Davidson Serles files lawsuit against City of Kirkland and developer of Parkplace
UPDATE: Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development has submitted a copy of their letter dated December 5, 2008 which outlined their compromise position regarding Touchstone’s PAR. You may download it here.
Firm has history of opposing developments adjacent to Emerald Building
Davidson Serles & Associates has filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against several defendants including the City of Kirkland and Touchstone Development, the owner of Kirkland Parkplace. The Complaint was filed January 6, 2009 before the Superior Court of Washington. The Plaintiff, Davidson Serles & Associates, own the Emerald Building at 520 Kirkland Way and is being represented by the law firm of Aramburu & Eustis.
Davidson Serles challenges the legal adequacy of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement and actions taken by the City of Kirkland based upon the that EIS. The Complaint states that “developments, projects, activities and other actions” would adversely affect the interests of Davidson Serles by:
- causing increased motor vehicle traffic and congestion;
- creating pressures for spillover parking;
- isolating their property;
- blocking access to their property through a major pedestrian corridor;
- disrupting use of its property during construction;
- blocking light, air and views to and from its property.
The Complaint further claims “the City Council has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably by bestowing special favors upon an individual property owner, by failing to act in the interest of the public at large and by engaging in spot zoning.”
According to the Complaint, prior to the City Council’s amendment, zoning for Parkplace allowed for approximately 838,700 square feet and for building heights of up to 5 stories. “Touchstone’s PARs propose to allow up to 1.8 million square feet of mixed use development, buildings constructed to a height of 8 stories and a reduction of on-site parking reduced by approximately 30% below requirements otherwise set by city code.”
Ken Davidson, who’s law firm is the plaintiff in this case, was also a member of Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development (KCRD) which opposed the Touchstone PAR. The KCRD is not a part of this action.
In 2000, Davidson Serles and Associates filed an appeal to prevent another development adjacent to the Emerald Building. It was in that year that West Water Real Estate Services proposed 5 story, 117,815 square foot office building at 424 Kirkland Way, former home of the city’s last downtown hardware store and current home of game developer Bungie. According to this article by Seattle Times staff dated August 21, 2000, Davidson Serles and Associates’ assertion was that “the City didn’t properly consider several aspects including air quality, scenic resources, traffic hazards and parking.”
Again in 2003, Ken Davidson opposed a development at 424 Kirkland Avenue. This time Quadrant had planned a mixed-use office and housing development above a transit center. Sound Transit planned to build up to eight bus bays, shelter and seating for passengers on the site. According to a December 10, 2003 Seattle Times article by Nick Perry, at least two neighboring building owners objected to adding housing, “Ken Davidson, a co-owner of the Emerald Building, said it would compromise the city’s ability to attract high-quality office buildings.”
Kirkland Parkplace has been covered extensively on Kirkland Views. You can read more articles on Kirkland Parkplace including a Point/Counterpoint series and hundreds of reader’s comments here.
Posted by Rob Butcher on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Filed under Development · Tagged with Court, CRD, Development, Downtown, Parkplace
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
Good grief. Didn’t Kirkland go through enough hell in 2008 with appeals, lawsuits and fighting?
I hope there is a compromise position available but I’m not expecting one since the crd is spitting mad at the developer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Shilo,
For the record CRD is not spitting mad at the developer and we did propose a compromise in wirtting to Touchstone and the city, which received absolutely no response from Touchstone, except a letter to city council that said they would build the 1.8 million square foot building or the office only, they were not willing to compromise. In the end, we sought to reduce the impact of the building along the park by asking that it be split to reduce the massing effect and improve access to the park (otherwise people have to walk along a service alley and along the side of the building). This, too, was rejected.
So there are compromises, and we were willing to go there, but the developer would not even do us the courtest of returning our call.
Nobody wanted a law suit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The compromise proposal sent from CRD to Touchstone of which Cami writes has been submitted and the document is now available to download in the article above.
Do not expect any further documents from parties. The law suit may limit their ability to respond. – Admin
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
THREE lawsuits? Obviously, Mr. Davidson doesn’t want anything built next door to him. Too bad we aren’t all lawyers, we’d be able to stop anything being built that we don’t like.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To be fair to Mr. Davidson, the article above and the attached Seattle Times articles do not say he filed three lawsuits. The Seattle Times articles say that in 2000, Mr. Davidson filed an appeal against a development at 424 Kirkland Ave. Then in 2003 Mr. Davidson, along with the owner of another neighboring building, objected to housing as part of another development at the site. Ultimately, the contentious property was successfully developed into the building that is currently occupied by Bungie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would love to know if Mr. Davidson had to request any variances from the City when he brought his Emerald Building project out of the ground. I am sure everyone up street of his building loved having their views reduced or removed and the associated reduction in property value. As I always say if you want to keep your view buy the property in front. But since he is an attorney a law suit is the next best thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the sake of private property owners everywhere, as well as for the future of Kirkland, lets hope Davidson gets (judicially) spanked like the spoiled little child he appears to be.
He built his building with little care about the views he blocked. He enjoyed an unobstructed view for many years at no out-of-pocket expense.
Now a creative, forward-thinking developer wants to maximize the property they bought and own and Davidson starts shrieking like a wounded sea lion.
No Mr. Lawyer, you don’t get your way because you know your way around a courthouse and are willing to try and drown your neighbors in paperwork.
It is my fervent desire that Davidson, KirklandCRD, CiViK and all the bullies that try and unjustly take their neighbors rights to development get their little butts paddled in court and be forced to pay their neighbor’s court, attorney and associated expenses.
P.S.: (reply to Downtown Owner) It is my understanding that Mr. Davidson DID try to buy the Bungie property but the former owners were so enthralled with his prior neighborliness that they refused to entertain an offer from him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By filing this lawsuit Mr. Davidson is spitting in the face of the citizens of Kirkland who have invested thousands of hours in considering this project. The Planning Commission met over a dozen times, spending hundreds of hours listening to the opinions of those both for and against the Kirkland Park Place PAR. The CIty Council too followed the rules and the process – taking the recommendation of the Planning Commission, its own testimonies and input from city staff and citizen input. This is the process by which our cummunity considers its land use issues and it was known to Mr. Davidson beforehand.
So now Mr. Davidson doesn’t get his way so he is now going to draw us all into further expense as the CIty and the developers need to arm themselves with lawyers — an expense apparently spared of Mr. Davidson. Get over it — it’s over.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0