Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CITY OF KIRKLAND Planning and Community Development Department
123 Fifth Avenue, Kirkland, WA 98033 425.587.3225
www.kirklandwa.gov
MEMORANDUM Date: June 19, 2014 To: Planning Commission Houghton Community Council From: Jon Regala, Senior Planner Jeremy McMahan, Planning Supervisor Subject: Study Session III - Amendments to Multi-Family Parking Requirements File No. CAM13-02032
I. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should conduct a joint study session with the Houghton Community Council to review, discuss, and provide direction on the proposed changes to multi-family parking requirements in preparation for the public hearing.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Overview. In general, the City regulates parking in order to find the right balance between oversupplying and undersupplying parking. Too many parking stalls leads to impacts on the environment, increased housing and construction costs, adds to traffic congestion, the potential for reduced open space, and undermines other modes of transportation. Having too few parking stalls can lead to spillover parking into residential neighborhoods and puts pressure on the public supply of on-street parking.
The following Kirkland Comprehensive Plan goals and policies provide support for parking requirements that strike the right balance.
FRAMEWORK GOALS
FG-7: Encourage a sustainable community.
FG-10: Create a transportation system which allows the mobility of people and
goods by providing a variety of transportation options.
FG-14: Plan for a fair share of regional growth, consistent with State and regional
goals to minimize low-density sprawl and direct growth to urban areas.
FG-17: Establish development regulations that are fair and predictable.
LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal LU-4: Protect and enhance the character, quality, and function of existing
residential neighborhoods while accommodating the City’s growth targets.
Policy LU-4.2: Locate the most dense residential areas close to shops and services
and transportation hubs.
Policy LU-5.1: Access
– Encourage multimodal transportation options, especially during peak
traffic periods.
1
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 2 of 9
– Promote an intensity and density of land uses sufficient to support
effective transit and pedestrian activity.
– Promote a street pattern that provides through connections, pedestrian
accessibility and vehicular access.
– Encourage pedestrian travel to and within the commercial area by
providing:
…Structured and underground parking to reduce walking
distances and provide overhead weather protection; and
promote non-SOV travel by reducing total parking area where
transit service is frequent.
Policy LU-5.3: Maintain and enhance Kirkland’s Central Business District (CBD) as
a regional Activity Area, reflecting the following principles in development
standards and land use plans:
– Create a compact area to support a transit center and promote pedestrian
activity.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Policy ED-3.5: Encourage mixed-use development within commercial areas.
Policy ED-5.1: Build and maintain infrastructure systems for utilities, transportation
and telecommunications to optimize service delivery to the business community.
HOUSING
Policy H-2.7: Create flexible site and development standards which balance the
goals of reduced housing development costs with other community goals...
TRANSPORTATION
Increasing Travel Options - Kirkland’s vision for transportation promotes the
movement of people throughout the City and region by expanding opportunities
to use transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized facilities…Alternate modes of travel
reduce energy consumption, air pollution, and noise levels. By encouraging high
occupancy vehicles and other modes of travel, the City may be able to save the
capital expense of road construction and maintenance and enhance the
environment. For these reasons, the City should pursue all possible alternatives to
the single-occupant vehicle.
Policy T-5.6: Promote transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to
help achieve mode split goals. TDM may include incentives, programs, or
regulations to reduce the number of single- occupant vehicle trips.
Given that the majority of Kirkland’s multi-family zones have not had their parking requirements updated for many years, finding the right balance for parking is important given the amount of growth projected Kirkland. Under the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the State Office of Financial Management must make periodic growth forecasts for each county which then form the basis for local comprehensive plans. Based on the King County Countywide Planning Policies growth targets, Kirkland is expected to accommodate approximately 7,300 new multi-family housing units by 2035. This averages out to about 348 housing units per year. Bringing the City’s parking requirements more in line with actual parking demand supports and promotes multimodal transportation options, green building policies, environmental stewardship, economic development, and land/use growth policies.
2
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 3 of 9
B. Study Sessions. On May 22, 2014, the Planning Commission and Houghton Community Council held their second study session on this project. The study session packet, including the previous November 21, 2013 study session packet, can be viewed online at:
http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/planning/Planning_Commission.htm
At the study session, staff presented several context-based parking adjustment approaches:
Adjustments based on housing unit types Reduction for transportation alternatives – frequent transit Reduction for off-street parking management – unbundling parking pricing
Daniel Rowe with King County METRO spoke about King County’s Right Size Parking (RSP) project specifically in regards to parking data collection, methodology for their parking model, and the seven key variables used to statistically best explain parking use for multi-family developments. These variables are:
Average rent Units per residential square feet Percent of affordable units Occupied bedroom count Parking pricing Gravity measure of transit service Gravity measure of intensity (population and jobs)
As a result, the model created by the County explained approximately 80% of the parking use throughout King County. Also, Don Samdahl with Fehr & Peers summarized their analysis of Kirkland specific parking data.
The Planning Commission and Houghton Community Council discussed concerns with visitor parking, increased parking that accompanies growth, lack of transit availability in Kirkland, the need for cars for numerous activities outside of work, incentives for reduced parking, and parking pricing. They then asked staff to provide additional information regarding visitor parking and explore further parking adjustments based on:
Housing unit types Proximity to frequent transit
The Planning Commission and Houghton Community Council did not support the approach for reducing parking requirements by unbundling parking pricing from the cost of housing. It was felt that the City should not manage parking pricing because of the complexity of such a task given the large amount of multi-family properties that could be involved. Also, enforcement by the City would not be realistic given the resources needed.
Near the conclusion of the meeting, several citizens provided public comment summarized as follows:
Keep in mind the effect of a reduced parking supply and its potential cumulative negative effect
Need to consider visitor parking Not all destinations are served by transit Households that use transit for work still need a car for other activities and
therefore parking is still needed
3
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 4 of 9
Mixed-use developments have a high parking demand in the early evening hours
Additional density will happen to meet growth management goals but need to be careful with parking
Multi-family developments have different family types and dynamics Condominiums need to be included in the study How parking pricing is managed should not be regulated by the City
C. Public Comment. Several public comment emails were received by the City since the previous study session. They have been included in Attachment 1.
III. CONTEXT-BASED APPROACH TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS
A. Local Parking Data
Because of the general nature of the RSP calculator, additional parking utilization information for multi-family properties in Kirkland was requested for analysis. The parking data analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers can be found in Attachment 2.
The ten Kirkland sites for which parking data had already been gathered with the County’s larger RSP project provided a baseline for identifying additional multi-family sites within Kirkland for analysis. Staff identified the need to include sites that consisted of condominiums, developments that varied in unit counts, are located outside areas previously surveyed, had poor transit, and/or lacked nearby services.
The project team was successful in obtaining owner permission to gather parking utilization data for an additional fifteen multi-family projects in Kirkland that met a combination of these factors. However, information for only seven sites (includes 3 condominium developments) have been gathered to date due to a variety of factors. To help supplement the Kirkland dataset, staff requested that Fehr & Peers include in their analysis the parking data for several Downtown condominium sites collected in 2006 as well as data for two Downtown multi-family sites collected for a recent (March 2014) parking modification request. This increased the total number of Kirkland multi-family sites included in the study to 24. Fehr & Peers also included data from the Redmond Overlake RSP sites for reference.
Gathering parking data for the remaining sites is ongoing. If obtained prior to the public hearing, they will be included in the analysis.
B. Adjustments based on Housing Unit Types
General Multi-Family Zones. Kirkland’s general multi-family zones require 1.7 stalls/unit and up to 0.5 stalls/unit for visitor parking. This requirement does not take into account the bedroom count of the unit. The County’s RSP draft model code suggests that there is a relationship between parking stall demand and the bedroom count of a residential unit. The RSP Calculator estimates using countywide data that parking rates per bedroom could be calculated as follows:
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom +
0.85X 1X 1.6X 1.8X
The ‘X’ would be the baseline minimum parking requirement and would be multiplied by the factor corresponding to the unit type.
4
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 5 of 9
Analysis of the Kirkland dataset by Fehr & Peers resulted in the following rates with a base rate ‘X’ = 1.3.
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom +
Formula 0.93X 1X 1.25X 1.39X
Resulting Parking Rate 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.8
To understand how this calculation applies to existing Kirkland multi-family developments, Tables 1 to 3 of the Fehr & Peers report (see Attachment 2) include the results of this application (see row labeled ‘Supply Using Model Code’). For all but one site (Site 18), the application of this Unit Type based approach would provide a parking supply greater than the observed parking utilization.
For comparison, the general multi-family parking requirements for several adjoining Cities are listed below.
Bellevue: 1.2 stalls/studio & one-bedroom; 1.6 stalls/two-bedroom; 1.8 stalls/three-bedroom + No additional visitor parking requirement
Redmond: 1.2 stalls/studio; 1.5 stalls/one-bedroom; 1.8 stalls/two-bedroom; 2 stalls/three-bedroom + No additional visitor parking requirement
Bothell: 2 per dwelling unit + 1 visitor stall for every 5 units
CBD. In the CBD, the multi-family parking requirement (1 stall/bedroom with minimum average of 1.3 stalls/unit + 0.1 stalls/bedroom for visitor parking) is closer to actual utilization rates than previously required before parking requirements were changed in 2011. In the CBD, the average parking rate based on available data for multi-family developments is 1.29 stalls/unit (see Figure 1) and is in line with what the code requires: a minimum of 1.30 stalls per unit. It is also closer to what the RSP calculator predicts for the CBD as a whole (1.23 stalls per unit) than what the code previously required.
Figure 1 – CBD Parking Utilization II
Stalls per Bedroom Stalls per Unit
2006 CBD Condo Data – 5 sites
(from May 14, 2014 staff
memo)*
0.83 1.42
CBD apartment complex
(2011 RSP)
0.70 0.90
Kirkland Central Condos
(March 2014)*
0.95 1.23
Watermark Apts.
(March 2014)*
0.76 1.30
Average (8 sites) 0.81 1.29
* Includes on-street parking
While the data supports the CBD code requirement for a minimum average of 1.3 stalls per unit, the stall per unit rate is inflated if the one stall per bedroom calculation is applied to these existing developments. As touched upon previously with the Unit Type based approach discussion, the RSP model does not indicate a linear 1 to 1 parking utilization relationship between parking and bedroom count. The average parking utilization in the CBD was found to be about 0.81 stalls/bedroom (see Figure 1) instead of 1 stall/bedroom.
Applying the current parking requirement calculation to existing Downtown developments shows that the regulation would actually require a higher average parking rate of 1.87 stalls/unit (see Figure 2) when compared to the average parking
5
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 6 of 9
utilization rate of 1.29 stalls/unit (see Figure 1). However, it is still lower than the 2.2 stalls/unit that the code required pre-2011.
Other Adjustments. The following adjustments to parking requirements are currently allowed by the KZC:
KZC Section 105.34 Covered Bicycle Storage - If covered and secured bicycle storage is
provided on site, a credit towards parking requirements at a ratio of one (1) less parking stall per six
(6) bicycle spaces will be granted. The Planning Official may increase credits according to size of
development and anticipated pedestrian and bicycle activity and proximity to transit facilities. A
maximum reduction of five (5) percent of required parking stalls may be granted. If a reduction of
five (5) or more stalls is granted, then changing facilities including showers, lockers shall be required.
KZC Section 105.45 Location of Parking Areas Shared Facilities - Two (2) or more uses may
share a parking area if the number of parking spaces provided is equal to the greatest number of
required spaces for uses operating at the same time. To insure that a parking area is shared, each
property owner must sign a statement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, stating that his/her
property is used for parking by the other property. The applicant must file this statement with the
King County Bureau of Elections and Records to run with the properties.
KZC Section 112.20.4.b Affordable Housing Incentives – The required parking may be
reduced to 1.0 space per affordable housing unit. No additional guest parking is required for
affordable housing units. If parking is reduced through this provision, the owner of the affordable
housing unit shall sign a covenant, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, restricting the occupants
of each affordable housing unit to a maximum of one (1) automobile.
In addition, required parking may be reduced under the following KZC section:
KZC Section 105.103.3.c Parking Modification - For a modification to KZC 105.20 and 105.45,
a decrease in the required number of spaces may be granted if the number of spaces proposed is
documented by an adequate and thorough parking demand and utilization study to be sufficient to
fully serve the use…
Discussion Topics:
Should this Unit Type based approach be applied to all multi-family zones in Kirkland?
Should the stall/bedroom rate in the CBD be changed to 0.80 stalls/bedroom (rounded down) to reflect parking utilization in the downtown?
C. Adjustments based on Frequent Transit
General. The analysis of the Kirkland parking dataset by Fehr & Peers did not find a substantial correlation between the close proximity of frequent transit and a reduced demand for parking for multi-family properties. However, given the City’s goals to encourage mixed-used development and promote other modes of transportation (see
Figure 2 – CBD Parking Code Application Example
Condo No. of stalls
Req. guest
stalls Total Total rate/unit
Waterview 79.00 7.9 87.00 1.81
Brezza 124.00 12.4 137.00 1.83
Portsmith 263.00 26.3 290.00 1.90
Plaza on State 117.00 11.7 129.00 1.59
Tiara De Lago 26.00 2.6 29.00 2.23
1.87 Total Average
6
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 7 of 9
Section II.A above), Fehr & Peers has identified a data-based approach that could be reasonably applied in Kirkland.
Research has shown that most people are willing to walk 1,200 to 2,600 feet to use frequent transit. This translates into a 5 to 15 minute walk. The City is currently is also reviewing a 10-minute neighborhood approach as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Given this, it is reasonable to adjust the RSP calculator by increasing the transit score for properties within ½ mile of frequent transit to reflect the availability of nearby transit. The transit score for such properties would be as if the property were right next to the transit route. Table 4 of the Fehr & Peers memo takes several of the eligible Kirkland sites and applied this methodology. The results show that parking utilization decreases by 15 and 20 percent for the two sites that were analyzed.
King County METRO Service Changes. For purposes of the RSP model, frequent transit is defined as service every 20 minutes or more frequently from approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. during weekdays. The RSP model code suggested a 25 to 50 percent reduction in the base parking minimum requirements for multi-family development within ½ mile of frequent transit. Of the METRO bus routes in Kirkland, Routes 235, 245, and 255 would be considered as ‘frequent transit’ after the proposed changes go in effect in February 2015 (see Attachment 3). No changes are proposed to Route 245. Currently, only Route 245 and 255 would be considered as ‘frequent transit’.
Routes 235, 245, and 255 have been overlaid onto the Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirements map to help visualize the multi-family zones that could potentially be affected by parking reductions (see Attachment 4).
Transportation Demand Management (TDM). TDM refers to policies and tools that encourage the use of modes of transportation such as transit while reducing the use of single-occupant vehicles. Examples of TDM strategies include:
• Providing residents with subsidies for transit and other non-drive-alone modes, when they move in or on an ongoing basis (if ongoing, potentially as a trade for a parking fee).
• Posting information about local transportation services prominently, distributing it to all residents, and updating it regularly.
• Providing a resident “ride-board” with a map and place where residents can offer or request rides for their recurring or occasional trips.
• Providing an electronic kiosk through which residents can check transportation conditions, transit services and facilities, ride-sharing opportunities, bicycle services and facilities (routes, parking, bike station, bike-buddy matching), and other local services.
• Providing residents with a membership to the local car-sharing organization and, if local demand is sufficient, providing a car-sharing vehicle on-site.
• Ensuring that the property manager is well versed in current transportation services and opportunities, and regularly provides personal information to residents.
• Encouraging or providing formal and informal networks among residents that arrange carpools for ongoing or occasional trips for commute and non-commute purposes, including shopping, kids’ activities, etc.
The source for the above list is King County Department of Transportation. Additional information can be found on their website:
7
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 8 of 9
http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/PlanningAndPolicy/RegionalTransportationPlanning/TransitOrientedDevelopment/TDM.aspx
Discussion Topics:
Should a parking reduction be allowed for multi-family developments within ½ mile of frequent transit based on City goals and policies that support compact development and alternative modes of transportation? To clarify, should the reduction only apply to within ½ mile of a bus stop or transit center that serve frequent transit?
If so, at what rate? Current analysis shows that 15 to 20 percent is appropriate.
If a parking reduction based on frequent transit is allowed, should the property owner or developer be required to implement and be responsible for TDM programs (bus pass subsidies, etc.)? If so, which ones?
D. Visitor Parking. The RSP parking data (Countywide and Kirkland data) was collected at the peak demand hours for multi-family land uses which falls between 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. mid-week (Tuesday through Thursday). Parking counts were not conducted during weeks with major holidays. This follows the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s standards for data collection. The general characteristic of residential parking is that all residents are not accounted for until after 10 p.m. Prior to 10 p.m. a percentage of residents are out (e.g. out shopping, working late, eating dinner, visiting friends, etc.). As a result, visitor parking prior to 10 p.m. typically should not exceed the on-site parking supply.
The Planning Commission and Houghton Community Council asked staff to provide additional information on how visitor parking is accounted for suggesting that there is a different peak parking demand timeframe during the early evening hours and during the weekends (Friday to Sunday) when there is a greater mix of resident and visitor parking.
To help understand visitor parking concerns, staff sent out a questionnaire to 35 property managers and/or developers that have either participated in the RSP parking counts or have been contacted regarding this project. Staff received 12 completed questionnaires (see Attachment 5). Generally, for the properties that responded, visitor parking is not a problem in terms of adequate supply with existing parking. The respondents confirm that the peak demand for visitor parking is in the early evening hours, during the weekends, and during special events that may occur several times a year (in the CBD).
Some noted that problems with adequate visitor parking supply usually arise when residents or other non-guests park in stalls reserved for visitors. One property (Luna Sol) which has 37 parking stalls available for visitors when business are closed (evenings and on weekends), has observed visitors parking on the street instead of using the on-site stalls. Some of the properties that lacked in visitor parking supply suggested that an additional 7 to 10% parking stall increase would help meet visitor parking demand.
The following list provides some background information on what several neighboring jurisdictions require for visitor parking (general multi-family zones) as compared to Kirkland’s requirements.
8
Multi-Family Parking Amendment Project Study Session III
File CAM13-02032 Page 9 of 9
Other Cities
Bellevue: 1.2 stalls/studio & one-bedroom; 1.6 stalls/two-bedroom; 1.8 stalls/three-bedroom + No additional visitor parking requirement
Redmond: 1.2 stalls/studio; 1.5 stalls/one-bedroom; 1.8 stalls/two-bedroom; 2 stalls/three-bedroom + No additional visitor parking requirement
Bothell: 2 per dwelling unit + 1 visitor stall for every 5 units
Kirkland
Kirkland General: 1.7 stalls/ unit + Up to 0.5 stalls/unit for visitor parking Kirkland CBD: 1 stall/bedroom + 0.10 stalls/bedroom for visitor parking
Discussion Topics:
Do not require additional visitor parking stalls? Is the general parking requirement adequate given that visitor + resident parking before 10 p.m. should typically not exceed the peak parking requirement?
If the general parking requirement is adequate, should the City require that a certain percentage of parking stalls be reserved or set aside for visitor parking? If so, at what rate? The Bothell and Kirkland CBD examples above correlates to a 10% visitor parking rate based on the parking requirement.
Or, should an additional parking requirement for visitor parking be established above the general parking requirement? The current Kirkland visitor parking requirement (0.5 stalls/unit) results in adding approximately 30% of the required parking stalls as visitor parking. As mentioned previously, the Bothell and Kirkland CBD examples above result in a 10% visitor parking rate based on the parking requirement.
Shared Parking 2nd Edition Table 2-2 recommends residential visitor parking at a rate of 0.15 stalls per unit (Source: Parking Generation, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004). This would result in adding approximately 9% of the required stalls as visitor parking (based on a 1.7 stall/unit base requirement).
However, something to note is the Kirkland parking data suggests that this approach would not represent actual demand and would not be consistent with the “right size” goal of this project. Parking if not needed could result in, among other things, increased and unnecessary construction costs and environmental impacts (runoff, emissions, etc.).
IV. NEXT STEPS
The public hearing for this project is scheduled for August 28, 2014.
V. ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Comment 2. Fehr & Peers memo dated June 18, 2014 3. King County METRO 234, 235, & 255 Route Change Info 4. Multi-Family Residential Parking Requirement Map with METRO Info Overlay 5. Visitor Parking Questionnaire Summary
9
10
1
Jon Regala
From: Bea Nahon <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:00 AMTo: Jon RegalaCc: Bruce NahonSubject: Followup to response to guest parking survey for Marina Heights condo
Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged
Jon, Just to follow up with the data that Bruce provided to you yesterday, coincidentally Marina Heights had its semi‐annual Homeowners’ meeting last night. One of the owners commented that he noticed that the parking on 3rd Avenue had become more difficult recently, for guests of the residents (and as a reminder, this property has no visitor parking at all). He noted that he believes that the increase in use of the spaces on 3rd Avenue is because of transit riders who park here and then walk to the transit station. Until that comment, I was not aware that 3rd Avenue had become a “park and hide” location but it’s certainly possible. I’ve personally noted an increase in the parking usage on 3rd Avenue as well, with many of the users attired in exercise attire. They are likely headed for workout sessions at the Bassline Fitness on Central Way. Thank you again for your outreach, it’s greatly appreciated! Bea Bea L. Nahon, CPA, PS Postal mailing address: PO Box 3209, Kirkland WA 98083‐3209 Our Executive suite address is: 5400 Carillon Point Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 828‐4747 (425) 696‐0032 my direct fax (425) 696‐4109 office fax All deliveries, express mail or any items requiring signature should be sent to the Carillon Point address All standard US mail should be sent to our PO Box.
Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail or attachments.
ATTACHMENT 1 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
PUBLIC COMMENT
11
1
Jon Regala
From: Linda Christensen <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 9:47 AMTo: Jon RegalaSubject: Right size parking
Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged
Hello I heard about the right size parking study at the Moss Bay association meeting on Monday. It appears that the standard ratio you are working from comes from Seattle where density is greater and transit is better. I do not think the same calculation should apply to Bellevue/Kirkland, at least not yet. I am seeing people living well away from my street continuously parking in front of our building because they do not have enough parking where they live. The streets are full of parked cars almost to the point where maybe we should institute street parking permits like they have on Capital Hill. I have now made the transition to riding the bus to downtown Seattle because it actually easy. It is not yet so easy on the east side. Think long and hard about reducing parking requirements before other options, rules and infrastructure are in place. Linda Christensen
ATTACHMENT 1 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
PUBLIC COMMENT
12
From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:32 AM To: City Council Subject: Parking requirement for multi‐tenant buildings Kirkland City Council Members: I understand that a reduction in the required number of parking spaces per housing unit from 1.7 to a lower number is being considered. While I can understand that 1.7 may be unnecessary, lowering the required number to 1.0 seems like overkill. I would recommend a revised requirement of between 1.25 and 1.5 to allow for multi‐vehicle families as well as guest parking. Thank‐you, Mark Taylor 206‐979‐8740 (mobile)
ATTACHMENT 1 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
PUBLIC COMMENT
13
14
1001 4th Avenue | Suite 4120 | Seattle, WA 98154-1155 | (206) 576-4220 | Fax (206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 18, 2014
To: Jon Regala, City of Kirkland
From: Chris Breiland, Justin Resnick, and Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Right Size Parking Web Calculator Estimates in Kirkland
SE12-0248
OVERVIEW
The Right Size Parking (RSP) Web Calculator is a tool to assist transportation and land use planners in King County understand how multifamily residential parking utilization varies under different urban contexts, transit service levels, parking pricing schemes, and development programs (number of bedrooms per unit, rents, etc.). The intent of the web calculator is to provide planners with more information than traditional national parking data sources when developing and updating parking codes to reduce the oversupply of multifamily parking in the county. Given that the web calculator was developed using county‐wide data, the Kirkland Planning Commission and Houghton Community Council were interested in better understanding how the tool matched observed multifamily parking utilization in Kirkland. In this memo, we compare the results of the web calculator to the observed parking utilization rates collected at 24 multi‐family developments around the City of Kirkland over the last several years. Additionally, several observations from Redmond’s Overlake area are included in the analysis.
General Findings Overall, the RSP web calculator is estimating parking utilization accurately for most of the selected sites in Kirkland, with 20 of 24 sites within a 15 percent level of error. We do note, however, a slight tendency for the model to under‐predict utilization. Tables 1 through 3 below display the detailed inputs and output of the RSP Web Calculator compared to the observed parking utilization rates at the buildings. Table 1 presents the results of the original RSP data collection effort. Table 2 presents the new data collected as part of the Kirkland RSP Pilot project, which is collecting additional information specific to Kirkland. Table 3 contains parking utilization observations from multifamily projects in Downtown Kirkland that were collected as part of other transportation studies in the City. Note that since the data in Table 3 was not collected as part of the Right Size Parking Project, much of the input data for the RSP model was estimated based on similar observed data and should be taken into consideration when reviewing the results.
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
15
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 2 of 10
Table 1. Original RSP Web Calculator Kirkland Study Sites Results
Table 2. New RSP Kirkland Pilot Study Site Results
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
16
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 3 of 10
Table 3. Data Collected for Downtown Kirkland Developments Through Other Studies
Model Inputs and Urban Form To estimate parking utilization, the web calculator uses the number of units in a building, the number of bedrooms in each unit, the rental price, unit square footage, number of affordable units, monthly cost for parking, which are specific to each building. It also includes three characteristics of the location of the building to approximate urban form and available transportation choices available to residents of each development – population density, job density, and transit service/accessibility. Of the three location characteristic variables, the model is most sensitive to the transit service score, which does not vary substantially across the sample set of multifamily developments. Tables 1 through 3 summarize the range of input variables and Figure 1 shows the approximate locations of the multifamily sites.
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
17
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 4 of 10
Note that Table 2 has estimated data on rental rates. To facilitate the collection of data for the RSP Pilot Project, the project team elected to not collect rental rate information since this sensitive information can reduce property owner’s willingness to participate in the study. This lack of rental data was not considered to be a major issue since rental rates are only marginally related to parking utilization. For example, if the rental price were 50 percent higher at Site 12, the RSP model forecasted parking utilization would increase by 0.04 stalls per unit, or about 3 percent. To fill in this missing data, the average rental rate from the other observed properties was input, with two exceptions as noted below. Additionally, rental rates are not applicable to condominium units. Therefore, rental rates are always estimated for condos. Table 3 has additional estimated data since the earlier studies did not collect information with RSP in mind. The studies did collect information about the number of bedrooms per unit, which was used to estimate the number of one versus two bedroom units in each development. The lack of variability in transit scores shown in Tables 1 through 3 was surprising given that the surveyed sites are scattered throughout the city in locations like Downtown and Totem Lake and other areas that have less transit. The results of the investigation indicated that there is a fair degree of transit service score variation across the city, ranging from about 1,100 in Finn Hill (which represents an area with very little transit service) to more than 1,600 at the Kirkland Transit Center. However, most arterial corridors where the apartments are located in the City have a score of 1,250‐1,300. In looking at Downtown Kirkland, the transit score decreases rapidly to about 1,300 by the time you are 2 blocks from the Transit Center. We also evaluated the 108th Avenue NE corridor, which is where King County Metro Route 255 travels. For the parcels that are immediately adjacent to the bus stops, the transit score is approximately 1,500, but if you travel 200 feet away from the bus stop, the transit score is about 1,250. This change in transit score can have a substantial impact on parking utilization estimates. For example, Site 9, which is in Downtown Kirkland, would have a RSP estimated utilization of 0.9 if it had a transit score of 1,500 as opposed to 1,264, making the estimated value closer to the observed value. This finding indicates that in certain transit rich environments, the web calculator may be overestimating parking utilization. Given that research on pedestrian access to transit indicates that most people are willing to walk 1,200‐2,600 feet to reach frequent transit (which translates into a 5‐15 minute walk), it is reasonable to manually adjust the RSP web model to more accurately consider the availability of high quality transit service in portions of Kirkland. For example, planners may wish to test a site’s sensitivity to the model’s range of transit scores within a couple of blocks to develop a more robust estimate of parking demand in locations like Downtown, Totem Lake, South Kirkland, or along frequent transit routes, like 255, 234/235, and 245. A recommended practice to applying a transit score adjustment is suggested at the end of this memo.
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
18
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 5 of 10
Figure 1. Kirkland Study Site Locations
Individual Site Observations As shown in Tables 1 through 3, four sites have high levels (shaded in gray) of error that are likely due to specific and generally explainable circumstances. Sites 6 and 11 only have fifteen and six units in total, respectively, and therefore these sites have a small sample size for measuring parking occupancy on a given day. If two additional vehicles had been present on the day of observation at Site 6, then the web calculator estimate would be within ten percent error. Site 7 is another outlier. This building charges $83 per month for parking, which is much higher than the other sites. Given the availability of street parking in the vicinity, it is possible that the high price of parking is resulting in spillover to the neighboring streets, where parking is free and generally unrestricted. The RSP model substantially under‐predicts parking utilization at Site 18 (23 percent error). This site is small and to be conservative, the City included the utilization of three adjacent on‐street stalls in the parking utilization total. However, even without these on‐street spaces included, the utilization per unit would be about 1.65, which is considerably higher than any other apartment or condo in downtown Kirkland. The RSP model does predict higher than typical utilization for this condo, in part due to the large unit sizes. The average “rent” was also increased since the King County Assessors database indicated that these units are quite expensive ($500k‐$1,000k). There is a chance that there was an event the day the count was taken, which could have increased the demand, but there are no
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
19
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 6 of 10
other clear explanations for the high demand at this site. Due to the particular characteristics of these four locations, these sites are considered unique outliers that are outside of the range of the model’s ability to predict. The web calculator also overestimates parking utilization at Site 9, which is located in downtown Kirkland and features a number of studio apartments. As described above, the walkable character and good transit accessibility of the location may be dampening the demand for parking for this type of apartment complex. There is anecdotal evidence that younger and older residents who live in smaller units in transit‐rich areas tend to have considerably lower car ownership rates than other residents. It is notable that the condominium sites in downtown (largely shown in Table 3) are, for the most part, accurately predicted by the RSP web calculator. Given that most other downtown Kirkland sites are accurately predicted by the RSP web calculator, Site 9 is considered an outlier, but one that is worthy of additional monitoring given the trend to build smaller units in transit‐rich areas.
Redmond Overlake Sites The City of Kirkland obtained similar RSP observations from the City of Redmond, which is undergoing a similar analysis of parking standards throughout the city. Three sites from Overlake were featured in a recent document prepared for the City by the RSP consultant team. The analysis of the site data indicated the following:
Overlake Village: Observed Utilization = 0.93 per unit
Overlake Employment (Microsoft Area) = 0.99 per unit
Overlake Residential: 1.07 per unit A review of the RSP web calculator estimates for these areas were generally in‐line with the observed utilization above. When the RSP team audited the performance of the RSP web calculator for Redmond (similar to what was done with Kirkland), similar results were found. Specifically, the RSP web calculator is generally accurate, with a few outliers both above and below the RSP estimate. Note that the observed utilization rates in Overlake Village and the Overlake Employment area are quite a bit below what was observed in Kirkland. The major difference between the two areas is the very high employment density in Overlake. The area most like Overlake in Kirkland is around the South Kirkland Park and Ride, which has fairly high employment densities (although lower than Overlake) and similar population densities.
Conclusions and Recommendations The Right Size Parking Web Calculator generally predicts parking utilization around the City of Kirkland accurately, with most sites within +/‐15 percent of the observed value. Based on the regional nature of the web model, some discretion may be necessary when applying the model in Kirkland, particularly when taking into consideration some of the subtler variations in urban form, pedestrian character, and transit service throughout Kirkland.
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
20
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 7 of 10
Specifically, the Planning Commission and Houghton Community Council raised questions about the following issues:
Are the RSP team’s recommended parking adjustments by unit type supported by the data?
The unit type adjustments are summarized below along with the method for developing the adjustments.
o Studio: .93 x base
o 1 bed: base
o 2 bed: 1.25 x base
o 3+ bed: 1.39 x base
The adjustments identified above were developed through the following methodology:
1. Calculate the “base” parking utilization by inputting a hypothetical development in Kirkland (based on a citywide average of all RSP web model input data) with only one‐bedroom units.
2. Calculate parking utilization for other unit types. As was done with the one‐bedroom units, hypothetical developments with only studio, two‐bedroom, and three‐bedroom units were entered into the RSP web model.
3. Calculate the ratio of non‐base to base parking utilization for each unit type. The parking utilization for the hypothetical studio, two‐bedroom, and three‐bedroom developments was divided by the one‐bedroom base case. For example:
Studio Unit Type Adjustment = 93 parking stalls utilized by hypothetical studio development / 100 parking stalls utilized by hypothetical one‐bedroom development = 0.93
4. Calculate the final base rate. The result of the RSP web model on the
hypothetical one‐bedroom development was an estimate of 1.11 parking spaces per unit. To account for the tendency for the RSP web model to slightly under‐predict parking utilization in Kirkland, this initial estimate was increased by 15 percent, which rounds to 1.3 parking spaces per unit.
Tables 1‐3 show the parking supply that would result from applying the model code above when applying a base one‐bedroom rate of 1.3 parking spaces per unit. This base was developed by using the RSP web calculator to estimate the demand for a hypothetical apartment complex with only one‐bedroom units using average RSP web
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
21
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 8 of 10
model input data from across the entire city of Kirkland. As shown in Tables 1‐3, this model code supply would be greater than the observed utilization in all but one case (Site 18, which is an outlier as described earlier). In many cases, the new supply would be close to the observed utilization and is considerably lower than the supply that would be developed using the current code.
The RSP model code suggested a 25‐50 percent reduction in the base parking minimum requirements if a multifamily development is within ½ mile of frequent transit (defined as service every 20 minutes or more frequently from roughly 7 AM to 6 PM during weekdays). Is this reduction justified by the analysis?
It is important to note that the model code recommendations highlighted above were based on the RSP project team’s review of best parking code practices across the country. Specifically, the cities evaluated that chose to make relatively substantial parking minimum reductions along high frequency transit lines tend to do so to support and encourage additional density along transit corridors. It is also important to recognize that the cities tend to reduce minimum requirements and not to establish parking maximum requirements. The goal is to facilitate those developers who feel there is a market to develop projects along transit lines with less parking and not to compel developers to provide less parking than they feel is justifiable given the market conditions. With the above context in mind, the analysis results of the Kirkland data are mixed. Of the 24 observed sites, 8 are located immediately along a frequent transit route and 10 others are generally within a quarter‐mile of a frequent transit route. Of these 18 sites, the RSP model generally predicted parking utilization that was close to the observed values, even though the transit scores were generally not indicative of an area that has frequent transit service. As noted above, the RSP web model gives a transit score of about 1,500‐1,600 for the area immediately around a bus stop, but the score is about 1,250 (which is the citywide average) for areas more than a few hundred feet from a stop. None of the observed sites were directly adjacent to a frequent transit stop, although the sites along the frequent transit lines were all within a short walk to a stop. As noted earlier, one site close to the Kirkland Transit Center was substantially over‐predicted by the RSP web model, but other condos similarly close to the Transit Center were accurately predicted by the RSP web model. Based on these results, there is no direct evidence that multifamily properties currently along Kirkland’s frequent transit routes have parking utilization rates that are substantially lower than the citywide average. Using this fact alone, one could argue that there is no justification to reducing the parking minimums along frequent transit corridors. However, given that most cities choose to reduce parking minimums along transit corridors to reflect greater transportation choices, support other planning goals, and encourage mixed‐use development along corridors that have substantial investments in alternative travel modes, the project team feels that some sort of
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
22
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 9 of 10
parking minimum adjustment is reasonable for Kirkland. When applying the transit scores found at the stops along the frequent transit routes, the RSP web model’s estimated parking utilization drops by about 20 percent. Therefore, a more data‐based approach to reducing parking minimums along frequent transit routes in Kirkland suggests a reduction of base parking minimums of 20 percent within a ½ mile buffer around frequent transit routes. Table 4 summarizes the results of applying the RSP transit score data for two sites in the RSP dataset. Site 3 is along Route 234/235 on Lake Washington Boulevard. Taking the average transit score of the four transit stops closest to the project indicates a transit score of 1,500. Site 9 is in downtown Kirkland near the Transit Center. The transit score at the Transit Center is 1,600. When these new scores are applied in the RSP web model, the parking utilization decreases by 15 and 20 percent, respectively for the two sites.
Table 4. Transit Adjustments Applied to Sites 3 and 9
As described above, the unit‐based approached to developing parking standards come much closer to matching observed utilization than the existing code. In all but one case, the unit‐based approach accommodates the observed parking utilization, and in many cases with some additional room to spare. Using the unit‐based approach could be a way to better match parking minimum requirements to utilization, but the RSP team would argue that minimum requirements would ideally be set at or just below observed utilization. This ensures that developers are not required to build parking stalls that never get used since they can always
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
23
Jon Regala June 18, 2014 Page 10 of 10
build more than the minimum. However, setting parking minimums below observed utilization (even slightly so) may warrant additional on‐street parking management by the City to ensure that short‐sighted developers who do not price and manage their on‐site demand well are not unduly impacting area residents and businesses. Based on the analysis of the data in the tables above (the 20 sites not identified as outliers) the average parking utilization in the city is 1.27 stalls per unit. The transit adjustment to the parking code suggested in the document is not necessarily supported by the observed data, particularly for condominium units. If the City choses to elect this option, it may do so using similar logic to other cities that have a similar provision, which is to encourage additional density in transit corridors. This goal generally aligns with Kirkland’s goals to encourage transit‐supportive development and also matches King County Metro’s Transit Service Guidelines. However, given that Kirkland does not appear to have as strong of a relationship between increased transit service and lower parking rates compared to other areas in the region, the City again may need to enact more strict on‐street parking management in areas that have a transit service parking reduction.
ATTACHMENT 2 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
FEHR & PEERS ANALYSIS MEMO
24
Summary of changes
Reduction priority and reasons why the service was reduced or changedFor more information on reduction priorities, go to www.kingcounty.gov/metro/reduction-priorities.
In the tables below, the color red indicates a change.
• Eliminate the part of the route north of Kirkland Transit Center. • Operate service more often during commute hours, midday weekdays
and on weekends since Route 234 will no longer serve the area.• End service earlier.
How often does the bus come? (approximate minutes between buses)Peak periods are 5-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m. weekdays.
Weekday Weekend
Peak Midday Night Saturday Sunday
CURRENT 30 30 30 60 60
PROPOSED 15 15 30 30 30
When does service end?
CURRENT Before12:00 AM
PROPOSED Before 10:00 PM
Route Description
235Kingsgate - Bellevue
• Priority 2• Reduced and revised as part of restructuring a large area to make the network more efficient
and to preserve service for the most riders.
East King County-North
East King County —North
See proposed route map on next page. ➜
4/22/14 www.kingcounty.gov/metro/future
Phase
Feb 2015
ATTACHMENT 3 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
METRO ROUTE CHANGES
25
4/22/14
Rider options
www.kingcounty.gov/metro/future
Route Description
235 Kingsgate - Bellevue
• Between Kirkland and Totem Lake Transit Centers, use revised Route 236.
Bellevue Transit Center
SouthKirklandP&R
KirklandTransitCenter
SR 908/Kirkland
Way P&R
Totem Lake Transit CenterKingsgate P&R
Kirkland
Bellevue
100t
h Av
e N
EJu
anita
Woo
dinv
ille W
ay N
E
Kirkland
Bellevue
Totem Lake
NE 8th St
140t
h A
ve N
E
NE 124th St
132n
d Av
e N
E
NE 132nd St
Northup Way
112t
h A
ve N
E
108t
h A
ve N
E
NE 116th St
Belle
vue
Way
NE
Willow
s Rd N
E
116t
h A
ve N
E
NE 20th St
Mar
ket S
t
NE Juanita Dr
84th
Ave
NE
6th
St S
98th
Ave
NE
NE 10th St
Lake Washington B
lvd NE
124t
h A
ve N
E
NE 85th St
Central WayTotem
Lake Blvd
NE 24th St
NE 40th St
NE Bellevue Redmond Rd
Main St
NE 120th St
NE 1st St
NE 6th St
124t
h A
ve N
E
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Miles
LEGEND
Link light rail & station
Remaining Metro routes after reductions
Proposed Routing
Deleted Routing
Transit Center
ATTACHMENT 3 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
METRO ROUTE CHANGES
26
Summary of changes
Reduction priority and reasons why the service was reduced or changedFor more information on reduction priorities, go to www.kingcounty.gov/metro/reduction-priorities.
In the tables below, the color red indicates a change.
• Eliminate the part of the route north of Totem Lake Transit Center.• Revise Route 236 to serve 124th Avenue NE.
How often does the bus come? (approximate minutes between buses)Peak periods are 5-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m. weekdays.
Weekday Weekend
Peak Midday Night Saturday Sunday
CURRENT 10 15 30-60 30 30
PROPOSED 10 15 30-60 30 30
When does service end?
CURRENT Before 1:00 AM
PROPOSED Before 1:00 AM
Route Description
255Brickyard - Seattle Central Business District via Kirkland TC
• Priority 2• Revised as part of restructuring a large area to make the network more efficient and to
preserve service for the most riders.
See proposed route map on next page. ➜
4/22/14 www.kingcounty.gov/metro/future
East King County-North
East King County —North
Phase
Feb 2015
ATTACHMENT 3 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
METRO ROUTE CHANGES
27
Rider options
Route Description
255 Brickyard - Seattle Central Business District via Kirkland TC
• Along 124th Avenue NE, use Routes 252, 257 or revised Route 236.
4/22/14 www.kingcounty.gov/metro/future
N 80th St
BellevueCollege
Brickyard Road P&R
TotemLakeTransitCenter
KingsgateP&R
124t
h Av
e N
E
108t
h Av
e N
E
L a k eW a s h i n g t o n
SouthKirklandP&R
Kirkland Transit Center
Downtown Seattle
TemporaryEvergreen PointBridge P&R
Kenmore
140t
h Av
e N
E
NE 8th St
15th
Ave
NE
NE 124th St
NE 132nd St
Bel
levu
e W
ay N
E
100t
h Av
e N
EM
arke
t St
24th
Ave
E
Pine St
Stewart
St
S Jackson St
E Madison St
N 130th St
98th
Ave
NE
1st A
ve S
Central Way
KIRKLAND
BELLEVUEMEDINA
CLYDEHILL
HUNTS POINT
YARROW POINT
BOTHELL
Redmond
Redmond
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
LEGEND
Link light rail & station
Remaining Metro routes after reductions
Proposed Routing
Deleted Routing
Transit Center
ATTACHMENT 3 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
METRO ROUTE CHANGES
28
NE 124TH ST
124
TH
AV
EN
E
3RD
ST
NE 132ND ST
116
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 85TH ST
NE 116TH ST
2ND
ST
7TH AVE
108
TH
AV
EN
E
MA
RK
ET
ST
NE 60TH ST
8TH AVE
9TH AVE
SLA
TE
RA
VE
NE
10TH AVE
NE 80TH ST
NE 70TH ST
98T
HA
VE
NE
6TH
ST
S
5TH
ST
15TH AVE
NE 68TH ST
LAK
EW
AS
HIN
GT
ON
BLV
D
8TH
ST
S
NE 100TH ST
NE 75TH ST
130
TH
AV
EN
E
LAK
ES
TS
5THAVE
W
STA
TE
ST
S
LAK
EV
I EW
DR
WAVERLY
WAY
6TH AVE
FORBES CREEK DR
CENTRAL WAY
13TH AVE
6TH
STW
NE 104TH ST
120TH
AVE
NE
NE POINTS DR
4TH AVE
93R
DA
VE
NE
8TH
ST
LAK
EAV
EW
104
TH
AV
EN
E
2ND AVE S
7TH AVE S
NE 95TH ST
19TH AVE
122
ND
AV
EN
E
5TH
STW
111
TH
AV
EN
E
126
TH
AV
EN
E
8THAVE
W
NE 52ND ST
10THAVE
W
NE 128TH ST
94T
HA
VE
NE
4TH
STW
18THAVE
W
95T
HP
LN
E
2ND AVE
7THAVE
W
NE 113TH PL
NE38TH
PL
NE 108TH ST
NE
TOT
EM
LAK
EB
LVD
11THAVE
W
NE 107TH PL
18TH AVE
106
TH
AV
EN
E
3RD AVE S
NE 110TH ST
NE 112TH ST
NE JUANITA DR
7TH
ST
S
3RD
STW
4TH
ST
NE 120TH ST
NE 92ND ST
NE 55TH ST
5TH
PL
S
NE 118TH ST
10T
HS
TS
NE 90TH ST
20THAVE
W
9TH AVE S
112
TH
AV
EN
E
114
TH
AV
EN
E
10T
HS
TW
KIR
KLA
ND
WAY
17THAVE
W
KIRKLAND AVE
NE 53RD ST
125
TH
AV
EN
E
NE120TH
PL
9TH
STW
128
TH
AV
EN
E
1 03
RD
PL
NE
NE 113TH ST
NE 97TH ST
NE 102ND PL
10TH AVE S
5TH
PL
NE 62ND ST
13THAVE
W
103
RD
AV
EN
E
NE 109TH PL
16THAVE
W
98TH
AVE
NE
109
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 87TH ST
NE 124TH ST
100
TH
AV
EN
E
PARK LN
11TH PL
12TH AVE
113
TH
AV
EN
E
1 23
RD
AV
EN
E
NE 68TH PL
NE48TH
PL
10T
HS
T
16TH AVE
4TH
PL
3RD AVE
NE
67TH
ST
102
ND
PL
NE
2ND
STW
1ST
ST
6 TH
ST
NE 126TH PL
ALE
XA
ND
ER
AV
E
14TH AVE
4TH AVE S
NE 66TH ST
NE 73RD ST
128
TH
LN
NE
6TH AVE S
NE 101ST PL
11TH AVE
5TH AVE S
14THAVE
W
111
TH
PL
NE
110
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 83RD ST
NE 121ST ST
NE 47TH PL
116TH
WA
YN
E
NE 103RD PL
NEFORBES
CREEKDR
NE 58TH ST
107
TH
PL
NE
124
TH
PL
NE
15TH AVE
NE 71ST ST
NE 123RD ST
NE 41ST ST
NE 44TH ST
OHDE AVE
NE 46TH ST
NE111TH
PL
NE 124TH ST
NE 116TH ST
NE 118TH ST
NE 119TH ST
107
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 122ND PL
6TH
STW
11THAVE
W
NE 80TH ST
NE 71ST ST
19TH PL
94T
HP
LN
E
8TH
STW
131
ST
AV
EN
E
NE 45TH ST
NE 112TH PL
127
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 116TH PL
3RD
ST
S
2ND
ST
S
NE 110TH PL
10TH
PLW
99THP
LN
E
97T
HA
VE
NE
NE TOTEMLAKE WAY
NE 88TH ST
TOTEM LAKE BLVD
113
TH
PL
NE
NE 64TH ST
NE 43RD ST
NE 59TH ST
NE 84TH ST
117
TH
AV
EN
E
124T
HC
TN
ENE 91ST ST
129THPL
NE
128
TH
PL
NE
NE 72ND ST
CE
DA
RS
T
NE 129TH ST
NE 48TH ST
6TH PL S
96T
HA
VE
NE
1 00
TH
L NN
E1 S
TS
TS
1 26
TH
PL
NE
NE 61ST ST
NE 121ST PL
RO
SE
PO
INT
LN
NE 103RD ST
16TH LN
114TH
PL
NE
118
TH
AV
EN
E
1 04
TH
AV
EN
E
1 05 T
HP
LN
E
NE 113TH PL
NE 112TH ST
NE110TH
ST 127T
HP
LN
E
NE 107TH PL
130
TH
AV
EN
E
128
TH
AV
EN
E
124
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 100TH PL
NE 95TH ST
16TH AVE
6TH AVE
10TH AVE
2ND
STW
104
TH
AV
EN
E
115TH
AV
EN
E
118TH
PL
NE
102
ND
AV
EN
E
NE 61ST PL
LAK
ES
T
NE 126TH ST
NE 94TH ST
104
TH
PL
NE
1 01
ST
AV
EN
E
NE 117TH ST
NE 122ND WAY
NE 76TH ST
NE 106TH PL
NE 109TH ST
NE 78TH PL
119
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 49TH ST
116
TH
PL
NE
NE 130TH LN
93RDPL NE
105
TH
AV
EN
E
112
TH
PL
NE
102
ND
CT
NE
106
TH
PL
NE
105
TH
PL
NE
3RD
PL
NE 105TH ST
NE 74TH ST
BR
IDLE
WO
OD
CIR
NE 108TH PL
115
TH
PL
NE
101
ST
PL
NE
BR
IDLE
WO
OD
CIR
7TH
ST
124
TH
LN
NE
125
TH
LN
NE
NE 70TH PL
NE 130TH ST
8TH AVE S
18T
HP
L
108
TH
PL
NE
NE 67TH PL
NE 102ND ST
120
TH
PL
NE
97T
HP
LN
E
NE 103RD PL
NEFORBES
CREEKDR
111
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 103RD PL
113
TH
CT
NE
10THAVE
W
4TH
STW
10TH AVE
15TH AVE
17TH AVE
9TH AVE
NE 85TH ST (SR 908)
112
TH
AV
EN
E
LAK
EW
AS
HIN
GT
ON
BLV
D
NE 129TH PL
NE 75TH PL
96T
HP
LN
E
NE 107TH ST
NE 81ST ST
20TH AVE
NE 127TH PL
NE 124TH PL
NE 125TH PL
RAILR
OAD
AVE
NE 70TH CT
7TH
STW
NE 97TH PL
NE 98TH PL
NE 43RD PL
NE 91ST LN
NE 86TH ST
127
TH
PL
NE
NE 88TH LN
NE 106TH LN
NE 41ST LN
109T
HPL
NE
NE 119TH CT
NE 94TH CT
NE 78TH ST
1ST AVE S
4TH
ST
S
NE 94TH PL
21ST PL
NORTH AVE
NE 114TH PL
NE 94TH WAY
NE 77TH CT
NE 101ST ST
114T
HLN
NE
107
TH
AV
EN
E
2ND
ST
3RD
ST
5TH
ST
SLA
TE
RA
VE
NE
NE 90TH ST12
6T
HA
VE
NE
128
TH
AV
EN
E
124
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 85TH ST
8TH AVE
7TH AVE
KIRKLAND WAY
5THAVE
W
3RD
STW
NE 43RD PL
2ND
PL
129
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 96TH ST
5TH
ST
S
NE 100TH PL
NE 131ST ST
NE 115TH PL
NE 123RD PL
NE 65TH PL
OB
SE
RVA
TIO
ND
R
17TH PL
110
TH
PL
NE
NE 38TH ST
NE 81ST PL
NE 125TH DR
95T
HA
VE
NE
NE 105TH CT
NE 104TH PL
NE 117TH LN
NE 118TH LN
NE 88TH PL
121
ST
LN
NE
NE 57TH ST
NE 71ST LN
NO
RTH
RU
PW
AY
NE 107TH LN
NE 95TH LN
NE 111TH ST
NE
98TH
ST
NE 72ND LN
20THPL
W
NE 50TH PL
NE13
1ST
LN
15TH PL
NE 66TH PL
112
TH
CT
NE
112
TH
DR
NE
NE 92ND PL
NE 106TH ST
NE 71ST CT
NE42ND
PL
NE 59TH PL
NE 82ND LN
NE 121ST CT
NE 108TH LN
NE 115TH CT
NE 123RD CT
NE 99TH LN
NE 113TH CT
NE 68TH ST
132
ND
AV
EN
E
132
ND
AV
EN
E
120
TH
PL
NE
122
ND
AV
EN
E
1 23
RD
AV
EN
E
120T
HA
VE
NE
NE 99TH PL
103
RD
AV
EN
E
NE 61ST CT
105
TH
AV
EN
E
126
TH
AV
EN
E
116T
HP
LN
E
105
TH
AV
EN
E
116
TH
AV
EN
E
128
TH
AV
EN
E
4TH AVE
NE 130TH ST
111
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 110TH PL
127
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 67TH ST
NE 105TH ST
110
TH
AV
EN
E
2ND
ST
104
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 102ND PL
NE 112TH PL
NE 111TH PL
NE
64T
HS
T
NE 108TH ST
120THAVE
NE
131
ST
AV
EN
E
105
TH
AV
EN
E
96T
HA
VE
NE
NE 102ND PL
129
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 97TH ST
102ND
AV
EN
E
NE 63RD ST
13TH AVE
117THPL
NE
NE 123RD ST
NE 64TH ST
125T
HA
VE
NE
111
TH
PL
NE
NE 122ND ST
NE 108TH ST
127T
HA
VE
NE
NE 121ST ST
98T
HA
VE
NE
126
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 102ND PL
120
TH
AV
EN
E
1 17
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 62ND ST
97T
HP
LN
E
NE 67TH ST
NE 47TH PL
INT
ER
STA
TE
405
INT
ER
STA
TE
405
INT
ER
STA
TE
405
INT
ER
STA
TE
40
5IN
TE
RS
TAT
E4
05
NE 68TH ST
110
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 121ST ST
NE 68TH PL
113
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 111TH PL
105T
HA
VE
NE
NE 100TH ST
106
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 59TH ST
SLA
TE
RS
TS
NE 107TH ST
117T
HP
LN
E
117
TH
PL
NE
120THAV
EN
E
129
TH
AV
EN
E5TH AVE
104T
HA
VE
NE
115T
HP
LN
E
NE 58TH ST
NE 65TH ST
NE 128TH ST
NE 94TH ST
NE 65TH ST
115
TH
PL
NE
NE 124TH ST
NE 116TH PL
NE 104TH ST11
4T
HA
VE
NE
NE 112TH PL
18TH AVE
NE 91ST LN
111
TH
AV
EN
E
1ST
ST
S
NE11
4THST
NE 53RD ST
NE 58TH ST
NE 111TH PL
NE 87TH ST
NE 129TH PL
NE 106TH LN
125
TH
AV
EN
E
126
TH
AV
EN
E
124
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 120TH ST
2ND
ST
S
129
TH
PL
NE
11TH AVE
114
TH
AV
EN
E
5TH
ST
130
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 126TH PL
NE 65TH ST
11TH PL
NE 94TH ST
6TH
ST
131
ST
PL
NE
NE 100TH ST
117T
HP
LN
E
NE 123RD ST
NE 97TH PL
NE 64TH ST
NE 112TH ST
130
TH
AV
EN
E
1 11
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 103RD PL
112T
HA
VE
NE
109
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 64TH ST
106THPL NE
NE 111TH PL
NE 112TH PL
105
TH
AV
EN
E
118
TH
AV
EN
E
93R
DA
VE
NE
19TH
PL
NE 117TH PL
3RD
ST
NE 120TH PL
NE 75TH ST
106
TH
AV
EN
E
111
TH
PL
NE
105
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 66TH PL
131
ST
PL
NE
NE 109TH ST
NE 73RD ST
120
TH
AV
EN
E
128
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 126TH PL
NE 65TH PL
104
TH
AV
EN
E
110
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 102ND PL
106
TH
AV
EN
E
114
TH
AV
EN
E
120
TH
AV
EN
E
128T
HA
VE
NE
104
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 72ND ST
NE 113TH PL
112
TH
AV
EN
E
108T
HP
LN
E
NE 128TH ST
NE 60TH ST
110T
HA
VE
NE
122
ND
AV
EN
E
NE 122ND ST
NE 94TH ST
111
TH
AV
EN
E
NE
95TH
ST
130
TH
AV
EN
E
124
TH
AV
EN
E
1 12
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 67TH PL
117
TH
PL
NE
123
RD
AV
EN
E
16THAVE
W
NE 109TH PL
7TH
STW
127
TH
PL
NE
127
TH
PL
NE
NE 74TH ST
19TH AVE
116
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 107TH PL
113TH
PL NE
NE 59TH ST
NE 92ND ST
NE 72ND ST
131
ST
PL
NE
114T
HA
VE
NE
5TH
ST
NE 120TH ST
93R
DP
LN
E
111
TH
AV
EN
E
1 08
TH
AV
EN
E
105
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 68TH PL
NE 62ND ST
96T
HP
LN
E
109
TH
AV
EN
E
131
ST
PL
NE
NE 109TH ST
NE 61ST ST
NE 120TH ST
NE 67TH ST
93R
DA
VE
NE
108
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 127TH PL
110
TH
AV
EN
E
115
TH
PL
NE
NE 130TH PL
NE 125TH PL
NE 91ST ST
101ST PL NE
NE 120TH PL
5TH
PL
NE70TH
PL
20TH AVE
NE 65TH ST
NE 86TH ST
NE 101ST PL
105
TH
PL
NE
NE 48TH PL
NE 116TH PL
2ND AVE
NE 94TH PL
NE 58TH ST
4TH
ST
16THAVE
W
NE 117TH ST
116
TH
PL
NE
NE 103RD PL
102N
DP
LN
E
111 T
HP
LN
E
5TH AVE S
113
TH
PL
NE
128
TH
AV
EN
E
112
TH
PL
NE
96T
HA
VE
NE
NE 95TH ST
SLA
TER
AVE
NE
NE 100TH PL
NE 73RD ST
106
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 88TH ST
97T
HA
VE
NE
NE 111TH PL
119
TH
AV
EN
E
100
TH
AV
EN
E
5TH
PL
118
TH
PL
NE
NE 45TH ST
107
TH
PL
NE
103
RD
AV
EN
E
KIRKLAND WAY
NE 48TH PL
120
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 90TH ST
1ST
ST
NE 116TH ST
NE 100TH ST
NE 112TH ST
2ND AVE
NE 83RD ST
125
TH
LN
NE
NE 125TH PL
101
ST
PL
NE
NE 108TH PL
NE 95TH ST
NE 73RD ST
126
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 126TH ST
SLATER AVE NE
NE 120TH ST
120
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 120TH ST
NE 91ST ST
111
TH
AV
EN
E
120
TH
AV
EN
E
128
TH
AV
EN
E
12TH AVE
NE 111TH PL
116
TH
AV
EN
E
1 23
RD
LN
NE
17TH AVE
NE 126TH PL
126
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 108TH ST
NE 61ST ST
108T
HA
VE
NE
110
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 53RD ST
NE 60TH ST
NE 108TH PL
95T
HP
LN
E
NE 118TH ST
NE 125TH PL
132
ND
AV
EN
E
NE61ST
PL
130
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 61ST ST
133RD AVE NE
NE
66TH
ST
133
RD
AV
EN
E
NE66TH
ST
135TH
AV
EN
E
136T
HA
VE
NE
Mark TwainElementary
SchoolPeter Kirk
ElementarySchool
KirklandJunior High
School
Rose HillElementary
School
Lake WashingtonHigh
School
HolyFamilySchool
LakeviewElementary
School
BenjaminFranklin
ElementarySchool
NorthwestUniversity
B.E.S.T.High
School
Juanita BayPark
Juanita BayPark
MarkTwainPark
North Rose HillWoodlands Park
ForbesLakePark
SpinneyHomestead
Park
Cotton HillPark
CrestwoodsPark
KiwanisPark
WaverlyBeachPark
HeritagePark
Peter KirkPark
EverestPark
MarinaPark
TerracePark
HoughtonLandfill
Yarrow BayWetlands
WatershedPark
CarillonWoods
Lake Ave W.Street End Park
ForbesCreekPark
HighlandsPark
HoughtonBeachPark
CedarViewPark
BrookhavenPark
North KirklandCommunity Center
& Park
HeronfieldWetlands
Totem LakePark
McAuliffePark
Juanita BeachPark
JuanitaElementary
School
JuanitaHigh
School
AlexanderGraham BellElementary
School
JuanitaHeights
Park
Big Finn Hill Park
O O Denny Park
Big Finn Hill Park
Juanita Woodlands Park
Edith Moulton Park
KingsgatePark
EastNorwayHill Park
89T
HA
VE
NE
8 7T
HC
TN
E
88T
HA
VE
NENE 123RD PL
87T
HA
VE
NE
81S
TA
VE
NE
86T
HP
LN
E
88T
HP
LN
E
NE 125TH ST
NE 131ST PL
NE 135TH PL
NE 134TH ST
85T
HA
VE
NE
NE 133RD PL
NE 132ND PL
85T
HA
VE
NE
NE 131ST ST
76T
HA
VE
NE
88T
HP
LN
E
87T
HP
LN
E
86THP
LN
E
90T
HA
VE
NE
NE 131ST ST
79T
HP
LN
E
89T
HP
LN
E
82N
DA
VE
NE
88T
HP
LN
E
87T
HP
LN
ENE 125TH PL
NE 126TH ST
NE 127TH PL
NE 127TH ST
89T
HC
TN
E
79T
HC
TN
E
89T
HP
LN
E
80T
HA
VE
NE
NE 126TH PL
NE 125TH ST
NE 129TH PL
NE 128TH ST
86T
HP
LN
E
83R
DP
LN
E
NE 127TH ST
86T
HP
LN
E
NE 126TH PL
HO
LME
SP
OIN
TD
RN
E
NE 130THPL
NE129TH
ST
68T
HA
VE
NE
62ND
AV
EN
E
64TH
AVE
NE
NE 135TH STNE 135TH PL
NE 134TH ST
NE 125TH ST
74T
HP
LN
E
70TH LN NE
74T
HA
VE
NE
66TH
PL
NE
NE 129TH PL
71ST
AVE
NE
64THTER
NE
63RD
AV
EN
E
HO
LME
SP
OIN
TD
R
67T
HA
VE
NE
NE 130TH LN
HO
LID
AY
DR
68THAVE
NE
NE135TH
ST
NE 129TH ST
NE 132ND ST
63RD
AV
EN
E
64THAVE
NE
64TH
PL
NE
NE 131ST PL
NE 133RD ST
NE126TH
ST
76TH
PL
NE
73RD
PLNE
80T
HA
VE
NE
NE 118TH ST
72NDPL
NE
83RD
PL
NE
NE 120TH PL
NE11
8THPL
NE 117TH ST
NE 119TH ST
NE 116TH ST
NECHAMPAGNE
POINT PL
NE 124TH PL
NE 123RD PL
CH
AM
PA
GN
EP
OIN
TR
DN
E
79TH
WA
YN
E
CH
AM
PA
GN
EP
OIN
TL
NN
E
85TH
AV
EN
E
NE 120TH ST
NE 119TH PL
HO
LME
SP
OIN
TD
RN
E
85THAVE
NE
72N
DA
VE
NE NE 121ST ST
84TH
AVE
NE
NE 122ND ST
NE 120TH PL
NE 123RD PL
NE 121ST PL
NE
JUA
NIT
AD
RNE110TH
PL
NE 116TH PL
89T
HP
LN
E
83RD
AV
EN
E
NE 112TH ST
80TH
PL
NE
91S
TL
NN
E
NE11
9TH
PL
NEJU
ANITA LN
81S
TC
TN
E 84TH PL NE
82N
DP
LN
E
87TH
PL
NENE 119TH ST
87THAVE
NE
NE 112TH ST
85THPL NE
81ST AVE N
E
86THAVE
NE
JUA
NITA
DR
NE
100
TH
AV
EN
E
108
TH
AV
EN
E
75T
HA
VE
NE
JUA
NIT
A-W
OO
DIN
VILL
EW
AYN
E
SIMONDSRD
NE
93R
DA
VE
NE
101
ST
PL
NE
NE 142ND ST
NE 136TH PL
NE 136TH ST
110
TH
AV
EN
E
104
TH
AV
EN
E
NE
138TH
PL
88T
HA
VE
NE
111T
HA
VE
NE
NE 143RD ST
102
ND
AV
EN
E
70T
HAV
EN
E
82N
DP
LN
E
NE 142ND PL
NE 142ND WAY
91S
TA
VE
NE
NE 135TH LN
NE 144TH PL
NE 144TH CT
92N
DP
LN
E
95T
HA
VE
NE
102ND
PL
NE
100
TH
PL
NE
1 10
TH
PL
NE
NE 133RD LN
NE 134TH LN
90T
HP
LN
E
85T
HP
LN
E
103R
DA
VE
NE
92N
DA
VE
NE
64TH PL NE
73RD
AV
EN
E
NE 134TH CT
81S
TP
LN
E
90T
HC
TN
E
103
RD
LN
NE
NE14
2ND
CT
88T
HC
TN
E
111T
HC
TN
E
NE 143RD CT
71S
TP
LN
E
99T
HA
VE
NE
98T
HA
VE
NE
109T
HA
VE
NE
81S
TA
VE
NE
103
RD
AV
EN
E
NE
135THLN
NE 138TH ST
NE 145TH ST
105
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 141ST PL
92N
DP
LN
E
NE 136TH PL
NE 144TH ST
91S
TP
LN
E
NE 138TH ST
NE 144TH PL
101ST PL NE
95T
HA
VE
NE
NE 143RDPL
NE141ST
PL
NE 142ND ST
NE 141ST ST
NE 142ND ST
74T
HP
LN
E
NE 139TH ST
NE 135TH PL
NE 144TH ST
NE 143RD PL
NE 144TH ST
NE 137TH PL
NE 141ST PL
NE14
1ST
PL
NE 145TH STNE 144TH ST
NE
141ST
ST
81S
TA
VE
NE
NE 140TH PL
90T
HP
LN
E
86T
HP
LN
E
NE 142ND ST
109TH
AV
EN
E
NE 137TH CT
NE 143RD PL
NE 142ND PL
87T
HC
TN
E
NE 142ND ST
83R
DP
LN
E
NE 138TH PL
110T
HP
LN
E
NE 137TH ST
82N
DA
VE
NE
NE 142NDPL
NE 140TH ST
103R
DAV
EN
E
NE 143RD ST
NE 133RD PL
NE
137T
HST
NE13
5TH
ST
NE 138TH PL
NE 142NDCT
NE 139TH ST
102N
DA
VE
NE
NE 144TH PL
92N
DP
LN
E
NE 141ST PL
NE 145TH ST
NE 136TH ST
97TH AVE NE
87T
HP
LN
E
NE 143RD ST
NE 142ND PL
93RD
AVEN
E
NE 141ST PL
NE 140TH ST
NE 143RD ST
NE140TH
PL
NE 135TH PL
NE 139TH ST
NE 142ND PL
NE 144TH PL
NE 138TH ST
NE 140TH PL
NE143RD
STNE 143RD ST
NE 135TH PL
NE 143RD PL
NE 134TH ST
NE 133RD PL
93R
DA
VE
NE
NE 138TH PL
87T
HA
VE
NE
8 9T
HP
LN
E
79T
HP
LN
E
NE 138TH PL
NE 134TH PL
NE 141ST ST
NE 144TH CT
81S
TC
TN
E
NE133RD
ST
NE 137TH ST
NE134TH
ST
76T
HP
LN
E
NE 143RD ST
102
ND
AV
EN
E
NE 132ND ST
NE13
1ST
WAY
115TH
AV
EN
E
116T
HA
VE
NE
114TH
PL
NE
NE 132ND PL
NE 133RD PL
NE 132ND LN
94TH
AVE
NE
92ND AVE NE
NE 131ST PL
NE 133RD PL
93R
DA
VE
NE
NE 132ND PL
NE 132ND PL
118T
HPL
NE
118
TH
AV
EN
E
112
TH
AV
EN
E
116
TH
PL
NE
I-405F
RW
Y
NE 132ND PL
97T
HA
VE
NE
NE 132ND PL
NE 136TH ST
111
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 134TH ST
119
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 140TH PL
NE 139TH ST
NE 141ST ST
NE 140TH ST
NE 137TH CT
81S
TA
VE
NE
8 8T
HA
VE
NE
NE 140TH PL
87T
HA
VE
NE
81S
TP
LN
E
NE 135TH PL
87T
HA
VE
NE
NE 140TH ST
80T
HA
VE
NE
NE 138TH ST
I-4
05F
RW
Y
124
TH
AV
EN
E
1 17
TH
AV
EN
E
NE145TH
ST
109T
HAV
EN
E
116
TH
PL
NE
NE 155TH ST
123
RD
AV
EN
E
NE 149TH ST
119
TH
PL
NE
NE 148TH ST
NE 150TH PL
NE 148TH PL
120TH
PL
NE
117
TH
PL
NE
106
TH
PL
NE
125
TH
PL
NE
121
ST
PL
NE
113
TH
PL
NE
NE 147THCT
NE 153RD PL
NE 150TH ST
NE15
0TH
CT
NE 151ST PL
NE 148TH CT
122NDCT NE
NE 147THPL
NE 153RD ST
NE151ST
ST
118
TH
PL
NE
121S
TC
TN
E
NE 149TH PL
120
TH
CT
NE
107
TH
PL
NE
113
TH
AV
EN
E
116
TH
PL
NE NE
144THPL
NE 141ST ST
121
ST
AV
EN
E
116
TH
PL
NE
NE 143RD CT
120
TH
PL
NE
118T
HA
VE
NE
119
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 144TH ST
NE 143RD ST
NE 145TH ST
NE 143RD ST
NE 141ST PL
122
ND
AV
EN
E
119
TH
PL
NE
NE 140TH PL
NE143RD
PL
NE 149TH ST
NE 141ST PL
118
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 141ST ST
122
ND
PL
NE
NE 142ND ST
119
TH
PL
NE
NE14
3RD
ST
117
TH
PL
NE
NE 142ND ST
119T
HA
VE
NE
118THAV
EN
E
NE 142ND ST
123
RD
AV
EN
E
NE 141ST ST
NE 142ND PL
117
TH
PL
NE
NE 141ST PL
122
ND
PL
NE
NE 134TH PL
NE 133RD ST
129
TH
AV
EN
E
127
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 137TH PL
130T
HP
LN
E
126
TH
PL
NE
126
TH
CT
NE
125
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 131ST PL
124
TH
CT
NE
NE 133RD CT
NE
12
4T
HC
T
123
RD
AV
EN
E
117
TH
PL
NE
120 T
HA
VE
NE
NE 130TH PL
128
TH
AV
EN
E
130THCT NE
NE 129TH ST
126
TH
PL
NE
NE 133RD PL
NE 133RD PL
NE 138TH ST
NE 138TH PL
NE12
9TH
PL
120
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 137TH ST
NE 139TH ST
NE 137TH PL
NE 137TH ST
NE 138TH ST
NE 129TH ST
125T
HA
VE
NE
126
TH
AV
EN
E
141S
TA
VE
NE
NE 126TH PL
132N
DP
LN
E
WIL
LO
WS
RD
NE
NE 128TH ST
NE 124TH ST
135
TH
AV
EN
E
139T
HA
VE
NE
134
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 123RD ST
136
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 129TH PL
133
RD
PL
NE
NE 129TH ST
NE 133RD ST
NE 128TH PL
NE 124TH ST
135T
HA
VE
NE
Big Finn Hill Park
Saint Edward State Park
NE 138TH PL
NE 141ST WAY
NE 144TH ST
NE 145TH PL
128
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 142ND LN
130
TH
AV
EN
E
NE144TH
WAY
127
TH
LN
NE
126
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 146TH ST
NE 142ND ST
NE 142ND PL
131
ST
AV
EN
E
130
TH
PL
NE
NE 143RD ST
129
TH
PL
NE
128T
HP
LN
E
NE 145TH PL
NE 145THPL
NE 144TH PL
NE 145TH ST
NE 142ND PL
127
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 142ND LN
NE 145TH PL
129
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 143RD ST
131
ST
AV
EN
E
1 32
ND
AV
EN
E
136
TH
AV
EN
E
1 29
TH
PL
NE
131S
TA
VE
NE
127T
HP
LN
E
131
ST
PL
NE
128
TH
PL
NE
133
RD
AV
EN
E
NE 139TH CT
130
TH
CT
NE
127
TH
PL
NE
127
TH
PL
NE NE 139TH CT
NE 136TH ST
133
RD
AV
EN
E
NE
140THC
T
NE 139TH ST
NE 135TH ST
NE 135TH ST
NE 138TH ST
NE
134THP
L
NE 138TH PL 131
ST
PL
NE
NE 139TH PL
129TH
PL
NE
NE 138TH PL
NE 140TH ST
128TH AVE NE
133
RD
PL
NE
134
TH
CT
NE
NE 137TH ST
NE 138TH ST
134T
HAV
EN
E
135
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 140TH PL
79T
HP
LN
E
86T
HA
VE
NE
9 8T
HA
VE
NE
NE 135TH PL
South NorwayHill Park
135T
HA
VE
NE
132nd SquarePark
NE 137TH PL
NE 137TH CT
NE 137THPL
NE 138TH CT
122
ND
PL
NE
NE 130TH ST
NE 136TH PL
NE 139TH PL
94T
HA
VE
NE
NE 140TH CT
94T
HA
VE
NE
91ST
AV
EN
E
85T
HP
LN
E
83R
DA
VE
NE
83R
DP
LN
E
NE 141ST ST
79T
HA
VE
NE
68T
HP
LN
E
WindsorVistaPark
NE 144TH CT
NE 142ND ST
105T
HAV
EN
E
107
TH
AV
EN
E
112TH
PL
NE
112TH
AV
EN
E
NE
141S
TP
L
88T
HP
LN
E
NE 131ST ST
NE 130TH PL
NE 130TH ST
NE 121ST PL
81S
TA
VE
NE
8 0T
HP
LN
E
82N
DA
VE
NE
NE 120TH ST
NE 121ST ST
NE 122ND ST
NE 114TH ST
91STC
TN
E
72ND
AV
EN
E
NE 141ST ST
NE 139TH ST
97T
HA
VE
NE
92N
DP
LN
E
NE 137TH ST
NE 137TH PL
NE 138TH ST
NE 134TH ST
NE 133RD ST
120
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 141ST CT
95TH AVE NE
NE 133RD PL
Finn HillJunior High
School
Carl SandburgElementary
School
Henry DavidThoreau
ElementarySchool
Robert FrostElementary
School
Helen KellerElementary
School
KamiakinJunior High
School
John MuirElementary
School
NE 133RD PL
NE 142ND ST
NE 143RD PL
NE 141ST ST
88T
HP
LN
E
NE 128TH PL
NE 131ST ST
121ST
AV
EN
E
118TH
AV
EN
E
124
TH
PL
NE
113
TH
AV
EN
E
104T
HPL
NE
NE 142ND ST
NE 141ST ST
NE 138TH PL
NE 140TH ST
NE 139TH ST
NE 139TH ST
NE 141ST PL
NE 140TH ST
NE 124TH ST
84T
HA
VE
NE
NE 132ND PL
NE 132ND ST
NE 133RD PL
NE 136TH ST
NE 135TH ST
90T
HA
VE
NE
91S
TP
LN
E
9 2N
DA
VE
NE
NE 133RD PL
77T
HA
VE
NE
69T
HA
VE
NE
106
TH
PL
NE
NE 136TH ST
NE 134TH ST
121
ST
AV
EN
E
122
ND
AV
EN
E
NE 136TH PL
NE 134TH PL
119
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 138TH PL
NE 137TH CT
NE 135TH ST
116
TH
PL
NE
117
TH
AV
EN
E
118
TH
AV
EN
E
NE 135TH ST
NE 132ND ST
NE 138TH PL
NE 139TH PL
NE 136TH PL
NE 135TH PL
137
TH
PL
NE
NE 131ST PL
NE 136TH PL
94T
HA
VE
NE NE 137TH ST
Snyders CornerPark
78T
HP
LN
E
79T
HP
LN
E
83R
DC
TN
E
NE 122ND PL
NE123RD
ST
NE
115TH
WA
Y
89T
HA
VE
NE
NE11
8THPL
NE11
7THPL
90T
HA
VE
NE
105T
HA
VE
NE
NE 143RD PL106T
HA
VE
NE
Phyllis A. NeedyHoughton
NeighborhoodPark
4TH
AVE
International School& Community
Elementary School
112
TH
AV
EN
E
113
TH
AV
EN
E
1 11
TH
AV
EN
E
CR
OS
SK
IRK
LAN
DC
OR
RID
OR
CR
OS
SK
IRK
LAN
DC
OR
RID
OR
CR
OS
SK
IRK
LAN
DC
OR
RID
OR
CR
OS
SK
IRK
LAN
DC
OR
RID
OR
CR
OS
SK
IRK
LA
ND
CO
RR
IDO
R
CR
OS
SK
IRK
LA
ND
CO
RR
IDO
R
CROSS KIRKLAND CORRIDOREASTSIDE RAIL CORRIDOR
EA
ST
SID
ER
AIL
CO
RR
IDO
R
EA
ST
SID
ER
AI L
CO
RR
IDO
R
LakeWashingtonInstitute ofTechnology
ReservoirPark
NE 122ND PL
76T
HA
VE
NE
NE 123RD ST
OhdeAvenuePea Patch
VanAalstPark
Tot LotPark
Street'sEnd
Park
David E.BrinkPark
Settler'sLanding
MarshPark
SouthRoseHillPark
Rose HillMeadows
RM 3.6
RM 3.6
CBD 8
P
JBD 5
PLA 6B
WD I
P
PR 8.5
P
RM 3.6
PR 3.6
PLA 3B
RS 7.2
MSC 3
RM 1.8
LIT
PR 1.8
CBD 3
RS 8.5
TL 11
RM 3.6
WD I
P
PO
P
TL 4C
RM 3.6
RS 8.5
PLA 7A
RM 3.6
RM 5.0 (1)
TL 3C
RS 12.5
P
P
PLA 6G (2)
JBD 6
CBD 6
PLA 6A
WD I
CBD 7
JBD 6
PLA 7C
P
RS 35
RH 8
PR 5.0
P
TL 5
P
PLA 5A
NRH 1B
P
RSX 35
PLA 6E
TL 3B
RS 12.5
RS 7.2
PLA 2
P
P
P
RS 5.0
RM 1.8
P
RM 3.6
RM 5.0
P
PLA 2
WD I
P
PLA 6J
P
P
P
RS 8.5
RSX 7.2 (2)
RH 1B
RM 3.6
PLA 6C
NRH 3
JBD 4
BN
RM 3.6
RM 2.4
PLA 6F
P
RM 3.6
MSC 2
P
RS 7.2
RS 7.2
RM 5.0 (2)
PLA 5E
CBD 4
RM 2.4
RM 5.0
WD I
PR 3.6
TL 3D
RM 2.4
RM 3.6
WD I
PLA 14
TL 8
P
RS 8.5
PLA 6I
PR 3.6
PR 2.4
RM 5.0
P
RM 2.4
RH 2B
RM 5.0 RS 5.0
JBD 2
(a)(a)
(b)(b)
(b)(b)
(b)
(HL)
(EQ)
(HL)
(HL)
Private GreenbeltEasement
(Salish Village)
Private GreenbeltEasement
(Totem Valley Bus. Center)
PUD
PUDYarrow
Hill
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUDWatershed Park Townhomes
PUDMoonshadow
PUD
PUD
PUDParkside
PUDMarsh
Commons
PUDGintz Farm
PUDLakeviewEstates
PUDWater'sEdge
PUDPUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUD
*2639/3
P
RSX 7.2
RS 7.2
P
RS 8.5
P
RSX 7.2
RS 8.5
RS 8.5
RSX 7.2
P
TL 10E
P
P
RS 8.5
P
RSX 7.2
LIT
P
P
RH 3
LIT
PLA 9
P
TL 2
P
P
PLA 1
P
TL 7
TL 4B
P
RM 3.6
TL 1B
RM 3.6
P
WD II
TL 10A
RS 35
TL 6A
TL 6B
P
RM 1.8
RSX 35
RM 3.6
RS 8.5
PLA 16
RM 1.8
RS 5.0
RM 3.6
PLA 17
WD II
P
P
TL 10C
P
BC
RM 2.4
P
RM 2.4
WD III
PLA 15A
TL 3A
TL 4A
P
RS 5.0
RS 7.2
P
RS 8.5
WD II
RH 5B
MSC 1
RM 3.6
TL 10B
P
BCX
RSX 8.5
RM 3.6
RM 3.6
WD II
RS 12.5
NRH 1A
CBD 2
RH 1A
PLA 15B
PLA 6D
RS 35
NRH 2
JBD 1
RS 12.5
TL 8
RS 7.2
RM 1.8
PR 1.8
RS 7.2
WD I
PLA 7B
RS 7.2
RM 1.8
RS 8.5
JBD 2
RS 8.5
P
P
RS 7.2
RS 12.5
TL 10D
P
RM 3.6
TL 11
RM 3.6
RM 1.8
JBD 3
RM 3.6 (2)
PLA 2
RSX 35
PLA 6H
RM 3.6
RM 5.0
PR 3.6
RSX 5.0
MSC 4
RS 12.5
PR 3.6 (2)
RM 3.6
PR 3.6
RM 3.6
RM 3.6
RS 5.0
RH 5C
NRH 5
NRH 5
PR 3.6 (1)
RS 5.0
PLA 6K
RM 5.0 (2)
RM 3.6 (2)
RM 3.6 (1)
RS 7.2
RS 7.2
RS 7.2
RSX 7.2
RSX 7.2
RH 7
RH 5A
RH 2C
RS 7.2
RS 8.5
RH 4
RM 3.6
RS 7.2
PR 3.6
RSX 7.2
RS 8.5
RS 7.2
RS 8.5
P
P
P
RM3.
6
NRH 4
NRH 6
LIT
PLA 6G(2)
TL 1A
P
P
RH 1B
RH 2A
PR 3.6
RS 6.3
RS 12.5
RM 5.0 P
JBD 6(2)
P
RSX 5.0
(HL)
TL 9B
TL 9A
CBD 5A
PLA 5B
CBD 5
PUDVilla Bonita
PUDJuanitaCreek
PUDBowie Place
PUDVillage Condos
PUDVillage Condos
PUDMaple Ridge
RM 3.6PUD
Maple Ridge
PUDKCHA
PUDJuanita CC
PUDHeritage HouseAssisted Living
PUDTotem Lake Apts.
PUDSalish Village
PUDTotem Valley
PUD405
Corporate
PUDPlace116
PUDSpringtree
PUDBaycrest
PUDKirklandTwelve
PUDWestchase PUD
Stone-bridge
PUDPoncho
PUD
PUDResidence
12
PUD
PUDCobblestone
Court
PUDAspen Creek
PUDParc Provence
PUD
PUD
PUDHighland Pointe
PUDHighland Creste
PUDForbes Creek II
PUDForbes Creek
PUD
PUDLochshire
PUD
PUDWoodlands
Apts
PUDCity Ministries
PUD
PUD
PUD
PUDLakeview
Park
PUD
PUD
PUDThe Point OnYarrow Bay PUD
Linbrook
PUDHeather Glen
PUDMonte Bello
PUDForbes Creek 11
(HL)PUD
PUD
MSC 1
CBD 1B
CBD 1B
CBD 1A
PLA 5C
PLA 5D
RSX 35
RSX 35
TL 7
RSA 1
RSA 6
BC 1
RSA 4
RSA 4
RSA 6
RMA 2.4
RSA 8
RSA 4
RSA 4RSA 6
RSA 8
RSA 8
RSA 4
RSA 8
RSA 4RMA 3.6
RSA 8
RSA 4
RSA 8
RSA 4
RSA 8
RMA 3.6
RMA 3.6
RSA 8
TL6A
P
RSA 4
P
RSA 6
RSA 6
RSA 6
RMA 2.4
P
P
P
P
RSA 4
RSA 4
RSA 4
RSA 6
RSA 4
RSA 4
RSA 4
RSA 4
RMA 5.0
RSA 8
RSA 8
RMA 1.8
RMA 3.6
RMA 2.4
RMA 2.4
RSA 8
RSA 8
RSA 8
RSA 8
RSA 6
RSA 6
RSA 6RSA 6
RSA 8
RSA 8
RMA 5.0
RSA 8
P
RSA 6
RMA 3.6
RMA 2.4RMA 3.6
RMA 3.6
PRA 1.8
RMA 5.0
RSA 6
RSA 4
RSA 6
RSA 6
RSA 8
RSA 4
RMA 2.4
RMA 2.4
RMA 1.8
RMA 3.6
P
P
P
RMA 1.8
RMA 1.8
RMA 3.6
RSA 8
RSA 8
RSA 6
RSA 6
RMA 3.6
RMA 2.4RSA 6
RSA 6
RMA 5.0
P
BC 2
RMA 1.8
RSA 6
P
RSA 8
RSA 4
RSA 4
RMA 5.0
RMA 2.4
RSA 8
RSA 4
RSA 6
RSX 12.5
RSA 6
RSA 4
RMA 3.6
RMA 2.4
RMA 2.4
RSA 6
RMA 1.8
RSA 6
RMA 1.8
RM 2.4
P
P
PUDYarrow Bay
Office Complex
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
RSA 8
P
RMA 1.8
RS 12.5
PLA 17A
P
RS 12.5
PLA 3C
YBD 2
YBD 2
YBD 2
YBD 1
YBD 2
YBD 3
PR 3.6
PR 3.6
RSA 4
RMA 2.4
RMA 5.0
PRA 2.4
RMA 5.0
BNA
BN
BNA
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200 4,000 4,800
Feet
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Miles
I
Community BusinessNeighborhood BusinessCentral Business DistrictFreeway CommercialJuanita Business DistrictLight Industrial TechnologyMarket Street CorridorNorth Rose Hill Business DistrictPark/Public UsePlanned AreaProfessional OfficeProfessional Office ResidentialRose Hill Business DistrictMulti-Family ResidentialSingle Family ResidentialTotem LakeWaterfront DistrictYarrow Bay Business District
BC, BCX, BC1, BC2BN, BNACBDFCJBDLITMSCNRHPPLAPOPR, PRARHRM, RMARS, RSX, RSATLWDYBD
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIALPARKING REQUIREMENTS
Case by Case (KZC 105.25)
1.1 per unit
1 per bedroom, Min, 1.3 per unit
1.7 per unit
2.0 per unit
ATTACHMENT 4 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
PARKING MAP WITH METRO INFO
29
30
ATTACHMENT 5 FILE NO. CAM13-02032
VISITOR PARKING QUESTIONNAIR
31
![Fehr Bros Garage Door Catalog[1]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/543ca277b1af9f5f378b466c/fehr-bros-garage-door-catalog1.jpg)
