The recent Kirkland City Council vote was to recommend that Planning Commission consider changing the designation of property from Residential Market to Neighborhood Center.

The vote was 4-3 with one of those voting for this to be considered stating that she really didn’t care either way, so perhaps more like a vote of 3-3-1.

Also, a question from citizens about process.

Usually when something is brought for consideration it is brought up in public meeting and staff is asked to prepare. This time it seemed to just arrive in the packet. Why?

The idea of replacing Residential Market Commercial with the much higher intensity Neighborhood Center was therefore in front of the council members when their meeting packets arrived, just four days before their meeting (assuming they spent Friday night studying).

This is the period of time when they don’t have the ability to talk amongst themselves and they have to read about many other issues, so they are pressed for time even if they commit their entire weekend.

Then they arrive to the council meeting and are told they may only have one chance to speak before they vote. One member says that she could go either way and it passes by that one vote.

How can this possibly trump the extensive consideration and broad base of folks who did extensive work. How is this reasonable deliberation or broad participation?

Previously, the property was extensively studied and planned from 1991 to 1995, with GMA and 145 hearings by the Growth Management Committee, Planning Commission and council. Neighbors were reassured about the size and scale of development at that time.

Vehicular ingress and egress, and compatibility with the neighborhood are two reasons cited for the decisions. A limitation on commercial use was approved by Ordinance in 1995, 2004, 2007 and 2010.

Karen Levenson, Kirkland