This is a partial transcript from the official tapes of the December 6, 1996 Western Washington University Board of Trustees meeting. Because not all of the speakers identify themselves, most of the identifications are lacking internal confirmation. Where speakers are identified in the transcript, this is either by context or because the voice is recognizable. Unidentified speakers are given as Q: but are assumed to be board members.
Q: I'm trying to anticipate how much comment we expect to get from the city through the planning process.
?Pierce?: There will be some comment from some neighbors. Concerned about at least a couple of things that we've been hearing. These are not new concerns, but at the end we can probably anticipate those. One is the, extending 21st Street, the connector road, you might recall, and the impact that might have on the City's decision to do, to connect 21st Street to Old Fairhaven Parkway. There's a block down there, two blocks, I forget which, of residential housing. It doesn't go straight through now. That would have to be considered -- by the City, again -- but the connector road might add to that. And the probably other hot button would be the residential, uh, property acquisition zone that's described primarily to the south of campus and the breadth of that. And Robert will describe the reasons why that has been included at this point in the plan.
Q: So those are problems?
?Pierce?: High Street neighbors wanting to get access on snowy days, when Hill Street is closed off, through High Street through the campus on those kind of days. Those are the kind of questions.
?Vince?: The road extension and the land acquisition are not the issues. They weren't changed at all by the most recent changes in the Master Plan and they were not really addressed in its addendum, but they were addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. Those probably will continue to be the issues, uh, which will be discussed as part of the City planning process.
?Swenson?: It's the statement of the community on the South Side that there's kind of this little island between Old Fairhaven Parkway and the south end of campus that it, and it's ultimately, probably be squeezed out. But actually there is a little bit of a rural atmosphere there, remarkably. And, and, that's, people are, the statement of the group, community, that they would like to preserve that. I think in the long run 21st Street has to go through, but, in my view, but.
Q: That's the City Council's problem.
[several voices]: that's not, yeah, that's not our problem, that's right...
Q: It would be sensible and it would be to the University's advantage, but that's not our job to take care of.
Q: Yeah.
?Vince?: Are there any other questions that I can answer that relate to the environmental process? It's been fairly straightforward, I might say, because there were no appeals, there were no challenges. And it's gone quite smoothly and things look pretty good.
?Pierce?: I'll just mention that it's been quite helpful to have Vince throughout. He knows the campus very well. He worked on the earlier version of the campus plan back in the '80s, south campus, uh. As you've noticed, he's very, he's an engaging person. He presents very well and it's hard to ask ...
tape continues on next side
[continuing] As you've noticed, he's very, he's an engaging person. He presents very well and it's hard to ask tough questions... [laughter and several voices talking at once]
Q: ...when you leave the room, he's going to be the [laughter]...
Q: I think it is important that [garble] known that we have gone through all of these processes and met the stringent requirements, because there may be claims in order to deter us from, or deter the City from some of the approval processes, or part of the approval of the plan. There may be claims that we have not done that. And we have, we've just...
?Swensen?: Well, it's been very well documented, so it's... I think a challenge would be difficult, although it could, uh...
?Boelke?: But, but, it's going to be interesting because GMA really has us do integration between what we do and what the City does. And there could be people, I mean, before they would have used SEPA, but now that we've finished the SEPA process, you've closed it, so that now they're using the GMA to try to open some of these issues when it goes to the Planning Commission and the City, so it ought to be interesting.
?Vince?: If I can suggest too, that you are on the forefront of making the efforts trying to integrate the environmental planning with the masterplanning work. So, there's probably some extra points to make. You should make sure that you take advantage of them.
several voices: [garble] ...credit load... [laughter] ...this is a continual theme... ...right... [laughter]
Q: Well, Vince, thank you very much. We appreciate your participation this morning.
?Vince?: Thank you.
?Bruce?: Hopefully, we've settled most of the issues and recent developments. Everybody's had a chance to present their stuff. Rick and I are left with mopping up, so to speak, and taking this up to the City. If there are any additional comments or anything that comes up shortly in the next month, [garble] with the public [garble] we'd certainly [garble] love to hear from those.
Q: Robert?
?Bruce?: Yes?
Q: [question about graphics on plan -- transcription skips here]
?Bruce?: In order for us to do our EIS process, we had to take the, uh, conceptual plan and develop an illustrated master plan so we could come up with actual building square footage or footprints so we could evaluate impacts. If we had our choice, we'd go back to the conceptual plan which was just bubble diagrams and zoning. That allows you the freedom to develop pretty well [garble]
?Vince?: Maybe the best way of looking at this is, in the impact statement we address the conceptual, programmatic campus master plan. Basically, it's talking about land uses, land use zones, campus sectors. It's talking about circulation systems and networks, open space systems. And then, going another step in more detail, this document we have, campus master plan, goes into illustrative plans. This is kind of an example of, here's an interpretation of that concept, how it might look, but it's not maybe the way it is. They're illustrative...
Q: Lots of flexibility, you put... [garble]
?Vince?: ...flexibility, it's very important to have that flexibility, since the only one thing I think you think you really know is that things are going to change. It's really neat to have that flexibility in there.
Q: Ah, Robert, as you know, we've received a letter, I've recieved a letter and copies to the board, ah, from, ah... Tom Schlotterback in regard to his concerns on the sculpture collection and the impact of the master plan. It's my understanding that you and George Pierce will have some conversations with him and that, talk to him about his concerns so that, we can, I can answer this letter on behalf of this board and just tell him that that will be happening?
?Bruce?: Sure.
Q: That will be great. Whoops, excuse me. That's the only comment that the board has heard from outside the, uh, planning group.
?Vince?: So you know, too, that point in the addendum, that point was, I believe, was four additional sculptures that might be impacted by this conflict of issues, was covered in the addendum, so that helps, that helps with the person you have to [garble]
Q: Ok?
Q: Ok.
Q: Thank you.
end of partial transcript