Point/Counterpoint: CRD on Kirkland Parkplace Traffic
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 entire series can be found at our Kirkland Parkplace page.
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: Traffic
Too Much Traffic In Downtown
By Alex Morse
Imagine a Downtown Kirkland so gridlocked on weekday afternoons, that you will avoid shopping or driving through downtown to get to I-405. How will this affect your current lifestyle and quality of life?
From the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS), we know that approximately 5,800 cars (office employees, office visitors, conference attendees and shoppers) will be trying to leave the Parkplace office complex between 5 and 6 pm.
HOW CAN THERE BE GRIDLOCK?
Try leaving from a downtown garage in Seattle at 5pm, and you will understand the following. You’re parked underground at Parkplace and there are only 3 exits, all with traffic signals. A typical signal allows 20 cars (of the 3,000 cars trying to leave), but only 4 make it onto the street. You are constrained by the signal ahead of you, which is constrained by the traffic metering onto I-405 at 1 car every 20 seconds. It could take an hour to leave the garage and finally head north on I-405.
How do you escape downtown? Per the traffic model in the DEIS, you will learn to cut through the adjoining neighborhoods to bypass the gridlock on Market Street, Lake Street and Central Way and access other on-ramps in Kirkland.
IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
Neighborhood Parking Permits
To avoid paying for parking, and the challenges of getting out of the garage, office employees will park in the neighborhoods. It saves money and will make it easier to get into the queue for getting onto I-405.
The City’s solution will be to institute parking permits in the neighborhoods. This will become a great revenue generator, but be an annoyance to obtain the annual permits for you and your visitors.
Safety
The traffic on Market Street is already at capacity. The Market Neighborhood Association has been so concerned about safety for pedestrians crossing Market Street, they commissioned their own traffic study1. Several of the recommendations have been enacted.
So what can the City do for the residential streets, many without sidewalks, when hundreds of cars are cutting through in an effort to get around traffic? It will take neighborhood advocacy groups complaining to have additional stop signs and traffic circles installed to make the streets safe in the evenings.
Financial Impact
While the City will obtain increased revenue from taxes and permits, the costs to mitigate the traffic impacts are underestimated. The DEIS estimate for traffic mitigation is $13M, yet our Mayor has mentioned it cost Kirkland $1M in 2007 dollars to install 1 traffic signal. The City will have to pick up the inflation costs, and the currently unidentified costs for construction.
Damage to Future Growth Potential
The unanticipated additional 1 million square feet Parkplace office complex absorbs most of the downtown capacity for future growth. The infrastructure of sewers and roads will limit or prevent additional growth in Downtown. We would be trading office space for more beneficial retail space. It will be hard to revitalize Downtown, when we will have to limit new retail space.
Air Pollution
We don’t need to tell you how much carbon monoxide is discharged from 5,000 cars idling in downtown. It won’t be pretty on a warm summer day.
SOLUTION
Touchstone should be required to design and build a project that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The impacts to the Neighborhoods would be reduced, revenue improved, and the growth of downtown can continue.
For more information on Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development, visit www.KirklandCRD.org
Alex Morse is a Kirkland Resident and a member of Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development steering committee, a member of the American Red Cross Disaster Relief, and a Project Manager for the past 18 years building manufacturing facilities for biotechnology companies.
Please visit the other half of this debate: Touchstone’s Point on Kirkland Parkplace Traffic
Touchstone’s Rebuttal:
Think about it:
Like it or not, 1.7 million people are going to move to the Puget Sound region over the next 30 years1. They have to live and work somewhere. We can put them into compact-density (NOT high-rise) neighborhoods that allow us all to have greater access to jobs and services in proximity to where we live, and where we don’t need to get into our cars as much as we do today.
Or, we can have more urban sprawl, more destruction of our wild forests and mountains, more damage to our watersheds and to Puget Sound, more gridlock on our highways, and more contribution to global warming.
The proposed Parkplace mixed-use project is a great compact-density solution to these social, economic and environmental challenges. This is the way to make Kirkland’s downtown thrive like the “good ol’ days.”
And finally, there is a simple, low-tech way to get more than 20 cars per minute out of a parking garage:
It’s called a right turn lane.
Think about it.
1 Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) estimates
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.
Print This Article
Posted by Rob Butcher on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Filed under Point / Counterpoint · Tagged with Development, Downtown, Parkplace, Point-Counterpoint, Traffic
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
“Touchstone should be required to design and build a project that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”
Alex, your words express more than meets the eye because there are two outcomes to this Park Place development with one being an office-hotel-retail mixed use project which will be a boon for downtown businesses and a hive of activity for the community. The other option is a plain office park with out the nice extras we all want. The first option will need some changes to the comprehensive plan. The second option can be built today under current requirements and is the fallback position for the owner of the property. The CRD is forcing the unwanted option #2 on us because of your insistence to any change in the comprehensive plan.
An office park in Park Place would be the worst possible outcome and that is what you are advocating. I can’t support your vision of Kirkland’s future because it is flawed. Kirkland needs the planned development to go forward and it has the support of almost the entire downtown.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex,
I truly do not know what planet you think you are living on? This is a dynamic and changing world. I am sure in your 18 years of building that you have seen numerous changes in the technology. Heck we have even sent men to the moon and spacecraft to mars. Please do not continue to insult my or anyone elses intelligence by trying convince us that the problems you articulate cannot be solved.
The reality is that if forced to build to the current comp plan is that all the City will be much worse off. The aging infrasturcture will still be there. The only difference will be that there not be enough development and redevelopment and the property and sales taxes associated with it to help pay for it. I suggest that if you and your group are truly serious about not wanting Park Place to be developed that you start donating directly to the City coffers to make up for the deficit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
New2Kirkland,
Goodness, your post is very hostile. Being new to Kirkland perhaps you have not developed the laid-back, polite demeanor we are familiar with. And perhaps you are new enough that you don’t recall the planning and angst that went into developing the comprehensive plan–with input from businesses, residents and city staffers. I am sure Alex would acknowledge that just about any problem can be solved, if you throw enough money at it. Where will that money come from?
We support redevelopment of Parkplace under the existing comprehensive plan which would offer enough office and retail to significantly benefit downtown. In fact, we could develop a project there larger than Lincoln Square in Bellevue. And, I might add, significantly improve the city coffers without 13 new police and firefighters, $13 million in infrastructure improvements, and other economic impacts including depreciating value of nearby condos and office buildings due to impacted views.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
?????? Hostile ???????
Hostile is a baseball bat to the solar plexis, a well placed upthrusted knee or a 9mm to the temple.
New2Kirkland wasn’t being the LEAST bit hostile and if you were trying to shame him into silence I am going to guess you failed. New2Kirkland called a spade a spade and was spot on.
When “the laid-back, polite demeanor we are familiar with” includes disingenuous, two-faced, deceitful presentations to the public then I’ll take New2Kirkland over CRD any day.
(OK, that was a little hostile.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with John. Your response is extremely condescending.
I think that citizens in Kirkland and the CDR can learn from what many residents in Seattle understand now. If you really want to make Kirkland a better place you have to accept that Kirkland and the whole region are growing and to simply say no is not an acceptable answer. Change is happening and Kirkland will not be how it was 20 years ago. When citizen groups, the city, businesses and developers get together and forge a common vision and come to consensus on what they want (and what is viable) that is when truly successful buildings and vibrant public spaces are built.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Change is inevitable, but building heights don’t have to be. Look at successful destination cities from Carmel and Sausalito to Newport Beach and see how they have zoned and stuck to it. Every builder comes to Kirkland asking for a variance, because we grant them…why not stick to what we say, it would make the land values in line with what the property can be reasonably developed for.
What’s more, it goes both ways. People and businesses invest in the community based on zoning and what they think will happen around them. If that chanegs, it impacts their investment. Touchstone invested in Parkplace knowing what our zoning was. If they can’t make it work under that zoning, then they should pay less.
I am not opposed to planned density development. I think Vancouver, BC has done a great job of this in some areas, as has Portland. On the other hand, Kirland is a suburb, sought out by businesses and residents wishing to live in such a setting.
And Kirland is not as it was 20 years ago. It is not even as it was 12 years ago. Good or bad, that’s subject to opinions all over the board. But it is not, nor should it be Seattle. Again, that is not what people move here for.
Parkplace needs to be redeveloped. No argument there. But there are so many issues with what is being proposed that have not been looked at, examined and in some cases even asked about, that it makes the BofA project look micky mouse.
Whether you agree or not, we can be civil. We all share and differ on opinions. Those who write the posts here, put their name out there and don’t need to be accused of being unintelligent, uninformed or worse. We are all involved and have an opinion on what should be. The dialogue does not need to be nasty.
I will apologize for taking a less than civilized approach, and encourage a HEALTHY discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
I agree that a healthy discussion is the whole point of this blog but healthy doesn’t mean that I won’t say what I believe.
I believe that we have a fundamental difference of opinion about how we view Kirkland’s future. I believe that Kirkland is the premiere example of how our communities in the future need to be built. And I believe that if this gets build it will positively contribute to Kirkland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously Cami, you want Kirkland to become a Newport Beach? Check the population of NB, 85k. Better work on blocking Bothell’s annexation of Kirkland’s PAA* because Kirkland will need that population base to spread its debt should it continue to limit retail development.
Sausalito and Carmel, are you serious? Apples to Oranges. The population and topography of those two towns are light years away from what Kirkland could ever be, better to look closer at NB. But let’s play along, and say that Kirkland models development after Sausalito and Carmel. Have you checked the standard of living index that the citizen’s of those to city’s live with? Carmel is 271 and Sausalito is 261 while Kirkland is 146. Wanna venture a guess at what Medina’s is? 279. Source: http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Carmel-by-the-Sea-California.aspx which is linked as a statistical authority from Carmel’s city website.
So you want Kirkland to be the “Sausalito of the North,” be prepared for very high property values and taxes. Keep limiting retail, and that’s what you’ll have. Due to the taxing structure in WA, cities NEED healthy retail. Cities with out healthy retail (Kirkland is heading that direction) have higher taxes on their citizen’s and businesses. No way around it folks. Without healthy retail, the local citizens and business always pick up the tab. Check out what’s happening in Edmonds which is quite comparable to the direction the limit development folks want to go. They’re cutting services and raising taxes. Why? Very quaint downtown, but an unhealthy development environment. Sound familiar? BTW, my perspective comes from having an insider’s view of local government. You might try to disagree, but retail drives local WA government services.
*Due to the current financial problems, I’ve decided I’m happy Kirkland isn’t going to annex Finn Hill. Bothell will provide the same services we currently lack at a lower tax rate. Plus, I can still enjoy the lake front, just won’t have to pay for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Finn on the Hill,
Kirkland is, at the moment, looking to raise taxes and cut services, as is just about every other city in Washington right now. It’s a reflection of the economy. Cities need a balance of business and homeowners to be most successful. I agree whole heartedly there.
In no way do I want us to become Newport Beach, I simply used their beach-front area as an example. I beleive whole heartedly in the need to redevelop Parkplace, but I don’t beleive we need 8-stories and 1.8 million sqare feet to make it successful. In fact it could be counterproductive to the success.
Just because we build it, doesn’t mean they will come. And we will likely sacrifice Totem Lake, perhaps the biggest tax boost the city could have. Our city can not support two regional malls.
We can compromise on reasonable development, limit the negative impacts and still keep Totem Lake.
And I would caution you to think an annexation to Bothell will mean you tax rates will stay lower. Let’s see how their economic review comes out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BTW Case and point. I saw this right after I wrote my post
http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/09/02/lessons-from-seattle-community-cooperates-with-a-development/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Downtown Dave,
You are forgetting that our city council could zone Parkplace as it should be to require retail. You will also find by another post on this site that the developers claim to need 7 stories of office to make this work is questionable.
And in regards to the office park being the worst possible outcome, while we would all like to see retail there, did you see in Touchstone’s comments the benefits of having people not have to travel off site for services. Tell me, how will that benefit downtown merchants? Where if it were all offices, people would have to walk downtown for services. Something to think about.
Cami
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But Cami, the downtown merchants support the Touchstone preferred plan. They seem to feel they will benefit.
Who is it that feels he/she knows what is/isn’t economically feasible on this piece of land? I have seen a few calls for five stories with retail, but who has the knowledge to say that it “pencils out?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Tia,
I spoke to many of the merchants after the ad came out on their support. What I came away with is that they want some thing done for certian, but many had concerns about what was being proposed, including parking and traffic. One even said something will need to be done to link the two with a shuttle or something like is available in Bellevue. While in support of Parkplace re-development that would drive people to our city, I would say the merchants are not without their concerns.
If you don’t want to take my word for it, consider Main street in Bellevue. Until recent condo development in the area, the merchants there were starving…no one was making the walk from Bell Square, across the downtown park to Main Street. I think this is a very real scenario here as well.
I would also encourage you to look at the document Rob has included in this site on our critque of the economics of a 8-story development.
Thank you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If our city council rezones park place to require retail then isn’t that contradictory to your organization’s claims about how untouchable the comp plan is???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, the comp plan does not address retail vs. commercial for Parkplace. Zoning codes address this. Most of downtown is zoned first floor retail and if you talk to many in the know, it was an oversight not to zone Parkplace as such. We are all paying the price now. But there is hope. The proposed office complex does not effect all of the parts of Parkplace retail that exist today, at least initially. The QFC and stores across would all remain for now. Not ideal, but not worse case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
I heard your speech last night. I undertand clearly your passion and respect your opinion.
Your desire for the City Council to legislate uses on private property is troubling. I know that you and your group believe you know what is best for Kirkland. I am also sure that there are many others who do not feel as you do. I noted from the address you gave last night that you are not a downtown resident. Do you own any property in the Downtown? It also appears that you have some legal background as you mentioned case law. Are involved in the legal field? What is your connection to Mr. Davidson and the rest of CRD? In fairness, I live North of Downtown (with my daughter and her family when I am here), do not own any commercial property in Kirkland, I am not a lawyer (engineer) and have no connection to any group!
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you Al for respecting my passion and opinion. I am a concerned citizen like anyone else and am offering my help to Kirkland CRD like many other citizens. I shop downtown, do business downtown and am impacted by decisions just as anyone is.
I do not have legal background, but I have researched this and read the legal opinion of a very respected land use attorney, which is why I felt comfortable stating that case law does not support that Touchstone is vested with a short plat application. That said, it doesn’t mean they won’t sue, which would cost the city and is not a good path for us to be on. Ultimately, I belive we would win based on past cases, but there is guarantee as it depends on the judge, the lawyers and the particilar case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This entire discussion is worrisome to this observer. This sounds like CRD and their big money backing is preparing lawsuits and appeals to fight Parkplace. After watching Civik and their success they may think they have support but they do not. Pakplace matters to the economy of Kirkland. The Civik appeal was for one parcel. Parkplace is worth defending vehamently and I can assure you that we will defend this issue against the no growth crowd.
Their true colors are being exposed when CRD asked the council to add Parkplace to the moratorium. CRD must be exposed for what it is. They must be stopped before their well intensioned action destroy Kirkland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
I understand that well respected lawyers can also be wrong. Unfortunately they will also get their day in court and be paid for it even if proven wrong. I know this because I have one son in law and 2 grandchildren who practice business and land use law at major firms in Seattle.
The issue here is multi-faceted. The fact is that our City is changing due to Growth Management. It will continue to change as more people are forced to live inside the urban growth boudary mandated by adopted growth targets. Not only are there population growth targets but also job targets.
As much as you or I would like to think that Kirkland is a stand alone place we are not. The challenge for all of us is to insist what scarce land we have is allowed to develop to the highet and best use possible. Our City is faced with a budget crisis now that can be fixed in the short run. Limited development and no ability to grow our land base is going to doom us. In order to maintain acceptable levels of service for police and fire alone will require property, utility and business taxes that only the priviledged will be able to afford.
The question I have for you and the others who oppose Park Place as proposed is this: Where would you make up the loss of revenue to the City?
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I assure you, no one in our group is expecting or wanting to take a legal route at all. We are hoping the process is done correctly. And we don’t want to see the city wasting dollars defedning a law suit. This is why we sought the opinion of an attorney on vesting so we could understand the legal opinions better.
Al, by your reasoning, we should develop all of Kirkland in high-rises. I recognize we are changing and that growth management will increase our requrirements very soon, but it does not have to be done to this scale in downtown. Our city is more than downtown.
The comp plan allows for a substantial development at Parkplace, well over 800,000 square feet. My concerns stem from the 1.8 million square feet being much to large and causing more harm than good. It will have economic costs as well even if I am wrong and it’s a complete success as promised by the developer.
My plan to increase revenue for the city would be to fully develop Totem Lake. And work with exisiting retailers to package and market downtown and other retail areas to maximum extent possible, per the recommendations of the strategest the city hired, Hovee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
My point is not that every square inch of Kirkland be developed. Growth Management does say that growth should be concentrated in urban areas and that economic development should be sustainable. Totem Lake is already designated as an urban center to handle the needs of the area around it. The revenue for Totem Lake is already planned for by the City. I saw the City adopt the Totem Lake Plan not too long ago. The information on Totem Lake is available from the City Planning Department. Even if Totem Lake is developed residents still need to get there. My original question remains: If Park Place is limited to 800,000 square feet where else in Kirkland is the other 800,000 square feet to be found? Remember that the majority 4 on the Council have made it clear that they want to limit height at Park Lane and on Lake Street.
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al,
Our portion of the growth management act does not require us to develop 1.8 million square feet. In fact, this project will tip us WAY out of proportion on the office to housing ratio. There is no need, then, for me to make a suggestion where the other 800,000 sq feet would come from. They don’t need to come from anywhere. The plan called for maximum development at Parkplace to be 859,000 (give or take).
You are right, economic growth needs to be sustainable. I don’t think, and some well-known planners, economists and retail leasing agents agree, this project is not economically sustainable in this location. Iknow there are other’s who would disagree–that is what’s great about America, we can all have our opinions.
In regards to Totem Lake, the original plan called for offices, but the developer recently decided not to build them.
If you want to find a place to put another 800,000 square feet of leased office, I am sure there are many options downtown and otherwise, Fox cleaner site comes to mind, as does the greek restaurant site, or the US Bank site or the Elks club. But to my knowledge, none of those are up for redevelopment at the moment. There are a lot of places where height can be 4-5 stories and offer office space and retail around Kirkland. And there can be 2 stories and offer small offices as well. There are many solutions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
You are absolutely right. Nothing makes the City develop any specific square footage. The tip out of proportion of housing and jobs will only last until the revised projections for growth are adopted sometime around 2010 and revised again after that. I can assure you that the neighbors who adjoin the sites you name for development (that by the way are all closer to the lake than Park Place) would not welcome your suggestions. I am sure that some of them are your comrades in arms now but will turn on you if that indeed is how you feel. The U.S. Bank site will be a fun one to watch as it will block the views of folks active in CIVIK!
Totem Lake obviously doesn’t work economically for the developer or it would have been built by now. By the way the housing component there was a requirement of the City Council. The thought was that housing in close proximity would be good for hospital and other workers and keep the area vibrant 24/7.
As for your experts I am sure that the proponents could line up just as many experts to support the proposed project. I have read what was published here from your experts. I will wager that should the project be approved, built and is successful that they will not admit they were wrong and refund the money that Mr. Davidson paid to them!
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al,
I did not say any of these sites needed to be outside what the comp plan and zoning calls for. We support development within the comp plan. That is truly what our supporters are about–responsible development.
As for the GMA, I think we will still be out of wack even wiht the new projections. You can’t just keep adding jobs without the housing to support it. We were off balance before Parkpalce, we would be years off with it.
Totem Lake will still have the housing portion, because our city leaders see the need for affordable housing in our city, especially when they can walk to services and healthcare. Too bad offices weren’t required IMHO. What is holding it up this project at this point has more to do with the economy than anything, imparticular with a primary anchor pulling back on any new openings. This is a perfect site for mixed-use development on a large scale with the easy access and amazing visability. It stands to offer significant tax dollars to Kirkland, probably more than Parkplace, if it is fully developed. I would fully support a project the size of Parkplace (square footage in particular) in this location. If it’s all about tax revenue, I suspect you would, too, then.
I challenge Touchstone to find us some local experts to support the 8-stories as required for successful retail. We found about 40 who said “no way.” I am eager to see the developers financial reasoning for this is black and white. Nothing I have found makes it pencil–so I would welcome support for his postion on this….also why 8 stories need to be 115 feet…seems more like 9 plus.
As for those suppporting CRD…there are several who have offered us financial contributions.
It’s been good dialoguing wiht you, Al. You are obviously well informed, but we disagree, plain and simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
IMHO GMA and the numbers are out of wack anyway. I have come to believe that the future here is very compact. Whatever the numbers and projections we get that they are not reality. We are going to be using public transportation and development should be allowed that clusters that close to transit centers. Park Place is a great opportunity for that. The only thing better would have been if the transit center was at Park Place. Mr. Davidson blocked any financially feasible plan for that. 4 and 5 stories anywhere down town whether or not the projects meet comp plan will be objected too. Nobody is willing to accept change when it is in front of them.
Totem Lake from the Developers’s stand point didn’t work when the economy was smoking. Obviously they couldn’t attract enough sustainable retail to make it pencil. It wasn’t one tenant but rather the quality of the rest of the potential tenants that are killing it. I researched DDR and they don’t appear to have made a lot of bad deals at the other hundreds of shopping centers they own.
It is nice to know that the people of CRD are so concerned about Touchstones success at Park Place. The only experts Touchstone needs are the lenders. Their parter is no slouch in financing these projects. They are risk averse by nature and practice. I can assure you that Prudential will not invest up to a billion dollars in something they don’t know will work.
You and I disagree over whether this project is best for Kirkland. I will continue to support it for lack of anything better.
I told you earlier that if Mr. Davidson and cohorts can bring a better deal that provides the same or better amenities, quality and tax dollars equal to or better than what is proposed at Park Place that it should be presented.
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And if we are going to throw out the Comp Plan, then let’s do it completely and unilaterally.
If we are going to throw out the Comp Plan and change the zoning to require Touchstone to put retail on the first floor, then let’s open that retail up to ANY business that wants to rent space. (29 beautiful girls and 3 ugly ones).
If we are going to throw out the Comp Plan, then lets put one 17 story building as the centerpiece of Parkplace. Let’s put a fine clock at the peak as a focal point for all of Kirkland. Let’s put it where the Pancake House is now. Then we can surround it with shorter buildings.
Lets throw out the comp plan (only fair if we require Touchstone to put retail in their alternative plan as she wishes) and go crazy – we might become the next City of Sea-Tac.
If we are going to throw out the Comp Plan then I want a casino on Lake and Central.
While we’re at it, every person that purchased property – commercial or residential – in the last decade should be on notice that the rules, zoning and setbacks will changed on them as well. So what if there was a legal understanding – indeed a LAW – that told people “If you purchase this property, you shall be allowed to do the following with that property…”
According to KirklandCRD, Responsible Development is defined as “doing what WE want you to do with your property.”
Well, I want a Hooter’s on the first floor of Ken Davidson’s office building and I want the council to turn that desire into law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John, I don’t recall suggesting we “throw out” the comprhensive plan, only that zoning be updated to reflect that Parkplace have retail on the first floor (as it was likely supposed to have to begin with–an oversight many would agree).
Zoning is something a city does for the benefit of the greatest number. I see it as something that helps prevent Hooters or Casino’s in inappropriate places, or places where it is not beneficial to the citizens.
Do you not support retail on the first floor at Parkplace? I have not seen a study or evidence provided by Touchstone as to why they need 8 stories to support retail. In fact, our research has found just the opposite, that it doesn’t make economic sense to go higher due to the greater expense of not being able to stick build. And at having to dig deeper to provide parking. (see http://www.kirklandviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/parkplace-rezone-thorpe-final.pdf )
As a city, we can agree we want to see Parkplace redeveloped and I think we agree it would be best to maximize the retail. We disagree on whether that means it needs to be 8 stories.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
You keep missing the point.
No one has a right to demand a DAMN THING from another private property owner. You need to work within the law and you need to do it in public – surupticious just isn’t right.
For decades, people wishing to preserve their views of the water or mountains have purchased ‘air rights’ above buildings in front of them. In essence, this means the property owner ‘A’ goes to property owner ‘B’ and asks to buy rights to the air above B’s building for, say, $100,000.
‘A’ spends that money so if ‘B’ ever wants to remodel their house, they won’t block ‘A’s view. The money paid offsets ‘B’s lost profit potential.
This is confusing, I know.
Let’s call the first property owner, oh I don’t know, let’s call him Ken. And we can call the second property owner Parkie.
Ken builds this really nice 5 story building that looks out over the top of Parkie’s rooftop and he gets renters in there that pay top dollar to enjoy these views. For years Ken and Parkie enjoy a neighborly relationship but Parkie is getting hammered financially because while Ken has 5 stories on his property, Parkie only has one.
Parkie decides to maximize his investment and build a beautiful new building. Ken doesn’t like this one bit. He loses his view, he loses some tenants and the remaining tenants demand lower rents because they are now looking at the backside of Parkies sparkling new buildings.
But Ken can’t complain because he didn’t buy Parkies property when he had the chance. He didn’t buy air rights over the top of Parkies existing buildings. What’s worse, Parkie made a request that, if his buildings made significant positive impact, then he was requesting permission to build a few buildings higher. More square footage, more employees, more tax base. Win, win, win. The new buildings wouldn’t block any additional terrain views (water or mountain), only a little more sky.
So Ken can’t complain.
BUT Ken can do something else. Ken can say that Parkies new buildings are an eyesore, out-of-character, a death knell for the areas ’small town feel’. Ken can try and force Parkie to build what KEN wants to see but that would seem like he was just protecting his own investment. So he develops a Citizen group that pretends to be concerned about Responsible Development. Then Ken steps into the shadows.
AND THEN when Parkie says he will build something the entire town will benefit from, something that may provide an infusion of short and long term tax benefits that help the entire town – well then Ken needs to smear Parkie as a ‘destroyer of small town Kirkland’. Horse puckey.
So Cami, I’ll tell you once again. I’ll step back and let you demand that Touchstone put retail on the first floor of their office park if they are forced to build that alternative (even though you have no moral or legal right) the moment Ken agrees to my demand that he open a Hooters Restaurant on the first floor of his office building.
Sure, I have no right to make such a demand, but that’s what I want and I’ll drag him through courts and council meetings and public hearings until I get orange short-shorts and skin tight T-shirts at the corner of Sixth and Kirkland Avenue.
Ah, America, ya gotta love it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami and John,
I took the weekend off. I see that others didn’t.
I am not sure that a Hooters is what is needed. The food isn’t that good as I recall!
Cami, as you appear to be the mouthpiece for CRD I am still interested in what your connection is to Mr. Davidson or any other adjacent property owner? This is what is called full disclosure. I sense from what is written by myself and others here that they have the same question. I admire your passion and want to fully understand the motivation. If there is a connection perhaps the discussion can be re-directed to another level.
The CIVIK folks who were front and center on B of A disclosed all but their membership list.
They too hired a lawyer and took and are still taking donations to pay the bill.
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They have food at Hooters?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al,
As I have said, I am a concerned citizen like many others around. I have worked with Ken on other issues in our community which is how we know each other. I have come to know the other members of the steering committee via my involvement with CRD. There is nothing sinister and no connection beyond this.
Cami
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wrong John, hostile is exactly the kind of petty attack that New2Kirkland launched…and you just piled on.
The CRD is a group of citizens that truly does care about Kirkland and, we are expressing our opinions as is our right. It’s shame that you and N2K feel you must resort to nasty diatribes rather than offer fact-based counter arguments.
If you fancy yourself a journalist, you should keep in mind that the thing a real journalist holds most dear is freedom of speech.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cindy,
Gotta call it as I see it.
KirklandCRD is a smokescreen for office building owners opposed to Parkplace. Cami appears to have agreed to be their mouthpiece. And since she is doing the bidding of the REAL men behind KirklandCRD she makes herself a legitimate target.
But no one took a shot at her – or anyone else for that matter.
New2Kirkland asked “what planet are you living on”. A legitimate question, but one I would have phrased differently.
I would have asked if he was being disingenuous and secretly working for an objective that he has NOT disclosed. WHO is KirklandCRD secretly representing?
That question would be more to the point and hardly hostile.
I might ask you the same question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
It’s a slap in the face to the many people involved in Kirkland CRD when you make it about only one member. The REAL people behind this are concerned citizens, period. Some are directly impacted by the requested PARs, MOST ARE NOT. We are all working hard.
Our objective is clear, develop within the existing comprehensive plan. We work to bring the concerns to light and inform people of the pitfalls to create change in the proposal and mitigate the negative impacts.
We are not “secretly” represnting anyone. The conspiracy theory is wrong and tiring. If you attended the open house, you would have seen the many men and women behind Kirkland CRD and have a better understanding.
Now, can we get back to the real issues?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cindy,
You and your friends have called me hostile. All I did was point out the absurdity of your friend”s arguments. I did not ever say that you or anyone else couldn’t plead your case. I did ask that you be honest and realistic when you state things as fact.
Whether Park Place is built as proposed or not there will still be cars idling in Downtown. At least this project will have a transportation plan and plenty of reasons for people who work there not to drive. Further, despite what Alex says, Touchstone will have to pay for traffic improvements.
I watched the Council Study Session last week. It was clear to me that much work has been done since the DEIS and that more will follow. I still believe that the benefits of this project for all of Kirkland far outweigh the negatives. I believe it will increase the desirabilty of living and working in Downtown Kirkland. It will even benefit the property owners who appear to be behind CRD. As I said before. If this project is not built and my taxes go up my neighbors and I will be looking for CRD to make up the difference.
Now really. Is that hostile?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Much less hostile when you put it that way and argue the issues instead of the individual. We disagree, I can live with that. You feel the benefits outweigh the negatives (and I appreciate you acknowledging there are some). We belive the negatives are huge and need to be addressed and mitigated to a certain degree.
Unfortunately, with or wihtout Parkplace, taxes are going up and services are going down. I think we may all be surprised by how much. The people behind CRD are not responsible for that. We are simply a group of concerned citizens. Some are property owners who will be impacted by the proposed PARs, most are not.
Whatever happens to Parkplace will benefit our community. But some of the tradeoff is too much, in our opinion, which is why we are trying to inform people of these concerns and work with city officials to get them mitigated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Relax, N2K, they are just trying to force you to withhold your viewpoint by waving the ‘hostility’ flag… Next they will accuse your viewpoint of scaring them and get a restraining order. Frankly, I’m surprised the ‘mysoginist’ card hasn’t been played.
It’s an old, old game and I for one am pleased you didn’t let it work.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
PERSONAL FOUL, N2K, FLAGRANT USE OF OPPOSING VIEWPOINT, 15 YARDS
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
Can you explain how Touchstones building option # 2 will be a “real benefit” to the city. If they can’t do option #1, (which we all now get CRD doesn’t want) and build option two, with minimal services for the office building employees, Kirkland ends up with… What???
From what I have read they can build option two as the comp. plan now stands. Is that what CRD really wants to happen? Level the current Park Place and replace it with a 5 story office monolith and a few fast food take outs to service those employees?
How does that benefit downtown and provide for a thriving core?
Just wondering…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, Downtown Owner, I can answer your question.
The KirklandCRD folks keep harping about not wanting to ‘become another Bellevue’ (as if 8 story buildings bear any resemblance to 40 story buildings).
But Touchstone has every right to turn Parkplace into an office park. It is private property and that alternative is allowed by the current code. Touchstone has every right to develop their property in the same manner as Anderson and Davidson have – the highest and best use. Touchstone has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and develop the Office/Retail scenerio but, failing that, they have done the responsible thing and developed a fallback plan.
It is what their stockholders and investors have every right to demand.
IF they are forced to go the ‘All Office Park’ route I’m sure it will be built to close to 100% of the allowed footprint and height – as it should be. Microsoft or any other leasee would want density and maximum square footage.
Then we won’t have become Bellevue, we’ll have become Redmond.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi John,
Oh I know exactly what Touchstone will do if they can’t get option #1 and it isn’t a pretty picture. I also totally understand it is with in their right to fall back on option #2, and as a property owner I support their right to develop and do this. Do I want option #2 no, I think option #1 is better for the City.
I am just trying to see what Cami and the CRD think about option #2. Trying to force additional retail shouldn’t be an option they can impose upon Touchstone if current code doesn’t require more than what they have proposed on current option #2. Edge to edge office with an old small QFC and a small amount retail and fast food for the employees in that new office building. That can’t be good for downtown as a whole.
Is this really what CRD wants for downtown? Option #2 sure sounds bleak to me and it will actually take Park Place in the totally wrong direction!
Do I want a downtown Bellevue with 40 story buildings here in Kirkland? Heck no. But look at Davidsons “5″ story building. With the HVAC cover/crown on top it really looks and feels more like a 6 story building and did the folks up wind of him lose out on their views and property values? You bet. Same with Portsmith and other projects. It is a fact of life and property developement.
Just my thoughts but I would sure like to know what CRD would think if option #2 really plays out as currently presented. Would you all be happy and still want to come to Kirkland to shop as you say you do now?
Hmmmm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been trying to stay out of this because everything I start to write doesn’t end up being very nice. I get frustrated reading this blog sometimes and have to stay away. The nicest thing I can say regarding this thread is …please remember that people who live outside the city limits do NOT pay city property taxes. If you live outside the city and don’t own commercial property in the area of Parkplace, what do you care?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a Microsoft employee with extensive responsibility and involvement in business development across the U.S., I can assure you that no division of my company will lease space in Kirkland without a significant increase in amenities. All one has to do is look at where we have leased space over the last several years. Our Bellevue offices are a part of Lincoln Center and soon the Bravern Project. We pay high rents and provide sales tax dollars when we eat, drink and shop. Like myself, numerous Microsoft employees live in Kirkland. We would like the opportunity to work closer to where we live.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is wrong with becoming Redmond Mr. Gilday? I happen to love Redmond and I find it a better run city than Kirkland or Belleuve. Redmond is not up to its eyeballs in bickering like you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Touchstone has sent out a letter to say ask everyone to go to the public hearing on Thursday 10/23. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT OR ELSE A SMALL VOCAL MINORITY WILL KILL THE FUTURE OF KIRKLAND BY STOPPING PARKPLACE!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Microsoft has leased space in every town except Kirkland. They rent high end office space and tons of it. Name another company that is growing this much in the PNW. You can’t because there aren’t any. We need workers in downtown for it to survive and if they can live here too then all the better. The provincial mindset of some of these people is bewildering when you look at the lost opportunity we will have passed if they get there way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kirkland already has Bungie and Google, IBM, Filenet and a handful of other high tech firms. Does that mean we need to add more and more so we can actually become Redmond. I certainly hope not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I apologize for my poor wording.
I meant to infer that placing an office park SO CLOSE to downtown would be bad for the overall future of Kirkland – we need The Preferred Plan with 8 story max buildings and a great retail mix at Parkplace…
Redmond IS wonderful. They have created, and continue to create, a varied mix of districts for shopping and entertaining. After the ugly crackdown on young adults in years past the bars and restaurants and carefully creeping back and are being warmly received.
The staff and management of Redmond City Hall seem to be honest, transparant and not interested in aligning themselves with special interest groups. If I came off as ’slamming’ Redmond, it was not my intention. I was referring only to Redmond’s plethora of office parks – all located some distance from the business core. Hell, your leaders recognize that a healthy commercial district creates a healthy tax base. VIOLA – no deficit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Redmond has a good economy because they know how to run their town like a business.
Look at this from the Redmond Neighborhood blog http://redmondblog.org/
ATTENTION REDMOND TAXPAYERS! THE CITY OF REDMOND IS A FINANCIAL TITAN!
Updated, 8/19
Attention Redmond taxpayers! The City’s S&P credit rating just moved up two levels to AAA! That’s money in OUR pockets. The city will now pay lower interest rates which saves them money so we taxpayers can expect to benefit, too!
According to the 8/17 Press Release, Mayor Marchione and the City Council paved the way for this rating increase by maintaining strong fiscal discipline during uncertain economic times. Microsoft is also credited for working closely with the City to provide the S&P analysts insights into their strategic relationship with the City.
There are only three other government jurisdictions in Washington State with this high a rating and they are all much larger than Redmond — Bellevue, Seattle and King County. The U.S. government has a AAA rating!
Awesome work, Mayor John Marchione and staff! Thank you Council! We taxpayers love it!
Part II, 8/18 – City Council voted tonight to sell & issue $34 Million bonds to fund various downtown transportation projects, including Bear Creek Pkw. Extention. The average interest rate was 4.29% and no bond insurance was required. Allen and Vache stated capital costs will be capped and cost escalation can be controlled by borrowing. Margeson said borrowing will jump-start our critical goal goals for developing the downtown. President McCormick said it will save taxpayers money. Cole said the city has never borrowed before but it is necessary now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ben,
Kirkland is rather unique on the Eastside. We have waterfront. We have a small downtown and Totem Lake as our two largest areas for potential places to locate office workers of which you speak. My guess is that the average hi-tech worker would prefer the amenities of downtown and the proximity to the lake.
Given that we are struggling with building heights in downtown and we can’t make up our minds as to whether we want to permit 2-, 5-, or 8-story buildings, we are left in limbo as to how we get out of the mess we have created for ourselves. We need the taxes and density that higher buildings filled with workers provide – shopping, dinning, entertaining and hopefully living nearby. We need to adjust the City’s tax burden off the shoulders of the residents and more in line with neighboring cities. One way to do this is to increase the number of businesses in Kirkland with more office space (and the new “head tax”).
The “provincial mindset” you speak of may indeed exist. However, many who oppose Kirkland growing are realizing that as Kirkland grows, we all benefit with increased revenues to the City and thus, a lower tax burden on the residents. The trick is finding a common sense growth pattern with which we can all benefit, and hopefully all embrace.
Thanks for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think there is ANYTHING wrong with Redmond – in fact there is a lot Kirkland can learn from Redmond and its council / mayor. Please look 4 messages down for my full response.
As publisher of The Eastside Sun I have sat with over 20 potential business owners looking to place new businesses or expand into the Eastside, each time I need to honestly tell them that REDMOND and BELLEVUE are far more business friendly than Kirkland. It breaks my heart to warn people that my town is not a good business climate right now.
But truth has to trump self-interest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kirkland can learn some lessons from Redmond but they have a different government system. They have a strong mayor/council form. Kirkland has a weak mayor/city manager form. Our city manager is powerful like Redmond’s mayor is. Our mayor is not an elected position like Redmond’s is. It is a BIG difference in how the mayor can push agendas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
some of the people on this weblog have impressive knowledge on the subjects!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry about that. I am excited for a new mall and especially a new QFC. I assume it will have a QFC. Anyhow, I am worried about how the big supply trucks get in and around the mall and what that will be like driving underground with them. Right now I see semi trucks unloading beer and supplies filling up the parking lot at QFC all the time. If they could start tomorrow to get us a better larger grocery store I would be thrilled cause the is what we need the most. That and a good pub.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This town seems to be quite split as to should views be a right to protect or should they not. I find this argument nonsensical as there is no right to a view lest all property air rights between said property owner and every other property owner between him and the water have been purchased by said property owner. Then and only then he “owns” the view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Attention all who are against changing the zoning for downtown Kirkland:
You must attend tonights planning commission meeting. Don’t let Touchstone get away with this!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A.c., Your description is right on and it was proven true tonight when Ken Davidson’s expert who refuted Touchstones plans admitted he was hired by his client to protect his view. That is what its all about because Ken himself said that the building next to his would lose $2 million in value from lost view and lower rents. We can assume Ken will lose a similar amount so this explains why he gave a subtle threat of a lawsuit based upon a takings isssue and spot zoning. $2 million is a big incentive to fight and it can buy a lot of lawyers. If Parkplace is approved as I think it will be, Ken will have to decide if he wants to become the next to appeal another project downtown. I don’t think I would want that as my legacy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I counted 26 in favor of Park Place and 14 against it at the planning commission hearings. I think they had some good arguments on both sides but the good arguments but I didn’t hear any answers that made sense to traffic or parking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wall flower,
I interviewed both Touchstone and CRD and asked them for their count as to how many people spoke on each side of the debate. Both parties came up with a tally of 30 – 17 in favor of Parkplace. You can read about it at http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/10/24/kirkland-parkplace-public-hearing-packs-the-house/
Thanks for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Willow,
I honestly don’t understand how tou could read these threads and attend last night’s meeting and walk away with “It’s all about views.” There are certainly some who stand to lose if their views are blocked. But I was there and heard much more comments about traffic, parking, impact on the culture and feeling of Kirkland than I did about views. And I invite you to read Robert Thorpe’s Critique, as it says very little about views, but rather focuses on the economic feasibility of 8 story construction and the ability of the market to support the size and scale of Park place. It can be found on this blog at http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/10/07/kirkland-crd-attacks-parkplace-plan-with-critique/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It was clear at the recent meeting that Davidson’s issues are views, views and how views affect his property values. CRD is merely a stalking horse for Davidson and unfortunately, Cami, you come across as a convenient tool to give a “citizen” front to his agenda.
The “expert” who spoke at great length toward the end of the session against the project lost any/all credibility when he said that the shadows from the project would seriously impact Peter Kirk Park. Huh? Maybe (and only maybe) if a park user was there at daybreak. I don’t think he had any idea where this project is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim,
Ken is but one member on Kirkland CRD and but one of more than 500 who have signed petitions. His doe have interes in his view, but his concerns do go beyond that. Not one of the other members of CRD has a view at stake, so again I say, it is not all about views, in fact it is about so much, much more. And CRD is not about Ken. I resent you indicating I am nothing but a tool with none of my own concerns and interest. I have a bright mind and have many, many concerns about this project and the information that has been fed to city officials as fact.
If a building of 100 feet was built on the edge of Peter Kirk Park, there would be significant shadowing. The further back the building is, the more that impact is reduced. But it will ultimately depend on how the final EIS ends up and what the developer decides to do.
And I would point out, there was A LOT that was said by Mr. Thorpe that is very important. I would resist hanging your entire opinion on one statement made in a live hearing and open your mind to the six minutes of other information this respected planning consultant and economic analysts provided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0