University Community Urban Center
Sounding Board

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

Meeting Notes

University Heights Center for the Community
Thursday, October 21, 1999

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

Attendees:

Announcements

Discussion of UCUC Design Guidelines with Laura Yates (DCLU) deferred to November 18th meeting.

Yesterday (Oct. 20th) there was a discussion of the proposed master plan process for developments like University Village, mainly regarding the structure of oversight panels (e.g., whether community or City appoints community members). Comments can go to Laura Yates.

Brian Ramey: Jan Drago has a meeting regarding loss of trees in Seattle (10/25?).

University Heights Center

Richard Snyder, UHCC Board President: University community wants U Heights to continue as a community center, while our landlord (Seattle School District) wants rent at a level that the community cannot afford. UHCC is currently discussing with City staff several options for the site: school; School Dist. offices; retail; community center. A presentation of the options to the City Council is scheduled for Tuesday, Dec. 14. A report for the Council will be prepared beforehand with viewpoints solicited from stakeholders such as community groups, UHCC, School Board, City departments, Historic Seattle. A meeting of stakeholders should occur by Mid-November, with date, time and place to be determined. Please contact Richard (525-8496, rsnyder@halcyon.com) or Elizabeth Butler (City staff, 615-1786, elizabeth.butler@ci.seattle.wa.us) if you would like to attend. An update on the U Heights situation will be made at the next Sounding Board meeting.

UCUC Transportation Plan

Susan Sanchez (SPO, head of the Transportation Policy Office), and David Goldberg (SPO staff).

David G.: One item in the UCUC plan was to study the feasibility of Transportation Management Program/Plan (TMP) for the UCUC. The TPO is currently engaged in a related undertaking, called the Transportation Strategic Initiative, which (among other things) is trying to coordinate the efforts of various transportation agencies active in the City with these goals:
Provide the best information possible to those agencies; Coordinate programs; Prepare the City to work with the other agencies; Provide a point of contact for the community(s). This effort is intended to study and coordinate physical projects, but not guide their implementation.

What is a TMP, and how is it related to the Growth Management Plan? A TMP (see the Transportation Strategic Plan) is applied to a single building or development, with the goal of reducing SOV usage (especially in peak traffic hours). A TMP can include subsidized bus passes, staggered work hours, sometimes even physical improvements (e.g., UW). The TSP doesn't discuss using a TMP on a community-wide basis. But it might be possible to apply existing programs to a community, such as bike lanes, signal preemption for buses, HOV lanes.

The community should first define its goals for a TMP, so the City can develop a specific "Transportation Plan" for it. It should also be consistent with the Growth Management Plan - i.e., transportation infrastructure should expand to support population and economic growth (concurrency).

Susan S.: The Transportation Policy Group in the SPO has 4 employees, with links to SeaTran and WSDOT. It reviews state legislation and state financing. Current projects include Seattle Transportation Initiative (STI), Transportation Strategic Plan (TSP), Parking Study, City Comprehensive Plan.

King County (Metro) is in the middle of a six-year program to modify bus routes. The (City) Transportation Policy Group works with SeaTran, but the City lacks comprehensive transportation studies and planning.

Discussion: Even if the major players in the UCUC (UW, Safeco, U Village) have TMPs, this is not enough. For instance, auto trips passing through the UCUC exceed the number of auto trips to and from the UCUC. We need an origin-destination study to see how through traffic could be reduced. City needs to set transportation policies, and develop (transportation) capital projects.

City transportation planning seems to be more re-active than pro-active - there is a 20-year backlog in transportation capital projects and maintenance is also way behind. Changes in transportation patterns have generated more traffic (especially through traffic). For instance, Montlake is concerned about traffic through their community.

What kind of information is needed to do better planning? What kind of transportation projects are needed to meet coming development? What are the problems now? What bigger problems will come with growth?

Eleven years ago UW and Metro did a study/plan for the U. District that led to the U Pass and a number of (transportation) capital projects. But that study didn't deal with the growth of through traffic.

We need a big meeting in the near future to identify problems and solutions. But we need to get data first. We need to coordinate existing policies and projects.

We need a comprehensive plan - how to deal with (transportation problems) arising from growth outside of the urban center (UCUC).

In the summary drawn from the UCUC Plan by David G. there is no transportation program to support development. We need to develop programs such a UCUC-wide transit pass for workers and residents, subsidized mass transit, tax on parking - a mix of incentives and sticks.

Susan S.: (In the Comprehensive Plan), transportation infrastructure should be able to handle growth ("concurrency"). Not clear how to evaluate "concurrency". We need to coordinate transportation studies to get a better look at existing conditions.

What would it take to do a Transportation Plan for the UCUC? The City doesn't have a department to do this. Needs funding to support this effort.

What happens next? What about another meeting or other public input? Look at the feasibility of a Transportation Management Plan for the UCUC. Coordinate (Community) responses to City Council. Clarify what is expected (from the City). Send comments by e-mail to David G.

NE 50th Street Renovation

Patty Whistler, The AVE Group: The project manager is now Barry Rice (SeaTran). The renovation is primarily concerned with moving traffic along 50th St. effectively - at "value-engineering" meeting a plan to widen street and narrow sidewalks was discussed. But City's design (current balance) - supporting the Community's desire that 50th St. be a pedestrian corridor - prevailed. (The University Chamber wrote a letter supporting the City's design.)

The Community's main interests in this project are the replacement of the south fence at U. Heights and the integration of sidewalk and crossing designs with the Ave Project. A new fence more attractive than chain-link will be installed about one foot north of the present one. Paving on pedestrian crossing should be similar to those in the Ave Plan. SeaTran cannot do these special designs - we're trying to get Makers to do them.

Design for the Ave Project is slowly moving forward. We are trying to develop a palette of design elements for the Ave, Link stations, etc., so that new construction can be done in a uniform style.

Comment: Perhaps we need a design review group for the UCUC.

Sound Transit

Hans Aschenbach: We need a Community letter expressing our concerns about Sound Transit, protesting cost cutting measures, and urging barging of spoils.

Others: We should express concerns about:

Next meeting

Thursday, November 18th, 1999. Julian Saucedo volunteered to chair.

Notes by J. Deeter.