City of Shoreline and BSRE agree to Point Wells Transportation Corridor Study
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Press release from the City of Shoreline
The City of Shoreline and Point Wells developer BSRE Point Wells, LP (BSRE) have executed a memorandum of understanding (Memorandum) to conduct a transportation corridor study (Study) of the Richmond Beach Drive/Road Corridor. Since Snohomish County is legally required to process BSRE’s permit application, due to start this spring, the City was intent on reaching an agreement with BSRE to conduct a more thorough transportation study than what would be required in the permit process. The City wanted to provide Shoreline residents with a direct voice in identifying corridor improvements, including those improvements directly impacting individual properties.
The City is pleased that the Memorandum provides for a study that includes an extensive public participation process, a study area that includes more neighborhood streets and intersections than just Richmond Beach Road and Drive, a guaranteed maximum right-of-way width limit of 60 feet for Richmond Beach Road and Drive, and application of City’s traffic standards rather than unincorporated Snohomish County’s. These benefits would not have been guaranteed through any other means than the Memorandum between the City and BSRE.
The Memorandum grants Shoreline’s most affected residents the ability to participate in up to six (6) public meetings that focus solely on traffic impacts and mitigation. State regulations only require Snohomish County to conduct one environmental scoping meeting to cover all impacts from the development. The City Council found this level of public participation unacceptable and worked to guarantee a better process for Shoreline residents.
A significant concern heard by residents is the traffic volume generated by the planned development. Through the Memorandum, the City has secured a traffic study process that is focused on addressing the concerns of Shoreline residents. The Memorandum assumes a maximum traffic volume of 11,587 average daily automobile trips, which includes the total trips leaving and entering the development once the development is completely built out. This will be the basis for identifying required improvements to the corridor.
In addition, the Study will measure anticipated traffic volumes and congestion levels along connecting streets and intersections. The intent is to eliminate cut-through traffic in surrounding neighborhoods.
The Memorandum ensures the typical 60 foot right-of-way width on Richmond Beach Road and Drive will remain the maximum width allowed, except where the study concludes that isolated corners at intersections are necessary to accommodate such improvements as turn lanes, sidewalks or curbing.
The City and BSRE are in the process of establishing dates for the Study. The dates will be coordinated with the Snohomish County environmental review process, which will likely begin in May. The City will distribute information once definite dates for the Shoreline public meetings are finalized.
For more information about the Study, please contact Transportation Services Manager Kirk McKinley 206-801-2481. To read the memorandum and to see what streets are included in the Study, visit the Shoreline Point Wells website.
To keep up to date on the latest Point Wells news and to be contacted about any upcoming meetings, sign up for an ENews account on the City’s website by visiting the City's webpage.
Posts
6 comments:
The City spent at least $25K in order to get what? Six public meetings and a traffic STUDY to include in the EIS. What happened to the promised additional mitigations? There are none, just the appearance there might be some. LOS for Shoreline city-wide is "E," otherwise known as failure, for Pt. Wells they "bumped" it to D or C I believe. The devil is in the details and this is typical double-speak to make you feel good that you were just sold out.
The Crista Master Plan had mitigations that were paltry after a traffic study, that should let you know what the City of Shoreline has in mind.
AHA! You can't find the Memorandum of Agreement on the City website, it is on the BSRE website in a hard to find link. Strange you have to go the developers' website to get instead of the local government website, so much for transparency. But here it is:
http://pointwells.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Executed-Shoreline-MOU.pdf
I do believe that a city council goal was to improve communication with community, I would count this omission as a fail by the city staff leadership team and the Mayor/city council.
As for the LOS (level of service) that I mentioned, here it is: LOS D for intersections with no through movement less than E
Transporation Engineers consider LOS E as failure of an intersection with a wait time of 15 minutes. LOS D is not very much different than D, I believe Save Richmond Beach had obtained changes to the Sub-Area Plan to require LOS C for the road leading to Point Wells.
It is quite fitting that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on April 1, for the citizens of Shoreline have indeed been fooled by their elected officials.
How were we fooled? That is a long story, but here is part of it. The City says they value the public's participation. But do they? The City Council received a long overdue update on Point Wells in its February 11 meeting. This meeting had originally been scheduled for December 3, a week before the City Council was to adopt a major update to its Comprehensive Plan, an update that included several changes pertaining to Point Wells. But they pulled it from their calendar. They kept it pending until after the December 31 deadline for submitting proposed amendments for the 2013 Comprehensive Plan docket. They kept it pending even though the City itself proposed 2 such amendments, both dealing with Point Wells.
The new date of February 11 for the City Council update on Point Wells was not announced until after the deadline for the February edition of the Richmond Beach Community News. The City recently did a two page feature on Point Wells for its Currrents newsletter. But the story was written long before the February council update and was not published until March.
Shoreline ostensibly has two Point Wells watchdogs: Save Richmond Beach (SRB) and Richmond Beach Community Association (RBCA). Both commendably alerted their email subscribers beforehand to a February 7 Planning Commission update on Point wells, but not to the February 11 City Council meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was well attended (more than 50). The City Council meeting was not (less than 10).
But back to the Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU. Why now? Why not, say, last week? The April Currents came out last week and is being mailed this week. The April edition of the Richmond Beach Community News came out on Saturday, March 30. The consequence of not signing the MOU until Monday delays this important story for these readers until May. The City had an opportunity to mitigate this unfortunate timing by announcing the MOU during the City Manager's report at the Shoreline City Council meeting on April 1. That meeting has been rebroadcast on cable TV several times this week. Viewers will have to remain in the dark until next week. But the City Manager did not bring it up. Nor did any of the Council.
The City claims in this press release that it wants to "provide Shoreline residents with a direct voice in identifying corridor improvements." They say community involvement is "will likely begin in May." That means time is of the essence. After years of waiting and hearing nothing, we the community now find ourselves under time pressure. When it comes to outreach, the City has done its best to give the public the shortest possible notice on Point Wells news, while at the same time fooling them that they have been expedient. Later on you will hear the City brag about how well they engaged the public. Do not be fooled.
Remember, remember the MOU this November!
Geez! The Memorandum of Understanding states, "The City shall retain an independent third party to act as facilitator." Talk about an oxymoron. Can you say, "Big Tobacco"?
How independent can a third party be when they are paid by the city and/or the developer?
Post a Comment