Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Big Concrete for Little Winslow

What has 1,000 parking spaces, is one and a half football fields long and runs from Madrone to Ericksen? How about a mega- parking garage proposed for the heart of Winslow. If anyone had any doubts left about the vision for our City shared by a small group of property owners, urban planners, realtors and architects, surely this will be the nail in the coffin of that doubt.





The “Winslow Core Parking Feasibility Study” will be presented to Council this Wednesday night and will suggest the building of a city funded parking garage on City property immediately south of the Farmer’s Market plaza and possibly connected to an even larger private garage, for a total length of 600 ft. To be fair, the study does not “suggest” the garage, it presumes the garage. Despite it’s title, the sole purpose of the study was to determine how to build the proposed garage, not to study “parking” in the Winslow Core. The study is the result of a public-private partnership between the City and two major property owners, Haggar-Scribner Properties and Sandstrom Properties.

With cumulative ownership of half the property fronting the north side of Winslow Way between Ericksen and Madison, these property owners have much to gain by City participation in a parking garage adjacent to their holdings, not the least of which would be facilitation of redevelopment under proposed upzoning. But what would the community gain, and what would it lose with this venture?


For Love of Parking

According to the Feasibility Study, “The Winslow Tomorrow planning process concluded that downtown Winslow is deficient in parking supply.” This premise has been a driving force behind downtown planning for years, despite the fact that the on-the-street experience of most Islanders has been to the contrary. Why this insistence that a problem exists, and that the community is in dire need of a comprehensive solution? When we consider the origin of the claim and the identity of the parties that will most benefit most from increased parking capacity, at least one possible explanation arises.

Of all the Winslow Tomorrow committees, it seems that the Parking Committee has been the target of the most criticism in the community. A number of former participants have described the process as “predetermined” and exclusively focused on the opinions and goals of a key minority. Among the members of the committee were Winslow property owners Tom Haggar (of Haggar-Scribner properties), his wife Priscilla Zimmerman and Larry Nakata (of T&C) as well as a number of other individuals with professional ties to the downtown core.

Tom Haggar is now a key player in the proposed parking garage. Why would Haggar and other property owners have such an intense interest in establishing a phantom need for a massive parking garage?


Promises, Promises

In 2005 Dr. Haggar sought and was granted “The Haggar- Scribner Comprehensive Plan Amendment” which rezoned his holdings to allow property fronting Ericksen to share the much higher density zoning status of his adjacent Winslow Way parcels. The goal was to facilitate the redevelopment of the 5 contiguous parcels together. At the time Haggar-Scribner proposed the rezoning (upzoning) of their property, concerns were expressed by some about the effect on the Ericksen District of a structure built to maximize height and density allowances. Dr. Haggar reassured the Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission that parking restrictions for the site would effectively prohibit maximum development, and that the upzoning was sought to allow increased “design flexibility” and to “allow a greener, more energy-efficient structure”.

Two years later, the Haggar-Scribner position on the development of the property has gone from reassurances that maximizing building size would not be likely given parking restrictions, to soliciting the participation of the City in the building of a massive parking structure that would in fact allow that full expansion. The feasibility report cites the “future” building of a 30-50,000 sf clinic as the motivation behind the Haggar-Scribner participation in the garage.


B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Cart)

Whatever the forces were at play on the Winslow Tomorrow Parking Committee, it actually proposed a number of alternatives to address the presumed “parking problem”, including short term parking zones, increased enforcement, smaller satellite parking lots, employee shuttles and non-motorized improvements (aka: the poor stepchild of city projects)

As citizens we must ask how the City came to spend tens of thousands of dollars (or more?) on a “Parking Feasibility Study” focused on only a parking garage concept and only one location for that garage. Certainly a more candid name for the study would be “The Haggar-Scribner Parking Garage Feasibility Study”.

Why isn’t the City partnering with Larry Nakata in his consideration of developing a garage at the post office site? If we were to locate a garage downtown, and ask patrons to “park once” and walk, wouldn’t we put the garage adjacent to the business most frequented by Island citizens, and where the most volume is purchased, on a site with excellent existing ingress and egress? Maybe T&C can put a shopping cart rack up at the Haggar-Scribner garage instead.


Hint, Hint, Nudge, Nudge

On the subject of ingress and egress to the monster garage, there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the proposed design. Not surprisingly, Madrone Lane is seen as an obvious access route for the project, what it surprising for most in the community to learn, is that Madrone is a private road. This would not be a problem for the garage lobbyists if the owners were willing to hop on board the Winslow Way Urban Planning Express along with the rest of the North of Winslow Way gang. But apparently the owners have other ideas. They are considering closing off the lane and further emphasizing the quiet courtyard feeling that has naturally developed among the bordering businesses.

But the fact that these folks are seeking to protect the sanctity of this space from traffic and noise isn’t going to stop Haggar-Scribner et al. They propose somewhat cryptically that “the City should develop a strategy for what it needs to accomplish in the Madrone Way corridor and engage in discussions with the property owners to resolve future direction.” Some might say that sounds rather ominous. Maybe it’s just optimistic, after all, all eight of the drawings showing ingress and egress to the garage, show Madrone Lane as open and in use.


For a community that claims to be seeking to discourage reliance on the automobile, parking has played an incredibly prominent role in most aspects of our downtown planning. Perhaps that is because the vision for downtown has been written not by the community but by a few individuals who have more than a small conflict of interest with regards to issue like parking, height and density and whether or not benefiting properties pay their fair share.

To read the entire feasibility study go here.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Der Fuher bunker garage -- is this going to be the site for the islands executive branch to retreat to in the event of an attack from the non-islander?

There is no parking problem if we can get the Chamber of Commerce out of the business of giving out hundreds of near-no-cost parking passes to their members and allowing those close-in parking sites to be used by customers.

If this was the plan for a parking extravaganza at SEATAC airport, I would say, do it. This is Winslow and not the airport or BelSquare.

Watch the maneuvers as COBI Council tries to grease the skids on this proposal. Knobloch is also in the selling business on this although he changed his tune last night. Off key to me.

Anonymous said...

This is astonishing. Every time it seems like the back door doings and dealings in this City can't get worse, they do. We must demand accountability on this. How do developers like this and Samson (lower articles) get such access and get their way? The Mayor and Council in Pleasantville, New Jersey probably didn't think they had to be accoutable to the citizens,either.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the nice summary. I would be curious to know what the net new parking spaces are in this garage proposal after subtracting out current non-city spaces lost to the garage project itself, spaces dedicated to the city in the new garage, and spaces dedicated to projects developed by Haggar and other private participants. Do you know this number?

McCoy said...

Good question, Dennis. Some of the data you are looking for is on page 15 of the Feasibility Report (shifting of city/chamber/BPA spaces), though the data is put in terms of demand/need and supply without clear reference to physical location. We have no information as to how many spaces will be dedicated to which adjacent properties.

At the end of the day, it seems safe to say that the proposed garage will add hundreds of spaces more than current demand requires. Whether that is a good or bad thing may depend on your vision for Winslow.

If you or any other reader are able to further interpret the figures, or has more information, I hope that you will share that information here for all of our benefit.

Anonymous said...

This has no small bearing on how I intend to vote. I came in with an open mind; but Waldo is a continuous and relentless drum pounder for WT and those special interests. Thanks for the clear and comprehensive reporting here.

Anonymous said...

In response to the first commentor, it will be interesting to see where each city council member comes down on the parking garage as the city administration is releases more detailed cost projections and who will pay.

Most Winslow Tomorrow ideas have been "sold" to the public without anyone being informed of real costs. It's been like window shopping without knowing how much an item you've been considering buying costs. Or, knowing if that item fits your budget.

Looks like there will be plenty of fiscal reality to go around for everyone (including council members) as hard budget figures and projected debt payout for the parking garage begin to take shape and are made public. We may all be singing off key on this one, soon.

Anonymous said...

I am writing this blog for the first time to vent outrage at what is going on right on channel 12. The three stoeges, at least 2 of whom on paid by us, are trying to sell this complete load of garbage about the parking garage. How dare the administration try to pull this one. Do they think we are all idiots?
Ms. Briggs, quite frankly you can't leave here soon enough. Maybe Darlene who promised us so much different can follow you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Move faster than that.

Anonymous said...

5:28 p.m. Anonymous -- you may recall Bill Knobloch pleading to the Winslow Never folks to give him the PR to defend the plan. It was quite telling. Clearly Councilman Knobloch was a more-than-willing front man but he needed to get the selling points to do his selling. It was clear no one had a clue on costs, scope etc.

You say no one agreed or OKd the plan but you will remember Mayor K had this "Congress of 100" (mostly her handpicked friends) who gave Mayor K the fig leaf justification this was a "representative" group speaking for everyone.

What a mess. ca-ching, ca-ching $$$$$$$$

Anonymous said...

There is such a thing as transparency and conflicts of interest, although you'd never know it here in Mayberry. What is weighing on me is that Winslow Way property owners are making decisions that affect all of us. You and I have a right to know who in city government has any kind of financial stake in this project, which is unaffordable, but enriches a few. There indeed is such a thing as accountability and it needs to be established as to who owns what and who has a stake in what, and who is behind the LLCs involved.

When the smoke clears, the remaining small businesses will be gone, and the large property owners who are making these decisions will be enriched by property tax loopholes courtesy of us.

But there's another issue (although not larger than the fox guarding the henhouse): if one doesn't want generic California town, Carmel, Belltown, Bellvue, little Seattle or whatever, then it seems that this is a good time to just say "enough." We knew about Winslow Tomorrow, but I don't think that anyone envisioned all of this. And Toto too.

(The folks who brought us Winslow Tomorrow are also advocating for it, which is improper. The blatant conflicts of interests are legally improper, in my opinion. It truly is astonishing and needs some investigation.)

Anonymous said...

If you don't like what you see here, don't forget that the issue of taller and bigger buildings along Winslow Way is not settled yet. Heights are already set at 35 ft, 45 ft with underground parking. Last we heard, the City was looking at raising heights to 55 feet on the N. side and 45 feet on the S. side of Winslow Way. You can still sign a petition against bigger buildings at: www.ipetitions.com/petition/SaveWinslowWay

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "Winslow Canyon", one has to wonder if property owners on Winslow Way are hoping to argue that participation in this garage will meet their parking requirements (in place of on-site, underground parking) to the extent that they will be able to maximize height under current zoning (45 feet) even if the upzoning doesn't happen. Another excellent reason for opposing this garage.

Anonymous said...

owl - you're exactly right. I personally know of a building owner who has said he "can't touch" his building without more parking. And yet the parking shortage is a myth. Just yesterday I saw no fewer than 10 spots on Winslow Way in the heart of downtown. This whole thing - WT, garage - is going too far, too fast. Gotta go sign that petition!