Point/Counterpoint: CRD on Kirkland Parkplace Parking
What is Point/Counterpoint?
Point/Counterpoint is a three-week series focused on the issues surrounding the redevelopment of Kirkland Parkplace. Both Touchstone and Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development have agreed to participate and abide by a predetermined schedule and set of “rules”.
The purpose of this series is to inform and educate the people of Kirkland of the facts. Both sides of the debate will discuss the major issues surrounding Kirkland Parkplace: Parking, Traffic and Social & Economic Impact.
The Participants
Touchstone — owner of Kirkland Parkplace, plans to redevelop into mixed-use office/retail/hotel
Touchstone is a Seattle-based firm that believes sustainable development is the key to long term linked prosperity for our business, our community and our society. Touchstone plans to redevelop the site into “a community hub with lively retail, active open space and strong pedestrian connections to downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.”
Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development — opposition group, opposes Parkplace redevelopment as planned by Touchstone
Mission Statement: CRD support re-development in Downtown Kirkland according to the Comprehensive Plan for Kirkland. We believe that the future re-development must take into account the distinctive topography of our downtown, respect its hometown setting, and retain its human-scale and pedestrian orientation.
Topic: Parking
Proposed Parkplace Parking Variance Would be Disastrous to Kirkland
By Cindy Smith
The proposal by Touchstone Corporation to redevelop Parkplace provides for grossly inadequate parking. If approved as proposed, the parking shortfall will deliver a lasting, negative impact to the residents and businesses around downtown.
Currently, Plarkplace provides 3.11 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. Most would agree that it’s often hard to find parking at Parkplace. Touchstone’s proposed 1.8 million square foot redevelopment, which includes a mix of uses similar to the current Parkplace, would need to provide 5,598 parking stalls just to maintain the current parking ratio.
According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the rezone proposal, the bare minimum required for the project under the zoning code would be 5157 parking stalls.
However, Touchstone seeks a variance on parking and proposes only 3,500 stalls. This 1,700 to 2,000 parking stall shortfall at Parkplace would overwhelm parking in downtown and adjoining neighborhoods. As a point of reference, the parking garage below the library only holds 420 cars.
If these numbers don’t paint a picture, think of Redmond Town Center (RTC). RTC has 1.2 million square feet of office plus 600,000 square feet of retail totaling 1.8 million square feet – the same mix and size Touchstone plans for Parkplace. Now, consider that RTC has 5,000 parking spaces. Imagine what it would be like with only 3,500 spaces. Visions of gridlock spring to mind. That would be the exact situation at Parkplace.
If you live in the neighborhoods around Parkplace, street parking will become nearly impossible. If you work close-by or own a business, you can expect that Parkplace workers and visitors will find parking at your building. Landlords, building owners and the city of Kirkland will bear the responsibility of protecting nearby parking from being taken over by the overflow from Parkplace.
Any benefit to downtown businesses from the new Parkplace will evaporate with the parking shortage. Parking frustrations will be aggravated. Kirkland will become known as a “great place to visit but, but there’s no place to park.” Visitors will give up trying.
In Touchstone’s study to support their parking plan they claim, “…the peak parking demand for most retail uses occurs on weekends when little or no office parking would occur.” Anyone who frequents Parkplace knows the reality—Parkplace is busy at all times of the day and night throughout the week—not just on weekends.
Nowhere in the Touchstone study do they cite parking analysis done in Kirkland. Instead their study reflects analysis of parking at a Lake Forest Park Shopping Center. It bears no data specific to the city where they want to build this huge development.
Further, Touchstone’s study estimates 78 percent of workers would drive alone, 12 percent by carpool and the last 10 percent via mass transit, walking or biking. They claim, “This level of vehicle use is based on the actual results of employers in Kirkland…” Survey results from the 2006 King County Traffic Management Plan tell a different story.
That survey includes 15 office buildings from Carillon Point to Totem Lake Plaza where single occupancy vehicle use averages 87 percent—much higher than claimed by Touchstone.
According to the DEIS, the new Parkplace would have approximately 6,138 workers. If we do the math using Touchstones’ projections:
- 78% Single Occupancy Vehicles 6138 x 78% = 4,787 cars
- 12% Carpools 6138 x 6% = 368 cars (Avg. 2/car)
- 5,155 cars
With Touchstones’ proposed 3,500 spaces, where will the extra 1,655 cars park? What about shoppers, hotel visitors, delivery drivers? The numbers simply don’t work.
If Touchstone has the best interests of Kirkland in mind, why propose a development with significantly fewer parking spaces than required by code? The answer is in the dollars.
Cindy Smith is a member of the Kirkland Citizen’s for Responsible Development Steering Committee
Based on estimates by commercial architects, the cost to build a single parking space in a development like the one Touchstone proposes is at least $25,000 per space. Cut 2,000 parking spaces from the project and the developer saves $50 million!
Parking is one of the biggest problems in downtown Kirkland. The Touchstone proposal calls for a huge shortfall of parking. There is no logical reason the city of Kirkland should approve any development unless it provides the amount of parking required by code…period!
Please visit the other half of this debate: Touchstone’s Point on Parking at Kirkland Parkplace
Update: Touchstone’s Rebuttal
by A-P Hurd
Following are Touchstone’s responses to CRD’s primary points on parking:
Currently, Parkplace has about 700 parking spaces. Many in the underground garage are never used because there are no active parking-management systems. Furthermore, parking shortages that do occur are during evenings and weekends. At those times, there’s very little office demand, so the garage at the new project would have 3,000 spaces available to the public.
Redmond Town Center has 5,000 spaces, but they’re not all used. Many are outlying, and there is no active management of parking to help people find their way to these spots, something the new Parkplace would have. Furthermore, Redmond Town Center is isolated from Redmond’s residential population; Parkplace, though, is within easy walking distance to hundreds of residents in and near downtown Kirkland.
The Lake Forest Park numbers weren’t used to determine absolute demand, but rather how parking at a retail center fluctuates by time of day.
The King County numbers shown in aggregate include several low-density suburban development sites with limited or no transit service. The numbers Touchstone used to determine the use of alternate transportation strategies (transit, walk/bike, carpool) were from 7 sites within central Kirkland that have similar characteristics to Parkplace.
A-P Hurd is a vice president with Touchstone Corp., the owner and developer of the Kirkland Parkplace property. More information on the project is available at www.envisionkirklandparkplace.com.
Print This Article
Related Articles
31 Responses to “Point/Counterpoint: CRD on Kirkland Parkplace Parking”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
-
Please support our advertisers
-
-
"Park Lane by KirklandViews.com"
Hi Cindy!
How many people are in the CRD? I looked on your web page and it shows a list. I am guessing you have more support than that but I couldn’t find it.
Reply
cindy smith Reply:
September 30th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Hi Sprinkles -
We have a steering committee of 11 people. In addition, we have hundreds more who have signed our petitions and asked to be on our distribution list.
If you’d like to meet us, please come by our Open House this Saturday. The details are at http://www.kirklandcrd.com. Thanks!
-cindy
Reply
Cami Keyes Reply:
September 30th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
That’s KirklandCRD.org
Reply
I have mixed feelings here. I desperately want a better mall and new QFC but I am concerned with parking. The developer’s calculation study makes some sense to me if there was an ample cushion for overflow. Would CRD agree to the project if they got their parking issue the way they want it? They say they are not against growth so is it true? I doubt it.
Reply
cindy smith Reply:
September 30th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Hi Roses -
The Kirkland CRD is absolutely in support of responsible development, and a new vibrant Parkplace. The key to responsible development is that it be done in line with the Kirkland Comprehensive Use Plan. That plan, which took many months and countless hours to develop, was created to guide the development of Kirkland. It’s a good strong plan that allows for development of the right scale and size for Kirkland.
Many other cities have these same types of plans, and they follow them to the letter when considering re-development such as what Touchstone has come up with. Because our zoning commission is not doing that, the Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development came together to share the other side of the story.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Reply
I understand how a casual observer can look at Cindy’s argument and agree however she is wrong because she is missing critical information. First, all land uses do not have the same parking demand. Retail has by far the highest parking demand per square foot. Office has less and has a much higher non-SOV mode split. Also most (except for 2 in my count) of the other office buildings you cited have any viable transit alternatives within walking distance. Most importantly though the affect of time is especially important in mix use developments because not all uses occur at the same time.
This is not addressed at all in Cindy’s analysis and can not be overlooked. I don’t have time to write a full response but let me leave you with the graphic below (follow the link). Just because the “total demand” is say 5000 doesn’t mean that the number of parked cars will get anywhere close to that.
http://students.washington.edu/adambp/Example.jpg
(I guess though you probably won’t believe me either because the city has a graph just like mine. http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/__shared/assets/EIS_Parking_Graphs8551.pdf)
Reply
TYPO
Also most (except for 2 in my count) of the other office buildings you cited do not have any viable transit alternatives within walking distance
Reply
Cami Keyes Reply:
October 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Adam,
Thank you for the information. We are very familiar with “Shared Parking” principles, but still beleive that there is not enough parking for Retail and Offices being proposed for Parkplace. The nationwide empirical data needs to be relevant to use at our location, which means local studies. And when you are mixing retail and office, there is crossover in high usuage time, especially when the retail includes things like a grocery stores. Head down to Parkplace at lunch during the week and let me know how easy it is to find a parking place, especially on a Friday. And go to Redmond Town Center and see how full parking is during the week (even with 5,000 spots).
We stand firm that not enough parking is being provided. And transit is close in many of the buildings participating in the King County Traffic Management Survey as it is in Parkplace. Our transit center is a decent walk, especially on a blustery winter day or night. It is unlikely they will achieve lower than 78% arriving in Single Occupancy Vehicles, and it is unlikely if they did, it would be significant (a couple hundred cars maybe).
Reply
Adam Parast Reply:
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Just a few points.
- National data is used because it is the only way that statistically significant data can be collected. Also “relevant to use at our location” doesn’t mean just in the city of Kirkland. You should be looking at locations that are in Kirkland’s downtown core as I previously pointed out. A office park next to 405 is not the same as one in the heart of kirkland.
- My guess is that a large share of the tenants will be larger firms with well established (and government mandated) travel demand management (TDM) programs. These programs are very effective at decreasing SOV share by giving employees financial incentives to carpool and providing subsidized transit passes. I doubt many of the sample buildings you used have a TDM program.
- One block from the transit center to Parkplace is not “a decent walk”… not to mention it is through a park! Wow that is torture.
- Lincoln Center is a great example of a building with a parking management system and very well design ingress and egress. This might sound funny but it is my favorite parking garage not because it has enough parking (it has been full several times I went) but because it is so easy to use (signs tell you which floor is full or empty) and it is actively managed. Lack of parking is often perceived not real and management systems overcome this.
Reply
Providing more parking would not be responsible. More parking = more cars and traffic. Just like the field of dreams, build it and they will come. Build more parking and get more cars. Are you folks the same people who don’t believe global warming is real? There are many options for reducing vehicle trips in office projects like providing transit subsidies or charging for parking. This location is close to a transit hub and transit opportunity will improve over time. Retailers demand parking and plenty of it. Speaking from experience, retail developers will not propose a project without enough parking. In other words if Touchstone says its enough then its enough. This argument is just hot air from opponents. With that said there is plenty to argue about the proposal like the overall mix of uses, public amentities and pedestrian connections and spaces. Parking is not the issue. Oh and I missed the part where Ms. Smith cited her credentials for this parking analysis.
Reply
Rob Butcher Reply:
October 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Jester,
The overall mix of uses, public amenities and pedestrian connections and spaces will all be discussed in the next two weeks of this Point/Counterpoint series. Next week the issue of Traffic is discussed and then in week three we will discuss Social and Economic Impacts.
Thanks for your comments.
Reply
Jester -
For the record…I most definitely believe in global warming.
When it comes to parking, I never claimed to be an expert. I am a local citizen volunteer who cares very much about maintaining the quality of life we have in Kirkland through responsible development. I care enough to take the time to listen and read and learn about issues such as this one. And, I am capable of writing an informed position paper based on what I learn. I also happen to have professional experience in mixed-use residential, and commercial development.
Reply
I moved here from other places that have been redeveloping for years. Always contentious. I am also a former land use attorney and mediator who has considerable experience representing proponents and opponents of large development projects.
In this case the proponents want redevelopment. They want to have a lifestyle center that is new and will serve many needs. They are willing to allow greater height and accept the proposed parking in order to get this.
The opponents have framed their arguments against around height and insufficient parking. They do not think the project is worth the loss of views and are very concerned about what they state is insufficient parking.
So what should the Council decision be? That is easy: What is best for the City as a whole. They should look far out into the future and take into account long term needs of current and future residents and lifestyle trends. They also need to consider the economic costs and benefits of the project.
I would suggest that if Ms. Smith has experience in the development business that she knows that the developer will have to pay impact fees for the increased infrastructure.
For the record my family and I try to buy things in Kirkland. We find that most of the things we need are not available here. Like most of my neighbors and I am sure many people on both sides of this issue we get in our car and drive to Bellevue or Redmond.
Reply
I find the arguments on inadequate parking interesting in light of the fact that we are about to see the addition of a massive bus depot right in the heart of downtown (within easy walking distance to parkplace). The obvious goal is to encourage residents and office workers out of their cars and into mass transit. Where is the concern by CRD and others about this ‘development’? where will the giant park & ride lot be etc… I think the real concern here is, as usual, who’s views are impacted.
Reply
Frankly,
You hit the nail on the head. It’s interesting to me how none of the CRD folks who are so worried about Downtown Kirkland have bothered to refute my previous post about the Transit Center. It was Mr. Davidson who then worked the City Council to not put the transit center at the old hardware store site. Again it was view blockage because of the building that would go on top. Look it up and check the votes of current and former Council members on that project. Nothing new here!
Al
Reply
I think this response shows how out of touch Touchstone is with the parking at Parkplace. The underground parking is all full or reserved during the day most of the time. And I have been there on many occassion for lunch when I could not easily find a spot anywhere. On weekends or evenings, I have never had trouble finding a spot.
Reply
My experience is exactly the opposite of City Girl’s. I frequently walk (about 7min) to ParkPlace from home, passing the transit center on the way. I also drive there pretty often, e.g. when I know I’ll be laden with heavy packages or I’ll be heading out of Kirkland right after a Pancake House run. Weekdays are generally fine, though near 24/Emerald City Smoothies is always a bit challenging, but evenings and weekends are much more difficult.
As someone who uses the current ParkPlace to the hilt and desperately wishes for more utility out of it, I would like the project to go forward. To me, the comments from the Touchstone reps and other people knowledgeable about parking management sound credible. It does make one wonder if the obsession about parking concerns is indeed a proxy for something else.
Reply
I personally think if CRD is so sure of their parking assertions that they should be willing to put their money where their mouth is. The developer is putting up nearly 1 billion to fund this project, which is a lot of money to put on the line if they’re wrong on the parking. They are so sure that they have it right that they even have developed an agreement with the City on penalties and mitigations if they are wrong. What is CDR willing to put on the line if they are wrong about the additional spaces needed?? Nothing. I think if CRD succeeds in making the City require more parking at Parkplace than what the developers say they need, then CRD should enter into an agreement to pay the developer that $25,000/space that Cindy mentioned above for every UNFILLED parking space. CRD, are you willing to take such a stand?? After all, if you are so confident in your claims, you have nothing to loose, do you?
Reply
I agree with Eve. I walk to ParkPlace almost every day and mid-day there are usually several parking places available at various points around the development. I have studied the Touchstone parking proposal closely and looked at a myrid of other parking studies of similar developments and believe it will work.
It also is interesting to me that CDR does not trust the Planning and Parking commissions to do their jobs. I hope ParkPlace does get re-developed with retail so we can all benefit.
CRD how many spaces would it take to get you to lift your opposition to this project? If Touchstone agreed to 5,000 spots would you endorse the project?
Reply
I have to add my concurrence that I have been at Park Place at many times of the day, seven days a week and have always found a parking space- sometimes not immediately but always within the Park Place footprint. I think the worst time of day is between 5 and 6 right before the reserved spaces become available but when Purple Cafe and the other restaurants are at the peak of happy hour! That’s about the only time I have to walk any distance to get where I want to go and I figure that means I get an extra bite of dessert. I look forward to the new preferred option development and hope I can significantly increase the amount of money I can spend here in Kirkland (instead of having to go elsewhere).
Reply
Al–
This is a red herring that doesn’t really belong in this discussion, but I will humor you. Ken Davidson opposed the transit center because it was seeking to rezone the area to residential and he felt it better served the city and retail to remain zoned office. The result was Bungee moving in there, bringing just the type of high-tech jobs to Kirkland we want. And for the record, the transit center and the proposed development would not have impacted Ken’s building. It is anticipated that a 5-story office building could go in that spot and he and others in Kirkland CRD would not oppose such if it met the requirements of the Comp Plan.
Reply
Cami, did Ken Davidson seek a variance to whatever rules were in place at the time he built his building?
Reply
Cami,
No Cami this is not a red herring. This is business as usual for Mr. Davidson. If not then please provide all who frequent this site a list of projects in Downtown that Mr. Davidson has not opposed. Further if your argument is that Bungee replaced or improved the retail sales tax dollars that could have been gained from another mixed use I would like to see those figures.
Fact is that you and your group don’t want anything built that will make economic sense for the developer and the City. Go ahead and continue to follow Mr. Davidson who clearly does not have the best interests of anyone but himself.
Al
Reply
Charlie Reply:
October 5th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Bungie is a great company to have in Kirkland because it has high paying positions and is the type of company which can help draw other game developers to locate here. Bungie does not provide retail sales tax. That is only offices. It brings business tax and customers for lunch and dinner and shopping if they don’t already live here.
Bungie is the future and some don’t want to see change but like it or not, young, highly paid jobs are coming here. Google is another feather in Kirkland’s cap. These businesses are good forKirkland. But with them comes change. Higher prices and different services catering to younger people. Sorry folks but that is the future.
Reply
Al,
Do you know Mr. Davidson personally? Have you spoken to him about his concerns on this building? If not, I think you are out of line. If so, then share what he has said.
CG
Reply
CG,
No. I have stated that I do not personally know nor have I talked to Mr. Davidson. I have however personally observed his actions for several years and now the actions of the people he has recruited to oppose Park Place.
I find him to be very consistent in his opposition to anything that effects his own holdings in Downtown. Is that out of line? I think not!
Is there something you know about him and his motivations that you are not telling us?
Al
Reply
Bungie and Google are great for Kirkland and hopefully we can attact more companies like them, but as Charlie points out they want different services – much like those the renovated ParkPlace would bring. I think if we want to hope to bring these companies to Kirkland and hopefully convince the workers to also live Downtown we need the new mix of retail and services.
I think it is telling that many of the Downtown business owners support the renovation. They know that enhancing the retail mix can only help all of Downtown.
Reply
I agree that Bundgie and Google are great companies. As a fairly senior guy at Microsoft I can attest to what happens when we have chosen to go into a smaller City. In short, high wage jobs, employees who spend lots of money and generally choose to live close to their work. The benefits for the Cities are redevelopment of old and tired buildings, greater tax collections from greater retail sales and a appreciation in home values. The permit, and impact fees paid by the developer are significant and as far as I can tell much needed. All of the above things are normally welcomed by the communities where we locate. In this case where you are trying to entice companies like mine to set up offices it is imperative that our employees have goods and services nearby. Kirkland is cute but until further development takes place it will be difficult for us or anyone else to seriously consider the investment we would need to make in this community.
I truly understand the other side here. While I think it is noble I also think that it is counter productive to the future of Kirkland.
Reply
Al–
I don’t know Mr. Davidson, so I would not presume to make any assumptions about his motivations. Though I would understand if a building is going to be blocked, and he owns it, why there would be concerns. He would not be able to get as high of rents and it would diminish the value (and the taxes), of the building. And if his buulding is adjacent as you say, then he might experience some of the negative impacts of parking shortages and traffic problems. So I would suspect his concerns mirror those of others who are opposed not to the redevelopment, but to the size.
Reply
New2Kirkland–
Would MS and their workers still appreciate their surrounding if the building was five stories wiht retail at the bottom?
Interestingly enough, there is not much retail near the MS campus in Redmond–one has to drive off site.
Reply
CG,
You are right about the neighborhood by the Microsoft Headquarters. The sheer size of that infrastructure makes it impractical and uneconomical to place in the heart of a city.
I am not sure that you know that Microsoft leases tens of millions of square feet in Cities across the US (like Bellevue). We specifically do this because of the superior amenities they offer our employees. IMO after 20 years experience around and at Microsoft I would have to say that we would not be interested in a project with limited to no amenities. The reason is that there are other projects exisitng and planned in neighborhing Cities that will have them. I do not see that trend changing as we compete with companies like Google to attract the best and the brightest.
Reply