Kirkland City Council to hold Public Hearings on Building Moratorium
The City Council will conduct two public hearings regarding the building moratorium, both on October 7, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chamber, 123 5th Avenue. These hearings will be open to the public and anyone may speak or submit written comments. Before the hearing, written comments may be submitted to the City Council in writing or via email at citycouncil@ci.kirkland.wa.us.
Two distinct, yet related public hearings will take place on October 7th:
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) MORATORIUM
The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the moratorium adopted by the City Council on September 16, 2008, pursuant to Ordinance 4139. The Ordinance imposes a moratorium on the acceptance of development permit applications within Central Business District (CBD) Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 that would add or create in excess of 500 square feet of gross floor area. At this hearing, the City Council may extend the moratorium for a period of up to six months, repeal, or modify the moratorium.
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) INTERIM REGULATIONS
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider interim regulations which would allow the City Council to hold future public hearings to consider and decide on potential amendments to the Zoning Code and/or Comprehensive Plan related to Central Business District Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 without receiving a recommendation and report from the Planning Commission.
The normal process for amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan is through the Planning Commission. The City Council has determined that they want to amend the Comprehensive Plan without first receiving a recommendation and report from the Planning Commission. A public hearing is necessary prior to taking this action.
The Notice of Public Hearing did not state the reasons why the City Council has chosen this course of action.
Below are the two Notices of Public Hearing for you to download:
Posted by Rob Butcher on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Filed under Council · Tagged with City Council, Comprehensive Plan, Development, Downtown, Government, Moratorium, Planning Commission
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
On the surface it seems alarming that the council is trying to do this without the input of the planning commission. We haven’t been given a reason for this, but I am afraid whatever the majority has in mind is already a done deal. Do we know specifically what amendments the council is considering? What will happen at these public hearings? Has anyone been through this before?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Someone pointed out earlier that this was attempted in 1997 but I wasn’t here then. Looking around here it seems that the Council has lost credibility with a large portion of their electorate. How many people are actually upset at the City Council we will only know when they run for office again. The public hearings are meant to gather people’s opinions. I think that every reader of this web site will quickly guess how the vote will come our. It will be 4-3. The trouble I see is that the Council looks like it makes decisions privately and then springs them only when they know they have votes lined up. It’s wrong for them to make decisions outside of official meetings but that is what I think they are doing. When I think about the public hearing, I assume they will do it again and secretly decide for before the hearing about building heights in Kirkland. The public hearing would be for show and a waste of time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t believe for one minute that a back room decision making conspiracy exists. It is no secret that the Council is split on how they view the process of downtown development and they vote accordingly. It is not more complicated than that.
That said, I find this double public hearing quite confusing. Hopefully someone here can enlighten me without launching into paranoia about a hidden messages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is only a guess and I don’t have inside information but I think that the second hearing is being held so the Council can speed up the process. The Council said they want this to move quickly and waiting for the Planning Commission would be a long process with a moratorium in place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kirkland is dying and there is nothing we can do about it.
Using the councils own website videos as evidence, there is no doubt that the so-called ‘Gang of Four’ (The city newspapers term, not mine) are making deals outside of the city hall council chambers. Wheather its for personal gain or to payback supporters, David Asher, Tom Hogson, Jessica Greenway and Jim Lauinger are doing the bidding of the people behind the scenes.
Wheather its the unions at the park department or the West of Market bigwigs behind Civik, those four members always vote as a block and always come out on the side of no-growth.
Kirkland is dying and there is nothing we can do about it. The decision regarding the moratorium is already decided. There is no reason to waste your time going to the meetings and no reason to write to anyone. People we did not elect have already made the decision and instructed Asher, Hogson, Greenway and Lauinger how they are to vote.
Kirkland is dying and there is nothing we can do about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It looks like Wentworth is pretty much right. The first hearing notice is for the moratorium itself, including whether to end it at 60 days or go on for up to 6 months. The second one for the process that allows City Council to determine any changes themselves, rather than the Planning Commission doing it.
Eliminating the Planning Commission should speed things up, though cutting them out of the process isn’t ideal. But since City Council would examine the whole thing themselves anyway, they might as well handle it from the start.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the “Duck Dodger” – if their is a vote, you know beforehand how that vote will be – Civil 4 – the rest of Kirkland 3.
The Council seems to have determined that since some members of the Planning Commmission has offered objections to their dealing, why invite any more comments – the same attitude that allowed only three speakers against the moratorium.
I keep seeing a term “HYBRIS” – defined as “outrageous arrogance”, and agree, this defines the current Gang of Four.
Yes, the Mayor and his friends need to be removed – I’m thinking it may take a lawsuit!
Civik has shown what damage they can do to the city, and now add to that damage, lawsuits, a large debt, Oh, and yes, a dying Kirkland -all thanks to this Gang of Four and Civik members very active political support of these members.
It’s past time that we citizens stand up and say “enough”! – go away!
Jim has no “Skin” in the game, remember he is bankrupt, and owns no property in the city – so any increase in taxes won’t bother him. Jessica has a business located in Seattle, that could be moved her, but I guess, she finds the Kirkland business climate not to her liking – no doubt the way she votes. Tom should be removed for legal reasons, and Dave, a bitter disapointment, he is smarter than the rest and should know better, but then, he too, does not work in the community and does not feel the pain of their actions.
It used to be, that City Council members were part of the community, belonged to the various service groups, owned businesses, etc. this is how they kept pace with the cities and peoples desires – this gang of four are not part of the cities service or busness community – other than in their paid positions.
This may explain why a protest group has such power over them.
There is no reason to attend these meetings, the vote has already been taken. Do you honestly feel they want to hear our comments anyway? I believe they already have their marching orders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hybris, or hubris if you prefer, is dead on. Dave Asher waxes on about how they have this one chance to get it right, how they can’t make any mistakes with this. Please. He talks about how previous moratoriums came about after “something” was installed on the landscape. I wish he would elaborate on what he thinks that was. This majority sounds like they think they know what “right” is, so they’ll fix it now and we’ll be done with all this messy business. The rest of us can sit back, pay our rising property taxes, and continue to shop in Bellevue and Redmond.
This public hearing is occurring about a month into the moratorium. Has anything been done? If not, that can only mean the moratorium will be extended. That’s their idea of moving quickly on this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All good comments and observations. I didn’t know anything was broken Downtown except the sidewalks and many of the buildings with old and tired facades. How in the world the Mayor and his posse can possibly know how to fix what isn’t broken is beyond me. Not using the Boards and Commissions they appointed because it would take to long to work the process is an interesting tactic. As was said previously said, none of the Gang have any real knowledge or education on the subject so it does make me wonder if the fix is in? Meantime those of us on fixed incomes can only wonder what would have happened in this town if the market had been allowed to do what it does best: find equilibrium. Unfortunately we are in for higher taxes. Most certainly our taxes would have been mitigated with new development. Further the Mayor and his cohorts could have really walked the walk of how we don’t have to get in our cars to go to other cities to do our shopping. First no annexation and now no development. At least these guys are consistent!
Al
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What generally concerns me regarding how the Council appears to operate…is that in general, at the Council hearings I hear no real lively debate. What little debate I do hear is typically Mary-Alice, McBride and Sternoff offering different angles to why what the GOF want to do is not in the best interests of the City. However, the flip-side can’t be said (IMHO) for Jim, Jessica, Tom and Dave (the GOF). I would *love* to hear some lively debate offering equally opposing viewpoints from the GOF but in general I don’t hear this…they just softly agree with one another. It is this observation why I personally, have lost faith in the Council to decide anything utilizing a *real* open process versus what we have now (GOF deciding privately how they will vote), then springing the topic.
Also, IMHO, while I’m not in favor of a moratorium (I see no evidence of a dire need to have one), I would rather see a 3 or 4 month process that includes the Planning Commission rather than the KCC deciding themselves what changes should be made…this situation will be “ripe” for people to say that whatever the KCC decides is influenced by CiViK and other campaign donors…in otherwords, I don’t want for elected officials to be determing in what shape/form the downtown KCP should change…
My $0.02 worth.
EOM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think there is a secret cabal on the City Council. What we are witnessing is simply individuals voting along philosophical or political lines.
Is it surprising that an elected body of seven individuals is evenly divided on many issues? No. This is the nature of politics in our city and across the country. Just look at our electorate, our legislatures and our courts. There is little consensus today.
Is it surprising that the same individuals seem to line up together on issue after issue? Perhaps, but that too is likely an example of individuals who share common outlooks voting in similar patterns.
I believe that individuals on the Council are voting for what they individually think is best for the city. No one on the Council is out to destroy Kirkland. Each Councilmember has a unique perspective that is shaped by their background, associations, experiences and politics. These aspects influence their world views and therefore how they vote on issues. The more similar people’s backgrounds, associations, experiences and politics are, the more likely the chances that they share similar world views.
That is how I see things.
Regarding similarities in voting patterns, I have not seen a breakdown of voting patterns for Kirkland citizens but it would be interesting to see if certain neighborhoods turn out the vote better than others. Some neighborhoods have been more successful at nurturing candidates to the City Council. North Rose Hill, for example, has four residents currently on the Council. Moss Bay has two and Norkirk has one. Since Kirkland elects our Council at large, the entire city votes on each Council seat and Councilmembers represent the entire city not just their respective neighborhoods. That said, it is interesting to see the concentration of Councilmembers in just three neighborhoods.
Often similar views are held by individuals who share common experiences. In North Rose Hill, the expansion of the Honda dealership was a galvanizing common experience and the neighborhood became very politically active (perhaps it has always been, I just don’t know). As a result, North Rose Hill has become a model for how to politically organize a neighborhood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rob,
You and I have another subject to discuss.
It is very clear to me and I would say many others who contribute to this blog that there is a cabal. This is all about power and keeping it at any cost. This now includes a lawsuit and a clear attempt at rewriting codes and definitions without the open and transparent process that all of these people say they hold sacred. I hope that no-one is out to destroy Kirkland. I do have my doubts as I follow the goings on.
I could buy your explanation of Council behavior and the GOF behavior specically as a divide along philosophical lines if several events had not occured. I will highlight a few.
First, as far as I can tell 6 of the seven belong to the same political party. The 7th has no affiliation with either party as far as I can tell. This was despite Mr. Asher asking Penny Sweet last year at the 45th District Candidates Caucus why she didn’t run against the “Republican Developer?”. Most of us there were shocked at the comment but wrote it off to Asher’s injection of partisan politics into a non-partisan race. These people are on the same wavelength. Unfortunatlely 4 of them seem to have some kind of payback mentality motivating them. It is clear at every meeting I watch. Secondly, the clear undermining of the law’s that all the Council members swore to uphold. Case in point the Hodgson fiasco. If the 4 really had the City’s best interests in mind they would have cut Tom loose. But they didn’t becasue if they did they lose the power. Again not philosophical but certainly for the express intent of staying in power. Thirdly, the moratorium vote. Where is the problem? Why take decisions that have to do with design and potential use away from the DRB? Control and power! These people are playing politics. They are clearly playing to their base of support. The election is a year away and 2 of the 4 are up for re-election. Makes sense to me that with the mistakes these guys have made that they are susceptible to defeat. Even more so if they upset what they perceive as their base. Yes this is politics. Yes the Council can cleary do what they are doing by a decision of the majority. Yes they are doing whatever they want and will. Let’s all call it what it is and not put lipstick on it! This whole situation stinks and the we taxpayers are now and will be paying for their mistakes for years to come.
Not philosophical differences. Just plain lack of leadership and common sense.
Al
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello again, Al. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
You and I are not that far apart on our observations of what has transpired on the Council. Facts are facts. We seem to differ in the conclusions we draw from those facts. You seem to have made conclusions about the motives behind councilmembers’ actions. I have not.
I will stand by my statement until the facts prove me wrong. If and when that happens I will owe you an admission that I was wrong. But until there is proof, I will err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt because of the severity of the claims.
Is it indeed your claim that four of the seven Coucilmembers have broken the law? Or are you claiming only that they play the game of power politics with exceptional ability? The former is of great concern to me if it is proven true. The latter is self-evident.
I am not here to defend the actions of anyone on the Council. From where I stand, much that has transpired this year has sullied our city. In fact, I have been rather outspoken about these issues and my displeasure in how our City Council has acted. I am interested in the truth whatever that may be. When the truth comes out, I want it on these pages. I have neither an ox to gore nor sacred cows to protect.
Personally, I need to be very careful to get my facts straight before I make accusations — as you may have noticed, I choose to comment under my real name. I am very cautious not to make false accusations (a best practice for us all). Pseudonyms do allow others to make unproven accusations with little consequence. For me, I need the facts.
The events you list are indeed troubling, and the explanations you give may very well prove true. If, as you say, individuals have been undermining the laws that they have sworn to uphold, then the more light we can shine on them the better. I am a firm believer in publishing the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. The more the electorate knows, the better decisions we will make.
Shining the light of day on the dark corridors of power is always a very good thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rob,
I think you are splitting hairs here and I am ok with your explanation.
The original subject dealt with a cabal. I still believe this is the case. I have attended several meetings where council members are present. As was noted by another blog participant the GOF always seem to be in close proximity to one another. Strenght in numbers is classic gang behavior. I and others have noticed that there appears to be a clear distancing between the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. I think it is worth asking the Mayor if he even consults with Ms McBride? For that matter does he talk to except when he has to at meetings with Ms. Burleigh or Mr. Sternoff? Others have noted this and it jives with my oberservations and more importantly what the GOF has done.
I don’t think anyone except those who support these people think it is funny or clever. The deceit has proven destructive to the congeniality nad legitimacy of the Council. Clearly so many would not be talking about this if it was not the case. This has and will continue to cost the City dollars and time that need to be spent figuring out how Kirkland will survive with rising costs and reduced development?
The illegal aspect involves Mr. Hodgson. This guy got away with murder. He broke the law and public trust and rather than stand up like a man and take the punishment, he hired a lawyer. I can only surmise that Hodgson’s lawyer threatened the City with a long drawn out lawsuit. The GOF said that wasn’t a good thing for the City. Hodgson got to keep his seat and the GOF move on to more mayhem and mischief.
Neither the Mayor nor his other cohorts appear to understand that the public are seeing all of this. Very strange behavior and well beyond a coincidence.
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
al, I don’t think the GOF are breaking the law.They can talk amongst themsleves as long as they don’t have more than three of them meeting together at once. It isn’t hard to reach agreement on a position with that constraint. I imagine they do a lot of phone calls to each other, and maybe IM’s or emails.
So even if that is legal, is it ethical? To me, probably. I’d say it is only gray if and when Council members, while at a public Council meeting, act like they haven’t talked behind the scenes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is what the mayor told me they are intending to do during this moratorium:
“We will seek to amend only how decisions are made currently via the Design Review Board. I anticipate no change to what development gets or can get in height or mass…only the process and definitions of how this is done.” I’m not sure that meshes with Asher’s comments.
He also told me the Planning Commission has its hands full with Parkplace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m new to posting but I’ve read this blog for months. And it is with all due respect that I disagree with Mr. Butcher. A cabal or Gang of Four definatly exists.
Ask anyone who was at the Commisioners dinner. The GOF all sat together with their puppetmaster Bea Nahon. The other councilmembers were circulating and I’m sure getting an earful.
I don’t know why the newspaper dropped the Recall petition, but don’t let Kirkland Views go down the same path. We need a counterpoint. And we need to replace at least two members running next November – Jim and Tom.
I’ve lived here since college and hate the direction the the city has taken. we are so concerned about being nice we have allowed Tom to make his own law, Jim to try and bankrupt everyopne else, Dave to pull strings from behind the curtain and Jessica to do nothing but get as much mic and camera time for doing nothing as she possibly can.
We need a bloody campaign with no-holds-barred. One that brings out the best challengers and destroys Tom and Jim. Every piece of dirty laundry available must be put on a billboard for everyone to see.
But thats just my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This board is no different than tuning into CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the like every night and I am sick of it!
Anger and Blame…Get over it! We need ideas and solutions, of which I see very little on this forum.
Al and John, surely you are planning to run for the upcoming open Council positions in order to replace those you hate. With your expertise and common sense the Council meetings will undoubtedly be better attended and citizen’s voices heard.
I could counterpoint a claim made by everyone in the above six posts but why bother?
Rob, you make better sense than everyone put together on this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for your comments, Murph. Try not to be dissuaded from action by those with whom you disagree. Inaction is often the same as acquiescence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ghost and Murph,
I am not angry. I am too old for that! I am also not running nor can I run anymore for or from anyone! The only illegal I cited was Hodgson’s actions. The GOF probably are unethical. You are right that there is nothing I nor any other citizen can do about that until the next election. Frankly, I am more concerned about what these guys do to this city before the elections. I am as involved as I can be as are my grown children. I too am looking for some solutions. I know at my age that life is a series of compromises. It does help when the people you are dealing with have some idea of what they are doing to others.
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great! Let’s work new ideas, suggestions and solutions to the proposals before us and stop complaining about the “GOF”, at least until election time. I view a 60-day moratorium as an opportunity to step back and take a deep breath. I hope some new, positive ideas and solutions will come of it. I understand that nerves are on edge and passions run high over recent KCC events, but in my opinion many folks have overreacted to this ‘time out’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al & John,
If you WERE to consider running for council you will find there is a fertile fundraising scene in Kirkland right now. Since Jim doesn’t have two nickles to rub together and Tom may face a lawsuit to recover the $11,500 the city lost due to his actions, the field is wide open!
The Sun will support any opposition to The Gang of Four.
John Gilday
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would have more respect for you and your publication, John, without the personal jabs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0