Item No.      70 attach
Date of Meeting   March 8, 2016

V
Port m
of Seattle
November 13, 2015

City of Seattle, Dept. of Planning and Development
Attn: John Shaw, Senior Transportation Planner
PO. Box 34019
Seattle, WA 98124-4019
Via e-mail: John.Shaw(QSeattle.Gov

Re:   Port of Seattle Comments on the proposed Seattle Arena Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement; DPD project #3014195

Dear John:

The Port of Seattle has reviewed the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Seattle Arena (October 29, 2015) and is disappointed that the analysis still fails to adequately address
the probable signicant adverse environmental impacts of the project, and further, fails to adequately
evaluate alternatives that would avoid such impacts.

The Seattle Arena EIS Addendum fails to address vehicular capacity reductions associated with
project

In previous letters, the Port has expressed concerns that the proposed SoDo Arena will cause
unacceptable and irrevocable adverse impacts to the transportation network that supports the Port and
the Duwamish Manufacturing/ Industrial Center. In addition to causing increased trafc associated with
events at the New Arena, the project will permanently reduce the existing street capacity on Occidental
Avenue S and S Holgate St, and potentially on 1St Avenue S, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, for
general purpose, freight and emergency vehicles. The New Arena requires the elimination of S
Occidental Avenue, which is one of only two through-streets located between the BNSF's mainline
tracks and its Seattle International Gateway (SIG) railyard. Elimination of Occidental Avenue will
exacerbate congestion along 1St Avenue S, one of the primary freight arterials in the region. The EIS
Addendum discloses that further reductions in capacity are also probable along both S Holgate Street
and 1St Avenue S, yet the EIS Addendum fails to evaluate such changes. It states that

"Separatelyfrom the proposed Seattle Arena project, the City 's Seattle Department of
Transportation (SDOT) is considering design changes to Holgate Street between Ist
Avenue S and 3rdAvenue S. The traic analysis contained in the Draft and Final EIS
was based on the existing lane congurationfor this portion ofHolgate. The existing
lane conguration includesve lanes; two east bound, and three westbound (one right-
turn only, one through, and one left-turn only) between 1st Avenue S and Occidental

Mr. John Shaw, SDOT
November 13, 2015
Page 2

Avenue S. It transitions tofour lanes (two eastbound and two westbound) where it
crosses the railroad tracks. Dra' design drawings show various potential realignments,
including a design that would reduce the number oflanes to three lanes. At the time of
preparation ofthis Addendum, no decision has been made by SDOT as to thetture
design or alignment ofHolgate Street. Any changes to Holgate Street will be made
independently ofthe Seattle Arena project, and SDOT's decision-makingprocess will
include an analysis ofpotential changes to traic capacity andow that could result
from alternative alignments and lane congurations. "

The Port rejects the notion that the reduction in lane capacity on S Holgate Street could be considered an
"Independent Project." The only reason for changing the lane conguration is to accommodate the
pedestrian bridge necessary for the Arena project to provide safe pedestrian access across the multiple
railroad tracks. Instead, it should be characterized as a "closely related" proposal under SEPA that is
considered in conjunction with the proposal for the New Arena. WAC 197-11060(3)(b)(i) and (ii).
SDOT has never independently proposed such a pedestrian bridge, nor is it considered in any City
Capital Improvement Program or other planning document. It is therefore part of the Arena project itself
and must be evaluated, including the impacts on the Duwamish trafc system.

The Port is also very concerned about evaluating the impacts of the pedestrian bridge in isolation. Since
the pedestrian bridge is a required element of the Arena project, it is reasonable to assume that some of
the space needed to accommodate it should be provided on the Arena site by relocating the sidewalk
onto a property easement. This is a common solution that other development project use so that a
project's frontage improvements do not reduce the function of an adjacent street.

S Holgate Street is a critical east-west connection in the Duwamish Industrial area, 1 of only 6 streets
that cross the railroad tracks between Royal Brougham Way and S Spokane Street. In addition, it will
likely be required to serve as the primary detour route when SDOT constructs the S Lander Street
Overpass project, which is a key project in the successful Move Seattle levy. Reducing the capacity of
S Holgate Street to accommodate the Arena will exacerbate congestion already made worse by the
vacation of Occidental Avenue S, and could extend vehicle queues resulting in congestion on 1St and 4th
Avenues, and increasing the chance that vehicles get stuck on the many train tracks on this corridor.

The EIS Addendum recommended that the sidewalk adjacent to the Arena on 1St Avenue S be
substantially widened from the previous analysis. However, it is unclear whether this wider sidewalk
(nearly 27-feet in total width including the buffer areas) would further encroach into the 1St Avenue S
vehicular capacity. The EIS Addendum states that the sidewalk "may be located within the public right-
ofway (public sidewalk), or on a combination ofpublic sidewalk andprivate property. " (EIS
Addendum page 1-3.) In the past, SDOT has tried to repurpose the capacity on 1St Avenue S by
eliminating the center two-way left turn lane, an action that was never executed due to the signicant
adverse impacts to local property access and neighborhood circulation. Such a change at the New Arena
would substantially affect access to the BNSF '5 North SIG Yard, which supports Port and industrial
operations. In order for the EIS to be adequate, it should disclose the likely adverse environmental
impacts associated with the New Arena's 1St Avenue S frontage improvements.

Mr. John Shaw, SDOT
November 13, 2015
Page 3

Loss of Occidental Avenue S is Unacceptable

The Port has submitted many comments related to the vacation of Occidental Avenue S, and continues
to believe that loss of this street would cause irreversible negative impacts to the transportation system
in SoDo and the region. Despite that fact that the City has prepared an EIS, SEIS, and addendum to the
EIS, it has still failed to adequately identify and analyze these likely adverse environmental impacts in
the environmental review process. Please see our letter to Ms. Beverly Barnett, "Street vacation request
submitted for the Seattle Arena (Clerk File 312905), June 22, 2015. In summary, Occidental Avenue S
provides a variety of functions, around the clock, every day of the year, only some of which are
addressed in the FEIS Section 3.8.2.10. The issues that have not yet been addressed include:

a.  Occidental Avenue S is currently the relief-valve for congestion on lst Avenue S and its
intersection with S Atlantic Street. Loss of S Occidental Ave's capacity will exacerbate
congestion on lst Avenue S and the intersection of lst Ave S and S Atlantic Street around the
clock. Yet, that intersection operates at LOS F and has no known remedies. The FEIS Section
3.8.2.10 presents the trafc information, but does not address the likely impacts of additional
trafc owing to that intersection. Nor does it address the likely improvements and design
changes that would be necessary on Massachusetts if the City grants this street vacation.

b.  Vacation of Occidental has regional implications that the City has failed to properly evaluate
during the environmental review process. The lst Avenue S and S Atlantic Street corridor
provide the most critical connection for trafc entering or exiting the city to the south, affecting
freeway connections (SR519, I-5/I90 and SR99) and freeway access from the Duwamish MIC,
NW Seattle and downtown for any vehicles and especially trucks moving between the freeways
and the Port or railyards.

c.  Occidental Avenue S provides an escape route for vehicles that are blocked by long trains on S
Holgate Street: it provides the route to access the Edgar Martinez Drive overpass ofthe mainline
tracks. This includes access for emergency vehicles at a train crossing blockage.

d.  Occidental Avenue S is an important south-bound egress route for pedestrians aer M's and
Seahawks games. If it is vacated, those pedestrians would be forced out to lst Avenue 8.... Loss
of vehicle carrying capacity of lst Avenue would exacerbate the already congested conditions.

e.  Occidental Avenue S is often used by trucks staging for events at the stadia. No alternative for
this function has been proposed.

f.   Loss of Occidental Avenue S also reduces the public safety by reducing access options for rst-
responder vehicles to enter or depart the already congested area.

Clearly the proposed vacation of Occidental Ave S has signicant adverse environmental impacts on the
public health, welfare and safety. The City's environmental review process, including the FEIS, has
failed to dene or quantify these impacts sufciently, nor does it properly identify mitigation measures
needed to address the likely adverse environmental impacts of the proposal. The City's environmental
review process, and other supporting documents to date, has failed to clearly identify the public benet
for the proposed street vacation. Mitigation measures addressing the project impacts must be accounted

Mr. John Shaw, SDOT
November 13. 2015
Page 4

for separately, and in addition to, any mitigation measures necessary for impacts of operation ofthe
proposed arena.

Project Mitigation is still undefined, and the impacts of mitigation are not analyzed

The guiding principle for determining the adequacy of an EIS is the "rule of reason." Weyerhaeuser v
Pierce Coung, 124 Wn. 2d 26, 873 P. 2d 498 319941. In the Weyerhaeuser case, the court held the EIS
was inadequate because it failed to contain a sufcient discussion of alternative for a solid waste
handling facility. As in the Weyerhaeuser case, the FEIS does not sufciently identify the alternatives
to the proposal. It also fails to demonstrate that proposed mitigation will remedy the impacts, does not
commit to imposing mitigation as a condition of street vacation approval, and, further says the
proponent will not commit until "a future substantive action" such as approval of the Master Use Permit
(page CR-l, Appendix G of FEIS). How can the City ensure that mitigation is adequate if there is no
clear commitment by the proponent to undertake these measures? Further, the Port cannot determine
whether or not these mitigation measures will be adequate mitigate the likely adverse trafc impacts.
As noted above, the resultant impacts of the mitigation must be disclosed: of a pedestrian bridge on
Holgate Street, of sidewalk widening, and of a new parking garage south of Holgate.

Project Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requirements have not been fulfilled

The MOU called for Land Use Studies, SEPA analysis including alternative sites, and an Economic
Impact study. These have not been completed sufciently so as to fulll the intent of the MOU.

Industrial lands protection: The promises made to the industrial community by the City as part of the
MOU signed by the City Council in September 2012 have not been fullled. Specically, no new
protections for industrial land have been adopted, although the MOU called for a study "to develop new
land use mechanisms to maximize the economic viability of the Duwamish Manufacturing / Industrial
Center, and civic vitality of the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District." MOU 22b. The study was
completed in 2013 but, to date, the City has taken no action on the industrial lands advisory committee
study ndings and recommendations. In fact, the City's current draft Comprehensive Plan Update does
not include the industrial committee's recommendations. Similarly, the framework for the use of the
$40 million transportation mitigation fund is unidentied.

Consideration of Alternative Sites: The Port of Seattle continues to request fair and equal analysis of
alternative sites for the arena, both within and outside of the City of Seattle. In recent months, another
City study has come to light acknowledging that the Key Arena could be overhauled to support NBA
and NHL teams. The previously undisclosed information on Key Arena, and the lack of thorough
analysis for the SoDo site alternatives, serves to conrm the Port's view that the SoDo site is too small
to accommodate the proposed SoDo Arena, which magnies the potential impacts of this facility.

Lead agencies are required to consider "reasonable alternatives" to the proposed action when they
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)(iii). The Washington
Supreme Court held that an EIS prepared by a public agency to be inadequate because it failed to discuss
whether its objective of siting a regional shopping center in the county could be achieved at one of the
alternative sites. Barrie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wn. 2d 832, 855, 613 P. 2d 1148 (1980). For the New
Arena proposal, the City has identied the retrot of Key Arena as an alternative to constructing a new

Mr. John Shaw, SDOT
November 13,2015
Page 5

arena in SODO, but has failed to offer an adequate discussion of the Key Arena alternative in the EIS
and Addendum; thus, the City's environmental review contains the same deciencies as described by
the court in the Barrie case.

In a newspaper article, Mayor Murray stated that the City would not be further considering offers by an
out of state investment group to retrot Key Arena because it felt this consideration would be
inconsistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) it executed with New Arena proponent,
Chris Hansen, for the SODO site. "Overhaul Key Arena? Mayor Murray says no for now." Seattle
Times, November 13, 2015. In addition, the City appears to be disregarding the ndings of a city-
commissioned report published in June 2015 that revealed Key Arena could be retrotted to
accommodate both NBA basketball and NHL hockey. The City's refusal to properly consider the
retrot of Key Arena makes it consideration of alternatives in the environmental review process legally
awed; this is because it is responsible as the lead agency under SEPA to fully consider the alternatives
to the proposal to locate a new NBA basketball/NHL hockey facility arena in SODO.

The City's position is also inconsistent with the representations it made to the Washington Court of
Appeals, Division I in International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. City of Seattle (ILWU), 176
Wn. App. 511 (2013). There, the ILWU challenged the legality of the MOU between the City, County,
and Mr. Hansen, as prejudging the outcome of the SEPA review process for a proposed NBA/NHL
facility by "stacking the deck" in favor of the New Arena in the SODO location. In defense of the MOU,
the City took the position that it would not commit to the SODO arena project until it had analyzed the
environmental impacts of the proposed arena, including "consideration of one or more alternative sites."
MOU, paragraph 5. Indeed, the court noted that the SEPA process for the MOU expressly anticipates
that the SEPA review process will consider at least the alternative of Seattle Center as well as a "no
action" alternative." ILWU, supra. The statement by Mayor Murray ies in the face of the City's
representation to the court in the ILWU case and reveals the City's environmental review process for the
New Arena'to be fatally awed.

Economic Impact Analysis: The MOU called for an Economic Impact Analysis which was
incorporated into the SEPA analysis. However, the impact study does not adequately quantify and
evaluate the potential negative effects of the proposal upon Port and marine cargo operations and
business. For this reason, it is insufcient for decision-making purposes, with only a general statement
regarding the Port's competitiveness, compared with other alternative west coast export/import
gateways.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Seattle Arena. The Port's concerns have been unanswered either in
the FEIS responses, or the Addendum. The proposed SoDo Arena will result in potentially irreversible
harm to marine cargo and industrial uses and activities in south Elliott Bay. The city risks the long-term
loss of industrial jobs and economic opportunities in the maritime economy.

The New Arena in SoDo requires elimination of Occidental Avenue S, requires narrowing or S Holgate
Street, and may reduce capacity of 1ft Avenue S. It is the wrong site. These impacts will harm our
ability to create and sustain jobs in the maritime and industrial sectors, ultimately weakening our

Mr. John Shaw. SDOT
November 13, 2015
Page 6
region's economy. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 7873778,
poor.2(a-1yportseattleor2.

Sincerely,
W/we
Geraldine Poor, AICP
Manager, Regional Transportation


cc:   City of Seattle: Sugimura, Hauger
Northwest Seaport Alliance: Beckett, Jordan, Wolf
Port of Seattle: Pulsifer, Graves, Collins, Goodwin, Jones Stebbins, Wolpa, Merritt, Meyer,
Blomberg, Gellings