With a self-proclaimed commitment to embracing carpooling, public transit, and other eco-friendly commuting alternatives, UW continues to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) commutes and improve transportation accessibility for its students. 

The campus benefits from two stations of a growing light rail network that reached Northgate in 2021 and will extend to Lynnwood in 2024 and across the lake to Bellevue and Redmond in 2025. The student population is also heavily reliant on buses that have suffered some service cuts in the pandemic era. The Campus Master Plan stipulates a drive alone rate target of 15% one year after Lynnwood Link opens. 

As the transportation landscape at UW evolves, students have not been silent about their experiences. Sarina Vafa, a senior at UW, told The Urbanist, “The bus is fuller this year… There are times when they don’t even let more people on.” 

Megan Wong, another senior at UW, noted, “I’ve seen multiple full buses driving to campus from the U District.”

These concerns highlight the need for UW to continue to update its transportation systems to accommodate more riders. However, these student accounts also suggest that the universities’ initiative to encourage students to use the bus is working as the buses are becoming more crowded. Student anecdotes are supported by survey data, which show the university is reducing its drive alone rate and seeing a transit rebound. 

In its 2023 annual report, UW reported a 13% drive alone rate for 2022 across its whole population, with walking and transit the top two ways people get to campus. About a quarter of faculty and staff drive alone, but just 8% of students do, bringing down the campus-wide average. One big change in the pandemic era: 34% of UW employees are now telecommuting which has helped decrease driving rates and student transit rates are recovering after an initial pandemic dip. 

Despite the slow return to transit use post-Covid, the university has made efforts to reduce its transportation impacts, resulting in one of the lowest drive alone rates among universities nationwide. In 2019, the campus-wide drive alone rate was 18%, and UW did not list telecommuting in its mode share report.

Through the UW Master Plan, UW balances campus growth and evolving transportation needs, setting targets for classroom space, greenspace, transportation mode share, and housing on campus. With an assist from the pandemic telecommuting trend, UW has achieved its drive alone target, but the university will need to ensure those gains are sustained. Student advocacy that won free transit passes for all students and staff (despite the initial reticence of the administration to do so) also helped. 

Advocates Press for More Affordable, Accessible Transit 

UW’s sustainable transportation achievements did not come without their share of resistance from within the university itself. The Transit Riders Union, a group dedicated to advocating for public transit, emphasized to UW the vital importance of encouraging people to shift from driving to using public transit as a key strategy to mitigate passenger transportation emissions. Katie Wilson, the general secretary of the Transit Riders Union, underlined that one of the most effective ways to promote public transit usage is for employers to provide transit passes to their employees. 

“Encouraging people to make the switch from driving alone to public transit is one of the most effective things we can do to turn [passenger transportation emissions] around,” Wilson told UW Daily in 2019. 

As part of this advocacy, the Transit Riders Union delivered a letter at the University of Washington’s board of regents meeting on May 9, 2018 calling on them to provide fully subsidized transit passes for UW employees (and they echoed this call in The Urbanist). Eventually, their mission ended successfully after the UW board of regents approved free U-Passes for all employees starting in July 2022. Had it not been for the efforts of this coalition, UW students and employees might not be benefitting from the free U-Pass as they do today.

Other organizations, including The Sierra Club, expressed their concerns about UW’s hesitancy to give free U-Passes to employees. In a letter addressed to the city, The Sierra Club pointed out that the rate of staff members driving alone to the university, which stood at 38% in 2002, had barely changed by 2016, remaining at 36% in 2019. This situation initially persisted even after the extension of light rail to Husky Stadium, at the edge of campus. 

The Sierra Club argued that with staff represents a substantial 46% of the overall projected single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) rate in 2028, they should be the primary target for free U-Passes. In response, the university articulated that free transit passes would necessitate action from the state legislature to both mandate and allocate funding for such a program. Given UW’s ample resources, these claims appeared to be empty justifications.

Along with concerns for the solo driver rates around UW, The Sierra Club also spoke out about UW’s parking caps. A representative for the club stated that UW’s parking cap should be reduced, which was at the time set at 12,300 spaces. He argued that the cap did not account for 750 spaces in the University of Washington Tower. Plus, this cap was established nearly 30 years ago in 1990, and that the university should adjust its parking supply to better align with current needs. Though UW eventually heeded these requests, it took almost 30 years to realize they could get by with less parking.

The movement for free U-Passes grew so popular that, in 2018, UW employees and their community allies engaged in countless advocacy efforts. This included staging rallies, disrupting traffic, composing letters, securing endorsements from elected officials, submitting petitions, and offering testimonies during meetings. Simultaneously, labor unions, such as SEIU 925 and UAW 4121, representing various sectors of the UW workforce, made transit passes a central focus during contract negotiations. Despite successfully including free U-PASS provisions in these negotiations, campus unions had to mobilize and initiate third-party grievance arbitration when the University of Washington attempted to withdraw on its commitment to extend this benefit to all eligible members. 

A Plan to Enhance Commute-Trip Efficiency and Invest in Sustainability 

Responding to pushback from groups like the Transit Riders Union, the Sierra Club, and the wider university community, UW has worked towards a more sustainable university. In its 2023 Master Plan, the university seeks to lower the number of solo trips by UW students and staff to 15% of vehicles within this year. This rate has already seen a drop of 5.9% since UW’s Campus Master Plan initiation. The university also pledges to maintain AM and PM trip caps to prevent peak traffic around campus. They have also implemented a parking stall cap at 9000 spots, which was achieved after a successful removal of 56 stalls compared to last year. 

UW has also shown more progress towards their commitment to sustainability through their investment in alternative modes of transportation. This includes the development of pedestrian-friendly crosswalks to encourage cycling and walking on and around campus. Additionally, to promote using accessible transportation on campus, UW has partnered with bikeshare and scooter venders which gives riders affiliated with UW a 50% off discount. By lowering the price of bikes, students will have more of an incentive to use them. This year, UW plans on opening bike houses in three locations across campus, which will have a total capacity of 300 bikes. These efforts not only reduce congestion but also contribute to the university’s environmental goals. 

Furthermore, carpooling and ridesharing are becoming more than just buzzwords on campus. UW is increasing its encouragement for students and staff to participate in carpooling programs. Carpools are offered discounted parking on campus as well as given reserved parking stalls. 

For those who don’t have carpool options, UW encourages students to ride the bus. On Sept. 1, 2022, UW implemented a new transportation demand management strategy. Since then, all riders under the age of 18 can ride the bus for free thanks to the state “Move Ahead Washington” transportation package. In the past year, all 22,900 campus employees have also been covered with access to free U-Passes, an expansion covering more than 10,000 non-unionized employees.

If bussing isn’t convenient, UW also offers intercampus shuttles between medical centers as well as a NightRide shuttle to get students who live on or off campus home safely. These options provide students with convenient ways to get around while meeting UW’s environmental goals.  

Continuous Feedback and Adaptation 

UW seeks feedback from students and the community regarding their transportation experiences. Through their annual survey and traffic report, the university is able to understand traffic volumes and measure different forms of transportation. By listening to concerns and making necessary adjustments, UW aims to create a transportation system that evolves to meet the changing needs and modes of transportation. Based on last year’s survey, the university plans on developing neighborhood commute plans for high populated zip codes around the U District. Additionally, UW intends to upgrade 60 locations with scooter docking locations to address the rising number of electric scooters on campus. 

UW’s 2022 transportation survey results show them well below the cap set in the Campus Master Plan: 

As the University of Washington’s Campus Master Plan for transportation unfolds, it stands as a testament to the institution’s dedication to improvement. At the same time, it showcases the voices of the people who pushed UW towards a greener future.

The post UW Grapples with the Transportation Needs of a Growing Campus first appeared on The Urbanist.

In their approved 2019 Seattle Campus Master Plan (CMP), the UW acknowledged West Campus as their most urban of the four campus sectors. The 2019 plan succeeds the 2003 Campus Master Plan of which there is only 210,000 square feet of new development left out of the three million gross square feet (gsf) approved in 2003. The University identifies nearly 12 million square feet of development capacity in its newest CMP and is now allowed to grow six million square feet over the ten-year span of the master plan — though the CMP will remain in effect until the growth allowance is exhausted. Assuming that the University’s allowance is expended by and updated again in 2029, the UW will be allowed to build more than three times as fast as it did between 2003 and 2019.

West Campus and South Campus are receiving the greatest fraction of the maximum development capacity within the span of the 2019 plan. West Campus is slated to take on half of the maximum development capacity, and South Campus is slated for nearly a quarter of the capacity. These sectors are also the smallest of the four campuses, so intensity of construction activity is expected to be high. The main difference between West and South Campus is their existing conditions. South Campus is already well built out with aging midrises. While it’s seen its fair share of student housing built in the past two decades, West Campus is still ripe for change and awash in parking lots and garages along with older low-rise buildings.

West Campus

At just under 11% of UW Seattle’s Campus square footage, West Campus is absorbing 50% of the potential new development of the 2019 CMP with increased height limits. Changes to old height limits range from no change to nearly quadrupling, aligning them with the U District’s zoning. The current limits step down from 240 feet to 200 feet, 160 feet/130 feet, and the Shoreline District Overlay limit of 30 feet.

In this sector, the master plan outlines 19 development sites that could build the sector into the university’s “innovation district.” This early guidance and long-term vision identify roughly 4.4 million square feet of potential development that would replace 800,000 square feet of existing space, totaling 3.6 million square feet of new development. Eighty-three perecent of that full growth capacity is captured for the sector with three million square feet of maximum new development for West Campus in the lifetime of the new CMP.

The long-term vision imagines 12 highrises in West Campus. The other development sites are either constrained by height limits or purposely underdeveloped to create a desired effect. So far, only W27 has seen actual design work done. W27 will be a roughly 340,000-square-foot building that is estimated to have around 14 stories in the CMP. It is currently planned to house the Washington Clean Energy Testbeds, have the Northwest Institute for Material Physics, Chemistry, and Technology operating in it, include space for UW research and education, and provide market-rate leasable spaces for UW partners.

The highrises won’t be the only draw of West Campus, a combined 7.5 acres of green open space is planned to be an anchor of this part of campus in the Longer-Term Vision. This space would be made up of the existing Fritz Hedges Waterway Park (Portage Bay Park) and the Belvedere area, and a proposed West Campus Green and Plaza. The West Campus Green would expand the small open space southeast of the Fishery Sciences building by replacing the John M. Wallace Hall, Marine Studies building, and Fisheries Teaching Research Center. The Plaza would replace some of Stevens Court. Proposed W31 and W32 buildings on the West Campus Green would shirk their 160 feet height limits and instead create small two-story buildings to activate the green space with park amenities and destinations.

South Campus

South Campus also saw significant upzoning in the 2019 plan, matching most of the height limits in West Campus. The smallest sector of the Seattle Campus is already a relatively dense development of midrises, so redevelopment into highrises yields less new square footage. This dynamic makes it so that potential South Campus developments only consume 1.35 million new maximum development or only 23% of the UW’s six million new maximum development limit in the CMP.

The full growth capacity of the sector identified in the CMP is 2.2 million square feet of new development, so the UW is only looking to add 61% of envisioned new square footage to South Campus during the current CMP. Assuming that they’re not looking to demolish newer buildings, the site for a potential highrise (W40) is currently the site of the construction of the new four-story Health Sciences Education building. This building was in planning as the 2019 CMP was being completed, so the long-term vision of South Campus may be in the works for a fair number of decades.

South Campus may feature nine highrises eventually, with 20 development sites in total as a part of the sector’s long-term plan. Similar to West Campus, new open green space is planned with a South Campus Green that would connect Central Campus with the waterfront. This sector’s plans are less ambitious for the green space, but conditions are different here with the existing span of green open waterfront space.

Planning for UW’s future

The 2003 CMP’s legacy is largely marked by the redevelopment and new student housing options in West Campus and the northern part of Central Campus. The UW is now largely done with building housing for its students, but it has committed to building 150 affordable housing units for faculty and staff earning less than 60% area median income (AMI), and no fewer than 300 for staff earning less than 80% of AMI. With student housing at the top of the university’s existing space, office, and other uses are now top of mind.

With the 2019 CMP’s focus on West Campus and turning that sector into its innovation district, it’s no surprise that office and research labs are among the most uses needed by the UW. By 2028, the UW estimates that they’ll need nearly two million square feet of office space and nearly three quarters of a million of research lab space. Proposed sites like W27 are proposed for academic, mixed use, and industry partnership/manufacturing uses. Meanwhile, South Campus’s proposed buildings are primarily just proposed for academic and mixed uses. New library and study space are needed, with planners projecting the nearly a million more square feet needed by 2028.

New green space and stronger pedestrian connections are also a part of the CMP’s overall strategy to reduce emissions and promote space for people. An open space commitment for West, South, and East Campus all require the university to build out respective parts of a continuous waterfront trail before permits can be applied for neighboring sites. These spaces are also important for neighboring U District, which sees benefit from increased nearby green space.

Together the U District and the UW are transforming the image of Seattle just above the ship canal. Combining the two jurisdictions, a possible nearly mile-long skyline emerges from NE 50th St all the way down to Portage Bay. When you include South Campus as a tangent of the U District/West Campus cluster, the potential skyline stretches all the way from I-5 to the Montlake Bridge at nearly 1.5 miles long.

Combined, West and South Campuses make up under 20% of UW Seattle’s campus or 126 acres out of a 639-acre institution. They will also carry 73% of the campus’s potential development in the current plan’s lifetime. The sectors also capture most of the long-term development capacity envisioned for them by the CMP, which could manifest into highrises numbering in the teens for the duration of the 2019 plan. That means we could see over 30 towers rise in the university and its northwestern neighbor, if current permitting and plans all successfully play out in the foreseeable future.

This concludes our series on the U District’s development. Part 1 covered midrise development in the north of the U District. Part 2 covered all the highrise and midrise development in the south of the U District.

The post Highrises Spread into UW Campus – U District Development Spree Part 3 first appeared on The Urbanist.

UW Campus Master Plan Gains Approval

The long-awaited update to the University of Washington Campus Master Plan concluded during the city council meeting, paving the way for the university to add a further six million square feet of net new space for buildings on the main campus. Most of the new square footage will enable additional development in the West Campus and East Campus areas above and beyond the current building cap.

The bulk of the city hearing examiner’s recommendations were adopted by the city council. Responding to public input, however, city councilmembers worked through the committee process to identify further refinements to the master plan, which included further changes to conditions.

Throughout the public review process, community members and university staff raised significant concerns over transportation, affordable housing and childcare, and environmental impacts. The city council partially addressed some of these issues, but did not go as far to directly require free transit passes for all university staff, mandatory housing affordability payments for all new square footage, and adequate affordable childcare choices.

The reaction from members of the U District Alliance for Equity and Livability was mixed, but mostly positive on the adopted master plan.

“Today’s vote is a breakthrough for affordable housing in Seattle,” said Sharon Lee, Executive Director of the Low Income Housing Institute. “For the first time, a major low-wage Seattle employer will have to take some responsibility for their employees’ housing cost burdens.” 

“The city’s transportation conditions on the UW plan are completely reasonable,” said Jesse Piedfort, Executive Director of the Sierra Club Washington Chapter. “These actions—reducing single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuters, encouraging transit and bicycle trips—are necessary to mitigate the effects of growth on the nearby community and environment.”

“Without housing and transit assistance, the proposed UW expansion could push even more UW employees and families out of the city,” said Rhonda Johnson, a Patient Services Specialist at UW Medical Center and member of SEIU Local 925.

Prior to the city council vote, the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee did make a suite of changes to the conditions of the master plan that the university will need to meet in order to take advantage of additional building rights. These include:

• A new cap on parking at 9,000 stalls, which means that the university will gradually need to reduce parking stalls from the 10,667 that exist today and discourage single-occupancy vehicular access to the campus;
• Additional criteria to determine the access location of parking facilities based upon street types and in-street facilities (e.g., bike lanes and transit);
• Compliance with the Street Improvement Manual and implementation of the Green Street Concept Plan for development near public streets;
• Clarity on what constitutes “gateways”, including NE 45th St at 15th Ave NE, the “landing” of the University Bridge at NE 40th St, and NE 45th St at 25th Ave NE, which require “visual enhancements that signify entries into the community, such as landscaping, signage, artwork, or architectural features”;
  
• Exemptions for additional square footage for childcare uses, housing that is permanently affordable to households earning less than 80% of area median income, and small retail on the ground floor of buildings containing small businesses;
• Requirements for lighting, lockers, and shower facilities associated with new bike parking;
• More ambitious goals to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use at specific milestone dates (as low as 12% by 2028) and transportation management programs (e.g., subsidized transit passes for staff and performance-based parking strategies) if the university fails to meet goals;
• Requiring active street-level uses (e.g., commercial uses, childcare facilities, study spaces and lounges, and classrooms) and high levels of transparency when new buildings are located along city streets in the West Campus, mid-block corridors, waterfront travel and several other locations;
• Establishing specific transportation capital improvement funding requirements (totaling $12.7 million by 2035) for transit based upon certain milestones;
• Maintaining existing height maximums of 105 feet for Site W19 and 65 feet Site W20; and
• More specificity on protected view corridors.

Comprehensive Plan Modestly Amended

Each year, the city goes through a process to make minor amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Two proposals were passed by the city council affecting the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, one removing land from the Ballard-Interbay Northend Manufacturing/Industrial Center (BINMIC) and another adjusting off-street parking policies. Several other items, however, were postponed from incorporation into the annual update due to community appeals of legislation. Revised policies supporting the proposed citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) rezones and implementation of transportation impact fees failed to make it into the annual update.

Several groups (i.e., City Neighborhood Council, Wallingford Chamber of Commerce, and Wallingford Community Council) proposed changes to the Land Use Goal 6 (LU G6) that address off-street parking policies. Their proposal sought to amend the text of the policy as follows:

Regulate off-street parking to address parking demand in ways that reduce reliance on automobiles, improve public health and safety, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower construction costs increase affordable housing, create attractive and walkable environments, and promote economic development throughout the city.

The Office of Planning and Community Development, however, recommended a slightly different approach to acknowledge the prior to reduce construction costs and thereby reduce housing costs while also increasing affordable housing. The city council adopted the following amendment:

LU G6: Regulate off-street parking to address parking demand in ways that reduce reliance on automobiles, improve public health and safety, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower construction costs to reduce the cost of housing and increase affordable housing, create attractive and walkable environments, and promote economic development throughout the city.

Separately, the city council approved a material land use change for the BINMIC by removing approximately one square block of land from the special industrial and manufacturing area. The properties, however, will still retain an industrial future land use map designation. Seattle Pacific University sought the land use change off of W Nickerson St to facilitate future expansion of the university campus. Expansion of the university could be accomplished after an update to the governing campus master plan that would have to be approved by the city council. For now, the properties will still be subject to industrial and manufacturing policies and development regulations.

Next year, the city council will entertain further amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. As soon as January, the city council may begin the process to consider amendments to facilitate citywide implementation of MHA rezones. Amendments may also include enabling policies for transportation impact fees. When amendments would be adopted, however, is not certain. The Growth Management Act limits amendments to a comprehensive plan to once annually, so the city council only has a single opportunity to package up amendments for adoption in any given year.

The post UW Campus Master Plan and 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Approved by City Council first appeared on The Urbanist.

It makes sense. Large workplaces like hospitals, universities, and tech campuses are the magnetic nodes of our transportation system. Every morning workers in the tens of thousands are drawn into them from all directions, and every evening those same workers are repelled out again through clogged, exhaust-choked streets to their homes. Incentivizing the commute modes that contribute least to congestion, pollution, and climate catastrophe is the responsible thing for employers to do.

You know what major institutional employer doesn’t provide full transit benefits? The University of Washington and its hospitals, Harborview and UW Medical Center. If an employee of the UW wants a transit pass, they have to shell out $50 per month.

This hefty price tag forces UW employees, many of whom are struggling with high housing and transportation costs, to make tough choices. Rosemary Bryson, a Patient Services Specialist at UW Medical Center, explains: “I drive every day. I have 12-hour days. I would like to have the option to take a bus or train some days. But I can’t afford a U-Pass and drive. But I need to drive some days.”

With over 10,000 employees at the UW Seattle campus alone, day-to-day commute decisions like Rosemary’s have a huge aggregate impact. Not surprisingly, 40% of UW staff and faculty choose not to spend $50 of their paycheck each month on a transit pass. Over a third of commute trips by UW employees are single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips.

We’re all paying for the UW’s poor policy choice, especially residents of the surrounding neighborhoods–in traffic delays, in poor air quality, in unsafe streets. These costs will only rise as the university undergoes an aggressive expansion. The Seattle campus is expected to grow by 13,000 people during the next ten years, and an Environmental Impact Statement concluded that the likely additional 6,195 SOV trips will lead to gridlock or near-gridlock at 12 out of 13 U District intersections, and massive transit delays. The UW has a responsibility to start mitigating these impacts today.

Let’s also remember that the University of Washington is a huge beneficiary of the taxpayer-funded expansion of our regional transit system. When the U District station opens in 2021, not one but two Link light rail stations will more or less directly serve the UW’s Seattle campus. The least the UW can do is make sure its employees are equipped to actually use this system. It is embarrassing that this leading educational, medical, and research institution has not yet adopted the best practice of putting transit passes in all employees’ hands.

A coalition of community and environmental groups and labor unions has come together to demand that the UW get with the times and offer full transit benefits starting this fall. You can learn more on our website, uwpassorfail.org, and send an email to President Ana Mari Cauce and other key UW administrators at uwpassorfail.org/email.

The Transit Riders Union is a democratic organization of working and poor people–including students, seniors and people with disabilities–taking control over our own lives, and building up the power we need to change society for the good of humanity and of the planet. Seattle Transit Riders Union will fight to preserve, expand, and improve the public transportation system in Seattle and beyond, so that every human being has access to safe, affordable, and reliable public transit.

Hearing Examiner Recommends UW Campus Master Plan Amid Community Concerns

The post UW Should Fully Cover ORCA Transit Passes for Its Employees first appeared on The Urbanist.

Background

Under the University of Washington’s plans, the main campus would expand by an additional six million square feet of housing, educational, commercial, community, and supportive space above the current development cap. The university estimates that space needs at the main campus will grow through 2028 with students and faculty increasing by 20%. Most of the added development capacity would end up in the West and East campus sectors as opposed to the central campus.

In November, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) released their list of recommended conditions for the proposal. Then in December, a three-day public hearing on the matter was held by the Hearing Examiner. The University of Washington disputed some of the recommended conditions, including on topics related to transportation mitigation, affordable housing requirements, and public realm standards. Following the public hearing, SDCI and the University of Washington attempted to resolve areas of disagreement on conditioning, which led to some small tweaks to language and the dispensation of one condition related to the requirement for bike parking which was entirely withdrawn by SDCI. However, SDCI mostly held their ground on imposing conditions related to transportation.

Hearing Examiner’s Key Conditions

The Hearing Examiner generally agreed with the interpretation of SDCI and found its conditions to have a reasonable nexus to the impacts proposed under the campus master plan. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner upheld some key conditions:

• A condition requiring the University of Washington construct at least 150 affordable housing units set aside for faculty and staff of the university earning less than 60% of the area median income. The affordable housing would need to be constructed on or within close proximity to the campus prior to fully realizing the additional development capacity under the campus master plan or the life of the plan, whichever were to come first. The University of Washington was opposed to this in part because the city relied upon housing policies (H5.19) in the city’s comprehensive plan. However, the Hearing Examiner affirmed the conditions.
• A target of 15% drive-alone rates to the university campus would need to be achieved within one year of Lynnwood Link opening. A higher 17% rate would be allowed within one year of Northgate Link opening. The baseline target is a 20% rate. Failure of the university to meet the reduced drive-alone rate targets would mean that various transportation management program techniques would need to be used, including a minimum transit pass subsidy of 50% for staff and faculty, UPass integration with bikeshare and carshare, and modifying paid parking strategies.
• To facilitate increased transit demand at the campus, the university would need to pay King County Metro Transit to operate additional peak morning and afternoon trips. The university would also need to pay for several RapidRide corridor capital improvements near the campus, dedicate space for transit riders in new developments adjacent to existing and new light rail and RapidRide stops, and expand stops along three stretches (NE 45th St, 15th Ave NE, and NE Pacific St) of future RapidRide corridors near the campus.
• Any public streets under the city’s control would need to be improved to city code and right-of-way manual standards when new development occurs adjacent to such streets.

The university was partially successful in getting some conditions slightly modified, such as:

• A requirement that the university pay a proportionate share for installation of new intersection signals at University Way NE and NE 41st St as well as 6th Ave NE and NE Northlake Way was modified downward in contributions.
• Contributions to pay for local intelligent transportation system improvements would still be required, but are less than SDCI had requested.

The Hearing Examiner also declined to recommend two reductions in height for the West Campus area requested by the City-University-Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC). Regarding Site W22, the Hearing Examiner wrote that “although some may consider it a gateway to the neighborhood, the site is not on the campus boundary and is proximate to the Seattle Mixed-University 75-240 zone that would allow structures up to 240 feet in height.” Separately, the Hearing Examiner dispensed with the CUCAC-requested height reduction at Site W37. “The University has identified a view corridor at this location, and because the topography rises to the north of the site, most of the square footage allocated to the site will be outside the view corridor,” she wrote. Ultimately, the recommended zoning is similar to what the university requested this summer and is as follows with limited exceptions for lower maximum heights at Sites W19, W20, W31, and W32:

Community Concerns

Community leaders and employees expressed concerns with the recommendation. Known as U District Alliance for Equity and Livability, the group comprises more than a dozen organizations that want to see a better campus master plan that puts staff, students, and the community first. Many students and employees have increasingly found it harder to commute to the university, obtain affordable housing, and deal with basics like childcare, which is why they want a more holistic plan.

Josh Castle of the Low Income Housing Institute said that the amount of affordable housing recommended by the Hearing Examiner falls well short of the need. A minimum of 560 units for households at or below 50% of the area median income and 160 units for households between 50% and 80% of the area median income to help struggling students, staff, and faculty. Unlike other rezones throughout the city, the campus master plan isn’t subject to ordinary Mandatory Housing Affordability requirements.

Emily Sharp, a physical therapist at the University of Washington Medical Center, highlighted the unaffordable costs of childcare that she bears. “The childcare cost for my three-year old was over $1,700/month at a U-District center,” she said. “I still pay more than $2,000/month including my older child’s after school care. We need more family-friendly support from our employer.” The campus master plan does address childcare and suggests that the ratio of childcare spaces to campus population would eventually fall within the band for other peer universities. However, cost and access is a clear problem for students, faculty, and staff.

Bill Roach, a Sierra Club leader, spoke about several concerns on transportation. He said he appreciated that the Hearing Examiner saw merit in reducing single occupancy vehicle trips to 12% of all university trips; however by settling for the staff recommendation of 15% it did not go far enough. Roach said that the university’s baseline plan would add nearly 6,200 additional single occupancy vehicle trips and cause five more intersections (totaling 11 out of 13) to reach a Level of Service of E or F and dramatically increase delays. Such an outcome wouldn’t just be more inconvenient for drivers, it would also directly hamper the ability for buses to connect residents, staff, and students with the places they need to go even with modest speed and reliability improvements.

One of the best things that the university has done, he said, was adopting the UPass back in 1990. At the time, it was a mere $24 per quarter (with inflation $48). Now, however, the UPass stands at well over $150 per quarter for staff and faculty and remains the biggest impediment to realizing lower single occupancy vehicle rates. Roach and many university employees have long-pushed for free UPasses for staff and faculty. In letter to the city, the Sierra Club poignantly noted that “the staff drive-alone rate was 38% in 2002 and was still 36% in 2016 and remains relatively flat even with the arrival of light rail” and “staff represents 46% of the projected SOV rate in 2028 and should be the major target for UPass usage.” The university, however, contends that free UPasses are not possible without action from the state legislature mandating and funding them.

On parking, Roach suggested that the university parking cap of 12,300 space is an outmoded agreement that needs to be revised downward. He said that for several reasons. First, the cap excludes 750 spaces in the University of Washington Tower. Second, the cap was set nearly three decades ago in 1990. And third, he believes that the University of Washington “needs to right size its parking supply.” Similarly, Roach said that the university should be required to provide covered and secure bicycle parking, which students have clearly said they want in past surveys. The Hearing Examiner’s recommendation, however, would remove any reference and standard for bicycle parking provisions.

Finally, Roach said that the university should be required to deliver Burke-Gilman Trail improvements sooner rather than later. The university promises to complete trail expansion and bicycle-pedestrian separation by 2028, but Roach said that these improvements should come earlier, perhaps as soon as 2021 to accommodate existing and future commuters. The trail is already failing to meet existing demands.

Pending appeal, the Seattle City Council’s Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee could take up discussion on the recommended campus master plan this year. Where they land on a final decision is not yet clear.

SDCI Releases Recommendation on UW’s Campus Master Plan, Community Leaders Remain Concerned

The post Hearing Examiner Recommends UW Campus Master Plan Amid Community Concerns first appeared on The Urbanist.

Process and Proposal

On December 8th, the city hearing examiner will consider the proposal and SDCI’s recommendations during a public hearing. The hearing examiner could send a recommendation on the proposal to the city council with the same, revised, or additional conditions or remand the proposal back to SDCI to evaluate and address specific issues prior to holding another public hearing. Ultimately, the city council is likely to take up the master plan update sometime next year.

The process to update the master plan began last year when the University of Washington published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) outlining its overarching objectives for redevelopment of the main campus. The university intends to build an additional six million square feet of housing, educational, commercial, community, and supportive space above the current development cap on the main campus. The university estimates that space needs at the main campus will grow through 2028 as another 8,675 students and 4,649 faculty are added. That equates to 20% growth over the total student and faculty population of 67,155 today. In July, the University of Washington published the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan updating plan elements in response to comments from the DEIS.

The main campus is broken up into four main sectors with 86 potential development sites:

• Central Campus, which has 18 identified potential development sites and is the heart of the main campus.
• West Campus, which has 19 identified potential development sites and is anticipated to have the largest potential for growth during the life of the master plan.
• South Campus, which has 20 identified potential development sites and is composed mostly of the sciences and medicine–including an active teaching hospital.
• East Campus, which has 29 identified potential development site and is mostly composed of a smattering of properties north of the athletics area.

In terms of zoning, the campus master plan envisions a range of building heights as low as 30 feet near the water and as high as 240 feet near the core of the University District. The proposed zoning would substantially increase allowed building heights–and thereby allowed building square footage–in select areas of university’s Major Institution Overlay (MIO), a special zoning for institutional uses like the University of Washington. However, most of the proposed zoning is designed to transition carefully with adjacent properties outside of the university’s MIO.

The FEIS proposes slightly reduced zoning heights than the DEIS had envisioned. All of these changes were made at the edges of the MIO boundary, particularly in the West Campus area. For instance, the small pocket of 65-foot zoning at the north end of West Campus had originally been envisioned as 240-foot zoning. Likewise, the 160-/130-foot zoning proposed at the west end of the West Campus had been uniformly proposed as 200-foot zoning during the DEIS.

SDCI’s Recommended Conditions

SDCI is recommending 61 conditions on the master plan, most of which modify certain master plan attributes proposed in the FEIS. However, a bit more than a dozen proposed conditions would act as mitigation measures under State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The city has substantive authority to attach conditions under SEPA in order to lessen the impacts assumed by a proposal. The following summarizes some of the key conditions contained in the recommendation:

Social and Cultural Conditions

• Affordable housing. SDCI is recommending that the 150 affordable housing units be set aside for faculty and staff earning less than 60% of the area median income. The university would need to construct them within the campus, primary impact zone, or secondary impact zone prior to developing any square footage above the current cap. In other words, the university would need deliver the affordable housing units prior to constructing any of the six million in additional square footage that the updated master plan would allow. The FEIS did not stipulate the level of affordability for units nor who they should be designed for; it also did not lay out the timing for construction of affordable housing.
• Historic preservation. SDCI is recommending that language on demolition of potentially historic structures be removed from the master plan. This is in keeping with a Washington State Supreme Court decision this year that the city won allowing local preservations laws, amongst other land use laws, to govern on university-owned property. Specifically, SDCI is recommending that following language be struck: “Demolition of any structure, including any structure that is more than 25 years old or historic, is allowed if authorized by the UW Board of Regents.” For the sake of consistency, SDCI is also recommending that language like “balances preservation of historic campus assets with increased density” and “growth that balances the preservation of historic campus assets with intensive investment” be struck from the master plan. This would ensure the primacy of the city’s landmarks laws are maintained.

Height, Bulk, and Scale Conditions

• Building heights. SDCI’s recommendation generally supports the increased building heights proposed by the master plan. However, the recommendation proposes to retain lower building heights on four sites in the West Campus. In the case of W19 and W20, the building heights are proposed to be capped at 105 feet which would be no change from today. The primary purpose is to keep a softer transition to properties zoned NC3-65 to the north than 240-foot heights would provide. For W31 and W32, SDCI is recommending that the sites be capped at 30 feet instead of 130 feet since they are planned to contain pavilion uses as part of the large central green.
• Upper-level stepbacks. Generally, buildings over 45 feet in height would be required to provide a 20-foot upper-level stepback to reduce building bulk. SDCI wants to clarify the application of upper-level stepbacks so that they apply to facades facing streets and major public open spaces. The master plan language is vaguer suggesting that the such stepbacks could apply to at least two facades.

Transportation Conditions

• Transportation Demand Management (TDM). To achieve lower drive-alone rates to the university campus, SDCI is recommending performance monitoring requirements and lower drive-alone rates over the next decade. The status quo drive-alone rate is 20%. Under SDCI’s recommendation, the university would need to achieve a 15% drive-alone rate by 2024 or one year after the Lynnwood Link extension opens, whichever occurs earlier. There are other interim objectives outlined to that point in time, too. Should the university fail to meet lower drive-alone rates as outlined, the university would need to institute other TDM strategies to foster the desired drive-alone rates. Possible measures include providing a 50% minimum transit pass subsidy for staff, expanding the U-Pass to integrate with carsharing and bikesharing platforms, instituting demand-based paid parking strategies, and eliminating monthly parking permits. Continued failure to attain TDM goals after a period of 24 months could allow SDCI to deny any further building permits until the goals are met.
• Transit improvements. SDCI is recommending that the university pay for a variety of transit improvements. This includes installation of new RapidRide stops on NE 45th St, 15th Ave NE, and NE Pacific St, covering partial cost of intelligent transit signals at key intersections, purchase three bus coaches for King County Metro Transit, and pay significant project costs for RapidRide corridor segments near the campus.
• Bicycle parking. The master plan suggests that new development should consider opportunities to create bicycle parking. SDCI, however, is recommending that bicycle parking be provided at a minimum rate based upon 10% of students and 5% of staff present at peak hours.
• Burke-Gilman Trail upgrades. SDCI is recommending that the university complete its upgrades of the Burke-Gilman Trail running through the campus and install lighting meeting city standards. The university has a high quality trail standard separating bicyclist and pedestrians. Completion of this would be expected by 2022 or as sites adjacent to the trail develop, whichever is earlier.
• Parking access. The master plan places a general preference toward parking access from streets owned by the university. This is consistent with city priorities. However, there may be instances where access may be desirable from a city street. SDCI is recommending a clarification to the master plan that SDCI, in consultation with the Seattle Department of Transportation, has the authority to make a final determination on access based on a priority location analysis.
• Continuous waterfront trail. SDCI is recommending that the waterfront trail on the East Campus be completed earlier than proposed in the master plan and regardless of whether or not the East Campus is developed. Under SDCI’s recommendation, the university would need to complete the trail prior to completing 750,000 gross square feet of development in the East Campus or exhaustion of the additional six million gross square feet allowed under the master plan. The trail would need to be completed prior to either scenario, whichever comes first. The trail would also need to incorporate a hand-carry boat launch near at the water’s edge and facility accessibility for those disabled via ADA parking at key access points.

Urban Design Conditions

• Active street-level uses. SDCI is recommending language in the master plan that would require active street-level uses and building transparency for building adjacent to city right-of-way in the West Campus. Examples include 15th Ave NE, University Way NE, and NE Pacific St. SDCI also is recommending that the requirement be applied to all midblock corridors in the campus, buildings fronting the new campus greens, and the continuous waterfront trail. Ideally, these uses would include commercial or childcare uses, but study spaces, lounges, and hands-on educational spaces. Active street-level use spaces would need to achieve a minimum level of building transparency between two and eight feet above sidewalks along at least 60% of a building frontage.
• Gateways. The master plan highlights that “gateways” to the university campus function as important ways for people walking, biking, and driving to access the campus. SDCI is recommending clearer language about how gateways should function and where they’re located. “Gateways should include visual enhancements that signify entries into the community, such as landscaping, signage, artwork, or architectural features that will be installed at the discretion of the University,” the recommendation reads. SDCI also recognizes points like 15th Ave NE at NE 45th St and the landing at NE 40th St near the University Street Bridge as key gateways.
• View corridors. The master plan identifies 12 distinct view corridors on and across the campus. SDCI is recommending stronger language requiring that sites developed adjacent to or within a view corridor demonstrate how an existing or proposed view corridor will be maintained by new development. Some view corridors are considered to be proposed since they would be established over time. SDCI is also requiring some corrections and updates to the view corridors.

Community Leaders Remain Concerned

Last week, community leaders and staff for the University of Washington raised legitimate concerns over the recommendation and university’s proposal. Leading the campaign for a more holistic proposal is the U District Alliance for Equity and Livability. They released a blistering statement against the recommendation going as far to say that the city should completely renegotiate its agreement with the University of Washington due to the recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling allowing the city to fully extend its land use regulatory authority on campus property.

On transportation access and impacts, the Sierra Club’s Bill Roach highlighted how the University of Washington’s proposal could fail to keep buses moving and continue to leave employees behind. “Even if it meets its own traffic reduction goals, the UW admits that 11 out of 13 key U District intersections will be gridlocked (Level of Service E or F) with almost five times more vehicle delay,” Roach said. “The City recommendation today would let them get away with this traffic nightmare for the U District and for transit riders. The UW needs to get those extra commuters on transit, and that means the UW needs to join other major employers like Children’s Hospital and provide free transit passes to employees.”

Environmentalists and university staff have long pushed the university to fully fund the U-Pass transit card for employees, so far to no avail. University employees cover a significant proportion of the transit pass costs under the current U-Pass program. University staff also lack access to free bike lockers on campus.

Affordable housing advocates have laid criticism over the lack of affordable housing contained in the University of Washington’s master plan, despite the fact that adding more jobs and students would increase the struggle for employees and students to attain local affordable housing. Only 150 affordable housing units would be developed under the proposal.

John Castle from the Low Income Housing Institute harshly criticized the scale of affordable housing proposed. “We know what tiny is because we build tiny houses–this is a tiny commitment for a huge institution with thousands of low-wage employees,” Castle said.

Bereket Kiros, a member of the Coalition of Immigrants, Refugees, and Communities of Color, raised concerns over racial equity and displacement. “Immigrants and communities of color were not consulted in the UW’s plan, which will result in more housing displacement for immigrants,” Kiros said.

Under the city’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program, rezones are being paired with mandatory inclusionary requirements to build affordable housing on-site or pay a fee in lieu to the city for affordable housing. Generally, the affordable housing requirements are 5% to 10.6% of total square footage for commercial development. Even under the lowest set aside requirements, the University of Washington would be required to provide hundreds of additional affordable units over the baseline proposal if MHA was applied to the university properties.

In addition to these issues, community members and staff have consistently advocated for more childcare near the campus. The master plan does discuss the issue at length suggesting that the ratio of childcare spaces to campus population would eventually fall within the band for other peer universities, but cost of childcare and the severe shortage remains a serious issue for students, faculty, and staff.

SCDI Recommendation

University of Washington Campus Master Plan

Effort To Make UW Master Plan More Equitable Goes Public

The post SDCI Releases Recommendation on UW’s Campus Master Plan, Community Leaders Remain Concerned first appeared on The Urbanist.

Study Background

The University releases this report periodically in order to change what can be done on campus. The plan looks at the next ten years in order to estimate what the UW campus will need and then plan out how those needs will be met. The last time UW completed a master plan was in 2003 and enough has changed since then to require a new plan. The recently released document looks at the next ten years and predicts significant growth. It then guides how that growth will happen on campus. Now that the university has finalized the plan, it will go to the City of Seattle, specifically the Department of Construction and Inspections, for authorization, for review and recommendation. If the plan is approved by the City Council, it will guide what can be done within the area designated as a Major Institutional Overlay (MIO). This designation covers most of the UW campus north of the Ship Canal. Rather than being completely subject to common zoning, such as commercial, single-family, or industrial, this overlay provides unique requirements and opportunities for the campus area.

A Brewing Controversy

The study is largely an attempt to identify and mitigate negative impacts from campus growth and the study acknowledges as much, “the CMP planning process is intended to foresee, assess, and outline mitigation measures for the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of long-term development.”

Nearly everyone involved agrees that the campus growth will have huge positive impacts but disagreement is found in how to manage some of the negative impacts. The master plan process attempted to identify and mitigate potential issues through a public comment period last year, summarized in the plan’s appendix. These efforts didn’t make everyone happy.

A group called Campaign For Responsible UW held a press event on the same day the final plan was released with their own report, highlighting problems they saw.

Areas Of Disagreement

The Campaign for a Responsible UW is largely working to reduce the burdens on students, faculty, and staff. They’ve identified four topics that they think UW could do better on, transportation, housing, childcare, and open space. Emily Sharpe, a UW employee, said “I spend somewhere between $2,000 and $3,500 a month for childcare.” While the UW has a program to assist with this burden, Sharpe indicated that there is only room for about about 2% of the employee infants.

Pamela Honegger highlighted the related problems of transportation and housing. Her commute is a mix of driving, walking, and light rail and on a normal day takes her 80 minutes. She can’t afford rents in Seattle and said, “I believe it is the UW’s responsibility to help employees afford housing.” Honegger’s long commute is a function of high housing costs around the campus and limited transportation options. The campus master plan doesn’t do much to solve the housing crisis near campus but it does tout the U-Pass program, a subsidized transit pass for employees, staff, and faculty. However, the U-Pass program isn’t free from criticism either. The Campaign For A Responsible UW indicated the pass costs have increased dramatically over the last ten years and many other employers, including King County, offer entirely free passes to employees. The UW also appears to subsidize parking more than transit and has fought efforts to tax parking.

Sally Clark, a former city councilmeber, responded to a request for comment by saying, “you won’t find any disagreement that affordability in this region is as much a challenge for UW employees as any other employees.” She also indicated that the university has pledged to double the number of childcare slots, is working on improving the U-Pass program and would be making an announcement later this summer regarding housing affordability.

Next Steps

The master plan has to be approved by the department of construction and inspections. The Campaign For A Responsible UW hopes to raise enough awareness to influence this decision and bring about more commitments from UW. Barring any major delays, approval of the plan could happen as early as late summer or sometime in the fall.

Editor’s Note: The original article indicated that UW subsidizes parking more than transit. On closer inspection, it’s not clear what the subsidy breakdown is and that note has been amended.

University of Washington’s Draft 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan

The post Effort To Make UW Master Plan More Equitable Goes Public first appeared on The Urbanist.