Frequently Asked Questions

Yes. Touchstone’s partners at Prudential continue to be committed to seeing the project through. Kirkland Parkplace has been designed in accordance with the 2008 zoning over the course of the past 18 months (25 meetings) with the Design Review Board. The project was always conceived as a phased development so that we can relocate some of the existing tenants at Parkplace and keep them successfully in business on a continuous basis.

The current plan is for 3 to 4 phases of construction over about 7 to 8 years. This phasing plan will allow the space can be absorbed over time by tenants as the economy recovers and business growth returns. In fact, we continue to talk with high-growth tenants in the region, and they consistently express strong interest in locating at Parkplace. Once our entitlements are complete we can begin serious pre-leasing negotiations with these tenants. We intend to build out the phases with pre-leases of 30% to 70% in place, ensuring that the space is occupied and activated from the start.

Yes.  In 2001, the City’s downtown plan designated Parkplace as the best site for larger buildings and future growth in commercial uses such as office and retail. We specifically developed our plan for Parkplace in response to the needs identified in the 2001 downtown plan, even engaging Bob Gibbs, a nationally renowned expert who had worked on the original plan, to advise us on the retail at our Parkplace project.

Furthermore, there are no other sites under common ownership in or near Kirkland’s downtown core that can accommodate significant office and retail growth. Retail in downtown Kirkland has struggled for years, since employment left the City when the shipbuilding industry closed down. The downtown merchants have consistently and enthusiastically supported this proposed additional critical mass of neighborhood retail so that Kirkland residents can do their shopping right here —- in their own city. They also welcome the addition of a stabilizing presence of 5,000 office workers to frequent their businesses during the winter months when the traffic in downtown Kirkland is sparse.

It is the mandate of the Kirkland Design Review Board to review the specifics of the design of the buildings at Parkplace within the context of the Master Plan and Design Guidelines.

Since the ordinances were adopted in 2008 there have been more than 25 Design Review Board meetings about the specific design of the buildings and landscaping at Parkplace. At each of these meetings, public comment has been welcomed and fully considered.  In fact, the public comment to date has been helpful and thought-provoking, and has positively impacted many aspects of the direction of the final design.   The design review process is ongoing.  We understand the Design Review Board continues to welcome and to consider public comment on the proposed design.

The FEIS created in 2008 concluded that the Preferred Alternative —- which corresponds to the ordinances passed in 2008 —- had no significant environmental impacts (e.g. traffic) that could not be mitigated. In other words, all of the impacts on things like traffic could be mitigated to get back to the original level of service. The Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) requested that the City look at alternative locations for the density, but even after repeated appeals by the neighboring office building owners, the GMHB kept the 2008 ordinances valid and in effect.

The DSEIS concludes that all of the new alternatives studied have equal or greater environmental impacts than the 2008 preferred alternative, and that they do a poorer job of fulfilling the City’s goals for growth and revitalization of downtown. 

Between the FEIS and the SEIS, 7 alternatives have been studied to date. One of these looks at the current zoning at Parkplace; two look at approximately 900,000 square feet of additional growth at Parkplace; some of the alternatives spread the 900,000 square feet out over a larger area (Superblock and Post Office Alternatives; thereby providing an intermediate density at Parkplace); and, finally, some of the alternatives move the density entirely to other sites.

A very thorough process has been used to identify the sites studied in the SEIS.  SEPA, the State Environmental Policy Act, requires only that “reasonable alternatives” be considered in an EIS.  In this context, we believe that any reasonable person would conclude that the 7 alternatives that have been studied to date adequately represent the breadth of reasonable alternatives available to the City.

Significant public process and many alternatives led up to the original Planning Commission recommendation to City Council that they approve the ordinances along with the Master Plan and Design Guidelines. From Touchstone’s perspective, nothing in the SEIS would lead to a need to change direction.