Seattle City Council
Central Staff – Memorandum

Date:

February 22, 2016

To:

Councilmember Tim Burgess

From:

Dan Eder, Patricia Lee and Ketil Freeman, Central Staff

Subject:

Seattle Times KeyArena Article

You requested that Central Staff review the accuracy of the Seattle Times article, City Brushed off
feasibility of NHL,NBA at KeyArena by Geoff Baker.1 The article contains factual errors and also
demonstrates a muddled understanding of the purpose for the following two reports: (1) a study
entitled Identification and Evaluation of Options for Key Arena by AECOM (AECOM Study) and (2) the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SODO arena.
Each report was developed for a distinctly different purpose. The AECOM Study was developed to
analyze options for maintaining KeyArena as a vital and contributing asset at Seattle Center. The EIS was
developed to disclose the impacts on the built and natural environment of developing the SODO arena.
This memo describes the origin and purpose of each study, identifies factual errors in the article, and
discusses some erroneous conclusions by Mr. Baker. A timeline for both studies is also included at
Appendix A.
AECOM Study
The call for a study of the KeyArena originated with Ordinance 124019 in October 2012,2 which
authorized then-Mayor Mike McGinn to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with King
County and ArenaCo. Among other things the MOU establishes the rights and responsibilities of the
parties with respect to actions necessary to complete the SODO arena project, including environmental
review and a planning process for KeyArena. The MOU provides that:
“During the 12 months following approval of the MOU, the City will lead a planning process to
evaluate options for the future of Key Arena or the Key Arena site... The goal of this process will
be to identify an option(s) that is financially sustainable and that significantly contributes to the
vitality of Seattle Center. As part of this process, the City will consider the interests of Key
Arena’s current tenants and their role in ensuring the future success of Key Arena and the Key
Arena site and the new Arena…”3
This provision of the MOU reflects the City’s ongoing interest in determining what the financial impact
of a new arena in SODO would have on the range of current and future uses at KeyArena and the overall
vitality of Seattle Center. The purpose of the AECOM study was to explore how to achieve that interest.
1

Seattle Times (February 13, 2016), available at http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/city-brushed-off-feasibilityof-nhl-nba-at-keyarena/.
2
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~archives/Ordinances/Ord_124019.pdf.
3
MOU at Section 22.a.
Page 1 of 5

 Section 3.b. of the MOU provides further that:
“‘Development Costs’ …[includes] up to $150,000 in costs and expenses actually incurred by the
City to assess the future of uses of Key Arena or the Key Arena site. ArenaCo shall reimburse the
City and County for all reasonable and documented Development Costs…”
Pursuant to the MOU, the Council retained AECOM in June 2014 to study options for KeyArena. Initial
options analyzed by AECOM included:
1. Maintaining KeyArena in a configuration that would allow ongoing use by current basketball
tenants, Seattle Storm and Seattle University, as well as use for other entertainment events,
such as concerts;
2. Repurposing KeyArena as an entertainment venue that could function without basketball
tenants; and
3. An open-ended option of repurposing KeyArena in a manner that is consistent with Seattle
Center’s purpose statement.
All original options to be evaluated in the AECOM scope of work included the assumption that a SODO
arena would be built.
The Council amended the contract twice to add other options and provided additional funding beyond
the amount eligible for reimbursement from ArenaCo. In September 2014, the Council added two
options to be considered under a scenario in which the SODO arena is not built: (1) maintaining
KeyArena in its current configuration and (2) renovating KeyArena such that it could host an NBA or NHL
team. In January 2015, the Council expanded the scope again to include an option whereby the
KeyArena site would be redeveloped with work force and market rate housing.
Environmental Impact Statement
The EIS is a requirement of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Proponents of projects subject to
SEPA review that are determined to have probable, significant, and adverse impacts must prepare an
EIS.4 For project-specific actions, the purpose of an EIS is to disclose impartially to decision-makers
potential impacts associated with a project and to compare those to potential impacts under a range of
reasonable alternatives. The SODO arena EIS was prepared by City staff and consultants to analyze the
impacts of Chris Hansen’s proposed arena. The SODO arena EIS included five alternatives:
1. A no action alternative;
2. The proposed 20,000 seat SODO arena;
3. A smaller 18,000 seat SODO arena;
4. Demolition and replacement of KeyArena with a 20,000 seat arena; and
5. Demolition and replacement of Memorial Stadium at Seattle Center with a 20,000 seat arena.
The EIS clearly identifies the SODO arena as the proposed project. The City considered a range of
alternatives to allow comparison of environmental impacts, not because they are the alternatives the
City was contemplating developing.

4

RCW 43.21C.031.
Page 2 of 5

 Discussion
Mr. Baker’s article conflates the purposes of the AECOM Study and the EIS. Mr. Baker writes that the
AECOM Study contradicts a decision somehow made through the EIS process to “discard” a KeyArena
rebuild.
“The report contradicted an earlier Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) last May on a
$490 million Sodo District arena project pitched by entrepreneur Chris Hansen. State law
required that the EIS study explore alternative sites, yet it discarded a KeyArena remodel as
unworkable and reviewed only the option of a demolition and rebuild to add space for an NHL
ice surface and seating.”
Mr. Baker suggests that a KeyArena remodel alternative was “discarded” in order to avoid choosing this
alternative. However, the purpose of the EIS is to disclose environmental effects and to assist decisionmakers in evaluating the impacts of a range of options against the preferred alternative.
Before the EIS was begun, ArenaCo had declared that they would not be interested in participating in a
remodel of Key Arena. A remodel of Key Arena would not have been a reasonable alternative to
ArenaCo’s project, even if it were a reasonable alternative for the City to consider. The EIS will have
served its purpose if it fully evaluates the potential effects for a full range of reasonable alternatives,
and it does so. On the other hand, the purpose of the September 2014 AECOM Study scope changes
was to inform the City about its own options for redeveloping KeyArena.
Alternatives for the EIS were identified in 2012. Mr. Baker’s article is factually incorrect in stating that
the EIS Study was “discarded.” Consistent with the 2012 list of alternatives, the Final EIS fully evaluated
the potential environmental impacts of building a new arena on the existing KeyArena site. The EIS
Study did not specifically evaluate a remodel of the existing KeyArena facility, but it seems reasonable to
assume that demolition and construction of a new arena at the KeyArena site would have at least as
many environmental effects as a remodel alternative.
Mr. Baker implies that the existence of the AECOM study was concealed from EIS planners.
“As to why AECOM’s discoveries weren’t incorporated, EIS planners say they never saw the
information and that a 45-day public comment period ahead of the Sodo study’s preparation
expired Sept. 30, 2013. John Shaw, a senior transportation planner who coordinated the EIS for
the city, said it would have been unusual to accept new information after that date.”
On September 30, 2013, the solicitation for the contract that would ultimately be awarded to AECOM
was three months away from being issued. There were no “discoveries” to incorporate; there was no
study. A synopsis of key timeline events is provided in Appendix A below.
Finally, in a separate article Mr. Baker posits a false choice by asking:

Page 3 of 5

 “Why build a Sodo venue for $490 million using $200 million in public bonds? Especially when
the $290 million private contribution toward that project would finance the entire KeyArena
renovation?”5
The question assumes that there is a hypothetical investor willing to contribute to a KeyArena rebuild.
Today the City has an agreement with ArenaCo to work toward development of a SODO Arena. An
arena at that site is the only known alternative in which ArenaCo is willing to invest.

5

Chris Hansen’s Sodo arena place could face battle from Obama proposal, Seattle Times (February 14, 2016),
available at http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/bond-funded-sodo-arena-site-could-face-battle-from-obamaproposal-aecom-study/.
Page 4 of 5

 Appendix A: EIS and AECOM Study Timelines

October 2012

EIS
City issues a determination of
significance requiring an EIS and a
scoping notice. The scoping notice
is to solicit public comment on the
range of Alternatives and elements
of the environment to be analyzed
in the EIS.

November 2012
August 2013

City issues the Draft EIS and solicits
comments on the draft.
Council issues the solicitation for
consultant services.
Council executes a contract with
AECOM, the successful respondent to
the solicitation. The scope for the
contract identifies the initial three
alternatives.
Council amends the contract to include
an option whereby KeyArena is
remodeled to serve as an NBA/NHL
facility.
AECOM presents interim findings to the
Council.
Council amends the contract to expand
an option to include the development
of workforce and market rate housing
on the KeyArena site.

December 2013

June 2014

September 2014
November 2014

January 2015
May 2015

June 2015

AECOM Study
City passes Ordinance 124019
authorizing the Mayor to enter into an
MOU with ArenaCo and King County for
development of a SODO arena. The
MOU contemplates that the City will
evaluate options for future use of
KeyArena.
Council makes appropriations in the
2013 adopted budget to contract for
consultant services to perform the
evaluation.

City issues the Final EIS.

AECOM submits draft report.
Council amends the contract to extend
the contract term to allow AECOM to
complete the report and AECOM issues
the final report on June 19th.

Page 5 of 5