City of Shoreline proposes to negotiate agreement with Point Wells developer to protect the City from project impacts
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Press release from the City of Shoreline
The City of Shoreline has issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to BSRE Pt. Wells, LP (BSRE), the owners of the Point Wells property, stating its intent to negotiate an agreement to protect the City from project impacts and to advance the City of Shoreline, the Shoreline Police Department and the Shoreline Fire Department as the logical providers of urban governmental services to the property.
As an approach to avoid costly and uncertain litigation, for several months City staff has met with BSRE to discuss the potential for an agreement. From time to time, the staff briefed the Council in executive session, regarding progress and to seek direction on the agreement as an alternate to potential future litigation and settlement of pending litigation. These discussions resulted in the development of the LOI.
The LOI outlines how the City and BSRE will work toward an agreement to measure and restrict traffic volumes and to define appropriate mitigation, and states the City’s intent to pursue annexation as the most appropriate way to address the ongoing impacts of future Point Wells’ residents who would use Shoreline’s roads, parks and services. The City proposes to calculate actual and projected traffic counts by project phase as they are built, and to prohibit subsequent phases if the traffic impacts would exceed the City’s adopted level of service for intersections and road segments in the Richmond Beach Road corridor.
“The only access is through Shoreline, so they are going to be driving through our City and using our parks, libraries, roads and police services. It’s only fair that future residents of Point Wells share, with City taxpayers, the burden of paying to maintain our shared high quality of life,” said Shoreline Mayor Keith McGlashan. “We recognize that this site is going to be redeveloped and we believe that the City is the most logical provider of services to the development,” he added. “The best way to protect the City, to address the demand for increased services and the long-term impacts is through annexing the property into Shoreline.”
If BSRE agrees to the principles and expectations described in the LOI, the City would avoid the cost, uncertainty, and risk of having to pursue further litigation to protect the City’s interests.
“While the LOI is not binding, it does provide a structure for developing an agreement that the City Council would formally act upon,” stated City Manager Julie Underwood. If a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the City is committed to pursuing other methods, including litigation, to protect the interests of Shoreline’s citizens and taxpayers.
In exchange for BSRE signing an agreement consistent with the principles and expectations set forth in the LOI, the City would recognize the current permit application in Snohomish County as a vested permit, and support the provision of urban governmental services to Point Wells by the Shoreline Fire Department and King County Sheriff’s Office.
With the release of the LOI, the Council directed staff to hold a community meeting to hear feedback from residents and update them on the current status of the Pt. Wells project. This meeting is scheduled for August 31, 6:30-8:30 pm, at Shoreline City Hall.
Planning Director Joe Tovar added, “Snohomish County will also soon begin the process of preparing the project’s environmental impact statement (EIS), so the meeting on August 31 is a good time for our citizens to tell the City what issues, impacts, and mitigations need to be addressed as that EIS moves forward.”
In addition to the community meeting, staff will provide an update of the Point Wells negotiations at the Council’s September 6th Study Session. During this meeting, the public is also invited to provide comment either at the beginning of the meeting or in writing to the Council. Citizens may provide written comments to the City Council by emailing the Council.
0 comments:
Post a Comment