University Community Urban Center
Sounding Board----------------------
Meeting Notes
University Heights Center for the Community
Thursday, July 19, 2001, 5:30-7:30 p.m.----------------------
Attendees: David Eckert (Roosevelt), Lise Easom, Fred Hart (GUCC), Peter Dewey (UW), Jorgen Bader (RBCA), Peter Staten (Montlake), Bill Talley (UW), Roger Wagoner, Jon Layzer (City SPO), Jeannie Hale (Laurelhurst), Hans Aschenbach (RNA), John Deeter.
Parks Opportunity Fund
Roger Wagoner informed us about upcoming public hearing on Tuesday, July 24th at 7 p.m. on proposed criteria for distributing the Parks Opportunity Fund. Approximately $1 million would be reserved for acquisition of park land in the University District. NEDC recently adopted a resolution sponsored by RNA in support of these crieria. Roger urged people from the University District to come to the hearing and testify in favor of adopting them. Some projects were designated by the levy and are scheduled to be built in the next two years. Local projects so funded include improvements to University Heights ($200 thousand), improvements to Cowen Park, Ravenna Creek daylighting, and the pocket park at south end of 7th Avenue. The opportunity fund is designed to fund other worthwhile projects [not named in the levy].
Discussion: Other communities in the City question earmarking this fund, and we need to indicate what the money would be used for. Should we explicitly designate University Heights as the target site for our $1M grant? Roger: No, we don't need to, we should work with the City later to choose the site. We need to acquire U Heights anyway, how much is it worth? Roger: The acquisition cost is at least $4M (assessed value), and the total cost including building renovation might be $10M. Seismic retrofitting is not so expensive, high-quality work [such as soundproofing] is. If the opportunity grant is applied to U Heights, we may have to return the $200K. Others: U Heights should be at the top of our list. We should buy as much land as possible, and make the rest of the property less saleable. We also have $40K for landscaping the area just south of the building.
Roger reminisced about building a playfield for U Heights 28 years ago.
Future of the Sounding Board
John Deeter announced that he can no longer serve as coordinator for the group, but would not like to see it disappear completely. Because of August vacation, it might be a good idea to cancel the next meeting and resume meeting in September. Jon Layzer said that the Sounding Board had been a useful venue for the UATS but the SPO was not prepared to support it directly. The UATS will probably continue to meet in the same time slot, and Jon will provide more detailed notes of its meetings now that it is moving into more substantive discussions. Fred Hart said that the GUCC was in the process of hiring a staff person who might be able to take on adminstrative responsibilities for the Sounding Board, starting in a couple months.
Link Problems and UATS Assumptions about Light Rail
John Deeter reminded us that early implementation of a light rail system was one of the underlying assumptions of the UATS. It now appears that Link will not come to the U District for at least 10 years, and we need to discuss how this delay affects the goals of the UATS and growth targets for the U District.
Jon Layzer (City SPO) commented that light rail was not the only uncertain variable the UATS had to deal with. A rebuilt SR-520 bridge would probably bring additional traffic into the U District, pehaps feeding into the [already congested] Montlake-Pacific intersection. He had previously assumed that an operational Link before 2010 was the more likely scenario, and agreed there would be impacts if this didn't happen. The study would in any event consider other transit improvements (such as bus/HOV lanes), but the City has limited influence on transit (bus) levels.
Questions: how would a delay in transit improvement affect land use policies? Are other transportation modes adequate [to take up the slack]? How is UW growth affected? Jon: City will hold UW accountable for controlling its traffic load. City can make changes to arterials (such as 45th) to assure speed and reliability.
Peter Dewey (UW) stated that although the University viewed Link as a superior transit mode and wanted to see it implemented, UW could still grow without the light rail line by further reducing SOV access and improving bus service. Much of Link ridership would come from existing bus ridership anyway. Peter admitted that that grade separation was necessary to provide high quality transit in an urban area, but this was apparently not likely in the near term. The City can also help improve transit with improvements to arterials to make bus travel trough the U District more effective. This might require removing some parking for transit lanes, at least in peak periods. Question: Is this possible on 45th St.? Peter: [City could try to] fix some problems, such as making it easier to get onto I-5 and SR-520.
Discussion: How is it possible [politically] to take general purpose lanes for transit, when there's no will to build a reasonable light rail system? Urban HOV (or BAT) lanes are a distinction without a reality -- they're unenforcable. We need a plan in place in case we don't get light rail. Jon said that the UATS would start developing a plan without light rail before 2010 in the next month or two, but would continue to assume that light rail would give relief by 2020.
How is the ICT study coming? Jon: ICT is still assuming that the Link trunk line will cover Northeast and Southeast sectors of the City, and is looking at a Lake City, Ballard, Downtown, and West Seattle corridor. [This could change if South Lake Union alternative is chosen for Link since it would then be necessary to provide feeder service to First Hill and Capitol Hill.] Is ICT looking at east-west linkages? Jon: ICT is looking at better bus service [initially for these corridors].
Peter Staten (Montlake) asked, how should transportation be linked to land use? It's vain to improve transportation without changing land use as well. A number of large buildings are going up in the U District, and getting cars in and out of them in rush hours in going to be a nightmare. Developers should do more than just provide off-street parking.
Questions: Does the City require TDM programs for small employers? Jon Layzer replied that the City does require TDMs for large buildings, and [in general] developers should contribute to solving trasportation problems their buildings create. UW should set an example, such as proving more [close-by] housing. Is TDM part of the UATS? Jon: Yes, but it's not being emphasized. He sees three legs for the [mitigation] stool: (1) backbone, to enforce SEPA and require developers to provide mitigation; (2) mitigation funding, through impact fees for transportation (but this tool is geared more to suburban communities and the City might need to find another stream of funding); (3) Transportation Management Plans are required for large building, but currently TMPs are not enforced. City should develop better guidlines about what should go into a TMP.
Comment: present guidelines don't require employers to charge for parking [such as UW already does]. Jon: Children's Hospital also has a TMP. Comment: On the other hand, Whole Foods has no employee parking, and employees park in the neighborhood instead.
Question: Could the [entire] U District be an overlay district, wherein every employer is required to have a TMP, at least for large developers? Jon: [TMP] is already required for large developers, but [these plans] are not enforced. Developers [often] come late into the process needing a TMP but having a building poorly planned for it. City recommends unbundling parking [to make parking] an explicit cost to employer.
Comments: some TMPs are required to provide bus passes but don't. [City] should require TMPs to be posted, and should create enforcement positions. City could require all employers to help support RPZs, not just UW. TMPs are hard on small developers. City needs to assess impact fees, and determine how to spend them. Fees should be assessed on all development, not just new development. Jon: State laws do not currently allow [impact fees] to be spent for operations. TMP does this indirectly. Gas taxes cannot be spent on transit except for things like park-and-ride lots and HOV lanes. However, employers could pay for subscription bus service.
Comments: Entire urban center could purchase better transit through transportion impact fees. Also could make it [almost] impossible to drive cars, and force people into transit.
Other issues
University Village expansion: Jorgen Bader inquired about the status of transportation improvements suggested as mitigation for the impacts of U Village expansion. For instance, NEDC has requested improved sidewalks near U Village. Jon Layzer said that he has discussed this matter with DCLU, but the City is unlikely to push it. He agreed that in general private developers should take responsibility for such transportation improvements, and the City needs to develop better tools for off-site mitigation. Currently this is not SPO's responsibility, and the City has no way of requiring it. Jorgen replied that this should be considered "normal good citizenship," and City involvement would carry much more weight than neighborhood [comments].
I-5 congestion: David Eckert commented that weaving on I-5 southbound from 45th St. on-ramp to SR-520 connector was a major source of congestion [and could be eliminated by moving the connecting tunnel to the right side of southbound I-5].
University Area Transportation Study
Jon Layzer (City SPO) took over the chair for the UATS portion of the meeting. The study is now looking at all transportation strategies that could be pursued, and determining which merit further discussion. Included will be some field studies, such as bike/ped conflicts with traffic. The next public meeting will be a fall workshop. By that time the UATS should have developed a list of improvement strategies and financial plan, and a prelimary evaluation of them. There should soon be something more concrete (though still unfiltered) for the working group to look at.
Question: Is the UATS being coordinated with the Translake study? Jon: They will work together on system level impacts. The City has rejected all 8-lane options. Comment: [Even] the 6-lane option will increase congestion in Montlake.
Next meeting
The community part of the regularly scheduled August meeting may be cancelled, but in any event a UTAS meeting is likely to be held.
Scheduled time and place:
Thursday, August 16th, 5:30 p.m.
University Heights Center for the Community, room 110Notes by John Deeter.