THURSDAY 7:00 p.m. JUNE 5, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular session of the Planning Commission was called to order by Nick Zaferatos, Chairperson.
ROLL CALL:
Commission Members
Nick Zaferatos
Judith Wiseman
Mary Passmore
Carol Salisbury
Michael Kohl
Fred Wagner
Travis Holland
Planning Staff Members
Patricia Decker, Director
Jackie Lynch, Planner
Greg Aucutt, Senior Planner
Susan Larssen, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Continuation from April 3, 1997, the consideration of WWU Neighborhood Plan Update.
Nick Zaferatos briefly explained the process of tonight's and subsequent meetings. The process includes public testimony and procedural process. The next meeting will be a workshop continuation and was set for July 10, 1997 instead of July 3, 1997.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Patricia Decker explained the contents of tonight's packet with special clarification on the three planning documents discussed in the packet. The first is the Western Washington University Neighborhood Plan, which is part of the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. This document, which we are in the process of updating, will be adopted by the City. The second document, which is generating most of the discussion is Western Washington University's Comprehensive Master Plan. This document will be adopted by Western. It will not be adopted by the City. The third document is Western Washington University's Institutional Plan, is referred to as an Institutional Master Plan. To clarify our language we will now refer to this third document as the Institutional Plan. This plan will be adopted by the City and Western. Staff is recommending the adoption of the Institutional Plan be done in phases. The first phase would be adopted for the area covered by WWU Neighborhood Plan. The first phase of the Institutional Plan would be adopted following the completion and adoption of the WWU Neighborhood Plan.
There has been confusion about the public review process because of WWU's Comprehensive Master Plan process and the public involvement entailed and our Neighborhood Plan Updating Process and the public involvement. The public record for the Planning Commission is the testimony the Planning Commission has heard at it's public hearings and any written material submitted. WWU's neighborhood/cottage/informational meetings are not part of the public record for the WWU's Neighborhood Plan update. They are not part of the public record for the city's adoption of this Neighborhood Plan. Given the relationship between these three documents, it is our staff recommendation, that the Neighborhood Plan update for WWU will proceed and be adopted by City Council and the WWU Institutional Plan will work it's way through the Planning Commission and Council. The next neighborhood plan update that affects property owned by Western or immediately adjacent to Western will be Happy Valley. Any areas covered by WWU Master Plan that affect the Happy Valley neighborhood will not be addressed in the Institutional Plan process until after the Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan is reviewed by Planning Commission, City Council, updated and adopted. This will hold true for Sehome and South Hill Neighborhoods. We hope to complete the WWU Plan before we bring back Mt. Baker Neighborhood Plan. The Sehome and South Hill plans are scheduled for 1999. Any Institutional Plan affects on those two neighborhoods will have to wait until the two neighborhood plans are complete. Our recommendation that WWU, as an institution and a state institution, will remain in three to four neighborhoods. We are not recommending that the Commission change neighborhood boundaries. All property owned by WWU does not have to remain in one neighborhood. Some neighborhood boundary changes could be recommended by the Planning Commission, if appropriate.
Nick Zaferatos asked that in considering the WWU Neighborhood Plan, we only consider that portion within the existing boundaries of the Neighborhood Plan, even though the WWU Master Plan might show some University uses outside of those boundaries. He asked if the Planning Commission consideration of the WWU Neighborhood Plan should exclude those considerations in Sehome, South Hill or the Happy Valley neighborhoods.
Patricia Decker confirmed and added that the recommendation is if there are activities that WWU wants to conduct outside the WWU Neighborhood Plan area, and those activities are not under the jurisdiction of the City, such as acquiring property, those activities can go on. Anything we adopt as an Institutional Plan for WWU must be consistent with either the updated WWU Neighborhood Plan or with the other existing neighborhood plans and our Comprehensive Plan.
Mary Passmore stated that the plan proposed by WWU's Master Plan and the present configuration of the campus are contingent on changing large areas of zoning surrounding the campus.
Patricia Decker explained that those areas that are outside the WWU neighborhood plan boundaries now being considered and that indicate WWU's intent to acquire property and use it for some purpose that is not consistent with underlying zoning today, we will not be changing the zoning in any of those neighborhoods for institutional uses prior to the update of those neighborhood plans.
Mary Passmore asked what we were approving in the WWU Neighborhood Plan.
Carol Salisbury commented that she anticipated that much of the testimony tonight will be dealing with the periphery of the university neighborhood that their Master Plan is proposing moving into. Will we not hear that tonight or will it be heard at another time.
Patricia Decker said that the Planning Commission should continue to hear all the testimony and understand the full scope prior to a decision.
Judith Wiseman asked if it will be about two years before this is all settled.
Patricia Decker responded saying the bulk of questions raised to date have been about the current WWU Neighborhood Plan. Many have been about Happy Valley and to a lesser number Sehome and South Hill.
Judith Wiseman said her concern was we are discussing people's homes. These people what to know what to expect so they can plan. Is there any other way we can address this without waiting two years?
Patricia Decker replied that WWU has had a property acquisition area for many years. WWU can continue to acquire property under the powers they are given by the state. They just cannot use it for anything that is not consistent with the current underlying zoning.
Nick Zaferatos asked Patricia Decker to distinguish between the three documents and how it relates to city jurisdiction in this planning process.
Patricia Decker continued with an identification of the five major areas of tonight's testimony and focus. These are the process and the relationship between WWU Master Plan and a future City/WWU Institutional Plan, parking issue and on campus activities and impact, property acquisition and disposition, on campus road alignments (21st Street realignment and High Street).
To answer Mary Passmore's question: The focus of the Neighborhood Plan Update should be the extent to which these issues affect adoption of an updated WWU Neighborhood Plan. Also to update that plan to reflect today's conditions. It is important to clarify the city's and the city's attorney's position about WWU as a state agency and is it subject to the Growth Management Act (GMA). To quote the GMA, "state agencies shall comply with the local comprehensive plans and development regulations and amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this chapter". It is the opinion of our attorneys that WWU, like other state universities, is a state agency and is under the jurisdiction of the GMA. This is based on a brief review of Attorney General opinions dating back to 1989. We will explore how this affects the city's jurisdiction as we work our way through the WWU Master Plan, Neighborhood Plan Update and the Institutional Plan.
Patricia Decker continued with a discussion of tonight's process and the coming process. She asked for direction from the Planning Commission regarding the outlined process and issues needed for them to make decisions. She suggested a review of the redrafted WWU Neighborhood Plan be done at the (tentative) August 7 meeting. It is staff's recommendation that you be able to take action at that time. The workshop on July 10 will be public. This planning process is part of the GMA mandated planning process. We are doing each of the neighborhood plans as a subarea of our Comprehensive Plan. Actions taken pursuant to those neighborhood plans are under GMA and need to be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. Our regulations, as they are updated to be consistent with our new Comprehensive Plan, will need to be followed by development proposals within the Neighborhood Plan within Western's Plan boundaries.
Nick Zaferatos asked about the internal decision making WWU Master Plan and how it might affect the City's Institutional Plan that is adopted after the Neighborhood Plan is adopted.
Patricia Decker responded that Western's Master Plan addresses their internal decisions, many of which this Commission and the City Council do not need to be involved in. The Institutional Plan will address those things the city wants to adopt to insure that future projects WWU wants to carry out will be consistent with policy direction established by the city. To the extent that the Institutional Plan is specific enough about the issues the city is concerned about, then following that adoption, any activities carried out will go through a normal planned contract process. This can be an administrative process if there are no issues of significant public interest. It then can go before the Planning Commission for an individual project decision. It is our intent that those issues that have off campus impacts or impact private property would always be the subject of a public hearing. At the Institutional Plan level, to the extent that those decisions can be clear and specific it could be possible to have planned contract review at an administrative level. To the extent the Institutional Plan is not specific enough about set back, land use, traffic generation, parking or height issues, then specific projects will be reviewed at a public hearing before the Planning Commission under the normal planned contract review process. In any event a planned contract requires a pre-application neighborhood meeting if it takes place in a neighborhood or in an area that affects a neighborhood.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
George Pierce, 421 Morry Ave., WWU, VP Business and Finance Affairs. WWU is supportive of the departments recommendation of the process and the Institutional Plan process. They will use the WWU Master Plan document to build the institutional plan.
TOPIC: PROCESS
Don Gooding, 1212 24th Street. Concerned about the speed on the roads. The changes that will take place at WWU are incremental but for the neighborhood they are monumental. WWU's vision of their neighborhood has nothing to do with Happy Valley concepts of their neighborhoods. There will be a domino affect if the zoning is changed. It is presently a beautiful mix of residential and high density residential. This will change if the zoning is allowed to change. To change the boundaries would defeat all the hard work done over the past years in this neighborhood. It is his hope that the Planning Commission will recommend against the widening and improvement of West College Way. There may be aesthetic qualities to WWU but it would be very detrimental to the quality of life in Happy Valley.
John Servais, 1609 Mill Avenue. The loop road and the 21st Street connector will have dramatic impact outside WWU's neighborhood. He has been involved in this for the past two years. He encourages the Planning Commission to avoid rubber stamping the plan and department recommendations. Much new information will come out in the next few months. The plan is the brainchild of President Mortimor who is now gone. His plan involved control of the perimeter of the campus. This plan has to do with those perimeters and does not deal with the main issues on campus. A review of the records will show that the process has changed. As a citizen he is not confused about the issues. The process is still not clear. The August meeting will be disappointing. Many of the public interested in this process will be on vacation. There is no rush. He is confused about what the Planning Commission will be deciding on. What happens next? He believes that what is needed is for the planning process to start over. What we need and what we want is to be included in the entire process, not to be invited in at the half way mark. He would like the citizens to be fully involved in this process.
John Seaman, 3012 Wilson Avenue. He has been exposed to many law suits revolving around urban renewal. WWU presents an urban renewal process that hurts the lower class. WWU's plan would wipe out high density housing for those in the surrounding area. The university's plan would replace human habitat with the claim of reclaiming green lawns. The properties that WWU owns outside the campus are not well maintained. A justification is WWU has the lowest ratio of land to students.
Elizabeth Smith, 933 Otis Street. Ms. Smith read a document written and sponsored by herself and the Associated Students of Western Washington University. The resolution recognizes the concerns of the community and encourages their continued participation in the development of the Draft WWU Comprehensive Campus Master Plan.
Tip Johnson, 2719 Donovan. He discussed the 1974 WWU Facilities Development Plan which he believes incorporated the identical tactics of residential invasion that the present process is attempting to do. This is the existing and implemented plan adopted and to date they have not specified a replacement Institutional Master Plan. He believes WWU's actions have provided the city with an opportunity to seize their authority to establish a baseline and remove the self-serving and imaginary and save the useful analysis. He is opposed to the division of topics for discussion. The campus design elements influence planning in the surrounding neighborhoods. The City needs to look at the City as a whole, to determine if there is a shortage of institutional zoned land, what land is available for institutional purposes, what lands are appropriate. We should not let WWU drive the agenda. He questioned under what authority does the university expend public funds, hosting public meetings at public facilities to discuss institutional uses on residential zoned properties which they have not and may never acquire. We need to define the environment the university exists in and then they can proceed with their draft Master Plan.
Paul deArmond, 1344 Humbolt. Presented a slide show of the area surrounding WWU and those areas they own and propose to own.
John Fraiser, 2706 Mill Avenue. His neighbors are very frustrated and confused about what is happening in this process. Asked that the horse be put before the cart and have a revision of the Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan. The announcement that the Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan would be put before the Institutional Plan was good news. He would like to see the neighborhood plan come as quickly as possible, preferably before WWU.
Nick Zaferatos clarified that the Planning Commission would be proceeding with the existing Western Neighborhood Plan but not consider the expansion areas such as into Happy Valley, until the Happy Valley Plan is updated. The Planning Commission would then consider the possible changes to the WWU Master Plan in those neighborhoods.
Wendy Shearer, 1905 Larrabee Avenue. Concerned about WWU plan within their Institution Plan area needs to take other areas into consideration. State owned lands, houses, etc. will have a negative or positive impact on the Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan. As a site plan this is a bad idea. The economic tax base will be negatively impacted if these homes are taken over by WWU/state. This is the highest density area in the City.
Jay Taber, 1212 Raymond. Addressed the process with regard to protecting he city. Asked the Planning Commission to specifically request review of the process to date and the alternatives being suggested with a legal analysis in Olympia.
Wendy Bjornsen, 2202 Mill Avenue. Asked a question about taxation and the purchase by WWU. Concerned about the land being taken out of the tax base. Also asked about eminent domain. Though WWU claims they don't intend to use, they are not saying they won't. What are their rights with respect to eminent domain. Who is going to bear the impact of 21st Street going through? Who will pay for the amenities of improving this intersection?
Nick Zaferatos commented that the question of taxation and eminent domain will be asked of the City's legal department.
Patricia Decker added that there will not be any institutional zoning of property that is not owned by Western. Also, there will not be any institutional zoning of property acquired by WWU that is not consistent with an adopted neighborhood plan.
Nick Zaferatos commented that there could conceivably be a boundary change to the WWU neighborhood that would not include institutional zoning.
Patricia Decker responded that only if this commission did that and if that property were included in a boundary change and included property that was not owned by WWU, it would not be changed to institutional until it was acquired by WWU.
Michael Kohl commented that there was no protection in that WWU is not limited in acquisition to only institutional properties. The fact that it is not zoned institutional does not preclude WWU from acquiring properties.
Patricia Decker confirmed this and added that the underlying zoning still prevails. Just because WWU owns property does not mean it will be zoned institutional. It must go through a zone change process or a plan amendment process to have institutional zoning applied regardless if it is owned by WWU and the State.
TOPIC: PARKING
Hugh Beattie, 2104 MacKenzie. Mr. Brady commented that Happy Valley has a similar situation in their neighborhood regarding overflow parking from WWU. He would like to see a parking ban in Happy Valley similar to that in other adjoining neighborhoods.
Rick Gordon, WTA 2011 Young Street. The WTA has worked very closely with WWU to address transportation issues both in the WWU campus Master Plan and in the WWU Transportation Management Plan. Western is the biggest user of WTA services. Thirty percent of WTA ridership is with WWU students. In addition to the WTA funded services, WWU has since 1995 funded the Campus Express which utilizes Civic Field as a Park N' Ride lot and also serves the York Neighborhood and south parts of campus. WTA is seeking to develop a long term agreement with WWU to address the growing needs of the university. A draft agreement will hopefully be available by this fall. Public transportation should have priority in the western portion of campus because of the heavy traffic congestion. A transit- pedestrian mall is essential for the improvement of safe operating conditions.
Paul deArmond, 1344 Humbolt. He asked the Commission if they had reviewed the Chance Management Study of parking and transportation of WWU. It mentions that it provided key information for the final EIS. WWU did a survey of areas that may or may not be affected by off-campus parking. The Chance Management Study reaches very different conclusions than the later university study reaches. The university survey did not look at the Happy Valley area or the area around the physical plant.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO NEXT MEETING.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Nick Zaferatos reconvened announcing that the proposal was to consider activities within the existing neighborhood of WWU.
Patricia Decker confirmed and added that the recommendation is to evaluate the Master Plan proposals in WWU Neighborhood Plan area. To develop recommendations around that by requiring updates to the Neighborhood Plan and forward those to the Council. We would then deal with the Institutional Master Plan as it relates to the WWU neighborhood.
Mary Passmore asked if that includes the realignment of 21st Street and the traffic proposal.
Patricia Decker said that depends on the Planning Commission's discussion about the extent to which realignment has impacts on other areas. One of the questions WWU is struggling with is whether to do pre-design work on the realignment which could be a way of generating additional information.
Judith Wiseman said she wanted to talk about 21st Street in a broader context and transportation in relation to a comp plan. She asked Patricia Decker to remind the Planning Commission of the recent Council action and 21st. More about the history and updates on 21st Street. She would like to see information on 21st Street in terms of more global transportation network.
Mary Passmore said 21st Street realignment has to be considered as part of the Western Neighborhood Plan. Important issues of realignment and redesigning where things are going to be located need to be looked at. Unless we make a definitive decision on how we view that we cannot approve or disapprove a plan.
Nick Zaferatos expressed concern about the internal activities within the existing neighborhood of WWU, moving forward with a recommendation to Council and then moving forward to the other neighborhoods. We would be addressing the expansion issues of the 15 block area of Happy Valley but also some of the linkage questions which are important to the internal plan of WWU and the arterial function of the city transportation plan as well. Wendy Shearer brought up a good point with resect to our ability to consider a comprehensive plan for the Western Neighborhood only, recognizing that it anticipates growing to future areas as well. These areas would be deferring to a later time following Happy Valley. He would like to move forward with recommendation to consider WWU Neighborhood boundary plan but deferring on any final decisions or recommendation on that until the outlining neighborhood plans are addressed. He asked if there is an urgency on WWU part?
Patricia Decker asked WWU to give written communication about how they feel moving ahead with the WWU Neighborhood Plan and what they hope that would accomplish. Also that they indicate timing concerns that may be related. This information will be available at the July 10 meeting.
Nick Zaferatos asked if WWU can plan in totality within their existing neighborhood boundaries after they have expressed their need to add additional space outside of those neighborhood boundaries. Is it a futile effort to expect WWU to make commitments within existing neighborhood boundaries if they are dependant upon this 15 block annexation area to meet their objectives? Is the proposal a workable one and can we conclude their Neighborhood Plan and then move on to Happy Valley?
Patricia Decker said we need to identify which issues of those raised could be addressed in an update of the WWU Neighborhood Plan area and which could not be. This might allow WWU to move ahead on some areas of their plan and would allow the neighborhoods to move forward.
Carol Salisbury suggested that because of the complexity of WWU and their proximity to the three neighborhoods if the scheduled should be rearranged. She suggested also that the Planning Commission consider the four neighborhoods back to back.
Patricia Decker said each of neighborhood that Western finds itself in to some degree has a large range of issues. We review and update five neighborhoods a year. We are committed to Mt. Baker this year so this will continue. If you reviewed WWU, Sehome, South Hill and Happy Valley you would be into the end of 1998. This is why we recommend you separate out the issues and deal with those that are geographically contained so WWU can continue on with the business they need to do that does not create additional impacts and set aside for neighborhood plan consideration those issues which could create additional problems and have those issues dealt with in the context of that neighborhood plan. There are some issues which are given clear direction under our comprehensive plan. That will be looked at again in the context of Happy Valley. A discussion ensued over the process for WWU and the surrounding neighborhoods and the sequence in which they are reviewed.
Fred Wagner asked about the cottage meetings and if these were supposed to form the basis for Planning Commission discussions of issues with respect to Western's Plan. He has not heard about this process yet. Weren't these meetings to inform the Planning Commission of the neighbors opinions and emotions on issues.
Patricia Decker responded to the roll of the cottage meetings by saying that those meetings were held by WWU to explain their Master Plan to those people living in areas affected by it. These are not sponsored by the city and are not part of the Commission's hearing process. She will ask legal if the results and videos could be considered as part of the public record. The purpose of the meetings was to improve the communications between WWU and the people who had expressed concerns.
Fred Wagner continued that the testimony heard seems to be focused. If we can get the process right the issues are there. There has been adequate input.
Nick Zaferatos said an important issue is the black box nature of the acquisition areas, in that it has not been well defined in terms of the range of uses which would determine it's suitability to expand into the neighborhood. While GMA is expounding urban infill, what is the obligation of the university to do that as well? Is there an alternative analysis conducted in the university's planning process given the existing land base and their growth mandates without expanding their boundaries? If this could be positively established then the land acquisition/expansion issue would dissipate. Possibly under the SEPA process an infill alternative should have been considered.
Judith Wiseman commented on the unease in the neighborhood. She would like an explanation about a statement that WWU made concerning full eminent rights and authority to implement their Master Plan. Not knowing what is planned for the area makes the explanation of this statement important.
Patricia Decker asked Judith Wiseman for clarification regarding her comment on WWU's letter.
Judith Wiseman repeated what does it mean to have full authority to implement a Master Plan? Does WWU not recognize the city process? What does the 1991 GMA legislation say regarding this position?
Nick Zaferatos restated Judith Wiseman's statement as meaning 'does WWU's statement preempt local jurisdiction'?
Judith Wiseman expressed concern that WWU is not acting totally independently and using legal advice that the state provides in this area.
Mary Passmore said that maybe the Attorney General's office would have an opinion on that. She also said that the issues in Sehome and South Hill neighborhoods are relatively narrow. It would be a departure from our usual process but at the time we are considering Happy Valley could we also consider the narrow interest of South Hill and Sehome neighborhoods for the purpose of covering the problems that we are engaged in with this potential WWU campus expansion?
Patricia Decker said the Planning Commission could consider this recommendation. Some of the issues may be dealt with through mechanisms other than neighborhood plan updates. The timing for these two plans may be more an issue of WWU being the tail and not the dog. It's a matter of impact.
A discussion ensued regarding the sequence of the how the neighborhood plans would come to the Planning Commission.
Judith Wiseman said they did their best work when there is a decision agenda. She prefers an itemized agenda of what is expected from them on a particular evening meeting.
Fred Wagner said the Planning Commission needs to decide their direction and not to rely on staff for that direction. Tonight we need to resolve how we want to proceed. We should focus on WWU and not venture off into other neighborhoods until we finish.
Nick Zaferatos agreed with Fred's comments. We do need to focus on the Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan, which is the most significantly impacted by WWU's expansion and only consider the neighborhood boundary activity. It needs to be determined if WWU can implement their growth plans within the confines of their existing footprint and without moving into Happy Valley neighborhood. Another major issue is parking. High rise parking versus surface parking. He would like to hear from WWU how feasible is multiple- level parking. This would possibly eliminate expansion into other neighborhoods to accomplish parking. Primarily addressing the infill approach would facilitate our ability to move quickly into considering the WWU Neighborhood Plan. Let's consider the formal plan and ask for some of these alternative scenarios to be better explained within the context of the existing neighborhood boundary. Identify those issues, hold public hearings and address those issues, working towards recommending a neighborhood plan.
Mary Passmore said these issues have already been identified by staff in their report. She then asked if WWU has a high ratio of square foot classroom space to student. Can WWU provide information on how their ratio compares to other universities?
Travis Holland believes we can dispose of the entire WWU Neighborhood Plan without deferring the boundary changes years into the future. One of the issues raised by one of the citizens about the uncertainty this casts over their property is well taken. We should try to find a way to evaluate the issues of Happy Valley in the context of this Neighborhood Plan and then come back and do Happy Valley as it's own neighborhood, separate from resolving the WWU expansion. The 21st Street connector and the northern boundary changes are essential to the university plan and we cannot weigh this plan without making some decision or recommendation on those boundary changes.
Michael Kohl said the clear picture of the Comprehensive Plan is, after the university is yet to be wholly defined. As a builder/developer he is struggling with actions he has witnessed the university do which indicates there is not a clear plan of what they are doing. Possibly there is a "left hand - right hand" problem. His question is: Is this really a clear plan? What's real and what's not real? If we can see this then we can make reasonable decisions. He has yet to see any really clear, substantial picture of what is going on, where it is going and why presented to the Commission. There is no justification or verification of need in the future that a plan like this should have.
Travis Holland said because they have been presented with no strong compelling reason to expand the boundaries then we should be able to come to a decision of whether or not this is appropriate within the context of this neighborhood plan. Michael Kohl replied that we are being asked to make a decision which has the potential to displace a major housing portion of the community. We have not seen a clear picture of the process of WWU's growth to demonstrate the need, other than the subjective presentation. We have seen only a consistency of inconsistency. How do we justify displacing people based on a lack of information on WWU's part? This is a momentous decision in the effect and the development of our City and particularly Happy Valley.
Nick Zaferatos said there are two important features on the WWU Master Plan map. One is the dashed line which is the proposed boundaries that intrudes into other neighborhoods. His concern also is there is no justification for the expansion of this boundary. There is an infill demonstrated within the existing neighborhood boundary for program academic and recreation and sites for future building for residential and other uses. This indicates preliminary design work to accommodate that future growth within the neighborhood. This sounds like a normal planning process. He does not see a substantial support to justify an expansion of the boundary. He asked Travis Holland if he felt we could move forward with the existing neighborhood?
Travis Holland responded that he would be hesitant in approving boundary changes without looking at the other neighborhoods. If the Planning Commission's action was to recommend no boundary changes he certainly could see no reason to put off that decision until they had dealt with the Sehome and South Hill neighborhoods.
Judith Wiseman said the Planning Commission has not seen direct evidence from WWU to justify this expansion. If the state mandates GMA then they should reconsider their ruling on not financing parking garages. It should not be difficult to see the logic in funding parking garages rather than displacing whole neighborhoods for parking purposes.
Carol Salisbury said the issue was as a municipality we are trying to infill which is difficult when you have something inside which wants to expand. She would like to see a WWU Master Plan that looked creatively at the goal of infiling and more information on parking garages. Faculty and staff will have to pay for their own parking facility. This is not a Planning Commission issue. It should not be a question of expanding into Happy Valley for more parking lots versus WWU building parking garages within their current setting. Mary Passmore said another consideration would be a satellite campus. We are talking of taking 15 acres off the tax roles and displacing families. It might be less expensive and offer the amenities needed. Everything does not have to happen on the hill.
Nick Zaferatos said that WWU plan is based on a 50 year horizon. All of our efforts are on a 20 year horizon. Our objective is to do infill inside our ring with protection to those areas outside our ring. It makes sense for the university to try to acquire space available, based on their 50 year horizon.
Patricia Decker confirmed the 50 year versus the 20 year horizon. We need to tie this back for the July 10 meeting. Staff will create for WWU what we believe the Planning Commission needs. Staff will also present an agenda for this meeting with direction of what needs to be accomplished during the meeting. This will be in your packet.
Nick Zaferatos said the Planning Commission would prepare to consider the WWU Neighborhood Plan under the existing boundaries.
Patricia Decker said staff would proceed on this basis and asked if this was a definitive decision by the Planning Commissioners?
Nick Zaferatos asked the panel and a discussion ensued.
Carol Salisbury asked why we would not just do the Plan.
Nick Zaferatos clarified it was the Plan not as proposed on map but as currently limited by neighborhood boundaries.
Travis Holland asked if we could leave open our option to establish these boundaries and at the next meeting, if we still do not agree with WWU, then defer those into the other neighborhoods.
Carol Salisbury requested that this be discussed at the next meeting.
Patricia Decker said she sensed a direction of moving forward on the WWU Neighborhood Plan Update just for the WWU Neighborhood Plan, deferring the acquisition area questions.
Carol Salisbury said she believes the Planning Commission is close to making a decision about the expansion boundary. If there is no support then they are not approved. If there is support then it should be considered with the Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan.
Nick Zaferatos said he would have difficulty making any decision without WWU being given the opportunity to justify when they want the expansion.
Fred Wagner said they have been given the opportunity. We have been told what they have to tell us. We asked for the information at the last meeting and nothing has come forward yet so he believes it has been addressed.
Patricia Decker said that WWU was not expecting to do a presentation at this meeting. They understood that this meeting was primarily to sort out the process questions raised. Based on tonight's discussion it is clear to them that you need additional information or your recommendation to Council will be based on what you have so far heard.
Judith Wiseman said she could not make this decision without the information.
Patricia Decker said staff will sort out what decisions the Planning Commission need to make at the next meeting to consider taking action on.
Travis Holland asked for additional information from WWU. What costs would be incurred for the restructuring of the main access road into the campus (21st Street realignment) and as the Planning Commission, do we have jurisdiction over how they use their internal area? Secondly, he wants a better explanation of why parking was excluded from this plan. He realizes that the primary purpose of the Master Plan is to obtain funding from the state sources, but as a community we need to have parking more thoroughly discussed in the plan, even in the absence of funding.
Fred Wagner wants to know if WWU needs the 21st Street realignment to go through to Old Fairhaven Parkway? Just a yes or no answer.
ADJOURNED 10:20 P.M.
Return to Public Good's Western Washington University page