University Community Urban Center
Sounding Board

----------------------

Meeting Notes

University Heights Center for the Community
Thursday, April 19th, 2001, 5:30-7:30 p.m.

----------------------

Attendees: Larry Sinnott (RBCA), Roger Wagoner, Julian Saucedo (Compton, City Council), Fred Hart (La Tienda, GUCC), Patty Whisler (UDCC, Ave Group), Peter Staten (Montlake), Jorgen Bader (RBCA), Al Rasmussen, Jeannie Hale (Laurelhurst), Karen Ko (City UNSC), Jon Layzer (City SPO), Peter Dewey (UW), Nancy Bocek (RNA), Hans Aschenbach (RNA), Amy Grotefendt (Trans-Lake), John Perlic (Trans-Lake), John Deeter.

Announcements

Patty Whisler informed us that SeaTran is sponsoring two (identical) open houses on the Ave Project on Monday April 23. The project artist Brian Goggin will present his concepts for art on the Ave.

Jon Layzer reminded us that I-5 overpass at Ravenna Blvd. will be partially closed starting early in May.

Parks Opportunity Fund

Roger Wagoner: The recently approved parks improvement plan included an "opportunity fund" of $10 million dollars to be spend during the next ten years for yet unspecified projects. An Oversight Committee has been set up for this fund, and is starting to develop guidelines for distributing the fund, including criteria for eligible projects. UCUC is underrepresented on this Committee, but Roger expects to attend an upcoming meeting (4/24) and will report back to the Sounding Board.

City Comprehensive Plan requires that every household in an urban center be within 1/8 mile of a park or open space. Very little of UCUC meets this criterion.

The UCUC needs to retain a community center, currently served by U. Heights. It is already marked down for $200K from the parks levy, but its future status is in doubt. U. Heights is currently school surplus and is not intended for future school use, and so the school district is expected either to sell it or to hold it for rental income.

Discussion: There are advantages in Community rather than City operation of U. Heights, although Ken Scholes (director) apparently wants the City to take over the lease. The local Community needs to find out what is possible and develop a plan or proposal. The City currently doesn't plan either to buy U. Heights or to build another community center. Building maintenance is also a problem. Community should be wary of relying on [the good will of] the school district, but the district would likely try to accomodate the Community unless this conflicts with its primary mission of education. We need to have a commitment [from the school district] to use and maintain the building. There is no plan to reinstate a school in the U. District. Queen Anne elementary school has been converted to condos or apartments. School district prefers commercial use, since non-profits pay only half-rent. Julian Saucedo is on the U. Heights Board, and volunteered to discuss these issues with his fellow members.

The discussion then moved back to parks opportunity fund. Criteria being developed by the Oversight Committee are important and we should try to ensure that they are tailored to support projects we want. There will certainly be more projects than available funding. Parks staff is now more willing to listen to communities than in the past.

University Area Transportation Study

Jon Layzer (City SPO) took over the chair for the UATS portion of the meeting. He is working towards a UATS open house for the general public in June.

UW Master Plan

Jon reminded us that the UW already has a Transportation Demand Management plan, and that the UW Master Plan currently being developed has identified several transportation improvements relevant to the UATS. The City considers the UW to be a partner, and they are working together on projects of mutual benefit such as the vacation and/or re-alignment of Campus Parkway.

Peter Dewey (UW Transportation Office) then described the UW Transportation Management Plan (TMP). It aggressively supports alternatives to cars, and employs pricing strageties to suppress auto usage. The new UW Master Plan includes improvements to the TMP, with a key target of keeping vehicle trips at the 1990 level. The goal of the plan is to control trips by staff, faculty and students rather than restricting trips by vistors and patients of the Medical Center.

Major improvements:

Transit share already exceeds auto share -- U-Pass generated an 80 percent increase in transit usage, but also cut into bicycle usage. $9 million per year goes to transit agencies -- most to Metro and some to Community Transit. Payments to agencies have gone up -- transit agencies now require reimbursement for every U-Pass trip.

Questions: How is TMP funded? U-Pass (about 1/2), parking revenue, parking fines, "other" sources. How would proposed [state-wide] "1/3 for choices" affect UW? Probably not very much, since UW already self-taxes. How does UW carry out its cordon count? At 14 locations around campus once a year. Why not measure trips by faculty/staff/students some other way, through surveys and modelling? Historically, cordon counts have been used to estimate campus traffic, and is considered to be a planning tool. City uses cordon counts to estimate total traffic to the area as well as to the UW. How can it be determined if the UW is pushing parking off-campus into the community? Shouldn't it be the City's responsibility to make cordon counts? The City also does cordon counts, but the UW is responsible for monitoring its traffic. There is a need to better understand where the non-UW two-thirds are going -- e.g., to control development. Is it true that retired faculty can park [free] on campus? Shouldn't they be encouraged to use other modes? Yes, this is a "sacred cow", but UW offers them U-Passes as well. Many people ignore entry guardhouses and park free on campus -- shouldn't there be better enforcement of on-campus parking? Campus enforcement is actually better than City (off-campus); admittedly it's not very rigorous, but parking violators are still taking a risk. UW no longer requires a 15-minute pass for drive-through traffic.

Comment: Transit use should be made easier for occasional users -- Link light rail would help to do this, and UW needs to support it.

Trans-Lake Washington Project

Amy Grotefendt and John Perlic (Trans-Lake staff) gave a brief overview of the Trans-Lake Project, which is considering ways to increase mobility on SR-520 across Lake Washington. It is a joint undertaking by the State Department of Transportation and Sound Transit. Sound Transit is involved because its long-range capital plans include fixed-guideway and/or busway crossings of Lake Washington. Three committees are involved in the project:

Public open houses are slated for June 2001, to present options selected for environmental review, but dates have not yet been selected.

Hand-out showed 8 options still under consideration -- no build, "safety and preservation", and six options consisting of all combinations of two highway and three transit alternatives. Highway alternatives are HOV only expansion, and both HOV and general purpose expansion. Transit alternatives are fixed-guideway on I-90, fixed guideway on SR-520, and bus rapid transit on SR-520. Three components are included in each option: highway/HOV improvements; high-capacity transit; and a transportation demand management plan.

Questions: What are the costs? $5 billion [more or less]. Can right-of-way across Foster Island accomodate all options? Probably not, and extra ROW may have to be purchased. How will added lanes exit into the community? Near Pacific/Montlake intersection. This is already a congested intersection, so how can this be done? EIS will determine whether any option is feasible. City has consistently questioned whether capacity increase is possible, but is unwilling to eliminate all options without further study. The Trans-Lake Project is being asked to do extensive traffic studies. Is it possible to put a Montlake bus flyer stop on inside lanes? Yes, but may have to elevate bus stops. What are the designs for new intersections? Not finished yet, and so were not available for this meeting.

Comment: We're waiting patiently for Trans-Lake Project to show that [SR-520 expansion] can't be done.

Evaluation Framework and Criteria

Jon Layzer handed out a draft of "Evaluation Framework and Criteria" for the UATS, drawn largely from the City's Transportation Strategic Plan. Key points:

This document will be discussed further at the May Sounding Board meeting.

Corrections to March notes

Larry Sinnott observed that the March notes didn't accurately reflect actual comments in a couple of instances. Here are the corrected comments:

Next meeting

Thursday, May 17th, 5:30 p.m.
University Heights Center for the Community, room 110

Notes by J. Deeter.