DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Master Use Permit Project No. 3021854 March 21, 2016 prepared by the City of Seattle, Department of Construction and Inspections Seattle, Washington DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Master Use Permit #3021854 This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development 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 rules adopted by the City of Seattle implementing SEPA – Seattle’s Environmental Policies and Procedures Code (Chapter 25.05, Seattle Municipal Code). Preparation of this DEIS is the responsibility of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI).1 SDCI has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methodology and SDCI 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 be considered in making final decisions concerning the Master Use Permit for the project. Date of Draft EIS Issuance ..................................................................... March 21, 2016 Date of Draft EIS Public Meeting ............................................................... April 4, 2016 (Refer to pg. vii of this DEIS for time, location, and meeting format) Date Comments are Due on the Draft EIS .............................................. April 20, 2016 1 SDCI was created through Council Bill #118502 as a result of the City’s 2016 Budget. The department derives from the City’s former Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and is responsible for administering City ordinances that regulate building construction, land use, and housing. City of Seattle Edward B. Murray. Mayor I Department of Construction and Inspections Nathan Torgelsom Director March 21, 2016 Dear Affected Agencies. Organizations and Interested Parties: Enclosed is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Campus Major Phased Development. This DEIS analyzes the probable adverse environmental impacts associated with three development alternatives and the No Action Alternative. The public comment period associated with this DEIS is: March 21, 2016 through April 20. 2016. In order to provide an opportunity to learn more about the project and to present comments concerning this DEIS in addition to submittal of written comments - a public meeting is scheduled for 6:30 PM on April 4, 2016. The meeting will be held at the following location: Queen Anne Community Center Room 1 1901 Ave. W., Seattle, WA See pg. vii of this DEIS for additional details concerning the public meeting. Following the DEIS comment period, SDCI will prepare a Final EIS (FEIS) that addresses comments that were received during the DEIS public comment period and at the public meeting. Copies of this DEIS have been distributed to agencies noted on the Distribution List of this DEIS (Appendix A). The DEIS can be reviewed at the Seattle Public Library Central Library (1000 Fourth Ave). the Queen Anne Branch {400 W. Gar?eld St), and at the Magnolia Branch (2801 34th Ave. W.). The DEIS can also be reviewed on the SDCI project portal website A limited number of complimentary ads of this DEIS are available while the supply lasts from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Public Resource Center, which is located in the Seattle Municipal Tower (700 Fifth Ave, Suite 2000.) in Downtown Seattle. Additional copies of the cd may be purchased at the Public Resource Center for the cost of reproduction. Thank you for your interest in the EXPEDM Campus Major Phased Development DEIS. Sincerely? .- I g. (- a Lindiay King Seni Land Use Planner Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections .3 City of Seattle. Department ot'Construction and Inspections TDD i?h Avenue. Suite 2000 13.0. Box 34019. Seattle. WA 93124-44019 An equal employment opportunity, atlirmnlivc action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request. --PREFACE-The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is to identify and evaluate probable adverse environmental impacts that could result from the proposed development alternatives and to identify measures to mitigate those impacts. Analysis contained in this DEIS evaluates the direct, indirect, cumulative and construction-related impacts of three development alternatives and the NoAction Alternative. 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 in the decision-making process for this project. A list of expected licenses, permits and approvals is contained in the Fact Sheet to this DEIS (page iv). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this project, which will be issued later this year, 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 August 27, 2015 through September 28, 2015. The SEPA Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice was mailed to agencies and organizations for review and comment. In addition, a public EIS Scoping meeting was held on September 28th. During the EIS Scoping period, DPD received written comments, as well as oral comments, regarding the scope of this DEIS and determined the alternatives and environmental issues and to be analyzed in this DEIS. Twelve broad areas of environmental review are evaluated, including: earth, air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, water, plants/ animals, energy, environmental health, land use, aesthetics (height, bulk/ scale), aesthetics (public views), light/ glare/ shadows, transportation/ circulation/ parking, public services/ utilities, and construction. The Table of Contents for this DEIS is contained on pg. viii of the Fact Sheet. Organizationally, this DEIS consists of four major sections, as outlined below:  Fact Sheet (immediately following this Preface) -- provides an overview of the three development alternatives and the No Action Alternative, together with project location, permits/approvals needed, contact information, and the Table of Contents;  Section I (starting on page 1-1) -- summarizes the description of the alternatives and includes a comparative matrix describing adverse environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the alternatives;  Section II (beginning on page 2-1) -- provides a detailed description of the alternatives; and  Section III (page 3-1) -- contains an analysis of probable adverse environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the alternatives. This section also identifies possible mitigation measures and potential significant adverse environmental impacts. FACT SHEET Name of Proposal Expedia Campus Major Phased Development Proponent Cruise, LLC c/o Seneca Group Attn: Michael W. Stanley 1191 Second Ave., Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101 Location The site is located on the former Amgen and Immunex properties on Elliott Bay2 -- east of Pier 90, north of the Terminal 86 Grain Facility, and west of Elliott Ave. W. and the existing rail lines. The address is 1201 Amgen Ct. W. The site comprises an area of approximately 40.89 ac. Alternatives Four alternatives are evaluated in this DEIS, including three development alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Each alternative would involve renovation of existing research and development facilities on-site for use as commercial office space. Alternative 1 – This alternative would total approximately 1,950,481 sq. ft. of gross floor area3,4 and include the following: 2 3 4  Existing Buildings – Four existing research and office buildings and one central utility plant building (530,000 sq. ft.) would be retained and renovated, as applicable, to accommodate commercial office space. One existing research and office building (140,000 sq. ft.) would be demolished.  New Buildings – Expansion of three existing buildings, infill associated with two existing buildings, and development of five new buildings is proposed (1,420,481 sq. ft.) and would be developed as commercial office space. Vicinity of former Piers 88 and 89 This area only includes chargeable gross floor area based on the Seattle Land Use Code. Building area that is below-grade or exempt is not chargeable. All square footages and numbers noted in this DEIS are approximate. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET i  Parking -- Approximately 3,300 parking spaces, would be provided, including: - 1,230 existing spaces would be retained; and - 2,070 new parking spaces would be provided.  Open Space – Approximately 45 percent of the project site would be retained as open space for use by employees of the facility at full build-out.5 Alternative 1 would be developed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over a 15-year timeframe. Construction of the first new building is scheduled to begin in August 2016 and become operational by June 2019.  5 6 Alternative 2 – Development associated with this alternative would, for the most part, be the same programwise as Alternative 1. Development associated with Alternative 2 would total approximately 1,692,185 sq. ft. of gross floor area (258,300 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1). Alternative 2 would include the following:  Existing Buildings – Four existing research and office buildings and one central utility plant building (530,000 sq. ft.) would be retained and renovated, as applicable, to accommodate commercial office space. One existing research and office building (140,000 sq. ft.) would be demolished.  New Buildings – Expansion of three existing buildings, infill associated with two existing buildings, and development of four new buildings is proposed (1,162,185 sq. ft.) and would be developed as commercial office space.  Parking – The amount of parking associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 3,300 parking spaces, including: - 1,230 existing spaces would be retained; and - 2,070 new parking spaces would be provided.  Open Space – At full build-out approximately 49 percent of the project site would be retained as open space for use by employees of the facility.6 Sixty percent of the site would be in open space upon completion of Phase 1. Sixty percent upon completion of Phase 1 -- same as Alternative 1. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET ii Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would be developed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over a 15year timeframe. Construction of the first new building could begin in August 2016 and become operational by June 2019.  Alternative 3 – Development associated with this alternative would, for the most part, be the same programwise as Alternative 1. Development associated with Alternative 3 would total approximately 1,922,185 sq. ft. of gross floor area (28,300 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1). Alternative 2 would include the following:  Existing Buildings – Four existing research and office buildings and one central utility plant building (530,000 sq. ft.) would be retained and renovated, as applicable, to accommodate commercial office space. One existing research and office building (140,000 sq. ft.) would be demolished.  New Buildings – Expansion of three existing buildings, infill associated with two existing buildings, and development of five new buildings is proposed (1,392,185 sq. ft.) and would be developed as commercial office space.  Parking – The amount of parking associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as that of Alternative 1 -- approximately 3,300 parking spaces, including: - 1,230 existing spaces would be retained; and - 2,070 new parking spaces would be provided.  Open Space – At full build-out approximately 46 percent of the project site would be retained as open space for use by employees of the facility.7 Like Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 would be developed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over a 15-year timeframe. Construction of the first new building could begin in August 2016 and become operational by June 2019.     7 Sixty percent upon completion of Phase 1 – same as Alternative 1 and 2. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET iii  No Action Alternative – No new site development would occur as a result of this alternative; specifically:  Existing Buildings – The six existing buildings (670,000 sq. ft.) that are on-site would be retained and redeveloped as commercial office space.  Parking – The existing 1,230 existing spaces would be retained. No additional parking would be provided.  Open Space – Approximately 82 percent of the project site would be retained as open space for use by employees of the facility. This alternative would only involve tenant improvements and renovation necessary to adapt the existing buildings to accommodate office space. Tenant improvements would begin in August 2016 and become operational in 2017. Lead Agency City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections SEPA Responsible Official Nathan Torgelson, Director City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Seattle Municipal Tower – 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000 P.O. Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019 EIS Contact Person Lindsay King Senior Land Use Planner Department of Construction and Inspections Seattle Municipal Tower – 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000 P.O. Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019 Telephone: 206.684.9218 Fax: 206.233.7902 E-mail: lindsay.king@seattle.gov Master Use Permit DPD MUP No.: 3021854 Required Approvals and/or Permits Preliminary investigation indicates that the following approvals and/or permits may be required for any of the development alternatives. Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the review process associated EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET iv with specific elements of the project. City of Seattle  Department of Construction and Inspections – –  Major Phased Development Master Use Permit – Shoreline Substantial Development Permit – Special Exception for Additional Height (pertains to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) – SEPA Compliance – Zoning Review – ECA Exemption or Relief From Prohibition On Steep Slope Development – Demolition Permit – Grading / Shoring Permits – Building Permits – Mechanical Permits – Electrical Permits – Certificates of Occupancy – Sign Permits – Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan Approvals – Large-Parcel Drainage Control Plans with Construction Best Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control Approvals Department of Transportation – – Street Improvement Approvals (e.g., curbcut and/or sidewalk modifications) Street Use Permits (temporary – constructionrelated)  Seattle Public Utilities  Seattle City Light – – – Water/Wastewater approvals Recycling Electrical Power approvals Regional Agencies  Puget Sound Clean Air Agency  Seattle – King County Department of Health – – Demolition Permit Plumbing Permits State Agencies  Department of Ecology – EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Review Permit of Shoreline Substantial Development FACT SHEET v Authors and Principal Contributors to this EIS Location of Background Data  Department of Health  Department of Labor & Industries – – Commercial Kitchen Elevator Permits This DEIS has been prepared under the direction of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections. Research and analysis associated with this EIS were provided by the following consulting firms:  EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC – lead EIS consultant; document preparation; environmental analysis – greenhouse gas emissions, land use, aesthetics (viewshed,), light/glare, and public services;  Heffron Transportation, Inc. – transportation, circulation and parking;  Bohlin Cywinski Jackson and Bassetti – viewshed photosimulations and shadow diagrams;  Ramboll Environmental – air quality analysis;  Tree Solutions – tree survey;  KPFF – utilities, construction; and  GLY – construction details. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Seattle Municipal Tower, Suite 2000 700 Fifth Ave. Seattle, WA 98124-4019 Telephone: 206.684.9218 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2200 Sixth Ave., Suite 707 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206.452.5350 ext. 1712 / 1713 Heffron Transportation, Inc. 6544 NE 61st St. Seattle, Washington 98115 Telephone: 206.523.3939 Date of Issuance of this DEIS March 21, 2016 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET vi Date DEIS Comments Are Due April 20, 2016 Written comments may be submitted to the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, at the following addresses: Postal Address: Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections ATTN: Public Resource Center or Lindsay King 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 P.O. Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019 Fax: Lindsay King Re: MUP #3021854 206. 233.7902 Date of DEIS Public Meeting A public meeting concerning this DEIS is scheduled for 6:30 PM, April 4, 2016 at Queen Anne Community Center Room 1 1901 – 1st Ave. W., Seattle, WA The purpose of the public meeting is to provide an opportunity for agencies, organizations and individuals to present comments regarding the proposed EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development DEIS – in addition to submittal of written comments. Availability of this DEIS Copies of this DEIS have been distributed to agencies noted on the Distribution List of this DEIS (Appendix A). The DEIS can be reviewed at the Seattle Public Library – Central Library (1000 Fourth Ave.), the Queen Anne Branch (400 W. Garfield St.), and at the Magnolia Branch (2801 34th Ave. W.). The DEIS can also be reviewed on the SDCI project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854). A limited number of complimentary cds of this DEIS are available from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Public Resource Center – while the supply lasts. The Public Resource Center is located in the Seattle Municipal Tower (700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000.) in Downtown Seattle. Additional copies of the cd may be purchased at the Public Resource Center for the cost of reproduction. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page FACT SHEET .............................................................................................................. i I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 Proponent/Project Location ................................................................................. 1-1 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 1-1 Impacts................................................................................................................ 1-2 Potential Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 1-24 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES ...................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Proponent/Project Location.................................................................................. 2-1 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 2-1 Background Information ....................................................................................... 2-7 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 2-8 Description of the Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-10 Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................... 2-10 Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... 2-16 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................... 2-20 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................... 2-24 III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ........................................................3.1-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 Earth ................................................................................................................. 3.1-2 Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................... 3.2-1 Water ................................................................................................................ 3.3-1 Plants and Animals ........................................................................................... 3.4-1 Energy .............................................................................................................. 3.5-1 Environmental Health ....................................................................................... 3.6-1 Land Use (Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations) ............................. 3.7-1 Height, Bulk and Scale ..................................................................................... 3.8-1 Aesthetics – Public Views ................................................................................. 3.9-1 Light / Glare / Shadows .................................................................................. 3.10-1 Transportation / Circulation / Parking .............................................................. 3.11-1 Public Services and Utilities ............................................................................ 3.12-1 Construction ................................................................................................... 3.13-1 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ R-1 APPENDICES A. Distribution List B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheets C. Environmental Health D. Arborists Report E. Transportation Analysis EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 3.2-1 3.2-2 3.2-3 3.2-4 3.2-5 3.4-1 3.11-1 3.13-1 3.13-2 3.13-3 Page Existing Buildings to Remain ...................................................................... 2-10 Alternative 1 – Existing Buildings and New Buildings at Full Build-Out...... 2-12 Alternative 1 – Projected Build-Out By Phase ........................................... 2-13 Alternative 1 – Parking - Projected Build-Out By Phase ............................ 2-14 Alternative 2 – Projected Build-Out By Phase ........................................... 2-18 Alternative 3 – Projected Build-Out By Phase ........................................... 2-22 Alternative 3 – Parking - Projected Build-Out By Phase ............................ 2-23 PM Peak-Period Intersection Conditions (Intersections with LOS D or worse)… ....................................................... 3.2-6 WASIST Calculated CO Concentrations at 15th Avenue NW/NW Market Street Intersection ........................................ 3.2-7 Alternative 1 – Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................ 3.2-8 Alternative 2 – Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................ 3.2-9 Alternative 3 – Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................... 3.2-10 Animal Species and ESA Listing ............................................................... 3.4-3 Net Change in Vehicle Trips with Expedia Campus Alternative 1 ......... 3.11-4 Seattle Exterior Sound Level Limits (dBA) ............................................... 3.13-3 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ................................. 3.13-8 Typical Sound Levels .............................................................................. 3.13-8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 3.8-1 3.9-1 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 Page Regional Map ............................................................................................... 2-2 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 2-3 Project Site Aerial - Existing Conditions........................................................ 2-4 Alternative 1 – Site Plan ............................................................................. 2-11 Alternative 2 – Site Plan ............................................................................. 2-17 Alternative 3 – Site Plan ............................................................................. 2-21 No Action Alternative – Site Plan ................................................................ 2-25 Aerial Photograph of the Expedia Campus as Viewed from the Southwest……............................................................ 3.8-3 Viewpoint Location Map ............................................................................ 3.9-3 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – Viewpoint 1 – Kerry Park .................................... 3.9-6 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – Viewpoint 2 – Kinnear Viewpoint ....................... 3.9-7 Alternative 1 – Viewpoint 3 – Marshall Park............................................... 3.9-8 Alternative 2 – Viewpoint 3 – Marshall Park............................................... 3.9-9 Alternative 3 – Viewpoint 3 – Marshall Park............................................. 3.9-10 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – Viewpoint 4 – Smith Cove Park ........................ 3.9-11 Alternative 1 – Viewpoint 5 – Magnolia Bridge......................................... 3.9-13 Alternative 2 – Viewpoint 5 – Magnolia Bridge......................................... 3.9-14 Alternative 3 – Viewpoint 5 – Magnolia Bridge......................................... 3.9-15 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – Viewpoint 6 – Elliott Ave. W Looking South ...... 3.9-16 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET ix 3.9-12 3.9-13 3.9-14 3.9-15 3.9-16 3.9-17 3.10-1 3.10-2 3.10-3 3.10-4 3.10-5 3.10-6 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – Viewpoint 7 - Elliott Ave. W Looking North........ 3.9-17 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – Viewpoint 8 - Elliott Ave. W Looking West ........ 3.9-19 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – Viewpoint 9 - Elliott Ave. W Looking West ........ 3.9-20 Alternatives 1 – Viewpoint 10 – 8th Place West ........................................ 3.9-21 Alternatives 2 – Viewpoint 10 – 8th Place West ........................................ 3.9-22 Alternatives 3 – Viewpoint 10 – 8th Place West ........................................ 3.9-23 Shadow Diagrams – Existing conditions .................................................. 3.10-7 Shadow Diagrams – Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – PHASE1 .......................... 3.10-8 Shadow Diagrams – Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – PHASE 2 ......................... 3.10-9 Shadow Diagrams – Alternative 1, PHASE 3......................................... 3.10-10 Shadow Diagrams – Alternative 2, PHASE 3......................................... 3.10-11 Shadow Diagrams – Alternative 3, PHASE 3......................................... 3.10-12 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement FACT SHEET x SECTION I Summary Section I SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION This section provides a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development. It briefly describes the Proposed Actions and alternatives; contains an overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the Proposed Actions; and, provides a list of mitigation measures. Please see Section 2 of this DEIS for a more detailed description of the Proposed Actions and alternatives and Section 3 for a detailed presentation of the affected environment, significant impacts of the Proposed Actions, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 1.1 PROPONENT/PROJECT LOCATION Proponent The EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development is sponsored by Cruise, LLC. Seneca Group is coordinating the entitlement process on behalf of Cruise, LLC. The address of Seneca Group is 1191 Second Ave., Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101 and the contact person with Seneca Group is Michael W. Stanley. Project Location The project site is located on the former Amgen and Immunex properties on Elliott Bay1 -- east of Pier 90, north of the Terminal 86 Grain Facility, and west of Elliott Ave. W. The address of the site is 1201 Amgen Ct. W. The site, which is the same configuration for each alternative, comprises an area of approximately 40.89 ac. (see Figure 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3). 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW Proposed Development Alternatives The proposed project involves renovation of existing research buildings that are on-site to accommodate commercial office use, together with development of new office buildings. Three development alternatives and the No Action Alternative are analyzed in this DEIS.  1 Alternative 1 – This would represent the most intensive development alternative. Alternative 1 would retain, renovate, and in some cases expand five buildings on-site (four existing research and office buildings and a central utility plant building -approximately 530,000 sq. ft.), demolish one existing building on-site (approx. 140,000 In the vicinity of former Piers 88 and 89. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 Section I Summary sq. ft.), and provide for the addition of new buildings (1,420,481 sq. ft.) resulting in a total of up to 1,950,481 sq. ft. of office space. The existing 1,230 parking spaces would also be retained and an additional 2,070 parking spaces would be provided for a total of up to 3,300 on-site parking spaces. It is proposed that the EXPEDIA Campus be developed as a Major Phased Development,2 occurring over approximately a 15-year timeframe.  Alternative 2 – This represents a reduced-density alternative. Development associated with Alternative 2 would, for the most part, be the same program-wise as Alternative 1. Development associated with Alternative 2 would retain, renovate, and in some cases expand five existing buildings on-site (approximately 530,000 sq. ft.), demolish one existing building (approx. 140,000 sq. ft.), and provide for the addition of new buildings (1,162,185 sq. ft.) resulting in a total of up to 1,692,185 sq. ft. of office space (258,300 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1). The existing 1,230 parking spaces would also be retained and an additional 2,070 parking spaces would be provided for a total of up to 3,300 on-site parking spaces. Similar to Alternative 1, development under Alternative 2 is proposed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over approximately a 15-year timeframe  Alternative 3 – This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, but with a different configuration for several proposed new buildings and slightly less square footage. Alternative 3 would retain, renovate, in some cases expand five existing buildings onsite (approximately 530,000 sq. ft.), demolish one existing building (approx. 140,000 sq. ft.), and provide for the addition of new buildings (1,392,185 sq. ft.) resulting in a total of up to 1,922,185 sq. ft. of office space (28,300 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1). The existing 1,230 parking spaces would also be retained and an additional 2,070 parking spaces would be provided for a total of up to 3,300 on-site parking spaces. Similar to Alternative 1, development under Alternative 3 is proposed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over approximately a 15-year timeframe. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is only required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Certain mitigation (such as construction impact mitigation) will be required for each phase, and impacts that are related to intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. Because no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the fullbuild out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases would not have the potential for significant adverse impacts. 2 Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 23.50.015 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-2 Section I Summary 1.3 IMPACTS The following table (Table 1-1) highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this DEIS. This summary table is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Section 3. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-3 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX EARTH Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative Phase 1  Construction would result in an increased potential for erosion and sedimentation; however, the implementation of a temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management practices would reduce the potential for significant impacts.  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and the existing campus buildings and layout would remain unchanged.  Same as Alternative 1.  It is anticipated that approximately 104,000 cy of excavation would be required for construction of building F in the south portion of the site.  No new site development would occur and the existing campus buildings and layout would remain unchanged.  Development in Phase 1 would require removal of building J, paving and vegetation, and grading for construction of proposed buildings and infrastructure. Approximately 300,000 cubic yards (cy) of insitu material is expected to be excavated. Phase 2  Impacts would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1 because less earthwork would occur during this phase. Approximately 65,000 cy of excavation would be required for construction of building F and parking structure P3. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 EARTH – con’t Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but slightly less grading would be required under Alternative 2 (6,000 cy, with expansion to 7,800 cy), because building G would not be constructed.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but slightly less grading would be required under Alternative 3 (8,000 cy, with expansion to 10,400 cy), for construction of buildings H, L, K and M.  No new site development would occur and the existing campus buildings and layout would remain unchanged.  Traffic related air-quality impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Traffic related air-quality impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be comparable to existing conditions.  GHG emissions would be the same as Alternative 1 in Phase 1.  GHG emissions would be the same as Alternative 1 in Phase 1. Phase 3  Earth impacts in Phase 3 would be similar to but less those described for Phase 1 because far less earthwork would occur in this phase with approximately 10,000 cy of excavation for construction of buildings L, K and G. AIR QUALITY AND GHG Phase 1  The project would result in an increase in vehicular traffic to and from the facility that would increase emissions near this facility and along roads in the area. The single most congested intersection in the project study area that would be affected by project-related traffic is the intersection of 15th Ave NW with NW Market St. Modeling indicates that the project is not likely to cause CO hot spots at this or any other intersection, or to result in any significant traffic-related air quality impacts.  GHG emissions are estimated at 966,401 MTCO2e, based on proposed expansion of existing buildings, proposed infill development, and construction of the new buildings. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 AIR QUALITY AND GHG – con’t Phase 2  GHG emissions are estimated at 556,740 MTCO2e in Phase 2. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  GHG emissions would be the same as Alternative 1 in Phase 2.  GHG emissions would be the same as Alternative 1 in Phase 2.  Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be comparable to existing conditions. Phase 3  GHG emissions are estimated at  GHG emissions are estimated at  GHG emissions are estimated at  Air quality and greenhouse gas 463,230 MTCO2e in Phase 3. 114,694 MTCO2e in Phase 3. 425,044 MTCO2e in Phase 3. emissions would be comparable to existing conditions. WATER RESOURCES Phase 1  Stormwater infrastructure would be and the drainage design and strategies have been designed to meet provisions of the City’s current Stormwater Code. The new system would consist of Green Storm Infrastructure (as applicable), area drains, catch basins, french drains, and tightline conveyance systems that would connect into the existing outfalls on the site.  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  No site development would occur and existing water quality and drainage conditions would remain unchanged. Impervious and pervious site coverage would also remain the same as under existing conditions.  Approximately 45 percent of the project site would be pervious and 55 percent would be impervious – a 15 percent decrease in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 WATER RESOURCES – con’t Phase 2  In Phase 2 building F in the south portion of the site would be constructed and connected to the stormwater infrastructure that was installed in Phase 1. Alternative 2 Alternative 3  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  No site development would occur and existing water quality and drainage conditions would remain unchanged. Impervious and pervious site coverage would also remain the same as under existing conditions.  Buildings K, P3 and L would be constructed and connected to the stormwater infrastructure that was installed in Phase 1.  Buildings H, K, L and M would be constructed and connected to the stormwater infrastructure that was installed in Phase 1.  Approximately 29 percent of the project site would be pervious and 71 percent would be impervious, a one percent increase in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions.  Approximately 25 percent of the project site would be pervious and 75 percent would be impervious, a five percent increase in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions.  No site development would occur and existing water quality and drainage conditions would remain unchanged. Impervious and pervious site coverage would also remain the same as under existing conditions.  Approximately 36 percent of the project site would be pervious and 64 percent would be impervious – a six percent decrease in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. Phase 3  Buildings G, K, P3 and L in the south-central and northwest portions of the site would be constructed and connected to the stormwater infrastructure that was installed in Phase 1.  Approximately 25 percent of the project site would be pervious and 75 percent would be impervious, a five percent increase in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. No Action Alternative EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 PLANTS and ANIMALS Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative Phase 1  Demolition, clearing and grading for construction would require removal of some existing vegetation and trees. None of the trees have been identified as exceptional, and tree removal would not be a significant impact. Landscaping would be installed and would include nonnative and native plantings.  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and existing plant and animal conditions on-site would remain unchanged.  Approximately 60 percent of the site would be in open space. 45 percent would be covered in pervious surfaces and 55 percent would be covered with impervious surfaces (a 15 percent decrease over existing conditions). All clearing and grading activities would comply with applicable regulations including the Shoreline Master Plan, Environmentally Critical Areas Code, and Stormwater Code as contained in Seattle’s Land Use Code, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 PLANTS and ANIMALS – con’t Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Construction noise could temporarily disturb animal species on or in the immediate site vicinity. Based on the the site location in a largely urbanized and light-industrial area, it is unlikely animals would be significantly impacted, and all construction-related noise would be subject to provisions of the City’s Noise Code. Phase 2  Phase 2 would represent a less intense period of development. Approximately 64 percent of the site would be impervious (a 6 percent decrease over existing conditions), and 36 percent would be pervious. Phase 2 would comply with the same applicable regulations as Phase I, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. Impacts to animals from construction noise would be less than under Phase 1, due to the lesser amount of development occurring in this phase.  Same as Alternative 1. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement  Same as Alternative 1. 1-9  No new site development would occur and existing plant and animal conditions on-site would remain unchanged. Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 PLANTS and ANIMALS – con’t Phase 3  Phase 3 would represent a less intense period of development. Following full buildout of the project approximately 75 percent of the site would be impervious, and 25 percent would be pervious area. The 5 percent increase in impervious surfaces over existing conditions would not be considered a significant impact. Impacts to animals from construction noise would be less than Phases 1 and 2, because the least amount of development would occur in this phase. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Approximately 71 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces and 29 percent would be pervious. Impacts to plants and animals would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, because less development would occur under Alternative 2.  Approximately 75 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces and 25 percent would be pervious. Impacts to plants and animals would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, because less development would occur under Alternative 3.  No new site development would occur and existing plant and animal conditions on-site would remain unchanged.  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  Site energy demands would remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant. ENERGY Phase 1  New development would result in increased electricity (for heating, cooling lighting, etc.) and natural gas usage (for hot water, space heating and cooking). Seattle City Light and Puget Sound Energy would continue to provide electricity and natural gas to the campus. The project will meet or exceed all requirements of the Energy Code in effect at the time of the building permit submittal, and energy conservation measures will be incorporated into the final development to lower energy demands. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 ENERGY con’t Phase 2  Energy use under Phase 2 would add to increased energy demands associated with buildout of Phase 1. As with Phase 1, the project would meet or exceed all requirements of the Energy Code in effect at the time of the building permit submittal, and energy conservation measures would be incorporated into the design of the project. Phase 3  Full buildout in Phase 3 would result in an increase in energy usage levels. As with Phase 1, the project would meet or exceed all requirements of the Energy Code in effect at the time of the building permit submittal, and energy conservation measures would be incorporated into the design of the buildings constructed in this final phase. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  Site energy demands would remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant.  Impacts would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, because less development would be built under Alternative 2. It is assumed that the existing electrical service would be adequate to serve the project.  Impacts would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, because less development would be built under Alternative 3. It is assumed that the existing electrical service would be adequate to serve the project.  Site energy demands would remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant.  The total electrical calculated NEC load is expected to be 34 MVA, with total maximum demand loads of 10 to 12 MVA. Seattle City Light has indicated that the existing electrical service is adequate to serve the proposed development. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Phase 1  Site development would involve a substantial amount of excavation to accommodate new buildings, utilities and site grading (approximately 300,000 cubic yards). A construction management plan would be developed and adhered to for proper management of impacted soils encountered during construction or excavation work at the site. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No excavation of soils or dewatering would occur, and no environmental health related impacts would be anticipated.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, except that slightly more grading would occur (104,000 cubic yards).  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No excavation of soils or dewatering would occur, and no environmental health related impacts would be anticipated.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, except that slightly less grading would occur (6,000 cubic yards).  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, except that slightly less grading would occur (8,000 cubic yards).  No excavation of soils or dewatering would occur, and no environmental health related impacts would be anticipated. Phase 2  Less grading would occur in Phase 2 (approximately 65,000 cubic yards), and the construction management plan for proper management of impacted soils encountered during construction and excavation work would continue to be adhered to. Phase 3  Phase 3 would involve the least amount of grading, with approximately 10,000 cubic yards. The construction management plan implemented in Phases 1 and 2 for proper management of impacted soils encountered during construction and excavation work would continue to be adhered to. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 LAND USE  The proposed Expedia Campus project would be consistent with applicable City Plans, Policies and Regulations. HEIGHT, BULK and SCALE  The development would total approximately 1.95 million sq. ft. of chargeable gross floor area. With building additions, infill development, and new construction, this alternative would result in moreintensive development of the project site. The height, bulk and scale of the project would be compatible with the general character of surrounding development. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Existing uses on-site are permitted by applicable City codes and regulations, and no impacts would be anticipated.  Development would be comparable to but slightly less than Alternative 1. As such, it is anticipated that this alternative would also be compatible with the general character of surrounding development.  Development would be comparable Alternative 1. As such, it is anticipated that this alternative would also be compatible with the general character of surrounding development. Like Alternative 1, the proposed height of structures in Alternative 3 would range from 32 ft. to 65 ft. above-grade. And as noted previously, existing structures on-site are within the 49 ft. – 65 ft. range. The maximum chargeable floor area associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and the height, bulk and scale of existing development would remain compatible with the general character of the surrounding area.  The applicant has applied for a Special Exception for structure height up to 65 feet. The project has been designed in a compact pattern, with taller buildings toward the center of the site to create a transitional buffer around the boundary of the project to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. The project would also maintain the existing view corridor on site and the existing public access to the shoreline and the trail adjacent to the water. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 AESTHETICS – PUBLIC VIEWS  The overall visual density of the site would increase from certain viewpoints with the addition of new mid-rise buildings and expansion of existing buildings on the Expedia Campus. In general, due to the distance of the site from protected viewpoints, the development would largely blend into the existing building massing that occurs on the project site and no significant view impacts would occur. LIGHT, GLARE and SHADOWS  Stationary sources of light (e.g., interior lighting, pedestrian-level lighting, illuminated signage) from the new and existing Expedia Campus buildings would be visible from locations proximate to the project site -primarily from higher elevations east of the site and from Elliott Bay south and west of the site. Light fixtures would be shielded and directed downward and away from residential properties and the shoreline and no significant off-site light-related impacts are anticipated. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new development would occur, and views to the site would remain the same as under existing conditions.  Overall, light and glare-related impacts would be similar to or slightly less than those described for Alternative 1 due to one less new building being constructed.  Overall, light and glare-related impacts would be similar to or slightly less than those described for Alternative 1.  No new development would occur and light and glare conditions would remain as under existing conditions. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 Alternative 2 LIGHT, GLARE and SHADOWS con’t  Shadows from the project would  Similar to Alternative 1. contribute to shading portions of the 0.5-mile section of the 3.5mile-long Elliott Bay Trail (from 15% to 65%) that is located along the west site boundary on vernal equinox, autumnal equinox and winter solstice at 9 AM. Shadows from the project could shade just the west edge of the trail during the summer solstice at 9 AM. Because shading would only occur to a limited portion of the overall trail length and would be of short duration, this impact is not be considered significant. Use and enjoyment of the trail would continue. Minimal shading to the trail would occur in summer when highest use of the trail would be expected. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternative 3  Similar to Alternative 1. 1-15 No Action Alternative  Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 TRANSPORTATION  Vehicle Trips. The project would increase the number of trips generated by the site. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the project could add approximately 2,900 vehicle trips per day for Phase 1 and 4,000 vehicle trips per day by the end of Phase 3. Peak hour trips in Phase 1 would increase by about 600 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour 370 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. At the end of Phase 3, vehicle trips could increase by 750 AM peak hour trips and 430 PM peak hour trips. Alternative 2  Same as Alternative 1. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternative 3  Same as Alternative 1. 1-16 No Action Alternative  The No Action Alternative is estimated to generate 3,000 vehicle trips per day with about 550 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 480 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 TRANSPORTATION con’t  Intersection Operations. Detailed traffic operations analysis was performed for 21 off-site intersections. Future transportation conditions were evaluated for two horizon years: 2019 and 2031. These conditions assume growth in traffic associated with known pipeline projects, background growth, and traffic associated with full occupancy of the existing Expedia Campus buildings. Phase 1 of the project (in 2019) would adversely affect one intersection: Alaskan Way W/Galer Flyover. This unsignalized intersection would be degraded to LOS F conditions with the project. At full build (Phase 3), the project would add vehicle delay to several intersections that would already operate at LOS E or F conditions under the future No Action Alternative. The project is expected to degrade operations at the 15th Avenue W/Gilman Avenue W intersection from LOS C to LOS E during the AM peak hour. Alternative 2  Same as Alternative 1. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternative 3  Same as Alternative 1. 1-17 No Action Alternative  The intersections at 15th Avenue NW/NW Market Street and Thorndyke Avenue W/W Galer Street are both expected to operate at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour in 2019 and 2031 without the project. The all-way stop at the 15th Avenue W ramps/W Nickerson Street intersection would also operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour for both future conditions. Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 TRANSPORTATION con’t  Parking. The project would construct new parking on the campus in phases. There would be one level of underground parking below new buildings on the campus, an extension to the existing above-grade parking structure, plus some pockets of at-grade parking. Overall, when the project opens in 2019 (Phase 1), there would be about 2,670 parking spaces on the site; at full build-out (Phase 3), the site would have 3,300 parking spaces. Alternative 2  Same as Alternative 1. Alternative 3  Same as Alternative 1. No Action Alternative  The existing site has about 1,230 parking spaces that would remain for the No Action Alternative. The transportation analysis determined mode-of-travel targets the project’s Transportation Management Plan (TMP) based on the parking supply available at various stages of growth. Parking should be set aside for visitors, vendors, and fleet vehicles. The Phase 1 parking supply would accommodate 4,500 employees at the SOV target rate of 49%. At full build out, the 3,300 parking spaces could accommodate between 6,500 and 8,000 employees at SOV rates ranging from 41% to 30%, respectively. No overflow parking is expected. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 TRANSPORTATION con’t The project would upgrade its frontage along 16th Avenue W as part of its required half-street improvements. Enhanced landscape treatments or required turnarounds along the street could eliminate some existing parking. The existing two-hour time limits should be retained for parking along 16th Avenue W and added for parking along W Galer Street adjacent to the site.  Transit. When Phase 1 of the project opens in 2019, it is estimated to generate 2,000 to 2,250 transit trips per day and 250 to 500 shuttle trips per day. There is adequate transit service in the Elliott Avenue corridor to accommodate the increased transit trips. Alternative 2  Same as Alternative 1. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternative 3  Same as Alternative 1. 1-19 No Action Alternative  Transit trips for the No Action Alternative are estimated at approximately 1,130 trips per day. Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 TRANSPORTATION con’t At Phase 3, up to 6,000 transit and shuttle trips per day could be generated. This level of usage would likely require either increased public transit service or a robust shuttle system. It may also require that the existing stops on Elliott Avenue W at Prospect Street be upgraded to serve higher ridership with larger shelters and amenities. However, by that time, it is possible that highercapacity transit would exist in the Elliott Avenue corridor depending on the outcome of Sound Transit’s ST3 plan and ballot measure. Therefore, the need for improvements to existing bus infrastructure should be evaluated in the future given the outcome of the ST3 project. The need for shuttles would likely be eliminated if a light rail station were in close proximity to the site. Alternative 2 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alternative 3 1-20 No Action Alternative Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 TRANSPORTATION con’t  Non-Motorized Facilties. In Phase 1 of the project, an estimated 5% of the employees are expected to bike to work and 2% are expected to walk. By Phase 3, bike trips are expected to increase to about 10% and walk trips to 3% as more employees move closer to the site; this relates to a net increase of about 70 walking trips and 200 bicycle trips during the peak hour. Alternative 2  Same as Alternative 1. Alternative 3  Same as Alternative 1. No Action Alternative  No Action Alternative would generate walk and bike trips similar to Phase 1 in Alternative 1. Elliott Bay Trail would operate at LOS F on peak summer days. The vast majority of the bicycle trips are expected to arrive via the Elliott Bay Trail. Detailed analysis of the Elliott Bay Trail was performed using Shared-se Path Level of Service. User’s would perceive the trail to operate at LOS C or better for all conditions. However, given that about 70% of the PM peak hour bicycle volumes occur in the northbound direction, by 2031 bicyclists could have difficultly passing other users on the trail, and the overall Trail LOS is projected to decline to LOS F on a peak summer day. These conditions would exist without or with the project. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 PUBLIC SERVICES and UTILITIES Police  Increases in employment associated with operation of the new development could result in increased demands for police services, however, the exact number of new calls would be the result of a number of variables that cannot be accurately predicted. Increased calls for service could likely be absorbed by current and future Seattle Police Department staffing Fire  All new development and building renovations would comply with the Seattle Fire Code and applicable building codes. The Seattle Fire Department has indicated they will have adequate resources to serve the proposed development at full buildout, provided all code requirements are met. Parks/Open Space  Indirectly, with an increased number of employees on-site, greater utilization of Centennial Park and Elliott Bay Trail could occur. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  No new development would occur and police services demands would likely remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant.  Same as Alternative 1.  Same as Alternative 1.  No new development would occur and fire services demands would likely remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new development would occur and parks/open space demands would likely remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 PUBLIC SERVICES and UTILITIES – con’t Utilities  Water supply availability for the proposed project has been confirmed by SPU for full buildout. Expansion to the existing water service would be a private utility. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new development would occur and utilities demands would likely remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and the existing buildings on-site would be retained. Any construction activity associated with redeveloping the existing buildings would be be minimal and would primarily occur to the building interiors. No excavation or site grading would occur, and subsequently no earth-related impacts would occur.  New sanitary sewer lines would be connected to existing oncampus facilities. SPU indicates there is adequate capacity in the City’s system to serve the proposed project at full buildout.  Existing telecommunication/data service would be extended to serve the campus and no significant impacts would be anticipated.  Waste collection and disposal services would be provided by Recology CleanScapes. CONSTRUCTION Earth  A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), and best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction, in accordance with applicable City of Seattle requirements. As a result, no significant erosion/ sedimentation impacts would be expected. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-23 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 CONSTRUCTION – con’t Air Quality  Construction activities could result in temporary, localized increases in particulate concentrations due to emissions from construction-related sources. 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 would not be expected to significantly affect air quality. Water  Water resources on and in the site vicinity (i.e. Elliott Bay) could potentially be impacted during construction, due to filling/disturbance, erosion/sedimentation and the release of pollutants during demolition and grading activities. Implementation of a TESCP, BMPs and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would minimize potential impacts. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and the existing buildings that are on-site would be retained. Any construction activity associated with redeveloping the existing buildings would be likely be minimal and minimal air quality impacts would be expected.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and the existing buildings that are on-site would be retained. Any construction activity associated with redeveloping the existing buildings would be likely be minimal and minimal water quality impacts would be expected. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-24 Section I Summary Table 1-1 IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX Alternative 1 CONSTRUCTION con’t Noise  Construction noise would occur and would be associated with construction dewatering, construction of new development and infrastructure, demolition of building J and selective demolition of interior/exterior portions of existing buildings. Pile driving for building foundation support will also create noise. In order to minimize noise-related impacts a construction noise management plan could be developed and implemented. Transportation  Construction-related traffic impacts would occur in varying degrees throughout the redevelopment process. Overall, the number of construction worker trips and truck trips would be less than the site could generate if existing buildings were occupied by employees. Therefore, construction-related trip impacts are not considered significant. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and the existing buildings that are on-site would be retained. Any construction activity associated with redeveloping the existing buildings would be likely be minimal and minimal noise impacts would be expected.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.  No new site development would occur and the existing buildings that are on-site would be retained. Any construction activity associated with redeveloping the existing buildings would be likely be minimal and minimal transportation impacts would be expected. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-25 Section I Summary 1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following list highlights the mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this DEIS. This list is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of mitigation measures within each element that is contained in Section 3. Proposed mitigation measures are those actions which the applicant has proposed at this point in time, and/or that are required by code, laws, or local, state, and federal regulations. Possible mitigation measures are additional actions that could be undertaken, but are not necessary to mitigate significant impacts, and are above and beyond those proposed by the applicant A. Earth  The proposed Expedia project would be designed to comply with provisions of the Seattle Building Code and the Seattle Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code.  As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Draft EIS, the proposed Expedia project would be subject to approval from the City’s Department of Construction and Inspections relative to Construction Best Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control.  A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction, in accordance with Seattle’s requirements, and could include the following:              Limit exposed cut slopes; Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes; Use silt fences, straw and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site; Seed or plant vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no buildings are proposed; Retain existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible; Install temporary drainage swales to collect stormwater runoff from areas of exposed soils; Use Baker Tanks or sediment ponds to allow sediment to settle out of stormwater prior to discharging to public stormwater or sanitary sewer systems; Use sump pumps to pump stormwater to a Baker Tank; Install a filter fabric fence to prevent sediment-laden stormwater from leaving the site. Encase check dams in geotextiles to control the velocity of water flow through on-site drainage swales; Install catch basin protection systems to prevent sediment from inadvertently entering the public stormwater control system; Employ wheel washes to rinse sediment from construction vehicles before they leave the site; and, Install a temporary construction entrance to limit the transport of soils from the site. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-26 Section I Summary  A permanent stormwater control system would be installed, per applicable regulations.  All on-site structures would be designed per the International Building Code (IBC) guidelines to be able to sustain some damage from ground motion during a seismic event and prevent life-safety issues. B. Air Quality and GHG Air Quality Construction Although significant air quality impacts are not anticipated due to construction of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus, 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. 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 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-27 Section I Summary of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) policies will require that the EXPEDIA Campus 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The environmental analysis described above does not quantify or take into consideration any potential efforts to reduce climate change-related impacts by incorporating sustainable features into the development. However, it is assumed that sustainable features would be incorporated into the project to reduce the impacts quantified in this section. These sustainable features would be considered in the approach to the design of buildings, and in ongoing site programming and management. Sustainable features would be incorporated into the project through compliance with requirements of the City's Building and Energy Codes and the likely use of green building technologies. Preliminary indications are that the EXPEDIA Campus intends to pursue LEED certification. C. Water Resources  D. The proposed Expedia project has been designed to comply with provisions of Seattle’s Stormwater Code and Manual (SMC 22.800). Plants and Animals  The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be designed to comply with provisions of the Seattle Building Code, the Environmentally Critical Areas Ordinance, the City’s Land Use Code and Shoreline regulations, as well as the City’s Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code.  As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Draft EIS, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be subject to approval from the City’s Department of Construction and Inspections relative to Construction Best Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control. E. Energy  The proposed Expedia project will be designed to comply with provisions of Seattle’s Energy Code (SMC 22.800).  If the site is divided into multiple developmental sites as defined by Seattle Municipal Code, each site would require an individual point of termination for electrical service. This may require easements and SCL electrical system modifications. Electrical capacity for the original site would be allocated among its parts. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-28 Section I Summary  F. Electrical demand that exceeds those lists in Section 3.5.2 may require the north electrical feed to the campus identified under Section 3.5.1 to be completed. Environmental Health Potential mitigation measures associated with the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project could include the following:      G. Participate in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). Implement a construction management plan (CMP) and/or a construction contingency plan (CCP) with protocols to screen, segregate and manage impacted soils and/or groundwater encountered or any other potential environmental hazards (e.g. unknown USTs, drums, chemical containers) during construction or excavation work at the site. The CMP/CCP will be developed in accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) regulations and MTCA Cleanup Regulations. If groundwater contamination is encountered, the drainage system’s discharge may be treated prior to discharging to the storm system, or redirection to the combined sewer pending King County WTD approval. Conduct any necessary site cleanup in accordance with applicable MTCA3 requirements. If applicable, document site remediation activities in order to obtain property-specific No Further Action determinations from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Land Use No significant land use impacts are anticipated from development of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project and, therefore, no mitigation is necessary. H. Height, Bulk and Scale The proposed project would adhere to all current, applicable City Land Use Code requirements in terms of FAR, building height, shoreline environment, etc. I. Aesthetics – Public Views No significant adverse viewshed-related impacts are anticipated from the proposed EXPEDIA Campus and no mitigation is necessary. 3 Model Toxic Control Act (RCW Chapter 70.105D). EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-29 Section I Summary J. Light, Glare and Shadows As noted, redevelopment of the project site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would cast shadows on a portion of the Elliott Bay Trail at approximately 9 AM on the Spring Equinox, Summer Solstice, Autumnal Equinox and the Winter Solstice. However, this trail is not subject to protection from shadow impacts under Seattle’s SEPA policies, and therefore no mitigation is required. Use and enjoyment of the trail could continue and no mitigation is necessary. K. Transportation Transportation Management Plan (TMP) The site’s existing TMP would be amended to account for the MPD. It is recommended that the TMP establish a trip reduction goal that would change over time from 49% at initial occupancy of existing buildings to 30% at full occupancy of proposed buildings. Based on the analyses herein, it is recommended that the SOV goals be related to employment at the site, which is an attribute measured for TMP and Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Act reports. It is noted that 49% is the City’s established SOV goal for CTR companies located in the Elliott Corridor. This would be the maximum goal for the EXPEDIA Campus. Details of the recommended TMP are presented in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix C). Roadway System Improvements The traffic operations analysis was used to determine potential off-site improvement needs. The following measures are suggested:  Signalize the intersection at the Alaskan Way W/Galer Flyover intersection.  Contribute funding towards improvements at the 15th Avenue W/W Gilman Street intersection. These could include intersection-capacity-improvement measures such as an additional westbound right turn lane, or demand-management measures that prevent or reduce neighborhood cut through traffic. Traffic generated by the project during the AM peak hour (when operations are most affected) at full build would represent 7% of total entering volume. This would be a reasonable share for funding contribution.  Contribute funding towards signalization of the W Galer Street/Thorndyke Avenue W intersection, if SDOT approves improvements at this location. During the AM peak hour when operations are worst, the project traffic represents about 1% of the traffic through the intersection. This would be a reasonable share for funding contribution.  On weekdays with cruise ship calls planned for Terminal 91, implement a traffic control plan at the Alaskan Way W/Galer Flyover intersection. The traffic control plan and protocols for implementation should be coordinated with the Port of Seattle and approved by SDOT. Initially, the traffic control plan would only be needed when two cruise ships are expected on a weekday. With growth in Expedia or cruise ship traffic, this level of mitigation may be required with a single cruise ship call. Plans should be regularly monitored and updated as needed.  Retain two-hour parking time limits along 16th Avenue W and add that restriction to W Galer Street adjacent to the site. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-30 Section I Summary Transit Facility Improvements and Shuttle Stops on Public Streets Expedia should work with SDOT and King County Metro to enhance and upgrade existing transit service and facilities along Elliott Avenue W. The following improvements should be considered:  If feasible, add a W Prospect Street stop for three commuter bus routes—15, 17 and 18— that currently travel on Elliott Avenue W past the site, but do not currently stop at Prospect Street (the nearest stops are at Elliott Avenue W/W Harrison Street).  When ridership at the W Prospect Street warrants, contribute to upgrade the stop to include more passenger amenities similar to higher-level stations elsewhere on the RapidRide route. It is noted that Sound Transit’s ST3 package is currently being developed for a potential November 2016 ballot measure. One route being evaluated is a light rail line between downtown and Ballard that could have a stop near the EXPEDIA Campus. Although this major transit enhancement was not considered in the transportation analysis herein, if it were approved, then Expedia should work with Sound Transit and SDOT to assure that there are good pedestrian connections between the station and the EXPEDIA Campus. Expedia may implement shuttles as one tool to reduce SOV trips, which could include service to major transportation hubs in the downtown area. Any loading/unloading areas that utilize public streets must be approved by SDOT. Expedia will coordinate with SDOT to locate and establish curbside load/unload areas. Non-Motorized Facility Improvements The site is served by off-road bicycle facilities that have capacity to accommodate the expected bicycle trips. However, the proponent could consider enhancing the trail system by providing the following improvements.  Upgrading the segment of the trail adjacent to the campus to provide separate paths or lanes for pedestrians and bicycles similar to treatments elsewhere on the trail.  Softening the sharp bend in the trail southwest of the campus.  Creating good connections between the Elliott Bay Trail, the Helix Pedestrian Bridge, and on-site bicycle storage and amenities.  Enhancing wayfinding between the Elliott Bay Trail and the Helix Bridge. The project would upgrade its frontage along 16th Avenue W as part of its required half-street improvements. The design team in, consultation with SDOT, could consider consolidating the sidewalk/walkway improvements onto the west side of the street to augment the existing trail. Pedestrian improvements at the Elliott Avenue W/W Prospect Street intersection may be desired in the future, particularly if any other corners of this intersection are redeveloped and vehicular access to those properties is required to be located on the stub ends of W Prospect Street. Since the W Prospect Street right-of-way is off-set across Elliott Avenue W (the east leg EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-31 Section I Summary of the intersection is south of the west leg), it may be possible to locate the east-west crosswalk so that it connects directly to the Helix Bridge pedestrian island located in the center of W Prospect Street. It is recommended that Expedia work with SDOT on future pedestrian improvements, and contribute towards pedestrian signal upgrades that may be needed to enhance or relocate the crosswalk and landings. Such improvements would be needed beyond Phase 2. L. Public Services and Utilities Public Services  Police – Use of private security on the EXPEDIA Campus could lessen the demand on the Seattle Police Department relative to certain calls-for-service.  Fire – No environmental impacts are anticipated and mitigation is not necessary.  Parks/Open Space – No environmental impacts are anticipated and mitigation is not necessary. Utilities Construction management associated with the proposed EXPEDIA Campus 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, EXPEDIA Campus construction management would inform land uses proximate to the site of the time and duration of expected service interruptions that could result from connection of service to the new development. Water   The design and construction of the private water distribution connections and facilities would comply with the City of Seattle regulations. All such connections would require City approval. Sanitary Sewer   The design and construction of the private sanitary sewer system would comply with the City of Seattle standard plans and specifications. All such connections would require City approval. Storm Drainage  Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.3, Water Quality and Drainage, of this DEIS. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-32 Section I Summary Telecommunications  The design and construction of telecommunication facilities in support of the EXPEDIA Campus would comply with terms of the franchise agreement. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal  No impacts are anticipated and mitigation is not necessary. Streets and Transit Services  M. Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.11, Transportation, of this DEIS. Construction Earth Refer to Section 3.1, Earth, for earth-related construction mitigation measures. Air Quality Site development would adhere to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s regulations and the City’s construction best practices regarding demolition activity and fugitive dust emissions, including:  as necessary during demolition, excavation, and construction, sprinkle debris and exposed areas to control dust;  as necessary, cover or wet transported earth material;  provide quarry spall areas on-site prior to construction vehicles exiting the site;  wash truck tires and undercarriages prior to trucks traveling on City streets;  promptly sweep earth tracked or spilled onto City streets;  monitor truck loads and routes to minimize dust-related impacts;.  use well-maintained construction equipment and vehicles to reduce emissions from such equipment and construction-related trucks;  avoid prolonged periods of vehicle idling; and  schedule the delivery and removal of construction materials and heavy equipment to minimize congestion during peak travel times associated with adjacent streets. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-33 Section I Summary Water 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 and Ecology’s requirements (as applicable). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be implemented.  Noise Potential Mitigation Measures Noise from construction activities would be subject to the limits in the Seattle Noise Code (SMC 25.08) and construction contractors would be required to comply with provisions of this code. The following contain both general and specific mitigation measures that could be undertaken to minimize noise and vibration-related impacts during construction. General Noise Mitigation Measures The following project-specific mitigation is proposed. Develop a Construction Management Plan to be approved by SDOT and SDCI. The submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm. The Construction Management Plan may include the following: 4  Limit most construction-related activities to standard construction hours between 7 AM and 6 PM on weekdays and 9 AM – 6 PM on Saturdays. During some stages of the project, it is expected that a smaller second shift may work until midnight on weekdays, although work would be limited to activities that generate little noise4 (such as daily cleanup). The applicant proposes earlier hours (5:30 AM on weekdays and 7 AM on Saturdays) for less noise intrusive work that could include activities such as loading out stockpiled soils, servicing and fueling of equipment, arrival of construction worker traffic, and potential early shifting of trades for low noise impact work.  Limit the use of noise impact-type equipment, such as pavement breakers, pile drivers, jackhammers, sand blasting tools and other impulse noise sources, to work activity between 8 AM and 5 PM on weekdays.  Whenever appropriate for impact tools, substitute hydraulic impact tools with electric models to further reduce demolition and construction-related noise and vibration.  Limit loud talking or other miscellaneous noise-related activities. 6pm to 10pm weekdays, noise from construction activity not to exceed 60dBA at adjacent property line. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-34 Section I Summary  Provide properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, and where necessary engine enclosures on operating equipment.  Turn-off idling equipment.  Use ambient sensitive broadband alarms on construction equipment that requires alarms – no pure tone alarms to be used on site. Specific Noise Mitigation Measures Demolition  During the demolition process, any impact work associated with demolition can only take place between the hours of 8 AM to 5 PM weekdays and 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays.  As necessary, deploy portable sound barriers around generators, compressors, tieback drill rigs, etc.  As needed, construct temporary barriers of materials at least as dense as three-quarters of an inch thick plywood with sound-dampening insulation. Concrete Construction  Where possible, pre-fabricate core-wall formwork at the contractor’s off-site facility to minimize the use of electric saws and hammers on-site.  Where possible, pre-fabricate reinforcing steel for the concrete core-wall curtains off-site to reduce the amount of noise associated with this work on-site.  Where possible, locate the concrete pumping station and associated trucks to minimize impacts to residents in nearby buildings and other sensitive land uses proximate to the project site.  Use hydraulic jacks to lift the core-wall formwork rather than disengaging, hoisting with crane, and re-attachment. Interior Construction  Pre-fabricate large duct risers and long interior runs and hoist them into place.  Screen the building perimeter during steel fireproofing activities. Transportation Short-Term Construction Mitigation Almost all construction at the EXPEDIA Campus would occur within the site boundaries. Roads along the site frontage—16th Avenue W, W Galer Street and Alaskan Way W—could be directly affected by construction activities. The following pre-construction plans are recommended to EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-35 Section I Summary mitigate the potential construction impacts. These should be developed in consultation with SDOT. Develop a Construction Management Plan to be approved by SDOT. The submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm. The construction management plan should include the following information:  A haul route plan detailing truck access routes to and from the site.  A truck trip management plan restricting truck trips to and from the site during peak commute hours.  A traffic control plan for work on Alaskan Way W. If the street needs to be closed or constrained during construction, use flaggers to control two-way traffic through construction area.  A parking management plan for work on 16th Avenue W. Public parking for at least 30 vehicles should be retained during construction of the Right of Way improvements along this street.  A trail access plan. If any construction work would close or constrain the Elliott Bay Trail, detours for bicyclists and pedestrians should be developed. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-36 Section I Summary SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION and ALTERNATIVES 2.1 PROPONENT/PROJECT LOCATION Proponent The EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development is sponsored by Cruise, LLC. Seneca Group is coordinating the entitlement process on behalf of Cruise, LLC. The address of Seneca Group is 1191 Second Ave., Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101 and the contact person with Seneca Group is Michael W. Stanley. Project Location The project site is located on the former Amgen and Immunex properties on Elliott Bay1 -- east of Pier 90, north of the Terminal 86 Grain Facility, and west of Elliott Ave. W. The address of the site is 1201 Amgen Ct. W. The site, which is the same configuration for each alternative, comprises an area of approximately 40.89 ac. (see Figure 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3). 2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW Proposed Development Alternatives The proposed project involves renovation of existing research buildings that are on-site to accommodate commercial office use, together with development of new office buildings. Three development alternatives and the No Action Alternative are analyzed in this DEIS.  1 2 Alternative 1 – This would represent the most intensive development alternative. Alternative 1 would retain, renovate, and in some cases expand five buildings on-site (four existing research and office buildings and a central utility plant building -approximately 530,000 sq. ft.), demolish one existing building on-site (approx. 140,834 sq. ft.), and provide for the addition of new buildings (1,420,481 sq. ft.) resulting in a total of up to 1,950,481 sq. ft. of office space. The existing 1,230 parking spaces would also be retained and an additional 2,070 parking spaces would be provided for a total of up to 3,300 on-site parking spaces. It is proposed that the EXPEDIA Campus be developed as a Major Phased Development,2 occurring over approximately a 15-year timeframe. In the vicinity of former Piers 88 and 89. Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 23.50.015 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 Section II Project Description and Alternatives EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Expedia Campus Site North Source: EA, 2015 Figure 2-1 Regional Map EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Project Site North Source: EA, 2015 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Project Site Site boundary is approximate Source: City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan, 2014; EA, 2015 North Figure 2-3 Project Site Aerial Alternative 2 – This represents a reduced-density alternative.  Development associated with Alternative 2 would, for the most part, be the same program-wise as Alternative 1. Development associated with Alternative 2 would retain, renovate, and in some cases expand five existing buildings on-site (approximately 530,000 sq. ft.), demolish one existing building (approx. 140,834 sq. ft.), and provide for the addition of new buildings (1,162,185 sq. ft.) resulting in a total of up to 1,692,185 sq. ft. of office space (258,296 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1). The existing 1,230 parking spaces would also be retained and an additional 2,070 parking spaces would be provided for a total of up to 3,300 on-site parking spaces. Similar to Alternative 1, development under Alternative 2 is proposed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over approximately a 15-year timeframe  Alternative 3 – This alternative is the same as Alternative 1, but with a different configuration for several proposed new buildings. Alternative 3 would retain, renovate, in some cases expand five existing buildings on-site (approximately 530,000 sq. ft.), demolish one existing building (approx. 140,000 sq. ft.), and provide for the addition of new buildings (1,392,185 sq. ft.) resulting in a total of up to 1,922,185 sq. ft. of office space (28,296 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1). The existing 1,230 parking spaces would also be retained and an additional 2,070 parking spaces would be provided for a total of up to 3,300 on-site parking spaces. Similar to Alternative 1, development under Alternative 3 is proposed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over approximately a 15-year timeframe. Major Phased Development As noted, each of the proposed development alternatives would be developed as a Major Phased Development, pursuant to SMC 23.50.015. A Major Phased Development (MPD) is defined as “a nonresidential, multiple building project that, by the nature of its size or function, is complex enough to require construction phasing over an extended period of time...”(SMC 23.84A.025). The following describes a MPD in terms of the criteria that is necessary in order to establish a MPD, the application and associated review process for an MPD, and the process for changes to an approved MPD.  Criteria -- “A Major Phased Development proposal is subject to the provisions of the zone in which it is located and shall meet the following thresholds” (summarized below): 1. Minimum site size of five acres; 2. At time of application, the project shall be a single, functionally interrelated campus, contains more than one building, with a minimum total gross floor area of 200,000 sq. ft; 3. The first phase of the development consists of at least 100,000 sq. ft. in gross building floor area; and 4. At the time of application, the project is consistent with the general character of development anticipated by Land Use Code regulations. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-5 Section II Project Description and Alternatives  Application – “A Major Phased Development application shall contain and be submitted, evaluated, and approved according to the following: 1. The application shall contain a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension. 2. A Major Phased Development component shall not be approved unless the Director concludes that anticipated environmental impacts, such as traffic, open space, shadows, construction impacts and air quality, are not significant or can be effectively monitored and conditions imposed to mitigate impacts over the extended life of the permit. 3. Expiration or renewal of a permit for the first phase of a Major Phased Development is subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.76, Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions. The Director shall determine the expiration date of a permit for subsequent phases of the Major Phased Development through the analysis provided for above; such expiration shall be no later than fifteen (15) years from the date of issuance.”  Changes to the Approved Major Phased Development – “When an amendment to an approved project is requested, the Director shall determine whether or not the amendment is minor. 1. A minor amendment meets the following criteria: a. Substantial compliance with the approved site plan and conditions imposed in the existing Master Use Permit with the Major Phased Development component with no substantial change in the mix of uses and no major departure from the bulk and scale of structures originally proposed; and b. Compliance with the requirements of the zone in effect at the time of the original Master Use Permit approval; and c. No significantly greater impact would occur. 2. If the amendment is determined by the Director to be minor, the site plan may be revised and approved as a Type I Master Use Permit. The Master Use Permit expiration date of the original approval shall be retained, and shall not be extended through a minor revision. 3. If the Director determines that the amendment is not minor, the applicant may either continue under the existing MPD approval or may submit a revised MPD application. The revised application shall be a Type II decision. Only the portion of the site affected by the revision shall be subject to regulations in effect on the date of the revised MPD application. The decision may retain or may extend the existing expiration date on the portion of the site affected by the revision. Based on SMC 23.50.015, a MPD is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases, and the order in which phases are executed, may be modified during the MPD and building permit processes, according to the provisions of SMC 23.50.015 C. Certain mitigation (such as construction impact mitigation) will be required for each phase, and impacts (such as EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-6 Section II Project Description and Alternatives transportation) that are related to the intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. With the exception of transportation, because no significant environmental impacts (e.g., land use, aesthetics, etc.) are anticipated as a result of full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase -- or the addition of a new phase or phases – are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. When an amendment is requested to the MPD, the Director shall determine whether or not the amendment is minor according to SMC 23.50.015 C. Site Stabilization Separate from the proposed development noted above relative to Alternatives 1-3, Cruise, LLC submitted a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application to SDCI in January 2016 for a proposed Ground Improvement Project. This is work that is proposed along the western shoreline of the project site. The applicant indicates that the ground improvements are necessary and intended to limit ground movement of the upland area resulting from lateral spreading caused by earthquake-induced soil liquefaction. The ground improvements will occur regardless of the proposed campus redevelopment. Geotechnical analysis indicates that the risk of lateral spreading exists regardless of future onsite development proposals. The proposed ground improvement zone is located about 70 feet from the crest of the existing riprap slope. This zone comprises an area of approximately 45,000 sq. ft. and extends up to about 60 ft. below present site grades. The below-grade, ground stabilization work would involve the placement of vibro-replacement stone columns. Refer to SDCI’s project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854) for details concerning specifics of this project (MUP #3022678). 2.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 1996, an EIS was prepared for the Immunex Headquarters Project, which was proposed for a 29-ac. portion of the current project site. The EIS analyzed three development alternatives, all containing approximately 1.3 million sq. ft. with differing building heights and arrangements on the Pier 88 site. Immunex Corporation was a firm based in Downtown Seattle that provided research, development, manufacturing, and marketing of therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer, infectious diseases, and autoimmune disorders.3 The proposed Immunex Headquarters Project development was approved by the City of Seattle in 1996 as a Major Phased Development (DPD project #9500028).4 Approval of the Immunex Headquarters Project MPD authorized up to 1.3 million sq. ft. of office and lab development to accommodate a full build-out of approximately 2,400 Full-time Equivalent Employees (FTE’s). The City also approved a special exception to allow a height of 65 ft. for the campus development. Approximately 305,000 sq. ft. of development was completed in conjunction with this initial development. 3 4 The company was founded in 1981 and employed approximately 1,600 employees (information is based on website research [www.bloomberg.com]). Pursuant to SMC 23.50.015. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-7 Section II Project Description and Alternatives In 2002, Immunex was acquired by Amgen.5 Amgen is a biomedical research, development, manufacturing, and marketing company that continued to utilize the former Immunex research facilities on the campus for biomedical research, employing approximately 660 personnel. In 2006, Amgen submitted a Master Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application in order to accommodate the proposed Helix Campus Project. That project involved the addition of approximately an 11 ac. area of Pier 89 to the project site for a total development of 1.3 million sq. ft. An EIS Addendum was prepared in conjunction with the Helix Campus Project. The MUP and the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, as well as the Special Exception to allow a height increase of 65 feet on the edge of Pier 89, were approved by the City (MUP #3004392). No buildings were constructed pursuant to this MUP approval. The existing complex contains 670,834 chargeable sq. ft.6 of office and research lab space in six buildings. The facility also provides parking for approximately 1,230 vehicles. 2.4 PROJECT GOALS and OBJECTIVES The applicant has identified the following development objectives for this project: Campus Buildings 5 6  Redevelop the site of the former Amgen facility that is located at 1201 Amgen Ct. W. -east of Pier 90, north of the Terminal 86 Grain Facility, and west of Elliott Ave. W.  Maximize access to views and light.  Promote Expedia values of collaboration, inclusiveness and learning.  Allow for flexibility and growth of the campus over a 15 year timeline through a Major Phased Development and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval.  Renovate the majority of the existing buildings on site and adapt for use as office space.  In addition to renovation and expansion of existing buildings, provide for the development of at least 1,162,000 sq. ft. of new office space.  Maintain the building height for buildings that are renovated and for new construction under the special exception for building height, consistent with the existing campus. Amgen was founded in 1980 and employs approximately 18,000 worldwide (www.Amgen.com – Quick Facts). Chargeable floor area is based on the Seattle Land Use Code. Building gross floor area that is located belowgrade, gross floor area that is used for accessory parking, and gross floor area that is used for mechanical, stair, elevator, penthouses, and communication equipment on rooftops is exempt and is not chargeable. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-8 Section II Project Description and Alternatives Landscape and Open Space  Enhance campus greenery and open space.  Maintain the existing on-site view corridor.  Maintain and enhance existing public access to the bike trail and waterfront along the shoreline.  Maintain the existing public use of the Helix pedestrian bridge.  Enhance the public pedestrian pathway. Campus Mobility  Improve sidewalks and streetscapes to enhance the pedestrian and other non-motorized user experience along 16th Avenue West.  Make entries easy to find, welcoming and accommodating.  Provide attractive non-motorized connections across the campus to Downtown and other Seattle neighborhoods. Environmental Stewardship  Employ environmental stewardship in the design of buildings and landscape.  Build facilities that are resource-efficient.  Minimize glare, noise, wind effect and shading. Transit, Traffic and Parking  Retain the existing parking on-site and provide additional on-site parking to accommodate approximately 2,070 more vehicles, consistent with site redevelopment.  Preserve existing public parking opportunities on 16th Avenue W.  Continue to reduce peak-commute trip single occupancy vehicle use and encourage alternative modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, mass transit, and carpools. Construction Impacts  Minimize construction impacts on the larger community. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-9 Section II Project Description and Alternatives 2.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives are evaluated in this DEIS – Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and a No Action Alternative; each is described below. Alternative 1 Development associated with this alternative would total approximately 1,950,481 sq. ft. of gross floor area7,8 at total build-out. Figure 2-4 is a site plan that depicts the building configuration associated with this alternative at full build-out. The following describes the buildings (including an overview of existing buildings, proposed development at full build-out, and projected build-out by phase within the MPD), parking (full build-out and by phase) and access, open space, street modifications, and phasing associated with Alternative 1. Buildings  Existing Facilities – Four existing research and office buildings would be retained and renovated,9 as applicable, to accommodate commercial office space. The existing central utility plant (Building U) would remain primarily as mechanical space. These buildings, identified in Figure 2-4 as buildings A, B, C, D and U, total 530,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (see Table 2-1).7 The existing 4-story building J (140,834 sq. ft.) would be demolished.10 Table 2-1 Existing Buildings to Remain Existing Building Square Footage A B C D U P1 Total 7 8 9 10 93,783 93,783 93,783 197,016 51,635 (390,235) 530,000 sq. ft. This area only includes chargeable gross floor area based on the Seattle Land Use Code. Per SMC 23.50.028 E., building gross floor area that is located below-grade, gross floor area that is used for accessory parking, and gross floor area that is used for mechanical, stair, elevator, penthouses, and communication equipment on rooftops is exempt from floor area ratio calculations and is, therefore, not chargeable. All square footages and numbers noted in this DEIS are approximate. Building shell and core would remain; substantial exterior modifications would occur. See Figure 2-7; EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-10 Section II Project Description and Alternatives EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2015 Figure 2-4 Expedia Campus—Site Plan Alternative 1  New Facilities - It is proposed that three of the five existing buildings (A, B and C) be expanded to accommodate additional office space (see Figure 2-4). With the expansion, the total gross square footage of each of these buildings would approximate 128,580 sq. ft. (see Table 2-2). The expansion area for each building would be a 3-story structure adjoining and immediately southwest of the existing building. The height of each expansion would approximate 49 ft. above-grade. - Two new buildings are proposed between buildings A and B and between buildings B and C (see Table 2-2 and Figure 2-4). Each would be a 1-story structure (large atrium), containing approximately 12,500 sq. ft., with a building height of approximately 49 ft. above-grade. - Five new buildings are proposed -- Building E, F, G, K and L. Chargeable square footages11 of each are noted in Table 2-2 and each is depicted on Figure 2-4. Buildings E, F and G would be 4-story structures with a height of 65 ft. Buildings K and L would be 2-story structures with a height of 32 ft. Table 2-2 Alternative 1 -- Proposed Expansion -Existing Buildings and New Buildings at Full-Build-Out 11 Building Square Footage A B C D E F G K L 128,580 128,580 128,580 180,500 603,352 412,593 258,296 50,000 35,000 A-B Infill B-C Infill P1 Total 12,500 12,500 (390,235) 1,950,481 This area only includes chargeable gross floor area based on the Seattle Land Use Code. Per SMC 23.50.028 E, building gross floor area that is located below-grade, gross floor area that is used for accessory parking, and gross floor area that is used for mechanical, stair, elevator, penthouses, and communication equipment on rooftops is exempt from floor area ratio calculations and, therefore, is not chargeable. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-12 Section II Project Description and Alternatives As shown, at full-build-out it is estimated that total development associated with Alternative 1 would approximate 1,950,481 sq. ft. of chargeable gross floor area. This area does not include the existing Building U that would remain as mechanical space.  Phasing – As noted previously, the proposed Expedia Campus project would be developed as a MPD over a period of up to 15 years. Whereas Table 2-2 indicates possible development associated with full-build-out of Alternative 1, Table 2-3 depicts possible phased development of Alternative 1. As shown, it is anticipated that roughly 60 percent of the amount of development to be provided at full build-out would occur as part of the first phase. Table 2-3 Alternative 1 -- Proposed Expansion -Projected Build-Out By Phase Building Square Footage at Full Build-Out A B C D E F G K L 128,580 128,580 128,580 180,500 603,352 412,593 258,296 50,000 35,000 128,580 128,580 128,580 180,500 603,352 A-B Infill B-C Infill 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 1,950,481 1,194,592 Total U Phase 1 (sq. ft.) Phase 2 (sq. ft.) 412,593 412,593 Phase 3 (sq. ft.) 258,296 50,000 35,000 343,296 51,635 51,635 As noted previously, the MDP site plan for Alternative 1 (Figure 2-4) and the phasing concept associated with Alternative 1 (Table 2-3) are conceptual at this time and the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases, and the order in which phases are executed, may be modified through the MPD and building permit process, according to the provisions of SMC 23.50.015 C.. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-13 Section II Project Description and Alternatives Parking, Access and Loading  Existing Parking – Building P1 is a 7-level, 390,285 sq. ft.12 parking structure that contains 1,230 parking spaces (see Figure 2-4). This parking structure would be retained.  Proposed New Parking Facilities – Two new single-purpose parking structures are proposed -- P2 and P3. P2 would be 7-level, 142,197 sq. ft. expansion to P1, which would be located in the east-central portion of the campus. P3 would be a 4-level, 160,000 sq. ft. facility located in the north portion of the site, adjacent to the main vehicular access to the campus (see Figure 2-4). Collectively, P2 and P3 would add 812 parking spaces to campus. In addition, parking would be provided below-grade beneath the additions of Buildings A, B, C, and under Building E (943 spaces) and Building F (315 spaces). The specific location of parking has yet to be determined, but the total new parking facilities at the campus would total 2,070 spaces. Table 2-4 depicts possible phased development of parking associated with Alternative 1. As shown, it is anticipated that roughly 81 percent of the amount of parking to be provided at full build-out would occur as part of the first phase. Table 2-4 Alternative 1 -- Proposed Parking -Projected Build-Out By Phase Building 12 13 Parking Spaces Phase 1 at Full Build-Out (# of spaces) P1 P2 E F P3 1,230 498 943 315 314 1,230 498 943 Total 3,300 2,671 Phase 2 (# of spaces) Phase 3 (# of spaces) 315 31413 629 0  Access to the EXPEDIA Campus would be the same as presently exists – Elliott Ave. via W. Galer St.  Loading – The three existing loading bays adjacent to Helix Way W. would remain. In addition, three loading bays are proposed south of Building U in the existing service court. Parking structures are not chargeable gross floor area in this zoning district, per SMC 23.50.028. E.1b. This parking could shift to a later phase. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-14 Section II Project Description and Alternatives Open Space At full build-out Alternative 1 would provide approximately 45 percent, or 1.05 million sq. ft. of the project site as open space for use by employees of the EXPEDIA Campus.14 No changes are proposed to the existing public access associated with Centennial Park along Smith Cove in Elliott Bay. Street Modifications Street modifications associated with Alternative 1 would include demolition of most of Amgen Ct. W. and improvements to 16th Ave. W. and W. Galer St. Potential changes include the addition of street trees and half street improvements along 16th Ave. W. and signage along W. Galer St. Site Stabilization As described in Section 2.1 of this DEIS, site stabilization work is proposed independent of site work associated with the proposed development alternatives and the No Action Alternative. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application for a proposed Ground Improvement Project was submitted to SDCI in January 2016 (MUP #3022678). Phasing As noted, Alternative 1 would be developed as a Major Phased Development -- over a 15-year timeframe. The MUP plans that are on-file with SDCI and Tables 2-3 and 2-4 indicate that implementation may occur in three phases.15 As noted, it is anticipated that approximately 60 percent of the total building area that is proposed at full build-out would occur in Phase 1, 19 percent in Phase 2 and 18 percent in Phase 3. With regard to parking, approximately 81 percent of the total amount of parking that is proposed would occur in Phase 1 and 19 percent in Phase 2; no additional parking is planned for Phase 3. The following is an overview of development activity that would occur during each phase. Construction of the first new building is scheduled to begin in August 2016 and become operational by June 2019. Phase 1  Demolish existing building J.  Demolish interior and exterior portions of buildings A, B, C, D, P1 and U.  Construct parking structure P2.  Construct building E and underground parking.  Construct additions to buildings A, B and C and 1 level of underground parking.  Construct A-B infill and B-C infill.  Construct all site work and utilities infrastructure for full build-out. 14 15 Upon completion of Phase 1, approximately 60 percent of the site would be in open space. The current project and phasing site plan concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature and it is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined in the process of MPD and building permit approval. Accordingly, the specific elements represented in each phase may be modified through MPD and SSDP permit process progress, according to the provisions of SMC 23.50.015 C. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-15 Section II Project Description and Alternatives Phase 2  Construct building F and one level of underground parking.  Construct parking structure P3.16 Phase 3  Construct building G.  Construct buildings K and L. The proponent indicates that Alternative 1 would meet their objectives. Alternative 2 Development associated with this alternative would total approximately 1,692,185 sq. ft. of gross floor area (258,300 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1).17,18 Figure 2-5 is a site plan that depicts the building configuration associated with this alternative. The following describes the buildings (including an overview of existing buildings, proposed development at full build-out, and projected build-out by phase within the MPD), parking (full build-out and by phase) and access, open space, street modifications, and phasing associated with Alternative 2. Buildings  Existing Facilities – Like Alternative 1, development associated with Alternative  New Facilities 2 would involve retention and renovation,19 of four existing research and office buildings, to accommodate commercial office space. The existing central utility plant (Building U) would remain primarily as mechanical space. These buildings, identified in Figure 2-5 as buildings A, B, C, D and U, total 530,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (see Table 2-1). As with Alternative 1, the existing 4-story building J (140,000 sq. ft.) would be demolished. - 16 17 18 19 Alternative 2 – like Alternative 1 -- would expand three of the five existing buildings (A, B and C) to accommodate additional office space (see Figure 2-5). Parameters (building square footage, location, number of stories, and height above grade) associated with Alternative 2 expansion would be the same as those of Alternative 1. Information noted on the MUP plans indicates that while this building is planned to be constructed in this phase, development could occur in a later phase. This area only includes chargeable gross floor area based on the Seattle Land Use Code. Per SMC 23.50.028 E., building gross floor area that is located below-grade, gross floor area that is used for accessory parking, and gross floor area that is used for mechanical, stair, elevator, penthouses, and communication equipment on rooftops is exempt from floor area ratio calculations and, therefore, is not chargeable. All square footages and numbers noted in this DEIS are approximate. Building shell and core would remain; substantial exterior modifications would occur. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-16 Section II Project Description and Alternatives EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2015 Figure 2-5 Expedia Campus—Site Plan Alternative 2  - Alternative 2 – like Alternative 1 – proposes two new infill buildings between buildings A and B and between buildings B and C (see Figure 2-5). Parameters would be the same as noted for Alternative 1. - Four new buildings are proposed -- building E, F, K and L. Building G, which is proposed for Alternative 1, would not occur in Alternative 2. Chargeable square footages20 of each are noted in Table 2-2 and each is depicted on Figure 2-5. Total square footage associated with new buildings for Alternative 2 would be 1,162,185 sq. ft. Parameters of building E, F, K and L would be the same as those of Alternative 1. Phasing – As noted previously, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be developed as a MPD over a period of up to 15 years. Table 2-5 depicts possible phased development of Alternative 2. As shown, it is anticipated that roughly 71 percent of the amount of development to be provided at full build-out would occur as part of the first phase. Table 2-5 Alternative 2 -- Proposed Expansion -Projected Build-Out By Phase21 Building Square Footage at Full Build-Out A B C D E F K L 128,580 128,580 128,580 180,500 603,352 412,593 50,000 35,000 128,580 128,580 128,580 180,500 603,352 A-B Infill B-C Infill 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 1,692,185 1,194,592 Total U Phase 1 (sq. ft.) Phase 2 (sq. ft.) 412,593 412,593 Phase 3 (sq. ft.) 50,000 35,000 85,000 51,635 51,635 20 This area only includes chargeable gross floor area based on the Seattle Land Use Code. Per SMC 23.50.028 E., building gross floor area that is located below-grade, gross floor area that is used for accessory parking, and gross floor area that is used for mechanical, stair, elevator, penthouses, and communication equipment on rooftops is exempt from floor area ratio calculations and, therefore, is not chargeable. 21 The MPD site plan (Figure 2-5) and the phasing concept associated with Alternative 2 (Table 2-5) are conceptual at this time and that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases, and the order in which phases are executed, may be modified through the MPD and building permit process, according to the provisions of SMC 23.50.015 C. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-18 Section II Project Description and Alternatives Parking, Access and Loading Parking, access, loading and phasing associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as that of Alternative 1, as indicated in Table 2-4. Parking would include retention of Building P1 (1,230 parking spaces), development of two new parking structures – P2 and P3, with below-grade parking associated with Buildings E and F. Open Space At full build-out Alternative 2 would provide approximately 49 percent, or 1.1 million sq. ft. of the project site as open space for use by employees of the EXPEDIA Campus.22 Street Modifications Street modifications associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 -demolition of most of Amgen Ct. W. and improvements to 16th Ave. W. and W. Galer St. Site Stabilization As described in Section 2.1 of this DEIS, site stabilization work is proposed independent of site work associated with the proposed development alternatives and the No Action Alternative. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application for a proposed Ground Improvement Project was submitted to SDCI in January 2016 (MUP #3022678). Phasing Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would be developed as a Major Phased Development -over a 15-year timeframe. The MUP plans that are on-file with SDCI and Table 2-5 indicate that implementation may occur in three phases.23 As noted, it is anticipated that approximately 71 percent of the total building area that is proposed at full build-out would occur in Phase 1, 24 percent in Phase 2 and 5 percent in Phase 3. Phasing associated with parking would be the same as indicated for Alternative 1. Construction of the first new building is scheduled to begin in August 2016 and become operational by June 2019. The proponent indicates that Alternative 2 would meet their objectives. 22 Upon completion of Phase 1, approximately 60 percent of the site would be in open space. 23 The current project and phasing site plan concept for the Expedia Campus is conceptual in nature and it is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined in the process of MPD and building permit approval. Accordingly, the specific elements represented in each phase may be modified through the MPD and SSDP permit process, according to the provisions of SMC 23.50.015 C. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-19 Section II Project Description and Alternatives Alternative 3 Development associated with this alternative would total approximately 1,922,185 sq. ft. of gross floor area (28,296 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1).24,25 Figure 2-6 is a site plan that depicts the building configuration associated with this alternative. The following describes the buildings (including an overview of existing buildings, proposed development at full build-out, and projected build-out by phase within the MPD), parking (full build-out and by phase) and access, open space, street modifications, and phasing associated with Alternative 3. Buildings 24 25 26  Existing Facilities – Like Alternatives 1 and 2, development associated with Alternative 3 would involve retention and renovation,26 of four existing research and office buildings, to accommodate commercial office space. The existing P1 parking facility would be retained and the central utility plant (Building U) would also remain primarily as mechanical space. These buildings, identified in Figure 2-6 as Buildings A, B, C, D and U, total 530,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (see Table 2-1). As with Alternatives 1 and 2, the existing 4-story Building J (140,834 sq. ft.) would be demolished.  New Facilities - Alternative 3 – like Alternatives 1 and 2 -- would expand three of the five existing buildings (A, B and C) to accommodate additional office space (see Figure 2-6). Parameters (building square footage, location, number of stories, and height above grade) associated with Alternative 3 expansion would be the same as those of Alternative 1. - Alternative 3 – like Alternatives 1 and 2 – proposes two new infill buildings between buildings A and B and between buildings B and C (see Figure 2-5). Parameters would be the same as noted for Alternative 1. - Five new buildings are proposed -- building E, F, H, K, L and M. Building G, which is proposed for Alternative 1, would not occur in Alternative 3. The new Building M would absorb approximately one-half of the chargeable square footage of Building G. The new Building H would absorb approximately 30 percent of the chargeable square footage of Building G. Total square footage associated with new buildings for Alternative 3 would be 1,392,185 sq. ft. Parameters of building E, F, K and L would be the same as those of Alternative 1. This area only includes chargeable gross floor area based on the Seattle Land Use Code. Per SMC 23.50.028 E., building gross floor area that is located below-grade, gross floor area that is used for accessory parking, and gross floor area that is used for mechanical, stair, elevator, penthouses, and communication equipment on rooftops is exempt from floor area ratio calculations and, therefore, is not chargeable. All square footages and numbers noted in this DEIS are approximate. Building shell and core would remain; substantial exterior modifications would occur. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-20 Section II Project Description and Alternatives EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 2-6 Expedia Campus—Site Plan Alternative 3  Phasing – As noted previously, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be developed as a MPD over a period of up to 15 years. Table 2-6 depicts possible phased development for Alternative 3. As shown, it is anticipated that roughly 62 percent of the amount of development to be provided at full build-out would occur as part of the first phase. Table 2-6 Alternative 3 -- Proposed Expansion -Projected Build-Out By Phase27 Building Square Footage at Full Build-Out A B C D E F H K L M 128,580 128,580 128,580 180,500 603,352 412,593 70,000 65,000 35,000 130,000 128,580 128,580 128,580 180,500 603,352 A-B Infill B-C Infill 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 1,922,185 1,194,592 Total U Phase 1 (sq. ft.) Phase 2 (sq. ft.) 412,593 412,593 Phase 3 (sq. ft.) 70,000 65,000 35,000 130,000 315,000 51,635 51,635 Parking, Access and Loading Parking, access, loading and phasing associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to that of Alternative 1. However, as indicated by Table 2-7, no Building P3 would be provided and the amount of parking associated with Building F would be twice the amount associated with Alternative 1. Parking would include retention of Building P1 (1,230 parking spaces) and development of one new parking structure – P2. 27 The MPD site plan (Figure 2-5) and the phasing concept associated with Alternative 2 (Table 2-5) are conceptual at this time and that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases, and the order in which phases are executed, may be modified during the MPD and building permit process, according to the provisions of SMC 23.50.015 C. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-22 Section II Project Description and Alternatives Table 2-7 depicts possible phased development of parking associated with Alternative 3. Like Alternatives 1 and 2, it is anticipated that roughly 81 percent of the amount of parking to be provided at full build-out would occur as part of the first phase. Table 2-7 Alternative 3 -- Proposed Parking -Projected Build-Out By Phase Building Parking Spaces Phase 1 at Full Build-Out (# of spaces) P1 P2 E F 1,230 498 943 629 1,230 498 943 Total 3,300 2,671 Phase 2 (# of spaces) Phase 3 (# of spaces) 629 629 0 Open Space At full build-out, Alternative 3 would provide approximately 46 percent, or 1.06 million sq. ft. of the project site as open space for use by employees of the EXPEDIA Campus.28 Street Modifications Street modifications associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternatives 1 and 2 -- demolition of most of Amgen Ct. W. and improvements to 16th Ave. W. and W. Galer St. Phasing Like Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 would be developed as a Major Phased Development -- over a 15-year timeframe. The MUP plans that are on-file with SDCI and Table 2-6 indicate that implementation may occur in three phases.29 As noted, it is anticipated that approximately 62 percent of the total building area that is proposed at full build-out would occur in Phase 1, 22 percent in Phase 2 and 16 percent in Phase 3. Phasing associated with parking would be the same as indicated for Alternatives 1 and 2. Construction of the first new building is scheduled to begin in August 2016 and become operational by June 2019. The proponent indicates that Alternative 3 would meet their objectives. 28 29 Upon completion of Phase 1, approximately 60 percent of the site would be in open space. The current project and phasing site plan concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature and it is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined in the process of MPD and building permit approval. Accordingly, the specific elements represented in each phase may be modified through the MPD and SSDP permit process, according to the provisions of SMC 23.50.015 C.. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-23 Section II Project Description and Alternatives No Action Alternative No new site development would occur as a result of this alternative (Figure 2-7). The following describes the buildings, parking, open space, street modifications, and phasing. Buildings  Existing Facilities – The five existing research and office buildings (A, B, C, D, and J) would be renovated to accommodate office space. The one central utility plant (Building U) would remain. These buildings total 670,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. No addition to the existing buildings or new buildings would be provided. Parking and Access Building P1 (1,230 parking spaces) would be retained; no new parking structures would be provided. Site access would be the same as presently occurs. Open Space The existing approximately 82 percent of the project site would remain as open space for use by employees of the EXPEDIA Campus. Street Modifications No modifications would occur to Amgen Ct. W., 16th Ave. W., or W. Galer St. Site Stabilization As described in Section 2.1 of this DEIS, site stabilization work is proposed independent of site work associated with the proposed development alternatives and this No Action Alternative. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application for a proposed Ground Improvement Project was submitted to SDCI in January 2016 (MUP #3022678). Phasing Since no development would occur, no phasing development is necessary or proposed. Tenant improvements would begin in August 2016 and become operational in 2017. The proponent indicates that the No Action Alternative would not meet their objectives. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-24 Section II Project Description and Alternatives EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2015 Figure 2-7 Expedia Campus—Site Plan No Action Alternative Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation Another No-Action-related consideration involves the possibility of delaying implementation of Alternative 1, Alternative 2, or Alternative 3 to some future time. Unlike other development projects, however, delay would be less of a factor for the EXPEDIA Campus project, because it is proposed as a Major Phased Development, which would be implemented over a lengthy timeframe (up to 15 yrs.). None-the-less, if delay occurs, 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 either of the three development alternatives would not occur at this time, but would be delayed until project implementation.  Future re-use/redevelopment options for the site would not be foreclosed. Disadvantages of Deferral  Deferral would not necessarily eliminate or lessen the severity of environmental impacts that are identified in this DEIS, but merely postpone them. In some situations, this could result in greater cumulative impacts (e.g., traffic, noise, viewshed, etc.) as a result of redevelopment, due to changes in background conditions and changes that occur with regard to other nearby properties. The proponent indicates that deferral would not meet their objectives. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-26 Section II Project Description and 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 EXPEDIA Campus, SDCI published a SEPA Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice on August 27, 2015. That commenced a formal, public EIS Scoping process, which concluded September 28, 2015. DPD also held an EIS Scoping Meeting on September 28, 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, SDCI received written comments, as well as public testimony at the EIS Scoping meeting concerning the scope of the DEIS. At the conclusion of Scoping, SDCI determined the issues and alternatives to be analyzed in this DEIS. Thirteen broad areas of environmental review are evaluated, including: earth, air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, water, plants and animals, energy, environmental health, land use, aesthetics (height, bulk/ scale), aesthetics (public views), light/ glare/ shadows, transportation/ circulation/ parking, public services and utilities, and construction-related impacts. 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. 1 in addition to the submittal of written comments EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section III 3.1-1 3.1 EARTH This section of the DEIS describes the existing topographic, soils, geologic and groundwater conditions on the Expedia site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates the potential impacts from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives. This section is based on the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study Amgen Campus Development – Pier 89 (July 2006) prepared by Hart Crowser (see the complete report on SDCI’s project portal website: (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854), and a recent geotechnical engineering design study (Hart Crowser, 2016). Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for earth. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: D.2. Earth a. It is the City's policy to protect life and property from loss or damage by landslides, strong ground motion and soil liquefaction, accelerated soil creep, settlement and subsidence, abnormal erosion, and other hazards related to earth movement and instability. b. The decisionmaker may condition or deny projects to mitigate impacts related to earth movement or earth instability consistent with the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665; provided, that in addition to projects which meet one (1) or more of the threshold criteria set forth in the Overview Policy, projects located in environmentally sensitive areas and areas tributary to them may be conditioned or denied. c. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to: i. Reducing the size or scope of the operation or project; ii. Limiting the duration of the project or the hours of operation; iii. Requiring landscaping, the retention of existing vegetation or revegetation of the site; iv. Requiring additional drainage-control measures or drainage facilities; v. Requiring water quality and erosion controls on or off site to control earth movement; and vi. Requiring additional stabilization measures. 3.1.1 Existing Conditions Topography and Soils The site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 14 to 24 feet per NAVD88. The project site is made-land comprised of two former piers – Pier 88 and 89 – together with intervening waterway. The two docks (later referred to as piers) were built in the 1890’s by James J. Hill, president of the Great Northern Railway and were referred to as the Great Northern Dock (Pier 88)1 and the Great Northern Grain Elevator Dock (Pier 89). The purpose of the long docks was to provide direct rail service to shipping serving the Far East.2 Between the 1890’s and the early 1960’s, the piers served numerous maritime industries. The waterway and 1 2 Pier 88 was the southernmost dock of these two facilities. www.historylink; essays9967 and 10653. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-2 Section 3.1 Earth area of the former piers were filled between 1962 and 1964 with soil from construction of Interstate 5 through Downtown Seattle. The site is generally underlain by fill over alluvial/marine sediments over glacially overridden soils. The top elevation of the very dense glacial sand and gravelly sand varies, but it is lower west of the former Pier 88. Soils overlying the bearing layer have been generalized into three distinct zones, as detailed below.  Zone I, east of Pier 88 only, includes the south and southeast portions of the site and consists of up to three feet of silty gravelly sand over dense to very dense sandy gravel to very gravelly sand. Test pits and borings indicate that the surficial fill contains occasional wood, concrete and asphalt debris.  Zone II typically consists of less than approximately five feet of medium dense surficial fill over much of the site. Some isolated locations contain the surficial fill to depths down to 18 feet below the ground in isolate locations. Metal, wood, brick and concrete debris are present in this layer according to testing. Beneath the surficial fill, layers of loose to medium dense silty, gravelly sand overlie dense to very dense sandy gravel to very gravelly sand.  Zone III is located between and to the east of Zone II and primarily consists of medium dense surficial fill to depths below the ground surface less than five feet except in isolated areas, which contained fill down to approximately 10 feet. The predominant soil type above the bearing layer in this zone is the soft to stiff silty, sandy clay/silt (fill) which consists primarily of soft to stiff, sandy clay and silt. Test pit excavations within this zone indicate abundant metal, wood, brick and concrete debris in this layer as well as riprap and other potential obstructions. This unit consists predominantly of clay over most of Pier 89. Based on site history, explorations, and construction of existing buildings on the site, it is known that several types of obstructions are likely to be encountered across the site. These may include riprap slope protection that may exist along the old shorelines and pier edges, timber piles near old pier edges, former Building G/K foundations, and existing Pier 89 building foundations. Environmentally Critical Areas Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) are areas designated by the City of Seattle pursuant to SMC 25.09.020. They include: geologic hazard areas (liquefaction-prone areas, landslideprone areas [including steep slope areas], peat settlement-prone areas, seismic hazard areas, volcanic hazard areas), flood-prone areas, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and abandoned landfills. There are two City-designated geologic hazard areas present on the site of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus – liquefaction-prone areas and steep slopes; each are described below. Liquefaction-prone areas3 are areas typically underlain by cohesion-less soils of low density, usually in association with a shallow groundwater table, that lose substantial strength during 3 SMC 25.09.020(A)(3) EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-3 Section 3.1 Earth earthquakes. The entire site of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus is mapped by the City as a liquefaction-prone area. Site-specific engineering studies indicate that only Zone II soils are susceptible to widespread liquefaction during earthquakes. In 2001, Amgen installed stone columns on the southern portion of Pier 88 where soil liquefaction and lateral spreading during an earthquake were expected. Steep slope-designated areas are those areas with a slope inclined at forty percent (40%)4 or greater. Two riprap faced shoreline areas in the southwest portion of the campus are mapped by the City’s GIS database as steep slope areas. The one area extends along the west property line and is an engineered riprapped shoreline installed during the filling of the site. The second area is located approximately 300 ft. west of the existing fishing pier at Centennial Park at Centennial Park and approximately 150-ft. north of the water. Project’s topographical survey documents that the slope is approximately twenty-five percent (25%). 3.1.2 Impacts of the Alternatives Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would include renovation and expansion of existing buildings together with development of new office buildings and parking. Construction activities under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are anticipated to require a similar amount of grading and cut/fill for the installation of utilities and construction of redevelopment. Therefore, it is anticipated that potential earth-related impacts would be similar under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, except where noted below in Phase 3. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Early Site Work – Ground Improvements As noted in Section II of this DEIS (2.2), a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit has been submitted to SDCI (MUP #3022678) for ground improvements on the EXPEDIA Campus. This work is proposed to occur prior to and independent of the proposed MPD proposal evaluated in this EIS. These improvements are intended to reduce and mitigate the risk of soil liquefaction and subsequent lateral spreading that could occur during an earthquake, and which has the potential to jeopardize the overall integrity of the campus as well as 16th Avenue W. Ground improvements could include stone columns constructed by the introduction of vertical columns of crushed stone material into the soil to a depth that provides lateral support against seismic evens and soil liquefaction. Ground displacements could be reduced to less than one inch at a distance of 200 feet from the shoreline. This early work would preserve and protect existing structures on the EXPEDIA Campus and is subject to a separate Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and independent SEPA review. Phase 1 As noted previously, the project would be developed as a Major Phased Development -- over a 15-year timeframe in three phases. It is anticipated that approximately 63 percent of the total building area and the majority of the earthwork that is proposed would occur during Phase 1. 4 4 ft. of rise per 10 ft. of run EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-4 Section 3.1 Earth Soils at the site may be susceptible to erosion when disturbed by construction and excavation activities, and fill material used for site grading could also be susceptible to erosion. A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management practices (BMPs), would be implemented during construction, in accordance with requirements of the City of Seattle and the Washington Department of Ecology (as applicable). Following construction, a permanent stormwater control system would be installed, in accordance with current regulations (see Section 3.3, Water, for details). Permanent landscaping would also be established. As a result, no significant erosion/sedimentation impacts would be expected. Grading Development of the proposed Expedia project in Phase 1 would require removal of one existing building (building J), paving and vegetation, and grading of the site for construction of the proposed buildings and infrastructure. Based on a preliminary grading concept, it is estimated that approximately 300,000 cubic yards (cy) of in-situ material is expected to be excavated in Phase 1 for the underground parking garage, building foundations (buildings A, B, C, and E), and all utilities infrastructure for full the build-out. Assuming an expansion coefficient of 30 percent when the material is removed from the ground, this equates to an estimated 390,000 cy of excavated material. Preliminary planning estimates indicate that 3,400 cy could be excavated each day. The contractor estimates an average dump truck load of 22 cy per truck would generate 154 truckloads per day, or 308 truck trips (154 empty trucks in and 154 full trucks out). The average number of trucks per hour would range from 18 to 22 truckloads. A truck haul route will be established for the project and will generally have southbound trucks using Amgen Court W through the existing site, returning north on Alaskan Way W to exit the site. Off-site routes are expected to use designated Major Truck Streets, including W Mercer Place and Mercer Street to Interstate 5 or Elliott Avenue W/Alaskan Way to I-90 (see also Section 3.11 of this DEIS, Construction). Approximately 60,000 cy of fill is anticipated to be required for Phase 1 construction. Buildings and Infrastructure Support Mat foundations would be used in Zone I soils. To address the potential for settlement and liquefaction, deep foundations will be required for building support in Zones II and III soils. Driven, steel pipe, piles are considered the most suitable foundation type. Pile design should take into account the effect of soil liquefaction and lateral spreading. Ground improvement such as stone columns would also be used to mitigate the effect of soil liquefaction and lateral spreading. Mat foundations may be feasible for lightweight buildings on ground improvement in Zone II and III soils. Results of historical, construction, and exploration/investigation programs indicate that obstructions will be encountered during installation of deep foundations. Flexibility in designing the foundation may be necessary, although massive distribution of obstructions below the site are not anticipated. Options when encountering obstructions include, relocating piles and redesigning the pile cap, removing the obstruction, or designing an alternative foundation support that works around the obstruction. Subsurface conditions and analyses indicate that saturated sand in the upper 40 to 70 feet between and including Piers 88 and 89 on the site is susceptible to soil liquefaction during a design seismic event (magnitude 7.0 to 7.5 earthquake). Liquefaction-induced settlements up EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-5 Section 3.1 Earth to approximately three feet could occur in Zone II areas, and significantly less in Zone III areas. Strength loss of soils and liquefaction-induced ground settlements should be taken into account for the foundation support of structures. Lateral Spreading Liquefied soils can flow in sloping ground or if a ‘free (i.e., near vertical) face exist in the soil profile, which is called lateral spreading. Some ground displacements as a result of soil liquefaction and subsequent lateral spread could occur during a severe earthquake. Following soil liquefaction, ground displacements could occur as one foot within 10 feet as lateral spread develops along the unprotected shoreline. Lateral ground displacements could be on the order of 10 feet at the shoreline and would gradually decrease to less than approximately one foot at a distance of 200 feet from the shoreline west of Pier 89, respectively. The ground improvements that would occur separate and prior to the MPD (as described above under ‘Early Site Work’) are intended to protect the campus from excessive ground movements and to preserve and protect existing structures. Steep Slopes As noted, two areas of the project site are delineated as Environmentally Critical Areas due to steep slopes per the City GIS Database. The project site has previously been determined by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) to be an upland lot under SMC 23.60.924 and SMC 23.60A.924. As such, the project can be considered for Relief From Prohibition On Steep Slope Development relative to the steep slope areas. Based on a review of the City GIS and other submitted information, SDCI concluded that the steep slope areas on and adjacent to the site were created by previous legal grading. Consequently, the project qualifies for the Relief From Prohibition On Steep Slope Development, as described in SMC 25.09.180 B2b. An ECA Steep Slope Area Variance, or an Exception, is not required for the proposed project. As noted previously, the entire site is also considered to be a liquefactionprone area. Except as described herein, the remaining Environmentally Critical Areas requirements apply. Phase 2 Earth impacts in Phase 2 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1, because less earthwork would occur during this phase of the development. It is anticipated that approximately 65,000 cy of excavation would be required for construction of building F in the south portion of the site, and parking structure P3 in the north portion of the site under Alternatives 1 and 2. Excavated material could expand to 84,500 cy based on a 30 percent expansion coefficient. It is anticipated that approximately 104,000 cy of excavation would be required for construction of building F in the south portion of the site under Alternative 3. Excavated material could expand to 135,200 cy based on a 30 percent expansion coefficient. Soils may be susceptible to erosion, as described under Phase 1, and a TESCP, as well as BMPs would be implemented in accordance with applicable City and Ecology requirements. Building foundations suitable to the soil conditions would be used. Phase 3 As with Phase 2, earth impacts in Phase 3 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1 because far less earthwork would occur in this phase. It is anticipated that EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-6 Section 3.1 Earth approximately 10,000 cy of excavation would be required for construction of buildings L, K and G along the west portion of the site in Phase 3 under Alternative 1. Excavated material could expand to 13,000 cy based on a 30 percent expansion coefficient. Slightly less grading would be required under Alternative 2 (6,000 cy, with expansion to 7,800 cy), because building G would not be constructed. Under Alternative 3, approximately 8,000 cy of excavation would be required for construction of buildings H, L, K and M along the west portion of the site (with expansion to 10,400 cy). Soils may be susceptible to erosion, as described under Phase 1, and a TESCP, as well as BMPs would be implemented in accordance with applicable City and Ecology requirements. Building foundations suitable to the soil conditions would be used. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Certain mitigation (such as construction impact mitigation) will be required for each phase, and impacts that are related to intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. Because no significant earth impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new site development would occur and the existing campus buildings and layout would remain unchanged. The ground improvements necessary to stabilize the site (stone columns to mitigate lateral spread) would still be installed as part of a separate Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application. No other grading or earthwork would occur. 3.1.3 Potential Mitigation Measures  The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be designed to comply with provisions of the Seattle Building Code and the Seattle Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code.  As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Draft EIS, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be subject to approval from the City’s Department of Construction and Inspections relative to Construction Best Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-7 Section 3.1 Earth  A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction, in accordance with Seattle’s requirements, and could include the following:              Limit exposed cut slopes; Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes; Use silt fences, straw and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site; Seed or plant vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no buildings are proposed; Retain existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible; Install temporary drainage swales to collect stormwater runoff from areas of exposed soils; Use Baker Tanks or sediment ponds to allow sediment to settle out of stormwater prior to discharging to public stormwater or sanitary sewer systems; Use sump pumps to pump stormwater to a Baker Tank; Install a filter fabric fence to prevent sediment-laden stormwater from leaving the site. Encase check dams in geotextiles to control the velocity of water flow through on-site drainage swales; Install catch basin protection systems to prevent sediment from inadvertently entering the public stormwater control system; Employ wheel washes to rinse sediment from construction vehicles before they leave the site; and, Install a temporary construction entrance to limit the transport of soils from the site.  A permanent stormwater control system would be installed, per applicable regulations.  All on-site structures would be designed per the International Building Code (IBC) guidelines to be able to sustain some damage from ground motion during a seismic event and prevent life-safety issues. 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable earthrelated impacts would be anticipated. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-8 Section 3.1 Earth 3.2 AIR QUALITY and GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relative to potential air quality emissions that could occur in conjunction with the project. This section also includes an analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions associated with each of the alternatives. A description of mitigation measures to reduce impacts and a description of significant unavoidable adverse impacts is also provided. 3.2-1 Affected Environment 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, marine traffic in Elliott Bay, marine and industrial activities in the nearby port terminal, railroad traffic and the nearby rail yard, and 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. With marine and rail sources the air pollutants of concern are usually fine particles and NOx. The amounts of EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-1 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG 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 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 EXPEDIA Campus project does not, however, contain any component that would comprise a "transportation project" as defined in federal law, so Transportation Conformity does not pertain. In addition, there is no federal nexus with the project that would trigger the air quality General Conformity requirements for this project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Background The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. 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 and an increase in the use of fossil fuels, which has released substantial amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are emitted by both natural processes and human activities and 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, evidence indicates that human activity has elevated the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally- occurring concentrations resulting in more heat being held within the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists from 130 governments, has concluded that it is "very likely" - a probability listed at more than 90 percent - that human activities and fossil fuels explain most of the warming over the past 50 years."1 The IPCC predicts that under current human GHG emission trends, the following results could be realized within the next 100 years:2    1 2 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; IPCC, 2007a. IPCC, 2007b. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-2 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG   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), a Washington-state based interdisciplinary research group that collaborates with federal, state, local, tribal, and private agencies, organizations, and businesses, 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:3     changes in water resources, such as decreased snowpack; earlier snowmelt; decreased water for irrigation, fish and summertime hydropower production; increased conflict over water; 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 streamflow. Regulatory Framework 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 capand-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. State of Washington In February of 2007, Executive Order No. 07-02 was signed by the Governor establishing goals for Washington regarding reductions in climate pollution, increases in jobs, and reductions in expenditures on imported fuel.4 This Executive Order established Washington's goals for reducing 3 4 Climate Impacts Group, 2009. Washington, Office of the Governor, 2007. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-3 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG greenhouse gas emissions as the following: to reach 1990 levels by 2020, 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 E2SHB 2815, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill. While SB 6001 set targets to reduce emissions, the E2SHB 2815 made those state-wide requirements (see 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 2008,5 the Department of 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. In 2009, Executive Order 09-05 was signed ordering Washington State agencies to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions, to increase transportation and fuel-conservation options for Washington residents, and protect the State's water supplies and coastal areas. The 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 transit options, such as buses, light rail, and ride-share programs, and give Washington residents more choices for reducing the effect of transportation emissions. On December 1, 2010, the Department of 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 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. 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. 5 Manning, 2008. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-4 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG 3.2-2 Impacts of the Alternatives Air Quality Operational Impacts – All Alternatives Traffic-Related Air Quality Analytical Methods: The proposed EXPEDIA Campus would result in an increase in vehicular traffic to and from the facility that would increase emissions near this facility and along roads in the area. 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), per-vehicle, and total delay are shown in Table 3.2-1 for the PM peak period. Note that for the sake of brevity, the table shows only some of the traffic scenarios considered in the traffic impact assessment and shows 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. Table 3.2-1 shows the intersection LOS letter "grade" along with the per-vehicle delay computed as part of the traffic impact assessment (see Section 3.9 of this DEIS -- Transportation). Using this information and the projected peak-period volumes through each intersection, the total hours of delay during the PM peak period were computed and are listed in the table. As shown in the table (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 15th Ave NW with NW Market St. Although other intersections closer to the site of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus would be affected by larger volumes of facility-related traffic, by considering the potential for air quality problems at the most congested intersection of 15th Ave/Market it is possible to screen for peakperiod 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. Based on the 15th Ave/Market 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. 6 This screening modeling tool applies worst-case assumptions to estimate CO concentrations at nearby locations. This model uses vehicle 6 Washington State Intersection Screening Tool (WASIST) Version 3.0, Washington State Department of Transportation, June 2015 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-5 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG emission factors estimated using the latest available tool from the EPA, the MOVES2014 model. 7 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. 8 This analysis considered existing (2015), 2019 No Build/Phase 1 Build, and 2031 No Build/Full Build traffic conditions. As discussed in Section 2 (project description), Alternative 1 would have the largest building area compared with Alternatives 2 and 3. The transportation analysis (Section 3.11) relied on potential employment associated with each alternative as the basis for estimating project-related trip generation and traffic operations, and because each alternative could generate the same level of employment, the traffic analysis found that Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in the same levels of traffic. The air quality analysis reflects these same traffic conditions. Table 3.2-1 PM PEAK-PERIOD INTERSECTION CONDITIONS (intersections with LOS D or worse) Total Delay (hrs) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Total Delay (hrs) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Total Delay (hrs) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Total Delay (hrs) 2031 Full Build Delay (sec/veh) 2031 No Build LOS 2019 Phase 1 Total Delay (hrs) 2019 No Build Delay (sec/veh) 2015 Existing LOS Intersection 15 Ave NW & NW Market St D 46.9 58.4 D 53.8 73.5 D 53.7 73.2 E 59.2 84.4 E 61.6 89.0 W Roy St & Elliot Ave W & W Mercer Pl B 17.4 21.3 C 34.7 46.3 D 49.5 71.9 D 38.1 53.2 D 50.1 73.6 15th Ave W & Gilman Ave W C 22.0 23.4 D 45.5 54.1 D 46.9 55.1 D 43.4 53.8 D 45.3 58.2 Elliott Ave W & Western Ave D 54.3 57.3 D 41.7 46.3 D 42.6 48.3 D 44.0 51.2 D 44.0 52.9 Name th Source: LOS and underlying volume data provided by Heffron Transportation, Inc.; for additional information regarding the traffic terminology used, refer to Section 3.11 -- Transportation; computations by Ramboll Environ Traffic Air Quality Analysis Findings: The WASIST screening modeling results are listed in Table 3.2-2. As shown, the screening-level 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 conditions associated with the No Build Alternative. Because the modeled intersection was the most congested location that would be affected by 7 8 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 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-6 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG project-related traffic, CO concentrations at all other project-affected intersections would be lower. This finding indicates that none of the project alternatives -- including the No Build Alternative - would be likely to cause CO hot spots or be expected to result in any significant traffic-related air quality impacts. Table 3.2-2 WASIST CALCULATED CO CONCENTRATIONS AT 15TH AVE NW/NW MARKET ST INTERSECTION Peak Period PM 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 1, 2 6.0 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 1 5.7 Ambient Standards 1 2019 No Build Alt. PM 5.8 5.6 1 hr = 35 ppm 2019 Phase 1 PM 5.8 5.6 2031 No Build Alt. PM 5.4 5.3 2031 Build PM 5.4 5.3 Scenario 2015 Existing 8-hr = 9 ppm Source: Ramboll Environ, based on modeling using the WSDOT WASIST tool 1 2 CO concentrations are typically quantified in terms of parts per million, or ppm, and both the WASIST- calculated concentrations and the related ambient air quality standards are expressed in these units. 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alternative 1 The scale of global climate change is so large that the impacts of a project can only be considered on a "cumulative" basis. It is not anticipated that a single development project, even one of the size of Alternative 1, would have an individually discernible impact on global climate change. It is more 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 global climate change. Based on the City's methodology,9 an estimate of GHG emissions associated with Alternative 1 is 1,986,371 MTCO2e,10 based on proposed expansion of the existing buildings, proposed infill development, and construction of the following new buildings (E, F, G, K and L). This estimate is based on development of 1,472,116 sq. ft. of additional office space as part of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus development. The GHG emissions associated with the proposed development represent GHG emissions that would be created over the lifespan of the proposed project.11 This includes emissions associated with the following: 9 10 11 City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. MTCO2e is defined as Metric Tonne Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; equates to 2204.62 pounds of CO2. This is a standard measure of amount of CO2 emissions reduced or sequestered. Carbon is not the same as Carbon Dioxide. Sequestering 3.67 tons of CO2 is equivalent to sequester one ton of carbon. For office buildings, SDCI's GHG Emission Worksheet identifies 62.5 yrs. as an average building lifespan. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-7 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG    extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions); energy demands created by the proposed development once it is fully operational (Energy Emissions); and transportation demands created by the development once it is fully operational (Transportation Emissions). Table 3.2-3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS* (MTCO2e)12 Land Use # of Sq.Ft. 13 Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e) Energy Emissions (MTCO2e) Transportation Emissions (MTCO2e) Lifespan Emission (MTCO2e) Phase 1 Office 716,227 sq. ft. 27,932 517,813 421,126 966,401 Phase 2 Office 412,593 sq. ft. 16,091 298,310 242,609 556,740 Phase 3 Office 343,296 sq. ft. 13,389 248,206 201,860 463,230 Estimated Total Project GHG Emissions 1,986,371 Source: City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. *See Appendix B for the GHG Emissions worksheets. The numbers in Table 3.2-3 differ slightly from the Worksheet due to rounding. Refer to Appendix B of this DEIS for the Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheets for Alternative 1. Converting these life-cycle emissions to approximate annual emissions indicates that development associated with Alternative 1 could result in GHG emissions that approximate 31,782 MTCO2e each year -- assuming a 62.5-yr lifespan for commercial office buildings. To put these values into context, in an interim Washington state GHG emissions inventory, the Department of Ecology estimated state-wide annual GHG emissions in 2012 at about 92 million MTCO2e. 14 Estimated annual worldwide GHG emissions for 2010 were about 46 billion MTCO2e. 15 Therefore, annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Expedia Campus represent from about 0.03 percent of estimated annual 2012 GHG emissions within Washington, and a much smaller percentage of worldwide emissions. 12 13 14 15 MTCO2e is defined as Metric Tonne Carbon Dioxide Equivalent; equates to 2204.62 pounds of CO2. This is a standard measure of amount of CO2 emissions reduced or sequestered. Carbon is not the same as Carbon Dioxide. Sequestering 3.67 tons of CO2 is equivalent to sequester one ton of carbon. Only includes new construction. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ghg_inventory.htm http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-8 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG Alternative 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those projected for Alternative 1. The difference would be that building G would not be developed as part of Alternative 2. Based on the City's methodology, an estimate of GHG emissions associated with Alternative 2 is 1,637,835 MTCO2e. This equates to roughly 18 percent fewer life cycle emissions compared with that of Alternative 1. The emissions associated with Alternative 2 assume proposed expansion of the existing buildings, proposed infill development, and construction of the following new buildings (E, F, K and L). The estimate is based on development of 1,213,820 sq. ft. of additional office space as part of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus development. Table 3.2-4 ALTERNATIVE 2 - ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS* (MTCO2e) Land Use # of Sq.Ft. 16 Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e) Energy Emissions (MTCO2e) Transportation Emissions (MTCO2e) Lifespan Emission (MTCO2e) Phase 1 Office 716,227 sq. ft. 27,932 517,813 421,126 966,401 Phase 2 Office 412,593 sq. ft. 16,091 298,310 242,609 556,740 85,000 sq. ft. 3,315 61,455 49,980 114,694 Phase 3 Office Estimated Total Project GHG Emissions 1,637,835 Source: City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. *See Appendix B for the GHG Emissions worksheets. The numbers in Table 3.2-4 differ slightly from the Worksheet due to rounding. Converting these life-cycle emissions to approximate annual emissions indicates that development associated with Alternative 2 could result in GHG emissions that approximate 26,205 MTCO2e each year over the lifespan of the office buildings. Alternative 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to those projected for Alternative 1. The difference would be that building G would not be developed as part of Alternative 3, Building M would be developed in place of Building P1, and Building H would be added to the campus just south of Building K. Based on the City's methodology, an estimate of GHG emissions associated with Alternative 3 is 1,948,185 MTCO2e. This equates to roughly 2 percent fewer life cycle emissions compared with that of Alternative 1. The emissions associated with Alternative 3 assume proposed expansion of the existing buildings, proposed infill development, and construction of the following new buildings (E, F, H, K, L and M). The 16 Only includes new construction. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-9 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG estimate is based on development of 1,443,820 sq. ft. of additional office space as part of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus development. Table 3.2-5 ALTERNATIVE 3 - ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS* (MTCO2e) Land Use Phase 1 Office # of Sq.Ft. 17 Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e) Energy Emissions (MTCO2e) Transportation Emissions (MTCO2e) Lifespan Emission (MTCO2e) 716,227 sq. ft. 27,932 517,813 421,126 966,401 Office 412,593 sq. ft. 16,091 298,310 242,609 556,740 Phase 3 Office 315,000 sq. ft. 12,285 227,745 185,220 425,044 Phase 2 Estimated Total Project GHG Emissions 1,948,185 Source: City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. *See Appendix B for the GHG Emissions worksheets. The numbers in Table 3.2-5 differ slightly from the Worksheet due to rounding. Converting these life-cycle emissions to approximate annual emissions indicates that development associated with Alternative 3 could result in GHG emissions that approximate 31,171 MTCO2e each year over the lifespan of the office buildings. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Because no significant air quality of GHG impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. 17 Only includes new construction. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-10 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG No Action Alternative Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the No Action Alternative would be comparable to existing conditions. Conceivably, GHG emissions could be slightly less due to the need to comply with the current Building and Energy Codes. 3.2-3 Potential Mitigation Measures Air Quality Construction Although significant air quality impacts are not anticipated due to construction of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus, 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 offsite 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 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-11 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG 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 EXPEDIA Campus 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The environmental analysis described above does not quantify or take into consideration any potential efforts to reduce climate change-related impacts by incorporating sustainable features into the development. However, it is assumed that sustainable features would be incorporated into the project to reduce the impacts quantified in this section. These sustainable features would be considered in the approach to the design of buildings, and in ongoing site programming and management. Sustainable features would be incorporated into the project through compliance with requirements of the City's Building and Energy Codes and the likely use of green building technologies. Preliminary indications are that the EXPEDIA Campus intends to pursue LEED certification. 3.2-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse air quality or greenhouse gas emission-related impacts have been identified and none are anticipated. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-12 Section 3.2 Air Quality and GHG 3.3 WATER QUALITY and DRAINAGE This section of the DEIS describes the existing groundwater and drainage conditions on the EXPEDIA Campus site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates the potential impacts from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for earth. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: C.2 Drainage a. It is the City's policy to protect wetlands, riparian corridors, lakes, drainage basins, wildlife habitat, slopes, and other property from adverse drainage impacts. b. The decisionmaker may condition or deny projects to mitigate their adverse drainage impacts consistent with the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665; provided, that in addition to projects which meet one or more of the threshold criteria set forth in the Overview Policy, the following may be conditioned or denied: 1) Projects located in environmentally critical areas and areas tributary to them; 2) Projects located in areas where downstream drainage facilities are known to be inadequate; and 3) Projects draining into streams identified by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife as bearing anadromous fish. c. To mitigate adverse drainage impacts associated with the projects identified in the policy set forth above in subsection 25.05.675.C.2, projects may be required to provide drainage control measures designed to a higher standard than the design storm specified in the Stormwater Code (Chapters 22.800 through 22.808) and the Environmentally Critical Areas Ordinance. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to: 1) Reducing the size or scope of the project; 2) Requiring landscaping and/or retention of existing vegetation; 3) Requiring additional drainage control or drainage improvements either on or off site; and 4) Soil stabilization measures. S.2. Water Quality a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent adverse water quality impacts. b. For any project proposal which poses a potential threat to water quality in Seattle, the decisionmaker shall assess the probable effect of the impact and the need for mitigating measures. The assessment shall be completed in consultation with appropriate agencies with expertise. c. Subject to the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, if the decisionmaker makes a written finding that the applicable federal, state and regional regulations did not anticipate or are inadequate to address the particular impact(s) of a project, the decisionmaker may condition or deny the project to mitigate its adverse impacts. d. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to: i. Use of an alternative technology; ii. Reduction in the size or scope of the project or operation; iii. Landscaping; and iv. Limits on the time and duration of the project or operation. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-1 Section 3.3 Water 3.3.1 Existing Conditions Groundwater Groundwater elevations on-site fluctuate in response to variations in the water elevation in Elliott Bay, rainfall, weather, season and other factors. As noted in the geotechnical study,1 previous investigations measured the groundwater table elevation ranging from about 4 to 8 feet (NAVD 88 datum), depending on the level of rainfall and seepage from Queen Anne Hill. Recent groundwater samples collected and analyzed at the site indicated low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons (below MTCA cleanup levels) in the diesel- and oil-range. Total lead and arsenic concentrations were detected slightly above MTCA cleanup levels though these contributions were attributed to turbidity in the monitoring well samples and/or background conditions. Current soil sampling and analysis indicate low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the diesel and oil range and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Isolated areas of impacted soil above MTCA cleanup levels may be encountered during excavation though the majority of impacted soil encountered will likely be below MTCA cleanup levels and be considered marginally-impacted soil (below MTCA cleanup levels). Any impacted soil, groundwater, or construction runoff encountered during construction will be managed in accordance with an industry standard cleanup action plan/construction contingency plan (CAP/CCP). The CAP/CCP will outline the appropriate approvals and/or treatment options depending on characterization results. Any impacted groundwater or construction runoff encountered during construction may require treatment and/or prior approval from the applicable agency (King County, Ecology, SPU, SDCI) prior to discharge. Surface Water The project site is a mix of pervious and impervious surfaces. Approximately 30 percent of the site is currently pervious coverage and 70 percent impervious. Impervious coverage areas include buildings, streets, plazas and walkways. Stormwater runoff is collected in a series of catch basins which connect to a series of pipes. This system ultimately discharges to Elliott Bay through a 48-inch outfall. The undeveloped portion of the site abutting 16th Ave. W. drains to the storm system in the street, which ultimately discharges to Elliott Bay through a series of 12-inch outfalls (see MUP plan 3.8 on the SDCI project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854). Stormwater runoff from the developed existing pollution-generating surfaces is collected and treated in conformance with City of Seattle (COS) water quality treatment requirements at the time of construction. . The project site is depicted on National Flood Insurance Rate Map (dtd. May 16, 1995), Community Panels #53033C320F and #53033C0340F and is situated in zone “X.” This area has been determined to be outside the 500 year flood plain. 1 HartCrowser, 2006. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-2 Section 3.3 Water 3.3.2 Impacts of the Alternatives This section identifies and analyzes impacts to water resources on and in the vicinity of the EXPEDIA Campus site with proposed phased development. Impacts are expected to be similar for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3; where impacts would differ, they are noted. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Phase 1 Construction of underground structures below the groundwater table would require either drainage or structural considerations. If permanent drainage systems were to be installed, ground water would be removed, preventing any build-up of water pressure on the below-grade structure. This system may include drainage behind backfilled walls and under floor slabs, as well as a redundant sump/pump system with an uninterruptible power supply. If contamination is encountered, the system’s discharge may require treatment prior to discharging to the storm system, or redirection to the combined sewer pending King County WTD approval. Alternatively, underground structures could be structurally designed to resist the hydrostatic pressure of groundwater under static conditions. This option would substantially increase the thickness and reinforcement of the underground walls and base slabs. In Phase 1, approximately 45 percent of the project site would provide pervious coverage and an estimated 55 percent would be impervious – a 15 percent decrease in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. The applicant indicates that the stormwater infrastructure would be installed in Phase 1. Construction may require relocation or extensions of private utilities within the project site. No impact to adjacent properties or their associated utilities is anticipated with these relocations. The proposed development’s drainage design and strategies will be designed to meet provisions of the City’s current Stormwater Code at the time of Building Permit submittal. New drainage systems will be designed to respond to the architectural and landscape design goals and functions associated with specific areas of the site. The applicant indicates that the new system would consist of green storm infrastructure, area drains, catch basins, French drains, and tight-line conveyance systems that would connect into the existing outfalls, refer to MUP plan 3.8 on the SDCI project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854). On-site Stormwater Management facilities are required to manage runoff onsite from all new plus replaced hard surfaces. Water quality treatment is required for new and/or replaced surfaces. It is proposed that these facilities be integrated into the proposed drainage and site design. Flow control measures are not required for this project since the existing outfalls discharge directly into Puget Sound, which is a Designated Receiving Water as defined by SMC 22.801.050 “D”. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-3 Section 3.3 Water Phase 2 As indicated above, stormwater infrastructure would be installed in Phase 1. In Phase 2 building F in the south portion of the site would be constructed and connected to this stormwater infrastructure. In Phase 2, approximately 36 percent of the project site would provide pervious coverage and an estimated 64 percent would be impervious – a 6 percent decrease in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. Phase 3 As indicated above, stormwater infrastructure would be installed in Phase 1. In Phase 3 under Alternative 1, buildings G, K, P3 and L in the south-central and northwest portions of the site would be constructed and connected to this stormwater infrastructure. Under Alternative 2, buildings K, P3 and L would be constructed and connected to the stormwater infrastructure that was installed in Phase 1. Under Alternative 3, buildings H, K, L and M would be constructed and connected to the stormwater infrastructure that was installed in Phase 1. In Phase 3 for Alternative 1, approximately 25 percent of the project site would provide pervious coverage and an estimated 75 percent would be impervious – a 5 percent increase in the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. Alternative 2 would increase by 1 percent the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. Alternative 3 would increase by 5 percent the amount of impervious coverage over existing conditions. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Master Development Plan (MDP) is only required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MDP site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Certain measures (such as compliance with Seattle’s stormwater code) will be required for each phase, and impacts that are related to intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. Because no significant water impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases would not have the potential for significant adverse impacts. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative no site development would occur and existing water-related conditions would remain unchanged. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-4 Section 3.3 Water 3.3.3  3.3.4 Potential Mitigation Measures2 The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project will be designed to comply with provisions of Seattle’s Stormwater Code and Manual (SMC 22.800). Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of the mitigation measure noted above, no significant unavoidable adverse water-related impacts are anticipated. 2 See also Section 3.13 of this DEIS – Construction. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-5 Section 3.3 Water 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS This section of the DEIS describes the existing plant and wildlife conditions on the Expedia site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates the potential impacts from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives. This section is based on an Arborist’s Report (Tree Solutions, 2015, see Appendix D). Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for earth. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: N.2. Plants and Animals a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent the loss of wildlife habitat and other vegetation which have substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological, and/or economic value. A high priority shall be given to the preservation and protection of special habitat types. Special habitat types include, but are not limited to, wetlands and associated areas (such as upland nesting areas), and spawning, feeding, or nesting sites. A high priority shall also be given to meeting the needs of state and federal threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of both plants and animals. b. For projects which are proposed within an identified plant or wildlife habitat or travelway, the decisionmaker shall assess the extent of adverse impacts and the need for mitigation. c. When the decisionmaker finds that a proposed project would reduce or damage rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species (plants or animals) of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological or economic value, the decisionmaker may condition or deny the project to mitigate its adverse impacts. Such conditioning or denial is permitted whether or not the project meets the criteria of the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665. d. Mitigating measures may include but are not limited to: i. Relocation of the project on the site; ii. Reducing the size or scale of the project; iii. Preservation of specific on-site habitats, such as trees or vegetated areas; iv. Limitations on the uses allowed on the site; v. Limitations on times of operation during periods significant to the affected species (i.e., spawning season, mating season, etc.); and vi. Landscaping and/or retention of existing vegetation. 3.4-1 Existing Conditions Plants The EXPEDIA Campus is located on 40.89 acre site, approximately 70 percent (28.5 acres) of which is covered with impervious surfaces under existing conditions including buildings (5.4 acres) and hardscaped areas (23.1 acres), such as sidewalks, plazas, roads and surface parking. The remaining 30 percent of the site is vegetated in trees, shrubs, grasses and herbaceous plant species. The landscape surrounding existing buildings on the central-east portion of the campus was planted within the last 12 years and includes formal street tree plantings of maple, oak and linden EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.4-1 Section 3.4 Plants and Animals trees. Three courtyards (A, B and J), which are located between existing buildings, are planted with a combination of shrubs and deciduous trees. To the southwest of the existing buildings is the Ring Garden, a matrix of concrete walks and gravel paths that transect a large grassy field. Included in this planting area are several clusters of conifers and rhododendrons amongst informal seating areas. The western boundary of the garden is a thicket of roses and yew hedges. To the south is a café courtyard, perennial garden, and an unplanted field. The eastern site boundary along the existing parking garage contains a densely-planted hedge of columnar hornbeam trees.1 Overall, there are 182 trees on the site with a diameter equal to or greater than six inches. Per City of Seattle Director’s Rule 16-2008, there are no exceptional trees on site, nor are there any exceptional groves on-site.2 The project site is located along the eastern shore of Elliott Bay and the shoreline adjacent to the site is comprised of boulder rubble. This shoreline supports kelp (Nereocystis sp., Laminaria sp.), as well as other green, red, and brown attached algaes. Encrusting forms (fucoids and benthic algae), and phytoplankton are also common.3 Animals Animals found on the project site are generally limited to those adapted to living in an urbanized landscape and may include birds such as pigeon, rock dove, crow, house sparrow, European starling, herring gulls, California gulls, and ring-billed gulls. Small mammals that may inhabit portions of the site include the Norway rat, black rat, gray squirrel, and house mouse. Within the site vicinity, in Puget Sound, a number of salmonid species are known to use marine nearshore areas including chum, Chinook, coho, sockeye and pink salmon, cutthroat, steelhead and bull trout. Marine mammals that may be present include harbor seals and California sea lions. Shorebirds and waterfowl identified in Puget Sound include yellowlegs, sanderling, great blue heron, sandpipers, plovers, loons, grebes, cormorants, merganser and scoters.4 Table 3.41 lists key species that may occur proximate to the project site. 1 2 3 4 Tree Solutions. 2016. Ibid. Immunex Headquarters Project, Draft EIS. June 1995. City of Seattle. Shoreline Characterization Report. January 2010. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.4-2 Section 3.4 Plants and Animals Table 3.4-1 Animal Species that May be Proximate to the Project Site and ESA Listing Species Name Common Name Scientific Name ESU or DPS1 ESA Listing Status Critical Habitat Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Puget Sound ESU Threatened Designated Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Puget Sound DPS Threatened Proposed Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Puget Sound DPS Threatened Designated Southern Resident Killer Whale Orcinus Orca Southern Resident DPS Endangered Designated Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae N/A Endangered Not Designated or Proposed Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus N/A Threatened Designated Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Puget Sound/ Georgia Basin DPS Endangered Designated Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Puget Sound/ Georgia Basin DPS Threatened Designated Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinniger Puget Sound/ Georgia Basin DPS Threatened Designated Sources: 1. NMFS 2016. Environmental Response Management Application Pacific Northwest. Accessed November 18, 2015. 2. 3. 3.4-2 https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma.html NOAA Fisheries 2015. Species List Accessed on November 18, 2015. http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html USFWS 2015. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed November 18, 2015. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Impacts of the Alternatives Phased development on the EXPEDIA Campus would affect existing plant and animal communities on-site as a result of disturbance associated with any of the proposed development alternatives, as well as increases in human use as a result of the completed project. Progressive urbanization of the site would result in the loss of some existing vegetation and replacement with landscaping. Impacts under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would generally be similar, except where noted below for Phase 3. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Early Site Work – Ground Improvements Ground improvements on the EXPEDIA Campus are proposed to occur prior to and independent of the proposed MPD proposal evaluated in this EIS. These improvements are intended to reduce EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.4-3 Section 3.4 Plants and Animals and mitigate the risk of soil liquefaction and subsequent lateral spreading that could occur during an earthquake, and which has the potential to jeopardize the overall integrity of the campus as well as 16th Avenue W. Ground improvements could include stone columns constructed by the introduction of vertical columns of crushed stone material into the soil to a depth that provides lateral support against seismic events and soil liquefaction. Ground displacements could be reduced to less than one inch at a distance of 200 feet from the shoreline. This early work would preserve and protect existing structures on the EXPEDIA Campus and is subject to a separate Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and independent SEPA review. Phase 1 Demolition (Building J), clearing and grading for construction of the proposed project would require removal of some existing vegetation and trees. Specifically, the linden trees along the street entrance, all trees in courtyard B and some trees in the Green and along the Promenade would be removed or replanted elsewhere on the EXPEDIA Campus. None of the trees have been identified as exceptional, and tree removal would not be a significant impact.5 No rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat has been identified on the site, which is largely a filled waterway, and no impacts to these areas would be anticipated. The site is also not identified as a wildlife Environmental Critical Area on the City’s map folio. Landscaping would be installed and would include both non-native plantings, as well as native plantings. Following development of Phase 1, approximately 60 percent of the site would remain as open space and approximately 55 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces (a 15 percent decrease over existing conditions). All clearing and grading activities would comply with applicable regulations including the Shoreline Master Plan, Environmentally Critical Areas Code, Stormwater Code, and the Seattle’s Land Use Code, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. Consistency with the Shoreline Master Program, including an analysis of impacts to the nearshore environment, and required mitigation for those impacts, will address the protection of aquatic species in the nearshore environment. Landscape features on the redeveloped site would maintain views to Elliott Bay and include a large central courtyard, a wooded area, slight changes in elevation throughout the site, view terraces, walking paths connecting buildings and site features, and large open landscape areas. Construction activities, including noise could temporarily disturb animal species on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, based on the location of the site in a largely urbanized and light-industrial area, it is unlikely that animals would be significantly impacted by development of the project. Construction-related noise would be subject to provisions of the City’s Noise Code. The applicant may provide lighting along Elliott Bay Trail. All lighting would be required to meet the Seattle Land Use Code and the Shoreline Master Program requirements. The trail is already partially lit, and any additional lighting that is provided would be shielded and directed downward and away from the shoreline nearshore environment to prevent impacts to aquatic species. As such, additional lighting, if provided, is not expected to have a significant impact on aquatic species. No direct impacts to fish located in Puget Sound adjacent to the site would occur during construction or operation of Phase 1. Indirect impacts to fish from changes to water quality from 5 City of Seattle DR 16-2008 defines designation of Exceptional Trees. See Tree Solutions report (2015) in Appendix D for details on site trees. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.4-4 Section 3.4 Plants and Animals erosion, sedimentation, and pollutants would be controlled through the construction of temporary and permanent stormwater control systems, and the implementation of stormwater Best Management Practices per Washington State Department of Ecology requirements as adopted by the City of Seattle. As a result, no significant impacts to fish would be expected. Phase 2 Phase 2 under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would represent a less intense period of development as compared to Phase 1 with construction of Building F and two levels of underground parking. Following development of Phase 2, approximately 64 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces (a 6 percent decrease over existing conditions), and 36 percent, of the site would be pervious with vegetation including landscaped and graded areas. Phase 2 would comply with the same applicable regulations as Phase I, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. Impacts to animals from construction activities and noise would be less than would occur under Phase 1, due to the lesser amount of development occurring in this phase. Phase 3 Phase 3 under Alternative 1 would represent a less intense period of development as compared to Phase 1, with construction of buildings G, K, and L. Following full buildout of the project in Phase 3, approximately 75 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces, and 25 percent of the site would be pervious area with vegetation including landscaped and graded areas. Overall, the 5 percent increase in impervious surfaces over existing conditions would not be considered a significant impact. Impacts to animals from construction activities and noise would be less than would occur under both Phases 1 and 2, because the least amount of development would occur in this phase. Following full-buildout of the project under Alternative 2, approximately 49 percent of the site would remain as open space and 71 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces. Impacts under Alternative 2 in Phase 3 would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, because less development would occur under Alternative 2. It is anticipated that at full-buildout of the project under Alternative 3 approximately 46 percent of the site would remain as open space and approximately and 75 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces, Impacts under Alternative 3 in Phase 3 would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, because less development would occur under Alternative 3. Phase 3 would comply with the same applicable regulations as Phases 1 and 2, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. Impacts to animals from construction activities and noise would be less than would occur under Phase 1, due to the lesser amount of development occurring in this phase. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.4-5 Section 3.4 Plants and Animals and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Certain mitigation will be required for each phase, and impacts that are related to intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. Because no significant plant or animal impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new site development would occur and the existing campus buildings and layout would remain unchanged. The ground improvements necessary to stabilize the site (stone columns to mitigate lateral spread) would still be installed as part of the separate Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Existing plant and animal conditions on-site would remain unchanged. 3.4-3 Potential Mitigation Measures  The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be designed to comply with provisions of the Seattle Building Code, the Environmentally Critical Areas Ordinance, the City’s Land Use Code and Shoreline regulations, as well as the City’s Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code.  As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Draft EIS, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be subject to approval from the City’s Department of Construction and Inspections relative to Construction Best Management Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control. 3.4-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of the identified mitigation measures noted above, no significant unavoidable adverse plant and animal-related impacts are anticipated. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.4-6 Section 3.4 Plants and Animals 3.5 ENERGY This section of the DEIS describes the existing energy conditions on the Expedia site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates the potential impacts from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for energy. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: E.2 Energy a. It is the City's policy to promote energy conservation and the most efficient possible use and production of energy. b. All major projects shall be required to analyze and disclose their energy impacts by fuel type and end-use. c. For projects with significant adverse energy impacts which involve activities not covered by the Energy Code, such as heavy industrial activities, or which meet one (1) or more of the conditions set forth in the Overview Policy, SMC Section 25.05.665 D, the decisionmaker may require that the environmental review include a reasonable assessment of alternatives and mitigating measures. d. Subject to the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, the decision-maker may condition or deny projects with significant adverse impacts relating to the use of the electrical energy in order to mitigate their adverse impacts to the City's electric utility system. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to conservation measures such as the use of alternative technologies. e. In applying these policies to the rehabilitation of structures with historical significance, the decisionmaker shall be flexible in the application of energy conservation measures which may be in conflict with historical preservation goals and shall attempt to achieve a balance in meeting these competing objectives. 3.5.1 Existing Conditions Seattle City Light currently provides electrical service to the site with a single below-grade radial feed to the Central Utility Plant with a total service capacity of 54 Mega Volt Amps (MVA). The system was designed to have a second main feed at the north end, but this feed was never completed. The pathway and switchgear is in place, but the conductors were never installed. Total electricity demand from the Amgen (the previous site tenant) fluctuated between 7 and 9 MVA. 3.5.2 Impacts of the Alternatives New development on the site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would feature an office along with associated increases in employment on the site. New development on the site would create related increases in energy demand and usage. Development of the EXPEDIA Campus site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would occur gradually over the approximately 15-year phased buildout of the site, and associated demands for energy would also increase incrementally over that time period. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.5-1 Section 3.5 Energy Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Phase 1 New development on the EXPEDIA Campus site for Phase 1 under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would use energy in the form of electricity and natural gas. Seattle City Light would continue to provide electricity to the redeveloped campus and Puget Sound Energy would continue to provide natural gas to the redeveloped campus. Electricity would be used for heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy demands; natural gas would be used primarily for domestic hot water, space heating and cooking. Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would result in an increase in energy usage levels when compared to the existing conditions. However, the project will meet or exceed all requirements of the Energy Code in effect at the time of the building permit submittal, using energy performance modeling and simulation to ensure compliance with code requirements. As well, energy conservation measures will be incorporated into the final development that would lower the energy demands associated with site development. High performance glazing and insulation would incorporated into the campus design and exterior shading devices would be included and designed to minimize solar heat gain. A range of other energy efficiency measures are currently being considered. Phase 2 Energy use under Phase 2 would add to increased energy demands associated with buildout of Phase 1. Phase 2 entails construction of building F (412,593 sq. ft.). As with Phase 1, the project would meet or exceed all requirements of the Energy Code in effect at the time of the building permit submittal, and energy conservation measures would be incorporated into the design of the building. Phase 3 Full buildout of the site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in Phase 3 would result in an increase in energy usage levels, with Alternative 1 requiring the highest level of energy usage due to the greater level of proposed development density on the site, and Alternative 2 requiring the lowest level of energy use. As with Phase 1, the project under all alternatives would meet or exceed all requirements of the Energy Code in effect at the time of the building permit submittal, and energy conservation measures would be incorporated into the design of the buildings constructed in this final phase. The total electrical calculated NEC load at full campus build-out under Alternative 1 is expected to be 34 MVA, with total maximum demand loads of 10 to 12 MVA. Seattle City Light has indicated that the existing electrical service is adequate to serve the proposed development. 1 Overall energy demands are consistent with or less than anticipated by the prior uses approved on the site. Less development would be built under Alternatives 2 and 3, and therefore it is assumed that the existing electrical service would also be adequate to serve the project under these alternatives as well. 1 Applicant meeting with Seattle City Light. November 6, 2015. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.5-2 Section 3.5 Energy Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Certain mitigation (such as construction impact mitigation) will be required for each phase, and impacts that are related to intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. Because no significant energy impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new site development would occur and the existing campus buildings and layout would remain unchanged. The ground improvements necessary to stabilize the site (stone columns to mitigate lateral spread) would still be installed as part of a separate Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application. Site energy demands would remain similar to existing conditions, or similar to when the site was in active use by the prior tenant. 3.5.3    3.5.4 Potential Mitigation Measures2 The proposed Expedia project will be designed to comply with provisions of Seattle’s Energy Code (SMC 22.800). If the site is divided into multiple developmental sites as defined by Seattle Municipal Code, each site would require an individual point of termination for electrical service. This may require easements and SCL electrical system modifications. Electrical capacity for the original site would be allocated among its parts. Electrical demand that exceeds those lists in Section 3.5.2 may require the north electrical feed to the campus identified under Section 3.5.1 to be completed. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of the mitigation measure noted above, no significant unavoidable adverse energy-related impacts are anticipated. 2 See also Section 3.11, Construction, of this DEIS. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.5-3 Section 3.5 Energy 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH This section describes existing environmental health-related site conditions and/or hazardous materials on and in the vicinity of the site. Potential impacts related to contaminated site conditions/hazardous materials with construction and operation of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project are also analyzed. This section is based on the recent Phase I (2015) and focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (2015 and 2016) that were prepared for the site, as well as the Soil and Groundwater Sampling Analysis Results Report (2016). These assessments are contained in Appendix C to this DEIS. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for environmental health. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: F.2. Environmental Health a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent adverse impacts resulting from toxic or hazardous materials and transmissions, to the extent permitted by federal and state law. b. For all proposed projects involving the use, treatment, transport, storage, disposal, emission, or application of toxic or hazardous chemicals, materials, wastes or transmissions, the decisionmaker shall, in consultation with appropriate agencies with expertise, assess the extent of potential adverse impacts and the need for mitigation, where permitted by federal and state law. c. Subject to the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, if the decisionmaker makes a written finding that applicable federal, state and regional laws and regulations did not anticipate or do not adequately address the adverse impacts of a proposed project, the project may be conditioned or denied to mitigate its adverse impacts. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to: i. Use of an alternative technology; ii. Reduction in the size or scope of a project or operation; iii. Limits on the time and/or duration of operation; and iv. Alternative routes of transportation. 3.6.1 Existing Conditions Physical Setting and Existing Uses As noted in Section II of this DEIS, there are six existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus site that were constructed in 2002, as well as a parking garage that was built in 2007. These buildings are clustered along the east-central portion of the site. The developed areas around the existing buildings are improved with asphalt roadways, concrete sidewalks, landscaping, and an outdoor cafeteria seating area. The undeveloped area on the western portion of the site consists of paved areas, including a former parking lot, gravel areas, and areas of grass. There are three distinctly mounded areas in the western portion of the site, which based on aerial photographs, appear to have been constructed in 2007. Investigations conducted in 2015 as part of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessments indicate that there are no identified environmental concerns associated with the materials within the mounds, which are primarily comprised of a combination of sand, quarry spalls, and crushed concrete. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-1 Section 3.6 Environmental Health Historic Uses As outlined in the 2015 Phase 1 report for the site, the EXPEDIA Campus site was historically submerged tide flats in Elliott Bay until the late 1800s/early 1900s when two piers (Piers 88 and 89) were constructed on the site. Pier 88 extended south into Elliott Bay, and consisted of a large rectangular warehouse building that operated as the Seattle Dock & Warehouse of the Great Northern Railroad. This pier appeared to consist primarily of warehouses, transit sheds, and wharfs used by the railroad through the early 1960s. Pier 89 was originally developed as the Great Northern Grain Elevator and Warehouse with railroad tracks on a trestle accessing the pier. By 1917, the southern end of the pier was used as Jas Griffith & Sons Oil Dock (whale and soybean oils), and the northern portion of the pier was leased by Balfour Guthrie & Co. Between the 1930s and 1950s, the northern portion of the pier was operated by Northwest Magnesite Co., and the southern portion of the pier was operated by Washington Cooperative Egg & Poultry Association. Between approximately 1962 and 1964, the western pier (Pier 89) was demolished and the site was filled from the western side of Pier 89 to the eastern shore of Elliott Bay. After filling, the western portion of the site (former Pier 89 and the tidal area between Piers 88 and 89) was divided into several parcels and developed with warehouse buildings. The project site was acquired by Immunex Corporation (Immunex) in approximately 2000 and structures on the site were demolished in approximately 2006. Environmental Health-Related Conditions A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the 40.89-acre site in 2015 and numerous prior assessments have been completed to evaluate potential impacts from the historical operations on the site. The Phase I ESA describes the prior assessments, which identified contaminants in site soils that exceeded the Washington Department of Ecology’s current Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A soil cleanup levels and several remedial actions were conducted to remove impacted soil near specific source areas (e.g., underground storage tanks [USTs], sumps, floor drains) in the 1990s. In addition, a significant volume of impacted soil (mostly below MTCA cleanup levels) in the eastern part of the site was removed during excavation activities associated with the construction of the existing buildings and the pre-construction of building that were never completed in 2001/2002 and 2006/2007. Based on previous investigations and findings during the construction of the existing buildings, additional impacted soil above and below MTCA cleanup levels may be encountered within the fill material during mass excavation of undeveloped portions of the property. Current soil and groundwater sampling and analysis indicate low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the diesel and oil range and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Isolated areas of impacted soil above MTCA cleanup levels may be encountered during excavation though the majority of impacted soil encountered will likely be below MTCA cleanup levels and be considered marginally contaminated soil. These suspect impacted soil within the fill material have been identified as a recognized environmental condition (REC) in the 2015 Phase I report. Recent groundwater samples collected and analyzed at the site indicated low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons (below MTCA cleanup levels) in the diesel- and oil-range. No gasolinerange petroleum hydrocarbons were detected above the laboratory limit in any of the recent groundwater samples collected and analyzed. Metal concentrations (lead and arsenic) EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-2 Section 3.6 Environmental Health exceeding the current MTCA Method A cleanup levels were detected in a couple of the recent groundwater samples collected and analyzed. However, these concentrations were attributed to turbidity in the monitoring samples and/or background conditions. Elevated petroleum and metals concentrations above MTCA cleanup levels have been detected in the past (15 to 20 years ago), especially near the eastern boundary. However most of the impacted soil in the eastern part of the site was removed during construction of the existing buildings in 2001 and 2002, and it was determined that much of the soil was below MTCA cleanup levels but all soil had to be removed as part of construction. Two properties upgradient of the site were identified to have confirmed soil and/or groundwater impacts and open cleanup case files with Ecology--Hays Elliott Properties, LLC at 1465 Elliott Avenue West and is identified by Ecology’s Facility ID #18620 and Elliott Avenue Former MGP Plant at 1123 Elliott Avenue West and is identified by Ecology’s Facility ID #5194972. Based on their proximity and inferred upgradient positions to the site, these facilities were identified as a REC in the 2015 Phase I report. 3.6.2 Impacts of the Alternatives The potential for environmental health-related impacts to occur during construction and operation of the project would be relatively similar under all development alternatives, as described below. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Phase 1 As part of site development in Phase 1 under Alternatives 1-3, all existing buildings on-site would be retained, except for Building J, which would be demolished. Due to the recent age of this building (2002), no asbestos or other regulated building materials would be anticipated to be encountered during demolition. Site development in Phase 1 under all alternatives would involve a substantial amount of excavation to accommodate new buildings, utilities and site grading (approximately 300,000 cubic yards). Contaminated soil and/or contaminated groundwater, or unknown abandoned underground storage tanks may be encountered during subsurface excavation. A construction management plan and/or construction contingency plan would be developed and adhered to for proper management of impacted soils encountered during construction or excavation work at the site (refer also to Section 3.13, Construction, of this DEIS). Phase 2 The construction management plan implemented in Phase 1 for proper management of impacted soils encountered during construction and excavation work would continue to be adhered to in Phase 2. Overall, far less grading would occur in Phase 2 (approximately 65,000 cubic yards for Alternatives 1 and 2, and 104,000 cubic yards for Alternative 3) than would occur during Phase 1. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-3 Section 3.6 Environmental Health Phase 3 The construction management plan implemented in Phases 1 and 2 for proper management of impacted soils encountered during construction and excavation work would continue to be adhered to in Phase 3. Phase 3 would involve the least amount of grading, with approximately 10,000 cubic yards under Alternative 1, 6,000 cubic yards for Alternative 2 and 8,000 cubic yards for Alternative 3. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Master Development Plan (MDP) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MDP site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Certain mitigation (such as construction impact mitigation) will be required for each phase, and impacts that are related to intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. Because no significant environmental health impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new site development would occur and the existing buildings that are on-site would be retained and renovated for commercial office space. Because this alternative would only involve tenant improvements and renovation necessary to adapt the existing buildings to accommodate office space with no excavation of soils or dewatering, no environmental health related impacts would be anticipated. 3.6.3 Potential Mitigation Measures Potential mitigation measures associated with the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project could include the following:    Participate in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). Implement a construction management plan (CMP) and/or a construction contingency plan (CCP) with protocols to screen, segregate and manage impacted soils and/or groundwater encountered or any other potential environmental hazards (e.g. unknown USTs, drums, chemical containers) during construction or excavation work at the site. The CMP/CCP will be developed in accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) regulations and MTCA Cleanup Regulations. If groundwater contamination is encountered, the drainage system’s discharge may be treated prior to discharging to the storm system, or redirection to the combined sewer pending King County WTD approval. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-4 Section 3.6 Environmental Health   3.6.4 Conduct any necessary site cleanup in accordance with applicable MTCA1 requirements. If applicable, document site remediation activities in order to obtain property-specific No Further Action determinations from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of some or all of the mitigation measures identified above, no significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts are anticipated. 1 Model Toxic Control Act (RCW Chapter 70.105D). EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-5 Section 3.6 Environmental Health 3.7 LAND USE This section of the Draft EIS (DEIS) analyzes the pattern of existing land uses on and surrounding the project site and re-development trends that are occurring in this portion of the City. A discussion of the project’s Relationship to Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations, as well as the City’s Land Use Code is also included. Discussion of impacts related to Height, Bulk, and Scale are addressed in Section 3.8, Height, Bulk, and Scale. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for the land use element. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: J. 2. Land Use Policies a. It is the City's policy to ensure that proposed uses in development projects are reasonably compatible with surrounding uses and are consistent with any applicable, adopted City land use regulations, the goals and policies set forth in Section B of the land use element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan regarding Land Use Categories, and the shoreline goals and policies set forth in section D-4 of the land use element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan for the area in which the project is located. b. Subject to the overview policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, the decision maker may condition or deny any project to mitigate adverse land use impacts resulting from a proposed project or to achieve consistency with the applicable City land use regulations, the goals and policies set forth in Section B of the land use element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan regarding Land Use Categories, the shoreline goals and policies set forth in Section D-4 of the land use element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, the procedures and locational criteria for shoreline environment redesignations set forth in SMC Sections 23.60.060 and 23.60.220, respectively, and the environmentally critical areas policies. 3.7.1 Affected Environment The project site is located in the Industrial Commercial zone (IC-45 and IC-65) and the Urban Industrial (UI) Shoreline within the City of Seattle’s Ballard-Interbay-Northend Manufacturing/ Industrial Center (BINMIC). More specifically, the project site is located on the former Amgen and Immunex properties on Elliott Bay -- east of Pier 90, north of the Terminal 86 Grain Facility, and west of Elliott Ave. W. (Figure 2-2, Section II). As indicated by Figure 2-6 (Section II), existing development on-site includes seven multi-story buildings ranging in height from 49 ft. to 65 ft. These buildings comprise approximately 670,000 sq. ft. (see Section II for more detailed information regarding existing buildings on site). Adjoining the site along the south and west margins is the 11-acre Centennial Park and the paved Elliott Bay Trail. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-1 Section 3.7 Land Use The pattern of existing land uses immediately surrounding the project site includes a mix of industrial, commercial, retail, terminal, and parking uses, including:  East 1- and 2-story light industrial warehouses of various sizes BNSF railroad tracks proximate to the project site Retail/commercial businesses located along the east side of Elliott Ave. W. A greenbelt between Elliott Ave. W. and Queen Anne Single family residences and multi-family structures on Queen Anne above the greenbelt -  South Port of Seattle’s Terminal 86 Grain Terminal -  West Terminal 90/91 complex, which includes large warehouses, industrial buildings, the Smith Cove Cruise Terminal, and two cruise ship berths. - Elliott Bay - New development activity in the general vicinity of the project site consists mainly of interior/exterior tenant modifications to commercial buildings, alterations and additions to existing single-family residences on Queen Anne, and redevelopment of various residential properties to the east.1 3.7.2 Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations The following discussion focuses on project consistency with relevant goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Ballard-Interbay-Northend Manufacturing/Industrial Center Neighborhood Plan, use and development standards of the City’s Land Use Code, and consistency with the City’s Shoreline Master Plan. City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan The City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan – Toward a Sustainable Seattle, was originally adopted in 1994, amended each year, and substantially updated in 2005. The City’s updated 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 EXPEDIA Campus site is part of the Ballard-InterbayNorthend Manufacturing/Industrial Center (BINMIC), which emphasizes encouraging economic activity and development in Seattle’s industrial areas by supporting the retention and expansion of existing industrial businesses and by providing opportunities for the creation of new businesses consistent with the character of industrial areas. 1 DPD Property & Building Activity. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/toolsresources/Map/default.htm EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-2 Section 3.7 Land Use Urban Village Element – Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Summary: The Urban Village Element establishes the City’s 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. The Urban Village element designates the EXPEDIA Campus site as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center (UV19 and UV20). The 20-year employment growth estimate (2004-2024) for the BINMIC is identified as 2,150 new jobs (Urban Villages, Appendix A to the Comprehensive Plan). Relevant goals and policies guiding the distribution of growth call for: Designating as manufacturing/ industrial centers areas that are generally consistent with the following criteria and relevant Countywide Planning Policies: 1. Zoning that promotes manufacturing, industrial, and advanced technology uses and discourages uses that are not compatible with industrial areas. 2. Buffers protecting adjacent, less intensive land uses from the impacts associated with the industrial activity in these areas (such buffers shall be provided generally by maintaining existing buffers, including existing industrial buffer zones). 3. Sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs. 4. Large, assembled parcels suitable for industrial activity. 5. Relatively flat terrain allowing efficient industrial processes. 6. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway system for the movement of goods (UV19); Designating the following locations as manufacturing/industrial centers 1. The Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing/ Industrial Center….. (UV20); and Promoting manufacturing and industrial employment growth, including manufacturing uses, advanced technology industries, and a wide range of industrialrelated commercial functions, such as warehouse and distribution activities, in manufacturing/ industrial centers (UV21). DISCUSSION: The proposed EXPEDIA Campus is located within one of the City of Seattle’s designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers – the Ballard-Interbay-Northend Manufacturing/Industrial Center (BINMIC). The proposed project would promote increased density on a site that is currently underutilized in this neighborhood, which is consistent with the intent of the Urban Village Element. In 1996, Immunex Corporation acquired the subject property. Immunex Corporation was a firm based in Downtown Seattle that provided research, development, manufacturing, and marketing of therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer, infectious diseases, and auto-immune disorders. The proposed Immunex Headquarters Project development was approved by the City of Seattle in 1996 as a Major Phased Development (DPD project #9500028). Approval of the Immunex Headquarters Project MPD authorized up to 1.3 million sq. ft. of office and lab development. In 2002, Immunex was acquired by Amgen. Amgen is a biomedical research, development, manufacturing, and marketing company that continued to utilize the former Immunex research facilities on the campus for biomedical research. The existing complex contains 670,834 chargeable sq. ft. of office and research lab space in six buildings. The EXPEDIA Campus project will utilize the site with office uses, similar to those previously permitted. Consistent with the goals and policies identified for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, the EXPEDIA Campus project would provide employment-generating uses on-site. The project would also promote employment in the advanced technology field, as Expedia is one of the world’s largest online travel companies. The range of potential EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-3 Section 3.7 Land Use employment uses on site would contribute to providing jobs for the City’s diverse residential population. The project could also concentrate employment growth in a location with convenient access to areas in nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would contribute toward meeting or exceeding established employment growth targets identified in the Comprehensive Plan for BINMIC. The proposed development would also be consistent with the type and scale of surrounding land uses within BINMIC. The proposed uses and building heights associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the use and height standards of this zoning district. The proposed alternatives have also been designed in a compact pattern on site to create a transitional buffer around the boundary of the project site in order to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. Extensive on-site landscaping will also be provided. Land Use Element – Industrial Commercial Zone Policies 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, which further defines land use policies to implement the City’s urban village strategy. This element also provides a framework for land use regulations contained in the City’s Land Use Code (Seattle Municipal Code Title 23). 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 Industrial Areas call for: providing opportunities for industrial activity to thrive in Seattle (LUG22); accommodating the expansion of existing businesses within Seattle, thereby stabilizing the city’s existing industrial areas and promoting opportunities for new businesses that are supportive of the goals for industrial areas (LUG23); accommodating a mix of diverse, yet compatible, employment activities in Seattle’s industrial areas (LUG29). Relevant land use goals and policies that apply for Industrial Commercial Zones call for: Use the Industrial Commercial zones to promote a wide mix of employment activities, including industrial and commercial activities, such as light manufacturing and research and development (LU168); Limit development density in Industrial Commercial zones to reflect transportation and other infrastructure constraints, while taking into account other features of an area. Employ development standards designed to create an environment attractive to business, while recognizing the economic constraints facing new development (LU169); Maintain use provisions in the Industrial Commercial zones to ensure that land is available for a wide range of employment activities and that areas will exist to accommodate the needs of developing new businesses (LU170); Apply a range of maximum building height limits for all uses in Industrial Commercial zones to protect the special amenities that attract new technology industrial development, such as views of water, shoreline access, and the scale and character of neighboring development, so that these amenities will continue to be enjoyed, both within the zone and from the surrounding area. Assign height limits independently of the zoning designation to provide flexibility in zoning specific areas. Allow different areas within a zone to be assigned different height limits according to the rezone criteria (LU173); Include development standards in the Industrial Commercial zones designed to create an attractive environment for new industry and ensure compatibility with surrounding development without inhibiting more traditional industrial activity or the expansion of smaller firms already located in the area. Generally require screening, landscaping and setback standards in the Industrial Commercial zone similar to those found in the pedestrian-oriented commercial areas to promote an attractive setting for new industries (LU174). EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-4 Section 3.7 Land Use DISCUSSION: The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project involves the renovation/ conversion of existing permitted lab/research buildings/uses to a campus containing advanced technology uses under Alternatives 1, 2, and 32. The redevelopment concept proposed is consistent with the current Manufacturing/Industrial Center land use designations (IC-45 and IC-65), the current standards in the Industrial Commercial Zones, and consistent with promoting increased employment density and a broader mix of economic activity in this neighborhood. The proposed uses and building heights associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the use and height standards of this zoning district. Uses allowed in IC zones include a mix of industrial and commercial activities, including light manufacturing and research and development. The maximum building height allowed on portions of the site that are designated IC-45 is 45 ft. and within the IC-65 area – 65 ft.; however, a 65 foot structure height is permitted as a special exception. The proposed development would also be consistent with the type and scale of surrounding land uses within BINMIC. The proposed alternatives have been designed in a compact pattern on site to create a transitional buffer around the boundary of the project site in order to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. Extensive on-site landscaping will also be provided. The proposed project would also maintain the existing view corridor on site, as well as the existing public access to the shoreline and the trail adjacent to the water. The proposed project would make appropriate improvements to the transportation system to ensure movement of goods from surrounding industrial uses along surface streets and rail is maintained and ensure impacts to local businesses are minimized (please see Section 3.11 – Transportation for more details). The project also includes enhancements to the pedestrian linkages between transit and businesses in the area. During construction of the project, existing contamination from prior industrial uses will also be cleaned up. Neighborhood Plan Element Summary: The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan established guidelines for neighborhoods to develop their own plans to allow growth in ways that provide for a neighborhood’s unique character needs and livability. The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project is located within the BINMIC Neighborhood. Relevant neighborhood goals and policies call for: accepting growth target of at least 3800 new jobs for the BINMIC by 2014 (BI-P1); attracting new businesses to the BINMIC (BI-P4); maintaining the BINMIC as an industrial area and work for ways that subareas within the BINMIC can be better utilized for marine/fishing, high tech, or small manufacturing industrial activities (BI-P8); supporting efforts to locate and attract appropriately skilled workers, particularly from adjacent neighborhoods to fill family-wage jobs in the BINMIC (BI-P9); support efforts to provide an educated and skilled labor work force for BINMIC businesses (BI-P11). 2 This change of use and expansion is not removing industrial uses, it is keeping with the context of uses already permitted on site. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-5 Section 3.7 Land Use DISCUSSION: The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project involves the renovation/ conversion of existing permitted lab/research buildings into a campus containing advanced technology uses under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. This change of use and expansion is not removing industrial uses from the site or from the BINMIC neighborhood, it is keeping with the context of uses already permitted on site. Consistent with goals and policies contained in the Neighborhood Planning Element, the proposed project would provide employment-generating uses on-site, which would contribute toward meeting or exceeding established employment growth targets identified for BINMIC. The range of potential employment uses on site would contribute to providing family-wage jobs for the City’s diverse residential population. The project would also concentrate employment growth in a location with convenient access to areas in nearby residential neighborhoods. Shoreline Element – Urban Industrial Shoreline Environment Summary: The Shoreline Element contain policies that guide management of Seattle’s shorelines and describe the purposes of the shoreline environments. Together with the Seattle Shoreline Master Program Regulations in the Land Use Code (described below), including the maps of the Shoreline District showing the locations of shoreline environments, and the Shoreline Restoration and Enhancement Plan, these policies constitute the Seattle Shoreline Master Program. The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project is located within the Urban Industrial (UI) Shoreline Environment. Relevant shoreline goals and policies call for: providing for waterdependent and water-related industrial uses on larger lots (LUG73); allowing uses that are not water-dependent to locate on waterfront lots in limited circumstances and in a limited square footage on a site as part of development that includes water-dependent or water-related uses, where it is demonstrated that the allowed uses will benefit water-dependent uses and where the use will not preclude future use by water-dependent uses (LU304); and allowing uses that are not water- dependent or water-related where there is no direct access the shoreline (LU305). DISCUSSION: Approximately 404,000 square feet of the project site is located within the Urban Industrial Shoreline Environment. The project site is classified as an upland lot under SMC 23.60A.924. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, some landscaping, street improvements, grading and utility work would occur within the 200-foot shoreline boundary; Buildings L, K, and H3, as well as portions of Building F are also proposed to be located within the 200-foot shoreline boundary area associated with Elliott Bay (Figures 2-4 and 2-5); under the No Action Alternative, there are no buildings located within the shoreline boundary. The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project involves the renovation/conversion of existing permitted lab/research buildings into a campus containing advanced technology uses under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. This change of use and expansion is not removing industrial uses from the site or precluding a water-dependent industrial use from locating on this site, it is keeping with the context of uses already permitted on site. The uses associated with the proposed project under any of the alternatives would also be consistent with the uses allowed on upland lots in the UI Environment (23.60A.483). The proposed project is not considered a water-dependent/waterrelated use, would not be constructed on the water or have direct access to the 3 Only under Alternative 3 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-6 Section 3.7 Land Use shoreline, and would not preclude future use of the shoreline along Elliott Bay; the project would be built entirely on the upland portion of the site. The applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit for the proposed project. Seattle Land Use Code Summary: The proposed project site is located in the Ballard-Interbay-Northend Manufacturing/ Industrial Center (BINMIC) and is subject to the land use regulations of the Industrial Commercial (IC) 45 and IC 65 zoning districts. The majority of the EXPEDIA Campus site is zoned IC-45, with a portion on the western side of the site adjacent to Elliott Bay that is zoned IC-65. The requirements associated with the IC zones are intended “to promote development of businesses which incorporate a mix of industrial and commercial activities, including light manufacturing and research and development, while accommodating a wide range of other employment activities.”4 The maximum building height allowed on portions of the site designated IC-45 is 45 ft. and within the IC-65 area – 65 ft.5 However, a 65 foot structure height is permitted as a special exception. The applicant is seeking a Master Use Permit (MUP) with a Major Phased Development (MPD) component, per SMC 23.50.015. An MPD proposal is subject to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. The aim of the MPD is to enable phased development of large parcels of land within the City. The MPD is a Type II MUP process with the MUP decision made by the Director of the Department of Planning and Development (DPD). Because of the large size of the site and the complexity of the development, the MPD process can authorize a longer duration of the MUP with multiple phases of development. DISCUSSION: The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be consistent with the City’s Land Use Code. As noted in the Fact Sheet and Section II of this Draft EIS, under Alternative 1, which is the most intensive development-wise, the project proposes renovation of existing research and office buildings and development of several new buildings for a total of approximately 2,000,000 gross sq. ft. of chargeable floor area development (excluding mechanical space). Proposed building uses (office and structured and below-grade parking), the amount of parking (approx. 3,300 spaces), building height, and development density that are proposed in conjunction would all be consistent with what is allowed in the IC 45 and IC 65 zones. The applicant has also applied for a special exception with regards to building height for the proposed project. A Special Exception for structure height up to 65 feet within the IC-45 Zone was granted as part of the previous MPD/MUP issued in 1996 (Immunex Campus) and the MUP issued in 2006 (Amgen Campus). As part of the special exception approval, a 100-foot wide view corridor was established in the 1996 MPD, in concert with the approval of a pedestrian bridge, beginning at Elliott Ave W, extending through and over the West Prospect right of way, to a public access easement to the Elliott Bay Trail. The conditions along Elliot Avenue West have not changed since the 100-foot wide view corridor was established in 1996 and the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project does not anticipate modifying that view corridor. 4 5 Seattle’s Industrial Zones. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021569.pdf Certain rooftop features are authorized to extend above the height limits noted. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-7 Section 3.7 Land Use The applicant is pursuing an MPD in order to have greater flexibility in the development and phasing of this project. The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project exceeds the minimum site size with a total site area of approximately 41 acres. The project is proposed as a single, functionally interrelated campus that would, under Alternative 1, contain 10 buildings with a total gross floor area of approximately 2.0 million gross sq. ft. of development. The first phase of development would be greater than 100,000 sq. ft. in gross building area, and, as discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the general character of development anticipated by Land Use Code regulations and the IC 45 and IC 65 zoning. The proposed uses and building heights associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the use and height standards of this zoning district. City of Seattle Shoreline Master Program The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is mandated by the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and includes the goals, policies and regulations that govern land use and activities within the Seattle Shoreline District. Seattle’s Shoreline District includes the Duwamish River, the Ship Canal, Lake Union, Lake Washington, Green Lake, Puget Sound, associated wetlands and floodplains, and all land within 200-ft of these water-bodies. Seattle’s SMA establishes three major policy goals that all SMPs are required to achieve:  Preferred Shoreline Uses: The SMA establishes a preference for uses that are wateroriented and that are appropriate for the environmental context (such as port facilities, shoreline recreational uses, and water-dependent businesses). Single-family residences are also identified as a priority use under the Act when developed in a manner consistent with protection of the natural environment.  Environmental Protection: The Act requires protections for shoreline natural resources, including “… the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life …” to ensure no net loss of ecological function.  Public Access: The Act promotes public access to shorelines by mandating inclusion of a public access element in local SMPs and requiring provisions to ensure that new development maintains public access features. The City recently updated Seattle’s SMP with substantial, new changes that took effect on June 15, 2015; the last comprehensive update of Seattle’s SMP occurred in 1987. The SMP update process is the result of new rules governing shoreline activities and use established by the State Department of Ecology. These rules, among other things, establish new thresholds for evaluating SMPs statewide, including no further reduction in the ecological functioning of the shoreline environment. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-8 Section 3.7 Land Use The shoreline environment within which the project site lies is the following: Urban Industrial (UI) – The purpose of the UI environment is to: 1) Provide for efficient use of industrial shorelines by major cargo facilities and other waterdependent and water-related industrial uses, and to allow for warehouse uses that are not water- dependent or water-related where they currently exist; 2) Provide public access on public lands or in conformance with an area-wide Public Access Plan; 3) Accommodate ecological restoration and enhancement where reasonable; and 4) Allow limited non-water-oriented uses and development where they would not displace water-oriented uses and, if located on waterfront lots, where they achieve another goal of the Shoreline Management Act, such as protection or improvement of ecological functions or public access. Development within the Shoreline District usually requires a substantial development permit from the city, although there are exemptions listed in the code. Each shoreline environment designation contains a listing of uses that are permitted outright on waterfront lots in each district as either principal or accessory uses. To be permitted in the Shoreline District, a use must be permitted in both the shoreline environment and the underlying land use zone in which it is located. All principal uses on waterfront lots must be water-dependent, water-related or non-water-dependent with public access. The SMP code also regulates conditional uses as well as uses that are prohibited. DISCUSSION: Approximately 404,000 square feet of the project site is located within the Urban Industrial Shoreline Environment. The project site is classified as an upland lot under SMC 23.60A.924. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 36, some landscaping, street improvements, grading and utility work would occur within the 200-foot shoreline boundary; Buildings H, L and K, as well as portions of Building F are proposed to be located within the 200-foot shoreline boundary area associated with Elliott Bay (Figures 2-4 and 2-5); under the No Action Alternative, there are no buildings located within the shoreline boundary. The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project involves the renovation/conversion of existing permitted lab/research buildings into a campus containing advanced technology uses under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. This change of use and expansion is not removing industrial uses from the site or precluding a water-dependent industrial use from locating on this site, it is keeping with the context of uses already permitted on site. The uses associated with the proposed project under any of the alternatives would also be consistent with the uses allowed on upland lots in the UI Environment (23.60A.483). The proposed project is not considered a water-dependent/water-related use, would not be constructed on the water or have direct access to the shoreline, and would not preclude future use of the shoreline along Elliott Bay; the project would be built entirely on the upland portion of the site. The proposed alternatives have been designed in a compact pattern on site to create a transitional buffer around the boundary of the project site in order to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses and the shoreline along Elliott Bay. Extensive on-site landscaping will also be provided. The proposed project would also maintain the existing view corridor on 6 Only under Alternative 3. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-9 Section 3.7 Land Use site, as well as the existing public access to the shoreline and the trail adjacent to the water. The applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit for the proposed project. 3.7.3 Phasing As noted previously, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be developed as a MPD over a period of up to 15 years. As phasing progresses, the overall development density on campus would increase incrementally with the addition of new mid-rise buildings and the expansion of existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus. In general, the incremental development would be consistent with goals and policies contained in applicable City plans, policies and regulation and no significant impacts are anticipated. Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Because no significant Land Use-related impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases would not be expected to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. 3.7.4 Potential Mitigation Measures No significant land use impacts are anticipated from development of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project and, therefore, no mitigation is necessary. 3.7.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts are anticipated. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-10 Section 3.7 Land Use 3.8 HEIGHT, BULK AND SCALE This section describes existing height, bulk and scale conditions on the project site and in the site vicinity and evaluates potential impacts from the DEIS alternatives. Mitigation measures to reduce height, bulk and scale and a description of significant unavoidable adverse impacts are also provided. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis relative to height, bulk and scale. Applicable policies from SMC 25.05.675 are noted below: G.2 Height, Bulk and Scale. Policies a. It is the City's policy that the height, bulk and scale of development projects should be reasonably compatible with the general character of development anticipated by the goals and policies set forth in Section B of the land use element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan regarding Land Use Categories, the shoreline goals and policies set forth in Section D-4 of the land use element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, the procedures and locational criteria for shoreline environment redesignations set forth in SMC Sections 23.60.060 and 23.60.220, and the adopted land use regulations for the area in which they are located, and to provide for a reasonable transition between areas of less intensive zoning and more intensive zoning. b. Subject to the overview policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, the decision-maker may condition or deny a project to mitigate the adverse impacts of substantially incompatible height, bulk and scale. Mitigating measures may include but are not limited to: i. Limiting the height of the development; ii. Modifying the bulk of the development; iii. Modifying the development's facade including but not limited to color and finish material; iv. Reducing the number or size of accessory structures or relocating accessory structures including but not limited to towers, railings, and antennae; v. Repositioning the development on the site; and vi. Modifying or requiring setbacks, screening, landscaping or other techniques to offset the appearance of incompatible height, bulk and scale. 3.8.1 Existing Conditions Figure 3.8-1 is an aerial of the project site that depicts the existing development, as well as the pattern of land uses surrounding the site. The site and surrounding area is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 14 to 24 feet. As indicated by Figure 2-6 (Section II of this DEIS), existing development on-site includes seven multi-story buildings ranging in height from 49 ft. to 65 ft. These buildings comprise approximately 670,000 sq. ft. Adjoining the site along the south and west margins is the 11-acre Centennial Park and the paved Elliott Bay Trail. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-1 Section 3.8 Height, Bulk and Scale The scale of development in the vicinity of the project site includes the following. East of the Expedia Campus Site (zoning is IC-45) The area east of the site to Elliott Ave. W. consists of light industrial uses in 1- and 2-story warehouses of various sizes, as well as railroad right-of-way. The BNSF right-of-way is approximately 100 ft. in width proximate to the site and contains nine tracks. Retail/commercial businesses are located on the east side of Elliott Ave. W. A greenbelt borders the retail and flanks the lower Queen Anne hillside. Single family residences and multi-family structures are located above the greenbelt. South of the Expedia Campus Site (zoning is IC-45) The largest facility immediately south of the site is the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 86 Grain Terminal. This 17-acre terminal is dominated by the 130-foot high silos, which have a 3.99 million bushel capacity,1 together with the 130-foot high overwater conveyance system. West of the Expedia Campus Site (zoning is IG1) West of the Expedia Campus site is the 206-ac.2 Terminal 90/91 complex. This terminal area includes Piers 90 and 91, as well an upland area that extends roughly 3,000 ft. north of W. Garfield St./Magnolia Bridge. Both of the piers extend south into Elliott Bay -- a distance of approximately one-half mile. Terminal 90 (easternmost terminal) contains two large cold storage warehouses ranging from 50,000 sq. ft. to 92,000 sq. ft. Pier 91 contains a 62,000 sq. ft. industrial building at the north-end of the pier, the Smith Cove Cruise Terminal at the south-end of the pier, and two 1,200 linear foot cruise ship berths. The Smith Cove Cruise Terminal is one of Seattle’s two cruise terminals that are owned by the Port of Seattle and provide cruise opportunities from Seattle to Alaska; the other terminal is the Bell Street Pier 66 facility. The Smith Cover Cruise Terminal is a 2-story, 143,000 sq. ft. building that provides arrival, departure, and concierge services for cruise passengers. Secure parking for 1,100 cruise passenger vehicles is located at the Terminal 90/91 complex, north of W. Garfield St. In 2014, the Smith Cove Terminal and the Bell Street facility accommodated 179 vessels and 823,780 passengers. In 2015, the number increased to 192 vessels and 898,032 passengers. For 2016, the Port of Seattle projects 203 vessels and 959,845 passengers between these two terminals. Five cruise lines are homeported at the Smith Cove Cruise Terminal (Carnival, Celebrity Cruises, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, and Royal Caribbean). The 2016 Preliminary Sailing Schedule indicates that 148 sailings (and arrivals) are planned just for the Smith Cove Cruise Terminal.3 And for 2016, the first sailing from this terminal will occur April 29th and the last sailing is October 21st. The majority of the cruise packages are 7-day excursions. 1 2 3 Port of Seattle. http://www.portseattle.org/Cargo/SeaCargo/Facilities/Pages/Grain-Facility.aspx. upland and water area (Port of Seattle, 2014). Cruise and terminal data provided by Port of Seattle. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-2 Section 3.8 Height, Bulk and Scale EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2015 Figure 3.8-1 Aerial Photograph of the Expedia Campus Site as Viewed from the Southwest While the majority of the EXPEDIA Campus site is designated Industrial Commercial 45 (IC45), a narrow band of property (roughly 75 ft. wide and 1,500 ft. in length) located in the west portion of the site is designated Industrial Commercial 65 (IC-65). The requirements associated with the IC zones are intended “to promote development of businesses which incorporate a mix of industrial and commercial activities, including light manufacturing and research and development, while accommodating a wide range of other employment activities.”4 The maximum building height allowed on portions of the site designated IC-45 is 45 ft. and within the IC-65 area – 65 ft.5 A 65 foot structure height is permitted as a special exception in the IC-45 zone. Please refer to Section 3.7, Land Use, for an analysis of project consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. 3.8.2 Impacts of the Alternatives Alternative 1 As noted previously, the proposed Expedia Campus would occupy the former Amgen and Immunex site on Elliott Bay6 (see Figures 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 in Section II). As outlined in Section II, development associated with this alternative would total approximately 1.95 million sq. ft. of chargeable floor area and include:     five existing buildings on-site would be retained and renovated to provide commercial office space; 3-story additions would be included as part of three existing buildings (A, B and C); two new buildings are proposed between Buildings A and B and between Buildings B and C; each would be a 1-story structure with a building height of approximately 49 ft.; and five new buildings (1,360,000 sq. ft., buildings E, F, G, K and L) would be constructed. Three of the new buildings would be 4-stories in height (65 ft.), and two would be 2stories (32 ft.). See Figure 2-4 (Section II of this DEIS) for a site plan associated with Alternative 1. With the building additions that are planned, the infill development, and new construction, this alternative would result in more-intensive development of the project site. The height, bulk and scale of such development, however, would be compatible with the general character of surrounding development. As noted, the proposed height of structures would range from 32 ft. to 65 ft. above-grade. Existing structures on-site are within the 49 ft. – 65 ft. range. Based on the site area of the campus, the maximum allowable chargeable floor area is 4,456,815 sq. ft. The maximum chargeable floor area that is proposed would be 1,952,000 sq. ft. – roughly 43 percent of the maximum square footage possible. The applicant indicates that the proposed project has been designed to comply with all development requirements of the IC-45 and IC-65 zones. Where applicable, a Special Exception for building height has also been requested. As part of the MUP process, SDCI will conduct a comprehensive zoning plans review of each of the 4 5 6 Seattle’s Industrial Zones. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021569.pdf Certain rooftop features are authorized to extend above the height limits noted. vicinity of former Pier 88 and 89 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-4 Section 3.8 Height, Bulk and Scale proposed buildings and the Special Exception and a determination of compliance will be part of the MUP Analysis and Decision for this project. The redevelopment concept proposed is consistent with the current Manufacturing/Industrial Center land use designations (IC-45 and IC-65), the current standards in the Industrial Commercial Zones, as well as the development standards associated with the UI Shoreline designation. The proposed development would also be consistent with the scale of development within the adjacent IC and IG zoning designations. The applicant has also applied for a Special Exception for structure height up to 65 feet with regards to building height for the proposed project. The proposed alternatives have been designed in a compact pattern on site, with taller buildings toward the center of the site to create a transitional buffer around the boundary of the project in order to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. Extensive on-site landscaping will also be provided in this transitional buffer area. The proposed project would also maintain the existing view corridor on site, as well as the existing public access to the shoreline and the trail adjacent to the water. Alternative 2 Development associated with this alternative would be comparable to and slightly less than the amount of development proposed for Alternative 1. As such, it is anticipated that this alternative would also be compatible with the general character of surrounding development. Like Alternative 1, the proposed height of structures in Alternative 2 would range from 32 ft. to 65 ft. above-grade. And as noted previously, existing structures on-site are within the 49 ft. – 65 ft. range. The maximum chargeable floor area associated with Alternative 2 would be less than that of Alternative 1. Therefore, development associated with this alternative would equate to less than the 43 percent of maximum square footage possible noted for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 Development associated with this alternative would be comparable to the amount of development proposed for Alternative 1. As such, it is anticipated that this alternative would also be compatible with the general character of surrounding development. Like Alternative 1, the proposed height of structures in Alternative 3 would range from 32 ft. to 65 ft. above-grade. And as noted previously, existing structures on-site are within the 49 ft. – 65 ft. range. The maximum chargeable floor area associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1. No Action Alternative Since no new site development would occur as a result of this alternative, the height, bulk and scale of existing development would remain compatible with the general character of the surrounding area. 3.8.3 Phasing As noted previously, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be developed as a MPD over a period of up to 15 years. As phasing progresses, the overall development density on EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-5 Section 3.8 Height, Bulk and Scale campus would increase incrementally with the addition of new mid-rise buildings and the expansion of existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus. As noted above, the incremental development would be consistent with goals and policies contained in applicable City plans, policies and regulation and no significant impacts are anticipated. Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Because no significant impacts related to height, bulk, and scale are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. 3.8.4  3.8.5 Potential Mitigation Measures The proposed project would adhere to all current, applicable City Land Use Code requirements in terms of FAR, building height, shoreline environment, etc. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated relative to height, bulk or scale. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-6 Section 3.8 Height, Bulk and Scale 3.9 AESTHETICS – PUBLIC VIEWS This section of the DEIS describes the existing visual character of the project site and evaluates how development associated with the proposed EXPEDIA Campus alternatives could affect public viewsheds. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for the viewshed analysis. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: P.2. Public View Protection Policies a i. It is the City's policy to protect public views of significant natural and human-made features: Mount Rainer, 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 the specified viewpoints, parks, scenic routes, and view corridors, identified in Attachment 1. (Attachment 1 is located at the end of this Section 25.05.675.) This subsection does not apply to the Space Needle, which is governed by subsection P2c of this section. ii. The decision maker may condition or deny a proposal to eliminate or reduce its adverse impacts on designated public views, whether or not the project meets the criteria of the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665; provided that downtown projects may be conditioned or denied only when public views from outside of downtown would be blocked as a result of a change in the street grid pattern. b. i. It is the City's policy to protect public views of historic landmarks designated by the 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. This subsection does not apply to the Space Needle, which is governed by subsection P2c of this section. ii. A proposed project may be conditioned or denied to mitigate view impacts on historic landmarks, whether or not the project meets the criteria of the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665. c. It is the City's policy to protect public views of the Space Needle from the following public places. A proposed project may be conditioned or denied to protect such views, whether or not the project meets the criteria of the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665. i. ii. iii. iv. v. Alki Beach Park (Duwamish Head) Bhy Kracke Park Gasworks Park Hamilton View Point Kerry Park vi. vii. viii. ix. x. Myrtle Edwards Park Olympic Sculpture Park Seacrest Park Seattle Center Volunteer Park d. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to: i. Requiring a change in the height of the development; ii. Requiring a change in the bulk of the development; iii. Requiring a redesign of the profile of the development; iv. Requiring on-site view corridors or requiring enhancements to off-site view corridors; v. Relocating the project on the site; vi. Requiring a reduction or rearrangement of walls, fences or plant material; and vii. Requiring a reduction or rearrangement of accessory structures including, but not limited to towers, railings and antennae. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-1 Section 3.9 Aesthetics – Public Views 3.9.1 Affected Environment 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 City’s 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 3.9-1 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 City’s 97 officially-designated public viewpoints, four could be affected by the alternatives that are evaluated in this DEIS – Kerry Park, Kinnear Viewpoint, Marshall Park and Smith Cove Park. These viewpoints are depicted on Figure 3.9-1 as Viewpoints 1 - 4; each is described below:  Kerry Park (Viewpoint 1) - Kerry Park is located in the Queen Anne Neighborhood, roughly 0.6 miles east of the project site. This is a 1.26-acre park that contains features including: pathways, open space, play area, and half basketball court. As shown, views of Elliott Bay, Harbor Island, West Seattle, and the Olympic Mountains are possible from this designated viewpoint.  Kinnear Viewpoint (Viewpoint 2) – Kinnear Viewpoint is located in Kinnear Park, on the southwest side of Queen Anne Hill, directly east of the site. This a two-tiered park that contains pathways, woods, a play area, a tennis court, and as shown offers views of the grain terminal at Pier 86, Elliott Bay, and the Olympic Mountains.  Marshall Park (Viewpoint 3) – Marshall Park is located in the Queen Anne Neighborhood roughly one-third of a mile east of the project site. This is a .78-acre park that contains benches, trees, and a view of Puget Sound to the west. As shown, views of Elliott Bay and the Olympic Mountains are possible from this designated viewpoint.  Smith Cove Park (Viewpoint 4) – Smith Cove Park is a Port of Seattle Park that is located just west of Pier 91 on Elliott Bay roughly one-half mile northwest of the project site. This is a 7.3-acre park that contains a walking/biking trail, playfields, and a concrete promenade with picnic tables. As shown, views of Elliott Bay, West Seattle, and the Olympic Mountains are possible from this designated viewpoint. Views of Historic Landmarks  1 2 Designated City Landmarks: In addition to view protection policies associated with officially-designated viewpoints, it is also City policy to: “protect public views of historic landmarks designated by the City’s 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.”2 There are no designated City Landmarks adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the EXPEDIA Campus site. Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P.2.a.i. Attachment 1 is at the end of Section 25.05.675. Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P.2.b.i. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-2 Section 3.9 Aesthetics – Public Views EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS 5 4 6 10 8 3 9 1 4 7 2 5 Viewpoint Location Figure 3.9-1 Viewpoint Location Map Space Needle Viewpoints The most visible landmark from many parts of the City is the Space Needle, which is located approximately 1.15 miles southeast of the project site. The City has identified ten viewpoints from which views of the Space Needle are to be protected.3. The designated Space Needle view viewpoints that are closest to the project site are Myrtle Edwards Park and Kerry Park.4 However, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus would not affect views of the Space Needle from either of these Space Needle viewpoint locations. Scenic Routes City ordinances5 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: Magnolia Bridge and Elliott Avenue W. Magnolia Bridge is depicted on Figure 3.9-1 as Viewpoint 5. Four locations were selected to provide representative views from Elliott Avenue W; these are depicted as Viewpoints 6-9 on Figure 3.9-1.  Magnolia Bridge - Viewpoint 5 - This is a City-designated scenic route. The existing view depicts the Port of Seattle’s Pier 90-91 complex in the foreground; industrial and commercial buildings at the base of Queen Anne Hill, the Queen Anne Hill greenbelt, and residential neighborhoods in in the mid-field; and portions of Downtown Seattle and the Space Needle in the distance. Portions of existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus are also visible in the mid-field view.  Elliott Avenue W – Viewpoints 6, 7, 8 and 9 – Elliott Avenue W is a City-designated Scenic Route. Existing views to the north and the south depict commercial and light industrial uses along this segment of Elliott Avenue W. Views to the west depict existing buildings along the west side of Elliott Avenue W. and on the EXPEDIA Campus. Other Views For informational purposes and to provide greater context for how the proposed project would fit into the urban fabric of the neighborhood, an additional viewshed photosimulation is included that depicts the territorial view from 8th Place W, on the southwest side of Queen Anne Hill (Viewpoint 10). This viewpoint depicts residential structures in the foreground, the grain terminal and existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus in the mid-field view, and Elliott Bay in the distance. 3 4 5 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 Department’s Traffic Division) and Ord. #114057 (Seattle Mayor’s Recommended Open Space Policies). EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-4 Section 3.9 Aesthetics – Public Views 3.9.2 Impacts of the Alternatives The viewpoints discussed above were analyzed with photosimulations showing the massing of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus as it would appear from each viewpoint – within the context of the existing view and as it would appear under the proposed alternatives (again, refer to Figure 3.9-1 for the viewpoint location map). The project has requested a special exception to height to allow a 65-foot building per SMC 23.05.026 C; the analysis of view impacts includes the proposed increased building height. Kerry Park (Viewpoint 1) Figure 3.9-2 shows the existing view from Kerry Park and the proposed massing of the new buildings under this EIS alternative. Under the existing view, views of Elliott Bay, Harbor Island, West Seattle, and the Olympic Mountains are possible.  Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 – As shown by Figure 3.9-2, the EXPEDIA Campus would not be visible from this location, and no view impacts would occur. Views of the Elliott Bay, Harbor Island, West Seattle, and Olympic Mountains would not be affected. Kinnear Viewpoint (Viewpoint 2) Figure 3.9-3 shows the existing view from Kinnear Viewpoint. As shown, the existing view includes views of the grain terminal at Pier 86, Elliott Bay, and the Olympic Mountains.  Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 – As shown by Figure 3.9-3, the EXPEDIA Campus would not be visible from this location, and no view impacts would occur. Views of the grain terminal, Elliott Bay, and the Olympic Mountains would not be affected. Marshall Park (Viewpoint 3) Figure 3.9-4 (Viewpoint 3) shows the existing view from Marshall Park, which is located on Queen Anne Hill, east of the project site. The existing view from this viewpoint depicts residential structures in the foreground, the grain terminal and existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus in the mid-field view, and Elliott Bay in the distance.  Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 – As shown by Figure 3.9-4 to 3.9-6, from Viewpoint 3, views of new EXPEDIA Campus buildings would be visible in the mid-field area. The overall visual density of this viewpoint would increase slightly in the mid-field view, with the addition of new mid-rise buildings and expansion of existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus. In general, due to the distance of the site from this viewpoint, view impacts would be similar under all three alternatives and the development would blend into the existing building massing that occurs on the project site and no significant view impacts would occur. Smith Cove Park (Viewpoint 4) Figure 3.9-7 (Viewpoint 4) shows the existing view from Smith Cove Park, which is located adjacent to Pier 91, northwest of the project site. As shown, the existing view includes views of Pier 90-91, the Downtown Seattle skyline in the distance, Elliott Bay, and the Olympic Mountains. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-5 Section 3.9 Aesthetics – Public Views EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 *Site Not Visible Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-2 Viewpoint 1—Kerry Park EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 *Site Not Visible Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-3 Viewpoint 2—Kinnear Viewpoint EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-4 Viewpoint 3—Marshall Park Alternative 1 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-5 Viewpoint 3—Marshall Park Alternative 2 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-6 Viewpoint 3—Marshall Park Alternative 3 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 *Site Not Visible Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-7 Viewpoint 4—Smith Cove Park  Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 – As shown by Figure 3.9-7, the EXPEDIA Campus would not be visible from this location, and no view impacts would occur. Views of the Pier, the Downtown Seattle skyline, Elliott Bay, and the Olympic Mountains would not be affected. Magnolia Bridge (Viewpoint 5) Figures 3.9-8, 3.9-9, and 3.9-10 show the existing view from the Magnolia Bridge looking to the southeast and existing buildings on the site of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus. The existing view from this viewpoint depicts the Port of Seattle’s Pier 90-91 complex in the foreground; industrial and commercial buildings at the base of Queen Anne Hill, as well as a portion of the EXPEDIA Campus, the Queen Anne Hill greenbelt, and residential neighborhoods in in the midfield; and portions of Downtown Seattle and the Space Needle in the distance.  Alternative 1 – From Viewpoint 5, views of the EXPEDIA Campus buildings would be visible in the mid-field under Alternative 1. The overall visual character of this viewpoint would change slightly with the addition of more large, mid-rise buildings as part of the EXPEDIA Campus in front of existing development along Elliott Avenue W. As shown, the new development would extend further north and blend with existing building massing that occurs. No significant viewshed impacts are anticipated.  Alternative 2 – Although the number of buildings would be one less under Alternative 2, viewshed impacts and changes to the character of the view would be comparable to that described for Alternative 1.  Alternative 3 – Although the configurations of buildings would be slightly different under Alternative 3 as compared to Alternative 1, viewshed impacts and changes to the character of the view under Alternative 3 would be comparable to that described for Alternative 1. Elliott Avenue W (Viewpoints 6-9) Figures 3.9-11 to 3.9-14 show views from four locations along Elliott Avenue W, which is located east of the project site and is a City-designated Scenic Route. Viewpoint 6 Viewpoint 6 (Figure 3.9-11) is from Elliott Avenue W near W Galer Street looking south. The EXPEDIA Campus is located west (right in this photo). Existing views from this location depict low-rise commercial buildings and light industrial uses along both sides of the street.  Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 – As shown by Figure 3.9-9, the EXPEDIA Campus would not be visible from this location, and no view impacts would occur. Viewpoint 7 Viewpoint 7 (Figure 3.9-12) is from Elliott Avenue W near the W Mercer Street exit, looking north. The EXPEDIA Campus is located to the west (left in this photo). Existing views from this location primarily include low-rise commercial buildings and light industrial uses along both sides of the street. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-12 Section 3.9 Aesthetics – Public Views EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-8 Viewpoint 5—Magnolia Bridge Alternative 1 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-9 Viewpoint 5—Magnolia Bridge Alternative 2 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-10 Viewpoint 5—Magnolia Bridge Alternative 3 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 *Site Not Visible Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-11 Viewpoint 6—Elliott Avenue W, Looking South EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 *Site Not Visible Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-12 Viewpoint 7—Elliott Avenue W, Looking North  Alternatives 1,2, and 3 – As shown by Figure 3.9-10, the EXPEDIA Campus would not be visible from this location, and no view impacts would occur. Viewpoint 8 Viewpoint 8 (Figures 3.9-13) is from Elliott Avenue W looking west toward the project site. The view from this location is of the existing, 7-level parking garage on the EXPEDIA Campus.  Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 – As shown by Figures 3.9-11, 3.9-12, and 3.9-13, the view under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would remain similar to existing conditions, except that the parking garage would be expanded with an addition of the same height (Building P2), and the building would extend further to the south. Building P2 would be the same under all three alternatives. No significant view impacts would occur. Viewpoint 9 Viewpoint 9 (Figure 3.9-14) is from Elliott Avenue W, south of Viewpoint 8, looking directly west toward the center of the project site. The view from this location is of several warehouses, and existing EXPEDIA Campus buildings in the background.  Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 – As shown by Figure 3.9-14, redevelopment on the EXPEDIA Campus would be not be visible from this location, and no view impacts would occur. Viewpoint 10 Viewpoint 10 (Figure 3.9-15) shows the existing view from 8th Place W, which is located on Queen Anne Hill, east of the project site. The existing view from this viewpoint depicts residential structures in the foreground, the grain terminal and existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus in the mid-field view, and Elliott Bay in the distance.  Alternative 1 – From Viewpoint 8, views of new EXPEDIA Campus buildings would be visible in the mid-field area. The overall visual density of this viewpoint would increase slightly in the mid-field view, with the addition of new mid-rise buildings and expansion of existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus. In general, the development would blend into the existing building massing that occurs on the project site and no significant view impacts would occur.  Alternative 2 – Although the number of buildings would be one less under Alternative 2, view impacts and changes to the character of the view from this location would be comparable to that described for Alternative 1.  Alternative 3 – Although the number of buildings would be greater under Alternative 3, view impacts and changes to the character of the view from this location would be comparable to that described for Alternative 1. Phasing As noted previously, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would be developed as a MPD over a period of up to 15 years. For viewpoints from which the proposed campus is visible EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-18 Section 3.9 Aesthetics – Public Views EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-13 Viewpoint 8—Elliott Avenue W, Looking West, at Existing Parking Garage, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 *Site Not Visible Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2015 Figure 3.9-14 Viewpoint 9—Elliott Avenue W, Looking West EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-15 Viewpoint 10—8th Place West, Looking Southwest, Alternative 1 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-16 Viewpoint 10—8th Place West, Looking Southwest, Alternative 2 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS Existing View Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.9-17 Viewpoint 10—8th Place West, Looking Southwest, Alternative 3 (Viewpoints 3, 5, 8 and 10), photosimulations depict the incremental viewshed changes associated with Phases 1-3 of proposed development. As phasing progresses, the overall visual density from these viewpoints would increase slightly with the addition of new mid-rise buildings and expansion of existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus. In general, the incremental development would blend into the existing building massing that occurs on the project site and no significant view impacts would occur. Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Because no significant viewshed impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. 3.9.3 Potential Mitigation Measures No significant adverse viewshed-related impacts are anticipated from the proposed EXPEDIA Campus and no mitigation is necessary. 3.9.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic (viewshed-related) impacts are anticipated. Both development alternatives would be designed to be consistent with provisions of the City’s Land Use regulations. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-24 Section 3.9 Aesthetics – Public Views 3.10 LIGHT, GLARE and SHADOWS This section describes existing light and glare conditions on the project site and in the site vicinity and evaluates potential impacts from the DEIS alternatives. Mitigation measures to reduce light and glare-related impacts and a description of significant unavoidable adverse impacts are also provided. Light and Glare Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for the light and glare analysis. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: K. 2. Light and Glare Policies a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent hazards and other adverse impacts created by light and glare. b. If a proposed project may create adverse impacts due to light and glare the decision maker shall assess the impacts and the need for mitigation. c. Subject to the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, the decision maker may condition or deny a proposed project to mitigate its adverse impacts due to light and glare. d. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to: i. Limiting the reflective qualities of surface materials that can be used in the development; ii. Limiting the area and intensity of illumination; iii. Limiting the location or angle of illumination; iv. Limiting the hours of illumination; and v. Providing landscaping. 3.10-1 Existing Conditions Sources of light that presently emanates from on-site land uses include light from within the buildings, exterior pedestrian-scale lighting, light associated with existing light standards, and light from vehicles operating on-site. None of the individual sources generate significant light or glare. As depicted by Figures 2-3 and 2-6 (Section II of this DEIS), the project site is separated from Elliott Ave. W. -- by approximately 400 ft., which includes warehouses that are located along the west side of Elliott Ave. W. Principal sources of light that presently occur proximate to the project site include streetlights; light from headlights of vehicles operating on Elliott Ave. W., Alaskan Way W., and W. Galer St.; vehicles maneuvering within parking lots; building lighting (interior and low-level exterior); and street lighting. Light standards associated with streetlights in the general vicinity of the site are approximately 30 ft. in height and the lamps are cobra-style (cobra lamps function by lighting a broad area). While vehicle headlights and glazing (and/or specular surfaces on vehicles) occasionally create glare, the principal source of glare associated with most development projects is sunlight EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-1 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows 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 façade; percentage of the façade 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 façade (e.g., glass inset from the sash, horizontal and vertical modulation); the color and texture of building materials that comprise the façade; and the proximity of other intervening structures or landscaping. Structures and, to an extent, vegetation can mitigate the 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 façade and the area potentially affected by reflected solar glare. While coniferous and/or evergreen vegetation typically afford the greatest amount of mitigation at lower elevations, 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. Street trees that are proposed adjacent to the project site would 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. 3.10-2 Impacts of the Alternatives Alternative 1 Development associated with Alternative 1 would retain all but one of the existing buildings on site and would develop approximately 1.952 million sq. ft. of total gross floor area with the expansion of three existing buildings, infill associated with two existing buildings, and construction of five new buildings. The proposed project would also include two new singlepurpose parking structures and would result in an increased number of vehicles entering and exiting the site parking garages from adjacent streets, with the potential for localized increases in light and glare resulting from vehicle headlights. No significant light and glare-related impacts associated with vehicles entering and exiting the site, however, are anticipated. Based on the height of development assumed under Alternative 1 (maximum of 65 ft.) relative to the currently flat site proximate to Elliott Bay, the proposed EXPEDIA Campus would be noticeable. As such, stationary sources of light (e.g., interior lighting, pedestrian-level lighting, illuminated signage) from the new and existing EXPEDIA Campus buildings would be visible from locations proximate to the project site -- primarily from higher elevations east of the site and from Elliott Bay south and west of the site. Specific information relative to stationary building light fixtures, signage, façade materials (in terms of specular or reflective characteristics), and glazing would be provided as part of the construction-level plans associated with the City’s Building Permit process. Light fixtures would be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residential properties1 and the shoreline2 and no significant off-site light-related impacts are anticipated. It is anticipated that the proposed building facades would not include highly reflective glazing or materials. At the time of building 1 2 SMC 23.50.046 SMC 23.60A.152 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-2 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows permit application, if the facades have reflective coated glass or other highly reflective material and the facades are oriented toward a major arterial street, additional study may be required.3 Alternative 2 Development under Alternative 2 would be similar to but 258,300 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1 with four new buildings (versus five under Alternative 1). The amount of parking would be the same as Alternative 1. Overall, light and glare-related impacts would be similar to or slightly less than those described for Alternative 1 due to one less new building being constructed. Alternative 3 Development under Alternative 3 would be similar to but 28,300 sq. ft. less than Alternative 1. Overall, light and glare-related impacts would be similar to or slightly less than those described for Alternative 1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new development would occur and light and glare conditions would remain the same as presently existing. 3.10-3 Potential Mitigation Measures No significant, long term light or glare-related environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project and no mitigation measures are necessary. Buildings comprising the EXPEDIA Campus will be designed to comply with the Land Use Code, and Building and Energy Code standards in effect at the time of permit application for each building. The following measures could further reduce the potential for off-site light and glare-related impacts. 3  By not incorporating excessively-reflective surfaces (i.e. mirrored glass, or polished metals) that go beyond what is required to meet energy-related code provisions into the design of building façades could lessen the potential for reflected solar glare-related impacts.  Building façade modulation could reduce the effect of any potential reflected solar glare.  Proposed street trees could minimize light and reflective glare-related impacts.  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. SMC 23.60A.152 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-3 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows 3.10-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated relative to light and glare. Shadows This section describes existing shadow conditions on the project site and in the site vicinity and evaluates potential impacts from the DEIS alternatives. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts from shadows and a description of significant unavoidable adverse impacts are also provided. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for the shadow analysis. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: Q.2. Shadows on Open Spaces Policies It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows on open spaces most used by the public. a. Areas outside of downtown to be protected are as follows: i. Publicly owned parks; ii. Public schoolyards; iii. Private schools which allow public use of schoolyards during non-school hours; and iv. Publicly owned street ends in shoreline areas. c. The decision maker shall assess the extent of adverse impacts and the need for mitigation. The analysis of sunlight blockage and shadow impacts shall include an assessment of the extent of shadows, including times of the year, hours of the day, anticipated seasonal use of open spaces, availability of other open spaces in the area, and the number of people affected. d. When the decision maker finds that a proposed project would substantially block sunlight from open spaces listed in subsections Q2a and Q2b above at a time when the public most frequently uses that space, the decision maker may condition or deny the project to mitigate the adverse impacts of sunlight blockage, whether or not the project meets the criteria of the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665. e. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to: i. Limiting the height of the development; ii. Limiting the bulk of the development; iii. Redesigning the profile of the development; iv. Limiting or rearranging walls, fences, or plant material; v. Limiting or rearranging accessory structures, i.e., towers, railing, antennae; and vi. Relocating the project on the site. 3.10-5 Affected Environment Seattle’s SEPA policies aim to “minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows on open spaces most used by the public.”4 However, the only areas to be protected are 1) 4 Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.675 Q2. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-4 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows Publically owned parks 2) Public schoolyards, 3) Private schools which allow public use of schoolyards during non-school hours; and 4) Publicly owned street ends as adopted by Ordinance 119673. The nearest public open space to the project site is Centennial Park, which is located directly to the south of the EXPEDIA Campus. This 11-acre park is used for both passive and active recreation and includes 4,100 linear feet of shoreline, a fishing pier, rose garden, bike and pedestrian path, picnic tables and benches, and views of Elliott Bay.5 Centennial Park is owned by the Port of Seattle, and is not a publicly owned park subject to protection under Seattle’s SEPA policies. A portion of Elliott Bay Trail is also located adjacent to the site -- south and the west along the shoreline. Elliott Bay Trail is a 3.5 mile long paved, multi-use trail shoreline trail that is used for walking and biking, and which runs from Myrtle Edwards Park (south of the site) to Elliott Bay Marina at Smith Cove Park (north of the site). Approximately 0.5 miles of the trail is adjacent to the project site. This trail is not a publicly owned park, and therefore is also not subject to protection under Seattle’s SEPA policies. There are no public schools, private schools, or regulated street ends in the immediate site vicinity that could be affected by the proposed project. Although neither Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park are subject to protection from shadow impacts under Seattle’s SEPA policies, potential shadow impacts to these two areas are disclosed in this EIS for informational purposes. Since Centennial Park is situated south of the project site, shadows from the project would not affect this public open space. At certain times of the day, however, shadows from the proposed project could shade a portion of the Elliott Bay Trail that is located the west of the site. 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 speaking, greater building heights extend the length of the shadow cast, and increased mass (or cross-sectional width) widens the shadow cast by a building. While shadows from tall buildings extend farther from a building, their effects on more distant locations are of shorter duration, because the sun’s 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 on the immediately adjacent area, but the reach of the shadow is limited by the building’s height. The project site is part of the Ballard-Interbay-Northend Industrial Manufacturing Center and, as noted, surrounding development includes primarily low-rise warehouses. The 130 foot tall grain elevators to the south on the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 86 Grain Terminal is the tallest structures in the immediate vicinity.6 Due to the site location on a triangular piece of land jutting out into the water, the project site is relatively isolated from surrounding land uses. This section of the DEIS contains shadow diagrams that depict shading from the development alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) and the No Action Alternative 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 the Elliott Bay Trail resulting from development associated 5 6 Port of Seattle. http://www.portseattle.org/Parks-Public-Access/Parks/Pages/Centennial-Park.aspx While not structures, when the cruise ships are in-port the height of their superstructures exceed the height of the grain terminal. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-5 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows with each of the alternatives. The City’s SEPA policies address shadow impacts with consideration given to the effect “at times when the public most frequently uses that space.”7 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 earth’s rotation, the duration of shadow-related impacts varies for a stationary observer8 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.9 Existing conditions shadows are shown in Figure 3.10-1. Shadow diagrams are shown in Figure 3.10-2 to 3.10-3 for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, and Phases 1, 2 and 3, because for all alternatives, development in Phases 1 and 2 would be the same. Differences in the development program would occur in Phase 3. Figures 3.10-4 to 3.10-6 show Phase 3 development for each alternative separately. Vernal (Spring) Equinox 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). Data10 indicate that on average March has 4 clear days, 8 partly cloudy days and 19 cloudy days.11 Potential shadows from the alternatives are evaluated at 9 AM, 12 PM and 3 PM; Pacific Daylight Savings Time is in-effect on this day.  At 9 AM - 7 8 9 10 11 Alternative 1 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 1 development in Phase 1 would extend in a northwesterly direction and would shade approximately 15 % of the portion of 0.5 mile section of the Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. Centennial Park and the portion or Elliott Bay Trail that is south of the site would not be affected. o Phase 2 – Shadow impacts in Phase 2 would remain the same as described for Phase 1. o Phase 3 – Shadows from additional buildings constructed in Phase 3 would shade approximately 55% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.675 Q2. The rate of change of the sun’s 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. 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. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-6 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS 9am 12pm 3pm Spring Equinox (March 21st) Summer Solstice (June 21st) Fall Equinox (September 21st) Winter Solstice (December 21st) Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.10-1 Shadow Analysis—Existing Conditions EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS 9am 12pm 3pm Spring Equinox (March 21st) Summer Solstice (June 21st) Fall Equinox (September 21st) Winter Solstice (December 21st) Existing Building Shadows Public Park and Trail New Construction Shadows Demolished Building Outline Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.10-2 Shadow Analysis—Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 - PHASE 1 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS 9am 12pm 3pm Spring Equinox (March 21st) Summer Solstice (June 21st) Fall Equinox (September 21st) Winter Solstice (December 21st) Existing Building Shadows Public Park and Trail New Construction Shadows Demolished Building Outline Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.10-3 Shadow Analysis—Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 - PHASE 2 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS 9am 12pm 3pm Spring Equinox (March 21st) Summer Solstice (June 21st) Fall Equinox (September 21st) Winter Solstice (December 21st) Existing Building Shadows Public Park and Trail New Construction Shadows Demolished Building Outline Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.10-4 Shadow Analysis—Alternative 1 - PHASE 3 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS 9am 12pm 3pm Spring Equinox (March 21st) Summer Solstice (June 21st) Fall Equinox (September 21st) Winter Solstice (December 21st) Existing Building Shadows Public Park and Trail New Construction Shadows Demolished Building Outline Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.10-5 Shadow Analysis—Alternative 2 - PHASE 3 EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft EIS 9am 12pm 3pm Spring Equinox (March 21st) Summer Solstice (June 21st) Fall Equinox (September 21st) Winter Solstice (December 21st) Existing Building Shadows Public Park and Trail New Construction Shadows Demolished Building Outline Source: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2016 Figure 3.10-6 Shadow Analysis—Alternative 3 - PHASE 3   - Alternative 2 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. o Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. o Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 3 would be less than described for Alternative 1, with shadows affecting approximately 35 to 40% of the 0.5-mile section of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - Alternative 3 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. o Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1. o Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 3 would be greater than those described for Alternative 1, with shadows affecting approximately 65% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - No Action Alternative o Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. At 12 PM - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northerly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. 3 PM - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in an easterly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-13 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. 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 data12 for the month indicate that on average June has 7 clear days, 8 partly cloudy days and 15 cloudy days.13 Potential shadows from the alternatives are evaluated at 9 AM, 12 PM and 3 PM.  12 13 At 9 AM - Alternative 1 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 1 development in Phase 1 would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 2 – Shadow impacts in Phase 2 would remain the same as described for Phase 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 3 – Shadows from additional buildings constructed in Phase 3 could shade the west edge of approximately 35% of the 0.5-mile section of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - Alternative 2 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail o Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 3 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and could shade the west edge of approximately 35% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - Alternative 3 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 3 would be greater than those described for Alternative 1, with shadows affecting the west edge of approximately 65% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. 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. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-14 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows No Action Alternative o Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. At 12 PM -   - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northerly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. 3 PM - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northerly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. Autumnal (Fall) Equinox Sunrise on autumnal equinox (approx. September 21st) occurs at about 6:13 AM and sunset at 8:11 PM. Climatic data14 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 ineffect on this day. Potential shadows from the alternatives are evaluated at 9 AM, 12 PM and 3 PM.  At 9 AM - 14 Alternative 1 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 1 development in Phase 1 would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 2 – Shadow impacts in Phase 2 would remain the same as described for Phase 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. NOAA, 2005. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-15 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows o   Phase 3 – Shadows from additional buildings constructed in Phase 3 could shade approximately 35% of the 0.5 mile section of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - Alternative 2 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail o Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 3 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and could shade approximately 35% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - Alternative 3 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would not affect Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. o Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 3 would be greater than those described for Alternative 1, with shadows affecting approximately 65% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - No Action Alternative o Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. At 12 PM - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northerly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park . At 3 PM - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in an easterly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-16 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. Winter Solstice Sunrise on winter solstice (approx. December 21st) occurs at 7:54 AM and sunset at 4:19 PM. Climatic data15 for the month of December indicate that on average December has 3 clear days, 4 partly cloudy days and 23 cloudy days.16 Potential shadows from the alternatives are evaluated at 9 AM, 12 PM and 3 PM.  15 16 At 9 AM - Alternative 1 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 1 development in Phase 1 would extend in a northwesterly direction and would shade approximately 35% of the 0.5-mile section of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. Centennial Park and the portion or Elliott Bay Trail that is south of the site would not be affected. o Phase 2 – Shadows from additional buildings constructed in Phase 2 would remain the same as those described for Phase 1. o Phase 3 – Shadows from additional buildings constructed in Phase 3 would shade approximately 65% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. - Alternative 2 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would shade approximately 35% of this portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site o Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and would and would remain the same as described in Phase 1. o Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 2 development in Phase 3 would remain the same as those described for Phases 1 and 2, with approximately 35% of the trail shaded. - Alternative 3 o Phase 1 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 1 would be the same as described for Alternative 1, and would shade approximately 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. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-17 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows o o -   35% of the portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site Phase 2 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 2 would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and would and would remain the same as described in Phase 1. Phase 3 – Shadows from Alternative 3 development in Phase 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, with shadows affecting approximately 65% of the portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is adjacent to the site, along the west site boundary. No Action Alternative o Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. At 12 PM - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in a northerly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. 3 PM - Shadows from Alternative 1 development would extend in an easterly direction and would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 2 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows from Alternative 3 development would not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park in Phase 1, 2 or 3. - Shadows under the No Action Alternative do not affect Elliott Bay Trail or Centennial Park. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Master Development Plan (MDP) is only required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MDP site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-18 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Because no significant shadow impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. Summary As noted previously, Seattle’s SEPA policies aim to “minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows on open spaces most used by the public.”17 However, the only areas to be protected are 1) Publically owned parks 2) Public schoolyards, 3) Private schools which allow public use of schoolyards during non-school hours; and 4) Publicly owned street ends as adopted by Ordinance 119673. No protected areas are located near enough to the site to be impacted by shadows from the proposed development under any of the alternatives. The nearest public open spaces to the project site are Centennial Park and Elliott Bay. Neither area is a publicly owned park, and therefore neither is subject to protection under Seattle’s SEPA policies. Potential shadow impacts to these two areas are disclosed in this EIS Addendum for informational purposes only, and shadow impacts are not subject to mitigation measures. As illustrated by the figures, shadows from Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would not affect Centennial Park because this park is located south of site. Similarly, that portion of Elliott Bay Trail that is located south of the site would not be affected by shadows from the development alternatives. The Elliott Bay Trail is a paved approximately 3.5 mile trail located along the shoreline of Elliott Bay that provides views of the surrounding landscape, Elliott Bay, Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains and is used for walking and biking. Shadows from the project would contribute to shading portions of the 0.5-mile section of Elliott Bay Trail (from 15% to 65%) that is located along the west site boundary on vernal equinox, autumnal equinox and winter solstice at 9 AM under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Shadows from the project could shade just the west edge of the trail during the summer solstice at 9 AM. Because shading would only occur to a limited portion of the overall trail length and would be of short duration, this impact is not be considered significant. Use and enjoyment of the trail would continue. Minimal shading to the trail would occur in summer when highest use of the trail would be expected. 3.10-7 Potential Mitigation Measures As noted, redevelopment of the project site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would cast shadows on a portion of the Elliott Bay Trail at approximately 9 AM on the Spring Equinox, Summer Solstice, Autumnal Equinox and the Winter Solstice. However, this trail is not subject to protection from shadow impacts under Seattle’s SEPA policies, and therefore no mitigation is required. Use and enjoyment of the trail could continue and no mitigation is necessary. 3.10-8 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse shadow-related impacts are anticipated. 17 Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.675 Q2. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-19 Section 3.10 Light, Glare and Shadows 3.11 TRANSPORTATION Detailed transportation impact analyses were performed to evaluate the Proposed Action’s impacts to all modes of land transportation. These are presented in the Transportation Technical Report (see Appendix E). Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for traffic, transportation and parking. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: M.2 Parking a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent adverse parking impacts associated with development projects. b. Subject to the overview and cumulative effects policies set forth in Sections 25.05.665 and 25.05.670, the decision maker may condition a project to mitigate the effects of development in an area on parking. R.2 Traffic and Transportation a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent adverse traffic impacts which would undermine the stability, safety and/or character of a neighborhood or surrounding areas. b. In determining the necessary traffic and transportation impact mitigation, the decisionmaker shall examine the expected peak traffic and circulation pattern of the proposed project weighed against such factors as the availability of public transit; existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic conditions; accident history; the trend in local area development; parking characteristics of the immediate area; the use of the street as determined by the Seattle Department of Transportation's Seattle Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and the availability of goods, services and recreation within reasonable walking distance. The Transportation Technical Report evaluates the EXPEDIA Campus transportation impacts by comparing forecast conditions with the project to those that would occur if existing building on the site were fully occupied—a condition referred to as the No Build Alternative. Two future horizon years were evaluated: 2019, which is the targeted year of opening for the project, and 2031, which is the 15-year horizon for the Major Phased Development permit. The year-ofopening condition is referred to herein as Phase 1, while the long-term condition is referred to as Full Build. Trip generation estimates for the No Build, Phase 1, and Full Build conditions were developed using a combination of national trip generation rates and site-specific mode-of-travel targets. These targets are based on the potential on-site employment and parking supply available during each phase of development. Future traffic forecasts for the No Build condition also assume growth associated with 54 other planned development projects in the Ballard, Interbay, Magnolia, and Queen Anne neighborhoods. Information about historic traffic growth in the 15th/Elliott Avenue corridor is also presented and used in the forecasts. Intersection level of service was evaluated for 21 intersections for both AM and PM peak hours for the two horizon EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-1 Section 3.11 Transportation years. Potential mitigation measures are suggested for intersections that could be adversely affected by the project. The analysis also presents detailed information about transit, nonmotorized facilities, and freight. It is noted that all transportation analyses were performed based on potential employment at the site, which could be the same for Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. Therefore, descriptions of the potential EXPEDIA Campus impacts are the same for these alternatives. Impacts by Transportation Element Roadway Network The EXPEDIA Campus is located on the west side of the BNSF Railway mainline tracks that lie parallel to Elliott Avenue W through the corridor. There are no at-grade connections across the railroad tracks to the campus; all access is provided by the Galer Flyover, a two-lane gradeseparated structure that connects from the east side of Elliott Avenue W to the west side of Alaskan Way W and passes over Elliott Avenue W, the BNSF Railway tracks, and Alaskan Way W. The 15th / Elliott Avenue W corridor is the primary arterial access to the site, and feeds eastwest arterials that connect to other neighborhoods and the regional highway system at Denny Way, W Mercer Place, Garfield Street/ Magnolia Bridge, W Nickerson Street, NW Leary Way, and NW Market Street. The No Build Alternative assumes that the 670,000 sf of space on the site would be occupied for an office use. No changes to the roadway network would occur for this Alternative. With any of the build alternatives (1, 2 or 3), primary access to the EXPEDIA Campus — through the intersection of Alaskan Way W and Amgen Court W—would be reconfigured. There are currently decorative rock revetments on each side of Alaskan Way W that would be removed and replaced with new landscape treatments. Any changes on this roadway would retain the ability for large trucks to access the grain elevator located south of the campus at Terminal 86. The project would also improve 16th Avenue W west of the EXPEDIA Campus site where half-street improvements would be required by the City. Traffic Volumes New and historic traffic volume data were compiled for the study area intersections. These data were used to show how traffic volumes have changed in recent years. Future forecasts were developed for two future horizon years: 2019, which is the targeted year of opening for the project, and 2031, which is the 15-year horizon for the Major Phased Development permit. The future No Build conditions assume the following.  Year 2019 No Build Volumes o Existing traffic plus o Traffic generated by 54 pipeline projects plus o Traffic generated by existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus (No Build Alternative Trips). EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-2 Section 3.11 Transportation  Year 2031 No Build Volumes o Year 2019 No Build Volumes plus o Background growth in existing traffic of 0.4% per year from 2019 through 2031 Most analyses were performed for an average day condition when there are no cruise ship calls at the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 91 Cruise Terminal. However, sensitivity analysis was also performed for a peak day condition when two cruise ships would call at Terminal 91 during a weekday. Detailed trip generation estimates were prepared for the various development alternatives. The net change in trips associated with the EXPEDIA Campus was derived by first determining each alternative’s trip generation, and then assigning those trips to the roadway network based on the expected travel patterns for each phase of development. The following summarizes the various steps in the methodology:  Determine the person trips generated by each alternative. Person trips were derived using trip generation equations published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual1 for a Corporate Headquarters Office (Land Use 714). The average vehicle occupancy inherent in the ITE data were applied to convert vehicle trips to person trips.  Determine trips by mode of travel. On-site parking would be limited to 3,300 spaces at full build out. As employment at the company grows, the percentage of employees who would be able to drive and park at the site must decrease. Mode of travel estimates were developed for various levels of employment based on historic travel characteristics for Amgen at the EXPEDIA Campus site as well as the limited parking supply.  Determine trip distribution pattern and assign vehicle trips. Two trip distribution patterns were developed for the EXPEDIA Campus: one for year-of-opening and one for full build. The year-of-opening pattern reflects a higher percentage of employees commuting from the Eastside of Lake Washington where the existing Expedia headquarters is located. In the long-term, more employees are likely to live closer to the EXPEDIA Campus. To support the trip generation estimates, traffic data were also collected at Expedia’s existing headquarters building in downtown Bellevue. This information provides metrics about seasonal, day-of-week, and time-of-day travel characteristics, and indicate the number of employees who do not commute on a daily basis due to vacation, sick leave, work travel, or working from home. The trip generation estimates derived for the EXPEDIA Campus were compared to actual trip generation rates for Expedia based on the number of parking spaces. The comparison shows that the methodology applied is reasonable. The detailed travel demand estimates are presented in Section 3 of the Transportation Technical Report (see Appendix C). The net change in vehicle trips for Alternative 1 (compared to the No Build Alternative) is summarized in Table 3.9-1 1 ITE, 9th Edition, 2012. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-3 Section 3.11 Transportation Table 3.11-1. Net Change in Vehicle Trips with EXPEDIA Campus Alternative 1 Land Use Daily Trips Full Build – Alternative 1 7,010 No Build Alternative AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips In PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips Out Total In Out Total 1,213 90 1,303 155 755 910 -3,010 -515 -38 -553 -81 -400 -481 Net Change at Full Build 4,000 698 52 750 74 355 429 Phase 1 – Alternative 1 5,880 1,071 80 1,151 144 703 847 No Build Alternative -3,010 -515 -38 -553 -81 -400 -481 Net Change for Phase 1 2,870 556 42 598 63 303 366 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., December 2015. Traffic Operations Detailed intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was performed for 21 area intersections. Level of service is a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating conditions. Six letter designations, “A” through “F,” are used to define level of service. LOS A is the best and represents good traffic operations with little or no delay to motorists. LOS F is the worst and indicates poor traffic operations with long delays. The City has no adopted level of service standards for individual intersections; however, project-related intersection delay that causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F, or increases delay at an intersection that is projected to operate at LOS E or F without the project, may be considered a significant adverse impact. Phase 1 of the EXPEDIA Campus development would only adversely affect one intersection: Alaskan Way W/Galer Flyover. This unsignalized intersection would be degraded to LOS F conditions with the project. It is recommended that this intersection be signalized to improve operations and separate conflicting turning movements from the EXPEDIA Campus and Terminal 91. It is noted that a traffic signal at this intersection has been envisioned since the Galer Flyover was originally constructed. At full build of the EXPEDIA Campus in 2031, the project would add vehicle delay to several intersections that would already operate at LOS E or F conditions under the future No Build Alternative. The level-of-service results show that the project is expected to degrade operations at the 15th Avenue W/Gilman Avenue W intersection from LOS C to LOS E during the AM peak hour. Westbound Gilman Avenue W is constrained to one lane approaching 15th Avenue W, which affects its operation. The Queen Anne Community Council is pursuing funding to study cut-through traffic on Queen Anne, some of which may be affecting this intersection.2 Potential solutions could involve spot improvement that reduce congestion or measures to reduce cutthrough traffic. Conditions with cruise ship operations at Terminal 91 were also evaluated to assess whether additional traffic control or physical improvements would be needed at the west end of the Galer Flyover. The Galer Flyover is used to access Terminal 91’s East Gate, which is where most 2 E-mail from Charles Bookman of the Queen Anne Community Council, October 29, 2015. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-4 Section 3.11 Transportation taxis, shuttles, charter buses, and provisioning trucks enter and exit the terminal. As previously described, this intersection would likely require signalization to accommodate the Phase 1 level of EXPEDIA Campus traffic. That signalized intersection would be able to accommodate traffic generated by EXPEDIA Campus Phase 1 plus traffic associated with a single cruise ship call at Terminal 91. With a dual cruise ship call, however, LOS F conditions could occur due to the increased turning movement conflicts. To improve operations on weekdays with two cruise ship calls, it is recommended that cones and signage be installed to channelize traffic exiting Terminal 91 directly onto the Galer Flyover, and eliminate the ability to proceed southbound through the intersection. This would allow the signal to process eastbound left turn movements arriving at the terminal simultaneously with movements leaving the terminal. This same treatment would also accommodate a single cruise ship call in 2031 with the EXPEDIA Campus at Full Build employment levels. Additional mitigation would be needed for the EXPEDIA Campus at Full Build employment levels, if there were a dual ship call at Terminal 91. Almost all dual cruise ship calls on weekdays now occur on Fridays, and the schedule for those days is known months in advance. Fridays have historically been the lowest trip generation day for Expedia employees. Therefore, it may be possible to implement trip reduction strategies that reduce Expedia trips on peak cruise days and lessen the potential overlap. Traffic Safety Based on statistical trends, increase in traffic associated with Project Cruise could also increase the potential for collisions in the study area. Detailed traffic safety analysis determined that there are no unusual safety conditions in the site vicinity. Therefore, the project is not expected to adversely affect traffic safety. Parking The existing EXPEDIA Campus has about 1,230 parking spaces. Project Cruise would construct new parking on the campus in phases. There would be one level of underground parking below new buildings on the campus, an extension to the existing above-grade parking structure, plus some pockets of at-grade parking. Overall, when the project opens in 2019, there would be about 2,670 parking spaces; at full build-out, a total of 3,300 parking spaces are expected. The transportation analysis determined mode-of-travel targets the project’s TMP based on the parking supply available at various stages of growth. Parking should be set aside for visitors, vendors, and fleet vehicles. The Phase 1 parking supply would accommodate 4,500 employees at the SOV target rate of 49%. At full build out, the 3,300 parking spaces could accommodate between 6,500 and 8,000 employees at SOV rates ranging from 41% to 30%, respectively. Details related to the TMP goals and strategies are presented in the Mitigation section. No overflow parking is expected. There is 90-degree angled parking along the west side of 16th Avenue W. Although the stall striping is badly faded, it is estimated that there is capacity for 120 to 125 vehicles along the length of this street; 30 of the spaces are located in an easement. This parking is restricted to 2hour durations between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.; parking is prohibited between 2:00 and 5:00 A.M. to prevent overnight parking. There is also unrestricted parallel parking along the south side of W Galer Street adjacent to the EXPEDIA Campus site. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-5 Section 3.11 Transportation The project would upgrade its frontage along 16th Avenue W as part of its required half-street improvements. Enhanced landscape treatments or required turnarounds along the street could eliminate some existing parking. The existing two-hour time limits should be retained for parking along 16th Avenue W and added for parking along W Galer Street adjacent to the site. Such restrictions would prevent these parking areas from being used by Expedia employees. Transit King County Metro provides bus service to the study area, which includes local, commuter, and RapidRide routes. There is a RapidRide station located at Elliott Avenue W/W Prospect Street, which serves RapidRide D-Line in addition to four other local and commuter routes. The Helix Pedestrian Bridge provides direct pedestrian access over the railroad tracks between the EXPEDIA Campus and transit station. Three additional commuter bus routes—15, 17, and 18— operate on Elliott Avenue W, but do not currently stop at Elliott Avenue W/W Prospect Street; the nearest stops for these routes are at Elliott Avenue W/W Harrison Street, a little over a half-mile to the south. The Transportation Technical Report provides detailed information about route frequency, ridership, capacity, and amenities. Expedia is currently evaluating potential shuttle options to augment public transit service along the Elliott Avenue W corridor. Shuttles could connect to major hubs in downtown Seattle to reduce the need for employees to transfer. They could also connect to neighborhood areas with high concentrations of employees. Expedia continues to plan potential shuttle routes and will adapt those based on employee resident locations and demand closer to the move in date. The option for shuttles will be included in the project’s Transportation Management Plan (TMP) as one tool to meet the trip reduction goals. Any use of public streets for shuttle loading and dropoff would require coordination and approval by SDOT. The net change in transit trips generated by the project was estimated, and is presented in the Transportation Technical Report. When Phase 1 of Project Cruise opens in 2019, it is estimated to generate 2,000 to 2,250 transit trips per day and 250 to 500 shuttle trips per day. For the Full Build condition, up to 6,000 transit and shuttle trips per day could be generated. No shuttle planning has been attempted for the Full Build condition, the demand for which would depend on the type and capacity of public transit to the site vicinity, and the demographics of employees in the future. During Phase 1, Project Cruise is estimated to add about 200 transit trips to the Elliott Avenue W corridor compared to the No Build Condition. For the 2019 Phase 1 condition, the majority of employees are expected to live in areas more proximate to Expedia’s existing Bellevue headquarters. Only about 15% of the employees are expected to live in the neighborhoods served by the 15th Avenue W corridor north of the site. The majority (85%) would access the site from the south, and would be off-peak direction trips in the Elliott W Corridor. The potential peak direction trips are expected to be 35 to 40 riders per hour. There are currently 35 buses that serve the Elliott Avenue W/W Prospect Street stop during the peak hour (20 in the peak direction and 15 in the off-peak direction). There are another 10 peak-direction buses on Routes 15, 17, and 18 that pass by the site on Elliott Avenue W but do not currently stop. On average the net increase in riders per peak-direction bus would likely be less than 5; the increase per offpeak direction bus is estimated to be about 17 riders. Therefore, the net increase in transit riders generated by Phase 1 is not expected to adversely affect existing transit facilities or services. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-6 Section 3.11 Transportation It is recommended that Expedia work with SDOT and King County Metro and determine if it would be feasible to add a W Prospect Street stop for three commuter bus routes—15, 17 and 18— that currently travel on Elliott Avenue W past the site, but do not currently stop at Prospect Street (the nearest stops are at Elliott Avenue W/W Harrison Street). This would enhance service for employees and allow some to reach the site with fewer transfers and a shorter walk from home. It is noted that additional service may be required to add a stop to these routes. At full build out in 2031, the project is estimated to generate about 6,000 transit and shuttle trips per day, with about 1,120 of those occurring in the AM peak hour and 780 in the PM peak hour. That level of usage would likely require either increased public transit service or a robust shuttle system that connects to the regional transit hubs such as Westlake or King Street Station. It may also require that the existing stops on Elliott Avenue W at Prospect Street be upgraded to serve higher ridership with larger shelters and amenities. However, by that time, it is possible that higher-capacity transit would exist in the Elliott Avenue corridor depending on the outcome of Sound Transit’s ST3 plan and ballot measure. Therefore, the need for improvements to existing bus infrastructure should be evaluated in the future given the outcome of the ST3 project. The need for shuttles would likely be eliminated if a light rail station were in close proximity to the site. Non-Motorized Facilities There are sidewalks along the majority of roadways in the site vicinity. The Helix Pedestrian Bridge provides a grade-separated connection over the BNSF Railway’s mainline tracks and yard between Elliott Avenue W and the EXPEDIA Campus. The bridge lands in the W Prospect Street right-of-way on the east, and connects to the Elliott Bay Park trail on the west. There are several off-street bicycle facilities that connect to the EXPEDIA Campus. The Elliott Bay Trail is an off-street multi-use trail that extends from Broad Street to W Garfield Street. It then crosses through the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 91, and connects to 20th Avenue W and Gilman Avenue W. Bicyclists can connect to the Ship Canal Trail via Emerson Street, or to Ballard across either the Ballard Bridge or the path through the Hiram Chittenden Locks. Further south, the trail connects to the Waterfront trail, which will eventually be improved as part of the Promenade along Alaskan Way; further east the Ship Canal Trail connects to the Burke-Gilman Trail in Fremont. With Phase 1 of the EXPEDIA Campus development, an estimated 5% of the employees are expected to bike to work and 2% are expected to walk. By 2031, bike trips are expected to increase to about 10% and walk trips to 3% as more employees move closer to the EXPEDIA Campus. With Phase 1, walk and bike trips would be similar to those generated by the No Build Alternative. At Full Build out, the EXPEDIA Campus could generate a net increase of about 70 walking trips and 200 bicycle trips during the peak hour. The vast majority of the bicycle trips are expected to arrive via the Elliott Bay Trail, which connects south to the Waterfront and north to the Ship Canal and Burke-Gilman Trails. These trails provide near level bicycle access to many neighborhoods throughout Seattle and beyond, including connections to the SR 520 and I-90 bicycle trails. Detailed analysis of the Elliott Bay Trail was performed using Shared-se Path Level of Service. Users would perceive the trail to operate at LOS C or better for all conditions. However, given that about 70% of the PM peak hour bicycle volumes occur in the northbound direction, by 2031 bicyclists could have difficultly EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-7 Section 3.11 Transportation passing other users on the trail, and the overall Trail LOS is projected to decline to LOS F on a peak summer day. These conditions would exist without or with Project Cruise. Substantial landscaping and frontage improvements are proposed at the EXPEDIA Campus, which may include upgrades to the Elliott Bay Trail. Any improvements must be approved by the City. One potential improvement being considered is to create a new trail alignment that eliminates the 90-degree bend at the southwest corner of the campus. This could be accomplished by providing a separate trail segment for bicyclists inland of the point. Separating bicycle and pedestrian trails would improve the level of service, and even a short segment of widened or separate trail would provide a location where faster bicyclists could more easily pass other users on the trail. Substantial bicycle amenities, including enclosed bike storage, showers, and lockers are proposed to be included on the EXPEDIA Campus. It is also recommended that good connections to these bike amenity areas be provided from both the Elliott Bay Trail and the Helix Pedestrian Bridge. In addition to employees who walk from nearby neighborhoods, transit riders would also walk to and from the stops on Elliott Avenue W at W Prospect Street via the Helix Bridge. Depending on the level of shuttle services provided, transit riders who walk to these stops could range up to 350 pedestrians per hour for Phase 1 and 1,050 pedestrians per hour at Full Build. All would need to cross Elliott Avenue W once per day, either on their arriving or departing trip. The increased pedestrian crossings were included in the traffic operations analysis for this intersection, and no changes to signal operations would be needed to accommodate them. The highest pedestrian flow through the Elliott Avenue W/W Prospect Street intersection is expected to occur after passengers discharge from northbound buses in the morning. The bus stop is located just north of the intersection, and pedestrians would walk south to the intersection across two existing driveway curb cuts. The pedestrian landing area on the northeast corner of the intersection is sandwiched between W Prospect Street, the site driveway just north of the intersection, and a Diamond Parking lot (for pay public parking) at the back of the sidewalk. Although there is limited space for pedestrians to queue, it would be adequate to accommodate the Phase 1 pedestrian flows. In the longer term, pedestrian crossing improvements may be desired, particularly if any other corners of the intersection are redeveloped and vehicular access to those properties is required to be located on the stub ends of W Prospect Street. Since the W Prospect Street right-of-way is off-set across Elliott Avenue W (the east leg of the intersection is south of the west leg), it may be possible to locate the eastwest crosswalk so that it connects directly to the Helix Bridge pedestrian island located in the center of W Prospect Street. It is recommended that Expedia work with SDOT on future pedestrian improvements, and contribute towards pedestrian signal upgrades that may be needed to upgrade or relocate the crosswalk and landings. The existing Helix Pedestrian Bridge was also evaluated, and determined to have ample capacity to accommodate expected increases in pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. The project would upgrade the frontage along 16th Avenue W as part of its required half-street improvements. The design team, in consultation with SDOT, could consider consolidating the sidewalk/walkway improvements onto the west side of the street to augment the existing trail. These improvements would enhance the pedestrian connections to, through, and beyond the EXPEDIA Campus for Expedia employees as well as public trail users. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-8 Section 3.11 Transportation Transportation Concurrency Detailed transportation concurrency analysis is presented in the Transportation Technical Report. Transportation concurrency would be met for this project. 3.11-2 Potential Mitigation Measures Transportation Management Plan (TMP) The site’s existing TMP would be amended to account for the MPD. It is recommended that the TMP establish a trip reduction goal that would change over time from 49% at initial occupancy of existing buildings to 30% at full occupancy of proposed buildings. Based on the analyses herein, it is recommended that the SOV goals be related to employment at the site, which is an attribute measured for TMP and Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Act reports. It is noted that 49% is the City’s established SOV goal for CTR companies located in the Elliott Corridor. This would be the maximum goal for the EXPEDIA Campus. Details of the recommended TMP are presented in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix C). Roadway System Improvements The traffic operations analysis was used to determine potential off-site improvement needs. The following measures are suggested:  Signalize the intersection at the Alaskan Way W/Galer Flyover intersection.  Contribute funding towards improvements at the 15th Avenue W/W Gilman Street intersection. These could include intersection-capacity-improvement measures such as an additional westbound right turn lane, or demand-management measures that prevent or reduce neighborhood cut through traffic. Traffic generated by the project during the AM peak hour (when operations are most affected) at full build would represent 7% of total entering volume. This would be a reasonable share for funding contribution.  Contribute funding towards signalization of the W Galer Street/Thorndyke Avenue W intersection, if SDOT approves improvements at this location. During the AM peak hour when operations are worst, the project traffic represents about 1% of the traffic through the intersection. This would be a reasonable share for funding contribution.  On weekdays with cruise ship calls planned for Terminal 91, implement a traffic control plan at the Alaskan Way W/Galer Flyover intersection. The traffic control plan and protocols for implementation should be coordinated with the Port of Seattle and approved by SDOT. Initially, the traffic control plan would only be needed when two cruise ships are expected on a weekday. With growth in Expedia or cruise ship traffic, this level of mitigation may be required with a single cruise ship call. Plans should be regularly monitored and updated as needed.  Retain two-hour parking time limits along 16th Avenue W and add that restriction to W Galer Street adjacent to the site. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-9 Section 3.11 Transportation Transit Facility Improvements and Shuttle Stops on Public Streets Expedia should work with SDOT and King County Metro to enhance and upgrade existing transit service and facilities along Elliott Avenue W. The following improvements should be considered:  If feasible, add a W Prospect Street stop for three commuter bus routes—15, 17 and 18— that currently travel on Elliott Avenue W past the site, but do not currently stop at Prospect Street (the nearest stops are at Elliott Avenue W/W Harrison Street).  When ridership at the W Prospect Street warrants, contribute to upgrade the stop to include more passenger amenities similar to higher-level stations elsewhere on the RapidRide route. It is noted that Sound Transit’s ST3 package is currently being developed for a potential November 2016 ballot measure. One route being evaluated is a light rail line between downtown and Ballard that could have a stop near the EXPEDIA Campus. Although this major transit enhancement was not considered in the transportation analysis herein, if it were approved, then Expedia should work with Sound Transit and SDOT to assure that there are good pedestrian connections between the station and the EXPEDIA Campus. Expedia may implement shuttles as one tool to reduce SOV trips, which could include service to major transportation hubs in the downtown area. Any loading/unloading areas that utilize public streets must be approved by SDOT. Expedia will coordinate with SDOT to locate and establish curbside load/unload areas. Non-Motorized Facility Improvements The site is served by off-road bicycle facilities that have capacity to accommodate the expected bicycle trips. However, the proponent could consider enhancing the trail system by providing the following improvements.  Upgrading the segment of the trail adjacent to the campus to provide separate paths or lanes for pedestrians and bicycles similar to treatments elsewhere on the trail.  Softening the sharp bend in the trail southwest of the campus.  Creating good connections between the Elliott Bay Trail, the Helix Pedestrian Bridge, and on-site bicycle storage and amenities.  Enhancing wayfinding between the Elliott Bay Trail and the Helix Bridge. The project would upgrade its frontage along 16th Avenue W as part of its required half-street improvements. The design team in, consultation with SDOT, could consider consolidating the sidewalk/walkway improvements onto the west side of the street to augment the existing trail. Pedestrian improvements at the Elliott Avenue W/W Prospect Street intersection may be desired in the future, particularly if any other corners of this intersection are redeveloped and vehicular access to those properties is required to be located on the stub ends of W Prospect Street. Since the W Prospect Street right-of-way is off-set across Elliott Avenue W (the east leg EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-10 Section 3.11 Transportation of the intersection is south of the west leg), it may be possible to locate the east-west crosswalk so that it connects directly to the Helix Bridge pedestrian island located in the center of W Prospect Street. It is recommended that Expedia work with SDOT on future pedestrian improvements, and contribute towards pedestrian signal upgrades that may be needed to enhance or relocate the crosswalk and landings. Such improvements would be needed beyond Phase 2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed EXPEDIA Campus project would increase travel demand in the site vicinity. Almost all of the potential adverse impacts can be mitigated with a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) and improvements at key intersections. However, no in-place mitigation is feasible to improve the poor level of service at the 15th Avenue NW/NW Market Street intersection, since the intersection is already built to its maximum capacity. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F in 2031 during the AM peak hour without or with the EXPEDIA Campus. The project would add an estimated 7.0 seconds of delay per vehicle. This level of impact could be considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. It is noted that the analysis does not account for potential future light rail service to Ballard, which could be included in Sound Transit’s ST3 program. High capacity transit such as this could result in mode-of-travel shifts from vehicular to transit, which could reduce overall vehicular demand through the intersection, and improve the level of service. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-11 Section 3.11 Transportation 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES and UTILITIES This section describes existing public service and utility capacity on the project site and in the site vicinity and evaluates potential impacts from the DEIS alternatives. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts from additional service needs and a description of significant unavoidable adverse impacts are also provided. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for public services and facilities. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: O.2. Public Services and Facilities Policies a) It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent adverse impacts to existing public services and facilities. b) The decisionmaker may require, as part of the environmental review of a project, a Reasonable assessment of the present and planned condition and capacity of public services and facilities to serve the area affected by the proposal. c) Based upon such analyses, a project which would result in adverse impacts on existing public services and facilities may be conditioned or denied to lessen its demand for services and facilities, or required to improve or add services and/or facilities for the public, whether or not the project meets the criteria of the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665. 3.12.1 Existing Conditions Public Services  Police -- The Seattle Police Department West Precinct currently provides first response police service to the site. SPD’s West Precinct is headquartered at 810 Virginia Street, approximately two miles southeast of the EXPEDIA Campus site. The Precinct is further divided into four sectors and 12 beats. The EXPEDIA Campus site is located in Beat Q1. 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 1 2 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. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-1 Section 3.12 Public Services and Utilities A review of 911 call data for project site from 2013 to 2015 indicated 41 calls for service, many of which were either cancelled or duplicate calls, or were 911 open line calls where it was determined there was no issue.  Fire – The Seattle Fire Department Battalion 4 currently provides fire and emergency response service to the site. The closest Seattle Fire Department stations to the EXPEDIA Campus are Station 41 (2416 34th Ave. W) and Station 8 (110 Lee Street). Station 8 currently serves the site and would continue to serve the EXPEDIA Campus under Alternatives 1-3. This station includes one fire engine and one fire ladder truck.3  Parks/Open Space – Two public open spaces adjoin the site of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus – Centennial Park and Elliott Bay Trail. - Centennial Park – This is an 11-ac. park that is owned and operated by the Port of Seattle. It is located immediately north of the City’s Myrtle Edwards Park. Centennial Park extends from the southwest portion of the site of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus south along Elliott Bay with approximately 4,100 linear feet of shoreline.4 The park includes bike and pedestrian pathways, exercise stations, a rose garden, tackle shop, 400-foot fishing pier, picnic tables and benches, restroom facilities, and views of Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, the Olympic Mountains, as well as the adjacent Terminal 86 Grain Terminal. Centennial Park is open daily from 6 am until 11 pm. - Elliott Bay Trail – This is a paved, separated walking and biking trail that extends along the west and south boundaries of the site of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus. A segment of the trail extends north and west to Smith Cove (vicinity of 30th Ave. W.), which is approximately 1,500 ft. west of Pier 91. South of the project site, the trail extends through Centennial Park and Myrtle Edwards Park to Sculpture Park. South of Sculpture Park, the trail extends to Marginal Way at Spokane St. Utilities The project site is currently served by public and franchise utilities. These utilities include domestic water, fire protection, sanitary sewer, power, communications/data, and natural gas. Once on site, the utilities that serve the project site generally become private utilities. New construction may require relocation or extensions of these private utilities within the private property. Relocations or extensions within the site will not cause any impacts to adjacent properties or their associated utilities. The proposed development will use the following utility systems, which have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.  3 4 Water – Potable water service is provided to the site by Seattle Public Utilities (PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018). Service connections are located in W. Galer St. and at a location approximately 1,800 ft. south of W. Galer St. Once on site, water service is Personal Communication with Assistant Fire Marshall Gary English. Feb. 24 2016. Portofseattle.org/Parks-Public-Access/Parks/ EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-2 Section 3.12 Public Services and Utilities distributed throughout the campus as a private utility. MUP plan 3.7 on the SDCI project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854) depicts the existing water service layout. In general, the existing loop system is located in Alaskan Way W. and Helix Way (surrounding existing buildings P1, U, A-D and J, and serves the existing buildings. Water service is also provided in 16th Ave. W. Hydrants are located throughout the existing campus.  Sanitary Sewer – Sanitary sewer service is provided to the site by Seattle Public Utilities (PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018). Two service connections serve the existing campus – one is located approximately 500 ft. south of W. Galer St. and the other is approximately 1,800 ft. south of W. Galer St. Sanitary side sewer infrastructure is distributed throughout the campus as a private utility. MUP plan 3.8 on the SDCI project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854) depicts the existing sanitary sewer service layout. In general, the existing loop system is located in Alaskan Way W. and Helix Way (surrounding existing buildings P1 and U and serving buildings A, B, C, D and J.  Storm Drainage – Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.3, Water Quality and Drainage, of this DEIS.  Electrical Service – The campus is served by a 26.2kva privately-owned electrical service. The current size is adequate to serve the proposed campus. Refer to the analysis contained in Section 3.5, Energy, of this DEIS.  Telecommunications/Data – Telecom service is provided to the site by Century Link (1600 Seventh Ave., Seattle, WA 98191).  Solid Waste Collection and Disposal – Solid waste and recycling service is provided by Recology CleanScapes (117 S Main Street Ste. 300, Seattle, WA 98104).  Streets and Transit – Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.11, Transportation, of this DEIS. 3.12-2 Impacts of the Alternatives Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Public Services  Police Phase 1 It is possible that construction of the project under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 could require police staffing resources for traffic mitigation. The process to determine such requirements would be a joint effort among Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle Police Department, the Seattle Department of Planning and Development, and King County Metro Transit. Phase 1 would represent the most intensive phase of EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-3 Section 3.12 Public Services and Utilities development when construction of all infrastructure would occur, as well as the majority of the total new development area (1,194,592 sq. ft.). Increases in employment associated with operation of the new development on the EXPEDIA Campus under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 could result in increased demands for police services, however, the exact number of new calls would be the result of a number of variables that cannot be accurately predicted.5 Increased calls for service could likely be absorbed by current and future Seattle Police Department staffing.6 It is anticipated that police service calls could be reduced or managed to some extent by the use of private security on the EXPEDIA Campus. Under all alternatives, private building security would be employed to secure the campus, public spaces, parking and loading areas. Phase 2 Construction and operational impacts for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1 as less development would occur during this phase (412,593 sq. ft.). Phase 3 Construction and operational impacts for Alternative 1 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1 as less development would occur during this phase (343,296 sq. ft.). Impacts for Alternative 2 would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, as less development would occur in Phase 3, with 85,000 sq. feet. Impacts for Alternative 3 would be similar to but slightly less than Alternative 1, as less development would occur in Phase 3, with 315,000 sq. feet.  Fire – Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in Phases 1-3, all new development and building renovations would comply with the Seattle Fire Code and applicable building codes. The Seattle Fire Department has indicated they will have adequate resources to serve the proposed development at full buildout, provided all code requirements are met.7  Parks/Open Space Phase 1 Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, Phase 1 would represent the most intensive phase of development when construction of all infrastructure would occur, as well as the majority of the total new development area (1,194,592 sq. ft.). The proposed EXPEDIA Campus would have no direct impact to either Centennial Park or Elliott Bay Trail. Indirectly, with an increased number of employees on-site, greater utilization of these public facilities could occur. 5 6 7 Personal Communication with SPD, Captain Jim Dermody, Field Support Bureau, Data-Driven Policing Section Commander. Seattle Police Department. December 2015. Personal Communication with SPD, Captain Jim Dermody, Field Support Bureau, Data-Driven Policing Section Commander. Seattle Police Department. December 2015. Personal Communication with Assistant Fire Marshall Gary English. Feb. 24 2016. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-4 Section 3.12 Public Services and Utilities Phase 2 Impacts to parks and open space in Phase 2 under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1, as less development would occur in this phase (412,593 sq. ft.). Phase 3 Impacts to parks and open space for Alternative 1 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1 as less development would occur during this phase (343,296 sq. ft.). Impacts for Alternative 2 would be similar to but less than Alternative 1, as less development would occur in Phase 3, with 85,000 sq. feet. Impacts for Alternative 3 would be similar to but slightly less than Alternative 1, as less development would occur in Phase 3, with 315,000 sq. feet. Utilities As noted in Section II of this DEIS, all infrastructure for full build-out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus would occur during Phase 1. 8 9  Water – Seattle Public Utilities has confirmed water supply availability for the proposed water service connections at full buildout (Phase 3).8 MUP plan 3.7 on the SDCI project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854) depicts the existing and proposed water service layout. Like the existing on-site service, the proposed expansion to the existing water service would be a private utility. It is proposed that a new water line be provided along the west portion of the site to connect with the existing loop system located in Alaskan Way W. and Helix Way. Additional hydrants are proposed in the west and south portions of the site proximate to the new building location, as well as a new hydrant near W. Galer St.  Sanitary Sewer – MUP plan 3.8 on the SDCI project portal website (web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/3021854) depicts the existing and proposed sanitary sewer service layout. Like the existing on-site service, the proposed expansion to the existing sewer service would be a private utility. It is proposed that new sanitary sewer lines be provided along the west and the south portions of the site to serve new buildings that are proposed in these areas. These lines would be connected to the existing on-campus facilities. Engineering estimates and communication with SPU indicates that there is adequate capacity in the City’s system to serve the proposed project at full buildout (Phase 3).9  Storm Drainage – Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.3, Water Quality and Drainage, of this DEIS.  Telecommunications/Data – Existing telecommunication/data service would be extended to serve the proposed buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus. No significant operational impacts are anticipated. Water Availability Certificate 20151345. August 25, 2015. Personal Communication with SPU. January 2016. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-5 Section 3.12 Public Services and Utilities  Solid Waste Collection and Disposal – Waste collection and disposal services would be provided by Recology CleanScapes.  Streets and Transit Services – Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.11 Transportation, of this DEIS. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Because no significant public services or utilities impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. 3.12-3 Potential Mitigation Measures Public Services  Police – Use of private security on the EXPEDIA Campus could lessen the demand on the Seattle Police Department relative to certain calls-for-service.  Fire – No environmental impacts are anticipated and mitigation is not necessary.  Parks/Open Space – No environmental impacts are anticipated and mitigation is not necessary. Utilities Construction management associated with the proposed EXPEDIA Campus 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, EXPEDIA Campus construction management would inform land uses proximate to the site of the time and duration of expected service interruptions that could result from connection of service to the new development. Water   The design and construction of the private water distribution connections and facilities would comply with the City of Seattle regulations. All such connections would require City approval. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-6 Section 3.12 Public Services and Utilities Sanitary Sewer   The design and construction of the private sanitary sewer system would comply with the City of Seattle standard plans and specifications. All such connections would require City approval. Storm Drainage  Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.3, Water Quality and Drainage, of this DEIS. Telecommunications  The design and construction of telecommunication facilities in support of the EXPEDIA Campus would comply with terms of the franchise agreement. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal  No impacts are anticipated and mitigation is not necessary. Streets and Transit Services  3.12-4 Refer to analysis contained in Section 3.11, Transportation, of this DEIS. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of some or all of the mitigation measures identified above, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.12-7 Section 3.12 Public Services and Utilities 3.13 CONSTRUCTION This section of the DEIS describes potential construction-related impacts that could result from development identified under the EIS Alternatives. Demolition, site preparation, excavation and construction will generate short-term environmental impacts including: earth, air quality, water, noise, and transportation/circulation/parking. While the majority of all construction activity will occur during the daytime, at times it may be necessary for some construction activity to occur during evening hours. Such may be necessary to reduce the duration of the overall 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 could be noticeable to some adjacent land uses. Policy Context The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) contains specific provisions that describe the scope of the SEPA analysis for construction impacts. Relevant policies from SMC 25.05.675 are provided below: B. 2. Construction Impacts a. It is the City's policy to minimize or prevent temporary adverse impacts associated with construction activities. b. The decisionmaker may require, as part of the environmental review of a project, an assessment of noise, drainage, erosion, water quality degradation, habitat disruption, pedestrian circulation and transportation, and mud and dust impacts likely to result from the construction phase. c. Based on such assessments, the decisionmaker may, subject to the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665, condition or deny a project to mitigate adverse impacts of the construction process. d. Noise. Mitigating measures to address adverse noise impacts during construction include, but are not limited to: i. Limiting the hours of construction; ii. Specifying the time and duration of loud noise; iii. Specifying a preferred type of construction equipment; and iv. Requiring sound buffering and barriers. e. Drainage. Mitigating measures to address adverse drainage impacts during construction may include, but are not limited to: i. Sedimentation traps and filters; ii. Sedimentation tanks or ponds; iii. Oil separators; iv. Retention facilities; v. Maintenance programs; vi. Performance bonds; and vii. Nondisturbance areas. f. Pedestrian Circulation. Mitigating measures to address adverse impacts relating to pedestrian circulation during construction may include, but are not limited to: i. Covered sidewalks or alternate safe, convenient and adequate pedestrian routes; and ii. Limits on the duration of disruptions to pedestrian flow. g. Transportation. Mitigating measures to address transportation impacts during construction may include, but are not limited to: i. A construction phase transportation plan which addresses ingress and egress of construction equipment and construction worker vehicles at the project site; ii. Traffic control and street maintenance in the vicinity of the construction site; EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-1 Section 3.13 Construction iii. Rerouting of public vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity of the construction site; iv. Providing a temporary High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) incentive program for construction workers at the site to reduce the number of their vehicles taking parking places in the vicinity of the construction site; and v. HOV discounts for members of the public who were displaced from a traditional parking area by the construction activity. 3.13-1 Affected Environment Earth As noted in Section II of this DEIS, there are seven existing buildings on the EXPEDIA Campus site. These buildings are clustered along the east-central portion of the site. The developed areas around the existing buildings are improved with asphalt roadways, concrete sidewalks, landscaping, and an outdoor cafeteria seating area. The undeveloped area on the western portion of the site consists of paved areas, including a former parking lot, gravel areas, and grassy areas. There are also three distinctly mounded areas in the western portion of the site. Overall, approximately 70 percent of the 40.9-acre site area is covered with impervious surfaces. Soils on the site generally consist of fill over alluvial/marine sediments over glacially overridden soils. See Section 3.1, Earth, for additional details. Air Quality Typical air pollution sources in the site vicinity area include vehicular traffic on numerous roads and the nearby freeways, retail/commercial facilities, and light industrial facilities, and possibly residential wood-burning devices. While many types of pollutant sources are present, the single largest contributor to most criteria pollutant emissions in urban settings such as this is on-road mobile sources (i.e., carbon monoxide - CO). See Section 3.2, Air Quality, for additional information. Water The project site is located on the shoreline adjacent to Elliott Bay. Stormwater runoff is presently collected in a series of catch basins that connect to a system of pipes that ultimately convey stormwater to Elliott Bay through a 48-inch outfall. The undeveloped portion of the site abutting 16th Ave. W. drains to the storm system in the street, which ultimately discharges to Elliott Bay through a series of 12-inch outfall. See Section 3.3, Water, for additional details. Noise The Seattle noise ordinance (SMC Chapter 25.08) sets levels and durations of allowable daytime/nighttime operational noise and daytime construction noise. As shown on Table 3.131, Seattle’s noise limits are based on the zoning of the source and receiving properties. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-2 Section 3.13 Construction Table 3.13-1 SEATTLE EXTERIOR SOUND LEVEL LIMITS (dBA) Zoning District of Noise Source [25.08.410 & 420 & 425] Zoning District of Receiving Property Residential Commercial Industrial Day / Night1 Operational Noise Limits 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 B.1] Residential 80 82 85 Commercial 82 85 90 Industrial 85 90 95 Portable equipment used in temporary locations in support of construction like chain saws, log chippers, and powered hand tools (maximum+20) [25.08.425 B.2] Residential 75 77 80 Commercial 77 80 85 Industrial 80 85 90 Impact types of equipment like pavement breakers, pile drivers, jackhammers, sand-blasting tools, or other impulse noise sources - may exceed maximum permissible limits between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM weekends, but may not exceed the following limits [25.08.425 C]: Leq (1 hr) 90 dBA Leq (30 minutes) 93 dBA Leq (15 minutes) 96 dBA Leq (7.5 minutes) 99 dBA 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., 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM weekdays, 10:00 PM to 9:00 AM weekends)[25.08.420 A1]. The operational noise limits are displayed for daytime/nighttime hours. 2 Construction noise limits apply at 50 feet or a real property line, whichever is greater [25.08.420 A1]. The allowed higher construction noise limits listed in the bottom portion of the table apply during daytime hours only, which are defined as 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM weekends. These limits effectively prohibit construction at night except in special cases. The project site is zoned Industrial Commercial and the immediate site vicinity includes Industrial Commercial zoning to the north, east (along Elliott Avenue W), south and west, with an area of Commercial zoning along Elliott Avenue W. south of W Prospect Street. Further to the west of Elliott Avenue W, Single Family and Lowrise zoning is present. Seattle's noise code identifies a number of noise sources or activities that are exempt from the maximum permissible sound levels described in SMC 25.08.410, including sounds created by motor vehicles on public roads (SMC 25.08.480). Sounds created by motor vehicles operated off public roads also are exempt from the limits, except when sounds are received in Residential Districts (SMC 25.08.480). The Seattle noise code allows noise from temporary, daytime EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-3 Section 3.13 Construction construction activities to exceed the noise limits that apply to normal operational activities by amounts that vary based on the types of equipment involved. The existing acoustic environment on and around the EXPEDIA Campus site is typical of an urban setting within a light industrial area, and consists of noise from traffic on Elliott Ave. W and on other local roadways, aircraft overflights, trains operating on the adjacent BNSF tracks, vessel traffic in Elliott Bay, and other miscellaneous sources. Transportation The project site is located on the west side of the BNSF Railway mainline tracks that lie parallel to Elliott Ave. W. through the corridor. There are no at-grade connections across the railroad tracks to the campus; all access is provided by the Galer Flyover, a two-lane grade-separated structure that connects from the east side of Elliott Avenue W to the west side of Alaskan Way W and passes over Elliott Ave. W, the BNSF Railway tracks, and Alaskan Way W. The 15th / Elliott Ave. W. corridor is the primary arterial access to the site, and feeds east-west arterials that connect to other neighborhoods and the regional highway system at Denny Way, W Mercer Place, Garfield Street/ Magnolia Bridge, W Nickerson Street, NW Leary Way, and NW Market Street. See Section 3.11, Transportation, for additional details about existing transportation conditions. 3.13-2 Impacts of the Alternatives Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 The EXPEDIA Campus is located in a light industrial area in the Ballard-Interbay-Northend Industrial Manufacturing Center and could be expected to generate short-term constructionrelated impacts. The project Alternatives are described in detail in Section II of this DEIS. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be developed as a Major Phased Development, occurring over a 15-year timeframe. Construction of the first new building could begin in August 2016 and become operational by June 2019. The pattern of land use in the general vicinity of the site area includes a mix of primarily light industrial and warehouse uses (to the north, south and west), and office and commercial uses (to the west). Park uses, including Centennial Park and Elliott Bay Trail, are located adjacent to the site, to the south and west. Site preparation, excavation and construction would generate short-term,[1] localized environmental impacts that include: earth, air quality, noise and vibration, light and glare, and transportation. While the majority of all construction activity would occur during the daytime, at times it may be necessary for some construction activity to occur during evening hours. Such may be necessary to reduce the duration of the overall construction timeframe and/or because the City requires certain construction activities to occur at that time in order to lessen impacts to pedestrians and vehicles during the day. As such, construction activity associated with Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 could be noticeable to some adjacent land uses. The following [1] For that portion of the construction timeframe that includes demolition, excavation and through enclosure of the proposed building. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-4 Section 3.13 Construction evaluates potential construction impacts, and would be the same under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 except where noted below for Phase 3. Earth Phase 1 Soils at the site may be susceptible to erosion when disturbed by construction and excavation activities, and fill material used for site grading could also be susceptible to erosion. Overall, most of the site grading that would occur for the project would occur in Phase 1. Based on a preliminary grading concept, it is estimated that approximately 300,000 cubic yards (cy) of insitu material would be excavated in Phase 1 for the underground parking garage, building foundations (buildings A, B, C, and E), and all utilities infrastructure for full the project build-out. Assuming an expansion coefficient of 30 percent when the material is removed from the ground, this equates to an estimated 390,000 cy of excavated material. A temporary erosion and sediment control plan (TESCP), as well as best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction, in accordance with applicable City of Seattle requirements. See Section 3.1, Earth, for details. Permanent landscaping would also be established. As a result, no significant erosion/sedimentation impacts would be expected. Phase 2 Earth impacts in Phase 2 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1, because far less earthwork would occur during this phase of the development (approximately 65,000 cy with expansion to 84,500 cy under Alternatives 1 and 2, and 104,000 cy with expansion to 135,200 cy under Alternative 3). Soils may be susceptible to erosion, as described under Phase 1, and a TESCP, as well as BMPs would be implemented in accordance with applicable City and Ecology requirements. Phase 3 As with Phase 2, earth impacts in Phase 3 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1 because far less earthwork would occur in this phase. It is anticipated that approximately 10,000 cy of excavation would be required for construction of buildings L, K and G along the west portion of the site in Phase 3 under Alternative 1. Slightly less grading would be required under Alternative 2 (6,000 cy), because building G would not be constructed. Under Alternative 3, approximately 8,000 cy of excavation would be required. Soils may be susceptible to erosion, as described under Phase 1, and a TESCP, as well as BMPs would be implemented in accordance with applicable City and Ecology requirements. Air Quality Phase 1 The project under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction activities that include demolition, excavation and site work, construction of new office buildings, additions and renovations to existing buildings, and staging areas. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-5 Section 3.13 Construction For Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, as an MPD, construction activity could occur over a 15-yr. timeframe. The majority of development, however, is projected to occur as part of Phase 1 (see the discussion in Section II 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 demolition activities could contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. Construction contractors would be required to comply with PSCAA regulations requiring that reasonable precautions be taken to minimize dust emissions. Construction could require the use of heavy trucks and other large diesel construction equipment 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 are now urging that emissions from diesel equipment be minimized to the extent practicable to reduce potential health risks. Construction contractors could minimize emissions from diesel-powered construction equipment, to the extent practicable, by taking steps such as those discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality. With appropriate controls, construction-related diesel emissions would not be likely to substantially affect air quality in the project vicinity. Although some construction activities would cause odors, particularly during paving operations that involve the use of tar and asphalt, any odors related to construction would be short-term and located within a busy commercial/industrial 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. 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. 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. Phase 2 Impacts in Phase 2 for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1, as less development would occur in this phase. As noted for Phase 1, with implementation of the controls required for the various aspects of construction activities and EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-6 Section 3.13 Construction 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. Phase 3 Impacts in Phase 3 for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be similar to but less than those described for Phase 1, as less development would occur in this phase. As noted for Phase 1, 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. Water Phase 1 Water resources on and in the site vicinity (i.e. Elliott Bay) could potentially be impacted during construction, due to filling/disturbance, erosion/sedimentation and the release of pollutants during demolition and grading activities. Implementation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures (TESCP), as well as best management practices (BMPs) during construction, in accordance with the City of Seattle and Washington State Department of Ecology requirements (as applicable), would prevent or minimize potential impacts to water resources. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 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 of the project in Phase 1, which represents the most intensive development phase where under the majority of construction would occur. Phase 2 Water impacts in Phase 2 would be comparable to those described for Phase 1, except that less development would be built in this phase, and construction activity would be correspondingly less intense. A TESCP, BMPS and SWPP would be prepared and implemented as described for Phase 1. Phase 3 Water impacts in Phase 3 would be comparable to those described for Phase 1, except that less development would be built in this phase, and construction activity would be correspondingly less intense. A TESCP, BMPS and SWPP would be prepared and implemented as described for Phase 1. Noise Phase 1 During Phase 1 there will be noise associated with construction dewatering (via wells or wellpoints) construction of new development and infrastructure, demolition of building J and selective demolition of interior/exterior portions of buildings A, B, C, D, P1 and U. Pile driving EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-7 Section 3.13 Construction for building foundation support will also create noise. Localized sound levels and localized vibration would temporarily increase in the vicinity of the project site and on streets used by construction vehicles accessing the construction site. The increase in sound levels and vibration would depend upon the type of equipment being used, the duration of such use, and the proximity of the equipment to the property line (and sensitive land uses[2]). Sound levels within 50 feet of construction equipment often exceed the levels typically recommended for commercial office land uses and, in general, decrease at a rate of about 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the noise source. Average noise levels associated with various construction equipment are listed in Table 3.13-2. For relative comparison, Table 3.13-3 is a list of typical sound levels for a variety of activities. Table 3.13-2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Average Noise Level Equipment Dump Truck (15-20 cu.yd. capacity) Scraper Backhoe Concrete Mixer Concrete Pump Air Compressor Bulldozer (D-8) Generator Pump Pile Driving (dBA measured 50 ft. from the equipment) 91 88 85 85 82 81 80 78 76 100 Source: United States EPA, 1971 [2] e.g., residential, etc. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-8 Section 3.13 Construction Table 3.13-3 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS NOISE SOURCE Aircraft Carrier Flight Deck Operations Threshold of Pain Fireworks Jet Takeoff (200 ft. distance Jack Hammer Auto Horn (3 ft. distance) Chain Saw/Noisy Snowmobile Jet Takeoff (2,000 ft. distance Lawn Mower, Power Tools (3 ft. distance) Noisy Motorcycle (50 ft. distance) Heavy Truck (50 ft. distance) Quiet Snowmobile, Motorcycle (50 ft. distance) Busy Urban Street Normal Automobile, Commercial Area Seagulls and Crows Normal Conversation (3 ft. distance) Quiet Residential Area Moderate Rainfall Quiet Residence, Library Bedroom at Night or Whisper Background Level in a Concert Hall Broadcasting Studio Rustle of Leaves Threshold of Hearing dBA 140 130-140 130 120 120 120 110 105 85-100 100 90 80 80 70 70 60 50 50 40 30 30 10 10 0 Source: EPA, 1978; EPA, 1972 Construction noise would result in temporary annoyance and possibly increased speech interference near the construction site, notably to users of Centennial Park and the Elliott Bay Trail. Construction-related noise would be temporary in nature and could result in temporary impacts. There are no residential uses in the immediate vicinity, the nearest being approximately 0.20 miles (1,000 feet) northwest of the site. As can be seen in the upper portion of Table 3.13-1, construction activities within 50 to 100 ft. of sensitive receivers have the potential to exceed 80 to 85 dBA. In order to minimize noise-related impacts to park and trail users, construction noise management plans could be developed and implemented. Phase 1 would represent the most intensive development phase, with the most construction noise that would occur for a longer duration as compared to the other phases. Construction activity would be concentrated in the central portion of the campus. Phase 2 Overall construction noise impacts in Phase 2 would be similar to but less than those that would occur in Phase 1 because less development would occur. During this phase, Building F in the south portion of the campus would be built. In order to minimize noise-related impacts to park and trail users, a construction noise management plan could be developed and implemented. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-9 Section 3.13 Construction Phase 3 Overall construction noise impacts in Phase 3 would be similar to but less than those that would occur in Phase 1 because less development would occur. During this phase, buildings would be constructed in the west portion of the campus. In order to minimize noise-related impacts to park and trail users, a construction noise management plan could be developed and implemented. Transportation Construction-related traffic impacts would occur in varying degrees throughout the redevelopment process under the alternatives, with the most intensive impacts occurring during Phase 1, when the majority of the campus would be built. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would include site excavation and grading, demolition of existing buildings, and new building construction. Almost all construction at the EXPEDIA Campus would occur within the site boundaries. Construction activities could directly affect 16th Avenue W west of the site, W Galer Street north of the site, and Alaskan Way W east of the site. These roads provide local access to Terminal 86 and the fishing pier as well as access to parking along 16th Avenue W that supports trail users. Traffic volumes are very low, and could be accommodated with simple traffic management plans or by relocating functions to nearby areas. Construction truck activity would be highest during earthwork activities, which would primarily consist of excavation, the majority of which would occur in Phase 1. Almost all construction would occur within the site boundaries. An estimated 300,000 cubic yards (cy) of in-situ material is expected to be excavated for the underground parking garage and building foundations. This would expand when excavated to an estimated 390,000 cy (“fluff factor” of 1.3). Preliminary planning estimates indicate that 3,400 cy could be excavated each day. The contractor estimates an average dump truck load of 22 cy per truck, this would generate 154 truckloads per day, or 308 truck trips (154 empty trucks in and 154 full trucks out). The average per hour would range from 18 to 22 truckloads. 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. Peak period restrictions on truck trips to and from the site may be required to reduce short-term construction-related transportation impacts of the project. A truck haul route will be established on the site, and will generally have southbound trucks using Amgen Court W through the existing site, returning north on Alaskan Way W to exit the site. Off-site routes are expected to use designated Major Truck Streets, including W Mercer Place and Mercer Street to Interstate 5 or Elliott Avenue W/Alaskan Way to I-90. Another construction phase that would result in high levels of truck activity would occur during large concrete pours. It is estimated that large pours could average about 100 cy of concrete per hour, which relates to about 9 truckloads per hour. Other materials, such as steel, lumber, drywall, windows, and other building supplies, are expected to be trucked to the site as needed, but deliveries and truck trips would not typically be concentrated in such short times as they would during the excavation and concrete-pour stages of the work. Construction trades would be sequenced into different phases of the work. On peak days, up to 1,200 construction workers could be on the site. Parking for these workers could be EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-10 Section 3.13 Construction accommodated by existing on site supply. Overall, the number of construction worker trips and truck trips would be less than the site could generate if existing buildings were occupied by employees. Therefore, the construction-related trip impacts would be less than described in prior sections. Phasing Summary Under SMC 23.50.015, this Major Phased Development (MPD) is only required to provide “a level of detail which is sufficient to reasonably assess anticipated impacts, including those associated with a maximum buildout, within the timeframe requested for Master Use Permit extension.” Therefore, the current MPD site plan and phasing concept for the EXPEDIA Campus is conceptual in nature. It is anticipated that the plans and the project will be further developed and refined. As a result, specific elements represented in each phase, the boundaries of each phase, the number of phases and the order in which phases are executed may be modified during the MPD and building permit process. Certain mitigation (such as construction impact mitigation) will be required for each phase, and impacts that are related to intensity of development will be implemented in proportion to increasing development, regardless of phasing. Because no significant construction impacts are anticipated as a result of the full-build out of the proposed EXPEDIA Campus project, any future changes to the elements represented in each phase or the addition of a new phase or phases are not anticipated to have the potential for significant adverse impacts. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative no new site development would occur and the existing buildings that are on-site would be retained and redeveloped as commercial office space. Any construction activity associated with redeveloping the existing buildings for a new use would be expected to be minimal and would primarily occur to the building interiors. No excavation or site grading would occur, and subsequently no earth or water-related construction impacts would occur. Minimal air quality, noise, or transportation construction impacts would be anticipated as compared to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. 3.13-3 Mitigation Measures Earth Refer to Section 3.1, Earth, for earth-related construction mitigation measures. Air Quality Site development would adhere to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s regulations and the City’s construction best practices regarding demolition activity and fugitive dust emissions, including:     as necessary during demolition, excavation, and construction, sprinkle debris and exposed areas to control dust; as necessary, cover or wet transported earth material; provide quarry spall areas on-site prior to construction vehicles exiting the site; wash truck tires and undercarriages prior to trucks traveling on City streets; EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-11 Section 3.13 Construction      promptly sweep earth tracked or spilled onto City streets; monitor truck loads and routes to minimize dust-related impacts;. use well-maintained construction equipment and vehicles to reduce emissions from such equipment and construction-related trucks; avoid prolonged periods of vehicle idling; and schedule the delivery and removal of construction materials and heavy equipment to minimize congestion during peak travel times associated with adjacent streets. Water  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 and Ecology’s requirements (as applicable). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be implemented. Noise Potential Mitigation Measures Noise from construction activities would be subject to the limits in the Seattle Noise Code (SMC 25.08) and construction contractors would be required to comply with provisions of this code. The following contain both general and specific mitigation measures that could be undertaken to minimize noise and vibration-related impacts during construction. General Noise Mitigation Measures The following project-specific mitigation is proposed. Develop a Construction Management Plan to be approved by SDOT and SDCI. The submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm. The Construction Management Plan may include the following: 1  Limit most construction-related activities to standard construction hours between 7 AM and 6 PM on weekdays and 9 AM – 6 PM on Saturdays. During some stages of the project, it is expected that a smaller second shift may work until midnight on weekdays, although work would be limited to activities that generate little noise1 (such as daily cleanup). The applicant proposes earlier hours (5:30 AM on weekdays and 7 AM on Saturdays) for less noise intrusive work that could include activities such as loading out stockpiled soils, servicing and fueling of equipment, arrival of construction worker traffic, and potential early shifting of trades for low noise impact work.  Limit the use of noise impact-type equipment, such as pavement breakers, pile drivers, jackhammers, sand blasting tools and other impulse noise sources, to work activity between 8 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. 6pm to 10pm weekdays, noise from construction activity not to exceed 60dBA at adjacent property line. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-12 Section 3.13 Construction  Whenever appropriate for impact tools, substitute hydraulic impact tools with electric models to further reduce demolition and construction-related noise and vibration.  Limit loud talking or other miscellaneous noise-related activities.  Provide properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, and where necessary engine enclosures on operating equipment.  Turn-off idling equipment.  Truck haul routes to be jointly developed by the applicant, the Seattle Dept. of Transportation (SDOT) and DPD; SDOT will approve the routes established.  Use ambient sensitive broadband alarms on construction equipment that requires alarms – no pure tone alarms to be used on site. Specific Noise Mitigation Measures Demolition  During the demolition process, any impact work associated with demolition can only take place between the hours of 8 AM to 5 PM weekdays and 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays.  As necessary, deploy portable sound barriers around generators, compressors, tieback drill rigs, etc.  As needed, construct temporary barriers of materials at least as dense as three-quarters of an inch thick plywood with sound-dampening insulation. Concrete Construction  Where possible, pre-fabricate core-wall formwork at the contractor’s off-site facility to minimize the use of electric saws and hammers on-site.  Where possible, pre-fabricate reinforcing steel for the concrete core-wall curtains off-site to reduce the amount of noise associated with this work on-site.  Where possible, locate the concrete pumping station and associated trucks to minimize impacts to residents in nearby buildings and other sensitive land uses proximate to the project site.  Use hydraulic jacks to lift the core-wall formwork rather than disengaging, hoisting with crane, and re-attachment. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-13 Section 3.13 Construction Interior Construction  Pre-fabricate large duct risers and long interior runs and hoist them into place.  Screen the building perimeter during steel fireproofing activities. Transportation Short-Term Construction Mitigation Almost all construction at the EXPEDIA Campus would occur within the site boundaries. Roads along the site frontage—16th Avenue W, W Galer Street and Alaskan Way W—could be directly affected by construction activities. The following pre-construction plans are recommended to mitigate the potential construction impacts. These should be developed in consultation with SDOT. Develop a Construction Management Plan to be approved by SDOT. The submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm. The construction management plan may include the following information:  A haul route plan detailing truck access routes to and from the site.  A truck trip management plan restricting truck trips to and from the site during peak commute hours.  A traffic control plan for work on Alaskan Way W. If the street needs to be closed or constrained during construction, use flaggers to control two-way traffic through construction area.  A parking management plan for work on 16th Avenue W. Public parking for at least 30 vehicles should be retained during construction of the Right of Way improvements along this street.  A trail access plan. If any construction work would close or constrain the Elliott Bay Trail, detours for bicyclists and pedestrians should be developed. 3.13-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts While some construction-related air quality impacts would be unavoidable, due to the temporary and intermittent nature of construction impacts and with implementation of the proposed mitigation, no significant impacts are anticipated. Construction noise has the potential to affect land uses in the immediate vicinity of the EXPEDIA Campus. The City of Seattle has established specific noise limits for construction activities that occur during daytime hours. These limits vary depending on the zoning of the source and receiving properties. Careful attention should be given to the demolition and EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-14 Section 3.13 Construction construction plans for the project in order to ensure that the construction activities can comply with the applicable noise limits. With attention to these details, no significant noise impacts would be expected. With implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to transportation resources would be anticipated. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-15 Section 3.13 Construction REFERENCES REFERENCES Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. Expedia Campus, Major Phased Development Application. 2015. Cruise Short Subdivision. Environmental Checklist. MUP #3021618. September 21, 2015. Hart Crowser. Soil and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Results, Expedia Cruise Campus. January 26, 2016. Hart Crowser. Geotechnical Design Report. Expedia Campus. January 29, 2016. Hart Crowser. Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, Amgen Campus Development – Pier 89, Seattle, Washington. June 2006. Immunex Headquarters Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. June 1995. Immunex Headquarters Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. NMFS 2016. Environmental Response Management Application Pacific Northwest. Accessed November 18, 2015. https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma.html NOAA Fisheries 2015. Species List Accessed on November 18, 2015. http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html Seattle, city of. 2003. Seattle Arterial Classifications Planning Map. Seattle, city of. Department of Planning and Development. Property & Building Activity. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/toolsresources/Map/default.htm Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development. SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. Seattle, city of; Department of Planning and Development. 2005. Seattle Comprehensive Plan. January 2005. Seattle, city of; Seattle Municipal Code, https://www.municode.com/library/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code Seattle, city of; Seattle Parks http://www.seattle.gov/parks/listall.asp. and Recreation. Seattle Park List. Seattle, city of; Shoreline Characterization Report. January 2010. Seattle, city of; Shoreline Master Program. 2015. SLR. Phase II Investigation Report, Immunex Corporation Property, 1201 Amgen Court West, Seattle Washington. March 24, 2015. EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement References R-1 SLR. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Immunex Corporation Property, 1201 Amgen Court West and 1226, 1240, 1260, and 1280 16th Avenue West, Seattle Washington. March 26, 2015. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Atmospheric Data for Seattle, WA. 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Local Climatological Data – Annual Summary with Comparative Data -- Seattle, WA. 1992. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servuce. 2015. Information for Planning and Conservation. Accessed November 18, 2015. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ 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/ EXPEDIA Campus Major Phased Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement References R-2