UW Draft Campus Master Plan 2018

UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON
2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
October 2016 Draft Plan
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Executive
Summary
Chapter 2
Introduction
16
Purpose and Process
Enrollment Trends
32
1998 City-University
Agreement 22
Growth Allowance
33
Physical Growth

October 2016 Draf t Plan
30
18
Planning Context and

Assumptions 24
Chapter 3
Growth Profile
28
Chapter 4
Existing
Conditions
40
Public Realm
Framework 42
Circulation and Parking
Framework 52
Built Environment
Framework 70
Chapter 5
2018 Seattle
Campus
Master Plan
78
Chapter 6
Campus Sectors
152
Long-Term Vision
80
Central Campus
Guiding Principles
82
West Campus 170
Planning Framework
87
Public Realm
88
Circulation and Parking
104
Built Environment
114
Sustainability 124
Innovation 132
Utility 134
154
South Campus 190

East Campus 202
Chapter 7
Development
Standards
Development Standards
218
220
Chapter 8
Appendix
250
Public Participation Program 252

Primary and Secondary
Impact Zones 260
Seattle Underlying Zoning
Map
262
UW Building Inventory
264
Glossary 272
Transportation
Management Plan
142
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND CONTEXT
The 2018 Campus Master Plan (CMP) is the
regulatory vehicle for the Universitys future
development, defining both the square
footage to be constructed and the geographic
location of such development. The master
planning effort focuses on the Seattle campus
and its property located within the Major
Institution Overlay, or MIO, and is guided by
the 1998 City University Agreement between
the University of Washington and the City of
Seattle.
This Campus Master Plan builds on the
now complete 2003 CMP. Since then, 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 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 longterm vision for the full build-out of 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.
Figure 1. Existing Conditions Aerial Image, 2016.
Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan
GROWTH ALLOWANCE
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
ive
rsi
ty
M o nt
B ri
dg
lake B
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
Un
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
Figure 2. Long-Term Vision, Campus at Full Build-Out. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
The general approach underlying this CMP is

to align the Seattle campus evolving needs
for a 10-year conceptual plan within the longterm 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. 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 will guide the
physical development of the campus during
the life of the 2018 CMP.
The University may grow by up to six million
net new gross square feet to fully utilize the
Universitys growth allowance in this CMP. This
CMP identifies 85 potential development sites
to accommodate the anticipated growth.
Each potential development site is defined
in terms of maximum allowable height and
total allowable gross square feet. These 85
potential development sites constitute a
maximum development potential of more
than 12.9 million gross square feet of net new
development, of which only 6 million net new
gross square feet may be developed under
Potential Building
Existing Building
Potential Primary Open Space
the Plans growth allowance. The potential

development sites are spread throughout the
four campus sectors with specific maximum
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
East Campus
750,000 net new gross square feet
Total Seattle Campus Growth Allowance
The 10-year planning horizon establishes the

analytical basis of this Plan. The 2018 CMP will
remain in effect until the growth allowance
has been fully developed or a new campus
master plan is approved.
2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER

PLAN CONTENT
The 2018 CMP includes recommendations
for open space, circulation, transportation,
and physical development (Chapter 4 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan). Uses
for new construction projects all help fulfill
the Universitys mission and are considered
academic. These uses are further defined
in the Development Standards chapter
found on page 218. 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 million
gross square feet. Potential development sites
are identified (page 117) and development
standards (pages 218 to 249) outline how each
site would be developed. Specific development
sites and their desired development
characteristics are described in the Campus
Sectors chapter of this document, pages 152 to
217.
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 planning process is intended to foresee,
assess, and outline mitigation measures for
the 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 plan 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 is included in
the Appendix on page 252.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The CMP creates a framework designed to
enable UWs 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 Universitys
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, including:
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 Washingtons
education, research, and service missions.
Learning Based Academic and

Research Partnerships
Support and catalyze academic and teaching
research partnerships with allied industries,
contribute to a highly livable innovation
environment, and stimulate job growth and
community and economic development.
CAMPUS SECTORS
Implement UWs commitment to sustainable

land use through the utilization of its existing
property and the balance of development and
public space.
Connectivity
NE 45th St
Extend UWs commitment to better connect

the University internally and with its broader
context.
WEST
CAMPUS
CENTRAL
CAMPUS
EAST
CAMPUS
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
Stewardship of Historic and

Cultural Resources
Continue responsible and proactive
stewardship of UWs campus assets through
preservation of its historic and cultural
resources and strategic property development.
address the public realm, connectivity, and

the built environment. The big moves for each
sector are identified on the following pages,
and are discussed in greater detail in Chapter
6 - Campus Sectors, on pages 152 through 217.
15th Ave NE
Sustainable Development
The CMP includes specific strategies and

recommendations for each of the four
identified 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
SOUTH
CAMPUS
Figure 3. Campus Sectors
Central Campus
Significant Pedestrian Path
Central Campus is a hub of learning activity

and knowledge sharing, and 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 long-term vision for the 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 of Central Campus to
minimize interference with the existing
campus character.
ve
hA
NORTH
CAMPUS
HOUSING
NE
TON
RIN G
PAR AWN
L
CA
E A ST
LIBER AL
ARTS QU
AD
INI
TA
B
ke
VI S
la
ER
nt
RA
Mo
l vd
10 Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan
BRIDG
Provides additional
capacity to support
the Universitys
educational,
research and
service missions.
Creates an active
edge along 15th
Avenue.
Figure 4. Central Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
L AND
Enhances connections to
the West, South, and East
Campuses.
Preserves and
enhances the
character of the
historic setting
and its significant
buildings and open
spaces.
Maintains existing
building heights.
M PU S
Pacific Street
Creates an integrated
network of pathways
West Campus
industry partners and a significant supply

of UW-operated student housing, the West
Campus is uniquely positioned to develop as
an innovation district within the broader
Seattle region (see page 38 for more detail
on academic and research partnerships). The
long-term vision for the West Campus:
The 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,
Active Ground Floor

Existing Building
Potential Building
Gateway
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 their
waterfronts.
PLAZA
Burke-G
Pacific St
US
ge
ri d
PORTAGE BAY PA
yB
rsit
i ve
reet
MP
T CA
WE S R E E N
G
Un
ilman Trai
Provides flexible building footprints

and massing to accommodate a range
of functions, including academic and
research partnerships.
Reinforces east-west
connections with
South Campus.
RK
PORTAGE BAY
Structures proposed development

around a proposed multi-use, public
open space that functions as the
heart of the West Campus.
Figure 5. West Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
11
South Campus
South Campus supports UWs 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 two and a quarter mile waterfront that is
largely accessible. Its monolithic structure is
dense and disorienting both inside and out.

In the South Campus, the Campus Master
Plan proposes the long-term redevelopment
of much of the health sciences complex
incrementally. The long-term vision for the
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
Mo
Reduces the scale of development in a

manner that promotes school identity,
orientation and connectivity.
Creates an inviting,
functional and
attractive public realm.
Building heights
step down closer
to the water.
US
SOUTH C
AMPUS
GREEN
MO
Celebrates waterfront location with a shared campus green, courtyards and upper
terraces. This open space corridor provides major pedestrian connections between
Central and South Campuses, and creates a permanent view corridor to the water.
Figure 6. South Campus. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
L
NT
AK
Creates a continuous
waterfront trail.
UT
EC
East Campus
liquefaction zone, adding cost to building

construction in this location. The long-term
vision for East Campus:

Active Ground Floor
Existing Building
Potential Building
Gateway
cS
tre
et
The East Campus currently accommodates

athletics and recreational activities with
parking to support sporting events and
campus commuters, and the Union Bay
Natural Area and other UW facilities. Much
of the East Campus is built on a methaneproducing landfill and constitutes a seismic
Pa
cifi
Improves connections to Central

Campus along an East Campus
Land Bridge.
LA
TY
RSI
IVE
UN LL AGE
VI
ND
BR
ID G
E
Balances public realm and open

space along the waterfront with
dense development maximizing
productive land use.
Blvd
Enhances gateway at
Pend Orielle.
Montlake
OF
TY
ON
RSI STATI
IVE
UN GTON
N
SHI
WA
Rd
Walla
Walla
Preserves athletics uses while

developing existing parking
lots for future academic uses,
industry partnerships, and
academic conference spaces.
UNION BAY
Transforms this 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
13
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Standards guide development
within the campus boundaries. The 1998
City-University Agreement requires all UW
development within the Major Institution
Overlay (MIO) boundary to follow the
standards. The purposes of the development
standards 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 UWs Campus Master Plan.
Increase awareness of land use activities

and their impacts and to coordinate
necessary review processes.
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.
Achieve an efficient use of the land

without major disruption of the natural
environment and to direct development to
campus sectors with adequate services and
amenities.
Development Standards range from Historic

Preservation Policies and Practices to
recommended Review Processes. Of note
are the Site Design Standards, on page
234 through page 245, which regulate the
development of individual sites with the
goal of creating an active, desirable and
safe public realm. While each site has an
allowable building height and maximum
square footage requirement, development will
Figure 8. Proposed Building Envelopes Allow for Light and Air. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Total Buildable Envelope
Allowable Built Gross Square Feet (reflects a portion of the overall envelope, allowing design
flexibility in massing, and is regulated by the Site Design Standards on page 234 to 245)
also be informed by the site design standards,

which address active street level uses and
transparency, podium height, protected view
corridors, public realm allowances, tower
separation, and upper level setbacks, among
others.
UTILITY FRAMEWORK
An analysis of utility needs to support the
growth allowance of 6 million net new gross
square feet complements the Campus Master
Plan, and can be found on page 134. Key
findings include:
Campus steam, compressed air, water

supply and sanitary sewer systems can
accommodate all growth illustrated in the
Campus Master Plan.
Depending on the mix of uses, campus
chilled water and emergency/standby
power capacity might be adequate to
accommodate this growth.
Regardless of mix of uses, existing primary
power falls far short of providing for the
growth illustrated in the Campus Master
Plan.
There are no known capacity issues
related to water, sanitary sewer, and
storm drainage, but each utility should be
evaluated as new development occurs.
Campus distribution systems capacities
are generally understood for each campus
sector, but more specific information
about building program / uses and
phasing of development is needed before
analysis can be undertaken to improve
understanding of system distribution
capacity to support growth for each of the
four campus sectors.
TRANSPORTATION MASTER
PLAN
This Campus Master Plan builds on the success
of the current and past TMPs. The University
will implement this updated TMP to achieve
the goal of limiting peak-period, peakdirection vehicle trips to and from campus
of students, staff and faculty at or below 1990
levels. The 1990 levels listed below are what the
University will hold itself to during this Plan.
There are nine programmatic components of

the TMP, each one contributing towards the
success of the overall TMP program. Additional
information on the TMP can be found on page
142.
Campus Trip Cap
3. Shared-Use Transportation
AM Peak-period inbound (7:00 to 9:00 AM)

7,900
PM Peak-period outbound (3:00 to 6:00

PM) 8,500
1. U-PASS Program
2. Transit
4. Parking Management
5. Bicycle
6. Pedestrian
University District Trip Cap
7. Marketing and Education

10,100
8. Telecommuting

PM) 10,500
9. Institutional Policies
To reinforce the Universitys commitment to

limiting auto travel, the University will 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.
15
INTRODUCTION
16 October 2016 Draf t Plan
PURPOSE AND PROCESS

1998 CITY-UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT
PLANNING CONTEXT AND ASSUMPTIONS
PHYSICAL GROWTH
17
PURPOSE AND
PROCESS
The University of Washington is one of the
worlds 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 is approved by
City Council and the UW Board of Regents.
It serves as the regulatory vehicle for the
Universitys future development, defining both
the square footage to be constructed and the
geographic location of such development.
This Plan provides a long-term aspirational
framework for future development. It includes
a public realm strategy that serves both
the campus and surrounding community
with significant open spaces and enhanced
connections.
18 Introduction - October 2016 Draf t 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 nations 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 Washingtons long-term

vision for full build-out of the Seattle campus
informs its 10-year 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,
the South Campus Study Phase II, East
Campus Planning Study, and the Campus
Landscape Framework are foundational to this
Plan.
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 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan.
The Seattle Campus Master Plan process is
guided by the 1998 City University Agreement
between the University of Washington and the
Birds Eye View of the Seattle Campus Looking North
Figure 9.
Introduction - October 2016 Draf t Plan
19
City of Seattle. The University of Washingtons

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 Plan. Such growth
means that the University has approximately
211,000 gross square feet of development left
out of the 3 million gross square feet approved
in the 2003 Plan. Work on this CMP began in
2015 so that by 2018, the 2018 CMP would be
in place to accommodate the new growth
requirements.
This Campus Master Plan follows, builds
on, and replaces the 2003 Seattle Campus
Master, extending the continuity of planning
developed over the history of the University
of Washington. This Plan includes guidelines
and development standards for developing
6 million gross square feet of net new
development on the Seattle campus. While
a 10-year planning period is used in its
formulation, this Campus Master Plan will
remain in effect until development of the 6
million gross square feet is complete or a new
campus master plan is approved.
The physical assets of the campus are

located within boundaries designated by a
Major Institutional Overlay (MIO) zone as
defined in the City of Seattle Land Use and
Zoning Code. Together these assets form a
campus structure of open space, circulation,
and buildings that successfully supports the
campus mission. Growth, evolving functional
needs, and changing technologies necessitate
development that supports the University
mission. In accordance with the 1998
Agreement between the City of Seattle and
the University of Washington, the University
formulates a conceptual campus master plan
and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
This Campus Master Plan 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 Plan 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 will guide
future design and decisions that impact the
campus, the environment, and surrounding
communities. The scope of the Campus

Master Plan 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 Campus Master Plan includes
recommendations for open space, circulation,
transportation, and development (Chapter
4 - 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan). Uses
for new construction projects all fall within
the Universitys mission and are considered
academic. These uses are further defined in
the Development Standards chapter found
on page 218. It is impossible to predict specific
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 Campus Master Plan creates a
development framework to guide the 6 million
gross square feet. Potential development
sites are identified (page 117) and the campus
sectors chapter (pages 152 to 202) and
development standards (pages 220 to 249)
outline how each site would be developed.
The process for selecting specific sites and

their desired development characteristics are
described in the Campus Sectors chapter of
this document, pages 152 to 202.
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 planning process is intended to foresee,
assess, and outline mitigation measures
for the 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 plan 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 is included in
the Appendix on page 252.
21
THE 1998 CITY-UNIVERSITY

AGREEMENT
The elements considered in the development
of this Campus Master Plan are those
outlined in the City University Agreement.
The 1998 City-University Agreement requires
the University to formulate a 10-year
conceptual Master Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement.1 The University worked
closely with the City University Community
Advisory Committee (CUCAC), and the City
Department of Neighborhoods 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. (page 28)
Proposed non-institutional zone

designations for areas within the
boundaries. (page 28)
A site plan designating height and location

of existing facilities (page 75), location of
existing and proposed open space (page
91), landscaping and screening (page
49), and general use and location of any
proposed development and proposed
alternatives. (page 117 to 123)
The institutional zone (page 28) and

development standards to be used (pages
218 to 249) by the University.
A general description of existing and

proposed parking facilities (pages 69
and 113) and bicycle (pages 59 and 107),
pedestrian (pages 55 and 105), and traffic
circulation systems (pages 61, 63,111 and
113) within the University boundaries and
their relationship to the external street
system.
A transportation plan which will include

specific University programs to minimize
traffic impacts and encourage the use
of public transit, carpools, vanpools, and
other alternatives to single-occupancy
vehicles. (pages 142 to 151)
A general description of future energy

and utility needs, system and capacity
improvements, and proposed means of
increasing energy efficiency. (pages 134 to
141)
A description of alternative proposals

for physical development including
explanation of the reasons for considering
each alternative have been provided in the
EIS.
Proposed development phases, including

development priorities, estimated
timetable for proposed developments, and
proposed interim uses of property awaiting
development. (page 222)
A description of any proposed street or

alley vacation. (pages 110 to 111)
Proposed changes to the land acquisition

and leasing policy. No changes are being
proposed but the current land acquisition
and leasing policy are listed on page 226
in the Development Standards chapter
(pages 214 to 239).
1 The Universitys 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 will remain in effect until the
6 million net new gross square feet is constructed or a new master plan is
approved. The development of a new master plan will not be required unless
changes in the planning context and assumptions warrant.
23
PLANNING CONTEXT AND

ASSUMPTIONS
REGIONAL SETTING
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The University of Washington is comprised

of three campuses including locations in
Bothell12 miles to the north, Tacoma36
miles to the south, along with its original
campus in Seattle. The Seattle campus
benefits from its proximity to downtown
Seattle and local and regional transit
facilities including Sound Transits North Link
connecting the Universitys two stations
(completed in 2016, 2021) downtown and to
Northgate in 2021.
The University of Washington is situated within

Seattles University District, an urban center
according to the Citys Comprehensive Plan,
and is bounded by I-5 on the west, Ravenna
and NE 45th street to the north, 35th 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, The
Ave. The University both owns and leases
space throughout the University District,
notably the UW Tower; such properties fall
outside the Major Institution Overlay, or MIO.
The Universitys 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.
Note: The Citys proposed upzone (2016) of the surrounding area to increase building heights
and development capacity throughout the neighborhood is under review at the time of the
publication of the Draft 2018 CMP.
Figure 10. Regional Context (above) and Figure 3.

Neighborhoods around the University (opposite)
Neighborhood Planning Context
Figure 11.
I-5
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
Un
ive
rsi
lake B
ty
Br
id g
M o nt
University of
Washington
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
MIO Boundary
University Community Urban
Center Boundary
520
25
REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND

PLANNING PROCESS
This Campus Master Plan reflects the context
of the Universitys ongoing planning and
capital budgeting process, and 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 succesors) 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 Landscape Advisory
Committee (ULAC), the University
Transportation Committee, Design Review
Board (DRB), and the State Environmental
Policy Act Advisory Committee.
3. The 1998 City-University Agreement
(as well as the provisions of the City of
Seattles Major Institutions Policy and
CAPITAL BUDGETING
Code) governs preparation of the Campus
Master Plan. The Campus Master Plan
includes development standards and
other elements which differ from or are
in addition to those included in the Citys
Major Institutions Code, consistent with
the 1998 City-University Agreement. A
Major Institution Overlay (MIO) district
and boundaries are established through
the Campus Master Plan adoption.
4. The University will comply with the
provisions of the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) in the review and
approval of the Campus Master Plan.
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 will 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 Universitys biennial
capital budgeting process is the primary
basis for the identification of specific
facility needs and priorities.
2. The Campus Master Plan and the capital
budgeting process are designed to provide
direction as well as long-term flexibility
to accommodate unexpected continuous
program changes, as well as state and
national initiatives.
3. Not all projects included in the capital
budgets are included in the Campus
Master Plan. 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
categorically exempt from SEPA review are
not included.
RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING
PLANS
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
1. The 2003 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
42). Five non-University owned properties
are located within the MIO boundaries.
2. The remaining development capacity

under the 2003 Campus Master Plan at
the time of publication of the Draft 2018
CMP is approximately 211,000 gross square
feet.
3. The Campus Master Plan does not include
the Universitys plans for the Tacoma or
Bothell campuses.
4. The University can purchase and lease
property according to the 1998 CityUniversity Agreement.
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
230).
3. The West and Southwest campuses are
bisected by numerous City streets which
may have implications for development.
4. The campus contains substantial
landscaped open space which the
University is committed to conserve for
historical, aesthetic and environmental
reasons (see pages 86).
5. Detailed information regarding the
existing conditions of the campus is
included in this document as well as in the
Environmental Impact Statement and has
been considered in the development of this
Campus Master Plan.
27
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 85 potential development
sites within the existing MIO boundary. No
expansion of or change to the MIO boundary
is planned. The 85 potential development sites
enable a maximum development potential of
more than 12.9 million gross square feet of net
new development (see table on page 80).
Church of Latter
Day Saints
lake B
College Inn
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
SDOT
M o nt
NE 41st St
lvd N
E
NE 42nd St
I-5
During the planning horizon of this Campus

Master Plan, the University may build a total of
6 million net new gross square feet (assuming
funding is available) on some of the 85 sites.
Identification of specific sites and phasing to
accommodate the 6 million net new gross
square feet will be determined through the
Universitys annual capital planning and
budgeting processes (see discussion of process
in Chapter 8 - Appendix).
NE 45th St
NE 45th St
Un
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 million net new gross
square feet of space will be required to meet
these needs.
Roosevelt Rd NE
PHYSICAL GROWTH
Portage Bay
Park
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
Jensen Motor
Boat Company
Figure 12. MIO and Non-Institutional Uses

MIO Boundary
UW Leased and Owned Facility
Non-Institutional Use (Not
Owned by UW)
Any non-institutional use has to comply with

underlying zoning. Adjacent non-University
properties 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
Portage Bay Park

MIO-37-IC-45
Seattle Department of Transportation

MIO-65-IC-45
For all underlying zoning within the MIO

boundary of the Univesrity campus,
please refer to the Seattle Department of
Construction and Inspection zoning maps
on page 262 of the Appendix.
29
GROWTH PROFILE
ENROLLMENT TRENDS
GROWTH ALLOWANCE
31
ENROLLMENT
TRENDS
STUDENT POPULATION
Total student population in 2014 was 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, an analysis of the State
of Washingtons graduation rate data, and
feedback from UWs Enrollment Committee.
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.
32 Grow th Profile - October 2016 Draf t Plan
Table 1. Student, Faculty and Staff Figures

2014
2028
DIFFERENCE
% CHANGE
Total Student Population (FTE)
43,724
52,399
8,675
20%
Staff (FTE)
16,324
19,563
3,239
20%
Faculty (FTE)
7,107
8,517
1,410
20%
Total Population (FTE)
67,155
80,479
13,324
GROWTH
ALLOWANCE
GROWTH ALLOWANCE
SPACE NEEDS MODEL
The Universitys growth allowance of 6 million

net new gross square feet supports the 2028
population projection. A number of analyses
were conducted to inform the requested
growth allowance including:
The space needs model compares the

Universitys existing space on the Seattle
campus against projected need for a variety of
higher education space categories including:
Modeling UWs campus space needs
Analyzing UWs Seattle campus

development history
Benchmarking UWs Seattle campus space

against peer institutions
Considering the potential for academic

and research partnership space
Existing Space
Classrooms
Teaching labs
As of 2014, the University of Washington

recorded roughly 18.0 million gross square
feet of space on its Seattle campus. This
figure accounts for structures located within
the Major Institutional Overlay (MIO), as
well as structures outside the MIO that are
immediately adjacent to the UW Seattle
campus.
Research labs
Offices
Sports and recreation
Student life space
92% (ninety-two percent) of space (or 16.6

million gross square feet) is located within
the MIO, while the remaining 8 percent (1.4
million gross square feet) falls outside the
boundary.
Student housing
98% (ninety-eight percent) of space (or

17.6 million gross square feet) is owned
by the University, while the remaining
364,000 gross square feet is leased.
This does not account for any space

associated with parking structures.
The model is based on national space

guidelines, notably guidelines developed
by CEFPI (the Council of 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 tests 2028
student, faculty, and staff population levels
determined during the enrollment trends
analysis.
Grow th Profile - October 2016 Draf t Plan
33
Table 2. 2028 Space Needs Determined by the Space Needs Model by Category (gross square feet*)
7.0 M
Deficit
410,000 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
RESEARCH
LABS
Existing Space
Space Need at 2028
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
Space Needs Model Findings

INSTITUTIONAL SPACE
STUDENT HOUSING
The model compares existing space

against projected need to support the 2028
population. The difference between the two
figures reveals the space deficit.
Space needed to support student housing

is determined as a percentage of the overall
student population. The model does not
account for any future faculty or other
housing.
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.
While this figure accounts for traditional

higher education space types, it does
not account for academic and research
partnership space.
For master planning purposes, it is

assumed that 20% (twenty percent) of the
overall student population will be housed
on campus in the future.
A future student population of 52,400 FTE

translates into the need for roughly 10,480
total beds on campus.
By 2020, the University will have 9,380 beds

within its housing stock, which suggests
the need for 1,100 net new beds in 2028.
Applying the Universitys existing gross

square feet per bed of 372 gross square
feet for a suite-style bed generates a
total housing space need of 410,000 gross
square feet in 2028.
35
BENCHMARKING
Benchmarking compares the Universitys
existing space to space at other higher
education institutions. 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. UWs 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, 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.
It is important to reinforce that

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 3. 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
37
Figure 13. Kirsten Wind Tunnel
ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH

PARTNERSHIPS
The University of Washington is an innovator.
Every day, pioneers on the UW campus are
using new and innovative ways to make
peoples lives better. In fact, people around the
world, depend on the UW to tackle big issues
like curing cancer, disease prevention, climate
change, wage inequality, affordable housing,
and paid family leave.
In 2015, the UW was ranked as the most
innovative public university by Reuters. UW
regularly is the top recipient of federal research
dollars in the nation, among public universities,
and second overall. Collectively, the University
Figure 14. CoMotion and Urban@UW
spurs $12.5 billion annually in economic impact

for the State of Washington and ranks among
the top universities for tech startups.
Taking the UWs innovative work to the next
level requires changing the way education
is delivered to better reflect how students
learn. The UW traditional campus buildings
and lecture halls must give way to spaces
where students, faculty and others can easily
connect and work on big things. Todays
higher education institutions understand that
promoting innovation as a teaching strategy
is necessary to solve problems that continue
to impact our daily lives. To do this, the UW is
committed to creating an inclusive innovation
district within its campus.
What exactly is an innovation district?

The Brookings Institute defines it as a
physical place that promotes teamwork;
the UW agrees. The University sees an
innovation district as a place where experts
in social work, public health, engineering,
life sciences, and the performing arts can
partner with government, business, non-profit
organizations and the Seattle community.
Students will get hands-on experiences and
the tools they need to succeed.
The UW is uniquely positioned to create such a
cutting edge innovation district. It is nationally
recognized as an innovation anchor that drives
startups in our region. In 2014 alone, the UW
helped launch more than 100 new companies;

18 were a direct result of its research
technologies.
The UW administration includes an executive
position for the sole purpose of fostering
innovation. CoMotion was formed to be a hub
for expanding the societal impact of the UWs
work. Fluke Hall, StartUp Hall, Urban@UW,
and the future Earth Lab also express and
strengthen the Universitys commitment to
innovation.
The innovation district builds on this work.
From public safety to homelessness to curing
disease it is intended to be a place to find
answers for the people of Seattle and around
the world.
Another reason why UW is positioned to create
an innovation district is its location. The UW
is close to regional light rail transit and offers
access to great student housing, cafes, retail
and jobs. Seattle is the economic heart of its
region, with a highly educated workforce. This
makes it easier to attract new partnerships,
expand research efforts and create jobs.
The bottom line is that innovation districts
are critical competitiveness strategies for
companies, universities, cities, and states.
Government, business and the public are
increasingly reliant upon academic institutions,
including 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.
Figure 15. StartUp Hall in Condon Hall in UWs West Campus
Every day, the pioneering work of the UW

faculty and students is growing along with the
partnerships needed to make it happen. The
UW Campus Master Plan accounts for space
needed to create the kind of innovation district
that will make sure its work grows and thrives.
The UW studied 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 District, CORTEX, and the
University of California San Francisco-Mission
Bay campus. The study looked at the amount
of land used, the square footage, the mix of
tenants and the development process. The
study 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 UW is that it can include many fields
of study, all with critical ties to our institutional
mission. Arts and sciences, technology, and
engineering are all welcome in order to find
the most creative solutions to local, national
and global problems (more information on
the Innovation Framework can be found in
Chapter 5 starting on page 132).
39
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
PUBLIC REALM FRAMEWORK

CIRCULATION & PARKING FRAMEWORK
BUILT ENVIRONMENT FRAMEWORK
41
PUBLIC REALM
FRAMEWORK
FOUR CAMPUS SECTORS
The campus is broadly organized into four
campus sectors including the 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
EAST
WEST
CAMPUS
69 Acres
CENTRAL
CAMPUS
215 Acres
EAST
CAMPUS
298 Acres
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
NE 45th St
SOUTH
CAMPUS
57 Acres
TOTAL SEATTLE CAMPUS
639 Acres
Figure 16. Campus sectors
42 Existing Conditions - October 2016 Draf t Plan
Figure 17. Central Campus looking south
Figure 18. West Campus looking north
Figure 19. South Campus looking west
Figure 20. East Campus looking southwest
Existing Conditions - October 2016 Draf t Plan
43
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
ST
V
IS
TA
Figure 22. Primary Organizational Axes
IE
EB
VI
AL
IN
PO
G
TA
AY
ER
U
SQ
In addition to the four axes, Portage

Bay Vista has emerged as a strong view
corridor to the southwest, as part of a
Property Use and Development Agreement
(PUDA) that allowed the vacation of 15th
Avenue south of Pacific Street.
LIB
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 21. Rainier Vista
L WA
Y
AD
Unique and Significant Landscapes
Figure 23
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. Significant landscapes
identified on the accompanying graphic
are planned to be preserved as part of the
Campus Master Plan.
Pedestrian Paths/Plazas
Significant Open Spaces
Burke-Gilman Trail
45
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
LI
B
ER
AL
AR
TS
PARRINGTON
LAWN
GREIG GARDEN
UNION BAY
NATURAL AREA
RA
INI
In a recent survey conducted as part of the

Campus Landscape Framework, student,
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 and appreciation of
campus landscapes. The waterfront and
Union Bay Natural Area were also identified as
favorite open spaces.
ER
VI S
TA
PARRINGTON
LAWN
Figure 24. Favorite Open Spaces (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework )
Existing Primary
Open Spaces
Figure 25
15th Ave NE
PARRINGTON
LAWN
N
DE
Y
N
EN D
D IEL
F
MEMORIAL WAY
NE 45th St
NE 41st St
NE CAMPUS PARKWAY
R
YA
TS
AR
L
R A AD
BE QU
LI
UNION BAY
NATURAL AREA
HUB
LAWN
RED
SQUARE
lake B
lvd N
E
GRIEG
GARDEN
ST
A
VI
BA
Y
RT
AG
E
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
SY
M o nt
LV
AN
A
IS T
BA
YP
AR
I CI
HE NAL
GA R R B
DEN
TH
EA
TE
R
PO
ive
Un
MED
NE
V
ER
RT
AG
E
IN I
PO
RA
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
ER
ELL
MH
N
DRU UNTAI
FO
Red Square
Primary Open Space
Burke-Gilman Trail
CONTINUOUS WATERFRONT TRAIL
47
Figure 26. Cherry blossoms in the Liberal Arts Quad
Figure 27. Sylvan Theater
Figure 28. 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. The wetlands, meadows,
and recreation fields characterize the
East Campus, while courtyards and urban
frontages differentiate the West Campus.
Campus greens and woodland groves define
the Central Campus, while the waterfront
distinguishes the South Campus.
Figure 29. 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
Figure 30.(Source: 2015 Campus

Landscape Framework)
Woodland Grove
NE 45th St
15th Ave NE
Threshold
Memorial Way
Interstitial / Buffer
Space
Passage
Urban Frontage
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
M o nt
dg
lake B
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
St
en
ev
ay
sW
49
Figure 31. Entrance at NE 45th Street
Figure 32. Retaining wall edge condition along 15th Avenue NE
EDGE CONDITIONS
In many ways, the campus environment is
shaped by a number of linear elements. The
campus core is situated within Stevens Way,
while the Burke-Gilman Trail encompasses the
campus as a whole and helps connect the
four campus sectors. The campus continuous
waterfront edge is perhaps one of the most
defining and unique campus features. Within
this setting, UW hopes to create more
welcoming and permeable edges to campus.
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.
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.
Existing Edge
Conditions
Figure 33
NE 45th St
en
ev
St
15th Ave NE
KINCAID
RAVINE
ay
sW
ilm a
n Tr
ail
lake B
keG
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
M o nt
B ur
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
Major Road
ive
Un
Pedestrian Overpass
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
Viaduct
Stevens Way
Burke-Gilman Trail
Retaining Wall
Building Edge
Steep Slope
Waterfront
Surface Parking Lots
51
MOVEMENT TO AND FROM

CAMPUS
The University of Washington has an extremely
desirable mode splita 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 recent and proposed light rail
will further modify the mode split. The mode
split is discussed in greater detail in the TMP
section of the Campus Master Plan.
NE 42ND
N
PE
NE 41ST
RE
LE
IL
CAMPUS PARKWAY
RA
INI
ER
VI S
TA
The mode split aligns with the findings from

the campus wide survey in which individuals
were asked to identify key campus gateways,
or locations at which individuals enter the
campus. The intersection of 15th Avenue
NE and Campus Parkway emerged as the
primary gateway to campus, which aligns
with Campus Parkways identity as the current
transit hub. Additional gateways are located
along 15th Avenue NE further reinforcing the
desire to better integrate the entrances to
campus with the surrounding urban context,
and at Memorial Way. Far fewer gateways
were identified along the eastern edge of
campus reinforcing the need to improve
connections between Central and East
Campuses.
NE 43RD
MEMORIAL WAY
CIRCULATION AND
PARKING FRAMEWORK
UW
STATION
Figure 34. Campus Gateways (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)
CAR POOL/
VAN POOL
6%
OTHER
1%
Mode Split To and From Campus (2014)
Figure 35
BICYCLE
9%
TRANSIT
41%
DRIVE ALONE
20%
WALKING
22%
53
CAMPUS PARKWAY
Q
AR
TS
RED SQUARE
RA
Pedestrian circulation routes on campus

have been identified and categorized as
major, minor, and connector routes. Major
and minor routes represent key, heavily used
corridors that are important for campus-wide
circulation such as the Quad, Rainier Vista
and Memorial Way axes as well as Grant Lane,
Stevens Way and the Burke-Gilman Trail. In
general, pedestrian movement is concentrated
within the core campus, and comes to a
crossroads at Red Square.
INI
ER
VI S
TA
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
campus.
AL
LI
B
ER
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 Campus Master Plan.
The many and varied pedestrian paths
within the campus provide a variety of
experiences including the functional, day-today movements of large student populations
between classes as well as more passive or
leisure-related uses.
U
AD
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Figure 36. Walking Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape
Framework)
Existing Pedestrian
Circulation
Figure 37
en
ev
St
15th Ave NE
Memorial Way
NE 45th St
ay
sW
NE 41st St
D
UA
NE Campus Pkwy
an
an e
lvd N
E
ilm
Tra
il
lake B
keG
RED SQUARE
nt L
NE
cS
t
ER
ifi
INI
Pa
c
RA
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
M o nt
B ur
G ra
VI S
TA
Major Route
Minor Route
Connector Route
55
Figure 38. Fully accessible route through Parrington Lawn
Figure 39. ADA ramp to the Husky Union Building (HUB)
UNIVERSAL ACCESS
UW is committed to providing equal access
to all individuals, and addresses American
Disability Association (ADA) accessibility
standards through a campus-wide,
programmatic approach. This means that
UW removes barriers through both physical
improvements as well as programmatic
improvements such as Dial-a-Ride shuttle
service. Existing considerations include:
Physical barriers on campus include paths

that dont 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.
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 will identify accessibility
barriers in detail, 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 as well.
Existing Accessibility
Network
Figure 40
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
NE 41st St
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
M o nt
lake B
lvd N
E
RED SQUARE
NE
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
57
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. UW has encouraged bicycle travel
through a variety of methods including, the
provision of short-term and long-term secured
bicycle parking.
The Burke-Gilman Trail, which is owned by

UW within the MIO is a key mobility asset.
Recent bicycle investments by the City of

Seattle are primarily concentrated in the
West Campus and include protected bike
lanes which provide bicyclists with a facility
separated from adjacent traffic.
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 UWs desire for a pedestrian

oriented campus, bicyclists also use
pedestrian pathways with a dismount
zone enforced in the core of campus
during peak periods.
ST
EV
BU
RK
EG
ILM
AN
TR
A
EN
W
AY
IL
Figure 41. Routes Commonly Used by Bikes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape
Framework)
Existing Bike Network
Figure 42
en
ev
St
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
ay
sW
lm
an
Tr
a
lake B
Gi
il
M o nt
rk
e-
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
Bu
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
NE
Paved Shared Trail

Arboretum Bypass Route
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
Open Space Connector (key

connection used by pedestrians
and cyclists)
Protected Bike Lane
Unprotected Bike Lane
City of Seattle Greenway
Designation
Shared Marked Lane
Bike Walk Zone (Dismount Zone)
59
Figure 43. University of Washington Light Rail Station
Figure 44. King County Metro Transit
TRANSIT AND SHUTTLE

NETWORK
As the Universitys 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 UW operates a multi-route shuttle

network between the UW Medical Center,
UW Tower, UWMC Roosevelt Clinics, South
Lake Union and Harborview Medical
Center for faculty, staff and students.
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.
The University of Washington Sound Transit

Station (regional light rail) emphasizes the
southeast portion of campus as an entry
to campus. In 2021, the University District
Station will come online, and will further
enhance transit service.
Existing Transit and

Shuttle Network
Figure 45
en
ev
St
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
s
ay
W
Un
ive
rsi
ty
M o nt
B ri
dg
lake B
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
Light Rail (2016)

Light Rail (2021)
NE
Pa
c
ifi
Bus Layover
cS
t
UW Shuttle Route
UW Shuttle Stop
Bus Route
Bus Stop
10 Min Walkshed
5 Min Walkshed
61
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 UW goals of developing the campus as
a pedestrian-oriented environment.
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.
Figure 46. Vehicular Routes (Source: MyPlaces Survey, 2015 Campus Landscape Framework)
Existing Vehicular
Network
NE 50th St
Figure 47
Rd
ill e
M o nt
lake B
NE 41st St
t Lan
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
G ra n
Walla
Walla
Rd
lvd N
E
Pen
d
ay
W
O re
Memorial Way
en
ev
St
Interstate 5
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
Interstate
Principal Arterial
NE
Minor Arterial
Co
lu
Collector Arterial
bi
Rd
Access Street
University Road
63
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. 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.
Existing Service
Routes & Loading
Figure 50
en
ev
St
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
s
lake B
M o nt
Walla
Walla
Rd
lvd N
E
ay
W
NE 41st St
B ri
dg
5+ General Loading Zone Stalls
ive
rsi
ty
2+ General Loading Zone Stalls
Un
General Loading Zone Stall

5+ Special Use Loading Zone Stalls
NE
Pa
c
ifi
2+ Special Use Loading Zone Stalls

cS
t
Special Use Loading Zone Stall

UW Service Route
NE
Co
Service Access Road

lu
bi
WSDOT Owned Road

Rd
65
Figure 51. UW-owned street at NE Stevens Way in Central Campus
Figure 52. City-owned street at NE 40th Street
STREET OWNERSHIP
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.
In the West Campus, most streets are

owned by the City, with several UW-owned
streets in the vicinity of the W10 parking
lot.
The Burke-Gilman Trail is also owned by the

UW within the MIO.
Existing Street
Ownerships
Figure 53
NE 45th St
Ma
Ga
15th Ave NE
ry
te s
Me
mo
en
ev
St
ri a
lD
ay
W
lake B
M o nt
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
Walla
Walla
Rd
lvd N
E
e
ri v
NE 41st St
Bo
at
St
r
ee
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
UW Owned Road
NE
Co
UW Owned Service Road

lu
bi
Rd
UW Owned Segment of
Burke-Gilman Trail
WSDOT Owned Road
City of Seattle-owned
Right-of-Way
67
Table 4. Existing Parking Lots within Parking Spaces Cap, 2016
Figure 54. Birds eye view of the E1 and E18 parking lots
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 the 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 UWs key parking resources are
aging, resulting in ongoing and increasing
maintenance costs.
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 count: cycle, loading spaces, UWvehicles,
physical plant, shuttles, UCAR, miscellaneous
restricted, spaces associated with residence
halls, and all parking lots outside the MIO.
PARKING LOT
# OF
SPACES
N01
213
E3
23
N02
19
E4
128
PARKING LOT
# OF
SPACES
N03
E6
14
N05
170
E8
132
N12
47
E8R
N16
118
E9
62
N18
252
E12
822
N20
151
E14 (GDR)
54
107
N21
131
E16
N22
33
E17
33
N24
56
E18
1,584
259
N25
36
E19
N26
E97 (GR AVES)
15
N28
201
E98 (IMA)
18
C01
157
W10
90
C02
93
W11
15
C03
176
W12
90
C04
145
W13
C05
181
PORTAGE BAY GAR AGE
895
C06
201
W24
28
C07
11
W27 (UTC)
30
C08
13
W28(GR AVEL)
41
C09
W35
78
C10
51
W40 TOTAL
34
37
C12
56
W41
C14
16
W42
C15
23
W43 (BEN HALL UPPER)
22
C17
28
W44 (BEN HALL LOWER)
39
C19
28
PARRINGTON
C20 (TRIANGLE UPPER)

C21 (TRIANGLE
LOWER)
C23
218
FRONTAGE ROAD (S99)
285
SPOKANE LN. (SAVERY)
SURGERY PAVILLION
281
S1
805
FISHERIES DOCK
S5
STADIUM GAR AGE
199
S6
11
CHELAN LN. (R AITT)
S7
SKAGIT LN. (MUSIC)
S8
24
MARINA 1 (1409 NE BOAT

ST)
52
S9
MARINA 2 (3537 12TH

AVE NE)
67
S12
20
TOTAL
10,667
E1
1,312
PARKING CAP
12,300
E2
80
UNDER CAP
1,633
H14
Existing Parking Lot

Typologies
Figure 55
BOWMAN
BLDG
N28
NE 45th St
15th Ave NE
N1
N5
H12
N25
N2
N9,10,11
N3
ROOSEVELT
CLINIC 1
CH
W20,21,22,23
EL
AN
SK
W40
W42
W10
W39
W11
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
W32,33
W36
W12
W13
N22
N24
C23
C17
C14
C7
NE
W28
W24
Pa
c
E6
cS
t
E9
C10
C12
E9
S99
C20,21
Underground Parking
S8
E19
S8
S9
SURGERY
PAVILLION
Surface Parking Lot - Spaces Do

Not Contribute to the Parking Cap
E19
S1
E12
Surface Parking Lot

Structured Parking
E17
S5
S12
S7
E16
E8R
E97
C12
C10 C10
S6
E16
E8
C12
ifi
E16
E18
E98
C15
C7
PBG
W27
E29
C19 N24
W29
W35
E14
N16,18,20,21
C9
C8
E1
M o nt
W40
.
LN
C1-6
W8
W43,44
AG
IT
H12
E4
N13,14,15
NE 41st St
W41
N12
N6
.
LN
E3
lvd N
E
ROOSEVELT
CLINIC 2
E2
lake B
W51 W46
W52 W45
4541 UNION
BAY PL
N26
STADIUM
GARAGE
E19
E12
E19
Structured Parking - Spaces Do

Underground Parking - Spaces Do
69
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 allowable 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 Campus Master Plan. These sites were
subsequently reviewed and updated over
several work sessions, and resulted in the final
set of development sites documented in the
preferred 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 the West Campus, the South
Campus, and the 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 plan vary from those in the previous
studies.
For 2018 Campus Master Plan

development sites see page 119.
Development Sites from

2003 Campus Master
Plan and Recent
Planning
Figure 56
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
M o nt
lake B
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
Remaining 2003 Campus

Master Plan Development
Sites
Development Sites from
Recent Planning
71
Figure 57. Birds Eye Views of Campus looking west

(above) and Figure 58. (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 the South Campus.
The Shoreline District Overlay limits building
heights 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.
Allowable heights of 2003 CMP zones are
identified on the following page.
Figure 59. Birds Eye View of Campus looking west
2003 Campus Master

Plan Allowable
50
Building Heights
Figure 60
50
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
65
NE 41st St
37
105
lvd N
E
105
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
M o nt
lake B
65
50
160
NE
Un
ive
80
160
65
200 Shoreline District Overlay 30 ft

200 Wetland Buffer
Pa
c
ifi
37
cS
t
107
105
65
MIO 37
105
MIO 50
MIO 65
MIO 80
160
240
MIO 105
MIO 107
MIO 160
MIO 240
73
335
Figure 61. Ocean Teaching Building in South Campus, 35
Figure 62. Maple, Lander, and Alder Halls, 75
70
80
105
75
65
80
65
50
65
Figure 64. William H. Gates Hall in Central Campus, 100
fic
e
Str
et
Uni v
e r sit
y B ri
dge
Figure 63. Husky Stadium in East Campus, 160
i
Pac
70
50
35
Existing Building Heights
Figure 65
10
40
75
70
65
15
30
90
35
60
100
75
50
60
60
100
60
62
40
45
30
60
80
75
75
25
55
25
25
20
25 15
50
15
30
35
15
15
65
50
65
80
60
70
45
35
50
15
60
35
80
35
30
30
60
160
55 20
100
50
50
40
105
70
90
30
30
45
100
85
140
80
25
60
45
50
25
65
50
50
50
120
40
80
80
15
30
45
105
70
10
120
105
75
30
80
60
73
10
60
100
30
24
40
15
50
60
200
75
70
60
50
90
35
25
35
25
25
65
65
15
15
Existing Building
75
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 the West Campus. Older buildings
surround the Health Sciences complex,
facilities buildings on Central Campus, and
throughout the North Campus housing.
Buildings are mapped on a deferred

maintenance-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 the Guthrie Annexes and
Sieg Hall, also need to be addressed.
77
2018 SEATTLE
CAMPUS
MASTER PLAN
VISION
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
PUBLIC REALM
CIRCULATION & PARKING
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
SUSTAINABILITY
INNOVATION
UTILITY
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
79
LONG-TERM VISION AND THE 2018

SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
LONG-TERM VISION INFORMS 10-YEAR
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
10-Year Conceptual Plan - Illustrative Plan
This Campus Master Plan accomplishes two objectives. It

establishes a bold, long-term vision for full campus buildout, and it guides development that will occur over its 10year planning horizon, as required by the 1998 City University
Agreement.
The Campus Master Plan identifies 12.9 million net new gross
square feet of development that would constitute the full
build-out of campus. It also identifies the growth allowance
that the University is planning to develop over the 10-year
planning horizon. The growth allowance is 6 million net new
gross square feet. The Campus Master Plan will remain in
effect until the growth allowance is used up. The Campus
Master Plan identifies potential development sites that could:
Accommodate the growth allowance and provide room

for continuous increases 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 Campus Master Plan creates a progressive and

sustainable framework that will enable UWs continued
evolution as a 21st century institution. The Campus Master
Plan balances the preservation of historic campus assets
with increased density; and integrates the Universitys
strategic goals and academic, research, and service
missions with capital plan objectives to guide the physical
development of the campus.
Figure 69. Potential Build-out Under the Campus Master Plan, Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
Table 5. Development Capacity & Permitted Development

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

DEVELOPMENT (GROSS
SQUARE FEET)
MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT LIMIT
(% OF TOTAL)
CENTRAL
2,061,955
900,000
15%
WEST
3,247,199
3,000,000
50%
SOUTH
2,933,735
1,350,000
23%
EAST
4,708,855
750,000
12%
TOTAL
12,951,774
6,000,000
100%
80 2018 Seat tle Campus Master Plan - October 2016 Draf t Plan
Long-Term Vision,
Campus at Full Build-out
Figure 70. Graphics are for

Illustrative Purposes Only
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
M o nt
dg
lake B
lvd N
E
NE 41st St
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
Potential Building
Existing Building
2018 Seat tle Campus Master Plan - October 2016 Draf t Plan
81
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Campus Master Plan serves as a longterm 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 Washingtons
education, research, and service missions.
new pedagogies, evolving technology, and

increasingly scarce resources in a flexible
manner. The Plan should reinforce strategic
decision-making in a manner that is responsive
to its mission, potential growth, and benefits
to the community. Identifying multiple
development sitesmore than what is needed
for the growth allowancethroughout each of
the four campus sectors provides the University
with flexibility in responding to changing needs.
In the absence of a definitive future, the Plan

needs to respond to changing conditions,
5. Stewardship of Historic and Cultural

Resources
Figure 71. Flexible Framework

Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
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 Campus Master Plan should embrace

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
by complementing 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 Campus Master Plan 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 72. Partnerships

83
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Extend UWs commitment to sustainable
land use to maximize the utilization of its
existing property and balance development
with public space.
The University is at the national forefront of

campus sustainability related to tracking,
education, and campus outreach. The Campus
Master Plan supports existing sustainability
efforts and extends those efforts to future
development. By increasing density in sectors
like the West Campus, the University can

maximize the amount of land allocated
for public benefit and minimize distributed
development outside of university-owned land.
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
3.7 MILLION SF
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
3.7 MILLION SF
OPEN SPACE
2.0 ACRES
OPEN SPACE
7.0 ACRES
Figure 73. Sustainable Development
CONNECTIVITY
Extend UWs commitment to better connect
the University internally and with its broader
context.
The Campus Master Plan embraces UWs

urban identity, seamlessly integrating it with
its surrounding community. The Campus
Master Plan establishes strong synergies
between UW and its neighboring communities
by creating an extensive and accessible
public realm with multiple connections to
the waterfront, introducing significant new
outdoor spaces, integrating the Citys 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 74. Connectivity

85
STEWARDSHIP OF HISTORIC
AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Continue responsible and proactive
stewardship of UWs campus assets through
preservation of its historic and cultural
resources and managed strategy of property
development.
UW strives to be a good steward of its

historic, natural, economic, cultural and built
resources. The Campus Master Plan positions
the campus as a living lab for research and
learning by adopting a holistic systemsthinking approach to sustainability, structured
around five themes - ecological systems,
mobility, engagement, built environment, and
economic development. The Campus Master

Plan 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.
Registered State and Federal Historic Building

At least 50 years old (not registered)
Turning 50 by 2021
Turning 50 by 2031
Figure 75. Historic and Cultural Resources,

Existing Conditions
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 5: Campus Sectors. The Planning
Framework includes the following:
Public Realm Framework
Circulation and Parking Framework
Built Environment Framework
Sustainability Framework
Innovation Framework
Utility Framework
Transportation Management Plan
87
PUBLIC REALM
FRAMEWORK
CONCEPTUAL STRATEGIES
The Campus Master Plan preserves and builds upon the
campus existing four radial axesRainier 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 armature
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. Open space improvements are planned as part of
the Universitys long-term vision, to be constructed as funding
and the budget process allows.
Brooklyn Avenue NE (a green street by City designation)

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.
A new land bridge links Central and East Campuses.
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 79).
Active uses create a comprehensive and dynamic campus

environment. (See Figure 80 - dashed lines represent active
building edges). Please reference Active Street Level Uses
and Transparency in the Development Standards on page
236.
Figure 76. Major Organizational Axes
Figure 79. Illustrative Plan for Future Connected Campus
Figure 77. Existing Primary Open Spaces
Figure 78. Identified Areas for Future Open Space Additions
Figure 80. Active Public Realm
Figure 81. Integrated with Broader Neighborhood
89
Figure 82. Existing primary open space, Liberal Arts Quad
Figure 83. Existing primary open space, Rainier Vista (Credit: Loyd Heath Photography)
OPEN SPACES AND LANDSCAPE

FEATURES
The Campus Master Plan identifies a number
of publicly accessible, significant open spaces.
The Campus Master Plan supplements existing
historic and culturally significant open spaces,
primarily located on Central Campus with a
range of new civic-scaled open spaces in West,
South and East Campus.
New primary open spaces connect the campus
sectors together into a continuous landscape
network, establish a strong sense of place, and
reinforce the proposed organizational axes.
West Campus Green and Plaza

The primary open spaces additions include:
West Campus Green
South Campus Green
East Campus Land Bridge
Continuous Waterfront Trail
North Campus Housing landscape
These spaces form key structuring elements

for campus development and should be
preserved, protected, intentionally developed,
and surrounded by active uses.
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:
Establishes an urban and green public

realm character in the West Campus,
which was missing.
Ties into the Citys Portage Bay Park, and

would benefit from the vacation of Boat
Street. Collectively, they would account for
7-acres of open space.
Provides needed outdoor relief from the

added density throughout the West
Campus.
Retains and integrates outdoor space that

provides a sense of privacy for the Fishery
Sciences.
Potential Primary
Open Spaces
Figure 84. Graphics are for Illustrative

Purposes Only
MEMORIAL WAY
N
DE
NE 41st St
NE CAMPUS PARKWAY
N
W ER
TO T
EN
C
Y
N
EN ELD
FI
PARRINGTON
LAWN
15th Ave NE
NE 45th St
R
YA
TS
AR
L
R A AD
BE QU
LI
HUB
YARD
E A ST C A
M PU S L
AND B R
IDGE
ST
A
VI
BA
Y
ifi
RT
AG
E
cS
t
Existing Primary Open Space

RE
EN
Woodland
PU
SG
Open Space Connection
CA
Burke-Gilman Trail
UT
Union Bay Natural Area
SO
ive
Un
Pa
c
PO
NE
A
IS T
BA
YP
AR
V
ER
RT
AG
E
WEST
CAMPUS
GREEN
IN I
PO
RA
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
M o nt
lake B
lvd N
E
RED
SQUARE
UNION BAY
NATURAL AREA
Waterfront Access/View
CONTINUOUS WATERFRONT TRAIL
91
Provides an origin for the continuous

waterfront trail.
Enhances access and the features along

the waterfront including Agua Verde and
Sakuma viewpoint.
Reroutes bicycle traffic off the BurkeGilman Trail down 11th Avenue along NE
Pacific Street and connects back at the
corner of 15th Avenue to ensure safer
Burke-Gilman Trail connections.
-G
ilm
an
Tra
i
PLAZA
0.4 ACRES
The Ave
Includes a stepped terrace to the north of

Pacific Street that ties into both the BurkeGilman Trail and the mid-block connector
back to Central Campus, affording
sweeping views of Portage Bay.
rke
12th Ave NE
Bu
Brooklyn Ave NE
Activates the area with ground floor

retail in two new pavilions to create a
destination open space that is expressive
of the Universitys activities and welcomes
the larger community.
11th Ave NE
NE Pacific St
Fishery Sciences
75
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN
4.16 ACRES
Portage Bay
Parking Garage
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.
PO
Figure 85. Existing West Campus Conditions
RTA
G
2.4 E BAY
4A
CR PARK
ES
Figure 86. West Campus Green, Plaza, and Portage Bay Park.
Potential Building
Existing Building
Existing Uses Relocated
Open Space Comparisons
87. Lake
Union
Park
- 10.0
acres
Lake
LakeFigure
Union
Union
Park
Park
Park
10.0
10.0
acres
Lake
Union
acres
10.0
acres
Lake
Lake Union
Union
Lake Union
Park
ParkPark
10.0
10.0 acres
acres
10.0 acres
Figure 90. Olympic Sculpture Park 11.0 acres
Figure
88. Red
Square
3.2 acres
Red
Red
Square
Square
3.2
3.2-acres
acres
Red
Square
3.2 acres
Red
Red Square
Square
Red Square
3.2
3.2 acres
acres
3.2 acres
Figure 91. Gas Works Park 20.0 acres
Olympic
Olympic
Sculpture
Sculpture
Park
Park Park
11.0
11.0acres
Gas Works
Works
Park
Park Park
20.0
20.0 acres
Olympic
Sculpture
acres
11.0 acres Gas
Gas Works
acres
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 89. Parrington

Lawn
-7.8
7.8 acres
Parrington
Parrington
Lawn
Lawn
7.8
acres
acres
Parrington
Lawn
7.8 acres
Parrington
Parrington
Parrington
Lawn
Lawn
Lawn
7.8
7.8 acres
acres
7.8 acres
Figure 92. West Campus Green and
Proposed
Proposed
Waterfront
Waterfront
Park
Park
Park
7.0
7.0 acres
acres
Waterfront
7.0 acres
Portage Proposed
Bay Park
(including
Pacific
Street
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Waterfront
Waterfront
Waterfront
Park
Park
Park
7.0
7.0
acres
acres
7.0 acres
and Vacated Boat Street) 7.0 acres
93
PORTAGE BAY
PARK
Vac
a
te d
Boa
t St
re e t
Figure 93. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only
enue
Brooklyn Av
PLAZA
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN
SAKUM
A VIEW
POINT
95
South Campus Green

NE
in
ifi
cS
t
lu
bi
To enhance connections between the Central

and East Campus, the Campus Master Plan
introduces a land bridge that replaces 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 bridge is envisioned
as a pedestrian pathway with active ground
floor uses on adjacent development.
UT
H
1 A CA
CR M P
E US
Co
Rd
PE
in
SO
HW
GR
EE
KW
Pa
c
UP
South Campus currently presents several

physical barriers between the waterfront and
Central Campus. The Campus Master Plan
enhances the existing pedestrian bridge and
overall connectivity between South Campus
and Central Campus over NE Pacific Street as
part of the redevelopment strategy for the
sector and also provides universal access to
the waterfront. 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.
SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN

2.9 ACRES
Figure 94. South Campus Existing Condition
Figure 95. South Campus Green

Potential Building
Existing Building
Primary Open Space
E
Way
N
lvd N
E
lake B
M o nt
M aso
n Rd N
E St
even
s
Rd
Walla
Walla
E A ST C A
NE
M PU S L
AND
3 ACRES BRIDGE
Hall Health
Fluke Hall
UW Club
NE W
ahkia
HUB
Figure 96. East Campus Land Bridge

ku m
Rd
Potential Building
Existing Building
Primary Open Space
97
Multi-use Open Space
Marina
Waterfront Access
Natural Habitat
Pedestrian Path
Gr
Public Dock
lyn
Wetland
ok
Restaurant/Cafe
Bro
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 Land Bridge, and emphasizes
the Universitys 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,
encourage a diversity of waterfront uses and
cultural attractions and preserve natural
resources.
Viewpoint
Cultural Attraction
Research Center
Parking
Transit Station
Trail
n
a
m
l
e-Gi
Burk
S
UOU T TRAIL
N
I
T
CON RFRON
E
WAT
LAKE UNION
PORTAGE BAY
PORTAGE BAY
MONTLAKE CUT
Figure 97. South Campus Existing Condition
Shoreline
Habitat
Proposed Shoreline Amenities

Center for Urban

Horticulture
Union Bay
Natural Area
Husky Soccer
East Campus Land
Bridge
Husky Baseball
n
ree
e et
Str
ta
Husky Stadium
Softball
Waterfront
Activity Center
Portage Bay Con
Bay Vis
S
Portag
e
M PU
T CA N
S
E
W
E
GRE
nection
tio
Union Bay Connec
Conibear
Shellhouse
Montlake Cut
SOUTH CAMPUS
GREEN
Portage Sakuma Agua

Bay Park Viewpoint Verde
Jensen
Marine Science
Motor
Experimentation
Boat
Company and Research
Montlake
Bridge
Health and
Science
Center Park
Hospital
Glade
99
North Campus Housing Landscape

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.
NE 45th Street
Hansee Hall
KINCAID
RAVINE
McCarty Hall
ad
ro
na
DENNY FIELD
ill
ow
TOWN SQUARE
H
ut
ch
in
so
n
FOREST
AMPHITHEATER
ak
LEWIS GROVE
Haggett
Lewis
Art
Figure 99. North Campus Housing Area Existing Condition
Figure 100. North Campus Housing Precinct

Potential Building
Existing Building
Primary Open Space
ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS
The following additional potential landscape
improvements are identified in the 2015
Campus Landscape Framework.
RED SQUARE UNIVERSAL ACCESS
CONNECTIONS
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, make it an unappealing route for
bicyclists so long as there is two-way vehicular
traffic along its length. Stevens Way should be
considered for potential bike improvements.
OLYMPIC VISTA /CAMPUS PARKWAY

IMPROVEMENTS
Olympic Vista provides some visual connection

between the Central and West Campus
neighborhoods, but all types of pedestrian
connections, including pedestrian, accessible,
bicycle, and automobile, are difficult to
navigate.
43RD STREET ENTR ANCE
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 will be magnified by the light rail
transit station in 2021.
R AINIER VISTA
Improvements to the southern end of Rainier

Vista \ transformed a formerly underutilized
part of campus into a grand entrance with
the opening of the Sound Transit Link light
rail station in early 2016. The improvements
implemented a significant portion of the 2008
Rainier Vista Concept Plan, which re-conceived
the vista for contemporary use by unifying its
disparate parts, strengthening the view of the
mountain and connections to and from the
regional transit station, Husky Stadium, I-520,
and the UW Medical Center.
THE QUAD
The 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.
DENNY YARD, PARRINGTON L AWN, 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 restored, but a comprehensive overhaul
of these three major 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 should 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.
101
Northlake Reach
Neighborhood Reach
(Completed)
Garden Reach
Pend Oreille Entrance
Campus Reach
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.
Forest Reach
Figure 101. Concept Plan for the Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements. Reaches are areas with distinct characters.
Burke-Gilman Trail Improvements

The University of Washington completed the
first phase of planned improvements to the
Burke-Gilman Trail in 2016.
The plan is organized into five distinct
segments. The neighborhood reach was
completed in 2016, with the remaining
segments to be completed as funding
becomes available. The neighborhood reach
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.
Figure 102. Neighborhood Reach Improvements Plan
103
CIRCULATION AND
PARKING FRAMEWORK
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Consistent with UWs goal of developing
a pedestrian-oriented campus, the
Campus Master Plan identifies a number of
interventions that will enrich the pedestrian
quality of the campus environment and reduce
pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. The University
will 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 concentrated and
enhanced in the following locations:
Mid-block connection south of Gould Hall
Pedestrian circulation adjacent to the West

Campus Green
Along key north-south streets in the West

Campus including 11th Avenue and 12th
Avenue. These are shared streets that
prioritize pedestrian and bike movement,
and limit vehicular access to emergency
and service vehicles
Between Central Campus and the

waterfront via the South Campus Green
North of the proposed Computer

Science and Engineering II Building along
Snohomish Lane between Stevens Way and
the Hec Edmundson pedestrian bridge
Along the proposed East Campus Land

Bridge
Between the Golf Driving Range area and

the IMA in East Campus
Between Denny Yard and North Campus

Housings town square
Enhanced connection between Memorial

Way and 15th Avenue NE at 43rd Street
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
Mid-block connector that extends east

from the West Campus Green along
Skamania Lane
25th Ave NE
15th Ave NE
The Ave / University Way
Ch
el
an
W
ay
Memorial Way
12th Ave NE
11th Ave NE
NORTH CAMPUS
HOUSING
Sp
NE 41st St
E A ST C A
an
ok
e
Campus Pkwy
La
M PU S L
an T
ra i l
South of Gould
rs
Th u
to n
Lan
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN
an
ia
La
NE
ne
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
hom
M o nt
dg
B ri
Un
ive
rsi
ty
Sno
Sk
am
IDGE
lake B
ilm
keG
AND B R
lvd N
E
ne
B ur

NE 45th St
Brooklyn Ave
NE 43rd St
Proposed Pedestrian
Circulation
ish
Lan
Existing Primary Route

Potential Primary Route
Existing Secondary Route
Potential Secondary Route
SOUTH CAMPUS
GREEN
Existing Connector Route

Potential Connector Route
Continuous Wa
terfront Trail
105
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 context appropriate solutions such
as bike cages. Ongoing monitoring and
adjustment of short-term parking supply
to meet demand and improvements like
covered parking and lighting.
In the West Campus, Brooklyn Avenue

provides a continuous and direct
connection between the West Campus
Green, Burke-Gilman 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 will
be implemented as funding becomes
available.
Proposed Bike
Circulation
15th Ave NE

NE 45th St
NE 43rd St
en
ev
St
s
ay
W
Paved Trail
NE 41st St
Arboretum Bypass Connection

Existing Protected Bike Lane
NE 40th St
ilm
an T
ra i l
nt
Lan
lake B
keG
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN
M o nt
Brooklyn Avenue
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
B ur
lvd N
E
Potential Protected Bike Lane

G ra
Existing Unprotected Bike Lane

Potential Unprotected Bike Lane
Existing Greenway
Potential Greenway
Existing Shared Marked Lane
NE
Pa
c
ifi
Existing Open Space Connector

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

(Key connection used by
pedestrians and cyclist)
Improved Bicycle Use
Bike Walk Zone (when
pedestrians are present)
SOUTH CAMPUS
GREEN
Continuous Wa
terfront Trail
107
TRANSIT NETWORK
In 2016, while this 2018 Campus Master Plan
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 should 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 will
change over time as transit needs evolve.
Bus improvements along multiple corridors

should 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 should also be
explored.
15th Ave NE
University Way
12th Ave NE
11th Ave NE
Roosevelt Way
Proposed Transit
Network
NE 45th St
en
ev
St
s
ay
W
NE 41st St
rsi
ty
M o nt
B ri
dg
lake B
lvd N
E
Campus Pkwy
Bus layover
ive
Un
Light Rail Stop
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN
Existing UW Shuttle Route

NE
Pa
c
Existing UW Shuttle Stop

ifi
cS
t
Existing Bus Route

Existing Bus Stop
NE
Co
lu
10 Minute Light Rail Walkshed

m
bi
Rd
5 Minute Light Rail Walkshed
109
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 UW Right-of-Way
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 will be able to access buildings
from the north and south without crossing
the Burke-Gilman Trail.
CENTR AL CAMPUS
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.
Proposed Street and Aerial

Vacations
Three potential City of Seattle vacations have
been identified, including two street vacations
in the West Campus and one aerial vacation
between Central and East Campus.
WEST CAMPUS
The first potential street vacation is along

NE Northlake Place east of 8th Avenue NE
and includes the vacation of a dead-end
street, improving the layout of potential
development sites.
The second potential street vacation could

vary in scope and is along NE Boat Street
from approximately the Fisheries Science
Building to Brooklyn Ave NE. A full street
vacation would allow the Citys Portage
Bay Park to merge with the West Campus
Green and Plaza to the north, creating
a large continuous open space from the
water to NE Pacific Street.
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.
EAST CAMPUS
The third potential vacation is an aerial

vacation along Montlake Way, allowing
construction of an ADA accessible land
bridge over Montlake Boulevard, providing
a high-quality pedestrian connection
from Central Campus to a redeveloped E1
parking lot. This land bridge would replace
the current pedestrian bridge in the same
approximate location.
25th Ave NE
15th Ave NE
12th Ave NE
11th Ave NE
Roosevelt Way
8th Ave NE
Blakeley
Village
Proposed Vehicular
Circulation
NE 45th St
Laurel
Village
Memorial Way
en
ev
St
M o nt
NE
G ra
Lincoln Way
Cow
l i tz
nt
Lan
Walla
Walla
Rd
lake B
lvd N
E
ay
W
NE 41st St
Rd
Principal Arterial
Collector Arterial
ty
B ri
St
dg
at
Bo
Minor Arterial
Un
ive
rsi
NE
Local Road
Pa
c
NE
NE
Sa
Ju
an
ifi
Co
Rd
UW Owned Road
cS
t
lu
Potential UW Owned Road

Potential Road Removal
bi
Rd
Potential Shared Street

Street Vacation
Aerial Vacation
111
PARKING
The existing parking cap of 12,300 parking
spaces remains unchanged. All new parking
will remain within the 12,300 parking spaces
cap.
Parking supply needs to be calibrated with

demand. As development is planned, the
University will monitor the need for parking
replacement or additional stalls to meet
the demand throughout the four campus
sectors. The University will remain under
the parking cap, and will optimize the
utilization of parking facilities.
The accompanying map identifies possible
parking locations and access points.
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.
The accompanying table identifies the
total potential parking spaces and was
calculated using 350 gross square feet
per space with assumptions around the
number of levels (floors).
Table 6. Potential Parking Spaces

PARKING
ID
PARKING
SPACES IN
2016
# LEVELS
PL1
364
PL2
192
PL3
235
PL4
448
PL5
700
PL6
492
PL7
520
PL8
393
PL9
744
PL10
444
PL11
3,862
PL12
1,016
PL13
820
PL14
710
TOTAL
10,940
* Parking spaces were calculated at 350 gross square feet per space
** Parking spaces will be phased in over time
Potential Parking
Locations
NE 45th St
PL7
15th Ave NE
PL14
PL8
NE 41st St
PL1
PL6
PL10
PL13
lake B
PL4
lvd N
E
PL2
PL5
Un
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
M o nt
dg
PL3
PL9
NE
Pa
c
ifi
cS
t
PL11
Potential Parking Locations
Parking Access
PL12
113
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
FRAMEWORK
PROPOSED MASSING AND
BUILDING HEIGHTS
The 2018 Campus Master Plan includes 10
building height zones that range from 30 feet
along the waterfront to 240 feet in the West
and South Campuses. The Shoreline District
Overlay regulation limits building heights 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.
There are a variety of zoning types adjacent
to the University. The Citys summer
2016 University District draft upzoning
recommendations are included in Figure 108.
[Identified adjacent zoning will be updated
once the City of Seattle passes University
District zoning legislation.]
C1-40
LR1
SM-UD 85
LR3
NE 41st St
240
105
Un
ive
rsi
lake B
160
NE
37/30
M o nt
ty
B ri
dg
200
160/130
SF
37/30
lvd N
E
200
65
50
160
160/
130
SMUD
240
SMUD
85
NC2P-40
90/80
15th Ave NE
SM/R-UD
240
C2-65
65
SMUD
240
SM-UD 320
C2-40
C1-65
NE 45th St
MR

LR3
LR3
NC2-65
65
2018 Campus Master

Plan Allowable
Building Heights
65
MIO-37 conditioned to 30
MIO-50
MIO-65
Pa
c
ifi
105
cS
t
240
160/107
65
160
105
MIO-105
MIO-160
MIO-200
50
MIO-240
Shoreline Overlay 30 ft
115
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Potential Development Sites
Potential Development Capacity
The 2018 Campus Master Plan has identified

85 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 allowed building
envelope (see Figure 178 on page 235).
The tables on the following pages 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
illustrated building height, number of floors, the
recommended maximum allowable building
The recommended footprint of a potential
height limit, proposed general uses, associated
development site is based on several criteria
square footage and number of parking spaces
including but not limited to access to open
removed as part of the redevelopment of the
space, circulation, proximity to adjoining
site. The number of floors is based on an average
buildings, impact on the landscape,
14 foot floor-to-floor estimate. This floor-to-floor
opportunities for development on sites to
estimate 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
will remain the same, within the allowable height
existing buildings.
limit.
The Proposed Population Health building

The University will act upon and develop some
combination of the 85 sites listed on page 117
to page 123 until the net square footage growth
allowance is reached. (The impacts of a variety
of development alternatives were tested within
the EIS.)
In total, the Campus Master Plan identifies

roughly 18.0 million square feet of potential
new development.
This development potential would require
the demolition of roughly 5.1 million gross
square feet of space, generating a total net
new development figure of 12.9 million gross
square feet (18.0 - 5.1 = 12.9 net new gsf).
W32
W38
i
Pac
fic
St
W37
t
re e
dge
The Computer Science Engineering II building
W25
Based on the conceptual footprints, conceptual

massing, and building heights, the campus
may accommodate approximately 12.9 million
net new square feet of additional space in new
buildings on the 85 potential development sites.
y B ri
Sites related to North Campus Housing
W23
W26
Uni v
e r sit
Several projects and their square footage have

been accounted for within the 2003 Campus
Master Plan growth allowance:
W24
E80
C6
C5
C1
C4
E69
C7
E82
E84
E75
E73
E71
C8
E72
E70
E67 E68
E65
tl
C3
E81
E74
E76
C2

E83
E77
on
E66
E64
E63
vd
C10
Bl
C9
e
ak
N
E
Illustrative Plan at Full Build-out
E79
E78
n
i n g to
Parr n
w
a
L
E62
C11
C12
C13
W22
C19
W28
C18
W31
S39
W36
W33
Rai
n
C17
W29
W27
W34
E60
C15
C20
W30
E61
C14
W21
S40
S41
S42
Vis t
S43
S44
S47
S48
S46
W35
West Campus
Green
C16
ie r
S50
S51
S52
S53
South Campus
Green
E85
S45
S57
S49
E59
S58
S55
S54
S56
Potential Building
Existing Building
Primary Open Space
117
Grow th Allowance
Transfer of Development Capacity
Development Areas
The University may grow by six million net

new gross square feet over the next 10-years,
or the life of the Plan; this represents the
Universitys requested growth allowance. This
growth allowance will be distributed within the
identified 85 development sites.
If the maximum allowable net gross building

square footage on a site is not used on that
site, it can be moved to another site or sites
within that sector; height limits continue
to apply. The net gross square footage of
development may exceed the allocation for
any campus sector by up to 20 percent on
a cumulative basis over the life of this Plan
without a plan amendment. Development
that would cause the net gross square footage
for a sector to exceed the permitted gross
square feet development for that sector by
more than 20% on a cumulative basis over the
life of this Plan, may be approved as a minor
plan amendment.
A vibrant public realm is created incrementally

through many individual projects.
Development of a site not only refers to the
built structure, but also indicates responsibility
for the development of the landscape and
public realm on that site. Figure 110 shows
the general development area associated
with each identified development site for the
purposes of project design and planning. They
do not reflect parcel boundaries. Projects
budgets and plans should address all goals for
the entire development area.
The West Campus Green and Plaza in the UW

2016 10-year Capital Plan will be created coterminus with the development of the 3 million
net new gross square feet of development in
the West Campus.
The total net new gross square feet of
development permitted in this Campus Master
Plan is allocated to four campus sectors as
shown in the table below as the maximum
development permitted for each campus
sector.
In the case of larger open spaces identified

in green on Figure 110, such as the West
Campus Green and Plaza, South Campus
Green, and East Campus Land Bridge, the
University will establish goals and strategies
for unified designs that will be realized over
time as funding allows. Development projects
adjacent to planned major open spaces are
to be designed to set the stage strategically
for and not preclude the development of the
eventual open spaces.
Table 7. 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
NET NEW DEVELOPMENT

(GROSS SQUARE FEET) ON
ALL 2018 SITES
NET NEW MAXIMUM

DEVELOPMENT
(GROSS SQUARE FEET)
MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT LIMIT
(% OF TOTAL)
CENTR AL
3,225,000
1,163,045
2,061,955
900,000
15%
WEST
4,040,000
792,801
3,247,199
3,000,000
50%
SOUTH
5,710,000
2,776,265
2,933,735
1,350,000
23%
EAST
5,070,000
361,115
4,708,885
750,000
12%
TOTAL
18,045,000
5,093,226
12,951,774
6,000,000
100%
2018 Campus Master Plan

Development Areas
E78
E79

E77
E76
C1
E80
C2
E74
E73
C5
C3
Parrington
Lawn
W38
W25
W26
W32
W37
ua
d
C9
W31
W33
ND BRID
C20
C11
C12
W29
C19
E75
E81
E82
E70
E84
E66
GE
E64
E62
C18
C14
W36
W34
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN & PLAZAW35
MPUS LA
E65
E63
C13
E72
E67 E68
C10
EA ST CA
W28
W27
E69
C8
W22 W21
W30
E71
C7
Q
W24 W23
C6
C4
E83
C17
in
Ra
S39
S40
C15
ie r
S41
S51
S52
CA
S43
S44
S47
S45
S48
S57
S53
S49
S46
M SOU
PU T
S H
GR
EE S54
N
ta
S50
E60
C16
V is
S42
E61
Development Areas
Potential Future Major
Open Space, Not Part of
Development Area
S58
S56
S55
E85
E59
119
* 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, C6 and C15
Table 8. Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW GROSS

SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
GENER AL USES
C1
West of Memorial Way / N1 Parking
170,000
68,916
101,084
105
213
520
Academic
C2
East of Memorial Way / N5 Parking
160,000
160,000
105
175
Academic
C3
Mackenzie Replacement / N3 Parking

Lot
150,000
106,901
105
19
Academic
C4
Intellectual House Phase 2
5,000
5,000
105
Academic
C5
NC Housing 1 (Building A)
105,000
105,000**
105
Academic
C6
NC Housing 2 (Building E) / Haggett

Hall / N9, 10, 11 Parking
270,000
206,114
63,886**
160
148
C7
McMahon Hall Site / N13, 14, 15

Parking Lots
400,000
288,352
111,648
11
160
177
393
Academic
C8
Padelford Garage North Site / N16,

18, 20, 21
245,000
138,555
106,445
105
647
248*
Academic
C9
Padelford Hall South Site
155,000
155,000
105
248*
Academic
C10
Padelford Garage South Site
145,000
145,000
105
248*
Academic
C11
Facility Admin Bldg / University

Facilities Bldg and Annex 1
90,000
20,125
69,875
105
222*
Academic
C12
Plant Op Annexes 2-6 / University

Facilities Annex 2 / C23 Parking
115,000
18,860
96,140
105
222*
Academic
C13
Sieg Hall Replacement
130,000
57,180
72,820
105
C14
Mechanical Eng / Eng Annex / C15

Parking Lot
225,000
125,896
99,104
105
C15
CSE II Building / More Annex / Plant

Op Annex 7
140,000
10,676
129,324**
65
Academic
C16
Wilcox / Wilson Ceramics Lab Site /

Wilson Annex
60,000
50,328
9,672
65
Academic
C17
Benson Hall / C7 Parking Lot
230,000
76,271
153,729
105
C18
Chem Library Site
95,000
39,363
55,637
105
Academic
C19
Guthrie Annexes 1, 2 and 3
300,000
19,310
280,690
105
Academic
C20
South of Henry Art Gallery
35,000
35,000
105
Academic
TOTAL - CENTRAL***
3,225,000
43,099
1,163,045
2,061,955
19
Academic
Academic
31
Academic
20
1,449
Academic
2,101
Table 9. West Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW GROSS

SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
W21
Schmitz Hall Site
360,000
99,691
260,309
17
240
W22
Staff / HR Building Site
40,000
10,831
29,169
240
W23
Condon Hall Site
390,000
132,533
257,467
17
240
W24
W41 Parking Lot Site
170,000
170,000
17
240
35
W25
W42 Parking Lot / Henderson Hall

Site
250,000
143,660
15
240
10
W26
W10 Parking Lot
390,000
390,000
17
240
81
224*
Academic
W27
Child Care / Brooklyn Trail /SW

Maintenance / W11 Parking Lot
305,000
23,497
281,503
17
240
13
224*
Academic
W28
CDC / Ethnic Cultural Center

Theater Site
410,000
32,999
377,001
17
240
246*
Academic
W29
Purchasing Accounting / W12, 13

Parking Lots
305,000
39,576
265,424
14
200
246*
Academic
W30
West of Commodore Duchess Site
40,000
40,000
240
W31
Stevens Court East (A, B, C, H) /

W29 Parking Lot
195,000
79,104
115,896
130
96
350*
Academic
W32
Stevens Court West (D, J, K, L, M) /

W32, 33 Parking Lots
440,000
138,340
301,660
14
200
151
350*
Academic
W33
W35 Parking Lot Site Pavilion
20,000
20,000
130
77
W34
Wallace Hall Pavilion / Marine

Studies / Fish Teaching & Research
15,000
96,546
-81,546
130
W35
Ocean Research 2 / NOAA / W24, 28

Parking Lots
240,000
11,267
228,733
130
W36
Portage Bay Parking Garage

Wrapper
65,000
65,000
130
W37
Fisheries Parking Lot (PUDA)
95,000
95,000
130
65
W38
Northlake Building / W40 Parking

Lot Site
310,000
22,077
287,923
12
200
42
235
TOTAL - WEST
4,040,000
792,801
3,247,199
751
2,431
106,340
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
GENER AL USES
192
Academic
Academic
93
182*
Academic
182*
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
88
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
121
Table 10. South Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
S39
SCSII B
100,000
100,000
240
Academic
S40
SCSII C / Hitchcock Hall Site
310,000
116,416
193,584
17
240
Academic
S41
SCSII D / J Wing
415,000
170,719
244,281
12
240
Academic
S42
SCSII E / I Wing and G Wing
290,000
215,620
74,380
240
Academic
S43
SCSII F / T Wing
315,000
493,496
-178,496
17
240
Academic
S44
SCSII G / A Wing and C Wing
360,000
101,489
258,511
17
240
Academic
S45
SCSII H
370,000
370,000
17
240
Academic
S46
SCSII I / F Wing
160,000
122,767
37,233
240
Academic
S47
SCSII J / D Wing
320,000
183,975
136,025
17
240
Academic
S48
SCSII K / B Wing
350,000
117,619
232,381
17
240
Academic
S49
SCSII L / RR Wing, BB Wing, SW Wing
505,000
454,692
50,308
17
240
Academic
S50
SCSII M / Ocean Teaching / S5, S6

Parking Lot
105,000
51,552
53,448
105
11
Academic
S51
SCSII N / S1 Parking Garage
240,000
240,000
105
795
Academic
S52
SCSII O / Harris Hydraulics Lab / South

Campus Center / S7, S12 Parking Lot
130,000
37,215
105
29
Academic
S53
SCSII P
315,000
315,000
105
S54
SCSII Q / Portage Bay Building /

Oceanography Bldg, Dock, and Shed /
S8 Parking Lot
145,000
128,712
16,288
105
41
Academic
S55
SCSII R / CHDD Clinic and School / S9

Parking Lot
395,000
115,943
279,057
105
Academic
S56
SCSII S / CHDD South Building
25,000
12,378
12,622
30
Academic
S57
SCSII T / NN Wing
395,000
122,217
272,783
17
240
Academic
S58
SCSII U / EA Wing and EB Wing
465,000
275,885
189,115
17
240
Academic
TOTAL - SOUTH
5,710,000
2,776,265
2,933,735
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
92,785
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
GENER AL USES
Academic
884
3,862
*** Total incorporates gross square feet that has already been accounted for
under the 2003 CMP related to sites C5 C6 and C15
Table 11. East Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW GROSS

SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
E59
South of the WAC
10,000
10,000
30
Academic
E60
Pavilion Pool Site
60,000
E61
Tennis Court Site
150,000
32,955
105
Academic
150,000
65
Academic
E62
Tennis Court Site West of IMA Field
290,000
290,000
65
E63
E18 Parking Lot - SW Site
215,000
215,000
130
266
Academic
E64
E1 Site 1
100,000
100,000
65
205
Academic
E65
E1 Site 2
320,000
320,000
130
200
Academic
E66
E1 Site 3
105,000
105,000
65
200
Academic
E67
E1 Site 4
255,000
255,000
130
200
Academic
E68
E1 Site 5
100,000
100,000
65
200
Academic
E69
E1 Site 6
310,000
310,000
130
200
Academic
E70
E1 Site 7
145,000
145,000
65
200
Academic
E71
130
200
Academic
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
27,045
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
820
GENER AL USES
Academic
E1 Site 8
290,000
290,000
E72
E1 Site 9
180,000
180,000
65
200
Academic
E73
E1 Site 10
190,000
190,000
80
200
Academic
E74
Golf Driving Range Site North
370,000
370,000
80
E75
Golf Driving Range Site South
330,000
330,000
80
E76
E2 Parking Lot Site
160,000
160,000
80
49
Academic
E77
Plant Services Site / N26 Parking
270,000
144,198
125,802
65
24
Academic
E78
Blakeley Village West
105,000
84,390
20,610
65
Academic
E79
Blakeley Village East
120,000
120,000
65
Academic
E80
Laurel Village North
95,000
6,464
65
Academic
E81
Laurel Village Central
220,000
220,000
65
Academic
E82
Laurel Village South
30,000
30,000
65
Academic
90,000
73,054
30
Academic
88,536
E83
Ceramic and Metal Arts
E84
Urban Horticulture Site
80,000
80,000
30
E85
E12 Parking Lot
480,000
480,000
160
TOTAL - EAST
5,070,000
361,115
ALL SECTORS***
18,045,000
5,093,226
16,946
710
Academic
Academic
Academic
734
1,016
4,708,885
3,078
2,546
12,951,774
6,162
10,940
Academic
123
SUSTAINABILITY
FRAMEWORK
The purpose of the sustainability framework
is to ensure that sustainability is integrated
into the Campus Master Plan 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 Universitys triple bottom
line 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
UW one of the most sustainable campuses in
the country, effecctively a campus that is a
sustainability learning lab.
Figure 111. Campus Sustainability Goals
Engagement
ENGAGEMENT
The Universitys sustainability summit in
2010 led to a student-initiated fund for the
University community to create sustainabilityfocused projects in surrounding neighborhoods
that will:
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
Promote environmental and conservation

awareness, e.g. WCUP interpretive
element that will display UWs
sustainability programs and activities.
Increase sustainability engagement

internally and externally
Strive for excellence in sustainability

research, education and service
Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration in

education and research
Encourage community participation in

campus events
125
Built Environment
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
With a proposed future development need
of six million net new gross square feet,
opportunities for built environment strategies
will have a profound and positive impact on
the future campus. The following strategies
apply system-wide policies and building level
interventions to reduce the Universitys 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
Optimize co-generation plant system
Economic Sustainability
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
Incentivize research partnerships
UW is one of largest employers in the City,

and generates hundreds of new business
ventures and research developments. UWs
selective and competitive academic programs
produce a highly educated workforce that is
sought after by corporations located in Seattle
in order to take advantage of the skilled
labor pool. 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 will continue

to collaborate with the City to encourage
growth and economic development for the
benefit of the community.
127
Mobility
MOBILITY
Mobility is central to the multi-modal nature
of the UW campus. In 2014, only 20 percent of
the UW community drove alone to campus.
The University actively promotes strengthened
pedestrian and public transit routes to
encourage alternative modes of transportation
and retains the low rate of SOV drivers.
Mobility related to sustainability 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 an increase in near-campus or

on-campus housing opportunities for
students, faculty and staff
Integrate all modes of on-campus

transportation
Strengthen the effectiveness and

relationship between Sound Transit and
UW
Work with communities to improve

neighborhood character around the
University
Encourage complete streets to improve

universal access in and around campus
Ecological Systems
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
The University of Washington is surrounded
by significant and vital ecological systems
that serve the campus. The University strives
to be a good steward of ecological systems
throughout campus, a commitment to the
campus landscape that is illustrated in the
Campus Landscape Framework (CLF). The
University should 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
129
2008
2006
2004
UW Farm created
UW makes American
College and University
Presidents Climate
Commitment (ACUPCC)
Pledge
Sustainability is at the core of the University

of Washingtons 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 Presidents Climate Commitment
(ACUPCC), which prompted the creation
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
2007
SUMMARY OF EXISTING
SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS
2005
UW Greenhouse
Gas Inventory
completed
sustainability awards. 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,
Assessment and Rating System (STARS)
gold rating, which is in commendation of
UWs comprehensive achievements related
to sustainability in education and research,
planning, engagement, maintenance and
operations, and innovation.
Climate Action Plan

submitted
College of the
Environment founded
2009
Environmental
Stewardship Policy is
written
UW Sustainability
Office is formed
The Campus Master Plan provides an

opportunity for the University to integrate
current sustainability efforts and goals into a
sustainability framework for the future of the
campus.
Timeline of Sustainability Efforts
2014
Executive Order No.13 on

Environmental Stewarship and
Sustainability
First UW Sustainability summit

(October)
Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF)
launched
Green Office
Certification
program launched
Achieved first Sustainability

Tracking, Assessment & Rating
System (STARS) Gold Rating
2011
International Sustainable
Campus Award
UW Mailing Services
goes bike-powered
2013
Green Seed Fund

established
UW named nations
greenest school by
Sierra magazine
Practice Green Health

Award for medical
centers
UW Athletics diverts
75% of all gameday
waste from landfill
Achieved second
STARS Gold
Rating
Husky Stadium
Certified as LEED
Silver
Green Laboratory
program achieves 68
certified labs
UW Fleet Services
grows hybrid/EV
vehicle stock to 21%
of total fleet
2015
2010
2012
Figure 117
(Ongoing: LEED
Certified Buildings,
Energy Star,
Transportation Services)
131
UP
ALL
INNOVATION
FRAMEWORK
Education and research are changing. 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.
The creation of an innovation district is
important to preserve the UW as a leader in
innovation and its relevance to the students
and the community it serves. The diversity
of research funding and the UWs record of
partnering show its strength and ability to
bring people and organizations together for
a common purpose. An inclusive innovation
district on campus will reinforce the UW as a
major innovation hub in region, an economic
engine for research, and a top tier place for
learning and professional growth.
Two areas on the campus have the capacity

to house a fully inclusive innovation district.
The West Campus has about 70 acres and
the development capacity of over 3.2 million
square feet. East Campus is much larger,
however much of the land is preserved as
part of the Union Bay Natural Area. The East
Campus has the capacity to house 4.6 million
square feet on 27 acres of mostly undeveloped
land. Both the West and East Campuses have
benefits that will support a thriving innovation
district connected to the Universitys
institutional mission, encourage collaboration,
and give students the tools they need to solve
big problems.
BOWMAN
BUILDING
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Innovation
Center
EAST
CAMPUS
Burke Gilman Trail
27Cultural
ACRESAsset
Thriving, Diverse Retail
Academic Research
Innovation District
Residence Hall
BURKE
MUSEUM
Retail Corridor
Light Rail Stop
Future
Transit
MEANY
HALL
JONES
PLAYHOUSE
Burke-Gilman Trail
FLUKE HALL
5 Min Walkshed
10 Min Walkshed
132 2018 Seat tle CampusHENRY

Master Plan - October 2016 Draf t Plan
ART
WATERFRONT ACCESS
2.25 Miles of Waterfront
Innovation Framework
133
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 Campus Master Plan:
Campus steam, compressed air, water

supply and sanitary sewer systems can
accommodate all growth illustrated in the
Campus Master Plan.
Depending on the mix of uses, campus

chilled water and emergency/standby
power capacity might be adequate to
accommodate this growth.
Regardless of mix of uses, existing primary

power falls far short of providing for the
growth illustrated in the Campus Master
Plan.
There are no known capacity issues

related to water, sanitary sewer, and
storm drainage, but each utility should be
Campus distribution systems capacities
are generally understood for each campus
sector, but more specific information
about building program / uses and
phasing of development is needed before
analysis can be undertaken to improve
understanding of system distribution
capacity to support growth for each of the
four campus sectors.
The capital investments described in this

chapter are in addition to the Universitys
current investment activity and plans, which
address operational and deferred maintenance
needs to serve the existing building stock.
PRIMARY CAMPUS UTILITIES

Steam
The current steam plant has the capacity
to accommodate the entire growth
allowance above current conditions.
Central, South and portions of the 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) has a
capacity of 4,500 tons. As demand growth
justifies it, the second phase will be triggered
adding an additional 6,000 tons of installed
capacity to phase 1, for a full build-out of
10,500 tons. Between the two plants the

campus will 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 at full buildout) will 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 Universitys 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 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
is scheduled for renewal and capacity
upgrades within the next two years and
will then likely have 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 the 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 the
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.
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 will require
further investments. District-specific growth
projections, the SCL perspective (its analysis
and longer-term plans) and a cost-benefit
analysis will determine the best way to provide
for the total planned campus growth at a
new substation, through expansion of one or
both of the existing substations, 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 will be required from the
West Receiving Station and/or from the East
Receiving Station to accommodate growth.
135
In addition to capacity, power reliability

on campus is an ongoing problem. 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 the campus
should be developed to articulate 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 under construction 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 non-life safety
power to the plant. This turbine is aged and is
anticipated to be decommissioned in the near
future. Its service will be absorbed into that
provided by other elements of the emergency
and standby power network (largely the
WCUP). In addition, there are numerous standalone diesel generators located throughout the
campus.
The current emergency and standby capacity
for the generators at the UW Power Plant and
the WCUP (at full build-out) is 22MVA.
Depending on whether the new

construction will have a significant
component of technical buildings with
moderate-to-large standby power
requirements, accommodating the full
load growth may require additional
capacity.
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 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 the Seattle
Water Department. Based on available
water meter data, the campus has a current
water demand of approximately 29 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. With a full build-out of the
Campus Master Plan at 6 million net new gsf,
the campus can expect demand to increase by
approximately 480,000 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 Citys
system should 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 the Central Campus and portions of the
West Campus flow to the KC Metro trunk
line, while the East Campus flows directly to
City-owned sanitary sewer lines. Buildings in
the south flow to either a University- or Cityowned 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
22 gal/bldg gsf/year. With a full build-out of
the Campus Master Plan at 6 million net new
gsf, the campus can expect sewer demand to
increase by approximately 360,000 gal/day.
This is equivalent to 250 gal/min, distributed
throughout the whole campus, without
accounting for a peak demand.
issues with University or City-owned lift
stations, but each lift station should be
Storm Drainage
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.
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 Seattles 2016 regulations,
on-site stormwater management practices
must be implemented to control the flow
rate of the runoff and achieve water quality
standards before the water is discharged.
Under federal and state guidelines, the UW

is classified as a Phase I Permit Secondary
Permittee, and must comply with applicable
Phase I Permit requirements. The UW must
also comply with all relevant ordinances, rules
and regulations of the local jurisdiction (City of
Seattle).
The University of Washington has a series of
initiatives to handle storm water:
Public education and outreach on the

impacts of stormwater pollution.
Public involvement and participation.
Detection and elimination of illicit

discharges.
Construction site stormwater runoff

control.
Post-construction stormwater
management for new development and
redevelopment.
Pollution prevention and good

housekeeping for facilities operations.
A portion of the 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 will take
place, where possible, to avoid such
overflows.
In addition, stormwater will be used for
irrigation and other grey water practices,
when possible, to reduce the water demand on
campus.
issues with the Universitys storm drainage
systems, but storm drainage will be
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Campus steam, chilled water, compressed air,
and emergency power are most frequently
distributed in tunnels.
Upgrades and enhancements will be
required in those distribution systems to
support the growth allowance identified
in the Campus Master Plan. More detailed
campus planning is needed to enable the
university to engage in capital planning
for upgrades and enhancement to utility
distribution systems. Specifically, once the
Campus Master Plans illustration of physical
growth allowance by district is accompanied
by an understanding of program and phased
development, the university will have the key
ingredients to launch a utility master plan. This
plan will leverage existing knowledge of the
capacities and limitations of its distribution
systems with updated information and
modeling.
Central Campus
2018 CMP growth of the Central Campus
includes 900,000 gsf of net new space.
STEAM AND CONDENSATE
Upgrades required in the piping in the west

and northwest trunks.
Piping extensions will be required to new

building sites.
137
CHILLED WATER
South Campus
COMPRESSED AIR
2018 CMP growth of the South Campus

includes 1,350,000 gsf of net new space.
Redevelopment of the South Campus is
envisioned 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
area. New tunnels and associated utilities will
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.
Upgrades and enhancements to piping in

multiple tunnel locations will be needed to
provide adequate flow/pressure to Central
Campus (and, with that, to adjacent areas
of campus). As the university prepares to
undertake this investment, a capital plan
will be developed based on a then-current
analysis that identifies specific locations
with flow/pressure limitations and assesses
tunnel conditions.
COMPRESSED AIR
An assessment of current loads is

necessary to determine whether upgrades
to the distribution system are required.
PRIMARY POWER
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
New feeder sets will be required to be

routed in the tunnels or through duct
banks to support the proposed growth.
CHILLED WATER
New fiber and cabling will be required to

support connection of the new buildings to
the campus backbone.
PRIMARY POWER
Upgrades and enhancements to piping in

multiple tunnel locations will be needed to
provide adequate flow/pressure to South
Campus and adjacent areas of campus.
Replacement and upgrade of

existing primary power distribution to
accommodate the anticipated growth.
Feeder sets will 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.)
The replacement and upgrade of existing

steam and condensate distribution will be
needed to accommodate phased growth.
COMMUNICATIONS
Replacement and upgrade of existing

compressed air distribution are needed to
accommodate phased growth.

emergency and standby power distribution
will be needed to accommodate the
anticipated growth. Feeder sets will
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.)
COMMUNICATIONS
New fiber and cabling will be required to

support connection of the new buildings to
the campus backbone.
New router rooms will be required to serve

the increased density of space.
West Campus
2018 CMP growth of the West Campus
includes 3,000,000 gsf of net new space. It
is planned that development of the 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 will coordinate with the City to
design and construct this city streets strategy.
Following are the growth impacts anticipated
by each utility.
service corridors will be required to support

loads and new building locations. This work
should be coordinated with the new piping
and design parameters associated with the
WCUP.
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, will be
required to support loads and new building
locations. In capital planning for the
growth articulated in the Campus Master
Plan for West Campus, the University will
consider the cost and benefit of looping
new piping with the west trunk to increase
reliability in this part of campus.
PRIMARY POWER
Potential locations for direct buried

piping serving this area of campus, will be
identified through further analysis.
CHILLED WATER
as a utility for the buildings slated for this

area of campus.
Significant upgrades will be required to

support growth in this area. New piping,
either in dedicated tunnels or in building
service corridors will be required to support
loads and new building locations. This work
should be coordinated with the new piping
and design parameters associated with the
WCUP.

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
programs. Alternately, some of the new
building sites could be served directly from
the existing SCL grid in the area.
Potential locations for direct buried

piping serving this area of campus, will be
identified through further analysis.
There is adequate emergency and standby

distribution in the West Campus. New
distribution is required to connect to
capacity in the WCUP, or buildings could
be served by on-site generators.
COMMUNICATIONS
COMPRESSED AIR
Upgrades, extension and replacement of

piping in the Campus Parkway trunk will be
required to support growth.
Careful evaluation should occur on

whether compressed air will be required
New fiber and cabling are required to

support connection of each new buildings
to the campus backbone.
Significant upgrades will be required to

support growth in this area. New piping,
either in dedicated tunnels or in building
139
East Campus
CHILLED WATER
2018 CMP growth of the East Campus includes

750,000 gsf of net new space. The 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 area. 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 area with some or all of the primary
utilities identified below:
There is currently no chilled water

distribution in the East Campus. Buildings
are served by local chillers.
To accommodate the growth envisioned

for this area 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
the East Campus a gridded distribution
system will be required to respond to the
design of the Campus Master Plan.
COMPRESSED AIR
The 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 full build-out, 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
the East Campus a gridded distribution
system is required to respond to the design
of the full build-out illustrated in the
Campus Master Plan.
Currently there is limited compressed air

distribution in this area.
Careful evaluation should occur on

whether compressed air is required as a
utility for the buildings slated for this area
of campus.
PRIMARY POWER
There is limited distribution of primary

power in this area. Significant additional
distribution is required to support the
substantial growth identified for this area
as part of full build-out. Multiple new
feeder sets will be required to be brought
from an existing or new substation.
This area of campus is served by a single

emergency/ standby feeder. Given the
significant growth anticipated in this
area 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.
141
TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN (TMP)
INTRODUCTION
The University of Washington has been
committed to managing its transportation
impacts on surrounding neighborhood and
region for over four decades, and has resulted
in one of the lowest single occupancy vehicle
(drive-alone) rates for universities nation-wide.
In the 1970s, the University implemented
programs such as the Health Sciences Express,
developed a 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 Universitys commitment
was formalized in its first Transportation
Management Plan (TMP), with the intent to
expand commuting options for University
students, staff, and faculty, shifting travel
habits away from single occupancy vehicle
trips. The primary goal of that plan, as of this
Plan, is to reduce the number of peak hour
vehicle trips made by students, faculty, staff.
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
preceding 24 years.
Transportation Management Plan Goal:

Limit peak-period, peak-direction vehicle trips
made by faculty, staff and students at or below
the 1990 levels.
This Plan builds on the success of the current
and past TMPs. The University will implement
this updated TMP to achieve the goal of limiting
peak-period, peak-direction vehicle trips to
and from campus of students, staff and
faculty at or below 1990 levels. The 1990 levels
listed below are what the University will hold
itself to during this Plan.
Campus Trip Cap

7,900
PM Peak-period outbound (3:00 to 6:00 PM)

8,500
University District Trip Cap

10,100
PM Peak-period outbound (3:00 to 6:00 PM)

10,500
To reinforce the Universitys commitment to

limiting auto travel, the University will 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.
There are nine programmatic components of
the TMP, each one contributing towards the
success of the overall TMP program.
1. U-PASS Program
2. Transit
3. Shared-Use Transportation
4. Parking Management
5. Bicycle
6. Pedestrian
7. Marketing and Education
8. Telecommuting
9. Institutional Policies
Changes to TMP implementation will be
made as needed over the course of this plan
to achieve the TMP goal. Under each of the
nine 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 other 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.
This TMP is not intended to address
transportation to and from Husky Stadium
events. Transportation for Husky Stadium
events is specified in the Husky Stadium
Transportation Management Plan.
BACKGROUND
Historic data shows that as the population of
students, faculty, and staff increased over the
last twenty-seven-year window, between 1988
and 2015, the number of vehicle trips to and
from the University has decreased. The table
below summarizes this data. The line entitled
Population includes all students, faculty and
staff, and uses headcount numbers rather
than Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
While the University has been successful in
managing its vehicle trip generation, traffic
growth in the vicinity of the University District
has become a regional issue. However, for the
Universitys investment in reducing vehicle
Figure 119. Transportation Management Plan Elements
Table 12. Change in Motor Vehicle Trips to the University

from 1988 to 2015
1988
AM
PEAK 1
PM PEAK 2
7,940
9,629
2014
AM
PEAK 1
PM PEAK 2
5,866
6,409
VEHICLE TRIPS
POPULATION 3
49,700
67,200
1 Inbound trips to Campus between 7:00 and 9:00 AM

2 Outbound trips from Campus between 3:00 and 6:00 PM
3 Headcount of all students, faculty and staff
143
demand to be effective, other public agencies

and private employers need to be equally
committed to reducing their share of the
traffic growth.
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. Figure VII-2 shows the
difference in transit and drive alone mode
shares from 1989, before the U-PASS was
implemented, through 2015.
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.
Potential U-PASS Improvement

Strategies
Transit
Drive Alone
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1989
1998
2009
2015
Table 13. Comparison of Transit and Drive Alone mode choice for University of Washington Faculty, staff and students
between 1989 to 2015.
1. Review pricing structure of the U-PASS.

2. Review University 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 attractive travel options other than
driving alone.
2021. Light rail service will further expand in

2023, including service to Lynnwood, Bellevue,
Redmond and Des Moines.
The University is the 2nd best served transit

destination in the state, after the Downtown
Center City, 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, the
primary interior campus roadway. Transit
stops are supported with a variety of campus
shelters and other transit amenities.
Potential Transit Improvement

Strategies
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
With the opening of the University of

Washington, Sound Transits Link light rail saw
an 83% increase to 65,000 average weekday
boardings as of July 2016.
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.
4. Encourage transit agencies to improve

early morning service (before 5 AM)
and increase off-peak 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 where necessary.
6. Work with partner agencies to improve
multimodal access to Link and RapidRide
stations.
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.
145
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.
The University, in coordination with the
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, up to $80.
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.
PARKING MANAGEMENT
and staff. These transportation options, and
other future providers, create flexible travel
options to and from campus.
Potential Shared-Use
Transportation Strategies
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.
4. Actively manage University-owned curb
space at transit stations to improve
connections between transit and other
shared-use transportation providers.
The University also has a partnership with

shared-use transportation companies such
as Pronto, Car2Go and Zipcar, providing
discounted memberships to students, faculty
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 Strategies
1. Review parking pricing options to
discourage the use of SOVs.
2. Review and consider performance-based
parking strategies including charging more
for high demand parking lots.
3. Transition from a parking permit model to
a pay-per-use model.
4. Consider wayfinding and real-time
parking availability information as a way
to ease access and improve utilization of
existing parking supply. Look for ways to
coordinate with Citys e-Park system.
5. Increase enforcement on campus to

reduce parking violations.
6. Encourage the City to manage
unrestricted on-street parking within the
Urban Center and areas adjacent to the
University.
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 SOVs. However, for those who drive,
these strategies might encourage some in
the University community to 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. The
City is currently in the process of reviewing the
RPZ program and exploring ways to improve it.
1. The University shall support local groups
in the development and implementation
of RPZs within the primary or secondary
impact zones. The University shall offer its
support of neighborhood RPZs to the City
through written letters and testimony at
appropriate department hearings.
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.
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 Universitys share of costs
shall be 50 percent of the costs as
described in the following conditions.
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
households cars.
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.
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
households cars.
The University shall not pay more than
$50,000 annually for permit costs in the
secondary impact zone.
4. 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.
5. The Universitys share of an RPZ shall be
reduced to the extent that development
in the primary or secondary impact zones
includes a condition of approval related to
RPZ costs.
6. Where costs are shared, such as between
the University and residents for annual
permits, amounts shall be rounded to the
nearest dollar.
7. The University shall not provide employees
with RPZ stickers unless the employees
are residents within the Universitys major
institution boundaries or within the area of
the RPZ.
147
BICYCLE
The University of Washington currently supplies
bicyclists with multiple locations for securing
and storing their bicycles on campus. Lockers
and showers are available at some campus
locations for students, faculty and staff. Bike
lockers can be rented for a small fee on a
quarterly 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 Campus Master Plan.
Potential Bicycle Improvement

Strategies
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 Link.
4. Improve the connectivity and interfaces of

the off-campus bike network, the BurkeGilman Trail, and Central Campus.
5. Improve the capacity of the Burke-Gilman
Trail.
6. Provide adequate bike parking supply to
serve demand.
7. Improve quality and security of bike
parking through investments in covered
and high-security parking.
8. Develop a Bicycle Parking Plan that
identifies a toolbox of parking solutions
and design standards.
9. Invest capital operating resources to
reduce bicycle thefts.
10. Encourage transit agencies to identify
strategies for accommodating increased
bicycle travel demand on transit.
11. Consider integrating programs (like Pronto
bike share) into the U-PASS as a first and
last mile solution.
3. 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.
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. Universal access (ADA and
beyond) is a high priority.
Potential Pedestrian Improvement

Strategies
1. Protect and improve upon the pedestrian
oriented campus. Make all transportation
choices, policies and improvements
supportive of the pedestrian environment
and experience.
2. Work to enhance the quality and
security of campus pathways through
maintenance of paths, quality lighting,
signage and wayfinding, and other
investments.
4. Work with the City and transit agencies to

improve sidewalks, transit stops, and other
pedestrian amenities near transit services.
5. Improve pedestrian connections between
major transit hubs and central campus.
Address existing pedestrian capacity issues
and develop solutions for potential future
capacity issues.
6. Improve wayfinding to and from major
campus and transportation destinations.
7. Provide ADA accessible connections
between Central Campus and East, South
and West Campus (Ex. redevelopment of
E1 areas).
8. Maintain easy-to-understand and wellsigned or mapped ADA accessible routes
through construction zones.
3. Coordinate with the City to identify

improvements to the Citys pedestrian
network such as repairing damaged
sidewalks, improving safety at crossings,
increasing non-motorized capacity of
Montlake Bridge, removing ADA barriers,
improving lighting, etc.
149
MARKETING AND EDUCATION
TELECOMMUTING
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.
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 employees
department.
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

1. Focus efforts on new employees,
new students, people who are
moving residence and people whose
transportation options have changed.
2. Increase information about biking,
walking, carpooling and telecommuting.
3. Continue to provide and market personal
commute planning services.
Potential Telecommuting
1. Communicate policies and promote
telecommuting, flex- time, compressed
workweeks, and other techniques that
reduce peak period travel.
4. Encourage participation in 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.
Develop marketing and education
strategies focused on high-SOV
populations.
Potential Institutional Policy

1. Consider location options with relation to
transit when siting facilities.
2. Manage class schedules to reduce peak
period travel demand.
3. Advocate for enhanced transportation
management plans for University District
developments to be completed by others.
4. Continue the preservation/creation of
affordable student housing near or on
campus.
MONITORING AND REPORTING

The University has been monitoring,
evaluating, and reporting transportation
conditions since 1990. Using the tool listed
below, the University will continue to report
on how it is meeting its TMP goal of limiting
peak-period, peak- direction vehicle trips of
students, faculty and staff to at or below 1990
levels.
1. On an annual or biennial basis, the
University will conduct Campus
transportation telephone surveys to
calculate the arrival and departure times
as well as mode of students, faculty and
staff.
2. Based on the needs of the University,
additional data collection efforts may be
conducted.
Measuring baseline traffic volumes

The traffic volume cap shall consist of two
measures listed below.
CAMPUS TRIP CAP

7,900

PM) 8,500
UNIVERSIT Y DISTRICT TRIP CAP

10,100

PM) 10,500
The University shall provide the results of its

efforts to meet the TMP goal by publishing the
monitoring information in the Campus Master
Plan Annual Report.
151
CAMPUS SECTORS
CENTRAL CAMPUS
SOUTH CAMPUS
Long-Term Vision
Long-Term Vision
Public Realm And Connectivity
Built Environment
Built Environment
WEST CAMPUS
EAST CAMPUS
Long-Term Vision
Long-Term Vision
Built Environment
Built Environment
153
CENTRAL
CAMPUS
Central Campus Key Map
LONG-TERM VISION
Central Campus is a hub of learning activity
and knowledge sharing, and 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 long-term vision for the 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 the Central Campus sector
to minimize interference with the existing
campus character.
Provide additional capacity to support

the Universitys educational, research and
service missions.
Figure 120. Central Campus Existing Aerial, 2016
154 Campus Sectors - October 2016 Draf t Plan
Central Campus Vision
C6
C2
C5
C1
C4
C3
C7
C8
C9
C10
M
on
tl
e
ak
Bl
PARRINGTON
LAWN
vd
N
E
C11
C12
h
15t
C13
en
Av
RED SQUARE
ue
C14
NE
C15
C20
C19
RA
C18
C17
INI
ER
VI S
C16
TA
s
en
ev
St
ay
W
NE Pacific Street
Existing Building
Potential Building
Central Campus Boundary
Campus Sectors - October 2016 Draf t Plan
155
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 Campus Master Plan proposes
to:
Reinforce important connections and

improves universal access by locating
buildings along major pedestrian
circulation paths.
Enhance pedestrian connections through
Parrington Lawn to 15th Avenue NE, onto
North Campus Housing, and on existing
pedestrian bridges over NE Pacific Street
and NE Montlake Boulevard.
Build a new connection to East Campus

from the Husky Union Building (HUB) in
the form of the East Campus Land Bridge
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.
Shift north the pedestrian crossing south

of Gould, to align with new pedestrian
east-west connections.
Paccar
NE 4
3rd
St
2nd
NE 4
TON
R IN G
PAR AWN
L
St
Odegaard
C am
pus
w
Park
ay
NE 4
0 th
St
Public Realm & Connectivity Diagram
NORTH
CAMPUS
HOUSING
UNION BAY
NATURAL AREA
Art
EA
M PU
ST C A
S L AN
D BRID
GE
LIBER AL
ARTS QU
AD

Active Ground Floor
Existing Building
HUB
Kane
Suzzalo
Potential Building
Gateway
CSE
Snoho
mish L
an e
Molecular
Science
ER
TA
tl a
VI S
on
INI
RA
NE
Bagley
B
ke
d
lv
Life Sciences
NE Pacific Street
157
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Building Height
LR3
Development sites throughout the Central

Campus maintain the existing building
height limits and are concentrated along the
perimeter of the campus sector. Development
sites are concentrated:
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 Universitys historic building stock

is located in the heart of the Central Campus.
New development will respect the scale of
the surrounding historic context and adhere
to established university policies regarding
historic preservation.
C1-65
C2-65
50 90/80
160
105
37/30
240
200
50
160
65
LR1
160/
130
SM-UD 240
Between NE Stevens Way and NE Montlake

Boulevard to the east
NC2-65
SM-UD 85
LR3
160/ 130
65
160
105
105
160
65
Figure 123. Central Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights
160/107
65
37/30
240
105
Figure 124. Central Campus 2018 CMP Allowable Building Heights
160
Development Capacity
The development sites map and detailed
capacity figures are identified on pages 160 to
161.
The Campus Master Plan identifies a total

of roughly 3.2 million gross square feet of
potential development throughout the
Central Campus.
To achieve full build-out would necessitate

the replacement of roughly 1.2 million gross
square feet of existing space, resulting in
a total net new development area of 2.0
million gross square feet.
The Campus Master Plan development

limit for the Central Campus is 900,000
net new gross square feet, about 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
159

** Gross square feet is accounted for within the 2003 Campus Master Plan
*** Total incorporates gross square feet that has already been accounted for under
the 2003 CMP related to sites C5, C6 and C15
Table 14. Central Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW GROSS

SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
GENER AL USES
C1
West of Memorial Way / N1 Parking
170,000
68,916
101,084
105
213
520
Academic
C2
East of Memorial Way / N5 Parking
160,000
160,000
105
175
Academic
C3
Mackenzie Replacement / N3 Parking

Lot
150,000
106,901
105
19
Academic
C4
Intellectual House Phase 2
5,000
5,000
105
Academic
C5
NC Housing 1 (Building A)
105,000
105,000**
105
Academic
C6
NC Housing 2 (Building E) / Haggett

Hall / N9, 10, 11 Parking
270,000
206,114
63,886**
160
148
C7
McMahon Hall Site / N13, 14, 15

Parking Lots
400,000
288,352
111,648
11
160
177
393
Academic
C8
Padelford Garage North Site / N16,

18, 20, 21
245,000
138,555
106,445
105
647
248*
Academic
C9
Padelford Hall South Site
155,000
155,000
105
248*
Academic
C10
Padelford Garage South Site
145,000
145,000
105
248*
Academic
C11
Facility Admin Bldg / University

Facilities Bldg and Annex 1
90,000
20,125
69,875
105
222*
Academic
C12
Plant Op Annexes 2-6 / University

Facilities Annex 2 / C23 Parking
115,000
18,860
96,140
105
222*
Academic
C13
Sieg Hall Replacement
130,000
57,180
72,820
105
C14
Mechanical Eng / Eng Annex / C15

Parking Lot
225,000
125,896
99,104
105
C15
CSE II Building / More Annex / Plant

Op Annex 7
140,000
10,676
129,324**
65
Academic
C16
Wilcox / Wilson Ceramics Lab Site /

Wilson Annex
60,000
50,328
9,672
65
Academic
C17
Benson Hall / C7 Parking Lot
230,000
76,271
153,729
105
C18
Chem Library Site
95,000
39,363
55,637
105
Academic
C19
Guthrie Annexes 1, 2 and 3
300,000
19,310
280,690
105
Academic
C20
South of Henry Art Gallery
35,000
35,000
105
Academic
TOTAL - CENTRAL***
3,225,000
43,099
1,163,045
2,061,955
19
Academic
Academic
31
Academic
20
1,449
Academic
2,101
C1
Development Sites
C2
C5
C3
C6
C4
C9
C10
Blvd
lake
C8
M o nt
15th Avenue NE
C7
C20
C11
C12
C13
C19
C18
C14
C17
NE
C15
Steve
n
Pa
c
ifi
St
r
ee
s Way
C16
t
161
ZONE D
ZONE E
Development Guidelines
Development guidelines related to Central
Campus are provided on the following pages.
General development parameters are provided
on the opposite page, and are supplemented
with detailed recommendations for each of
the seven Central Campus development zones.
ZONE B
ZONE A
ZONE
G
ZONE C
ZONE F
Figure 126. Central Campus Development Zones
DEVELOPMENT ZONE A
Humanize Red Square
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
Wa
shi
on
ng t
Ln
NE
Suzzallo
Allen
Odegaard
RED SQUARE
St
41st
NE
Henry Art
Gallery
Gerberding
Protect and enhance Mt.

Rainier view corridor and
universal access
Meany
C20
e
St
ve
ns
ay
W
NE
ve
hA
15t
Enhance gateway at NE 40th Street;

activate and frame street edges
NE
163
DEVELOPMENT ZONE B
Formally front and

address Denny Yard
Memo
Respect historic adjacencies and

comply with the guidelines on
historic preservation on page 224
Enhance pedestrian connections

to North Campus Housing along
Stevens Way and NE Chelan Lane
a y NE
rial W
Preserve Quads cherry

trees and enhance universal
access of pathways
Business
School
Complex
C3
Art
Clark
Music
Denny
Pe
Raitt
O
nd
re
ill
dN
eR
DENNY YARD
Miller
Preserve
Denny Yard
Communications
LIBERAL ARTS
QUAD
Savery
Thomson
St
e
ve
ns
W
ay
NE
hi
ng
to
Ln
Smith
kan
e
Ge
or
ge
W
as
Sp o
L an
Gowen
eN
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
Major Open Space
DEVELOPMENT ZONE C
Enhance pedestrian
connections between
Rainier Vista and
Hitchcock overpass
Activate public realm with

building entrances along
Stevens Way and Thurston Lane
Opportunity for science quad that

unifies and celebrates Drumheller
Fountain and vicinity and connects
engineering facilities
Molecular Eng.
& Sci.
C18
Johnson
Atmosph. Sci.
Geophysics
C17
Mary Gates
e ve n
E St
Bagley
yN
s Wa
C13
Husky Union
Building
Chemistry
Guggenheim
Aerosp.
Rsrch
IN
IE
RA
Strive to provide
space for mature
trees along
Stevens Way
Kirsten
Paul G. Allen Ctr for

Comp. Sci. & Eng.
VI
ST
A
Electrical
Engineering
E
B
A
Minimize shadows on
existing buildings
Protect and enhance

Rainier Vista landscape and
universal access
C
F
165
DEVELOPMENT ZONE D
Respect historic setting for observatory

to comply with historic preservation
guidelines, page 224
Maintain access to
Hughes Penthouse
Theater
Contribute to the development of the Burke

Court and pedestrian environment
NE
th
45
Parrington
St
Cunningham
C2
o ri a
Mem
Way
N
GTO
R IN
PAR AWN
L
N
Ave
15th
William H. Gates
C1
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
into campus from surrounding
urban fabric, addressing this as
a new major gateway from the
future Sound Transit station
Potential Building
Building Envelope
Major Open Space
DEVELOPMENT ZONE E
Activate the public realm by locating

entry plazas and building entrances along
Stevens Way and major pedestrian paths
NE
45
th
St
Locate service access away from

high-volume pedestrian areas
Hansee
Requires consideration
of existing building's
historic value.
Enhance campus gateway

landscape to celebrate Pend
Oreille function as a major
campus entrance
C5
Respect surrounding
buildings and preserve
sightlines to the water
C4
C7
Incorporate universal
access through buildings
on steep slopes
Hall
Health
n
e ve
E St
ay N
sW
C8
C9
E
UW Club
Fluke
B l vd
NE
Minimize and improve

points of conflict at
major crossing of the
Burke-Gilman Trail
North
Physics Lab
C6
Pend O
ve
hA
t
25
NE
d NE
reille R
C10
Ma
Rd N
son
Strive to incorporate
parking into topography
lake
o nt
Enhance pedestrian and bike

connections and experience
along Pend Orielle
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 with the East Campus
Land Bridge
E
B
A
G
C
F
167
DEVELOPMENT ZONE F
Activate the public realm by locating

building entrances along Stevens Way and
major pedestrian paths
Preserve mature tree

canopy along Stevens Way
historic value
E
NE P
acifi
c St
Protect Rainier Vista

view corridor
C1
4
Anderson.
Eng. Libr.
Loew
C1
2
e
St
ve
ay
W
s
n
C11
Bloedel
Winken.
Roberts
C15
Power Plant
RA
IN
IE
VI
ST
A
More
eB
l ak
o nt
C16
Incorporate parking into

topography
Enhance connections
between Central and
East Campus
Preserve existing
mature trees along
Mason Road
Improve major points of

conflict at major crossings of
the Burke-Gilman Trail
Legend
Potential Building
Building Envelope
Major Open Space
l vd
NE
DEVELOPMENT ZONE G
Preserve character and quality

of landscape around bus stops,
which are public art pieces
Improve campus gateway

experience and quality
Minimize shadows on existing
buildings and open spaces
W St
e ve n
s Wa
Maintain and preserve

mature canopy along
Stevens Way
y NE
Life Sciences
Architecture
Guthrie
C19
15th
Av
Kincaid
Physics/
Astronomy
e NE
Auditorium
Tower
D
Facilitate universal access
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
C
F
169
WEST
CAMPUS
West Campus Key Map
LONG-TERM VISION
The 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,
the West Campus is uniquely positioned to
become an innovation district within the
broader Seattle region. The long-term vision
for the West Campus is designed to:
Balance dense development with access to

open space.
Structure proposed development around a

new proposed green, which will 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 134. West Campus Existing Aerial, 2016
West Campus Vision
W21
W22
W23
W24
W30
W28
W26
W27
th
15
W29
en
Av
ue
W25
N
E
W32
W38
W31
PL A
ZA
W36
W33
NE Pac
ific Stre
et
W34
W37
ge
M PU
T CA
S
E
W
EN
GRE
W35
E BAY P
AR K
Un
ive
r sit
yB
ri d
PORTAG
Existing Building
Potential Building
West Campus Boundary
171
PUBLIC REALM AND

CONNECTIVITY
The quality of the public realm varies
throughout the 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 the West Campus, has not
been accompanied with integrated open space.
The long-term future of the 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 the West Campus, the Campus Master Plan
proposes to:
Strengthen north-south pedestrian

connections to the waterfront and Portage
Bay Park from the University District, and
complete the continuous waterfront trail
along the campus edge. Eleventh and 12th
Avenues are extended as shared street
corridors through redeveloped Stevens
Court sites toward the West Campus
Green.
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.
Activate ground floors along major

pedestrian routes with public destinations
including Brooklyn Avenue and Campus
Parkway.
B en
Hall
n
catio
Publi ices
v
r
Se
Br
oo
kly
N
ve
hA
eN
Av
ve
nA
t
12
h
11t
am
NE C
Poplar
a rk w
pus P
ay
Elm
NE 4
Alder
G o ul
Maple
ECC
t
0 th S
Active Ground Floor

Existing Building
Potential Building
Police
Existing Uses Relocate

Gateway
WCUP
Mercer Cour t
View Corridor
PLAZA
Burke-Gilm
B ay
age
Por t age
r
a
G
Pacific St
re
et
Fishe
an Trail
ries
NE Skam
S
M PU
T CA
WE S E E N
GR
PORTAGE BAY PA
SAKUMA
RK
Co
ania Lan
nti
Boa
t St
re e
nu o
t
us
Wa
te r
fr o
n
t Tr
ail
173

Under the Long-Term Vision, the West Campus
is anchored by the new West Campus Green
(north of Boat Street), which seamlessly
integrates with the City of Seattles 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. The Campus Master Plan
proposes a street vacation of Boat Street NE
to allow unencumbered pedestrian movement
with minimal vehicular access between open
space areas. Greater density in the blocks
to the north complements and balances the
creation of open space.
Fisheries
CIT Y
Figure 137. West Campus existing birds eye view (above) and illustrative
rendering of the West Campus Green (opposite)
S PO
RTAG
EB
AY PA
R
West Campus Green
enue
Brooklyn Av
PLAZA
WEST CAMPUS GREEN
Vaca
t
ed B
o at
Stre
e
SAKUM
B o at
A VIEW
Stre
e
POINT
AGUA VERDE
175
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
will increase pedestrian traffic along Brooklyn
Avenue and other north-south connectors.
Eth
n
ic C
u l tu
ra l
Cen
te r
Th e
a te
Brooklyn Avenue is envisioned as a Green

Street, with active ground floor functions,
high levels of transparency, landscape and
streetscape improvements to promote safe
and inviting movement.
n
Eth
ic C
r
u l tu
Figure 139. Existing view of Brooklyn Avenue looking south toward the waterfront (above) and Figure 140.
rendering of Brooklyn Avenue at NE 40th Street (opposite)
al C
e nt
er
View South along Brooklyn Avenue
U
ETHNIC CULT
R AL CENTER
Campus
Campus
Sectors
Sectors
- October
- October
2016 2016
Draf tDraf
Plant
177
177
15th Avenue NE
The 15th Avenue corridor runs north-south
between Central and West Campuses.
The Campus Master Plan 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.
NE
The new Burke Museum activates the

street edge, and locates an entrance at NE
43rd Street.
15t
h
Introduction of a street level plaza at NE

42nd Street improves universal access to
Parrington Lawn and welcomes visitors.
NE 42nd and 43rd are designated as

Green Streets.
Active edges should 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.
ue
NE
Ne
Bu
rke
Mu
se u
et
m
Ga
NE
Figure 141. Former retaining wall along NE 15th Avenue at NE 43rd Street, removed north of 43rd by the New Burke Museum
Av
en
re
St
th
5
4
re
St
3rd
et
NE
n
42
r
St
ee
Figure 142. Rendering of proposed Burke Museum at the corner of 15th Avenue NE and NE 43rd Street (Source: Olson Kundig)
s
41
r
St
ee
Transformation of 15th Avenue NE
Me
mo
ri a
lW
ay
te s

PARRINGTON LAWN
Active Ground Floor

Existing Building
Potential Building
RED SQUARE
Gateway
View Corridor
He
nr y
Ar t
Ga
ll e r
Ste
ven
sW
ay
al
tr
e n in g
C k
To Par
Go
Ph
A s t ys i c s
ro m /
ony
15t
h
Av
en
ue
NE
St
r
ee
To
G Ca
at m
ew p u
ay s
Pol
ic
th
40
pu
kw
am
r
Pa
ay
ul d
Un
ive
rsi
fi
Paci
ty
Wa
y
ee
c Str
179
SM/R-UD
240
Building Height
Surface parking lots and underdeveloped
parcels provide the West Campus significant
redevelopment potential.
MR
SM-UD 320
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
SM-UD
240
New building height limits in the 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.
SMUD
85
SMUD
240
240
200
105
200
160/ 130
160
105
37/30
65
50
37
240
65
105
105
Figure 144. West Campus 2003 CMP Existing Building

Heights
Figure 145. West Campus 2018 CMP Allowable Building Heights
capacity figures are identified on pages 182
to 183. The Campus Master Plan identifies a
total of roughly 4.0 million gross square feet of
potential development throughout the West
Campus.

the replacement of roughly 800,000 gross
square feet of existing space, resulting in
a total net new development area of 3.2
million gross square feet.

limit for the West Campus is 3.0 million
net new new gross square feet, almost the
full West Campus growth capacity, or 50
percent of the total 6 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
181
Table 15. West Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet
SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW GROSS

SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
W21
Schmitz Hall Site
360,000
99,691
260,309
17
240
W22
Staff / HR Building Site
40,000
10,831
29,169
240
W23
Condon Hall Site
390,000
132,533
257,467
17
240
W24
W41 Parking Lot Site
170,000
170,000
17
240
35
W25
W42 Parking Lot / Henderson Hall

Site
250,000
143,660
15
240
10
W26
W10 Parking Lot
390,000
390,000
17
240
81
224*
Academic
W27
Child Care / Brooklyn Trail /SW

Maintenance / W11 Parking Lot
305,000
23,497
281,503
17
240
13
224*
Academic
W28
CDC / Ethnic Cultural Center

Theater Site
410,000
32,999
377,001
17
240
246*
Academic
W29
Purchasing Accounting / W12, 13

Parking Lots
305,000
39,576
265,424
14
200
246*
Academic
W30
West of Commodore Duchess Site
40,000
40,000
240
W31
Stevens Court East (A, B, C, H) /

W29 Parking Lot
195,000
79,104
115,896
130
96
350*
Academic
W32
Stevens Court West (D, J, K, L, M) /

W32, 33 Parking Lots
440,000
138,340
301,660
14
200
151
350*
Academic
W33
W35 Parking Lot Site Pavilion
20,000
20,000
130
77
W34
Wallace Hall Pavilion / Marine

Studies / Fish Teaching & Research
15,000
96,546
-81,546
130
W35
Ocean Research 2 / NOAA / W24, 28

Parking Lots
240,000
11,267
228,733
130
W36
Portage Bay Parking Garage

Wrapper
65,000
65,000
130
W37
Fisheries Parking Lot (PUDA)
95,000
95,000
130
65
W38
Northlake Building / W40 Parking

Lot Site
310,000
22,077
287,923
12
200
42
235
TOTAL - WEST
4,040,000
792,801
3,247,199
751
2,431
106,340
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
GENER AL USES
192
Academic
Academic
93
182*
Academic
182*
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
88
Academic
Academic
Academic
Academic
Brooklyn Avenue NE
NE
ue
Av
en
11t
h
Roosevelt Way NE
W24
Development Sites
W23
W21
W22
Campus Parkway
W30
W26
W28
12th Avenue NE
W32
W29
W31
W33
W36
Pa
c
ifi
St
r
ee
Av
en
W35
ue
NE
NE
Brooklyn Avenue NE
Un
W34
15
th
W37
ive
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
11th Avenue NE
W27
15th Avenue NE
W25
University Way NE
W38
183
Development guidelines related to the West
the four West Campus development zones.
ZONE H
ZONE K
ZONE I
ZONE J
Figure 147. West Campus Development Zones
DEVELOPMENT ZONE H
Improve ADA access between

Campus Parkway and Meany Plaza
along pedestrian bridge, and from
Meany Plaza to Red Square
Consistent podium heights and

setbacks allow for pedestrianscale daylight & views
Large floorplates should
explore strategies for
bringing in natural light
Reconnect NE 41st
between Roosevelt and
11th Avenue NE
historic value
Create enhanced
pedestrian connections
between NE 41st and
Campus Parkway
Eagleson
So
Sp cia
ee l W
ch o r
& k/
He
ar
in
Poplar
Cedar
Elm
W21
W22
s
Roo
e ve
15
th
Alder
ay
lt W
Lander
st St
NE 41
ve
rs
it y
Maple
wy
W
ay
Av
e
NE
oo
us Pk
ni
Br
p
C am
Commodore
Duchess
W30
W23
W24
Activate ground floor

uses on Campus Parkway
and University Way
kl
yn
e
Av
NE
ve
hA
11t
NE
NE 40th St
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.
NE
e
Av
th
12
Terry
H
I
J
185
DEVELOPMENT ZONE I
Reinforce Brooklyn Avenue as an

active corridor with public-facing
ground floor uses
Activate building edge along
Burke-Gilman Trail and adhere
to the 20 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
W28
Gould
W27
W26
UWPD
W29
UWCUP
W25
W32
Burke-Gilman
Trail
PL A Z A
Un
Mercer Court Apartments
i ve
e NE
t
Stree
West
Receiving
Station
rs
kl
ay
W
oo
it y
Br
yn
ge
B ri d
it y
Enhance open space to

improve access and use
Legend
NE
ve r s
NE
NE
ve
hA
11t
Un i
NE
e
Av
e
Av
th
12
NE Pacific St
15th
Av
0th
NE 4
W31
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
Potential Building
Building Envelope
Major Open Space
Existing Uses Relocated
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
Step buildings to increase views to water

and minimize shadows on surrounding
buildings
15
th
Buildings to be
designed as pavilions
within the green
oo
kl
yn
e
Av
N
E
3
W3
Child Care
W
36
W
34
Respect 30
building height
limit within the
200 Shoreline
District Overlay
W35
Fishery
Sciences
NE Pacific St
Br
Address siting or relocation

of parking required by
PUDA on this site
Boat Street partially vacated

to allow continuous park
uses between the West
Campus Green and Portage
Bay Park
Av
e
W37
Boat St
WEST CAMPUS
GREEN
Agua
Verde
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
Portage Bay Park
H
I
J
187
DEVELOPMENT ZONE K
Retain and enhance wooded character

of the Burke-Gilman Trail and
provide building connections that
accommodate universal access with
minimal disturbance
Requires consideration of existing

building's historic value.
Buildings with large floorplates

should explore strategies for
bringing in natural light
Respect the 20 setback from

the Burke-Gilman Trail
Burke
-Gilm
an Tra
W38
il
Publication Services
NE
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
NE
la
or th
NE Pacific St
Legend
Potential Building
Building Envelope
Major Open Space
Street Vacation
189
SOUTH
CAMPUS
LONG-TERM VISION
South Campus Key Map
South Campus supports UWs 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 the South Campus, the Campus Master Plan

proposes the long-term 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 scale 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 152. South Campus Existing Aerial, 2016
South Campus Vision
M
on
tl a
S40
VI S
PORTAGE
S50
S51
S52
Potential Building
S44
S45
S57
S42
S46
Existing Building
TA
S43
S41
BAY VISTA
S39
ER
lvd
Pacific Street
INI
B
ke
RA
S58
S47
S48
NE Columbia Rd
S53
SOUTH CAMPUS
GREEN
S49
S55
S56
S54
O
NU
NTI
CO
US
TE
WA
T TR
ON
R FR
AIL
South Campus Boundary
191
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 and smaller

scale parcelization throughout the 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

primary 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 the 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
K Wing
Ocean Scie
nces
Marin
e Scie
n ce s
Mo
nt l
ake
d
B lv

Active Ground Floor
Existing Building
Potential Building
Gateway
View Corridor
H Wing
UWMC Surgery
Pavilion
Montlake
Tower
GLADE
SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN
IN
CONT
RO
ATERF
O US W
A
NT TR
IL
193
Pedestrian Crossings
The Campus Master plan 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 155. Existing pedestrian bridge to Magnuson Health Sciences Center (above) and rendering
of view to Portage Bay along the South Campus Green (opposite)
Pedestrian Crossing over Pacific Street
195
160
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
160/130
105
Building Height
Increased height and density throughout

the South Campus allow 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 the
Central Campus and the waterfront, and
improves overall organizational clarity and
legibility and individiual identities of the
health sciences schools and Medical Center
area.
Building masses are oriented north-south

to increase light and reduce shadows on
other buildings.
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
Buildings along the shoreline are scaled to

maximize light and minimize shadows on
the South Campus Green.
65
240
37/30
105
50
Figure 157. South Campus 2018 CMP Allowable Building

Heights
105
65 240
50
Figure 158. South Campus 2003 CMP Building Heights
199.

South Campus.

the replacement of roughly 2.8 million
gross square feet of existing space,
resulting in a total net new development
area of 2.9 million gross square feet.

limit for the South Campus is 1.35 million
net new gross square feet, about 47
percent of the South Campus growth
capacity, or 23 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
197
Table 16. South Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW GROSS

SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
S39
SCSII B
100,000
100,000
240
Academic
S40
SCSII C / Hitchcock Hall Site
310,000
116,416
193,584
17
240
Academic
S41
SCSII D / J Wing
415,000
170,719
244,281
12
240
Academic
S42
SCSII E / I Wing and G Wing
290,000
215,620
74,380
240
Academic
S43
SCSII F / T Wing
315,000
493,496
-178,496
17
240
Academic
S44
SCSII G / A Wing and C Wing
360,000
101,489
258,511
17
240
Academic
S45
SCSII H
370,000
370,000
17
240
Academic
S46
SCSII I / F Wing
160,000
122,767
37,233
240
Academic
S47
SCSII J / D Wing
320,000
183,975
136,025
17
240
Academic
S48
SCSII K / B Wing
350,000
117,619
232,381
17
240
Academic
S49
SCSII L / RR Wing, BB Wing, SW Wing
505,000
454,692
50,308
17
240
Academic
S50
SCSII M / Ocean Teaching / S5, S6

Parking Lot
105,000
51,552
53,448
105
11
Academic
S51
SCSII N / S1 Parking Garage
240,000
240,000
105
795
Academic
S52
SCSII O / Harris Hydraulics Lab / South

Campus Center / S7, S12 Parking Lot
130,000
37,215
105
29
Academic
S53
SCSII P
315,000
315,000
105
S54
SCSII Q / Portage Bay Building /

Oceanography Bldg, Dock, and Shed /
S8 Parking Lot
145,000
128,712
16,288
105
41
Academic
S55
SCSII R / CHDD Clinic and School / S9

Parking Lot
395,000
115,943
279,057
105
Academic
S56
SCSII S / CHDD South Building
25,000
12,378
12,622
30
Academic
S57
SCSII T / NN Wing
395,000
122,217
272,783
17
240
Academic
S58
SCSII U / EA Wing and EB Wing
465,000
275,885
189,115
17
240
Academic
TOTAL - SOUTH
5,710,000
2,776,265
2,933,735
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
92,785
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
GENER AL USES
Academic
884
3,862
Development Sites
15
th
Av
en
ue
NE
S39
S40
NE
S41
Pa
c
ifi
St
r
ee
S42
S50
NE
Co
S51
S52
lu
bi
S43
S46
a
Ro
a
S44
S47
S53
S45
S48
S49
S57
S58
S56
S55
Montlake Blvd
S54
Shoreline District Overlay
199
Development guidelines related to the South
with detailed recommendations within
the single development zone for the South
Campus.
ZONE L
Figure 160. South Campus Development Zone
DEVELOPMENT ZONE L

building's historic value
Av
e
S43
S40
S39
c St
NE Pacifi
Develop Columbia Road as an important connector within

the pedestrian realm, as well as a route for service and
access. Buildings should frame its walls and step back to
allow light on the street. Building entries should 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
S41
S47
S42
S4 4
S45
Foege
S51
S50
S52
S57
S58
S49
S48
Mo
Reinforce connections
to West Campus
ntl
ake
Blv
S55
S53
S56
S54
Respect 30 building
height limit within the 200
Marine
Sciences
Enhance universal access

between Central upper
and South lower Campus
UWMC
Surgery Pavilion
Montlake Tower
S46
Ocean
Sciences
Legend
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
Major Open Space
200 Feet Shoreline District
Overlay
201
EAST
CAMPUS
East Campus Key Map
LONG-TERM VISION
The 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 the East Campus
is built on a methane-producing landfill and
seismic liquefaction zone, making building
construction more expensive. The long-term
vision for East Campus is designed to:
Preserve athletics uses while transforming

existing parking lots into future academic,
research and potential partnership spaces,
including a industry partnership spaces
and an academic conference center.
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 162. East Campus Existing Aerial, 2016
East Campus Vision
VI S T
A
NE 45th St
lvd
R AI
NIER
Mo
B
ke
tl a
reet
HUSKY STADIUM
UNION BAY
Existing Building
Potential Building
East Campus Boundary
203
et

Active Ground Floor
Existing Building
Potential Building
Siting of development should discourage

formation of a street wall along Montlake and
complement the forested edge along Central
Campus.
Gateway
View Corridor
Triangle Garage
The existing road network remains, with a new

east-west vehicular road addition introduced
near Whatcom Lane between Montlake
Boulevard and Walla Walla Road.
B ou
rd
leva
Husky Stad
ium
IL
TR A
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.
ke
nt l a
NT
FRO
ATER
US W
E CU
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.
Mo
K
TL A
MON
UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON STATION
O
TINU
CON
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 Land Bridge, and Whatcom
Lane.
ifi
Development is 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.
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
Public Realm &

Connectivity Diagram

EA
ST
Mon
e Bo
tl ak
a rd
ulev
ne
BR
Snoh
ND
La
LA
om
US
a tc
MP
Wh
CA
UNIVERSITY
VILLAGE
ID G
E
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
&
Track
Field
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
ey
UNION BAY NATURAL AREA
205

A land bridge is proposed toconnect the
Central Campus to a redeveloped East
Campus and the Union Bay Natural Area. The
land bridge will intersect the Burke-Gilman
Trail, and will 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 land bridge provide
opportunities for elevator access. The land
bridge would terminate in an active pedestrian
plaza that frames the southern edge of the E1
development.
Figure 165. View along Wahkiakum Lane looking toward the E1 parking lot (above) and rendering of East Campus
Land Bridge (Figure 165. opposite)
207
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
65
Building Height
The majority of development throughout the East

Campus will be concentrated on the northern E1 parking
lot, with additional development sites distributed
throughout.
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.
65
Building heights in the 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
setback area, with the exception of E59.
Development in Blakeley Village and Laurel Village

will increase the capacity for student housing through
increased density on the periphery of campus.
160
50
C2-40
C2-65
SF
37/30
105
65
50
80
30
65
Figure 167. 2003 CMP Building Heights
160/107
160
65
107
160
105
NC2P-40
65
90/80
160/
130
C1-65
C1-40
50
Figure 168. East Campus 2018 CMP Allowable Building Heights
211.

East Campus.

the replacement of roughly 361,000
million gross square feet of existing space,
resulting in a total net new development
area of 4.7 million gross square feet.

limit for the East Campus is 750,000 net
new gross square feet, about 16 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
209
Table 17. East Campus Development Sites Spreadsheet

SITE
ID
SITE NAME
TOTAL ALLOWABLE
GROSS
SQUARE FEET
NET NEW GROSS

SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE # OF
FLOORS
MAXIMUM
BLDG HT
LIMIT
E59
South of the WAC
10,000
10,000
30
E60
Pavilion Pool Site
60,000
E61
Tennis Court Site
150,000
32,955
105
Academic
150,000
65
Academic
E62
Tennis Court Site West of IMA Field
290,000
290,000
65
E63
E18 Parking Lot - SW Site
215,000
215,000
130
266
Academic
E64
E1 Site 1
100,000
100,000
65
205
Academic
E65
E1 Site 2
320,000
320,000
130
200
Academic
E66
E1 Site 3
105,000
105,000
65
200
Academic
E67
E1 Site 4
255,000
255,000
130
200
Academic
E68
E1 Site 5
100,000
100,000
65
200
Academic
E69
E1 Site 6
310,000
310,000
130
200
Academic
E70
E1 Site 7
145,000
145,000
65
200
Academic
E71
130
200
Academic
DEMO GROSS
SQUARE FEET
27,045
EXISTING
PARKING
SPACES
POTENTIAL
PARKING
SPACES
GENER AL USES
Academic
820
Academic
E1 Site 8
290,000
290,000
E72
E1 Site 9
180,000
180,000
65
200
Academic
E73
E1 Site 10
190,000
190,000
80
200
Academic
E74
Golf Driving Range Site North
370,000
370,000
80
E75
Golf Driving Range Site South
330,000
330,000
80
E76
E2 Parking Lot Site
160,000
160,000
80
49
Academic
E77
Plant Services Site / N26 Parking
270,000
144,198
125,802
65
24
Academic
E78
Blakeley Village West
105,000
84,390
20,610
65
Academic
E79
Blakeley Village East
120,000
120,000
65
Academic
E80
Laurel Village North
95,000
6,464
65
Academic
E81
Laurel Village Central
220,000
220,000
65
Academic
E82
Laurel Village South
30,000
30,000
65
Academic
90,000
73,054
30
Academic
88,536
E83
E84
Urban Horticulture Site
80,000
80,000
30
E85
E12 Parking Lot
480,000
480,000
160
TOTAL - EAST
5,070,000
16,946
361,115
4,708,885
710
Academic
Academic
Academic
734
1,016
3,078
2,546
Academic
NE 45th Street
E76
E73
E80
E74
E71 E72
M o nt
lake B
lvd N
E
E69
Development Sites
E75
NE
Rd
l a rk
E83
E81
E82
E70
E67 E68
E84
E65 E66
E62
Walla
Walla
Rd N
E
E63 E64
E61
E78
E79
NE
Pa
c
ifi
St
r
ee
25th Ave NE
E60
E77
E85
E59
University Village
211
ZONE Q
ZONE P
Development guidelines related to the East
the five East Campus development zones.
ZONE N
ZONE O
ZONE M
Figure 170. East Campus Development Zones.
DEVELOPMENT ZONE M
Enhance pedestrian
experience along Montlake
Mon
Protect Mt. Rainier view

corridor with no buildings
obstructing a clear viewshed
in
Ra
ws
he
Husky
Stadium
d NE
l
Wa
all a
la W
N
Rd
IMA
Hec Edmundson
Pavilion
Pacific S
t
V
ier
ie
aV
is t
E62
Blv
tlake
E61
E60
Chaffey Field
Conibear
Shellhouse
N
l Rd
an a
Nordstrom
Tennis
Mo
eB
ak
ntl
l vd
NE
Dempsey
Indoor Center
E85
E59
W.A.C.
Canoe
House
Incorporate parking into

topography, out of view
from Montlake Boulevard
Improve pedestrian
connections and access
to the shoreline
Respect 30 building height limit
within the 200 Shoreline District
Overlay
Legend
Potential Building
Building Envelope
Major Open Space
213
DEVELOPMENT ZONE N
Maximize floorplates for

programming flexibility
Facilitate connections between East

and Central Campus with the East
Campus Land Bridge across Montlake
Existing pedestrian
bridge across Montlake
Boulevard remains
Structure development in
a manner that promotes
porosity and discourages the
creation of a street wall
d NE
E68
E63
Building heights
step down toward
the shoreline
aR
dN
E70
E72
E75
6
E6
Intramural
Sports Field
E64
Husky
Outdoor
Track
Preserve recreation and

open space along shoreline
Soccer Field
Create an inviting and

universally accessible
public realm throughout
N
Maintain existing
helipad and
related setbacks
l Roa
d NE
NE C
d NE
alla R
W
a
ll
Wa
C an a
45t
hS
t
aW
all
E67
E65
NE
E74
E69
Wa
ll
lv
E76
E73
E71
Designed to establish
a planted edge along
Montlake
lake B
M o nt
Respect 30 building
Enhance pedestrian
connections to the Union
Bay Natural Area
lark
Rd
DEVELOPMENT ZONE O
NE
Improve visual quality

of storage yards
Rd
IMA
Sports Field
IMA
Sports Field
E8
0
NE
l ark
Environmental
Safety Storage
Building
l Dr
NE C
Increased building heights allow more

compact development footprint and
increased open space
E83
E81
NE
45
th
St
E82
Ma
ry G
ate
sM
em
o ri a

between East Campus development
and the Union Bay Natural Area
Improve pedestrian environment

and universal access
45
th
St
Urban Horticulture
Center
E84
NE
41s
t
St
Legend
Protect Union Bay Natural Area and limit

development near wetland areas according to
relevant environmental regulations
Potential Building
Building Envelope
Respect 30 building
Major Open Space
215
DEVELOPMENT ZONE P
Maximize floorplates for

programming flexibility

building's historic value
Improve experiential quality
of the Burke-Gilman Trail
with landscape buffer
r
Bu
ke
Gi
n
ma
Tra
Strive to create a
welcoming pedestrian
experience along 25th
Avenue
il
NE
St
th
45
E77
Q
Create transparency
and visibility along
25th Avenue NE
n
Pe
l
rei
dO
le
Pl
N
ve
hA
25t
NE
Relate building heights to scale of

University Village across 25th
M
DEVELOPMENT ZONE Q
UW does not own the segment of

the Burke-Gilman Trail between
25th Ave and 35th Ave
Activate building edges along

Burke-Gilman Trail and adhere to
20 trail setback
Increased building heights and density

allow more compact development
footprint and increased open space
Burke-Gilman Trail
E78
E79
Create courtyards for

flexible community use
30
th
Av
e
NE
t
hS
9t
4
E
Nordheim Court
Legend
ve N
hA
25t
Maintain public realm

connections to existing
communities
Potential Building
Building Envelope
Major Open Space
217
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
DEMOLITION
REVIEW PROCESS
DEVELOPMENT
SETBACKS
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE
SHORELINES
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL
SIGNS AND BANNERS
RESOURCES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICIES
AND PRACTICES
LEASING AND ACQUISITION
LIGHT AND GLARE
MIO
SITE DESIGN STANDARDS

STRUCTURE HEIGHT LIMITS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT
TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND
USES
MODULATION
TRANSPORTATION
NOISE
TREES
ODORS
USES
PARKING
219
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
This section outlines, in alphabetical order,
the development standards and processes
that guide proposed development within the
campus boundaries, . The City/University
Agreement requires all University of
Washington development within the Major
Institution Overlay (MIO) boundary follow
the standards and guidelines outlined in this
section. The purpose of these development
standards is 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 Washingtons Campus
Master Plan.
Increase awareness of land use activities

and their impacts and to coordinate
necessary review processes.
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.
DEMOLITION
DEVELOPMENT
Demolition is permitted prior to future

development. Demolition permits are
submitted in advance of a building site being
selected for development and are allowed as
long as sites are left in a safe condition and
free of debris. 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.
As used throughout the Campus Master

Plan, the word development will mean
any University decision to undertake any
action of a project nature within the campus
boundaries, that will directly modify the
physical environment.
Table 18. Permitted Development by Campus Sector

NET NEW DEVELOPMENT
(GROSS SQUARE FEET)
NET NEW MAXIMUM

DEVELOPMENT (GROSS
SQUARE FEET)
MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT LIMIT
(%)
CENTRAL
2,061,955
900,000
15%
WEST
3,247,199
3,000,000
50%
SOUTH
2,933,735
1,350,000
23%
EAST
4,708,885
750,000
12%
TOTAL
12,951,774
6,000,000
100%
Seek to achieve an efficient use of the

Universitys property without major
disruption of the natural environment and
to direct development to campus sectors
with adequate services and amenities.
220 Development Standards - October 2016 Draf t Plan
Development Review
The zoning of the Campus is Major Institution
Overlay (MIO), as shown in on page 28.
Pursuant to the 1998 City-University
Agreement and Seattle Municipal Code
Chapter 23.69, University development
within the Universitys MIO boundary is
governed by this Campus Master Plan, not
the underlying zoning or land use code. This
Campus Master Plan replaces the underlying
zoning, development standards, and land use
control ordinances for development within the
MIO boundary. The development standards
in this section are tailored to the University
and its local setting, and are intended to
allow development flexibility and improve
compatibility with surrounding uses. These
development standards supersede those of the
underlying zoning for University development.
If a development standard or land use control
ordinance associated with the Citys code
or underlying zoning is not acknowledged to
apply in this Campus Master Plan, then it does
not apply.
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 1998 City-University Agreement
and the goals and policies of this Campus

Master Plan. Lack of specificity in the Campus
Master Plan development standards shall
not result in application of provisions of the
underlying zoning or other provisions in the
Citys code.
State and federally mandated regulations such
as critical areas, shorelines, and/or endangered
species regulations are acknowledged and will
be followed.
Exceptions and/or variations from other
local regulatory standards may be required
to implement this Campus Master Plan,
which are not currently known. Under the
Campus Master Plan, such exceptions shall
be considered as part of the administrative
review and approval of specific projects and
evaluated by the Campus Master Plan policies,
goals and objectives. Strict adherence to these
other standards is not a requirement of the
Campus Master Plan.
By creating and adopting the Campus Master
Plan, neither the University nor the City of
Seattle waives or concedes its legal position
concerning the scope of either partys legal
authority to control or regulate University
property.
Development Standards - October 2016 Draf t Plan
221
Current Development
Within the MIO, the University of Washington
Seattle Campus currently occupies 16.6
million gross square feet in approximately 297
buildings. The buildings range in size from the
500 gross square feet in the Plant Operations
Annexes to 493,500 gross square feet in the
Magnuson Health Sciences Center T Wing.
Parking structures constitute 1,795,984 million
gross square feet.
Potential Development
in the 2003 Campus Master Plan. This capacity

will be utilized by developing some portion of
the 85 sites identified on page 117.
The total net new gross square feet of
development permitted in this plan shall be
allocated to four campus sectors as defined
on page 80, and as shown in Table 5. The four
areas constitute sectors for the purposes
of Section IIC of the 1998 City-University
Agreement between the City of Seattle and
the University of Washington.
The recommended footprint of a potential

development site is based on several criteria
including but not limited to access to open
space, circulation, proximity to adjoining
buildings, impact on the landscape,
opportunities for development on sites to
contribute to larger compositions or groupings
of buildings and open spaces, and alignment
with existing buildings if appropriate. As sites
are developed, the actual footprints likely will
vary from the illustrative plans as shown in the
Chapters 4 and 5 as the sites are developed.
The building footprints as shown on page 117

and 119 are used to visualize the intent for
future development. Actual building footprints
will vary from those shown. If the maximum
allowable building square footage per site
is not used on a site, the unutilized portion
of gsf can be moved to another site or sites
within that sector as long as the maximum
height limit and net new square footage is
not exceeded. A proposal for a new potential
development site not previously identified in
this Campus Master Plan shall constitute an
exempt Master Plan change.
When a new Campus Master Plan is prepared

in the future, this long-term potential will
be reassessed. Based on the identified
development parcels, conceptual footprints,
building heights and massing, the campus
could accommodate approximately 12.9 million
net new square feet of additional space in new
buildings. This 10-year conceptual plan has
identified a need for a growth allocation of an
additional 6 million net new gross square feet
on campus in addition to what was authorized
The net new square footage of development

may exceed the allocation for each campus
sector by up to 20% on a cumulative basis over
the life of this Plan without a Campus Master
Plan amendment. Development that would
cause the net new gross square footage for a
sector to exceed the permitted gross square
feet 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.
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. On a
regular basis, academic and administrative
units are asked to provide facilities needs
requests in support of their needs. Major
capital projects are reviewed for academic
need and priority assessment by the University
administration.
The proposed budget request and priorities are
reviewed and developed through discussion
with the University administration, the 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 capital budget request which
is called the One Capital Plan. The Board of
Regents is charged with the final adoption of
the capital and operating budget proposals
prior to submittal to the Governors Office of
Financial Management (OFM) and the State
Legislature for approval.
Each major capital project is reviewed for
feasibility, priority, timing, 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. As such, identification of 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. Because the
funding of capital projects depends upon the
State Legislature and/or other sources, the
Universitys specific capital projects scope and
timing are not possible to predict in detail.
Based on 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 million net new gross square feet over
the life of the 2018 Campus Master Plan.
However, there may be some years where the
development is more or less than 600,000 net
new gross square feet.
The University prepares an annual report
pursuant to the 1998 City University
Agreement. The Annual Report contains
information on the Universitys development
program as identified in the One Capital
Plan 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) when occupied, and provide
the anticipated schedule for development.
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.
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:
1. The FICM-GSF will 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.
2. 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
using other methods, such as mechanical
penthouses and mezzanines, attics,
garages, enclosed porches, inner and
outer balconies and top, unroofed floors of
parking structures. 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.
3. 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.
4. In addition to all the internal floored
spaces covered in 2. FICM-GSF above, gross
area will include the following: excavated
basement areas, mezzanines, penthouses,
223
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:
1. If a project includes demolition, the gross
square feet demolished will be a deduction
from the total project gross square feet
to calculate net new gross square feet.
Only the net new gross square feet will be
deducted from the Campus Master Plan
development allocation.
2. Consistent with other methods of
calculating building square footage, the
Campus Master Plan gross square feet will
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 ceiling height. It will include top,
unroofed floors of parking structures where
parking is available.
3. The Campus Master Plan gross square feet
will not include the gross floor area for
areas/portions of areas of the building that

are entirely below existing grade. This area
will 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.
4. For purposes of the Campus Master
Plan gross square feet, covered exterior
walkways, terraces, and open roofed areas
that are paved will have the architectural
area multiplied by an area factor of 0.50
and be added to the measured building
gross square feet.
5. Net new square footage of new building
is counted towards the growth allowable
when the building is occupied.
6. All parking areas such as structured
parking, loading areas, and interstitial
space required for mechanical and
electrical systems to support the building
will be excluded from the Campus Master
Plan gross square feet. Interstitial space is
the space between floors for mechanical,
electrical, and HVAC systems.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Please refer to Historic Preservation Policies
and Practices.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
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. 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 foundation
of planning concepts, 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. Major landscape features established
over many years, including formal and
informal open spaces, views, vistas, and axes,
continue to be preserved and strengthened.
The Universitys physical setting continues
to satisfy academic, social and cultural
requirements of students, faculty, and staff
consistent with its primary mission.
Historic Features Under the

Campus Master Plan
In this Campus Master Plan, the significant
buildings sited as part of the Oval Plan of
1898 and the 1904 Olmsted Plan, the 1909
Plans Rainier Vista, Drumheller Fountain and
accompanying radials of the 1915 Plan, and the
Liberal Arts Quadrangle and Memorial Way of
the 1915 Plan depicted in Section 3 - Existing
Conditions 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.
In addition to these well-known features, there
are other prominent features for which the
University is recognized. Many of these are
open spaces and buildings and are identified
in Section 3 - Existing Conditions. Those
spaces and prominent buildings will be treated
with the respect they deserve as keys to the
evolution of a campus which has come to
support world-class education, research, and
public service. They are understood as the
connections between the Universitys past and
future.
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 that this occurs
on a comprehensive project-by-project basis,
the University utilizes a multi-step process,
outlined in the University Presidents Executive
Order No. 50, involving several review points
including:
University of Washingtons SEPA Advisory

Committee
Board of Regents
University of Washington Architectural

Commission
Campus Landscape Advisory Committee
Design Review Board
Office of the University Architect
Seattles Landmark Preservation Ordinance

in that the University of Washington Board of
Regents has full control and authority over all
development on campus and the University is
not subject to the ordinance.
To 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 or adjacent to a building or
landscape feature more than 50 years of
age. The HRA is an attachment to all project
documentation and is considered by the
appropriate decision maker as well as shared
with and considered by the project team.
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 Universitys implementation of
the State Environmental Policy Act and the
Campus Master Plans Historic Resources
Addendum (see below). Through the SEPA
process, the University considers the potential
impacts of development on historic and
cultural resources. The Universitys SEPA
process is set forth in chapter 478-324 WAC.
The review of historic resources on the campus
does not include a review under the City of
225
Each body reviewing the project is responsible

for raising issues for consideration and
balancing the desirability and means of
protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating
historicl (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.
development. The HRA will be appropriately

updated as the project evolves prior to final
Regent action. For proposed construction in in
or adjacent to a building older than 50 years or
adjacent to a building or campus feature older
than 50 years, information described in the
bullets below will be addressed in the HRA.
The Universitys 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 HRAs 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 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.
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.
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.
Information regarding any association with

an historic event with a significant effect
upon the campus, community, city, state,
or nation, if any.
General Guidelines to be Utilized in

the Historic Resource Addendum
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
Age of project building, adjacent buildings

and open spaces. (See Appendix G for the
age of campus features.)
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,
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.
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.
OFF-CAMPUS LEASING AND

ACQUISITION
The University will limit its real property leasing
outside the MIO to spaces or land as necessary
to carry out the Universitys educational,
research and community services programs
that cannot reasonably be accommodated
within existing University facilities in the MIO.
This means that prior to considering leasing
or rental agreements, the University will make
reasonable attempts to locate academic and
research activities within available and suitable
University facilities. When existing facilities are
not available or suitable, the University will
make reasonable attempts to lease in areas
where the University related activity is a use
compatible with the existing uses in the area.
Leased property location, amount of
space, use, term of lease, and known plans
for additional leases or other changes in
leasing patterns and plans for acquisitions,
shall comply with the 1998 City-University
Agreement.
As with all other major institutions, the
University may purchase property within the
City of Seattle.
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 will 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 will be shielded or
directed away from structures in adjacent or
abutting residential zoned areas and arterials.
Lighting should be designed and managed to
realize efficient use of energy. Solar panels are
permitted.
MIO
The Major Institutional Overlay (MIO)
boundary defines the extent of the campus
that is governed by the 1998 City-University
Agreement, and the development standards
defined within this Campus Master Plan.
MODULATION
Faade modulation is not required for
Univesrity development, however the design
of buildings will strive to incorporate measures
that provide for appropriate variety, express
varying functions of the building and respect
the pedestrian scale at the ground level.
NOISE
University facilities will be designed to meet
the provisions of applicable noise control
regulations.
ODORS
Ventilation devices and other sources of odors
will be directed away from buildings and
residential property.
PARKING
Motor vehicle parking will be limited to
a maximum of 12,300 spaces within the
MIO, not including service and load zones,
spaces associated with student housing,
and accessory off-campus leased or owned
spaces. Parking spaces may be located
in any sector to accommodate need. 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
Universitys primary and secondary impact
zones. Temporary construction-related parking
provided for construction workers is exempt
from the parking maximum.
Minimum parking standards for 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
227
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.
REVIEW PROCESS
The Universitys processes for design and
environmental review are part of campus
stewardship. They 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 Universitys processes
provide for flexibility in the application of
development standards to meet the intent of
the Campus Master Plan, effective mitigation
of a proposed projects impacts, and improved
communication and mutual understanding
among the University, neighbors, and the City
of Seattle.
The Universitys design review processes foster
good stewardship of the campus setting.
Major and minor projects with impacts on
the vistor experience of the campus setting
are reviewed by the UW Design Review Board,
UW Architectural Commission and/or the
University Landscape Advisory Committee.
Design Review Board

The primary purpose of UWs Design Review
Board (DRB) is to maximize the functionality
and desirable experiential qualities of the
Seattle campus, its facilities and setting,
as influenced by plans and/or designs of
projects with budgets less than $5 million,
and/or projects which 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 multidiscipline review of project plans at the earliest
possible time in a project to provide timely
design guidance in order that the project may
achieve its goals and those of the University
within budget and schedule parameters.
Architectural Commission
For larger projects, the UW Architectural
Commission (UWAC) reviews and evaluates
selection of building sites, design of new
building 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 consultants for
projects that influence the physical and
aesthetic character of the campus settings
and periodically reviews the design of
these projects through all phases of their
development. The Commission advises
on environmental issues as they may
arise, including historic preservation, new
construction, additions to existing buildings,
major interior renovations of existing
significant buildings, and development of
the campus grounds including landscape
features and plantings, sculpture,
monuments, memorials, and public art.
In making recommendations involving the
campus grounds, the Commission will seek
consultation of the University Landscape
Advisory Committee (ULAC).
Landscape Committee
The University Landscape Advisory Committee
(ULAC) plays a key role in helping to preserve
and enhance the unique character of the
Universitys outdoor spaces and attain
high quality campus environments. The
Committee, established in 1970, is advisory to
the Architectural Commission, the University
Landscape Architect and the Associate Vice
President of Facilities Services 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
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
memorial objects and public art; open space
development and connectivity; preservation
of existing and selection of new vegetation;
irrigation performance; and conformance with
the Campus Master Plan.
University Architect
The Office of the University Architect (OUA) is
the Universitys physical and capital planning
office. Its staff of planners, designers, and
policy analysts provide leadership, counsel
and oversight regarding campus planning,
landscape and architectural design, historic

resource stewardship, strategic transportation,
sustainability and energy planning, and
space and capital resource planning for the
University of Washingtons three campuses
and associated properties. Oversight and
integration of these various disciplines is
managed by OUA staff who participate in
many campus committees including the
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
SEPA Advisory Committee.
SEPA Advisory Committee

As the lead agency for the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the
University prepares environmental checklists,
threshold determinations, and Environmental
Impact Statements (EIS) documents,
conducts environmental review, and makes
environmental determinations. The University,
as lead agency, also invites public comment
on proposed Declarations of Non-Significance,
Mitigated Declarations of Non-Significance
and the proposed scope of a projects
Draft Supplemental EIS, and responds to
comments in the final Supplemental EIS and
in appropriate cases, processes EIS Addenda.
The Universitys 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 1998
City-University Agreement, environmental
documents are provided to the City University
Community Advisory Committee for review
and comment.
Departures
Departures from the Development Standards
and Design Guidelines identified in the
Campus Master Plan are allowed as part of
the Universitys review process for projects.
Departures may be allowed if the departure
results in a project design that better meets
the intent of the Guiding Principles of the
Campus Master Plan, see page 82. Requests
for Departures will be reviewed by either
the UW Design Review Board or the UW
Architectural Commission, as applicable,
and a majority of the voting members of the
applicable body must recommend allowing the
departure.
Departures from designated maximum
building height limits or shoreline requirements
will not be allowed.
229
SETBACKS
SHORELINES
Structures
The University regulates development, uses

and shoreline modification of the shorelines in
order to protect the ecological functions of the
shoreline areas, encourage water-dependent
uses, provide for maximum public access to
enjoyment of the shorelines, and preserve,
enhance and increase views of the water.
For building structure setbacks, see Public

Realm Allowance, page 238.
Pedestrian bridges, retaining walls, raised
plazas, sculpture and other site elements shall
have no setback requirements in any zone.
Minor communications utilities exceeding the
maximum height of the MIO district shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet within the
campus boundary.
Underground structures may be located
within setback areas. Covered and uncovered
pedestrian walkways and amenities are
permitted within setbacks.
Emergency construction necessary to

protect property from damage by the
elements,
Operation, maintenance or construction
of drains or irrigation systems,
The process of removing or controlling
aquatic noxious weeds,
The following are allowed within the shoreline,

consistent with the Shoreline Management
Act:
Watershed or habitat restoration, or
Maintenance of existing pathways, stairs,

and roadways.
Maintenance, repair, replacement of

existing structures and facilities within
the shoreline provided these changes do
not require an increase or change in the
shoreline footprint of the structure or
area of the facility shown in the Campus
Master Plan except as may be permitted
under the nonconforming uses and
structures provisions in SMC 23.60A.122
and 23.60A.124. Examples include but are
not limited to:
Normal maintenance or repair of existing
structures, bulkheads or developments,
including damage by accident, fire or
elements,
Replacement of a structure or
development if comparable to the
original structure and does not cause
substantial adverse effects to the
shoreline resources or environment,
Beach nourishment or non-structural or
soft stabilization,
Hazardous substance remedial actions.
Change of use within existing structures,
New uses and structures identified in the

Campus Master Plan, and
Uses identified in the Campus Master Plan.
Shoreline Management Program

Zones
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 Universitys mission and
programs. Examples of support for academic
programs include wetland areas for nature
study, and a working waterfront for fish
hatcheries and moorage of University research
vessels. There are three Shoreline Management
Program zones within the MIO, as shown in
Figure 176.
CONSERVANCY PRESERVATION ZONE:
Legend
New development within the Conservancy

Preservation shoreline environment and
associated wetlands will be limited to
pathways, pedestrian bridges, viewing
platforms, floats, dikes to retain seasonal
ponds, and the plant collections of the
Center for Urban Horticulture.
Conservancy Preservation
Conservancy Management
Urban Commercial
Landscaping in the Conservancy

Preservation Zone will place emphasis on
plants which enhance the wildlife habitat.
An inventory of plants will be completed
and maintained for teaching and research.
CONSERVANCY MANAGEMENT ZONE:
New development within the Conservancy

Management shoreline environment will
be located and designated to minimize
disturbance of any critical habitat areas,
including the wetlands of Union Bay.
The maximum building height in the

Conservancy Management shoreline
environment will not exceed that allowed
by the Seattle Shoreline Master Program
(currently 30 feet with minor exceptions for
special features).
The maximum structure coverage in the

environment will be 35% when the
property owned by the University is
considered as a single unit from Columbia
to Walla Walla Roads, including the area
with parking lot E12.
Figure 176. Shoreline Management Zones
The view corridors in the Conservancy

Management shoreline environment will be
35% when the Conservancy Management
Shoreline property owned by the University
is considered as a single unit from
Columbia to Walla Walla Roads, including
the area with parking lot E12.
A minimum of one-half of the area within
the designated shoreline zone will be
landscaped with plant material in the
environment.
URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONE:
New development within the Urban

Commercial shoreline environment will
meet or exceed all Seattle Shoreline Master
Program development standards when
property within the designated Urban
Commercial shoreline environment owned
by the University is considered as a single
unit.
The maximum building height in the Urban

comply with the Seattle Shoreline Master
Program (currently 30 feet with some
exceptions).
231
The maximum coverage in the Urban

be 50% of land or water for waterfront
property and 100% for upland property,
with exceptions when the Urban
Commercial shoreline owned by the
University is considered as a unit.
be provided directly on the shoreline, but

will be set back to protect wetland areas.
No access will be provided to the peat
islands in Union Bay.
Access
Access in the Conservancy Preservation

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

environment will be planned for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and boats. A
continuous bicycle and pedestrian path will
be planned along this shoreline. Portions
of the bicycle path may utilize University
owned streets, which are allowed in this
shoreline environment.
Boat moorage and launching facilities in

the Conservancy Management shoreline
environment will be planned at the
Waterfront Activities Center, the Canoe
House, and the Conibear Shellhouse. The
highest priority will be given to student
recreational and intercollegiate athletic
uses. Public use of the Waterfront
Activities Center moorage facilities will
be allowed for boat rentals and special
events, e.g. Husky football games.
Canoe and rowboat rental provided at

the Waterfront Activities Center will be
available to the general public.
Parking lots and garages will be located

on upland lots within convenient walking
distances from the waterfront. Designated
spaces within these facilities will be
available for public use.
CONSERVANCY PRESERVATION ZONE:
Commercial water-dependent uses,

including moorage for private boats and
boat rentals, may be included in the Urban
Commercial shoreline in the West Campus
where their requirements do not conflict
with the water-dependent 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
will be discouraged.
Access in the Urban Commercial shoreline

environment will be planned at designated
points for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles,
and boats. A continuous bicycle and
pedestrian path will be planned along
the shoreline, but will be set back in areas
to avoid conflicts with uses which would
present safety hazards (e.g. ship staging
and loading) or in areas requiring security
(e.g. fish tanks). In some areas, the bicycle
route may utilize roadways, which are
allowed in this shoreline environment.
Some boat moorage facilities in the Urban

be available for public use. Priority will
be given to transient boat moorage and
moorage which would provide the fewest
restrictions for public access. The specific
quantity and types of moorage facilities
will be determined in consultation with
affected user groups.
CONSERVANCY MANAGEMENT ZONE:
The view corridors in the Urban

Commercial shoreline environment will not
be less than 35% of the Urban Commercial
shoreline when the Urban Commercial
shoreline owned by the University is
considered as a unit.
Access in the shoreline zones will be as follows.
URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONE:
Shoreline Access Map
Proposed Shoreline
Amenities
Restaurant/Cafe
Wetland
Public Dock
Multi-use Open Space
Marina
Waterfront Access
Natural Habitat
Pedestrian Path
Viewpoint
Center for Urban

Horticulture
Cultural Attraction
Union Bay
Natural Area
Research Center
Parking
Husky Soccer
Transit Station
B ro
Bridge
East Campus Land
ok
Husky Baseball
lyn
Gr
een
e
Str
et
LAKE
UNION
tion
nnection
Husky Stadium
Softball
Waterfront
Activity Center
Portage Bay Co
S
M PU
T CA
WE S R E E N
G
Portag
e
B ay V
ista
rail
an T
m
l
i
e- G
Burk
IL
OUS
TINU ONT TR A
N
O
C ERFR
WAT
Union Bay Connec
Conibear
Shellhouse
Montlake Cut
SOUTH CAMPUS
GREEN
Montlake
Bridge
PORTAGE BAY
Shoreline
Habitat
Portage Sakuma Agua

Bay Park Viewpoint Verde
Jensen
Marine Science
Motor
Experimentation
Boat
Company and Research
Health and
Science
Center Park
Hospital
Glade
233
Parking lots and garages will be located

on upland lots within convenient walking
distances from the waterfront.
If a water taxi or passenger ferry serving
the campus is proposed by other agencies
or private operators, the University
will evaluate potential impacts on the
Universitys mission to determine if
impacts can be mitigated, but no exclusive
parking facilities will be provided for such a
facility.
Upland Property
Upland property is defined as a property
wholly or partly within the shoreline district
which is separated as of March 17, 1977,
from the water by a street, arterial highway,
railroad right-of-way or government controlled
property which prevents access to and use
of the water. Streets and other areas which
create upland property include, but are not
limited to: Canal Road, NE Boat Street, San
Juan Road, Walla Walla Road, Columbia
Road, and parking lots E11 and E12, and any
other road or street which runs between the
shoreline and the water.
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 publics attention: 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 should dominate
the campus experience, and signs should not
compete for attention in scale, character,
or color. The following are guidelines for sign
design. All permanent and constructionrelated signs are reviewed by the Universitys
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
will be limited to:
100 square feet per sign for main entrance

signs and 50 square feet for all other
permanent signs.
The number of signs will be limited at each

entrance to the campus.
Illuminated signing will be minimal and the

light source should be shielded from view.
Freestanding signs will be limited to 12 feet

in height.
Waterfront Property
Any portion of property which is offshore or
abuts upon the ordinary high watermark or
mean high watermark and any other property
partially or entirely within the Shoreline District
which is not separated as of March 17, 1977,
from the water by a street, arterial, highway,
or railroad right-of-way or government
controlled property which prevents access and
use of the water.
Temporary signs and banners erected

to publicize special events, emergency
entrance signs, and traffic and directional
signs will be exempt from these standards.
The Husky Stadium reader board and

all signage related to Husky Stadium, is
exempt.
Ws and Husky figures are considered

monuments and not signs.
Signs internal to the University campus are not

subject to the above regulations but do require
internal University approval as specified.
SITE DESIGN STANDARDS

The following design standards regulate the
development of individual sites with the goal
of creating an active, desirable and safe public
realm. Every site has an allowable building
height limit and maximum square footage
requirement, which can be found on page 118
to 123.
Proposed Building Envelopes
Total Buildable Envelope

Allowable Building Massing / GSF Restriction
235
Active Street Level Uses and

Transparency
The Campus Master Plan strategically locates
active street level uses along prominent
pedestrian paths. Ground floor uses may
include offices, commercial, academic,
housing, or mixed-uses, but must include
active uses such as lounges and multi-use
lobbies, cafes, retail, or hands-on collaboration
spaces. Such spaces should 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, including retail, services and
entrances.
All development sites with active ground
floor designations should have wellplaced pedestrian entry points, and largely
transparent ground level facades that make
visible interior amenities and activities. The
design should contribute to and enhance
the quality of streetscape and neighborhood
character with multi-functional landscapes
and pedestrian-environment amenities.
All buildings situated along active edges shall
have an active use along 75 percent of their
frontage at the street level, as identified
on pages 242 through 245. Sixty percent of
this frontage should be transparent to allow

visibility into the space. In areas that a blank
faade is required, its maximum width shall
not exceed 15 feet. Active street level uses
support pedestrian activity throughout the
day along public right of ways and public
realm spaces, where pedestrians can view the
activities inside.
Building Orientation
Siting, including access and configuration, of
new buildings should maximize opportunities
for placemaking at the scale of the building,
site, and vicinity. Buildings should be sited
to provide ample access to light and air;
maintain view corridors and sightlines;
maximize pedestrian activity at ground level;
minimize shadows on neighboring buildings
and open spaces; and maximize passive solar
benefits, and facilitate implementation of the
Campus Master Plan and Campus Landscape
Framework.
Flexible Floorplates
Maintaining UWs flexibility in responding
to changing needs is a key objective of the
Campus Master Plan. Potential development
sites incorporate a variety of floorplate sizes,
generally ranging from 10,000 to 30,000
gross square feet to enable the University to
accommodate the full range of uses including
a full range of academic and research

partnership spaces, classroom types, cultural
destinations, open spaces, faculty and staff
offices, student housing and academic
conference centers and associate lodging.
Gateways
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 thresholds for pedestrians,
bikes, and vehicles, and should provide a
welcoming and clear sense of arrival on
campus. Gateways also form key points of
connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods
and shall be designed to enhance these
relationships.
Mid-block Passages
Mid-block passages are publicly accessible and
limited-access pedestrian pathways that travel
through the center of a blocka condition
most common throughout the West Campus,
although not exclusive to it. Mid-block
passages help increase connectivity, enhance
the pedestrian experience, and break down the
scale of larger blocks.
Mid-block passages are strongly encouraged,
though not required, in development sites that
exceed 40,000 square feet in area. A midblock passage, if provided, shall maintain a
minimum width of 25.
Pedestrian Circulation and

Connections
Potential Parking Access and

Location
The UW-Seattle campus is intended to

be a place in which pedestrian circulation
is the primary mobility mode. Wheeled
transportation is presumed to deliver
pedestrians to campus. Buildings, site
improvements, infrastructure and landscapes
should support and reinforce legible and safe
pedestrian movement; promote connections
to major transit nodes; create mid-block
and through-block connections; reinforce
connections to the waterfront; and embrace
best practices with regard to universal design.
Where physically and financially possible,

parking shall be accommodated underground
with minimal visual impact on or conflict with
the public realm. Parking design should be
logical and easy to access with entry points
concentrated along streets with low volumes
of pedestrian and bike traffic. Development
should minimize the number of access points
for both vehicular and service access, and
avoid, if at all possible, crossing heavilytraveled pedestrian areas. All above grade
parking shall be wrapped with non-parking
uses on the primary facade, to activate the
facade with fenestration and visible human
occupancy in the podium facade. The Campus
Master Plan designates access points to
parking for illustrative purposes only.
Development should promote urban design

best practices regarding streetscapes, green
streets, parking, lighting, landscape, street
furniture, signage, and pedestrian and bike
integration.
Protected 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 and larger regional natural features,
e.g. Mt. Rainier, Olympic Mountain Range,
Portage Bay, Lake Washington). The Campus
Master Plan preserves and protects these
views out from the campus as well as views
from surrounding neighborhoods and streets
into the campus, by prohibiting development
within view corridors.
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.
Podiums shall be a maximum of 45 in height,
with development above stepping back
according to upper level setback guidelines
under the public realm allowance. The intent
is to maintain a pedestrian friendly scale and
minimize the impact of shadows on the public
realm.
237
Public Realm Allowance

The public realm includes rights of way,
streetscapes, sidewalks, street lighting, street
furniture, bio-swales, pedestrian paths, trails,
courtyards, plazas, parks, landscapes, and
publicly accessible open spaces. It includes
the building exteriors and the spaces in
between buildings. In the absence of parcel
boundaries, public realm allowances have
been established. The public realm allowance
refers to a minimum zone between the street
curb and the edge of proposed development,
and is intended to create a comfortable and
desirable pedestrian experience.
In order to maintain a pedestrian-oriented
public realm the following public realm
allowances are established from the curb line
along public streets:
20 minimum along Stevens Way
22 minimum along Brooklyn Ave includes

elevated bike lane as part of public realm
24 minimum along Pacific Ave
80 minimum along Montlake Blvd
16 minimum for all other streets
In addition to the public realm allowance, the

planning of every site shall establish a sense
of place by integrating the urban setting,
landscape, built form and furnishings of
complementary scales to ensure the campus
continues to be a memorable and desirable
setting.
Figure 179. Section through Stevens Way. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.
Figure 180. Section through Brooklyn Avenue. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.
3
4
2
1
3
Figure 181. Section through Pacific Avenue. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.
Figure 182. Section through Montlake Boulevard. Graphics are for Illustrative Purposes Only.
239
Service and Emergency Vehicle

Access
Tower Separation
Service and emergency access points should

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.
For sites that include towers above 85 a

minimum distance of 75 shall be maintained
between the towers in West, Central and
East Campus. 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 183 on the following
page.
Significant or Major Open Spaces
Upper Level Setbacks
The Campus Master Plan identifies a number

of publicly accessible, significant open spaces.
The Campus Master Plan supplements existing
historic and culturally significant open spaces,
primarily located on Central Campus with
a range of new civic-scaled open spaces
in West, South and East Campus. These
spaces form key structuring elements for
campus development and shall be preserved,
protected, intentionally developed, and
surrounded by active uses.
Streetscape Improvements
Strong, unified, continuous, and consistent
street character shall contribute to a welldefined sense of place, creates and enhances
the University identity and sense of welcome
to all, enhances the urban environments
functionality and overall aesthetic, promotes
safety, and provides other benefits.
Upper level setbacks refer to the distance

buildings need to step back beyond specific
heights, and impact the overall modulation of
buildings. Upper level setbacks are designed
to allow light and air at the street level, and
minimize the impact of shadows on the street.
Setbacks are needed to mitigate impacts of
tower structures throughout the campus, but
especially the West and South Campus.
Sites with footprints that exceed 30,000
square feet shall maintain a minimum upperlevel setback of 20 feet along edges whose
height exceeds the recommended podium
height of 45. For sites smaller than 30,000
square feet, buildings that exceed 45 in
height shall maintain a minimum upper-level
setback of 20 along at least two edges of the
podium. To allow flexibility and modulation of
the building form, a maximum of 50 percent
of the building footprint may extend up to 85
without a setback.
In the South Campus, all development along

NE Pacific St, along the south side of NE
Columbia Rd and for all buildings facing the
shoreline, a 20 setback is required above 45.
Buildings on the north side of NE Columbia Rd
shall be setback 20 for development above
85.
The following development guideline maps
on pages 242 to 245 identify active edges,
primary pedestrian connections, streetscape
improvements, significant or major open
spaces, protected view corridors, potential
parking access and service access.
Design Standards
Setbacks and Podiums

M IN
75
TOWER SEPARATION
MINIMUM*
FLEXIBLE FLOORPLATES
BETWEEN 10,000 TO
30,000 SF
UPPER LEVEL
SETBACK
20
25
MID-BLOCK PASSAGES
MINIMUM 25
MAXIMUM
PODIUM HEIGHT
MAX 45
* With exceptions on South Campus
241
Hansee Hall
Hughes
Stevens Way
DENNY FIELD
Hutchinson
Dempsey
Music
Savery
Major Open Space

Pedestrian Connection
Shared Street
Service Access
Mary
Gates
Guggenheim
Guthrie
Bagley
Chemistry
Kincaid
Engineering
Library
Loew
Power
Plant
Electrical
Engineering
Computer
Science &
Engineering
More
Life Sciences
NE
Pa
c
ifi
Roberts
Anderson
cS
t
Potential Parking Access

Forested Edge
Buildings on the Historic Register
Bloedel
Winkenwerder
Road
Husky Union
Building
Fluke
M ason
Allen
UW
Club
lvd N
E
Molecular
Johnson
Eng.
Physics/
Astronomy
Hall
Health
Suzzallo Library
Gerberding
Development Zone Boundary

200 Foot Shoreline District Overlay
Thomson
GRIEG
GARDEN
lake B
Architecture
Smith
Gowen
Meany
sW
ay
Miller
Comm.
Kane
Odegaard
Clark
Whitman Ct NE
LIBERAL
ARTS QUAD
M o nt
15th Ave NE
DENNY YARD Raitt
RED
SQUARE
Active Edge
Art
Parrington
Ste
ven
Pen
d
Denny Hall
O re
Lewis
PARRINGTON
LAWN
Henry
Art
North
Physics Lab
Rd
Memorial Way
Paccar

ill e
Burke
Museum
William H.
Gates
Central Campus
NE 45th St
MEMORIAL
GATEWAY
Elm
Terry
Benjamin
Hall
Maple
University Way NE
Brooklyn Ave NE
Cedar
Apartments
Poplar
Lander
Eagleson
Social
Work
West Campus
Development
Guidelines
Play
House
Alder
Commodore
Duchess
Publication
Service
Ethnic
Cultural
Center
Gould
NE Northlake Way
ive
rsi
ty
Br
id g
Mercer Court
Un
West
Receiving
Station
Fishery
Sciences
William H.
Foege
Portage
Bay Park
243
Av
e
South Campus
15
th

st
William H.
Foege
Pa
c
ifi
Po
r
ta
ge
Ba
Vi
NE
cS
t
Ocean Sciences
K-Wing
H-Wing
Jensen
Motor
Boat
pu
sG
re
en
Marine
Sciences
Ca
Co
lu
bi
Rd
ut
So
Major Open Space
Active Edge
Forested Edge
Pedestrian Connection
200 Foot Shoreline District Overlay
Utility Plant
Montlake
Tower
UW Surgery
Pavilion
Shared Street
Service Access
Potential Parking Access
Glade
Montlake Boulevard NE
Development Zone Boundary
NE 45th St
East Campus
Development
Guidelines
G
M.
IMA
Field
IMA
Field
at
es
mo
ri a
Cl a

Me
lD
NE
d
rk R
rN
E
IMA
Field
Urban
Horticultural
Center
Douglas
Research
Conservatory
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
Union Bay
Husky Stadium
Softball
WAC
Canoe
House
245
STRUCTURE HEIGHT LIMITS

Maximum building heights for development
are identified in Section 4 Campus Master
Plan and are as follows:
MIO - 30
MIO - 50
MIO - 65
MIO - 90
MIO - 105
MIO - 160
MIO - 200
MIO - 240
All development within the Shoreline District
Overlay, which is all development within 200
feet of the shoreline, and associated wetlands,
is restricted to a maximum building height of
30 feet.
Structure height is measured from finished
or existing grade, whichever is lower, up to
a plane essentially parallel to the existing or
finished grade. Therefore, the height limit
profile for 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 and television

aerials, flagpoles, light poles and exhaust
ducts are exempt from the height controls
but may be limited for other reasons as
determined through the UWs design review
processes. Stair and elevator penthouses,
chimneys, mechanical equipment,
telecommunications utilities and accessory
communication devices, greenhouses, and
open mesh fencing may extend up to 15
feet above the maximum MIO height, if the
combined coverage of all rooftop features
does not exceed 25 percent.
Many University structures contain fume
hood exhaust ducts. These ducts are exempt
from the height controls. To preserve views
and vistas and create aesthetically pleasing
roofs that will be viewed and become part
of the campus open space vistas screening
is permitted and specific location of such
ducts must be reviewed and approved by
the appropriate UW design review body. This
screening may exceed the height and coverage
percentage to insure that views and vistas are
not adversely impacted.
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 expected to be the future
transport medium for video, data, and
voice, and therefore the University must
maintain flexibility for changing technologies.
Antennae are a necessary part of the wireless
communication infrastructure. The University
uses communication and accessory devices
for a range of applications from television
broadcasts to receiving data from weather
satellites. Currently, the University has a
cluster of antennae located northeast of Lewis
Hall and south of the tennis courts. There are
also antennae located on the roof of Kane
Hall. Other communication and accessory
devices are located on individual buildings.
Minor communications utilities 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.
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 antenna adjacent
to support space/electrical shelters and
on the ground to accommodate size and
minimize vibration. Roof top installations
are also acceptable and better satisfy space
and security requirements; however, wind
loads and space requirements for associated
equipment should be considered. A dish
antenna of any size is permitted within the
MIO.
The University will consider the following when
siting ground or roof top antenna on campus:
Public Health and Safety the University will
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 using methods
to screen or conceal the facilities. New
antennae shall be consolidated with existing
antennae and mechanical equipment as much
as possible. Ground locations will be screened
(with buildings or landscaping) if appropriate
and will not conflict with valued open space.
Roof top locations will be sited to ensure
that prominent vistas will not be adversely
affected. Architectural suitability and
character of the building will be considered for

roof top installations. Technical issues such as
line-of-sight will be balanced with aesthetic
considerations. Review of new equipment will
be presented to DRB for approval.
Security all facilities will be secured to
prevent vandalism. Design will 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).
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.
viable alternative for short-term occupancy.

The University has policies and procedures
in place to review and approve the use of
temporary facilities and to ensure that their
use is only temporary and utilized when there
is no other space option. Temporary structures
will be designated for a specific length of time
and the need and timeframe will be evaluated
by the DRB. Temporary tent structures are
permitted and do not require design review.
The DRB will also review any requests for
extensions of temporary facilities.
TRANSPORTATION
The University has an adopted Transportation
Management Plan (TMP) that strives to limit
peak-period, peak-direction vehicle trips of
students, staff and faculty at or below 1990
levels. The TMP includes a U-PASS program
covering transit, parking management, ride
sharing, shuttles, bicycles and pedestrians.
Please see the TMP (Chapter 5, page 142)
for baseline trip limits. These limits are used
rather than the City of Seattle transportation
concurrency screenlines.
Campus roadways and sidewalks are regulated
by the University and coordinated with the Fire
Department for emergency egress and access.
While the University discourages the use

of 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
247
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
Universitys physical and aesthetic character
by preventing untimely and indiscriminate
removal or destruction of trees, and protects
exceptional tress because of their unique
historical, ecological, or aesthetic value.
Through the UFMP, campus tree resources and
revegetation is managed campus-wide and
not site by site or project by project. The goals
of the UFMP are to:
Effectively communicate the value of the

Universitys 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.
The UFMP identifies the value of urban trees

for ecological (habitat, Stormwater, air quality,
wind, food, microclimate, phytoremediation,
and groundwater), social, cultural, visual and
physiological reasons. In 2015, the University

canopy cover was 20.9%, already meeting
the citys 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.
If removal of campus trees is undertaken
pursuant to the UFMP, it is exempt from
the operation of the City of Seattle Tree
Ordinance.
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.
Academic Use: 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; 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: Facilities providing housing and/

or support functions for housing including,
but not limited to dormitories, married
student and family housing, patientfamily housing, faculty and staff housing,
food service, maintenance, day care, and
playgrounds.
Mixed-Use: Facilities that include multiple

activities such as transportation, housing,
academic, and commercial uses.
Transportation: Underground, surface, and

structured parking and roads supporting
vehicle circulation including service and
emergency service.
Open Space: Outdoor open and

landscaped areas integral to the overall
campus environment and/or supporting
pedestrian circulation or athletic/
recreation.
Industry partnerships / manufacturing: 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: 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:
the erection of a permanent structure,
substantial injury to the property in the

vicinity, and
is not materially detrimental to the public

welfare and is consistent with the spirit of
the Campus Master Plan.
A transitional encampment is allowed as

a temporary use as long as the University
determines it meets the institutions mission
and serves the goals of the University. The
University will designate and approve the
location. The operator shall prepare an
Encampment Operations Plan to be approved
by the University. The plan 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. At
least 9 months shall elapse before another
encampment use may be located on campus
again. The encampment will 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 will be submitted to the University
concerning encampment operations.
249
APPENDIX
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACT ZONES
CITY OF SEATTLE UNDERLYING ZONING MAP
UW BUILDING INVENTORY
GLOSSARY
251
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Objectives:
To achieve the goals for the Campus Master

Plan, it is very important to engage the large
and diverse groups of constituents who have
a vested interest in the Universitys 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 UWs 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 2018 Seattle Campus Master Plan.
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 Campus
Master Plan. Campus and community reviews
take place during the development of the
Preliminary, Draft, and Final Campus Master
Plans.
PROVIDE CONSISTENT, CLEAR, AND

ACCUR ATE INFORMATION
The 1998 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 will work together
with the City-University Community Advisory
Committee (CUCAC) and representatives
from the surrounding residential and business
communities. These entities will work together
throughout the planning process.
This Public Participation Program is subject to
change and may be revised as required.
252 Appendix - October 2016 Draf t Plan
Goals:
1. Keep constituents informed and updated
on the development of the Campus
Master Plan;
2. Provide opportunities for early and
continuous participation by the public;
3. Consider and respond to comments and
feedback (where appropriate).
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;
Address issues and concerns, provide

timely follow-up to individuals and
organizations on how their concerns/issues
can be addressed.
STRIVE TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT

THAT PROMOTES OPEN DISCUSSION AND
MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE
FACILITATE AND ENCOUR AGE EARLY,

ONGOING PARTICIPATION
TR ACK OUTREACH ACTIVITIES AND

COMMUNICATIONS, EVALUATE
EFFECTIVENESS
Encourage input and participation from all

interested parties through:
Provide a variety of communication vehicles

for the public to provide feedback and become
informed through:
Identify patterns and track comments,

requests, and complaints;
Information gathering and exchanging of

ideas;
A hotline number for people to express

concerns or ask questions;
Education;
Active listening.
Dedicated email address for written

communications;
Record-keeping: keep copies of summaries

of outreach meetings, newsletters, fliers,
correspondence, and other outreachrelated materials; and
Online feedback form where people can

leave comments;
Add additional measures to ensure public

participation, if warranted.
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; and
Regularly posting project information on

social media sites and project website.
On-line meetings and questionnaire to

gather input
Appendix - October 2016 Draf t Plan
253
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

STAKEHOLDERS AND TARGET
AUDIENCES
The University cast a wide net with its
outreach efforts to ensure that input on the
Draft Plan reflects a wide range of interests
and influences. This input enhances the
planning process and the ultimate success of
the Campus Master Plan. Stakeholder groups
for the Campus Master Plan 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 Campus Master
Plan stakeholders, notice of the availability
of the Campus Master Plan Draft Plan
is published in a variety of media (e.g.,
as discussed further below, print, on-line
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.
2018 Seattle CMP Public Participation

Program
The University also provides general notice
of the time and place of the public meetings
through standard notice procedures,
potentially such as email campaigns, flyers,
posters, direct mail postcards, the project
website, social media, and community email
lists in advance of such meetings.
Stakeholders
and Targeted
Audiences
that will THAT
be notified
CMP and
TABLE 19. STAKEHOLDERS
AND TARGETED
AUDIENCES
WILL BE of
NOTIFIED
OF EIS 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
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 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 Campus
Master Plan process and provides input,
advice, and comments to the University as it
develops the Draft and Final Campus Master

Plan. They typically meet monthly, but during
the development and review of the Draft
Campus Master Plan, they may meet more
often as needed.
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
Committees 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
on the UW Regional and Community Relations
website. The minutes from these meetings are
posted on the City of Seattles 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 Campus Master Plan 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

Campus Master Plan and 56 day comment
period on the Final Campus Master Plan
255
SUMMARY OF OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES
The University actively engages audiences
and encourages feedback using a wide variety
of communications vehicles. The University
keeps audiences informed of progress, issues
and developments regarding the Campus
Master Plan on a regular basis. While
traditional methods (meetings, workshops,
presentations, etc.) play an important role in
public engagement, the University augments
these methods with electronic participation
tools to further broaden outreach and
broadly disseminate information. These tools
include 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
Presentations will cover an overview of
the preliminary Campus Master Plan and
draft Campus Master Plan as they are
developed
Public Meetings or Open Houses

Briefings, community meetings, and online
meetings are conducted during the project.
Notices of public meetings are broadly
disseminated prior to the meeting. Public
meetings occur with the following groups:
University District Partnership;
Northeast District Council;
City-University Community Advisory

Committee (Co-sponsor)
Special Interest Groups;
Postcards
Community Clubs and Councils; and
Fact sheets
City of Seattle Departments
Posters and flyers
University of Washington committees and

groups
Publicizing meetings to campus

organizations, used with mailing lists,
displayed on campus and in University
District locations
Project Hotline
Interested parties can call a dedicated

Campus Master Plan hotline (206-685-6736) to
get information on project status, upcoming
events and to leave questions or comments.
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Online Media
PROJECT WEBSITE:
Opportunity for individuals to be added to

distribution list through in links included on
project website.
Facebook page
Twitter handle
YouTube channel (not yet established)
Hyperlocal online forums/blogs
General information/contact numbers/

email
Project newsletter archive
Online Public Meeting Forums
News/updates/Fact sheets/FAQs
Online surveys
Document archive
Community Newsletters
Interactive comment form
Links to newsletter sign up, various social

media pages
EMAIL DISTRIBUTION: CAMPUS MASTER

PL AN CONNECTION
Email distribution includes: UWS Faculty

Senate, FCUFS, ASUW, GPSS, UW
Environmental Stewardship Committee,
Community groups, neighborhood groups,
and various government organizations.
257

Program
E. Summary of Outreach Activities, continued
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Estimated
Reach/Distribution
Vehicle
Direct Mail
News Media
Print/online/
hyperlocal
publications
Email
Campaigns
Social Media
Target Audience
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
Twitter
Facebook
Next Door Madison Park
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
Broadcast Media KUOW

KEXP
FINALDRAFT January2016
1,168
N/A
650
230 followers & growing
31 Page Likes
867 members
354,000
Faculty, staff, students, community groups, general

public, neighborhoods
Madison Park neighborhood
CONTACT INFORMATION

Program
Daily, and UW Today, and posted on social

IMPLEMENTATION AND
media sites Facebook and Twitter. In addition,
Campus Master Plan Website: http://pm.uw.
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN REVIEW
was distributed via community
G. Implementation and Plan Review information
Schedule
edu/about
newsletters, blogs and email listservs. The
SCHEDULE
comment period for the EIS Scoping process

TheUniversity
Universitykicked
kickedoffoff
Seattle
Campus
The
itsits
Seattle
Campus
Master Plan
October
20156th
withtotwo
open houses
raninfrom
October
October
26th, 2015.
Master Plan in
2015 with
two open
accompanied
byOctober
the EIS Scoping
meetings.
The events were publicized one week in advance with a press
housesand
accompanied
by thethe
EISlaunch
Scoping
release
email campaign,
of a dedicatedImplementation
website, print and
ads placed
in the Seattle
of online
the public
participation
meetings.
The
events
were
publicized
oneDaily,
weekand UW
Daily Journal of Commerce, Seattle Times, The
and posted
on socialactivities
media sites
planToday,
is ongoing,
with specific
andFacebook
use
in advance
with
a pressinformation
release and
email
and
Twitter. In
addition,
was
distributed via
newsletters,
blogs
email
listserves.
ofcommunity
media vehicles
scheduled
to and
provide
notice
th.
campaign,
the
launch
a EIS
dedicated
The
comment
period
forof
the
Scopingwebsite,
process ran from
October
October 26
in advance
of6th
thetomeetings,
events
or plan
print and online ads placed in the Seattle
publications.
Daily Journal ofofCommerce,
Seattle Times,
The
Implementation
the public participation
plan
will be ongoing, with specific activities and use of media
vehicles scheduled to provide notice in advance of the meetings, events or plan publications.
Listserve signup: http://pm.uw.edu/

Email: cmpinfo@uw.edu
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UWSeattle-Campus-Master-Plan
Twitter: https://twitter.com/UWCMP
Phone: 206.685-6736
To provide feedback to UW staff

regarding the Campus Master Plan:
Theresa Doherty
Senior Project Director
tdoherty@uw.edu
206.221.2603
Leslie Stark
CMP Outreach Coordinator
lstark24@uw.edu
206.685-6736
TABLE 21. 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
Winter 2017
Hearing Examiner and City Council
Summer 2017
City Council and Board of Regents Approval
Late 2017 or early 2018
FINALDRAFT January2016
259
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

IMPACT ZONES
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 188).
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.
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
PRIMARY & SECONDARY IMPACT ZONES
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON GENERAL PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Figure 188. Primary and Secondary Impact Zones
261
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
120
120
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
40
40
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
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
51
40
40
69
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
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
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
95.57
95.57
25
25
34.01
34.01
N2^11'22"E
N211'22"E
R/W Easement
34.03 46.21 N2^11'22"E
25
25
25
25
88
25
25
25(P)
25(P)
45.28(D)
45.28(D)
185.20
185.20
7.
7.0
09
9
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
N206'31"E
120249
25
25
VAC 15TH AV NE
581.02
581.02
25
25
25
25
CO 17947
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
N206'31"E
N2^06'31"E
VAC 15TH AV NE
25
25
696.56
696.56
25
25
25
25
25
25
N2^06'48"E
834.55
N2^06'48"E (W.C.S.)
ORD
25
25
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
25
25
25
8"
E
N0^53'22"E N037'18"E
53.43
53.43
N0^37'18"E N053'22"E
S8542'14"E VO 120249
S85^42'14"E
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
......
25
25
53.43
53.43
....N8542'
N85^42'14"W
14"W
61.64
61.64
...
....
6.61
6.61
78.52
78.52
N206'31"E
N2^06'31"E
2843.83
284
3.8 3
40
40
40
40
40.01
40.01
WY NE
26.97
26.97
DEDICATED F OR HIGHWAY
PURPO SE BY CHAPT.66 LAW
S O F 1929
VO 96717
20
20
-
-50
9.00
VO 120249
5
5
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
73
7^
31
1'4
8"E
'4
118.00
118.00
7.
.68
68
79.
N3 76.
N3
73
7^76.0
07
31
1'4 7
8"E
'4
NE
17
177
100.06
100.06
8"
E
1'4
8"E
'4
79
90
N3
N3 .9
73
7^ 0
31
20
20
.7
.7
AV
AO
15
TH
12
N4
N4
02
4^
49
83 43
9'1
.8 39
'1
0 8"E
8"
E
63.5(P)
63.5(P)
03.
3 .50
50
VO 95764
27.08
27.08
52
IFS
19
IFU
19- A
3^
69
.1
17.8
17.
93
893
46
73
'5
83
.4
3"
79
30
30
21.96
21.96
69
.1
VO
936
73
56
.4
83
25.907
25.907
33
11. 56.431
11.3
55
355
VO 93656
VAC 15TH AV NE
10
100
.9
CF292350
CO 17947
VO 93656
31.24
31.24
31.24 31.24
31.24
31.24
31.24
31.24
R=22
R=22
4.12
4.1
344.42
N0-00-05E
N000'05"E
344.42
UNIVERSITY WY N
40
40
40
40
60
40
40
40
40
80
40
40
65
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
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
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
540.04
N2^07'01"E
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
40
40
40
40
40
40
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
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
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
N206'13"E
652.30
652.30
786.63
VAC UNIVERSITY WY NE
SC1 p17
3.
.51
51
10
103
9
N3
N3
73
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
120
AO
80.12
80.12
25
25
N206'13"E
N2^06'13"E
VO 120249
249
R=2
R=20
VO 120249
2.52
2.52
30
30
34.49(P)
34.49(P)
33.31(P)
33.31(P)
78.15
N2^06'48"E
N3
47.6(P)
47.6(P)
30
30
0^
07
"W
55.
S28 55.0
S28
04
59
^5'00"43
9' 3
W
00
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
-
VO 110306
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
637.97
E
'4
5"
"W
40
40
U N I V E R S I
30
55
40
40
40
40
30.417
40
40
79.05
40(P)
40(P)
40(P)
40(P)
32.58
73.05
40
40
40
40
UNIVERSITY WY NE
40
40
40
40
359.89
N2-06-54E
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
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
40
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
25
25
25
25
203.44
N2^06'55"E
25
25
R=490
R=490
15
25
25
0.22
0.22
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
N2^07'26"ESC1 p22
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
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
40
40
40
40
60
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
60
60
24.6
24.6
VO 104770
S28
S28
59
^59
'00"
'00
W
79
579
79
579
79
579
79
579
28.
28.5
28.
28.5
28.
28.5
28.
28.5
28.
28.5
79
579
28.
28.5
79
579
36.66
36.66
40
40
40
40
VO 110306
27.22
27.22
47.67
47.67
VO 110306
VO 110306
60
60
VO 11306
20
20
20
20
486.54
N2^07'08"E
28.
28.5
78.613
50
50
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
N207'11"E
N2^07'11"E
N207'11"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
60
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
140
40
40
40
40
540.10
N2^07'11"E
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
40(P)
40(P)
40
40
18
18
540.14
N2^07'11"E
40
40
VO 100406
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
79
579
79
579
79
579
28.5
28.
40
40
30.07
30.04
30.04
30.09
30.05 30.09
30.05
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
239.48
30
30
30
30
12TH AV NE
30
30
30
30
AO 9577
35
35
38.65
38.65
40(P)
40(P)
40(P)
40(P)
40
40
40
40
107.89
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
476.35
40
40
533.27
40
40
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
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
540.09
N2^07'18"E
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
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 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
25.
25.8
94
89
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
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
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
40
59.64
...... 59.64
40
40
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
30
25(P) 30
25(P)
30
N
Y
L
K
120.03
120.03
N2^07'07"E
N207'07"E
B
VO 100343
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
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
30.04
30.04
30
30
45
AO 9577
30
45
30
30
S HE L T ON ' S
30.04
30.04
40
40
530.98
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
85
40
40
40
40
40
40
75
40
40
40
40
40
40
370.48
N2^06'47"E
40
40
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
N3
35
35.
.6
68
CO
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
40
40
40
40
40
40
N2^06'54"E
40
40
186.13
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
11TH AV NE
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
40
40
40
40
40
40
540.14
N2^06'57"E
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
120.03
120.03
40
40
N206'57"E
N2^06'57"E
118002
...... AO
30
30
124
124
.88
.8
11TH AV NE
KE
7^ 15 2.
08 22
'5
ST 1"E
LA
EA
N3
VO 91348
14
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
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
N206'30"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
9'
^4
90
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
45
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
396.44
N2^07'01"E
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
40.004
40.004
295
295
45
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)
No
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
20
46.01
46.01
30
30
27
32
36
21
821
.8
33 18.
18
VO 93656
8- 78
L
VO
15
415
.4
25
25.
31.24
31.24
2
6.0
02
65
32
31
9001
79
BIN
ED
BU
L KH
EA
D,
ER
HE
S TA
TE
AR
Lot
000
99.
99.0
PARCEL B
Bdy
L A K E
Adj
PARCEL C
No
60
95060 55
0 555
5.0 39.5
000 5.00
39.
41.
41.0
822
.8
23
23.
25
4.9
112.50
112.50
IFU
0535
13 - A
38.
SEATTLE CONSTRUCTION LIMIT LINE
58
23.43
63.68
0526
37.87
235.150
HYDR
75
S0 03'38"W
N0-03-38E
99.98
IFS
13
49.99
49.99
624.930
14
VOL 191-74 7 5
99.98
99.98
S0 03'38"W
S004'20"W
99.98
99.98
99.98
(Co ndo)
Boyer On The Bay

VOL 191-74 7 5
DQL
28
Boyer On The Bay
311.64
N89-56-42W
S8956'42"E
311.64
49.99
49.99
3.5
(Condo)
45.05
45.05
IFS
E
LI
LIN
IT
ON
LIM
TI
T
L
MI
AN AV E
50
50
LINE
50
50
MEAN DER
102930
10
174.472
174.472
250.96
S8956'42"E
N89-56-42W
250.96
KE
GO VE RN MENT
50
50
2822
539.075
49.99
49.99
49.99
49.99
49.99
49.99
49.99
49.99
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
BOYER AV E
50
50
40
12
40
13
40
27
45.03
45.03
0556
N0^16'02.7"E
37.5
37.5
72
113.793
113.793
0555
40
ST N O 89910
40
40
43
....
14.36
14.36
2.1
2.14
120
120
50
50
50
50
47
50
50
50
50
43
50
50
38
DQL
50
50
12
11TH AV E
DQL
26
50
50
13
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
76.49
76.49
10TH AV E
14
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50 50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50 50
50
50
50
50
50
50
46
120
120
40
37.5
37.5
PO
50
50
50
50
HARVARD AV E
50
50
10
6.
+7
54
23
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
109.49
N88^49'07"W
33
33
475.000
33
33
LA
BROADWAY E
SR 5
......
"E N1^16'34"E
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
CL BASELINE
CL
BASELINE
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
N3^24'E
SHEE TS 3 & 4
58.83
N88^49'07"W
15
15
SEATTLE FREEWAY
110
110
S31
37.5
37.5
3W
14
37.5
37.5
11
.
!
G
60
1^
16
15
11.72
11.72
181.67
N88^49'07"W
.
!
G
110
110
68.276
68.276
S3
E G AL E R S T TO E S HE L BY ST
15
15
110
110
0676
IFU
15 - A
-4
.950
11611
SR 5
.
!
G
37.5
37.5
0675
S89^56'41.7"E
S8956'41.7"E
1-
37.5
37.5
....
16
15
Esmt
N3
12
310.05
N88^48'04"W
110
110
1212
14
36
36
46
25
.5
37 37. 5
50
DQL
5.5
.9
.950
116
116
13
15
15
37
37.
37
310.17
N88^48'54"W
110
110
85.61
85.61
95
14
.
!
G
37.5
37.5
50
50
.71
.71
220
220
74.
12
37.5
37.5
50
50
22
22
28
24
SC18 p56
16
15
50
50
95
110
110
50
50
12.
12.5
Ad
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
74.
13
DQL
50
50
110
110
.50
.50
112 y
112
73
15
15
110
110
50
50
100
14.
14
.
!
G
37.5
37.5
50
50
11
Lo
43
37.5
37.5
50
50
22
93
16
50
50
21
.5
.593
131
131
310.13
N88^48'50"W
110
110
15
50
50
20
87
50
50
19
22
15
15
110
110
N8957' 07"E
50
50
N89^57'07"E
18
...
101
20.0
20.
9...
18.9 393
18.
18.9
2 18.
37.5
37.5
50
50
E SHELBY ST
17
717
48.
48.1
126.63
37.5
50
50
16
VOL 8- 78
21.
21.2
50
50
15
50
50
14
46
46
50
50
13
Esm
50
50
12
66
66
50
50
310.06
N88^49'10"W
11
S U P P L
020
50.
50.2
50
50
10
17
17
.
!
G
37.5
37.5
A D D
50
.6
.66
140
140
50
96
8"
310.01(G)
N88^48'59W
3.5
50
50
'5
125
125
53.5
12
12
37.5
37.5
15
L IN
0660
F gu e 189 Seatt e Depa tment o Const uct on and nspect on Map

D
Book Sheet
78E
N
N
Y
33
BO
43.
15
15
PARCEL A
44.
44.5
12.22
12.22
15
15
10
10
5.5
5.5
.4
W328 .5 6
.56
'48"
115
115
777
66.
66.7
50
50
0^
Esm
16
16
N3
AV
10
36
303
10.
10.0
696
93.......
93.9
86.73
86.73
50
50
90
S58
do
on 212-95E
L 48 0
.0
VO 6- .00
-3 132 3
58 132
12
(C
.....
.
38
64.
109
109
.21
.21
72.
72.2
424
SU
110
110
110
110
15
15
10.20
10.20
120
120
120
120
100
10
23
.23
0.
.05
....
....
23.1
23.
616
16
43.
50
50
30
50
50
50
50
64.
19.
19.1
919
50
50
8"
08
'5
41
8^
72.2
24
4 80.
N2
72.
PP
50
50
50
50
81
8.
50
50
61
71
59
49
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
50.63
50.63
49.72
49.72
41
10
100
37
20
200
0.910.91
08
69.38
69.38
120
1.
38
31
15
415
.4
25.
25
30
HYDR
58
06 "E
.0
50. '05
50
70.28
70.28
326
919
27.
27.1
15
15
ds
an
orel
Sh ) 96
an
hrm
.45
Fu
328
0
50.0 50'1 2"W
23
N31
34
24
000
29.
29.0
DQL
29
LINE
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
N206'41"E
N2^06'41"E
0.10
0.10
N206'30"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
N117'43"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^
904
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
25
25
83
30
30
55.
55.6
060
75
32
34.
.17
97
AN
BR
AD
OA
DW
D
AY
E
NN
50
30
30
120
120
93
29.6
29.
969
92.
50
50
85
62.
50
50
27.5
56
6
27.
050
27.
27.5
HR
FU
Y-
124
124
.01
.01
73.5
"E
N27 67.
N27
67.1
30'
^30 52
152
44"E
'44
CO
6134
6
80212
MAP
No
12
280
P
MA
110
110
(P)
(P)
110
110
46
613
CO
46
12
613
2-
80
P
CO
50
50
E
50
50
N2 38 8.
8^
41 44
'3
8"
50
50
50
50
24.
24.6
666
85
50
50(P
45
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
DE
25.0
25
0
23.
23.0
04
4
23.0
37
50
50
06
50
50
20.
54.27
S27
S2748.
48.3
36
^37
37'5 6
'55
5"W
"W
41.
41.0
808
5.5
37
37.
5.5
50
50
MA
"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.
......
25
25
12.
12.5
20
3.
15
15
310.41
N1^11'10"E
15
415
.4
25
25.
10
100
29
.95
E5
'48"
.0
36
N58326
N DER
N1^12'03"E
61
1 0.06
2220
80
470
50
50
SC18 p59
25.
25.8
GE
9"
ID
'4
BR
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
91
5.
50
50
43
50
50
50
50
50(
50(P
)P)
CO 13003
86
25
25
50
50
506
62.
62.5
151
8^
SC1
416 p58
'5
0"
N2
E
50
50
AV
26.
26.1
11
1
50
50
NK
LIN
50
50
48.
48.0
03
3
FR
A
44
50
50
"E
N27
N27
^27
27'
'07
07"E
.70
.70
105
30
30 105
30
30
120
120
24.
24.9
95
5 25.
25.018
0
156.86
CO 13003
CO 13003
VO
CO 13003
502.83
N1^12'28"E
N88^57'53"W
6.25
UN
45
47
47
110
110
06"E
6"
'0
N28
42'
AV
E
50
50
42
301
.47
8^
N2
301
-0
.47
6E
EAS
TLA
KE
242.23 N149'40"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)
47
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.
G)
E(
3"
)
(G
N1^49'40"E(SH)
LINE
DER
MEAN
4^
04
04
'51
'5
.3"
W
1.
3"
W
FREEWAYR/W
R/W
FREEWAY
50
50
'3
41
8^
57
5.
N2
20
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
72
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
03
SC1
305
RN MENT
CO
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.
70
50
50
166
166
.47
.47
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
R/W
188.68
188.68
bd
Su
05
91
5.52
04
PAR B
Ex is t E sm t( S P )
10.9
10.4 6
1
CITY
CITY
LIGHT
LIGHT
R/W
SC18 p60
....
CO 13003
12
MIO-65-LR3
S82^34'3
S82
34 '37 "E
7"E
3
33
3.
3.3
28
10
100
35
S34
CEL
PAR
MEA
50
50
222
53.04
53.04
87
Bd
10.
10.2
VO
330.06
IFS
15
50
23
76
928
.20
.20
115
115
MA
83
.6
.66
101
101
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
50
CEL
PAR
30
30
3 0
5
CF 9
2 2 3 5
0
95
29
(SP
P)
.00
00(S
105
105.
105
No
6.
HARVARD AV E
.5
.50
206
206
27
D
58
NE
058
.0
OR
LI
50.
50
50
50
SH E E TS 1 & 2
0 88 54 4"
5
110
110
38
SH E L BY S T TO E 4 3 R D S T
-0
.7
040
33.
33.4
N1^49'40"E
105
.7
Ad
.5
Esm
Lo
HR
SEATTLE FREEWAY
LIN
25
25
OR
95
95.
.2
21
20
R=
R=5
=1 50
T= 250
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
105
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
111
FU
86.04
25
25
RB
30
15
415
.4
12 8 25
25.
55
7.
30
30
- 65 - C
-4 5
I O- 6
MMI O
I I -4
52 - C
5
CF 9
2
25
25
HA
15
415
.4
25
25.
27
7-1
07
28
CF292350
29
UC 39
TE
27
27
25 7
.6
59
9.
.63
63
058
.0
50
50.
CEL
PAR
50
50
50
50
49.5
1-2
2.
VO
26
40
23
STA
10
'15" 139
13
Perm 967
.0
.2
R=50
R=50
=5405'15"
AO
54^05
148
N5148.
N5
15 .54
1^
8'154
58
8"W
'1
8"
W
12
12
25
26
15
415
.4
25.
25
R=50
R=50
R=20
R=20
=89 59' 55"
T=2 0
T=20
L=31.42
L=31.42
58
t
or A
CEL
PAR ent
em
Eas 110
110
81
No
bd
-0
.0
.09
204
204
PAR
118
118
Su
No CEL
.4.4
29.64
29.64
24
10
35
24
15
15
415
.4
25.
25
.
!
G
058
.0
50
50.
bd
(M
35 )
.8
9
60
25
25
23
24
415
.4
25
25.
51
AN
30
30
.
!
G
25
25
0.93
ST
25
25
2.74
25
25
9 10 4 05 8
25
25
50(
50(P
)P)
25
25
OR By
22
89
68
4.
4.6
PARCEL A
25
25
6)
7
37
7
67
.6
6.
6.3 10.
10
25
25
ST
W
1"
"W
'0
'01
25
25
4^
4"
EA
E
8"
20
20
.
!
G
14
148
8.
.54
54
MIO-65-IC-45
-16
AO 120249
N3
N34
'4
25
25
24
2-4
05
.0
77
77.
4^
25
25
19
14
14
36
57
.57
7.
N3
29
297
AT
BO
C-
37
22
Sh
Sht
ortSub
25
25
NO
38
20
20
30
30
27 8"E
.2
'0
53. 37
53
7'0
33
5^
53
N5 953it
N5
21
78
67
5.
5.6
, PIE
RH
30
46.24
46.24
31
39
246
246
.16
.16
43
HE
AD
40
2.
LK
FIL
64.98
64.98
25
.2
31
31.
33
15
415
.4
25.
25
15
76
76
415
.4
.83
.8 25
535 25.
5
BU
AE
29
5
25
.2
31.
31
41
9.
.50
50
NE
16
28
83.72
83.72
42
25
54.73
54.73
107.1
107.1
R=
R=
289
28
37
26
27
102.46
102.46
14
14
43 100 100
.
!
G
23
56
65
7.
7.6
8^
41
57
'1
5.
6"
09
E
44
1
31
8.
8.3
323
.6
.62
10
10
N2
24
25
103
103
103
103
20
21
21
22
23
48
20
1
2-31
90
NoN o
18
19
20
47
18
25.
25.8
686
15
55
12
RE
US
12
13
16
30
30
......
14
17
45
W
1"
"W
'0
11
UN
L
VO
757
.5
.55
16
16
36
59
30
30
30
30
11
50
NE
(US
47.3
47.38
10
BWL
58
19
INE
R=3
R=30
14
14
60
.6
66(
6(
D)
103
103
55
18
MB
45
45.
127
56
17
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
D)
12
D)
.17
120 7.
12
17
55
0.
.09 (D)(D
19
19
09
R=
) R=
.4
.43
16
16
46
15
LI
61
53
17
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.
.80
40
AO 105955
57
16
62
83
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)
52
15
15
415
.4
25
25.
535
.5
.53
18
18
SE
SE
AT
ATTLE
TL
CO
E
15
415
.4
25.
25
11
(M AO
)
50
CF292350
51
25
25
53
68.5(P)
68.5(P)
.
!
G
67
17
11
12
127 113
.0
7.
.20 3.
20
(P) 0
(P
03
)
06
VO
9.
103(P)
103(P)
68
14 BWL
14
26
(D
)
103
103
25
.2
31
31.
12
69
15
415
.4
25.
25
16
91.08
91.08
49
13
15
415
.4
25
25.
15
N5 34
1^ 5. INC
57 71
'3
5"
W
06
66
65
64
63
30
30
13
7.
03
50
7.
.19 406
19
(D)
(D
)
70
21
11
12
127
103(P)
103(P)
Pe AO
rpe
10
tua 59
l R/ 55
W
10
103
E sm
3.
.66
t
66
(D)
69
p16
SC1
25
25
15
415
.4
25
25.
5.
.01
7.
.20
01
20
(P)
AO
81.06(P)
81.06(P)
R=12
R=12
178.236
178.236
12
127
71
6 6
2"
W13
133
3.
.16 7
16
4
4
13
14
18
.
!
G
.8.8
102
102
MEN
25
VA
25
25
11
12
12
BWL
25
19
BU
NE (P)
RL
ING
PA
14
14
TO
CI
N
FIC
(FO
NO
ST
RM
RT
HE
ER
VO
RN
)
.
!
G
30
30
20
10
11
14
14
14
14
20
25
25
103
103
54
14.
14.5
454
21
'1
5"
IFS
8
9
10
PI
RN
42
.
!
G
25
25
W
7"
10
8.
"W
'0
8.7
5'0
55
5^
55
N4
N4
15
415
.4
25.
25
N5 10 8.
9^
52
25
25
15
415
.4
25
25.
24.
24.0
21
N5
N5
15
1^
58
8'2
9.2
'2
"W
9.
26.37
26.37
'01
84 25
.8
25
65. 4^
65
N34
N3
454
.9
.95
26
26
50
4 IFS
BWL
22
21
21
30
MIO-65-C1-40
C F292350
31
UC
25
25
50 4" W
0.
16 24 '4
4^
25
25
40
4
15
415
.4
25
25.
5 4
15
R=1 .3
R=
34
30.
30
25
25
N5
446.315(P) N54
446.315(P)
15
415
.4
25.
25
01
N3
40
40
.1
95
'1
5"
25
25
26
10
105
.
!
G
103
103
MIO-65-C1-40
50
N5 21 4.
9^
52
E
64 3"
0.
764 .3"E
.7
56. '50'5
56
26
26
WEST
WEST
4^
EAST
EAST
171.805
171.805
2
15
415
.4
25
25.
30
34
.4
7(
M)
28
PCC
PCC
50
50
6.
.57
57
3
3
27
29
50
50
N28
N28
SC1
41
8 p61
^4
'16"
1'
E16
"E
575
575
.09
.0
12
126
IFU
N4
50
50
40
40
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^
34
N4
32
W
53 14
"W14
234
234
.93
.9
60
60
9"
33
90(P)
90(P)
131
.0
6.06
N59
N59
51
^5
120
'53"
1'
249
AO
31
.8686
07.
07
R=2
R=2
878
77.7
77.
N4
'3
5 3.95
3.9
RE
41.06
41.06
N1-49-33E
N149'33"E
131
65.77
65.77
UN
40
(P
55
iniu
m
103
103
N87^53'15"W
14
14
220
US
62-
"W
VE
26
50
50
40
GO
27
50
50
om
VO
in ium
Sh
000
39.
39.0
41
nd
60
50
50
28
6.5
6.57
11
12
14
14
NE 40TH ST
58
24
OO
BR
74
4^
103.05
058
.0
50
50.
nd
om
'5
3.9
6'5
46
3^
34
N4
N4
.1
N
LY
VOL 69- 99 1 06
103.05
64
-14
26
95
23
24
25
26
103
103
.
!
G
40
40
24
14
103
103
103.05
103.05
College Inn
C o n d om in iu m
.
!
G
103
103
10
064
.0
50
50.
E N28
200
41'
.03
37"E
30
30
22
VOL 7- 3 2
34
30
30
57.
57
00
.0
0
20
21
38
36
35
CF292350
AVUC
2
2
04
.04
00.
22
22
E
9"
"E3.
13
40
39
37
10
5. 9
64
(M
)
14
19
0 ...
....3.
3.4
7
23. 47
23
.2
29
15
41
5
49
16
17
35
35
AO 97911
30
30
12
BWL
35
47
46
45
18
35
35
VO 112848
5.5
Co
24 25
WEST
WEST
103
103
16
15
29
30
11
44
....
W
7"
6 3"
80 '2
1. 51
35 3^
N4
43
868
R=2
R=
38. 20
38
0
.2
20
103
AO 83414
8
9
AO 83414
37
37.
L 255
23
.
!
G
.
!
G
5"
10
8.
.3
3
06
IN W
C
51
48
10
108
03
4
R=4
50
T=1
45
L=281
.6
.71
4
50
49
.
!
G
11
1202
0
6.83(M)
56
55
53
52
4
103
28
12
26
VO
ST
AO
R=49
R=490
AO 106265
10.45(D)
)
R=410 10.45(D
R=410
91.68
91.68
14
14
54
15.
AO 106154
.
!
G
103
103
BWL
24
21
103
103
CF292350 27
NO N51^174.
RT
HE 57 79
RN '3
FIC
CEL 000
90.0 110
PAR 90.
110
83.60
83.60
40
Su
P)P)
50(
50(
29
50
50
Co
"E
16.60
16.
10
10
N2 67 1.
8^
41 31 (G
'2
6" )
E(
G)
8.
"W
'0
8.7
5'0
55
5^
55
N4
N4
LIN
OR
RB
VO
HA
TE
A
2
10
10
30
41.
41.2
10
31
14
5' E
^4'14"
45
50
50
40
50
50
.
!
G
50
50
AO 106265
CI
103.04(D)
103.04(D)
103
103
PA
103
CO
81
4 0 50
50
32
50
50
or
3"
.2.2
119
119
20
20
50
50
31
67.0
67.0
NE
193.8
193.82
BWL
(FO
RM
ER
)
ING
TO
N
18
18.
.7
7
R=451
152.75
5.5
48.
48.8
Eas
Sh
50
50
40
VA
AO 106154
47.04(M)
14
14
24
23
22
C F2 92 35 0
103
103
12
R=
14
77
BU .524
RL
06
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
23
37
37.
18
'2
20
20
50
50
03
61
60
1345
14 4100
1335
13
N5
14
W
5'
^4'14".2 8
45
.28
S59 219
S59
219
50
50
17
110
110
ent
em
90
90
9.5
9.5
44
Ba
ge
rta
50
50
40
Po
15
15
16
50
50
.6
.66
140
140
15
6.
.6
6
103
103
24
64
110
110
50
50
40
an
9^
N59
N59
.8
.87
216
216
Gr
N5
50
15
15
51.03
51.03
90 7" W
9.
26 15 '0
0^
50
50
21 22
10
1355
22
064
.0
50
50.
N3
50
50
103
103
4108
11
87.08
87.08
11
10
106
86.6
86.6
MIO-37-IC-45
NE
22- A
9"
6.0
6.0
40.
40.8
15
103
103
NEL
(P
(P)
110
110
18
7.
50
50
Ru
by
IO
20
29
30
14
14
1350
10
14
14
06
VO
1260
7
4116
4112
25
02'
44
3"
50
50
14
40
50
50
33
4
5
20.
9^
'2
50
50
-41
-37
19
316.297
316.297
13
03
62
BWL
13
18
17
32
2
3
42
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
N5
05
ST
15
15
000
50.
50.0
.
!
G
64
50
50
13
41.67
064
.0
50
50.
5.
19
50
50
12
11
15
979
8 p43 97.7
97.
20
2-3
L 90
VO
110
110
SC1
N28
.03
STA
D
AN
D
6)
EA
-16
RH 2-4
C, PIE
AD
NO
E
HE
FIL
D
AE
LK
(US
18
11
12.2131.39
12.21
31.39
1370
19
16
......
BU
17
VO
35
35
35
35
2
3
4
5
. .
. .
. .
US
16
13
06
1390
103
103
.
!
G
3.
.0
0
103
103
4138
280.03
03
103
103(P)
N87^53'15"W
14
14
4128
103
103
64
064
.0
50.
50
LA
50
50
12
50
50
10
23
64
RE
EC
UNR
21
787
42.
42.8
22
27.63
27.63
21 4" W
8.
10 12 '5
0^
50
50
N3
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
INE
MB
262
.5
.56
32
32
15
28
91.6
91.6
P)
11
11
12
15
11
11
12
3
17
14
4140
21
1360
29
10
22 1380
20
30
30
103
103
BWL
87
87
7.
14
24
4120
103
103
26
11
113
VO
17
103
25
MIO-65-NC3-65
103
103
9.0
9.0
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.
O
12
50
50
12
12
9"
262
.5
.56
32
32
CO
14
23
14
14
14
.
!
G
14
34
11
O
LLIS
EA
50
50
50
50
'0
12
.9
NC3-65
6
12
BWL
14
14
19
BWL
15
59
10
84
VOL 7- 34
41.67
34
103
103
.7.7
116
116
.68(
.6
P)
8(
p14
38
13
2-3
BUL
64
85
333
50
50
53
90
50
50
50
2^
.3
N4
064
.0
50
50.
50
50
50
50
23
DQM
3007351
100.03
100.03
13
CN
50
50
50
50
50
50
SA
SH
E 50
50
50
50
(U
Y PL
E BA5050
AG
RT50
LIN
11
50
50
33
14
12
19
5.76
5.76
10
220
3
4
20
17
103
103
16
US
PO
34
SC1
BWL
15
11
26
27
103
103
17
ED
50
50
G)
G)
5(
.85(
.8
674
)674
(G)
W(G
"W
'53"
53
50
14
4'
35
17
16
10
21
22
23
24
25
35
30
30
.
!
G
R/W
R/W
21
20
CF292350
38
37
36
30
30
P)
.
!
G
18
UR
11
.
!
G
107.96
107.96
20.98
24
50
50
42.5
116
116
.68(
.6
P)
8(
16
N88^48'34"W
50
50
5"
IFS
IO
^1
N30
N30
83.3
20.98
50
50
25
41.67
'1
19
BIN
50
50
36
42.5
M
CO
87
000
71.
71.0
50
50
22
52
BWL
42
23
13
103
103
CF292350
14
24
23
279.91
BWL
17
103
103
N87^52'34"W
103
103
30
30
103(P)
103(P)
103
103
12.13
12.13
686
33.
3 33.8
33
5.
5.3
37
42.5
IFS
9^
20
18
19
1440
103
103
15
MIO-50-C1-40
34
44
41
69.1
69.1
30
3
16
17
43
39
29
78.
78.3
103
103
12
14
14
14
14
1210 13
4101
11
18
35
35
ent
38
42
N5
21
11
14
15
40
27
28
103
103
7.0
7.0
103
103
13
48
47
10
AO 83414
16
11
0065
21
18
103
103
21
.
!
G
10
4300
421616
.
!
G
1425
12
14
14
14
14
20
4.79
4.79
nm
9.7
9.75
505
39.
39.0
50
50
14
14
54
35
56.3
56.
39
45
26
31
P)
2.
14
103
103
15
22
1375
4115
103
103
16
103
103
1250
1420
13
.
!
G
7
8
14
13
4240
4125
BWL
1455
15
CO
35
SF 5000
10
9
53
"E
N88^49'32"W
50
50
10
41.67
24
25
103
18
ig
"W
W
'51
Ass
1"
se
08
'5
N34
08
4^
N3
23
.23
0.
N58
06N58
.
!
G
50
50
40
50
34
33
6
7
12
49
46
22
4
5
14
14
4
5
103
103
35
35
45
23
93.08
1400
1405
14
103
103
4141 2
4106
6
0030
BWL
280.02
4137 3
19
0015
19
NE 42ND ST
1
1395
1495
18
4337
20
103
103
4145
4132
16
0105
17
1245
.
!
G
103
103
14
14
23
.
!
G
4336
0075 18
4200
12
14
14
22
AO 106265
50
18
19
58
103
103
14
14
103
103
21
NE
BO
AT
ST
22
BWL
34
"W
285.02
N87^51'00"W
20
BWL
33
35
30
59
103
103
'43
114
114
14
14
59
58
57
16
37
^07
306
56
55
AO 106154
51
17
38
110
14
14
Lea
200
20
50
50
D E N N Y - F U H R M A N
42.5
42
41
40
36
N70
50
50
15
VO
BWL
34
60
30
30
114
114
.0.0
.25
(DN
DE
50
5.5
AN
41.67
50
50
103
103
108
108.
63
.63
61
5
5
N87^51'41"W
14
14
(FO
RM
ER)
62
37
37.
ME
8 p64
5.5
NT
50 6
50
.5
.56
119
119
110
110
62.36
62.36
49
6'E
^3'49"
36
6
99.
99.0
50
50
50
50
SC1 p25
39
116
116
.68(
.6
P)
8(
.
!
G
236
103
103
63
30
30
30
30
11
NE PACIFIC ST
43
23
37
37.
ME
28
50
E ALLISON ST
A D D
41.67
50
50
50
50
AO 106154
14
14
103
103
27
30
30
10
AO 106265
BNR
103
103
103
103
5
5
8
14
14
1080 11
13
21
21
1220
1070
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
SF 5000
.
!
G
BWL
33
103
103
BWL
27
103
103
660
"W
O
STN
50
50
86
10
8
50
26
14
51
103
103
50
49
48
47
AO 106154
2
3
306
8
1065
103
103
Esmt
NC3-65
3
0110
4326
4234
285.02
N87^52'35"W
11
110
1055
4201
.
!
G
12
4217 7
14 1304
1090
22
0005
4338
103
103
.
!
G
4213 9
1100
BWL
OR
828
989
11.2
11.
10.8
110.
5.0
5.01
50
50
27
51
30
30
2
4
5
BWL
11
4210
4209 10
103
103
06
5
1050
103
103
103
103
14
14
108
108.
63
.63
1035
1040 4
16
24
VO
12.90
53
4237 3
4231
19
1500
103(P)
103(P)
1413 1
22
280.00
1025
4236
1490 20
14
14
24
23 4346
0120
103
103
22 1130
18
N88^20'45"W
NE 45TH ST CO 10566
103(P)
103(P)
NE 43RD ST
4247
23
22
10
12
14
14
14
14
15
6.71
6.71
11
13
10
06
103
103
52
BWL
22
30
30
.
!
G
103
103
21
103
103
103
103
16
3.1 8
3.13
1.88
1.8
12
DQL
41
50
50
9.38
9.3
717
200
20
3'
RN
78
50
50
50
50
BWL
33
54
11
(ORD 73911)
84
. .
2"W
'1^2
23
N31
0
N31
.0
11
10.1
10.
50
50
1103
1103
10
0175
20
23
3
4
103(P)
103(P)
820
.8
50
50.
Bd
PARCEL A
6
341 88
950 859.
No 59.8
89
55
38.
SC1
20
. .
111
7.31
7.3
VE
50
50
50
50
50
50
42.5
.1.1
83
83
W
8"
VO
108.6
108
.63
3
103
MIO-50-C1-40
19.53
CF292350
32
UC
.
!
93.08
G
28
103
103
108.6
108
.63
3
VO
"W
IC ST
19.53
29
22
AO 83414
14
103.02
S8957'24"W
N89-57-24E
103.02
14
14
NC3P-65
4301 12
14
14
24 1305
1140
.
!
G
35
35
16
103
103
020
47.
47.2
61 9"
'0
IO
5"
14
14
PACIF
56
55
30
30
38
30
19
N5
125^ 12
4.
35'0
0 1.
IC ST
293
.98
N70
^07
'43
4.1
4.1
16
14
24
NC3P-65
35
35
0105 17
NE 45TH ST
30
30
284.99
N87^52'26"W
23
15
0155
15
.
!
G
103
103
103
103
4321 7
4313 8
0160
0020
18
0120
CO 10566
.
!
G
0150
13
102.99
N87-52-47W
103
285.06
N87^52'06"W
BWL
28
0145
4325 6
BWL
18
17
MR-RC
17
103
103
45
45
"E
Lot
50
50
50
50
50
50
41
.5.5
35
35
3.
38 53
2^
N4
p1
'0
8"W
5'0
55
5^
55
N4
N4
31 BWL
18
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
13
GO
45
.0
.06
140
140
50
50
50
50
25
26
17
414
.0
.01
25
25
.1
186
NE
58
30
30
16
414
.0
.01
25
25
24
.3.3
27
27
1
SC
15
414
.0
.01
25
25
PACIF
59
279.98
32
2-3
89
50
50
"W
50
50
50
50.5
7
27
1.
1.2
414
.0
.01
25
25
103
103
12
14
14
14
14
22
90
50
50
.00129
53
81 4" W
8.
52 15 '0
0^
No
25
25
129
N3
4
51.25
21
22
23
33
14
REC
VO
820
.8
50
50.
"E
50
50
50
50
64.63
PARCEL B
13
UN
83
.4
11"E
'42
50
50
.83
50
50
35.40
Adj
64.63
.2
.27
98
98
.6
.64
23
23
414
.0
.01
NE
VAC
108.6
108
.63
3
57
CF292350
27(M)
1580
21
.
!
G
50
50
50
50
111
W
'53"
29
9'
N31
50
50
20
BWL
32
R=70
R=70
=7119'51E"
5.7
5.7
34
191 E48
6'
53.9 '48"
53.
^3
36
N58
N58
Adj
^2
12
6"
E
48
'48"
6'
36
^3
N31
212
40.
40.1
13
DQM
45.08
45.08
'5
N58
N58
50
50
50
50
44
Am end VOL 155-70 7 1

2nd Amend VOL 278-47
90
87
50
110
110
45
50
50
9^
.3
VOL 88-90 91
14
N5
Portage Bay
Place Condominium
15
E GWINN PL
Bdy
19
14
14
414
.0
.01
25
25
30
30
1570 11
4106
13
13
KE
110
110
5.5
00
.31
149149
15
15
50
50
.
!
G
.
!
G
3
37
37.
333
56.
56.3
5
45
5.
50
50
50
50
1038.48
PARCEL A
27
35
12
108.6
108
.63
3
VAC
103.0
103.0
30
30
4105
14
103
103
LA
50
50
48.75
50
50
103
103
28
.
!
G
23
11
30
30
15
VO 110306
103
103
4329 5
20
19
.
!
G
NC3-65
17
1560
10
103
103
LA
9.
9.3
20
820
.8
50.
50
4"
72.2
57.26
57.26
00
S33 13 6.8 20
7 50.
.8
66
667
50
15.
15.
7
87
38
'0
30
30
'5
5.5
30
30
44
50
50
606
52.
52.0
5.5
15
0^
N3 .8 8
37
Lot
35.40
56.60(D)
56.60(
D)
12
RE
9^
110
110
510.90
50
50
N5
15
00
37
37.
37
37.
60
50
50
SC18 p57
50
50
50
50
50
100.03
100.03
N87^51'05"W
AO 106265
IFS
10
34
41158
103
103
30
30
5.5
50
50
9"
'0
13
103.11
103.11
BWL
15
103
103
103
103
SH
37
37.
5.
11
"E3"E
.3
'48.
48
36
6'
^3 N58
ST
50
50
434
76.
76.3
AO 110281
W
53
12
14
L=104.
L=104.34
AO 106265
4
5
1590
24
103
103
50
50
10
TIN
6"
10
32
50
31
103
103
.
!
G
14
14
1525 3
1535
15
.
!
G
4333
4
21
CF260390
4502
3.58
280.04
3 4339
0135
CF292905
4135
4131
4110
30
284.96
N87^53'15"W
19
16
IO
50
50
15"W
.
!
G
.546
12
1515
18
17
30
30
CO 10566
4341 2
0130
103
103
103
103
103
4141 103
23
N87^52'38"W
7
50.0 15'
N30
08
19.33
19.33
S59
.
!
G
145.10
145.10
50
50
R
MA
30
30
21
28
148.75
L=310
14
14
14
14
30
30
20
15
15
110
110
50
50
20.
20.6
5 4.9
77.
23
20
19
18
110
110
16
50
50
35
32
47.
7.24 34
24
45
R=200.0
R=200.0
.8
.
!
G
DQL
'28
19.40
19.40
83
42 21 CO
'5
4"
613
E
46
"W
N4
414
.0
.01
25
25
0.
.14
14
0
0
BWL
L=1
L=14
95.61(D)
95.61(D)
11
103
103
34.37(M)
23. (M)
(M)
35.44 56
0950
0955 11
22 4138
1625
1585
71
D E N N Y - F U H R M A N
34
33
32
31
30
29
47.5
36
35
4203
14
14
30
3.11
CO 10566
0125
0235
4514
0130
N88^19'31"W
14
103(P)
14 4345 103(P)
1301
24
23
22
......
46
.4
72
72.
25
250
14
37
103(P)
103(P)
AO 106154
7
8
4206 14
30
30
30
30
10
13
284.95
CO 10566
103(P)
103(P)
N87-53-32W
102.98
0140
19
4508
.
!
G
103
103
0140
.
!
G
0930
0945
14
14
15
(CO 10159 REPEALED

BY ORD 10583)
103
.
!
G
4215 9
4211 10
24
1140
14
14
NC3-65
4520
0135 20
MA P 8 5 - 4 6
35
35
N8752' 40"W
N87^52'40"W
17 4216
0980
103
103
4501 14
16
103
103
N87^52'40"W
N8752' 40"W
42256
BWL
1130 13
103
103
0925 5
STATE
ST
A T E O FOF
107
50
50
72 1" W
7.
29 15 '5
0^
50
50
N3
104.58
104.58
40
22
324.18
N88^49'12"W
13.54
N28^40'20"E
8.
103.00
103.00
Varsity Arms
103.00
103.00
16
4509
22
21
4518
284.94
N87^52'58"W
4229
BWL
103
103
21
103
103
LA
.8
50
50
107
bd
.56
92
15
25
2
3
4
BWL
35
35
11
1120 12
1150
CO 10566
285.05
N87^52'14"W
103
279.96
6.24
6.24
19
1600
30
30
103
.
!
16
15
3.65
3.65
4517
1300
17
.
!
G
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
G
MIO-105-MR
103
103
18
103
103
1
0905
2
4210 15
1680
MIO-65-C1-65
8
9
10
11
277.22
2^
32
42
41
R=45 (M)
T=16 0
1.7
30
30
BWL
38
37
AO 106154
38.09
.8
30
30
414
.0
.01
25
25
2
3
103(P)
103(P)
30
30
14.02
14.02
ARC
ARC
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
40
39
33.76
33.76
74
136.61
136.61
N8909' 17"W
N89^09'17"W
108.6
108
.63
3
22 4238
1010
20 1000
4116
101
.4
.40
32
32
W
'38"
y
Ba inium
W
om
nd 78 44'38"
N58
13
110
110
44
ge
rta Co
Po nt L 279-75
fro
ter VO
Wa 140.97
138
50
50
bd
5
45
19.84
19.8
50
50
50
50
50
50
92
15
87
660
5050
17
21
49
Su
210
STN
32.
65.39
57.0
740
57.01
545
Su
bd
250
B
308
49.
49.4 9
45
300
Su
01
49.4
49.
248
57.
7
53
57.5
t 57.C Sub 3
5257.5 d
2
Sub
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
13
^52
30
30
19
103
103
14
14
21 4134
1620
IFU
28
22
22
24.0
24.0
12
35
03 3
21
110
CF292350
50
50
E"E
24.
6
56
23
22
21
103
"W
14
14
103
103
20 4128
1615
103
103
103
103
N4
27 8^
2. 05
82 '4
9 6.
S59
26
24
t 57. 57.0
10
11
12
14
14
14
14
103
14
06
45
44
50.
24
20
.8
50 820
14
N32
CF292350
50
UC
(M
1103
11
24
1020
23
N87^52'31"W
103
103
24
9
10
0300
12
14
14
103
103
VAC NE 40TH ST
2
108.6
108
.63
3
06
396
.04
^07
'43
43
30
30
30
30
MIO-65-C1-65
12
0.
30
30
30
30
PARCEL C
7
37
7.
7.3
IFS
29
DQM
14
103
103
NE 41ST ST
.
!
G
PL
32
432
.4
50
50.
'19
'19"
urt
rt
57.
D
584
57. 5257.5 9
52
57.5 2
2
C
300
12
S62
^33
33
Co
3
110
110
1675
10
13
.
!
G
R=19.54
R=19.54
Esm
D
584
57. 57.5
8
52
57.5 2
2
S62
ley
ndo
85
15
CO 37483
103
103
1103
N70
16
1650
7
8
VO 110306
29
PP
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.
15
125
125
30
30
Sub
d
300
57. C
487
110
52 57.5
0
182- )
4 8
18.
8.47
35
110
Esm
110
110
16
7
8
1202 13
4139
BWL
VO
00
00
28.2
28.2
-53
040
39.
39.4
125
125
50(
50(P
)P)
12
11
TL
50
mb
(Co
VOL
No
t 60.5
60.
Sho
61.0
22.0
52. 61.
0 Esm 0
48 00
52.4
t
8
Sht
No
52.
B
48
52. 52.4
52.4
49 8
9
110
89
.26
.26
110
110
No
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
Sht
118
1725
19
103
103
. 0965
!
G
1640
4120
28
11
78
78
32.3
32.3
5.5
49.
LR1
87
.
!
G
No
We
.
!
G
5.5
52.9
N
52. o A
52.4
49
9
AT
LIN
37
37.
60.
Esm
16
ConLeg
do)
do)al
124.15
S8956'07"W
124.15
S89^56'07"W
50
50
16
11
88.87
88.87
"W
W
2"
88
SU
re st ms
orec ini u
55
om
nd
Co
UR
VO
110
110
Sh
DE
C
57.2
57.
VO 727
506
5"
SE
AN
000
89.
89.0
ME
50
50
'4
55
56
36.
36.5
.
!
G
LR3
30
30
30
30
CO 37483
VO
NT
ST
18
B
73.0 Su
73.
303 bd
497
PAR
DQL
15
(M
'0
2"W
2'0
12
5^
51
N5
N5
92
103
103
BWL
4220 18 10
1113
21
18
103
103
.
!
G
2N
ME
RN
7"
VE
110
110
110
110
.03
PAR.03
99 980
50
50
.0
rt
11.7
11.
676
Ive
s
nd
VO
L 161
o
52.5
110
110
(P)
(P)
110
110
'3
1^
65
19
.
!
G
GO
11.99
N1^10'31"E
15
N6
5.5
5.5
82
IN
87
LR3
37
37.
0^
Sho
Co
110
110
(P)
(P)
37
37.
1.
506
110
110
(P)
(P)
17
110
110
(P)
(P)
110 110
32
32
73
34
40.
40.7
37
37.
11
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
16
N3
330.65(G)
N84^16'28
"W(G)
15
15
17
DQL
42
DQL
N61N61 32.
32.6
18 1
-18
'29"61
-29 W
W
34
42
4442
.3
2
110
110
(P)
(P)
36
DQL
N8719' 31"W
18
8 p63
LBA 76 . 8 4VO
No
PAR
CEL
950
100 A
9
37
15
12
42
50
50
5.5
N87-19-31W
R= 61.70
61.70
6. 42
58
333
15
15
RT
18
NC3-40
95
125
125
64
SC1
AO
37.5
37.5
110
110
13
0.5
9
110
110
(P)
VO (P)
506
87
90
09
26.
26.9
50
50
37.5
37.5
10 37
.
!
G
EM
A
'48.
36
91
12
44.
44.9
DQL
14
110
110
(P)
(P)
NC2-40
110
110
(P)
(P)
262 Append x - October 2016 Draf t P an
7.
16
0.5
110
110
110
(P)
(P)
G)
15
15
40
110
23
95
5.5
89.05
89.05
20
2
92
69
50
23- A
72
.4
1^ 2(
18 G)
'4
8"
W(
43
5 6"
54 0.
5. '5
15 O8
4^
S3
N6
9.4
9.46
6
110
110
2
3
4
DQL
N58
4
5
)(P)
.40
40(P
37
37.
5.5
5.5
110
110
UC 3
.
!
G
5.5
50
50
37
37.
37
37.
.5
5
37.
37
5.5
3"E
23 1760
15
14
13
110
20
285.05
N87^53'00"W
16
103(P)
103(P)
VO
25
25
10
......
R= 43"W
R=6
'43
40'
S41 ^40
S41
0.
N5 25 4.
5^
12
09
90
49.
49.0
Y PL
N6
1^
19
25
7.
'4
42
4"
(G
W(
)
G)
95
13
37
37.
The
Con Mar
dom tello
65. VO L
65.5
iniu
95
454
m
-1
4
1-A
NC2P-40
DQL
110
110
15
15
(P
(P)
110
110
E BA
50
50
37
37.
110
110
VO
100
100
95
AG
36.
36.4
949
110
20
N61109
-17
.50
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
32.
32.5
2
2
0 15
0
.15
72
2.
.72 172
1.
17
36
14
LIN
IFU
IFU
12
103
103
103
103
22 4134
1740
20
0280
20
0970
MR
PARKWAY
10
20
8
8
277.14
N87^52'38"W
48
25
25
12
30
30
84
'0 8
1.
5"
29- C
12
121
110
110
DQL
14
50(
50(P
)P)
5.5
29- A
17 C1-40
'5
5"
W
NC2P-40
30
30
PARCEL A
DQL
DE
37
37.
128.
128
41
AN
AV
1^
5.5
.
!
G
"W
110
110
(P)
(P)
PARCEL B
27.
27.41
ME
NT
N
N6
110
VO
NC3P-40
15
15
NC3P-40
ME
37
37.
15
15
110
110
(P)
(P)
36
RN
MA
37
37.
50
50
50
50
110.0
110
.00
0
VE
53
RT
1^ 30 .0
17
'5 3
5"
W
15
GO
7.
15
15
50
50
.
!
G
28
.
!
G
C1-40
47.
50
50
'37
7"W
^15
15'3
N30 353
N30
87.5
87.
CO 30503
N6
100100
6
50 7.5
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
CF292350
BWL
47
25
25
89.23
89.23
21
M)
VO 95353
CO
46 N2 32
8^ 1.
613
CO
12.41
12.41
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
14
100
100
70
70
PAR A
20.0
20
0
08
105R=8
3
.38
.3 3
15
3 4333
0975
11
17
MIO-105-C1-65
5
1
13.
13.6
10(P
610
)(P)
8 p43
50 50
92.
HR
23.0
23
0
50
50
DQL
45
3275
FU
3
4
46
86
SC1
50
50
50
50
3316
50
8
9
10
14
14
BWL
BWL
R=49
R=49
115.5
115.
858
8.4
8.4
50
50.
50
50
30
PAR B
0050
cl R=800
T=104.37
L=206.782
20
0805
14
14
4144
AO 98024
117
4230
4231
24
CO 10566
4310 1
0290 2
19
18
17
0990
102.98
102.98
1180 21
30
30
81.65
81.65
10
4522
AO 26506
N88^20'23"W
14
14
21
51.5
279.92
103(P)
103(P)
103
103
16105R=8
AO 808 44
S tre e t E s m t
20
"W
-D
PO
30
30
- --
3
4
90
90
100
100
100
100
30
30
42(
642
P)(P)
P)P)
50(
50(
30
2
128.29
IFS
IFS
29- B
35.
35.6
.5.5
32
32
- --
47.40
44.990
47.40
IFS
----
UC
106.74
10
52
90
90
C2-40
11
12
Esm
89.41
89.41
TI
LIM
ON
IT
23
22
23
4235
4 0795
16
(Condo)
118.81
N87^53'11"W
100(P)
100(P)
BWL
06
IFU
29
40.55
44
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
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
40.004
40.004
40.79
40.79
53.46(MEAS)
374
CO
89.77
89.77
89.58
89.58
PARCEL A
OR
26.068
26.068
66.68
0020
95
30
30
3245
30A
89.94
89.94
22
3(
Subdivision
62
MA
N27
N27
33
^3
'39"
3'
E39
622
.1
S27
S27
07
^07
'13"
'13
30.0 W
30.
404 "W
46
613
80
97
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)
23
22
2.9
.9
0
30
30
CO
240 2- 12
"E 240
.32
.32
Short
90.48
90.48
90.48(P)
90.48(
P)
28
90.30(P)
90.30(
P)
27
90.12(P)
90.12(P)
89.77(P)
89.77(P)
89.58(P)
89.58(P)
112
55(
(P)
P)
90.66
90.66
No 7 7 - 4 9
NS
CO
TRNS
UC
22
22
51.5
BWL
VOL 2 0 - 7 4 7 8
.
!
G
285.03
N87^52'39"W
18
11
285.03
24
22
103
103
102.99
10
12
CO 10566
.
!
G
0890
33.17
10 33.17
10
AO 98024
NC3-65
21 4234
0885
103
103
N8753' 22"W
N87^53'22"W
102.99
AO 88114
7.84
7.84
21
22
22
34.75
34.75
71^51' 95.55
7151'
95.
SE
SEA
273.37
273.37
95
IFU
30- D
N LN IFU
S 77.264'
LOT 1
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
80
25
25
25
25
40
25
25
25
25
40
77-49
PARCEL B
379
379
.00
128
128 .00
.13
.13
26
25
"W
TR
TIO
UC
N
99.257
1103
.
!
G
40
40
374
25
25
30
30
30
30
10
10
CO
613
46
105
20. 884
20.2
424
Sht
Su bd
PAR B
IC-45
AO
30
30
24
.
!
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
CO
AO
UC
CO
E
23
4236
23
20
19
NE CAMPUS
55.20
VO
57
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
45
30
30
30
30
40
40
30
30
30
30
45
45
30
30
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
15
21.00
15
21
15
6.25
21.25
21.50
15
21.25
15
21.25
15
21.25 15
21.25
25.50 24.50
25.50
24.50 24.50
24.50 25.50
25.50
10
48
52
VOL 5- 34
D
D
A
40
25
25
Esmt
14.75 14.75 20.76
20.76 14.75 14.75 24.58

24.58 14.75 14.75 20.76
24.57
100
100
60
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
60
60
108.98
108.98
N8826' 07"W
N88^26'07"W
AT
TTL
TL
E
1815
12
14
14
22
22
CO 37483
36
50.
NE
AO 24203
20.01
(M)
P
"E
CO 37483
ST
EA
ST
LAK
E
N27
N27
33'
^33
39"E
'39
25.005(P)
25.0 05(P )
No
70
70
1825
13
24
22
30
30
30
30
40(P)
40(P)
11
158.41
N87^52'44"W
100(P)
BWL 100(P)
20
94.76
94.76
294
294
.45
.45
0(0(P
P)
9
10
94.47
94.47
94.18(P)
94.18(P) 11
1810
4100
14
14
103
103
8
9
4111 10
100(P)
100(P)
DO 24209
281
110
70
70
14
103
103
24
El Monterey
103
103
17
18
17
16
.
!
G
95.05
95.05
31
.
!
G
20
20
157(P)
157(P)
40
40
70
70
95.05
95.05
94.76
94.76
2"
70
70
7
95.33
95.33
AT
BO
SH E E TS 1 & 2
705
1195
IFU
24A
44
'3 2
6.
1"
MA
N89^00'43"W
N8900' 43"W
172.675
172.675
95.61
95.61
76
VO 85578 150.
150.76
.36
.36
R=350
R=350
E
5"
"E
'1
'15
00
00
5^
25.005
25.005
S008'38"W
24
25.005
25.005
N0^08'38"E 240.026
240.026
240.026
S0^08'38"W 240.026
N6 15 4.
3^
00
BWL
89.
LINE
30
30
R=50
R=50
95.83
95.83
BWM
AO
24.865
24.865
LAKE
20
20
N87^52'20"W
9 10
34
'0
24.865
24.865
IFS
24
19 1871
15 4110
1835
279.96
N88^53'22"W
20
100
100
96.04
0365 96.04
5
35
33
65
24.865
24.865
100.011(P)
36
96.04
96.04
95.83
95.83
95.61
95.61
32
4131 4
1780
0055 8
2
1
105
105
1120
103
103
22
.
!
G
21
30
30
20
AO 9577
3.65
3.65
30
30
0020
0005 4
4311
10 0445
11
12 0450
14
14
0860
103
103
1770
22
103
103
103
103
4145 1
4140
96.33
96.33
95.33
95.33
S3
S35
29.730
29.730
VOL 902-311
IFS
37
24.865
24.865
UNREC
96.90
96.90
96.61
96.61
13
N87^53'22"W
14
14
89
89^
11'
11
R=30
R=30
'
L=42.552
L=4 2. 55 2
62
CW
LANDS
66.80
66.80
96.33
96.33
NE
24.865
24.865
11 12
HARBOR LINE
30
30
10
N89^00'43"W
N8900' 43"W
UNION
1
30
30
LIN
27
65
(USAED FILE NO C-2-4-166)
N8900' 43"W
IB
U/45
11 12
25.005
25.005
10
N008'38"E
N0^08'38"E
240.026
240.026
39
0700
14
14
100(P)
100(P)
4214 17
NE 42ND ST
100
100
IFS
8
2.89
2.8
R=30
R=30
30"
5'30 L=46.697
L=46 .69 7
49'
"
67.91
67.91
90
38
86
9.0 (P)
2 (P )
R=450
259
.55
5(M
T=84.39(M)
)
L=166.845
97.90
97.90
AO 83414
83
DER
(M)CO
CF292350
(M)
37483
23.35 27.6 36.42
33.44 UC
"
97.23
97.23
96.90
96.90
1012 12
13
100
100
15
14
0880
100
23
30
30
NC3-85
16
AO 83414
374
MEAN
50
50
50
50
AO 100377
30
30
3030
MIO-65-IC-45
(M) (M)
207.19
90^24'30
9024'30"
16
96.61
96.61
30
7.3
7.34
CO
RN MENT
97.64
97.64
15
94.47
94.47
40. 004 (P )
40.004(P)
29 94.18(P)
94.18(P)
AV
13
14
89^3
8935'
11
0695
277.15
98.18
98.18
51.18
0245
10
4207
24
98.47
98.47
19
18
17
0690
0705
DO 24209
98.75
98.75
20
25 16.
25
16.86
9.02
141
141
12
98.75
98.75
98.47
98.47
97.90
97.90
0246
70670
8
4211
50
14
0710
.
!
11
CO 11287
Amend by CO 12478
25
25
133
133
100
100
12
10
17
4212
18
0425 17
0900
103
103
15
50
99.89
99.89
0660
0665
4225
16
0725
19
BWL
103
103
4235 4
4229 5
BWL
18
0735
99.04
99.04
98.18
98.18
47
902
2
0655
3
3
21
4507
31.38
31.38
7
6
85
280.01
N87^52'39"W
0645 1
4237 3
22
103(P)
103(P)
4317
.
!
G
103
4241 103
14
14
105
105
.
!
G
30
30
CO 10566
0400
20
N87^51'56"W
4242
23
99.32
99.32
0200
12
14
14
24 1107
23 0500
103
103
277.17
24 0755
20
99.61
99.61
4225
"W
86 -1
84.02
84.02
25
25
123.8
123.8
129
129
242.22
24
21
11
0575
0580
14
14
19
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
0745
19
C1-65 G
99.89
99.89
22
99.04
99.04
10
4307
14
4212
100
100
99.61
99.61
23
90^
90
15
13
100
100
0740
DE
1247
MAP
10
30
30
IFX
4 5 IFS
259.86
N87^52'50"W
N89^00'43"W
100.011
45.86
45.86
258
N70
.52
^07
'43
0.12
0.12
30
30
BWM
7
8
9'
0530
11'
1'
5
6
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
4.95(M)
100.011
33
149(P)
149(P)
25
25
CO
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)
25
H L AK
3748
93
Ame CO 1128
nd
7,
by
CO
25
25
36
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
269.
43
N73^
28'
17"
P 8
8-
25
25
25
25
32.28
32.28
25
25
N1^17'01"E
25(P)
25(P)
25
25
25
113
S29 113
S29
.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
64.63
64.63
65.83
65.83
45
45
86 -1 5
8
CF292350
704
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
22
MA
0310
4311
BWL
4300
18
20100
10
10
105
105
4501
17
D V3 4 8 p 5 6 4
280.07
30
30
14
44333
0415
19
18
197
.
!
G
13
105
105
16 0135
15
2
33
30
30
99.92
15
22
17 0550
105
105
4 97
0055
104.92
104.92(P)
PFB
21
20
16
99034 25
AO 83414
050
50
10 2185
100
100
25
25
36
35
95
95
R=1
R=10
97.03
97.03
25
25
25
25
25
25
20
21
25
25
11
25
25
IFX
11
25
25
25
25
25
25
37
- 50 -
25
25
25
25
35
25
25
25
25
25
25
19
30.82
30.82
4245
100.36
100.36
.
!
G
25
25
25
25
25
25
38
.
!
G
61.
MAP
100
100
25
25
41
40
39
CO 11287,
by CO
12478
CO 14073
43
42
25
25
25
25
5
75
25
25
25
25
25
25
43.75
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
40
44
13
40
25
25
25
25
46
1735 45
12
14
CO
Amend
N1^16'37"E
R=170
R=1700
55.59
55.59
.00
0.00
30
30
50
49
48
1744 47
IFX
15
25
25
25(P)
25(P)
30
30
40
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
37.5
25
25
25
25
47.5
601.18
N1^17'42"E
25
25
100.44
30
30
25
25
35
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
95
25
25
25
25
25
25
R=1700.00
6
7 4046
16
25
25
52
51
17
25
25
20.50
29
28
27
26
244.99
N88^45'16"W
54
53
18
25
25
26.20
1550
40
25
25
25
25
26.50
20
20
102.64
102.64
100.93
100.93
99.32
99.32
.
!
G
20
20
25
25
25
25
100
100
55
11
20
100
1.75
27.95(US)
25
25
Unit Subd No 3006128
25
25
30
N88^45'04"W
8 1585
MIO-65-IC-45
7TH AV NE
30
30
25
25
25
25
31
21
25
25
801
1595 10
25
25
32
20
100
100
100.09
100.09
30
30
.
!
G
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
19
1410
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
40
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
39.95
39.95
25
25
25
25
25
25
30
100
100
100
100
30
30
1
2
37
33
30
40
103.21
N8911' 11"W
N89^11'11"W
.
!
G
812 4205
1400
95
95
36
35
34
1880
31
1420
103.28
26 27 28 29
40
NE 42ND ST
4040
33.07(US)
25
25
1960 38
4000
25
25
4035
14
15
16
21.25
21.00
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
37.5
25
25
675.69
37.5
25
25
25.50
25.50
24.50
24.50
10
25.50
24.50
25.50 24.50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
85
10 25
25
25(P)
25(P)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
40
25
25
30
25
25
30
25
25
24.08 17.83
17.83 23.00
24.08
23
25
24.08
24.08
50
50
30
30
25
25
25
25
45
25
25
30
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
40
17
25
25
194.37
N1^16'37"E
43
41
39
32
1430
4215
1390
904
89^
891
100
100
100
100
32.08(MEAS)
45
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
39.59
39.59
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
N1^17'29"E
8TH AV NE
25
25
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
25
25
28. 25
18. 25 18.25
18.25
18. 25
18. 25 18.25
18. 25
18.25
60. 25
60.25
33. 95
39.95
39. 95
33.95
90
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24.09 17.83 23.00

23
24.09
35
25
25
100
100
14.99
14.99
74
74
25
25
IFS
45
44
42
IFX
11
12
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
40
30
30
30
30
24.98
THE
24.98
70
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
39.59
39.58
24.00
24
24.00
24
59
15.
15.59
25
25
25
25
25
25
21.25
25(P)
13.0
Esmt
25(P)
11 12.45
8.25
21.25 16.25 16.25
30.30
25
25
40
60
100
100
25
25
26.45
26. 45
13.55
13.
70
90
25
25
25
25
7.5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
138
30
30
2015
1860
800
R=15
100.01
100.01
10
AO 3225
21.25 16.25 16.25 21.25

39.59
39.59
39.58
39.58
25(P)
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
25
25
25
25
A
25
25
33 .33
25
25
33 .3 4
25
25
593.10
N1^17'51"E
25
25
63.11(MEAS)
N1^16'42"E
N1^17'34"E
33.33
113
113
117.14
117.14
119.94
119.94
36.5
36.5
120.69
120.69
85.4
85.4
91(P)
91(P)
4055 46
25
16
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
No
30
30
21
AO 104554
VOL 238-05 08
52
VO 95146
25. 00
25.00
E
0"
'0
08
2^
N4
25(P)
25(P)
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
30
30
30
30
25
25
25
25
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
12 13
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
N118'02"E
49.93
25
25
25
25
VOL 5-16
25
25
25
25
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
Esmt
6 6
Esmt
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
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
24.83
E
1"
25
25
40
FR
FR
EE
EEW
WAAY
Y
'2
36
6^
N2
25
25
25
25
23.5
23.50
22.5
22.50
25
25
25
25
54
25
25
LATONA
15
15
102(P)
102(P)
116(P)
116(P)
N1^11'37"E
138(P)
138(P)
272.91
E
73
'1
.9
8"
PASADENA PL NE
32
50
50
18
.
!
G
2350
3 4
SHORE
VAC PASADENA PL NE
35
35
105.40
105.40
S89^55'38"E
104.62
104.62
Novell
Condominium
Amend
3^
24.865(P)
24.8
65(P )
30
30
49
47
8 4040
1845
48.17
710#
48.16
710#
48.15
48.14
245.14
50
48
1855
Subd
3008312
24
17
15
100
100
AN
VO 95146
30
30
25
25
100
100
2 1795
3 4054
1805
10
4036
37
35
34
33
14
0070
ME
89
.6
31 0
'5
4"
25
25
25
25
701
38
1445
4217
H
1000#
1370
1375
4305
18
22
.
!
G
NT
0^
25
25
728#
C
No
23
19
106.36
106.36
105.79
105.79
ME
N4
1815
30
30
664
LAKE
6
IFS
COMBINED US BULKHEAD, P
IERHEAD AND STATE
SH E L BY S T TO E 4 3 R D ST
Short
40
36
4221
48.18
10
11
12
13
N3
LIGH T
CITYCITY
LIGHT
R/W
R/W
25
25
14
34.89
12.01 894#
.
!
G
43
41
39
15
19
260.01
N88^45'28"W
100(P)
100(P)
16
17
18
34.89
890#
12.03
D
46.93
716
46
44
42
IFX
Esmt 46.89
1199#A
21
20
AO
SEATTLE FREEWAY
1.
1.2
23
3
0^
N4
N4 11
0^ 2.
33 47
'2
9"
E
88.12
N1^11'37"E
80.90
N4 10
0^ 3.
31 33
'0
3"
N1^49'40"E
N149'40"E
80
40
40
.
!
G
12.02
31
1100
1080
25
25
N87^51'50"W
24.865
24.865
SE E
BASELINE
BASELINE
PSH1
PSH1
R/W
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
320.29
F ILE
25
25
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
TJO 114619
25
25
CITY
CITY
N1^39'39"E
126.29
126.29
33
32
4211
710
40
708
1055
25
25
13
108.64
108.64
10566
4336
104.95
0090 8
Lot
51.44
51.44
10
10
0525
100
100
108.07
108.07
RN
40
40
49.99
60
700
12
23
0155
277.26
100(P)
100(P)
24
45TH ST 213.11
CO
23 0630
R=122
R=122
30
30
52.15
52.15
92
92
100.05 N8750'
N87^50'45"W
45"W
VE
72.52
3006699
49.99
21
22
1040
4206
1120
48
47
(Condo)
VOL 136-69 80
100.05
BWM
GO
32.50
No
1145
4219
34
50
45
11
24 0050
22
30
30
"
32.52
E
50.00
50
D
7
8
9
10
26
109.78
109.21
109.21
30
4'
'30"
^4
44
107
107
56.35
56.35
50.01
50.01
4223
35
Subd
1155
36
18
1280
110.93
110.93
110.35
110.35
110.40
110.40
N87^51'06"W
N8751'
06"W
109.83
109.83 N87^50'45"W
N8750' 45"W
109.78
35
.3
.38
.35
0.
390 180
390
18
20.817
20.817
39
38
37 4227
17
4250 6
27
395666
La Terrazza
1000
CO 10566
.
!
G
NE
3
52.91
52.91
PFB
30
30
30
30
N88^20'19"W
64.12
4343
107.50
107.50
.96
5.
60
40
16
22 50.03
50.03
50.02 Esmt
37.00
28
111.50
111.50
9050
CO 40027
100
100
100.04
100.04
N8752' 29"W
N87^52'29"W
106.93
106.93
10
105
CITY
CI
TY LI GHT
LIGHT
R/W R/W
30
30
AKE PL
Subd
5 4237 41
1175
0005 2
255.10
N88^42'39"W
100
100
51
1530 49
1270
100(P)
100(P)
4359 1
905
30 0155
0135
.
!
G
25
25
R=10
R=10 MAP 12 0- 30
44.89(D)
44.89( D)
CO 10169
83.92(P)
83.92(P)
32
31
92
(LBA)
(LBA)
11.69
11.69
135.01(LBA)
135.01(LBA)
113.21
113.21
29
53.70
53.70
1320
9066
4522
60.62(LBA)
60.62(LBA)
N88^19'14"W
112.64
112.64
112.07
112.07
ST
65
62
IC 2"W
65
10
62
CIF 52'0
PA N33^
NE12
96
40
37.02
22Esmt 37.02
42
25
25
0380
90(P)
90(P)
176.00
264.69
113.78
113.78
11'
1'
N88^42'30"W
95
95
1 4262
2 1250
1.
9.97
9.97
25
25
IFX
10
15
14
45
22.0
7.5
21
21.00
No
2 3 0 3 9376 5
63. 0363.03
4239 43
1185
25
25
25
25
89^
891
10
28
26.9
W
8.6"
'38.6"W
50'3
100
100
25
25
26
25.03025.030
25.030
25.030 25.030
25.030 25.030
25.030 25.030
25.030 25.030
25.030
255.10
47
46
41.01
41.01
Sht
20. 02
20.02
30
30
NE 43RD ST
4252
CO 37483
34.9
25.21
25.58 25.21
25.58
1
4
3 IMO
1205
0940
29
48
5
.4
VOL 5- 16
IFS
IFS
32
C 0.50
23.57 24.46
24.44
24.44
R=1100
30
30
L=42.552(P)
L=42.552(P)
R=30
R=30
9.57
9.57
.
!
G
AO
30
30
30
30
4
UM
100
100
LA TO N A
1ST
ADD
IMO
13
IMP
100
100
S73^
S7350
3006299
IC-45
IB U/4527
95
95
1 2
509
30
30
49 1230
15
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
1510
1 1 2
1
B
48.00
UM
NE NORTHLAKE WY
71.35
N87^52'12"W
35
35
816
0140
245.16
4253 48
4254
30 100
100
25 26 27 28
24
0125
.
!
G
25
0165 31
26
No
THL
NE NOR
1.
50. 01
50.01
4259
35
33
4315 32
60.00
60.00
4501
R=150
R=150
CO 10169
0130
AO
UM
102.2
.
!
G
4030 13
Subd
11
D
67.5967.59
25
50
51.05 D
51.05
34
49.01
G
49.00
F
E
49
49.00
0120
3009172
37
36
0190
49
H
22
4306
24086 21
23
51.05
A
Subd
Esmt
F
49.05
4321
49.01
49.01
Subd
B
Esmt
66
51.05
49.05
G
No
18
22
4302
51
50
49.04
H
Short
0195
0
6
.0 39 .3
3030
p32,3
2 4
IFS
32
3
95
95
IC-45
30
30
41.12IMP
41.12
30
30
.
!
G
0191
11
25
25
B
A
49.04
49.05
4327
N88^21'09"W
88.66
.
!
G
20
20
17
8
9
Short
25(P) 25
25
25(P)
25
25
0090
46.08
46.08
41
40
0225
25.45 30
25.45
30
107
107
20
20
66
42
4337
IFX
17
4320
Sht
No
43
W
6
.5 2"
98 '0
52
3^
64.72
N87^57'16"W
100
100
25
25
25
25
10
11
14 4332
0070
46.08
46.08
No 2201060
49
48
47
0235
12
89024 40
9021
46
94
4343
13
Adj
107
107
16
16
50
16
0080
No
100
100
809
0005
15
0075
4324
9037 PARCEL
CO 10566
95
95
5
6
107
107
Bdy
PARCEL B
N88^20'02"W
711 52
1240
0910
13 4236
14 0995
5050.00
107
107
45
50.0150. 01
C
100
100
709
Short
20
.
!
G
100
D
50.01 100
100(P)
(P )
. 3.25
3.2 5
25
25
103.43
90
90
107
107
9020
Lot
NE 45TH ST
N3
10
SC1 p32
48.00
A
MAP 86 -1 5
CO 14073
102.33
102.33
25
25
25
25
100
100
R=15
R=15
L=23 .55
L=23.55
.
!
G
48.00 A
Subd
3006297
92
29
265.
3"E
00'0
IMO
30
11
100
100
DER
100(P)
100(P)
2
112.2
E
6'06"
N78^1
16
30
5
6
MEAN
IC-45
25(P)
25(P)
TJO 114619
Esmt
E 43RD S T T O E 75T H S T
SHEET 1
SHEE TS 2 & 3
N1^49'40"E
43.81
25
25
RN MENT
14
100
E
D
No
N75^
10
32
1825
240.026
240.026
S0^08'38"W
S008'38"W
16
SEATTLE FREEWAY
SH E L BY S T TO E 4 3 R D S T
R/W
FREEWAY
SR 5
40
40
40
40
CO 37483
25
GO VE
TJ O 95647
TJO 95647
30
30
25
25
25
25
25
25
5 20
25
25
25
25
18 7
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
110.30
N1^44'05"E
CO 12478
30
30
30
30
25
25
25
33
25
25
1
2
19
8
9
0595
16
16
......
25
25
L INE
36
35
34
4048 6
CO 11287,
CO 12478
Amend by
50 9006
138.
3"E
00'0
.
!
G
IMO
100
98
N75^
06
12
22'Rt
47.50
Short
R=1100.0
28.25
28.25
12.5
.0 2
Sho rt 100.02
Su bd Esmt
4302 710
810
0150
44
3007865
15.
25
15.25
40
25
25
50
4052
Subd
93
92
F 44.00 22.00
44.00
F
E
44.00
1.0
14
47.50
47.50
15
2120
1.0
30
30
3006088
47.50
47.50
13
1.0
39
21
4210
NE 40TH ST
100(P)
100(P)
TJO 114619
D
C
21 100(P)
100(P)
93
25
25
25
25
25
14.24
44.50
Subd
25
25
277.
25
25
25
IMP
60
D
C
44.50
18 17
19
100 P
Esmt
Subd
11
3009294
44.5 44.50
...
100 P .
20
9 93 9
12
3006199
22.00
A
B
8 IFX
44.50
44.50
.
... 1.16
6
32.50
32.50
6.0
C
No
CO 37483
0.
25
25
11
47.50
No
25
25
123.13
N1^39'39"E
.
!
G
PC=2387+25.0
25
25
3829
25
19.41
CO 14073
6
7
2075
2085
Sht
44.50
44.50
1.07
44.50
44.50
A
B
No
Short
47.5
47.50
95
95
64.28
2 0160
100(P)
100(P)
Short
47.50
25
25
25
RAMP
RAMP
30
30
100
100
9
.9
01
9+
D=14^00'
R=409.29
L=176.99
T=89.91
06
277.
6"E
59'0
74
47.50
47.50
38
=2
28.25
38
17
0915
14.99
2065
PT
42
41
0460
Subd
11
11.00
26.25
26.25
2 4317
19
AO 94971
14.99
4041
No
30.28
30.28
IFX
18
703
PFM
37
12
25
25
30
30
3
4
1.0
11
20
0410
18
28
28
30
30
28.25
28.25
26.25
26.25
15.25
Esmt15. 25
14 4328
0345
15
22
0405
14
15
.
!
G
8 1/3
15.
15.25
25
1090 1105
1050
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
PT=2394+67.50
4047
G 11.00
16
10
30
30
30
30
25
25
100(P)
100(P)
10
11
12 IMO
13 9
74
52.28
12
100
100
50.02
25
25
255.24 PI=2393+96.50
N88^45'16"W
D=40^00'
R=143.25
L=161.71
T=90.71
14
14
15
CO 12478
p41
25
25
30.28
11
50.0450.04
0900
25
25
26.
25
26.25
Short
11 IFX
.
!
G
666
25
25
2400200
13
.
!
G
21
22 4211
0885
650
4049
40(P)
40(P)
50.20
50.20
201.19
N88^22'46"W
SC1
22
47.75
25
25
N008'38"E
40
40
80.96
80
. 9 6 R tRt
RAMP
RAMP
35.01
45.02
15
N74^
21
50.01
POT=2393+35.39 =
POC=2393+34.68
PI=2388+14.91
CO 37483
200.00
80.9 6
80.96
14
MA P 8 8 - 9 3
30
30
(Con do)
VOL 98-88 93
20
25
25
..
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
676.94
N1^39'42"E
40
40
40
40
SC19 p19
11
LR3
College Place
.
. ..
. ..
. .
.
11
14
.
!
G
15
100.07100.07
N8844'31"W
100.08100.08
N8844'40"W
0860 19
0585
25
25
10 4032
0985 10
100
100
62.6
25
25
0980 9
12 4026
0995 12
50.24
50.24
0840
4219 18
PC=2391+52.569
L A T O N A A. D D
4036
13 4020
1000 13
5.02 16
5.02
14
4229
23 24 25 26 23 24 25 26
.
!
G
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
16
16
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
36.00
33.00
No
0930
10
19
12.35
46
4258 3
25
25.00
0940
210
210
BASELINE PSH1
BASELINE
PSH1
40
40
40
40
2 4064
0945 2
3 4060
0950 3
100
100
100
100
.
!
G
'12"E
33.10
30
30
33.10
15
15
54
IFX
11
17
IMO
28
28
260.04
N88^42'47"W
0765
0800
12
20
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
40
414
16
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
55
50
50
50
50
1650 14
RAMP
RAMP
BASELINE
BASELINE
50
50
60
50
50
4213
50
6
7
9
13
458.67
N1^40'45"E
40
1640 12
1645 13
N88^24'08"W
14
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
12
11 1635
GBK
0780 4
10
1625
10
4253 3
11
95
419
1620
25
25
0760
25
25
55.35
50
50
413
1605
25
25
47
45
30.28
30.28
52.28
135.07
N88^42'39"W
100
100
661
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
49.92
49.92
N117'26"E
30
30
NE 43RD ST
266.48
.
!
G
39.70
25
25
100(P)
100(P)
24.25
18.25 24.67 25
67.17
35
110.70
110.70
1830
70
70
130.99
130.99
210
210
50
50
16
412
34
POC=2400+52.25
23.60 18.25
66.60 24.25
1825
48
44.28
H Su bd
30
30
10.76
0555
50
49
0425 0435
23 24 25 26 27 28
WATERWAY
WATERWAY
NO 1 4NO 14
420
1835
"E
50
50
15
416
0720
100
100
33
50
50
14
1815
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
4311
N6^32'27
33.33
33
50
50
13
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
34
1795
4317
50
50
12
4321
GBK
77
77
N8935' 31"W
N89^35'31"W
107
107
16
17
90
A D D
1785
1695
15
15
30
30
18
19
20
21
22
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
11
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
30
1715
100.7
10
1705
1700
FREEWAY R/W
1725
4335
50
50
40
4339
1710
4332
4326
FREEWAYR/W
FREEWAY
R/W
30
30
110.70
110.70
10
409
30
30
N88^22'17"W
110.70
110.70
RAMP
RAMP
.
!
G
60
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
50
SR 5
1865
20
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
18
107
107
63
63
50
50
14
1885
4406 4407
110.70
110.70
NE 44TH ST
266.49
54.64
17 0260
19
R=8
R=8
55
N88^23'19"W
24.72
414.71
13
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
35
35
10
4427
4426
4422
5 1895
FREEWAY R/W
YR/
R/
W
R=60
R=60
No
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
18
.
!
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
14
0245
4516
16
17
......
14
15
..
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
...
26
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
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
N053'07"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
N053'07"E
1795.505
1"W
S4^13'33.
19
AP
TE
94
LA
WS
OF
1 91
EAST
EAST
11
1137.820
120
17
150
1"W
S4^13'33.
VACATED BY ACT OF LEG ISLATU RE APP ROVED
ED
MAR 1 7 1911 CH APTER 94 LAWS OF 1911
300
360
PR
RE
TU
LA
IS
G
ID
LE
VD
EAST
EAST
NE
US B ULK HEAD AN D STATE

IN NER HARBOR LINE
2146.7
CA
TED
US BULKHEAD AND STATE INNER

HARBOR LINE
LA K
AC
BY
VAC
VA
CF292350
CF292350
BL
MIO-37-LR1
CF292350
CM
100
100
1795.505
S4^14'33.1"W
150
150
S0^53'07"W
MIO-65-LR3
ES
OF
55
55
N12^2
66.50
3'33"
66.5
S78^1
DO
9
75-7
MA P
RY.
N.P .
A ND
REG ENTS
NE
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
N1122'
REVERT
DEDICA
33
74
1905.
1905.33
60
1778.
1778.74
35665
DO
55
55
57.7
57.7
91.
91.8
080
91.
91.3
030
89.
89.5
050
91.
91.4
545
P)
0(
(P)
P)
6.
.80
80
(P)
(P
)
10
100
10
106
81.
81.4
7(P)
47(
150
150
150
35
35
35
35
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
91
26
92
CO
ST
OR
BY
63.6
63.67
100
32
TE
24
RE
PT
PE
ER
AL
24
ED
LA
282.4
282.40
SE CCor
SE
or E /E/2,
2 , SE , SE,
SW , SE
SW,
/ 4 SE/4
N0^13'43"W
N013'43"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
N1122'
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
68
N0^13'38"W
N013'38"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
N013'43"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
N000'00"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 N009'10"W
219.59
219.59
25.00
25
35
35
35
35
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
35
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
06
44.88
44.88
35664
ORD
R=4133
R=4133
DO 91512
E (WCS)
9'53"
N11^2
N1121
'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
AO
38.90
38.90
30'1
'10"W
0"W
S14^
S1430
S1122'0
S11^22
2"W
'02"W
96.55
96.55
287.
DEEDED 287.3
030
TO NP
RY
VO 35323
00
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.
50
50
16
17
10
10
50
50
2907
75
75
18
0095
R=20
R=20
31.42
31.42
.
!
G
0600
2
2122
0610
0605
50
50
50
50
US
GO VE RN MENT
No warranties of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchantability accompany this product.
Copyright 2012, All Rights Reserved, City of Seattle, Department of Construction and Inspections
50
50
50
50
A
9
50
50
10
50
50
11
50
50
12
P I ER H EA D
13
50
50
14
50
50
15
50
50
R
16
50
50
17
10
10
70
70
18
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
US
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
50
50
KEO
10
10
70
70
2818
0465
1
50
50
2111
0470
2
50
50
50
50
50
50
H AR B O R
0625
0630
0635
0620
50
50
50
50
50
50
D
6
50
50
50
50
LINE
40
40
CM
10
10
1
11
SF
7200
M.C.
M.C.
10
10
50
50
90
90
.
!
G
AND PIERHEAD LINE
50
50
50
50
2147 2153
0505
70
70
555
5
0510
R=43.75
2159
T=43.75
0515
L=68.72
100.00
OLD HARBOR LINE (INNER)
CO M B IN ED
N89^42'46"W
311.0
L IN E
MA P 6 8 - 5 7
L IN E
2000.00
N89^42'46.1"W
US
H AR B O R
LINE
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,
200.00
R=200
LIN
R
DE
AN
ME
NT
ME
RN
VE
S TA TE
HA R BOR
HA R BOR
OLD HARBOR LINE (OUTER)
2098.962
N89^42'46.1"W
AND PIERHEAD LINE
Kroll Map Company is a registered trademark.
CN
C A N A L
157.031 S89^42'46"E
STATE O UTER HARBOR LINE
157.031
250
COMBINED US BULKHEAD AND PIERHEAD LINE

ABL
EST
ISH
ED
BY
US
DEP
T OF
AR
MY
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,
19
49
SHE
ET
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
Figure 191. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection Map

Book, Sheet 80
CM
M.C.
M.C.
EST
0646
23.75
23.75 23.75
23.75
AND
INNER
OUT ER
MA P 6 8 - 5 7
COMBINED US BULKHEAD
157.031 S89^42'46"E
157.031
COMBINED US BULKHEAD AND PIERHEAD LINE
CM
118.75
85.
75.00
11.25 72
50
50
VOL 18-20
M.C.
0645
0640
ST N O 89910
50
50
M.C.
90
2158
P I ER H EA D
S TA T E
ST A T E
SF 5000
COMBINED US BULKHEAD
15
15
.71
.7
10
2152
B U L K H E A D,
LC A K E
A N A LW A S H I N G T O N
S H I P
SF 5000
L IN E
2136 2142 2146
2132
E SHELBY ST
R=20
R=20
31.42
31.42
GO
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
10
10
70
70
68
98
98
L IN E
0595
ST N O 89910
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
UR
R=20
R=20
31.42
31.42
NTLAKE BLVD E
50
50
R
E
90
75
75
0090
1894
70
70
68
50
50
99
99
109
109
99
99
59
50
50
109
109
0100
1
118
118
LINE
10
10
70
70
1803
F
10
10
0085
12
12
90
1886
50
50
AND
A ND
9144

CN
667.174
E
S89^42'46.1"E
280.581
No warranties of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchantability accompany this product.
Copyright 2012, All Rights Reserved, City of Seattle, Department of Construction and Inspections
3388.653
HYDR
EAST
FO RM ER
H A RB O R
LI NE
RB
HA
R=2
UNKN
1908
59.417
FO RMER
H ARB OR
LI NE( 190 8)
LINE
(A P P RO VED MA R 25 , 19 10 )
50
.0
29
R=2
50
OR
.0
S89^42'46.1"E
29
UNKN FORMER
N0^53'07"E
0075
P I ER H E A D
FOR
MER
15
1876
50
50
PARK
14
B U L K H E AD
MA P 6 8 - 5 7
US
159.85
NORTH
.
!
50
50
40
40
0080
0070
13
1866
0065
50
50
35
35
35
35
50
50
109
109
12
0055
1882
1874
0060
1856
E SHELBY STG
50
50
109
109
VO 72272
1862
11
10
1092.50
R=20
R=20
25 22.5
25
22.5 31.42
31.42
98
98
1041.52
0050
35
35
50
50
99
99
55
0045
101
101
50
50
121
121
0040
50
50
66
L IN E
0035
50
50
12
12
H AR B O R
0030
50
S TA TE
KEO
50
50
156.00
101
101
AND
0025
121
121
50
50
109
109
0020
99
99
P I ER H EA D
VO
50
50
US
CF292350
L IN E
W A S H I N G T O N
GO VE RN MENT
CM
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
50
50
71
12
12
0010
118
118
25.53
25.53
.
!
G
35
35
5.00
US
40
40
15.71
15.71
121
121
121
10
10
90
90
109
109
121
121
.7
WEST PARK DR E
IFS
17
4
CO M B IN ED
10
10
0005
MEAN DER
UNREC VOL 902-311
M.C.
M.C. 90
90
1800
99
99
88.26
88.26
85
33
33
121.8 N89^43'00"W
N89^43'00"W
121.8
1812
63.75
63.75
DEEDED TO CITY
100
100
100
100
N0^16'02.7"E
N016'02.7"E
UNION SH ORE LANDS
DO 25677
75
539.075
N0^16'02.7"E
71
.7
15
15.
17 - A
UNREC VOL 9 02-313
3"
121
LINE
IFU
2.
16
.1
74
74.
H AR B O R
NORTH
N DER
0220
'0
MIO-37-LR1
CO M B IN ED
S TA TE
161.26'
MEA
LAKE UNION S HORE L ANDS 2ND

SU PPL
58
0
.4
71^
N5
12
AND
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
US
CF292350
US
100
100
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
RN
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
VE
515
P I ER H EA D
MIO-37-LR1
GO
515.000
N
I
H
B U L K H E A D,
Figure 190. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection Map

SF 5000
Book, 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
DO 25677
CN
HYDR
319
AN
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
DO
01
49
00.
29.
N3
8
11
46
.2
P
R=
67
8.
CO 26332
N0^17'20"E
N017'20"E
REPEALED BY ORD 27541
75
75
25.53
25.53
Archaelogical
Buffer Area
CF292350
CM
500
460.845
S4^58'33
.1"W
L IN E
CF292350
CM
S3^14'49.6"E
H AR B O R
121
121
S TA TE
MIO-65-LR3
12
AND
12
P I ER H EA D
121
121
B U L K H E A D,
99
99
US
68
CO M B IN ED
HYDR
LINE
ORD 92887
MIO-160-MR
R=200
99
N89^42'42"W
B A Y
HYDR
150
150
ME
181.32
181.32
S017'20"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
(W
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
13
R=
R=
27
71 27
71
.30
.3 55
MEAN DER
0"
GO VE RN MENT
635'5
CF292350
Govt Lot 5
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
20
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
MI
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
ST
1^
MONTLAKE
N5
N5
CF292350
NT
Govt Lot 6
4.
LI
IVE
RS
N5
N5
15
1^
8'2
58
0"W
'2
0"
W
PA
CIF
IC
N5
58
39
393
15
1^
3.
'1
.80
8'2
80 580"W
6"
'2
0"
W
N5
N5
W
15
(W
1^
8'2
58
.C
0"W
'2
.S
0"
.)
W
MIO-160-MR
MIO-160-MR
CF292350
1.
.15
15
NE
ITTI
LIN
ON
E
-9
515
51
5.
.41
41
56
561
52
.6
5
MIO-160-MR
55
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
AN
AO
ME
651
RN
11
VE
AO
1
GO
54
AP PVD FEB 15 ,1908
27
1
PARK
54
MONTLAKE
27
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
OR
LA
80
BV NE
N32^
D
LINE
REP EATS
.S.)
17-18
MAP
BY
OR
DER
14
L IN
MA P
35665
BY
Govt Lot 4
Govt Lot 4
MEAN
7.
PARK
DO
35664
ED
RN MENT
56
BO
1.55
DO
ED
et
AL
CF2
F292
92335500
C
GO VE
AR
R=8
9151
2
ORD
AL
PE
I O- 10
- 107-7-LLRR11
MMI O
.004
Stre
PE
"
'37"
5323'37
53^23
TS
L=
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
41
31^40'42"
3140'42"
S TA
1"
.27
.27
256
256
CF2
F292
92335500
C
119
11
9.
.41
10
1'0
R=
R=
50
50
MIO-37-LR1
CF292350
MIO-107-MR
=
13
49
.21
116
5"
29.
19083
87
22
651
CF292350
CM
MIO-107-LR1
1596
55
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
N324'51"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
28
CO 17947
.51
131
1318
R=1
R=1
091
09
.28
1.
6.9"
33
11
S3
S38
"E
HYDR
CF
2 9 2 3
5 0
CF
2 9 2
CM
5 0
3
CM
1622
1622.1
91512
62 ORD
TY - 19
L=557
St
"E
'37'37
^04
04
S24
S24
HE
18
3.
IGT
16'2
25
26
N5
N5
Ea
15
1^
sem
8'2
58
en
0"W
'2
t
0"
W
IFU
'5
CF292350
S15^
CO
CO
AO
TO UNIVERSI
CF292350
IFU
18 UC
46
EN
REG
REVERTED
285
28
5.
.00
00
VO 93656
TO
3
.13
51
31
57.
13
MIO-107-LR1
MIO-37-LR1
DED
DEE
7.
MIO-65-LR3
3^
ER
T=
......
2
.82
0.8
.13
13
1622.
1622
L=5
29
CF292350
PI
BY
146
1460
N5
1^
57
57. 15
8'2
.9
98 58
'2
8 0"W
0"
W
CF292350
CP
CF292350
47
49
19 11
9.
308.54
308.54
N5
DED
DEE
=11
146
1460
TE CHAP
82
CIT
N5
R=
MIO-37-LR1
MIO-105-MR
294
25
25
19
198
MA
63.
63
30
R=4 .3
R=
0
43
32
E sm
2.
.00
00
t
St
2
.82
0.8
T=
EN
REG
"W
TO
'41"
CF292350
AO
116
510
531
94 LAWS
25
25
N60
N60
22'
^22
85.1 05"W
85.
'05
AO 111
80
CF292350
31.
2944
31
R== .9
R
336 91 1
68.8.0
00
50.
50
0
13
.1
3
UN
BY
33
33.
.2
25
R=
1.
1.6
66
6
MIO-105-MR
95
DEED)
DEED
)
MIO-65-LR3
D,
55
55
92
-9
591.
591.92
13
83
3.2
.2
6
6
EA
30
30
(591.
(591.95
UN
49
4.
MA
4.
N0^53'22"E N037'18"E
N0^37'18"E N053'22"E
53.43
53.43
S8542'14"E VO 120249
S85^42'14"E
MIO-65-LR3
AO
DEDIC
A TED
N5
N5
15
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
15
TS
RR
S3
S38
BU
573
57
3.
.94
94
11
1.64
VAC 15TH AV NE
19
L=62
WS
N1^25'35"E (W.C.S.)T=318.67
LA
250.30
N1^25'35"E (W.C.S.)
94
545.03
545.03
AP
S5
S53
3^
06
06
'17
'1
"E
7"
E
US
4.4
N5
N5
30
3^
06
6'1
7"W
'1
7"
W
NP
CH
29
9"
(W
44
W.C.
7
(W
S.)
.C
.S
.)
ED
R=72
4.4
(547.03
(547
.03 DEED
)
DEED)
TE
REPEALED BY ORD 29448
STA
352.91
352.91
BY
6.
.65
65
N125'50"E
N1^25'50"E
6.90
6.90
TED
58
586
15
15
S38
S3
8^
01
72
581.02
581.02
DIC
A
R=
DE
80
80
01
'47
'4
"W
7"
W
79
R=72
MA
R=
R=3
=4 32
2
T=1 12
T=
2.1 4'3
L=2 12
L=
0
23
3.1 .1
3"
.1
3 0
49
43.
43
.5
59
9
58
'1 3"W
'1
3"
W
N51
N5
1^
58
N5
92
R=8 N5
R=
92.
15
1^ .0
=4 8
00
8'1
58 0
T=
T=3 12
3"W
'1
.0 4'3
L=5 3.
L=
2
3"
5.
. 78 02 3"
W
78
83
WM
WM
-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
80
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
N206'31"E
129.64
129.64
R=
42
2
T==3 14
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 40
L=1 5.
L=
.5 4'5
10
0.7 252 4"
.7
1
#5
30.87
30.87
80
80
50
50
8.
.06
06
N0^58'58"E
N058'58"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
AO
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
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
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
N206'31"E
N2^06'31"E
24
274
27
N5
N5
4.
41
4^ .8484
15
5'3
9"W
'3
CO 17947
834.55
30
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
N211'22"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
7"
25
25
C F2 92 35 0
CCPP
'2
25
25
46
25
25
9^
MIO-37-LR1
O-37-LR1
MI
C F2 92 35 0
LIN
N2
.98
DER
LANDS
166
SHORE
AN
92
25
25
1.45
ME
6.
25
25
52
NT
16
ME
120249
RN
25
25
IGT
VE
WASHINGTON
7.
R=1
R=1
83.5
83.
4 54
GO
25
25
15
N2^06'48"E
834.55
N2^06'48"E (W.C.S.)
ORD
R=
R=1
454
17.
17.5
50
25
25
54
54
3.
13.
11
35
35
35
35
7.
25
25
WASHINGTON
99
CF292350
LINE
25
25
544
MIO-65-LR3
DER
25
25
117
9"
OF
9001
MEAN
25
25
6.
LINE
61.64
61.64
StN
'2
UNIVERSITY
MIO-37-LR1
IGT
MIO-65-LR3
55
55
30
DER
....
6.61
6.61
46
WASHINGTON
EAST
EAST
MEAN
53.43
53.43
....N8542'
N85^42'14"W
14"W
3199
NE
AO
9^
55
55
RN MENT
ST
(W
1^
58
58
.C
'13
'1
"E
.S
3" 30 .)
E 0.
STA. 28+15.42
#3
N2^06'31"E
"E
DR
N2
04
SING
VO 93656
L
RIA
E
'53
'53"
^07
07
S29
S29
MO
S5
S51
en
71
44
447
7.
.83
83
4"
CROS
OF
'
CL
16.0
3.3
18+7
SPAN
1 ARCH
VAC 15TH AV NE
ME
78
322
.84
.84
918
918
OF
55
55
RN MENT
sem
'3
LINE
VO 93656
26
ES
.32
.32
58
9"
W
BIN
UNIVERSITY
CF292350
GO VE
Ea
35
35
CH
GO VE
PA
CIF
IC
1^
R/W
CO
OR
N5
55
Govt Lot 4
N DER
.4
269
59
60
MEA
73
56
CF292350
924
924
10
57
.1
LED
AO
AO
VO
21.96
21.96
936
Archaelogical
Buffer Area
CO
48
484
4.
.88
88
50
509
9.
.57
57
N5
N5
15
1^
8'1
58
3"W
'1
3"
W
NE
35
30
30
69
MIO-37-LR3
EA
REP
43
434
4.
.18
18
1.
30
30
VO
CCPP
AT
YG
54
93
50
MEN
79
Govt Lot 1
C F2 92 35 0
R
MA
N8827'
19"W
N88^27'19"W
R=188
R=188
=5330' 54"
T=94.79
T=9 4. 79
L=175.66
L=175.66
CH
AP
N5 66 LA
N5
30
3^
WS
06
6'1
O
7"W
'1
7" F 192
W
9
RN
.4
3"
MIO-37-LR1
O-37-LR1
MI
C F2 92 35 0
AY
VE
893
73
'5
.0
.06
73
73
13
13
19
20
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
15
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
83
13.83(P)
13.83(P)
N87^54'03"W 672.64
554.07
554.07
3 SB
HW
GO
46
.1
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
3^
17.
78.44
(P)
)
LINE
......
69
N5
40.
25
7.9
2
100
100(P
35
35
4 LAW
N5
N5
15
1^
8'2
58
0"W
'2
0"
W
MIO-65-IC-45
35
35
P2
22
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
FO
25
95
95.
.2
21
7.
ED
30
30
76
60(P)
60(P)
CO 17947
370
64. 935
35.0
50 .08
8
Laurelhurst
Commercial
Condo
NE 45TH ST
NE 45TH ST
TE
AT
CO
3"
W
2 2
9 3 5 0
CF 2 9
2 3 5 0
CF292350
UC
DIC
R=50
R=50
=5409' 34.7"
L=47.26
L=47
.26
55
9.
.63
63
27
......
65 - I C - 45
I O -65
MMI O
- C F - I C - 45
95
VO
59
'15" 139
13
148
N5148.
N5
15 .54
1^
8'154
58
8"W
'1
8"
W
4280
E
8"
'0
37
5^
N5
DE
R=20
R=20
=8959' 55"
T=2 0
T=20
L=31.42
L=31.42
. .
. .
. .
CF292350
AO
98
R=460
R=460
MIO-65-LR3
30
30
25
80
80
30
R=50
R=50
=5405'15"
.
!
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
10
4150
140
50
R=859.
R=859
.4949
.
!
G
AO
54^05
40
40
DER
71.94(P)
71.94(P)
96
40
40
MEAN
47.38
R=3
R=30
40.
40.96
LINE
R=3
8
47.3
EOX
17.
17.6
666
45
RN MENT
.3
0
60
CF292350
DER
55
19
19
R=
R=
47
CF292350
MEAN
(M
35 )
.8
9
D)
38.
38.47
40
40
80
327
OR
R=
R=6
50
50
R=2
R=2
MIO-37-LR1
MIO-37-LR1
RN MENT
.6
66(
6(
D)
5.
.42
42
47
)
(P
(P)
40
.40
5.
135
13
80
80
40
40
01
-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
10
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
10
CF292350
20
20
020
47.
47.2
R=
18
.5
85
.8
0(
D)
51
STA
17
LINE
80
80
34.
123.2
123
.29
9
38.
38.47
BY
91.08
12 11
7. 3.
20 0
(P
)
55
55
80
80
30
20
20
30
30
51
35
T ED
30
30
VD
4.
40
40
CO
F IL
103
46.
46.35
10
ICA
30
30
30
30
37
20
.2
27
27.
10
104
DED
2575
BL
300.067
95.55
674.31
CO 17947
MEAN DER
40
40
PL
TH
.
!
G
50. 80 .
50.0
707 07
108 OR D
108
.50
.50
50
.5
52
52.
14
NC2P-40
43
.4
93
93.
.6
3.
3925
103
AK
99
N88^46'26.9"W
75
42
LIN
.
!
G
TL
31
CO 17947
N89^57'43"W
N8957'
43"W
GO VE RN MENT
75
11
ON
M
NE
.
!
G
2593.37
75619.98
91
DE
56
29
AN
4
5
0.
25
.25
2.
122
12
3.5
3.53
R=30
R=30
ST
40
40
28
ME
University
Campus Urban
Center Village
.
!
G
329.54
N88^49'41"W(WCS) 1003.655
75
70
.7
58
58.
40
40
5
5
12
.12
6.
11
116
48
47
.47
4.
40
40
Street
Clock: Benton's
Jewelers
15
15
R=10
R=10
NT
2535
71
75
50
50
11
ME
Govt Lot 3
103
103
N89^56'56"W
44
03
75
32
RN
12
103
103
322
L=
11
110
27
128
12
8.
.11
VE
11
30
30
80
80
CF292350
.
!
G
103
103
10
R=1
0040
1055 31
30
GO
55
55
MIO-105-MR
OR
3042
3216
AO 83414
VO 112848
R=74.46
R=74.
46
75
17 40
40
.17
6.
20
206
50
103
75
673.17
673.17
MIO-37-LR2
162.61
0041
.
!
G
50
125
26
45
NE
50
50
14
.1
16
16.
40
40
86
.86
7.
18
187
1.
2395
3
9365
25
73
2756
579.852
75
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
N8956'
56"W
6
6
82- 05 81
9330
9"
N87^47'15"W
PARCEL A
No
2746
26.5
26.5
6.
R=4053
R=405
3
25.2 0
14.8 25.2
9372
349.54
N88^49'49"W (WCS) 978.98(CALC)
636
52.
52.3
11
N89^56'56"W
N8956'
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
'2
8.
.97
97
4.34
1.50
Short
46
17
178
9427
S73-50-28E 4.34
S15-01-44W 9.67
N75-00-00W 1.50
TRACT A
N89^56'56"W
N8956'
56"W
1.31
9^
80
80
10
12
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
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
N3
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
10
87.4
N89^45'39"E
N8945'
39"E
476.12
476.12(SP)
35.04
40
40
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
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
11
12
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
70
70
R=297
.
!
G
129.27
129.27
=10113'39"
R=50
70
70
MA P 7 5 - 7 9
133.25
133.25
R=50
103
103
129.27
129.27
80
80
80
80
110
110
R=4133
R=4133
103
103
N87^52'34"W
14
82.06
82.06
21.60
21.60
R=3767.
40
40
7.82
7.82
3 MA P 7 5 - 7 9
40
40
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
N8502'
119.18
119.18
CO 17947
50
50
30
30
30
30
152.63
NE 45TH ST
150.74
150.74
.3
4
4
30
30
80
20
20
30
30
136.70
136.74
136.74
136.75
136.75
136.75
136.75
S89^57'47"E
S89
57 '47 "E
88
88.3
110
01
226
1
.1
67.15
CO
VO 28109
67.15
97
30
30
30
30
58.99
58.99
60
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
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
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
BLVD
BY
40
40
40
40
40
40
REPEALED
ORD 20841
40
40
ORD 79789
40
40
AND
BY
40
40
PARKWAY
40
40
40
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
(Condo)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
344.37
S000'00"E
VOL 215-66 68
4545 Building
N0-00W
344.37
4.06
4.06
344.42
N0-00-05E
N000'05"E
344.42
79.383
AO 115210
35
35
35
35
35
35
40(P)
40(P)
AO 115210 88
40
40
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
76
N89-56-56W
N8956' 56"W
198.37
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
50
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
75
2233
9083
9083
VOL 213-01 0 5
12
120
60
60
9098
80
Jan 14 2016
4515
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
=715'
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
0.
CFB
DO 28526
60
60
.
!
G
DO 28526
26
R=30
4
68.12
CF292350
0090
168.75(D)
9348
125
125
60
3.
176.68
CO 17947
35
35
MIO-65-LR3
R=30
68.12
.
!
G
30
30
100
100
60
60
4510
3
2226
9280
38
280
2216
339.55
79
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
1.
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
17
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
63
0015
1.
25
25
4515
747
40.
40.4
15
.
!
G
25
25
108
108
15
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)
15
305
2875
120.97
120.97
2750 14
16
108
108
4524
11
3
R=4053
R=405
6
0030
7
14
14
12
13
1818
2760 17
.
!
G
10
120.47
120.47
120.72
120.72
4508
25
25
20
R=3767.18 18
0015
10
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
15
50
50
NC3-65
3
BWL
20
4.71
.
!
G
50
50
16
305
NE 45TH ST
20
20
108
108
13
14
10
120.22 120.22
2780
2585
18
17
19
21
4522
E
-00
-00 08
8
50.0
50.
14
14
108
108
280
11
4505 12
S30
30
30
15
2575
2605
CO 15642
16
10
4519
4506
14 0 .8
(P
30
30
13
14
25
25
19
2415
2435
17
21
20
NE 45TH ST
2405 11
4503 12
18
.
!
G
25
25
4521
4504
277.4
3'
108
108
19
82 .6
^3
6
6
Esmt
15
14
14
20
AV NE
103(P)
103(P)
1413 1
14
2455
NNA
NE 45TH ST CO 10566
0005
.
!
G
5.08
89
13
17
N88^20'45"W
14
14
14
.1
19
19.
280.04
18
2290
16
6
66
5.30.47
5.6
30.47
RAVE
S542'27"E
S5^42'27"E
148.14
148.14
CO 10566
NE 45TH ST
12
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
S8957'24"W
N89-57-24E
103.02
14
14
4505
19
5"
79
Jan 14 2016
0020
0120
SDCI Map Books
20 4516
2310
108
108
'5
4508
25
25
33
0130
62^
4514
Kroll Map Company is a registered trademark.
HARBOR LINE
263
UW BUILDING
INVENTORY
TABLE 22. 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
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
EK
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
546
1947
PO1
4038
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
265
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

Center A
53,201
1949
HSC
1224

Center C
48,288
CSH
1166
Conibear Shellhouse
48,088
1949
1167

Cyclotron Building
13,399
1949
1228

Center H
1328

Center D
HSF
1226

Center F
122,767
1950
MUS
1299
Music Building
73,482
1950
HSG
1227

Center G
64,594
1950
HSE
1225

Center E
56,540
1950
WSG
1030
3,897
1950
CMU
1161
Communications Building
106,465
1951
PBB
1163
Portage Bay Building
99,870
1951
WSP
1031
3,371
HSBB
1223

Center BB
248,765
HSAA
1222

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
211,284
183,975
GROSS
SQUARE
FEET (GSF)
DATE
CONSTRUCTED
SW Maintenance Bldg
7,464
1955
1188
Stadium
137,591
1956
PO3
1039
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

NW
88,465
1959
UMEE
1241

EE
80,408
1959
UMSS
1261

SS
73,825
1959
UMSW
1262

SW
65,415
1959
UMSE
1260

SE
52,439
1959
UMCC
1253

CC
44,302
1959
UMNE
1257

NE
40,442
1959
PCH
1112
Purchasing and Accounting

Building
39,576
1959
MCC
1158
McCarty Hall
170,241
1960
1951
HSRR
1175

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
School
45,598
1969
ELB
1325
Engineering Library
40,549
1969
CMA
1129

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

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
South
PL1
1036
Plant Laboratory Annex
430
1963
RAX
1047
Roberts Annex
1,680
1969
HSI
1300

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

Center J
170,719
1965
CY1
4171
Corp Yard Container 1
1970
GDR
1139
Golf Driving Range Building
5,094
1965
CY3
4174
1970
BNS
1277
Benson Hall
76,271
1966
CY9
4180
1970
MSB
1138
Marine Sciences Building
59,570
1966
CY10
4181
1970
PDL
1136
Padelford Hall
138,555
1967
CY11
4182
1970
CY12
4183
1970
Intramural Activities
Building
289,347
1968
CY13
4184
1970
CY14
4185
1970
IMA
1137
300
1962
267
GROSS
SQUARE
FEET (GSF)
DATE
CONSTRUCTED
GROSS
SQUARE
FEET (GSF)
DATE
CONSTRUCTED
1970
Odegaard Undergraduate
Library
4189
1970
165,973
1972
CY20
4191
1970
1135
Gould Hall
115,038
1972
CY21
4192
HST
1168

Center T
493,496
1973
CY22
4193
1970
GTH
1134
Guthrie Hall
74,241
1973
CY23
4194
1970
CDH
1124
Condon Hall
132,533
1974
CY26
1970
MNY
1126
Meany Hall
124,491
1974
4199
1970
SOCC
1308
South Campus Center
69,852
1975
CY29
4200
1970
ACC
1119
John M. Wallace Hall
30,468
1976
CY30
4201
1970
1970
Waterfront Activities
Center
1977
4196
1120
20,904
CY25
WAC
CY7
4178
1970
TSB
1101
Transportation Services
Building
5,459
1979
CY8
4179
1970
WNX
1054
Winkenwerder Annex
267
1979
CY32
4203
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
4197
CY28
BUILDING NAME
CY31
4202
1970
CY5
4176
1970
CY4
4175
1970
CY2
4173
1970
CY19
4190
1970
CY6
4177
1970
CY15
4186
1970
CY17
4188
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
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 (A&S)
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
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

EA
187,132
1987
LAVQ
1232
Laurel Village Building Q
5,610
1982
Laurel Village Building V
5,610
1982

EB
1987
1237
1255
88,753
LAVV
UMEB
BVH
1532
Blakeley Village Complex H
4,492
1982
UMEC
1256

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
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
BUILDING NAME
269
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 &
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

(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 (R&T 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
1997
UMSP
BUILDING NAME
GROSS
SQUARE
FEET (GSF)
DATE
CONSTRUCTED
Alder Hall
276,146
2012
6137
Elm Hall
207,017
2012
UMSA
6091

SA - Montlake Tower
182,470
2012
MOL
6105
Molecular Engineering &

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
271
GLOSSARY
BUILDING ENVELOPE
15th Ave NE
The building envelope refers to the volume

created by extruding the allowed building
footprint up to the allowed building height.
DEVELOPMENT SITE
NE 45th St
As used throughout the Campus Master

Plan, the word development will mean
any University decision to undertake any
action of a project nature within the campus
boundaries, which will directly modify the
physical environment and which is not exempt
from SEPA.
A Green Street is a City of Seattle designation

for a right-of-way that, through a variety of
design and operational treatments, prioritizes
pedestrian circulation and open space over
other transportation uses. Green streets serve
as complete streets integrating dedicated bike
paths, larger pedestrian sidewalks, landscape,
and storm water management systems.
rsi
ty
B ri
dg
Church of
Latter Saints
ive
GREEN STREET
Un
Refers to Full Time Equivalent. Student

enrollment projections were calculated on an
FTE basis, as distinguished from headcount.
College Inn
SDOT
NE
Portage Bay
Park
ifi
cS
t
Jensen Motor
Boat Company
Figure 192. MIO and Non-Institutional Uses

MIO Boundary
Existing Buildings
Non-Institutional Uses
Pa
c
M o nt
FTE
lake B
lvd
NE
NE 41st St
GROSS SQUARE FEET
POTENTIAL BUILDING
Gross square feet refers to 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.
Building masses shown throughout the

Campus Master Plan are for illustrative
purposes only and depict potential building
configurations. The Campus Master Plan
identifies more building sites than needed to
achieve the identified growth allowance; not
all sites will be developed. Potential buildings
do not reflect final building designs, but were
used to calculate the potential development
capacity of each site.
ILLUSTRATIVE
Illustrative graphics are drawings that are
intended to communicate the general intent
of key ideas and recommendations. Illustrative
graphics are representative only and do not
reflect specific building designs.
MIO
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 Campus Master Plan document.
PLANNING HORIZON/LIFE OF
THE PLAN
The 1998 City-University Agreement requires
the University to formulate a 10-year
conceptual Master Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement. The Universitys 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 will remain in effect
until the 6 million net new gross square feet is
constructed or a new master plan is approved.
SHARED STREET
Shared streets refer to streets that are
primarily meant for pedestrian and bikes
with limited access to service and emergency
vehicles. In some cases limited parking access
may also be allowed off these streets.
SHORELINE DISTRICT OVERLAY

The shoreline district overlay is an official State
and City designation of a 200 zone from the
shoreline edge (high water mark) or associated
wetlands. Within this zone, buildings can only
be built to a maximum height of 30.
STREET VACATION
Street vacation refers to the process in which
the University can petition the City Council
to acquire public right-of-way for campus
use. Public right-of-way is any property where
the City has a right to use the land for street
purposes whether or not the right-of-way has
ever been improved.
273
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following individuals contributed to the
2018 UW Seattle Campus Master Plan:
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

WORKING GROUP
Thaisa Way, Associate Professor, Landscape

Architecture
Leslie Stark, Assistant to the Director, Seattle

Campus Master Plan
Theresa Doherty, Co-Chair, Senior Project

Director, Seattle Campus Master Plan
Quentin Yerxa, Assistant Attorney General, UW

Attorney Generals Office
Lisa Graumlich, Dean, College of the

Environment
Rebecca Barnes, Co-Chair, Associate Vice

Provost, Campus Planning & University
Architect
Sally Clark, Director, Regional & Community

Relations
John Schaufelberger, Dean, College of Built

Environments
Jan Arntz-Richards, Environmental Planner,

Capital Planning and Development
Vikram Jandhyala, Vice Provost for Innovation
Leslie Stark, Assistant to the Director, Seattle

Campus Master Plan
Kristine Kenney, University Landscape
Architect
John Chapman, Executive Director, Campus
Engineering & Operations
Claudia Frere-Anderson, Director,
Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability
Julie Blakeslee, Environmental Planner, Capital

Planning and Development
Damon Fetters, Director, Facilities
Maintenance & Construction
Stephanie Rempe, Senior Associate Athletic
Director, SWA Intercollegiate Athletics
Jeanette Henderson, Executive Director, Real

Estate
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Joshua Kavanagh, Director, Transportation

Services
Randy Hodgins, Co-Sponsor, Vice President,

Office of External Affairs
Robert Lubin, Associate Director, Facilities &

Capital Planning
Rolf Johnson, Co-Sponsor, Chief of Staff, Office

of the President
Mike McCormick, Associate Vice President of

Theresa Doherty, Senior Project Director,

Seattle Campus Master Plan
Pamela Stewart, Executive Director, Planning,

Facilities & Data Centers
Rebecca Barnes, Co-Chair, Associate Vice

Provost, Campus Planning & University
Architect
Todd Timberlake, Chief Real Estate Officer

Mike McCormick, Associate Vice President of
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
Marianne Bichsel, Bichsel Public Affairs
CONTRIBUTORS
Caitlyn Clauson, Planning Principal, Sasaki
Chris Hoffman, Stepherson & Associates

Communications
Ruth Johnston, Associate Vice President &

Chief of Staff, Planning & Management
Rich Schipanski, EA Engineering
Gary Quarfoth, Associate Vice President,

Planning & Management
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
Kurt Gahnberg, Transpo Group
Terry McCann, EA Engineering

Ryan Durkan, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
Kathryn V. White, MUP, Planner/Writer
Steve Roos, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson

Abbey Pearl DeWeese, Hillis Clark Martin &
Peterson
INTERNAL ADVISORS
University Landscape Advisory Committee
(ULAC)
Commission (UWAC)
University of Washington Advisory Committee
on Real Estate (ACRE)
Faculty Council on University Facilities and
Services (FCUFS)
Adam Parast, Transpo Group

Jeanne Acutanza, Transpo Group
275

UW Draft Campus Master Plan 2018

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UW Draft Campus Master Plan 2018

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UNIVERSITY OF

Purpose and Process

October 2016 Draf t Plan

Planning Context and

West Campus 170

Circulation and Parking

South Campus 190

Public Participation Program 252

October 2016 Draf t Plan

October 2016 Draf t Plan

October 2016 Draf t Plan

Figure 1. Existing Conditions Aerial Image, 2016.

Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan

The general approach underlying this CMP is

Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan

the Plans growth allowance. The potential

The 10-year planning horizon establishes the

2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER

specific categories of academic uses on

Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan

Learning Based Academic and

Implement UWs commitment to sustainable

Extend UWs commitment to better connect

Stewardship of Historic and

address the public realm, connectivity, and

The CMP includes specific strategies and

Figure 3. Campus Sectors

Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan

Significant Pedestrian Path

Central Campus is a hub of learning activity

Significant Open Space

Concentrates new development at

10 Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan

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

Significant Pedestrian Path

industry partners and a significant supply

The West Campus is the most urban of the

Active Ground Floor

Increases development capacity and

Extends and re-establishes the street

Significant Open Space

Connects the campus and

Provides flexible building footprints

Structures proposed development

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

Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan

Significant Pedestrian Path

South Campus supports UWs Health Sciences

dense and disorienting both inside and out.

Improves access to West, Central,

Active Ground Floor

Reduces the scale of development in a

Significant Open Space

12 Executive Summar y - October 2016 Draf t Plan

Significant Pedestrian Path

liquefaction zone, adding cost to building

Significant Open Space

The East Campus currently accommodates

Improves connections to Central

Balances public realm and open

Preserves athletics uses while

Transforms this former

UNION BAY NATURAL AREA

Integrates with Union Bay