Kirkland Planning Commission Study Session on Totem Lake SIS Plan, June 25, 2026
Kirkland Planning Commission Study Session on Totem Lake SIS Plan, June 25, 2026
On June 25, 2026, the Kirkland Planning Commission held a study session to continue discussions on the Totem Lake Southern Industrial Subarea (SIS) Plan Phase 1 Visioning Process. Staff presented background on how the community-initiated amendment request for the Parmac parcels evolved into a subarea plan, reviewed existing zoning and housing capacities, and outlined options for moving forward within the adopted Comprehensive Plan policies. The conversation focused on balancing housing growth, employment targets, environmental review requirements, and the need for clear direction from City Council.
Discussion Items
- Background and Evolution: Staff (Alison, Martha, Adam) explained that the current subarea plan effort originated from a 2022 community-initiated amendment request for five Parmac parcels (owner sought approximately 1,200 residential units and 30,000 sq ft of commercial/amenity space, with heights up to 150 feet transitioning to 75 feet). The Planning Commission recommended expanding the study area to the entire SIS, and Council concurred. The 2026-2028 Planning Work Program splits the work into Phase 1 (visioning, completed with Blocks Hub) and Phase 2 (subarea plan, scheduled for 2027). Policy TL33.1 in the Comprehensive Plan explicitly directs a subarea plan to precede any rezoning.
- Existing Zoning and Capacity: Staff reviewed current housing allowances in TL10C, TL10D, and TL10E zones. Housing is permitted only within designated Housing Incentive Areas; heights range from 30–80 feet. The Comprehensive Plan capacity analysis modeled up to 1,200 units on Parmac sites and assumed 60 dwelling units per acre (4-5 story midrise) for other parcels. Employment capacity was modeled for portions of TL10E adjacent to I-405. Commissioner Bunyall questioned how housing targets might affect employment targets; staff noted that the city currently has surplus capacity in both categories, and a new capacity analysis will be conducted later.
- SEIS and Environmental Review: Staff clarified that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) completed for the Comprehensive Plan is a non-project-level analysis, sufficient for zoning changes that do not exceed studied capacity. Future developments would still require project-level SEPA review, which examines site-specific impacts (traffic, utilities, mitigation). Commissioner Bunyell asked about the geographic scope of project-level SEPA; staff replied it is determined case-by-case based on traffic studies.
- Options for Moving Forward: Staff emphasized that the policy requires a subarea plan before rezonings, but the plan could be done concurrently with rezones (similar to the Station Area Plan). If the proposed capacity does not exceed the SEIS study, no additional environmental review is needed; exceeding it would require a new SEIS. Commissioner Doyle questioned whether adopting a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) might be a better tool to address specific impacts and expedite development. Staff explained that a PAO provides project-level SEPA for an area, streamlining permits, but typically requires a subarea plan or comprehensive plan as a foundation. Commission expressed interest in accelerating the process while managing scope and budget.
- Budget and Timeline: Staff noted that the subarea plan's Phase 2 tasks (fiscal impact analysis, market study, transportation analysis) would likely require outside consultants and additional budget. The current work program assumes one year, but that is considered ambitious, especially if scope expands or if a PAO is added. Commission Rosman emphasized wanting to see action and creative solutions; Commissioner Rutherford suggested focusing on initial changes and iterating later. Staff indicated that an in-house subarea plan with limited consultant help might be possible with lower budget, and that Council direction (expected at August 5 meeting) will be critical to defining scope and timeline.
- Other Work Program Items: Staff highlighted other projects that could add housing capacity, such as faith-based property rezonings, implementation of SB 6026 (requiring residential allowances in commercial/mixed-use zones), neighborhood center zone consolidation, and TOD bill implementation. These are separate from the SIS effort but may affect overall housing capacity.
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes or decisions were taken. The study session was informational and advisory.
- The Commission unanimously agreed to cancel the July 9 meeting; the next meeting is July 23 (virtual) for a public hearing on housing on faith-owned land.
- Upcoming August meetings include a briefing on the Urban Forest Management Plan (August 13) and a public hearing on the parking cleanup project (August 27).
- Staff reported that a City Council vote on increasing the affordable housing exemption threshold from 2,000 sq ft to 2,500 sq ft ended in a 3-3 tie; under council rules, the item will return to a future meeting when all members are present. Council did adopt lot splitting amendments as recommended by the Commission.
- Commissioner Rosman was recognized for her service; this was her final regular meeting as a Planning Commissioner.
- No public comments were received at either opportunity.
Meeting Transcript
I'll call this meeting to order of the planning commission. We'll start with a roll call. Margaret Bunyall here. Aaron Jacobson. Here. Gina Medea. Here. Julia Nolan. Scott Ricer. Angela Rosman. Here. Rodney Rutherford. Here. All right. Thank you. And I believe now is the time in our meeting for uh comments from the audience. Uh if you would like to give comments, uh, either approach the podium or raise your hand on Zoom to indicate that you'd like to give comments. We'll have one more time to give comments at the end of the meeting, but this is the first one. Would anyone like to give public comment? Nope. All right. Next, we have no special presentations, and we have a study session on the Totem Lake Southern Industrial Sub-area Plan Phase One visioning process. All right, thank you, Chair Jacobson. Um, I'm gonna ask our admin team to help me share the screen here. Um we're bringing this item um back to planning commission tonight for a continued discussion that was started at your last meeting. At the last meeting, um, we had the group from Blocks Hub here to talk um more about the visioning process. Um, but at that meeting, I think based on a lot of the planning commissioners' questions and then follow-up conversations that staff has had with the chair and the vice chair. Um, what we're trying to do tonight is bring you a little bit more background information about how we got here and what are some options and requirements moving forward. So tonight I'm gonna do a high-level review of some of the background of what's been studied in this area so far, especially in the context of the comprehensive plan, and then what the currently adopt adopted policies and the comprehensive plan would kind of have us doing next. Um, and then we'll also put that in context with the adopted planning work program. Um, so we're gonna tag team it here tonight. Um, I'm gonna ask Martha and Adam to weigh in or jump in where I've maybe missed something, and um hopefully we can answer a lot of planning commission questions that come up as we go through it. So I'll jump in um and wanted to really start with the evolution of how we got from the community initiated amendment request for the Parmac parcels to the um concept of a sub-area plan for the whole southern industrial sub-area. So um as I mentioned, doing a sub-area plan for the southern industrial sub-area or the cis as we've been calling it, and yes, we do need a better name. Um that is an adopted task on the 2026-2028 planning work program. Um, because of budget constraints, we did on this adopted work program split the work up into two phases, one taking place this year for the visioning work that you heard about at your last meeting, and then another task um to be started in 2027 for a sub-area plan. It all started back in 2022 when we received a community initiated amendment request for five parcels in the sub area um known as the Parmac um property. So there's one property owner that owns all five of those parcels. They're highlighted on the screen or outlined. Um, this was submitted in 2022, and all of the community initiated amendment requests that we received in 2022, we decided we're gonna be studied in context with the comprehensive plan update because that is the time that we also started working on that that full periodic update of the comp plan. During our review of this community initiated amendment request, it's always a two-phase review. We bring it to planning commission for a recommendation of should this move forward? Is there enough here to justify further study? We call that phase one of the car review. Um then council makes the decision on whether or not to move it on to phase two upon planning commission's recommendation. Planning commission did recommend to move forward the study of this car, but also recommended that we expand the study area from just the five Parmac parcels to the full southern industrial sub area, and council accepted that recommendation from the planning commission and staff was directed to continue study but of the full sub-area. The outcome of that was that we didn't end up making a final decision on rezoning uh the sub area, anything in the sub-area yet, but the comp plan did include a policy that directs a sub-area plan, and the policy is pretty specific about that plan needing to proceed rezones. So that's a little bit more detail about how we got to where we are. Um this is just another couple other different maps of the sub area and the Parmac request. Um, the specific Parmac request, I just thought it might be helpful to remind you.
openpublica.com