B of A is DOA
By a vote of 4 to 3, the Kirkland City Council decided to end the Bank of America appeal and send the project back to the Design Review Board… unless SRM Development decides they have a better chance in Superior Court. SRM presented their final modified proposal to the Council followed by CiViK’s presentation of their argument. The Council briefly deliberated but the lines had been drawn months ago. The 4 to 3 split on the Council remained unchanged.
How the City Council Voted on the motion to grant design review approval to the BofA project:
- Mayor Jim Launinger NO
- Councilmember Dave Asher NO
- Councilmember Tom Hodgson NO
- Councilmember Jessica Greenway NO
- Deputy Mayor Joan McBride YES
- Councilmember Mary-Alyce Burleigh YES
- Councilmember Bob Sternoff YES
The Council next sealed SRM’s fate and voted by the same margin to end SRM’s application. They must now resubmit to the DRB if they want to get back on this roller coaster.
An interesting side note came from Councilmember Tom Hodgson when he addressed SRM attorney Molly Lawrence’s demand that he recuse himself. Hodgson stated, “I want to go on record I’m not going to recuse myself and for good reason.” Ms. Lawrence requested that Council give SRM the Hodgson Memo to be fair since Mr. Hodgson handed the memo to CiViK at the July 1st hearing. Councilmember Hodgson ackowledged doing so and said that he wanted to supply the same memo to SRM but could not.
The approved McLeod office building is 4 stories tall. SRM was asking for 5 stories for their residential / Bank of America project. Because residential floors require less height than office floors, the BofA project would have been one foot taller than the McLeod building, if approved. The view for the minority on the Council were summed up by Councilmember Mary-Alyce Burleigh when she said, “At the end of the day what we’re really being heartbroken about is one foot.”
Fortunately for CiViK, four members of the Council didn’t see it that way. This appeal started on April 15th and and the Council should never have taken this long to come to a decision. The City Council will not meet again until September.
Related Articles
14 Responses to “B of A is DOA”
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
I have found this entire episode very painful and unpleasant. I am relieved that it has ended. Personally, I thought the final SRM design was the best of the bunch and I would have been fine if it had been built. It is private property and I do not like the idea of a city dictating what private property owners do with their property. It sounds a bit too Soviet for me. My concern going forward is how Kirkland’s economy will suffer without the influx of construction dollars we keep throwing away. Meanwhile we spend time and money on a “Sustainable Economy” study. How much lower is the economic output when you require “sustainability” to be a factor by force of law? That is a number the report does not show.
[Reply]
I hope civik got it’s moneys worth. They hung in there till the bitter end like a prize fighter. I say good for you. The system works! I’m going to Disneyland!
[Reply]
Does anyone know what CiVik wants? We know they didn’t want what SRM was proposing . . . does the approval of the McCleod project render the two stories on Lake Street argument moot? If that fifth floor was shaved off would the proposal go through? Are we done talking about a bank? Did we ever figure out what type of business it is?
[Reply]
The one thing I took away from this is:
1. If a developer submits a plan that meets the City code;
2. Follows the process;
3. Accepts neighborhood input through mandated public input meetings;
4. Gets the approval of the DRB and the City Planning
Even satisfying points 1 through 4 from above, that a potentially small and exclusive group, well-connected, well-funded, making considerable campaign donations to key council members can file an appeal and win with the current make up of the Council members by making the case that the “project” doesn’t comply with the downtown Kirkland Comprehensive Plan.
I thought that CiViK’s arguments last night regarding parking were, IMHO, weak. I don’t think that CiViK proved that any egregious violation of the City Code or the Comprehensive Plan was violated. I think the entire decision essentially rested on whether a bank is considered “Superior Retail”. And, IMHO, even though a hotel was needed in downtown Kirkland (Heathman), I think given the fact that Kirkland “needed” one shouldn’t imply that a Hotel is superior retail. True, it provides beds, but as a pedestrian in downtown Kirkland that lives nearby, I really have no reason to go in to the Hotel on a regular basis. It simply isn’t “superior retail”. So, IMHO, I feel that CiViK has “raised the bar” as to the definition of “superior retail”.
Also, as far as I know, I have never seen publicly listed either the number of people that comprise CiViK, I only know who key people are. I have no idea if CiViK really represents a balance of the views of people that live in, or visit often the downtown Kirkland area.
Where to go from here?
Perhaps starts a neighborhood group called something like, “Citizens For Pro-Active Development” (CAPD). It’s a group, with a published list of members that are in support of new development projects for the downtown Kirkland area. The group:
1. Takes a very active role in the existing public review process for projects submitted to the DRB for approval.
2. Holds townhall meetings with Council members where all citizens can attend, to discuss the pros/cons of downtown Kirkland development.
3. Represents the views of people who are for downtown Kirkland development and do not want to see small exclusive, well-funded and well-connected groups that make key campaign donations kill projects.
4. Has the clout to work with developers, in fact to be sought out by developers as a general stamp of citizen and neighborhood approval for projects.
5. Is not a “rubber stamp” group, meaning the group is not just “pro development”, but “pro development” with the idea of supporting the construction of attractive, functional and balanced buildings that support a vision for the downtown Kirkland area.
EOM
[Reply]
Tia,
I don’t think it would have mattered if SRM had shaved off the 5th floor. If SRM had punted the bank off the first floor entirely, the project might have been approved. IMHO, the “superior retail” argument is the only thing that was holding up the approval. If you listened closely to last night’s meeting, SRM, I believed stated, that BoA stipulated that no other bank could be on the site for 30 years. However, that doesn’t mean that BoA had to remain at this spot for 30 years. In the unlikely event that BoA decided to lease its space out, retail could have moved in.
Did CiViK actually offer any changes to SRM’s design to meet their needs? Since the deliberations between CiViK and SRM were secret, we’ll never know. Perhaps CiVik did offer some suggestions, perhaps CiViK could never meet with SRM, the public will never know. Regardless, CiViK does not represent the City and has no say over what should be approved. After last night though, I’m not so sure.
EOM
EOM
[Reply]
Or you can go to http://www.kirklandrecall.com and SIGN THE PETITION
We’ll never get away from back door politics until we clean house.
Our house won’t be clean so long as Mayor Lauinger keeps his seat.
Period.
[Reply]
Call your neighbors, call your friends, call anyone who cares about the future of The City of Kirkland and
go to http://www.kirklandrecall.com and SIGN THE PETITION
[Reply]
EOM said:
Where to go from here?
Perhaps starts a neighborhood group called something like, “Citizens For Pro-Active Development” (CAPD). It’s a group, with a published list of members that are in support of new development projects for the downtown Kirkland area. The group:
1. Takes a very active role in the existing public review process for projects submitted to the DRB for approval.
2. Holds townhall meetings with Council members where all citizens can attend, to discuss the pros/cons of downtown Kirkland development.
3. Represents the views of people who are for downtown Kirkland development and do not want to see small exclusive, well-funded and well-connected groups that make key campaign donations kill projects.
4. Has the clout to work with developers, in fact to be sought out by developers as a general stamp of citizen and neighborhood approval for projects.
5. Is not a “rubber stamp” group, meaning the group is not just “pro development”, but “pro development” with the idea of supporting the construction of attractive, functional and balanced buildings that support a vision for the downtown Kirkland area.”
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA! And that this topic will be moved to a new thread. Don’t be surprised if you have some CiViK supporters on CAPD. Like you, I do not know the membership of CiViK other than the visible two or three, but I feel strongly that CiViK’s objectives have been grossly mislabeled and misunderstood. I know many of you disagree, but let’s not rehash what has been said and try to move forward - proactively.
[Reply]
All,
Watching B. Nahon blather on about her (and CiVik’s) concern for “all of Kirkland’s citizens” made me laugh (in a sick way). What is clear is that CiVik has a limited universe of very private interests.
I’ve commented here, and in newspaper letters, that the Mayor and his close allies don’t seem to have any “vision” for Kirkland. At one time, private conversations with Lauinger made me think that he had a decent vision of Kirkland’s future, and sad to admit, I contributed to his campaign and actually held a sign for him at a rainy intersection. Now I see that the Mayor’s capabilities are limited to a very strict and doctrinaire reading of the legal and guiding documents of the city.
In this way he is an ideal tool for CiVik’s reactionary approach to development. The substance of the development is irrelevant. They will use the imperfect placement of commas and semi-colons to back up their semi-legal arguments in favor of preserving the views of their condo cohort. As Councilmember Burleigh observed –12 inches is the difference we’re talking about.
And, in the end they have carried this day with their “Rovian” schemes. It would be too kind to say that Nahon and CiVik have “allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good.” It seems that their aim is not the “perfect” but merely a literal interpretation of the documents at hand.
jiminkirkland
sign the petition!!!! http://www.kirklandrecall.com/
[Reply]
Why do I get the idea that the Monday whitewash and Tuesday BofA denial is just round one.
In another thread that was blasting the Sun and Mr. Gilday they asked us to do some “Googling” about cottonwood trees and the roots of The Eastside Sun, so we did. We came up with one amazing quote from a planning department employee -
“While it may look on the surface that he is getting a raw deal or that he tried to work legally, by the letter of the law he broke the law and has to pay the penalty”
Are you listening Mr. Hodgson?
Are you listening Mr. Lauinger?
We enjoyed the Recall meeting last night and just wish it hadn’t been on the same night as the council meeting but I guess there were fireworks enough for both!
sign the petition!!!! http://www.kirklandrecall.com/
[Reply]
Murph:
I can’t help but think that politically speaking, that the Council is looking for a way to basically “take the temperature” of the reaction of the public to either accepting or denying an application, such as the SRM BoA project. I feel that if an organization existed, such as I defined above through CPAD (I think I initially got the acronym incorrect), that could give the council a pretty good temperature of “for/against” for any one project. Right now, the Council may hear “pin-point” views of people in support of a particular project, but on the flip-side, they have an “organization” of an unspecified number of people that proclaim to represent the “people” of Kirkland, but with no published list of members…which could be 10 maybe! I think the vision for CPAD should be transparency, published members, open meetings where the Council or any other group within the City is invited to attend in a respectful, non-threatening environment. If the reputation for CPAD were to grown such that the Council and Developer’s respected it’s input, felt it really represented a cross-section of Kirkland area citizens/residents and even people that come here for work but don’t live in the downtown area, this would dilute the effectiveness of groups such as CiViK that keep unpublished member lists, etc. In otherwords, that campaign donation, legal as it is, would have less influence on a voting member of the Council, or other City members for that matter.
My $0.02 worth.
EOM
[Reply]
As I said, I think it is a great idea and I hope others hop on the bandwagon. I do think, however, that an organiztion such as this should be limited to Kirkland residents. I look at this as a way to eliminate the NEED for groups such as CiViK. A forum that welcomes diverse opinions and new ideas, working together to effect better decision making at the City level (Council, DRB, Planning, etc). And yes, hopefully it would give the City a temperature reading, particularly as it pertains to development. Perhaps there are already groups such as this that the City has appointed, but a pro-active grass roots group that conducts itself responsbily could have an impact.
[Reply]
Murph:
I’m in agreement 100% with what you have stated above.
EOM
[Reply]
I don’t get it. It’s not right.
City Council is not doing right by the citizens of Kirkland. Why?
The last major project in downtown Kirkland was shot down based on a campaign waged by by people whose views would be comprimised by development at the corner of Central and Lake Washington Blvd.
This one (BoA) is more political, not less.
What do I want?
- I want city council to be responsible about approving projects which are within the zoning guidelines
- I want a vibrant downtown
- I want the backward looking bunch of no-good-niks to realize that they are hurting, not helping our city and community
- I want more parking so the merchants can have a reasonable shot at covering their rents
- I want Kirkland to be the place that people who don’t want Bellevue, but do want “today” to look towards
With all that we have going for us, the list above - and much more - is not too tough. We’ve got a great opportunity to be a model in the US and the world. Efficient, semi-urban living with a repsect for our environment, that maximizes its place on this planet. More important, we can do more for the people who live and work in our community.
We have an amazing home city, with tremendous potential to be much more special than it is today. Settling for anything less is sad. Our elected leadership needs to broaden its view, open its eyes and ears and take charge of the opportunity we have.
Unfortunately, those who have the most opportunity to be “active” on issues like this don’t reflect the views and desires of the majority.
[Reply]