University of Washington Campus Master Plan by Sasaki

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN July 2017 Final Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Executive Summary

Chapter 2 Introduction

4 14

Purpose and Process

City-University Agreement

Planning Context and Assumptions

Physical Growth

Chapter 3 Growth Profile

Enrollment Trends

Growth Allowance

Chapter 4 Existing Conditions Public Realm Framework

36 38

Circulation and Parking Framework 50

July 2017 Final Plan

Built Environment Framework

Inclusive Innovation Framework

Chapter 5 Vision, Principles and Frameworks

Long-Term Vision Informs the 10-year Conceptual Plan 86 Guiding Principles

Planning Frameworks

Public Realm Framework

Shoreline Public Access Plan

108

Circulation and Parking Framework 112 Built Environment Framework

122

Inclusive Innovation Framework

128

Sustainability Framework

132

Utility Framework

140

Chapter 6 Project Review and Design Guidance

148

Chapter 7 Development Standards

228

Public Participation Program

Introduction 150

Introduction 230

Project Review 151

Development Standards

Design Guidance 156

Definitions 254

232

Central Campus 158 West Campus 176 South Campus 196 East Campus 210

Chapter 8 Transportation Management Plan

278

Chapter 10 Appendix

258

Primary and Secondary Impact Zones 288 Underlying Zoning Map

290

UW Building Inventory

292

Draft University District Green Street Concept Plan 300 Acknowledgments 314 Tables and Figures

Chapter 9 Housing

280

316

270 July 2017 Final Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

July 2017 Final Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE AND CONTEXT

The 2018 Campus Master Plan (CMP) is the primary regulatory vehicle for the University’s future development, defining both the square footage to be constructed and the geographic location of such development. The CMP applies to the Seattle campus and the University’s property located within the Major Institution Overlay, or MIO, and is guided by the CityUniversity Agreement between the University of Washington and the City of Seattle. This CMP builds on the 2003 Campus Master Plan. The University has been a national leader in campus planning, design, and construction, successfully implementing a significant number of capital projects anticipated in the 2003 Plan. Such growth means that the University has approximately 211,000 net gross square feet of development left out of the 3.0 million gross square feet approved in the 2003 Campus Master Plan. Work on this CMP began in 2015 so that by 2018, the 2018 CMP would be in place to accommodate the Seattle campus’ growth demands. Between 2015 and 2018, the University of Washington developed this long-term vision for the Seattle campus as well as a 10-year conceptual plan for campus growth that balances the preservation of historic campus assets with intensive investment. Reflecting the participation of a campus-wide advisory committee and multiple stakeholders, this CMP is shaped by the strategic goals and the academic, research, and service missions of the University, all of which shall guide the physical development of the campus during the life of the 2018 CMP.

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 1. Existing Conditions Aerial Image, 2016.

GROWTH ALLOWANCE The general approach underlying this CMP is to align the Seattle campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; evolving needs for a 10year conceptual plan within the long-term vision for the campus. Issues considered in the 10-year planning horizon are anticipated enrollment growth, increased teaching and research demands, future transportation needs, economic growth, and the needs of the University community.

15th Ave NE

NE 45th St

ive

rsi

M o nt

B ri

lake B

lvd N E

NE 41st St

Pa c

ifi

cS t

The Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth allowance in this CMP is 6.0 million net new gross square feet of development. This CMP identifies 86 potential development sites to accommodate the anticipated growth. Each potential development site is defined in terms of maximum height and total maximum gross square feet. The 86 potential development sites contain a maximum development potential of almost 12 million net new gross square feet of development, of which only 6.0 million net new gross square feet may be developed under the growth allowance. The potential development sites are spread throughout four campus sectors with general development limits as follows: Central Campus 900,000 net new gross square feet West Campus 3,000,000 net new gross square feet South Campus 1,350,000 net new gross square feet

Figure 2. Long-Term Vision. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only Potential Building Existing Building Potential Open Space

East Campus 750,000 net new gross square feet Total Seattle Campus Growth Allowance 6,000,000 net new gross square feet

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

The 10-year planning horizon establishes the analytical basis of this CMP. However, the CMP shall remain in effect until the growth allowance has been fully developed or a new campus master plan is approved.

and minimizes adverse impacts upon the City and campus environments, particularly to communities surrounding the University, and promotes the health and vitality of residential, business, and academic communities.

2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN CONTENT

Community outreach has been a major part of the CMP planning process. The University believes this CMP reflects the interests of the large and diverse communities it serves. To achieve this, the University facilitated and encouraged meaningful and ongoing community involvement throughout the planning process. The Public Participation Program, which documents this involvement, is included in the Appendix on page 280.

The 2018 CMP includes recommendations for open space, circulation, transportation, and physical development (Chapter 5 Vision, Principles, Frameworks). Uses for new construction projects all help fulfill the University’s mission and are considered “academic.” These uses are further defined in the Development Standards chapter found on page 256. It is impossible to predict specific categories of academic uses on specific sites because of the dynamic nature of education, continual changes in technology, and the uncertainty of funding sources for new construction. Thus, this CMP creates a development framework to guide the 6.0 million growth allowance. Potential development sites (pages 124 to 125), development standards (pages 228 to 257) and design guidance (pages 156 to 157) outline how each site would be developed. Specific development sites and their desired development characteristics are described in the Project Review and Design Guidance chapter of this document, pages 148 to 227. Both the City and the University recognize the need for coordinated planning that allows the University to continue to pursue its instruction, research, and service missions. At the same time, 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. This maximizes positive effects

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

Open space recommendations presented in the CMP reinforce the University’s commitment to the creation and stewardship of campus open space and landscape features. The CMP builds upon and preserves the existing open space structure, which includes Red Square, Rainier Vista, the Liberal Arts Quad, Olympic Vista, Parrington Lawn, Denny Field, Denny Yard, the HUB Yard, Portage Bay Vista, and the Union Bay Natural Area, among others. New open spaces introduced in this CMP include the West Campus Green, South Campus Green, East Campus Connection, and the Continuous Waterfront Trail. In addition to open spaces, the CMP situates development in a manner that preserves and reinforces the following view corridors: the Rainier Vista, Olympic Vista, and Portage Bay Vista; the view toward the Portage Bay waterfront across the South Campus Green; the view south to Portage Bay across the West Campus Green; and the mountain and water views east across and from the East Campus Connection, and along and from the pedestrian walk on Snohomish Lane between Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science Engineering II. View corridors are identified

in the Development Standards Chpater on pages 251 through 253. Development sites are also limited throughout Central Campus to maintain the traditional campus setting.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES The CMP creates a framework designed to enable the UW’s continued evolution as a 21st century public higher education research and service institution. The CMP balances preservation of historic campus assets with increased density, and relies on the University’s strategic goals, academic, research, and service missions, and capital plan objectives, to inform the physical development of the campus. Five overarching principles guide the 2018 CMP:

Flexible Framework Create a lasting and flexible planning framework to guide development of University projects during the identification of a development site and implementation of development guidelines and standards in support of the University of Washington’s education, research, and service missions.

Learning Based Academic and Research Partnerships Support and catalyze academic, teaching and research partnerships with allied industries; contribute to a highly livable innovation environment; and stimulate job growth and community and economic development.

CAMPUS SECTORS

Sustainable Development Implement the UW’s commitment to sustainable land use through the preservation and utilization of its existing property and the balance of development, open space, and public use.

connectivity, and built environment. The big moves for each sector are identified on the following pages, and are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 - Project Review and Design Guidance, on pages 148 through 227.

The CMP includes specific strategies and recommendations for each of the four campus sectors: Central Campus, West Campus, South Campus, and East Campus. Big moves in each sector reinforce both the guiding principles as well as the long-term vision for each campus sector, and address the public realm,

15th Ave NE

EAST

Connectivity

EAST

NE 45th St

Extend the UW’s commitment to better connect the University internally and with its broader context.

EAST CAMPUS 298 Acres

ive

rsi

B ri

WEST CAMPUS 69 Acres

Continue responsible and proactive stewardship of the UW’s campus assets through preservation of its historic, cultural, and ecological resources and strategic property development.

Stewardship of Historic, Cultural, and Ecological Resources

CENTRAL CAMPUS 215 Acres

SOUTH CAMPUS 57 Acres

Figure 3. Campus Sectors

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

Central Campus

Significant Pedestrian Path

Central Campus is a hub of learning activity and knowledge sharing, and accommodates many academic and research facilities. Central Campus is home to the culturally significant academic core and is characterized by significant open spaces framed by a mix of historic and new buildings. The long-term vision for Central Campus: Enhances gateways. 15 t

NE 45th

Significant Open Space Active Ground Floor Existing Building Potential Building Gateway

Street

Concentrates new development at the periphery to minimize interference with the existing campus character.

ve hA

NORTH CAMPUS HOUSING

TON RIN G PAR AWN L

PU S C AM E A ST ECTION N N CO

LIBER AL ARTS QU AD

Preserves and enhances the character of the culturally significant setting and its significant buildings and open spaces.

Provides additional capacity to support the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s educational, research and service missions. TA

B ke

VI S

la l vd

10 Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 4. Central Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

INI

Creates an active edge along 15th Avenue.

Maintains existing building heights.

Enhances connections to West, South, and East Campuses.

Pacific Street

Creates an integrated network of pathways

West Campus

Significant Pedestrian Path

partners, and a significant supply of the UWoperated student housing, West Campus is uniquely positioned to develop as an “innovation district” within the broader Seattle region (see page 78 for more detail on the UW’s history of innovation activity). The longterm vision for West Campus:

West Campus is the most urban of the four campus sectors and accommodates a wide range of uses including student housing, academic, research, and cultural programs. Given its regional transportation access from I-5, regional transit services, retail, research in numerous fields, as well as cafes, industry

Significant Open Space Active Ground Floor Existing Building Potential Building Gateway Potential Street Vacation

Increases development capacity and balances dense development with access to open space.

Br oo kl yn

Extends and re-establishes the street grid, and improves connections with the adjacent University District.

e Av nu

Enhances connections with Central Campus.

Creates pedestrian-scaled development parcels and activates street life with ground floor active destinations.

Connects the campus and University District to the waterfront.

PLAZA

BELVEDERE

Burke-G

Pacific St

ri d

CIT Y OF SEATTL E PORTAGE BAY PA RK

yB rsit i ve

reet MP T CA WE S R E E N G

ilman Trai

Provides flexible building footprints and massing to accommodate a range of functions, including academic and research partnerships.

PORTAGE BAY

Reinforces east-west connections with South Campus. Organizes development around a proposed public open space that functions as the heart of West Campus.

Figure 5. West Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

South Campus

Significant Pedestrian Path

South Campus supports the UWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Sciences functions and the Medical Center. It is home to academic, research, and clinical functions for the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s six health sciences schools and assorted environmental and natural settings, along a waterfront that

is largely inaccessible. Its monolithic structure is dense and disorienting both inside and out. In South Campus, the CMP proposes the longterm redevelopment of much of the health sciences complex incrementally. The long-term vision for South Campus:

Existing Building Potential Building Gateway

nt la

reet

l vd

Pacific St

Increases development capacity, and creates a state-of-the-art health sciences complex and academic medical center.

B ke

Improves access to West, Central, and East Campus through enhanced pedestrian connections.

MP T CA WE S R E E N G

Active Ground Floor

Reduces the scale of development in a manner that promotes school identity, orientation and connectivity.

Significant Open Space

Creates an inviting, functional, and attractive public realm.

Building heights step down closer to the water.

SOUTH C AMPUS GREEN

Celebrates waterfront location with a shared campus green, courtyards and upper terraces. This open space corridor provides major pedestrian connections between Central and South Campus, and creates a permanent view corridor to the water. Figure 6. South Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

12 Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

L NT

Creates a continuous waterfront trail.

UT EC

East Campus

Significant Pedestrian Path

East Campus currently accommodates the Union Bay Natural Area, athletics, recreational, and other University facilities, and parking to support sporting events and campus commuters. Much of East Campus

is built on a methane-producing landfill and constitutes a seismic liquefaction zone, adding cost to building construction in this location. The long-term vision for East Campus:

Significant Open Space Active Ground Floor Existing Building Potential Building

cS tre

Gateway

cifi

Improves connections between East and Central Campus.

Enhances the gateway at Pend Oreille.

Balances public realm and open space along the waterfront with dense development maximizing productive land use. Blvd

TY RSI IVE UN LL AGE VI

Montlake

OF TY ON RSI STATI IVE UN GTON N SHI WA

Road Walla Walla

Preserves athletics uses while developing existing parking lots for future academic uses, industry partnerships, and academic conference spaces.

UNION BAY

Transforms a former brownfield site into a vibrant and desirable campus sector.

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

Integrates with Union Bay Natural Area trail network.

Figure 7. East Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Executive Summar y - July 2017 Final Plan

INTRODUCTION

14 July 2017 Final Plan

•• PURPOSE AND PROCESS •• CITY-UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT •• PLANNING CONTEXT AND ASSUMPTIONS •• PHYSICAL GROWTH

July 2017 Final Plan

PURPOSE AND PROCESS The University of Washington is one of the world’s preeminent public universities. Its impact on individuals, on the region, and on the world is profound — whether it is launching young people into a boundless future or confronting the grand challenges of our time through undaunted research and scholarship. Educating more than 54,000 students annually on its three campuses, students, faculty, and staff at the University of Washington work together to turn ideas into impact, and in the process transform lives and our world. While the University of Washington has three major campuses, located in Seattle, Bothell, and Tacoma this master planning effort focuses on its Seattle campus. The 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan (CMP) is approved by the Seattle City Council and the UW Board of Regents. The CMP serves as the primary regulatory vehicle for the University’s future development, defining the growth allowance to be constructed and the potential geographic locations for such development. This CMP also provides a long-term aspirational vision for future development, and includes a public realm strategy that serves the campus and surrounding community with significant open spaces and enhanced connections.

16 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

MISSION STATEMENT

PURPOSE AND PROCESS

The primary mission of the University of Washington is the preservation, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge. The University preserves knowledge through its libraries and collections, its courses, and the scholarship of its faculty. It advances new knowledge through many forms of research, inquiry and discussion; and disseminates it through the classroom and the laboratory, scholarly exchanges, creative practice, international education, and public service. As one of the nation’s most highly respected teaching and research institutions, the University is committed to maintaining an environment for objectivity and imaginative inquiry and for the original scholarship and research that ensure the production of new knowledge in the free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.

The University of Washington’s long-term vision for the Seattle campus informs its 10year conceptual plan for campus growth that balances the preservation of historic campus assets with intensive investment. Individual sector plans including the West Campus Development Framework, South Campus Study Phase II, East Campus Planning Study, and the Campus Landscape Framework are prior planning efforts foundational to this CMP.

The University fosters an environment in which its students can develop and exercise mature and independent judgment and an appreciation of the range and diversity of human achievement.

Issues considered in the 10-year planning period are anticipated enrollment growth, increased teaching and research demands, future transportation needs, economic growth, and the needs of the University community. Reflecting the participation of a campuswide advisory committee and multiple stakeholders, this CMP is shaped by strategic goals and academic, research, and service missions of the University to guide the physical development of the campus during the life of the CMP. The Seattle CMP process is guided by the City-University Agreement between the University of Washington and the City of Seattle. The University of Washington’s

2016 Birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Eye View of the Seattle Campus Looking North Figure 8.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

previous plan was its 2003 Campus Master Plan. Since then, the University has been a national leader in campus planning, design, and construction, successfully implementing a significant number of possible capital projects anticipated in the 2003 Campus Master Plan. Such growth means that the University has approximately 211,000 gross square feet of development left out of the 3.0 million gross square feet approved in the 2003 Campus Master Plan. Work on this CMP began in 2015 so that by 2018, the CMP would be in place to accommodate the new growth requirements. This CMP follows, builds on, and replaces the 2003 Seattle Campus Master Plan, extending the continuity of planning developed over the history of the University of Washington. This CMP includes guidelines and development standards for developing 6.0 million net new gross square feet of development on the Seattle campus. The physical assets of the campus are located within boundaries designated by a Major Institutional Overlay (MIO) as established by Ordinance 112317 and subsequently amended. Together these assets form a campus structure of open space, circulation,

18 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

and buildings that successfully supports the campus mission. Growth, evolving functional needs, and changing technologies necessitate development that supports the University mission. This CMP has been formulated to maintain and enhance the fundamental mission of the University, its multiple important roles in undergraduate, graduate, and professional education, and its dedication to research and public service. This CMP conserves and enhances the open space of the campus and guides future development. It describes characteristics and built environment components of the campus physical environment which shall guide future design and decisions that impact the campus, the environment, and surrounding communities. The scope of the CMP includes defining future open spaces, circulation patterns, building sites, and campus physical capacity along with planned growth. Impacts on the campus and the primary and secondary impact zones of surrounding communities are analyzed through the EIS process. The 2018 CMP includes recommendations for open space, circulation, transportation, and physical development (Chapter 5 Vision, Principles, Frameworks). Uses for

new construction projects all help fulfill the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission and are considered â&#x20AC;&#x153;academic.â&#x20AC;? These uses are further defined in the Development Standards chapter found on page 256. It is impossible to predict specific categories of academic uses on specific sites because of the dynamic nature of education, continual changes in technology, and the uncertainty of funding sources for new construction. Thus, this CMP creates a development framework to guide the 6.0 million growth allowance. Potential development sites (pages 124 to 125), development standards (pages 228 to 257) and design guidance (pages 156 to 157) outline how each site would be developed. Specific development sites and their desired development characteristics are described in the Project Review and Design Guidance chapter of this document, pages 148 to 227. Both the City and the University recognize the need for coordinated planning that allows the University to continue to pursue its instruction, research, and service goals. At the same time, 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. This maximizes positive effects and minimizes adverse impacts upon the city and campus environments, particularly to communities surrounding the University, and promotes the health and vitality of residential, business, and academic communities. Community outreach has been a major part of the planning process. The University believes this CMP reflects the interests of the large and diverse communities it serves. To achieve this, the University facilitated and encouraged meaningful and ongoing community involvement throughout the planning process. The Public Participation Program, which documents this involvement, is included in the Appendix on page 280.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

THE CITY-UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT The elements considered in the development of this Campus Master Plan are those outlined in the City-University Agreement. The CityUniversity Agreement requires the University to formulate a 10-year conceptual Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.1 The University worked closely with the CityUniversity Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC), and the City Department of Neighborhoods and Construction and Inspections to assure that all required elements of the Campus Master Plan were addressed. Elements that are addressed in the Campus Master Plan include: ••

Current boundaries and any proposed boundary changes (page 26). No changes are being proposed.

••

Proposed non-institutional zone designations for areas within the boundaries. No changes are being proposed.

••

A site plan designating height and location of existing facilities (page 75), location of existing and proposed open space (pages 41 and 97), landscaping and screening (page 45 to 47), and general use and

location of any proposed development and proposed alternatives (page 234 to 237). ••

The institutional zone (page 26) and development standards to be used by the University (pages 232 to 253).

••

A general description of existing and proposed parking facilities (pages 69 and 121) and bicycle (pages 59 and 115), pedestrian (pages 53 and 113), and traffic circulation systems (pages 61, 63, 117, and 119) within the University boundaries and their relationship to the external street system.

••

improvements, and proposed means of increasing energy efficiency (pages 140 to 147). ••

A description of alternative proposals for physical development including explanation of the reasons for considering each alternative has been provided in the EIS.

••

Proposed development phases, including development priorities, an estimated timetable for proposed developments, and proposed interim uses of property awaiting development (page 151).

A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) which includes a menu of specific University programs to minimize traffic impacts and encourage the use of public transit, carpools, vanpools, and other alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles (pages 258 to 269). A broader discussion of the TMP is provided in the Transportation Discipline Report of the Campus Master Plan EIS.

••

A description of any proposed street or alley vacation (pages 118 to 119).

••

Proposed changes to the land acquisition and leasing policy. No changes are being proposed but the current land acquisition and leasing policies are listed on page 155 in the Project Review and Design Guidance chapter (pages 148 to 227).

A general description of future energy and utility needs, system and capacity

1 The University’s 10-year planning horizon is based on this requirement. Consistent with the planning horizon of the GPDP and the 2003 Campus Master Plan, this 2018 Campus Master Plan shall remain in effect until the growth allowance of 6.0 million net new gross square feet is constructed or a new master plan is approved. The development of a new master plan shall not be required unless changes in the planning context and assumptions warrant.

20 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

PLANNING CONTEXT AND ASSUMPTIONS REGIONAL SETTING

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT

The University of Washington is comprised of three campuses including locations in Bothell—12 miles to the north, Tacoma—36 miles to the south, along with its campus in Seattle. The Seattle campus benefits from its proximity to downtown Seattle and local and regional transit facilities including Sound Transit’s North Link connecting the University of Washington Station and the U District Station to downtown Seattle and Northgate by 2021.

The University of Washington is situated within Seattle’s University District, an “urban center” according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and is bounded by I-5 on the west, Ravenna and NE 45th street to the north, 15th Ave NE on the east, and the shoreline to the south. The University District is home to a significant portion of off-campus student housing, cafes, and amenities, including the University Bookstore, located along University Way, also referred to as “The Ave.” The University owns and leases space throughout the University District, notably the UW Tower; such properties fall outside the Major Institution Overlay, or MIO. The University’s broader neighborhood context includes ten surrounding neighborhoods, all of which are located within a ten-minute walk from campus. The surrounding neighborhoods include Roosevelt, University Park, the University District, Wallingford, Eastlake, Laurelhurst, Montlake, Portage Bay Roanoke, Ravenna, and Bryant. Off-campus student housing and Greek housing are concentrated throughout University Park and the University District. Figure 9. Regional Context (above) and Figure 10. Neighborhoods around the University (opposite)

22 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

Neighborhood Planning Context

Figure 10.

I-5

15th Ave NE

NE 45th St

ive

rsi

lake B

id g

M o nt

University of Washington

lvd N E

NE 41st St

Pa c

ifi

cS t

MIO Boundary University Community Urban Center Boundary

520

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND PLANNING PROCESS This CMP reflects the context of the University’s ongoing planning and capital budgeting process, and the related growth forecasts and assumptions which are described in the Environmental Impact Statement. 1. The University of Washington Board of Regents exercises full control of the University and its property, except as otherwise provided by State law. 2. The University has an established planning process which involves many standing committees including the following committees (or their successors) the University Budget Committee, the Capital Budget Committee, the Board of Deans, the UW Architectural Commission (UWAC), the Faculty Council on University Facilities and Services (FCUFS), the University Landscape Advisory Committee (ULAC), the University Transportation Committee, Design Review Board (DRB), and the State Environmental Policy Act Advisory Committee. 3. The City-University Agreement governs preparation of the CMP. The CMP includes design guidance, development standards, and other elements which differ from or

24 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

CAPITAL BUDGETING are in addition to those included in the City’s Major Institutions Code, consistent with the City-University Agreement. A Major Institution Overlay (MIO) district and boundaries are established through the CMP adoption and city ordinance. 4. The University shall comply with the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in the review and approval of the CMP. The University is the SEPA Lead Agency per RCW 43.21C, WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 478-324, and is responsible for SEPA compliance. 5. The University shall comply with the provisions of the Seattle Shoreline Master Program and other applicable State or Federal laws.

1. The Campus Master Plan is intended as a framework for future development of capital projects. The University’s biennial capital budgeting process is the primary basis for the identification of specific facility needs and priorities. 2. Not all projects included in the capital budgets are included in the Campus Master Plan. Projects categorically exempt from SEPA review are not included in all instances, such as buildings less than 12,000 gross square feet, in-fill development of existing buildings, temporary facilities, renovation projects that do not involve material expansion, and other projects. 3. The Campus Master Plan and the capital budgeting process provide long-term flexibility to accommodate unexpected continuous program changes as well as State and National initiatives.

RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS

1. The Campus Master Plan adopted in 2003 remains in effect until this 2018 Campus Master Plan is adopted by the University of Washington Board of Regents and Seattle City Council.

1. The University owns approximately 639 acres within the campus boundaries (page 38). Five non-University owned properties are located within the MIO boundaries.

3. The Campus Master Plan does not include the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plans for the Tacoma or Bothell campuses.

2. The campus includes approximately 12,000 linear feet of shoreline which is subject to the regulations of the Seattle Shoreline Master Program adopted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. These regulations extend landward for 200 feet, and place stringent restrictions on approximately 55 acres of campus (page 108).

4. The University can purchase and lease property according to the City-University Agreement.

3. West Campus is bisected by numerous City streets which may have implications for development.

2. The remaining development capacity under the 2003 Campus Master Plan at the time of publication of the 2018 CMP is approximately 211,000 gross square feet.

4. The campus contains substantial landscaped open space which the University is committed to conserve for historical, aesthetic, functional, and environmental reasons (see page 41). 5. Detailed information regarding the existing conditions of the campus is included in this document as well as in the EIS and has been considered in the development of this Campus Master Plan.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

21st Ave NE

18th Ave NE

19th Ave NE 20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

16th Ave NE

11th Ave NE

I-5

NE 43rd St

A vision for the long-term physical build-out for the Seattle Campus is the foundation for this Master Plan. The long-term build-out of the campus utilizes 86 potential development sites within the existing MIO boundary. No expansion of or change to the MIO boundary is planned in this CMP. The 86 potential development sites enable a maximum development potential of almost 12.0 million gross square feet of net new development (see table on page 86).

NE 42nd St

Church of Latter Day Saints

M o nt

lake B

College Inn

ive

rsi

B ri

SDOT

lvd N E

NE 41st St

I-5

During the planning horizon of this CMP, the University may build a total of 6.0 million net new gross square feet on some of the 86 sites. Identification of specific sites and phasing to accommodate the 6.0 million net new gross square feet shall be determined through the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual capital planning and budgeting processes.

NE 45th St

Within the MIO boundary, as of September 2016, the University housed its functions in 16.6 million gross square feet of space. To accommodate both the increase in the number of students as well as the continued growth in the area of academics, research, academic and research partnerships, and service, an additional 6.0 million net new gross square feet of space is required.

Roosevelt Rd NE

PHYSICAL GROWTH

City of Seattle Portage Bay Park

Pa c

ifi

cS t

Jensen Motor Boat Company

Figure 11. University and Non-Institutional Uses MIO Boundary University-owned Facility Within the MIO Non-Institutional Use (Not Owned by the UW)

26 Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

Any non-institutional use has to comply with underlying zoning. Non-Institutional uses within the MIO include: ••

Church of Latter Day Saints MIO-65-NC3-65 Neighborhood Commercial 3

••

College Inn MIO-65-NC3-65 Neighborhood Commercial 3

••

Jensen Motor Boat Company MIO-37-IC-45 Industrial Commercial

••

City of Seattle Portage Bay Park (Seattle Parks and Recreation) and the Brooklyn Street end park which is a portion of Sukuma Viewpoint park MIO-37-IC-45 Industrial Commercial

••

Seattle Department of Transportation MIO-65-IC-45 Industrial Commercial

The University does not propose to change the zoning for non-University uses. For underlying zoning within the University’s MIO boundary, please refer to the City of Seattle’s Official Zoning Map, copies of which are included on page 290.

Introduction - July 2017 Final Plan

GROWTH PROFILE

28 July 2017 Final Plan

•• ENROLLMENT TRENDS •• GROWTH ALLOWANCE

July 2017 Final Plan

ENROLLMENT TRENDS SUMMARY The 10-year conceptual plan contained in this Campus Master Plan (CMP) considers the projected enrollment growth over the 2018 to 2028 time period. Table 1 shows a 15% increase in enrollment growth during that time period. The total enrollment growth between 2014 (when planning for this CMP began) and 2028 is 20%.

Table 1. Student, Faculty and Staff Figures 2014

2018

2028

2014 - 2028 DIFFERENCE

% CHANGE

Total Student Population (FTE)

43,724

47,219

52,399

8,675

20%

Staff (FTE)

16,324

17,629

19,563

3,239

20%

Faculty (FTE)

7,107

7,675

8,517

1,410

20%

Total Population (FTE)

67,155

72,523

80,479

13,324

STUDENT POPULATION Total student population in 2014 was roughly 43,725 full time equivalent students (FTE). Looking forward, total student enrollment is projected to grow by 8,675 FTE to 52,400 FTE students in 2028. Future enrollment was projected using a straight line trend analysis of historic enrollment data, and an analysis of Washington State graduation rate data. Feedback from Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Enrollment Committee was also considered.

30 Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan

FACULTY AND STAFF As of fall 2014, the University employed roughly 16,325 FTE staff and 7,100 FTE faculty. Future faculty and staff figures were determined by maintaining the 2014 student to faculty and student to staff ratios over the 2015 to 2028 timeframe. This methodology generates a total future faculty of roughly 8,517 FTE faculty, and a future staff population of roughly 19,563 FTE staff.

GROWTH ALLOWANCE GROWTH ALLOWANCE The University’s growth allowance of 6.0 million net new gross square feet supports the 2028 campus population projection. A number of analyses were conducted to inform the requested growth allowance including: ••

Benchmarking the UW’s Seattle campus space against peer institutions;

••

Modeling the UW’s campus space needs;

••

Analyzing the UW’s Seattle campus development history; and

••

Considering the potential for academic and research partnership space.

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan

BENCHMARKING Benchmarking compares the University’s existing space to space at other higher education institutions. Institutions with similar characteristics, such as large public institutions with a research focus, were selected as the basis for benchmarking. The University of Michigan, University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University, Rutgers University, and Johns Hopkins University were identified as peer institutions by the Capital Planning and Development office for the benchmarking analysis. The UW’s existing space was benchmarked against its peers on an assignable square foot (asf) per student FTE basis for classrooms, teaching and research labs, offices, study and library space,

32 Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan

athletics and recreation space, and student life space. ••

Across all space categories, the University of Washington recorded space levels on the lower end of the spectrum compared to peer institutions, which suggests the need for additional space to meet current and future student populations.

••

Benchmarking only assesses space from a quantitative perspective, and does not address the quality of the space. In many categories, the University of Washington is regarded as a leader in terms of facilities quality.

Table 2. Benchmarking Summary (assignable square feet per student FTE)

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CLASSROOMS

TEACHING & RESEARCH LABS

OFFICES

STUDY

ATHLETICS & RECREATION

STUDENT LIFE

Rutgers University

University of Washington

The Ohio State University

UT Austin

Johns Hopkins University Homewood

University of Michigan Ann Arbor

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan

Table 3. 2028 Space Needs Determined by the Space Needs Model by Category (gross square feet*) 7.0 M Deficit 245,000 gsf

Deficit 1,912,000 gsf

6.0 M

5.0 M

4.0 M

3.0 M

Deficit 727,000 gsf

Deficit 953,000 gsf

2.0 M Deficit 375,500 gsf

1.0 M

Deficit 222,000 gsf

Deficit 367,000 gsf

Deficit 98,500 gsf

0 CLASSROOMS

TEACHING LABS

Existing Space Space Need at 2028

RESEARCH LABS

OFFICES

LIBRARY / STUDY

RECREATION

STUDENT LIFE

STUDENT HOUSING

*Assumes 61.5% Net to Gross Square Feet Deficit includes existing and projected deficit Deficits provide an indication of a specific space needs and are based on existing FTE and projected FTE figures

34 Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan

SPACE NEEDS MODEL The space needs model compares the University’s existing space on the Seattle campus against projected need for a variety of higher education space categories including:

Space Needs Model Findings

••

Classrooms

••

Teaching labs

••

Research labs

••

Offices

••

Sports and recreation

The collective space deficit associated with the 2028 population approaches 3,115,000 assignable square feet, or 5,065,000 gross square feet assuming a 61.5 percent net to gross ratio.

••

Student life space

••

Student housing

While this figure accounts for traditional higher education space types, it does not account for academic and research partnership space.

STUDENT HOUSING

Space needed to support student housing is determined as a percentage of the overall student population. The model does not account for faculty staff housing. ••

For master planning purposes, it is assumed that 22 percent of the overall student population shall be housed on campus in the future. The University currently houses 20 percent of the student population.

••

A future student population of 52,400 FTE translates into the need for roughly 11,528 total beds on campus.

Existing Space As of 2014, the University of Washington recorded roughly 16.6 million gross square feet of space located within the Major Institutional Overlay (MIO). This does not account for any space associated with parking structures.

By 2028, the University shall have 10,870 beds in its stock, assuming that all phases of the North Campus Housing (including Haggett Hall replacement) are complete. This suggests a need for 658 net new beds by 2028.

••

Applying the University’s existing gross square feet per bed of 372 gross square feet for a suite-style bed generates a total housing space need of 245,000 gross square feet in 2028.

KEY FINDINGS

The model compares existing space against projected need to support the 2028 population. The difference between the two figures reveals the space deficit.

The model is based on national space guidelines, notably guidelines developed by CEFPI (the Council of Educational Facilities Planners, International), and assumptions around enrollment levels, utilization and occupancy rates, and best practices for space factors, etc. The model does not account for academic and research partnership spaces, which are analyzed separately. The model uses 2028 student, faculty, and staff population levels determined during the enrollment trends analysis to determine space needs.

••

INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP SPACE

The space needs model does not project the square footage need for partnership space. The CMP allocates between 500,000 to 1,000,000 gross square feet of space for future partnerships. This is sufficient space to generate a critical mass of activity in support of a thriving innovation district. Within the 500,000 to 1,000,000 gross square feet of space, it is anticipated that one-quarter to one-half of the people in the buildings would be non-University employees. These could be employees associated with our governmental partners at The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), or other private partners.

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan

EXISTING CONDITIONS

36 July 2017 Final Plan

•• PUBLIC REALM FRAMEWORK •• CIRCULATION & PARKING FRAMEWORK •• BUILT ENVIRONMENT FRAMEWORK •• INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FRAMEWORK

July 2017 Final Plan

PUBLIC REALM FRAMEWORK FOUR CAMPUS SECTORS The campus is broadly organized into four campus sectors including West Campus, South Campus, Central Campus, and East Campus. The four campus sectors reflect varied scales, characters, and functions that collectively comprise the campus setting.

15th Ave NE

EAST

WEST CAMPUS 69 Acres

CENTRAL CAMPUS 215 Acres

EAST CAMPUS 298 Acres

ive

rsi

B ri

NE 45th St

SOUTH CAMPUS 57 Acres TOTAL SEATTLE CAMPUS 639 Acres

Figure 12. Campus sectors

38 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 13. Central Campus looking south

Figure 14. West Campus looking north

Figure 15. South Campus looking west

Figure 16. East Campus looking southwest

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

CAMPUS ORGANIZATION The campus is organized around four primary radial axes that extend from Red Square in varying directions. These axes function as key campus organizing elements as well as prominent view corridors. Rainier Vista incorporates Drumheller Fountain, and serves as the primary organizing axis for the campus, providing breathtaking views of Mount Rainier to the southeast. Rainier Vista was designed by the Olmsted Brothers for the 1909 AlaskaYukon-Pacific Exposition, and was recently improved to better integrate with the new University of Washington light rail station.

••

The Liberal Arts Quad serves as the northeast axis that links the core campus to the north campus housing. The Liberal Arts Quad functions as the primary academic quad and is known for its iconic cherry blossoms.

••

The view from the George Washington statue toward Campus Parkway is the primary access to the west and has been characterized as Olympic Vista for its views of the mountain range to the west.

ORIA OLYMPIC VISTA

V IS TA

40 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 18. Primary Organizational Axes

G TA

LIB

U SQ

In addition to the four axes, Portage Bay Vista first identified as part of a Property Use and Development Agreement (PUDA) for the vacation of 15th Avenue south of Pacific Street, has emerged as a strong view corridor to the southwest.

Red Square

T AR

••

Lined with mature London Plane trees, Memorial Way is the main, ceremonial entrance to campus and defines the primary axis to the north.

MEM

••

Figure 17. Rainier Vista

L WA Y

••

Existing Unique and Significant Landscapes Figure 19.

UNIQUE AND SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPES Significant landscapes are identified in the Campus Landscape Framework Plan, and function as primary open spaces with cultural and historic value.

Existing Pedestrian Paths Significant Open Spaces Burke-Gilman Trail Areas to be Preserved

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Q AR TS AL ER GRIEG GARDEN

INI ER VI S TA PARRINGTON LAWN

Figure 20. Favorite Open Spaces (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework )

42 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

In a recent survey conducted as part of the Campus Landscape Framework, students, faculty and staff were asked to identify their favorite open spaces by placing dots / icons on a map. Not surprisingly, most responses aligned with the primary open spaces, further reinforcing their value as campus landscapes. The waterfront and Union Bay Natural Area were also identified as favorite open spaces.

PARRINGTON LAWN

LI B

In many cases, the key campus axes also function as primary open spaces, including Memorial Way, Rainier Vista, the Liberal Arts Quad, and Campus Parkway along Olympic Vista. A number of additional primary open spaces further reinforce the key axes including Drumheller Fountain, Sylvan Theater, the Medicinal Herb Garden, and Parrington Lawn. Denny Field, Denny Yard, Grieg Garden, HUB Lawn, and Portage Bay Vista are also key open spaces.

U AD

PRIMARY OPEN SPACES

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

12th Ave NE

Figure 21.

I-5

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Primary Open Spaces

NE 45th St

NE 42nd St

PARRINGTON LAWN N

NE 41st St NE CAMPUS PARKWAY

R YA

NE 41st St

TS AR L R A AD BE QU LI

Walla Walla Rd

NE 43rd St

Y N EN D D IEL F

MEMORIAL WAY

NE 45th St

HUB LAWN

RED SQUARE

lake B

lvd N E

GRIEG GARDEN

ST A VI BA Y RT AG E PO

ifi

cS t

ive

LV AN

A IS T

Pa c

I CI HE NAL GA R R B DEN

V ER

MED

INI

Bo at C PO ITY S RT OF tree AG SE t E B AT AY TLE PA RK

rsi

M o nt

ER ELL MH N DRU UNTAI FO

B ri

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

Historic Core TH

EA TE

Red Square Primary Open Space Burke-Gilman Trail Forested Edge Active Open Space Waterfront Union Bay Natural Area MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 22. Cherry blossoms in the Liberal Arts Quad

Figure 23. Sylvan Theater

Figure 24. Cedars near Winkenwerder Annex

OPEN SPACE TYPOLOGIES A mosaic of open spaces emerges within the overarching open space structure established by the four key campus axes. The 2015 Campus Landscape Framework comprehensively catalogues the open spaces on campus, ranging from campus greens, to woodland groves, to gardens, wetlands, and meadows. The varied landscape character creates moments of respite, surprise, activity, and education, and creates a signature landscape fabric that is unique to the campus. Open space typologies vary according to the campus sectors. ••

East Campus is characterized by wetlands, meadows, and recreation field open spaces.

••

West Campus is characterized by courtyards, passage, and urban frontage open spaces.

••

Central Campus is characterized by campus green and woodland grove open spaces.

••

South Campus is characterized by constructed waterfront open spaces.

44 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 25. Meadow near the Husky Union Building

Existing Open Space Typologies

Campus Green

Garden

Informal Green

Service and Parking

Recreational Field

Lake Edge Wetland

Courtyard / Terrace

Meadow

Plaza

Constructed Waterfront

Woodland Grove

MIO Boundary

Figure 26. (Source: 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

NE 45th St

Passage Urban Frontage

Walla Walla Rd

15th Ave NE

Threshold

Memorial Way

Interstitial / Buffer Space

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

NE 41st St

St r

Pa c

ifi

cS t

en ev

ay sW

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 27. Entrance at NE 45th Street

Figure 28. Retaining wall edge condition along 15th Avenue NE

EDGE CONDITIONS In many ways, the campus environment is shaped by a number of linear elements. Central Campus is situated within Stevens Way, while the Burke-Gilman Trail provides an important connection through all four campus sectors. The campus’ continuous waterfront edge is perhaps one of the most defining and unique campus features. Within this setting, the UW hopes to create more welcoming and permeable edges to campus. A number of conditions contribute to harsh edge conditions that discourage movement, including: ••

Steep slopes near the Kincaid Ravine and along the eastern edge of campus.

46 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

••

Continuous, blank building facades along NE Pacific Street near South Campus and fences near the shoreline obstruct movement and hinder access to the waterfront.

••

The retaining wall along 15th Avenue NE further deters access and creates an unwelcoming edge to campus.

••

Major roads including 15th Avenue, 45th Street, Pacific Street and Montlake Boulevard are also important campus edges.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 29.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Edge Conditions

NE 45th St

KINCAID RAVINE NE 43rd St

en ev St

NE 41st St

Walla Walla Rd

ay sW

NE 42nd St

ilm a

n Tr

ail

lake B

keG

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

B ur

lvd N E

NE 41st St

Pedestrian Overpass Major Road Viaduct Stevens Way Burke-Gilman Trail

St r

Pa c

Retaining Wall ifi

cS t

Building Edge Steep Slope Waterfront Surface Parking Lots University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

EXISTING SHORELINE ACCESS The following table and graphic highlight existing public shoreline access. For the University’s Shoreline Public Access Plan, please refer to pages 108 to 111. The Shoreline Access Plan has been organized into seven waterfront segments and these are found on the University waterfront. The following categories of shoreline access are assessed for each segment:

foot shoreline setback line and street rightof-way (NE Pacific Street for West Campus and South Campus, and Montlake Boulevard for East Campus). •

The acreage of programmed open spaces, which are generally defined as significant and identifiable open spaces, which provide access to the waterfront.

•

Linear feet of trails included within the 200-foot shoreline setback. Trails are generally required to be 5 feet wide.

•

Unprogrammed open space, or ground cover, which provides access to the waterfront.

•

The number of through-walkways, or pedestrian connections between the 200-

•

Presence of a boat launch or marina with public access.

•

Presence of a public dock.

•

Presence of a view corridor. The view corridors align with the view corridors identified within the Development Standards, and are visible from public rights-of-way.

•

Acreage of natural habitat areas, or wetlands.

Table 4. Existing Shoreline Access Conditions PARK / OPEN SPACE CAMPUS SECTOR

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ZONES

SHORELINE SEGMENT

SHORELINE LINEAR FEET

PUBLIC DOCK

VIEW CORRIDORS

1.9

1,930’

1.9

3.6

1,020’

2,320’

4.6

3,990’

270’

12.1

20.8

4,200’

5,400’

74 Acres

12,450’

11,520’

15.3 ACRES

30.9

74 ACRES

Through Walkways

Unprogrammed Open Space (approx. acreage)

0’

1.3

1,590’

1,600’

950’

700’

SOUTH SOUTH

WEST SOUTH

EAST

URBAN COMMERCIAL

CONSERVANCY MANAGEMENT

EAST EAST

CONSERVANCY PRESERVATION

NATUR AL HABITAT AREAS

BOAT L AUNCH/ MARINA

Programmed Open Space (approx. acreage)

Trails (linear feet)

48 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

(approx. acreage)

Existing Shoreline Public Access Conditions Figure 30. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Public Dock

Urban Commercial

Marina and/or Boat Launch

Conservancy Management Conservancy Preservation

Through Walkways View Corridors Programmed Open Space Unprogrammed Open Space Natural Habitat Area 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

Portage Bay Vista

Union Bay Natural Area

EAST CAMPUS

e- G Burk

WEST CAMPUS

il n Tra ilma

SOUTH CAMPUS PORTAGE BAY

Montlake Bridge

LAKE UNION

Glade

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

MOVEMENT TO AND FROM CAMPUS

N PE

NE 41ST

LE IL

CAMPUS PARKWAY

ER VI S TA

50 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

NE 42ND

INI

The mode split aligns with the findings from the campus wide MyPlaces survey as part of the Campus Landscape Framework, in which individuals were asked to identify key campus gateways, or locations at which individuals enter the campus. Details of the mode split analysis methods and history are provided in the Transportation Discipline Report of the CMP EIS. In the mode split analysis, the intersection of 15th Avenue NE and Campus Parkway emerged as the primary gateway to campus, which aligns with Campus Parkwayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

NE 43RD

The University of Washington has an extremely desirable mode splitâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a term used to describe the various ways students, faculty and staff travel to and from campus. Its single occupancy vehicle (drive-alone) rate is low at 20 percent of campus commutes, while walking, biking and transit collectively account for 72 percent of campus commutes. The introduction of light rail is anticipated to further modify the mode split. The mode split is discussed in greater detail in the Transportation Management Plan Chapter and the Transportation Discipline Report in the CMP EIS.

MEMORIAL WAY

CIRCULATION AND PARKING FRAMEWORK

UW STATION

Figure 31. Campus Gateways (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

2015 Mode Split (Morning Arrivals to Campus) Figure 32. Source: 2015 U-Pass annual survey results

identity as one of two significant transit hubs near campus (the second hub is located at the Montlake Triangle). Additional gateways are also located along 15th Avenue NE and at the intersection of 45th Street and Memorial Way, which further reinforces the need to better integrate the entrances to campus with the surrounding urban context. Fewer gateways were identified along the edges of East Campus, which signals the need to improve connections between the Central and East Campus sectors generally. The campus wide mode split for faculty, staff and students is taken from a U-Pass survey of travel modes to the campus in the morning. The 2015 surveyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s results are consistent with survey results from the last decade, and show the drive alone to campus rate is approximately 20%; however, the 2016 surveyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s results, which represent the conditions after the opening of the Husky Stadium light rail station, indicate a drive alone rate of only 18%. The Transportation Discipline Report describes the analysis and is based on the more conservative 20% drive alone mode split from 2015.

BICYCLE 9%

CAR POOL/ OTHER VAN POOL 1% 6%

DRIVE ALONE 20%

TRANSIT 41%

WALKING 22%

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Q AR TS AL ER LI B ER VI S TA

52 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

RED SQUARE

INI

Campus circulation is enhanced by the existing pedestrian bridges, which minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts and any negative impact on the flow of vehicular traffic through and around campus. An analysis of pedestrian operations and capacity is provided in the Transportation Discipline Report.

CAMPUS PARKWAY

Pedestrian circulation routes on campus have been identified and categorized as major, minor, and connector routes. Major pedestrian routes reflect the most heavily trafficked pedestrian corridors such as Rainier Vista, Memorial Way, Campus Parkway and through the Liberal Arts Quad. Minor routes represent a second tier of pedestrian movement, such as the connection through Parrington Lawn, Denny Yard, and Denny Field. Connector routes complete the pedestrian network on campus.

MEMORIAL WAY

As with previous campus master plans, preserving and improving the pedestrian nature of the campus continues to be a central goal of the CMP. The many and varied pedestrian paths within the campus provide a variety of experiences including the functional, day-to-day movements of large student populations between classes as well as more passive or leisure-related uses.

U AD

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

Figure 33. Walking Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 34.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Pedestrian Circulation

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

en ev St

NE 41st St

Walla Walla Rd

TS AR L D R A UA E B Q LI

ay sW

NE 42nd St

NE Campus Pkwy

an e

lvd N E

ilm

Tra il

lake B

keG

RED SQUARE nt L

Pa c

cS t

ifi

INI

St re

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

B ur

G ra

Major Route

VI S TA

Minor Route Connector Route Greenway University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 35. Pedestrian bridge connections between East Campus and Central Campus.

Figure 36. Pedestrian bridge connecting Schmitz Hall with George Washington Plaza.

Pedestrian Bridges The University maintains five pedestrian skybridge rights-of-way that connect all of the campus sectors to Central Campus. All of the bridges are accessed by visitors, the community, students, staff, and faculty on a regular basis.

and faculty make use of the Wahkiakum Lane extension and the Whatcom Lane extension to access athletic and recreation spaces and amenities, the E-1 and E-18 parking lots, the Union Bay Natural Area, and residential amenities in East Campus.

The pedestrian bridge at the intersection of Campus Parkway and 15th Avenue NE connects Schmitz Hall with George Washington Plaza and is a major entry into the campus.

There are also two pedestrian overpasses that lead from Central Campus to South Campus over NE Pacific Street, the T-wing/Garfield Pedestrian Bridge and the Kincaid/Hitchcock Pedestrian Bridge. These bridges also enhance connections to the Burke-Gilman Trail and to the South Waterfront.

Two pedestrian bridges form defined connections to East Campus from Central Campus over Montlake Boulevard and are used by a diverse set of individuals. Visitors, the greater campus community, students, staff,

54 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Two additional pedestrian bridges are located in the area of the Sound Transit Station. One is a City of Seattle bridge and connects the

Burke-Gilman Trail to the Alaska Airlines Arena at Hec Edmundson Pavilion and the other connects the Sound Transit station to the Burke-Gilman trail, the University of Washington, and the community at-large. Please refer to the Transportation Discipline Report for information on pedestrian use of the bridges.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 37.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing University and Non-University Pedestrian Overpasses

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 41st St

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

St r

Pa c

ifi

cS t

University-Permitted Pedestrian Overpass Non-University Pedestrian Bridge University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 38. Fully accessible route through Parrington Lawn

Figure 39. ADA ramp to the Husky Union Building (HUB)

UNIVERSAL ACCESS The UW is committed to providing equal access to all individuals, and addresses American Disability Association (ADA) accessibility standards through a campus-wide approach. This means that the UW removes barriers through both physical improvements as well as programmatic improvements such as Dial-a-Ride shuttle service. Existing accessibility challenges include: ••

Physical barriers on campus include paths that don’t meet ADA requirements and/or paths without ADA accessible alternatives to staircases.

••

Routes that provide access to Red Square, as well as routes that provide access between Central Campus from West, South and East Campus, currently present accessibility barriers.

56 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

••

As described in the Development Standards, ADA parking is not located building by building, but is assigned at the gatehouse or through U-PASS to be as close to the actual location as possible.

The accompanying map illustrates areas that have been identified with accessibility barriers by the Campus Landscape Framework. The UW has begun a multi-year process of developing an ADA self-assessment and transition plan which shall identify accessibility barriers in detail, and identify methods and a schedule for barrier removal. Discussions with users in the disability community have also identified consistency of surfaces, construction related reroutes, and wayfinding as mobility challenges.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 40.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Accessibility Network

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 41st St

NE 41st St NE Campus Pkwy

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

RED SQUARE

St r

Pa c

ifi

cS t

Fully Accessible - Meets ADA Code Partially Accessible - Part of paths may not meet the grade requirement Not Accessible by ADA Standards University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

BICYCLE CIRCULATION NETWORK Bicycle travel has been an important mode of travel for the UW for many decades, even preceding the more recent emphasis on bicycle travel. The UW has encouraged bicycle travel through a variety of methods including through the provision of short-term and longterm secured bicycle parking. The following are key considerations with regard to the bike circulation network: ••

The Burke-Gilman Trail, which is owned by the UW within the MIO, is a key mobility asset.

••

Recent bicycle investments by the City of Seattle are primarily concentrated in Cityowned right-of-ways within West Campus and include protected bike lanes.

••

Beyond the Burke-Gilman Trail, which the UW is improving, on-campus bicycle facilities are limited to shared-use facilities. Shared lane markings, commonly known as “sharrows,” are provided on Stevens Way.

••

Reinforcing the UW’s desire for a pedestrian oriented campus, bicyclists also use pedestrian pathways with a “dismount zone” enforced in the core of campus during peak periods.

••

Bikeshare facilities on campus as part of the City-sponsored pronto system have been discontinued. As it has in the past, the UW would participate in future bike share systems including placing stations on campus.

••

The UW provides bike parking with new developments to meet campus demands.

58 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

ST EV

ILM

TR A

W AY

Figure 41. Routes Commonly Used by Bikes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 42.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Bike Network

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

en ev St

NE 41st St

Walla Walla Rd

ay sW

NE 42nd St

NE 41st St

Tr a

lake B

M o nt

rk e-

ive

rsi

B ri

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

St r

Pa c

ifi

Paved Shared Trail Arboretum Bypass Route Open Space Connector (key connection used by pedestrians and cyclists) Protected Bike Lane

cS t

Unprotected Bike Lane Shared Marked Lane Bike Walk Zone (Dismount Zone) University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 43. University of Washington Light Rail Station

Figure 44. King County Metro Transit

TRANSIT AND SHUTTLE NETWORK As the University’s population has grown, transit has played an increasingly large role in the campus’ transportation system with roughly 40 percent of students, faculty and staff traveling to and from campus on transit. The following are key features of the vehicular circulation network: ••

King County Metro, Community Transit, and Sound Transit operate extensive bus service to the UW.

••

Metro provides a majority of the transit service to the campus with frequent, all-day service to the campus from destinations throughout the City of Seattle and county. This service travels along the edge of Central Campus as well as eastwest through campus on Stevens Way.

60 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

••

The UW operates a multi-route shuttle network between the UW Medical Center, the UW Tower, the UWMC Roosevelt Clinics, South Lake Union, and Harborview Medical Center for faculty, staff and students.

••

The University of Washington Sound Transit Station at Husky Stadium provides regional light rail service to the southeast portion of campus. The University District Sound Transit Station, located at 43rd Street and Brooklyn Avenue, shall open in 2021 and further enhance light rail service to campus.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 45.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Transit and Shuttle Network

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

en ev St

Memorial Way

NE 45th St

s ay W

NE 41st St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 42nd St

NE 41st St

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

St r

Light Rail (2016) Light Rail (2021) Bus Layover The UW Shuttle Route

The UW Shuttle Stop Pa c

ifi

cS t

Bus Route Bus Stop 10 Min Light Rail Walkshed 5 Min Light Rail Walkshed University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION NETWORK Vehicular circulation has remained largely unchanged over the last decade. This stable vehicle gravitation pattern is consistent with City and regional transportation policies as well as the UW goals of developing the campus as a pedestrian-oriented environment. The following are key features of the vehicular circulation network: ••

Regional access to campus is provided by I-5 and SR-520.

••

Stevens Way, Memorial Way, Pend Oreille Road, and Grant Lane provide local access to Central Campus and have a large number of pedestrian crossings.

••

Walla Walla Road and NE Columbia Road serve similar local access functions for East and South Campus and have a larger presence of adjacent parking lots and back of house type uses.

••

West Campus, unlike the rest of the campus, is characterized by an urban street grid; vehicular access is limited along some corridors to reduce cut-through traffic.

62 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 46. Vehicular Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 47.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Vehicular Network

NE 45th St

O re

ill e

NE 43rd St

Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 41st St

lake B

NE 41st St

M o nt

NE Campus Pkwy

t Lan

ive

rsi

B ri

G ra n

Walla Walla Rd

lvd N E

Pen d

NE 42nd St

Interstate St r

Principal Arterial Pa c

ifi

cS t

Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Access Street University Road University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 48. Service areas combined with parking

Figure 49. Vegetated screens create a buffer between pedestrian routes and HUB service access

SERVICE CIRCULATION AND LOADING ZONES Proximate vehicular access to buildings throughout campus is necessary for servicing and routine operations, including mail delivery, garbage pickup, building maintenance, food delivery and other activities that require movement of items to and from buildings using vehicles. These activities are supported by a number of loading zones and loading docks throughout campus, often accessible via shared spaces that are also used by pedestrians and bicyclists. Load zones have varying levels of utilization, but are nevertheless essential to the functionality of

64 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

the buildings. Many locations conflict with pedestrian routes and impact the desired look and feel of the campus. The accompanying map identifies existing service routes, along with the number of general and specific loading zones. Specific loading zones are reserved for specified uses (e.g. Housing and Food Services, Facilities Services), while others are general.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 50.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Service Routes & Loading

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

lake B

NE 41st St

M o nt

NE Campus Pkwy

Walla Walla Rd

lvd N E

NE 41st St

5+ General Loading Zone Stalls 2+ General Loading Zone Stalls General Loading Zone Stall 5+ Special Use Loading Zone Stalls

B ri

2+ Special Use Loading Zone Stalls

ive

rsi

Special Use Loading Zone Stall Bo

St r

The UW Service Route ee

Service Access Road

Pa c

WSDOT Owned Road ifi

cS t

Seattle Minor Freight Route Seattle Major Freight Route Seattle Limited Access University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 51. The UW-owned street at NE Stevens Way in Central Campus

Figure 52. City-owned street at NE 40th Street

STREET OWNERSHIP The UW owns most of the property within the MIO, including a number of streets. ••

In Central and East Campus all internal streets are owned by the UW, with City of Seattle or WSDOT owning streets such as Montlake Blvd and Mary Gates Memorial Drive passing through the MIO.

••

In South Campus, the UW owns NE Columbia Road, which connects to Cityowned Boat Street at the South Campus gatehouse.

66 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

••

In West Campus, most streets are owned by the City, with several of the UW-owned streets in the vicinity of the W10 parking lot.

••

The Burke-Gilman Trail is also owned by the UW within the MIO.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 53.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Existing Street Ownerships

NE 45th St

ry Ga

NE 43rd St

Memorial Way

NE 45th St

te s Me mo ri a lD

NE 42nd St

Walla Walla Rd

e ri v

NE 41st St

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

University Owned Road at

St r

Pa c

University Owned Service Road ifi

cS t

University Owned Segment of Burke-Gilman Trail WSDOT Owned Road City of Seattle-owned Rightof-Way University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

PARKING LOT TYPOLOGIES Parking on campus is provided through surface, structured, and underground parking lots of varying sizes. As the campus has grown, surface parking lots have increasingly been replaced by buildings, sometimes without replacing lost parking capacity on that site. In 1991, the University agreed to a parking space cap of 12,300 in the MIO and that same cap is in place today, 25 years later. ••

••

Parking lots on Central Campus primarily consist of larger structured lots or small, building-adjacent surface lots, with strong parking demand for these lots. East Campus is characterized by large surface lots such as E1 and E18 which primarily meet the parking needs of Central and South Campus. Due to the longer distance of these lots from key destinations, parking demand is substantially lower than other areas of campus, except on game days. Parking in South Campus is primarily provided through structured and underground parking lots, reflecting the scarcity of land in this area. Parking utilization is highest in South Campus with excess parking demand shifting to lots like E12 and the Portage Bay Garage adjacent to South Campus. Parking in West Campus is provided via a mixture of lots including a number of residence hall lots. Some of the UW’s key parking resources are aging, resulting in ongoing and increasing maintenance costs.

68 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

The following table identifies all parking spaces that are governed by the parking spaces cap. Figures account for regular and small cars, disability, wheelchair, carpool, EV charge, Zipcar, miscellaneous reserved, pay by space, pay n display, and metered spaces.

The following types of spaces are excluded from the parking space cap and the parking count in the table: bicycle, loading spaces, the UW vehicle, physical plant vehicle, shuttle, UCAR, miscellaneous restricted, and parking associated with residence halls.

Table 5. Existing Parking Lots within Parking Spaces Cap, 2016 PARKING LOT

# OF SPACES

PARKING LOT

# OF SPACES

PARKING LOT

# OF SPACES

N01

213

C17

E98 (IMA)

N02

C19

W10

N03

C20 (TRIANGLE UPPER)

218

W11

N05

170

C21 (TRIANGLE LOWER)

285

W12

N12

C23

W13

N16

118

N18

252

W24

N20

151

W27 (UTC)

N21

131

W28(GR AVEL)

N22

W35

N24

W40 TOTAL

N25

S12

W41

N26

1,312

W42

N28

201

W43 (BEN HALL UPPER)

C01

157

W44 (BEN HALL LOWER)

C02

128

PARRINGTON

C03

176

FRONTAGE ROAD (S99)

C04

145

132

SPOKANE LN. (SAVERY)

C05

181

E8R

C06

201

C07

C08

C09

C10

E17

C12

E18

1,584

C14

E19

259

C15

E97 (GR AVES)

TOTAL - 10,667

805

PORTAGE BAY GAR AGE

6 895

SURGERY PAVILION

FISHERIES DOCK

E12

822

STADIUM GAR AGE

E14 (GDR)

CHELAN LN. (R AITT)

E16

107

SKAGIT LN. (MUSIC)

MARINA 1 (1409 NE BOAT ST)

MARINA 2 (3537 12TH AVE NE)

PARKING CAP - 12,300

UNDER CAP - 1,633

281 3 199

Figure 54.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Existing Parking Lot Typologies

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

H14

N26

NE 45th St

H12 N25 N3

W20,21,22,23

. LN

NE Campus Pkwy

W40 W40

W42

W10

W39

W11

ive

rsi

B ri

W32,33 W36 Bo

St r

W13

N16,18,20,21 N22

N24

C23

C17 C15

PBG W27

C14

C7 NE

W28 W24

Pa c

E18

cS t

E97

E8R E98 E8

C12

C10 C10 C10

C12

S12 S7

S99

C20,21

E19 S8

NE 41st St

E16

SURGERY PAVILION

E12

Surface Parking Lot Structured Parking Underground Parking

Student Residential Spaces (Spaces Do Not Contribute to the Parking Cap)

E19

S1 S8

E16

PUDA Parking Spaces (Spaces Do Not Contribute to the Parking Cap)

E17

S5 S6

E29

C12 ifi

E14

C19 N24

W29

W35 at

W12

. LN

H12

E4 E1

M o nt

W43,44

C1-6

N12

N13,14,15

NE 41st St

W41

Walla Walla Rd

NE 42nd St

N9,10,11

lvd N E

NE 43rd St

NE 45th St

lake B

Memorial Way

STADIUM GARAGE

E19 E12

University Building E19

Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

BUILT ENVIRONMENT FRAMEWORK RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT SITES A comprehensive assessment of the built environment informed the identification of potential development sites. Building age, building condition, deferred maintenance, density and building heights, along with existing maximum building heights were assessed. This information, coupled with feedback from stakeholder interviews, and an understanding of development sites identified in the 2003 Campus Master Plan and from recent planning, was used to generate the development sites identified in the CMP. These sites were subsequently reviewed and updated over several work sessions, and resulted in the final set of development sites documented in the CMP.

70 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

DEVELOPMENT SITES FROM THE 2003 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN AND RECENT PLANNING The University has successfully acted upon a number of development sites from the 2003 Campus Master Plan. As the University approaches its allowable growth limit, a number of development sites remain and have been revisited as part of the current master planning effort. In recent years, the University has also prepared several sector studies focused on West Campus, South Campus, and East Campus. ••

In many cases, development sites proposed within those studies align with the remaining development sites from the 2003 Campus Master Plan.

••

The sector studies have also proposed additional development sites beyond those remaining from the 2003 Campus Master Plan.

••

Collectively, the development sites proposed within the sector studies, along with the remaining 2003 development sites, served as a starting point for discussions related to future development sites. In some cases, the development sites in the CMP vary from those in the previous studies.

••

For 2018 CMP development sites see pages 124 to 125.

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 55.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Development Sites from 2003 Campus Master Plan

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 41st St

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

St r

Pa c

ifi

cS t

Remaining 2003 Campus Master Plan Development Sites Development Sites from Recent Planning University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 56. Bird’s Eye Views of Campus looking west (above) Figure 57. (right) looking north

UNDERUTILIZED SITE CAPACITY Building heights vary throughout campus, and align with the building height limits identified in the 2003 Campus Master Plan. The 2003 CMP identified eight building height zones on campus, ranging from 37 feet along the waterfront to 240 feet in South Campus. The City’s Shoreline Master Program generally limits building height to 30 feet for all development within 200 feet of the shoreline or associated wetlands. In many instances, especially for buildings constructed in prior decades, building heights are significantly lower than what is allowed, highlighting the potential for additional capacity on those sites. Maximum heights of 2003 CMP zones are identified on the following page.

72 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 58. Bird’s Eye View of Campus looking west

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 59.

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

2003 Campus Master Plan Maximum 50’ Building Heights

50’

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

80’

160’

NE 42nd St

37’

NE 41st St NE Campus Pkwy

105’

lvd N E

105’

B ri

M o nt

lake B

65’

ive

rsi

50’

St r

Walla Walla Rd

65’

NE 41st St

160’ NE

65’

200’ Shoreline District Overlay 30 ft MIO Boundary

Pa c

ifi

37’

cS t

107’

65’

105’ 65’

MIO 37

105’

MIO 65 MIO 80

160’ 240’

MIO 50

MIO 105 MIO 107 MIO 160 MIO 240

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 60. Ocean Teaching Building in South Campus, 35’

Figure 61. Maple, Lander, and Alder Halls, 75’

70’

80’

105’ 75

65’ 80’

65’

50’ 65’

Figure 63. William H. Gates Hall in Central Campus, 100’

fic

e Str

Uni v e r sit

y B ri

dge

Figure 62. Husky Stadium in East Campus, 160’

i Pac

74 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

70’

50’ 35’

Existing Building Heights Figure 64.

10’ 40’ 75’ 70’

65’ 15’

30’

90’

35’

60’

100’

75’ 50

60’ 60’

100’

60’ 62’

40’

45’

30’

60’

75’

25’ 25’

25’ 20’ 25 15’ 50’

30’

35’

50’

55’

105’ 30’

50’

70’

45’ 35’ 50’

15’

50’

40’

60’

40’ 80’

35’ 105’

100 85’

25’

65’

30’ 90’

60’ 70’

90’

30’

45’

160’

55’ 20’

100’

50’

80’ 25’

80’

60’

50’

25’ 65’

65’

50’

60’

140’

65’

120’

40’

80’ 80’

80’

75’

45’

105’

70’

10’

120’

105’

75’

30’

80’

60’

73’

10’

60’

100’

30’

24’

40’

15’

50’

60’

200’ 75’

70’

60’

90’ 35’

25’

35’

25’

65’

15’

Existing Building

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Building Age

Deferred Maintenance

The University of Washington has made significant investment in its building stock, evidenced by the number of new buildings distributed throughout all campus sectors, notably West Campus. Older buildings surround the Health Sciences complex, facilities buildings on Central Campus, and throughout the North Campus housing.

The University maintains information on maintenance needs, and has mapped the deferred maintenance burden on a dollars per square foot basis. Analyzing buildings from this perspective highlights significant deferred maintenance throughout the Health Sciences complex, Mechanical Engineering, Wilcox, and the old Burke Museum.

Building Conditions Building age tends to align with building condition, and reinforces the need to address the Health Sciences complex, facilities buildings on Central Campus, and North Campus housing. A number of smaller structures including Thomson Hall, Smith Hall, and Sieg Hall, also need to be addressed.

76 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FRAMEWORK HISTORY OF INNOVATION ACTIVITY AT THE UW

than 80 active start-ups. In 2016, the UW also had the most actively licensed technologies amongst all universities.

The University of Washington has been and continues to be an innovator. Every day, pioneers on the UW campus are developing ground-breaking ways to make peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives better. In fact, people around the world depend on the UW to tackle big issues like technology and disruption, curing cancer, disease prevention, climate change, clean technologies, wage inequality, and affordable housing. Inclusive Innovation is a holistic interdisciplinary approach to understanding and working with the forces that create both innovation and disruption in a manner that benefits all.

Throughout itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s over 150-year history, schools and departments within the University have collaborated with other departments, organizations, and companies; facilitated or incubated many successful startups and accelerators; and connected, educated, intelligent, and valuable talent to some of the most innovative organizations and businesses in the region and the world. The diversity of research funding and the UWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s record of partnering reveal this strength and ability to bring people and organizations together for a common purpose. A few examples of such collaborations follow:

In 2015, the UW was ranked as the most innovative public university by Thomson Reuters. The UW regularly is the top recipient of federal research dollars in the nation, among public universities, and second overall. Collectively, the University spurs $12.5 Billion annually in economic impact for the State of Washington and ranks among the top universities for tech startups. In 2014 alone, the UW helped launch more than 100 new companies, eighteen of which were a direct result of its research technologies; its CoMotion Labs incubators now house more

Boeing

78 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

One of the longest and most collaborative partnerships started with a gift from the then fledgling Boeing Company. William Boeing made a large donation to the UW in 1917 to construct a wind tunnel for testing plane models. In return, the University offered courses within the engineering department to develop skills that would be valuable to aeronautics companies, and The Boeing Company in particular. Through much of the 20th century, the popularity

of engineering and technology-related courses at the University grew alongside the success of the young aerospace company. Numerous research collaborations, partnership opportunities and grants were made possible by the continued support of The Boeing Company. The investment of the company led to larger innovations and opportunities in astronautics, aerospace, and governmentsponsored research.

Microsoft Microsoft has contributed to the growth of computer science-related education over the past several decades. In 2017, Paul Allen and Microsoft established a $40 million endowment which shall provide $2 million per year in seed funding for new initiatives in the Paul Allen School of computer science and engineering. Microsoft has also provided significant early funding of $39M to the Global Innovation Exchange that partners the UW, Tsinghua University, and other corporations and universities.

Gates Foundation and Population Health Initiative Launched in 2016 by the UW President Ana Mari Cauce, Population Health addresses challenges in human health, environmental

Figure 65. Nifty cup is an novel way for infants, that cannot breastfeed, to sip. Image source: Laerdal Global Health.

resilience, and social and economic equity through partnerships with local, national, and global communities. The executive council includes faculty and staff from across the University of Washington system. The initiative has significant support from the Gates Foundation in the form of a $280M gift.

PATH and Nifty Cup The University worked with the non-profit global health organization PATH, and Seattle Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital to design a feeding cup to prevent starvation among premature or highrisk babies in developing countries.

One Bus Away Created by PhD students, the One Bus Away open source project is a real time application that provides a user-friendly interface built on existing bus route data from Sound Transit. The application provides bus arrival times and produces meaningful data about the attitudes and behaviors of transit users. Various non-

Figure 66. One Busy Away is a real-time application that provides meaningful information to both the rider and transit provider. Image source: onebusaway.org.

profit, government, and business entities contributed to the development and continued research behind transit use in the greater Seattle region.

The West Coast Poverty Center The West Coast Poverty Center is an antipoverty collaborative started by the UW School of Social Work, the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, and the College of Arts and Sciences. The Center encourages meaningful exchange between professionals in the realms of research, policy, and action in the west coast region. The Center enables the next generation of poverty researchers and practitioners through grant funding, research opportunities and training. Outside of the campus, the West Coast Poverty Center works to bring poverty-relevant knowledge to policymakers and practitioners and to engage researchers and policy practitioners in dialogue through outreach, communications, and events.

Figure 67. Boeing Wind Tunnel on the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s campus. Image source: The Seattle Times.

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 68. StartUp Hall in Condon Hall in the UW’s West Campus

Figure 69. CoMotion and Urban@UW

INNOVATION DISTRICT MOMENTUM

As a nationally recognized innovation anchor that propels research and drives startups in the Seattle-region, the UW is uniquely positioned to create a cutting edge innovation district. Seattle is the economic heart of its region, with a highly educated workforce, making it easier to attract new partnerships, expand research efforts and create jobs.

Three years ago, the University appointed a Vice President for Innovation Strategy to facilitate innovation transfer, training, and strategy and to direct CoMotion, a collaborative hub for expanding the economic and societal impact of the UW’s The UW’s proximity to regional connections work. CoMotion Labs three incubators at and light rail transit, high quality student Roosevelt, Fluke Hall, StartUp Hall, Urban@ housing, cafes, retail and jobs all support its UW, along with the future Earth Lab, identity as a center for innovation. BOWMAN exceptional educational experiences in the BUILDING Foster school of Business’ Buerk Center, and UNIVERSITY VILLAGE Innovation Center EAST CAMPUS collaborative innovation experiences across UNIVERSITY AVENUE 27 ACRES multiple units– also express and strengthen the Cultural Asset Thriving, Diverse Retail University’s commitment to innovation and Academic Research entrepreneurship. Today, the University is at an important milestone as a research institution. New BURKE opportunities have emerged for the UW to MUSEUM take an active role in the development of an innovation district that will continue its Future legacy as an innovator, spur connections, and Transit facilitate the production of MEANY ideas in a crossHALL disciplinary and dynamic manner. JONES PLAYHOUSE

80 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan HENRY ART

Burke Gilman Trail

Innovation District Residence Hall Retail Corridor Light Rail Stop Burke-Gilman Trail FLUKE HALL 5 Min Walkshed 10 Min Walkshed

WATERFRONT ACCESS 2.25 Miles of Waterfront

Innovation Framework Figure 70. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

INNOVATION DISTRICT ELEMENTS What exactly is an “innovation district”? The Brookings Institute defines it as a physical place that promotes collaboration. The University sees an innovation district as a place where experts across multiple fields including but not limited to, social work, public health, engineering, life sciences, the humanities, and the performing arts can partner with government, business, non-profit organizations and the Seattle community to solve critical challenges. From public safety to homelessness to curing diseases – it is intended to be a place to find answers to big questions for the people of Seattle and around the world, and to create an inclusive spirit and culture of entrepreneurial thinking and innovation mindsets. Inclusive innovation is a holistic interdisciplinary approach to understanding and working with the forces that create both innovation and disruption in a manner that benefits all. To better understand the program elements and types of spaces that support innovation districts, the UW prepared case studies of other innovation districts as part of the campus master planning process, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Kendall Square; Drexel University, University of Pennsylvania, and the Keystone Innovation

82 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

District; Washington University – St. Louis, St. Louis University, and University of Missouri St. Louis and the Cortex Innovation Community, and the University of California San FranciscoMission Bay campus.(See Appendix A for link to more information about each of these districts.) The study looked at the amount of land used, the square footage, programmatic elements, the mix of tenants, and the development process. Many innovation districts provide a diverse mix of programmatic elements including prototyping spaces, manufacturing facilities, incubators, social spaces, and event spaces that are shared by start-ups, research labs, incubators and accelerators within a typically dense, mixeduse environment. Placemaking and identity are central themes for each of the districts that were analyzed. In West Philadelphia and Cambridge, flexible and inexpensive pop-up parks are designed with social programming in mind. The goal is to physically connect people through public spaces, where people can serendipitously and informally bump into one another. Those public spaces are typically integrated within innovation district clusters or close to mobility options. The study also showed that each innovation district is closely tied to a particular industry: biotech for Kendall Square, technology for

CORTEX and Drexel, and health sciences for UCSF Mission Bay. What is different about an innovation district at the UW is that it can include many fields of study, all with critical ties to our institutional mission. Arts and sciences, technology, health sciences, and engineering are all welcome in order to find the most creative solutions to local, national and global problems. The University plans to focus development space on campus to create an inclusive innovation district. The Campus Master Plan envisions between 500,000 to 1,000,000 net new gsf of space to support the development of an innovation district. These spaces will serve both the University community and its partners. The majority of employees working in this space will be UW students, staff and faculty with the balance being employees of partner organizations. For more information about partnership space needs, please refer to the space needs section on page 35.

Innovation Ecosystem Elements

Figure 71. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Grow th Profile - July 2017 Final Plan

VISION, PRINCIPLES, AND FRAMEWORKS

84 July 2017 Final Plan

•• LONG-TERM VISION INFORMS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN •• GUIDING PRINCIPLES •• PLANNING FRAMEWORKS •• PUBLIC REALM FRAMEWORK •• CIRCULATION & PARKING FRAMEWORK •• BUILT ENVIRONMENT FRAMEWORK •• INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FRAMEWORK •• SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK •• UTILITY FRAMEWORK

July 2017 Final Plan

LONG-TERM VISION INFORMS THE 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN This Campus Master Plan (CMP) accomplishes two objectives. It establishes a bold, long-term vision, and guides the development that shall occur over its 10year planning horizon, as required by the City-University Agreement.

Long-Term Vision - Illustrative Plan

The CMP identifies approximately 12.0 million net new gross square feet of development capacity. It also identifies the growth allowance that the University is planning to develop over the 10-year planning horizon. The growth allowance is 6.0 million net new gross square feet of development. The CMP shall remain in effect until the growth allowance is used up. The CMP identifies potential development sites that could: ••

Accommodate the growth allowance and provide room for continuous growth in student enrollment and research demands.

••

Guide creation of an active public realm.

••

Complement the existing lexicon of higher education spaces on campus with new settings for collaboration and research partnerships.

The CMP creates a progressive and sustainable framework that shall enable UW’s continued evolution as a 21st century institution. The CMP balances the preservation of historic campus assets with increased density; and integrates the University’s strategic goals and academic, research, and service missions with capital plan objectives to guide the physical development of the campus.

86 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 72. Long-Term Vision, Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Table 6. Development Capacity and Permitted Development by Campus Sector

CENTRAL

POTENTIAL NET NEW DEVELOPMENT (GROSS SQUARE FEET)

NET NEW MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT (GROSS SQUARE FEET)

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT LIMIT (%)

1,631,941

900,000

15%

WEST

3,762,199

3,000,000

50%

SOUTH

2,208,735

1,350,000

23%

EAST

4,293,885

750,000

12%

TOTAL

11,896,760

6,000,000

100%

10-Year Conceptual Plan Figure 73. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

15th Ave NE

NE 45th St

ive

rsi

B ri

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

NE 41st St

Pa c

ifi

cS t

Potential Building Existing Building Significant Open Space 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

GUIDING PRINCIPLES GUIDING PRINCIPLES The CMP serves as a long-term aspirational framework for future development, and is founded on five underlying principles: 1. Flexible Framework 2. Learning Based Academic and Research Partnerships 3. Sustainable Development 4. Connectivity

GUIDING PRINCIPLE #1 FLEXIBLE FRAMEWORK Create a lasting and flexible planning framework to guide development of University projects during the identification of a development site and implementation of development guidelines and standards in support of the University of Washington’s education, research, and service missions.

new pedagogies, evolving technology, and increasingly scarce resources in a flexible manner. The CMP may reinforce strategic decision-making in a manner that is responsive to its mission, potential growth, and that benefits the community. Identifying multiple development sites—more than what is needed for the growth allowance—throughout each of the four campus sectors provides the University with flexibility in responding to changing needs.

In the absence of a definitive future, the CMP needs to respond to changing conditions,

5. Stewardship of Historic and Cultural Resources

Figure 74. Flexible Framework Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

88 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

GUIDING PRINCIPLE #2 LEARNING-BASED ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS Support and catalyze academic and teaching research partnerships with allied industries, contribute to a highly livable innovation district, and stimulate job growth and economic development.

The CMP embraces new modes of teaching and learning to create a flexible and dynamic framework that accommodates the need for growth in student enrollment and research demands. It complements the existing lexicon of higher education spaces with new settings for collaboration and multiple opportunities for innovative learning that extend beyond the classroom. The University is part of a growing network of industries in Seattle

and beyond that support the local, regional and state economies. The CMP creates a structure to catalyze academic and research partnerships within UW and allied external entities, stimulate job growth, and economic development in the larger University District, and transform UW into a global hub for cutting edge thinking and entrepreneurship.

Figure 75. Partnerships Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

GUIDING PRINCIPLE #3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Implement UWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to sustainable land use through the preservation and utilization of its existing property and the balance of development, open space, and public use.

The University is at the national forefront of campus sustainability related to tracking, education, and campus outreach. The CMP supports existing sustainability efforts and extends those efforts to future development.

Open spaces and parks are amenities that are integral to creating an active and vibrant public realm and urban form.

5.0

ACRES

2.5

ACRES

OPEN SPACE 2.5 ACRES

2.5

ACRES

OPEN SPACE 7.5 ACRES

Figure 76. Sustainable Development Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

90 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

GUIDING PRINCIPLE #4 CONNECTIVITY Extend UW’s commitment to better connect the University internally and with its broader context.

The CMP embraces UW’s urban identity, seamlessly integrating it with its surrounding community. The University plays an important role as a regional connector and destination. The CMP prioritizes pedestrian movement and establishes strong synergies between UW and its neighboring communities by creating an extensive and accessible public realm with multiple connections to the waterfront, improving regional access through the two new light rail stations, introducing significant

new outdoor spaces, integrating the City’s Green Street initiatives and leveraging the unique natural setting of UW to create a continuous and active shoreline. Street level interventions strengthen major pathways on campus, while 15th Avenue and Brooklyn Avenue are re-characterized as connectors between the community and University with active street level uses.

Figure 77. Connectivity Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

GUIDING PRINCIPLE #5 STEWARDSHIP OF HISTORIC, CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Continue responsible and proactive stewardship of UWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s campus assets through preservation of its historic, cultural, and ecological resources and managed strategy of property development.

UW strives to be a good steward of its historic, natural, economic, cultural and built resources. The CMP positions the campus as a living lab for research and learning by adopting a holistic systems-thinking approach to sustainability, structured around five themes - ecological systems, mobility, engagement, built environment, and economic development. The CMP creates a balanced approach to future growth on campus by adopting a compact,

high density approach to development that enables the preservation of historic campus assets, the creation of new public spaces and an integrated pedestrian and bike network. The University is working with the City and State to complete a Historic and Cultural Resources Survey that shall be common reference material for historic preservation implementation.

Listed on the Washington Heritage Register and/or National Register of Historic Places At least 50 years old (not registered) Turning 50 by 2021 Turning 50 by 2031

Figure 78. Historic and Cultural Resources, Existing Conditions Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

92 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

PLANNING FRAMEWORK The Planning Framework that follows describes the various aspects of the Campus Master Plan from a campus-wide perspective. Recommendations related to each of the four campus sectors are described in greater detail in Chapter 6 – Project Review and Design Guidance. The Planning Framework includes the following: ••

Public Realm Framework

••

Shoreline Public Access Plan

••

Circulation and Parking Framework

••

Built Environment Framework

••

Inclusive Innovation Framework

••

Sustainability Framework

••

Utility Framework

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

PUBLIC REALM FRAMEWORK CONCEPTUAL STRATEGIES The CMP preserves and builds upon the campus’ existing four radial axes—Rainier Vista, the Liberal Arts Quad, Memorial Way and Olympic Vista / Campus Parkway—and plans for more spaces and connections that enhance the organization of the campus and provide the context for future development. Areas with increased density are balanced with access to open space, either distributed among multiple sites, or through the creation of larger open space amenities. Commitments and timing of open space improvements can be found on page 240. ••

Brooklyn Avenue NE helps connect the City and University with the waterfront through the introduction of a bike lane and activated pedestrian realm.

••

An enhanced open space connector links South Campus to both Central Campus and the waterfront.

••

Multiple pedestrian connections stitch together the four campus sectors into a comprehensive and connected network, and are part of a larger, integrated street grid that seamlessly connects with the broader community (See Figure 84).

••

Active uses create a comprehensive and dynamic campus environment. (See Figure 83 - dashed lines represent active building edges). Please reference the Project Review and Design Guidance chapter on page 156.

Figure 79. Major Organizational Axes

Figure 80. Illustrative Plan for Future Connected Campus

94 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 81. Existing Primary Open Spaces

Figure 82. Identified Areas for Future Open Space Additions

Figure 83. Active Public Realm

Figure 84. Integrated with Broader Neighborhood

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

OPEN SPACE ORGANIZATION The CMP identifies a number of publicly accessible, significant open spaces. The CMP supplements existing historic and culturally significant open spaces, primarily located on Central Campus with a range of new civicscaled open spaces in West, South and East Campus. New significant open spaces connect the campus sectors together into a continuous landscape network, establish a strong sense of place, and reinforce the proposed organizational axes. These spaces represent seven percent growth in primary and significant open spaces, adding 44 acres of primary open spaces, creating a total of 156-acres of primary open space within the long-term vision for campus.

Figure 85. Existing primary open space, Liberal Arts Quad

Figure 86. Existing primary open space, Rainier Vista (Credit: Loyd Heath Photography)

The primary open spaces additions include: ••

West Campus Green and Plaza

••

South Campus Green

••

Connection between East and Central Campus

••

Continuous Waterfront Trail

••

North Campus Housing landscape

These spaces form key structuring elements for campus development. The open spaces identified on the Unique and Significant Landscapes Graphic on page 97 should be preserved and protected. Existing Primary Open Space

Burke-Gilman Trail

Potential Primary Open Space

Union Bay Natural Area

Woodland

Waterfront Access/View

Open Space Connection

96 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 87. Potential Primary Open Spaces. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Unique and Significant Landscapes

Figure 88. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Significant landscapes identified on the accompanying graphic are planned to be preserved as part of the Campus Master Plan.

Proposed Pedestrian Paths Proposed Significant Open Spaces Burke-Gilman Trail Waterfront Trail Areas to be Preserved 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

West Campus Green and Plaza West Campus Green strengthens connections to the waterfront, the surrounding University District, and adjacent campus sectors, and serves as the heart of West Campus. The Green is envisioned to:

Provide needed outdoor relief from the added density throughout West Campus.

••

Integrate with and improve outdoor space that provides a sense of place for Fishery Science.

••

Activate the ground floor through two new pavilions to create a destination open space that is expressive of the University’s activities and welcomes the larger community.

••

Include a stepped terrace to the north of Pacific Street that ties into both the Burke-Gilman Trail and the mid-block connector back to Central Campus, affording sweeping views of Portage Bay.

••

Provide an origin for the continuous waterfront trail.

••

Enhance access and the features along the waterfront including Agua Verde and Sakuma viewpoint.

West Campus Green is similar in scale to Parrington Lawn and provides vistas in a similar capacity to the Olympic Sculpture Park and South Lake Union Park. OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT

Over the life of this CMP, the approximately 4-acre area designated as the “West Campus Green” shall be reserved for open space, except that minor structures supporting the open space function are allowed. Structures and improvements required for utility infrastructure are also allowed. A design and implementation plan for West Campus Green and the West Campus section of the Continuous Waterfront Trail shall be completed by the time 1.5 million square feet of net new development in the West Campus sector is completed. A concept plan for all three sections of the Continuous Waterfront Trail—West, South, and East—shall also be completed at this time. At the latest, construction of the West Campus Green and the West Campus

98 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

W25 an

Tra i

W27

W30

W29

PLAZA 0.4 ACRES

The Ave

••

ilm

Brooklyn Ave NE

Tie into the City of Seattle’s new Portage Bay Park.

-G

BELVEDERE 0.5 ACRES

NE Pacific St

W36

Fishery Sciences

W31

John. M. Wallace

••

rke

12th Ave NE

Establish an urban and green public realm character in West Campus, which was missing.

11th Ave NE

••

WEST CAMPUS GREEN 4.1 ACRES

W34

W32 W35

Fisheries Teaching Research Center

Marine Studies

C PO ITY RT OF AG S 2.5 E B EAT AC AY P TLE R E AR S K

Figure 89. West Campus Green, Plaza, and City of Seattle Portage Bay Park. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

W33

Potential Building Existing Building Potential Significant Open Space Existing Uses Relocated

Open Space Comparisons

90. Union Lake Union Park - – 10.0 acres acres LakeFigure Union Park –Park 10.0 acres Lake 10.0 Lake Lake Union Union Lake Union Park Park––Park 10.0 10.0 acres –acres 10.0 acres

Figure 93. Olympic Sculpture Park – 11.0 acres

Figure 91. Red Square 3.2 Red Square – 3.2- acres Red Square – acres 3.2 acres Red Red Square Square Red Square –– 3.2 3.2 acres acres – 3.2 acres

Figure 94. Gas Works Park – 20.0 acres

Olympic Sculpture Park –Park 11.0 –acres Park –Park 20.0 –acres Olympic Sculpture 11.0 acres Gas Works Gas Works 20.0 acres Olympic Olympic Olympic Sculpture Sculpture Sculpture Park Park ––Park 11.0 11.0acres –acres 11.0 acres Gas Gas Works Works Gas Works Park Park ––Park 20.0 20.0 acres –acres 20.0 acres

Figure 92. Parrington Lawn -7.8 7.8 acres Parrington Lawn – acres Parrington Lawn – 7.8 acres Parrington Parrington Parrington Lawn Lawn –– Lawn 7.8 7.8 acres acres – 7.8 acres

Figure 95. West Campus Green and City of Seattle Portage

Proposed Waterfront Park –Park 7.0 acres Waterfront – 7.0 acres Bay ParkProposed (including Pacific Street) – 7.5 acres Proposed Proposed Proposed Waterfront Waterfront Waterfront Park Park ––Park 7.0 7.0 acres acres – 7.0 acres

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

CITY OF SEATTLE PORTAGE BAY PARK

100 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

B o at

Stre e

West Campus Green and Plaza Figure 96. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

enue Brooklyn Av

PLAZA

WEST CAMPUS GREEN

SAKUM

A VIEW

POINT

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

101

section of the Continuous Waterfront Trail shall occur when 3.0 million square feet of net new development is completed in the West Campus sector. Figure 89 reflects the 10-year conceptual plan and the long term vision for open space in West Campus.

OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT

S41

EE E

S45 lu

S43 S46

S50

S44

S51

S47

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN 2.9 ACRES

A design and implementation plan for the Greens, as well as the South Campus section of the continuous waterfront trail shall occur when construction on the first adjacent development site is completed (Sites S50, S51, S52, S41, S42, S45, or S46).

S42

S49

UT H 1 A CA CR M P E US

Over the life of this CMP, the approximately 4-acre area designated as the “South Campus Green” and the “Upper South Campus Green” shall be reserved for open space.

Construction of the South Campus Green shall occur when construction of development sites S50, S51, S52, and S53 are all completed. Construction of the Upper South Campus Green shall occur when construction of development sites S41, S,42, S45, and S46 are all completed.

cS t

ifi

Development in South Campus currently presents several physical barriers between the waterfront and Central Campus. As part of the redevelopment strategy for the sector, the CMP proposes to enhance the connectivity and accessibility of the existing pedestrian bridge between South Campus and Central Campus over NE Pacific Street. The pedestrian bridge opens out onto the proposed upper South Campus Green framed by new Health Sciences facilities and the waterfront, and connects to the continuous waterfront trail.

Pa c

South Campus Green

S40

S52

S48

S53

S54

Figure 97. South Campus Green Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

102 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Potential Building Existing Building Potential Significant Open Space

East Campus Connection OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT

To enhance connections between Central and East Campus, the CMP introduces a connection that could replace the existing pedestrian bridge to the existing E1 parking lot and connects from the HUB across Montlake Boulevard, and beyond to the Union Bay Natural Area.

The land inside the dotted line in Figure 98 preserved for a future open space in Central Campus and East Campus, but is not intended to be completed within the 10-year conceptual plan.

Way N

E69

E A ST C A

lvd N E

E67

M PU S C O NN 3 ACRES ECTION

E66

Hall Health

lake B

C10

E63

E65

Fluke Hall

E64

UW Club

E63

NE W ahkia HUB

C11

Figure 98. East Campus Connection Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Rd Walla Walla

M aso

M o nt

n Rd N

E St

even s

E68

ku m

E62

Potential Building Existing Building Long-term Potential Open Space

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

103

Continuous Waterfront Trail

The continuous waterfront trail shall align with future development in West, South and East Campus sectors, as follows:

Construction of the East Campus section of the continuous waterfront trail shall align with completion of construction of the 750,000 square feet of net new development allowed in East Campus under the CMP.

••

The University has proposed a Shoreline Public Access Plan as part of the CMP that supports the continuous waterfront trail. Refer to pages 108 to 111 for more information about the Shoreline Public Access Plan.

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

••

BA Y PO

OPEN SPACE COMMITMENT

••

ST A

WEST CAMPUS GREEN

RT AG E

A potential continuous trail proposed along the shoreline connects the West Campus Green, Portage Bay Vista, the South Campus Green, the Glade, and Union Bay Natural Area and the East Campus Connection, and emphasizes the University’s connection to the water. The trail facilitates unique and dynamic activities and features for community and University use. Numerous opportunities exist to invest in new connections to and along the waterfront, preserve natural resources, and encourage a diversity of waterfront uses and cultural attractions.

GLADE

Figure 99. Proposed Continuous Trail

PORTAGE BAY MONTLAKE CUT

Figure 100. South Campus Existing Condition

104 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

North Campus Housing Landscape

NE 45th Street

Significant open space investments are conceived as part of the transformation of the student housing precinct on North Campus. Denny Field serves as the signature open space for recreation; Lewis Grove provides shaded relief for informal gatherings; and the adjacent Town Square plaza functions as the crossroads of activity for the residential precinct. This highly trafficked area provides access to services and amenities, and accommodates events. Denny Field and Lewis Grove shall be implemented when development site C5 (Oak Hall) is developed.

Hansee Hall

KINCAID RAVINE McCarty Hall

DENNY FIELD

ill

TOWN SQUARE H ut ch in so n

FOREST AMPHITHEATER

) ak

LEWIS GROVE

Lewis

C4 Art C7

Figure 101. North Campus Housing Area Existing Condition

Figure 102. North Campus Housing Precinct Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Potential Building Existing Building Potential Significant Open Space

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

105

ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

Olympic Vista/Campus Parkway Improvements

The following additional potential landscape improvements are identified in the 2015 Campus Landscape Framework and inform the long-term vision but may not occur during the life of this CMP.

Olympic Vista provides some visual connection between Central and West Campus neighborhoods, but all types of pedestrian connections, including pedestrian, accessible, bicycle, and automobile, are difficult to navigate.

Red Square Universal Access Connections

43rd Street Entrance

The construction of the multilevel Central Parking Garage, with the Red Square Plaza above it, was hugely successful in reducing the need for surface parking in the core campus, but created complex accessibility challenges due to the inflexible grade datum set by the top of the garage structure. The scale of the square and its centrality to campus life is sufficient to warrant accessibility and environmental improvements in a few key locations.

Stevens Way improvements As the sole remaining loop road through a largely pedestrianized campus, Stevens Way is an access route, service route, pedestrian route, bus loop, and campus drive all rolled into one. The narrowness of the roadway in certain areas, combined with steep grades in parts, can contribute to conflicts between bicyclists and general purpose traffic. Stevens Way shall be considered for potential bike improvements.

The 43rd Street pedestrian entrance onto campus from 15th NE and the University District leads to the key intersection between Memorial Way and Stevens Way. The use of this entrance shall be magnified by the light rail transit station in 2021.

The Liberal Arts Quad The Liberal Arts Quad is one of the most photographed iconic open spaces on campus and in the city. The spring clouds of cherry blossoms draw many thousands of visitors annually. Pathways throughout the Liberal Arts Quad may be made more accessible and preservation of the trees a high priority.

Denny Yard, Parrington Lawn, and Memorial Way Denny Yard, surrounded by construction and renovation projects for over ten years, has only seen minimal restoration itself. Parrington Lawn and Memorial Way have had small areas

106 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

restored, but a comprehensive overhaul of these three significant open spaces as one continuous landscape is warranted. The importance of these large open spaces in greeting visitors and providing a first impression is significant. Care may be taken to ensure they represent the values of the University through the quality of the landscape and accessibility. A concept plan developed in 2015 envisions these improvements.

Pend Oreille Entrance Pend Oreille has often been referred to as a back door to campus given the utilitarian expression of parking lots, minimal sidewalks, no signage, a lackluster landscape, and expanse of asphalt. The growth of University Village across the street with high quality landscape emphasizes, by contrast, the need to bring this campus entrance up to a higher standard. A detailed estimate and phasing plan was generated to identify costs to realign the road and create a better functioning intersection at NE 25th Street, adding bike lanes and sidewalks along Pend Oreille, removing the visible parking lots, and celebrating the sense of arrival with landscaping and signage.

Northlake Reach Neighborhood Reach (partially complete) Garden Reach

Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements

Campus Reach (complete)

The University completed the first phase of the “neighborhood reach” section of planned improvements to the Burke-Gilman Trail in 2016. The Concept Plan for the Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements is organized into five distinct segments. The “campus reach” was completed in 2016, with the remaining segments to be completed as funding becomes available. The “neighborhood reach”, which is partially complete, is designed to better connect student housing on both the north and south sides of the trail, and includes several mixing zones below the University Bridge, at Adams Lane, and at Cowlitz Place NE.

Forest Reach

Figure 103. Concept Plan for the Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements. “Reaches” are areas with distinct characters.

Figure 104. Neighborhood Reach Improvements Plan

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

107

SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN

Introduction This section provides the University’s Shoreline Access Plan. It shall be binding upon University development within the shoreline district pursuant to SMC 23.60A.164.K. It is a combination of both existing and new elements. Please refer to pages 48 to 49 for information on existing shoreline access conditions.

West Campus West Campus is situated within the Urban Commercial environment, and includes the W1 shoreline segment as identified on the accompanying graphic. Throughout the majority of this segment, the City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park provides direct access to the waterfront, but is not University of Washington property. The City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park shall connect into the University’s new West Campus Green, a programmed open space, expanding the public realm and enhancing connections to the water. The view from NE Pacific Street to the waterfront serves is one of the two view corridors identified. The W1 shoreline segment also includes the Portage Bay Vista, which serves as the second view corridor as well as a programmed open space. The University’s marina on the east edge of the W1 waterfront segment includes both a dock and a marina. The W1 waterfront segment shall largely rely upon and integrate with the pedestrian pathways / trail network from the completed City of Seattle Portage

Bay Park. A new trail segment has been identified that would link the trail from the City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park to South Campus. Six through-walkways are also identified in W1, along with two docks and two boat launches/marinas.

and includes the waterfront trail, along with five through-walkways that connect the waterfront to the street right-of-way along NE Pacific Street. The South Campus Green forms a new signature programmed open space and includes a view corridor.

Commercial water-dependent uses, including moorage for private boats and boat rentals, may be included in the Urban Commercial shoreline in West Campus where their requirements do not conflict with the waterdependent uses of the College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences or limit public access to the waterfront. Potential uses could include a passenger ferry dock. Uses which would require additional single-purpose public parking shall be discouraged.

The final waterfront segment through South Campus, S3, occupies the easternmost section of South Campus and falls within the Conservancy Management Zone. This area includes a continuation of the waterfront trail, along with two additional through-walkways. Also located in this segment is a second programmed open space, the Hospital Glade. The public dock in South Campus would be removed.

Some boat moorage facilities in the Urban Commercial shoreline environment shall be available for public use. Priority shall be given to transient boat moorage and moorage, which would provide the fewest restrictions for public access.

South Campus South Campus includes segments situated within both the Urban Commercial and Conservancy Management environments. The S1 segment includes land and waterfront access associated with the Jensen Motor Boat Company (non-University property) and is not accounted for within the Shoreline Public Access Plan. The S2 waterfront segment spans the majority of the South Campus waterfront

108 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

East Campus East Campus is situated in both the Conservancy Management and Conservancy Preservation Zones. The E1 segment spans from the Montlake Bridge to the area west of the Canoe House. Similar to S3, the area includes a continuation of the waterfront trail, along with one through-walkway. The E2 waterfront segment starts at the Canoe House, includes the Waterfront Activities Center, and extends north to the Conibear Shellhouse. This area includes the continuation of the waterfront trail, three throughwalkways, three docks, and one boat launch. The largest segment of East Campus waterfront is E3, which is largely defined as the Union Bay Natural Area (UBNA), which falls within the Conservancy Preservation environment. No modifications shall be made

to the trail network within the UBNA. Access in the Conservancy Preservation shoreline environment and associated wetlands shall be limited to boats and pedestrians utilizing designated foot paths, view points, and boat access points. Access shall be available to the general public, provided that such access does not degrade the wildlife habitat. Bicycling, jogging, and dog walking shall be discouraged. Temporary

restrictions on access may be required during nesting periods or to restore habitat. Except for a few dead-end pathways terminating at viewpoints, pedestrian access within the Conservancy Preservation shoreline environment shall not be provided directly on the shoreline, but shall be set back to protect wetland areas. No access shall be provided to the peat islands in Union Bay.

Table 7. Shoreline Public Access Plan PARK / OPEN SPACE CAMPUS SECTOR

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ZONES

SHORELINE SEGMENT

SHORELINE LINEAR FEET

PUBLIC DOCK

VIEW CORRIDORS

4.0

2.9

1,930’

1.9

3.9

1,020’

2,320’

4.5

3,990’

3,500’

12.1

20.8

4,200’

5,400’

74 Acres

12,450’

15,390’

19.3 ACRES

32.1

74 ACRES

Through Walkways

Unprogrammed Open Space (approx. acreage)

640’

1.3

1,590’

1,600’

950’

700’

SOUTH SOUTH

WEST SOUTH

EAST

URBAN COMMERCIAL

CONSERVANCY MANAGEMENT

EAST EAST

CONSERVANCY PRESERVATION

NATUR AL HABITAT AREAS

BOAT L AUNCH/ MARINA

Programmed Open Space (approx. acreage)

Trails (linear feet)

(approx. acreage)

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

109

Shoreline Public Access Plan

Figure 105. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Existing Public Dock

Urban Commercial

Existing Marina and/or Boat Launch

Conservancy Management

Existing Through Walkways

Conservancy Preservation

Bro

Existing View Corridors

ok lyn

Existing Programmed Open Space

ue en Av

Unprogrammed Open Space

Natural Habitat Area 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay Proposed Through Walkways

WEST CAMPUS

Proposed View Corridors Proposed Programmed Open Space

Trail n a lm e-Gi Burk OUS TRAIL U N I T CON RFRONT E WAT

110 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

EAST CAMPUS CONNECTION SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

WEST CAMPUS GREEN

Union Bay Natural Area

Portag e

Bay Vis

EAST CAMPUS

SOUTH CAMPUS

Montlake Bridge

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

111

CIRCULATION AND PARKING FRAMEWORK PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Consistent with the UW’s goal of developing a pedestrian-oriented campus, the CMP identifies a number of interventions that shall enrich the pedestrian quality of the campus environment and reduce pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. The University shall continue to be a good steward of its pedestrian network through well-designed, strategic investments such as improved wayfinding, lighting, maintenance and removal of ADA barriers. Pedestrian circulation is envisioned to be concentrated and enhanced in the following locations:

••

A mid-block connector that extends east from the West Campus Green along Skamania Lane and north to connect with University Way

••

Between Central Campus and the waterfront via the South Campus Green

••

North of the Computer Science and Engineering II Building along Snohomish Lane between Stevens Way and the Hec Edmundson pedestrian bridge

••

Between the Golf Driving Range area and the IMA in East Campus

••

A mid-block connection south of Gould Hall

••

Between Denny Yard and North Campus Housing’s town square

••

Adjacent to and within the West Campus Green

••

Enhanced connection between Memorial Way and 15th Avenue NE at 43rd Street

••

Along key north-south alignments in West Campus including 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue. These are shared ways that prioritize pedestrian and bike movement, and limit vehicular access to emergency and service vehicles

••

On the Burke-Gilman Trail

••

Creation of a continuous waterfront trail from Boat Street to NE Clark Road

••

On Rainier Vista to provide continuous universal access

112 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

••

At existing and proposed light rail stations and along campus edges where RapidRide is proposed including Montlake Boulevard, 15th Avenue NE, NE 45th Street, and Pacific Street

••

Between Central Campus and West Campus and the University District

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 106. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Proposed Pedestrian Circulation

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

NORTH CAMPUS HOUSING

NE 42nd St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 41st St

ive

rsi

WEST CAMPUS GREEN Bo

St r

Lan

lake B

to n

M o nt

B ri

rs Th u

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

Existing Primary Route Potential Primary Route Existing Secondary Route Potential Secondary Route

Pa c

ifi

Existing Connector Route cS t

Potential Connector Route Existing Greenway Potential Greenway

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

Designated Neighborhood Green Street University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

113

BIKE CIRCULATION Improvements to bicycle circulation and parking are identified as a key way to encourage and increase bicycling. Improving the quality of bicycle travel by reducing conflicts with vehicles on city streets and conflicts with pedestrians on campus is a desired outcome. Improvements to bike circulation include: ••

Improvements to bicycle parking to increase supply of longer-term and highersecurity bicycle parking in buildings or other contexts. Ongoing monitoring and adjustment of short-term parking supply to meet demand and improvements like covered parking and lighting.

••

In West Campus, Brooklyn Avenue provides a continuous and direct connection between the West Campus Green, BurkeGilman Trail, and University District Station at NE 43rd Street.

••

Improvements to the Burke-Gilman Trail, especially where these improvements help reduce conflicts between bicyclists and other modes, are important, and shall be implemented as funding becomes available.

••

Connections to City-proposed investments as part of the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) are noted. The BMP includes an implementation plan for near term investments, which is evaluated in the Transportation Discipline Report (TDR) of the CMP EIS.

114 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 107. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Proposed Bike Circulation

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 42nd St

NE 41st St

lake B Bo

St r

Pa c

Potential Unprotected Bike Lane

Existing Shared Marked Lane Existing Open Space Connector (Key connection used by pedestrians and cyclist)

M o nt

e dg B ri ty rsi ive Un

WEST CAMPUS GREEN

Existing Unprotected Bike Lane

Potential Greenway

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

Potential Open Space Connector (Key connection used by pedestrians and cyclist) ifi

Improved Bicycle Use

cS t

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

Existing Bike Walk Zone (when pedestrians are present) Paved Trail

Potential Bike Walk Zone

Arboretum Bypass Connection

Designated Neighborhood Green Street

Existing Protected Bike Lane

University Building

Potential Protected Bike Lane

Non-University Building

Future Protected Bike Lane

MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

115

TRANSIT NETWORK explored. The University shall continue to work with transit agencies regarding improvements on non-University owned streets.

In 2016, while planning for this 2018 CMP was underway, regional light rail began serving the University, with the second station to open in 2021. ••

Sound Transit Link light rail stations are major destinations for all modes of movement. Sidewalks may be designed to meet capacity needs and to visually and aesthetically connect to campus.

••

Stevens Way, 15th Avenue NE, NE Pacific Street, Montlake Boulevard and Campus Parkway are anticipated to continue to accommodate buses in the future. Location of bus stops and shelters shall change over time as transit needs evolve.

••

Bus improvements along multiple corridors shall be explored including Roosevelt/11th Avenue, University Way NE, 15th Avenue NE, NE Pacific Street. Expanded bus lanes or signal priority along these corridors may improve the speed and reliability of transit service during congested periods. Improvements along NE 45th Street and Montlake Boulevard NE may also be

••

The City of Seattle has described mobility hubs as strategically placed, integrated transportation options. While the City is in the process of defining the parameters and priorities of mobility hubs, they have suggested that these types of hubs might occur around the University at each Link light rail station, at Montlake over SR 520, and between 11th and Roosevelt near NE 45th Street.

••

Analysis of current and future transit operations are provided in the Transportation Discipline Report of the CMP EIS.

116 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 108. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Proposed Transit Network

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 41st St

ive

rsi

M o nt

B ri

lake B

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

WEST CAMPUS GREEN Bo

St r

Light Rail Stop Bus layover Existing UW Shuttle Route

Pa c

ifi

Existing UW Shuttle Stop cS t

Existing Bus Route Existing Bus Stop 10 Minute Light Rail Walkshed 5 Minute Light Rail Walkshed

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

117

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION Improvements to bike, pedestrian, and transit networks encourage decreased reliance on single occupancy vehicle access to campus. Current major and minor rights-of-way largely remain intact, with possible changes noted below. Opportunities for new and enhanced vehicular circulation are suggested below. The proposed vehicular network is identified on the accompanying graphic. Specific recommendations have been organized into two categories including the UW Right-ofWay Changes and Potential Street and Aerial Vacations.

UW Right-of-Way Changes WEST CAMPUS

••

NE Cowlitz Road is removed to allow for added development.

••

11th and 12th Avenues south of Campus Parkway are treated as shared streets with minimal vehicular access. Their intended use is for pedestrian, bike, and service vehicles only. They functionally extend the public realm from Lincoln Way to NE Pacific Street and Boat Street. Service vehicles shall be able to access buildings from the north and south without crossing the Burke-Gilman Trail.

CENTR AL CAMPUS

Proposed Street Vacation

••

One potential City of Seattle street vacation has been identified along NE Northlake Place, east of 8th Avenue NE. This is a deadend street, and would improve the layout of potential development sites.

Possible improvements to Stevens Way, could position Stevens Way as the primary bike circulator with increased access to nearby bike storage.

SOUTH CAMPUS

••

Transformation of South Campus relies upon the removal of NE San Juan Road in order to improve access to the waterfront.

••

Introduces a new street that connects NE Pacific and NE Columbia, west of the UW Medical Center. The new road uses the existing curb cuts from the current Frontage Road.

••

Access to the Marine Studies Building is enhanced along a spur from NE Columbia Road.

EAST CAMPUS

••

Introduces a new street south of the Whatcom Lane pedestrian overpass.

••

The redevelopment of Laurel Village includes a new internal road network that does not integrate with the adjacent city grid.

••

The circulation throughout the redeveloped Blakeley Village remains the same.

118 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 109. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Proposed Vehicular Circulation

NE 45th St Memorial Way

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

Walla Walla Rd

NE 41st St

ive

rsi

M o nt

B ri

lake B

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

WEST CAMPUS GREEN Bo

St r

Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Local Road

NE t

Principal Arterial

Pa c

UW Owned Road ifi

cS t

Potential New UW-Owned Road Potential UW-Owned Road Removal Potential Shared Street Potential Street Vacation

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

University Building Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

119

PARKING The existing parking cap of 12,300 parking spaces remains unchanged. All new parking shall remain within the 12,300 parking spaces cap. ••

Parking supply needs to be calibrated with demand. As development is planned, the University shall monitor the need for parking replacement or additional stalls to meet the demand throughout the four campus sectors. The University shall remain under the parking cap, and shall optimize the utilization of parking facilities.

••

The accompanying map identifies possible parking locations and access points. These are preferred locations for parking, although all development sites can be considered for parking locations as development occurs. Parking sites were identified based upon topography, access to primary roads, and dimensional qualities of the site. Additional parking sites could be considered beyond those identified

on the map. In general, access to parking facilities occurs along primary or secondary roadways. For more information, refer to the Development Standards on page 228. ••

The methodology applied to estimate parking capacity (caps) and adequacy are described in the TDR of the CMP EIS.

120 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Figure 110. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

I-5

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

Potential Parking Locations

NE 45th St

PL9 NE 43rd St

Memorial Way

NE 45th St

PL10

PL17

NE 42nd St

NE 41st St

PL1

Walla Walla Rd

PL11

PL12 PL2

PL4

PL8

PL13

rsi ive Un

M o nt

PL3

PL7

B ri

PL6

St r

PL16

lake B

PL5

lvd N E

NE Campus Pkwy

Pa c

PL14

ifi

cS t

Potential Parking Locations Parking Access

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

University Building PL15

Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

121

BUILT ENVIRONMENT FRAMEWORK PROPOSED MASSING AND BUILDING HEIGHTS The 2018 CMP includes ten building height zones that range from 30 feet along the waterfront to 240 feet in West and South Campuses. The City’s Shoreline Master Program generally limits building height to 30 feet for all development within 200 feet of the shoreline or associated wetlands. The proposed building heights in Central Campus maintain the existing 2003 Campus Master Plan heights, while the proposed building heights in East, West and South Campuses have been increased to support a diversity of functions. As indicated on Figure 111, building heights proposed by the University in several areas are being conditioned down from the heights allowed by the City’s MIO height designations. In addition, the height limits for several development sites have been further conditioned to lower maximum building heights, please refer to the development site tables on pages 234 to 237. There are a variety of zoning types adjacent to the University. The City’s University District zoning changes (March, 2017) are included in Figure 111.

122 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

LR1

20th Ave NE

17th Ave NE

15th Ave NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

12th Ave NE

Roosevelt Rd NE

University Way NE

SM-U 85

I-5

SM-U 75-240 (M1)

C1-40

Memorial Way

SM-U

50’

160’

NC3

NE 41st St

240’

B ri

M o nt

lake B

200’ Bo

160’/130’

St r

37’/30’

lvd N E

200’

105’

Walla Walla Rd

65’

NE 41st St

P-65

160’/ 130’

SM-U/R 75240 (M1)

160’/130’

rsi

65’

90’/80’

NE Campus Pkwy

ive

NC2P-40

NE 42nd St

SM-U 75-240

C2-65

65’

NE 45th St

75-240 MR (M1)

C2-40

C1-65

NE 45th St

NE 43rd St

Figure 111. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

LR3

NC2-65

SM-U 95-320 (M1)

65’

2018 Campus Master Plan Maximum Building Heights

160’

65’

MIO-37 conditioned to 30 MIO-50 MIO-65

Pa c

ifi

105’

cS t

200’ 105’

MIO-160 conditioned to 130

160’ 50’

MIO-105 MIO-160 conditioned to 107

65’

240’

MIO-90 conditioned to 80

MIO-160 MIO-200 MIO-240 Shoreline Overlay 30 ft MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

123

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Potential Development Sites

Potential Development Capacity

The 2018 CMP has identified 86 potential development sites within the MIO boundary. The building footprints and massing shown visualize one possible version of future development. As buildings are designed, the actual building footprints and massing may vary from those shown, within the total allowed building envelope (see page 233).

The Development Site Spreadsheets in Development Standards chapter list the calculated net gross square footage for each development site, determined by identifying conceptual footprints and applying maximum building height limits. The area calculations do not include potential new construction below grade. The tables also identify the number of floors, the maximum building height limit, The recommended footprint of a potential proposed general uses, associated square development site is based on several criteria footage and number of parking spaces removed including, but not limited to, access to open as part of the redevelopment of the site. The space, circulation, proximity to adjoining number of floors is based on an average 14 foot buildings, impact on the landscape, floor-to-floor estimate. The actual floor-to-floor opportunities for development on sites to height may vary based on the design of the contribute to larger compositions or groupings of building, but the overall height of the building buildings and open spaces, and alignment with shall remain within the maximum building existing buildings. height limit.

••

The Computer Science Engineering II building

••

Population Health building

The University shall act upon and develop some combination of the 86 sites listed on page 124 to page 125 until the growth allowance authorized by this CMP is reached (the impacts of a variety of development alternatives were tested within the EIS).

••

W23

In total, the CMP identifies roughly 17.0 million square feet of potential new development. This development potential would require the demolition of roughly 5.0 million gross square feet of space, generating a total net new development figure of 11.9 million gross square feet (16.9 - 5.0 = 11.9 million net new gsf).

124 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

W30

W37

i Pac

fic

W36

t re e

dge

Sites related to North Campus Housing

W21

W24

y B ri

••

Based on the conceptual footprints, conceptual massing, and building heights, the campus may accommodate approximately 12.0 million net new square feet of additional space in new buildings on the 86 potential development sites.

Uni v e r sit

Several projects and their square footage are not yet complete, but are not included as development sites because their square footage was accounted for within the growth allowance of the 2003 Campus Master Plan. Those projects include:

W22

Figure 112. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

E84 E83 E85 E80

E75 E73

E74 E72 E69 E67

E71 E68 E66

Bl vd

C10

e ak

E86

E77

E76

E78

E79

E70

E65 E64

E63

N E

Illustrative Plan Long-Term Vision

E82

E81

n i n g to Parr n w a L

E62

C11

C12

C13

E59

C18

W28

C17

W26

W29 W34 W31

Rai n

C16

W27

W25

E60

C14

W19 W20

E61

W32

W35

S38

S39

S40

S41

West Campus Green

S49

S43

S46

S47

S50 S51

Vis t

S42 S45

W33

C15 ier

S52 South Campus Green

S53

E58 S44

S56

S48

S57

S54 S55

Potential Building Existing Building Primary Open Space

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

125

Grow th Allowance

Transfer of Development Capacity

The University may grow by 6.0 million net new gross square feet over the next 10 years, or the life of the CMP; this represents the University’s growth allowance.

The growth allowance may be moved between development sites and between sectors as outlined on page 255 of the Development Standards chapter.

The growth allowance is allocated to the four campus sectors as shown in the table below as the maximum development permitted in each campus sector. The growth allowance shall be utilized through build-out of some combination of the 86 development sites, but it is unknown at this time what particular development sites shall be developed.

Development Areas A vibrant public realm is created incrementally through many individual projects. “Development areas” not only refers to the built structure, but also indicates responsibility for the development of the landscape and public realm on that site. Figure 113 shows the general development area associated

with each identified development site for the purposes of project design and planning. Development areas do not reflect parcel boundaries. Projects, budgets and plans may address all goals for the entire development area. Development and planning for the new significant open spaces identified in this CMP and shown in green on Figure 113 shall be consistent with the commitments identified in the Development Standards chapter on page 240. Development projects adjacent to significant open spaces shall be designed to reserve space and set the stage strategically for their construction.

Table 8. Potential Development Capacity & Permitted Development by Campus Sector TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON ALL 2018 SITES

TOTAL DEMOLISHED GROSS SQUARE FEET ON ALL 2018 SITES

POTENTIAL NET NEW DEVELOPMENT (GROSS SQUARE FEET) ON ALL 2018 SITES

NET NEW MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT (GROSS SQUARE FEET)

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT LIMIT (% OF TOTAL)

CENTR AL

2,765,000

1,133,059

1,631,941

900,000

15%

WEST

4,555,000

792,801

3,762,199

3,000,000

50%

SOUTH

4,985,000

2,776,265

2,208,735

1,350,000

23%

EAST

4,655,000

361,115

4,293,885

750,000

12%

TOTAL

16,960,000

5,063,240

11,896,760

6,000,000

100%

126 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

E81

2018 Campus Master Plan Development Areas E82 Figure 113. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

E80

E79

C1 C2

E78

C5 C3

W22 W21

W28 W37

W23

W24 W30

W36

b Li

W20 W19

W29

E73 E69

C8 C9

C10

E A ST C

A M PU

E67 S CO N

C18 C11

C13

E72 E71 E86

E66

E70

E64

E63

E62

C12

W27

E77

E74

E68

NECTIO

E65

W26 W25

A al

E75

d ua

E85

E76

C6 C4

Parrington Lawn

E84 E83

C17 W31 W32

W34 W35

WEST CAMPUS GREEN & PLAZAW33

C14

C16

E61 E60

in Ra

S38 S39

ie r

S40

S51

S50

S42 S43 S46 S44 S47 S56 S52 S48

S45

M SOU PU T S H GR EE S53 N

Existing University Building Proposed University Building

S57 S55 S54

Development Areas Potential Future Significant Open Space, Not Part of Development Area

S49

V is

S41

E59

C15

E58

Non-University Building MIO Boundary

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

127

INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FRAMEWORK The creation of an inclusive innovation district is important for a number of reasons. It shall position and sustain the UW as a leader in innovation and maintain its relevance to the students and the community it serves. Every day, the pioneering work of the UW faculty and students is growing along with the partnerships needed to make it happen. Government, business, and the public are increasingly reliant upon academic institutions, including the UW, to conduct research and clinical trials. Federal funding for research is limited so collaboration is critical. Private companies know that partnering with research-focused institutions is the best way to develop new ideas and work with a pool of exceptionally talented people. Students know that they need access to new ways of learning in order to find a job and have the tools

needed to solve real world problems. Handson learning, the demand for real world uses of research, and the rise in entrepreneurship show us that traditional learning and research methods need to evolve. Taking the UWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s innovative work to the next level requires changing the way education is delivered to better reflect how students learn, teachers teach, and researchers work. Traditional campus buildings and lecture halls shall give way to spaces where students, faculty, researchers and others can easily connect and work together. The UW is committed to creating an inclusive innovation district within its campus that shall give students the hands-on experiences and tools they need to succeed, and shall reinforce the UW as a major innovation and economic hub

128 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

in region and a top-tier place for learning and professional growth. The UW Campus Master Plan accounts for the space needed to create a robust innovation district. Both West and East Campuses have benefits that can support a thriving innovation district connected to the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutional mission, encourage collaboration, and give students the tools they need to solve big problems. West Campus has roughly 70-acres and a development capacity of over 3.3 million square feet. East Campus is much larger, however, much of the land is preserved as part of the Union Bay Natural Area. East Campus has the capacity to house 4.4 million square feet on 27-acres of mostly undeveloped land. While overall development capacities are significant on both West and East Campuses,

the growth allowance for West Campus is larger at 3.0 million net new gross square feet, versus 750,000 net new gross square feet for East Campus. West Campus is the most urban of the four campus sectors and already includes many functions that emerging innovation districts around the country either have or are working to include. West Campus is easily accessible by car or public transportation, and is well-served by bike lanes and a walkable public realm. The vision for West Campus is anchored by a large open space that provides views to Portage Bay and abuts most of the proposed development in this campus sector.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

129

The inclusive innovation framework for West Campus also seeks to encourage exploration and engage social connectedness. The CMP envisions activated ground floor functions and programmed public spaces to showcase inventions and developments in research. The public realm is supported by flexibility in development opportunities that can accommodate a range of functions, including academic and research partnerships, discovery centers, fabrication and prototyping spaces, incubators and startup accelerators, and University research. The long-term future of West Campus is envisioned with a rich new open space network that reinforces its diverse urban context, enhances the pedestrian experience within West Campus, and connects to South and Central Campus.

Although both West Campus and East Campus can support significant development capacity, only a small percentage of that overall capacity is earmarked for partnership spaces. The Campus Master Plan allocates between 500,000 to 1,000,000 net new gross square feet of space to facilitate the development of an innovation district within the 10-year plan. For more information about partnership space needs, please refer to the space needs section on pages 34 through 35. Figure 114, on the right, is for illustrative purposes only. It does not modify the right-ofway (R.O.W.) and accommodates all forms of transportation, including large trucks.

130 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Brooklyn Avenue

Figure 114. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

ETHNIC CULT

UR AL CENTER

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

131

The UW Farm created

132 Existing Conditions - July 2017 Final Plan

College of the Environment founded

The UW named nation’s greenest school by Sierra magazine

2011

Figure 115.

Green Office Certification program launched

Climate Action Plan submitted

2009

The UW makes American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) Pledge

Timeline of Sustainability Efforts

The UW’s first Sustainability summit (October) Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF) launched

2007

The UW Greenhouse Gas Inventory completed

2005

Environmental Stewardship Policy is written

The UW Sustainability Office is formed

2010

2006

2004

2008

SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK

Executive Order No.13 on Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability

Practice Green Health Award for medical centers

Achieved first Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) Gold Rating

International Sustainable Campus Award

Green Laboratory program achieves 68 certified labs

Achieved second STARS Gold Rating Recipient of Platinum and Gold Commute Trip Reduction Awards

The UW Master Plan Approved

The UW and Seattle City Light partner on solar testbed installation

Husky Stadium Certified as LEED Silver

The UW Mailing Services goes bikepowered UW Athletics diverts 75% of all gameday waste from landfill

The UW Fleet Services grows hybrid/EV vehicle stock to 21% of total fleet

2015

2013

Green Seed Fund established

The CMP provides an opportunity for the University to integrate current sustainability efforts and goals into a sustainability framework for the future of the campus.

2018

2012

2014

Sustainability is at the core of the University of Washington’s mission, values, and ongoing culture. The University has been at the forefront of campus sustainability since before the Environmental Stewardship Policy was written in 2004. In 2007, the University signed the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which prompted the creation

Assessment and Rating System (STARS) gold rating, which is in commendation of the UW’s comprehensive achievements related to sustainability in education and research, planning, engagement, maintenance and operations, and innovation.

2016

of the Climate Action Plan. Since then, the University launched the College of the Environment, adopted a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard for all new development, and won multiple sustainability awards. The UW maintains an active membership in the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), a consortium of academic institutions that are working to create a more sustainable future. In 2012, the University earned the first Sustainability Tracking,

The UW joins nationwide climate change pledge (Ongoing: LEED Certified Buildings, Energy Star, Transportation Services)

2017

SUMMARY OF EXISTING SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

133

The purpose of the sustainability framework is to ensure that sustainability is integrated into the CMP guidelines for future development. Five major sustainability goals include campus engagement, built environment, economic sustainability, mobility, and surrounding ecological systems. The goals influence decisions made regarding future development at both macro and micro scales and impact the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x153;triple bottom lineâ&#x20AC;? accounting for social, environmental and financial considerations. The five sustainability goals guide campuswide decision-making, building on significant work by the University in sustainability planning and benchmarking, increasing awareness of environmental issues and making the UW one of the most sustainable campuses in the country, effectively a campus that is a sustainability learning lab. Figure 116. Campus Sustainability Goals

134 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Engagement

Figure 117. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

ENGAGEMENT

••

Continue to fund and promote sustainability research and activism

••

Share knowledge generated from sustainability research and education

••

Continue to report sustainability metrics

••

Foster transparency in decision-making

Increase sustainability engagement internally and externally

••

Strive for excellence in sustainability research, education and service

Promote environmental and conservation awareness, e.g. WCUP interpretive element that shall display the UW’s sustainability programs and activities

••

Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration in education and research

••

Advance the quality of study, work and life for our campus community

The University’s sustainability summit in 2010 led to a student-initiated fund for the University community to create sustainabilityfocused projects in surrounding neighborhoods that shall: •• ••

Encourage community participation in campus events

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

135

Built Environment

Figure 118. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

BUILT ENVIRONMENT With a growth allowance of 6.0 million net new gross square feet, opportunities for built environment strategies shall have a profound and positive impact on the future campus. The following strategies apply system-wide policies and building level interventions to reduce the University’s carbon footprint and create a robust development program. Related goals include:

••

Encourage more dense development on campus to limit building outside of the MIO boundary

••

Strive to achieve LEED silver certification or better for on-campus building construction or renovation

••

Encourage the installation of building energy demand-side management programs

••

Continue awareness of state of the art building construction best practices

••

Consider incorporating the Climate Action Plan into a campus-wide Sustainability Plan

136 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Economic Sustainability

Figure 119. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

FUTURE POTENTIAL

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

••

Incentivize research partnerships

The UW is one of largest employers in the City, and generates hundreds of new business ventures and research developments. The UW’s selective and competitive academic programs produce a highly educated workforce that is sought after by corporations located in Seattle and the region. The University has identified the following strategies to strengthen economic development locally as well as regionally:

••

Collaborate with businesses to provide educational opportunities

••

Promote sustainability with campus partners and research institutions

••

Maximize use of campus land through more dense development

••

Encourage co-location of businesses, retail, food, etc. that serve the campus community

Most importantly, the University shall continue to collaborate with the City to encourage growth and economic development for the benefit of the community.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

137

Mobility

Figure 120. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only Provide access to business, retail, and community amenities that benefit the local and campus community

MOBILITY Mobility is central to the multi-modal nature of the UW campus. In 2015, only 20 percent of the UW community drove alone to campus. A 2016 survey suggests that the drive alone rate declined to approximately 17.3 percent as a result of improved access to transit including light rail. With the addition of a second light rail station in 2021, there is an opportunity for the drive alone rate to further decrease. The University actively promotes strengthened pedestrian and public transit routes to encourage alternative modes of transportation and retain the low rate of SOV drivers. Sustainable mobility goes beyond commuting patterns, encompassing a range

of issues related to access that include, but are not limited to, ADA, housing access, economic mobility, food access, etc. The following strategies strengthen the mobility goals within the sustainability framework: ••

Support and increase near-campus housing for faculty and staff, and oncampus housing for students

••

Integrate all modes of on-campus transportation

••

Strengthen the effectiveness and relationship between King County Metro, City of Seattle, Sound Transit and the

138 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

UW. Participate in planning around transit “hubs” to maximize their operation and effectiveness ••

Work with community clubs and business organizations such as the University District Partnership to improve mobility to and from adjacent neighborhoods

••

Accommodate mix of transportation modes including bike and car as these develop and provide potential to improve campus travel options

••

Encourage complete streets, designed to enable safe access to all users of all abilities, to improve universal access around campus.

Ecological Systems

Figure 121. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS The University of Washington is surrounded by and is an integral part of significant and vital ecological systems. The University strives to be a good steward of ecological systems throughout campus, a commitment that is illustrated in the Campus Landscape Framework (CLF). The University may strive to: ••

Continue to use the Urban Forest Management Plan as a living document and framework

••

Encourage more dense development that retains the UW open space network

••

Pursue best practices for preserving and improving tree canopy, reducing impervious surfaces, and enhancing the open space network on campus

••

Continue to engage local food initiatives and on-campus farming

••

Consider campus carbon sequestration

••

Consider complete streets as a tool for access and storm water mitigation

••

Increase the number of shade trees and permeable surfaces where possible

••

Look for opportunities to manage stormwater onsite

••

Integrate stormwater management needs into the campus landscape in a manner that enhances biodiversity balanced with University uses

••

Utilize best practices for integrated pest management to maintain landscape and control invasive plants

••

Provide opportunities for education and research using the landscape

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

139

UTILITY FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW The discussion that follows provides an evaluation of the capacities of existing energy and utility systems - both plants and distribution systems - to support the growth allowance of 6.0 million net new gross square feet as outlined in this CMP. Based on past development trends, the University could build between 400,000 gsf to 600,000 gsf per year over the life of the CMP, as funding is available. ••

Campus steam, compressed air, water supply and sanitary sewer systems can accommodate the growth allowance.

••

The University shall continue conversations with Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to better understand capacity issues related to SPUowned facilities.

••

Depending on the mix of uses, campus chilled water and emergency standby power systems and associated infrastructure shall likely have the ability or flexibility to accommodate this growth.

growth but not all, which shall require the University to work with the City to plan for the full growth allowance. ••

••

There are no known capacity issues related to water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage, but each utility will be evaluated as new development occurs. Campus utility system capacities are generally understood for each campus sector. However, in order to improve system understanding and support growth for each campus sector, additional analysis shall be undertaken in conjunction with the identification of uses, building programs, and phasing of future campus development authorized by this CMP.

The capital investments described in this chapter are in addition to the University’s current investment activity and plans, which address operational and deferred maintenance needs to serve the existing building stock.

Regardless of mix of uses, existing primary power can accommodate some of the

140 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

PRIMARY CAMPUS UTILITIES Steam The current steam plant has the capacity to accommodate the entire growth allowance. Central, South and portions of East and West Campus are served by steam (distributed at two pressures, 185 psi and 12psi) generated in the UW Power Plant and distributed via tunnel systems throughout campus. The plant has an installed capacity of 870 MMBtuh (Million Btu/hr.) and a capacity of 620 MMBtuh (million Btu/hr.) with its largest boiler out of service. The campus has a current peak load of approximately 300 MMBtuh. Load growth of up to approximately 175 MMBtuh can be accommodated within the current plant capacity.

Chilled Water Chilled water for campus is currently provided at the UW Power Plant for 12,000 tons of installed capacity. The 2016 first phase of the West Central Utility Plant (WCUP) construction has a capacity of 4,500 tons. As demand growth justifies it, construction of the second phase shall be triggered adding an additional 6,000 tons of installed capacity to phase 1, within the long-term vision, a

capacity of 10,500 tons. Between the two plants the campus shall have an installed capacity of 22,500 tons and an available capacity of approximately 20,000 tons with the largest chiller out of service. The current chilled water plant capacity (UW Power Plant and WCUP long-term vision) shall support approximately 4.0 million to 6.0 million gsf of net space growth. This broad estimate depends on the program mix of growth. This combined capacity serves the entire campus. When campus growth nears the limits of the University’s chilled water plants’ shared capacity (a more cautious approach could start that planning as early as 2017), additional growth can be provided through a combination of: ••

Additional capacity at the UW Power Plant.

••

Development of an additional single or multiple chilled water plant(s) if the mix of uses requires it.

••

Installation of chillers in individual (new) buildings.

Compressed Air The existing central air compressor plant was recently upgraded with two 2400 cfm air compressors which shall provide sufficient capacity to meet the entire growth allowance. The UW Power Plant generates compressed air for use in the plant, in building environmental control systems and in labs. Future demand for compressed air is expected to increase only gradually as new buildings tend to be less reliant on compressed air. Renewal and capacity upgrades in 2017 / 2018 ensure sufficient capacity to meet future campus growth.

Primary Power Primary power on the campus is provided by Seattle City Light (SCL) through two receiving stations; the East Receiving station located at the Main Plant and the West Receiving station located in West Campus adjacent to the WCUP. 13.8 kV distribution provides power to campus buildings. Some buildings, primarily in areas near the campus boundaries of West Campus are served directly from the SCL grid and have building-level metering. The present primary firm peak capacity for the campus is 66MVA. The existing peak load is approximately 55MVA.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

141

Depending on the use mix in new buildings, the current primary power capacity has the ability to accommodate approximately 1.5 to 2.0 million net new gross square feet across the campus. Additional growth above 1.5 to 2.0 million net new gross square feet shall require further investments. District-specific growth projections, the SCL perspective (its analysis and longer-term plans) and a cost-benefit analysis shall determine the best way to provide for the total planned campus growth at a new substation fed directly from SCL’s transmission system, through expansion of one or both of the existing substations fed from SCL’s distributions system, and/or by serving additional buildings directly from the existing SCL grid (exclusively a West Campus response). It is reasonable to assume that multiple new circuits shall be required from the West Receiving Station and/or from the East Receiving Station to accommodate growth. In addition to capacity, power reliability on campus is an ongoing problem. The UW Plant Operations staff is working with SCL and others to evaluate a series of options to increase the reliability of the existing service to and within the campus. New electrical infrastructure on campus may be developed to work with those improvements and enhance them where feasible.

Emergency and Standby Power Emergency and standby power systems on campus serve life safety and optional standby power loads respectively. Power is generated primarily from diesel-driven engine generators located at the UW Power Plant and recently installed at the WCUP. There is also a steam turbine generator located in the UW Power Plant which runs continuously (when not being serviced) and provides an uninterruptible supply of nonlife safety power to the plant. This turbine generator is aged and is anticipated to be decommissioned in the near future. Since it currently serves as the emergency standby power supply for the central Power Plant, it shall be necessary to provide local emergency standby power through addition of a local dedicated generator. Its service shall be absorbed into that provided by other elements of the emergency and standby power network (largely the WCUP). In addition, there are numerous stand-alone diesel generators located throughout the campus. The current emergency and standby capacity for the generators at the UW Power Plant and the WCUP (long-term vision) is 22MVA. Depending on whether the new construction shall have a significant component of technical buildings with moderate-to-large standby power requirements, accommodating

142 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

the full load growth may require additional capacity. Any new construction that warrants substantial emergency standby power, may consider local generators. A reliable calculation of need can be established with better understanding of the new program. Assuming this estimate is in the range of 10-15 MVA, options for providing this additional capacity include a combination of: ••

Additional capacity at the UW Power Plant (limited space available).

••

Single or multiple (regional) new emergency/standby power plant(s).

••

Local generation installed in each new building.

Water Water is supplied to campus by Seattle Public Utilities. Based on available water meter data, the campus has a current water demand of approximately 12 gal/bldg gsf/year. This is based on a sample of representative metered buildings, as many of the old buildings on campus do not have water meters and the addition of new conserving systems. With a long-term vision of the CMP at 6.0 million net new gsf, the campus can expect demand to increase by approximately 200,000 gal/day. There are currently no known capacity issues with the water system, but during the development of each project the relative

connection point to the City’s system may be evaluated to see if additional lines are required.

Sanitary Sewer The University-owned sanitary sewer system varies based on campus location. The majority of Central Campus and portions of West Campus flow to the KC Metro trunk line, while East Campus flows directly to City-owned sanitary sewer lines. Buildings in the south flow to either a University- or City-owned lift station, before connecting to the KC Metro trunk line. Based on available water meter data, and known irrigation demands, the current sewer demand is approximately 11 gal/bldg gsf/year. With the long-term vision of the CMP at 6.0 million net new gsf, the campus can expect sewer demand to increase by approximately 190,000 gal/day. This is equivalent to 132 gal/min, distributed throughout the whole campus, without accounting for a peak demand. There are currently no known capacity issues with University-owned lift stations, but each lift station may be evaluated as new development occurs. There are no known capacity issues associated City-owned systems except for the SPU owned lift station at Brooklyn Avenue and Boat Street. The University shall work with SPU to plan for additional capacity for the future.

Storm Drainage The UW is Salmon-Safe Certified and follows Low Impact Development (LID) practices as a matter of policy or standard practice to reduce rainwater/stormwater runoff volume and improve outgoing water quality for new construction, major renovation, and other projects. Salmon-Safe is an independent non-profit whose mission is to transform land management practices so Pacific salmon can thrive in West Coast watersheds. Under federal and state guidelines, the UW is classified as a Phase I Permit Secondary Permittee, and shall comply with applicable Phase I Permit requirements. The University also complies with City of Seattle storm water regulations. The University of Washington has a series of initiatives to handle stormwater: ••

Public education and outreach on the impacts of stormwater pollution.

••

Public involvement and participation.

••

Detection and elimination of illicit discharges.

••

Stormwater treatment infrastructure techniques including catch basin filtration as new development occurs (particularly in West Campus).

••

Construction site stormwater runoff control.

••

Post-construction stormwater management for new development and redevelopment.

••

Pollution prevention and good housekeeping for facilities operations.

The majority of stormwater on campus either flows to University- or City-owned storm drain lines, before discharging into a nearby water body. Per the City of Seattle’s 2016 regulations, on-site stormwater management practices shall be implemented to control the flow rate of the runoff and achieve water quality standards before the water is discharged. A portion of Central Campus flows to the University-owned sanitary sewer system, which connects to the KC Metro trunk line. In large storm events, this line reaches capacity and KC Metro allows the combined storm and sanitary water to overflow into Portage Bay. Throughout the implementation of the CMP, storm drain separation shall take place, where possible, to avoid such overflows. In addition, stormwater shall be used for irrigation and other grey water practices, when possible, to reduce the water demand on campus. There are currently no known capacity issues with the University’s storm drainage systems, but storm drainage shall be evaluated as new development occurs.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

143

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

pressure to Central Campus (and, with that, to adjacent areas of campus). As the University prepares to undertake this investment, a capital plan shall be developed based on a then-current analysis that identifies specific locations with flow/pressure limitations and assesses tunnel conditions.

Campus steam, chilled water, compressed air, and emergency power are most frequently distributed in tunnels. Upgrades and enhancements shall be required in those distribution systems to support the growth allowance identified in the CMP. Once the CMP’s illustration of physical growth allowance by district is accompanied by an understanding of program and phased development, the University shall have the key ingredients to launch a utility master plan. The utility master plan shall leverage existing knowledge of the capacities and limitations of its distribution systems with updated information and modeling.

COMPRESSED AIR

••

PRIMARY POWER

••

Central Campus 2018 CMP growth of Central Campus includes 900,000 gsf of net new space.

••

Upgrades are required in the piping in the west and northwest trunks. Piping extensions shall be required to new building sites.

CHILLED WATER

••

Upgrades and enhancements to piping in multiple tunnel locations shall be needed to provide adequate flow/

New feeder sets may be required to be routed in the tunnels or through duct banks to support the proposed growth.

EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER

••

STEAM AND CONDENSATE

••

An assessment of current loads is necessary to determine whether upgrades to the distribution system are required.

New feeder sets shall be required to be routed in the tunnels or through duct banks to support the proposed growth.

COMMUNICATIONS

••

New fiber and cabling shall be required to support connection of the new buildings to the campus backbone.

to involve the long-term phased demolition and replacement of the buildings in the Health Sciences Center, the S-1 Garage and some of the buildings to the south of the garage. These structures are replaced with new buildings with underground parking that displaces the existing utility tunnels in the sector. New tunnels and associated utilities shall be constructed below these parking levels to support utility distribution. This transformative scale development – with or without the trigger of underground garages forcing utility relocations – necessitates system-scale investments in energy and utility infrastructure which can be phased to complement a building/redevelopment phasing plan. Following are the growth impacts anticipated for each utility. STEAM AND CONDENSATE

••

The replacement and upgrade of existing steam and condensate distribution shall be needed to accommodate phased growth.

CHILLED WATER

••

Upgrades and enhancements to piping in multiple tunnel locations shall be needed to provide adequate flow/pressure to South Campus and adjacent sectors of campus.

South Campus

COMPRESSED AIR

2018 CMP growth of South Campus includes 1,350,000 gsf of net new space. Redevelopment of South Campus is envisioned

••

144 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

Replacement and upgrade of existing compressed air distribution are needed to accommodate phased growth.

PRIMARY POWER

••

Replacement and upgrade of existing primary power distribution are needed to accommodate the anticipated growth. Feeder sets shall be calibrated to support the power requirements associated with the specific program of this district which is anticipated to have high power intensity needs (related to its density of lab space, vivaria, etc.)

EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER

••

Replacement and upgrade of existing emergency and standby power distribution shall be needed to accommodate the anticipated growth. Feeder sets shall be calibrated to support the power requirements associated with the specific program of this district which is anticipated to have high power intensity needs (related to its density of lab space, vivaria, etc.)

that development of West Campus be supported through a tunneled distribution system to offer the University buildings the best reliability of service. Located under city streets, this approach offers the best longevity for those systems within the tunnels, which translates into the least disruptions to the functioning of the City grid when system maintenance or repair is needed. The University shall coordinate with the City to design and construct this city streets strategy. Following are the growth impacts anticipated by each utility.

••

Significant upgrades shall be required to support growth in this sector. New piping, either in dedicated tunnels or in building service corridors shall be required to support loads and new building locations. This work may be coordinated with the new piping and design parameters associated with the WCUP.

STEAM AND CONDENSATE

••

Potential locations for direct buried piping serving this sector of campus, shall be identified through further analysis.

••

Upgrades to piping in the Campus Parkway trunk are required to support the growth allowance.

••

New piping, either in dedicated tunnels or in building service corridors, shall be required to support loads and new building locations. In capital planning for the growth articulated in the CMP for West Campus, the University shall consider the cost and benefit of looping new piping with the west trunk to increase reliability in this part of campus.

COMMUNICATIONS

••

New fiber and cabling shall be required to support connection of the new buildings to the campus backbone.

••

New router rooms shall be required to serve the increased density of space.

West Campus 2018 CMP growth of West Campus includes 3,000,000 gsf of net new space. It is planned

••

Potential locations for direct buried piping serving this sector of campus, shall be identified through further analysis.

CHILLED WATER

COMPRESSED AIR

••

Upgrades, extension and replacement of piping in the Campus Parkway trunk shall be required to support growth.

••

Careful evaluation may occur on whether compressed air shall be required as a utility for the buildings slated for this sector of campus.

PRIMARY POWER

••

Replacement and upgrade of existing primary power distribution is required to accommodate phased growth. This is anticipated to include additional feeder sets to support the power requirements associated with increased square footage as well and high power intensity building

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

145

programs. Alternatively, some of the new building sites could be served directly from the existing SCL grid in the sector.

STEAM AND CONDENSATE

COMPRESSED AIR

••

Currently there is limited compressed air distribution in this sector.

••

Careful evaluation may occur on whether compressed air is required as a utility for the buildings slated for this sector of campus.

EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER

••

There is adequate emergency and standby distribution in West Campus. New distribution is required to connect to capacity in the WCUP, or buildings could be served by on-site generators.

••

COMMUNICATIONS

••

New fiber and cabling are required to support connection of each new building to the campus backbone.

East Campus 2018 CMP growth of East Campus includes 750,000 gsf of net new space. East Campus has very limited distribution due to its lack of current development. New tunnels and/or direct buried distribution systems are required to enable expanded utility distribution in this sector. Given the relative isolation of this sector, the scale of the development that is being contemplated and in relationship to a subsequent phasing plan for this growth, it may be prudent to provide a satellite plant in the sector with some or all of the primary utilities identified below:

East Campus has limited steam/ condensate distribution which is located in the south end of East Campus serving the Intramural Activities Building and the Alaska Airlines Arena at Hec Edmundson Pavilion. To accommodate geographically dispersed growth in the long-term vision, two new connections to the Central Campus system are recommended: one at the south end connecting at or near the UW Power Plant and the second at the north end. Within East Campus a gridded distribution system is required to respond to the design of the long-term vision illustrated in the CMP.

PRIMARY POWER

••

CHILLED WATER

••

There is currently no chilled water distribution in East Campus. Buildings are served by local chillers. To accommodate the growth envisioned for this sector, two new connections to the Central Campus system are recommended, one at the south end connecting at or near the UW Power Plant and the second at the north end. Within East Campus a gridded distribution system shall be required to respond to the design of the CMP.

146 Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

There is limited distribution of primary power in this sector. Significant additional distribution is required to support the substantial growth identified for this sector as part of the long-term vision. Multiple new feeder sets shall be required to be brought from an existing or new substation.

EMERGENCY AND STANDBY POWER

••

This sector of campus is served by a single emergency/ standby feeder. Given the significant growth anticipated in this sector, additional feeders and a gridded distribution network are required

COMMUNICATIONS

••

New fiber and cabling are required to support connection of each new building to the campus backbone.

••

New router rooms are required to serve the increased density of space.

Vision, Principles and Frameworks - July 2017 Final Plan

147

PROJECT REVIEW AND DESIGN GUIDANCE

148 July 2017 Final Plan

•• INTRODUCTION •• PROJECT REVIEW •• DESIGN GUIDANCE •• CENTRAL CAMPUS •• WEST CAMPUS •• SOUTH CAMPUS •• EAST CAMPUS

July 2017 Final Plan

149

INTRODUCTION Chapter 6 contains detailed information on the 10-year conceptual plan for campus, including sector-by-sector descriptions of the design goals for each area. This Chapter further provides information on the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Project Review Processes, and includes non-binding design guidance. Although non-binding, design guidance will be implemented through capital project design and environmental review carried out by the Architectural Commission, the University Landscape Advisory Committee, the Design Review Board (all as applicable), and project design teams. In a few places, development standards are referenced; these standards are set out and explained further as mandatory requirements in Chapter 7.

150 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

PROJECT REVIEW DEMOLITION Demolition is permitted prior to future development as long as sites are left in a safe condition and free of debris. Demolition permits are submitted in advance of a building site being selected for development and any grading work is reviewed under the Grading Code (SMC Chapter 22.170). 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.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND PHASING The process of identifying projects and priorities for capital budgets is initiated by the University and involves several steps beginning with an assessment of academic need. Capital facilities needs are reviewed for academic need and priority assessment by the University administration. The capital budget priorities are reviewed and developed through discussion with the University administration, the UW Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting, the Faculty Committee on University Facilities and Services, the Board of Deans, and numerous

other campus constituents. These committees provide advice to the Provost before presentation to the Board of Regents of the proposed six year facilities plan which is called the “One Capital Plan”. The Board of Regents is charged with the final adoption of capital and operating budget proposals prior to submittal to the Governor’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the State Legislature for approval. Each major capital project is reviewed for feasibility, priority, timing, site and cost in the context of the Campus Master Plan. The functional program for each new building is of critical importance to the site selection process. Identification of the specific potential development sites that will be developed over the life of the Campus Master Plan depends on the prioritizing of major capital projects as driven by academic need and funding availability. Capital projects funding can depend upon one or more sources of funds including funds from the State Legislature for specific projects, the use of University debt, gifts and grants. Specific capital projects scope and timing are not possible to predict in detail due to the changes in academic need and funding sources. As sites are being considered for development by the

University, the University will consult with UW departments, CUCAC, and stakeholders in the area of the sites being considered and include that information in the site selection report. Based on analysis of past development trends, need, and funding sources, it is anticipated that during the life of this Plan the University will build on average 600,000 gross square feet of net new buildings annually for a total development of 6.0 million net new gross square feet over the life of the 2018 Campus Master Plan. However, there may be some years where development is more or less than 600,000 net new gross square feet. The University prepares an annual report pursuant to the City-University Agreement. The Annual Report contains information on the University’s capital facillities development program as identified in the “One Capital Plan” and Capital Budget Request, changes to these requests, new projects, on-going projects, and major and minor plan changes. The Annual Report contains information on new projects, identifies sites chosen for development, provides a description of the program or structure proposed (including gross square footage), and provides the anticipated schedule for development.

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

151

DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The University’s processes for design and environmental review encourage better design and site planning to help ensure that new development enhances the character of the campus, while allowing for functionality and creativity. The University’s processes provide for flexibility in the application of design guidance to meet the intent of the CMP, effective mitigation of a proposed project’s height, bulk, and scale impacts, and improved communication and mutual understanding among the University, neighbors, CUCAC, and the City of Seattle. Major and minor projects with the potential for impacts on the visitor experience of the campus setting are reviewed by the UW Architectural Commission, the University Landscape Advisory Committee and/or the UW Design Review Board. The University’s design review processes foster good stewardship of the campus setting.

University of Washington Architectural Commission For projects that are generally over $5 million dollars and that may result in a significant change to campus in terms of setting, public realm, visual aesthetics or pedestrian experience, the University of Washington Architectural Commission (UWAC), established in 1957, reviews and evaluates the selection of building sites, design of new buildings and public spaces, major additions and

modifications to these elements, and campus plans. The Commission advises the Regents and President in the selection of architects and design team principals for projects that influence the campus setting, and periodically reviews the design of such projects through all design phases. The Commission advises the University administration on environmental issues as they may arise, including historic preservation, new construction, additions to existing buildings, major interior public space, renovations of existing significant buildings, and development of the campus grounds including landscape features and plantings and conformance with the CMP. In making recommendations involving the campus grounds, the Commission shall seek consultation of the University Landscape Advisory Committee (ULAC). The Commission considers the design guidance provided in the CMP during its review.

University Landscape Advisory Committee The University Landscape Advisory Committee (ULAC) plays a key role in helping to preserve and enhance the unique character of the University’s outdoor spaces and attain high quality campus environments. The Committee, established in 1970, is advisory to the Architectural Commission and the University adminstraion concerning design review of projects proposed for construction in relation to their influence on the outdoor environment. The Committee is charged with the responsibility of reviewing significant matters

152 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

relative to University planning and landscape design for new construction or renovation. Issues reviewed include, but are not limited to: site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians; parking location, screening and development; placement and selection of site furnishings, signage, and lighting; the location of landscape features; open space development and connectivity; preservation of existing and selection of new trees and vegetation; irrigation performance; and conformance with the CMP.

Design Review Board The primary purpose of the UW’s Design Review Board (DRB) is to maximize the functionality and desirable experiential qualities of the Seattle campus, its facilities and setting. The DRB reviews projects with budgets less than $5 million, and/or projects that either individually or cumulatively have temporary or permanent visual and/or functional impacts on the campus setting, including any historic resources. The campus setting is defined for DRB purposes as the campus landscape, plantings, circulation corridors and gathering places, building exteriors, public spaces and rights-of-way, signage, and significant interior public spaces. The Board conducts multi-discipline review of project plans at the earliest possible time in a project so that the project may achieve its goals and those of the University within budget and schedule parameters. The DRB considers the design guidance provided in the Plan during its review and advises on conformance with the CMP.

University Architect The Office of the University Architect (OUA) is the University’s physical and capital planning office. Its staff of planners, designers, and policy analysts provides leadership, counsel and oversight regarding campus planning, landscape and architectural design, historic resource stewardship, strategic transportation, environmental planning, sustainability and energy planning, and space and capital resource planning. Oversight and integration of these various disciplines is managed by OUA staff who participate in many campus committees including the University of Washington Architectural Commission (UWAC), the University Landscape Advisory Committee (ULAC) and the University of Washington Public Arts Commission (UWPAC), the Environmental Stewardship Committee, the University Transportation Committee (UTC), the Grounds Improvement Advisory Committee (GIAC), and the SEPA Advisory Committee.

SEPA Advisory Committee As lead agency for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the University prepares environmental documents, conducts environmental review, and makes final environmental determinations. Because the environmental impacts of University development in this CMP are studied in a non-project EIS that accompanies this Plan, environmental review for specific projects

authorized by the CMP will rely on that document and the University will complete additional environmental review where appropriate, in compliance with SEPA. The University’s SEPA Advisory Committee reviews preliminary environmental documents and makes recommendations regarding their adequacy, identifies environmental issues and concerns of a campus-wide nature, and suggests mitigating measures. Under the City-University Agreement, environmental documents are provided to the City University Community Advisory Committee for review and comment.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW, POLICIES AND PRACTICES History of Stewardship by the Board of Regents 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 setting to the University, the greater University area community, the City of Seattle, the State of Washington, and future generations. As a state institution of higher education, the Regents have full control and authority over the development of the campus, except as otherwise provided by law. The institution is encumbered with a

public purpose that is essential to the future of the State, and this purpose requires that the campus continue to be developed to meet the growing and changing education needs of the State. Today, as in the past, the campus provides a sense of permanency and place. It is a place of civic pride and beauty. The buildings and landscapes demonstrate and preserve the accomplishments of the past while providing for the future and allowing development of architectural innovations. The campus layout is based on a series of plans which began when the campus moved from downtown Seattle to its present location in 1895. Campus planning and historic preservation and innovation have been continuous for over 100 years and will continue to provide the context for campus development in the future. The University regards building preservation, reuse, and rehabilitation as a continuium with new construction undertaken when other options are not reasonably feasible. Major landscape features established over many years, including formal and informal open spaces, views, vistas, and axes, continue to be preserved and strengthened. The University’s physical setting continues to satisfy academic, social and cultural requirements of students, faculty, and staff consistent with its primary mission.

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

153

Historic Features the Campus Master Plan

50 (or a successor order), involving several reviewing bodies including:

In this Campus Master Plan, the significant buildings sited as part of the Oval Plan of 1898, the 1904 Olmsted Plan, the 1909 Plan’s Rainier Vista, the 1915 Plan’s Liberal Arts Quadrangle, Memorial Way, Drumheller Fountain (Denny, Parrington, Lewis and Clark Halls; original buildings making up the Quad; and the original portion of Suzzallo Library) and accompanying radials will all remain prominent features of the campus. These important features, axes, and open spaces are part of the historic structure of the campus and will continue to be recognized as essential components of the University campus.

••

University of Washington Architectural Commission

••

Campus Landscape Advisory Committee

••

Design Review Board

••

University of Washington’s SEPA Advisory Committee

••

Office of the University Architect

••

Board of Regents (the ultimate decision maker)

In addition to these well-known features, there are other prominent features for which the University is recognized. Many of these are unique and significant landscapes and are identified on page 97. Registered State and Federal Historic Buildings are identified in page 92.

Project Review to Insure Historic Context While fostering continuous use, improvements and innovations to 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 this occurs on a comprehensive project-by-project basis, the University utilizes a multi-step process for historic preservation review, outlined in the University President’s Executive Order No.

Each reviewing body is responsible for raising issues for consideration and balancing the desirability and means of protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating historic (person, event or structure), cultural, engineering and architectural campus resources in terms of buildings, spaces and elements of the environment, with the desirability of fostering continuous use, required improvements and innovations for significant buildings. To aid the reviewing bodies and further ensure that historic resources are respected, the University prepares a Historic Resources Addendum (HRA) for any project that makes exterior alterations to a building or landscape more than 50 years of age, or that is adjacent to a building or landscape feature more than 50 years of age (excluding routine maintenance and repair). The HRA is an attachment to all project documentation and is considered by the appropriate decision

154 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

makers as well as shared with and considered by the project team. The required contents of the HRA are defined further below. The information and analysis provided in the HRA provides a framework and context to ensure that important elements of the campus, its historic character and value, environmental considerations and landscape context are preserved, enhanced, and valued. The HRA further insures that improvements, changes and modifications to the physical environment may be clearly analyzed and documented. The University also conducts related processes that ensure consideration of historic resources, including the University’s implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act. Through the SEPA process, the University considers the potential impacts of development on historic and cultural resources, including buildings and sites less than 50 years old. The University’s SEPA process is set forth in chapter 478-324 WAC. Ultimately, the University’s Executive Vice President and the Associate Vice President for Capital Planning and Development (or their successor positions) and the University Architect review the SEPA determination, any HRA’s related to the project and any recommendations from the bodies reviewing the project to determine the appropriate action that should be taken to balance all the issues raised by the reviewing bodies. The Executive Vice President consults with the Associate Vice President for Capital Planning and Development and the University Architect to ensure the HRA is addressed before determining the appropriate course of

action to recommend to the Board of Regents for the project. The Board of Regents makes the final decision on the project. The review of historic resources on the campus utilizes the process stated above and does not include a review under the City of Seattle’s Landmark Preservation Ordinance. The University’s position is that it is not subject to the ordinance, as the University of Washington Board of Regents has full control and authority over all development on campus.1

The Historic Resource Addendum (HR A) In preparing the HRA, the following information shall be provided to the extent known. Information regarding these considerations may or may not be available or relevant for a particular proposed development. The HRA shall be appropriately updated as the project evolves prior to final Regent action. For proposed construction that makes exterior alterations to a building or landscape more than 50 years of age or that is adjacent to a building or landscape older than 50 years, information described in the bullets below shall be addressed in the HRA to the extent it is available. ••

Age of project building, adjacent buildings and open spaces. (See Appendix on page 292 for the age of campus features.)

••

Information regarding architect of the original building.

••

Description of interior and exterior, and site surroundings of the building or campus feature, including the traditional views of the site, if any.

••

Information regarding the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or of a method of construction, if any.

••

Information regarding the roles of the structure, site and surroundings have played on campus and in the community, if any.

••

age, or scale that makes it an easily identifiable visual feature of the campus and contributes to the distinctive quality or identity of the campus. ••

Information regarding the location of the new project, entrances, service, access and circulation, front/back, bulk, scale, materials, architectural character, profile, open space and landscape siting, relative to the building or feature older than 50 years, including opportunities to complement the older surroundings and buildings literally or through contrast.

Information regarding the character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the campus, city, state, or nation, if any.

••

Potential mitigation measures, such as facade treatment, street treatment and design treatment sympathetic to the historic significance of the development site or adjacent campus feature, if any.

••

Information regarding any association with an historic event with a significant effect upon the campus, community, city, state, or nation, if any.

••

Information in historic resource surveys prepared by outside consultants, if any, and found on the DAHP WISAARD online database.

••

Information regarding the association with the life of a person important in the history of the campus, city, state, or nation, if any.

••

Information regarding the association with a significant aspect of the cultural, political, or economic heritage of the campus, community, city, state or nation, if any.

••

Information regarding the prominence of the spatial location, contrasts of siting,

OFF-CAMPUS LEASING AND ACQUISITION The University limits its real property leasing outside the MIO to spaces or land as necessary to carry out the University’s educational, research, and service missions that cannot reasonably be accommodated within existing University facilities. The University follows the requirements of the City-University Agreement related to off-campus leasing and acquisition.

Arguments related to this topic have been heard by the Washington Supreme Court. A decision is pending.

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

155

DESIGN GUIDANCE ACTIVE EDGES

GATEWAYS

PARKING LOCATION

The CMP supports the goal of activating the ground floor of buildings, along both public right-of-way, as well as on University streets. Ground floor uses may include offices, commercial, academic, housing, mixed-uses, lounges and multi-use lobbies, cafes, retail, hands-on collaboration spaces, convening spaces and meeting rooms. Such spaces may be thoughtfully placed and configured. The intent is to locate functions that attract pedestrian traffic in buildings along a street edge and that contribute to the liveliness and attractiveness of the vicinity.

The UW-Seattle campus is embedded within the larger urban fabric of the city and has multiple points of access. Gateways serve as important access points for pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles, and may provide a welcoming and clear sense of arrival on campus. Gateways also form key points of connectivity between campus sectors.

Where physically and financially possible, new parking shall be accommodated underground with minimal visual impact on or conflict with the public realm. Where physically and financially not possible, above grade parking is allowed. Above grade parking shall be wrapped with non-parking uses to the maximum extent possible on the active edges.

GREEN FACTOR

PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTORS

All development sites with active edges may have well-placed clearly identified and accessible pedestrian entry points, and ground level facades that make visible interior amenities and activities. The design may contribute to and enhance the quality of streetscape and neighborhood character with multi-functional landscapes and pedestrianenvironment amenities. Efforts should be made to minimize blank facades. Where possible, parking entrances on active edges should be minimized.

The University leverages its Urban Forestry Management Plan, best practices, and Design Review processes as it designs campus landscapes. The University shall make best efforts to be consistent with the City of Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green Factor requirements.

MODULATION The design of buildings shall strive to incorporate measures that provide for appropriate variety, break down massing, express varying functions of the building and respect the pedestrian scale at the ground level.

156 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Buildings, site improvements, infrastructure and landscapes may support and reinforce legible and safe pedestrian movement; promote connections to major transit nodes; create a functional pedestrian circulation network; reinforce connections to the waterfront; and embrace best practices with regard to universal design. Development may promote urban design best practices regarding streetscapes, green streets, parking, lighting, landscape, street furniture, signage, and pedestrian and bike integration.

The maps on pages 174, 189, 208, and 226 identify priority pedestrian connectors associated with new development, and are intended to function as central locations for pedestrian movement. Generally, the connectors may maintain a minimum width of 8 feet and could include pedestrian-oriented amenities, such as benches, paving, and landscape features.

SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS Loading, emergency access, and other service points may be located strategically, and away from major pedestrian thoroughfares and intersections to the greatest extent feasible. Where it is possible to share service areas and access with more than one site, this may be desirable to limit impacts.

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

157

CENTRAL CAMPUS Figure 122. Central Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

Central Campus Key Map

10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN Central Campus is a hub of learning activity and knowledge sharing, and it accommodates most academic and research facilities. Central Campus is home to the historic academic core and is characterized by significant open spaces framed by a mix of historic and recent buildings. The 10-year conceptual plan for Central Campus is designed to: ••

Preserve and enhance the character of the historic setting and its significant buildings and open spaces.

••

Maintain existing building height limits.

••

Concentrate development along the periphery of Campus sector to minimize interference with the existing campus character.

••

Provide additional capacity to support the University’s educational, research and service missions.

Figure 123. CENTRAL CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

158 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Central Campus Long-Term Vision

Figure 124. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

C7 C8 C9

C10 M on tl e ak Bl

PARRINGTON LAWN

vd N E

C11

C12

h 15t

C13

en Av

RED SQUARE

C14

C18 RA

C17 C16

INI

VI S

C15

s en ev St

ay W

NE Pacific Street

Existing Building Potential Building

Central Campus Boundary

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

159

h 15t en Av ue NE

PUBLIC REALM AND CONNECTIVITY Central Campus is characterized by major organizational axes, significant open spaces, and a multi-level pedestrian network interlaced with bikes and motor vehicle movement. The CMP proposes to: ••

••

Reinforce important connections and improves universal access by locating buildings along major pedestrian circulation paths. Improve gateways into Central Campus as visual enhancements that signify entries into the community, including improved landscaping, signage, artwork, or architectural features.

Paccar

••

Build a new connection to East Campus from the Husky Union Building (HUB) in the form of the East Campus Connection over NE Montlake Boulevard to the north of the existing pedestrian bridge into what is now the E-1 Parking Lot, and beyond into the Union Bay Natural Area.

••

Strengthen pedestrian connections across NE Pacific that extend to the waterfront.

••

Preserve and strengthen Rainier Vista and other sightlines to Union Bay, Mt. Rainer and Portage Bay.

Enhance pedestrian connections through Parrington Lawn to 15th Avenue NE, onto North Campus Housing, Population Health, and on existing pedestrian bridges over NE Pacific Street and NE Montlake Boulevard.

160 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

NE 4

3 rd

2nd NE 4

TON R IN G PAR AWN L

Odegaard

C am

pus

w Park

NE 4

0 th

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

Figure 125. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

NORTH CAMPUS HOUSING

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

Art

Significant Pedestrian Path

LIBER AL ARTS QU AD

Significant Open Space Active Ground Floor Existing Building

HUB

Kane

Suzzalo

Potential Building Gateway

CSE

Snoho

mish L

an e

Molecular Science

tl a

VI S

INI

Bagley

B ke d lv

Life Sciences

NE Pacific Street

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

161

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Framing Memorial Way entrance at 45th

••

Along Stevens Way to the south

••

Along 15th Avenue NE south of the 40th Street entrance

Most of the University’s historic building stock is located in the heart of Central Campus. New development shall respect the scale of the surrounding historic context and adhere to established University policies regarding historic preservation.

160’

37’/30’

240’ 200’

160’

160’/ 130’

65’

160’ 105’

105’ 160’ 65’ Figure 126. Central Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights

65’

200’ 37’/30’

240’ 105’

Figure 127. Central Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

162 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

C2-65

50’ 90’/80’

105’

50’

C1-65

160’/ 130’

••

65’

LR1

NC3 P-65

Between NE Stevens Way and NE Montlake Boulevard to the east

LR3

SM-U 75-240

Development sites throughout Central Campus maintain the existing building height limits and are concentrated along the perimeter of the campus sector. Development sites are concentrated: ••

LR3

SM-U 85

Building Height

160’

Development Capacity The development sites map and detailed capacity figures are identified on pages 164 to 165. ••

The CMP identifies a total of roughly 2.7 million gross square feet of potential development throughout Central Campus.

••

To achieve the long-term vision would necessitate the replacement of roughly 1.1 million gross square feet of existing space, resulting in a total net new development area of 1.6 million gross square feet.

••

The CMP development limit for Central Campus is 900,000 net new gross square feet, a little over half of the projected Central Campus growth capacity, or 15 percent of the total 6 million net new gross square feet growth allowance. This allows for flexibility in siting building projects over time.

MIO-37/30

MIO-160/107

MIO-50

MIO-160/130

MIO-65

MIO-160

MIO-90/80

MIO-200

MIO-105

MIO-240 200’ Shoreline District Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

163

* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites ** Gross square feet are accounted for within the 2003 Campus Master Plan *** Total incorporates gross square feet that are already accounted for under the 2003 CMP related to sites C5 and C6

Table 9. Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet SITE ID

SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

West of Memorial Way / N1 Parking Lot

290,000

200,000

69%

68,916

131,084

105

East of Memorial Way / N5 Parking Lot

265,000

135,000

51%

135,000

105

Mackenzie Replacement / N3 Parking Lot

165,000

145,000

88%

101,901

105

Intellectual House Phase 2

40,000

5,000

13%

5,000

105

A/MU

North Campus Housing 1 (Building A)**/***

170,000

110,000

65%

110,000

105

A/H

North Campus Housing 2 (Building E) / Haggett Hall Site / N9, 10, 11 Parking Lots **/***

535,000

290,000

54%

206,114

83,886

160

A/H

McMahon Hall Site / N13, 14, 15 Parking Lots

600,000

400,000

67%

288,352

111,648

160

177

A/MU/H/T

Padelford Garage North Site / N16, 18, 20, 21*

315,000

245,000

78%

138,555

106,445

105

217*

A/MU/T

Padelford Hall South Site*

185,000

155,000

84%

155,000

105

217*

A/MU/T

C10

Padelford Garage South Site*

230,000

145,000

63%

145,000

105

218*

A/MU/T

C11

Facility Services Admin Bldg / University Facilities Bldg and Annex 1

120,000

85,000

71%

20,125

64,875

105

C12

Plant Op Annexes 2-6 / University Facilities Annex 2 / C23 Parking Lot

230,000

115,000

50%

18,860

96,140

105

C13

Sieg Hall Replacement

145,000

130,000

90%

57,180

72,820

105

C14

Mechanical Eng / Eng Annex / C15 Parking Lot

300,000

215,000

72%

125,896

89,104

105

A/MU

C15

Wilcox / Wilson Ceramics Lab Site / Wilson Annex

90,000

60,000

67%

50,328

9,672

A/MU

C16

Benson Hall / C7 Parking Lot

320,000

210,000

66%

76,271

133,729

105

A/MU

C17

Chem Library Site

130,000

85,000

65%

39,363

45,637

105

A/MU

C18

South of Henry Art Gallery

70,000

35,000

50%

35,000

105

A/MU

TOTAL - CENTRAL***

4,200,000

2,765,000

64%

43,099

1,133,059

1,631,941

CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

213

A/MU/T

170

A/MU/T

A/MU

A/MU/T

A/MU/T A/MU

1,389

Academic General Uses: A - Academic; H - Housing; MU - Mixed Use; T - Transportation; OS - Open Space; IP - Industry Partnership/Manufacturing; ACC - Academic Conference Center “Maximum Building Height Limit” refers to the height limit allowed under the MIO zoning height.

164 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Development Sites

Figure 128. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

C5 C3

C10

Blvd lake

M o nt

15th Avenue NE

C18 C11 C12

C13 C17

C14

C16

Steve n Pa c

ifi

St r

s Way

C15 t

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

165

ZONE D ZONE E

Central Campus Design Guidance Design guidance related to the seven development zones throughout Central Campus is provided on the following pages.

ZONE B ZONE A ZONE G

ZONE C

ZONE F

Figure 129. Central Campus Development Zones

166 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

DEVELOPMENT ZONE A

Figure 130. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Make Red Square more inviting

Improve universal access connections to Red Square

em or ia ay lW N E

Universal access connections to Red Square from Memorial Way and Campus Parkway

Kane

Geo

rg e

shi

on ng t

Suzzallo

Allen

Odegaard

RED SQUARE

St 41st NE

Henry Art Gallery

Gerberding

Protect and enhance Mt. Rainier view corridor and universal access

Meany

C18

e St ve ns ay W NE

ve hA 15t

Enhance gateway at NE 40th Street; activate and frame street edges

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

167

DEVELOPMENT ZONE B

Formally front and address Denny Yard

Figure 131. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Memo

Respect historic adjacencies and comply with the guidelines on historic preservation on pages 153 to 155

Enhance pedestrian connections to North Campus Housing along Stevens Way and NE Chelan Lane

a y NE rial W

Preserve Liberal Arts Quadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cherry trees and enhance universal access of pathways Business School Complex

Art

Clark Music

Denny

Raitt

O nd

ill

dN eR

DENNY YARD Miller

Preserve Denny Yard

Communications

LIBERAL ARTS QUAD Savery

Thomson

St e

W ay

Smith

W as

Sp o

kan e

L an

Gowen

GRIEG GARDEN

Legend

Improve universal access within and throughout Denny Yard

Existing UW Building Potential Building Building Envelope

Improve multi-modal use of Skagit Lane

168 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Significant Open Space

DEVELOPMENT ZONE C

Figure 132. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Enhance pedestrian connections between Rainier Vista and Hitchcock overpass

Activate public realm with building entrances along Stevens Way and Thurston Lane

Opportunity for â&#x20AC;&#x153;science quadâ&#x20AC;? open space that unifies and celebrates Drumheller Fountain and vicinity and connects engineering facilities

Molecular Eng. and Sci.

C17

Johnson Atmosph. Sci. Geophysics

C16

Mary Gates

eve n E St

Bagley

yN s Wa

C13 Husky Union Building

Chemistry Guggenheim

Aerosp. Rsrch

Preserve mature street trees along Stevens Way

Kirsten

Paul G. Allen Ctr for Comp. Sci. and Eng.

ST A

Electrical Engineering

E B

A Respect adjacency to Medicinal Herb Garden

Protect and enhance Rainier Vista landscape and universal access

C F

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

169

DEVELOPMENT ZONE D

Figure 133. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Respect historic setting for observatory to comply with historic preservation guidelines, pages 153 through 155

Maintain access to Hughes Penthouse Theater

Contribute to the development of the Burke Court and pedestrian environment NE th 45

Parrington

St Cunningham

N GTO R IN PAR AWN L

C2 o ri a Mem Way

N Ave 15th

William H. Gates

New Burke Museum

Respect and enhance Memorial Way as a ceremonial entry and WWI Memorial

Minimize/reduce barriers along 15th Avenue NE to create a welcoming campus edge

Legend Enhance pedestrian connections into campus from surrounding urban fabric, addressing this as a new major gateway from the future Sound Transit station

170 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Existing UW Building Potential Building Building Envelope Significant Open Space

DEVELOPMENT ZONE E

Figure 134. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Activate the public realm by locating entry plazas and building entrances along Stevens Way and major pedestrian paths

45 th St

Locate service access away from high-volume pedestrian areas Hansee

Enhance pedestrian and bike connections and experience along Pend Oreille Enhance campus gateway landscape to celebrate Pend Oreille function as a major campus entrance

C5 Respect surrounding buildings and preserve sightlines to the water

C7 Incorporate universal access through buildings on steep slopes Hall Health

n eve E St

ay N sW

E UW Club

Fluke

Pend O

B l vd

Minimize and improve points of conflict at major crossing of the Burke-Gilman Trail

ve hA t 25

d NE reille R

C10 Ma

Rd N son

Strive to incorporate parking into topography lake o nt

North Physics Lab

Maintain and enhance the wooded character of the east slope and experiential landscape quality of the BurkeGilman Trail

Facilitate connections between East and Central Campus

E B

A G

C F

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

171

DEVELOPMENT ZONE F

Figure 135. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Activate the public realm by locating building entrances along Stevens Way and major pedestrian paths

Preserve mature tree canopy along Stevens Way

NE P acifi

c St

Protect Rainier Vista view corridor

C1 4

Anderson.

Eng. Libr. Loew

C1 2

e St

ay W s n

C11

Bloedel

Winken.

Power Plant

Roberts

ST A

eB l ak o nt

C15

Incorporate parking into topography

Enhance connections between Central and East Campus

Preserve existing mature trees along Mason Road

Improve points of conflict at major crossings of the Burke-Gilman Trail and enhance pedestrian and bike experience Legend Existing UW Building Potential Building Building Envelope Significant Open Space

172 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

l vd

DEVELOPMENT ZONE G

Figure 136. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Building heights need to be sensitive to the daylighting needs of the sundial mounted on the south face of the Physics-Astronomy Tower, and the Life Sciences Building greenhouses

Improve campus gateway experience and quality

Maintain and preserve mature canopy along Stevens Way

Minimize shadows on existing buildings and open spaces W St

eve n

s Wa

Preserve character and quality of landscape around bus stops, which are public art pieces

y NE Life Sciences

Architecture Guthrie

Kincaid

15th Av

Physics/ Astronomy

e NE

Auditorium

Tower

D Facilitate universal access and connections between West and Central Campus

B Facilitate connections between the Burke-Gilman Trail and the waterfront

e Av NE

ifi ac EP

t cS

th 15

Activate the public realm along 15th Avenue through strategic building entrances and/or destination public uses; integrate ADA access to Central Campus

A G

C F

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

173

NE 45th St

MEMORIAL GATEWAY

Hansee Hall

Burke Museum

Hughes Stevens Way

Dempsey

Paccar

DENNY YARD Raitt Music LIBERAL ARTS QUAD Savery

Guggenheim

Guthrie

Bagley

Chemistry

Kincaid

Electrical Engineering Computer Science and Engineering

Life Sciences

Pa c

ifi

cS t

Engineering Library Loew Power Plant

CSE 2

Roberts Anderson Bloedel

Winkenwerder

174 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Road

M ason

Mary Gates

Fluke

lvd N E

Molecular Johnson Eng.

Husky Union Building

UW Club

lake B

Allen

Gerberding

Physics/ Astronomy

Hall Health

Suzzallo Library

Meany

sW ay

Thomson GRIEG GARDEN

Whitman Ct NE

Smith Gowen

RED SQUARE

Miller Comm.

Kane

Odegaard

Clark

M o nt

15th Ave NE

Art

Parrington

Ste ven

Pen d

Denny Hall

O re

Lewis

PARRINGTON LAWN

Henry Art

North Physics Lab

ill e

Memorial Way

William H. Gates

DENNY FIELD Hutchinson

Central Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance Figure 137. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mid-block Corridor View Corridor 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

DESIGN GUIDANCE Gateway Active Edge Significant Open Space Forested Edge Priority Pedestrian Connector Shared Street Streetscape Improvements Service Access Potential Parking Access

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

175

WEST CAMPUS Figure 138. West Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

West Campus Key Map

10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN West Campus is the most urban of the four campus sectors and accommodates a range of uses including student housing, academic, research, and cultural programs. Given its regional transportation access from I-5, transit services, retail, research in numerous fields, as well as cafes, industry and a significant supply of student housing, West Campus is uniquely positioned to become an innovation district within the broader Seattle region. The 10-year conceptual plan for West Campus is designed to: ••

Balance dense development with access to open space.

••

Structure proposed development around a new proposed green, which shall function as the heart of the district.

••

Activate ground floor functions.

••

Extend and re-establish the street grid, while improving pedestrian connections to South and Central Campus.

••

Provide flexible building footprints and massing to accommodate a range of functions, including academic and research partnerships.

••

Connect the University District to the waterfront. Figure 139. WEST CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

176 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

West Campus Long-Term Vision

Figure 140. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

W19 W20

W21

W22

W28 W26

W24

W25 th 15

W27

en Av ue

W23

W37

W29 PL A

BELV

EDE

NE Pac

ific Stre

W35

W32

W36

M PU T CA S E W EN GRE ge

W34

W31

W30

W33

ive

r sit

ri d

CIT Y OF PORTAG SEATTLE E BAY P AR K

Existing Building

West Campus Boundary

Potential Building

200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

177

PUBLIC REALM AND CONNECTIVITY The quality of the public realm varies throughout West Campus. Campus Parkway provides an example of a streetscape that integrates open space and programmatic amenities with high levels of transparency, creating an active and desirable public realm. New student housing has improved the pedestrian realm along the exterior Campus Parkway sidewalks. Other areas remain underdeveloped and grittier in character. Urban development around a traditional street grid, a defining feature of West Campus, has not been accompanied with integrated open space.

••

Introduce new east-west connections between West and South Campus along NE Skamania Lane and Boat Street and to Central Campus along NE 40th Street, NE Campus Parkway, and a new pedestrian path south of Gould Hall that link to University Way.

••

Activate ground floors along major pedestrian routes with public destinations including Brooklyn Avenue and Campus Parkway.

The long-term future of West Campus is envisioned with a rich new open space network that reinforces its diverse urban context and enhances the pedestrian experience throughout the area. In West Campus, the CMP proposes to: ••

Strengthen north-south pedestrian connections to the waterfront and the City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park from the University District, and complete the continuous waterfront trail along the campus edge. 11th and 12th Avenues are extended as shared street corridors through redeveloped Stevens Court sites toward the West Campus Green.

178 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

B en

Hall

n catio Publi ices v r Se

Br oo kly

N ve hA

Figure 141. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

eN Av

ve nA

t 12

h 11t

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

am NE C

Poplar

a rk w pus P

Significant Pedestrian Path

Elm

Significant Open Space NE 4

Alder

t 0 th S

Active Ground Floor Existing Building

Gould

Maple ECC

Potential Building Relocate Existing Uses

Police

Gateway Potential Street Vacation

WCUP

BELVEDERE

Mercer Cour t

PLAZA Burke-Gilm

ries

al .W M

Fishe

Pacific St re

an Trail

la s e ri e F ish hin g c a Te earch Res nter Ce

CITY OF SEATTL E PORTAGE BAY PA RK

NE Skam

S M PU T CA WE S E E N GR

ania Lan

rin e Ma ies d Stu

SAKUMA

n ti

Boa t St re e nu o t us Wa te r fr o n

t Tr

ail

Boat Street is not changed by this CMP

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

179

West Campus Green and Plaza Under the Long-Term Vision, West Campus is anchored by the new West Campus Green (north of Boat Street), which seamlessly integrates with the City of Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new Portage Bay Park (south of Boat Street). The combined open spaces would provide seven acres of open space bordered by new

development and small pavilion spaces with amenities for park visitors. A plaza at the north end of the Green atop a stepped terrace would provide a venue to highlight University activities and contributions through activated ground floor uses.

Figure 142. West Campus existing birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eye view (above) and Figure 143. Illustrative rendering of the West Campus Green (opposite)

180 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

West Campus Green

Figure 143. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

PLAZA

enue Brooklyn Av

Fisheries

WEST CAMPUS GREEN B o at

Stre e

CIT Y PORT OF SEATT AGE L BAY P E AR K

SAKUM

A VIEW

POINT

AGUA VERDE

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

181

Brooklyn Avenue A lively and vital pedestrian environment is the vision for the West Campus public realm. The West Campus Green to the south and University District light rail station to the north shall increase pedestrian traffic along Brooklyn Avenue and other north-south connectors. Brooklyn Avenue is envisioned as a street with active ground floor functions, high levels of transparency, landscape and streetscape improvements to promote safe and inviting movement. The City of Seattle has designated Brooklyn Avenue NE, 43rd Street, and NE 42nd Street neighborhood green streets.

Accordingly, the City has published a draft University District Green Streets Concept Plan that articulates a design intention for each street, and recommends materials for paving, planting, and furnishings. The provisions of the Concept Plan are voluntary. However, for the segments of Brooklyn Avenue NE, 43rd Street, and NE 42nd Street within the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s MIO, the University shall strive to follow the guidance provided in the Concept Plan for any improvements to those streets in order to provide a cohesive pedestrian environment. The draft Concept Plan is included in this CMP as an appendix on page 300.

Ethnic Cultu

ral Center

Figure 144. Existing view of Brooklyn Avenue looking south toward the waterfront (above) and Figure 145. rendering of Brooklyn Avenue at NE 40th Street (opposite). Right-of-way of Brooklyn Avenue does not change and will accommodate service vehicles and trucks.

182 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Brooklyn Avenue

Figure 145. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

ETHNIC CULT

UR AL CENTER

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

183

15th Avenue NE The 15th Avenue corridor runs north-south between Central and West Campuses. The CMP re-imagines 15th Avenue as an activated pedestrian-oriented street with enhanced streetscapes and increased access between campus sectors, while retaining its functionality as a transit corridor. Specific recommendations include the following: ••

••

Enhanced planting, lighting, and furnishings, and removal of retaining walls improves the permeability of the campus, notably at Parrington Lawn, NE 43rd Street, and the development site south of the 40th Street Gateway. The new Burke Museum activates the street edge, and locates an entrance at NE 43rd Street.

••

Introduction of a street level plaza at NE 42nd Street improves universal access to Parrington Lawn and welcomes visitors.

15t h

NE 42nd and 43rd are designated as “Green Streets”.

••

Active edges may be located along 15th Avenue.

••

Pedestrian bridge overpass across 15th Avenue NE is improved and integrated with new development or relocated to maintain and enhance universal access.

••

Population Health building replaces concrete wall with active transparent destination spaces and pedestrian connections and improved open spaces behind Architecture Hall.

Av en

rke

re St th 5 4

se u

m Ga

tr dS

n 42

r St

Figure 146. Former retaining wall along NE 15th Avenue at NE 43rd Street, removed north of 43rd by the New Burke Museum

Figure 147. Rendering of proposed Burke Museum at the corner of 15th Avenue NE and NE 43rd Street (Source: Olson Kundig)

184 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

s 41

r St

Transformation of 15th Avenue NE

Figure 148. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

ri a

lW ay

Significant Pedestrian Path

te s

Significant Open Space PARRINGTON LAWN

Active Ground Floor Existing Building Potential Building

RED SQUARE

Gateway View Corridor

nr y

Ar t

ll e r

Ste ven

Pop

al tr e n in g C k To Par

e al

il di

ul d

Pol ic

Ph A s t ys i c s ro m / ony

15t h

Av en

St r

To G Ca at m ew p u ay s

ti o

th 40

r Pa

ul a

sW ay

ive

r si

fi Paci

Wa y

ee c Str

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

185

NC3 P-65 SM-U 75-240

SM-U/R 75240 (M1)

BUILT ENVIRONMENT Building Height Surface parking lots and underdeveloped parcels provide West Campus with significant redevelopment potential. New building height limits in West Campus relate to the adjacent zoning in the University District. Building height limits step down toward the waterfront to allow waterfront views and access to light and air.

MR (M1)

SM-U 75-240

SM-U 75240

65’

240’

160’/ 130’

200’

105’

200’

160’/ 130’

160’

105’ 37’/30’

65’ 50’ 37’

200’

65’

105’

Figure 149. West Campus 2003 CMP Existing Building Heights

Figure 150. West Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

186 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Development Capacity The development sites map and detailed capacity figures are identified on pages 188 to 189. ••

The CMP identifies a total of roughly 4.5 million gross square feet of potential development throughout West Campus.

••

To achieve the long-term vision would necessitate the replacement of roughly 800,000 gross square feet of existing space, resulting in a total net new development area of 3.7 million gross square feet.

••

The CMP development limit for West Campus is 3.0 million net new gross square feet, about 80 percent of the full West Campus growth capacity, or 50 percent of the total 6.0 million net new gross square feet growth allowance.

MIO-37/30

MIO-160/107

MIO-50

MIO-160/130

MIO-65

MIO-160

MIO-90/80

MIO-200

MIO-105

MIO-240 200’ Shoreline District Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

187

* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites

Table 10. West Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

W19

Schmitz Hall Site

575,000

365,000

64%

99,691

265,309

240

W20

Staff / HR Building Site

105,000

40,000

35%

10,831

29,169

240

W21

Condon Hall Site

615,000

390,000

63%

132,533

257,467

240

W22

W41 Parking Lot Site

315,000

175,000

56%

175,000

240

A/MU/T/IP

W23

W42 Parking Lot / Henderson Hall Site

430,000

345,000

79%

238,660

240

A/MU/IP

W24

W10 Parking Lot

690,000

405,000

58%

405,000

240

A/MU/T/IP

W25

Child Care / Brooklyn Trail /SW Maintenance / W11 Parking Lot

845,000

375,000

44%

23,497

351,503

240

A/MU/T/IP

W26

CDC / Ethnic Cultural Center Theater Site

680,000

390,000

57%

32,999

357,001

240

W27

Purchasing Accounting / W12, 13 Parking Lots

490,000

340,000

69%

39,576

300,424

200

W28

West of Commodore Duchess Site

110,000

40,000

35%

40,000

240

W29

Stevens Court East (A, B, C, H) / W29 Parking Lot

320,000

205,000

64%

79,104

125,896

160

130

A/MU/T/IP

W30

Stevens Court West (D, J, K, L, M) / W32, 33 Parking Lots

820,000

425,000

51%

138,340

286,660

200

A/MU/T/IP

W31

W35 Parking Lot Site Pavilion

105,000

20,000

18%

20,000

160

130

A/MU/IP

W32

Wallace Hall Pavilion / Marine Studies / Fish Teaching and Research

80,000

15,000

18%

96,546

-81,546

160

130

W33

Ocean Research 2 / NOAA / W24, 28 Parking Lots

345,000

235,000

68%

11,267

223,733

160

130

A/MU/IP

W34

Portage Bay Parking Garage

410,000

230,000

56%

230,000

160

130

895

MU/T/IP

W35

University Transportation Center

370,000

225,000

60%

225,000

160

130

A/MU/IP

W36

Fisheries Parking Lot (PUDA)

100,000

90,000

86%

90,000

160

130

W37

Northlake Building / W40 Parking Lot Site

455,000

245,000

53%

22,077

222,923

160

130

TOTAL - WEST

7,860,000

4,555,000

55%

792,801

3,762,199

SITE ID

106,340

CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

A/MU/T/IP 90

A/MU A/MU/T/IP

A/MU/T/IP 96

A/MU/T/IP A/MU/IP

A/MU/IP

A/MU/T/IP 34

A/MU/T/IP

1,477

188 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Brooklyn Avenue NE

NE ue Av en 11t h

Roosevelt Way NE

W22

Development Sites

W21

Figure 151. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

W19

W20 Campus Parkway

W28 W24

W26

12th Avenue NE

W30

W27 W29

W31

W34

ifi

St r

W33

W35

Pa c

Av en

Brooklyn Avenue NE

W32

15 th

W36

ive

rsi

B ri

11th Avenue NE

W25

15th Avenue NE

W23

University Way NE

W37

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

189

West Campus Design Guidance Design guidance related to the four development zones throughout West Campus is provided on the following pages.

ZONE H ZONE K ZONE I

ZONE J

Figure 152. West Campus Development Zones

190 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

DEVELOPMENT ZONE H

Figure 153. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Promote variation and modulation in faรงades with second upper level setbacks on Campus Parkway and University Way Large floorplates may explore strategies for bringing in natural light

Eagleson

Create enhanced pedestrian connections between NE 41st and Campus Parkway

Elm

W19

W20

s Roo eve

15 th

Alder

ay lt W

Lander

st St NE 41

it y

Maple

W ay

Av e

u s Pk

p C am

Commodore Duchess

W28

W21

W22

Activate ground floor uses on Campus Parkway and University Way

So Sp cia He e e c l W ar h a o rk in g nd /

Poplar Cedar

Improve ADA access between Campus Parkway and Meany Plaza along pedestrian bridge, and from Meany Plaza to Red Square

kl yn e Av

ve hA 11t NE

NE 40th St

e Av th 12

Terry

H I J

Continue to enhance pedestrian experience, public realm, and street character along Campus Parkway with generous sidewalks, street trees and adjacency of public/active spaces, similar to development in front of residence halls. Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

191

DEVELOPMENT ZONE I

Figure 154. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Reinforce Brooklyn Avenue as an active corridor with public-facing ground floor uses Activate building edge along Burke-Gilman Trail and adhere to the 20â&#x20AC;&#x2122; trail setback

Space towers to allow ample light and air Orient towers to minimize shadows on existing streets and buildings

Improve pedestrian connection south of Gould Hall

W26 Gould

W25

W24

UWPD

W27 UWCUP

t Stree

W23

W30

Burke-Gilman

PL A Z A

Trail

DERE BELVE

Mercer Court Apartments

West Receiving Station

ay W

it y

Br yn

ge B ri d it y

Enhance open space to improve access and use Legend

ve r s

ve hA 11t

Un i

e Av

e Av th 12

NE Pacific St

15th Av

i ve

e NE

0th NE 4

W29

Improve quality of the public realm and increase light filtration to street level through podiums Design 11th and 12th as shared streets that prioritize pedestrian and bike movement and limit vehicular access

Create accessible green open spaces connected to Burke-Gilman Trail on either side of Brooklyn north of Pacific with adjacent active ground floor uses

192 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Existing UW Building Potential Building Building Envelope Significant Open Space Existing Uses Relocated 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

DEVELOPMENT ZONE J

Establish street wall and active public destinations to improve scale and pedestrian experience along both sides of Brooklyn Avenue, the major northsouth pedestrian corridor

Figure 155. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Step buildings to increase views to water and minimize shadows on surrounding buildings 15 th

Buildings to be designed as pavilions within the green Br oo kl

W34

Av e

W35

yn e Av N E

W 32

Respect 30’ building height limit within the 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

W33

al .W M la ce

NE Pacific St

Fishery Sciences

1 W3

W3 6 s ri e he g F is chin h Tea earc s Re nter Ce

e rin M a die s Stu

WEST CAMPUS GREEN

Boat St

Agua Verde

CITY OF SEATTLE PORTAGE BAY PARK

Connect new development to the waterfront trail and parks

Enhance courtyard space as a functional landscape, providing sense of privacy to building users

Develop Brooklyn as a vibrant pedestrian street with bicycle connections to the waterfront and mid-block connections east-west Create a flexible and multi-purpose open space complementing and extending the City of Seattle’s Portage Bay Park

H I J

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

193

DEVELOPMENT ZONE K

Buildings with large floorplates may explore strategies for bringing in natural light

Figure 156. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Retain and enhance wooded character of the Burke-Gilman Trail and provide building connections that accommodate universal access with minimal disturbance

Respect the 20â&#x20AC;&#x2122; setback from the Burke-Gilman Trail

Burke

-Gilm

an Tra

W37

Publication Services

t hS 40 t

Benjamin D. Hall Interdisciplinary Research

NE Northlake Pl

Bridg e

Consistent podium heights and setbacks allow for pedestrianscale daylight and views

rsit y

Improve street character and pedestrian safety along NE Northlake Place and BurkeGilman Trail

ay ke W

Unive

la or th

NE Pacific St

Legend Existing UW Building Potential Building Building Envelope Significant Open Space Existing Uses Relocated 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

194 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Elm

Terry

Lander

Poplar

Social Work

Figure 157. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Play House

Alder Commodore Duchess

Publication Service Ethnic Cultural Center

Gould

NE Northlake Way

ive

rsi

id g

Benjamin Hall

Maple

University Way NE

Brooklyn Ave NE

Cedar Apartments

West Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance

Mercer Court

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mid-block Corridor View Corridor 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay Fishery Sciences

West Receiving Station

DESIGN GUIDANCE Gateway Active Edge Significant Open Space

William H. Foege

Forested Edge Priority Pedestrian Connector

City of Seattle Portage Bay Park

Shared Street Streetscape Improvements Service Access Potential Parking Access

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

195

SOUTH CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN

Figure 158. South Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

South Campus Key Map

South Campus supports UW’s Health Sciences functions and the Medical Center. It is home to academic, research, and clinical functions for six health sciences schools and assorted environmental and natural settings, along a continuous waterfront that is largely accessible. Its monolithic structure is dense and disorienting both inside and out.

In South Campus, the CMP proposes the redevelopment of much of the health sciences complex incrementally over time to: ••

Increase development capacity, and create a state-of-the-art health sciences complex and academic medical center.

••

Create an inviting, functional and attractive public realm.

••

Reduce the monolithic character of development in a manner that promotes school identity, orientation and connectivity.

••

Leverage and celebrate its prime location on the waterfront with a shared campus green, continuous waterfront trail, courtyards and upper terraces.

••

Improve access to West, Central, and East Campus through enhanced pedestrian connections and a continuous waterfront trail. Figure 159. SOUTH CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

196 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

South Campus Long-Term Vision

Figure 160. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

M on tl a

S39

VI S

S42

S40

S43

S41

BAY VISTA

S38

lvd

Pacific Street

INI

B ke

S46

S47

PORTAGE

S45

S49

S50

S52

S44

S56 S57

S48

NE Columbia Rd

S54 S51

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

Existing Building

South Campus Boundary

Potential Building

200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

S53

S55

O NU NTI CO

TE WA

T TR ON R FR

AIL

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

197

h 15t N Ave E

PUBLIC REALM AND CONNECTIVITY

••

East-west connections along Skamania Lane and the continuous waterfront trail improve universal access and link the West Campus Green, Portage Bay Vista, the South Campus Green and the Glade.

••

North-south connections including the Upper Green and smaller scale parcelization through specific development sites throughout South Campus provide porosity, and enhance physical and provide visual connections from upper campus sectors to the waterfront.

••

Parking and service access are located away from or beneath significant new or enhanced landscape spaces.

••

Enhanced landscape, active ground floor uses, and open space connections improve the quality of the pedestrian experience along Pacific Street.

Foege

The South Campus Green serves as the significant outdoor open space and gathering area for the UW and broader community.

nu Ave

••

Transparent facades define edges of major pedestrian and vehicular streets, create an active public realm and improve safety while preserving the privacy of research and academic spaces above.

re e c St

klyn

••

acifi NE P

B ro o

The public realm for South Campus is envisioned as a highly connected, porous and active environment.

Burke-Gilman Trail

PLAZA

am a E Sk

nia

Lan

PORTAGE BAY VISTA

WEST CAMPUS GREEN

198 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

K Wing Ocean Scie

nces

Marin

e Scie

n ce s

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

Figure 161. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Mo ntl ake d B lv

Significant Pedestrian Path Significant Open Space Active Ground Floor Existing Building Potential Building Gateway

H Wing UWMC Surgery Pavilion

Montlake

Tower

GLADE

SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

IN CONT

RO ATERF O US W

A NT TR

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

199

Pedestrian Crossings The CMP proposes to enhance and expand connections among South, Central, and West Campuses, and the waterfront. The primary pedestrian crossing would extend into the South Campus Green, and include active uses on the lower levels and afford views of the waterfront.

Figure 162. Existing pedestrian bridge to Magnuson Health Sciences Center (above) and rendering of view to Portage Bay along the South Campus Green (opposite)

200 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Pedestrian Crossing over Pacific Street

Figure 163. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

201

160’ BUILT ENVIRONMENT

160/130’

105’

Building Height ••

••

Increased height and density throughout South Campus allows for more area to be dedicated to open space. The parcelization of development reduces the monolithic nature of the health sciences complex today, enhances visual and physical connections between Central Campus and the waterfront, and improves overall organizational clarity and legibility and individual identities of the health sciences schools and Medical Center area.

Building heights step down toward the shoreline and increase views from buildings to the water.

••

New development south of NE Columbia Road has a maximum development height of 105 feet; any structures within the Shoreline District Overlay are limited to 30 feet

65’

240’ 37’/30’

Building masses are oriented north-south to increase light and reduce shadows on other buildings.

••

200’

105’ 50’

Figure 164. South Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

Buildings along the shoreline are scaled to maximize light and minimize shadows on the South Campus Green.

105’ 65’ 240’ 50’ Figure 165. South Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights

202 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Development Capacity The development sites map and detailed capacity figures are identified on pages 204 to 205. ••

The CMP identifies a total of roughly 5.0 million gross square feet of potential development throughout South Campus.

••

To achieve the long-term vision would necessitate the replacement of roughly 2.8 million gross square feet of existing space, resulting in a total net new development area of 2.2 million gross square feet.

••

The CMP development limit for South Campus is 1.35 million net new gross square feet, about 61 percent of the South Campus growth capacity, or 23 percent of the total 6.0 million net new gross square feet growth allowance. This allows for flexibility in siting building projects.

MIO-37/30

MIO-160/107

MIO-50

MIO-160/130

MIO-65

MIO-160

MIO-90/80

MIO-200

MIO-105

MIO-240 200’ Shoreline District Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

203

*The potential number of new parking spaces for South Campus. Specific parking spaces per development site have not been identified, since the proposed parking is designed as a contiguous podium.

Table 11. South Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet SITE ID

SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

S38

SCSII B

370,000

160,000

43%

S39

SCSII C / Hitchcock Hall Site

280,000

270,000

96%

S40

SCSII D / J Wing

580,000

425,000

S41

SCSII E / I Wing and G Wing

685,000

S42

SCSII F / T Wing

S43

CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

160,000

200

A/MU

116,416

153,584

200

A/MU

73%

170,719

254,281

200

A/MU/T

280,000

41%

215,620

64,380

200

A/MU

500,000

340,000

68%

493,496

-153,496

240

A/MU

SCSII G / A Wing and C Wing

375,000

320,000

85%

101,489

218,511

240

A/MU

S44

SCSII H

385,000

310,000

81%

310,000

240

A/MU

S45

SCSII I / F Wing

340,000

165,000

49%

122,767

42,233

200

A/MU

S46

SCSII J / D Wing

275,000

245,000

89%

183,975

61,025

200

A/MU

S47

SCSII K / B Wing

525,000

345,000

66%

117,619

227,381

200

A/MU

S48

SCSII L / RR Wing, BB Wing, SW Wing

520,000

415,000

80%

454,692

-39,692

200

A/MU

S49

SCSII M / Ocean Teaching / S5, S6 Parking Lot

100,000

100%

51,552

48,448

105

A/MU

S50

SCSII N / S1 Parking Garage

385,000

260,000

68%

260,000

105

805

A/MU

S51

SCSII O / Harris Hydraulics Lab / South Campus Center / S7, S12 Parking Lot

30,000

20,000

67%

-72,785

A/MU

S52

SCSII P

425,000

275,000

65%

275,000

105

S53

SCSII Q / Portage Bay Building / Oceanography Bldg, Dock, and Shed / S8 Parking Lot

60,000

40,000

67%

128,712

-88,712

S54

SCSII R / CHDD Clinic and School / S9 Parking Lot

440,000

350,000

80%

115,943

234,057

105

S55

SCSII S / CHDD South Building

35,000

25,000

71%

12,378

12,622

S56

SCSII T / NN Wing

385,000

280,000

73%

122,217

157,783

240

A/MU

S57

SCSII U / EA Wing and EB Wing

430,000

360,000

84%

275,885

84,115

240

A/MU

TOTAL - SOUTH

7,125,000

4,985,000

72%

2,776,265

2,208,735

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

92,785

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

A/MU 30

A/MU

846

204 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Development Sites

15 th

Av en

Figure 166. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

S38 S39

S40

Pa c

ifi

St r

S41 S49

S50

S42

S45 a

Ro a

S43

S46

S51

S44

S47 S52

S48

S56 S57

S55

S54

Montlake Blvd

S53

200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

205

South Campus Design Guidance Design guidance related to the single development zone for South Campus is provided on the following pages.

ZONE L

Figure 167. South Campus Development Zone

206 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Development needs to be sensitive to the daylighting needs of the sundial and Life Sciences greenhouses

Av e

S42

S39 S38

c St NE Pacifi

Figure 168. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Develop Columbia Road as an important connector within the pedestrian realm, as well as a route for service and access. Buildings may frame its “walls” and step back to allow light on the street. Building entries may be located to help activate the street-level public realm and integrate internal and external routes across campus

Balance increased density with an enhanced public realm and view corridors

Create porosity and transparency at ground level along NE Pacific Street and pedestrian connections 15 th

DEVELOPMENT ZONE L

Promote variation and modulation in façades with second upper level setbacks on Pacific Street

S40

S46

S41

S4 4

S43 S47

S50 Ocean Sciences

S49 S51

S57

S48

UWMC Surgery Pavilion

ntl

Montlake Tower

S45 Foege

S56

ake

Blv

S54

S52

S55 S53 Respect 30’ building height limit within the 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Marine Sciences

Legend Existing UW Building

Reinforce connections to West Campus

Enhance universal access between Central and South Campus

Step back buildings to minimize shadows, maximize natural light to individual buildings, and views of water Create an accessible open space/ South Campus Green along the waterfront to serve as a public realm amenity

Potential Building Building Envelope Significant Open Space Existing Uses Relocated 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

207

Av e 15 th

is t

William H. Foege

Pa c

ifi

Po r

cS t

Ocean Sciences K-Wing

H-Wing

Jensen Motor Boat

Marine Sciences

Montlake Tower

UW Surgery Pavilion Glade

208 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Montlake Boulevard NE

Utility Plant

South Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance Figure 169. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mid-block Corridor View Corridor 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

DESIGN GUIDANCE Gateway Active Edge Significant Open Space Forested Edge Priority Pedestrian Connector Shared Street Streetscape Improvements Service Access Potential Parking Access

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

209

EAST CAMPUS Figure 170. East Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

East Campus Key Map

10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN VISION East Campus currently accommodates athletics and recreational activities with parking to support sporting events and campus commuters, along with the Union Bay Natural Area. Much of East Campus is built on a methane-producing landfill and seismic liquefaction zone, making building construction more expensive. The 10-year conceptual plan for East Campus is designed to: ••

Focus potential new development in the south portion of East Campus.

••

Preserve and expand intramural and intercollegiate athletic uses in East Campus.

••

Balance public realm and open space along the waterfront with dense development maximizing productive land use.

••

Improve connections to Central Campus.

••

Transform a former brownfield site into a vibrant, productive and desirable campus sector. Figure 171. EAST CAMPUS 10-YEAR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

210 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

East Campus Long-Term Vision

Figure 172. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

E81 E80

E82

E79

E67 E65

VI S

eB l ak

lvd

INI

E60

E62

E64

E69

E73

E66

E75 E76

E68

E63

E72

E74

E71

E78

NE 45t

h Stre

E77 E85

E84

E83

E70

E86

E61

E59 HUSKY STADIUM

E58

UNION BAY

Existing Building

East Campus Boundary

Potential Building

200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

211

••

Significant Open Space Active Ground Floor Existing Building Potential Building

The existing road network remains, with a new east-west vehicular road addition introduced near Whatcom Lane between Montlake Boulevard and Walla Walla Road.

Gateway

Triangle Garage

East-west connections between Central and East Campus are strengthened and reinforced through the creation of new development and universally accessible pedestrian pathways. These connections occur at multiple crossings over Montlake at Snohomish Lane, along the East Campus Connection, and Whatcom Lane.

ke ntl a

B ou

rd leva

Husky Stad

ium

NT FRO ATER US W IL TR A

E CU T

The Union Bay Natural Area includes preserved shoreline wetlands and areas for passive recreation and ecological tourism. This area continues to function as a key amenity, with greater access to the campus and community.

K TL A MON

••

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STATION

O TINU CON

A new north-south pedestrian-only connection reinforces movement from the Intramural Activities Building (IMA) through the potential development on the E1 lot, toward the intramural fields to the north and natural area to the east. Many of the development sites are concentrated on the E1 parking lot, with taller buildings located adjacent to Montlake Boulevard and shorter buildings to the east, allowing views to Union Bay.

ifi

Significant Pedestrian Path

Siting of development may minimize continuous wall of buildings along Montlake and complement the forested edge along Central Campus.

••

cS tre

Plans for the East Campus public realm focus on enhancing connectivity, improving the pedestrian experience, and creating desirable destinations.

Pa c

PUBLIC REALM AND CONNECTIVITY

PORTAGE BAY

WAC e no Ca use Ho

UNION BAY

212 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

Figure 173. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Ea st Ca

Mon

e Bo tl ak

a rd ulev

a tc

UNIVERSITY VILLAGE

ti o n

Snoh omish Lan e

Burke-

Grave dson Ed m u n n il v Pa io

Gilma

n Trail

IMA F

IMA

Helipad

ield

Rd Walla Walla

a Track

nd Fie

S o cce r

tro m N o r d s n te r e C is Tenn

D emps

r ib e a Con ouse llh She

Chaffe Field

e C an a

l Rd

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

213

East Campus Connection A connection is part of the long-term vision for the sector and is proposed to connect Central Campus to a redeveloped East Campus and the Union Bay Natural Area and is not contemplated to be part of the 10-year plan. The connection shall intersect the Burke-Gilman Trail, and shall replace the existing pedestrian bridge at Wahkiakum

Lane. The significant change in topography between Central and East Campus creates a challenge for accessibility. Buildings framing the Central Campus side of the connection provide opportunities for elevator access. The connection would terminate in an active pedestrian plaza that frames the southern edge of the E1 development.

Figure 174. View along Wahkiakum Lane looking toward the E1 parking lot (above) and rendering of the East Campus Connection, which is a protected view corridor (Figure 175, opposite)

214 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

East Campus Connection

Figure 175. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

215

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

65’

Building Height

••

The 10-year conceptual plan shows potential development occurring in the area around current IMA and ICA development. However, the majority of the development capacity is on the northern E1 parking lot and golf driving range. Due to the cost of developing a former landfill site, it is unlikely that area shall be developed during the 10year conceptual plan time-frame.

65’

Additional significant development occurs on two existing tennis court banks (tennis courts are replaced on the top of potential structures), south of the Stadium, and on the Golf Driving Range.

••

Building heights in East Campus are restricted to 130 feet along Montlake Boulevard and 65 feet closer to the waterfront to preserve waterfront views from Central Campus.

••

The Shoreline District Overlay allows building heights of 30 feet, although no development is proposed within the shoreline area, with the exception of E61.

••

Development in Blakeley Village and Laurel Village shall increase the capacity for student housing through increased density on the periphery of campus.

C1-65

160’

50’

C2-40 C2-65

37’/30’

105’ 65’

50’ 80’ 30’

65’

107’ 160’ Figure 176. 2003 CMP Building Heights

216 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

105’ 160’

65’

NC2P-40

65’

90’/80’

160’/ 130’

••

C1-40

50’ Figure 177. East Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

Development Capacity The development sites map and detailed capacity figures are identified on pages 218 to 219. ••

The CMP identifies a total of roughly 4.7 million gross square feet of potential development throughout East Campus.

••

To achieve the long-term vision would necessitate the replacement of roughly 361,000 million gross square feet of existing space, resulting in a total net new development area of 4.3 million gross square feet.

••

The CMP development limit for East Campus is 750,000 net new gross square feet, about 17 percent of the East Campus growth capacity, or 13 percent of the total 6 million net new gross square feet growth allowance. This allows for flexibility in siting building projects.

MIO-37/30

MIO-160/107

MIO-50

MIO-160/130

MIO-65

MIO-160

MIO-90/80

MIO-200

MIO-105

MIO-240 200’ Shoreline District Overlay 30ft

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

217

Table 12. East Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet SITE ID

SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

E58

E12 Parking Lot

660,000

360,000

55%

E59

West of Hec Ed

145,000

75,000

52%

E60

Tennis Court Site

190,000

150,000

E61

North of Conibear Shellhouse

50,000

35,000

E62

Tennis Court Site West of IMA Field

290,000

E63

West of soccer field

* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

360,000

160

47,955

105

79%

150,000

70%

35,000

235,000

81%

235,000

50,000

35,000

70%

35,000

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

27,045

E64

E1 Site 1

125,000

100,000

80%

100,000

E65

E18 Parking Lot - SW Site*

310,000

190,000

61%

190,000

160

E66

E1 Site 3*

130,000

105,000

81%

105,000

E67

E1 Site 2*

475,000

285,000

60%

285,000

160

CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

822

A/MU/T/IP/ ACC A/MU/IP/ACC A/MU/IP/ACC

132

A/MU/IP/ACC A/MU/T/IP/ ACC

130

A/MU/IP/ACC 264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

E68

E1 Site 5*

125,000

100,000

80%

100,000

E69

E1 Site 4*

425,000

235,000

55%

235,000

160

130

E70

South of Husky Track

45,000

35,000

78%

35,000

A/MU/IP/ACC

E71

North of Husky Track

50,000

35,000

70%

35,000

A/MU/IP/ACC

E72

E1 Site 7*

145,000

100%

145,000

E73

E1 Site 6*

425,000

280,000

66%

280,000

160

E74

E1 Site 9*

195,000

180,000

92%

180,000

E75

E1 Site 8*

370,000

225,000

61%

225,000

160

130

E76

E1 Site 10*

240,000

180,000

75%

180,000

E77

Golf Driving Range Site South

445,000

330,000

74%

330,000

A/MU/IP/ACC

E78

Golf Driving Range Site North

420,000

355,000

85%

355,000

A/MU/T/IP/ ACC

E79

E2 Parking Lot Site

210,000

160,000

76%

160,000

E80

Plant Services Site / N26 Parking Lot

340,000

230,000

68%

144,198

85,802

E81

Blakeley Village West

135,000

105,000

78%

84,390

20,610

E82

Blakeley Village East

135,000

120,000

89%

120,000

E83

Laurel Village East

105,000

70,000

67%

-18,536

E84

Laurel Village West

240,000

195,000

81%

195,000

E85

Ceramic and Metal Arts

75,000

50,000

67%

33,054

E86

Urban Horticulture Site

80,000

55,000

69%

55,000

TOTAL - EAST

6,630,000

4,655,000

73%

88,536

16,946

361,115

4,293,885

130

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

A/MU/IP/ACC A/H/T A/H/T

A/H/T

A/MU/IP/ACC

A/H/T

3,935

218 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

NE 45th Street

E79

Development Sites

E78

E76

E75 E74

M o nt

lake B

lvd N E

E73

Figure 178. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

E77

C NE

l a rk

E84 E83 E85

E72

E69 E68 E71

E67 E66

E62

E60

E70

E63

Walla Walla Rd N E

E65 E64

E86

E61 E81 E82

Pa c

ifi

St r

25th Ave NE

E59

E80 E58

University Village

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

219

ZONE Q

ZONE P East Campus Design Guidance Design guidance related to the five development zones throughout East Campus is provided on the following pages.

ZONE N ZONE O

ZONE M

Figure 179. East Campus Development Zones.

220 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

DEVELOPMENT ZONE M

Figure 180. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Protect Mt. Rainier view corridor with no buildings obstructing a clear viewshed

Incorporate parking into topography, out of view from Montlake Boulevard and without visually intruding into the Rainier Vista Viewshed

Mon

Blv tlake

d NE

E62 l Wa

e ini Ra

Pacific S t

ie aV is t

Hec Edmundson Pavilion Husky Stadium

E60

E59

all a la W

N Rd

IMA

E61

Conibear Shellhouse

Chaffey Field

N l Rd an a

Nordstrom Tennis

eB ak ntl

l vd

Dempsey Indoor Center

E58

Respect 30’ building height limit within the 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

W.A.C. Canoe House

The Climbing Rock remains in its existing location. It is recommended that a minimum of thirty feet remain between the eastern edge of the E85 development site and the west edge of the climbing rock as a buffer to maintain its viability

Improve pedestrian connections and access to the shoreline

Legend Existing UW Building Potential Building Building Envelope Significant Open Space Existing Uses Relocated 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

221

DEVELOPMENT ZONE N

Maximize floorplates for programming flexibility

Figure 181. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Facilitate connections between East and Central Campus

Existing pedestrian bridge across Montlake Boulevard remains

Structure development in a manner that promotes porosity and minimizes impression of a street wall

Design to establish a planted edge along Montlake

E76

E75

d NE

E68

E65

Building heights step down toward the shoreline

6 E6 0 E7

E63

d NE alla R W a ll Wa

Preserve recreation and open space along shoreline

aR dN

E77

E71 Intramural Sports Field

E64

Husky Outdoor Track

Q P

Soccer Field

Create an inviting and universally accessible public realm throughout

C an a

E72

E74

Maintain existing helipad and related setbacks l Roa

d NE

45t hS t

aW all

E69

E67

E78

E73 Wa ll

lake B M o nt

E79

Enhance pedestrian connections to the Union Bay Natural Area

222 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

DEVELOPMENT ZONE O

Figure 182. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Improve pedestrian environment and universal access NE

45 th St

Improve visual quality of storage yards Rd

IMA Sports Field IMA Sports Field

Environmental Safety Storage Building

E85

l ark

E84 r NE

NE C

3 E8

45 th St

ry G

ate

o ri a

Enhance pedestrian connections between East Campus development and the Union Bay Natural Area

Increased building heights along 45th and Mary Gates Memorial Drive NE allow more compact development footprint and increased open space. Lower building heights of 30 feet abut the residential neighborhood along the property edge

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA Urban Horticulture Center

E86 NE

41s t

Legend Existing UW Building

Protect Union Bay Natural Area and limit development near wetland areas according to relevant environmental regulations

Potential Building Building Envelope

Respect 30’ building height limit within the 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Significant Open Space Existing Uses Relocated 200’ Shoreline District Overlay

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

223

DEVELOPMENT ZONE P

Figure 183. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Maximize floorplates for programming flexibility

Improve experiential quality of the Burke-Gilman Trail with landscape buffer r Bu

n ma

Tra

Strive to create a comfortable pedestrian experience along 25th Avenue

NE St th 45

E80

Q Create transparency and visibility along 25th Avenue NE

n Pe

l rei dO

N ve hA 25t

Relate building heights to scale of University Village across 25th

M 224 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

DEVELOPMENT ZONE Q

Figure 184. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

UW does not own the segment of the Burke-Gilman Trail between 25th Ave NE and 35th Ave NE

Activate building edges along Burke-Gilman Trail and adhere to 20â&#x20AC;&#x2122; trail setback

Increased building heights and density allow more compact development footprint and increased open space

Burke-Gilman Trail

E81

E82

Create courtyards for flexible community use

30 th

Av e

t hS 9t 4 E

Maintain similar parking to unit ratios parking as existing Blakely Village

Nordheim Court

Legend ve N hA 25t

Maintain public realm connections to existing communities

Existing UW Building Potential Building

Building Envelope Significant Open Space

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

225

NE 45th St

IMA Field G M.

IMA Field

at es

d rk R

mo ri a

Cl a

Me lD

rN E

IMA Field

Urban Horticultural Center

Husky Outdoor Track

Intramural Activities

Graves

E al R dN

Chaffey Field

C an

lvd N E

IMA Field

lake B M o nt

Walla Walla Rd N E

Soccer Field

Conibear Shellhouse

Edmundson Nordstrom Dempsey

Husky Stadium

Softball

WAC

226 Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

Union Bay

Douglas Research Conservatory

East Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance Figure 185. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mid-block Corridor View Corridor 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

DESIGN GUIDANCE Gateway Active Edge Significant Open Space Forested Edge Priority Pedestrian Connector Shared Street Streetscape Improvements Service Access Potential Parking Access

Project Review and Design Guidance - July 2017 Final Plan

227

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

228 July 2017 Final Plan

•• INTRODUCTION •• DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS •• DEFINITIONS

July 2017 Final Plan

229

INTRODUCTION This chapter outlines the development standards that guide proposed development within the campus boundaries. The CityUniversity Agreement requires that all University of Washington development within the Major Institution Overlay (MIO) boundary follow the standards outlined in this chapter. While Chapter 6 includes design guidance to be used to achieve the design intent for the campus, this chapter includes the required development standards for campus development.

••

Provide adequate light, air, access, and open space; conserve the natural environments and historic resources; maintain a compatible scale within a campus sector; and enhance the streetscape and pedestrian environment.

••

Seek to achieve an efficient use of the University’s property without major disruption of the natural environment and to direct development to campus sectors with adequate services and amenities.

The purposes of the development standards in this Chapter are to: ••

Protect and promote public health, safety and general welfare and to guide the use of land consistent with the goals and vision of the University of Washington’s Campus Master Plan (CMP).

••

Increase awareness of land use decisions and their impacts.

230 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

231

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following development standards regulate the development of individual sites with the goal of creating an active, desirable and safe public realm. Development standards are mandatory requirements that shall be met by all campus development unless modified by the amendment process outlined in the CityUniversity Agreement. The total net new gross square feet of development permitted in this CMP shall be allocated to four campus sectors as defined on page 86, and as shown in Table 13. The four areas constitute “sectors” for the purposes of Section IIC of the City-University Agreement. ••

Every development site has a building height limit and maximum square footage requirement, which can be found on the tables on pages 234 to 237. Potential building envelopes are identified within the sector by sector development capacity tables on pages 234 to 237. The building footprints as shown on page 124 through 127 are used to visualize a possible form for future development. Actual building footprints and massings shall vary from those shown. The percentage of each building envelope that is occupied by

development varies on a site by site basis, and reinforces the degree to which light and air are introduced on each site. For a graphic depiction of the building envelope and maximum square footage per development site, please refer to Figure 186. ••

A new development site: A proposal for a development site not previously approved shall constitute an exempt Campus Master Plan change, unless the proposal

requires a Plan amendment according to the provisions of the City-University Agreement because the Director of SDCI (or its successor department) determines that the specific use proposed for a site, within the broad use categories permitted in tables 14 through 17, is inconsistent with the guiding principles or polices of this Campus Master Plan, or because of the use relationship to, or cumulative use impacts upon, area surrounding the University boundary.

Table 13. Development Capacity and Permitted Development by Campus Sector

232 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

POTENTIAL NET NEW DEVELOPMENT (GROSS SQUARE FEET)

NET NEW MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT (GROSS SQUARE FEET)

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT LIMIT (%)

CENTRAL

1,631,941

900,000

15%

WEST

3,762,199

3,000,000

50%

SOUTH

2,208,735

1,350,000

23%

EAST

4,293,885

750,000

12%

TOTAL

11,896,760

6,000,000

100%

••

Moving GSF from one site to another within a sector: If the maximum building square footage per development site is not used on a development site, the unutilized portion of gross square footage can be moved to another development site or sites within that sector as long as the maximum height limit and total net new square footage growth allowance of 6 million is not exceeded.

••

Exceeding GSF in one sector: The net new square footage of growth allowance may exceed the allocation for each campus sector by up to 20% on a cumulative basis over the life of this Plan without a Plan amendment. Development that would cause the net new gross square footage for a sector to exceed the permitted gross square feet of development for that sector by more than 20% on a cumulative basis over the life of this Plan, is a change that may be approved as a minor plan amendment, provided that the 6 million net new square footage growth allowance is not exceeded, the change would not result in significantly greater impacts than those contemplated in the FEIS for the CMP, and the amendment would be consist with the 2018 Seattle CMP guiding principles.

Figure 186. Proposed Building Envelopes. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

Total Buildable Envelope Allowable Building Massing / GSF Restriction

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

233

Table 14. Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE ID

SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

West of Memorial Way / N1 Parking Lot

290,000

200,000

69%

68,916

131,084

105

East of Memorial Way / N5 Parking Lot

265,000

135,000

51%

135,000

105

Mackenzie Replacement / N3 Parking Lot

165,000

145,000

88%

101,901

105

Intellectual House Phase 2

40,000

5,000

13%

5,000

105

A/MU

North Campus Housing 1 (Building A)**/***

170,000

110,000

65%

110,000

105

A/H

North Campus Housing 2 (Building E) / Haggett Hall Site / N9, 10, 11 Parking Lots **/***

535,000

290,000

54%

206,114

83,886

160

A/H

McMahon Hall Site / N13, 14, 15 Parking Lots

600,000

400,000

67%

288,352

111,648

160

177

A/MU/H/T

Padelford Garage North Site / N16, 18, 20, 21*

315,000

245,000

78%

138,555

106,445

105

217*

A/MU/T

Padelford Hall South Site*

185,000

155,000

84%

155,000

105

217*

A/MU/T

C10

Padelford Garage South Site*

230,000

145,000

63%

145,000

105

218*

A/MU/T

C11

Facility Services Admin Bldg / University Facilities Bldg and Annex 1

120,000

85,000

71%

20,125

64,875

105

C12

Plant Op Annexes 2-6 / University Facilities Annex 2 / C23 Parking Lot

230,000

115,000

50%

18,860

96,140

105

C13

Sieg Hall Replacement

145,000

130,000

90%

57,180

72,820

105

C14

Mechanical Eng / Eng Annex / C15 Parking Lot

300,000

215,000

72%

125,896

89,104

105

A/MU

C15

Wilcox / Wilson Ceramics Lab Site / Wilson Annex

90,000

60,000

67%

50,328

9,672

A/MU

C16

Benson Hall / C7 Parking Lot

320,000

210,000

66%

76,271

133,729

105

A/MU

C17

Chem Library Site

130,000

85,000

65%

39,363

45,637

105

A/MU

C18

South of Henry Art Gallery

70,000

35,000

50%

35,000

105

A/MU

TOTAL - CENTRAL***

4,200,000

2,765,000

64%

43,099

1,133,059

1,631,941

CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

213

A/MU/T

170

A/MU/T

A/MU

A/MU/T

A/MU/T A/MU

1,389

234 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites

Table 15. West Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

W19

Schmitz Hall Site

575,000

365,000

64%

99,691

265,309

240

W20

Staff / HR Building Site

105,000

40,000

35%

10,831

29,169

240

W21

Condon Hall Site

615,000

390,000

63%

132,533

257,467

240

W22

W41 Parking Lot Site

315,000

175,000

56%

175,000

240

A/MU/T/IP

W23

W42 Parking Lot / Henderson Hall Site

430,000

345,000

79%

238,660

240

A/MU/IP

W24

W10 Parking Lot

690,000

405,000

58%

405,000

240

A/MU/T/IP

W25

Child Care / Brooklyn Trail /SW Maintenance / W11 Parking Lot

845,000

375,000

44%

23,497

351,503

240

A/MU/T/IP

W26

CDC / Ethnic Cultural Center Theater Site

680,000

390,000

57%

32,999

357,001

240

W27

Purchasing Accounting / W12, 13 Parking Lots

490,000

340,000

69%

39,576

300,424

200

W28

West of Commodore Duchess Site

110,000

40,000

35%

40,000

240

W29

Stevens Court East (A, B, C, H) / W29 Parking Lot

320,000

205,000

64%

79,104

125,896

160

130

A/MU/T/IP

W30

Stevens Court West (D, J, K, L, M) / W32, 33 Parking Lots

820,000

425,000

51%

138,340

286,660

200

A/MU/T/IP

W31

W35 Parking Lot Site Pavilion

105,000

20,000

18%

20,000

160

130

A/MU/IP

W32

Wallace Hall Pavilion / Marine Studies / Fish Teaching and Research

80,000

15,000

18%

96,546

-81,546

160

130

W33

Ocean Research 2 / NOAA / W24, 28 Parking Lots

345,000

235,000

68%

11,267

223,733

160

130

A/MU/IP

W34

Portage Bay Parking Garage

410,000

230,000

56%

230,000

160

130

895

MU/T/IP

W35

University Transportation Center

370,000

225,000

60%

225,000

160

130

A/MU/IP

W36

Fisheries Parking Lot (PUDA)

100,000

90,000

86%

90,000

160

130

W37

Northlake Building / W40 Parking Lot Site

455,000

245,000

53%

22,077

222,923

160

130

TOTAL - WEST

7,860,000

4,555,000

55%

792,801

3,762,199

SITE ID

106,340

CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

A/MU/T/IP 90

A/MU A/MU/T/IP

A/MU/T/IP 96

A/MU/T/IP A/MU/IP

A/MU/IP

A/MU/T/IP 34

A/MU/T/IP

1,477

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

235

Table 16. South Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet SITE ID

SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

S38

SCSII B

370,000

160,000

43%

S39

SCSII C / Hitchcock Hall Site

280,000

270,000

96%

S40

SCSII D / J Wing

580,000

425,000

S41

SCSII E / I Wing and G Wing

685,000

S42

SCSII F / T Wing

S43

*The potential number of new parking spaces for South Campus. Specific parking spaces per development site have not been identified, since the proposed parking is designed as a contiguous podium. CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

160,000

200

A/MU

116,416

153,584

200

A/MU

73%

170,719

254,281

200

A/MU/T

280,000

41%

215,620

64,380

200

A/MU

500,000

340,000

68%

493,496

-153,496

240

A/MU

SCSII G / A Wing and C Wing

375,000

320,000

85%

101,489

218,511

240

A/MU

S44

SCSII H

385,000

310,000

81%

310,000

240

A/MU

S45

SCSII I / F Wing

340,000

165,000

49%

122,767

42,233

200

A/MU

S46

SCSII J / D Wing

275,000

245,000

89%

183,975

61,025

200

A/MU

S47

SCSII K / B Wing

525,000

345,000

66%

117,619

227,381

200

A/MU

S48

SCSII L / RR Wing, BB Wing, SW Wing

520,000

415,000

80%

454,692

-39,692

200

A/MU

S49

SCSII M / Ocean Teaching / S5, S6 Parking Lot

100,000

100%

51,552

48,448

105

A/MU

S50

SCSII N / S1 Parking Garage

385,000

260,000

68%

260,000

105

805

A/MU

S51

SCSII O / Harris Hydraulics Lab / South Campus Center / S7, S12 Parking Lot

30,000

20,000

67%

-72,785

A/MU

S52

SCSII P

425,000

275,000

65%

275,000

105

S53

SCSII Q / Portage Bay Building / Oceanography Bldg, Dock, and Shed / S8 Parking Lot

60,000

40,000

67%

128,712

-88,712

S54

SCSII R / CHDD Clinic and School / S9 Parking Lot

440,000

350,000

80%

115,943

234,057

105

S55

SCSII S / CHDD South Building

35,000

25,000

71%

12,378

12,622

S56

SCSII T / NN Wing

385,000

280,000

73%

122,217

157,783

240

A/MU

S57

SCSII U / EA Wing and EB Wing

430,000

360,000

84%

275,885

84,115

240

A/MU

TOTAL - SOUTH

7,125,000

4,985,000

72%

2,776,265

2,208,735

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

92,785

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

A/MU 30

A/MU

846

236 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

Table 17. East Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet SITE ID

SITE NAME

TOTAL ENVELOPE GROSS SQUARE FEET

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET

PERCENT OF ENVELOPE

E58

E12 Parking Lot

660,000

360,000

55%

E59

West of Hec Ed

145,000

75,000

52%

E60

Tennis Court Site

190,000

150,000

E61

North of Conibear Shellhouse

50,000

35,000

E62

Tennis Court Site West of IMA Field

290,000

E63

West of soccer field

* Parking spaces evenly split among the development sites NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

APPROX# OF FLOORS

MAXIMUM BLDG HT LIMIT

360,000

160

47,955

105

79%

150,000

70%

35,000

235,000

81%

235,000

50,000

35,000

70%

35,000

DEMO GROSS SQUARE FEET

27,045

E64

E1 Site 1

125,000

100,000

80%

100,000

E65

E18 Parking Lot - SW Site*

310,000

190,000

61%

190,000

160

E66

E1 Site 3*

130,000

105,000

81%

105,000

E67

E1 Site 2*

475,000

285,000

60%

285,000

160

CONDITIONED DOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS

EXISTING PARKING SPACES

ACADEMIC USES

822

A/MU/T/IP/ ACC A/MU/IP/ACC A/MU/IP/ACC

132

A/MU/IP/ACC A/MU/T/IP/ ACC

130

A/MU/IP/ACC 264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

E68

E1 Site 5*

125,000

100,000

80%

100,000

E69

E1 Site 4*

425,000

235,000

55%

235,000

160

130

E70

South of Husky Track

45,000

35,000

78%

35,000

A/MU/IP/ACC

E71

North of Husky Track

50,000

35,000

70%

35,000

A/MU/IP/ACC

E72

E1 Site 7*

145,000

100%

145,000

E73

E1 Site 6*

425,000

280,000

66%

280,000

160

E74

E1 Site 9*

195,000

180,000

92%

180,000

E75

E1 Site 8*

370,000

225,000

61%

225,000

160

130

E76

E1 Site 10*

240,000

180,000

75%

180,000

E77

Golf Driving Range Site South

445,000

330,000

74%

330,000

A/MU/IP/ACC

E78

Golf Driving Range Site North

420,000

355,000

85%

355,000

A/MU/T/IP/ ACC

E79

E2 Parking Lot Site

210,000

160,000

76%

160,000

E80

Plant Services Site / N26 Parking Lot

340,000

230,000

68%

144,198

85,802

E81

Blakeley Village West

135,000

105,000

78%

84,390

20,610

E82

Blakeley Village East

135,000

120,000

89%

120,000

E83

Laurel Village East

105,000

70,000

67%

-18,536

E84

Laurel Village West

240,000

195,000

81%

195,000

E85

Ceramic and Metal Arts

75,000

50,000

67%

33,054

E86

Urban Horticulture Site

80,000

55,000

69%

55,000

TOTAL - EAST

6,630,000

4,655,000

73%

88,536

16,946

361,115

4,293,885

130

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

262*

A/MU/IP/ACC

264*

A/MU/IP/ACC

A/MU/IP/ACC A/H/T A/H/T

A/H/T

A/MU/IP/ACC

A/H/T

3,935

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

237

APPLICABLE CITY CODE The applicable zoning of the Campus is Major Institution Overlay (MIO), as shown in on page 26. Pursuant to the City-University Agreement and Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 23.69, University development within the University’s MIO boundary is governed by this Campus Master Plan. Therefore, this Campus Master Plan contains the development standards for University development within the MIO boundary. The development standards in this chapter are tailored to the University and its local setting, and are intended to allow development flexibility and improve compatibility with surrounding uses. Development standards not addressed in the Campus Master Plan may be developed in the future by the University, provided they are consistent with and guided by the goals and policies of the City-University Agreement, the goals and policies of this Campus Master Plan, and the process for any amendments to the Plan required by the City-University Agreement. Lack of specificity in the Campus Master Plan development standards shall not result in application of provisions of underlying zoning or other provisions in the City’s code.

••

Title 22 – Building and Construction Codes

••

Chapter 23.57 – Communications Regulations (communications utilities and devices within the MIO are allowed as described in this CMP pursuant to subsection 23.57.002.D)

••

Chapter 23.60A – Shoreline Master Program (except the University may comply with its own shoreline public access plan if adopted pursuant to subsection 23.60A.164.K.)

••

Subsection 23.69.006.B – related to the University’s Major Institution Overlay District designation

••

Chapter 23.76 – Procedures for Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions (except the City-University Agreement and state law control in the event of any conflict with the requirements of the Chapter)

••

Chapter 23.88 – Rules; Interpretation (except the City-University Agreement and state law control in the event of any conflict with the requirements of the Chapter)

••

Chapter 25.06 -Floodplain Development

••

Chapter 25.08 – Noise Control

State and federally mandated regulations are acknowledged and will be followed. In addition to the standards in this CMP chapter, the University of Washington recognizes the following titles, chapters and sections of the Seattle Municipal Code may apply to University development:

Title 15 – Street and Sidewalk Use (for University activities in City-owned right-ofways only)

238 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

••

Chapter 25.09 – Critical Areas Regulations

••

Chapter 25.11 – Tree Protection (as further addressed below in the Tree section of this Development Standards chapter)

As acknowledged in the City-University Agreement, by creating and adopting the CMP, neither the City nor the University waive or concede their legal position regarding zoning and SEPA jurisdiction on campus.

GROUND LEVEL SETBACKS

Setbacks may be averaged horizontally or vertically. University structures across a City street or alley from commercial, mixed use, manufacturing, or industrial zones outside the MIO boundary shall have no required setbacks. Pedestrian bridges, retaining walls, raised plazas, sculpture and other site elements shall have no setback requirements.

There are no ground level building structure setbacks internal to campus. Setbacks shall only be required for new structures located on the boundary of the campus and along City of Seattle streets or alleys when the property located immediately across from the structure is not owned by the University.

Minor communications utilities exceeding the maximum height of the MIO district shall be located a minimum of 100 feet within the campus boundary and outside view corridors. Underground structures may be located within setback areas. Covered and uncovered pedestrian walkways, skybridges, and amenities are permitted within setbacks.

Structures across a City street, from residential zones outside the MIO boundaries, with property not owned by the University shall be set back from the campus boundary according to façade height of the proposed University development and the designation of the facing zone, as shown in Table 18.

Table 18. Setback Requirements in Feet for Structures Across a City Street from Residentially Zoned Property Not Owned by the University FACADE HEIGHT

SINGLE FAMILY

LOWRISE

MIDRISE

HIGHRISE

37’

50’

65’

85’

105’

107’

160’

240’

LIGHT AND GLARE The campus is active 24-hours-a-day. Lighting is important for the campus to function and to ensure the safety of students, faculty, staff and visitors. Lighting shall be done in a manner to conserve energy and mitigate significant adverse impacts of light and glare on campus buildings and spaces and adjacent residential areas, consistent with the needs of safety and security. Exterior lighting shall be shielded or directed away from structures in adjacent or abutting residential zoned areas and arterials. Lighting shall be designed and managed to realize efficient use of energy and limit light pollution. Developments shall address pedestrian safety and proper outdoor lighting, including restricting up lighting. The maximum height limit for light poles is 100’. The height of light poles may be exceeded through the CityUniversity Agreement amendment process. An engineer’s report may be required to study light impacts if additional height is proposed. Solar panels are permitted.

MID-BLOCK CORRIDORS Mid-block corridors are publicly accessible (24-hours a day unless otherwise restricted and signed accordingly) pedestrian pathways that travel through the center of a block. Mid-block corridors help increase connectivity, enhance the pedestrian experience, and break down the scale of larger blocks.

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

239

Mid-block corridors are required where identified in Figures 192 to 195. Mid-block corridors, shall maintain a minimum width of 25’. Mid-block corridors must allow for a minimum vertical clearance of either two floors of height or the height required to preserve a protected View Corridor.

ODORS Odors shall be vented a minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk grade and directed away from adjacent building and residential property.

OPEN SPACE COMMITMENTS West Campus Green and Plaza Over the life of this CMP, the approximately 4-acre area designated as the “West Campus Green” shall be reserved for open space, except that minor structures supporting the open space function are allowed. Structures and improvements required for utility infrastructure are also allowed. A design and implementation plan for West Campus Green and West Campus section of the continuous waterfront trail shall be completed by the time 1.5 million square feet of net new development in West Campus sector is completed. A concept plan for all three sections of the continuous waterfront trail—West, South, and East—shall also be completed at this time. At the latest, construction of the West Campus Green and the West Campus section of the continuous waterfront trail shall occur when 3.0 million square feet of net new development is completed in the West Campus sector.

Figure 89 reflects the 10-year conceptual plan and the long term vision for open space in West Campus.

South Campus Green Over the life of this CMP, the approximately 4-acre area designated as the “South Campus Green” and the “Upper South Campus Green” shall be reserved for open space. A design and implementation plan for the Greens, as well as the South Campus section of the continuous waterfront trail shall occur when construction on the first adjacent development site is completed (Sites S50, S51, S52, S41, S42, S45, or S46). Construction of the South Campus Green shall occur when construction of development sites S50, S51, S52, and S53 are all completed. Construction of the Upper South Campus Green shall occur when construction of development sites S41, S42, S45, and S46 are all completed.

East Campus Connection The land inside the dotted line in Figure 98 preserved for a future open space in Central Campus and East Campus, but is not intended to be completed within the 10-year conceptual plan.

Continuous Waterfront Trail The continuous waterfront trail shall align with future development in West, South and East Campus sectors, as follows:

240 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

In addition to the design and implementation plans for West and South Campus sections of the trail described earlier, the design and implementation plan for the East Campus section of the continuous waterfront trail shall occur at the time of completion of development of site E58. Construction of the East Campus section of the continuous waterfront trail shall align with completion of construction of the 750,000 square feet of net new development allowed in East Campus under the CMP. The University has proposed a Public Access Plan as part of the CMP that supports the continuous waterfront trail. Refer to pages 108 to 111 for more information about the Public Access Plan.

North Campus Housing Landscape Denny Field and Lewis Grove shall be implemented when development site C5 (Oak Hall) is developed.

PARKING Parking is planned on a campus-wide basis, and needs for parking near new development are assessed concurrently with development planning. Parking spaces may be located in any sector to accommodate need. Overall, motor vehicle parking is limited to a maximum of 12,300 spaces within the MIO (the “parking cap”). Service and load zones, parking for student housing, and accessory off-campus leased or owned spaces are not counted toward the parking cap. Above-ground parking

is not counted against the net new 6 million square foot growth allowance in the CMP. Minimum parking standards for new student housing will be one space per unit for family housing and spaces for up to 4 percent of total residents for single student housing. Parking lots and garages may contain standard and small vehicle spaces. No minimum parking stall size is required. The standard size to use in design planning for standard vehicle spaces may be approximately 8.5 feet in width and 19 feet in length. The standard size to use in design planning for small vehicle spaces may be approximately 8 feet in width by 16 feet in length. ADA compliant parking is distributed and assigned around campus to accommodate need. ADA parking is not located building-bybuilding but is assigned at the gatehouse or through U-PASS to be as close to the actual needed location as possible. Assigning parking for ADA access at the gatehouse instead of only at specific sites on campus, allows the University to better meet the needs of our faculty, staff, students and visitors. All new development shall consider opportunities for bike parking facilities. Parking design shall be logical and easy to access with entry points concentrated along streets with low volumes of pedestrian and bike traffic. Development may minimize the number of access points for both vehicular and service access, and avoid, if at all possible, crossing heavily traveled pedestrian areas.

For parking access from streets owned by the University, the University has the discretion to locate parking access consistent with other standards in this Campus Master Plan. Parking access is preferred from streets owned by the University. Where necessary, parking access from streets that are not owned by the University shall be allowed based on the following hierarchy of preference (from most preferred to least preferred). A determination on the final access location shall balance the need to minimize safety hazards and the feasibility of the access location based on topography, transit operations, bike infrastructure, vehicle movement, and other considerations: ••

Alley

••

Local Access Road

••

Minor Arterial

••

Major Arterial Street

••

Major transit street or street with bicycle facility

••

A Designated Neighborhood Green Street

••

Sight triangles are required on the side of the driveway used as an exit, and shall be kept clear of any obstruction for a distance of 10 feet from the intersection of the driveway and the sidewalk or curb intersection (if there is no sidewalk). The sight triangle shall be kept clear of obstructions in the vertical spaces between 32 inches and 82 inches from the ground. If a sight triangle is not possible, the sight triangle at a garage exit may be provided by mirrors and/or other approved safety measures.

••

Entrance and exit lanes shall be clearly identified.

See page 67 for a depiction of streets owned by the University versus streets owned by the City of Seattle.

For parking access proposed from streets that are not owned by the University: ••

curb cut may be increased to 30 feet if truck and auto access are combined.

Minimum width of driveways for two-way traffic shall be 22 feet and the maximum width shall be 25 feet. The curb cut may be as wide as the width of the driveway, except that the maximum width of the

PODIUM HEIGHT Podium height refers to the base of a building and is clearly differentiated from the spaces above by its physical form and extent. Podium height limits maintain a pedestrian friendly scale and minimize the impact of shadows on the public realm. Podiums shall be a maximum of 45’ in height, with development above stepping back according to upper level setbacks.

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

241

PUBLIC REALM ALLOWANCE In the absence of parcel boundaries on campus, public realm allowances have been established to provide space for an adequate public realm between street right of ways and buildings. The public realm includes rights-of-way, streetscapes, sidewalks, street lighting, street furniture, bio-swales, pedestrian paths, trails, courtyards, plazas, parks, landscapes, skybridges and pedestrian bridges, and publicly accessible open spaces. Along the Burke-Gilman Trail, the public realm includes enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and circulation, including potentially wayfinding, lighting, bicycle parking, and separate facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. The public realm allowance refers to a minimum zone between the street curb and the edge of building facade, and is intended to provide space for a comfortable and desirable pedestrian experience. The public realm allowances proposed are based upon and maintain the current street widths which the University understands to be sufficient. The existing curb-to-curb width, plus the linear square feet associated with the public realm allowance defines the extent of impact on development sites.

Figure 187. Section through Stevens Way. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.

In order to maintain a pedestrian-oriented public realm the following public realm allowances are established from the curb line along public streets to the face of the façade of new proposed development: •

28’ minimum along Stevens Way NE

•

30’ minimum along Brooklyn Ave NE

•

24’ minimum along Pacific Ave NE

Figure 188. Section through Brooklyn Avenue. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.

242 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

3 4 2 1 3

Figure 189. Section through Pacific Avenue. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.

Figure 190. Section through Montlake Boulevard. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

243

•

80’ minimum along Montlake Blvd NE

SHORELINES

•

20’ minimum along the Burke-Gilman Trail (except as specified below)

•

16’ minimum for all other streets

The University campus includes approximately 12,000 linear feet of waterfront on Portage Bay, Union Bay, and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. These waterfront areas and associated wetland support the University’s mission and programs. Examples of support for academic programs include wetland areas for nature study, and a working waterfront for fish hatcheries, and a marina and moorage of University research vessels.

For the public realm allowance along Stevens Way, the plant bed and sidewalk can be reversed. The public realm allowance adjacent to the Burke-Gilman Trail shall be measured from the paved edges of the trail. In some special cases the average setback may be less than 20 feet from the trail. If there is an existing structure, significant landscaping, topography, and proximity of some other kind of structure such as a bridge abutment on the development site, then less than the 20’ allowance may be allowed. In these kinds of situations, project specific review shall be conducted in order to mitigate impacts on the trail. This review shall follow the University’s design review process.

The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) regulates development, uses, and modifications of shorelines of the state in order to protect the ecological functions of shoreline areas, encourage water-dependent uses, provide for maximum public access, and preserve, enhance, and increase views of the water. The City of Seattle has adopted implementing regulations for the Shoreline Management Act for development and use of shorelines within the City limits. The City’s shoreline regulations, called its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), are found in SMC Chapter 23.60A. There are three shoreline environments within the MIO: the Conservancy Preservation environment, the Conservancy Management environment, and the Urban

244 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

Commercial environment, as shown on pages 110 to 111. The University follows applicable SMP regulations for University development proposed within the shoreline. The applicable regulations are those in effect on the date of adoption of this Campus Master Plan. For existing buildings within the shoreline environment, regular repair, maintenance and restoration is allowed, provided such activity is consistent with the SMP. See pages 108 to 111 for the University’s proposed Shoreline Public Access Plan.

SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACES The CMP identifies a number of publicly accessible, significant open spaces. The CMP also supplements existing historic and culturally significant open spaces, primarily located on Central Campus, with a range of new civic-scaled open spaces in West and South Campus. These spaces are depicted on page 97. These spaces form key structuring elements for campus development. Campus development under the CMP shall be located to reserve space for and not encroach upon significant open spaces.

SIGNS AND BANNERS

••

In the design and location of signage and banners, the intent is to encourage the design of signs that welcome and invite rather than demand the public’s attention:

Illuminated signing shall be utilized only in special circumstances and when used, shall be minimal and the light source may be shielded from view.

••

Freestanding signs shall be limited to 12 feet in height.

••

Temporary signs and banners erected to publicize special events, emergency entrance signs, and traffic and directional signs shall be exempt from these standards.

••

The Husky Stadium reader board related to Husky Stadium, is exempt.

••

Freestanding W’s and Husky figures are considered monuments and not signs and are therefore exempt from these standards.

••

The only signs allowed on rooftops are “W” signs.

••

to curb the proliferation of signs;

••

to enhance the visual environment as harmonious with their surroundings;

••

to protect public interest and safety;

••

and to convey useful information.

The natural environment, views, planting and significant buildings may dominate the campus experience, and signs may not compete for attention in scale, character, or color. The following are standards for sign design. All permanent and constructionrelated signs are reviewed by the University’s Design Review Board. Temporary and short term signs are reviewed by Grounds Maintenance. Signs, banners and flags located across a street, alley, easement, or lot line from property outside the MIO in a residential zone that are visible from non-University property shall be limited to: ••

Signs internal to the University campus are not subject to the above regulations but do require internal University approval as specified.

50 square feet per sign for main entrance signs and 35 square feet for all other permanent signs.

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

245

STRUCTURE HEIGHT LIMITS Maximum building heights for development are identified in Chapter 5 - Vision, Principles and Frameworks and are as follows: ••

MIO – 37/ Conditioned to 30

••

MIO – 50

••

MIO – 65

••

MIO – 90/ Conditioned to 80

••

MIO – 105

••

MIO – 160/ Conditioned to 130 and 107

••

MIO – 160

••

MIO – 200

••

MIO – 240

In some instances, sites have a MIO suffix indicating a taller height limit than is allowed by Plan, those sites are “conditioned down” from the taller heights, and the lower heights indicated are the effective height limits. There are also specific developments with lower height limits, as stated in the Development Site tables. See pages 234 to 237. All development within the Shoreline District, which is all development within 200 feet of the shoreline and associated wetlands, is restricted to a maximum building height of 30 feet. Height measurement within 200 feet of shoreline is governed through the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP).

Structure height is measured from finished or existing grade, whichever is lower, up to a plane essentially parallel to the existing or finished grade.

Height Limit Exceptions The height limit profile for a sloping site would follow the slope. On sloped sites, when more than 50 percent of the roof area of a floor is below the height limit, the remainder of that floor may be built above the height limit, not to exceed 15 feet. The central utility stack, radio, television aerials, telecommunications utilities and other accessory communications equipment, flagpoles, and light poles are exempt from the height controls but may be limited for other reasons as determined through the University’s design review processes, as described further below. Telecommunications utilities and other accessory communications equipment exceeding the maximum height of the MIO district are allowed as long as they are located a minimum of 100 feet from the campus MIO boundary. Many University structures contain fume hood exhaust ducts. These ducts are exempt from height controls. The specific location of ducts shall be reviewed and approved by the appropriate University design review body to ensure that views and vistas are not adversely impacted. Screening may be used to help preserve views, but is not required. The ducts and associated screening are not considered rooftop features.

246 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

Rooftop features, such as stair and elevator penthouses, chimneys, mechanical equipment, greenhouses, and open mesh fencing may extend up to 15 feet above the maximum MIO height limit, if the combined average of all such rooftop features does not exceed 25 percent of the rooftop area.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT Electronic communication is an integral element in the education and research functions of the University. Higher education requires continual improvements to the telecommunication infrastructure. Wireless communication is an important transport medium for video, data, and voice, and the University shall maintain flexibility for changing technologies. Antennae are a necessary part of the wireless communication infrastructure.

Siting and Design Considerations Antenna installations do not constitute a major change or material expansion to a facility or structure. Therefore, the siting of antennae is considered to be a minor modification to a site or building. This ensures that the University can respond rapidly to changing technologies and priorities. However, DRB review is required. It is preferable to locate antennae adjacent to support space/electrical shelters and on the ground to accommodate size and

C1-40

LR1 SM-U 75-240 (M1)

NC2-65

LR3

SM-U 75-240

240’

ive

rsi

lake B M o nt

B ri

200’

37’/30’

lvd N E

105’

160’/130’

50’

160’

65’

200’

65’

90’/80’

NE 41st St

160’/130’

NC2P-40

160’/ 130’

MR (M1)

SM-U 75-240 NC3 P-65

C2-65

65’

15th Ave NE

SM-U/R 75240 (M1)

C2-40

C1-65

NE 45th St

SM-U 95-320 (M1)

Figure 191. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

LR3

SM-U 85

65’

2018 Campus Master Plan Maximum Building Heights

160’ NE

37’/30’

MIO-37 conditioned to 30 MIO-50 MIO-65

Pa c

ifi

105’

cS t

200’ 105’

Selected individual sites have been conditioned to lower maximum building heights. Please refer to the development spreadsheets on pages 234 to 237.

65’

MIO-105

65’

MIO-160 conditioned to 107

160’ 240’

MIO-90 conditioned to 80

MIO-160 conditioned to 130 MIO-160 MIO-200

50’

MIO-240 Shoreline Overlay 30 ft

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

247

minimize vibration. Roof top installations are also acceptable and better satisfy space and security requirements; however, wind loads and space requirements for associated equipment may be considered. A dish antenna of any size is permitted within the MIO. The University shall consider the following when siting ground or roof top antenna on campus: ••

••

Security — all facilities shall be secured to prevent vandalism. Design shall be appropriate to the potential risk and may take many different forms, such as fencing, landscaping, etc.

••

Technical Considerations — each siting may require a unique solution and consideration of current technological issues. Current requirements for site lines to satellites, electrical shelters, and connections between facilities may change (see University of Washington Communications Infrastructure Guidelines for current requirements).

Public Health and Safety — the University shall comply with the health and safety regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Aesthetics — telecommunication facilities shall be integrated with the design of the building to provide an appearance as compatible as possible with the structure or use methods to screen or conceal the facilities. New antennae shall be consolidated with existing antennae and mechanical equipment as much as possible. Ground locations shall be screened appropriately with buildings or landscaping, and shall not be located in significant open spaces. Roof top locations shall be sited to ensure that prominent vistas shall not be adversely affected. Architectural suitability and character of the building shall be considered for roof top installations. Technical issues such as “line-of-sight” shall be balanced with aesthetic considerations.

All antennae, smoke stacks, mechanical equipment, fume hoods, etc. fall under use categories of the buildings they support.

TEMPORARY FACILITIES The term “temporary facility” includes such structures as trailers, mobile office, prefabricated buildings, modular buildings or other structures/facilities and leased/ acquired to meet short-term facility needs. While the University discourages temporary facilities, due to the need for temporary surge space during construction and continuing departmental space shortages for many University units, in many situations temporary facilities may represent the only viable alternative for short-term occupancy. The University has policies and procedures in place

248 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

to review and approve temporary facilities and to ensure that their use is only temporary and utilized when there is no other space option. Temporary structures shall be designated for a specific length of time, and the need and timeframe shall be evaluated by the DRB. The Design Review Board shall also review any requests for extensions of temporary facilities. Tents are not considered temporary structures and are permitted without design review. See also, the discussion of allowed temporary uses above.

TOWER SEPARATION For sites that include a building, or tower, above 85’ in height, a minimum distance of 75’ shall be maintained between the towers in West, Central and East Campus. The tower refers to the portion of the structure that extends above the maximum podium height of 45 feet. In South Campus, a minimum separation of 50’ in the north-south direction and 75’ along the east-west direction shall be maintained. See Figure 192 on page 250.

TREES The University is the responsible public agency for campus, and it maintains and implements an Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP preserves and enhances the University’s physical and aesthetic character by preventing untimely and indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees, and protects exceptional trees because of their unique historical, ecological, or aesthetic value. Through the UFMP, campus tree resources and revegetation are managed on a campus-wide basis. The goals of the UFMP are to: ••

Effectively communicate the value of the University’s forest canopy,

••

Identify and meet canopy coverage goals,

••

Identify opportunities to become better stewards of the urban forest,

••

Increase general knowledge and awareness of the urban forest,

••

Maintain a current and dynamic tree database for all trees on campus, and

••

Implement tree and vegetation management strategies that meet or exceed City of Seattle Tree Ordinance standards.

and groundwater), social, cultural, visual and physiological reasons. In 2015, the University canopy cover was 20.9%, already meeting the City’s goal of 20% canopy for institutional properties. The University has defined a goal of 22.5% canopy coverage (an additional 9.5 acres) by 2037. Tree removal undertaken as part of the UFMP, the revegetation plan for campus, on open space not associated with the development of any particular development site, is exempt from the operation of the City of Seattle Tree Ordinance. For tree removal undertaken as part of campus development, the University follows the procedure required by the Tree Ordinance (SMC Chapter 25.11).

The UFMP identifies the value of urban trees for ecological (habitat, stormwater, air quality, wind, food, microclimate, phytoremediation,

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

249

Representative Building Form Figure 192. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

TOWER SEPARATION MINIMUM*

M IN SECOND UPPER LEVEL SETBACK AT 90’ OR 120’ DEPENDING ON STREET

FIRST UPPER LEVEL SETBACK AT 45’

75’

20’

≤ 160’ 45’/75’

25’ MID-BLOCK CORRIDOR MINIMUM 25’

MAXIMUM PODIUM HEIGHT MAX 45’

* With exceptions on South Campus

250 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

UPPER LEVEL SETBACKS Upper level setbacks refer to the distance buildings need to step back beyond specific heights. Upper level setbacks are designed to allow light and air at the street level, and minimize the impact of shadows on the street. Upper level setbacks are needed to mitigate impacts of tower structures throughout the campus, but especially West and South Campus.

First Upper Level Setback Sites with building footprints that exceed 30,000 square feet shall maintain a minimum upper-level setback of 20’ along sides of the building where the height exceeds the 45’ podium. Sites with building footprints smaller than 30,000 square feet and whose building height exceeds the 45’ podium height shall maintain a minimum upper-level setback of 20’ along at least two edges of the podium. If necessary to allow flexibility and modulation of the building form, a maximum of 50 percent of the building perimeter may extend up to 90’ without a setback.

Second Upper Level Setback To create a more gradual transition between University and non-University property, an additional upper level setback shall be required on building edges identified within the Development Standards and Design Guidance maps, pages 174, 189, 298, and 226. Sites with building footprints that exceed 20,000 square feet and whose building height exceeds 160’ that are located along University Way and Campus Parkway, shall be required to step back an additional 20’ at 90’ in height along a minimum of one façade, generally the facade facing the more prominent street edge. Sites with building footprints that exceed 20,000 square feet and whose building height exceeds 160’ that are located along Pacific Street, shall be required to step back an additional 20’ at 120’ in height along a minimum of one façade, generally the facade facing the more prominent street edge.

VIEW CORRIDORS The UW-Seattle campus has a number of historic and established vistas or view corridors that relate to the underlying structure of the campus, historic planning concepts, and larger regional natural features. The intent of the CMP is to preserve and protect these views out from the campus as well as views from surrounding neighborhoods and streets into the campus. Therefore, campus development is prohibited within designated view corridors that are depicted on Figures 192 to 195 and in the table and accompanying graphics on pages 252 to 253. Existing buildings are exempt from the identified view corridors. Structures are allowed under the view corridor reserved in the East Campus, as shown in the diagrams for view corridors 3, 4, and 5. An above-ground pedestrian connection is allowed above the South Campus Green view corridor.

In the South Campus, however, for all development along the south side of NE Columbia Road and for all buildings facing the shoreline, a 20’ setback is required above the 45’ podium height along the façade facing NE Columbia Road. Buildings on the north side of NE Columbia Road shall be setback 20’ for development above 90’ along the façade facing NE Columbia Road.

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

251

Table 19. View Corridors CAMPUS SECTOR(S)

VIEW #

VIEW NAME

CENTRAL, WEST

Olympic Vista

CENTR AL

Rainier Vista

Snohomish Lane Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: Stevens Way north of the CSEII (structures are allowed under the view corridor reserved) View: Looking east at the Cascade Mountain Range, with the East Campus athletics and recreation functions in the foreground and Union Bay and Lake Union in the background.

Faculty Club Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: East side of the Faculty Club View: Looking east at the Cascade Mountain Range, with th (structures are allowed under the view corridor reserved) e East Campus athletics and recreation functions in the foreground and Union Bay, the Union Bay Natural Area, and Lake Union in the background.

CENTRAL, EAST

Wahkiakum Lane Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: Intersection of Stevens Way and Wahkiakum Lane (structures are allowed under the view corridor reserved) View: Looking at the Cascade Mountain Range, with the East Campus athletics and recreation functions in the foreground and Union Bay, the Union Bay Natural Area, and Lake Union in the background.

CENTR AL

Memorial Way North

Elevation / Origin of View: War Memorial Flagpole View: View looking north along Memorial Way. The vista is framed by london plane trees on both the east and west sides of the corridor.

CENTR AL

Memorial Way South

Elevation / Origin of View: Intersection of NE 45th Street and Memorial Way View: Looking south along Memorial Way. The vista is framed by london plane trees on both the east and west sides of the corridor.

CENTRAL, EAST

DESCRIPTION OF EXTENTS OF VIEW CORRIDOR

Elevation / Origin of View: ByGeorge Statue View: Looking at the Olympic Mountains, framed by both the north and south sides of Campus Parkway. Elevation / Origin of View: Intersection of Red Square and Rainier Vista View: Looking at Mount Rainier and Drumheller Fountain. Buildings and vegetation frame either side of view corridor, but cannot impede the view.

Peace Park Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: NE 40th Street near the University Bridge, near the Peace Park View: Looking south at Portage Bay. The Mercer Court Apartments frame the east edge of the view corridor, with the tower of the proposed development site W37 framing the west edge.

West Campus Plaza Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: Intersection of the Burke-Gilman Trail and Brooklyn Avenue View: Looking south over the West Campus Green at the Portage Bay waterfront. Development sites W33 and W34 frame the east edge of the view corridor, while development sites W29 and W31 frame the west edge.

WEST

West Campus Green Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: NE Pacific Street between W31 and W32 View: Looking south over the West Campus Green and the City of Seattle's Portage Bay Park at the waterfront. The west edge of the view corridor is defined by the southeast corner of the Fishery Sciences building, while the southwest corner of development site W32 defines the east edge of the view corridor.

SOUTH

Portage Bay Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: NE Pacific Street View: Looking southwest at the Portage Bay waterfront, framed by Foege on its northwest edge and Ocean Sciences on its southeast edge.

SOUTH

South Campus Green Vista

Elevation / Origin of View: NE Pacific Street (pedestrian overpasses are allowed, outside of the view corridor) View: Looking southwest at the Portage Bay waterfront, framed by development sites S41, S45, and S50 on the west edge and S42, S46 and S52 on the east edge.

WEST

252 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

View Corridor 1: Olympic Vista

View Corridor 2: Rainier Vista

View Corridor 3: Snohomish Lane Vista

View Corridor 4: Faculty Club Vista

View Corridor 7: Memorial Way South Vista

View Corridor 10: West Campus Green Vista

View Corridor 5: Wahkiakum Lane Vista

View Corridor 8: Peace Park Vista

View Corridor 11: Portage Bay Vista

View Corridor 6: Memorial Way North Vista

View Corridor 9: West Campus Plaza Vista

View Corridor 12: South Campus Green Vista

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

253

DEFINITIONS DEVELOPMENT As used throughout the CMP, the word â&#x20AC;&#x153;developmentâ&#x20AC;? shall mean any University decision to undertake any action of a project nature within the campus boundaries, which shall directly modify the physical environment and which is not exempt from SEPA.

GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE Gross square footage refers to the sum of all areas and above-grade floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls, including floor penetration areas, however insignificant, for circulation and shaft areas that connect one floor to another. It includes additional space generally not included in calculating square footage using other methods, such as mechanical penthouses and mezzanines, attics, garages, enclosed porches, inner and outer balconies and top, unroofed floors of parking structures, subject to the adjustments and exceptions referenced below. Consistent with other methods of calculating square footage, it does not include open areas such as parking lots, playing fields, courts, and light-wells or portions of upper floors eliminated by rooms or lobbies that rise above single-floor height.

The University of Washington calculates the square footage according to the FICM (Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual) calculations provided below. FICM is an industry standard for higher education space metrics.

FICM Gross Square Feet (GSF) Calculation: a. The FICM-GSF shall apply only to buildings on the Seattle campus. A building is defined as a roofed structure for permanent or temporary shelter of persons, animals, plants, materials, or equipment, and exhibits the following characteristics: it is attached to a foundation and has a roof, is serviced by a utility, exclusive of lighting, and is the source of significant maintenance and repair activities. Temporary tent structures are not considered buildings. b. FICM-GSF is the sum of all areas on all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls, including floor penetration areas, however insignificant, for circulation and shaft areas that connect one floor to another. It includes additional space generally not included in calculating square footage

254 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

using other methods, such as mechanical penthouses and mezzanines, attics, garages, enclosed porches, inner and outer balconies and top, unroofed floors of parking structures, subject to the exceptions and adjustments referenced below. Consistent with other methods of calculating square footage, it does not include open areas such as parking lots, playing fields, courts, and light-wells or portions of upper floors eliminated by rooms or lobbies that rise above singlefloor height. c. Gross area is computed by measuring from the outside faces of exterior walls, disregarding cornices, pilasters, buttresses, etc., which extend beyond the wall faces. Exclude areas having less than a six-foot, six-inch clear ceiling height. d. In addition to all the internal floored spaces covered in 2. FICM-GSF above, gross area shall include the following: excavated basement areas, mezzanines, penthouses, attics, enclosed porches, inner or outer balconies whether walled or not if they are utilized for operational functions, and corridors whether walled or not, provided they are within the outside face lines of the building to the extent of the roof drip line. The footprints of stairways, elevator

shafts, and ducts (examples of building infrastructure) are to be counted as gross area on each floor through which they pass.

Adjustments and Exceptions to the FICM-GSF for Campus Master Plan Purpose: a. If a project includes demolition, the gross square feet demolished shall be a deduction from the total project gross square feet to calculate net new gross square feet. Only the net new gross square feet shall be deducted from the CMP growth allowance. b. Consistent with other methods of calculating building square footage, the CMP gross square feet shall not include open areas such as parking lots, playing fields, courts, and light wells, or portions of upper floors eliminated by rooms or lobbies that rise above single-floor ceiling height. It shall include top, unroofed floors of parking structures where parking is available. c. The CMP gross square feet shall not include the gross floor area for areas/portions of areas of the building that are entirely below existing grade. This area shall be determined by identifying the point

where the ceiling of a space intersects the existing and/or finished grade; a line dropped perpendicular from this ceiling point to the floor establishes that portion of the floor that is exempt from the gross floor area calculation.

MIO boundary under this CMP. Above ground parking is not counted against the net new 6.0 million square foot growth allowance in the CMP.

MIO

d. For purposes of the CMP gross square feet, covered exterior walkways, terraces, and open roofed areas that are paved shall have the architectural area multiplied by an area factor of 0.50 and be added to the measured building gross square feet.

The Major Institutional Overlay (MIO) boundary defines the extent of the campus that is governed by the City-University Agreement, and the development standards defined within this CMP. The MIO boundary was established by ordinance 112317.

e. Net new square footage of new building is counted towards the growth allowance when the permit is issued.

NET NEW GROSS SQUARE FEET

f. All parking areas, loading areas, and interstitial space required for mechanical and electrical systems to support the building shall be excluded from the CMP gross square feet. Interstitial space is the space between floors for mechanical, electrical, and HVAC systems.

GROWTH ALLOWANCE The phrase “growth allowance” refers to the 6.0 million gross square footage of net new development approved within the University’s

The net new gross square feet is calculated by subtracting the amount of gross square feet anticipated to be demolished on a development site from the total gross square feet of development identified for a particular development site. (See Tables 14 through 17.)

TOTAL MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FEET The total maximum gross square feet identified under the CMP for a particular development site. (See Tables 14 through 17).

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

255

USES

••

The primary campus use is Academic, but all other uses that are determined by the University to be necessary to fulfill the mission of the University of Washington are permitted.

Transportation (T): Underground, surface, and structured parking and roads supporting vehicle circulation including service and emergency service.

••

Open Space (OS): Outdoor open and landscaped areas integral to the overall campus environment and/or supporting pedestrian circulation or athletic/ recreation. Vacant lots associated with demolition of specific buildings are also allowed open space uses even if fencing or other barriers are installed to ensure safety.

••

Industry partnerships / manufacturing (IP): All facilities which relate to these functions, including office, conference space, commercial retail, manufacturing, shop or testing space, lounge and related support spaces.

••

Academic Conference Center with Lodging (ACC): Facilities that support University sponsored conferences and other events and provide lodging for conference attendees and visitors to the campus.

••

Temporary uses, accessory uses, and events, which fulfill the mission and goals of the University, are permitted. A temporary use can be allowed for up to six (6) months that does not involve:

Academic Use (A): All facilities which relate to and support instruction and research and the needs of students and faculty, including, but not limited to, classrooms, labs, faculty and administrative offices, lecture halls, museums, theatres, libraries, faculty/staff/student services, mixed-use, industry partnerships/ manufacturing; academic conference center; housing; transportation; open space; support facilities such as bookstores, food services, faculty club; athletic/recreation facilities; teaching hospital and clinics; and facilities supporting the utilities and plant maintenance functions of the University. Further detailed definitions of some of these uses are provided below. ••

••

Housing (H): Facilities providing housing and/or support functions for housing including, but not limited to dormitories, married student and family housing, patient-family housing, faculty and staff housing, food service, maintenance, day care, and playgrounds. Mixed-Use (MU): Facilities that include multiple activities such as transportation, housing, academic, and commercial uses.

256 Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

»» The erection of a permanent structure, »» Substantial injury to property outside the MIO, and

»» Is not materially detrimental to the public welfare and is consistent with the spirit of the CMP. A transitional encampment is allowed as a temporary use as long as the University determines it meets the mission and serves the goals of the University. The University shall designate and approve the location. The operator shall prepare an Encampment Operations Plan to be approved by the University. The CMP shall address: site management, site maintenance, provision of human and social services, referrals to service providers that are able to provide services to individuals (including minors), and public health and safety standards. One encampment on campus may be authorized for 3-6 months once per academic year, and at least 9 months shall elapse before another encampment use may be located on campus. The encampment shall be at least 25 feet from the MIO boundary. The encampment operator shall comply with community outreach standards including presentations to at least one City/University Community Advisory Committee meeting prior to opening, as well as to students, faculty and surrounding neighborhood groups. Regular reports shall be submitted to the University concerning encampment operations.

Development Standards Figure 193. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mid-block Corridor View Corridor 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Shoreline District Overlay

Development Standards - July 2017 Final Plan

257

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

258 July 2017 Final Plan

July 2017 Final Plan

259

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP) INTRODUCTION The University of Washington has been committed to managing its transportation impacts on surrounding neighborhood and the region for over four decades. This commitment has resulted in one of the lowest single occupancy vehicle (drive-alone) rates for universities nation-wide. In the 1970’s, the University implemented programs such as the Health Sciences Express, developed computerized ride-matching software, began subsidizing transit passes, and provided incentives to encourage students to carpool. Since these initial steps, the University has incrementally built upon these success and has become a national model and leader in transportation demand management. Beginning in 1983, the University’s commitment to managing its transportation impacts was formalized in its Transportation Management Plan, which embodies the intent to expand commuting options for University students, staff, and faculty, and to shift travel habits away from single occupancy vehicles. The primary goal of the University’s TMP is to reach 15% single occupancy vehicle rate by 2028. Through its active and innovative efforts, the University has successfully kept single occupant vehicle trips under 1990 levels despite a 35% increase in campus population.

Over the last fifteen years since the 2003 Campus Master Plan was approved, the University has continued its commitment to sustainably address transportation choices as an award-winning Commute Trip Reduction leader. The University has managed and monitored its success, while meeting demands for campus growth and adjusting to changing transportation options serving the campus. Greater details of progress toward more sustainable transportation choices since the 2003 Campus Master Plan is provided in the Campus Master Plan (CMP) EIS and Transportation Discipline Report. The Spring 2016 opening of a University of Washington light rail station at Husky Stadium adjacent to South Campus, connecting the University to the Seattle Downtown Core, Sea-Tac Airport, Sounder Commuter Rail and other neighborhoods with convenient, reliable transit has increased transit use by University students, faculty, staff and visitors. With substantial funded expansion of light rail in the region, transit use is expected to increase campus wide. To reinforce the University’s commitment to limiting auto travel, the University shall continue to cap the number of parking stalls available to commuters within the Major Institution Overlay boundary to 12,300. This parking cap has remained unchanged since 1984.

260 Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

Transportation Management Plan Goal: Limit the proportion of drive-alone trips of student, staff and faculty to 15% by 2028.

MONITORING AND REPORTING The University is committed to working with its agency partners, the City of Seattle (SDOT), King County Metro, Sound Transit, Community Transit and WSDOT. To work effectively with their partners, the UW will: ••

Convene a transportation agency stakeholder meeting, at least quarterly, to review progress and discuss transportation challenges and opportunities.

••

Commit to monitoring and reporting campus performance of its transportation goals.

••

Conduct an annual survey and provide the results of its efforts to the CityUniversity Citizen Advisory Committee (CUCAC), SDOT Director,SDCI Director, Seattle City Council members and transit agency partners. This survey provides a broad and representative sample of campus transportation choices and can be adjusted to address new and emerging technologies. Through publication of the Campus Master Plan Annual Report, the University shall verify that mode share goals and parking caps have been met.

••

Monitor bicycle parking (utilization) and accidents including bike and pedestrian accidents.

In 2028, if the University has not reached its SOV goal of 15%, master use permits and building permits shall not be issued if the University exceeds the 15% SOV goal over two consecutive years beginning in 2029. The Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI)(or its successor agency) shall withhold permits until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that additional mitigation measures shall be implemented that shall meet or restore the University student, faculty and staff SOV rate to 15%. This measure shall not be applied to maintenance, emergency repair, or other minor projects proposed by the University.

Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

261

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIES There are eight programmatic components of the TMP, each one providing strategies to support the success of the overall TMP program. Under each of the following eight TMP components is a list of potential improvement strategies. These are strategies that may be implemented one at a time, or in combination with other strategies. The University may choose among these strategies or potentially others, yet to be identified strategies, as a way of limiting single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips and encouraging the use of multimodal transportation options. Although the effect of each strategy is difficult to forecast, past success has shown that, taken together, these and existing strategies are effective at reducing drive-alone rates.

for Husky Stadium events is specified in the Husky Stadium Transportation Management Plan.

U-PASS Program The U-PASS program is the key component of the TMP. Implementation of the program in 1991 helped to increase the use of transit by students, faculty and staff. This reduced dependence on SOV trips to and from campus during peak hours. Figures 196 and 197 show the difference in transit and drive alone mode shares from 1989, before the U-PASS was implemented, through 2016. The

STUDENT DRIVE-ALONE RATE

EMPLOYEE DRIVE-ALONE R ATE

YEAR

43%

2015

Loyola â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Chicago

24%

2014

University of Washington

31%

2016

Univ. of Illinois - Urbana

10%

62%

2015

Colorado Univ. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Boulder

10%

45%

2014

Western Washington Univ.

11%

55%

2013

University of Oregon

12%

46%

2014

University of Michigan

13%

76%

2015

University of Florida

15%

59%

2011

UC Los Angeles

25%

53%

2011

Univ. of Arizona

33%

69%

2012

Arizona State Univ.

37%

71%

2014

Univ. of Utah

53%

67%

2011

2. Transit

4. Parking Management 5. Bicycle 6. Pedestrian 7. Marketing and Education 8. Institutional Policies Changes to the TMP implementation shall be made as needed over the course of this CMP to achieve the TMP goal. This TMP is not intended to address transportation to and from Husky Stadium events. Transportation

The University has made a number of changes to the U-PASS since adoption, including adoption of a universal student U-PASS in 2011 to address financial challenges. The U-PASS program touches multiple elements of the TMP including transit, parking management, shared-use transportation, bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Table 20. Urban Campuses and their drive alone rates

1. U-PASS Program

3. Shared-Use Transportation

University remains committed to maintaining a financially sustainable U-PASS program. As compared to other large urban universities, the University of Washington has a very low drive alone rate for students and employees as noted in the following table.

UC Berkeley

Source: STARS reports Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education

262 Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

Figure 194. U-PASS Historic Influence on AM Peak Trips and Drive Alone Mode

Figure 195. U-PASS Historic Influence on PM Peak Trips and Drive Alone Mode

Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

263

Table 21. Cost of U-Pass STUDENT

STAFF

FACULTY

Average Transit Pass*

$303

$314

$150

U-PASS Cost (per quarter)

$84

$150

Discount $

$219

$164

$158

Discount %

72%

52%

51%

*Weighted average of cash fares and passes needed to cover the average transit userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s costs.

POTENTIAL U-PASS IMPROVEMENT STR ATEGIES

1. Review pricing structure of the U-PASS. 2. Review University savings or subsidy methods for U-PASS program. 3. Explore the possibility of expanding the U-PASS to be an integrated, multimodal transportation payment method.

Transit The transit component of the TMP identifies strategies to increase utilization of transit by the University community. A frequent, reliable and integrated transit network gives passengers the flexibility to travel to campus

from locations throughout the region, providing convenient and reliable travel options other than driving alone. The University is the second best-served transit destination in the state, after the Downtown core, measured by number of routes and frequency of service. The University District currently enjoys excellent transit service provided by King County Metro, Community Transit and Sound Transit due to its proximity to the University campus. As part of the U-PASS program, the University purchases and consults about service from these agencies. Transit service is provided along the perimeter of the campus as well as Stevens Way NE, the primary interior campus roadway. Transit stops are supported with a variety of campus shelters and other transit amenities. Sound Transit Link light rail serves campus via the University of Washington Station, adjacent to Husky Stadium, which opened in March of 2016. A Northgate Link Extension includes the University District Station at NE 45th Street and Brooklyn Ave NE, opening in 2021. Light rail service shall further expand in 2023, including service to Lynnwood, Bellevue, Redmond and Des Moines and in 2024 to Federal Way and Redmond With the opening of the University of Washington light rail station in 2016, transit use by students, faculty and staff all increased, while drive alone frequency decreased.

264 Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

POTENTIAL TR ANSIT IMPROVEMENT STR ATEGIES

1. Work with partner agencies to enhance transit service between the Seattle Campus, other University locations, and nearby neighborhoods with significant student, faculty and staff concentrations. 2. Work with partner agencies to improve transit speed and reliability along major bus corridors including NE 45th Street, NE Pacific Street, 15th Avenue NE, University Way NE, Roosevelt Way NE/11th Avenue NE, and Montlake Blvd. NE. 3. Ensure that the transit system evolves and responds to changing travel patterns and demand, while preserving the campus environment. 4. Encourage transit agencies to improve early morning service (before 5 a.m.) and increase off-peak and weekend service to provide greater user flexibility. 5. Work with King County Metro, Sound Transit, Community Transit, SDOT (and other affected transit service providers) to forecast future demand by route during peak periods, and develop methods of enhancing transit service and providing additional capacity including for layover where necessary. 6. Work with partner agencies to improve multimodal access to Link and RapidRide stations with specific attention to pedestrian and bicycle connections to campus.

Shared-Use Transportation Shared-use transportation includes a range of methods for providing flexible travel options through the sharing of transportation resources including cars and bikes. Shared-use mobility options are expanding and emerging and include transportation network companies (TNCs) like Lyft and Uber and bike share which may make it easier to not own a vehicle. In addition, autonomous vehicles can greatly enhance safety for all modes. The University supported and partnered with the suspended Pronto bike-share program on campus and shall continue to review and evaluate future share program opportunities. The University, in coordination with transit agencies, helps facilitate carpools and vanpools to and from campus. For example, a regional ride match service allows students, faculty and staff to receive a list of potential commuters who live nearby, with organization of carpools up to the individual. Carpooling is also encouraged through the U-PASS program by offering discounted parking on campus. Vanpools are more formalized and are coordinated through the local transit agencies, with vans operated by the participants. Vanpools are also subsidized for commuters who live three or more miles from campus. The U-PASS program provides full-time participants a monthly subsidy. Vanpool rates vary by size of van and distance traveled and are determined by the transit agency who owns the van. Participants are able to park free of charge in the general stalls of University permit lots.

The University also has a partnership with shared-use transportation companies such as Car2Go and Zipcar (and formerly Pronto), providing discounted memberships to students, faculty and staff. These transportation options, and other future providers, create flexible travel options to and from campus. POTENTIAL SHARED-USE TR ANSPORTATION STR ATEGIES

1. Encourage use of new technologies to increase ease of forming, maintaining and tracking carpools and vanpools. 2. Partner with transit agencies to focus increased vanpool recruitment efforts in geographic areas currently not well served by transit, as well as retention and support efforts for existing vanpools. 3. Support the expansion of mobility options such as transportation network companies, car-share, bike-share, taxis, and other shared-use service providers with priorities for connecting the campus to transit hubs like the existing and proposed light rail stations, and ferry terminals. 4. Actively manage University-owned curb space at transit stations to improve connections between transit and other shared-use transportation providers. Work to avoid operational conflicts and ensure safety.

5. Work with partner transportation agencies to further define the concept of mobility hubs and identify opportunities to work with partners for enhancing connections or accommodating shared-use services such as bike-share.

Parking Management The University manages its parking supply in a variety of ways to reduce SOV travel. Paid parking is an important tool used to reduce demand, manage operations, and fund transportation options such as the U-PASS. Parking resources are managed holistically on a campus-wide basis. Students, faculty and staff are able to purchase parking permits or pay on a pay-per-use basis, depending on what best meets their needs. Additional parking is available for transient parking, which is defined by the method of payment. Depending on the parking lot, visitors pay for parking when entering campus or at parking meters. Some parking lots provide lower cost commuter parking, such as E1, while other lots provide proximate ADA accessible parking, such as N22. POTENTIAL PARKING MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT STR ATEGIES

1. Review parking pricing options to discourage the use of SOVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. 2. Review and consider performance-based parking strategies including charging more for high demand parking lots.

Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

265

3. Continue the practice of using parking revenue to fund trip reduction programs. 4. Consider transitioning from a parking permit model to a pay-per-use model. 5. Consider wayfinding and real-time parking availability information as a way to ease access and improve utilization of existing parking supply. Explore options for implementing real-time mobile parking payment. 6. Increase enforcement on campus to reduce parking violations. 7. Encourage the City of Seattle to manage unrestricted on-street parking within the U-District Urban Center and within the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones. RESTRICTED PARKING ZONES (RPZ)

The University has a number of programs in place to encourage students, faculty and staff to come to campus by means other than SOV’s. However, for those who drive, some in the University community may seek out free on-street City parking in neighborhoods surrounding the University. RPZs are a tool the City uses to manage potential spill-over parking demand by implementing time limits or parking restrictions for on-street parking, and then provide permits for local residents that exempt them from these restrictions. SDOT is currently in the process of reviewing the RPZ program and exploring additional neighborhood access plans. The University shall fund the RPZ program per the information below while SDOT works to review

the effectiveness of the RPZ program. If SDOT decides that the subsidization by the UW of the RPZ program does not meet the goal of increasing neighborhood access, the University shall not be required to pay the annual fee of $100,000. 1. The University shall pay no more than $100,000 annually for all costs related to the RPZ program as outlined in numbers 2 through 8 below. If the City of Seattle determines that RPZ programs are not effective in managing on-street parking within the Primary and Secondary impact zone or zones, the UW funds for subsidizing the RPZ program shall no longer be required. 2. The University shall pay for 100 percent of set-up costs (collection of data, studies, SED staff time, signs, etc.) for proposed RPZs in both the primary and secondary impact zones. 3. The University shall pay permit costs and otherwise financially support existing, expanded and new RPZs in the primary and secondary impact zones according to the following provisions. 4. The University shall be responsible for payment of permits on a biennial basis. If a neighborhood chooses to establish an RPZ program with annual renewal permits, the University’s share of costs shall be 50 percent of the costs as described in the following conditions.

266 Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

5. In the primary impact zone, the University shall pay for 100 percent of the cost for the first permit and 50 percent of the cost for the second permit for each household requesting a permit(s); or 100 percent of the cost for 1 guest permit if no permits are requested for the household’s cars. 6. For purposes of the permit costs, the primary impact zone shall be broadened to include the extension of an established RPZ in the primary impact zone into the secondary impact zone or an RPZ that is established and covers areas in both the primary and secondary impacts zones. 7. In the secondary impact zone, the University shall pay for 75 percent of the cost for the first permit for each household requesting a permit; or 75 percent of the cost for 1 guest permit if no permits are requested for the household’s cars. 8. In the secondary impact zone, the University shall not be responsible for the costs associated with the nighttime RPZ associated with the movie theaters in Wallingford. 9. By mutual agreement between the City and the University, additional spaces may be provided to offset the impacts of the establishment of Residential Parking Zones (RPZs) on the parking requirements of the student population residing on campus and within the University’s primary and secondary impact zones.

Bicycle Bicycling is a reliable, active, spaceefficient, and carbon-free commute option for UW students, faculty, and staff. For neighborhoods close to campus, bicycling commuting times can rival those of transit or driving. Reliable door-to-door travel times likely contribute to the popularity (according to U-PASS survey data) of bicycling among faculty, who are otherwise more likely to drive alone. The University of Washington has long supported bicycle commuting through infrastructure and programming. Continued investment in the capacity and security of campus bicycle parking, quality of campus bicycle routes, and innovative educational and encouragement programming shall accommodate growth in the number of bicyclists reaching the growing campus. The University of Washington currently supplies bicyclists with multiple locations for securing and storing their bicycles on campus. High security parking and showers are available at some campus locations for students, faculty and staff. Bike lockers and space in cages can be rented for a fee on a quarterly or annual basis. Bicycle routes on the Burke-Gilman Trail and University Bridge and elsewhere provide bike access to campus. The Burke-Gilman Trail provides excellent access to West, South and East Campus locations. Bike routes are outlined in the CMP. The University completed a corridor study and design concept plan for expansion of the Burke-Gilman Trail in 2012 and is working toward implementing these improvements as funding allows.

POTENTIAL BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT STR ATEGIES

1. Plan a comprehensive on-campus bicycle network that provides desirable bicycle facilities while reducing conflicts with other modes, enhancing the pedestrian experience throughout campus. 2. Work with partners to develop connections to and from key neighborhoods, regional bicycle facilities, and transit hubs. 3. Work with the City and transit agencies to improve sidewalks, transit stops, and other bicycle amenities near transit services and hubs including consideration of space for secure bicycle parking.

9. Develop a Bicycle Parking Plan that identifies a toolbox of parking solutions and design standards. 10. Investigate ways to reduce bicycle thefts. 11. Encourage transit agencies to identify strategies for accommodating increased bicycle travel demand on transit. 12. Consider integrating programs (like future bike share and secure bike parking) into the U-PASS and work with partner agencies to expand these mobility options with connections to transit hubs and other campus destinations.

4. Coordinate with the City to create bicycle connectivity through the street network, particularly along the University Bridge, Montlake Bridge, Brooklyn north to Ravenna Park, and west over I-5. 5. Improve the connectivity and interfaces of the off-campus bike network, the BurkeGilman Trail, and Central Campus. 6. Improve the capacity of the Burke-Gilman Trail as defined in the Burke-Gilman Design Concept plan as funding allows. 7. Provide adequate bike parking supply to serve demand. 8. Improve quality and security of bike parking through investments to expand covered and high-security parking.

Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

267

Pedestrian Pedestrian transportation is the largest single way that students commute to and throughout the campus. The University of Washington provides a network of pedestrian paths throughout the campus with connection to the local street and trail network across the campus. Pedestrian trails are located on campus providing access to waterfront and other scenic areas (see the Shoreline Public Access Plan). Access and mobility constraints and priorities have been further described in the University of Washington Campus Landscape Framework Plan, 2015. Universal access, including ADA, is a high priority. POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT STR ATEGIES

1. Protect and improve upon the pedestrianoriented campus. Make all transportation choices, policies and improvements supportive of the pedestrian environment and experience. 2. Enhance the quality and security of campus pathways through maintenance of paths, quality lighting, signage and wayfinding, and other investments. 3. Coordinate with the City to identify improvements to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pedestrian network such as repairing damaged

sidewalks, improving safety at crossings, increasing non-motorized capacity of area bridges, removing ADA barriers, improving lighting, etc. 4. Work with the City and transit agencies to improve sidewalks, transit stops, and other pedestrian amenities near transit services and as part of neighborhood development and infrastructure initiatives, including the SR-520 corridor. 5. Improve the capacity of the Burke-Gilman Trail as defined in the Burke-Gilman Design Concept plan as funding allows. 6. Increase pedestrian connections between major transit hubs, University businesses, University Village, and central campus. Address existing pedestrian capacity issues and develop solutions for potential future capacity issues. 7. Improve wayfinding to and from major campus and transportation destinations. 8. Provide ADA accessible connections between Central Campus and East, South and West Campus. 9. Maintain easy-to-understand and wellsigned or mapped ADA accessible routes through campus construction zones. 10. Study collision data and work with partners to improve pedestrian safety

268 Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

challenges in areas adjacent to the University. 11. Create strategic bicycle education programs including a ticket diversion program. 12. Survey campus bicyclists regularly to identify areas of need and refine program priorities. 13. Engage students in the creation of programming that increases the sense of fun and community around bicycle transportation. 14. Quantitatively study bicycle travel and parking behavior on the campus. 15. Explore cost-effective and strategic rewards and incentives for verifiable bicycle trips to the campus. 16. Create programs that reduce or eliminate the cost barriers to commuting by bike. 17. Study collision data and work with partners to improve bicycle safety challenges in areas adjacent to the University. 18. Explore the encouragement of electric bike and family bike use as a means of expanding the pool of potential bike commuters.

Marketing and Education

Institutional Policies

Marketing and education is essential for encouraging and supporting travel behavior choices that help the University meet its SOV goals. The University participates in a number of marketing programs to inform students, staff, and faculty of commuting options.

The University can modify and implement institutional policies that promote different modes of travel and/or reduce vehicle trips on the transportation network. While the other TMP elements provide transportation choices, institutional policies are aimed at reducing the SOV rates and controlling forecasted growth of SOV vehicle trips.

POTENTIAL MARKETING AND EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT STR ATEGIES

1. Focus efforts on new employees, new students, people who are moving residence and people whose transportation options have changed. 2. Continue to provide information about biking, walking, ride-sharing and telecommuting. 3. Continue to provide and market individualized commute planning services. 4. Encourage participation in local and national multimodal transportation days (i.e., bike to work day, take transit to work day, etc.) 5. Improve transit information to off-campus sites where University employees work. 6. Encourage the use of transit by visitors and patients to campus. 7. Encourage multi-modal trip chaining such as train-bus or bus-bike commutes. Work with agency partners to further define consistent understanding and language around the notion of mobility hubs. Develop marketing and education strategies targeting high-SOV populations.

Coordination with other agency partners that provide transportation services is essential for the success of the campus goals. As noted in the Monitoring and Reporting section, the University is committed to working with agency partners and shall convene an agency stakeholder group that is anticipated to meet quarterly to review progress and discuss transportation challenges and opportunities. Another strategy that relies on institutional policy is telecommuting. Telecommuting allows participating University faculty and staff to use technology to work from home or an alternate worksite. This helps decrease the number of peak-hour commute trips to and from campus, lessening the traffic impact the University would have on the surrounding transportation network. Telecommuting is currently permitted with authorization from the employeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s department. POTENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICY IMPROVEMENT STR ATEGIES

2. Consider access to transit when siting facilities. 3. Manage class schedules to reduce peakperiod travel demand. 4. Consider directing some program growth to off-peak academic quarters, such as summer. 5. Support City, State and regional policies that encourage developers to create housing close to transit corridors so students, staff and faculty can live close to transit. 6. Increase on-campus student employment to decrease SOV linked trips. 7. Advocate for enhanced transportation management plans for University District developments and employers. 8. Continue the preservation/creation of student housing on campus by the University and encourage the private sector to create housing for students, staff and faculty off campus but close to transit. 9. Identify ways to support University employees with very early or very late work hours in finding high quality non-SOV commute options.

1. Communicate policies and promote telecommuting, flex-time, compressed workweeks and other techniques that reduce peak-period travel.

Transpor tation Management Plan - July 2017 Final Plan

269

HOUSING

270 July 2017 Final Plan

July 2017 Final Plan

271

HOUSING SUMMARY OF THE UNIVERSITY HOUSING POLICY The University of Washington Student Housing Statement of Principles was adopted by the Board of Regents in 1978. It provides policy direction for University decision-making related to the provision of student housing. The Principles state that â&#x20AC;&#x153;the primary source for student housing continues to be the offcampus private housing market.â&#x20AC;? This principle was reaffirmed by the Regents in 1988 and again in 1997. As of 2015, approximately 80 percent of University of Washington students live off-campus. Consistent with the University of Washington Student Housing Statement of Principles, the University is primarily a non-residential campus with no requirement for students to live on campus. The University of Washington does currently provide two forms of housing as an option for students: on-campus residence halls (dormitories) and student apartment buildings (both single-student and family housing apartments). There are 11 existing residence halls located on the University of Washington campus, with the current capacity to house approximately 7,009 students (residence halls are intended for non-married

272 Housing - July 2017 Final Plan

students, the University has separate family housing facilities, as discussed below). Four of the residence halls are located in North Campus, including Hansee Hall, Haggett Hall, and McMahon Hall. Seven residence halls are located in the West Campus and include Alder Hall, Elm Hall, Lander Hall, Poplar Hall, Maple Hall, Mercer Court. and Terry Hall. Table 22 provides a breakdown of the total number of beds for each residence hall and indicates that the University of Washington has a current residence hall operating capacity of 7,009 beds.

Table 22. Existing University of Washington Residence Halls Name of Building Current

Operating Bed Capacity

West Campus Alder Hall

641

Elm Hall

543

Lander Hall

688

Maple Hall

831

Mercer Court A-B

842

Poplar Hall

318

Terry Hall

334

Central Campus McCarty Hall

662

McMahon Hall

1,000

Haggett Hall

818

Hansee Hall

332

TOTAL Residence Halls

7,009

Source: University of Washington, 2017

The University of Washington is also in the process of development of its North Campus Student Housing Project which is located in Central Campus. The project proposes to demolish the 1,480 beds at McCarty and Hagget Halls and replace them with 2,133 beds in the new McCarty, Madrona, Willow and Oak halls. These buildings shall be complete by 2019. The proposed next phase would add an additional 700 beds in North campus in the New Haggett which would bring the total in that area to 4,165. In addition to these last 700 beds in New Haggett, Housing and Food Services believes that it will add at least an additional 1,000 beds to the overall housing inventory during the life of this CMP. The University also provides student apartments as a housing option for fulltime students who are single parents, or are married or are registered same-sex domestic partners, with or without dependent children. The University owns eight apartment buildings or complexes, with four dedicated to single students (non-married) and four dedicated for families. Table 24 summarizes the total number of beds provided by each apartment complex or building.

Table 23. Existing University of Washington Residence Halls with North Campus and Haggett Replacement Name of Building With North Campus and New Haggett Complete

Operating Bed Capacity

Table 24. Existing University of Washington Apartments

Name of Building

Operating Bed Capacity

Single Student Apartments

West Campus

Alder Hall

641

Elm Hall

543

Cedar Apartments

344

Lander Hall

688

Mercer Court C-E

489

Stevens Court

518

Maple Hall

831

Mercer Court A-B

842

East Campus 3.8-2

Poplar Hall

318

Nordheim Court

460

Terry Hall

334

Total Single Student Apartments

1,811

Family Housing Apartments

Central Campus

West Campus

New McCarty Hall

756

Madrona

494

McMahon

1000

New Haggett Hall

700

Blakely Village

Hansee Hall

332

Laurel Village

Commodore Duchess

139

East Campus

Willow

523

Radford Court

399

Oak

360

Total Family Housing Apartments

697

TOTAL Residence Hall Beds with Additions

8,362

TOTAL APARTMENT BEDS

2,508

Source: University of Washington, 2017

Housing - July 2017 Final Plan

273

As indicated in Table 24, the University of Washington has the current capacity to house 2,508 students in apartments, including 1,811 single-student (non-married) beds and 697 family housing units. In total, considering 8,362 residence hall beds with North Campus housing complete and 2,508 family and non-family apartment beds, the University of Washington has the capacity to house approximately 10,870 students on campus. The Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Housing and Food Services Department indicates that in 2015, their student housing facilities were at full occupancy.1 As part of their North Campus Student Housing Project, the University of Washington identified a goal of housing approximately 22 percent of their student population in oncampus facilities. With existing facilities, the University of Washington currently houses approximately 21 percent of the enrolled students on campus. With the completion of the North Campus Student Housing Project, the University shall add 2,833 beds (includes New McCarty, New Haggett, Madrona, Willow

and Oak) for a total student housing capacity of approximately 10,870 student beds, and is committed to increase its total to 11,528 that would allow the University to meet its goal of housing 22 percent of the student population on-campus. The monthly cost of University housing ranges from $668 - $15842 3, depending on whether it is a residence hall (without a kitchen and private bathroom), an apartment (with a kitchen and private bathroom), and whether it is private (one person) or shared (more than one person). All utilities (water, sewer, garbage, electricity, and internet) are included in the rates; expenses generally paid in addition to base rent in the private market. Additionally, Housing and Food Services is halfway through its $880 million Housing Master Plan (HMP), which shall redevelop the residential housing on campus. Rates have not increased significantly despite premiums often charged for new buildings and amenities.

University of Washington Housing and Food Services Resource Guide: 2015-2016. 1

Undergraduate rates for the 2016-2017 academic year, graduate and family rates proposed for the 2017-2018 academic year. Proposed rates are subject to Board of Regents approval. 2

Residence Hall rates are charged quarterly, for this analysis we calculated monthly rent by using a threemonth estimate for quarterly rent. 3

274 Housing - July 2017 Final Plan

Existing On-Campus Student Housing Facility by Campus Sector

Figure 196. Existing West Campus University of Washington Housing. Source: University of Washington, 2017

Figure 198. Existing East Campus University of Washington Housing. (Does not include Radford Court, located at Sandpoint Magnuson Park) Source: University of Washington, 2017

Figure 197. Existing and Planned Central Campus University of Washington Housing. Source: University of Washington, 2017

Housing - July 2017 Final Plan

275

HOUSING PROGRAMS FOR FACULTY AND STAFF Faculty and staff rely on the private market for housing. However, the University of Washington recently completed a housing project with Seattle Childrens’ called “Bridges@11th” for faculty and staff and has a program in place to help with housing financing, called “HomeTown Home Loan”. The University participates in a publicprivate partnership to provide affordable and accessible housing options for its employees at the Bridges@11th multifamily development project (completed in August 2016). The Bridges@11 project is a partnership between the University of Washington and Children’s Hospital to provide workforce rental housing for employees. The project includes 184 apartments with 37 of those priced to be affordable to people making 65% to 85% of area median income. Employees of the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital have priority access for available apartments, including the affordable apartments. Employees who are benefits-eligible faculty or staff with active 9-month or longer appointments are eligible to apply for the priority list. The project is now completely rented with 35 of the units occupied by UW and Children’s employees. This property is managed by a private company, Madrona Ridge Residential.

276 Housing - July 2017 Final Plan

The Hometown Home Loan Program is offered to UW employees through a partnership with HomeStreet Bank. This program helps employees looking to purchase a residence access to seminars and a series of discounts on loan fees, escrow, title, and related financing costs. Additional benefits are available to households with modest incomes and locating within the City of Seattle. Since bringing this program to campus in 1998, over 3,000 UW employees have taken part. Approximately 1,200 of these were first time home buyers. On average, participants saved over $1,500.

Table 25. Hometown Home Loan Participants 2016

Program-toDate

Home Loans

152

3,192

First-Time Home Buyers

1,258

$258,816

$4,826,641

Average Savings

$1,703

$1,512

Down Payment Assistance

$64,075

$1,308,817

Total Savings

Source: HomeStreet Bank, 2016

The Hometown Home Loan Program has assisted households with a range of incomes. As illustrated in Figure 200 below, more than half of participants had incomes below the area median of $89,600.

Figure 199. Hometown House Loan Program, Income Summary, 1998 to 2016. Source: HomeStreet Bank, 2016

HOUSING CHOICE ANALYSIS In choosing a residence, students, faculty, and staff must consider various factors including the cost of housing, ownership versus renting, accessibility to campus by various transportation modes, and other attributes of the available housing stock. Students are likely to weigh factors differently than faculty and staff. For example, students predominantly access the Seattle UW campus by foot, bike or transit and as a result may more heavily weigh proximity to campus over other factors. Faculty and staff are more likely to have dependent children and spouses or partners with other location or housing amenity requirements. In any event, dominant factors in residential location choice always include housing costs and accessibility.

Current Housing Choices of Students, Faculty, and Staff Many factors contribute to the residential housing choices of students, faculty, and staff associated with the University of Washington and they are different for students and employees. For students, these factors include, but are not limited to, whether they moved to the area to

attend the University, if they have family to live with, if they have dependents of their own, their financial situation (as a result of parental support, grants, loans, savings, partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s income, or work income), the frequency of travel to campus, and neighborhood amenity preferences. For faculty and staff, the factors are often more complex than they are for students since they are not time-limited in nature. University employees are also more likely to be in later life stages of their career, where housing decisions are made jointly with other members of their household. Their income also plays a central role, as does accessibility to campus. The University of Washington understands housing decisions impact not only individual wellbeing, but that addressing housing concerns is critical to attracting talented students and employees to fulfill its mission as a premier educational institution. Because of the different factors involved in housing choices noted above, the University treats student housing differently than faculty and staff housing. The Board of Regents continues to affirm that the primary source for student housing is the off-campus private market, the University also relies on the private market to accommodate faculty and staff housing,

but does not supplement the private market with on-campus housing. To offer support, the University offers discounts and access to counseling services for eligible employees purchasing a home (HomeTown Home Loan program), provides rental opportunities at Bridges@11th affordable to employee households making 65 percent to 85 percent of the area median income as part of the City of Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Multifamily Tax Exemption Program (MFTE), and sets competitive salaries to secure housing in the private market. For more information on where University employees and students live now and where they are anticipated to live in the future, please see the Housing section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Housing - July 2017 Final Plan

277

APPENDIX

278 July 2017 Final Plan

•• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM •• PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACT ZONES •• CITY OF SEATTLE UNDERLYING ZONING MAP •• UW BUILDING INVENTORY •• UNIVERSITY DISTRICT GREEN STREET CONCEPT PLAN •• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

July 2017 Final Plan

279

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM INTRODUCTION

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Objectives:

To achieve the goals for the Campus Master Plan (CMP), it is very important to engage the large and diverse groups of constituents who have a vested interest in the University’s future. A robust public participation program provides strategies to ensure the University maximizes public engagement and that it forms, maintains, and expands its relationships with key stakeholders. Planning for continued growth, preserving the beauty of the campus, and engaging our diverse communities in the master planning process are all important factors in continuing the UW’s legacy well into the future.

The purpose of the Public Participation Program (PPP) is to engage the public early on and provide opportunities for continued public participation throughout the planning process for the CMP. Public participation is necessary to obtain meaningful input from the broader community that includes not just the University, and its faculty, staff and students, but also residents, businesses, community groups, and special interest groups. This input helps inform the project team as they develop the CMP. Campus and community reviews take place during the development of the Preliminary, Draft, and Final CMPs.

PROVIDE CONSISTENT, CLEAR, AND ACCUR ATE INFORMATION

The City-University Agreement (CUA) is a development regulation that governs relations between the City of Seattle and the UW for the Major Institution master planning process. The CUA outlines the process by which the City and the University shall work together with the City-University Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC) and representatives from the surrounding residential and business communities. These entities shall work together throughout the planning process.

Goals:

This Public Participation Program is subject to change and may be revised as required.

280 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

1. Keep constituents informed and updated on the development of the CMP; 2. Provide opportunities for early and continuous participation by the public.

•• Clearly communicate information to assist the public in understanding issues and proposed solutions; •• Provide opportunities for the public to contribute ideas and feedback continuously through all phases of the planning process. STRIVE TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT PROMOTES OPEN DISCUSSION AND MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE

Encourage input and participation from all interested parties through: •• Creating opportunities for the public to learn about the project; •• Encourage input and feedback on alternatives; •• Actively listening to all comments and concerns.

FACILITATE AND ENCOUR AGE EARLY, ONGOING PARTICIPATION

Provide a variety of communication vehicles for the public to provide feedback and become informed through: •• A hotline number for people to express concerns or ask questions; •• Dedicated email address for written communications; •• Online feedback form where people can leave comments; •• Providing information on website and collateral explaining how to sign up for email distribution list, and the various ways to stay informed; •• Regularly distributing updated information to email distribution list; •• Regularly posting project information on social media sites and project website; and •• In person and on-line meetings to gather input.

TR ACK OUTREACH ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS, EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS

•• Respond to letters, emails or public comments; •• Record-keeping: keep copies of summaries of outreach meetings, newsletters, fliers, correspondence, and other outreachrelated materials; and •• Add additional measures to ensure public participation, if warranted.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STAKEHOLDERS AND TARGET AUDIENCES The University cast a wide net with its outreach efforts to ensure that input on the CMP reflects a wide range of interests and influences. This input enhances the planning process and the ultimate success of the CMP. Stakeholder groups for the CMP encompass a wide range of internal audiences, external community groups, and the general public. These audiences are informed of growth

alternatives, proposals, and alternatives through broad dissemination of information through a variety of vehicles. In order to effectively reach CMP stakeholders, notice of the availability of the CMP Draft and Final Plan was published in a variety of media (e.g., as discussed further below, print, online and social media) that have circulation in the greater Seattle area and the campus community. In addition, the University sends information to City/University Community Advisory Committee and regional and City agencies as appropriate, as well as local and community-based organizations and neighborhood blogs to extend outreach and expand participation. The University also provides general notice of the time and place of the public meetings through standard notice procedures, such as email campaigns, flyers, posters, direct mail postcards, the project website, social media, and community email lists in advance of such meetings.

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

281

ROLE OF THE CITY-UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE The City-University Community Advisory Committee is comprised of 16 members. 12 representatives and 12 alternates are from the following community organizations: Eastlake Community Council, University District Partnership, Laurelhurst Community Club, Montlake Community Club, Portage Bay/Roanoke Park Community Council, Ravenna-Bryant Community Association, Ravenna Springs Community Group, Roosevelt Neighbors â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Alliance, Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, University District Community Council, University Park Community Club and the Wallingford Community Council. In addition, there are four representatives from the University of Washington. One representative and one alternate represent each of the following groups: staff, students, faculty and the at-large campus population. City/University Community Advisory Committee is involved throughout the CMP process and provides input, advice, and comments to the University as it develops the Draft and Final CMP. They typically meet monthly, but during the development and review of the Draft and Final CMP, they met more often.

282 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

City/University Community Advisory Committee meets monthly on the 2nd Tuesday, at the University Tower in the 22nd Floor Board Room. The address of Tower is 4333 Brooklyn Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98195. City/University Community Advisory Committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main objective is to advise the

University on its growth and development. Each City/University Community Advisory Committee meeting begins with a 10-minute public comment period, which helps facilitate open discussion with the public. Meeting agendas are published on the City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods website and

2018 Seattle CMP Public Participation Program TABLE 26. STAKEHOLDERS AND TARGETED AUDIENCES SHALL BE Stakeholders and Targeted Audiences that will THAT be notified ofNOTIFIED CMP andOFEIS publications CAMPUS MASTER PL AN AND EIS PUBLICATIONS

Campus Master Plan Stakeholders/Target Audiences UW Community

Government Agencies

Faculty, Staff, Students Campus Community Specific University committees and organizations

City/Local State Federal Regional Transportation Agencies

Non-UW Community Residents/adjacent neighborhoods CUCAC UDP Businesses Community Groups & Individuals Commercial property owners

Other Tribes Veterans Persons with disabilities Interested Parties

SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES on the UW Regional and Community Relations website. The minutes from these meetings are posted on the City of Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods website. For access to more information including the meeting schedule and agenda, please visit the UW CUCAC webpage: http://www.washington.edu/ community/cucac/

Opportunities for City/University Community Advisory Committee to Provide Feedback in the Campus Master Plan Process: •• Review of preliminary concepts being considered by the University prior to the Draft CMP being published; •• Input from City/University Community Advisory Committee and City/University Community Advisory Committee statements included in City/University Community Advisory Committee minutes that are posted on DON website; •• 75 day comment period on the Draft CMP and 56 day comment period on the Final CMP

The University actively engaged audiences and encouraged feedback using a wide variety of communications vehicles. The University kept the community informed of the issues and progress regarding the CMP on a regular basis. While traditional methods (meetings and presentations, etc.) play an important role in public engagement, the University augmented these methods with electronic participation tools to further broaden outreach and broadly disseminate information. These tools included the use of online public meetings, project website, social media, online surveys, and email. In addition, where possible, the University seeks out opportunities to partner with other groups at events. Outreach activities include:

General mailings, notices, print collateral Print collateral (for general distribution; distributed at public meetings and response to inquiries as needed) may include: •• PowerPoints •• Discussed at meetings and available online

•• Postcards •• Posters and flyers •• Publicizing meetings to campus organizations, used with mailing lists, displayed on campus and in University District locations

Public Meetings and Open Houses Briefings, community meetings, and online meetings were conducted during the project. Notices of public meetings were broadly disseminated prior to the meetings. Public meetings occurred with many groups, some of which are listed below: •• University District Partnership; •• Northeast District Council; •• City-University Community Advisory Committee (Co-sponsor) •• Community Clubs and Councils; and •• City of Seattle Departments •• University of Washington Faculty, Staff and Student committees and groups

•• Presentations that covered a preliminary CMP and draft CMP as they were developed

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

283

Project Hotline

EMAIL DISTRIBUTION:

Interested parties had the ability to call a dedicated CMP hotline to get information on project status, upcoming events and to leave questions or comments.

•• Campus Master Plan Connection

Online Media PROJECT WEBSITE:

•• General information/contact numbers/ email •• Project newsletter archive

•• Email distribution includes: UWS Faculty Senate, FCUFS, ASUW, GPSS, UW Environmental Stewardship Committee, Community groups, neighborhood groups, and various government organizations. •• Opportunity for individuals to be added to distribution list through in links included on project website. SOCIAL MEDIA:

•• News/updates/Fact sheets/FAQs

•• Facebook page

•• Document archive

•• Twitter handle

•• Interactive comment form

•• Hyperlocal online forums/blogs

•• Links to newsletter sign up, various social media pages

•• Online Public Meeting Forums

284 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

•• Community Newsletters

2018 Seattle CMP Public Participation Program TABLE 27. SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

Estimated Reach/Distribution

Vehicle Direct Mail News Media Print/online/ hyperlocal publications

Email Campaigns

Surrounding neighborhoods

Seattle Weekly Seattle Times Daily Journal of Commerce

Print – 8,500 distribution Online - 2,794 online views 55,000 (print & online) 1.8 Million (print & online 5,000 (print & online)

UW students, faculty, staff, surrounding communities, greater Seattle metro area Greater metro area Greater Metro area Greater metro area

UW Today

43,000

UW students, faculty, staff

North Seattle Herald Outlook Madison Park Times Montlake Forum Wallyhood Campus Master Plan Connection News you can use – City of Seattle U District Partnership News

7,000 5,500 1,067

North Seattle communities East-Central Seattle communities Montlake neighborhood Wallingford neighborhood Faculty, staff, students, community groups, general public, civic & government organizations

The Daily

1,168 650

Postcards Social Media

Target Audience

Twitter Facebook Next Door Madison Park

Broadcast Media KUOW KEXP

230 followers & growing 31 Page Likes 867 members

All residences within the Primary and Secondary Impact Zone Faculty, staff, students, community groups, general public, neighborhoods Madison Park neighborhood

354,000

FINAL DRAFT – January 2016 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

285

2018 Seattle CMP Public Participation print and online ads placed in the Seattle IMPLEMENTATION AND Daily Journal of Commerce, Seattle Times, The CAMPUS MASTER PLAN REVIEW Program Daily, and UW Today, and posted on social SCHEDULE

media sites Facebook and Twitter. In addition, information was distributed via community newsletters, blogs and email listservs.

The University kicked off its Seattle CMP in October 2015 with two open Implementation andhouses Plan Review Schedule accompanied by the EIS Scoping meetings. Implementation of the public participation The comment period for the EIS Scoping plan is ongoing, with specific activities and use process ran from October 6th to October 26th, of media vehicles scheduled to provide notice 2015. The events were publicized one week in advance of the meetings, events or plan in advance with a press release and email publications. campaign, the launch of a dedicated website,

TABLE 28. CURRENT CAMPUS MASTER PL AN REVIEW SCHEDULE

Current Campus Master Plan Review Schedule Kick-Off Seattle Campus Master Plan and EIS Scoping

October 2015

Phase 1 Preliminary Plan Concepts Developed

Winter and Spring of 2016

Phase 2 Draft Plan and Draft EIS Published

October 2016

Phase 3 Final Plan and Final EIS Published

July 2017

Hearing Examiner

Fall 2017

City Council

Winter 2018

City Council and Board of Regents Approval

Spring 2018

FINAL DRAFT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; January 2016 286 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

287

51 3

Blvd

NE St Blakeley

cS cifi Pa

NE 44th St

NE 41st St Campus Pkwy NE St NE P ac ific St

th 45

40th

cif ic

St l NE Pacific P

Harvard Ave E

e E

E Boston S t

E Ave

ye r

Av e

15th

A Fa v e irv N ie w La Av ke v ie e E w Blv d

10th Ave E

Fa irv

ie w

E Lynn St

24th Ave E

lm ar

W es 19th Ave E t Mo Pl n E tlak

Boylston Ave E

E Roanoke St

ke tla 24th Ave E on M st Pl E Ea

Eastlake Ave E

N 34th St

Figure 200. Primary and Secondary Impact Zones MIO Boundaries University of Washington Masterplan EIS \\srv-dfs-wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14284.03 - UW Master Plan EIS\GIS\MXD\MIO Boundary Map.mxd

288 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

SR 513

Pa Pl cific

NE 40th St NE

N 40th St

17th Ave NE

NE 45th St

15th Ave NE

NE 45th St

7th Ave NE

NE 50th St

7th Ave NE

N 45th St

NE 65th St

N 50th St

Rav enn a

Roosevelt Way NE 11th Ave NE

NE 65th St

35th Ave NE

NE 65th St

25th Ave NE

8th Ave NE

en La ke Gr e Ea

NE 65th St

NN N Pa o rt hla ke cific W St ay

The City-University Agreement was adopted in 1983 by the University of Washington Board of Regents and the Seattle City Council. The Agreement defines process to prepare a comprehensive master plan and EIS for future campus development. It specifies that the master plan and EIS include boundaries surrounding the University identified as Primary and Secondary Impact Zones (see Figure 198). As part of the Agreement, the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones are used to assess and monitor the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from all proposed University development.

N 65th St

15th Ave NE

a nn ve Ra E NE l N NE Blvd P in lvd ed a B d We enn Blv v Ra nna N E a ve R NE

70th St

Way N

12th Ave NE

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACT ZONES

Legend Primary St Impact Zone o is

Secondary Impact Zone ad M E

DRAFT

FIGURE

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

289

37.5 37.5

15 15

PARCEL A

Lot

000 99. 99.0

344.37

(Condo)

VOL 215-66 68

4545 Building

N0-00W

79.383

35 35 35

35 40(P) 40(P)

74.54

40 40

15TH AV NE

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40 30 30

30 30 40 40 40 40

VOL 7- 32

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

N2^06'54"E

40 40

539.98

D AO 123122

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40 30 30

30 30 40 40

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

N2^07'41"E

40 40

540.50

40 40 40 40

CO 17947

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

N2^06'17"E 539.80

DEDICATED F OR HIGHWAY PURPO SE BY CHAPT.66 LAW S O F 1929

VO 96717

20 20

20 20 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40

N2^07'01"E

40 40 40 40

40 40

15TH AV NE 15TH AV NE

40 40

482.87

40 40 40 40

AO 57603

336.97

40(P) 40 40(P) 40

N2^07'20"E 337.02

15TH AV NE 15TH AV NE CO 17947

88 25 25 25(P) 25(P) 45.28(D) 45.28(D)

185.20 185.20

7. 7.0 09 9

95.57 95.57

25 25 34.01 34.01 N2^11'22"E N2°11'22"E

25 25 25 25

R/W Easement

34.03 46.21 N2^11'22"E

25 25 25

8" E

25 25 25 25

VO 120249 9.83 9.83

25 25 25 25

25 25

MA P 8 6 - 5 3

VO 120249

25 25 25 25

834.55

N2^06'31"E N2°06'31"E

120249

VAC 15TH AV NE

581.02 581.02

25 25 25 25 25 25

CO 17947

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 N2°06'31"E N2^06'31"E

VAC 15TH AV NE

25 25 696.56 696.56

25 25

N2^06'48"E 834.55 N2^06'48"E (W.C.S.) ORD

25 25

N0^53'22"E N0°37'18"E 53.43 53.43 N0^37'18"E N0°53'22"E S85°42'14"E VO 120249 S85^42'14"E

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

......

25 25 53.43 53.43 ....N85°42' N85^42'14"W 14"W

61.64 61.64

... .... 6.61 6.61

78.52 78.52 N2°06'31"E N2^06'31"E

DEDICATED F OR HIG HWAY CH AP 66 LAWS O F 192 9 AO 57603

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

25 9. 9.4 47 7 R=1 R=1 46.2 38.5 46. 38. 525 0 50 24.51 24.51 66.37 66.37 CITY JOINT AO 120249 US ER R/W

-50

9.00

2843.83 284 3.8 3

40 40 40 40 40.01 40.01

WY NE

26.97 26.97

VO 95764

27.08 27.08

11. 56.431 11.3 55 355

IFS

IFU

19- A

17.8 17. 93 893

VO 93656

30 30

21.96 21.96 69

VO 936

83 25.907 25.907

10 100

CF292350

CO 17947

VO 93656

31.24 31.24

31.24 31.24 31.24 31.24 31.24 31.24

821 .8 18 18.

VAC 15TH AV NE

25 25

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

540.13 N2^07'01"E

40 40

VO 97868

N2^06'48"E

616.99

VO 97868

61.7 61.7

31.8 31.8

25 53.52 53.52 13.95 13.95 51.89(D) 51.89(D ) R=40 R=40

VO 120249 9.00

8" E

151.45 151.45 AO 12 02 49

N3 N3 7°3 7^ 31 1'4 8"E '4

118.00 118.00

7. .68 68

79.

N3 76. N3 7°3 7^76.0 07 31 1'4 7 8"E '4

17 177

100.06 100.06

8" E

1'4 8"E '4

79 90 N3 N3 .9 7°3 7^ 0 31

20 20 .7 .7

AV AO

15 TH

12 N4 N4 02 4^ 49 83 4°3 9'1 .8 39 '1 0 8"E 8" E

63.5(P) 63.5(P)

03. 3 .50 50

R=22 R=22 4.12 4.1

120

249

R=2 R=20

VO 120249

80.12 80.12

VO 120249

5 5

415 .4 25 25.

9001

BIN

ED BU

L KH

D, ER

S TA

TE AR

Bdy

L A K E

Adj PARCEL C

95060 55

0 555 5.0 39.5 000 5.00 39. 41. 22 41.0 22

822 .8 23 23.

4.9

112.50 112.50

IFU

0535

13 - A

38.

SEATTLE CONSTRUCTION LIMIT LINE

23.43

63.68

0526

37.87

235.150

HYDR

S0° 03'38"W N0-03-38E 99.98

IFS

49.99 49.99 624.930

VOL 191-74 7 5

99.98

99.98 S0° 03'38"W

S0°04'20"W 99.98 99.98

99.98

(Co ndo)

Boyer On The Bay VOL 191-74 7 5

DQL

Boyer On The Bay

311.64 N89-56-42W S89°56'42"E 311.64

49.99 49.99

3.5

(Condo)

45.05 45.05

IFS

E LI

LIN

IT ON LIM TI

T L

AN AV E

50 50

LINE

50 50

MEAN DER

50 50

102930

174.472 174.472

250.96 S89°56'42"E N89-56-42W 250.96

GO VE RN MENT

50 50 50 50

BOYER AV E

2822

539.075

49.99 49.99

50 50

ST N O 89910

50 50

45.03 45.03

0556

N0^16'02.7"E

37.5

113.793 113.793

0555

....

14.36 14.36

2.1 2.14

120 120

50 50

50 50 47

50 50

DQL

50 50

11TH AV E

DQL

50 50

50 50 50 50 50 50

50 50

10TH AV E

50 50

50 50 50 50

50 50

50 50 50 50

50 50

50 50 50 50

50 50

120 120

37.5 37.5

50 50

76.49 76.49

HARVARD AV E

50 50

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

109.49 N88^49'07"W

33 33

475.000

33 33

UC TRION CT NS COTRU NS E 5 47 E CO 75 TL TTL AT 58. 58.4 SEE SEA 7" 2.15 95 E '450.'43"6. 11 °11

BROADWAY E

SR 5

......

"E N1^16'34"E

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

CL BASELINE CL BASELINE

S31

N3^24'E

SHEE TS 3 & 4

58.83 N88^49'07"W

15 15

SEATTLE FREEWAY

110 110

37.5 37.5

. ! G

11.72 11.72

181.67 N88^49'07"W

. ! G

110 110

68.276 68.276

-4 .950 11611

E G AL E R S T TO E S HE L BY ST

15 15

110 110

0676

IFU

15 - A

SR 5

. ! G

37.5 37.5

0675

S89^56'41.7"E S89°56'41.7"E

37.5 37.5

....

Esmt

310.05 N88^48'04"W

110 110

1212

36 36

.5 37 37. 5

.9 .950 116 116

DQL

5.5

15 15

37 37.

310.17 N88^48'54"W

110 110

85.61 85.61

74.

. ! G

37.5 37.5

50 50

37.5 37.5

50 50

.71 .71 220 220

SC18 p56

50 50

74.

110 110

50 50

12. 12.5

0 595 24.0117.9 24.01 17. 81.00 1.0 12.9 12.98 L 3 CE 26 B PAR 474 02 12.35 64.7 64. 8 4 PARCEL 12.35 No 123.87 123.87 126.80(P) 126.80(P)

t Bd A

13 DQL

50 50

110 110 .50 .50 112 y 112

14.

15 15

110 110

50 50

100

. ! G

37.5 37.5

50 50

37.5 37.5

50 50

.5 .593 131 131

50 50

310.13 N88^48'50"W

110 110

50 50

... 101 20.0 20. 9... 18.9 393 18. 18.9 2 18.

15 15

110 110

N89°57' 07"E

50 50 N89^57'07"E

717 48. 48.1

37.5 37.5

50 50

E SHELBY ST

21. 21.2

126.63

37.5

50 50

VOL 8- 78

50 50

46 46

50 50

Esm

50 50

66 66

50 50

020 50. 50.2

50 50

310.06 N88^49'10"W

S U P P L

17 17

50 50

. ! G

37.5 37.5

A D D

L IN

HYDR

PARCEL B 44. 44.5

.6 .66 140 140

310.01(G) N88^48'59W

3.5

50 50

125 125

53.5

12 12

37.5 37.5

0660

F gu e 202 Seatt e Depa tment o Const uct on and nspect on Map Book D dated Janua y E14 2016 78 N NSheet Y 33

43.

10 10

5.5 5.5

W328 .5 6 .56 '48" 115 115

777 66. 66.7

50 50

Esm

16 16

15 15

°36

303 10. 10.0

696 93....... 93.9

S58

on 212-95E L 48 0 .0 VO 6- .00 -3 132 3 58 132 12

50 50

N 12.22 12.22

344.42 N0-00-05E N0°00'05"E 344.42

UNIVERSITY WY N

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

N2^07'01"E

40 40

40 40 40 40

537.84

40 40

140 60

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

540.04 N2^07'01"E

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

540.17 N2^07'01"E

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

VO 100678

40 40

40(P) 40(P) 18 18

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

UNIVERSITY WY NE

VO 110306 VO 110306 59.2 59.2 29.2 29.2

25 25

63.5 63.5

N2^06'48"E

UNIVERSITY

14.04 0.74 14.04 0.74

46.41

82.29(D) VO 110306 82.29(D) AO 106265 34.37 34.37

N2^12'44"E

43.92(M)

65.07(D) 65.07(D)

AO 106265

L=11 L=1 2.04 R=4 12. R=4 10(D 10( 04 )D)

143.33(D) 143.33(D) 41 14. 25 36. 4. 36 .1 13 25 75.43(D) 75.43(D)

R= R=4

VO 120249

N2^06'27"E VO 120249

709.08 709.08 N2^06'13"E N2°06'13"E

652.30 652.30

786.63

VAC UNIVERSITY WY NE

SC1 p17

3. .51 51

10 103

9 N3 N3 7°3 7^ 31 1'4 8"E '4 8" E

70 70. .9 99

73 73. .0 00

34 34. .8 87

2130 130

.21 .21

105.20 105.20

817.71(P) 817.71(P)

12.1 12.1

VO 110306 47.6(P) 47.6(P)

25 25 N2°06'13"E N2^06'13"E VO 120249

30 30

34.49(P) 34.49(P)

33.31(P) 33.31(P)

2.52 2.52

40.01 40.01

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

40 40 40 40 50 -

30 30

55.0 S28 S28 55. 04 °59 ^5'00"43 9' 3 W 00 "W

78.15 N2^06'48"E

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25

637.97

E '4

40 40

U N I V E R S I

40 40

30.417

40 40 79.05

40(P) 40(P)

32.58

73.05

40 40

UNIVERSITY WY NE

40 40

359.89

N2-06-54E

40 40 40

40 40

40(P) 40(P)

30.73

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 359.87

535.57

40 N2-07-01E 40 40 40 40

40 40

35 35

4.89 N89^10'05"W

N2^07'11"E

40 40

25 25

203.44 N2^06'55"E

25 25 25 25

25 25

25 25 58.6 58.6

25 25 25 25

25 25

203.44 N2^06'55"E

25 25

R=490 R=490

25 25

0.22 0.22

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25

BROOKLYN AV NE

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

AO 120249

35.42(P) 35.42(P) 25 25 7.18 7.18

17.36(P) 17.36(P)

48.5 48.5

22. 22.3 32 33

29 29 .69 .6 696

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 38.89 40.52

50 50

38.65 38.65 40(P) 40(P) 87.01

40 40

40 40 168.54

40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

80.00 80.00

40 40

5" 5" 40 40

40 40 100

40 40

40 40 60

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

N2^07'31"E

40 40 40 40 40 40

410.46

40 40

BROOKLYN AV NE

76.7 76.7 25 25

25 25

35.5 35.5

VO 100406 60 60

24.6 24.6

VO 104770

S28 S28 °59 ^59 '00" '00 W

79 579

28. 28.5

28. 28.5 79 579

36.66 36.66

N2^07'26"ESC1 p22

27.22 27.22 47.67 47.67

VO 110306

VO 110306 60 60 VO 11306

20 20

486.54 N2^07'08"E

28. 28.5

78.613

50 50

159.13

90.31 90.31

30.04 30.07 30.04 30.07

ASSESSOR'S 50 50

DO 26507

50 50

VOL 12-2

AO 9577 205.17 205.17 UNPLATTED UNPLATTED

ADD

34.97 34.97

35 35

VO 98024

BROOKLYN AV NE

40 40 140.8

VO 98024 N2^07'11"E N2°07'11"E

N2^07'11"E N2°07'11"E

80.00 80.00

40 40 40 40

540.06 N2^07'11"E

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 60

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

140

40 40

540.10 N2^07'11"E

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

40(P) 40(P)

40 40

18 18

540.14 N2^07'11"E

40 40

40 40 VO 110306

299.97 N2^07'17"E 48.06 48.06 16.83 16.83

N2^07'28"E

VAC 12TH AV NE

360.27

VO 11306

N2^07'28"E 15

SC1 p21

VO 110306

VAC 12TH AV NE

79 579

28.5 28.

40 40

30.07 30.04 30.04

30.09 30.05 30.09 30.05

30 30

239.48

30 30

12TH AV NE

30 30

AO 9577

35 35

38.65 38.65

40(P) 40(P)

40 40

107.89

40 40

40 40 476.35

40 40

533.27

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

N2^07'14"E

12TH AV NE

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

540.09 N2^07'18"E

40 40 40 40

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

540.04 N2^07'10"E

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

12TH AV NE

540.13 N2^07'14"E

40 40 40 40 40 40

VO 80686

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

VO 80687

VO 100407

15.3 15.3

14.76 14.76 49.7 49.7 20 20

20 20

20 20 SC1 p26

N2^07'58"E VO 110306

331.60

VO 110306 49.5 49.5

"W °59 ^5'00" 9'W 00

S28 S28

94 89

25. 25.8

94 89

25. 25.8

25. 25.8 94 89

94 894

94 89

20 20

449.81

VO 110306

N2^07'25"E

VO 110306

VAC 11TH AV NE

VO 110306

N2^07'25"E

VO 11306

28. 28.5

28.5 28.

28. 28.5 79 579

25 25 37.08 37.08

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

15 15

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25

4 94 89

25. 25.8

94 89

25. 25.8

94 89

25. 25.8

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

40 40 40 40

VO 80687

40 40 VO 88629

200.73 N2^07'39"E 17.81 17.81

9.62

48.6 48.6

40 40 38.65 38.65 25 25

18.7 18.7

39.1 39.1

VO 95353

R=41 R=410

AO 106154

"E N17 N17 °08'2 ^08 5"E '25

VO 95353

47.97 47.97

36.38 36.3 .... 8 20.15 20.15 ..

VO 110306

L=58.93 L=58 .93

25 25 25 25 25 25

VAC 11TH AV NE

59.08 59.08

25.8 25.

25. 25.8 94 894

94 894

53.62

29.01 29.01

VO 90710

40 40

25. 25.8

24. 24.1 1.9 1.92 48 148 828

VO 80687

59.64 ...... 59.64

40 40

222.18

30 30

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 51.49 51.49

VO 95353

25 25

25(P) 25(P)

30 30 30 30 25(P) 30 25(P) 30

N Y L

K 120.03 120.03 N2^07'07"E N2°07'07"E

B VO 100343

40 40

40 40 40 40(P)

40 40

N22 N2^07'48"E

ROOSEVELT WY NE 121.65

538.39 N2^07'56"E

VAC 10TH AV NE AO 106154

VO 95353

AO 106154

VO 95353

N2^07'56"E

54.63

25(P) 25(P)

- 45 -

30.04 30.04

30 30

AO 9577 30

30 30

S HE L T ON ' S

30.04 30.04

40 40

530.98

40 40 40 40

40 40

85 40 40

40 40

370.48 N2^06'47"E

40 40

142.76

40 40

40 40 40(P) 40(P)

40 40 40 40

40 40

T= 15 1. 50

40 40

169.49 N2^07'14"E

40 40

20 204 204 7. .77 .77 00 7^ 08 L= R= 88 NE '5 29 48 11 1" 3. 0. 4 44 0 E

35 35. .6 68

AV 6

27 27. .1 16

6 66 6

75 75

1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2

75 75 120

243.51

AO 24247 75(P) 75(P)

11TH AV NE

75(P) 75(P) 70(P) 70(P)

AO 9577

35 35

39.22 39.22 35 35 40(P) 40(P)

40(P) 40(P)

40 40

N2^06'54"E

40 40

186.13

40 40

11TH AV NE

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

540.14 N2^06'57"E

40 40

120.03 120.03

40 40

N2°06'57"E N2^06'57"E

118002 ...... AO

30 30

124 124 .88 .8

11TH AV NE

7^ 15 2. 08 22 '5 ST 1"E LA

VO 91348

881 AO

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30

40 40 40 40

227.99 N2^09'06"E

40 40

30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40

138 138 .63 .6

40 11.240 11. 424

317.94 N2^06'25"E

205 .90 ^16 '53 "E

40 40

2.00 2.00

CO 40027 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

N2^06'30"E N2°06'30"E

200.10

200.10 200.10

N2^06'35"E

40 40 40 40

40 40

311.95 N2^06'04"E

40 40 330

40 40

30 30 16.97 16.97 40 40 40 40

40 40 30 30 30 30 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

77 128

) 60.5 60. 54( 4(LB LBA A)

35 35 40(P) 40(P)

40 40

103.6

40 40

ROOSEVELT WY NE

40(P) 40(P) 40 40

528.63

159.90

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 50.65

55.65 55.65

40 40

396.44 N2^07'01"E

40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

40.004 40.004

295 295

25(P) 25(P)

AO 24247

98.67 25(P) 25(P) 25(P) 25(P) 25(P) 25(P)

25(P) 25(P)

PARCEL

25(P) 25(P) 25(P) 25(P)

13.43 13.43

25(P) 25(P)

397. 70(L BA) 397.70(LBA)

40 40

25(P) 25(P) 25(P) 25(P)

45 45

25(P) 25(P) 20(P) 25(P) 20(P) 25(P)

60 60

40.004 40.004

40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004

46.01 46.01

30 30

VO 93656

8- 78 L VO

100 10

31.24 31.24

2 6.0

10 100

23 .23 0.

.05

..... .

38 64.

109 109 .21 .21

72. 72.2 424

110 110

15 15

10.20 10.20

120 120

15 415 .4 25. 25

20 200

120 120

326

919 27. 27.1

86.73 86.73

ds an orel Sh ) 96

.... ....

23.1 23. 616 16 43.

50 50 30

50 50 50 50

64.

19. 19.1 919

50 50

'5 41 8^

72.2 24 4 80.

72.

50 50

37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5

415 .4 25 25.

°08

50.63 50.63

58 06 "E .0 50. '05 50

49.72 49.72

000 29. 29.0

0.910.91

61 1 0.06 2220

an hrm .45 Fu 328

0 50.0 50'1 2"W °23 N31

50 50

DQL

LINE

69.38 69.38 120

MIO-65-LR3

S82^34'3 S82 °34 '37 "E 7"E

.95

E5 '48" .0 °36 N58326

N DER

70.28 70.28

LIN

10 100

S34

CEL PAR

80 470 50 50

53.04 53.04

222

MEA

15 15

10 100

10. 10.2

IFS

86.04

928

)

.20 .20 115 115

50 50 49.5

3 80

143.82 N2^06'22"E

VO 44904

40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004

40 40 40 40 N2°06'41"E N2^06'41"E 0.10 0.10 N2°06'30"E N2^06'30"E

N1^17'43"E

40.004 40.004

40 40 159.96 159.96 40 40

39.98 39.98 40.004 40.004 N1°17'43"E N1^17'43"E 40.004 40.004

40.004 40.004

VOL 9-20

40.004 40.004

674.11

A D D

40.004 40.004

40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004 27.27 27.27 40.004 40.004

25.78 25.78 90^ 90°4

54.23

N 0-0-14 E 94.26

N 0-0-1492.78 E 40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004

220

40.004 40.004

S U P P L

40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004

260

40.004 40.004 40.004 40.004

40.004 40.004 35.40 40.004 35.40 40.004

30 30 44.62 90^ 90° 44.62 40.004 40.004

23 0. 10

- 50

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

30 30

55. 55.6 060 75

34. .17 97

BR AD OA DW D AY E

30 30 120 120

29.6 29. 969

92.

50 50 85 62.

50 50 27.5 56 6

27.

050

27. 27.5

Y-

124 124 .01 .01

73.5

N27 67. N27 67.1 °30' ^30 52 152 44"E '44

CO 6134 6 80212 MAP

12 280 P MA

110 110 (P) (P) 110 110

46 613

46 12

613

80 P

CO 50 50

E 50 50

N2 38 8. 8^ 41 44 '3 8"

50 50

50 50 24. 24.6 666

)

50 50(P

37. 12. 37.8 12.5 5

30.0 30. 5 05

25 0

25.0

30.0 27.5 6 6

25.0 27.5 0 0

50.0 50. 5 05

6 50.0

50( 50(P )P) 4

50. 50.0 06 6

14.5

48. 25.0 04 26.1 25. 26. 25.8 0 89 1 9 25. 25.5 11 24. 53 3 24.9 25.5 25. 96 6 454 25. 25.1 17 25.0 25 7 25. 0 26.25.9 90 0 26.0 07 7 25. 25.5 54 4 25 25.0 0 26.0 26. 8 08 25. 25.5 53 3

25.0 25 0

23. 23.0 04 4

23.0

50 50

20. 54.27

S27 S27°48. 48.3 36 ^37 37'5 6 '55 5"W "W

41. 41.0 808

5.5

37 37. 5.5

50 50

"E ^42 42'0 6"E '06

N28 N28° 16

71. 71.16

1.16

24. 24.8 585

4 4.9 4.94

50 50 50 50 45

50 50 45

50 50

495 122 AO 10 10

50 50

161

15 15

13 13

4 12.0

17. 17.5 7 57

42.6 42.

5 12. 12.5

......

25 25

15 15

310.41 N1^11'10"E

N1^12'03"E

.5 .50 206 206

CEL PAR

29.64 29.64

.6 .66 101 101

SC18 p59

25. 25.8

41 8^ N2

TY SI ER IV 32

776

13 13. .4 432

Adj

.64

300

8.1 8.18 080

113.8 113.8 3 3

133

Bdy

50 50

N28 -42

50 50

50 50 50( 50(P )P) CO 13003

506

62. 62.5 151

50 50

N27 N27 ^27 °27' '07 07"E

.70

.70 105

30 30 105

30 30

120 120

8^ SC1 416 p58 '5 0" N2

E 50 50

26. 26.1 11 1

50 50

NK LIN

50 50

FR A

48. 48.0 03 3

CO 13003

502.83 N1^12'28"E

24. 24.9 95 5 25. 25.018 0

156.86 CO 13003

CO 13003 VO

SC18 p60

N88^57'53"W 6.25

110 110 06"E

N28

°42'

AV E

50 50

301 .47

8^ N2

301 -0

.47 6E

EAS TLA KE

242.23 N1°49'40"E 242.23 N1-49-40E

8^ 41 '5 7" N1^12'10"E E

N2 16 9. 13

.64133

21.328(P) 21.328(P)

99.3899.38

Lot 50 50

AO 0 N28 122 N28 399 85-42 -0 °42' .40 6E 06"E 85.4

8 p62

SC1

37 37.

E( 3" )

N1^49'40"E(SH) LINE DER MEAN

4^ °04 04 '51 '5 .3" W 1. 3" W

FREEWAYR/W R/W FREEWAY 50

'3 41 8^

97 - --

S4 S44

SR 5 FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

QUITCLAIM QUIT CLAIM D EED DEED 5 3465346454 454

5 .5 37. 37 5.5

37 37.

23 023

0 12.0 12.

6. .26 1 103 26 103 .110 .111

11 116

38. 38.9 43 943

UNNAMED ST

LIGHT R/W

N3 7°2 93. 397 5'13.6

CITY LIGHTCITY R/W

93 93. .3 397

TJO 95668

957 111 .60

62 .9 57 62.

E AV

FAIR VIEW 9 p28

SC1

305

RN MENT

0 .5 39

GO VE

CITY CITY LIGHT LIGHT R/W R/W

SEE R/W FILES

5.5

37 37. 5.5

37 37.

50 50 166 166 .47 .47

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

R/W

188.68 188.68

PAR B

04 5.52

10.9 10.4 6 1

CITY CITY LIGHT LIGHT R/W

Ex is t E sm t( S P )

CO 13003

15 415 .4 12 8 25 25.

(SP P) .00 00(S 105 105. 105

330.06

-0

040 33. 33.4

50 50

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

105

D 58 NE 058 .0 OR LI 50. 50

5 110 110

HARVARD AV E

105

Esm

SH E E TS 1 & 2

415 .4 25 25.

95 95. .2 21

0 88 54 4"

111

SH E L BY S T TO E 4 3 R D S T

CEL PAR

50 50

N1^49'40"E

-0

.0 .09 204 204

PAR

118 118

No CEL .4.4

MEN

SEATTLE FREEWAY

25 7 .6

.8.8 102 102

MI 58 6E E LI 0. 058 .0 LIN 50 '5 50. IT ON 08 .6E ) LIM N TI P)(P S34^°08 '50 UC 58 S34 TRIO .0 0 58( CT 50 50 50. NS COTRU NS E 58 E CO .0 TL 058 TTL 50. AT 50 SEA SE 58

3 33 3. 3.3

STA

28 CF292350 29 UC 39

....

0.93

R= R=5 ∆=1 50 T= 25°0 T=9 R=3 R= 10 97 109 83. 38 83 9.7.9 5454' 59. .5 51 8.0.0 0 .88 .9

25 25

51 AN

25 25

-16

9. .63 63

30 30

2 2 3 0 9 5 CF 9 2 2 3 0 5

15 415 .4 25. 25

10 '15" 139 13

30 30

- 65 - C -4 5 I O- 6 MMI O I I -4 5 -C 5 CF

25 25

15 415 .4 25. 25

54^05

7-1

1-2

23 24

415 .4 25 25.

R=50 R=50 ∆=54°05'15"

R=20 R=20 ∆=89° 59' 55" T=2 0 T=20 L=31.42 L=31.42

Perm 967

MIO-65-IC-45

R=50 R=50

148 N5148. N5 1°5 .54 1^ 8'154 58 8"W '1 8" W

12 12

25 25

2-4

25 25

C-

E 8"

. ! G

14 148 8. .54 54

25 25

2.74

25 25

9 10 4 05 8

25 25

89 68 4. 4.6

50( 50(P )P)

25 25

OR By

30 30

. ! G

PARCEL A

25 25

, PIE RH

7 37 7 67 .6 6. 6.3 10. 10

25 25

W 1" "W '0 '01 25 °25 4^

78 67 5. 5.6

N3 N34

25 25

HE AD

25 25

14 14

57 .57 7.

FIL

56 65 7. 7.6

AO 120249

415 .4 25. 25 15 76 76 415 .4 .83 .8 25 535 25.

5 BU

29 297

AT BO

05 .0 77 77.

25 25

323 .6 .62 10 10

(US

1 2-31 90

INE

46.24 46.24

246 246 .16 .16

20 20

27 8"E .2 '0 53. 37 53 7'0 33 5^ 5°3 N5 953it N5

64.98 64.98

25 .2 31 31.

41 9. .50 50

5 25 .2 31. 31

83.72 83.72

Sh Sht ortSub

107.1 107.1

R= R= 289 28

27 102.46 102.46

14 14

43 100 100

. ! G

N4 15 15 415 .4 8^ 3. 25. O5 66 25 15 '4 84 .4 415 25 25. 6. 15 9" 415 .4 W 25. 25

21 22 23 24 25

103 103

1 31 8. 8.3

L VO

54.73 54.73

16 18

25 25

757 .5 .55 16 16

8^ 41 57 '1 5. 6" 09 E

12 13

20 20

30 30

......

15 415 .4 25 25. 15 415 .4 25 25. IFU NS CO 15 TRNS 51 51 415 .4 20 - A 25 .22 25. UC .2 TR 15 TIO 323 3 415 .4 92 UC 25 25. 88 N TI LIM 15 7 ON 415 .4 IT 25 25. LIN 15 LI E 415 .4 MI 25 25.

30 30

(M 35 ) .8 9

47.3 47.38

14 BWL

415 .4 25 25.

535 .5 .53 18 18

SE SE AT ATTLE TL CO E

15 415 .4 25. 25

R=3 R=30

BWL

.6 66( 6( D)

p16 SC1 25 25

45 45.

103 103

W 1" "W '0

12 14

127

14 14

415 .4 25. 25

30 30

415 .4 25 25.

12 D) .17 120 7. 12 17 55 0. .09 (D)(D 19 19 09 R= ) R=

.4 .43 16 16

CF292350 51

25 25

.80

R= 18 R=1 .5 24 8.5 24. .9 91 1 99 21. 21 R=1 575 R=1 .7 72 41. 2 41.7

85 85. 6 .8 80( 0( D)

AO 105955

(M AO ) 50

25 25

15 415 .4 25 25.

68.5(P) 68.5(P)

. ! G

11 12 127 113 .0 7. .20 3. 20 (P) 0 (P 03 ) 06

25 .2 31 31.

178.236 178.236

103(P) 103(P)

68 66 65 64 63

30 30

6 6

2" W13 133 3. .16 7 16 4 4

16 91.08 91.08

N5 34 1^ 5. INC 57 71 '3 5" W

(D ) 103 103

25 25

14. 14.5 454

21 '1 5"

50 7. .19 406 19 (D) (D )

12 127

30 30 30 30

25 25

13 14

62-

50 50

IFS

103(P) 103(P) Pe AO rpe 10 tua 59 l R/ 55 W 10 103 E sm 3. .66 t 66 (D)

26.37 26.37

'01 84 25 .8 °25 65. 4^ 65 N34 N3

W 7"

N5 10 8. 9^ 52

8. "W '0 8.7 5'0 55 5^ 5°5 N4 N4

15 415 .4 25. 25

24. 24.0

N5 N5 1°5 1^ 58 8'2 9.2 '2 "W 9.

81.06(P) 81.06(P)

R=12 R=12

30 MIO-65-C1-40 C F292350 31 UC

4 IFS

25 18

10 127 105 12 5. 7. .20 .0101 20 (P)

MIO-65-C1-40

50 4" W 0. 16 24 '4 4^ 25 25

415 .4 25 25.

5 4 15 R=1 .3 R= 34 30. 30

W 25 25

4 15

415 .4 25 25.

454 .9 .95 26 26

NoN o

25 25

N5 446.315(P) N54 446.315(P)

15 415 .4 25. 25

E 64 3" 0. 764 .3"E .7 56. '50'5 56 26 °26 WEST WEST 4^ EAST EAST

171.805 171.805

95 '1 5"

25 25

12 12 BWL

34 .4 7( M)

PCC PCC

60 60

25. 25.8 686

N5 21 4. 9^ 52

415 .4 25 25.

)

6. .57 57 3 3

IFU

21-A

E P) 1( 6 9" 53(P)5655 "E3. 31 '5 1. 4.5 4.6'53.9 1.5 26 19 26 19 46 3^ 3°4 N4

27 29

14 14 14 14

BU NE (P) RL ING PA 14 14 TO CI N FIC (FO NO ST RM RT HE ER VO RN )

. ! G

.8686 07. 07 R=2 R=2 878 77.7 77.

40 40

1 5050

12 126

W 53 14 "W14 234 234 .93 .9

40 40

90(P) 90(P) 131 .0 6.06 N59 N59 °51 ^5 120 '53" 1' 249

131

50 50 N28 N28 SC1 °41 8 p61 ^4 '16" 1' E16 "E 575 575 .09 .0

. ! G

22 21 21

. ! G

058 .0 50 50.

t or A CEL PAR ent em Eas 110 110

000 39. 39.0

in ium

P)P) 50( 50(

50 50

6.5 6.57

103 103

CEL 000 90.0 110 PAR 90. 110

83.60 83.60

10 10

50 50

8 9 10

058 .0 50 50.

50 50

. ! G

50 50

103 103

. ! G

24 25

22 VOL 7- 3 2

50 50

30 30

57. 57 00 .0 0

36 35

5 3.95

3.9

14 15

10 5. 9 64 (M )

40 40

0 ...

....3. 3.4 7 23. 47 23 .2 29

30 30

BWL

AO 97911 30 30 30

65.77 65.77

16.60 16. 10 10

R=2 R= 38. 20 38 0 .2 20

3 4

BWL

8 9 10

1 2

41.06 41.06 N1-49-33E N1°49'33"E

35 35

30 29

. ! G

103 103

8. .3 3

35 35

. ! G

4 R=4 50 T=1 45 L=281 .6 .71 4

868

103 103

N87^53'15"W 14 14

220

10 108

IN W C

0 6.83(M)

. ! G

11 12

14 14

NE 40TH ST

058 .0 50 50.

iniu m

OO BR

103.05

'5 3.9 6'5 46 3^ 3°4 N4 N4

N LY

VOL 69- 99 1 06 103.05

. ! G

103 103

14 103 103 103.05 103.05 College Inn C o n d om in iu m

103 103

R=49 R=490

BWL

CF292350 AVUC

2 2 04

.04 00. 22 22

E 9"

"E3.

56 55 54

VO 112848

064 .0 50 50.

nd om

24 25

WEST WEST

103 103

16 15

1202

103

AO 83414

CF292350 27

NO N51^174. RT HE 57 79 RN '3

FIC

5.5

-14

AO 106265 10.45(D) ) R=410 10.45(D R=410 91.68 91.68 14 14

4 103

37 37.

41. 41.2

14 5' E ^4'14" °45

50 50

AO 106265

....

W 7"

6 3" 80 '2 1. 51 35 3^ N4

. ! G

AO 106154

15.

103

103 103

BWL

103.04(D) 103.04(D)

. ! G

14 14

24 23 22

C F2 92 35 0

103 103

(FO RM ER )

ING TO N

18 18. .7 7 R=451 152.75

193.8 193.82

103 103

11 12

N87^47'15"W

MIO-105-NC3P O-105-NC3P-65 -65 MI C F2 92 35 0

30 30

30 30 103 MIO-105-MR

14 14

NE 41ST ST

4 0 50 50

.2.2 119 119

20 20

50 50

67.0 67.0

48. 48.8

Eas

50 50

AO 106154

47.04(M)

1345

14 4100 1335 13

R= 14 77 BU .524 RL

61 60

103 103

5.5

20 20

21 22

14 W 5' ^4'14".2 8 °45 .28 S59 219 S59 219

50 50

110 110 ent em

90 90 9.5 9.5

rta

50 50

15 15

.6 .66 140 140

50 50

103 103

4108

37 37.

110 110

50 50

N59 N59

.8 .87

216 216

15 15

51.03 51.03

90 7" W 9. 26 15 '0 0^

50 50

6.0 6.0 40. 40.8

50 50

86.6 86.6

MIO-37-IC-45 NE

22- A 9"

29 30

14 14

1350

1355

064 .0 50 50.

(P (P) 110 110

)

50 50

E N28 200 °41' .03 37"E

8. "W '0 8.7 5'0 55 5^ 5°5 N4 N4

LIN

19 20

316.297 316.297

6. .6 6

1260 7

4116 4112

NEL

50 50

87.08 87.08

10 106

BWL

18 17

1370

02'

50 50

L 255

2 3 4 5

14 14

1390

20.

000 50. 50.0

N2 67 1. 8^ 41 31 (G '2 6" ) E( G)

103 103

4138

103 103

116 116 N5 32 2. .68( 75.8 .6 75. 9^ P) 8( 08032 52 77 P) '1 R=1 R=1 5" 11. 00 11.9 W 12. 12.6 696

L S

50 50

. ! G

979 8 p43 97.7 97.

41.67

064 .0 50 50.

50 50

2-3 L 90 VO

SC1

14 14

4128

103 103

. ! G

103 103(P)

N87^53'15"W

280.03

BWL

64 064 .0 50. 50

50 50

EC UNR

Ru by

STA D AN D 6) EA -16 RH 2-4 C, PIE AD NO E HE FIL D AE

(US

91.6 91.6

11 12

12.2131.39 12.21 31.39

15 415 .4 25. 25

064 .0 E 50. 50 R LIN RBO 64 W HA 064 .0 6" TE 50 50. 0. .6"W D STA '5 '50 AN 08 64 °08 4^ AD 064 .0 S3 S34 66) RHE 50. 50 PIE -4-1 D, C-2 64 KHEA NO 064 .0 FILE 50 50.

15 15

VOL 7- 34

41.67

103 103 .7.7 116 116 .68( .6 P) 8(

p14

35 35

3 17 14

4140

1360

3. .0 0

22 1380

30 30

103 103

4120

103 103

25 MIO-65-NC3-65

87 87

103

......

11 113

BWL

14 14

103 103

9.0 9.0

5.76 5.76

14 14

. ! G

NC3-65 6

BWL

. . . . . .

2-3

BUL

-41 -37

INE

262 .5 .56 32 32

787 42. 42.8

27.63 27.63

21 4" W 8. 10 12 '5 0^

N28 .03

262 .5 .56 32 32

O LLIS EA

110 110

50 50

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

BWL

103 103

50 50

12 12

064 .0 50 50.

333

50 50

SC1

50 50

26 27

103 103

. ! G

E 50 50

50 50

Y PL E BA5050 AG RT50

LIN

50 50

DQM

3007351

100.03 100.03

22 23 24 25

30 30

20 CF292350

38 37 36 30 30

. ! G

R/W R/W

30 3

116 116 .68( .6 P) 8(

. ! G

107.96 107.96

20.98

50 50

42.5

IFS

N88^48'34"W

50 50

78. 78.3

220

3 4

103 103

30 30

103 103

CF292350

BWL

103 103

N87^52'34"W

279.91

50 50

G) G) 5( .85( .8 674 )674 (G) W(G "W '53" 53 50 °14 4'

83.3

20.98

50 50

41.67

^1 N30

N30

BIN

50 50

42.5

M CO

000 71. 71.0

50 50

IFS

69.1 69.1

1440

103(P) 103(P)

14 14

1210 13

4101

103 103

12.13 12.13

)

686 33. 3 33.8 33 5. 5.3

50 50

BWL

42 41 39

AO 83414

MIO-50-C1-40 34 18

27 28

103 103

7.0 7.0

1425

103 103

11 0065

103 103

4300

1375

4115

12 14 14

14 14

35 35

ent

42.5

14 14

9.7 9.75

505 39. 39.0

421616

. ! G

103 103

1250

1420

103 103

7 8

4240

4125

BWL

1455

SF 5000 10

9 53

56.3 56.

ig "W W '51 Ass 1" se °08 '5 N34 08 4^ N3

23 .23 0.

N58 06N58

N88^49'32"W

50 50

41.67

24 25

103

14 15 16 17

4 5

103 103

49 6'E ^3'49" °36

6 99. 99.0

. ! G

50 50

34 33

93.08

1400

103 103

1405

6 0030

BWL

280.02

4141 2

4106

0015

NE 42ND ST

4137 3

4337

1245

. ! G

103 103

1495

0105

4200

1395

4132

4336

0075 18

103 103

4145

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON

4.79 4.79

103 103

48 47 46

NE BO AT ST 22 30

4 6 7

1080 11

14 14

Esmt

1220

1070

35 35

14 14

103 103

AO 106265

18 19 21

103 103

14 14

103 103

20 BWL

BWL

285.02 N87^51'00"W

116 116 .68( .6 P) 8(

103 103

'43

114 114

14 14

58 57

38 36

^07

306

Lea

200 20

50 50

D E N N Y - F U H R M A N 42.5

42 41 40 39

110

14 14

50 50

103 103

N70

56 55

AO 106154

N87^51'41"W

14 14

BWL

30 30

5 5

(DN

50 50

5.5

41.67

50 50

SC1 p25

. ! G

108 108. 63 .63

114 114 .0.0

.25

(FO RM ER)

2 3

30 30

AO 106154

14 14

236

1055

. ! G

37 37.

50 6 50 .5 .56

119 119

110 110

62.36 62.36

828 989 11.2 11. 10.8 110.

5.0 5.01

50 50

8 p64

5.5

50 50

103 103

5 5

NE PACIFIC ST

AO 106265

30 30

103 103

10 103 103

103 103

37 37.

DQL

8 50

E ALLISON ST

A D D

41.67

50 50

BWL

BNR

4217 7

1065

103 103

0005

NC3-65 3

0110

4326

4234

. ! G

4213 9

1100

BWL

SF 5000

. ! G

103 103

50 49 48 47

AO 106154

4210

4201

103 103

14 14

306

660 "W O STN 50 50

50 50

110

3.1 8 3.13 1.88 1.8

50 50

200

9.38 9.3

717

4 6

. .

2"W '1^2 °23 N31 0 N31

PARCEL A 6 341 88 950 859. No 59.8

50 50

2 3

BWL

52 51

30 30

820 .8 50 50.

Lot

10.1 10.

SC1

BWL

5 1050

14 1304 1090

103(P) 103(P)

1413 1

4338

103 103

285.02 N87^52'35"W

103 103

108 108. 63 .63

12.90

1035

1040 4

4209 10

103 103

103 MIO-50-C1-40 19.53 CF292350 32 UC . ! 93.08 G

1103

108.6 108 .63 3

19.53

103 103 108.6 108 .63 3

4237 3 4231

BWL

103 103

14 14

IC ST

22 1130

1500

14 14

23 4346 0120 22

280.00

1025

4236

1490 20

N88^20'45"W

NE 45TH ST CO 10566

103(P) 103(P)

NE 43RD ST

14 14

30 30

103 103

103.02 S89°57'24"W N89-57-24E

103.02

14 14

NE 45TH ST 30 30

. ! G

103 103

4247

6.71 6.71

14 14

103 103

BWL

45 45

191 E48 6' 53.9 '48" 53. ^3 °36 N58 N58 Adj

38.

50 50

.1.1 83 83

W 8"

50 50

. .

111 7.31 7.3

50 50

56 55

30 30

38 30

N5 125^ 12 4. 35'0 0 1.

2 3 4 103(P) 103(P)

0175

. ! G

16 103 103

020 47. 47.2

61 9" '0

31 BWL

414 .0 .01 W 25 25 414 3" 1. .0 W W 25.01 .3" '5 4" 25 212 '51 04 "W '3 .7 .71 °04 4^ '34 59 31 31 S4 S44 °59 5^

S4 S45

.0 .06 140 140

50 50

42.5

414 .0 .01 25 25

.1 186

30 30

414 .0 .01 25 25

.5.5 35 35

3. 38 53 2^

'0 8"W 5'0 55 5^ 5°5 N4 N4

414 .0 .01 25 25

.3.3 27 27

1 SC

N 414 .0 .01 25 25

14 14

PACIF

(ORD 73911)

9 10

4301 12

14 14

24 1305 1140

. ! G

35 35

0105 17

NC3P-65

285.06 N87^52'06"W

IC ST

293 .98 N70 ^07 '43

4.1 4.1

279.98

2-3

50 50

50.5

7 27 1. 1.2

U 25 25

16 15

24 NC3P-65

35 35

AO 83414

0155

0020

0120

4502

3.58

284.99 N87^52'26"W

103 103

4321 7 4313 8 0160

CF260390

CO 10566

. ! G

0150

13 102.99 N87-52-47W 103

. ! G

103 103

23 22

50 50

.00129

81 4" W 8. 52 15 '0 0^

129

.83

50 50

4 51.25

64.63

PARCEL B

414 .0 .01

REC

820 .8 50 50.

50 50

111

W '53" °29

N31

35.40

Adj

64.63

Am end VOL 155-70 7 1 2nd Amend VOL 278-47

E 48 '48" 6' °36 ^3

N31

E GWINN PL

Bdy

.2 .27 98 98

.6 .64 23 23

414 .0 .01 25 25

.4 11"E '42

50 50

DQM

45.08 45.08

N58 N58

50 50

21 22

103 103

5.7 5.7

PACIF

0145

4325 6

BWL

18 17

MR-RC 17

103 103

. ! G

S 44

VOL 88-90 91

110 110

212 40. 40.1

50 50

Portage Bay Place Condominium

50 50

. ! G

BWL

R=70 R=70 ∆=71°19'51E"

14 14

5.5

.31 149149

15 15

15 14

50 50

1038.48

PARCEL A

57 CF292350

27(M)

1570 11

1580

103 103

333 56. 56.3

5 45

50 50

Lot

35.40

. ! G

30 30

4105 4106

103 103

9. 9.3 20 820 .8 50. 50

50 50

°00 S33 13 6.8 20 7 50. .8 66 667 50 15. 15. 7 87 38

50 50

48.75

50 50

103 103

72.2

57.26 57.26

. ! G

110 110

50 50

606 52. 52.0

5.5

15 0^ N3 .8 8 37

30 30

3 37 37.

30 30

5.5

510.90 50 50

110 110

37 37.

50 50

50 100.03 100.03

56.60(D) 56.60( D)

108.6 108 .63 3

VAC

108.6 108 .63 3

103.0 103.0

30 30

9 10

103 103

30 30

BWL

4329 5

20 19

. ! G

NC3-65 17

1560

VO 110306

103 103

VAC

30 30

41158

103 103

5.5

50 50

N87^51'05"W

AO 106265

IFS

BWL

103 103

37 37. 37 37.

50 50

SC18 p57

50 50

"E3"E .3 '48. 48 °36 6' ^3 N58

50 50

103.11 103.11

4 5

1590

. ! G

103 103

434 76. 76.3

AO 110281 W

14 L=104. L=104.34

AO 106265

1525 3

1535

30 30

4333 4

CF292905

4135

4131

4110

284.96 N87^53'15"W

50 50

. ! G

103 103

. ! G

14 14

1515

280.04

3 4339 0135

4514 0130

CO 10566

4341 2 0130

103 103

103 4141 103

N87^52'38"W

50 50

15"W

TIN

. ! G

145.10 145.10

50 50

S59

7 50.0 °15' N30

19.33 19.33

148.75

.546

0950

0955 11

22 4138 1625

1585

D E N N Y - F U H R M A N 34 33 32 31 30 29

L=310

77.

30 30

R MA

30 30

110 110

15 15 110

110

50 50

20. 20.6

5 4.9

104.58 104.58

50 50

25 25 6

414 .0 .01

25 25 0. .14 14 0 0

47. 7.24 34 24

4203

14 14

3.11

CO 10566

0125

0235

0140

4508

N88^19'31"W

14 103(P) 14 4345 103(P)

1301

23 22

......

46 .4 72 72.

25 250

BWL

L=1 L=14

95.61(D) 95.61(D)

14 14

34.37(M)

23. (M) (M) 35.44 56

R=200.0 R=200.0

50 50

47.5

36 35

6.24 6.24

103(P) 103(P)

AO 106154

MIO-65-C1-65

8 9 10 11

277.22

42 41 40 39

R=45 (M) T=16 0 1.7

30 30

BWL

38 37

AO 106154

38.09

103(P) 103(P)

30 30

14.02 14.02 ARC ARC

414 .0 .01 25 25

2 3

33.76 33.76

828 4. 4.2 29 29 414 .0 .01 25 25

W 11 4"

.3 '3 311 "W 91. 59 91 '34 °59 5^ IFU S4 S45

7 8

4206 14

1600

30 30

284.95 CO 10566 103(P) 103(P)

N87-53-32W 102.98

NC3-65

4520

0135 20

. ! G

103 103

0140

. ! G

0930

0945

4211 10

14 14

(CO 10159 REPEALED BY ORD 10583)

103

. ! G

4215 9

0980

1140

14 14

22 21

4518

MA P 8 5 - 4 6

N87°52' 40"W N87^52'40"W

4216

103 103

4501 14

16 103 103

N87^52'40"W N87°52' 40"W

42256

BWL

4509

1130 13

103 103

0925 5

STATE ST A T E O FOF

103 103

107

50 50

72 1" W 7. 29 15 '5 0^

324.18 N88^49'12"W

13.54 N28^40'20"E

19.40 19.40

83 42 21 CO '5 4" 613 E 46

136.61 136.61 N89°09' 17"W N89^09'17"W

108.6 108 .63 3

103.00 103.00

Varsity Arms

103.00 103.00

BWL

103 103

BWL

50 50

107

.56

2 3 4

103 103

14 14

45 44

1150

CO 10566

285.05 N87^52'14"W

103

279.96

4116

30 30

103 . !

16 15

35 35

1120 12

284.94 N87^52'58"W

4229

G MIO-105-MR

103 103

3.65 3.65

4517

1300

. ! G

103 103

1 0905 2

CF292350

30 30

30 30 1.63 1.39

(Con do) VOL 9 4 -7 5 7 6 Ame nd VOL 1 30-8 9 90 Amend No 2 VOL 2 4 0- 92

21 4134 1620

101 .4 .40 32 32

W '38"

y Ba inium W om nd 78 °44'38"

N58

110 110

°44

ge rta Co Po nt L 279-75 fro ter VO Wa 140.97 138

50 50

5 45 19.84 19.8

50 50

87 660 5050

210

57.0

740

57.01

545 Su bd 250 B 308 49. 49.4 9 45

300

49.4 49.

STN

240

57.

058 058 .13 0 2 50. 43 50. 432 .89 100 50. 11890 50. 11. .13 100 058 058 20 820 .8 3 50. 50. 50 50. 43 3E 433 .3"E 50. -3'377. 50. 93 393 14. 53 °53 14.3 87 058 058 820 50. 928 50. S3 S38 820 .8 2 D 50 4E 50. 43 432 OR 896 896 -3"E 50. 50. 16. 058 16. 41'34 058 150. 50. 20 S4 °41 820 S41 .8 50. 50

50 50

. ! G

DQL

'28

)

1103

22 4238 1010

20 1000

20 4128 1615

IFU

22 22 24.0 24.0

03 3

103

50 50

23 22

103 103

4210 15

1680

103

110

14 14

103 103

N4 27 8^ 2. 05 82 '4 9 6.

S59

110 Esm t 57. 57.0

248 57. 7 53 57.5 t 57.C Sub 3 5257.5 d 2

Sub

32.

65.39

24.

^52

CF292350 50 UC (M

2 108.6 108 .63 3

396 .04 ^07 '43

103 103

VAC NE 40TH ST

103 103

1103

N70

30 30

30 30 MIO-65-C1-65 12 0.

30 30

PARCEL C

7 37 7. 7.3

IFS

DQM

14 14

9 10

0300 12

14 14

24 1020 23

N87^52'31"W

. ! G

50.

24 20 .8 50 820

E"E

3 110 110

14 13 103 103

103 103

R=19.54 R=19.54

32 432 .4 50 50.

'19 '19"

urt

6 56

57. D 584 57. 5257.5 9 52 57.5 2 2 C

300

S62 ^33 °33

1675

NE 41ST ST

CO 37483

Esm

D 584 57. 57.5 8 52 57.5 2 2

S62

ley

ndo

182- ) 4 8

18.

8.47

. ! G

CO 37483

1650

7 8

VO 110306

Esm

2 ENE 43 LI 58 432 LIN 399 TIT 50. 19.399 50. 058 .0 19. LIM 50 50. N MI LI 20 IO 820 33 "E E .8 CT ON 58 50 50. 433 '37 7" .4 058 .0 TRU TI 3'3 03 50 °53 50. 50 50. 903 NS .9 ^5 UC 21 21. CO TR S38 S38 20 NSE 58 32 820 .8 058 COTTL 50.0 06 432 .4 50 50. E SEA 50. .4406 50 50.

N32

30 30

125 125

(Co

110 110

7 8

1202 13

4139

BWL

00 00

28.2 28.2

-53

040 39. 39.4

Sub d 300 57. C 487 110 52 57.5 0

124.15 S89°56'07"W 124.15 S89^56'07"W

t 60.5 60.

Sho

61.0 22.0 52. 61. 0 Esm 0 48 00 52.4 t 8

Sht

52. B 48 52. 52.4 52.4 49 8 9

110 89 .26 .26 110 110

53.0 53

No A 60. 60.5 61. 56 61.0 6 00 Sh o rt 0

Sht

110

52.9

Sh 52.8 o rt 98

52.4 B 52. 52.4 9 49 9 Esm t

118

30 30

1725

103 103

. 0965 ! G

1640

4120

78 78

32.3 32.3

5.5

49.

LR1

. ! G

Sht

. ! G

5.5

Esm

VOL

60.

52.9

N 52. o A 52.4 49 9

re st ms orec ini u 55 om

nd Co UR VO

110 110

LIN

125 125

50( 50(P )P)

88.87 88.87

)

W 2"

C 57.2 57. VO 727 506

55 56 36. 36.5

. ! G

LR3 Sh

000 89. 89.0

50 50

'0 2"W 2'0 12 5^ 5°1 N5 N5

103 103

BWL

4220 18 10

1113

103 103

. ! G

B 73.0 Su 73. 303 bd

497

PAR

23 1760

15 14 13 110

285.05 N87^53'00"W

PARKWAY

20 8 8

277.14 N87^52'38"W

110 110 110 110 .03 PAR.03

99 980

50 50

ConLeg do) do)al

110 110 (P) (P)

. ! G

5.5

11.99 N1^10'31"E

37 37.

11.7 11. 676

73 34 40. 40.7

DQL

290 Append x - Ju y 2017 F na P an

Sho

Ive s nd VO L 161 o

52.5

110 110 (P) (P)

110 110

F gu e 201 Seatt e s U-D st ct Adopted Zon ng dated Ma ch 2 2017

LR3

110 110 (P) (P)

110 110

32 32

110 110 (P) (P)

37 37.

330.65(G) N84^16'28 "W(G)

15 15

17 DQL

506

37 9.9 37 9.9 PARNo A

52.7

52. 6 76

Not -14 ....65. 65.0e-S 110 110 02( 2( ee Con

N61N61 32. 32.6 °18 1 -18 '29"61 -29 W W

DQL

N87°19' 31"W

4442 .3 2

5.5

8 p63

LBA 76 . 8 4VO

No PAR CEL 950 100 A 9

110 110 (P) (P)

333

15 15

NC3-40

10 37

SC1

37.5 37.5

37 37.

50 50

37.5 37.5

110 110

0.5

NC2-40

110 110 (P) (P)

. ! G

110 110 (P) VO (P) 506 87

90 09 26. 26.9

DQL

110 110 (P) (P)

EM A

'48. °36

91 12 44. 44.9

0.5

15 15

110

110 110 (P) (P)

110

125 125

N87-19-31W R= 61.70 61.70 6. 42 58

89.05 89.05

2 92 69

23- A

50 50

72 .4 1^ 2( 18 G) '4 8" W(

9.4 9.46 6

110 110

4 5

DQL

N58

3"E

110 110

UC 3

. ! G

5.5

5 6" 54 0. 5. '5 15 O8 4^ S3

37 37.

5.5

37. 37

5.5

)(P) .40 40(P

37 37.

.5 5

50 50

N6 1^ 19 25 7. '4 42 4" (G W( ) G)

5.5

37 37.

The Con Mar dom tello

65. VO L 65.5 iniu 95 454 m -1 4

NC2P-40

25 25

......

R= 43"W R=6 '43 °40' S41 ^40

S41

VO 95353

613 CO

30 30

N5 25 4. 5^ 12

09 90 49. 49.0

)

NC2P-40

DQL

110 110

15 15

(P (P) 110 110

1-A

Y PL

37 37.

110 110

100 100

E BA 50 50

36. 36.4 949

110

N61109 -17 .50

32. 32.5

17 C1-40 '5 5" W

Th -55 W N61 44 e Ea 109 °17' .50 st lak 55"W e

(Co ndo VO L 192 ) -61 Am VO 65 end L Am 195-92 1 end 93 L 199 2 -01 02 Am end L 265 3 -85 86

IFU

103 103

22 4134 1740

0280

0970

103(P) 103(P)

25 25

89.23 89.23

84 '0 8 1. 5"

29- C

IFU

29- A

36 14

LIN

50( 50(P )P)

5.5

2 2 0 15 0 .15 72 2. .72 172 1. 17

DQL

37 37.

128. 128

110 110

30 30

PARCEL A

DQL

N N6

110

5.5

. ! G

37 37.

50 50

110 110 (P) (P)

PARCEL B

27. 27.41

NC3P-40

12 121

NC3P-40

15 15

37 37.

15 15

110 110 (P) (P)

110.0 110 .00 0

15 15

50 50

. ! G

C1-40

47.

50 50

1^ 30 .0 17 '5 3 5" W

100100

6 50 7.5 50

30 30

CF292350 BWL

25 25

N5 5^ 29 12 4. '0 LI E MI 28 2" W T LI NE

6 6

2 2

BWL

. ! G

70 70

50 50

100 100

70 70

PAR A

20.0 20 0

'37 7"W ^15 °15'3 N30 353 N30 87.5 87.

CO 30503

. ! G

92.

23.0 23 0

50 50

DQL

3275

105R=8 3 .38 .3 3

3 4333

0975

MIO-105-C1-65 5 1

13. 13.6 10(P 610 )(P)

8 p43

50 50

3316

3 4

SC1

50 50

PAR B

0050

8 9 10

14 14

BWL

R=49 R=49 115.5 115. 858

8.4 8.4

50 50.

50 50

90 90

cl R=800 T=104.37 L=206.782

0805

14 14

4144

AO 98024

117

4230

4231

CO 10566

4310 1 0290 2

19 18 17

0990

102.98 102.98

1180 21

30 30

81.65 81.65

4522

AO 26506

N88^20'23"W 14 14

51.5

279.92

103(P) 103(P)

103 103

16105R=8

AO 808 44 S tre e t E s m t

-D

30 30

- --

3 4

89.41 89.41

)

TI LIM ON IT

100 100

30 30

42( 642 P)(P)

P)P) 50( 50(

30 2

128.29

IFS

29- B

35. 35.6

.5.5 32 32

- --

47.40 44.990 47.40

IFS

----

106.74

90 90

C2-40

Esm

89.77 89.77 89.58 89.58

PARCEL A

NS CO TRNS UC

4235

4 0795

(Condo)

118.81 N87^53'11"W

100(P) 100(P)

BWL

IFU

40.55

55.

LIMIT LINE

ORD 112304

C1-40 UC

IFU

30- A

SEATTLE SEATTLE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION LIMIT LINE

40.580 40.580 31.742 31.115 31.742 31.115 41.861 39.48 EAST EAST 39.48

644 .6 30 30.

100 100

2374+25

0010

89.94 89.94

No 7 7 - 4 9

26.068 26.068

66.68 0020

30 30

3245

30A

34.01 34.01

25 25

40.004 40.004

B R O O K L Y N

40.004 40.004 30.003 30.003 30.003 30.003 40.004 40.004

9TH AV NE

40.004 40.004

662.58 N1^17'26"E

40.004 40.004

40.79 40.79

53.46(MEAS) 374 CO

Subdivision

N27 N27 °33 ^3 '39" 3' E39

622

S27 S27 °07 ^07 '13" '13 30.0 W 30. 404 "W

613 80

.9 0

14. 14.9 393 N60 N60 40. 40.7 °58' ^58 676 07"W '07

90.30 90.30 90.12 90.12

BWM

89.84(P) 89.84( P)

30 30

CO 240 2- 12 "E 240 .32 .32

Short

90.48 90.48

90.48(P) 90.48( P)

90.30(P) 90.30( P)

90.12(P) 90.12(P)

89.77(P) 89.77(P)

89.58(P) 89.58(P)

11222 2.9

55( (P) P)

90.66 90.66

12.41 12.41

77-49

PARCEL B

379 379 .00 128 128 .00 .13 .13

CO E

22 22

51.5

BWL

VOL 2 0 - 7 4 7 8

. ! G

285.03 N87^52'39"W

285.03

103 103

102.99

CO 10566

. ! G

0890

33.17 10 33.17 10

AO 98024

NC3-65

21 4234 0885

103 103 N87°53' 22"W N87^53'22"W 102.99

AO 88114

7.84 7.84

22 22

34.75 34.75

71^51' 95.55 71°51' 95.

SE SEA

273.37 273.37

IFU 30- D

N LN IFU S 77.264' LOT 1

. ! G

40 40

374 CO

46 N2 32 8^ 1.

30 30 10 10

613

105 20. 884 20.2 424 Sht Su bd PAR B

1103

EA ST LAK E

30 30

. ! G

)

R= 65 T= 0 12 L= 4. 24 24 5. (M 52

EA ST LAK E

CO 37483

MA P 8 8 - 9 3

8 374 - 9 3 83

AV NE

IC-45

TR TIO UC N

99.257

9' 49'

92.78

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

708.50 N1^17'33"E

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25

60 60

108.98 108.98 N88°26' 07"W N88^26'07"W

AT TTL TL E

4236

20 19

NE CAMPUS

55.20

105 .04 N70 ^07 '43

LIN

28.016 28.016

Lot

25 25

103.05 103.05

19.57 19.57

103.05 103.05 30 30

30 30

40 40

30 30

45 45

30 30

140

AO 26344

30 30

30 30 30 30

30 30

25 25 25 25 25 25

169.06 40

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 100 100

185.36

25 25 25 25

25 15 25 15 25 10 10 25 AO 114985 25

37.5 6

15 21.50 21.50

21.00 15 21 15

6.25

21.25 21.50

15 21.25 15 21.25

48 52

VOL 5- 34

D D A

25 25 25 25 40

25 25 25 25

25 25

14.75 14.75 20.76

Esmt

20.76 14.75 14.75 24.58 24.58 14.75 14.75 20.76

24.57

100 100

25 25

50.

30 30

20.01 (M)

70 70

1815

14 14

CO 37483

294 294 .45 .45 0(0(P P)

30 30

40(P) 40(P)

CO 37483

70 70

1825

30 30

94.76 94.76

158.41 N87^52'44"W

100(P) BWL 100(P)

281 110

25.005 25.005

40 40

70 70

9 10 94.47 94.47

94.18(P) 94.18(P) 11

94.18(P) 94.18(P)

1810

4100

14 14

103 103

8 9 4111 10

100(P) 100(P)

DO 24209

95.05 95.05

AT BO

70 70

IFU

24A

95.05 95.05

94.76 94.76

E 5" "E '1 '15 00 °00 5^

SH E E TS 1 & 2

705

1195

N89^00'43"W

N89°00' 43"W

44 '3 2 6. 1"

103 103

El Monterey

103 103

18 17 16

. ! G

76 VO 85578 150. 150.76 .36 .36 R=350 R=350

. ! G

20 20

AO 24203

50 50

N27 N27 °33' ^33 39"E '39

172.675 172.675

N6 15 4. 3^ 00

7 95.33 95.33

89.

LINE

30 30

R=50 R=50

25.005(P) 25.0 05(P )

25.005 25.005

N0^08'38"E 240.026 240.026

S0°08'38"W

LAKE

20 20

N87^52'20"W

9 10

95.61 95.61

24.865 24.865

IFS

100 100

4 95.83 95.83

BWM

24.865 24.865

100.011(P)

24.865 24.865

VOL 902-311

IFS

19 1871

15 4110 1835

279.96 N88^53'22"W

BWL

96.04 96.04

0365

S3 S35

24.865 24.865

UNREC

96.04 96.04

95.83 95.83 95.61 95.61

LANDS

95.33 95.33

4131 4 1780

0055 8

2 1

105 105

1120

103 103

. ! G

30 30

AO 9577

3.65 3.65

30 30

0020

0005 4

4311

10 0445

11 12 0450

14 14

0860

103 103

1770

103 103

4145 1

4140

96.33 96.33

240.026 S0^08'38"W 240.026

11 12

HARBOR LINE

N87^53'22"W

14 14

89° 89^ 11'

96.90 96.90

96.61 96.61

24.865 24.865

N89^00'43"W

N89°00' 43"W

UNION 1

30 30

(USAED FILE NO C-2-4-166)

N89°00' 43"W

IB U/45

11 12

25.005 25.005

N0°08'38"E N0^08'38"E 240.026 240.026

30 30

11 R=30 R=30 ' L=42.552 L=4 2. 55 2

0700

14 14

100(P) 100(P)

4214 17

NE 42ND ST 100 100

LIN

IFS 8

66.80 66.80

96.33 96.33

86 9.0 (P) 2 (P )

R=450 259 .55 5(M T=84.39(M) ) L=166.845

AO 83414

83 DER

97.90 97.90

2.89 2.8 R=30 R=30 30" 5'30 L=46.697 L=46 .69 7 49' " 67.91 67.91 90°

1012 12

13 100 100

15 14

0880

100

30 30

NC3-85

AO 83414

374

MEAN

97.23 97.23

96.90 96.90

7.3 7.34

157(P) 157(P)

AO 100377

(M)CO CF292350 (M) 37483 23.35 27.6 36.42 33.44 UC

207.19

90^24'30 90°24'30"

96.61 96.61

RN MENT

30 30 3030 MIO-65-IC-45 (M) (M)

94.47 94.47 40.004(P) 40. 004 (P )

97.64 97.64

25 16. 25 16.86 9.02

141 141

13 14

89^3 89°35'

0695

277.15

98.18 98.18

51.18

0245

10 4207

98.47 98.47

19 18 17

0690

0705

DO 24209

98.75 98.75

CO 11287 Amend by CO 12478

25 25

133 133

100 100

123.8 123.8

129 129

242.22

98.75 98.75

70670 8

4211

0710

. !

98.47 98.47

97.90 97.90

0246

86 -1

84.02 84.02

25 25

4212

0425 17

0900

103 103

99.89 99.89

0660

0665

4225

0725

BWL

103 103

4235 4 4229 5

BWL

0735

99.04 99.04

98.18 98.18

902

2 0655

3 3

4507

31.38 31.38

7 6 85

280.01 N87^52'39"W

0645 1

4237 3

103(P) 103(P)

4317

. ! G

103 4241 103

14 14

105 105

. ! G

30 30

CO 10566

0400

N87^51'56"W

4242

99.32 99.32

0200

14 14

24 1107

23 0500

103 103

277.17

24 0755

99.61 99.61

4225

0575

0580 14 14

105 105

AO 9577

104.87

104.87 0015 8

PFB

1200

N88^20'45"W

CO 10566 103(P) 103(P)

30 30

NE 43RD ST

4212

1247

MAP

30 30

IFX

4 5 IFS

259.86 N87^52'50"W

N89^00'43"W

100.011

258 N70 .52 ^07 '43

0.12 0.12

30 30

4307

0745 19

C1-65 G

99.89 99.89

99.61 99.61

90^ 90°

13 100 100

0740

100 100

47.4 47.42

. ! G

130.69 N1^19'36"E

92(P) 92(P)

1407

4.0 N1 2 N71147 .00 ^1 ^36 9' '59 35 "W .9 "W

2335

2320 5 6

45.86 45.86

149(P) 149(P)

25 25

1 95 95

35 35

GO VE

14 711

82(P) 82(P)

90(P) 90(P)

IFX

E P L

65(P) 65(P)

4.95(M)

100.011

25 25

82(P) 82(P)

85(P) 85(P)

197.74

80(P) 80(P)

2305 1 2

IFS

8TH AV NE

95 95

H L AK

3748

Ame CO 1128 nd 7, by CO

25 25

32.28 32.28

25 25

N1^17'01"E

25(P) 25(P)

25 25

269. 43 N73^ 28' 17"

P 8 8-

BWM

99.04 99.04

113 S29 S29 113 .50 .50 °01 ^01 '53" '53 W

47.37 N1^50'59"E

NE NO RT

25 25 25 25

12.5 12.5

100 100

25 25

25 25 190.01

25 25 25 25 25(P) 25(P)

64.63 64.63 65.83 65.83

45 45 86 -1 5

8 CF292350

704

25 25 25 25

25 25

7 8

0530

1' 11'

5 6

4311

BWL

4300

20100

10 10

105 105

4501

D V3 4 8 p 5 6 4

280.07 30 30

44333 0415

19 18

197

. ! G

105 105

16 0135

2 33

30 30

99.92

17 0550

105 105

4 97

0055

104.92 104.92(P)

PFB

99034 25

AO 83414

050 50

10 2185 100 100

25 25 25 25 25 25

36 35

95 95

R=1 R=10

97.03 97.03

25 25

25 25 25 25

20 21

25 25

IFX

25 25

25 25 25 25

30.82 30.82

100.36 100.36

. ! G

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25

- 50 -

25 25

41 40

. ! G

61.

MAP

100 100

25 25

43 42

25 25

25 25 25 25 43.75

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

40 5

25 25 25 25

25 25

25 25 25 25

CO 11287, by CO 12478

CO 14073

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25

156.25

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25

37.5

25 25 25 25

47.5

601.18 N1^17'42"E

25 25

12 14 16

25 25

30 30

46 1735 45

Amend

N1^16'37"E

25 25

100.44

50 49 48 1744 47

IFX

R=170 R=1700 55.59 55.59 .00 0.00

30 30

25.50 24.50 25.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 25.50 25.50

25 25

25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

708.68 N1^17'26"E

25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25 13.75 17.75 14.92 28.43 7.02 4.02 3.85

100 100

30 30

R=1700.00

30 30

52 51

25 25 25 25

25 25 D

33.07(US)

20.50

0310

244.99 N88^45'16"W

54 53

6 7 4046

9 11

MIO-65-IC-45

7TH AV NE

30 30

26.20

26.50

21.25 21.00

25 25 25 25

37.5

25 25

675.69

37.5

25 25 25.50 25.50 24.50 24.50

25.50 24.50 25.50 24.50 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25

10 25 25

25(P)

39.95 39.95

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25

24.08 24.08

25(P)

33. 95

39.95 39. 95

33.95

24.08 17.83 17.83 23.00 24.08 23 25

100

1.75

27.95(US)

Unit Subd No 3006128

20 20

4245

32.08(MEAS)

25 25

25 25 25 25

25 25

39.59 39.59

25 25 25 25

25 25

N1^17'29"E

8TH AV NE

25 25

60.25 60. 25 100

100100

FR FR EE EEW WA AY

YR/ R/ W

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 28. 25

18. 25 18.25 18.25 18. 25

18. 25 18.25 18. 25 18.25

60. 25 60.25

25 25

25 25 25 25

25 25

24.09 17.83 23.00 23 24.09

25 25

100 100

30 30 14.99 14.99

25 25 25 25 45

25 25 30

25 25

25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25

1550

1595 10

29 28 27 26

99.32 99.32

. ! G

20 20

25 25

100 100

8 1585

4040

9TH AV NE

30 30

30 30 30 30

47 47. .0 04

R=29.85 R=29.85

30 30

30 30 24.98 24.98

30 30 30 30

24.98

THE

24.98

30 30 30 30 30 30

35 35

N1^17'00"E(SH)

35 35

25 39.58 (P ) 39.58

15. 58

15.58

39.58

(P ) 25

39.59

39.58

24.00 24 24.00 24

59 15. 15.59

25 25

25 25 21.25

25(P)

13.0

Esmt

25(P)

11 12.45

25 25

100 100 25 25

26.45 26. 45 13.55 13.

25 25 25 25

7.5

25 25

25 25 25 25

25 25

138

74 74 25 25

32 31

25 25

801

102.64 102.64

100.93 100.93

N88^45'04"W

. ! G

20 100 100 100.09 100.09

25 25

1 2

36 35 34

1880

25 25

194.37 N1^16'37"E

1960 38

4000

1410

100 100

VO 95146

4035

14 15 16 17

30 30

95 95

90°4

89^ 89°1

AO 3225

8.25 21.25 16.25 16.25

30.30

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 23.5 1.50

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

677.37 N1^17'26"E

25 25

25 25 25 25

25 25

A 25 25 33 .33

25 25

33 .3 4

25 25

R=15

100.01 100.01

. ! G

812 4205

1400

103.21 N89°11' 11"W N89^11'11"W

VO 95146

21.25 16.25 16.25 21.25 39.59 39.59 39.58 39.58

25(P)

50 50

1860

25 25

593.10 N1^17'51"E

33.33

63.11(MEAS) N1^16'42"E N1^17'34"E

17.84 17.84

25.00

6 1.1

32.16 32.16

25.00

25 25.00

25 25

R /W R/ Esmt

25 25 25 25

Esmt 6 6

25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 CO 44378 MA P 1 2 0 -4 4 AO 123061

67.17 24.25 18.25 24.67

25 25

25 25 25 25 22.5 23.5 22.50 23.50 25 25 25 25 AO 123061 AO 123584 AO 123061

25 25

67.83 25.33 18.25 24.25

Esmt

E 1"

25 25

24.83

117.14 117.14

119.94 119.94

36.5 36.5 120.69 120.69

85.4 85.4

91(P) 91(P)

113 113

IFS

SHORE

VAC PASADENA PL NE

43 41

1420

100.01(P) 100.01(P)

0166

VOL 248-01 02

103(P) 103(P)

3 1013

42.98 42.98

Esmt

0075

PARCEL B

1100

CO 10566

14 14

105 105

Bdy Adj

PARCEL A

0080

30 30

AO 104554

VOL 238-05 08

103.28

26 27 28 29

30 30

105.40 105.40

S89^55'38"E 104.62 104.62

Novell Condominium

Amend

24.865(P) 24.8 65(P )

25. 00 25.00

E 0" '0 08 2^ N4 25(P) 25(P)

100 100 100 100

100 100 50

30 30 30 30 25 25

25 25

E 7TH AV NE

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

12 13

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

N1°18'02"E 49.93

25 25 25 25

VOL 5-16

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

25 25 5 20 25 25

25 25 18 7

FR FR EE EEW WAAY Y

'2 36 6^ N2

25 25

23.5 23.50

22.5 22.50

25 25 25 25

25 25

LATONA

15 15

102(P) 102(P)

116(P) 116(P)

N1^11'37"E

138(P) 138(P)

272.91

E 1

N4 11 0^ 2. 33 47 '2

9" E 88.12 N1^11'37"E

2350 3 4

LAKE 6

IFS

24.865 24.865

44 42

IFX

. ! G

664

11 12

1430

4215

1390

NE 42ND ST

15 100 100

89 .6 31 0 '5 4"

2015

800

0070

. ! G

4055 46

8 4040 1845

4305

10566

4336

104.95

0090 8

Lot

51.44 51.44

10 10

0525

35 35

19 106.36 106.36

105.79 105.79

SEATTLE FREEWAY

N87^51'50"W

COMBINED US BULKHEAD, P IERHEAD AND STATE

SH E L BY S T TO E 4 3 R D ST

30 30

49 47

1855

48.17 710#

48.16 710# 48.15 48.14

245.14

10 4036

Subd

35 34 33

10 11 12 13

LIGH T CITYCITY LIGHT R/W R/W

30 30

25 25

100 100

2 1795 3 4054 1805

50 50

80.90 N4 10 0^ 3. 31 33 '0 3"

40 40

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

320.29

BASELINE BASELINE PSH1 PSH1

25 25

F ILE R/W SE E

N1^49'40"E N1°49'40"E

126.29 126.29

40 40

1815

3008312

1370

1375

21 20

72.52

25 25

701

1445

4217

H 1000#

0155

277.26

100(P) 100(P)

45TH ST 213.11 CO

23 0630

R=122 R=122

30 30

100 100

108.07 108.07

32.50

25 25

728# C

108.64 108.64

30 30

52.15 52.15

92 92

100.05 N87°50' N87^50'45"W 45"W

32.52

Short

4221

48.18

(Condo) VOL 136-69 80

100.05

BWM

56.35 56.35

25 25

34.89 12.01 894#

. ! G

43 41 39

260.01 N88^45'28"W

100(P) 100(P)

16 17 18

34.89 890# 12.03 D 46.93

716

46 44

IFX

Esmt 46.89 1199#A

12.02

1100

1080

25 25

24 0050

20.817 20.817

33 32

4211

710

40 708

1055 25 25

. ! G

47 45

109.78

109.21 109.21

35 .3 .38 .35 0. 390 180 390 18

49.99

700

1145

1120

7 8 9 10

110.93 110.93

110.35 110.35 110.40 110.40 N87^51'06"W N87°51' 06"W

109.83 109.83 N87^50'45"W N87°50' 45"W 109.78

107.50 107.50

.96 5.

CITY CI TY LI GHT LIGHT R/W R/W

3006699 49.99

21 22

1040

4206

1155

4223 4219

1280

395666

La Terrazza

1000

CO 10566

. ! G NE

3 52.91 52.91

PFB

30 30

N88^20'19"W 64.12

4343

106.93 106.93

10 105

E 50.00 50 D

4250 6

111.50 111.50

9050

CO 40027

100 100 100.04 100.04 N87°52' 29"W N87^52'29"W

ST 65 62 IC 2"W 65 10 62 CIF 52'0 PA N33^ NE12 96

50.01

0005 2

255.10 N88^42'39"W

100(P) 100(P)

4359 1

905

30 0155

0135

. ! G

25 25

1530 49

26.9

W 8.6" '38.6"W 50'3

39 38

Subd

50.01

25 25

100 100

1 4262 1250

(LBA) (LBA) 11.69 11.69

CO 10169

83.92(P) 83.92(P)

113.21 113.21

R=10 MAP 12 0- 30 44.89(D) 44.89( D) R=10

N88^19'14"W

112.64 112.64

112.07 112.07

53.70 53.70

1320

9066

4522

60.62(LBA) 60.62(LBA)

135.01(LBA) 135.01(LBA)

90(P) 90(P)

176.00 264.69

113.78 113.78

11' 1'

N88^42'30"W

95 95

1270

37 4227

18 F

37.00

30 30

AKE PL

Subd

5 4237 41

22 50.03 50.03

50.02 Esmt

25 25

89^ 89°1

VOL 5- 16

IFS

37.02 22Esmt 37.02

1175

30 30

NE 43RD ST

4252

CO 37483

34.9

30 30

26 25.03025.030 25.030 25.030 25.030 25.030 25.030 25.030 25.030 25.030 25.030 25.030

22.0

48 5 .4

100 100

S73^ S73°50

9.97 9.97

25 25

IFX

30 30

L=42.552(P) L=42.552(P) R=30 R=30 9.57 9.57

0130

30 30

30 30 4

100 100

LA TO N A 1ST ADD

IMO

IMP

509

100 100

1 4 3 IMO

255.10

IB U/4527

1510 1 1 2 1

C 0.50 23.57 24.46 24.44 24.44 R=1100

25 25

14 IC-45

35 35

816

0140 25 26 27 28

30 30

47 46

41.01 41.01

7.5 21 21.00 No 2 3 0 3 9376 5 63. 0363.03

4239 43 1185

30 100 100

0380

R=150 R=150

CO 10169

. ! G

102.2

3006299

UM NE NORTHLAKE WY

71.35 N87^52'12"W

1205

Sht

20. 02 20.02

50.01

R = 6 3 9 . 26 58 L = 3 9 8 . 05 T = 2 0 0. 3 5 .7 1 12 .6 E 126.37 N88^41'46"E R=L= 94 0 2" .9 '1 49 01 23 T= N6 3^ 2 .2 IFX 92

100 100

95 95

1 2

2 4

IFS

32 3

3030

p32,3

41.12IMP 41.12

30 30

. ! G

95 95

IC-45

30 30

B 48.00

25.21 25.58 25.21 25.58

THL NE NOR

49 1230

0940

0165 31

245.16

4253 48 4254

4315 32

0 6 .0 39 .3

TJO 114619 25 25 CITY CITY

64.72 N87^57'16"W

0191

. ! G

34 49.01 G 49.00 F E

0125

. ! G

4259

51.05 D

51.05

0190

49 H

49 49.00

0120

3009172

37 36

4321

49.01 49.01

Subd

4306

24086 21

51.05 A

Subd

Esmt

F 49.05

18 22

B Esmt

51.05

49.05 G

0195

N88^21'09"W 88.66

. ! G

20 20

8 100 100

SC1 p32

2 112.2 E 6'06" N78^1

N1^44'22"E

15 15 25 25

25 25

53.77 53.77

53.77

23.71 23.71 40 40

40 40

40 40 25 25 R/W R/W

N1^39'39"E

VO 95249

40 40 25 25 25 25 25 25 LIGHT LIGHT

226.87

40 40

30 30

50. 01 50.01

100 100

49.04 H

Short

49.05

4327

4302

51 50

4030 13

Subd

D 67.5967.59

25 25

49.04

0090

46.08 46.08

41 40

0225

4320

Sht

4337

IFX

14 4332 0070

25.45 30 25.45 30

107 107

20 20

W 6 .5 2" 98 '0 52 3^

100(P) 100(P)

25(P) 25(P)

TJO 114619

10 11 12

0235

60.00 60.00

4501

DER

TJ O 95647

TJO 95647

Short

25(P) 25 25 25(P)

25 25

B A

48 47

94 4343

89024 40

9021

Adj

107 107

16 16

50.0150. 01 C

100 100

809

0005

0075

9037 PARCEL

CO 10566

95 95

0080

107 107

Bdy

PARCEL B

N88^20'02"W

4324

No 2201060

25 25

5050.00

107 107

711 52

1240

0910

13 4236 14 0995

Short

103.43

90 90

9020 Lot

30 4' '30" ^4 °44 107 107

MEAN

IC-45

100 100

25 25

709

8 9

0595

16 16

NE 45TH ST

N1^39'39"E

RN MENT

48.00 A

MAP 86 -1 5

CO 14073 102.33 102.33

25 25

IMO

25 25

100 100

1 2

R=15 R=15 L=23 .55 L=23.55

. ! G

48.00 A

Subd

3006297

29 265. 3"E 00'0

GO VE

25 25

PASADENA PL NE

25 25

L INE

. ! G

IMO

N75^

1. 1.2 23 3

43.81

25 25

TJO 114619

Esmt

E 43RD S T T O E 75T H S T

SHEET 1

SHEE TS 2 & 3

N1^49'40"E

CO 12478

30 30

50 9006 138. 3"E 00'0

N75^

25 25

. ! G

100

D 50.01 100 100(P) (P ) . 3.25 3.2 5

0435

1825

100

4048 6

CO 11287, CO 12478 Amend by

4052

NE 40TH ST

100(P) 100(P)

100

E 44.00

1.0 14

47.50

Short E

30 30

Subd

93 92 F 44.00 22.00

44.00 F

R=1100.0

22'Rt

25 25

IMP

14.24

21 100(P) 100(P)

47.50 47.50

2120

1.0

36 35 34

0425

25 25

4210

3006088

47.50 47.50

1.0

25 25

277.

25 25

100 P

Esmt

CO 37483

19.41

25 25

3829

D C

28.25 28.25

12.5

.0 2 Sho rt 100.02 Su bd Esmt

4302 710

810

0150

3007865

15. 25 15.25

40 39

25 25

240.026 240.026 S0^08'38"W S0°08'38"W

16 SEATTLE FREEWAY

CO 37483

PC=2387+25.0

44.50

Subd

25 25

123.13 N1^39'39"E

. ! G

D C

44.50

18 17

95 95

25 25

9 93 9

Subd

3009294

44.5 44.50 ... 100 P .

......

110.30 N1^44'05"E

SH E L BY S T TO E 4 3 R D S T

R/W

FREEWAY

SR 5

40 40

D=14^00' R=409.29 L=176.99 T=89.91

CO 14073

2 0160

6 8 IFX

44.50 44.50

. ... 1.16 6 32.50 32.50 6.0 C

3006199 22.00

A B

28.25

N0°08'38"E

40 40

40 40 40 40

IMP

VO L 4-28

40 40 .

40 40

40 40 R /W

40 40

FR EE W AY

40 40

40 40 40 40

RAMP RAMP

64.28

100 100

47.50

42 41

0460

Subd

11 11.00

26.25 26.25

2 4317

0915

PFM

14 4328 0345 15

703

28 28

30 30

28.25 28.25

1090 1105 1050 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

30 30

2075

2085

Sht

44.50 44.50

1.07

44.50 44.50

A B

Short

47.5 47.50

06 277. 6"E 59'0

100(P) 100(P)

47.50 47.50

Short

47.50

25 25

PI=2388+14.91

CO 12478

9 .9

01 9+

30.28 30.28

IFX

14.99

2065

38 =2

0410

. ! G

8 1/3

15. 15.25 25

26.25 26.25

15.25

Esmt15. 25

AO 94971 14.99

4047

G 11.00

11 IFX

. ! G

PT=2394+67.50

4041

52.28

25 25

30 30

25 25

1.0

30.28

100 100

50.02

25 25

100(P) 100(P)

14 14

30 30

201.19 N88^22'46"W

25 25

26. 25 26.25

Short

50.0450.04

22 4211 0885

666

2400200

50.01

0900

25 25

12 IMO 13 9

47.75

. ! G

25 25

4049

40(P) 40(P)

50.20 50.20

p41

80.96 Rt

CO 37483

SC1

650

80 . 9 6 R t 255.24 PI=2393+96.50 RAMP RAMP N88^45'16"W POT=2393+35.39 = D=40^00' R=143.25 POC=2393+34.68 L=161.71 T=90.71

35.01

45.02

N74^

(Con do)

VOL 98-88 93

25 25

LR3

College Place

0585

25 25

40 40

40 40 40 40

676.94 N1^39'42"E

40 40

SC19 p19

MA P 8 8 - 9 3

30 30

100.07100.07 N88°44'31"W

100.08100.08 N88°44'40"W

0860 19

. . .. . .. . . .

. ! G

200.00

25 25

10 4032 0985 10

12 4026 0995 12

50.24 50.24

0840

4219 18

23 24 25 26 23 24 25 26

. ! G

0980 9

13 4020 1000 13

5.02 16 5.02

4229

PC=2391+52.569

L A T O N A A. D D

4036

100 100

62.6

80.9 6 80.96

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

18 4

74 74

8 4042 0975 8 9

IMP

0810 13

PC=2393+05.80

6 4050 0965 6

. ! G

4233

708.89 N1^17'26"E

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

0930

36.00 33.00

4258 3

25 25.00

0940

210 210

BASELINE PSH1 BASELINE PSH1

40 40

2 4064 0945 2 3 4060 0950 3

100 100 100 100

. ! G

'12"E

33.10 30 30 33.10

IFX

17 IMO

28 28

260.04 N88^42'47"W

0765

0800

25 25

50 50

. ! G

15 15 15

4070

100

40 40

5TH AV NE

RAMP RAMP

PC=2393+93.13

1665

N8^58

110.70 110.70

115.35 N88^23'10"W 9.99

40 40

414

30 30

1ST ADD

RAMP RAMP

50 50

1655 15

1564

100(P) 100(P)

25 25

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

210 210 2396+10

PI=2395+14.63 R=5730.00 T=121.50 L=242.92

. ! G

25 25

4263

4247 7

25 25 25 25 49.93

PT=2396+36.05

PI=2396+36.955 D=00^15' R=22,920.0 T=484.39 L=968.56

4209

406

30 30

25 25

50 50

1650 14

RAMP RAMP

BASELINE BASELINE

50 50

4213

6 7 9

458.67 N1^40'45"E

1640 12

1645 13

N88^24'08"W

4221

13 4219

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

SHEET 1

E 43 RD S T T O E 7 5T H S T

50 50

4223

NE 42ND ST

11 1635

GBK

0780 4

1625

4253 3

419

1620

25 25

0760

55.35

50 50

413

1605

25 25

30.28 30.28

52.28

135.07 N88^42'39"W 100 100

661

49.92 49.92 N1°17'26"E

30 30

110.70 110.70

55.35

409

N4^14'57"E

SF 5000

15 15

N88^19'18"W

46.70

2 3 4

29.730 29.730

266.48

30 30

NE 43RD ST

25 25

100(P) 100(P)

. ! G

39.70

12.35

0405

24.25 18.25 24.67 25 67.17

110.70 110.70

1830

70 70

130.99 130.99

210 210

50 50

412 34

POC=2400+52.25

23.60 18.25 66.60 24.25

1825

44.28

H Su bd

30 30

10.76 0555

23 24 25 26 27 28

WATERWAY WATERWAY NO 1 4NO 14

420

1835

50 50

15 416

0720

100 100

50 50

1815

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

4311

N6^32'27

33.33

50 50

1805

0715

4303

PC=2401+05.22

25 25

50 50 30

33.33

33. 34

1800

4315

1685

1675

30 30

26 23 24 25 26

460.18 N1^40'49"E

14 4312 4306

3 4309

IMO

PT=2401+21.125

25 25

1795

4317

50 50

4321

GBK

77 77

N89°35' 31"W N89^35'31"W

107 107

16 17

90°

A D D

1785

1695

15 15

30 30

19 20 21

IFX

100(P) 51 100(P)

47.75

13.5

70 70

PT=2403+02.96

RAMP RAMP

PI=2402+07.40

R=63 R=63

55.74

Sht

11.5

PC=2404+46.19

D=18^00' R=318.33 T=102.18 L=197.74

50 50

4325

4322

VOL 3- 55

110.70

1780

5TH AV N E

4329

PI=2405+35.10 D=24^00' R=238.75 T=88.91 L=170.21

25 25

1715

100.7

1705

1700

FREEWAY R/W

1725

4335

50 50

4339

1710

4332 4326

FREEWAYR/W FREEWAY R/W

30 30

110.70 110.70

409

30 30

N88^22'17"W

110.70 110.70

RAMP RAMP

. ! G

BASELINE BASELINE PSH PSH 1

1945

SHEE TS 2 & 3

418

19 20

16 16

80(P) 80(P)

50 50

16 110.70 110.70

SH E L BY S T TO E 4 3 R D ST

50.7

1940

SEATTLE FREEWAY

412

SR 5

1865

100(P) 100(P)

100 100

15 15

VOL 133-19 2 3

S88^23'49"E (SH) 24.707 235.34 N88^20'17"W 245.24 N88^21'36"W 260.09 CO 10566 50.67 CO 10566

NC3-65

10' 10'

PT=2406+16.40

50 50

408

NC3P-40

17.3

50 50

1935 15

1880

107 107

63 63

50 50

1885

4406 4407

110.70 110.70

NE 44TH ST

266.49

54.64

17 0260

R=8 R=8 55

N88^23'19"W 24.72

414.71

1930

4412

15 15

50 50

1920 12

1925

E 4 3 R D S T T O E 7 5 T HN1^40'40"E ST SHEET 1

50(P) 50(P)

4423

GBK

15 4417

54.51

164511

107

1910 11

1900

Esmt A

25024 03

(Re-Rec) B

52.36

107.00 107.00

54.38

Subd

D C

52.49

NC3-65

509.093

POT 2407+32.65 POT 2407+32.65

25.005 25.005

N88^20'53"W (SH)

25.005 25.005

35 35

4427

4426

4422

5 1895

FREEWAY R/W

YR/ R/ W

R=60 R=60

90 90°

NC3P-40 NC3-40

110.70(P) 110.70(P)

1905

POT=2407+32.65

FR FR EE EEW WA AY

CO 10566

401

110.70 110.70

25.005 25.005

30 30

N88^28'09"W

266.54

. ! G

107

52.62

Sht

140

NC3P-40

. ! G

61.29 61.29

NE 45TH ST

0380

700

0400

75. 75.7 05 705

663.519

88.77 88.77

VO 94000

VO 93950

5TH AV NE

193.77

14.977 S88^26'17"W (SH) N1^22'26"E (SH)

50 50

AO 94999

N88^17'16"W (SH) 266.54

110 110

R=10 R=10

50 50

0245

4516

16 17

......

60.69 60.69

....

NC3P-40

CITY OF SEATTLE UNDERLYING ZONING MAP

106.69 106.69

50 50

......

50 50

SDC Map Books

78 an 14 2016

13.78 13.78

400

0005 100 100

...

U N I O

50 50 49 49 4. .79 .5 79 .50 0

35TH AV NE

90 90

43.49 43.49

12 12

50 50

37.72 37.72

37 37. .4 42

12 124

W 93 2^ 1. 13 00 '3 3 3. 1"

N0^53'07"E 100 100 25 25

S4 E LIN R DE

25 25

AN ME NT ME RN VE

WATERWAY #3 VACATED BY STATE

100 100

271.87 100 100

46.87 46 .87 29.53 29 .53 444.89

S B 198 L AW S 1 9 1 3

VO 120813

AO 31996 FOR STREET AND BOULEVARD PURPOSES

DEDICATED BY S TATE CHAP 24

N0^53'07"E N0°53'07"E

VAC UNION BAY PL NE

354.63 354.63

2280.736

2287.156

9'53"

1083.35

743.774 LINE MEAN DER

LINE MENT

GO VE RN

S0^53'07"W

MENT

MEAN DER

29447 AO

GO VE RN

743.774 743 .77 4

1795.505

N0^53'07"E N0°53'07"E

1795.505

1"W S4^13'33.

1 91

EAST EAST

1137.820

120

VACATED BY ACT OF LEG ISLATU RE APP ROVED

MAR 1 7 1911 CH APTER 94 LAWS OF 1911

300

360

150

1"W

S4^13'33.

TU LA

IS G

EAST EAST

US B ULK HEAD AN D STATE IN NER HARBOR LINE

2146.7

TED

US BULKHEAD AND STATE INNER HARBOR LINE

LA K

AC BY

VAC

CF292350

MIO-37-LR1 CF292350 CM

100 100

1795.505

S4^14'33.1"W

150 150

S0^53'07"W

MIO-65-LR3

55 55

N12^2

66.50 3'33" 66.5 S78^1

9 75-7 MA P RY.

N.P . A ND REG ENTS

BY UNIVER SITY REGENT

SITY BY UNIVER

TED TO NPRY

BL VD

DEDICA

TED TO CITY DEDICA

LAKE 9 601.6

MONT SB 203 19 11 M 13 -9

P 94 L AWS

DO 91512

CHA

2'02" 02"E E

ED TO UNIVER SITY YR 1962

TED BY ST ATE

AO 29447

N11^2 N11°22'

REVERT

DEDICA

1905. 1905.33

1778. 1778.74

35665 DO

57.7 57.7

91. 91.8 080

91. 91.3 030

89. 89.5 050

91. 91.4 545

0( (P) P)

6. .80 80 (P) (P )

10 100

10 106

81. 81.4 7(P) 47(

150

35 35

50 50

12.61

282.40

70 70

35 35

R= 10 35 L= 71 0. 56 GO

32244

E E (WCS)

954.6

26 92

63.6 63.67

100

282.4

282.40

SE CCor SE or E /E/2, 2 , SE , SE, SW , SE SW, / 4 SE/4

N0^13'43"W N0°13'43"W

......

35 35 R=1000 R=1000 LINE MEAN DER MENT GO VE RN

332.501 S6^13'3 3.1"W

MAP 83 5- 17

AO 69450 403.41 403.41

6. .33 33

79 796

TE CA

DI DE

DEDICATED

4 3224 02"E 2'02" E

N11^2 N11°22' 2 556.2 556.22

00 DEDICATED

S.B.203 SEE NO TE

29447 AO

120.94 120.94 REPEA CO 26292 LED ORD

06 905.

E N11^22'02"

905. N12^2

35665

132.40 82.40

68 68

N0^13'38"W N0°13'38"W

75.00 75.00

3.78

ORD 84695 75.000 75.000 8 8

175.00 175.00

S00-00-00E

243.00 243.00

16 175.0016 100 175.00

N0^13'43"W N0°13'43"W

S0^13'38"E

81.81 81.81

6.09 S00-00-00E 9.67

129.88

60.19 60.19

N90-00-00E 24.50

6.55

6.05

N0°00'00"E NORTH 58. 221.82 -40 58.1 10 -58 0 E

N25

221.82

123.43

92.69 N00-00-00E 92.69

50 50

S0 -2 1. 935 09

DO 62829

N0-09-10W N0°09'10"W 219.59

219.59

25.00 25

35 35

35 35 130.10 130.10

.3 4 4

25TH AV NE AO 69450

744.65 744.65

289.35

85.881 1

165.62 N0^56'57"E(WCS)

130.986

568.64 568.64

R=2861.29

L=576.74

568.64 568.64

AO 29447

289.

MAP 13 -9 4

DED ICATED B Y S TA TE CHA P 9 4 BY LAW S 1 91 1 SB 20 3

1218.68 1218.68

25T H AV NE

ORD

DO 91512

VO 71048

69450 AO

104.63 104.63

87.86

14.74 15.3

DEEDED TO NP RY 1337.09 1337.09

VO 11048

284.

548.46 548.46

(PARK) 2

S.B.203 DEDICATED

120.94 120.94 REPEA CO 26292 LED ORD

32244

29447

44.88 44.88

35664 ORD

R=4133 R=4133

DO 91512

E (WCS) 9'53"

N11^2 N11°21 '51'52" 2"E

DO 91512

2843.83 284 3.8 3 DEDICATED F OR HIGHWAY PURPO SE BY CHAPT.66 LAW S O F 1929

88 88.3

85.

35 35 130.986

284.

548.46 548.46

2 SEE NO TE

38.90 38.90

30'1 '10"W 0"W

S14^ S14°30

S11°22'0 S11^22 2"W '02"W 96.55 96.55

287. DEEDED 287.3 030 TO NP RY VO 35323

VO 11048

1337.09 1337.09

(PARK)

BY ST ATE CHA P 94 L AWS 19 11 S B 203

DEEDED TO NP RY

DEDICA TED

356.65 356.65

M24-141 M24-141

AO 57603

CO 17947

954. CE WITH MAP , - GIVING CE OF N13 °24 AN ADDITIO '48"E NAL 973.1 ACCEP 8' H ERE TED BY ORDINA S MISTAK NCE 29447 E. NO WH ICH TED 1-20-50 H .W. M.

0075 50 50

10 10

50 50

2907

75 75

0095

R=20 R=20 31.42 31.42

0600 2

2122

10 10

70 70

0610

0605

50 50

GO VE RN MENT

50 50

A 9

50 50

P I ER H EA D

50 50

R 16

50 50

10 10

70 70

31.42 31.42 R=20 R=20

1897 0190

N AND

L IN E HA R BOR

LINE

OUT ER A ND P I ER H E A D US

HA R BOR

L IN E

1947.2 S0^53'07"W

S0^53'07"W

OUT ER ST A T E AN D L IN E P I ER H E A D US

LAKE

NORTH

I N

ST A T E

MA P 6 8 - 5 7

HA R BOR INNER S TA T E AND B U L K H E AD

2146.7

VACATED BY ACT O F LEG IS LATURE AP PROVED MARCH 19 1911 CH APTER 94 L AWS OF 1911

WASHINGTON

SHORE O

R E V

MA P 6 8 - 5 7

VAC LAKESIDE BLVD NE

S A W

LANDS

T G N H

O G

50 50

KEO

10 10

70 70

2818 0465 1

50 50

2111 0470 2

50 50

H AR B O R

0625

0630

0635

0620 50 50

50 50

D 6

50 50

LINE

40 40

M.C.

0645

SF 7200

M.C. M.C.

10 10

90 90

. ! G

50 50

2147 2153 0505

70 70

555 5

0510

R=43.75 2159 T=43.75 0515 L=68.72

100.00

100 100

H AR B O R S TA TE AND

S0^17'14"W

P I ER H EA D B U L K H E A D,

OLD HARBOR LINE (INNER)

2000.00 N89^42'46.1"W

N89^42'46"W 311.0

L IN E

MA P 6 8 - 5 7

CO M B IN ED

US H AR B O R

OLD HARBOR LINE (OUTER)

2098.962 N89^42'46.1"W

Kroll Map Company is a registered trademark.

C A N A L

Figure 204. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection Map Book, dated January 14, 2016. Sheet 80 CM

AND PIERHEAD LINE

157.031 S89^42'46"E

STATE O UTER HARBOR LINE

157.031

250

COMBINED US BULKHEAD AND PIERHEAD LINE ABL

STATE O UTER HARBOR LINE

EST

ISH

DEP

T OF

CO ABL MB ISH INE ED D US BY BUL MA U S DEP KHE AD P 4 17 T OF AN -3 AR 0

J ULY

15,

SHE

D PIER MY HEA J ULY D LINE 2 15, 19 49

S5 52 5. 9^ 36 68 '5 1"

0646

31 31. .4 42

S H I P

COMBINED US BULKHEAD

M.C. M.C.

0646

23.75 23.75 23.75 23.75

S TA TE

LINE

L IN E

SF 5000

157.031 S89^42'46"E

157.031

EST

0640 50 50

AND PIERHEAD LINE

COMBINED US BULKHEAD AND PIERHEAD LINE

118.75 85. 75.00 11.25 72 50 50

VOL 18-20

M.C.

90 2158

200.00

R=200

LIN R DE AN ME NT ME RN VE

GO VE RN MENT

10 10 1

AND

LC A K E A N A LW A S H I N G T O N

S H I P

COMBINED US BULKHEAD

15 15 .71 .7

2152

ST N O 89910 50 50

W A S H I N G T O N

SF 5000

L IN E

2136 2142 2146

2132

E SHELBY ST

R=20 R=20 31.42 31.42

CANAL 500 460.845 S4^58'33 .1"W S TA TE

776.50 COMBINED US BULKHEAD, P IERHEAD AND STATE HARBOR

0615

630.05 50 50

109 109

99 99

50 50

B U L K H E A D,

2126

2118

ST N O 89910 50 50

L IN E

0595

. ! G

98 98

50 50

2904

118 118

50 50

N3 53 2. 7^ 13 00 1 '3 3. 1" CO M B IN ED

1 40 2908 10 10 .7 71 40 15 15. 0590 2112

R=20 R=20 31.42 31.42

NTLAKE BLVD E

50 50

R E

75 75

0090

1894 70 70

99 99

109 109

50 50

99 99

0100 1

109 109

LINE MEAN DER

10 10

70 70

1803

F 10 10

0085

1886

50 50

12 12

40 40

0080

1876

50 50

109 109

P I ER H EA D

HA R BOR

9144

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

667.174 E

S89^42'46.1"E 280.581

3388.653 HYDR

FO RM ER

EAST

H A RB O R

LI NE

1908

RB HA

STATE O UTER HARBOR LINE

R=2

UNKN

59.417

FO RMER

H ARB OR

LI NE( 190 8)

LINE

(A P P RO VED MA R 25 , 19 10 )

R=2

S89^42'46.1"E

UNKN FORMER

N0^53'07"E

50 50

B U L K H E A D,

INNER

OUT ER

FOR MER

. !

1882

0070

1866 0065

50 50

CF292350

L IN E

ST A T E

MA P 6 8 - 5 7

159.85 NORTH

50 50

109 109

0055

35 35

50 50

1874

0060

1856

E SHELBY STG

35 35

R=20 R=20 25 22.5 25 22.5 31.42 31.42

98 98

VO 72272

1862

1092.50

118 118

WEST PARK DR E

1041.52

0050

35 35

50 50

99 99

0045

101 101

50 50

121 121

0040

50 50

12 12

L IN E

0035

50 50

H AR B O R

0030

101 101

S TA TE

50 50

121 121

109 109

AND

0025

156.00

50 50

99 99

KEO

50 50

12 12

121 121

0020

50 50

118 118

25.53 25.53

P I ER H EA D

0010

35 35

5.00

. ! G

N89^42'46.1"W

B U L K H E A D,

72272 N89^42'46.1"W 1818 1822 1826 1832 1838 1840 1846 1852 0015 121

121 121

109 109

99 99

10 10

90 90

33 33

UNREC VOL 902-311

40 40 15.71 15.71

1812

63.75 63.75

DEEDED TO CITY

100 100 100 100

N0^16'02.7"E N0°16'02.7"E

UNION SH ORE LANDS

DO 25677

539.075

N0^16'02.7"E

IFS

17 4

CO M B IN ED

10 10

0005

71 .7 15 15.

17 - A

UNREC VOL 9 02-313

M.C.

M.C. 90 90

1800

121

LINE

IFU

88.26 88.26

H AR B O R

S TA T E

MA P 6 8 - 5 7

A ND

NORTH

N DER

0220

121.8 N89^43'00"W N89^43'00"W 121.8

MIO-37-LR1 CO M B IN ED

S TA TE

AND

100 100

161.26'

MEA

LAKE UNION S HORE L ANDS 2ND SU PPL

E 3" 2. '0 6 16 .1 058 74. 74 .4 1 71^ N5 12

AND

B U L K H E AD

P I ER H E A D

100

0210

P I ER H EA D

L A K E

MEAN DER

C A N A L

Montlake Bridge and Montlake Cut

B U L K H E A D,

LINE

S H I P

CF292350

STATE O UTER HARBOR LINE

MEN

4 40 4 7. .2 24 12 53. 53

S89^43'57.3"E

V CO M B IN ED

AP PVD FEB 15 ,1908

SF 5000

MIO-37-LR1

L IN E

FORMER HARBOR LINE

H AR B O R

S0^16'19.3"W

S TA TE

2002.1 N89^42'46"W

2101.5 N89^42'46"W

CANAL

AND

CF292350 CM

515

P I ER H EA D

MIO-37-LR1

515.000

N I H

B U L K H E A D,

Figure 203. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection Map SF 5000 Book, dated January 14, 2016. Sheet 79 SEATTLE CONSTRUCTIONSEATTLE LIMIT LINE CONSTRUCTION As Per ORDLIMIT 92887 LINECOMBINED US BULKHEAD, P IERHEAD AND STATE HARBOR LINE

A W F O US

Govt Lot 5

W A S H I N G T O N

N E LIN R DE

CO M B IN ED

PARK

HYDR

319

CF292350

MIO-37-LR2

L A K E

VACATED 3-17-11

D) DEE D) 319.1 7 (322 .17 (32 .71 2.7 DEE 1

1^ °05 05

N3 N31

MIO-37-LR1

75 75

CF292350 CM

U N I O N

1784.875

35665

T=15

00.

29.

8 11

.2 P

67 8. CO 26332

N0^17'20"E N0°17'20"E

REPEALED BY ORD 27541

75 75

DO 25677

Archaelogical Buffer Area

CF292350 CM

500 460.845 S4^58'33 .1"W

L IN E

CF292350 CM

25.53 25.53

H AR B O R

S3^14'49.6"E

S TA TE

MIO-65-LR3

121 121

AND

P I ER H EA D

121 121

B U L K H E A D,

99 99

CO M B IN ED

HYDR

LINE

ORD 92887

MIO-160-MR

R=200

N89^42'42"W

B A Y

HYDR

150 150

181.32 181.32 S0°17'20"W S0^17'20"W

CF292350

U N I O N

Govt Lot 5

CO 25227

75 75

MONTLAKE BV NE

R=275 R=275

MIO-37-LR2 S

L=3

R=8 59 .4 1. 9 55 51

7. 55

.C .S

R=9 R=9 14.4 14. 9 49

ED )

2^ 12 29 '5 6. 94 3" E

ITY IVE RS

12 127 '51'5 "E 7. 1" .15 E (12 15 (12 6.4 6.7 47 DEE DE D)

ITY

R= 27 71 27 71 .30 .3 55

MEAN DER

GO VE RN MENT

6°35'5

CF292350

Govt Lot 5

PARK

11 6. 21

150 150.00 T ORD 92887 LI NE

Archaelogical Buffer Area

55 55

S3^14'49.6"E

∆=12

DO 25677

25 25

R=50 R=50

8 88.38 88.3 .48 48 110. 110

GRA NT ED F O R S T REET B Y U S A

UNREC VOL 902-314

33 1905. 1905.33

VARIAN

DISTAN

IS AT

O F 1911,

OB VIOU

AND

PTION

THIS

94, LAWS

CO URSE

DESCRI NO TE:

DEED

SEE CH AP TER

MONT LAKE

R=4 R=40

N5 9^ 70 12 6. '3 73 7. 1 8"

L A K E

75-7

35 35

MONTLAKE

CF292350

Govt Lot 6

IVE RS

N5 N5 1°5 1^ 8'2 58 0"W '2 0" W

PA CIF IC

N5 58 39 393 1°5 1^ 3. '1 .80 8'2 80 580"W 6" '2 0" W N5 N5 W 1°5 (W 1^ 8'2 58 .C 0"W '2 .S 0" .) W

MIO-160-MR

CF292350

1. .15 15

ITTI LIN ON E

-9

515 51 5. .41 41

56 561

52 .6 5

MIO-160-MR

E sm

92 12 4. 21

105 10 58 8.7 4 .7 4

W KE 2N U D NIO 93 0. SU N 32 69 6 2 PP S L HO SE SEA AT TTL ETL VO U N R E CO ENS L -R LA 90 CO TRU 2-3 CT NS EC N ION 13 TR D LIM UC

651

AO 1

AP PVD FEB 15 ,1908

27 1

PARK

MONTLAKE

S TA TU T ES O F U S VO L 3 5 CH A P 1 5 7

25.907 25.907

(W.C 3"E 29'5

LA 80

BV NE

N32^ D

LINE

REP EATS

.S.)

17-18 MAP

DER

L IN

MA P

35665 BY

Govt Lot 4

MEAN

PARK

35664

RN MENT

56 BO

1.55

CF2 F292 92335500 C

GO VE

R=8

9151 2 ORD AL

I O- 10 - 107-7-LLRR11 MMI O

.004

Stre

" '37" 53°23'37 53^23

25 25

BY STA

R=59.50 R=59.50 L=67.67 L=67.6 7

RE RE

8^ °01 01 '40 '4 "W 0" W

A TE

31^40'42" 31°40'42"

S TA

.27 .27 256 256

CF2 F292 92335500 C

119 11 9. .41

1°0 1'0

R= R= 50 50

MIO-37-LR1

CF292350

MIO-107-MR

∆= 13

.21 116

29.

19083

651

CF292350 CM

MIO-107-LR1

1596

R= ∆=1 R=5 50 0 L=1 46° 31'4 L= 12 27. 7. 87 3"

VO 95764

25 25

L NE PACIFIC P

L=17.04 L=17.04 10.76 10.76 N3°24'51"E N3^24'51"E R=9.5 R=9.5 9.94 9.94 R=79.50 R=79.50 28.91 28.91

R=8

RES.

7 .57 8.5

Govt Lot 4

CO 17947

.51

131 1318

R=1 R=1 091 09 .28 1.

6.9"

S3 S38

HYDR

CF 2 9 2 3 5 0 CF 2 9 C 2 M 5 0 3 CM

1622 1622.1

91512 62 ORD TY - 19

L=557

"E '37'37 ^04 °04 S24 S24

IGT

16'2

25 26

N5 N5 Ea 1°5 1^ sem 8'2 58 en 0"W '2 t 0" W

IFU

CF292350

S15^

CO AO

TO UNIVERSI

CF292350 IFU 18 UC

EN REG

REVERTED

285 28 5. .00 00

VO 93656

3 .13

57.

MIO-107-LR1

MIO-37-LR1

DED DEE

MIO-65-LR3 3^

......

2 .82 0.8

.13 13 1622. 1622

L=5 29

CF292350

146 1460

N5 1^ 57 57. 1°5 8'2 .9 98 58 '2 8 0"W 0" W

CF292350 CP

CF292350

19 11

308.54 308.54

DED DEE

∆=11 146 1460

TE CHAP

CIT

MIO-37-LR1

MIO-105-MR

294

25 25 19 198

63. 63 30 R=4 .3 R= 0 43 32 E sm 2. .00 00 t

2 .82 0.8

EN REG

'41"

CF292350

116 510

5°31

94 LAWS

25 25

N60 N60 °22' ^22 85.1 05"W 85. '05 AO 111

CF292350

31.

2944

R== 31.9 R 3366 91 1 8.8.0 00 50. 50 0 13 .1 3

33 33. .2 25

1. 1.6 66 6

MIO-105-MR

95 DEED) DEED )

MIO-65-LR3

55 55

-9

591. 591.92

83 3.2 .2 6 6

30 30

(591. (591.95

49 4. MA

N0^53'22"E N0°37'18"E N0^37'18"E N0°53'22"E 53.43 53.43 S85°42'14"E VO 120249 S85^42'14"E

MIO-65-LR3

DEDIC A TED

N5 N5 1°5 1^ 58 8'3 9"W '3

15 8^ °01 15 01 '40 '4 "W 0" W

L KH

110 110 140 140

25 25

S3 S38

573 57 3. .94 94

1.64

VAC 15TH AV NE

L=62

N1^25'35"E (W.C.S.)T=318.67

250.30 N1^25'35"E (W.C.S.)

545.03 545.03

S5 S53 3^ °06 06 '17 '1 "E 7" E

4.4

N5 N5 3°0 3^ 06 6'1 7"W '1 7" W

NP CH

29 9" (W 44 W.C. 7 (W S.) .C .S .)

R=72

4.4

(547.03 (547 .03 DEED ) DEED)

REPEALED BY ORD 29448

STA

352.91 352.91

6. .65 65

N1°25'50"E N1^25'50"E 6.90 6.90

TED

58 586

15 15 S38 S3 8^ °01

581.02 581.02

DIC A

80 80

01 '47 '4 "W 7" W

R=72

R= R=3 ∆=4 32 2 T=1 1°2 T= 2.1 4'3 L=2 12 L= 0 23 3.1 .1 3" .1 3 0

43. 43 .5 59 9 58 '1 3"W '1 3" W

N51 N5 1^ °58

N5 92 R=8 N5 R= 92. 1°5 1^ .0 ∆=4 8 00 8'1 58 0 T= T=3 1°2 3"W '1 .0 4'3 L=5 3. L= 2 3" 5. . 78 02 3" W 78

-79

NEW OLD

P 7 5

50 50

80 80

R= R=5

3 ARCH SPANS ENDS 10.0',CENTER 25.0'

7" E

R= R= N3 18 N3 8°0 8^1888 01 1'4 7"E '4

STA.5+41.4 CL OF PAYSTREAH CROSSING

98.77 98.77 R=4

N2^06'31"E N2°06'31"E

129.64 129.64

R= 2 ∆=3 42 T= 1°4 T=1 L= 11 L=2 1.9 23 .9 6 7'2 AO 3 .30 .3 6 8" 0 10 59 55

R= R=1 ∆=3 18 8 T= T=5 4°0 L=1 5. L= .5 4'5 10 0.7 252 4" .7 1

30.87 30.87

80 80 50 50 8. .06 06

N0^58'58"E N0°58'58"E

25 25 25 25

25 25 25 50 0 25

12 12

55 558

CL OF CROSSING

1 ARCH SPAN 30'

FORMER HARBOR LINE

40 40 40 40 40 40

25 25

BY STATE LEGISLATUR E

35 35

85.881 1

85.

744.65 744.65

AO 29447

1218.68 1218.68

25T H AV NE

VO 71048

104.63 104.63

69450

DO 91512

568.64 568.64

MAP 13 -9 4

DED ICATED B Y S TA TE CHA P 9 4 BY LAW S 1 91 1 SB 20 3

M 13-94 M 1 3 -9 4

MA P 7 5 - 7 9

16-145 M 16-145 M

1181.85 1181.85

1173.11 1173.11

AO 29447

VO 35323

1484.05 1484.05 VO 30942

DEEDED TO NP RY

87.86

40 40 40 40

14.74 15.3

N2^07'12"E

15TH AV NE 15TH AV NE

40 40

540.14

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30

30 30 40 40 40 40

VOL 7- 32

40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

N2^06'54"E

40 40

539.98

D AO 123122

40 40 40 40

40 40

30 30

30 30 40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40

N2^07'41"E

40 40

540.50

40 40 40 40

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40

40 40

N2^06'17"E 539.80

20 20 40 40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40

40 40

N2^07'01"E

15TH AV NE 15TH AV NE

40 40

482.87

40 40

AO 57603

40 40

40(P) 40 40(P) 40

40 40 40 40

336.97

N2^07'20"E

40 40

337.02

25 25 25 25

VO 120249 9.83 9.83

25 25

25 25 25 25

VO 120249

25 25

MA P 8 6 - 5 3

25 25 25 25 25 25 N2°06'31"E N2^06'31"E

274 27 N5 N5 4. 4°1 4^ .8484 15 5'3 9"W '3

CO 17947

834.55

2843.83 284 3.8 3

40 40 40 40

25 25

DEDICATED F OR HIG HWAY CH AP 66 LAWS O F 192 9 AO 57603

15TH AV NE 15TH AV NE CO 17947

88 25 25 25(P) 25(P) 45.28(D) 45.28(D)

95.57 95.57

25 9. 9.4 47 7 R=1 R=1 46.2 38.5 46. 38. 525 0 50 24.51 24.51 66.37 66.37 CITY JOINT AO 120249 US ER R/W

25 25 25 25

34.01 34.01 N2^11'22"E N2°11'22"E

R/W Easement

34.03 46.21 N2^11'22"E

7. 7.0 09 9

185.20 185.20

....

VAC 15TH AV NE

25 25 696.56 696.56

25 25

C F2 92 35 0 CCPP

25 25

MIO-37-LR1 O-37-LR1 MI C F2 92 35 0

LIN

.98

DER

LANDS

166

SHORE

25 25

1.45

25 25

120249

25 25

IGT

WASHINGTON

R=1 R=1 83.5 83. 4 54

25 25

N2^06'48"E 834.55 N2^06'48"E (W.C.S.) ORD

R= R=1

454 17. 17.5

25 25

54 54 3. 13. 11

35 35 35 35

25 25

WASHINGTON 99

CF292350

LINE

25 25

544

MIO-65-LR3

DER

25 25

117

9001

MEAN

25 25

LINE

61.64 61.64

StN

UNIVERSITY

MIO-37-LR1

IGT

MIO-65-LR3

55 55

DER

.... 6.61 6.61

WASHINGTON

EAST EAST

MEAN

53.43 53.43 ....N85°42' N85^42'14"W 14"W

3199

55 55

RN MENT

(W 1^ °58 58 .C '13 '1 "E .S 3" 30 .) E 0.

STA. 28+15.42

N2^06'31"E

SING

VO 93656

L RIA

E '53 '53" ^07 °07

S29 S29

S5 S51

44 447 7. .83 83

CROS OF ' CL 16.0 3.3 18+7 SPAN 1 ARCH

VAC 15TH AV NE

78 322 .84 .84 918 918

55 55

RN MENT

sem

LINE

VO 93656

.32 .32

9" W

BIN

UNIVERSITY

CF292350

GO VE

35 35

GO VE

PA CIF IC

R/W

N5 55

Govt Lot 4

N DER

269

MEA

CF292350

924 924

LED

AO VO

21.96 21.96

936

Archaelogical Buffer Area

48 484 4. .88 88

50 509 9. .57 57

N5 N5 1°5 1^ 8'1 58 3"W '1 3" W

30 30

MIO-37-LR3

EA REP

43 434 4. .18 18

30 30

CCPP

AT YG

54 93

MEN

13.83(P) 13.83(P)

672.64

Govt Lot 1

C F2 92 35 0

R MA

N88°27' 19"W N88^27'19"W R=188 R=188 ∆=53°30' 54" T=94.79 T=9 4. 79 L=175.66 L=175.66 CH AP N5 66 LA N5 3°0 3^ WS 06 6'1 O 7"W '1 7" F 192 W 9

MIO-37-LR1 O-37-LR1 MI C F2 92 35 0

893

.0 .06 73 73 13 13

R= R=5

∆=1 0 93. 01 T= T=9 25° R=3 R= N5 .0 N5 10 97 109 83. 38 83 7.9 1°5 1^ 1 9. .88 .954' .5 51 8.0.0 58 1 0 0 88545459.4" 8'1 3"W '1

S82^34'3 S82 °34 '37 "E 7"E

N87^54'03"W

554.07 554.07

3 SB

100(P) 100(P) 89.87 89.87

MA P 9 0 - 3 3

N89^58'08"W

510.79 510.79 DEDICA TED FO R STREET LAW S 1927 CH AP 270

91 S1

HIG

STA.

7 37 .6 67 6. 10. 10

17.

78.44

(P) )

LINE

......

40. 25 7.9 2

100 100(P

35 35

4 LAW

N5 N5 1°5 1^ 8'2 58 0"W '2 0" W

MIO-65-IC-45

35 35

422 42 2. .22 22

VOL 116 -24 27 78.44

55(P) 55(P)

672.56 N89^58'08"W

672.56

C HA

95 95. .2 21

30 30

60(P) 60(P)

CO 17947

370

64. 935 35.0 50 .08 8 Laurelhurst Commercial Condo

NE 45TH ST NE 45TH ST

3" W

CF 2 2 9 3 5 0 CF 2 2 9 3 5 0

CF292350 UC

DIC

R=50 R=50 ∆=54°09' 34.7" L=47.26 L=47 .26

9. .63 63

......

65 -I I C 4 - 45 I O -65 MMI O - C- 5

'15" 139 13

148 N5148. N5 1°5 .54 1^ 8'154 58 8"W '1 8" W

4280

E 8" '0 37 5^ N5

R=20 R=20 ∆=89°59' 55" T=2 0 T=20 L=31.42 L=31.42

. . . . . .

CF292350

R=460 R=460

MIO-65-LR3 30 30

80 80

R=50 R=50 ∆=54°05'15"

. ! G

14 148 8. .54 54

MIO-65-C1-40

65(P) 65(P)

103

40( 40(P )P) R=1 R=19 64.50

R=50 R=50

4150

140

R=859. R=859 .4949

. ! G

54^05

40 40

DER

71.94(P) 71.94(P)

40 40

MEAN

47.38

R=3 R=30

40. 40.96

LINE

R=3 8 47.3

EOX

17. 17.6 666

RN MENT

0 60

CF292350

DER

55 19 19 R= R=

CF292350

MEAN

(M 35 ) .8 9

38. 38.47

40 40

327

R= R=6

50 50 R=2 R=2

MIO-37-LR1

RN MENT

.6 66( 6( D)

5. .42 42

) (P (P) 40 .40 5. 135 13

80 80

40 40

-7

110 140

GO VE

45 45.

329.14

120.909

) (P (P) 06 .06 2. 172 17

40 40

EOX 226

E 8 7

9416

370

GO VE

99 R=1 575 R=1 41.7 2 41.

21 21. .7 72

48 .48 3.

10 103

P) (P) 0( P) 12 90 120 P) 8( 58( .5 1 68 65.15(P) 65.15(P) 128 68. 21 .2 71.94(P) 71.94(P) 17. 17 CO 52478 8.14 8.14

26 265

Govt Lot 2

R=1000 R=1000

20 20

CF292350

20 20

020 47. 47.2

R= 18 .5

85 .8 0( D)

STA

LINE

80 80

34.

123.2 123 .29 9 38. 38.47

91.08 12 11 7. 3. 20 0 (P )

55 55

20 20

30 30

T ED

30 30

40 40

F IL

103

46. 46.35

ICA

30 30 30 30

20 .2 27 27.

10 104

DED

2575

300.067

95.55

674.31 CO 17947

MEAN DER

40 40

. ! G

50. 80 . 50.0 707 07

108 OR D 108 .50 .50

50 .5 52 52.

NC2P-40

43 .4 93 93.

3925

103

N88^46'26.9"W

LIN

. ! G

CO 17947

N89^57'43"W N89°57' 43"W GO VE RN MENT

ON M

. ! G

2593.37

75619.98

4 5

25 .25 2. 122 12

3.5 3.53 R=30 R=30

40 40

University Campus Urban Center Village

. ! G

329.54 N88^49'41"W(WCS) 1003.655

70 .7 58 58.

40 40

5 5 12 .12 6.

11 116

47 .47 4.

40 40

Street Clock: Benton's Jewelers 15 15

R=10 R=10

2535

50 50

Govt Lot 3

103 103

N89^56'56"W

12 103 103

322

11 110

128 12 8. .11

30 30

80 80

CF292350

. ! G

103 103

R=1

0040

1055 31 30

55 55

MIO-105-MR

3042

3216

AO 83414

VO 112848

R=74.46 R=74. 46

17 40 40 .17 6.

20 206

103

673.17 673.17

MIO-37-LR2

162.61

0041

. ! G

125

50 50

14 .1 16 16.

40 40

86 .86 7.

18 187

2395 3

9365

2756

579.852

62 .62 0.

17 170

19.4

26.5 26.5

120

3040

0065

0030

30.5(D) 30.5(D)

LAKE

∆=60°

80 80

103 103

60.0 60.0

149.00 149.00

3020

R=460 R=460

R=50 R=50

. ! G

30 30

(Re-Rec) N89^56'56"W N89°56' 56"W

6 6

82- 05 81

9330

N87^47'15"W

PARCEL A

2746

26.5 26.5

R=4053 R=405 3

25.2 0 14.8 25.2

9372

349.54 N88^49'49"W (WCS) 978.98(CALC)

40 40

636 52. 52.3

N89^56'56"W N89°56' 56"W

1346.768 1346.768

123.00 123.00

2724

35 35

R=460 R=460

103

CF292350

6.09 0.17.17

PARCEL B

25 25

Easement

8.5 8.5

149.00 149.00

Subd

8. .97 97

4.34 1.50

Short

17 178

9427

S73-50-28E 4.34 S15-01-44W 9.67 N75-00-00W 1.50

TRACT A

N89^56'56"W N89°56' 56"W

1.31

80 80

75 75

R=460 R=460

143.41 143.41

R=20 R=2 ° ∆=60

30 30 103 MIO-105-MR

N87^53'15"W

R=2974 R=297 4.93 .93

143.41 143.41

63 63. .4 49

. ! G

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

20 20

74 .7 -7 27 7 5 27. P MA

30 30

20.9 20.94

1260 7 8

80 80

R=50 R=50 ∆=59° 23'28"

CF292350

-00 -00 8 N60 88 52.8 52.

S60-00-00W 2601 1.31

N30^57'43"W

35 35

80 80

R=290 R=290 4.93 4.93

R=20.06

L=60.10

MIO-50-C1-40

87.4

N89^45'39"E N89°45' 39"E

476.12 476.12(SP)

35.04

1.29 40 40

R=20.0 6 R=2974 .9

L=60.

234.39

NE 45TH ST NE 45TH ST

CO 17947

CF292350

14.74

70 70

87.42

PARCEL D

35 35

CF292350

383 51. 51.8

5 6

NE 40TH ST

L=60.10

L=60.

C F2 92 35 0

148.33 148.33

R=20.06

20 20

40 40

MIO-50-C1-40 O-50-C1-40 MI C F2 92 35 0

VO 71048

103

MAPS ON RD

103 103

R=286

1.29 40 40

R=20.0 6 R=2974. 9

MIO-50-C1-40

. ! G

103 103(P)

N87^53'15"W

MA P 7 5 - 7 9

NE 42ND ST

BWL

70 70

14.74

70 70

MAP 16-145

9 10

NE 41ST ST

R=4133 R=4133

8 103

R=286

. ! G

R=2861.29

VO 71048

R=50

4.9

NC3-65 6

148.33 148.33

MAP 16-145

R=50

70 70

4.9

70 70

Govt Lot 2

40 40

∆=101° 13'39"

R=2861.29

VO 71048

RY DEEDED TO NP

MAPS ON RD

. ! G

21.60 21.60

133.25 133.25

70 70

R=297

. ! G

129.27 129.27

∆=101°13'39"

R=50

70 70

MA P 7 5 - 7 9

133.25 133.25

R=50

103 103

129.27 129.27

80 80

110 110

R=4133 R=4133

103 103

N87^52'34"W

82.06 82.06

21.60 21.60

R=3767.

40 40

7.82 7.82

3 MA P 7 5 - 7 9

198.37

345.61

R=26

N11^22'02"

113.06 113.06

4.33 14.3 R=271 R=27

MA P 7 5 - 7 9

275.97 0.0 0.03

130.99 130.99

CO 17947

MA P 7 5 - 7 9 7 07 0. 0.0

VO 71048

11 12

16 16

24 24

MA P 8 6 - 5 3

NE 45TH ST

257.99 257.99

13"E N85^02'13"E N85°02'

119.18 119.18

CO 17947

50 50

30 30

152.63

NE 45TH ST

150.74 150.74

.3 4 4

30 30

20 20

30 30

136.70

136.74

136.75 136.75

S89^57'47"E S89 °57 '47 "E

88 88.3

110

01 226

1 .1

67.15

VO 28109 67.15

30 30 30 30

58.99 58.99

88.06 88.06

2260

AV NE CO

176.

21.59 21.59

22ND

28.22 28.22

62.18 62.18

50.00 50.00

136.76 136.76

60 60 75

60 60

55.88 55.88

60 60 60 60

60 60

21ST AV NE

60 60

40 40

100

40 40

60 60

40 40

60 60

40 40

56.77

S0^02'13"W S0° 02'13"W

74.54

50.89 50.89

100

40 40

60 60 40

40 40

BLVD

40 40

40 40 40 40

REPEALED

ORD 20841

40 40 ORD 79789

40 40

AND

40 40

PARKWAY

40 40

35 35

40 40

(Condo)

40 40

40 40 40 40

40 40

344.37 S0°00'00"E

VOL 215-66 68

4545 Building

N0-00W 344.37

4.06 4.06

344.42 N0-00-05E N0°00'05"E 344.42

79.383

AO 115210

35 35

35 35 35

40(P) 40(P) AO 115210 88

40 40

3.9 3.99

MAP 83 5- 17

275.97

R=3767.

40 40

BY STATE LEGISLATU RE 8 1 L AWS O F 195 7

9001

237.817 237.817

68.34 68.34

40 40

CO 17947

-50-

R=3767.18 18

40 40

N89-56-56W N89°56' 56"W

198.37

16 16

N87^58'47"E

R=262 .42 .4 2

N10-45-05W 3.78

196.29 196.29 N90-00-00E

40 40

9192

S30-00-00E 4.71 S00-00-00E 6.05

T=100.2

4511

129.94

24.50

434 21. 21.3

CO 17947

9143

(Condo)

N00-00-00E 127.03 6.55 127.03 N90-00-00E

2233

9083

VOL 213-01 0 5

12 120

60 60

9098

80 Jan 14 2016

4515

9412

9346

882852

747

CH AP T

60 60

T=49.23

113.69

R=3617.18 R=3617.18

8 9

SDCI Map Books

University Village Retail Southwest

40.4 40.

L=37.96 L=37.9 6

9394

150.11 AO 69450

11.50 11.50

142.21 142.21

DEDICATED

R=300 R=300

CO 17947

2221

R=2740.63

189.69 76

DEDICA TED BY S TA TE LEGIS LATURE CHA PTER 77 LAWS O F 1 939

1637.16 1637.16 ∆=7°15'

221.14

85 85

9361

125 125

16.14 16.14

2230

747 40. 40.4

260

S89^57'47"E S89 °57 '47 "E

1428.33 1428.33

35 35

CFB

DO 28526

60 60

. ! G

DO 28526

R=30

4 68.12 CF292350

0090

168.75(D)

9348

125 125

176.68 CO 17947

35 35 MIO-65-LR3 R=30 68.12

. ! G

30 30

100 100

60 60

4510 3

2226

9280

280

2216

339.55

30 30

R=30 R=30

92.84 0095 92.84

4600

125

12 120

4510 R=30 R=30

CFB

3 125 0080 NE 46TH ST

100 100

. ! G

....

. ! G

6.3 12. 0 86 12. 86 R=1 00

....

30 30

0030

R=30

46.43 46.43

VO 28109

2012

100 100

747 40. 40.4

0035 6

0070

747 40. 40.4

100

4502 30 30

121.46(P) 121.46(P)

0040

CFB

4520

0015

25 25

4515

747 40. 40.4

. ! G

25 25

108 108

14 14

2900

0005 2

CFB

747 40. 40.4

12 2890 13

1906 14

4527

9 0050

0045

4508

121.22(P) 121.22(P)

305

2875

120.97 120.97

2750 14

16 108 108

4524

3 R=4053 R=405

6 0030 7

14 14

12 13

1818

2760 17

. ! G

120.47 120.47

120.72 120.72

4508

25 25

R=3767.18 18

0015

14 14

19 2775 18 2770

4504

25 25

108 108

2740

R=297

4337

NE 43RD ST

14 14

108 108

4509 11

4514

.10 .10 187 187

50 50

NC3-65 3

BWL

4.71

. ! G

50 50

305

NE 45TH ST

20 20

108 108

13 14

120.22 120.22

2780

2585

18 17

4522

E -00 -00 08 8 50.0 50.

14 14

108 108

280

4505 12

S30

30 30

2575

2605

CO 15642

)

4519 4506

14 0 .8

30 30

13 14

25 25

2415

2435

NE 45TH ST

2405 11

4503 12

. ! G

25 25

4521 4504

277.4

108 108

82 .6

6 6

Esmt

14 14

AV NE

103(P) 103(P)

1413 1

2455

NNA

NE 45TH ST CO 10566 0005

. ! G

5.08

N88^20'45"W

14 14

14 .1 19 19.

280.04

18 2290

6 66 5.30.47 5.6 30.47

RAVE

S5°42'27"E S5^42'27"E 148.14 148.14

CO 10566

NE 45TH ST

8^ °59 59 '51 '5 "E 108(P) 1" 108(P) E AO 76712

30 30

5.29

2255 11

108(P) 108(P)

S4 S48

103.02 S89°57'24"W N89-57-24E

103.02

14 14

4505

79 Jan 14 2016

0020

0120

SDCI Map Books

20 4516 2310

108 108

4508

25 25

0130

62^

4514

Kroll Map Company is a registered trademark.

HARBOR LINE

291

UW BUILDING INVENTORY TABLE 29. UW BUILDING INVENTORY GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

Denny Hall

89,745

1895

Harris Hydraulics Laboratory

1349

Theodor Jacobsen Observatory

22,933

1920

2,147

1895

1114

2104 House

9,513

1920

CLK

1178

Clark Hall

30,568

ROB

1191

Roberts Hall

32,471

1921

LEW

1177

Lewis Hall

1896

MLR

1192

Miller Hall

72,655

1922

PAR

1179

58,775

1902

EGL

1140

Eagleson Hall

18,966

1922

PWR

Power Plant

174,767

1909

AND

1351

Anderson Hall

33,543

1925

1180

Architecture Hall

47,485

1909

OSS

1189

Oceanography Storage Shed

2,446

1925

1182

Engineering Annex

28,128

1909

SUZ

1193

Suzzallo Library

317,942

1926

PPO

1176

Facilities Services Administration Building

10,303

1909 CDA

1152

Commodore-Duchess Apartments

97,849

1927

PO4

1184

Plant Operations Annex 4

8,525

1909

HUT

1302

Hutchinson Hall

55,164

1927

ICH

1183

Cunningham Hall

5,104

1909

HAG

1194

Henry Art Gallery

12,539

1927

RAI

1301

Raitt Hall

48,148

1916

GA3

1169

Guthrie Annex 3

5,337

1927

SAV

1327

Savery Hall

102,105

1917

EDP

1195

Hec Edmundson Pavilion

206,453

1928

ADL

1185

Aerodynamics Laboratory

1,871

1917

MGH

1197

Mary Gates Hall

183,435

1928

CNH

1187

Canoe House

13,267

1918

NLB

1116

Northlake Building

22,077

1928

GA2

1280

Guthrie Annex 2

7,672

1918

HND

1154

Henderson Hall

106,340

1929

GA1

1202

Guthrie Annex 1

6,301

1918

GUG

1198

Guggenheim Hall

56,207

1929

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

DEN

1181

HHL

1186

OBS

2104

1896

23,220

Parrington Hall

1350

ARC EGA

BUILDING NAME

292 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

BUILDING NAME

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

Plant Operations Building

9,131

1929

IC2

1029

1200

Johnson Hall

121,573

1930

OTS2

4352

1425 N.E. Boat St

4,574

1930

ICT

OTS

1286

1429 NE Boat St

1,347

1930

PHT

1159

Floyd and Delores Jones Playhouse

10,137

1931

GCS

1042

3935 University Way NE

5,363

1931

ODB

1049

Oceanography Dock Building

1,330

1931

GWN

1201

Gowen Hall

68,925

1932

OCE

1352

Oceanography Building

25,066

1932

HNS

1204

Hansee Hall

111,364

1936

HLL

1203

Hall Health Center

57,794

1936

KIR

1205

Kirsten Wnd Tunnel

23,963

1936

BAG

1206

Bagley Hall

223,700

1937

SMI

1208

Smith Hall

92,757

1939

PVP

1196

Pavilion Pool

27,045

1939

PLT

1207

Plant Laboratory

6,234

HPT

1209

Hughes Penthouse Theatre

15,354

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

POB

1199

JHN

BUILDING NAME

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

3930 Brooklyn Avenue NE

3,108

1940

1323

Ethnic Cultural Center Theatre

12,176

1941

DSC

1019

3941 University Way NE

7,576

1941

EIC

1041

3939 University Way N.E.

4,748

1941

4075

3900/3902 UNIVERSITY WAY

1,248

1941

MOR

1171

More Hall

81,173

1946

WCL

1170

Wilson Ceramic Laboratory

4,909

1946

GA4

1319

Guthrie Annex 4

3,426

1947

PO2

1038

Plant Operations Annex 2

546

1947

PO1

4038

Plant Operations Annex 1

1947

THO

1356

Thomson Hall

62,687

1948

BGH

1326

Botany Greenhouse

14,539

1948

SEB

1155

Staff Human Resources Building

10,831

1948

NPS

1348

North Physics Laboratory Cyclotron Shop

6,914

1948

1939

UHF

1172

Urban Horticulture Field House

1,920

1948

1940

HUB

1153

Student Union Building

285,978

1949

BUILDING NAME

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

293

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

Art Building

124,082

1949

URC

1113

1304

Magnuson Health Sciences Center B

117,619

1949

STD

1164

Gerberding Hall

82,405

1949

1221

Magnuson Health Sciences Center A

53,201

1949

HSC

1224

Magnuson Health Sciences Center C

48,288

CSH

1166

Conibear Shellhouse

48,088

1949

1167

North Physics Laboratory Cyclotron Building

13,399

1949

1228

Magnuson Health Sciences Center H

1328

Magnuson Health Sciences Center D

HSF

1226

Magnuson Health Sciences Center F

122,767

1950

MUS

1299

Music Building

73,482

1950

HSG

1227

Magnuson Health Sciences Center G

64,594

1950

HSE

1225

Magnuson Health Sciences Center E

56,540

1950

WSG

1030

3710 Brooklyn Avenue NE

3,897

1950

CMU

1161

Communications Building

106,465

1951

PBB

1163

Portage Bay Building

99,870

1951

WSP

1031

3716 Brooklyn Avenue NE

3,371

HSBB

1223

Magnuson Health Sciences Center BB

248,765

HSAA

1222

Magnuson Health Sciences Center AA

58,820

SSB

1115

The Brooklyn Trail Building

12,352

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

ART

1298

HSB GRB HSA

NPC HSH HSD

BUILDING NAME

294 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

211,284 183,975

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

SW Maintenance Bldg

7,464

1955

1188

Stadium

137,591

1956

PO3

1039

Plant Operations Annex 3

1,745

1956

CHL

1279

Chemistry Library Building

39,363

1957

UMNN

1258

UW Medical Center, Wing NN

122,217

1959

MEB

1347

Mechanical Engineering Building

97,768

1959

UMNW

1259

UW Medical Center, Wing NW

88,465

1959

UMEE

1241

UW Medical Center, Wing EE

80,408

1959

UMSS

1261

UW Medical Center, Wing SS

73,825

1959

UMSW

1262

UW Medical Center, Wing SW

65,415

1959

UMSE

1260

UW Medical Center, Wing SE

52,439

1959

UMCC

1253

UW Medical Center, Wing CC

44,302

1959

UMNE

1257

UW Medical Center, Wing NE

40,442

1959

PCH

1112

Purchasing and Accounting Building

39,576

1959

MCC

1158

McCarty Hall

170,241

1960

1951

HSRR

1175

Magnuson Health Sciences Center RR

140,512

1960

1952

SIG

1332

Sieg Hall

57,180

1960

MKZ

1156

Mackenzie Hall

43,099

1960

FAC

1144

University of Washington Club (Faculty Center)

13,455

1960

NRB

1145

More Hall Annex

6,677

1961

1949

1950 1950

1952 1955

BUILDING NAME

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

BMM

1278

BHA

1269

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

Burke MemorialWashington State Museum

68,916

1962

Botany Greenhouse Annex

600

BUILDING NAME

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

BUILDING NAME

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

70,345

1969

CHCL

1219

Center on Human Development and Disability Clinic

AER

1131

Aerospace and Engineering Research Building

58,779

1969

LOW

1346

Loew Hall

58,747

1969

OTB

1141

Oceanography Teaching Building

51,552

1969

CHSC

1354

Center on Human Development and Disability School

45,598

1969

ELB

1325

Engineering Library

40,549

1969

CMA

1129

Ceramic and Metal Arts Building

16,946

1969

12,378

1969

1962

BGQ

3951

Botany Greenhouse Quonset

HGT

1147

Haggett Hall

206,114

1963

PSB

1148

Plant Services Building

144,198

1963

WIL

1345

Wilcox Hall

41,265

1963

NPV

1150

North Physics Laboratory Van de Graaff Accelerator

37,148

1963

TGB

1149

Graves Hall

29,313

1963

WFS

1151

Winkenwerder Forest Sciences Laboratory

26,231

1963

PLSH

3952

Plant Laboratory Shed

450

1963

CHSB

1220

Center on Human Development and Disability South

PL1

1036

Plant Laboratory Annex

430

1963

RAX

1047

Roberts Annex

1,680

1969

HSI

1300

Magnuson Health Sciences Center I

151,026

1964

SMZ

1127

Schmitz Hall

99,691

1970

GIL

1051

Gilman Building

8,271

1964

ATG

1294

Atmospheric SciencesGeophysics Building

77,709

1970

MCM

1143

McMahon Hall

288,352

1965

WRS

1117

West Receiving Station

2,000

1970

HSJ

1174

Magnuson Health Sciences Center J

170,719

1965

CY1

4171

Corp Yard Container 1

1970

GDR

1139

Golf Driving Range Building

5,094

1965

CY3

4174

Corp Yard Container 3

1970

BNS

1277

Benson Hall

76,271

1966

CY9

4180

Corp Yard Container 9

1970

MSB

1138

Marine Sciences Building

59,570

1966

CY10

4181

Corp Yard Container 10

1970

PDL

1136

Padelford Hall

138,555

1967

CY11

4182

Corp Yard Container 11

1970

CY12

4183

Corp Yard Container 12

1970

Intramural Activities Building

289,347

1968

CY13

4184

Corp Yard Container 13

1970

CY14

4185

Corp Yard Container 14

1970

IMA

1137

300

1962

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

295

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

Corp Yard Container 16

1970

Odegaard Undergraduate Library

4189

Corp Yard Container 18

1970

165,973

1972

CY20

4191

Corp Yard Container 20

1970

1135

Gould Hall

115,038

1972

CY21

4192

Corp Yard Container 21

HST

1168

Magnuson Health Sciences Center T

493,496

1973

CY22

4193

Corp Yard Container 22

1970

GTH

1134

Guthrie Hall

74,241

1973

CY23

4194

1970

CDH

1124

Condon Hall

132,533

1974

CY26

Corp Yard Container 26

1970

MNY

1126

Meany Hall

124,491

1974

4199

Corp Yard Container 28

1970

SOCC

1308

South Campus Center

69,852

1975

CY29

4200

Corp Yard Container 29

1970

ACC

1119

John M. Wallace Hall

30,468

1976

CY30

4201

Corp Yard Container 30

1970

Corp Yard Container 25

1970

Waterfront Activities Center

1977

4196

1120

20,904

CY25

WAC

CY7

4178

Corp Yard Container 7

1970

TSB

1101

Transportation Services Building

5,459

1979

CY8

4179

Corp Yard Container 8

1970

WNX

1054

Winkenwerder Annex

267

1979

CY32

4203

Corp Yard Container 32

1970 SWS

1121

Social Work/Speech and Hearing Sciences Building

99,566

1980

HCK

1324

Hitchcock Hall

116,416

1982

BVJ

1533

Blakeley Village Complex J

12,372

1982

LAVS

1234

Laurel Village Building S

11,652

1982

BVB

1525

Blakeley Village Complex B

11,220

1982

BVG

1531

Blakeley Village Complex G

9,279

1982

LAVP

1231

Laurel Village Building P

9,040

1982

BVD

1528

Blakeley Village Complex D

8,920

1982

BVF

1530

Blakeley Village Complex F

8,920

1982

BVK

1534

Blakeley Village Complex K

8,859

1982

LAVC

1305

Laurel Village Building C

7,528

1982

LAVT

1235

Laurel Village Building T

7,480

1982

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

CY16

4187

OUG

1125

CY18

GLD

1970

Corp Yard Container 23

4197

CY28

BUILDING NAME

CY31

4202

Corp Yard Container 31

1970

CY5

4176

Corp Yard Container 5

1970

CY4

4175

Corp Yard Container 4

1970

CY2

4173

Corp Yard Container 2

1970

CY19

4190

Corp Yard Container 19

1970

CY6

4177

Corp Yard Container 6

1970

CY15

4186

Corp Yard Container 15

1970

CY17

4188

Corp Yard Container 17

1970

CYCO

4204

Corp Yard Container Office

1970

KNE

1276

Kane Hall

153,375

1971

KIN

1130

Kincaid Hall

84,459

1971

BLD

1132

Bloedel Hall

77,316

1971

296 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

BUILDING NAME

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

Laurel Village Building W

7,480

1982

SCH

1248

Stevens Court H

7,671

1983

1526

Blakeley Village Complex C

7,480

1982

SGS

1285

3947 University Way N.E.

3,136

1984

LAVY

1240

Laurel Village Building Y

6,858

1982

LA1

1077

Lewis Annex 1, 4182 E Stevens Way (AandS)

BVA

1524

Blakeley Village Complex A

6,738

1982

4,218

1985

LAVN

1230

Laurel Village Building N

6,690

1982

NHS

1291

Northwest Horticultural Society Hall

3,932

1985

UFB

1331

University Facilities Building

6,340

1982

PO5

1040

Plant Operations Annex 5

485

1985

LAVM

1229

Laurel Village Building M

6,202

1982

ISA

1102

Isaacson Hall

2,983

1986

LAVR

1233

Laurel Village Building R

6,186

1982

UMEA

1254

UW Medical Center, Wing EA

187,132

1987

LAVQ

1232

Laurel Village Building Q

5,610

1982

Laurel Village Building V

5,610

1982

UW Medical Center, Wing EB

1987

1237

1255

88,753

LAVV

UMEB

BVH

1532

Blakeley Village Complex H

4,492

1982

UMEC

1256

UW Medical Center, Wing EC

35,754

1987

LAVU

1236

Laurel Village Building U

4,460

1982

MUE

1109

Mueller Hall

16,687

1987

LAVX

1239

Laurel Village Building X

3,740

1982

WLA

1022

Wilson Annex

4,154

1987

BVE

1529

Blakeley Village Complex E

3,740

1982

GAB

1275

Graves Annex Building

32,098

1988

BVCC

1527

Blakeley Village Community Center

2,370

1982

DRC

1103

Douglas Research Conservatory

12,894

1988

SCL

1251

Stevens Court L

48,972

1983

LA2

1067

Lewis Annex 2, 4230 E Stevens Way

3,999

1988

MAR

1122

Marine Studies Building

31,290

1983

GUA

1344

Guggenheim Annex

3,945

1988

SCM

1329

Stevens Court M

30,952

1983

FLK

1111

Fluke Hall

73,086

1990

SCC

1246

Stevens Court C

30,486

1983

SCK

1250

Stevens Court K

24,531

1983

PSV

1106

Publications Services Building

60,003

1990

SCB

1245

Stevens Court B

22,449

1983

NTC

1105

Nordstrom Tennis Center

51,439

1990

SCJ

1249

Stevens Court J

19,876

1983

FTR

1104

Fisheries Teaching and Research Building

34,788

1990

SCA

1244

Stevens Court A

18,498

1983

PO6

1026

Plant Operations Annex 6

4,199

1990

1247

Stevens Court D

14,009

1983

UFA

1027

University Facilities Annex 1

3,482

1990

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

LAVW

1238

BVC

SCD

BUILDING NAME

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

297

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

Allen Library

221,635

1991

ERS

4097

East Receiving Station

2002

1100

Environmental Safety Storage Building

4,454

1991

LAW

1420

William H. Gates Hall

210,117

2003

ESO

1017

Environmental Safety Office Building

3958

UW Medical Center, Surgery and Treatment Pavilion

2,989

1992

183,325

2003

PAB

1242

Physics-Astronomy Building

175,930

1994 CSE

3991

Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science and Engineering

PAA

1306

Physics-Astronomy Auditorium

168,954

2003

59,181

1994

PAT

1243

Physics-Astronomy Tower

44,010

1994

NC7

1535

Nordheim Court 7

31,250

2003

SHA

1045

Shellhouse Annex 1

3,324

1994

NC2

4061

Nordheim Court 2

31,250

2003

HSK

1173

Fialkow Biomedical Sciences Research Pavilion (K wing)

NC6

4062

Nordheim Court 6

31,250

2003

227,640

1995

NC1

4064

Nordheim Court 1

31,250

2003

CHB

1108

Chemistry Building

130,227

1995

NC4

4065

Nordheim Court 4

31,250

2003

OR2

1037

Ocean Research Bldg. #2 (Trailer)

NC5

4066

Nordheim Court 5

31,250

2003

3,999

1996

NC3

4067

Nordheim Court 3

31,250

2003

OR1

1046

Plant Operations Annex 7 (Modular)

3,999

1996

NC8

4068

Nordheim Court 8

31,250

2003

CCC

1023

Child Care Center

3,681

1996

UFA2

4250

University Facilities Annex 2 (CPO Annex 2)

3,360

2003

EXED

1316

Bank of America Executive Education Center

65,566

1997

NMH

4436

Merrill Hall

16,411

2004

1317

Faye G. Allen Center for the Visual Arts

BIOE

4057

William H. Foege Bioengineering

43,937

144,856

2006

EE1

1008

Electrical Engineering Building

RTB

4353

Benjamin Hall Interdisciplinary Research Building (RandT Bldg)

203,030

1998

130,141

2006

WSB

1315

Women's Fastpitch Softball Building

16,161

1998

GNOM

4058

William H. Foege Genome Sciences

119,715

2006

BSG

4055

Baseball Grandstand

1998

PCAR

5980

PACCAR Hall

135,000

2010

FSH

1357

Fishery Sciences

130,307

1999

CDRW

6135

Cedar West Apartments

97,790

2011

OCN

1314

Ocean Sciences Building

111,276

1999

POP

6138

Poplar Hall

97,040

2011

IPF

3950

Indoor Practice Facility (Dempsey Indoor Center)

95,000

2001

CDRE

6136

Cedar East Apartments

78,435

2011

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

ALB

1107

ESB

AVA

BUILDING NAME

298 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

1997

UMSP

BUILDING NAME

GROSS SQUARE FEET (GSF)

DATE CONSTRUCTED

Alder Hall

276,146

2012

6137

Elm Hall

207,017

2012

UMSA

6091

UW Medical Center, Wing SA - Montlake Tower

182,470

2012

MOL

6105

Molecular Engineering and Sciences Building

90,300

2012

DEM

5981

Dempsey Hall

90,089

2012

ECC

6337

Samuel E. Kelly Ethnic Cultural Center

29,935

2012

LAN

6210

Lander Hall

242,070

2013

MRCA

6317

Mercer Court Building A

110,400

2013

MRCB

6377

Mercer Court Building B

110,400

2013

MRCC

6378

Mercer Court Building C

110,400

2013

MRCD

6379

Mercer Court Building D

110,400

2013

MRCE

6380

Mercer Court Building E

110,400

2013

MAH

6211

Maple Hall

300,000

2015

TEH

6212

Terry Hall

90,000

2015

INT

6082

Intellectual House

8,367

2015

FACILITY CODE

FACILITY NUMBER

ALD

6140

ELM

BUILDING NAME

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

299

DRAFT UNIVERSITY DISTRICT GREEN STREET CONCEPT PLAN

300 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan 301

III.

Background/Overview Streetscape Design Principles 7th Ave NE to Roosevelt Way NE Concept Roosevelt Way NE to 15th Ave NE Concept

NE 42nd St

31 31 32 34

24 24 25 27

8 8 9 11 13 15 19 21 23

2 3 4 6

Final, Spring 2015 • Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

IV.

NE 43rd St

Background/Overview Streetscape Design Principles 7th Ave NE to Roosevelt Way NE Concept Roosevelt Way NE to 15th Ave NE Concept

Background/Overview Streetscape Design Principles NE 50th St to Ravenna Boulevard Concept NE 47th St to NE 50th St Concept NE 45th St to NE 47th St Concept NE 43rd St to NE 45th St Concept NE 40th St to NE 43rd St Concept NE Pacific St to NE 40th St Concept Waterfront to NE Pacific St Concept

II. Brooklyn Ave NE

Introduction Concept Summary Design Elements Context

I. Introduction

Contents

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

I. Introduction The U District is a thriving neighborhood with 14,000 residents, hundreds of independent businesses, and its own unique flavor. It is also a cultural and economic hub, home to the University of Washington, Seattle’s largest employer and a magnet for youth and talent in the Pacific Northwest. The 1998 University Community Urban Center Plan designated NE 42nd St, NE 43rd St and Brooklyn Ave NE as neighborhood green streets to provide attractive and highly landscaped pedestrian routes in the U District. With Link light rail coming to the U District in 2021, an up-tick in growth is expected, creating opportunities for implementing these streetscape improvements. The U District core is likely to see substantial growth over the next 20 years. In 2021, the Northgate Link Extension will open its U District Station at Brooklyn Ave NE and NE 43rd St, providing a high-speed connection to downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Approximately 12,000 daily riders are expected to board at the U District Station by 2030. Recognizing that light rail will change the context of the U District, and to manage and plan for future growth, the City is considering allowing greater height and density in the core of the U District.

groups and businesses and review by SDOT, Sound Transit, and UW. What is a Streetscape Plan? Streetscape concept plans establish a vision and guide changes to the rightof-way so that incremental improvements by both public and private actors results in an excellent and functional public realm. Streetscape concept plans are intended for adoption as an appendix to Seattle’s Right-of-Way Improvement Manual (ROWIM), Chapter 6. Implementation of the plan can occur over time through public sector projects, private development and/or grants. Landscape elements in the right-of-way may be counted toward Green Factor and other code requirements.

Examples of highly landscaped streets

When concept plans are approved by the City, it can improve the predictability of the Street Improvement Permit process for project applicants.

The U District Urban Design Framework identified the need for quality open space areas for social, commercial and community events in the U District core. It recommended a “festival street” on Brooklyn Ave NE. In this plan, the “core” of Brooklyn Ave NE between NE 43rd and NE 45th Streets is designed as a highly landscaped pedestrian oriented street which can accommodate periodic community events. Significantly widened sidewalks, generous landscaping and raised intersections are recommended for the core of NE 43rd St from the Sound Transit Link station to the UW. Sections of the green streets in the area surrounding the core have a mix of commercial and residential uses. Streets passing through these areas connect residents to the business district and the UW. Along these streets, this plan proposes curb bulbs at intersections, pedestrian scale lighting and maintaining some on-street parking. This street concept plan articulates the community and SDOT-supported design intention for each street, and recommends materials for paving, planting and furnishings. Together with the Link Station and future growth, this streetscape plan is meant to support vibrant public life in the core and create high-quality pedestrian connections into the neighborhood. Community Engagement This draft plan is the result of a year of collaboration between the U District community, the City of Seattle, and Sound Transit. Many of the concepts came out of conversations with the U District Partnership’s Urban Design Committee. Broader input occurred through a public open house in spring 2014, followed by informal presentations to various neighborhood 2014 green street community outreach events

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

302 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Concept Diagram

Brooklyn Ave NE Pg. 9 NE 50th St to Ravenna Boulevard Create bulb-outs at intersections to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and slow traffic. Introduce mid-block bulb-outs rain gardens. Maintain existing curbs. One 10’ travel lane in each direction, 10’ striped onstreet parking lane on each side is recommended to visually narrow the roadway. Use SDOT tree-planting program for parcel side plantings along sidewalks.

Concept Summary This diagram summarizes the configuration and characteristics of the main portions of the study area. Parameters such as number of vehicle travel lanes, desired sidewalk width, presence of on-street parking and bike lanes and general design intent are addressed by this diagram. Each of these streets have distinct character areas with differing conditions and opportunities. To address the unique conditions in different areas, the concept plan is organized according to the various subareas. For each, the concept plan provides a preferred roadway section, design principles, and explores a Focus Area Plan in detail.

Brooklyn Ave NE Pg. 11 NE 47th St to NE 50th St Create bulb-outs at intersections and at the mid-block location. Introduce a 6’ landscaped planting strip on both sides. One 10’ travel lane in each direction. 8’ parking lane on each side.

Focus Area Plans To explore the preferred streetscape concept design at a detailed level, each area includes at least one focus area plan (blue areas on adjoining map). Focus area plans illustrate a concept for a key location or unique opportunity. Focus area plans also depict in plan view the preferred character for streetscape improvements that can be generalized for other portions of the area.

Brooklyn Ave NE

Pg. 13 NE 45th St to NE 47th St Introduce 6’ wide planting strip along street on both sides. One 10’ travel lane in each direction. On-street parking removed from east side to introduce an uphill bike lane. Downhill shared bicycle lane. 8’ parking lane on west side. No intersection bulb outs to allow existing right turn lane at NE 45th Street and uphill bike lane. Introduce a landscape midblock curb bulb on west side.

NE 43rd St

Brooklyn Ave NE

Pg. 27 Roosevelt Way NE to 15th Ave Between Brooklyn Ave and 15th Ave: Widened sidewalk and generous landscaping along north side of street. 10’ wide east-bound travel lane and 11’ wide west-bound travel lane. On-street parking removed from North side to create space for landscaping and wider sidewalks. 8’ drop off and loading zone on south side of street. Between Roosevelt Way and Brooklyn Ave: 10’ wide east-bound travel lane and 11’ wide west-bound travel lane, 8’ parking lanes on both sides, 6’ landscaped curb bulbs at intersections and mid-block locations.

Pg. 15 NE 43rd St to NE 45th St Raised, curbless street. Significantly widened east sidewalk and generous landscaping along both sides. One 10’ travel lane in each direction. Uphill bike lane and downhill shared lane. 8’ parking lane on west side and 8’ drop off and loading area on east side of street with a minimum 2’ door swing zone adjacent to uphill bike lane.

Brooklyn Ave NE

Pg. 19 NE 40th St to NE 43rd St Create intersection and mid-block bulb-outs. One 10’ lane of traffic in each direction. 8’ parking lanes on both sides. Introduce uphill bike lane and downhill shared lane. Maintain existing curbs.

NE 43rd St Pg. 25 7th Ave NE to Roosevelt Way NE Introduce landscaped planting strips and street trees where needed. Maintain curb positions, one lane of traffic in each direction and existing on-street parking. Introduce pedestrian scale lighting near Christie Park. Increase permeability along Christie Park edge for pedestrians.

Brooklyn Ave NE NE 42nd St

Pg. 21 NE Pacific St to NE 40th St Improve intersections, create bulb-outs and enhance landscaping at NE 45th and NE Pacific Streets. Introduce uphill bike lane and downhill shared lane. Maintain curb positions on both sides. 12’ travel lane in each direction. Create a raised intersection and introduce a four way stop sign where the Burke Gilman Trail meets Brooklyn Ave N. Potential for public art element at Burke Gilman Trail crossing.

Pg. 32 7th Ave NE to Roosevelt Way NE Improve intersections, create bulb-outs and enhance landscaping. Introduce bulb-outs at bus stops. Maintain existing on-street parking on both sides. Maintain curb positions on both sides. Introduce pedestrian scale lighting. One 10’ lane of traffic in each direction.8’ wide parking lanes on both sides.

NE 42nd St Brooklyn Ave NE

Pg. 34 Roosevelt Way NE to 15th Ave Improve intersections through bulb outs and landscaping. Two travel lanes in both directions. Maintain on-street parking. One 10’ travel lane in each direction. 8’ wide parking lanes on both sides.

Focus Areas

Extent of the Streetscape Concept Plan

Pg. 23 Waterfront to NE Pacific St Maintain existing lanes of traffic with a center turn lane and existing curb locations. Maintain uphill and downhill bike lanes connecting the waterfront to the Burke Gilman Trail. Preserve existing trees and landscaping.

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

303

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Design Elements

Planting:

Materials and design elements chosen for the U District green streets should be high quality, durable and related to the human scale. The overall intention is to create consistency through these streets to clearly signal that these are pedestrian priority areas, designed to promote walking and public life.

Healthy, consistently placed street trees are crucial. “Large” and “medium large” tree species from the SDOT Street Tree list are most appropriate for the core area surrounding the Link station where they do not conflict with overhead utilities. Each tree should have enough rooting area for longterm viability, and a generous under-story of perennials and/or low shrubs. All other SDOT ROWIM tree planting requirements apply.

Hardscape:

Perennials and shrubs should be selected to provide year-round color and structure. Ornamental grasses, evergreen perennials, and low shrubs should anchor plantings – accents of deciduous perennials may also be appropriate in some locations.

Brooklyn Ave NE between NE 43rd and NE 45th Streets: The choice of paving materials for Brooklyn Ave N should respond to the requirements of the curbless street condition on Brooklyn Ave NE. Changes in texture and a clear contrast between paving materials can be considered to demarcate sidewalk zones from the uphill bike lane and car lanes, subject to SDOT review and approval. Where mid-block crossings and raised intersections are recommended, a change in pavement color and texture can be considered to show pedestrian priority in these areas. Textured paving materials such as inlaid brick or concrete pavers, or narrowly scored concrete are recommended. Standard thermoplastic paint should be used for crosswalks.

Bell St Park Boulevard is an excellent example of how zones of the right of way can be differentiated through changes in the concrete’s texture, scoring and color.

• Silva cells or similar technology is recommended on Brooklyn Ave NE over the light-rail station. Soil depth will be decreased by the below ground structure, so lateral volume under the sidewalk is especially important. • Even with drought-tolerant species, permanent irrigation systems are encouraged to increase vigor and longevity.

Subject to SDOT review and approval, in areas where seating is recommended, paving materials should be light and attractive and include interesting patterns, colors or integrated public art elements to indicate places for gathering. Textured paving materials such as inlaid brick or concrete pavers, or narrowly scored concrete can be considered to break up the linearity of the street, particularly around seating and landscaping. NE 43rd St between Brooklyn Ave NE and 15th Ave NE: NE 43rd St is recommended to have regular 6” curb with raised intersections at intersections with Brooklyn Ave NE and the Ave. A change in material, texture or color can be considered for these raised intersections to increase their visibility create safer pedestrian crossings. A similar textural or material treatment should be considered at the intersection of 43rd St and 15th Ave NE, although this is not a raised intersection. In addition, standard thermoplastic paint should be use for crosswalks. Sidewalks and curbs should be designed as required by the ROWIM. Between trees and planting areas and on expanded sidewalk zones, textured paving materials such as inlaid brick or concrete pavers, or narrowly scored concrete are recommended. It is recommended that the design of pavers and scoring be coordinated with design details on Brooklyn Ave between NE 43rd and 45th Streets for continuity and wayfinding. All other street sections: For all other sections of green streets in the U District, standard pavement, sidewalk and curb construction as per the ROWIM design details and subject to SDOT review and approval are recommended. Between planted areas, in bus bulbs and in expanded sidewalk zones, textured paving materials such as inlaid brick or concrete pavers, or narrowly scored concrete can be considered.

• Tree pits should be at least 10’ in length. • Root barriers are recommended on both sides of tree pits. • Drought-resistant trees and plantings are recommended on Brooklyn Ave NE core where wind speeds can be higher than average at the base of UW Tower. Recommended species include the Italian Oak (Quercus frainetto) or drought tolerant maple, such as ‘Green Column’ black maple (Acer nigrum).

Concrete pavers are used to distinguish bus waiting areas on Campus Parkway in the U District.

• Adjacent to the Link station, a secondary row of trees and planting is recommended between the bike lane and sidewalk zone. Since this secondary planting area is at a distance from the car travel lanes, the width of this planting area may be under the standard ROWIM requirement. The minimum allowed width of this secondary planting area is 3’6”. Silva cells are recommended around this secondary planting area. All other SDOT ROWIM tree planting requirements will apply. Street Furniture

Thermoplastic paint should be used to clearly denote crosswalks.

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

304 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Other planting recommendations include:

Street Lights Locate street lights at approximately 120’ intervals subject to lighting calculation and analysis. These may be placed on opposite sides of the street to adequately light the road while avoiding over-lighting. Given the very high pedestrian volumes in the U District, pedestrian scale lights are required on all designated Green Streets in the U District up to NE 50th St. Pedestrian scale lighting should be designed at approximately 40’60’ intervals. Fixtures similar in design and color to those on University Ave and as per approved Seattle City Light standard are recommended 4

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan for consistency across the U District. Where possible use a single pole with both, a street light fixture at mounting height 30’-35’ and a lower pedestrian scale fixture at 12’-16’.

Landscaping separating vehicle and pedestrian areas Images courtesy Nevue Ngan Associates

Benches and Seating Brooklyn Ave NE is designed as a festival street and activities such as gathering waiting and people watching should be encouraged through seating and landscaping. Some amount of fixed seating is recommended along the landscaping on Brooklyn Ave NE. Movable seating such as chairs and tables should be also be accommodated especially for during festival street closures, farmers markets or other community events. NE 43rd St will become a major pedestrian thoroughfare between the Link Station and the UW. Active uses such as cafes and restaurants along this street can afford excellent opportunities for sitting, socializing and people watching. In addition to the 3’ frontage zone for outdoor cafes, benches and seating can be provided along the landscaping on 43rd at some locations to create small “outdoor rooms” for gathering. Bike Racks and Bike Share Additional on-street bike parking is desirable in this core area. The exact number and location of bicycle parking is flexible. However, a Pronto bike share station will need to be accommodated on NE 43rd St between the Ave and the alley on its west side.

Examples of low plantings and green stormwater infrastructure Images courtesy www.metropolitangardens.blogspot.com

A generous understory of plantings is recommended for all green streets. These add visual interest along the sidewalk, reduce impervious area and runoff, provide habitat and provide a buffer between pedestrian areas and vehicles.

Traffic Signs The mid-block crossing across Brooklyn Ave NE should have standard crosswalk signs and amenities.

A combination of fixed and movable seating is recommended in the core of the U District on the green streets surrounding the Link station. Material changes can differentiate the An example showing the use of asphalt furniture zone the pedestrian zone for a bike lane on an otherwise textured E A RLYfrom DESIGN G U I DA N CE — DRAFT of a sidewalk. street pavement. 07.03.2014 | 14-018 | DPD #3017451 | 61

E ARLY DE SIGN GUIDANCE — DRAFT 07.03.2014 | 14-018 | DPD #3017451 | 60

Colored pavers can be used to increase the visibility of an intersection. Images courtesy NACTO

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

New pedestrian lighting fixtures should match existing U District fixtures for consistency.

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

305

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Context Location

Land Use

Future growth

Walking Cowen Park

UHCC

UW Tower

Campus Parkway

Institutional Commercial Multifamily Single Family Parks

Designated Green Streets

The University District, one of Seattle’s six Urban Centers, is home to a diverse and vibrant community. Identified as Green Streets in the 1998 Neighborhood Plan, NE 43rd St, NE 42nd St and Brooklyn Ave NE connect the residential neighborhood to the core of the U District, including the new Link station, University of Washington, UW Medical Center, Burke Museum, the Burke Gilman trail, and the “Ave” commercial district. Subsequent community processes (2012-2014) have reaffirmed the important role of these streets.

The land uses along 43rd and 42nd Streets are mostly multifamily residential to the west with a mix of retail, entertainment, office and residential uses closer to Roosevelt Way NE. At Portage Bay, Brooklyn Ave NE has recreational uses, transitioning to institutional uses and student housing closer to Campus Parkway. Between NE 42nd St and NE 45th St, land uses on Brooklyn Ave include the UW Tower, Hotel Deca and medium density multifamily residential. North of NE 45th St until NE 50th St, a mix of strip malls, gas stations, larger format retail and parking lots characterize the corridor. Further north of NE 50th St, Brooklyn Ave is mostly single-family and low-rise residential. Traffic volumes and speeds decrease north of NE 50th St.

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

306 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Activity hubs Brooklyn Ave The Ave

Sakuma Viewpoint

In anticipation of the future light rail station, and to advance Comprehensive Plan goals to direct growth to areas supported by infrastructure and services, the City of Seattle is studying zoning alternatives that would allow greater density and height in the core of the University District surrounding the light rail station. Future residential and commercial growth will increase the need for quality public and landscaped spaces in the University District. With relatively light car traffic and heavy foot traffic volumes, Brooklyn Ave NE, in particular, has the potential to become a great pedestrian route with the characteristics of a linear park serving the neighboring community.

42nd St. & 43rd St.

Brooklyn Ave NE is an important pedestrian connector for north-south pedestrian movement outside the UW Campus, with key pedestrian campus-access points located along 15th Ave at NE 42nd and 43rd Streets. Brooklyn Ave NE connects a number of hubs of activity, including Cowen Park, University Heights Community Center (UHCC), Link Station, the UW Tower and a future waterfront park at Sakuma Viewpoint. The Ave is the other busy north-south pedestrian corridor in this area, supporting a thriving retail environment.

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Transit

Future Bike Connections

Tree Canopy and Open Space

Power Lines & Topography

Christie Park

Bike lane Greenway Potential future greenway

Bus route Potential bus route Layover University Way and 15th Ave NE are the major northsouth transit corridors serving this area. Metro has a bus layover on 12th Ave NE. Northbound buses also run on 11th Ave NE. NE 45th St and NE Campus Parkway provide east-west bus connectivity. NE 42nd St is a bus route between the I-5 and Roosevelt Way NE. The future Link Station will influence routes and connectivity in the area significantly. To improve bustrain connectivity after the Link station opens, Metro is considering routing certain west-bound routes onto NE 43rd St with a bus stop at the Link Station.

Trail Runnel The 2014 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan identifies priority bike routes. The plan recommends an uphill climbing lane on Brooklyn Ave NE. Recognizing NE 43rd St as an important gateway into the University, the plan recommends a shared street between Roosevelt Way NE and 15th Ave NE. The completed greenway on 12th Ave connects the neighborhood to the Burke Gilman Trail. NE 47th St is a recommended neighborhood greenway, connecting the U District to the citywide greenway network. SDOT recently completed a two-block protected bicycle facility on NE 40th St between Brooklyn Ave NE and 15th Ave NE and installed a pedestrian scramble intersection at University Way. This route connects cyclists to the Burke Gilman Trail from Brooklyn Ave NE and the UW.

Sakuma Viewpoint

SDOT Trees

10’ Contours

Private Trees DPR Trees

SCL Overhead Power Lines

Parks

SCL Poles

Tree canopy along Brooklyn Ave NE is patchy. There is a well established row of oak trees between NE Pacific St and NE Campus Parkway. North of 40th St, street trees are largely absent. There are almost no street trees on NE 42nd and 43rd Streets, except around Christie Park.

Above grade power lines exist along NE 42nd and 43rd Streets between the I-5 and Roosevelt Way. There are no above ground power lines on Brooklyn Ave NE south of 56th, and on NE 42nd and 43rd Streets on the east side of Roosevelt Ave NE.

There are two small plazas on Brooklyn Ave adjacent to the UW Tower under UW ownership. Brooklyn Ave NE terminates in Sakuma Viewpoint and park at the south end and connects to Cowen Park at the north. The City recently acquired a parcel adjacent to Christie Park for future park expansion. New parks are planned at the waterfront and U Heights Community Center, and much of the community advocates a new “town square”.

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

307

Final â&#x20AC;˘ January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

II. Brooklyn Ave NE Rav enn aB

Background/Overview

lvd

Brooklyn Ave NE is an important north-south corridor connecting Ravenna Boulevard and the waterfront. Adjacent land uses on Brooklyn shift from detached residential uses on the north, commercial and multifamily at the core, to institutional and recreational where Brooklyn Ave meets the waterfront. While Brooklyn Ave is not an existing bus route, the future Link station at NE 43rd St will increase its importance in the transit network. The Bicycle Masterplan recommends an uphill bike lane and downhill shared lane on Brooklyn Ave and many segments of this route are already completed. Brooklyn Ave connects a number of neighborhood amenities such as the U Heights Community Center, Safeway, the future light rail station, Campus Parkway, the Burke Gilman Trail, and the waterfront. It is designated as a collector arterial. There are several likely development sites along Brooklyn Ave between NE 47th and NE 42nd Streets.

Brooklyn

NE 56th St NE 55th St

NE 52nd St NE 50th St

Streetscape Design Principles

Festival Street at the core The U District Urban Design Framework called for a festival street next to the the future Link station for various community events. The design for this important block accommodates community events and festivals in a highly landscaped setting. Reduced vehicle speeds on this section will improve pedestrian and bike safety on this section of the street. Highly landscaped street edges will create a pleasant environment. The design also facilitates drop off, passenger and commercial loading. Preserve and protect existing trees Although tree canopy along Brooklyn Ave is generally patchy, there is a well established row of oak trees between NE Pacific St and NE Campus Parkway. These should be preserved and their environment enhanced through improvements on this block.

Brooklyn

NE 47th St NE 45th St NE 43rd St

NE 43rd St NE 42nd St

NE 42nd St

NE 41st St Campus Pkwy NE 40th St NE Pa cifi cS t Brooklyn

Complement Neighborhood Character Brooklyn Ave NE should balance the needs of all modes and complement neighboring land uses. For example, near 56th St, where traffic volumes and the potential for infill development are low, modest improvements such as pinchpoints and curb bulbs are recommended. In the core of the district, where large volumes of pedestrian, transit and car traffic is expected, more ambitious interventions such as large sidewalks, abundant landscaping, a curbless street and raised intersections are recommended.

Targeted Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) The area north of NE 52nd St NE is a priority area for rain gardens to control stormwater runoff. GSI can be incorporated into curb bulbs and stormwater can be filtered and cleaned by appropriately selected soils and plants.

Seattle Department of Planning and Development â&#x20AC;˘ Seattle Department of Transportation

308 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Brooklyn Ave NE: NE 40th St to NE 43rd St Concept

Between NE 43rd and NE 40th Streets, there is a mix of multifamily, student housing and commercial uses on Brooklyn Ave. The right of way on these blocks of Brooklyn Ave is wider (~70’) than on the north side of 45th St making it possible to preserve on-street parking while adding an uphill bike lane on these blocks. These blocks of Brooklyn Ave will provide a major pedestrian and bicycle connection between Campus Parkway and the future Link station. Portions of these blocks have already been improved as part of UW’s student housing development on this section of Brooklyn. Besides this new UW development, there is limited redevelopment potential on these blocks, and changes in curb locations are not recommended.

Rav enn aB

Parking Existing on-street parking is recommended to be preserved.

lvd

NE 56th St NE 55th St Brooklyn

Travel Lanes/ Roadway Width One travel lane in each direction. Travel lanes are 10’ wide, combined with 8’ wide marked parking lanes, a 6’ wide bicycle lane and a 2’ wide door swing zone on the east side.

NE 52nd St NE 50th St

Pedestrian Lighting Pedestrian scale lighting is recommended on both sides of this block of Brooklyn Ave. Where possible, consideration should be given to using a single pole with both, a street light fixture at mounting height 30’-35’ and a lower pedestrian scale fixture at 12’-16’.

NE 47th St NE 45th St NE 43rd St

NE 43rd St NE 42nd St

NE 42nd St

NE 41st St Campus Pkwy NE 40th St NE Pa cifi cS t

Preferred Section: Looking North

Brooklyn

Existing Roadway Parameters Right of way: 70’ Sidewalks: 10’ each Curb to Curb: Approximately 44’ Bicycle Facilities: Uphill bike lane from NE Pacific St to NE 41st St Street Trees: No street trees north of NE 41st St Parking: On both sides north of NE 42nd St, on east side from NE 40th to NE 42nd Streets. Lighting: Intermittent cobra head street lights on east side Overhead Utilities: None

Key Plan

Recommended measures include creating intersection and mid-block curb bulbs to accommodate landscaping, maintaining on-street parking on the both sides of the street and introducing a minor separated in street uphill bike lane on the east side of the street. Preferred Configuration Pedestrians Clear sidewalk path of travel: 6’ minimum pedestrian zone

9’-10’

P 6’ curb bulb 8’

10’

6’ bike lane

2’

P 6’ curb bulb 8’

existing curb

Bicycles The uphill bike lane from NE Pacific St is recommended to be continued on this block. A downhill shared lane is recommended on these blocks of Brooklyn.

3’-4’ (varies)

existing curb

Landscaping Landscaping is recommended in intersection and mid-block curb bulbs. The existing landscaping between the sidewalk and parcel boundary should be preserved.

door swing zone

Curbs Existing curb location is maintained. 6’ curb bulbs are recommended wherever on-street parking is provided. 6’ mid-block curb bulbs are recommended to calm traffic and make room for landscaping.

9’-10’

3’-4’ (varies)

70’

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

309

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Focus Area Concept N

Landscaped Mid-block Curb Bulb

Landscaped Curb Bulbs

Parking Lane

0 10’

40’

NE 43rd St

NE 42nd St

Vacant

Brooklyn Ave NE

U Manor Apartments

Parking

Pedestrian Scale Lighting

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

310 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Brooklyn Ave NE: NE Pacific St to NE 40th St Concept

Rav enn aB

lvd

Brooklyn Ave. Where possible, consideration should be given to using a single pole with both, a street light fixture at mounting height 30’-35’ and a lower pedestrian scale fixture at 12’-16’.

NE 56th St NE 55th St Brooklyn

Existing Roadway Parameters Right of way: 70’ Sidewalks: 5’-6’ wide double sidewalk arrangement on each side Curb to Curb: Approximately 24’ Bicycle Facilities: Uphill bike lane from NE Pacific St to NE 41st St. Downhill bike lane from Burke Gilman to NE Boat St. Street Trees: Established oaks on both sides Parking: None Lighting: Intermittent cobra head street lights Overhead Utilities: None

Key Plan

Burke Gilman Trail crossing: It is recommended that the angle of this intersection is changed so that the trail meets the Brooklyn Ave at ninety degrees to improve visibility for trail users and vehicles on Brooklyn Ave. A four way stop and raised intersection at this location should be introduced to alert bicyclists and drivers of this intersection.

NE 52nd St NE 50th St NE 47th St NE 45th St

The character of Brooklyn Ave NE changes significantly south of NE 40th St.

NE 43rd St NE 42nd St

NE 42nd St

Preferred Section

NE 41st St Campus Pkwy NE 40th St NE Pa cifi cS t Brooklyn

Design recommendations on this section include converting the eastside outer sidewalk into an uphill climbing bike lane, preserving existing trees and landscaping the west-side outer sidewalk. The Burke Gilman trail meets Brooklyn Ave at an acute angle constraining visibility for trail and road users. To increase visibility and safety, this intersection is recommended to be reconfigured and raised to the level of the sidewalk.

NE 43rd St

Preferred Configuration Pedestrians Clear sidewalk path of travel: 6’ minimum pedestrian zone Curbs Curb bulbs are not recommended. Maintain existing curb locations. Landscaping Preserve existing trees and use outer sidewalk along west side for landscaping Bicycles The uphill bike lane from NE Pacific St is recommended to be continued on this block. A downhill shared lane is recommended on these blocks of Brooklyn. The existing downhill bike lane between the trail and NE Boat St should be preserved.

5’

Pedestrian Lighting Pedestrian scale lighting is recommended on both sides of this block of

6’6”

9’

2’

existing curb

Travel Lanes/ Roadway Width Maintain existing one travel lane in each direction. Travel lanes are 12’ wide.

existing curb

Parking No on-street parking on this block.

12’

6’

6’6”

5’

70’

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

311

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Raised and Marked Crossing at Burke Gilman Trail

0 10’

Four Way Stop Recommended

Focus Area Concept

40’

Expanded Landscaped Area

Tr ai

Steven’s Court

Tr ai

NE 40th St

NE Pacific St

rk e

Sam E. Kelley Cultural Center

Gi lm

International Center Annex

Parking

Existing Uphill Bike Lane connection to Burke Gilman Trail

Uphill Bike Lane on outer Sidewalk

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

312 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Pedestrian Scale Lighting

Final • January 2015

U District Green Streets Concept Plan

Brooklyn Ave NE: NE Pacific St to Waterfront Concept Existing Roadway Parameters Right of way: 70’ Sidewalks: 5’-6’ wide double sidewalk arrangement on each side Curb to Curb: Approximately 24’ Bicycle Facilities: Uphill bike lane from NE Pacific St to NE 41st St. Downhill bike lane from Burke Gilman to NE Boat St. Street Trees: Established oaks on both sides Parking: Some parking along east side Lighting: Intermittent cobra head street lights Overhead Utilities: None There are bike lanes in both directions and an established canopy of oak trees and wide continuous landscaped areas on this section of Brooklyn Ave. Adjoining parcels on this block are unlikely to undergo significant changes.

Key Plan Rav enn

Design recommendations for this section of Brooklyn are • Preserve and enhance existing landscaping; and • Add pedestrian scale lighting.

lvd

Brooklyn

NE 56th St NE 55th St

Pedestrian Lighting Pedestrian scale lighting is recommended on both sides of this block. Where possible, consideration should be given to using a single pole with both, a street light fixture at mounting height 30’-35’ and a lower pedestrian scale fixture at 12’-16’.

NE 52nd St NE 50th St NE 47th St NE 45th St NE 43rd St

NE 43rd St NE 42nd St

NE 42nd St

Brooklyn

NE 41st St Campus Pkwy NE 40th St NE Pa cifi cS t Sakuma Viewpoint

Seattle Department of Planning and Development • Seattle Department of Transportation

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

313

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals contributed to the 2018 UW Seattle Campus Master Plan:

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN WORKING GROUP Theresa Doherty, Co-Chair, Senior Project Director, Seattle Campus Master Plan Rebecca Barnes, Co-Chair, Associate Vice Provost, Campus Planning and University Architect Leslie Stark, Assistant to the Director, Seattle Campus Master Plan Kristine Kenney, University Landscape Architect John Chapman, Executive Director, Campus Engineering and Operations Claudia Frere-Anderson, Director, Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Jeanette Henderson, Executive Director, Real Estate Joshua Kavanagh, Director, Transportation Services Robert Lubin, Associate Director, Facilities and Capital Planning Mike McCormick, Associate Vice President of Capital Planning and Development Pamela Stewart, Executive Director, Planning, Facilities and Data Centers

314 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

Thaisa Way, Professor, Landscape Architecture Quentin Yerxa, Assistant Attorney General, UW Attorney Generalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Sally Clark, Director, Regional and Community Relations Jan Arntz-Richards, Environmental Planner, Capital Planning and Development Julie Blakeslee, Environmental Planner, Capital Planning and Development Damon Fetters, Director, Facilities Maintenance and Construction Stephanie Rempe, Senior Associate Athletic Director, SWA Intercollegiate Athletics

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Randy Hodgins, Co-Sponsor, Vice President, Office of External Affairs Rolf Johnson, Co-Sponsor, Chief of Staff, Office of the President Theresa Doherty, Senior Project Director, Seattle Campus Master Plan Rebecca Barnes, Associate Vice Provost, Campus Planning and University Architect

Leslie Stark, Assistant to the Director, Seattle Campus Master Plan Lisa Graumlich, Dean, College of the Environment John Schaufelberger, Dean, College of Built Environments Vikram Jandhyala, Vice Provost for Innovation Todd Timberlake, Chief Real Estate Officer Mike McCormick, Associate Vice President of Capital Planning and Development David Anderson, Executive Director, Health Sciences Administration Denzil Suite, Vice President for Student Life, Office of the President for Student Life Paul Jenny, Former Vice Provost for Planning and Budgeting

CONSULTANT TEAM Caitlyn Clauson, Planning Principal, Sasaki Tyler Patrick, Planning Principal, Sasaki Romil Sheth, Senior Urban Designer, Sasaki Rhiannon Sinclair, Planner, Sasaki Dennis Pieprz, Principal Urban Designer, Sasaki Lan Ge, Urban Designer, Sasaki Phillip Bruso, Data Programmer, Sasaki Steve Engler, Civil Engineer, Sasaki Hannah Foley, Civil Engineer, Sasaki Caroline Braga, Landscape Principal, Sasaki Lin Ye, Designer, Sasaki Matthew Macchietto, Designer, Sasaki Geoff McMahon, AEI Willa Kuh, AEI

Chris Hoffman, Stepherson and Associates Communications Rich Schipanski, EA Engineering Terry McCann, EA Engineering Ryan Durkan, Hillis Clark Martin and Peterson Steve Roos, Hillis Clark Martin and Peterson

CONTRIBUTORS Ruth Johnston, Associate Vice President and Chief of Staff, Planning and Management Gary Quarfoth, Retired, Associate Vice President, Planning and Management Kathryn V. White, MUP, Planner/Writer

Abbey Pearl DeWeese, Hillis Clark Martin and Peterson

INTERNAL ADVISORS University Landscape Advisory Committee (ULAC) University of Washington Architectural Commission (UWAC) University of Washington Advisory Committee on Real Estate (ACRE) Faculty Council on University Facilities and Services (FCUFS)

Kurt Gahnberg, Transpo Group Jeanne Acutanza, Transpo Group Marianne Bichsel, Bichsel Public Affairs

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

315

TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES TABLE

TABLE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

TABLE 26

Stakeholders and Targeted Audiences that shall be notified of Campus Master Plan and EIS publications

Student, Faculty and Staff Figures

Benchmarking Summary (assignable square feet per student FTE)

2028 Space Needs Determined by the Space Needs Model by Category (GSF*)

Existing Shoreline Access Conditions

Existing Parking Lots within Parking Spaces Cap, 2016

Development Capacity and Permitted Development by Campus Sector

Shoreline Public Access Plan

109

Potential Development Capacity & Permitted Development by Campus Sector

126

Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

TABLE DESCRIPTION

PAGE 282

Summary of Outreach activities

285

Current Campus Master Plan Review Schedule

286

UW Building Inventory

292

FIGURES FIG

FIGURE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

Existing Conditions Aerial Image, 2016

Long-Term Vision

164

Campus Sectors

West Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

188

Central Campus

South Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

204

East Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

218

Potential Development Capacity & Permitted Development by Campus Sector

232

Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

234

West Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

235

South Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

236

East Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

237

Setback Requirements in Feet for Structures Across a City Street from Residentially Zoned Property Not Owned by the University

239

View Corridors

252

Urban Campuses and their drive alone rates

262

Cost of U-Pass

264

Existing University of Washington Residence Halls

272

Existing University of Washington Residence Halls with North Campus and Haggett Replacement

273

Existing University of Washington Apartments

273

Hometown Home Loan Participants

276

316 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

West Campus

South Campus

East Campus

2016 Birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Eye View of the Seattle Campus Looking North

Regional Context

Neighborhood Planning Context

University and Non-Institutional Uses

Campus sectors

Central Campus looking south

West Campus looking north

39 39

South Campus looking west

East Campus looking southwest

Rainier Vista

Primary Organizational Axes

Existing Unique and Significant Landscapes

Favorite Open Spaces (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

Existing Primary Open Spaces

Cherry blossoms in the Liberal Arts Quad

FIG

FIGURE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

FIG

FIGURE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

Vegetated screens create a buffer between pedestrian routes and HUB service access

Sylvan Theater

Cedars near Winkenwerder Annex

Meadow near the Husky Union Building

Existing Service Routes & Loading

Existing Open Space Typologies

The UW-owned street at NE Stevens Way in Central Campus

Entrance at NE 45th Street

City-owned street at NE 40th Street

Retaining wall edge condition along 15th Avenue NE

Existing Street Ownerships

Existing Edge Conditions

Existing Parking Lot Typologies

Existing Shoreline Public Access Conditions

Development Sites from 2003 Campus Master Plan

Campus Gateways (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

Bird’s Eye Views of Campus looking west

Bird’s Eye Views of Campus looking north

2015 Mode Split (Morning Arrivals to Campus)

Bird’s Eye View of Campus looking west

Walking Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

Existing Pedestrian Circulation

Pedestrian bridge connections between East Campus and Central Campus

Pedestrian bridge connecting Schmitz Hall with George Washington Plaza

Existing University-permitted and Non-University Pedestrian Overpasses

38 39 40

Existing Accessibility Network

Routes Commonly Used by Bikes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

Existing Bike Network

University of Washington Light Rail Station

King County Metro Transit

Existing Transit and Shuttle Network

Vehicular Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)

Existing Vehicular Network

Service areas combined with parking

2003 Campus Master Plan Maximum Building Heights

Ocean Teaching Building in South Campus, 35’

Maple, Lander, and Alder Halls, 75’

Husky Stadium in East Campus, 160’

William H. Gates Hall in Central Campus, 100’

Existing Building Heights

Nifty cup is an novel way for infants, that cannot breastfeed, to sip. Image source: Laerdal Global Health

Fully accessible route through Parrington Lawn

One Busy Away is a real-time application that provides meaningful information to both the rider and transit provider. Image source: onebusaway.org

ADA ramp to the Husky Union Building (HUB)

Boeing Wind Tunnel on the University’s campus. Image source: The Seattle Times

StartUp Hall in Condon Hall in the UW’s West Campus

CoMotion and Urban@UW

Innovation Framework

Innovation Ecosystem Elements

Long-Term Vision,

10-Year Conceptual Plan - Illustrative Plan

87 88

Flexible Framework

Partnerships

Sustainable Development

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

317

FIGURES, CONTINUED FIG

FIGURE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

FIG

FIGURE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

Connectivity

110

Potential Parking Locations

121

Historic and Cultural Resources, Existing Conditions

111

2018 Campus Master Plan Maximum Building Heights

123

Major Organizational Axes

112

Illustrative Plan Long-Term Vision

125

Illustrative Plan for Future Connected Campus

113

2018 Campus Master Plan Development Areas

127

Existing Primary Open Spaces

114

Brooklyn Avenue

131

Identified Areas for Future Open Space Additions

115

Timeline of Sustainability Efforts

132 134

Active Public Realm

116

Campus Sustainability Goals

Integrated with Broader Neighborhood

117

Engagement

135

Existing primary open space, Liberal Arts Quad

118

Built Environment

136

Existing primary open space, Rainier Vista. Image source: Loyd Heath Photography

119

Economic Sustainability

137

Potential Primary Open Spaces.

120

Mobility

138

Unique and Significant Landscapes.

121

Ecological Systems

139

West Campus Green, Plaza, and City of Seattle Portage Bay Park

Lake Union Park - 10.0 acres

Red Square - 3.2 acres

Parrington Lawn - 7.8 acres

Olympic Sculpture Park – 11.0 acres

Gas Works Park - 20.0 acres

West Campus Green and City of Seattle Portage Bay Park (including Pacific Street) - 7.5 acres

West Campus Green and Plaza

122

Central Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

158

123

Central Campus 10-Year Conceptual Plan

158

124

Central Campus Long-Term Vision

159

125

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

161

126

Central Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights

162

127

Central Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

162

128

Central Campus Development Sites

165

129

Central Campus Development Zones

166

101

130

Development Zone A

167

131

Development Zone B

168

South Campus Green

102

East Campus Connection

103

132

Development Zone C

169

Development Zone D

170

Proposed Continuous Trail

104

133

100

South Campus Existing Condition

104

134

Development Zone E

171

101

North Campus Housing Area Existing Condition

105

135

Development Zone F

172

102

North Campus Housing Precinct

105

136

Development Zone G

173

103

Concept Plan for the Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements. “Reaches” are areas with distinct characters.

107

104

Neighborhood Reach Improvements Plan

107

105

Shoreline Public Access Plan

110

106

Proposed Pedestrian Circulation

113

107

Proposed Bike Circulation

115

108

Proposed Transit Network

117

109

Proposed Vehicular Circulation

119

318 Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

137

Central Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance

174

138

West Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

176

139

West Campus 10-Year Conceptual Plan.

176

140

West Campus Long-Term Vision

177

141

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

179

142

West Campus existing bird’s eye view

180

143

Illustrative rendering of the West Campus Green

181

144

Existing view of Brooklyn Avenue looking south toward the waterfront

182

FIG

FIGURE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

FIG

FIGURE DESCRIPTION

PAGE

145

Rendering of Brooklyn Avenue at NE 40th Street

183

178

East Campus Development Sites

219

146

Former retaining wall along NE 15th Avenue at NE 43rd Street, removed north of 43rd by the New Burke Museum

184

179

East Campus Development Zones

220

147

Rendering of proposed Burke Museum at the corner of 15th Avenue NE and NE 43rd Street (Image source: Olson Kundig)

184

180

Development Zone M

221

148

Transformation of 15th Avenue NE

185

149

West Campus 2003 CMP Existing Building Heights

186

150

West Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

186

151

West Campus Development Sites

189

152

West Campus Development Zones

190

153

Development Zone H

191

154

Development Zone I

192

155

Development Zone J

193

156

Development Zone K

194

157

West Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance

195

158

South Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

196

159

South Campus 10-Year Conceptual Plan

196

160

South Campus Long-Term Vision

197

161

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

199

162

Existing pedestrian bridge to Magnuson Health Sciences Center

200

163

Illustrative Rendering of view to Portage Bay along the South Campus Green

164 165

181

Development Zone N

222

182

Development Zone O

223

183

Development Zone P

224

184

Development Zone Q

225

185

East Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance

226

186

Proposed Building Envelopes

233

187

Section through Stevens Way

242

188

Section through Brooklyn Avenue

242

189

Section through Pacific Avenue

243

190

Section through Montlake Boulevard

243

191

2018 Campus Master Plan Maximum Building Heights

247

192

Representative Building Form

250

193

Development Standards

257

194

U-PASS Historic Influence on AM Peak Trips and Drive Alone Mode

263

195

U-PASS Historic Influence on PM Peak Trips and Drive Alone Mode

263

196

275

201

Existing West Campus University of Washington Housing. Source: University of Washington, 2017

197

275

South Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

202

Existing and Planned Central Campus University of Washington Housing. Source: University of Washington, 2017

South Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights

202

198

275

166

South Campus Development Sites

205

Existing East Campus University of Washington Housing. (Does not include Radford Court, located at Sandpoint Magnuson Park) Source: University of Washington, 2017

167

South Campus Development Zone

206

199

276

168

Development Zone L

207

Hometown House Loan Program, Income Summary, 1998 to 2016. Source: HomeStreet Bank, 2016

169

South Campus Development Standards and Design Guidance

208

200

Primary and Secondary Impact Zones

288

170

East Campus Existing Aerial, 2016

210

171

East Campus 10-Year Conceptual Plan

210

172

East Campus Long-Term Vision

211

173

Public Realm and Connectivity Diagram

213

174

View along Wahkiakum Lane looking toward the E1 parking lot

214

175

Rendering of the East Campus Connection, which is a protected view corridor

215

176

East Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights

216

177

East Campus 2018 CMP Maximum Building Heights

216

201

Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s U-District Adopted Zoning, dated March 2, 2017

290

202

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection Map Book, dated January 14, 2016. Sheet 78

290

203

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection Map Book, dated January 14, 2016. Sheet 79

291

204

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection Map Book, dated January 14, 2016. Sheet 80

291

Appendix - July 2017 Final Plan

319