Bank of America Appeal - CiViK Questions and SRM Answers
A series of questions were posed to SRM Development during the July 11 hearing before the Kirkland City Council in the CiViK appeal of the Bank of America project. Kirkland Views has obtained a copy of SRM Development’s response to these questions and we have provided it for you to download here.
Of particular note is some modifications to the proposed changes in design. SRM has changed the drive thru for cars exiting on to Kirkland Ave. as per the plans originally approved by the Design Review Board (DRB). The Café on Lake Street South is once again in the plans as originally approved by the DRB. Also, the project has changed in that the fifth floor now only occupies the East Building as it is called. The West Building containing the Bank of America would only have a total of four floors.
The next round in this endurance match is the City Council meeting of August 5.
Related Articles
32 Responses to “Bank of America Appeal - CiViK Questions and SRM Answers”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
KCTS 9 Connects - Yakima Valley Gangs
Sponsored Ads
Great bit of sleuthing Rob.
You saved me hours of fruitless emails to Ms. Jenkinson (I just can’t shake the feeling she isn’t fond of me).
I owe you a burrito at Taco del Mar!
John
[Reply]
This is good. I used to watch city council meetings frequently but gave up the practice after seeing that they would enlessly drone on until midnight. What is wrong with our system that it takes that long to do the town”a business? I think the process is broken.
As for these latest questions and answers I think they to be a fair compromise. I am glad they are available on the Internet. Did they come from the developer or civik?
[Reply]
why did the developer only answer some of the questions?
[Reply]
This hearing should come to resolution on August 5th. The Council and both parties have tried their best and it is now time to end this mess. At the end of the day we all know that the site will be developed. What is in doubt is the details of the building. This looks good to me. It is a win for the appellant because is abetted design than the one before. The split the difference with the fifth story and I am satisfied. The city is acting like a Stalin era commons economy where nothing gets built without the cental committee green stamp.
Council: save us more agony and affirm this.
[Reply]
Rob good job on getting the new SRm design! I agree that it is a compromise. So if Civik oops I mean the Mayor, Hogdson and Greenway approve of it then what’s not to like? Perhaps I can go back to watching the whole Council meeting live. As it is now I think the City could make some money by inserting advertising and calling each meeting a mini-series! The problem as I see it that nearly every issue this Council deals with requires a process that never seems to end. It would be interesting to see how much this whole B of A development has cost the City? Hey Rob and John that is a hint for another round of questions to the City! I figure that some of those terrible Downtown sidewalks could have been repaired for the money spent on this debacle alone. Maybe the Coucil members who are supported by Civic could ask them for some money to fix the sidewalks.
[Reply]
The Eastside Sun is calling for two actions in our August 1, 2008 issue.
1) Approve the B of A project WITHOUT the drive thru ATM alleyway. SRM agreed to delete this sore point before they realized CiViK, Greenway, Hodgson and the Mayor would stab them in the back and demand this be sent back to Square One (DRB).
2) Mayor James Lauinger must resign from the council without delay;
a) There is no appearance of impartiality
b) he either supported Hodgson or lacked the leadership to
counter his actions, actions that cost $12,000 minimum.
c) The deficit grew to 13.8 million dollars on his watch.
d) We have enough ‘Schrammies’ for one city
- Citizens must write letters to the council demanding Lauinger’s
immediate resignation
- Deputy Mayor McBride should take his place as Mayor on August 5th.
- The council should call an emergency, and public, session to
identify 3 candidates to fill the vacancy. The Eastside Sun has
no opinion who should be on the short list.
- The council must work as a UNIT to approve one of the candidates
without delay and return to doing the people’s business.
Thanks for your time and our thanks to KirklandViews for the forum.
John Gilday
[Reply]
Good job John! I think you forgot Hodgson who obviously isn’t qualified to be there either so we may need a few more candidates. I think handing the August 1st issue to the Council at the meeting would be a nice community minded gesture along with a some folks wearing buttons like the Civic intimidators do. I can’t wait!
[Reply]
Oh, we didn’t forget Hodgson, but when the Mariners stink we fire the skipper and the message filters down through the ranks. If we eviscerate the council by removing two members then NOTHING gets done. Hodgson owes the city $12,000 for outside counsel, lets see if he makes it right.
The Gang of Four is over and done with!
[Reply]
Hey nothing gets done now! Maybe some people should show up at the council meeting and present Mr. Hodgson with a big cardboard bill showing he owes the City 12k! He could forfeit his City pay until it is paid off. Course the Mayor had suggested that all Council members take a 10% cut. If the Mayor doesn’t step down he could help Hodgson pay off his debt and make the City whole for his role in this debacle.
[Reply]
[...] Kirkland Views has obtained additional responses submitted since the hearing which more fully explain the proposed project as it stands today. This new information completes a story that was only partially available yesterday when we posted Bank of America Appeal - CiViK Questions and SRM Answers. [...]
I think all of this talk of firing council people is a waste of time. On August 5 the council will approve the B of A and be done with it. Civik has done the city a service by making this a better project. I don’t know if that is what they wanted all along or if they wanted to leave it as it is and have a parking lot there, but the plans look better and better.
[Reply]
The new buildings in Kirkland will be better because of CiViK. People should be THANKING CiViK rather than vilifying them. This latest and “final” rendition of the B of A building is still not what it should and could be but, thanks to CiViK, it is a better project, but I am still not satisfied. The 4 corners at Lake and Central comprise the most important intersection in Kirkland and therefore must be dealt with extreme care. We will never get it back! I agree a poster up stream, eliminate the drive through - it is totally unnecessary. Make in/out parking quick and easy (15 minute limit). I bank at First Mutual at the intersection of Central and 3rd St, their access is very easy.
A word about CiViK. I’ve heard that they are anti-growth, anti-development, anti-everything, vile, loathesome NIMBY’s, you name it. This is simply not the way I see it. They are attempting to hold the City to the Comprehensive Plan, and until the Comprehensive Plan is revised, they have every right to fight what they believe is an unfair and possibly illegal process. Back door decisions have been made in this City for years. Who honestly thinks that Portsmith or Waterview would be approved today with the public awareness the internet has provided to the citizens? And even more recently the 5 story Merrill Gardens quiet approval that obliterated the views of a brand new Kirkland Central, thereby and paving the way for the B of A fiasco.
The MASSIVE 4 commercial story McLeod project has been approved along Lake Street because of the promise of public parking. I admire Jessica Greenway for holding her ground at the last Council meeting, knowing she was out numbered. “What about the 2 stories along Lake Street according to the Comprehensive Plan?” Agreed, there is a lot to like about the McLeod project, but with the depth of their footprint, anything above the second floor should have been set back to the current depth of Hectors. Councilman Sternoff said, “this is our legacy”. Yep, it is.
CiViK is not anti-development. Put the blame where it belongs, back on the City, their loopholes and flawed process. Better yet, rather than playing the blame game, let’s take all the negative energy and figure out a way to fix it.
[Reply]
Bravo murph!
I can’t agree more with your sentiments that we should “take all the negative engery and figure out a way to fix it.” Indeed.
We have a mess in this city. In a way it is our own fault because “back door decisions” are not made by officials when the people are paying attention. Shining the light of day on the such funny business is precisely why I created this blog. Public awareness of the issues is key to good governance.
Just as this blog is only as good as the comments posted by readers, the City of Kirkland is only as good as those who step up and make a difference. When something is not right, we need to expose it, fix it and make sure it doesn’t happen again. That is our responsibility as citizens. Likewise, when things are done well, we need to trumpet that as well and encourage more of the same.
Thank you to all for contributing to Kirkland Views. Everyday I learn something new from insightful reader comments like these.
Cheers,
Rob
[Reply]
[em]And even more recently the 5 story Merrill Gardens quiet approval that obliterated the views of a brand new Kirkland Central, thereby and paving the way for the B of A fiasco.[/em]
The approval of Merrill Gardens was not any more “quiet” that the approval of these Lake Street projects. It went through the DRB and every other part of the process. Nothing escaped the wary eye of CiViK and other critics.
I visited the Kirkland Central sales center on Lake Street when the untis were nbeing offered for presale. They specifically told everyone that they were not promising views because of the zoning of the properties to the west. They sold those units like hotcakes, too, because their prices were low when the market was good.
Now we have Kirkland Central and Portsmouth residents raising heck about other buildings that might block their non-guaranteed views, while they block the views of others.
[Reply]
I agree that the negative energy should be redirected. I also don’t like history being repeated. In this case if the Mayor,Council members Greenway and Asher who have all been on this Council for at least 4 years really gave a rip about small town feel and character and the such they would have gotten off their collective butts and put sensible and understandable rules in place. The height of hypocrisy is in fact Coucil Member Greenway. Clearly she was supported by Civic in the last election. If defies reason that she was not aware of Civics concerns and yet not one word that I can find ever came out of her mouth calling for setback and step back modifications nor a definition of superior retail or anything else that she now has such strong feelings about. I am ashamed to say that I voted for her in light of all that has happened. The devisiveness that this whole debacle has caused was unnecessary and avoidable. the real tragedy here is that the time mispent on this should have been used to deal with the budget crisis. Murph you may want to put sugar on Civic’s good deed but where were they on all these other projects?
[Reply]
Kirkland busy body
CiViK will have to answer your question. I was shocked when I learned of the approved height of Merrill Gardens and know others were also. My awareness of the proposed BOA development was a result of Merrill Gardens. hank you, Rob, for this blog. Every poster and lurker here should promote this blog to their Kirkland friends and neighbors. It raises public awareness, affords an avenue to express opinion, a way to get involved.
[Reply]
It would be nice if Civic whoever they are would answer these questions. Even more important to me is that the Council Members who put the City in this position are held accountable. This episode has been very useful to me in that it showed some true inadequacies of several on the Council. Fist and foremost the making up or changing of rules, interpreting design guidelines and general disorganization is just wrong. Where was the public input? There wasn’t any. I now people who worked on the Downtown Plan. As I recall there were over 30 people who were representative of all of our Commuunity. What upsets me about the Council is that the 4 who accepted the appeal decided on their own to change this plan. I am not saying the plan doesn’t need changing or modifying but to do it after a public process and without further public proces is not fair to either side. This has been an eye opener for me regarding Council members I have supported and voted for. There are 2 up for re-election next year that will not get my support or vote because of their actions. One is the Mayor who I personally like but who seems to be in over his head and Council member Hodgson who for reasons known only to him thinks he is above the rest of the Council. All of this at a time when the financial alligators are here and we can least afford any misteps.
[Reply]
I was one of those approximately 30+ people from the community were invited to, and broken into groups discussions during the information gathering process of the downtown plan. Fast forward years later and we have 5 story residential and 4 story commercial builings (essentially the same height) in the downtown core. Maybe that’s OK, maybe it isn’t. But when did the 2 story height limit change? Granted, I was not paying attention again until recently. What now?
[Reply]
Ditto bigtime to Murph - your comments are insightful and you’ve captured the issues perfectly.
My guess is that we won’t see blog-postings from civik until after the appeal is over because it’s quasi-judicial and they have to be reserved about making public comments about the issues. Just as KBB has asked, I would also like to know why they appealed BOA and not MG. I suspect we won’t know until after BOA is over.
Had the City Council entered their findings in mid-May, the Council could have shown leadership and sent a message that the Comprehensive Plan means something. This revised project would now be before the new DRB and in a public process that we could all offer comments on, and a revised project could be reviewed and approved and instead, it lingers on like last week’s broccoli.
Whether the Council approves this newest plan, or if they say this revision won’t work, I hope that they conclude this on August 5. My bet is that they will approve it, if for no other reason than to bring this to an end. As Murph and others have pointed out, this is a better plan than the original one. Perfect, no, but better and maybe an acceptable compromise. We should thank the citizens who were brave enough to step forward, spend time and money, to effect this change. I hope that as a result for the future, we see better development all-round and genuine public process.
[Reply]
Murph,
I too was interviewed but not selected to sit on the DAT. I did follow the process and in the end the 5 story limit was recommended and adopted by the the City Council. I was at both of those meetings and recall then Park Board Chair Sternoff was one of a few who voted for lower heights. Obviously he was out voted on this issue. I admire him today for being true to the plan that he opposed instead of trying to rewrite the intent. The 2 story height was always more of a feel concept from the pedestrian’s point of view. The plan also appeared to be intentionally vague on setbacks and step backs to offer flexibility and encourage redevelopment. I said in my previous post, some members of this Council who live by the seemingly endless process for everything want to change the process without public input. This is wrong in so many ways. It is clear that few if any have taken the time to research the DAT plan or intent. Instead they take their own biases and change create definitions to fit. As we have seen during this spectacle, at least 4 of the Council are truly out of touch with the DRB to which they apppointed and tasked with handling the details. I fear that this episode will blow over and nothing will be learned by these folks.
[Reply]
Thanks, KBB, good points. Question for you - In what role would Sternoff have voted on the height limit issue? He has mentioned this a few times, but if his vote was as a member of the DAT, so what? The DSP is a remarkable document and body of work but it’s not the law. The people whose vote really mattered were on the Planning Commission and most important, those on the City Council.
There were a lot of us in those rooms and Sternoff should stop naming people as though it was just 4 or 5 who are are still involved. It weakens his point and makes it sound like there’s just a few old croneys who should have a voice today. Many of us were there, but even if we weren’t that does not mean that we are required to sit quietly by.
[Reply]
I may have been involved in a different discussion than those Trooper and KBB mention. My involvement, as far as my recollection goes, was shortly after the Portsmith uproar or it could have been prior.
In any event, it is unfortunate that the Quasi-Judicial process prevents Council from reading these citizen comments.
[Reply]
Also, let’s not assume that just because CiViK opposed the Lake and Central project and the height of BOA, does not mean that they are required to be the downtown development pitbull.
[Reply]
Murph - I actually meant that the Council should monitor the site in general - not this topic in specific. I was not clear enough - my error.
I know it can be hard to maintain a Chinese Wall in these instances, but it is actually really too bad if it is just this event that is preventing the Council from reading other posts on this site. Hopefully once this is settled they or others at city hall will feel freer to monitor the site in general.
[Reply]
Trooper,
The people who count are the people like you and I who vote! The DSP as you state is not law: however it was adopted and endorsed by the City Council as a blueprint for Downtown. Until and unless a new DSP is adopted (which as pointed out has not happened) it seems fair that the old one is still valid. I saw great value in the DAT. Unlike the Planning Commission who are not elected that number only 7 people the DAT truly represented a cross section of our City. Members of the DAT were appointed. Each members represented a segment of the Community. Some like Sternoff were appointed from the City Boards that they had been appointed to by the City Council. Other members included a people from the community including Business. Others like myself were just common citizens trying to be involved in the process. I can only assume that Sternoff voted like the others utilizing their areas of knowledge, expertise and biases. I and some others attended a lot of those meetings and I do not minimize anyone’s views who attended and gave input. What does concern me is that somehow the work product of over 30 people that was adopted by the City Council is now subject to reinterpretation on the run. The time to have done that was probably 5 years ago but after Lake and Central the Council lost their appetite for Downtown. Having said that I wholeheartedly support the current group that is attempting to review the DSP. Unfortunately my work schedule does not permit me the time to attend any of those meetings. From what I hear though there are clear differences amongst participants. This is most likely not the last battle to be waged Downtown. Clearly the majority of the City Council can only conceive of a Downtown from the ground level. I am waiting for another grocery store, pharmacy and stores where I can buy the things I need. This Council has not addressed any of these needs. I won’t hold my breath waiting!
[Reply]
No, I am aboslutely not kidding!
[Reply]
Can someone help me get past my feeling that Civik is a bunch of whiners that bought condos that blocked my view when they were built and now wants to complain everytime someone builds something new? I hear a lot of people on this blog talk about the good they do but I can’t get past my old feelings that all they ever do is whine and fight. It comes across as very selfish to me. Have they done anything proactive that I have missed or do they just react to development they don’t like? Sales tax from people spending money here helps fund our City without it coming out of our pockets. Why wouldn’t we want to encourage more business?
[Reply]
OK, STOP YOUR BICKERING!
MARK MY WORDS… I’LL TURN THIS CAR AROUND AND NOBODY GETS TO SEE GRANDMA!
[Reply]
Comments regarding the above posting:
1) John ‘The Eastside Sun’ — Aren’t you the one that was fined for illegally cutting trees in Kirkland? Do I have that correct? I’m not hear to dispute whether that was appropriate or not, but at the time it happened, I believe you launched into a tyraid against the council and Lauinger in particular. So, I suspect you still have an ax to grind. You are hardly unbiased and impartial. I suspect the KCC is more impartial on issues, than you are on them. Matt. 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
2) I keep hearing this business about CiViK having provided monetary and other support to Lauinger, Hodgson, and Greenway. I went to the PDC website - http://www.pdc.wa.gov/ - and looked at all of the council members. Looks like Burleigh and McBride took money from CiViK board members and supports too. Are they in ‘CiViK’s’ pocket too? Burleigh and McBride also took money from downtown property owners and some developers? Are they biased in favor of downtown building owners and developers? Let’s get real. All of these people who serve us, at their personal expense, are doing what they believe is best for the city — like it or not. Quit bashing them. Put all the facts on the table, not just the ones you want, half truths, and sometimes outright lies. The irony is, those whining the loudest, are mostly the same 1/2 dozen to dozen people that had the council doing their bidding through, Larry ‘I Never Met a Developer I Didn’t Like’ Springer, Sants Contreras, Bill Woods, and the like.
3. NIMBY’s, condo dwellers, and view protectors - The list of CiViK supporters was on their website for a longtime. I can’t find it on there now. However, that list was from people all over the city. I wish they would print a map of their supporters for all to see that the supporters and members are citizens from all over the city. The ones working hardest on this appeal won’t lose any view either — never would. Also, another doesn’t even live anywhere near downtown.
4. DSP, zoning, et al. The City Council, with support from Monsieur Ramsay and his staff, should take the variability out of the plan. Make the guideline concrete, whether it is 2, 3, 4, or 5 stories. Define the setback. No variances. No ’superior retail’ clauses. The property owners and community want to know what they can count on. Less to argue about; faster process. If you really think it is just a bunch of NIMBYs, put it up for Referendum to the community. Let’s see how the whole community feels? We are still a democracy, aren’t we? Do you have that much conviction in your beliefs?
5. Speaking of tax revenue for the city, a bank will generate very little, if any, sales tax revenue for the City. Much of the reason for superior retail is to generate a critical mass of desirable businesses downtown, and the other is to generate sales tax revenue, to help fund the city. A bank does little to help either of these. Just an observation. (that one is for ‘I got out’.)
6. Where were all of you on 9/11/2001? I bet you weren’t at a City Council meeting. That is the date the KCC approved a 4 foot modification (read increase in height) to the downtown zoning. That in effect is what makes a 5th story even possible. Perhaps we should put that up for another vote while we are paying attention, and not watching buildings crumble on our TVs.
7. As for the $13.8 million dollar deficit John cites above, the greatest responsibility for that rests with the City Manager, Dave Ramsay. Shouldn’t we be calling for his resignation? Why hasn’t anybody asked for this yet? His fully burdened cost to the City must be well in excess of $250k per year. He makes more in one month than the entire KCC does in a year for their service.
8. I like your blog very much Rob. However, it tires me sometimes to read the vile rants, particularly from 2 or three of your frequent contributors. Civil discourse is great. We can all agree or disagree, but it does not mean we need to be disagreeable. If you really want to be vile, you should be willing to put your name by your spew.
That’s my $0.02 worth, on my first post here. I suppose the flaming will begin now…
PS. A few final, but related, thoughts. Is an opinion, your vote, and/or your voice more or less valueable if you are a short time kirkland resident, or long time kirkland resident? What is a short, versus a long term resident? Does it matter?
[Reply]
Hey, ease up on the ‘tirade’, I know why you’re ‘here’. To give us spelling lessons, right?
So relax, it was just a joke. I’m not really going to turn the car around and you’ll still see Grandma!
Sorry for throwing you into such a tizzy.
Bite Me
John 1:27
[Reply]
CiK,
Thank you very much for your post. You make many excellent points which I hope to address when time permits. Let me say this: your perspective has sometimes been downed out by rants and that is wrong. I want all voices to be heard regardless of one’s view. I do not moderate comments according to some “fairness doctorine”. I let comments come from whomever choses to make their voices heard. I have had to moderate a few rude comments about individuals but they have been extremely rare as I let the authors know they will be banned if the practice continues. This is how I try to keep this forum open and free and “rated G”.
That said, I have refrained from censoring comments about elected officials. I can tell you that some comments herein have disturbed me as I would describe them as uncivil but I have refrained from censoring such comments in the hope that the community will self-moderate just as you have done with your comments. I have found this to be very effective as it is a form of public shaming. I hope you will agree that this is a preferable option to me being a gatekeeper for opions that pass one person’s cencorship test. When someone is out of line, the community will self-correct. If I were to limit discussion on Kirkland Views to only opinions with which I personally agreed, I would be violating the vary reason I started this website: because the local press and City Hall were not telling the people of Kirkland the whole story. Openness in government and public participation are vital for good governance. I believe we get the government we deserve. More about my personal views on this subject are posted here on the About page and on this post called, ‘Welcome to Kirkland Views!’ that I wrote when I first started Kirkland Views.
Thank you for sharing your views. If you think too much is being said on one side of an issue, I invite you to even things out. We all learn from eachother and we foster community through civil communication. Remember, it is difficult for some to shout at you when you keep your demeanor.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Cheers,
Rob
[Reply]
John, thank you for catching my one misspelled word, out of 795 words. I did have one other unintentional typo — just for the record, not including the lower case ‘k’ in Kirkland on a couple of occasions, which was intentional. Also, I am very calm, and not in a tizzy, and my grandmothers are both dead. So, unless you crash the car into me, I shouldn’t be seeing either of them anytime soon. Lastly, I don’t bite, but if I did, I choke on small bones. ;-)
Rob, I appreciate your last post. It is spot on.
[Reply]