transportation elements identified in this report. Generally, mitigation measures are consistent
among the alternatives evaluated in this report. Differences exist in the areas of construction
impacts and pro-rata contribution to the Denny Way and South Lake Union Intersections. Where
applicable, differences in mitigation between alternatives are clearly delineated.
Mitigation of King County Site Work / Construction Impacts
To accommodate the required King County Site Work activities, transit circulation to/from the
DSTT is revised. In addition, at the King County Site Work phase, layover space on the existing
CPS will be removed. The existing layover space is proposed to be temporarily relocated to
Convention Pl. between Pike St. and Union St. To accommodate the revised circulation patterns
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-40
of the buses and the temporary layover space on Convention Pl. modifications to the roadway
network is required. These modifications include:
Modifications to channelization and signage at the following intersections is anticipated:

Seventh Ave. / Union St., Seventh Ave. / Pike St., and Ninth Ave. / Pike St. to
accommodate the routing of buses from Convention Pl. back to the Pike St. ramp.
Convert Ninth Ave. between Olive Way and Pike St. to two-way traffic and restrict
northbound general purpose traffic to transit only to facilitate transit movements and
minimize delays to and from the DSTT.
WSCC Addition Construction Activities

Prior to commencing construction of any build alternative, the prime contractor would prepare a
Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the City of Seattle. This plan would
document the following measures:
Detailed truck haul-routes to and from the site.
Peak hour restrictions for construction truck traffic and how those restrictions would be
communicated and enforced.
Further details about truck staging areas. Initial staging areas are identified in Appendix
H, Section 3.16.
Construction employee parking areas.
Measures to reduce construction worker trips such as rideshare, shuttles, carpool, transit
passes or other related programs.
Lane, sidewalk or bike lane closures that may be needed during utility or building
construction. A plan detailing temporary traffic control, channelization, and signage
measures should be provided for affected facilities.
Construction or staging needs that would affect King County Metro transit stops. The
contractor must work with Metro staff to arrange temporary stop closures or temporary
layover areas, as needed.
Other elements or details may be required in the Construction Management Plan to

satisfy City street use permit requirements.
Mitigation of Long-Term Impacts

Potential mitigation measures for each of the development alternatives are summarized below.
In addition to alternative-specific mitigation, information is presented regarding the basic
framework for the Transportation Management Program which is applicable to all Alternatives.
Other programmatic measures such as a dock management plan and parking management
plan are also noted as they apply specifically to the freight impacts and parking impacts,
respectively.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-41
Transportation Management Plan

Consistent with City of Seattle requirements, a TMP will be developed for the proposed
WSCC Addition. Transportation Management Plan strategies to reduce reliance on single
occupant vehicles during peak periods can include providing mobility options, incentives for
making travel decisions, and marketing information. These strategies are outlined in Error!
Reference source not found. would apply to all alternatives evaluated.
Mobility Options
Transit service
Carsharing / Taxis /
Transportation Network
Companys
Pedestrian access
Bike routes/bikeshare
Shuttle routes
Incentives
Transit passes
Ridesharing/HOV
Parking pricing
Vehicle restrictions
Marketing/Information
Wayfinding
Congestion/parking
information
Lane management
Transportation Management Strategies

Mobility
Promote employee programs to discourage on-site parking and promote transit and
car/van pool and bike use.
Inform visitors of bike share locations and bicycling routes -The locations of existing
Pronto Cycle Share stations in the vicinity of the proposed Addition are shown in Error!
Reference source not found..
Define and support new bike parking locations Within the WSCC campus identify
locations for bike parking and storage that are easy to access.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-42
Pronto Cycle Share Locations

Incentives
Promote Transit Use (ORCA Card and Transit Passes) for visitors Through event
programs, and as part of event promotions encourage visitors and event attendees to use
transit.
Use event materials to promote transit access (free rides) from Sea-Tac Airport.
Support development of next generation ORCA In the next generation of ORCA,

promote use for all transport modes (parking, Pronto, transit, etc.) incorporate into a
downloadable app for visitors that provides incentives/disincentives that balance with
availability of transportation systems.
Manage WSCC parking/pricing to reduce SOV access to events Special pricing,

parking discounts for carpool.
Coordinate with Commute Seattle Support Commute Seattle to enhance information

sharing about construction closures and large events that may occur at the WSCC
Addition.
Support for transit and bike promotional events Invest in Commute Seattle, Bike
Month, and Transit Month events to promote and sustain those modes, enhancing safety.
Support City monitoring and data collection programs (such as Acyclica installation or
other monitoring measures).
Promote real-time modal information within the WSCC properties (using Transit
Screen or similar software).

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-43
Alternative 1 (Preferred)
Roadway Network Impacts
Several modifications to the roadway network are proposed as elements of Alternative 1.
These modifications include the vacation of Terry Ave., the conversion of Ninth Ave. to two-way
traffic between Pike St. and Olive Way, vacation of three alleys, and elimination of several
existing driveways on the three development sites (Sites A, B, and C). In all cases, the
proposed modifications would not trigger the need for mitigation measures.
Traffic Operations Impacts
General increases in intersection and corridor delay are anticipated within the study area as a
result of the increased traffic volumes. During the weekday AM peak hour, eight intersections
are forecasted to operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse in baseline conditions, with the
same number forecasted to operate at LOS E or worse with Alternative 1. During the weekday
PM peak hour, 10 intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E or worse in baseline
conditions, and 11 are forecasted to operate at LOS E or worse with Alternative 1.
Improvements to intersections in the Denny Triangle are part of Seattle Department of
Transportations (SDOT) Active Traffic Management Project. In addition, long range multi-modal
improvement projections have been identified for the SLU area. Impacts to the Denny Triangle
projects and the SLU area could be mitigated through a proportionate share contribution
towards City identified projects. The potential level of contribution will be determined through
coordination with the City of Seattle.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Impacts
Based on a review of the impacts to the pedestrian and bicycle facilities with Alternative 1, no
mitigation would be required and none identified. Alternative 1 includes expansion of the
existing sidewalks along the property frontage, which would be adequate to accommodate the
forecast volumes. In addition, a detailed analysis of the sidewalk capacity between the Addition
and the existing facility was conducted and demonstrated that adequate capacity exists.
To accommodate the inbound movements of trucks accessing the three staging stalls, a
building opening of approximately 75 feet would be required to accommodate the turning
movements from Boren Ave. An opening of this width would impact the pedestrian realm and
create a larger conflict zone between pedestrians and traffic into the WSCC loading docks. To
mitigate the impacts to the public realm, the building opening would be reduced to
approximately 49 feet, resulting in two staging stalls for the large trucks. The size of the staging
area would remain the same so that smaller trucks could be accommodated, but the opening
width reduced improving the pedestrian experience. To mitigate for the reduced staging area
capacity, additional signage would be added to the exterior of the building noting when the
loading dock is at capacity and trucks need to loop back around.
Freight Impacts
As discussed in the report, freight activity to/from the site is anticipated to use the primary
arterials such as Boren Ave, Howell St, and Mercer St. to access the site. During PM peak
hours when traffic volumes on Howell St are the highest and congestion exists, trucks are
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-44
anticipated to travel north on Terry Ave to Virginia St, where they would make a right-turn to
ultimately access Fairview northbound. Several improvements to the future design of the Terry
Ave Green Street elements have been identified. In addition to the improvements along Terry
Ave, intersection improvements are necessary to accommodate the turning path of the large
trucks. Intersection improvements include the elimination of the parking on the north edge of
Virginia St east and west of the Terry Ave intersection so the channelization can be revised.
A dock management plan will also be prepared for the project. The purpose of the dock
management plan is to outline operational procedures which will be used to minimize impacts to
the adjacent arterials such as Boren Ave, Howell St, and Olive Way. This plan would identify
protocol for use of traffic management staff to control traffic during event load-in/load-out
periods, limitations of truck staging on adjacent arterials, specific routing restrictions, and
thresholds for implementing marshalling procedures.
Transit Impacts
With the development of the WSCC Addition, the use of Convention Place Station by Metro for
layover space will not be available. These buses will be removed from the site and relocated
while the DSTT is still being used by both buses and light rail. Long term layover options for
King County Metro will be investigated and studied along with the City of Seattle.
Parking Mitigation
Project alternatives that have a co-development element would require parking management
measures to allocate parking among WSCC's three parking facilities: the main garage, Freeway
Park garage, and the WSCC Addition garage. In addition, physical improvements to pedestrian
facilities and wayfinding connecting WSCCs existing garages and the Addition should be made.
The following lists various strategies that should be considered as part of a comprehensive
parking management plan:
Parking Management Strategies
Reduce monthly parking. Pre-paid, fixed-price monthly parking for downtown

commuters should be eliminated. This could be replaced with new parking models that
charge by day, with black-out periods on days when commuter spaces are needed for
event use. Commuters could still be provided access to the garage, but at a higher daily
rate charged to event attendees.
Reduce WSCC employee parking demand. Use transportation demand management

strategies, such as subsidized transit passes, to encourage more employees to use
alternative modes of transportation.
Require WSCC employees to use Freeway Park garage. For employees who must
drive, they should be required to park in the Freeway Park garage.
Valet park garage. For gala events with high customer service expectations, valet
parking could be used to increase parking supply at the WSCC Addition. It may be
possible to valet park in otherwise unused space, such as the loading dock area when it
is not in use, or utilize nearby office building parking.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-45
Physical Improvements to Existing Garages and Connectors

There are many physical improvements that could be made to better connect the two existing
WSCC garages to the Addition, and to make them more enticing to use. Potential improvements
are described below:
Improve pedestrian wayfinding to, from, and within existing garages. The existing
wayfinding system should be extended to the new WSCC Addition with color-coded
pathways and signage.
Improve lighting and security in existing garages. As described above, parking

management strategies would likely move employees and/or co-development residents
to the existing WSCC garages. These types of users often access their personal
vehicles alone and later at night than typical event patrons. Adding lighting and security
features within the garages (e.g., call boxes like those used on college campuses) could
improve the sense of personal security within those garages.
Implement parking space tracking equipment and web-based information tools.

There are many systems available that can track available parking, by facility, by floor,
and even by space. The City of Seattles e-Park system is one that tracks by facility, and
lists available spaces at garage entry points and on several web-based/ mobile
platforms. The existing WSCC garage is already part of this system. More advanced
vehicle tracking within a garage may be able to provide detailed information about
availability of certain types of spaces, for example, if a separate parking area is provided
for co-development employees.
Improve motorist wayfinding. To improve the customers experience, wayfinding

improvements that direct motorists to and from the existing WSCC garages using a
unified system of static and dynamic signs that are tied to parking availability information
described in #5 above. In addition, the wayfinding program can be integrated with webbased tools and mobile applications (e.g., Google maps).
Alternative 2
Overall trip generation for Alternative 2 is less than noted for Alternative 1. As a result,
mitigation measures noted for Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 2. This includes
mitigation measures related to parking management strategies and the displacement of the
Metro layover areas on CPS.
Alternative 3
Overall trip generation for Alternative 3 is less than noted for Alternative 1. As a result,
mitigation measures noted for Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 3. This includes
Metro layover areas on the CPS.
Alternative 4.1
Overall trip generation for Alternative 4.1 is greater than Alternative 1 due to the planned codevelopment on the north parcels. During the AM peak hour the increase is anticipated to be on
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-46
the order of 64 percent (290 trips). During the weekday PM peak hour, the increase is
anticipated to be on the order of 51 percent (288 trips). As summarized for Alternative 1,
contributions to several of the key intersections in the Denny Triangle are could be provided to
support the Active Traffic Management System that is planned for the area. In addition,
contributions to the SLU sub-area could also be provided to mitigate general impacts in that
area.
With the co-development elements included in this Alternative, additional parking management
strategies are recommended. These strategies are in addition to those previously identified for
Alternative 1.
Locate parking for co-development residents in existing garages. Co-development

residents are estimated to need 170 parking spaces, and vehicles are often stored for
long periods of time making them nearly impossible to share with other users.
Residential parking could be priced to encourage use of the least convenient spaces at
Freeway Park garage and/or the WSCC Main Garage.
Use price to encourage co-development office parkers to use existing garages.

Parking in the WSCC Addition should be priced to discourage its use by office tenants,
and alternative, lower-cost parking could be offered in the WSCC Main or Freeway Park
garages. The cost could fluctuate by day, if needed, depending on the expected
demand, and tenant parking should be assessed on a per-day basis. Web-based tools
where tenants can find information about cost and availability should be provided for this
type of program.
Restrict parking by co-development office tenants on high-demand days. If pricing

alone does not work, tenant parking in the WSCC Addition garage could be outright
restricted on certain high-demand days. This is similar to programs now in effect near
the stadiums (e.g., Mariners Opening Day, or Monday night football games). Advance
notification should be provided related on black-out days. It is estimated that there could
be up to 20 black-out days per year.
During major events where the parking demand for co-development uses are pushed out of the
WSCC garages, utilization in other garages in the immediate vicinity is anticipated to increase.
Based on utilization studies of these garages, adequate capacity exits in the area to
accommodate the demand.
Alternative 4.2
Overall trip generation for Alternative 4.2 is less than noted for Alternative 4.1. As a result,
mitigation measures noted for Alternative 4.1 would be similar to what is required for
Alternative 4.2. This includes mitigation measures related to parking management strategies
and the displacement of the Metro layover areas on the CPS.
Alternative 4.3
mitigation measures noted for Alternative are applicable to Alternative 4.3. This includes
Metro layover areas on the CPS. With the lower trip generation, contributions to the Denny
Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-47
Triangle improvements and SLU improvements would be reduced as compared to Alternative

4.1.
Alternative 5
Overall trip generation for Alternative 5 is similar to that noted for Alternative 2. Overall
mitigation measures noted for Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 5 based on the
identified impacts. This includes mitigation measures related to parking management strategies
and the displacement of the Metro layover areas on the CPS. With the lower trip generation
associated with Alternative 5, contributions to the Denny Triangle improvements and SLU
improvements would be reduced as compared to Alternative 1.

Draft EIS
Section I
Summary
1-48
SECTION II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES and
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
SECTION II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES and
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
2.1 PROPONENT/PROJECT LOCATION
Proponent
The WSCC Addition is proposed by the Washington State Convention Center. Pine Street
Group L.L.C. is managing the proposed WSCC Addition on behalf of WSCC. The address of
Pine Street Group is 1500 Fourth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98101.
Project Location
The site is in Downtown Seattles Denny Triangle Urban
Center Village,1 approximately one block northeast of the
existing Washington State Convention Center (see Figure
2-1 and 2-2).
Depending upon the alternative (described below), the site
comprises an area of up to three blocks2 -- 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 (Figure 2-3). Olive
Way bisects the 3-block site area in an east-west direction
and Terry Ave. bisects the two north sites Site B and
Site C in generally a north-south direction (see image).
As depicted, the largest site is bounded by Olive Way on
the north, Boren Ave. on the east, I-5 on the southeast, Pine St. on the south, and Ninth Ave. on
the west. Other than the building associated with a former auto dealership located in the
northeast portion of Site A, this site currently serves as King County Metros Convention Place
Station (CPS). It is expected that buses will continue to use CPS and operate in the tunnel until
at least September 2018.
1
The area is part of the Downtowns Denny Triangle Urban Center (Seattle, 2005 [UV17 and UV18]). Please see
the References section of this DEIS for the complete citation.
Also referred to in this EIS as parcels and sites.

Draft EIS
2-1
Section II
Project Description Preferred Alts. &
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
WSCC Addition
North
Source: EA, 2015
Figure 2-1
Regional Map
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Project Site
North
Source: EA, 2015
Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Project Site
North
Source: City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan, 2014; EA, 2015
Figure 2-3
Denny Triangle Neighborhood Boundaries and
Project Site Aerial
The project site varies, depending upon the alternative (described in Section 2.6 below). The
full -- three block build-out -- pertains to Alternative 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Partial build-out,
which involves less than the three blocks, pertains to Alternative 2, 5 and 6. The area of the
entire three block site -- including City rights-of-way that are proposed for full and subterranean
vacation -- approximates 7.67 acres. The area of each of the three blocks excluding rights-ofway that are proposed for vacation is: Site A 209,839 sq. ft. (4.81 ac.), which also includes
the WSDOT ground/air lease area (approximately 7,330 sq. ft.); Site B 25,551 sq. ft. (0.59
ac.), and Site C 50,979 sq. ft. (1.15 ac.).
2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Two Preferred Alternatives are described in this section of the DEIS, together with five Other
Development Alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The following is a summary of these
alternatives; details of each are provided in Section 2.6 of this DEIS.
Alternative 1 Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development Total development

of approximately 1,511,700 sq. ft. on the three sites noted above. This alternative
includes: approximately 37,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses,3 including but not limited to
street-frontage retail; below-grade parking for 700-800 vehicles; full vacation of four City
rights-of-way and one subterranean vacation; and a WSDOT ground/air rights lease.
Alternative 4.1 Preferred Alternative With Co-Development Total development of

approximately 2,390,550 sq. ft. on the three parcels noted above. This alternative
includes: approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses (Site A), including but not
limited to retail, restaurants, etc.; co-development on Site B of a 29-story, 400-unit
residential tower with 8,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses; co-development on Site C with a
16-story, 515,700-sq.-ft. office tower with 10,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses; below-grade
parking same as Alternative 1; full vacation of four City rights-of-way and one
subterranean vacation; and a WSDOT ground/air rights lease.
The five Other Development Alternatives and the No Action Alternative are described in in
Section 2.6 of this DEIS, including:
Alternative 2 ............. Alternative With Site A Development Only;

Alternative 3 ............. Alternative Without Co-Development, Without the
WSDOT Land/Air Lease, and Without the Requirement
for FHWA Action When Paired with King County Site Work
Alternative B;
Alternative 4.2 .......... Alternative With Site B Co-Development;
Alternative 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.

Draft EIS
2-5
Section II
Other Alternatives
In general, the proposed WSCC Addition (Alternative 1 or 4.1) is planned to provide

approximately 1,256,500 sq. ft. of convention center gross floor area. This is anticipated to
consist of the following, depending upon the alternative:
Building Areas (approximate areas)
exhibition space -- 200,000 sq. ft. 250,000 sq. ft.;

meeting space 110,000 sq. ft. -- 120,000 sq. ft.;
ballroom -- 60,000 sq. ft.;
lobby area, pre-function and circulation space;
back-of-house support space; and
truck loading area.
Additional development components include:
Parking
structured parking -- 700 800 parking spaces;
Street-Level Uses
such as: retail, restaurants, service and entertainment uses;
Possible Co-Development -- several alternatives also include:
residential development -- with street-level pedestrian-oriented uses and

approximately 400 dwelling units; and/or
office space -- with street-level pedestrian-oriented uses and up to 515,700 sq.
ft. of office.
2.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Washington State Convention Center Facilities
Organization
The Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District was authorized by the
Washington State Legislature through Substitute Senate Bill 6889 and was created by
King County Ordinance No. 16883.
The Washington State Convention Center is a Public Facilities District, established

under Chapter 36.100 RCW and by Chapter 2.300 of the King County Code.
WSCC is governed by a 9-member Board of Directors and managed by a President and

Chief Executive Officer (Jeff Blosser), an executive staff of seven, and an operational
staff of approximately 175 full-time equivalent employees.

Draft EIS
2-6
Section II
Other Alternatives
Existing Facilities
The existing Washington State Convention Center contains the following:4
414,722 sq. ft. of meeting space that includes seven exhibit halls that combined contain
approximately 237,000-sq.-ft. of exhibit space;
45,000-sq.-ft. of ballroom space;
up to 67 meeting rooms;
23 loading bays;
1,600 parking spaces; and
restaurants, retail shops and services.
Existing Operations (see Table 2-1)

Table 2-1
Number of Events Held at WSCC 2011 - 2014
Year
National /
International
Local /
Regional
Total
44
38
49
36
314
318
410
376
358
356
469
412
2014
2013
2012
2011
Source: WSCC Annual Reports - 2014, 20135
Event Attendance (see Table 2-2)

Table 2-2
Total Event Attendance at WSCC (All Event Types) 2011 - 2014
Year
2014
2013
2012
2011
National /
International
Local /
Regional
Total
126,029
136,538
132,420
147,345
305,523
275,275
295,800
272,968
431,552
411,813
428,220
420,313
Source: WSCC Annual Reports - 2014, 2013
The Washington State Convention Center (WSCC) is currently the smallest major-city
convention center on the West Coast and ranks number 55 in size in the U.S. As the
WSCC moves forward in planning for a new, additional convention facility just north of
the existing center, the industry and broader business community must continue to
support this important civic investment.6
4
5
6
Willanger, 2015.
Washington State Convention Center, 2015, 2014 (respectively).
Norwalk, 2015. (Actual ranking, per WSCC data is 56th.)

Draft EIS
2-7
Section II
Other Alternatives
Based on 2014 data, the 95th percentile of daily attendance at various types of events at WSCC
was determined to be the following:
Breakfast Meeting/Event ....................................................................... 956

Evening Fundraising Event ................................................................... 486
Local Meeting/Convention .................................................................... 734
National Convention ........................................................................... 6,779
Consumer / Trade Show (typical) ...................................................... 6,000
Consumer / Trade Show (large) ....................................................... 20,600
Existing Site Characteristics

The project site is located in Downtown Seattles Denny Triangle Urban Center Village (Figure
2-3). The following is an overview of current site conditions for this three-block site.
Street Configuration As depicted by Figure 2-3, the site is located at a point in the
Citys Downtown street grid where direction of the street grid changes. Streets in the
Denny Triangle and Belltown neighborhoods are aligned perpendicular to the North
Central Waterfront the area roughly from Stewart St. to Denny Way. Whereas streets
south in the Citys Commercial Core (Olive Way to Yesler Way) are oriented
perpendicular to the Central Waterfront. Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. are aligned in a
northwest southeast direction and Stewart and Howell Streets are aligned in a
northeast southwest direction.
Site Layout Based on the three-block site, frontage along streets that border the site
approximates the following:
Howell St. -- 600 ft. (includes Terry Ave.);

Olive Way -- 580 ft. (includes Terry Ave.);
Boren Ave. -- 590 ft. (excludes Olive Way, but includes the WSDOT ground/air
rights lease area);
Pine St. -- 570 ft. (includes the WSDOT ground/air rights lease area); and
Ninth Ave. -- 415 ft. (excludes Olive Way).
As shown by Figure 2-3, existing north-south alleys bisect Sites B and C and a partial
north-south alley is located in the east portion of Site A. The segment of Terry Ave.
between Olive Way and Pine St. and two alleys and one partial alley segment in Site A
were previously vacated for King County Metros Convention Place Station.
Topography -- Streets that border the three-parcel site slope downward from east to
west and from south to north. Overall, the topographic change across Site A, B and C
approximates 54 ft. -- from the southeast corner at Pine St. and Boren Ave. to the
northwest corner at Olive Way and Ninth Ave.

Draft EIS
2-8
Section II
Other Alternatives
Existing On-Site Land Uses See Figure 2-4. The pattern of existing land uses
within each parcel includes the following:
Site A:
- King County Metros Convention Place Station (CPS) -- It is expected that
buses will continue to use CPS and operate in the tunnel until at least
September 2018; and
- Vacant commercial building (former automobile showroom/office) This is a
2-story masonry structure of approximately 67,224 sq. ft. (built in 1930).
Site B:
- Commercial building containing two restaurants; this is a 1-story masonry
structure of approximately 3,840 sq. ft. (built in 1922);
- Commercial surface parking lot; and a
- Temporary, modular 2-story office building (Sound Transit) of approximately
2,880 sq. ft. (installed in 2008).
Site C:
- Vacant commercial building (former automobile showroom/office); this is a 1story masonry structure of approximately 9,120 sq. ft. (built in 1950);
- Vacant surface parking lot associated with the former automobile
sales/leasing business; and
- Commercial surface parking lot.
Existing Zoning Sites A, B and C are zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial (DMC)
340/290-400. This zoning district allows buildings with a maximum height limit of 340 ft.
for portions of the project containing non-residential and live-work uses, a base height
limit of 290 ft. applies to portions of the project in residential use, and a maximum
residential height limit of 400 ft. in this zone. Besides height limit, the other major
development standard that regulates bulk and scale of development in this Seattle
zoning district is floor area ratio (FAR).7 The base FAR that is allowed in the DMC
340/290-400 zone is 5 and the maximum FAR is 10.
FAR is a measure of the relationship between the amount of gross floor area permitted in a structure and the
area of the lot on which the structure is located.

Draft EIS
2-9
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Source: LMN, 2015
Figure 2-4
Existing Site Plan
2.4 PROJECT GOALS and OBJECTIVES

The paramount priority goal is to create a highly efficient design, which effectively meets the
functional needs of the convention center clients and is competitive in the marketplace. Once
this functional need is met, additional aspirational goals are as follows.
Economic Goals
The proposed WSCC Addition seeks to:
enable the facility to book the many international, national, regional and local events it
now turns away due to lack of date availability or adequate space;
create steady year-round demand for Seattles hotels, restaurants, stores and
entertainment venues, which is key to keeping our region economically healthy;
provide a unique opportunity to improve the urban environment northeast of the existing
center and strengthen the downtown-to-Capitol Hill connections; and
create construction and hospitality jobs, and generate sales and car rental taxes to
support local and regional jurisdictions.
Design Goals
The following project design goals for the proposed WSCC Addition pertain to the site
regardless of whether it consists of one parcel or all three parcels.
Create a highly efficient design which effectively supports the functional needs of the
convention center clients and is competitive in the marketplace.
Create a unique experience that embodies the special qualities of Seattle, Washington,
and the Pacific Northwest.
Engage the urban framework of Downtown Seattle to capitalize on the location at the
intersection of major neighborhoods and corridors of the City.
Create a welcoming street presence that connects the activities of the Convention
Center with the pedestrian experience of the adjacent streets.
Integrate mixed uses such as retail and other possible co-developments, where
appropriate, to enrich the urban diversity of the site.
Create a sustainable design that embraces Seattles commitment to environmental

stewardship.

Draft EIS
2-11
Section II
Other Alternatives
Site Considerations
The Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District Board adopted Resolution
No. 2015-1,8 which established eight major criteria and six supporting criteria for the evaluation
of potential sites for the proposed WSCC Addition. Each criterion is described below.
A. Site Size and Configuration

The site should be of adequate size and dimensions to meet the programming requirements for
the District addition, including at least 300,000 square feet of exhibit space, and adequate
meeting, ballroom and support space. Optimum configuration allows at least 150,000 sf on one
level.
B. Construction Staging
The site should be adequate in size to support staging of materials, equipment, and personnel
during construction, either on site or in reasonable proximity to the site.
C. Cost
The site should be within the anticipated budget, including associated costs of acquisition,
mitigation, relocation, accessibility, constructability, and soils.
D. Surrounding Uses
The site should have the potential for urban design characteristics and locational qualities that
enhance the District addition and enable the District addition to contribute to the vitality of the
area in which it is located.
1. There should be sufficient hotel rooms in proximity to the site to support the District
conferences, conventions, and events.
2. There should be sufficient restaurants, retail, and entertainment uses in proximity to the site.
E. Transportation Facilities and Service Access

The regional transportation system serving the site should be considered, particularly proximity to
mass transit for employee access to their jobs and conventioneer ability to explore the region.
1. There should be freight access.
2. There should be major arterial roadway connections to and from the site.
3. There should be public transit routes to local and regional destinations in close proximity to
the site.
4. The site should provide pedestrian access to public open space, transit facilities, and
surrounding neighborhoods.
F. Parking Facilities
There should be space on site or adjacent to the site to provide adequate parking facilities.
G. Environmental Qualities
The site should be evaluated for significant environmental and land use impacts and mitigation.
Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District, 2015a.

Draft EIS
2-12
Section II
Other Alternatives
H. Efficient Management of All Facilities

The site should allow for efficient management of the existing District facilities, together with the
addition.
2.5 COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Given the nature and scale of the proposed WSCC Addition, to-date WSCC has provided
numerous opportunities for public awareness, involvement, and comments regarding the
proposed Addition, preliminary design considerations of the project, and the range of
alternatives and environmental elements that are analyzed in the DEIS. Such opportunities will
continue through the entitlement and construction process associated with the project.
Key opportunities for community involvement that have occurred include the following:
WSCC Public Facilities District
Meetings of the Public Facilities District Board are open to the public and public
comment is generally allowed as noted on the agenda, consistent with the open public
meetings act.
The WSCC websites (www.wscc.com and www.wsccaddition.com ) provide information

concerning the proposed WSCC Addition and opportunity for public comment.
The WSCC 2014 Annual Report9 provides information concerning the proposed WSCC
Addition with an online link for public comments/questions.
Environmental Impact Statement Process
EIS Scoping
Notices
- Notice of the proposed WSCC Addition project and the associated EIS
process was issued February 13, 2015, and mailed to over 100 recipients,
including: agencies (federal, state, regional, local), tribes, organizations, and
others (property owners proximate to the site and individuals that had
previously expressed interest in the project).
Notice was mailed to the WA Department of Ecology for posting in that

agencys statewide, online SEPA Register.
Notice was submitted to The Seattle Times and the Daily Journal of
Commerce, both for official publication and as a basis for subsequent news
articles.
Notice of the project and the EIS Scoping process was posted on streets
surrounding the site of the proposed WSCC Addition.
This is the most current annual report available.

Draft EIS
2-13
Section II
Other Alternatives
Information was posted on the Washington State Convention Center website

and on the WSCC Addition website.
Public Comment Period

- The EIS Scoping period occurred from February 13, 2015 through May 15,
2015 a period of 91 days.
EIS Public Scoping Meeting
- An EIS Scoping meeting was held March 3, 2015. The purpose of the
meeting was to obtain comments from agencies, organizations and
individuals regarding alternatives to be analyzed in the DEIS and
environmental issues to be evaluated. Background information concerning
the project was provided, including: purpose and need for the project and
preliminary massing considerations.
EIS Scoping Summary
- At the conclusion of the EIS Scoping process, an EIS Scoping Summary was
prepared and provided to the City of Seattle Department of Planning and
Development.
Draft EIS
Notices
- Notice of the availability of this DEIS has been provided to agencies (federal,
state, regional, local), tribes, organizations, and others (property owners
proximate to the site and individuals that had previously expressed interest in
the project). The list of recipients is contained in the Distribution List of this
DEIS (Appendix A).
-
Notice of the availability of this DEIS was mailed to the WA Department of

Ecology for posting in that agencys statewide, online SEPA Register.
Notice of the availability of this DEIS was submitted to The Seattle Times and
the Daily Journal of Commerce, both for official publication and as a basis for
subsequent news articles.
Notice of the availability of this DEIS was posted on streets that surround the
site of the proposed WSCC Addition.
Notice of the availability of this DEIS has been posted on both the
Washington State Convention Center website and on the WSCC Addition
website.
Public Comment Period

- The DEIS public comment period is noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS. It
is for a period of approximately 45 days.

Draft EIS
2-14
Section II
Other Alternatives
DEIS Public Meeting

- As noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS (pg. x) a public meeting is scheduled
to provide an opportunity for agencies, organizations and individuals to
present testimony regarding the proposed WSCC Addition DEIS, as well as
an additional opportunity to submit written comments.
City of Seattle Early Design Guidance (EDG)
Notices
-
Notice of the EDG #1 meeting was published by the Seattle Department of

Planning and Development. The notice included preliminary urban design
considerations associated with the proposed WSCC Addition.

Planning and Development. The notice included preliminary massing concepts
for the proposed WSCC Addition.

Planning and Development. The notice included preliminary massing concepts
for the proposed WSCC Addition.
Public Meetings
-
EDG #1 occurred May 19, 2015, and provided an opportunity for public
comments.
EDG #2 occurred July 21, 2015, and provided an opportunity for public
comments.
EDG #3 occurred October 6, 2015, and provided an opportunity for public

comments.
Planned Community Development (PCD) Public Meeting

Planned Community Development is a City of Seattle zoning process10 that is available to large
tracts of land in the Citys Downtown zoning districts. The PCD process provides additional
development flexibility with an aim of achieving specific public benefits. WSCC indicates that
this process is being considered for the proposed WSCC Addition. As required by this
process, DPD held a public hearing on September 2, 2015, to receive comments regarding
possible public benefits that should be considered for the proposed WSCC Addition.
10
SMC 23.49.036

Draft EIS
2-15
Section II
Other Alternatives
Community/Neighborhood Meetings
In addition to opportunities for public comment that are noted above, WSCC has held numerous
meetings with elected and appointed City of Seattle officials, the Seattle Police Department
Command staff, community groups/neighborhood organizations, adjacent property owners, the
business community, labor organizations, public agencies, and interested parties, including:
Downtown Seattle Association (DSA) Board of Directors;

Pike/Pine Urban Neighborhood Council;
Horizon House;
Capitol Hill Community Council leadership;
Paramount Theatre leadership;
Denny Triangle Neighborhood Association;
Broadmoor Breakfast Group;
Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors;
Community Development Roundtable;
First Hill Improvement Council; and
Greater Seattle Business Association Leadership.
Media
To date, the proposed WSCC Addition has received coverage in the following media: The
Seattle Times, Daily Journal of Commerce, Puget Sound Business Journal, Yakima Herald,
Capitol Hill Times, Curbed Seattle, Successful Meetings, Capitol Hill Blog, Seattle P-I,
Conferences & Trade Shows Today, Eugene Register-Guard, Bellingham Herald, Daily
Olympian, Seattle Transit Blog, Meetings and Conventions, and local television stations and
their websites.
On-Going Meetings/Public Notice

Meetings with the community and agencies, as well as media coverage, will continue as the
proposed WSCC Addition progresses through the entitlement and construction phases of the
project. Upcoming opportunities for public comment include the DEIS public comment period
and the DEIS public meeting, noted above and in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS.
City of Seattle
Notices
- Notice of future Design Review Board and Seattle Design Commission
meetings will include proposed design and project details.
-
Master Use Permit Signs (MUP) Coincident with submittal of MUP

applications associated with the proposed WSCC Addition, large MUP signs
were posted on December 16, 2015, on streets that border the site. The
purpose of the signs is to inform the public of the proposed project and
provide information concerning public comment opportunities.

Draft EIS
2-16
Section II
Other Alternatives
MUP Submittal Notice Following submittal of the MUP applications, on

December 21, 2015 DPD published notice of the applications in the Citys
Land Use Information Bulletin and provided a 14-day public comment period.
Public Meetings
- Design Review meetings are public meetings that provide an opportunity for
public comments.
-
Seattle Design Commission meetings are public meetings with an opportunity

for public comments.
The proposed WSCC Addition will be reviewed and potentially processed by

the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection11 as a Planned
Community Development (PCD), pursuant to SMC 23.49.036. A public
meeting was held on September 2, 2015, to provide an opportunity for the
public to comment concerning the site, the proposed project, and priorities for
potential public benefits.
2.6 DESCRIPTION OF KING COUNTY SITE WORK /

CONSTRUCTION, PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES, OTHER
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES, AND THE NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
King County Site Work, which is described below, is necessitated by the fact that
Convention Place Station (CPS) on Site A provides transit access between I-5, Downtown
Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT), and City streets. Figure 2-5 depicts existing ingress and
egress associated with buses accessing CPS. Approximately seventeen transit routes
currently serve this station, providing transit access to north Seattle, the Eastside, and the
Renton/Kent area.
King County has identified interim measures that will allow buses to remain on-site pending
the decommissioning of the bus tunnel for buses and that will create a development-ready,
salable asset for King County. This work has independent utility with or without the
proposed WSCC Addition. WSCC and King County have identified multiple construction
phasing alternatives that would allow Metro buses to use CPS until the buses come out of
the Downtown Transit Tunnel. King County has asked WSCC to undertake this site work
(e.g., MUP No. 3022912), because its agent and consultants have already done extensive
studies on neighborhood logistics, utilities, etc., which would help complete the work in a
timely manner.
There are three proposed alternatives to accomplish this King County Site Work identified
in this DEIS as Alternatives A, B and C. These alternatives are described below.
11
As noted previously in this DEIS, DPD is now the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI).

Draft EIS
2-17
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
North
Source: LMN, 2015
Figure 2-5
Existing Bus Ingress and Egress at Convention Place Station
It is expected that buses will continue to access the DSTT, via the existing cut-and-cover
tunnel, through the project site until King County Metro determines that busses no longer
need to utilize the tunnel (no earlier than September 2018). When King County Metro
removes buses from the DSTT, the following access-related changes would need to occur
relative to the I-5 express lane ramp:
-
signalization changes;
remove traffic dots (highway markers) and re-stripe I-5 express lane access ramp
(removing Only Transit);
remove traffic control arm gate;
signage removal (e.g., Authorized Buses Only, Traffic Keep Left Ahead Except
Authorized Buses, Transit Merging, Carpool and Bus (images), Transit Merging,
and the electronic DSTT Open / Closed sign.
King County Metro made the decision to remove the buses from the tunnel years ago, and
the express lane ramp updates would be necessary with or without the proposed WSCC
Addition.
Three King County Site Work Alternatives are described in this DEIS Alternatives A, B
and C. In early analysis, a fourth King County Site Work alternative Alternative D was
identified and also considered. This alternative entailed development of a temporary transit
connection along the south edge of the CPS site to access the east portal of the DSTT.
Analysis of that alternative determined that it would not be feasible from an operational
standpoint and it presented safety concerns. Alternative D has not been advanced for
further consideration as part of this DEIS; information concerning Alternative D is included
in Section 2.7 of this DEIS.
It is proposed that King County Site Work Alternatives A and B would commence on the
project start date (second quarter, 2017), with completion by the fourth quarter, 2017. King
County Site Work Alternative C would commence by the third quarter, 2016 and
completion could be as early as the third quarter, 2017. Land use approval for site changes
associated with King County Site Work Alternative C would be part of a separate City of
Seattle Master Use Permit. Environmental impacts of King County Site Work are addressed
in this DEIS, as well as the multi-year construction process that would follow.
WSCC is considering three alternatives to accomplish King County Site Work. Features
common to these alternatives are noted below, as well as elements that are unique to each
King County Site Work alternative.
Features Common to King County Site Work Alternatives A, B and C
12
Remove King County Metro transit passenger facilities associated with the existing
Convention Place Station (CPS). This includes canopies, stairways, escalators, benches,
planters, lighting, etc.
Existing bus layover capacity at CPS would be impacted by site work. It is proposed that
layover space that is affected by site work be supplemented by temporary layover space on
Convention Pl.12 However, layover space at Convention Place has less capacity than that of
Approximately 9 stalls will be provided on Convention Pl. between Pike St. and Union St.

Draft EIS
2-19
Section II
Other Alternatives
the existing CPS site; King County Metro and the City of Seattle would continue to work
together to identify long-term layover space within the City.
Install a new Traction Power Substation (TPSS) at a site within the existing cut-and-cover
tunnel, which adjoins the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) and opens to the CPS
site. The TPSS is a prefabricated electrical transformer that provides electrical power for
King County Metros coaches
operating on City streets and using
New TPSS location
electrical power. Because the TPSS
must remain operational 24 hrs./day,
7 days/wk., it is essential that the
new TPSS be installed and
operational before service to the
existing TPSS is discontinued. King County Metro has requested that WSCC manage
removal and installation of the new TPSS. King County Site Work related to the TPSS would
involve construction of a new concrete pad (approx.1,000 sq. ft.) for the proposed TPSS unit
(estimated at 500-600 sq. ft.), and removal of an overhead lighting truss in the existing cut
and cover tunnel. Utility work would be addressed as part of the Citys Utility Major Permit,
which would begin in 2016 and be completed by 2017, as summarized below:
Electrical power feeding the TPSS would come from two locations:
A 208 volt / 600 amp feed would come from an existing Seattle City Light vault that is
located in Pine St. near the alley south of Pine St., between Eighth and Ninth
Avenues. A new duct bank would be installed in Pine St., along with a new vault at
the intersection of Ninth Ave. and Pine St. The duct bank would connect the existing
vault to the future TPSS location, via the new vault, and would penetrate the south
wall of the existing cut-and-cover tunnel near or above the future TPSS.
A 26 kilovolt (kV) feed would come from an existing line that is encased in the slab
below the cut-and-cover tunnel floor. The 26(kV) power feed would be intercepted
via cutting into the slab, trenching to the new TPSS location inside the cut-and-cover
tunnel, and installing a new duct bank from the point of interception to the new TPSS
location. The DC power from the TPSS that feeds the Metro coaches penetrates the
north wall of the existing cut-and-cover tunnel, trenches north in Ninth Ave., and
connects to an existing vault on Ninth Ave.
Low Voltage Systems Relocation - In conjunction with the TPSS relocation work, at
the request of King County Metro and Sound Transit, WSCC would facilitate the
decommissioning of all un-used infrastructure, equipment and utilities servicing King
County Metro bus operations and Sound Transit Train operations that currently exist
on the south edge of the CPS site. All infrastructure, equipment and utilities that are
required for King County Metro and / or Sound Transit Train operations would be
relocated to a stand-alone structure within the cut-and-cover tunnel.
When demolition on the Convention Place Station occurs, the public art on-site may be
deaccessioned.13
13
The proposed WSCC Addition would include a robust art program.

Draft EIS
2-20
Section II
Other Alternatives
Features Unique to King County Site Work Alternatives
Alternative A (see Figure 2-6) Ninth Avenue Ramp On-Grade -- FHWA

Action Required (begins when the Project begins and is completed in the fourth
quarter, 2017).
Phase 1
Install a temporary curb cut for bus access to Ninth Ave.
-
Buses will use the existing routes to and from CPS during this phase of construction until the
ramp is completed.
Convert Ninth Ave. to accommodate two-way traffic from Olive Way to Pike St.
Phase 2
Buses will use the curb cut on Ninth Ave. to access surface streets and will access the I-5
-
express lanes via the Ninth Ave. and Pike St. intersection.
Open new bus stops on surface streets before closing the CPS passenger facilities.
Demolish passenger facilities and the existing flyover ramp.
Authorization will be required from FHWA to demolish that portion of the flyover ramp on
WSDOT property.
Alternative B (see Figure 2-7) Ninth Ave. Ramp On-Grade No FHWA

Action Required (begins when the Project begins and is completed in the fourth
quarter, 2017).
This alternative is the same as Alternative A, except that a portion of the flyover ramp would
remain on the WSDOT property; no FHWA action would be required. Engineering review of this
alternative indicates that supplemental permanent support would need to be provided in the form
of lateral bracing and vertical supports installed on the WSCC property to support the remaining
ramp section (see Appendix B of this DEIS).
Alternative C (see Figure 2-8) Ninth Ave. Wide-Structured Ramp FHWA

Action Required (begins in 2016 and is completed before the Project starts in
2017).
Phase 1
Install shoring and foundations for new ramp structure on the west end of Site A, but held
-
away from the edge along Ninth Ave. to allow for easier bus movements.
Existing bus operations would remain unchanged during construction, except when CPS would
need to be closed during occasional weekend activities. Buses would continue to use the
existing routes to access surface streets (via the flyover ramp) and the I-5 express lanes (via
the CPS site).
Close and demolish CPS passenger facilities. Relocated passenger facilities would be
temporarily closed until the ramp is complete and Ninth Ave. is converted to two-way.
Phase 2
- When shoring, foundation, and demolition work is completed, a new structured bus ramp
-
would be constructed on the west end of Site A, parallel to Ninth Ave.

Convert Ninth Ave. to allow two-way traffic between Pike St. and Olive Way and open new bus
stops on surface streets to replace the CPS stop.
Phase 3
-
After the new ramp is finished, buses would be routed to Ninth Ave. via the new ramp to Ninth
Ave. and the flyover ramp would be demolished.
Buses would use the new Ninth Ave. ramp to access City streets. Access to and from I-5
would be via the Pike St. HOV ramp at the Pike St. and Ninth Ave. intersection.

Draft EIS
2-21
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Phase ISite Plan

Source: LMN, 2016
Phase 2Site Plan

During Construction of Temporary Transit Connection
North
Figure 2-6
King County Site WorkAlternative A
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Phase ISite Plan

Source: LMN, 2016
Phase 2Site Plan

During Construction of Temporary Transit Connection
North
Figure 2-7
King County Site WorkAlternative B
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Phase 1Site Plan
Phase 2Site Plan
Phase 3Site Plan
North
Source: LMN Architects, 2015
Figure 2-8
King County Site WorkAlternative C
Construction
As noted in Section 2.1 of this DEIS, the area of the entire three-block site (Sites A, B and C) -including City rights-of-way that are proposed for full vacation -- approximates 7.67 acres. The
following describes key components of the construction process associated with the proposed
WSCC Addition followed by construction related to the possible co-development.
WSCC Addition
Following King County Site Work, construction of the nearly 1.5 million sq. ft.14 WSCC
Addition is projected to commence by second quarter, 2017 with completion in 2020. It
is expected that construction would consist of four major sequences Excavation,
Activities, Foundation Construction Activities, Steel Erection, and Construction After
Steel Erection; each is summarized below.
Excavation Activities
The most noticeable construction-related traffic impacts are likely to occur during
excavation of Sites A, B and C. The amount of material to excavate for Alternative
1 is estimated to be 574,000 cubic yards (cy). It is estimated that approximately
28,700 truck trips would be required to transport the material from the site. This
equates to an estimated 57,400 round-trip truck trips. Preliminary estimates are that
trucks would operate from 7 pm to 5:30 am, six days a week at a rate of
approximately 20 truck per hour. Trucks would load-out in the staging lane on Howell
St. (southernmost lane) and exit the site area to enter I-5 southbound at Yale Ave.
To accommodate truck volumes anticipated as part of the construction activities,
several lanes on roadways surrounding the project site have been identified as truck
staging areas including Howell St. and Ninth Ave. Road closures during the day and
evening hours would be required. These closures will be coordinated and approved
by the as part of the Construction Management Plan.
Foundation Construction Activities
Additional construction activities, other than excavation, that would result in high
levels of truck activity would occur during foundation work for the buildings, which
could require continuous concrete pours. It is estimated that approximately 15,000
concrete truck deliveries, for a total of 30,000 round trip truck trips, would be needed
for foundation work. An additional 2,000 truck trips delivering rebar to the site, for a
total of 4,000 round trip truck trips, is estimated as part of the foundation work. This
activity would be completed over a much shorter duration than the excavation effort.
Truck staging to accommodate foundation work would occur on Howell St and Ninth
Ave during non-peak hours. The specific times and use of the roadways will be
reviewed as part of the Construction Management Plan.
14
This area just pertains to the WSCC Addition and does not include co-development.

Draft EIS
2-25
Section II
Other Alternatives
Steel Erection Activities

As part of the steel erection on Sites A, B and C, an estimated 3,000 truck trips
delivering rebar, for a total of 6,000 round trip truck trips. Truck staging to
accommodate foundation work would occur on Howell St and Ninth Ave during nonpeak hours. The specific times and use of the roadways will be reviewed as part of
the Construction Management Plan. In addition to lane closures, short-term closures
of sidewalks adjacent to the lane closure may occur as well.
Post-Steel Construction Activities
It is estimated that there would be 15,000 to 20,000 truck deliveries to the site
hauling various construction materials for a round trip total of 30,000 to 40,000 truck
trips. Truck staging to accommodate foundation work would occur on Howell St and
Ninth Ave during non-peak hours. The specific times and use of the roadways will be
reviewed as part of the Construction Management Plan.
Associated with the four major construction phases, construction activity would include
street closures, traffic safety considerations, pedestrian connectivity, and transit impacts;
each is summarized below and described in the Transportation section of this DEIS
(Section Error! Reference source not found.).
Street Closures
During some stages of the work, lane closures would be required for utility work or to
stage and load/unload trucks in addition to what is listed previously. Prior to
commencing construction, the projects prime contractor would prepare a
Construction Management Plan (CMP). This plan would include detailed information
related to truck haul routes, staging areas, and how pedestrian routes would be
maintained or changed during construction within or adjacent to the street right of
way. Details that would be included in the plan are described in the Transportation
Mitigation section (Section Error! Reference source not found.) of this DEIS.
Traffic Safety
Traffic detours and lane closures would be developed through the CMP. Proper
signing, striping, and placement of traffic barriers will be outlined and required in
accordance with the CMP.
Pedestrian Connectivity
Short-term impacts to pedestrian connectivity may occur during the construction
activities. Pedestrian detour routes will be identified by the CMP. Connectivity
through the site via Olive Way is expected to be limited due to operational and safety
concerns related to the active construction site.
Transit Impacts
Transit service would be rerouted from the Convention Place Station with its
passenger facilities being rerouted on Ninth Ave. As discussed in the previous
Draft EIS
2-26
Section II
Other Alternatives
sections, transit service or stops on Olive Way adjacent to the WSCC Addition
would be rerouted or relocated through coordination with King County Metro. The
transit layover spaces currently being used at Convention Place Station would be
relocated to Convention Place, below the existing WSCC facility.
It is anticipated that there would be up to 1,500 construction workers on Site A at the
peak.
Co-Development
Alternatives 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 include possible co-development, specifically: Alternative
4.1 includes co-development on Site B and Site C, Alternative 4.2 includes codevelopment on Site B only, and Alternative 4.3 includes co-development on Site C
only. The co-development on Site B would include construction of a 29-story,
approximately 400-unit residential tower with approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of street-level
uses. Co-development on Site C would include construction of a 16-story, 515,700 sq.ft. office tower with approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses. It is not possible at
this time to determine if co-development associated with these alternatives would be
built concurrent with one another, or with the proposed WSCC Addition, or would follow
completion of construction of the proposed WSCC Addition. If the co-development is
built concurrent with the proposed WSCC Addition, it is expected that they would be
completed no later than the completion of the proposed WSCC Addition. If construction
of the co-development starts after the proposed WSCC Addition work starts, codevelopment construction activity would likely extend beyond the completion of the
proposed WSCC Addition.
Similar to the proposed WSCC Addition, it is assumed that construction of each tower
would entail several major sequences Foundation, Concrete or Steel Erection, and
Construction After Concrete or Steel Erection; each sequence is summarized below. It
is also assumed that activities noted earlier relative to the Excavation sequence for the
proposed WSCC Addition (e.g., earthwork, truck traffic, staging, etc.) would include
excavation activity necessary for co-development on Site B and Site C and that no
further excavation activity would be required for co-development. All foundation work
and related activities associated with co-development Site B and Site C would occur as
part of the Foundation Sequence noted above for the WSCC Addition.
Concrete (Site B) or Steel Erection (Site C) Activities
It is estimated that there would be approximately 4,000 truck trips delivering concrete
to Site B and 1,400 truck trips delivering concrete to Site C for a round trip total of
approximately 5,400 truck trips.
It is also estimated that there would be
approximately 200 truck trips delivering rebar/steel to Site B and 100 truck trips
delivering rebar and 750 truck trips delivering structural steel to Site C for a round
trip total of approximately 2,100 truck trips. Staging for co-development is unknown
at this time. It is expected that staging would occur on curb lanes and sidewalks
surrounding the site, or on elevated platforms above sidewalks, as is customary for
other major Downtown development projects.

Draft EIS
2-27
Section II
Other Alternatives
Building Construction Post Concrete or Steel Erection

It is estimated that there could be 8,000 truck deliveries to Site B and 7,000
deliveries to Site C hauling various construction materials for a round trip total of
30,000 truck trips. Staging for co-development is unknown at this time. It is
expected that staging would occur on curb lanes and sidewalks surrounding the site,
or on elevated platforms above sidewalks, as is customary for other major Downtown
development projects.
It is anticipated that there would be 300-500 construction workers on Site B at the peak
and approximately 300 workers on Site C at the peak.
EIS Alternatives
In the initial planning process for the proposed WSCC Addition, the WSCC Public Facilities
District Board enacted two resolutions:
Resolution No. 2015-115 This resolution established site evaluation criteria for
evaluating potential sites; these criteria are noted in Section 2.3 of this DEIS; and
Resolution No. 2015-216 This resolution applied the site evaluation criteria of
Resolution No. 2015-1 to three potential sites.
An objective of Resolution No. 2015-2 was to narrow the list of potential options for the District
Addition project and study only the viable sites in the Environmental Impact Statement for the
project. Results of that evaluation determined that two sites should be analyzed in the DEIS
the Convention Place Station jointly with adjacent properties and the Convention Place Station
site independent of the co-development sites. It was determined that the third possible site
Seattle Center does not meet key site evaluation criteria and should not be analyzed in the
DEIS. Information concerning the Seattle Center site and preliminary feasibility analysis is
included in Section 2.6 of this DEIS.
Two Preferred Alternatives are identified in this section of the DEIS, together with five Other
Alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Each of these eight alternatives pertain to the
Convention Place Station with adjacent properties or to the Convention Place Station site alone.
The development schedule that is common to all alternatives would involve the King County
Site Work (noted above) commencing depending on the alternative in 2016 or 2017, site
work, and construction of the proposed WSCC Addition beginning in 2017, and
occupancy/operation in 2020.
15
16
WSCC, 2015a.
WSCC, 2015b.

Draft EIS
2-28
Section II
Other Alternatives
Alternative
Preferred
Alternative
Without
Co-
Development
Total development associated with Alternative 1 would approximate 1,511,700 sq. ft. of gross
floor area.
Site
The overall site associated with Alternative 1 encompasses Site A, B and C. In
addition, this alternative would include City rights-of-way that are located within Sites A,
B and C and intervening rights-of-way between these sites. Other than loading/truck
access, convention facilities and the majority of pedestrian-related street uses would be
located on Site A.
Convention Center
This would be an Addition to the Washington State Convention Center. The building
height would be approximately 217 ft. above Olive Way and 176 ft. above Pine St.17 A
150,000 sq. ft. exhibition hall with prefunction areas and truck loading dock (Site B and
C) would be located partially below-grade. Above the exhibition hall would be the
lobby/registration area and three levels of vehicular parking in the truss space. A
flexible18 exhibit hall of approximately 100,000 sq. ft. would be located above the parking
levels. Two levels of meeting rooms, comprising approximately 120,000 sq. ft. with
prefunction areas would be located above the flexible exhibit hall. It is proposed that a
60,000 sq. ft. ballroom be located on the upper level of the complex. Primary pedestrian
access to the Convention Center would be from two locations on Ninth Ave. (near the
corner of Ninth Ave. and Pine St. and near the corner of Ninth Ave. and Olive Way).
Additional pedestrian entries for retail, convention center employees, and parking would
be provided from all streets that border Site A.
The total gross floor area of the Convention Center associated with Alternative 1 would
approximate 1,499,700 sq. ft.19
Street-Level Uses
Approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses including but not limited to retail,
restaurants and entertainment uses, are proposed at key locations along streets that
border the site of Alternative 1, including: the corner of Olive Way and Boren Ave., the
corner of Boren Ave. and Pine St., and along building frontages on Pine St., Ninth Ave.,
and Olive Way.
17
18
19
This is measured at the mid-point of each street segment.

For purposes of this project, a flexible exhibit hall refers to a facility with higher quality finishes (e.g., carpet,
ceiling treatments, etc.) that would enable the space to be used as an exhibit hall, plenary space, or as a
ballroom.
The difference between 1,511,700 sq. ft. and 1,499,700 sq. ft. relates to development that could occur on Site C.
Both square footage amounts include the proposed WSCC Addition on Site A, as well as parking and
pedestrian-oriented street-level uses on Site A.

Draft EIS
2-29
Section II
Other Alternatives
Co-Development
No co-development is proposed as part of Alternative 1. It is, however, anticipated that
Site B would contain surface parking above the WSCC Addition below-grade loading
facilities, with the possibility of future co-development above. Similarly, Site C would
provide loading access to the WSCC Addition below-grade loading levels and could
include an at-grade, 1-story structure containing approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of streetlevel uses. Site C would also have the possibility of future co-development above.
Parking
Three levels of parking are proposed within the WSCC Addition to accommodate 700
800 vehicles. Ingress to the proposed parking area would be from two locations Olive
Way and Boren Ave. Egress onto Boren Ave. would be right-turn only.
Truck Loading
One level of truck loading (19 freight bays and 3 trash bays) would be provided belowgrade. Trucks would enter the complex from Boren Ave. and would exit the site onto the
potentially vacated portion of Terry Ave., between Howell St. and Olive Way.
Landscaping / Open Space

The arborists site analysis20 indicates that there are currently 22 trees located on Site A,
B and C and an additional 14 trees are located on streets that border the overall site.
None of the trees on-site or those within City rights-of-way meet the Citys threshold for
classification as an Exceptional Tree. All existing trees on-site and those within City
rights-of-way would be removed in conjunction with Alternative 1. Approximate
landscaping and open space to be provided are noted below:
Street Level
- Hardscape Within Property Line ..................................................... 30,000 sq. ft.
- Planting Areas Within Property Line ................................................. 7,750 sq. ft.
- Planting Areas Outside Property Line ............................................ 10,000 sq. ft.
- Proposed Trees:
- Ninth Ave. .................................................................................................. 7
- Pine St. ...................................................................................................... 2
- Boren Ave. ................................................................................................ 9
- Olive Way ................................................................................................ 16
- Howell St. .................................................................................................. 9
- Terry Ave. .................................................................................................. 8
Terraces
- Ninth Ave. Designated Exterior Terrace Area ................................ 30,000 sq. ft.
- Pine St. Designated Exterior Terrace Area ....................................... 1,400 sq. ft.
Green Roof
- Designated Green Roof Area ............................................. 45,000 - 60,000 sq. ft.
20
Tree Solutions, 2015.

Draft EIS
2-30
Section II
Other Alternatives
Proposed Street Modifications

The proposed WSCC Addition would result in changes to the streetscape of each street
that borders the project site. These are depicted in Figure 2-4 and include the following:
Proposed Right-of-Way Vacations

Full or partial vacation of five City rights-of-way are proposed in conjunction with
Alternative 1, as indicated below; each is depicted in Figure 2-4.
Full vacation of the partial, north-south alley between Olive Way and Pine St. that
is located in the east portion of Site A;
Full vacation of the north-south alley between Howell St. and Olive Way that is
located in Site B;
located in Site C;
Full or subterranean vacation of the segment of Terry Ave. between Howell St.
and Olive Way; and
Subterranean vacation of the segment of Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and
Boren Ave.
Proposed WSDOT Right-of-Way Lease

As noted in the Fact Sheet (Required Approvals and/or Permits), authorization of a
land lease (at-grade and below-grade) and an airspace lease over a portion of I-5
would be required for Alternative 1. The area in question is triangular shaped
(approximately 7,978 sq. ft.) and is located in the southeast portion of Site A (Figure
2-4). This area is sometimes referred to as the WSDOT triangle, in that it is managed
by WSDOT for FHWA.
Additional Street Modifications Proposed
Ninth Ave.
-
overhead weather protection

landscaping
sidewalk widening
curb bulbs
Olive Way
-

landscaping
sidewalk widening

Draft EIS
2-31
Section II
Other Alternatives
Terry Ave. (if subterranean vacation)

-
Howell St.
-

landscaping
sidewalk widening
Boren Ave.
-

landscaping
sidewalk widening
curb bulbs

landscaping
sidewalk widening
Pine St.
-

landscaping
sidewalk widening
In addition, Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. and Terry Ave. between
Olive Way and Howell St. would be temporarily removed during a portion of the
construction process for the WSCC Addition and replaced once construction is
completed.
Conceptual Project Design

Figures 2-9 through 2-14 depict Alternative 1 in plan view, cross-section, and
including aerial architectural depictions from two key locations surrounding the overall
site.
Alternative 1 Preferred Alternative Without Co-Development -- would meet

WSCCs project goals and objectives.

Draft EIS
2-32
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Illustrations represent a conceptual depiction of the proposed building

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-9
Alternative 1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-10
Alternative 1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-11
Alternative 1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-12
Alternative 1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-13
Alternative 1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Aerial Architectural
Depiction as Viewed
from the Southeast
Depiction as Viewed
from the Northwest

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-14
Alternative 1
Alternative 4.1 Preferred Alternative With Co-Development

Total development associated with Alternative 4.1 would approximate 2,390,550 sq. ft. of gross
floor area.
Site
Like Alternative 1, the overall site associated with Alternative 4.1 encompasses Sites
A, B and C. In addition, this alternative would include City rights-of-way that are located
within Sites A, B and C and intervening rights-of-way between these sites.
Convention Center
The building height, configuration, and areas allocated to specific uses would be the
same as noted for Alternative 1. Pedestrian access to the Convention Center would
also be the same as that of Alternative 1.
The total gross floor area of the Convention Center associated with Alternative 4.1
would be the same as that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 1,499,700 sq. ft. 21
Street-Level Uses
Approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses including but not limited to retail,
restaurants and entertainment uses would be located on Site A specifically at the
corner of Olive Way and Boren Ave., the corner of Boren Ave. and Pine St., and along
building frontages on Pine St., Ninth Ave., and Olive Way.
Co-Development
Unlike Alternative 1, co-development is proposed as part of Alternative 4.1, as outlined
below.
21
Site B Co-development on this site would include a 29-story, approximately

400-unit residential tower with a podium. In addition, approximately 8,000-sq. ft.
of street-level uses could be included as part of the Site B co-development. As
depicted in Figure 2-15, street-level uses would be located in the west portion of
Site B, adjacent to Howell St. and Olive Way, and in the northeast portion of Site
B, adjacent to Howell St. and Terry Ave. The residential lobby would be located
in the southeast portion of Site B with access from Olive Way. Parking for Site B
co-development would be located within the proposed WSCC Addition.
The difference between 2,390,550 sq. ft. and 1,499,700 sq. ft. relates to co-development that would occur on
Site B and C. Both square footage amounts include the proposed WSCC Addition on Site A, as well as parking
and pedestrian-oriented street-level uses on Site A.

Draft EIS
2-39
Section II
Other Alternatives
Figure 2-26 is a conceptual architectural depiction of the proposed residential

tower and podium. The tower would be located in the east portion of Site B and
the podium in the west portion of the site. The height of the tower would
approximate 290 ft. above Ninth Ave. (without rooftop features); the height of the
podium would approximate 65 ft. A shared public plaza (at grade) is proposed
between the western portion of the podium and Ninth Ave.
Site C Co-development on this site would include a 16-story, 515,700-sq.-ft.

office tower with podium. Approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses would
be included as part of the Site C co-development -- located in the northwest
portion of Site C, adjacent to Howell St. and Terry Ave., in the northeast portion
of Site C, adjacent to Howell St. and Boren Ave., and in the southeast portion of
Site C, adjacent to Olive Way and Boren Ave. (see Figure 2-15). The office
lobby would be located in the southwest portion of Site C with access from Olive
Way and Terry Ave. Parking for Site C co-development would be located within
the proposed WSCC Addition.
Figure 2-27 is a conceptual architectural depiction of the proposed office tower
and podium. The height of the tower would approximate 240 ft. above streetgrade (without rooftop features) above Howell St.; it is anticipated that the
podium would be a 2-story structure.
Parking
As with Alternative 1, three levels of parking (700 800 spaces) are proposed. Ingress
and egress would be the same as noted for Alternative 1.
Truck Loading
As noted with regard to Alternative 1, one level of truck loading (19 freight bays and 3
trash bays) would be provided below-grade. Trucks would enter the complex from
Boren Ave. and would exit the site onto the potentially vacated portion of Terry Ave.,
between Howell St. and Olive Way.

The amount and location of landscaping and open space would be comparable to that
noted for Alternative 1. The following is the proposed tree count associated with this
alternative:
-
Proposed Trees:
- Ninth Ave...................................................................................... 7
- Pine St. ........................................................................................ 2
- Boren Ave. ................................................................................... 9
- Olive Way ................................................................................... 16
- Howell St. ..................................................................................... 9
- Terry Ave...................................................................................... 8

Draft EIS
2-40
Section II
Other Alternatives

As with Alternative 1, the proposed WSCC Addition, Alternative 4.1 would result in
changes to the streetscape of each street that borders the project site, including the
following.

Alternative 4.1 would require the same five full or partial vacations as noted for
Alternative 1 and depicted in Figure 2-4.

As with Alternative 1, Alternative 4.1 would require a land lease (at-grade and
below-grade) and an air rights lease over a portion of I-5 for the same triangularshaped area of Site A.

Overhead weather protection, landscaping, sidewalk widening and curb bulbs for
Alternative 4.1 would be the same as Alternative 1 (relative to the Convention
Center on Site A), but with the addition of similar street modifications on the
perimeters of Sites B and C. In addition, Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren
Ave. and Terry Ave. between Olive Way and Howell St. would be temporarily
removed during a portion of the construction process for the WSCC Addition and
replaced.
Project Design
Figures 2-15 through 2-27 depict development associated with Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.1 Preferred Alternative With Co-Development -- would meet

WSCCs project goals and objectives.

Draft EIS
2-41
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-15
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-16
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-17
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-18
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-19
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Depiction as Viewed
from the Southeast
Depiction as Viewed
from the Northwest

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-20
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2015
Figure 2-21
Alternative 4.1, Aerial Architectural Depiction as Viewed from Ninth Ave. and Pine St.
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2015
Figure 2-22
Alternative 4.1, Street-Level Architectural Depiction as Viewed from Ninth Ave. and Pine St.
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2015
Figure 2-23
Alternative 4.1, Street-Level Architectural Depiction as Viewed from Boren Ave. and Pine St.
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-24
Alternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-25
Alternative 4.1, North-South Plans and Sections
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Co-Development Site BResidential Ninth Ave. Elevation
Co-Development Site BResidential Howell St. Elevation

Figure 2-26
Co-DevelopmentSite B
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Co-Development Site BOffice Howell St. Elevation
Co-Development Site COffice Boren St. Elevation

Figure 2-27
Co-DevelopmentSite C
Other Development Alternatives

Five Other Development Alternatives are also evaluated in this DEIS, along with the No
Action Alternative (Alternative 6). Information concerning each is presented below.
Alternative 2 Alternative With Site A Development Only

floor area.
Site
The site associated with Alternative 2 only includes Site A. Included within this site
area would be the City alley that is located within Site A.
Convention Center
While the above-grade building configuration of Alternative 2 would be comparable to
that of Alternative 1, the below-grade footprint would be smaller and the depth of
excavation greater. The smaller site area would result in a reduction in the size of the
exhibition halls (200,000 sq. ft. vs. 250,000 sq. ft.) and meeting space (110,000 sq. ft. vs.
120,000 sq. ft.). The ballroom would be the same size as that of Alternative 1. Rather
than a height of 176 ft. above Pine St. (as with Alternative 1 or 4.1), this alternative
would have a height of approximately 224 ft. above Pine St. Pedestrian access to the
Convention Center would be the same as that of Alternative 1.
The reduction of site area would result in freight loading areas being located on different
levels than the exhibit halls they serve, making freight handling inefficient. This
inefficiency would make the WSCC Addition less competitive in the industry.
approximate 1,370,000 sq. ft.,22 roughly 8.5 percent smaller than that of Alternative 1 or
4.1.
Street-Level Uses
The amount of street-level uses including but not limited to retail, restaurants and
entertainment uses on Site A would approximate 14,900 sq. ft., which is roughly 40
percent less than the 25,000 sq. ft. associated with Alternative 1 and Alternative 4.1.
22
The square footage amount includes the proposed WSCC Addition on Site A, as well as parking and

Draft EIS
2-55
Section II
Other Alternatives
Co-Development
Like Alternative 1, no co-development is proposed as part of Alternative 2. Future
development may occur on Site B and/or Site C; however, for purposes of this DEIS it is
assumed that such development would not involve co-development with WSCC. Any
such future development that occurs on these sites would be subject to the Citys Land
Use Code requirements at the time of application.
Parking
Three levels of parking for 650 750 vehicles would be provided below-grade. Vehicles
would enter and exit the parking garage via Olive Way.
Truck Loading
Loading would be below-grade (15 freight and 3 trash bays). Trucks would enter and
exit from a dedicated truck ramp at Olive Way. Because of the reduced footprint, backof-house functions (e.g., freight unloading/ loading) would be constrained and inefficient.

The amount and location of landscaping and open space would be less than that noted
for Alternative 1; specifically:
Street
Proposed Trees
Alternative 2
Proposed Trees
Alternative 1
Ninth Ave. ......................................... 7 ............................................... 7

Pine St. ............................................. 2 ............................................... 2
Boren Ave. ........................................ 8 ............................................... 9
Olive Way ......................................... 12 ........................................... 16
Howell St........................................... 0 ............................................... 9
Terry Ave. ......................................... 5 ............................................... 8

Alternative 2 would result in changes to the streetscape of each street that borders the
project site, including the following.

Unlike Alternative 1 and 4.1, this alternative would only involve one full vacation of a
partial alley on Site A.

Draft EIS
2-56
Section II
Other Alternatives

As with Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would require a land lease (at-grade and belowgrade) and an air rights lease over a portion of I-5 for the same triangular-shaped
area of Site A.

Alternative 2 would only pertain to street frontages of streets that border Site A.
Project Design
Figures 2-28 through 2-33 depict development associated with Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 Alternative With Site A Development Only -- would meet some of

WSCCs project goals and objectives. While Alternative 2 would meet many of the
programmatic objectives of the proposed WSCC Addition, the configuration of the program
distribution would be very challenging. Neither exhibit hall level would have a loading dock
located contiguously, which would make freight handling inefficient, placing the WSCC Addition
in a disadvantaged competitive position within the industry.

Draft EIS
2-57
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-28
Alternative 2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-29
Alternative 2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-30
Alternative 2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-31
Alternative 2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-32
Alternative 2, Cross Section Looking West
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Depiction as Viewed
from the Southeast
Depiction as Viewed
from the Northwest

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-33
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative Without Co-Development, Without

the WSDOT Land/Air Lease, and Without the Requirement for
FHWA Action When Paired with King County Site Work
Alternative B
floor area. This alternative would not involve any federal actions.
Site
Like Alternative 1 and 4.1, the overall site associated with Alternative 3 would
encompass Sites A, B and C. Unlike Alternative 1 and 4.1, however, Alternative 3
would not include the area associated with the WSDOT land/air lease. In addition, this
alternative would include City rights-of-way that are located within Sites A, B and C and
intervening rights-of-way between these sites.
Convention Center
While building height and configuration would be comparable to that noted for
Alternative 1, areas allocated to specific uses would be less because the area of the
WSDOT ground/air rights lease would not be included. This change would result in a
reduction in the size of the exhibition halls (249,000 sq. ft. vs. 250,000 sq. ft.), no change
in meeting space (120,000 sq. ft.), and a reduction in the ballroom (59,000 sq. ft. vs.
60,000 sq. ft.), compared with that of Alternative 1. Pedestrian access to the
Convention Center would also be eliminated at the corner of Pine St. and Boren Ave.
approximate 1,473,700 sq. ft.23 26,000 sq. ft. (approximately 1.7 percent) less than that
of Alternative 1.
Street-Level Uses
The amount of street-level uses, including but not limited to retail, restaurants and
entertainment uses, on Site A would approximate 23,000 sq. ft., which is 2,000 sq. ft. (8
percent) less than that associated with Alternative 1. The location of pedestrianoriented street-level uses would be the comparable to that of Alternative 1 with the
exception that no pedestrian-oriented street-level uses would be located at the corner of
Pine St. and Boren Ave. Figure 2-40 is a conceptual architectural depiction of the
southeast corner of the WSCC Addition associated with Alternative 3 (corner of Pine
St. and Boren Ave.).
23
The difference between 1,485,700 sq. ft. and 1,473,700 sq. ft. relates to development that could occur on Site C.
Both square footage amounts include the proposed WSCC Addition on Site A, as well as parking and

Draft EIS
2-64
Section II
Other Alternatives
Co-Development
Like Alternative 1, no co-development is proposed as part of Alternative 3. It is
anticipated that Site B would contain surface parking above the below-grade loading
facilities with the possibility of future co-development. Similarly, Site C would provide
loading access to the below-grade loading levels and could include a 1-story structure
containing 12,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses. Site C would also have the possibility of
future co-development.
Parking
Parking associated with Alternative 3 would comprise approximately 100 fewer parking
spaces, compared with that of Alternative 1 (690790 vs. 700-800 spaces). Ingress
and egress associated with the parking would be the same as noted for Alternative 1.
Truck Loading
As with Alternative 1, one level of truck loading would be provided with the same
number of truck bays as Alternative 1 (19 freight bays and 3 trash bays). Truck ingress
and egress would also be the same as noted for Alternative 1.

The amount and location of landscaping and open space would be reduced as
compared to Alternative 1.

As with Alternative 1, the proposed WSCC Addition, Alternative 3 would result in
changes to the streetscape of each street that borders the project site, including the
following.

Alternative 3 would require the same five full or partial vacations as noted for

Draft EIS
2-65
Section II
Other Alternatives
No Proposed WSDOT Right-of-Way Lease No FHWA Action

Alternative 3 would not require a land lease (at-grade and below-grade) and an air
rights lease over a portion of I-5. When paired with King County Site Work
Alternative A (discussed on page 2-21 of this DEIS), WSDOT would need to issue a
demolition permit to remove the portion of the flyover ramp on the WSDOT right-ofway, thereby, requiring a minor FHWA action. When paired with King County Site
Work Alternative B (pg. 2-21 of this DEIS), a portion of the flyover ramp on the
WSDOT right-of-way would remain, which would not require an FHWA action. When
paired with King County Site Work Alternative C (pg. 2-21 WSDOT would need to
issue a demolition permit to remove the portion of the flyover ramp in the WSDOT
right-of-way, thereby, requiring a FHWA action as part of the separate King County
Site Work Master Use Permi proposed under Alternative C. The flyover ramp would
be gone when construction of the WSCC Addition begins, so Alternative C would
not require a FHWA action for the WSCC Addition project.
Below are five computer-generated images of the flyover ramp depicting:
Existing conditions (Image A);
The 1,927 sq. ft. portion of the existing flyover
ramp that is presently located within the right-ofway of the I-5 express lane ramp (Image B),
which could be removed (King County Site
Work Alternative A) and would require a minor
FHWA action; and
Existing Flyover
Ramp
The portion of the flyover ramp that could remain
Portion of existing
flyover ramp in the
ROW of I-5 express
lane ramp
following construction of the proposed WSCC

Addition (King County Site Work Alternative
B) and would not require a FHWA action (Image
C). As shown, the existing flyover ramp is
supported on structural columns, which would
remain. Images D and E depict King County
Site Work Alternative B, as viewed from above
I-5 -- Image D looking southwest and Image E -as viewed from the I-5 express lane ramp
looking south. As described on pg. 2-21 of this
DEIS, engineering review of this alternative
indicates that structural bracing would support
the remaining portion of the existing flyover
ramp (see Appendix B of this DEIS).
Proposed WSCC
Addition
Image A
Image B
Proposed WSCC
Addition
Portion of existing flyover

ramp in the ROW of I-5
express lane ramp that
could remain
Image C
Boren Ave.
Boren Ave.
Pine St.
I-5
Portion of flyover ramp
that could remain
I-5
Express Lane
Ramp
Image D

Draft EIS
2-66
Portion of flyover ramp

that could remain
Proposed WSCC
Addition
Image E
Section II
Other Alternatives

Overhead weather protection, landscape features, sidewalk widening for Alternative
3 would be less than Alternative 1, because of the reduced WSDOT ground/air
rights lease area. In addition, Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. and
Terry Ave. between Olive Way and Howell St. would be temporarily removed during
a portion of the construction process for the WSCC Addition and replaced.
Project Design
Alternative 3 Alternative Without Co-Development, Without the WSDOT

Land/Air Lease, and Without the Requirement for FHWA Action When Paired
with King County Site Work Alternative B -- would meet most of WSCCs project goals
and objectives, with reduced pedestrian access, active street level uses, public open space, and
a total reduction in development area of 26,000 sq. ft. compared with that of Alternative 1. This
alternative also does not complete the pedestrian connection at Pine St. and Boren Ave.

Draft EIS
2-67
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-34
Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-35
Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-36
Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-37
Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-38
Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Depiction as Viewed
from the Southeast
Depiction as Viewed
from the Northwest

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-39
Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-40
Alternative 3
4.2 Alternative With Site B Co-Development

floor area.
Site
Like Alternative 1 and 4.1, the overall site associated with Alternative 4.2 would
encompass Sites A, B and C. In addition, this alternative would include City rights-ofway that are located within Sites A, B and C and intervening rights-of-way between
these sites.
Convention Center
Building height, configuration and areas allocated to specific uses would be the same as
that noted for Alternative 1 and 4.1. Pedestrian access to the Convention Center would
also be the same as that of Alternative 1 and 4.1.
would be the same as that of Alternative 1 and 4.1 -- approximately 1,499,700 sq. ft.
Street-Level Uses
Like Alternatives 1 and 4.1, approximately 25,000 of street-level uses, including but not
limited to retail, restaurants and entertainment uses, would be located on Site A
specifically at the corner of Olive Way and Boren Ave., the corner of Boren Ave. and
Pine St., and along building frontages on Pine St., Ninth Ave., and Olive Way.
Co-Development
Alternative 4.2 would include co-development on Site B. This could include a 29-story,
approximately 400-unit residential tower with a podium. In addition, 8,000 sq. ft. of
street-level uses could be included as part of the Site B co-development. As depicted in
Figure 2-16, street-level uses would be located in the west portion of Site B, adjacent to
Howell St. and Olive Way and in the northeast portion of Site B, adjacent to Howell St.
and Terry Ave. The residential lobby would be located in the southeast portion of Site B
with access from Olive Way.
Figure 2-26 (shown previously in conjunction with Alternative 4.1) is a conceptual
architectural depiction of the proposed residential tower and podium. The height of the
tower would approximate 290 ft. above Ninth Ave. (without rooftop features); the height
of the podium would approximate 65 ft. A shared public plaza (at grade) is proposed
between the western portion of the podium and Ninth Ave. Parking for Site B codevelopment would be located within the proposed WSCC Addition.
Site C would provide loading access to the WSCC Addition below-grade loading levels
and could include 12,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses. Site C would also have the
possibility of future co-development.

Draft EIS
2-75
Section II
Other Alternatives
Parking
As with Alternative 4.1, three levels of parking (700 800 spaces) are proposed belowgrade. Ingress and egress would be the same as noted for Alternative 4.1.
Truck Loading
As with Alternative 1 and 4.1, one level of truck loading would be provided below-grade
with the same number of truck bays (19 freight bays and 3 trash bays). Truck ingress

The amount and location of landscaping and open space would be the same as noted

As with Alternative 1, the proposed Alternative 4.2 would result in changes to the
streetscape of each street that borders the project site, including the following.

Alternative 4.1 and depicted in Figure 2-4.


Alternative 4.2 would be the same as Alternative 4.1 (relative to the Convention
perimeters of Site B and Site C. In addition, Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and
Boren Ave. and Terry Ave. between Olive Way and Howell St. would be temporarily
removed during a portion of the construction process for the WSCC Addition and
replaced once construction is completed.
Project Design
Alternative 4.2 Alternative With Site B Co-Development -- would meet WSCCs

project goals and objectives.
Draft EIS
2-76
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-41
Alternative 4.2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-42
Alternative 4.2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-43
Alternative 4.2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-44
Alternative 4.2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-45
Alternative 4.2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Depiction as Viewed
from the Southeast
Depiction as Viewed
from the Northwest

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-46
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.3 Alternative With Site C Co-Development

floor area.
Site
Like Alternative 1 and 4.1, the overall site associated with Alternative 4.3 would
encompass Sites A, B and C. In addition, this alternative would include City rights-ofway that are located within Sites A, B and C and intervening rights-of-way between
these sites. Other than loading/truck access, convention facilities and the majority of
retail uses would be located on Site A.
Convention Center
Building height, configuration and areas allocated to specific uses would be the same as
that noted for Alternative 1 and 4.1. Pedestrian access to the Convention Center would
also be the same as that of Alternative 1 and 4.1.
would be the same as that of Alternative 1 and 4.1 -- approximately 1,499,700-sq.-ft.
Street-Level Uses
Like Alternative 4.1, approximately 25,000 of street-level uses, including but not limited
to retail, restaurants and entertainment would be located on Site A specifically at the
corner of Olive Way and Boren Ave., the corner of Boren Ave. and Pine St., and along
building frontages on Pine St., Ninth Ave. and Olive Way.
Co-Development
Alternative 4.3 would include co-development on Site C. This could include a 16-story,
515,700-sq.-ft. office tower with podium. Approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of street-level
uses would be included as part of the Site C co-development -- located in the northwest
portion of Site C, adjacent to Howell St. and Terry Ave., in the northeast portion of Site
C, adjacent to Howell St. and Boren Ave., and in the southeast portion of Site C,
adjacent to Olive Way and Boren Ave. (see Figure 2-47). The office lobby would be
located in the southwest portion of Site C with access from Olive Way and Terry Ave.
Parking for Site C co-development would be located within the proposed WSCC
Addition.
Figure 2-27 (shown previously in conjunction with Alternative 4.1) is a conceptual
architectural depiction of the proposed office tower and podium. The height of the tower
would approximate 240 ft. above street-grade (without rooftop features) above Howell
St.; it is anticipated that the podium would be a 2-story structure. Parking for Site C codevelopment would be located within the proposed WSCC Addition.

Draft EIS
2-83
Section II
Other Alternatives
Site B would contain surface parking (approximately 70-80 spaces) above the WSCC
Addition below-grade loading facilities with the possibility of future co-development
above.
Parking
As with Alternative 4.1, three levels of parking (700 800 spaces) are proposed belowgrade. Ingress and egress would be the same as noted for Alternative 4.1.
Truck Loading
with the same number of truck bays (19 freight bays and 3 trash bays). Truck ingress

The amount and location of landscaping and open space would be similar to that noted

As with Alternative 1, the proposed Alternative 4.3 would result in changes to the
streetscape of each street that borders the project site, including the following.



Overhead weather protection, landscaping, sidewalk widening, and curb bulbs for
Alternative 4.3 would be the same as Alternative 1 (relative to the Convention
perimeters of Site C. No overhead weather protection would be provided on Site C.
In addition, Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. and Terry Ave. between
Olive Way and Howell St. would be temporarily removed during a portion of the
construction process for the WSCC Addition and replaced.
Project Design
Alternative 4.3 Alternative With Site C Co-Development -- would meet WSCCs

project goals and objectives.
Draft EIS
2-84
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-47
Alternative 4.3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-48
Alternative 4.3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-49
Alternative 4.3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-50
Alternative 4.3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-51
Alternative 4.3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Depiction as Viewed
from the Southeast
Depiction as Viewed
from the Northwest

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-52
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 5 Convention Place Station Site With No

Vacations
Total development associated with Alternative 5 would be approximately 1,611,700-sq.-ft. of
gross floor area.
Site
The site associated with Alternative 5 only includes Site A. Excluded from this site
area would be the City right-of-way (2,879 sq. ft.) that is located within Site A.
Convention Center
While the above-grade building configuration of Alternative 5 would be comparable to
that of Alternative 2, the reduced footprint would result in smaller floor areas both above
and below-grade and the depth of excavation would be greater. The smaller site area
would result in a reduction in the size of the exhibition halls (240,000 sq. ft. vs. 250,000
sq. ft.) and meeting space (110,000 sq. ft. vs. 120,000 sq. ft.). The ballroom would be
the same size as that of Alternative 1 60,000 sq. ft. Because of the reduced footprint,
back-of-house functions (e.g., freight unloading/ loading) would be constrained and
exhibit halls would not be configured as large, rectangular spaces. Rather than a height
of 176 ft. above Pine St. (Alternative 1 or 4.1), this alternative would have a height of
approximately 272 ft. above Pine St. Pedestrian access to the Convention Center would
be the same as that of Alternative 1.
approximate 1,611,700 sq. ft., roughly 7.5 percent larger than that of Alternative 1 or
4.1.
Street-Level Uses
The amount of street-level uses that are proposed would approximate 14,900-sq.-ft.,
which is approximately 40 percent less than that of Alternative 1. The location of streetlevel uses would be comparable to Alternative 1 -- at the corner of Olive Way and
Boren Ave., the corner of Boren Ave. and Pine St., and along building frontages on Pine
St., Ninth Ave. and Olive Way.
No Co-Development
Like Alternative 2, no co-development is proposed as part of Alternative 5. Future
development may occur on Site B and/or Site C; however, for purposes of this DEIS it is
assumed that such development would not involve co-development with WSCC. Any
such future development that occurs on these sites would be subject to the Citys Land
Use Code requirements at the time of application.

Draft EIS
2-91
Section II
Other Alternatives
The Downtown EIS studied potential, future development of these sites, including a
mixed-use complex of buildings that included: 900 residential units; a 600,000 sq. ft.
office tower; and an 800-room, 400,000 sq. ft. hotel.
Parking
As with the other alternatives, parking would be provided below-grade. It is estimated
that Alternative 5 could provide approximately 600-700 vehicles, which is 14 percent
fewer than the high-end associated with Alternative 1. Vehicles would enter and exit
the parking garage via Olive Way.
Truck Loading
with four fewer bays than that associated with Alternative 1 (15 vs. 19 freight and trash
bays). Trucks would enter and exit from a dedicated truck ramp at Olive Way.

The amount and location of landscaping and open space would be comparable to that


Alternative 5 would not require any vacations.

As with Alternative 1, Alternative 5 would require a land lease (at-grade and belowgrade) and an air rights lease over a portion of I-5 for the same triangular-shaped
area of Site A.

Alternative 5 would only pertain to street frontages of streets that border Site A.
Project Design
Alternative 5 Convention Place Station Site With No Vacations -- would not

meet WSCCs project goals and objectives.
Draft EIS
2-92
Section II
Other Alternatives
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-53
Alternative 5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-54
Alternative 5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-55
Alternative 5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-56
Alternative 5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
North
Figure 2-57
Alternative 5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-58
Alternative 5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Depiction as Viewed
from the Southeast
Depiction as Viewed
from the Northwest

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 2-59
Alternative 5
Alternative 6 No Action Downtown EIS Alternative

Development Activity
Site
The site associated with Alternative 6 only includes Site A.
Development
The project site is centrally-located in Downtown Seattle with direct connections to and
from Interstate 5, as well as the Citys Retail Core and the Washington State Convention
Center. If Alternative 1 or 4.1 the Preferred Alternatives -- or any the other
alternatives described in this DEIS do not occur, there remains a strong probability that
Sites A, B and C would be redeveloped in the future and would not remain as they
presently exist. A conceivable development scenario is one that is consistent with what
was considered for this area in the Downtown Height & Density Changes EIS (i.e.,
Downtown EIS DEIS24 and FEIS25).
As background, the Downtown EIS is a non-project EIS that addresses future
development within the area of Downtown that is generally bounded by Denny Way on
the north, S. Dearborn St. on the south, Alaskan Way on the west and Interstate 5 on the
east. The FEIS notes that the focus of the EIS involves
decisions on policies, plans or regulations rather than a single site-specific
project. In this case, the proposal is for changes to regulations in the Land Use
Code. The analysis is intended to describe how the proposed regulatory
changes would affect future long-term development patterns, and whether those
changes would result in significant adverse impacts. The intent of this EIS is to
provide substantive analysis of impact implications (at a programmatic level of
detail), to aid in making final decisions on the proposal. 26
Appendix G27 of the DEIS for the Downtown EIS notes that
(t)he scenarios developed under each alternative indicate only one potential
future among many, and are only intended to indicate a potential mix of
development, not predict the future.
They provide a measure of

understanding of how Downtown Seattle might change under the different
alternatives, but development Downtown is likely to be different than these
models project. The findings of this 20-year projection should be considered
alongside the maximum potential development in any zone to gain an
understanding of a range of possible futures. 28
24
25
26
27
28
Seattle, 2003.
Seattle, 2005.
Downtown FEIS (Seattle, 2005), pg. ii.
Downtown DEIS (Seattle, 2003), Appendix G.
Downtown DEIS, (Seattle, 2003), Appendix G, pg. G-4.

Draft EIS
2-100
Section II
Other Alternatives
This alternative would not involve development of the proposed WSCC Addition. In all
probability, once King County Metro no longer needs Convention Place Station (Site A),
the site would be offered for sale and subsequent commercial or residential development
could occur. Such development would comply with the Citys existing development
standards for the site (DMC 340/290-400), which can allow commercial or nonresidential buildings (with live-work uses) a maximum height limit of 340 ft. and
residential structures with a base height limit of 290 ft. and a maximum height of 400 ft.
It is expected that subsequent development of Site A would be consistent with potential,
future development that was envisioned for this site in the Downtown FEIS, which was a
mixed-use complex of buildings that included: 900 residential units; a 600,000 sq. ft.
office tower; and an 800-room, 400,000 sq. ft. hotel.29
While the Downtown FEIS did not specify the nature or extent of development that may
occur on Site B or Site C, it is assumed that such would be consistent with the DMC
340/290-400 zoning that was adopted. Conceivably, this could result in an office
building (25 to 26 stories) on each half-block of the two sites, a residential tower (34-36
stories) on each half-block of the two sites, or a combination of office and residential
development on the four half-blocks that comprise Site B and Site C.
Conceivably, this alternative would also include on-site parking, ancillary to the
subsequent land uses. It is anticipated that no WSDOT land/air rights lease would be
necessary and no City rights-of-way would be vacated within Sites A, B or C.
Co-Development
Like Alternative 5, no co-development involving WSCC is envisioned as part of
Alternative 6. Future development may occur on Site B and/or Site C; however, for
purposes of this DEIS, it is assumed that such development would not involve codevelopment associated with the Site A development noted above. Any such future
development that occurs on these sites would be subject to the Citys Land Use Code
requirements at the time of application.
Parking
It is anticipated that on-site parking would be provided for the land uses noted above.
This could include approximately 1,200 1,400 vehicles associated with Site A
development and as with Alternative 5, it is assumed that vehicles would enter and exit
the parking garage associated with Site A via Olive Way. Conceivably, parking for
development on Site B and Site C would enter and exit those development projects
from the mid-block alley that is located within each site.
Truck Loading
The Downtown FEIS did not specify the location of truck loading whether at-grade or
below-grade -- or the number of truck bays provided. It is assumed the location and
number would be consistent with the Citys Land Use Code requirements.
29
The Downtown FEIS also anticipated that Site A could include up to 3,200 employees.

Draft EIS
2-101
Section II
Other Alternatives

It is assumed that the amount and location of landscaping and open space would be
would be consistent with the Citys Land Use Code requirements.


Alternative 6 would not require any vacations.

Alternative 6 would not require a land lease (at-grade and below-grade) or an air
rights lease.

It is anticipated that overhead weather protection, landscaping, sidewalk widening
and curb bulbs for Alternative 6 would only pertain to street frontages of streets that
border Site A. It is assumed that any street modifications would be consistent with
the Citys code requirements.
Alternative 6 No Action -- would not meet WSCCs project goals and objectives.
Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation

Another Alternative 6 - No-Action-related consideration involves the possibility of delaying
implementation -- of either of the Preferred Alternatives (Alternative 1 or 4.1) or any of the
Other Alternatives -- to some future time. If this action is taken, the following outlines
possible benefits and disadvantages of such delay.
Benefits of Deferral
The advantage of deferral is that environmental impacts noted with regard to the
development alternatives would not occur at this time, but would be delayed until
project implementation.
Future re-development options for any of the sites would not be foreclosed.

Draft EIS
2-102
Section II
Other Alternatives
Disadvantages of Deferral
The availability of Convention Place Station is an opportunity for WSCC to acquire a

7.18-acre site in Downtown Seattle within a block of the WSCCs existing facilities.
Deferring action regarding acquisition by WSCC would likely result in the site being
acquired by another entity private-sector or public-sector thereby eliminating the
potential for a WSCC Addition at this location.
Deferral would not necessarily eliminate or lessen the severity of environmental

impacts that have been identified, but merely postpone them. In some situations,
this could result in greater cumulative impacts (e.g., traffic, noise, aesthetics, etc.) as
a result of redevelopment, due to changes in background conditions and changes
that occur with regard to other nearby properties.
Deferral would postpone the opportunity of WSCC to improve the urban environment
northeast of the existing facility and the opportunity to strengthen downtown-toCapitol Hill connections.
Deferral would prevent WSCC from achieving its economic objectives in the
intervening years of:
-
booking additional international, national, regional and local events that

WSCC now turns away due to lack of date availability or adequate space;
delay could postpone increases in the year-round demand for Seattles

hotels, restaurants, stores and entertainment venues that the proposed
WSCC Addition hopes to provide and the related up to $240 million in
annual visitor spending;
delay would postpone direct and indirect employment opportunities

associated with construction of the proposed WSCC Addition and postpone
additional, direct and indirect hospitality employment opportunities the facility
would provide, once operational; and
delay would postpone receipt of sales taxes associated with construction of

the proposed WSCC Addition and once operational, receipt of hotel/motel
taxes and car rental taxes that could derive from a larger WSCC venue.30
Alternative 6 -- Deferral would not meet WSCCs project goals and objectives.
30
Hotel/motel tax would continue to accrue, just not the incremental increase associated with the larger convention
center.

Draft EIS
2-103
Section II
Other Alternatives
2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADVANCED FOR

PURPOSES OF SEPA ANALYSIS
Two additional alternatives were evaluated in conjunction with project siting and King County
Site Work. Determinations were made for each that they would not be advanced as part of this
EIS process. Each alternative is discussed below.
Site Alternative
In the process of initial planning for the proposed WSCC Addition, the WSCC Public Facilities
District Board enacted two resolutions:
Resolution No. 2015-131 This resolution established site evaluation criteria for
evaluating potential sites; it includes eight key criteria and seven supporting criteria; and
Resolution No. 2015-232 This resolution applied the site evaluation criteria of
Resolution No. 2015-1 to three potential sites.
An objective of Resolution No. 2015-2 was to narrow the list of potential options for the District
Addition project and study only the viable sites in the environmental impact statement for the
project. Results of that evaluation determined that two sites should be analyzed in the DEIS
the Convention Place Station with Adjacent Properties (i.e., Site A, B and C) and the
Convention Place Station site (i.e., Site A). It was determined that the third site Seattle
Center did not meet key site evaluation criteria and should not be analyzed in the DEIS.
Table 2-3 presents an evaluation of the Seattle Center site relative to the site evaluation criteria
of WSCC Public Facilities District Resolution No. 2015-1.
The WSCC Public Facility District Board concluded that any potential site that is not adjacent to
the existing District facility and located within walking distance to the hotels and restaurants in
the Downtown Seattle retail core is not a suitable alternative from an economic, efficiency,
programming, and policy perspective. Such lack of proximity also detracts from the particular
competitive advantage of the District.33
31
32
33
Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities, 2015a.

Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities, 2015b.
Resolution No. 2015-2, para. 3.

Draft EIS
2-104
Section II
Other Alternatives
Table 2-3
Site Evaluation Seattle Center Site
Evaluation Criteria
Seattle Center Site
Site Size and Configuration
The site could potentially allow a large exhibit hall if

the entire Memorial Stadium area is utilized.
Construction Staging
The construction staging options are uncertain.
Cost
The WSCC would need to acquire rights to develop

on Seattle Center from the City of Seattle in
coordination with Seattle Center.
Surrounding Uses
There are inadequate hotels in proximity of the

Seattle Center sites.
Transportation Facilities and Service

Access
The public transit near the site are inadequate.
Parking Facilities
The opportunities for adequate parking are

unknown.
Environmental Qualities
The potential for site contamination is unknown.

There could be conflicts with existing Seattle
Center programming and the Century 21 Master
Plan.
Efficient Management of All Facilities
The Seattle Center site is not adjacent to the

existing WSCC facility, so there would be
operational challenges.
Other Considerations
The WSCC has no ownership interest in this site.

There could be significant delays to move forward
with the WSCC addition at Seattle Center, including
coordination with the City and Seattle Center,
especially in light of the Citys alternative ideas for
development of the northeast corner of Seattle
Center.

Draft EIS
2-105
Section II
Other Alternatives
King County Site Work Alternative D

Section 2.6 of this DEIS describes the three alternatives (A, B and C) that WSCC is
considering to accomplish King County Site Work. As noted in Section 2.6, early analysis
identified a fourth King County Site Work alternative Alternative D. While similar to
Alternative C, Alternative D would involve development of a temporary Transit Tunnel
Connection (TTC) along the south edge of the CPS site to access the east portal of the DSTT.
The TTC would need to be an elevated, covered structure in order to maintain reasonable
grades for buses, with exit stairs to the surrounding streets for passengers, and equipped with
robust fire and life safety systems. When buses no longer use the DSTT, the TTC would be
removed.
King County Metro and Sound Transit evaluated Alternative D in terms of operational factors
and the Skanska Hunt team evaluated Alternative D for safety considerations (see
correspondence in Appendix C of this DEIS). King County Metro and Sound Transit concluded
that Alternative D is not a reasonable transit solution for the following reasons:
the cost of the TTC would be significant compared with other feasible alternatives;
the TTC would only be used for a relatively short time (anticipated for only a couple of
years); and
Alternative D would require closing the existing passenger facilities at CPS earlier than
other alternatives.
The Skanska Hunt team also determined that Alternative D would not be a feasible solution.
The TTC would be built first and the WSCC Addition would be built around and over it. In light
of that, a large quantity of significant steel members would need to be hoisted and set in place
over the top of the operational TTC. Buses would not be able to use the TTC or access the
DSTT during steel erection operations and it would be impossible to provide adequate overhead
protection.

Draft EIS
2-106
Section II
Other Alternatives
SECTION III
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
MITIGATION MEASURES and
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
SECTION III
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
MITIGATION MEASURES and
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
This chapter describes the affected environment (existing conditions), impacts of the
alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts that are
anticipated from implementation of the alternatives. Mitigation measures that are noted are
included for consideration as part of the decision-making process for this project.
To initiate the EIS process for the proposed WSCC Addition, WSCC published a SEPA
Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice on February 13, 2015. That commenced a
formal, public EIS Scoping process, which concluded May 15, 2015. WSCC also held an EIS
Scoping Meeting on March 3, 2015, as an additional opportunity1 for agencies, organizations,
and the public to provide comments concerning the alternatives, probable significant adverse
impacts, and mitigation that should be addressed in the EIS.
During the EIS Scoping period, WSCC received written comments, as well as public testimony
at the EIS Scoping meeting concerning the scope of the DEIS. At the conclusion of Scoping,
WSCC determined that two preferred alternatives, five design alternatives, and the No Action
Alternative should be analyzed in light of 17 areas of environmental review, including: earth,
air quality / greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian-level wind, water, environmental
health (site assessment), noise, energy, land use, historic resources, recreation,
population / housing, aesthetics (height, bulk, scale), aesthetics (viewsheds),
light/glare/shadows, public services, utilities, and transportation/circulation.
The following is an analysis of each of the environmental parameters noted above in terms of
affected environment (existing conditions), impacts, mitigation measures, and significant
unavoidable adverse impacts.
in addition to the submittal of written comments

Draft EIS
Section 3.0
Introduction
3.1-1
3.1
Earth
This section describes existing geologic conditions on the site, together with potential geologic
impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed WSCC Addition.
3.1.1
Affected Environment
Geology and Topography1

Seattle is located in the central portion of the Puget Sound Lowland, an elongated topographic
and structural depression bordered by the Cascade Mountains on the east and the Olympic
Mountains on the west. The Lowland is characterized by low-rolling relief with some deeply cut
ravines. In general, the ground surface elevation is within 500 ft. of sea level.
The Puget Sound Lowland was filled to significant depths by glacial and non-glacial sediments
during the Pleistocene Epoch, although bedrock does outcrop in scattered locations throughout
the area. Based on deep drill holes and seismic profiling, the depth to bedrock in Downtown
Seattle is believed to be more than 3,000 ft. Geologists have generally agreed that the Puget
Sound area was subjected to four major glaciations during the Pleistocene Epoch. Ice for these
glacial events originated in the Coastal Mountains and the Vancouver Range of British
Columbia. The maximum southward advance of ice was about halfway between Olympia and
Centralia. The Pleistocene stratigraphic record in the central portion of the Puget Sound
Lowland is a complex sequence of glacially-derived and interglacial sediments. Erosion of
certain deposits, as well as local deposition of sediments, further complicates the geologic
setting.
The oldest geologic unit encountered in the Seattle area is the Duwamish Formation. This unit
is a group of interglacial sediments deposited in the river delta and offshore embayment as the
ancestral Duwamish River mouth changed its position. The estuarine/lacustrine clays and silts
of this unit were deposited on the mudflats of the river delta, as overbank sediments along the
river course, or offshore of the river mouth. Organic materials were incorporated as both finely
divided particles and peat layers within the soils in swamp and mudflat environment, Alluvial
(t'luvial) sands and silts were deposited in the main channels of the river at the same time.
Volcanic ash accumulated in topographically low areas during and after eruptions of Cascade
Range volcanoes. Pumice, ash, and red andesitic particles from the vicinity of Mt. Rainier were
moved downstream by the river and are found mixed with the dark gray Duwamish sands, as
well as in distinct layers. These red andesitic particles effectively mark the interglacial sands.
Overlapping of these alluvial and estuarine sediments is common. At the end of the interglacial
period, existing interglacial and glacial soils were reworked by streams and by rising waters of a
glacial lake. This action tended to remove any existing vegetative cover and create a beach-like
environment, in which glacial and interglacial material became mixed and washed. Glacial ice
then moved farther southward into Puget Sound from British Columbia and blocked the Strait of
Juan de Fuca, creating a large lake throughout the Puget Sound Lowland. The subsequent
thick sequence of glacially-derived deposits are interbedded and overlapped in a very complex
manner, due to repeated fluctuations of the ice front. Glacio-lacustrine soils are indicative of
1
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1986. Final Geotechnical Report Stations and Pine Street Line Structure, Downtown
Seattle Transit Project.

Draft EIS
Section 3.1
Earth
3.1-2
fine-grained particles laid down in a quiet lake as the glacial ice stood north of Seattle. Glaciomarine drift strata record either sub-aqueous deposition during the southern advance of the ice
terminus, or the droppings of melting sediment-laden icebergs floating in the lake. As the ice
front moved closer to Seattle, coarser sediments (sands and gravels) were deposited as
outwash over the clays and glacio-marine drift.
An interglacial period, (believed to be the Olympia interglacial period) occurred subsequently,
which is recorded by peat deposits and mammal fossil remains on the west side of First Hill.
Following the interglacial interval, a large lake formed again in the Puget Sound Lowland as the
ice (Vashon Stade) once more blocked the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In some areas, gullies or
ravines were eroded into the surficial soils and the channels subsequently filled with pervious
granular materials. As the ice advanced closer, coarse granular materials were deposited
throughout the Seattle area by outwash streams. What is now the downtown area was
overridden and the soils were densely compacted by the weight of the ice. At the higher
elevations (but not downtown) basal lodgement till was deposited and remains today. The past
12,000 to 13,000 years since the last glacial episode has been an interglacial period. Sediment
has accumulated in topographically low areas, such as the Elliott Bay embayment and the Pine
Street swales. In Elliott Bay, sands were deposited by the Duwamish River and creeks that ran
into the bay from surrounding hills, and were interbedded with clays and silts during overbank
floods. Clays were deposited in Elliott Bay and peat accumulated in swampy areas. Erosion by
surface water and modification of steep slopes by sliding have also altered the landscape. In
the past 100 years, parts of Downtown Seattle have been significantly regraded. Some of the
upper layers have been removed and used to fill topographic lows, or were sluiced into Puget
Sound. Imported select fill or backfill has also been placed throughout the Downtown area.
Soils
Soils on the project site generally consist of fill overlying landslide deposits, recent deposits and
competent glacially consolidated soils.
Fill consists of loose to dense/soft to very stiff silty sand and silt with variable gravel and cobble
content and occasional brick, charcoal or wood debris. The fill below Pine Street and the south
end of Boren Ave. and Ninth Ave. ranges up to approximately 40 ft. thick and is associated with
tunnel projects and the grading and construction of Boren Ave. and Pine St. Fill below Olive
Way ranges up to about 17 ft. thick, and fill over other portions of the site is variable, ranging up
to a thickness of 15 ft., where encountered.
Landslide deposits are present below the fill along the south end of the site, and include loose to
medium dense sand and silt with variable gravel content and wood debris. These deposits are
up to approximately 15 ft. thick, and extend as deep as Elevation 130 ft. The landslide deposits
are debris associated with a previous slide mass that settled in the vicinity of the Pine Street
alignment.
Recent deposits are present below the fill from about 4 to 27 ft., and typically consist of stiff to
very stiff silt and clay with occasional sand interbeds and variable gravel content or medium
dense to very dense sand with variable silt and gravel content.
Glacially consolidated soils were encountered below the fill, landslide deposits and recent
deposits, where present. Three glacially consolidated, interlayered units were present including

Draft EIS
Section 3.1
Earth
3.1-3
cohesive silt and clay, till-like deposits, and cohesion-less sand and gravel. Occasional
boulders have been observed in glacially consolidated soils in nearby excavations, and are also
anticipated to be present at this site.
Seismic Hazard Areas

Per SMC 25.09.020 (A)(6), seismic hazard areas are: areas of the City subject to ground
shaking from seismic hazards that are addressed by the Building Code (SMC Title 22); the
Seattle Fault Zone; areas at risk of tsunamis and tsunami inundation; and, areas at risk for
seiches (standing waves in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water).
The entire Puget Sound region, including the WSCC Addition site, lies within a seismically
active area, and the potential for moderate to high levels of ground shaking exists. Analysis
indicates that the soils that underlie the proposed building area have a low risk of liquefying, and
due to the location of the site and the sites topography, the risk of adverse impacts resulting
from seismically-induced slope instability, differential settlement, or surface displacement due to
faulting is considered low.
City of Seattle Environmentally Critical Areas

Seattle has ten possible environmental critical area designations five, of which, pertain to
Earth (e.g., steep slopes, liquefaction, etc.). No areas on Sites A, B or C, however, are
designated as an Environmentally Critical Area.
3.1.2
Impacts of the Alternatives

Some limited excavation could be required for activities associated with the King County Site
Work, which involves demolition and removal of the existing Convention Place Station facilities
on Site A, as described in Section 2. King County Site Work Alternatives A and B would
require building a dirt ramp to access Ninth Ave.; dirt from the site may be excavated and used
to build the ramp. Alternative C would involve construction of a steel-structure ramp, which
would require excavation for footings/foundations. Overall, it is expected that any excavations
that occur would be limited in degree and depth. Overall site grading to prepare the site for
construction would not occur during this phase of work, and earth-related impacts would be
expected to be minimal.
Construction - Alternatives 1-6

Development of the project under all alternatives would involve mass excavation of the site and
the rights-of-way that would be vacated. The amount of earthwork that is projected to be
removed is roughly 375,000 cu. yds. under Alternatives 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, and
approximately 175,000 cu. yds. under Alternatives 2 and 5.2 Less earthwork would be needed
for Alternatives 2, 5 and presumably 6, since only Site A would be involved with those
alternatives; Sites A, B and C pertain to Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3. Two conveyors
2
This assumes an expansion factor of approximately 30 percent.

Draft EIS
Section 3.1
Earth
3.1-4
would be located along the Howell St. frontage for truck load-out. Based on the excavation
amounts noted above, it is estimated that approximately 18,750 truck trips would be required to
transport the material from the site under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, and roughly 8,750
truck trips would be required to transport the material from the site under Alternatives 2 and 5.
This equates to an estimated 37,500 round-trip truck trips under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and
4.3, and roughly 17,500 round-trip truck trips under Alternatives 2 and 5.3 While the exact
location for deposition of material excavated from the site has not yet been determined, it is
anticipated that it would be located either south or southeast of Downtown Seattle. Trucks
would load-out in the staging lane (southernmost lane) of Howell St. and exit the site area to
enter I-5 southbound at Yale Ave.
Site excavations may have the potential to create localized erosion. On-site soils contain a high
percentage of fines, which are sensitive to small changes in moisture content. These soils
would be susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic. As noted in the Fact Sheet of this
DEIS, the project would be subject to approvals from SDCI relative to Construction Best
Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control, as noted below relative to mitigation.
The proposed building would be supported on spread or mat foundations with conventional
slabs-on-grade outside of the core mat foundation. These foundations would be lower than the
surrounding roadways, utilities, and sidewalks and no impacts to those facilities would be
anticipated.
Operation - Alternatives 1-6

Earthquake-induced geologic hazards could include liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope
instability, and ground surface fault rupture. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Services
Report,4 the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading is not expected to be significant
because of the dense/hard nature of the existing subsurface conditions. Since the topography
of the site slopes gradually to the north, the potential for earthquake-induced slope instability is
low.
Data from the geotechnical report also indicate that the potential for ground surface fault rupture
at the project site is low.
3.1.3
The following general mitigation measures are recommended for construction and operation of
the proposed project, regardless of the alternative.
More complete and detailed
recommendations are included in the geotechnical report prepared for this project.5
4
5
The proposed WSCC Addition would be designed using International Building Code
(IBC) 2012 parameters for either Site Class C or Site Class D. A site-specific
measurement of shear wave velocity has recently been completed and would be used to
define the final design Site Class once the results are available.
This assumes the use of trucks with trailers of 20 cu. yd. capacity. The number of truck trips would involve
approximately 18,750/8,750 empty trucks accessing the site and 18,750/8,750 loaded trucks departing the site.
GeoEngineers, 2015.
Ibid.

Draft EIS
Section 3.1
Earth
3.1-5
The proposed WSCC Addition would be designed to comply with provisions of the
Seattle Building Code.
As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Draft EIS, the proposed WSCC Addition would be
subject to approval from the Citys Department of Construction and Inspections relative
to Construction Best Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control.
A performance-based seismic design study would be completed to develop the sitespecific design response spectrum and earthquake time histories for use in structural
modeling of the co-development towers portion of the development.
Based on a review of previous borings, the base of the planned excavations for the
current development plan would not extend below the static groundwater elevation. As a
result, no active temporary dewatering is anticipated. Sumps and pumps would be
required for perched groundwater, where encountered, and for stormwater.
Due to existing site constraints, temporary shoring for the site excavation is anticipated
to be completed using four different shoring cases. Optional approaches are described
below:
Conventional soldier pile and tieback shoring.
Soil nail shoring utilizing existing cylinder piles as full-depth vertical elements.
Underpinning the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) cut-and-cover portal

and shoring the exposed vertical face below. The option preferred at this time
would consist of installing uniformly spaced underpinning piles below the tunnel
opening and incorporating tiebacks affixed to the underpinning soldier piles for
lateral support of the vertical cut. A second option would consist of installing three
underpinning piles (below the outer walls and center support of the tunnel) and
shoring the exposed vertical space with soil nails. For both options, the load from
a portion of the transit tunnel would be directly supported on the underpinning
piles.
Utilizing the existing cylinder pile wall along Pine St. and adding tiebacks, where
needed, to support 20 ft. of excavation below the existing CPS grade. The Sound
Transit stub tunnel is adjacent to the western half of the Pine St. wall. In addition,
the twin-bored tunnels extend from the cut-and-cover tunnel to the southwest. As
such, performance-based design (PBD), using numerical modeling, would be
required in order to evaluate deformations resulting from proposed excavation and
shoring.
The glacially consolidated soil deposits represent competent bearing soils for shallow
foundations. It is anticipated that the building can be supported on spread or mat
foundations with a design bearing pressure of 18 kips per square foot (ksf).
Conventional slabs-on-grade are considered appropriate for the structure outside of the
core mat foundation and may be underlain by a layer of clean crushed rock separated
from the subgrade by non-woven geotextile fabric.

Draft EIS
Section 3.1
Earth
3.1-6
3.1.4
If a shoring wall is selected to temporarily support Olive Way (or a relocated alignment of
Olive Way) during construction (not applicable to Alternative 2, 5 or 6), either soil nailing
with full depth vertical elements or conventional shoring consisting of soldier pile and
tieback walls with timber lagging are feasible.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse earth/geologic-related impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.1
Earth
3.1-7
3.2
AIR QUALITY / GREENHOUSE GASES
This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relative to potential air quality
and greenhouse gas emissions that could occur in conjunction with the alternatives. A description of mitigation measures to reduce impacts and a description of significant unavoidable
adverse impacts is also provided.
3.2.1
Air Quality
Regulatory Overview
Air quality is generally assessed in terms of whether concentrations of air pollutants are higher
or lower than ambient air quality standards set to protect human health and welfare. Ambient air
quality standards are set for what are referred to as "criteria" pollutants (e.g., carbon monoxide CO, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide - NO2, and sulfur dioxide - SO2). Three agencies have
jurisdiction over the ambient air quality in the proposed project area: the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). These agencies establish regulations that govern
both the concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air and rates of contaminant emissions from
air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in stringency, each agency has
established its own standards. Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent
standards, EPA standards apply. These standards have been set at levels that EPA and
Ecology have determined will protect human health with a margin of safety, including the health
of sensitive individuals like the elderly, the chronically ill, and the very young.
Ecology and PSCAA maintain a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the Puget
Sound area. In general, these stations are located where there may be air quality problems, and
so are usually in or near urban areas or close to specific large air pollution sources. Other
stations located in more remote areas provide indications of regional or background air pollution
levels. Based on monitoring information for criteria air pollutants collected over a period of
years, Ecology and EPA designate regions as being "attainment" or "nonattainment" areas for
particular pollutants. Attainment status is, therefore, a measure of whether air quality in an area
complies with the federal health-based ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Once
a nonattainment area achieves compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQSs), the area is considered an air quality "maintenance" area. The project study area is
considered an air quality maintenance area for CO, and there has not been a violation of the CO
standards in the area in many years.
Existing Air Quality

Existing sources of air pollution in the project study area include a variety of commercial
sources, along with and dominated by local traffic sources. With typical vehicular traffic, the air
pollutant of concern is CO. Other pollutants include ozone precursors (hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides NOx), coarse and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and SO2. The
amounts of particulate matter generated by well-maintained individual vehicles are minimal
compared with other sources (e.g., a wood-burning stove), and concentrations of SO2 and NOx

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
3.2-1
are usually not high except near large industrial facilities. Existing air quality in the project area
is generally considered good.
Air Quality Conformity

Special air quality "conformity" rules apply in areas that are designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for one or more air pollutants. These rules apply in the project study area, because
the area is considered "maintenance" for CO. The WSCC Addition project does not, however,
contain any component that would comprise a "transportation project" as defined in federal law,
so Transportation Conformity does not pertain. Although a federal agency (FHWA) must
approve a small portion of the project plan for all project alternatives except for Alternative 3
(because of the effect on/near I-5 see the Fact Sheet of this DEIS), it is clear from many
previous analyses that General Conformity de minimis emission thresholds would not be
exceeded by any portion of the project subject to this form of review.1 Consequently, compliance
with air quality General Conformity requirements would not be an issue for this project.
Greenhouse Gases Related to Climate Change

Background
The phenomena of natural and human-caused effects on the atmosphere that cause changes in
long-term meteorological patterns due to global warming and other factors is generally referred
to as "climate change." Due to the importance of the "greenhouse effect" and related
atmospheric warming to climate change, the gases that affect such warming are called
greenhouse gases or GHGs. The GHGs of primary importance are carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide. Because CO2 is the most abundant of these gases, GHGs
are usually quantified in terms of CO2 equivalents, or CO2e. CO2 is not considered an air
"pollutant" that causes direct health-related impacts, so it is not subject to ambient standards
used to gauge pollutant concentrations in the air.
The global climate changes continuously, as evidenced by repeated episodes of warming and
cooling documented in the geologic record. But the rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past
10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily
retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed an unprecedented increase in
the rate of warming over the past 150 years. This recent warming has coincided with the
Industrial Revolution, which resulted in widespread deforestation to accommodate development
and agriculture along with increasing use of fossil fuels. These sources have released substantial amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere and resulted in GHG levels unprecedented in the
modern geologic record.
Professional opinion of Richard Steffel, Principal with Ramboll Environ based on numerous previous analyses of
emissions associated with construction projects subject to General Conformity review. Under these rules, only a
very small portion of the overall WSCC Addition project would be considered in relation to the de minimis levels
(i.e., those subject to the "continuing program responsibility" of the approving federal agency), and any related
emissions would not be sufficient to exceed the thresholds and require additional analysis.

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-2
GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities, and GHGs trap heat in the
atmosphere. The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. While
research has shown that the Earth's climate has natural warming and cooling cycles, the
overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that emissions related to human activities
have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere far beyond the level of naturallyoccurring concentrations and that this in turn is resulting in more heat being held within the
atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of
scientists from 130 countries, has concluded that it is "very likely" representing a probability of
greater than 90 percent that human activities and fossil fuels explain most of the warming over
the past 50 years (IPCC, 2007a).
The IPCC predicts that under current human GHG emission trends, the following results could
be realized within the next 100 years (IPCC 2007b):
global temperature increases between 1.1 6.4 degrees Celsius;
potential sea level rise between 18 to 59 centimeters or 7 to 22 inches;
reduction in snow cover and sea ice;
potential for more intense and frequent heat waves, tropical cycles and heavy
precipitation; and
impacts to biodiversity, drinking water and food supplies.
The Climate Impacts Group (CIG) is a Washington-state based interdisciplinary research group
that collaborates with federal, state, local, tribal, and private agencies, organizations, and
businesses, and studies impacts of natural climate variability and global climate change on the
Pacific Northwest. CIG research and modeling indicates the following possible impacts of
human-based climate change in the Pacific Northwest (CIG, 2009):
changes in water resources, such as decreased snowpack, earlier snowmelt, decreased

water for irrigation, fish and summertime hydropower production, increased conflicts
over water, and increased urban demand for water;
changes in salmon migration and reproduction;
changes in forest growth and species diversity and increases in forest fires; and
changes along coasts, such as increased coastal erosion and beach loss due to rising
sea levels, increased landslides due to increased winter rainfall, permanent inundation in
some areas, and increased coastal flooding due to sea level rise and increased winter
stream flow.
Regulatory/Guidance Framework
There are no specific emission reduction requirements or targets applicable to the proposed
facility, nor are there any generally accepted emission level "impact" thresholds with which to
assess potential localized or global impacts related to GHG emissions. Instead, there are State
and local policies and programs intended to consider and reduce GHG emissions over time as
described below.

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-3
Western Regional Climate Action Initiative

On February 26, 2007, the Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Washington signed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) to develop regional strategies to
address climate change. WCI is identifying, evaluating, and implementing collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the region. Subsequent to this original agreement,
the Governors of Utah and Montana, as well as the Premiers of British Columbia and Manitoba
joined the Initiative. The WCI objectives include setting an overall regional reduction goal for
GHG emissions, developing a design to achieve the goal and participating in The Climate
Registry, a multi-state registry to enable tracking, management, and crediting for entities that
reduce their GHG emissions.
On September 23, 2008, the WCI released their final design recommendations for a regional
cap-and-trade program. This program would cover GHG emissions from electricity generation,
industrial and commercial fossil fuel combustion, industrial process emissions, gas and diesel
consumption for transportation, and residential fuel use. The first phase of the program began
January 1, 2012, and regulates electricity emissions and some industrial emission sources.
Thus, this program is not applicable to the proposed WSCC Addition, per se.
State of Washington
In February of 2007, Executive Order No. 07-02 established goals for Washington regarding
reductions in climate pollution, increases in jobs, and reductions in expenditures on imported
fuel (Washington, Office of the Governor, 2007). The goals for reducing GHG emissions were
as follow: to reach 1990 levels by 2020 and to reduce emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels
by 2035 and 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This order was intended to address climate
change, grow the clean energy economy, and move Washington toward energy independence.
The Washington Legislature in 2007 passed SB 6001, which among other things, adopted the
Executive Order No. 07-02 goals into statute.
In 2008, the Washington Legislature built on SB 6001 by passing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill (E2SHB 2815). While SB 6001 set targets to reduce emissions, the E2SHB 2815
made those state-wide requirements (RCW 70.235.020) and directed the state to submit a
comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction plan to the Legislature by December 1, 2008. As part
of the plan, the Department of Ecology was mandated to develop a system for reporting and
monitoring greenhouse gas emissions within the state and a design for a regional multi-sector,
market-based system to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with the
requirements in RCW 70.235.020.
In 2008, Ecology issued a memorandum stating that climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions should be included in all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) analyses and
committed to providing further clarification and analysis tools. (Manning, 2008) In 2009,
Executive Order 09-05 ordered Washington State agencies to reduce climate-changing GHG
emissions, to increase transportation and fuel-conservation options for Washington residents,
and protect the State's water supplies and coastal areas. This Executive Order directs state
agencies to develop a regional emissions reduction program; develop emission reduction
strategies and industry emissions benchmarks to make sure 2020 reduction targets are met;
work on low-carbon fuel standards or alternative requirements to reduce carbon emissions from
the transportation sector; address rising sea levels and the risks to water supplies; and increase

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-4
transit options (e.g., buses, light rail, and ride-share programs) and give Washington residents
more choices for reducing the effect of transportation emissions.
On December 1, 2010, Ecology adopted Chapter 173-441 WAC Reporting of Emission of
Greenhouse Gases. This rule aligns the State's greenhouse gas reporting requirements with
EPA regulations, and requires facilities and transportation fuel suppliers that directly emit 10,000
metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) or more per year, to report their GHG
emissions to Ecology. Requirements for reporting began on January 1, 2012. Note that the
proposed WSCC Addition would directly emit GHGs only from sources requiring on-site fuel
use, so direct GHG emissions would be much less than this reporting threshold.
City of Seattle
In 2007, the Seattle City Council adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to
achieving reductions in GHG emissions. Later that year, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 122574, which requires City departments that perform environmental review under SEPA to
evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when reviewing permit applications for development. In April 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 123575, which amended the City's
Comprehensive Plan (Section E on Environment) to provide that a forthcoming Climate Action
Plan would identify strategies for reducing GHG and would include methods for reducing
Vehicle Miles Traveled. The Office of Sustainability & Environment has since developed a new
Climate Action Plan to meet the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050; the plan was adopted by the
Seattle City Council on June 17, 2013.
Based on current State and local policies the proposed WSCC Addition is required, as part of
this SEPA environmental review process, to report an estimate of lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with the proposed project. But it is not subject to specific emission limitations or
mitigation requirements.
3.2.2
Impacts of Alternatives 1-6

Each of the development alternatives associated with Site A would involve demolition of the
existing CPS facilities on-site among other activities, as described in Section II. Such activities
could result in temporary, localized increases in particulate concentrations due to emissions
from construction-related sources. Impacts from King County Site Work activities would be
similar to but less than those described below for construction.
Construction
Each of the development alternatives associated with Site A and/or the co-development sites
(Sites B and C) would involve an extensive amount of construction activity that includes:
excavation, demolition of existing buildings on-site, and new on-site construction and staging
areas with activities over a period of about three years (refer to analysis in Section 2.6 of this
DEIS). Such activities could result in temporary, localized increases in particulate
concentrations due to emissions from construction-related sources. For example, dust from
construction activities such as excavation, grading, and filling would contribute to ambient
concentrations of suspended particulate matter. Construction contractors would be required to
Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-5
comply with PSCAA regulations requiring that reasonable precautions be taken to minimize dust
emissions.
Demolition of existing structures would require the removal and disposal of building materials,
some of which could contain asbestos. If this proves to be the case, demolition contractors
would be required to comply with EPA and PSCAA regulations related to the safe removal and
disposal of any asbestos-containing materials.
Construction would require the use of heavy trucks, excavators, graders, cranes, pile drivers,
and a range of smaller equipment such as generators, pumps, and compressors. Emissions
from existing transportation sources around the project area would very likely outweigh any
emissions resulting from construction equipment. Pollution control agencies are nonetheless
now urging that emissions from diesel equipment be minimized to the extent practicable to
reduce potential health risks. Construction contractors would minimize emissions from dieselpowered construction equipment to the extent practicable by taking steps such as those
discussed in Section 3.2.3.
With appropriate controls, construction-related diesel emissions would not be likely to
substantially affect air quality in the project vicinity.
Although some construction phases would cause odors, particularly during paving operations
that involve the using tar and asphalt, any odors related to construction would be short-term and
located within a busy commercial area where such odors would likely go unnoticed.
Construction contractor(s) would be required to comply with PSCAA regulations that prohibit the
emission of any air contaminant in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration
as is, or is likely to be, injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or property, or which
unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property.
Construction Effects on Traffic

Construction equipment, material hauling, and street closures and detours would affect traffic
flow within the vicinity of the project site, especially if construction vehicles travel during peak
periods or other heavy-traffic hours of the day and pass through congested areas. As described
in Sections 2.6 and 3.17, project construction would involve long-term street closures and
detours. But these temporary changes to the transportation system in the project vicinity would
be designed to minimize traffic disruptions, which would in turn help to reduce traffic congestion
and related vehicle emissions. Although there could be short-term periods with increased
congestion and increased vehicle emissions, such events would likely be the exception rather
than the rule and significant adverse effects to air quality would be unlikely.
Construction and Indoor Air Quality

As noted in Section 2.6 of this DEIS - in advance of project construction - King County Metro
would close the existing Convention Place Station. As described in Section 2.6, during early
stages of facility construction some bus operations could continue to occur from Site A in order
to maintain regional bus service. Any emissions from buses operating inside a portion of the
facility during construction would be exhausted from the facility by fans designed for this
purpose. As a result, indoor air quality would not be significantly adversely affected.

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-6
Overall Construction-Related Air Quality

With implementation of the controls required for the various aspects of construction activities
and consistent use of best management practices to minimize on-site emissions, construction of
the proposed project would not be expected to significantly affect air quality. Note that the air
quality implications of redevelopment of the project sites likely to occur with the No Action
alternative (i.e., in the absence to any of the development associated with the WSCC Addition)
would be expected to be similar to those discussed above for the project build alternatives.
Operational Impacts
Traffic-Related Air Quality
Analytical Methods
The proposed WSCC Addition would result in an increase in vehicular traffic to and from the
facility that would increase emissions proximate to this facility. To assess the potential for
localized air quality problems due to this increase in traffic, projected future traffic conditions
with and without the project were examined and a screening level review was conducted. This
analysis focused on potential for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions to cause localized "hot
spots" based on EPA guidance (1992). This hot spot review, therefore, considered conditions at
the study area signalized intersections that are projected to be most affected by project-related
peak-period traffic.
Tabulations of study area intersections' operational characteristics in terms of "level of service"
(LOS) and per-vehicle and total delay are shown in the two following tables. Table 3.2-1 shows
the conditions for the AM peak period, and Table 3.2-2 shows the conditions for the PM peak
period. Note that for the sake of brevity both tables show only some of the traffic scenarios
considered in the traffic impact assessment and show only those study area intersections where
future LOS is forecast to be "D" or worse, which per EPA guidance (1992), is a precondition for
a potential air quality problem from CO. The summaries shown in these two tables reflect the
finding of the review that the project "build" alternative shown (i.e., Alternative 4.1 with Terry
Ave. open and Ninth Ave. as Two-Way) is the future condition representing the most intersection congestion and largest peak-period volumes. Thus this alternative future scenario has
the greatest potential to result in intersection air quality problems.
Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2 show the intersection LOS letter "grade" along with the per-vehicle
delay computed as part of the traffic impact assessment (see Section 3.17). Using this information and the projected peak-period volumes through each intersection, the total hours of delay
during the respective AM and PM peak periods were computed and are listed in both tables. As
shown in these tables (with yellow highlighting), the single most congested intersection in the
project study area that would be affected by project-related traffic is the intersection of Fairview
Ave. N. with Mercer St. Although other intersections closer to the site of the proposed WSCC
Addition would be affected by larger volumes of facility-related traffic, by considering the
potential for air quality problems at the most congested intersection of Fairview/Mercer it is
possible to screen for peak-peak air pollutant hot spots where concentrations might exceed the
heath-protective ambient air quality standards. Thus, this intersection was the focus of the air
quality screening-modeling analysis.

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-7
Table 3.2-1
AM PEAK-PERIOD INTERSECTION CONDITIONS (intersections with LOS D or worse)
Intersection
ID #
Name
2015
Existing
Per
Vehicle
Delay
LOS
(secs)
2021
Baseline (BL)
Per
Vehicle
Total
Delay
Delay
LOS (secs) (hours)
2021 Alt 4.1_3

Terry Open/9th Two-Way
Per
Change
Vehicle
Total
From
Delay
Delay
BL
LOS (secs) (hours) (hours)
Fairview Ave N &

Mercer St
66.7
137.5
259.7
138.3
263.0
3.2
Fairview Ave N &

Harrison St
21.4
45.0
25.7
52.9
31.5
5.8
Fairview Ave N &

Denny Way
36.7
76.7
77.2
80.6
83.7
6.5
Boren Ave &

Virginia St
68.9
90.2
52.7
100.1
62.1
9.4
Eastlake Ave E &

John St/ I-5
Ramps
28.8
37.2
30.6
40.0
33.7
3.1
10
Stewart St &
Denny Way
32.1
121.3
145.6
134.2
165.4
19.8
13
Boren Ave &

Stewart St
35.0
46.1
45.7
54.1
56.5
10.8
19
Yale Ave & Howell

St
89.9
125.7
58.5
129.1
62.5
4.0
21
Boren Ave &

Howell St
17.1
30.8
22.9
47.4
37.9
15.0
24
Melrose Ave & E

Olive Way
46.0
109.2
52.8
144.5
73.9
21.1
25
Boren Ave & Olive

Way
37.2
72.8
58.4
76.5
66.1
7.7
31
Boren Ave & Pine

St
42.4
61.6
53.3
71.9
65.5
12.2
34
9th Ave & Pike St/

I-5 Express
Ramps
49.2
53.4
22.2
53.6
23.3
1.1
Source: LOS and underlying volume data provided by Transpo Group; for additional information
regarding terms used, refer to section 3.17; computations by Ramboll Environ

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-8
TABLE 3.2-2
PM PEAK-PERIOD INTERSECTION CONDITIONS (intersections with LOS D or worse)
Intersection
ID #
Name
2015
Existing
Per
Vehicle
Delay
LOS
(secs)
2021
Baseline (BL)
Per
Vehicle
Total
Delay
Delay
LOS (secs) (hours)
2021 Alt 4.1_3

Terry Open/9th Two-Way
Per
Change
Vehicle
Total
From
Delay
Delay
BL
LOS (secs) (hours) (hours)
Fairview Ave N &

Mercer St
62.9
117.8
240.3
120.9
248.6
8.2
Fairview Ave N &

Republican St
8.2
39.8
28.2
41.4
30.0
1.8
Fairview Ave N &

Harrison St
20.4
71.7
48.2
72.1
50.0
1.9
Fairview Ave N &

Denny Way
35.7
72.6
72.6
73.1
75.5
2.9
Boren Ave &

Virginia St
37.4
98.1
60.1
105.4
68.2
8.1
10
Stewart St &
Denny Way
33.6
83.4
71.1
87.1
74.8
3.7
11
Yale Ave &

Stewart St
166.4
135.7
67.5
134.1
67.5
0.0
12
Minor Ave &

Stewart St
20.4
64.3
25.5
70.5
28.9
3.4
13
Boren Ave &

Stewart St
33.1
39.5
26.3
40.0
28.1
1.8
15
9th Ave & Stewart

St
13.6
38.0
17.0
42.8
19.7
2.8
19
Yale Ave & Howell

St
86.2
224.2
185.3
249.5
211.7
26.5
23
9th Ave & Howell

St
20.5
42.9
22.3
57.5
31.2
8.9
24
Melrose Ave & E

Olive Way
56.5
104.6
62.6
117.3
75.2
12.6
25
Boren Ave & Olive

Way
27.0
63.1
53.7
74.6
70.2
16.5
28
8th Ave & Olive

Way/ Howell St
15.9
45.3
30.7
42.7
27.6
-3.1
31
Boren Ave & Pine

St
28.4
33.2
22.1
40.2
29.5
7.4
Source: LOS and underlying volume data provided by Transpo Group; for additional information
regarding terms used, refer to section 3.17; computations by Ramboll Environ

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-9
Based on the Fairview/Mercer intersection configuration and traffic conditions including volumes, delays, and projected operational phasing, air quality screening modeling was conducted
using the latest version of the WSDOT WASIST tool. 2 This screening modeling tool applies
worst-case assumptions to estimate CO concentrations at nearby locations. This model uses
vehicle emission factors estimated using the latest available tool from the EPA, the
MOVES2014 model. 3 For this modeling, near-road receptors were placed along both sides of
each roadway "leg" of the analyzed intersections at 3, 25, 50, and 100 meters from cross
streets, 3 meters from the nearest traffic lane, and 1.8 meters above the ground (i.e., typical
sidewalk locations at breathing height). If, under these conditions, no problematic concentrations are predicted, no CO impacts are likely. 4 This analysis considered existing conditions and
future baseline and build conditions in 2021.
Traffic Air Quality Analysis Findings

The WASIST screening modeling results are listed in Table 3.2-3. As shown, the screeninglevel modeling based on assumed worst-case conditions indicates CO concentrations near the
most congested intersection in the project study area would be far less than the health-based
ambient air quality standards. This modeling also shows that at this intersection, project-related
traffic would cause no change compared with baseline conditions. Because the modeled intersection was the most congested location that would be affected by project-related traffic, CO
concentrations at all other project-affected intersections would be even lower. This finding
indicates that none of the project alternatives, including No Action, would be likely to cause CO
hot spots or be expected to result in any significant traffic-related air quality impacts.
Washington State Intersection Screening Tool (WASIST) Version 3.0, Washington State Department of
Transportation, June 2015
Jim Laughlin, WSDOT Air, Noise, and Energy Program Technical Manager, email of 5/18/2015 announcing the
release of WASIST 3.0
WSDOT 2009, WASIST 2.0 User's Manual, Washington State Department of Transportation, June 2009

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-10
Table 3.2-3
WASIST CALCULATED CO CONCENTRATIONS AT FAIRVIEW/MERCER INTERSECTION
Scenario
2015 Existing
2021 Baseline
2021 Alt 4.1_3
Terry Open/9th
Two-Way 4
Peak
Period
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
1-Hour
Conc. (ppm) 1, 2, 3
6.3
6.3
5.8
5.9
5.8
8-Hour
Conc. (ppm) 1
5.9
5.9
5.6
5.6
5.6
PM
5.9
5.6
Ambient
Standards 1
1 hr = 35 ppm
8-hr = 9 ppm
Source: Ramboll Environ, based on modeling using the WSDOT WASIST tool
CO concentrations are typically quantified in terms of parts per million, or ppm, and both the WASISTcalculated concentrations and the related ambient air quality standards are expressed in these units.
2
One-hour concentrations include a 5-ppm background concentration to reflect the potential contribution from
other traffic or other sources in the vicinity. This is a very conservative assumption.
3
The WASIST screening tool contains a variety of standard intersection configurations from which to choose as
the basis of the air quality modeling. But none of the available options were precisely representative of the
actual configuration of the Fairview/Mercer intersection. The modeling therefore used the most conservative
configuration available (based on sensitivity test runs) as the basis for this analysis.
4
Some of the WASIST modeling input parameters for the 2021 WSCC build alternative were based on traffic
conditions (projected by the Transpo Group) for a slightly different version of the WSCC 4.1 build alternative.
But discussions with the traffic consultant indicated the primary input parameters used in WASIST modeling
(e.g., volumes, signal timing, etc.) would be the same as with the worst-case build alternative designated above.
So these results represent the worst-case traffic conditions with the proposed project.
1
Air Quality Related to Facility Operational Emissions

Mechanical Equipment
Operation of the proposed WSCC Addition would result in direct exhaust emissions from onsite food preparation activities as well as emissions from exhaust vents from underground or
otherwise enclosed parking and enclosed/interior truck loading and materials staging areas.
Some of these exhaust vents would probably be located near ground level as well as at
elevated positions on the buildings and/or on the facility roof. Emissions from vents near ground
level, and especially emission from any vents for odorous gases would have the greatest
potential to be perceived by people nearby. While such emissions might at times be noticeable
to any people nearby, these emissions would be unlikely to result in air quality impacts. Any
odorous emissions would be subject to the requirements of the PSCAA rules that prohibit
significant odor impacts. Similar issues and rules would apply to any development that would be
likely to occur under the No Action alternative.
Facility Operations Related Trucking

Normal operations of any of the alternative configurations of the WSCC Addition would entail
use of large trucks for transporting materials used for displays and exhibits to and from the
facility. The air quality implications of emissions from these vehicles were accounted for in the
off-site traffic air quality impact assessment discussed previously because such trucks were
factored into the traffic volumes and intersection operations considered. But such truck traffic
Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-11
also would result in air pollutant emissions in the immediate vicinity of the facility, and gross
levels of such vehicle emissions could vary somewhat by alternative facility configuration due to
the different levels of trucking required to meet the divergent facility use demands. It is unlikely,
however, that such emissions would result in significant air quality impacts or that any differences among the alternatives would be substantial because of the way truck traffic would be
managed prior to arrival at the WSCC facility. Current and future facility-related trucking is and
would continue to be "staged" while in route to/from the facility to maximize the efficient
sequencing and timing of arrivals and departures and minimize material handling and traffic
delays. For this reason, although the amounts of trucking associated the alternative facility
configurations would vary somewhat depending on the meeting floor space involved, the
continued careful management of facility-related trucking traffic would minimize the potential for
both localized traffic and air quality impacts. In addition, because there are only minor (e.g., 3-6
percent) differences among the alternatives in the total amounts of public assembly space, any
differences in localized trucking emissions would likely be negligible.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The GHG emissions associated with the EIS alternatives were calculated based on City of
Seattle GHG emissions calculation methods. The development alternatives' (see Section 2.2)
components as considered in the GHG estimate are shown in Table 3.2-4.
Table 3.2-4
ALTERNATIVE AREAS AND UNITS CONSIDERED IN GHG TABULATION
Components
Alternative
1
Residential
(approx. #
units)
0
Retail
(sq. ft.)
37,000
Office
(sq. ft.)
0
Public Assembly
(sq. ft.)
1,256,500
4.1
400
43,000
505,700
1,256,500
26,000
1,141,000
35,000
1,233,750
4.2
400
45,000
1,256,500
4.3
35,000
505,700
1,256,500
14,900
1,379,300
Source: Tabulation by Ramboll Environ based on project description
The results of the GHG emissions calculations are shown in Table 3.2-5 and the project
alternative emissions are discussed following the table. Appendix D contains the SEPA GHG
Worksheets associated with the project alternatives. This analysis does not quantify or take into
consideration any potential efforts to reduce either GHG emissions or resource consumption by
incorporating sustainable features into the development. However, it is assumed that
sustainable features would be incorporated into the project to reduce such impacts. These
sustainable features would be considered in the approach to the design of buildings, and in
ongoing site programming and management.

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-12
It is important to note that the scale of global climate change is so large that the impacts of any
one project, no matter the size, would almost certainly have no discernible effect on increasing
or decreasing global climate change. In reality, any such effects can only be considered on a
"cumulative" basis. It is, therefore, appropriate to conclude that the project's GHG emissions
would combine with emissions across the City, County, State, nation, and planet to cumulatively
contribute to increases or decreases in the rate and the effects of global climate change.
Table 3.2-5
ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Facility GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 1
Lifecycle Emissions 2
Office
Public Assembly
Total 2
0
1,158,460
1,190,382
Annual 3
Emissions
19,046
Alternati
ve
1
Residential
0
Retail
31,922
4.1
469,212
37,098
682,410
1,158,460
2,347,181
35,876
22,432
1,051,972
1,074,404
17,190
30,196
1,137,485
1,167,682
18,683
4.2
469,212
38,824
1,158,460
1,666,496
24,985
4.3
30,196
682,410
1,158,460
1,871,067
29,937
12,855
1,271,679
1,284,534
20,553
Source: City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet,
(Version 1.7) as used by Ramboll Environ
1
Note that this tabulation considers transportation-related GHG emissions only in terms of rough estimates
of vehicular emissions associated with the project based on gross averages of numbers of peoples and
average annual rates of driving. It does not include GHG emissions associated with air travel, which would
likely be a major component of emissions stemming from operation of the expanded facility. There is
simply no reasonable way to assess such emissions in a comparative manner that considers different
meeting locations (i.e., in other countries or cities) and/or modes of travel as options for such facilities.
2
Estimates of lifecycle emissions are based on an assumed average useful life of about 80 years for
residential structures and about 62 years for all other types of structures. These emissions are reported in
MTCO2e representing to metric tons (tonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 2,204.62 pounds of CO 2.
This metric is a standard measure of CO2 equivalent emissions that include CO2 and other GHGs. Note
that carbon is not the same as carbon dioxide, and sequestering 3.67 tons of CO 2 is equivalent to sequestering one ton of carbon.
3
Annual emissions estimates are based dividing total emissions by respective assumed facility useful lifespans as indicated in note #2 above.
GHG Implications of the Project Build Alternatives

As shown in Table 3.2-5, over the assumed useful life of the respective alternative facility/site
configurations, the expanded WSCC facility would result in emissions from about 1.1 million to
2.3 million metric tons (MTCO2e) of GHGs. The preferred alternative with co-development
(Alternative 4.1) would result in the greatest GHG emissions, because this alternative would
have the most developed area in all four building component types that were considered (Table
3.2-4). Converting these life-cycle emissions to approximate annual emissions (right column of
Table 3.2-5) indicates the alternative facility configurations would result in GHG emissions
ranging from about 17,000 to about 36,000 MTCO2e each year. To put these values into some
context, in an interim Washington state GHG emissions inventory, Ecology estimated state-wide

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-13
annual GHG emissions in 2012 at about 92 million MTCO2e. 5 Estimated annual worldwide GHG
emissions for 2010 were about 46 billion MTCO2e. 6 Thus, WSCC Addition annual GHG emissions (excluding some transportation-related emissions per footnote #1 in Table 3.2-5)
represent from about 0.02 to about 0.04 percent of estimated annual 2012 GHG emissions
within Washington, and very much smaller percentages of worldwide emissions.
And to reiterate, the estimates of facility GHG emissions do not consider any potential efforts to
reduce GHG emissions and/or resource consumption by incorporating sustainable features into
the development, although such sustainable features would be incorporated into the project by
virtue of the City's Building and Energy Code requirements and the likely use of green building
technologies. In addition, the facility would be located in a pedestrian friendly neighborhood,
with excellent proximity to public transit, including transport to and from the regional airport.
These factors have potential to reduce private car use/trips and, therefore, GHG emissions
associated with transportation demand.
Finally, as discussed previously for air quality related to trucking of materials to/from the facility
as part of normal operations, the additional emissions associated with more trucking with the
larger alternative facility configurations also would include larger amounts of GHGs compared to
alternative with less trucking. But even though these emissions could not be specifically
quantified using available data, such trucking emissions would be a small component of overall
GHG emissions associated with the facility, and any differences in emissions cannot be used to
meaningfully distinguish among the project alternatives.
The GHG emissions associated with the proposed WSCC Addition would contribute to the
cumulative carbon footprint of the City of Seattle. No significant climate changes impacts would
be expected due to facility-related GHG emissions.
In the absence of any of the build alternatives associated with the WSCC Addition, over time
there would still likely be major levels of development on the project sites. While it is not
possible to quantify GHG emissions associated with such development in the absence of specific information, it is possible to speculate about possible differences in GHG emissions compared with the proposed project. With No Action, similar levels of residential and commercial
development would likely occur on the project sites, resulting in similar levels of construction,
operational, and basic (i.e., surface vehicle) transportation generated GHG emissions. But some
transportation-related emissions could be substantially lower with No Action due to the
absence of probable long-distance (e.g., air travel) transportation associated with the WSCC
Addition. It was not possible to quantify any such differences, or, for the reasons discussed
previously, to estimate how such reductions might affect global climate change.
3.2.3
The analyses described above indicate that the proposed project would be unlikely to result in
any significant adverse air quality impacts. Other than the implementation and use of best
management practices required by City policies, no additional specific mitigation measures are
5
6
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ghg_inventory.htm
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-14
required. Examples of emission control best practices and sustainability measures that may be
implemented are discussed below.

Significant air quality impacts are not anticipated due to the King County Site Work.
Construction contractors would be required to comply with all relevant federal, state, and local
air quality regulations. In addition, implementation of best management practices would reduce
emissions related to the demolition of existing facilities on Site A and activities associated with
the King County Site Work alternatives.
Construction
Although significant air quality impacts are not anticipated due to construction of the proposed
WSCC Addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with all relevant federal,
state, and local air quality regulations. In addition, implementation of best management
practices would reduce emissions related to the construction phase of the project. Management
practices for reducing the potential for air quality impacts during construction include measures
for reducing both exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. The Washington Associated General
Contractors brochure Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects and the
PSCAA suggest a number of methods for controlling dust and reducing the potential exposure
of people to emissions from diesel equipment. A list of some of the control measures that could
be implemented to reduce potential air quality impacts from construction activities follows:
Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition.
Require all off-road equipment to have emission reduction equipment (e.g., require
participation in Puget Sound Region Diesel Solutions, a program designed to reduce
air pollution from diesel, by project sponsors and contractors).
Use car-pooling or other trip-reduction strategies for construction workers.
Implement restrictions on construction truck and other vehicle idling (e.g., limit idling to
a maximum of 5 minutes).
Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PM and
deposition of particulate matter.
Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that would be exposed for long periods.
Cover all trucks transporting materials, wetting materials in trucks, or providing

adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed), to
reduce PM emissions and deposition during transport.
Provide wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried
off-site by vehicles in order to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area
roadways.
Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris.
Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to

reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction.

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-15
Other than direct construction equipment and activity emissions that would be addressed as
described above, the largest potential emissions source related to facility construction would be
traffic-related emissions associated with disrupted and/or rerouted traffic in the site vicinity. City
of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) policies will require that the WSCC Addition
project construction planning/permitting include a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for
traffic. This CMP will be developed in cooperation with SDOT and DPD to minimize traffic
impacts from construction activities and traffic.
Facility Operations
The screening analysis described above indicates that operation of the proposed facility would
not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts. Consequently, no specific additional
mitigation is necessary or proposed.
GHG and Sustainability

The proposed WSCC Addition would embrace multiple sustainable design, construction, and
operational practices targeting a LEED Certification and the Seattle 2030 District goals, and
would be designed to comply with provisions of the City's Energy Code. 7,8 In addition, the
following measures could be employed to further reduce energy use, increase sustainable
building design, and reduce GHG emissions. Key measures that are being explored include:
High performance glazing could be installed with low-E coatings to further reduce heat
gain.
There could be a reflective roof surface treatment to reduce the 'heat island effect' on the
roof of the facility.
Drought resistant and tolerant planting could be planted in landscaped areas to minimize
irrigation requirements.
Maximize use of outside air for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.
Efficient light fixtures could be on occupancy and daylight sensors, as well as nighttime
sweep controls.
Low flow plumbing fixtures could result in a 30 percent reduction of water consumption.
Low VOC emitting materials could be used for finishes, adhesives primers and sealants.
Recycled content and rapidly renewable materials could be incorporated into project
design, including: concrete, steel and fibrous materials (bamboo, straw, jute, etc.).
Construction waste management could include salvaging demolished material and

construction waste for recycling.
LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. This is a Green Building rating system that that is
published by the U.S. Green Building Council to address energy efficiency largely in the areas of building siting,
design and operation.
The Seattle 2030 District is an interdisciplinary public-private collaborative working to create a groundbreaking
high-performance building district in downtown Seattle that seeks to develop realistic, measurable, and innovative
strategies to assist district property owners, managers, and tenants in meeting aggressive goals that reduce
environmental impacts of facility construction and operations. http://www.2030district.org/seattle/

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-16
3.2.4
Commitment to the Seattle 2030 District pilot program to reduce energy and water
consumption, as well as CO2 emissions from auto and freight traffic.
No significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts have been identified and none are
anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.2
3.2-17
3.3
PEDESTRIAN-LEVEL WIND
The following pedestrian wind assessment was prepared for the proposed development to
evaluate the potential for adverse wind conditions on or around the development site with
respect to pedestrian comfort and safety. The assessment was comprised of a qualitative
"desk" study of the wind environment for each of the proposed development alternatives based
on professional judgment and experience, the scientific literature, and an analysis of local
meteorology.
3.3.2
Pedestrian-Level Wind Terminology

Building effects on surface wind speeds vary depending on building mass and orientation with
respect to the incoming wind. In general, high surface wind speeds in the urban environment
are the result of downwash of momentum from aloft and/or acceleration through gaps. As
shown in Figure 3.3-1, tall square buildings with smooth, uniform facades can act like a "sail,"
collecting momentum from aloft and diverting it downward toward the surface. Such downwash
can result in strong gusty winds at the surface at the windward facade of the building.
Downwash also creates a pressure gradient between the windward and leeward facades of the
building that can accelerate the wind around the windward building corners. Downwash effects
can be enhanced in the case where a short building is immediately upwind of a tall building:
winds can accelerate within the gap between the two buildings. Also shown in Figure 3.3-1,
winds also can accelerate through building gaps by an effect known as channeling or gap flow.
Figure 3.3-1. Downwashing flow (left) and channeling flow (right).

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
Pedestrian-Level Wind
3.3-1
General Assessment Criteria

There are no State or local regulatory requirements or guidelines for pedestrian wind comfort
and safety in the Seattle metropolitan area. For purposes of this evaluation, a set of criteria
based on the widely-adopted Lawson system1 was used that relates pedestrian comfort and
safety to frequency of wind speed class. These criteria define a set of acceptable wind
conditions for exterior locations such as occupant seating areas, building entrances, walkways,
and roadways/parking lots. Criteria are categorized based on the Beaufort wind-force scale and
a threshold percent of time the Beaufort force should not be exceeded. The criteria are
represented graphically in Figure 3.3-2. The Beaufort wind-force classes are defined in Table
3.3-1. For example, if a sidewalk area exceeds Beaufort Class 4 more than 6% of the time, the
wind climate conditions could be considered uncomfortable for pedestrians. A Beaufort wind
force of "7" compromises the safety threshold for pedestrians and should occur no more than
once per year.
Figure 3.3-2. Wind Comfort and Safety Criteria
Lawson, 2001.

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-2
Table 3.3-1
Beaufort Wind Force Classes
Class
Wind speed (mph)
Wind speed (m/s)
Conditions
< 1.0
< 0.5
Calm
1.0 4.5
0.5 - 2
Light air
4.5 6.7
2-3
Light breeze
6.7 11.2
3-5
Gentle breeze
11.2 17.9
5-8
Moderate breeze
17.9 24.6
8 - 11
Fresh breeze
24.6 31.3
11 - 14
Strong breeze
31.3 38.0
14 - 17
Near gale, walking difficult
8+
38.0 +
17 +
Gale, walking very difficult
Wind Climate and Setting

The wind climate in the Puget Sound region is highly variable due to the interplay of local and
large-scale weather features with the complex terrain of the region. In winter, spring, and
autumn the region typically is dominated by southwesterly marine winds. Occasionally, strong
mid-latitude cyclones and fronts can promote strong south to southwesterly winds in the region.
North winds are also prevalent during the winter months during calm periods of high pressure.
Occasionally, stronger north winds can occur during periods of cold continental outflow or after
the passage of strong winter cold fronts. In the summer, light to moderate north winds are
prevalent during the day due to the "Sound Breeze," a local sea breeze circulation.
Local wind climates vary substantially due to the terrain and diverse microclimates in the Puget
Sound region. In considering winds, it is important to identify the most representative meteorological dataset for a wind climate evaluation. Although SeaTac International Airport (KSEA)
meteorological data are often used to evaluate regional wind climate, these data do not
adequately represent the wind climate of Downtown Seattle. High quality hourly meteorological
data from the Pier 52 Seattle Ferry Terminal (EBSW1) meteorological station were obtained for
this assessment. EBSW1 wind measurements are collected by an anemometer at a height of
15 meters on a tower maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Ocean Service.
The frequency distributions of wind speeds and wind directions for a 10-year period (July 2005
July 2015) are depicted graphically in Figure 3.3-3. The strongest wind speeds occur most
typically during south-southwest winds. A histogram of the frequency of Beaufort wind-force
class, based on the 10-year EBSW1 dataset, is shown in Figure 3.3-4. Beaufort Class 3 is
exceeded about 6% of the time, so based on the criteria shown in Figure 3.3-2 the Downtown
Seattle area is marginally acceptable for pedestrian standing and entrances without sheltering.
Beaufort Class 7 and 8+ conditions both occur less than once per year on average.

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-3
The proposed WSCC Addition development site is located in the Downtown core of Seattle,
downwind of many of the tall towers in the Central Business District with respect to the
prevailing south-southwest wind. The dense network of taller buildings and large structures
upwind of the site should provide sufficient shelter from strong south-southwest winds, albeit
wind turbulence intensity will be high. In other words, during periods of strong southwest winds,
the magnitude of average wind speed may be muted at the WSCC Addition site, but winds will
be turbulent.
During strong west-southwesterly wind events, wind channeling down Pine St. could transport
higher speed winds to the southwest corner of Site A. However, the orientation and massing of
upwind buildings along the Pine St. corridor is likely not favorable for significant acceleration of
wind.
Figure 3.3-3. 10-Year Average Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-4
Figure 3.3-4. Histogram of Beaufort Class Frequency

3.3.3

None of the King County Site Work alternatives are expected to cause any direct, significant
pedestrian level wind-related impacts.
Construction
Construction activity is not expected to cause any direct, significant pedestrian level windrelated impacts.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 involves development of the approximately 176-ft. (height above Pine St.) to 217ft. (height above Olive Way) tall WSCC Addition on Site A. No co-development is included for
this alternative, thus no structures of significant height or massing are proposed for Sites B or
C.
At a height of 176 ft.-217 ft., the WSCC Addition would be taller than existing structures to the
immediate south (which have average heights of 100-120 ft.). To the immediate west and
southwest, several tall towers likely shelter the Site A development from strong winds. To the
north, Site A is currently more exposed, but development that is underway will eventually fill in
Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-5
the area north of the site with tall buildings of significant massing that will provide additional
shelter.
Pine Street Faade

The large massing of the Pine St. (southeast) facade of the WSCC Addition and its relatively
uniform glazed surfaces would tend to promote some downwash and acceleration of winds at
the windward corners of the building. However, the southeast facade of the building does not
align favourably with the common strong southwest winds, thus typically avoiding significant
downwash. In addition, the dense core of tall towers and structures upwind of the WSCC
Addition site likely provide sufficient sheltering from strong winds. In the rare case of strong
southeast gusts, some downwash and building-corner acceleration could occur. However, the
design incorporates overhead canopies along the Pine St. faade sidewalks. Sidewalk canopies
prevent high winds at pedestrian level by diverting downwash flow and preventing the build-up
of surface pressure gradients that support acceleration around building corners. Therefore, no
significant acceleration of winds due to downwash is expected to affect pedestrians along the
Pine St. faade.
Additionally, no significant acceleration of winds due to channeling is expected along the Pine
St. faade of Site A. Although Pine St. is aligned with the prevalent southwest winds, the
staggered arrangement and massing of upwind structures is unfavorable for channeling.
Olive Way Faade

During rare strong north-northeast winds, the Olive Way (northwest) facade of the building may
initially be prone to downwash and acceleration of wind at the building corners until future
upwind development of tall buildings provides shelter. Strong north winds are not as frequent as
strong southwest winds, but the site currently has greater exposure to the north. Regardless,
the design incorporates overhead canopies along the Olive Way faade sidewalks. Therefore,
no significant acceleration of winds due to downwash is expected to affect pedestrians using the
Olive Way sidewalks and the Ninth Ave. and Olive Way entrance.
Additionally, no significant acceleration of winds due to channeling is expected along the Olive
Way faade of Site A. Although Olive Way is aligned with the prevalent southwest winds, it is
expected that the upwind buildings adequately shelter the project site and prevent significant
wind acceleration.
9th Avenue Faade

High wind speeds at pedestrian level are not expected to occur along the 9th Ave. faade. The
shape of the west side of the Site A building is unfavorable for the promotion of downwash or
channeling. This portion of Site A is also sheltered from strong southwest winds by large upwind
buildings.
Boren Avenue Faade

High wind speeds at pedestrian level are not expected to occur along the Boren Ave. faade.
Strong east winds rarely, if ever, occur. It is highly unlikely that downwash would ever occur

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-6
along this faade of the Site A building. Channeling is also unlikely because the east side of the
Site A building is bordered by the relatively open space of the I-5 corridor.
Alternative 4.1
Alternative 4.1 involves the same Site A development as Alternative 1, with co-development
of a 29-story residential tower with podium on Site B and a 16-story office tower with podium on
Site C.
Pine Street Faade

The analysis and recommendations for the Pine St. facade of Site A provided for Alternative 1
are applicable to Alternative 4.1, since the co-developed towers at Sites B and C would
provide no sheltering during south winds.
Olive Way Faades

The co-developed towers on Sites B and C would shield Site A from strong north and northeast
winds. Such shielding would significantly reduce the risk of downwash flow along the Olive Way
facade of the Site A development.
During strong south and southwest winds, downwash could occur along the Site B tower and C
tower Olive Way facades. However, the dense network of upwind buildings likely provides
sufficient shelter to limit the frequency of strong south winds at the site. In addition, the design
incorporates overhead canopies along the Olive Way faade sidewalks for both co-development
towers. The canopies are expected to adequately shelter pedestrians using the sidewalks and
building entrances if any downwash should occur. Therefore, no significant acceleration of
winds due to downwash is expected to affect pedestrians using the Olive Way sidewalks
adjacent to the co-developed towers on Sites B and C.
Wind channeling during southwest winds along Olive Way is unlikely due to the significant
sheltering provided by upwind buildings along Olive Way.
Howell St. Faades

The Site B and C towers could promote downwash of high-speed wind along the Howell St.
facades during strong north or northeast winds.
The design incorporates overhead canopies along the Howell St. Site B, and C faade
sidewalks. The canopies are expected to adequately shelter pedestrians using the sidewalks
and building entrances if any downwash should occur.
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, the WSCC Addition would be constructed on Site A only. No codevelopment would occur on Site B or Site C. Potential pedestrian-level wind effects would be
similar to those identified for Alternative 1.

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-7
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, development of the WSCC Addition would be similar to Alternative 1,
and no co-development would occur on Site B or C. It is anticipated that potential pedestrianlevel wind effects would be comparable to those identified for Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.2 would involve the same Site A development as Alternative 4.1, but would only
include co-development of a residential tower on Site B; no co-development would occur on
Site C. Pedestrian-level wind effects would be similar to Alternative 4.1 with some differences
due to the absence of co-development on Site C, as explained below.
The mass of the Site B building under Alterative 4.2 may not be sufficient to shelter the eastern
half of the Olive Way facade of the Site A building from strong north winds. Regardless, the Site
A design incorporates overhead canopies along all bordering sidewalks, which are expected to
adequately shelter pedestrians using the sidewalks and building entrances if any downwash
should occur.
It is unlikely that wind channeling along Olive Way between the Site A and Site B buildings
would result in adverse wind conditions. Although the orientation of Olive Way aligns with the
prevalent southwest wind, the density and staggered arrangement of upwind buildings would
tend to shelter this area from southwest winds.
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 4.3 would involve the same Site A development as Alternative 4.1, but only
include co-development of an office tower at Site C; no co-development would occur on Site B.
Pedestrian-level wind effects would be comparable to Alternative 4.1 with some differences
due to no co-development of Site B, as noted below.
The mass of the Site C building under Alterative 4.2 may not be sufficient to shelter the
western half of the Olive Way facade of the Site A building from strong north winds. Regardless,
the Site A design incorporates overhead canopies along all bordering sidewalks, which are
expected to adequately shelter pedestrians using the sidewalks and building entrances if any
downwash should occur.
It is unlikely that wind channeling along Olive Way between the Site A and Site C buildings
would result in adverse wind conditions. Although the orientation of Olive Way aligns with the
prevalent southwest wind, the density and staggered arrangement of upwind buildings would
tend to shelter this area from southwest winds.
Alternative 5
Under Alternative 5, the WSCC Addition would be constructed on Site A only. No codevelopment would occur on Site B or Site C. Potential pedestrian-level wind effects would be
similar to those identified for Alternative 1.

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-8
Alternative 6
Under Alternative 6, the proposed WSCC Addition would not be constructed on Site A.
However, consistent with the existing zoning, potential, future development of all three sites
would be expected. Depending on the size, orientation, and proposed features of the
developments, pedestrian-level wind impacts similar to those described for Alternatives 1
through 5 could occur.
3.3.4
Mitigation Measures
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of the Site A building. Such
canopies would divert downwash flow from pedestrian level and minimize the potential for
significant pedestrian-level wind impacts along the sidewalks and entries of Pine St. and Olive
Way. The design, therefore, meets or exceeds any mitigation measures suggested for
pedestrian wind protection.
Alternative 4.1
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of Site A, Site B, and Site C
wind protection.
Alternative 4.2
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of the Site A and Site B
wind protection.
Alternative 4.3
The design incorporates overhead canopies along all facades of the Site A and Site C
wind protection.
3.3.5
With the mitigation identified, no significant unavoidable adverse pedestrian-level wind effects
are expected.

Draft EIS
Section 3.3
3.3-9
3.4
Water
This section describes existing stormwater conditions and groundwater resources on the site.
Potential stormwater and groundwater impacts with construction and operation of the proposed
WSCC Addition are also analyzed.
3.4.1
Groundwater
This WSCC Addition site is located in the Central Puget Sound drainage basin with Elliott Bay
located approximately 0.6 miles west of the site. No wetlands or streams are present on or in
the vicinity of the site.
The static groundwater table on the site is anticipated to occur at varying elevations
approximately 70 to 93 feet below the ground surface, which is anticipated to be below depths
that would occur for the WSCC Addition under Alternatives 1-6. Groundwater levels are
anticipated to vary as a function of location, precipitation, season and other factors. Based on
area topography, the inferred groundwater flow direction is to the north. Perched groundwater
has been encountered in previous borings conducted on the site, and should be anticipated
near the geologic unit contacts. Groundwater levels are anticipated to vary as a function of
location, precipitation, season and other factors. Additional monitoring wells would be installed
as part of the planned subsurface exploration program for this project to further assess
groundwater conditions at the site1.
Stormwater
Under existing conditions, approximately 99 percent of the site is covered by impervious
surfaces. The site currently contains private stormwater conveyance facilities consisting of a
series of eight dedicated pipes that convey runoff to combined sewer/stormwater mains in Ninth
Ave., Boren Ave., and Howell St. These mains connect to the King County Metro system for
final treatment and disposal at the West Point Treatment Plant prior to discharge to Puget
Sound. Existing storm drainage piping and inlets and combined sewer mains and manholes in
Olive Way serve only the parcels being redeveloped as part of this project. This includes an
existing 21-inch combined sewer main on Olive Way and an existing 16-inch combined sewer
main on Terry Ave. Currently, there are no stormwater detention or treatment facilities on-site.
3.4.2

None of the King County Site Work alternatives are expected to cause any direct, significant
water-related impacts. As noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS, a temporary erosion and
sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management practices (BMPs), would be
GeoEngineers. 2015.

Draft EIS
Section 3.4
Water
3.4-1
implemented, in accordance with City of Seattle requirements.

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be implemented.
A Stormwater Pollution
Construction Impacts
Construction activity is not expected to cause any direct, significant water-related impacts. As
noted under 3.4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures, a TESCP, BMPs, and SWPPP would be
implemented.
New storm drainage piping, inlets and side sewers would be installed along the project
frontages along Howell St., Ninth Ave., Boren Ave., Pine St., and reconstructed Olive Way. The
Sound Transit cut and cover rail tunnel beneath Pine St. is anticipated to have an active
connection to the existing 16-inch combined sewer main for stormwater purposes. New storm
drainage infrastructure would be installed as part of the project on Pine St. to capture and
convey this tunnel stormwater flow.
Groundwater
Review of previous boring logs indicates that the static groundwater table is located below the
base of excavations that would occur for development under Alternatives 1-5. Perched
groundwater is present at higher elevations and temporary dewatering would be necessary to
manage perched groundwater during construction.
Water resources on and in the site vicinity could potentially be impacted during construction,
due to sedimentation and the release of pollutants during demolition and grading activities.
However, implementation of proposed temporary erosion and sediment control measures
(TESCP), as well as best management practices (BMPs) during construction, in accordance
with applicable requirements would prevent or minimize potential impacts to water resources. A
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by the City of Seattle and
Washington State Department of Ecology, would also be prepared and implemented to address
the potential for spills and pollutant releases during construction. As a result, no significant
impacts to water resources would be anticipated during construction activities under
Alternatives 1-5.
Stormwater
Construction activities associated with redevelopment under Alternatives 1 through 5 could
impact stormwater quality and downstream resources. As noted in Section 3.1, Earth the
quantity of earthwork necessary would be comparable among the alternatives with less
earthwork needed for Alternative 2, 5 and presumably 6, since only Site A would be involved
with those alternatives. Exposed soils would increase the risk of erosion and sediment
transport. Potential for erosion and sediment transport during construction would be greatly
increased during wet weather. In accordance with the City of Seattle Drainage Code and, as
noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS, a Large Project Construction Stormwater Control Plan
would be prepared and implemented for the proposed redevelopment. The Construction
Stormwater Control Plan would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to provide water
quality treatment and protect downstream resources. Construction-phase discharge of
stormwater would be accommodated by re-using existing sanitary or storm drain side sewers.

Draft EIS
Section 3.4
Water
3.4-2
Operational Impacts Common to Alternatives 1-5

Following development, 100 percent of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces.
Permanent stormwater control systems for the development would be designed and constructed
in accordance with the City of Seattle Drainage Code (adopted in 2009 and revised in 2015).
Under the permanent stormwater control system, stormwater would be collected and conveyed
to 8-inch dedicated storm drain side sewers. Four storm drain side sewers would be installed
for Alternates 1, 3, and 4.1, three for Alternatives 4.2 and 4.3, and two for Alternatives 2 and
5.
In accordance with Peak Flow Control standards (SMC 22.805.050), stormwater detention
would be provided via a detention facility constructed within the proposed WSCC Addition as a
below-slab detention vault. The vault would reduce capacity issues with Seattle Public Utilities
combined sewer system. On-site flow control may also be accomplished with Green
Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) potentially including a green roof.
Water quality treatment of stormwater runoff is not required on the WSCC Addition project site
by the City of Seattle Drainage Code, since the site discharges to the existing combined sewer
system, which already provides treatment at the West Point Treatment Plant. However, GSI
features incorporated into the development would provide some water quality treatment
nonetheless.
Alternative 6
Development that could occur under the No Action Alternative is expected to be consistent
with potential, future development that was envisioned for this site in the Downtown FEIS. The
mixed-use complex of buildings could include: 900 residential units; a 600,000-sq.-ft. office
tower; and an 800-room, 400,000-sq.-ft. hotel. Such development would only occur on Site A
and would require temporary and permanent stormwater control systems to be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City of Seattle Drainage Code, similar to those described for
Alternatives 1-5.
Cumulative Impacts
Added demands on the stormwater system in the site vicinity would be generated by future
redevelopment as it occurred. It is assumed that necessary improvements (including flow
control), extensions or connections to the existing combined sewer system associated with all
new projects would be designed and constructed in compliance with the Citys Drainage Code,
similar to the WSCC Addition. As a result, no significant cumulative impacts on water
resources would be anticipated from future projects, in combination with the proposed WSCC
Addition.
3.4.3
Measures that could be implemented to reduce the potential for impacts associated with the
proposed WSCC Addition include the following:
A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management
practices (BMPs), would be implemented during construction, in accordance with City of

Draft EIS
Section 3.4
Water
3.4-3
Seattle requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be

implemented.
A permanent stormwater control system would be installed, in accordance with the City
of Seattle requirements.
Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be included
in the stormwater control systems, to the greatest extent possible:
- Roof downspout control;
- Porous concrete, asphalt or pavers;
- Rain gardens; or
- A green roof.
3.4.4
No significant unavoidable adverse water impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.4
Water
3.4-4
3.5
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
3.5.1
As noted in Section II of this DEIS, the WSCC Addition site includes several existing buildings,
including: the King County Metro Convention Place Station (CPS), former automobile
showroom/office and a two-story brick building on Site A; a retail/restaurant building, and
temporary office building on Site B; and, a former automobile showroom/office on Site C.
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments1 (ESAs) were prepared for the Honda of
Seattle property and a portion of the WSCC Addition site in 1999 and 2013. In general, the
assessments identified the presence of gasoline- and oil-range total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH), concentrations of gasoline constituents benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
(BTEX), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and tetracholoroethene (PCE) in soil.
Contaminants of concern were not detected in groundwater samples obtained from the deep
regional groundwater beneath the WSCC Addition property.
However, petroleumcontaminated shallow perched groundwater was encountered beneath the former Honda of
Seattle service center on Site A. Several underground storage tanks (USTs) also were
identified on each of the sites.
The assessments identified the following environmental conditions at each site:
Site A
The NE corner of Site A was formerly utilized as the Honda of Seattle service center.
Two USTs associated with the former Honda of Seattle service center were reportedly
removed in 1998 and partial cleanups were completed at that time. However, based on
the results of the Phase II ESAs, gasoline- and heavy oil-range petroleum
hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and benzene, toluene, and
ethylbenzene (BTEX) are still present at concentrations greater than the Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA) 2 Method A cleanup levels below the former Honda of Seattle
building and in the adjacent alley. Additionally, petroleum product was observed on the
surface of shallow groundwater (well screen located between approximately 10 and 20
feet below the ground surface) in a monitoring well located in the basement of the
former Honda of Seattle service center. The regional groundwater beneath the WSCC
Addition is approximately 70 to 100 feet below the ground surface, so the shallow
water observed in this monitoring well is perched groundwater and is not representative
of regional groundwater conditions.
1
2
One 1,800-gallon heating oil UST associated with the former Honda of Seattle building
is still in place beneath the Boren Avenue sidewalk.
A gas station with at least one gasoline UST was formerly located on the southwest
corner of Site A. The status of the UST(s) associated with the former gas station and
the soil and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the USTs are unknown.
Hart Crowser, 1999 and GeoEngineers, 2013.

Model Toxic Control Act (RCW Chapter 70.105D).

Draft Supplemental EIS
Section 3.5
3.5-1
Asbestos and lead-based paint was identified within the existing building formerly
utilized by Honda of Seattle.
Several potential sources of contamination are present on sites adjacent to Site A.

Petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents and/or metals were documented to the east of Site A
in association with former gas station and vehicle maintenance uses. To the south of
Site A, solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons could also be present in conjunction with
historic dry cleaners/laundromat; the Paramount Theater site contained two USTs, and
approximately 4,500 tons of petroleum-contaminated soil was removed from the site in
conjunction with Sound Transits Pine Street stub tunnel construction. Cleanup of this
site has not been reported as complete and petroleum-contaminated soil may still be
present on the site.
Site B
Two gas stations were formerly located on Site B. One of the gas stations was located
on the eastern portion of Site B and consisted of three USTs (two containing gasoline
and one with unknown contents) that ranged in capacity between approximately 3,000and 5,000-gallons. The second former gas station was located on the western half of
Site B and consisted of three USTs (contents unknown) that ranged in capacity between
approximately 1,000- and 2,280-gallons. Both of the gas stations were demolished in
the 1970s and no documentation regarding the status of the USTs and the soil and
groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the USTs were available.
During the 2013 Phase II ESA study, heavy oil-range hydrocarbons were identified in
soil on the eastern half of Site B at concentrations below the Method A cleanup level.
PCE, benzene and gasoline-range petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in soil on the
western half of Site B during an August 2015 assessment (results not yet published).
Contaminants of potential concern were not detected in groundwater beneath Site B.
Site C
A gas station containing two gasoline USTs with capacities of approximately 2,000- and
2,500-gallons was formerly located on Site C. The gas station was demolished in the
1960s and no documentation on the status of the USTs were available. Gasoline-range
petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations greater than the Method A
cleanup level in soil samples obtained in the vicinity of the former gas station in 2013.
Historic site use on Site C also included a machine shop and a dry cleaner. PCE was
detected at concentrations greater than the Method A cleanup level in soil samples
obtained in the vicinity of the dry cleaner in 2013.
Asbestos and lead-based paint was identified within the existing building formerly utilized
by Honda of Seattle.
Contaminants of potential concern were not detected in groundwater beneath Site C.
Additional environmental site assessments are currently being prepared for the Metro CPS
portion of Site A in order to identify and delineate any potential contaminants in the soil and
groundwater beneath this area of the project site.
Section 3.5
3.5-2
3.5.2

Some limited excavation could be required for activities associated with the King County Site
Work, which involves demolition and removal of the existing Convention Place Station facilities
on Site A, as described in Section II. Overall, any excavations that occur would be expected to
be limited in degree and depth. Any contaminated soil or USTs encountered during excavation
activities would also be removed and disposed of in accordance with State and Federal
guidelines.
Alternative 1
The overall site associated with Alternative 1 encompasses Sites A, B and C, City rights-ofway located within Sites A, B and C and intervening rights-of-way between these sites. As part
of development under Alternative 1, all existing buildings on Sites A, B and C would be
demolished. Prior to building demolition, any asbestos, PCBs, lead-based paint, and other
similar hazardous building materials that could be encountered during demolition would be
removed and disposed of by a qualified abatement contractor in accordance with State and
Federal guidelines. Additionally, an extensive amount of soil excavation would occur on Sites
A, B and C. Any contaminated soil and USTs encountered during excavation activities would
be removed and disposed of in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.
Alternative 2
The overall site associated with Alternative 2 includes only Site A, and the City alley located
within Site A. As part of development under Alternative 2, all existing buildings on Site A
would be demolished and an extensive amount of soil excavation would occur. Hazardous
building materials that could be encountered during demolition, and any contaminated soil and
USTs encountered would be removed and disposed of in accordance with State and Federal
guidelines, as described for Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 2, contaminated soil would remain beneath Sites B and C. Remedial
excavation of contaminated soil and USTs encountered could occur as the result of future
development at Sites B and C, but not as a result of Alternative 2.
Alternative 3
Like with Alternative 1, the overall site associated with Alternative 3 encompasses Sites A, B
and C, and City rights-of-way located within Sites A, B and C and intervening rights-of-way
between these sites. As part of development under Alternative 3, all existing buildings on Sites
A, B and C would be demolished. Prior to building demolition, any asbestos, PCBs, lead-based
paint, and other similar hazardous building materials that could be encountered during
demolition would be removed and disposed of by a qualified abatement contractor in
accordance with State and Federal guidelines. Additionally, a significant amount of soil
excavation would occur on Sites A, B and C. Any contaminated soil and USTs encountered
during excavation activities would also be removed and disposed of in accordance with State
and Federal guidelines.
Section 3.5
3.5-3
Alternative 4.1
Like with Alternatives 1 and 3, the overall site associated with Alternative 4.1 encompasses
Sites A, B and C, and City rights-of-way located within Sites A, B and C and intervening rightsof-way between these sites. As part of development under Alternative 4.1, all existing buildings
on Sites A, B and C would be demolished. Prior to building demolition, any asbestos, PCBs,
lead-based paint, and other similar hazardous building materials that could be encountered
during demolition would be removed and disposed of by a qualified abatement contractor in
accordance with State and Federal guidelines. Additionally, a significant amount of soil
excavation would occur on Sites A, B and C. Any contaminated soil and USTs encountered
Alternative 4.2
Like with Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.1, the overall site associated with Alternative 4.2
encompasses Sites A, B and C, and City rights-of-way located within Sites A, B and C and
intervening rights-of-way between these sites. As part of development under Alternative 4.2, all
existing buildings on Sites A, B and C would be demolished. Prior to building demolition, any
asbestos, PCBs, lead-based paint, and other similar hazardous building materials that could be
encountered during demolition would be removed and disposed of by a qualified abatement
contractor in accordance with State and Federal guidelines. Additionally, a significant amount of
soil excavation would occur on Sites A, B and C. Any contaminated soil and USTs encountered
Alternative 4.3
Like Alternatives 1, 3, 4.1 and 4.2, the overall site associated with Alternative 4.3
encompasses Site A, B and C, and City rights-of-way located within Sites A, B and C and
intervening rights-of-way between these sites. As part of development under Alternative 4.3, all
existing buildings on Sites A, B and C would be demolished. Prior to building demolition, any
asbestos, PCBs, lead-based paint, and other similar hazardous building materials that could be
encountered during demolition would be removed and disposed of by a qualified abatement
contractor in accordance with State and Federal guidelines. Additionally, a significant amount of
soil excavation would occur on Sites A, B and C. Any contaminated soil and USTs encountered
Alternative 5
within Site A. As part of development under Alternative 5, all existing buildings on Site A would
be demolished and a significant amount of soil excavation would occur on Site A. Prior to
building demolition, any asbestos, PCBs, lead-based paint, and other similar hazardous building
materials that could be encountered during demolition would be removed and disposed of by a
qualified abatement contractor in accordance with State and Federal guidelines. Any

Section 3.5
3.5-4
contaminated soil and USTs encountered during excavation activities would also be removed
and disposed of in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.
Under Alternative 5, contaminated soil will remain beneath Sites B and C. Remedial
excavation of contaminated soil and USTs encountered would occur as the result of future
Alternative 6
within Site A. As part of development under Alternative 6, all existing buildings on Site A
would be demolished and a significant amount of soil excavation would occur. Prior to building
demolition, any asbestos, PCBs, lead-based paint, and other similar hazardous building
materials that could be encountered during demolition would be removed and disposed of by a
qualified abatement contractor in accordance with State and Federal guidelines. Any
contaminated soil and USTs encountered during excavation activities would also be removed
and disposed of in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.
Under Alternative 6, contaminated soil will remain beneath Sites B and C. Remedial
excavation of contaminated soil and USTs encountered would occur as the result of future
3.5.3
Potential mitigation measures associated with the proposed WSCC Addition could include the
following:
As noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS, asbestos surveys would be conducted and
demolition permits would be obtained from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency prior to
commencement of demolition activity.
All identified environmental site hazards
associated with the buildings and contents would be removed prior to building
demolition.
A Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) and an Environmental Construction Contingency Plan

(ECCP) will be prepared prior to starting soil removal at the WSCC Addition. The CAP
and ECCP will include protocol for the proper handling and disposal of contaminated soil
from the property. The protocol will include the following:
-
require contractors present during excavation to have health and safety plans in
place that address the risks associated with contaminated soils;
require excavation contactors to have 40-hour HAZWOPER trained individuals
available, if necessary, to excavate contaminated soils;
GeoEngineers will oversee any work that becomes necessary in response to
contaminated soils; and,
comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the handling, removal, transport,
and disposal of USTs and any contaminated soils.
Conduct site cleanup in accordance with applicable MTCA requirements.

Section 3.5
3.5-5
3.5.4
Document site remediation activities and, if necessary, obtain guidance and opinions
from the Washington State Department of Ecology.
With implementation of some or all of the mitigation measures identified above, no significant
unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts are anticipated.

Section 3.5
3.5-6
3.6
NOISE
This section describes existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site, outlines Seattle
regulatory requirements regarding noise, and discusses potential noise-related impacts
associated with construction and operation of the project alternatives. Possible mitigation
measures to reduce the potential for noise-related impacts and significant unavoidable adverse
impacts are also provided.
3.6.1
Noise Terminology and Descriptors

Noise is sometimes defined as unwanted sound, and the terms noise and sound are used more
or less synonymously in this section. The human ear responds to a very wide range of sound
intensities. The decibel (dB) scale used to describe and quantify sound is a logarithmic scale
that provides a convenient system for considering the large differences in audible sound
intensities. On this scale, a 10-dB increase represents a perceived doubling of loudness to
someone with normal hearing. Therefore, a 70-dB sound level will sound twice as loud as a 60dB sound level.
People generally cannot detect sound level differences (increases or decreases) of 1 dB in a
given noise environment. Although differences of 2 or 3 dB can be detected under ideal
laboratory conditions, such changes are difficult to discern in an active outdoor noise
environment. A 5-dB change in a given noise source would be likely to be perceived by most
people under normal listening conditions.
When addressing the effects of noise on people, it is necessary to consider the "frequency
response" of the human ear, or those frequencies that people hear best. Sound-measuring
instruments are therefore often programmed to "weight" sounds based on the way people hear.
The frequency-weighting most often used to evaluate environmental noise is A-weighting, and
measurements using this system are reported in "A-weighted decibels" or dBA. All sound levels
discussed in this evaluation are reported in A-weighted decibels.
As mentioned above, the decibel scale used to describe noise is logarithmic. On this scale, a
doubling of sound-generating activity (i.e., a doubling of the sound energy) causes a 3-dBA
increase in average sound produced by that source, not a doubling of the loudness of the sound
(which requires a 10-dBA increase). For example, if traffic along a street is causing a 60-dBA
sound level at some nearby location, twice as much traffic on this same street would cause the
sound level at this same location to increase to 63 dBA. Such an increase might not be
discernible in a complex acoustical environment.
Relatively long, multi-source "line" sources such as streets emit cylindrical sound waves. Due to
the cylindrical spreading of these sound waves, sound levels from such sources decrease with
each doubling of distance from the source at a rate of 3 dBA. Sound waves from discrete events
or stationary "point" sources (such as a backhoe operating in a stationary location) spread as a
sphere, and sound levels from these sources decrease 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from
the source. Conversely, moving half the distance closer to a source increases sound levels by 3
dBA and 6 dBA for line and point sources, respectively.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-1
For a given noise source, a number of factors affect the sound transmission from the source,
which in turn affects the potential noise impact. Important factors include distance from the
source, frequency of the sound, absorbency and roughness of the intervening ground surface,
the presence or absence of obstructions and their absorbency or reflectivity, and the duration of
the sound. The degree of impact on humans also depends on existing sound levels, and who is
listening.
Federal regulatory agencies often use the equivalent sound level (Leq) to characterize sound
levels and to evaluate noise impacts. The Leq is the level that if held constant over the same
period of time would have the same sound energy as the actual, fluctuating sound. As such, the
Leq can be considered an energy-average sound level. But this metric should not be confused
with an arithmetic average which tends to de-emphasize high and low values. The Leq gives
most weight to the highest sound levels, because they contain the most sound energy. Typical
sound levels of some familiar noise sources and activities are presented in Table 3.6-1.
Table 3.6-1
SOUND LEVELS PRODUCED BY COMMON NOISE SOURCES
Thresholds/
Noise Sources
Sound Level
(dBA)
Human Threshold of Pain

Carrier jet takeoff at 50 ft
140
Siren at 100 ft
Loud rock band
130
Jet takeoff at 200 ft

Auto horn at 3 ft
120
Chain saw / Noisy snowmobile
110
Lawn mower at 3 ft
Noisy motorcycle at 50 ft
100
Heavy truck at 50 ft
90
Pneumatic drill at 50 ft
Busy urban street, daytime
80
Normal automobile at 50 mph

Vacuum cleaner at 3 ft
70
Air conditioning unit at 20 ft

Conversation at 3 ft
60
Quiet residential area

Light auto traffic at 100 ft
50
Library / Quiet home
40
Soft whisper at 15 ft
30
Slight rustling of leaves
20
Broadcasting Studio
10
Threshold of Human Hearing
Subjective
Evaluations 1
Possible Effects on
Humans 1
Deafening
Continuous exposure
to levels above 70 can
cause hearing loss in
majority of population
Very
Loud
Loud
Speech Interference
Moderate
Sleep Interference
Faint
Very Faint
Source: EPA 1974 and Others

1
Note that both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold
boundaries. Consequently, there are overlaps among categories of response that depend on the sensitivity of the
noise receivers.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-2
Regulatory Setting
City of Seattle Noise Code
Because the proposed WSCC Addition is located within the City of Seattle, the sound level
limits and timing restrictions established in the Citys Noise Code (Seattle Municipal Code
Chapter, 25.08) apply to all aspects of the existing and future facilities. The noise limits pertain
to both construction and long-term operation of all facilities that could be developed under
Alternatives 1-5. And noise limits vary based on the zoning of source and receiving properties.
The noise limits for all sources and activities are based on the hourly equivalent sound level
(Leq) and short-term maximum sound level (Lmax) attributable to non-exempt noise sources.
The applicable limits for current and future operational noise during daytime and nighttime hours
are shown in the upper portion of Table 3.6-2. The daytime construction noise limits are listed in
the lower portion of Table 3.6-2. As shown, the limits for temporary daytime construction
activities are much higher than the limits for typical operational noise in order to allow the sorts
of noisy activities required by construction processes. The construction noise limits vary by the
types of equipment involved (lower portion of Table 3.6-2), and there are additional timing
restrictions for sources that involve impact noise (e.g., pavement breakers). Note that all
operational and construction noise limits apply at exterior locations.
In order to protect interior commercial uses from excessive levels of construction noise, the
Seattle Noise Code (SMC 25.08.425F) also prohibits construction noise from exceeding the
more stringent operational noise limits (i.e., the upper portion of Table 3.6-2) inside buildings in
commercial districts between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM. This requirement applies only in
commercially-zoned areas and not at commercial uses within other zones. Compliance with this
requirement is intended to be assessed after every reasonable effort including, but not limited
to, closing windows and doors, has been taken to reduce such noise in the interior space.
The Seattle Noise Code identifies a number of noise sources and activities that are either
partially or completely exempt from the Citys sound level limits. Exempt sources include sounds
created by motor vehicles traveling on public streets (SMC 25.08.480) and sounds from warning
devices associated with emergency vehicles (SMC 25.08.530). Sounds created by motor
vehicles operating off public streets also are exempt from the limits, except when sounds are
received in Residential Districts (SMC 25.08.480).

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-3
Table 3.6-2
SEATTLE EXTERIOR SOUND LEVEL AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE LIMITS (dBA)
Zoning District of
Noise Source
[25.08.410 & 420 & 425]
Zoning District of Receiving Property

Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Day / Night
Operational Noise Limits 1

Residential
55 / 45
57
60
Commercial
57 / 47
60
65
Industrial
60 / 50
65
70
Daytime Construction Noise Limits 2

On-site sources like dozers, loaders, power shovels, cranes, derricks, graders, off-highway trucks,
ditchers, and pneumatic equip (maximum+25) [25.08.425 A.1]
Residential
80
82
85
Commercial
82
85
90
Industrial
85
90
95
Portable equipment used in temporary locations in support of construction (e.g., chain saws, powered hand tools,
etc. [maximum+20]) -- 25.08.425 A.2
Residential
75
77
80
Commercial
77
80
85
Industrial
80
85
90
Impact types of equipment (e.g., pavement breakers, pile drivers, jackhammers, sand-blasting tools, or other
impulse noise sources) may exceed maximum permissible limits between 8 AM and 5 PM weekdays and 9 AM
and 5 PM weekends, but may not exceed the following limits -- 25.08.425 B:
Leq (1 hr) 90 dBA
Leq (30 minutes) 93 dBA
Leq (15 minutes) 96 dBA
Leq (7.5 minutes) 99 dBA
Note: All sound level limits are based on the measurement interval equivalent sound level (Leq) and a not-to-beexceeded Lmax level that is 15 dBA higher than the indicated limits.
Source: Seattle Municipal Code - 25.08 - Specific sections indicated.
1
The operational noise limits for residential receivers are reduced by 10 dBA during nighttime hours (i.e., 10 PM to
7 AM weekdays, 10 PM to 9 AM weekends). The operational noise limits are displayed for daytime/nighttime
hours.
Construction noise limits apply at a distance of 50 ft. or at a real property line, whichever is greater. Construction
noise is limited to the higher levels listed in the bottom portion of the table during "daytime" hours only, which vary
based on underlying zoning. Except as noted above for impact equipment, within Lowrise, Midrise, Highrise,
Residential-Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial zones the levels of construction noise shown in this table
are allowed between 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays and between 9 AM and 7 PM on weekends and legal holidays.
In all other zones "daytime" hours are defined as between 7 AM and 10 PM weekdays and 9 AM and 10 PM on
weekends and holidays. These limits effectively prohibit construction at "night" except in special cases.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-4
FHWA/WSDOT Noise Impact Criteria

Because overall noise levels from traffic traveling on public streets is not considered in the
Seattle noise rules, alternate noise guidelines/criteria are presented below.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise standards that apply to traffic
noise associated with its projects. These criteria do not apply to this project because they are
intended for analyzing effects related to new, expanded, or substantially modified roadways
controlled by state or federal agencies. The proposed WSCC Addition would only minimally
modify the roadway network in the immediate vicinity of the site (all alternatives other than
Alternatives 3 and 6), and these changes would not constitute a "transportation project," as
defined in federal rules. However, the FHWA traffic noise criteria and the Washington State
implementation of these rules through state policies are discussed below to provide readers a
perspective on the project-related traffic noise levels associated with the proposed project.
The FHWA defines a traffic noise impact as a predicted traffic noise level (peak hourly L eq)
approaching or exceeding 67 dBA at exterior locations associated with residential uses, or when
the predicted traffic noise levels "substantially exceed" the existing noise levels. FHWA leaves
the definition of "approach" to the states. The Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) defines "approaching" the FHWA limits as sound levels within 1 dBA of the criterion
level (i.e., 66 dBA for residential properties). WSDOT defines "substantially exceeding" existing
noise levels as an increase greater than 10 dBA.
Zoning and Land Use

As mentioned previously, the Seattle noise limits are based on the underlying zoning
designation of the source and receiving properties. The entire site of the proposed WSCC
Addition is zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial (DMC), which is a commercial zoning
designation. And, as noted in Section II and Section 3.8 Land Use of this DEIS, Site A
currently serves as King County Metros Convention Place Station, whereas Sites B and C
contain lowrise commercial development and surface parking lots. In the future with the project,
the site would contain a mix of public uses and, depending upon the alternative, possible
residential, and/or commercial uses.
Properties surrounding the project site are zoned either DMC or Downtown Office Core (DOC),
both of which are commercial zoning designations. Although within a commercial district, there
are several residential towers and a hotel west and southwest of the site in addition to office and
retail uses. The Paramount Theatre is directly south of the site.
Based on the City of Seattle Noise Code (SMC 25.08), noise sources in commercial districts
affecting receiving properties in commercial districts are subject to an operational noise limit of
60 dBA, day and night, with short-term sounds allowed to exceed this limit as described
previously. Daytime construction noise limits are higher as shown in the bottom of Table 3.6-2.
Existing Sound Environment

The existing acoustic environment in and around the site of the proposed WSCC Addition is
typical of a busy urban setting. Noise sources include motor vehicle traffic on adjacent I-5 and
surrounding streets, aircraft overflights, people talking, and other miscellaneous sources. The
Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-5
dominant noise source in the south and east portions of the site is I-5. In other areas
surrounding the site, I-5 traffic is a contributing source. Local streets contribute to the acoustic
environment in most locations where I-5 traffic noise does not dominate the acoustic
environment.
Other noise sources in the project vicinity that are less dominant but typical through the course
of a day include airplane and helicopter overflights, emergency vehicle sirens, nearby
construction activities (when present), and loud motorcycles and other vehicles.
3.6.2

All Alternatives
Construction activities associated with all alternatives of the King County Site Work would
generally consist of removing transit passenger facilities from the Convention Place Station
(CPS) and installing a new Traction Power Substation (TPSS) within the existing tunnel, as
described in Section 2. Removal of the passenger facilities entails minimal construction work
and would not be expected to cause significant noise-related impacts. Installation of the TPSS
would occur within a tunnel and noise from this activity would not be expected to affect receivers
outside of the tunnel. Therefore, no significant noise impacts would be expected from the King
County Site Work.
Alternative A
Construction activities expected with Alternative A include installing a temporary curb cut for
bus access to Ninth Ave. and converting Ninth Ave. to accommodate two-way traffic from Olive
Way to Pike St. These items would result in minimal additional noise in a busy urban
environment and would not be expected to result in noise impacts. Alternative A would also
include the demolition of the existing flyover ramp. Demolition of the flyover ramp could result in
construction noise, but overall, no significant noise impacts would be expected.
Alternative B
Alternative B is similar to Alternative A, except portions of the flyover ramp would remain
intact. Impacts would be similar to those discussed for Alternative A.
Alternative C
Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, except that the new ramp structure (requiring shoring
and foundations) would be a steel structure; like Alternative A, Alternative C would also be
constructed on the west end of Site A. Impacts would be similar to those discussed for
Alternative A.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-6
Construction
Many details regarding construction schedules and equipment use have not yet been fully
defined to enable a comprehensive, alternative-specific assessment of noise implications
associated with construction activity. However, the elements of construction, discussed below
in general terms, are likely applicable to all future alternatives. In the alternative-specific
sections that follow, additional comments regarding construction noise for each alternative are
based on the expected locations of construction equipment and haul routes during certain
phases of the planned development.
Noises from demolition and construction activities have the potential to affect nearby receivers -particularly uses such as noise-sensitive commercial uses and residences near the site of the
proposed WSCC Addition. As noted, the Seattle noise code allows temporary daytime
construction noise levels to exceed the noise limits applied to long-term operations (Table 3.6-2,
above). These higher limits allow noisier construction activities to occur while still controlling the
potential for noise impacts to nearby receivers. During nighttime hours (10 PM to 7 AM
weekdays and 10 PM to 9 AM weekends), however, higher construction noise levels are not
allowed. Because it is difficult for construction activities to meet the stricter nighttime noise
limits, construction activities are generally limited to daytime hours unless granted a special
variance from the City. The temporary nature of construction activity, coupled with its typical
restriction to daytime hours, minimizes the potential for significant impacts from construction
activities and equipment.
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, the WSCC Addition would include approximately 1,511,700 sq. ft. of
development on the three parcels (Sites A, B, and C), including Convention Center uses and
street level uses (including but not limited to retail and restaurants).
The greatest potential for noise impacts related to construction activities associated with
Alternative 1 would be to the residential uses that are located approximately 70 ft. from the
project site -- specifically residential towers to the east (Olive Tower), west (The Olivian and
Nine and Pine), and southwest (Premier on Pine). Each of these nearby residential buildings are
multi-story towers, some with operable windows. Additional potentially noise-sensitive receptors
that are located within 70-80 feet of the site of the proposed WSCC Addition include the:
Worldmark Seattle-Camlin, Hill7 hotel, Seattle Childrens Research Institute, and the Paramount
Theatre. As can be seen in the upper portion of Table 3.6-3, construction activities within
approximately 70 ft. of receivers have the potential to emit hourly Leq levels up to 85 dBA, which
is the applicable noise limit for most activities during daytime hours. Given the proximity to offsite sensitive receivers and how close the estimated levels are to the limit, a construction noise
management plan should be developed and implemented for the project to ensure that
construction activities do not exceed the noise limits. For the Paramount Theatre, particular
consideration should be made in the noise management plan for construction activities
expected to occur during matinee performances.
In addition to showing overall hourly noise levels from various construction activities, Table 3.63 (lower portion) shows the range of sound levels (i.e., minimum to maximum levels) emitted by
individual pieces of equipment. Because this equipment would not necessarily operate for an
entire hour, it is not appropriate to compare these levels directly to the Seattle noise limits.
Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-7
However, these levels give an idea of the relative sound levels that can be expected from
different kinds of equipment. In the absence of intervening terrain or structures, sounds from
construction equipment and activities (usually point sources) decrease about 6dBA for each
doubling in distance from the source.
Table 3.6-3
TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (DBA)
Activity
Range of Hourly Leqs

At 70'
At 100'
At 200'
Clearing
80
77
71
Grading
72-85
69-82
63-76
Paving
69-85
66-82
60-76
Erecting
69-81
66-78
60-72
Types of Equipment
Range of Noise Levels

At 70'
At 100'
At 200'
Bulldozer
74-93
71-90
65-84
Dump Truck
79-91
76-88
70-82
Scraper
77-90
74-87
68-81
Diesel Crane
78-88
75-85
69-79
Concrete Mixer
78-88
75-85
69-79
Paver
83-85
80-82
74-76
Generator
68-79
65-76
59-70
Compressor
71-78
68-75
62-69
Jackhammer
78-95
75-92
69-86
Source: EPA, 1971
The proposed WSCC Addition would be constructed over several phases including demolition
of existing structures, clearing and excavation, foundation work, erection of steel frames, and
construction and finishing associated with the WSCC Addition. A staging area would be located
in the triangular area at the southeast corner of Olive Way and Boren Avenue.
Equipment that would be required during construction of Alternative 1 would vary over the
course of the construction schedule. The following is summary of activities during each phase of
construction that would be expected to generate audible noise at off-site locations.
Demolition
Demolition of existing concrete and paved structures at the project site would require the use of
impact-type equipment including hoe rams and other pavement breakers such as jackhammers.
The use of pavement breakers is expected to occur for a limited time of approximately 3 weeks
at the beginning of demolition, although overall demolition and related pre-construction activities
are expected to last for about a year.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-8
Other equipment typically used in demolition include loaders, excavators, and other heavy
diesel engine equipment. Concrete is expected to be removed from the site and crushed at an
off-site facility for potential recycling for use in this or other regional construction projects. Not
performing on-site concrete crushing avoids what would otherwise be a major noise source.
Excavation
Excavation activity typically requires use of bulldozers, excavators, and scrapers, plus a large
number of dump trucks to remove dirt and other debris from the project site. As noted in
Section II of this DEIS, approximately 574,000 cu. yds. of material would be removed from the
site. This equates to an estimated 57,400 round-trip truck trips that would be necessary to haul
dirt from the site. Construction noise would be mostly from diesel engines of the trucks and
other heavy equipment operated on-site.
Excavation would occur throughout the project site. Safety warning backup alarms would be
required for all construction equipment when operating on-site and may be audible off-site,
depending on the type of backup alarm used (i.e., there are some alarms, discussed later under
the mitigation, that emit a broadband sound, and/or emit sounds that adjust relative to ambient
levels).
Foundation
Foundation work would include positioning concrete forms, rebar, and poured concrete,
providing the foundation for the proposed WSCC Addition. Equipment typically associated with
foundation work includes concrete trucks, pumpers, trucks hauling materials to and from the
project site, concrete vibrators to remove air pockets, and a variety of hand-held tools such as
drills and hammers. An estimated 15,000 concrete truck trips would be required to provide
concrete to the project (totalling 30,000 round-trip truck trips), expected mostly during
foundation work. Approximately 2,000 truck trips would be required to bring rebar to the site
(totalling 4,000 round-trip truck trips).
Other on-site equipment during foundation work would include two electric tower cranes for
concrete work, positioned on Sites B and C, between Olive Way and Howell St. Because these
tower cranes would be powered electrically (instead of using diesel engines) they would not be
expected to generate audible levels of noise at off-site locations, especially relative to the busy
urban environment in the site vicinity.
Steel Frame Erecting

Steel frame erecting would include the use of two, 300 to 400-ton diesel lattice boom cranes,
and at least two smaller diesel support cranes. Additional equipment required during frame
erecting are trucks hauling material to and from the project site, including approximately 3,000
truck trips delivering steel (totalling 6,000 round-trip truck trips). The electric tower cranes in use
in the previous phase are expected to continue operation during steel frame erecting.
Although diesel cranes are often some of the louder sorts of equipment used on a construction
site, they typically operate less frequently than most other equipment. Noise associated with
hammering, welding, small diesel engine operation (e.g., compressors, pumps, etc.), and other
equipment likely would generate the most consistently audible levels of noise from the site.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-9
Building Construction/Finishing
Construction of the proposed WSCC Addition is estimated to require 15,000 to 20,000 truckloads of construction materials being delivered to the site (totalling 30,000 40,000 round-trip
truck trips). Other noises from construction and finishing activities may include noise from
portable generators, hammering, on-site vehicles, and other miscellaneous activities.
Note that as indicated, all construction equipment, when in operation within the site boundaries
of the WSCC Addition, would be subject to the timing restrictions and sound level limits of the
Seattle Noise Code. This limitation and the restriction of most construction activities to daytime
hours would reduce the potential for significant noise impacts. Further lessening the effect of
noise generated by equipment operating on-site would be the fact that the bottom of the
excavation would be substantially below the grade of surrounding streets.
Alternative 4.1
With Alternative 4.1, development of the WSCC Addition would be the same as described
under Alternative 1. In addition, this alternative would include co-development on Site B with a
29-story residential tower with approximately 400 units and 8,000-sq. ft. of street-level retail; and
co-development on Site C with a 16-story office tower with approximately 515,700 sq. ft. of
office space and 10,000 sq. ft. of street level retail uses.
Noise from construction equipment and activities during construction of Alternative 4.1 would
be similar to what was described above for Alternative 1. Construction of the residential and
office towers at Site B and Site C, respectively, would introduce similar noise as described for
Alternative 4.1 but include additional foundation work, additional steel frame erecting, and
building construction at the north end of the project site. Additional potentially noise-sensitive
receptors that are located within 70-80 ft. of Sites B and C include The Olivian, Hill7 hotel, and
Seattle Childrens Research Institute. So, conceivably Alternative 4.1 could result in an
increase in potential for noise-related impacts as a result of co-development highrise
construction activity on Sites B and C, as compared with that of Alternative 1.
Alternative 2
The site associated with Alternative 2 only includes Site A. Noise from construction equipment
and activities during construction of Alternative 2 would be similar to, but slightly less than,
what was described for Alternative 1. Construction activities would be farther from the Hill7
hotel and Seattle Childrens Research Institute than under Alternative 1. No significant noise
impacts from construction would be expected.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, development of the WSCC Addition would be similar to Alternative 1 and
would include approximately 1,485,700 sq. ft. of development on the three parcels (Site A, Site
B, and Site C), including Convention Center uses and street level uses. However, since the
WSDOT land/air lease would not be included, the total development area for the WSCC
Addition associated with this alternative would be slightly less as compared with Alternative 1
(approximately 26,000 sq. ft. less).

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-10
Noise from construction equipment and activities during construction of Alternative 3 would be
comparable to that described for Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.2
Under Alternative 4.2, development of the WSCC Addition would be the same as Alternative
1 and co-development on Site B would include a 29-story residential tower with approximately
400 residential units with 8,000 sq. ft. of street level uses. Noise from construction equipment
and activities during construction of Alternative 4.2 would be similar to what would be expected
with Alternative 4.1, and no significant noise impacts from construction would be expected.
Alternative 4.3
Under Alternative 4.3 development of the WSCC Addition would be the same as that of
Alternative 1 and would also include office co-development on Site C (16-story, 515,700 sq. ft.
office tower with 10,000 sq. ft. of street level uses). Noise from construction equipment and
activities during construction of Alternative 4.3 would be comparable to, but less than, that
described for Alternative 4.1. No significant noise-related impacts from construction would be
expected.
Alternative 5
Under Alternative 5, an approximately 1,611,700 sq. ft. WSCC Addition would be constructed
on Site A only and no right-of-way vacations would be included. In addition, no co-development
would occur on Sites B or C. Noise from construction equipment and activities during
construction of Alternative 5 would be comparable to that described for Alternative 1 and no
significant noise-related impacts from construction would be expected.
Alternative 6
With Alternative 6, the proposed WSCC Addition would not be constructed on the site.
However, consistent with potential, future development that was envisioned in the Downtown
Height and Density Changes EIS for the CPS site (Site A), this alternative could see
development of a mixed-use complex of buildings that could include 900 residential units, a
600,000 sq. ft. office tower, and an 800-room, 400,000 sq. ft. hotel. As noted in Section II of
this DEIS, additional development would also be expected to occur on Site B and Site C.
Potential future development on Sites A, B, and C would generate noise from constructionrelated activities. Conceivably, these impacts could be comparable to what would be expected
under the WSCC Addition build alternatives.
OPERATIONAL NOISE
Alternative 1
Potential sources of noise associated with the operation of the proposed WSCC Addition
include noise from WSCC activities, the facility truck loading dock, increased vehicular traffic to

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-11
and from the site, outside HVAC and other mechanical equipment, and emergency power
generators. These sources are described separately below.
WSCC Activities
During operation of the proposed WSCC Addition, noises due to daily activities at the facility
would be minimal. Activities within the facility's exhibition halls, meeting rooms, ballrooms, and
other areas would generally be enclosed and, therefore, not audible at neighboring noisesensitive uses.
Truck Loading/Unloading Area

The truck loading area for the proposed WSCC Addition would primarily be below-grade and
completely enclosed. There would be a truck staging area inside the entrance at street level
capable of accommodating two trucks. However, no unloading is expected in the staging area.
Therefore, no noise impacts from loading and unloading activities would be expected at nearby
sensitive uses.
Ventilation and Cooling Equipment

Approximately ten roof-top heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units (HVAC) are expected
to be installed on the roof the proposed WSCC Addition. HVAC systems would vary in size and
capacity, and some would likely require supplemental mechanical systems to provide such
things as refrigeration, hot water, and supplemental ventilation (e.g., for underground parking
and truck loading areas).
A roof-top cooling tower is expected at the northeast corner of the building. This cooling tower
would be located near Olive Tower. As with HVAC units, due to the conceptual nature of the
project, specific details regarding the size, exact location, or orientation of the cooling tower are
not yet available. However, preliminary details suggest the cooling tower may be enclosed in an
opaque walled enclosure with an opening large enough for sufficient air flow.
A chiller plant would also be located on the roof of the building and would provide water chilling
using propeller fans and ambient air only. The chiller plant would be enclosed with intake
louvers open to the outside. Noise from these fans would not be expected to be acoustically
significant. Nevertheless, noise from these fans would be subject to the Seattle Noise Code.
Because of the conceptual nature of project design at this time, no details are yet available
regarding the specifications of such equipment; therefore, no quantitative analysis is possible at
this time. But regardless of their location, noise from these types of sources would be subject to
the Seattle noise limits and DPD review. Compliance with these limits would be considered
during design and permitting of construction.
Project-Related Increased Traffic Volumes

The potential for noise impacts from project-related traffic was assessed based on comparison
of the estimated Baseline and Alternative 1 traffic volumes in 2021 through intersections near
the project site and along the primary access roads to the site (see Section 3.17,
Transportation). Comparisons of project-related traffic volumes, including trucks, through
intersections in the future (2021) with and without the proposed project indicate full development
Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-12
of the WSCC Addition would result in increases in traffic noise from specific area roadways of 0
to just over 1 dBA. The greatest increase in intersection volumes is estimated to be 28.5 percent
and would occur during the AM peak hour at the intersection of Terry Ave. and Olive Way. This
increase in traffic volume would result in a 1-dBA increase in noise from traffic on that roadway.1
In addition, much of the existing noise environment is influenced by more distant roadways and
other urban sources, including I-5. Therefore, if all existing sources were considered, the
project-related noise increases would be even lower. Changes of less than 3 dBA are unlikely to
be discernible in this active urban environment.
The largest expected traffic sound level increase is well below the 10-dBA threshold identified
by WSDOT as a "substantial" increase. Therefore, no noise impacts are anticipated from
changes in traffic volumes due to the proposed project.
Emergency Generators
Alternative 1 would include two, 1,500 kW emergency backup generators that would be located
on the roof. Noise from emergency generator use (i.e., during power outages) is exempt from
the Seattle noise limits during both daytime and nighttime hours (SMC 25.08.530). However,
the proposed emergency generators would undergo routine testing during daytime hours and
the testing would be subject to the daytime noise limits. The generators would be housed in
enclosures to enable the generator noise to comply with the applicable limits.
Alternative 4.1
Building Activities
As with Alternative 1, WSCC activities would not be expected to result in significant noise
impacts at nearby sensitive receivers. Noise from human activities associated with codevelopment of the residential and office towers on Sites B and C, respectively, would be
expected to produce sound levels similar to what already occur in Downtown and would not be
expected to result in significant noise impacts.
Truck Loading Area

The truck loading area for the buildings associated with Alternative 4.1 would be below grade
and completely enclosed. There would be a truck staging area inside the entrance at street level
capable of accommodating two trucks. However, no unloading is expected in the staging area.
Therefore, no noise impacts from loading and unloading activity would be expected at nearby
sensitive uses.
Ventilation and Cooling Equipment

Ventilation and cooling equipment noise related to the WSCC building would be the same as
identified for Alternative 1. Alternative 4.2 would include the development of residential and
office towers on Sites B and C and it is expected that each of these structures would include
rooftop HVAC systems.
A doubling of traffic volume (i.e., a 100% increase) would be required for a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-13
As with the proposed WSCC Addition, no project-specific details are available at this time
regarding the types of such equipment required for the towers on Sites B and C; therefore, no
quantitative analysis is possible. But, regardless of their location, noise from these types of
sources would be subject to the Seattle noise limits and DPD review, and compliance with these
limits would be considered during design and permitting of construction.
Increased Traffic Volumes

The potential for noise impacts from project-related traffic was assessed based on comparison
of the estimated Baseline and Alternative 4.1 traffic volumes in 2021 through intersections near
the project site and along the primary access roads to the site (Section 3.17, Transportation).
Comparisons of project related traffic volumes, including trucks, through intersections in the
future with and without the proposed project indicate full development of the site would result in
increases of 0 to 1.4 dBA in traffic noise from specific area roadways. The greatest increase in
intersection volumes is estimated to be 36.9 percent and would occur during the AM peak hour
at the intersection of Terry Ave. and Olive Way. This increase in traffic volume would result in a
1.4-dBA increase in noise from traffic on that roadway. In addition, much of the existing noise
environment is influenced by more distant roadways and other urban sources, including I-5.
Therefore, if all existing sources were considered, the project-related noise increases would be
even lower. Changes of less than 3 dBA are unlikely to be discernible in this active urban
environment. For comparison, WSDOT does not consider an increase of less than 10 dBA to be
"substantial." Therefore, no noise impacts would be anticipated from changes in traffic volumes
due to the proposal.
Emergency Generators
Alternative 4.1 would include two, 1,500 kW emergency backup generators that would be
located on the roof. Noise from emergency generator use (i.e., during power outtages) is
exempt from the Seattle noise limits during both daytime and nighttime hours (SMC
25.08.530). However, the proposed emergency generators would undergo routine testing
during daytime hours and the testing would be subject to the daytime noise limits. The
generators would be housed in enclosures to enable the generator noise to comply with the
applicable limits.
Alternative 2
With Alternative 2, noise from general building activities, truck loading areas, ventilation and
cooling equipment, increased traffic volumes, and emergency generators would be similar to
that identified for Alternative 1 and would not be expected to result in significant noise impacts.
Alternative 3

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-14
Alternative 4.2
With Alternative 4.2, noise emitted from general building activities, loading areas, ventilation
and cooling equipment, increased traffic volumes, and emergency generators would be similar
to or less than identified for Alternative 4.1 and would not be expected to result in significant
noise impacts.
Alternative 4.3
With Alternative 4.3, noise emitted from general building activities, truck loading areas,
ventilation and cooling equipment, increased traffic volumes, and emergency generators would
be similar to or less than identified for Alternative 4.1 and would not be expected to result in
significant noise impacts.
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
With the No Action Alternative, it is anticipated that the site would be developed with a mixeduse complex of buildings that could include 900 residential units, a 600,000 sq. ft. office tower,
and an 800-room 400,000 sq. ft. hotel. As noted in Section II of this DEIS, additional
development could also be expected to occur on Sites B and C. Potential future development
would be expected to generate similar levels of noise as that expected under the build alternatives and no significant noise impacts would be anticipated.
3.6.3
Construction
To mitigate potential construction-related impacts, the proposed WSCC Addition would develop
a Construction Management Plan (CMP). Among other things, the aim of the CMP would be to
ensure that construction noise complies with the Seattle noise limits by anticipating and
reducing potential noise impacts from construction activities on adjacent properties. Management practices should be established and at a minimum include the following: noise control
measures to reduce the amount of sound generation; reduce the transmission of demolition and
construction noise to off-site receivers through sound-containment measures; and coordinate
with Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) on haul routes and street use permits. This
plan would be coordinated with the DPD Noise Abatement Office (DPD) and SDOT.
The CMP would include the following elements:
1. Construction Communication - including a Contact and Community Liaison;
2. Construction Hours and Sensitive Receivers identifying demolition and construction
activities within permissible construction hours;

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-15
3. Construction Noise Requirements all demolition and construction activities shall

conform to the Noise Ordinance, except as approved through the variance process;
4. Measures to Minimize Noise Impacts list of measures to be implemented to reduce or
prevent noise impacts during demolition and construction activities during standard and
non-standard working hours;
5. Construction Milestones a description of the various phases of demolition and
construction, including a description of noise and traffic generators, and anticipated
construction hours for each phase;
6. Construction Noise Management identify techniques to minimize demolition and
construction noise including: timing restrictions, noise reduction construction
technologies, process modifications. These techniques may go beyond code
requirements and could include the following:
Using properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, engine
enclosures, and turning off idle equipment. Construction contracts can specify that
mufflers be in good working order and that engine enclosures be used on equipment
when the engine is the dominant source of noise.
Stationary equipment could be placed as far away from sensitive receiving locations
as possible. Where this is infeasible, or where noise impacts are still significant,
portable noise barriers could be placed around the equipment with the opening
directed away from the sensitive receiving property. These measures are especially
effective for engines used in pumps, compressors, welding machines, and similar
equipment that operate continuously and contribute to high, steady background
noise levels. In addition to providing about a 10-dBA reduction in equivalent sound
levels, the portable barriers demonstrate to the public the contractor's commitment to
minimizing noise impacts during construction.
Substituting hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jack hammers, rock
drills and pavement breakers could reduce construction and demolition noise.
Electric pumps could be specified if pumps are required.
Although, as safety warning devices back-up alarms are exempt from noise
ordinances, these devices emit some of the most annoying sounds from a
construction site. One potential mitigation measure would be to ensure that all
equipment required to use backup alarms utilize ambient-sensing alarms that
broadcast a warning sound loud enough to be heard over background noise but
without having to use a preset, maximum volume. An even better alternative would
be to use fixed volume or ambient-sensing broadband backup alarms instead of
typical pure tone alarms. Broadband alarms have been found to be very effective in
reducing annoying noise from construction sites.
Requiring operators to lift rather than drag materials wherever feasible can also
minimize noise from material handling.
In areas where construction would occur within about 200 ft. of existing uses (such
as residences and noise-sensitive uses), effective noise control measures (possibly
outlined in a Construction Noise Management Plan) should be employed to minimize
the potential for noise impacts. In addition to placing noise-producing equipment as
far as possible from residences and noise-sensitive uses, such controls could include
using quiet equipment, placing temporary noise barriers to shield sensitive uses, and
orienting the work areas to minimize noise transmission to sensitive off-site locations.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-16
Operation
For HVAC and other rooftop mechanical equipment within direct line-of-site of neighboring
residential uses, operational noise would need to be carefully considered during facility design.
Such HVAC units may need to be oriented and/or enclosed to ensure compliance with the City
noise limits.
The cooling tower on the northeast corner of the building is expected to be enclosed by an
opaque wall, with an opening sufficient for adequate airflow. The unit would need to be installed
so that noise from the opening does not exceed the applicable Seattle Noise Code limits.
Depending on the size and capacity of the cooling tower, consideration of noise impacts at
neighboring commercial receivers may also be required. Cooling tower noise can be mitigated
by blocking line-of-sight to receiving locations using absorptive panel barriers and/or other intervening structures.
Exhaust vents for all underground parking facilities could be located and controlled to reduce
noise at off-site residential uses and to ensure compliance with the City noise limits.
3.6.4
With the implementation of mitigation measures identified above, no significant unavoidable

adverse noise impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.6
Noise
3.6-17
3.7
Energy
This section describes existing energy conditions on the project site, as well as the potential
direct, indirect, construction, and cumulative energy-related impacts associated with the
alternatives, including: electrical and natural gas. A description of mitigation measures to
reduce energy-related impacts and a description of significant unavoidable adverse impacts are
also provided.
3.7.1
The WSCC Addition site is served by electrical and natural gas services surrounding and
traversing through the site area. Electrical service is provided by Seattle City Light. Existing
electrical utility lines are located within public rights-of-way surrounding the site, including
Howell St., Olive Way, Pine St. 9th Ave., Boren Ave., and Terry Ave.; electrical lines are also
located within the existing alleys between 9th Ave. and Terry Ave., and between Terry Ave. and
Boren Ave. Natural gas service to the site and site vicinity is provided by Puget Sound Energy
(PSE). Existing natural gas services lines are located beneath the public rights-of-way of Howell
St., Olive Way, 9th Ave., Pine St., and Boren Ave.
3.7.2

Other than relocation of the TPSS, King County Site Work is not expected to impact electrical
or natural gas services surrounding the site.
Construction
Alternatives 1 5
It is anticipated that some interruptions to electrical and natural gas services to the site and site
vicinity could occur during the construction process, particularly during the installation and
connection of service to the new development.
Existing Seattle City Light electrical duct banks and vaults that are along portions of Olive Way,
the alleys, and Terry Ave. that would be affected by the proposed WSCC Addition would be
relocated to Howell St. Existing street lights, traffic signals, span wires, signal heads, hand
holes, control cabinets, and conduit would be removed and replaced in-kind following the
reconstruction of Olive Way, with reconnection to existing electrical and communication service
points.

Draft EIS
Section 3.7
Energy
3.7-1
Operational Impacts
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, the WSCC Addition would include approximately 1,511,700 sq. ft. of
development on the three parcels (Site A, Site B and Site C), including convention center uses
and 37,000 sq. ft. of active street levels uses (including but not limited to retail).
Electrical
Electrical service for the WSCC Addition would be derived from transformers owned by Seattle
City Light (SCL) and located within an in-building transformer vault. Because of the location of
the project in downtown Seattle, the transformers would be connected to SCLs network system
which would create a high level of reliability due to the redundancy in supply to the building and
redundancy in transformers within the building. Per SCL requirements, the SCL equipment room
must be located to provide 24 hour a day/7 day per week access from the public right-of-way.
Due to the scale of development and magnitude of the calculated loads for the WSCC Addition,
two transformer vaults would be provided in the building and would likely be located on opposite
sides of the development (i.e., one in the northwest corner of Site A and one in the northeast
corner of Site A). The calculated load for the WSCC Addition would be approximately 20,000
kilowatts (kW), including approximately 11,000 kW for exhibitor power, approximately 3,000 kW
for lighting, and approximately 6,000 kW for HVAC equipment.
Building code and electrical code requirements specify that certain loads within the building
should be served by emergency power (i.e., fire alarm system, fire command center, exit signs,
smoke removal systems, etc.). The total calculated generator load for the WSCC Addition is
approximately 2,500 kW and includes approximately 100 kW for power, 600 kW for lighting and
2,000 kW for HVAC. Onsite emergency/standby generators would be installed within the
building to provide electricity for emergency and standby loads. A generator plant would be
located at the lower loading dock level adjacent to the proposed bus ramp and would include
two 1,500 kW diesel-fired generators that would operate in parallel to support emergency and
standby loads for the WSCC Addition.
As part of the Energy Code requirements, onsite generation of power from renewable sources is
required and would include a photovoltaic system or equivalent solar hot water system. In
accordance with Section C410.1 of the 2012 Seattle Energy Code, the photovoltaic system size
for the WSCC Addition would be 100 kW for the approximately 1.2 million sq. ft. of conditioned
space. The photovoltaic panel array would be located on the roof along the south edge of the
building and would occupy approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of roof area.
Natural Gas
The WSCC Addition would be adequately served by a 4-inch, high pressure (10 psi) natural
gas connection. Natural gas service in the area is provided by PSE and they are in the process
of upgrading gas mains in the site vicinity. Preliminary load requirements for the WSCC
Addition will be forwarded to PSE to assist with their planned infrastructure upgrades. Natural
gas would be supplied to mechanical boilers and domestic hot water heaters serving the kitchen
space at medium pressure (two psi). Each fixture would have a pressure regulator to reduce the
Draft EIS
Section 3.7
Energy
3.7-2
pressure to serve the fixture within its intended pressure range. Natural gas would also be piped
to the exhibit hall space and retail space.
Alternative 4.1
Under Alternative 4.1, development of the WSCC Addition would be the same as described
under Alternative 1. In addition, this alternative includes co-development on Site B with a 29story residential tower with approximately 400 units and 8,000 sq. ft. of streel-level retail and
related uses; and, co-development on Site C of a 16-story office tower with approximately
515,700 sq. ft. of office space and 10,000 sq. ft. of street-level retail and related uses.
Electrical
Electrical loads, electrical connections, emergency/standby power and renewable power for the
WSCC Addition would be the same as described under Alternative 1. The preliminary load
calculation for residential co-development on Site B indicates that proposed residential uses
would require a maximum electrical demand of approximately 2.8 megawatts (MW) with an
average power density of approximately 4.3 W/ft2. Preliminary load calculations for office codevelopment on Site C would require a maximum electrical demand of approximately 3.2 MW
with an average power density of approximately 5.2 W/ft2. A dedicated switch room,
transformer vault room and main electrical room would be provided within each of the buildings.
Per SCL requirements, an SCL equipment room must be located as part of each building to
provide 24 hour a day/7 day per week access from the public right-of-way and may not be
located in excess of 20 feet below grade.
Building code and electrical code requirements specify that certain loads within the residential
and office buildings should be served by emergency power (i.e., fire alarm system, fire
command center, exit signs, smoke removal systems, etc.). The total calculated generator load
for the residential co-development on Site B would be approximately 700 kW. A dedicated 750
kW diesel generator would be located at the podium level of the building. The total calculated
generator load for office co-development on Site C would be approximately 550 kW and a
dedicated 600 kW diesel generator would be located at the podium level. A generator room
would also be provided within both buildings and would incorporate associated automatic
transfer switches and emergency power distribution equipment.
As part of the Energy Code requirements, onsite generation of power from renewable sources is
required for co-development on both Site B and Site C and would include a photovoltaic system
and/or equivalent solar hot water system.
Natural Gas
Natural gas services for the WSCC Addition would be the same as described under
Alternative 1. Natural gas service for the co-development on Sites B and C would be provided
by PSE, and load requirements would be typical of downtown urban office and residential
development.

Draft EIS
Section 3.7
Energy
3.7-3
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, the approximately 1,370,000 sq. ft. WSCC Addition would be constructed
on Site A only, including approximately 1,141,000 sq. ft. of convention center uses and 14,900
sq. ft. of street-level uses. No co-development would occur on Site B or Site C.
Electrical
Electrical loads, electrical connections, emergency/standby power and renewable power
features for the WSCC Addition would be the same as described under Alternative 1.
Natural Gas
Natural gas services for the WSCC Addition would be the same as described under
Alternative 1.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, development of the WSCC Addition would be similar to Alternative 1 and
would include approximately 1,485,700 sq. ft. of development on the three parcels (Site A, Site
B and Site C), including convention center uses and 35,000 sq. ft. of active street levels uses.
However, since the WSDOT land/air lease would not be included, the total development area for
the WSCC Addition would be slightly reduced when compared to Alternative 1 (approximately
26,000 sq. ft. less).
Electrical
features for the WSCC Addition are anticipated to be similar to or less than those as described
Natural Gas
Natural gas services for the WSCC Addition under Alternative 3 are anticipated to similar to
those described under Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.2
1 and co-development on Site B would include a 29-story, approximately 357,150-sq.-ft.
residential tower with 406 residential units.
Electrical
features for the WSCC Addition are anticipated to be the same as those described under
Alternative 1. Electrical loads, electrical connections, emergency/standby power and renewable
power features for residential co-development on Site B are anticipated to be the same as
those described under Alternative 4.1.
Draft EIS
Section 3.7
Energy
3.7-4
Natural Gas
Natural gas service for the WSCC Addition is anticipated to be the same as described under
Alternative 1 while service for residential co-development on Site B would be the same as
described for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.3
1 and office co-development on Site C would include a 16-story tower building with
approximately 515,700 sq. ft. of office space and 10,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses.
Electrical
features for the WSCC Addition are anticipated to be the same as those as described under
Alternative 1. Electrical loads, electrical connections, emergency/standby power and renewable
power features for office co-development on Site C are anticipated to be the same as those
described under Alternative 4.1.
Natural Gas
Natural gas service for the WSCC Addition is anticipated to be the same as described under
Alternative 1 while service for office co-development on Site C would be the same as
described for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 5
Under Alternative 5, an approximately 1,611,700 sq. ft. WSCC Addition would be constructed
on Site A only and no right-of-way vacations would be included. No co-development would
occur on Site B or Site C.
Electrical
features for the WSCC Addition would be the same as described under Alternative 1.
Natural Gas
Natural gas services for the WSCC Addition would be the same as described under Alternative
1.
Alternative 6
Under Alternative 6, the proposed WSCC Addition would not be constructed on the site.
Height and Density Changes EIS for the CPS site (Site A), this alternative does anticipate a
mixed-use complex of buildings that could include 900 residential units, a 600,000-sq.-ft. office
tower, and an 800-room 400,000-sq.-ft. hotel. As noted in Section II of this DEIS, additional
Draft EIS
Section 3.7
Energy
3.7-5
development is also expected to occur on Site B and Site C. Potential, future development on
Sites A, B and C would require new electrical and natural gas connections to provide service
and would be coordinated with the existing purveyors.
3.7.3
As noted above, development of the WSCC Addition and co-development on Site B

and Site C under the alternatives would create additional demand for gas,
telecommunications and natural gas. New development would comply with applicable
regulations (2012 Seattle Energy Code, SCL requirements, Seattle Plumbing Code, etc.)
and would coordinate with existing purveyors (SCL, Comcast, PSE, etc.) regarding
service to the new development. In addition, renewable energy features would be
provided, consistent with the applicable requirements of the 2012 Seattle Energy Code.
Construction of improvements to electrical and natural gas services to serve

development under Alternatives 1 5 would be scheduled and coordinated with other
infrastructure and utilities improvements for the WSCC site, to the extent feasible.
To minimize the potential for service disruption during the construction process, WSCC
would coordinate with electrical and natural gas purveyors.
No additional energy-related mitigation measures would be necessary.
3.7.4
With the implementation of mitigation measures identified above, no significant unavoidable

adverse energy impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.7
Energy
3.7-6
3.8
LAND USE
This section of the Draft EIS analyzes the pattern of existing land uses on and surrounding the
project site and re-development trends that are occurring in this portion of Downtown. A
discussion of the projects relationship to land use plans, policies and regulations, as well as the
Citys street vacation criteria is also included. Discussion of impacts related to Height, Bulk, and
Scale are addressed in Section 3.12, Aesthetics.
3.8.1
The project site is located in Seattles Downtown Urban Center, within the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood and approximately one block northeast of the existing Washington State
Convention Center (WSCC). Depending on the alternative, the site comprises an area of up to
three blocks bounded by Howell St. on the north, Boren Ave. on the east, I-5 on the southeast,
Pine St. to the south, and Ninth Ave. on the west; Olive Way bisects the 3-block site area in an
east-west direction and a segment of Terry Ave. bisects two of the blocks in a north-south
direction (see Figure 2-4, Section II). Specifically,
Site A is bounded by Olive Way to the north, Boren Ave. to the east, I-5 to the
southeast, Pine St. to the south, and 9th Ave. to the west. Site A contains the existing
King County Metro Convention Place Station; it is expected that buses will continue to
use the site and operate in the tunnel until at least September 2018. Site A also
includes a vacant two-story commercial building that was formerly used as an
automobile showroom/office (approximately 67,224 sq. ft.).
Site B is bounded by Howell St. to the north, Terry Ave. to the east, Olive Way to the
south, and 9th Ave. to the west. Site B contains a one-story commercial building with two
restaurants (approximately 3,840 sq. ft.), a commercial surface parking lot, and a
temporary modular two-story building that is used for Sound Transit offices
(approximately 2,880 sq. ft.).
Site C is bounded by Howell St. to the north, Boren Ave. to the east, Olive Way to the
south, and Terry Ave. to the west. Site C contains a vacant one-story commercial
building that was formerly used as an automobile showroom (approximately 9,120 sq.
ft.), a vacant surface parking lot associated with the automobile showroom, and a
commercial surface parking lot.
Streets that border the three-lot site slope downward from east to west and from south to north.
In general, the topography of the overall site slopes approximately 54 feet from the southeast
corner at Pine St. and Boren Ave. to the northwest corner at Howell and Ninth Ave. There is
very little vegetation or landscaping on the project site. Vegetation primarily consists of street
trees and landscaping along 9th Ave. and a portion of Olive Way and Pine St.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-1
The pattern of existing land uses immediately surrounding the project site includes a mix of
office, hotel, medical research, residential, parking, and retail uses, as well as several buildings
that are currently under construction. Key buildings are noted below and depicted in Figure
3.8-1 (building numbers associated with those depicted in Figure 3.8-1 are shown in
parentheses).
North
5-story, Seattle Vault Self Storage building (737 Olive Way) [#7];
16-story, Regence Blue Shield/Amazon building (1800 Ninth Avenue) [#11];
37-story, 326-unit Aspira Apartments building (1823 Terry Avenue) [#13];
9-story, Seattle Childrens Research Institute building (1900 Ninth Avenue) [#22];
14-story, 289,000 gsf Hill 7 office/hotel building (1099 Stewart/1050 Howell) [#15];
21-story, 362,000 gsf 1007 Stewart Street building (under construction) [#16];
37-story, 410-unit residential/11-story 309,000 sf office Tilt 49 building (1812 Boren Street)
(under construction) [#17];
40-story, 366 unit Kinects building (in development) (1823 Minor Avenue) [#18];
17-story, 309-room hotel building (under construction) (924 Howell Street) [#31];
East
2-story, Seattle Childrens Research Institute building (1100 Olive Way) [#8];
13-story, Olive Tower Apartment building (1626 Boren Avenue) [#9];
20-story, Metropolitan Parks Office Tower buildings (1701 Minor Avenue) [#10];
South
9-story, Paramount Theatre building (911 Pine Street) [#6];

6-story, ACT Theatre building (700 Union Street) [#23];
Washington State Convention Center and Conference Center (800 Convention Place) [#25];
7-story, Pike/Minor Apartments building (1551 Minor Avenue) [#26];
1-story, Starbucks Reserve building (1124 Pike Street) [#27];
1-story, Melrose Market building (1531 Melrose Avenue) [#28];
9-story, 205-unit Melrose building (301 Pine Street) (under construction) [#29];
6-story, Three20 Apartments building (314 Pike Street) [#30];
West
11-story, 135-room Worldmark Seattle-Camlin building (1619 9th Avenue) [#5];

27-story, 224-unit The Olivian apartment building (8089 Olive Way) [#12];
6-story, Nine and Pine Apartment building 1601 9th Avenue) [#14];
40-story, 325-unit The Premiere building (815 Pine) [#19] ;
45-story, 1,264-room 8th and Howell hotel building (under construction) (808 Howell Street) [#20];
39-story, 345-hotel room/229 condo Olive8 hotel / condominium building (737 Olive Way) [#21].
Many land uses in Downtown Seattle have undergone changes in recent years. New
development has been proposed and several projects are currently under construction in the
general vicinity of the project site. In addition, several new projects in the vicinity of the site
have either been recently completed, have received land use and/or construction permits, or are
undergoing SDCI review at this time.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Figure 3.8-1
Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project Site
To date, based on SDCI permit tracking, these developments include (see Figure 3.8-2):
1. 1800 Terry Avenue - A 30-story building containing 7,670 sq. ft. of ground level retail and 261
residential units. Parking for 307 vehicles to be provided within the structure three blocks east
of the project site.
2. 1007 Stewart Street - a 14-story office building with 8,000 sq. ft. of street-level retail. Parking for
200 vehicles to be provided below grade three blocks east of the project site.
3. 1900 Eighth Avenue a 10-story building with 125,800 sq. ft. of office above 9,850 sq. ft. of
retail at grade. Parking for 216 vehicles will be located below grade two blocks north of the
project site.
4. 202 Westlake Avenue North A 7-story office building with approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of retail
and 114,000 sq. ft. of office space four blocks north of the project site.
5. 975 John Street A 7-story, 145-unit residential building four blocks north of the project site.
6. The Martin, 2105 Fifth Avenue A 24-story, 188-unit residential building -- four blocks northeast
of the project site. (Recently Completed).
7. 2116 Fourth Avenue A 40-story, 365-unit residential building with roughly 2,750 sq. ft. of retail
space two blocks west of the project site.
8. 2030 Eighth Avenue A 39-story, 380-unit residential building with approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of
retail space two blocks east of the project site.
9. 2121 Sixth Avenue A 24-story, twin tower 654-unit residential building with roughly 12,200 sq.
ft. of retail space one block directly west of the project site.
10. 1821 Boren Avenue A 14-story mixed-use building with approximately 222 hotel rooms,
285,553 sq. ft. of office space, 3,530 sq. ft. of retail space with underground parking for 335
vehicles three blocks east of the project site.
11. 1601 Ninth Avenue A 7-story, 74-unit residential building one block south of the project site.
12. 2021 Seventh Avenue A 1,048,304 sq. ft. multi-building office development with ground-level
retail and underground parking for 1,064 vehicles three blocks northwest of the project site
(Rufus 2.0).
retail and underground parking for 1,128 vehicles three blocks northwest of the project site
(Rufus 2.0).
retail and underground parking for 1,137 vehicles four blocks northwest of the project site
(Rufus 2.0).
15. 1120 Denny Way / 1120 John Street Two 41-story towers with 1,067 residential units, retail
space, and below-grade parking for 1,347 vehicles. On John Street, plans include two towers (29story and 36-story) containing 843 residential units, retail space, and underground parking for
1,235 vehicles three blocks north of the project site.
16. 1933 Fifth Avenue A 45-story building with two stories of retail, 8 stories of service and hotel
rooms, and 394 apartments on above floors, as well as above and belowground parking for 326
vehicles four blocks southwest of the project site.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-4
17. 1903 Fifth Avenue A 50-story mixed-use building with 284 hotel rooms, 223 residential units,
retail space, and parking for 200 vehicles both above and below grade four blocks southwest of
the project site.
18. 2229 Sixth Avenue A 133,447 sq. ft., 11-story office building and electronic data processing
center with parking for 29 vehicles five blocks northwest of the project site.
19. 2326 Sixth Avenue Two 42-story towers with a 12-story podium housing 850 residential units,
200-lodging units, retail space, and parking for approximately 650 vehicles five blocks
northwest of the project site.
20. 2301 Seventh Avenue Two 40-story towers and a 10-story podium that would house 686
residential units, street-level retail, 173,715 sq. ft. of above-grade office space, and parking for
747 vehicles five blocks northwest of the project site five blocks northwest of the project site.
21. 2204 Seventh Avenue / 2201 Eighth Avenue On the Seventh Avenue parcel, a 178,580 sq.
ft., 8-story office building with street-level retail and parking for 414 vehicles. On the Eighth
Avenue property, a 598,450 sq. ft. 25-story office building with retail and underground parking for
295 vehicles four blocks northwest of the project site.
22. 2202 Eighth Avenue A 40-story residential building with 447 units, street-level retail, and
belowground parking for 382 vehicles four blocks northwest of the project site.
23. 600 Wall Street A 43-story residential tower with 400 units, retail at ground level, and belowgrade parking for 315 vehicles seven blocks northwest of the project site.
24. 2101 Ninth Avenue A 41-story residential tower with 430 units, street-level retail, and parking
for 238 vehicles below grade three blocks northwest of the project site.
25. 1920 Terry Avenue A 419,069 sq. ft., 13-story research building with parking for 201 vehicles
below grade two blocks north of the project site.
26. 1901 Minor Avenue Two 39-story towers with an 8-story podium that would house 706
residential units, street-level retail, and underground parking for 424 vehicles two blocks north
of the project site.
27. 970 Denny Way A 40-story residential building with 468 units, street-level retail, and parking for
367 vehicles four blocks northwest of the project site.
28. 111 Westlake Avenue / 110 Ninth Avenue (Blk 48) On the Westlake Avenue property, a
40,000 sq. ft. 18-story office tower, 28,000 sq. ft. 3-story commercial structure, and underground
parking for 442 vehicles. On the Ninth Avenue property, 41-story residential tower with 470 units,
retail space, and underground parking for 386 vehicles five blocks northwest of the project site.
29. 121 Boren Avenue N Two 42-story residential towers with 840 units, street-level retail, and
underground parking for 700 vehicles four blocks northwest of the project site.
30. 1001 John Street A 40-story residential building with 430 units, and parking for 300 vehicles
five blocks northwest of the project site.
31. 2014 Fairview Avenue A 420,000 sq. ft. mixed-use building with 450 residential units and
parking for 383 vehicles two blocks north of the project site.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
5
28
27
15
30
29
1.
1800 Terry Avenue
2.
1007 Stewart Street
3.
1900 Eighth Avenue
4.
202 Westlake Avenue North
5.
975 John Street
6.
The Martin, 2105 Fifth Avenue
7.
2116 Fourth Avenue
8.
2030 Eighth Avenue
9.
2121 Sixth Avenue
10. 1821 Boren Avenue
23
19
11. 1601 Ninth Avenue
31
22
12. 2021 Seventh Avenue

26
20
16. 1933 Fifth Avenue
10
17. 1903 Fifth Avenue

1
14
9
15. 1120 Denny Way/1120 John Street
25
13
18
24
21
18. 2229 Sixth Avenue

19. 2326 Sixth Avenue
12

21. 2204 Seventh Avenue / 2201 Eighth Avenue
22. 2202 Eighth Avenue
23. 600 Wall Street

24. 2101 Ninth Avenue
11
16
25. 1920 Terry Avenue

26. 1901 Minor Avenue
17
27. 970 Denny Way

28. 111 Westlake Avenue / 110 Ninth Avenue
29. 121 Boren Avenue North
30. 1001 John Street
31. 2014 Fairview Avenue
North
Project Site
Source: EA Engineering, 2015
Figure 3-8.2
Developments Projects in the Larger Site Vicinity
3.8.2
This section describes potential direct, indirect, and cumulative land use impacts associated
with each of the alternatives. The types of direct land use impacts that could potentially occur
under all alternatives relate to land use conversion (e.g., low-intensity land use being
redeveloped with a higher-intensity land use), compatibility of proposed and surrounding land
uses, and changes in density and activity levels. Analysis of the impacts associated with height,
bulk and scale is provided in Section 3.12, Aesthetics of this DEIS. Indirect land use impacts
that could occur include the potential for increased pressure for off-site development and/or
changes in the character or quantity of existing land uses in the area.
King County Site Work and Construction

While no direct land use-related impacts are anticipated as a result of King County Site Work
or construction, indirectly, demolition, site preparation, excavation, and construction would
generate short-term impacts relating to air quality, noise, light and glare, historic resources,
transportation/circulation/parking, and public services/utilities. While the majority of all
demolition, site preparation, and construction activities would occur during the daytime, at times
it may be necessary for some of these activities to occur during evening hours. Such may be
necessary to reduce the duration of the overall site preparation/construction timeframe and/or
because the City requires certain construction activities to occur at that time in order to reduce
impacts to pedestrians and vehicles during the day. As such, construction activity would likely
be noticeable to some adjacent land uses, such as nearby residential properties. Please refer
to Sections 3.1 - Earth, 3.2 - Air Quality, 3.6 Noise, 3.9 Historic Resources, 3.14
Aesthetics Light, Glare and Shadows, 3.15 Public Services, 3.16 Utilities, and 3.17
Transportation, Circulation, and Parking for more detailed information on potential impacts
related to demolition, site preparation, excavation, and construction activities.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would be consistent with development trends that are occurring (and proposed)
throughout the Denny Triangle area. Alternative 1 includes construction of a 1,499,700 sq. ft.
WSCC Addition that would include a flexible exhibition hall, meeting rooms, pre-function areas,
a ballroom, street-level retail uses, a lobby/registration area, below-grade loading areas, and
three levels of structured parking on Site A. Site B would include surface parking above the
below-grade loading facilities. Site C would provide loading access to the below-grade loading
areas and a 1-story 10,000 sq. ft. pedestrian level retail building. In total, approximately
1,511,700 sq. ft. of convention center development, including 37,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses
(including but not limited to retail) and below-grade parking for 700-800 vehicles would be
provided as part of Alternative 1. Refer to Section II for further details.
Redevelopment of the project site under Alternative 1 would substantially intensify on-site
development. In order to accommodate the proposed development, all existing transportation,
commercial, retail and vacant commercial building uses on-site, as well as surface parking,
would be removed. As noted, Site A contains the existing King County Metro Convention Place
Station; it is expected that buses will continue to use the site and operate in the Downtown
Seattle Transit tunnel until at least September 2018. In the interim, until above-grade
redevelopment of Sites B and C occurs, existing retail uses currently on-site would be replaced

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-7
with surface parking and a pedestrian level retail building, respectively. Possible future codevelopment above street grade could occur.
The proposed WSCC Addition and associated street-level uses would result in a substantial
increase in on-site population and activity levels within the surrounding neighborhood (see
Section 3.11 -- Population/Employment, Housing and Environmental Justice). The general
nature of increased site activity would include increases in pedestrian, vehicle and truck traffic
due to the nature of the proposed project, increases in the number of visitors to the convention
center and retail/restaurant uses on-site, and the substantial increase in the number of
employees on-site. The overall site activity and increases associated with this alternative would
be compatible with the surrounding urban environment. Increases in activity levels could benefit
surrounding businesses through increased support and patronage.
As noted in Section II of this DEIS, Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3 would require full or
partial vacations of five City rights-of-ways,1 including:
Full vacation of the partial, north-south alley between Olive Way and Pine St. that is
located in the east portion of Site A;
Full vacation of the north-south alley between Howell St. and Olive Way that is located in
Site B;
Full vacation of the north-south alley between Howell St. and Olive Way that is located in
Site C;
Full vacation of the segment of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way2; and
Subterranean vacation of the segment of Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave.
The vacations are essential in order to achieve key project design objectives (such as placing
150,000 sq. ft. of exhibit hall space below grade) and create a highly efficient design that
effectively supports the functional needs of the convention center clients and is competitive in
the marketplace.
A WSDOT right-of-way land lease (at-grade and below-grade) and an air rights lease would be
required over a portion of the I-5 express lanes Pike St. ramp and is proposed in conjunction
with Alternatives 1, 4.1, 2, 4.2, and 4.3, and 5. No right-of-way lease is proposed in
conjunction with Alternatives 3 or 6.
A broad range of public benefit opportunities are proposed relative to the proposed Planned
Community Development (PCD) and the proposed street and alley vacations. The public
benefit opportunities are explained in detail later in this chapter. The final public benefit
packages for the street vacations would be decided by the City Council.
A key feature of the WSCC Addition would be the integration of the proposed WSCC Addition
into the surrounding Downtown area, activation of the public realm adjacent to the site, and
connections between the WSCC and adjacent neighborhoods. The edges of the site include:
Ninth Ave., Howell St., Boren Ave., and Pine St. These edges would be activated and
1
2
Alternative 2 would require one vacation on Site A and Alternatives 5 and 6 would not require any vacations.
There is a possibility that the street vacation of Terry Ave. would be subterranean only.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-8
integrated into the project through the use of street-level uses; enhanced pedestrian areas
(fixed and flexible seating areas, increased sidewalk width, sidewalk materials, landscaping,
etc.); Green Street features (Terry Avenue and Ninth Ave.); pedestrian-scale and special-event
lighting; and entry court/plaza areas at key intersections (i.e., Ninth Ave./Pine St.).
Terry Ave. and Ninth Ave. within and adjacent to the site are designated as Green Streets by
the City of Seattle. Green Streets are intended to give priority to pedestrian circulation and open
space over other transportation uses through a variety of design and operational treatments. To
the north of the site, Green Street improvements were completed for Terry Ave. between
Virginia St. and Lenora St. These improvements included new landscaping areas to replace
existing street parking, improved walkways/sidewalks and street trees on both sides of the
street. As noted above, a full vacation of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive St. would be
included as part of Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, which would indicate the terminus of the
Terry Ave. Green Street. Under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, outbound freight/truck
traffic would utilize Terry Ave. to exit the site (including during the PM peak hour) and could
affect the Green Street character of Terry Ave. to the north of the site. In addition, modifications
to the planned Terry Ave. improvements between Howell St. and Virginia St., as well as the
Virginia St./Terry Ave. intersection channelization would be required under these Alternatives to
accommodate freight/truck traffic (see Section 3.17, Transportation, for further details). Under
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, Ninth Ave. would include enhancements to the
streetscape that would be consistent with Green Street standards such as wider sidewalks,
street trees, improved paving, benches, and curb bulbs in several locations.
As noted in Section II of this DEIS, development of the proposed WSCC Addition would
require removal of King County Metro transit facilities associated with the existing Convention
Place Station, which is already scheduled to close, and existing buildings and surface parking
areas within Sites A, B and C. Given the scale of the proposed project, the nature of the
development, and the mixed-use nature of possible co-development, it is anticipated that the
proposed WSCC Addition would continue the trend for further redevelopment in this portion of
Downtown.
Alternative 4.1
Alternative 4.1 would contain a similar basic program for development of the proposed WSCC
Addition as Alternative 1, including approximately 1,499,700 sq. ft. for the WSCC Addition.
However, the overall scale of development associated with Alternative 4.1 would be greater
than Alternative 1 due to co-development on Site B and Site C.
Co-development on Site B would include an approximately 290-foot, 406-unit residential tower
with approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses. Co-development on Site C would include a
240-foot, approximately 516,000 sq. ft. office tower with approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of streetlevel uses. Below-grade parking would be provided similar to Alternative 1, as well as full
vacation of four City rights-of-way and a subterranean vacation, and a WSDOT air rights/ground
lease. Similar to Alternative 1, redevelopment under this alternative would be designed to
integrate the WSCC Addition and co-development into the surrounding Downtown area, to
activate street frontages adjacent to the site, and to provide a connection between the proposed
WSCC Addition and the surrounding neighborhood.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-9
Redevelopment would substantially intensify on-site development beyond the level identified
under Alternative 1 due to the co-development on Site B and Site C. Increased development
density associated with the co-development would result in increased on-site population and
increased activity levels on-site and in the surrounding area when compared with Alternative 1.
However, it is anticipated that the overall site activity and increases in development density
associated with this alternative would be consistent and compatible with more intensive, mixed
use character in the vicinity of the site. Increases in activity levels could also potentially benefit
surrounding businesses through increased support and patronage from the additional
population and activity associated with this alternative.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would include development of the WSCC Addition on Site A only; no
development would occur on Site B or Site C. The WSCC Addition would contain
approximately 1,370,000 gross sq. ft. of Convention Center space, roughly 8.6 percent smaller
than Alternative 1. Approximately 14,900 sq. ft. of street-level uses (including but not limited to
retail) would be provided, which would be approximately 40 percent less than that of
Alternative 1. The amount of structured parking would be slightly less than Alternative 1
(approximately 650-750 spaces). Loading would be below-grade with trucks entering and
exiting from a dedicated truck ramp at Olive Way. This alternative would require one full alley
vacation (as compared with five full or partial right-of-way vacations for Alternatives 1 and 4.1).
Like those alternatives, Alternative 2 would require a land and air rights lease over a portion of
the I-5 express lanes Pike St. ramp. Due to the size and scale of the proposed WSCC
Addition, it is anticipated that land use impacts associated with this alternative would be similar
to or less than those discussed for Alternative 1.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would contain development of the WSCC Addition similar to Alternative 1 and
would include development on Sites A, B and C; however, the overall development area for this
alternative would be approximately 27,000 sq. ft. less due to the fact that the WSDOT land/air
rights lease would not be included. The WSCC Addition would contain approximately
1,485,700 gross sq. ft. of Convention Center space, roughly 2 percent smaller than Alternative
1, including approximately 23,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses. No co-development would occur on
Site B or C, but Site B would contain surface parking above below-grade loading facilities and
Site C would provide loading access and a 1-story, 10,000 sq. ft. pedestrian-oriented street use
building, similar to Alternative 1. A slightly smaller amount of parking would be provided
compared with Alternative 1 and this alternative would also involve the same five full or partial
right-of-way vacations as that of Alternative 1; however, the WSDOT land and air rights lease
over a portion of the I-5 express lanes ramp would not be required. This would result in a gap at
the intersection of Pine Street and Boren Avenue where the proposed WSCC Addition would
not meet the street. Due to the size and scale of the proposed WSCC Addition associated with
this alternative, it is anticipated that land use impacts would be similar to or less than those

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-10
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.2 would contain development of the WSCC Addition on Sites A, B and C, similar
to Alternative 4.1 the difference would be that co-development would occur on Site B only.
This alternative would include development of approximately 1,499,700 sq. ft. associated with
the WSCC Addition, including 25,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses on Site A. Co-development on
Site B would include a 290-foot residential tower with approximately 400 units. Similar to
Alternative 1, no co-development would occur on Site C, however, loading access would be
provided from this site, along with approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses. A similar
amount of parking would be provided compared with Alternative 4.1 and this alternative would
also involve the same five full or partial right-of-way vacations and the WSDOT land and air
rights lease over a portion of the I-5 express lanes ramp as Alternative 4.1. Due to the size and
scale of the proposed WSCC Addition under this alternative, it is anticipated that land use
impacts would be similar to or less than those discussed for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 4.3 would include development of the WSCC Addition on Sites A, B and C, similar
to Alternative 4.1; however, co-development would occur only on Site C. Under this alternative,
an approximately 1,499,700 sq. ft. WSCC Addition would be developed, as well as 25,000 sq.
ft. of street-level uses. Co-development on Site C would include a 240-foot, approximately
516,000 sq. ft. office building with approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of street level uses. Similar to
Alternative 1, no co-development would occur on Site B, however, surface parking would be
provided on this site above the below-grade loading facilities. Site B would consist of surface
parking for approximately 70-80 vehicles, with access to Terry Avenue. A similar amount of
parking would be provided compared with Alternative 4.1 and this alternative would also
involve the same five full or partial right-of-way vacations and the WSDOT land and air rights
lease over a portion of the I-5 express lanes ramp, as Alternative 4.1. Due to the size and scale
of the WSCC Addition under this alternative, it is anticipated that land use impacts would be
similar to or less than those discussed for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 5
Development under Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 2 and include development of
the WSCC Addition on Site A only; no development or co-development would occur on Sites
B or C. The WSCC Addition would contain approximately 1,611,700 sq. ft. of convention center
space (approximately 7.5 percent larger than Alternative 1), as well as approximately 14,900
sq. ft. of street-level uses (approximately 40 percent less than Alternative 1). Parking for
approximately 600-700 vehicles would be provided below-grade (compared with approximately
650-750 spaces under Alternative 2); however, this alternative would not include any right-ofway vacations. Due to the size and scale of the WSCC Addition under this alternative, it is
anticipated that land use impacts would be similar to or slightly more than those discussed for
Alternative 2.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-11
Alternative 6
Under Alternative 6, the proposed WSCC Addition would not be constructed on the site.
Height and Density Changes Final EIS relative to the CPS site (Site A), this alternative does
anticipate a mixed-use complex of buildings that could include 900 residential units, a 600,000
sq. ft. office tower, and an 800-room 400,000 sq. ft. hotel. Mixed-use development would be
consistent with development trends that are occurring (and planned) throughout the Denny
Triangle area. Similar to Alternatives 1 through 5, increased development density on the site
would result in increased population and increased activity levels on-site and surrounding area.
However, it is anticipated that the overall site activity and increases in development density
would be compatible with the surrounding dense, urban environment in the Downtown area.
Increases in activity levels could also potentially benefit surrounding businesses through
increased support and patronage from the additional population and activity associated with this
alternative.
Potential Indirect/Cumulative Impacts

Development under the alternatives would result in a substantial increase in the number of
employees on-site and visitors to the proposed WSCC Addition. In addition, the residences
and/or office building on-site (associated with several alternatives that include co-development)
would further increase pedestrian activity on streets adjacent to the site. The scale of
development associated with each of the WSCC Addition alternatives could further continue
the trend that is occurring in the Denny Triangle Neighborhood associated with more intensive
development. This is consistent with goals and policies of the Denny Triangle Neighborhood
Plan, as well as the Urban Center strategy associated with the Citys Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed WSCC Addition would contribute to cumulative employment and population
growth in the immediate area, together with an increase in the intensity of land uses in the
Denny Triangle Neighborhood. In addition, surrounding businesses could experience an
increase in demand for goods and services as a result of the increased population. Businesses
that could experience increased demand include nearby retail uses, restaurants, and coffee
shops, as well as other businesses. Proposed new development on-site could also indirectly
influence the timing associated with redevelopment of properties surrounding the project site.
3.8.3
No significant land use impacts are anticipated from development of the proposed WSCC
Addition and, therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
3.8.4
No significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-12
3.8.5
Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations
The following discussion focuses on project consistency with relevant goals and policies of the
Citys Comprehensive Plan, the Denny Triangle Neighborhood Plan, the Pike-Pine
Neighborhood Plan, use and development standards of the Citys Land Use Code, and
consistency with the Citys Right-of-Way Vacation Criteria.
City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan

The City of Seattles Comprehensive Plan Toward a Sustainable Seattle, was originally
adopted in 1994. It has been amended each year and substantially updated in 2005. A major
update of the Comprehensive Plan is now underway.
The Citys existing Comprehensive Plan consists of twelve major elements urban village, land
use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, utilities, economic development, neighborhood,
human development, cultural resources, environment, and container port. Each element
contains goals and policies that are intended to guide the development of the City in the
context of regional growth management for the next 20 years. The site of the proposed WSCC
Addition is part of the Downtown Urban Center (Denny Triangle Urban Center Village), which
emphasizes high density mixed-use residential and employment land uses.
Urban Village Element

Summary: The Urban Village Element establishes the Citys urban village strategy for growth,
by guiding the designation of urban centers, urban villages, and manufacturing industrial centers
(all of which are broadly referred to as urban villages), and by defining the priorities for land
use in these areas. General goals and policies for urban villages call for: promoting densities,
mixes of uses, and transportation improvements that support walking, use of public
transportation, and other transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, especially
within urban centers and urban villages (UVG4); directing the greatest share of future
development to centers and urban villages, and reducing the potential for dispersed growth not
conducive to walking, transit use, and cohesive community development (UVG5);
accommodating planned levels of household and employment growth (UVG6); accommodating
a range of employment activity to ensure employment opportunities are available for the citys
diverse residential population (UVG7); using limited land resources more efficiently and
pursuing a development pattern that is more economically sound by encouraging infill
development on vacant and underutilized sites, particularly within urban villages (UVG9); and,
promoting physical environments of the highest quality, which emphasize the special identity of
each of the Citys neighborhoods, particularly within urban centers and villages (UVG13).
The Urban Village element designates the proposed site of the WSCC Addition as an Urban
Center (UV15 and UV16) with a functional designation of mixed residential and employment
(UV17). The 20-year growth estimates (2004-2024) for the Downtown Urban Centers Denny
Triangle project 9,515 new jobs and 3,000 new households (Urban Villages, Appendix A to the
Comprehensive Plan). Relevant goals and policies guiding the distribution of growth call for:
concentrating a greater share of employment growth in locations convenient to the Citys
residential population to promote walking and transit use and reduce the length of work trips
(UVG31); planning for urban centers to receive the most substantial share of Seattles growth,

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-13
consistent with their role in shaping the regional growth pattern (UVG32); and, encouraging
growth in Seattle between 2004-2024, to be generally distributed across the City (UVG33).
DISCUSSION: The proposed WSCC Addition is located within one of the City of
Seattles six designated Urban Centers the Downtown Urban Center. The
proposed project would promote increased mixed-use density (convention space,
retail/restaurant, below-grade parking and, depending upon the alternative, office
and/or residential uses) on sites that are currently developed with low density land
uses. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Urban Village
Element. The WSCC Addition would become a key link between the mixed-use
Denny Triangle Neighborhood, the Retail District to the west, and the Pike-Pine
Neighborhood to the east.
Consistent with the goals and policies identified for Urban Centers, the concept for
the WSCC Addition could provide a mix of residential- and employment-generating
uses on-site, depending upon the chosen alternative, in a relatively compact, mixeduse pattern. The range of potential employment would contribute to providing jobs
for the Citys diverse residential population and the residential uses associated with
Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2 could provide housing in this part of Downtown. The
project could also concentrate residential and employment growth in a location with
direct access to major bus routes, Sound Transit Light Rail, the Seattle Streetcar
network, as well as convenient access to areas in nearby residential neighborhoods,
such as First Hill, Capitol Hill, Belltown, South Lake Union, and the Central Area.
The project would enable redevelopment of a site that is currently underutilized in
terms of density, consistent with the goal to use limited land resources in Urban
Centers more efficiently. In addition, depending upon the alternative, the proposed
project would contribute toward meeting or exceeding established residential and
employment growth targets identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Denny
Triangle Urban Center Village. Up to nearly 3,000 full-time jobs could be created as
part of the WSCC Addition (depending upon the alternative chosen) and potentially
over 400 units of housing could be provided on-site under Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2
(see Tables 3.11-7 and 3.11-8 in Section 3.11 Population/Employment,
Housing and Environmental Justice for actual numbers).
The proposed
development would consume less land than would lower density development and
could be viewed as being more efficient from a land use perspective. The proposed
development would also be consistent with the type and scale of existing and
planned surrounding land uses within the Downtown Urban Center.
Land Use Element

Summary: The Land Use Element defines land use city-wide and in specific use categories. In
the City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan, the GMA requirement for a Land Use Element is
fulfilled by both this element and the Urban Village Element (described above), which further
defines land use policies to implement the Citys urban village strategy. This element also
provides a framework for land use regulations contained in the Citys Land Use Code (Seattle
Municipal Code Title 23). Relevant land use goals and policies that apply city-wide call for:
providing for a development pattern consistent with the urban village strategy by designating
areas within the City where various types of land use activities, building forms, and intensities of
development are appropriate (LG1): Relevant goals and policies that apply to Downtown Areas
Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-14
call for: promoting Downtown Seattle as the home to the broadest mix of activities and greatest
intensity of development in the region; promoting the continued economic vitality of Downtown
Seattle, with particular attention to the retail core and the tourism industry (LUG30);promoting
the integration of high capacity transit stations into the neighborhoods surrounding them and
foster development appropriate to significant increases in pedestrian activity and transit
ridership; and, the use of overlay districts or other adjustments to zoning to cultivate transitoriented communities (LU178).
DISCUSSION: The proposed WSCC Addition involves establishing additional
convention/conference/lecture/meeting space, retail/restaurant uses, and, depending
upon the alternative, office and/or residential uses as well. The redevelopment
concept proposed under any of the alternatives is consistent with the Citys
Downtown Urban Center/Urban Village land use designation and consistent with
promoting increased density with a broader mix of activities in Downtown Seattle.
The WSCC Addition would become a key link between the mixed-use Denny
Triangle Neighborhood, the Retail District to the west, and the Pike-Pine
Neighborhood to the east. The project would increase employment and, depending
upon alternative, residential density within the Downtown Urban Center and would
further help create an urban mixed-use area in close proximity to services,
residences, employment, and transit facilities. Attendees to the WSCC Addition and
employees (up to 3,000, as noted earlier) and activation of the streetscape with
retail/restaurant uses, entertainment uses and open space, would substantially
increase pedestrian activity in this portion of the Denny Triangle Neighborhood.
Additional pedestrian activity could result in increased transit ridership, due to the
sites proximity to numerous bus routes, Sound Transits Link Light Rail Westlake
Station, and the South Lake Union Streetcar. This result is consistent with the
Downtowns land use goals of fostering development that continues to promote the
economic vitality of Downtown, generating significant increases in pedestrian activity
and transit ridership, and promoting the greatest intensity of development.
Economic Development Element

Summary: The Economic Development Element promotes accommodating most of the Citys
job growth in urban centers and villages, and encourages City efforts to attract higher-thanaverage wages and capital into the City. Relevant economic development goals and policies
call for: Adding approximately 84,000 jobs in the city over the 20-year period covered by the
Plan (Goal EDG1); recognizing that Seattles high quality of life is one of its competitive
advantages and promoting economic growth that maintains and enhances this quality of life
(Goal EDG2); supporting the Urban Village Strategy by encouraging the growth of jobs in Urban
Centers and Hub Urban Villages and by promoting the health of neighborhood commercial
districts (EDG3); accommodating a broad mix of jobs, while actively seeking a greater
proportion of living wage jobs that will have greater benefits to a broad cross-section of the
people of the City and region (EDG4 ); striving to maintain the economic health and importance
of downtown as the economic center of the city and the region and home to many of Seattles
vital professional service firms, high technology companies, regional retail activity, as well as
cultural, historic, entertainment, convention and tourist facilities (ED1 ); striving to provide a wide
range of goods and services to residents and businesses in urban centers and villages by
encouraging appropriate retail development in these areas (ED3); encouraging key sectors of
Seattles economy that provide opportunities for long term growth (ED10); and creating a local
Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-15
business environment that promotes the establishment, retention, and expansion of hightechnology industries in the city (ED12).
DISCUSSION: Depending upon which alternative is selected by WSCC, the
proposed WSCC Addition would involve development of new convention/
conference/lecture/meeting spaces, retail/restaurant uses, and, depending upon the
alternative, office and/or residential uses as well within the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood and adjacent to the Pike/Pine Neighborhood. Consistent with the
goals identified for the Citys Economic Development Element and policies for the
Urban Village Strategy, the proposed project would promote increased employment
and a broader mix of employment activities in Downtown Seattle. Employment
opportunities associated with the proposed project, regardless of the alternative,
would increase employment density within the Downtown Urban Center, which would
contribute toward attaining planned levels of employment growth. This result would
also be consistent with the Downtowns land use and economic development goals
of fostering development that continues to promote the economic vitality of
Downtown, generates significant increases in pedestrian activity and transit ridership,
and promotes the greatest intensity of economic development.
Neighborhood Plan Element

The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan established guidelines for neighborhoods to develop
their own plans to allow growth in ways that provide for a neighborhoods unique character
needs and livability. The WSCC Addition is located within the borders of the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood Planning Area general boundaries of which include Denny Way on the north,
Fifth and Sixth Avenues on the west, Pike St. on the south, and I-5 on the east. Adjacent
neighborhood planning areas that are also analyzed in this EIS include the Pike/Pine
Neighborhood Plan. Consistency of the proposed WSCC Addition project with applicable goals
and policies from these plans that were incorporated into the Citys Comprehensive Plan is
presented below.
Denny Triangle Neighborhood Plan3
Summary: Relevant neighborhood goals and policies associated with this neighborhood plan
call for: a diverse residential neighborhood with an even distribution of income levels (Goal
DEN-G1); seeking an even distribution of household income levels (Policy DEN-P1); a mixeduse neighborhood that combines commercial office space, retail sales and services, social and
public services, and a residential population (Goal DEN-G2); a diverse, mixed-use character
that provides a transit and pedestrian-friendly atmosphere (Goal DEN-G3); designating and
supporting the development of green streets in the neighborhood (Policy DEN-P12); reducing
external transportation impacts while improving internal access and circulation (Goal DEN-G4);
seeking ways to improve safety and convenience of bicycle travel within and through the
neighborhood (Policy DEN-P16); exploring ways to improve pedestrian safety and convenience
along and across the arterials in the neighborhood (Policy DEN-P17); and considering
The Denny Triangle Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 1998, outlines goals and recommendations for housing, land
use, urban form and transportation. Key Integrated Activities identified by the neighborhood in the plan include
simplifying and creating a means to expedite the alley vacation process to encourage residential and commercial
development and promoting development associated with the CPS site and the Convention Center.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-16
development of traffic improvement plans to lessen the impact of regional automobile traffic on
the Denny Triangle neighborhood (Policy DEN-P18).
DISCUSSION: Consistent with the goals and policies identified in the Neighborhood
Element, the proposed WSCC Addition would redevelop up to a three-block area that
presently contains low density land uses into a dynamic urban landscape, integrating
convention/conference/meeting spaces, retail/restaurant uses at the street-level, public
open space and pedestrian amenities, and (depending upon alternative) residential
and/or office uses. The development would contribute to fulfilling the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood Plan goals and policies as follows:
Under all alternatives, the proposed project would increase employment density
within the Downtown Urban Center, which would help create a mixed-use area in
close proximity to services, residences, employment, numerous bus routes, Sound
Transits Link Light Rail Westlake Station, and the South Lake Union Streetcar.
Under all alternatives, redevelopment of the project site would provide multiple
opportunities to improve the pedestrian environment, as well as connections
between the Denny Triangle and Pike/Pine Neighborhoods at the street level.
Proposed public benefits associated with proposed public right-of-way vacations
under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 would include enhancements to the
streetscape with wider sidewalks, street trees, improved paving, benches, and in
several locations curb bulbs. Compared to the other alternatives, however,
Alternative 3 would provide fewer opportunities to improve the pedestrian
connections/experience between the Denny Triangle and Pike/Pine Neighborhoods
due to the absence of a building street-level connection in the vicinity of the
intersection of Pine Street/Boren Avenue.
Under all alternatives, the proposed project would provide weather protection where
appropriate.
Under all alternatives, the proposed project features public open space areas and
setbacks, which would increase the amount of public open space in the
neighborhood as compared to existing conditions.
Under all alternatives, the project is designed for vehicles/trucks to access the
proposed below-grade parking garage and loading functions while minimizing the
number of curbcuts. Vacating public rights-of-way under Alternatives 1, 24, 3, 4.1,
4.2, and 4.3 would provide an opportunity to locate garage and loading access
functions below-grade where they would have the least impact to traffic operations,
pedestrian amenities/facilities, and bicycle travel.
Under all alternatives, the convenience of bicycle travel within and through the
neighborhood would be improved by providing BikeShare facilities on-site.
Under Alternative 2, loading would be below-grade with trucks entering and exiting from a dedicated truck ramp
at Olive Way.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-17
Under all alternatives, WSCC would implement a Transportation Management Plan

(TMP) to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes and reduce the
number of peak period commute trips associated with the convention center.
Under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, Ninth Ave. would include
enhancements to the streetscape that would be consistent with Green Street
standards, such as wider sidewalks, street trees, improved paving, benches, and
curb bulbs. A full vacation of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive St. would be
included as part of Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, although a subterranean-only
option is also being considered. Outbound freight/truck traffic would utilize Terry
Ave. to exit the site (including during the PM peak hour) and new truck traffic from
the site could affect the Green Street character of Terry Ave. to the north of the site.
In addition, modifications to the planned Terry Ave. improvements between Howell
St. and Virginia St., as well as the Virginia St./Terry Ave. intersection channelization
would be required under these Alternatives to accommodate freight/truck traffic from
the site (see Section 3.17, Transportation, for further details).
Pike-Pine Neighborhood Plan

Summary: The proposed WSCC Addition is located directly to the west of the Pike/Pine
Neighborhood. Relevant neighborhood goals and policies of this plan call for: A community
with its own distinct identity comprised of a mix of uses including multi-family residential, small
scale retail businesses, light manufacturing, auto row and local institutions (P/P Goal 1);
Strengthen the neighborhoods existing mixed-use character and identity by encouraging
additional affordable and market-rate housing, exploring ways of supporting and promoting the
independent, locally owned businesses, seeking increased opportunities for art-related facilities
and activities, and encouraging a pedestrian-oriented environment (P/P Policy 1); Seek to
preserve the architectural and historic character of the neighborhood by exploring conservation
incentives or special district designations (P/P Policy 2); A neighborhood of thriving and diverse
businesses that support both lively day-time and night-time activities. A destination for retail,
arts, and entertainment (P/P Goal 2); Support the creation of a synergistic relationship between
the business community and the broader neighborhood in order to promote the shared goals of
maintaining the unique character of the neighborhood while improving its livability (P/P Policy 7);
A neighborhood with a distinct identity that provides a distinct and active pedestrian
environment and a balance of basic amenities that serves a dense urban center village (P/P
Goal 3); Encourage the attraction and passage of pedestrians to and from downtown and
adjacent neighborhoods by seeking to provide improved environments along key pedestrian
streets (P/P Policy 18).
DISCUSSION: The proposed WSCC Addition would play a key role in connecting the
Pike/Pine Neighborhood on Capitol Hill to Downtown. Consistent with goals and policies
contained within the Pike/Pine Neighborhood Plan, under any of the project alternatives,
the street-level experience along Pine Street would integrate the change in topography
between Capitol Hill and Downtown into the design of the streetscape for an improved
pedestrian experience that includes smaller scale plantings, seating, and access to walkup retail spaces with building lobby spaces and terraces located above. The design of
the building along Pine Street is intended to maximize the experience of being within an
urban city street, while minimizing the edge of the freeway. Under Alternatives 1, 2,
4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, the project also proposes the integration of a beacon retail space on
the corner of Pine Street and Boren Avenue that is intended to create an additional
Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-18
anchor and waypoint visible from across the freeway on Capitol Hill. Alternative 3
would not contain this anchor retail space, as the building would not connect to the
intersection of Pine Street and Boren Avenue.
Seattle Land Use Code

Summary: The proposed project is located in the Downtown Urban Village and is subject to the
land use regulations of the Downtown Mixed Commercial (DMC) 340/290-400 zoning district.
The DMC 340/290-400 zone allows commercial and residential structures -- the maximum
height limit of 340 ft. applies to portions of a building containing non-residential and live-work
uses; 290 ft. is the base height limit of portions of a project in residential use and 400 ft. is the
maximum residential height limit allowed in this zone.
WSCC is considering a Master Use Permit (MUP) with a Planned Community Development
(PCD) component, per SMC 23.49.036. Alternatives 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 could be developed as a
PCD, and WSCC has applied for a PCD in connection with Preferred Alternative 4.1.
However, the need for a PCD will continue to be evaluated as the process proceeds, and it is
possible at some point, the PCD will not be pursued. The aim of the PCD is to enable
coordinated development of large parcels of land in portions5 of the Downtown. The PCD is a
Type II MUP process with the MUP decision made by the Director of the Department of
Construction and Inspections (SDCI). The minimum site size for a PCD is 100,000 sq. ft. As
part of the MUP, the project must go through the Citys Design Review process. Because of the
large size of the site (three parcel development) and the complexity of the development, the
PCD process can authorize variation in code standards and a longer duration of the MUP with
multiple phases of development. With a PCD, the SDCI Director establishes priorities for public
benefits. A PCD must include three or more of the following public benefit priorities: lowincome housing, townhouse development, public open space, implementation of adopted
neighborhood plans, improvements in pedestrian circulation, improvements in urban form,
improvements in transit facilities, and/or other elements that further an adopted City policy and
provide a demonstrable benefit. This last category allows consideration of a broad range of
benefits, such as economic development policies of the Citys Comprehensive Plan. The PCD
process also considers all individual lots within the PCD boundary as a single lot in terms of
shifting square footage between lots contained within the PCD boundary (SMC 23.49.036G), as
long as any increases in floor area ratio (FAR)6 above the base FAR are consistent with code
provisions outlined in SMC 23.49.011.
Besides the height limit, the other major development standard that regulates the bulk and scale
of development in the DMC 340/290-400 zone is FAR. The base FAR that is allowed in the
DMC 340/290-400 zone is 5 and the maximum FAR is 10. For example, the area of the project
site under Alternative 4.1 is 288,916 sq. ft. (including the proposed vacated rights-of-way);
therefore, the amount of development that is allowed outright on the site under this alternative is
1,444,580 sq. ft. (FAR 5); a maximum FAR of 10 would allow 2,889,160 sq. ft. of development
on-site. The remaining alternatives would each contain a different FAR calculation depending
upon the size of each respective site area.
The PCD is applicable in nearly all Downtown zones except the Pike Market Mixed and Downtown Harborfront 1
zones.
FAR is a measure of the relationship between the amount of gross floor area permitted in a structure and the
area of the lot on which the structure is located.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-19
In order to achieve the maximum development allowed in this zoning district, the first increment
of chargeable floor area above the base FAR can be gained by acquiring regional development
credits pursuant to SMC 23.58A.044.7 Table B (23.49.011) contains the amount of FAR that
can be achieved for each zone DMC can achieve .5 FAR through the acquisition of Regional
Development Credits. Seventy-five percent of the FAR above the base FAR of 5 and the first
increment above the base FAR requires the proponent to enter into an agreement with the City
to provide low-income housing and childcare, or provide payment-in-lieu to the City to build lowincome housing and childcare -- or a combination of both (SMC 23.49.012). Twenty-five
percent of additional FAR beyond the base FAR is allowed in the DMC zone if public benefit
features can also be incorporated into the project (SMC 23.49.013); these features include a
broad range of amenities, such as public open space, hill climb assists, shopping corridors,
human services, public restrooms, restoration/preservation of landmarks, performing arts
theatres, and transit station access for fixed rail facilities. The 25 percent of additional FAR that
is allowed beyond the base FAR may also be gained by using Transfer of Development Rights
(TDRs) from qualified sending lots, as allowed by code. Additionally, to achieve additional
residential FAR above base FAR for residential projects, the applicant can enter into a voluntary
agreement with the City to either provide or contribute to low-income and moderate-income
housing (23.49.015).8
In terms of parking, the Land Use Code sets forth a maximum parking limit for nonresidential
uses. The code maximum is 1 parking space per 1,000 sq. ft. of non-residential development
(SMC 23.49.019.C.1).
DISCUSSION: The proposed WSCC Addition would be a mixed-use project that is
consistent with the Citys Land Use Code. As noted in the Fact Sheet and Section
II of this DEIS, the alternatives that are evaluated in this DEIS analyze proposed
development of 1,370,000 to 2,390,550 gross sq. ft. of mixed-use development,
depending upon the alternative.
Proposed building uses (e.g., convention,
conference/meeting space, lecture/meeting hall space, retail/restaurants, residential,
office, and structured parking), the amount of parking, building height, and
development density that are proposed in conjunction with the alternatives would be
consistent with what is allowed in the DMC 340/290-400 zone.
WSCC is currently considering a PCD in order to have greater flexibility in the
development and phasing of this multi-block project.
For example, under
Alternative 4.1, the project proposes to achieve the proposed building height and
FAR within the PCD project boundary by shifting FAR between Sites A, B, and C, as
allowed by code. Under the PCD, the project would not require use of the Citys
incentive zoning program to achieve the desired building height and/or FAR for the
project.
In DOC1, DOC2, and DMC zones that are located outside of South Downtown, if chargeable floor area above
the base FAR is allowed on a lot for development that includes a new structure and the project is located within
the Local Infrastructure Project Area for Downtown and South Lake Union as shown on Map A for 23.58A.044,
the first increment of chargeable floor area above the base FAR, shown for each zone in Table B for 23.49.011,
shall be gained by acquiring regional development credits pursuant to Section 23.58A.044.
23.49.015 - Bonus residential floor area in DOC1, DOC2 and DMC zones outside South Downtown for voluntary
agreements for low-income housing and moderate-income housing.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-20
Several PCD public benefit priorities and opportunities have been established for the
project including:
Low Income Housing;

Public Open Space;
Pedestrian circulation -- implementation of neighborhood concept plan;
Improvements in Transit Facilities; and
Support for public policy/demonstrable public benefit relative to sustainability
elements, LEED Gold, and affordable housing.
The Director of DPD (now SDCI) has issued a letter establishing the public benefit
priorities associated with the PCD and WSCC has written a letter in response
(Appendix E).
If the applicant decides not to pursue the PCD, the project would then be expected to
gain the necessary building height and FAR for each alternative via the use of the
Citys incentive bonus program to earn additional FAR and consequently would
provide a monetary contribution to the Citys Low Income Housing Fund, as outlined
above. The amount and type of bonus/incentive required/used would vary by
alternative. A full vacation of Terry Avenue would also allow FAR transfer between
Sites B and C.
As noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS, the proposed project is subject to the City of
Seattles Design Review process. Under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 2, 3, 4.2, and 4.3,
because of the street and alley vacation component, the project is also subject to the
Citys Design Commission review process. The proposed project has been designed
to be consistent with the Design Review Guidelines for Downtown Development.9
Based on the current level of project design, it is anticipated that development
standard departures would be required for the proposed WSCC Addition10 relative to
faade setbacks, faade modulation, and Green Street upper level setbacks. These
departures are currently under review by the Citys Downtown Design Review Board
as part of the Design Review process.
Seattle Municipal Code Tree Regulations

Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05 and 25.11; Directors Rule 16-2008; Ordinance 122919;
and DPD (now SDCI) Tip 242 establish the Citys tree protection regulations and implementing
procedures. Code Chapter 25.05 establishes SEPA policies for determining the value of
outstanding trees that are subject to an environmental review process. Chapter 25.11 is the
Citys tree protection code and it provides the means for protecting outstanding trees by
establishing a regulatory framework, identifying restrictions on tree removal, and containing key
provisions for Exceptional Trees. DR 16-2008 clarifies the definition of Exceptional Trees and
clarifies SEPA policies relative to a determination of value for outstanding trees. Tip 242
summarizes the regulations and provides further guidance.
9
10
Seattle, 1999.
Alternative 4.1 has been presented to the Downtown Design Review Board as the preferred scheme.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-21
A key to the Citys tree regulations is whether a tree is Exceptional. Based on the code and
implementing regulations, an Exceptional Tree is a tree that:
is designated by Plant Amnesty in partnership with the City of Seattle as a Class AAA-1
Heritage Tree: or
is rare or exceptional by virtue of its size, species, condition, cultural/historic importance,
age, and/or contribution as part of grove of trees as determined by a method described
in DR 16-2008.
DISCUSSION: A certified arborist conducted a tree inventory11 relative to Sites A, B
and C and identified twenty (20) trees on the project site. Of these, none were
determined to be Exceptional according to Directors Rule 16-2008. All trees are
proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed WSCC Addition and all tree
removal would be in compliance with the Citys tree removal regulations. The tree
survey and inventory are included in Appendix F to this DEIS. Section II of this EIS
describes the street trees and plantings that are proposed in conjunction with this
project.
City of Seattle Alley Vacation Criteria

Summary: The City of Seattle Street Vacation Policies (Resolution 28605) provides policies to
guide City Council decisions regarding the vacation of public rights-of-way. In making the
decision regarding street vacations, the Council weighs three components of the public interest
including:
One Impact of the proposed vacation upon the circulation, access, utilities, light, air,
open space and views provided by the right-of-way;
Two Land use impacts of the proposed vacation, including consistency of development
involving the vacated right-of-way with relevant city land use policies; and,
Three Benefits accruing to the public from the vacation of the right-of-way. Benefits
include such things as making land available for public uses other than transportation
and benefits from post-vacation development.
In addition, the City Council considers the recommendation from SDOT, comments received
from SDCI, the Seattle Design Commission, Public Utilities, other City departments, other
public agencies, and interested parties.
The street vacation ordinance gives special attention to procedures for coordinating city
review of vacation requests and land use proposals involving the same public right-of-way.
When a private development proposal involves public right-of-way, vacation of the right-ofway should be considered part of the land assembly phase and precede application for city
land use approvals. SDOT indicates that such a sequence is necessary in order to minimize
risk to petitioners from substantial investment in a project before vacation approval. In
addition, this sequence is essential to avoid the influence that prior investment may have
upon the City Councils discretion in reviewing a vacation petition.
11
Tree Solutions, 2015.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-22
DISCUSSION: As noted previously in this DEIS, development that is proposed in

conjunction with Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3 would require vacation of five
public right-of-ways (e.g., streets, alleys) as indicated below; each is depicted in
Figure 2-4.
Full vacation of the partial, north-south alley between Olive Way and Pine St. that
is located in the east portion of Site A;
located in Site B;
located in Site C;
Full vacation of the segment of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way12;
and
Subterranean vacation of the segment of Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren
Ave.
Alternative 2 would require full vacation of the partial, north-south alley between Olive
Way and Pine St. that is located in the east portion of Site A; and Alternatives 5 and 6
would not require any vacations.
Analysis of the relationship of the potential vacations with components of the public interest
is provided in the discussion of specific policies below. Specific policies and guidelines for
the vacations relevant to the proposed project include:
1. Summary - Policy 1 Circulation and Access: Vacations may be approved only if they
do not result in negative effects on both the current and future needs for the Citys vehicular,
bicycle, or pedestrian circulation systems or on access to private property, unless the
negative effects can be mitigated.
Guideline 1.1 (A) Arterials (Terry Avenue)
Streets designated as Arterials may be vacated only when an alternative circulation route is
substituted.
Guideline 1.1 (B) Access Streets (Olive Way)
Residential and Commercial. Petitions for the vacation of streets designated as Access
Streets may be approved only if:
1. Access is retained to properties on the block where the right-of-way is located;
2. Circulation to properties on neighboring streets is retained;
3. The right-of-way does not provide a necessary link in the continuity of a route to
arterials;
12
There is a possibility that the street vacation of Terry Avenue would be subterranean only.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-23
4. Public parking provided by the right-of-way is not needed, can be provided on nearby
rights-of-way, or can be replaced; and
5. Vacations that would result in diverting truck or commercial traffic to nearby
residential streets will not be approved
Guideline 1.1 (F) Alleys
Proposed alley vacations will be considered according to the following guidelines.
1. The primary purpose of an alley is to provide access to individual properties for loading
functions and to provide utility corridors and access to off-street public services such as
water, sewer, solid waste and electricity. In addition, alleys may provide other public
purposes and benefits including pedestrian and bicycle connections, and commercial and
public uses. Alleys should be retained for their primary purposes and other public
purposes and benefits. Alley vacations may be provided only when they would not
interrupt an established pattern in a vicinity, such as continuity of an alley through a
number of blocks or a grid, which is a consistent feature of neighborhood scale. The
impacts on future service provision to adjacent properties if utilities are displaced will be
reviewed.
4. Downtown. The following criteria will be considered for specific downtown alley
vacation petitions:
a) may be vacated only when their loading, service and access functions can be
continued within the development site, and curbcuts are provided in conformance with
the comprehensive plan;
b) alleys which are part of the primary pedestrian circulation system, such as Post Alley,
may be vacated only when comparable public pedestrian circulation is provided and the
pedestrian environment along the corridor is improved; and
c) to ensure compatible scale and character of infill development, for example, alleys in
special review districts or historic districts may be vacated only when compatible scale
and character of development is assured.
Guideline 1.2
Traffic Code Compliance
Proposed vacations, which would encourage violation of the traffic code will not be
approved. An example is a vacation eliminating one exit to an alley, requiring vehicles to
back from the alley on to a street.
Guideline 1.3
Cumulative Effects to be Assessed
When several vacations are proposed for a particular area of the City, such as within the
boundaries of a major institution, a comprehensive review will be undertaken to determine
the cumulative effects of the vacations on circulation and access.
Guideline 1.4
Necessary On-Street Parking Must be Replaced
Streets which provide necessary on-street parking may be vacated only when the public
parking can be otherwise provided.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-24
Guideline 1.5
Circulation/Access Conditions on Vacations
The City Council may impose conditions on vacations to mitigate negative effects of the
vacation on vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.
Guideline 1.6
Owners
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access by Agreements with Property
A. Vehicular Access
Vehicular traffic functions will not be provided by agreement across private property.
When the traffic functions of a street are necessary to the operation of the circulation
system, the street will be retained as a dedicated right-of-way.
B. Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian circulation functions may be provided by an agreement which provides for
public access across private property only when a major public benefit is provided by such
an arrangement.
DISCUSSION: The following provides a summary of the impacts associated with the
requested street and alley vacations. The transportation impacts of the WSCC Addition are
summarized in the Transportation Discipline Report (Appendix H).
Olive Way
Subterranean vacation of the segment of Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave is
proposed as part of the project to accommodate below grade loading functions. Access to
loading will be on Terry Ave. The proposed subterranean vacation of Olive Way is not
expected to result in long term impacts to traffic operations, public parking, circulation or
access. In order to construct the project under Olive Way, impacts are anticipated during the
construction period. Several methods of constructing this section of the project as a means
of mitigating these impacts have been identified and are presented in the construction
impacts section of the Transportation Discipline Report. With the completion of construction
activities on the site, the existing configuration functionality and capacity of Olive Way would
continue.
Terry Avenue (Full Vacation)
Review of the existing and future use of the section of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and
Olive Way, focused on impacts to local vehicle access, transit, non-motorized impacts, and
traffic operations resulting from the proposed street vacation. The section of Terry Ave.
proposed for street vacation is the stub end terminus of the Terry Ave. Green Street.
Local Vehicle Access: Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way would be open to
general purpose traffic and vehicles leaving the WSCC Addition garage during typical
conditions. All outbound service and freight activity for WSCC would exit the loading
dock area onto Terry Ave. between Olive Way and Howell St. The westbound contraflow
lane on Olive Way currently terminates at Terry Ave., thereby creating a need for this
connection. The contraflow lane on Olive Way is planned to be eliminated by SDOT in
2016. Without the contraflow lane, the functional needs for this section of Terry Ave
would be decreased. Weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes total 60 and 65 vehicles,
respectively. Approximately 40 % of the traffic on Terry Ave. is associated with the
Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-25
existing contraflow lane. All outbound service and freight activity would exit onto Terry
Ave. between Olive Way and Howell St. Thus, the changes and impacts to the local
circulation patterns would be minimal.
Transit: Buses currently use Terry Ave. between Stewart Ave. and Howell St. to enter
and exit the Convention Place Station site. Bus service at the Convention Place Station
site will be eliminated no sooner than September 2018. Thereafter, in the future buses
would not have a need to utilize the vacated section of Terry Ave. These changes would
occur with or without the project, and would not be affected by the street vacation. Thus,
the impacts to transit would be minimal.
Non-Motorized Transportation: Proposed improvements to the vacated section of
Terry Ave. with the project would include amenities to serve pedestrians, improving the
pedestrian environment compared with existing conditions. These amenities could
include high-quality paving treatment and fixed/flexible seating, among other amenities.
Although this section of roadway would serve as the freight egress point, the
improvements to the pedestrian environment will be done with an emphasis on off-setting
the impacts associated with the freight access.
Traffic Operations: Terry Ave. as well as the surrounding streets would operate at
similar levels of service (LOS) with or without the street vacation between Howell St. and
Olive Way. According to forecasts, during the horizon year (2021), approximately 60
vehicles during the weekday AM peak hour and 65 during the weekday PM peak hour not
associated with the WSCC Addition would use this connection in the current state. As
identified in the EIS, shifting this traffic from the Terry Ave. vacated portion to adjacent
streets did not generate a noticeable change in the level of service at the surrounding
intersections.
Terry Avenue (Subterranean Vacation)
The subterranean vacation of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way will not change
the existing functionality of this section of roadway. However, to accommodate egress of
freight traffic to Olive Way, the southern portion of Terry Ave. is proposed to be converted to
two-way traffic. This conversion would extend from the access point, south to Olive Way. It
will not provide two-way flows at the Howell St. intersection. The evaluation of project
impacts associated with this option, including freight egress from Site C, are included in the
project impact evaluation in the project EIS.
Alley Block 33 (Site B)
This alley extends between Howell St. and Olive Way, midblock between Terry Ave. and
Ninth Ave. It aligns with an alley on the north side of Howell St. No alley exists on the south
side of Olive Way. Since both Howell St. and Olive Way are one-way (eastbound), use of
this alley for general circulation is limited and does not provide an alternative to either
primary eastbound route.
With the vacation of this alley, there would be minimal impact on local circulation for the
reason noted above. Currently transit routes in the area do no use this connection and any
vacation and shift of traffic would be insignificant and not create added delay to Olive Way
or Howell St. traffic flows. North/south pedestrian connectivity is largely provided by Terry
Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-26
Ave. or Ninth Ave. There is no pedestrian mid-block crossing at the alley connection, so
pedestrians are observed to use the traffic signals at either the Terry Ave intersection or
Ninth Ave intersection. As a result, there is not impact to pedestrian traffic.
Alley Block 43 (Site C)
This alley extends between Howell St. and Olive Way, midblock between Terry Ave. and
Boren Ave. It aligns with an alley on the north side of Howell St. and an alley to the south of
Olive Way which is also part of the alley vacation request. As is the case with the Block 33
alley, the use of this alley for general circulation is limited. With the elimination of the contraflow lane in 2016, the use of the alley to access alternative routes, or travel in the opposite
direction of either Howell St. or Olive Way is eliminated.
Ave. or Boren Ave. There is not pedestrian mid-block crossing at the alley connection with
either Howell St. or Olive Way, so pedestrians are observed to use the traffic signals at
either the Terry Ave intersection or Boren Ave intersection.
Alley Block 44 (Site A)
This alley extends south of Olive Way and terminates internal to the site. It does not extend
further south of Pine St., midblock between Terry Ave. and Boren Ave. It aligns with an alley
on the north side of Howell St. and an alley to the south of Olive Way which is also part of
the alley vacation request. As is the case with the Block 33 alley, the use of this alley for
general circulation is limited. With the elimination of the contra-flow lane in 2016, the use of
the alley to access alternative routes, or travel in the opposite direction of either Howell St.
or Olive Way is eliminated.
Ave. or Boren Ave. There is not pedestrian mid-block crossing at the alley connection with
either Howell St. or Olive Way, so pedestrians are observed to use the traffic signals at
either the Terry Ave intersection or Boren Ave intersection.
2. Summary - Policy 2 Utilities: Rights-of-way which contain or are needed for future utility
lines or facilities may be vacated only when the utility can be adequately protected with an
easement, relocation, fee ownership or similar agreement satisfactory to the utility owner.
Public rights-of-way provide utilities with corridors for the efficient transportation and delivery
of utility services to the public in the least costly manner possible. Utilities generally assess
vacation petitions from an operational perspective in order to ensure that a vacation will not
impair current service reliability and capacity levels nor limit the ability to expand services in
the future. The growth of telecom utilities above and below ground, increased urban
densities, and demand for undergrounding of utility facilities all place pressure on the value
of public rights-of-way, particularly alleys, for future utility needs.
Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-27
Guideline 2.1 Review of Petitions by Affected Utilities

Utilities will be given an opportunity to review the proposed vacation, to identify its existing
and future interests in the right-of-way and to indicate what actions would be necessary to
protect its interests. The Petitioner is responsible for working with the various utilities to
identify and address the utility issues. The Petitioner bears the costs of addressing the
utility issues relating to the vacation and shall ensure that the utility is in a similar position
as prior to the vacation without a detriment to current or future utility services.
Enhancement of utility services at the Petitioner's expense shall not be required.
Guideline 2.2 Utility Conditions on Vacations
The City Council may impose conditions on vacations to assure continued service to the
public in the most efficient, least costly manner possible.
Guideline 2.3 Utility Easement Provisions/Property Owners Risk and Responsibility
A. Easement agreements should clearly state the rights and responsibilities of each
party.
B. Utilities may prohibit construction of buildings, structures, grading and filling, and
other uses over or under their easements where such activities would inhibit operation
of or prevent access to the utility facilities for maintenance and repair, or would cause
extra cost or liability to the utility, or would affect the safety and integrity of those
facilities.
C. Any costs for the repair of damages to the improvements placed on or over the
utility easement by the property owner due to the utility maintenance repair or
installation will be the express responsibility of the property owner.
DISCUSSION: Under all alternatives that include proposed right-of-way vacations,
all services to existing structures within the three-block project site would be
disconnected, services would be re-routed, and infrastructure would be removed. All
utilities and planned easements for future utilities located within vacated rights-ofway would be adequately protected by easements, relocation, or agreement(s)
satisfactory to the utility owner. A utility corridor would be retained under Olive Way
as part of the subterranean vacation of that public right-of-way.
3. Summary: Policy 3 Light, Air, Open Space and View. When the City Council
determines that the light, air, open space or view provided by a particular street or alley
should be retained, the right-of-way may be vacated only if the public open space, light, air
and view can be retained or substituted by dedication to the public of other comparable
street right-of-way or other property such as open space property or on future development
on the vacated and abutting property.
DISCUSSION: Vacation of the right-of-ways would provide a greater variety of open
spaces, light and air than the right-of-ways currently provide. For example, under
Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2, the vacations would allow the proposed residential building
to be setback and re-oriented on the block in an effort to draw pedestrians along
Terry Ave. to the entrance of the proposed WSCC Addition. Re-orientation of the
building would widen the intersection, allowing natural light to better reach the street
level.
Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-28
Under Alternative 2, development of the WSCC Addition would only occur on Site
A and would include a full right-of-way vacation of the alley located on Site A.
Vacation of the right-of-way would allow for increased opportunities for open space,
light and air. Development on only Site A would also create additional opportunities
for natural light to reach the street level when compared to the co-development
alternatives.
Vacation of the public right-of-ways could also provide better territorial views along
Olive Way due to the larger setbacks at street-level. All alternatives also propose to
integrate pedestrian connections, open space, and landscaping throughout the
blocks to enhance the existing urban atmosphere.
Consistent with City of Seattle criteria for the approval of street and alley vacations,
improvements intended to provide public benefits have been proposed as part of the
street and alley vacation petitions that have been submitted to the City for review.
Public benefits focus on public improvements within and surrounding the blocks that
would enhance the connectivity between the proposed project and the surrounding
community.
4. Summary - Policy 4 Land Use: A proposed vacation may be approved only when the
increase in development potential that is attributable to the vacation would be consistent
with the land use policies adopted by the City Council. The criteria considered for making
individual vacation decisions will vary with the land use policies and regulations for the area
in which the right-of-way is located. The City Council may place conditions on a vacation to
mitigate negative land use effects.
Vacations can affect the land use and development patterns in an area by adding to the
developable land base, altering the local pattern of land division, and increasing the
development potential on the vacated and abutting properties. These changes may allow
development that is inconsistent with adopted land use polices and have a negative effect
on the area of the proposed vacation and other rights-of-way. The Petitioner shall provide
the City with information about the expected completed density of the project and the
development potential of the property without a vacation. Such information should be
provided as both the percentage increase in the development potential and the additional
square footage added to the project. The Petitioner shall also provide the City with
information as to how the project advances City planning goals and meets the zoning criteria
in the area where the project is located. It is the obligation of the Petitioner to provide a
justification for the vacation and to provide information on whether there are feasible
alternatives that do not require a vacation.
Guideline 4.6 Zone Specific Review
Adopted City Land Use Policies to be Used
In addition to the general street vacation policies and guidelines contained in this
document, the adopted City land use policies for the zone in which a vacation is located,
will be used to determine whether or not the land use effects of each vacation are in the
public interest. These include policies such as the Comprehensive Plan, particularly its

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-29
land use, urban village, transportation and neighborhood elements. Vacations will be
reviewed according to Land Use Policies as now constituted or hereafter amended.
Area Specific Guidelines
Guidelines related to various land use areas are stated below. They are provided in order
to highlight special concerns related to each area. They shall be used to supplement the
general provisions and guidelines of the Seattle Vacation Policies and other land use
policies for protection of the public interest.
A. Downtown
Petitions for vacations of right-of-way in the downtown area shall be reviewed
according to the Comprehensive Plan, particularly its land use, urban village,
transportation and neighborhood elements of the plan and other relevant adopted
plans or goals.
DISCUSSION: The proposed WSCC Addition would provide additional
convention/conference/meeting space, lecture/meeting hall space, retail/restaurants
and, depending on the alternative, residential and/or office space. The site
redevelopment that is proposed is consistent with the Downtown Urban
Center/Urban Village land use designation, and consistent with promoting increased
density and a broader mix of activities in Downtown Seattle.
The WSCC Addition would become a key link between the mixed-use Denny
Triangle Neighborhood, the Retail District to the west, and the Pike-Pine
Neighborhood to the east. The project would increase employment and, depending
upon the alternative, could increase residential density within the Downtown Urban
Center. As such, the proposed project could help further development of an urban
mixed-use area in close proximity to services, residences, employment, and transit
facilities.
As noted previously, the proposed WSCC Addition would be a mixed-use project
that is consistent with the Citys Land Use Code. The building uses, building height
and density, and parking that is proposed under each of the alternatives would be
consistent with what is allowed in the DMC 340/290-400 zone.
The applicant is considering pursuing a PCD in order to have greater flexibility in the
phasing of the multi-block project; and several PCD public benefit priorities and
opportunities have been established for the project.
WSCC indicates that vacation of public right-of-ways are proposed under
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 2, 3, 4.2, and 4.3 in order to improve the overall project in a
manner consistent with the public interest and to provide for better urban design for
the proposed development. Vacation of the public right-of-ways could also provide
improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the immediate area, improved
pedestrian/vehicle and service access, public open space, and maintain territorial
views through the site.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-30
Consistent with City of Seattle criteria for the approval of street and alley vacations,
improvements intended to provide public benefits have been proposed as part of the
street and alley vacation petitions that have been submitted to the City for review.
Public benefits focus on public improvements within and surrounding the blocks that
would enhance the connectivity between the proposed project and the surrounding
community.
Please refer to the discussion of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies earlier in
this Land Use section.
5. Summary - Policy 5 Public Benefit.
A. A vacation petition shall include a public benefit proposal. The concept of providing a
public benefit is derived from the nature of street right-of-way. Right-of-way is dedicated
for use by the general public in perpetuity whether or not a public purpose can be
currently identified. The City acts as a trustee for the public in its administration of
rights-of-way. Case law requires that in each vacation there must be an element of
public use or benefit, and a vacation cannot be granted solely for a private use or
benefit. Therefore, before this public asset can be vacated to a private party, there must
be a benefit that accrues to the general public.
B. Proposed vacations may be approved only when they provide a long-term public benefit.
Vacations will not be approved to achieve short-term public benefits or for the sole
benefit of individuals. The following do not constitute a public benefit: Mitigation of the
adverse effects of a vacation; Meeting code requirements for development; Paying the
required vacation fee; Facilitating economic activity; or Providing a public, governmental
or educational service; while the nature of the project is a factor in determining the
adequacy of a public benefit proposal, it does not in and of itself constitute an adequate
public benefit.
Guideline 5.1 Public Benefits Identified
Public benefits may include, but are not limited to:
A. On-site Public Benefits: on-site benefits are favored as the provision of the public
benefit can also act to offset any increase in scale from the development. On-site public
benefits may include:
Publicly accessible plazas or other green spaces, including public stairways;

Streetscape enhancements beyond that required by codes such as widened
sidewalks, additional street trees or landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian
lighting, wayfinding, art, or fountains;
Pedestrian or bicycle trails;
Enhancement of the pedestrian or bicycle environment;
View easement or corridors; or
Preservation of landmark buildings or other community resources.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-31
B. Off-site Public Benefits: where it is not practicable to provide the public benefit or
more than a portion of the public benefit on the development site, the public benefit may
be provided off-site. This may include:
Pedestrian or bicycle trails or public stairways;

Enhancement of the pedestrian or bicycle environment;
Enhancement of existing public open space such as providing playground
equipment in a City park;
Improvements to designated Green Streets;
Funding an element from an adopted Neighborhood Plan;
Providing wayfinding signage; or
Providing public art.
DISCUSSION: Consistent with City of Seattle criteria for the approval of street and
alley vacations, a broad range of improvements are intended to provide long-term
public benefits. Under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 2, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, public benefits
associated with the proposed vacations focus on public improvements surrounding
the site in order to improve the overall project in a manner consistent with the public
interest and to provide better urban design.
Public benefits package could include some of the public benefits listed below.
9th Avenue & Pine Street: Southwest Plaza

9th Avenue: Pedestrian Improvements between Howell Street and Olive Way
9th Avenue: Pedestrian Improvements between Pine Street and Pike Street
9th Avenue: Pedestrian Improvements between Olive Way and Pine Street
Pine Street Curb alignment
Pine Street: Overpass Improvements
Pine Street: Pedestrian Improvements between 9th Avenue and the South Transit
site
Termination of 9th Avenue at Pike Street: 9th Avenue Pedestrian Crossing
Termination of 9th Avenue at Pike Street: Pedestrian and Streetscape
Improvements
Voluntary Setbacks
Overhead Weather Protection
Bike Network Improvements Bikeshare Stations
Wayfinding
Public Art
The final public benefit package would be decided by the City Council.

Draft EIS
Section 3.8
Land Use
3.8-32
3.9
HISTORIC RESOURCES
This section characterizes existing historic resources on the site and in the site vicinity, identifies
potential impacts to these resources and includes an adjacency analysis. Some information in
this section is drawn from the Appendix A Reports prepared by Nicholson Kovalchick Architects
(see Appendix G).
3.9.1
Regulatory Framework
Designated landmarks are those properties that have been recognized locally, regionally or
nationally as significant resources to the community, city, state or nation. Recognition may be
provided by listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Washington
Heritage Register (WHR); through a nomination process managed by the Washington State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP); or, by listing as a local landmark.
Typically, a property is not eligible for consideration for listing in the NRHP or WHR until it is at
least 50 years old. For King County Landmarks, the age threshold is 40 years, and for City of
Seattle Landmarks it is 25 years.
National Register of Historic Places

The National Park Service administers the NRHP. The National Register is the official federal
list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture.
National Register properties have
significance to the history of their community, state or the nation. Nominations for listing historic
properties come from State Historic Preservation Officers, from Federal Preservation Officers
for properties owned or controlled by the United States Government and from Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers for properties on tribal lands. Private individuals and organizations, local
governments and American Indian tribes often initiate this process and prepare the necessary
documentation. In Washington State, the Washington State Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, organized and staffed by DAHP, considers each property proposed for listing and
makes a recommendation on its eligibility.
To be eligible for listing, a property must normally be at least 50 years of age and possess
significance in American history and culture, architecture or archaeology to meet one or more of
four established criteria.
Historic resources eligible for listing in the National Register may include buildings, sites,
structures, objects, and historic districts. A resource less than 50 years of age may be eligible if
it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historic importance or if
the resource is determined to have exceptional importance. To be eligible for listing in the
National Register, a property must also have integrity, which is defined in the NRHP listing
criteria as "the ability of a property to convey its significance." Within the concept of integrity,
the NRHP recognizes seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity:
feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting and materials.1
1
U.S. Department of the Interior,1997.

Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-1
Washington Heritage Register

The Washington Heritage Register is an official listing of historically-significant sites and
properties found throughout the state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes districts,
sites, buildings, structures and objects that have been identified and documented as being
significant in local or state history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. Sites
which are listed in the NRHP are automatically added to the Washington Heritage Register.
Anyone may prepare and submit a nomination to DAHP. Complete nominations are scheduled
for consideration by the State Advisory Council. To be eligible for listing, a property must qualify
under the following:
A building, site, structure, or object must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource
should have documented exceptional significance.
The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity, i.e. it should retain
important character-defining features from its historic period of construction.
The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, state or
federal level.
King County Landmarks Process

The King County Historic Preservation Program administers the King County Landmarks
process. Anyone may nominate a building, site, object, structure or district in King County for
consideration as a King County Landmark. The King County Historic Preservation Officer
reviews the nomination for completeness and schedules a public hearing before the King
County Landmarks Commission for consideration. King County Code 20.62 requires that in
order to be designated, a property must be more than 40 years old; possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and, meet at least one of five
criteria.
City of Seattle Landmarks Process

Local recognition of historical significance in Seattle is provided through the process of
designation of the property as a Seattle Landmark. The process consists of three sequential
steps involving the Landmarks Preservation Board: submission of a nomination and its review
and approval by the Board; designation by the Board; and, negotiation of controls and
incentives by the property owner and the Board staff. A final step in Seattle's landmarks
process is approval of the designation by an ordinance passed by City Council.
The City of Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (SMC 25.12) requires that a property,
object or site be more than 25 years old and "have significant character, interest or value, as
part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, state or nation." It must
also have integrity or the ability to convey its significance. Seattle's landmarks ordinance also
requires a property meet one or more of six designation criteria.

Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-2
Existing Conditions
Historic structures that are adjacent to the proposed site of the WSCC Addition include the
following:
Paramount Theatre 901 Pine St. This building is located immediately south of the
project site. The Paramount Theatre is listed in the NRHP, the WHR and is a City of
Seattle designated Landmark.
Worldmark Seattle - Camlin 1619 Ninth Ave. This building is located immediately
west of the project site. The Worldmark Seattle - Camlin is listed in the NRHP, the WHR
and is a City of Seattle designated Landmark.
Other City-designated historic structures that are within the general vicinity of the project site
include the following:
El Rio Apartments 1922 Ninth Ave. This building is located approximately one and
a half blocks north of the project site; and
Eagles Temple Building 1416 Seventh Ave. This building is located approximately
two blocks south of the project site.
As indicated in Section II, there are three buildings on the project site. The following is an
overview of each building:
Site A - 1017 Olive Way 2-story masonry structure (approx. 67,224 sq. ft.) that was
formerly an automobile showroom/office; this building was built in 1930 and is currently
vacant;
Site B - 915 Howell St. 1-story masonry structure (approx. 3,840 sq. ft.) that currently
contains two restaurants; this building was built in 1922; and
Site C - 1711 Boren Ave. 1-story masonry structure (approx. 9,120 sq. ft.) that was
formerly an automobile showroom/office; this building was built in 1950 and is currently
vacant.
Each of these buildings were identified in the Citys 2007 Historic Preservation Program as
Category 3 structures.2 Category 1 and 2 buildings are properties that are considered eligible to
meet the Citys requirements for historic designation, whereas Category 3 and 4 buildings are
those that were determined to have less intact character and significance.
Since the three buildings on the site are over 50 years of age, a historic resources report
(termed Appendix A) is required as part of the MUP application for the proposed WSCC
Addition and this DEIS. An Appendix A report is a requirement of the Interdepartmental
2
A Category 3 structure is one deemed worthy for inclusion in the Citys historic building inventory, but not eligible
at this time as a City Landmark.

Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-3
Agreement between the City of Seattles Department of Planning and Development and the
Department of Neighborhoods.3 The Appendix A document is a brief report that provides
information regarding the building, the architect or builder, a statement of significance (e.g.,
current and past owners of the building and the role these uses or owners may have played in
the community, city, state or nation), and photographs of the building. As part of the Appendix A
process, the document is submitted to and reviewed by DPD, and forwarded to the Citys
Historic Preservation Officer for a determination of whether the structure meets any of the
criteria for Landmark designation. An Appendix A report was completed for each of the existing,
on-site buildings; each is included in Appendix G of this DEIS.
The Appendix A reports for the three existing buildings onsite indicate that it is unlikely that any
meet the criteria for Landmark designation. The 1711 Boren Ave. and 915 Howell St. buildings
have experienced alterations that have significantly impacted the integrity of the buildings, and
the 1017 Olive Way building does not appear to meet the criteria for representing an exceptional
example of an automobile showroom and service building.
3.9.2

As part of the King County Site Work occurring on Site A, the King County Metro transit
passenger facilities associated with the Convention Place Station would be removed, and
various other activities would occur under the site work alternatives, as descried in Section II, to
prepare the site for sale. Landmarks adjacent to the site could be minimally affected by dust
and vibration, but no significant or direct impacts to historic resources would occur as a result of
this activity. The existing building in the northeast corner of Site A would remain in place during
this stage of work.
Construction
Alternatives 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3
As part of site development under Alternatives 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 all existing buildings on
Sites A, B and C would be demolished. As part of the Appendix A review process, the Citys
Historic Preservation Officer would review the reports associated with the three buildings onsite,
and would make a determination on whether the structures meet any of the criteria for
Landmark designation. Assuming that the buildings are not designated as City Landmarks, no
direct impacts to historic resources would result from redevelopment of the site.
The El Rio Apartments and the Eagles Temple Landmarks, located one and a half to two blocks
away from the site, would not be expected to be impacted by construction under any of the
alternatives due to distance from the site. The Camlin and the Paramount Theatre are adjacent
to the site and as such, potential indirect and/or temporary construction-related impacts could
minimally affect these buildings, including vibration and dust related to earth work.
DCLU and DON, 1995.

Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-4
Alternatives 2 and 5
As part of site development under Alternatives 2 and 5, the existing building on Site A would
be demolished and the Appendix A review process would occur as described for Alternatives
1, 4.1, 3, 4.2 and 4.3. Assuming that the building on Site A is not designated as a City
Landmark, no direct impacts to historic resources would result from redevelopment of the site.
Because the site area associated with Alternatives 2 and 5 only includes Site A, it is assumed
that the existing buildings on Sites B and C would remain. While future development may occur
on Site B and/or Site C, it is assumed that any such future development that occurs on these
sites would be subject to the Citys historic preservation requirements at the time of application.
Adjacency Analysis
Since the proposed WSCC Addition is subject to a Master Use Permit from the City of Seattle,
as part of that MUP review process, the Citys Department of Neighborhoods will review the
MUP submittal within the context of adjacent City-designated Landmark structures. Relevant
City policies relating to adjacency and historic landmarks in SMC 25.05.665 include:
H.
Historic Preservation
d. When a project is proposed adjacent to or across the street from a designated site or
structure, the decisionmaker shall refer the proposal to the City's Historic Preservation
Officer for an assessment of any adverse impacts on the designated landmark and for
comments on possible mitigating measures. Mitigation may be required to insure the
compatibility of the proposed project with the color, material and architectural character
of the designated landmark and to reduce impacts on the character of the landmark's
site. Subject to the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, mitigating
measures may be required and are limited to the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Sympathetic facade treatment;

Sympathetic street treatment;
Sympathetic design treatment; and
Reconfiguration of the project and/or relocation of the project on the project site;
provided, that mitigating measures shall not include reductions in a project's gross
floor area.
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2 and 4.3

As noted previously, the proposed WSCC Addition project site would be located across the
street from two designated Landmark structures: the Paramount Theatre, which is on the corner
of Pine St. and Ninth Ave. and the Worldmark Seattle Camlin, which is located on Ninth Ave.
The project under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2 and 4.3 would alter streetscape views of the
Paramount Theatre and the Camlin as a result of the proposed WSCC Addition, which would
have greater height, bulk and scale as compared to these two existing structures. As described
in Section 3.13 Aesthetics (Viewshed) of this DEIS, Site A of the proposed WSCC Addition
presently contains Convention Place Station, which is below the level of surrounding streets,
Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-5
creating in a sense of openness. As depicted by images in Section II of this DEIS, project

development alternatives (Alternatives 1-5) have been designed to respect and respond to the
scale and the height of these adjacent historic Landmarks through the use of open space,
massing and setbacks that frame the faades and signature building elements.
Paramount Theatre
The Paramount Theatre is a red brick rectilinear building that was designed by Northwest
architects Marcus Prietteca and F.J. Peters. The front of the building along Pine St. is 8-stories
tall (95 ft.), and the back is 5-stories tall. The principal entrance is on the north faade, facing
the project site. The Paramount Theatre is separated from the WSCC Addition site by the 80foot wide Pine St. right-of-way, which provides a visual buffer between the two buildings. Under
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, it is proposed that the southwest faade of the WSCC
Addition be modulated with both street level and upper level setbacks facing the Paramount
Theatre, to reflect the height and scale of the adjacent historic building. See Figure 3.9-1 for a
rendering depicting the proposed setbacks in relation to the Paramount Theatre.
Overall, a 78 ft. street level setback and a 35 ft. upper level building setback up to a height of 80
ft. would be provided at the southwest corner of the building on Pine St. and Ninth Ave to the
outside edge of the terrace. The total extent of the upper level building setback above 80 ft.
would be approximately 138 ft. wide, with a depth of 274 ft. on Pine St., and 274 ft. wide with a
depth of 138 ft. along Ninth Ave. The 35 ft. and 274 ft. upper level setbacks, together with the
80 ft. wide Pine St. right-of-way, would increase the separation between the two buildings to 115
ft., up to a height of 80 ft. and 354 ft. above a height of 80 ft. The upper level setback at 80 ft.
would be 15 ft. lower than the 95 ft. tall Paramount Theater.
Figures 3.9-2 to 3.9-4 provide context. Figure 3.9-2 is a view of the west facade of the WSCC
Addition from Ninth Ave. looking south at the front (north faade) of the Paramount Theatre.
Figure 3.9-3 is a view of the south facade of the WSCC Addition from Pine St. looking west at
the east and north facades of the Paramount Theatre. Figure 3.9-4 is a view of the south
faade of the WSCC Addition from Pine St. looking east at the west and north facades of the
Paramount Theatre.
The proposed WSCC Addition has been designed to reflect and enhance the existing
architectural character and vernacular of the Paramount Theatre. Faade treatments and
materials, while still in the process of being refined, would be chosen to be sympathetic with the
character of the adjacent Landmark.
From an adjacency standpoint, the WSCC Addition with its proposed street level and upper
level setbacks would be more-compatible with the Paramount Theatre than other nearby highrise buildings including the 41-story Premier on Pine apartment building, which is located
immediately west of the Paramount Theatre. The WSCC Addition, as proposed under
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, would also be more compatible with the adjacent Landmark
than a building that is allowed on the project site by zoning (340 ft. height for commercial
structures).

Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-6
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2015
Figure 3.9-1
Alternative 4.1, Aerial Architectural Depiction as Viewed from Ninth Ave. and Pine St.
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-2
Ninth Avenue Looking South
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-3
Pine Street Looking West
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-4
Pine Street Looking East
Worldmark Seattle - Camlin

The Worldmark Seattle - Camlin is an 11-story, 110 ft. tall Tudor Revival style hotel that was
designed by Carl Linde. The reinforced concrete building has an elaborate east facade with a
brick veneer, while the sides and rear of the building are painted concrete. The principal
building entrance is on the east faade, facing the project site. The Camlin is separated from
the WSCC Addition site by the 66-foot wide Ninth Ave. right-of-way, which provides a visual
buffer between the two buildings. Under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2, and 4.3, it is proposed that
the southwest faade of the WSCC Addition be modulated with both street level and upper
level setbacks facing the Camlin, to reflect the height and scale of the adjacent historic building.
Refer to Figure 3.9-1 for a rendering depicting the proposed setbacks in relation to the Camlin.
outside edge of the terrace. The upper level setback would be approximately 274 ft. wide with a
66 ft. wide Ninth Ave. right-of-way, would increase the separation between the two buildings to
101 ft., up to a height of 80 ft. and 340 ft. above a height of 80 ft. The upper level setback at 80
ft. would be 30 ft. lower than the 110 ft. tall Camlin building.
outside edge of the terrace. The total extent of the upper level building setback above 80 ft.
would be approximately 138 ft. wide, with a depth of 274 ft. on Pine St., and 274 ft. wide with a
80 ft. wide Pine St. right-of-way, would increase the separation between the two buildings to 115
ft., up to a height of 80 ft. and 354 ft. above a height of 80 ft. The upper level setback at 80 ft.
would be 15 ft. lower than the 95 ft. tall Paramount Theater.
Figures 3.9-5 and 3.9-6 provide context. Figure 3.9-5 is a view of the west facade of the
WSCC Addition from Ninth Ave. looking south at the front (east faade) of the Camlin. Figure
3.9-6 is a view of the west facade of the WSCC Addition from Ninth Ave. looking north at the
front (east faade) of the Camlin.
As noted with regard to the Paramount Theatre, the WSCC Addition has been designed to
reflect and enhance the existing architectural character and vernacular of the Worldmark Seattle
- Camlin. Faade treatments and materials, while still in the process of being refined, would be
chosen to be sympathetic with the character of the adjacent Landmark.
From an adjacency standpoint, the WSCC Addition with its proposed street level and upper
level setbacks would be more-compatible with the Camlin than a building that is allowed on the
project site by zoning (340 ft. height for commercial structures).
Alternative 2 and 5
The project under Alternatives 2 and 5 would also visually alter views to the Camlin and the
Paramount Theatre by introducing new development on the site with greater height, bulk and
scale than existing conditions and greater than that of the other development alternatives.
Because of the smaller site area associated with Alternative 2 (Site A only), the floorplate of
Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-11
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-5
Ninth Avenue Looking South
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-6
Ninth Avenue Looking North
the WSCC Addition building would need to be maximized and no street level setbacks, fewer
upper level setbacks, and limited modulation would be provided on Ninth Ave. and Pine St.,
resulting in less visual compatibility with the Paramount Theatre and the Camlin as compared to
Alternatives 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Under Alternative 5, no street level or upper level setbacks would be possible, and limited
building modulation would be provided. With no vacations as part of Alternative 5, the WSCC
Addition would need to be taller than Alternatives 1 to 4.3. Rather than a height of 176 ft.
above Pine St. (Alternative 1 or 4.1, for example), Alternative 5 would have a height of
approximately 272 ft. above Pine St. Overall, Alternative 5 would not be as visually compatible
with the adjacent Paramount Theatre and Camlin Landmark buildings. Figures 3.9-7 to 3.9-11
provide context in comparison with Alternatives 1, 3, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Alternative 6 No Action Alternative

probability, once King County Metro no longer needs Convention Place Station (Site A),
subsequent, commercial redevelopment would occur. Such development is expected to be
consistent with potential, future development that was envisioned for this site in the Downtown
FEIS -- The mixed-use complex of buildings could include: 900 residential units; a 600,000 sq.
ft. office tower; and an 800-room, 400,000 sq. ft. hotel. Given the amount of development that is
possible on Site A, both construction and operational impacts relative to the existing building on
the site and nearby historic resources is expected to be comparable to that described for
Alternatives 2 and 5.
Cumulative Impacts
As redevelopment occurs in the vicinity of the project site, each individual development project
would be subject to the same regulatory framework as WSCC Addition relative to the
identification and potential preservation of historic structures. No long-term cumulative impacts
to historic resources are anticipated. Contrasts in height, bulk and scale between designated
historic structures and new development would be reviewed as part of the Citys Design Review
process.
3.9.3
No significant impacts are anticipated. Any potential construction impacts to the Camlin and
Paramount Theatre building could be mitigated with pre-construction surveys. These surveys
could include inspecting building foundations, exterior walls, and some interior finishes to
document preexisting defects such as cracks and settlement. Defects would be noted and, if
appropriate, would be monitored.
3.9.4
With appropriate construction mitigation measures to avoid impacts to the Paramount Theatre
and the Worldmark Seattle - Camlin, no significant unavoidable adverse historic resourcerelated impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.9
Historic Resources
3.9-14
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-7
Alternative 5Ninth Avenue Looking South
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-8
Alternative 5 - Pine Street Looking West
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-9
Alternative 5 - Pine Street Looking East
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-10
Alternative 5 - Ninth Avenue Looking South
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS

Source: LMN, 2016
Figure 3.9-11
Alternative 5 - Ninth Avenue Looking North
3.10
Recreation
This section describes potential direct, indirect, construction, and cumulative recreational
impacts associated with the alternatives. A description of mitigation measures to reduce
recreation-related impacts and a description of significant unavoidable adverse impacts are also
provided.
3.10.1
Site
No publicly-owned parks or recreational facilities are located on or adjacent to the site of the
proposed WSCC Addition. As described in Section II of this DEIS, current site uses include
King County Metros Convention Place Station and a vacant former automobile showroom/office
building on Site A, a commercial building containing two restaurants, a temporary office building
and surface parking on Site B, and surface parking and a vacant, former automobile
showroom/office on Site C.
Site Vicinity
Park Facilities
The City of Seattle currently manages approximately 6,200 acres of parkland (approximately 11
percent of the Citys land area), including: parks, natural areas, athletic fields, trails, community
centers and other facilities. Downtown parks account for 23 acres of the Citys total inventory.1
Public parks and recreational facilities located within the vicinity (e.g., approximately five blocks)
of the WSCC Addition site are detailed below in Table 3.10-1. All of these facilities are
classified as Downtown Parks under Seattle Parks and Recreation park classification system.
Distribution Guidelines
The City of Seattle has not adopted level-of-service standards relative to park and recreation
opportunities. However, the Citys Comprehensive Plan identifies open space goals based on
population, jobs and locations. Population-based Open Space Goals for Urban Villages
recommends one acre of open space per 1,000 households, and one acre of open space per
10,000 jobs in each Urban Center, or in the four contiguous Urban Centers that comprise the
center city, considered as a whole. Also, distribution-based goals recommend 10,000 square
feet of open space within 1/8-mile of all urban village locations.
The City of Seattle Parks and Recreation Plan 2011 addresses park acquisition and
development efforts to be pursued over five to six years, and presents distribution guidelines for
park and recreational facilities in the City. In 2011, the City issued a report entitled, An
Assessment of Gaps in Seattle's Open Space Network: The 2011 Gap Report Update, which
provides an update on the progress the City has made toward achieving open space goals.
1
Seattle Parks and Recreation, 2013.

Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-1
Table 3.10-1
EXISTING PARKS & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN IMMEDIATE SITE VICINITY
Name
Managing
Jurisdiction
Size
(Acres)
Address
4.63
dog off-leash area,

paths, play area,
open space
5 blocks
northwest
2 blocks south
Denny Park
City of
Seattle
Convention
Center / Freeway
Park
City of
Seattle
700 Seneca St.
5.18
pedestrian paths,
fountain, benches
McGraw Square
City of
Seattle
Stewart
St./Westlake
Ave. N
0.01
public plaza
Plymouth Pillars
Park
City of
Seattle
Boren Ave. /
Pike St.
0.68
off-leash dog area,

pedestrian corridor, art
and view of Downtown
Westlake Park
City of
Seattle
401 Pine St.
0.1
public plaza
1900 Westlake
Ave. N.
.001
public plaza
Westlake Square
City of
Seattle
100 Dexter Ave.

N
Facilities
Distance
from Site
(Blocks/Miles)
3 blocks
southeast
directly east of
site (on east side
of I-5)
5 blocks
southeast
3 blocks east
Source: Seattle Parks and Recreation. Park Classification System. January 9, 2015; and Seattle Park List. Accessed
July 2015. http://www.seattle.gov/parks/listall.asp.
The 2011 Gap Report Update notes that the Denny Triangle Urban Center Village (in which the
project site is located) meets open space goals including the distribution-based goal, the
population-based goal, and the Village Commons Goal. Open space goals are achieved as a
result of Denny Park, which, although not located within the Denny Triangle Urban Center
Village, abuts the Village boundary and is counted as usable urban space that serves the Urban
Village.
Seattle voters approved Proposition 1 on August 5, 2014, which created a Seattle Park District.
The District will collect property taxes to fund maintenance and operation of City parks and
recreational facilities, and to develop new neighborhood parks on previously acquired sites.
Some of the work that is planned to be funded in 2015 includes: increasing programming and
activation at downtown parks; providing cleaner, better maintained parks and facilities; and
beginning planning and design work for major maintenance and renovation projects to be
constructed in 2016.2
Seattle Parks and Recreation. http://www.seattle.gov/parks/projects/ParkDistrict/default.htm

Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-2
3.1.2

None of the King County Site Work alternatives or the subsequent construction activity is
expected to cause any direct, significant recreation-related impacts to park or recreational
facilities. Demolition of the existing CPS facilities on Site A is not expected to result in any
significant increases in localized dust or noise levels. As noted by Table 3.10-1, the closest
parks to the site are Plymouth Pillars Park (located approximately two blocks southeast of the
site) and Convention Center Park / Freeway Park (located approximately two blocks south of
the site). Each of these facilities would be buffered from King County Site Work on Site A by
intervening land uses, major traffic corridors, and distance; no direct impacts to parks would be
expected.
Construction
Alternative 1
Development of the proposed WSCC Addition site under Alternative 1 would result in periodic
increases in dust and noise levels as a result of site demolition, excavation and construction of
new site infrastructure (e.g., roadways, other paved areas, utilities, etc.) and buildings. As
noted, no existing parks or recreational facilities are present on-site; as such, construction of the
WSCC Addition would not directly affect any of the existing resources. Construction activities
would not be anticipated to result in impacts to parks and recreational facilities in the vicinity of
the site due to the distance between these areas and the site and intervening land uses and
roadways. As noted by Table 3.10-1, the closest parks to the site are Plymouth Pillars Park
(located approximately two blocks southeast of the site) and Convention Center Park / Freeway
Park (located approximately two blocks south of the site). Each of these facilities would largely
be buffered from site construction by intervening land uses and major traffic corridors.
Alternative 4.1
Construction impacts associated with Alternative 4.1 would be similar to those described for
Alternative 1, except that construction activity would be more intensive due to the greater level
of development that would occur with co-development on Sites B and C. As with Alternative 1,
no impacts to parks or recreational facilities in the immediate site vicinity would be anticipated.
Construction impacts associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 would be generally as described for
Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.2
Construction impacts associated with Alternative 4.2 would be similar to but less than those
described for Alternative 4.1, because co-development would only occur on Site B.

Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-3
Alternative 4.3
Construction impacts associated with Alternative 4.3 would be similar to be similar to but less
than those described for Alternative 4.1, because co-development would only occur on Site C.
Alternative 5
Total development associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 2 and
construction impacts would be generally as described for Alternative 2.
Alternative 6
Construction impacts would likely be similar to those described for Alternative 4.1.
Operational Impacts
Redevelopment of the proposed WSCC Addition site would create new capacity for a range of
uses including convention center, lecture/meeting hall, retail/commercial, office and residential
uses (depending on the alternative), along with associated employment, increased onsite
population, and convention center visitors. Increases in employment, population and visitors on
the site could create related increases in demand for parks and recreational facilities in the
vicinity.
Alternative 1
Increases in population from the WSCC Addition employees (up to 660 employees3 [excluding
co-development]) and from the proposed commercial and retail uses (up to 120 employees)
could increase demands on parks and recreational facilities in the vicinity of the WSCC
Addition site. In addition, convention center visitors attending events at the new facility could
also increase demands on parks and recreational facilities in the general vicinity of the site. It is
assumed, however, that any increase in demand would primarily occur from convention center
employees with only very limited increased demand resulting from visitors. Increased demand
for park and recreational facilities are expected to be for passive open space, as opposed to
active open space. Passive open space is generally defined as that used for sitting and
relaxation; active open space is for active play and sports.
Under Alternative 1, approximately 35,475 sq. ft. (or 10.6 %) of the site would be in open space
-- including landscaped areas, natural areas and plazas at street-level -- and would be available
to convention center employees and visitors, as well as the general public. This open space
area may be provided as part of the public benefits associated with the project. An additional
35,000 sq. ft. would be open space in terraces on upper levels of the WSCC Addition, which
would be accessible to convention center employees and visitors. The redeveloped site would,
therefore, provide opportunities for passive recreational activities on-site that could lessen
demand for new park and recreational facilities off-site in conjunction with the WSCC Addition,
Alternative 1.
The number of employees associated with events at the WSCC Addition depends upon the type of event, the
size of the event, and whether multiple events would be occurring.

Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-4
Alternative 4.1
The total gross floor area of the WSCC Addition associated with Alternative 4.1 would be the
same as that of Alternative 1. However, co-development on Site B could include a 29-story
residential tower with approximately 400 dwelling units and 8,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses.
Co-development on Site C could include a 16-story, approximately 516,000 sq. ft. office tower
with 10,000 sq. ft. of street-level uses. The number of convention center employees and visitors
would be similar to Alternative 1 and could result in increased demand for park and
recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site, as described for Alternative 1. The codevelopment could result in approximately 400 new households, approximately 2,064 office
workers, and up to an additional 60 retail employees resulting in a site population of roughly
2,500 more people than that of Alternative 1. Increased park and recreational facility demands
would likely occur. Residential and office development would be required to provide open
space, consistent with the existing provisions of the DMC 340/290-400 zone that the sites are
located within.
Under Alternative 4.1, it is estimated that the percent of the site in open space relative to the
WSCC Addition would be the same as that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 10.6 percent of
the site. This would include landscaped areas, natural areas and plazas at street-level that
would be available to convention center employees and visitors, as well as the general public.
This open space area may be provided as part of the public benefits associated with the project.
An additional 35,000 sq. ft. would be open space in terraces on upper levels of the WSCC
Addition, which would be accessible to convention center employees and visitors. These onsite areas would offset new park and recreational facilities demands resulting from the
development under Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 2
While the above-grade building configuration of Alternative 2 would be comparable to that of
Alternative 1, the below-grade footprint would be smaller and the amount of street-level uses
would be less. Increases in population from the WSCC Addition employees and from
proposed commercial and retail uses (up to 50 employees) could increase demand on parks
and recreation facilities in the site vicinity generally as described for Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 2, it is estimated that the percent of the site in open space would be
comparable to that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 10.6 percent of the site. This would
include landscaped areas, natural areas and plazas at street-level that would be available to
convention center employees and visitors, as well as the general public. This open space area
may be provided as part of the public benefits associated with the project. Additional square
footage would be open space in terraces on upper levels of the WSCC Addition, which would
be accessible to convention center employees and visitors. These on-site areas would offset
new park and recreational facilities demands resulting from the development under Alternative
2.
Alternative 3
The total gross floor area of the WSCC Addition associated with Alternative 3 would be less
than that of Alternative 1 -- 1,485,700 sq. ft. vs. 1,511,700 sq. ft. The amount of street-level
uses would also be less 35,000 sq. ft. vs. 37,000 sq. ft. Increases in population from WSCC
Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-5
Addition employees (same as Alternative 1) and from proposed commercial and retail uses
(up to 110 employees) and convention center visitors would increase demands on parks and
recreation facilities in the site vicinity, at levels comparable to those described for Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.2
Operational impacts associated with Alternative 4.2 would be similar to but less than those
described for Alternative 4.1, because co-development would only occur on Site B, and would
include a 29-story, approximately 400-unit residential building with 8,000 sq. ft. of retail or
similar uses, together with an additional 12,000 sq. ft. of retail or similar uses associated with
Site C. This co-development could result in approximately 400 new households and up to an
additional 67 retail employees. Park and recreational facility demands would increase
accordingly. As noted with regard to Alternative 4.1, residential development would be
required to provide open space, consistent with the existing provisions of the DMC 340/290-400
zone that the site is located within.
WSCC Addition would be the comparable to that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 10.6
percent of the site. This would include landscaped areas, natural areas and plazas at streetlevel that would be available to convention center employees and visitors, as well as the general
public. This open space area may be provided as part of the public benefits associated with the
project. An additional 35,000 sq. ft. would be open space in terraces on upper levels of the
WSCC Addition, which would be accessible to convention center employees and visitors.
These on-site areas would offset new park and recreational facilities demands resulting from the
Alternative 4.3
Operational impacts associated with Alternative 4.3 would be similar to but less than those
described for Alternative 4.1, because co-development would only occur on Site C, and would
include a 16-story, approximately 516,000 sq. ft. of office building with 10,000 sq. ft. of retail or
similar uses. This co-development could result in up to approximately 2,000 new office
employees and 34 retail employees as such, the site population would be roughly 2,000
higher than that associated with Alternative 1. As noted with regard to Alternative 4.1, office
development would be required to provide open space, consistent with the existing provisions of
the DMC 340/290-400 zone that the site is located within.
WSCC Addition would be comparable to that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 10.6 percent of
This open space area may be provided as part of the public benefits associated with the project.
An additional 35,000 sq. ft. would be open space in terraces on upper levels of the WSCC

Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-6
Alternative 5
The total gross floor area of the WSCC Addition associated with Alternative 5 would
approximate 1,611,700 sq. ft., which is similar to but approximately 100,000 sq. ft. greater than
Alternative 1. Demands on parks and recreational facilities in the site vicinity would generally
be similar to or slightly greater than those described for Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 5, it is estimated that the percent of the site in open space relative to the
WSCC Addition would be comparable to that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 10.6 percent of
Additional square footage would be open space in terraces on upper levels of the WSCC
development under Alternative 5.

probability, once King County Metro no longer needs Convention Place Station (Site A), the site
would be sold and subsequent, commercial and/or residential redevelopment would occur.
Such development is expected to be consistent with potential, future development that was
envisioned for this site in the Downtown FEIS -- The mixed-use complex of buildings could
include: 900 residential units; a 600,000-sq.-ft. office tower; and an 800-room, 400,000-sq.-ft.
hotel. The Downtown FEIS also anticipated that Site A could include up to 3,200 employees.
Similarly, Sites B and C could be redeveloped with highrise commercial or residential uses. As
noted with regard to Alternative 4.1, office and/or residential development would be required to
provide open space, consistent with the existing provisions of the DMC 340/290-400 zone that
the site is located within. It is likely that less open space would be provided than the
Cumulative Impacts
It is expected that increases in employees and resident population would occur on-site and in
the vicinity of the site as redevelopment of the Denny Triangle Neighborhood continues. This
growth, along with general growth in this area of the City, is being planned for through the Citys
ongoing comprehensive planning and capital facility planning processes and, as such, no
significant impacts to parks or recreational facilities are anticipated.
3.10.3
No significant recreation impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Future
increases in employment and population at the site under Alternatives 1-6 would be
accompanied by increases in demands on park and recreational resources both onsite and in
the site vicinity.
A portion of the tax revenues generated from development of the site potentially
including construction sales tax, retail sales tax, business and occupation tax, property
tax, utilities tax, leasehold excise tax, and other fees from City licenses and permits

Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-7
during site redevelopment would accrue to the City of Seattle and could help offset
demands for public services, including parks and recreation.
Residential and office development that occurs on Site B or C relative to most WSCC
Addition alternatives, as well as Site A in conjunction with Alternative 6, would be
required to provide open space, consistent with the existing provisions of the DMC
340/290-400 zone that the sites are located within.
It is anticipated that increases in employees, visitors and resident population onsite over
the buildout period, along with general growth in this area of the City, would be planned
for through the Citys ongoing comprehensive plan and capital facility planning
processes.
3.10.4
No significant unavoidable adverse recreation impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.10
Recreation
3.10-8
3.11
Population/Employment, Housing and

Environmental Justice
This section of the DEIS describes the existing population/employment and housing conditions,
as well as environmental justice considerations. The potential impacts to
population/employment, housing, and environmental justice that could occur as a result of
development under the EIS alternatives are also evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures
are identified.
3.11.1
Site
As described in Section II of this DEIS, there is no housing located on Sites A, B or C and only
limited active employment uses. The pattern of existing land uses within each site includes the
following:
Site A -- King County Metros Convention Place Station; it is expected that buses will
continue to use the station and operate in the tunnel until at least September 2018. The
site also contains a vacant commercial building (former automobile showroom/office);
Site B -- commercial building with several restaurants; a commercial surface parking lot;
and a temporary, modular 2-story office building (Sound Transit);
Site C -- vacant commercial building (former automobile showroom/office); and a
commercial surface parking lot.
Site Vicinity
The site of the proposed WSCC Addition is located in Downtown Seattles Denny Triangle
neighborhood. This is an area that is transitioning from low-intensity development with low and
mid-rise structures and surface parking lots to a neighborhood with an urban, mixed-use
character and greater density. See Section 3.8, Land Use for additional information
concerning the land use pattern surrounding the site.
Demographics Population/Employment and Housing

Tables 3.11-1, 3.11-2, and 3.11-3 compare data for the proposed project site area with data for
the broader Denny Triangle area, and the City as a whole. The comparison is in terms of
population, demographics, housing units, income, and employment. For purposes of this DEIS,
the proposed project site area is located within census tracts 73 and 83, in that the boundary
line for the two census tracts is Olive Way. The Denny Triangle area is defined as the four
census tracts that generally encompass the neighborhood census tracts 72, 73, 82, and 83.
While these census tracts do not precisely align with the neighborhood boundary as identified in
the Citys Comprehensive Plan, they present a general geographic area for data correlation.
Demographic data is from the 2010 US Census,1 housing and employment characteristics data
are from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey.2
1
2
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013.

Draft EIS
Section 3.11
Population, Housing and Environmental Justice
3.11-1
As shown by Table 3.11-1, while the Project Site had no population, the Project Census Area
had a population of 7,173, which represents about 46 percent of the Denny Triangle area
population and slightly more than 1 percent of the City-wide population. The percentage of
minorities in the Project Site area and the Denny Triangle area approximated the overall City
percentage (29, 26 and 31 percent, respectively).
Table 3.11-1
POPULATION and DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT
SITE
Total Population
Population of One Race
White, Alone
Black or African American,
Alone
American Indian & Alaskan
Native
Asian, Alone
Native Hawaiian & Other
Pacific Islander
Some Other Race, Alone
Population of two or more
Races
Hispanic or Latino
PROJECT
CENSUS
AREA1
7,173
6,864 (96%)
5,099 (71%)
DENNY
TRIANGLE
AREA2
15,771
15,048 (95%)
11,129 (74%)
608,660
577,413 (95%)
422,870 (69%)
620 (9%)
1,196 (8%)
48,316 (8%)
112 (1.6%)
199 (1.3%)
4,809 (1%)
NA
NA
879 (12%)
2,149 (14%)
84,215 (14%)
29 (0.4%)
63 (0.4%)
2,351 (0.4%)
NA
NA
125 (1.7%)
312 (2%)
14,852 (2.4%)
309 (4.3%)
723 (4.8%)
31,247 (5.1%)
NA
472 (6.6%)
1,064 (6.7%)
40,329 (6.6%)
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
CITY OF
SEATTLE
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce; Census Bureau. 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public
Law 94-171) for King County, Tract Summary and Summary File.
Note: Percentages are rounded up.
1 Includes Census Tracts 73 and 83.
2 Includes Census Tracts 72, 73, 82 and 83.
Table 3.11-2 indicates that the 5,858 housing units within the Project Census Area represented
approximately 1.9 percent of Seattles total housing supply. Data compiled by DPD, indicates
that between 2005 and 2015, there were approximately 3,006 new housing units built within the
Denny Triangle Urban Center Village.3 Ninety-five percent of all housing units within the Project
Site area and the Denny Triangle area were in multi-family buildings containing 20 units or
more. The data also indicate that on average the Project Census Area and the Denny Triangle
area had a much lower percentage of owner-occupied units than City-wide (12 percent vs. 44
percent).
The Denny Triangle area has four City-funded buildings (237 housing units) that provide
permanent affordable rental housing for low-income individuals and households. This equates
to approximately two percent of the total number of dwelling units within the neighborhood.
Seattle DPD, Urban Center / Village Residential Growth Report, last updated July 1, 2015,
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpdd017580.pdf.

Draft EIS
Section 3.11
3.11-2
Table 3.11-2
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Units
Occupied Units
Vacant Units
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Housing Units Per Structure
1, detached
1, attached
2
34
59
10 - 19
20 or more
Median Household Income
PROJECT SITE
Area1
5,858
5,146 (88%)
712 (12%)
720 (12%)
4,426 (76%)
DENNY TRIANGLE
AREA2
13,132
11,636 (87%)
1,496 (11%)
1,452 (11%)
10,184 (78%)
78 (1.3%)
37 (0.6%)
0 (0%)
18 (0.3%)
16 (0.3%)
122 (2%)
5,587 (95%)
$55,504
207 (2%)
67 (0.5%)
92 (0.7%)
37 (0.3%)
100 (0.8%)
220 (1.7%)
12,409 (95%)
$52,5163
CITY OF SEATTLE
309,205
288,439 (93%)
20,766 (7%)
134,924 (44%)
153,515 (50%)
137,779 (45%)
13,511 (4.4%)
9,385 (3%)
12,933 (4.2%)
19,484 (6.3%)
26,179 (8.5%)
88,480 (29%)
$65,277
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce; Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey.
1 Includes Census Tracts 73 and 83 there are no actual housing units on the project site.
3This is the average for Census Tract 72 (MHI, $51,250), Census Tract 73 (MHI, $63,652), Census
Tract 82 (MHI, $47,806) and Census Tract 83 (MHI, $47,356).
The percentage of employed personnel over the age of 16 within the Project Site area, the
Denny Triangle area, and City-wide all approximate the high 60 percentile, as seen in Table
3.11-3. Similarly, the percentage of those below the poverty line within the three geographic
areas is also comparable between 11 to 13 percent.
Table 3.11-3
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT AREA
Population over 16 years old
Employed Population (16 years
old and over)
Below Poverty Level (In last 12
months)
7,323
4,843 (66%)
DENNY TRIANGLE
AREA2
16,231
11,161 (69%)
885 (12%)
2,094 (13%)
CITY OF SEATTLE
537,098
361,705 (67%)
57,188 (11%)
Source: Census Bureau, 2009-2013 American Community Survey.

1 Includes Census Tracts 73 and 83.
Rental Market
Although residential development is located throughout the Denny Triangle neighborhood, the
majority of residential development is located in the north, northwest, and northeast portions of
this neighborhood. Table 3.11-4 provides a summary of all existing residential development in
Draft EIS
Section 3.11
3.11-3
the vicinity of the proposed WSCC Addition.

condominiums, all others are apartment buildings.
While The Cosmopolitan and Olive8 are
Table 3.11-4
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED WSCC ADDITION
Building
Number of
Units
Location Relative
to the WSCC
Addition Site
86
north
200
north
326
253
47
50
64
224
345
459
386
173
north
north
north
north
north
west
west
south
south
south
Olive Tower
Apartments
Balfour Place
Apartments
Aspira
The Cosmopolitan
Julie Apartments
Dekko Place
Stewart Court
The Olivian
Olive8
Paramount Theatre
Premiere on Pine
Tower 801
Within 1 Block of
the WSCC
Addition Site
Within 2 Blocks
of the WSCC
Addition Site
As noted by Table 3.11-5, the Denny Triangle area had an overall rental market vacancy rate of
3.99 percent in the spring of 2015, compared to 3.20 percent City-wide. The average rent in the
Denny Triangle area was $1,757, which is 15 percent greater than the Citys average rent of
$1,525. From 2010 to spring 2013, vacancy rates generally declined; since fall 2013, vacancy
rates have been slightly trending upward. Average rents, however, have steadily increased
since 2010.
Table 3.11-5
RENTAL MARKET VACANCY AND AVERAGE RENT: ALL UNITS
Month/Year
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Denny Triangle
Area1
Market
Vacancy
4.89%
3.13%
3.97%
4.07%
3.79%
4.17%
3.27%
3.52%
3.54%
3.40%
3.99%
Average
Rent
$1,312
$1,375
$1,400
$1,499
$1,501
$1,571
$1,649
$1,668
$1,654
$1,709
$1,757
SEATTLE
Market
Vacancy
5.09%
3.58%
3.38%
3.36%
2.95%
3.02%
2.46%
2.91%
3.24%
3.03%
3.20%
Average
Rent
$1,083
$1,105
$1,115
$1,165
$1,177
$1,245
$1,298
$1,349
$1,408
$1,485
$1,525
Source: Scott + Dupre Apartment Advisors, 2015.

Draft EIS
Section 3.11
3.11-4
Subsidized Housing in Site Vicinity

Table 3.11-6 shows the estimated number of subsidized housing units in Downtown and within
the City as a whole; the Denny Triangle census tracts are shaded in gray (72, 73, 82, and 83).
This table is an estimate of units that are subsidized by the City and Seattle Housing Authority,
and does not include units subsidized through the federal Section 8 Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) program. As shown, there are 8,187 subsidized units in Downtown
Seattle, which represents approximately 40 percent of the subsidized units in the City overall.
Within the two census tracts that approximate the Project Site area, there are 1,385 subsidized
units, which is roughly 57 percent of the subsidized units in the Denny Triangle area. Table
3.11-6 also shows the distribution of subsidized units according to income limits. As indicated,
the vast majority of subsidized units Downtown are for households with incomes below 30
percent of the AMI, another 23 percent of the units are for households below 50 percent of AMI,
and 4.2 percent of the units are for households below 80 percent of the AMI. Similar ratios
occur in the Denny Triangle area, and the City as a whole; that is, the majority of subsidized
units are for persons with incomes below 30 and 50 percent of the AMI.
Table 3.11-6
Subsidized Housing Units and Income Limits Downtown Census Tracts and City
of Seattle
Census
Tract
Estimated #
Subsidized
Units
71
91
72
750
73
932
74.01
207
74.02
379
80.01
684
80.02
932
81
943
82
311
83
453
84
258
85
409
90
61
91
1,023
92
754
TOTAL UNITS 8,187
<30%
91
413
498
125
249
450
638
656
<40%
<50%
<60%
4
37
289
258
5
131
20
64
87
105
169
144
237
158
58
14
10
20
84
121
114
241
1,874
36
41
609
189
34
394
817
450
5,044
49
17
193
<65%
<70%
<80%
22
2
80
13
22
1
74
79
161
above
80%
17
6
2
13
10
41
21
27
3
1
61
13
--
341
7
5
153
Downtown
(61.6%) (2.4%)
(23%)
(7.4%)
(0.16%)
(4.2%)
(1.9%)
(%)
TOTAL UNITS
2,446
1,100
41
942
136
177
50
Denny
(45%)
(1.7%)
(38.5%) (5.6%)
(7.2%)
(2%)
Triangle
(%)
Total UNITS
20,036
11,346 346
4,062
2,373
82
34
1,394
429
City of Seattle
(56.5%) (1.7%)
(20.2%) (11.8%) (0.40%) (0.17%) (6.9%)
(2.1%)
(%)
Source: City of Seattle, Office of Housing, Seattle Housing Authority and data self-reported by organizations.
December, 2013.
Note: Census Tracts 72, 73, 82 and 83 are shaded to denote the approximate boundaries of the Denny Triangle
(census tracts 73 and 83 approximate the proposed Project Site).

Draft EIS
Section 3.11
3.11-5
Social Services
There are numerous public and private (non-profit) social service providers in the City of Seattle
that are available to serve populations in need. Key regional agencies that provide services to
Seattle residents include: Seattle Human Services Department, the King County Department of
Community and Human Services (DCHS), and the Washington State Department of Social and
Health Services. The Seattle Human Services Department funds and operates programs and
services, and recommends, implements and provides supportive services for Seattles lowincome and homeless citizens. Services provided by King Countys DCHS include:
developmental disabilities programs, education and employment resources, housing and
community development resources and mental health services. The Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services provides help with food, cash assistance, medical
and mental health help, addiction services, child care, and more.
Social service providers within the vicinity of the site include (but are not limited to) the following:
3.8.2
Legal Voice a legal non-profit working toward justice for women and children in the
northwest (907 Pine Street);
Community Health Plan Washington working to improve accessibility to quality health
care (720 Olive Way);
Church of Mary Magdalene (1830 9th Avenue);
Gethsemane Lutheran Church Hope Center Soup Kitchen (911 Stewart Street);
Urban Rest Stop facility where individuals and families may use restrooms, showers,
and laundry (1924 Ninth Avenue);
Marys Place shelter for homeless women and their children (1839 9th Avenue);
Youth Care: Overnight Shelter at Orion young adult shelter (1828 Yale Avenue);
Fare Start training program that prepares homeless and disadvantaged people for jobs
in the food services industry (700 Virginia Street); and the
Salvation Army Food Bank (1101 Pike Street).

King County Site Work would include demolition and removal of the existing Convention Place
Station facilities on Site A and other activities to prepare the site for sale as described in
Section II. Construction activities would result in new temporary construction employment
opportunities, as well as temporary construction related impacts relative to air quality, noise,
traffic, etc. Overall, due to the temporary nature of the King County Site Work, no significant
long-term impacts and consequently, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority
or low-income populations would be expected.

Draft EIS
Section 3.11
3.11-6
Construction
Alternative 1
Site preparation and construction under Alternative 1 would include demolition and removal of
all existing buildings on Sites A, B and C, site grading and construction of the new WSCC
Addition.
Construction activities would result in new temporary construction employment opportunities
during site redevelopment. As a result of this construction employment, some businesses
(restaurants, retail, services, etc.) could experience an increase in business activity during the
construction phase.
Conversely, during construction of the proposed WSCC Addition, surrounding businesses
could experience occasional, temporary impacts, including: rerouting of traffic, increases in
construction-related truck traffic, utility disruptions, dust, increased noise levels, and increased
parking demand associated with construction workers. It is anticipated that lane closures would
occur during certain periods of the construction activity. As noted in Section II of this DEIS, a
segment of Olive Way would be removed during construction of the proposed WSCC Addition
(subterranean vacation) and replaced. The segment of Terry Ave. that is between Sites B and
C would be vacated and the space formerly occupied by this segment of Terry Ave. would be
rebuilt as a street as part of the proposed WSCC Addition.
Construction could result in increased opportunities for employment of minority and/or lowincome populations.
As noted, construction activity would temporarily remove portions of two streets from the Citys
street grid for vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Such could result in a temporary
disconnection in continuity of the street grid necessitating minor detours of a couple blocks.
However, because this disruption would be limited in duration and geography, this impact would
not be expected to be significant.
As noted in Section 2.5 of this DEIS, the WSCC has provided numerous opportunities for
public awareness, involvement, and comments regarding the proposed WSCC Addition,
preliminary design considerations of the project, and the range of alternatives and
environmental elements to be analyzed in this DEIS. Such opportunities will continue
throughout the entitlement and construction processes associated with the project.
Overall, due to the temporary nature of construction, construction activities would not be
expected to result in significant long-term impacts; consequently, no disproportionately high and
adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations would be expected during the
construction period.
Housing
As noted, there is no existing residential development on-site and, therefore, no housing
displacement and no direct housing-related impacts would occur during construction.
Draft EIS
Section 3.11
3.11-7
Alternative 4.1
Construction impacts would be generally similar to those described for Alternative 1, although
the intensity and/or overall duration of construction activity would be longer as a result of the
greater amount of development that is proposed as part of Sites B and C. Construction
duration associated with the proposed WSCC Addition itself is expected to be the same as that
of Alternative 1. The greater amount of development could result in increased constructionrelated employment opportunities for minority and/or low-income populations.
Alternative 2, 3, 4.2 and 4.3

Construction impacts would be comparable to those described for Alternative 1.
Alternative 5
Construction impacts would be comparable to those described for Alternative 2.
Alternative 6
King County Site Work would occur and construction could approximate that of the proposed
WSCC Addition.
Operational Impacts
Development under all alternatives, other than Alternative 6, would result in a substantial
amount of additional building space to accommodate conferences, conventions and meetings
associated with the Washington State Convention Center. As such, new employment
opportunities would result.
Table 3.11-7 presents an estimate of the number of attendees by event-type at the proposed
WSCC Addition, based on the range of alternatives presented in this DEIS. The information is
for the year 2021 one year following completion of the WSCC Addition and the numbers
represent the projected 95th percentile. In addition to estimating the number of event attendees,
this table also indicates by shading the number of employees necessary to support each eventtype by alternative ranging from approximately 100 to over 700. It is possible that multiple
events and/or combinations of events may occur on the same day.

Draft EIS
Section 3.11
3.11-8
Table 3.11-7
WSCC Addition - Projected Event Attendance and Employment
2021 95th Percentile Daily Attendance
Alternatives
Alternative Alternative Alternative
1, 4.1, 4.2 &
2
3
5
4.3
Type of Event
Breakfast meeting/event Attendees
1,215
1,045
1,201
1,157
Breakfast meeting/event Employees
183
158
181
174
Evening Fundraising Event Attendees
615
531
611
588
Evening Fundraising Event Employees
233
201
232
222
Local Meeting/Convention Attendees
930
802
922
889
Local Meeting/Convention Employees
259
223
257
247
National Convention Attendees
8,605
7,406
8,517
8,206
National Convention Employees
716
617
709
682
Consumer /Trade Show (typical) Attendees 7,615
6,554
7,538
7,263
Consumer /Trade Show (typical) Employees 265
229
263
253
26,155
22,504
25,879
24,937
379
327
376
362
Consumer/Trade Show (large) Attendees

Consumer/Trade Show (large) Employees
Source: WSCC, 2015.
Table 3.11-8 shows estimated employment relative to ancillary retail and restaurants within the
WSCC Addition, as well as employment associated with possible co-development for
applicable alternatives. Unlike event employment necessary for conferences, conventions and
meetings, employment associated with ancillary retail, restaurants and co-development is
considered to be more fixed. As shown, the range is from about 50 to nearly 2,200 employees.
Table 3.11-8
Projected Ancillary Development and Co-Development Employment
Sq. Ft. per
Employee
1
Ancillary Retail & Co-Devel.
37,000
300
2
Ancillary Retail
15,000
300
3
Ancillary Retail & Co-Devel.
35,000
300
Ancillary Retail
25,000
300
Co-Development Retail
18,000
300
4.1
Co-Development Office
516,000
250
Total
Ancillary Retail
25,000
300
4.2
20,000
300
Total
Ancillary Retail
25,000
300
10,000
300
4.3
Co-Development Office
516,000
250
Total
5
Ancillary Retail
15,000
300
Source: WSCC, 2015 and King County Buildable Lands Report, 2014.
Alternative
Category

Draft EIS
Max. Sq. Ft.
Total
Employees
123
50
117
84
60
2,064
2,208
84
67
151
84
34
2,064
2,182
50
Section 3.11
3.11-9
Minority populations consist of minorities and low-income households, including those who are
at or below the federal poverty level as described by the United States Department of Health
and Human Services. Disproportionately high and adverse environmental justice-related
impacts include effects that are predominately experienced by a minority and/or low-income
population, or are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects that
would be suffered by the non-minority and/or low-income population resulting from the same
project.
The following issues typically merit evaluation in assessing environmental justice impacts:
destruction or disruptions of community cohesion;

destruction or disruptions to access of available public and private facilities and services;
adverse employment effects;
displacement of businesses, housing and people;
actions injurious to the publics health; and
actions harmful to the publics well-being.
These factors are evaluated for each of the alternatives in this DEIS.
Alternative 1
Housing
No new housing would be provided as part of Alternative 1 and as a result, the supply of
housing in the site vicinity would not change.
It is possible that staffing levels associated with new uses on the site could increase the number
of people desiring housing off-site and near their place of employment. Increased housing
demand could potentially, in part, be dependent on whether employees of the proposed WSCC
Addition are new to Seattle, whether they are existing residents of the City or Greater Seattle
area, whether they are existing City/area residents that desire to relocate closer to their place of
employment, or whether they already live within an acceptable commuting distance and have
ties to that existing community. Regardless, it is possible that additional workforce housing
demand could be created as a result of development under Alternative 1.
As noted, the City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2005) establishes a goal of adding 47,000
new households City-wide by 2024 and Urban Centers are targeted to accommodate the bulk of
this growth. The largest housing project that is currently under way and adjacent to the
Downtown area involves the redevelopment of Yesler Terrace (a Seattle Housing Authority
public housing community), which could add up to approximately 4,500 new residential units on
First Hill.4 Yesler Terrace is located approximately one mile southeast of the project site.
The existing City of Seattle housing stock and that of nearby residential communities within
commuting distance to the site would be expected to contribute towards meeting some of the
resulting increased housing demand. Housing development is occurring and expected to
4
Yesler Terrace Redevelopment. http://yeslerterrace.org/.

Section 3.11
Draft EIS
3.11-10
continue to occur throughout the City and the Greater Seattle region. Approximately 47,700
new housing units are planned between 2015 through 2018 in the greater region.5 Also, in
2015, Mayor Murray identified a goal of building or preserving 50,000 new housing units in the
City over the next 10 years, including 30,000 affordable units and 20,000 market rate units.
The affordability and availability of such housing, however, would also factor into the availability
of workers to secure housing close to their places of employment, if such was desired.
However, it is assumed that new housing will continue to be built and that the City will continue
to explore and implement policies that are intended to encourage development of additional
housing.
Employment
Development under Alternative 1 would provide approximately 1,256,500 sq. ft. of convention
center facilities, and 37,000 sq. ft. of street uses on-site. As noted by Table 3.11-7, the
proposed WSCC Addition is projected to draw a large number of visitors for conferences,
conventions and meetings conceivably, up to a daily attendance of 30,000. Because of the
increased pedestrian traffic, businesses (restaurants, retail, services, hotels, etc.) could
experience an increase in patronage during events at the WSCC Addition.
The proposed WSCC Addition and ancillary development would provide new employment
opportunities. As indicated by Table 3-11-7, varying numbers of employees would be required
depending on the type of event that is hosted, with employees ranging from 100 to over 650. In
addition, the street uses could require up to 123 new employees.
The proposed WSCC Addition would be consistent with the areas zoning and pattern of
increased high density land uses surrounding the site (see Section 3.8, Land Use, for more
information). As noted in Section II of this DEIS, the WSCC Addition site currently contains a
bus station (Convention Place Station), surface parking, former auto showrooms that are
currently vacant, two active retail businesses (on Site B), and an office (temporary Sound
Transit office). Public access to the site, therefore, is representative of an urban site in
Downtown and redevelopment of the site as proposed under Alternative 1 is not expected to
adversely affect the community cohesion of low-income or minority groups. Public access to the
site -- in the form of street uses and publicly-accessible open space (see Section 3.10,
Recreation for details) -- would be available following redevelopment.
As noted, the proposed WSCC Addition and ancillary development would result in increased
employment opportunities. It is possible that qualified minorities and low-income personnel
could be encouraged to seek these new employment opportunities.
The project under Alternative 1 includes a WSDOT ground/air lease area of approximately
7,330 sq. ft., which would allow the WSCC Addition to be built to the corner of Pine Street and
Boren Avenue. The project would include street-level uses at this intersection and along Pine
St. (adjacent to the project site), and provide an improved pedestrian linkage between the
Capitol Hill neighborhood and Downtown, thereby contributing to enhanced community
cohesion.
5
Kidder Matthews. 2015.

Section 3.11
Draft EIS
3.11-11
The increased activity levels on the site and in the site vicinity associated with the WSCC
Addition employees and visitors under Alternative 1 would not be expected to result in any
long-term disruption of access to social services in the area. As noted above, although
pedestrian and traffic flows would increase, the existing street and sidewalk network, together
with site improvements planned as part of the project, would be sufficient to accommodate the
increased volume of pedestrian traffic (see Section 3.17, Transportation for further details).
Alternative 4.1
Alternative 4.1 is the same as Alternative 1 relative to the proposed WSCC Addition,
however, it differs from Alternative 1 in that it would also include an approximately 400-unit
residential tower on Site B and a 16-story, approximately 516,000-sq.-ft. office building on Site
C. This alternative would also have more ancillary development in the form of additional streetlevel uses.
Housing
Approximately 400 housing units could be developed as part of Alternative 4.1 which would
contribute to a net gain in housing units for the Denny Triangle Neighborhood. As a result, the
existing housing stock in the Denny Triangle area would increase by approximately 3 percent -from 13,130 to 13,530 units. It is anticipated that the new units would be market rate. This
alternative would result in an increased number of convention center and ancillary development
employment opportunities (including co-development of an office building on Site C with up to
2,064 employees) and this increase could create greater demand for housing within the project
site area, the Denny Triangle area, and adjacent neighborhoods. As previously noted, staffing
levels associated with new uses on-site would be influenced by whether employees of the
proposed new development are new to Seattle, whether they are existing residents of the City
or Greater Seattle area, whether they are existing City/area residents that desire to relocate
closer to the place of employment, or whether they already live within an acceptable commuting
distance and have ties to that existing community. Regardless, it is possible that additional
workforce housing demand could be created as a result of development under Alternative 4.1.
The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan (2005) establishes a goal of adding 47,000 new
households City-wide by 2024 and Urban Centers are targeted to accommodate the bulk of this
growth. As noted with regard to Alternative 1, the Citys existing housing stock, as well as that
of nearby residential communities within commuting distance of the site would be expected to
contribute towards meeting some of the resulting increased housing demand. Housing
development is occurring and expected to continue to occur throughout the City and the Greater
Seattle region. The affordability and availability of such housing, however, would also factor into
the availability of workers to secure housing close to their places of employment, if such was
desired.
Employment
Employment impacts associated with the proposed WSCC Addition relative to Alternative 4.1
would be the same as noted for Alternative 1. In addition, Alternative 4.1 would include up to
18,000 sq. ft. of co-development retail/restaurant space with up to 60 jobs and approximately
516,000 sq. ft. of co-development office space with up to 2,064 jobs. As a result, it is estimated

Section 3.11
Draft EIS
3.11-12
that Alternative 4.1 would result in approximately 2,200 new jobs at the site in addition to those
noted for the convention center (see Table 3.11-8).
As with Alternative 1, Alternative 4.1 is not expected to adversely affect the community
cohesion of low-income or minority groups. Public access to the site -- in the form of street uses
and publicly-accessible open space (see Section 3.10, Recreation for details) -- would be
available following redevelopment. The proposed WSCC Addition and ancillary development
would result in increased employment opportunities and it is possible that qualified minorities
and low-income personnel could be encouraged to seek these new employment opportunities.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2, while similar to Alternative 1, will encompass a slightly smaller project area and
result in a smaller gross floor area. This alternative would also have less area in street-level
uses than that associated with Alternative 1. Operational impacts relative to housing,
employment and environmental justice would be comparable to and less than that associated
with Alternative 1. Due to the smaller project area and decreased gross floor area, fewer
employees would be needed, resulting in less off-site housing demand and less employment.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1 and involve slightly less development project
area and result in a smaller gross floor area. The square footage associated with street-level
uses would be less than that associated with Alternative 1. Operational impacts relative to
housing, employment and environmental justice would be comparable to and less than that
associated with Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.3 would be similar to Alternative 4.1, however, the only major co-development
that would occur would be the approximately 400-unit residential tower on Site B. King County
Site Work and construction impacts would be comparable to those described for Alternative 1.
Operational impacts relative to housing, employment and environmental justice would also be
comparable to and less than that associated with Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 4.3 would be similar to Alternative 4.2 and 4.1. However, the only major codevelopment that would occur would be an approximately 516,000-sq.-ft. office tower on Site C.
Operational impacts relative to housing, employment and environmental justice would be
comparable to and less than that associated with Alternative 4.1.

Section 3.11
Draft EIS
3.11-13
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 2, with the key difference being the reduction in
site area of the alley vacation located on Site A. The WSCC Addition would need to be larger
without the site efficiencies provided by the alley, and less space would be available for ancillary
retail. Operational impacts relative to housing, employment and environmental justice would be
comparable to and less than that associated with Alternative 2.

Alternative 6 would not involve development of the proposed WSCC Addition. Although,
consistent with potential, future development that was envisioned in the Downtown Height and
Density Changes EIS for Site A and, as noted in Section II of this DEIS - presumably for Sites
B and C, this alternative could entail a mixed-use complex that includes 900 residential units, a
600,000 sq. ft. office tower, and an 800-room 400,000-sq.-ft. hotel on Site A and highrise
development on Sites B and C that are consistent with City zoning. Operational impacts
relative to housing, employment and environmental justice could be comparable to that
associated with Alternative 2. Housing associated with this alternative would result in a net
gain in housing units in the Denny Triangle increasing the housing stock by approximately 6.4
percent -- from 13,132 to 14,032 units (Site A alone). Employment opportunities, based on this
conceptual program, could approximate that of the other WSCC Addition alternatives (a
600,000-sq.-ft office building could result in 2,400 employees alone [see Table 3.11-8]).
Environmental justice considerations are anticipated to be comparable to those noted for
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4.1, although without the WSCC Addition presumably less
public open space would be provided and consequently less public access to the site would be
available as compared to the development alternatives.
Cumulative Impacts
Under Alternatives 1 through 6, it is possible that additional housing demand would result from
the development program that is assumed for Sites A, B and C in this DEIS. This demand,
together with potential new employment opportunities in the site vicinity as a result of more
intensive development that is occurring and planned in this part of Downtown (see Section 3.8
Land Use), could cumulatively contribute toward increased area-wide housing demand. As
noted previously in this DEIS, increased housing demand could potentially, in part, be
dependent on whether employees of the proposed WSCC Addition are new to Seattle, whether
they are existing residents of the City or Greater Seattle area, whether they are existing
City/area residents that desire to relocate closer to the place of employment, or whether they
already live within an acceptable commuting distance and have ties to that existing community.
Regardless, it is possible that additional, cumulative workforce housing demand could be
created as a result of development under any one of the WSCC Addition alternative combined
with existing and planned development in the Project Site area and the broader Denny Triangle
area. The existing City of Seattle housing stock and nearby residential communities within
commuting distance to the site could be expected to contribute towards meeting some of the
resulting increased housing demand. Housing development is occurring and expected to
continue to occur throughout the City and the Greater Seattle region.
Under Alternatives 1 through 6, together with new development in the Denny Triangle area,
would result in increased employment opportunities in this area of Downtown. It is possible that
Section 3.11
Draft EIS
3.11-14
the proposed WSCC Addition and other new development in the vicinity could create additional
demand for social services. Any increase in demand for social services, however, would
depend upon the social circumstances of individuals and the nature of their needs. It is not
possible, therefore, to quantify the nature or extent of potential increased social services
demand.
The WSCC is considering a Master Use Permit (MUP) with a Planned Community Development
(PCD) component, per SMC 23.49.036. The aim of the PCD is to enable coordinated
development of large parcels of land in portions6 of the Downtown. With a PCD, the SDCI
Director establishes priorities for public benefits, and the PCD must include three or more of the
following public benefit priorities: low-income housing, townhouse development, public open
space, implementation of adopted neighborhood plans, improvements in pedestrian circulation,
improvements in urban form, improvements in transit facilities, and/or other elements that
further an adopted City policy and provide a demonstrable benefit. PCD public benefit priorities
and opportunities have been established for the project including support for affordable housing.
If the applicant decides not to pursue the PCD, the project would then gain the necessary
building height and FAR for each alternative via the use of the Citys incentive bonus program to
earn additional FAR and consequently would provide a monetary contribution to the Citys Low
Income Housing Fund. The amount and type of bonus/incentive required/used would vary by
alternative. The potential full vacation of Terry Avenue would also enable FAR transfer between
Sites B and C.
3.11.3
No significant population, housing or environmental justice impacts have been identified and
therefore no mitigation is necessary. Measures that could be implemented to further reduce the
potential for impacts associated with the proposed WSCC Addition could include the following:
King County required an affordable housing component in the project as a condition of

sale of the Convention Place Station land to WSCC. This requirement could be met with
on-site housing or the project may contribute to an existing affordable housing fund.
WSCC would continue, throughout the entitlement and construction processes

associated with the project, to provide opportunities for public awareness and
involvement to help ensure that affected populations have a voice in the decision-making
process associated with this development.
While construction activity would affect portions of the Citys street grid proximate to the
site, WSCC proposes to provide information to the public through various media in order
to minimize temporary disruption of vehicular and pedestrian flow in the immediate
vicinity of the site, as well as adverse, temporary effects associated with reduction in
community cohesion.
WSCC will institute a strong, voluntary commitment to partnering with diverse and
disadvantaged construction trades, service companies, and architectural and
engineering companies in development and construction of the proposed WSCC
The PCD is applicable in nearly all Downtown zones except the Pike Market Mixed and Downtown Harborfront 1
zones.

Section 3.11
Draft EIS
3.11-15
Addition. These include minority-, small-, veteran-, disadvantaged- and women-owned

businesses.
3.11.4
No significant unavoidable adverse population/employment, housing, or environmental justicerelated impacts are anticipated.

Section 3.11
Draft EIS
3.11-16
3.12
AESTHETICS -- Urban Design (Height, Bulk, Scale

and Transition)
3.12.1
As depicted in Figure 2-3 in Section II of this DEIS and Figure 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 in Section 3.8
Land Use, the current urban design character of the 7-acre site1 -- in terms of height, bulk and
scale -- is that of a broad open area. As noted previously in this DEIS, Site A contains King
County Metros Convention Place Station (CPS) with a 2-story commercial building located in
the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to Olive Way and Boren Ave. The portion of the site
occupied by CPS is roughly 30 to 50 ft. below the grade of Pine St. on the south and 15 ft.
below street-level of Olive Way on the north. Site B contains a 1-story commercial building and
a 2-story temporary office building located along Olive Way with surface parking south of these
structures. And Site C contains a 1-story commercial building in the northeast portion of the site
(near Howell St. and Boren Ave.) with surface parking occupying the balance of the site.
Streets that border the three-parcel site slope downward from east to west and from south to
north. Overall, the topographic change across Sites A, B and C approximates 54 ft. -- from the
southeast corner at Pine St. and Boren Ave. to the northwest corner at Olive Way and Ninth
Ave.
More-intensive land uses frame the site, including:
south the 9-story Paramount Theatre, Sound Transits vent, and I-5 including the Pike
St. express lane on-off-ramp (below);
southwest -- the 40-story Premier on Pine residential tower, the 25-story Tower 801
(residential), and the north portion of the existing WSCC;
west -- the 6-story Ninth and Pine Apartment Building, 11-story Worldmark Seattle
Camlin, and the 27-story Olivian apartment building;
northwest the 45-story 8th and Howell hotel (under construction).
north the 5-story Seattle Vault Self Storage building, the 16-story Regence Blue
Shield/Amazon Building, the 37-story Aspira Apartments building, the 14-story Hill7
office/hotel complex and the 21-story 1007 Stewart office building (under construction);
northeast -- the 2-story Seattle Childrens Research Institute facility; and
east the 13-story Olive Tower, and I-5 including the Pike St. express lane on-off-ramp
(below).
The project site is designated Downtown Mixed Commercial (DMC) 340/290-400. This zoning
district encourages a mix of commercial and residential structures of a moderate scale -compared with areas of Downtown where more-intensive commercial and residential
development is intended. The maximum height limit in this DMC zone is 340 ft. for commercial
structures and 400 ft. for residential buildings. This zoning designation is intended to serve as
a transition to less intensive commercial, residential or industrial areas near the Downtown
Urban Center2 (e.g., adjacent to Downtown districts and areas outside of Downtown).
1
2
Sites A, B and C
SMC 23.34.108

Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-1
Immediately west of the site, the zoning district is Downtown Office Core 2 (DOC2) 500/300-500
and the building height that is allowed in that zone is 500 ft. -- for commercial or residential.
As described in Section 3.8 Land Use, the Denny Triangle neighborhood is currently
transitioning from an area of low- and mid-rise development with surface parking, to an area
with an urban mixed-use character with greater density. Figure 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 in Section 3.8
Land Use depict the development trend that is occurring in the Denny Triangle neighborhood.
3.12.2

King County Site Work would entail demolition and removal of Convention Place Station
facilities, as well as other activities prepare the site for sale as described in Section II. This
work would be temporary, would primarily occur below the street grade, and would not cause
any direct, significant height, bulk or scale-related impacts.
Construction
Construction activities associated with redevelopment of the site under the alternatives would
consist of three primary activities: demolition of utilities, paved areas and existing buildings;
construction of new site infrastructure, including roadways, utilities and open space; and,
construction of new buildings. Construction activities would be ongoing for extended periods of
time and could temporarily affect the aesthetic character of the site and surrounding area.
Measures to control air, noise, light intrusion and other construction related disturbances could
lessen aesthetic impacts. See Section 3.2, Air Quality; Section 3.6 Noise; and Section 3.14,
Light, Glare and Shadows for further details.
Alternative 1
As noted, Alternative 1 would encompass Sites A, B and C with approximately 1,511,700 sq.
ft. of development.
Above-grade development would occur on Site A; below-grade
development (with the limited above-grade development noted below) would occur on Sites A,
B and C. This alternative would not involve co-development on Sites B or C, although Site B
could include surface parking and Site C could include a 1-story structure containing street-level
uses. The proposed WSCC Addition would have a height of approximately 176 ft. above Pine
St. and approximately 217 ft. above Olive Way, which is roughly 50 percent of the 340-ft. height
that could be allowed in this zoning district for commercial structures.
A structure of this height, which is well below that allowable by code, would be compatible with
the height of buildings in the vicinity of the site particularly those southeast, west and north of
the site. Building mass of the proposed WSCC Addition, however, would be much larger. As
noted, the above-grade portion of the building would encompass most of the 4.8-ac. Site A.3
This amount of building mass would differ significantly from that of existing buildings in the
vicinity of the site most of which have a footprint that is less than 40,000 sq. ft. or roughly 20
percent or less of the footprint of the proposed WSCC Addition.
3
Site A approximates 209,839 sq. ft.

Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-2
Preliminary design associated with the proposed WSCC Addition includes features to enhance
compatibility with the surrounding land uses and minimize potential height, bulk and scalerelated impacts. These features include: effectively utilizing the sloping site; placement of key
building components (such as the 150,000-sq.-ft. exhibition hall) below-grade, to the extent
possible; building modulation to lessen transition-related impacts with nearby structures;
extensive use of glass; landscaping and the creation of open space/gathering areas; and the
provision of street and pedestrian improvements.
The proposed WSCC Addition associated with Alternative 1 would redevelop a large overall
site in Downtown Seattle that is currently underutilized in terms of above-grade development.
The proposed WSCC Addition is designed to help connect the facility with the existing WSCC,
the Citys retail core, and highrise office and residential uses south and west of the site with the
mixed-use Denny Triangle neighborhood north of the site and the Pike-Pine neighborhood east
of the site.
It is anticipated that these elements would integrate well with the eclectic mix of scale found
within the Denny Triangle neighborhood. The architectural character of surrounding buildings is
diverse, with varying ages and styles represented; colors are predominantly muted grays,
browns and reds; and building materials consist of stone, brick, glass, steel and other relatively
non-reflective surfaces, which is typical of the Downtown urban core. Landscaping that is
proposed and the open spaces, as well as street trees, could further integrate Alternative 1
with the scale of adjacent development.
Overall Design Approach

The proposed bulk and scale of Alternative 1 responds to the site context by creating a massing
scheme that is below the allowable height and that effectively transitions to the character of
adjacent neighborhoods.
The project architect indicates that Alternative 1 is conceived as a highly-layered, multi-faceted
urban collage that is defined by the specific and subtle character of its diverse context. Building
form combined with urban street-scape are intended to give the proposed WSCC Addition a
vibrant and distinct sense of place. The proposed WSCC Addition is also intended to be a
destination of discovery, reinvention, and continual change, forming a synergistic relationship
with the city.
Design of the proposed WSCC Addition is on the forefront of typical convention center
development -- integrating a diverse, mixed-used program vertically in a dense urban context.
It is intended that the range of appropriately-scaled and textured public spaces, together with
interesting local retail destinations, would effectively integrate the mixed-use program and
services of the convention center facility with the neighborhood.
Alternative 1 uses the geometry of the urban context - including adjacent landmark buildings
and the City grid pattern of streets and alleys - to define its massing through specific gestures to
the Downtown. The project is located at the nexus of the Capitol Hill, Denny Triangle and First
Hill Neighborhoods with Downtown. Each street that borders the site has a significant role in
contributing to the holistic experience and identity of the project.
Critical to the success of this urban convention center addition is the ability to balance the scale
of the building program with the grain and texture of the surrounding City. As a multi-block
Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-3
project, the streets and buildings relate to the grain and texture of their surrounding
neighborhoods. This grain and variation activates the public realm, extends up through the
building, and offers a rich and full experience of the environment and surroundings. It is
anticipated that proposed street-level frontages on all sides of the building would contribute to
the quality of each street and welcome visitors and neighbors from surrounding communities.
The west edge of the project along Ninth Ave. represents the most public and primary
pedestrian link to the existing WSCC, as well as to nearby hotels and the Retail Core. The
layering of program circulation and landscape spaces within this portion of the complex is
intended to encourage interaction between the general public and convention center users.
This area is envisioned as a porous, dynamic pedestrian space along the streetscape.
The link between Capitol Hill and Downtown is best captured along Pine St. In this zone, the
texture and activity of these two distinct neighborhoods mix to form a syncopated rhythm of
retail, lobby, circulation, structure and landscape. Changes in grade along Pine St. would
provide views into the layers of event activity within the proposed WSCC Addition.
The massing along Boren Ave. would be visible from Capitol Hill to the east and from I-5 (both
north and south) as a highly visible, city-scale exposure for the project. Along with major retail
spaces at each corner, the ballroom of the proposed WSCC Addition would be located on the
top floor of the new building, extending both physically and visually across I-5 to Capitol Hill.
Large expansive views of the Capitol Hill would be juxtaposed with views back into the ballroom
from the city, revealing the ceiling and interior lighting of the complex, as well as activity
associated with events within, elevated above the pedestrian scale articulated streetscape that
anchors the building at grade. The articulated volume of this space would scale the mass of the
building against the freeway - creating a highly visible identity for the project. This project
envisions Boren Ave. as an urban connector and would be redesigned to better connect
neighborhoods north and south of the site. Boren Ave. would also provide local connectivity
and relief from the freeway and promote local connectivity in the blocks adjacent to the new
building.
Key project design elements include the following:
The loading dock, the largest exhibition hall, and the associated service areas are
located below street-level with the proposed street and alley vacations.
Proposed, voluntary setbacks are designed to create public space, landscape features,
and enhance the pedestrian experience.
The inclusion of a mixed-use program provides a variety of active street-level uses.
The creation of a Mixing Zone creates a public connection through the block and
invites interaction with the WSCC Addition program.
Building faade, transparency, and architectural elements are composed to enhance

pedestrian comfort, visual interest, and reflect the confluence of the architectural
character of the Downtown Urban Center, Denny Triangle, First Hill, and Capitol Hill
neighborhoods.

Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-4
City of Seattle Design Review Processes

As noted in the Fact Sheet of this DEIS, the proposed WSCC Addition is undergoing review by
the Citys Downtown Design Review Board and the Citys Design Commission. The role of the
Design Review Board is to provide project design guidance to mitigate adverse height, bulk and
scale-related impacts. Their purview includes the above-grade portion of the WSCC Addition
on Site A, as well as the co-development that is shown on Sites B and C (pertaining to other
alternatives). Policy guidance related to design review is noted earlier in this section of the
DEIS (in particular, see SMC 25.05.675 G.2.c.).
A role of the Design Commission is to evaluate urban design merit of the proposed project for
the purpose of evaluating the street and alley vacations that have been requested. The Design
Commission would then review the proposed public benefits package and make a
recommendation to Seattle City Council regarding approval.
Alternative 4.1
As noted, this alternative would include co-development on Sites B and C (29-story residential
tower and 16-story office tower, respectively). Sites B and C are located between Olive Way
and Howell St. and, as described in Section 3.8 Land Use of this DEIS and depicted by Figure
3.8-1 and 3.8-2, an extensive amount of development is currently underway in the Denny
Triangle north of Sites B and C. Height, bulk and scale-related impacts associated with
Alternative 4.1 would be the same as Alternative 1 relative to the WSCC Addition. Highrise
development associated with Sites B and C would be consistent with development that is
occurring north of Howell St. and, as noted earlier in this section, would be below the building
heights allowed by zoning. Co-development on Sites B and C is also being reviewed by the
Citys Downtown Design Review Board. No significant height, bulk and scale-related impacts
are anticipated.
While similar to Alternative 1, because of the proposed highrise co-development, it is
anticipated that the Design Approach associated with Alternative 4.1 would also effectively link
the mixed-use program represented by this alternative with the character and scale of the
Denny Triangle Neighborhood.
Alternative 2
Overall height, bulk and scale-related impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to
Alternative 1, even though no development would occur on Sites B or C. No significant
impacts are anticipated, except as noted below.
In order to accommodate a similar program on a smaller footprint, the overall building height
and mass of Alternative 2 would be larger than that of Alternative 1, with limited opportunity
for modulation in response to the site context. However, the bulk and scale of Alternative 2
would create a massing scheme below the allowable building height. The voluntary setbacks of
Alternatives 1 and 4.1 would not be possible with this alternative due to the added bulk.
Parking and truck access to the building in Alternative 2 would be located on Olive Way,
reducing the amount of active street-level uses and the pedestrian experience along Olive Way.
The reduced below-grade footprint would force a higher percentage of support space to the
Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-5
perimeter along Olive Way, reducing the percentage of transparency along that edge of the
facility.
Alternative 3
Height, bulk and scale-related impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to
Alternative 1, but would not include the WSDOT air rights lease. As such, the southeast corner
of the building would be truncated to coincide with the lease area boundary and thus the mass
of the building would not connect to the intersection, leaving a void in the streetscape. The
transition and connectivity with the Pike-Pine Neighborhood that build-out of the southeast
corner would enable as a result of Alternatives 1, 4.1, 2, 4.2, 4.3 and 5 would not occur. The
link between the Capitol Hill neighborhood and Downtown described in the Overall Design
Approach of Alternative 1 would be discontinuous in Alternative 3. The texture and activity that
would form a syncopated rhythm of retail, lobby, circulation, structure, and landscape along the
Pine St. perimeter would not meet the corner of Pine St. and Boren Ave., compromising the
pedestrian experience along this important edge of the project. While the overall area of the
project would be marginally smaller, the major retail space that would occupy the majority of the
Pine St./Boren Ave. corner would be largely reduced.
Alternative 4.2
Height, bulk and scale-related impacts associated with Alternative 4.2 would be similar to
Alternative 4.1, but would only have co-development on Site B (29-story residential tower). No
significant impacts are anticipated.
The Design Approach for Alternative 4.2 would be similar to that of Alternative 4.1 (described
above). Alternative 4.2 would not include office development on Site C. Site C would provide
loading access to the WSCC Addition below-grade loading levels, as in Alternative 4.1. This
alternative would also provide retail and active street-level uses along the street perimeter,
thereby preserving the project objective to improve the quality of the pedestrian experience
along each street edge.
Alternative 4.3
Height, bulk and scale-related impacts associated with Alternative 4.3 would be similar to
Alternative 4.1, but would only have co-development on Site C (16-story office tower). No
The Design Approach for Alternative 4.3 would be similar to that of Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.3 would not include the residential development Site B. Site B would contain
surface parking (approximately 70-80 spaces) above the WSCC Addition below-grade loading
facilities with the possibility of future co-development above. This condition could result in a
less beneficial pedestrian experience along the street perimeter of Site B, compared with that of
Alternative 4.1, and may not meet the project objective of enhancing the existing pedestrian
experience on that block.

Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-6
Alternative 5
Height, bulk and scale-related impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to
Alternative 2, but would not include alley or right-of-way vacations. Like the other alternatives,
Alternative 5 would involve review by the Citys Downtown Design Review Board, however,
because this alternative does not include vacation of any public rights-of-way, no review by the
Citys Design Commission would occur. No significant impacts are anticipated, except as noted
below.
In order to accommodate a similar program on a smaller footprint, the overall building height
and mass of Alternative 5 would be larger than that of Alternative 1, with limited opportunity
for modulation in response to the site context. However, the bulk and scale of Alternative 5
would create a massing scheme below the allowable building height. The voluntary setbacks of
Alternatives 1 and 4.1 would not be possible with this alternative due to the added bulk.
Parking and truck access to the building in Alternative 5 would be located on Olive Way,
reducing the amount of active street level uses and the pedestrian experience along Olive Way.
The reduced below-grade footprint will force a higher percentage of support space to the
perimeter, reducing the percentage of transparency along the edges of the facility. The street
level continuity of the Olive Way perimeter is further compromised by the alley which remains in
Alternative 5.
Alternative 6 - No Action Alternative

Alternative 6 would not include development of the proposed WSCC Addition, but as noted in
Section II of this DEIS, it is likely that the site would be developed and possibly in a manner
similar to that envisioned in the Citys Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS. That
analysis projected a mixed-use complex of buildings on Site A that included: 900 residential
units; a 600,000 sq. ft. office tower; and an 800-room, 400,000-sq.-ft. hotel. Presumably,
redevelopment of Sites B and C could also occur, consistent with the Citys Land Use
regulations in effect at the time of development. Under the No Action Alternative, it is
anticipated that building heights on Site A would be taller than development assumed under
Alternatives 1-5 for the proposed WSCC Addition. Without knowing tower locations on-site or
tower configuration and massing, it is not possible to determine whether height, bulk and scalerelated impacts from the development would have a greater or lesser impact on adjacent
development.
Cumulative Impacts
Proposed development associated with the WSCC Addition, along with other future
development projects in the vicinity would contribute to an increase in building height, bulk and
scale within the Denny Triangle Neighborhood. Growth associated with this and other projects,
however, would be consistent with goals and policies contained within the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood Plan, as well as the Urban Center strategy associated with the Citys
Comprehensive Plan. Future development in this area of Downtown would be required to
adhere to all current, applicable City Land Use Code requirements and would be subject to the
Citys Design Review Process. No significant cumulative shadow-related impacts are therefore
anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-7
3.12.3
The project would be required to adhere to all current, applicable City Land Use Code
requirements and the project is subject to the Citys design processes, including review by the
Downtown Design Review Board and the Seattle Design Commission.
3.12.4
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated relative to urban design.

Draft EIS
Section 3.12
3.12-8
3.13
AESTHETICS -- Viewshed
This section of the DEIS describes the existing visual character of the project site and evaluates
how development associated with the proposed WSCC Addition alternatives could affect these
viewshed considerations.
3.13.1
The City of Seattle has adopted policies to: protect public views of significant natural and
human-made features: Mount Rainier, the Olympic and Cascade Mountains, the downtown
skyline, and major bodies of water including Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Union and
the Ship Canal, from public places consisting of specified viewpoints, parks, scenic routes, and
view corridors identified in Attachment 1.1 It is also the Citys policy to protect public views of
City-designated historic landmarks, views of the Space Needle from designated public places,
views associated with designated view corridors, and views from City-designated scenic routes.
Figure 3.13-1 is a map depicting the location of the viewpoints described below relative to the
project site.
City Designated Public Viewpoints and Parks

Designated Public Viewpoints: Of the Citys 97 officially-designated public viewpoints, four
could be affected by the alternatives that are evaluated in this DEIS Volunteer Park, Bhy
Kracke Park, Plymouth Pillars Park, and Kerry Viewpoint. These viewpoints are depicted on
Figure 3.13-1 as Viewpoints 1-4 and each is described below:
Volunteer Park (Viewpoint 1) - Volunteer Park is located in the Capitol Hill

Neighborhood, roughly 1.2 miles northeast of the project site. This is a 48-acre park that
contains features including: pathways, open space, a museum, conservatory, tennis
courts, and a bandstand. The parks designated viewpoint is located at the observation
deck of the Water Tower. A 360-degree view of the City is possible from the deck at a
height of approximately 75 ft. above street level (520 ft. elevation). This designated
viewpoint provides southwesterly views toward the project area from the tower, including
views of the Space Needle, the Downtown Seattle skyline, the Olympic Mountains and
Elliott Bay/Puget Sound. During part of the year, views from this location of portions of
the Denny Triangle Neighborhood are obscured by mature deciduous trees.
Bhy Kracke Park (Viewpoint 2) - This park is located on the southeast side of Queen
Anne Hill, west of Lake Union (1215 - 5th Avenue N) and approximately 1.3 miles
northwest of the site. This designated viewpoint provides southeasterly views toward the
project area. The park is situated on a hillside and features a narrow pedestrian path that
winds from the bottom to the top of the hill. From the outlook at its highest point, Bhy
Kracke Park offers views of the Downtown Seattle skyline, Mount Rainier, the Space
Needle and Lake Union. Only portions of the Denny Triangle neighborhood are visible
from higher elevations in the park and even then, part of the view of the study area is
obscured during portions of the year by mature deciduous trees.
Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P.2.a.i. Attachment 1 is at the end of Section 25.05.675.

Draft EIS
Section 3.13
Aesthetics -- Viewshed
3.13-1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
2
4
Site C
7
Site B
6a
Site A
5a
3a
3b
5b
6b
Viewpoint Location
Source: EA Engineering, 2015
Project Site
North
Figure 3.13-1
Viewpoint Location Map
Plymouth Pillars Park (Viewpoints 3a and 3b) This park is located at the base of
Capitol Hill within the Pike-Pine corridor on the east side of I-5, directly south of the
project site. Amenities within this linear 0.6 acre park include an off-leash dog area,
seating, public art and a pedestrian corridor.2 This designated viewpoint provides
westerly views toward the project area that include a close-in panoramic view of the
Downtown Seattle Skyline.
Kerry Park (Viewpoint 4) This park is located on Queen Anne Hill, approximately 1.6
miles northwest of the project site. The park contains a play area, basketball court, and
open space. This designated viewpoint provides views of Elliott Bay, Downtown Seattle,
the Space Needle, and views of Mount Rainier.
Views of Historic Landmarks

Designated City Landmarks: In addition to view protection policies associated with officiallydesignated viewpoints, it is also City policy to: protect public views of historic landmarks
designated by the Citys Landmarks Preservation Board which, because of their prominence of
location or contrasts of siting, age, or scale are easily identifiable visual features of their
neighborhood or the City and contribute to the distinctive quality or identity of their neighborhood
or the City.3 There are two designated City Landmarks adjacent to the site: the Paramount
Theatre and the Camlin.
Paramount Theatre (Viewpoints 5a and 5b) The Paramount Theater is a 5- to 8- story

building, constructed in 1928, that provides a good example of Movie Palace
architecture. The red brick building was designed by Marcus Prietteca and F.J. Peters.
Camlin (Worldmark Seattle) (Viewpoint 6a and 6b) The Camlin was built in 1926 and
is an 11-story building designed in the Jacobethan style with an elaborate east faade.
The building was designed by architect Carl Linde and embodies typical characteristics
of the Jacobethan style including Tudor and Ogee arches, quoins, quatrefoils,
contrasting terra cotta moldings, gargoyles, etc.4
Since the proposed WSCC Addition is subject to a Master Use Permit from the City, as part of
that MUP review process, the Citys Department of Neighborhoods will review the MUP
submittal within the context of any adjacent City-designated Landmark structures. Relevant City
policies relating to adjacency to historic landmarks in SMC 25.05.065 include:
H.
Historic Preservation
d. When a project is proposed adjacent to or across the street from a designated site or structure,
the decisionmaker shall refer the proposal to the City's Historic Preservation Officer for an
assessment of any adverse impacts on the designated landmark and for comments on possible
mitigating measures. Mitigation may be required to insure the compatibility of the proposed
project with the color, material and architectural character of the designated landmark and to
2
3
4
City of Seattle, Seattle Parks and Recreation Department

Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P.2.b.i.
Camlin Hotel. 1999.

Draft EIS
Section 3.13
3.13-3
reduce impacts on the character of the landmark's site. Subject to the Overview Policy set forth in
SMC Section 25.05.665, mitigating measures may be required and are limited to the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Sympathetic facade treatment;

Sympathetic street treatment;
Sympathetic design treatment; and
Reconfiguration of the project and/or relocation of the project on the project site;
provided, that mitigating measures shall not include reductions in a project's gross floor
area.
Space Needle Viewpoints

The most visible landmark from many parts of the City is the Space Needle, which is located
approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the project site. The City has identified ten viewpoints
from which views of the Space Needle are to be protected.5. These viewpoints are located north
and southwest of the site. The designated Space Needle view corridor that is closest to the
project site is Volunteer Park.6 This view corridor is located approximately 3,000 ft. north of the
project site. As such, the proposed WSCC Addition would not affect views of the Space
Needle from any of the Space Needle viewpoint locations.
View Corridors
Resolution No. 30297 (adopted in 2001) addresses the Citys Street Vacation Policies and
identifies certain Downtown street rights-of-way in which westerly views are to be protected.
Pine Street has a view corridor that pertains to upper level setbacks. The Pine Street viewpoint
is depicted on Figure 3.13-1 as Viewpoint 5a, which is also a viewpoint that evaluates potential
view impacts to the Paramount Theatre.
Scenic Routes
City ordinances7 also identify specific scenic routes throughout the City from which view
protection is encouraged: It is City policy to protect public views of significant natural and
human-made features from designated scenic routes, identified in Attachment 1 (25.05.675
P.2.). In the vicinity of the project site, there are two designated Scenic Routes: I-5 and Olive
Way. Rather than attempting to take a photo from I-5, for safety the photo was taken from the
Denny Way overpass above I-5, looking south. That viewpoint location is depicted on Figure
3.13-1 as Viewpoint 7. The Olive Way viewpoint is depicted as Viewpoint 8.
3.13.2
The viewpoints discussed above were analyzed with photosimulations showing the massing of
the proposed WSCC Addition as it would appear from the viewpoint within the context of the
existing view and as it would appear under the proposed alternatives.
5
6
7
Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P. and Seattle DCLU, 2001,

City of Seattle, Viewpoints Locater Map.
Ord. #97025 (Scenic Routes Identified by the Seattle Engineering Departments Traffic Division) and Ord.
#114057 (Seattle Mayors Recommended Open Space Policies).

Draft EIS
Section 3.13
3.13-4

King County Site Work would primarily occur below the grade of surrounding streets and
would be temporary; no significant viewshed-related impacts would be expected.
Construction
Construction activities would be ongoing on portions of the site for extended periods of time and
would temporarily affect the aesthetic character of the site. However, no significant viewshedrelated impacts are expected as a result of construction.
Volunteer Park (Viewpoint 1)

Figure 3.13-2 shows the existing view from the Volunteer Park Water Tower and the proposed
massing of the new building(s) under the EIS alternatives. Under the existing view, the Space
Needle, the Downtown Seattle skyline, the Olympic Mountains and portions of Puget Sound are
visible.
Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the upper portion of the WSCC Addition would be
visible, while lower portions of the complex would be screened from view by existing
buildings and vegetation. In general, the height of the WSCC Addition would be
consistent with or lower than many surrounding buildings, and the development would
blend into the existing Downtown building massing that occurs surrounding the project
site. No significant view impacts would be anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 4.1 The view associated with Alternative 4.1 would be similar to that of
Alternative 1, except that portions of the 28-story residential tower on Site B would also
be visible. It is anticipated that the 16-story office tower co-development on Site C
would be obstructed by existing development and would not be visible from this
viewpoint. Overall, view impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1;
the development would blend into the existing Downtown building massing that occurs
surrounding the project site and no significant view impacts would be anticipated from
this viewpoint.
Alternative 2 The view associated with Alternative 2 from this viewpoint would be
similar to that described for Alternative 1. As with Alternative 1, the proposed WSCC
Addition would blend into the existing Downtown building massing that surrounds the
project site and no significant view impacts would be anticipated.
Alternative 3 Despite the slightly smaller square footage and footprint of the proposed
WSCC Addition under Alternative 3, the view from this viewpoint would remain
generally as described for Alternative 1. The upper levels of the building would be
visible, but would blend into the existing Downtown building massing surrounding the
site and no significant view impacts would be anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.13
3.13-5
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternative 4.1
Alternative 1
project site
project site
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
project site
project site
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 4.2
project site
Alternative 5
project site
project site
Figure 3.13-2
Viewpoint 1 - Volunteer Park
Alternative 4.2 View impacts under Alternative 4.2 would be similar to those
described for Alternative 4.1. Overall, the project would blend into the existing
Downtown building massing that surrounds the project site and no significant view
impacts would be anticipated.
Alternative 4.3 Impacts under Alternative 4.3 would be similar to those described for
Alternative 1. While co-development would include a 16-story office tower on Site C,
this building would not be visible due to intervening existing buildings. Overall, the
project would blend into the existing Downtown building massing that surrounds the
project site and no significant view impacts would be anticipated.
Alternative 5 The view associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to that

described for Alternative 1. As with Alternative 1, the proposed WSCC Addition
would blend into the existing Downtown building massing that surrounds the project site
and no significant view impacts would be anticipated.
Alternative 6 As noted, there is no specific information concerning the No Action

Alternative - other than possible conceptual information noted in the Downtown EIS that
suggests 900 residential units, 600,000 sq. ft. of office space, and a 400,000-sq.-ft.
hotel. As such, it is not possible to determine where structures would be located on Site
A relative to the site boundaries (and adjacent land uses) or the height and massing of
these structures. Given the size of the site and the amount of development that is
conceivably possible, it is expected that these structures could approximate the 340-foot
height that is allowed in this zone for commercial buildings and 400 ft. for residential
structures. As such, development would be more prominent than that associated with
the other WSCC Addition alternatives. Specific, viewshed-related analysis at this point,
however, would be speculative.
Bhy Kracke Park (Viewpoint 2)

Figure 3.13-3 shows the existing view from Bhy Kracke Park and the proposed massing of the
proposed WSCC Addition associated with each of the EIS alternatives. As shown, the existing
view includes the Downtown Seattle skyline, Mount Rainier, the Space Needle and Lake Union.
Alternatives 1 and 3 Under Alternatives 1 and 3, portions of the proposed WSCC

Addition would be visible in the distance, although much of the structure would be
obscured by existing development. The new building would appear as a continuation of
existing Downtown high-rise buildings to the south, and no significant view impacts are
anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 4.1 Views of the WSCC Addition under Alternative 4.1 be similar to that
described for Alternatives 1 and 3. However, Alternative 4.1 would also include codevelopment on Site B (29-story residential tower) and Site C (16-story office building).
Both co-development towers would be partially visible, increasing the visual density of
buildings from this viewpoint. Overall, the new buildings would appear as a continuation
of the existing highrise massing of Downtown buildings to the south and no significant
view impacts are anticipated from this viewpoint.

Draft EIS
Section 3.13
3.13-7
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
project site
Alternative 4.1
project site
Alternative 2
project site
Alternative 4.2
project site
Alternative 4.3
project site
Alternative 5
project site
Figure 3.13-3
Viewpoint 2Bhy Kracke Park
Alternative 2 View impacts would be generally as described for Alternatives 1 and 3.

The WSCC Addition would generally appear as a continuation of the existing density of
Downtown high-rise buildings to the south, and no significant view impacts are
anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 4.2 Impacts under Alternative 4.2 would be similar to but less than those
described for Alternative 4.1, as this alternative only includes co-development on Site B
(28-story residential tower). Similar to Alternative 4.1, portions of the proposed
residential tower and the WSCC Addition would be visible. Overall, the new buildings
would appear as a continuation of the existing density of Downtown high-rise buildings to
the south, and no significant view impacts are anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 4.3 Impacts under Alternative 4.3 would be similar to but less than those
described for Alternative 4.1, as this alternative only includes co-development on Site C
(16-story office tower). Similar to Alternative 4.1, portions of the proposed 16-story
office tower and WSCC Addition would be visible. Overall, the new buildings would
appear as a continuation of the existing density of Downtown high-rise buildings to the
south, and no significant view impacts are anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 5 View impacts would be similar to those described for Alternatives 1, 3

and 2, except that the WSCC Addition would be taller and would be more visually
prominent from this viewpoint. Overall, however, the WSCC Addition would generally
appear as a continuation of the existing density of Downtown high-rise buildings to the
south, and no significant view impacts are anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 6 Viewshed-related considerations for the No Action Alternative would

be the same as noted for Viewpoint 1.
Plymouth Pillars Park North (Viewpoint 3a)

Figure 3.13-4 shows the existing view from the north portion of Plymouth Pillars Park (near the
off-leash dog area) and the proposed massing of the proposed WSCC Addition relative to each
of the EIS alternatives. The existing view from this viewpoint includes views of Downtown
buildings in the background, behind the project site.
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 From Viewpoint 3a, views of Downtown buildings
visible in the background behind Site A would be replaced with a close-in view of the
proposed WSCC Addition. The overall visual character of this viewpoint would change
from a largely urban development territorial view across the project site depicting
Downtown highrise development in the background to a more densely developed urban
site. The building height of approximately 195 ft. would be roughly 60 percent of the
maximum height of 340 ft. that could be permitted based on zoning. No significant view
Alternative 2 Although the massing and modulation of the building would be slightly
different and the building would be taller under Alternative 2, view impacts and changes
to the character of the view would generally be similar to that described for Alternatives
1, 4.1 , 4.2, and 4.3, and no significant view impacts would be anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.13
3.13-9
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternative 2
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3

and 4.4
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Figure 3.13-4
Viewpoint 3a Plymouth Pillars ParkNorth
Alternative 3 The massing and modulation of the building would be slightly different
under Alternative 3, but view impacts and changes to the character of the view would
be comparable to that described for Alternatives 1, 4.1 , 4.2, and 4.3, and no significant
view impacts would be anticipated.
However, while not readily visible in this photosimulation, the WSCC Addition building
would not extend all the way to the Pine St./Boren Ave. intersection, because
Alternative 3 does not include the area associated with the WSDOT land/air lease.
Without the land/air lease, development associated with Alternative 3 would be setback
from the intersection, resulting in a triangular area of approximately 7,300 sq. ft. This
area would remain open between the proposed building faade and the Pine St. and
Boren Ave. sidewalks. This area would be open to the I-5 express lane Pike St. on/offramp below.
Alternative 5 Under Alternative 5, the WSCC Addition would be taller and no

setbacks and less building modulation would be provided resulting in a more monolithic
structure that is less compatible with the character of surrounding development.

Plymouth Pillars Park South (Viewpoint 3b)

Figure 3.13-5 shows the existing view from south portion of Plymouth Pillars Park (near the
pillars) and the proposed massing of the proposed WSCC Addition relative to each of the EIS
alternatives. Like the view from the north end of this linear park, the existing view from this
viewpoint includes close-in panoramic views of Downtown development.
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 Under these alternatives, portions of the south faade
of the proposed WSCC Addition would be visible from the park and would obscure
some existing views of Downtown buildings available in the background. However, the
height of the proposed facility at this location would be consistent with or less than that
of other nearby structures, and would be less than the maximum height permitted under
the sites zoning. No significant view impacts would be anticipated.
Alternative 2 The WSCC Addition would extend slightly further to the south and
would have different building modulation under Alternative 2, but overall view impacts
would remain generally as described for Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Some views
of Downtown buildings in the background would be obscured, but the height would be
consistent with or less than that of other nearby structures and would be less than the
maximum height permitted under the sites zoning. No significant view impacts would be
anticipated.
Alternative 3 While the massing and modulation of the WSCC Addition under
Alternative 3 would differ somewhat, overall impacts would remain generally as
described for Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Some views of Downtown buildings in
the background would be obscured, but the building height would be consistent with or
less than that of other nearby structures and would be less than the maximum height
permitted under the sites zoning.

Draft EIS
3.13-11
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alt. 1,
4.1, 4.2
and 4.3
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 5
Alternative 4.3
Figure 3.13-5
Viewpoint 3bPlymouth Pillars ParkSouth
Alternative 5 Under Alternative 5, the WSCC Addition would be similar to but taller
than under Alternative 2, and no setbacks and less building modulation would be
provided. Overall, the building would appear more prominent and would be less
compatible with the character of the viewpoint.

Kerry Park (Viewpoint 4)

Figure 3.13-6 shows the existing view from Kerry Park and the proposed massing of the
proposed WSCC Addition relative to each of the EIS alternatives. The existing view from this
viewpoint includes Elliott Bay, Downtown Seattle, the Space Needle and views of Mount
Rainier.
Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, while portions of the proposed WSCC Addition

would be visible in the distance, much of the building would be screened from view by
existing buildings. In general, the height of the WSCC Addition would be lower than
many surrounding buildings and the development would blend into the existing
Downtown building massing that occurs surrounding the project site. No significant view
impacts would be anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 4.1 The view associated with Alternative 4.1 would be similar to that
described for Alternative 1, except that portions of the co-development on Site B (28story residential tower) and Site C (16-story office tower) would also be visible. Both
towers would be largely obscured by existing development. Overall, all three buildings
would blend into the existing Downtown building massing that occurs surrounding the
project site. No significant view impacts would be anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 2 The view associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative

1. Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, and no significant view
impacts would be anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 3 Despite the slightly smaller footprint of Alternative 3, viewshed impacts

from Kerry Park would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, and no
significant view impacts would be anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 4.1, but would be slightly reduced as this alternative does not include
development of the 16-story office tower on Site C. Similarly to Alternative 4.1, portions
of the proposed WSCC Addition and 28-story residential tower would be visible, but
would be largely obscured by existing buildings. Overall, the project would blend into the
existing Downtown building massing that surrounds the project site and no significant
view impacts would be anticipated from this viewpoint.

Draft EIS
3.13-13
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
project site
Alternative 4.1
project site
Alternative 2
project site
Alternative 4.2
project site
Alternative 4.3
project site
Alternative 5
project site
Figure 3.13-6
Viewpoint 4Kerry Park
Alternative 4.1, but would be reduced as this alternative does not include development
of the 28-story residential tower on Site B. Similarly to Alternative 4.1, portions of
theproposed 16-story office tower and WSCC Addition would be visible. Overall, the
new buildings would appear as a continuation of the existing density of Downtown highrise buildings to the south, and no significant view impacts are anticipated from this
viewpoint.
Alternative 5 The view associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative

2, except that the WSCC Addition would be taller and more visible than all the other
alternatives. Overall, no significant view impacts would be anticipated from this
viewpoint.

Paramount Theater West (Viewpoint 5a)

Figure 3.13-7 shows the existing and proposed view from the northeast corner of the Pine St.
and Boren Ave. intersection looking west on Pine. St. toward the Paramount Theatre. From this
viewpoint, the north and east facades of this Landmark building are visible on the south (left
side of Pine Street), as well as the iconic vertical Paramount sign.
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 Due to the location of Viewpoint 5a, the WSCC
Addition would appear generally the same for Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. As
shown, the Paramount Theater is visible in the mid-field view on the south side of Pine
Street. Under these four alternatives, the WSCC Addition would appear prominently in
the foreground at Pine St. and Boren Ave. The proposed WSCC Addition would
represent a substantial change over the existing view, largely because the site (Site A)
is currently developed below street-level with King County Metros Convention Place
Station and views across much of the site are unobstructed. The overall visual character
of this viewpoint would change to a more urban development with a large, tall building on
the site, and the overall visual effect would be to further vertically define the Pine St.
corridor. The Paramount Theatre is separated from the site by the 80-foot wide Pine St.
right-of-way, which provides somewhat of a buffer between the two buildings. Also, the
total height of the WSCC Addition, at 176 ft.,8 would be less than other nearby high-rise
buildings, including the 41-story Premier on Pine apartment building that borders the
west side of the Paramount Theatre or the height that is allowed by zoning (340 ft. for
commercial structures). It is also proposed that portions of the south faade of the
WSCC Addition be modulated with upper level setbacks facing the Paramount Theatre,
to reflect the scale of the historic building. Overall, no significant view impacts are
anticipated relative to adjacency associated with the Paramount Theatre.
176 feet is the height of the proposed WSCC Addition above the Pine St. right-of-way. Total building
height, including the two parking levels would approximate 217 ft. (height above Olive Way).

Draft EIS
3.13-15
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternative 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3
Alternative 2
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Figure 3.13-7
Viewpoint 5aParamount Theatre WestLooking West on Pine St.
Alternative 2 As with Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, the proposed WSCC Addition
under Alternative 2 would represent a substantial change over the existing view. Also,
because of the smaller site area under this alternative (Site A only), the floorplate of the
WSCC Addition building would need to be maximized and no street level or upper
levelsetbacks would be provided on Ninth Ave. or Pine St., resulting in less visual
compatibility with the adjacent Paramount Theatre.
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 does not include the WSDOT land/air lease, as described
in Section II of this DEIS, and, therefore, the proposed WSCC Addition would be
setback from the northwest corner of the Pine St. and Boren Ave. intersection.
Viewshed impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Overall, the
proposed WSCC Addition would be visible but would blend into the existing downtown
massing that surrounds the site.
Alternative 5 The view under Alternative 5 would be similar to that described for
Alternative 2, except that the WSCC Addition would be taller (the additional height is
not visible in the photosimulation). As with Alternative 2, no street level or upper level
setbacks would be provided on Ninth Ave. or Pine St., resulting in less visual
compatibility with the adjacent Paramount Theatre.

Paramount Theater East (Viewpoint 5b)

Figure 3.13-8 shows the existing and proposed view from Pine St., between Eighth and Ninth
Avenues, looking east on Pine. St. to the Paramount Theatre. The iconic Paramount sign is
visible in the distance on the south (right) side of Pine Street.
Alternative 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2 and 4.3 Under these alternatives, portions of the proposed
WSCC Addition would be visible in the mid-field view, behind the existing 6-story
apartment building that is visible in the foreground. The new 176-foot tall WSCC
Addition would be consistent with the surrounding urban landscape and would further
define vertically the Pine St. right-of-way. Overall, the height of the proposed WSCC
Addition would be similar to or less than that of some surrounding buildings, including
the 41-story Premier on Pine apartment building, which is partially visible in the
foreground (west of the Paramount Theatre). The Paramount Theatre is located in the
Citys DOC 2 zoning district where building heights up to 500 ft. may be permitted. As
noted for Viewpoint 5a, the Paramount Theater is separated from the project site by the
80foot wide Pine St. right-of-way, which provides somewhat of a buffer between the
two buildings. Also, although not readily visible from this viewpoint, portions of the south
faade of the WSCC Addition would be modulated with upper level setbacks facing the
Paramount Theatre, to reflect the scale of the historic building. Overall, no significant
view impacts are anticipated relative to adjacency associated with the Paramount
Theatre.

Draft EIS
3.13-17
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3
Alternative 2
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Figure 3.13-8
Viewpoint 5b - Paramount Theatre East Looking East on Pine St.
Alternative 2 Although not readily visible from this viewpoint, no street level setbacks
and would be provided under Alternative 2. Upper level setbacks would be provided,
but overall, Alternative 2 would be somewhat less visually compatible with the adjacent
Paramount Theatre as compared to Alternative 1, 4.1, 3, 4.2 and 4.3.
Alternative 5 Although not readily visible from this viewpoint, less modulation and no
setbacks would be provided under Alternative 5, resulting in less visual compatibility
with the adjacent Paramount Theatre as compared to the other alternatives.

Camlin South (Viewpoint 6a)

Figure 3.13-9 shows the existing and proposed view from the northeast corner of the Ninth Ave.
and Howell St. intersection, looking south on Ninth Ave. toward the Camlin (small brick building
in the center of the image). The site of the proposed WSCC Addition is on the east (left) side
of Ninth Ave. and the Camlin is on west (right). Portions of the north and east faades of the
Camlin are visible.
Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.3 Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.3, portions of the WSCC
Addition would be visible on the east side of Ninth Ave., across the street from the
Camlin. Overall, the proposed WSCC Addition would represent a substantial change
over the existing view from this location, largely because Site A is currently developed
below street-level with King County Metros Convention Place Station and southerly
views along Ninth Ave., across this portion of the site, are unobstructed. The overall
visual character of this viewpoint would change to a more urban development with a
large building on the site. The Camlin is separated from the site by the 66foot wide
Ninth Ave. right-of-way, which provides somewhat of a buffer between the two buildings.
The total height of the WSCC Addition, at 176 ft. above Pine St., would be less than
that of the 27-story Olivian Apartment building that is directly adjacent to the Camlin.
The Camlin is located in the Citys DOC 2 zoning district where building heights up to
500 ft. may be permitted. Also, it is proposed that the west faade of the WSCC
Addition be modulated with upper level setbacks facing the Camlin, to reflect the height
and scale of the historic building. Overall, no significant view impacts are anticipated
relative to adjacency associated with the Camlin.
Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2 Although the building massing and modulation would be
slightly different, overall view impacts under Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2 would be similar to
those described for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.3. Also, even though it is not visible in this
viewpoint, the building would be modulated with upper level setbacks facing the Camlin,
to reflect the height of the historic building. No significant view impacts are anticipated
Alternative 2 Because of the smaller site area under Alternative 2 (Site A only), the
floorplate of the WSCC Addition building would need to be maximized and no street
level setbacks would be provided on Ninth Ave. or Pine St., resulting in less visual
compatibility with the Camlin.

Draft EIS
3.13-19
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.3
Alternative 2
Alternative 5
Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2
Figure 3.13-9
Viewpoint 6aCamlin SouthLooking South on Ninth Ave.
Alternative 5 Because the right-of-way on Site A would not be vacated under

Alternative 5, and because of the smaller site area (Site A only), the floorplate of the
WSCC Addition building would need to be maximized, the building would be taller, and
no street level or upper level setbacks would be provided on Ninth Ave. or Pine Street.
Consequently, this alternative would be less visually compatible with the adjacent
Camlin than the other alternatives.

Camlin North (Viewpoint 6b)

Figure 3.13-10 shows the existing and proposed view looking north on Ninth Ave., just south of
Pine St. toward the Camlin. The project site is on the east (right) side of Ninth Ave. and the
Camlin is on west (left). Portions of the east and south faade of the Camlin are visible, as well
as the Camlin sign on the rooftop.
Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.3 Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.3, portions of the WSCC
Addition would be visible on the east side of Ninth Ave. across the street from the
Camlin. Overall, the proposed WSCC Addition would represent a substantial change
over the existing view from this location. As noted previously, this is because Site A is
currently developed below street-level with King County Metros Convention Place
Station and northerly views along Ninth Ave., across this portion of the site, are
unobstructed. The overall visual character of this viewpoint would change to a more
urban development with a large building on the site. The Camlin is separated from the
site by the 66foot wide Ninth Ave. right-of-way, which provides somewhat of a buffer
between the two buildings. The total height of the WSCC Addition, at 176 ft. above
Pine St., would be less than that of the 27-story Olivian Apartment building that is
directly adjacent to the Camlin. As noted, the Camlin is located in the Citys DOC 2
zoning district where building heights up to 500 ft. may be permitted. Also, it is proposed
that the west faade of the WSCC Addition be modulated with upper level setbacks
facing the Camlin, to reflect the height and scale of the historic building. Overall, no
significant view impacts are anticipated relative to adjacency associated with the Camlin.
Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2 Although the building massing and modulation would be
slightly different, overall view impacts under Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2 would be similar to
those described for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.3. Also, even though it is not visible in this
viewpoint, the building would be modulated with upper level setbacks in proximity to the
Camlin building, to reflect the height of the historic building. Overall, no significant view
impacts are anticipated relative to adjacency associated with the Camlin.
Alternative 2 View impacts under Alternative 2 would be generally similar to those

described for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.3 and no significant view impacts are anticipated

Draft EIS
3.13-21
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternative 2
Alternative 1, 3 and 4.3
Alternatives 4.1 and 4.2
Alternative 5
Figure 3.13-10
Viewpoint 6bCamlin NorthLooking North Up Ninth Avenue
Alternative 5 Under Alternative 5, the right-of-way in Site A would not be vacated

and the WSCC Addition would be taller and less building modulation and no setbacks
would be provided. Overall, the structure would be less visually compatible with the
adjacent Camlin than the other alternatives.

I-5 from Denny Way Overpass (Viewpoint 7)

Figure 3.13-11 shows the view from the Denny Way overpass above I-5, and the massing of
the proposed WSCC Addition relative to the EIS alternatives. Under the existing view, mid- and
high-rise Downtown development is visible on the west (right) side of I-5.
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 Under Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, portions of the
WSCC Addition would be visible on the west (right) side of I-5, in the mid-field view, and
would partially obscure views of some Downtown buildings. The overall visual character
of the viewpoint would remain that of a densely developed urban area. The height and
scale of the proposed development would be similar to and less than that of surrounding
buildings. No significant impacts are anticipated from this viewpoint.
Alternative 2 Although the massing and modulation of the WSCC Addition would be
different under Alternative 2, overall view impacts would be generally similar to those
described for Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. As depicted, the north-facing faade
would appear slightly narrower, compared with that of Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Overall, no significant impacts are anticipated relative to this viewpoint.
Alternative 3 While the WSCC Addition would appear less modulated under
Alternative 3, overall view impacts would be similar to those described for Alternatives
1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and no significant viewshed-related impacts are anticipated from this
viewpoint.
Alternative 5 Less modulation and no setbacks of the WSCC Addition would be

provided under Alternative 5, and the building would be both taller and wider. Overall
the building would appear more prominent and would be less visually compatible with
surrounding development as compared to the other alternatives.


Draft EIS
3.13-23
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternatives 1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Alternative 2
Figure 3.13-11
Viewpoint 7 - I-5 from Denny Way Overpass
Olive Way (Viewpoint 8)

Figure 3.13-12 shows the existing and proposed view looking west on Olive Way from the
southeast corner of the Olive Way and Yale Ave. intersection. Under the existing view, highrise
buildings are visible in the distance, on both sides of Olive Way and the 20-story Metropolitan
Park West Tower is visible in the mid-field view.
Alternatives 1 and 3 Under Alternatives 1 and 3, portions of the WSCC Addition

would be visible along the south side of Olive Way as part of the massing associated
with existing buildings. The height of the proposed WSCC Addition would be consistent
with or less than that of nearby existing development, as seen from this viewpoint.
Overall, the building would blend in with existing development and no significant viewrelated impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 4.1 Under Alternative 4.1, the proposed WSCC Addition would be visible
on the south (left) side of Olive Way, similar to that of Alternative 1. In addition, the 16story office building (Site C) and the 28-story residential tower (Site B) would be visible
on the north (right) side of Olive Way. While the co-development on Sites B and C
would obscure views of existing buildings further west, the overall character of the
viewpoint would remain that of a densely developed urban area. As such, no significant
view-related impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 2 View impacts under Alternative 2 would be generally similar to those

described for Alternative 1 and no significant view-related impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 4.2 View impacts under Alternative 4.2 would be similar to but less than
those described for Alternative 4.1, because co-development would only be built on
Site B (28-story residential tower). As noted for Alternative 4.1, no significant viewrelated impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 4.3 View impacts under Alternative 4.3 would be similar to but less than
those described for Alternative 4.1, because co-development would only be built on
Site C (16-story office building). As noted for Alternative 4.1, no significant view-related
Alternative 5 Although the WSCC Addition would be taller, view impacts under
Alternative 5 would be generally similar to those described for Alternative 1 and no
significant view-related impacts are anticipated.


Draft EIS
3.13-25
Section 3.13
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Existing
Alternative 4.1
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 5
Alternative 2
Figure 3.13-12
Viewpoint 8 - Olive Way from Yale Avenue

As redevelopment occurs in the vicinity of the project site, each individual development project
would be subject to the same regulatory framework as WSCC Addition in terms of site-specific
analysis relative to protected viewpoints. Views into and through Downtown would be altered
with the addition of new highrise buildings and the sites of those buildings juxtaposed within the
context of existing Downtown development. Such buildings and the placement of those
structures would be in accord with the Citys Land Use regulations in effect at the time of permit
application. This type of change is not considered a significant impact and no long-term
cumulative impacts to protected viewpoints are anticipated.
3.13.3
All alternatives would be designed to be consistent with provisions of the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood Plan, existing Land Use regulations, and the Citys Downtown Design Guidelines.
In addition, on-site project design is subject to review by the Citys Downtown Design Review
Board and vacation of public rights-of-way is subject to review by the Citys Design Commission
with final approval by City Council. No significant adverse viewshed-related impacts are
anticipated from the proposed WSCC Addition and no mitigation is necessary.
3.13.4
No significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic (viewshed-related) impacts are anticipated. All

alternatives would be designed to be consistent with provisions of the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood Plan, the Citys Land Use regulations and the Downtown Design Guidelines.

Draft EIS
3.13-27
Section 3.13
3.14
AESTHETICS Light, Glare and Shadows
This section of the DEIS describes the existing light, glare and shading that occurs on and in the
vicinity of the project site and evaluates how development associated with the proposed WSCC
Addition alternatives could affect area light, glare and shadows.
Light and Glare

3.14.1
Principal sources of light that presently occur on or adjacent to the site of the proposed WSCC
Addition include streetlights along Olive Way, Howell Street, Ninth Ave., Boren Ave., and Pine
St.; light from headlights of vehicles operating on adjacent streets; light from vehicles
maneuvering on-site and in surface parking lots and within above-grade parking garages;
lighting associated with on-site and adjacent surface parking lots; and building lighting (interior
and in some instances low-level exterior) in the immediate area of the site. Light standards
associated with the streetlight fixtures have a height of approximately 30 ft. and the lamps are
cobra-style (cobra lamps function by lighting a broad area).
While the light from vehicle headlights and reflective solar glare from glazing and other specular
surfaces on vehicles can cause temporary glare impacts indirectly associated with a
development project, the principal source of glare associated with most development projects is
sunlight reflected from specular surfaces on building facades. Factors influencing the amount of
reflective solar glare that may occur include: weather (e.g., cloud cover); building height, width
and orientation of the faade; percent of the faade that is glazed or composed of specular
material; reflectivity of the glass or specular surfaces; design relationship between the glazed
and non-glazed portions of the faade (e.g., glass inset from the sash, horizontal and vertical
modulation); the color and texture of building materials that comprise the faade; and the
proximity of other intervening structures or landscaping.
As noted in Section II of this DEIS, existing uses on Site A include King County Metros
Convention Place Station, which is located below the grade of adjacent streets, and a vacant 2story commercial structure. Site B land uses include a 1-story commercial building, a 2-story
temporary modular structure and surface parking. Site C uses include a vacant 1-story building
and surface parking. None of the existing land uses on these sites result in any significant solar
glare-related impacts.
Seattle Municipal Code 23.47A.022 requires a solar glare analysis as part of the Citys MUP
review process for a project when a proposed building faade includes reflective coated glass or
other highly reflective material, the structure would have a height greater than 65 ft. with 30
percent or more of a facade glazed with clear or tinted glass, and the faade would be:
oriented toward and less than 200 ft. from any residential zone; and/or
oriented toward and less than 400 ft. from a major arterial with more than 15,000 vehicle
trips per day, based on Seattle Department of Transportation data.

Draft EIS
Section 3.14
Aesthetics Light, Glare & Shadows
3.14-1
3.14.2
King County Site Work Construction

King County Site Work is not expected to cause any significant light and/or glare-related
impacts. The work is largely proposed to occur below the grade of surrounding streets.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project may result in localized, temporary light and glare-related
impacts during build-out of the project site, both from stationary sources and mobile sources -particularly at night and at times of the day with low light levels. The lighting sources would be
associated with infrastructure and building construction, lighting of the job site (to meet safety
requirements), trucks and other equipment accessing and maneuvering on-site, and
construction vehicles operating on streets proximate to the site. Construction site lighting could
be noticeable from certain areas proximate to the site; however, such lighting is not expected to
cause significant impacts. Localized glare could reflect off specular surfaces on construction
vehicles and equipment. Most noticeable, however, would be light and glare associated with
construction-related vehicle headlights exiting the site and accessing area roadways. Indirectly,
construction site lighting would be limited by City of Seattle regulations that limit the daily
timeframe of construction activities.
Alternatives 1-6
Each of the proposed WSCC Addition alternatives could result in temporary light and glarerelated impacts. Based on the height of the proposed WSCC Addition relative to existing
structures adjacent to surrounding streets and I-5, the proposed project would be noticeable.
As such, stationary sources of light (e.g., interior lighting, pedestrian-level lighting, illuminated
signage, etc.) from the proposed WSCC Addition would be visible from locations proximate to
the project site. Specific information relative to stationary building light fixtures, signage, faade
materials (in terms of specular or reflective characteristics), and glazing would be provided as
part of the construction-level plans associated with the Citys Building Permit process. As
required by city code, light fixtures would be shielded and directed away from adjacent
properties.
As this point in the design process for the project, it is anticipated that project design associated
with the facades of the proposed WSCC Addition would not include highly reflective glazing or
materials. Facades of the proposed buildings, however, would be glazed and could include
materials that at times appear specular. Regardless of the alternative, the height of the
structure(s) would exceed a height of 65 ft. above-grade, and more than 30 percent of the
faades of these structures would be glazed. As depicted by Figures 2-2 and 2-3 (in Section II
of this DEIS), the site is located adjacent to I-5, as well as several arterials (Howell St., Olive
Way, Boren Ave., and Pine St.). Other than I-5, only Boren Ave. has an average annual
weekday traffic volume in excess of 15,000 vehicles.1 In light of this, a solar glare analysis has
Based on the SDOT 2013 Seattle Traffic Flow Map, Boren Ave. has an average annual weekday traffic flow of
22,000 vehicles (Seattle Department of Transportation; Traffic Management Division. 2015. 2013 Seattle Traffic
Flow Map).

Draft EIS
Section 3.14
3.14-2
been prepared relative to probable environmental impacts associated with AM and PM peak
hour traffic periods and nearby residential structures..
With regard to nearby residential structures, analysis described below indicates that at certain
times of the year and times of day assuming that weather conditions are suitable (e.g., not
raining or overcast) -- reflected solar glare from the faades of the proposed WSCC Addition
buildings could be noticeable to residents in nearby buildings. While noticeable, no significant
long-term impact is anticipated, partly due to mitigating effects such as less-reflective buildings
materials being used, building modulation, and other measures listed later in this report, as well
as the fact that reflected glare, if it occurs, would be limited in duration.
The solar glare analysis has been prepared consistent with provisions of Seattles Land Use
Code and acceptable methodology,2 which involves a trigonometric/planimetric approach for
determining reflected solar glare impacts. This analysis primarily evaluates reflected solar glare
impacts resulting from glazing on the faade of the proposed building during four key periods of
the year vernal equinox (approx. March 21st), summer solstice (approx. June 21st), autumnal
equinox (approx. September 21st), and winter solstice (approx. December 21st).
Glare diagrams that comprise this analysis include adjustments for:
the gradients of I-5 and Boren Ave. based on street profile information;
adjacent buildings; and
daylight savings time, which affects vernal equinox, summer solstice and autumnal
equinox.
The glare diagrams depict a worst-case scenario in that they cannot accurately depict the
following factors that would further limit the extent of possible reflected solar glare, including:
the mitigating effect of existing and/or proposed street trees; and

the extent of faade modulation associated with final project design.
A key consideration for motorists is the effect of potential solar glare on a drivers cone-ofinfluence. The cone-of-influence is typically defined as the drivers viewing area and is within
approximately 20 degrees of the horizontal in the direction of vehicle travel. This represents the
most sensitive viewing area for motorists. Glare impacts that occur outside the cone-ofinfluence are considered less critical.
In order to facilitate a comparative analysis of reflected solar glare relative to each of the WSCC
Addition alternatives, a comprehensive glare analysis has been completed for the alternative
that represents the maximum amount of site development Alternative 4.1; glare-related
impacts associated with all other alternatives are compared with those of Alternative 4.1.
City of Seattle; Department of Community Development. 1979 and 1980 and Spieiregen, 1965.

Draft EIS
Section 3.14
3.14-3
Alternative 4.1
As noted previously, Alternative 4.1 would encompass Sites A, B and C with a 176-foot
building (height above Pine St.) that includes approximately 1,499,700 gross sq. ft. of
development associated with the proposed WSCC Addition on Site A; a 29-story residential
building on Site B (approximately 290-foot height above Howell St.); and a 16-story office
building on Site C (approximately 240-foot height above Howell St.), as well as associated
street-level uses. Alternative 4.1 of the proposed WSCC Addition would replace the existing
buildings, surface parking areas, and the CPS site with an additional Convention Center
complex, as well as the two highrise buildings noted.
The proposed project would result in an increased number of vehicles entering and exiting the
project site from adjacent streets, with the potential for localized increases in light and glare
associated with vehicle headlights. No significant long-term light and glare-related impacts
relative to vehicles entering or exiting the site, however, are anticipated.
Results of the Analysis

Figures 3.14-1 through 3.14-8 depict reflected solar glare impacts from the facades of the
proposed WSCC Addition at two times each day during each of the four key days of the solar
year -- vernal equinox (approx. March 21st), summer solstice (approx. June 21st), autumnal
equinox (approx. September 21st), and winter solstice (approx. December 21st). The two times
of the day (8 AM and 5 PM3) approximate the two peak hour traffic periods for I-5 and Boren
Ave. It should be noted, however, that solar glare-related impacts may occur at other times of
the day and days of the year. Also, because of the earths rotation, the duration of reflected
solar glare impacts will vary from several minutes4 for a stationary observer to substantially
less for a mobile observer.
Vernal Equinox Approximately March 21st (refer to Figures 3.14-1 and 3.14-2). Climatic data
indicate that March typically has 3 clear days, 6 partly cloudy days and 22 cloudy days.5
South Facade
8 AM -- As depicted by Figure 3.14-1 and

Image A, reflected solar glare would extend
from portions of the east and south facades of
the proposed buildings. Reflected solar glare
from the east faade would extend northeast
toward Boren Ave. and I-5, north of Pine St. It
is anticipated that reflected solar glare from the
east faade would have no impact to southbound motorists on Boren Ave., because the
Image A
lower-edge of the expanse of glazing that is
currently envisioned for the east faade would
occur at a height substantially above the street-level of Howell St.
East Facade
8:30 AM and 4 PM for winter solstice because sunrise occurs slightly before 8:30 AM and sunset occurs slightly
after 4 PM.
The rate of change of the suns angle relative to the earth varies widely by season from about 5 degrees
horizontally and 2 degrees vertically every 15 minutes in June to 3 degrees horizontally and 1 degree vertically
every 15 minutes in December.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, 1992.

Draft EIS
Section 3.14
3.14-4
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
Note: The solid color within the glare outline
represents the actual glare from the proposed
building that would be experienced in the surrounding area. The area that is not shaded
represents the potential glare area that would be
interrupted by an intervening structure/vegetation
of some kind.
1 = 250
Source: City of Seattle and EA, 2015
Figure 3.14-1
8:00 AM, March 21stVernal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings Time
As depicted by Figure 3.14-1, reflected solar glare from the east faade could potentially
affect south-bound motorists on I-5. At this time of day and day of the year glare would
be within the cone-of-influence for south-bound motorists and could affect motorists
primarily north of the Olive Way overpass for 12 15 seconds.6. While noticeable, this
temporary impact is not expected to differ substantially from periodic glare that motorists
typically experience from stationary and mobile sources and cause significant problems
for motorists. At this time of day and day of the year reflected solar glare from the east
faade of the proposed WSCC Addition could be expected to temporarily7 affect
residential units on the west side of Olive Tower, which is located immediately east of
the site of the proposed WSCC Addition.
As depicted by Image B, it is
proposed that the south faade of
the proposed WSCC Addition be
fully glazed. In light of that, at 8 AM
on vernal equinox reflected solar
glare from the south faade would
extend in a southwesterly direction
along the west side of I-5 (Figure
3.14-1). As such, the reflected solar
glare at this time of day and day of
the year would be outside the coneof-influence for I-5 north-bound
motorists and, while noticeable, no
significant impact to north-bound
motorists is anticipated.
Glazing
Image B
Figure 3.14-1 also depicts reflected solar glare at this time of day and day of the year for
the residential development on Site B and the office development on Site C. As shown,
glare from portions of the south facades of each of these two buildings would extend
across I-5 in a southerly direction. At this time of day and day of the year, the reflected
solar glare would be outside a motorists cone-of-influence. In light of that, while
noticeable it is expected that north-bound motorists on I-5 would not be affected by glare
at this time of day.
At this time of day and day of the year reflected solar glare from the south faade of the
proposed WSCC Addition could be expected to temporarily affect residential units on
the north side of the Paramount Theatre, which is located immediately south of the site
of the proposed WSCC Addition. At this time of day residential units located within the
north and east sides of Premier on Pine could also be temporarily8 affected.
As shown, by Figure 3.14-1, this is the result of the relationship of the east faade of the proposed building, the
alignment of I-5 north of Olive Way, and the azimuth and the altitude of the sun at this time of day on this day of
the year. This duration assumes a travel speed of 25 mph. Conversely, the duration would be less at a higher
rate of speed or longer at a lower speed. This also assumes a relatively clear day in terms of cloud cover. The
intervening Olive Tower and the Metropolitan Park buildings would further lessen this impact.
Duration of less than a minute or two.

Draft EIS
Section 3.14
3.14-6
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
5 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-2
5:00 PM, March 21stVernal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings Time
5 PM -- As depicted by Figure 3.14-2, reflected solar glare would extend from portions
of the west and north facades of the proposed buildings in westerly and northeasterly
directions. At this time of day and day of the year, neither Boren Ave. nor I-5 would be
expected to experience any significant glare related impacts. As shown, glare from the
north faade of the proposed WSCC Addition would cross Boren Ave. and I-5. While
noticeable, this glare would be outside the cone-of-influence of motorists on these two
roadways no significant impacts would be expected. At this time of day residential units
located within the east sides of The Olivian Apartments, the Nine and Pine Apartments,
and Olive8 could also be temporarily8 affected.
Summer Solstice Approximately June 21st (refer to Figures 3.14-3 and 3.14-4). Climatic
data indicate that June typically has 5 clear days, 8 partly cloudy days and 17 cloudy days.9
8 AM -- As depicted by Figure 3.14-3, reflected solar glare would extend from portions
of the east and south facades of the proposed buildings. Reflected solar glare from the
east faade would extend northeast toward Boren Ave. and I-5 in the vicinity of Olive
Way. It is anticipated that reflected solar glare from the east faade would have no
impact to south-bound motorists on Boren Ave., because of the height of glazing on this
faade.
As depicted by Figure 3.14-3, reflected solar glare from the east faade could potentially
affect south-bound motorists on I-5. At this time of day and day of the year glare would
be within the cone-of-influence for south-bound motorists and could affect motorists
primarily south of the Olive Way overpass for 5 7 seconds.10 While noticeable, this
temporary impact is not expected cause significant problems for motorists, nor differ
substantially from periodic glare that motorists typically experience from stationary and
mobile sources. At this time of day and day of the year, reflected solar glare from the
east faade of the proposed WSCC Addition could be expected to temporarily affect
residential units on the west side of Olive Tower.
At 8 AM on summer solstice reflected solar glare from the south faade would extend in
a southwesterly direction along the west side of I-5 (Figure 3.14-3). As such, the
reflected solar glare at this time of day and day of the year would be outside the cone-ofinfluence for I-5 north-bound motorists and, while noticeable, no significant impact to
north-bound motorists is anticipated. At this time of day and day of the year, reflected
solar glare from the south faade of the proposed WSCC Addition could be expected to
temporarily affect residential units on the north side of the Paramount Theatre and units
on the north and east sides of Premier on Pine.
8
9
10

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, op cit.
alignment of I-5 south of Olive Way, and the azimuth and the altitude of the sun at this time of day on this day of

Draft EIS
Section 3.14
3.14-8
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-3
8:00 AM, June 21stSummer SolsticePacific Daylight Savings Time
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
5 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-4
5:00 PM, June 21stSummer SolsticePacific Daylight Savings Time
directions. At this time of day and day of the year, Olive Way and Howell St. could be
expected to experience glare related impacts, however, both of these streets are oneway eastbound and any glare-related impacts would appear in a motorists side and
possibly rear-view mirrors. At this time of day residential units located within the east
sides of The Olivian Apartments, the Nine and Pine Apartments, and Olive8 could also
be temporarily11 affected.
Autumnal Equinox Approximately September 21st (refer to Figures 3.14-5 and 3.14-6).
Climatic data indicate that September typically has 8 clear days, 9 partly cloudy days and 13
cloudy days.12
east faade would extend northeast toward Boren Ave. and I-5, north of the Olive Way
overpass. It is anticipated that reflected solar glare from the east faade would have no
impact to south-bound motorists on Boren Ave., because of the height of glazing.
Reflected solar glare from the east faade, however, could potentially affect south-bound
motorists on I-5. At this time of day and day of the year, glare would be within the coneof-influence for south-bound motorists and could affect motorists primarily north of the
Olive Way overpass for 9 11 seconds.13 While noticeable, this temporary impact is not
expected cause significant problems for motorists, nor differ substantially from periodic
glare that motorists typically experience from stationary and mobile sources. At this time
of day and day of the year reflected solar glare from the east faade of the proposed
WSCC Addition could be expected to temporarily12 affect residential units on the west
side of Olive Tower.
At 8 AM on autumnal equinox reflected solar glare from the south faade would extend
in a southwesterly direction along the west side of I-5 (Figure 3.14-5). As such, the
reflected solar glare at this time of day and day of the year would be outside the cone-ofinfluence for I-5 north-bound motorists and, while noticeable, no significant impact to
north-bound motorists is anticipated.
Figure 3.14-5 also depicts reflected solar glare at this time of day and day of the year for
the residential development on Site B and the office development on Site C. As shown,
glare from portions of the south facades of each of these two buildings would extend
across I-5 in a southerly direction. At this time of day and day of the year, the reflected
solar glare would be outside a motorists cone-of-influence. In light of that, while
noticeable, it is expected that north-bound motorists on I-5 would not be affected by
solar glare at this time of day.
11
12
13

alignment of I-5 north of Olive Way, and the azimuth and the altitude of the sun at this time of day on this day of

Draft EIS
3.14-11
Section 3.14
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-5
8:00 AM, September 21stAutumnal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings Time
At this time of day and day of the year reflected solar glare from the south faade of the
proposed WSCC Addition could be expected to temporarily14 affect residential units on
the north side of the Paramount Theatre and residential units located on the east side of
Premier on Pine.
directions. At this time of day and day of the year, neither Boren Ave. nor I-5 would be
expected to experience any significant glare related impacts. As shown, glare from the
north faade of the proposed WSCC Addition would cross Boren Ave. and I-5. While
noticeable, this glare would be outside the cone-of-influence of motorists on these two
roadways and no significant impacts would be expected. At this time of day residential
units located within the east sides of The Olivian Apartments, the Nine and Pine
Apartments, and Olive8 could also be temporarily15 affected.
Winter Solstice Approximately December 21st (refer to Figures 3.14-7 and 3.14-8). Climatic
data indicate that December typically has 2 clear days, 4 partly cloudy days and 25 cloudy
days.15 On this day of the year at 4 PM the altitude of the sun above the horizon is
approximately 2 degrees, therefore, reflected solar glare distances are great.
east faade would extend north and would not affect motorists on Boren Ave. or I-5, and
in not expected to result in significant reflected solar glare impacts for south-bound
motorists on streets north of the site.
At 8 AM on winter solstice reflected solar glare from the south faades would extend in a
southerly direction across I-5 (Figure 3.14-7). Reflected solar glare from the south
faade of the proposed WSCC Addition would be within the cone-of-influence for I-5
north-bound motorists and could affect motorists between the Pine St overpass and
Freeway Park for 6 8 seconds.16 While noticeable, no significant impact to north-bound
motorists is anticipated. At this time of day and day of the year, reflected solar glare
from the south faade of the proposed WSCC Addition could be expected to
temporarily15 affect residential units on the north side of the Paramount Theatre and units
on the east side of Premier on Pine.
14
15
16
of the west, north and south facades of the proposed buildings in primarily westerly and
northeasterly directions. At this time of day and day of the year, neither Boren Ave. nor
I-5 would be expected to experience any significant glare related impacts. As shown,
glare from the south faade of the proposed WSCC Addition and from the south faade
of the office building would cross Boren Ave. and I-5. While noticeable, this glare would
be outside the cone-of-influence of motorists on these two roadways and no significant

As shown, by Figure 3.14-7, this is the result of the relationship of the south faade of the proposed building, the
alignment of I-5 south of Pine St., and the azimuth and the altitude of the sun at this time of day on this day of the
year. This duration assumes a travel speed of 25 mph. Conversely, the duration would be less at a higher rate
of speed or longer at a lower speed. This also assumes a relatively clear day in terms of cloud cover.

Draft EIS
3.14-13
Section 3.14
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
5 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-6
5:00 PM, September 21stAutumnal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings Time
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8:30 AM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-7
8:30 AM, December 21stWinter SolsticePacific Standard Time
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
4 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-8
4:00 PM, December 21stWinter SolsticePacific Standard Time
impacts would be expected. At this time of day residential units located within the east
sides of The Olivian Apartments, the Nine and Pine Apartments, and Olive8 could also
be temporarily17 affected.
Alternative 1
As noted previously, Alternative 1 would encompass Sites A, B and C with a 176-foot building
(height above Pine St.) that includes approximately 1,499,700 gross sq. ft. of development
associated with the proposed WSCC Addition, as well as associated street-level uses. Abovegrade development would occur on Site A; below-grade development (with the limited abovegrade development noted below) would occur on Sites A, B and C. This alternative would not
involve co-development on Sites B or C, although Site B could include surface parking and Site
C could include a 1-story structure containing street-level uses.
Impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as those described under
Alternative 4.1, except for potential glare related to the co-development structures on Sites B
and C. No significant long-term light or glare impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 2
Impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative
1. No significant long-term light or glare impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 3
Light and glare-related impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1,
but would not include the WSDOT air rights lease. As such, the southeast corner of the building
would be truncated to coincide with the lease area boundary.
Figures 3.14-9 through 3.14-16 illustrate potential reflected solar glare impacts associated with
Alternative 3 for 8 AM and 5 PM on vernal equinox, summer solstice, autumnal equinox and
winter solstice. As shown, by Figure 3.14-9, reflected solar glare would extend from the
truncated southeast corner/faade of the proposed building to the east across I-5 in the vicinity
of the Pine St. and Boren Way overpasses. At this time of day and day of the year, glare
relative to I-5 would be outside the cone-of-influence for north-bound motorists. While
noticeable, no significant impact to north-bound motorists is anticipated. At this time of day and
day of the year, reflected solar glare from the truncated southeast corner/faade of the
proposed WSCC Addition could be expected to temporarily affect residential units east of the
site on Capitol Hill. Other solar glare impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to
those described under Alternative 1. No significant long-term light or glare impacts are
anticipated.
17

Draft EIS
3.14-17
Section 3.14
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-9
8:00 AM, March 21stVernal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings TimeAlternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
5 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-10
5:00 PM, March 21stVernal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings TimeAlternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-11
8:00 AM, June 21stSummer SolsticePacific Daylight Savings TimeAlternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
5 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-12
5:00 PM, June 21stSummer SolsticePacific Daylight Savings Time Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-13
8:00 AM, September 21stAutumnal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings Time Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
5 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-14
5:00 PM, September 21stAutumnal EquinoxPacific Daylight Savings Time Alternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8:30 AM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-15
8:30 AM, December 21stWinter SolsticePacific Standard TimeAlternative 3
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
4 PM
of some kind.
1 = 250
Figure 3.14-16
4:00 PM, December 21stWinter SolsticePacific Standard TimeAlternative 3
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.1 -- except that there would be no potential glare from a co-development structure
on Site C. No significant long-term light or glare impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 4.1 -- except that there would be no potential glare from a co-development structure
on Site B. No significant long-term light or glare impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 5
Impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative
1. No significant long-term light or glare impacts are anticipated.

Alternatives 1-5 for the proposed WSCC Addition. Without knowing tower locations on-site or
tower configuration and massing, it is not possible to determine whether light and glare-related
impacts from the development would have a greater or lesser impact on adjacent development.
Cumulative Impacts
development projects in the vicinity would contribute to an increase in light and glare within the
Denny Triangle Neighborhood. Growth associated with this and other projects, however, would
be consistent with goals and policies contained within the Denny Triangle Neighborhood Plan,
as well as the Urban Center strategy associated with the Citys Comprehensive Plan. Future
development in this area of Downtown would be required to adhere to all current, applicable City
Land Use Code requirements and would be subject to the Citys Design Review Process. No
significant long-term cumulative light and glare-related impacts are therefore anticipated.

Draft EIS
3.14-26
Section 3.14
3.14.3
No significant, long term reflected solar glare-related environmental impacts are anticipated for
motorists as a result of the proposed WSCC Addition project and no mitigation measures are
necessary. The following measures, however, could further reduce the potential of light and
glare-related impacts from the project as it relates to neighborhoods surrounding the site.
As noted previously, while building faade materials are in the process of being finalized,
the facades of the proposed building could consist of a metal and glass window wall
structure with glass spandrel panels. The Citys Downtown Design Review Board is
currently reviewing project-related design elements. Reflectivity of the glazing will be
dictated by the nature of glass that is employed and the requirements set forth by the
City's Energy Code. At this point in the design review process, it is anticipated that no
excessively-reflective surfaces (i.e. mirrored glass, or polished metals) that go beyond
what is required to meet energy-related code provisions are proposed anywhere on the
exterior of the project buildings.
Building faade modulation is proposed for the WSCC Addition, which could reduce the
effect of any potential reflected solar glare.
Proposed street trees, as well as the use of building materials with relatively lowreflectivity at street-level could minimize reflective glare-related impacts to pedestrians,
motorists and nearby residents. To an extent, vegetation can lessen potential
environmental impacts of reflected solar glare from glazing. Such can occur if these
mitigating factors are located between the sun and the glass or specular surface, or
between the reflective surface of the faade and the area potentially affected by
reflected solar glare. While coniferous and/or evergreen vegetation typically afford the
greatest amount of mitigation, at times deciduous vegetation can also restrict the amount
of solar glare that is reflected from glazing -- from approximately late April to late
October when leaves are present. Any on-site trees and street trees that are proposed
for the project site would most likely be deciduous. Between late October and late April,
while the amount of glare restriction afforded by deciduous trees is substantially less
(influenced by the density of the branches), even during this time of the year they can
partially restrict the amount of reflected solar glare emanating from glazed surfaces
below a height of 20-30 ft.
Pedestrian-scale lighting would be provided consistent with code, function and safety
requirements. Exterior lighting would include fixtures to direct the light downward and/or
upward and away from off-site land uses.
3.14.4
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
3.14-27
Section 3.14
Shadows
3.14.5
Seattles SEPA policies aim to minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows
on open spaces most used by the public.18 Policy background, however, indicates that due to
the scale of development that is permitted Downtown, it is not practical to prevent shadow
impacts at all public open spaces Downtown.
Areas Downtown where shadow impacts may be mitigated are:
Freeway Park;
Westlake Park and Plaza;
Market (Steinbrueck) Park [now referred to as Victor Steinbrueck Park];
Convention Center Park; and
Kobe Terrace Park.
Other than Victor Steinbrueck Park, each of these parks, including Convention Center Park, is
located between 2-15 blocks south or southwest of the site of the proposed WSCC Addition
and shadows from the proposed WSCC Addition would not affect any of these designated
open spaces. While Victor Steinbrueck Park is approximately 10 blocks west of the project site,
there are intervening highrises between the proposed WSCC Addition and the park and, as
such, shadows from the proposed WSCC Addition would not affect Victor Steinbrueck Park.
The nearest non-designated public open spaces to the project site are Plymouth Pillars Park
(directly east of the site, on the east side of I-5) and Denny Park (5 blocks northwest of the site).
While conceivably, shadows from the proposed project could at times shade portions of each
park, between the project site and Denny Park are numerous highrise buildings; several key
buildings within two blocks of the site include:
18
Seattle Vault Self Storage building -- 5-stories;

Aspira Apartments building -- 37-stories;
Regence Blue Shield/Amazon building -- 16-stories;
Hill 7 Office and Hotel building (289,000 gsf - under construction) -- 14-stories;
1007 Stewart Street building (362,000 gsf - under construction) -- 21-stories;
Tilt 49 (410-unit residential and 309,000 gsf office building - under construction) -- 37-stories and
11-stories, respectively;
Kinects (366-unit residential - in development -- 40-stories;
Extended Stay Hotel (309-room hotel - under construction) -- 17-stories;
The Olivian -- 27-stories;
1600 Seventh Ave. -- 33-stories;
Olive8 (hotel and residential) -- 39-stories;
8th and Howell (1,264-room hotel - under construction) -- 45-stories;
720 Olive Building -- 19-stories;
1700 Seventh Building -- 23-stories;
US Federal Courthouse -- 23-stories;
1918 Eighth Ave. -- 36-stories; and
Cosmopolitan Condominiums -- 34-stories.
Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.675 Q2.

Draft EIS
3.14-28
Section 3.14
In light of the location of these highrises, no shadow-related impacts from the WSCC Addition
alternatives are expected to extend to Denny Park. The proposed WSCC Addition, however,
could at times shade portions of Plymouth Pillars Park.
Factors that influence the extent of shading include: weather (e.g., cloud cover); building height,
width and facade orientation; and the proximity of other intervening structures, topographic
variations and significant landscaping. Generally, greater building heights extend the length of
the shadow cast, and increased mass (or cross-sectional width) widens the shadow cast by a
building. Shadows from tall buildings extend farther from a building, but their effects on more
distant locations are of shorter duration, because the suns motion translates into faster
movement of the shadow over the ground. Buildings with greater mass, create wider shadows
and an increased amount of shaded area within the immediate area (e.g., adjacent streets,
public spaces, etc.), but the reach of the shadow would be limited by the buildings height.
This section of the DEIS contains shadow diagrams that depict shading under existing
conditions (Figure 3.14-17) and from the WSCC Addition alternatives for vernal equinox
(approx. March 21st), summer solstice (approx. June 21st), autumnal equinox (approx. Sept.
21st), and winter solstice (approx. December 21st). The figures and accompanying text below
describe possible shadow impacts to Plymouth Pillars Park resulting from development
associated with each of the alternatives with consideration of shading that already occurs from
existing buildings proximate to the site of the proposed WSCC Addition. The Citys SEPA
policies address shadow impacts with consideration given to the effect at times when the public
most frequently uses that space.19
The following analysis summarizes shadow impacts for three times of the day on each of the
key days of the solar year. These key days of the solar year and times of the day depict worstcase impacts. Shadow-related impacts, however, can also occur at other times of the day
throughout the year. Because of the earths rotation, the duration of shadow-related impacts
varies for a stationary observer20 based on season and depending upon the width of the
shadow. The shadow graphics that are included have been adjusted to compensate for
topography and, in the case of vernal equinox, summer solstice, and autumnal equinox, daylight
savings time.21
19
20
21
Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.675 Q2.

The rate of change of the suns angle relative to the earth varies widely by season from about 5 degrees
horizontally and 2 degrees vertically every 15 minutes in June to 3 degrees horizontally and 1 degree vertically
every 15 minutes in December.
Pacific Daylight Savings Time (PDST) applies to shadow impacts associated with spring equinox, summer
solstice and autumnal equinox.

Draft EIS
3.14-29
Section 3.14
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM
Spring Equinox (March 21st)

Summer Solstice (June 21st)
Fall Equinox (September 21st)
Winter Solstice (December 21st)
Figure 3.14-17
Shadow AnalysisExisting Conditions
3.14.6
King County Site Work Construction

None of the King County Site Work alternatives are expected to cause any significant shadowrelated impacts.
Construction
Construction activities are not expected to cause any significant shadow-related impacts.
Alternative 1
Vernal (Spring) Equinox (refer to Figure 3.14-18)
Sunrise on vernal equinox (approx. March 21st) occurs at 6:11 AM and sunset at 6:21 PM.
The extent of possible shading from the proposed development must also be considered within
the context of climatic data for the month (e.g., on average the number of clear, partly cloudy
and cloudy days). Data22 indicate that on average March has 4 clear days, 8 partly cloudy days
and 19 cloudy days.23 Figure 3.14-18 depicts potential shadows from the proposed WSCC
Addition, together with shadows from other nearby buildings, at 8 AM, 12 PM and 5 PM; Pacific
Daylight Savings Time is in effect on this day.
As indicated by Figure 3.14-18, shadows from Alternative 1 would not affect Freeway Park /
Convention Center Park, Westlake Park and Plaza, or Victor Steinbrueck Park during the vernal
equinox. A portion of Plymouth Pillars Park, however, would be shaded during the vernal
equinox, as noted below.
22
23
At 8 AM, shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northwesterly

direction and would not affect any parks in the vicinity of the site.
At 12 PM, shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northerly

At 5 PM, shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in an easterly direction

and could shade 75-90 percent of the off-leash dog area of Plymouth Pillars Park, but
would not shade that portion of the park area on the west side of Boren Ave. However,
shadows from other buildings in the vicinity already contribute to shading nearly all of the
off-leash dog park area of Plymouth Pillars Park at this time of day (see Figure 3.14-17).
U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 2005.

NOAA defines a clear day as one with zero to 3/10 average sky cover, a partly cloudy is one with 4/10 to 7/10
tenths average sky cover and a cloudy day is one with 8/10 to 10/10 tenths average sky cover.

Draft EIS
3.14-31
Section 3.14
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM

Figure 3.14-18
Shadow AnalysisAlternative 1
Summer Solstice
Sunrise on summer solstice (approx. June 21st) occurs at 5:11 AM and sunset at 9:10 PM;
Pacific Daylight Savings Time remains in effect on this day. Climatic data24 for the month
indicate that on average June has 7 clear days, 8 partly cloudy days and 15 cloudy days.25
As indicated by Figure 3.14-18, shadows from development of Alternative 1 would not affect
Freeway Park / Convention Center Park, Westlake Park and Plaza, or Victor Steinbrueck Park
during the summer solstice. Plymouth Pillars Park could be shaded, as described below.

At 12 PM, shadows from development under Alternative 1 would extend in a northerly

At 5 PM, shadows from development under Alternative 1 would extend in a

northeasterly direction and could shade approximately 50-75 percent of the off-leash dog
park area of Plymouth Pillars Park, but would not shade the park area on the west side
of Boren Ave.
Autumnal Equinox
Sunrise on autumnal equinox (approx. September 21st) occurs at about 6:13 AM and sunset at
8:11 PM. Climatic data26 for the month of September indicate that on average September has 3
clear days, 6 partly cloudy days and 22 cloudy days; Pacific Daylight Savings Time remains in
effect on this day.
As indicated by Figure 3.14-18, shadows from Alternative 1 would not affect Freeway Park /
Convention Center Park, Westlake Park and Plaza, or Victor Steinbrueck Park during the
autumnal equinox. Plymouth Pillars Park could be shaded, as described below.
24
25
26


At 5 PM, shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in an easterly direction

and would shade approximately 50-75 percent of the off-leash dog area of Plymouth
Pillars Park. However, shadows from other buildings in the vicinity already contribute to
shading nearly all of the off-leash dog park area of Plymouth Pillars Park at this time of
day (see Figure 3.14-18). The portion of Plymouth Pillars Park that is on the west side
of Boren Ave. would not be affected.
NOAA, op cit.
NOAA, op cit.

Draft EIS
3.14-33
Section 3.14
Winter Solstice
Sunrise on winter solstice (approx. December 21st) occurs at 7:54 AM and sunset at 5:19 PM.
Climatic data27 for the month of December indicate that on average December has 3 clear days,
4 partly cloudy days and 23 cloudy days.28
Because of the later sunrise and earlier sunset, for winter solstice potential shadow impacts
were evaluated at 9 AM, 12 PM, and 4 PM. As shown by Figure 3.14-18, shadows from
development under Alternative 1 would not affect Freeway Park / Convention Center Park,
Westlake Park and Plaza, or Victor Steinbrueck Park during the winter solstice.


At 4 PM, shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northeasterly

Summary
Shadows from Alternative 1 would not affect Freeway Park / Convention Center Park,
Westlake Park and Plaza, or Victor Steinbrueck Park. Shadows from the project could, at times,
contribute to shading of the off-leash dog area at Plymouth Pillars Park on the vernal equinox,
autumnal equinox and summer solstice at 5 PM. However, this area of the park is already
entirely shaded under existing conditions on the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Therefore,
only shading on the summer solstice would be a new impact. As noted above, 50-75 percent of
the off-leash dog area could be shaded at 5 PM on the summer solstice. This is a time of the
day when use of the park by the public is moderate to high and, as noted, this portion of the
park is fenced. As shown by Figure 3.14-18, much of this park is already shaded from existing
buildings throughout the year. Shading off the off-leash dog area would not prevent dog
walkers from continuing to use the off-leash dog area. Overall, shadow-related impacts are
typical of Downtown highrise development and no significant impacts would occur to Downtown
areas where shadow impacts may be mitigated.
Alternative 4.1
Shadow-related impacts associated with Alternative 4.1 relative to the proposed WSCC
Addition would be the same as Alternative 1. However, because of the co-development on
Sites B and C (28-story residential tower and 16-story office tower, respectively), there would
also be additional shadows associated with co-development buildings that would, as depicted in
Figure 3.14-19, extend to Denny Park. Shadow impacts relative to parks in the vicinity of the
site would be comparable to those described for Alternative 1, due to the location of buildings
on the site relative to nearby parks. No significant impacts are anticipated. Refer to the
27
28
NOAA, op cit.

Draft EIS
3.14-34
Section 3.14
discussion of shadow impacts under Alternative 1 for details. Shadows for Alternative 4.1 are
shown on Figure 3.14-19.
Alternative 2
Development associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, except that
development would only occur on Site A, rather than on all three sites. Shadows for Alternative
2 are shown on Figure 3.14-20. Shadow impacts relative to parks in the vicinity of the site
would be comparable to those described for Alternative 1. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
Alternative 3
Figure 3.14-21 shows potential shadow impacts resulting from the development assumed under
Alternative 3, which would be similar to Alternative 1, but would not include the WSDOT air
rights lease, reducing the square footage of the development area. Shadow impacts relative to
parks in the vicinity of the site would be comparable to those described for Alternative 1. No
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.2 would be similar to Alternative 4.1, but would only have co-development on
Site B (28-story residential tower). Shadow impacts relative to parks in the site vicinity would be
similar to and less than those described for Alternative 4.1. Shadows for Alternative 4.2 are
shown on Figure 3.14-22. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 4.3
Alternative 4.3 would be similar to Alternative 4.1, but would only have co-development on
Site C (16-story office tower). Shadow impacts to parks in the site vicinity would be similar to
and less than those described for Alternative 4.1. Shadows for Alternative 4.3 are shown on
Figure 3.14-23. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Alternative 5
Figure 3.14-24 shows potential shadow impacts resulting from development that is assumed
under Alternative 5, which is similar to Alternative 2, but does not include alley or right-of-way
vacations. Shadow impacts relative to parks in the vicinity of the site would be comparable to
those described for Alternative 1. No significant impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
3.14-35
Section 3.14
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM

Figure 3.14-19
Shadow AnalysisAlternative 4.1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM

Figure 3.14-20
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM

Figure 3.14-21
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM

Figure 3.14-22
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM

Figure 3.14-23
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
8 AM
8 AM
8 AM
9 AM
NOON
NOON
NOON
NOON
5 PM
5 PM
5 PM
4 PM

Figure 3.14-24

Alternatives 1-5 for the proposed WSCC Addition. Without knowing tower locations on-site, it
is not possible to determine whether shadow-related impacts from the development would have
a greater or lesser impact on nearby parks.

development projects in the vicinity could contribute to an increase of shadow-related impacts
within the Denny Triangle Neighborhood. Growth associated with this and other projects,
however, would be consistent with goals and policies contained within the Denny Triangle
Neighborhood Plan, as well as the Urban Center strategy associated with the Citys
Comprehensive Plan. Future development in this area of Downtown would be required to
adhere to all current, applicable City Land Use Code requirements and would be subject to the
Citys Design Review Process. No significant cumulative shadow-related impacts are therefore
anticipated.
3.14.7
As noted, redevelopment of the project site under Alternatives 1-5 would new cast shadows on
the off-leash dog portion of Plymouth Pillars Park at approximately 5 PM during the summer
solstice. However, much of this park is already shaded from existing buildings throughout the
year and shading would not prevent dog walkers from continuing to use the off-leash dog area.
Overall, shadow-related impacts are typical of Downtown highrise development and no
significant impacts would occur to Downtown areas where shadow impacts may be mitigated.
No mitigation is necessary.
3.14.8
No significant unavoidable adverse shadow-related impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
3.14-42
Section 3.14
3.15
Public Services
The following section describes the existing status of public services provided to the WSSC
Addition site City of Seattle entities (Police and Fire Departments) and evaluates the impacts of
added demand on such service providers from redevelopment of the site under the EIS
Alternatives.
3.15.1
Police Services
Police services to the site of the proposed WSCC Addition are currently provided by the Seattle
Police Departments (SPD) West Precinct. Also, because much of Site A is currently King
County Metros Convention Place Station, this site is also served by King County Metro Transit
Police. The Metro Transit Police are a division of the King County Sherriffs Office and are
charged with protecting and patrolling the Metro Transit system and its facilities, including
Convention Place Station located on Site A.
SPDs West Precinct is headquartered at 810 Virginia St., less than a quarter mile west of the
WSCC Addition site. See Figure 3.15-1 for the location of the West Precinct Headquarters
relative to the site. The Precinct is further divided into four sectors and 12 beats. The WSCC
Addition site is located in Sector D, and beats M2 and D2.
SPD currently has 1,388 sworn officer positions from the rank of police officer through police
chief.1
SPD does not have adopted level of service standards for police service, but has an emergency
response time guideline of seven minutes. On average, SPD meets or exceeds this goal
Citywide; however, performance is geographically uneven and may be slower at certain times of
the day and during certain days of the week.2
In 2007, the SPD published the Neighborhood Staffing Plan (NPP) 2008-2012 that called for a
net increase of 105 patrol officers (or approximately a 20 percent increase) in the force between
2008 and 2012. By 2012, the Department expected to have a total police force of approximately
600 patrol officers for emergency call response and proactive work. The Department proceeded
with its recruitment efforts beginning in 2008 and by 2009, there were a total of 547.5 patrol
officers in the force, including 115.5 patrol officers in the West Precinct.3 However, the City did
not hire the planned 20 officers per year in 2010 and 2011, due to budget constraints. Hiring
was resumed in 2012 and by 2014 there were 502 Neighborhood Policing (911 Response)
Officers on the force, which was still down from a high of 565 before the recession and 80
positions were budgeted for 2014.4
2
3
4
Personal Communication with SPD, Captain Jim Dermody, Field Support Bureau, Data-Driven Policing Section
Commander. Seattle Police Department. September 2015..
Seattle Police Department. 2007. Neighborhood Policing Staffing Plan 2008-2012.
Seattle Police Department. Undated. Seattle Police Department 2009 Annual Report.
Seattle Police Department. 2014. Seattle Police Chief Selection Committee Guide to Materials: Seattle Police
Department Overview. January.

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-1
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Police Dept. West Precinct Headquarters
Fire Station 2
Source: EA, 2015
Project Site
North
Figure 3.15-1
Fire and Police Stations Closes to Site
Table 3.15-1 details the annual number of police service calls to the project site (Sites A, B and
C) for the years from 2010 and 2014. Although Site A is served by King County Metro Transit
Police, SPD supports any additional service needs to the site based on a Memorandum of
Understanding and a mutual aid agreement between the two agencies. The numbers reflected
in Table 3.15-1 below for Site A represent just SPD responses to the site, not King County
Metro Transit Police. Because Convention Place Station is scheduled to close, King County
Metro Transit would have no further involvement at the site.
Table 3.15-1
Police Service Responses to the WSCC Addition Site 2010-2014
Site A
Site B
Site C
Total
2010
184
9
15
208
2011
164
4
13
181
2012
228
9
13
250
2013
195
8
20
223
2014
193
7
15
215
Source: SPD, 2015. Unofficial Statistics of SPD.
For purposes of comparison, SPD calls to the existing WSCC are provided below in Table 3.152. These calls represent responses to the WSCC as well as businesses/addresses located on
the WSCC site.
Table 3.15-2
Police Service Responses to the Existing WSCC 2010-2014
2010
136
2011
120
2012
146
2013
162
2014
206
Source: SPD, 2015. Unofficial Statistics of SPD.

The Seattle Fire Department (SFD) provides fire protection, Basic Life Support (BLS) and
Advanced Life Support (ALS)/Emergency Medical Services (EMS) throughout the City, including
to the site of the proposed WSCC Addition, from 33 fire stations. Each fire station provides a
full range of fire protection services, including fire suppression, emergency medical and rescue.5
In 2014, the Department had 995 uniformed personnel, with an on-duty strength of 207 officers.
Apparatus at all stations includes: 33 fire engines, 11 ladder trucks, 5 aid units (basic life
support), 7 medic units (advanced life support), 2 air trucks, 5 fire boats, and 2 hose wagons.6
Fire fighters must use compressed air to survive, and air trucks provide air compressors that
can refill spent cylinders.
The closest Seattle Fire Department station to the WSCC Addition site is Station 2 (2320 4th
Avenue) located approximately 0.60 miles to the west. See Figure 3.15-1 for the location of
Station 2 relative to the site. Other stations in the vicinity include Station 5 (925 Alaskan Way)
approximately 0.75 miles to the southwest, and Station 25 (1300 East Pine Street)
5
City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. 2005. City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan: A Plan for
Managing Growth 2004-2024. Capital Facilities Appendix. January.
Seattle Fire Department. Emergency Response Report, 2014.

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-3
approximately 0.70 miles to the west. Station 5 is currently vacant and could remain so until
2020 due to the seawall construction and fire station remodel. See Figure 3.15-2 for the
location of Station 2 relative to the WSCC Addition site.
Response Times
The SFD has established a response time goal of four minutes (to be achievable 90 percent of
the time) for the first engine company to arrive at the scene of a reported structure fire and/or
basic life support medical emergency. Between 2010 and 2014, the Department met this goal,
83 to 85 percent of the time.7
Fire/Emergency Service Incident History

Table 3.15.3-2 shows historical incident response data for the SFD from 2010 to 2014.
Included are responses to calls for fire protection, Basic Life Support, Advanced Life Support
and EMS. As shown, the majority of incidents to which the Fire Department responds are for
EMS.
Table 3.15-3
Seattle Fire Department Emergency Response Totals
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
BLS
45,712
45,822
49,696
53,028
% Increase/Decrease
3%
0.2%
8%
6.70%
ALS
18,395
18,773
19,386
18,920
% Increase/Decrease
-2.5%
2.1%
3%
-2.40%
19,256
1.8%
EMS
64,107
64,595
69,082
71,948
75,720
% Increase/Decrease
1.4%
0.8%
7%
4.10%
5.2%
Fire
13,395
12,709
12,651
13,388
14,260
% Increase/Decrease
Total
-7.9%
-9.8%
0%
5.8%
6.5%
77,502
77,304
81,733
85,336
89,980
% Increase/Decrease
-0.4%
-0.3%
6%
4.4%
5.4%
56,464
6.5%
Source: Seattle Fire Department. Emergency Response Report, 2014.
Fire Facilities and Emergency Response Levy

A Fire Facilities and Emergency Response Levy was approved by Seattle voters in 2003 to
improve and upgrade Seattles fire facilities and emergency response system, which were
determined to be outdated and inadequate to maintain the desired response times throughout
the City. All of the Citys fire stations, which were built between 1918 and 1974, were evaluated
as needing major upgrades, renovation or replacement in order to continue to provide service.8
The Levy provided approximately $167 million for multiple projects, including upgrades,
renovations or replacement of 32 neighborhood fire stations.
7
8
Seattle Fire Department. Seattle Fire Department Emergency Response Report 2014.
City of Seattle. 2015. Fleets and Facilities Department. Fire Facilities and Emergency Response Levy Program.
http://www.seattle.gov/fire-facilities-and-emergency-response-levy.

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-4
Funds from this levy facilitated a major renovation and expansion of Station 2, which were
completed in 2010. Station 2 was designated as a historic Landmark by the Seattle Landmarks
Board in 1985, and is the oldest working fire station in Seattle. Improvements included a seismic
upgrade to bring the station up to current safety standards, a remodeled interior to provide more
space for fire operations and capacity for another firefighting vehicle, and a new occupational
health center.9 Fire Station 25, which is the lead station for Battalion II serving the central part of
the city, requires some minor safety and seismic upgrades and space reconfiguration, which
were scheduled to be completed by 2014. This work would also include moving the existing
battalion chief unit and reserve battalion chief unit to Station 2.10
3.15.2
Police Services
This section summarizes potential impacts to police services associated with the proposed
WSCC Addition project. Approval of the EIS alternatives would create new capacity for a
range of Convention Center and retail / restaurant uses, along with associated employment,
population and Convention Center visitors. Increases in employment and population on the site
could create related demands for police services.

Construction activities associated with the King County Site Work could result in additional,
temporary demand for police services associated with traffic management. The process to
determine specific needs would occur as a joint effort among Seattle Department of
Transportation, SPD, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, King County Metro
Transit, and WSCC. Existing Police Department staffing is expected to be sufficient to handle
any increased service needed for the King County Site Work construction activities.
Alternative 1
Construction
Construction activities for Alternative 1 could result in an increase in demand for police
services due to potential construction site theft or vandalism. Potential construction-related
increases in demand for police services would be temporary in nature and would cease once full
buildout of the site is completed. It is anticipated that the construction site would be secured
with fencing for the duration of construction, and that existing SPD staff would be sufficient to
respond to any potential service calls resulting from construction activities. It is also possible
that police staffing and resources would, at times, be needed for traffic management during
construction activities. The process to determine specific needs would occur in the future as a
10
City of Seattle. 2015. Station 2 Belltown. Fire Facilities& Emergency Response Levy.
http://www.seattle.gov/fleetsfacilities/firelevy/facilities/fs02/2.htm
City of Seattle. 2015. Station 25 Capitol Hill. Fire Facilities& Emergency Response Levy.
http://www.seattle.gov/fleetsfacilities/firelevy/facilities/fs25/25.htm

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-5
joint effort among Seattle Department of Transportation, SPD, Seattle Department of

Construction and Inspections, King County Metro Transit and WSCC.
Operational Impacts
Increases in population and employment associated with new development on the site under
Alternative 1 could result in associated demands for police services, however, the exact
number of new calls would be the result of a number of variables and cannot be accurately
quantified.11 Given the record of calls to the existing Washington State Convention Center,
located approximately one block to the south, which are in the range of 120 to 206, similar call
levels could be expected for the WSCC Addition under Alternative 1.
It is anticipated that police service calls could be reduced or managed to some extent by the use
of private security and certain building controls including restricting public access to the WSCC
Addition when not in use for events and closing the building after 5 PM. Under all alternatives,
private building security would be employed to secure the WSCC Addition facility, public
spaces, parking and loading areas. Event security would also be hired during certain
Convention Center events to protect equipment and/or secure building entrances. All security
personnel would be badged. The WSCC would coordinate with the SPD for certain types of
convention center events requiring police assistance, or in the event that the expertise of SPD
officers, as opposed to private security, is warranted. As well, the pedestrian-oriented street
uses proposed as part of the project, including but not limited to street-level retail, would
increase lighting levels and establish a constant level of activity on the site, which could
contribute to site safety and security.
Alternative 4.1
Under Alternative 4.1, the overall development area associated with the proposed WSCC
Addition would be similar to Alternative 1. However, population and employees on-site would
be greater due to the co-development that is included under this alternative. Co-development
would include a 29-story, approximately 400 unit residential building and a 16-story,
approximately 516,000 sq. ft. office building. Construction impacts would be similar to those
described for Alternative 1, although the intensity and/or duration of construction could be
greater due to the addition of co-development. Operational impacts in terms of police service
calls would be similar to or incrementally greater than Alternative 1, due to the addition of codevelopment on the site (office building and residential building). To the extent that the SPD
has planned for gradual increases in service demands, no significant impacts would be
anticipated from the proposed co-development, which represents a typical urban land use for
Downtown Seattle.
Alternative 2
The site associated with Alternative 2 only includes Site A, and the total gross floor area of the
WSCC Addition would be approximately 140,000 sq. ft. smaller than that of Alternative 1.
Construction and operational police services impacts would be expected to be generally similar
to those described for Alternative 1.
11
Personal Communication with SPD, Captain Jim Dermody, Field Support Bureau, Data-Driven Policing Section
Commander. Seattle Police Department. September 2015.

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-6
Alternative 3
Like Alternative 1, the overall site associated with Alternative 3 encompasses Sites A, B and
C. Without the WSDOT land/air lease, however, the overall development area of the proposed
WSCC Addition would be somewhat smaller than that of Alternative 1. Construction and
operational police services impacts would be generally comparable to that described for
Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.2
Alternative 4.2 would be similar to Alternative 4.1, except that co-development would only
include the residential building on Site B and would not include the office building on Site C.
Construction and operational impacts to police services would be similar to or slightly less than
those described for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.3
include the office building on Site C, and would not include the residential building on Site B.
Construction and operational impacts to police services would be similar to or slightly less than
those described for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 5
Total WSCC Addition development associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than that of
Alternative 1 or 4.1. Construction and operational police services impacts would be similar to
those described for Alternative 1.

would be offered for sale and subsequent, commercial or residential development would occur.
It is expected that subsequent development of Site A would be consistent with potential, future
development that was envisioned for this site in the Downtown FEIS, which was a mixed-use
complex of buildings that included: 900 residential units; a 600,000 sq. ft. office tower; and an
800-room, 400,000 sq. ft. hotel.12 The Downtown FEIS also anticipated that Site A could
include up to 3,200 employees. Police service calls could increase incrementally, however, to
the extent that the SPD has planned for gradual increases in service demands, no significant
impacts would be anticipated from the operation of a hotel, office building and residential
12

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-7
Cumulative Impacts
As new development occurs in the area new population and employment would be added to the
site vicinity. Future new development, together with the proposed WSCC Addition project,
would increase demand for police services. To the extent that SPD has planned for gradual
incremental increases in population and employment downtown, no significant cumulative

This section summarizes potential impacts to fire and EMS services associated with the
proposed WSCC Addition project. Approval of the EIS alternatives would create new capacity
for a range of convention center and pedestrian oriented retail uses, along with associated
employment, population and convention center visitors. Increases in employment and
population on the site could create related increases in demand for fire and EMS services.

Construction activities associated with the King County Site Work could result in some
additional, temporary demand for fire and EMS in response accidents/injuries associated with
demolition and removal of existing facilities on Site A and to prepare the site for sale as
described in Section II. Existing Fire Department staffing and equipment are expected to be
sufficient to handle any increased service needed for the King County Site Work construction
activities.
Alternative 1
Construction
During construction of the project under Alternative 1 Fire Department service calls related to
inspection of specific construction projects onsite and to respond to potential constructionrelated fires, accidents and/or injuries are anticipated. Site preparation and construction of new
infrastructure and buildings could also increase the risk of a medical emergency or accidental
fire, requiring response by the Fire Department. Existing Fire Department staffing and
equipment are expected to be sufficient to handle any increased service needed for onsite
construction activities. It is also possible that construction could impact emergency response as
there will be temporary, long term street closures which would necessitate longer response
routes and therefore longer response times. Construction could also result in additional traffic in
the area. However, the Fire Department indicates that this will not materially impact emergency
response.13
13
Personal Communication with SFD. 9 October 2015.

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-8
Operational Impacts
Increases in the on-site population (Convention Center visitors and employees) under
Alternative 1 would be accompanied by increases in demands for all types of services
provided by the Fire Department, including fire protection, BLS and EMS. The Fire Department
indicates that they have sufficient capacity and resources to absorb potential increased calls at
the WSCC Addition site, although large events may require additional emergency response
personnel in order to provide rapid response and reduce potential impacts to other Seattle Fire
Department units across the City. It is expected that off duty personnel would be sufficient to
accommodate any additional demands resulting from large events at the WSCC Addition.
Overall, redevelopment would not be expected to increase staff or equipment needs.14
All new buildings on the site would be constructed in compliance with the current Seattle Fire
Code, which is comprised of the International Fire Code. Adequate fire flow to serve the
proposed project would be provided as required by the Fire Code. Specific code requirements
would be adhered to regarding emergency access to structures.
Alternative 4.1
Under Alternative 4.1, the overall development area associated with the WSCC Addition
would be similar to Alternative 1. However, population and employees on the site would be
greater due to the co-development that is included under this Alternative. Co-development
would include a 29-story, approximately 400 unit residential building and a 16-story,
approximately 516,000 sq. ft. office building. Construction impacts would be similar to those
described for Alternative 1, although the intensity and/or duration of construction could be
greater due to the addition of co-development. Operational impacts in terms of fire and EMS
calls would be similar to or incrementally greater than Alternative 1, due to the addition of codevelopment on the site (office building and residential building). To the extent that the SFD
has planned for gradual increases in service demands, no significant impacts would be
anticipated from the proposed co-development, which represents a typical urban land for
Downtown Seattle.
Alternative 2
The site associated with Alternative 2 only includes Site A, and the total gross floor area of the
Convention Center would be approximately 140,000 sq. ft. smaller than that of Alternative 1 or
4.1. Construction and operational Fire and EMS services impacts would be generally similar to
those described for Alternative 1.
Alternative 3
Like Alternative 1, the overall site associated with Alternative 3 encompasses Sites A, B and
C. Without the WSDOT land/air lease, the overall development area of the WSCC Addition
would be somewhat smaller than that of Alternative 1. Construction and operational Fire and
EMS services impacts would be generally be similar to those described for Alternative 1.
14
Personal Communication with SFD. 9 October 2015.

Draft EIS
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15-9
Alternative 4.2
include the residential building on Site B. Construction and operational fire and EMS impacts
would be similar to or slightly less than those described for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 4.3
include the office building on Site C. Construction and operational fire and EMS impacts would
be similar to or slightly less than those described for Alternative 4.1.
Alternative 5
Total WSCC development associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than that of
Alternative 1. Construction fire and EMS impacts would be similar to or less than those
described for Alternative 1 because no right-of-way vacations would occur, and consequently
disruptions to the continuity of the street grid would be less. Operational impacts would be
similar to those described for Alternative 1.

would be offered for sale and subsequent, commercial or residential development would occur.
It is expected that subsequent development of Site A would be consistent with potential, future
development that was envisioned for this site in the Downtown FEIS, which was a mixed-use
complex of buildings that included: 900 residential units; a 600,000 sq. ft. office tower; and an
800-room, 400,000 sq. ft. hotel.15 The Downtown FEIS also anticipated that Site A could
include up to 3,200 employees. Fire and EMS calls could increase incrementally; however, to
the extent that the SFD has planned for gradual increases in service demands, no significant
impacts would be anticipated from the operation of a hotel, office building and residential
Cumulative Impacts
As new development occurs in the area new population and employment would be added to the
site vicinity. Future new development, together with the proposed WSCC Addition project,
would increase demand for fire and EMS services. To the extent that the SFD has planned for
gradual, incremental increases in population and employment downtown, no significant
cumulative impacts would be anticipated.
15

Draft EIS
3.15-10
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.15.3
Police Services
The following possible mitigation measures would address potential impacts to police services
resulting from the proposed WSCC Addition.

demand for police services under all of the EIS alternatives. A portion of the tax
revenues generated from development of the site including construction sales tax,
for police services.
The portions of the site that are under construction during redevelopment of the site
could be fenced, lit, and monitored by surveillance cameras to help prevent construction
site theft and vandalism.
Permanent site design features could be included to help reduce criminal activity and
calls for service, including: providing adequate lighting and visibility onsite.

The following possible mitigation measures would address potential impacts to fire and
emergency services resulting from the proposed WSCC Addition.

demand for fire/EMS services under all of the EIS alternatives. A portion of the tax
revenues generated from redevelopment of the site including construction sales tax,
for public services.
All new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the Fire Code, which is
composed of the International Fire Code with Seattle amendments.
3.15.4
No significant unavoidable adverse police or fire services impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
3.15-11
Section 3.15
Public Services
3.16
Utilities
This section describes potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relative to potable
water, sanitary sewer, and telecommunications that could occur in conjunction with the
alternatives. A description of mitigation measures to reduce impacts and a description of
significant unavoidable adverse impacts is also provided.
3.16.1
Potable Water
According to Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) 2013 Water System Plan,1 SPU provides water to 1.3
million people and businesses in the City of Seattle and surrounding areas, including the WSCC
Addition site. The majority of the water is derived from the Cedar River Watershed in the
Cascade Range of southeast King County and from the South Fork Tolt River Watershed in
eastern King County. The Plan indicates that the system yields 172 million gallons of water per
day. The project site is currently served by ten water feeder lines. An existing 8-inch diameter
water main extends through Terry Ave. from Howell St. to Olive Way and along Olive Way from
Terry Ave. to Boren Ave. This water main only serves the parcels being redeveloped (Sites A,
B and C). Existing water use on-site is limited due to the low density of on-site development.
Sanitary Sewer
SPU currently provides sanitary sewer service to the project site. The SPU sewer system
conveys sewer flows to the King County Metro system and includes pump systems, trunk lines,
and combined sewer mains (pipes that convey both sanitary sewer and stormwater). Sewage is
ultimately treated at the West Point Sewage Treatment Plant located adjacent to Discovery Park
in Seattle. The combined sewer mains that serve the project site currently are not capacity
constrained.
Presently, there are approximately 20 existing sanitary side sewer lines on the project site.
Additionally, a 12-inch sanitary sewer line crosses the site diagonally and serves a portion of the
Downtown Transit Tunnel, as well as an area of Pine St. surface drainage.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications lines on and in the site vicinity are provided by Comcast and other entities.
Telecommunications lines are located within the public rights-of-way associated with Howell St.,
Olive Way., Ninth Ave., Pine St., and Boren Ave. A telecommunications duct bank is present at
the east end of the Olive Way corridor that is proposed for vacation, and only serves the project
site.
SPU, 2013.

Draft EIS
Section 3.16
Utilities
3.16-1
3.16.2

The King County Site Work alternatives would all require the installation of a new Traction
Power Substation (TPSS) on Site A within the existing cut-and-cover tunnel, which adjoins the
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) and opens to Convention Place Station. The TPSS is
a prefabricated electrical transformer that provides electrical power for King County Metros
coaches operating on City streets and using electrical power. King County Metro has requested
that WSCC manage removal and installation of the new TPSS. King County Site Work related
to the TPSS would involve construction of a new concrete pad (approx.1,000 sq. ft.) for the
proposed TPSS unit (estimated at 500-600 sq. ft.), and removal of an overhead lighting truss in
the existing cut and cover tunnel. Utility work would be addressed as part of the Citys Utility
Major Permit, which would begin in 2016 and be completed by 2017. Refer to Section II for
further details.
Construction
Utility separation within the public right of way is established using City of Seattle Standard Plan
No. 030 for Municipal Construction and clearance standards specific to Seattle Public Utilities,
Seattle City Light, and franchise utilities. Utilities proposed to be re-established in the
reconstructed segments of Olive Way and Terry Avenue will comply with the Standard Plan 030
and agency-specific standards for clearances within the right of way. Seattle City Light electrical
duct bank and vault utilities are proposed to be relocated to Howell Street. Due to the presence
of existing CenturyLink fiberoptic facilities along the south sidewalk of Howell Street, the
relocated City Light duct banks will be installed within the southerly vehicle-travelled lanes with
less-than-standard clearance to an existing combined sewer main. Reduced clearance occurs
at proposed 10x20 electrical vault locations, and clearance inadequacies are proposed to be
mitigated by replacing nearby existing sewer pipe with ductile iron pipe. These clearance and
mitigation issues have been discussed with the City at bi-weekly design meetings held
throughout the second half of 2015 and will be formally reviewed by the City through the Street
Improvement Plan (SIP) and the Utility Major Permit (UMP) processes.
Impacts Common to Alternatives 1-5

Potable Water
Construction of water service infrastructure associated with the proposed WSCC Addition
would be scheduled with other infrastructure improvements (e.g., roadways, sanitary sewer
service, and other utilities). It is possible that some short-term interruptions of water service
could occur during the construction process associated with Alternatives 1-5, particularly
during the installation and connection of service to the new development. Construction activities
would be supported by using existing Seattle Public Utilities metered water services serving the
site.
The existing 8-inch diameter water main that extends through Terry Ave. from Howell St. to
Olive Way would be demolished back to the existing water tees on Boren Ave. and Howell St.,
along with water service laterals, meters, and meter boxes. The ten existing water service
feeder lines that currently serve the project site would be retired and new 6-inch domestic water
Draft EIS
Section 3.16
Utilities
3.16-2
service lines and 8-inch fire water services would be installed. For Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.1,
three domestic water service lines and three fire water service lines would be installed. The
other alternatives have fewer lines due to the decreased amount of development that would
occur; Alternatives 2 and 5 would have one domestic and one fire service line; and,
Alternatives 4.2 and 4.3 would have two domestic and two fire service lines.
Sanitary Sewer
Construction of proposed sewer improvements for Alternatives 1-5 would be scheduled with
other infrastructure improvements including water, stormwater control, street and other utilities.
Interruptions of sewer services to current users would be minimized to the maximum extent
possible. A temporary bypass and/or the existing sanitary sewer, combined sewer mains and
services would continue to serve the site during construction until the sanitary sewer, combined
sewer and stormwater control system are complete and operational. In general, underground
pipes would be replaced using Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Best
Management Practices (BMPs), per City of Seattle regulations to address the potential for
erosion/sedimentation with clearing and grading.
Approximately 20 existing sanitary side sewers are proposed to be retired for the project.
Additionally, the project proposes to reroute flow from the existing 12-inch sanitary sewer line
that crosses the site diagonally to new facilities in Pine St. that would convey sewage to the
existing combined sewer main on Ninth Ave.
For Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.1, two 8-inch and one 6-inch sanitary side sewers would be
installed. For Alternatives 2 and 5, one 8-inch and one 6-inch sanitary side sewer would be
installed. For Alternatives 4.2 and 4.3, two 8-inch sanitary side sewers would be installed.
Telecommunications
Alternatives 1-5
Telecommunication service for these alternatives would be provided for the proposed WSCC
Addition and co-development, as appropriate, from new services lines located within the public
rights-of-way surrounding the sites. Existing fiber-optic lines along Olive Way were previously
deactivated and would be demolished as part of the Olive Way reconstruction.
Telecommunication services within alleys proposed to be vacated would be demolished as part
of the proposed project. The existing duct bank within the Olive Way corridor would be
demolished or abandoned back to the existing telecommunications vault on Boren Avenue
outside of the project site.
Alternative 6
Development that could occur under the No Action Alternative is expected to be consistent
with potential, future development that was envisioned for this site in the Downtown FEIS -- a
mixed-use complex of buildings on Site A could include: 900 residential units; a 600,000-sq.-ft.
office tower; and an 800-room, 400,000-sq.-ft. hotel. Such development would likely require
replacement of existing water and sewer systems and an upgrade to telecommunication
infrastructure serving the site.

Draft EIS
Section 3.16
Utilities
3.16-3
Operational Impacts Common to Alternatives 1-5

Water
Operationally, Seattle Public Utilities has confirmed water supply availability for the proposed
water line connections associated with development under Alternatives 1-5.2
Sewer
There are no known capacity constraints related to the project sewage outflow to the Seattle
Public Utilities combined sewer mains along the project frontages on Ninth Ave., Boren Ave.,
and Howell Street.3
Telecommunications
No significant operational impacts are anticipated
Operational Impacts -- Alternative 6

Service impacts would likely be comparable to those identified for Alternatives 1-5.
Cumulative Impacts
Added demands on water, sewer and telecommunication facilities would occur as a result of the
proposed WSCC Addition; possible co-development; and other office, retail and residential
development that is proposed for Downtown Seattle. Project-related demand would represent a
portion of the overall increased demand. It is assumed that necessary improvements,
extensions or connections to existing utilities associated with future projects would be designed
and constructed in compliance with the applicable City of Seattle regulations, similar to the
proposed WSCC Addition. As a result, no significant cumulative utility impacts would be
anticipated from future projects, in combination with the WSCC Addition.
3.16.3
Construction management associated with the proposed WSCC Addition would coordinate with
service providers to identify land uses proximate to the site that could be affected by temporary
service interruptions. To the best of their ability, WSCC Addition construction management
would inform land uses proximate to the site of the time and duration of expected service
interruptions.
Utility location and right-of-way width requirements will be determined through coordination with
City Department within the SIP process.
2
3
MKA, 2015.
Ibid.

Draft EIS
Section 3.16
Utilities
3.16-4
Water
The design and construction of all water distribution facilities would comply with the City
of Seattle regulations for extensions and improvements to the Citys water system.
Sanitary Sewer
The design and construction of sanitary sewer systems would comply with the City of
Seattle standard plans and specifications for extensions and improvements to the Citys
sewer system.
Telecommunications
The design and construction of telecommunication facilities in support of the WSCC

Addition and possible co-development would comply with terms of the Citys franchise
agreement.
3.16.4
No significant unavoidable adverse utility-related impacts are anticipated.

Draft EIS
Section 3.16
Utilities
3.16-5
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
The following section summarizes the transportation impacts associated with the proposed
WSCC Addition. This section is based on the February 2016, Transportation Discipline Report
(TDR) prepared by Transpo Group (see Appendix H for the full report).
The analysis was conducted consistent with City of Seattle standards and focuses on the review
of impacts to the following transportation elements.
Roadway Network
Traffic Volumes
Traffic Operations intersection and arterial performance
Traffic Safety
Transit Service
Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Parking
Site Access
Freight
Street or Alley Vacation
Transportation Concurrency
The traffic analysis study area and intersections are defined in Figure 3.17-1.
There are eight alternatives evaluated for the proposed WSCC Addition. Alternatives include
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4.1, which are the preferred alternatives and Alternative 6 which
is the No Action. The remaining alternatives represent variations of Alternative 1 and Alternative
4.1 and include scenarios with and without potential co-development. Table 3.17-1 provides an
overview of the analysis completed for each of the alternatives. In addition, a number of different
event types can be accommodated within the proposed WSCC Addition. To assess the potential
transportation-related impacts of the proposal, event attendance for various show types were
projected and the trip generation associated with each estimated. The analysis was then
conducted for the worst case scenario for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-1
Table 3.17-1
Alternatives Analysis Framework
Alternative Description
1. Alternative 1
(Sites A, B, & C with alley
vacations)
2. Alternative 1 but only
includes Site A w/ single
alley vacation
Study Area
Analysis conducted for the full

All transportation elements identified
study area defined in Figure 3.17-1 in the introduction were evaluated
Analysis focuses on any changes
in access and/or local circulation
patterns
3. Alternative 1 without
WSDOT Corner and without
changes in use of I-5
patterns
Express Lanes ramp
4.1. Alternative 1 with the
NW parcel apartment and
NE parcel office codevelopments
Transportation Elements Evaluated
Comparison of trip generation to

Alternative 1 provided with general
discussion of impacts to the
transportation elements identified in
the introduction
the introduction

study area defined in Figure 3.17-1 in the introduction were evaluated

NW parcel apartment codevelopment

patterns

NE parcel office codevelopment

patterns

the introduction
the introduction
5. Site A only but no alley

vacations or street vacations study area defined in Figure 3.17-1 in the introduction were evaluated
6. No Action
No technical analysis of study area

Analysis provides a comparison of the
intersections to be conducted as
proposed trip generation to previous
Alternative is consistent with
Downtown EIS alternatives
Downtown EIS
Source: Transpo Group, 2016

Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-2
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Figure 3.17-1
Study Area and Intersections
3.17.1
This section describes existing and future conditions within the identified study area.
Characteristics are provided for the roadway network, traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic
safety, transit service, non-motorized facilities, freight and parking.
Roadway Network
Existing Street System
The City of Seattle (City) classifies streets as principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials,
and local access streets, depending upon the streets function in the overall roadway network.
The WSCC Addition, composed of three individual parcels (Sites A, B and C), is located in
downtown Seattle northeast of the Central Business District and west of Interstate 5 (I-5). Figure
3.17-2 shows the Citys street classification in downtown Seattle.
Table 3.17-2 summarizes the characteristics of major corridors within the study area, highlighting
the roadway classification, speed limit, number of lanes, parking, and general characteristics of
non-motorized facilities. The City also designates streets with pedestrian and transit
classifications. The current classifications for the streets included in the project study area are
noted in Table 3.17-2.
The transportation system in the study area includes both one- and two-way streets, as
highlighted in Figure 3.17-2. Many of the streets surrounding the site are one-way. Primary
roadways Howell St. and Olive Way are one-way eastbound, connect downtown Seattle with
Eastlake and Capitol Hill, respectively, and provide access to the I-5 northbound and southbound
ramp terminals. Pine St. also provides connections to neighborhoods east of the CBD. Pine St.
operates as two-way east of Eighth Ave. and one-way westbound west of Eighth Ave.
The WSCC Addition is also bordered by Boren Ave. (two-way) to the east and Ninth Ave. (oneway southbound) to the west. Boren Ave. is an important connection between First Hill and South
Lake Union. Terry Ave. is a Green Street and bisects the two northern parcels. Terry Ave.
terminates at its intersection with Olive Way.
Regional access to the study area is provided primarily via I-5. Ramps to I-5 mainline and the I-5
reversible express lanes are within close proximity to the project site and can be accessed via
Howell St., Olive Way, and Stewart St. Appendix H provides additional detail on the ramps in the
general vicinity of the project and identifies what travel mode (general purpose, transit or HOV) is
permitted to use the ramp. General purpose traffic is able to access the site via all ramps in the
vicinity except the Pike St. HOV/Transit ramp from the I-5 Express Lanes.
Howell St., Stewart St. and Olive Way provide critical links to I-5 in the immediate project area.
As such, King County Metro, Community Transit and Sound Transit routes use these streets to
access the downtown Seattle grid from I-5. Transit-only lanes exist on Olive Way, Howell St., and
Stewart St. These roadways have peak hour parking restrictions that provide the capacity to
operate the transit priority lanes.

Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-4
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Figure 3.17-2
Arterial Classification in the Study Area
Table 3.17-2
Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary
Street
Classification
Posted
Speed Limit
Number of Travel Lanes
Stewart
St.
Principal Arterial
Principal Transit
Class I Pedestrian
30 mph
4 one-way SWB travel lanes during

AM and PM peaks with 1 bus only
lane; 2 lanes remainder of day
Olive
Way
Principal Arterial
Principal Transit
Class I Pedestrian
30 mph
Principal Arterial
Principal Transit
Class II Pedestrian
Principal Arterial
Boren
Minor Transit
Ave.
Class II Pedestrian
Principal Arterial
Denny
Major Transit
Way
Class II Pedestrian
Principal Arterial
Fairview
Minor Transit
Ave. N
Class II Pedestrian
Howell
St.
Pine
St.
Principal Arterial
Principal Transit
Class I Pedestrian
Principal Arterial
Major Transit
Class I Pedestrian
Principal Arterial
Yale
Minor Transit
Ave.
Class II Pedestrian
Principal Arterial
Sixth
Minor Transit
Ave.
Class II Pedestrian
Minor Arterial
Seventh
Major Transit
Ave.
Class II Pedestrian
Minor Arterial
Eighth
Minor Transit
Ave.
Class II Pedestrian
Green Street
Terry
Minor Transit
Ave.
Class II Pedestrian
Green Street
Ninth
Principal Transit
Ave.
Class II Pedestrian
Pike
St.
30 mph
30 mph
Parking
Sidewalks and
Bicycle Facilities
Intermittent both Sidewalks on both

sides; peak hour
sides
restrictions
Sharrows
3-4 one-way EB travel lanes (Stewart Intermittent both Sidewalks on both

sides
to I-5) with 1 bus only lane in PM
sides; peak hour
Sharrows
peak. 1 WB lane (Minor to Terry)
restrictions
Intermittent both Sidewalks on both
3-4 one-way NEB travel lanes with
sides
sides; peak hour
1 bus only lane in PM peak
Sharrows
restrictions
Sidewalks on both
sides
2 travel lanes in each direction
No
Sidewalks on both
sides
30 mph
2 travel lanes in each direction
No
30 mph
1-2 travel lanes in each direction with

two-way center turn lane
Both sides w/
peak hour
restrictions
30 mph
2-3 one-way SWB travel lanes,

west of Eighth Ave.;
2 SW travel lanes and 1 NEB travel
lane, east of Eighth Ave.
Intermittent
both sides
30 mph
3 one-way NEB travel lanes
Intermittent
both sides
30 mph
1 lane in each direction
Intermittent
both sides
30 mph
3 one-way NWB1 travel lanes
Both sides
Sidewalks on both
sides
Both sides
Sidewalks on both
sides
30 mph
30 mph
2 travel lanes each direction except 3

one-way SB travel lanes
(Westlake to Olive)
2 NWB travel lanes (Westlake to
Pine), with 1 SB travel lane, (Pine to
Pike)
Both sides
30 mph
1 to 2 one-way NEB travel lanes
Both sides
30 mph
2 one-way SB travel lanes (Lenora to

Pike)
Intermittent
both sides
Sidewalks on both
sides
Sidewalks on both
sides
Bike Lane
Sidewalks on both
sides
Sidewalks on both
sides
Sidewalks on both
sides
Bike Lane
Sidewalks on both
sides
Sidewalks on both
sides
Sharrows, Bike Lane
SWB = Southwestbound, EB = Eastbound, NEB = Northeastbound, NWB = Northwestbound, SB = Southboundr

Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-6
Future Street System (Baseline Conditions)

A review of local and regional capital improvement programs and long-range transportation plans
was conducted to identify planned funded and unfunded transportation projects that would impact
the study area. The review included, but was not limited to, transportation plans from Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), City of Seattle, King County, and Sound Transit.
Major projects identified include the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, Elliott Bay
Seawall Replacement, Waterfront Seattle, the Mercer Corridor Project, the First Hill Streetcar,
and extension of Sound Transit Link Light Rail Transit (LRT).
Potential projects that could have a direct effect in the study area include the following:
1
2
SDOTs Active Traffic Management Project for the Denny Way corridor This project
includes upgrades to signals, vehicle detection, traffic cameras, dynamic message signs,
and fiber communications at intersections along the Denny Way corridor and includes
intersections along Stewart St., Howell St., and Olive Way that connect to I-5. This system
would collect real-time traffic flow data and automatically adjust signal timing based on
pre-set algorithms. The flow data and traffic cameras would also feed to the Seattle Traffic
Operations Center and allow real-time traffic management of the corridor. Information
would be pushed through the Citys websites and to other providers to inform the traveling
public about traffic conditions along Denny Way.
Removal of Contraflow Lane on Olive Way This SDOT project would remove the
existing westbound contraflow lane on Olive Way between Minor Ave. and Terry Ave. and
replace it with an eastbound transit-only lane with the same limits.
City Center Mobility Plan The City is beginning a planning process for Central Seattle
neighborhoods to establish needs for the transportation system. This would encompass
the design and implementation of long-term transportation projects for the Downtown,
South Lake Union, First Hill / Capitol Hill, and Uptown neighborhoods. The study would
focus on all modes of travel and trip types to create reliable transportation for all users.
This plan is anticipated to begin in 2016.
Protected Bicycle Lanes As identified in the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan1, Stewart St.,
Pike St., and Seventh Ave. have been identified as potential locations for future cycle
tracks. The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan Implementation Plan 2015 20192 identifies that
construction of the cycle track on Pike St. and Seventh Ave. may begin in 2016 but is not
certain at the date of this publication. These projects are part of the larger City Center
projects that are being evaluated before final routes are selected. The Stewart St. cycle
track is not identified in the project list in the Implementation Plan.
Closure of the Convention Place Station (CPS) This existing transit station on the
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) is currently used by King County Metro as both
a transit station with significant service levels and a transit coach layover site. These
service levels will decline with the opening of the University Link LRT. The decision to
remove buses from the DSTT in the future has already been made and it is not related to
the WSCC Addition. Buses will remain in the Convention Place Station at least until
September 2018.
City of Seattle, Seattle Bicycle Master Plan, Adopted April 2014

City of Seattle, Seattle Bicycle Master Plan Implementation Plan (2015-2019), Adopted March 2015

Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-7
Roosevelt to Downtown High Capacity Transit (HCT) The project is currently in the
planning stages by the City to connect the Downtown and South Lake Union
neighborhoods with Eastlake, the University District, Roosevelt, Maple Leaf and
Northgate. Bus rapid transit improvements would be constructed on the Roosevelt Ave.
NE, Eastlake Ave., and Fairview Ave N corridors. These would provide faster, more
reliable service through the use of exclusive bus lanes, transit signal priority and efficient
routing. In addition to transit improvements, enhancements to sidewalks, curb ramps, and
construction of protected bicycle lanes would improve access and safety for people
walking and bicycling.
Downtown Seattle Transit Coordination A local coordination effort comprised of

Community Transit, Sound Transit, City of Seattle, and the WSDOT have collaborated to
develop solutions for enhancing the effectiveness of transit routing and stops in Downtown
Seattle. Through a series of action plans, a list of low cost investments at key intersections
has been developed. While funded for 2016, the full details of these improvements are not
known as no design has yet been completed for the proposed improvements. As such,
this analysis does not reflect any of the identified improvements.
Waterfront Gondola Construction of an urban gondola has been proposed for

Downtown Seattle. The gondola would be privately owned and is not associated with the
WSCC or WSCC Addition project. It would transport passengers along Union St. from
the Waterfront on Alaskan Way to the existing WSCC building at Seventh Ave. Project
construction has not begun and is pending the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. With
construction of the gondola project, it is likely some passengers may use the existing
WSCC parking garage or other parking facilities in the area. It could also be used as
transportation to the existing WSCC or WSCC Addition for attendees staying near the
waterfront or during conference breaks.
With on-going development in the area, minor changes in the streetscape for neighboring
properties is anticipated. Generally, these improvements focus on sidewalk
improvements. However, along Terry Ave., between Howell St. and Virginia Ave.,
modifications to the street configuration are anticipated as part of future development
plans. The general configuration of Terry Ave. will be revised to include a single
northbound lane with pedestrian enhancements such as wider sidewalks, parklets, and
reconfiguration of the on-street parking. The timing of these improvements are anticipated
in the next couple of years as development along the street moves ahead.
Traffic Volumes
Peak Time Periods for Analysis
Based on review of seven-day traffic counts, off-site intersections were evaluated for the
traditional weekday morning and afternoon commute periods. These periods (7-9 AM and 4-6
PM) have the highest overall traffic volumes, and thus reflect a conservative time-period for
analysis.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic data were obtained for all study area intersections between March and May 2015. The
existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.2-1 and Figure
2.2-2 in Appendix H. At locations where current construction has closed intersection approaches,
historical counts from traffic studies published in 2013 or 2014 were used where appropriate.
Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-8
On days in which existing traffic counts were collected, the existing WSCC was hosting events
that ranged from approximately 1,100 to 2,800 attendees. Due to the nature and the size of these
events, it was assumed that typical traffic from the existing WSCC is captured and reflected in the
existing traffic counts.
Baseline Traffic Volumes
To provide a baseline condition against which potential project impacts could be measured, future
baseline volumes were established using future (2021) traffic volumes with no change in use on
the proposed WSCC Addition. Traffic volumes for the baseline scenario were forecast by
applying an average annual growth rate to existing volumes, and then adding traffic from
previously approved, not yet constructed pipeline development projects that would increase
background traffic at study area intersections. The location of each pipeline project and the City
permit number is shown in Figure 2.2-3 in Appendix H.
Planned changes to the Citys street network were also considered while developing the weekday
AM and PM forecast traffic volumes. The westbound contraflow lane on Olive Way between Minor
St. and Terry Ave. is planned for removal within the horizon year identified for this study. Traffic
volumes currently using this street segment, as well as future pipeline traffic on this segment,
were reassigned to alternate routes throughout the network.
It is assumed that all buses would be removed from the DSTT and joint bus and rail operations in
the tunnel would end no earlier than September 2018. These bus routes would either operate on
the surface streets or be integrated with the light rail service. Under baseline conditions, the
Convention Place Station would still be used by buses for layover and no bus volumes were
shifted from the Ninth Ave. / Olive Way or Terry Ave. / Olive Way intersections. While bus service
may be operated to integrate differently with the light rail, thus potentially reducing redundant
service, leaving the full bus volumes in the forecasts allows for a conservative estimate of impacts
at these intersections.
The 2021 weekday AM and PM Baseline traffic volumes are summarized in Figure 2.2-4 and
Figure 2.2-5 in Appendix H.
Traffic Operations
Methodology
The evaluation of traffic operations within the study area included an intersection LOS (level of
service) and arterial travel speeds and associated LOS.
The operational performance of an intersection was determined by calculating the intersection
LOS using Synchro software program version 9 based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) method. Where conditions at an intersection were not able to be evaluated using the 2010
HCM methodology, the HCM 2000 methods were used. Specific limitations of the HCM 2010
methodology include the inability to model five-legged intersections and restrictions related to
signal phasing. Signalized intersections with LOS F operations or approaching LOS F operations
were reviewed based on HCM 2000 methodology to calculate the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio.
At signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is measured in average delay per
vehicle for all vehicles at the intersection. At two-way stop-sign-controlled intersections, LOS is
reported for the worst operating approach of the intersection. Signalized and unsignalized LOS
criteria is summarized in Table 2.3-1, Appendix H.
Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-9
The City of Seattles Comprehensive Plan does not define a LOS standard for individual
intersections; however, the City generally recognizes LOS E and F as poor operations for
signalized locations and LOS F for unsignalized locations.
Arterial LOS was calculated along four corridors within the study area. Arterial performance is
based on the average vehicle speed and the arterial class of the corridor. The average speed
along the corridor includes vehicle travel time as well as delay from traffic signals. Signal delay
for arterial LOS is based on Synchro 9 methodology which can vary slightly from the HCM 2000
and 2010 methodology reported for each intersection. The arterial class is calculated by
Synchro 9 based on the speed limit and intersection spacing of the corridor.
Existing Conditions
Intersection Operations
Traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, bicycle volumes, heavy vehicle volumes and intersection
peaking characteristics from the traffic volume counts were used at each intersection. The number
of intersections operating at LOS C or better, or at LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F is summarized in 0.
A detailed summary of the LOS by intersection is included in Figure 2.3-4 and Figure 2.3-5 in
Appendix H.
26
Existing Weekday Traffic Operations
Existing AM
3 1
A-C
D
E
F
29
Existing PM
Figure 3.17-3
10
15
20
Number of Intersections
2 1 3
25
30
35
Existing (2016) Weekday Intersection Level of Service Summary

Draft EIS
3.17-10
Section 3.17
Transportation
As noted in 0 all study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better with the exception of
four intersections during the weekday AM peak hour and four intersections during the weekday
PM peak hour.
The intersections operating at LOS E during the weekday AM peak hour include Fairview Ave. N
/ Mercer St., Boren Ave. / Virginia St., and the northbound I-5 Ramp at Olive Way while Yale Ave.
/ Howell St. operates at LOS F. During the weekday PM peak hour, Fairview Ave. N / Mercer St.
operates at LOS E while Yale Ave. / Stewart St., Yale Ave. / Howell St., and the northbound I-5
Ramp at Olive Way currently operate at LOS F.
Arterial Operations
Route performance along key corridors was calculated within the study area to provide an
additional level of analysis regarding the overall operations of the roadway system. It is
recognized that four arterial corridors in the study area Fairview Ave., Olive Way, Howell St.
and Stewart St., can experience extensive congestion related to the high volume of traffic that
accesses I-5. Congestion at downtown intersections can affect the entire corridor. Corridor
analysis adds context to the results of the intersection LOS because it takes into account general
travel times between intersections as well as additional delay anticipated at intersections for the
specific movements relevant to the identified route.
The results are summarized in Table 3.17-3. It is acknowledged that traffic conditions can be
worse when extreme congestion on I-5 constrains access onto the freeway.
Table 3.17-3
Arterial Level of Service Summary Existing
Corridor
Existing
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
LOS1
Speed2
LOS
Speed
Stewart St. (Denny Way to Sixth Ave.)
Olive Way (Sixth Ave. to Northbound I-5 Ramp)
11
10
Howell St. (Ninth Ave. to Yale Ave.)
Fairview Ave. N Northbound (Boren Ave. to Mercer St.)
Fairview Ave. N Southbound (Mercer St. to Boren Ave.)
10

Level of service.
Average speed in miles per hour
1.
2.
Three of the five corridors analyzed currently operate at either LOS E or F during both weekday
AM and PM peak hour conditions. These corridors serve as the main routes to/from I-5 and
experience congestion during the peak periods due to heavy commuting traffic volumes. During
the weekday AM and PM peak hour the Olive Way corridor operates at LOS D and during the
weekday PM peak hour the southbound Fairview Ave. N corridor from Mercer St. to Boren Ave.
operates at LOS D.
Draft EIS
3.17-11
Section 3.17
Transportation
Baseline Conditions
Existing and Baseline Weekday Traffic

Operations
Weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations during the 2021 baseline
conditions are shown in Figure 3.17-4. The year 2021 geometry and traffic control for all of the
study-area intersections were assumed to remain the same as existing with the exception of the
intersections of Olive Way/Minor Ave. and Olive Way/Ninth Ave. Complete intersection level of
service summaries are provided in Appendix H.
23
Baseline AM
26
Existing AM
0 7
3 1
A-C
D
E
19
Baseline PM
29
Existing PM
10
15
20
25
21 3
30
35
Existing/Baseline Weekday 2021 Intersection Level of Service

Summary
Compared to existing traffic operations, the baseline weekday AM peak hour is anticipated to
have 3 additional intersections operating at LOS D through LOS F, with a total of 7 intersections
operating at LOS F. The intersections of Fairview Ave. N / Mercer St., Fairview Ave. N / Denny
Way, Boren Ave. / Virginia St., Stewart St. / Denny Way, the northbound I-5 ramp at Olive Way,
and Ninth Ave. / Pike St. are all anticipated to degrade to LOS F during the future baseline
weekday AM peak hour.
During the weekday PM peak hour, 5 additional intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F
during baseline traffic conditions compared with existing conditions. Overall, 16 intersections are
anticipated to operate at LOS D or worse during the weekday PM peak hour during baseline
Draft EIS
3.17-12
Section 3.17
Transportation
conditions compared with 6 for existing conditions. The intersections of Fairview Ave. N. / Mercer
St., Fairview Ave. N / Denny Way, Boren Ave. / Virginia St., Stewart St. / Denny Way, and Ninth
Ave. / Howell St. are anticipated to degrade during the future baseline weekday PM peak hour.
Arterial Operations
Arterial travel times and level of service were calculated for the 2021 baseline weekday AM and
PM peak hours and are shown in Table 3.17-4. The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour
travel times are also shown in the table for comparison.
Table 3.17-4
Arterial Level of Service Summary Existing and 2021 Baseline
Existing
Corridor
2021 Baseline
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

LOS1 Speed2 LOS
Speed
LOS
Speed
LOS
Speed
Olive Way (Sixth Ave. to Northbound I5 on-ramp)
11
10
10
10
Fairview Ave. N. Northbound (Boren

Ave. to Mercer St.)
Fairview Ave. N. Southbound (Mercer
St. to Boren Ave.)
1. Level of service.
2. Average speed in miles per hour
As shown in Table 3.17-4, travel speeds under the baseline conditions are expected to decrease
from existing conditions for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours for all corridors.
Traffic Safety
Collisions were reviewed at the study area intersections. Records of reported collisions were
obtained from SDOT for the three-year period between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014.
Pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurred at 21 intersections within the study area. At
intersections with these collisions, the intersections had an annual average of fewer than one to
three collisions over the three-year analysis period. The highest number of pedestrian and bicycle
collisions occurred at Boren Ave. / Pine St. which had a total of 6 collisions over the three-year
period. Pine St. had the highest observed number of bicycles during the weekday AM peak hour
with nearly 200 counted. Additionally, the intersection had over 600 pedestrians observed during
the weekday AM peak hour and 700 during the weekday PM peak hour. No fatal collisions
occurred at any of the study intersections during the analysis period. Collision history is
summarized for each intersection in Figure 2.4-1, Appendix H.

Draft EIS
3.17-13
Section 3.17
Transportation
The City reviews high collision intersections based on collision history. The City targets
intersections designated as high collision locations for future safety improvements in an effort to
reduce the occurrence of collisions. As shown in Figure 2.4-1, Appendix H none of the study
area intersections met the Citys criteria for high collision locations and none of the intersections
are on the Citys 2015 review of signalized intersections.
Based on the types of collisions observed, it is likely that traffic congestion accounts for some of
the collisions. Rear-end and approach turn collisions are frequently caused by stop-and-go traffic
or drivers attempting to complete turns without an adequate gap. Angled or side collisions can
occur when traffic fails to yield the right-of-way or if vehicles block an intersection because of
vehicle queuing.
In addition to monitoring high collision locations at intersections, the City reviews collision
frequency along mid-block street segments and pedestrian and bicycle collisions at intersections.
For mid-block locations, the only segment in the Citys 2015 review is along Denny Way between
Stewart St. and Melrose Ave. Along this segment, 18 collisions occurred from 2012 to 2014; 9 of
these collisions were rear-ends for vehicles traveling westbound. Denny Way is on a downgrade
for westbound traffic at this location, and the traffic queues typically extend from Stewart St. during
peak periods.
Two study area intersections met the Citys monitoring criteria of four or more reported pedestrian
collisions for further evaluation of pedestrian safety and are included in the Citys 2015 review.
Seventh Ave. and Olive Way had five pedestrian collisions reported between 2012 and 2014 and
has been designated for additional monitoring. All pedestrian collisions occurred in the crosswalk
on the east leg of the intersection and involved left-turning vehicles. This intersection is planned
to have curb bulbs installed in 2015 to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance while increasing
pedestrian visibility to drivers. A second intersection being reviewed based on pedestrian collision
history is Denny Way and Stewart St. This intersection had four pedestrian collisions from 2012
to 2014. The majority of collisions at this intersection occurred on the east and west legs of Denny
Way; additional signage has been placed for right-turning vehicles from Stewart St. to Denny Way
to indicate the need for drivers to yield to crossing pedestrians.
Transit Service
Existing Conditions
Transit service to the study area is provided by King County Metro, Sound Transit and Community
Transit. King County Metro provides bus and streetcar service, Community Transit provides bus
service and Sound Transit provides both bus and light rail service. Figure 3.17-5 summarizes bus
routes serving the overall study area by roadway, stop location, and general downtown Seattle
outbound service areas. The data in this section of the report reflects service as of June 1, 2015.
The available bus service was grouped into six service zones or corridors shown on Figure 3.176 based on the distribution of service in the region.

Draft EIS
3.17-14
Section 3.17
Transportation
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Figure 3.17-5
Existing Transit Service in the Site Vicinity
Existing Peak Period Transit Service near WSCC Addition

There are six transit stops within one block of the site: two on Olive Way, one on Howell St., one
each on Stewart St., Pike St. and Pine St. Access to the DSTT at Convention Place Station is on
the proposed project site. Information about the number of buses serving the transit stops near
the project site during peak commuting hours is summarized in Figure 3.17-6.
Buses access the existing Convention Place Station site and the DSTT several ways. The Pike
St. HOV ramp from the I-5 Express Lanes provides direct access to the Convention Place Station
site for transit. Buses traveling inbound from surface streets or mainline I-5 access the CPS site
via driveways on Olive Way. Buses traveling outbound to surface streets or mainline I-5 leave the
Convention Place Station site via ramps from the DSTT to the intersection of Olive Way and Terry
Draft EIS
3.17-16
Section 3.17
Transportation
Ave. Figure 2.5-4 in Appendix H provides a summary of the inbound/outbound transit access
points at the existing CPS site. King County Metro currently uses the Convention Place Station
site both as transit coach layover and as a transit station with significant service levels.
Baseline Conditions
Extension of Sound Transits North Link light rail transit system is now under construction. The
extension will connect downtown Seattle to the University of Washington in 2016 and to Northgate
by 2021. Expansion east to Bellevue is proposed to be completed by 2023.
Service levels at the Convention Place Station site are expected to decline with the opening of
the University District LRT station. Buses that overlap with future LRT service that use the DSTT
will be phased out of the tunnel and rerouted to surface streets. Buses are expected to continue
to use CPS and operate in the tunnel until at least September 2018. At that point, passenger
access will shift to the Westlake Station. It was assumed for this analysis that some bus layover
is expected to remain on the Convention Place Station site under baseline conditions.
Existing Conditions
All roadways in the immediate study area have sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sidewalks
in the study area are generally between 8 to 12 feet in width. The majority of the signalized
intersections have marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Several sections within the
immediate vicinity are closed due to construction projects; pedestrian detours are in place. These
facilities will be completed as construction is finished.
Existing Volumes
Pedestrian volumes along all site frontages were collected for the weekday mid-day (11:00 am1:00 pm) and PM peak (4:00-6:00 pm) periods. This area was chosen based on future site access
points and anticipated activity between the existing WSCC and the proposed Addition. In general,
pedestrian activity during the PM peak hour exceeds that occurring during the midday section on
most sidewalk sections. The highest volumes were reported on the east side of Ninth Ave. during
the PM peak hour3.
Baseline Conditions
The Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan4 is SDOTs citywide action plan focused on walking to build
healthy communities and increase walking, biking, and transit use. This plan identifies pedestrian
projects and prioritizes them based on the goals of safety, equity, vibrancy and health.
The project site is entirely within the High Priority Area for pedestrian improvements as identified
in the Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan. High Priority Areas were established based on potential
pedestrian demand, equity and corridor function analyses. Streets that are part of the Urban
Village Transit Network are also listed in this plan. These streets are where high volumes of
pedestrians exist and pedestrian improvements should be prioritized. Within the study area these
streets include Fairview Ave. N, Virginia St., Stewart St., Olive Way and Pine St.
3
4
Figure 2.6-3, Appendix H (TDR)

City of Seattle, September 2009

Draft EIS
3.17-17
Section 3.17
Transportation
The Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan also includes a process for determining scores for pedestrian
safety (or comfort level) along roadways and roadway crossings and is used to compare areas
and prioritize potential pedestrian projects. A Tier 1 score indicates the highest opportunity for
improvement. Tier 1 Crossing the Roadway score areas and Tier 1 Along the Roadway score
areas in the project vicinity include:
Tier 1 Crossing the Roadway
Sixth Ave. and Pine St.
Eighth Ave. and Pike St.
Boren Ave. and Pike St.
Stewart St. and Yale Ave.
Denny Way and Stewart St.
Tier 1 Along the Roadway

Pine St. between Terry Ave. and Boren Ave.
Pine St. between Boren Ave. and Minor Ave.
While the pedestrian improvements may occur, no specific plan or funding have been identified.
Thus, no changes in sidewalk capacity or configuration were assumed for the analysis of baseline
conditions.
Baseline Volumes
Forecast 2021 pedestrian volumes were developed by increasing existing pedestrian volumes by
approximately 25 percent to account for the expected level of future growth. Pedestrians observed
to currently use the Convention Place Station, most prevalent between Olive Way and Pine St.
on the east sidewalk, were eliminated from 2021 baseline volumes due to the planned station
closure. In addition, pedestrian growth identified in the nearby Ninth & Stewart Mixed-Use Project
was also added to the forecasts. The Ninth & Stewart Mixed-Use Project includes a hotel that is
expected to also serve WSCC attendees. As a result, significant pedestrian demand was forecast
to add to Ninth Ave. pedestrian traffic between Howell St. and Pike St.
Pedestrian Level of Service
Pedestrian level of service (LOS) for the sidewalks was calculated using the methodology outlined
in the LOS Criteria for Pedestrian Mode in Chapter 17 of the HCM.5 Pedestrian level of service is
based on the typical pedestrians perception of the travel experience; it incorporates average
pedestrian space and the pedestrian walk speeds. LOS values range from LOS A to LOS F similar
to the intersection delay criteria. Pedestrian LOS was calculated along the Ninth Ave. frontage to
provide a basis for assessing current sidewalk adequacy. The analysis captures the sidewalk
segment observed to have the highest existing pedestrian volumes, and, in the event of project
approval, would serve as the key pedestrian access frontage for the WSCC Addition. It would
also provide connectivity between the existing WSCC and the WSCC Addition.
Table 3.17-5 summarizes the pedestrian LOS for both the existing and baseline conditions.
Pedestrian LOS is expected to improve under 2021 baseline conditions in front of the existing
Convention Place Station from LOS C to LOS B as a result of the closure of the Convention Place
Station. Along the east side of Ninth Ave. pedestrian LOS is expected to decrease from LOS A to
LOS B due to increases in pipeline pedestrian traffic.
Transportation Research Board, 2010.

Draft EIS
3.17-18
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-5
Pedestrian Volumes and Level of Service along Ninth Avenue Existing and 2021
Baseline
Location along Ninth

Ave.
Olive Way to Pine St.
(east sidewalk)
(west sidewalk)
Pine St. to Pike St.
(east sidewalk)
(west sidewalk)
PM Peak Hour
Average
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Existing
Volumes
Space (ft2/p)1
LOS Score
LOS
Sidewalk
Width Existing Baseline Existing Baseline Existing Baseline Existing Baseline
13 feet
740
290
70
190
1.8
1.8
11 feet
240
470
200
100
0.8
0.9
16 feet
70
290
1,800
430
1.5
1.5
12 feet
210
450
610
280
0.7
0.8

1. Ft2/p = square feet per pedestrian
2. Platooned flow used to measure LOS
Bicycle Facilities
Existing Conditions
Bicycle facilities in the study area include bicycle lanes and vehicle lanes that are marked with
sharrows, indicating that motorists should share the lane with bicyclists. A sharrow is a
pavement marking placed in the roadway to highlight a shared lane. Unlike a bicycle lane, a
sharrow does not delineate a particular part of the roadway that a bicyclist should use.
Stewart St. and Howell St. both have sharrows the length of the roadway in the study area. Olive
Way is marked with sharrows west of Ninth Ave. Ninth Ave. is marked with sharrows between
Olive Way and Pike St. There are bicycle lanes on Ninth Ave. between Lenora St. and Olive Way,
as well as on Pine St. east of Eighth Ave. Second Ave. has a cycle track (protected bicycle lane)
between Pike St. and Yesler Way. Figure 2.7-1 in Appendix H further illustrates the bicycle
facilities in the study area.
Baseline Conditions
The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan6 identifies the following improvements within the study area:
Protected bicycle lanes are proposed along Stewart St., Union St., Seventh Ave., and
Fourth Ave.
On-street bicycle facilities with minor separation along Fifth Ave.
SDOT is currently in the process of doing further analysis on the plan recommendations to
determine optimal design. Therefore, no changes to the existing lane configuration were assumed
under baseline conditions.
City of Seattle, Seattle Bicycle Master Plan, Adopted April 2014

Draft EIS
3.17-19
Section 3.17
Transportation
Freight
Freight traffic to and from the downtown Seattle core is subject to restrictions of the Downtown
Traffic Control (DTC) zone. The eastern boundary of the DTC zone is on the west side of Eighth
Ave.; therefore, the WSCC Addition is not located within the zone. However, the routes that large
trucks can use would be affected by those restrictions.
Vehicles over 30 feet in length are prohibited in the DTC zone between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM
Monday through Saturday except with a permit.7 The DTC zone extends from Yesler Way in the
south to Lenora St. in the north and from Eighth Ave. in the east to First Ave. in the west. The
Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) also prohibits large trucks (over 30 feet long) from using Denny
Way between Western Ave. and Olive Way during commuter peak periods (7:00 to 9:00 AM and
4:00 to 6:00 PM)8.
Seattles Comprehensive Plan calls for the designation of a network of Major Truck Streets to
serve as primary freight routes for the movement of goods and services. Seattles Transportation
Strategic Plan defines a specific network of Major Truck Streets, which are arterial streets that
can accommodate significant freight movement through the City. SDOT uses the Major Truck
Street designation to guide roadway design as well as traffic management. Within the downtown
core, only I-5, the Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV), and surface Alaskan Way are designated as
Major Truck Streets.
All designated arterials are considered to be truck routes by SDOT. Most streets in the downtown
core are classified as arterials (either principal, minor, or collector arterials) and are considered
truck routes, governed by the size and time restrictions in the DTC zone.
Parking
Existing Conditions
WSCC Parking
The WSCC operates two large parking garages: 1) the WSCC Parking Garage, also known as
the Main Garage which is co-located at the convention center site, and 2) the Freeway Park
Garage, which can be accessed from Hubble Place on the east side of Interstate 5. The combined
garages have 1,598 spaces: 938 in the Main Garage and 660 in the Freeway Park Garage. Of
these, 157 are reserved and not available for public parking. Table 3.17-6 summarizes the parking
supply by type of space and location.
7
8
Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 11.62.080

SMC 11.62.120

Draft EIS
3.17-20
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-6
WSCC Parking Supply
Number of Parking Spaces by Type
Disabled
Unrestricted
Reserved
Spaces
765
157
16
Garage
WSCC Main
Freeway Park Garage
Total
Total
938
644
16
660
1,409
157
32
1,598
Source: WSCC, September 2014
As noted above, there are 157 reserved parking spaces in the WSCC Main Garage. Of these,
146 are obligated for other purposes through lease agreements or the WSCCs Transportation
Management Plan, which was a condition on a prior permit and are not directly related to events or
operations at the WSCC.
Detailed parking demand analysis was performed to determine the existing parking demand
associated with various types of events. The parking demand rates are summarized in Table
3.17-7. It is noted that the peak parking demand may occur at different times of day for the
different types of events. Most conventions and trade shows generate peak parking demand
midday; however, the breakfast events peak in the morning, and the evening events peak late in
the day.
As shown below, most types of events generate parking demand of less than approximately 450
vehicles at the peak. This demand is accommodated by the existing WSCC garages. The peak
parking demand is related to large consumer trade shows, which occur only a few times per year.
Even though most of the demand could be accommodated at WSCC, it is recognized that
attendees now use other available public parking in the study area, which is described below.
Table 3.17-7
WSCC Existing (2014) Parking Demand
2014
Attendance1
Event Type
Breakfast meeting/event
Evening fundraising event
Local meeting/convention
National Convention
Consumer/Trade Show (typical)
Consumer/Trade Show (large)
955
485
735
6,780
6,000
20,600
Attendee
Parking
Demand Rate
(veh/1,000
attendees)
257.1
348.7
260.0
47.9
62.6
62.6
Peak Parking Demand2
Attendees
245
169
191
325
376
1,290
Employees
70
47
58
83
75
125
Total
315
216
249
408
451
1,415
Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc. and Transpo Group, 2016

1. Reflects 95th-percentile daily attendance for type of event based on WSCC data
2. Derived using detailed parking accumulation data for both WSCC garages, as well as employee information

Draft EIS
3.17-21
Section 3.17
Transportation
On-Street Parking
On-street parking in the study area consists of metered spaces with time limits that vary from 30
minutes to four hours. Stewart St., Olive Way, Howell St. and Fairview Ave. N all have parking
restrictions during peak hours to provide additional vehicle lanes during peak commute periods.
Off-Street Parking
Off-street parking facilities in the downtown core area of Seattle were documented in June 2014
in a study commissioned by SDOT9. The off-street facilities within a one-quarter mile of the WSCC
Addition are located in both the Commercial Retail core and the Denny Triangle North area. Data
were collected at all facilities in the Commercial Retail core, but were sampled within the Denny
Triangle North area. Details regarding the parking study are included in Appendix H, Section 2.9.
Within one-quarter mile of the proposed WSCC Addition there are approximately 39 off-street
parking facilities which include 21 garages and 18 surface lots. Data for the surface lots were not
included in this analysis because these lots are potential development sites and the parking may
not remain in the long term. Of the 21 garages, detailed demand counts were performed for 15.
Table 3.17-8 shows the supply and utilization for the four time periods for the 15 garages. As
noted, some of the garages were not open in the evenings or on weekends (noted with an NA);
therefore, the total supply available varied by time period.
Seattle Downtown Off-Street Parking Program, Supply and Demand Survey in June 2014; Heffron
Transportation, Inc., September 30, 2014.

Draft EIS
3.17-22
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-8
Parking Supply and Utilization for Garages within One-quarter Mile of WSCC Addition
Weekday (Monday through Thursday)
Morning
(8:45AM - 12:00PM)
Afternoon
(12:45 3:30PM)
Available
Unused
Unused
Facility Address Spaces 1 Utilization Spaces 2 Utilization Spaces
Weekend Evening
Weekend Afternoon
Friday or Saturday
(6:00 8:00PM)
Saturday
(1:00 5:00PM)
Available
Unused
Spaces Utilization Spaces
Available
Spaces
Utilization
Unused
Spaces
1635 8th Ave.
110
26%
81
31%
76
110
77%
25
110
50%
55
701 Pike St.
269
74%
70
89%
30
269
20%
214
269
39%
165
520 Pike St.
266
69%
83
80%
54
266
43%
152
266
46%
143
721 Pine St.
926
94%
55
98%
21
926
41%
547
926
44%
515
1600
7th
Ave.
167
73%
45
59%
68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1515
7th
Ave.
402
68%
127
73%
109
402
19%
325
402
12%
352
509 Olive Way
130
97%
95%
130
28%
94
130
42%
76
7th
597
83%
103
83%
103
597
15%
510
597
18%
489
1,163
81%
220
89%
129
1,163
75%
290
1,163
94%
69
571
48%
295
67%
190
571
16%
480
NA
NA
NA
260
39%
159
36%
167
260
73%
70
260
52%
125
1730 Minor
Ave.
280
54%
130
73%
75
NA4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1918 8th Ave.3
386
113%
-50
109%
-36
NA4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1420 5th Ave.
994
76%
241
71%
285
994
24%
752
994
20%
798
1800 Ninth Ave.
302
68%
96
72%
86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL
6,823
61%
1,659
64%
1,363
5,688
39%
3,459
5,117
46%
2,787
1700
Ave.
600 Pine St.

1220 Howell St.
1400
6th
Ave.
Source: Seattle Department of Transportation and Heffron Transportation, Inc., 2014.

1. Available spaces indicates the total supply
2. Unused spaces represent the number of spaces where vehicles were not parked.
3. This facility has valet parking. More vehicles can be parked than the available spaces
4. NA= Not Available - Garage was not open during survey period

Draft EIS
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17-23
As shown in Table 3.17-8, on weekdays, the 15 garages that are within one-quarter mile of the
WSCC Addition have over 6,800 parking spaces. There are six additional garages in the Denny
North subarea where demand counts were not performed. These six garages have a total of about
1,700 parking spaces, and include:
818 Stewart St.

600 Olive Way
1942 Westlake Ave.
2001 8th Ave.
720 Olive Way
1900 9th Ave.
Total
225 spaces
233 spaces
373 spaces
444 spaces
250 spaces
183 spaces
1,708 spaces
The parking demand counts determined that 61 percent of the existing spaces are utilized during
weekday morning periods and 64 percent are utilized on weekday afternoons. The utilization
decreased substantially during the evening and weekend days, falling to 39 percent and 46
percent, respectively. Based on the SDOT survey, it is estimated that there are over 3,000 parking
spaces in garages that are currently available during the peak weekday daytime periods. If all
garages were open in the evenings and on weekends, then the number of spaces available
increases to about 5,200 spaces in the evenings and 4,600 spaces on weekends
Baseline Conditions
As noted above, there are 18 surface parking lots located within one-quarter mile of the WSCC
Addition. Future pipeline development is planned to eliminate many of these spaces. Permits
from the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection were reviewed to determine
projects that are in the Citys permitting process, and then assess how they could affect the overall
parking supply in the neighborhood.
This analysis shows that parking supply in the neighborhood will increase with future
development. Parking associated with residential use is not likely to be available for public use;
however, parking at office or hotel projects may be available at various times of the day for public
use. Parking at office buildings for example is needed for office employees midday on weekdays,
but the vast majority of the supply could be available for public use in the evenings or weekends.
Hotel parking typically peaks during the overnight hours or when the hotel is holding a large local
event. During other times of the day, that parking may also be available for public use. It is
estimated that over 2,000 office and hotel parking spaces could be available for public use in the
future during various times of the day.
3.17.2
Impacts of Alternative 1
The following summarizes the evaluation of Alternative 1 with respect to the transportationrelated elements identified in the Affected Environment section of this report. The proposed
WSCC Addition is anticipated to host a number of events of various sizes with associated vehicle
and pedestrian trip generation. The technical analysis of Alternative 1 focuses on the weekday
AM and PM peak periods for the event type with the highest anticipated vehicle trip generation.
Peak demands evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak period may not be associated with
the same event. This approach results in a conservative evaluation of the peak hour impacts for
the proposal.
Draft EIS
3.17-24
Section 3.17
Transportation
Alternative 1 would include the development of 1,511,700 sq. ft. of gross floor area composed of
approximately 1,256,500 square feet of addition to the Washington State Convention Center and
249,000 square feet of related ancillary development. The convention center functional areas
would include 250,000 square feet of exhibition halls, 120,000 square feet of meeting room space,
60,000 square feet of ballroom, and 37,000 sq. ft. of street level uses, including but not limited to,
street-front retail.
Trip Generation
The following provides a summary of the methodology used to estimate the pedestrian and
vehicle trip generation volumes for Alternative 1. See Appendix H, Section 3.1 for detailed trip
generation calculations.
Attendee Trip Generation Methodology
The existing WSCC hosted over 400 unique events in 2014. Events at the WSCC vary greatly in
both size and duration. Over 70 percent of the annual events at the WSCC are composed of local
meetings and conferences, which typically last only a portion of a single day, and have an average
attendance of approximately 200 attendees (attendance at meetings can be as low as 5 to 10
people). The WSCC also hosts large events each year, such as the Northwest Flower and Garden
Show that attracts over 55,000 total attendees over a five-day period. However, major events
such as the Northwest Flower and Garden Show make up only a small fraction of the total events
hosted by the WSCC annually.
For purposes of this analysis, WSCC events have been grouped into the following six event types:
morning breakfast event
national conference
evening fundraising event
consumer/trade show (typical size)
local meeting/conference
large consumer/trader shows (such as Comicon)
WSCC provided data for each event in 2014, including the estimated attendance. These data
were evaluated to estimate the 95th percentile event attendance (by event type). The 95th
percentile reflects an attendance level for each event that would only be exceeded in 5 percent
or fewer event cases. The WSCC Addition would increase the different functional area such as
exhibition halls, meeting rooms and ballroom space, in addition to overall square footage
compared to the existing WSCC. The 95th percentile daily attendance for future events in the
Addition were estimated to increase proportionally based on the size of functional areas in the
WSCC Addition as compared to the existing WSCC.
WSCC attendee trip generation was estimated based on calculating person trips and then
estimating the proportion of the person trips that would be vehicle trips based on mode split
assumptions. The percent of vehicle trips occurring during the peak hours was then applied to the
daily trips to determine peak hour vehicle trips
Employee Trip Generation Methodology
Similar to WSCC event attendee trip generation estimates, trips associated with the WSCC
employees of Alternative 1 were estimated based on calculating person trips and the proportion
of the person trips that would be vehicle trips. Initial vehicle trip rates for WSCC employees were

Draft EIS
3.17-25
Section 3.17
Transportation
identified using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (Ninth
Edition, 2012) for office use. Details are included in Appendix H, Section 3.2.1.
Retail Trip Generation Methodology
Vehicle trip rates for the retail portion of the proposed project were estimated similarly to WSCC
employee trips by converting initial vehicle trip rates from ITE to person trips through the use of
AVO rates consistent with other studies completed in the City of Seattle. Details are included in
Appendix H, Section 3.2.1
Total Vehicle Trips for Alternative 1
A large consumer/trade show is estimated to generate the highest weekday daily AM and PM
peak hour volumes (see Appendix H, Section 3.2.3). Available guidance indicates that a
reasonably foreseeable design event should be analyzed to evaluate the WSCC Addition dayto-day operations. A larger consumer/trade show such as the Northwest Flower and Garden Show
does not represent typical day-to-day operations. Large consumer/trade shows occur
approximately 15 days of the year, or approximately 13% of the total number of WSCC event
days.
The event generating the largest volume of traffic during the weekday AM peak hour, other than
a large, non-typical consumer/trader show, includes a breakfast event. For the weekday PM peak
hour, the event with the highest vehicle generation other than the large consumer/trade show is
anticipated to be a typical size consumer/trade show. Table 3.17-9 provides a breakdown of the
weekday daily, AM, and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation by trip type.
Table 3.17-9
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type Alternative 1
Trip Type/Land Use
Event Attendees4
Employees/Vendors
Retail Use
Total
Daily Trips1
850 / 4,770
180 / 260
160
AM Peak Hour2
In
Out
Total
361
64
425
PM Peak Hour3
In
Out
Total
33
487
520
23
1
4
0
27
1
6
4
31
6
37
10
385
68
453
43
524
567

Daily Trips shown for both Breakfast Event and Consumer/Trade Show (Typical)
AM Peak Hour trips for Attendees and Employees/Vendors are for Breakfast Event
PM Peak hour trips for Attendees and Employees/Vendors are for Consumer/Trade Show (Typical)
Local and Non-Local Attendees
1.
2.
3.
4.
Roadway Network
An element of Alternative 1 includes the vacation of Terry Ave. between Olive Way and Howell
St. A detailed analysis was conducted documenting the impacts of the proposed Terry Ave.
vacation through an evaluation of conditions with and without this small section of Terry Ave. and
is included Appendix H, Section 3.4. In addition to the vacation of Terry Avenue, the WSCC is
requesting the conversion of Ninth Ave. between Pike St. and Howell St. from one-way
southbound to two-way. The core analysis assumes the two-way configuration. A comparative
Draft EIS
3.17-26
Section 3.17
Transportation
analysis is presented in Appendix H, Section 3.13 that outlines the impacts associated with the
requested directional conversion of Ninth Ave.
Several driveways exist serving Sites A, B and C. With the development of Alternative 1, the
overall number and location of access points along Howell St., Olive Way, and Terry Ave (to be
vacated) will change. Figure 3.17-7 shows the location of the existing and future access points.
In total, the number of access points and curb cuts along the site frontage will decrease from 17
to 4. Three alley vacations, one on each parcel, are proposed as part of Alternative 1.
Existing and Proposed Site Access Alternative 1

Forecast Traffic Volumes
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution patterns and assignments were developed for each of the different land uses and
trip types that would be generated by Alternative 1. Trip distribution patterns were based off of
guidance from the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection (formerly
Department of Permitting and Development) Directors Rule 5-2009 Transportation Concurrency
Project Review System and from previous traffic studies conducted in the project study area.
Separate trip distribution patterns were evaluated for each proposed trip types generated by the
expansion: event attendees, WSCC employees and retail development. For each use, the same
trip distributions were used for AM and PM peak hour trips. See Appendix H, Section 3.3 for
detailed trip distribution information.
Trip Assignment
Project trips for each trip type or land use were assigned to the study intersections based on the
trip distribution patterns described previously. As the size of the proposed on-site garage is not
anticipated to fully accommodate the site-generated parking demand, project trips were assigned
to both the proposed on-site parking garage as well as to neighboring parking garages in near
proximity to the proposed project based on the general availability of each location.

Draft EIS
3.17-27
Section 3.17
Transportation
Alternative 1 Traffic Volumes

With development of Alternative 1, Terry Ave is proposed to be vacated between Howell St. and
Olive Way. By vacating the road segment, the WSCC would have flexibility in controlling trucks
exiting the freight staging area and traffic along Terry Ave between Howell St and Olive Way.
Maintaining efficient access and internal circulation is critical to the load-in/load-out logistics. It
was assumed that the vacated portion of Terry Ave remain open to general purpose vehicles;
however, during periods with large volumes of freight vehicles on Site C the vacated section would
be closed to general purpose vehicles to allow for more efficient exiting of freight vehicles. The
site-generated traffic volumes were added to the 2021 baseline volumes to forecast traffic
volumes with Alternative 1. Figure 3.3-6 and Figure 3.3-7 in Appendix H illustrate weekday AM
peak hour and weekday PM peak hour volumes under Alternative 1, respectively.
Traffic Operations
Intersection levels of service were evaluated for the study area intersections utilizing
methodologies previously described in the Affected Environment. Signal timing parameters such
as signal phasing and signal timing were held consistent with the baseline conditions and reflect
the timing plans anticipated to be implemented by the Seattle Department of Transportation
(SDOT) in the near future.
A summary of intersection level of service within the study area during the weekday AM and PM
peak hours is shown in Figure 3.4-2 and Figure 3.4-3 in Appendix H. During the AM peak hour,
one additional intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F compared to the baseline condition.
During the PM peak hour, no additional intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F with the
construction of the proposed Addition.
As previously described, with development of Alternative 1, Terry Ave. is proposed to be vacated
between Olive Way and Howell St. The vacated portion of Terry Ave. would be controlled by the
WSCC and would be closed to general purpose traffic and vehicles leaving the on-site parking
garage. It is possible that the vacated section could be open during peak garage activity.
Appendix H, Section 3.4 summarizes the impacts associated with the temporary opening under
weekday peak hour conditions which would also be similar to peak hour operating conditions on
Terry Ave. if the street vacation is not allowed.
Arterial Operations
Arterial level of service was evaluated for four corridors in the study area -- Fairview Ave., Olive
Way, Howell St. and Stewart St. to determine how additional traffic generated by Alternative 1
would affect corridor operations. The results are summarized in Table 3.17-10.

Draft EIS
3.17-28
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-10
Arterial Level of Service Summary Alternative 1
2021 Baseline
Corridor
2021 Alternative 1

LOS1 Speed2 LOS
Speed
LOS
Speed
LOS
Speed
Olive Way (Sixth Ave. to Northbound I5 on-ramp)
10
Fairview Ave. Northbound (Boren Ave.

to Mercer St.)
Fairview Ave. Southbound (Mercer St.
to Boren Ave.)
1. Level of service.
The arterial travel speeds are anticipated to remain the same from Baseline conditions to
Alternative 1 with the exception of the Olive Way corridor. The average vehicle speed along
Olive Way would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM peak hour, with a decline from an
average speed of 10 mph to 9. During the weekday PM peak hour, each corridor is anticipated to
operate at the same LOS and average speed as during baseline conditions under Alternative 1.
SDOT is proposing to upgrade signals on the Denny Way corridor and on connections to I-5.
These upgrades are intended to improve traffic progression and reduce travel times on these
corridors. The extent of these signal upgrades are currently not known and thus were not included
in the analysis.
Traffic Safety
As traffic volumes increase, the potential for traffic safety issues increases proportionately. The
overall vehicular and non-motorized traffic volumes in the area under Alternative 1 are
anticipated to be higher than would occur under baseline conditions. For primary access corridors
such as Howell St., Stewart St, and Olive Way, weekday AM peak hour traffic volumes would
likely increase by three percent, two percent, and four percent, respectively. During the weekday
PM peak hour, traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by three percent, one percent, and one
percent, respectively. These increases in traffic volumes are typical of day-to-day fluctuations in
traffic and would not represent a significant increase in volumes along any one corridor.
Under Alternative 1, the overall number of curb cuts considering all frontages would decrease
from 17 to 4. This decrease in curb cuts results in fewer locations of pedestrian and vehicle
conflicts. At all locations, the curb-cuts would be designed to maximize safety by minimizing sight
impediments. The primary garage access would be controlled via a traffic signal, minimizing
pedestrian and vehicle conflicts through this active control of multiple travel modes. The entry to
the freight driveway on Boren Ave. and exit to the freight driveway on Terry Ave, would operate
in one-way direction only which will allow for a narrower curb cut than a two-way driveway.
Additionally, specialized paving at the driveway, mirrors and audible cues could be used to alert
pedestrians and freight operators of entering and exiting vehicles.
Draft EIS
3.17-29
Section 3.17
Transportation
Transit Service
As described previously, weekday AM and PM peak hour travel times are expected to remain the
same along key corridors in the study area under Alternative 1, with the exception of Olive Way
during the PM peak, where speeds are anticipated to drop from 10 mph during 2021 baseline
conditions to 9 mph. Therefore, transit travel times along these corridors under Alternative 1 are
expected to be similar as under 2021 baseline conditions. Attendees at WSCC events, WSCC
employees and the on-site retail uses are expected to generate additional transit trips, as detailed
in Appendix H, Section 3.6.
Pedestrian Volumes
The number of pedestrian trips generated by Alternative 1 was estimated using the assumptions
presented in Appendix H. Pedestrian trips that would be generated by the WSCC Addition
include event attendees, WSCC employees, and retail customers, which collectively represent
the total pedestrians walking from transit, from off-site parking garages, and from residences and
hotels in the immediate area. Similar to transit trips, a percentage of these total pedestrian trips
would likely be linked to attendees already walking downtown for regular business reasons, and
would not necessarily be new pedestrians to the system. To be conservative, all forecast
pedestrian trips were assumed as new to the system for analysis purpose. Table 3.17-11
summarizes the weekday AM and PM peak hour pedestrian volumes anticipated to be generated
by the project.
Table 3.17-11
Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes - Alternative 1
Source of Pedestrians
Primary Commute
Transit Related
Off-Site Garage
Related1
Total
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Total
540
Ninth Ave
320
Total
1,140
Ninth Ave
680
790
470
850
510
320
190
530
320
1,650
980
2,520
1,510

1. Non-WSCC garages
Considering the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, the highest pedestrian
volumes are expected to occur along Ninth Ave. during the PM peak hour near the main entryways
between Olive Way and Pine St. Additionally, pedestrians would also use Ninth Ave. between
Pine St. and Pike St. to travel between the existing WSCC and the WSCC Addition during larger
events; as such, the focus of the pedestrian analysis was along Ninth Avenue between Olive Way
and Pike St.

Draft EIS
3.17-30
Section 3.17
Transportation
Pedestrian Access and Improvements

Under Alternative 1, the majority of pedestrians would access the WSCC Addition via two main
entryways off Olive Way and Pine St. on Ninth Ave.
Sidewalks along the project frontage would be widened and lined with trees or other landscape
elements to provide space between the roadway and pedestrians. These improvements are
consistent with goals outlined in the City of Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan. The sidewalk
improvements would provide not only more space for pedestrian movements, but also improved
connections to key pedestrian corridors for surrounding neighborhoods. The improvements along
Olive Way and Pine St. would improve the connection to the Capitol Hill neighborhood, and
improvements along Ninth Ave. would facilitate north-south connections in the downtown area.
The improvements also address previously identified City priorities; the north side of Pine St.
between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. is defined as a Tier 1 High Priority Project in the City of
Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan.
Pedestrian level of service was evaluated for Alternative 1 similar to the methodologies noted in
the baseline condition. To be conservative, the majority of pedestrian traffic was assigned to the
east side on Ninth Ave. between Olive Way and Pike Street. As shown in Table 3.17-12, both
sides of Ninth Ave. are expected to operate with the same pedestrian LOS during the PM peak
hour under Alternative 1 as compared to the baseline conditions with the exception of the east
sidewalk on the Olive Way to Pine St segment. This segment is anticipated to decrease from LOS
B to LOS C. Based on the analysis, no adverse pedestrian impacts are expected along the
sidewalks adjacent to the site as part of Alternative 1.
Table 3.17-12
Alternative 1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Ninth Ave.
PM Peak Hour
Pedestrian
Volumes
Location along Ninth Ave. Baseline2 Alt. 1
290
1,745
(east sidewalk)
470
470
(west sidewalk)
290
470
(east sidewalk)
450
1,745
(west sidewalk)
Average
Pedestrian
Space (ft2/p)1
Pedestrian LOS
Score
Pedestrian LOS
Baseline
Alt. 1
Baseline
Alt. 1
Baseline
Alt. 1
190
85
1.8
1.7
100
100
0.9
1.2
430
265
1.5
1.4
280
120
0.8
1.0

Ft2/p = square feet per pedestrian
LOS shown for platoon flow
1.
2.
In addition to the capacity analysis along Ninth Ave between the existing and proposed facility, a
comprehensive analysis was conducted along each of the remaining project frontages. This
analysis considered both the proposed width as well as the code required width for each of the
sidewalk segments. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3.17-13 and shows that the
Draft EIS
3.17-31
Section 3.17
Transportation
project frontages are all anticipated to operate at LOS B during the weekday PM peak hour with
the exception of the north sidewalk on Pine St. which is anticipated to operate at LOS C.
Expansion beyond the code minimum is proposed as part of the public benefit package of the
project. As noted in this analysis (TDR, Section 3.7.3) adequate pedestrian capacity would be
provided under Alternative 1 considering the code minimum sidewalk width.
Table 3.17-13
Alternative 1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Project Frontages
PM Peak Hour
Pedestrian
Volumes
Average
Pedestrian
Space (ft2/p)1
Pedestrian
LOS Score
Pedestrian
LOS2
Olive Way3 (north sidewalk)

9th Ave. to Terry St.
200
105
2.1
Olive Way.3 (south sidewalk)

9th Ave. to Terry St
895
475
2.1
Olive Way (north sidewalk)

Terry St. to Boren Ave.
225
420
2.1
Olive Way3 (south sidewalk)

690
135
2.2
Howell Street (south sidewalk)

90
1,145
2.2

120
860
2.2
Pine St. (north sidewalk

9th Ave. to Boren Ave.)
995
175
3.1
Boren Ave. (west sidewalk)

Howell St. to Olive Way
220
350
2.6

245
390
2.7
Location

1 Ft2/p = square feet per pedestrian.
2 LOS shown for platoon flow
3 Evaluated for code-required width which is approximately 3 feet less than proposed width

Draft EIS
3.17-32
Section 3.17
Transportation
Bicycle Facilities
Alternative 1 is not expected to significantly impact bicycle facilities within the study area. In
general, as traffic volumes increase in the study area, there is a potential for increased conflict
between vehicles and bicyclists. As noted, there is a substantial reduction in the number of
driveways between the existing conditions and Alternative 1. This reduction in driveways reduces
the conflict points between bicycles and vehicles. The TMP will encourage the use of alternative
modes, such as bicycle travel.
Parking
A total of up to 800 parking spaces are proposed with Alternative 1. Excess parking in the existing
WSCC Main and Freeway Park garages would also be available to accommodate the demand
associated with the WSCC Addition. Parking demand for various event types were derived using
the rates previously presented. Event attendance and employee estimates for Alternative 1 were
described and presented in Appendix H, Section 3.2. Table 3.17-14 presents the parking
demand estimates for Alternative 1.
Table 3.17-14
Parking Demand for Alternative 1
Peak Parking Demand2
2021
Attendance1
Attendees
Employees
Total
1,215
312
90
402
Evening fundraising event
615
214
115
329
Local meeting/convention
930
242
130
372
National Convention
8,605
413
117
530
Consumer/Trade Show (typical)
7,615
477
52
529
Consumer/Trade Show (large)
26,155
1,630
76
1,706
Type of Event
Breakfast meeting/event
Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc. and Transpo Group, 2016.

1. Reflects 95th-percentile daily attendance for type of event based on WSCC data.
2. Rates used were derived using detailed parking accumulation data for both WSCC garages, as well as employee
information provided by WSCC.
The peak demand generated by most events at the WSCC Addition would be accommodated
by the proposed supply. The exception would be the largest consumer/trade shows. If such a
show were held only at the new Addition, it could generate a peak parking demand of 1,706
vehicles. However, it is also possible that such a show could be an extension of existing shows
already held at the WSCC (e.g., a larger Comicon). Under that condition, it is expected that the
cumulative demand generated by a convention that uses both facilities would be less than
estimated since attendees would move between the facilities, but would only park once.
There would be parking available at the WSCC Main Garage and Freeway Park garage, even on
peak event days, to accommodate demand in excess of the proposed projects parking supply.
There are also many off-site parking facilities that can accommodate parking, particularly on
weekends and evenings when large consumer and trade shows typically generate their peak
demand. It is expected that large consumer trade shows would occur infrequently. Substantial
Draft EIS
3.17-33
Section 3.17
Transportation
parking is available for consumer show attendees on weekends and evenings. Parking demand
on weekdays could be reduced through parking management measured described in the
Mitigation section of this report.
Site Access Analysis
A comprehensive review of site access locations was conducted. This analysis considered
existing alley locations, street hierarchy, and functional requirements identified for Alternative 1.
As described in Appendix H, Section 3.10, a detailed analysis of the operational constraints
considered access along each of the block faces of Site B and Site C.
Freight Access & Loading Analysis
Inbound freight would use Boren Ave. to access the WSCC Addition and outbound freight would
access Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way. Additional truck routing alternatives as it
relates to determining the freight access points were analyzed as part of the Type 1 analysis and
are included in Appendix H.
This analysis showed that the current proposal provides the fewest number of impacts to the
surrounding street system and works with the Alternative 1 program needs. The following
provides the evaluation of the parking and freight access points for the preferred Alternative 1
proposal.
During most hours of the day, outbound freight would be routed from Terry Avenue (vacated),
directly to Howell St. (to I-5 southbound via the Yale Ave. on-ramp) or to Olive Way (to access
northbound I-5 via the Olive Way on ramp). However, during weekday PM peak hours, when
traffic on Howell St. is congested, and traffic queues routinely extend along the project frontage,
trucks may travel north on Terry Ave. Large trucks leaving the site would have the option to turn
onto Howell St. or Olive Way, or travel northbound through Howell St. on Terry Ave., turn right on
Virginia St., and then turn left on Fairview Ave, accessing either north or southbound I-5 at the
Mercer St. ramps. Modifications to the planned improvements along Terry Ave. between Howell
St. and Virginian St would be necessary to accommodate the trucks north on Terry Ave. These
improvements are shown in Appendix H, Figure 3.11-1.
Freight activity for the convention center events vary based on the nature of the event. Freight
volumes were forecast based on a review of existing freight levels and consideration of the square
footage and uses included in the proposal addition. Table 3.17-15 and Table 3.17-16 summarize
the freight activity levels at the Boren Ave. driveway and Terry Ave. driveway, respectively.

Draft EIS
3.17-34
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-15
Boren Avenue Service (Freight) Access - Average Inbound Pre-event/Post-event
Traffic Volumes1
Trucks3
Passenger Vehicles/Vans
Annual Frequency2
PM Peak Period4
PM Peak Period
Heavy
35
25
15
Medium
60
15
30
Light
48
40
Freight Level
Source: WSCC and Transpo Group, 2016

1. Represents the peak day of pre-event, load-in or post-event, load-out operations.
2. Number of days per year that events with freight designation have of pre-event, load-in or post-event, load-out
operations.
3. Single unit trucks greater than 30 and tractor/trailer combinations.
4. 3 PM 7 PM.
As noted previously, all outbound service and freight activity would exit onto Terry Avenue,
between Olive Way and Howell St. Table 3.17-16 summarizes the outbound freight activity
anticipated at this location. Minor differences are noted between the entering traffic on Boren
Avenue and the exiting traffic on Terry Avenue based on variances in the dwell time and arrival
times for the trucks and other service vehicles included in the traffic counts.
Table 3.17-16
Terry Avenue Service (Freight) Access - Average Outbound Pre-event/Post-event
Traffic Volumes
Annual Frequency
Trucks3
PM Peak Period4
Passenger Vehicles/Vans
PM Peak Period
Heavy
35
20
20
Medium
60
15
25
Light
48
40
Freight Level
Source: WSCC and Transpo Group, 2016

1. Represents the peak day of pre-event, load-in or post-event, load-out operations.
2. Number of days per year that events with freight designation have of pre-event, load-in or post-event, load-out
operations.
3. Single unit trucks greater than 30 and tractor/trailer combinations.
4. 3 PM 7 PM.
Forecast methodology and detailed analysis of on inbound and outbound freight access is
included in Appendix H, Section 3.10.
On-Site Operations/Marshalling Procedures
The management of freight activities at a convention center includes both on- and off-site
management activities. The WSCC currently operates a Transportation Management Plan that
Draft EIS
3.17-35
Section 3.17
Transportation
relates to the operational aspects of freight deliveries and operations. Subsequent to the
entitlement of the proposed WSCC Addition, this plan would be modified and formalized to
address the joint operation of the two facilities. Within transportation management plans are
specific elements described as Dock Management Plans. Further details can be found in
Appendix H, Section 3.10.
Overall, Alternative 1 would have sufficient truck loading capacity to accommodate the expected
demand through the transportation management plan that includes off-site marshalling, and onsite management and holding areas.
Parking Garage Access
As mentioned previously, all passenger car parking is proposed on Site A, with primary passenger
vehicle access (inbound and outbound) proposed via a signalized extension of Terry Ave., south
of Olive Way, into the site. A second access to the passenger vehicle parking is proposed via a
curb cut on Boren Ave. between Olive Way and Pine St. This driveway would be limited to rightin, right-out operations during peak conditions. The existing driveway for King County Metro
enters Olive Way at a skewed angle; the proposed main parking access roadway would enter at
a normalized 90-degree angle to Olive Way, which is desirable from both a traffic safety and
operations perspective.
Other locations were considered, however frontages such as Pine St. and Ninth Ave. are
important pedestrian frontages and may be used for other drop-off and loading functions during
certain event conditions. In addition, Pine St. is an important east-west pedestrian corridor for the
neighborhood which, aside from Ninth Ave. would carry the highest pedestrian traffic of all
frontages. The Ninth Ave. frontage, also a Green Street, is envisioned as a primary pedestrian
corridor between the WSCC Addition and existing Convention Center, as well as an important
connection between the WSCC Addition and new hotel space under construction to the
northwest. Levels of service at the site access driveways were evaluated for Alternative 1 and
the results are summarized in Table 3.17-17.
Table 3.17-17
Level of Service Summary Alternative 1 General Purpose Site Access Driveway
General Purpose Access Driveway
Terry Avenue/ Olive Way
Site Access/Boren Avenue
AM Peak Hour
LOS1
Delay2
B
16
C
16
PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
D
39
C
22

1. Level of Service
2. Average seconds of delay per vehicle
Shuttle / Taxi / Rideshare Analysis

With the proposal, Ninth Ave. would be converted to two-way traffic operations to allow charter
bus staging on the east side of Ninth Ave., between Olive Way and Pine Street, to serve the
WSCC Addition. Parking is currently restricted along this area and it is used for King County
Metro functions. During the majority of the year when large events are not taking place at the
WSCC Addition and the area is not needed for bus staging, the east side of Ninth Ave. would be
Draft EIS
3.17-36
Section 3.17
Transportation
available for use by taxis and transportation network companies (TNCs) for passenger pick-up
and drop-off. No significant adverse impact is forecast.
Freight
The project is located just east of the Downtown Traffic Control (DTC) zone where vehicles over
30 feet in length are prohibited in the DTC between the hours of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday
through Saturday except with a permit. The majority of all truck movements into and out of
downtown Seattle originate from the south arriving from regional distribution centers located in
South Seattle, South King County, and beyond, or arriving from elsewhere in the region via I-5
and I-90.
Terry Ave. Street Vacation Analysis
As previously noted, the full street vacation of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way is
proposed as part of Alternative 1. The analysis and proposal for the street vacation would still
allow the use of the street for general purpose vehicles, both from the WSCC garage and other
background traffic. Under a vacated scenario however, there may be periods when the use of this
block is unavailable due to truck activity and traffic would be detoured in the area. To analyze the
impacts of the requested street vacation, an analysis of the conditions with and without the street
vacation was conducted. The analysis of the Terry Ave. street vacation focused on a review of
the existing and future use of the section of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way. The
analysis considers general street grid continuity, local vehicle access needs, transit impacts, and
non-motorized transportation with and without the proposed street vacation. It should be noted
that even without the proposed street vacation, the section of Terry Ave. between Howell St. and
Olive Way would be required to be converted to two-way operations for part of the segment. This
would allow freight vehicles leaving the WSCC Addition loading area to access Howell St, or
Olive Way via Terry Ave.
In addition to the full street vacation of Terry Ave., a subterranean only vacation alternative was
evaluated in the TDR. The operational results and impacts of this scenario are similar to those
noted below for the full street vacation scenario.
Street Grid Continuity
The section of Terry Ave. proposed for street vacation under Alternative 1 is the terminus of the
Terry Ave. Green Street. This section of Terry Ave. is currently one-way northbound and includes
two travel lanes. Weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes total 60 and 65 vehicles, respectively.
The westbound contraflow lane on Olive Way currently terminates at Terry Ave., thereby creating
a need for this connection. The contraflow lane on Olive Way would be eliminated by SDOT by
2016; without the contraflow lane, the functional needs for this section of Terry Ave would be
decreased.
Local Vehicle Access
Terry Ave. between Howell St. and Olive Way would remain open to general purpose traffic. This
includes background traffic as well as traffic exiting the WSCC garage. The proposed two-way
modification of Terry Ave for the southern half of this small segment will facilitate exiting to Olive
Way, reducing the service/truck loads on Howell St.

Draft EIS
3.17-37
Section 3.17
Transportation
Transit
Buses currently use Terry Ave. between Stewart Ave. and Howell St. to access the Convention
Place Station site. Bus service at the Convention Place Station site would be eliminated with the
opening of the extension of light rail to Northgate, which is expected to be complete by 2021. In
the interim, during construction on the project site when the Terry Ave. segment between Olive
Way and Howell St. is closed, buses will be rerouted to the surface streets via Olive Way or Ninth
Ave. ramp. It is expected that buses will continue to use Convention Place Station and operate in
the tunnel until at least September 2018. Thereafter, buses would no longer travel on this portion
of Terry Ave. These changes would occur with or without Alternative 1, and would not be affected
by the street vacation.
Non-Motorized Transportation
Proposed improvements to Terry Ave. with Alternative 1 would include amenities to attract and
serve pedestrians, thereby enhancing the pedestrian environment compared with existing
conditions. These amenities could include a high-quality paving treatment to prioritize its sharedstreet character, fixed and flexible seating, curb bulbs, planting, and crosswalks.
Traffic Operations
Terry Ave. as well as the surrounding streets are anticipated to operate at similar LOS with or
without the street vacation between Howell St. and Olive Way, as noted in Appendix H,
Section 3.4.1. It is forecast that during the horizon year, approximately 60 vehicles during the
weekday AM peak hour and 65 during the weekday PM peak hour which are not associated with
this project would use this connection.
The proposed WSCC Additions freight egress would be located on the proposed section to be
vacated. This would allow trucks to exit either north along Terry Ave. or south to access Olive
Way and northbound I-5 with the conversion of the Terry Ave. segment to allow two-way traffic.
This would allow more direct paths to the freeway as well as providing a clear area for trucks to
exit that would prevent blocking in the staging area and potential on-street spillover for inbound
vehicles from occurring.
Olive Way Subterranean Street Vacation
Subterranean street vacation of the segment of Olive Way between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave is
proposed as part of the project to accommodate below grade loading functions. Access to loading
will be on Terry Ave. The proposed subterranean vacation of Olive Way is not expected to result
in long term impacts to traffic operations, public parking, circulation or access. In order to construct
the project under Olive Way, impacts are anticipated during the construction period. Several
methods of constructing this section of the project as a means of mitigating these impacts have
been identified and are presented in the construction impacts of the Transportation Discipline
Report.
One-Way / Two-Way Ninth Analysis
Two-way Ninth Ave. between Pike St. and Olive Way was evaluated as part of the base analysis
for Alternative 1 as a means of enhancing taxi and charter bus loading flexibility, better integrating
the operations of the proposed WSCC Addition with the existing WSCC, as well as enhancing
local circulation flexibility.
Draft EIS
3.17-38
Section 3.17
Transportation
Currently, vehicle traffic is one-way southbound on Ninth Ave. and one-way northbound on Eighth
Ave. To convert Ninth Ave. to two-way traffic, one of the two southbound travel lanes on Ninth
Ave. would be converted to a northbound travel lane. At the Ninth Ave. / Pike St. intersection, an
eastbound left-turn lane would be added to Pike St. Additionally, the I-5 express ramp would need
to be reconfigured to allow safe movements to and from the ramp to Ninth Ave. At the Ninth Ave.
/ Pine St. intersection, new traffic signal heads would need to be added to the existing traffic signal
to control northbound traffic at the intersection. At the Ninth Ave. / Olive Way intersection, only
right-turns would be allowed from Ninth Ave. to Olive Way. This movement would require the
addition of traffic signal modifications.
Weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations are anticipated to experience minor
changes in delay with the implementation of two-way Ninth Ave. between Pike St. and Olive Way.
The LOS at each of the intersections near the WSCC Addition and along Ninth Ave. is anticipated
to remain the same, with Ninth Ave. operating as one-way southbound only or as two-way. Due
to the increased connectivity and pick-up / drop-off benefits for the proposed project, creating a
two-way Ninth Ave. may reduce vehicle circulation and required pedestrian crossings near the
WSCC Addition. Detailed analysis is included in Appendix H.
Alley Vacations
As previously discussed, three alley vacations, one on each parcel, are proposed as part of
Alternative 1, as shown in Figure 3.17-8. The alley on Site A has a single access of Olive Way
to the garage of the vacated car dealership onsite. The alleys on Site B and Site C have access
on Howell St. and Olive Way.
Alternative 1: Proposed Alley Vacations

Draft EIS
3.17-39
Section 3.17
Transportation
Street Grid Continuity

The alleys all provide site access to the adjacent land uses on Sites A through C that comprise
the WSCC Addition. The alley on Site A does not provide circulation or connectivity benefits,
and because it only has one access point on Olive Way, it is not part of the grid of alleys onto
nearby blocks. Due to the alignment of Howell St. and Olive Way, the alleys on Sites B and Site
C also are not part of the grid of alleys onto blocks south of Olive Way. The existing alleys do not
provide amenities for pedestrian or bicycle circulation, nor would such facilities be required if the
alley were retained and upgraded according to code.
Local Vehicle Access
Currently, the alleys have limited local vehicle circulation due to their configuration and access
points. Vehicle access and truck loading functions for the proposed WSCC Addition would be
provided elsewhere on site. The proposed project is complex, with a number of physical
requirements both at surface level as well as below grade, to support the intended uses and their
service needs across the multiple project sites. As such, access driveways are proposed along
non-alley frontages, as described in the Site Access Analysis.
Transit
The alleys do not serve transit; therefore, vacating the three alleys on the project site would not
impact the public transit system.
Non-Motorized Transportation
The existing alleys have no pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Any existing pedestrian or bicycle
activity along the alleys are likely related to the subject properties and would be eliminated with
the proposed project.
The City of Seattle has implemented a Transportation Concurrency system to comply with one of
the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The system,
described in the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Directors Rule 52009 and the Citys Land Use and Zoning Code, is designed to provide a mechanism that
determines whether adequate transportation facilities would be available concurrent with
proposed development projects.
The screenlines closest to the project site were chosen for review. The screenlines that were
analyzed for concurrency review include Ship Canal /Aurora Ave. N (Screenline 5.13), the Ship
Canal/University/Montlake Bridges (Screenline 5.16), South of S Jackson Street (Screenline
10.11), and East of CBD (Screenline 12.12), as shown in Table 3.17-18. As a conservative
estimate, it was assumed that all project-generated traffic traveling in the direction of the
screenline would extend across the screenline included in the analysis.

Draft EIS
3.17-40
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-18
Transportation Concurrency Analysis Alternative 1
SL#1
Locations
5.13
Ship Canal/Aurora Ave N
5.16
Ship Canal/University/
Montlake Bridges
10.11
South of S Jackson
Street
12.12 East of CBD
Direction2 Capacity
2008
Volume
Project
Traffic3
V/C Ratio
LOS
w/ Project Standard
NB
5,100
4,472
106
0.90
1.2
SB
5,100
3,756
24
0.74
1.2
NB
4,030
3,833
83
0.97
1.2
0.88
1.2
SB
NB
4,070
12,900
3,571
12
7,586
74
0.59
1.2
SB
12,980
8,671
58
0.67
1.2
EB
13,300
8,266
35
0.62
1.2
WB
11,736
6,491
0.55
1.2

1. SL # = Screenline Number
2. Direction: EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound
3. Shown for AM peak hour (Breakfast Event) and PM Peak hour (Consumer/Trade Show Typical)
The transportation concurrency analysis indicates that with traffic generated by the project, the
screenlines would have v/c ratios less than the City v/c threshold; thus, the project would meet
the Citys concurrency requirements.
Construction Impacts
This section identifies the key activities and transportation relation impacts associated with
construction of Alternative 1. This section highlights three main aspects of the construction
process.
1.
Phasing of King County Site Work/DSTT access analysis
2.
Olive Way phasing alternatives
3.
Quantification of construction activity

King County has identified interim measures that will allow buses to remain onsite pending the
decommissioning of the bus tunnel for buses and will create a development-ready salable asset
for King County. This work has independent utility with or without the WSCC Addition. WSCC
and King County have identified multiple construction phasing alternatives that would allow Metro
buses to use the Convention Place Station until the buses come out of the Downtown Transit
Tunnel. Based on the construction phasing of the project, buses may continue to access the DSTT
at least until September 2018.

Draft EIS
3.17-41
Section 3.17
Transportation
There are three proposed alternatives to accomplish site work for King County. These alternatives
are described in detail in the following sections. Features10 common to King County Site Work
Alternatives A, B and C include:
Remove King County Metro transit passenger facilities associated with the existing
Convention Place Station. This includes canopies, stairways, escalators, benches,
planters, lighting, etc. Temporary facilities will be constructed on surface streets in the
neighborhood to accommodate passenger services near the existing Convention Place
Station until joint bus and rail operations in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel end.
Remove existing bus layover facilities at the Convention Place Station. Layover space that
is impacted by site work is proposed to be supplemented by layover space on Convention
Pl., as described below.
Install a new Traction Power Substation at a site within the cut and cover tunnel, below
Ninth Ave.
Remove King County Metros existing transit flyover ramp, which provides transit access
from the DSTT and Convention Place Station to Olive Way11.
Evaluation of Alternative A
Work on the site would begin the second quarter of 2017. The following describes the
elements to be completed in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the King County Site Work.
Phase One
Install a temporary curb cut for bus access to Ninth Ave. as shown in Figure 3.17-9. This
connection would facilitate two-way concurrent flows of buses.
Buses will use the existing routes (Olive Way and I-5 Express Lane Connections) to and
from CPS during this phase of construction until the ramp is completed.
Convert Ninth Ave. to accommodate two-way traffic from Olive Way to Pike St. This
section is proposed to be limited to transit and local access only during the construction
period only.
Phase Two
10
11
Buses would use the curb cut on Ninth Ave. to access surface streets, and will would
access the I-5 express lanes via the Ninth Ave. and Pike St. intersection.
Open new bus stops on surface streets before closing the CPS passenger facilities.
Secure required authorization from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to

demolish the portion of the flyover ramp on WSDOT property.
Demolish the passenger facilities and the portion of the flyover ramp currently on King
County property.
See Section II of the DEIS for further information

May be removed as necessary for Alternative C.

Draft EIS
3.17-42
Section 3.17
Transportation
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Figure 3.17-9
Alternative A DSTT Site Access Plan
Impacts to Vehicle Circulation

As noted, with the elimination of the on-site layover space, an alternative layover area on
Convention Place between Pike Street and Union Street is proposed. Figure 3.17-10 shows the
transit pathways in the area as it relates to circulation to/from the proposed layover area. This
area is anticipated to accommodate up to nine buses when fully utilized. Figure 3.17-11 highlights
several roadway modifications that are proposed to facilitate the temporary transit layover loop
routing.
To accommodate this layover loop and manage general purpose traffic in the area, several
modifications to the street system are proposed. These improvements are considered temporary,
and with the exception of the two-way Ninth Ave. proposal, could revert back to the existing
configurations upon completion of the WSCC Addition project.
Surface Street Impacts
To accommodate the routing of buses from Convention Pl. back to the Pike St. ramp and the
DSTT access on Ninth Ave., modifications to channelization and signage at the following
intersections is anticipated:
Ninth Ave. / Pike St. Implement minor modifications to intersection geometry and existing curb
lines and intersection signage. In addition, with the implementation of two-way traffic on Ninth
Ave., a concrete curb is proposed along Ninth Ave. at the slip lane to prevent southbound leftturns from using the existing slip lane to the I-5 Express ramp and redirecting this movement to
occur in the Ninth Ave. / Pike St. intersection to access the high-occupant vehicle (HOV) ramp.
Seventh Ave. / Union St. Modify the eastbound approach to include a single eastbound lane
in order to accommodate the westbound to northbound turning radius of the buses. In addition,
phasing improvements at the signal would be implemented to provide for a westbound protected
vehicle phase.
Seventh Ave. / Pike St. Implement signal phasing improvements to provide for a protected
northbound vehicle phase that holds the pedestrians for a set period of time. This allows for
vehicles, including buses, to make right turns with less delay and fewer pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts.
Additional changes describing the modifications and improvements that may be required to
accommodate transit on the layover loop due to the King County site work is shown Figure 3.1711.
The 2018 baseline traffic volumes along Convention Pl. are forecast to be 455 vehicles during the
weekday AM peak hour and 200 during the weekday PM peak hour. With the proposed restriction
of general purpose traffic along this section to accommodate bus layovers, traffic is anticipated to
shift to Boren Ave. to continue south, ultimately using alternative east/west connections to access
the CBD.
Under Alternative A, Pike St. would be restricted to one-way eastbound traffic between Boren
Ave. and Ninth Ave. Additionally, northbound traffic accessing Pike St. from Terry Ave. and
Hubbell Pl. would be restricted to right turns only and rerouted using Boren Ave., Union St., or
Seneca St. At the intersection of Seventh Ave. /Union St., modifications to the channelization are
necessary to accommodate the turning radius of the buses. The channelization revisions include
eliminating one of the two southbound lanes approaching the intersection.

Draft EIS
3.17-44
Section 3.17
Transportation
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Source: Transpo Group
Figure 3.17-10
Transit Pathways during WSCC Addition Construction
WSCC Addition
Draft EIS
Source: Transpo Group
Figure 3.17-11
King County Site Work Roadway Modifications
A LOS analysis was completed at several key intersections to identify the impacts associated with
the redistribution of general purpose traffic caused by the restrictions along Pike St. as well as
the intersection modifications proposed at the Seventh Ave. / Union St. intersection. The LOS
summary in Table 3.17-19 reflects the LOS for the key intersections that would be most affected
by the channelization changes and shifts in general purpose traffic.
Table 3.17-19
Intersection Level of Service for Restrictions of General Purpose Traffic to
Convention Place
Intersection
Boren Ave. / Pike St.
2018
2021
Conv. Pl. Open to GP3
Conv. Pl. Closed to GP
LOS1 Delay2
C
21
LOS
C
Delay
24
LOS
C
Delay
26
LOS
C
Delay
20
Ninth Ave. / Pike St.
35
25
11
Eighth Ave. / Pike St.
17
22
17
20
Seventh Ave. / Union St.
18
16
16
16
Source: Transpo Group , 2015

1 Level of service.
2 Average seconds of delay per vehicle
3 General purpose vehicles
As shown in Table 3.17-19, intersection delays are not expected to degrade significantly within
the immediate area as a result of the general purpose restrictions, associated shifts in traffic, as
well as the modifications proposed at the intersections noted above. While further reaching
impacts within the CBD grid may occur, impacts at other intersections are likely to be
proportionately similar. Intersection operations are expected to change the greatest at the Ninth
Ave./Pike St. intersection due to the decrease in volumes and change in operations resulting from
the restriction of general purpose vehicles on Convention Place. I-5 express routes continuing
north from the express lanes could continue on Convention Place in order to access Union St.
Evaluation of Alternative B
Transit circulation patterns under Alternative B are similar to that described for Alternative A.
Phase One and Phase Two construction elements are also consistent between the two
Alternatives. The only difference between Alternative A and Alternative B is that a portion of the
flyover ramp will remain on WSDOT property. As such no FHWA action is required.
Evaluation of Alternative C
Transit circulation patterns under Alternative C would be similar to that described for Alternative A.
Alternative C may include demolition of the flyover bridge for transit. If the ramp needs to be
demolished, a ramp parallel to Ninth Ave. would be constructed under Alternative C, similar to
Alternative B. Buses would use the new Ninth Ave. ramp to access City streets and I-5. Access
to and from I-5 would be via the Pike St. HOV ramp at the intersection of Pike St./Ninth Ave. The
Ninth Ave. ramp would remain until bus operations cease in the tunnel (no later than 2018).

Draft EIS
3.17-47
Section 3.17
Transportation
Road closures and changes to transit access associated with each of the King County Site Work
Alternatives are listed below and summarized in Table 3.17-20.
No authorization is necessary from FHWA relative to a change in use of the Pike St.
HOV ramp.
Buses would continue to use the existing routes to access surface streets (via the flyover
ramp) and the I-5 express lanes (via the Pike St. HOV ramp) while shoring and
foundation work is accomplished along the west perimeter of Site A.
When shoring and foundation work is completed, a new bus ramp would be constructed
along the west edge of the site, parallel to Ninth Ave.
Convert Ninth Ave. to allow 2-way traffic between Pike St. and Olive Way.
Buses would use the new Ninth Ave. ramp to access City streets and I-5. Access to and
from I-5 would be via the Pike St. HOV ramp at the Pike St. and Ninth Ave. intersection.
The ramp would be used by buses until bus operations cease in the tunnel (no earlier
than September, 2018).
Bus stops would be relocated to surface streets.
Table 3.17-20
King County Site Work Closures and Transit Access for Alternative C
Area
9th Ave
Surface Street Transit Access
Express Lane Transit Access
Anticipated Activity
Convert to two-way between Olive Way and Pike St. to
accommodate transit access to DSTT at Ninth Ave.
Existing transit ramp from CPS site to Olive Way used to access
surface streets.
Existing pathway to express ramps to remain operational until
construction activities require closure.
Also similar to Alternatives A and B, Ninth Ave. between Olive Way and Pike St. would be
converted to allow two-way traffic. General purpose traffic would be restricted to local access only
on Ninth Ave. between Olive Way and Pike St.to facilitate transit movements and minimize delays
to and from the DSTT, when the Ninth Ave. ramp is in use. Changes in roadway configuration as
a result the Ninth Ave. ramp are the same as under Alternative B. As documented in the two-way
Ninth Ave.
Buses would continue to use the existing routes to access surface streets, via the flyover ramp at
Terry Ave. and the I-5 express lanes, via the Pike St. HOV ramp, while the Ninth Ave. ramp is
under construction. No changes in operations to the Pike St. HOV ramp are proposed as part of
Alternative C.
Intersection level of service under Alternative C is similar to that analyzed under the Ninth Ave
Ramp condition under Alternative B.

Draft EIS
3.17-48
Section 3.17
Transportation
Olive Way Phasing Alternatives

As noted in the Olive Way subterranean vacation analysis, the physical footprint of Alternative 1
includes building area under Olive Way, between Boren Ave. and Ninth Ave. Three potential
methods have been identified for constructing this project within the Olive Way ROW and
mitigating the impacts of the construction process. The construction methods included in this
evaluation vary with respect to the duration of activity as well as impacts to transit and general
vehicle circulation in the area. The three methods evaluated within this section of the EIS include:
Phased Offsets Construction

On-Site Reroute
Reroute to Howell Street
Variations of the above methods could occur as part of the construction management plan review
and approval process. Additional methods were considered, but not taken forward to a full
evaluation within the EIS. One of the methods considered, but not advanced due to impacts on
schedule and cost, included the following:
Olive Way Temporary Bridge / Top Down Construction Construction for this would occur
only at night and would require complete closures of the street during construction. Deep trenches
would be excavated from east to west and beams would be constructed along the length of the
roadway segment. During daytime hours, these trenches would be covered by steel plates,
allowing use of Olive Way to traffic. Following the install of beams along the length of the roadway,
2 of the roadways lanes would close. The closed lanes would be excavated and a temporary
roadway deck would be constructed. Following this, the temporary road deck would open to
vehicles and the other half of the road would be constructed in a similar manner. Following
completion of the construction of the roadway deck, the WSCC Addition would be constructed
underneath the bridged Olive Way, which would be fully open during construction.
Three alternative methods of construction are presented in the following section. The description
and evaluation of each alternative construction method focuses on the potential impacts to the
following areas:
Duration of impacts to current Olive Way cross-section

Duration to achieve partial use of Olive Way cross-section (three lanes plus construction
delivery and staging space)
Impacts to existing vehicle connectivity on Olive Way
Impacts to existing vehicle connectivity on Howell St.
Impacts to transit connectivity
Impacts to non-motorized connectivity
Impacts from construction deliveries and staging
Option 1: Olive Way Phased Offsets Construction

Description of Method
This method involves splitting the Olive Way cross section in half east-to-west and completing the
subterranean components one-half at a time. This method would include temporarily rerouting
the east half, then excavating the east half, completing the building elements in that area, as
Draft EIS
3.17-49
Section 3.17
Transportation
shown in Figure 3.17-12. Once the improvements below the east side are completed, Olive Way
would be restored to its future condition and the process would be repeated on the west side, as
shown in Figure 3.17-13. Two lanes; one for general purpose and one for transit would be
provided at all times for this phase. Once both the east and west halves are constructed,
consideration could be given to operating an additional lane during the weekday PM peak hour
conditions, when the volumes on Olive Way are the highest. However, the core assumption for
purposes of this evaluation is that a minimum of two lanes are provided at all times.
Option 1: Phased Offsets Construction, Phase 1

Draft EIS
3.17-50
Section 3.17
Transportation
Option 1: Phased Offsets Construction, Phase 2

Duration of Impacts
Given the activities noted above, the duration of this construction is expected to impact traffic
circulation in the area for 36 to 38 months. Duration of construction until the partial (three lane)
use of Olive Way is restored is expected to be 20.5 months. Intermittent single lane and multilane closures may occur throughout the day or in the evenings as the east and west sides are
prepped for construction.
Impacts to Existing Vehicle Connectivity on Olive Way
Based on the anticipated phasing of this construction method, the general vehicle connectivity in
the area would remain unchanged the majority of the time. However, the construction process
would require frequent single lane closures and evening work to maintain a safe work zone for
the general public which would temporarily reduce the capacity of these connections. There would
also be rechannelizing required between each phase, with pavement markings removed and
replaced multiple times on existing pavement.
Impacts to Existing Traffic on Howell St.
Based on the anticipated phasing of this construction method, transit and general vehicle
connectivity in the area would remain unchanged along Howell St. the majority of the time. Lane
closures would be expected throughout construction for deliveries, removals, and staging. These
single lane closures would be temporary in nature and would be managed through the Citys CMP
approval process.
Draft EIS
3.17-51
Section 3.17
Transportation
With the reduction in lane capacity along Olive Way, some level of traffic would like likely shift to
other I-5 northbound ramps such as Mercer St., University St., or access the Olive Way
northbound ramp via Pine St. and Melrose Ave. Based on the existing weekday PM peak hour
traffic counts conducted at the Olive Way/I-5 Northbound ramp, approximately 700 left-turns from
Olive Way to I-5 were counted. Based on the traffic counts conducted at the upstream intersection
of Olive Way/Boren Ave., approximately 300 of the 700 vehicles are coming from Boren Ave.
either from the north or the south. If traffic shifts were to occur, it is expected that a small
percentage of the 400 vehicles coming from the west on Olive Way would shift. Considering the
volumes along Mercer St. and University St., a shift of up to 25% of the existing Olive Way traffic
would result in a minimal impact to the volumes on the alternative corridors when distributed over
multiple paths and destinations.
Additionally, the weekday PM peak hour traffic counts at the Olive Way/I-5 northbound ramp
intersection showed approximately 200 vehicle traveling through the intersection to access
Capitol Hill. Similar to the analysis of the I-5 related traffic, a shift of up to 25% of the through
volumes on either of the three alternative corridors (Pine St., Pike St., and Denny Way) would not
result in a significant increase in volumes along either of those corridors. Other corridors that
provide connections to the Capitol Hill neighborhood such as Pine St., Pike St., and Denny Way,
may also see an increase in traffic volumes during this construction period. A shift in general
purpose traffic to Howell St. is expected to be minimal as the destination served by the two
corridors are different. Howell St. provides connections from the CBD to I-5 northbound express
lane ramps, I-5 southbound ramps, and the South Lake Union Neighborhood via Eastlake Ave.
These areas are not served via Olive Way and as such the shift to Howell St. is expected to be
minimal, especially given the current and forecast PM peak hour queuing along Howell St. Thus,
the impacts of shifted traffic to these corridors are expected to be moderate, but not significant.
Impacts to Transit Connectivity
Circulation patterns and transit route connectivity would not be impacted by this method, beyond
closures of bus stops along Olive Way and Howell St. Other than evening closures or short term
detours to Howell St., connectivity for routes traveling along Olive Way would remain as they are
today. Impacts to transit travel times along Olive Way will be minimized as a transit only lane
would be provided at all times. Along Howell St. where a transit only lane exists, impacts to travel
times would be minimal. The existing stop on Olive Way along the property frontage will be
relocated temporarily. The specific location is being reviewed as part of the CMP, which will be
reviewed and approved by King County Metro and the City of Seattle.
Impacts to Non-Motorized Connectivity
With the active constriction zones on both the north and south sides of the Olive Way, pedestrians
and cyclists are anticipated to be restricted along this section of Olive Way. They would be
detoured to the north side of Pine St. or the north side of Howell St. While this detour results in
the added circulation for pedestrians and cyclists around the area, the active construction zones
on both sides of the street, the temporary nature of the phased offset sections, and the need to
maximize available roadway width for vehicle and transit circulation prevents all modes from being
able to be accommodated.

Draft EIS
3.17-52
Section 3.17
Transportation
Impacts from Construction Deliveries and Staging

The two locations that allow for the best construction staging and materials delivery/removal
(steel, earthworks, etc.) outside of traffic lanes are the Olive Way ROW and the subterranean
helix to be constructed on Site C. The temporary reroute on the east side of the site in phase 1
would delay construction of the subterranean helix, while both east and west temporary reroutes
would not provide extra space within the Olive Way ROW for construction deliveries and staging.
During these phases of construction in this option, deliveries and staging would likely take place
in traffic lanes on adjacent streets, requiring off-peak lane and full street closures.
Option 2: Olive Way On-Site Reroute
This method involves routing Olive Way onto a new temporary alignment contained within the site
but off the existing Olive Way ROW. This temporary alignment would be utilized while the existing
ROW is excavated and reconstructed, as shown in Figure 3.17-14. Two lanes, one for general
purpose and one for transit, would be provided at all times for this phase. Once the building
elements below Olive Way are completed, the roadway would be restored to its future condition.
Three lanes, two for general purpose and one for transit, would be provided at peak times, with
one of the general purpose lanes closed during occasional off-peak times.
Option 2: Olive Way On-Site Reroute

Draft EIS
3.17-53
Section 3.17
Transportation
Duration of Impacts
Given the activities noted above, the duration of this construction would impact traffic circulation
in the area for 37 to 39 months. Duration of construction until the partial (three lane) use of Olive
Way is restored is expected to be 14 months.
Impacts to Existing Vehicle Connectivity on Olive Way
Based on the anticipated phasing of this construction method, the general vehicle connectivity in
the area would remain unchanged during the majority of the time. However, the construction
process would require frequent single lane closures and evening work to maintain a safe work
zone for the general public. The timing and duration of these closures would be coordinated,
reviewed, and approved through the Construction Management Plan.
Impacts to Howell St.
Impacts to the surrounding street system would be similar to that described previously for the
phased offsets construction method. While there may be a shift in traffic due to the disruption and
activity along this section of Olive Way, the potential shift in traffic represents a small increase in
the background traffic on the alternative corridors such as Mercer St., or University St.
Circulation patterns and transit route connectivity would not be impacted by this method, beyond
closures of bus stops along Olive Way and Howell St. Other than evening closures or short term
detours to Howell St., connectivity for routes traveling along Olive Way would remain as they are
today. Impacts to transit travel times along Olive Way will be minimized as a transit only lane
would be provided at all times. Along Howell St. where a transit only lane exists, impacts to travel
times would be minimal.
With the closure of Olive Way and a narrow temporary alignment, pedestrians and cyclists are
anticipated to be restricted along this section of Olive Way. They would be detoured to the north
side of Pine St. or the north side of Howell St. While this detour results in the added circulation
for pedestrians and cyclists around the area, the active construction zones and the need to
maximize available roadway width for vehicle circulation prevents all modes from being able to
be accommodated.
The two locations that allow for best construction staging and materials delivery/removal (steel,
earthworks, etc.) outside of traffic lanes are the Olive Way ROW and the subterranean helix to be
constructed on Site C. The on-site temporary alignment would delay construction of the
subterranean helix, as well as not providing extra space within the Olive Way ROW for
construction deliveries and staging. During this phase of construction in this option, deliveries and
staging would likely take place in traffic lanes on adjacent streets, requiring off-peak hour lane
and full street closures.

Draft EIS
3.17-54
Section 3.17
Transportation
Option 3: Reroute to Howell St.

This method would include the full closure and removal of Olive Way between Boren Ave. and
Ninth Ave. during the length of construction of the Addition. A bypass around the site would be
constructed on the south side of Howell St. A number of modifications would be completed along
Howell St. to support this option. These options are shown in Figure 3.17-15 and described in
more detail in the following sections.
Option 3: Reroute to Howell Street, Phase 1

The primary elements of the re-route plan include the following elements:
1. Rechannelize Howell St., between Eighth Ave. and Ninth Ave., to remove the transit only
lane
2. Reroute of all transit east on Olive Way to serve island and curb side transit stops between
Eighth Ave. and Ninth Ave.
3. Restripe Howell St. to move the existing transit lane to the north curb lane
4. Restripe one general purpose lane on Howell St. for a transit only lane extending from
Ninth Ave. to Minor Ave.
5. Widen of Howell St. along the Howell St. project frontage to create a general purpose
bypass lane, providing a right-turn only at Boren Ave.
6. Relocate of the far side transit stop on Yale Ave. to the stop north at the express lane on
ramp.

Draft EIS
3.17-55
Section 3.17
Transportation
Once the WSCC Addition elements below Olive Way are completed, the roadway would be
restored to its future condition, as shown in Figure 3.17-16. Three lanes, two for general purpose
and one for transit, would be provided at peak times, with one of the general purpose lanes closed
during occasional off-peak times.
Option 3: Reroute to Howell Street, Phase 2

Duration of Impacts
The duration of this construction period is expected to impact traffic circulation in the area for 36
to 38 months. Duration of construction until the partial (three lane) use of Olive Way is restored is
expected to be 12 months.
Impacts to Existing Vehicle Connectivity Olive Way
Direct connectivity to the east (I-5 northbound ramp and Capitol Hill) would be broken between
Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. As shown in Figure 3.17-15, the bypass route includes the addition of
a Howell St. protected transit lane from Ninth Ave. to Minor Ave., as well as the addition of a
general purpose lane from Ninth Ave. to Boren Ave. as a capacity replacement for the severed
connection via Olive Way.
Impacts to Street System
With the implementation of the Olive Way re-route plan, overall roadway capacity in the eastbound
direction leaving the CBD would decrease. The existing capacity of Olive Way is replaced in part
through construction of the bypass lane on Howell St. between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. and
Draft EIS
3.17-56
Section 3.17
Transportation
the transit only lane on Howell St. between Ninth Ave. and Minor Ave. However, general purpose
capacity along Howell St. would also be reduced due to restriping one general purpose lane as a
transit only lane. As noted in the existing conditions analysis, there is extensive queuing that
occurs along Howell St. starting at the I-5 southbound on ramp at Yale Ave. and extending west
through the Eighth Ave. signal at times. This queuing condition generally occurs in the existing
curb lane. With the proposed restriping of the transit lane, the two remaining general purpose
lanes will be consolidated. Figure 3.17-17 shows the existing and revised cross-section along
Howell St. between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave.
Howell St Cross Section between Ninth Ave and Boren Ave

Eastbound traffic volumes along Howell St. within this section are 850 during the weekday PM
peak hour. Based on lane utilization counts conducted at the Boren Ave. intersection,
approximately half of the traffic is in the curb lane, destined for I-5 while the remainder of the GP
traffic is split between the two lanes. With the consolidation of general purpose lanes, congestion
for the non-I-5 general purpose traffic may increase. However, based on discussions with transit
operators along this corridor, the restriping of the transit lane to the north side would improve
overall efficiency along the corridor as general purpose vehicles frequently block the transit lane
as they wait for gaps in the I-5 bound general purpose travel lane. The existing stop location at
Yale Ave. would need to be moved north of the Yale Ave. intersection, near the I-5 Northbound
express lane on-ramp. Further exploration with WSDOT and the transit operators will be required.
As noted previously in the analysis of the other two options, diversions of traffic from the Olive
Way corridor may occur as a result of this improvement. The potential volumes of traffic that may
divert is expected to be minimal. While the direct link is being broken under this option, capacity
for the general purpose traffic is being replaced. As noted, if there were to be a diversion of traffic
from this corridor, the volume impacts on the alternative corridors would be minimal as a percent
of the existing or forecast volumes.
The impacts of current and/or potential construction projects will need to be considered in the
implementation of this method. This will be evaluated further as the details of the CMP are
reviewed by SDOT. If future construction projects render this option infeasible, revisions will be
made or alternative methods of construction considered.
Draft EIS
3.17-57
Section 3.17
Transportation

Circulation patterns and transit route connectivity would be altered under this method. As noted
above, several improvements are proposed to isolate, improve, and prioritize transit along the
Howell St. corridor. These improvements include restriping the existing Howell St. transit lane to
the north edge of Howell St. as well as the construction of a transit lane from Ninth Ave. to Minor
Ave., to serve the I-5 northbound buses.
With the active construction zones on both the north and south sides of the Olive Way, pedestrians
and cyclists are anticipated to be restricted along this section of Olive Way. They would be
detoured to the north side of Pine St. or the north side of Howell St. While this detour results in
the added circulation for pedestrians and cyclists around the area, the active construction zones
on both sides of the street and the need to maximize available roadway width for vehicle
circulation prevents all modes from being able to be accommodated.
The two locations that allow for the best construction staging and materials delivery/removal
(steel, earthworks, etc.) outside of traffic lanes are the Olive Way ROW and the subterranean
helix to be constructed on Site C. The temporary reroute to Howell St. would not impact
construction of the subterranean helix, while the second phase provides extra space within the
Olive Way ROW for construction deliveries and staging. Limited off-peak hour lane and full street
closures are anticipated due to these provisions.
The following sections describe key components of the major construction activities associated
with Alternative 1. Road closures and changes to transit access associated with overall
construction activities are shown in Table 3.17-21.

Draft EIS
3.17-58
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-21
Construction Phasing Closures and Transit Access for Alternatives A, B and C
Source: Skanska Hunt and Pine Street Group, 2016
Excavation Activities
The most noticeable construction-related traffic impacts are likely to occur during excavation of
Sites A, B and C. The amount of material to excavate for Alternative 1 is estimated to be 375,000
cubic yards. It is estimated that approximately 18,750 truck trips would be required to transport
Draft EIS
3.17-59
Section 3.17
Transportation
the material from the site. This equates to an estimated 37,500 round-trip truck trips. Preliminary
estimates are that trucks would operate from 7 pm to 5:30 am, six days a week at a rate of
approximately 20 truck per hour. Trucks would load-out in the staging lane on Howell St.
(southernmost lane) and exit the site area to enter I-5 southbound at Yale Ave.
To accommodate truck volumes anticipated as part of the construction activities, several lanes on
roadways surrounding the project site have been identified as truck staging areas including Howell
St. and Ninth Ave. Road closures during the day and evening hours would be required. These
closures will be coordinated and approved by the as part of the Construction Management Plan.
Foundation Construction Activities
Additional construction activities, other than excavation, that would result in high levels of truck
activity would occur during foundation work for the buildings, which could require continuous
concrete pours. It is estimated that approximately 15,000 concrete truck deliveries, for a total of
30,000 round trip truck trips, would be needed for foundation work. An additional 2,000 truck trips
delivering rebar to the site, for a total of 4,000 round trip truck trips, is estimated as part of the
foundation work. This activity would be completed over a much shorter duration than the
excavation effort. Truck staging to accommodate foundation work would occur on Howell St and
Ninth Ave during non-peak hours. The specific times and use of the roadways will be reviewed
as part of the Construction Management Plan.
Steel Erection Activities
As part of the steel erection on Sites A, B and C, an estimated 3,000 truck trips delivering rebar,
for a total of 6,000 round trip truck trips. Truck staging to accommodate foundation work would
occur on Howell St and Ninth Ave during non-peak hours. The specific times and use of the
roadways will be reviewed as part of the Construction Management Plan. In addition to lane
closures, short-term closures of sidewalks adjacent to the lane closure may occur as well.
Post-Steel Construction Activities
It is estimated that there would be 15,000 to 20,000 truck deliveries to the site hauling various
construction materials for a round trip total of 30,000 to 40,000 truck trips. Truck staging to
accommodate foundation work would occur on Howell St and Ninth Ave during non-peak hours.
The specific times and use of the roadways will be reviewed as part of the Construction
Management Plan.
Street Closures
During some stages of the work, lane closures would be required for utility work or to stage and
load/unload trucks in addition to what is listed previously. Prior to commencing construction, the
projects prime contractor would prepare a Construction Management Plan. This plan would
include detailed information related to truck haul routes, staging areas, and how pedestrian routes
would be maintained or changed during construction within or adjacent to the street right of way.
Details that would be included in the plan are described later in the Mitigation section
(Section 3.17.10).

Draft EIS
3.17-60
Section 3.17
Transportation
Traffic Safety
Traffic detours and lane closures would be developed through the CMP. Proper signing, striping,
and placement of traffic barriers will be outlined and required in accordance with the CMP.
Pedestrian Connectivity
Short-term impacts to pedestrian connectivity may occur during the construction activities.
Pedestrian detour routes will be identified by the contractor and reviewed by the City of Seattle
via the Construction Management Plan (CMP). Connectivity through the site via Olive Way is
expected to be limited due to operational and safety concerns related to the active construction
site.
Transit Impacts
Transit service would be rerouted from the Convention Place Station with its passenger facilities
being rerouted on surface streets. As discussed in the previous sections, transit service or stops
on Olive Way adjacent to the WSCC Addition would be rerouted or relocated through
coordination with King County Metro. The transit layover spaces currently being used at
Convention Place Station would be relocated to Convention Place, below the existing WSCC
facility.
3.17.3
Alternative 2 includes development on Site A only, compared to development on Sites A, B and

C under Alternative 1. The convention center functional areas under Alternative 2 would include
200,000 square feet of exhibition halls, 110,000 square feet of meeting room space and 60,000
square feet of ballroom, for a reduction of approximately 60,000 square feet compared to
Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would include approximately 14,900 square feet of street level uses,
including but not limited to, street-front retail, approximately 22,100 less square feet than under
Alternative 1.
Passenger vehicle access under Alternative 2 would occur using two driveways to/from Olive
Way only. Freight access would occur at the signalized intersection with Terry Ave.
Overall vehicle trip generation for Alternative 2 is projected to be less than Alternative 1. As
such, where appropriate, the discussion of impacts are presented relative to Alternative 1. Where
project features such as access points are different and local circulation patterns are modified, a
detailed analysis is presented. Organizationally, the same structure is presented for the
Alternative 2 analysis as was presented for Alternative 1.
Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the WSCC attendee, employee and retail component of
Alternative 2 were derived using the same methodology as described previously in Section
3.17.2 for Alternative 1. Table 3.17-22 provides a breakdown of the traffic during the weekday
AM, and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation by trip type. See Appendix H, Section 4.1 for
detailed trip generation calculations.

Draft EIS
3.17-61
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-22
AM Peak Hour2
PM Peak Hour3
Trip Type/Land Use
Daily Trips1
Attendees4
730 / 4,100
In
310
Out
55
Total
365
In
28
Out
419
Total
447
150 / 230
21
23
27
32
110
Total: Alternative 2
333
58
391
36
448
484
385
68
453
43
524
567
Event
Employees/Vendors
Retail Use

1. Daily Trips shown for both Breakfast Event/Consumer/Trade Show (Typical)
2. AM Peak Hour trips for Attendees and Employees/Vendors are for Breakfast Event
3. PM Peak hour trips for Attendees and Employees/Vendors are for Consumer/Trade Show (Typical)
4. Local and Non-Local Attendees
Overall vehicle trips generated under Alternative 2 are estimated to be less than under
Alternative 1 by approximately 12 percent during the weekday AM peak hour and 13 percent
during the weekday PM peak hour.
Roadway Network
Unlike Alternative 1, other than modifications to the access points along the frontage of Olive
Way, no major modifications to the roadway network are proposed. No vacation of Terry Ave. is
proposed under Alternative 2. As noted previously, several driveways currently exist serving
uses on Site A. This includes two associated with the CPS as well as the property located at the
southwest corner of the Boren Ave/Olive Way intersection. With development of Alternative 2
the 6 existing driveways on Site A would be reduced to 3 as shown in Figure 3.17-18. One alley
vacation on Site A is proposed under Alternative 2, similar to the alley vacation proposed on
Site A under Alternative 1.
Existing and Proposed Site Access Alternative 2

Draft EIS
3.17-62
Section 3.17
Transportation

The overall vehicle trip generation for Alternative 2 is expected to total 391 trips during the
weekday AM peak hour and 484 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. This represents a
decrease of 14 percent for the weekday AM peak hour and 14 percent for the weekday PM peak
hour, respectively, compared with Alternative 1.
Access to the on-site parking is different for Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1. The
access configuration for Alternative 2 includes two access points along Olive Way only,
impacting the traffic volumes at intersections along Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. near the site. While
the localized trip assignment is slightly different, the differences are not significant. Outside of the
immediate site area, with-project traffic volumes would be less than under Alternative 1. Traffic
volumes at those intersections in the vicinity of the site that differ from Alternative 1 due to the
access configuration are shown in Appendix H, Figure 4.3-1.
Traffic Operations
Traffic operations at the study intersections in the immediate vicinity were evaluated using the
same methodology described in Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 1, vehicles were assigned
to parking garages located both on-site and off-site. The on-site garage for Alternative 2 is
anticipated to be a similar size to the proposed garage for Alternative 1. As the trip generation
for Alternative 2 is less than Alternative 1, the off-site traffic volume and operations impact would
be less than Alternative 1.
Around the project site, trips were assigned differently for Alternative 2 than Alternative 1 to the
on-site parking garage due to the different site access. The on-site parking garage would be
accessed via the two existing alleys on Site A to Olive Way to the east and the west of Terry Ave.
Table 3.17-23 and Table 3.17-24 highlight the LOS at the intersections in the immediate vicinity
of the access points and includes the Baseline and Alternative 1 results for comparison
purposes.
Table 3.17-23
Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Comparison
2021
Baseline
Intersection
2021
Alternative 1
LOS
Delay
A
5
2021
Alternative 2
LOS
Delay
A
5
Terry Ave / Olive Way
LOS1
A
Delay2
8
Ninth Ave / Olive Way
Boren Ave / Olive Way
Terry Ave / Howell St
13
13
13
Ninth Ave / Howell St
17
17
17
Boren Ave / Howell St
52
55
54
Boren Ave/ Pine St
55
632
54
Ninth Ave / Pine St
12
13
13

1. Level of service

Draft EIS
3.17-63
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-24
Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Comparison
Intersection
Terry Ave / Olive Way
2021
Baseline
LOS1
Delay2
B
17
2021
Alternative 1
LOS
Delay
D
39
2021
Alternative 2
LOS
Delay
A
7
Ninth Ave / Olive Way
10
16
14
Boren Ave / Olive Way
18
21
20
Terry Ave / Howell St
10
10
10
Ninth Ave / Howell St
189
230
216
Boren Ave / Howell St
50
59
57
Boren Ave/ Pine St
31
36
35
Ninth Ave / Pine St
16
18
17

1. Level of service
The intersection delays are generally the same for Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1. Compared
with Alternative 1, the Terry Ave. / Olive Way and Boren Ave. / Pine St. intersections would
operate with less vehicle delay during Alternative 2. The intersection delay would decrease due
to the location of the on-site garage accesses. Detailed analysis can be found in Appendix H,
Section 4.4.
Traffic Safety
The WSCC Addition access configuration under Alternative 2 would be different from
Alternative 1 because trucks would access the site via the signalized intersection at Terry Ave.
While the overall traffic volumes for the site would be less under Alternative 2, the general
purpose traffic accessing the site would no longer be focused on a signalized access point. The
number of access points would decrease by three compared with existing conditions; however,
activity at the unsignalized access points would be higher than baseline conditions.
The access points could be designed to maximize visibility to pedestrians along Olive Way, but
the frequency of potential conflicts between pedestrians traversing east-west along Olive Way
would increase with Alternative 2 compared with Alternative 1, which would rely on a traffic
signal to minimize and control the conflicts between the Olive Way traffic and traffic exiting the
facility. Overall traffic would increase and thus the general impact to the surrounding street system
would increase compared to baseline, but would be somewhat less than described for
Alternative 1.
Transit Service
Overall transit ridership impacts under Alternative 2 would be slightly less than that reported for
Alternative 1, as overall transit trips are expected to be less under Alternative 2.

Draft EIS
3.17-64
Section 3.17
Transportation
The overall pedestrian trip generation for Alternative 2 is expected to total 1,330 trips during the
weekday AM peak hour and 2,050 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. This represents a
decrease of 19 percent for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours compared with
Alternative 1.
Similar to the Alternative 1 assessments, Alternative 2 is not expected to have adverse
pedestrian impacts and adequate capacity exists along the project frontage and along Ninth Ave.
between the proposed Addition and the existing WSCC.
Bicycle Facilities
Similar to the Alternative 1 assessments, Alternative 2 is not expected to have a significant
impact on bicycle facilities in the area. Relative to Alternative 1, the signalized controlled access
to the parking garage provides improved control as compared to the unsignalized driveways to
be developed under Alternative 2.
Parking Impacts
Overall parking demand, and thus impacts of Alternative 2 would be less than those described
for Alternative 1. With a lower peak parking demand, the utilization of the off-site lots is
anticipated to be less than the level described by Alternative 1. Overall differences would be
minor and net impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 1.
As noted in the description of Alternative 2, all access to the site for trucks and cars is proposed
from Olive Way. The following describes the access analysis with respect to pedestrians,
truck/freight, and general parking.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access points to the building are generally anticipated in the same location as noted
in Alternative 1. Any minor differences are not expected to generate a significant change in travel
patterns as compared to the analysis of Alternative 1.
Parking Garage Access Analysis
The two access points proposed with Alternative 2, located at the eastern and western ends of
the project would both function with two-way traffic. These access points would operate as
unsignalized intersections with the garage approaches operating under stop-controlled
conditions. A review of the level of service analysis shows that both driveways would operate at
LOS D during the weekday AM peak hour and LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. This is
due to the high number of conflicting vehicles along Olive Way during the weekday PM peak hour
which would likely create minimal gaps in traffic for vehicles to turn out of the stop-controlled
garage accesses.

Draft EIS
3.17-65
Section 3.17
Transportation
Freight Access & Loading Analysis

Under Alternative 2, truck/freight access would occur via a south leg of the signalized Terry
Ave/Olive Way intersection. Inbound access for freight would utilize Ninth Ave. from the north,
turning left on Olive Way and then accessing the loading docks via the existing traffic signal at
Terry Ave. Outbound circulation would be similar to the expectations with Alternative 1. A similar
number of loading docks would be developed under this alternative. A traffic management plan
similar to the plan outlined for Alternative 1 would be developed to manage the inbound flow of
the trucks during heavy load-in/load-out periods and provide identified outbound routes for peak
hour travel.
Shuttle bus and taxi access staging with Alternative 2 is proposed along the east side of Ninth
Ave. between Olive Way and Pine St., consistent with Alternative 1.
Freight
As described in the previous section, freight access would be slightly different under Alternative
2 than under Alternative 1, requiring some modifications to truck routing in the immediate vicinity
of the project site. Exiting routes would still be anticipated to only be able to exit via Terry Ave,
north of Howell St. during the weekday PM peak period. As noted for Alternative 1, this will
require modifications to the planned Green Street improvements between Howell St and Virginia
St and also modifications at the intersection. These are identified in Appendix H.
Alley Vacation
Overall impacts of vacating the existing alley on Site A under Alternative 2 are similar to those
described for Alternative 1 for the same alley.
A transportation concurrency analysis was conducted for Alternative 1 and showed that with the
development of that Alternative, City standards were met. As noted previously, overall trip
generation for Alternative 2 represents a 7 percent decrease for both the weekday AM and PM
peak hour periods, respectively. Given the decrease in project trips for Alternative 2 and
considering that the localized site access changes do not impact the broader transportation
patterns and associated concurrency measurements, Alternative 2, would also meet the City of
Seattle concurrency requirements.
Construction impacts of Alternative 2 would be less than those described for Alternative 1 in as
construction is only occurring on Site A under Alternative 2. Phasing and impacts associated
with the King County Site Work elements prior to construction of Alternative 2 will be the same
as described for Alternative 1. Construction mitigation measures are described in in the
Mitigation section of this report. General impacts of the King County Site Work described for
Alternatives A, B, and C are the same for Alternative 2 as was described for Alternative 1, and
the transit impacts to the DSTT access are the same.

Draft EIS
3.17-66
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17.4
Like Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would encompass Sites A, B, and C proposed for the WSCC
Addition. However, the areas allocated to specific uses under Alternative 3 would be less than
Alternative 1 because the area of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
land/air lease would not be included. The convention center functional areas under Alternative 3
would include 249,000 square feet (sf) of exhibition halls, 120,000 sf of meeting room space, and
59,000 sf of ballroom, for a reduction of approximately 4,500 sf compared with Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 would include approximately 35,000 sf of street level uses, including but not limited
to street-front retail totaling approximately 2,000 less sf than under Alternative 1.
Overall vehicle trip generation with Alternative 3 is projected to be less than with Alternative 1.
As such, where appropriate, the discussion of impacts are presented relative to Alternative 1.
The Alternative 3 impacts analysis is organized the same as the Alternative 1 impacts analysis
in Section 3.17-2.
Trip Generation
Alternative 2 were derived using the same methodology as described previously for
Alternative 1.
Table 3.17-25 provides a breakdown of the traffic during the weekday AM, and PM peak hour
vehicle trip generation by trip type. See Appendix H, Section 5.1.2 for detailed trip generation
calculations.
Table 3.17-25
Trip Type/Land Use
Daily Trips1
AM Peak Hour2
PM Peak Hour3
In
357
Out
63
Total
420
In
32
Out
482
Total
514
23
1
3
0
26
1
6
4
30
5
36
9
381
66
447
42
517
559
385
68
453
43
524
567
840 / 4,720
Attendees
Employees/Vendors
180 / 260
150
Retail Use

1. Daily Trips shown for both Breakfast Event and Consumer/Trade Show (Typical)
Alternative 1 by approximately 1 percent during the both the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Roadway Network
The roadway network under Alternative 3 includes the same revisions previously included under
Alternative 1. Several driveways currently exist serving uses on Sites A, B and C. With
development of Alternative 3, several of the existing driveways would be removed. Three alley
vacations, one on each parcel, are proposed as part of Alternative 3 similar to Alternative 1.
Draft EIS
3.17-67
Section 3.17
Transportation

Access to the on-site parking is the same for Alternative 3 as with Alternative 1, so overall traffic
volumes at study area intersections are expected to be less for Alternative 3 as compared to
Alternative 1. With a 1 percent reduction in site trip generation, no significant impacts in
operations in anticipated.
Traffic Operations
As Alternative 3 would generate slightly less traffic than previously analyzed under Alternative
1, its impact to traffic operations would be less than Alternative 1. No significant differences
would be expected as the peak hour trip generation is approximately 1 percent less than
Alternative 1.
Traffic Safety
As traffic volumes increase, the potential for traffic safety issues increase proportionately. The
overall vehicular and non-motorized traffic volumes in the area under Alternative 3 are
anticipated to be higher than under baseline conditions, but less than under Alternative 1.
Development of Alternative 3 is not anticipated to have a significant impact on traffic safety in
the vicinity of the project.
Transit Service
Overall transit ridership impacts under Alternative 3 are expected to be slightly less than that
reported for Alternative 1, as overall transit trips are expected to be fewer under Alternative 3.
decrease of 1 percent for the weekday AM and 2 percent for the PM peak hour hours, respectively,
compared with Alternative 1. Similar to the Alternative 1 assessments, Alternative 3 is not
expected to have adverse pedestrian impacts.
Bicycle Facilities
impact on bicycle facilities in the area. There is a significant reduction in the number of driveways
between the existing condition and Alternative 3. This reduction in driveways reduces the conflict
points between bicycles and vehicles.
Parking Impacts
Overall parking impacts of the project would be less than those described for Alternative 1. As
the parking facility is consistent among alternatives, the anticipated utilization of the on-site facility
is likely to be similar to Alternative 1. With a lower parking demand, the utilization of the off-site
lots is anticipated to be less than the level described by Alternative 1. Overall differences would
be minor; net impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 1.

Draft EIS
3.17-68
Section 3.17
Transportation

Site access under Alternative 3 is consistent with Alternative 1, as described in Section 3.17.2.
Freight volumes would essentially be the same as documented under Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 reflects a 4,500-square-foot reduction in exhibition space which would not decrease
truck volumes by any noticeable amount.
Freight
As Alternative 3 would generate less traffic than, and freight access is proposed to be the same
as, Alternative 1. Therefore, overall freight impacts for Alternative 3 would be less than
described for Alternative 1. Improvements to Terry Ave. as described in Alternative 1 would be
requested under Alternative 3.
Olive Way Subterranean Vacation
Overall impacts of the subterranean vacation of Olive Way under Alternative 3 would be similar
Alley Vacations
Overall impacts of vacating the existing three alleys on Sites A, B and C under Alternative 3 are
similar to those described for Alternative 1.
A transportation concurrency analysis was conducted for Alternative 1 and showed that with the
development of that Alternative, City standards were met. As noted previously, overall trip
generation for Alternative 3 represents a 1 percent decrease for both the weekday AM and PM
peak hour periods. Given the decrease in project trips, Alternative 3 would also meet the City of
Seattle concurrency requirements.
Since no changes in operations to the Pike St. HOV ramp are proposed to conduct necessary
King County Site Work, King County Site Work Alternatives A and B are not applicable under
Alternative 3. Phasing and impacts associated with the King County Site Work Alternative C
elements prior to construction of Alternative 3 will be the same as described for Alternative 1.
Construction phasing and impacts associated with the completion of Alternative 3 will be the
same as described for Alternative 1. As such, mitigation requirements will also be the same as

Draft EIS
3.17-69
Section 3.17
Transportation
3.17.5
Impacts of Alternative 4.1
Alternative 4.1 is also a preferred alternative and would be very similar to Alternative 1 but have
the following key differences: two co-development projects would be added north of Olive Way,
above the below-grade loading facilities of the WSCC Addition that would include approximately
400 residential units and approximately 515,700 square feet (sf) office space. The functional
areas of the WSCC Addition, such as exhibition halls, meeting rooms, and ballroom space are
expected to be the same under Alternative 4.1 as under Alternative 1.
Alternative 4.1 would include approximately 43,000 sf of street level uses, including but not
limited to street-front retail; this would be approximately 6,000 sf greater than under Alternative 1.
Overall vehicle trip generation with Alternative 4.1 is projected to be less than with Alternative 1.
As such, where appropriate, the discussion of impacts are presented relative to Alternative 1.
Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the WSCC attendee, employee, retail and co-development
components of Alternative 4.1 were derived using the same methodology as described
previously in Section 3.17.2 for Alternative 1.
Table 3.17-26 provides a breakdown of the anticipated weekday AM, and PM peak hour vehicle
trip generation by trip type. See Appendix H for detailed trip generation calculations.
Table 3.17-26
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips by Trip Type Alternative 4.1
Trip Type/Land Use
Daily Trips1
AM Peak Hour2
PM Peak Hour3
850 / 4,770
In
361
Out
64
Total
425
In
33
Out
487
Total
520
Retail Use
180 / 260
180
23
2
3
1
26
3
6
4
31
6
37
10
Residential
620
39
48
37
20
57
1,710
213
28
241
39
192
231
Total: Alternative 4.1
608
135
743
122
736
855
385
68
453
43
524
567
Attendees4
Employees/Vendors
Office

Overall vehicle trips generated under Alternative 4.1 are estimated to be greater than under
Alternative 1 due to the introduction of the co-development uses. During the AM peak hour, site
generated traffic volumes would increase by approximately 64 percent. During the weekday PM
peak hour, traffic volumes would increase by approximately 50 percent.

Draft EIS
3.17-70
Section 3.17
Transportation
Roadway Network
The roadway network under Alternative 4.1 is similar to that under Alternative 1, described in
Section 3.17.2. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 4.1 includes the vacation of Terry Ave.
between Olive Way and Howell St. as well as the conversion of the southern half of this block to
two-way traffic. In addition to the vacation of Terry Avenue between Olive Way and Howell St.,
the WSCC is requesting the conversion of Ninth Ave. between Pike St. and Howell St. from oneway southbound to two-way. The core analysis assumes the two-way configuration. Proposed
driveways and alley vacations under Alternative 4.1 are the same as under Alternative 1, with
the exception of an additional curb cut on the west side of Terry Ave, on Site B. This curb cut
provides access to the loading dock and service access for the co-development tower.
With the increase in site related trip generation noted above, overall, traffic volumes on
surrounding city streets are expected to increase 6 percent during the AM peak hour and 7 percent
during the PM peak hour under Alternative 4.1, compared to the 2021 baseline condition.
Traffic Operations
The following sections summarize the results of the traffic operations conducted for
Alternative 4.1, which were then compared to results for the baseline condition summarized
previously in Section 3.17.2.
Intersection levels of service were evaluated for the study area intersections utilizing
methodologies previously described in Section 3.17.2.
A summary of intersection level of service within the study area during the weekday AM and PM
peak hours is shown in Figure 3.17-19.

Draft EIS
3.17-71
Section 3.17
Transportation
Baseline and Alternative Weekday Traffic

Operations
24
Alt 4.1 AM
23
Baseline AM
1 3
7
A-C
D
E
17
Alt 4.1 PM
19
Baseline PM
10
15
20
25
8
30
35
Alternative 4.1: Weekday Intersection Level of Service

Summary
During the AM peak hour, with the addition of the traffic associated with the co-development, 3
additional intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E/LOS F, totaling 10 under the with-project
conditions. During the weekday PM peak hour period, one additional intersection is forecast to
operate at LOS F, totaling 11 operating at LOS E/LOS F under the with-project conditions.
Individual intersection levels of service are shown graphically in Appendix H, Section 6.4.
With development of Alternative 4.1, Terry Ave. is proposed to be vacated between Olive Way
and Howell St. The vacated portion of Terry Ave. would be controlled by the WSCC and would be
closed to general purpose traffic and vehicles leaving the on-site parking garage. It is possible
that the vacated section could be open during peak garage activity. Appendix H, Section 6.4
summarizes the impacts associated with the temporary opening of Terry Ave. to general purpose
vehicles during the weekday.
Arterial Operations
Arterial level of service was evaluated for four corridors in the study area -- Fairview Ave., Olive
Way, Howell St. and Stewart St. to determine how additional traffic generated by Alternative 4.1
would affect corridor operations. The results are summarized in Table 3.17-27.

Draft EIS
3.17-72
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-27
Arterial Level of Service Summary Alternative 4.1
2021 Baseline
Corridor
2021 Alternative 4.1

LOS1 Speed2 LOS1 Speed2 LOS1 Speed2 LOS1 Speed2
Olive Way (Sixth Ave. to Northbound I5 Ramp)
10
Fairview Ave. N. Northbound (Boren

Ave. to Mercer St.)
Fairview Ave. N. Southbound (Mercer
St. to Boren Ave.)
1. Level of service
The arterial travel speeds are anticipated to remain the same from Baseline conditions to
Alternative 4.1 with the exception of the Olive Way corridor. The average vehicle speed along
Olive Way would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM peak hour, with a decline from an
average speed of 10 mph to 9. During the weekday PM peak hour, each corridor is anticipated to
operate at the same LOS and average speed as during baseline conditions under Alternative 4.1.
SDOT is proposing to upgrade signals on the Denny Way corridor and on connections to I-5.
These upgrades are intended to improve traffic progression and reduce travel times on these
corridors. The extent of these signal upgrades are currently not known and thus were not included
in the analysis.
Traffic Safety
As traffic volumes increase, the potential for traffic safety issues increases proportionately. The
overall vehicular and non-motorized traffic volumes in the area under Alternative 4.1 are
anticipated to be higher than occurs under baseline conditions. Under Alternative 4.1, the overall
number of curb cuts considering all frontages would decrease from 17 to 5. This decrease in curb
cuts results in fewer locations of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. At all locations, the curb cuts
would be designed to maximize safety by minimizing sight impediments. The primary garage
access would be controlled via a traffic signal, minimizing pedestrian and vehicle conflicts through
this active control of multiple travel modes.
Transit Service
As described previously, weekday AM and PM peak hour travel times are expected to remain
the same along key corridors in the study area under Alternative 4.1. Attendees at WSCC
events, WSCC employees and the on-site retail uses are expected to generate additional transit
trips, as detailed in Appendix H, Section 6.6.

Draft EIS
3.17-73
Section 3.17
Transportation
Pedestrian Volumes
The number of pedestrian trips generated by Alternative 4.1 was estimated using the
assumptions presented in Appendix H, Section 6.7. Table 3.17-28 summarizes the weekday
AM and PM peak hour pedestrian volumes anticipated to be generated by the project.
Table 3.17-28
Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes Alternative 4.1
Source of Pedestrians
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Primary Commute
Total
810
Ninth Ave
490
Total
1,450
Ninth Ave
870
Transit Related
1,320
790
1,370
820
850
510
1,050
630
2,980
1,790
3,870
2,320
Off-Site Garage Related

Total
Considering the anticipated weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, the highest pedestrian
volumes are expected to occur along Ninth Ave. during the PM peak hour near the main entryways
between Olive Way and Pine St. Additionally, pedestrians would also use Ninth Ave. between
Pine St. and Pike St. to travel between the existing WSCC and the WSCC Addition during larger
events; as such, the focus of the pedestrian analysis was along Ninth Avenue between Olive Way
and Pike St.
Pedestrian Access and Improvements
Under Alternative 4.1, the pedestrians would access the WSCC Addition via Ninth Ave., Pike
St., Howell St., Boren Ave., and Olive Way.
Sidewalks along the frontage would be lined with trees or other landscape elements to provide
space between the roadway and pedestrians and provide a benefit to the public. These
improvements are consistent with goals outlined in the City of Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan.
The sidewalk improvements would provide not only more space for pedestrian movements, but
also improved connections to key pedestrian corridors for surrounding neighborhoods. The
improvements along Olive Way and Pine St. would improve the connection to the Capitol Hill
neighborhood, and improvements along Ninth Ave. would facilitate north-south connections in the
downtown area. The improvements also address previously identified City priorities; the north
side of Pine St. between Ninth Ave. and Boren Ave. is defined as a Tier 1 High Priority Project in
the City of Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan.
Pedestrian level of service was evaluated for Alternative 4.1 using methodologies similar to the
baseline condition. To be conservative, the majority of pedestrian traffic was assigned to the east
side on Ninth Ave. between Olive Way and Pike Street. As shown in Table 3.17-29, the projected
Draft EIS
3.17-74
Section 3.17
Transportation
pedestrian LOS with Alternative 4.1 is no worse than LOS C at any of the locations reviewed.
Based on the analysis, no adverse pedestrian impacts are expected along Ninth Ave. between
Olive Way and Pike St.
Table 3.17-29
Alternative 4.1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Ninth Ave
PM Peak Hour
Pedestrian
Volumes
Average
Pedestrian
Space (ft2/p)1
Pedestrian LOS
Score
Pedestrian LOS
Location along Ninth Ave. Baseline2 Alt. 4.1 Baseline Alt. 4.1 Baseline Alt.4. 1 Baseline Alt. 4.1
290
2,465
190
60
1.8
1.7
B
C
(east sidewalk)
470
470
100
100
0.9
1.2
B
B
(west sidewalk)
290
1,020
430
125
1.5
1.4
B
B
(east sidewalk)
450
880
280
145
0.8
1.0
B
B
(west sidewalk)
1. Ft2/p = square feet per pedestrian.
2. LOS shown for platoon flow
In addition to the capacity analysis along Ninth Ave between the existing and proposed facility, a
comprehensive analysis was conducted along each of the remaining project frontages. This
analysis considered the code required width for each of the sidewalk segment. The results of the
analysis are shown in Table 3.17-30 and shows that the project frontages are all anticipated to
operate at LOS B during the weekday PM peak hour with the exception of the north sidewalk on
Pine St. which is anticipated to operate at LOS C. Expansion beyond the code minimum is
proposed as part of the public benefits package of the project. As noted in this analysis (TDR,
Section 3.7.3) adequate pedestrian capacity would be provided under Alternative 1 considering
the code minimum sidewalk width.

Draft EIS
3.17-75
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-30
Alternative 4.1 Pedestrian LOS and Volumes along Project Frontages
PM Peak Hour
Pedestrian
Volumes
Average
Pedestrian
Space (ft2/p)1
Pedestrian
LOS Score
Pedestrian
LOS2
Olive Way3 (north sidewalk)

380
250
2.2
Olive Way.3 (south sidewalk)

9th Ave. to Terry St
1,040
90
2.1
Olive Way (north sidewalk)

440
215
2.2
Olive Way3 (south sidewalk)

750
125
2.2

420
245
2.2

455
225
2.2
1,135
153
3.1

Howell St. to Olive Way
265
290
2.6

275
345
2.7
Location
Pine St. (north sidewalk

9th Ave. to Boren Ave.)

4 Ft2/p = square feet per pedestrian.
5 LOS shown for platoon flow
6 Evaluated for code-required width which is approximately 3 feet less than proposed width
Bicycle Facilities
Alternative 4.1 is not expected to significantly impact bicycle facilities within the study area. In
general, as traffic volumes increase in the study area, there is a potential for increased conflict
between vehicles and bicyclists. As noted, there is a significant reduction in the number of
driveways between the existing conditions and Alternative 4.1. This reduction in driveways
reduces the conflict points between bicycles and vehicles.
Parking Impacts
Parking Demand for WSCC Events
Event parking demand would be the same as previously described in Section 3.17.2.

Draft EIS
3.17-76
Section 3.17
Transportation
Parking Demand for Co-Development

Detailed residential and office use parking demand calculations can be found in Appendix H,
Section 6.9.2. The peak parking demand for the office is estimated to be 344 vehicles, and would
peak on weekdays between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The peak residential parking is estimated to
be 162 vehicles, and would peak on evenings and weekends. Residential and office uses can share
some parking. The cumulative weekday demand is estimated to be 475 vehicles and would peak
mid-morning. On a Saturday (or by proxy Sundays or Holidays), almost all of the parking demand
would be generated by the residential uses. The midday parking demand on Saturday is estimated
to be approximately 150 vehicles.
Cumulative Parking Demand
The cumulative parking demand for the existing WSCC plus the WSCC Addition is estimated to be
approximately 1,559 vehicles, which excludes the 500 monthly parkers that now use the existing
WSCC garages. The peak demand for this condition, as well as for lower-demand scenarios
including a breakfast meeting, evening fundraising event, or small meetings would be
accommodated by the combined 2,148 parking spaces that would be owned by WSCC (938 spaces
in the main garage, 660 spaces at Freeway Park, plus 800 proposed for the WSCC Addition).
However, parking management would be required to allocate various users among the three
facilities, and physical improvements are proposed to enhance pedestrian connections between
existing garages and the WSCC Addition.
A large consumer show that occurs on a weekday would have the highest parking impact for this
alternative since the peak demand could overlap the peak office demand period. Since such
consumer shows occur infrequently, additional management measures may be needed. This could
include implementing black-out parking periods for commuters, similar to those imposed at stadiums
for very large events. Measures to encourage consumer show attendees to use alternative modes
of transportation to reduce parking demand could also be implemented. These strategies are
discussed further in the mitigation section of this report.
As with Alternative 1, it is expected that some attendees to WSCC events could choose to park in
off-site garages not owned by the WSCC. As previously described in Section 3.17.2, there are many
garages in the WSCC vicinity where parking is likely to be available during the evening and on
weekends. No adverse impacts to off-site parking are expected.
Site access under Alternative 4.1 would be the same as proposed under Alternative 1, as
described in Section 3.17.2.
Shuttle bus and taxi access staging with Alternative 4.1 is proposed along the east side of Ninth
Freight
Freight activity and therefore off-site impacts of truck traffic are expected to be similar under
Alternative 4.1 compared to Alternative 1 as the access points for freight and service deliveries
are the same.
Draft EIS
3.17-77
Section 3.17
Transportation
Terry Ave. Street Vacation Analysis

As previously discussed, the vacation of Terry Ave. is a proposed as part of Alternative 4.1.
Impacts of vacating Terry Ave. are similar under Alternative 4.1 as under Alternative 1. The
impacts associated with the proposed street vacation for Alternative 1 are described in
Section 3.17.2. The additional traffic generated by the co-development does not alter the general
findings and conclusions in regards to the future needs of the Terry Ave. stub or impacts
associated with the proposed street vacation.
Overall impacts of the subterranean vacation of Olive Way under Alternative 4.1 would be similar
Alley Vacations
Overall impacts of vacating the existing three alleys on Sites A, B and C under Alternative 4.1
are similar to those described for Alternative 1, as described in Section 3.17.2.
The City of Seattles Transportation Concurrency was evaluated for Alternative 4.1, which
generates the highest number of trips among the evaluated alternatives as shown in Table 3.1731. The transportation concurrency analysis indicates that with traffic generated by
Alternative 4.1, the screenlines would have v/c ratios less than the City v/c threshold; thus, the
project would meet the Citys concurrency requirements.
Table 3.17-31
Transportation Concurrency Analysis Alternative 4.1
SL#1
Locations
5.13
Ship Canal/Aurora Ave N
5.16
Ship Canal/University/
Montlake Bridges
10.11
South of S Jackson
Street
Direction2 Capacity
2008
Volume
Project
Traffic3
V/C Ratio
LOS
w/ Project Standard
NB
5,100
4,472
139
0.90
1.2
SB
5,100
3,756
32
0.74
1.2
NB
4,030
3,833
121
0.98
1.2
SB
NB
4,070
12,900
3,571
7,586
20
155
0.88
0.60
1.2
1.2
SB
12,980
8,671
71
0.67
1.2
EB
13,300
8,266
58
0.63
1.2
WB
11,736
6,491
12
0.55
1.2
12.12 East of CBD

1. SL # = Screenline Number
2. Direction: EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound
3. Shown for AM peak hour (Breakfast Event) and PM Peak hour (Consumer/Trade Show Typical)

Draft EIS
3.17-78
Section 3.17
Transportation

Phasing and impacts associated with the King County King County Site Work elements prior to
construction of Alternative 4.1 will be the same as for Alternative 1, as described in
Section 3.17.2.
As compared to Alternative 1, construction activity and associated traffic volumes are anticipated
to be greater due to the construction of the co-development elements. A total of 120,000 to
130,000 daily truck trips are anticipated over the course of the project. This represents an increase
of approximately 48 percent, as compared to Alternative 1. As noted for Alternative 1, a
construction management plan that outlines construction staging areas and traffic control
modifications will be reviewed and approved by the City. This will be done in coordination with the
convention center activities, should the construction occur simultaneously. The overall duration
of construction may be longer due to the co-development uses on Site B and Site C and the
timing of those phases.
3.17.6
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 4.2
Alternative 4.2 would be very similar to Alternative 4.1. The functional areas of the WSCC
Addition, such as exhibition halls, meeting rooms, and ballroom space, would be the same under
Alternative 4.2 as under Alternative 4.1. This alternative includes one co-development project
consisting of approximately 400 residential units and approximately 8,000 square feet (sf) of street
level uses, including but not limited to street-front retail on Site B above the below-grade loading
facilities of the Addition. Site C would initially contain loading access for the Addition below-grade
loading facilities, and approximately 12,000 sf of active pedestrian-oriented street uses, including
but not limited to street-front retail.
Alternative 4.2 would include a total of approximately 45,000 sf of active pedestrian-oriented
street uses on all three sites, including but not limited to street-front retail; this would be
approximately 2,000 more sf than under Alternative 4.1.
Overall vehicle trip generation under Alternative 4.2 is projected to be less than Alternative 4.1.
As such, where appropriate, the discussion of impacts is presented relative to Alternative 4.1.
Organizationally, the same structure is presented for the Alternative 4.2 analysis as was
presented for Alternative 4.1.
Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the WSCC attendee, employee and co-development component of
Alternative 4.2 were derived using the same methodology as described previously in
Section 3.17.2 for Alternative 1.
vehicle trip generation by trip type. See Appendix H for detailed trip generation calculations.

Draft EIS
3.17-79
Section 3.17
Transportation
Table 3.17-32
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips Alternative 4.2
Trip Type/Land Use
Event
Attendees4
Employees/Vendors
Retail 35,000 square feet
Daily Trips1
AM Peak Hour2
PM Peak Hour3
850 / 4,660
In
361
Out
64
Total
425
In
33
Out
487
Total
520
180 / 260
190
23
2
4
1
27
3
6
5
31
6
37
11
39
48
37
20
57
395
108
503
81
544
625
608
135
743
119
736
855
620
Residential 424 units

Overall vehicle trips generated under Alternative 4.2 are estimated to be less than under
Alternative 4.1 by approximately 33 percent during the weekday AM and 27 percent during the
weekday PM peak hour periods, compared to Alternative 4.1.
Roadway Network
The roadway network under Alternative 4.2 includes the same revisions previously included
under Alternative 4.1. Several driveways currently exist serving uses on Sites A, B and C. With
development of Alternative 4.2, a total of 5 driveways are proposed. This includes two driveways
for Site A, two access points serving WSCC freight on Site C and 1 service access on the west
side of Terry Ave. providing service access for the residential co-development use. Three alley
vacations, one on each parcel, are proposed as part of Alternative 4.2 similar to Alternative 4.1.
Access to the on-site parking is the same for Alternative 4.2 as for Alternative 4.1, so overall,
traffic volumes at study area intersections are expected to be less for Alternative 4.2 as
compared to Alternative 4.1.
Traffic Operations
As Alternative 4.2 would generate slightly less traffic than previously analyzed under
Alternative 4.1, its impact to traffic operations would be less than Alternative 4.1.
Traffic Safety
anticipated to be higher than under baseline conditions, but less than under Alternative 4.1.

Draft EIS
3.17-80
Section 3.17
Transportation
Transit Service
Overall transit ridership impacts under Alternative 4.2 are expected to be slightly less than that
reported for Alternative 4.1.
The overall pedestrian trip generation for Alternative 4.2 is expected to total 2,290 trips during
the weekday AM peak hour and 2,920 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. This represents a
23 percent decrease for the weekday AM and a 25 percent decrease for the weekday PM peak
hour hours compared with Alternative 4.1. Alternative 4.2 is not expected to have adverse
pedestrian impacts.
Bicycle Facilities
Similar to the Alternative 4.1 assessments, Alternative 4.2 is not expected to have a significant
impact on bicycle facilities in the area. There is a substantial reduction in the number of driveways
between the existing condition and Alternative 4.2. This reduction in driveways reduces the
conflict points between bicycles and vehicles.
Parking Impacts
Overall parking impacts of Alternative 4.2 would be less than those described for Alternative
4.1. As the parking facility is consistent among Alternatives, the anticipated utilization of the onsite facility is likely to be similar to Alternative 4.1. With a lower parking demand, the utilization
of the off-site lots is anticipated to be less than the level described by Alternative 4.1.
Site access under Alternative 4.2 is consistent with Alternative 4.1, as described in
Section Error! Reference source not found..
Ave. between Olive Way and Pine St., consistent with Alternative 4.1.
Freight
Terry Ave. Vacation
Impacts of vacating Terry Ave. are similar under Alternative 4.2 as under Alternative 4.1. The
impacts associated with the proposed street vacation for Alternative 4.1 are described in
Section Error! Reference source not found.. The additional traffic generated by the codevelopment does not alter the general findings and conclusions in regards to the future needs
of the Terry Ave. stub or impacts associated with the proposed street vacation.

Draft EIS
3.17-81
Section 3.17
Transportation

Overall impacts of the subterranean vacation of Olive Way under Alternative 4.2 would be
similar to those for Alternative 4.1, as described in Section Error! Reference source not found..
Alley Vacation
are similar to those described for Alternative 4.1, as described in Section Error! Reference
source not found.. No significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed alley
vacations.
A transportation concurrency analysis was conducted for Alternative 4.1 and showed that with
the development of that Alternative, City standards were met. As noted previously, overall trip
generation for Alternative 4.2 represents a 35 percent decrease for the weekday AM peak hour
trips and 29 percent decrease for the PM peak hour trips compared to Alternative 4.1. Given the
decrease in project trips, Alternative 4.2 would also meet the City of Seattle concurrency
requirements.
Phasing and impacts associated with the King County Site Work elements prior to construction of
Alternative 4.2 will be the same as described for Alternative 4.1.
Construction phasing and impacts associated with the completion of Alternative 4.2 will generally
be similar or less than that described in Alternative 4.1. Mitigation requirements will also be
similar as noted for Alternative 4.1.
3.17.7
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 4.3
Alternative 4.3 would be very similar to Alternative 4.1. The functional areas of the WSCC
Addition, such as exhibition halls, meeting rooms, and ballroom space are expected to be the
same under Alternative 4.3 as under Alternative 4.1. Alternative 4.3 would include one codevelopment project consisting of approximately 516,000 sf of office and approximately 10,000 sf
of street level uses, including but not limited to street-front retail on Site C above the Additions
below-grade loading facilities.
Alternative 4.3 would include a total approximately 35,000 sf of street level uses on Sites A and
C, including but not limited to street-front retail; this would be approximately 8,000 less sf than
under Alternative 4.1.
Overall vehicle trip generation under Alternative 4.3 is projected to be less than under
Alternative 4.1. As such, where appropriate, the discussion of impacts is presented relative to
Alternative 4.3. Organizationally, the same structure is presented for Alternative 4.3 analysis as
was presented for Alternative 4.1.
Draft EIS
3.17-82
Section 3.17
Transportation
Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the WSCC attendee, employee and co-development component of
Alternative 4.3 were derived using the same methodology as described previously in
Section 3.17.2 for Alternative 1.
Table 3.17-33
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips Alternative 4.3
Trip Type/Land Use
Event Attendees4
Employees/Vendors
Retail Use -29,000
Daily Trips1
AM Peak Hour2
PM Peak Hour3
850 / 4,770
In
361
Out
64
Total
425
In
33
Out
487
Total
520
180 / 260
150
23
1
4
0
27
1
6
4
31
5
37
9
213
28
241
39
192
231
598
96
694
82
715
797
608
135
743
119
736
855
1,710
Office 575,000 square feet

Overall vehicle trips generated under Alternative 4.3 are estimated to be less than under
Alternative 4.1 by approximately 7 percent during weekday AM peak hour and 7 percent during
the weekday PM peak hour period, compared to Alternative 4.1.
Roadway Network
The roadway network under Alternative 4.3 includes the same revisions previously included
under Alternative 4.1 with the exception of the residential access on the west side of Terry Ave.
that is necessary as part of Alternative 4.2. Several driveways currently exist serving uses on
Sites A, B and C. With development of Alternative 4.3, several of the existing driveways would
be removed. 17 driveways currently exist serving uses on Sites A, B and C. With Alternative 4.3
a total of 4 are proposed. Similar to Alternative 4.1, three alley vacations, one on each parcel,
are proposed as part of Alternative 4.3.
Access to the on-site parking is the same for Alternative 4.3 as was disclosed for Alternative 4.1,
so overall, traffic volumes at study area intersections are expected to be less for Alternative 4.3
as compared to Alternative 4.1.

Draft EIS
3.17-83
Section 3.17
Transportation
Traffic Operations
As Alternative 4.3 would generate slightly less traffic than previously analyzed under
Alternative 4.1, its impact to traffic operations would be less than Alternative 4.1. No significant
changes in intersection or corridor operations are anticipated under this Alternative.
Traffic Safety
anticipated to be higher than under baseline conditions, but less than under Alternative 4.1.
Transit Service
Overall transit ridership impacts under Alternative 4.3 are expected to be slightly less than that
reported for Alternative 4.1.
The overall pedestrian trip generation for Alternative 4.3 is expected to total 2,100 trips during
the weekday AM peak hour and 2,940 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. This represents a
decrease of 30 percent for the weekday AM and 24 percent for the PM peak hour hours,
respectively, compared with Alternative 4.1.
Bicycle Facilities
Similar to the Alternative 4.1 assessments, Alternative 4.3 is not expected to have a significant
impact on bicycle facilities in the area. There is a significant reduction in the number of driveways
between the existing condition and Alternative 4.3. This reduction in driveways reduces the
conflict points between bicycles and vehicles.
Parking Impacts
Overall parking impacts of Alternative 4.3 would be less than those described for Alternative 4.1.
As the parking facility is consistent among Alternatives, the anticipated utilization of the on-site
facility is likely to be similar to Alternative 4.1. With a lower parking demand, the utilization of the
off-site lots is anticipated to be less than the level described by Alternative 4.1.
Ave. between Olive Way and Pine St., consistent with Alternative 4.1.

Draft EIS
3.17-84
Section 3.17
Transportation
Freight
Terry Ave. Vacation
Impacts of vacating Terry Ave. are similar under Alternative 4.3 as under Alternative 4.1. The
impacts associated with the proposed street vacation for Alternative 4.1 are described in
Section Error! Reference source not found.. The additional traffic generated by the codevelopment does not alter the general findings and conclusions in regards to the future needs
of the Terry Ave. stub or impacts associated with the proposed street vacation.
Overall impacts of the subterranean vacation of Olive Way under Alternative 4.3 would be similar
to those described for Alternative 4.1.
Alley Vacation
are similar to those described for Alternative 4.1.
A transportation concurrency analysis was conducted for Alternative 4.1 and showed that with
the development of that Alternative, City standards were met. As noted previously, overall trip
generation for Alternative 4.3 represents a 7 percent decrease for both the weekday AM and PM
peak hour. Given the decrease in project trips, Alternative 4.3 would also meet the City of Seattle
concurrency requirements.
Alternative 4.3 would be the same as described for Alternative 4.1.
Construction phasing and impacts associated with the completion Alternative 4.3 would generally
be similar or less than to that described in Alternative 4.1. Mitigation requirements will also be
similar as noted for Alternative 4.1.
3.17.8
Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 2, with the key difference being the reduction in site
area of the alley vacation located west of the Honda property in the northeast corner of Site A.
The WSCC Addition functional areas under Alternative 5 would include 240,000 sf of exhibition
halls, 110,000 sf of meeting room space, and 60,000 sf of ballroom, for a reduction of
approximately 10,000 sf compared with Alternative 1. Alternative 5 would include 14,900 sf of

Draft EIS
3.17-85
Section 3.17
Transportation
street level uses, approximately 10,000 less sf than Alternative 1 and 11,000 less sf than
Alternative 2.
Similar to Alternative 2, passenger vehicle access under Alternative 5 would occur using two
driveways to/from Olive Way only. Freight access would occur at the signalized intersection with
Terry Ave.
Overall vehicle trip generation under Alternative 5 is projected to be less than under
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Where appropriate, the discussion of impacts are presented
relative to Alternative 2. Project features such as access points and local circulation patterns are
discussed relative to Alternative 2. Organizationally, the same structure is presented for the
Alternative 5 analysis as was presented for Alternative 2.
Trip Generation
Alternative 5 were derived using the same methodology as described previously in Section
3.17-2 for Alternative 1.
Table 3.17-34
Estimated Total Vehicle Trips Alternative 5
Trip Type/Land Use
Daily Trips1
AM Peak Hour2
PM Peak Hour3
810 / 4,550
In
344
Out
61
Total
405
In
31
Out
464
Total
495
170 / 250
23
26
29
35
60
368
65
433
38
495
533
385
68
453
43
524
567
Event Attendees4
Employees/Vendors
Retail Use

Alternative 1 by approximately 5 percent during weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions and
similar when compared with Alternative 2.
Roadway Network
Unlike Alternative 1, other than modifications to the access points along the frontage of Olive
Way, no major modifications to the roadway network are proposed. No vacation of Terry Ave. is
proposed under Alternative 5. As noted previously, several driveways currently exist serving
uses on Site A. This includes several associated with CPS as well as the property located at the
Draft EIS
3.17-86
Section 3.17
Transportation
southwest corner of the Boren Ave/Olive Way intersection. With development of Alternative 5
the 6 existing driveways on Site A would be reduced to 3 with access provided in similar locations
as Alternative 2.
Access to the on-site parking is the same for Alternative 5 as evaluated for Alternative 2. The
access configuration for Alternative 5 includes two access points along Olive Way, making the
arrival and departure patterns similar to what was previously summarized for Alternative 2.
Project trip generation for Alternative 5 is estimated to total 433 trips during the weekday AM
peak hour and 533 during the weekday PM peak hour which is approximately be 10 percent higher
than for Alternative 2.
Traffic Operations
Overall, as Alternative 5 would generate less traffic than previously analyzed under
Alternative 2, its impact to traffic operations in the broader study area would be less than
Alternative 2. Additionally, as intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project are estimated
to have lower volumes under Alternative 5 compared with Alternative 2, impacts to traffic
operations at these intersections would be less than Alternative 2.
Traffic Safety
As noted in the introduction to this section, the access configuration for Alternative 5 is different
from Alternative 2 as truck access is provided via the signalized intersection at Terry Ave. while
the access to the on-site parking is provided via two unsignalized access points on the eastern
and western frontages on Olive Way. While the overall traffic volumes for the site are less, the
traffic accessing the site is no longer focused on a signalized access point. The number of access
points decreases by three compared to the existing conditions, however activity at the
unsignalized access points are higher than existing conditions. The access points can be
designed to maximize visibility to pedestrians along Olive Way, but the frequency of potential
conflicts between pedestrians traversing east/west along Olive Way would increase with this
alternative compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 1 relies on a traffic signal to minimize and
control the conflicts between the Olive Way traffic and traffic exiting the facility. Overall traffic
increases and thus general impact to the surrounding street system would increase compared to
baseline, but would be somewhat less than described for Alternative 1.
Transit Service
Overall transit ridership impacts under Alternative 5 are expected to be slightly less than that
reported for Alternative 2, as overall transit trips are expected to be less under Alternative 5.
decrease of 7 percent for the weekday AM and 10 percent for the PM peak hour hours,
respectively, compared with Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 5 is not expected
to have adverse pedestrian impacts.

Draft EIS
3.17-87
Section 3.17
Transportation
Bicycle Facilities
impact on bicycle facilities in the area. Relative to Alternative 1, the signalized controlled access
to the parking garage provides improved control as compared to the unsignalized driveways to
be developed under Alternative 5.
Parking Impacts
Overall parking impacts of Alternative 5 would be less than those described for Alternative 1.
As the parking facility is consistent among Alternatives, the anticipated utilization of the on-site
facility is likely to be similar to Alternative 1 With a lower parking demand, the utilization of the
off-site lots is anticipated to be less than the level described by Alternative 1 However overall
differences would be minor; net impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 1.
Similar to Alternative 2, there would be two parking garage access points proposed with
Alternative 5 on Olive Way, located at the eastern and western ends of the WSCC Addition.
Both access points would function with two-way traffic and operate as unsignalized intersections,
with the garage approaches operating under stop-controlled conditions.
Freight
Under Alternative 5, truck/freight access would occur via a south leg of the Terry Ave/Olive Way
intersection, the same as under Alternative 2. Access to the loading docks would be controlled
via the existing traffic signal. Inbound and outbound access for freight would be consistent with
that described previously for Alternative 2. Impacts along Terry Ave. during the weekday PM
peak hour would be similar and changes to the Green Street improvements are applicable to this
Alternative as well.
The transportation concurrency analysis conducted for Alternative 1 showed that with its
development, City of Seattle concurrency standards would be met. Overall trip generation with
Alternative 5 would be less than with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 during the PM peak hour;
therefore, Alternative 5 would also meet the Citys concurrency requirements.
Alternative 5 will be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Draft EIS
3.17-88
Section 3.17
Transportation

Construction phasing and impacts associated with the completion Alternative 5 will generally be
the similar to that described in Alternative 2.
3.17.9
Impacts of No Action Alternative
For purpose of this analysis, the No Action Alternative reflects the development level presented
in the Downtown Height and Density EIS12. The Downtown EIS assumed that future use at the
project site would consist of 900 residential units, 600,000 square feet of office space and an 800room / 400,000-square-foot hotel.
Downtown EIS Traffic Volumes
Trip generation estimates for the No Action Alternative were developed using similar
methodology described in Section 3.17.2. Vehicle trips for the residential, office and hotel land
uses are shown in Table 3.17-35.
Table 3.17-35
Vehicle Trips No Action
Office 600,000 square feet
1,990
AM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
249
33
282
Residential 900 units
1,320
21
85
106
79
43
122
450
14
10
24
25
26
51
3,760
284
128
412
150
291
441
Land Use
Hotel 400 rooms

Total
Daily
Trips
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
46
222
268
Other Transportation Impacts

The No Action Alternative would generate less traffic than under Alternative 1. The Downtown
EIS described other transportation impacts associated with traffic operations, transit, and parking.
3.17.10
MITIGATION
The following summarizes the recommended mitigation measures for the WSCC Addition
focusing on the short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts of the project.
Mitigation measures, both operational and programmatic are identified for each of the
transportation elements identified in this report. Generally, mitigation measures are consistent
among the alternatives evaluated in this report. Differences exist in the areas of construction
impacts and pro-rata contribution to the Denny Way and South Lake Union Intersections. Where
applicable, differences in mitigation between alternatives are clearly delineated.
12
Parsons Brinckerhoff, March 2002.

Draft EIS
3.17-89
Section 3.17
Transportation
Mitigation of King County Site Work / Construction Impacts

To accommodate the required King County Site Work activities, transit circulation to/from the
DSTT is revised. In addition, at the King County Site Work phase, layover space on the existing
CPS will be removed. The existing layover space is proposed to be temporarily relocated to
Convention Pl. between Pike St. and Union St. To accommodate the revised circulation patterns
of the buses and the temporary layover space on Convention Pl. modifications to the roadway
network is required. These modifications include:
Modifications to channelization and signage at the following intersections is anticipated:

Seventh Ave. / Union St., Seventh Ave. / Pike St., and Ninth Ave. / Pike St. to
accommodate the routing of buses from Convention Pl. back to the Pike St. ramp.
Convert Ninth Ave. between Olive Way and Pike St. to two-way traffic and restrict
northbound general purpose traffic to transit only to facilitate transit movements and
minimize delays to and from the DSTT.

Prior to commencing construction of any build alternative, the prime contractor would prepare a
Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the City of Seattle. This plan would
document the following measures:
Detailed truck haul-routes to and from the site.
Peak hour restrictions for construction truck traffic and how those restrictions would be
communicated and enforced.
Further details about truck staging areas. Initial staging areas are identified in Appendix
H, Section 3.16.
Construction employee parking areas.
Measures to reduce construction worker trips such as rideshare, shuttles, carpool, transit
passes or other related programs.
Lane, sidewalk or bike lane closures that may be needed during utility or building
construction. A plan detailing temporary traffic control, channelization, and signage
measures should be provided for affected facilities.
Construction or staging needs that would affect King County Metro transit stops. The
contractor must work with Metro staff to arrange temporary stop closures or temporary
layover areas, as needed.
Other elements or details may be required in the Construction Management Plan to satisfy
City street use permit requirements.
Mitigation of Long-Term Impacts

Potential mitigation measures for each of the development alternatives are summarized below. In
addition to alternative-specific mitigation, information is presented regarding the basic framework
for the Transportation Management Program which is applicable to all Alternatives. Other

Draft EIS
3.17-90
Section 3.17
Transportation
programmatic measures such as a dock management plan and parking management plan are
also noted as they apply specifically to the freight impacts and parking impacts, respectively.
Transportation Management Plan
Consistent with City of Seattle requirements, a TMP will be developed for the proposed
WSCC Addition. Transportation Management Plan strategies to reduce reliance on single
occupant vehicles during peak periods can include providing mobility options, incentives for
making travel decisions, and marketing information. These strategies are outlined in Error!
Reference source not found. would apply to all alternatives evaluated.
Mobility Options
Transit service
Carsharing / Taxis /
Transportation Network
Companys
Pedestrian access
Bike routes/bikeshare
Shuttle routes
Incentives
Transit passes
Ridesharing/HOV
Parking pricing
Vehicle restrictions
Wayfinding
Congestion/parking
information
Lane management
Transportation Management Strategies

Mobility
Promote employee programs to discourage on-site parking and promote transit and
car/van pool and bike use.
Inform visitors of bike share locations and bicycling routes -The locations of existing
Pronto Cycle Share stations in the vicinity of the proposed Addition are shown in Error!
Reference source not found..
Define and support new bike parking locations Within the WSCC campus identify
locations for bike parking and storage that are easy to access.

Draft EIS
3.17-91
Section 3.17
Transportation
Pronto Cycle Share Locations

Incentives
Promote Transit Use (ORCA Card and Transit Passes) for visitors Through event
programs, and as part of event promotions encourage visitors and event attendees to use
transit.
Use event materials to promote transit access (free rides) from Sea-Tac Airport.
Support development of next generation ORCA In the next generation of ORCA,

promote use for all transport modes (parking, Pronto, transit, etc.) incorporate into a
downloadable app for visitors that provides incentives/disincentives that balance with
availability of transportation systems.
Manage WSCC parking/pricing to reduce SOV access to events Special pricing,

parking discounts for carpool.
Coordinate with Commute Seattle Support Commute Seattle to enhance information

sharing about construction closures and large events that may occur at the WSCC Addition.
Support for transit and bike promotional events Invest in Commute Seattle, Bike Month,
and Transit Month events to promote and sustain those modes, enhancing safety.
Support City monitoring and data collection programs (such as Acyclica installation or
other monitoring measures).
Promote real-time modal information within the WSCC properties (using Transit
Screen or similar software).

Draft EIS
3.17-92
Section 3.17
Transportation
Alternative 1 (Preferred)
Roadway Network Impacts
Several modifications to the roadway network are proposed as elements of Alternative 1. These
modifications include the vacation of Terry Ave., the conversion of Ninth Ave. to two-way traffic
between Pike St. and Olive Way, vacation of three alleys, and elimination of several existing
driveways on the three development sites (Sites A, B, and C). In all cases, the proposed
modifications would not trigger the need for mitigation measures.
Traffic Operations Impacts
General increases in intersection and corridor delay are anticipated within the study area as a
result of the increased traffic volumes. During the weekday AM peak hour, eight intersections are
forecasted to operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse in baseline conditions, with the same
number forecasted to operate at LOS E or worse with Alternative 1. During the weekday PM
peak hour, 10 intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E or worse in baseline conditions,
and 11 are forecasted to operate at LOS E or worse with Alternative 1.
Improvements to intersections in the Denny Triangle are part of Seattle Department of
Transportations (SDOT) Active Traffic Management Project. In addition, long range multi-modal
improvement projections have been identified for the SLU area. Impacts to the Denny Triangle
projects and the SLU area could be mitigated through a proportionate share contribution
towards City identified projects. The potential level of contribution will be determined through
coordination with the City of Seattle.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Impacts
Based on a review of the impacts to the pedestrian and bicycle facilities with Alternative 1, no
mitigation would be required and none identified. Alternative 1 includes expansion of the existing
sidewalks along the property frontage, which would be adequate to accommodate the forecast
volumes. In addition, a detailed analysis of the sidewalk capacity between the Addition and the
existing facility was conducted and demonstrated that adequate capacity exists.
To accommodate the inbound movements of trucks accessing the three staging stalls, a building
opening of approximately 75 feet would be required to accommodate the turning movements from
Boren Ave. An opening of this width would impact the pedestrian realm and create a larger conflict
zone between pedestrians and traffic into the WSCC loading docks. To mitigate the impacts to
the public realm, the building opening would be reduced to approximately 49 feet, resulting in two
staging stalls for the large trucks. The size of the staging area would remain the same so that
smaller trucks could be accommodated, but the opening width reduced improving the pedestrian
experience. To mitigate for the reduced staging area capacity, additional signage would be added
to the exterior of the building noting when the loading dock is at capacity and trucks need to loop
back around.
Freight Impacts
As discussed in the report, freight activity to/from the site is anticipated to use the primary arterials
such as Boren Ave, Howell St, and Mercer St. to access the site. During PM peak hours when
traffic volumes on Howell St are the highest and congestion exists, trucks are anticipated to travel
north on Terry Ave to Virginia St, where they would make a right-turn to ultimately access Fairview
Draft EIS
3.17-93
Section 3.17
Transportation
northbound. Several improvements to the future design of the Terry Ave Green Street elements
have been identified. In addition to the improvements along Terry Ave, intersection improvements
are necessary to accommodate the turning path of the large trucks. Intersection improvements
include the elimination of the parking on the north edge of Virginia St east and west of the Terry
Ave intersection so the channelization can be revised.
A dock management plan will also be prepared for the project. The purpose of the dock
management plan is to outline operational procedures which will be used to minimize impacts to
the adjacent arterials such as Boren Ave, Howell St, and Olive Way. This plan would identify
protocol for use of traffic management staff to control traffic during event load-in/load-out periods,
limitations of truck staging on adjacent arterials, specific routing restrictions, and thresholds for
implementing marshalling procedures.
Transit Impacts
With the development of the WSCC Addition, the use of Convention Place Station by Metro for
layover space will not be available. These buses will be removed from the site and relocated while
the DSTT is still being used by both buses and light rail. Long term layover options for King County
Metro will be investigated and studied along with the City of Seattle.
Parking Mitigation
Project alternatives that have a co-development element would require parking management
measures to allocate parking among WSCC's three parking facilities: the main garage, Freeway
Park garage, and the WSCC Addition garage. In addition, physical improvements to pedestrian
facilities and wayfinding connecting WSCCs existing garages and the Addition should be made.
The following lists various strategies that should be considered as part of a comprehensive
parking management plan:
Parking Management Strategies
Reduce monthly parking. Pre-paid, fixed-price monthly parking for downtown

commuters should be eliminated. This could be replaced with new parking models that
charge by day, with black-out periods on days when commuter spaces are needed for
event use. Commuters could still be provided access to the garage, but at a higher daily
rate charged to event attendees.
Reduce WSCC employee parking demand. Use transportation demand management

strategies, such as subsidized transit passes, to encourage more employees to use
alternative modes of transportation.
Require WSCC employees to use Freeway Park garage. For employees who must
drive, they should be required to park in the Freeway Park garage.
Valet park garage. For gala events with high customer service expectations, valet parking
could be used to increase parking supply at the WSCC Addition. It may be possible to
valet park in otherwise unused space, such as the loading dock area when it is not in use,
or utilize nearby office building parking.

Draft EIS
3.17-94
Section 3.17
Transportation
Physical Improvements to Existing Garages and Connectors

There are many physical improvements that could be made to better connect the two existing
WSCC garages to the Addition, and to make them more enticing to use. Potential improvements
are described below:
Improve pedestrian wayfinding to, from, and within existing garages. The existing
wayfinding system should be extended to the new WSCC Addition with color-coded
pathways and signage.
Improve lighting and security in existing garages. As described above, parking

management strategies would likely move employees and/or co-development residents to
the existing WSCC garages. These types of users often access their personal vehicles
alone and later at night than typical event patrons. Adding lighting and security features
within the garages (e.g., call boxes like those used on college campuses) could improve
the sense of personal security within those garages.
Implement parking space tracking equipment and web-based information tools.

There are many systems available that can track available parking, by facility, by floor,
and even by space. The City of Seattles e-Park system is one that tracks by facility, and
lists available spaces at garage entry points and on several web-based/ mobile platforms.
The existing WSCC garage is already part of this system. More advanced vehicle tracking
within a garage may be able to provide detailed information about availability of certain
types of spaces, for example, if a separate parking area is provided for co-development
employees.
Improve motorist wayfinding. To improve the customers experience, wayfinding

improvements that direct motorists to and from the existing WSCC garages using a unified
system of static and dynamic signs that are tied to parking availability information
described in #5 above. In addition, the wayfinding program can be integrated with webbased tools and mobile applications (e.g., Google maps).
Alternative 2
Overall trip generation for Alternative 2 is less than noted for Alternative 1. As a result, mitigation
measures noted for Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 2. This includes mitigation
measures related to parking management strategies and the displacement of the Metro layover
areas on CPS.
Alternative 3
Overall trip generation for Alternative 3 is less than noted for Alternative 1. As a result, mitigation
measures noted for Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 3. This includes mitigation
measures related to parking management strategies and the displacement of the Metro layover
areas on the CPS.
Alternative 4.1
Overall trip generation for Alternative 4.1 is greater than Alternative 1 due to the planned codevelopment on the north parcels. During the AM peak hour the increase is anticipated to be on
Draft EIS
3.17-95
Section 3.17
Transportation
the order of 64 percent (290 trips). During the weekday PM peak hour, the increase is anticipated
to be on the order of 51 percent (288 trips). As summarized for Alternative 1, contributions to
several of the key intersections in the Denny Triangle are could be provided to support the Active
Traffic Management System that is planned for the area. In addition, contributions to the SLU subarea could also be provided to mitigate general impacts in that area.
With the co-development elements included in this Alternative, additional parking management
strategies are recommended. These strategies are in addition to those previously identified for
Alternative 1.
Locate parking for co-development residents in existing garages. Co-development

residents are estimated to need 170 parking spaces, and vehicles are often stored for
long periods of time making them nearly impossible to share with other users. Residential
parking could be priced to encourage use of the least convenient spaces at Freeway Park
garage and/or the WSCC Main Garage.
Use price to encourage co-development office parkers to use existing garages.

Parking in the WSCC Addition should be priced to discourage its use by office tenants,
and alternative, lower-cost parking could be offered in the WSCC Main or Freeway Park
garages. The cost could fluctuate by day, if needed, depending on the expected demand,
and tenant parking should be assessed on a per-day basis. Web-based tools where
tenants can find information about cost and availability should be provided for this type of
program.
Restrict parking by co-development office tenants on high-demand days. If pricing

alone does not work, tenant parking in the WSCC Addition garage could be outright
restricted on certain high-demand days. This is similar to programs now in effect near the
stadiums (e.g., Mariners Opening Day, or Monday night football games). Advance
notification should be provided related on black-out days. It is estimated that there could
be up to 20 black-out days per year.
During major events where the parking demand for co-development uses are pushed out of the
WSCC garages, utilization in other garages in the immediate vicinity is anticipated to increase.
Based on utilization studies of these garages, adequate capacity exits in the area to
accommodate the demand.
Alternative 4.2
mitigation measures noted for Alternative 4.1 would be similar to what is required for
Alternative 4.2. This includes mitigation measures related to parking management strategies and
the displacement of the Metro layover areas on the CPS.
Alternative 4.3
mitigation measures noted for Alternative are applicable to Alternative 4.3. This includes
mitigation measures related to parking management strategies and the displacement of the Metro
layover areas on the CPS. With the lower trip generation, contributions to the Denny Triangle
improvements and SLU improvements would be reduced as compared to Alternative 4.1.
Draft EIS
3.17-96
Section 3.17
Transportation
Alternative 5
Overall trip generation for Alternative 5 is similar to that noted for Alternative 2. Overall mitigation
measures noted for Alternative 1 are applicable to Alternative 5 based on the identified impacts.
This includes mitigation measures related to parking management strategies and the
displacement of the Metro layover areas on the CPS. With the lower trip generation associated
with Alternative 5, contributions to the Denny Triangle improvements and SLU improvements
would be reduced as compared to Alternative 1.
3.17.11
SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Secondary and cumulative impacts on area roadways are included in the analysis of direct
impacts. In addition, there is a potential for cumulative impacts due to the combined effects of
traffic being generated by build-out of the project and construction. This potential impact could be
mitigated by scheduling construction activities such that arrival and departure of construction
traffic occurs outside the peak hours.
3.17.12
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Traffic volumes on the street system surrounding the WSCC Addition will increase as a result of
the project. As noted in the analysis several of the intersections and corridors surrounding the site
are operating at LOS E/LOS F conditions. The increase in traffic will further increase congestion
levels at these locations. Key elements of a comprehensive TMP have been outlined in the EIS
as mitigation and would be developed and approved as part of the Citys requirements. Annual
monitoring of the TMP is required. If goals and targets are not met, on-going refinement would be
necessary. The TMP framework also identifies several strategies that are targeted for conference
attendees to reduce and eliminate the use of single occupant automobiles when attending the
conferences.
With the proposed WSCC Addition, the use of the surface streets surrounding the site for truck
traffic will increase. The DEIS identifies several street and intersection modifications that would
be necessary to accommodate the travel routes for the trucks and mitigate the impact on travel
routes. This includes minor modifications to the Terry Ave improvements between Howell St. and
Virginia St. as well as intersection modifications at the Terry Ave./Virginia St. intersection.
With Alternative 1 and Alternative 4.1, impacts to Olive Way would occur as it is necessary to
construct a portion of the project within the subterranean portion of the Olive Way right of way.
Olive Way serves a s a major eastbound connection to I-5 and Capitol Hill. As mitigation, several
methods of construction have been identified and evaluated within this report to construct this
portion of the development and maintain some vehicular capacity on Olive Way during
construction. The three methods have varying degrees of impact to schedule and temporary Olive
Way capacity. The degree to which these three methods impact the significance of the
construction impacts vary.
With the construction of the WSCC Addition on the CPS site, buses would cease operations in
the DSTT tunnel no earlier than September 2018. This is earlier than the formally anticipated
spring 2021 end of joint operations. Due to the earlier exit from the tunnel, there will be an increase
of transit on the service streets. Several bus routes will be eliminated in the future once light rail
service is operating to/from the north. The shift from the DSTT to the service streets will increase
transit delay and travel times until improvements and strategies identified in the City Center
Draft EIS
3.17-97
Section 3.17
Transportation
Mobility Plan that is underway have been identified and implemented. A list of local improvements
identified by the City of Seattle, King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit have
also been identified and funding allocated, with implementation in 2016/2017. These
improvements would offset the impacts to transit service.
The construction of the WSCC Addition would eliminate transit layover areas currently provided
on-site. Based on discussions with King County Metro, while there is more capacity at the site,
the current peak demand is 6 - 8 layover spaces. While the buses are operating in the DSTT,
temporary layover space would be provided on Convention Place between Pike St. and Union St.
as mitigation. Several roadway and intersection modifications were outlined in the report that
prioritize transit movements between the DSTT access on Ninth Ave and the layover area on
Convention Place, and back into the tunnel. Additional travel time would be required for the buses
laying over. However, since these are layover routes, no impacts to transit riders would result.
With the mitigation identified, there would be no long term Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts on the system associated with the day to day operations of the facility. Short-term
construction impacts associated with regular construction activity is addressed through the
construction management plan. Pedestrian and vehicle connectivity along Olive Way will be
impacted during the construction process. These impacts are temporary in nature with the level
of significance dependent on the final method approved by the City of Seattle.

Draft EIS
3.17-98
Section 3.17
Transportation
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Camlin Hotel. 1999. Report on Landmark Designation. (January 12, 1999).
Dermody, Jim, Captain; Seattle Police Department.
(September 2015).
2015.
Personal Communication.
Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors. 2015. Custom Apartment Vacancy Report.

Federal Transit Administration and Sound Transit. 2006. North Link Light Rail Transit Project
Seattle, Washington Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. (Issued April
2006).
GeoEngineers, 2015. Geotechnical Master Use Permit Report. (June 30, 2015).
GeoEngineers, 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Washington State Convention
Center Expansion Parcels, Cassieford and Sound Transit Properties, Portions of Blocks 31,
33, 43, 44, 49 and 52, Seattle, Washington. (December 20, 2013).
Hart Crowser. 1999. Limited Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Honda of
Seattle Properties, Seattle, Washington. (October 25, 1999).
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip Generation Manual. (Published 2012).
Kidder Matthews. 2015. Real Estate Market Review. King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston and
Kitsap Counties.
King County. 2014. Buildable Lands Report. Approved by King County Growth Management
Planning Council (July 23, 2014).
King County Metro. 2015. Transit website. (June 2015).
King County Metro. 2015. Trip Planner. (June 2015).
Laughlin, Jim; WSDOT Air, Noise, and Energy Program Technical Manager; email of 5/18/2015
announcing the release of WASIST 3.0.
Lawson, t. 2001. Building Aerodynamics. Imperial College Press, London.
Norwalk, Tom; Seattle Convention & Visitors Bureau. 2015.
Seattle, city of. Seattle Municipal Code,
https://www.municode.com/library/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code
City of Seattle, Seattle Municipal Code, Retrieved from
https://www.municode.com/library/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=13857,
February 2016.

Draft EIS
R-1
References
Seattle, city of. 2015. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan Implementation Plan (2015-2019), (Adopted
March 2015).
Seattle, city of. 2015. Roosevelt to Downtown High-Capacity Transit Study [Presentation],
Published December 2015.
Seattle, city of. 2014. Seattle Bicycle Master Plan. (Adopted April 2014).
Seattle, city of. 2009. Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan. (Adopted September 2009).
Seattle, city of. 2003. Seattle Arterial Classifications Planning Map.
Seattle, city of; Department of Community Development. 1980. Light and Glare Study, Phase
II.
Seattle, city of; Department of Community Development. 1979. Light and Glare Study, Phase I
Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development. SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet.
Version 1.7.
Seattle, city of. Department of Planning and Development (DPD). 2015. Urban Center / Village
Residential Growth Report. (Last updated July 1, 2015)
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpdd017580
.pdf
Seattle, city of; Department of Construction and Inspections (formerly Department of Planning
and Development). 2009. Directors Rule 5-2009 Transportation Concurrency Project
Review System. (Adopted April 2009).
Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development. 2005. Seattle Comprehensive Plan.
(January 2005).
Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development.
Density Changes Final EIS. (January 2005).
2005.
Downtown Height and
Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development. 2005. Downtown Height and
Density Changes Final EIS. Appendix D Preferred Alternative Project List. (January
2005).
Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development.
Density Changes Draft EIS. (November 2003).
2003.
Downtown Height and
Density Changes Draft EIS. Appendix G Further Analysis of Development Capacity.
(November 2003).
Density Changes Draft EIS. Appendix O Parking Technical Report. (November 2003).
Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development. 1999. Design Review Guidelines for
Downtown Development.
Draft EIS
R-2
References
Seattle, city of; Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) and Department of
Neighborhoods (DON). 1995. Interdepartmental Agreement on Review of Historic Buildings
During SEPA Review. (July 21, 1995).
Seattle, city of; Office of Housing. 2013. Seattle Housing Authority and Data Self-reported by
Organizations. (December, 2013).
Seattle, city of; Department of Transportation; Traffic Management Division.
Seattle Traffic Flow Map.
2015.
2013
Seattle, city of. Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2015. Park Classification System. Department
Policy & Procedure. No. 060 P5.11.1. (January 9, 2015).
Seattle, city of. Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2013. 2013-2018 Asset Management Plan.
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/Publications/asset_management_plan.pdf
Seattle, city of. Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2011. An Assessment of Gaps in Seattles Open
Space Network: The 2011 Gap Report Update. (May 13, 2011).
Seattle, city of. Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2011. City of Seattle Parks and Recreation Plan
2011. Resolution 31336. (Adopted November 28, 2011).
Seattle, city of. Seattle Parks and Recreation. Seattle Park List. Accessed July 2015.
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/listall.asp.
Seattle Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2013. Meeting Planners Guide 2013.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1986. Final Geotechnical Report Stations and Pine Street Line
Structure, Downtown Seattle Transit Project.
Soligo, M.J., Irwin, P.A., Williams, C.J. and Schuyler, G.D. 1998. A Comprehensive
Assessment of Pedestrian Comfort Including Thermal Effects. Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.77&78.
Speiregen, Paul D. 1965Urban Design: The Architecture of Towns and Cities. McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. (Published 2010).
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. (Published 2000).
Tree Solutions, Inc. 2015. Table of Trees - Washington State Convention Center Expansion.
(June 26, 2015).
U.S. Department of Commerce; Census Bureau.
Survey.
2013.
2009-2013 American Community
U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census Redistricting Data
(Public Law 94-171) Summary File.

Draft EIS
R-3
References
U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

2005. Atmospheric Data for Seattle, WA.
U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
1992. Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data -- Seattle, WA.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2013. Community Planning and
Development: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/index.cfm.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997.
National Park Service. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National
Register Bulletin 15.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1982. Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise
and Construction Noise. Federal-aid Highway Program Manual: Volume 7, Chapter 7,
Section 3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
EPA 550/9-74-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and
Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. NTID300.1.
Washington, state of. Revised Code of Washington Chapter 43.21C. State Environmental
Policy Act.
Washington, state of. Revised Code of Washington Chapter 70.105D. Model Toxic Control Act.
Washington, state of. Washington Administrative Code (WAC). http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/
Washington, state of. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11 SEPA Guidelines
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=197-11
Washington, state of. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-600 When to Use
Existing Environmental Documents.
Washington, state of. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-635 Incorporation by
Reference - Procedures.
Washington, state of.
Agency.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-714 Definition -
Washington, state of; Department of Transportation. 2015. Washington State Intersection

Screening Tool (WASIST), Version 3.0. (June 2015).
Washington State Department of Transportation.
Procedures. October 2012.

Draft EIS
R-4
2012. 2011 Traffic Noise Policy and
References
Washington, state of; Department of Transportation. 2009. WASIST 2.0 User's Manual. (June
2009).
Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District. 2015a. Resolution 2015-1.
Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District. 2015b. Resolution 2015-2.
Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District. 2010. Resolution 2010-13.
Washington State Convention Center. 2015. 2014 Annual Report.
Washington State Convention Center. 2014. 2013 Annual Report.
Washington State Convention & Trade Center. 1996a. Proposed Expansion Washington State
Convention & Trade Center Seattle, Washington Draft EIS. (April 1996).
Washington State Convention & Trade Center. 1996b. Proposed Expansion Washington State
Convention & Trade Center Seattle, Washington Final EIS. (September 1996).
Willanger, Linda; Washington State Convention Center. 2015. Personal communication.

Draft EIS
R-5
References

WSCC Addition Draft EIS

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

WSCC Addition Draft EIS

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

February 26, 2016

Washington State Convention Center

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

identify measures to mitigate environmental impacts that are identified; and

identify unavoidable significant adverse impacts that may occur.

Washington State Convention Center

Washington State Convention Center Addition

Eight alternatives are analyzed in this DEIS, comprising

Two Preferred Alternatives are proposed: Alternative 1

Seattle Municipal Code 23.49.036

Washington State Convention Center Addition

alternative would be a 1,499,700-sq.-ft. WSCC Addition,

Alternative 2 Alternative With Site A-Development

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

Washington State Convention Center Addition

Alternative 6 No Action Alternative -- This alternative

This amount includes square footage on Site A and Site C.

Washington State Convention Center Addition

SEPA Lead Agency

Washington State Convention Center11

EIS Contact Person

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

Preliminary analysis indicates that the following approvals

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Washington State Convention Center is a King County Public Facilities District.

Washington State Convention Center Addition

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Department of Labor & Industries

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

Washington State Convention Center Addition

Seattle King County Department of Health

Seattle Design Commission

Department of Construction and Inspections14

proposed WSCC Addition

Certificates of Occupancy for the

proposed WSCC Addition

Electrical Permits for the

proposed WSCC Addition

Structural Permit for the TPSS pad

proposed WSCC Addition

Sign Permits for the proposed WSCC Addition

Washington State Convention Center Addition

Department of Construction and Inspections

Authors and Principal

Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan

Seattle City Light

Seattle Public Utilities

This WSCC Addition DEIS has been prepared under the

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC

LMN EIS alternatives, project design, aesthetics (input

Transpo Group, Inc. transportation, circulation,

Gustafson Guthrie Nichol landscape design;

Heffron Transportation, Inc. -- parking;

MKA water, sewer, stormwater;

Washington State Convention Center Addition

ARUP electrical power, natural gas,

RAMBOLL / ENVIRON air quality, greenhouse gas

Skanska USA Building and Hunt Construction Group

Tree Solutions, Inc. tree survey.

Washington State Convention Center

Date of Issuance of this