The on Kirkland’s upscale Lake Street would change the character of the neighborhood and mean more traffic and delays for motorists, according to a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released by the city Thursday.
However, it also says traffic would still fall within city’s threshold, and that the developer could mitigate the project's impacts to meet the city’s regulations and vision for development.
The proposal by developer Longsang Dargey of Dargey Enterprises for a 143-unit apartment complex with office space on 1.2 acres along scenic Lake Street has been met by fierce opposition from a group of neighbors. They object to the the number of units planned and the project’s impact on traffic, property values and the aesthetics of the scenic lakefront neighborhood, which is marked by some of Kirkland’s signature shoreline parks, , and.
In May, Dargey and his wife, Tamara Agassi Dargey, along with the company Potala Village Kirkland LLC, filed the suit in King County Superior Court against the city for twice extending a moratorium on development in areas with the site’s zoning category, “BN,” for neighborhood business. The City Council also directed the Planning Commission to review the BN zoning designation after angry neighbors pointed out it allowed unlimited densities, unlike the city’s other zoning designations.
Although the draft EIS anticipates no significant unavoidable impacts if proposed mitigating measures are adopted, city Planning Director Eric Shields said it does not give the developer a green light to proceed.
“There are adverse impacts. One is the bulk and mass of the project, and traffic,” he said. “From a developer’s point of view, could some of the mitigations proposed” affect the viability of the project? “I don’t know.”
The release of the EIS triggers a 43-day comment period that ends Aug 24 and includes an Aug. 14 public hearing, at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The city anticipates that a final EIS will be issued in October, after which a decision will be made on whether to issue the project a shoreline development permit. The next step would be the issuance of a building permit, pending any appeals to the shoreline permit. The EIS process was triggered by the State Environmental Policy Act due to the project’s proximity to Lake Washington.
Shields said the biggest impacts would be on how the project’s size would change the aesthetics of the neighborhood -- a mix of single-family and multi-unit developments with predominantly lower densities -- and on traffic in the area, which is already considered bad at peak times.
However, the EIS says the impact of the structure’s bulk could be lessened by landscape buffers, a stepped-back upper floor, use of deep balconies, splitting the project into two buildings, reducing its footprint or reducing the number of floors.
On the development's bulk and mass it concludes: “Development on the project site will change its existing character and the long-term relationship of the site to the surrounding area over the long term. However, with implementation of proposed mitigating measures, the proposal is expected to meet the city’s vision for development in the BN zone and no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to aesthetics are anticipated.”
The EIS says traffic impacts would be unavoidable but would "not exceed the city’s adopted thresholds for significance, and thus they would not be considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact.”
Kirkland Patch is attempting to contact the developer and will update this story if he replies.
To see the full EIS, go to the City of Kirkland web pages here. To read all of Kirkland Patch’s coverage of the proposed Potala Village development, which is at 10th Avenue South and Lake Street, click here.
What you left out was: The EIS study also says numerous affected intersections operate at the levels listed below BEFORE the proposed project is built. Level "D" 35.1 – 55.0 seconds 25.1 – 35.0 seconds. Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay) Level "E" 55.1 – 80.0 seconds 35.1 – 50.0 seconds. Unstable flow (approaching intolerable delay) Level "F" > 80.0 seconds > 50.0 seconds. Forced flow (jammed) How can we accept the reasoning proposed here? What are "the city’s adopted thresholds for significance". Clearly they are not in concurrence with mine or the majority of the residents living and commuting in Kirkland! We are being sold a "bill of goods" not based on "traffic reality" but driven by other forces present (fear of litigation from the developer). Simply put The City of Kirkland failed to implement required zoning changes directed by the Comp Plan and the result is this mess. Potala Village is nothing more than a sharp developer who found the resultant aforementioned loop hole in the system and is trying to take financial advantage of it. The residents of Kirkland will be left with "to many rats in a cage" living conditions.
Also as to traffic, sad that the traffic intersections looked at were none of those even close to the subject intersection. I haven't had the chance to look at the study fully but don't think I saw anything about the ingress and egress over the driveway. How is this driveway any different than those to the north and south where it was determined that no more than 24 cars per acre could traverse or the ingress/egress was too dangerous. Can you spell SPOT ZONE. It looks like the city is just begging to have citizens bring on their lawsuit. Karen Levenson
The thing that's worst about this is the lack of setbacks similar to surrounding properties. And the lack of facade modulation. At least the EIS suggest that Design Review would be appropriate, even if not required on these parcels.
Thanks for a great review of the EIS... thanks even for apparently reading much of it. I haven't finished, but section 3.3 on "Aesthetics" appears to be the key section. Chuck Greene is definitely not criticizing your reporting, but is stating the facts of traffic concurrency. It's a very flawed system that says that our major INTERSECTIONS are ok (if you define ok as Chuck points out) but says nothing about the actual traffic on the streets. Anyone notice that both Lake Street/LWB and Lakeview were backed up to Carillon Point last night?
EIS EXCERPT: The most noticeable construction-related traffic impacts are likely to occur during demolition of existing uses and excavation of subterranean parking. The amount of material to be excavated is estimated at a maximum of 50,000 cubic yards (cy). In addition, a maximum of 5,000 cubic yards of fill is proposed to brought on-site, resulting in a total of 55,000 cubic yards of fill to be moved on and off site. Assuming that each dump truck with trailer can carry about 20 cy of material, the excavation would generate a total of approximately 2,750 truck-loads or 5,500 truck round-trips. It is expected that the loading rate would be 8 to 12 trucks per hour, or up to 24 truck trips (12 in and 12 out) per hour.
As one begins to read the document you'll see things where it seems that the consultants "get" the issue. They identify numerous incompatibilities and, if you are like me, you hold out hope. Then they proposed "mitigation measures" that... I guess... are supposed to fix the incompatibilties. But the mitigation is basically in name only, at least it looks that way. Here's what I see... It is as if someone points out a problem like the fact that you live in a earthquake prone area and you have no food or water on hand. You go out and purchase one small bottled watter and a bag of chips. Yes you have food and water, but will that really "fix" things? Will you be ready to fend for yourself for 3-10 days? Not a chance. To me the mitigations suggestions are just one small water and a bag of chips and they don't really do a thing to actually mitigate. My two cents.... Karen Levenson
143 units (with a potential of 286 cars trying to come out across the street. Vashti Key
Potala project to cover 80% of a 3 lot parcel vs. neighbor buildings cover 18% of a lot Potala project to have a facade length of 265 feet vs. biggest neighbor buildings 104 ft Potala project 118 dwellings per acre vs. neighbor density is an average of 11 un/acre Potala project 4 story building vs. neighbor buildings 50% 2 story bldgs 20% 3 story The EIS consultants had previously said that they would be giving the approved designation of Residential Market - Commercial and the definition of "Very Small mixed use building" a thorough study and would document this in the EIS. I do not find any study of alignment with Residential Market definition in the EIS. Could it be that the comparisons above make it impossible to state that Potala is a small mixed use building?