Rainier Square Development University of Washington Metropolitan Tract Rainier Square Redevelopment

Appendices

APPENDIX B Pedestrian Le vel Wind Analysis APPENDIX C Transportation Impact Study APPENDIX D Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation Spreadsheet

Addendum to ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the Downtown Height and Density Changes January 2005

Addressing Environmental Impacts of

Rainier Square Development University of Washington Metropolitan Tract Rainier Square Redevelopment

Master Use Permit # 3017644

City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development

APPENDIX B

Pedestrian Level Wind Analysis

Tel: 519.823.1311 Fax: 519.823.1316

Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. 650 Woodlawn Road West Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1K 1B8

5th Avenue and Union Street Seattle, WA

Final Report

Pedestrian Wind Consultation RWDI # 1402464 February 5, 2015

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

Wright Runstad & Company William Schinkel, B.A.Sc. Technical Coordinator Care of: [email protected]

Ron Klemencic, P.E., S.E., Hon. AIA Gregory P. Thompson, M.A.Sc. Chairman & CEO Senior Project Manager / Associate Magnusson Klemencic Associates [email protected] 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA Jon K. Galsworthy, Ph.D., P.Eng. 98101-2699 Technical Director / Principal Direct: 206-215-8203 [email protected] Main: 206-292-1200 Mobile: 206-909-8208 [email protected]

This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately.

® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Pedestrian Wind Consultation RWDI#1402464 February 5, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. SUMMARY OF WIND CONDITIONS ...... 1 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 1 4. EXPLANATION OF CRITERIA ...... 2 5. PREDICTED WIND CONDITIONS ...... 3 5.1 Wind Safety ...... 3 5.2 Wind Comfort – Existing Configuration ...... 3 5.3 Wind Comfort – Proposed Configuration ...... 4 6. APPLICABILITY ...... 4 7. REFERENCES ...... 4

Tables Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions

Figures Figure 1a: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Existing Configuration Figure 1b: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Proposed Configuration Figure 2: Directional Distribution of Winds – Seattle Tacoma International Airport Figure 3a: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Existing – Summer Figure 3b: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Proposed – Summer Figure 4a: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Existing – Winter Figure 4b: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Proposed – Winter

Appendices Appendix A: Drawing List for Model Construction

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Pedestrian Wind Consultation RWDI#1402464 February 5, 2015 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI) was retained by Wright Runstad & Company to consult on the pedestrian wind conditions for the proposed 5th Avenue and Union Street development in Seattle, WA. The purpose of the study was to assess the wind environment around the development in terms of pedestrian wind comfort and safety. The achievement of this objective included wind tunnel testing of a 1:400 scale model of the proposed development for the following configurations:

Configuration A - Existing: existing and in-construction surroundings; and,

Configuration B - Proposed: existing and in-construction surroundings with the proposed development included.

The photographs in Figures 1a and 1b show the test model in RWDI's boundary-layer wind tunnel. The project consists of two buildings: a 59-story mixed-use tower and a 12-story hotel. The mixed-use tower and hotel are approximately 836 ft and 122 ft high, respectively. The test model was constructed using the design information and drawings listed in Appendix A. This report summarizes the methodology of wind tunnel studies for pedestrian wind conditions, describes the RWDI pedestrian wind comfort and safety criteria, presents the local wind conditions and their effects on pedestrians.

The placement of wind measurement locations was based on our experience and understanding of the pedestrian usage for this site, and was reviewed by members of the design team.

2. SUMMARY OF WIND CONDITIONS

The wind conditions around the proposed 5th Avenue and Union Street development are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report and may be summarized as follows:

 All locations are predicted to pass the wind criterion used to assess pedestrian wind safety.

 Wind conditions remain generally unchanged with the addition of the proposed development.

 Appropriate wind comfort conditions are expected at all locations surrounding the proposed development.

3. METHODOLOGY

As shown in Figures 1a and 1b, the wind tunnel model included the proposed development and all relevant surrounding buildings and topography within a 1600 ft radius of the study site. The boundary- layer wind conditions beyond the modelled area were also simulated in RWDI's wind tunnel. The model was instrumented with 71 wind speed sensors to measure mean and gust wind speeds at a full-scale height of approximately 5 ft. These measurements were recorded for 36 equally incremented wind directions.

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Pedestrian Wind Consultation RWDI#1402464 February 5, 2015 Page 2

Wind statistics recorded at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport between 1982 and 2012 were analysed for the Summer (May through October) and Winter (November through April) seasons. Figure 2 graphically depicts the directional distributions of wind frequencies and speeds for the two seasons. Winds from the south through southwest, north and northeast directions are predominant in both the summer and winter as indicated by the wind roses. Strong winds of a mean speed greater than 20 mph measured at the airport (at an anemometer height of 33 ft) occur more often in the winter (2.4%) than the summer (less than 1% of the time).

Wind statistics from the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport were combined with the wind tunnel data in order to predict the frequency of occurrence of full-scale wind speeds. The full-scale wind predictions were then compared with the RWDI criteria for pedestrian comfort and safety. 4. EXPLANATION OF CRITERIA

The RWDI pedestrian wind criteria are used in the current study. These criteria have been developed by RWDI through research and consulting practice since 1974 (References 1 through 6). They have also been widely accepted by municipal authorities as well as by the building design and city planning community.

RWDI Pedestrian Wind Criteria

Comfort GEM Speed Description Category (mph)

Calm or light breezes desired for outdoor restaurants and seating areas Sitting ≤ 6 where one can read a paper without having it blown away

Standing ≤ 8 Gentle breezes suitable for main building entrances and bus stops

Moderate winds that would be appropriate for window shopping and Strolling ≤ 10 strolling along a downtown street, plaza or park Relatively high speeds that can be tolerated if one’s objective is to walk, Walking ≤ 12 run or cycle without lingering Strong winds of this magnitude are considered a nuisance for most Uncomfortable > 12 activities, and wind mitigation is typically recommended Notes: (1) Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) speed = max(mean speed, gust speed/1.85); and (2) GEM speeds listed above are based on a seasonal exceedance of 20% of the time between 6:00 and 23:00. Safety Gust Speed Description Criterion (mph)

Excessive gust speeds that can adversely affect a pedestrian's balance Exceeded > 56 and footing. Wind mitigation is typically required.

Note: Based on an annual exceedance of 9 hours or 0.1% of the time for 24 hours a day.

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Pedestrian Wind Consultation RWDI#1402464 February 5, 2015 Page 3

A few additional comments are provided below to further explain the wind criteria and their applications.

 Both mean and gust speeds can affect pedestrian comfort and their combined effect is typically quantified by a Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) speed, with a gust factor of 1.85 (References 1, 5, 7 and 8).

 Instead of standard four seasons, two periods of summer (May to October) and winter (November to April) are adopted in the wind analysis, because in a moderate climate such as that found in Seattle, there are distinct differences in pedestrian outdoor behaviours between these two time periods.

 Nightly hours between midnight and 5 o’clock in the morning are excluded from the wind analysis for wind comfort since limited usage of outdoor spaces is anticipated.

 A 20% exceedance is used in these criteria to determine the comfort category, which suggests that wind speeds would be comfortable for the corresponding activity at least 80% of the time or four out of five days.

 Only gust winds need to be considered in the wind safety criterion. These are usually rare events, but deserve special attention in city planning and building design due to their potential safety impact on pedestrians.

 These criteria for wind forces represent average wind tolerance. They are sometimes subjective and regional differences in wind climate and thermal conditions as well as variations in age, health, clothing, etc. can also affect people's perception of the wind climate. Comparisons of wind speeds for different building configurations are the most objective way in assessing local pedestrian wind conditions.

5. PREDICTED WIND CONDITIONS

Table 1, located in the Tables section of this report, presents the predicted wind comfort and safety conditions pertaining to the two configurations studied. These conditions are graphically depicted on a site plan in Figures 3a through 4b.

5.1 Wind Safety

Wind conditions which pass the safety criterion are predicted for all measurement locations for both the existing and proposed configurations.

5.2 Wind Comfort – Existing Configuration

Wind conditions comfortable for walking or strolling are appropriate for sidewalks. Lower wind speeds conducive to standing are preferred at main entrances where pedestrians are apt to linger.

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Pedestrian Wind Consultation RWDI#1402464 February 5, 2015 Page 4

The existing wind conditions around the Rainier Tower and surrounding sidewalks are generally appropriate for sitting or standing throughout the year with strolling conditions predicated at a number of locations to the west and south of the site during winter (ref. Figures 3a and 4a).

5.3 Wind Comfort – Proposed Configuration

With the addition of the new proposed development, wind conditions are anticipated to remain generally unchanged. Wind conditions comfortable for sitting in both seasons are predicted at all entrances to the Rainier Tower (Locations 17, 19, 20 in Figures 3b and 4b). The wind conditions at the entrances and sidewalks around the new mixed-use tower and hotel are predicted to be comfortable for sitting and standing during both seasons which are considered appropriate (ref. Locations 1 through 16 in Figures 3b and 4b). Overall, the predicted wind conditions are considered appropriate for the intended use of the respective spaces. 6. APPLICABILITY

The wind conditions presented in this report pertain to the proposed 5th Avenue and Union Street development as detailed in the architectural design drawings listed in Appendix A. Should there be any design changes that deviate from this list of drawings, the wind condition predictions presented may change. Therefore, if changes in the design are made, it is recommended that RWDI be contacted and requested to review their potential effects on wind conditions.

7. REFERENCES

1) ASCE Task Committee on Outdoor Human Comfort (2004). Outdoor Human Comfort and Its Assessment, 68 pages, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.

2) Williams, C.J., Hunter, M.A. and Waechter, W.F. (1990). "Criteria for Assessing the Pedestrian Wind Environment," Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.36, pp.811- 815.

3) Williams, C.J., Soligo M.J. and Cote, J. (1992). "A Discussion of the Components for a Comprehensive Pedestrian Level Comfort Criteria," Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.41-44, pp.2389-2390.

4) Soligo, M.J., Irwin, P.A., and Williams, C.J. (1993). "Pedestrian Comfort Including Wind and Thermal Effects," Third Asia-Pacific Symposium on Wind Engineering, Hong Kong.

5) Soligo, M.J., Irwin, P.A., Williams, C.J. and Schuyler, G.D. (1998). "A Comprehensive Assessment of Pedestrian Comfort Including Thermal Effects," Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.77&78, pp.753-766.

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Pedestrian Wind Consultation RWDI#1402464 February 5, 2015 Page 5

6) Williams, C.J., Wu, H., Waechter, W.F. and Baker, H.A. (1999). "Experiences with Remedial Solutions to Control Pedestrian Wind Problems," Tenth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark.

7) Lawson, T.V. (1973). "Wind Environment of Buildings: A Logical Approach to the Establishment of Criteria", Report No. TVL 7321, Department of Aeronautic Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.

8) Durgin, F. H. (1997). "Pedestrian Level Wind Criteria Using the Equivalent average", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 66, pp. 215-226.

TABLES

Page 1 of 5

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions

Wind Comfort (20% Seasonal Exceedance) Wind Safety (0.1% Exceedance)

Summer Winter Annual

Location Configuration Speed Rating Speed Rating Speed Rating (mph) (mph) (mph)

1 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass

2 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 33 Pass

3 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 28 Pass

4 Existing 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 22 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 24 Pass

5 Existing 4 Sitting 5 Sitting 24 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 22 Pass

6 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 33 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 33 Pass

7 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 39 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 37 Pass

8 Existing 8 Standing 9 Strolling 41 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 36 Pass

9 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 34 Pass

10 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 35 Pass

11 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 29 Pass

12 Existing 4 Sitting 6 Sitting 22 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass

13 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 28 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass

14 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 28 Pass

15 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass

16 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass

Seasons Hours Wind Comfort Category Wind Safety Category Summer = May to October 6:00 to 23:00 for Comfort (20% Seasonal Exceedance) (0.1% Annual Exceedance) Winter = November to April 0:00 to 23:00 for Safety ≤ 6 mph Sitting ≤ 56 mph Pass Configuration 7 to 8 Standing > 56 mph Exceeded Existing = without the proposed development 9 to 10 Strolling Proposed = with the proposed development 11 to 12 Walking > 12 mph Uncomfortable

Page 2 of 5

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions

Wind Comfort (20% Seasonal Exceedance) Wind Safety (0.1% Exceedance)

Summer Winter Annual

Location Configuration Speed Rating Speed Rating Speed Rating (mph) (mph) (mph)

17 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 29 Pass

18 Existing 4 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass

19 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 29 Pass

20 Existing 4 Sitting 5 Sitting 22 Pass Proposed 4 Sitting 5 Sitting 22 Pass

21 Existing 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 24 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 24 Pass

22 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 34 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 33 Pass

23 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 35 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 35 Pass

24 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass

25 Existing 8 Standing 8 Standing 39 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 8 Standing 39 Pass

26 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 43 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 9 Strolling 42 Pass

27 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 48 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 48 Pass

28 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 28 Pass

29 Existing 8 Standing 8 Standing 37 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 9 Strolling 38 Pass

30 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass

31 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 28 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass

32 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 42 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 9 Strolling 42 Pass

Page 3 of 5

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions

Wind Comfort (20% Seasonal Exceedance) Wind Safety (0.1% Exceedance)

Summer Winter Annual

Location Configuration Speed Rating Speed Rating Speed Rating (mph) (mph) (mph)

33 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 31 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 34 Pass

34 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 28 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass

35 Existing 8 Standing 7 Standing 35 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 7 Standing 35 Pass

36 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 33 Pass

37 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 30 Pass

38 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass

39 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 31 Pass

40 Existing 7 Standing 6 Sitting 30 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 30 Pass

41 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass

42 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass

43 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 6 Sitting 28 Pass

44 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 30 Pass

45 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass

46 Existing 6 Sitting 5 Sitting 24 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 23 Pass

47 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 30 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 28 Pass

48 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass

Page 4 of 5

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions

Wind Comfort (20% Seasonal Exceedance) Wind Safety (0.1% Exceedance)

Summer Winter Annual

Location Configuration Speed Rating Speed Rating Speed Rating (mph) (mph) (mph)

49 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 31 Pass

50 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 30 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 30 Pass

51 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass

52 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 28 Pass

53 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 24 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 23 Pass

54 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 28 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 24 Pass

55 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass

56 Existing 4 Sitting 5 Sitting 25 Pass Proposed 4 Sitting 5 Sitting 27 Pass

57 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 28 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass

58 Existing 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 22 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass

59 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass

60 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 35 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 34 Pass

61 Existing 7 Standing 9 Strolling 40 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 9 Strolling 40 Pass

62 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 35 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 34 Pass

63 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 31 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass

64 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 34 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 34 Pass

Page 5 of 5

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions

Wind Comfort (20% Seasonal Exceedance) Wind Safety (0.1% Exceedance)

Summer Winter Annual

Location Configuration Speed Rating Speed Rating Speed Rating (mph) (mph) (mph)

65 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass

66 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 48 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 47 Pass

67 Existing 7 Standing 9 Strolling 43 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 9 Strolling 42 Pass

68 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 37 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 37 Pass

69 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass

70 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 24 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass

71 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 28 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass

FIGURES

Wind Tunnel Study Model Figure No. 1a Existing

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Project #1402464 Date: January 30, 2015

Wind Tunnel Study Model Figure No. 1b Proposed

5th Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Project #1402464 Date: January 30, 2015

Summer Winter (May - October) (November - April) Wind Speed Probability (%) (mph) Summer Winter Calm 6.8 6.6

1-5 17.4 15.9

6-10 50.9 42.9

11-15 21.0 24.6

16-20 3.4 7.6

>20 0.4 2.4

Directional Distribution (%) of Winds (Blowing From) Figure No. 2 Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (1982 - 2012)

th 5 Avenue and Union Street – Seattle, WA Project #1402464 Date: January 30, 2015 29 30 36 37

28 31 35 38

22 24 27 32 33 34 39 42 43

UNION STREET

23 25 41 26 8 7 6 1 2 40 44

9 3

10 4

45 71 11 5 4TH AVENUE 5TH AVENUE 3RD AVENUE 12 21

70 EXISTING RAINIER 46 13 TOWER 20 19

18 67 69 14 15 16 17 48 68 47 49

UNIVERSITY STREET

66 65 51 64 52 50 59 57

58 LEGEND: COMFORT CATEGORIES: Sitting 56 53 Standing 63 60 Strolling Walking Uncomfortable

SENSOR LOCATION: 54 61 55 Grade Level 62

0 50 100ft

Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions - Existing True North Drawn by:ARM Figure: 3a Summer (May to October, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=100'

5th Avenue and Union Street - Seattle, WA Project #1402464 Date Revised: Jan 30, 2015 29 30 36 37

28 31 35 38

22 24 27 32 33 34 39 42 43

UNION STREET

23 25 41 26 8 7 6 1 2 40 44

9 3 PROPOSED TOWER

10 4

45 71 11 5 4TH AVENUE 5TH AVENUE 3RD AVENUE 12 21 PROPOSED HOTEL 70 EXISTING RAINIER 46 13 TOWER 20 19

18 67 69 14 15 16 17 48 68 47 49

UNIVERSITY STREET

66 65 51 64 52 50 59 57

58 LEGEND: COMFORT CATEGORIES: Sitting 56 53 Standing 63 60 Strolling Walking Uncomfortable

SENSOR LOCATION: 54 61 55 Grade Level 62

0 50 100ft

Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions - Proposed True North Drawn by:ARM Figure: 3b Summer (May to October, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=100'

5th Avenue and Union Street - Seattle, WA Project #1402464 Date Revised: Jan 30, 2015 29 30 36 37

28 31 35 38

22 24 27 32 33 34 39 42 43

UNION STREET

23 25 41 26 8 7 6 1 2 40 44

9 3

10 4

45 71 11 5 4TH AVENUE 5TH AVENUE 3RD AVENUE 12 21

70 EXISTING RAINIER 46 13 TOWER 20 19

18 67 69 14 15 16 17 48 68 47 49

UNIVERSITY STREET

66 65 51 64 52 50 59 57

58 LEGEND: COMFORT CATEGORIES: Sitting 56 53 Standing 63 60 Strolling Walking Uncomfortable

SENSOR LOCATION: 54 61 55 Grade Level 62

0 50 100ft

Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions - Existing True North Drawn by:ARM Figure: 4a Winter (November to April, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=100'

5th Avenue and Union Street - Seattle, WA Project #1402464 Date Revised: Jan 30, 2015 29 30 36 37

28 31 35 38

22 24 27 32 33 34 39 42 43

UNION STREET

23 25 41 26 8 7 6 1 2 40 44

9 3 PROPOSED TOWER

10 4

45 71 11 5 4TH AVENUE 5TH AVENUE 3RD AVENUE 12 21 PROPOSED HOTEL 70 EXISTING RAINIER 46 13 TOWER 20 19

18 67 69 14 15 16 17 48 68 47 49

UNIVERSITY STREET

66 65 51 64 52 50 59 57

58 LEGEND: COMFORT CATEGORIES: Sitting 56 53 Standing 63 60 Strolling Walking Uncomfortable

SENSOR LOCATION: 54 61 55 Grade Level 62

0 50 100ft

Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions - Proposed True North Drawn by:ARM Figure: 4b Winter (November to April, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=100'

5th Avenue and Union Street - Seattle, WA Project #1402464 Date Revised: Jan 30, 2015 Employee Job Title

APPENDIX A

Page A1 of 1

APPENDIX A: DRAWING LIST FOR MODEL CONSTRUCTION

The drawings and information listed below were received from Magnusson Klemencic Associates and were used to construct the scale model of the proposed 5th Avenue and Union Street development. Should there be any design changes that deviate from this list of drawings, the results may change. Therefore, if changes in the design area made, it is recommended that RWDI be contacted and requested to review their potential effects on wind conditions.

Date Received File Name File Type (dd/mm/yyyy) 101181_Rainier_Square_DD - SHELL RVT 05/12/2014 FINAL COMPILED PDF FOR MUP PDF 05/12/2014

APPENDIX C

Transportation Impact Study

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study

Prepared for

Wright Runstad & Company 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101

Prepared by

Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 425.458.6363 www.parametrix.com

October 2014 │ CITATION

Parametrix. 2014. 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. October 2014.

October 2014 │ 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 1-1 1.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA ...... 1-1

2. EXISTING 2014 CONDITIONS ...... 2-1 2.1 LAND USE AND ZONING ...... 2-1 2.2 ROADWAY NETWORK ...... 2-1 2.3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...... 2-1 2.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ...... 2-7 2.5 SAFETY ...... 2-8 2.6 PARKING AND CURB USE ...... 2-9 2.7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ...... 2-13 2.8 TRANSIT ...... 2-13

3. FUTURE 2020 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS ...... 3-1 3.1 ROADWAY NETWORK ...... 3-1 3.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...... 3-1 3.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ...... 3-7

4. FUTURE 2020 BUILD ...... 4-1 4.1 ROADWAY NETWORK ...... 4-1 4.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ...... 4-1 4.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ...... 4-3 4.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ...... 4-11 4.5 SITE ACCESS ...... 4-13 4.6 SAFETY ...... 4-13 4.7 PARKING ...... 4-14 4.8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ...... 4-17 4.9 TRANSIT ...... 4-18 4.10 TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY ...... 4-18 4.11 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ...... 4-20

5. MITIGATION ...... 5-1 5.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ...... 5-1 5.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS ...... 5-1

October 2014 │ i 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ...... 6-1

7. REFERENCES ...... 7-1

LIST OF FIGURES 1 Proposed Development Site Plan ...... 1-3 2 Project Study Area ...... 1-5 3 Year 2014 Existing Turn Movement Volumes, AM Peak Hour (11x17) ...... 2-3 4 Year 2014 Existing Turn Movement Volumes, PM Peak Hour (11x17) ...... 2-5 5 Existing Street Parking and Curb Lane Restrictions > ...... 2-11 6 Year 2020 No-Build Turn Movement Volumes, AM Peak ...... 3-3 7 Year 2020 No-Build Turn Movement Volumes, PM Peak ...... 3-5 8 Project Trip Distribution...... 4-5 9 Year 2020 Build Turn Movement Volumes, AM Peak Hour ...... 4-7 10 Year 2020 Build Turn Movement Volumes, PM Peak Hour ...... 4-9 11 Site Access ...... 4-15

LIST OF TABLES 1 Study Area Roadway Characteristics ...... 2-2 2 Highway Capacity Manual LOS Ratings ...... 2-7 3 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS ...... 2-8 4 Collision History ...... 2-9 5 2020 No-Build AM and PM Peak Hour LOS ...... 3-7 6 Mode of Travel (Weekday) ...... 4-2 7 Vehicle Trips Generated by Proposed Development ...... 4-2 8 2014 Existing, 2020 No-Build and 2020 Build AM and PM Peak Hour LOS ...... 4-12 9 Intersection LOS Comparison to Downtown EIS ...... 4-13 10 Driveway Level of Service ...... 4-13 11 Parking Garage Utilization ...... 4-17 12 LOS Screenlines with Proposed Development ...... 4-19

October 2014 │ ii 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to document the existing transportation conditions and identify the transportation impacts associated with the proposed development of 1301 5th Avenue in Seattle. This transportation analysis was prepared to support the environmental review and Master Use Permit process for the project. This report documents the results of the analyses conducted specific to the proposed development, including trip generation and traffic operations, and comparison to the Downtown EIS project impacts.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Wright Runstad & Company is proposing the development of a 58-story structure at 1301 5th Avenue in Seattle, between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue and Union Street and University Street (Figure 1). The project would redevelop three quadrants of the block, which currently consists of a health/fitness club, restaurant, office building, specialty retail, and a bank. The fourth quadrant (or the southeast quadrant) of the block is the 31-story Rainier Tower, which is not included in the redevelopment and will remain on-site. The proposed development consists of one structure with 790,000 square feet of office use and 181 residential units above the office tower, with separate lobbies for office and residential uses. The project would have a separate 12-story hotel with 180 rooms along 4th Avenue. Approximately 32,000 square feet of retail will be at the base of the development. Parking for 879 vehicles would be provided below grade. The project is planned for construction and completion as early as year 2016. However the traffic analysis assumed a horizon analysis year of 2020, consistent with the Downtown EIS horizon year. The project site plan is shown in Figure 1.

1.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA The study area for the analysis includes 18 signalized intersections and two future driveway access points, which were evaluated for AM and PM peak hour operations (Figure 2):

1. SR 99 / Denny / 7th Avenue 10. 5th Avenue / University Street 2. 5th Avenue / Stewart Street 11. 5th Avenue / Seneca Street 3. 5th Avenue / Olive Street 12. 5th Avenue / Spring Street 4. 7th Avenue / Union Street 13. 4th Avenue / Union Street 5. 6th Avenue / Union Street 14. 4th Avenue / University Street 6. 6th Avenue / University Street 15. 4th Avenue / Seneca Street 7. 6th Avenue / Seneca Street 16. 4th Avenue / Madison Street 8. 6th Avenue / Spring Street 17. 2nd Avenue / Madison Street 9. 5th Avenue / Union Street 18. 2nd Avenue / Marion Street

October 2014 │ 1-1

Figure 1. Proposed Development Site Plan

REPUBLICAN STREET

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

SEATTLE CENTER

EIGHTH AVENUE N

JOHN STREET PONTIUS

FIRST AVENUE W

QUEEN ANNE AVENUE FIRST AVENUE N BROAD STREET

NINTH AVENUE N

SR-99 WESTLAKE AVENUE N

TERRY AVENUE N

BOREN AVENUE N

FAIRVIEW AVENUE N

MINOR AVENUE N

YALE AVENUE N DENNY WAY 1 DENNY WAY DENNY WAY DENNY WAY B A Y S T

E A G L E S T AURORA

E V A E L A Y

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH

FOURTH AVENUE FOURTH

EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH

MINOR AVENUE MINOR SECOND AVENUE SECOND

THIRD AVENUE THIRD

BOREN AVENUE BOREN

WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN O L I V E W A Y OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK SCULPTURE OLYMPIC

CLAY STREET AVENUE TERRY NINTH AVENUE NINTH

CEDAR STREET PINE BATTERY STREET

HOWELL STREET

VINE STREET WESTLAKE AVENUE WALL STREET BELL STREET 2 PIKE SEVENTH AVENUE

BLANCHARD STREET 3 SIXTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE FIRST O L I V E W A Y

FIFTH AVENUE ELLIOTT AVENUE ELLIOTT U N I O N S T LENORA STREET

FOURTH AVENUE

VIRGINIA ST THIRD AVENUE

4 UNIVERSITY ST SECOND AVENUE

E C A L P E I K P STEWART STREET 5

PINE STREET 9 ALASKAN WAY ALASKAN S E N E C A S T 13 6 PIKE STREET X BUS LANE 10 S P R I N G S T 14 7 11 M A D I S O N S T 8 UNION STREET 15 12 M A R I O N S T

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST 16 SENECA STREET BROADWAY Legend: C H E R R Y S T N X Study Intersection SPRING STREET17 J A M E S S T

MADISON STREET 18 JEFFERSON ST X Site location T E R R A C E S T

MARION STREET

A L D E R S T COLUMBIA STREET

WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN Figure 2. Study Area

CHERRY STREET JAMES STREET JEFFERSON STREET S AVE BOREN

YESLER WAY SECOND AVENUE SECOND S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

S KING STREET S KING STREET

Elliott Bay S WELLER STREET

S LANE STREET

FIFTH AVENUE S S DEARBORN STREET

ALASKAN WAY S

SEVENTH AVE S

FIRST AVENUE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

2. EXISTING 2014 CONDITIONS This section of the report describes the existing conditions in the study area including the roadway network, traffic volumes, traffic operations, safety, parking conditions, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit operations.

2.1 LAND USE AND ZONING Currently, the site consists of Rainier Square, a small shopping center with retail uses, restaurants, health/fitness club, bank, and an atrium. The site also includes the 31-story Rainier Tower, which is not included in the redevelopment plan for this project. The site is located within the Downtown Office Commercial One (DOC1) zone. Building height limits within the zone include both unlimited and 450’, depending on the use.

2.2 ROADWAY NETWORK Primary arterial access to the site is provided by 4th Avenue, Union Street, 5th Avenue, and University Street, all adjacent to the site. Access to the existing underground parking is from Union Street. A summary of existing roadway characteristics for key roadways that serve the immediate site area is provided in Table 1. For purposes of this analysis, streets are assumed to be oriented in east-west direction and avenues north-south.

2.3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing weekday turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections in September 2014 between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

October 2014 │ 2-1 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

Table 1. Study Area Roadway Characteristics

Total No. of Non-Motorized and Transit Roadway Direction Classification* Travel Characteristics Lanes Two Way 4 Principal Arterial SR 99 North - South One Way 3 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; Bike Lane; On Street 2nd Avenue South Transit Way Parking One Way 3 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; Bike Sharrow; On 4th Avenue North Major Transit Street Street Parking One Way 3 Minor Arterial Sidewalks 5th Avenue South Minor Transit Street One Way 3 Principal Arterial Sidewalks (South of Madison Minor Transit Street 6th Avenue Street) Two Way (North of Madison Street) Two Way 2 Minor Arterial Sidewalks; On Street Parking 7th Avenue Minor Transit Street Two Way 4 Principal Arterial Sidewalks Denny Way East – West Minor Transit Street One Way 2 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; Angled Street Parking Madison Street West Minor Transit Street One Way 2 Minor Arterial Sidewalks; Angled Street Marion Street East Minor Transit Street Parking; One Way 4 Principal Arterial Dedicated bus lane; Bike Olive Way East Principal Transit Street sharrows One Way 3 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; On Street Parking; Seneca Street West Minor Transit Street Bike sharrows One Way 2 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; Angled Street Spring Street East Minor Transit Street Parking; Bike sharrows One Way 3 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; Bike sharrows Stewart Street West Principal Transit Street One Way 3 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; On Street Parking Union Street West Minor Transit Street One Way 3 Principal Arterial Sidewalks; On Street Parking University Street East Minor Transit Street * Source: City of Seattle Arterial Classifications Planning Map (2003), Transit Classifications Map (2006)

October 2014 │ 2-2 REPUBLICAN STREET

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

SEATTLE CENTER

EIGHTH AVENUE N

JOHN STREET PONTIUS

FIRST AVENUE W

QUEEN ANNE AVENUE FIRST AVENUE N BROAD STREET

NINTH AVENUE N

SR-99 WESTLAKE AVENUE N

TERRY AVENUE N

BOREN AVENUE N

FAIRVIEW AVENUE N

MINOR AVENUE N YALE AVENUE N ( 1 ) Aurora/Denny ( 2 ) 5th & Stewart ( 3 ) 5th & Olive ( 4 ) 7th & Union DENNY WAY 1 DENNY WAY

34 630 112 DENNY WAY 352

1,028 383 84 1,169

154 61 340 B A Y S T 97 649 1,038

E A G L E S T AURORA 714 255 154

E V A E L A Y

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH

SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH 639 246

FOURTH AVENUE FOURTH 64 35 EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH 27 79

MINOR AVENUE MINOR SECOND AVENUE SECOND 5

THIRD AVENUE THIRD

258 62 1

BOREN AVENUE BOREN WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN O L I V E W A Y

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK SCULPTURE OLYMPIC TERRY AVENUE TERRY ( 5 ) 6th & Union ( 6 ) 6th & University ( 7 ) 6th & Seneca ( 8 ) 6th & Spring CLAY STREET

NINTH AVENUE NINTH 184 195 CEDAR STREET 1,056 37 171 PINE BATTERY STREET

HOWELL STREET 246 689 106 496 1,092 117 165 VINE STREET 239 1,009 119 179

167 436 WESTLAKE AVENUE WALL STREET BELL STREET 23 535 460 6 564 2 PIKE SEVENTH AVENUE ( 9 ) 5th & Union ( 10 ) 5th & University ( 11 ) 5th & Seneca ( 12 ) 5th & Spring BLANCHARD STREET 3 SIXTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE FIRST O L I V E W A Y

190 1,114 836 384

119 119 914

FIFTH AVENUE 1,089 234 ELLIOTT AVENUE ELLIOTT U N I O N S T LENORA STREET 707 535 426 221 FOURTH AVENUE

VIRGINIA ST THIRD AVENUE 371 323 4 164 50 SECOND AVENUE UNIVERSITY ST

E C A L P E I K P STEWART STREET 5 FIRST AVENUE

PINE STREET 9 ( 13 ) 4th & Union ( 14 ) 4th & University ( 15 ) 4th & Seneca ( 16 ) 4th and Madison ALASKAN WAY ALASKAN S E N E C A S T 13 6 X 210 290 325 PIKE STREET 586 414 599 BUS LANE 10 S P R I N G S T 14 7 11 M A D I S O N S T 60 173 1,241 1,315 247 172 1,309 8 293 214 1,140 UNION STREET 15 12 M A R I O N S T

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST ( 17 ) 2nd & Madison ( 18 ) 2nd & Marion 16 SENECA STREET BROADWAY 93 1,022 C H E R R Y S T 952 194 Legend: 266 128 X Study Intersection SPRING STREET17 J A M E S S T

224 MADISON STREET 40 X Site location 18 JEFFERSON ST T E R R A C E S T

MARION STREET

A L D E R S T Figure 3. Year 2014 Existing Turn Movement Volumes,

COLUMBIA STREET WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN AM Peak Hour

CHERRY STREET JAMES STREET JEFFERSON STREET S AVE BOREN

YESLER WAY SECOND AVENUE SECOND S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

S KING STREET S KING STREET

Elliott Bay S WELLER STREET

S LANE STREET

FIFTH AVENUE S S DEARBORN STREET

ALASKAN WAY S

SEVENTH AVE S

FIRST AVENUE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

REPUBLICAN STREET

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

SEATTLE CENTER

EIGHTH AVENUE N

JOHN STREET PONTIUS

FIRST AVENUE W

QUEEN ANNE AVENUE FIRST AVENUE N BROAD STREET

NINTH AVENUE N

SR-99 WESTLAKE AVENUE N

TERRY AVENUE N

BOREN AVENUE N

FAIRVIEW AVENUE N

MINOR AVENUE N YALE AVENUE N ( 1 ) Aurora/Denny ( 2 ) 5th & Stewart ( 3 ) 5th & Olive ( 4 ) 7th & Union DENNY WAY 1 DENNY WAY

23 301 31 DENNY WAY 173

678 363 68 823 B A Y S T 324 52 119 196 438 442 E A G L E S T AURORA 624 216 29

E V A E L A Y

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH 720

SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH 329

FOURTH AVENUE FOURTH 31

EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH 51

SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH 5 141 192 MINOR AVENUE MINOR SECOND AVENUE SECOND

THIRD AVENUE THIRD

587 42 1

BOREN AVENUE BOREN WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN O L I V E W A Y

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK SCULPTURE OLYMPIC AVENUE TERRY ( 5 ) 6th & Union ( 6 ) 6th & University ( 7 ) 6th & Seneca ( 8 ) 6th & Spring

CLAY STREET NINTH AVENUE NINTH 194 48 262 CEDAR STREET 738 195 PINE BATTERY STREET HOWELL STREET 360 217 VINE STREET 254 252 716 42 334 217 852 200 62

728 WESTLAKE AVENUE 491 WALL STREET 49 454 BELL STREET 290 2 679 2 PIKE SEVENTH AVENUE ( 9 ) 5th & Union ( 10 ) 5th & University ( 11 ) 5th & Seneca ( 12 ) 5th & Spring BLANCHARD STREET 3 SIXTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE FIRST O L I V E W A Y

102 1,243 954 512

FIFTH AVENUE 120 674

1,050 128 ELLIOTT AVENUE ELLIOTT U N I O N S T LENORA STREET 548 357 128 FOURTH AVENUE 480

VIRGINIA ST THIRD AVENUE 573 608 4 292 64 SECOND AVENUE UNIVERSITY ST

E C A L P E I K P STEWART STREET 5 FIRST AVENUE

PINE STREET 9 ( 13 ) 4th & Union ( 14 ) 4th & University ( 15 ) 4th & Seneca ( 16 ) 4th and Madison ALASKAN WAY ALASKAN S E N E C A S T 13 6 PIKE STREET X 283 282 224 397 193 391 BUS LANE 10 S P R I N G S T 14 7 11 M A D I S O N S T 163 125 1,378 1,266 235 75 1,255 8 664 107 1,003 UNION STREET 15 12 M A R I O N S T

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST ( 17 ) 2nd & Madison ( 18 ) 2nd & Marion 16 SENECA STREET BROADWAY 74 1,266 C H E R R Y S T 1,287 149 Legend: 313 192 X Study Intersection SPRING STREET17 N J A M E S S T

244 MADISON STREET 100 X Site location 18 JEFFERSON ST T E R R A C E S T

MARION STREET

A L D E R S T Figure 4. Year 2014 Existing Turn Movement Volumes,

COLUMBIA STREET WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN PM Peak Hour

CHERRY STREET JAMES STREET JEFFERSON STREET S AVE BOREN

YESLER WAY SECOND AVENUE SECOND S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

S KING STREET S KING STREET

Elliott Bay S WELLER STREET

S LANE STREET

FIFTH AVENUE S S DEARBORN STREET

ALASKAN WAY S

SEVENTH AVE S

FIRST AVENUE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

2.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for the study intersections to determine existing operating conditions. LOS is an estimate of the quality and performance of the transportation system. The primary industry standard for evaluating traffic congestion at intersections is based on the Transportation Research Board’s methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209 (TRB 2000). Using this methodology, traffic congestion is measured based on average intersection delay (seconds/vehicle) with the letter “A” to describe the least amount of congestion and the best operations and the letter “F” for the highest amount of congestion and worst operations. The 2000 HCM level of service ratings and criteria are shown in Table 2. Although the City of Seattle does not have an adopted intersection LOS standard, 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 an impact.

Table 2. Highway Capacity Manual LOS Ratings

LOS Average Delay for Signalized Intersections Average Delay for Stop Control Intersections Rating (seconds/vehicle) (seconds/vehicle) A 0 – 10 0 – 10 B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15 C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25 D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35 E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50 F > 80 > 50

The existing AM and PM peak hour LOS for the 18 intersections evaluated in this analysis were determined using Synchro 9 software and the results are shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, the 6th Avenue / Seneca Street intersection currently operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour with over 120 seconds of delay. During the PM peak hour, the 6th Avenue / Spring Street intersection operates at LOS F with approximately 116 seconds delay.

October 2014 │ 2-7 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

Table 3. Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (#) Intersection Delay (seconds LOS (seconds / LOS / vehicle) vehicle) (1) SR 99 / Denny Way / 7th Avenue C 26 C 23 (2) 5th Avenue /Stewart Street B 20 B 16 (3) 5th Avenue /Olive Street B 10 B 12 (4) 7th Avenue /Union Street B 14 B 17 (5) 6th Avenue /Union Street B 19 B 19 (6) 6th Avenue /University Street B 13 B 15 (7) 6th Avenue /Seneca Street F >120 D 43 (8) 6th Avenue /Spring Street C 30 F 116 (9) 5th Avenue /Union Street B 13 B 13 (10) 5th Avenue /University Street B 20 C 27 (11) 5th Avenue /Seneca Street A 6 A 7 (12) 5th Avenue /Spring Street A 8 B 11 (13) 4th Avenue /Union Street A 8 A 8 (14) 4th Avenue /University Street A 8 B 16 (15) 4th Avenue /Seneca Street C 20 C 21 (16) 4th Avenue /Madison Street B 19 B 12 (17) 2nd Avenue /Madison Street B 12 B 14 (18) 2nd Avenue /Marion Street B 17 D 36

2.5 SAFETY Collision data was obtained from Seattle Department of Transportation for the intersections within the study area (Table 4) for a four year period, between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013. The data was reviewed to identify which, if any, of the study area intersections, consistently had high collision rates and/or safety concerns. During the four-year study period, there were 347 reported collisions, with one fatality at the 6th Avenue / Union Street intersection. The predominant type of collision at the intersections was right-angle, which typically result from red light violations, or vehicles not clearing an intersection when the opposing movement signal turns from red to green.

October 2014 │ 2-8 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

Table 4 Collision History

Collision Severity Collision Type

- Collisions Tota (#) Intersection per Year l Property Only Damage Injury Fatality Head Right Angle RearEnd Sideswipe Pedalcyclist Pedestrian Right Turn Turn Left CarParked Other (1) SR 99 / Denny Way / 7th 4.3 17 11 3 0 0 4 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 6 Avenue th (2) 5 Avenue /Stewart Street 3.5 14 9 5 0 0 8 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 th (3) 5 Avenue /Olive Street 3.3 13 10 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 1 th (4) 7 Avenue /Union Street 0.5 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 th (5) 6 Avenue /Union Street 3.8 15 8 3 1 0 3 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 4 (6) 6th Avenue /University 7.0 28 12 14 0 0 15 0 3 1 3 1 0 0 5 Street th (7) 6 Avenue /Seneca Street 6.8 27 18 6 0 0 19 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 th (8) 6 Avenue /Spring Street 2.5 10 4 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 th (9) 5 Avenue /Union Street 6.8 27 16 10 0 0 18 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 3 (10) 5th Avenue /University 9.8 39 22 15 0 1 26 1 1 1 3 0 2 1 3 Street th (11) 5 Avenue /Seneca Street 7.3 29 14 13 0 0 22 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 th (12) 5 Avenue /Spring Street 12.0 48 24 19 0 0 24 0 3 0 7 1 6 1 6 th (13) 4 Avenue /Union Street 3.8 15 8 5 0 0 1 3 4 1 2 1 1 0 2 (14) 4th Avenue /University 2.5 10 6 4 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 2 Street th (15) 4 Avenue /Seneca Street 3.8 15 12 3 0 0 0 1 8 1 1 0 1 0 3 th (16) 4 Avenue /Madison Street 2.0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 (17) 2nd Avenue /Madison 5.3 21 13 6 0 0 14 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 Street nd (18) 2 Avenue /Marion Street 2.3 9 6 2 0 0 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Total 86.8 347 199 117 1 1 164 17 36 6 35 7 30 2 49

2.6 PARKING AND CURB USE Paid, on-street parking is available along the west side of 4th Avenue, and along both sides of portions of Union Street and University Street. Parking rates at these locations are $4 per hour. Parking is not allowed on the eastside of 4th Avenue from 6-9 am and 3-7 pm due to the bus only lane. There is no parking on 5th Avenue. There is one public parking garage within the current site, located at 409 Union Street. The garage includes 86 parking stalls and is open seven days per week. Parking rates within the garage are $8 for two hours. Figure 5 depicts the existing curb uses adjacent to the 5th & Union development.

October 2014 │ 2-9

No stops (tow-away zone) Ent. 30 m2/ FVZ / 2h, 3 sp PLO 7-9 am/ 2hr, 2 sp

Union Street Consul vehicles only 2 hr, 2 sp NS Ent. NS 3 min FVZ / 2 hr, 3 sp

X X 2 sp 2 sp sp 2 sp 2 30 min 3 min Bus only 6-9 am, 3-7 pm except Sat, Sun, Holiday Holiday Sun, Sat, except pm 3-7 am, 6-9 only Bus min 3 min 30 X X X X X X Key: X X Primary use & restrictions / secondary use X X Ex. 3 min/2hr = 3 minute passenger load X X only 8-5 pm, otherwise 2-hour parking X X X X X X 2 hr - 2 hours max, pay to park X X NS - no stops X 5th Avenue X Ent. - entrance X X 3 min - 3 minute passenger load only X X X X 30 m1 - 30 minute parking X X 30 m2 - 30 minute commercial or permit X X 4th Avenue vehicle load only X X FVZ - food vehicle zone X X sp - parking space X X X X l/u - load/unload zone X X PLO - passenger load only X X XXXX - no parking at any time X X X X X X X X X X

3 min/ Taxis only 3 min/ Taxis NP 4-6 pm/ 2h, 7 sp l/u / NS 4-6 30 m1 2h, 2 sp NP 4-6 pm/ 2 sp 3 min, 2 sp 1 sp 2h , 2 sp X X X X 3 min/2h, 4 sp No stops 30 m2 3 min/2h, 3 sp No parking /PLO, 1sp University Street Unusable Curb Taxis, 2 sp Entrance to Fairmount 2 hr, 4 sp

Satellite image: Google Maps

Figure 5. Existing Street Parking and Curb Lane Restrictions

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

2.7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES All roadways near the site location have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and include marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the intersections. Additionally, there are two midblock roadway crossings, one located on 5th Avenue (between Union Street and University Street), and the other on University Street (between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue). The crossing on 5th Avenue includes a traffic light and pedestrian signal, while the University crossing does not have a traffic signal or other feature to stop traffic. There are no dedicated bicycle lanes within the immediate study area. However, 4th Avenue includes a sharrow. The City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan indicates future cycle tracks (protected bicycle lanes) could be located on 4th Avenue and Union Street. In-street bicycle lanes (with minor separation) is recommended for 5th Avenue.

2.8 TRANSIT A variety of transit options are available within the project study area, including bus and light rail. Primary transit providers include King County Metro and Sound Transit. There are two bus stops located adjacent to the project site, located along 4th Avenue between Union Street and University Street. Additionally, there are over 10 bus stops within two blocks of the site. These buses provide service to and from a variety of locations including areas around Downtown Seattle, Federal Way, Auburn, Kent, Renton, Mercer Island, SeaTac, Shoreline, and Kenmore. There is a dedicated Bus Only lane on 4th Avenue, between 6-9 AM and 3-7 PM daily.

October 2014 │ 2-13

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

3. FUTURE 2020 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS This section of the document describes the conditions of the project study area in the future (2020) without the proposed development. The analysis included modifications to the roadway network (if any), future traffic volumes, and traffic operations for the 18 intersections evaluated in the existing conditions model.

3.1 ROADWAY NETWORK There are no planned modifications that would change the configuration of any of the 18 intersections evaluated in this study. However, the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR 99) Replacement Program project that will change access to and from the study area from SR 99. The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project will demolish the existing viaduct and construct a new Alaskan Way surface street and tunnel for through traffic. Once that happens, the primary routes into the study area from SR 99 to and from the south would be Spring Street and Marion Street, and primary routes out are via Madison Street and Columbia Street.

3.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Year 2020 No-Build traffic volumes were forecasted using growth rates consistent with the Downtown EIS and pipeline project trips. The Downtown EIS indicated traffic volumes would increase by 20 percent during the PM peak hour and 10 percent during the AM peak hour, between the existing conditions and year 2020. The draft EIS was completed in 2003 so it was assumed the existing conditions was approximately 2003. A portion of that growth was applied to 2014 count data to develop 2020 forecasts for this analysis. It was assumed the growth would occur as “straight-line” growth, rather than compounding. The resulting growth applied to the 2014 count data was 7 percent for the PM peak hour and 3.5 percent for the AM peak hour. Pipeline traffic for the 1007 Stewart Street development (City of Seattle, 2014) was also included in the year 2020 forecasts. The resulting No-Build turn movement volumes for the AM and PM peak hours, are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.

October 2014 │ 3-1

REPUBLICAN STREET

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

SEATTLE CENTER

EIGHTH AVENUE N

JOHN STREET PONTIUS

FIRST AVENUE W

QUEEN ANNE AVENUE FIRST AVENUE N BROAD STREET

NINTH AVENUE N

SR-99 WESTLAKE AVENUE N

TERRY AVENUE N

BOREN AVENUE N

FAIRVIEW AVENUE N

MINOR AVENUE N YALE AVENUE N ( 1 ) Aurora/Denny ( 2 ) 5th & Stewart ( 3 ) 5th & Olive ( 4 ) 7th & Union DENNY WAY 1 DENNY WAY

35 652 116 DENNY WAY 364

1,064 397

87 1,210 352 B A Y S T 159 63 100 688 1,075 E A G L E S T AURORA 739 264 159

E V A E L A Y

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH

SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH 662 277

FOURTH AVENUE FOURTH 66

EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH

SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH 36

28 82

MINOR AVENUE MINOR SECOND AVENUE SECOND 5 THIRD AVENUE THIRD

267 64

1 BOREN AVENUE BOREN

WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN O L I V E W A Y

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK SCULPTURE OLYMPIC AVENUE TERRY ( 5 ) 6th & Union ( 6 ) 6th & University ( 7 ) 6th & Seneca ( 8 ) 6th & Spring CLAY STREET

NINTH AVENUE NINTH 190 202 CEDAR STREET 1,093 177 PINE 38 BATTERY STREET

HOWELL STREET 110 VINE STREET 713 1,131 121 171

247 1,045 255 514 185 123 451 WESTLAKE AVENUE 173 WALL STREET 24 554 BELL STREET 476 6 584 2 PIKE SEVENTH AVENUE

BLANCHARD STREET ( 9 ) 5th & Union ( 10 ) 5th & University ( 11 ) 5th & Seneca ( 12 ) 5th & Spring 3 SIXTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE FIRST O L I V E W A Y

FIFTH AVENUE 197 1,153 866 398 123 946 ELLIOTT AVENUE ELLIOTT U N I O N S T 1,127 242 LENORA STREET 732 554 FOURTH AVENUE 441 229

VIRGINIA ST 384 THIRD AVENUE 170 334 4 52 SECOND AVENUE UNIVERSITY ST

E C A L P E I K P STEWART STREET 5 PINEFIRST STREET AVENUE

9 ( 13 ) 4th & Union ( 14 ) 4th & University ( 15 ) 4th & Seneca ( 16 ) 4th and Madison ALASKAN WAY ALASKAN S E N E C A S T 13 6 PIKE STREET X 217 300 336 607 429 620 BUS LANE 10 S P R I N G S T 14 7 11 M A D I S O N S T 62 1,361 256 179 1,285 178 1,355 8 303 222 1,180 UNION STREET 15 12 M A R I O N S T

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST ( 17 ) 2nd & Madison ( 18 ) 2nd & Marion 16 SENECA STREET BROADWAY 96 1,058 C H E R R Y S T 986 201 Legend: 275 133 X Study Intersection SPRING STREET17 N J A M E S S T

232 MADISON STREET X Site location 18 JEFFERSON ST 41 T E R R A C E S T

MARION STREET

A L D E R S T Figure 6. No Build Conditions Turn Movement Volumes,

COLUMBIA STREET WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN AM Peak Hour

CHERRY STREET JAMES STREET JEFFERSON STREET S AVE BOREN

YESLER WAY SECOND AVENUE SECOND S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

S KING STREET S KING STREET

Elliott Bay S WELLER STREET

S LANE STREET

FIFTH AVENUE S S DEARBORN STREET

ALASKAN WAY S

SEVENTH AVE S

FIRST AVENUE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

REPUBLICAN STREET

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

SEATTLE CENTER

EIGHTH AVENUE N

JOHN STREET PONTIUS

FIRST AVENUE W

QUEEN ANNE AVENUE FIRST AVENUE N BROAD STREET FOURTH AVENUE

NINTH AVENUE N

SR-99 WESTLAKE AVENUE N

TERRY AVENUE N

BOREN AVENUE N

FAIRVIEW AVENUE N

MINOR AVENUE N YALE AVENUE N ( 1 ) Aurora/Denny ( 2 ) 5th & Stewart ( 3 ) 5th & Olive ( 4 ) 7th & Union DENNY WAY 1 DENNY WAY

25 322 33 DENNY WAY 185

726 389 73 881 B A Y S T 347 56 127 210 477 473

E A G L E S T AURORA 668 231 31

E V A E L A Y

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH 771

SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH 373

FOURTH AVENUE FOURTH 33 55 EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH

SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH 5 151 206 MINOR AVENUE MINOR SECOND AVENUE SECOND THIRD AVENUE THIRD

628 45 1

BOREN AVENUE BOREN WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN O L I V E W A Y

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK SCULPTURE OLYMPIC TERRY AVENUE TERRY ( 5 ) 6th & Union ( 6 ) 6th & University ( 7 ) 6th & Seneca ( 8 ) 6th & Spring CLAY STREET

NINTH AVENUE NINTH 208 280 CEDAR STREET 790 209 PINE 51 BATTERY STREET

HOWELL STREET 232 385 767 45 358

VINE STREET 232 912 272 270 214 66 779

WESTLAKE AVENUE 526 WALL STREET 52 486

310 2 727 BELL STREET 2 PIKE SEVENTH AVENUE ( 9 ) 5th & Union ( 10 ) 5th & University ( 11 ) 5th & Seneca ( 12 ) 5th & Spring BLANCHARD STREET 3 SIXTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE FIRST O L I V E W A Y

109 1,331 1,021 548

128 722

FIFTH AVENUE 1,124 137 ELLIOTT AVENUE ELLIOTT U N I O N S T LENORA STREET 587 382 514 137 FOURTH AVENUE

613 VIRGINIA ST 313 THIRD AVENUE 651 4 69 SECOND AVENUE UNIVERSITY ST

E C A L P E I K P STEWART STREET 5 FIRST AVENUE

PINE STREET 9 ( 13 ) 4th & Union ( 14 ) 4th & University ( 15 ) 4th & Seneca ( 16 ) 4th and Madison ALASKAN WAY ALASKAN S E N E C A S T 13 6 X 303 302 240 PIKE STREET 425 207 419 BUS LANE 10 S P R I N G S T 14 7 11 M A D I S O N S T 175 1,355 252 134 1,475 80 1,344 8 711 115 1,074 UNION STREET 15 12 M A R I O N S T

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST ( 17 ) 2nd & Madison ( 18 ) 2nd & Marion 16 SENECA STREET BROADWAY 79 1,355 C H E R R Y S T 1,378 160 Legend: 335 206 X Study Intersection SPRING STREET17 N J A M E S S T

261 MADISON STREET 107 X Site location 18 JEFFERSON ST T E R R A C E S T

MARION STREET

A L D E R S T Figure 7. Year 2020 No-Build Conditions Turn Movement Volumes,

COLUMBIA STREET WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN PM Peak Hour

CHERRY STREET JAMES STREET JEFFERSON STREET S AVE BOREN

YESLER WAY SECOND AVENUE SECOND S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

S KING STREET S KING STREET

Elliott Bay S WELLER STREET

S LANE STREET

FIFTH AVENUE S S DEARBORN STREET

ALASKAN WAY S

SEVENTH AVE S

FIRST AVENUE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

3.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The 2020 No-Build AM and PM peak hour LOS for the 18 intersections evaluated in this analysis are shown in Table 5. As shown, the same intersections as the 2014 existing conditions are expected to operate at LOS F: 6th Avenue / Seneca Street in the AM Peak Hour and 6th Avenue / Spring Street in the PM Peak Hour. The remaining intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS D or better.

Table 5. 2020 No-Build AM and PM Peak Hour LOS

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Intersection Delay (seconds LOS (seconds / LOS / vehicle) vehicle) (1) SR 99 / Denny Way / 7th Avenue C 27 C 24 (2) 5th Avenue /Stewart Street B 20 B 17 (3) 5th Avenue /Olive Street B 10 B 14 (4) 7th Avenue /Union Street B 14 B 18 (5) 6th Avenue /Union Street C 20 C 22 (6) 6th Avenue /University Street B 13 B 17 (7) 6th Avenue /Seneca Street F >120 D 51 (8) 6th Avenue /Spring Street C 33 F >120 (9) 5th Avenue /Union Street B 13 B 15 (10) 5th Avenue /University Street C 21 C 31 (11) 5th Avenue /Seneca Street A 6 A 8 (12) 5th Avenue /Spring Street A 9 B 12 (13) 4th Avenue /Union Street B 10 A 9 (14) 4th Avenue /University Street A 8 B 19 (15) 4th Avenue /Seneca Street C 22 C 23 (16) 4th Avenue /Madison Street C 20 B 13 (17) 2nd Avenue /Madison Street B 12 B 15 (18) 2nd Avenue /Marion Street B 17 D 54

October 2014 │ 3-7

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

4. FUTURE 2020 BUILD

4.1 ROADWAY NETWORK Similar to the 2020 No-Build roadway network, the 2020 Build Analysis network does not have any planned modifications that would change the configuration of any of the 18 intersections evaluated in this study. However, the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR 99) Replacement Program project that will change access to and from the study area from SR 99. The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project will demolish the existing viaduct and construct a new Alaskan Way surface street and tunnel for through traffic. Once that happens, the primary routes into the study area from SR 99 to and from the south would be Spring Street and Marion Street, and primary routes out are via Madison Street and Columbia Street

4.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION To determine the net new vehicle trips associated with the project, the total number of trips generated from the existing development and the total number of trips generated from the proposed development were calculated. Trip generation for both existing conditions and the proposed development was determined using rates and equations from ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The total trip generation calculations included reductions for pass-by trip calculations (for the existing Quality Restaurant and Bank land uses), and reductions due to the availability of other modes of transportation including transit, bike, and walking. A reduction in vehicle trips was applied to several of the existing and proposed land uses based on the Commute Seattle’s 2012 Center City Commuter Mode Split Survey Results Report (referred to as Mode Split Survey). This report describes the mode of transportation for work based trips. The results in the report indicate that up to 45 percent of all work based trips to and from the City occur via car and up to 45 percent via transit, rail, or ferry. The mode splits from the Mode Split Survey were applied to the vehicle trips estimated with the ITE trip generation, to estimate net new vehicle trips. The following assumptions were made:  For the General Office Building land use, the mode split used was consistent with the mode split survey, with 45 percent of trips accessing the site via a car.  It was assumed during the weekdays, the Specialty Retail users would access the site consistent with weekday commuters mode split.  The High-rise Apartment trip rates in the ITE manual are developed from surveys of similar urban areas. The resulting vehicle trip generation rates inherently include less vehicle trips due to other travel mode options (compared to low-rise apartments, which are typically less centrally located in a downtown core). It was assumed 100 percent of the High-rise Apartment trips calculated with the ITE trip rates therefore utilized a car.  Similarly, for the Hotel land use, it was assumed 100 percent of the trips calculated with the ITE trip generation manual would access the site via a car. Some travelers may arrive via the Link Light Rail (LRT) from the airport. However, there was not sufficient survey data to support a reduction in vehicle trips for a Hotel located within the CBD. To provide a conservative analysis of traffic impacts, the vehicle trips estimated from the ITE manual were not discounted.

October 2014 │ 4-1 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company The mode of travel splits applied to the trip generation land uses are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Mode of Travel (Weekday)

ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use (#) Vehicle Transit/Rail/Ferry Bike Walk

General Office Building (710) 45% 45% 3% 7% Specialty Retail (826) 45% 45% 3% 7% Hotel (310) 100% 0% 0% 0% High-Rise Apartment (822) 100% 0% 0% 0%

To determine the net new vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, the total number of trips generated from the existing development were subtracted from the total number of trips generated by the proposed development. The proposed development is expected to increase traffic by 4,216 trips per day, with 657 of those occurring in the AM peak hour and 554 in the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7.Vehicle Trips Generated by Proposed Development

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Trip Generation Manual Daily Land Use (#) Size Trips In Out Total In Out Total Existing Development Specialty Retail (826) 89,700 sf 1,790 13 15 28 48 61 109 Health/Fitness Club (492) 13,400 sf 200 5 4 9 12 9 21 Quality Restaurant (931) 20,200 sf 460 2 2 4 25 13 38 General Office Building (710) 15,700 sf 80 10 1 11 2 8 10 Walk-in Bank (911) 2,00 sf 50 2 2 4 4 4 8 Total 2,580 32 24 56 91 95 186 Proposed Development General Office Building (710) 790,000 sf 3922 488 66 554 90 440 530 Specialty Retail (826) 32,000 sf 640 5 5 10 17 22 39 Hotel (310) 180 rooms 1472 56 39 95 55 53 108 High-Rise Apartment (822) 181 dwu 762 14 40 54 38 25 63 Total 6,796 563 150 713 200 540 740

Net New Trips 4,216 531 126 657 109 445 554 * Trip generation calculation shown in this table include an adjustment to the ITE trip generation rates to account for higher transit usage where applicable.

October 2014 │ 4-2 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company 4.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The net new project trips were distributed onto the roadway network based on the City of Seattle Directors Rule 5-2009, and within the region based on local knowledge. The Directors Rule 5-2009 includes origin destination tables for various land uses. The tables indicate how trips would distribute within the City. Because the land uses for the 5th & Union development would draw regional trips as well, the distributions were adjusted to account for the regional trips. For example, a portion of trips to the hotel, would originate at SeaTac Airport. Trip distributions were developed for the General Office Building and Specialty Retail land uses, and separate distributions for the Hotel, and High-Rise Apartment land uses. General Office Building and Specialty Retail land uses were combined as the patterns identified were similar. The resulting trip distributions are shown in Figure 8. Year 2020 turn movements with the project are shown in Figures 9 and 10, for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

October 2014 │ 4-3

Ballard, Fremont and North Seattle and Snohomish DENNY WAY

NorthDENNY Seattle WAY Vicinity 20% / 25% / 15%

YALE AVE YALE

SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH 12% / 9% / 2%

MINOR AVENUE MINOR EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH

SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH

BOREN AVENUE BOREN OLIVE WAY

TERRY AVENUE TERRY NINTH AVENUE NINTH

PINE

HOWELL STREET

BELL STREET WESTLAKE AVENUE WESTLAKE PIKE

BLANCHARD STREET OLIVE WAY UNION ST

LENORA STREET

VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY ST Vicinity of Madison Park

PIKE PLACE PIKE STEWART STREET PINE STREET Ave 6th

SENECA ST and Capitol Hill 5th Ave 5th

PIKE STREET SPRING ST

4th Ave 4th 11% / 3% / 1%

3rd Ave 3rd MADISON ST UNION STREET Ave 2nd

MARION ST 1st Ave 1st

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST BROADWAY SENECA STREET CHERRY ST

SPRING STREET Vicinity of JAMES ST

MADISON STREET Mount Baker JEFFERSON ST TERRACE ST

MARION STREET 2% / 2% / 2%

ALDER ST

COLUMBIA STREET

WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN BOREN AVE S AVE BOREN CHERRY STREETJAMES STREETJEFFERSON STREET

YESLER WAY

S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

Legend: S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

% / % / % S KING STREET S KING STREET Residential / O ce & S WELLER STREET Retail / Hotel trip distributon S LANE STREET Eastside

FIFTH AVENUE S Inbound route S DEARBORN STREET 30% / 30% / 15% Outbound route

ALASKAN WAY S 90

SEVENTH AVE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FIRST AVENUE S FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAMSouth WAY Seattle, Seatac and West Seattle, Burien, Pierce County and Seatac Vicinity 20% / 25% / 50%

5% / 6% / 15% S ATLANTIC STREET/SR 519

Figure 8. Project Trip Distribution AIRPORT WAY S WAY AIRPORT

REPUBLICAN STREET

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

SEATTLE CENTER

EIGHTH AVENUE N

JOHN STREET PONTIUS

FIRST AVENUE W

QUEEN ANNE AVENUE FIRST AVENUE N BROAD STREET FOURTH AVENUE

NINTH AVENUE N

SR-99 WESTLAKE AVENUE N

TERRY AVENUE N

BOREN AVENUE N

FAIRVIEW AVENUE N

MINOR AVENUE N YALE AVENUE N ( 1 ) Aurora/Denny ( 2 ) 5th & Stewart ( 3 ) 5th & Olive ( 4 ) 7th & Union DENNY WAY 1 DENNY WAY

35 696 116 DENNY WAY 364

1,108 397 87 1,254 B A Y S T 159 63 352 100 688 1,204

E A G L E S T AURORA 739 264 159

E V A E L A Y

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH 662

SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH 284

FOURTH AVENUE FOURTH 66 36 EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH

SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH 5 28 82 MINOR AVENUE MINOR SECOND AVENUE SECOND

THIRD AVENUE THIRD

277 64 1

BOREN AVENUE BOREN WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN O L I V E W A Y

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK SCULPTURE OLYMPIC TERRY AVENUE TERRY ( 5 ) 6th & Union ( 6 ) 6th & University ( 7 ) 6th & Seneca ( 8 ) 6th & Spring CLAY STREET

NINTH AVENUE NINTH 190 202 CEDAR STREET 1,222 177 PINE 38 BATTERY STREET

HOWELL STREET 110 1,010 1,444 121 171

VINE STREET 560 1,050 260 514 188 123 522

WESTLAKE AVENUE 192 WALL STREET 24 570

492 6 584 BELL STREET 2 PIKE SEVENTH AVENUE ( 9 ) 5th & Union ( 10 ) 5th & University ( 11 ) 5th & Seneca ( 12 ) 5th & Spring BLANCHARD STREET 3 SIXTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE FIRST O L I V E W A Y

197 1,238 877 472

212 955

FIFTH AVENUE 1,130 248 ELLIOTT AVENUE ELLIOTT U N I O N S T LENORA STREET 1,174 554 441 229 FOURTH AVENUE

VIRGINIA ST THIRD AVENUE 402 334 4 252 52 SECOND AVENUE UNIVERSITY ST

E C A L P E I K P STEWART STREET 5 FIRST AVENUE

PINE STREET 9 ( 13 ) 4th & Union ( 14 ) 4th & University ( 15 ) 4th & Seneca ( 16 ) 4th and Madison ALASKAN WAY ALASKAN S E N E C A S T 13 6 X 238 300 338 PIKE STREET 613 429 624 BUS LANE 10 S P R I N G S T 14 7 11 M A D I S O N S T 62 1,406 256 179 1,330 178 1,400 8 303 222 1,197 UNION STREET 15 12 M A R I O N S T

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST ( 17 ) 2nd & Madison ( 18 ) 2nd & Marion Union Driveway University Driveway 16 SENECA STREET BROADWAY

100 1,058 986 201

C H E R R Y S T 139 Legend: 279 824 133 648 SPRING STREET17 N X Study Intersection J A M E S S T 554

243 MADISON STREET 41 X Site location 18 JEFFERSON ST T E R R A C E S T

MARION STREET

A L D E R S T Figure 9. Year 2020 Build Turn Movement Volumes,

COLUMBIA STREET WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN AM Peak Hour

CHERRY STREET JAMES STREET JEFFERSON STREET S AVE BOREN

YESLER WAY SECOND AVENUE SECOND S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

S KING STREET S KING STREET

Elliott Bay S WELLER STREET

S LANE STREET

FIFTH AVENUE S S DEARBORN STREET

ALASKAN WAY S

SEVENTH AVE S

FIRST AVENUE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

REPUBLICAN STREET

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

SEATTLE CENTER

EIGHTH AVENUE N

JOHN STREET PONTIUS

FIRST AVENUE W

QUEEN ANNE AVENUE FIRST AVENUE N BROAD STREET FOURTH AVENUE

NINTH AVENUE N

SR-99 WESTLAKE AVENUE N

TERRY AVENUE N

BOREN AVENUE N

FAIRVIEW AVENUE N

MINOR AVENUE N YALE AVENUE N ( 1 ) Aurora/Denny ( 2 ) 5th & Stewart ( 3 ) 5th & Olive ( 4 ) 7th & Union DENNY WAY 1 DENNY WAY

25 328 33 DENNY WAY 185

732 389 73 887 B A Y S T 347 56 127 210 477 493 E A G L E S T AURORA 668 231 31

E V A E L A Y

FIFTH AVENUE FIFTH 771

SIXTH AVENUE SIXTH 399

FOURTH AVENUE FOURTH 33

EIGHTH AVENUE EIGHTH 55

SEVENTH AVENUE SEVENTH 151 206

MINOR AVENUE MINOR 5 SECOND AVENUE SECOND THIRD AVENUE THIRD

665

45 1

BOREN AVENUE BOREN WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN O L I V E W A Y

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK SCULPTURE OLYMPIC AVENUE TERRY ( 5 ) 6th & Union ( 6 ) 6th & University ( 7 ) 6th & Seneca ( 8 ) 6th & Spring CLAY STREET

NINTH AVENUE NINTH 208 280 CEDAR STREET 810 209 PINE 51 BATTERY STREET

HOWELL STREET 232 449

VINE STREET 837 45 358

302 929 289 270 222 66 1,028

WESTLAKE AVENUE 605 WALL STREET 52 492

316 2 727 BELL STREET 2 PIKE SEVENTH AVENUE ( 9 ) 5th & Union ( 10 ) 5th & University ( 11 ) 5th & Seneca ( 12 ) 5th & Spring BLANCHARD STREET 3 SIXTH AVENUE

FIRST AVENUE FIRST O L I V E W A Y

109 1,618 1,051 805

FIFTH AVENUE 147 757

1,132 164 ELLIOTT AVENUE ELLIOTT U N I O N S T LENORA STREET 677 382 137 FOURTH AVENUE 514

682 VIRGINIA ST THIRD AVENUE 592 651 4 69 SECOND AVENUE UNIVERSITY ST

E C A L P E I K P STEWART STREET 5 FIRST AVENUE

PINE STREET 9 ( 13 ) 4th & Union ( 14 ) 4th & University ( 15 ) 4th & Seneca ( 16 ) 4th and Madison ALASKAN WAY ALASKAN S E N E C A S T 13 6 PIKE STREET X 384 302 240 441 207 431 BUS LANE 10 S P R I N G S T 14 7 11 M A D I S O N S T 175 1,368 252 134 1,488 80 1,357 8 711 115 1,078 UNION STREET 15 12 M A R I O N S T

UNIVERSITY STREET COLUMBIA ST ( 17 ) 2nd & Madison ( 18 ) 2nd & Marion Union Driveway University Driveway 16 SENECA STREET BROADWAY

87 1,356 1,379 160

C H E R R Y S T 348 Legend: 347 728 206 215

SPRING STREET17 N J A M E S S T X Study Intersection 926 277 263 MADISON STREET 107 X Site location 18 JEFFERSON ST T E R R A C E S T

MARION STREET

A L D E R S T Figure 10. Year 2020 Build Turn Movement Volumes,

COLUMBIA STREET WESTERN AVENUE WESTERN PM Peak Hour

CHERRY STREET JAMES STREET JEFFERSON STREET S AVE BOREN

YESLER WAY SECOND AVENUE SECOND S WASHINGTON STREET

S MAIN STREET S MAIN STREET

S JACKSON STREET S JACKSON STREET

S KING STREET S KING STREET

Elliott Bay S WELLER STREET

S LANE STREET

FIFTH AVENUE S S DEARBORN STREET

ALASKAN WAY S

SEVENTH AVE S

FIRST AVENUE S

OCCIDENTAL AVENUE S

FOURTH AVENUE S ROYAL BROUGHAM WAY

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

4.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Future 2020 levels of service were determined with the project and compared to conditions without the project (Section 3.3) as well as existing conditions (Section 2.4). The 2020 Build AM and PM peak hour LOS for the 18 intersections evaluated in this analysis are shown in Table 8. As shown in the table, two intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or F in the future, with or without the project: 6th Avenue / Seneca Street (in the AM Peak Hour) and 6th Avenue / Spring Street (in the PM Peak Hour). Additionally, two intersections are likely to experience LOS E or F with the project during the PM Peak Hour: 5th Avenue / University Street and 6th Avenue / Seneca Street. Potential mitigation options for both intersections that would improve intersection operations to LOS D as described in Section 5.2. Three of the study intersections were included in the Downtown EIS traffic analysis. These include 5th Avenue / Stewart Street, 5th Avenue / Olive, and SR 99 / Denny Way / 7th Avenue. The analysis shows that intersection operations with the 5th & Union Project operate at a better LOS than identified in the Downtown EIS. Therefore, the traffic impacts from this project fall within the range of impacts identified in the Downtown EIS. The SR 99 / Denny Way / 7th Avenue intersection was projected to operate at LOS F in the year 2020 No Action condition and LOS E in the Action condition. Based on current count data and annual growth forecasted in the Downtown EIS, this intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS C or better in the year 2020 with or without the 5th & Union Project. Similarly the 5th Avenue / Stewart Street intersection was forecasted to operate at LOS F and 5th Avenue / Olive Street at LOS D. Based on current count data and annual growth forecasted in the Downtown EIS, these intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS C or better in the year 2020 with or without the 5th & Union Project.

October 2014 │ 4-11 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

Table 8. 2014 Existing, 2020 No-Build and 2020 Build AM and PM Peak Hour LOS

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Intersection 2014 Existing 2020 No Build 2020 Build 2014 Existing 2020 No Build 2020 Build Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) (1) SR 99 / Denny Way / 7th C 26 C 27 C 28 C 23 C 24 C 25 Avenue (2) 5th Avenue C 20 C 20 C 20 B 16 B 17 B 17 /Stewart Street (3) 5th Avenue B 10 B 10 B 11 B 12 B 14 B 15 /Olive Street (4) 7th Avenue B 14 B 14 B 14 B 17 B 18 B 18 /Union Street (5) 6th Avenue B 19 C 20 D 38 B 19 C 22 C 23 /Union Street (6) 6th Avenue /University B 13 B 13 B 16 B 15 B 17 C 21 Street (7) 6th Avenue F >120 F >120 F >120 D 43 D 51 E 75 /Seneca Street (8) 6th Avenue C 30 C 33 D 44 F 116 F >120 F >120 /Spring Street (9) 5th Avenue B 13 B 13 B 14 B 13 B 15 B 15 /Union Street (10) 5th Avenue /University C 20 C 21 C 28 C 27 C 31 F >120 Street (11) 5th Avenue A 6 A 6 A 6 A 7 A 8 A 9 /Seneca Street (12) 5th Avenue A 8 A 9 A 9 B 11 B 12 D 35 /Spring Street (13) 4th Avenue A 8 B 10 B 10 A 8 A 9 B 11 /Union Street (14) 4th Avenue /University A 8 A 8 A 9 B 16 B 19 B 19 Street (15) 4th Avenue C 20 C 22 C 22 C 21 C 23 C 26 /Seneca Street (16) 4th Avenue B 19 C 20 C 20 B 12 B 13 B 13 /Madison Street (17) 2nd Avenue B 12 B 12 B 12 B 14 B 15 B 15 /Madison Street (18) 2nd Avenue B 17 B 17 B 17 D 36 D 54 D 55 /Marion Street

October 2014 │ 4-12 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

Table 9. Intersection LOS Comparison to Downtown EIS

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

2020 w/ 2020 5th & 2020 2020 2020 w/ 5th 2020 No Action Union No Action & Union (#) Location Existing* Action* Alt 1* Project** Existing* Action* Alt 1* Project** (1) SR 99 / Denny Way / B C C C C F E C 7th Avenue (2) 5th Avenue /Stewart F F F C B C C B Street (3) 5th Avenue /Olive D C C B C D C B Street * Downtown EIS ** 5th & Union Project

4.5 SITE ACCESS Two driveways into the underground garage will be provided as shown in Figure 11. An ingress/egress driveway will be located off of Union Street on the north side of the development. The egress movement will be left turn only as Union Street operates one-way westbound. On the south side, an egress driveway will be provided onto University Street. University Street is one-way eastbound, so the driveway will only allow left turns out. Both driveways will be unsignalized and operate at LOS E or better in the year 2020 with the proposed development during the AM and PM peak hours. The delay would be experienced for the vehicles exiting the garage. The through traffic on Union or University would operate free flow. The driveway LOS operations are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Driveway Level of Service

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay (seconds / Delay (seconds / LOS LOS vehicle) vehicle) Union Street Driveway E 49 C 25 (egress movement) University Street Driveway B 11 C 19 (egress movement)

4.6 SAFETY Typically as traffic or pedestrian volumes increase, so do the frequency of collisions. The increase in traffic associated with the development, would inherently increase the frequency of collisions. However, the project development is not anticipated to worsen an existing geometric or roadway condition, thereby not creating an adverse impact. A warning sign at the top of the driveway exit onto University Street would help to increase awareness of pedestrians in the midblock crosswalk and minimize the potential for collisions. Additional discussion of the pedestrian crosswalks are included in Section 4.8.

October 2014 │ 4-13 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company 4.7 PARKING The development would reconstruct the existing underground parking garage to include a total of 879 parking spaces. Occupants of the existing Rainier Tower will be reserved approximately 200 stalls. The remaining 679 parking spaces will support the Office, Specialty Retail, Hotel, and High-rise Apartment land uses. The parking utilization throughout the day was estimated based on the ITE’s Parking Generation manual (4th edition, 2010). The peak use was calculated and the distribution of demand through the day was applied. The parking garage is forecasted to be fully utilized during the peak office hours (or 8 AM to 5 PM). For eight hours, the demand could exceed the capacity by over 100 vehicles. Table 11 summarizes the parking garage utilization analysis. The excess parking demand could be accommodated in other nearby parking facilities, or transit use to the building could be much higher resulting in lower parking demand from the project.

October 2014 │ 4-14 UNION STREET

FIFTH AVENUE

Union Driveway (Ingress & Egress)

FOURTH AVENUE

University Driveway (Egress only)

UNIVERSITY STREET

Figure 11. Site Access

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

Table 11. Parking Garage Utilization

5th & Union Land Use Utilization Rainier General Specialty High-rise Total (Capacity Tower Office Retail Hotel Apartment Demand 897) Peak use 200 945 81 90 99 Time of day

12-4AM 200 0 0 68 97 365 42% 5:00 AM 200 0 0 68 99 367 42% 6:00 AM 200 95 0 71 83 449 51% 7:00 AM 200 180 4 69 61 514 58% 8:00 AM 200 605 15 90 41 951 108% 9:00 AM 200 860 31 86 34 1211 138% 10:00 AM 200 936 55 50 32 1273 145% 11:00 AM 200 936 74 47 31 1288 147% 12:00 PM 200 926 81 54 30 1291 147% 1:00 PM 200 907 79 54 31 1271 145% 2:00 PM 200 945 77 50 33 1305 148% 3:00 PM 200 936 71 47 37 1291 147% 4:00 PM 200 851 63 48 45 1207 137% 5:00 PM 200 548 50 52 60 910 104% 6:00 PM 200 378 52 56 68 754 86% 7:00 PM 200 189 62 59 71 581 66% 8:00 PM 200 47 57 61 79 444 51% 9:00 PM 200 0 34 68 88 390 44% 10:00 PM 200 0 0 68 91 359 41% 11:00 PM 200 0 0 68 93 361 41% The garage will accommodate SU-30 and SU-40 vehicles for loading and unloading, and refuse, recycling, and compost collection vehicles. The project does not currently plan to revise the existing on-street parking and loading zones on the block faces surrounding the development. Future requests for conversion of some on- street spaces to passenger or truck loading zones could be made to SDOT after the project is completed and occupied.

4.8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES The project area is served by a complete sidewalk network and two midblock crossings, located on University Street between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue, and on 5th Avenue between Union Street and University Street. The mid-block crossing on 5th Avenue is signalized today. There are no anticipated changes to this condition with the 5th & Union Project.

October 2014 │ 4-17 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company Directly east of the University Street driveway is a crosswalk which is currently unsignalized. Sight lines to the crosswalk from vehicle drivers exiting the garage would need to be maintained. There are a few options in how to operate and sign the crosswalk to improve safety.  Maintain conditions similar to existing - The crosswalk would be restriped and ramps will be improved to meet ADA requirements.  Full signalization – Full signalization of the crosswalk would stop University Street traffic when a pedestrian activates the signal. In addition, a warning system or stop control could be activated to stop the garage egress movement when the light is red to allow pedestrians to cross.  Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) mounted on the pedestrian crossing warning sign – RRFBs are amber LEDs that are activated by the pedestrian. The LED lights provide a warning system to vehicular traffic that a pedestrian is present. The advantage of RRFB’s over a full signal is the flashing LED lights are very visible in a wide variety of weather conditions. They are mounted at the driver’s eye height and have proven to be an effective way to catch a driver’s attention. The disadvantage of RRFB’s is it would be pedestrian activated and would not be timed to maintain signal progression on University Street. Bicycle-parking facility requirements, per the City of Seattle’s Land Use Code, are 1 space per 5,000 sf per the first 50,000 sf of office use, then 1 space per 10,000 sf after that. The project will provide adequate bicycle facilities to meeting the City code.

4.9 TRANSIT The Downtown EIS reported travel times for bus routes through the downtown CBD. The 5th & Union Project would likely increase transit ridership for routes serving the area. It is estimated that 45 percent of the Office Building and Specialty Retail trips would utilize transit. This is equal to 650 AM and 700 PM peak hour person trips. Given the transit service levels in the area, including Link light rail extensions to Lynnwood and Bellevue, there would be adequate capacity to serve this increase in demand. Transit travel times and reliability are dependent on a well-functioning transportation system. The operations analysis indicated that two of the study intersections that are within the transit corridors would operate at LOS F if no changes to signal timings or capacity changes were provided. However, signal timing changes and rechannelization has been identified that would improve these intersection operates to LOS D or better, or similar to the No Build condition.

4.10 TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY The City of Seattle established a Transportation Concurrency policy under the Washington State Growth Management Act. The City uses a screenline approach to monitor transportation concurrency. The City has defined 30 screenlines, each of which encompass one or more arterials in the City, and has an established LOS standard. To evaluate transportation concurrency, the estimated vehicle trips generated by the project (Section 4.3) and background traffic volumes are compared to the capacity for the screenline.

October 2014 │ 4-18 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company This comparison develops a volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c ratio). If the project’s v/c ratio is lower than or equal to the LOS standard for the screenline, the project passes concurrency. Three screenlines were evaluated for this project:  North of Seneca Street  1st Avenue / Office Core, East of 1st  6th Avenue / Office Core, East of 6th The net change in the project trips were added to the 2020 No-Build volumes used in the Downtown DEIS. The LOS standards and v/c ratios are presented in Table 12. Overall, the screenline v/c ratios with the 5th & Union Project are similar to those identified in the Downtown EIS. The 5th & Union Project v/c ratios range from 1 percent lower to up to 7 percent higher than the Downtown EIS Build condition. The project v/c ratios are still under the City’s threshold of 1.20. Therefore transportation concurrency for the project is met.

Table 12. LOS Screenlines with Proposed Development

Screenline 2: North of Seneca Screenline 4: 1st Avenue / Screenline 7: 6th Avenue /

Street Office Core, East of 1st Office Core, East of 6th Direction NB SB WB EB WB EB Capacity 7,800 6,600 9,500 10,700 9,600 9,600 2020 No- Action Volume (Downtown EIS) Volume 4,950 3,760 2,560 2,820 6,740 6,250 5th & Union Project Project Trips 354 101 11 37 436 110 Volumes with 5,304 3,861 2,571 2,857 7,176 6,360 Project v/c Ratio 0.68 0.59 0.27 0.27 0.75 0.66 2020 Build, Alt 1 Volume (Downtown EIS)

AM Peak Hour Volume 4,980 3,790 2,530 2,820 6,700 6,310 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.57 0.27 0.26 0.70 0.66 Comparison (5th & Union Project / +7% +2% +2% +1% +7% +1% 2020 Build Alt 1) 2020 No-Action Volume (Downtown EIS) Volume 6,220 5,450 3,520 3,460 5,600 8,970 5th & Union Project Project Trips 105 313 32 13 121 362 Volumes with 6,325 5,763 3,552 3,473 5,721 9,332 Project v/c Ratio 0.81 0.87 0.37 0.32 0.60 0.97 2020 Build, Alt 1 Volume (Downtown EIS)

PM Peak Hour Volume 6,290 5,520 3,570 3,350 5,620 8,930 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.84 0.38 0.31 0.59 0.93 Comparison (5th & Union Project / +1% +4% -1% +4% +2% +5% 2020 Build Alt 1)

October 2014 │ 4-19 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company 4.11 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC Construction of the development would include the following activities and durations:  Demolition, shoring, excavation – 6 months  Building structure and enclosure – 20 months  Residential, retail and office build-out – 6 months Construction activities may result in periodic lane and sidewalk closures. Haul routes will access the primary arterial system between the site and I-5. The limitations on construction activities and obligations of the owner are documented in the City code. In addition, a Construction Management Plan would be completed, as discussed in Section 5.1.

October 2014 │ 4-20 5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

5. MITIGATION The transportation impacts of the proposed development are consistent with those identified in the Downtown EIS. Measures to mitigate construction and operational impacts are described below.

5.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The Contractor should prepare a Construction Management Plan that documents the following:  Truck haul routes (to and from the site)  Peak hour restrictions for construction truck traffic  Communication and Enforcement of restrictions  Truck staging areas  Construction employee parking areas  Measure to reduce construction employee trips  Lane, sidewalk, or bike lane closures required  Temporary traffic control, channelization, and signalization measures for all closures  Impacts to King County Metro stops  Other details, as required by City of Seattle, to obtain street use permit

5.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS As described in section 4.4, two of the study intersections are likely to experience LOS E or F conditions with the project compared to without the project during the PM Peak Hour: 5th Avenue / University Street and 6th Avenue / Seneca Street. Today, the intersection of 5th Avenue / University Street includes three through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. Converting an eastbound through lane to an eastbound through/right and retiming the signal to move up to ten seconds of green time from the southbound movement to the eastbound movements could improve the signal operations to LOS D. At 6th Avenue / Seneca Street, reducing the northbound pedestrian walk time from 10 seconds to 5, and reallocating green time to the off ramp movement would improve the signal operations from LOS E to LOS D. Retiming either signals would require additional coordination with the City to determine if the changes can be implemented without negatively affecting vehicle progression through the coordinated system.

October 2014 │ 5-1

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to transportation related to the development.

October 2014 │ 6-1

5th & Union Transportation Impact Study Wright Runstad & Company

7. REFERENCES City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. 2005. Draft and Final EIS for the Downtown Height and Density Changes, Draft EIS completed November 2003; Final EIS completed January 2005. City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. 2009. Transportation Concurrency Project Review System, Director’s Rule 5-2009, Effective April 13, 2009. City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development. 2012. South Lake Union Height and Density Alternatives EIS, Draft EIS completed February 2011; Final EIS completed April 2012. City of Seattle Department of Transportation, Collision data, obtained for period from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013. City of Seattle, Arterial Classification Map, 2003. City of Seattle, Major Truck Street Map, 2003. City of Seattle, Transit Classification Map, 2006. City of Seattle, Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan, September 2009. City of Seattle, Bicycle Master Plan, April 2014. City of Seattle. 2014. Addendum to the Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS, 1007 Stewart Street Development, June 2014. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 4th Edition, 2010. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.

October 2014 │ 7-1

APPENDIX D

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation Spreadsheet

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

Section I: Buildings

Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet (MTCO2e)

Square Feet (in Lifespan Emissions thousands of Embodied Embodied Energy Transportation Tranportation with Standard Lifespan Emissions Percent of Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) # Units square feet) Multiplier Emissions Multiplier Energy Emissions Multiplier Emissions Multipliers (MTCO2e) Total Single-Family Home...... 0 98 672 792 0 Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ...... 179 33 5,870 357 63,963 766 137,037 206,869 206,869 Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ...... 0 54 681 766 0 Mobile Home...... 0 41 475 709 0 Multi Family in Mixed Use High Rise...... 280.0 33 9,240 400 112,000 300 84,000 205,240 15.7% Education ...... 0.0 39 646 361 0 Food Sales ...... 0.0 39 1,541 282 0 Food Service ...... 0.0 39 1,994 561 0 Health Care Inpatient ...... 0.0 39 1,938 582 0 Health Care Outpatient ...... 0.0 39 737 571 0 Lodging ...... 120.0 39 4,646 777 93,270 117 14,059 111,975 111,975 8.6% Retail (Other Than Mall)...... 74.0 39 2,865 577 42,717 247 18,262 63,844 63,844 4.9% Office ...... 780.0 39 30,198 723 563,970 411 320,825 105,489 914,993 70.1% Public Assembly ...... 0.0 39 733 150 0 Public Order and Safety ...... 0.0 39 899 374 0 Underground Parking...... 369.0 15 5,535 10 3,690 9,225 0.7% Service ...... 0.0 39 599 266 0 Warehouse and Storage ...... 39 352 181 0 Other .....Parking...... 39 1,278 257 0 Vacant ...... 0.0 39 162 47 0 Project Emissions by Category ...... 52,484 815,647 437,147 1,435,178 1,305,277 100.0% Percent by Category...... 4.02% 62.49% 33.49%

Highlighted cells indicate adjustmens in standard emission multipliers

Version 1.7 12/26/07 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

City of Seattle Department of Planning and Developmen t SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet Version 1.7 12/26/07

Introduction The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA ) requires environmental review of development proposals that may have a sig nifican t adverse impact on the environment. If a proposed development is subj ect to SEPA, the project proponent is required to complete the SEPA Checklis t. The Checklist includes questions relating to the development's air emissio ns. The emissions that have traditionally been considered cover smoke, dust, an d industrial and automobile emissions. With our understanding of the climate c hange impacts of GHG emissions, the City of Seattle requires the applican t to also estimate these emissions.

Emissions created by Development GHG emissions associated with development come from multiple sources: • The extraction, processing, transportation, constr uction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emiss ions) • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions) • Transportation demands created by the development a fter it is completed (Transportation Emissions)

GHG Emissions Worksheet This GHG Emissions Worksheet has been developed to assist applicants in answering the SEPA Checklist question relating to G HG emissions. The worksheet was originally developed by King County, b ut the City of Seattle and King County are working together on future updates t o maintain consistency of methodologies across jurisdictions.

The SEPA G HG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions th at will be Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

The SEPA G HG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions th at will be created over the life span of a project. This inclu des emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during a buildings operation, and transportation by building occupants.

Using the Worksheet 1. Descriptions of the different residential and com mercial building types can be found on the second tabbed worksheet ("Definition o f Building Types"). If a development proposal consists of mult iple projects, e.g. both single family and multi-family residential structures or a commercial development that consist s of more than on type of commercial activity, the ap propriate information should be estimated for each type of building or ac tivity.

2. For paving, estimate the total amount of paving (in thousands of square feet of the project.

3. The Worksheet will calculate the amount of GHG emis sions associated with the project and display the amount in the "Total Em issions" column on the worksheet. The applicant should use this informatio n when completing the SEPA checklist.

4. The last three worksheets in the Excel file provide the background information that is used to calculate the total GHG emissions.

5. The methodology of creating the estimates is tra nsparent; if there is reason to believe that a better estimate can be obtained by c hanging specific values, this can and should be done. Changes to the values shou ld be documented with an explanation of why and the sources relied upon.

6. Print out the “Total Emissions” worksheet and attach it to the SEPA checklist. If the applicant has made changes to the calculatio ns or the values, the documentation supporting those changes should also be attached to the SEPA checklist.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

Definition of Building Types Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Description

Single-Family Home...... Unless otherwise specified, this includes both attached and detached buildings Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ...... Apartments in buildings with more than 5 units Multi Family in Mixed Use High Rise...... Utilizes multipliers adjusted from standards in this report Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ...... Apartments in building with 2-4 units Mobile Home...... Buildings used for academic or technical classroom instruction, such as elementary, middle, or high schools, and classroom buildings on college or university campuses. Buildings on education campuses for which the main use is not classroom are included in the category relating to their use. For example, administration buildings are part of "Office," dormitories are Education ...... "Lodging," and libraries are "Public Assembly." Food Sales ...... Buildings used for retail or wholesale of food. Buildings used for preparation and sale of food and beverages for Food Service ...... consumption. Health Care Inpatient ...... Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for inpatient care.

Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for outpatient care. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they use any type of diagnostic Health Care Outpatient ...... medical equipment (if they do not, they are categorized as an office building). Buildings used to offer multiple accommodations for short-term or long-term Lodging ...... residents, including skilled nursing and other residential care buildings. Retail (Other Than Mall)...... Buildings used for the sale and display of goods other than food. Buildings used for general office space, professional office, or administrative offices. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they do not use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do, they are categorized as an outpatient health care building). Not directly applicable to downtown high rise development, requires Office ...... adjustment of standard multipliers Buildings in which people gather for social or recreational activities, whether in Public Assembly ...... private or non-private meeting halls. Public Order and Safety ...... Buildings used for the preservation of law and order or public safety. Buildings in which people gather for religious activities, (such as chapels, Religious Worship ...... churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

Buildings in which some type of service is provided, other than food service or Service ...... retail sales of goods Buildings used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise, raw Warehouse and Storage ...... materials, or personal belongings (such as self-storage). Buildings that are industrial or agricultural with some retail space; buildings having several different commercial activities that, together, comprise 50 percent or more of the floorspace, but whose largest single activity is agricultural, industrial/ manufacturing, or residential; and all other Other ...... miscellaneous buildings that do not fit into any other category. Buildings in which more floorspace was vacant than was used for any single commercial activity at the time of interview. Therefore, a vacant building may Vacant ...... have some occupied floorspace.

Sources: ...... Residential 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html

Commercial Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Description of CBECS Building Types http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/bldgtypes.html Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Rundstad Rainier Square

Embodied Emissions Worksheet Section I: Buildings Life span related Life span related embodied # thousand embodied GHG GHG missions (MTCO2e/ Type (Residential) or Principal Activity sq feet/ unit missions (MTCO2e/ thousand square feet) - See (Commercial) or building unit) calculations in table below Single-Family Home...... 2.53 98 39 Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ...... 0.85 33 39 Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ...... 1.39 54 39 Mobile Home...... 1.06 41 39 Education ...... 25.6 991 39 Food Sales ...... 5.6 217 39 Food Service ...... 5.6 217 39 Health Care Inpatient ...... 241.4 9,346 39 Health Care Outpatient ...... 10.4 403 39 Lodging ...... 35.8 1,386 39 Retail (Other Than Mall)...... 9.7 376 39 Office ...... 14.8 573 39 Public Assembly ...... 14.2 550 39 Public Order and Safety ...... 15.5 600 39 Religious Worship ...... 10.1 391 39 Service ...... 6.5 252 39 Warehouse and Storage ...... 16.9 654 39 Other ...... 21.9 848 39 Vacant ...... 14.1 546 39

Section II: Pavement...... All Types of Pavement...... 50

Intermediate Interior Columns and Beams Floors Exterior Walls Windows Walls Roofs Average GWP (lbs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver, Low Rise Building 5.3 7.8 19.1 51.2 5.7 21.3 Total Total Embodied Embodied Emissions Average Materials in a 2,272-square foot Emissions (MTCO2e/ single family home 0.0 2269.0 3206.0 285.0 6050.0 3103.0 (MTCO2e) thousand sq feet) MTCO2e 0.0 8.0 27.8 6.6 15.6 30.0 88.0 38.7

Sources All data in black text King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, [email protected]

Residential floorspace per unit 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html

Floorspace per building EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set9/2003excel/c3.xls

Average GWP (lbs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver, Low Rise Building Athena EcoCalculator Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Rundstad Rainier Square

Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2.3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) per square meter http://www.athenasmi.ca/tools/ecoCalculator/index.html Lbs per kg 2.20 Square feet per square meter 10.76

Average Materials in a 2,272-square foot single family home Buildings Energy Data Book: 7.3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2,272-Square-Foot Single-Family Home, 2000 http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/?id=view_book_table&TableID=2036&t=xls See also: NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, Feb. 2004, p. 7.

Average window size Energy Information Administration/Housing Characteristics 1993 Appendix B, Quality of the Data. Pg. 5. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/residential/rx93hcf.pdf

Pavement Emissions Factors MTCO2e/thousand square feet of asphalt or concrete pavement 50 (see below) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Rundstad Rainier Square

Embodied GHG Emissions…………………….Worksheet Background Information Special Section: Estimating the Embodied Emissionsfor Pavement

Buildings Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the itper embodied un Embodied GHG emissions are emissions that areed creat through the extraction, emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed slightly in different ways; however, the aggregatesults re of the processing, transportation, construction and disposal of building materials as well as reports represent a reasonable estimate of theemissions GHG that are created from the manufacturepaving of emissions created through landscape disturbance both (by soil disturbance and materials, construction related emissions, andtenance main of the pavement over its expected lifee. cycl changes in above ground biomass). The results of the studies are presented in ntdiffere units and measures; considerable effort wasrtaken unde to be Estimating embodied GHG emissions is new fieldnalysis; of a the estimates are rapidly able to compare the results of the studies insonable a rea way. For more details about the belowdology, metho improving and becoming more inclusive of all elements of construction and contact [email protected]. development. The four studies, Meil (2001), Park (2003), eStrippl (2001) and Treolar (2001) produced total GHGsions emis of 4- 34 The estimate included in this worksheet is calculated using average values for the main MTCO2e per thousand square feet of finished paving(for similar asphalt and concrete based pavements). This construction materials that are used to createpical a ty family home. In 2004, the estimate does not including downstream maintenanceand repair of the highway. The average (for creteall con and National Association of Home Builders calculatede average th materials that are used asphalt pavements in the studies, assuming eachdy gets stu one data point) is ~17 MTCO2e/thousandre squafeet. in a typical 2,272 square foot single-family household. The quantity of materials used is

then multiplied by the average GHG emissions atedassoci with the life-cycle GHG Three of the studies attempted to thoroughly account for the emissions associated with long termenance maint (40 emissions for each material. years) of the roads. Stripple (2001), Park 2003)et al. ( and Treolar (2001) report 17, 81, and 68 2e/thousandMTCO

This estimate is a rough and conservative estimate; the actual embodied emissions for square feet, respectively, after accounting forntenance mai of the roads. a project are likely to be higher. For example,this atstage, due to a lack of Based on the above discussion, King County makese conservative th estimate that 50 MTCO2e/thousandare squ comprehensive data, the estimate does not includemportant i factors such as landscape disturbance or the emissions associatedith the w interior components of a feet of pavement (over the development’s life) willcycle be used as the embodied emission factorpavement for until building (such as furniture). better estimates can be obtained. This is roughlyquivalent e to 3,500 MTCO2e per lane mile of roadsuming (as the lane is 13 feet wide). King County realizes that the calculations fordied embo emissions in this worksheet are rough. For example, the emissions associateduilding with b 1,000 square feet of a It is important to note that these studies estimate the embodied emissions for roads. Paving that not does need to residential building will not be the same as 1,000square feet of a commercial building. stand up to the rigors of heavy use (such as gparkin lots or driveways) would likely use less materials and hence However, discussions with the construction community indicate that while there are have lower embodied emissions. significant differences between the different oftypes structures, this method of Sources: estimation is reasonable; it will be improved reas data mo become available. Meil, J. A Life Cycle Perspective on Concretesphalt and A Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Additionally, if more specific information aboute project th is known, King County Global Warming Potential. 2006. Available: recommends two online embodied emissions calculators that can be used to obtain a http://www.cement.ca/cement.nsf/eee9ec7bbd630126852566c40052107b/6ec79dc8ae03a782852572b90061b9 more tailored estimate for embodied emissions: 14/$FILE/ATTK0WE3/athena%20report%20Feb.%202%202007.pdf www.buildcarbonneutral.org and www.athenasmi.ca/tools/ecoCalculator/. Park, K, Hwang, Y., Seo, S., M.ASCE, and Seo,“Quantitative H. , Assessment of Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways,” Journal oftruction Cons Engineering and Management , Vol 129, Pavement January/February 2003, pp 25-31, (DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:1(25)). Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in Stripple, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Road. AStudy Pilot for Inventory Analysis. Second Revised slightly different ways; however, the aggregateults res of the reports represent a Edition. IVL Swedish Environmental Researchte Institu Ltd. 2001. Available: reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions thatreated are c from the manufacture of http://www.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/B1210E.pdf paving materials, construction related emissions,nd maintenance a of the pavement over its expected life cycle. For specifics, seee worksheet. th Treloar, G., Love, P.E.D., and Crawford, R.H.d HybriLife-Cycle Inventory for Road Construction and Use. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. P. 43-49. January/February 2004. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

Energy Emissions Worksheet

Energy Floorspace MTCE per Lifespan Energy consumption per Carbon per Building thousand MTCO2e per Average Lifespan Energy Related MTCO2e Type (Residential) or Principal Activity building per year Coefficient for MTCO2e per (thousand square feet per thousand square Building Life Related MTCO2e emissions per (Commercial) (million Btu) Buildings building per year square feet) year feet per year Span emissions per unit thousand square feet Single-Family Home...... 107.3 0.108 11.61 2.53 4.6 16.8 57.9 672 266 Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ...... 41.0 0.108 4.44 0.85 5.2 19.2 80.5 357 422 Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ...... 78.1 0.108 8.45 1.39 6.1 22.2 80.5 681 489 Mobile Home...... 75.9 0.108 8.21 1.06 7.7 28.4 57.9 475 448 Education ...... 2,125.0 0.124 264.2 25.6 10.3 37.8 62.5 16,526 646 Food Sales ...... 1,110.0 0.124 138.0 5.6 24.6 90.4 62.5 8,632 1,541 Food Service ...... 1,436.0 0.124 178.5 5.6 31.9 116.9 62.5 11,168 1,994 Health Care Inpatient ...... 60,152.0 0.124 7,479.1 241.4 31.0 113.6 62.5 467,794 1,938 Health Care Outpatient ...... 985.0 0.124 122.5 10.4 11.8 43.2 62.5 7,660 737 Lodging ...... 3,578.0 0.124 444.9 35.8 12.4 45.6 62.5 27,826 777 Retail (Other Than Mall)...... 720.0 0.124 89.5 9.7 9.2 33.8 62.5 5,599 577 Office ...... 1,376.0 0.124 171.1 14.8 11.6 42.4 62.5 10,701 723 Public Assembly ...... 1,338.0 0.124 166.4 14.2 11.7 43.0 62.5 10,405 733 Public Order and Safety ...... 1,791.0 0.124 222.7 15.5 14.4 52.7 62.5 13,928 899 Religious Worship ...... 440.0 0.124 54.7 10.1 5.4 19.9 62.5 3,422 339 Service ...... 501.0 0.124 62.3 6.5 9.6 35.1 62.5 3,896 599 Warehouse and Storage ...... 764.0 0.124 95.0 16.9 5.6 20.6 62.5 5,942 352 Other ...... 3,600.0 0.124 447.6 21.9 20.4 74.9 62.5 27,997 1,278 Vacant ...... 294.0 0.124 36.6 14.1 2.6 9.5 62.5 2,286 162

Sources All data in black text King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, [email protected]

Energy consumption for residential buildings 2007 Buildings Energy Data Book: 6.1 Quad Definitions and Comparisons (National Average, 2001) Table 6.1.4: Average Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Various Functions http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ Data also at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001_ce/ce1-4c_housingunits2001.html

Energy consumption for commercial buildings EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) and Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 Floorspace per building http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set9/2003excel/c3.xls

Note: Data in plum color is found in both of the above sources (buildings energy data book and commercial buildings energy consumption survey).

Carbon Coefficient for Buildings Buildings Energy Data Book (National average, 2005) Table 3.1.7. 2005 Carbon Dioxide Emission Coefficients for Buildings (MMTCE per Quadrillion Btu) http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/?id=view_book_table&TableID=2057 Note: Carbon coefficient in the Energy Data book is in MTCE per Quadrillion Btu. To convert to MTCO2e per million Btu, this factor was divided by 1000 and multiplied by 44/12. Residential floorspace per unit 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

Multi-Family Single Family Units in Large All Residential average lief span of buildings, Homes and Small Buildings estimated by replacement time method Buildings New Housing Construction, 2001 1,273,000 329,000 1,602,000 Existing Housing Stock, 2001 73,700,000 26,500,000 100,200,000 Replacement (national time: 57.9 80.5 62.5 average, 2001) Note: Single family homes calculation is used for mobile homes as a best estimate life span. Note: At this time, KC staff could find no reliable data for the average life span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average life span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained.

Sources:

New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http://www.census.gov/const/quarterly_starts_completions_cust.xls See also: http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html

Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1-4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdf/housunits/hc1-4a_housingunits2001.pdf

Energy Consumption………………..……….Worksheet Background Information

This section helps estimate the GHG emissions assoc iated with energy used after the building has been constructed. It includes energy used by an average building. All estimates in this section are based o n national average building energy usage from the Energy Infor mation Administration and from the Department of En ergy’s Buildings Energy Data Book.

An important part of this estimate, as well as the transportation related estimate described in the ne xt section, is to determine the average life span of buildings. Th is is not an easy task and no uniform estimates hav e been documented. However, one way to estimate building l ife spans is to estimate the ratio of the number of existing building units to that of annually constructed new units. This is the method employed in this workshe et. This method is most likely an underestimate of average b uilding life spans as it does not account for growt h in the total overall number of buildings. When compared wi th a literature review, the average life span of 62 .5 years per building used in this worksheet is conservative but reasonable (e.g., 80-100 year average U.S. buildin g service life reported by the Environment Policy Committee).

Environment Policy Committee. Design of Sustainable Building Policies: Scope for Improvement and Barri ers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developm ent. Available: http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2001doc.nsf/43bb6130e 5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/203e895174de4e56c1256bd70 03be835/$FILE/JT00128164.PDF

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

Transportation Emissions Worksheet vehicle related Life span GHG Life span transportation emissions MTCO2e/ transportation related GHG # people or (metric tonnes year/ related GHG emissions # thousand employees/ CO2e per thousand Average emissions (MTCO2e/ Type (Residential) or Principal Activity # people/ unit or sq feet/ unit thousand person per MTCO2e/ square Building (MTCO2e/ thousand sq (Commercial) building or building square feet year) year/ unit feet Life Span per unit) feet) Single-Family Home...... 2.8 2.53 1.1 4.9 13.7 5.4 57.9 792 313 Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ...... 1.9 0.85 2.3 4.9 9.5 11.2 80.5 766 904 Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ...... 1.9 1.39 1.4 4.9 9.5 6.8 80.5 766 550 Mobile Home...... 2.5 1.06 2.3 4.9 12.2 11.5 57.9 709 668 Education ...... 30.0 25.6 1.2 4.9 147.8 5.8 62.5 9247 361 Food Sales ...... 5.1 5.6 0.9 4.9 25.2 4.5 62.5 1579 282 Food Service ...... 10.2 5.6 1.8 4.9 50.2 9.0 62.5 3141 561 Health Care Inpatient ...... 455.5 241.4 1.9 4.9 2246.4 9.3 62.5 140506 582 Health Care Outpatient ...... 19.3 10.4 1.9 4.9 95.0 9.1 62.5 5941 571 Lodging ...... 13.6 35.8 0.4 4.9 67.1 1.9 62.5 4194 117 Retail (Other Than Mall)...... 7.8 9.7 0.8 4.9 38.3 3.9 62.5 2394 247 Office ...... 28.2 14.8 1.9 4.9 139.0 9.4 62.5 8696 588 Public Assembly ...... 6.9 14.2 0.5 4.9 34.2 2.4 62.5 2137 150 Public Order and Safety ...... 18.8 15.5 1.2 4.9 92.7 6.0 62.5 5796 374 Religious Worship ...... 4.2 10.1 0.4 4.9 20.8 2.1 62.5 1298 129 Service ...... 5.6 6.5 0.9 4.9 27.6 4.3 62.5 1729 266 Warehouse and Storage ...... 9.9 16.9 0.6 4.9 49.0 2.9 62.5 3067 181 Other ...... 18.3 21.9 0.8 4.9 90.0 4.1 62.5 5630 257 Vacant ...... 2.1 14.1 0.2 4.9 10.5 0.7 62.5 657 47

Sources All data in black text King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, [email protected]

# people/ unit Estimating Household Size for Use in Population Estimates (WA state, 2000 average) Washington State Office of Financial Management Kimpel, T. and Lowe, T. Research Brief No. 47. August 2007 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/brief047.pdf Note: This analysis combines Multi Unit Structures in both large and small units into one category; the average is used in this case although there is likely a difference

Residential floorspace per unit 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html

# employees/thousand square feet Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey commercial energy uses and costs (National Median, 2003) Table B2 Totals and Medians of Floorspace, Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set1/2003excel/b2.xls

Note: Data for # employees/thousand square feet is presented by CBECS as square feet/employee. In this analysis employees/thousand square feet is calculated by taking the inverse of the CBECS number and multiplying by 1000. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wright Runstad Rainier Square

vehicle related GHG emissions

Estimate calculated as follows (Washington state, 2006)_ 56,531,930,000 2006 Annual WA State Vehicle Miles Traveled Data was daily VMT. Annual VMT was 365*daily VMT. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/annualmileage.htm 6,395,798 2006 WA state population http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html 8839 vehicle miles per person per year 0.0506 gallon gasoline/mile This is the weighted national average fuel efficiency for all cars and 2 axle, 4 wheel light trucks in 2005. This includes pickup trucks, vans and SUVs. The 0.051 gallons/mile used here is the inverse of the more commonly known term “miles/per gallon” (which is 19.75 for these cars and light trucks). Transportation Energy Data Book. 26th Edition. 2006. Chapter 4: Light Vehicles and Characteristics. Calculations based on weighted average MPG efficiency of cars and light trucks. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf Note: This report states that in 2005, 92.3% of all highway VMT were driven by the above described vehicles. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Spreadsheets/Table3_04.xls 24.3 lbs CO2e/gallon gasoline The CO2 emissions estimates for gasoline and diesel include the extraction, transport, and refinement of petroleum as well as their combustion. Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions for Various New Vehicles. RENew Northfield. Available: http://renewnorthfield.org/wpcontent/uploads/2006/04/CO2%20emissions.pdf Note: This is a conservative estimate of emissions by fuel consumption because diesel fuel, 2205 with a emissions factor of 26.55 lbs CO2e/gallon was not estimated. 4.93 lbs/metric tonne vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method See Energy Emissions Worksheet for Calculations

Commercial floorspace per unit EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set9/2003excel/c3.xls

Transportation…………..…………………….Worksheet Background I nformation

This section helps estimate the emissions associate d with transportation of building occupants. At this time, it is based on average veh icle miles traveled by the average Washington State citizen.