Comprehensive Plan
Reality Check
Myths vs. Reality
Kirkland is now in the midst of updating its 2044 Comprehensive Plan, which will help guide growth over the next 20 years. It is a lengthy, complex, and deliberate process where the City has sought a diversity of public input along the way. A comprehensive plan must be consistent with State, Regional, and County policies.
The plan is organized into sections about housing, land use, transportation, sustainability, parks, economic development, human services, utilities, and more.
Initial community engagement began in late 2022, including focus groups and surveys. Later on there were draft policy briefings to boards and commissions, and public hearings — with final adoption by the City Council scheduled for December 2024.
Given that this plan will shape Kirkland’s future over the next two decades, emotions have been running high, making it important to separate fact from fiction. Misinformation and disinformation can cloud issues and hinder productive dialogue. We’ve heard some wild claims, especially around proposed policy LU-2.4 (in the Land Use element), which directs the city to consider and study areas within a quarter mile of frequent transit as a potentially desirable place to locate more housing. Many of these claims making the rounds directly contradict what is actually in the draft plan.
So let's clarify some of these common misconceptions and misleading claims about the plan and its potential impacts on our community.
Myth: “The proposal will allow 4-6 story buildings in a 1/2 mile swath along transit corridors. This is a blanket upzone with no consideration for local conditions.”
Reality
The transit corridor policy in the proposed Land Use Element will not change zoning. The proposal does not even require or call for a certain level of density. It simply calls for studying increased density within walking distance (1/4 mile radius) of frequent transit routes.
The city’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement assumed a density of 50 units/acre to model environmental impacts, which is the density of townhouse developments. Even densities of 100 units/acre generally result in only 3 or 4 story buildings depending on the size of the units.
Furthermore, policy LU-1.4 from the proposed Land Use Element calls for “transition strategies that bridge scales between areas with varying land use intensities”. This means that buildings which are further from the transit route will be smaller.
The study process will involve staff more closely looking at the site conditions along each transit corridor. The local conditions can then inform what density would be appropriate for each place, and what mitigations may need to be implemented before or concurrent with redevelopment. The study could start as early as next year, but it is up to the Planning Department and City Council to determine priority.
Once increased density has been studied, the city would need to start the formal zoning code amendment process. Zoning changes are subject to public hearings and will be noticed so the public can provide input. This will be a lengthy process.
Myth: “The city has no plan to improve infrastructure where density is increased.”
Reality
The city is required by state law to “adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval” if a development would cause the Level of Service on a road to drop below the performance targets in the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. If the city wants to allow development anyway, improvements must be made concurrently to maintain performance. See RCW 36.70A.070 and WAC 365.196.840.
Likewise, the Utilities element of the Comprehensive Plan is full of policies showing that the city will plan for future development and ensure that it has the necessary facilities and capacity, such as Policy U-1.2. The Transportation Strategic Plan also identifies specific transportation projects for the next 20 years to accommodate the growth planned for in the Comprehensive Plan, including some along the transit corridors.
Essentially, if existing infrastructure would not support redevelopment, the city will either leave zoning in an area unchanged, or put a plan in place to ensure that improvements are made alongside development so that the existing level of service is maintained.
Myth: “The public hasn’t been informed of the Comprehensive Plan process and changes.”
Reality
The city had many public outreach projects throughout 2023, and public hearings throughout 2024. These outreach efforts were announced on the city’s website, This Week in Kirkland newsletter, and social media accounts.
The first public outreach event for the Comprehensive Plan update was announced in the December 8th, 2022 issue of This Week in Kirkland and on Instagram. The city first solicited applications for focus groups about Transportation and Land Use in the March 16th, 2023 issue, and launched a survey for those two topics in the April 6th, 2023 issue, which was open until July. There were also announcements on Facebook. The focus group recommended guiding principles of Affordable Housing, Accessible Places (multimodal), Small/Middle Business, Mixed Use, and Green Communities.
Myth: “200 units/acre is being studied.”
Reality
While some elected officials, staff, and advocates have suggested studying higher densities, to date the only concrete number has been the 50 units/acre in the capacity analysis. According to a staff memo: “If and when the City decides to rezone areas along transit corridors, it is likely that allowed densities would not be implemented along the entirety of transit corridors, but would vary based on access to other community services. For instance, there could be nodes of 50 du/acre (or another density) with lower intervening densities.”
Myth: “This photo shows what 59 units/acre looks like:”
Reality
The top part of that image is what well over 100 units per acre looks like.
These photos of Nia Apartments in West Seattle are taken from this article. Although one side of Nia is four-story mixed use, it is built on a steep hillside, and the building diminishes down to two stories as the hill rises. The site also includes a large parking lot and some two-story townhomes built into the hill. The four-story block in the photo is actually over 100 units per acre, but because the rest of the lot is not densely developed, the overall density of the site falls to only 59 units per acre.
Here is another photo of the same site, from a different angle. It looks no different from a typical suburban street. Below that is another photo of a site with 160 units/acre. The highest part of the building is 3.5 stories: only marginally taller than many of the 3-story single-family homes in our neighborhoods.
Myth: “Developers profit from denser housing, not the community.”
Reality
Denser housing is more efficient to build, more energy efficient to maintain, and creates a ripple effect of benefits in the community. Construction workers, electricians, and plumbers find steady jobs building new homes. Our cops and teachers are more likely to be able to live in the communities they serve. Young couples can finally afford their first apartment, while seniors can downsize to a low-maintenance condo near amenities. Single parents find housing near public transit, making their commutes easier. Small businesses thrive with new customers, creating more local jobs. Renters see more choices and lower costs. Homebuyers benefit from increased supply and housing variety. Developers profit (as do owners who sell their properties for redevelopment), but their work is vital in creating these opportunities. Denser housing isn't about profit – it's about building a more inclusive and affordable community for everyone.
Furthermore, if we’re worried about unfairly lining pockets - limiting housing creation artificially inflates rents, benefiting large landlords who can charge more for scarce rentals on apartment buildings they have already purchased (i.e. it’s all profit).
Myth: “Growth targets represent sufficient growth for Kirkland.”
Reality
These targets are the result of a political process, reflecting a compromise between various interests rather than a true assessment of housing needs. They may not accurately reflect the actual demand for housing in Kirkland, especially considering the region's ongoing population growth and strong economy, which attract new residents and create jobs. The current PSRC growth targets for Kirkland call for adding 26,490 jobs, but only 13,200 homes - more than a 2:1 ratio of jobs to homes. This will only deepen Kirkland’s housing shortage (we currently have about 51,000 workers, but only 38,000 homes - a 1.34:1 ratio). Because many of those workers will be forced to live outside Kirkland, they will be much more likely to drive their cars alone to work, bringing more congestion to Kirkland, but not contributing any property taxes to help fund the services we will still need to provide.
Additionally, the looming threat of climate change is likely to exacerbate housing demand in Kirkland. As other regions become increasingly uninhabitable due to extreme weather events and rising sea levels, the Pacific Northwest, with its relative stability, is likely to attract a growing number of climate refugees seeking a safe haven. The current growth targets may not adequately account for this potential influx of new residents.
Myth: “The ‘Missing Middle’ bill HB 1110 will solve Kirkland’s housing problems.”
Reality
Allowing for a more diverse set of housing options, rather than the majority of the city requiring single family houses on large lots, will contribute to stabilizing Kirkland’s rising cost of living. However there is no current evidence to suggest that this single measure will act as a magic bullet. The processes of planning, permitting, securing funding, and building are all lengthy and many projects don’t end up penciling out for a variety of reasons. Buildings are rarely redeveloped before they’re near the end of their practical lifespan which also limits the pace of housing growth.
It will be many years before we’re able to determine how much of Kirkland’s housing needs remain unaddressed by HB1110. In the meantime the situation will continue to deteriorate if our approach has been too timid. It’s better to err on the side of boldness since, at the current pace, it will take housing prices some time to stabilize, let alone return to where we were 10 or 15 years ago. The worst case scenario is that we overcorrect and end up with cheaper cost of living than Kirkland has seen in decades. This should both be easy to see coming and is arguably not a bad outcome. On top of that, when prices fall, fewer redevelopment projects are financially viable.
Myth: “If we study a given density for these transit corridors then that’s what will end up getting built there.”
Reality
Figuring out where to build is a long, deliberate process with many safeguards and criteria for moving on to the next step. The City chose a 1/4-mile walkshed from transit because that is about a 5-minute walk for most people. Adding housing near transit is desirable because it means we can add fewer cars to our roads, lower our per-capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and give options to the 25-30% of people who are unable to drive. But in reality, due to the way the rest of the process works out, and especially due to how slowly property turns over (redevelopment cycles can easily last a generation or more), only a small fraction of the studied area is likely to see redevelopment to newer limits.
Myth: “Newly built housing will be expensive so it won’t make Kirkland more affordable.”
Reality
New housing, even if expensive, increases overall supply, putting downward pressure on existing rents and sale prices. It's not the new units themselves that are usually affordable, but the domino effect they create, making the entire market more accessible to a wider range of incomes. Every person who buys or rents a new home is one fewer person competing for the existing supply of older homes.
The city can (and should) also pursue separate policies that make even newer housing more affordable, such as streamlining the permit process and relaxing requirements for egress and sprinklers which, while implemented with good intentions, disproportionately drive up construction costs.
Myth: “People will park all over the street if density is increased.”
Reality
The transit corridor proposal does not affect parking requirements. Kirkland’s parking requirements are already excessively high compared to recommendations by King County. Even in our urban villages (Downtown and Totem Lake) parking is so plentiful that it is almost always free or practically free. For streets that experience higher demand for on-street parking than they have capacity, there are a large variety of curb management strategies that are proven to protect parking availability.
Myth: “No one will take the bus.”
Reality
A lack of convenient access is one of the biggest limits on bus ridership. Simply put, if you only have to walk 5 minutes to a bus you’re much more likely to make use of it than if you have to walk 15 minutes. Co-locating homes along transit corridors removes this barrier and gives people more choices for how to get where they want to go.
Myth: “There is insufficient bus service along these corridors.”
Reality
All corridors being considered are served by at least one bus route (but often several) with at least 4 buses per hour. The exception is 124th Ave which will be served by the RapidRide K scheduled to begin service in 2030. These buses connect to Downtown Bellevue, Downtown Redmond, UW and the U District, along with direct connections to the 1 and 2 Line of Link Light Rail.
Myth: “A transit corridor is anywhere that buses go.”
Reality
Transit corridors as defined in Kirkland’s draft Comprehensive Plan are those parts of our city where existing buses stop at least 4 times an hour from 6AM to 7PM Monday-Friday, or where the future K Line will run. This does not include routes 225, 239, 257, or the north part of route 231.
Myth: “Urban villages should get increased density rather than transit corridors.”
Reality
Focusing solely on increasing density in urban villages while neglecting transit corridors could lead to a jarring and unsustainable urban landscape. Imagine towering skyscrapers casting long shadows over single-family homes, creating a stark contrast in scale and density. This approach, reminiscent of Vancouver's historic development pattern, can lead to a sense of disconnection and visual incongruity within neighborhoods.
Transit corridors, on the other hand, offer a natural and logical framework for increased density. By focusing development along these corridors, we can create vibrant, walkable communities where residents have easy access to public transportation, reducing reliance on cars. This approach fosters a more balanced and integrated urban fabric, where different housing types and densities coexist harmoniously, vary more smoothly, and neighborhoods retain their unique flavor while accommodating growth. Additionally, 45% of respondents in a city survey supported growth along major roads and/or transit routes. Given that 78% of this survey’s respondents were homeowners, who only make up 60% of Kirkland’s electorate, this survey suggests there is broad public support for growth outside of Urban Villages.
Myth: “We should wait to see how the station area plan turns out before addressing housing affordability further.”
Reality
Waiting to see the full impact of the station area plan on housing affordability is akin to relying solely on a single crop to feed a starving population. While the station area plan is a crucial step in addressing the housing crisis, it's unwise to put all our eggs in one basket. The plan might not yield the desired results, or its effects might take longer to materialize. Meanwhile, people are struggling to find affordable homes today. We need a multi-pronged approach, implementing various strategies concurrently, to ensure we're making meaningful progress on housing affordability. The station area plan is a vital part of the solution, but it's not the only one.
Myth: “Studying more housing along transit corridors should wait until future transit investments (like the 85th St Station or K Line) are realized.”
Reality
It takes a long time for homes to be built. Once we’ve studied growth in Kirkland, it will take another year to actually implement the zoning changes to legalize new construction. After that, it will take two years or more for new projects to be planned, financed, reviewed, and permitted. Once ground is broken, it will take another year before construction is complete. The Stride Bus Rapid Transit is scheduled to open in 2027 or 2028, and the RapidRide K Line is scheduled for 2030. By the time any new homes affected by this process are built, new transit projects will already be coming online.
Myth: “Emergency vehicles will be hindered by increased density.”
Reality
Densities far in excess of 50 du/acre are a daily fact in thousands of cities throughout the developed world. These cities don’t seem to struggle with their emergency services even on streets we’d consider quite narrow. For example, the average street width in Tokyo is less than 17 ft, about half of some residential streets here in Kirkland.
Additionally, see the concurrency requirements in the related myth above.
Myth: “Increased density results in less safe environments for pedestrians.”
Reality
Well-planned dense neighborhoods frequently enhance pedestrian safety. When people can live closer to where they work, they aren’t as focused on driving quickly to cover large distances. As a result, denser areas often have slower speeds, as well as more "eyes on the street," deterring crime. Improved infrastructure and a sense of community further contribute to a safer environment.
It's important to remember that safety is not solely determined by density, but by thoughtful urban design, traffic calming measures, and effective law enforcement. When done right, increased density can contribute to safer, more vibrant, and walkable communities for everyone.
Myth: “Amenities such as schools, grocery stores, fire stations, etc. need to be in place before we can allow for more housing.”
Reality
This argument puts the cart before the horse. It is housing development that serves as the catalyst for attracting or creating these essential amenities. As a critical mass of residents is established, private investment and public services naturally follow to meet the needs of the growing community. It's crucial to prioritize housing development to create the demand that will ultimately lead to a thriving and well-served neighborhood.
Already we can see the results of job and amenity growth in Kirkland that’s been unmatched by housing growth. Local businesses are having a difficult time finding employees. And those who work in crucial areas, such as teachers, doctors, and police, are increasingly unable to live in the city that they serve. This is why our property taxes and cost of living are so ridiculously high - when housing costs more, everything made or done by people costs more too, because people require housing.
