Resources for Information on Point Wells
RBCA: Point Wells webpages
City of Shoreline: Point Wells webpages
Richmond Beach Advocates
Save Richmond Beach: A community driven non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the Richmond Beach neighborhood through responsible and sustainable planning.
Shoreline Area News: Point Wells articles
Shoreline Patch: Point Wells articles
Snohomish County Planning dept recommends denial of permit for Point Wells developmentShoreline Area News, Friday, April 20, 2018
From Tom McCormick
Snohomish County’s Department of Planning and Development Services has sent its 93-page Staff Recommendation to the hearing examiner, recommending denial of BSRE’s applications to develop Point Wells as an urban center. Here is an excerpt from page 2 of the Staff Recommendation:
"Recommendation: Denial for the following reasons:
According to the hearing examiner's scheduling order, the hearing is scheduled to begin May 16, and continue through May 31. Public comments can be made on May 17 (starting 1:30pm), and on May 18 (starting 9am). The hearing examiner’s scheduling order can be accessed here
January 28, 2018
Planning Commission 2018 Comprehensive Plan (Thursday, 2/1 meeting)
Mailhot Amendment
August 30
Important announcement about Point Wells!
A joint statement by Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
On September 8, the Richmond Beach Community Association’s general meeting is designed to bring you up to date on critical Point Wells issues. Following this presentation, Shoreline City Council candidates in the November election will speak to specific questions about these issues. Time permitting after the candidates’ comments, we will field questions from the audience. This will be a very important meeting you won’t want to miss.
Below are the major topics that we will discuss at the September community meeting.
Shoreline/BSRE Transportation Corridor Study (TCS)
Come learn why City Manager Debbie Tarry says it isunlikely that the City will complete the TCS until sometime later in 2016. Find out why BSRE’s assumptions designed to guide the TCS analysis were sent back to the drawing board.
Two Access Roads to Point Wells
We will update you on the City’s acceptance of our recommendation to incorporate a second access road into the TCS, as well as Snohomish County’s agreement to include in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the feasibility and impacts of a second access road.
Tolling on Richmond Beach Drive
We will discuss the City’s decision (thanks to our efforts) to amend the City’s Transportation Benefit District rules to permit the District to authorize tolling, subject to voter approval. Find out why we believe strongly that tolling should be studied now, not later, and why we contend that tolling provides a viable alternative to annexation as a means for paying for road impacts and improvements.
90 Foot Maximum Height on Point Wells Buildings
BSRE’s project application calls for at least 20 towers taller than 90 feet at Point Wells. Come learn about our legal arguments why Snohomish County Urban Center Code limits a maximum building height of 90 feet, not 180 feet as proposed by the developer.
Status of Draft EIS
We will update you on the status of the Snohomish County EIS, an estimated publication date and their agreement to include a 90-foot alternative in the EIS.
Fiscal Analysis of Annexation Alternatives
Find out why we successfully argued that a “no annexation” alternative should be included in the proposed analysis of the financial impact of annexation to the City and Woodway, and learn about our position that the financial analysis should include a scenario that assumes only 1,500 units at Point Wells.
City of Shoreline Leverage to Influence the Traffic and Scale of the DevelopmentThe City Manager and Council Members have consistently maintained that they have no leverage over the scale of the Point Wells development. The prevailing view expressed is that the City can only potentially influence traffic volume. Based on our cumulative legal research on this issue, we will submit specific areas where we are confident that the City Council has strong leverage to influence the size of the development, as well the number of vehicle trips.
In closing, we want to clear up a misperception. Some residents mistakenly assume that there is not much on the Point Wells agenda that the City Council or community members can influence. This is just plain wrong! From this point forward, the City Council has the power to make critical decisions about Point Wells that could reduce the scale and traffic impact, in turn preserving the rich character of our Richmond Beach community. That is why the upcoming City Council election is extremely important.
On many fronts your active participation is needed now more than ever. Community participation includes your active involvement leading up to the November elections. Become an informed voter. Demand accountability from both the current and new City Council.
Your community participation also includes your ongoing financial contributions to help support our community efforts. Make checks payable to Richmond Beach Advocates, and mail to P.O. Box 60186, Richmond Beach, WA 98160-0186. Or donate online at richmondbeachadvocates.org.
We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 7:30 p.m., at the Richmond Beach Congregational Church, 1512 NW 195th Street.
Richmond Beach Advocates
Save Richmond Beach
March 22
By RBCA Point Wells Subcommittee (page 11, Richmond Beach Community News)
Since our last Point Wells update, outwardly it may seem as though not much has happened. Quietly a lot is going on.
Traffic continues to be a hotly contested topic
BSRE, the developer at Point Wells, has traffic engineers working on traffic modeling. The City has staff and an outside consultant working on the transportation corridor. There is an active exchange going on.
Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA) has a traffic engineer on standby to review the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS) when it becomes public – an unknown date. We understand that the Innis Arden Association also has traffic engineer.
Comprehensive Plan, including the Point Wells Subarea Plan
In the City’s Comprehensive Plan for Point Wells Subarea there is a 4,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) limit for Richmond Beach Drive. BSRE challenged the limit. Since 2011, this challenge has been repeatedly postponed. RBA, in an effort to support the traffic limitation, sought to intervene in the proceedings. Both the City and BSRE stood to oppose RBA.
The City wrote, “Intervention by RBA would interfere with the City's ability to defend its policy and result in preventing BSRE and the City from continuing to negotiate a solution." RBA of course disagrees. Unfortunately, RBA’s effort was rebuffed. Action was postponed again as requested by City and BSRE.
Second public road access to Point Wells
Under Snohomish County code, a second road to a large development as proposed at Point Wells requires a second access road. We have learned that the developer, in one of their models, assumes a road to the north connecting to 114th Avenue West in the Town of Woodway.
Landslide hazard
There is a history of landslides at Point Wells, including one that took out the old road to Point Wells. In 1997, there was a large slide just north of Point Wells. Newspapers at the time reported that the slide “struck a freight train and knocked five cars into Puget Sound... Debris from the slide covered about 200 feet of track and extended 900 feet into the water.” Parts of the rail cars are still visible at low tide. This a serious concern given that mile-long oil trains now regularly travel the track.
Cleanup at Point Wells
RBA and Save Richmond Beach (SRB) met with the Washington State Department of Ecology about the cleanup at Point Wells. Ecology staff expressed a strong interest in having the community involved. Toward that end, RBA filed an application for a grant to help assist with the review of the cleanup through an Ecology public participation program. The same program has been used and is still going at Point Edwards.
City of Shoreline’s position
Chris Eggen and Debbie Tarry attended the February Richmond Beach Community Association meeting, and both graciously agreed to answer questions. The City’s position is consistent as stated as in previous meetings and as set out in a January email from Tarry.
"Our original thoughts were to have the TCS results/mitigation agreement and development agreement come to the City Council at the same time. As we continue to work through this process we continue to evaluate how best to proceed in completing the agreements and leveraging the best agreements for the City. This may mean that there is some separation of time when the agreements are brought to the City Council, but that is yet to be determined.
"The provisions of the TCS Agreement are in the Memorandum of Understanding. I anticipate that the action the Council would take is authorizing the City Manager to submit the results of the TCS study to Snohomish County to be included in the EIS. I anticipate that what would be included for Council's consideration would include the TCS results, including mitigation, mitigation funding, traffic trip limits for phased development for am or pm peak hour (whichever is greater), and traffic/road related mitigation due to construction.
"The provisions of the development/municipal agreement are provided in the 2011 Letter of Intent. The City Council would be authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. I would anticipate that the agreement would include the TCS items I mentioned above, mechanisms to enforce/evaluate traffic trip limits, along with power of attorney or petition for annexation and a maintenance and operation payment agreement to be activated if annexation does not occur, and other negotiated items/terms related to the development."
Save Richmond Beach
At the February community meeting, Tom Mailhot, President of SRB, spoke about three critical issues.
First, the second access road and its impact on needed traffic mitigation. He said residents should demand the City get a clear answer from the developer, then make sure there are tailored mitigation projects.
Second is annexation. The City continues to talk about annexation as their goal, but they have not done a study showing the costs and benefits. He said residents need to demand a study as no informed decision is possible without it.
Third is the TCS. Mailhot said the City needs to produce an animated simulation of the Point Wells traffic so people can see the traffic flow and backups at intersections. Without the simulation, it is impossible to understand the traffic impacts.
Mailhot said these critical issues have nothing to do with whether you are for or against the development, they are the minimum due diligence needed for good decisions.
Community member Tom McCormick
Tom McCormick stepped forward and expressed concern about growth. (See McCormick’s Letter to the Editor in this issue about Too Much Density.)
He also talked tolling of Richmond Beach Drive. He expressed disappointment at City Council’s refusal to study tolling. With tolling revenue, the City would be less dependent on taking the developer’s money. The City could then strike a better deal, which could mean less traffic. McCormick noted that the TCS may say that our roads can handle up to 12,000 trips each day, which is an alarming 40 times the current volume at the county line. McCormick asked Ms. Tarry if the City will insist on a significantly lower traffic cap, say 4,000. That remains an open question. He noted that the projected traffic from Point Wells on Richmond Beach Road (Ed. Note: just east of 3rd Avenue NW) will approach 27,000 average daily trips, a volume almost as bad as Aurora Avenue (The City’s 2013 Traffic Flow Map shows about 31,000 on Aurora near 185th street). Finally, McCormick said concerned residents continue to work to limit Point Wells’ traffic. He mentioned one drastic idea: Richmond Beach could secede from Shoreline and form its own city, then pursue tolling and restrictions on traffic. This drastic last-resort measure would require about 1,600 signatures to put it on the ballot and approval by 60 percent of the voters.
Richmond Beach Advocates
RBA has been in communication with City personnel and performing near constant monitoring of the available information. RBA has also met with Council members, community members, experts and folks possibly running for the council.
Jerry Patterson, RBA’s vice president, has said: “People say there is one road to Point Wells. Well, there are three roads--at least three leading to a Point Wells conclusion: the rational road, the political road and the legal road.”
The rational road would be the Environmental Impact Statement and the TCS. The political--three council seats are up for a vote this fall. The legal road is still ahead of us.
Richmond Beach Advocates needs your support
Do you have experience as a community organizer, fund raising experience or technical knowledge? RBA wants you! The legal fund and traffic engineer fund need your donations now.
February 8, 2015
Richmond Beach Advocates petitioned the Growth Management Hearings Board to intervene in the Point Wells matter. The City requested that they deny the request. Find that document here.
Richmond Beach Community Meeting
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 7:00pm – socialize, 7:30pm – meeting
Richmond Beach Congregational Church, 1512 NW 195th Street
In last spring’s survey by RBCA, residents requested more opportunities to visit with other community members. As a result, RBCA will be opening the doors a half hour before the meeting starts to allow for socializing, complete with coffee and cookies.
The first topic of this meeting will be parks. Meet the new Shoreline Parks and Recreation Director, Eric Friedli, and learn about the Saltwater Park restoration project, the status of the pedestrian bridge repair project and ShoreDog’s role at the off-leash dog park from Shoreline Parks Planner Maureen Colaizzi.
The last item on the agenda will feature an update from Richmond Beach Advocate (RBA) board members on Point Wells. Learn what happened at a recent City Council discussion on tolling, as well as a recent legal filing by RBA with the state Growth Management Hearings Board regarding the validity of the ordinance related to the 4000 average daily trip limit classification of Richmond Beach Drive.
January 11, 2015
What's Happening In and Around Richmond Beach
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Shoreline City Council to discuss tolling as a possible revenue source on Monday, Jan. 12
A joint statement by Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
Earlier this week the Shoreline City Council posted an important announcement that could have significant implications for the City's ability to exert more control over the financial impact of the Point Wells development project. Specifically, the City Council will be discussing the topic of tolling at the January 12 Business Meeting of the Council.
For the past four years, Shoreline's city government has maintained that negotiating an agreement with the developer was the only way to insure the City received enough revenue to cover the costs of needed road improvements and on-going maintenance resulting from increased traffic generated by the Point Wells development. Both Save Richmond Beach and Richmond Beach Advocates, along with other Richmond Beach residents, have been researching the viability of tolling at the entrance to Point Wells as an alternate source of revenue to pay for road improvements and other increased costs for Shoreline roads generated by the development. In response to our research and communication with City officials, the Shoreline City Council announced this topic will be discussed by the City Council on Monday. It is important that you be there to hear this discussion and learn about the benefits and limitations of tolling.
In the first paragraph of the Staff Report prepared for the meeting, City Manager Debbie Tarry said:
"Recently a number of questions have been raised about the City's regulatory options in ensuring a safe, efficient and fluid traffic flow on its streets. Deputy Mayor Eggen along with Councilmembers McConnell and Salomon have requested this topic, and specifically tolling on Shoreline streets, be introduced as a discussion item to further understand all available options."
You can read the complete staff report at the following link:
http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/ attachments/cck/council/staffreports/ 2015/staffreport011215-8a.pdf
We believe this is a significant step forward for the City, which could give the City the ability to negotiate for a more reasonably sized development without fear of losing the revenue source necessary to upgrade and maintain the City's road system. The positive impact of tolling could provide a direct benefit to all taxpayers in Shoreline. We urge all residents to attend the meeting on Monday, Jan. 12, City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m.
Shoreline City Council to discuss tolling as a possible revenue source on Monday, January 12
A joint statement by Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
Earlier this week the Shoreline City Council posted an important announcement that could have significant implications for the city’s ability to exert more control over the financial impact of the Point Wells development project. Specifically, the City Council will be discussing the topic of tolling at the January 12th Business Meeting of the Council.
For the past 4 years Shoreline’s city government has maintained that negotiating an agreement with the developer was the only way to insure the city received enough revenue to cover the costs of needed road improvements and on-going maintenance resulting from increased traffic generated by the Point Wells development. Both Save Richmond Beach and Richmond Beach Advocates, along with other Richmond Beach residents, have been researching the viability of tolling at the entrance to Point Wells as an alternate source of revenue to pay for road improvements and other increased costs for Shoreline roads generated by the development. In response to our research and communication with City officials, the Shoreline City Council announced that this topic will be discussed by the City Council on Monday. It is important that you be there to hear this discussion and learn about the benefits and limitations of tolling.
In the first paragraph of the Staff Report prepared for the meeting, City Manager Debbie Tarry said:
“Recently a number of questions have been raised about the City’s regulatory options in ensuring a safe, efficient and fluid traffic flow its streets. Deputy Mayor Eggen along with Councilmembers McConnell and Salomon have requested this topic, and specifically tolling on Shoreline streets, be introduced as a discussion item to further understand all available options.”
You can read the complete staff report at the following link:
http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cck/council/staffreports/2015/staffreport011215-8a.pdf
We believe this is a significant step forward for the city which could give the city the ability to negotiate for a more reasonably sized development without fear of losing the revenue source necessary to upgrade and maintain the city’s road system. The positive impact of tolling could provide a direct benefit to all taxpayers in Shoreline. We urge all residents to attend the meeting, Monday, January 12th, City Council chambers, 7:00 pm.
November 16, 2014
Response from Snohomish County (from the Shoreline City Manager's Report, SAN 11/14)
On October 7, PCD Director Rachael Markle, Intergovernmental Relations Manager Scott MacColl, and I met with Snohomish County Planning staff to discuss my notice to Snohomish County of the City’s intent to negotiate an interlocal annexation agreement for the Point Wells area. Snohomish County indicated that they would provide sample Interlocal agreements and the next steps in the process by the end of October. On Friday, October 31, I received some sample interlocals, although the e-mail stated that the examples were from various dates and some may not conform to current models. The e-mail went on to say “… that based on county staff research, before negotiating an annexation ILA with Snohomish County, the City of Shoreline should pursue an amendment to the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to include a Shoreline Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA). If the Snohomish County Council adopts a Shoreline MUGA in the Snohomish County CPPs, then the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan could be amended to include a Shoreline MUGA, and staff could negotiate a master annexation ILA for Shoreline to annex within the Shoreline MUGA.”
I have requested that County staff provide the CPPs that were used to come to the conclusion for the process that they are requiring. I have also contacted Cynthia Pruitt, at Snohomish County Tomorrow to seek her guidance/understanding on the process. We will be setting a face-to-face meeting with Ms. Pruitt in the next couple of weeks.
October 1, 2014
Record Crowd Leaves RBCA Community Meeting with Renewed Hope
By RBCA Point Wells Subcommittee
A standing-room-only crowd of more than 100 community members attended the September 9 meeting sponsored by the Richmond Beach Community Association (RBCA). The purpose of the meeting was to update the greater Richmond Beach community on a variety of issues, discussed below, concerning the proposed development at Point Wells. The buzz after the meeting was a renewed sense of optimism that the City of Shoreline has more leverage than they perhaps give themselves credit for to affect the scale and traffic of the Point Wells development.
Issue #1: Transportation Corridor Study
Tom Mailhot, Save Richmond Beach President, began the panel presentation with an update on the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS). Mailhot started by listing who is involved in creating and reviewing the TCS. The study is being conducted by Dave Evan Associates (DEA), a traffic firm hired by the developer, BSRE. There are multiple parties that will review the study results:
The City has confirmed that it will make the study materials available to a traffic consulting firm hired by RRA. RBA is working with the City to make sure that RBA consultants have sufficient time to do a thorough independent review.
RBA is also working with the City to make sure the study includes a possible second access road through Woodway. Snohomish County has said the TCS must include a second access road so we are confident the City will realize the TCS is not complete if it does not analyze the effect of a second road.
Looking further ahead, once the City receives complete documentation from DEA, City staff and DKS will review the study results to make sure it is complete. Then RBA will ask its traffic consulting firm to review the study and recommend revisions and/or seek more information where appropriate. After one last round of revisions are agreed upon by all of the parties, City staff will prepare a draft staff report, which they will present at a public open house. The staff report is expected to include a list of mitigation items BSRE has agreed to fund and a description of the funding mechanism to both build and maintain the items.
As part of the open house, the City will also ask BSRE to present an animated model showing the projected traffic flow resulting from the completed project. The public will be invited to comment on the draft staff report. City staff will consider these comments as they create the final staff report that will be presented to the City Council for approval.
There is currently no date set for the open house or for the final presentation to the City Council; both dates cannot be set until DEA submits the detailed study results.
Issue #2: Two Public Access Roads
Tom McCormick, a Richmond Beach resident, has been instrumental in leading the charge on several topics. At the meeting, he first addressed the issue of a Snohomish County Code requirement for two public access roads at Point Wells.
Point Wells raises many issues, but none are bigger than the need for a second public access road. Snohomish County's Engineering Design and Development Standards (EDDS) provide that "A road serving more than 250 ADT (average daily trips) shall be connected in at least two locations with another road or roads that meet applicable standard(s) for the resulting traffic volume." Snohomish County has advised BSRE that this two-access-road requirement applies to the proposed Point Wells development, but it also advised BSRE that it may apply for a deviation. McCormick said he expects that BSRE will either ask Snohomish County to waive the two-access-road requirement entirely, perhaps arguing that it’s not possible to build a second road on the sloping terrain, or ask the County to permit BSRE to build a non-public emergency-only access road.
From panel member McCormick's perspective, a secondpublic access road heading east from Point Wells is required. He added, "Should BSRE submit a request for a deviation from the two-access-road requirement, we will ask that the request be denied, as the public's safety and general welfare is at stake. We have asked the City to take the lead in fighting any deviation request that BSRE may file, but we have not yet received a commitment from the City".
When BSRE purchased the Point Wells site, BSRE knew, or should have known, that a second public access road is required. It took a risk, knowing that it likely would not be able to develop the property if it couldn't construct a second public access road. Snohomish County should not bail out BSRE. It should deny BSRE's deviation request, thereby putting the burden on BSRE to challenge the denial in court. The risk of loss should be borne by BSRE, not by the public for whom the two-access-road requirement is designed to protect. The Snohomish County Code says that the County's Development Code "shall be enforced for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, and not for the benefit of any particular person or class of persons."
To build a second public access road heading east from Point Wells, BSRE will have to seek a road-building permit from the Town of Woodway. And BSRE would need to work with Woodway to ensure that the traffic impacts aren't too great. As a result of both of these items, in McCormick's view, Woodway would likely gain leverage over the scope of the project and seek to downsize the project.
Issue #3: Tolling on Richmond Beach Drive
The City has expressed concern about the huge scope of the proposed Point Wells development. It has told us that there is little it can do about the scope of the project since the site is in Snohomish County and it, not Shoreline, is the permitting agency. In its efforts to do what it can, the City is working with BSRE on a Transportation Corridor Study, which the City hopes will culminate in a traffic cap of no more than 11,587 ADT going to and from Point Wells. That's over 20 times the current traffic volume on Richmond Beach Drive. In exchange for permitting that many trips on its roads, the City expects to enter into an agreement with BSRE whereby it promises to pay for lots of road improvements and other mitigations and promises to somehow secure an ongoing, long-term stream of funds to pay for future road impacts.
Is there anything that can be done about this, so that the City is not so dependent on BSRE for revenues? If the City did not have to depend on BSRE for revenues, the City would gain leverage and would not need to accept such high traffic volumes from Point Wells.
Tolling is a possible alternative revenue source that needs to be seriously considered and studied by the City. The City could gain the revenue it needs by setting up tolling at the entrance to Point Wells, just south of the County line. Our preliminary research indicates that Shoreline's Transportation Benefits District has the legal authority under state law to institute tolling on Richmond Beach Drive, subject to voter approval. Shoreline voters would be asked to approve tolling at Point Wells as a means of having future Point Wells residents, workers and visitors (rather than Shoreline residents) pay for road improvements, other mitigations and ongoing, long-term costs for Shoreline roads that would not be incurred but for the Point Wells development.
Assuming there are 10,000 ADT going to and from Point Wells after the project is fully developed and the toll is $1 for each trip in and out of Point Wells, gross annual revenue after expenses would be around $3 million. ADT and revenue would be lower in the early stages of the development.
Point Wells presents an ideal opportunity for tolling. The property is in Snohomish County, the project approvals and permitting are under the control of Snohomish County, tax revenue inures to the benefit of Snohomish County, yet the traffic impacts are borne mainly by the City of Shoreline. Tolling is an opportunity for the City, through its Transportation Benefits District, to secure a revenue source independent of BSRE for up-front road improvements and other mitigations and for ongoing, long-term costs of road maintenance and operation. The possibility of tolling also helps the City gain leverage in negotiating lower traffic limits than are currently being discussed.
McCormick concluded his remarks with this advice, "The City should thoroughly study the use of tolls at the entrance to Point Wells."
Issue #4: Completion Timeline for Draft EIS
Panel member Bill Willard summarized the issue of a timely completion for the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS). Willard commented, "The TCS and EIS are related because the City and BSRE agreed to use the TCS as the transportation component of the EIS. This should result in a more thorough study of the traffic impacts than otherwise would be required." Willard said that after the TCS is completed, reviewed by the City and approved, it becomes part of the DEIS. Subsequent links in the chain are Snohomish County review, public commentary, final review by Snohomish County and publication of the final EIS.
In his closing remarks, Willard gave a heads-up to the audience that a hot issue still unresolved in the TCS is the debate of a three-lane vs. a four-lane roadway design for Richmond Beach Road. He said, "This issue is more complex than it seems." So he advised community to follow it closely and weigh in on their perspectives.
During the Q & A period that followed the panel presentation, community members asked clarifying questions on issues discussed at the meeting and posed questions to the panel on other topics, including:
www.RichmondBeachWA.org/pointwells
September 14, 2014
From Shoreline Area News...
Op-Ed: A Statement of Expectations Regarding Deliberations and Decisions on Point WellsWEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
By Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
Within the next few months, there will no shortage of hot topics cooking in the cauldron of Point Wells. Issues in the mix include the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS), Second Access Road Requirements, Tolling, and Environmental Impact Statement.
In anticipation of these deliberations, Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA) and Save Richmond Beach (SRB) developed the following Statement of Expectations regarding deliberations and decisions on Pont Wells.
We expect the City of Shoreline to:
· Make policy and administrative decisions consistent with their declared priority to reduce the scale and traffic impact of Point Wells.
· Subject every important topic to a rigorous examination that considers all alternatives to the proposed course of action, including review by third-party experts and by the Shoreline community.
· Accord all third-party reviewers enough time to provide quality input that will inform the City’s deliberations.
· Work with third-party experts and the Shoreline community to make revisions through an iterative process until the City concludes that all concerns have been adequately addressed.
· Make available on a timely basis all public records on the topic being considered by the City of Shoreline.
What you can expect from Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
· Be steadfast in our pursuit to maintain the quality of life and character of the greater Richmond Beach community.
· Remain steadfast in our pursuit to reduce the scale and associated traffic impact of the Point Wells development.
· Hold the City staff and City Council accountable to the expectations stated above.
· Provide leadership in submitting each topic we identify to a thorough, rigorous examination. Such examination may include review by third-party experts and input from the Shoreline community.
· Periodically inform the community on important timelines and decisions.
Applying these expectations to the topics we mentioned above, SRB and RBCA look forward to working with the City of Shoreline to find solutions that advance our mutual goal to reduce the scale and traffic impacts at Point Wells.
September 7, 2014
RBCA Community Meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 7:30 p.m.
Richmond Beach Congregational Church
1512 NW 195th Street
Topic: Point Wells update. Learn what has happened over the summer regarding traffic, second public road access to Point Wells and the Environmental Impact Study. There is much to be done and community members can influence decisions on the scale and character of the Point Wells development by staying actively involved. Learn how you can help!
Sponsored by Richmond Beach Community Association
More info: Jerry Patterson at [email protected]
Did you read this?
A second road required for Point Wells?
July 27, 2014
The Sun Never Sets on Point Wells (-RBCA)
Our greater Richmond Beach community has been blessed this summer with plenty of rich sunshine and spectacular sunsets! But it seems the sun never sets on issues needing attention at Point Wells.
What’s Been Happening
Even though there have been relatively few public meetings held about Point Wells over the summer, Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA) and individual community members have volunteered hundreds of hours on a variety of issues. For example, RBA engaged its attorney, Traci Shallbetter, to provide a legal perspective on the following:
In addition to outstanding work contributed by Attorney Shallbetter, individual Richmond Beach residents have stepped forward to invest countless hours, pro bono, in their areas of expertise, including attorneys and environmental experts. We continue to welcome your expertise and time, too. Please contact RBA ([email protected]) to volunteer in support of reduced scale or alternative use of Point Wells. Also, at least seven public records requests have been made to City of Shoreline and Snohomish County officials on various Point Wells topics, including analysis of cost/benefits of annexation, municipal codes on building heights for Urban Center projects, and traffic analyses conducted by municipalities.
Several meetings have been held that involved representatives from RBA, Save Richmond Beach, Shoreline Coalition for Open Government and Richmond Beach community members. The group met last month with COS officials to stay current on what the City is doing and to advocate on behalf of our neighborhood communities. We also have met several times as a group to share information and develop a cooperative plan of action that capitalizes on the respective expertise of all parties. Our common goal remains the same: To reduce the scale or find alternative, more appropriate use of the Point Wells property.
What’s Ahead
As we look to the near future, the time line for Transportation Corridor decisions apparently continues to get pushed out in time. As this email blast goes to press, the most recent information we have seen published is that the COS anticipated public meetings in September and presentations to the City Council in late September or early October. However, on July 2, COS officials met with BSRE representatives with an agenda to review BSRE’s updated “modeling assumptions” as a basis for conducting an actual transportation analysis. However, BSRE reported at the meeting they did not have revised assumptions available, and another meeting is scheduled between COS and BSRE the first week in August. Given the amount of time required for an internal transportation analysis by the COS, RBA will insist that our own transportation engineers be accorded comparable time for a third-party analysis of the TCS recommendations.
As always, we will keep you posted on the most recent happenings that we learn about and on any revised timelines that are reported. In the meantime, please continue to let your voice be heard on Point Wells!
www.RichmondBeachAdvocates.org
www.RichmondBeachWA.org/pointwells
July 6, 2014
Interested in this topic? Attend the public hearing on Thursday, as they cover the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. If you are on NextDoor, you have seen the following quiz from Tom Jamieson of Richmond Beach. If you're not, follow along and then join NextDoor to find the answers.
Neighbors, an important meeting is coming up, and I want you to be there to provide comment. When you learn what I have to share, you will want to be there. I will bring you up to speed on the entire topic in my next several posts in the form of a quiz, provided there is enough participation from you, my dear neighbors.
The next meeting of the Shoreline Planning Commission is Thursday, July 10, 7:00pm at City Hall. On the agenda is a public hearing to receive public comment on the draft 2014 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP), which has been under development for the last year and a half. The City Council intends to adopt this plan on October 6.
When the draft plan was presented to the Planning Commission on June 19, Point Wells was glaringly absent. I had been personally promised by staff in March, 2013 that a liquefaction map, previously axed from the draft 2012 Comprehensive Plan Major Update, and enlarged to show Point Wells to be at the highest risk for liquefaction, would be included in the City's next hazard mitigation plan, due to come out in 2014. I have waited patiently for the plan. I spoke out at public comment. I was the only member of the public present. Two of the commissioners sided with me. I am please to say, Point Wells is now prominently included in the plan.
I cannot keep up the Point Wells vigil by myself. I need your help. Please join me. I will inform you. I will make it fun. Hence, the quiz. To play, you will need to access City, County, and State documents and websites. I will give you little help there. Ask away, if you can't find what you need. Other neighbors will step up to help you get there. Sorry, there are no prizes, just recognition and admiration.
OK, Let's get started.
Question 1 (worth 10 points): Hazard Scope: Only 10 of the following 23 natural and technical hazard categories defined by the Washington State Military Department of Emergency Management Division (EMD) are addressed in the RHMP. Can you name them?
• Abandoned Underground Mine - Underground coal mines present the largest abandoned mine hazard in Washington State. This is because of the extent of the mines and the urban development that has occurred around them.
• Avalanches - Avalanches have killed more than 190 people in the past century, exceeding deaths from any other natural cause.
• Chemical - Nearly every community has a chemical hazard or a hazardous material transportation system that should be included in public education and emergency planning.
• Civil Disturbance - Washington State witnessed race riots in the 1960s, protests against the Vietnam War in the 1970s, abortion clinic demonstrations in the 1980s, and civil disturbances and allegations of police brutality in the 1990s.
• Dam Failure - Dam failure is the uncontrolled release of impounded water resulting in downstream flooding, which can affect life and property.
• Drought - In the past century, Washington State has experienced a number of drought episodes, including several that lasted for more than a single season.
• Earthquake - More than 1,000 earthquakes occur in Washington each year. A dozen or more are felt; occasionally, they cause damage.
• Energy Emergencies - For information on Energy Emergencies, please visit the WA State Energy Office web site.
• Flood - Damage from flooding exceeds damage by all other natural hazards in Washington State.
• Hazardous Material - The Washington State Department of Ecology reported 3,988 confirmed hazardous materials spills in 1999. The continuing increase in responses to clandestine methamphetamine labs is of particular concern.
• Landslide - Landslide is the movement of rock, soil and debris down a hillside or slope. Landslides take lives, destroy homes, businesses, and public buildings, interrupt transportation, undermine bridges, derail train cars, cover clam and oyster beds, and damage utilities.
• Local Hazard - Local hazards occur in jurisdictions but may or may not have a significant impact on large areas of the state.
• Pipeline - Buried and exposed pipelines are vulnerable to breaks and punctures caused by earth movement, material failure, operator error, construction defects, and tampering. Fuel leaks cause hazardous materials spills, fires, and explosions.
• Radiological - Radiological hazard is the uncontrolled release of radioactive material that can harm people or damage the environment. In Washington State, there have been no radiological releases affecting local jurisdictions from any nuclear power generating system.
• Severe Storm - All areas of Washington State are vulnerable to severe weather. A severe storm is an atmospheric disturbance that results in one or more of the following phenomena: strong winds, large hail, thunderstorm, tornado, rain, snow, or freezing rain.
• Terrorism - Washington State is vulnerable to terrorist activity. Terrorism can be state sponsored or the outgrowth of a frustrated, extremist fringe of polarized and/or minority groups of people. Extremists have a different concept of morality than the mainstream society.
• Transportation - Transportation systems in Washington State include road, air, rail, and maritime. Use of these systems and supporting transportation vehicles create the opportunity for accidents, emergencies, and disasters. Transportation hazards are natural or human caused.
• Tsunami - The Pacific Coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and large lakes are at risk from tsunamis, trains of powerful waves that threaten people and property along shorelines.
• Urban Fire -Urban fire occur primarily in cities or towns with the potential to rapidly spread to adjoining structures. These fires damage and destroy homes, schools, commercial buildings, and vehicles.
• Volcano - Washington has five major volcanoes – Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams. The risk posed by volcanic activity is not always apparent, as volcanoes can lie dormant for centuries between eruptions.
• Wildland Fire - Short-term loss caused by wildland fire can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds, and increase vulnerability to flooding . Long-term effects include smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure.
(Bonus Point. Sort these hazard categories into 2 major categories).
There are 54 local government jurisdictions participating in the 2014 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP). These include municipalities, school districts, fire districts, water/sewerdistricts, and hospital districts. The RHMP is in two volumes. Volume I is over 500 pages. It contains a description of the planning process, an area-wide risk assessment, and an area-wide mitigation strategy. Volume II contains a chapter, or "annex," for each of the 54 jurisdictions partnering with King County on the plan.
Question 2 (worth 5 points): Participating Jurisdictions: Which 4 of the following 5 local jurisdictions governing the Shoreline area are participating in the plan , and which one is not?
• City of Shoreline
• North City Water District
• Ronald Wastewater District
• Shoreline Fire Department
• Shoreline School District
Question 3 (worth 3 points): Landslide Map currency: This is a 3-part question. You get 1 pt. for each correct part.
(1) How many years has it been since King County updated its landslide map?
(2) Why so long?
(3) How long would it take to update it?
(Hint: the answers are on the County's Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) webpage).
Thanks to Tom for this thought-provoking quiz. Now that you're informed, you're ready for the public hearing!
June 8, 2014
This from the Save Richmond Beach page, June 2:
What answers should we demand from the TCS process??The city continues to work on finishing the Point Wells Traffic Corridor Study (TCS) and expects to present the results in an open house later this summer.
The agreement between the City and the developer, BSRE, states that the objective of the study is “to designate mitigation for traffic impacts of the [BSRE] Point Wells development which will create or improve multimodal mobility…which will maintain and improve safety for all users…”
We need answersDesignating mitigation is an important goal, but how are we to decide whether the proposed mitigation will “maintain and improve safety for all users”? Here are some specific safety questions we think the TCS needs to answer.
You need to let the Council know you want the answersWe need to act now to let the City Council know we want them to demand answers to these safety questions and to send the TCS back for more work until they get the answers. You can easily do that by forwarding this message to [email protected]
May 18, 2014
-from the City manager's report, Shoreline Area News
On April 28 Council asked about the proposed emergency moratorium that Snohomish County was considering on development in landslide prone areas. Even though the County’s legal analysis has determined that any such moratorium would not apply to the Point Wells development, City staff has been tracking the emergency moratorium legislation. The Snohomish County Council has decided to take more time to study the issue before taking any legislative action. They are scheduled to discuss this again on May 19. The County already has critical area regulations that have landslide hazard setback regulations, which the Point Wells development is being reviewed for compliance.
May 11, 2014
Council action on Transportation Corridor Study Mitigation Agreement to be rescheduled
Date Posted: May 5, 2014 (City Website)
Council action on the Transportation Corridor Study Mitigation Agreement had originally been scheduled for Monday, June 23. However, due to the fact that the peer review the City is conducting on the traffic modeling done by BSRE's traffic consultants will not be completed in time, and since negotiation of the mitigation package requires completion of the peer review, Council action will need to be rescheduled. Staff hope to get a better sense of the timing for the Mitigation Agreement over the next couple of weeks.
President's Message
RBCA Newspaper, May 2014
Those of you following along with the evolving saga of Point Wells know that a lot happened this past month. The Washington Supreme Court handed down their decision in the vesting case. They ruled in favor of the developer. Some have asked, “Does this mean it is all over?” Absolutely not! The Supreme Court case, even if it had been won by the plaintiffs, would have only scaled back the project about ten percent--it would not have ended it. That case was only round 2 in a 20 rounder.
There are literally years of work ahead that will shape what happens at Point Wells. Other events the past month demonstrate that things are not over. The City of Shoreline has been holding public meetings on the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS) process. They have received a lot of comments. From what the City tells us in a recent press release, they will make adjustments to their plans and present a final recommendation to the City Council, perhaps in late June. City staff will hold an open house to share the final recommendation with the public prior to meeting with Council. If the City Council gives the go ahead, the City will submit the TCS outcomes and agreement to Snohomish County, then negotiate a “development agreement” with BSRE and finally schedule appropriate Point Wells subarea plan amendments that will be worked on later this year.
The City says it will then provide the “mitigation package” to Snohomish County to be included as part of the transportation section of the County’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the City is not able to secure the requirement from the Snohomish County EIS process that the mitigation package will be constructed by BSRE, the City and BSRE will negotiate the mitigation as part of the development agreement.
The City states it will also work to negotiate the following items into the development agreement with BSRE: (1) a funding mechanism to pay for the required mitigation package; (2) agreement on the ultimate cap on daily vehicle trips to and from Point Wells and how to enforce the cap; (3) agreement on the sequence of implementation of the mitigation projects; and (4) Point Wells annexation to the City of Shoreline.
Most of the activities described above focus heavily on traffic issues. There will be a separate process, not yet started, that will deal with the environmental cleanup. Next come shoreline permits and then the building permits process.
All of these things will require that the Richmond Beach community stay on top of things and have advocates with special expertise to monitor what the City of Shoreline, Snohomish County and BSRE are doing.
As many of you know, in early February the RBCA Board discussed how we could continue to improve support for the Richmond Beach community. We quickly came to the conclusion that we needed to assemble a quality team of experts to support the neighborhood. The RBCA board members felt we had reached a point where the technical knowledge needed was beyond the reach of just our volunteers. At the February RBCA General Meeting, the Board announced the formation of Richmond Beach Advocates, a non-profit organization.
To provide the technical expertise required, Richmond Beach Advocates retained Shallbetter Law for legal counsel and Gibson Traffic Engineers for expert advice on traffic issues. We have been working with each expert to develop specific plans for achieving our goals. Below I highlight some of the tasks assigned to the experts:
Transportation
• Provide peer review and support to ensure that traffic analysis and mitigation is consistent with professional standards.
• Evaluate the overall approach taken by the Transportation Corridor Study conducted by the Developer and the City of Shoreline.
• Provide detailed review of average daily trip (ADT) methodology used.
• Review detailed level of service validity for up to 10 key locations.
• Review collision history provided in the study and conduct field checks to evaluate any critical safety issues along designated corridor.
• Review recommended mitigation requirements for effectiveness and appropriateness.
• Produce a written report to RBA that summarizes the
transportation experts’ findings and recommendations.
Legal Services
• Representation of RBA interests throughout permitting and entitlement process, with a focus on ensuring procedural and substantive compliance and preserving procedural and substantive legal challenges.
• Legal research and analysis re SEPA Scoping, Alternatives Analysis, and Project Impacts.
• Interface with Snohomish County and stakeholders during the Draft EIS phase re: Richmond Beach concerns, project impacts, and proposed mitigation.
• Legal analysis of, and comments on, DEIS and FEIS.
• Oversight and comment on entitlement processing, including comprehensive plan amendment process and development agreement negotiations with City of Shoreline.
• Interface with BSRE and applicable jurisdictions to advocate for RBA issues and proposed mitigations.
• Legal research and analysis regarding procedural and substantive challenges to Point Wells permits and approvals, and, if applicable, filing of appeals.
In other words, RBA has a clear focus, guided by legal and transportation experts. RBA will continue to advocate for a reduction in scale of the project, an increase in public amenities such as open space, pedestrian corridors, and safe neighborhoods, and real mitigation of the impacts associated with traffic, public services, and other potential negative impacts of the proposed development.
Richmond Beach Advocates was set up as a separate entity so that when you make a contribution you know how the funds will be used.
Going forward with this project will require paying the professionals to help the community. This effort will cost a significant amount of money. The RBCA Board provided seed money to move the process forward. That money has been used up. I am happy to report that there has been strong community support so far and RBA is moving forward with its plan.
This work will require more contributions to keep us going for the duration. The Board asks for your support. Please make checks payable to “Richmond Beach Advocates” and mail to P. O. Box 60186, Richmond Beach, WA 98160-0186. All contributions will remain confidential.
Thank you for your support.
April 20, 2014
Planning Commission Meeting on May 1 will focus on the Transportation Corridor Study. Read the agenda report here: http://shorelinewa.gov/home/showdocument?id=16592
City Page on the Transportation Corridor
Overflow crowd expresses grave concerns about projected traffic from Point Wells, Shoreline Area News 4/17/14
April 13, 2014
Point Wells on the 4/14 City Council Agenda
Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Court of Appeals Decision on Point Wells Project Vesting
Date Posted: April 10, 2014 (City website)
On April 10, 2014, in a 6-3 decision, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision that BSRE's Point Wells project applications were vested under Snohomish County's "Urban Center" zoning designation. With this decision, BSRE's permit applications for the Point Wells site will continue to be processed by Snohomish County under this zoning designation. To read the Supreme Court decision, please click on the following link: www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/884056.pdf.
As noted in the opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that, "BSRE's development rights vested to the plans and regulations in place at the time it submitted its permit applications." The Court went on to say, "Developers' rights vest to the ordinances in effect when a complete permit application is submitted. The plain language of the GMA (State Growth Management Act) indicates that a later finding of noncompliance under SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) does not affect rights that have already been vested".
The City of Shoreline has been working with the Shoreline community and BSRE to identify improvements that will be needed to Richmond Beach Drive, Richmond Beach Road and the surrounding transportation grid to mitigate anticipated traffic impacts as a result of a potential development at Point Wells. The final workshop is scheduled for April 16 at 6:30 p.m. at Shoreline City Hall. The final workshop will be an opportunity for City staff to share a list of recommended improvements based on the feedback received at prior workshops. To review materials and comments from the first five transportation workshops, visit the TCS page.
Save Richmond Beach Reacts to Supreme Court Decision (Shoreline Area News 4/12/14)
April 6, 2014
Thank you
Thanks to everyone who turned out for the Hillwood/Richmond Highlands meeting tonight (Monday March 31) at Calvin Presbyterian!! A HUGE thanks to our speakers, Jerry Patterson and Dave Osaki for getting us up to speed!
A reminder that SCOPING comments are due April 2, and EIS will be later. Scoping comments will help the County figure out what needs to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement. If you have particular concerns about impacts to schools, emergency services, traffic (particular intersections or roads), wildlife, soil, air quality (pick your issue), this is where you ask them to consider studying it. More on how to do that below.
As promised...
Here are the documents that Jerry was talking about - the alternatives to Section A. COS Richmond Beach Options; Option 4 C Modified
Here's the link that Robin mentioned, that goes to the Snohomish County page on Point Wells:
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1511/Point-Wells
Here is the link to the Citizen's Guide to SEPA Review and Commenting:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/citizensguide/citizensguide.htm
Remember that Dave told us to be as specific as possible with comments; include details that only affected residents would know. Other tips from that page:
What comments are helpful?
Comments in the following areas are particularly valuable:
It is important to remember that your goal is to communicate your concerns. If you fail to make yourself both understandable and believable, then your message is likely to be wasted.
Be clear, concise, and organized. Decide what you need to say before you begin. Developing an outline, if you have a number of points, is a good idea to help you group your comments in a logical order. Jumping back and forth between several topics reduces the impact of your argument.
Be specific. Saying that you are against a project will not have as much effect as saying why. It is always a good idea to give as much support as possible to your comments. Include as much factual information as possible. For instance, you can compare how things were, to how they are, to how you believe they will be in the future—and why. Referring to the comprehensive plan (if your community has one), development regulations, information on similar projects or situations, or other environmental laws and/or documents can also be helpful. It is important to be as accurate as possible.
Identify possible solutions. Suggestions on reasonable mitigation (conditions to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts) may help shape a questionable project into a welcome addition to a community. After identifying your concern, whenever possible, suggest possible solutions.
Point Wells Environmental Review Process Begins
-courtesy of Richmond Beach Community Association
Snohomish County has started the environmental review process for the proposed development at Point Wells. The review will look at the development's impacts and determine how to address them.
Commenting: Due to a technical error, the commenting period has been extended to April 2. The following options are available to provide comments on the scope of the EIS on or before 5:00 p.m., April 2, 2014: 1) via email to [email protected]; or 2) in writing to Darryl Eastin, Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S 604, 2nd Floor, Robert Drewel Building, Everett, WA 98201.
POINT WELLS SCOPING COMMENTS SENT TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Richmond Beach Advocates - RBA website
Scoping Comments of Richmond Beach Advocates to Snohomish County (PDF)
Save Richmond Beach - SRB website
Scoping Comments of Save Richmond Beach to Snohomish County (PDF)
City of Shoreline - Press Release plus Scoping Comments:
http://shorelinewa.gov/community/news/-item-1651
Point Wells Transportation Corridor Study Begins
This study will allow the community, City staff and BSRE to examine the effects of additional traffic on Richmond Beach Drive, Richmond Beach Road, surrounding side streets and other major intersections along N 185th Street and to I-5. This includes looking at time spent waiting at intersections, the ability for residents to safely access their driveways and safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists. To ensure the process is objective, the City has hired a third party facilitator. The process will give residents an opportunity to explain and show on maps exactly the kinds of capital investments that will make for a safe and efficient corridor.
The process includes a series of six workshops that will give residents an opportunity to explain and show on maps exactly the kinds of capital investments that will make for a safe and efficient transportation corridor.
All meetings held in the Shoreline City Hall Council Chamber, 17500 Midvale Avenue North, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Sponsored by City of Shoreline
More info: Transportation Planning Manager Kirk McKinley at [email protected] or (206) 801-2481 or visit www.shorelinewa.gov/pointwells.
REMAINING WORKSHOP DATES:
TRAFFIC CORRIDOR WORKSHOP SUMMARIES PROVIDED BY CITY OF SHORELINE
Follow the link to view all of the comments from the Transportation Corridor Study Workshops:
http://shorelinewa.gov/transportationcorridorstudy
MORE INFORMATION:
RBCA: Point Wells webpages
City of Shoreline: Point Wells webpages
Richmond Beach Advocates
Save Richmond Beach: A community driven non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the Richmond Beach neighborhood through responsible and sustainable planning.
Shoreline Area News: Point Wells articles
Shoreline Patch: Point Wells articles
Snohomish County Planning dept recommends denial of permit for Point Wells developmentShoreline Area News, Friday, April 20, 2018
From Tom McCormick
Snohomish County’s Department of Planning and Development Services has sent its 93-page Staff Recommendation to the hearing examiner, recommending denial of BSRE’s applications to develop Point Wells as an urban center. Here is an excerpt from page 2 of the Staff Recommendation:
"Recommendation: Denial for the following reasons:
- Failure to Document Feasibility and Code Compliance of Second Access Road;
- Failure to Provide Acceptable Traffic Report and Assumptions, Resulting in Noncompliance with Concurrency Requirements and Failure to Mitigate Traffic Impacts;
- Failure to Provide Appropriate Building Setbacks for Tall Buildings from Lower Density Zones and Failure to Document Evidence for Access to High Capacity Transit for Building Heights Over 90 Feet;
- Failure to Satisfy Access to Public Transportation and Transit Compatibility;
- Failure to Furnish Information on Contamination Necessary to Determine Approvability of Drainage Proposal and Compliance with Critical Areas Regulations;
- Failure to Provide Adequate Parking;
- Failure to Address Shoreline Management Regulations;
- Failure to Comply with Code Provisions Regarding Critical Areas, Including Geologically Hazardous Areas, Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.”
According to the hearing examiner's scheduling order, the hearing is scheduled to begin May 16, and continue through May 31. Public comments can be made on May 17 (starting 1:30pm), and on May 18 (starting 9am). The hearing examiner’s scheduling order can be accessed here
January 28, 2018
Planning Commission 2018 Comprehensive Plan (Thursday, 2/1 meeting)
Mailhot Amendment
August 30
Important announcement about Point Wells!
A joint statement by Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
On September 8, the Richmond Beach Community Association’s general meeting is designed to bring you up to date on critical Point Wells issues. Following this presentation, Shoreline City Council candidates in the November election will speak to specific questions about these issues. Time permitting after the candidates’ comments, we will field questions from the audience. This will be a very important meeting you won’t want to miss.
Below are the major topics that we will discuss at the September community meeting.
Shoreline/BSRE Transportation Corridor Study (TCS)
Come learn why City Manager Debbie Tarry says it isunlikely that the City will complete the TCS until sometime later in 2016. Find out why BSRE’s assumptions designed to guide the TCS analysis were sent back to the drawing board.
Two Access Roads to Point Wells
We will update you on the City’s acceptance of our recommendation to incorporate a second access road into the TCS, as well as Snohomish County’s agreement to include in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the feasibility and impacts of a second access road.
Tolling on Richmond Beach Drive
We will discuss the City’s decision (thanks to our efforts) to amend the City’s Transportation Benefit District rules to permit the District to authorize tolling, subject to voter approval. Find out why we believe strongly that tolling should be studied now, not later, and why we contend that tolling provides a viable alternative to annexation as a means for paying for road impacts and improvements.
90 Foot Maximum Height on Point Wells Buildings
BSRE’s project application calls for at least 20 towers taller than 90 feet at Point Wells. Come learn about our legal arguments why Snohomish County Urban Center Code limits a maximum building height of 90 feet, not 180 feet as proposed by the developer.
Status of Draft EIS
We will update you on the status of the Snohomish County EIS, an estimated publication date and their agreement to include a 90-foot alternative in the EIS.
Fiscal Analysis of Annexation Alternatives
Find out why we successfully argued that a “no annexation” alternative should be included in the proposed analysis of the financial impact of annexation to the City and Woodway, and learn about our position that the financial analysis should include a scenario that assumes only 1,500 units at Point Wells.
City of Shoreline Leverage to Influence the Traffic and Scale of the DevelopmentThe City Manager and Council Members have consistently maintained that they have no leverage over the scale of the Point Wells development. The prevailing view expressed is that the City can only potentially influence traffic volume. Based on our cumulative legal research on this issue, we will submit specific areas where we are confident that the City Council has strong leverage to influence the size of the development, as well the number of vehicle trips.
In closing, we want to clear up a misperception. Some residents mistakenly assume that there is not much on the Point Wells agenda that the City Council or community members can influence. This is just plain wrong! From this point forward, the City Council has the power to make critical decisions about Point Wells that could reduce the scale and traffic impact, in turn preserving the rich character of our Richmond Beach community. That is why the upcoming City Council election is extremely important.
On many fronts your active participation is needed now more than ever. Community participation includes your active involvement leading up to the November elections. Become an informed voter. Demand accountability from both the current and new City Council.
Your community participation also includes your ongoing financial contributions to help support our community efforts. Make checks payable to Richmond Beach Advocates, and mail to P.O. Box 60186, Richmond Beach, WA 98160-0186. Or donate online at richmondbeachadvocates.org.
We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 7:30 p.m., at the Richmond Beach Congregational Church, 1512 NW 195th Street.
Richmond Beach Advocates
Save Richmond Beach
March 22
By RBCA Point Wells Subcommittee (page 11, Richmond Beach Community News)
Since our last Point Wells update, outwardly it may seem as though not much has happened. Quietly a lot is going on.
Traffic continues to be a hotly contested topic
BSRE, the developer at Point Wells, has traffic engineers working on traffic modeling. The City has staff and an outside consultant working on the transportation corridor. There is an active exchange going on.
Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA) has a traffic engineer on standby to review the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS) when it becomes public – an unknown date. We understand that the Innis Arden Association also has traffic engineer.
Comprehensive Plan, including the Point Wells Subarea Plan
In the City’s Comprehensive Plan for Point Wells Subarea there is a 4,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) limit for Richmond Beach Drive. BSRE challenged the limit. Since 2011, this challenge has been repeatedly postponed. RBA, in an effort to support the traffic limitation, sought to intervene in the proceedings. Both the City and BSRE stood to oppose RBA.
The City wrote, “Intervention by RBA would interfere with the City's ability to defend its policy and result in preventing BSRE and the City from continuing to negotiate a solution." RBA of course disagrees. Unfortunately, RBA’s effort was rebuffed. Action was postponed again as requested by City and BSRE.
Second public road access to Point Wells
Under Snohomish County code, a second road to a large development as proposed at Point Wells requires a second access road. We have learned that the developer, in one of their models, assumes a road to the north connecting to 114th Avenue West in the Town of Woodway.
Landslide hazard
There is a history of landslides at Point Wells, including one that took out the old road to Point Wells. In 1997, there was a large slide just north of Point Wells. Newspapers at the time reported that the slide “struck a freight train and knocked five cars into Puget Sound... Debris from the slide covered about 200 feet of track and extended 900 feet into the water.” Parts of the rail cars are still visible at low tide. This a serious concern given that mile-long oil trains now regularly travel the track.
Cleanup at Point Wells
RBA and Save Richmond Beach (SRB) met with the Washington State Department of Ecology about the cleanup at Point Wells. Ecology staff expressed a strong interest in having the community involved. Toward that end, RBA filed an application for a grant to help assist with the review of the cleanup through an Ecology public participation program. The same program has been used and is still going at Point Edwards.
City of Shoreline’s position
Chris Eggen and Debbie Tarry attended the February Richmond Beach Community Association meeting, and both graciously agreed to answer questions. The City’s position is consistent as stated as in previous meetings and as set out in a January email from Tarry.
"Our original thoughts were to have the TCS results/mitigation agreement and development agreement come to the City Council at the same time. As we continue to work through this process we continue to evaluate how best to proceed in completing the agreements and leveraging the best agreements for the City. This may mean that there is some separation of time when the agreements are brought to the City Council, but that is yet to be determined.
"The provisions of the TCS Agreement are in the Memorandum of Understanding. I anticipate that the action the Council would take is authorizing the City Manager to submit the results of the TCS study to Snohomish County to be included in the EIS. I anticipate that what would be included for Council's consideration would include the TCS results, including mitigation, mitigation funding, traffic trip limits for phased development for am or pm peak hour (whichever is greater), and traffic/road related mitigation due to construction.
"The provisions of the development/municipal agreement are provided in the 2011 Letter of Intent. The City Council would be authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. I would anticipate that the agreement would include the TCS items I mentioned above, mechanisms to enforce/evaluate traffic trip limits, along with power of attorney or petition for annexation and a maintenance and operation payment agreement to be activated if annexation does not occur, and other negotiated items/terms related to the development."
Save Richmond Beach
At the February community meeting, Tom Mailhot, President of SRB, spoke about three critical issues.
First, the second access road and its impact on needed traffic mitigation. He said residents should demand the City get a clear answer from the developer, then make sure there are tailored mitigation projects.
Second is annexation. The City continues to talk about annexation as their goal, but they have not done a study showing the costs and benefits. He said residents need to demand a study as no informed decision is possible without it.
Third is the TCS. Mailhot said the City needs to produce an animated simulation of the Point Wells traffic so people can see the traffic flow and backups at intersections. Without the simulation, it is impossible to understand the traffic impacts.
Mailhot said these critical issues have nothing to do with whether you are for or against the development, they are the minimum due diligence needed for good decisions.
Community member Tom McCormick
Tom McCormick stepped forward and expressed concern about growth. (See McCormick’s Letter to the Editor in this issue about Too Much Density.)
He also talked tolling of Richmond Beach Drive. He expressed disappointment at City Council’s refusal to study tolling. With tolling revenue, the City would be less dependent on taking the developer’s money. The City could then strike a better deal, which could mean less traffic. McCormick noted that the TCS may say that our roads can handle up to 12,000 trips each day, which is an alarming 40 times the current volume at the county line. McCormick asked Ms. Tarry if the City will insist on a significantly lower traffic cap, say 4,000. That remains an open question. He noted that the projected traffic from Point Wells on Richmond Beach Road (Ed. Note: just east of 3rd Avenue NW) will approach 27,000 average daily trips, a volume almost as bad as Aurora Avenue (The City’s 2013 Traffic Flow Map shows about 31,000 on Aurora near 185th street). Finally, McCormick said concerned residents continue to work to limit Point Wells’ traffic. He mentioned one drastic idea: Richmond Beach could secede from Shoreline and form its own city, then pursue tolling and restrictions on traffic. This drastic last-resort measure would require about 1,600 signatures to put it on the ballot and approval by 60 percent of the voters.
Richmond Beach Advocates
RBA has been in communication with City personnel and performing near constant monitoring of the available information. RBA has also met with Council members, community members, experts and folks possibly running for the council.
Jerry Patterson, RBA’s vice president, has said: “People say there is one road to Point Wells. Well, there are three roads--at least three leading to a Point Wells conclusion: the rational road, the political road and the legal road.”
The rational road would be the Environmental Impact Statement and the TCS. The political--three council seats are up for a vote this fall. The legal road is still ahead of us.
Richmond Beach Advocates needs your support
Do you have experience as a community organizer, fund raising experience or technical knowledge? RBA wants you! The legal fund and traffic engineer fund need your donations now.
February 8, 2015
Richmond Beach Advocates petitioned the Growth Management Hearings Board to intervene in the Point Wells matter. The City requested that they deny the request. Find that document here.
Richmond Beach Community Meeting
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 7:00pm – socialize, 7:30pm – meeting
Richmond Beach Congregational Church, 1512 NW 195th Street
In last spring’s survey by RBCA, residents requested more opportunities to visit with other community members. As a result, RBCA will be opening the doors a half hour before the meeting starts to allow for socializing, complete with coffee and cookies.
The first topic of this meeting will be parks. Meet the new Shoreline Parks and Recreation Director, Eric Friedli, and learn about the Saltwater Park restoration project, the status of the pedestrian bridge repair project and ShoreDog’s role at the off-leash dog park from Shoreline Parks Planner Maureen Colaizzi.
The last item on the agenda will feature an update from Richmond Beach Advocate (RBA) board members on Point Wells. Learn what happened at a recent City Council discussion on tolling, as well as a recent legal filing by RBA with the state Growth Management Hearings Board regarding the validity of the ordinance related to the 4000 average daily trip limit classification of Richmond Beach Drive.
January 11, 2015
What's Happening In and Around Richmond Beach
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Shoreline City Council to discuss tolling as a possible revenue source on Monday, Jan. 12
A joint statement by Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
Earlier this week the Shoreline City Council posted an important announcement that could have significant implications for the City's ability to exert more control over the financial impact of the Point Wells development project. Specifically, the City Council will be discussing the topic of tolling at the January 12 Business Meeting of the Council.
For the past four years, Shoreline's city government has maintained that negotiating an agreement with the developer was the only way to insure the City received enough revenue to cover the costs of needed road improvements and on-going maintenance resulting from increased traffic generated by the Point Wells development. Both Save Richmond Beach and Richmond Beach Advocates, along with other Richmond Beach residents, have been researching the viability of tolling at the entrance to Point Wells as an alternate source of revenue to pay for road improvements and other increased costs for Shoreline roads generated by the development. In response to our research and communication with City officials, the Shoreline City Council announced this topic will be discussed by the City Council on Monday. It is important that you be there to hear this discussion and learn about the benefits and limitations of tolling.
In the first paragraph of the Staff Report prepared for the meeting, City Manager Debbie Tarry said:
"Recently a number of questions have been raised about the City's regulatory options in ensuring a safe, efficient and fluid traffic flow on its streets. Deputy Mayor Eggen along with Councilmembers McConnell and Salomon have requested this topic, and specifically tolling on Shoreline streets, be introduced as a discussion item to further understand all available options."
You can read the complete staff report at the following link:
http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/ attachments/cck/council/staffreports/ 2015/staffreport011215-8a.pdf
We believe this is a significant step forward for the City, which could give the City the ability to negotiate for a more reasonably sized development without fear of losing the revenue source necessary to upgrade and maintain the City's road system. The positive impact of tolling could provide a direct benefit to all taxpayers in Shoreline. We urge all residents to attend the meeting on Monday, Jan. 12, City Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m.
Shoreline City Council to discuss tolling as a possible revenue source on Monday, January 12
A joint statement by Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
Earlier this week the Shoreline City Council posted an important announcement that could have significant implications for the city’s ability to exert more control over the financial impact of the Point Wells development project. Specifically, the City Council will be discussing the topic of tolling at the January 12th Business Meeting of the Council.
For the past 4 years Shoreline’s city government has maintained that negotiating an agreement with the developer was the only way to insure the city received enough revenue to cover the costs of needed road improvements and on-going maintenance resulting from increased traffic generated by the Point Wells development. Both Save Richmond Beach and Richmond Beach Advocates, along with other Richmond Beach residents, have been researching the viability of tolling at the entrance to Point Wells as an alternate source of revenue to pay for road improvements and other increased costs for Shoreline roads generated by the development. In response to our research and communication with City officials, the Shoreline City Council announced that this topic will be discussed by the City Council on Monday. It is important that you be there to hear this discussion and learn about the benefits and limitations of tolling.
In the first paragraph of the Staff Report prepared for the meeting, City Manager Debbie Tarry said:
“Recently a number of questions have been raised about the City’s regulatory options in ensuring a safe, efficient and fluid traffic flow its streets. Deputy Mayor Eggen along with Councilmembers McConnell and Salomon have requested this topic, and specifically tolling on Shoreline streets, be introduced as a discussion item to further understand all available options.”
You can read the complete staff report at the following link:
http://cosweb.ci.shoreline.wa.us/uploads/attachments/cck/council/staffreports/2015/staffreport011215-8a.pdf
We believe this is a significant step forward for the city which could give the city the ability to negotiate for a more reasonably sized development without fear of losing the revenue source necessary to upgrade and maintain the city’s road system. The positive impact of tolling could provide a direct benefit to all taxpayers in Shoreline. We urge all residents to attend the meeting, Monday, January 12th, City Council chambers, 7:00 pm.
November 16, 2014
Response from Snohomish County (from the Shoreline City Manager's Report, SAN 11/14)
On October 7, PCD Director Rachael Markle, Intergovernmental Relations Manager Scott MacColl, and I met with Snohomish County Planning staff to discuss my notice to Snohomish County of the City’s intent to negotiate an interlocal annexation agreement for the Point Wells area. Snohomish County indicated that they would provide sample Interlocal agreements and the next steps in the process by the end of October. On Friday, October 31, I received some sample interlocals, although the e-mail stated that the examples were from various dates and some may not conform to current models. The e-mail went on to say “… that based on county staff research, before negotiating an annexation ILA with Snohomish County, the City of Shoreline should pursue an amendment to the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to include a Shoreline Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA). If the Snohomish County Council adopts a Shoreline MUGA in the Snohomish County CPPs, then the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan could be amended to include a Shoreline MUGA, and staff could negotiate a master annexation ILA for Shoreline to annex within the Shoreline MUGA.”
I have requested that County staff provide the CPPs that were used to come to the conclusion for the process that they are requiring. I have also contacted Cynthia Pruitt, at Snohomish County Tomorrow to seek her guidance/understanding on the process. We will be setting a face-to-face meeting with Ms. Pruitt in the next couple of weeks.
October 1, 2014
Record Crowd Leaves RBCA Community Meeting with Renewed Hope
By RBCA Point Wells Subcommittee
A standing-room-only crowd of more than 100 community members attended the September 9 meeting sponsored by the Richmond Beach Community Association (RBCA). The purpose of the meeting was to update the greater Richmond Beach community on a variety of issues, discussed below, concerning the proposed development at Point Wells. The buzz after the meeting was a renewed sense of optimism that the City of Shoreline has more leverage than they perhaps give themselves credit for to affect the scale and traffic of the Point Wells development.
Issue #1: Transportation Corridor Study
Tom Mailhot, Save Richmond Beach President, began the panel presentation with an update on the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS). Mailhot started by listing who is involved in creating and reviewing the TCS. The study is being conducted by Dave Evan Associates (DEA), a traffic firm hired by the developer, BSRE. There are multiple parties that will review the study results:
- City of Shoreline staff
- DKS, a local traffic consulting firm hired by the city
- Snohomish County staff
- Transpo Group, a local traffic consulting firm hired by Snohomish County
- A local traffic consulting firm hired by Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA)
The City has confirmed that it will make the study materials available to a traffic consulting firm hired by RRA. RBA is working with the City to make sure that RBA consultants have sufficient time to do a thorough independent review.
RBA is also working with the City to make sure the study includes a possible second access road through Woodway. Snohomish County has said the TCS must include a second access road so we are confident the City will realize the TCS is not complete if it does not analyze the effect of a second road.
Looking further ahead, once the City receives complete documentation from DEA, City staff and DKS will review the study results to make sure it is complete. Then RBA will ask its traffic consulting firm to review the study and recommend revisions and/or seek more information where appropriate. After one last round of revisions are agreed upon by all of the parties, City staff will prepare a draft staff report, which they will present at a public open house. The staff report is expected to include a list of mitigation items BSRE has agreed to fund and a description of the funding mechanism to both build and maintain the items.
As part of the open house, the City will also ask BSRE to present an animated model showing the projected traffic flow resulting from the completed project. The public will be invited to comment on the draft staff report. City staff will consider these comments as they create the final staff report that will be presented to the City Council for approval.
There is currently no date set for the open house or for the final presentation to the City Council; both dates cannot be set until DEA submits the detailed study results.
Issue #2: Two Public Access Roads
Tom McCormick, a Richmond Beach resident, has been instrumental in leading the charge on several topics. At the meeting, he first addressed the issue of a Snohomish County Code requirement for two public access roads at Point Wells.
Point Wells raises many issues, but none are bigger than the need for a second public access road. Snohomish County's Engineering Design and Development Standards (EDDS) provide that "A road serving more than 250 ADT (average daily trips) shall be connected in at least two locations with another road or roads that meet applicable standard(s) for the resulting traffic volume." Snohomish County has advised BSRE that this two-access-road requirement applies to the proposed Point Wells development, but it also advised BSRE that it may apply for a deviation. McCormick said he expects that BSRE will either ask Snohomish County to waive the two-access-road requirement entirely, perhaps arguing that it’s not possible to build a second road on the sloping terrain, or ask the County to permit BSRE to build a non-public emergency-only access road.
From panel member McCormick's perspective, a secondpublic access road heading east from Point Wells is required. He added, "Should BSRE submit a request for a deviation from the two-access-road requirement, we will ask that the request be denied, as the public's safety and general welfare is at stake. We have asked the City to take the lead in fighting any deviation request that BSRE may file, but we have not yet received a commitment from the City".
When BSRE purchased the Point Wells site, BSRE knew, or should have known, that a second public access road is required. It took a risk, knowing that it likely would not be able to develop the property if it couldn't construct a second public access road. Snohomish County should not bail out BSRE. It should deny BSRE's deviation request, thereby putting the burden on BSRE to challenge the denial in court. The risk of loss should be borne by BSRE, not by the public for whom the two-access-road requirement is designed to protect. The Snohomish County Code says that the County's Development Code "shall be enforced for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, and not for the benefit of any particular person or class of persons."
To build a second public access road heading east from Point Wells, BSRE will have to seek a road-building permit from the Town of Woodway. And BSRE would need to work with Woodway to ensure that the traffic impacts aren't too great. As a result of both of these items, in McCormick's view, Woodway would likely gain leverage over the scope of the project and seek to downsize the project.
Issue #3: Tolling on Richmond Beach Drive
The City has expressed concern about the huge scope of the proposed Point Wells development. It has told us that there is little it can do about the scope of the project since the site is in Snohomish County and it, not Shoreline, is the permitting agency. In its efforts to do what it can, the City is working with BSRE on a Transportation Corridor Study, which the City hopes will culminate in a traffic cap of no more than 11,587 ADT going to and from Point Wells. That's over 20 times the current traffic volume on Richmond Beach Drive. In exchange for permitting that many trips on its roads, the City expects to enter into an agreement with BSRE whereby it promises to pay for lots of road improvements and other mitigations and promises to somehow secure an ongoing, long-term stream of funds to pay for future road impacts.
Is there anything that can be done about this, so that the City is not so dependent on BSRE for revenues? If the City did not have to depend on BSRE for revenues, the City would gain leverage and would not need to accept such high traffic volumes from Point Wells.
Tolling is a possible alternative revenue source that needs to be seriously considered and studied by the City. The City could gain the revenue it needs by setting up tolling at the entrance to Point Wells, just south of the County line. Our preliminary research indicates that Shoreline's Transportation Benefits District has the legal authority under state law to institute tolling on Richmond Beach Drive, subject to voter approval. Shoreline voters would be asked to approve tolling at Point Wells as a means of having future Point Wells residents, workers and visitors (rather than Shoreline residents) pay for road improvements, other mitigations and ongoing, long-term costs for Shoreline roads that would not be incurred but for the Point Wells development.
Assuming there are 10,000 ADT going to and from Point Wells after the project is fully developed and the toll is $1 for each trip in and out of Point Wells, gross annual revenue after expenses would be around $3 million. ADT and revenue would be lower in the early stages of the development.
Point Wells presents an ideal opportunity for tolling. The property is in Snohomish County, the project approvals and permitting are under the control of Snohomish County, tax revenue inures to the benefit of Snohomish County, yet the traffic impacts are borne mainly by the City of Shoreline. Tolling is an opportunity for the City, through its Transportation Benefits District, to secure a revenue source independent of BSRE for up-front road improvements and other mitigations and for ongoing, long-term costs of road maintenance and operation. The possibility of tolling also helps the City gain leverage in negotiating lower traffic limits than are currently being discussed.
McCormick concluded his remarks with this advice, "The City should thoroughly study the use of tolls at the entrance to Point Wells."
Issue #4: Completion Timeline for Draft EIS
Panel member Bill Willard summarized the issue of a timely completion for the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS). Willard commented, "The TCS and EIS are related because the City and BSRE agreed to use the TCS as the transportation component of the EIS. This should result in a more thorough study of the traffic impacts than otherwise would be required." Willard said that after the TCS is completed, reviewed by the City and approved, it becomes part of the DEIS. Subsequent links in the chain are Snohomish County review, public commentary, final review by Snohomish County and publication of the final EIS.
In his closing remarks, Willard gave a heads-up to the audience that a hot issue still unresolved in the TCS is the debate of a three-lane vs. a four-lane roadway design for Richmond Beach Road. He said, "This issue is more complex than it seems." So he advised community to follow it closely and weigh in on their perspectives.
During the Q & A period that followed the panel presentation, community members asked clarifying questions on issues discussed at the meeting and posed questions to the panel on other topics, including:
- Safety issues for Point Wells residents if immediate evacuation was required
- Landslide danger zones as illustrated on a map that one community member referenced
- Probability of the City of Shoreline annexing Point Wells
- Pros and cons of Richmond Beach Road becoming 3 lanes vs. 4 lanes
www.RichmondBeachWA.org/pointwells
September 14, 2014
From Shoreline Area News...
Op-Ed: A Statement of Expectations Regarding Deliberations and Decisions on Point WellsWEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
By Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
Within the next few months, there will no shortage of hot topics cooking in the cauldron of Point Wells. Issues in the mix include the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS), Second Access Road Requirements, Tolling, and Environmental Impact Statement.
In anticipation of these deliberations, Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA) and Save Richmond Beach (SRB) developed the following Statement of Expectations regarding deliberations and decisions on Pont Wells.
We expect the City of Shoreline to:
· Make policy and administrative decisions consistent with their declared priority to reduce the scale and traffic impact of Point Wells.
· Subject every important topic to a rigorous examination that considers all alternatives to the proposed course of action, including review by third-party experts and by the Shoreline community.
· Accord all third-party reviewers enough time to provide quality input that will inform the City’s deliberations.
· Work with third-party experts and the Shoreline community to make revisions through an iterative process until the City concludes that all concerns have been adequately addressed.
· Make available on a timely basis all public records on the topic being considered by the City of Shoreline.
What you can expect from Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach
· Be steadfast in our pursuit to maintain the quality of life and character of the greater Richmond Beach community.
· Remain steadfast in our pursuit to reduce the scale and associated traffic impact of the Point Wells development.
· Hold the City staff and City Council accountable to the expectations stated above.
· Provide leadership in submitting each topic we identify to a thorough, rigorous examination. Such examination may include review by third-party experts and input from the Shoreline community.
· Periodically inform the community on important timelines and decisions.
Applying these expectations to the topics we mentioned above, SRB and RBCA look forward to working with the City of Shoreline to find solutions that advance our mutual goal to reduce the scale and traffic impacts at Point Wells.
September 7, 2014
RBCA Community Meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 7:30 p.m.
Richmond Beach Congregational Church
1512 NW 195th Street
Topic: Point Wells update. Learn what has happened over the summer regarding traffic, second public road access to Point Wells and the Environmental Impact Study. There is much to be done and community members can influence decisions on the scale and character of the Point Wells development by staying actively involved. Learn how you can help!
Sponsored by Richmond Beach Community Association
More info: Jerry Patterson at [email protected]
Did you read this?
A second road required for Point Wells?
July 27, 2014
The Sun Never Sets on Point Wells (-RBCA)
Our greater Richmond Beach community has been blessed this summer with plenty of rich sunshine and spectacular sunsets! But it seems the sun never sets on issues needing attention at Point Wells.
What’s Been Happening
Even though there have been relatively few public meetings held about Point Wells over the summer, Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA) and individual community members have volunteered hundreds of hours on a variety of issues. For example, RBA engaged its attorney, Traci Shallbetter, to provide a legal perspective on the following:
- SEPA analysis and Scoping comments related to the Environmental Impact Study
- Legal comments re: the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS)
- Meetings with the City of Shoreline (COS) re: methodologies and mitigation of TCS
- Legal research and analysis re: COS comprehensive plan and zoning provisions/history pertaining to Point Wells
- Legal research re: applicable case law that is relevant to support limitations on scale of development
- Legal research and analysis re: authority of COS to limit traffic on Richmond Beach Drive/enforce existing Comprehensive Plan provisions pertaining to maximum average daily trips (ADT) on Richmond Beach Drive
- Meetings and correspondence with COS re: legal authority, leverage and traffic analysis
- Draft of research paper re: COS legal authority to enforce traffic caps on Richmond Beach Drive per City’s Comprehensive Plan vis a vis Snohomish County and Point Wells
- Legal research re: environmental impacts on Point Wells related to landslide issues
- Legal research and analysis re: impacts of annexation on municipalities and the community
In addition to outstanding work contributed by Attorney Shallbetter, individual Richmond Beach residents have stepped forward to invest countless hours, pro bono, in their areas of expertise, including attorneys and environmental experts. We continue to welcome your expertise and time, too. Please contact RBA ([email protected]) to volunteer in support of reduced scale or alternative use of Point Wells. Also, at least seven public records requests have been made to City of Shoreline and Snohomish County officials on various Point Wells topics, including analysis of cost/benefits of annexation, municipal codes on building heights for Urban Center projects, and traffic analyses conducted by municipalities.
Several meetings have been held that involved representatives from RBA, Save Richmond Beach, Shoreline Coalition for Open Government and Richmond Beach community members. The group met last month with COS officials to stay current on what the City is doing and to advocate on behalf of our neighborhood communities. We also have met several times as a group to share information and develop a cooperative plan of action that capitalizes on the respective expertise of all parties. Our common goal remains the same: To reduce the scale or find alternative, more appropriate use of the Point Wells property.
What’s Ahead
As we look to the near future, the time line for Transportation Corridor decisions apparently continues to get pushed out in time. As this email blast goes to press, the most recent information we have seen published is that the COS anticipated public meetings in September and presentations to the City Council in late September or early October. However, on July 2, COS officials met with BSRE representatives with an agenda to review BSRE’s updated “modeling assumptions” as a basis for conducting an actual transportation analysis. However, BSRE reported at the meeting they did not have revised assumptions available, and another meeting is scheduled between COS and BSRE the first week in August. Given the amount of time required for an internal transportation analysis by the COS, RBA will insist that our own transportation engineers be accorded comparable time for a third-party analysis of the TCS recommendations.
As always, we will keep you posted on the most recent happenings that we learn about and on any revised timelines that are reported. In the meantime, please continue to let your voice be heard on Point Wells!
www.RichmondBeachAdvocates.org
www.RichmondBeachWA.org/pointwells
July 6, 2014
Interested in this topic? Attend the public hearing on Thursday, as they cover the Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. If you are on NextDoor, you have seen the following quiz from Tom Jamieson of Richmond Beach. If you're not, follow along and then join NextDoor to find the answers.
Neighbors, an important meeting is coming up, and I want you to be there to provide comment. When you learn what I have to share, you will want to be there. I will bring you up to speed on the entire topic in my next several posts in the form of a quiz, provided there is enough participation from you, my dear neighbors.
The next meeting of the Shoreline Planning Commission is Thursday, July 10, 7:00pm at City Hall. On the agenda is a public hearing to receive public comment on the draft 2014 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP), which has been under development for the last year and a half. The City Council intends to adopt this plan on October 6.
When the draft plan was presented to the Planning Commission on June 19, Point Wells was glaringly absent. I had been personally promised by staff in March, 2013 that a liquefaction map, previously axed from the draft 2012 Comprehensive Plan Major Update, and enlarged to show Point Wells to be at the highest risk for liquefaction, would be included in the City's next hazard mitigation plan, due to come out in 2014. I have waited patiently for the plan. I spoke out at public comment. I was the only member of the public present. Two of the commissioners sided with me. I am please to say, Point Wells is now prominently included in the plan.
I cannot keep up the Point Wells vigil by myself. I need your help. Please join me. I will inform you. I will make it fun. Hence, the quiz. To play, you will need to access City, County, and State documents and websites. I will give you little help there. Ask away, if you can't find what you need. Other neighbors will step up to help you get there. Sorry, there are no prizes, just recognition and admiration.
OK, Let's get started.
Question 1 (worth 10 points): Hazard Scope: Only 10 of the following 23 natural and technical hazard categories defined by the Washington State Military Department of Emergency Management Division (EMD) are addressed in the RHMP. Can you name them?
• Abandoned Underground Mine - Underground coal mines present the largest abandoned mine hazard in Washington State. This is because of the extent of the mines and the urban development that has occurred around them.
• Avalanches - Avalanches have killed more than 190 people in the past century, exceeding deaths from any other natural cause.
• Chemical - Nearly every community has a chemical hazard or a hazardous material transportation system that should be included in public education and emergency planning.
• Civil Disturbance - Washington State witnessed race riots in the 1960s, protests against the Vietnam War in the 1970s, abortion clinic demonstrations in the 1980s, and civil disturbances and allegations of police brutality in the 1990s.
• Dam Failure - Dam failure is the uncontrolled release of impounded water resulting in downstream flooding, which can affect life and property.
• Drought - In the past century, Washington State has experienced a number of drought episodes, including several that lasted for more than a single season.
• Earthquake - More than 1,000 earthquakes occur in Washington each year. A dozen or more are felt; occasionally, they cause damage.
• Energy Emergencies - For information on Energy Emergencies, please visit the WA State Energy Office web site.
• Flood - Damage from flooding exceeds damage by all other natural hazards in Washington State.
• Hazardous Material - The Washington State Department of Ecology reported 3,988 confirmed hazardous materials spills in 1999. The continuing increase in responses to clandestine methamphetamine labs is of particular concern.
• Landslide - Landslide is the movement of rock, soil and debris down a hillside or slope. Landslides take lives, destroy homes, businesses, and public buildings, interrupt transportation, undermine bridges, derail train cars, cover clam and oyster beds, and damage utilities.
• Local Hazard - Local hazards occur in jurisdictions but may or may not have a significant impact on large areas of the state.
• Pipeline - Buried and exposed pipelines are vulnerable to breaks and punctures caused by earth movement, material failure, operator error, construction defects, and tampering. Fuel leaks cause hazardous materials spills, fires, and explosions.
• Radiological - Radiological hazard is the uncontrolled release of radioactive material that can harm people or damage the environment. In Washington State, there have been no radiological releases affecting local jurisdictions from any nuclear power generating system.
• Severe Storm - All areas of Washington State are vulnerable to severe weather. A severe storm is an atmospheric disturbance that results in one or more of the following phenomena: strong winds, large hail, thunderstorm, tornado, rain, snow, or freezing rain.
• Terrorism - Washington State is vulnerable to terrorist activity. Terrorism can be state sponsored or the outgrowth of a frustrated, extremist fringe of polarized and/or minority groups of people. Extremists have a different concept of morality than the mainstream society.
• Transportation - Transportation systems in Washington State include road, air, rail, and maritime. Use of these systems and supporting transportation vehicles create the opportunity for accidents, emergencies, and disasters. Transportation hazards are natural or human caused.
• Tsunami - The Pacific Coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and large lakes are at risk from tsunamis, trains of powerful waves that threaten people and property along shorelines.
• Urban Fire -Urban fire occur primarily in cities or towns with the potential to rapidly spread to adjoining structures. These fires damage and destroy homes, schools, commercial buildings, and vehicles.
• Volcano - Washington has five major volcanoes – Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams. The risk posed by volcanic activity is not always apparent, as volcanoes can lie dormant for centuries between eruptions.
• Wildland Fire - Short-term loss caused by wildland fire can include the destruction of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and watersheds, and increase vulnerability to flooding . Long-term effects include smaller timber harvests, reduced access to affected recreational areas, and destruction of cultural and economic resources and community infrastructure.
(Bonus Point. Sort these hazard categories into 2 major categories).
There are 54 local government jurisdictions participating in the 2014 King County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP). These include municipalities, school districts, fire districts, water/sewerdistricts, and hospital districts. The RHMP is in two volumes. Volume I is over 500 pages. It contains a description of the planning process, an area-wide risk assessment, and an area-wide mitigation strategy. Volume II contains a chapter, or "annex," for each of the 54 jurisdictions partnering with King County on the plan.
Question 2 (worth 5 points): Participating Jurisdictions: Which 4 of the following 5 local jurisdictions governing the Shoreline area are participating in the plan , and which one is not?
• City of Shoreline
• North City Water District
• Ronald Wastewater District
• Shoreline Fire Department
• Shoreline School District
Question 3 (worth 3 points): Landslide Map currency: This is a 3-part question. You get 1 pt. for each correct part.
(1) How many years has it been since King County updated its landslide map?
(2) Why so long?
(3) How long would it take to update it?
(Hint: the answers are on the County's Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (RHMP) webpage).
Thanks to Tom for this thought-provoking quiz. Now that you're informed, you're ready for the public hearing!
June 8, 2014
This from the Save Richmond Beach page, June 2:
What answers should we demand from the TCS process??The city continues to work on finishing the Point Wells Traffic Corridor Study (TCS) and expects to present the results in an open house later this summer.
The agreement between the City and the developer, BSRE, states that the objective of the study is “to designate mitigation for traffic impacts of the [BSRE] Point Wells development which will create or improve multimodal mobility…which will maintain and improve safety for all users…”
We need answersDesignating mitigation is an important goal, but how are we to decide whether the proposed mitigation will “maintain and improve safety for all users”? Here are some specific safety questions we think the TCS needs to answer.
- Richmond Beach Road and 3rd NW is the most dangerous intersection in Shoreline. Will this intersection be less dangerous or more dangerous?
- What other arterial streets will receive more traffic as people avoid Richmond Beach Road? How will that increased traffic on these streets affect pedestrian safety and traffic safety at intersections that will be much busier than before? Will one of these intersections replace 3rd NW as the most dangerous intersection in Shoreline?
- Will cut-through traffic turn neighborhood streets into new arterials that need sidewalks and better controls at intersections?
- Will the morning backup at 175th and I-5 extend west beyond Meridian? How does that affect safety for students at Meridian Park Elementary?
- Will the evening backup at 175th and I-5 extend south on I-5? Does that cause more collisions on I-5?
- Will we need sidewalks on 15th NW for kids walking to Syre?
- Will we need a better sidewalk on 3rd NW for kids walking to Einstein?
- Will we need sidewalks on Fremont for kids walking to Shorewood?
You need to let the Council know you want the answersWe need to act now to let the City Council know we want them to demand answers to these safety questions and to send the TCS back for more work until they get the answers. You can easily do that by forwarding this message to [email protected]
May 18, 2014
-from the City manager's report, Shoreline Area News
On April 28 Council asked about the proposed emergency moratorium that Snohomish County was considering on development in landslide prone areas. Even though the County’s legal analysis has determined that any such moratorium would not apply to the Point Wells development, City staff has been tracking the emergency moratorium legislation. The Snohomish County Council has decided to take more time to study the issue before taking any legislative action. They are scheduled to discuss this again on May 19. The County already has critical area regulations that have landslide hazard setback regulations, which the Point Wells development is being reviewed for compliance.
May 11, 2014
Council action on Transportation Corridor Study Mitigation Agreement to be rescheduled
Date Posted: May 5, 2014 (City Website)
Council action on the Transportation Corridor Study Mitigation Agreement had originally been scheduled for Monday, June 23. However, due to the fact that the peer review the City is conducting on the traffic modeling done by BSRE's traffic consultants will not be completed in time, and since negotiation of the mitigation package requires completion of the peer review, Council action will need to be rescheduled. Staff hope to get a better sense of the timing for the Mitigation Agreement over the next couple of weeks.
President's Message
RBCA Newspaper, May 2014
Those of you following along with the evolving saga of Point Wells know that a lot happened this past month. The Washington Supreme Court handed down their decision in the vesting case. They ruled in favor of the developer. Some have asked, “Does this mean it is all over?” Absolutely not! The Supreme Court case, even if it had been won by the plaintiffs, would have only scaled back the project about ten percent--it would not have ended it. That case was only round 2 in a 20 rounder.
There are literally years of work ahead that will shape what happens at Point Wells. Other events the past month demonstrate that things are not over. The City of Shoreline has been holding public meetings on the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS) process. They have received a lot of comments. From what the City tells us in a recent press release, they will make adjustments to their plans and present a final recommendation to the City Council, perhaps in late June. City staff will hold an open house to share the final recommendation with the public prior to meeting with Council. If the City Council gives the go ahead, the City will submit the TCS outcomes and agreement to Snohomish County, then negotiate a “development agreement” with BSRE and finally schedule appropriate Point Wells subarea plan amendments that will be worked on later this year.
The City says it will then provide the “mitigation package” to Snohomish County to be included as part of the transportation section of the County’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the City is not able to secure the requirement from the Snohomish County EIS process that the mitigation package will be constructed by BSRE, the City and BSRE will negotiate the mitigation as part of the development agreement.
The City states it will also work to negotiate the following items into the development agreement with BSRE: (1) a funding mechanism to pay for the required mitigation package; (2) agreement on the ultimate cap on daily vehicle trips to and from Point Wells and how to enforce the cap; (3) agreement on the sequence of implementation of the mitigation projects; and (4) Point Wells annexation to the City of Shoreline.
Most of the activities described above focus heavily on traffic issues. There will be a separate process, not yet started, that will deal with the environmental cleanup. Next come shoreline permits and then the building permits process.
All of these things will require that the Richmond Beach community stay on top of things and have advocates with special expertise to monitor what the City of Shoreline, Snohomish County and BSRE are doing.
As many of you know, in early February the RBCA Board discussed how we could continue to improve support for the Richmond Beach community. We quickly came to the conclusion that we needed to assemble a quality team of experts to support the neighborhood. The RBCA board members felt we had reached a point where the technical knowledge needed was beyond the reach of just our volunteers. At the February RBCA General Meeting, the Board announced the formation of Richmond Beach Advocates, a non-profit organization.
To provide the technical expertise required, Richmond Beach Advocates retained Shallbetter Law for legal counsel and Gibson Traffic Engineers for expert advice on traffic issues. We have been working with each expert to develop specific plans for achieving our goals. Below I highlight some of the tasks assigned to the experts:
Transportation
• Provide peer review and support to ensure that traffic analysis and mitigation is consistent with professional standards.
• Evaluate the overall approach taken by the Transportation Corridor Study conducted by the Developer and the City of Shoreline.
• Provide detailed review of average daily trip (ADT) methodology used.
• Review detailed level of service validity for up to 10 key locations.
• Review collision history provided in the study and conduct field checks to evaluate any critical safety issues along designated corridor.
• Review recommended mitigation requirements for effectiveness and appropriateness.
• Produce a written report to RBA that summarizes the
transportation experts’ findings and recommendations.
Legal Services
• Representation of RBA interests throughout permitting and entitlement process, with a focus on ensuring procedural and substantive compliance and preserving procedural and substantive legal challenges.
• Legal research and analysis re SEPA Scoping, Alternatives Analysis, and Project Impacts.
• Interface with Snohomish County and stakeholders during the Draft EIS phase re: Richmond Beach concerns, project impacts, and proposed mitigation.
• Legal analysis of, and comments on, DEIS and FEIS.
• Oversight and comment on entitlement processing, including comprehensive plan amendment process and development agreement negotiations with City of Shoreline.
• Interface with BSRE and applicable jurisdictions to advocate for RBA issues and proposed mitigations.
• Legal research and analysis regarding procedural and substantive challenges to Point Wells permits and approvals, and, if applicable, filing of appeals.
In other words, RBA has a clear focus, guided by legal and transportation experts. RBA will continue to advocate for a reduction in scale of the project, an increase in public amenities such as open space, pedestrian corridors, and safe neighborhoods, and real mitigation of the impacts associated with traffic, public services, and other potential negative impacts of the proposed development.
Richmond Beach Advocates was set up as a separate entity so that when you make a contribution you know how the funds will be used.
Going forward with this project will require paying the professionals to help the community. This effort will cost a significant amount of money. The RBCA Board provided seed money to move the process forward. That money has been used up. I am happy to report that there has been strong community support so far and RBA is moving forward with its plan.
This work will require more contributions to keep us going for the duration. The Board asks for your support. Please make checks payable to “Richmond Beach Advocates” and mail to P. O. Box 60186, Richmond Beach, WA 98160-0186. All contributions will remain confidential.
Thank you for your support.
April 20, 2014
Planning Commission Meeting on May 1 will focus on the Transportation Corridor Study. Read the agenda report here: http://shorelinewa.gov/home/showdocument?id=16592
City Page on the Transportation Corridor
Overflow crowd expresses grave concerns about projected traffic from Point Wells, Shoreline Area News 4/17/14
April 13, 2014
Point Wells on the 4/14 City Council Agenda
Washington State Supreme Court Upholds Court of Appeals Decision on Point Wells Project Vesting
Date Posted: April 10, 2014 (City website)
On April 10, 2014, in a 6-3 decision, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision that BSRE's Point Wells project applications were vested under Snohomish County's "Urban Center" zoning designation. With this decision, BSRE's permit applications for the Point Wells site will continue to be processed by Snohomish County under this zoning designation. To read the Supreme Court decision, please click on the following link: www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/884056.pdf.
As noted in the opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that, "BSRE's development rights vested to the plans and regulations in place at the time it submitted its permit applications." The Court went on to say, "Developers' rights vest to the ordinances in effect when a complete permit application is submitted. The plain language of the GMA (State Growth Management Act) indicates that a later finding of noncompliance under SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) does not affect rights that have already been vested".
The City of Shoreline has been working with the Shoreline community and BSRE to identify improvements that will be needed to Richmond Beach Drive, Richmond Beach Road and the surrounding transportation grid to mitigate anticipated traffic impacts as a result of a potential development at Point Wells. The final workshop is scheduled for April 16 at 6:30 p.m. at Shoreline City Hall. The final workshop will be an opportunity for City staff to share a list of recommended improvements based on the feedback received at prior workshops. To review materials and comments from the first five transportation workshops, visit the TCS page.
Save Richmond Beach Reacts to Supreme Court Decision (Shoreline Area News 4/12/14)
April 6, 2014
Thank you
Thanks to everyone who turned out for the Hillwood/Richmond Highlands meeting tonight (Monday March 31) at Calvin Presbyterian!! A HUGE thanks to our speakers, Jerry Patterson and Dave Osaki for getting us up to speed!
A reminder that SCOPING comments are due April 2, and EIS will be later. Scoping comments will help the County figure out what needs to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement. If you have particular concerns about impacts to schools, emergency services, traffic (particular intersections or roads), wildlife, soil, air quality (pick your issue), this is where you ask them to consider studying it. More on how to do that below.
As promised...
Here are the documents that Jerry was talking about - the alternatives to Section A. COS Richmond Beach Options; Option 4 C Modified
Here's the link that Robin mentioned, that goes to the Snohomish County page on Point Wells:
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1511/Point-Wells
Here is the link to the Citizen's Guide to SEPA Review and Commenting:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/citizensguide/citizensguide.htm
Remember that Dave told us to be as specific as possible with comments; include details that only affected residents would know. Other tips from that page:
What comments are helpful?
Comments in the following areas are particularly valuable:
- Any inaccuracies in the environmental checklist, EIS, or other documentation;
- Areas of potential environmental impact that have not been identified;
- Adverse environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed;
- Possible mitigation measures that could or should be added to the proposal;
- Reasonable alternatives to the proposal;
- The need for additional study(ies);
- The merits of the alternatives and mitigation measures considered in the document; and
- Reasons that a determination of nonsignificance is not appropriate and that an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared.
It is important to remember that your goal is to communicate your concerns. If you fail to make yourself both understandable and believable, then your message is likely to be wasted.
Be clear, concise, and organized. Decide what you need to say before you begin. Developing an outline, if you have a number of points, is a good idea to help you group your comments in a logical order. Jumping back and forth between several topics reduces the impact of your argument.
Be specific. Saying that you are against a project will not have as much effect as saying why. It is always a good idea to give as much support as possible to your comments. Include as much factual information as possible. For instance, you can compare how things were, to how they are, to how you believe they will be in the future—and why. Referring to the comprehensive plan (if your community has one), development regulations, information on similar projects or situations, or other environmental laws and/or documents can also be helpful. It is important to be as accurate as possible.
Identify possible solutions. Suggestions on reasonable mitigation (conditions to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts) may help shape a questionable project into a welcome addition to a community. After identifying your concern, whenever possible, suggest possible solutions.
Point Wells Environmental Review Process Begins
-courtesy of Richmond Beach Community Association
Snohomish County has started the environmental review process for the proposed development at Point Wells. The review will look at the development's impacts and determine how to address them.
Commenting: Due to a technical error, the commenting period has been extended to April 2. The following options are available to provide comments on the scope of the EIS on or before 5:00 p.m., April 2, 2014: 1) via email to [email protected]; or 2) in writing to Darryl Eastin, Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S 604, 2nd Floor, Robert Drewel Building, Everett, WA 98201.
POINT WELLS SCOPING COMMENTS SENT TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Richmond Beach Advocates - RBA website
Scoping Comments of Richmond Beach Advocates to Snohomish County (PDF)
Save Richmond Beach - SRB website
Scoping Comments of Save Richmond Beach to Snohomish County (PDF)
City of Shoreline - Press Release plus Scoping Comments:
http://shorelinewa.gov/community/news/-item-1651
Point Wells Transportation Corridor Study Begins
This study will allow the community, City staff and BSRE to examine the effects of additional traffic on Richmond Beach Drive, Richmond Beach Road, surrounding side streets and other major intersections along N 185th Street and to I-5. This includes looking at time spent waiting at intersections, the ability for residents to safely access their driveways and safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists. To ensure the process is objective, the City has hired a third party facilitator. The process will give residents an opportunity to explain and show on maps exactly the kinds of capital investments that will make for a safe and efficient corridor.
The process includes a series of six workshops that will give residents an opportunity to explain and show on maps exactly the kinds of capital investments that will make for a safe and efficient transportation corridor.
All meetings held in the Shoreline City Hall Council Chamber, 17500 Midvale Avenue North, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Sponsored by City of Shoreline
More info: Transportation Planning Manager Kirk McKinley at [email protected] or (206) 801-2481 or visit www.shorelinewa.gov/pointwells.
REMAINING WORKSHOP DATES:
- Tuesday, April 1--Segment B Meeting #2: Review Proposed Design Options
- Wednesday, April 16--Segment A & B Final Wrap-Up Meeting
- Thursday, April 3, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Richmond Beach Library, 19601 21stAvenue NW
TRAFFIC CORRIDOR WORKSHOP SUMMARIES PROVIDED BY CITY OF SHORELINE
Follow the link to view all of the comments from the Transportation Corridor Study Workshops:
http://shorelinewa.gov/transportationcorridorstudy
MORE INFORMATION:
- Richmond Beach Community Association:Visit www.RichmondBeachWA.org to read the January, February, March and April issues ofRichmond Beach Community News, visit the Point Wells webpage and to sign up for Email Blasts covering neighborhood news, including Point Wells.
- Richmond Beach Advocates: Visitwww.RichmondBeachAdvocates.org to follow representation of Richmond Beach on the Traffic Corridor Study and Environmental Impact Statement.
- Save Richmond Beach: Visitwww.SaveRichmondBeach.org for information on Point Wells legal issues.
- City of Shoreline: For questions about Snohomish County's environmental review process, contact Planning Director Rachael Markle at (206) 801-2531 or[email protected]. For questions about the City's Transportation Corridor Study, contact Transportation Planning Manager Kirk McKinley at (206) 801-2481 or[email protected].