Local Non-profit files petition with Hearings Board on 185th Station Area Subarea, Zoning and FEIS
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
From the Shoreline Preservation Society
The Shoreline Preservation Society has filed a Petition before the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. The local group had stated for months that the actions taken by the Shoreline City Council were wrong and would lead to massive inappropriate development destroying several Shoreline neighborhoods, existing affordable housing, and create unmitigated environmental impacts to the community.
Hundreds of residents turned out at many, many meetings to object to the Council’s proposal.
The petitioners state that the City’s actions violate the Growth Management Act through a Lack of Coordinated Planning, Lack of Public Participation, Subarea Planning violations of GMA, and Lack of Capital and Public Facilities, and other matters.
Among other issues the petition states that the City erred in that although the EIS for the 185th and 145th Station areas and the Lynnwood Link projects are all interrelated, the City failed to analyze the “cumulative impacts” of all to each other in their environmental documentation.
The petition states “In one stroke of the pen, the City Council has radically transformed a City which prides itself on livability and quality of life, good schools, and a breathing and continuous canopy of trees, into a dense urban center not unlike South Lake Union or West Seattle."
SPS has taken this legal action, which could have been prevented if the Council had heeded the community’s pleas for a more reasonable alternative. However, the citizens of Shoreline have overwhelmingly stated that strong legal action would be necessary in order to protect the rights of the citizens and to protect our local environment, infrastructure and neighborhood character.
“Shoreline is a beautiful city, and it deserves to be defended from arrogant, oversized actions by the Council, that threaten our neighborhoods and which will ruin what we love most. We are taking actions to protect our neighborhoods that our families hold dear,” said Janet Way, President of SPS.
SPS has already filed a complaint in Superior Court against the City’s Planned Action Ordinance. These cases will be adjudicated in upcoming months with case schedules to be determined.
Posts
16 comments:
Go SPS! Thank you for calling the City out on the public participation process. We were hoodwinked by OTAK, Futurewise, the HDC, the planning dept, planning commission, a partially obedient city council with one or two calling the shots. Not to mention one terrier of a volunteer on social media who was at the ready to disarm, attack, shame, and "shout down" any individual who dared question these over-zealous plans.
Thank you! The Mayor and her lackeys need to be shown the door. You suck City Council!
The website address for the Shoreline Preservation Society is: https://preserveshoreline.wordpress.com/
or join on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ShorelinePreservationSociety/
All of this could have been avoided if the 4-member majority who favored the radical rezone - McGlashan, Hall, Winstead, Salomon - had not rejected every alternative presented to it. Furthermore, they turned a deaf ear to all the public testimony criticizing not only the radical rezone itself but the process by which the radical rezone had been created.
The Shoreline Preservation Society i(SPS) is clearly undertaking this action in the public interest because it knows that thousands of Shoreline residents will be profoundly and irreparably damaged and the existing natural habitat will be destroyed by this radical rezone.
Suing the City Council is an expensive undertaking, running into the tens of thousands of dollars, and takes a huge commitment. The public should support this suit in their own defense so that we are never again under such a threat from our own city government. Otherwise, who knows what other neighborhoods might be next under other pretexts for radical rezoning?
I'm not the terrier ...but - unless all of you have opted out of having children, they are going to need someplace to live. As are the children of your neighbors - and the children of the people in South Lake Union and West Seattle. High Density next to public transport HAS to happen.
Thank you, SPS! My property is one of the more than 500 acres of Shoreline homes that the city condemned. I still have over 28 years to pay on my mortgage, and I stand to lose my shirt. I hope that the suit filed can delay my eviction by the city because I think my home is worth saving.
Elections can change the City Council from a majority that is secretive, antagonistic, insensitive, intransigent, unresponsive, ill-informed, developer oriented, autocratic, etc etc etc and replace the arrogant members with members who are community-oriented and concerned about the effect upon residents of the actions they take. We did not vote for tyranny and we should do what we can to turn it around this year and finish the job two years from now.
Too bad lawyers have to be involved, but sadly the city left no alternative but legal action. It's a good thing that Shoreline Preservation Society stepped up to try to get a more reasonable plan since most of the city council has been nothing but unreasonable.
The Secret Shoreline facebook group mentioned the small businesses that are struggling because of the Aurora Corridor project. The City has done jack squat to ensure that the impacts to these businesses are minimal. This project has run over schedule, over budget, and there appears to be absolutely no oversight by the City. They've proven that they have no interest in fighting the Point Wells developer. They ignored the massive public opposition and over-zoned the 185th Subarea and called it "a compromise" .... a reach-around is not a compromise!!!! Do you trust that the City is going to do any better with the Aurora Square CRA, the 145th Subarea Plan. or the reconstruction of the 145th Corridor? What about this grand "Town Center" that was supposed to appear? Just a strip mall, apparently. What about the Echo Lake development with office/business space that has been vacant for far too long?
@anon 1:11pm - I think you're incorrectly assuming that 1) everyone is choosing to have children these days, and 2) they're all going to stay in the greater Seattle area and never move away. This New York Times article mentions more and more millennials opting out of having children: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/millennials-want-children-but-theyre-not-planning-on-them/?_r=0 Also, I think people nowadays are choosing to have smaller families.
Elaine, perhaps you can see a ray of sunshine through the dark cloud I see.
We are not going to be able to do much "to turn it around this year" with Ginny Scantlebury dropping out of the race. Now there is only one candidate, Lorn Richey, who has made it known through his Public Comments that he is "community-oriented and concerned about the effect upon residents of the actions they take."
If Lorn Richey is elected, it will still be 4 to 3 with Scully on the Council. Scully has been a hired mouth-piece for Futurewise and a steadfast supporter. And, Futurewise does not share the same concerns and interests as the residents of Shoreline, nor of any City they invade.
Our City's operations have been taken over by an assortment of interest groups and still we don't have enough candidates we can elect to stop it.
Maybe after another two years of the City Council and Staff stomping through more Shoreline neighborhoods finally those with the ability to be elected will be aroused to run.
when I bought my small home in shoreline I never dreamed my home would some day be nestled between monster apartment complexes and turned into something like white center...... really just build a lot of parking in a large multi use parking garage and stop messing up the home zoning.....
Stan - You are right that Keith Scully used to be associated with Futurewise,, but that is no longer the case.
We should remember that Scully was the sole voice on the Planning Commission who voted to slow down the process, and I support him. Scully understands that we can protect our environment while also protecting our fine single-family neighborhoods through sensible slow growth planning.
Scully is an attorney who is well-versed in environmental and land-use law and would not be misled by any planner on the staff or on the Council into a pitfall like the radical rezone that SPS is fighting.
Still on the fence about Scully. Although he did push back on the microhousing discussion that was being pushed by the "mauling" grizzly at the last plan com meeting... The same individual that was whining about developers having to give up density due to the current development code for "the greater good". It's so very interesting how "the greater good" term gets twisted around depending on who it benefits, isn't it? #wealthylivesmatter
These city officials.are DRUNK ON DENSITY! We need an intervention, STAT! Thank you sps... I believed the City's spiel at first and their attempts to smear those in favor of graceful, moderate density as anti-change, Luddite obstructionists. Shame on me for believing the press releases and my density salespersons "neighbors" who came knocking on my door last summer.
I hope Ginny Scantlebury decides to run in 2017. This next election is Phase I, let the planning begin for the second surge!
Post a Comment