City studies Central Way bike path tied to Peter Kirk Park upgrades; council favors preserving parking, seeks grants

Kirkland staff asked council for feedback on a proposed joint project to add a protected bike facility along Central Way between Peter Kirk Lane and Third Street while Parks removes aging poplar trees and upgrades Lee Johnson Field. Senior project engineer Euan Yang and interim capital projects manager George Masian presented three design alternatives and a no‑joint‑project option; staff emphasized the cost savings and reduced disruption of doing the transportation and park work together.

The City identified problems the project would address: aging poplars that are reaching the end of their life and whose roots have clogged field drainage, and a gap in the eastbound bike network. The proposal would remove the poplars, create a new bike facility that fills the bike network gap, replant more appropriate urban trees, and — depending on the alternative — preserve on‑street parking or shift the park boundary.

Alternatives presented to council - No joint project: Parks would remove trees and upgrade the field but no bike facility would be added (parks-only cost). Trees removed in that scenario would be mitigated by fee in lieu rather than on‑site replanting. - Alternative 1 (on‑street bikeway): Remove the parking lane to add an on‑street protected bike lane (6 ft lane + 2 ft buffer). This approach would eliminate about 23 parking spaces, be the least costly transportation option, and involve minimal plantings. - Alternative 2 (raise path to preserve parking): Create a raised shared path adjacent to the park, preserve the parking lane and add a 6‑ft bike lane and a buffer, and replant trees on the raised path. This option preserves parking but shifts the park fence and would require replacement of fencing and netting and additional permitting because Lee Johnson Field is in a 100‑year floodplain. Staff estimated this alternative as the highest‑performing option commercially and attractive for grants but more expensive to construct; it would require mitigation for landmark tree removal (3:1 trees) and about 10 of the mitigation trees would be planted on site with the remainder by fee in‑lieu. - Alternative 3: Narrower raised path to avoid fence moves and preserve parking, with a narrower cross section and lower performance than Alternative 2 but avoiding park boundary impacts.

Costs and tradeoffs: staff provided high‑level life‑cycle cost estimates (concept‑level costing). The on‑street option had a lower capital and lifecycle cost but eliminated parking. The raised‑path options cost more to construct but preserved parking and offered better protection and on‑site tree mitigation; they require retaining walls and extra permitting and would be candidates for external grant funding. Staff also calculated an “opportunity cost” that shows savings to parks when projects are delivered jointly rather than separately.

Council reaction: most councilmembers supported alternatives that preserved parking and provided a separated facility. Councilmember Amy Falcone emphasized using grants and aligning the project with adjacent planned improvements on both east and west ends so the project does not become an isolated segment. Deputy Mayor Arnold and others flagged the project as a competitive candidate for regional connectivity grants tied to BRT station access. Councilmember Sweet and others urged conservatism on the city’s capital contribution and recommended pursuing grants first; Councilmember Tim Chisholm stressed keeping the park’s character, retaining shade and parking where possible. Several councilmembers asked for clarity on permitting timelines given the park work (staff said FEMA permitting timeline runs in parallel and that tree removal could occur once construction starts). Several members expressed openness to returning with a refined preferred alternative and with grant application strategies.

Next steps and staff direction: staff will pursue the public outreach and permitting path aligned with the council’s feedback, begin grant evaluation and applications where appropriate, and return to council with refined cost estimates and recommended preferred alternative (staff suggested Alternatives 2 or 3 are strong candidates). Parks staff will proceed with their field upgrades but staff recommended coordinating timing to realize the joint savings and reduce overall community disruption.

Why this matters: The project fills a gap in the bike network, mitigates failing trees and improves field drainage, and — if done as a joint project with transportation — could lower overall costs and increase grantability, while requiring careful public outreach around the park fence and field footprint.

Ending: Staff will report back with a refined alternative and a grant/permit strategy; council asked staff to preserve parking where feasible, pursue grant funding and keep community outreach central to next steps.