John Bradley, Roger Vrilakas, Wendy Chung, Bill Welch, Gustavo Cruz

2015-05-21 NWDA Planning Cte

Jen Kirk, Ron Walters, Wendy Rahm, Jeanne Harrison, Michael Harrison, Alex Yale, Jill Long, Tom DiChiara, Craig Boretz, Chris Bramer, Kittleson; ____, Jean Rickly, Allan Classen

Bradley--last week this committee voted not to support requested changes to the Master Plan for transportation changes to Thurman, and Pettygrove--a green street designated, and already so in the Pearl. Would disrupt traffic, believe another traffic study is needed. Disrupts underground garage entrances. Also: why not underground parking under the park lot. Finally, since there are so many items not related to design, should this go to the Hearings Officer, rather than the Design Commission.

Boretz--parking under the park. We had serious discussions with the Parks Bureau, the developer was willing to do that, stringent requirements about trees and roots from the Parks Bureau. #1 was, is there an appetite for that parking, would it produce revenue to pay for itself, and Legacy unwilling to commit to long term arrangement at this point.

The developer was therefor not willing to take the risk.

Yale--looking at a tree in the square, was a challenge. Take over a parking spot below or put in a planter box. Harder to do in a park. Could be built later, tied into the parking under the square.

Long--shows maps of request for master plan changes.

Green Street--we recognize that, though city hasn't implemented features. Could still be done later, nothing there precludes parking access. Block 290 we looked at potential parking structure: only other activities are 21st and Quimby, all have their challenges. We don't want to interrupt 21st, or take away festival street on Quimby. Leaves Pettygrove and the right place.

Bradley, to counter--the committee agrees neither Pettygrove nor Quimby are ideal for entry to underground parking, but Festival Street has not code designation, and the Green Street does. We've assumed it's a green street for years, and you guys have decided Quimby is special, and rightly or wrongly that was never detailed in the Master Plan.

Long--the master plan was supposed to allow a range of design options, and development isn't sequencing as we originally thought. I understand Quimby is an option, at the DAR the commission preferred Pettygrove.

Genasci--Quimby's advantages are that it can be a one-block long access, could have Quimby's ROW included in the Park. Commission hasn't said yes or no: a quid pro quo there would help the size of the square, would solve the access problem fairly straightforwardly, and that leaves Pettygrove where, while the city has not built it, we have plans and drawings.

The garage on Quimby would enter at the west end of the building.

Jeanne Harrison--green street is defined as a hierarch of of modes, not prohibiting but minimizing auto use.

Boretz--we're, from the Con-way perspective, agnostic about where the entry is, can see advantages to both. There could still be some festival street use.

Long--there's still give and take wherever the entry ends up, glad we're talking about it with you.

Yale--we've been looking at this for nine months, take Pettygrove as green street seriously, have located retail to respect that. We don't think the garage access would change the nature of the street. We will need vault access anyway, outside of the ROW, will likely have to be on Pettygrove, especially if there's a streetcar on 21st in the future.

We are respecting the sanctity of the square, want to make that successful. Buildings along the square are 45' long, there would be a 20 to 22' blank wall. The most activity will be on the North side of the square, in the sun, so focussing on that area as the most active. Second on our list, to get the size square we want we're proposing bumping 22' into Quimby, making it a one-way street. Proposing one-way westbound off of 20th. Taking over Quimby would be good for the park, but as a festival street, it does that--the difference is as a park it would be greenscape.

If a street, has to have sidewalks etc, not a festival street. Doing what Don is suggesting has a lot of merit, but would be difficult with a 49' ROW and 22' blank wall.

Genasci--we're talking about coming in at the end of the block, where there isn't commercial. Block is 50' wide, access 21-22', a neat way to get down which doesn't stop commercial on Quimby. 49' wide ROW accommodates parking both sides and one lane. Effects cars in a way we would want at that location.

Walters--agrees with Alex on two points: holistically, as part of the square. Little agreement on what the square will look like, in terms of massing, layouts, ped access, footprint, architecture and heights. I'd like to see the holistic view before deciding where the garage access goes.

There are two projects here with one proposed amendment: we are farther along and have greater agreement on Block 295 than on Block 290.

DiChiara--reviews Thurman/Block 295 parking curb cuts. One access off Savier and one off Thurman extant, but not proposed, there is not access off 21st in the Master Plan. The parcel is landlocked, and we think Thurman is the best access for that parcel, on the south side, won't affect streetcar. Reducing curb cuts overall.

Even if you could do one access, it would wipe out Savier with a four-lane entry.

The most commercial section of the access way is on Raleigh, and that's not a good place to do an entry. The forecourt is the biggest problem.

Loop of pedestrian activity shouldn't be interrupted with parking access.

Boretz--from Con-way perspective, not agnostic on this as it will affect our parking access.

DiChiara--it's currently a transportation street, if streetcar were to come in, would be able to do that.

Bramer-- you don't need to be a transportation engineer to see this will affect traffic, bike and peds. Depending on the path you take, there's a value to having a direct access to Thurman. Makes a lot of sense to me; the Pettygrove choice requires trade-offs. Less defined from a transportation engineering perspective, depends on how you want to define the character of the roadways.

In the mornings people are coming into employment, the jug handle will make a good connection, not having to cross pedestrian connections.

Jeanne Harrison--thanks for mentioning 20th, we do want people to use it to avoid other pedestrian crossing. Concerned that signals on 23rd may back up traffic making left turns toward the development.

Can't do the u-turn at I-405, but not limited left turn to 23rd.

Bramer--based on how long it takes to take the left turns to 23rd and Raleigh, it will discourage people--though taking more long time, it will be shorter.

Long--FYI, going to Council next Thursday 9:30 for the LID for the jug handle.

City has started design work, construction in late 2016.

DiChiara--the Block 295 project will take about two years, so this should work out.

Boretz--did an unscientific poll of Con-way employees, who are looking forward to the jug handle access.

Welch--no U-turn at Vaughn and 23rd?

DiChiara--currently you can U-turn left off I-405.

Bramer--people are using it a shortcut to come off the freeway and get back on because it's faster. We didn't think we'd see that.

DiChiara--reviews infrastructure: water and sewer line through the Block 295 area, reorienting sewer to Thurman, water was bypassed, which helped. Still ongoing with Water Bureau and PBOT, to get this out of the way of the project. Doesn't affect properties to the East.

Chung--Re: left hand on to 23rd: can that be managed by timing of the lights?

DiChiara--Aramark primary user.

Bramer--you could use the left turn to penalize drivers, but since not separate, the other use lanes will take longer, so less the city could likely do re: signal timing. The shortest path, quickest movement is the modifier to behavior. The left turn sitting, drivers see this as taking longer, and we think they will go to the jug handle.

Long--we're talking about residents and employees who will develop a habit.

Michael Harrison--ideas like green streets need to be nurtured to happen, to block them makes them go away. Pioneer Square was delayed 37 years because a parking garage was built. Pedestrians don't like to cross these entries. Because there hasn't been a green street developed yet doesn't mean it will not, it time, but it needs to be nurtured. Allowing the access to parking garages will make this more difficult to achieve.

This is land use, so the Design Commission should hear from the Hearings Officer.

Long--the Master Plan says it should go to the Design Commission.

Bradley--I thought the plan was silent, saying it was a Type III.

Long--some types of Type III can go to the Commission, including this type.

Bradley--Jeanne, does this disrupt/change traffic enough for us to ask for review.

Jeanne Harrison--the Transportation committee was reluctantly willing to go along with Thurman, Pettygrove not: the green street is a long term desire of the neighborhood.

Long--we could separate these two amendments, allowing you to get further along and look holistically at the Pettygrove proposal.

Genasci--I think that's a really good idea.

Long--we would separate these, then and ask for your support.

Bradley--anyone here, committee member or guest, who would object to separating this? (None.) I think that's a good idea.

The next question is for the square: My take is you have a high barrier here, what Michael and Jeanne have said, there is a street which is designed already and is in the code, vs. a festival street. And how the whole square is going to function. Where will loading and unloading be?

Yale--that will be on Quimby.

Bradley--that's an interesting approach. We still have a lot to work on here, but the loading unloading on Quimby damages the festival street. You haven't met the bar that entry on Pettygrove is better. Are you proposing any mitigation?

Not to preclude anything, we need to talk more.

Yale--agrees.

Long--we'll remove Pettygrove from the June 11th amendment request, and if there's more on Pettygrove we can add it to a later amendment.

Michael Harrison--the Design Commission is a land use review body, and has asked other city agencies for advice on topics which have expertise.

Long--PBOT will weigh in, the Commission does regularly look at loading, unloading and access.

Michael Harrison--better looked at by a citizen group since bureaucrats who are politically driven.

Sieber--how will the 23rd and Raleigh signal work as designed if there's entry on Pettygrove.

Long--an entry into to the district.

Bramer--won't affect transportation patterns.

DiChiara--is there a repaving project planned for 23rd north end?

Jeanne Harrison--yes, but no funding.

Welch--I'm disappointed that more property didn't go to a single developer. Don't want to see a separate underground parking lot for each block, diminishing parking availability under the streets. Can you guarantee you will sell to one developer?

Boretz--Con-way replacement parking is a major concern. We decided to sell to different developers rather than one master developer. The second phase, there will be a greater opportunity to replace the parking for our technology building, and then under the four acre site do something like you suggest. But I can't guarantee it, and will be retiring in February. Will be a consultant to Con-way.

Phase one is totally awesome as far as I'm concerned.

Adjourn 9:04.