University Community Urban Center
Sounding Board----------------------
Meeting Notes
University Heights Center for the Community
Thursday, May 17, 2001, 5:30-7:30 p.m.----------------------
Attendees: Larry Sinnott (RBCA), Jeff Munnoch (Sound Transit), Jon Layzer (City SPO), Jeannie Hale (Laurelhurst), Hans Aschenbach (RNA), Nancy Bocek (RNA), Jack Whisner, Julian Saucedo (Compton, City Council), John Deeter.
Parks Opportunity Fund
Nancy Bocek told us about the "Opportunity Fund" established by the recently passed Parks Levy, that provides funding for additonal projects beyond those specifically mentioned in the Levy itself. There is $10 million available in the Fund to be distributed over the next eight years. The Pro Parks Levy Oversight Committee is responsible for the mechanics of distributing this money, and is currently working on setting up criteria and the application process. $5 million will be available in the first funding cycle. In selecting projects, considerable weight will be given to urban centers and underserved areas. The Oversight Committee will next meet on May 22, and Nancy urged folks in the U District to attend to lobby for a fair share of the Fund.
Jeannie Hale expressed the view that there should be equity for the 40 percent of the City not in Urban Centers. Hans Aschenbach observed that the University District got only a small proportion of funding in the Levy itself -- single family neighbors got millions, while the U. District got only $400 thousand.
Link Problems and Implications for "Concurrency"
John Deeter and Hans Aschenbach suggested that the current difficulties in the Link light rail project may cause a substantial delay before service comes to the University District. What are the implications for the UCUC if Link is substatially delayed or abandoned? How would this outcome affect "concurrency" [between growth and transportation infrastructure as specified in growth management plans]? How would it affect the UW Master Plan and UW expansion?
Jon Layzer first addressed the current issues facing the Link program. Sims-Schell proposal to "go south first" is intended to get a part of Link open as quickly as possible. The intention then is to get all the way to Northgate in the next phase. In the meantime, the (originally) 6-month tunnel review is looking at ways to reduce costs of tunneling: reduce number of station elevators, put tunnels closer together to reduce length of cross-passages, alternative alignment to 200-ft deep Portage Bay tunnel.
It was observed that this review has shifted to consideration of different project sequencing. Jon said this was due to the need to quickly get project started and something up and running has become a major issue. John Deeter expressed the opinion that "going south first" was probably not a viable alternative. Jon replied that the Sound Transit Board wouldn't make a decision until September, and both north and south alternatives were currently on the table. The Board is working toward trimming down the list of alternatives by the end of June. Hans Aschenbach observed that we have been working on the north segment for a long time, and we shouldn't go south "just to build it". Jeff Munnoch (ST) agreed that changes to the MOS [or Locally Preferred Alignment] might take some extra effort, such as moving Tukwila alignment to serve Southcenter.
The discussion then moved on the issue of "concurrency". Jon Layzer explained that traffic congestion is measured primarily in terms of a "modelled" volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) for all arterials crossing specified "screenlines" (usually positioned N-S or E-W). Lack of "concurrency" is triggered when V/C exceeds 1.2 [specified in Growth Management Act]. A development with possible impacts on nearby intersections could trigger an SEPA review, but even gridlock (level-of-service rating of "F") might not require a specific remedy. (There is a move to extend LOS ratings to corridors as well as intersections.) These evaluations perhaps work better in the suburbs, but in the City congestion [and concurrency] are being measured in a very gross manner, and a high level of congestion is pretty much acknowledged [and tolerated]. An example is U Village [where proposed expansion will probably occur despite lack of mitigtion of obvious traffic impacts].
Are there better ways to measure "concurrency"? How to address the question, does the transportation infrastructure support further development? Hans suggested that it should be possible to measure cumulative impacts, [rather that incrementally assessing the effects of individual developments]. He further suggested that there are other ways of dealing with traffic gridlock, such as linking urban centers with Link light rail. John Deeter asked, what purpose is Link suppose to serve in the U District? Jon answered, more capacity [in addition to arterials]. As an example, Jack Whisner offered the case of Harvard Square, where transfers between buses and subway occurs undergroud while there is auto gridlock above.
Hans asked, what happens if V/C [at a screenline] exceeds 1.2? Does this prevent furture growth? Jon answered, this is the maximum the City can legally allow and it must alleviate the problem within six years or stop development. Developers then get involved in helping to solve the problem.
Jon then reviewed some of the current assumptions in the UATS: Link will be built, there will be additonal transit investments, etc. [He is considering adding a scenario in which Link is missing.]
Other concerns
There was a short discussion of a 5-story development on 25th Avenue NE ("Blakely Village"), which will have an underground garage that might require a new left-turn light. The non-UATS portion of the meeting then ended with a discussion of Metro's plan to remove the south-bound stop on Montlake just north of the Montlake bridge.
University Area Transportation Study
Jon Layzer (City SPO) took over the chair for the UATS portion of the meeting. He is developing "evaluation criteria" and building a package of [specific] elements, such as bike routes. He is looking at instituting "demand management" programs, such as limiting number of RPZ passes per household. He handed out a summary of possible [transportation] "improvement strategies". He also handed out a draft outline for the structure of the upcoming UATS Open House, on June 21. At the Open House there will be a reports on the U District Parking Study, the Trans-Lake Project, Link developments, etc. Jon also handed out flyers publicizing the Open House, which he urged people to distribute at neighborhood group meetings.
Next meeting
The regularly scheduled June meeting is cancelled, due to the
UTAS Open House on June 21, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., at
University Senior Activity Center, 5225 15th Ave. N.E.The next Sounding Board meeting is:
Thursday, July 19th, 5:30 p.m.
University Heights Center for the Community, room 110Notes by L. Sinnott, edited by J. Deeter.