Point/Counterpoint: Touchstone on Kirkland Parkplace Parking
What is Point/Counterpoint?
Point/Counterpoint is a three-week series focused on the issues surrounding the redevelopment of Kirkland Parkplace. Both Touchstone and Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development have agreed to participate and abide by a predetermined schedule and set of “rules”.
The purpose of this series is to inform and educate the people of Kirkland of the facts. Both sides of the debate will discuss the major issues surrounding Kirkland Parkplace: Parking, Traffic and Social & Economic Impact.
The Participants
Touchstone — owner of Kirkland Parkplace, plans to redevelop into mixed-use office/retail/hotel
Touchstone is a Seattle-based firm that believes sustainable development is the key to long term linked prosperity for our business, our community and our society. Touchstone plans to redevelop the site into “a community hub with lively retail, active open space and strong pedestrian connections to downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.”
Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development — opposition group, opposes Parkplace redevelopment as planned by Touchstone
Mission Statement: CRD support re-development in Downtown Kirkland according to the Comprehensive Plan for Kirkland. We believe that the future re-development must take into account the distinctive topography of our downtown, respect its hometown setting, and retain its human-scale and pedestrian orientation.
Topic: Parking
By A-P Hurd
Throughout the public-review process of Touchstone’s proposed redevelopment of Kirkland Parkplace, parking has been one of the primary topics of discussion among local residents, business people and other community stakeholders.
It should come as no surprise: For as long as anyone can remember, there’s been a parking deficit in the downtown area. With Touchstone proposing a full-scale redevelopment of Parkplace, many are wondering how the new project would affect this situation.
Put bluntly, the parking in Touchstone’s proposed mixed-use redevelopment plan will completely satisfy the needs of residents, workers and visitors — day and night — when they shop and enjoy the many other offerings of this wonderful lake-side community. Moreover, the City has developed a binding Parking Management Plan that includes a host of management tools — including monitoring — to prevent parking from the project from spilling out into the surrounding neighborhoods.
Best of all, the new parking spots will be underground, which none of the previous proposals could finance. Building underground parking is an expensive way to do it, but one that Touchstone is committed to because it provides a more aesthetic experience for Kirkland’s downtown, and a better pedestrian experience accessing the site.
The model for parking demand used in developing the project plan is based on a “shared parking” methodology that, for decades, has been used to accurately calculate parking demand during different times of day at similar mixed-use projects across the country.
Here’s the idea:
Around 11 a.m. each weekday, the largest number of Touchstone’s 3,650 total planned spaces will be occupied in the Parkplace underground garage. At this time of day, most office workers will be at their desks. Retail and hotel parking demand for this time of day are then added to the office demand, leading to a peak demand level. A buffer is then added on top of this to make sure that drivers don’t have to circle around looking for a spot. That total number (corresponding to peak demand plus a buffer) is the number of parking spots Touchstone will build. During the weekday early-morning and evening hours, as well as over the weekend, there will be hundreds of spaces available to the public.
These figures do not solely represent the opinion of Touchstone. The company has sought input from a wide range of professional sources, as it prepares to invest nearly a billion dollars in this total project redevelopment. The truth of the matter is, the project will fail if there’s not enough parking. Touchstone will not be able to secure retail tenants if they’re not comfortable with the parking capacity. And if Touchstone has difficulty leasing retail space at Parkplace, it will lose money on the project.
With that said, Touchstone calculated anticipated parking demand using several standard industry methods. One is an analysis that most transportation engineers use for their mixed-use-project parking analyses, taken directly from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) “Parking Generation” manual. A third-party consultant, Jones and Stokes, hired by the City of Kirkland to develop Parkplace’s DEIS, in addition to Kirkland’s Parking Advisory Board and its Public Works Department, all agree with the shared parking methodology as it relates to Parkplace’s proposed redevelopment.
A-P Hurd is a vice president with Touchstone Corp., the owner and developer of the Kirkland Parkplace property. More information on the project is available at www.envisionkirklandparkplace.com.
In addition, the City’s has created a detailed Transportation Management and Parking Plan designed to ensure the redevelopment meets the parking assumptions made in the EIS (the final draft is set for issuance on Oct. 9). It includes stiff penalties that can be levied by the City if the parking in the project fails to perform as expected.
Touchstone is committed to creating a new Kirkland Parkplace that has the necessary parking to serve its on-site tenants and local residents and visitors to the downtown core. The assumptions that Touchstone, the City and various independent consultants have made are conservative; there will be an abundance of parking, even during peak-usage hours.
More information on the project is available at www.envisionkirklandparkplace.com.
Please visit the other half of this debate: CRD’s Point on Parking at Kirkland Parkplace
Update: CRD’s Rebuttal
Enough Spin. It’s Time for Real Numbers
By Cindy Smith
Kirkland’s parking code provides 2.86 spots per 1,000 square feet of office. That’s in line with what commercial brokers say tenants expect, and what mixed-use developments like Redmond Town Center provide.
Touchstone’s “shared parking” is only an “idea” for Kirkland, using data from nationwide studies. To be valid here, they must provide data based on Kirkland’s characteristics.
Touchstone is not providing enough parking to share between offices and retail. Do the math…four workers per 1,000 square feet (assuming 90% are at work) of which 78% drive alone will total 3,370 cars. Of Touchstone’s 3,650 spots, just 280 will remain for carpools, retail, hotel, health club, etc.
They tout the parking management plan, which our cash-strapped city will be responsible for enforcing. Will the city really be patrolling private lots? How would “monitoring” stop parking from spilling into the neighborhoods? Downtown businesses and nearby neighborhoods will pay the consequences when parking becomes significantly worse. Customers will have no place to park, and residents will have to give out parking permits when guests come to visit.
Underground parking IS expensive, and that’s why Touchstone is trying to cut corners. Enough spin - it’s time for real numbers from Touchstone.
For more information visit www.KirklandCRD.org
Print This Article
Related Articles
21 Responses to “Point/Counterpoint: Touchstone on Kirkland Parkplace Parking”
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
Touchstone’s calculations are so different from the ones that CRD uses. What gives? What is the history of this type of parking calculations? CRD says it is risky and produces too little parking. I can see how a builder would want to limit costs and having excess parking may or may not be a good thing. How are other Kirkland developments dealing with parking requirements? Is it Touchstone’s way or is it CRDs way? Does an office tenant get a guaranteed parking space during certain hours? Where would shoppers park during those hours? Will parking spaces be like those in Bellevue Square - LARGE in size? Or will they be made for sub compact cars only?
I am on the fence for this project and parking is a big issue in Kirkland already. I too far to walk to your property and the buses are too far away and just don’t make sense where I live. I will be stuck using a car to reach you. How can Touchstone IMPROVE our parking situation and therefore be an asset for when we want to visit other things in downtown. The current parking garage under the library is too small and at peak times it is nothing more than a revolving door of cars driving in and then out because they can’t find a parking space. 80% of it is PERMIT ONLY! Some use that is for the public. How will Park Place help us out on this issue of parking sparsity? Redmond Town Square is a different animal than what you have planned. It is spread out with multiple parking garages/lots. How you plan for ease of ingress and egress are key elements to your development. Those issues are CURRENTLY very bad at Park Place. If you don’t plan for easy, open, non-claustrophobia inducing inviting garages you will suffer dearly from lack of visitors. If you plan accordingly, you can make it successful. The Eastside does not yet have underground parking for malls that work well. Lincoln Square is marginal only because it has large spaces that are well lit. Bellevue Place is horrible parking garage. It is confusing to know which elevator to use, where you parked, how to get out, it is awful. The Galleria in Bellevue is the worst. Small parking spaces, not well lit, long lines to get out when there are more than three cars ahead of you, tight corners. This should be a study of what not to do and you will notice that the Galleria is Bellevue’s least successful mall. No wonder. One trip down into the underground bowels and you never want to return. Learn these lessons well. Show us you have done so or I will be one who will oppose your project. Show us how you will make Park Place an asset to us and to our downtown and answer the questions we have. If you make sense then I will support it.
Jasper M.
[Reply]
A-P Hurd Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 11:17 am
You raise a number of very important topics of discussion related to parking. First, please know that the methods Touchstone has used to calculate parking requirements as well as to create the best-possible parking environment represent a combination of industry-based research and our own thorough assessment of other regional projects.
To that end, we’ve calculated anticipated parking demand through, among other sources, the new “Parking Generation” manual produced by studies that engineers from Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) use for their mixed-use-project parking analyses. In addition, there are a number of others who support these parking calculations, including the third-party consultant, Jones and Stokes, who was hired by the City of Kirkland to develop Parkplace’s DEIS; Kirkland’s Parking Advisory Board; and its Public Works Department. They all agree with the shared-parking methodology as it relates to Parkplace’s proposed redevelopment.
Also note that Touchstone has decades of experience creating safe, well-lit and well-signed parking garages that provide for easy ingress and egress as well as an aesthetically pleasing garage environment. Our standards for these projects, we feel, exceed the industry’s norm, so we’ll make every possible effort to ensure that Kirkland Parkplace’s underground garage are both functional and pleasing to the everyday user.
[Reply]
Ms. Hurd,
I didn’t see the question about the short plat sign answered on another thread. What is the current status and has it changed recently. I don’t have time to go to planning meetings and I have not read anything in a long time about Parkplace.
[Reply]
A-P Hurd Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Dave - Following is a reply we logged today to the original Short Plat question, posed by Moss Babe:
The Short Plat application is not part of a plan to sell the property. It relates to the office-alternative plan that Touchstone has proposed to the City just in case the mixed-use plan is not approved this winter.
As we’ve stated numerous times at public forums, Touchstone believes both plans offer numerous financial benefits to the City, and area retailers, though the sales-tax revenues generated by the mixed-use plan would be far greater. But no matter which plan is ultimately approved, you can be assured that Touchstone would create a high-quality, sustainable project.
As for the current status of the project, the final EIS will be issued later this month by the City. On Oct. 23, there will be a public forum at City Hall as part of the Planning Commission’s review of Touchstone’s proposed mixed-use redevelopment plan. And, in mid-November, the Commission will formulate its recommendation to City Council, which plans to vote on the future of the project on Dec. 16.
In parallel, Touchstone is continuing to work with the Kirkland Design Review Board on its office-alternative redevelopment plan for Kirkland Parkplace.
[Reply]
Isn’t Kirkland supposed to be a pedestrian friendly place? We’re supposed to ride the bus, walk and bike. I would think that the less parking the less vehicular traffic. What’t wrong with that? Council Member Sternoff has said many times that the Downtown is home to over 5000 people. I would think that with that population in a relatively small area that whatever is built will do just fine. Build it and they will come!
Al
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
October 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am
Al,
Are you suggesting Kirkland deny the fact that well over 90% of all commutes are by SOV? Yes Kirkland is a pedestrian-friendly place, but should we put our heads in the ground and ignore facts? Are the 5000 people downtown enough to support Parkplace? I don’t know, but just incase they aren’t, wouldn’t it be a good idea to have ample parking for that other 90% of the people who aren’t as fortunate as some as to be able to walk, bike or ride a bus? Do you think people driving to a mall with too little parking will think to themselves, “hmm… parking in Kirkland is impossible. I think I will take the bus here next time!” They wont. Instead they will drive to Redmond or Bellevue and Kirkland will lose out yet again.
To me it makes sense to accommodate both pedestrians and vehicles. They are not mutually exclusive and to pretend they are is pure folly. What is your wildest estimate of public transportation usage in 10 years? How about in 20 years? From what I read we will be lucky to get between 10%-20% of trips on public transport. So what should we do about the 80%-90% of the rest of the population? It seems to me that the prevailing wind is to ignore them. How do you suggest we equitably deal with this issue, Al?
[Reply]
al czervik Reply:
October 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Rob,
All good and fair questions. My answers:
If nothing else the economic lesson we have just learned with rising prices of petroleum is that people will find alternatives to their cars. Buses are full and the demand for more is what is driving the Sound Transit Bond. I would suggest that the reason we see so much traffic is that Kirkand does not have centrally located goods and services that people want. We are forced to get into our cars and go elsewhere for nearly everything intstead of using alternative modes of transportation within our own city. My point about the 5000 full time residents downtown is that combined with the office population and guest accomodations is that there is critical mass to support a superior Park Place type development. Additonally the synergy from Park Place will allow other businesses located in the Downtown a chance to draw a larger customer base. The fact is that people will drive to Bellevue and Redmond anyway. I think you are miss interpreting that Park Place is meant to meet every need of every shopper. I doubt that will happen.
My estimate for pubic transportation usage is that within the next 10 years the social engineering that we are seeing now regarding climate change and sustainability will dictate fewer SOV trips and more pubic transportation. This isn’t my idea but what I am reading about happening in other parts of the Country and what has been the norm in Europe for some time. It will not be our choice but rather the way things are. We have an aging population that is generally more active today. The baby boomers, gen X’s,gen Y’s and gen Z’s will live longer and grow up walking, biking, motorcycling and using public transportation.
In the end I don’t care if they build the extra parking or not. The belief expressed here that somehow the developer will do this for free is a falacy. Anyone who shops there will pay for it.
I didn’t make the rules I just understand them!
Al
[Reply]
We are told this project can create 6,000 jobs. Yet, when we look at the numbers CRD provides, we can see even with the promised aggressive parking plans, the project falls well short of parking. Even if they only employed 5,000 they are proposing few parking spaces than would be needed for the workers. At 4,000 employed they would have just enough. And that doesn’t including shopping. I fear the parking issue most of all as it will spill out onto the street and impact traffic too as people troll for spots.
And these parking studies Touchstone cites, does this mean our own city parking codes are not accurate? Why didn’t they study Parkplace before they kicked out the tenant? Seems that would have given a more accurate picture.
There is a lot of money at stake…I am suspicious of Touchstone’s motivation in cutting the parking so much. I hope our city leaders address this before passing it on.
[Reply]
H.P.W. Reply:
September 30th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
With all due respect City Girl, using CRD parking numbers is irrelevant. Touchstone owns the property and is attempting to build on it. The CRD is merely opposing. Touchstone has to use real numbers backed by experts. If the city agrees with them, then they are happy. If the city thinks their numbers are wrong, then they wont get to build. CRD has no accountability because it has nothing to lose, no money on the line. They only lose a battle and have the emotional scar of the fight. That is unless you are protecting a view and then you have about a million reasons to gin up dear and loathing among the people.
I caution you on relying on CRD because they can say anything they like with no basis in fact. Touchstone cannot because they would be nailed for it if they did. I suggest you get your information from more than one source.
[Reply]
City Girl Reply:
September 30th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
HPW
With equal respect, 1.2 million square feet of offices results in 4,800 - 7,200 (based on an industry average of 4 - 6 employees per 1,000 square feet). Now add retail employees. So the numbers CRD is showing are VERY relevant, no matter who owns the property.
I would LOVE to get my information from Touchstone, but I don’t see them providing any REAL numbers, just “ideas” and telling us not to worry. Why don’t they do a chart similar to what CRD shows that talks about how many employees expected to park on any given day (i.e. 6,000 employees, assuming 90% come to work each day and 78% of those in single occupancy vehicle, hmm already I’m at 4,200 plus cars). My point, when the proponent is hiding behind rhetoric without giving real facts and numbers, I get suspicious.
As for the city making the right decision, you will pardon me if I am giggling, but I beleive we all have reason to worry there.
I think CRD, like any other citizen’s group is interested in credibility. Understand they have a point to make, but on this parking issues, they have raised real concerns I am interested in seeing answered.
[Reply]
A-P Hurd Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
There’s detailed information, including concrete statistics that have been produced by an impartial consultant, Jones & Stokes, in the Draft EIS located at the City’s Web site at http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/__shared/assets/Environmental_Impact_Statement_Draft8338.pdf.
In addition, the Final EIS, which will be issued in the next week by the City, will include additional third-party statistics on this very subject.
You’re welcome to follow the math on our Point/Counterpoint write up, the DEIS and the upcoming FEIS, or contact me directly at aphurd@touchstonecorp.com to discuss these numbers in greater detail. Thanks.
[Reply]
What are the “stiff penalties” the city can levy if parking is not adequate? What is the “Parking management Plan”? These things are a mystery and they scare people like me. I want Parkplace to be a fun place to stroll and walk and browse and shop and eat. I want to go there every day. But if parking is screwed up, then I wont. If parking is screwed up there wont be enough of a penalty to make it worth the problem it will cause for Kirkland. Touchstone if you are listening tell us what is happening and answer these questions. I am a realist and I will accept height if we have a good experience at street level for walkers. Parking must be underground.
[Reply]
A-P Hurd Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The Final EIS, which will be issued by the City in the next week, will have lots of information on the
Transportation Management Plan, including parking-monitoring and trip-reduction strategies and potential fines for non-compliance. In the meantime, if you have further needs for information, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly at aphurd@touchstonecorp.com. I hope that helps.
[Reply]
The issue from CBD group that there may not be enough parking seems to be based on everyone who works there driving their own car to work. Surely there will be car-pooling, and walking, and riding the buses to our new transit center. This will result in many fewer parking spaces needed for the folks who work there. We need to use industry accepted tools for these kinds of evaluations, which is what Touchstone used. I would like to support the CRD group but their data is biased to try to prove a point. Their webpage with the information on Parkplace redevelopment further shows their bais. The Central Avenue view shows an 8 story ghost building which has its base at the Avenue level - the actual building would start almost 2 stories below the street level. Their “Views” page shows a similar rendering but with four more stories (instead of three) over the current five stories allowed. Also, the rendering showing solid red buildings dominating the skyline is very misleading when the actual buildings will be tailored with reflective glass and landscaping. A similar “rendering” was done to defeat the proposed development on the downtown parking site. It does not, in any way reflect the real view of the buildings proposed - but, it certainly shows the baised view and attempts to scare us into opposition.
[Reply]
Cami Keyes Reply:
September 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
J.D. Dicks,
If you look at Kirkland CRDs analysis in the counterpoint, we use numbers that include Touchstone’s 78% as single occupancy vehicle. If this occurs, their traffic management plan will have been a success, as typical in Kirkand is 86 - 87%. We also use the Draft Environmental Impact Study that shows 6,100 plus workers (we actually bumped that down to 6,000). So we have not inflated the numbers per your concern.
There will be 1.2 million square feet of office. A conservative estimate (industry standard is 4 plus per 1,000) will mean there are 4,800 office workers. With 300,000 square feet of retail, there will also be additional workers in the stores. And there is a gym, movie theater, hotel, and deliveries. But even if you look at 4,800 workers, and you assume that only 90% are there on any give day and that only 78% arrive in single occupancy vehicles, that’s 3,369 cars (not incluiding the 250 plus carpoolers). Touchstone is only proposing 3,650 spaces. Doesn’t that concern you?
We would all like to see Touchstone provide real models of what the project will look like instead of buildings that disappear into the sky. Our group has made efforts to show the bulk next to the park. These were prepared by an aeronotical engineer with extensize CAD experience and are accurate, despite your statement. We realize the red is unsettling, but should we shoulder the expense of a model that shows REAL human scale. As for the building at the corner of Central Way, keep in mind, Touchstone is asking for 115 feet, plus the things on the roof like elevator shafts, HVAC, etc. 115′– that’s a pretty tall 8 stories.
We get lambasted often, but Touchstone is failing to provide so much, including real parking figures, a true to scale drawing, and committment on what retailers they could attract. Truly, the spin is in their court and being swallowed hook, line and sinker. I urge you all to spend time investigating and ask questions.
Parkplace can be developed into a project larger than the sqauare footage of Lincoln Square in Bellevue. Shouldn’t that be enough?
[Reply]
This is sounding to me like a concerted strategy has formed to kill Park Place. The CRD group has people of many different opinions aligned together to oppose Touchstone’s vision. I understand some of them but others I do not. The strategy of the group seems to be throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
Parking is a difficult issue to understand if you do not fully grasp the concepts offered by both sides.
Some here argue that Park Place should be smaller with 5 stories. What they neglect to say is that 5 stories is an option, but one no one wants because it is an office park without retail. On one hand they say that the comprehensive plans shouldn’t be changed and then on the other hand they say that the city should mandate retail under their ideal 5 story builds.
The more I read the more I think this is really about height. And if that is correct then the true opposition is about preserving views. From a pedestrian perspective looking up at a building with proper set backs you can’t even see the upper floors 3,4,5,6,7 or 8. Having a 2 story facade prevents you from even seeing what is above. The additional office above is what helps create a critical mass of shoppers for the retail and services for all of downtown. This opposition is really about preserving views. Yes, there are many who have legitimate concerns about this project but I bet the big money behind this anti-growth campaign is to preserve views. No other interest would financially gain as much so no other interest would be willing to fund this. If I am wrong, then let’s see the contribution lists and amounts donated to the cause. Views are nice but they shouldn’t stop Park Place from benefiting all of Kirkland.
[Reply]
Shilo,
I assure you we are not about anti-growth at Kirkland CRD. Our city spent considerable time developing the comprhensive plan. One that allows for height and retail. But eight stories and 1.8 million square feet is huge. Too big here and not at all in line with the vision for downtown. The city can mandate retail in CBD 5, the area where Parkplace is. In fact, many feel it was an oversight it wasn’t required to begin with.
The requested variance is 115 feet, not including the items on the top. That is very tall–in fact some have said they could easily build 9 - 10 stories in that amount of space. Many will remember the change to the city when Portsmith went in…imagine three additional stories.
Some will be impacted by the height, diminishing the value of their buildings and the desireability of leases there. Leases I might add that currently house businesses like Nokia and Microsoft–the jobs we need to attract.
Current zoning allows us to build something the size of Lincoln Square in Bellevue. This is the size our city was meant to house. It can house sustainable retail that serves our needs and thousands of office workers.
To build Parkplace as proposed places much in jeopardy, the least of which is views. I encourage you and others who doubt our motives to come to the citizen’s open house tomorrow 10-2 at 365 Kirkland Way, next to St. James Espresso.
[Reply]
Kiss the retail Parkplace that we know today goodbye. We aren’t going to get University Village or Lincoln Square or Redmond Town Center.
We are going to be stuck with a office park that is FILLED, COMPLETELY FILLED with 5 story building with a few teriyaki lunch spots and a Subway… no movie theater no QFC and no upscale restaurants.
With the current zoning Touchstone can build 5 stories right next to the park with limited setbacks and absolutly no retail or entertainment. Those of us that love Kirkland and/or live downtown will probably never even walk onto the property again unless we are employed there.
Bye bye Purple, Rikki-Rikki, Lucia and Park Place Books.
Don’t misunderstand, I don’t blame Touchstone. They have tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the property and deserve to make the highest and best use of it. The current buildings have far outlived their life expectancy.
I blame myopic, self-centered people who don’t respect other’s rights but would hollar like a wounded muskrat if you attempted to tell them what they could do with their property. How many neighbors lost their views when Mr. Davidson built his office building? How many parking spaces are there per 1,000 sq feet in his building?
Oh, I’m sorry… didn’t you know that Mr. Davidson is the money behind KirklandCRD and the owner of the office building adjoining Parkplace to the southeast? I guess that was lost in all their hyperbole about caring about the ‘character and charm of Kirkland’
Did you know that his office building would lose it’s views and be able to demand far less rent per sq foot? Its called free enterprise. Look into it.
We can’t overcome a 14 million dollar deficit with stores closing at the rate of 3 a month in downtown. We can’t keep building parks by buying houses at above market rate and bulldozing them.
We need jobs and 21st century quality retail. We were never Sausalito North. Every crack in the sidewalks is a testament to the horror show that is Kirkland 2008.
P.S.: Save your breath, I know I’m a jerk. I simply don’t try to disguise it by hiding behind a false facade.
[Reply]
Mr. Gilday,
Thank you for further explaining the story I have been trying to tell. Follow the money. It leads directly to Mr. Davidson. Oh and by the way the rumor has it that he has hired Mr. Eustis of the Aramburu and Eustis Law Firm to represent he and his group. For those who don’t remember Aramburu was the lawyer who gleefully accepted the confidential documents from Tom Hodgson during the B of A appeal. Here we go again! Maybe we should have our City water checked. There must be something in it!
Al
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
October 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
al czervik,
You make an interesting point. However, while I may not see eye to eye with Mr. Davidson on this issue, I will make this point:
Mr. Davidson, or anyone else for that matter, should be free from guilt by association.
If Mr. Davidson hired an attorney who is the partner of another attorney who acted in a manner with which you disagree, I don’t see the connection to Mr. Davidson in any way other than guilt by association.
The actions of one attorney should not reflect upon the actions of the client of another attorney.
That being said, what you note is interesting and it may be a reflection of the very limited number of land-use attorneys that handle issues within the City of Kirkland.
Thanks for your comments.
[Reply]
Rob,
I in no way meant to infer guilt or anything else by association. I merely stated a fact that Mr. Eustis is the partner of Mr. Aramburu with whom you and anyone else who has followed the recent land use actions in Kirkland. I do remember at least one case in Kirkland that Mr. Eustis handled.
I am certain in having looked in the phone book that there are more than enough land use attorneys who would represent anyone who chooses to hire them.
I just think it is sad that nearly every land use issue in this City is requiring lawyers. I think that is sad but perhaps a sign of the times.
Al
[Reply]