The new Parkplace development is in jeopardy thanks to a decision by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board.

The board found that the City of Kirkland’s adoption of the ordinances and rezoning for the Parkplace development were in violation of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

The statewide board ruled that the city failed to consider alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which would have less impacts on the environment. SEPA requires that cities consider all alternatives in the EIS. According to the board, the city did not fully consider alternatives to the proposed 1.7 million square foot project. Alternatives can be on-site, such as a smaller project or can attempt to accomplish the same goals with multiple sites within the city.

As a result, the City of Kirkland has filed a motion for the board to reconsider the SEPA compliance issue.

“The finding went out on Oct. 5 and we had 10 days to file the motion,” said City Attorney Robin S. Jenkinson. “We have a separate option to appeal the issue within 30 days.”

Jenkinson said that the city has not decided whether to appeal the entire decision.

“In written comments submitted on the draft EIS, we pointed out that the procedure the city was proposing to use did not comply with SEPA, because of the failure of the draft EIS to identify alternatives for consideration,” said Ken Davidson of Davidson Serles, which filed the complaint. “We also submitted written comments pointing out the violations of GMA in the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Unfortunately, those comments were not addressed.”

The EIS was paid for by the city and worked on by the city’s consultant at a cost of more than $250,000.

“The board’s decision is significant,” said Davidson, noting the city will now have to make a decision on whether to reconsider changes to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning regulations under the EIS or appeal the decision.

“In principal, the city should redo the EIS before going forward with its design review process,” said Jeff Eustis, a Davidson Serles attorney.

If the city chooses not to reconsider the changes, the city would be “essentially thumbing its nose at the law,” he added.