Affected Environments

SECTION III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES and UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS SECTION III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES and UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This section of the FEIS analyzes significant environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action, which is the proposed Seattle Campus Master Plan. Alternatives that are also evaluated include a No Action Alternative, a Decentralization/Open Space Alternative, and a No Street or Alley Vacation Alternative. The Proposed Action and each of the alternatives are described in Section II of this DEIS. The environmental elements that are analyzed in this Final EIS were determined as a result of the formal, public EIS scoping process (November 4, 1999 through December 7, 1999) and the Draft EIS public comment period (October 16, 2000 through January 10, 2001). Scoping comments were considered by the University of Washington in determining the issues and alternatives to be analyzed in this DEIS. Fourteen broad areas of environmental review are evaluated in this document, including: earth, air, water, plants & animals, energy, environmental health, land use, population, housing, light, glare & shadows, aesthetics, recreation, historic/cultural, transportation/ circulation/ parking, public services & utilities. Public comments on the Draft EIS were used to refine the analyses for the Final EIS. Comments on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments are included in Volume 2 of this Final EIS. A. EARTH Affected Environment The University of Washington campus as a whole occupies two distinct geologic settings: the hill and slope of the campus west of Montlake Blvd. and the ‘flats’ east of Montlake Blvd. The Central Campus is located on the south slope of a hill that rises approximately 250 feet above the shores of Union and Portage Bays. This topography is typical in the system of gently sloping, elongated hills that dominate the land forms of the southern Puget Sound area. Soils in most of the campus area are primarily composed of glacial till. The ‘flats’ of the East Campus were originally made up of stream and lake deposits. After construction of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and Lake Washington Ship Canal was completed in 1916, the level of Lake Washington was lowered by approximately 8 feet (at high water), and much of the delta area became marsh. In 1926, the City of Seattle began to use this area as a landfill. Filling spread onto the marsh, reaching its greatest extent in 1964. Major filling operations ceased in the mid-1960s, but a series of surface covering, grading and seeding operations altered the landscape until 1971, when all but minimal maintenance activities ended. Today, the delta is mantled almost entirely with construction fill, rubble, and solid waste. Because of differential subsidence and settlement problems, much of the East Campus is not suitable for building construction and is becoming a significant wetland. Since its origin, the campus has been little modified by soil deposition. However, streams, small-scale slumping and small creeping landslides have had minor affects on the steeper northeast and east-central slopes of campus. Steep slopes generally occur between the Nuclear Physics Lab and NE 45th Street and Whitman Court/Stevens Way and the BurkeGilman trail on the Central Campus, and along the Lake Washington Ship Canal in the South/Southwest and East Campus areas. Debris from hillside erosion has been deposited along the base of these slopes. Refer to Section III C. of this Final EIS (Water). Impacts of the Proposed Action Under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, approximately 3 million sq.ft. of building area would be developed. Depending on the building sites, this level of development could require the excavation of up to approximately 750,000 cubic yards of earth over the planning period1. A portion of the excavated material (approximately 20 percent) could be reused on campus as backfill (on individual project sites). It is anticipated that the remaining approximately 70 to 80 percent would be transported to an undetermined, legally-approved off-campus disposal site. In addition, fill material for site preparation and landscaping could be imported to the campus during development of the proposed sites. Indirect, construction-related earth impacts could include short-term, localized traffic congestion, noise and increased street maintenance requirements associated with the removal of dirt tracked onto campus streets. 1 Estimated excavation volumes were determined based on average cubic yards excavated per square foot included in the GPDP (UW, 1992); average was 0.25 cy/sq.ft. Section III - Earth 51 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, earth-related impacts would be expected as development under the existing GPDP occurs. The amount of excavation, and subsequently earth impacts, would be significantly less than under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Potential impacts were analyzed as part of the GPDP EIS process and subsequent environmental review. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less on-campus development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less development). Consequently, in comparison with the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, the amount of new impervious surfaces would be reduced and about half the amount of cut and fill volumes would be required on campus. More open space would be retained. Overall, on-campus earth-related impacts would be reduced under this alternative. However, decentralization could lead to an increase in off-campus development activity and, consequently, an increase in off-campus earth-related impacts. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative In comparison to the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, a reduced amount of new impervious surfaces would be developed. Fewer street and alley vacations, as proposed under this alternative, would slightly reduce cut and fill volumes. Lifting of Lease Limit Removal of the existing limitation on leasing by the University of Washington would allow the University to lease additional building space within the University District. The University would not be limited in their ability to lease building space from private developers or under public/private partnerships and the pace of development activity in the University District could increase. Any new buildings developed in the University District would be built consistent with the goals of the University Community Urban Center Plan (UCUC Plan)2 and applicable City of Seattle zoning and development regulations. New buildings would require associated grading and excavation approvals by the City prior to construction. Conditions in the University District as a result of earthwork during construction would be as described in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist3 and would include increased localized dust, potential erosion and development-related truck trips. Possible Mitigation Measures Possible earth mitigation measures include the following. ! Excavated areas and stockpiled materials could be managed, through methods such as soil nailing, to prevent wall failure and sloughing. 2 3 Seattle, 1998b Seattle, 1998a Section III - Earth 52 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS ! Soldier piles and/or other slope stability techniques could be used as necessary in areas of unstable soils. Most development could be located in glacially consolidated soils. Structures could be designed with a structural system capable of supporting code-required floor loading and resisting lateral forces generated by earthquake and wind. Excavated earth could be disposed of at authorized disposal sites or reused on campus. To prevent an accumulation of dust and/or mud on campus during construction activities, the tires of construction equipment and trucks could be washed before they leave construction sites and streets could be swept as necessary. Whenever possible, construction could be scheduled to minimize overlapping of excavation periods for projects planned for construction in the same biennium. Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls could be implemented during excavation and construction activities to prevent impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat (see Section III C. of this Final EIS [Water] for further discussion). ! ! ! ! ! Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Earth 53 B. AIR Affected Environment The Puget Sound region has a winter-wet, summer-dry climate. Winters are moderate in temperature with few cold periods below 32oF, and summers are relatively cool with rare, short hot spells between 85oF and 100 oF. Annual precipitation, concentrated in the winter months, averages from 35 to 40 inches. Winds generally range south to southwest in the winter, and west to northwest in warmer periods. In winter, inversions with very stable atmospheric conditions occur for periods of one to several days. Climate affects air pollution with regard to wind conditions and temperatures; both factors influence ambient concentrations of pollutants. Due to low solar heating of the land in winter, temperature inversions may occur, accompanied by stagnant atmospheric conditions. In most cases, these pollutant-trapping inversions have an upper ‘lid’ at altitudes between 1,000 and 6,000 feet, and break up by early afternoon. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified six air quality elements as criteria pollutants – pollutants with the potential for endangering public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants include: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, particulates, and lead. Refer to Table 4, Ambient Air Quality Standards. There are four major sources of most criteria pollutant emissions in Washington State: motor vehicles, industrial emissions, residential woodstoves/fireplaces and outdoor burning. Emissions from motor vehicles are Washington’s largest source of air pollution – criteria pollutants generated by motor vehicles include: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons) and particulates. Three governmental agencies have responsibility for monitoring and implementing air quality standards in the project area: the U.S. EPA, Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA)5. DOE and PSCAA maintain a network of instrumented air quality monitoring stations throughout the Puget Sound area. These monitoring stations are located in areas that are projected to have higher concentrations for the pollutant being monitored (e.g., central business districts for carbon monoxide, industrial areas for particulates, resource areas for ozone). The monitoring station nearest the University of Washington campus is located at 1307 NE 45th Street, one block west of the northwest corner of the campus. Carbon monoxide is the only pollutant monitored at this location. Seattle is located within the Department of Ecology's four-county6 Puget Sound Intrastate Air Quality Region. Portions of this region are currently "in attainment"7 for certain pollutants -sulfur dioxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and ozone. Attainment status for carbon monoxide and ozone was granted in October 1996 (PSCAA, 2000). Portions of the region, however, remain "out of attainment" for particulate matter. 5 6 7 PSCAA was formerly named the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). The Puget Sound Intrastate Air Quality Region includes King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties. Pollutant emissions are below the standards. Section III - Air 54 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Table 4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant National Standards Washington State Standards Puget Sound Standards Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour Avg. a 1 Hour Avg. a 9 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 65 µg/m3 0.08 ppm 0.02 ppm 0.10 ppm a No Standard 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppm a 1.5 µg/m3 0.053 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm 50µg/m3 150µg/m3 15 µg/m3 65 µg/m3 0.08 ppm 0.02 ppm 0.10 ppm e No Standard 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppm e 1.5µg/m3 0.053 ppm Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arith. Avg. b 50 µg/m3 c 24 Hour Avg. 150 µg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arith. Avg.g 15 µg/m3 h 24 Hour Avg. 65 µg/m3 Ozone 8 Hour Avg. d Sulfur Dioxide Annual Avg. e 24-Hour Avg. e 3 Hour Avg. a 1 Hour Avg. f 1 Hour Avg. e Lead Calendar Qtr. Avg. e Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Avg. e 0.08 ppm 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm No Standard No Standard No Standard 1.5 µg/m3 0.053 ppm Notes 1. ppm = parts per million 2. µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter a b c d e f g h Not to be exceeded more than once per year. Standard attained when the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 50 µg/m3. Standard attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3, as 3. determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 150 µg/m Standard attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Never to be exceeded. Not to be exceeded more than twice in seven consecutive days. Attained when the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3. Attained when the 3-year average of the 98th percentile 24-hour average concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Air 55 The University campus is located within the attainment area for carbon monoxide and roughly 5 to 6 miles north of the industrial area south of downtown Seattle (area with a history of nonattainment for particulates). The University of Washington primarily affects local and regional air quality through vehicle traffic, construction activity and power generation. The University’s central power plant generates energy through natural gas and fuel combustion. The power plant stack is considered a ‘point source’ of air pollutants and as such requires an Air Quality Operating Permit from PSCAA (under the Clean Air Act). The University submitted an operating permit application in October 1995 that lists all applicable air quality regulations, describes compliance methodology proposed by the University, and provides information on long-term monitoring. PSCAA is currently reviewing the permit application. The permit is expected to be approved in late 2001 and would be reviewed every 5 years. The following is a brief discussion of the two most significant pollutants in the Seattle area carbon monoxide and particulates, and ozone and sulfur dioxide. The following information is based on data from PSCAA (PSCAA, 2001). Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas associated with incomplete combustion, generated by motor vehicle traffic, wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. Locally higher concentrations of CO can occur immediately adjacent to major arterials and highways, some industrial sources, or in areas of concentrated wood burning. I-5 runs north-south less than one mile from the west side of campus. Four major arterials, NE 45th Street, 15th Avenue NE, Montlake Boulevard NE and NE Pacific Street, surround the campus. Particularly at times of high travel volumes, during morning and evening rush hour and major University events, CO concentrations in the University District rise above average levels. Table 5 shows carbon monoxide monitoring results from the NE 45th Street monitoring station, 1992 to 1999. Table 5 CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORING RESULTS (1992 – 1999) Highest 8-hour Average (parts per million [ppm]) 12.9 7.0 8.2 8.1 8.7 6.7 6.2 7.0 Number of Exceedence Days Recorded 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Source: University of Washington, 2000c. The monitoring results indicate that one exceedence of the eight-hour carbon monoxide standard has been recorded at NE 45th Street in the past eight years; the carbon monoxide reached 12.9 ppm in 1992. A single exceedence of the standard is not considered to be a violation; the Puget Sound region stayed within the established standard during 1992. The University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Air 56 existing levels of traffic and congestion periodically cause exceedences of the 1-hour standard for carbon monoxide, particularly during peak traffic periods in the vicinity of NE 45th Street and 15th Avenue NE, and NE 45th Street and I-5. However, no monitored values exceeded the federal 1-hour standard in 1998 (PSCAA, 2001). Overall CO levels were generally on the decline since 1992, but increased by 0.8 ppm in 1999. Particulate Matter Particulate matter consists of fine particles of smoke, dust, pollen or other materials that remain suspended in the atmosphere for a substantial period of time. Particulates are emitted from industrial operations, auto and bus traffic, residential wood burning, construction activities and other sources. PM10 are small matter equal or less than 10 micrometers in diameter. Because of their size, they are respirable and are associated with a variety of respiratory effects. Particulate emissions are generally higher during the winter, when more fuel is burned and meteorological conditions favor the concentration of emissions. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) originates primarily from combustion sources and also forms in the atmosphere from the chemical reactions of pollutant gases. PSCAA views fine particulate matter as the main air pollution issue impacting the region. The nearest PM10 particulate monitoring stations are located several miles south and southwest of the University of Washington campus in the Duwamish, Harbor Island and South Park areas of Seattle. Of these locations, Duwamish typically experiences the highest concentrations due to surrounding commercial and industrial activity. In the past, PM10 concentrations at other monitoring stations in the Puget Sound region have exceeded the ambient standard, which resulted in a non-attainment classification for the entire Puget Sound area. Since 1992, however, all monitoring stations have been in compliance with the annual standard and, for the past five years, all stations have recorded daily concentrations below the daily standard. The region is currently in compliance with the PM10 standard. There are three PM2.5 monitoring stations in the Puget Sound region: Seattle-Duwamish, Kent and the Tacoma Tide Flats. Fine particulate data show an overall improvement in air quality since 1992, with an annual 98th percentile of daily (24-hour) concentration of approximately 40 µg/m3 and an annual arithmetic mean of 13.6 µg/m3. These concentrations are well below the adopted standards of 65 µg/m3 and 15 µg/m3, respectively (see Table 4). Ozone Ozone is a product of photochemical reactions in the atmosphere on hot, sunny days. Most of the pollutants that contribute to ozone come from cars, buses and trucks, gasoline-powered yard equipment, paints/solvents and boat motors. Ozone concentrations are not temperature driven, but they are driven by the amount of sunlight that occurs concurrently with high temperatures and air pollution trapped near the surface by low-level temperature inversions (PSCAA, 2001). The Washington State Department of Ecology conducts all ozone monitoring in the Puget Sound region. Monitoring sites for ozone are located in Beacon Hill of Seattle, Lake Sammamish, Highway 410 (near Enumclaw), Mud Mountain Road (also near Enumclaw) and Pack Forest near LaGrande (Eatonville). Between 1988 and 1998 (the most recent date for which data was available at the publication date of this document), the overall regional ozone trend was flat and marginally within federal standards. Conditions that provide for high levels of ozone are relatively infrequent, and, in University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Air 57 comparison to other parts of the country, ozone pollution is not as critical a problem in the Puget Sound region. The U.S. EPA designated the Puget Sound area in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in 1996. The Beacon Hill monitoring site (the nearest monitoring site to the University of Washington) showed 1-hour and 8-hour average maximum concentrations to be well within federal standards (PSCAA, 2001). Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is emitted from large coal or oil burning power plants, sulfuric acid production facilities, pulp mills, cement plants and other large industrial operations. Until it closed in 1984, the dominant regional sulfur dioxide source was the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma. The Washington Department of Ecology maintains four monitoring stations in Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma to measure sulfur dioxide. Measured levels of sulfur dioxide in the region continue to be low. Sulfur dioxide levels did not reach even 3 percent of any of the state or federal standards during 1998. The only exceedence of the standard in the past 10 years was attributed to an upset emission from an Everett pulp and paper mill in 1994. This single exceedence did not constitute a violation of the state 1-hour standard, nor did it violate any federal standards. The Puget Sound area, including the University of Washington Seattle campus, remains in attainment for sulfur dioxide. Impacts of the Proposed Action The development of 3 million square feet throughout campus, as described in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, would result in localized short-term increases in particulates and carbon monoxide in the vicinity of the construction sites. Key construction activities causing potential impacts include: removal of existing pavement and/or buildings, excavation, grading, stockpiling of soils, soil compaction, and operation of diesel-powered trucks and equipment (i.e., generators and compressors) on-site. During construction, on-site activity and periodic traffic delays on adjacent streets could contribute to slightly greater vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. Construction would contribute to temporary increases in hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen from vehicular exhaust. Overall, no significant change in University-related traffic is projected (see Section III O. of this Final EIS, Transportation, Transportation Technical Report and the Master Plan Seattle Campus. Vehicle emissions would not be expected to cause significant changes to ambient concentrations of air pollutants in the University District or result in violations of existing 8-hour air quality standards. The existing levels of traffic and congestion may continue to cause periodic violations of the 1-hour standard for carbon monoxide, particularly during peak traffic periods in the vicinity of NE 45th Street and 15th Avenue NE, and NE 45th Street and I-5. Population growth during the planning period would increase the consumption of electricity, fossil fuel, and natural gas on campus. The combustion of additional natural gas and fuel in the central power plant will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. Emissions from the plant would be managed to comply with standards and methodology associated with the University’s approved air Quality Operating Permit. The Master Plan Seattle Campus includes potential construction of an aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street. Concentrations of carbon monoxide under the aerial plaza could increase. However, considering the width of the openings relative to the length of the cover, significant University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Air 58 impacts would not be anticipated. If and when the aerial plaza is proposed, additional environmental analysis -- identifying air quality conditions under the aerial plaza and appropriate mitigation measures -- would be prepared. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, air quality impacts would be expected to occur as development (approved but not yet built) under the GPDP occurs and the University population increases. The level of construction-related air quality impacts would be less than under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. However, increased traffic would not be managed under the Master Plan Seattle Campus TMP. Increased vehicle volumes could cause greater impacts to air quality on campus. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less on-campus development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less development). This reduction in planned development would reduce temporary, construction-related air quality impacts by approximately half. Impacts would be reduced under this alternative, as less development and related traffic volumes would be concentrated on campus. However, this alternative could lead to decentralization and an increase in off-campus development activity. Decentralization of University development and activities could increase on- and off-campus vehicle activity and the presence of related air contaminants. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative Without the street and alley vacations included in the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, a reduced amount of development would occur. Because development would be reduced under this alternative, temporary construction-related impacts to air quality would be more limited. Lifting of Lease Limit Removal of the existing limitation on leasing by the University of Washington would allow the University to lease additional building space within the University District. The University would not be limited in their ability to lease building space from private developers or under public/private partnerships and the pace of development activity in the University District could increase. Any new buildings developed in the University District would be built consistent with the goals of the UCUC Plan8 and applicable City of Seattle zoning and development regulations. As analyzed in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist9, construction of new buildings would temporally generate dust from exposed soils and exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and machinery. Occupation of new buildings in the University District would increase traffic as identified in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist. It should be noted that with implementation of University of Washington TMP measures, traffic associated with University- 8 9 Seattle, 1998b. Seattle, 1998a Section III - Air 59 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS related development could be less than that identified in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist. Possible Mitigation Measures The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus includes goals and policies to create a more sustainable environment, protect natural resources and preserve views from campus. These policies would guide planned development and indirectly affect air quality mitigation efforts. The University of Washington would implement measures to mitigate air quality impacts associated with construction activities and construction traffic. Specific mitigation measures may include the following: ! ! During construction, best management practices to control dust and vehicle and equipment emissions would be implemented. The University’s Transportation Management Program would be implemented (refer to Section III O. of this Final EIS [Transportation]). Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Increased traffic and congestion associated with on-campus construction activity and University operations could cause periodic, localized violations of the 1-hour standard for carbon monoxide. Other air quality standards would not be expected to be violated as a result of the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Increases in suspended particulates would occur in construction areas to some extent during excavation for individual projects. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Air 60 C. WATER Affected Environment Surface Water The University of Washington is located within the 600-square mile Lake Union drainage basin. The campus is bounded on the east by Union Bay (a portion of Lake Washington) and on the south by the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Portage Bay. The drainage basin is urban in character and dominated by impervious surfaces. In general, surface water from the basin flows from the east (Lake Washington), through the Ship Canal and Lake Union, and eventually outlets to Puget Sound via the Hiram Chittendon Locks on the west. The University campus receives an average of 35.8 inches of precipitation annually. The most significant natural surface water features on campus are the wetlands located in East Campus (see discussion below). There are several established artificial water bodies: the University Slough, Frosh Pond and a fisheries holding pond. The University Slough was constructed to drain stormwater from East Campus. Frosh Pond, an artificial body of water with a decorative fountain (Drumheller Fountain), was created as a dominant water feature for the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. It is located in Rainier Vista within the Central Campus. In the South Campus, a fisheries holding pond was developed by impounding a small inlet on Portage Bay. This pond is managed as a part of a program of fish propagation, with alternate filling and emptying during and after migration periods. Under the City of Seattle Shoreline Management Program (1987), the University’s shorelines, along Lake Washington (Union Bay), the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Portage Bay, have been classified into three zones: Conservancy Preservation, Conservancy Management and Urban Stable. Figure 13 shows the locations of these classifications. The University’s shoreline areas are also designated as Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas by the City of Seattle Environmentally Critical Areas ordinance (SMC 25.09.020). Shorelines regulations and policies are discussed in the Land Use – Relationship to Plans and Policies section of this Final EIS (Section III H.). West of the Montlake Bridge, the shoreline is primarily urban and industrial. Some private industrial uses occupy the waterfront, alongside University uses between the University Bridge and the Marine Sciences building. The shoreline south of the University Medical Center extending to the Waterfront Activities Center is comprised of bulkheads and lined by pedestrian walkways. As the shoreline continues north of the Waterfront Activities Center, the edge of the land becomes less distinct, with marshes and peat deposits along the shore. Stormwater Drainage Surface waters generally drain to the south and southwest sections of the campus through University and City of Seattle stormwater drainage systems – to the Ship Canal and Portage Bay. There are no surface water features draining West Campus. The University Slough, excavated from fill, and University stormwater system drain East Campus. The East Campus system includes a drainage canal, east of the Center for Urban Horticulture on Union Bay. This canal is a small draw that is a remnant of the perimeter loop channel that was originally dredged University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 61 in the early 1950s. Surface water drainage in Kincaid ravine (near NE 45th St.) is intercepted by the underground storm drainage system. Historically, the City has classified campus storm and sanitary collection systems as ‘side sewers’; their design and construction are addressed in City of Seattle Ordinance No. 97016 (Side Sewer Ordinance). This ordinance is specific in limiting types and concentrations of waste discharged to the public sewer system or receiving waters. City of Seattle Drainage Control Ordinance (Ordinance No. 108080; Seattle Municipal Code 22.800-22.808) regulates earthwork and storm water runoff, requiring drainage permits and approval of all drainage control plans for new construction. The overall purpose of the ordinance is to protect life and property from damage by flooding and to protect the City’s streams and lakes from excessive water flow and pollution. The City’s ordinance has recently been updated to a higher level of water quality treatment and volume and flow control measures; elements of the updated ordinance became effective in July 2000 with other elements effective in January 2001 (Seattle, 2000). A portion of the University’s combined sewer and storm water system in West Campus is maintained by the City as part of the City-owned right-of-way, and is subject to City drainage control requirements. The University’s drainage control system was designed and is maintained according to standards compatible with the City’s ordinance. Elements of the existing storm water collection system not amenable to staged expansion, such as the system’s main collectors, were sized to accommodate the maximum design storm runoff (100 percent). While 87 percent of the campus is separated into sanitary and storm sewer systems, the remaining 13 percent is combined and flows into the Metro trunk line via the sanitary sewer system. All separated stormwater collection systems on campus are designed to accommodate runoff from the City of Seattle’s ten-year frequency design storm. Several projects separating the sewer and storm systems in the Portage Bay vicinity have been completed since the early 1970s and have contributed to improved water quality. In 1994, storm water runoff from the University Regulator basin was separated from the sanitary sewer system through the construction of a new discharge line. This project is anticipated to reduce combined sewer overflow by 50 percent; a study is currently underway to assess the benefits to Lake Union water quality (King County Department of Natural Resources, 2000). Groundwater Groundwater is close to ground surface throughout the campus and occasionally surfaces in the vicinity of Kincaid ravine north of the Nuclear Physics Laboratory near the NE 45th viaduct. In the East Campus, groundwater surfaces in the center of the land fill area (refer to Section III A. [Earth] for further discussion). Water Quality Historically, sanitary sewer and stormwater discharges were combined region-wide, and overflows contributed to significant water quality problems, including in Portage and Union Bays. Portage Bay is the most heavily urbanized water body receiving stormwater flow from the City of Seattle and University stormwater conveyances. While sanitary, industrial, and fuel discharges to Portage Bay and the ship canal may have decreased over time, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) still flow into the lake. Presently, approximately 87 percent of the Seattle Campus has been separated into sanitary and stormwater conveyances. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 63 Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that states identify all polluted water bodies and submit a list to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years, providing information on ‘water quality limited’ estuaries, lakes, and streams that fall short of state surface water quality standards. In 1998 (the most recent year in which information was submitted to the EPA), Lake Union, Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal did not exceed standards for phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, Secchi depth or temperature. However, these water bodies were included on the 303d list for exceeding other state water quality criteria for toxic substances. Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal did not meet standards for sediment bioassay and dieldrin levels. Lake Washington did not meet minimum standards for sediment bioassay and fecal coliform levels (WA DOE, 2000). An ongoing study by King County will assess and compare impacts of the former combined sewer and the new separated storm water discharge systems. Data collected prior to the sewer separation will be compared to data currently being collected to assess the toxicity potential of the storm water discharge and the chemical and biological impacts of the discharge on the water column, sediments, fish, and crayfish of Lake Union. Evaluation of these data will determine whether external phosphorus loading, heavy metals, and priority organic pollutants in the water column and sediments are controlled by the separation of stormwater and sanitary sewer systems. Surface-water quality has been monitored in Portage Bay, Lake Union, and in the Lake Washington Ship Canal, recently by King County (King County Department of Natural Resources, 2000). In the years 1992-2000, water temperature at a depth of 1 meter has exceeded critical temperatures for salmonids (18° C) as early as July 1. Maximum summer temperatures average more than 20° C. Dissolved oxygen dropped through the summer, but remained above 8 mg/l at a depth of 1 meter. However, lake sediments are composed of deep organic layers. As microorganisms consume this organic material, they use much of the oxygen in the lower depths of the lake (called the hypolimnion). Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion of Lake Union are near zero in summer. The anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion and warm surface water temperatures limit the amount of habitat available to salmonid fishes. Wetlands Wetland areas on campus are located along the Lake Washington shoreline in East Campus (east of Montlake Boulevard NE). The flats of East Campus were created when the Hiram Chittendon Locks were completed in 1916; the original delta area became a cattail marsh underlain by peat deposits. Now known as the Union Bay Natural Area, this land is bounded on the southeast and south by Lake Washington, on the west by University parking lots and athletic fields, on the north by the University’s Ceramic and Metal Arts facility, and on the east by the University’s Center for Urban Horticulture. The marsh was used as a landfill until the mid-1960’s, when the City of Seattle began closure. A minimum 2-ft cap of clean soil was spread over the area, graded, and seeded, closure was completed in 1971. Subsidence of the deep, spongy peat substrate that underlies the landfill has led to the development and expansion of wetlands since 1971. The Union Bay Natural Area encompasses approximately 55 acres and contains a range of wetland types. As defined in the classification system of the US Fish and Wildlife Service University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 64 (Cowardin et al., 1979), these wetland types include Palustrine Emergent, Palustrine ScrubShrub, Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Aquatic Bed, and Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (Pentec, 1992). The Union Bay wetlands are shown in Figure 14. There are two distinct wetland groups – shoreline and landward wetlands – in the Union Bay Natural Area. Wetlands in these groups are defined below. Shoreline Wetlands The shoreline area wetlands system runs from the east end of the Montlake Cut to Laurelhurst. This system comprises emergent, scrub-shrub, forested, and aquatic-bed wetlands. Emergent and some scrub-shrub wetlands dominate the western portion of this shoreline area. The eastern shoreline area, from the Center of Urban Horticulture to Laurelhurst, consists of scrubshrub and forested wetlands. Dominant vegetation in the emergent wetland area includes common cattail (Typha latifolia), yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), soft rush (Juncus effusus), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The scrub-shrub wetlands are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Pacific willow (Salix lucida var. lasiandra), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea ssp. sericea), red alder (Alnus rubra), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa). Forested wetlands in the shoreline area are dominated by black cottonwood, red alder, Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia). The aquatic bed wetland areas are dominated primarily by white waterlily (Nymphaea odorata var. odorata), yellow pond lily (Nuphar luteum ssp. polysepalum) and Eurasian watermilfoil (Miriophyllum spicatum). Shoreline wetlands are affected by the lowering of the lake level by up to 2 feet during the winter to facilitate repair and cleanup along the Ship Canal and the shoreline. Landward Wetlands Landward of the shoreline wetlands, the Union Bay Natural Area contains a number of additional wetlands, ranging in area from 0.02 acre to 1.6 acres. Each is depicted in Figure 14, although expansion and contraction of these wetlands occurs. The principal existing functions of these wetlands are wildlife habitat and water storage. Landward wetlands include the following: Wetland A - Located west of the Center for Urban Horticulture and south of Wahkiakum Lane, an emergent and scrub-shrub wetland approximately 0.7 acre in area. Soils are a silty sandy fill material. Dominant vegetation includes hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), small spikerush (Eleocharis ovata), and cudweed (Gnaphalium uliginosum). Several native species of wetland trees and shrubs have been planted on the periphery of the wetland during the last several years. Wetland B - Lying northeast of parking area E-5 between Wahkiakum Lane and Clark Road. This approximately 0.95-acre wetland is made up of emergent, scrub-shrub, and aquatic bed communities. The dominant vegetation consists of common spikerush, black cottonwood, Pacific willow, purple loosestrife, and redtop bentgrass (Agrostis gigantea). The soils are fill material. Wetland C - A 0.30-acre emergent wetland located near the lakeshore south of the Center for Urban Horticulture. It is dominated by toad rush (Juncus bufonius) and redtop. Other species occurring in the wetland are purple loosestrife, Sitka willow, black cottonwood, and soft rush. The soils are primarily fill material and hydric silty sand with mottles. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 65 Wetland D - A 0.05-acre emergent wetland, lies south of Wahkiakum Lane and east of lot E5, near the center of the Union Bay Natural Area. Purple loosestrife, toad rush, and cudweed dominate this wetland. Soils in this wetland are fill material and are hydric silty sand with mottles overlying compacted gravels. Wetland G - A 1.6-acre wetland lying southwest of the Center for Urban Horticulture, between the shoreline and Wahkiakum Lane. Its emergent, aquatic bed, and scrub-shrub communities are dominated by purple loosestrife, Pacific willow, white willow (Salix alba), redtop, and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). The soils are sandy silty fill material and hydric silty clay with mottles. Wetland H - A 0.02-acre emergent wetland, lies between the shoreline and Wetland G. Dominant vegetation includes reed canarygrass and redtop. The soils are sandy fill material. Wetland K - A 0.39-acre emergent wetland located west of Wetland B. It is dominated by purple loosestrife, soft rush, redtop, and cudweed. Pacific willow, spike rush, common cattail, willow, and fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) are also found at this wetland. The area is highly disturbed and dominated by weedy plants. The soils are clayey silty loam overlying compacted gravels. Wetland S - A 0.07-acre emergent wetland located east of lot E5. The vegetation includes redtop, shortawn foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis), purple loosestrife, bittersweet nightshade, smartweed (Polygonum sp.), cudweed, white clover (Trifolium repens), and Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota). The fill soils are hydric silty loams. Like Wetland K, this wetland area is highly disturbed. Wetland Y- A 0.11-acre scrub-shrub and emergent wetland, occupies a portion of a fenced lot on th th the east side of 25 Avenue NE south of NE 49 Street, adjacent to the southwestern portion of the Blakely Village Addition. The wetland is dominated by yellow iris, weeping willow (Salix babylonica), and Sitka willow. Other vegetation includes black cottonwood, horsetail, reed canarygrass, creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), red-osier dogwood, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). The soils are sandy loam. Wetland Z - A 0.11-acre emergent wetland north of Wahkiakum Lane and west of the Center for Urban Horticulture. It is dominated by colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris), giant horsetail, and field horsetail. Other plant species include reed canarygrass, soft rush, purple loosestrife, and black cottonwood. The soils are sandy, silty fill material. Three channels or sloughs, considered wetland areas, have been cut through fill material on the East Campus. They were designated as sloughs A, B, and D for the purposes of classification and description and are shown in Figure 14 (Pentec, 1992). No Slough “C” exists. Sloughs in the Union Bay Natural Area have the following characteristics: Slough A (University Slough) - Running from Wahkiakum Lane north to 45 Avenue. The banks of the slough are dominated by native and non-native invasive species, including Himalayan blackberry, willows, reed canarygrass, black cottonwood, Scots broom, red alder, and horsetail. The water and saturated areas are composed of common cattail, yellow iris, lesser duckweed (Lemna minor), purple loosestrife, hardstem bulrush, and pond lily. Slough B - Lying just north of Canal Road at the point where the road runs east-west between the intercollegiate baseball field and the Conibear Shellhouse. The slough banks are dominated by Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, willows, black cottonwood, and giant horsetail. The inundated areas are dominated by common cattail. th University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 67 Slough D – Located southwest of the Center for Urban Horticulture and dominated by red alder, black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and bittersweet nightshade. Impacts of the Proposed Action Surface and Groundwater Significant impacts to surface waters from development activities can occur in several ways: increases in the quantity and timing of stormwater discharges; degradation of water quality from soil erosion and chemical contamination from hydraulic transport off-site; removal of upland and riparian vegetation (resulting in increased stormwater runoff volumes and other impacts); and displacement or removal of surface water features. The Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes improvements to shoreline areas in the South/Southwest and East Campus areas to improve environmental and habitat conditions, and provide greater pedestrian access to the water. Existing surface water features would not be affected by development proposed under the Master Plan Seattle Campus. Increases in new impervious surfaces resulting from development (buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.) and the loss of pervious surfaces would result in increases in stormwater runoff quantity and frequency. Higher peak flow rates and longer-duration storm events, caused by conversion of natural cover to landscaped and impervious cover, increases the potential for erosion of shoreline and benthos. It is unknown, without direct study, whether habitats associated with receiving waters (Portage Bay, Ship Canal, Union Bay) are sensitive to stormwater impacts. Stormwater Drainage System Storm water runoff volumes would increase as new projects are constructed and impervious area increases on campus. Analysis using the King County Runoff Time Series suggests that potential runoff from the new impervious area on campus would be within the range shown in Table 6 for the 2-year to 100-year storms. The existing University-owned drainage system is estimated to have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in campus stormwater runoff volumes. Development may require that new taps to the system be established as construction occurs, depending on the configuration of facilities. Stormwater retention tanks or separate storm and sanitary lines would be required in association with large capital projects (as defined by the Seattle Municipal Code). Additional separation of the remaining combined sewer and storm drains throughout campus would occur as the opportunity presents itself. Any retrofits or changes to the existing system would be undertaken according to City of Seattle standards (Seattle Municipal Code Ch. 22.800). As new regulations develop, additional stormwater treatment may be required. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 68 Table 6 POTENTIAL RUNOFF FROM NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA Net New Estimated Flow Control Approximate Water Quality Impervious Area Runoff Range1 Design Volume2 2 cfs ft acre ft3 22,000 44,000 (-21,000) 10,000 55,000 3 Drainage Unit Central Campus East Campus South Campus West Campus Total 0.51 1.01 (-0.48) 0.23 1.36 0.1 to 0.3 0.3 to 0.5 0.2 to 0.4 0.01 to 0.05 862 1723 431 392 2977 Notes: 1. Runoff rates are based only on the reported new impervious areas. Rates may change dramatically when the drainage units are analyzed as part of an actual drainage system. 2. Based on mean annual runoff = 0.47 inches 3. Approximately 96,000 sq.ft. of pervious surface would be created and 151,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface would be developed under the Master Plan Seattle Campus; the net gain in impervious surface would be approximately 55,000 sq.ft. Water Quality The increase in sewage volumes associated with campus population growth could lead to an increase in fecal coliform levels in the Lake Union drainage basin, particularly where sewer and storm systems are still combined and discharging to the Ship Canal and Union Bay. An increase in storm water runoff volumes (due to an expected increase in impervious area) could increase phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and temperature levels of receiving waters. The transparency of these waters could decline temporarily during construction periods (in association with erosion and sedimentation), and overall due to increased storm water volumes. The Master Plan Seattle Campus is not expected to cause an increase in the levels of toxic substances present in the Lake Washington Ship Canal, Lake Washington or Lake Union. Wetlands Possible development near the Waterfront Activities Center (WAC), replacement or remodeling of the Conibear Shellhouse, and development at the Center for Urban Horticulture (CUH) could have indirect impacts on nearby wetlands. These could include temporary impacts incidental to construction or permanent impacts if clearing or grading of any portion of a wetland buffer were unavoidable. Construction of water-dependent facilities near the WAC and on the site of the existing shellhouse would be on or close to the shore of Lake Washington and its adjacent shoreline wetlands. Construction at CUH would be near shoreline wetlands to the south. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 69 Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, water quality impacts would be expected to occur to some extent as the University population increases. These impacts would be mostly related to vehicle impacts. Because less development would occur under this alternative, impacts would be reduced somewhat. Water resources would be managed according to the GPDP (University of Washington, 1992). Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less development than under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus (approximately 50 percent less development); consequently, a reduced amount of new impervious surfaces would be established. More open space would be retained, but fewer open space improvements would occur. Overall, on-campus impacts to water resources and water quality would be reduced under this alternative. However, some benefits from open space improvements would not be realized. This alternative could lead to decentralization and an increase in off-campus development activity, and the need for additional off-campus stormwater drainage facilities and/or capacity. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative In comparison to the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, building area and new impervious surfaces would be less under the No Street And Alley Vacations Alternative. Without street and alley vacations, and hence new construction and stormwater conveyances, the potential for erosion and an increase in stormwater runoff volumes would be reduced. Wetland impacts would be similar to that described for the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Lifting of Lease Limit Additional drainage facilities and/or relocation of existing facilities in the University District, in particular, could be required with the lifting of the existing lease lid. Stormwater drainage services for new off-campus developments would be provided by the City of Seattle; new connections and/or relocation of drainage facilities associated with new development would be subject to the required permitting and utilities approval associated with those specific development projects. Possible Mitigation Measures The following would be available as possible mitigation measures. ! Storm system extensions could be designed and constructed to accommodate runoff from the City of Seattle’s ten-year frequency design storm. Storm drains from parking lots could be equipped with oil separators as required to reduce runoff pollutants entering the drainage system. Storm water facilities (i.e. detention facilities, catch basins, and underground storage) for temporary control of runoff during construction as well as permanent controls could be provided per City of Seattle standards (Seattle Municipal Code Ch. 22.800). University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 70 ! ! Groundwater control measures could be provided for all subsurface wells and basement drainage. Mechanical devices to increase efficiency, reduce consumption, and monitor water use are included in all new construction projects. Measures to increase efficiency and reduce consumption could be taken in existing facilities as well. Changes to facilitate pedestrian access will be carried out so that additional damage to shoreline areas does not occur. Water conservation techniques and programs could be continued and/or expanded (see Section O of this Final EIS). In replacing existing roofs, efforts would continue to be made to use materials which would further reduce runoff that might possibly contain substances that are toxic to aquatic animals. Sky bridges and the aerial plaza would be designed to channelize stormwater runoff and thereby minimize sheet flow runoff to travel lanes below. The University anticipates working with the City of Seattle in developing and updating its compliance program for any new storm drainage pollution controls or treatment requirements. In response to the statewide listings of salmonids under the Endangered Species Act, the University would adopt additional water quality control measures and coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Department of Ecology and other federal and state agencies, as required. ! ! ! ! ! ! There are other opportunities to mitigate water-related development impacts on-site and off-site. Potential on- and off-site mitigation measures may include the following: ! ! ! Avoid significant grade changes which could alter normal surface flow patterns. Control and plan for spills of hazardous materials, such as petroleum, cement, chemicals, or other toxic substances (primarily necessary during construction). Immediate site revegetation with native species, especially where displacement of established invasive species is possible, and minimal use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides following the University Integrated Pest Management program. Restoration or enhancement of wetlands and buffer areas that contribute habitat functions to species of concern. Retrofit problem storm outfalls to improve drainage system functions. Construction impacts could be minimized or eliminated by siting that avoids building or working in wetlands or wetland buffers. When wetlands are near a construction site, protective fences should be erected around sensitive areas, along with observing BMPs as described above, could mitigate potential impacts. Compensation for temporary or ! ! ! University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 71 permanent impacts on wetlands could include enhancement of existing degraded wetlands or restoration of previously filled wetlands in the Union Bay Natural Area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Unavoidable adverse impacts include those impacts not controlled by mitigation measures, which could result from non-compliance with regulations or compliance with regulations that are insufficient to protect surface waters from stormwater impacts like erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, federal, state, local and regional water quality regulations and programs cannot always anticipate or eliminate adverse impacts to water quality. During large construction projects, surface water quality could temporarily decline due to erosion and sediments in stormwater runoff. Fecal coliform levels could increase where sewer and storm water systems are still combined and discharging within the Lake Union basin. Increased storm water runoff volumes could also negatively affect other water quality parameters. East Campus wetlands could sustain unavoidable adverse impacts if developing one or more of the projects on the East Campus offered no practicable alternative to encroaching on a wetland or its buffer. Because of the availability of buildable upland areas and the difficulties of construction in or near a wetland, such impacts, if any, are likely to be small. No other significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Water 72 D. PLANTS AND ANIMALS Affected Environment Plants The University of Washington campus property is a mosaic of upland wooded areas, wetlands, sloughs and shoreline vegetation, educational plantings, recreational and lawn areas, and developed space. The University has identified ‘Unique and Significant Landscapes’ that are considered to be critical to the overall campus form and that are to be conserved. These landscapes are listed in Table 7, and described in Section III of the Master Plan Seattle Campus. Table 7 DESIGNATED LANDSCAPES Medicinal Herb Garden College of Forest Resources Courtyard Burke Museum Grieg Garden Liberal Arts Quadrangle Central Plaza Rainier Vista HUB Yard Union Bay Natural Area Center for Urban Horticulture Hospital Glade Sakuma Viewpoint Denny Yard Campus Green Denny Field Archery Range Sylvan Theatre Hansee Hall Courtyards Whitman Court Woodland Walk Frosh Pond/Engineering Quad Fisheries Courtyard Showboat Beach Sol Katz Memorial Garden Memorial Way Physics Courtyard Island Grove East Campus The East Campus property includes upland, wetland, riparian (slough), shoreline (Lake Washington), and playfield-related vegetation. The eastern portion of the East Campus is located on a terrace of fill capped by soil. This fill was placed in the large cattail marsh that formed in Union Bay after construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 (refer to the Earth and Water sections for further discussion). The Union Bay Natural Area and wetlands, established over the fill area, are the most significant landscape feature in East Campus. Upland plant communities in the Union Bay Natural Area are dominated by European pasture grasses and perennial, herbaceous weeds, such as wild carrot (Daucus carota), thistle (Cirsium sp.), chicory (Cichorium intybus), and hairy cats ear (Hypochaeris radicata). Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), two aggressive exotic species, University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 73 also dominate patches of the natural area. Coverage by these species has declined in recent years because of management activities. Other vegetative species occurring in the East Campus area include Garry oak (Quercus garryana), one-seed hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), and common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). As discussed in the Water section (Section III C.), wetland plant communities in the East Campus are dominated by common cattail (Typha latifolia), yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), spike rush (Eleocharis palustris), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is also dominant in the East Campus wetlands, although control efforts have helped to reduce the extent of this invasive species in the East Campus. Other vegetation found in the East Campus wetlands includes red alder (Alnus rubra), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), redtop (Agrostis alba), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) (Pentec, 1992). Central Campus The Central Campus area consists primarily of buildings and open areas. Key open spaces include Denny Yard, Memorial Way, the Liberal Arts Quadrangle, Hub Yard, Campus Green, Central Plaza, Engineering Quadrangle and Rainier Vista. These open areas are landscaped with both native and nonnative plant species. Tree species include Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), several species of cherry (Prunus spp.), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), plum (Prunus sp.), and crabapple (Malus sp.). Landscaped shrubs include roses (Rosa sp.), English holly (Ilex aquifolium), and Japanese maple (Acer palmatum). Some small, isolated patches of native trees and shrubs, such as Western red cedar, Douglas fir, and salal (Gaultheria shallon), can be found in a natural condition on the periphery of the Central Campus. Many of the plants in the Central Campus area have historical significance, aesthetic importance, and are used for teaching purposes. There are several notable landscaped areas in Central Campus. Rainier Vista is a tree-lined view corridor vital to the character and form of the campus’s overall open space system. The HUB Yard is an open tree-lined lawn area to the northwest of the HUB. Denny Yard includes clusters of large, mature trees within the lawn area. The Liberal Arts Quadrangle (“The Quad”) is a formal open space known for its spring show of flowering cherry trees. Engineering Quadrangle, which includes Drumheller Fountain, is a formal open space that is known for its rose gardens. West and South/Southwest Campus The West Campus area is highly developed and contains no habitat in a natural state. Most of the vegetation in the West Campus consists of lawns and ornamental trees and shrubs in a park-like urban landscape. The most notable landscaped area in West Campus is the International Friendship Grove, a remnant of a mixed planting of trees in the median of Campus parkway with a plaque, placed to commemorate the Fifth World Forestry Congress, held at the University of Washington in 1960. The South/Southwest Campus comprises an area of limited landscaping. Sakuma Viewpoint and Showboat Beach provide public access to the waterfront. Vegetation in the South/Southwest Campus is primarily ornamental trees, shrubs, and lawn. This area includes the University of Washington Medical Center and Magnuson Health Sciences Center, as well as other University buildings located along Portage Bay. The area is landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs, with lawn along the shoreline. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 74 The most notable landscape characteristics in South Campus are Sakuma Viewpoint, Showboat Beach, a small-scale park at the south-end of Brooklyn Avenue NE; waterfront open space near the Fisheries Center; the new Aquatic and Fishery Sciences courtyard; and the viewpoints/pathways along the Ship Canal. Threatened and Endangered Species Review of endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants in King County by the Washington Natural Heritage Program (Moody, 2000) indicates that no listed species are likely to occur in the habitats on the University of Washington campus. Most of the listed plant species occur in montane or subalpine zones, glacial outwash prairies, bogs, or other rare or undisturbed areas. The urbanized and disturbed habitats in the University of Washington campus are not likely refuges for any of the listed plant species. Animals Fish and Fish Habitat The primary fish species inhabiting Union Bay (Lake Washington), the Lake Washington ship canal, and Portage Bay include large mouth and small mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides and M. dolomieui), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus), crappie (Pomoxis sp.), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and other species (Wydoski, 1972; Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). These species are tolerant of warmer water temperatures in summer (typically higher than 18° C). Less common species include coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and carp (Ctenopharyngodon sp.). Numerous migratory species are seasonally present and include chinook (Oncorhynchus tschwytscha), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka, native, cultured and introduced stocks), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). In addition, the School of Fisheries at the University of Washington maintains an established run of chinook and coho salmon. Native char (Dolly Varden/bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus) are found within the Lake Washington watershed (Chester Morse Reservoir), but likely rarely migrate to Lake Washington proper or Puget Sound (King County Department of Natural Resources 2000). East Campus The East Campus shoreline has been modified by riparian and shoreline development, but the majority of the shoreline is primarily natural in appearance and function. Riparian vegetation provides shading, litter fall, and insect production and fallout to the shoreline area. In this marsh and wetland area numerous small sloughs provide edge complexity, refuge areas, and foraging opportunities for many fish species. One slough or canal extends north to Montlake Boulevard NE at NE 45th Street. No fluvial drainage or habitat currently exists in this canal or in other parts of Union Bay bordering the campus. This area is managed for conservation primarily and recreation secondarily (Androskaut and Stockdale, 1999). South/Southwest Campus South/Southwest Campus borders Portage Bay and the Ship Canal (Montlake cut), south and west of the Waterfront Activities Center. The shoreline is almost completely modified with University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 75 vertical bulkheads, riprap, overwater structures, stormwater outfalls, and landscaping. The only beach area is south of the South Campus HUB. Most of the nearshore area is comprised of mixed fine sediments and mud. Overwater structures such as piers, floating docks, houseboats, or boat moorage likely provide refuge and cover for some fish species, but would be unimportant to salmonid juveniles. Natural shoreline and associated riparian vegetation is nearly non-existent. However, riparian vegetation does exist behind modified shoreline. Some vegetation remains from the golf course fairways that once existed in this part of campus and on the side slope of the Montlake Cut. This vegetation can contribute litter fall and insect fallout to the shoreline and in-water areas, but is minimally functional. This area is managed for urban and recreational uses primarily, and conservatory uses secondarily. In summary, native, introduced and transient fish species have access to shoreline areas in Union Bay, Portage Bay, and the Ship Canal. There is minimal existing information about the habitat requirements and behavior of species in these waters. Priority Habitats and Species data from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife indicate that none of the commonly occurring resident species, other than salmonids are species of concern. Threatened and Endangered Species Puget Sound chinook salmon and Puget Sound/Coastal bull trout were listed as threatened with extinction in 1999 under the federal Endangered Species Act (Federal Register 64 FR 14308, March 24, 1999 and 50 FR 58909, November 1, 1999). Puget Sound coho salmon are listed as a candidate species for federal protection. These species are all found in Lake Washington tributaries, including the Cedar River and Lake Sammamish watersheds. Critical habitat has been designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service for chinook salmon, and includes properly functioning habitat, where it exists, in water and riparian areas (50 FR 7764, February 16, 2000). Federal prohibitions on “take” have been established (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000). ‘‘Take’’ is defined to occur when a person engages in activities that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a species (or attempt to do any of these)(Section 9(a) ESA). Impacts on a protected species’ habitat may harm members of that species and, therefore, constitute a ‘‘take’’ under the ESA. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed fish by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. This includes prohibitions on harming or degrading critical habitat. Existing riparian and marsh habitat areas in Union Bay may provide refuge and foraging opportunities for these ESA listed fish species. No spawning by ESA listed species occurs near the University campus. However, adult chinook salmon returning from Puget Sound must migrate past the University campus on their way to Lake Washington tributaries (Cedar River, Bear Creek, Evans Creek, Issaquah Creek, North Creek, Thornton Creek, May Creek, Kelsey Creek and others). Adult migration occurs from June through September, with a peak in late August. Juvenile salmonids, alternatively, must migrate downstream past the campus on their way to Puget Sound. However, the distribution and behavior of chinook fry in Lake Washington and their use of the lake as a rearing area and migration corridor are not well understood. The hatchery populations of chinook and coho salmon cultured by the University of Washington School of Fisheries are distinct populations independent of ESA listed chinook salmon. These hatchery populations are reared as juveniles in the hatchery and are only released to Portage Bay when the fish are ready to migrate to Puget Sound. Thus as both juveniles and adults in University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 76 freshwater, they commingle with naturally reared populations for a very brief period and are not considered to impact ESA listed populations through ecological or behavioral pathways. Terrestrial Species and Habitat East Campus The East Campus contains the best wildlife habitat in the University of Washington property, particularly in the Union Bay Natural Area. The proximity of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands, uplands, and shoreline areas in the Union Bay Natural Area provide high quality foraging and breeding habitat for several species of birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Birds likely to occur in the East Campus area include songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and woodpeckers. Songbird species likely to occur in the Union Bay Natural Area include American robin (Turdus migratorius), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), orangecrowned warbler (Vermivora celata), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), marsh wren (Telmatodytes palustris), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) (Aanerud, 1989). Many species of waterfowl, both resident and wintering, are also likely to occur in the East Campus area, including wood duck (Aix sponsa), green-winged teal (Anas carolinesis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), Northern shoveler (Spatula clypeata), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), American pigeon (Mareca americana), greater scaup (Aythya marila), and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) (Aanerud, 1989). In addition to songbirds and waterfowl, upland game birds, such as California quail (Lophortyx californicus) and ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), live in the Union Bay Natural Area. Because the East Campus area lies along a shoreline, shorebirds such as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), spotted sandpiper (Actitus macularia), lesser yellowlegs (Totanus flavipes), and dunlin (Erolia alpina) are known to occur here (Aanerud, 1989). The uplands in the Union Bay Natural Area provide foraging and nesting habitat and are contiguous with other habitats that provide escape cover. The species likely to occur here include rodents and raptors. Rodents include mice (Peromyscus sp.), voles (Microtus sp.) and shrews (Sorex sp.). Raptors, such as peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucociphalus) are likely to prey on these rodents. Other small mammals likely to frequent the Union Bay Natural Area include coyote (Canis latrans), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), beaver (Castor canadensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinesis). Central, West and South/Southwest Campus The Central, West and South/Southwest Campus areas are similar to one another in available habitat and thus are considered together. Landscaped communities provide limited foraging and nesting habitat for small mammals and for both resident and migratory songbirds common to the region. Wildlife likely to occur in these areas are primarily disturbance-tolerant or invasive species, such as European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American robin, black-capped chickadee, mice, Eastern gray squirrel, and opossum. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 77 Threatened and Endangered Species A bald eagle nest is located approximately 1 mile south of the Union Bay Natural Area and another approximately 1-1/2 miles east of the Union Bay Natural Area. Bald eagles typically arrive at their traditional winter feeding grounds in late October (Anderson et al., 1986). The birds generally perch during the day on the tallest trees nearest their food source. Bald eagles also roost near their major foraging areas (Rodrick and Milner, 1991). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reports that bald eagle roosts are typically established in isolated areas in old-growth stands that have trees larger than the surrounding trees. The University of Washington’s Seattle campus does not appear to have any major foraging areas, such as point bars, nor does the area include any trees of the character used by bald eagles during foraging. Impacts of the Proposed Action Plants Potential development of portions of the East, West, Central, and South/Southwest Campus could have both temporary and permanent impacts on lawns, trees, and shrubs, including both native and ornamental species. Some increase in building footprints would likely come at the expense of lawns and landscaping. Construction could entail temporary impacts such as removal of lawns, trees, and shrubs, regrading, and subsequent replanting. Impacts on plants on East Campus could include temporary loss of lawn in the vicinity of the Waterfront Activities Center and the Conibear Shellhouse. Possible construction of additional greenhouses at the Center for Urban Horticulture, although adjacent to the Union Bay Natural Area, would most likely occur on currently unvegetated or weedy gravelly fill. As depicted by Figure 6 (Section II of this Final EIS), the Master Plan Seattle Campus would include the following additions or alterations to existing vegetated open space: ! Vegetated open space associated with potential development proximate to Denny Yard would attempt to connect seamlessly with the Yard. Potential development sites with pedestrian connections to the Burke-Gilman Trail or between the Central Campus and the East or South campuses would include improvements to the campus vegetated open space and entries at these points. The Master Plan Seattle Campus includes alternatives to modify Campus Parkway. One alternative includes consolidation of the Campus Parkway on the south alignment, creating one two-lane roadway in this portion of the Parkway. The International Friendship Grove and a mixed planting of trees in the median of Campus Parkway would possibly be altered. Trees would be planted along the sidewalk of the realigned Parkway. Potential development to the south-side of Gould Hall could retain the existing outdoor classroom/work yard and the Varey Memorial Garden, as consistent with the Memorandum of Agreement between Sound Transit and the University of Washington (June, 2000). The parking lot east of Henderson Hall could be developed as open space with connections to the Burke-Gilman Trail. Section III - Plants and Animals 78 ! ! ! University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS ! The existing Sakuma Viewpoint Park, south of the Fisheries Center, would be retained. A new vegetated open space could be created on the site of the existing fish ponds; the fish ponds would be relocated to the western portion of South/Southwest Campus. Some existing vegetation in the area of the car-top boat launch could be disturbed under the Proposed Action. The area would be landscaped, resulting in a greater amount of vegetation than currently exists. o Potential development in the vicinity of the Greenhouses and Plant Lab would not preclude retention of the existing greenhouses. ! ! The Proposed Action includes elements to improve pedestrian connections, upgrade the campus edge along 15th Avenue NE, and incorporate the potential light rail stations. Street trees would be added and the wall along the east side of 15th Avenue NE would be removed or decreased in height. Animals Fish and Fish Habitat Potential impacts to fish habitat could likely occur due to sedimentation, turbidity, other changes in water quality (primarily during construction), and shoreline development or alteration. Clearing, grading, building, and landscaping activities could cause soil erosion. Development sites immediately adjacent to University shorelines include nine sites 43S, 49S, 51S, 54E, 59E, 60E, 62E, 63E and 67E (see Figure 4, Section II of this Final EIS). Projects on these sites would likely include redevelopment or replacement of existing structures on, or adjacent to, developed shoreline. Therefore, while not likely to permanently alter or degrade natural shoreline areas below existing baseline conditions, expanded impervious surfaces and construction activity and practices could pose a significant threat to local water quality conditions. Stormwater runoff changes the quantity and timing of natural drainage from storm events and therefore can alter the natural hydrology (water quantity and timing) of the receiving water body. Because stormwater runoff timing is compressed and quantity is dramatically elevated during this time, stormwater has significant erosive capacity. Stormwater discharges can directly affect habitat quality by scouring the benthos and littoral shoreline areas. However, because the University’s stormwater receiving areas are large water-bodies, retention/detention controls have not routinely been applied. Although stormwater impacts are localized and do not affect a large proportion of the habitat available to species of concern in Union Bay, the Ship Canal, and Portage Bay, continued increases in stormwater discharges from University development do have the potential to degrade benthos and shoreline alike in the receiving water bodies. New stormwater discharges will be generated not only from building footprints, but also from new sidewalks or other building approaches, new roads, loading areas, and parking. Direct and indirect effects on water quality from development could create short-term and cumulative impacts. Impacts to water quality include temperature changes, changes in nutrient content, chemical contamination, petroleum contamination, and changes in dissolved oxygen and oxygen demand. These changes not only affect water quality directly, and the behavior, physiology and growth of fish species, but could also create conditions where native and University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 79 introduced predators or competitors thrive, or the abundance of prey resources changes or declines. Potential development impacts to fish species commonly occurring in Union Bay, Portage Bay, and the Ship Canal could occur. Potential impacts on healthy fish populations are best evaluated on a project-specific basis. Provided that proper erosion and sedimentation controls, stormwater management, and other mitigation measures are implemented, it is unlikely that such fish would be significantly affected by development. Threatened and Endangered Species In general, development activities have the potential to significantly impact ESA listed salmon and trout and their critical habitat. Examples of such impacts include: elimination of functional riparian habitat, direct and indirect effects of new (increased) stormwater discharges, direct and indirect effects of soil erosion (sedimentation and turbidity) from development, and direct and indirect effects on water quality from development (e.g., petroleum or chemical spill, or leaching). Under the Master Plan Seattle Campus, development activities would be planned and implemented in a manner that avoids or mitigates impacts through compliance with federal, state, and local regulation. Terrestrial Species and Habitat Trees, shrubs, buildings, and open space on the developed and urbanized majority of the campus provide limited habitat for disturbance-tolerant birds and small mammals. These include the American crow, American robin, European starling, black-capped chickadee, and small mammals, mainly Eastern gray squirrels. The Central Campus areas most likely to be affected, along portions of the eastern and western perimeters, provide some habitat for birds. Species nesting in these areas would be displaced as a result of any habitat loss. A majority of the habitat lost in the West Campus would be landscaped urban areas. These vegetative communities are relatively small and isolated, and have relatively low habitat values. The South/Southwest Campus areas provide no natural habitat, only small, isolated, landscaped urban areas. Because the shoreline is currently developed, any proposed new construction in this area would have no permanent adverse effects on waterfowl habitat, but could cause temporary disturbance during construction. Threatened and Endangered Species Development under the Master Plan Seattle Campus would not adversely affect bald eagle habitat in the vicinity. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Plants or animals associated with the No Action Alternative would be managed according to the GPDP. Because less development would occur under the GPDP, fewer impacts to plant and animal communities would likely occur. However, the University population would increase (as University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 80 described for the Proposed Action) and open spaces could be subjected to more intensive use. As a result, vegetation and wildlife habitat could be disturbed. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less development than under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus (approximately 50 percent less development). More vegetated open space would be retained, but fewer open space improvements would occur. Overall, on-campus impacts to plant and animal communities and individual species would be reduced under this alternative. Such impacts could be displaced, leading to an increase in decentralized or off-campus development activity. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative In comparison to the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, the amount of building footprint associated with new development would be reduced by approximately 26,000 sq.ft. Without street and alley vacations, the potential for erosion and an increase in stormwater runoff volumes would be generally the same as under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Impacts to plants and animals would be similar to that described for the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Lifting of Lease Limit The pace of development activity in the University District could increase with the lifting of the lease limit. New development in the University District would be required to conform with the City of Seattle’s development, tree ordinance/regulations, landscaping and sensitive areas standards, and would not be anticipated to significantly impact plant or wildlife habitat. Possible Mitigation Measures Plant and animal mitigation opportunities include impact avoidance (e.g., working when fish species are not particularly sensitive to disturbance or avoiding identified terrestrial habitats), stormwater drainage control, site and construction best management practices (BMP), alternative site design (including vegetation retention, landscaping, and alternatives to open parking lots), and habitat enhancement or restoration. Planned development would be sensitive to the existing shoreline. All development would comply with federal, state and local regulatory standards for development and mitigation that the University of Washington, as a public entity, is required to follow. BMPs should be developed and rigorously followed for both general and site specific development activities, especially if development in sensitive areas has been permitted. BMPs, as specified by regulation, would include: site disturbance controls, construction staging, erosion and spill control, drainage control (water quantity and quality), vegetation retention and revegetation plans, and BMP training and monitoring. Stormwater controls would be applied during construction activities and over the long term. Compliance would be measured against requirements set forth by the City of Seattle Stormwater, Drainage, and Erosion Control Requirements (SMC 22.802.015). These controls and BMPs would control on-site erosion and transport of sediment and pollutants off site, by University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 81 minimizing disturbance, stabilizing unworked materials, applying vegetative or mulch controls, and implementing other controls to reduce and treat contaminants in drainage water. In addition, controls could address the release rate of stormwater discharge depending on project size (SMC 22.802.015). Potential additional mitigation measures could include: # In response to the statewide listings of salmonids under the Endangered Species Act, the University could adopt additional water quality control measures and coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Department of Ecology and other federal and state agencies, as required. Vegetation controls could continue to include an Integrated Pest Management Plan and a revegetation plan that emphasizes the propagation of native scrub-shrub and mixed coniferous species along shoreline areas. The development of new campus vistas or pedestrian viewpoints could be designed to not compromise opportunities to revegetate shoreline areas. Shoreline areas could be enhanced or restored through the retention or placement of shoreline-associated large woody debris for cover and forage production. # # Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Significant unavoidable adverse impacts could occur along shoreline areas, affecting aquatic habitat areas, if planned development does not mitigate for disturbance. The increase in stormwater runoff volumes from new development could exacerbate water quality problems, thus affecting fish habitat. New development could permanently displace some existing terrestrial habitat. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Plants and Animals 82 E. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Affected Environment Approximately one-third of the current University of Washington energy demand is met via electrical power; the remaining two-thirds of demand is supplied by fossil fuel. The largest percentage of total energy (53 percent) is consumed for building heating. Energy sources and uses are described below. Electric Power Seattle City Light (SCL) provides electrical power to Seattle and portions of King County. Based on 1999 data compiled by the University, the approximate total annual energy consumption for the entire campus was 2,600x109 Btu (British thermal unit) per year (see Table 8). The rate of energy consumption has increased by 6.25 percent per year due to new construction, additional lab equipment and the proliferation of computer use. Table 8 ENERGY CONSUMPTION SUMMARY, 1989-1999 Year 1989-1990 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 Fossil Fuel Use 9 (Btux10 ) 1,237 1,283 1,217 1,394 1,420 1,496 1,515 1,713 1,575 1,688 Electricity 9 (Btux10 ) 699 729 750 762 802 835 857 848 876 919 Total Use 9 (Btux10 ) 1,936 2,012 1,967 2,156 2,222 2,331 2,372 2,561 2,451 2,607 Source: University of Washington Capital Projects Office, 2000. Most campus electrical energy demands are met through power supply contracts with SCL. SCL owns and maintains primary voltage (26 kV) substations adjacent to the Central Power Plant on the east side of the Central Campus and a second substation on the west side of the Central Campus. These substations provide service to the University’s 13.8 kV electric distribution substation at 15th Ave. NE and NE Pacific St.; this substation serves the campus load, with the exception of the most distant loads in the East and West Campus. It is planned that any new buildings or electric load additions would be served off of direct SCL electric service. The major consumption of electrical power is for lighting and building fans (35 percent each). Operation of chillers to supply air conditioning makes up approximately 2 percent of consumption. Power for laboratory and process equipment is approximately 16 percent, and for office equipment (including computers) is 12 percent. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Energy and Natural Resources 83 Campus feeders have been extended to serve the West Campus area, east of the University Bridge; however, the campus electric distribution does not presently extend into the remaining West Campus area. SCL owns and maintains the electric distribution in this area and new projects would generally receive new electric service directly from SCL in the West Campus area west of the University Bridge. Similarly, the area of East Campus near Union Bay Place NE is served directly by SCL. Peak hours of electrical use are from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm on weekdays. During these times, peak electrical energy use generally ranges from 35,000 to 40,000 kilowatts (kW) and has been as high as 41,000 kW. At low-use times (approximately 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.), electrical energy use is approximately 25,000 kW. The rate of increase in energy use has accelerated since the mid1980s by approximately 6.25 percent. This growth can be attributed to new construction, additional lab equipment and the proliferation of computer use. An energy efficiency program is in place at the University. The University works with local public utilities to strive for energy conservation in new projects and existing buildings. The emergency electrical power system is adequate for only present demands. Any new construction or major building renovation would require a new emergency power source. Central Cooling The central power plant supplies energy to chillers for the central cooling water system (CCW). The chillers have a generating capacity approximately equal to the current campus demand, and distribution piping for the system is currently at capacity. Provisions have been made for the installation of one additional chiller to provide cooling to existing buildings. Fossil Fuel Fossil fuel consumed at the Central Power Plant is used to generate heat, steam and emergency power. The steam system boilers are powered by natural gas (97 percent) and fuel oil (3 percent). Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas services to the University. Steam is distributed to most buildings on the Central Campus through utility tunnels and is used for building heat, domestic hot water, food services, and process use. The largest element – building heating – was significantly reduced in the early 1970s by energy conservation programs. This included improved controls and operations procedures to reduce air volumes and temperatures. The University central steam system currently has cogeneration capability. Additional cogeneration opportunities will be explored between the University, City Light and the Bonneville Power Administration as technical and economic viability become available. Natural gas service is provided through a metering station in the South/Southwest Campus for that area and at the central power plant. From the Central Power Plant, a University-maintained system distributes gas to a limited number of buildings. The University recently participated in a project that increased the size of the Puget Sound Energy main for more reliable and better service. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Energy and Natural Resources 84 Impacts of the Proposed Action Construction Including site preparation, materials manufacturing, delivery and assembly energy costs, the total estimated amount of energy required to develop 3 million square feet on campus would be 4,170 x 109 Btu10. Operations Total energy demand associated with the addition of 3 million square feet would amount to an estimated 772x109 Btu per year11. The overall peak winter energy demand would be 10,200 kW. Refer to Appendix C for energy demand calculations. Energy conservation in facility design and management is expected to keep the growth in energy consumption to about onehalf of what would have been predicted from the energy consumption pattern of the 1970s. Electric Power Electrical power receiving stations have the capacity and switch gear necessary to serve the electrical loads for the fully developed campus and should not require major upgrades for approximately 40 years. Significant portions of the distribution cabling system and building electric service equipment is aged and needs to be replaced and expanded to provide for new and renovated facilities. New circuits must be installed to maintain operating flexibility and system reliability. If the potential development site listed as 4C (Section II of this Final EIS, Figure 4) is chosen for development, it may require relocation of an existing substation. With the identified system improvements, the existing distribution system on campus would be adequate to support the projected increases in consumption. As noted previously, the emergency electrical power system is only adequate for present demands. The proposed development of 3 million square feet would require a new emergency power source. The central system must be expanded and additional cable distribution provided to areas not served by the emergency system or where the cabling is aged or of inadequate capacity. Central Cooling The addition of a chiller, as discussed above, could serve new buildings in the Central area of campus. However, limited distribution piping would prevent service to other areas of the campus. New chiller capacity must be provided for new construction in the West, South/Southwest areas; new distribution piping would also be required. Funding has been requested for a detailed study of this utility; the results of the study would establish the most appropriate means of providing adequate cooling water. 10 11 This estimation does not correct for design characteristics that can significantly reduce or increase energy demand and related costs. The estimate averages requirements for building-relating paving, utilities and other features. 772.2 Btux109 is equal to 70.2 million kwh (see Appendix C), including energy requirements for generating facilities, transmission line losses and generation inefficiencies. The conversion value (11,000 BTU = 1 kwh) is a national average for all fuel sources (US Department of Energy, 1979). Section III - Energy and Natural Resources 85 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Fossil Fuel The steam generation capacity and distribution system for the campus is adequate to handle the addition of 3 million square feet. When the additional space has been developed, the oldest boiler will have exceeded its useful life and will need replacement for the next phase of campus development. Selected piping within the condensate return system may need replacement; piping can deteriorate with more aggressive use. In the near term, the University plans to test the condensate return piping to check for potential failure. No major improvements to the natural gas system are expected to be required as a result of the development of 3 million additional square feet on campus. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, increased energy demand impacts would be expected to occur as development (approved but not yet built) under the GPDP occurs, and as the University population increases. Associated energy and natural resource impacts were addressed in the GPDP EIS. Off-campus development activity could increase, in association with the projected population growth. The No Action Alternative could lead to an increase in off-campus energy demand. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less development). Consequently, in comparison with the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, the demand for on-campus energy would be reduced by about half. Overall, on-campus energy-related impacts would be reduced under this alternative, and some of the required infrastructure improvements to meet demand under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus may not be required. However, this alternative could lead to decentralization and an increase in off-campus energy demand. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative Building area would be reduced under this alternative. With less building area, energy demand on campus would be slightly lower than that projected for the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Because the difference in building area would not be great, required mitigation under this alternative would likely be similar to that under the Master Plan Seattle Campus. Lifting of Lease Limit With the lifting of the limitation on University leasing, the pace of development in the University District could increase and the demand for energy could also increase. Any new buildings developed in the University District would conform to the City of Seattle’s development standards, including the new Energy Code, and would be required to obtain applicable permits and approvals. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Energy and Natural Resources 86 Possible Mitigation Measures Measures to mitigate potential energy and natural resources impacts may include the following. ! Centralized utilities allow the most efficient management of the related energy resource. Central plant additions were recently made to add steam, cooling water generation capacity and high voltage electrical capacity to continue this approach. Satellite plants for central cooling could be established if space in the central plant proves to be too limited for meeting service demands. New facilities could comply with applicable energy codes. In addition, since the University must operate and maintain the facilities on a long-term basis, the economics of energy management and conservation are a primary design consideration. A standard of practicality must also be applied that assures that the building designs can be maintained properly. Sophisticated monitoring systems are becoming available to assure efficient operations. Projects receiving separate service from SCL could be subject to SCL General Service Energy Efficiency Standards on new or enlarged services to existing buildings. As plans for demolition and construction of facilities are developed, the University Design Team could contact SCL and Puget Sound Energy customer services to confirm specific requirements for service. Aggressive energy conservation measures could continue to be studied and implemented on campus. Required improvements to the electrical power, fossil fuel, and central cooling systems capacity and distribution improvements, as described above, could be implemented as necessary to meet demand. Provide early funding could be required to upgrade the emergency power and distribution to ensure that demand is available at the time of building occupancy. Adoption of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for all new development to increase building sustainability. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Development of the proposed 3 million square feet of building area could result in increased consumption of electrical, fossil fuel, and natural gas resources. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Energy and Natural Resources 87 F. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Affected Environment Hazardous Materials In its role as a major research operation, the University of Washington uses some materials in its laboratories and medical facilities that are considered to be hazardous due to their toxicity, flammability, radioactivity, or because of contamination with infectious agents. These materials are generated in the course of conducting research and providing patient care, and are typical for medical research and hospital facilities. The University has instituted procedures to safely manage these materials during their use and disposal. The Washington occupational safety and health standards and local fire codes generally control the use of toxic and flammable materials in the campus environment. Required ventilation controls are available and maintained in work areas where toxic materials and volatile flammables are used. Code-conforming rooms and cabinets will continue to be provided for the storage and dispensing of flammable materials. The collection, treatment and disposal of wastes from the operations using hazardous chemicals conform with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. Personnel with special training for handling laboratory wastes collect and package materials prior to shipping them to licensed treatment and disposal facilities. Procedures have been established by the University for decontaminating medical wastes from hospitals and laboratory operations prior to removing them from the University. Pressurized steam and disinfectants are used to sterilize those wastes that are considered to be infectious prior to disposal through normal waste channels. Locations that do not have access to these mechanisms dispose of their infectious waste via the University's contracted Infectious Waste Contractor. That company is responsible for pickup and transport of the infectious material to an approved off-site treatment facility. There it is treated and then disposed. Within the University, a number of research and clinical programs use radioactive materials. Clinical programs, similar to those conducted in most major hospitals, are primarily in the University of Washington Medical Center. These involve use of radioactive materials for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Research programs involving the use of small amounts of radioactive labels in tracer type research are conducted in over 600 University laboratories. The Washington Department of Health (DOH) controls the uses of radioactive materials through a licensing process. The University of Washington programs are inspected annually by DOH to assure compliance with regulations and special license conditions. Management of radioactive waste is also regulated by DOH. The primary method of disposal is collection and shipment of radioactive wastes to a waste broker in Turlock, California. The waste must be securely packaged at the University of Washington for transport, and is inspected and processed at the Turlock site. Processed waste is shipped by the broker from Turlock to either Gainesville, Florida for destruction, or to the U.S. Ecology Low Level Radioactive Waste Site in Richland, Washington for burial. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Environmental Health 88 Special attention, inspection and maintenance are carried out to assure that no contaminated materials can be accidentally introduced back in the water supply by cross connection. Backflow and cross connection prevention are an important part of the plumbing permit procedure. Upon installation, these devices are inspected by Seattle Water Department specialists, maintained by University specialists, and are subject to ongoing inspection. Noise Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because of speech and hearing interference or annoyance. The intensity, duration and character of sounds can have an adverse effect on personal health and welfare. While one of the more serious consequences of noise is hearing loss, other significant effects include interference with sleep, disruption of conversation, and effect on work performance. Sound level descriptors are ways of measuring and describing noise, including factors that account for sound duration, magnitude, frequency and pitch. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), a logarithmic ratio between pressures caused by a given sound spectrum. Environmental noise is measured as "A-weighted" sound level in decibels, symbolized as dBA. The Aweighted scale represents noise using the scale that corresponds the closest to the range and characteristics of the human ear. Equivalent sound level, shown as Leq, is a common descriptor for measuring fluctuating sounds. The Leq is the level of a constant sound that, over a given time period, contains the same amount of sound energy as the measured fluctuating sound. People commonly experience sound levels in the range of between 5 to 90 dBA. Table 9 identifies sound levels of typical noise sources and activities. The smallest change in sound levels that is noticeable to most people is about 3 dBA. Ambient noise is regulated by the Seattle Department of Design, Construction and Land Use (DCLU) under the City’s noise ordinance (Seattle Municipal Code, Chapter 25.08). This ordinance adopts provisions contained in Washington State's Maximum Environmental Noise Levels (W.A.C. 173-60). State and City maximum permissible sound levels are shown in Tables 10 and 11. The University of Washington maintains noise standards that are consistent with those of Washington State. Unlike the State's environmentally designated noise standards, construction-related noise in Seattle is not exempt from noise regulation (25.08.425). Seattle's noise standards provide for temporary increases in the maximum permissible sound levels based on equipment type. During daytime hours12, sound levels from large construction equipment (e.g., tractors, dozers, loaders, cranes, compactors, compressors, pneumatic equipment, etc.) are allowed a 25 dBA increase in the noise standards; portable equipment (e.g., chainsaws, powered hand tools, etc.) are allowed a 20 dBA increase; and maintenance equipment (e.g., lawn mowers, etc.) are allowed a 15 dBA increase. These increases are as measured at the property line of the receiving property or a distance of 50 feet from the equipment, whichever is greater. In addition, Seattle's noise regulations authorize noise from impact-type equipment to temporarily exceed the sound levels associated with other construction equipment. Sounds above an Leq of 99 dBA are prohibited unless a variance is obtained from DCLU. 12 Defined by Chapter 25.08 of the Seattle Code as 7 AM - 10 PM during weekdays and 9 AM - 10 PM on weekends. Section III - Environmental Health 89 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Table 9 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS Noise Source or Activity dBA Aircraft Carrier Flight Deck Operations 140 Threshold of Pain ......................................................................................130 - 140 Fireworks............................................................................................................ 130 Jet Takeoff (200 ft. distance) ............................................................................. 120 Jack Hammer ..................................................................................................... 120 Auto Horn (3 ft. distance) ................................................................................... 120 Chain Saw/Noisy Snowmobile ........................................................................... 110 Jet Takeoff (2,000 ft. distance) .......................................................................... 105 Lawn Mower, Power Tools (3 ft. distance)..................................................85 - 100 Noisy Motorcycle (50 ft. distance) ...................................................................... 100 Heavy Truck (50 ft. distance) ............................................................................... 90 Quiet Snowmobile, Motorcycle (50 ft. distance) .................................................. 80 Busy Urban Street................................................................................................ 80 Normal Automobile, Commercial Area ................................................................ 70 Seagulls and Crows ............................................................................................. 70 Normal Conversation (3 ft. distance) ................................................................... 60 Quiet Residential Area ......................................................................................... 50 Moderate Rainfall ................................................................................................. 50 Quiet Residence, Library...................................................................................... 40 Bedroom at Night or Whisper............................................................................... 30 Background Level in a Concert Hall..................................................................... 30 Broadcasting Studio ............................................................................................. 10 Rustle of Leaves .................................................................................................. 10 Threshold of Hearing.............................................................................................. 0 Sources: EPA, 1978; EPA, 1972. Table 10 WASHINGTON MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND LEVELS (dBA) EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Noise Receivers A-Residential Day/Night A-Residential B-Commercial C-Industrial 55/45 57/47 60/50 B-Commercial 57 60 65 C-Industrial 60 65 70 EDNA – Environmental designation for noise abatement. This designation is based on the typical land use and/or zoning of the noise source and the receiving properties. The categories of uses specified above are general descriptions of the sorts of uses and zoning in each EDNA category (8.767.050). WAC 173-60 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Environmental Health 90 Table 11 CITY OF SEATTLE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND LEVELS (dBA) Land Use of Noise Source Land Use of Receiving Property Residential Rural Residential Commercial Industrial Seattle Ch. 25.08 (Ord. No. 106360, Section 302). Commercial 55 57 60 65 Industrial 57 60 65 70 52 55 57 60 DCLU considers major institutions to be commercial land uses. As indicated by Table 11, the allowable noise level from a commercial source received by another commercial source is 60 dBA; the allowable noise level for residential receiving properties is 57 dBA. For residential receiving properties, there is a 10-dBA reduction (to 47 dBA) during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7 AM, and 10 PM to 9 AM on weekends). For commercial receiving properties, there is no nighttime 10-dBA reduction. The location of measurement is the property line of receiving property. When noise impacts are of limited duration, sound level limits may be increased by the following amounts: 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in any one-hour period, 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any one-hour period, and 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. The University of Washington also currently has additional conditions/considerations that campus project contractors meet the following noise control criteria: ! The sound pressure level of construction noise inside adjacent buildings and/or rooms cannot exceed 60 dBA (with windows closed) between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. Barriers can be erected between construction activities and such interior areas, or equipment noise attenuators can be provided. The use of electric equipment and machinery is preferred. If noise levels on any equipment or device cannot reasonably be reduced to criteria levels, either that equipment or device will not be allowed on the job or use times will have to be scheduled subject to approval. The sound pressure level of each piece of equipment cannot be greater than 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Rubber-tired equipment is to be used whenever possible instead of equipment with metal tracks. Mufflers for stationary engines are to be used in hospital areas. Construction traffic should be routed through nearest campus exit. Air compressors are to be equipped with silencing packages. ! ! ! University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Environmental Health 91 ! Jack hammers and roto hammers may be used where no other alternative is available; core drilling and saw cutting equipment is preferred. Within occupied facilities, noise-producing equipment is allowed only before 7 AM and after 6 PM. Specific scheduling of construction-related noise activities is required at the University of Washington Medical Center. ! Existing noise conditions in the University District area vary considerably, with generally higher noise levels toward the periphery of the campus along heavily traveled arterials. Elevated noise levels occur along the I-5 corridor, NE Pacific St., NE 45th St., and Montlake Boulevard NE. Along major arterials surrounding the campus, maximum noise levels of 80 dB are not uncommon; the average day-night noise level on and around most major arterials is approximately 60 dB (University of Washington, 1992). Recent monitoring at NE 45th Street and 15th Avenue NE and along Campus Parkway indicated that average noise levels are 68 dBA, with peak hour levels reaching 67 dBA Leq. Noise levels were measured to be lower near Portage Bay with an Ldn of 64 dBA, and a peak hour Leq value of 62 dBA (Sound Transit, 1998). Aside from periodic construction projects and intermittent traffic noise on Stevens Way, the core University’s Central Campus has relatively low noise levels, largely limited to voice level sounds. Average noise levels on campus vary from 60 dB to a maximum of 80 dB. Traffic noise from Stevens Way in most areas is buffered by vegetation. The University currently experiences noise primarily from vehicle and boat traffic, recreation and sports programs, and periodic construction. University parking lots associated with east campus recreational facilities are also sources of traffic noise. Outdoor events and ingress/egress of spectators at Husky Stadium (capacity of 74,000 people) and Hector Edmundson Pavilion are the most significant sources of recreational noise in the project vicinity. Overall, existing noise conditions for the University campus are acceptable. Some isolated oncampus and adjoining areas, especially sensitive residential areas, experience noise impacts from periodic construction and renovation work, high traffic volumes and special campus events. Existing noise sources and affected campus areas are discussed below. In the portion of the University District that is in and adjacent to West Campus, residential areas along I-5, Roosevelt Way NE, 11th Avenue NE and Campus Parkway are subject to trafficrelated noise stress. In and adjacent to the northern area of Central Campus, along NE 45th Street, residential buildings are also subject to traffic related noise. However, Central Campus is primarily insulated from noise-related disturbances. The Montlake Neighborhood, across the Ship Canal from South/Southwest Campus and along the Montlake Boulevard NE corridor, experiences noise impacts during high vehicle use (morning and evening rush hour) and during special events (such as Husky football games). There are no residential areas or institutional buildings sensitive to noise generated in or adjacent to East Campus. Impacts of the Proposed Action Hazardous Materials Implementation of the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would result in increased use of research chemicals and waste materials over the planning period; the level of increased medical waste materials use would depend on the amount of new research and patient care that occurs on campus. Under the Master Plan Seattle Campus, risk to human health would not be University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Environmental Health 92 expected to significantly increase. Safety measures would be applied as required by law and support facilities would be appropriately upgraded as development occurs or as is necessary. Noise Noise impacts associated with the Master Plan Seattle Campus time frame would primarily occur during construction of individual projects. Table 12 shows sound levels usually associated with construction activities. The higher levels in given noise ranges pertain to all pertinent equipment present at construction sites, and the lower levels apply to the minimum required equipment. Average noise levels for phases of construction range from 76 Leq to 89 Leq, 50 feet from the source. Leq (equivalent sound level) is the average energy level of the fluctuating noise for a specified time interval or activity. Table 12 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION Leq (50 feet from Equipment) 79-89 76-85 76-89 Phase Demolition Building Erection Finishing and Cleanup Source: University of Washington, GPDP DEIS, 1990. Depending on the location of construction activity, construction noise could result in annoyance, temporarily disrupt teaching and research activities, and cause disturbances to residential areas on campus. Construction activity occurring on-campus adjacent to off-campus areas could temporarily impact adjacent land uses. Noise from construction traffic would temporarily increase noise levels along certain roadways in the vicinity of the campus, including N.E. 45th Street, 15th Avenue N.E. and Montlake Blvd. N.E. Over the planning period, significant operational noise impacts (in addition to those existing) would not be expected to occur. Because traffic volumes would not increase under the Proposed Action, traffic related noise would not be expected to increase in duration or intensity. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, environmental health impacts would be expected to occur to some extent as the University population grows and is accommodated. Remaining development planned for in the GPDP would likely lead to some construction-related noise impacts. Background noise impacts under the No Action Alternative would not be expected to differ significantly from the Proposed Action. The management of and impacts from hazard waste management would not likely change significantly from existing conditions. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Environmental Health 93 Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less on-campus development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less development). Although the use of research chemicals and medical waste materials on campus would still likely increase to an extent, on-campus risks to environmental health would be reduced under this alternative – as a result of less development. In comparison with the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, construction-related noise impacts on campus would be reduced by about half. The potential for impacts from hazardous waste and noise could affect a broader, off-campus area than under the Proposed Action if decentralization occurs – depending on what types of development are shifted to off-campus areas. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative Building area would be reduced under this alternative. With less building area, risks from hazardous materials and localized noise impacts could be reduced. The minimization of potential impacts would depend on the type of development that is limited by avoiding street and alley vacations. However, overall environmental health impacts would not likely differ significantly from that under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Lifting of Lease Limit Lifting of the lease limit could increase the amount of building area in the University District dedicated to University medical research or patient care. Lifting of the lease limit could increase the pace of development activity in the University District and construction-related noise impacts could increase. Lifting of the lease limit could also increase the amount of building area in the University District dedicated to University medical research or patient care use. Measures to minimize noise and medical waste impacts would be similar to those identified for on-campus uses, and significant impacts would not be anticipated. Possible Mitigation Measures The University’s construction specifications and Seattle Noise Ordinance would minimize potential environmental health impacts. Additional mitigation measures could include the following: # # Proposed facilities could be designed to minimize risk and could be expected to provide more protection than the older facilities on campus. Existing facilities for handling research chemicals and medical wastes in the Health Sciences and East Campus areas could be improved to meet future needs and standards as necessary. Current procedures for plan approval and construction, inspection, collecting, treating and disposing of hazardous waste will continue to be reviewed by the University’s Environmental Health and Safety Department, in accordance with State and federal regulations. Any need for new procedures to handle hazardous substances new to campus will be addressed by the Department of Environmental Health and Safety. Section III - Environmental Health 94 # University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS # Construction activities could be managed to comply with University noise control requirements and construction specifications (as described above). The contractor may meet noise criterion by erecting barriers between equipment on jobs and such interior areas, by using alternative equipment or silencing mechanisms, and limiting schedules according to work and class hours. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated over the long term. During construction, some temporary, intermittent unavoidable noise impacts may occur. These impacts could cause temporary interference with speech communication, stress reactions, and general annoyance. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Environmental Health 95 G. LAND AND SHORELINE USE - LAND USE PATTERNS Affected Environment Existing Land Uses Campus Land Uses As illustrated in Figure 2 of the Project Description Section, the University of Washington campus extends slightly over one mile in a north-south direction and slightly less than two miles in an east-west direction. The University of Washington campus encompasses approximately 694 acres within the campus boundary. The University owns approximately 634 acres of the campus; approximately 60 acres are publicly and privately owned, including land owned by the City of Seattle as street right-of-way. Approximately 75 acres in the eastern portion of the campus consists of submerged land and unstable peat islands. Existing University land uses within the campus boundary include academic and support facilities ranging from classrooms and offices to residence halls and parking facilities. Nonuniversity owned land uses on the campus include Jenson Motorboat Company, Church of Latter Day Saints, College Inn and Cavalier Apartments. The sports fields and grasslands of the East Campus comprise much of the open space on the campus. However, substantial open space areas have been preserved on the Central Campus, including the Central Plaza (Red Square), Liberal Arts Quadrangle, Campus Green, Engineering Quadrangle (including Drumheller Fountain), Rainier Vista, HUB yard, Liberal Arts Quad and Denny Yard. Relatively little open space is located in the South/Southwest and West Campus areas; much of the open space in these two areas is located along the shoreline of the Ship Canal and Portage Bay. In addition to the property owned by the University within the campus boundary, the University leases approximately 380,000 sq.ft. of building area within approximately 2,500 feet of the campus boundary, including a warehouse and laboratory building at 2900 NE Blakely Street, a computing and communications building at 4545-15th Avenue NE, health sciences research at 1107 NE 45th Street, administrative support services at 5001-25th NE, and medical center uses at 4225 Roosevelt Avenue NE. University leased properties in the University District are consistent with adjacent land uses and are not concentrated in one location. The leased uses have not significantly influenced land use trends in the area. The University of Washington campus presently contains 204 permanent buildings and approximately 45 temporary buildings (see Section II Project Description and Alternatives). Uses on the campus include: core activity and facilities (library, dining facilities, student services, administrative services, bookstore, auditorium/chapel); academic (classrooms, laboratories, facility offices); residential (residence halls and family housing); recreation (intercollegiate and intramural activities); physical plant (shops, offices, storage); and mixed-use facilities (commercial services, offices, apartments). The existing campus buildings contain approximately 14,887,692 sq.ft. The current floor area ratio (FAR) for the campus with existing buildings is approximately 0.53; FAR is defined as the ratio between gross floor area and the University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 96 area of the lot13 (Seattle Land Use Code Section 23.84.012). Of the total 14,887,692 sq.ft. of existing building area on campus, approximately 13,344,884 sq.ft. is in building area (academic, residential, office uses, etc.) and approximately 1,542,808 sq.ft. is in parking structures. Existing gross square footage by campus area is shown in Table 13; gross square footage calculations are based on the methods described in the Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual (FICM) published by the American Institute of Architects. As indicated by Table 13, approximately half (50 percent) of all building space on campus is located within the Central Campus, approximately 27 percent is located within the South Campus, approximately 16 percent is located within the West Campus, and approximately 7 percent is located within the East Campus. In addition to the existing buildings on the campus, there are eight buildings authorized as part of the GPDP that are currently in design or under construction. The GPDP also includes approximately 300,500 sq.ft. of unallocated development beyond the eight GPDP projects. With the eight GPDP projects, the campus contains approximately 16.1 million sq.ft. of building area. As indicated in Table 13, approximately 49 percent of all existing campus building space including GPDP projects is located within the Central Campus, approximately 27 percent is located within the South Campus, approximately 15 percent is located within the West Campus, and approximately 9 percent is located within the East Campus. The FAR for the campus with the GPDP projects that are in design or under construction is approximately 0.58. Table 13 Floor Area by Campus Area Campus Area Existing Floor Area (sf) GPDP Projects Under Design or Construction14 475,000 470,000 306,000 ---------1,251,000 Total Existing and GPDP Projects 7,914,390 1,472,957 4,371,197 2,380,148 16,138,692 Existing Percent of Total 49 9 27 15 100 Central East South/Southwest West Total 7,439,390 1,002,957 4,065,197 2,380,148 14,887,692 Source: University of Washington, 2000 The existing campus form is largely the product of campus master planning efforts conducted over the past 100 years. Similar to many college and university campuses, the University of Washington presents a strong, cohesive campus identity with academic, administrative and student support activities generally clustered in the central portions of the campus; although the primary human health and fisheries sciences uses are focused in the southern portion of campus. Plant support activities are generally located in peripheral campus areas, although a 13 For calculating FAR, the area of the lot has been assumed to be the 643-acre area within the campus boundaries that is owned by the University. 14 Does not include the approximately 300,500 sq.ft of unallocated development capacity – in addition to the eight projects that are currently either in design or under construction (described in Section IIC. of this Final EIS). University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 97 few activities occupy central locations. With the exception of several underground parking garages and scattered surface lots, parking is also located peripherally. Parking is a major land use in the East and West Campus Sectors. Vicinity Land Uses The University of Washington campus is situated in an urban area containing a variety of singlefamily and multifamily residential, educational commercial and semi-industrial uses. The campus is the dominant land use in the immediate area (see Figure 15). The land use pattern surrounding the campus is influenced by both natural and built features. The primary natural features in the area are Union Bay, Portage Bay and the Lake Washington Ship Canal that establish the eastern and southern campus boundaries. These waterways also separate the communities to the north (University of Washington, University District and Laurelhurst) from the communities to the south (Mountlake, Broadmoor). Significant built features that influence the land use pattern in the area consist primarily of major transportation routes, including Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 520. Interstate 5, the major north/south travel corridor for the urbanized area west of Lake Washington, effectively separates the communities in the vicinity of the university on the east-side of I-5 from the communities of Wallingford, Fremont and Green Lake on the west-side of I-5. State Route 520, a major east/west travel corridor across Lake Washington, provides an additional separation between the areas immediately north and south of the Lake Washington ship canal. Montlake Boulevard NE (including the Montlake Bridge), University Bridge, 15th Avenue NE, University Way NE and NE 45th Street are the major vehicular routes in the area. The area to the west of the campus boundary is characterized as urban in nature and consists of a mixture of specialty retail (specialty shops, restaurants etc.), office, church and multifamily residential uses. The majority of the retail uses in this area are small, with the exception of the University Bookstore; the largest retail use in the area. The predominance of street level retail and proximity to the campus foster an active streetscape. Buildings in this area generally range from two to six stories in height, with several high-rise buildings. The 20-story Safeco building, 15-story Edmund Meany Hotel, and the United Methodist Church are the dominant structures in this area. The area to the north of the campus, across NE 45th Street, primarily consists of medium density residential uses, including small apartment buildings and fraternity/sorority houses, and several churches. Buildings in this area generally range from two to four stories in height. To the north and northeast of the campus is University Village, a regional-scale shopping center. To the east of the campus is Lake Washington (Union Bay) and the Laurelhurst residential neighborhood. The Laurelhurst neighborhood consists of relatively low density residential (approximately 5 dwelling units per acre) and park uses. To the immediate south of the campus is the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Portage Bay. Further to the south, across the water, are the Montlake, Broadmoor and Madison Park residential neighborhoods, several parks (including the Washington Park Arboretum and Montlake Park) and Broadmoor’s private golf course. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 98 Proposed development projects in the vicinity of the campus on file with the City of Seattle (DCLU) include Sound Transit Light Rail stations at 15th Avenue NE (University Station) and NE Pacific Street (Portage Bay Station) (MUP #2003733 and #2003735, respectively), a retail and a parking structure at University Village (MUP #2002354), and a mixed-use retail/residential development in the 4700 block of 12th Avenue NE (MUP #9802215). Existing Land Use Designations University Campus Allowed land uses and standards development standards for the University of Washington is governed by the 1998 City-University Agreement (Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code section 23.69.006). In September 1998, the Seattle City Council updated the Major Institution Policies that included a specific provision for the University of Washington, as follows: Policy 7: University of Washington “Beginning in 1983, the City of Seattle and the University of Washington have entered into sequential agreements which, along with other legislation, have governed development on the University’s campus and in an area surrounding the campus called the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones. The 1998 Agreement Between the City of Seattle and University of Washington describes the master plan process, off-campus land acquisition and environmental review authority. The 1998 Agreement or its successor shall govern relations between the City and the University of Washington”. The University of Washington campus contains eight Maximum Height Designations: 37-feet (H1), 50-feet (H2), 65-feet (H3), 85-feet (H4), 105-feet (H5), 107-feet (H6), 160-feet (H7) and 240-feet (H8) (see Figure 16). The H1 designation, with a 37-foot height limit, includes all of the campus shoreline area east of Montlake Boulevard NE and west of 15th Avenue NE, as well as the IMA sportsfields, baseball and soccer fields, golf driving range and natural areas east of Montlake Boulevard NE. The H2 designation (50-foot height limit) is limited to the area in the vicinity of NE 45th Street west of Montlake Boulevard NE and contains the Plant Services Building and the N25 parking lot. The H3 designation (65-foot height limit) is primarily located in the area south of Stevens Way extending to the NE Pacific Street/Montlake Boulevard NE intersection and contains Bloedel Hall, More Hall and the Triangle Parking Garage. The H5 designation (105-foot height limit) covers the majority of the campus and contains most of the campus core between 15th Avenue NE on the west, Montlake Boulevard NE on the east, Columbia Road on the south, and NE 45th Street on the north. The H6 designation (107-foot height limit) is located between the IMA building and Union Bay, and is the site of the Indoor Practice Facility. The H7 designation (160foot height limit) is located in the area of Husky Stadium and the E12 parking lot in the southeastern portion of the campus, the area containing the Haggett and McMahon residence halls in the northern portion of the campus and the vicinity of the Physics & Astronomy Building in the southwest corner of the central campus. The H8 designation (240-foot height limit) is limited to the central portion of the medical center in the South/Southwest Campus. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 100 Vicinity Zoning Areas adjacent to the University of Washington campus (primary and secondary impact zones) are zoned for a variety of uses. The area west of campus and north of NE Pacific St. contains a mixture of commercial and residential zones, including Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3), Commercial 1 (C1), and Residential Multifamily – Midrise (MR). The area southwest of campus, between I-5 and the campus boundary, contains the industrial designations of Industrial Commercial (IC) and Industrial Buffer (IB). Properties north of campus and west of 25th Avenue NE (northern extension of Montlake Boulevard NE) are zoned Residential Multifamily – Lowrise (L3). Properties north of campus and east of 25th Avenue NE are zoned Commercial (C1 and C2) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC2). The area east of campus contains a mixture of single-family zones, including Single Family 5000 (SF 5000), Single Family 7200 (SF 7200) and Single Family 9600 (SF 9600). Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would result in direct, indirect and constructionrelated land use impacts. Direct impacts relate to changes in type, character or pattern of land use, and the density of development on the campus. Indirect land use impacts can include peripheral development and/or change in overall land use character of the area. Construction impacts relate to impacts to vicinity land uses from construction activities on the development sites. Direct Impacts Overall, implementation of development contemplated in the Master Plan Seattle Campus would result in intensification of uses on the campus and replacement of some existing buildings, open space and parking. The type, character and pattern of land uses on campus would not change under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies 60 potentially developable sites on the campus. Collectively the 60 potentially developable sites contain a total of approximately 8.3million sq. ft. of building area, however, the University anticipates the development of approximately 3-million sq.ft. of building area, as defined in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, during the life of the plan. Further, because future funding levels and program needs are fluid and cannot be exactly defined for master planning purposes, the individual sites to be developed to achieve the 3-million sq.ft. of building area have not been determined. Hence, development could occur on any of the development sites, but all of the sites would not be developed. Figure 17 illustrates building development considering all 60 potentially developable sites. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 102 As indicated in Figure 17, the majority of the potentially developable sites are located in the West and Central Campus areas, and these would be the portions of campus most affected by the Master Plan Seattle Campus. As shown in Table 14, considering the identified building area15 in all potentially developable sites, the amount of building area could increase by approximately 6 percent (current 15 percent to 21 percent) in the West Campus and 2 percent (current 49 percent to 51 percent) in the Central Campus. Although the amount of identified building area in the East and South/Southwest Campus areas would increase, the percentage of total campus identified building area in these areas would decrease. Compared to current conditions the percentage of total campus building area in the East Campus would decrease by approximately 3 percent (current 9 percent to 6 percent) and approximately 5 percent in the South/Southwest Campus (current 27 percent to 22 percent). With development of the proposed 3 million sq.ft of new building space, the FAR for the campus would be approximately 0.68 compared to the existing 0.58. Table 14 Floor Area by Campus Area* Campus Area Existing Floor Area with GPDP Projects (sf) 7,914,390 1,472,957 4,371,197 2,380,148 16,138,692 Existing Percent of Total 49 9 27 15 100 Floor Area W/All Development Sites 12,342,990 1,863,707 5,479,697 4,740,548 24,426,942 Percent of Total W/All Sites 51 6 22 21 100 Central East South/Southwest West Total * Includes development of all 60 potentially developable sites. Assumes development of all 8,300,000 sq.ft. of identified building area on the 60 potentially developable sites; only 3,000,000 sq.ft. of building area (exclusive of structured parking area) proposed under Master Plan Seattle Campus. Does not include the 300,500 sq.ft. of unallocated GPDP building space. Source: University of Washington, 2001; Weinstein Copeland Architects, 2001 Table 15 illustrates the change in campus land use conservatively considering development of all 60 potentially developable sites. As shown, considering all development sites, the amount of campus area in buildings (footprint) would increase by approximately 18 acres over current campus conditions. The majority of this potential building area, approximately 8.4 acres, is located in the Central Campus. Approximately 6 acres of this potential building area is located in West Campus, approximately 2 acres is in South/Southwest campus, and approximately 1.6 acres is located in East Campus. The amount of area in potential landscaped open space would increase by approximately 5.0 acres and would primarily be located in the South/Southwest, West and Central campus areas. The amount of area in potential plazas and walkways would increase by approximately 6 acres and would be distributed relatively evenly throughout the campus. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies approximately 3.5 acres of existing area that do not include structures 15 Assumes development of all 8,300,000 sq.ft. of identified building area on the 60 potentially developable sites; only 3,000,000 sq.ft. of building area proposed during life of Campus Master Plan (exclusive of housing). University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 104 (including surface parking lots) that could be converted to built area. Considering all new open space proposed under the Master Plan Seattle Campus (5 acres in landscaped area and 6 acres in plazas), useable open space on the campus would be increased by approximately 7.5 acres from existing conditions. Table 15 Change in Campus Land Use With All Development Sites Land Use Lawns/Landscaping Building Areas Plaza/Courtyards Total New Development Area Source: Weinstein Copeland Architects 2000. Future Area in Acres 5.0 18.0 6.0 29.0 Depending on which potentially developable sites are developed, new developments under the Master Plan Seattle Campus could result in the demolition of existing buildings and the loss of open space and surface parking. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies a total of 39 temporary and permanent structures that could be demolished during the life of the Plan. The actual building demolitions would depend upon which identified building sites were developed. Indirect Impacts The potential for indirect land use impacts would generally depend on the use and location of proposed campus development. In general, campus development that is located close to or adjacent to off-campus private properties has a greater potential for indirect land use impacts than development in a more central campus location. Because of the proximity of potential development sites in the West Campus to private off-campus properties in the University District, potential development in the West Campus would have the greatest potential for indirect impacts. The type of campus use can also be a determinant of indirect impact potential. For example, residential uses can generate additional demands for goods and services (i.e. groceries, dry cleaning etc.). Academic and office uses can generate demands for support businesses, including convenience retail uses like restaurants and coffee stands. Any development/redevelopment of off-campus properties in the University District as a result of new development on-campus would be consistent with existing zoning, which is consistent with the adopted University Community Urban Center Plan and would not be expected to change the land use character of the area. Construction Impacts Construction at building sites identified in the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would result in temporary impacts to adjacent land uses during the respective construction periods. Construction-related impacts would include additional amounts of air pollution as a result of University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 105 fugitive dust from disturbed soils and emissions from construction vehicles, and increased noise levels from construction activities and construction vehicular traffic. Construction-related impacts would be temporary in nature and, with proper implementation of proposed measures to minimize the increase in air pollution and noise levels, would not be expected to result in significant impacts. (Refer to the Earth, Air, Noise and Transportation sections of this Final EIS for additional detail on construction impacts.) Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, new campus development would be limited to development consistent with projects approved under the current GPDP but not yet built, including the Law School Building, Electrical Engineering Phase II Building, UW Medical Center Surgery Pavilion, , Indoor Practice Facility, Crew House, Blakely Village and IMA Building Addition. However, the population increases of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 new students and 5,000 additional faculty and staff would still occur. The distribution and character of land uses and buildings would remain similar to the existing character. However, the University would likely seek opportunities to more-intensively utilize existing campus building space (e.g., more early morning and evening classes, weekend classes and more intensive summer programs). Existing open space would also be more intensively utilized. With the existing lid on University leasing in the Primary and Secondary Impact zones, the University would likely lease additional space outside the Primary and Secondary Impact zones, thus transferring potential land use impacts to other parts of the region. Refer to the Decentralization/Open Space Alternative for detail on the existing lid on University leasing. The potential for building demolition would be less than under the Proposed Action. Land Use impacts associated with construction activity would be less than under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Decentralization/Open Space Under the Decentralization/Open Space Alternative, less building development would occur on the Seattle Campus. However, the population increases of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 new students and 5,000 additional faculty and staff would still occur. It is anticipated that in conjunction with the on- and off-campus expansion associated with this alternative, the University would seek opportunities to maximize the utilization of existing campus buildings, but at a lower level than under the No Action Alternative. The 1998 City – University Agreement established a lease limit of 550,000 gross sq.ft., limiting the amount of building area that the University can lease within the Primary and Secondary Impact zones that surround the campus. University leasing is further restricted to a portion of the Primary Impact Zone identified as the Permitted Leasing Zone. The University presently leases approximately 424,000 sq.ft. of building area in the Primary Impact Zone. With the existing limitation on University leasing within the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones, the net balance of leasable space remaining within the impact zones would be approximately 126,000 sq.ft. This amount of building area constitutes approximately 9% of the University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 106 1.5 million sq.ft. of additional off-campus demand. The balance – 1.37 million sq.ft. of additional space -- would need to be accommodated at locations in the Seattle area outside the Primary and Secondary impact zones. Space that is leased by the University at these locations could either be existing space or new space that conforms to the use and development standards of the applicable zoning district in which the property is located. Although the UCUC Plan calls for increased residential, commercial and knowledge-based development and the University of Washington is considered to have the potential to play a major role in fostering development consistent with the University District’s vision, continuation of the existing leasing lid limits the potential for the University to help achieve UCUC goals. While this alternative would result in decentralization associated with new development and potentially the retention of many existing open spaces on-campus, it would likely result in fewer open space improvements (as outlined relative to the Proposed Action) and fewer circulation and parking improvements than those included as part of the Proposed Action. This scenario would also result in regional dispersal of environmental impacts and in some instances (e.g., traffic circulation), potentially greater impacts than would occur in conjunction with the Proposed Action. Key environmental parameters that would likely be affected would be land use, housing, and transportation proximate to the additional leased area outside the Primary and Secondary impact zones. Land use impacts associated with construction and operation of decentralized university uses would likely be transferred to other parts of the city/region. No Street or Alley Vacations Under the No Street or Alley Vacations Alternative, none of the identified potential vacations would occur. The potential street vacations of sections of NE Campus Parkway and 11th Avenue NE; and alley vacations associated with potentially developable sites 31W, 32W, 35W, and 36W would not occur, and the existing roadway system on the Seattle Campus would remain. Development associated with the potential street and alley vacations that would not occur under this alternative includes the following: approximately 9,600 sq.ft of new building area (footprint) and approximately 3,100 sq.ft. of new open space associated with the proposed alley vacations; approximately 26,000 sq.ft of building area (footprint) and approximately 7,000 sq.ft. of open space associated with the reconfiguration of the NE Campus Parkway; and, approximately 22,500 sq.ft of building area and approximately 50,000 sq.ft of open space area associated with the aerial plaza. The potential pedestrian circulation improvements between campus areas and pedestrian safety benefits associated with the aerial plaza and skybridges would not occur. The overall potential building density on the Seattle Campus without the identified vacations would be less than with the identified potential vacations, particularly in the South/Southwest and West Campus areas. Visual impacts associated with the potential aerial plaza and potential skybridge over NE Pacific Street and potential skybridge over Montlake Boulevard would not occur. Lifting of Lease Limit With removal of the existing limitation on leasing by the University of Washington, the University could lease more than the approximately 126,000 sq.ft. of building space within the University District that is currently allowed by the leasing limit. Leasing of existing building space would not be anticipated to generate land use impacts. However, the University’s ability to lease additional building space could provide incentive for private developers to build speculative buildings with the intent of leasing to the University. Lifting the leasing lid would also increase University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 107 the potential for development of private buildings designed and built specifically for lease by University use (public/private partnership). In addition, the University could work with private developers to design and construct buildings that could include housing. All new buildings developed in the University District for potential occupancy by University programs would adhere to the City’s development standards, including building height, setbacks, etc, and all such development that occurs would be subject to the City’s Design Review process and SEPA processes, which are key components of the City’s Master Use Permit (MUP) process. Lifting the lease lid would afford the University the opportunity for increased participation in implementation of UCUC Plan goals, including assisting in efforts to revitalize University Avenue. As analyzed in the Environmental Checklist prepared for the UCUC Plan (Seattle, 1998a), construction of new buildings within the University District would generate increases in noise, dust, equipment exhaust, and traffic. Construction activities associated with each project would be temporary and would comply with applicable City of Seattle construction requirements. No significant impacts to land uses in the University District are anticipated as a result of construction of off-campus buildings by non-University developers. University uses in new or leased buildings in the University District would be consistent with Commercial 1 (C1), Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3) and Residential Multifamily Midrise (MR) City of Seattle zone designations. Permitted uses in the C1 and NC3 zones include administrative offices, customer service offices and, research and development laboratories. Permitted uses in the MR zone include multifamily residential and public facilities. Environmental impacts associated with University District development would be as identified in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist and would include increased traffic congestion, greater building height and bulk, and increased demand for public facilities. It should be noted that, with implementation of University of Washington’s TMP measures, traffic impacts associated with University-related development could be less than that identified in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist. For example, University Transportation Management Plan programs, including the UPASS, could be implemented to limit vehicle trips in conjunction with Universityrelated off-campus uses to limit vehicle trips. As noted above, each building project would undergo environmental analysis and design review by the City as part of the MUP process associated with specific development projects. Possible Mitigation Measures The following would be available as possible mitigation measures: ! Implementation of the proposed open space and landscape features could help offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the campus. Mitigation for height, bulk, and scale impacts could be minimized with implementation of the University’s proposed general policies, development programs and development standards. New opportunities for landscaped and plaza public open space would be provided by the potential street and alley vacations. ! ! University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 108 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts An intensification of land uses on the campus would occur. The greatest potential for an increase in development would occur in the West and Central Campus. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 109 H. LAND USE – RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES This section identifies existing plans and policies deemed most relevant to the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. The plans and policies analyzed in this section include the following: # # # # # # # # Washington State Growth Management Act; Washington State Shoreline Management Act; Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan; The University Community Urban Center Plan; The 1998 City-University-Community Agreement; Seattle’s street/alley vacation policies; Seattle’s sky bridge policies; and Seattle's development regulations, including: - Land Use Code - Shoreline Master Program - Environmental Critical Areas Code. Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) Summary: The Growth Management Act (GMA), first enacted as ESHB 2929 by the 1990 Washington State Legislature and subsequently amended, contains a comprehensive framework for managing growth and coordinating land use planning with the provision of adequate infrastructure. Many provisions of GMA apply to the state's largest and fastest growing jurisdictions, including King County and all its cities; some provisions of GMA (such as requirements to identify and regulate critical areas) apply to all local jurisdictions. GMA is long and complex. The following discussion is a brief summary of key provisions of GMA relevant to the City of Seattle and the University of Washington. Among other requirements, jurisdictions subject to GMA must prepare and adopt: # # # # # Countywide planning policies for implementation of GMA; Comprehensive land use plans containing specified elements and embodying state-wide goals; Regulations consistent with those plans; Capital facilities plans (including financing elements) for utilities and transportation systems; and Programs designating and regulating critical/sensitive areas (including agricultural and forest lands, wetlands, steep slopes, and critical habitat). The general planning goals of GMA include: directing growth to urban areas; reducing sprawl; providing efficient transportation systems; promoting a range of residential densities and housing types, and encouraging affordable housing; promoting economic development throughout the state; protecting private property rights; ensuring timely and fair processing of University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 110 applications; maintaining and enhancing resource-based industries; encouraging retention of open space and habitat areas; protecting the environment; involving citizens in the planning process; ensuring the siting of essential public facilities (including state educational facilities); and identify and encourage the preservation of lands and structures with historical and archaeological significance. Comprehensive plans must contain elements dealing with land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, rural lands, and transportation. Optional elements include conservation, solar energy, and recreation, as well as other areas dealing with the physical environment. Sub-area plans (i.e., neighborhood and community plans) are also authorized. GMA requires that early and continuous public participation be provided for comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. Discussion: The City of Seattle has prepared and adopted a Comprehensive Plan (Seattle, 1994) to guide future development and fulfill the City’s responsibilities under GMA. Goals and objectives of GMA have been incorporated into the Seattle Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (See the discussion on Seattle Comprehensive Plan for further discussion of the Comprehensive Plan.) The University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus is consistent with the relevant planning goals of the GMA. Efficient transportation systems would be encouraged through implementation of the proposed TMP and bicycle, transit and pedestrian system improvements. The range of residential densities and housing types in the City would be enhanced with the proposed student housing facilities. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would promote economic development by providing additional staff and faculty opportunities, as well as fostering an educated workforce for the region. The Master Plan Seattle Campus would encourage the retention of open space and habitat areas by providing new public open spaces and the retention of existing natural habitat areas. Citizen participation is a major element of the Master Plan Seattle Campus as described below. The Master Plan Seattle Campus includes a detailed design review process to insure that campus areas and structures with historical significance would be identified and preservation encouraged. Consistent with the provisions of the City-University Agreement, the City-University-Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC) has been in existence since the early 1980’s. CUCAC has participated in the formulation of the new Master Plan Seattle Campus to help assure that concerns of the community are considered. All CUCAC meetings have been open to the public to provide additional public input during the master planning process. In addition, several public open houses were conducted to gather public comments concerning the Master Plan Seattle Campus and the scope of the associated EIS. Public hearings on the Draft Master Plan Seattle Campus and the Draft EIS were conducted on December 6, 2000 and November 9, 2000, respectively (see the Fact Sheet of this Final EIS [page vi]). Refer to Master Plan Seattle Campus for additional detail on the community involvement process. Shoreline Management Act Summary: The legislature enacted the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in 1971 to protect the public interest associated with shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. The primary University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 111 mechanism for implementing SMA is the adoption of Shoreline Master Programs (SMP), which must be approved by local governments and the Department of Ecology. The City of Seattle has an adopted SMP and implementing code. Proposed development that is located within a City’s or County’s designated shoreline environment and meets the definition of a shoreline “substantial development”, must obtain a substantial development permit from that local jurisdiction. SMA establishes two basic categories of shoreline: “shoreline of state-wide significance”, which are identified in the SMA; and “shorelines”, which includes all of the water areas of the state, and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying them. Alterations to the natural condition of shorelines of state-wide significance are permitted, with priority given to residences, ports, and industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location or use of the shorelines of the state. SMA also provides that governments should review regulations and plans relative to lands adjacent to shorelines to achieve a policy consistent with the SMA and adopted master programs. Discussion: The City of Seattle’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP), adopted in 1983, incorporates the policies of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The SMP was developed with the intent of regulating the development and use of shorelines within the city consistent with the multiple objectives and policies of the SMA. See the discussion of the City’s SMP later in this section. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus is consistent with the use and development standards associated with the City’s SMP. City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan (1994) Summary: The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan provides overall goals and identifies land use patterns for the city. Land use development on the University of Washington campus is directed by the provisions of the 1988 City-University-Community Agreement. The relationship of the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus with relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan is provided below. The university can help the city achieve Comprehensive Plan goals. The City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, Toward a Sustainable Seattle, was adopted in 1994 to meet the requirements of the State Growth Management Act; the Comprehensive Plan has been amended every year since adoption. This plan supports the Multiple Urban Center concepts of the Multi-county Planning Policies (PSRC, 1993), King County’s Countywide Planning Policies (King County, 1992), and Seattle’s Framework Policies (Seattle, 1992). The City’s Comprehensive Plan consists of nine major elements – land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, utilities, economic development, neighborhood planning, human development, and cultural resources. Each element contains goals and policies that are intended to “guide the development of the City in the context of regional growth management” for the next 20 years. While each element affects development adjacent to the University of Washington campus, the Land Use Element is the most relevant to this proposal. The Land Use Element includes the following major components: • • • Preferred Development Pattern; Categories of Urban Villages; Areas Outside of Urban Villages; University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 112 • • • • • • Distribution of Growth; The System of Land Use Regulation; Open Space Network; Annexation; Shorelines; and, Tree Preservation and Enhancement. The following goals and policies from the Land Use Element are most applicable to development on the University of Washington campus. Categories of Urban Villages Goal G20 – Identify and reinforce concentrations of employment and housing in locations that would support and have direct access to the regional high capacity transit system. Policy L15 – Establish urban centers as regional centers. Policy L16 – Establish requirements for urban centers including zoning that permits new development needed to meet minimum density targets. Policy L19 – Designate urban center villages within the Downtown First Hill/Capitol Hill and University District Urban Centers. Policy L21 – Promote the balance of uses in each urban center; a mixed land use with an employment emphasis is indicated for the University of Washington. Discussion: The University of Washington is located within one of the City of Seattle’s five designated urban centers. The University District Northwest (area north of NE Campus Parkway, east of I-5 and west of the university) and University Village are designated as urban villages by the Comprehensive Plan. The University is the largest employer in the area and provides a vital and active urban environment. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would promote increased residential and employment densities consistent with the intent of urban villages. Much of the proposed university growth would be in the vicinity of the potential Link Light Rail stations and all proposed development would be served by numerous bus routes in the area. Major Institution Overlay Areas Goal G67 - Maximize the public benefits of major institutions including health care and educational services, while minimizing the adverse impacts associated with development and geographic expansion. Goal G68 - Recognize the significant economic benefits of major institutions in the city and the region and their contributions to employment growth. Goal G69 - Balance each major institution’s ability to change and the public benefit derived from change with the need to protect the livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 113 Policy L127 - Support the development of major medical and educational institutions as significant contributors to broad public benefits and to economic vitality while protecting the character of neighborhoods adjacent to those institutions, and substantially mitigating the transportation and other impacts of each development. Discussion: The University of Washington provides public higher-educational service for the community, region and state. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would guide development on the campus through the life of the Master Plan Seattle Campus, approximately 2012. As noted in Section II of this Final EIS, the proposal includes approximately 3,000,000 sq.ft. of building area, which would provide opportunities for University-related employment growth. A primary objective of the Master Plan Seattle Campus is to provide a physical environment that promotes a positive relationship with the surrounding community. Effects of development under the Master Plan Seattle Campus on adjacent neighborhoods are addressed throughout this Final EIS. Policy L129 – Provide for coordinated growth of major institutions through major institution conceptual master plans and the establishment of major institution overly zones. Discussion: Adoption of the Master Plan Seattle Campus is intended to guide development of the campus through approximately 2012. The existing major institution overlay zone would be unchanged under the new Master Plan Seattle Campus and no campus boundary expansions are proposed. However, the Master Plan Seattle Campus does includes proposed changes to the existing height limits (see discussion under Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code). Policy L130 – require significant community involvement in the development, monitoring, implementation and amendment of major Institution Master Plans, including the establishment of citizen’s advisory committees containing community and major institution representatives. Discussion: Consistent with the provisions of the City-University Agreement, the CityUniversity-Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC) has been in existence since the early 1980’s. The CUCAC has participated in the formulation of the new Master Plan Seattle Campus to help assure that concerns of the community are considered. All CUCAC meetings have been open to the public to provide additional public input during the master planning process. In addition, several public open houses were conducted to gather public comments concerning the Master Plan Seattle Campus and the scope of the associated EIS. Public hearings on the Draft Master Plan Seattle Campus and the Draft EIS were conducted on December 6, 2000 and November 9, 2000, respectively (see the Fact Sheet of this Final EIS [page vi]). Refer to Master Plan Seattle Campus for additional detail on the community involvement process. City of Seattle Neighborhood Plans Summary: The City’s Comprehensive Plan establishes guidelines for neighborhoods to develop their own plans to allow growth in ways that provide for a neighborhood’s unique character, needs and livability. The University of Washington campus is located within the University Community Urban Center Planning area. Following an extensive community-based planning effort, the Seattle City Council adopted the University Community Urban Center Plan (UCUC Plan) in August 1998. Refer to Chapter IX of the Master Plan Seattle Campus for detail on the University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 114 relationship between specific UCUC Plan policies and the Master Plan Seattle Campus. A discussion of relevant goals and policies of that neighborhood plan is provided below. Fundamental Principles Implementation Strategy Summary: A basic purpose of this neighborhood plan is to identify and define City and community-sponsored actions (projects, programs and regulatory changes) to further the community’s goals. Many of the implementation actions require partnerships. For example, deriving maximum benefit from redevelopment opportunities around University of Washington campus edges will require effective university, community and developer teamwork within the context of the university campus master plan update. There are several complex, long-range planning activities currently under way which could affect how individual plan recommendations will be implemented. For example, the design and planning of Campus Parkway improvements will depend on the University’s Master Plan, King County Metro’s bus layover needs, Sound Transit’s Light Rail Station siting and design, the Burke Museum relocation study, University Heights Center facility planning, YMCA expansion plans, and Ravenna Creek daylighting plan. Discussion: Along with other planning documents and studies, the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus is an important element in the implementation of the UCUC Plan. University Master Plan Seattle Campus and Redevelopment Near the Campus Edge Summary: The University of Washington will undertake a two-year campus master plan update. It is vitally important that prior to planning activities, the University and the community determine an appropriate and effective means to participate. Discussion: As described in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, public outreach is a top priority for the University. The University is committed to developing a master plan that reflects the interests of the large and diverse community it serves. To achieve this goal, the University developed a community outreach program to facilitate community involvement throughout the planning process. The community outreach program included community meetings providing updates and soliciting comments on the master planning process and planning concepts, newsletters providing updates, a master plan website, telephone hotline, and workshops and tours. The University worked closely with the City University Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC). CUCAC, which consists of 16 representatives appointed by the surrounding committees, played a role in providing community input and guidance throughout the planning process. The University attended monthly CUCAC meetings to present updates and solicit feedback during the development of the plan. Community involvement continued through the draft and final Master Plan Seattle Campus and EIS review process. The University held public meetings and encouraged public comments on the Draft Master Plan and the Draft EIS. Comments were incorporated into the final documents and will be submitted to the Seattle City Council. During the final review process, the Hearing University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 115 Examiner will hold a public hearing to hear any public comments or concerns prior to making its approval decision. Narrative Description of Plan Elements A description of how the various recommendations are integrated to bring about the desired changes in the community is provided. The Narrative Description includes a discussion on how recommendations relate to areas of the University District, including: Lower Brooklyn, Ave/15th Avenue Corridor, Northern Tier, and Ravenna Village. Lower Brooklyn Summary: The Lower Brooklyn area contains the portion of campus west of 15th Avenue NE. This area provides a critical north-south link connecting the southwest campus area to the residential neighborhood and the commercial districts to the north. The vision for Lower Brooklyn is to intensify and solidify the residential neighborhood’s character, to provide a better transition between the campus and adjacent activities, to integrate proposed transit improvements, and to improve gateways and connections around the periphery. Specific recommendations include: work with the University on relating the campus edge to the surrounding neighborhood, study ways to create usable open space on the Campus Parkway, and support University efforts to develop a waterfront trail and water front open space. Campus Parkway is currently an underused resource and should be improved. There are two groups of design options, depending on whether or not the street is realigned to better service transit or other circulation. If the street is not to be reconfigured, then new street lights, strain poles (transit), trees, landscaping, and other amenities-such as large-scale sculpture should be added. If the street can be reconfigured between Brooklyn and 15th Avenue NE to provide better east-west vehicle circulation, then this plan recommends relocating the open space to one side of the street (rather than as a median between travel lanes) so that the space is more usable and adjacent to other activities. In either event, the community and the University, as well as applicable City and transit agency departments, should be involved in the design of Campus Parkway. Exploring optional designs would most logically occur during the campus master plan. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes a more campus-like environment in the South/Southwest Campus, while maintaining the mixed-use maritime character of the waterfront. Improvements include a view corridor from NE Pacific Street to Portage Bay, a cartop boat launching ramp, removal of temporary buildings for establishment of additional landscaping and pedestrian path paralleling the shoreline, and provision of benches and viewing areas along the waterfront for public use. As indicated in the UCUC Plan, optional designs for NE Campus Parkway were explored to provide better east-west vehicle circulation and more usable open space. To improve circulation and open space conditions along NE Campus Parkway, the Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies the potential to consolidate the Parkway on the southern alignment creating one two-lane roadway to the south with a center left-turn lane. By moving traffic to the south the amount of developable land and usable open space would increase. This potential element of the master plan would provide more usable open space with southern exposure than currently exists, minimizes pedestrian/vehicular conflicts by consolidating traffic, and improves bicycle circulation (refer to the Transportation section for detail). University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 116 The Ave/15th Avenue NE Corridor Summary: Encompassing the properties on both sides of University Way NE (The Ave) and 15th Avenue NE, the Ave/15th corridor includes the community’s most lively pedestrian-oriented retail strip, two important north-south transit routes, and the western edge of the campus. The community’s vision for this area includes: improved sidewalks and street infrastructure design guidelines, an efficient intermodal bus/light rail station, upgraded campus edge along 15th Avenue NE, improved east-west pedestrian connections at NE 43rd, 42nd and 41st Streets, and mid-block east-west pedestrian pathways. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus includes elements to improve pedestrian connections, upgrade the campus edge along 15th Avenue NE, and incorporate the planned light rail stations. To accomplish these goals, the Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes to transform 15th Avenue NE from an edge separating the community and campus to a seam joining the two. Specific proposals include new building development with street access, added and extended street trees, and removal or decrease in the height of the wall along 15th Avenue NE. The development of the potential light rail stations on 15th Avenue NE at NE 45th Street an NE Pacific Street, along with east-west connections to the station entrances, would further increase pedestrian connections. Additionally, new campus development on sites along 15th Avenue NE would open onto the street rather than turn inward, thus increasing the potential for connections to the campus and providing additional vitality to the streetscape. Ravenna Urban Village Summary: Ravenna Urban Village is a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Several commercial areas are located within or adjacent to the urban village. The major commercial area is University Village Shopping Center. Linkages and connections are a fundamental concern for this urban village. The community’s vision for this area includes: create a gateway landscape or entry feature at NE 55th Street and 25th Avenue NE, improve pedestrian mobility and upgrade Blakely Area, acquire Ravenna woods, and daylight portions of Ravenna Creek. Discussion: The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus includes the potential development of new housing or other university building in the Blakely portion of the Ravenna Urban Village, which could help to upgrade this area. Because of topographic differences between the main portion of the campus and the Ravenna Urban Village area, the potential for direct connections between the campus and the University is limited to the northern edge of East Campus. Northern Tier Summary: The Northern Tier includes all the residentially zoned areas north of NE 45th Street from 20th Avenue NE to 15th Avenue NE, area north of NE 50th Street from University Way to I-5. Because this is one area in the urban center that appears appropriate for family-oriented housing, a top priority is protecting and stabilizing the existing residential neighborhoods and providing residences with yards that will appeal to families with children. The plan recommends rezones to remove the disincentive to maintain the existing housing stock. Other recommendations include: securing University Heights as a community center; support YMCA University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 117 expansion; create community gateways with improved crosswalks, landscaping, and signs or landmark elements; develop joint-use parking and improving pedestrian connections Discussion: The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes to create a campus gateway at the corner of 15th Avenue NE and 45th Street NE to provide a visual and spatial connection between the campus and the northern tier area. This gateway would allow for the incorporation of a potential Sound Transit Light Rail station. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus does not include potential projects directly relating to housing in the northern tier, the University Heights Community Center or the YMCA. Goals and Policies A. Land Use and Economic Development Goal A-3 – Support long-term commercial redevelopment to maintain the UCUC’s diverse economic base. Policy A-3.1 – Accommodate new knowledge-based industries that have a positive impact on their neighbors. Discussion: The proposed University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus would provide for the construction of up to 3,000,000 sq.ft. of building area for teaching and University support services, thus increasing the potential support for knowledge-based industries in the planning area. Continuation of the existing lid on University leasing off-campus would restrict the ability of the University to establish educational support and other uses outside the campus boundaries, and would limit the potential for the University to support the UCUC Plan’s goal of accommodating new knowledge-based industries in the area. Refer to Land Use – Land Use Patterns, Decentralization/Open Space Alternative, for additional discussion on the lease lid. Policy A-3.4 – Explore innovative parking measures such as a joint-use policy, off-site parking, and parking structures. Discussion: An integral part of the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus is an enhanced UPass Program and Transportation Management Program (TMP). U-Pass began in 1991 as a partnership between the University and the three local transit agencies that serve the campus (Metro, Community Transit and Sound Transit). The program is designed to provide better transportation services to University commuters, decrease the number of vehicle trips, and to mitigate potential traffic and parking impacts of university growth. Since the inception of the UPass program, significant portions of all sectors of the campus community (students, facility and staff) have shifted from single-occupant-vehicle use to transit use. The primary objective of the enhanced U-Pass and TMP programs would be to continue to provide opportunities for alternative modes of travel while maintaining peak motor vehicle levels to the University at or below levels established in 1991. Integral to the achievement of the objective of the TMP are parking management measures aimed at altering the supply, demand and operation of the parking system to promote other transportation modes. Parking measures University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 118 proposed in the TMP include: doubling the current price of parking; developing graduated parking pricing (allows discounted parking for infrequent parkers); increased parking enforcement on campus to reduce parking violations; and revision of the permit area assignment system to increase the potential for ride sharing. The TMP also includes measures to increase pedestrian and bicycle mobility on and adjacent to the campus. Refer to the Transportation Section for additional detail. Goal A-4 – Maintain and enhance stable residential neighborhoods. Policy A-4.5 – Strengthen and enhance the mid-rise residential neighborhood south of NE 43rd Street between Roosevelt Avenue NE and Brooklyn Avenue NE. Discussion: The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus includes recommendations for mixeduse residential development in the University District, including in the area south of NE 43rd Street between Roosevelt Avenue NE and Brooklyn Avenue NE. The current lid on leasing of space in the University District limits the potential for the University to foster off-campus development in the University District consistent with this goal (refer to the discussion under policies A-5.2 and A-5.3 for additional detail on the lease lid). Goal A-5 – Accommodate University of Washington growth in a way that benefits the community as well. Discussion: The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus recognizes the unique character of the University District and includes the following as a primary goal: “In order to support the mission of the University, the campus plan should recognize the importance of the surrounding community and should recognize the importance of the surrounding community and should encourage a good working relationship with the community to improve the quality of life for all in the vicinity.” Elements of the Master Plan Seattle Campus help achieve this goal by increasing pedestrian and bicycle links between the campus and the community, providing new public open space on the campus, providing new opportunities for public access to the lake shore (particularly Portage Bay), and providing additional educational opportunities. Policy A-5.1 – Provide community input where appropriate into the University master plan process. Discussion: The 1998 City-University Agreement (UW, 1998) specify requirements for community input into the University campus master planning process. The 1998 Agreement includes provisions for the formation of a City-University-Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC) to provide input to the master plan throughout the campus master planning process. The CUCAC, comprised of representatives of area neighborhood councils, the community and the University, serves as the Citizens Advisory Committee for the University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus. As specified in the 1998 Agreement, the CUCAC held meetings that were open to the public. One of the meetings was jointly conducted with the University and was the University’s public hearing on the DEIS. The CUCAC, based on public input, provided written comments to the University on the Draft Master Plan and the DEIS. Public comments directly from individuals and groups were also accepted on the Draft Master Plan and the DEIS. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 119 In addition to the public input opportunities afforded through the CUCAC and the Draft Master Plan/DEIS processes, the City of Seattle Hearing Examiner and Seattle City Council will also hold public hearings on the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Refer to Master Plan Seattle Campus for additional information of community outreach. Policy A-5.2 – Allow UW uses off campus where there is also a benefit to the community. Policy A-5.3 – Encourage University-related commercial development such as “technology transfer” and institute knowledge-based incubatory businesses where such uses are of benefit to the university and the community. Focus such uses along Roosevelt Avenue NE south of NE 50th and the University Gardens core, between the freeway and Brooklyn Avenue NE, NE 50th Street, and NE 43rd Street. Discussion: A discussion on the history of limitations on the amount of property the University can lease within the University District and an analysis of potential impacts associated with amending existing leasing limitations is provided below. Background The University of Washington General Physical Development Plan (GPDP) was adopted in May 1992, with conditions of approval established by the Seattle City Council. One condition imposed a “lease lid,” limiting the amount of property that the University could lease within the primary and secondary impact zones identified under the plan. The 1998 City-University Agreement establishes a limit of 550,000 gross square feet as the amount of off-campus space that can be leased by the University within the primary and secondary impact zones, as depicted in Figure 18. As indicated in Figure 18, within the Primary Impact Zone is a Permitted Leasing Zone, which is the area within which the University can lease off-campus space in the University District. As part of the negotiations surrounding the 1998 City-University Agreement, the University anticipated the need to propose future changes to the lease lid. The 1998 City-University Agreement provides that the next Master Plan will retain the lease limit; provided, however, that the lease limit may be altered through a major amendment to the Master Plan. At the time that the 1998 City-University Agreement was being negotiated, the UCUC Plan was still in the process of being developed. In July 1998, the City of Seattle issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the Plan. The Environmental Checklist accompanying the DNS stated that the impacts of the UCUC Plan would include increased traffic congestion, greater building bulk and height, and increased demand for public facilities and services. Measures to reduce these impacts were addressed in corresponding recommendations for greater public transportation mobility, increased parks and open space, streetscape improvements, and human services. The UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist also noted that impacts would be examined as part of project level environmental review when individual development applications are being considered. Overall, the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist concludes that adoption of the UCUC Plan would not have a probable significant adverse impact. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 120 Analysis Under the terms of the 1998 City-University Agreement, the lease lid would not be changed under the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. The University currently leases approximately 380,000 sq.ft of building area within the primary and secondary impact zones. Considering the lid of 550,000 sq.ft, the University can only lease up to 170,000 sq.ft of additional building area in the impact zones. Although the UCUC Plan calls for increased residential, commercial and knowledge-based development and the University of Washington is considered to have the potential to play a major role in fostering development consistent with the University District’s vision, continuation of the existing leasing lid limits the potential for the University to help achieve UCUC goals. Future alteration of the lease lid through a major amendment to the Master Plan would allow the University to increase its role in fostering development in the University District. University development within the primary and secondary impact zones would be consistent with the type and density of land uses identified in the UCUC plan. Environmental impacts associated with University District development would be as identified in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist and would include increased traffic congestion, greater building bulk and height, and increased demand for public facilities. It should be noted that, with implementation of University of Washington’s TMP measures, traffic impacts associated with University-related development could be less than that identified in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist. For example, University Transportation Management Plan programs, including the U-PASS, could be implemented at off-campus uses to limit vehicle trips. As indicated in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist, specific impacts would be examined as part of project level environmental review when individual development applications are being considered. In summary, The University’s ability to foster off-campus development consistent with the goals and vision of the UCUC Plan would be constrained by continuation of the lease lid in the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Future alteration of the lease lid through a major amendment to the Master Plan would allow the University to increase its role in fostering development in the University District consistent with the vision and goals of the UCUC Plan. B. Transportation Goal B-1 – Establish and improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the UCUC to provide safe, convenient, and desirable surroundings that encourage walking and bicycling. Discussion: Providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the campus and in the University District is an important element of the Master Plan Seattle Campus. Master Plan Seattle Campus goals for improving conditions for bicyclists include: enhancing bicycle connectivity along the University Bridge, Montlake Bridge, north to Ravenna park, west over I-5 and to the Burke-Gilman Trail; provide new bicycle locker and shower facilities; provide bike lanes along Stevens Way; program covered or secured parking into each new building; and, create bike centers that rent and store bicycles. Master Plan Seattle Campus goals for improving pedestrian conditions include: coordinating with the City for improvements to the local street network to fill in any gaps in the pedestrian University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 122 network; focus on enhanced pathways and amenities for transit services; require a pedestrian circulation plan for all new campus and off-campus development to assure pedestrian accessibility and barrier removal; and, consider rain protection for new pathways. Goal B-3 – Allow for parking at levels necessary to sustain the economic viability and vitality of the UCUC while discouraging commuting by single-occupant vehicles and the use of UCUC parking facilities by commuters using transit to travel to other destinations. Policy B-3.1 – Enforce existing RPZ policies as well as football-game-related RPZ policies. Discussion: An integral part of the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus is a Transportation Management Program (TMP). The primary objective of the new TMP will be to enhance opportunities for alternative modes of travel while maintaining peak motor vehicle levels to the University at or below levels established in 1991. Measures in the TMP to discourage commuting to the University by single-occupant vehicle include: increasing the availability and attractiveness of transit service; increasing the availability of carpooling and vanpooling; decreasing the attractiveness of parking single-occupancy vehicles on the campus; improving the connectivity of the campus to regional bicycle routes; increasing bicycle support facilities (including bicycle lockers and showers); and enhancing the on-campus pedestrian system and connections to off-campus pedestrian systems. The University will continue to implement the existing RPZ program. Goal B-4 – Provide improved mobility and access by public transportation to services, jobs, businesses, residences, educational opportunities and other destinations both within and outside of the UCUC, including local shuttle. Goal B-5 – Ensure that new public transportation improvements – including Metro bus service, RTA light rail stations, and, if implemented, the monorail – benefit the local community in terms of transportation services and impacts on local activities and environmental conditions. Discussion: Because of the large number of transit riders in the University District, many of whom specifically travel to and from the University, the University District is currently one of the most frequently served areas in the region. Transit stops are presently located in and around the campus for service from two surrounding counties (King County Metro and Snohomish Community Transit). Transit service is provided by each of these agencies. Times for transit service to the campus generally correspond to best accommodate students, faculty, staff and visitors. Bus stops on and adjacent to the campus generally incorporate shelters and other amenities for users. It is anticipated that Sound Transit’s Central Link light rail transit will serve the University and University District via two station locations along 15th Avenue NE. One station – University Station - would be located on 15th Avenue NE, between NE 45th and NE 43rd Streets. The other station – Portage Bay Station - would be located on 15th Avenue NE in the vicinity of NE Pacific Street. Based on recent developments, it is expected that light rail service could be operational and serve the University District by 2009 thereby increasing mass transit service to the University District and helping limit the overall number of vehicle trips in the University District. The University of Washington currently utilizes the U-Pass Program as a key component of the existing TMP. Implementation of the program in 1991 helped increase the use of transit by University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 123 students, facility and staff while reducing the dependence on single occupancy vehicle trips to and from the campus during peak hours. U-Pass provides a transit subsidy to students, staff and faculty as well as measures covering parking, guaranteed ride home, shuttles and carpools and vanpools. The new TMP, included as an element of the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, includes several possible improvements to increase transit service and accessibility, including: incorporating Sound Transit station access into campus planning; encouraging transit agencies to increase service after 6 p.m. to provide greater flexibility and use of non-peak service; providing transit subsidy for visitors to the campus and patients at the University of Washington Medical Center; and, incorporating Intelligent Transportation System solutions such as advanced transit traveler information. C. Housing Goal C-1 – Provide housing for a mix of demographic and income groups. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus includes the potential for housing designed primarily for students attending the University. The University will also continue to evaluate the recommendations of an ad-hoc Housing Task Force exploring ways to assist faculty and staff to purchase or rent homes in close proximity to the campus. Any housing developed by the University would be priced to be affordable to University students, staff and facility. The potential establishment of 850 to 1,000 new units of housing on the campus would add to the existing mix of housing in the University District. (Refer also to the discussion of Housing contained in this Final EIS [Section III,J.]) D. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Urban Design Features Goal D-1 – Increase open space to serve existing and projected needs. Discussion: The Vision for the Campus document, prepared in 1999 as a framework for developing goals and elements of the Master Plan Seattle Campus, focuses on the importance of preserving and enhancing open space on the campus. The Vision for the Campus document states that “new development considered in the plan should occur as part of the creation of new open spaces supportive of the common life of the University.” The document also states that “the plan should look for opportunities to improve those open spaces that do not currently live up to their potential. All new campus development should improve, rather than detract from, campus open spaces. Consistent with the visions for the campus, a goal of the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus is to “ensure good stewardship of the existing campus, maintaining and protecting the values of the University’s physical resources and character, architecture and open space. Changes to the campus should improve and enhance, rather than detract from the values and quality of the campus”. New open space areas proposed in the Master Plan Seattle Campus include, numerous plazas and landscaped area associated with building development. New open space identified in conjunction with potential vacations include an aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street and a liner area parallel to the reconfigured Campus Parkway. The Final Master Plan Seattle identifies potential street, alley and aerial vacations that may occur during the timeframe of the Master Plan Seattle Campus. All of the vacations are University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 124 potential – none are proposed and none are essential to implementation of the Master Plan Seattle Campus. Potential street vacations would provide additional open space on the campus. For example, the Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies the potential to consolidate NE Campus Parkway on the southern alignment creating one two-lane roadway to the south with a center left-turn lane. By moving traffic to the south the amount of developable land and usable open space on the former north portion of the Parkway would increase. This potential element of the Master Plan Seattle Campus would provide more usable open space with southern exposure than currently exists, minimizes pedestrian/vehicular conflicts by consolidating traffic, and improves bicycle circulation. Goal D-3 – Improve the pedestrian and bicycle connections from neighborhoods to parks and recreational resources as a high priority. Discussion: The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus includes elements to provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the campus and in the University District. Master Plan Seattle Campus goals for improving conditions for bicyclists include: enhancing bicycle connectivity along the University Bridge, Montlake Bridge, north to Ravenna park, west over I-5 and to the Burke-Gilman Trail; provide new bicycle locker and shower facilities; provide bike lanes along Stevens Way; program covered or secured parking into each new building; and, create bike centers that rent and store bicycles. Master Plan Seattle Campus goals for improving pedestrian conditions include: coordinating with the City for improvements to the local street network to fill in any gaps in the pedestrian network; focus on enhanced pathways and amenities on campus for transit services; require a pedestrian circulation plan for all new campus and off-campus development to assure pedestrian accessibility and barrier removal; and, consider rain protection for new pathways. Refer to the Transportation section for additional detail on measures to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections. Goal D-4 – Enhance gateways into the University Community, especially at NE 50th Street at Roosevelt Avenue NE, NE 50th Street at University way NE, 11th Avenue NE at NE 41st Street, 25th Avenue NE at NE 55th Street, NE 45th Street at 25th Avenue NE, and Roosevelt Avenue NE at NE 42nd Street. “Gateways” means visual enhancements, such as improved landscaping, signage, artwork, or other feature, that signify the entries into the community. Discussion: The intersections of 11th Avenue NE at 41st Street and NE 45th Street and 25th Avenue NE, cited in goal D-4, are located adjacent to the boundaries of the University of Washington campus. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus includes goals for enhancing gateways and entry landmarks to the University campus at these and other campus boundary locations. Techniques identified to enhance campus entries include enhanced landscaping, artwork and signage. Goal D-5 – Strengthen the visual, spatial and circulatory connections between the UW and the community. Policy D-5.1 – Work with the University on the campus edge and shoreline improvements in the upcoming campus master plan. Discussion: The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus includes numerous policies and guidelines to improve the visual character of campus edges, pedestrian connections between University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 125 the campus and the surrounding neighborhood, and pedestrian connections to the shoreline. For example, the Master Plan Seattle Campus includes elements to improve pedestrian connections and upgrade the campus edge along 15th Avenue NE. To accomplish these goals, the Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes to transform 15th Avenue NE from an edge separating the community and campus to a seam joining the two. Specific proposals include new building development with street access, added and extended street trees, and removal or decrease in the height of the wall along 15th Avenue NE. In addition, the Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes to enhance the mixed-use maritime character of the waterfront. Improvements include a view corridor from NE Pacific Street to Portage Bay, a car-top boat launching ramp, removal of temporary buildings for establishment of additional landscaping and pedestrian path paralleling the shoreline, and provision of benches and viewing areas along the waterfront for public use. E. Arts and Cultural Activities Goal E-1 – Support cultural opportunities appealing to a diverse and changing population of the University Community Urban center area. Policy E-1.1 – Implement public art projects which together reflect a diversity of interests and activity in the community. Policy E-1.2 – Enrich community life with a broad offering of a range of activities and programs, including education, recreation, and entertainment for all age groups. Discussion: The University participates, and will continue to participate, in the 1 Percent for Art Program. Under this program, a percentage of the construction budget is set-aside for artwork that is placed around campus. Sites and artwork are reviewed and selected by a committee of faculty, staff and students. All art that is part of the program is available for the broader community to enjoy. F. Social Services Goal F-3 – Assure that lifelong learning opportunities are accessible for all ages and increase local educational resources. Policy F-3.1 – As the number of families with young children in the area continues to increase according to the plan’s goals and policies, explore the feasibility of establishing a school within the urban center. • Could be an all-city school building on excellent access, RTA, and UW resources. • Could be an experimental school in conjunction with the UW School of Education. • Increase access to educational resources, such as computer terminals. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus does not include goals specifically related to Goal F-3. However, the University continues to play an active role in the community through the lending of its resources and talents to ensure that lifelong learning opportunities are accessible for all ages. Faculty and staff from the Colleges of Education and Social Work are very active participants in community projects. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 126 1998 Agreement Between the City of Seattle and the University of Washington Originally signed by the City of Seattle and University of Washington in 1983, this agreement committed the University to prepare a campus master plan and EIS, and included specific guidelines for the master plan and EIS process. The 1983 Agreement was the impetus for the development of the General Physical Development Plan (GPDP). The 1983 Agreement was updated in 1998 and this Master Plan Seattle Campus and associated EIS have been prepared in accordance with that 1998 Agreement. As stated in the 1998 Agreement, “this Agreement is to define certain ways wherein the University, in its planning and development, may fulfill its mission in such a way as to continue to enhance the positive impacts upon the City as a whole and particularly upon the surrounding communities, and at the same time minimize any adverse impact it may have by working cooperatively with appropriate City agencies and community groups in order that problems may be identified at the earliest possible stage and that, there necessary, mitigating actions can be taken to maximize positive impacts and minimize adverse impacts upon the City and particularly the communities surrounding the University.” The 1998 Agreement contains provisions for the following: • Formulation of a Master Plan – Guidelines for the formulation of the Master Plan are provided. This 10-year plan should include identification of boundary changes; proposed institutional and non-institutional zone designations; general location of buildings, parking and open space; development standards; and, a transportation plan. Procedures for Consideration, City Approval, and University Adoption the University Master Plan – The procedures relating to public meetings (including formation of CUCAC), City and public review of the Draft Master Plan and EIS, and the City’s process for approval of the Master Plan are specified. Changes to the University Master Plan – The procedures for changing elements of an adopted Master Plan are specified. Land Acquisition and Leasing – Policies limiting the amount and use of land acquisition and leasing in the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones are specified (see Figure 18). Leasing of housing of patients and families of patients of the University of Washington Medical Center is further limited to the Permitted Leasing Area identified in the Agreement. University-Community Relations/City-Community Advisory Committee – Procedures and recommendations for achieving public input into the Master Planning process are provided. Procedures for the formation and operation of a City University Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC) are defined. The role of CUCAC in the formation and review of the Master Plan is specified. • • • • University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 127 • Traffic and Transportation Related Issues – A detailed set of goals and objectives and detailed requirements for monitoring transportation programs is provided. The collection of traffic survey data along with maximum limits on total campus trips and campus parking spaces form the centerpiece of the transportation program. Discussion: The new Master Plan Seattle Campus follows the process and is consistent with the provisions of the 1998 City-University Agreement. Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code Master planning and land use for University development is governed by the 1998 Agreement between the City and the University (Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code section 23.69.006). In September 1998, the Seattle City Council updated the Major Institution Policies which included a specific provision relating to the University of Washington, as follows: Policy 7: University of Washington Beginning in 1983, the City of Seattle and the University of Washington have entered into sequential agreements which, along with other legislation, have governed development on the University’s campus and in an area surrounding the campus called the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones. The 1998 Agreement Between the City of Seattle and University of Washington describes the master plan process , off-campus land acquisition and environmental review authority. The 1998 Agreement or its successor shall govern relations between the City and the University of Washington. Discussion: Consistent with the provisions of the 1998 Agreement, the Master Plan Seattle Campus has been prepared with input from the CUCAC, as well as agencies, other organizations and the public. The Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes to amend the maximum height limits in these portions of the campus. The requested height limit amendments include: • • • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet at the golf driving range; Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway; and, Reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet in a small area north of NE 41st Street and west of 12th Avenue NE. Although an amendment to revise height limits on the University of Washington campus may not require a rezone, a discussion on rezone requirements is provided below. Amendments to the Official City of Seattle Land Use Map (Rezones) are allowed pursuant to the provisions of Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code Chapter 23.34. Section 23.34.008 of the Zoning Code lists “General Rezone Criteria” that all rezones must meet. The following lists the relevant criteria: University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 128 A. To be approved, a rezone must meet the following; 1. In urban centers and urban villages the zoned capacity for the center or village taken as a whole shall be no less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the growth targets adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. For each urban center or urban village, the zoned capacity for the center or village taken as a whole shall allow the minimum zoned capacity established in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion: The University of Washington is located within one of the City of Seattle’s five designated Urban Centers. The University District Northwest (area north of NE Campus Parkway, east of I-5 and west of the University) and University Village are designated as Urban Villages by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The University is the largest employer in the area and provides a vital and active urban environment. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would promote increased residential and employment densities consistent with the intent of urban villages. With regard to each proposed rezone, the following information is presented. • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet at golf driving range – The proposed height increase at the golf driving range would allow for increased recreational opportunities and improve driving range safety. No increase in residential and employment densities would be provided. Refer to Appendix E to this Final EIS for detail on the proposed golf driving range safety net. Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway – Depending on the use on potential development site 33W, the proposed height increase could allow for additional employment and/or housing to help achieve growth targets for this portion of the Urban Center. Reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet north of NE 41st Street and west of 12th Avenue NE – The proposed height reduction would provide a height transition between campus and offcampus buildings but would not provide additional housing or employment capacity. B. Match Between Zone Criteria and Area Characteristics. The most appropriate zone designation shall be that for which the provisions for designation of the zone type and the locational criteria for the specific zone match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. (Criteria C and D are not specifically relevant to the proposal) E. Zoning Principles. The following zoning principles shall be considered: 1. The impact of more intensive zones on less intensive zones or industrial and commercial zones on other zones shall be minimized by the use of transitions or buffers, if possible. A gradual transition between zoning categories, including height limits, is preferred. 2. Physical buffers may provide an effective separation between different uses and intensities of development. Natural features, freeways and major arterials, distinct change in street layout, and open space may be considered as buffers. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus does not propose any change to zone designations. Uses on the campus would remain institutional in nature and would remain • • University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 129 compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding area. The following is presented with regard to each proposed rezone. • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet at golf driving range - The proposed height increase at the golf driving range would accommodate a maximum 100-foot high safety net associated with the proposed addition of a second level to the driving range building. The driving range building would be developed consistent with the existing 35-foot height limit. The proposed 105-foot height limit would be greater than the 65-foot height limit at University Village to the north. However, impacts to adjacent zones would be minimized for the following: the proposed safety net would be relatively transparent (would not result in significant bulk or shading impacts); existing perimeter trees along the western and northern edge of the range would be retained to provide a buffer; additional trees would be planted along the northern edge of the range to provide additional buffering; and, Montlake Boulevard NE and NE 45th Street would act as a physical buffer. Refer to the Aesthetics section of this Final EIS and Appendix E for analysis of the visual conditions with the proposed safety net. Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway - The proposed height of 105 feet would establish visual consistency along the Parkway and would be consistent with the 105-foot height limits to the immediate east and west. The proposed 105-foot height would be greater than the existing 65-foot height limits to the north and south (NC3-65 and MIO-65, respectively). The potential development in this area would be designed to respect the Playhouse Theater and off-campus mixed-use area to the north. The proposed landscape area along the northern edge of potential development area 33W along with NE 41st Street would provide a buffer between campus development and off-campus uses. The proposed 105-foot height limit would not be anticipated to obstruct public scenic or landmark views. Reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet north of NE 41st Street and west of 12th Avenue NE - The proposed height reduction would be consistent with the 60-foot height limit (MR Zone) of the off-campus area to the immediate north. This reduction in height limit would provide a height transition between campus and off-campus buildings and would not be anticipated to obstruct public scenic or landmark views. This height reduction would be consistent with provisions of the UCUC Plan. • • F. Impact Evaluation. The evaluation of a proposed rezone shall consider the possible negative and positive impacts on the area proposed for rezone and its surroundings. 1. Factors to be examined include, but are not limited to, the following: housing; public services; environmental factors, such as noise, air and water quality, terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna, glare, odor, shadows, and energy conservation; pedestrian safety; manufacturing activity; character of areas recognized for architectural or historic value; and shoreline view. 2. Service Capacities. Development which can reasonably be anticipated based on the proposed development potential shall not exceed the service capacities which can reasonably be anticipated in the area, including: street access to the area; street capacity in the area; transit service; parking capacity; utility and sewer capacity; and, shoreline navigation. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 130 Discussion: The following is presented with regard to each proposed rezone. • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet at golf driving range - The proposed height increase at the golf driving range would allow for expanded public recreational facilities in the area. The height increase at the driving range would not result in positive or negative impacts in the areas of housing, noise levels, air quality, water quality, plants and animals, shadows, energy conservation, manufacturing activity, historic structures or shoreline view. The higher net would provide a positive safety impact to pedestrians and traffic by ensuring golf balls do not leave the range after a second level is added. Service capacities would not be exceeded by the golf driving range safety net. Temporary increases in construction impacts (noise, air quality, street disruptions) would also be anticipated with the golf driving range safety net. Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway - The proposed height increase along NE Campus Parkway would provide the opportunity for increased housing, educational and/or employment opportunities in the area. The increased height would allow for more building development that could increase shadows and demands on public services, however, these impacts would not be significantly greater than what would occur under the existing height. Temporary increases in construction impacts (noise, air quality, street disruptions) would also be anticipated with the additional development allowed with the proposed height increase, however, these impacts would not be significantly greater than what would occur under the existing height. Reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet north of NE 41st Street and west of 12th Avenue NE - The proposed height reduction would reduce the potential for impacts to elements of the evaluation criteria listed above. (Criteria G is not specifically relevant to the proposal) H. Overlay Districts. If the area is located in an overlay district, the purpose and boundaries of the overlay district shall be considered. Discussion: According to the City of Seattle Zoning Map, the University of Washington campus is overlain with the Major Institution Overlay designation (MIO). However, the 1998 Agreement between the City of Seattle and the University of Washington (Agreement) establishes a process for the formulation of a master plan to guide University development. Consistent with the Agreement, the Master Plan Seattle Campus includes campus boundaries, goals and objectives, general policies, a development program, development standards and a transportation management plan. The proposed request to revise height limits is included as a part of the master plan process and is consistent with the Agreement. I. Critical Areas. If the area is located in or adjacent to a critical area, the effect of the rezone on the critical area shall be considered. Discussion: The following is presented with regard to each proposed rezone. • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet at golf driving range - According to the City of Seattle Zoning Map, the proposed golf driving range safety net is located in an area identified as a “Critical Area Not Requiring SEPA Review”. A “Critical Area Not requiring SEPA Review” can include an area characterized as liquefaction prone, flood prone, and/or abandoned • • University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 131 landfill. The proposed driving range safety net is not expected to affect this type of critical area. • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway - The area of the proposed height increase along NE Campus Parkway does not contain critical areas as identified on the City of Seattle Zoning maps. Reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet north of NE 41st Street and west of 12th Avenue NE – The area of the proposed height reduction does not contain critical areas as identified on the City of Seattle Zoning Maps. J. Land Use Policies. Land use policies contained or referenced in Chapter 23.12 that are applicable to the area shall be considered. Land Use Policy 5: Rezones A rezone shall be required to establish an MIO district or change and existing Major Institution Boundary or height limit. To minimize the need for expansion into adjacent areas, Major Institution uses shall be concentrated within defined boundaries to: 1) minimize adverse impacts and 2) provide predictability of the Major Institution, the neighborhood and the city. The rezone procedure shall allow for establishment and changes to boundaries and height limits in an orderly, equitable and predictable fashion. Zoning changes shall be based upon the Major Institution policies of the underlying zone. Land Use Policy 7: University of Washington “Beginning in 1983, the City of Seattle and the University of Washington have entered into sequential agreements which, along with other legislation, have governed development on the University’s campus and in an area surrounding the campus called the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones. The 1998 Agreement Between the City of Seattle and University of Washington describes the master plan process, off-campus land acquisition and environmental review authority. The 1998 Agreement or its successor shall govern relations between the City and the University of Washington”. Discussion: As mentioned under Land Use Policy 7, the 1998 City-University Agreement establishes a process for the formulation of a master plan to guide university development. Consistent with the Agreement, the Master Plan Seattle Campus includes campus boundaries, goals and objectives, general policies, development program, development standards and a transportation management plan. The height revisions are proposed to better implement the provisions of the Master Plan Seattle Campus. Section 23.34.124 of the Zoning Code states that for rezones to revise height limits in Major Institution Overlay (MIO) districts, the following criteria shall be considered: • University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 132 (1) increases to height limits may be considered where it is desirable to limit MIO district boundary expansions; (2) height limits at the district boundary shall be compatible with those in the adjacent areas, transitional height limits shall be provided wherever feasible when the maximum permitted height within the overlay district is significantly higher than permitted in areas adjoining the major institution campus; (3) height limits should generally not be lower than existing development to avoid creating non-conforming structures; and, (4) obstruction of public scenic or landmark views to, from or across a major institution campus should be avoided where possible. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus proposes to amend the maximum height limits in three portions of the campus. The requested height amendments include an increase from 65 feet to 105 at the golf driving range, an increase from 65 feet to 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway and, a reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet in a small area north of NE 41st Street and west of 12th Avenue NE. The relationship of the proposed rezones to revise height limits to Seattle Zoning Code Section 23.34.124 criteria is described below. • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet at golf driving range - The proposed height increase from 65 feet to 105 feet at the golf driving range would accommodate a maximum 100-foot high safety net associated with the proposed addition of a second level to the driving range building. (1) The Master Plan Seattle Campus does not propose any expansion of the existing campus boundary. The proposed height increase would allow for expansion of a public recreational facility within the existing campus boundary. (2) The driving range building would be developed consistent with the existing 35-foot height limit. The proposed 105-foot height limit to allow for the safety net would be greater than the 65-foot height limit at University Village to the north. However, impacts to adjacent zones would be minimized by the following: the proposed safety net would be relatively transparent (would not result in significant bulk or shading impacts); existing perimeter trees along the western and northern edge of the range would be retained to provide a buffer; additional trees would be planted along the northern edge of the range to provide additional buffering; and, Montlake Boulevard NE and NE 45th Street would act as a physical buffer. Refer to the Aesthetics section and Appendix E of this Final EIS for analysis of the visual conditions with the proposed golf driving range safety net. (3) The proposed height limit would not be lower than existing development and would not create any non-conforming structures. (4) The proposed height increase would not obstruct views to “public scenic or landmark views”. • Increase from 65 feet to 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 133 (1) The Master Plan Seattle Campus does not propose any expansion of the existing campus boundary. Depending on the use on potential development site 33W, the proposed height increase could allow for academic, office and/or housing use within the existing campus boundary. (2) The proposed height of 105 feet in the vicinity of University Way NE and NE Campus Parkway would establish visual consistency along the Parkway and would be consistent with the 105-foot height limits to the immediate east and west. The proposed 105-foot height would be greater than the existing 65-foot height limits to the north and south (NC3-65 and MIO-65, respectively). The potential development in this area would be designed to respect the Playhouse Theater and off-campus mixed-use area to the north. The proposed landscape area along the northern edge of potential development area 33W along with NE 41st Street would provide a buffer between campus development and off-campus uses. (3) The proposed height limit would not be lower than existing development and would not create any non-conforming structures. (4) The proposed 105-foot height limit would not obstruct “public scenic or landmark views”. • Reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet north of NE 41 Street and west of 12th Avenue NE. (1) The Master Plan Seattle Campus does not propose any expansion of the existing campus boundary. The proposed reduction in height limit would restrict the potential for campus development within the existing campus boundary. (2) The proposed height reduction from 105 feet to 65 feet in the area north of NE 41st Street and west of 12th Avenue NE would be consistent with the 60-foot height limit (MR Zone) of the off-campus area to the immediate north. This reduction in height limit would provide a height transition between campus and off-campus buildings and would not be anticipated to obstruct public scenic or landmark views. (3) The height reduction would not create any non-conforming structures. (4) The proposed reduction in height limit would not obstruct views to public scenic or landmark views. City of Seattle Street Vacation Policies Section VI of the Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies potential street, alley and aerial vacations that may occur during the timeframe of the Master Plan Seattle Campus. All of the vacations are potential -- none are imminent and none are essential to implementation of the Master Plan Seattle Campus. The vacations are included in the Master Plan Seattle Campus for disclosure purposes only; no petitions or applications are pending. No master plan amendment would be necessary when a street or aerial vacation is proposed, provided that the proposal is within the range of alternatives disclosed. Although no street, alley or aerial vacations are proposed at this time, a discussion of vacation policies is provided below. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 134 The City of Seattle Street Vacation Policies (Resolution 28605) provides policies to guide City Council decisions regarding the vacation of public rights-of-way. In making the decision regarding street vacations, the Council weighs three components of the public interest, including: One – Impact of the proposed vacation upon the circulation, access, utilities, light, air, open space and views provided by the right-of-way; Two – Land use impacts of the proposed vacation, including consistency of development involving the vacated right-of-way with relevant city land use policies; and, Three – Benefits accruing to the public from the vacation of the right-of-way. Benefits include such things as making land available for public uses other than transportation and benefits from post-vacation development. The street vacation ordinance gives special attention to procedures for coordinating city review of vacation requests and land use proposals involving the same public right-of-way. When a private development proposal involves public right-of-way, vacation of the right-of-way should be considered part of the land assembly phase and precede application for city land use approvals. Such a sequence is encouraged (but not required) in order to minimize risk to petitioners from substantial investment in a project before vacation approval and to avoid the influence prior investment may have upon the City Council’s discretion in reviewing vacation petitions. Recognizing that the sequence of vacation petition and land use application desired by the City may not always be possible, petitioners are given the option of filing for both simultaneously. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies two potential street vacations, four potential alley vacations and three potential aerial street vacations. The potential street vacations include sections of NE Campus Parkway and 11th Avenue NE; potential alley vacations are in conjunction with potentially developable sites 31W, 32W, 35W, and 36W; potential aerial vacations include NE Pacific Street Aerial Plaza, NE Pacific Street Pedestrian Bridge (Portage Bay Vista Pedestrian Bridge), and the Montlake Boulevard Pedestrian Bridge. Each vacation is depicted on Figure 12 (Section II of this Final EIS). Development associated with the potential street and alley vacations includes the following: • • • approximately 9,600 sq.ft of new building area (footprint) and approximately 3,100 sq.ft. of new open space associated with the potential alley vacations; approximately 26,000 sq.ft of building area (footprint) and approximately 7,000 sq.ft. of open space associated with the potential reconfiguration of the NE Campus Parkway; and, approximately 22,500 sq.ft of building area and approximately 50,000 sq.ft of open space area associated with the potential aerial plaza. As outlined in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, at such a time as a vacation is considered, a workplan specific to that vacation will be prepared by the University. The workplan will identify opportunities for public participation, contain an analysis of traffic and circulation, include a utility analysis, specific design and environmental analysis, landscape analysis, and identify possible public benefit. It is intended that the workplan for a specific vacation accompany the petition and supporting application materials for the vacation that is submitted to the City of Seattle University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 135 (SEATRANS), consistent with the City’s street vacation and skybridge ordinances and procedural guidelines. Analysis of the relationship of the potential vacations with the components of public interest is provided in the discussions of specific policies below. Specific policies and guidelines for street vacations relevant to the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus include: Policy 1 – Circulation and Access. Vacations may be approved only if they do not result in negative effects on the City’s vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation systems or on access, unless the negative effects can be mitigated. A. Streets designated as Arterials may be vacated only when an alternative circulation route is substituted and long-term public benefit would result from the vacation. B. Petitions for the vacation of streets designated as Access Streets may be approved only if: 1) access is retained to properties on the block where the right-of-way is located; 2) circulation to properties on neighboring streets is retained; 3) the right-of-way does not provide a necessary link in the continuity of a route to arterials; and, 4) public parking provided by the right-of-way is not needed, can be absorbed on nearby rights-of-way or can be replaced. C. Streets which contribute to the integrity and continuity of the public transit system will be considered for vacation by the City Council only after review by Metro and the Office for Planning of the Engineering Department. F. Designated boulevards and portions of boulevards may be vacated only for public purposes such as parks. G. Proposed alley vacations will be considered according to the following guidelines: 1) alley vacations may be approved only when they would not interrupt an established pattern in a vicinity, such as continuity of an alley through a number of blocks or a grid which is a consistent feature of neighborhood scale; 2) alleys in residential zones may only be vacated when steep topography prevents development and use of an unimproved alley for access, the alley is not needed for service functions, and offstreet parking access which meets land use code requirements can be provided otherwise; and 3) alleys in commercial zones may be vacated only when the loading service, delivery and access to parking functions are retained on the petitioner’s property, and the number of curb cuts along commercial frontage is not likely to be increased as a result of vacation. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus includes the potential for vacating sections of two public street and four alley right-of-ways. The Master Plan Seattle Campus also identifies three potential aerial vacations (see Figure 12). The majority of the potential street and alley vacations consist of relatively small segments that would not affect overall circulation, access, University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 136 delivery and parking aspects of the roadway/alley system (refer to the Transportation section for detail on traffic operations with the proposed vacations). All on-street parking and below-grade and above-grade utilities associated with these street and alley segments would be replaced or relocated. The Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies the potential vacation of the northern lanes (westbound lanes) of the currently divided NE Campus Parkway and establishment of a single two-lane roadway in the area of the existing southern (eastbound lanes) of the parkway. The potential campus development resulting from the vacation would provide increased open space, building area and view corridors within the western portion of the campus. The potential academic buildings and public open space would be consistent with the type and scale of surrounding uses and would be consistent with relevant City of Seattle land use policies. The proposed vacation would allow for a separation of bicycles and pedestrians from vehicles, thus improving bicycle and pedestrian circulation and safety. As described in detail in the Transportation section of this document (Section III O.), the potential NE Campus Parkway vacation would not negatively impact vehicular circulation. The three potential aerial vacations identified in the Master Plan Seattle Campus would allow the development of an elevated pedestrian walkway (skybridge) over NE Pacific Street, an approximately 300-foot-wide elevated plaza over NE Pacific Street, and an elevated pedestrian walkway (skybridge) over Montlake Boulevard NE. (As an alternative, a term permit process could be pursued in lieu of an aerial vacation for each of these pedestrian connections.) The potential aerial plaza above NE Pacific Street would allow for additional public education space, providing public open space, enhancing public pedestrian circulation between educational uses at Central Campus and South Campus, providing increased connections between the BurkeGilman Trail and the shoreline, and allowing safe pedestrian crossing over an increasingly busy City arterial. The two potential skybridges identified in the Master Plan Seattle Campus would enhance pedestrian circulation and safety. The potential aerial vacations would not directly affect vehicular, transit or parking systems. Policy 2 – Utilities. Rights-of-ways which contain or are needed for future utility lines or facilities may be vacated only when the utility can be adequately protected with an easement, relocation, fee ownership or similar agreement satisfactory to the utility owner. Discussion: All utilities and planned easements for future utilities (including overhead trolley wires), located within vacated rights-of-way would be adequately protected by easements, relocation or agreement(s) satisfactory to the utility owner. Policy 3 – Light, Air, Open Space and View. When the City Council determines that the light, air, open space or view provided by a particular street or alley should be retained, the right-of-way may be vacated only if the public open space, light, air and view can be retained or substituted be dedication to the public of other comparable street right-of-way or other property such as open space property or on future development on the vacated and abutting property. Discussion: The potential street and aerial vacations with the greatest potential to affect light, air, open space and view are the potential street vacation associated with the northern portion of NE Campus Parkway and the potential aerial vacation of NE Pacific Street for an elevated University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 137 plaza. The other potential street and alley vacations would not be anticipated to have the potential to significantly impact light, air, open space and views. Potential development associated with the NE Campus Parkway partial street vacation would increase the building area and associated open space/plazas along the northern edge of this reconfigured roadway. The overall view of and from NE Campus Parkway would be retained and enhanced by new plazas and landscaping. However, the reconfiguration of this roadway would require the removal or relocation of the existing International Friendship Grove, a mixed planting of trees in the median of the Parkway. Refer to the Aesthetics section of this Final EIS for an illustration of the visual conditions along NE Campus Parkway with and without the potential street vacation. Potential development associated with the potential aerial vacation of NE Pacific Street would create a new open space that would connect several Health Sciences buildings with a future building on the north-side of NE Pacific Street. The plaza would include sitting areas for informal gatherings and would provide a major new connection between South/Southwest Campus and Central Campus. However, from street level, the potential aerial plaza could diminish the feeling of openness along NE Pacific Street, and the aerial plaza may feel more like a short tunnel than an overhead bridge. Refer to the Aesthetics section of this Final EIS for an illustration of the visual conditions along NE Pacific Street with the potential aerial vacation. Policy 4 – Land Use. A proposed vacation may be approved only when the increase in development potential that is attributable to the vacation would be consistent with the land use policies adopted by the City Council. The criteria considered for making individual vacation decisions will vary with the land use policies and regulations for the area in which the right-of-way is located. The City Council may place conditions on a vacation to mitigate negative land use effects. Guideline 4.6(3). If, at the time a vacation petition is considered by the City Council, a master plan involving the vacation right-of-way has been submitted for approval, but not yet approved, the Council’s review of the proposed master plan and vacation request shall be conducted concurrently. Major institutions will be encouraged to submit petitions for any vacations called for in a proposed master plan at the same time as the master plan is proposed. Discussion: Development associated with the potential street and alley vacations identified in the Master Plan Seattle Campus could include the following: # # # approximately 9,600 sq.ft of new building area (footprint) and approximately 3,100 sq.ft. of new open space associated with the potential alley vacations; approximately 26,000 sq.ft of building area (footprint) and approximately 7,000 sq.ft. of open space associated with the potential reconfiguration of the NE Campus Parkway; and, approximately 22,500 sq.ft of building area and approximately 50,000 sq.ft of open space area associated with the aerial plaza. All Master Plan Seattle Campus potential development sites associated with the identified potential street, alley and aerial vacations would be consistent with the provisions of the 1998 City-University Agreement. The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus is also consistent with the policies of the 1998 University Community Urban Center Plan. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 138 As outlined in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, at such a time as a vacation is considered, a workplan specific to that vacation will be prepared by the University. The workplan will identify opportunities for public participation, contain an analysis of traffic and circulation, include a utility analysis, specific design and environmental analysis, landscape analysis, and identify possible public benefit. It is intended that the workplan for a specific vacation accompany the petition and supporting application materials for the vacation that is submitted to the City of Seattle (SEATRANS), consistent with the City’s street vacation and skybridge ordinances and procedural guidelines. Policy 5 – Public Benefit. Proposed vacations may be approved only when they provide a long-term public benefit. Vacations will not be approved to achieve short-term public benefits or for the sole benefit of individuals. Mitigation of the adverse effects of a vacation does not in itself constitute a public benefit. Public benefits may include, but are not limited to: A. Benefits which accrue from the use of the vacated land for a public purpose, such as a park, viewpoint, recreational, educational or governmental use. B. Benefits which accrue from improvement of public trust functions. Occasionally, vacations result in an improvement in circulation access, utility location, light, air, open space or view, such as when high quality open space if provided in the form of well designated public plazas. C. Benefits which accrue from the post-vacation development of the site, including: 1) furthering adopted land use policies beyond what is possible without vacation; 2) facilitating economic activity, or 3) provision of more housing in residential areas. D. Benefits which accrue to the City and, by extension, to the community at large by the act of vacation, including: 1) relieving the City of responsibility and costs associated with the maintenance and administration of the right-of-way; 2) relieving the City of Liability for rights-of-way, and 3) adding property to the tax rolls. Discussion: The potential street, alley and aerial vacations identified in the Master Plan Seattle Campus would foster potential public educational development providing long-term public benefit. As outlined in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, at such a time as a vacation is considered, a workplan specific to that vacation will be prepared by the University. The workplan will identify opportunities for public participation, contain an analysis of traffic and circulation, include a utility analysis, specific design and environmental analysis, landscape analysis, and identify possible public benefit. The potential vacation of the northern portion of NE Campus Parkway identified in the Master Plan Seattle Campus would allow for the potential development of academic buildings fostering the educational mission of this public university. The potential NE Campus Parkway street vacation would also benefit the public by providing increased open space in the form of landscaped area and public plazas. The street vacation of a portion of 11th Avenue NE, and alley vacations associated with potentially development sites 31W, 32W, 35W, and 36W would provide public benefit by allowing increased public education building area and public open space. The potential street and alley vacations would provide approximately 10,000 sq.ft of University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 139 additional open space area, the majority of which (7,000 sq.ft.) would be associated with NE Campus Parkway. The potential aerial vacation of a portion of NE Pacific Street would provide public benefit by enabling the potential for development of an aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street allowing additional public education space, providing public open space, enhancing public pedestrian circulation between educational uses on the campus, and allowing safe pedestrian crossing over a major City arterial. The potential aerial plaza would provide approximately 26,000 sq.ft. in building footprint area and approximately 50,000 sq.ft. in public open space area. The aerial vacations allowing the potential development of sky bridges over NE Pacific Street and Mountlake Boulevard would benefit the public by providing increased public pedestrian access within the campus, and establishing safe pedestrian connections over major City arterials. City of Seattle SkyBridge Policies Seattle Municipal Code section 15.64.010 provides procedures and criteria for the administration and approval of applications for permission to construct, maintain and operate pedestrian skybridges over and across streets, alleys and other public places within the City of Seattle. It is the intent of the City Council to limit proliferation and adverse effects of skybridges. It is intended the proposed skybridges shall be reviewed with regard to how well they serve the public interest and their relationship to the cityscape. Seattle Municipal Code section 15.64.065 states that “the City Council shall not grant conceptual approval to construct, maintain and operate a sky bridge unless it finds that the sky bridge is in the public interest and no reasonable alternative to the sky bridge exists. Discussion: The Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies three potential aerial vacations to allow the development of an elevated pedestrian walkway (skybridge) over NE Pacific Street, an approximately 300 foot-wide elevated plaza across NE Pacific Street, and an elevated pedestrian walkway (skybridge) over Montlake Boulevard (see Figure 12 for an illustration of the location of the potential aerial vacations). The potential aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street would allow for potential development of an academic building and approximately 50,000 sq.ft. in new public open space, as well as provide a major pedestrian connection between South Campus/Central Campus and increased pedestrian connections between the Burke-Gilman Trail and the shoreline. The two potential skybridges would enhance pedestrian circulation and safety for the general public, including users of the planned Sound Transit light rail Portage Bay Station. The primary mission of all three aerial vacations is to provide safe and efficient pedestrian connections between portions of campus that are currently separated by major City arterials. The City of Seattle has specific policies on skybridges, which are not forwarded. A detailed analysis of compliance with those policies would be prepared if it determined that the potential skybridges should proceed. City of Seattle Shoreline Master Program Seattle Municipal Code section 23.60.002, commonly known as the “Seattle Shoreline Master Program” implements the policies and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Goals and Policies of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan by regulating development of the shorelines of the City in order to: protect the ecosystems of the shoreline areas; encourage water dependent uses; provide for the maximum public enjoyment of the shorelines of the City; and, preserve, enhance and increase views of the water and access to the water. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 140 The Shoreline District of the City of Seattle is divided into eleven environment classifications, including: Conservancy Navigation, Conservancy Preservation, Conservancy Recreation, Conservancy Management, Conservancy Waterway, Urban Residential, Urban Stable, Urban Harborfront, Urban Maritime, Urban General and Urban Industrial The shoreline of the University of Washington contains three environments, Urban Stable (US), Conservancy Management (CM), and Conservancy Preservation (CP) – refer to Figure 13 of the Water Section for a map illustrating the campus environments. The purpose of the US Environment is to provide opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines by encouraging water-dependent recreational uses and by permitting non-water dependent commercial uses if they provide substantial public access and other public benefits. The purpose of the CM shoreline environment is to conserve and manage areas for public purposes, recreational activities and fish migration routes. While the natural environment need not be maintained in a pure state, developments shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to natural beaches, migratory fish routes and the surrounding community. The purpose of the CP Environment is to preserve, protect, restore, or enhance certain areas which are particularly biologically or geologically fragile, and to encourage the enjoyment of those areas by the public. Discussion: Proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus uses in the CP Environment (East Campus shoreline along Union Bay) would be consistent with the intent of the CP Environment and would be limited to pathways, pedestrian bridges, viewing platforms, dikes to retain seasonal ponds and the plant collections of the Center for Urban Horticulture. Boating activity near the shoreline environment would be discouraged. Proposed uses in the CM Environment (East and South Campus shoreline along Union Bay and the Lake Washington Ship Canal) would include wildlife habitat, nature study, water dependent research, active and passive recreation, intercollegiate athletics, intramural athletics, boat moorage, boat rental, boat launching, dry storage of boats, and parking and access. The proposed shoreline uses would encourage public use of the shorelines. All shoreline development would be designed and managed in a manner sensitive to the natural shoreline environment. Proposed uses in the US Environment (South Campus shoreline along Portage Bay) include passive recreation, boat storage and public service uses in the upland portions of the environment. Proposed uses would be consistent with the policies of the US Environment. Project specific review would be conducted at the time of a specific building proposal, and compliance with shoreline regulations would be assured through the shoreline permit process. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Land Use 141 I. POPULATION Affected Environment Background Population The University of Washington and City of Seattle population is described below according to US Census data. A limited amount of data from the 2000 Census was available at the time this Final EIS was published (September 2001). 2000 Census data was available for the City of Seattle population by race and age only, but was not available by census tract. Income and poverty statistics from the 2000 Census were not available. According to the 2000 Census, the total population in the City of Seattle was 563,374 people. The total population on the University of Washington campus and the immediate surrounding area (represented by Census Tracts 52.00, 53.01 and 53.02) in 1990 amounted to 14,751 people. Figure 19 shows the location and boundaries of the relevant 2000 Tracts; the Tract boundaries did not change between 1990 and 2000. The University area population represented approximately 2.8 percent of the total 1990 Seattle population. Table 16 shows a breakdown of the campus population by race, income level and age. The table compares the population of the campus area to that of the greater City of Seattle. Racial characteristics of the University area do not differ significantly from the characteristics of greater Seattle. There are significant differences between the University area and greater City populations in relation to median income, percent of population below the poverty level and age statistics. These differences are directly related to the general nature of a University area population – fewer people are employed and/or are employed at lower wages (while they are in school) and the overall population is younger. Most of the University area population in 1990 (92 percent) was between 18 and 59 years of age. In Autumn 1999 (when the master planning process began), the total University population (excluding visitors) was approximately 55,525. The campus population consists of three major groups: students, academic personnel and visitors. Overall University population trends are a product of changes in all these constituent groups, and each group has somewhat different characteristics and factors. The population groups are addressed individually below14. 14 1990 Census data may not correlate exactly with University of Washington population data due to differences in survey and calculation methodology. Section III - Population 142 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Table 16 CAMPUS AREA POPULATION: RACE, INCOME AND AGE RACE: Black, African American 470, 4% Asian, Pacific Islander American Indian, Alaska Native 131, <1% White Other, More Than One Race 228, 1% University Area (1990) City of Seattle (1990) City of Seattle (2000) INCOME: 2,885, 20% 11,035, 75% 51,652, 11% 61,293, 12% 7,406, 2% 389,304, 75% 6,604, 1% 47,541, 8% 76,714, 14% 5,659, 1% 394,889, 70% 38,571, 7% Median Household Income $14,439* Persons Below Poverty Level 3,593 % Below Poverty Level University Area (1990) City of Seattle (1990) 24% $29,353 61,680 12% *Average of median income in the Tracts 52, 53.01 and 53.02. AGE: University Area (1990) City of Seattle (1990) City of Seattle (2000) Under 18 Years 406, 3% 18 to 59 Years 13,533, 92% Over 60 Years 812, 5% 84,342, 16% 315,274, 61% 116,643, 23% 87,827, 16% 407,740, 72%* 67,807, 12%* *2000 population totals are for the age group 18 to 64 and Over 65, respectively. Source: US Bureau of the Census web page, venus.census.gov, August 2001. Students The University’s student population is set by the Legislature as part of the budget-making process. The State budget provides funding based on a specific population and the University tries to hold total population to that number. Minor fluctuations around this ‘control total’ occur because of variations in the number of students actually registering in the fall, or in the number of students who continue from the previous quarter or re-enter after an absence. Although the student population fluctuated between 1990 and 1999, there is an overall increasing trend in student population over the decade (see Table 17). The highest population occurred in 1999 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Population 144 with approximately 35,062 total students. The lowest population occurred in 1990 with 33,049 students. Although the population declined in 1993 and 1994, it did not fall below 1990 levels. Table 17 AUTUMN STUDENT POPULATION 1990-1999 Academic Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Student Population 33,049 33,792 34,096 33,470 33,335 33,635 33,966 34,190 34,625 35,062 Source: University of Washington, 2000c. The University compiled statistics on the student population ethnicity in the Autumn of 1999. Of the total amount of enrolled students, 1 percent were Native American, 2 percent were African American, 3 percent were Hispanic, 19 percent were Asian American, and the remaining students (75 percent) were classified as ‘Other’ (University of Washington, 2000c). The population level is reviewed every two years as part of the State budget-making process. In addition to legislative action on the budget, the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) is charged with statewide higher education policy formulation. In that regard, the HECB has been reviewing overall State enrollment policy, including the need for additional enrollment capacity, particularly in the major metropolitan areas of the State. Changes to University of Washington enrollment could result from the HECB work. Academic Personnel University faculty are funded by the State or supported from external funded grant and contract sources (or both). The total faculty population includes faculty supported by both funding sources. The faculty population increased steadily between 1990 and 1999, by approximately 50 people per year. The total population was 4,563 in 1990 and 6,035 in 1999 (University of Washington, 2000c). University staff includes State-funded University staff, hospital staff, Intercollegiate Athletics, Housing and Food Services, and grant-funded staff. The number of general State-funded University staff is determined by State funding through the biennial budget process. The hospital staff population changes as patient revenue, bed count, and third-party reimbursement policies change. Self-sustaining units such as Intercollegiate Athletics or Housing and Food Services increase or decrease their staff populations on the basis of their ability to generate the revenue to fund the staff. Finally, the number of staff funded on grants and contracts changes University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Population 145 as the volume of grant and contract funded research changes, and according to changes in the mix between research needs for staff versus research needs for equipment. The staffing level grew from 12,296 employees in 1990 to 14,428 in 1999. However, the increase in staffing levels has not been consistent; minor decreases occurred in 1993 and 1999. Visitors In addition to students, faculty and staff, numerous visitors come to the University each day. These visitors include patients to the hospital and clinics, people visiting patients, conference attendees, participants in special education functions, tour groups, high school students etc. Although there are no specific data available on the number of visitors to campus, there is information on the number of non-permit vehicles stopping at the gates to campus to purchase parking passes. The number of vehicles varies by time of day and includes evening students, daily pay carpools (which in many cases are staff or students), and other miscellaneous vehicles. Based on 1999 parking data, the total number of daily patient vehicles entering and leaving campus was approximately 2,990 and the total number of visitor vehicles was 7,820. It is assumed that the trips are balanced – the number of trips in equals the number of trips out. Therefore, there were an estimated 1,495 patient vehicle trips and 3,910 visitor trips entering campus daily. Daily campus gate counts indicate that approximately 93% of the daily trips occurred between 6AM and 9PM. The peak hour for vehicles entering campus was between 8AM and 9AM; approximately 13% of the total daily entering trips occurred during that time period. Approximately 195 patient vehicle trips and 510 visitor vehicle trips occur during this AM peak hour. Impacts of the Proposed Action The projected campus population would be expected to increase between 2000 and 2012, according to existing trends. As indicated in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, it is anticipated that by 2012, the student population will increase by approximately 4,120 students, faculty by approximately 1,400 people, and staff by approximately 3,600 people. Over the planning period, the population would increase by an estimated 9,120 people (a 16 percent increase from the 1999 campus population). It is anticipated that the campus visitor population growth would be consistent with other sectors comprising the campus population, and according to existing trends. The overall increase in campus population would lead to an increased demand for housing, energy resources, transportation facilities and public services. Activity on campus would intensify, and indirect impacts associated with such increases would occur. In general, impacts would be concentrated in areas of campus where development occurs. These populationinduced impacts are discussed further in the Energy, Environmental Health, Housing, and Transportation sections of this EIS (Section III. E., F., J. and O.). University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Population 146 Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, population and housing demands would be similar to that described for the Proposed Action. Demands would be managed according to the GPDP. Under this alternative, housing and institutional capacity on campus would be inadequate to accommodate increasing demand. Consequently, existing space would be used more intensively. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less on-campus development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less development). Although planned construction and development would be reduced, population growth and related impacts would remain the same as that described for the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Housing and institutional capacity on campus would be inadequate to accommodate increasing demand; existing University space would be used more intensively. Alternatively, the demand for housing and institutional capacity could be shifted to off-campus areas. With the existing limitation on leasing by the University, the University’s ability to lease housing in the University District would be limited. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative Building area would be reduced under this alternative. Although planned construction and development would be reduced, it is estimated that population growth and related impacts would remain approximately the same as that described for the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Lifting of Lease Limit With the lifting of the lease lid, the University would not be limited in their ability to lease building space from private developers or under public/private partnerships in the University District. Demand for housing, energy resources, transportation facilities and public services in the University District could increase if the existing lease lid is lifted. Any University related housing in the University District would be consistent with applicable City of Seattle Zoning standards and could help to implement UCUC Plan goals. Possible Mitigation Measures No direct population-related mitigation is necessary. Mitigation associated with indirect impacts are discussed in respective sections of this DEIS. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to occur. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Population 147 J. HOUSING Affected Environment Student Housing Supply and Demand The University is a primarily non-residential campus with no requirement for students to live oncampus. It does provide some housing as an option for single students and students with families who want to live on campus. In the Fall Quarter of 1999, the University provided housing for 5,104 single students and 578 families in 16 housing facilities (see Table 18). Table 18 UNIVERSITY-OWNED HOUSING, 1999 Unit Type(s) Family Housing Blakeley Village Laurel Village Sand Point Addition Sand Point Homes Stevens Court Addition Commodore Duchess Apartments Total Family Housing Units Single Student Housing Haggett Hansee Lander McCarty McMahon Mercer Stevens Court Stevens Court Addition Terry 2104 House Total Single Student Beds Source: University of Washington Housing and Food Services, 2000. # Units/Beds 2 & 3 Bedroom 2 & 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 1, 2, & 3 Bedroom 1 Bedroom Studio & 1 Bedroom 84 80 32 200 43 139 578 Residence Hall Residence Hall Residence Hall Residence Hall Residence Hall Residence Hall 4 & 6 Bedroom Studio, 2, & 4 Bedroom Residence Hall Residence Hall 802 353 670 612 1,042 454 300 224 620 27 5,104 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 148 Housing and Food Services (HFS) is a self-sustaining department of the University that develops housing, both directly and through public/private partnerships with nonprofit organizations. Revenues from housing and related food sales are the sole source of funds to pay for debt service, capital improvements, and operations. HFS will be able to develop new housing only if financing is available and can be structured to achieve feasibility on a project-byproject basis. Under the partnership agreements, the nonprofit partner secures financing, oversees construction, and is responsible for property management. The University markets the housing and determines resident eligibility. University-Owned Housing for Single Students Most single student housing is located in the West and Central Campus areas. Single students are housed in residence halls, as well as in two- to six-bedroom low-rise apartments with shared bath and cooking facilities. Single student apartments have historically operated at near 100% occupancy. Demand for single student housing in residence halls fluctuated dramatically in the 1990’s. From 1991 through 1996, residence halls operated at less than 95% capacity, and between 1993 and 1995 HFS temporarily closed a residence hall. Residence halls operated near 100% capacity in 1997 and 1998 (see Table 19), and then in 1999 there was a waiting list of 266 single students when classes started in the fall. (All of those students were offered housing within the first 45 days of classes as space was made available through cancellations and no-shows.) For fall of 2000, HFS provided 5,290 beds for single students and had a waiting list of about 200 students when classes began. Within four weeks of the beginning of Fall Quarter all 200 students on the waiting list were offered housing. In addition to fluctuating from year to year, demand for single student housing also fluctuates throughout the academic year. In each of the last five academic years, there have been vacancies in the single student housing inventory during the Spring Quarter. Table 19 SINGLE STUDENT HOUSING, SPRING QUARTER OCCUPANCY Total Beds Spring Occupancy Vacancies Year 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 4,429 4,429 4,429 4,567 5,070 3,775 3,909 4,096 4,420 4,655 654 520 333 147 415 Source: UW Housing and Food Services Department University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 149 University-Owned Family Housing Family housing is provided in apartment complexes located in the west and east campus areas, as well as off-campus in the Sand Point neighborhood. In recent years, HFS has focused on the housing goals of the GPDP to expand the family housing supply and address the conditions of aging properties. Consistent with the GPDP, the Commodore Duchess Apartments, which is located directly west of the main campus on 15th Ave. NE, was rehabilitated in 1997, preserving 139 family housing units. The development of an 80-unit, 50,000-square foot addition to Blakeley Village, located just north and west of the Central Campus near University Village, was included in the GPDP. Because financing was never available for this project, it was never constructed. However, the re-development of Sand Point Homes will add about three times the amount of family housing originally planned for the Blakeley Village Addition. Sand Point Homes and Sand Point Homes Addition (now called Radford Court) are located three miles east of the main campus, near Sand Point Magnuson Park. The 200 units at Sand Point Homes were constructed in 1942. In September of 2000, work began on demolition of the existing units, renovation of 24 of 32 units at Sand Point Addition and construction of 375 new units. The new Radford Court project will open with 188 units, a community center, and childcare center in the fall of 2001. The remaining 211 units and an infant care center will open in the fall of 2002. Completion of Radford Court will increase the family housing inventory by 167 units (125,000 net new square feet). Between 300 and 400 households were on the waiting list for family housing during 1998 and 1999. Demand is high due to the relative affordability of older, University-owned family housing units compared with market-rate housing in surrounding areas. Table 20 illustrates the difference in rents. Table 20 1999 RENT COMPARISON (FAMILY HOUSING) Units Size Rent for Older UniversityOwned Units (Fall 1998 – Spring 1999) Average Market Rents 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $406 - $526 $538 - $593 $595 - $652 $625 - $730 $750 - $875 $1,045- $1,096 Source: University of Washington Housing and Food Services, Dupre + Scott Apartment Vacancy Report, Spring 1999. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 150 University rents for family housing are low because they are set to cover debt service payments, operating costs and capital improvements, and are only increased to cover increased costs. While University policy is to provide family housing at below-market rents, relative affordability will likely change as older projects are rehabilitated or redeveloped and rents are raised to cover the costs of the capital investments. For example, one-bedroom rents in the recently renovated (1997) Commodore Duchess Apartments are $635 to $690 compared with $406 in the older units at Sand Point Homes. Private Market Housing The University of Washington Student Housing Statement of Principles (Principles) was adopted by the Board of Regents in 1978. It provides policy direction for University decisionmaking related to the provision of student housing. The Principles state that “the primary source for student housing continues to be the off-campus private housing market.” This point of the Principles was reaffirmed by the Regents in 1988 and again in 1997. In 1999 approximately 85% of students lived off-campus. Table 21 shows the distribution of students based on zip code data from 1998 U-Pass Survey.15 There is no information on whether those students living off-campus lived with their families, or independently in private housing. However, in the 2000 U-Pass Survey, students were asked if they had changed their place of residence in order to attend the University. Over half (53%) of respondents did not move when they began classes at the University. Clearly, areas north of the Ship Canal provide the most off-campus housing for university students. Fifty percent (50%) of students live in the University District and the neighborhoods directly north to the Seattle City limits. Nearly 70% of students live within the City of Seattle, though only about 13% live south of the Ship Canal. Nearly 90% of students reside within King County. Based on the U-Pass Survey zip code information, approximately 40% of enrolled students live st th in the area bounded by 1 Ave. NE, NE 60 , and Lake Washington (zip code 98105 and the University zip code of 98195). This area includes the University District, as well as parts of the Wallingford, Ravenna, Laurelhurst, and Sand Point neighborhoods. Not counting students living in University-provided housing and those in sororities or fraternities, 5,000 students are estimated to live in private housing in this area. 15 The U-Pass Survey is conducted every two years. It is a random telephone survey of 1,400 students, staff and faculty that includes the zip code of the respondents. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 151 Table 21 1998 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS BASED ON ZIP CODES Area and/or Zip Codes % Students King County East of I-5, North of Ship Canal to 145 (City Limits) (98195, 98105, 98115, 98125) (Includes students living in University housing, sororities, and fraternities) th 50% East of I-5, North of NE 145 to NE 205 (King/Snohomish County Line) (98155) th th th 1% West of I-5, North of Ship Canal to 100 (98103, 98107, 98117) 6% th West of I-5, North of NE100th to NE 205 (98133, 98177) 3% Snohomish County (all zip codes) 5% Subtotal North South of Ship Canal to Denny Way (including Queen Anne & Magnolia) (98102, 98109, 98112, 98119, 98199) th th 65% 7% South of Denny Way to SW 100 and S 100 (approx. south City Limit) (98040, 98106, 98108, 98116, 98118, 98122, 98126, 98136, 98144) 6% South King County (all zip codes) 8% Subtotal South Other Areas Eastside Other Counties (e.g. Kitsap, Pierce, Thurston, Skagit) Subtotal Other Areas Total (Some who were surveyed did not know, or wish, to provide a zip code) Source: University of Washington 1998 U-Pass Survey 21% 7% 3% 10% 96% University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 152 Housing for Faculty and Staff The Master Plan Seattle Campus projects an increase of 5,000 faculty and staff between 2002 and 2012; the projection also assumes an increase of 3,600 staff and 1,400 faculty. Faculty positions include full, associate, and assistant professors, as well as top level administrators, researchers, librarians, lecturers, instructors, senior fellows, and hospital residents. Staff positions fall into one of three categories--professional, classified, and contract. The University does not provide housing for faculty or staff. The majority of people hired by the University are currently living in the Puget Sound Region. Because these local residents are already housed, they will not create additional housing demand. Typically local residents have filled 80% of new staff positions (about one-third of all professional positions and nearly all classified and contract positions) and 10% of faculty positions. Assuming continuation of this trend, projected growth in faculty and staff will generate about 2,000 new households looking for housing in the Puget Sound market during the 10 years covered by the CMP. Distribution of Faculty and Staff As shown in Table 22, which is based on the 1998 U-Pass Survey zip code data, nearly 60% of both the faculty and staff lives north of the Ship Canal. Nearly 70% of the faculty and 60% of the staff live within the City of Seattle. Compared to the faculty, more staff lives in Snohomish County and in south King County. A higher percentage of the faculty lives on the Eastside. Household and Housing Characteristics of the Surrounding Area The area including and surrounding the University (zip codes 98105 and 98195) roughly corresponds to Census Tracts 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 52, 53.01 (See Figure 19, Section III I.). While 1990 Census data is dated, it is also the only comprehensive source of certain household and housing information for the area. The 1990 population of 38,483 was 7.5% of Seattle’s population. There were 16,043 households, predominately renters (56%). There were relatively more renters in this area than citywide where 49% of all households lived in rental units. Households were typically small, with just over 70% made up of one or two people. By federal definition, housing with more than one person per room is considered overcrowded. Citywide 5.6% of rental housing was overcrowded in 1990. In the University area, 6.1% of rental units were overcrowded, likely due to students sharing housing. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 153 Table 22 1998 DISTRIBUTION OF FACULTY/STAFF Area and/or Zip Codes % Faculty % Staff King County East of I-5, North of Ship Canal to 145 (City Limits) (98195, 98105, 98115, 98125) th th th 36% 23% East of I-5, North of NE 145 to NE 205 (King/Snohomish County Line) (98155) th 4% 4% West of I-5, North of Ship Canal to 100 (98103, 98107, 98117) 11% th 10% West of I-5, North of NE100th to NE 205 (98133, 98177) 4% 7% Snohomish County (all zip codes) 3% 13% Subtotal North Ship Canal to Denny Way (including Queen Anne & Magnolia) (98101, 98102, 98104, 98109, 98112, 98119, 98199) th th 58% 14% 57% 11% South of Denny Way to SW 100 and S 100 (approx. south City Limit) (98106, 98108, 98116, 98118, 98122, 98126, 98136, 98144) 5% 13% South King County (all zip codes) 1% 6% Subtotal South Other Areas Eastside Other Counties (e.g. Kitsap, Pierce, Thurston, Skagit) Subtotal Other Areas Total (variation from 100% due to rounding) Source: University of Washington 1998 U-Pass Survey 20% 30% 18% 3% 21% 99% 12% 3% 15% 102% University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 154 The majority (57%) of the housing stock was built prior to 1950, making it somewhat older relative to housing citywide where 51% of the stock predates 1950. There were 16,635 housing units that represented about 7% of the City’s housing stock. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the housing was in multifamily structures compared with 47% citywide. About one quarter of all units was in structures of 10 or more units. Two- and three-bedroom units each made up about one quarter of the housing units. One measure of growth in the area since 1990 is the number of new housing units. The City’s Strategic Planning Office maintains information on housing development by urban village and urban center. A portion of this area is included in the University urban center. In 1990, there were 11,494 housing units in the urban center. Between 1990 and 1999, 595 net new units have been developed. There are two urban villages within the urban center. The Northwest University Urban Village has experienced a net 13% increase in housing units and units have increased by 12 % in the University Village Urban Village. Another important characteristic of the area is housing cost. In 1990, the median home value in all but one of the subject census tracts, exceeded the citywide median value. The City’s Office of Housing reports that in 1999, the average sales price of a single family home in the 16 University area was about $320,000, up from $209,000 in 1990, an increase of 53%. Comparatively, the average price of a single family home in the City rose from $166,000 to $271,000, an increase of 63%. A household would need at least 120% of the 1999 area median income to afford the University area’s average priced single family home. The Office of Housing also provides information on average rents. The 1999 average rent for all units in the University area was $699, an increase of 44% over 1990’s average rent of $484. The citywide average rent increased by 60% from 1990 to 1999. In 1998, the University District neighborhood completed a 20-year plan to guide development in the urban center. The University Community Urban Center Plan (UCUC Plan), includes specific housing goals and policies for the neighborhood, the highlights of which are summarized below. ! ! ! ! Meet City Comprehensive Plan goals for development of 2,110 new housing units between 1994 and 2014. Create housing for a mix of demographic and income groups, including retirees and middle-income families. Maintain the character of predominately single family areas. Encourage a stable residential population by increasing homeownership. (The UCUC Plan specifically suggests attracting University faculty and staff to purchase homes in the area.) Ensure high quality housing design. Direct high density housing to mixed-use areas with good transit connections. ! ! The UCUC Plan provides the context in which the neighborhood and City will evaluate future growth and development of this area. 16 In this case the University area is a somewhat larger defined by the Dupre + Scott apartment vacancy survey. The area is bounded by NE 85th Street, the Ship Canal, Lake Washington, and Roosevelt Way NE. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 155 Impacts of the Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the University would have capacity to add 850 to 1,000 beds for single students. Preliminary planning for a new project that would add between 400 and 500 beds is well underway and feasibility analysis of several additional sites has begun. The University will also continue to evaluate the recommendations of an ad-hoc Housing Task Force exploring ways to assist faculty and staff to purchase or rent homes in close proximity to the campus. The CMP continues the present policy of relying on the private market for the majority of student housing and all housing for faculty and staff, with an emphasis on managing the traffic and parking impacts generated by both students and employees. The impacts of the proposed action are evaluated primarily as they relate to the area including and surrounding the campus (zip codes 98105 and 98195), but also as they relate to other housing markets, as appropriate. Student Housing University-Owned Single Student Housing Single students are housed in residence halls (dormitories) and in single student apartments. Single student apartments have historically had waiting lists, while residence halls suffered from high vacancies in the 1990’s. All University students are allowed to choose where they live. The vast majority of single students do not choose to live in University-owned, single student housing. Those who do choose single student housing are primarily incoming freshmen. Historically between 50% and 60% of the freshman class (typically the freshman class has been 4,000 to 5,000 students) apply for residence in single student housing facilities. About another 25% live in fraternities and sororities, and while no specific information is available, the balance are assumed to either live at home or in private market housing off campus. Besides incoming freshman, the second major component of demand for single student housing are those who were previously housed in one of the University-owned facilities. Between 35% and 45% of residents apply to return. Of students that apply to return, the vast majority, 67%, stay in University-owned housing only one additional year, with 22% staying for two additional years. After that, very few students return to single student housing facilities. Since the demand for single student housing is made up primarily of incoming freshmen and returning residents, projections of future demand were predicated on estimates of growth in these two groups. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 156 The projected need for 850 to 1,000 new single student beds assumes that: ! ! ! ! the projected increase in enrollment during the planning period is at least 3,000 and no more than 4,000 new students; the size of the freshman class is 5,500 students in 2012; the recent high levels of applications for single student housing (56% to 58% of incoming freshmen and 38% to 42% of returning residents) continue; and, units continue to be developed in the private market consistent with the UCUC Plan housing goals. Production of 850 to 1,000 beds for single students has three positive impacts. First, it means that the private housing market would only need to absorb growth in student households that is within the housing and population goals of the UCUC Plan. (See discussion of the impact on the private housing market that follows.) Second, it would mean an increase of between 17% and 20% in the number of single student beds, and finally, even accounting for overall student growth, the University would increase the percentage of students housed. In 1999, HFS provided housing for 5,104 single students, or 15.1% of total full-time students. In 2000, with 5,290 beds the percentage was 15.5%. Table 23 illustrates the change in housing capacity (expressed as a percentage of total full-time students) that would occur assuming a range of both student growth and new housing development. New development could mean that between 15.7% and 16.6% of full-time students could be housed. Table 23 CHANGE IN CAPACITY OF UNIVERSITY-OWNED HOUSING Year Full Time Students 33,800 34,200 New Beds/ Total Beds 5,104 5,290 % Single Total Students Housed 15.1% 15.5% 1999 2000 2012 3,000 new students 36,800 850/5,950 1,000/6,100 850/5,950 1,000/6,100 16.2% 16.6% 15.7% 16.1% 4,000 new students Source: Pacific Development Concepts 37,800 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 157 Even assuming that all new students were single and wanted to live in University-owned housing, 850 to 1,000 new units would accommodate one quarter to one third of the student growth. This is well above the percentage (15%) of students who have historically chosen single student housing. Preliminary planning has already been completed for a new single student apartment project at th 5000 25 Ave. NE. The 2.8-acre site is owned by the University and located immediately west of the Blakeley Village Apartments. This site was identified in the GPDP for 50,000 square feet of housing. That housing was not developed because financing could not be identified and the need for family housing was addressed through rehabilitation of the Commodore Duchess Apartments and the construction of Radford Court. The site is now proposed for development of single student housing in response to projected student growth and demand. As planned, the new Blakeley Village project would be woodframe construction over concrete. It would have 133 units providing between 400 and 500 beds. Parking would be provided in a structured parking garage. Financing options for this project are currently being explored. Based on a preliminary development schedule, the project would open in fall 2003. development-specific environmental analysis will be conducted for the project. A HFS is also considering other potential housing sites. Several potential sites have been reviewed that could support development of up to 500 additional single student spaces. Decisions regarding future development will be subject to further analysis, particularly of the ability of the projects to pay debt service over 30 years. Such projects would also require sitespecific environmental assessments. University-Owned Family Housing The Proposed Action does not include any new family housing. The University’s focus under the GPDP, however, has been on the development of family housing. Projects included the rehabilitation of the Commodore Duchess Apartments and the development of Radford Court. Completion of Radford Court will mean a net addition of 167 units. This is more than twice the number of new family housing units contemplated by the GPDP17 and represents a 30% increase in the total number of University-owned family housing units. Both the Commodore Duchess Apartments and Radford Court were developed through a public private partnership of the University, a nonprofit organization, and a private developer. The University retains ownership of the land, which is leased long-term to a single purpose nonprofit organization created to develop and operate the housing. The private developer develops the housing under contract to the nonprofit. Like most other nonprofit housing providers, those developing housing in partnership with the University can charge below market rents because of 1) somewhat reduced development costs (tax-exempt bond financing and no need to purchase land), 2) somewhat lower operating expenses (no property taxes), and 3) the practice of raising rents only to cover increased operating expenses or the costs of necessary capital improvements. However, unlike many other nonprofit-owned housing projects, these are developed without long-term capital or 17 An 80-unit addition to Blakeley Village was proposed in the GPDP. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 158 operating subsidies. Rents in newly constructed or renovated units will be higher than in older units because they must cover the repayment of the debt incurred for the project. Overtime, University rents become more affordable relative to market rents, based on potentially fewer and comparatively lower rent increases. In 1999, 578 families lived in University family housing and with the opening of Radford Court, there will be 742. The waiting list for family housing has been between 300 and 400 households since 1998. While the waiting list is an indicator of the demand for family housing, one can also assume that those on the waiting list are currently housed and will not represent new households moving into the area. With the opening of the Radford Court units, residents of existing family units will have the opportunity to relocate to the new units and households on the waiting list will be contacted. There is no way to know how many from the waiting list will be housed either in Radford Court, or in older units vacated by current residents moving to Radford Court. It is also not known how many households on the waiting list will prefer to wait for one of the 207 older, less expensive units in Laurel Village, Blakeley Village, or Stevens Court Addition. If opening the 167 new units at Radford Court allows for an equal number of families from the waiting list to be housed, the number of waiting list households would be reduced by about 42% to 56%. It is more likely however, that the length of the list will remain about the same, or grow, as the affordability of the older units becomes even more attractive relative to market rate housing. The likely impacts of no additional family housing development between 2002 and 2012 are: ! ! ! maintenance of a family housing waiting list of at least several hundred households; families seeking housing in the private market (where housing will likely be available, based on housing growth projections, but not necessarily affordable); and, families having fewer affordable housing choices near campus. Private Market Housing The private market has, and will, continue to be the source of housing for most students. As noted earlier, the 1998 U-Pass Survey estimated that 40% (36% to 44% considering the survey’s accuracy of plus or minus 4%) of enrolled students live in the 98105 and 98195 zip codes. Applying this same percentage to the 1999 student enrollment of 35,000 yields an estimate of 14,000 students living in the area. This zip code includes campus housing, family housing, sororities and fraternities. Not counting students living in those facilities, an estimated 5,000 students lived in private housing in this area. Students live both alone and in shared housing. Based on 1990 Census data for the area, an average two-person household is a conservative estimate of household size. This means that approximately 2,500 private rental units, or about one quarter of the rental housing in the area, were leased to students. Assuming 1) the completion of Radford Court, 2) the addition of between 850 and 1,000 beds for single students, and 3) 36% to 44% of all students living in zip codes 98105/98195, 200 to 300 additional rental units could be needed to accommodate the projected student growth. Table 24 illustrates the need for new units depending on the estimated number of students living in the area and the number of new units developed by the University. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 159 Table 24 ESTIMATES OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PRIVATE MARKET HOUSING %/# New Students Expected to Reside in 98105 and 98195 Zip Codes Housing Need if University Provides 850 Additional Beds Housing Need if University Provides 1,000 Additional Beds 36%/1,150 40%/1,296 44%/1,442 132 223 296 75 148 221 Source: Pacific Development Concepts The 200- to 300-unit estimate assumes the highest numbers of student residents and the lowest numbers of new beds. The Housing Plan prepared as part of the UCUC Plan projected an increase of 300 student households between 2000 and 2010, roughly comparable to this 18 high-end estimate. The UCUC Plan also indicates that the private market would respond to provide housing in the University District. The 20-year (1994-2014) housing development goal for the University urban center is 2,011 net new units. The City’s Office of Strategic Planning reports19 that 411 units were developed between 1994 and 1999. If the housing development goal is met, 1,696 more units would be developed by 2014. It is likely that 75% of new units will be rental units, assuming the housing mix stays roughly the same as in 1990. Current zoning of sites with potential for redevelopment also suggests primarily multifamily development in the future, although some units might be condominiums for sale to homebuyers. An increase of 200 to 300 student households represents about 16% to 24% of likely rental housing growth, about equal to, or somewhat less than, the current percentage of student households renting in the area. 18 19 The University Urban Center does not include all the areas in the 98105 zip code. However, housing in areas that are not included tends to be predominately single family and owner-occupied. 5 Years After Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, 1994-1999, Preliminary Growth Summary University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 160 It is also possible that future low vacancy rates and high costs for newly constructed units could cause student demand for off-campus housing to shift to other areas.20 Tables 25 and 26 provide comparative information on vacancy rates and average rents. Table 25 RENTAL VACANCY RATES Neighborhood/Area 5 Year Average Vacancy Rate North King County Ballard Greenlake/Wallingford North Seattle University Capitol Hill/Eastlake Central Area First Hill Magnolia Queen Anne Eastside South King County (Includes South and West Seattle) 2.5% 1.2% 1.2% 2.8% 2.6% 1.8% 3.3% 2.8% 2.6% 1.8% 3.2% 4.5% 5.5% 4.1% Southeast King County Snohomish County Source: Dupre + Scott Apartment Vacancy Report, Spring 1999 20 Vacancy rates are a measure of housing availability. A 5% vacancy rate suggests a balance between supply and demand such that a renter could readily find a vacant unit. Lower vacancy rates mean that housing is harder to find and higher rates are indicative of an overbuilt rental market. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 161 Table 26 1999 AVERAGE RENTS One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom North King County Ballard Greenlake/Wallingford North Seattle University Capitol Hill/Eastlake Central Area First Hill Magnolia Queen Anne Eastside South King County (includes South and West Seattle) $635 $597 $719 $625 $621 $729 $739 $756 $626 $749 $749 $549 $556 $604 $850 $790 $1,034 $820 $951 $1,158 $1,084 $1,368 $910 1,283$ $1,023 $741 $736 $764 $1,069 $835 $1,096 $1,045 $1.080 $1,628 Not Available $1,904 Not Available $1,447 $1,258 $827 $893 $925 Southeast King County Snohomish County Source: Dupre + Scott Apartment Vacancy Report, Spring 1999. The University District, like most Seattle neighborhoods, has experienced vacancy rates of much less than 5% over the last five years. Vacancy rates for all north Seattle areas have been roughly comparable. Vacancy rates for Snohomish County and South King County have been closer to 5%. Housing in areas immediately south of campus (Capitol Hill, First Hill, Eastlake, Queen Anne) is more expensive relative to the University District while housing further north costs about the same, or somewhat less. Probably due to the distance from campus, few students choose to live in areas further south, even though housing is more affordable University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 162 Based on current location patterns, vacancy rates, and rents students, who do not find housing in and around the campus are likely to look in areas further to the north and west (Wallingford, Fremont, Greenlake, Roosevelt, Northgate, Lake City). About 15% of current students live in these areas. Housing for Faculty and Staff The roughly 2,000 new households that the projected faculty/staff growth will generate are not significant in the context of planned city or regional growth. King County’s growth projection is for 185,000 to 212,000 households between 1992 and 2012. Seattle’s share of that growth is anticipated to be between 50,000 and 60,000 households. About 30% of Seattle’s growth, over 16,000 households, are expected to reside in areas north of downtown where the majority of current faculty/staff live. Given that faculty and staff growth will not have a significant housing impact, the Proposed Action does not contemplate that any housing would be developed for faculty or staff. However, the University’s goal continues to be for employees to live near campus if possible. The University’s interests in having available, affordable housing near campus include: ! ! ! An ability to recruit faculty and staff, particularly those coming from parts of the Country with relatively more affordable housing and comparable wages The management of traffic and parking demand in the University area Cooperation which surrounding neighborhoods, particularly the University District, which would like to attract more faculty and staff as homeowners Housing Costs and Salaries University salaries have not increased at the same rate as housing costs. University salaries have increased by 27% since 1990, but the average price of a single family home in Seattle has increased by 64% and average rents have increased by 60%. Forecasts are for the local economy to remain relatively strong. And even if it does not, homes are likely to at least retain their current values, but more likely continue to increase at a slower rate. Rents are less predictable, but usually do not drop. Rather property owners tend to offer incentives, such as a free month’s rent, to address an increase in vacancies. Table 27 illustrates the numbers of projected faculty/staff households likely to be local residents (currently housed) or new residents (creating additional housing demand). Tables 28 and 29 show those households by income categories, and the amount of rent or home purchase price supported by their incomes. Average incomes are based on the assumption of a one-income household.21 21 This is a conservative assumption based on the results of a survey of 500 junior faculty, professional, and classified staff that was conducted by the University Housing Task Force. For all three groups, the household median income was greater than the median University salary, suggesting that many households have two wage earners. However, there is no source of information on the numbers of one- and two-income households among University employees. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 163 Table 27 COMPOSITION OF STAFF/FACULTY GROWTH (LOCAL & NEW RESIDENTS) Staff Total Growth Projection Local Residents 3,600 2,860 (contract, classified and 1/3 of professional staff) Faculty 1,400 140 (10% of faculty) Total 5,000 3,000 New Residents 740 1,260 2,000 Source: Office of Compensation & Professional Staff Programs, Office of Academic Personnel, Pacific Development Concepts Table 28 INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTED NEW RESIDENTS (FACULTY/STAFF) Average Income $35,000 to $40,000 $41,000 to $50,000 $51,000 to $60,000 $61,000 to $75,000 Total Staff 0 740 0 0 740 Faculty 370 263 291 336 1,260 Total 370 1,003 291 336 2,000 % Total 18% 50% 14% 17% 100% Source: Office of Compensation & Professional Staff Programs, Office of Academic Personnel, Pacific Development Concepts University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 164 Table 29 AFFORDABLE RENT AND HOME SALES PRICES BY INCOME CATEGORY Average Income $35,000 to $40,000 $41,000 to $50,000 $51,000 to $50,000 $61,000 to $75,000 Affordable Rent* $1,020 - $1,167 $1,196 - $1,458 $1,488 - $1,750 $1,779 - $2,188 Affordable Home Sales Price $107,137 - $122,422 $125,503 - $153,053 $185,386 - $218,100 $221,736 - $272,625 Notes * Affordable rent is based on the City standard of paying no more than 35% of monthly income for rent and utilities. ** Home sales prices are based on a 30 year, fixed rate mortgage at 7.75% with a 5% downpayment for those earning less than $50,000 and a 20% downpayment for those earning more than $50,000. Source: Pacific Development Concepts All of these households could afford average rents in the area. But, about 88% of the projected faculty/staff growth will be in households making less than $60,000. If those households are depending only on the income of the University employee, their choices for buying a home close to campus are limited. These households could afford homes selling for about $185,000 to $220,000. As illustrated below by Table 30, only 13% of homes in North Seattle sold for less than $175,000 in 1999. The majority of homes sold for more than $250,000. Table 30 DISTRIBUTION OF 1999 HOMES SALES BY AREA Home Sales Price Range <$175,000 $175,000 $250,000 $250,000 $350,000 $350,000 + Seattle North Seattle South Eastside S. King Snohomish Co. Total 13% 46% 9% 49% 38% 29% 35% 29% 28% 36% 38% 33% 28% 14% 30% 11% 18% 21% 24% 10% 34% 4% 6% 17% Source: Seattle Times, Sticker Shock Series, Pacific Development Concepts University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 165 Many of these households would likely be able to afford a condominium, although fewer condominiums exist in the housing supply. In 1999, only 13% of Seattle homeowners lived in a condominium unit. Only 1,701 condominiums were sold in the City in 1999, 182 of which were in North and Northeast Seattle. It is more likely that the largest percentage of the faculty and staff that move to the Puget Sound to take University positions will locate in neighborhoods beyond those that are close-in to the campus. University Housing Task Force In response to employee recruitment and retention issues related to housing cost, location, and accessibility, the University created the ad-hoc Housing Task Force in 1998. The Task Force investigated faculty/staff housing programs of other universities and conducted a survey of 500 junior faculty, professional and classified staff. The survey questions asked for factual information about income, housing cost, and family size, as well as information about the employee’s satisfaction with their current housing situation. The survey identified employee concerns about housing affordability and some dissatisfaction with current housing situations. Findings of the Task Force include: ! ! Housing cost and location are factors influencing the recruitment and retention of key employees. University housing programs in other locales include various forms of assistance from limited assistance with home purchase closing costs, to second mortgage financing, to university-owned housing for faculty and staff. Homeownership rates are highest among junior faculty and staff with the longest commutes and the level of dissatisfaction with housing is highest among those living in suburban locations. ! The Task Force has considered a variety of ideas for programs that would assist University faculty and staff, primarily with the cost of homeownership in close-in neighborhoods. In autumn 2000, the Task Force recommended that the University administration considered five ideas for housing programs including: interest rate buydowns, mortgage insurance risk sharing, mortgage guarantees, downpayment assistance, and limited housing construction. Based on the recommendations, efforts are currently underway to develop a downpayment assistance program for faculty and staff. The Task Force has also noted significant obstacles to the University’s direct involvement in providing housing for faculty or staff, as has been done at other universities. Per agreement with the City, the University can lease only a limited amount of land, or space, in and around the University (a specific area has been delineated; please refer to the discussion in Section III G. of this Final EIS). The agreement would need to be changed before the University could consider certain forms of off-campus housing development. In addition, the State constitutional prohibitions on gifting of public funds and lending of state credit may limit University options in financing housing or providing financial forms of housing assistance. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 166 University employees have taken advantage of City programs aimed at increasing the overall rate of homeownership in Seattle. Since March of 1999, 312 permanent employees of the University obtained discounts of certain fees and closing costs through the Hometown Home Loan Program. Nearly two thirds of all homes purchased were located in Seattle and about one third north of the Ship Canal. While not required to provide faculty/staff housing in order to mitigate any specific impacts, the University, through the work of the Housing Task Force is investigating ways to assist employees to better afford housing in the region, and live near campus if possible. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have the housing impacts that the University is attempting to mitigate with the Proposed Action. The principal impacts would be 1) to put pressure on the private housing market in the University District and surrounding neighborhoods to absorb all additional student housing demand, and 2) to ignore the goals of the University neighborhood expressed in the UCUC Plan for more homeownership. University-Owned Housing for Single Students Under the No Action Alternative the demand for single student housing is expected to increase by at least 850 to 1,000 beds. No new housing development would result in students continuing to live at home or seeking housing off-campus. The major impact would be on the private housing market, which is discussed in the” Private Market Housing” section below. University-Owned Family Housing The impacts of the No Action Alternative are the same as the Proposed Action since no increase in family housing is contemplated. Private Market Housing The major impacts of the No Action Alternative would be on the private housing market. Without the construction of the proposed units/beds, an estimated 1,150 to 1,442 new student households would likely be seeking housing in the 98105 zip code. Based on the assumption of the average two-person household, 575 to 721 new housing units would be needed in the area to accommodate students. While this is still within the 1,696 new housing units planned for development in the UCUC by 2014, it represents 2 to 2.5 times the growth in student households anticipated by the UCUC Plan. This higher level of demand could also drive rental housing costs near campus higher resulting in a larger number of students living further from campus. Depending on the cost of new units, this level of student housing demand could also result in overcrowding of existing older units as more students share housing as a way to reduce housing costs. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 167 Housing for Faculty and Staff Under the Proposed Action, the University will continue to explore possible activities and programs to assist faculty and staff with housing costs. The goals of this action are to develop and promote choices for faculty and staff to live relatively close to campus. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative Impacts of the Decentralization/Open Space Alternative, without the lifting of the lease lid, would not differ from those of the Proposed Action. The demand for housing, numbers and types of students to be housed would remain the same, as would future actions of the University related to evaluating programs to assist faculty with housing costs. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative The impacts of this alternative do not differ from those of the Proposed Action. The amount of housing proposed for construction, the numbers, and types of students to be housed will remain the same under these alternatives, as will any future actions of the University related to evaluating programs to assist faculty with housing costs. Lifting of Lease Limit With the lifting of the lease lid, the University would not be limited in their ability to lease building space from private developers or under public/private partnerships in the University District. Demand for housing in the University District could increase if the existing lease lid is lifted. Any University related housing in the University District would be consistent with applicable City of Seattle Zoning standards and could help to implement UCUC Plan goals. Possible Mitigation Measures The Proposed Action provides capacity for 850 to 1,000 new single student spaces, which would mitigate the identified housing impacts generated by anticipated growth in student population. Growth in faculty and staff would not create impacts sufficient enough to require mitigation. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The only unavoidable impacts are likely to be the construction-related impacts (noise, traffic, dust, etc.) that would occur in the immediate vicinity of housing construction sites. In addition, there is likely to be increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the immediate vicinity of new housing projects. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Housing 168 K. LIGHT, GLARE and SHADOWS Affected Environment Ambient light in the vicinity of the University campus is comprised of stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources include street lighting on-campus in conjunction with streets and surface parking areas, street lighting on City streets that are located within campus boundaries (e.g., West Campus area), and street lighting on major arterials that surround the University campus (e.g., NE 45th St., 15th Ave. NE, N.E. Pacific St. and Montlake Blvd. NE). On-campus lighting includes both pedestrian-scale lamp standards and cobra-type standards. Pedestrianscale standards are typically 12 – 15 feet in height and light a relative small area, whereas, cobra-type standards are typically 30 – 35 feet in height and function by lighting a much broader area, which often results in light spillage onto adjacent areas. Off-campus street lighting utilizes cobra-type standards. Other stationary sources of ambient light include fixed lighting in conjunction with athletic fields (e.g., tennis courts, golf driving range, Husky Stadium, etc.), security lighting, and light that emanates from within buildings – both on-campus and proximate to campus. Whereas lighting associated with athletic fields is elevated to cover a broader area, it is also focused on the field, with typically relatively little spillover. For example, fixed lighting associated with Husky Stadium is at a height of about 160 ft. and is directed toward the playing field. Such light, however, remains visible from great distances. Mobile sources of light include light from headlights of vehicles operating on-campus, on streets that are located within campus boundaries, and on major arterials that surround the University campus. There are no buildings on-campus that contain highly reflective surfaces and produce reflective solar glare. Glazing on campus buildings has a relatively low level of reflectance. Vehicle headlights and even glass surfaces on vehicles can, at times, temporarily produce reflective solar glare. As depicted in Figure 3 (Section II), the University’s Observatory22 is located in the north-central area of the Central Campus, near NE 45th St., adjacent to Memorial Way. The Observatory is used for research and teaching. As shown in Figure 3, a University surface parking lot (N5) is located immediately east of the Observatory. Because of the size of existing deciduous trees that are proximate to the Observatory23 (immediately west, southwest and northwest), the only effective direction for celestial viewing from the Observatory -- for most altitudes and during much of the year -- is toward the east over parking lot N5.24 This is particularly true when viewing at relatively low altitudes above the horizon (i.e., below 65 degrees) and from midMarch to late October. At such times, the optimal field of view is roughly a 150-degree arc that extends from the northeast to the south. The present range of altitude25, as viewed over parking lot N5 is approximately 75 degrees -- from roughly 15 degrees above the horizon to zenith. At altitudes above 65 - 75 degrees, the adjacent trees are less of a problem. Although the parking 22 23 24 25 The Observatory is a historic structure that is listed on the Washington Historic Register. See discussion in Section III N., Historic/Cultural, of this Final EIS. Tree height is 40 - 50 feet – roughly 15 - 25 feet above the height of the telescope in the Observatory dome. UW, 1996. Variation in height above the horizon to zenith. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Light, Glare & Shadows 169 lot is lighted, staff of the Observatory exercise localized control over the level of light intensity in the parking lot in order to enhance celestial viewing. Mature vegetation (deciduous and conifers) and buildings comprise a major portion of the campus, as depicted in Figure 15 (Section III G. Land Use). Shadows cast by trees and buildings periodically shade existing open spaces on-campus. Impacts of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is not expected to result in any significant light, glare or shadow-related impacts. One of the major contributors to on-campus ambient light levels is parking lot lighting. As discussed elsewhere in this DEIS, many of the surface parking lots would be replaced as a result of the Master Plan Seattle Campus with University-related buildings. As such, it is expected that the amount of light presently emanating from the campus due to parking lot lighting would be reduced. The cobra-type light standards would be removed, which would lessen light spillage impacts. New sources of light would be added to the University context in the form of pedestrian-scale lighting associated with new or altered pathways in the landscape surrounding campus buildings, exterior lighting associated with new campus buildings, and indirect light that would emanate from within new campus buildings. The addition of lighting along new or improved pedestrian paths on-campus would be consistent with that of other pedestrian areas on campus. It is expected that the amount of light emanating from within proposed buildings would be similar to that of other recently-constructed University buildings. Areas immediately adjacent to new campus buildings could experience some localized light spillage, although such is not expected to be disruptive. It is expected that sources of light would be visible through the trees that form the landscape buffer around the campus. The existing mature trees, as well as new plantings as a result of this Proposed Action, would be expected to partially and seasonally screen some of this light from off-campus locations. The height limit for development in the Central Campus is 105 ft. A portion of parking lot N5, located on the Central Campus immediately east of the University’s Observatory (Figure 4) is a potential building site. Because of the possible height of a building at this location (presumably with glazing on the west and south facades), light emanating from within the building would be visible and could increase the level of ambient light in this part of campus and impair visibility from the Observatory. As noted previously, currently, to improve celestial viewing, staff of the Observatory can reduce the level of light intensity within this parking lot. It would be difficult to reduce the level of light intensity within a building at this site. The primary source of existing glare is that associated with vehicles operating on-site. While glare caused by vehicle headlights can be very intrusive, it is normally temporary. The principal source of glare associated with most development projects is sunlight reflected from specular surfaces on building facades. Factors influencing the amount of reflective solar glare and the effect of that glare include: weather (e.g., cloud cover); time of day; building height, width and orientation of the south-facing facades; percent of the south-facade that is glazed or consists of specular material; reflectivity of the glass or specular surfaces; design relationship between the glazed and non-glazed portions of the facade (e.g., glass inset from frame); the color and texture of building materials that comprise the facade; and the proximity of other intervening structures or University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Light, Glare & Shadows 170 landscaping. Although there are no plans at this time for future campus buildings, the University’s existing internal design review processes that include architectural review, landscape review and environmental (SEPA) review would continue to review every major building project. It is expected that materials used in the facades of new buildings and glazing would be similar to that in other recent University buildings and not highly reflective. Low sun angles in the mid-late morning and mid-late afternoon, particularly during the winter, could result in solar glare impacts from glazing on new campus buildings sited proximate to major arterials that border the Central Campus, namely 15th Ave. NE, NE Pacific St. and Montlake Blvd. NE. The existing landscape buffer, together with canopies of newly-planted trees (in conjunction with these projects, are expected to effectively mitigate the glare potential from glazing associated with these new buildings. As noted previously, the University’s existing internal design review processes that include architectural review, landscape review and environmental (SEPA) review would continue to review every major building project. New campus buildings, the proposed aerial plaza, and new plantings could cast shadows over portions of the campus and surrounding streets. The time of greatest shading would occur during low-angle sun conditions such as mid- to late afternoon in the winter and late afternoon to early evening in the summer. In most instances, areas that would be periodically shaded by new campus buildings and new plantings are already shaded by existing campus buildings and mature plantings. Potential building sites noted in Figure 4 and new campus open spaces (Figure 6) have been identified as part of the Master Plan Seattle Campus with this recognition. Development of the potential aerial plaza would create an area of shading extending beneath the structure roughly 275 feet along N.E. Pacific St., which does not presently exist. Lighting would be provided beneath the structure comparable to that beneath the Washington State Convention & Trade Center26 to minimize shadow-related impacts. No significant impacts associated with shading are anticipated. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Because no new construction would occur with this alternative, no increase in light, glare or shadow impacts is anticipated. Existing levels of ambient light would occur on campus and light spillover into adjacent areas that current exists would continue. Decentralization/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less on-campus development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less). Consequently, in comparison with the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, fewer new buildings would be built resulting in fewer on-campus surface parking lots being replaced. The amount of reduction in ambient light levels, therefore, is not expected to be as great as would occur in conjunction with the Proposed Action. Also, because of decentralization, increased off-campus development would occur with associated increases in light levels proximate to those facilities. It is anticipated that glare and shadow-related impacts associated with on-campus development would be less than those of the Proposed Action. Because of decentralization, off-campus development, however, could result in glare and shadow impacts proximate to the new off-campus development. 26 The Washington State Convention & Trade Center extends over a portion of 700 - 1,000-foot segment of I-5 in Downtown Seattle. Lighting is provided beneath the structure. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Light, Glare & Shadows 171 No Street or Alley Vacation Alternative Impacts related to this alternative would be comparable to those of the Proposed Action. A purpose of this alternative would be to consolidate property for a more effective development and to create more open space. Without the street or alley vacations that are proposed, campus development could still occur, however, because property consolidation would not be possible, more buildings would be necessary. The West Campus is area most affected. As noted previously, a purpose of the vacations is to create additional open space on-campus. Because more buildings would be needed – particularly in the West Campus, it is possible that the potential for light, glare and shading impacts could increase. Similarly, open spaces that would be created as a result of this alternative would be smaller with a greater potential for shading impacts from the increased number of buildings. Lifting of Lease Limit Depending on the amount of University-related development that occurs in the University District, light, glare and shadow impacts could increase. All new building development in the University District, however, would adhere to City of Seattle development regulations and would be subject to the City’s site-specific environmental review and design review processes. As indicated in the UCUC Plan, SEPA Determination of Non-Significance27, specific impacts would be examined as part of project level environmental review when individual development applications are being considered. Possible Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are possible and could be available for the Proposed Action, and the Decentralization/Open Space Alternative, the No Street or Alley Vacation Alternative or the Lifting of Lease Limit Alternative -- relative to on-campus development. ! The University’s existing internal design review processes (architectural, landscape and environmental review) would continue to review every major building project that is proposed oncampus. Exterior lighting fixtures could be shielded and sited to direct light away from adjacent land uses. Building facade design could consider using least-reflective glazing available. Glazing could be recessed from the wall of the structure and separated by building structural elements (e.g. spandrels, mullions) to lessen the effect of reflective solar glare. Design associated with subsequent development on parking lot N5 could evaluate the possibility of providing tinted glazing on the west facade of building in order to lessen the potential impacts on the Observatory as a result of increased levels of ambient light. Provide lighting beneath the aerial plaza structure. ! ! ! ! Unavoidable Adverse Impacts A tall building on parking lot N5 with glazing on the west façade could adversely affect the effectiveness of the Observatory. 27 Seattle, 1998a University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Light, Glare & Shadows 172 L. AESTHETICS/VIEWS Affected Environment The visual character of the University of Washington campus is quite varied. For example, older brick buildings and formal open space areas generally typify the Central Campus, while the South Campus is characterized by large contemporary buildings and more informal shoreline open spaces. The campus setting affords views of Mt. Rainier to the southeast, the Cascade Mountains to the east, the Olympic Mountains to the west, and numerous territorial views to the south toward Capitol Hill, Queen Anne Hill and the Seattle skyline, and east to Portage Bay, Union Bay, and Lake Washington. A more detailed discussion is provided below. Central Campus Aesthetic Character The core of the Central Campus contains most of the early campus buildings, surrounded by a perimeter of newer development. The framework of the historic core is based on an integration of the plan for the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition and the 1915 Bebb and Gould Plan. Stevens Way essentially encircles the core, with extensions along Memorial Way and Rainier Vista. As described in Section III N., Historic/Cultural, of this Final EIS, there are 59 buildings in the Central Campus that are presently 50 years of age or older; several key buildings include: Denny Hall (1895 - first building on campus), Observatory (1895), Lewis Hall (1896), Clark Hall (1896), Parrington Hall (1902), and Architecture Hall (1909 - last major building remaining from the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition). The Central Campus includes the areas outside of Stevens Way along Montlake Boulevard (East Slope), NE Pacific Street and 15th Avenue NE as well as the northwest corner of the campus along 15th Avenue NE between NE 45th and 43rd Streets. Important buildings in the perimeter include Kincaid, Guthrie, and the Physics & Astronomy Building, which anchors the campus at the corner of 15th Avenue NE and NE Pacific Street. Major open spaces on the Central Campus include Rainier Vista, the HUB Yard, Denny Field, the Archery Range/Penthouse Lawn, the Liberal Arts Quadrangle, Red Square, Parrington Lawn, Engineering Quadrangle and Memorial Way. Rainier Vista, which provides major views into campus and out toward Mt. Rainier, is a tree-lined view corridor vital to the character and form of the campus’s overall open space system. The HUB Yard is a sunny, open tree-lined lawn area to the northwest of the HUB. Denny Yard, formed by Denny, Mackenzie, Raitt and Savery was the earliest “front yard” of the campus. This space has the character of a New England commons, with clusters of large, mature trees within the lawn area. The Liberal Arts Quadrangle (“The Quad”) is a formal open space framed by Collegiate Gothic buildings. The Quad is used for gathering and as a circulation route, and is known for its spring show of flowering cherry trees. Red Square is a hardscaped urban plaza of red brick reminiscent of an Italian piazza that is formed by Suzzallo and Odegaard Libraries along with Kane, Meany and Gerberding Halls. Memorial Way is the major ceremonial entrance for vehicle and pedestrian traffic entering the campus from NE 45th Street. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 173 Scenic Views From the Central Campus, the Rainier Vista provides views to the south of Mt. Rainier; framed by trees and Drumheller Fountain, Rainier Vista provides one of the most dramatic views on the campus. Red Square also affords scenic views to the Cascade Mountains and territorial views of Campus Parkway and Portage Bay to the west and southwest; the George Washington Statue is included in this view. Partial views of Union Bay, Lake Washington and the Olympic Mountains are afforded from Stevens Way. The Campus Green behind Parrington Hall (also referred to as Parrington Lawn) affords views from the University west to the University District. Both Campus Green and Memorial Way afford major views into the Central Campus. West Campus Aesthetic Character The West campus is defined by 15th Avenue NE to the east, the University Bridge and Roosevelt Way on the west (with a few properties beyond), NE Pacific Street to the south and NE 41st Street to the north. This area of campus has the strongest geographical link to the Burke-Gilman Trail and the surrounding neighborhood. As described in Section III N., Historic/Cultural, of this Final EIS, there are 20 buildings in the West Campus that are presently 50 years of age or older; several key buildings include: Eagleson Hall (1922) and CommodoreDuchess Apartments (1927). Current development along Campus Parkway includes Condon Hall and Terry-Lander Residence Hall at the west-end of the Parkway and Schmitz Hall at the east-end of the Parkway. The West Campus in general depends on the orthogonal pattern of streets and sidewalks for pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation and currently does not create a smooth transition from the larger University-owned buildings along Campus Parkway into the adjacent residential neighborhood. Scenic Views From the West Campus, many of the north-south streets that bisect this portion of campus afford territorial views. The views, for the most part, are of Portage Bay and the north-end of Capitol Hill. The existing visual character of NE Campus Parkway is illustrated in Figure 20. As illustrated in this figure, the existing parkway provides a relatively wide east/wide view corridor running from 15th Avenue NE on the east to Roosevelt Way NE on the west. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 174 Source: Weinstein Copeland Architects University of Washington SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Figure 20 Existing View of NE Campus Parkway to West South/Southwest Campus Aesthetic Character South Campus The South Campus is bounded by NE Pacific to the north, Portage Bay to the south, Montlake Boulevard NE to the east, and the planned Portage Bay Vista to the west. The area contains two distinct environments: the Medical Center and Magnuson Health Services Center between NE Pacific Street and Columbia Road and the Oceanography and Fisheries buildings between Columbia Road and the waterfront. As described in Section III N., Historic/Cultural, of this Final EIS, there are 14 buildings in the South/Southwest Campus that are presently 50 years of age or older; several key buildings include: Magnuson Health Sciences Center (1950) and the Oceanography Building (1932). The medical and health facilities have taken the form of a continuous building extending from Montlake Boulevard NE to the Portage Bay Vista, which is currently under construction. This form of development has left few pedestrian connections from NE Pacific Street to the waterfront. The area south of Columbia Road is also heavily developed, but has some waterfront open space near the Fisheries Center, in the area immediately south of the proposed Surgery Pavilion, and at Showboat Beach. Southwest Campus The Southwest Campus consists of approximately 30 acres and is bounded by NE Pacific on the north, Portage Bay on the south and west, and the planned Portage Bay Vista to the east. This area of the campus includes significant shoreline resources; uses in this area of campus include spaces leased by private houseboats, boat moorages, and a street-end boat launch. The University has improved Sakuma Viewpoint, located at the south end of Brooklyn Avenue NE, into a small-scale park with various seating areas (Sakuma Viewpoint Park). A building in Southwest Campus that is presently over 50 years of age is the Bryants Building (1943). Scenic Views The South/Southwest Campus area affords shoreline views of Portage Bay and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. These areas also provide views of the northern end of Capital Hill. The existing visual condition of NE Pacific Street is illustrated in Figures 21, 22, 23 and 24. As shown in these figures, there are no significant view corridors or vistas on NE Pacific Street looking west or east. The view looking east is terminated at the intersection of NE Pacific Street and Montlake Boulevard NE, where an informal grouping of mature trees, a remnant of the old golf course, is visible. This area has no views to the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The view to the west terminates at the intersection of NE Pacific Street and 15th Avenue NE. Foreground views include student housing and distant views include the I-5 Freeway Bridge. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 176 East Campus Aesthetic Character The East Campus is generally defined by Montlake Boulevard NE to the west, NE 45th Street to the north (with several developments beyond), Union Bay to the east and the Lake Washington Ship Canal to the south. The East Campus is separated from the Central Campus by Montlake Boulevard NE, and its connections to the Central Campus are limited to three pedestrian bridges. As described in Section III N., Historic/Cultural, of this Final EIS, there are four buildings in the East Campus that are presently 50 years of age or older; several key buildings include: Hec Edmondson Pavilion (1928) and Urban Horticulture (1948). Much of the East Campus is located over peat deposits and a former landfill and is, therefore, not suited to many kinds of development. For this reason, much of the area has been developed with athletic fields/facilities and the University’s major surface parking lot (E1). A large portion of the area is undeveloped, occupied by the Union Bay Natural Area, much of which is environmentally sensitive, as is the majority of the eastern shoreline. Waterfront developments include the Waterfront Activities Center and the Conibear Crew Facility. Other uses include the Center for Urban Horticulture, which is bordered by a residential neighborhood to the north; Plant and Transportation Services on the west-side of 25th Avenue NE; and Laurel and Blakely villages (Laurel Village is University housing that is located east of Mary Gates Way and Blakely Village is University housing located on the east-side of 25th Avenue NE north of University Village). Scenic Views The East Campus affords views of Union Bay, Lake Washington and the Cascade Mountains. Views of Lake Washington are afforded from many shoreline locations as well as from Husky Stadium. The existing visual condition of Montlake Boulevard NE is illustrated in Figures 25 and 26. As shown by these figures, there are no significant views looking north or south along Montlake Boulevard NE. The view looking north terminates at University Village Shopping Center. The view to the south terminates near the Triangle Underground Parking Garage, where Montlake curves slightly to the east. Other than the Montlake Bridge, this street provides no unobstructed views of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Impacts of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action would result in an intensification of development on the campus, and has the potential to affect the visual character and scenic vistas on the campus. A discussion on the proposed General Policies and Development Standards of the Master Plan Seattle Campus, and how they relate to potential development in the various campus areas is described below. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 181 Central Campus Aesthetic Character General The Master Plan proposes to preserve and enhance the character of the buildings and open spaces of the Central Campus through future development. The potential development sites chosen are intended to preserve important open spaces and complement the existing historic context. In addition, the Master Plan Seattle Campus provides for gateway entrances from the surrounding neighborhood and improved connections within the Central Campus. The four general areas of potential development on the Central Campus are: the north portion, including the Burke Museum, Gates Law School (new Law School Building – under construction), the Observatory, Penthouse Theater, Denny Yard and Denny Field; the East Slope, including that portion of the Central Campus east of Stevens Way; the South portion, including the greater area around the Drumheller Fountain; and Rainier Vista, including developments adjacent to either side of Rainier Vista. North Portion of the Central Campus The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 105 feet. Potential development would conform to the Building Design – General Policies stated in the Master Plan Seattle Campus. New development would consider it’s relation to the Burke Museum and the Gates Law School (new Law School Building to the south). Development near the Observatory and the Hughes Penthouse Theater would respect the significance of these buildings. Any potential development adjacent to the Denny Yard would respect the significance of the surrounding buildings (e.g. Denny, Parrington, Savery, and Raitt) to the history of the campus. At the same time, such development would acknowledge itself as an important element in the Denny Yard enclosure through siting, materials, and scale. Potential development would also utilize detailing and landscaping to make the building sensitive to the pedestrian scale. New development proximate to Denny Field would respect the significance of Lewis, Clark and Hutchinson Halls, and the Art and Music buildings through the use of compatible materials, scale, siting and profile. Potential development around the perimeter of the Denny Yard would provide an edge to this open space. Development would respect nearby historic buildings discussed in the Affected Environment section, especially development bordering Denny Field, which would be sensitive to the historic importance of Lewis, Clark and Hutchinson Halls and Art and Music buildings. If the Fountain of Reflection (1962) by George Tsutakawa in the MacKenzie Courtyard were displaced by development, it would be relocated. Potential development in this part of the Central Campus would include open space that strengthens the campus’s connection to the University District and the potential future Sound Transit Station at 45th Avenue NE and 15th Avenue NE. In addition, development near the University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 184 Observatory would include open space improvements that provide a dignified setting and approach to this building. Open space associated with potential development proximate to Denny Yard would attempt to connect seamlessly with the Yard. New development would also accommodate and improve the existing north-south pedestrian circulation with entrances and through-access to Denny Yard and conserve or relocate the public walkway that runs from the northeast to the west parallel to Balmer Hall. East Slope of the Central Campus The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 105 feet The form of any infill expansion of the Faculty Center would complement and not weaken the strength of the building’s International Style architecture and utilize materials and detailing to tie expansion to the existing structure. Potential developments in the engineering area of campus along the East Slope would relate to buildings such as Loew Hall, the Engineering Library, Fluke Hall and the Mechanical Engineering Building, and reinforce and maintain a comfortable pedestrian-scale between the buildings and walkways. Similarly, development down the slope from Padelford Hall and Padelford Parking Garage would scale down or set back from Wahkiakum Lane and follow the footprint of the existing garage. There are no historic elements on the East Slope that would be affected by potential development. Potential development sites with pedestrian connections to the Burke-Gilman Trail or between the Central Campus and the East or South Campuses would include improvements to the campus entries at these points. Developments including multiple buildings or completing an existing grouping of buildings would be oriented to form courtyards and enhance pedestrian connections through them. South Portion of the Central Campus The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 105 feet. New development in the southwest portion of this area would relate to recent larger developments such as the Physics & Astronomy Building, Johnson Hall and the Atmospheric Sciences/Geophysics building, and would also consider their relationship to smaller historic buildings such as Cunningham Hall. New development adjacent to Johnson Hall would form a courtyard with Johnson and the Atmospheric Sciences/Geophysics Building. Rainier Vista The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 65 feet. Any potential development in the vicinity of Rainier Vista must respect its significance and avoid detracting from the lushly planted character of this portion of campus. Such development would University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 185 also respect nearby existing buildings through siting, use of compatible materials, scale and profile. No above ground development would be allowed on Rainier Vista, and no development would be positioned so that it would adversely affect the Rainier Vista view corridor. Rainier Vista, which was designed for the Alaska-Yukon exposition of 1906, is a critical element to the campus structure and one of most precious vistas on campus. The form and orientation of developments in this area must respond appropriately to the adjacent Rainier Vista, which is vital to the character and form of the campus’s open space. Opportunities for new developments to form courtyards with groupings of existing buildings would be taken. Scenic Views The form and orientation of developments in Central Campus must respond appropriately to the adjacent Rainier Vista, which is vital to the character and form of the campus’s open space. Master Plan development would be designed to complement and preserve existing views associated with Parrington Lawn and Memorial Way West Campus Aesthetic Character General The Master Plan’s objectives for the West Campus include the creation of mixed-use developments that serve the needs of the University while remaining compatible with the surrounding mixed-use neighborhood. Potential developments are intended to better define the form of the West Campus, create useable open spaces, pedestrian environments and create improved entrances into and connections between the West Campus and the Central and South/Southwest campuses. The Master Plan also calls for improved interaction between potential developments and the Burke-Gilman Trail in West Campus, including developments with facades that face the Trail and give it definition and the creation and improvement of pedestrian connections with the Trail. The five general areas of potential development are: Campus Parkway, including the potential for redevelopment of the street alignment and open space; Condon Hall, including the area surrounding Condon stretching east to include the area between Campus Parkway and NE 41st Street to 15th Avenue NE; North of NE 41st Street; south of Campus Parkway; and the University Bridge Area, including potential developments immediately east and west of the Bridge. Campus Parkway The Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies the potential street vacation of a portion of NE Campus Parkway to allow reconfiguration of the Parkway and provide for additional open space and building area. The street vacation is potential and is not essential to implementation of the Master Plan. The vacation is included in the Master Plan for disclosure purposes; no petitions or applications are pending. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 186 Campus Parkway was completed in 1953 and was originally designed as a ceremonial connection between the University Bridge and the Central Campus. The physical connection with the University Bridge on the west-end was never fully developed and the main west entrance to the campus (at NE 40th Street) was not designed to align with this boulevard. The Master Plan identifies the potential for consolidation of the Campus Parkway on the south alignment, creating one two-lane roadway in this portion of the Parkway. This potential consolidation would reduce the amount of passive open space in the median and create the potential for new, more active, accessible open space. Reconfiguration of the Parkway would include planting rows of trees along the sidewalk of the realigned Parkway. Condon Hall Area The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 105 feet. Any potential development west of Condon Hall along Campus Parkway would utilize form and siting to emphasize its importance as a gateway into the University District and the Campus. Development near Condon Hall would also use form to strengthen the street edge and help scale down Condon Hall for the pedestrian at street level. Development along Campus Parkway in general, would use form to strengthen the street edge and bring the development to the pedestrian scale at the street level. Potential development adjacent to the Playhouse Theater (1931) would respect the presence of this building. Future development west of Condon Hall would include open space in its creation of a symbolic gateway into the University District and the campus. The existing terrace on the south side of Condon Hall would be retained and a new plaza created to celebrate the large elm tree at the corner of Campus Parkway and Brooklyn Avenue. The design of this plaza would serve as a contrast to the hardscaped open space on the south-side of Schmitz Hall. All potential developments along Campus Parkway would include pedestrian streetscape improvements. There are no significant views from this area. North of NE 41st Street The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 65 feet. Potential development along the north-side of NE 41st Street would use scale and form to act as a transition between the existing large-scale University buildings and the adjacent commercial and residential neighborhood. The form of potential developments at the intersections of NE 41st Street and Brooklyn and University Way and Campus Parkway would anchor and give definition to these prominent corners. Development along NE 41st Street in general would use form to strengthen the street edge and bring the development to the pedestrian scale at the street level. There are no historic elements that relate to the potential development sites in this area. Potential developments would include streetscape improvements. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 187 South of Campus Parkway The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 105 feet. The form of potential developments along 15th Avenue NE would strengthen the street edge and create a welcoming border to the campus. Those developments flanking the NE 40th Street entrance to the campus would create a “gateway” campus edge and have a “public” form that expresses the development’s importance as a campus entry. Any development south of Gould Hall would be designed with a strong University image due to its high visibility from University Way, 15th Avenue NE and the proposed Sound Transit Portage Bay Station immediately south of Gould Hall. The form of potential developments, including buildings and landscape, along the Burke-Gilman Trail would strengthen and give form to the edge and alignment of the Trail. In addition, all developments in this area of campus would use form to strengthen the street edge. Developments would respect the private and residential properties within the campus boundaries, including the College Inn, Commodore Duchess Apartments, and Cavalier Apartments. Their form and siting would be compatible, and would avoid blocking the windows of living spaces in the residential units. Potential development south of Gould Hall would retain the existing outdoor classroom/work yard and the Varey Memorial Garden. University Bridge Area The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 65 feet. Potential developments in the vicinity of the University Bridge would respect its scale and be developed to maximize views of Portage Bay and minimize noise from the Interstate 5 freeway bridge. Potential development west of Henderson Hall would use form to relate to Henderson Hall and strengthen the street edge, and would function as a gateway into campus and the University district. The parking lot east of Henderson Hall could have potential to be developed as open space over a parking garage with connections to the Burke-Gilman Trail. The 8th Avenue NE alignment, east of Publication Services, could be developed as a pedestrian walkway to the Burke-Gilman Trail. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 188 Scenic Views Master Plan potential development in the West Campus would preserve territorial views associated with the north-south streets that bisect this portion of campus. The views of NE Campus Parkway with development under Option 1 and Option 2 are illustrated in Figures 27 and 28, respectively. As illustrated in Figure 27, under Option 1, the width of the NE Campus Parkway visual corridor would be reduced from existing conditions. Building development on Potential Development sites 30W, 32W, 33W, 34W and 35W would enclose and define the reconfigured Parkway corridor. The view of NE Campus Parkway under Option 2 is illustrated in Figure 28. As illustrated in this figure, development on Potential Development Site 33W would be setback further from the Parkway and the width of the visual corridor would be greater than under Option 1. South and Southwest Campus Aesthetic Character General The plan for potential Southwest Campus developments in the Master Plan Seattle Campus includes a strong design framework that is intended to create a more campus-like environment while maintaining the mix of University, commercial, and residential houseboat uses of the existing waterfront. Potential developments are sited to create open spaces with clear pedestrian connections and to include improved waterfront views and access. The Master Plan also includes improvements to the existing Marina Walk such as increased width and more seating areas at viewpoints near the moorage parking. The new landscaped Portage Bay Vista, currently under construction, will create a new quadrangle/view corridor from NE Pacific Street to Portage Bay. A future pedestrian bridge from the Physics & Astronomy plaza to NE Pacific would complete the physical connection of the Central Campus to the waterfront. For the South Campus, the Master Plan includes increased connections between the Central Campus and South Campus, as well as improved connections to the shoreline. Two of the main proposed developments for the South Campus are an additional pedestrian bridge stretching between the Physics & Astronomy courtyard and the Portage Bay Vista (currently under construction), and a potential aerial plaza/building that would bridge NE Pacific Street east of Kincaid and Hitchcock halls. The Southwest Campus is discussed here as a single potential development area. The South Campus has three potential development areas: the aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street; the Medical Center; and the South Waterfront. Southwest Campus The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area that are within the 200-foot shoreline environment is 37 feet; the maximum recommended height for developments outside the 200-foot shoreline setback is 50 feet. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 189 The form of potential development in the Southwest Campus would reflect their uses, would be marine use if on the waterfront, and may complement the Fisheries and Oceanography buildings. Buildings on the Portage Bay Vista would also relate to the Physics & Astronomy Building. Development along the waterfront may complement the form of the Bryant Annex as well as the forms of other existing buildings along the shoreline. If possible, potential development would conserve the Bryant Annex, an old wood-frame building that has some historic and architectural significance and provides a marine-related character appropriate to the waterfront setting. Potential development east of the Fisheries Building would define and extend the existing Fisheries Courtyard and include a physical connection from the Courtyard to the water. Potential development on the waterfront would be inviting and allow public waterfront access. The existing Sakuma Park and the planned car top boat launch would be preserved. Aerial Plaza over NE Pacific Street The Master Plan Seattle Campus identifies the potential aerial vacation of a portion of NE Pacific Street for an aerial plaza connecting the South and Central Campus areas. The aerial vacation is potential and is not essential to implementation of the Master Plan. The vacation is included in the Master Plan for disclosure purposes only; no petitions or applications are pending. The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 105 feet. The Master Plan identifies the potential for several future development sites that would improve connections between the Central Campus, South Campus, and the shoreline. Two connections include an additional pedestrian bridge from the Physics & Astronomy Building to the Portage Bay Vista, and the potential aerial plaza with a building that would extend over a portion of NE Pacific Street. The identified potential aerial plaza, along with the Portage Bay Vista pedestrian bridge, would diminish the feeling of openness along the roadway, and the plaza would feel more like a short tunnel than an overhead bridge from street level. The form and scale of potential developments adjacent to the proposed lid would use form to relate the surrounding developments to the pedestrian scale. This area has no historic elements that must be considered by potential developments. The aerial plaza would create a new open space that would connect Health Sciences buildings with a future building on the north side of NE Pacific Street. The plaza would include seating areas for informal gatherings. Medical Center The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 65 feet. Potential development on the site located on the south side of the Medical Center over the east end of the currently planned expansion of the S-1 parking garage may respect the East Wing of the Fisheries Center if it is conserved, notable for its red brickwork, detailing and departure from the prevailing International Style. The original portion of the Fisheries Center may be preserved University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 192 or removed. If an aerial plaza were created over Columbia Road, the development would help define open spaces on the aerial plaza. This area has no historic elements that must be considered by potential developments. Any development of the site located south of the Medical Center over the west end of the currently planned expansion of the S-1 parking garage could include a pedestrian connection between the South Campus Center and Health Sciences and/or a pedestrian connection to the waterfront. Development over the east end of the planned garage expansion could include a link between the Health Sciences buildings separated by Columbia Road or a pedestrian connection to the shoreline. South Waterfront The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 65 feet. Potential development on the south-side of the Columbia Road Gatehouse #6 entrance to Health Sciences would use form to help define the Columbia Road entrance and/or define an open space along the San Juan Road in conjunction with the Ocean Teaching and Marine Sciences Buildings. Any potential development on the site of the 1950’s addition to the 1920 Hydraulics Building would use form and siting to respect the original Harris Hydraulics Lab, which is to be retained. Potential development on the site currently occupied by the Ocean Teaching Building Annex 1 and the S-5 parking lot could use form to help define the Columbia Road entrance and/or define an open space along the San Juan Road in conjunction with the Ocean Teaching and Marine Sciences Buildings. The existing viewpoint park south of the Fisheries Center would be retained and a new open space could be created on the site of the existing fish ponds, which will be relocated to the Southwest Campus. Scenic Views As shown by Figures 21, 22, 23 and 24 (existing views), there are no significant view corridors or vistas on NE Pacific Street looking west or east. The view looking east terminates at the intersection of NE Pacific Street and Montlake Boulevard, where an informal grouping of mature trees, a remnant of the old golf course, is visible. This area has no unobstructed views to the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The view to the west terminates at the intersection of NE Pacific Street and 15th Avenue NE. Foreground views include student housing and distant views include the I-5 Freeway Bridge. Based on existing conditions, neither the potential pedestrian bridge nor the potential aerial plaza (potential views, Figures 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33) would obstruct existing views. However, the potential pedestrian bridge and potential aerial plaza would diminish the feeling of openness along the roadway, and the aerial plaza would feel more like a short tunnel than an overhead bridge from street level. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 193 East Campus Aesthetic Character General The Master Plan Seattle Campus calls for development to respect the shoreline areas, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and sensitive sites and take advantage of the natural setting, especially the waterfront and views of the mountains and water. It also calls for improved connections between the East and Central campuses through the addition of a pedestrian bridge across Montlake Boulevard NE north of the recreation sports facility. There are four areas of potential development in the East Campus: the Waterfront, including the Waterfront Activities Center (WAC) and the Conibear Shellhouse and Dock; the Center for Urban Horticulture; the Athletic Facilities; and 25th Avenue NE Area, including areas on the west side of 25th Avenue, across from University Village and areas adjacent to the Blakely Village university housing north of University Village. East Waterfront The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area that are within the 200-foot shoreline setback is 37 feet. Potential development adjacent to the Waterfront Activities Center (WAC) would be complimentary in scale and form. Development replacing the existing Conibear Shellhouse would be located within the 200-foot setback, and so could be expressed as “light weight” in form, scale and detailing. In addition, the visibility of the development’s roof from the Central Campus could be considered. The existing Conibear Shellhouse would be replaced and the existing Shellhouse Annex would be preserved. Any development would be sensitive to the existing shoreline Center for Urban Horticulture The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area that are within the 200-foot shoreline environment is 37 feet. The form and materials of potential development adjacent to the Urban Horticulture Center would be similar or complementary to the existing buildings. Development adjacent to the Douglas Research Conservatory would use form to complement and express the function of the existing permanent greenhouses. This area has no historical elements that must be considered by potential developments. Site development west of the Center for Urban Horticulture would preserve the existing courtyard and include improved pedestrian connections. Development would also preserve as much of the Union Bay Natural Area as possible. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 199 Athletic Facilities The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 160 feet. Development on the site of the existing west bleachers at Husky Stadium would complement the existing stadium stands through form and materials and acknowledge the development’s position as a prominent gateway into the East Campus. Potential development of a two-level Golf Driving Range building would appear as a light weight structure. Any development at Husky Stadium would respect the Hec Edmundson Pavilion north of the Stadium. Development on the site of the existing west bleachers at Husky Stadium would be sensitive to and support the open space improvements recently implemented between the stadium and Montlake Boulevard NE. A new pedestrian bridge across Montlake Boulevard NE north of the recreation sports facility is proposed to increase the pedestrian connections between the Central and East Campuses 25th Avenue NE Area The maximum recommended height for potential developments in this area is 65 feet. Development on the west side of 25th Avenue NE would be sensitive in form to the housing on the north-side of the site and the Burke-Gilman Trail on the west. The form of any development on the east-side of 25th Avenue NE, north of University Village would be sensitive to the Blakely Village University housing at the east of the site. This area has no historic elements that must be considered by potential developments. Development adjacent to Plant Services and Transportation on the west side of 25th Avenue NE would be sensitive to the Burke-Gilman Trail. Scenic Views As shown by Existing Views Figures 25 and 26, there are no significant views looking north or south along Montlake Boulevard NE but there are views from Montlake Boulevard to the east. The view looking north terminates at University Village. The view to the south terminates near the Triangle Underground Parking Garage, where Montlake curves slightly to the east. Other than the Montlake Bridge, this street has no unobstructed views of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. As shown by Proposed Views Figures 34 and 35, the proposed pedestrian bridge would be clearly visible from Montlake Boulevard NE but would not significantly obstruct existing views. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 200 Potential development to replace the Conibear Shellhouse would maximize views of Lake Washington and the crew dock. The form of any development would conserve views of the Lake from the uplands and consider the visibility of the roof from the Central Campus in the building design. Any development adjacent to the WAC would maximize lake views. Potential development at Husky Stadium would expand potential for views from the stadium and would not obstruct existing views. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, new campus development would be limited to development consistent with projects approved under the current GPDP but not yet built, including the eight buildings described in Section II of this Final EIS (e.g., Law School Building, Electrical Engineering Phase II Building, Surgery Pavilion, etc.). The distribution and visual character of buildings and open space would remain similar to the existing character. The visual strengthening of campus edges and view corridors possible under the proposed Master Plan would not occur. Visual conditions associated with the aerial plaza/building over NE Pacific Street would not occur. Decentralization/Open Space Alternative Under the Decentralization/Open Space Alternative, less building development would occur on the Seattle Campus. The reduction in building area on the Seattle Campus could increase the potential to develop additional open space areas, however, the open space/plazas associated with identified development sites would not be provided. Visual conditions associated with the aerial plaza/building over NE Pacific Street may or may not occur, depending on whether it is included as a building site. With the existing limitation on University leasing in the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones, the potential for University development in the University District would be limited. New University development within the University District would not be anticipated to significantly affect bulk/scale and visual conditions in the University District. No Street or Alley Vacations Alternative Under the No Street or Alley Vacations Alternative, the potential street vacations of sections of NE Campus Parkway, 11th Avenue NE, 12th Avenue NE and University Bridge off-ramps to NE 40th Street/Lincoln Way, and alley vacations associated with potentially developable sites 5W, 7W, 8W, 10W, 11W and 12W would not occur, and the existing roadway system on the Seattle Campus would remain. The additional building and open space associated with the reconfiguration of NE Campus Parkway, aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street and other potential developments associated with vacations would not occur or would be limited. Figure 36 illustrates the view of NE Campus Parkway with development on sites 30W, 32W, 33W, 34W and 35W with no reconfiguration of the Parkway. As illustrated by this figure, a greater separation between new development on the north and south sides of the Parkway would be provided than with reconfiguration of the Parkway and a wider view corridor would University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 203 result. Open space along the north side of the Parkway provided with the vacation of the Parkway, particularly Option 2, would not be provided. The overall building density on the Seattle Campus would be less than under the proposed Master Plan, particularly in the South and West Campus areas. Visual impacts associated with the aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street would not occur. Lifting of Lease Limit Depending on the amount of University development in the University District, the bulk/scale and visual conditions in the University District could be affected. For example, new building development could block existing views and create additional shading. All new building development in the University District, however, would adhere to City of Seattle development regulations (e.g., building height, setback etc.) and be subject to the City’s design review process. The Lifting of the Lease Limit Alternative would also allow the University to implement development consistent with UCUC Plan and University Community Design Guidelines goals for the University District (DCLU, 2000). As indicated in the UCUC Plan SEPA Determination of Non-Significance, specific impacts would be examined as part of project level environmental review when individual development applications are being considered. Possible Mitigation Measures No measures beyond those standards and guidelines identified in the Master Plan Seattle Campus, including preparation of Architectural Opportunities Reports, would be required. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Implementation of development proposed in the Master Plan Seattle Campus would result is changes to the visual character of the campus. With proper implementation of the guidelines and standards listed in the Master Plan, the majority of changes in campus character could be interpreted as positive and significant negative aesthetic impacts would not be anticipated. The potential aerial plaza over NE Pacific Street would diminish the feeling of openness along the roadway. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Aesthetics 204 M. RECREATION Affected Environment The University of Washington provides diverse recreational facilities for intercollegiate, intramural activities and passive recreation. The intercollegiate athletic program generally involves organized spectator sports such as football, basketball, baseball and track. Facilities typically include the Graves Building, Hec Edmundson Pavilion, the Husky Stadium and, on occasion, the Intramural Activities (IMA) Building. These facilities are also used to host community, as well as national, athletic events. Hutchinson Hall, Denny Field and the IMA Building provide physical and health education and sports facilities that are restricted for use by students, faculty, staff, and their guests. Facilities are included for most popular sports and activities, ranging from semi-formal competition in basketball, volleyball, softball, and rugby, to pair or individual activities, such as tennis, handball, swimming, roller skating, fencing, boxing, badminton, weight-lifting, wrestling, squash, archery and jogging. Facilities for water-related recreation are available at the Waterfront Activities Center. Passive recreation takes place on most areas of the campus that have been reserved as open spaces, specifically the Campus Green, Rainier Vista, Engineering Quadrangle/Frosh Pond area, Memorial Way, Drumheller Fountain, Liberal Arts Quadrangle, the HUB yard, the South Campus HUB lawn and Showboat Beach, Sakuma Viewpoint, the Ship Canal water front, Burke Gilman Trail, and natural areas of the East Campus. All passive recreational areas are open to the public as well as to students and University personnel. Numerous outdoor recreational facilities are located nearby off campus, including Ravenna Park, Cowen Park, the Washington Park Arboretum and playing fields, Waterfront Trail, North and South Passage Viewpoints, Christie Mini Park, University Playground, McCurdy Park, West Montlake Park, East Montlake Park, and the Montlake Playfield. Indoor facilities are provided by the City of Seattle recreation centers at Montlake, Laurelhurst, and institutions such as the YMCA, YWCA and churches in the vicinity of the University. Impacts of the Proposed Action Participation in active recreational activities and the use of intramural facilities would increase as the campus population increases. This anticipated increase in use could lead to demand for additional active recreational facilities and/or lead to a need for additional maintenance staff and equipment for existing facilities. Impacts to recreation resources are not anticipated to be significant. Under the Master Plan Seattle Campus, all valued existing open spaces would be preserved and enhanced (where appropriate). New development would include the development of new open space and/or the reconfiguration of existing open space. Opportunities to gain landscaped open space would be pursued whenever possible. New primary and secondary open space is identified in the Proposed Action. New open space is primarily located in the South and West Campus areas, where the need for additional active and passive recreational space is greatest. Figure 6 in Section II of this Final EIS shows existing open space and planned new and improved areas. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Recreation 206 Most existing developed recreational facilities are located in the East Campus (as described above). The Master Plan includes some improvements to existing recreational facilities and new recreational development. Improvements and/or new development is planned for the entrance to and east side of Husky Stadium, the Conibear Shellhouse and surrounding area, the bleacher area of Baseball II and the Soccer Field, the southeast end of the Golf Driving Range, the area southeast of the Douglas Research Conservatory, and the area west of parking lot E-16. Figure 4 in Project Description and Alternatives, Section II, of this Final EIS shows the location of proposed recreational developments in the East Campus area. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the demand for active and passive recreational spaces would not be expected to differ from that described under the Master Plan; the campus population would grow with or without implementation of the proposed Master Plan. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less development). Although planned construction and development would be reduced, impacts to and demand for recreation resources would likely remain the same as that described for the Master Plan. This alternative would involve decentralization and an increase in off-campus development activity. It is unlikely that the demand for recreation facilities would increase significantly in off-campus areas or in the University District. However, some open space improvements included in the Proposed Action would not occur under this alternative; existing campus open spaces and recreation facilities would be used more intensively over time. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative Development associated with this alternative would result in a reduction of building area to avoid street and alley vacations under this alternative, as outlined in Section II and Section III G. of this Final EIS. Although planned construction and development would be reduced and/or relocated, impacts to and demand for recreation resources would remain the same as that described for the proposed Master Plan. Lifting of Lease Limit Lifting of the existing limitation on University leasing in the University District could result in increased University participation in development in this area, consistent with the City of Seattle zoning regulations and UCUC Plan goals. It is not anticipated that University related development would significantly impact area-wide recreational uses. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Recreation 207 Mitigation Measures Additional maintenance staff and acquisition of equipment for existing recreational facilities could be needed to effectively address the increase in use of active and passive recreation resources. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to recreation resources are expected to occur. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Recreation 208 N. HISTORIC/CULTURAL Affected Environment There are no known archaeological data for the University campus. Existing development oncampus, together with previous land uses, have significantly altered the character of the area from its pre-development condition. Any artifacts that may have been discovered have not been reported or recorded. The University was established in 1861 by an act of the Territorial Legislature27. The University’s first campus was a 10-acre area28 in wilderness roughly six blocks north of what was then “downtown.” That site is now located near the center of downtown Seattle. Classes at the Territorial University began November 4, 1861 – almost ten years exactly after the Denny party landed at what was to become Alki Point in West Seattle29, seven months after the first engagement of the Civil War30, and eight years before the City of Seattle was incorporated31. The Territorial University of Washington was the first public institution of higher learning on the West Coast. The campus consisted of a prominent 2-story structure, which contained classrooms; a 2-story building for the University’s first president; and a dormitory structure for men (women resided in the president’s house). As a result of a combination of factors, by the late 1880’s and early 1890’s, it was concluded that the University’s location and facilities were no longer adequate and a much larger campus was needed -- one removed from the early City’s encroaching “downtown”. Three sites were considered -- Jefferson Park, Ft. Lawton and the present location. The present site of the campus was selected (roughly four miles north of the initial campus) and in 1893 the State Legislature authorized purchase of what was to become the present site (Johnston, 1995). A section32 of land was allocated and the first building on the University’s new campus began. By that time the City limits had been extended north to N. 85th St.33, The University of Washington has been at its present location for approximately 105 years. The Campus Master Plan notes that a large number of campus master plans have influenced the siting of buildings on campus and the landscaped open spaces between buildings. Early influences came from the 1891 Boone Plan, a 1900 Oval Plan, and the 1904 Olmsted Plan. Later influences came from such campus plans as the 1915 Regents Plan, 1920 Bebb & Gould Plan, 1935 Jones & Bindon Plan, a 1940 Plan, 1948 Plan, 1962 Thiry Plan, 1963 Walker & McGough Plan, 1983 Land Use Plan, the 1991 – 2001 General Physical Development Plan, the 1995 Southwest Campus Plan, the 1997 North Campus Sector Plan and the 1997 East Campus Sector Plan. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 The University was a Territorial University because Washington had not been granted statehood; that would not occur for another 28 years. The campus included an 8.5-acre parcel that was donated by Arthur Denny and a 1.5-acre parcel that was donated by Charles and Mary Terry and Edward Lander (Johnston, 1995). The boundaries of the 10-acre area extended roughly from what is now Union St. on the north to Seneca St. on the south and from the mid-block alley between Third and Fourth avenues on the west to the midblock alley between Fifth and Sixth avenues on the east. The University has retained ownership of the land; key buildings that are currently located on this property include: Four Seasons Olympic Hotel, IBM Building/Fifth Ave. Plaza, Rainier Square & Tower, Skinner Building, Puget Sound Plaza, Cobb Building, Financial Center, and the Four Seasons Olympic Hotel Parking Garage. November 13, 1851 Ft. Sumter -- Charleston, South Carolina, April 12, 1861. The City of Seattle was incorporated by an act of the Territorial Legislature on December 2, 1869 and encompassed a 16-section area (approx. 10,240 ac.). 640 acres Boundary expansion of June 1, 1891. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 209 Perhaps the largest event that shaped the character of the south portion of the Central Campus – and the siting of buildings and open spaces in that area – was the 1909 Alaska–Yukon–Pacific Exposition, which occurred on-campus from June 1, 1909 to October 16, 1909. Similar to other expositions that occurred around the turn of the century, the 1909 Alaska – Yukon – Pacific Exposition was inspired by Chicago’s Columbia Exposition of 1893, which influenced town planning and architectural design. The focus of Seattle’s Exposition was to “showcase Seattle as an ambitious port city, the up-and-coming commercial center of the Pacific coast,”34 the port nearest to Japan and China, and the gateway to Alaska. Numerous cities, states and foreign governments sponsored exhibits. The A–Y–P was attended by 3,740,551 people, including President Taft, as well as numerous foreign dignitaries (Warren, 1997). The site of the Exposition was chosen in 1906 and the layout of building sites, vistas and open spaces occurred, based on a 1909 Olmsted Brothers Plan for the Exposition. Most notable is Rainier Vista. Like most international expositions, the 1909 A-Y-P Exposition included several permanent structures along with temporary buildings. Structures that have remained include the present Frosh Pond/Drumheller Fountain35, Architecture Hall, Cunningham Hall, the Engineering Annex, and the Statue of George Washington (unveiled on Flag Day June 14, 1909). As noted in the Master Plan (Appendix G), ninety-seven of the University’s buildings are presently 50 years of age or older.36 Fifty-nine of these are located in the Central Campus, 20 in the West Campus, 14 in the South/Southwest Campus, and 4 in the East Campus. Only one building on the University campus is listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. That building is the Naval Military Hanger-University Shell House – now known as the Canoe House; it is located southeast of Husky Stadium at the entrance to the Lake Washington Ship Canal from Union Bay (see Figure 37). The Canoe House was built in 1918 by the U.S. Navy to serve as a hangar for the Aviation Training Corps., but apparently was never used as such37. It is a frame-constructed building with shingle siding; it contains 13,199 gross sq.ft. with a building footprint of 10,633 sq.ft. Eventually, the building was donated to the University and was used as the Shellhouse for the rowing team. The Shellhouse moved to its present location (north of the Nordstrom Tennis Center) in 1949 and the former Shellhouse was renamed the Canoe House (Johnston, 1995). Four buildings/structures proximate to the campus are listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks.38 They include "Ye College Inn" located immediately north of Gould Hall (4000 University Way N.E.), the Chittenden Locks and Lake Washington Ship Canal Historic District, the Montlake Bridge and the University Bridge. Seven campus structures are listed on the Washington Heritage Register39; they include Denny Hall, the Observatory, Lewis Hall, Clark Hall, Parrington Hall, Architecture Hall and the University of Washington Columns. Other than Architecture Hall and the Columns, each is located in the north portion of Central Campus. The following is an overview of each. 34 35 36 37 38 39 Boswell & McConaghy, 1996. During the Exposition this was known as Geyser Basin. It was a focal point of what was the Arctic Circle, a six-“white” building complex located at the center of the A-Y-P Exposition. Drumheller Fountain was added in 1962. Data as of May 2001. Appendix G in the Master Plan Seattle Campus includes information concerning all campus buildings within the campus boundaries. In addition, five open spaces are listed that are also 50 years of age or older. These include: Rainier Vista, Drumheller Fountain, Liberal Arts Quadrangle, Memorial Way and the Archery Range. Johnston, 1995. WA Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation, 1998. The Washington Heritage Register is a statewide listing of historic properties. It includes listings of structures/places of State significance, National Historic Landmarks, and listings of the National Register of Historic Places. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 210 ! Denny Hall -- This is the oldest building on-campus and was the first building on the present campus of the University. Construction of Denny Hall began with ceremonies on July 4, 1894 and the building was occupied in 1895. Denny Hall contains 85,667 sq.ft. of floor area (footprint is 19,794 sq.ft.) and has a building height of roughly 55 feet. The building was designed by Charles Saunders, one of Seattle's leading architects, in the style of the "early French Renaissance chateaux of the Loire Valley" (Johnston, 1995). The building's appearance is symmetrical, with a central entry flanked by two conical-capped towers, balanced placement of windows, a cupola located above the central portion of the building, and curved wings at each 41 side of the building . The exterior of Denny Hall is sandstone and brick and the roof is slate with 42 copper. The cupola formerly housed Denny Bell , which has been removed due to seismic concerns regarding the cupola. The bell is in storage until the seismic retrograde occurs. 40 ! Observatory -- The Observatory is the second oldest building on campus. This building contains 2,147 sq.ft. of floor area (footprint is 1,688 sq.ft.) and has a building dome height of roughly 25 feet; the remainder of the structure is about 15 feet high. Like Denny Hall, it was designed by Saunders, was completed in 1895, and has an exterior of sandstone. As noted by Johnston, "[T]he telescope dome rotates on cannon balls left over from the Civil War." The 6-inch telescope is one of the few such historical telescopes remaining in the United States and the only public telescope in Seattle43. The Observatory is still in use with viewing hours. Normal evening attendance is 10 - 25 people of all ages; during an eclipse, attendance is typically 400 - 500 people. Lewis Hall – Construction of Lewis Hall began in 1896 and was completed in 1899. The building was originally named Lyon Hall (1903). In 1909 the building was renamed Lewis Hall, in honor of Meriwether Lewis, co-leader of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Lewis Hall contains 23,220 sq.ft. of floor area (footprint is 6,178 sq.ft.) and has a building height of roughly 46 feet. Like Parrington Hall, Lewis Hall was designed by Josenhans & Allan. Representative of late Victorian architecture, the building is of brick construction with masonry walls that are 14 inches thick. Lewis Hall served as a 50-person dormitory for men until 1918 when it was converted to the women's dormitory. Briefly during the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, the building was used as a display hall. In 1936, the building was renovated to provide classrooms and office space (NPS, 1969). ! ! Clark Hall – Like Lewis Hall, construction of Clark Hall began in 1896 and was completed in 1899. This building was originally named Pierrepont Hall and about 1917 the name of the building was changed to Clark Hall, in honor of the co-leader of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Like Lewis Hall, it was designed by Josenhans & Allan and is of brick construction. This building contains 30,568 sq.ft. of floor area (footprint is 19,478 sq.ft.) and has a building height of roughly 44 52 feet. Clark Hall served as the women's dormitory until 1936 ; as the University's first Student Center between 1936 and 1952; and since 1952, the building has housed the University's four R.O.T.C. programs. 40 41 42 43 44 The original name of the building - Administration Building - was changed in 1910 to Denny Hall. Denny Hall is named for Arthur A. Denny and the Denny family. Arthur Denny donated 8.5 acres of the University's original 10-acre site in downtown Seattle. U.S. Dept. of Interior; NPS, 1972. Denny Bell was originally located in the Territorial University downtown. The bell was fabricated in New York and transported to the downtown location by ship via Cape Horn. It was installed in the Territorial University in 1862 and has been rung for weddings, funerals, fog warnings and to alert the city of the great Seattle fire (1889). Now Denny Bell is used to announce autumn quarter's homecoming. The sound of chimes that emanates from the cupola is the new digital carillon, installed in 1995. Personal communication. Penny Buffo, Dept. of Astronomy (Oct. 2, 1996). For a period during World War I, women were housed off-campus and the building was loaned to the U.S. Navy for use as a hospital for Naval officers. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 212 ! Parrington Hall -- Originally named Science Hall, Parrington Hall was renamed for Vernon Parrington, a University professor of English (21 years) and Pulitzer Prize winner (1928). The building was designed by the firm of Josenhans & Allan (Seattle) and was completed in 1902 (Ochsner, 1994). It contains 48,880 sq.ft. of floor area (footprint is 12,078 sq.ft.) and has a building height of roughly 57 feet. The building is red brick with sandstone trim and a shingle roof. Following the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, the building's facade was painted. Parrington Hall underwent restoration in 1996; part of which included removing the paint from the red brick exterior. Architecture Hall – This is the last permanent building remaining that was originally built for the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. During the Exposition, it served as the Fine Arts Building. Architecture Hall was designed by Howard & Galloway and is of similar design and materials (cream-colored brick) as was used for the Exposition’s Auditorium Building (later the original Meany Hall). The building was originally designed to serve as the University’s chemistry building. Following completion of the Exposition, the name of the building became Bagley Hall and it was the University’s chemistry building. In 1937 the name of the building was changed to Physiology Hall, although other departments also occupied space in the building. In 1957, the name of the building was again changed to Architecture Hall. Architecture Hall contains 47,485 gross sq.ft. and has a footprint of 17,256 sq.ft. This building has undergone several restorations – the most notable occurring in 1987. ! ! University Columns -- The four white columns located in Sylvan Theater are from the original University building when it was located in downtown Seattle. As noted previously, the Master Plan indicates that there are presently 97 buildings on-campus that are 50 years of age or older (including the buildings noted above). Sixty-one percent of these buildings are located in the Central Campus, 21 percent are located in West Campus, 14 percent are in South/Southwest Campus, and 4 percent are in East Campus. These buildings vary in size from the 546 square foot Plant Operations Building (built in 1947) to the 318,000 square foot Suzzallo Library, which was originally built in 1926 and remodeled several times since. While numerous buildings and spaces deserve mention for their contribution to the campus, the following are particularly noteworthy. See also the discussion of open spaces in Aesthetics (Section III L. of this Final EIS). ! Memorial Way – This is the University’s ceremonial entrance to campus from NE 45th St. (an extension of 17 Ave. NE). While not a designated historic site, Memorial Way is historic from the standpoint that London Plane trees were planted to border both sides of this main entrance to the University, forming an allee´, to represent the 58 University students, faculty and staff that were killed during World War I.45 46 th ! Suzzallo Library – Perhaps one of the most photographed buildings on-campus is Suzzallo Library. The building is named for Henry Suzzallo, the University’s fifteenth president. Originally designed by the firm of Bebb & Gould, construction of the building began in 1923 and the building was completed in 1926. It replaced a wood-frame structure, which served as the University’s library. That building was one of the “temporary” structures that were built for the 1909 AlaskaYukon-Pacific Exposition. That early library facility provided seating for 300 – at a University with a population of roughly 6,600 (Johnston, 1995). Suzzallo Library was originally designed as an equilateral triangle (as viewed in plan view), consistent with the 1915 Regents Plan for the campus. The west-facing wing was the first portion 45 46 Names of the deceased are listed on the pylons at the Memorial Way entrance to the University from N.E. 45th St. Today there are 101 London plane trees along the one-quarter-mile segment of Memorial Way extending from N.E. 45th St. south to the campus flagpole. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 213 of the building that was constructed. Design of that wing is collegiate-Gothic with brick, terracotta, and cast stone. One of the most-impressive features of this façade is the eleven 35-foot high Gothic-traceried stained-glass windows. In 1935, the south-facing component of the building was completed. The design of this addition is also collegiate-Gothic with brick, terra-cotta, cast stone and Gothic-traceried stained-glass windows. The north-facing wing addition, which occurred in the 1960’s, deviated from the original equilateral triangle design and the collegiateGothic style. The style of this wing is classic curtain wall, modeled on the work of Yamasaki. In the 1980’s, a fourth addition to Suzzallo Library was added – the Allen Library. Although it is not collegiate-Gothic, it does reflect the form, scale, massing, texture, details and materials of other nearby campus buildings. ! Glenn Hughes Penthouse Theatre – The Penthouse Theatre is located northeast of the Observatory. This building was originally located in the southwest corner of the Central Campus (present site of the Physics & Astronomy Building). The Penthouse Theatre contains 47 approximately 14,000 sq.ft. of floor area (footprint is 7,082 sq.ft.) and has a building height of 15 - 25 feet. In 1991, it was moved to the present site to provide site area for the Physics & Astronomy building complex. While not a historic structure, the Penthouse Theatre is considered 48 49 to be "architecturally significant ." Built in 1940, the building is considered the first "arena" style theatre in the nation. The Penthouse Theatre is "closely associated with the career of Glenn 50 Hughes, the distinguished director and teacher who served as Northwest regional director of the Federal Theatre Project during the Great Depression. ! Cunningham Hall – Besides the Engineering Annex51, Cunningham Hall is the sole remaining “temporary” building from the 1909 Alaska–Yukon–Pacific Exposition. It is located in the Central Campus, immediately east of Architecture Hall. It is wood-frame building (approx. 5,100 gross sq.ft.; 2,500 sq.ft. lot coverage) that was built as the Women’s Building for the Exposition. The original architect was Saunders & Lawton. After the Exposition, the building served many campus users. In 1974 it was recommended for demolition, however, instead the decision was made to rehabilitate the structure. Rehab was completed in 1979 (The Hastings Group), the building was named for Imogen Cunningham, the internationally known photographer and UW graduate, and the building was designated as the campus Women’s Center (Johnston, 1995). Over the last century, the University of Washington Board of Regents has been the steward of the University of Washington campus. The Regents recognize the value of the campus to the University, the greater University area community, the City of Seattle, the state of Washington and future generations. The campus provides a sense of permanency and place. It is a place of civic pride and beauty. The architecture and open spaces demonstrate and preserve the accomplishments of the past, while providing for the future and allowing development of architectural innovations. While fostering continuous use, required improvements and innovations for significant buildings, the University works to insure that historic significance, value and association of the campus is preserved for the community, City, State and nation. To insure that this occurs on a project by project basis, the University utilizes a multi-step process involving several review points: the Capital Projects Design Review Board, the Campus Landscape Advisory Committee, the Architectural Advisor to the University, the University Architectural Commission and the Board of Regents. Advice is sought from faculty with expertise on University campus history and architecture. While the University is particularly sensitive to historical structures over 50 years old, these same considerations are applied to all campus development through the University’s 47 48 49 50 51 Including basement area. Boyle Wagoner, 1989. Theatre-in-the-round. UW faculty member from 1919-1964. This is a wood-frame building, built in 1909. It is located immediately east of the Mechanical Engineering Building. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 214 Architectural Opportunities Report (AOR) review process, which is described in Chapter IV of the Master Plan. Three structures within several blocks of the campus have been designated historical landmarks by the City of Seattle. They include: ! ! ! Montlake Bridge and Montlake Cut (24th Ave. E and Lake Washington Ship Canal); University Methodist Episcopal Church and Parsonage (Brooklyn Square – 4142 and 4138 Brooklyn Ave. NE); and University Presbyterian Church "Inn" (4555-16th Ave. NE). Impacts of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is not expected to result in any significant historic impacts – either to oncampus or off-campus structures. A comparison of Potential Development Sites with Figure 37 indicates that while future campus development is planned in the vicinity of nearly all the University’s recognized historic structures52, it is expected that such development will not result in any long-term direct or indirect impacts to any of these facilities. The Engineering Annex, one of the two remaining Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition “temporary” structures would be removed and replaced by a new campus building. Construction of future development proximate to the University’s historic structures could be expected to cause temporary indirect impacts, which could affect these buildings including localized increases in suspended particulates (dust), noise, vibration, disruption of pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and a loss of surface parking. As noted in the Master Plan and Section II D. of this Final EIS, the University’s Board of Regents is the steward of the University campus. As such, it is a campus goal to maintain and protect “the value of the University’s physical resources and character, history, architecture and open space. Changes to the campus should improve and enhance, rather than detract from, the value and quality of the campus.”53 The Master Plan further notes that The University’s long established planning process has provided flexibility to meet the mission of the University, promoted continued use of its facilities and spaces, while at the same time considering buildings as sites of special historical, aesthetic and architectural significance. In addition, plans for new buildings have been sensitive to historic plans, and the context created by nearby buildings, open spaces and objects.54 The University’s planning process for capital projects involves Capital Projects Design Review, review by the University’s Architectural Commission, the Campus Landscape Advisory Committee, the Architectural Advisor to the University, and the Board of Regents. In addition, advice is sought from faculty with expertise concerning University campus history and architecture. As noted in the Master Plan, the University has several processes that ensure consideration of historic resources. Each review body “is responsible for raising issues for consideration and balancing the desirability and means of protecting, enhancing and 52 53 54 No future development is planned proximate to Parrington Hall. ensure stewardship goal Master Plan Seattle Campus, Chapter III, Historical Preservation Policies and Practices, History of Campus Planning University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 215 perpetuating historical (person, event or structure), cultural, engineering and architectural campus resources in terms of buildings, spaces and elements of the environment.”55 While the University is particularly sensitive to historical structures over 50 years old, these same considerations are applied to all campus development. The University’s Architectural Opportunities Report (AOR) process is an important tool utilized by the University for early, continuous, consistent and documented consideration of the impact of a proposed development on historic features of the campus. As described in the Master Plan (Chapter V), an AOR is prepared before design work or programmatic discussions occur and it identifies, at the earliest point possible in project development, important issues, opportunities and constraints. The report assesses the architectural context of the site location, its historical context, as well as environmental considerations, Master Plan guidelines, and landscape/open space context. The AOR accompanies the project throughout its development and review process and may be added to and refined based on new information. To further ensure that historic resources are considered, the University would prepare an Historic Resources Addendum (HRA) for any project that makes exterior alterations to a building that is over 50 years of age and for specific historic campus features over 50 years of age, as identified in the Master Plan. The HRA would be an attachment to project documentation to be considered by the appropriate decision-maker. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Because no new construction would occur with this alternative, there would be no impacts to existing historic structures on-campus or in the vicinity of the campus. Decentralization/Open Space Alternative This alternative would result in less on-campus development than under the Proposed Action (approximately 50 percent less). Consequently, in comparison with the proposed Master Plan, fewer new buildings would be built further reducing the potential for impacts to on-campus and offcampus structures. Because of decentralization, off-campus development would occur, which could result in potential impacts to historic structures proximate to the new off-campus buildings. No Street or Alley Vacation Alternative Impacts related to this alternative would be comparable to those of the Proposed Action. A purpose of this alternative would be to consolidate property for a more effective development. Without the street or alley vacations that are proposed, campus development could still occur, however, because property consolidation would not be possible, more buildings may be necessary. The West Campus area is the area that would be most affected. As shown in Figure 37, there are two designated historic structures in the general vicinity of the West Campus; they include: Ye College Inn and University Methodist Episcopal Church. 55 Master Plan Seattle Campus, Chapter III, Historical Preservation Policies and Practices, General Guidelines To Be Utilized in the AOR Specific to Historic Preservation University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 216 Lifting of Lease Limit Lifting of the lease limit would allow the University to participate in development in the University District. All development in the University District would be required to adhere to City of Seattle’s Master Use Permit process, which includes review of applicable development regulations, SEPA, and proximity to designated Landmark structures. Possible Mitigation Measures The following could be available to the Proposed Action and the build alternatives: ! The University’s existing internal design review processes (architectural, landscape, environmental review, architectural advisor, and Board of Regents) would continue to review and authorize every major building project in terms of siting, scale, and the use of compatible building materials relative to recognized historic structures. The University would follow the Architectural Opportunities Report process, as defined in the Master Plan, and where applicable prepare a Historic Resources Addendum as an attachment to all project documentation. As additional mitigation, the University may consider use of the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation, as outlined below. Insure that the site is used for its general historic purpose (i.e. education,) or assigned new uses that require minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Insure that the historic character of a property is retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property should be avoided. Each property should be recognized as a physical record or its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, should not be undertaken. Insure that those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right are retained and preserved in a manner compatible with both the defining characteristics of the building while supporting current needs. Insure that distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property are preserved. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials should not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, should be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Significant archeological resources affected by a project should be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures should be undertaken in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. ! ! - - - - - - Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No Unavoidable Adverse Impacts are anticipated. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III – Historic & Cultural 217 O. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES Affected Environment Public Services – Fire and Police Fire The Seattle Fire Department (SFD) provides prevention, education, fire suppression, medical services, and other related emergency and non-emergency services to the University of Washington. Seattle Fire Department units respond to University fire alarms, chemical spills and medical emergencies. Units from six different geographic stations respond to the University: Station 17 (11th Ave. NE and NE 50th St.); Station 22 (10th Ave. E and E Roanoke St.); Station 38 (33rd Ave. NE and NE 55th St.); Station 9 (linden Ave. N and N 38th St.); Station 16 (70th NE and Oswego), and Station 25 (13th Ave. and NE Pine St.). If the first assigned units are not available, backup units are dispatched accordingly. Each response consists of at least one engine company staffed by three to six firefighters. A full response team will consist of up to four engines, two ladder companies, associated aid units, and one or two battalion chiefs. When special hazardous conditions warrant it, a hazardous response team is dispatched, as well as a full response team. The hazardous response team consists of an additional engine company, a ladder company, a Hazardous Materials Emergency Unit and a deputy chief. The type of response assigned by the SFD’s alarm center is determined by the nature of the received emergency request. Approximate response time to the University ranges from three to five minutes. The University maintains a comprehensive fire safety program for the campus. Staffing includes fire protection engineers, fire safety specialists, environmental health and safety technologists, fire alarm control technicians, facilities operations maintenance specialists and a utilities maintenance staff. The fire safety engineers and fire safety specialists provide life safety consulting and monitoring services for the University, as well as review of documents for all fire systems and approval of installations. Facilities operations maintenance specialists and Environmental Health and Safety staff are responsible for maintaining and testing all University fire suppression systems. Fire alarm control technicians test and maintain the fire alarm systems, and utility workers service portable fire extinguishers. Most of the major buildings on campus are equipped with a monitored fire alarm system. Alarms are monitored by an approved central station as well as a local monitoring system that is owned, operated and maintained by the University. The University of Washington Police Department (UWPD) operates a proprietary Central Communication Center to coordinate University Police, Environmental Health and Safety, and Facilities Services support to the SFD. The University has historically built and maintained fire resistant buildings meeting, and in some cases exceeding, minimum code requirements. Fire loss history at the University is favorable. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Public Services/Utilities 218 The SFD responds to automatic alarms at the University approximately 6 times per week (Peltzer, 2000). The number of alarms and SFD responses on campus has generally decreased between 1990 and 1999, while the quantity of individual fire and smoke detection devices has increased from new construction and alarm system replacement. In 1990, there were 487 calls for service (fire alarms); in 1999, the number of alarms dropped to 319 (not including medic [SFD EMT] responses). The decrease may be attributed to improved technology and administrative efforts. Police The University of Washington Police Department (UWPD) employs 51 commissioned officers, 3 non-commissioned security guards and 31 civilians. All commissioned members of the Department have completed State-required basic law enforcement training. The Department has its own conflict management, firearms and first aid instructors. The Department maintains a crime prevention unit and a detective unit for criminal case preparation and prosecution. The Department is also responsible for dormitory security and parking enforcement on the campus. The entire campus is patrolled 24 hours a day by three patrol cars. The Seattle Police Department provides backup service to the University Police Department for major emergencies and planned special events, such as Husky football games. The University Hospital portion of the Health Sciences Center also maintains a security guard force of 8 employees to provide security services for most hospital shifts. In addition, funding is being considered for 4 security guards to provide security service in the Health Sciences complex. Table 31 illustrates the total Part I Crimes reported from 1990 to 1999. In general, the number of calls for service increased between 1990 and 1999. The fewest number of calls, 8,242 calls, was made in 1994, and the highest number – 10,21 – was made in 1999. As shown, the total number of crimes reported by UWPD has decreased by approximately 13 percent, from 1,769 crimes in 1990 to 1,546 crimes in 1999. Between 1990 and 1999, the occurrence of Part I crimes (involving homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, vehicle theft and arson) also decreased, by approximately 16 percent. Table 31 CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICE AND CRIMES COMMITTED 1990-1999 Year Calls for Service Total Crimes Part I Crimes 1990 9,164 1991 8,936 1992 9,298 1993 8,904 1994 8,242 1995 8,952 1996 9,174 1997 9,477 1998 9,723 1999 10,215 1,769 1,745 1,800 1,679 1,605 1,521 1,368 1,483 1,729 1,546 1,143 1,085 1,053 1,071 1,137 1,105 966 1,039 1,121 963 Note: These crime statistics may not agree with other published crime statistics from the same years due to differences in crime definitions used by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), FBI (UCR and NIBRS), and the Jeanne Clery Act. Source: University of Washington Police Department, 2000. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Public Services/Utilities 219 Utilities – Sewer, Water and Solid Waste Sewer In 1999, the University of Washington began metering sewage outflow. In that year, it was determined that sewage outflow amounted to 738,726 total units, or 1,552,037 gallons per day (University of Washington, 2000c)52. This outflow was 86 percent of water used (see discussion of water below). The difference between sewage outflow and water usage generally includes such factors as irrigation, consumption, line losses and other unaccounted demand. The University owns and maintains its own sanitary collection system. The system contributes to the Metro trunk sewer or the City of Seattle collection system, with treatment and disposal at Metro’s West Point sewage treatment facility. A limited amount of storm water in the older sections of campus is routed to sanitary sewers. Generally, sanitary and storm sub-trunk lines parallel one another within established utility corridors following natural gradients from north to south and laterals connect the various service points or areas to the sub-trunk. Upper campus contributory sanitary sub-trunk flows are intercepted by the 138- to 108-inch diameter Metro-Northlake trunk sewer that follows Montlake Boulevard NE to the south and NE Pacific St. to the west. In South, West and portions of Central Campus, sewage drains to the NE Pacific drain by gravity where possible. Otherwise, sanitary flows are collected and lifted back into the Metro trunk sewer in NE Pacific St. by means of the University South Campus sewage lift stations or the City of Seattle lift station located at Brooklyn and N.E. Boat St. The City’s lift station may be inadequately sized to support further development in the South, Southwest and West areas of campus. The campus sanitary sewer system is considered adequately sized to meet current and projected future needs. There are few remaining combined sanitary and storm sewers; an estimated 13 percent of the stormwater system is combined with sewer lines. The lines are classified as sanitary and treated as such for routing and disposal. Although trunk line storage is available through the Metro regulator station, during periods of considerable stormwater runoff, the Metro Northlake trunk sewer overflows sanitary sewage into Portage Bay. The sewage is diluted to some extent with stormwater and discharged through an 84-inch diameter overflow pipeline into Portage Bay. In 1994, storm water runoff from the University Regulator basin was separated from the sanitary sewer system through the construction of a new discharge line. This project was anticipated to reduce combined sewer overflow by 50 percent. Water Supply The University of Washington campus is directly served through University-owned water mains supplied by the City of Seattle Water Department’s intermediate and low-pressure water system through meters located at NE Pacific St. and 15th Ave. NE, at NE 40th St. and 10th Ave. NE, at NE 45th St. and 19th Ave. NE, at 15th Ave. NE and NE 42nd and NE 40th St.s, at 25th Ave. NE and NE 45th St., and at Montlake Blvd. and NE Pacific. The ultimate source of supply for the University’s low-pressure system is the City of Seattle’s Green Lake Reservoir (overflow elevation 316’) located at 15th Ave. NE and NE 73rd St.. 52 One unit equals 100 cubit feet. Section III - Public Services/Utilities 220 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Service to the University is provided through a 20-inch main in NE 55th St., 2- and 32-inch mains in 7th and 10th avenues NE, respectively, and 12- and 8-inch lines to the NE Pacific and NE 40th St. entrances. The 25th Ave. NE service line and the connection at Montlake and NE Pacific St. tap the City’s 54-inch line to the Maple Leaf Reservoir (overflow elevation 420’) located at Roosevelt Way and NE 83rd St.. City-owned pressure reducing stations lower this intermediate pressure sufficiently to allow connection of the two systems on campus. The intermediate pressure system (420’) directly serves the northwestern portion (approximately 50 acres) of the main campus through an 8-inch metered service line at NE 45th St. and 19th Ave. NE, and NE 42nd St. and 15th Ave. NE. The remainder of campus is served by the campus low-pressure system. Under the terms of an appropriation permit, the University has historically withdrawn water from the Lake Washington Ship Canal from the pump house located directly south of Fisheries Center. This water is used for cooling purposes in the Medical Center. The water is then returned to Lake Union at slightly elevated (10 degrees) temperatures. Aggressive conservation programs have resulted in fairly constant University water usage levels over the past 10 years, even though approximately 1,000,000 sq.ft. of new buildings were added to the system. In 1999, 860,635 units of water, 1,808,163 gallons per day, were purchased and consumed on the University campus53. Solid Waste The University’s current solid waste management system consists of several different programs that handle both disposal and recycling of solid waste. Most of the mixed solid waste generated on-campus is collected by the University’s solid waste collection service. The University’s property and Transportation Services manage both programs. In addition some campus facilities have their own trucks and haul waste generated on an occasional basis, such as for special events or for special projects. Most of this waste is taken to the North Transfer Station. The waste collected by Bayside Disposal is from those campus facilities that generate large quantities of waste and require larger containers and special equipment for loading and unloading the containers. Bayside hauls the waste to its own transfer station and then to Cedar Hills Landfill operated by King County; some types of waste requiring special handling are hauled directly to the landfill. The University’s collection services transport waste from numerous campus facilities that generate smaller quantities of waste to the City of Seattle’s North Transfer Station for disposal. The City then hauls its waste to the Cedar Hills landfill, operated by King County. The University has reduced solid waste generation by promoting recycling. Begun in 1973 with the recycling of paper, the recycling program has evolved into a campus-wide collection of multiple recyclable waste products. In addition to paper products, the University recycles used motor oil, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and some aluminum, glass, and cardboard. Leaves are composted for use on planting beds, and branches are reduced to chips and used in fill areas. Weekly pickup of recycled paper products occurs in all major buildings, with unscheduled pickups arranged by telephone. University solid waste and recycling volumes from 1990 to 1999 are shown in Table 32. In 1999, the University produced a total of 10,360 tons of 53 One unit equals 100 cubic feet. Section III - Public Services/Utilities 221 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS waste, sending 6,313 tons to the landfill and recycling 4,047 tons (University of Washington, 2000c). In the fiscal year 1999-2000, the University saved $361,545 by diverting solid waste from the landfill. Recycling during that time period saved approximately 25,000 trees and over 10 million gallons of water54. Table 32 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING VOLUMES 1990-1999 Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Landfilled Solid Waste (tons) 6,321 6,120 6,530 7,228 5,456 5,104 5,581 5,800 5,978 6,313 Recycled Waste Volume (tons) Percent of Total Waste 1,141 15.3% 1,158 15.9% 2,734 29.5% 3,440 32.3% 3,007 36.1% 3,688 41.9% 4,010 41.8% 3,941 40.5% 4,156 41.2% 4,047 39.0% Source: University of Washington Transportation, Property and Transport Services, 2000. See Environmental Health, Section III.F, for discussion of hazardous wastes. Impacts of the Proposed Action Public Services – Fire and Police Fire The Master Plan Seattle Campus is not expected to result in significant impacts to the Seattle Fire Department with regard to service demands. An estimated 3 million sq. ft. of new development is proposed. In addition, this amount of development is projected to occur over the lifetime of the Master Plan Seattle Campus – not within a period of a few years. Additional demands on Department inspection staff would likely occur during construction and on an annual basis. The need for inspection services would be dispersed over the 10-year planning period. During construction, access of emergency vehicles and personnel to construction sites is of primary concern, as is adequate fire separation between construction and occupied areas. Review of construction plans and verification of the installation, acceptance, and maintenance of fire alarm and suppression systems will require constant staff attention. It is expected that University development would comply with City of Seattle Fire Code requirements, as an integral component of all new development and as needed to improve the safety of existing structures. 54 Trees and gallons of water saved calculated based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conversion figures. Section III - Public Services/Utilities 222 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS It is anticipated that the existing central fire alarm system on campus would not likely support additional demand associated with planned growth. Replacement of the system would likely be required in the 2002-2012 planning period to provide adequate capacity and to allow for enhanced information to be available to the SFD and UWPD. Police The proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus would result in new development and campus population increases that will require additional security and patrol services. According to existing trends, total crimes and Part I crimes reported may continue to decline if UWPD staff levels (on a per capita basis) are maintained. As the campus population grows overtime, the University of Washington and City of Seattle Police Department North Precinct may be required to hire additional commissioned officers and department staff to meet demand. Utilities – Sewer, Water and Solid Waste Sewer Based on the estimated 9,120-person increase in campus population by 2012, an increased sewage outflow of approximately 390,000 gallons per day (25 percent) would be expected. It is anticipated that the City’s lift station would not likely support further development in the South and West areas of campus. That station and some older sewer lines (obstructed by settlement and tree roots) would have to be improved or replaced if capacity is inadequate or failures occur. In general, the campus sanitary sewer system is considered adequately sized to meet current and projected future needs. Water Construction and long-term operations under the proposed Master Plan would generate additional demands on water supply. Water demand would increase by an estimated 28 percent; Table 33 shows the projected increase in water consumption by 2012. Table 33 PROJECTED INCREASE IN WATER CONSUMPTION 2012 Approx. Net Increase in Sq.Ft. 3,000,000 Percent Increase Over 1999 levels 28%1 Unit Increase 240,0001 Notes: 1. Not including aggressive conservation measures on existing campus. Source: University of Washington Capital Projects Office, 2000. The water distribution system is direct buried and adequately sized to meet current and future needs. Taps connecting new facilities to the existing system would be required as construction occurs. In the unlikely event of one of the mains failing, the campus could maintain water pressure, although usage would need to be limited. Older sections of piping would be replaced as the opportunity arises. Overall, instances of failure have been uncommon and would not be expected to increase during the planning period. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Public Services/Utilities 223 Solid Waste Solid waste generation rates would likely be consistent with existing trends. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of campus solid waste would continue to be recycled, as has been the case over the past 5 years (1995 to 1999). See Environmental Health, Section III.F, for discussion of hazardous waste. Impacts of the Alternatives No Action Alternative Public services demands would not be expected to differ significantly from that described under the proposed Master Plan. Decentralized/Open Space Alternative This alternative would include less development than under the proposed plan (approximately 50 percent less development). Although planned construction and development would be reduced, sewer volumes and demand for fire, police and solid waste services would likely be similar to that described for the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. These elements of public services are primarily determined by population rather than building area (refer to the Population section). Required sewer infrastructure improvements may, however, be reduced if fewer sewer line connections are required. Under this alternative, University housing and institutional capacity (and associated demand for services) could be shifted to off-campus areas. No Street and Alley Vacations Alternative Building area would be partially reduced under this alternative. Although planned construction and development would be reduced, sewer volumes and demand for fire, police and solid waste services would likely be similar to that described for the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. These elements of public services are primarily determined by population rather than building area (refer to the Population section). Required sewer infrastructure improvements would, however, be reduced as fewer sewer line connections would be required. Lifting of Lease Limit Lifting of the lease limit would allow the University to participate in development in the University District. University related development in the University District would increase the demand for services and utilities in the University District. Service and utility conditions in the University District would be as described in the UCUC Plan Expanded Environmental Checklist55, and significant impacts would not be anticipated. 55 Seattle, 1998a. Section III - Public Services/Utilities 224 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Possible Mitigation Measures ! All projects could be built to meet current fire code standards (as discussed above) in order to reduce fire-related hazards. Fire separations, automatic sprinklers, fire suppression systems and fire alarm systems could be installed as appropriate. The Seattle Fire Department could be notified of major utility shutdowns as well as campus street closures. Improvements to or replacement of the central alarm system should within the next 10 years in order to effectively accommodate development-related growth. The University could review the designs for new development on a project-by-project basis, evaluating the potential for impacts to life safety and personnel security. During the construction phases of major University projects, UWPD could provide escort services in the event of an emergency. The UWPD may need to increase its law enforcement staff capacity and expand its operations to meet increased security needs associated with the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus. Where necessary, the University could grant easements to maintain water lines or bear the cost of relocation. The University’s program to separate combined sewers should continue until complete or until the University and the Seattle Drainage Utility identify alternative programs to respond to new federal regulations on storm water runoff. Solid waste impacts associated with the Master Plan could include enhancement of current campus recycling programs. The University could comply with applicable existing and new regulatory requirements. Programs to publicize water conservation on campus could continue. Drip watering or low precipitation output systems could be used for irrigation wherever possible, and types of ground cover that require less irrigation could continue to be used. Irrigation conservation measures could continue. Opportunities to use/reuse recycled water are being investigated in cooperation with the King County Department of Natural Resources. Where appropriate, recycled water could be considered for nonpotable water usage. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The demand for fire and police services would increase in conjunction with the proposed Master Plan Seattle Campus, in relation to inspection requirements, and with growth over time. Sewage and solid waste volumes generated and water required on campus would increase with population growth over the planning period. Public water supplies would be reduced by approximately 240,000 units per year upon full development of all proposed projects. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Public Services/Utilities 225 P. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION and PARKING The following section is based on the University of Washington Master Plan Transportation Technical Report prepared by DKS Associates. This information highlights key findings and conclusions specific to each mode of travel and forecasted conditions for the University of Washington. Affected Environment Methodology and Assumptions Future Growth Since 1990, the University of Washington has seen an 11% increase in the total population of faculty, staff and students raising from 50,000 (in 1990) to the current population of 55,52556. The University of Washington has determined that over the next ten years the campus population could expand by approximately 16% to 64,645 in total57. Future analysis for the Master Plan is based upon this future population number. Table 34 summarizes the existing and forecasted Master Plan population by student, staff and faculty. Table 34 Existing and Forecasted Campus Population 1999 Students Staff Faculty Total 35,062 14,428 6,035 55,525 2012 39,182 18,028 7,435 64,645 Change in Population + 4,120 + 3,600 + 1,400 + 9,120 Source: University of Washington In addition to this growth, new development is planned for the University of Washington over the next ten years. Approximately 8.3 million gross square feet (GSF) has been identified for potential development space for the University of Washington. During the life of the Campus Master Plan, it is expected to develop up to 3 million gross square feet. Trip Generation The population of the University of Washington is a key determinant for campus trip generation. The numbers of students, faculty, staff, patients, visitors and other campus users all play a role in the daily vehicle trip activity to and from campus. Table 35 shows the existing (1999) daily 58 vehicle trips generated by campus population. Population numbers were provided by the University of Washington for the years 1990 and 1999. Future population number determined and provided by the University of Washington. 58 Based on a methodology using existing campus traffic count data at gate locations, the 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey and the University District Cordon Count. 57 56 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Transportation 226 Table 35 Existing Daily Trip Generation by Campus Population User Students Faculty Staff Patients Visitor Other Total Source: DKS Associates, 2000 1999 26,200 14,575 24,460 2,630 8,530 3,635 80,030 Forecasting Model The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) regional travel demand forecasting model was used to help determine the background growth in traffic for both the base year 1997 and future year 2020. This model was used to provide trip distribution information and background traffic growth (non-campus). The PSRC model is a four step modeling process consisting of trip generation, distribution, mode choice and trip assignment. The model incorporates four counties (King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap) with 850 traffic analysis zones (TAZ) that reflect current land use and growth patterns for the region. The University of Washington is represented by two of these TAZs. The model compares transit, drive alone (SOV), and auto occupancies of 2, 3 and 4 or more persons including inputs related to auto costs, transit fares, highway congestion and transit service. Further analysis of the 1997 and 2020 PSRC regional travel demand model showed a large growth in housing and employment in the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) surrounding the University of Washington. Table 36 shows the relative growth in housing and employment for the associated TAZs that border the University of Washington (but do not include the University of Washington) that would have a direct influence on background growth on the transportation network. Table 36 1997 and 2020 Employment and Housing Data for TAZs Near Campus TAZ 54 56 59 70 71 87 88 1997 Housing Employment 3,798 3,482 1,754 607 3,293 1,574 4,828 1,474 5,652 6,731 4,438 3,859 1,707 377 2020 Housing Employment 4,200 4,317 1,645 818 4,845 2,345 5,693 2,672 6,932 9,094 4,856 4,660 1,689 413 Growth (%) Housing Employment 11% 24% -6% 35% 47% 50% 18% 82% 23% 35% 9% 21% -1% 10% Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Travel Demand Model University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Transportation 227 Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution represents the estimation and forecast of where trips go to and come from. For this study, the future trip distribution was based upon predicted patterns from the PSRC regional travel demand forecast model. Data from the model was compared with data provided through zip code surveys conducted by the University of Washington, 1999 U-PASS survey data and recent surveys for the University of Washington Medical Center. This comparison was done to help validate the PSRC model results because the model is not specific to the University of Washington, but rather regional in nature. The zip code data helped validate the findings in the PSRC model while the medical center surveys helped to define the types of users for the south campus and the types of trip patterns those users make. Table 37 summarizes the zip code data provided by the University of Washington. Table 37 University of Washington Campus Population Zip Code Data Summary Area Eastside North King County North Seattle Central Seattle South Seattle West Seattle South King County Snohomish County Pierce County Other Totals Source: University of Washington Students 6% 6% 15% 52% 1% 1% 13% 4% 1% 1% 100% Faculty 12% 10% 24% 38% 2% 2% 6% 3% 1% 2% 100% Staff 9% 11% 19% 33% 5% 2% 7% 11% 1% 2% 100% The results from both the PSRC model and the survey data were similar in nature, however, where specific data existed that would be more useful for a sector (such as the UWMC surveys), it was used to help forecast trip distribution and assignment for specific future conditions. This was done because of the unique nature of the users of that area. The PSRC travel model was used for future travel patterns since it takes into account changes in travel patterns as a result of regional land use and transportation changes (which cannot be accurately portrayed by existing travel surveys). The UWMC facilities serve a different type of user than the majority of the University of Washington, so this data was aimed at determining the facilities used to access the UWMC and what type of travel mode was used by the users. This data is useful to determine trip distribution and assignment for similar types of facilities developed by the University. Figure 38 summarizes the results of the survey. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Transportation 228 Figure 38 - UWMC Survey Data for Mode Split and Access UWMC Mode Split Other Vans Ambulance Mode Taxi Car Bus Walk 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Source: University of Washington Corridor Choice to Access UWMC Other 9% I-5 South 27% I-5 North 37% 520 West 27% As Figure 38 indicates, the users of the UWMC are predominately auto oriented and further information in the study indicates that 98% of the auto drivers park at or near the UWMC facilities. The number of vehicle trips for University of Washington students, staff and faculty are not forecasted to grow in aggregate based upon the new TMP. However, the vehicle trips associated with parking facilities could be redistributed on the street network based on development detailed in the Master Plan. If this occurs, the reallocated trips associated with parking facilities were assumed to be distributed to the existing transportation network based on the PSRC travel demand model to provide local traffic analysis. Existing Mode Share In addition to the annual traffic counts performed by the University of Washington, mode share data is also collected on a biennual basis. This data helps to track the mode split of faculty, staff and students. This existing mode Figure 39 – 1998 Mode Split Data split is an important assumption that is used for analyzing existing conditions Carpool/ and future potential for mode share. Other Vanpool Drive Alone Figure 39 indicates the existing mode 1% 12% 25% Bicycle split for all modes to campus59. 6% Motor Vehicle The University of Washington implemented the U-PASS program on September 30, 1991. The primary goal 59 Walk 27% Transit 29% Data taken from the 1999 U-PASS Annual Report, page 3. Section III - Transportation 229 University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS was to reduce the number of vehicle trips and parking that would impact the surrounding neighborhoods as a result of increased development on the campus. According to the U-PASS Annual Report, “The U-PASS is an innovative transportation management program that offers a complete Source: 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey package of flexible transportation benefits at a very low price.” Through a combination of financial incentives and the offering of a range of transportation choices, students, faculty and staff are encouraged to using travel modes other than driving alone. A unique feature of the U-PASS program is the offer of transportation options to faculty and staff. There are two strategies that are offered to faculty and staff, but not to students. These are the Reimbursed Ride Home program and the discount daily parking passes, referred to as Individual Commuter Tickets. To date, the U-PASS program has been successful at encouraging the use of alternative commute modes. In the Autumn of 1998, over 41,000 U-PASSes were in circulation, with 81 percent of students, and 40 percent of faculty and staff purchasing a U-PASS. With an overall drive alone mode share of only 28 percent: 16 percent of students, 55 percent of faculty, and 40 percent of staff drive alone. In 1989 (prior to U-PASS), these percentages were 33 percent, 25 percent, 60 percent and 44 percent, respectively. Historic Data The establishment of the conditions for GPDP approval set forth by the City of Seattle in 1992 has created a biennial University District Cordon Count performed by the City of Seattle. Cordon counts for the City of Seattle are done at fourteen different locations and are aimed at determining the growth in background traffic versus the growth in University of Washington related trips to the campus area. This is done to help determine if the University of Washington is at or below the estimated vehicle trip caps established in the 1992 agreement. The number of estimated University of Washington related vehicle trips is based on a road survey at fourteen different cordon count locations which asks a sample of drivers if they are coming from, or going to, the University of Washington and its facilities. This helps estimate a percentage of UW trips in comparison to the total number of cordon trips. Tables 38 and 39 summarize the past University District Cordon Counts for the AM peak and PM peak periods with respect to University trips and non-University trips60. The AM peak cordon count for the University District trips indicates that over the past eight years, the inbound trips to the University have decreased overall while the non-University trips have increased. The outbound trips from campus have increased over the past eight years, but at approximately half the rate than the non-University trips have (from 6.5% compared to 11.3%). University of Washington trips at their highest level (1997) were still 1,562 trips (approximately 15%) below the trip cap established in the GPDP approval agreement with the City of Seattle. The University of Washington trips comprise approximately 45% of the total AM peak inbound trips from the cordon while the non-University trips comprise the remaining 55%. 60 Data provided through the 1999 University District Cordon Study. This data can be found on-line at: http://www.washington.edu/upass/reports.html University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Transportation 230 Table 38 Historic AM Peak University District Cordon Count Summary Direction University Trips Inbound to campus Outbound from campus Subtotal Share Non-University Trips Inbound to cordon Outbound from cordon Subtotal Total Trips Inbound to cordon Outbound from cordon Total 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Percent change 1991 to 1999 -0.3% 6.5% 1.0% 8,783 1,925 10,708 34% 10,158 10,691 20,849 18,941 12,616 31,557 8,855 1,946 10,801 33% 10,210 11,393 21,603 19,065 13,339 32,404 8,780 2,065 10,845 34% 10,018 11,264 21,282 18,798 13,329 32,127 9,158 2,330 11,488 35% 9,546 11,429 20,975 18,704 13,759 32,463 8,760 2,051 10,811 33% 10,483 11,899 22,382 19,243 13,950 33,193 3.2% 11.3% 7.4% 1.6% 10.6% 5.2% Source: University of Washington, 1999 University District Cordon Study. Table 39 Historic PM Peak University District Cordon Count Summary Direction University Trips Inbound to campus Outbound from campus Subtotal Share Non-University Trips Inbound to cordon Outbound from cordon Subtotal Total Trips Inbound to cordon Outbound from cordon Total 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Percent change 1991 to 1999 -6.1% 5.3% 1.0% 6,909 11,559 18,468 30% 21,715 21,211 42,929 28,624 32,770 61,394 6,561 12,153 18,714 30% 22,380 21,645 44,025 28,941 33,798 62,739 6,542 12,403 18,945 31% 21,960 20,564 42,524 28,502 32,967 61,469 6,239 12,824 19,063 31% 21,551 20,503 42,054 27,790 33,327 61,117 6,491 12,166 18,657 30% 22,118 21,871 43,989 28,609 34,037 62,646 1.9% 3.1% 2.5% -0.1% 3.9% 2.0% Source: University of Washington, 1999 University District Cordon Study. The PM peak cordon count for the University District trips indicates that while over the past eight years the outbound trips from the University have risen, during the last two years outbound trips decreased by five percent. The outbound trips for non-University vehicles have risen over the University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Transportation 231 past eight years showing approximately the same number of trips in growth as the University trips while the number of total outbound PM peak non-University trips is approximately 45% higher than the University trips. The University of Washington trips comprise approximately 36% of the total outbound cordon PM trips while the non-University trips comprise the remaining 64% of the trips. The University of Washington has conducted a campus traffic count over the past seventeen years, which helps to determine how many vehicle trips enter and leave the University of Washington property. Figure 40 summarizes the historical traffic counts for the University of Washington. Figure 40 – Historic Annual Campus Traffic Count Historic Vehicle Trips to/from Campus 12000 AM Peak 10000 PM Peak 8000 Trips 6000 4000 2000 0 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 99 Ye ar The introduction of the U-PASS program in 1991 helped to dramatically reduce the number of vehicle trips even though the campus population increased over the same period. The number of inbound trips during the AM peak period decreased approximately 20% while the PM peak period trips decreased approximately 9% with the introduction of the U-PASS program61. Existing Traffic Operations The study area is comprised of many key roadways that serve the University of Washington. AM and PM peak hour traffic movements were collected at key intersections within the study area as well as 24-hour volume counts at locations around the University. The highest volumes generally occurred in the PM peak period (3PM – 6PM). Figure 41 shows the key study area intersection and the average daily traffic (ADT) on the roadways that serve the University. 61 Data provided by the 1999 Annual Campus Traffic Count. This data is also provided on the internet at: http://www.washington.edu/upass/reports.html University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Transportation 232 Capacity conditions at the key intersections in the study area were also evaluated for the AM and PM peak periods. Table 40 summarizes the intersection operations for each intersection during these peak periods. The AM peak period generally operates at a LOS “C” or better for many signalized intersections with only four signalized intersections operating at a LOS “D”. Many of the intersections that operate at LOS “D” do so due to abnormal intersection geometry such as a fifth leg, and/or heavy volumes that produce congestion and queuing from upstream movements. The unsignalized and all-way stop intersections in the AM peak generally operate at, or better than, LOS “D”. The heavy volumes along Montlake Boulevard create additional delay at unsignalized intersections for vehicles gaining access to Montlake Boulevard. There is also some additional delay experienced at the intersection of Memorial Way/Stevens Way due to inbound vehicles to campus. The all-way stop intersections have two intersections that operate at LOS “F”. The first intersection is located at 6th Avenue/40th Street (under the I-5 bridge) and has a heavy westbound left turn in the AM that then travels south and creates a heavy southbound left turn at the intersection of 6th Avenue/Northlake Way. Both of these heavy vehicular movements create a delay that lowers the average LOS at the intersection. The PM peak signalized intersections generally operate at LOS “D” or better. However, there are some intersections that are operating at or near capacity and experience some significant delay associated with queues. Queuing occurs along 45th Street, 50th Street, Montlake Boulevard and Pacific Street due to the ramp metering in place on Interstate 5 and SR-520. This queuing is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. The unsignalized intersections operate at a LOS “C” or better with four intersections operating below that. Three of these intersections are located on Montlake Boulevard and the decreased level of service associated with these intersections are due to left turning movements attempting to cross Montlake Boulevard. The fourth intersection is Memorial Way/Stevens Way. The all-way stop intersections operate at LOS “C” or better with the exception of two intersections. The first intersection (7th Avenue/40th Street) is a five leg intersection and has additional delay associated with the addition of another leg to a normal operating all-way stop intersection. The other intersection that experiences delay is 6th Avenue/40th Street that has a heavy vehicle movement in both the northbound and eastbound directions. University of Washington Master Plan Seattle Campus Final EIS Section III - Transportation 233 Avenue NE 50th Street Roosevelt University 22,200 Ave Avenue Ave Brooklyn 11th 15th 39,300 NE 45th Street 5,400 17th Avenue Way 21,800 Ave Memorial Way NE NE 7th Avenue 43rd Street 43rd Street University 41,300 Orei lle Rd. Pend 16,500 ay sW en ev St NE 42nd Street 4,700 9,300 1,830 48,800 5,300 4,800 NE Northlake W 5,000 5,900 2,400 13,500 ay Burke-G ilma n Tr ail NE Pacific Street 34, 500 28 ,00 15th 0 19 ,7 00 LEG EN D - Signalized Intersection - U nsignalized Intersection - All- way Stop C ontrolled Intersection - D irection of Travel 5,000 - Average D aily Traffic Location 60,600 42,100 Montla ke Ave nue Bouleva rd NE 16, 200 3,900 Table 40 AM and PM Peak Period Study Area Intersection Performance Location Signalized th I-5 southbound/50 Street ramps th I-5 northbound/50 Street ramps th th 9 Avenue/50 Street th Roosevelt Way/50 Street th th 11 Avenue/50 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/50 Street th University Way/50 Street th th 15 Avenue/50 Street th th 17 Avenue/50 Street th Roosevelt Way/47 Street th th 11 Avenue/47 Street th th 15 Avenue/47 Street th I-5 southbound/45 Street ramps th I-5 northbound/45 Street ramps th Roosevelt Way/45 Street th th 11 Avenue/45 Street th th 12 Avenue/45 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/45 Street th University Way/45 Street th th 15 Avenue/45 Street th th 17 Avenue/45 Street th th 18 Avenue/45 Street th th 19 Avenue/45 Street th th 20 Avenue/45 Street th Montlake Boulevard/45 Street th 45 Street/Mary Gates/Union Pl. rd th 43 Street/11 Avenue rd 43 Street/University Way rd th 43 Street/15 Avenue th 25 Avenue/Pend Oreille Road th 44 Street/Montlake Boulevard nd 42 Street (north)/Roosevelt Way nd th 42 Street/11 Avenue nd 42 Street/University Way nd th 42 Street/15 Avenue th 25 Avenue/Montlake Boulevard nd th 42 Street/7 Avenue nd 42 Street (south)/Roosevelt Way th st 15 Avenue/41 Street Brooklyn Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) University Way/Campus Parkway (west) th 15 Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) Eastlake Avenue/Campus Parkway (east) Brooklyn Avenue/Campus Parkway (east) University Way/Campus Parkway (east) th 15 Avenue/Campus Parkway (east) th University Way/40 Street th th 15 Avenue/40 Street Boat Street/Pacific Street University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Delay 28.3 22.9 3.2 24.5 13.6 11.0 15.5 12.1 18.3 6.1 9.5 6.6 18.6 19.6 30.7 11.4 11.5 20.4 10.3 38.0 36.5 2.0 1.3 6.9 14.1 52.3 9.0 15.1 2.8 16.2 9.0 4.2 8.7 14.8 4.1 20.0 18.5 10.7 29.1 15.0 15.1 0.4 1.5 15.6 16.7 13.3 16.1 14.6 8.4 AM Peak LOS C C A C B B B B B A A A B B C B B C B D D A A A B D A B A B A A A B A B B B C B B A A B B B B B A V/C 0.78 0.52 0.27 0.71 0.35 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.36 0.46 0.16 0.37 0.63 0.64 0.92 0.42 0.46 0.54 0.37 0.70 0.66 0.42 0.36 0.45 0.73 0.98 0.20 0.23 0.44 0.70 0.53 0.57 0.21 0.21 0.39 0.68 0.31 0.53 0.35 0.23 0.16 0.25 0.57 0.29 0.21 0.46 0.21 0.38 0.73 Delay 43.3 50.5 7.3 19.6 29.3 21.1 17.0 12.4 24.6 10.6 18.6 16.5 42.0 45.4 21.7 22.8 12.2 28.0 14.2 43.0 33.7 3.9 2.1 3.4 24.7 67.0 11.6 17.1 2.4 21.7 12.4 5.2 7.5 16.4 7.9 18.6 28.0 9.3 26.4 16.1 15.7 0.5 3.6 17.9 16.6 15.2 17.1 5.6 10.4 PM Peak LOS D D A B C C B B C B B B D D C C B C B D C A A A C E B B A C B A A B A B C A C B B A A B B B B A B V/C 0.78 0.76 0.41 0.60 0.77 0.65 0.55 0.48 0.44 0.34 0.38 0.40 0.63 0.73 0.61 0.58 0.50 0.61 0.40 0.81 0.72 0.30 0.45 0.51 0.90 0.99 0.49 0.36 0.40 0.72 0.78 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.43 0.53 0.45 0.87 0.35 0.25 0.32 0.61 0.40 0.26 0.37 0.34 0.26 0.52 Section III - Transportation 235 Table 40 continued Brooklyn Avenue/Pacific Street University Way/Pacific Street th 15 Avenue/Pacific Street Pacific Street/Pacific Place Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Place Pacific Street/Hospital exit (PM only) Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Street SR-520 eastbound/Montlake Boulevard Unsignalized th th 9 Avenue (south leg)/45 Street th 9 Avenue (north leg) st th 21 Avenue/45 Street rd 43 Street (east leg)/Roosevelt Way rd 43 Street (west leg)/Roosevelt Way st 41 Street/Roosevelt Way th st 12 Avenue/41 Street st University Way/41 Street th 40 Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) th Eastlake Avenue/40 Street Montlake Blvd/E1 parking (Wahkiakum Lane) Montlake Boulevard/IMA exit Montlake Boulevard/IMA entrance Brooklyn Avenue/Boat Street th 15 Avenue/Boat Street Boat Street/Gate 6 turnaround Pacific Street/Hospital exit (AM only) All-Way Stop th th 20 Avenue/50 Street Memorial Way/Stevens Way Pend Oreille Road/Stevens Way th Stevens Way/40 Street st Brooklyn Avenue/41 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/40 Street th th 7 Avenue/40 Street th th 6 Avenue/40 Street th 6 Avenue/Northlake Way Signalized Intersection: LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average delay per intersection V/C = Volume-to-capacity ratio 23.4 15.3 21.4 11.9 15.9 33.5 42.1 C B C B B C D C B B C B C A B A F F D A B B B E A C B B A A C F F 0.40 0.45 0.67 0.61 0.77 0.98 1.00 27.7 20.8 26.8 56.5 55.0 11.4 > 80 64.2 C C C E E B F E C C B B B C B C A C F F E B B B B B B B C B E F C 0.47 0.43 0.75 0.98 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.98 - - Unsignalized Intersection: X = Minor roadway left turn All-Way Stop Intersection: X = Average level of service at intersection Note: The Pacific Street/Hospital exit intersection operates as a signalized intersection in the PM peak and as an unsignalized in the AM peak. Existing Travel Time Travel time runs were performed along six major corridors within the study area. These six corridors were; Roosevelt Way, 11th Avenue, 15th Avenue, Pacific Street, 45th Street and Montlake Boulevard62. The travel speeds in the study area range from 3 to 15 miles per hour 62 Travel time runs were conducted during the same time period that the turning movement counts and cordon studies were being conducted. The PM peak hour was selected to represent a worst case scenario due to the fact that there are higher volumes in the PM peak hour. Peak directional travel times were conducted along 15th Avenue and Pacific Street, while travel time times for the other corridors was taken for both directions (with the exception of Roosevelt Way and 11th Avenue which are one way streets). University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 236 and produces a LOS ranging from “D” to “F”. The largest travel time is in the southbound direction along Montlake Boulevard due primarily to queuing from the ramp metering access to SR-520. Along this corridor an average travel time takes approximately 1,200 seconds (20 minutes) to travel approximately one mile. The second largest travel time is eastbound along Pacific Street to Montlake Boulevard. The average travel time along this corridor takes approximately 420 seconds (7 minutes) to travel just over ½ of a mile. Table 41 summarizes the travel time survey results. Table 41 PM Peak Travel Time Summary Results Distance Average Time Average Speed (miles) (seconds) (miles per hour) 15th Avenue – from 50th Street to Pacific Street Southbound 0.81 miles 279 sec 10 mph Pacific Street – from Boat Street to Montlake Boulevard Eastbound 0.67 miles 444 sec 5 mph Montlake Boulevard – from SR-520 to 45th Street Southbound 0.98 miles 1,255 sec 3 mph Northbound 0.98 miles 302 sec 12 mph Roosevelt Way – from 50th Street to Harvard Avenue Southbound 1.1 miles 270 sec 15 mph 11th Avenue – from Harvard Avenue to 50th Street Northbound 1.2 miles 319 sec 14 mph 45th Street – from I-5 southbound ramps to Union Place/Mary Gates Drive Eastbound 1.5 miles 421 sec 13 mph Westbound 1.5 miles 399 sec 14 mph Corridor and Direction Note: Travel times for 15 Avenue and Pacific Street were done in peak direction only. Source: DKS Associates, 2000. th LOS E F F E D D E D Existing Queuing Queuing data was also collected along both Montlake Boulevard and Pacific Street in the PM peak directions63. The origin of the queuing on Montlake Boulevard and Pacific Street during the PM peak is due to the ramp metering of access from Montlake Boulevard to SR-520 eastbound. During the PM peak period the queuing that occurs along both Montlake Boulevard and Pacific Street affects multiple access points along each corridor. The queuing on Montlake Boulevard is higher than that experienced on Pacific Street due to the larger number of vehicles on Montlake Boulevard during the PM peak. Queuing along Montlake Boulevard reaches a peak at approximately 4,000 feet (approximately 25th Avenue) from the intersection at Pacific Street, and Pacific Street reaches a peak queue at approximately 800 feet from Montlake Boulevard. The on-ramp metering for SR-520 acts as the dominant factor in queue spill back onto the surface streets. Intersections such as the Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Street and Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Place contain little additional capacity to serve a higher volume of vehicles 63 Queuing data was collected by Trafficount during the same time period as the travel time data, turning movement counts and cordon count data was collected (during the weeks of October 12-21, 1999). University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 237 due to the capacity constraint associated with the ramp metering at SR-520. This is evident by their high V/C ratios during the PM peak hour (1.0). The end result is a complex system of bottlenecks extending from SR-520 to the bridge and then to Pacific Street and Pacific Place. In addition to these constraints, opening of the 64 Montlake Bridge during peak volumes can increase the potential for queuing . Safety The City of Seattle (Engineering Department, Transportation Division) provided a summary of collision data for the study area. The data covered the years from 1994 to 1996 and summarized the total number of collisions as well as identified specific types of collisions associated at each intersection. There were a total of 559 collisions at 88 different locations within the study area. The top twenty locations represent approximately 58% of the total number of accidents in the study area and the top 10 locations represent approximately 36% of the total number of accidents in the study area. The total number of right angle collisions and left turning accidents accounts for approximately 66% of the total number of collisions (205 right angle and 165 left turning). This indicates that within the study area there could be a high potential for vehicles to run red lights which would put them in direct conflict with opposing vehicles that have the green signal and result in a right angle collision. The left turn collisions could also be due to running red lights for the left turns which then collide with through moving vehicles. Another potential reason for the high number of left turn collisions is the turn being permissive (green ball) rather than protected (green arrow) and the left turning vehicle using an unacceptable gap to make the left turn and colliding with a vehicle. However, protected left turns reduce the operating capacity due to loss time at the intersection. Pedestrian Existing Facilities A network of sidewalks, pedestrian bridges and off-street paths serve pedestrians destined to or from the University of Washington. Some mid-block crosswalks are provided on streets surrounding the University of Washington, but most of the pedestrian crosswalks are at street intersections (signalized and unsignalized). Primary pedestrian access is provided by the Burke-Gilman trail, 15th Avenue to the west, 45th Street to the north, Montlake Boulevard to the east and across the University and Montlake Bridges to the south. These are the widest facilities within the network with a typical width of 10-12 feet. The unobstructed or effective width of these pedestrian connections could be less due to features such as bus shelters, trees or light poles. The network includes grade-separated bridge crossings over 15th Avenue, Pacific Street and the Burke-Gilman Trail. The bridge only makes opening for vessels over 1,000 gross tons during the AM peak (7AM – 9AM) and PM peak (3PM – 6PM) periods. An average bridge opening is between four to five minutes. Field observations indicate this is a rare occurrence during the peak periods. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 238 64 Pedestrian access is constrained by several physical and geographical barriers around the University that limit the number of pedestrian access points from surrounding areas. Each of these barriers creates choke points for pedestrians accessing campus from distances greater than one-half mile from the center of campus. These barriers are Interstate-5 to the west, the 45th Street viaduct to the northeast, the Ship Canal to the south, Montlake Boulevard and Lake Washington’s Union Bay to the East. The interior of campus is served through a criss-cross network of paths (both paved and unpaved) and sidewalks along Memorial Way, Pend Oreille Road and 40th Street which all lead to the interior campus loop road Stevens Way which travels through central campus. Generally speaking, these paths range in total width from 4 feet to 20 feet with the sidewalks ranging between 6 and 10 feet wide. Mode Share The University of Washington conducts an annual U-PASS survey that helps estimate the mode choice by users to and from the campus based on statistical sampling methodology65. The most recent survey data indicates that on average, 27% of the students, faculty and staff walk to campus in 199866. This is an increase from 1989 where the walking mode split was 23%67. The percentage of faculty that currently walks to work is 6%, staff is 3% and the student share is 39%68. Figure 42 shows the difference in mode-split between driving and walking over the past few years69. Figure 42 – Historic Comparison of Walking Mode Split by Campus Users Historic Walking Mode Spit Data 40% Mode Split Percentage 1989 30% 20% 10% 0% Students Faculty Campus Users Source: 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey Staff 1998 65 Please see the technical appendix of the 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey conducted by the Gilmore Research Group prepared for the King County Department of Transportation and the University of Washington for a detailed explanation of the survey methodology. 66 Information provided in 1999 U-PASS Annual Report prepared for the University of Washington, pg. 3. 67 Information provided in 1999 U-PASS Annual Report prepared for the University of Washington, pg. 3. 68 Information provided in 1999 U-PASS Annual Report page 3. 69 Information provided in The 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey prepared for the King County Department of Transportation and the University of Washington, June 1999, pg. 11. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 239 Existing Count Data Existing pedestrian count data was performed around the University of Washington to determine the number of pedestrians entering and exiting campus during the AM and PM peak periods70. The locations for specific pedestrian counts created a “border” around the University to help capture the total pedestrian activity for campus. Table 42 summarizes the entering and exiting pedestrian activity. Table 42 – Pedestrian Count Data Entering Campus AM Peak PM Peak 5,304 1,905 Exiting Campus 926 4,122 Total 6,230 6,027 Source: DKS Associates, 2000. Existing pedestrian counts were also conducted at multiple locations surrounding the University of Washington during the AM and PM peak periods71. These counts were performed separately from the pedestrian count data described earlier. These counts help to determine the number of pedestrians using the existing pedestrian network in the areas surrounding the University. During the AM peak period the highest pedestrian activity occurs to the west, north and south and is concentrated along the Campus Parkway, 40th Street and 41st Street area near campus. The PM peak counts have the heaviest pedestrian activity focused to the west and north particularly along Campus Parkway, 40th Street and University Avenue (where a heavy concentration of commercial activity is located within the area). Bicycle Existing Facilities Bicycles destined to or from the University of Washington are primarily served by one off-street path called the Burke-Gilman Trail and some on-street bike lanes. The Burke-Gilman trail is approximately 10-12 feet wide and runs along the east side of the campus from north to south, then turns westward and runs along the southern part of campus. The existing on street bike lanes are located primarily in the southwest area of campus72. Currently bike lanes are located on 40th Street, Brooklyn Avenue and Pacific Street. There are also streets that are commonly used by bicycles and share the roadway with motor vehicles such as Brooklyn Avenue, 17th Avenue and 20th Avenue. 70 Pedestrian counts were performed in October 1999 and were only conducted on days where the weather was not inclement. Peak times of the day were based on full time period counts at three locations (17th Avenue entering campus, the middle pedestrian bridge across Montlake Boulevard to campus for the south end of the E1 parking lot, and that the intersection of 15th Avenue/NE Pacific Street from 7:00 AM through 6:00 PM). The peak times of the day were determined to be between 7 AM and 9 AM for the morning and between 3 PM and 6 PM in the evening. 71 As a base case, intersection pedestrian data was provided by the City of Seattle during their 1998 turning movement survey. Where data was older than 1998 it was updated with current pedestrian counts performed in the month of October 1999 in conjunction with turning movement count data at intersection locations. 72 Existing bicycle facilities were verified through field visits to the University of Washington in January 2000. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 240 The campus contains approximately 760 bicycle racks with a total capacity of approximately 6,200 bicycles (about 34 percent of these racks are under cover)73. In addition to these racks, the University of Washington also provides 362 lockers for bicycles on campus74. These lockers are available to rent from the University and protect a bicycle from theft and inclement weather. Use of bicycles on campus is encouraged through the convenient placement of these facilities. Mode Share The most recent survey data indicated that on average, 6% of the students, faculty and staff use bicycles to commute to and from campus in 199875. Historically, this is a slight reduction in use of bicycles from 1994 and 1996 where the number of users was 10% (1994) and 8% (1996)76. The survey also indicates a high number of potential bicycle users. The survey indicated that one-quarter of the University of Washington population (faculty, staff and students) had at some point used a bicycle to commute to campus. In fact, the number of faculty and staff that had commuted to campus by bike has risen over the past few years, while student use has fallen. Figure 43 shows surveyed use of bikes by students, faculty and staff for 1996 and 1998. The 1998 U-PASS Survey indicated that the primary reason more of the campus population does not use a bicycle to commute is that the distance is too far (37%) followed closely behind by the second reason which is that they do not have a bicycle available for commuting (31%). Figure 43 – Historic Use of Bicycle Commuting to Campus Use of Bike to Commute at Some Time to/from Campus 40% 35% 30% Percent of Use 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Students Faculty User Group Source: 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey 1996 1998 Staff Count taken from the 1999-2000 U-PASS Bicycle Guide page 2. Information provided in the 1999-2000 U-PASS Bicycle Guide page 3. Information provided in the 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey prepared for the King County Department of Transportation and the University of Washington, June 1999, pg. 11. 76 Information provided in 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey prepared for the King County Department of Transportation and the University of Washington, June 1999, pg. 11. 74 75 73 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 241 Existing Count Data Existing bicycle count data was collected around the University of Washington to determine the number of bicycle users entering and leaving campus during the AM and PM peak periods77. The locations selected for counts created a “border” around the University to help capture the total amount of bicycle users entering or leaving campus. Table 43 summarizes the AM and PM peak period count data for bicycles entering and exiting this border. Table 43 Existing Bicycle Count Data Entering Campus AM Peak PM Peak 324 146 Exiting Campus 30 210 Total 354 356 Source: DKS Associates, 2000. A series of peak hour volume counts by direction were also conducted along the Burke-Gilman trail78. These counts were aimed at helping determine the highest used points along the BurkeGilman trial and how these points corresponded to access points for the University of Washington. Movements along the Burke-Gilman trail during the AM peak show a higher use on the east and north ends of the trial near campus while the PM peak shows a higher use in the middle (near Rainier Vista). Bicycle volumes along Burke-Gilman create a bell shaped curve in the PM peak and a reverse bell curve during the AM peak which indicates that the trail is being used to access campus in the morning and utilized to exit campus during the PM peak. Transit Existing Facilities Transit service to the University of Washington (and surrounding area) is provided through a number of bus routes from two counties (both King County and Snohomish County). King County (Metro) operates approximately 32 regular transit routes that serve the University District area79. Included in these 32 routes, 12 routes directly serve campus along Stevens Way. Community Transit also serves the University of Washington with transit from Snohomish County through six routes along Stevens Way80. There is also service provided to the area via two Sound Transit Express busses, albeit to surrounding areas rather than direct access81. In addition to the public agency transportation, the University also runs a number of other transit-related services in the area. These other services focus around medical facilities on 77 Bicycle counts were conducted in October 1999 and were only conducted on days where the weather was not inclement. Based on full time period counts at three locations (17th Avenue entering campus, the middle pedestrian bridge across Montlake Boulevard to campus from the south end of the E1 parking lot, and at the intersection of 15th Avenue/NE Pacific Street from 7:00 AM through 6:00 PM) peak times of the day were determined to be between 7 AM and 9AM for the morning and between 3 PM and 6 PM for the evening. 78 Bicycle counts were conducted in October 1999 and were only conducted on days where the weather was not inclement. 79 Based on data collected via the King County Metro on-line web site at www.transit.metrokc.gov/bus/schedules as of March 2000. 80 Based on phone conversation with Community Transit on March 17, 2000. 81 Based on phone conversation with Community Transit on March 17, 2000. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 242 campus and shorter trips surrounding campus. The medical related services provide transportation between certain local area hospitals and the University for faculty, staff and students. As part of the U-PASS program another shuttle service offered is called the “Night Ride”. This service operates in three different zones surrounding campus (west, north and east) and offers transport from five different stop locations on campus to the homes of faculty, staff and students within one of the designated zones. Coverage by King County Metro routes serve the greater Seattle metropolitan area and do not exclude any one particular area from service to the University of Washington. While service may include headways up to (and including) one hour between runs, the transit network is constructed in such a way that all areas can be served by transit. Mode Share The University of Washington and King County Metro hire a survey firm to conduct a biennial UPASS survey to help estimate mode choice by users to and from the campus based on statistical sampling82. The most recent survey data indicated that 29% of the students, faculty and staff use transit to commute to and from campus in 1999, which is an increase in transit use over the past ten years from 21% in 198983. This is due primarily to the implementation of the U-PASS program in 199184. Figure 44 shows the mode share by faculty, staff and student over the past three U-PASS survey periods. Figure 44 – Historic Transit U-PASS Survey Data. Transit Commute Mode by User 40% 35% 30% Percent of use 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1994 1996 Year Source: 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey 82 Please see the technical appendix of the U-PASS Telephone Survey 1998 conducted by the Gilmore Research Group prepared for the King County Department of Transportation and the University of Washington for a detailed explanation of the survey methodology. 83 Information provided in The U-PASS Annual Report 1999, page 3. 84 Information provided in The U-PASS Annual Report 1999, page 3. Student Faculty Staff 1998 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 243 Existing Count Data Transit is a primary element to the transportation system of the University of Washington. The transit service to campus and surrounding areas is second in the region after downtown for transit service85. Service along 15th Avenue (between 45th Street and 40th Street) is the highest for transit near the University with approximately 750 daily coach trips86. Another roadway that has a high number of daily transit trips is University Avenue between 45th Street and Campus Parkway. Analyzing key transit corridors in the area showed that approximately 1,300 total Metro buses service the University District area daily providing approximately 69,630 total transit seats to the 87 Upon arrival approximately 21,700 of the daily seats provided are occupied area. 88 (approximately 31%) leaving approximately 47,930 daily unoccupied seats. Based on current mode share survey data and average daily arrival by students, faculty and staff to campus, the University of Washington has approximately 13,525 daily transit ridership trips (on and off trips 89 combined). There are a total of approximately 31,000 daily transit ridership trips in the University District area90. The highest boarding (on trips) location in the area is the transfer station at the intersection of 45th Street/University Way (approximately 5,610 daily on and off trips combined for both corridors)91. Other transit stops in the area that serve daily boardings over 500 are located on Pacific Street at the UWMC, and two locations on Stevens Way (just outside the HUB and just west of Rainier Vista)92. Existing transit and auto vehicles occupancy (AVO) surveys were conducted at various locations which defined a “border” around campus to help determine the use transit on the street network during the AM (inbound) and PM (outbound) peaks to/from campus93. While this data is non-specific to the University of Washington, it is interesting to note the percentage of busses on the roadway network in comparison to the total number of vehicles. The results indicate that during the AM peak period, the largest percentage of transit vehicles in comparison to total vehicles occurs along Campus Parkway (at 8%) while the largest percentage of transit vehicles in the PM peak occurs at the exit from the central campus area at 41st Street/15th Avenue (with 8%). Layover space is also a larger part of the existing transportation use for servicing the University of Washington. Approximately 550 daily bus trips start in the University District with a PM peak demand of approximately 2,450 feet of linear curb spaces required for staging94. Staging areas are located within the University District with most locations on campus. According to the University Community Urban Center Plan, September 1999, existing transit service section found on page 29. According to the University Community Urban Center Plan, September 1999, existing transit service section found on page 29. According to census data provided by Metro for Fall 1999. 88 Calculations based on census data provided by Metro for Fall 1999. 89 Based on a campus population of 55,525 and an average daily arrival rate to campus of 0.88 for students, faculty and staff. 90 According to daily on and off boarding census numbers provided by Metro for Fall 1999. 91 Based on ridership census data provided by Metro for Fall 1999. 92 According to daily boarding numbers shown in the University Community Urban Center Plan, September 1999 (page 29). 93 Survey counts were performed by Trafficount during the month of October 1999 as part of the Master Plan survey data. 94 According to data found in the University Transit Staging Project Report and Recommendations: Volume I – Site Alternatives & Evaluations 1998, page I-2. 86 87 85 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 244 HOV Existing Facilities HOVs are vehicles carrying more passengers than just the drive. Carpools, vanpools, buses and shuttles can all be considered HOVs. One of the key benefits of HOV lanes is reducing transit travel times and making the scheduled service more reliable. The ability of transit buses to maintain schedules along corridors helps to provide reliable service to the transit users and allows other forms of HOV users a more reliable travel time. In 1991, a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane was installed on NE Pacific Street between NE Pacific Place and Montlake Boulevard NE. Carpooling and vanpooling parking areas are designated for such on campus. These two services also work with the U-PASS program. As a carpool, three or more students (or two or more for parking area E1), or two or more faculty and/or staff can park on campus for free in the designated carpool parking areas with valid U-PASSes95. All carpoolers should live outside of the non-carpool zone that has been established within one-mile from campus96. The U-PASS is also worth $40 per month towards the monthly fee for operating a vanpool to/from campus97. Both of these services allow access to the HOV on and off-ramps to SR-520 and I-5 as well as the HOV lane along Pacific Street. Vanpools are subsidized for commuters that live 10 or more miles from campus. The U-PASS program provides for a $40 subsidy toward the monthly coast of the vanpool for participants (vanpool rates very by size of van and distance traveled). Vanpools are operated by the participants and coordinated through the local transit agency. Mode Share The most recent U-PASS survey data indicated that 11% of the students, faculty and staff use carpools and/or vanpools to commute to and from campus in 1999, which is an increase in transit use over the past ten years from 10% in 198998. Figure 45 shows the mode share by faculty, staff and student over the past three U-PASS survey periods. 95 96 Information provided in the 1999-2000 U-PASS User’s Guide pages 7-9. Information provided in the 1999-2000 U-PASS User’s Guide pages 7-9. 97 Information provided in the 1999-2000 U-PASS User’s Guide pages 7-9. 98 Information provided in the 1999 U-PASS Annual Report, page 3. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 245 Figure 45 – Historic HOV U-PASS Survey Data HOV Commute Mode by User 18% 16% 14% Percent of use 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1994 1996 Year Source: 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey Student Faculty Staff 1998 Existing Count Data Existing HOV occupancy (AVO) surveys were conducted at various locations which defined a “border” around campus to help determine the percentage of HOV use in comparison to the total directional volume on the street network during the AM (inbound) and PM (outbound) peaks to/from campus99. While this data is non-specific to the University of Washington, it is interesting to note the percentage of HOV use on the roadway network in comparison to the total number of vehicles. The results indicate that during the AM peak period, the largest percentages of HOV vehicles in comparison to total vehicles occurs at the entry points to the central campus area. The largest percentages of HOV vehicles in the PM peak occurs at the exit from the E1 parking lot to Montlake Boulevard (50%), and at the exit from the central campus area at 40th Street (with 39%). As part of the U-PASS Annual Report, carpool permit sales have been collected over the past ten years. This helps track the effectiveness of carpool/vanpool program and the possibility of an increase or decrease in the number of permits issued. Figure 46 summarized the historical carpool permit data100. 99 100 Survey counts were performed by Trafficount during the month of October 1999 as part of the Master Plan survey data. Information gathered from the 1999 U-PASS Annual Report. Section III - Transportation 246 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Figure 46 – Historic Carpool Permit Data Historic Carpool Use (1990-1999) Daily Carpools 2500 Number of Carpools 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Permit Carpools Pre U-Pass Year Source: 1998 U-PASS Telephone Survey As Figure 42 indicates, both daily carpools and permit carpools have been on the increase since the implementation of the U-PASS program. Permit carpools have risen 65% over the past ten years and daily carpools have grown 21% over the same time period. Total carpool participation has grown by 33% over the past ten years101. Parking Existing Facilities Parking around the University of Washington is supplied through on-street spaces and off-street lots. The on-street parking is primarily both metered and non-metered with the non-metered parking having both time restrictions in the form of no parking during certain hours of the day and/or limitation on the length of time a vehicle is parking ranging from three-minute passenger pick-up to two-hours102. There are also residential parking zones (RPZs) in effect to the north and northwest of campus as well as to the south of campus just past the Montlake Bridge. These RPZs allow residents preferential parking in the designated area by restricting parking during the day to two-hours for vehicles that do not have the proper parking permits. There are approximately 3,400 on street parking stalls in the University Community Urban Center (UCUC) planning area surrounding the University of Washington103. Information gathered from The U-PASS Annual Report 1999. On-street parking inventory was taken from the University Community Urban Center Plan, September 1999, and verified through field observations by DKS Associates during the month of April 2000. 103 On street parking inventory taken from the University Community Urban Center Plan, September 1999, Technical Appendix. 102 101 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 247 Off-street parking surrounding the University of Washington is provided through parking lots that are private/public pay parking areas, and also non-pay/merchant oriented parking. There are a number of parking areas also provided on campus that are owned and maintained by the University of Washington. There are approximately 6,315 off street parking stalls not owned or operated by the University of Washington in the UCUC planning area104. Utilization A recent on-street parking survey in the University District indicated that the parking utilization near the University of Washington campus for on-street unrestricted parking was at 97% while on-street restricted parking was at 70%105. The off-street public parking was utilized at 78% and the off-street private was utilized at 70%106. This parking survey focused on the area to the west of campus along 15th Avenue and was determined based on a ¼ mile radius from the proposed light rail transit station. Existing Count Data The number of commuter parking spaces available for the University of Washington has remained fairly consistent over the past ten years ranging from approximately 10,800 to 11,500 in total107. This only represents a variance of approximately 6%. The current utilization of commuter parking ranges from 78% to 87% which indicates that the demand for parking on campus is fairly high. Figure 47 summarizes the entire University of Washington historic commuter parking lot count and utilization data. Individual parking lot utilization on campus varies greatly in comparison to the aggregate counts and utilization shown in Figure 47. The University of Washington divides the commuter parking areas into five different sections of campus; north, south, east, west and central. These different areas each have their own parking characteristics and utilization. Table 44 summarizes the existing commuter parking supply and use by section. On street parking inventory taken from the University Community Urban Center Plan, September 1999, Technical Appendix. Parking utilization study conducted for Sound Transit and used from the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Transportation Technical Report, December 1998, page 69. 106 Parking utilization study conducted for Sound Transit and used from the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Transportation Technical Report, December 1998, page 69. 107 Data on historic parking lot counts and utilization was provided by the University of Washington Transportation Services. 105 104 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 248 Figure 47 - Historic Campus Commuter Parking Lot Counts and Utilization Data Historic Campus Commuter Parking Data 14000 Total Parking Spaces Available Number of Spaces Used 12000 10000 Parking Spaces 8000 100% 6000 Percentage Utilized 80% 60% 4000 40% 20% 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Source: University of Washington Table 44 Existing Commuter Parking Supply and Utilization by Section (1999) Section North South Central East West Total Note: Supply 1,068 2,887 4,838 1,085 1,485 11,363 Use 962 2,689 4,380 621 1,275 9,909 Utilization 90% 93% 91% 57% 85% 87% Sections in this table have been redistributed from the standard University allocation by sector. This helped to group the “typical” user for each parking lot with the sector they use. Source: DKS Associates, 2000. The six largest commuter parking locations comprise over 60% of the total available commuter parking spaces on campus and have a utilization rate of 94%. These parking areas are the E1 parking lot (2,824 spaces at 92% utilization), Central Plaza Garage (992 spaces at 87% utilization), S1 Parking Garage (919 spaces at 88% utilization), E12 Parking Lot (882 spaces at 99% utilization), Padelford Parking Area (696 spaces at 90% utilization) and the West Campus Garage (661 spaces at 93% utilization)108. Utilization of campus parking inventory is not 108 Based upon the October 1999 lot count data provided by the University of Washington. Section III - Transportation 249 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS 1999 0% synonymous with parking demand. Sales to different parking areas are restricted so as to allocate parking to preferred user groups such as carpools. Impacts of the Proposed Action Motor Vehicle Future Conditions A primary element of the Campus Master Plan is to generally only provide new parking to replace parking lost due to campus development. By maintaining the number of parking spaces to approximately the existing level (an addition of only 138 parking spaces proposed – see the discussion on Parking below), the number of motor vehicle trips generated by the Campus Master Plan would not significantly increase. Circulation alternatives for the future focused on additional parking areas (replacement parking) located in south campus and west campus where new development would be adding additional parking. Areas to the north and east show a potential for a reduction in parking due to the loss of parking spaces due to redevelopment, and the central campus area adds and removes parking at a constant rate. The largest circulation issues are focused on the south and west campus areas through redevelopment. The University is not adding any additional trips to the street network, but rather, the University will manage vehicle trips to levels at or below those prior to U-PASS implementation. The primary impact to intersections in the area is due to background growth in non-University related vehicle trips. Table 45 summarizes the 2012 PM peak intersection operation in the study area. Due to heavier volumes experienced in the PM peak during existing conditions, the future conditions were analyzed for the PM peak to represent a worst case scenario. Table 45 2012 PM Peak Intersection Operation Location Signalized th I-5 southbound/50 Street ramps th I-5 northbound/50 Street ramps th th 9 Avenue/50 Street th Roosevelt Way/50 Street th th 11 Avenue/50 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/50 Street th University Way/50 Street th th 15 Avenue/50 Street th th 17 Avenue/50 Street th Roosevelt Way/47 Street th th 11 Avenue/47 Street th th 15 Avenue/47 Street th I-5 southbound/45 Street ramps th I-5 northbound/45 Street ramps th Roosevelt Way/45 Street th th 11 Avenue/45 Street th th 12 Avenue/45 Street University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Delay 50.2 56.9 7.7 22.0 46.3 25.5 18.8 19.8 25.4 10.9 19.0 16.8 46.2 54.3 22.8 24.6 17.3 PM Peak LOS D E A C D C B B C B B B D D C C B V/C 0.90 0.87 0.48 0.69 0.90 0.79 0.68 0.59 0.51 0.38 0.43 0.49 0.78 0.92 0.72 0.71 0.67 Section III - Transportation 250 Table 45 continued Brooklyn Avenue/45 Street th University Way/45 Street th th 15 Avenue/45 Street th th 17 Avenue/45 Street th th 18 Avenue/45 Street th th 19 Avenue/45 Street th th 20 Avenue/45 Street th Montlake Boulevard/45 Street th 45 Street/Mary Gates/Union Pl. rd th 43 Street/11 Avenue rd 43 Street/University Way rd th 43 Street/15 Avenue th 25 Avenue/Pend Oreille Road th 44 Street/Montlake Boulevard nd 42 Street (north)/Roosevelt Way nd th 42 Street/11 Avenue nd 42 Street/University Way nd th 42 Street/15 Avenue th 25 Avenue/Montlake Boulevard nd th 42 Street/7 Avenue nd 42 Street (south)/Roosevelt Way th st 15 Avenue/41 Street Brooklyn Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) University Way/Campus Parkway (west) th 15 Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) Eastlake Avenue/Campus Parkway (east) Brooklyn Avenue/Campus Parkway (east) University Way/Campus Parkway (east) th 15 Avenue/Campus Parkway (east) th University Way/40 Street th th 15 Avenue/40 Street Boat Street/Pacific Street Brooklyn Avenue/Pacific Street University Way/Pacific Street th 15 Avenue/Pacific Street Pacific Street/Pacific Place Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Place Pacific Street/Hospital exit (PM only) Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Street SR-520 eastbound/Montlake Boulevard Unsignalized th th 9 Avenue (south leg)/45 Street th 9 Avenue (north leg) st th 21 Avenue/45 Street rd 43 Street (east leg)/Roosevelt Way rd 43 Street (west leg)/Roosevelt Way st 41 Street/Roosevelt Way th st 12 Avenue/41 Street st University Way/41 Street th 40 Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) th Eastlake Avenue/40 Street Montlake Boulevard/E1 parking (Wahkiakum Lane) Montlake Boulevard/IMA exit Montlake Boulevard/IMA entrance th 32.5 14.5 59.6 39.7 4.1 2.3 8.5 55.7 > 80 12.3 17.8 9.5 34.4 14.8 5.3 7.7 16.8 8.3 19.0 29.6 9.6 63.0 16.5 15.9 0.6 4.2 18.6 16.9 15.9 17.6 9.0 11.1 29.0 21.1 60.8 63.7 76.5 12.0 > 80 77.2 C B E D A A A E F B B A C B A A B A B C A E B B A A B B B B A B C C E E E B F E C C B B B C B C A E F F E 0.75 0.51 0.99 0.86 0.35 0.55 0.61 1.08 1.10 0.55 0.42 0.53 0.97 0.86 0.34 0.44 0.35 0.47 0.47 0.61 0.50 1.11 0.42 0.29 0.46 0.68 0.48 0.30 0.47 0.39 0.32 0.61 0.54 0.50 0.95 1.11 1.10 0.57 1.15 1.06 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 251 Table 45 continued Brooklyn Avenue/Boat Street th 15 Avenue/Boat Street Boat Street/Gate 6 turnaround Pacific Street/Hospital exit (AM only) All-Way Stop th th 20 Avenue/50 Street Memorial Way/Stevens Way Pend Oreille Road/Stevens Way th Stevens Way/40 Street st Brooklyn Avenue/41 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/40 Street th th 7 Avenue/40 Street th th 6 Avenue/40 Street th 6 Avenue/Northlake Way Signalized Intersection: LOS = Lever of Service Delay = Average delay per intersection D/C = Demand-to-capacity ratio - B C C B C C B E B F F D - Unsignalized Intersection: X = Minor roadway left turn All-Way Stop Intersection: X = Average level of service at intersection Using the previous assumptions for growth in the area, the following is a bullet list of deficient 109 intersections for 2012 . All other intersections operate at acceptable levels of service for 2012. • • • • • • • • • I-5 northbound/50th Street ramps 15th Avenue/45th Street 15th Avenue/41st Street Montlake Boulevard/45th Street Pacific Place/Montlake Boulevard Pacific Street/Montlake Boulevard 15th Avenue/Pacific Street 45th Street/Union Bay Place 25th Avenue/Pend Oreille Road • • • • • • • • • Pacific Street/Pacific Place SR-520 eastbound/Montlake Boulevard Eastlake Avenue/40th Street Montlake Blvd/E-1 Parking entry-exit Montlake Blvd/IMA entry Montlake Blvd/IMA exit Brooklyn Avenue/41st Street 7th Avenue/40th Street 6th Avenue/40th Street Different mitigation measures would be necessary to help reach acceptable levels of service at these deficient intersections. Some of these focus on additional turn lanes to help increase capacity at intersections and others measures rely on the continued effectiveness of the TMP and other transportation demand measures to help spread out peak period traffic levels. The following improvements would be needed to help mitigate the effects of background growth in vehicle trips and any impacts (i.e. inadequate level of service, additional delay or inadequate V/C ratio) associated with the University of Washington Master Plan. After each recommended improvement, the related cause of the improvement is listed (i.e. either background growth or University related trips) • Continue efforts in transportation demand management to help spread out peak period traffic volumes, which helps to reduce peak hour volumes and increase traffic operations at intersections. The type of increased traffic operations can be an increased peak hour factor due to the spread of peak hour vehicles throughout the hour. [This should help reduce V/C For the purpose of this list, deficient is defined as an intersection with an LOS at or below “E” and a V/C ratio of 0.95 or above. Section III - Transportation 252 109 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS ratios at intersections that are just over capacity due to background growth such as intersections like Montlake Boulevard/45th Street and 15th Avenue/41st Street] • Add a northbound right turn lane to the intersection of NE 45th Street/15th Avenue NE to allow for additional capacity in the northbound direction and allow for right turn movements separately from through movements. [Background growth creating the need for additional capacity along 15th Avenue] Add a southeast left turn lane to the intersection of NE 45th Street/Union Bay Place to mitigate background growth associated with vehicles from the University Village area. [Background growth creating the need for additional capacity at this intersection] Restripe existing northbound lane configuration at 15th Avenue/Pacific Street to help facilitate better movements at intersection. In addition, change from split phase timing on the north and south legs to concurrent through movements with protected left turning phases. This will help to better utilize the available green time at the intersection to service vehicle movements. [Background growth creating the need for additional capacity along 15th Avenue] Add queuing space along Montlake Boulevard at SR-520 to allow for additional queuing capacity. This will help temporarily “store” vehicles accessing SR-520 instead of stacking them along Montlake Boulevard, which queues back as far as 25th Avenue at times. Storage of vehicles further downstream on Montlake Boulevard would help to process vehicles quicker along Montlake Boulevard, which would reduce delays at intersections and increase the number of vehicles that can flow through an intersection during the peak. [Background growth creating the need for additional queuing space along Montlake Boulevard which should help mitigate intersections such as Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Street, Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Place, Montlake Boulevard/IMA entry-exit and Montlake Boulevard/E1 parking entry-exit] Implement Transportation System Management techniques such as optimizing signal timing for intersections with heavy volumes to help increase the green time and minimized delays. [Background growth creating the need for better signal timing] Implement a roundabout at the all-way stop five-leg intersection 7th Avenue/40th Street to eliminate delays associated with all-way stop control. [Background growth which creates unacceptable levels of service as an all-way stop controlled intersection] Signalize the all-way stop controlled “tee” intersection of 6th Avenue/40th Street to eliminate delays associated with all-way stop control. [Background growth which creates unacceptable levels of service as an all-way stop control intersection] Signalize the all-way stop controlled “tee” intersection of 6th Avenue/Northlake Way and coordinate the signal operation with 6th Avenue/40th Street. This signal will also help to reduce delay in the AM peak period that is currently a deficiency. [Background growth which creates unacceptable levels of service as an all-way stop control intersection] • • • • • • • Table 46 summarizes the 2012 PM peak intersection operations for the study area utilizing these mitigation measures. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 253 Table 46 2012 PM Peak Intersection Operations for Unmitigated and Mitigated Conditions Location Signalized th I-5 southbound/50 Street ramps th I-5 northbound/50 Street ramps th th 9 Avenue/50 Street th Roosevelt Way/50 Street th th 11 Avenue/50 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/50 Street th University Way/50 Street th th 15 Avenue/50 Street th th 17 Avenue/50 Street th Roosevelt Way/47 Street th th 11 Avenue/47 Street th th 15 Avenue/47 Street th I-5 southbound/45 Street ramps th I-5 northbound/45 Street ramps th Roosevelt Way/45 Street th th 11 Avenue/45 Street th th 12 Avenue/45 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/45 Street th University Way/45 Street th th 15 Avenue/45 Street th th 17 Avenue/45 Street th th 18 Avenue/45 Street th th 19 Avenue/45 Street th th 20 Avenue/45 Street th Montlake Boulevard/45 Street th 45 Street/Mary Gates/Union Pl. rd th 43 Street/11 Avenue rd 43 Street/University Way rd th 43 Street/15 Avenue th 25 Avenue/Pend Oreille Road th 44 Street/Montlake Boulevard nd 42 Street (north)/Roosevelt Way nd th 42 Street/11 Avenue nd 42 Street/University Way nd th 42 Street/15 Avenue th 25 Avenue/Montlake Boulevard nd th 42 Street/7 Avenue nd 42 Street (south)/Roosevelt Way th st 15 Avenue/41 Street Brooklyn Ave/Campus Parkway (west) University Way/Campus Parkway (west) th 15 Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) Eastlake Ave/Campus Parkway (east) Brooklyn Ave/Campus Parkway (east) University Way/Campus Parkway (east) th 15 Avenue/Campus Parkway (east) th University Way/40 Street th th 15 Avenue/40 Street Boat Street/Pacific Street 2012 PM Peak Unmitigated Delay LOS D/C 50.2 56.9 7.7 22.0 46.3 25.5 18.8 19.8 25.4 10.9 19.0 16.8 46.2 54.3 22.8 24.6 17.3 32.5 14.5 59.6 39.7 4.1 2.3 8.5 55.7 > 80 12.3 17.8 9.5 34.4 14.8 5.3 7.7 16.8 8.3 19.0 29.6 9.6 63.0 16.5 15.9 0.6 4.2 18.6 16.9 15.9 17.6 9.0 11.1 D E A C D C B B C B B B D D C C B C B E D A A A E F B B A C B A A B A B C A E B B A A B B B B A B 0.90 0.87 0.48 0.69 0.90 0.79 0.68 0.59 0.51 0.38 0.43 0.49 0.78 0.92 0.72 0.71 0.67 0.75 0.51 0.99 0.86 0.35 0.55 0.61 1.08 1.10 0.55 0.42 0.53 0.97 0.86 0.34 0.44 0.35 0.47 0.47 0.61 0.50 1.11 0.42 0.29 0.46 0.68 0.48 0.30 0.47 0.39 0.32 0.61 2012 PM Peak Mitigated Delay LOS D/C 50.2 56.9 7.7 22.0 46.3 25.5 18.8 19.8 25.4 10.9 19.0 16.8 46.2 54.3 22.8 24.6 17.3 32.5 14.5 50.9 39.7 4.1 2.3 8.5 42.9 64.1 12.3 17.8 9.5 34.4 14.8 5.3 7.7 16.8 8.3 19.0 29.6 9.6 30.7 16.5 15.9 0.6 4.2 18.6 16.9 15.9 17.6 9.0 11.1 D E A C D C B B C B B B D D C C B C B D D A A A D E B B A C B A A B A B C A C B B A A B B B B A B 0.90 0.87 0.48 0.69 0.90 0.79 0.68 0.59 0.51 0.38 0.43 0.49 0.78 0.92 0.72 0.71 0.67 0.75 0.51 0.87 0.86 0.35 0.55 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.42 0.53 0.97 0.86 0.34 0.44 0.35 0.47 0.47 0.61 0.50 0.94 0.42 0.29 0.46 0.68 0.48 0.30 0.47 0.39 0.32 0.61 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 254 Table 46 continued Brooklyn Avenue/Pacific Street University Way/Pacific Street th 15 Avenue/Pacific Street Pacific Street/Pacific Place Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Place Pacific Street/Hospital exit (PM only) Montlake Boulevard/Pacific Street SR-520 eastbound/Montlake Boulevard Unsignalized th th 9 Avenue (south leg)/45 Street th 9 Avenue (north leg) st th 21 Avenue/45 Street rd 43 Street (east leg)/Roosevelt Way rd 43 Street (west leg)/Roosevelt Way st 41 Street/Roosevelt Way th st 12 Avenue/41 Street st University Way/41 Street th 40 Avenue/Campus Parkway (west) th Eastlake Avenue/40 Street Montlake Boulevard/E1 parking Montlake Boulevard/IMA exit Montlake Boulevard/IMA entrance Brooklyn Avenue/Boat Street th 15 Avenue/Boat Street Boat Street/Gate 6 turnaround Pacific Street/Hospital exit (AM only) All-Way Stop th th 20 Avenue/50 Street Memorial Way/Stevens Way Pend Oreille Road/Stevens Way th Stevens Way/40 Street st Brooklyn Avenue/41 Street th Brooklyn Avenue/40 Street th th 7 Avenue/40 Street* th th 6 Avenue/40 Street** th 6 Avenue/Northlake Way** * Indicates a roundabout for mitigation ** Indicates a signalized intersection for mitigation Signalized Intersection: LOS = Lever of Service Delay = Average delay per intersection D/C = Demand-to-capacity ratio Unsignalized Intersection: X = Minor roadway left turn All-Way Stop Intersection: X = Average level of service at intersection 29.0 21.1 60.8 63.7 76.5 12.0 > 80 77.2 C C E E E B F E C C B B B C B C A E F F E B C C B C C B E B F F D 0.54 0.50 0.95 1.11 1.10 0.57 1.15 1.06 29.0 21.1 55.2 44.0 52.2 12.0 79.9 72.1 C C E D D B E E C C B B B C B C A E F F E B C C B C C B E B A C C 0.54 0.50 0.89 0.96 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 - - - - 21.4 21.8 0.73 0.69 Possible TMP Strategies The University of Washington Transportation Management Plan addresses alternatives to enhance opportunities for alternative modes of travel while maintaining peak motor vehicle travel levels to and from the University. Strategies for future motor vehicle use rely heavily on the elements developed and implemented in the TMP for the University. Mitigation measures focused on motor vehicle intersection improvements alone do not promote other modes of travel. These would only maintain acceptable levels of service for motor University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 255 vehicles on the roadway. Other elements must be combined and/or implemented to help reduce the mode share of SOV use. These come in a variety of different techniques such as parking pricing, additional bicycle lanes on roadways, more convenient connections for bicyclist and pedestrians, increased transit service and additional housing that is located closer to campus. All of these elements help to reduce the mode share for SOV use. The following sections address elements proposed in the TMP and the effectiveness of these to help promote other modes of travel in conjunction with reducing dependency on SOV trips to and from campus. Pedestrian Future Conditions The future pedestrian needs for the University of Washington will be influenced by two primary factors: new development location and potential light rail station locations. Future access to and from campus should be focused on provided adequate facilities for these two factors. The following text addresses the larger issues associated with these two factors. The University of Washington may be serviced in the future by improved transit services. These improved services could be more frequent bus service, new/revised routes, or even the introduction of potential of light rail service. Providing adequate connections to/from future transit service is a key element to servicing future pedestrian needs. The Sound Transit Central LINK Light Rail plan, if implemented as proposed, would locate one to two potential underground station locations near the University. As identified in the Central LINK Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the preferred light rail alignment located two potential stations. One was at the southwest corner of 15th Avenue/Pacific Street and the other was on the southeast corner of 45th Street/15th Avenue. Using these potential stations as examples for future light rail stations, the following text discusses some of the issues associated with light rail stations and pedestrian needs. Transit stations generally draw pedestrian activity on average of 1/3 of a mile in all directions from their location110. Figure 48 shows where this 1/3 mile radius for the two potential stations identified in Sound Transit’s FEIS (for the preferred alignment). This would service an area approximately bounded by I-5 to the west, 52nd Avenue to the north, Montlake Boulevard to the east, and the south waterfront area. 110 Information derived from Mode of Access and Catchment Areas of Rail Transit, prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board and the National Research Council, March 1996. The 1/3 mile radius from rail transit stations would capture an 85% market share of the area for walking. That corresponds to 85% of the rail transit users at each station would have walked to the transit station from 1/3 of a mile or less. Section III - Transportation 256 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS By 2010 the forecasted number of daily light rail users accessing potential stations in the University District is approximately 19,100 users111. Such a large number of pedestrians accessing light rail would need direct connections to both campus and to other transit (bus) services to service the forecasted demand for light rail use. Pedestrian facilities near transit stations that link to other uses in the area should be a minimum of 15 feet in width without any obstructions. Figure 48 – 1/3 Mile Radius from Potential Stations It is important to focus on improving connections to/from campus for developing areas and for potential light rail, but it is also important to maintain the access points to/from campus that currently serve the surrounding University of Washington area. New development in the area by the University of Washington will also help to define major pedestrian paths to access campus. Areas defined by the Campus Master Plan for potential sites for new development focus on areas to the west, central campus and north campus. Improving connections to these areas will be a driving force for future pedestrian connections in the area. The other factor affecting development is housing. Whether the housing currently exists, or it is being planned, housing within approximately ½ mile radius from campus should help capture a walk trip to/from campus112. The natural barriers around the University such as I-5 and the bridges create barriers and funneling points for pedestrians. Additional housing developed by the University for students should try to be focused within ½ mile from the boundaries of University campus for a maximum affect on walking mode split. Possible Pedestrian TMP Strategies The University of Washington has an excellent pedestrian network of off-street paths and onstreet sidewalks throughout campus. Connectivity and more pedestrian friendly facilities are key to promoting walking for faculty, staff and students. Pedestrian transportation has the lowest impact of any mode and is the largest single way that students commute to and from campus. With the student population percentage at approximately 63% of the total campus Forecasted daily station use for the preferred alignment was provided by Sound Transit in the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 1999, pg. 3-23. 112 Based on nationwide research found in Urban Space for Pedestrians, by Boris Pushkarev with Jeffrey M. Zupan, © 1975, pg 53. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 257 111 population (including faculty and staff), this is a significant amount of users. The following list is a summary of recommended elements for the TMP. • Coordinate with the City of Seattle to identify improvements to the local pedestrian network such as filling in gaps in the pedestrian network, changing signal timing to establish pedestrian priority over vehicles and enhancing pathways/sidewalks (either by widening or a regular maintenance program). Designate and improve priority pedestrian commuting corridors. Increase pedestrian safety through the use of better lighting and innovative roadway designs (such as raised crossings, curb extensions and advanced warning signage). Increase marketing of walking as an alternative mode. • • • Bicycle Future Conditions The University of Washington is forecasted to increase the student, faculty and staff population by the year 2012 by 16% on average113. This increased population, increased housing close to campus and potential improvements to bicycle facilities surrounding the University should result in an increase in bicycle trips to and from the campus. Table 47 summarizes the existing and forecasted estimate of bicycle use by students, faculty and staff for the University. Table 47 2012 Estimates of Bicycle Users for Campus 1999 Population Estimate 35,062 6,035 14,428 55,525 1999 Percentage of Bike Users 5% 10% 5% Average 6% 1999 Estimated Bike Users* 1,470 505 605 2,580 2012 Forecasted Population 39,182 7,435 18,028 64,645 2012 Percentage of Bike Users 8% 11% 6% Average 8% 2012 Estimated Bike Users* 2,635 685 910 4,230 Users Students Faculty Staff Totals Note: Calculations for estimated users assumes an average arrival rate of students, faculty and staff of 4.2 times per week to campus. This is similar to existing arrival rates found in the 1998 U-PSASS Survey (pg. 14). For example, estimated bike users for 1999 is equal to campus population multiplied by mode share multiplied by arrival rate. Estimates for users are rounded to the nearest integer of five. Source: DKS Associates As Table 47 indicates, there is a significant increase in the number of estimated bicycle users by 2012. This forecasted number of users is based on an increase in the bicycle mode split percentage and an increase in the population of campus users. An increase in the mode split for students and staff would be required, while the mode split for the faculty would need to be retained. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Travel Demand Model was used to estimate the number of households within each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) for a three-mile radius 113 Based on conversations and correspondence with the University of Washington. Section III - Transportation 258 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS surrounding the University of Washington114. The housing information within these TAZs was then divided to represent areas that could access the University of Washington from the north, south, east and west. Assuming that each household within these TAZs has an equal opportunity to commute to the University, an estimate was made on the percentage of housing in each area that could represent the potential for a University user to bike to campus. This information was compared and validated by the zip code data provided by the University of Washington. Figure 49 shows the extent of the three-mile radius from the University of Washington campus and the associated housing coverage that relates to potential bicycle use by 2010. As shown in Figure 49, areas to within the three-mile radius include Greenlake, Wallingford, Ravenna, Laurelhurst, parts of downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, Phinney Ridge, Greenlake, Maple Leaf, Wedgewood, Montlake, Eastlake and Freemont. As Figure 49 indicates, the greatest number of forecasted bicycle users would access campus from the west followed by access from the north. Together, these two directions would comprise 82% of the access to the University campus by 2012. There are two broad categories of needs for bicycle use around the University of Washington. These two categories are connectivity and improved facilities. The existing bicycle connections to and from campus do not provide a network to access campus in a safe and efficient manner from multiple directions. For example, only access is provided from the west and along BurkeGilman trail, but no bicycle lanes exist to the north, south or east (with the exception of BurkeGilman). Figure 49 – Three-Mile Cordon from Campus Topographic and other physical constraints North = 23% (the raised elevation of South = 16% campus) make th West = 59% crossing 15 Avenue East = 2% onto campus using a bicycle difficult from the west and also crossing Montlake Boulevard from the east. To help facilitate University of Washington continued use of bicycle use by faculty, staff and students, direct connections at minimal gradients LEGEND - 1 Mile Radius should be pursued - 2 Mile Radius making access to - 3 Mile Radius - Transportat ion Analysis campus as barrier free Zone (TAZ) as possible. 0 1 2 3 Miles 28 The three-mile radius was selected based on the average commute distance for cyclists in King County. This was determined from responses to a 1996 North American Bicycle Commuters Survey conducted by the University of Washington. 114 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 259 Possible Bicycle TMP Strategies Currently there are limited on-street bicycle facilities leading to/from campus with the exception of the Burke-Gilman trail and a handful of bike lanes in the southwest campus area. Barriers, such as steep grade changes and non-direct connecting routes create impediments for bicycle use in the area. Connectivity and more bicycle friendly facilities are key to promoting bicycle use for faculty, staff and students. The following list is a summary of recommended elements for the TMP. • • • • • Create additional secured, covered bike lockers and shower facilities on campus to promote bicycle use. Implement a bicycle/pedestrian safety program with measurable goals to help promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of travel and raise the awareness level of bicycles on the transportation network. Subsidize bicycle sales or leasing for students, faculty and staff to help increase bicycle ownership. Coordinate with the City of Seattle to enhance corridors identified in the Master Plan for use by bicycles. Develop intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions to help “track” individual bicycle use to/from campus, which in turn offers parking subsidization for selecting an alternative mode to school/work. Transit Future Conditions The University is planning on expanding the current population by approximately 16%, which in turn should create additional demand on the surrounding transit system. The following section outlines how additional transit demand could be accommodated in the future through two scenarios. The first scenario considers transit service to the University District via buses only, while the second scenario considers transit service to the University District through a combination of buses and light rail transit (LRT). Due to the uncertainty of light rail during the timeframe of this Master Plan analysis for future conditions is assumed to be bus only transit service. If light rail were to be implemented during the timeframe of this Master Plan it would be considered an additional transit benefit that could potentially reduce vehicle trips even more than the assumed scenario of bus only service. However, analysis for both scenarios is shown in this section. Future Conditions with Bus Service Only The University of Washington has a high use of transit under existing conditions in part due to the U-PASS program and also in part due to the large amount of bus transit service to the area. The U-PASS program will help to continue this high use of transit into the future. The PSRC model was used to help forecast bus and carpool use by the University of Washington. Assuming bus service only (no LRT), Table 48 summarizes the forecasted bus and carpool use to/from campus for 2012. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 260 Table 48 2012 Forecasted Daily Transit/HOV Ridership for Campus (Bus Only) Mode 1999 Percentage of Users 29% 12% 1999 Estimated Users 13,525 5,595 19,120 2012 Percentage of Users 31% 12% 2012 Estimated Users 16,830 6,515 23,345 Bus Carpool Totals Note: The number shown for the estimated users (includes students, faculty and staff) is rounded to the nearest increment of five. Calculations for estimated users assume an average arrival rate of students, faculty and staff of 4.2 times per week to campus. This is similar to existing arrival rates found in the 1998 U-PASS Survey (pg. 14). For example, estimated bus users for 1999 is equal to campus population multiplied by mode share multiplied by arrival rate (55,525 x 0.29 x 0.84 = 13,525) Source: DKS Associates Analysis of future conditions indicates there is a forecasted increase of approximately 3,300 transit users (approximately 24% increase from existing conditions). There is also a forecasted increase in carpool use of approximately 920 users (approximately a 16% increase from existing conditions. While the relative mode share percentage does not increase dramatically, the population is increasing and therefore the number of forecasted users is increasing. To help analyze the implications of future transit demand on capacity in the University District, an inventory of existing seat capacity and demand was performed (using available Metro transit data, which is approximately 95% of the available transit service in the area). This analysis indicated that there are approximately 69,630 total existing daily seats that service the University District. On a daily basis, 21,700 existing seats are utilized (representing transit demand). This leaves approximately 47,930 seats available for transit use (representing additional transit capacity). This does not imply that there are not some routes that service the University District that do not experience some capacity problems during the peak times of the day. What it does indicate is that there may be some routes that might be underutilized that could either be redistributed during the peak period to routes that experience existing capacity deficiencies and/or other underutilized routes during different off-peak times could be redeployed during the peak periods to better service users. The Sound Transit Central Link FEIS calculates future bus only transit demand by 2012 for the University District to be approximately 31,380 daily transit trips115. This includes both campus and non-campus transit trips. Using this as a basis for future demand for transit seats in the area, and assuming a worst-case scenario where no new transit service is added to the University District, the forecasted demand from transit users of 31,380 daily trips is below the existing daily available seat capacity of 69,630 indicating available transit capacity to accommodate future demand. There is adequate bus capacity to accommodate the forecasted growth in University of Washington transit ridership. Alternative investments in infrastructure, for example arterial HOV lanes, queue by-pass lanes and transit signal priority, would also improve speed and reliability 115 Based on extrapolation of baseline (no LRT) forecasts for 2010 and 2020 in the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project FEIS: Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report, Pg. 94-96, Tables 4.2b and 4.2d. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 261 of bus service. Demand management techniques such as scheduling additional classes in the off-peak time periods could also help to better utilize transit. Due to forecasted future growth in transit use by the University of Washington and other users in the area over the next ten years, there may be the need to either redistribute some existing routes which may be underutilized, or possibly add a few Figure 50 – Potential busses on specific routes during critical time periods where LRT Stations additional capacity is needed. Analysis of transportation operations in the future has taken these factors into account. Avenue Avenue Future Conditions with Bus and Light Rail Transit One element that could affect future transit conditions for the University of Washington is the potential introduction of a light rail transit system. This system could have one to two potential stations that could serve the campus area. Figure 50 shows approximate locations where transit stations are currently being considered (based on the preferred alternative alignment in the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 1999 at the time of this analysis). Transit service to the area is generally assumed to increase due to the potential for LRT frequency to the area. However, some routes or route segments that service the same areas as the potential LRT alignment may decrease; for example the express bus service to downtown from the University116. University Brooklyn 12th Avenue 15th T NE 43rd Street T NE 42nd Street NE 41st Street NE 40th Street Bu r k e-G ilm an Tr a il Pa c ific Str e et T LEGEND T T - Potential LRT Station Locations The location of potential LRT stations should have convenient connections to existing transit service in the area. Connections and transfers between existing bus routes and potential LRT stations will need to be in place to provide effective and efficient transfers between both transit uses. The LRT is forecasted to have headways of approximately 5 minutes during peak periods of the day117. With existing bus headways between 15 – 30 minutes, if bus service to the area is not increased there will be an increase in the number of transit passengers waiting on street for bus service transferring from LRT. Current waiting area for many of the transfer stations in the University area are already at capacity and do not offer adequate space for both waiting transit passengers and pedestrians in the area118. The forecasted LRT PM peak trips that are walk-on trips are primarily originating from the University of Washington, while the walk-off trips are destined for surrounding single and multifamily housing119. Levels of service for the surrounding intersections have been forecasted in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Central Link Light Rail and all surrounding intersections operate at a pedestrian level of service of “C” or better120. The potential forecasted ridership for LRT is approximately 19,100 daily boardings for the University District stops (based on the preferred alignment found in the Central Link FEIS). Table 49 summarizes the forecasted 2010 LRT daily boardings at potential stations (identified in 116 117 According to the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 1999. According to the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 1999, page 2-39. 118 Based on field observations by DKS Associates between October 1999 – February 2000. 119 According to the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project FEIS Transportation Technical Report, November 1999, pg 132. 120 According to the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project FEIS Transportation Technical Report, November 1999, pg 131-132. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 262 Memorial Way 17th Avenue Way the Central Link FEIS for the preferred alignment) and the three-hour peak walk on/off and transit on/off ridership forecasts121. Table 49 2010 Forecasted Daily LRT Boardings and PM Peak Walk/Transit Access Station NE 45th Street Pacific Street Note: Source: Forecasted Boardings 8,700 10,400 Walk-on (3 hr. peak) 1,645 3,400 Walk-off (3 hr. peak) 1,500 730 Transit on (3 hr. peak) 680 600 Transit off (3 hr. peak) 1,060 1,155 Walk-on and walk-off refers to pedestrian walking trips while transit-on and transit-off trips refers to transfers from buses to LRT. Sound Transit LRT Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1999. The PSRC model was used to help forecast bus, carpool and LRT use by the University of Washington. These forecasts were validated by forecasts for the University District area found in the Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail forecasts for the preferred LRT alignment. Table 50 summarizes the forecasted bus, carpool and LRT users to/from campus for 2012. Table 50 2012 Forecasted Daily Transit/HOV Ridership for Campus (With LRT) Mode 1999 Percentage of Users 29% 12% 1999 Estimated Users* 13,525 5,595 19,120 2012 Percentage of Users 27% 10% 8% 2012 Estimated Users* 14,555 5,430 4,550 24,535 Bus Carpool LRT Totals Note: Calculations for estimated users assumes an average arrival rate of students, faculty and staff of 4.2 times per week to campus. This is similar to existing arrival rates found in the 1998 U-PASS Survey (pg. 14). * The number shown for the population estimates includes students, faculty and staff and is rounded to the nearest increment of five. Source: DKS Associates As indicated in Table 50, the overall mode split for carpool and transit use is decreased due to the introduction of potential LRT. This does not mean that the number of transit users would decrease from existing conditions, it just means that the growth rate of carpool/vanpool users and transit users would not grow at the same rate that campus population increases. There is still an increase in the total number of transit riders. The decreased mode share for carpool/vanpool and transit is reflected in a shift to potential LRT use. The University of Washington forecasted future transit ridership (combined LRT and bus) is approximately 19,105 daily users by 2012. This is a growth of approximately 5,580 daily transit users from existing conditions. This growth in daily transit users could be accommodated several ways. Given the existing supply of bus transit service to the University area (47,930 unoccupied seats), this growth could be served by existing or modified/reconfigured bus service. It could also be serviced by potential LRT service combined with bus service. Table 51 summarizes the existing and future transit service and demand in the University District. 121 According to the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project FEIS Transportation Technical Report, November 1999, pg 124. Section III - Transportation 263 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Table 51 Existing and Future (2012) Transit Capacity and Demand Mode Existing Daily Seat Capacity 69,630 69,630 Existing Daily University District Seat Demand 21,700 21,700 2012 Daily Seat Capacity* 56,200 38,660 94,860 2012 Daily University District Seat Demand** 29,400 19,100 48,500 Bus LRT Totals * Assumes no additional bus service added, and the proposed LRT would replace routes #71, #72 and #73, with 1/3 replacement of routes #7, #43 and #48. This partial replacement is based on retaining 20 to 30 minute headways on routes that are similar to proposed LRT service. ** Based on Central Link Light Rail Transit Project FEIS: Transit Ridership Forecasting Technical Report, Pg. 94-96, Tables 4.2b and 4.2d. In comparison to transit service without light rail, the total number of users (bus, carpool and LRT) is higher with light rail service due to the fact that light rail service provides another alternative mode of travel. Estimated bus and carpool use is slightly lower with light rail because users are switching modes from bus and carpool to light rail, and light rail is getting users from the SOV mode. By shifting carpool and SOV users to LRT, the potential for vehicle trips in the University District is lowered. However, the base case analysis for vehicle trips and transit users was performed under a bus only scenario. The addition of light rail would be an enhancement to a transit system that would already be able to accommodate the forecasted demand while providing acceptable vehicle trip levels in the future. In the event that the future LRT is not operational prior to 2012, demand management techniques (similar to the bus only scenario) such as minor additions to peak hour service and additional efforts at trip avoidance and peak spreading would help to accommodate future transit demand. While the introduction of light rail could be a source of additional transit capacity, the existing transit resources could supply the needed transit resources to accommodate future transit demand. Additional transit service to the area (in the form of buses) should create a need for additional layover space related to providing more bus service to/from the University area, which will help serve the demand from the proposed LRT stations. Additional layover space has been identified by, and jointly agreed upon, by Metro, City of Seattle, King County, Sound Transit, Community Transit, local agencies, local neighborhoods and the University of Washington122. Possible Transit TMP Strategies The introduction of LRT into the area would increase transit service, which should in turn help to reduce the SOV mode share, which is a primary goal of the TMP. Also, an increase in the forecasted campus population without strategies to decrease the SOV mode share for trips to/from campus could result in an overall decrease of transit mode split. The following list of strategies should help to increase the use of transit to/from the University of Washington over the next ten years with the forecasted population change. 122 According to the University Transit Staging Project Report and Recommendation Volume I Site Alternatives and Evaluation 1998. Agreement was approved by the Executive Committee on November 17, 1997 (page VI-I). University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 264 • • • • Incorporate light rail ridership subsidies into the U-PASS program (assuming implementation of light rail by Sound Transit). Encourage transit agencies to increase evening (after 6PM) service to provide greater user flexibility and use of non-peak service. Provide a method for transit ridership subsidies for visitors to the campus and patients at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC). Incorporate intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions such as advanced transit traveler information (kiosks at bus stops/stations to relate “real-time” bus locations and times). HOV Future Conditions Similar to transit, carpool would experience a growth in users over the next ten years. As shown in Table 48, the number of users is forecasted to increase by approximately 920 users. One potential change in HOV use would be due to the potential introduction of LRT. There could be a decrease in the number of forecasted participants for carpools and vanpools with the introduction of light rail. This is due to a shift in mode choice from carpool/vanpool to light rail if light rail serves the area currently being served by the carpool/vanpool and light rail is as convenient and/or as cost effective as the carpool/vanpool. Possible HOV TMP Strategies The following list of strategies should help to increase the use of carpools/vanpools to and from the University of Washington over the next ten years with the forecasted population change. • • Develop “intelligent carpool/vanpool” technology (ITS software) that cross-references zip code and class registration information (time of classes) for students and prints possible ridematch candidates on each student’s registration (upon student’s approval). Continue to promote carpool and vanpool use through marketing. Parking Future Conditions The potential development identified in the Master Plan affects the existing parking supply by eliminating (or relocating) some existing parking and creating new parking spaces through redevelopment. This redistribution of existing parking could take parking in areas of campus that have a low utilization and relocate it to areas that have a higher demand for parking, or it could consolidate dispersed parking into concentrated areas of parking on campus. The total number of parking spaces on campus is not going to exceed the parking cap of 12,300 spaces. Limiting vehicle trip activity to levels at (or below) those prior to U-PASS implementation will help to limit the potential demand for parking, which in turn should help to reduce the need to build additional (net new) parking. In addition to the net loss and/or gain of spaces, the future parking demand determines where parking is deficient and should be planned for. To help forecast the number of parking spaces needed to serve the potential development in the Master Plan, existing parking ratios were University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 265 developed by sector then applied to the future potential development (gross square footage) found in each sector to generate a future parking demand per sector. To assess the impacts of Campus Master Plan growth on parking demand considering parking cost and other factors, a “pivot point” model was developed using inputs from the 1997 PSRC model, 2020 PSRC model, existing mode share and forecasted mode share to help determine the affect of parking pricing on the number of University related vehicle trips in the future. The price elasticity of parking (that is the relationship between parking costs and vehicle trips) from this model is between –0.1 to –0.2 using University of Washington specific input. The same range of elasticity was found from research of national studies on parking elasticities for employment related activities and for universities123. An elasticity of –0.1 indicates that a 10 percent increase in parking cost would be expected to reduce vehicle trips 1 percent124. Changes in pricing for parking can not only impact vehicle trips but parking demand. The “pivot point” model was used to test various parking price increases that would result in a condition where there would be “no growth” in vehicle trips. With the Master Plan growth and without any other TMP enhancements, it would take approximately a 140% increase (in current dollars) in parking costs to hold vehicle trip making near current levels. With other TMP enhancements the amount of parking pricing increase could be reduced to accomplish the same levels of demand. Table 52 summarizes the future parking demand conditions with and without (base case) pricing. Table 52 Forecasted 2012 Commuter Parking Use, Absent TMP Enhancements Without Pricing 9,850 1,865 11,715 Demand With 140% Pricing Increase 8,320 1,575 9,895 Today Future (additional demand) Total Source: DKS Associates, 2000. It would be beneficial to increase the cost of parking on a yearly basis greater than the consumer price index (CPI) to help balance the demand with the supply and try and reduce the demand further, which would also reduce the utilization to a lesser level. An additional impact of the proposed increase in student, staff and faculty campus population is related to off-campus parking. Existing RPZs are in place to help reduce the potential for students, faculty and staff to impact residential parking areas by parking off-campus. The existing agreement between the University of Washington and the City of Seattle places the burden (cost) of increasing an existing RPZ, or implementing a new RPZ, on the University. Measures should be taken to help define an appropriate way to indicate who the primary users are for the existing RPZ, or proposed RPZ, so that the University does not incur a disproportionate share of the total cost for the RPZ improvement. Economic and Other Considerations in Parking and Transportation, P. Cunningham, University of Michigan, January 1999. For more information on the parking elasticity for the University of Washington, please refer to the memo produced by DKS Associates for the University of Washington (May 19, 1999) titled Draft Evaluation of Parking Elasticities. 124 123 University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 266 Possible Parking TMP Strategies The continued development of areas on campus increases the demand for parking. This increased demand for parking in turn leads to a higher number of SOV related trips to/from campus. A primary goal of the TMP is to reduce the dependency of SOV use and increase awareness and use of alternative modes. The following list summarizes the recommended TMP strategies that would help reduce the demand for parking which would reduce the dependency of SOV use for the campus. • • • Increase parking pricing greater that the cost of living Develop graduated parking pricing to create pricing “tiers” for users that allows discounted parking for infrequent users and increased parking fees for frequent users. Emphasize the “just once a week” theme for modes other than single occupant vehicles (SOV) and develop ITS technology that allows for a discounted parking price if modes other than SOV are used to access campus. Potential Street and Alley Vacations Certain alleys/streets are being considered for vacation in the Campus Master Plan. These alleys/streets are all located in west campus and are linked to potential Master Plan development being considered for west campus. Potential Master Plan development is proposed to occur within the life of the Campus Master Plan, but the potential street/alley vacations are not currently prioritized in any order. After approval of the Master Plan, each potential street/alley vacation being considered will need to go through the street vacation process outlined by the City of Seattle for approval. During this process, impacts associated with each potential street vacation will be fully analyzed. The Master Plan is only identifying potential locations for street/alley vacations. The following list summarizes the potential street/alley vacations being considered in the Master Plan. • • • • • • • Campus Parkway westbound – Vacate between 12th Avenue and 15th Avenue and realign with Campus Parkway eastbound to create one two-way roadway. Alley between Brooklyn Avenue and 12th Avenue connecting 41st Street and Campus Parkway westbound – Vacate entire alley. (32W alley) Alley between University Way and Brooklyn Avenue connecting 40th Street to Campus Parkway eastbound – Vacate entire alley. (35W alley) Alley between 15th Avenue and University Way connecting Gould Hall to University Way – Vacate northern portion of alley (36W alley) Street vacation of 11th Avenue NE, between 41st and Campus Parkway. Alley between 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue north of 41st Street – Vacate portion of alley. (31W alley) Aerial vacations over NE Pacific South of Physics, between the two existing Pacific Street overpasses. Aerial vacations over Montlake north of the Hec Ed Pedestrian bridge. Aerial vacation of Portage Bay Vista pedestrian bridge. • • Some of the potential street/alley vacations listed above allow access to University of Washington parking areas in west campus. Faculty and staff generally utilize these parking areas. The potential vacation of these streets/alleys would create the need for either new parking (by eliminating existing parking), or new access to the existing parking. As part of the University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 267 Master Plan, areas in the west campus have been identified for additional parking that could replace lost parking due to the potential vacation of these streets or alleys. This additional parking would redirect some of the existing traffic patterns within west campus to access new (or relocated) parking. Each location for additional parking in west campus would be reviewed as to the individual impacts to the area and the potential impacts to traffic circulation patterns. This is done as part of the individual street vacation process for the City of Seattle. The potential street vacation with the largest effect on the transportation system is the realigning of Campus Parkway westbound with Campus Parkway eastbound to create one two-way roadway along the existing Campus Parkway eastbound alignment. Multiple alternatives were evaluated regarding this potential street vacation and the impacts for each were assessed.125 The potential alternative maintains the Campus Parkway westbound alignment from approximately 12th Avenue and only realigns Campus parkway westbound to the east of 12th Avenue to 15th Avenue. Impacts associated with the potential realignment of Campus Parkway are associated with consolidation of two one-way streets into one two-way street. These impacts are related to traffic operations, pedestrian and bicycle use, transit use and parking. To help assess potential impacts due to two-way operation along Campus Parkway, Table 53 summarizes traffic operations in the future with and without realignment. Table 53 Forecasted 2012 Traffic Operations Along Campus Parkway With and Without Potential Street Realignment Intersection 2012 PM Peak Without Realignment Delay LOS V/C 15.9 B 0.43 0.6 A 0.46 16.9 B 0.30 15.9 B 0.29 18.6 B 0.48 16.5 B 0.42 2012 PM Peak With Realignment Delay LOS V/C 21.2 C 0.61 22.8 C 0.54 28.5 C 0.77 Campus Parkway (east)/15th Avenue Campus Parkway (west)/15th Avenue Campus Parkway (east)/University Way Campus Parkway (west)/University Way Campus Parkway (east)/Brooklyn Avenue Campus Parkway (west)/Brooklyn Avenue Source: DKS Associates, 2000. As Table 53 indicates, the potential realignment of Campus Parkway does not decrease the traffic operations at signalized intersections to unacceptable levels of service. Pedestrians facilities would be included along all sections of the realignment. Bike lanes would also be incorporated along the realignment up to Brooklyn Avenue with connection from Brooklyn Avenue north and south to parallel routes heading into campus (please refer to University of Washington Master Plan Transportation Technical Report for Bicycle Improvement Plan elements). Transit modifications, such as the relocation of overhead trolley wires, would also be incorporated as part of this potential realignment of Campus Parkway. 125 Please refer to the technical appendix in the University of Washington Master Plan, Transportation Technical Report Technical Appendix for a memo addressing potential Campus Parkway realignment impacts. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 268 This alternative for Campus Parkway was selected because it can easily be incorporated into improvements to the west of the area (Eastlake/Roosevelt Way/11th Avenue interchange) in the future. This alternative offers flexibility to foster a cooperative effort with the City of Seattle for improvements in the area that may not be associated with the University of Washington. As with each potential street vacation, a full analysis of impacts would be conducted if the potential street vacation were pursued. The Campus Master Plan only illustrates the range of alternatives for potential street vacations that may occur during the life of the Plan. Construction Impacts During construction, there will be temporary impacts to circulation and operations due to the number of truck trips and construction worker trips associated with each potential development. The construction related trips (both truck and worker oriented) will increase the number of trips on the transportation network resulting in inconveniences that could result in additional vehicle and/or pedestrian delay near projects. These delays are only temporary and are related to the construction project. There are no road or lane closures expected as of yet for developments; however, there may be temporary road or lane closures associated with construction sites due to the movement and/or installation of equipment. Specific impacts associated with individual site developments would be addressed through traffic impact studies specific to the individual site. These studies will address potential impacts such as truck trips, trips generated by the site, temporary parking and traffic control, and the potential to conduct some construction activities during off-peak traffic hours. Alternatives No Action Because the proposed Campus Master Plan would not provide a significant amount of additional parking and motor vehicle trips to the campus would not significantly increase, motor vehicle traffic conditions on (and in the vicinity of) campus under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. However, the shifting of motor vehicle trips on campus to other locations would not occur. With the lower campus population, pedestrian, bicycle and transit use would be less than under the Proposed Action. The existing University U-PASS and other TMP measures would continue. Decentralization/Open Space Under the Decentralization/Open Space Alternative, less building development would occur on the Seattle Campus. With the existing limitations on leasing and construction of buildings for university uses in the University District, decentralized university uses would likely be located a significant distance from the Seattle Campus. Motor vehicle trips and other mode trips would be shifted from the University to other parts of the city. With university uses dispersed to various parts of the city, the university could not efficiently utilize TMP measures as efficiently as under the Proposed Action. With retention of the lease lid, the total number of vehicle trips generated University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 269 could be greater than under the proposed Campus Master Plan due to reduction in TMP effectiveness No Street or Alley Vacations No traffic would need to be redistributed due to streets or alleys vacated. Background growth in traffic volumes would still be the primary factor for impacts at intersections due to the fact that the University will manage vehicle trips to levels at or below those experienced prior to U-PASS implementation. Lifting of Lease Limit With removal of the existing lease lid, the number of University related vehicle trips in the University District would increase. The traffic impacts resulting from development in the University District was analyzed in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist. With implementation of University of Washington’s TMP measures, traffic impacts associated with University-related development in the University District could be less than that identified in the UCUC Plan Environmental Checklist. Possible Mitigation Measures The following is a menu of possible TMP measures available to the University. The University would choose among the listed possible TMP measures to maintain or reduce motor vehicle traffic compared to existing conditions, and increase the availability and effectiveness of alternate transportation modes. Pedestrian Measures • Coordinate with the City of Seattle to identify improvements to the local pedestrian network such as filling in gaps in the pedestrian network, changing signal timing to establish pedestrian priority over vehicles and enhancing pathways/sidewalks (either by widening or a regular maintenance program). Designate and improve priority pedestrian commuting corridors. Increase pedestrian safety through the use of better lighting and innovative roadway designs (such as raised crossings, curb extensions and advanced warning signage). Increase marketing of walking as an alternative mode. • • • Bicycle Measures • • • • Create additional secured, covered bike lockers and shower facilities on campus to promote bicycle use. Implement a bicycle/pedestrian safety program with measurable goals to help promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of travel and raise the awareness level of bicycles on the transportation network. Subsidize bicycle sales or leasing for students, faculty and staff to help increase bicycle ownership. Coordinate with the City of Seattle to enhance corridors identified in the Master Plan for use by bicycles. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 270 • Develop intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions to help “track” individual bicycle use to/from campus, which in turn offers parking subsidization for the individual for selecting an alternative mode to school/work. Transit Measures • • • • Incorporate light rail ridership subsidies into the U-PASS program (assuming implementation of light rail by Sound Transit). Encourage transit agencies to increase evening (after 6PM) service to provide greater user flexibility and use of non-peak service. Provide a method for transit ridership subsidies for visitors to the campus and patients at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC). Incorporate intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions such as advanced transit traveler information (kiosks at bus stops/stations to relate “real-time” bus locations and times). HOV Measures • • Develop “intelligent carpool/vanpool” technology (ITS software) that cross-references zip code and class registration information (time of classes) for students and prints possible ridematch candidates on each student’s registration (upon student’s approval). Continue to promote carpool and vanpool use through marketing. Parking Measures • • • Increase parking pricing greater than the cost of living. Develop graduated parking pricing to create pricing “tiers” for users that allows discounted parking for infrequent users and increased parking fees for frequent users. Emphasize the “just once a week” theme for modes other than single occupant vehicles (SOV) and develop ITS technology that allows for a discounted parking price if modes other than SOV are used to access campus. Marketing The University currently maintains an extensive marketing program through brochures and the U-PASS program to help make students, staff and faculty aware of different commuting options. The University conducts transportation fairs where different mode options are highlighted and promoted. In the fall, all of the students, faculty and staff receive a U-PASS User’s Guide that covers multiple modes of travel and how the U-PASS covers each mode. The University of Washington World Wide Web site also contains useful information about the U-PASS program and other modes of travel. The following list summarizes some of the possible marketing improvements that could be accomplished in the TMP. • • • • • Focus marketing efforts on new employees. Increase marketing of biking, walking and carpooling. Link marketing to national modal days (i.e. bike to work day, take transit to work day, etc.). Incorporate walking into promotions. Improve transit information to off-campus sites, visitors and patients. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 271 Institutional Policies The University can modify and implement institutional policies that help to promote different modes of travel and/or reduce vehicle trips on the transportation network. While the other elements of the TMP are aimed at provision of different mode choices, institutional policies are aimed primarily at controlling forecasted growth in trips. The following list summarizes some of the possible institutional policy measures that could be implemented as part of the TMP. • Establish policies and aggressively promote telecommuting, flextime, compressed workweeks and other techniques to reduce peak period travel. This could include a program for staff and faculty to have computers with high-speed communication access while off campus. Expedite the delivery of the U-PASS to new employees. Direct growth to off-peak quarters (especially summer). Modify and expand faculty/staff-housing benefit to favor nearby housing. Partner with developers for off-campus U-District and transit corridor housing development (i.e. Sound Transit stations). Increase on-campus student employment to decrease linked SOV trips. Encourage surrounding employers/institutions to implement similar TMP strategies when applicable. Increase student housing development. Coordinate with the city so that costs for transportation facilities can be shared in a fair and equitable manner (e.g., district fees, area-wide fees, transportation improvement fees, etc.) Centralize off-campus development near transit hubs. • • • • • • • • • Monitoring Program The University has an extensive program of monitoring, evaluating and reporting transportation conditions, including counting vehicles, on-street surveying of vehicles operators, surveying by telephone of students, staff and faculty about commute behavior, counting bicycle rack utilization and other ad hoc surveys. The University produces reports on the annual Campus Traffic Count, the Biennial University District Cordon Count and UPASS Annual Report. Results of these reports are posted on the Web. Most of these monitoring and reporting activities are proposed to continue. However, the University proposes to cease its biennial on-street survey of vehicle operators, the “University District Cordon Count”, and focus its measurement and benchmarks on students, staff and faculty. The University District Cordon Count is conducted over a two-week period every two years during the autumn quarter when 14 locations around the University are sampled once each and vehicle operators are asked, “Are you going to or from the University of Washington or its facilities?” Based on the percentage of yes/no answers to this question and a count of vehicles over the period, the percentage of University traffic is deduced. The University believes that the survey does not provide information that leads to the improvement of transportation conditions in the University District. The survey costs the University and the City of Seattle $30,000 each every two years. Both the City of Seattle and the University could better invest this money in other information gathering that will help address ongoing transportation problems in the area. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 272 The University acknowledges that like other public and private organizations it should be responsible for managing the commuter transportation of its employees. However, like other public and private organizations, managing the transportation impact of the customers and visitors is problematic. Although students are the primary customers, it is believed the TMP can continue to be successful managing their transportation impacts. Managing the travel behavior of patients and visitors to campus, such as museum and theater patrons, public school student guests, public meeting attendees, and other guests presents barriers to access to campus, conflicts with the public service mission of the University, is contrary to the interests of the citizens of the area and is contrary to City policy about encouraging public use of the campus. Other public and private organizations are not subject to the same requirements and in fact the City does not require demand management of itself with its customers, for example at Seattle Center. Controlling the travel behavior of patients and visitors to campus is therefore proposed to be excluded from limitations on vehicle trips. Nevertheless, the University proposes above to implement changes that will improve the mode share of these groups, for example providing a method for subsidized transit for patients and visitors. This TMP will be monitored and TMP elements will be improved or expanded with some of the potential improvements listed herein to keep the vehicle trips created by University of Washington students, staff and faculty at or below the same level. The monitoring program would include the following. • • • • Conduct an annual campus traffic count to evaluate the number of vehicles entering and leaving campus. Conduct biennial transient parking survey to identify and track non-permit parking inventory usage. Conduct annual bicycle rack utilization survey. Modify the location and quantity of bike racks to accommodate demand. Conduct biennial U-PASS telephone surveys. Based on the results of the survey, calculate trips generated by students, staff and faculty. If these trips increase, implement additional elements to prevent trips calculated with the subsequent survey from exceeding the goals established in 1991. Conduct supplemental counts and surveys to better understand market segments. Produce and distribute a U-PASS Annual Report that identifies the results of monitoring efforts. Post the monitoring results on the Web. • • Summary of TMP Strategies The TMP strategies listed in this section will affect future mode shares and help to reduce the number of forecasted SOV trips to/from campus. While many factors can play a dramatic role in the shift of mode choice for each individual user, the following summary information helps to identify the potential number of reduced SOV trips utilizing these strategies. Table 54 summarizes the number of daily vehicle trips associated by campus user group under different conditions. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 273 Table 54 Daily Vehicle Trips by Campus User Group User Group Students Faculty Staff Patients Visitor Others Total Existing 1999 26,200 14,575 24,460 2,630 8,530 3,635 80,030 Source: DKS Associates, 2000. Year 2012 with Existing TMP 29,280 20,680 27,840 3,000 9,740 4,150 94,690 Year 2012 with Enhanced TMP (Bus Only) 18,015 19,565 25,820 2,910 9,445 4,025 79,780 Difference 1999 to 2012 (8,185) 4,900 1,360 280 915 390 (250) Note: Vehicle trip calculation for 2012 enhanced TMP does not included LRT. Maintaining the existing TMP strategies would result in an increase in daily trips by all campus users of 14,930 vehicle trips. As a result of the enhanced TMP measures discussed in this report, the total forecasted daily vehicle trips for 2012 are reduced to just below the existing daily vehicle trips by approximately 250 daily vehicle trips. The introduction of light rail could reduce more daily vehicle trips to campus but is not necessary to achieve adequate trip levels in the future and should be viewed as an additional element to the enhanced TMP. Table 55 shows the existing and potential mode share utilizing the previously mentioned TMP strategies. Table 55 Existing and Potential Forecasted Mode Share Mode SOV Pedestrian Bicycle Transit (bus) Transit (LRT) Carpool/Vanpool Other Totals Existing Mode Share 25% 27% 6% 29% 12% 1% 100% 2012 Enhanced TMP (Bus Only) 22% 27% 8% 31% 12 * 2012 Enhanced TMP (With LRT) 20% 25% 8% 28% 8% 10% * 100% Note: 2012 enhanced TMP has less than 1% other mode share. Source: DKS Associates, 2000. As shown in Table 55, the enhanced TMP (with bus transit service only) reduces mode share for SOV use while maintaining acceptable vehicle trip levels found in Table 54. The addition of LRT to the enhanced TMP further reduces reliance of SOV use, and has the potential to reduce vehicle trip levels found in Table 54 even more. Table 56 summarizes the TMP strategies listed in this chapter and the elements/modes that are either directly or indirectly complimented by the strategy. This matrix helps determine which strategies affect more than just one mode/element. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 274 Table 56 – TMP Strategies that Complement Mode/Element Directly or Indirectly Pedestrian TMP Strategy Coordinate with the City of Seattle to identify local pedestrian ! improvements. ! Designate and improve priority pedestrian commuting corridors. ! Increase pedestrian safety and connectivity. Create additional secured covered bike lockers and shower ! facilities on campus to promote bicycle use. Implement a bicycle/pedestrian safety program with measurable ! goals. Subsidize bicycle sales, or leases, for students, faculty and staff ! to help increase bicycle ownership. Coordinate with the City of Seattle to enhance corridors identified ! for use by bicycles. Develop intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions to help ! “track” bicycle users to/from campus which in turn offers parking subsidization for selecting an alternative mode to school/work. Incorporate light rail ridership subsidies into the U-PASS ! program. Encourage transit agencies to increase service after 6PM to ! provide greater user flexibility and use of non-peak service. Provide a method for transit ridership subsidies for visitors to the ! campus and patients at the UWMC. Incorporate intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions such ! as advanced transit traveler information (kiosks at bus stops/stations to relate “real-time” bus locations and times. Develop “intelligent carpool/vanpool” technology (ITS software) that cross-references zip code and class registration information (time of classes) for students and prints possible ridematch candidates on each student’s registration (upon student’s approval). Improve transit information to off-campus sites. Continue to promote carpool and vanpool use through ! marketing. q Increase parking pricing greater than the cost of living. q - Indicates TMP strategy that primarily affects a particular mode/element ! - Indicates TMP strategy that complements or supports another mode/element University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS q q q q q q q q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Marketing Housing Parking Mode/Element Auto ! q q q q ! ! q ! q ! q q q Section III - Transportation 275 Institutional Policies ! ! ! ! Bicycle Transit HOV Table 56 – TMP Strategies that Complement Mode/Element Directly or Indirectly (continued) Pedestrian TMP Strategy Develop graduated parking pricing to create pricing “tiers” for users that allows discounted parking for infrequent users and increased parking fees for frequent users. Emphasize the “just once a week” theme for modes other than single occupant vehicle (SOV) and develop ITS technology that allows for a discounted parking price if other modes than SOV are used to access campus. Focus marketing efforts on new employees. Increase marketing of biking, walking and carpooling. Link marketing to national modal days (i.e. bike to work day, take transit to work day, etc.). Establish policies and aggressively promote telecommuting, flextime, compressed work weeks and other techniques to reduce peak period travel. Expedite the delivery of the U-PASS to new employees. Direct growth to off peak quarters (especially summer,). Modify and expand faculty/staff housing benefit to favor nearby housing. Partner with developers for off-campus U-District and transit corridor housing development. Increase on-campus student employment to decrease linked SOV trips. Increase student housing development. Encourage surrounding employers/institutions to implement similar TMP strategies when applicable. Coordinate with the city so that costs for transportation facilities could be shared in a fair and equitable manner. Centralize off-campus development near transit hubs. q q Marketing ! Housing Parking Mode/Element Auto q ! ! ! ! q q q q q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! q q ! q ! ! q ! ! ! ! ! ! q q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! q ! ! q - Indicates TMP strategy that primarily affects a particular mode/element ! - Indicates TMP strategy that complements or supports another mode/element University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 276 Institutional Policies q ! q q q q q q q q q q Bicycle Transit HOV The information found in Table 56 helps to identify which TMP strategies will help support and/or compliment other elements or modes. This is important when trying to establish the effectiveness of a strategy to either decrease SOV mode share or increase use of that particular mode (or both). If complimentary strategies are pursued, the net affect on decreasing SOV mode share can be increased. Table 57 summarizes the percentage of effectiveness of each strategy to decrease SOV trips to and from the campus. There is a range of effectiveness based on support from complimentary strategies pursued. It should also be noted that many of these strategies are specific to a certain type of user for the campus. For example, providing transit subsidies for visitors and patients to the UWMC, does not reduce the SOV mode share for students, faculty or staff, it only reduces the number of trips to and from the facility. It should also be noted that promoting certain modes of use might shift use from other modes. For example, the introduction of potential LRT could shift users from an existing carpool/vanpool mode share and/or transit mode share to LRT use. Table 57 Effectiveness of TMP Strategies TMP Strategy Coordinate with the City of Seattle to identify local pedestrian improvements. Designate and improve priority pedestrian commuting corridors. Increase pedestrian safety. Create additional secured covered bike lockers and shower facilities on campus to promote bicycle use. Implement a bicycle/pedestrian safety program with measurable goals. Subsidize bicycle sales for students, faculty and staff to help increase bicycle ownership. Coordinate with the City of Seattle to enhance corridors identified for use by bicycles. Develop intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions to help “track” bicycle users to/from campus which in turn offers parking subsidization for selecting an alternative mode to school/work. Incorporate light rail ridership subsidies into the U-PASS program. Encourage transit agencies to increase evening (after 6PM). Provide a method for transit ridership subsidies for visitors to the campus and patients at the UWMC. Incorporate intelligent transportation system (ITS) solutions such as advanced transit traveler information (kiosks at bus stops/stations to relate “real-time” bus locations and times. Develop “intelligent carpool/vanpool” technology (ITS software) that cross-references zip code and class registration information (time of classes) for students and suggests possible matches. Improve transit information to off-campus sites. Continue to promote carpool and vanpool use through marketing. Increase parking pricing greater than the cost of living. Potential Trip Reduction 0-1% 0-1% 1-2% 0-3% 0-1% 0-3% 1-2% 1-2% 1-10% 1-2% 0-1% 1-2% 1-2% 1-2% 1-2% 1% reduction in demand for every 10% increase in cost (above cost of living) 0-3% Develop graduated parking pricing to create pricing “tiers” for users that allows discounted parking for infrequent users and increased parking fees for frequent users. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 277 Table 57 Continued Emphasize the “just once a week” theme for modes other than single occupant vehicle (SOV) and develop ITS technology that allows for a discounted parking price if other modes than SOV are used to access campus. Focus marketing efforts on new employees. Increase marketing of biking, walking and carpooling. Link marketing to national modal days (i.e. bike to work day, take transit to work day, etc.). Establish policies and aggressively promote telecommuting, flex-time, compressed work weeks and other techniques to reduce peak period travel. Expedite the delivery of the U-PASS to new employees. Direct growth to off peak quarters (especially summer,). Modify and expand faculty/staff-housing benefit to favor nearby housing. Partner with developers for off-campus U-District and transit corridor housing development. Increase on-campus student employment to decrease linked SOV trips. Increase student housing development. Encourage surrounding employers/institutions to implement similar TMP strategies when applicable. Coordinate with the city so that costs for transportation facilities could be shared in a fair and equitable manner. Centralize off-campus development near transit hubs. 0-3% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 1-2% 0-1% 0-1% 1-2% 1-2% 0-1% 1-2% 0-1% 0-1% 1-2% SOURCES: Guidance for Estimating Trip Reductions From Commute Options, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, August 1996. Guide to Calculating Transportation Demand Management Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, November 1999. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The increase in total campus population would increase the demand for pedestrian, bicycle, HOV and transit facilities. With implementation of the proposed TMP measures, significant impacts would not be anticipated. University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan Final EIS Section III - Transportation 278