A T T O R N E Y S - A T -L A W
DA V ID S . MA N N 1 42 4 F O U R T H A V E N U E , S U I T E 7 1 5 S E A T T L E , W A S H I N G T O N 9 81 01 P H O N E : (2 06 ) 6 21 - 8 8 6 8 F A X : ( 2 06 ) 6 21 - 051 2

ATTORNEY AT LAW 615 Second Avenue, Suite 360 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 223-4088 Fax: (206 223-4280

November 8, 2012 City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Attn: John Shaw, Senior Transportation Planner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 P.O. Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019 Re: Scoping Comments for Proposed SODO Arena (App. # 3014195) Dear Mr. Shaw: We represent the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19 (“ILWU”) and we respectfully submit these initial scoping comments pertaining to the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the proposed SODO Arena (“Arena”). These comments will be updated and supplemented as necessary up until the November 30, 2012 deadline. 1. Introduction. ILWU Local 19 represents approximately 3,000 Port of Seattle longshoremen who work at and around the Port of Seattle loading and unloading container cargo and service cruise ships. The jobs of these workers depend heavily on the viability of the Port of Seattle (“Port”) and the decisions by the maritime customers to utilize the Port. In turn, this viability depends on congestion-free transportation corridors linking the Port to nearby highways, roadways, and rail facilities. ILWU has grave concerns about the siting of the Arena in SODO because of the additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic it will generate during Port and rail operations. ILWU believes it is imperative for the Arena EIS to objectively and exhaustively address and analyze these transportation and freight movement issues. The “scoping” phase of the EIS process is of critical importance because it determines the alternatives for the proposed Arena and focuses on the breadth and depth of the environmental issues that must be addressed in the EIS.

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 2

ILWU’s scoping comments can be summarized as follows: The proposed Arena is a public, not a private, project for purposes of the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”). Because this is a public project, Seattle and King County have a duty under SEPA to study and analyze reasonable alternative sites for the proposed Arena. Neither the Arena promoters nor the October 8, 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) can legally limit the reasonable alternatives only to the Seattle Center. The EIS must examine at last one site that is outside of Seattle because the Arena is a regional facility and is co-financed by King County. Seattle and King County should require the Arena promoters to disclose documents pertaining to either the feasibility or non-feasibility of all potential Arena sites. The EIS must examine all impacts the Arena will have on transportation, traffic congestion, freight mobility, cumulative air quality, land use, and growth management. The EIS must analyze the environmental impact of the City or County’s failure to fund needed transportation improvements in SODO. The EIS must analyze the impact on the rural economy and land use patterns in rural areas if shippers of Eastern Washington commodities abandon the Port of Seattle due to increased traffic congestion. The EIS must analyze the specific direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the Arena and the vehicular traffic it will cumulatively generate on the following resources: traffic congestion, freight mobility, Port viability, air quality, and land use. These potential impacts are listed on Pages 11-13 below.

2. ILWU’s Environmental and Economic Interest in The Proposed Arena’s SODO Location. Washington is the third most trade-dependent State in the U.S.; in 2011, Washington State producers exported merchandise valued at $64.7 billion. According to the Washington Department of Commerce, exports account for over 30% of the economic growth of the past decade and contributed almost half of the new jobs created over the

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 3

past 30 years. The movement of global freight annually generates approximately $5 billion in trade dollars for Seattle or about 1/3 of Seattle’s retail tax revenue. Container operations at the Port account for a total of about 12,400 direct jobs, jobs which pay an average of approximately $70,000 per year. Estimates from the Port indicate that Terminal 30 and Terminal 46 represent 25 to 33% (3,000 to 4,000) of these direct jobs. In addition, the total number of industrial jobs in the Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center, which includes areas in and around SODO and the Georgetown neighborhood, are in the tens of thousands. Many of these industrial jobs rely on connections to the Port. Longshoremen have a keen understanding of the maritime industry and they understand the importance of trade to our local economy. They live in constant fear for their jobs in this globally-competitive industry. Anything that negatively interferes with Port operations in Seattle will, in turn, negatively impact the jobs of longshoreman, maritime, and other workers throughout the supply chain. SODO’s freight corridors are already deficient in their capacity to provide competitive access to the Port; expected future growth at the Port and rail traffic will only exacerbate the current poor situation. Any cumulative additional passenger car traffic in the SODO marine industrial area that interferes with the movement of marine cargo to and from the rail lines and the interstate highway system will competitively disadvantage the Port. In short, coupled with Safeco Field and CenturyLink Field, the additional vehicular traffic generated by 5,000-6,000 cars for a SODO Arena 180 days a year could very well break the camel’s back that cripples the Port of Seattle. Today, trucks make about 7,000 trips to and from the Port’s marine terminals and this number will rise to 11,000 (including evening and weekends) if the cargo volume rises as expected. And such rise is expected because the Port has ambitious plans to expand its operations over the next 25 years, which will lead to approximately 100,000 new jobs. Rail traffic for all commodities is expected to rise at minimum 4% annually, by conservative estimates. But approximately 70% of inbound global freight is discretionary, meaning that shippers can reroute their cargo through other ports: Prince Rupert and Vancouver, Canada; Tacoma; Oakland; LA/Long Beach, and in 2014, through the enlarged Panama Canal. If key transportation corridors in SODO remain gridlocked and if the area continues to gentrify, terminal operators will evaluate at the end of their leases the viability of moving freight through the Port of Seattle, and may choose to relocate to other ports. Terminal 46 is a good example of the Port of Seattle’s fragile position. The lease of one of the current shippers out of Terminal 46, Hanjin, expires in 2015, and if renewed, may again expire around the opening of an additional Arena. The mere perception by Hanjin that SODO traffic congestion will worsen may very well prompt this shipping company to move elsewhere. Losing operations at Terminal 46 or Terminal 30, or a portion of them, or reduced trade, means loss of jobs, including loss of jobs for members of ILWU Local 19, loss of revenues for the Port, a loss of local and state tax revenues, a loss of

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 4

competitiveness for Washington State exports, and ultimately losing Seattle’s identity as a leading city in trade and trade competitiveness. A new arena can be built anywhere, but the same cannot be said about a world-class deep-water port terminal. 3. Principles of Law Applicable to “Scoping” of Projects Under SEPA and NEPA.

“Scoping” is the initial phase of the EIS process under SEPA and its federal counterpart, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). WAC 197-11-408 (1); Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Service, 297 F.3d 1012, 1022 (10th Cir. 2002).1 The purpose of scoping is to narrow the scope of the EIS to the “probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives.” WAC 197-11-408(1) and (2)(b). Although scoping is only a threshold stage, an agency preparing an EIS has a duty to assess, consider, and respond to all comments, even those relating to environmental factors not mentioned during the scoping process.” Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Marsh, 52 F.3d 1485, 1490 (9th Cir. 1995). Scoping is an integral part of an agency’s planning and decision-making process. WAC 197-11-408(4). Scoping also narrows the issues that will receive in-depth treatment in the EIS and determines the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts that will be addressed in the EIS. RCW 43.21C.031(1). Scoping directly relates to the breadth of the EIS, the document that must “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to a proposed plan of action that has significant environmental effects. WAC 197-11-440(5); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997). Project alternatives derive from an EIS’ “Purpose and Need” section, which briefly defines “the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d at 1155. Thorough consideration of alternatives is of paramount importance, and “the existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate.” Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F.2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1985); Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Cy., 124 Wn.2d 26, 42, 873 P. 2d 498. Moreover, if the agency constricts the definition of the project’s purpose and thereby excludes what truly are reasonable alternatives, then the EIS cannot fulfill its role. See, e.g., City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d 1142 and Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that the Corps of Engineers had impermissibly narrowed the purpose for the contemplated project in order to allow a permit applicant to meet its desired goals, and therefore had failed to examine the full range of reasonable alternatives). A “rule of reason” guides both the choice of alternatives as well as the extent to which the EIS must discuss each alternative and the environmental impacts associated with it.

We cite to NEPA law when there is no equivalent state law SEPA case on point.

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 5

Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 37-38; Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d 1142. The alternatives developed in the scoping process are important because they provide a basis for a reasoned decision among alternatives having differing environmental impact. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 504. Under WAC 197-11-440(5)(b), an agency must consider “the reasonable alternatives…which could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objectives but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.” Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 504-05. An agency may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative from among the environmentally benign ones in the agency’s power would accomplish the goals of the agency’s action, thereby making the EIS a foreordained formality. Conversely, an agency cannot define its objectives in goals so unreasonably broad that an infinite number of alternatives would accomplish those goals and the project would collapse under the weight of the possibilities. Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d 1142; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 98 S. Ct. 1197, 55 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1978) (holding that, while the term “alternatives” is not self-defining, to make an EIS something more than an exercise in frivolous boilerplate the concept of alternatives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility). The degree to which an alternative should be considered, or even whether an alternative should be considered at all, varies with the existing circumstances. The concept of alternatives is an evolving one, requiring an agency to explore more or fewer alternatives as they become better known and understood. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 98 S. Ct. 1197, 55 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1978); Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1981). The EIS cannot merely list the alternatives to the proposed project but must include a detailed analysis of the relative environmental impacts of all of them. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 41 (citing Richard L. Settle, The Washington State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis § 14 (b)(ii) (4th Ed. 1993)); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Froehlke, 473 F.2d 346 (holding that the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers’ EIS failed to sufficiently discuss the stated alternatives). Not all potential alternatives need be examined but a reasonable number of them must be. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 41 (citing Solid Waste Alternative Proponents v. Okanogan Cy., 66 Wn. App. 439, 443, 445, 832 P. 2d 503, review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1012 (1992)). 4. Background. In Spring 2011, Christopher Hansen, a San Francisco hedge fund manager and lead principal of ArenaCo, quietly approached the Mayor of Seattle to negotiate a public-private partnership to develop and construct an arena in Seattle’s SODO neighborhood for professional

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 6

basketball, hockey, concerts, and other spectator events. Confidential negotiations between Hansen and Mayor McGinn continued until approximately Spring 2012. In mid- 2012, Mayor McGinn publically announced an Arena deal that his staff eventually presented to the Seattle City Council in a PowerPoint slideshow dated May 31, 2012. The slideshow described the proposed facility as a 700,000 square foot multipurpose entertainment arena that could accommodate 19,000 people. The location, referred to in the slideshow as the “Project Site,” was on First Avenue between Massachusetts and Holgate Streets in Seattle and would require vacation of a portion of Occidental Street South. The slideshow also summarized multiple financial terms that had been negotiated, including those governing the public and private capital contributions, revenue sharing and distribution, and other pertinent financial arrangements. Before or during these confidential negotiations, Mr. Hansen was quietly purchasing real estate for the proposed Arena and its parking lots. As of today’s date, Mr. Hansen has purchased (or has options to purchase) approximately seven properties in the vicinity of the proposed Arena. He now evidently owns all of the land and much of the parking area required to build it. Mr. Hansen and/or ArenaCo. reportedly paid approximately $53 million for these parcels. In its September 14-20, 2012 edition, the Puget Sound Business Journal reported that Mr. Hansen paid between 40 and 500% more than typical value for like-kind property in SODO. Between May and October 15, 2012, Seattle and King County negotiated multiple iterations of an MOU with ArenaCo. The final version, dated October 8, 2012 and signed by the Mayor and the King County Executive on October 16, 2012, included extensive and complex terms relative to a SODO Arena. The MOU, for example, designated the “Project Site” to be in SODO, included a provision enabling the City to purchase the real estate under the proposed Arena from ArenaCo at fair market value, sets forth a joint public-private Arena design review process, sets forth a cost and revenue sharing and allocation formula, specified an initial 30 year ground lease, and required ArenaCo to invest millions in the existing Key Arena to serve as a temporary home for ArenaCo’s NBA basketball team. Mr. Hansen has publically stated on numerous occasions that ArenaCo is not interested in constructing the Arena on any other site in Seattle or elsewhere in King County. Mr. Hansen has also publically stated (as recently as October 16, 2012 on KING5 TV) that he and his investor group believe that since they are the majority owners of the proposed Arena they should have the right to choose its final location. Ostensibly because Mr. Hansen is opposed to any site other than SODO, the Scoping Notice released by the City of Seattle dated October 25, 2012 only proposes three alternatives: the SODO site alternative, a Seattle Center alternative, and a No-Action alternative. The Scoping Notice contains no reference to alternative sites outside of Seattle.

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 7

5. The EIS, and This Scoping Decision, Must Assume the Proposed Arena Proposal is a Public, Not a Private, Project. At the outset, it is necessary for Seattle and King County to make a determination whether the Arena proposal is a public or private project under SEPA. This is because, as set forth below, whether a proposal is “public” or “private” guides alternatives that the City and County must consider in the EIS. The Seattle Department of Planning and Development (“DPD”) evidently considers the Arena a private project because its Scoping Notice dated October 25, 2012 lists the “applicant” as “John C. McCullough, on behalf of WSA Properties III, LLC.” City officials have also publically stated that the Arena proposal is Mr. Hansen’s proposal and that SEPA would be conducted on this proposal, “as it was presented to us.” Similarly, in recent media reports, Mr. Hansen has expressly declared the proposed Arena to be a private project: Recently, for example, he said: “This is not the city proposing to build an arena on their own dime. This is a public/private partnership, where we’ve offered the majority of the contribution and we need to come with a proposed site. That’s just the way it works.” Seattle Times, October 27, 2012. For the following reasons, the proposed Arena is a public, not private, project under SEPA. A. The Arena is a “public project” because the roles of the government and the Arena private investors are “intertwined” under the applicable statewide SEPA Rule, WAC 197-11-928. WAC 197-11-928 provides as follows: When the proposal involves both private and public activities, it shall be characterized as either a private or a public project for the purposes of lead agency designation, depending upon whether the primary sponsor or initiator of the project is an agency or from the private sector. Any project in which agency and private interests are too intertwined to make this characterization shall be considered a public project…(emphasis added). In addition, SEPA defines a “private project” as “any proposal primarily initiated or sponsored by an individual or entity other than an agency.” WAC 197-11-780. The proposed SODO arena has strong features of a public project and it is clearly not sponsored “primarily” by a private individual. While WSA Properties III, LLC proposes to construct and own the Arena (for at least 30 years), the City of Seattle agreed in the October 8, 2012 MOU to purchase the real estate underlying the Arena and lease that land to WSA Properties III, LLC for a period of 30 to 50 years. In addition, the City and King County jointly propose to provide $200 million in City/County bond financing (secured by the full faith and credit of the city and county) dedicated Arena revenues and

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 8

personal guarantees) for the land purchase and/or the Arena construction. Seattle has also reserved the right to purchase the Arena from WSA Properties III, LLC years down the road. The City and County are also participating in the design of the Arena and a complex MOU governs their financial relationship, revenue sharing, and default procedures. While WSA Properties III, LLC may have “initiated” the Arena proposal (proposing it to the City in May 2011), the roles and actions of the government and WSA Properties III, LLC are clearly financially, contractually, and functionally “intertwined” within the plain meaning of WAC 197-11-928. Accordingly, the City and County should be added as project proponents and should consider the proposed Arena, in all respects, to be a public project. B. SEPA case law requires the Arena to be a “public project.” Case law also supports the argument that the proposed Arena is a “public project.” Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 873 P. 2d 498 (1994) is the seminal case on public vs. private projects under SEPA. In Weyerhaeuser, a private waste hauling company (“LRI”) sought to construct a new municipal solid waste landfill near Puyallup, Washington. At the behest of Pierce County, LRI initiated and sponsored the project, selected the landfill site, applied for permits, made project decisions, and financed these actions with its own funds. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 39. Because of these private actions, Pierce County and LRI argued that the proposed landfill was a private project for purposes of relieving Pierce County of any duty to consider off-site alternative locations. Id. The Washington Supreme Court, however, held that the proposed landfill was a public, not a private, proposal. The Court reasoned that the County had encouraged LRI and others to develop the landfill because landfills are typically a governmental function. Id. The Court held that a public project cannot be made into a private project simply because the government delegated waste hauling and filling—a typical governmental function—to a private entity. Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 40. See also Organization to Preserve Agricultural Lands (OPAL) v. Adams Cy., 128 Wn.2d 869, 876, 913 P. 2d 793 (1996) (“the classification [of whether a project is public or private] rests not on nominal sponsorship but on a factual assessment of the level of public involvement in the project”). The key issue is “whether the governmental entity has, by means of the project at issue, allowed a private entity to fulfill the government’s responsibility” in providing a public service. OPAL, 128 Wn.2d at 877. An essentially private proposal to build a public facility, however, does not become a “public project” under SEPA merely because the government is peripherally involved in the project. Citizens Alliance to Protect Our Wetlands (CAPOW) v. City of Auburn, 126 Wn.2d 356, 894 P. 2d 1300 (1995). In CAPOW, the Washington Horseracing Commission approved a private racetrack developer’s application for a license to operate a thoroughbred racetrack in Auburn. After this approval, the developer approached the City of Auburn, which approved the Auburn site. The court held that the proposed racetrack was a private, not a public project, because, notwithstanding the Commission’s approval, the race track developer initiated and sponsored the project and because “thoroughbred horseracing is not a traditional governmental function.” CAPOW, 126 Wn.2d at 1305-06.

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 9

The proposed Arena at issue is much more analogous to the landfill at issue in Weyerhaeuser than the racetrack in CAPOW. As set forth above, Seattle and King County are active participants in financing and developing the proposed Arena: they will be using their municipal debt to finance its construction, Seattle will purchase the private land under the Arena and lease it to the Arena promoters, Seattle has reserved a purchase option, and the Arena’s revenues from operation will finance the public indebtedness. King County too is involved in promoting this project because King County will invest $50 million in the project if an NHL team can be recruited. Both Seattle and King County are, moreover, parties to a contract with the Arena developer and ArenaCo is essentially building the Arena for the City and County to acquire years down the road. OPAL, 128 Wn. 2d at 876. In addition, while an Arena may not be as traditionally “governmental” as trash hauling and a landfill, there is strong precedent for Seattle building public arenas. For example, Safeco Field is owned by a public facilities district and CenturyLink Field is owned by the fully public Washington State Stadium Authority. In conclusion, the proposed Arena is a “public project” under SEPA case law. 6. Because the Proposed Arena is a “Public Project,” Seattle and King County Must Consider All “Reasonable Off-site Alternatives.” Here, a Site Outside of the City of Seattle is a “Reasonable Alternative.” ILWU contends the City and County must, as a matter of law, consider and analyze a potential Arena site outside of Seattle. The SEPA provisions applicable to “public projects” vary significantly from those in private projects. First, government agencies proposing public projects have a duty to consider a no-action and off-site alternative. WAC 197-11-440(5)(d); Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 505. Second, SEPA requires proposals for “public projects” to be described in terms of objectives rather than solutions. WAC 197-11-060(3)(a)(iii). DPD proposes only two alternatives to a SODO-based Arena: one at the Seattle Center and a “No Action” alternative. Presumably, limiting the alternatives only to the Seattle Center and no-action stems from Section 5 (pg. 3) of the MOU. ILWU, however, contends that this is too narrow a range of alternatives and that the EIS must additionally consider a site (or sites) outside of Seattle. An alternative examining one or more sites outside of Seattle is required, appropriate, and reasonable for several reasons. First, King County is financially participating in this public project by committing to invest $50 million (subject to recruitment of an NHL team). King County has also been an active participant in all aspects of the local approval (the King County Council approved Executive Constantine to sign the MOU). In fact, the Interlocal Agreement (“IA”) (Item 1. D.) specifies that the Arena will “provide general benefits” to both Seattle and King County and King County will hold a 40% interest in the ground lease (IA, § 4. A.). Second, like Safeco and CenturyLink

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 10

Fields, the proposed Arena will serve a regional and county-wide market. Third, Seattle already has two stadia in its SODO industrial neighborhood with severe vehicular congestion and, accordingly, there are strong reasons why Seattle and King County would want to look elsewhere in King County for a suitable site. Finally, it is wellaccepted that there are multiple potential Arena sites outside of Seattle that have excellent highway access and are served (or will be served) by light rail and frequent bus service. This is not just conceptual discussion; indeed, the media reports that individuals are actively exploring a site for NHL hockey in Bellevue. See Media Reports dated July 27, 2012 pertaining to Chicago Wolves owner Don Levin having discussions with the City of Bellevue. That the Arena’s promoter, Chris Hansen, is not “interested” in an Arena site outside of Seattle and the MOU does not specify a site outside of Seattle cannot limit the City and County’s duty under SEPA to identify and consider such a site in this SEPA process. SEPA expressly provides that, prior to the issuance of a completed EIS, the City cannot take any “action” that would “limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.” WAC 197-11070(1). Seattle’s commitment in the MOU not to consider sites outside of Seattle would violate this SEPA rule. To be sure, the cost of analyzing additional sites can be a limiting factor to the number of alternatives that must be considered. Solid Waste Alternatives Proponents v. Okanogan County, 66 Wn. App. 439 (1992). But the promoters of the Arena here are wellresourced private investors, not impoverished local governments. Seattle and King County should presume these private investors can afford to finance the evaluation of alternative sites outside of Seattle. ILWU also asks Seattle and King County to follow WAC 197-11-060(3)(a)(iii), which directs agencies to “describe public or non-project proposals in terms of objectives rather than preferred solutions.” The EIS must ask where the most feasible potential sites for a new sports arena in our region are; Seattle and King County cannot whittle this list down to those sites which are acceptable to Mr. Hansen simply because they serve his business plan. Permitting Mr. Hansen’s business plan to govern the siting of a public facility would give a private individual a veto of the site of a public project; this is not consistent with public facility siting SEPA regulations or sound public policy. 7. The City and County Should Require Mr. Hansen to Share the Information He Has Gathered Pertaining to Potential Alternative Sites. Mr. Hansen has publically stated that his investor group has already considered but rejected other sites for the proposed Arena. The City and County, however, have an independent duty under SEPA to evaluate potential alternative sites. To corroborate or question Mr. Hansen’s contention that no other sites are financially or functionally viable, Mr. Hansen should be required to disclose all analyses, studies, evaluations, and consultant reports pertaining to constructing the Arena on alternative sites. The City and County are not in the business of evaluating the financial viability of professional sports venues and should not be put at an informational disadvantage.

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 11

8. The EIS Should Assess the Following Potential Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Arena. A. Direct, indirect and cumulative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic and congestion. 1. What will be the additional vehicular traffic generated by the proposed Arena on game days and during other events? How will these vehicular trips vary according to whether an NBA team is having a winning year or there are post-season play-off games? Where will this traffic come from? How will this traffic affect the mobility of automobiles, busses, and commuters? If, as reported, the proposed Arena adds at least 70-100 weekday events per year, of which 6 to 22 could be concurrent with events at Safeco and CenturyLink Fields, how will this traffic affect mobility around SODO? 2. What will be the impact of the Arena’s additional/cumulative vehicular traffic on Port-bound or trucks entering or leaving the Port, Port operations, SODO industrial area businesses, bus and automobile commuters, and train traffic? 3. How will the proposed Arena’s additional traffic affect freight mobility, Port, and SODO businesses? 4. What additional traffic infrastructure investment will be necessary to mitigate the additional and cumulative impact of the Arena’s additional or cumulative traffic on SODO? 5. What will be the additional or cumulative impact on Port-bound traffic and Port operations when Safeco and CenturyLink Fields are also holding events? How will the traffic vary depending on whether teams are winning and more fans attend games? 6. What will be the Arena’s additional and cumulative impact on vehicular traffic in SODO when the new Deep Bore Tunnel has been completed and the Hwy. 99 Viaduct has been demolished? Since the tunnel has fewer lanes than the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct and will have tolls, how will the additional traffic generated by the Arena affect traffic patterns and congestion and, in turn, freight mobility? How must the traffic impacts generated by the new tunnel be modified to take the arena’s projected traffic into account? 7. It is projected that rail traffic through SODO will grow over the years ahead. The EIS must quantify existing and projected future rail traffic and analyze to what extent this rail traffic, in combination with the projected

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 12

Arena traffic, will affect transportation and freight mobility in and through the SODO marine and industrial area. 8. What will be the Arena’s additional impact in light of the fact that three primary east-west interchanges (Royal Brougham, Atlantic, and Lander) have not yet been completed? What will be the impact if some or all of the promised funding to make these improvements does not come to fruition? 9. How will the Arena’s additional or cumulative traffic affect connections between SODO and the Ballard/Interbay industrial area? 10. Arena promoters contend that the Arena will only minimally impact Port traffic because the Port closes its gates at 4:30 p.m. on weekdays. But many say that this is the time when the Port closes its gates to inbound trucks and that outbound trucks leave the Port after 4:30 p.m. The EIS must analyze when, today and in the future, trucks enter or depart the Port and provide a breakdown of each. 11. The assumptions of impacts by Arena promoters do not consider the growth potential of the Port, freight throughput over the road and via rail, and the increase in related industrial activity as a result. The EIS must analyze the potential growth of economic activity in these areas, and to what degrees the Arena will impact the physical environment, land use, and freight capacity that may limit future growth. B. Impact on adjacent businesses and transportation facilities (from Arena and entertainment complex). 1. How will the proposed Arena, and the additional vehicular traffic it will generate, impact the adjacent BNSF maintenance facility? 2. How will the proposed Arena’s traffic affect BNSF train traffic and vice versa? 3. Will the proposed Arena displace industrial businesses through conversion pressure? How will the Arena affect real estate prices and, if they increase, how will that increase affect existing land uses in SODO? C. Impact on air quality. The Arena is projected to attract between 6,000-8,000 single passenger cars per event. The EIS needs to assess the additional tailpipe emissions these trips will emit as well as the additional and cumulative vehicle emissions vehicles will emit as a result of a more congested SODO transportation corridor.

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 13

D. Impact of additional development. Mr. Hansen has stated that he intends to build an “entertainment” and retail district around the Arena. The EIS must obtain all plans pertaining to this development now and consider impact in this EIS. This additional development would not occur but-for the Arena and is linked to it. Thus, to avoid improper phasing of this project under SEPA (see WAC 197-11-060 (5)(d)(iii)), the additional or cumulative impact of this non-industrial development needs to be taken into consideration in this EIS. How will this development affect the viability of SODO as a warehouse, distribution, and manufacturing zone? E. Impact on public transportation. How will the Arena affect bus service in SODO and, in particular, on First Avenue, which has already been substantially curtailed by Metro? F. Impact on pedestrian conditions. The proposed Arena site fronts on S. Holgate Street—a roadway that is crossed by 17 railroad tracks between First and Fourth Avenues and supports active train service by BNSF, Amtrak, and Sound Transit. Approximately 80100 trains use this mainline each day. How will the Arena affect pedestrian safety around these tracks? G. Zoning/neighborhood issues. 1. What will be the Arena’s impact on gentrification of SODO if the Seattle City Council does not enact a “Port Overlay District?” 2. How will the cumulative impact of the Arena and the parking necessary for the Arena affect adjacent traffic, pedestrians, and congestion in neighborhoods such as the International District and Pioneer Square? 3. How will the Arena impact and affect the intent of the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District? How will the Arena impact a major Port freight corridor (Atlantic Street), which runs through the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District? H. Street vacation of Occidental Street. How will the proposed street vacation of Occidental Street affect traffic and freight mobility?

ILWU Scoping Comments, #3014195 November 8, 2012 Page 14

I. Failure to fund transportation mitigation. The Arena proposal includes funds (approximately $40 million) for area road improvements. What will be the affect if the Arena is built and these funds are not appropriated? What will be the effect of the following on the impact the Arena will have on traffic and congestion: 1. Inadequate additional parking for sold-out Arena events. 2. Lack of pedestrian improvements including track crossing safety upgrades, sidewalk upgrades, and pedestrian illumination upgrades. 3. Incomplete mitigation from prior stadium projects (e.g., SR519, Lander Street grade separation, etc.).

Thank you for considering our comments. Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments or if you would like to discuss these issues further. Sincerely,

Peter Goldman Attorney for International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful