UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Theresa Doherty, Assistant Vice President
MEETING SUMMARY
CITY OF SEATTLE – UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting #62
March 9, 2004
Members Present Staff Present
Ron Adams, Eastlake (del) Jan Arntz, UW Capital Projects
Don Argus, Montlake (del) Dave Boyd, Dept of Neighborhoods
Earl Bell, University Park (alt) Andy Casillos, UW Capital Projects
Michael Bittner, Ravenna-Bryant (del) Theresa Doherty, UW Regional Affairs
Ken Fales, Montlake (alt) Steve Kennard, UW Real Estate
Matt Fox, UDCC (del) Julie Meredith, WA State DOT
Becki Frestedt, UW Student (alt) Paul Roybal, UW Transportation
Mark Holden, Laurelhurst (alt) John Shaw, Dept of Planning &
Danny Kraus, UW Staff (del) Development
Eric Larson, RN Alliance (del) Eric Smith, UW Capital Projects
Neal Lessenger, UW At-Large (del) Ivan Turner, UW Capital Projects
Chris MacKenzie, Wallingford (del)
Zenaida Olivas, UW Student (del) Others Present
Bonnie Zinn, Laurelhurst (del)
Steven Agnew, Boat Street Marina
David Eckert, Roosevelt Neighbors
Bryan Jarr, Enviro Issues
CUCAC Meeting Summary
March 9, 2004
Page 2
1. Opening and Housekeeping
The meeting was called to order by Co-Chair Michael Bittner at 7:05 p.m.
The minutes were corrected as follows:
• Include Bonnie Zinn and Ken Fales as attending the meeting.
• Correct page 2 to refer to Nuclear Reactor (not Nuclear Power Plant).
• Correct page 3, next to last paragraph, to reflect Matt Fox’s recommendation that
the EIS should be re-issued so that all alternatives can be evaluated together.
• Correct page 4, next to the last bullet, to say “not currently being considered” and
note that the station would be at 45th and 15th NE.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
2. General UW Updates (Theresa Doherty, UW Regional Affairs)
The Modified Montlake Alternative Addendum has been issued and comments are due
on March 11. Many community groups have reviewed the Addendum. The UW will be
submitting its response on March 11. A question was raised about the lack of
information about a possible station at 15th and 45th in the Addendum.
The Lease Lid has been remanded to the City Council by the Growth Management
Hearing Board that found that the City Council should have followed a different public
participation process in approving the first amendment to the 1998 City University
Agreement. The City Council will have to revisit the issue and it will most likely come
back to CUCAC.
Trees – Jan passed three different perspectives two Douglas fir trees that are in front of
the Faculty Club that will have to be taken down to widen the sidewalk and make way for
an ADA ramp in the sidewalk. Right now, the trees are in the middle of the sidewalk and
ADA access is not easy in that area.
3. Boat Street Marina
Steve Kennard passed out a revised configuration of the Boat Street Marina. The marina
is past its useful life and the Marina manager and the UW Real Estate Office are working
to re-configure the marina so that it is self-sustaining and responds to the new regulations
for marinas. Rent is calculated by the foot, and leases are on a month-for-month. There
is a higher percentage of 20-29’ slips. Side ties are used for small boats. There are only
six 40 foot slips. More 25 foot slips were added because six of the 40 foot slips were
taken away. At the last CUCAC meeting they heard concern by CUCAC members about
the need for fewer large boats and more smaller boat slips. The new configuration
responds to these needs. The floating office marina will be included in the new plan as it
is currently configured. The project time-line has been delayed for a about a year
because of the need to do some sediment sampling.
4. Research and Technology Building
CUCAC Meeting Summary
March 9, 2004
Page 3
Eric Smith, UW Capital Projects Office, mentioned that this was his third visit to
CUCAC regarding the R&T Building. He introduced Andy Casillos, also from Capital
Projects. Eric reviewed the design, location and status of progress on the new building.
It will include 115,000 gross square feet plus room for parking. There will be a reduced
amount of on-site parking. One hundred and twenty slots will not be feasible. Sixty
seven slots will be provided on-site and 53 will be made up by leasing portions of
existing lots. At this point there are no committed tenants, but once the building
approaches completion, tenants will come forward as grants are obtained that require
space. Evaluation criteria will include 1) lowest life cycle costs, and 2) lead certifiable
building. Capital Projects Office is currently reviewing proposals. The process includes
review by the Architectural Commission. These meetings are open to the public.
The environmental checklist will be reviewed by CUCAC at its April 2004 meeting.
CUCAC reviewed the drawings by the two teams in the competition: Lease Crutcher
Lewis and Mortenson. The concerns and comments expressed by CUCAC can be
summarized into four main categories:
• Landscaping: Work with the landscaping to be sure the building blends with the
Burke Gilman trail and surrounding areas.
• Trail: preserve the use of the trail during construction and integrate the building
with the trail.
• Safety, security: The area where the building will be built could do with more
lighting to make it safer so consider safety and lighting in the building design.
• Façade: Comments were made about modulation in the building to keep it from
looking out of place or too large and the use of bricks was encouraged.
5. New Cordon Count Methodology
Paul Roybal, UW Transportation Manager, introduced the topic of the new monitoring
methodology as part of the approved Campus Master Plan. John Shaw, Seattle
Department of Planning and Development, was also introduced. John Shaw has been
working with University staff to review and approve the new methodology on behalf of
the City and he says he feels the new methodology is an effective tool for monitoring
University traffic. Paul reviewed the handout dated March 2. He mentioned that
numbers were close to the caps in some cases, but still below.
Questions and comments raised during the presentation included:
• The difference between morning and evening trips counted
• What are the peak times for visitor and patient parking
• Relationship to the rising cost of UPass
• How numbers have changed in conversion to the new methodology
• How results of the count would be effected by Sound Transit
The question was posed by Matt Fox about how far under the old caps, prior to the
exclusion of visitors and patients, is the University from its trip limits? Below is a chart
that shows the old numbers (which included visitors and patients) compared to the new
CUCAC Meeting Summary
March 9, 2004
Page 4
numbers, which do not include visitors and patients. It shows that the University is now
closer to the trip caps than it was before with the exception of PM peak outbound from
the U District.
Trip estimates compared to limits
PM Peak PM Peak
AM Peak AM Peak Outbound Outbound
Inbound to Inbound to from U from
U District Campus District Campus
GPDP limits 10760 8267 13270 9782
1999 Cordon count estimate 8760 12166
2002 Campus traffic count
estimate 6738 8951
Percent under old caps 19% 18% 8% 8%
CMP cap 10020 7877 10484 8488
2003 vehicle trip estimates 8735 7464 9263 7887
percent under new CMP cap 13% 5% 12% 7%
6. State Route 520 Update
Julie Meredith from the SR 520 Project gave an update on the project. The project is now
just focusing on SR 520. It is no longer considered a “Translake Washington” study.
In addition to being vulnerable to earthquakes and winds, the 520 Bridge does not meet
current codes. When winds reach 35-40 mph, the bridge must be closed to traffic and
then opened to relieve stress on the structure. Interim fixes have been attempted since its
construction, but life expectancy is estimated at 2020.The State is in the process of doing
an environmental analysis. The DEIS will be issued in Summer 2005.
A four, six, and eight-lane alternative are being considered. These alternatives include
high capacity transit options. All alternatives are designed to meet federal standards.
The four-lane alternative would have a connection to express lanes. All alternatives
include bicycle and pedestrian access.
Since time was running short, CUCAC members talked about inviting Julie back again to
focus on a smaller piece of the picture. At the next CUCAC meeting the members will
narrow down what they would like to see in the next presentation and get back to Julie.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 after it was decided that there would be an April
meeting.