Kenmore reviews Bastyr University master plan proposing up to 1,000 market-rate units; extended environmental review likely

The Kenmore Planning Commission on June 17 heard an introductory presentation and public comment on Bastyr University’s proposal to update its campus master plan and seek amendments to the city comprehensive plan and the Kenmore Municipal Code to allow multifamily market-rate housing ancillary to the university’s institutional uses.

The presentation, led by Kenmore city staff and Todd Hall, principal planner, explained that the application was submitted April 18 and that the city issued a request for information on May 16. Hall said staff expect the applicant’s response by Aug. 14 and that no decisions were expected at the June meeting. He warned the scale and complexity of the proposal make it likely the city would issue a SEPA determination of significance, which would require a supplemental environmental impact statement under Washington Administrative Code 197-11-604(d).

Why it matters: The proposal would change long-standing limits on how the 51-acre Bastyr campus interfaces with nearby St. Edward Park and surrounding neighborhoods. If approved, it would open parts of the campus to housing that would be available to the general public rather than limited to students and faculty, alter tree and wetland footprints, and prompt a detailed environmental, traffic and public-services review.

What the application seeks: According to the materials presented, Bastyr’s submittal includes an update of the university’s 2009 master plan (which expires Dec. 31, 2025), amendments to the comprehensive plan land-use description for the campus, and changes to multiple Kenmore Municipal Code sections that currently govern the public/semi-public (PSP) zone and campus master-plan standards. The submittal describes: adaptive reuse of four existing student residential buildings for clinic and other institutional functions; new institutional mixed uses (day care, wellness center, neighborhood services); new and improved trails and circulation; and a proposed multifamily residential area that the applicant has described in its site plan as potentially accommodating up to 1,000 market-rate units.

Todd Hall summarized technical parameters shown in the submittal: several proposed residential buildings of four to five stories (about 45–55 feet), with a tallest building shown at about eight stories (85–90 feet) in the conceptual materials; roughly 10 acres of the site conceptually identified for multifamily residential; replacement or enhancement of existing play fields; and forest, wetland and open-space mitigation and enhancement measures noted as part of the concept. Hall also noted that Bastyr’s 2009 master-plan EIS and a 2004 EIS are part of the historical record and that the city’s initial review indicates the current proposal could trigger a supplemental EIS because of potential significant environmental impacts.

Public comment: Eleven people spoke in person or by call-in. Students and community groups urged preservation of parkland and athletic fields; Bastyr students said they want the campus preserved and integrated with Kenmore; nearby residents urged protection of forest, wetlands and trails. Veronica Galloso, a second‑year student in Bastyr’s naturopathic program, said, “Bastyr University is in a financial crisis,” and asked the city to consider tribal partnerships and other options to preserve campus uses and services to the local community. Laura Nordyke, speaking for the North Shore Youth Soccer Association, warned that Bastyr’s athletic fields are essential to youth sports and asked that the city prioritize preserving and expanding multiuse turf and lighted fields. Elizabeth Mooney, president of People for Environmentally Responsible Kenmore, urged the commission to consider a moratorium and to slow the process so community concerns about stewardship and parkland can be resolved. Several speakers, including Ken Davidson and Jim Myers, asked the city and Bastyr to pursue acquisition or stewardship arrangements so open space and trails remain accessible to the public.

Questions from commissioners: Commissioners focused on the early-stage nature of the application and on specific review issues staff will need to resolve. Topics raised included: - The meaning of “ancillary” in the proposed comprehensive-plan language and whether that term should be tied to land‑use functions rather than financial considerations; - The extent of net tree and canopy loss and what mitigation or in‑lieu fees might apply (staff said a detailed arborist report had been requested because the general memo submitted to date does not quantify removals or retention); - Whether multifamily housing under a revised master plan would remain in PSP zoning (staff said a rezone had not been requested and that the master plan defines allowed campus uses); - The project’s transportation and school‑capacity impacts (staff have requested a traffic impact analysis and noted the Northshore School District will review school impacts as part of the environmental process); - The city’s timeline and process: staff confirmed the application is a Type V review (planning commission recommendation followed by city council decision) and that the environmental review, public hearing and hearing notifications will be scheduled after the city receives the applicant’s response to the RFI.

Staff direction and next steps: Kenmore staff (including Principal Planner Todd Hall and Development Services Director Samantha Lojuk) told the commission they had issued a 90‑day request-for-information letter (May 16) and expected responses by Aug. 14 to avoid cancellation of the application. Staff repeatedly emphasized the review is in its initial phase: more detailed technical studies (traffic, arborist report, critical‑areas work, drainage, and a full SEPA process) are required before a public hearing and any recommendation.

What the commission did not do: Commissioners did not take any land‑use decisions at the June 17 meeting and made no recommendation to city council. Hall and other staff explicitly stated no decisions were expected that evening.

For the record: The Bastyr materials posted on the city website and referenced by staff include the applicant’s narrative, a conceptual site plan, a preliminary arborist memo and other supporting documents; the city’s May 16 request-for-information letter is also posted. The city’s SEPA official will determine whether a supplemental EIS is required under WAC 197-11-604(d).