 |
| Overflow crowd at Point Wells meeting. Photo by Steven H. Robinson. |
By Diane Hettrick
On Wednesday, August 31, the public was invited to a session held by Shoreline City Staff to update people on the just announced Letter of Intent (LOI) the City has been working on with the Point Wells developer, Blue Star Real Estate (BSRE).
Over 200 people, primarily Richmond Beach residents, overflowed the City Council chambers, to the extent that staff opened the walls to the outside courtyard and the inside lobby.
Present in the crowd, but not introduced, were five of the seven city council members, the public information staffer for BSRE, King County Councilmember Bob Ferguson's Shoreline legislative aide, the police chief, and all key Shoreline city department heads. Members of the local media were present, as well.
City Manager Julie Underwood gave a very brief introduction, explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to present the terms of the Letter of Intent (LOI) and hear what people had to say about it. In statements later, she explained that nothing had been finalized, nothing had been voted on, that it was still in process and that is why people were being asked for feedback.
Planning Director Joe Tovar and Public Works Director Mark Relph reviewed Point Wells from the City's viewpoint. It is a piece of land that juts into Puget Sound, formerly used for oil storage. The land is in unincorporated Snohomish County. There was formerly a road from Point Wells to Woodway, but it washed out about ten years ago and was deemed too expensive to replace. Currently the only road to Point Wells is through Shoreline and a small area of Woodway.
 |
| Planning Director Joe Tovar Photo by Steven H. Robinson |
Snohomish County approved a permit to the developer for an "urban center" about a month before the State Growth Management Board ruled that the development did not meet the growth management standards.
Joe Tovar explained that under the current state law, the permit overrules the GM board because it came first.
Snohomish County has every reason to approve the project. A large piece of isolated, contaminated land will be cleaned and developed, creating new tax revenues for Snohomish county.
If the project is developed as planned, the City of Shoreline will get all the impact of the project, including years of soil cleanup and construction vehicles on the streets, then a population which will eventually equal the size of two current Shoreline neighborhoods. All this traffic will be traveling on small Shoreline roads, and the new residents will presumably be using Shoreline services like schools, parks, and libraries.
Snohomish County would get all the benefit and revenue and Shoreline would get all the impacts.
 |
| Public Works Director Mark Relph Photo by Steven H. Robinson |
Mark Relph said that there were three options available to Shoreline.
- To negotiate with the developer to try to mitigate the impacts.
- To litigate in Snohomish County Superior Court to try to overturn the development permit.
- To comment on the project environmental impact statement to the Snohomish hearing examiner and the Snohomish County Council.
King County has no jurisdiction in Snohomish County.
Shoreline's proposed solution is to negotiate with BSRE. The proposal on the table is to annex Point Wells into Shoreline, cap traffic flows, and in return, Shoreline would not sue to stop or limit the development.
Citizens lined up to comment. It was clear that they had expected a different kind of meeting. They expected to see the city council in their seats, and they expected a full response to all their questions that evening.
 |
| Caycee Holt of Save Richmond Beach Photo by Steven H. Robinson |
Caycee Holt, leader of the citizen group Save Richmond Beach, pointed out that the terms of the permit will allow 2800 units on the site. Three buildings right at the waterfront would be three times the height of the Brightwater cranes. And toxic chemicals would be stirred up, dug up and transported through city streets.
The first half of the comment time brought questions about the process and timing of the LOI, and comments about things not mentioned in the presentation, like overflow parking, fire, police, and school busses. There were questions about property condemnations, relative to the narrow Richmond Beach Drive that leads to Point Wells.
Some present took the opportunity to make unrelated comments about issues which had not been answered by other methods.
As people started going to the microphones for the second, third, fourth, and fifth time, the mood turned emotional.
People felt blind-sided that the annexation talks were going on when they didn't know about it. The mood of the speakers seemed to be against annexation, with some claiming it was just a ploy by the city to get more revenue.
Many people commenting were upset that there had been only seven days notice of the meeting.
Speaker after speaker urged the council to get a good attorney and fight the developer in the courts, using all the resources of the city to block the development. Many threatened city councilmembers that they could expect to be voted out of office if they didn't do what the citizens wanted and aggressively fight in the courts.
City staffers wrote down all the comments. On Tuesday, September 6, the City Council is in a study session with the primary topic Point Wells. City staff will make presentations to the council about the proposals, options, and the feedback from citizens at the August 31 meeting.
Download the agenda or go to the council webpage. City council meetings are broadcast live online and available afterwards on podcasts which can be viewed on your computer.
Citizens will, as usual, have the opportunity to comment.
City staff will be at the Richmond Beach Community Association meeting on September 13, 2011, at 7:30pm in the sanctuary of the Richmond Beach Congregational Church, 1512 NW 195th St.
There use to be a road thru Woodway, but someone deemed it too expensive to rebuild.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but have the developer rebuild the road. That way it stays in Snohomish County and we citizens of Shoreline aren't paying for it. That is the OPTION that I choose
All this hubbub because someone doesn't want to replace the washed out road. So we are the ones that have to pay. Something stinks here.
Why are we spending all this time, money and effort? It is Snohomish County and the developers problem, they do not have a rght to tell us what to do in our county.
If they don't want to rebuild the road they can build a bridge from the ferry terminal leading into their urban oasis and leave our roads alone.
"It is Snohomish County and the developers problem, they do not have a rght to tell us what to do in our county."
ReplyDeleteHmm, sort of like King County and Brightwater?
I choose this option> To litigate in Snohomish County Superior Court to try to overturn the development permit. Shoreline and community protection come first. It's clear that Snohomish County wants all the revenues and to pass on the costs to King County. Sue em!
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that some resources are regionally pooled & shared without respect to county lines. In these situations the greater community benefits, although local neighborhoods are adversely impacted (e.g. SeaTac Airport Noise Pollution & Brightwater Treatment, etc.).
ReplyDeleteAdequate surface-road access just for the benefit of residents in a new development seems somewhat different than "regionally-minded" planning.
Clearly, a new development means more traffic. The complete cost of development should include the cost of this increased traffic, regardless of who ultimately pays.
Relph only mentioned three options; having the developer pay to replace the washed-out road isn't one of them. Can the developer's profits absorb the cost of replacing the washed out road? The developer could pass on a fair share of that cost to each of the new residents who need the access.
If the developer's profits can't absorb the cost of replacing the road, does it make sense for the citizens of either county to absorb the costs?
Where were all of you "sue 'em" Shoreliners when a jail was slated to go in on the other side of the highway? Don't spend my money on this - let the development roll.
ReplyDeletePeople, please.. This is Snohomish County, and this project WILL happen. I speak from experience after having very ugly cranes placed in my previously pristine view here in Everett. You also ought to know that the road through Woodway WILL NOT be repaired or replaced, unless you happen to have as much money as those who live in Woodway. They have more money than you, and don't want no stinkin road through their backyard. Better that it's in yours than theirs. Mark my words, IT WILL COME TO PASS.....
ReplyDeleteSue them, with what money? The city budget is running close to dry and it supposed to spend more time and money on one neighborhood? The city already took over the GMA action on behalf of the Save Richmond Beach group, there are large parts of Shoreline that could benefit from the time and money spent the past few years on Point Wells.
ReplyDeleteI find it amusing that these folks sound like a bunch of NIMBYs and spoiled brats more than anything else.
Toss out the electeds? Three councilmembers live in Richmond Beach, one of them worked on the Point Wells project for Snohomish County while he was the long-range planner, but you elected him anyway. People get the government they deserve.
The jail proposal didn't compare to the Point Wells proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe jail proposal was only there because Shoreline, like other north King County cities had to offer a proposal, but it was unlikely to lead to anything because the site was so impractical as a jail site for all of the communities in the area
Point Wells, however, is much more than a proposal on paper.
It's a real proposal that will be costly to all Shoreline taxpayers while bringing tax money to Snohomish County.
I am sick of all the NIMBY talk. This is a huge mistake that will more than double the existing population. There is no room for increasing the road infrastructure and no specifics have been offered. Like any other "Urban Center", it should be located next to a high capacity route, not a two lane road in a quiet neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the developer has deep pockets and is committed to doing a tasteful project for us. Let's get r done!
ReplyDelete