Sign in or 
Welcome! This is a website that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Share this
Point Wells Home
Mission Statement
Richmond Beach Community Association (RBCA), in keeping with its stated purpose of promoting the welfare of the community and the civic betterment of its residents, is dedicated to informing the neighborhood about events and issues concerning our community. The information and commentaries presented are for informational purposes only. Information gathered through meeting minutes and other sources are only as accurate as the information's authors/originators and/or note takers. Unless so stated, the opinions expressed through discussion and chat threads represent those of the individuals who post them and are in no way intended to represent the position of the RBCA subcommittee, the RBCA board, or the RBCA as a whole. We hope this website provides a dynamic way in which participants can inform, discuss, debate, and/or register public opinion. The thoughts and opinions of any individual may very well change with time and with the advent of new information and is a necessary consequence of having an open mind. Common courtesy and respect for one another is an expectation and everyone is welcome to speak their minds openly...
******************************
Snohomish County Council
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Re: Proposed Amendments to Urban Center Development Regulations
Ordinance 09-079
Dear Council Members:
Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on Ordinance No. 09-079 and proposed amendments thereto. Ordinance 09-079 and the proposed amendments address urban center development regulations, which are likely to shape the future development of the newly-designated urban center at Point Wells adjacent to the Richmond Beach neighborhood in Shoreline. Our office represents Save Richmond Beach.org and the Richmond Beach Preservation Association. These comments are submitted on behalf of both organizations and their individual members. SaveRichmondBeach.org is a non-profit community organization committed to preserving quality of life in Richmond Beach and the surrounding neighborhoods through responsible, sustainable planning. The Richmond Beach Preservation Association is a non-profit community organization comprised of concerned homeowners in the lower Richmond Beach neighborhood immediately adjacent to Point Wells. Members of both organizations stand to be adversely affected by Snohomish County’s proposal to concentrate development at the Point Wells site. We appreciate your willingness to consider and address their concerns. This letter is intended to supplement our previous testimony and comment letter dated September 30, 2009, which has already been submitted into the record for your consideration. On behalf of Save Richmond Beach, the Richmond Beach Preservation Association and their respective members (collectively, the “Community Organizations”), we adopt and incorporate the previous comments submitted on behalf of Save Richmond Beach regarding proposed Ordinance 09-079. All of the amendments discussed in this letter are newly proposed amendments related to
Ordinance 09-079. 30.91U.085 "Urban center”
The Community Organizations support proposed Amendment #10, which would change the definition of an “urban center” within the development code to require proximity to an “existing or planned station” for high capacity transit. The proposed definition better reflects the requirement that urban centers actually provide access to high capacity routes, rather than simply be located near a possible route. This amendment should be adopted. However, there are still a number of problems with the amendment’s proposed definition of “urban center” that need to be addressed. First, in order to ensure that access to high capacity transit is actually available within a reasonable time of any urban center development, the County needs to define what qualifies as a “planned station” for high capacity transit. This is particularly true at the Point Wells site where there is currently no “existing or planned” station, and where access to the site is a fundamental problem. Second, the definition proposed in Amendment #10 is not consistent with the definition of “urban center” in the County’s Comprehensive Plan - General Policy Plan (Appendix E). In order to comply with the Growth Management Act and make these definitions consistent, the County should amend its General Policy Plan to include the more transit-oriented definition of “urban center” reflected in proposed Amendment 10. If the County correctly clarifies the definition of “urban center” to require access to high capacity transit, then the older, inconsistent definition in the general policy plan should be updated also. Finally, the improved definition in Amendment 10 illustrates why the Point Wells site should not be zoned or designated as an “urban center.” Point Wells does not currently meet the definition of “urban center” proposed in Amendment 10. If the County adopts this amendment (as it should), then Point Wells must not be zoned as an “urban center” because it does not meet the transportation criteria stated in the definition. Furthermore, as part of amending Appendix E of its General Policy Plan to make the urban center definitions consistent, the County should repeal or stay the designation of Point Wells as an urban center until the definitional transportation criteria are met for that site. Point Wells has been designated as an urban center but does not meet the definition of “urban center” under the proposed zoning code. The County should correct this inconsistency by amending the “urban center” definition in the General Policy Plan and removing Point Wells as an urban center until the site meets the definitional transportation criteria.
30.34A.085 Access to Public Transportation
Under proposed Amendment #10A, a new section would be added to the urban center zoning code to reinforce the need for access to mass transit. While the Community Organizations support this addition, the County needs to clarify what qualifies as a “planned” stop or station. The County should also clarify what level of service must be provided at these “stops or stations.” For example, would a single bus stop with service only once every hour provide an adequate level of service for an “urban center”? The County should set forth criteria establishing what level of access to public transportation is required to meet the goal of “transit-oriented development” for urban centers. Simply adding a bus stop ¼ mile from Point Wells is not enough to meet the public transportation requirements of an urban center.
30.34A.170 Submittal Requirements
Any zoning applicable to the Point Wells site should require the developer to submit a comprehensive traffic impacts study for the corridor from Point Wells to Aurora Avenue and Interstate 5. The study should address the proposed development’s impacts on both traffic flow and public safety in the Richmond Beach neighborhood, and should be submitted to neighboring jurisdictions including the Town of Woodway, the City of Shoreline, and King County for review and comment.
30.34A.030 Floor Area Ratio
Because of the unique challenges associated with access to the Point Wells site, any zoning/development regulations applicable to that site should directly address and limit the number of vehicle trips per day generated to and from the site. For instance, the County should consider Shoreline’s traffic study and proposed pre-annexation zoning for Point Wells, which would regulate the scope of the development based on the expected number of additional vehicle trips generated to and from the site. This concept better addresses the unique access challenges associated with the Point Wells site. To limit the allowed density based on floor area ratio (FAR) or other criteria not directly tied to the number of vehicle trips generated would fly in the face of the Growth Management Act and the County’s own planning policies by failing to address the fundamental problem presented by the Point Wells urban center: traffic and access. Given the unique limitations related to traffic, access and topography for the Point Wells site, the portions of proposed Amendment Sheet 8B related to the use of TDR credits to obtain additional FAR “bonus” or payment in lieu of TDR credits for additional FAR should not apply to the Urban Center at Point Wells. 30.34A.165 Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting The Community Organizations support the requirement for a pre-application neighborhood meeting. However, the meeting should be required at least 90 days (rather than 30 days) before submitting an urban center development application in order to allow time for meaningful feedback from citizens. In short, Point Wells is unlike any other urban center in Snohomish County and presents its own unique set of challenges and limitations. It would be a mistake for the County to zone Point Wells in precisely the same manner as other urban centers. Thank you once again for the opportunity to share the Richmond Beach community’s concerns about this very important matter. Sincerely,
Graham & Dunn PC
Zachary R. Hiatt
zrh/zrh cc: Save Richmond Beach.org The Richmond Beach Preservation Association
******************************
SaveRichmondBeach.org, City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway
Appeal Urban Center Designation
By Caycee Holt – SaveRichmondBeach.org (November 2009)
The City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway, and SaveRichmondBeach.org (and friends) all filed appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board opposing Snohomish County’s recent Urban Center designation of Point Wells. Essentially, all three parties felt that Snohomish County erred when approving that designation. The Growth Management Hearings Board will review the petitions and schedule a hearing to review the noted grievances. You can read the full text of the petitions on the SaveRichmondBeach.org Web site.
SRB is also monitoring the City Of Shoreline’s own subarea plan and proposed zoning for Point wells. The subarea plan and proposed zoning for Point Wells will be relevant if Paramount chooses to annex to Shoreline. In the zoning document, Shoreline states that the development of Point Wells must not result in more than 8,500 additional vehicle trips per day on Richmond Beach Road and Richmond Beach Drive. In this way, Shoreline has attempted to tie the allowed density of the development to traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The 8,500 vehicle trips figure is based on Shoreline’s traffic study conducted earlier this year. You can get a rough sense of how many additional trips would impact the neighborhood, and what sort of mitigation would be required, by reading the Shoreline traffic analysis. While SRB is generally supportive of efforts to identify and limit traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, we are not sure yet exactly what Shoreline’s proposed limit would mean ‘on the ground’ or how it would be enforced. SaveRichmondbeach.org is a community-driven, volunteer-run, non-profit organization dedicated to preserving our neighborhood through responsible and sustainable planning.
***********************************
Shoreline's Sketch-up Model & Proposed Subarea Plan for Pt. Wells Now Online: http://www.shorelinewa.gov/index.aspx?page=176
October 19, 2009
Shoreline’s proposed draft Subarea Plan and Zoning for Point Wells available for review and comment
As directed by Shoreline City Council Resolution 285, the Shoreline Planning staff has prepared a draft amendment to the City of Shoreline Comprehensive Plan to clarify the City’s concerns and interests with respect to land use, traffic safety, service delivery and governance at Point Wells. The draft Point Wells Subarea Plan would constitute an amendment to the City of Shoreline’s Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would delete the Plan’s prior references to a “Potential Annexation Area” for the entire unincorporated island and add a new designation of “Future Service and Annexation Area” to apply only to the portion of the area that can only be accessed from Shoreline via Richmond Beach Drive.
The City staff will also issue proposed “Pre-annexation zoning” on October 20. The proposed zoning will be consistent with and implement the vision set forth in the Point Wells Subarea Plan. Both the Subarea Plan and Zoning would govern land use at Point Wells only if the City Council were to adopt them and if the land were to be annexed into the City of Shoreline. The staff will also be issuing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding these two items in the next few weeks. That document will be posted on Shoreline’s website and made available for public review.
The proposed Subarea Plan and Zoning will be presented to the Shoreline Planning Commission at a study meeting on Thursday, Nov. 5, at 7:00 p.m. in the Mt. Rainier Room of the Shoreline Center, 18560 1st Avenue NE. The public is welcome to attend that meeting, however, it is not a public hearing and no public testimony will be heard at that time. The Planning Commission public hearing on these items will take place on Thursday, Dec. 3, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at the same location.
For more information, contact Shoreline Planning Director Joe Tovar at jtovar@shorelinewa.gov or (206) 801-2501. Public comment letters on either the Subarea Plan or Zoning may be sent to the Planning Commission prior to the December 3 public hearing: Shoreline Planning Commission, 17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline, WA, 98133, Attention: Joe Tovar. After considering the public comment letters and testimony at the public hearing, the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council early in 2010.
***********************************
Recent Article From Richmond Beach Residents:
-----
September 21, 2009: Letter to the RBCA...
Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
Since World War I, the community of Richmond Beach has been a good neighbor to the Point Wells industrial facility. As good neighbors, we have lived with the noise and pollution of tanker trucks going up and down Richmond Beach Road, transporting petroleum products through our neighborhood. When in 2003 a spill at Point Wells dumped 4,700 gallons of heavy fuel oil into Puget Sound (resulting in the second largest fine ever issued by the State Dept. of Ecology and a 115-day $4.5 million cleanup), the community of Richmond Beach did not protest. When Richmond Beach was asked to support construction of the wastewater tunnel and Brightwater outflow facility, we were comforted to learn that excavated soil would be barged off-site, but only later did we find out that 18-wheelers carrying concrete tunnel liner would be making more than 2,000 round-trips up and down Richmond Beach Road. When we saw traffic steadily increase in our community, coupled with increased accidents and injuries to drivers AND pedestrians, we did not protest because we had faith that our elected representatives would balance the need for development and tax revenue with maintaining safe streets and a reasonable quality of life. Now our neighbors at Point Wells have proposed a mega-development which could double the number of residents in Richmond Beach, double the traffic on Richmond Beach Road, and increase traffic on some streets by ten times. The City of Shoreline finds itself in a tough situation. On the one hand, they want to minimize environmental impacts of such a development, but on the other hand there is significant tax revenue to be had if the property is annexed to the City of Shoreline. Because of this possible tax windfall, the City of Shoreline has stated in its long-term development plan the desire to annex Point Wells. However, according to State law, it is the property owner that must REQUEST to be annexed. How can the City entice the developer to request to be annexed while at the same time take a firm stand on the environmental impact of such a dense urban development? There are many potential impacts from this development. For one, tons of contaminated soil must be removed, in the process uncovering decades of buried pollution, exposing our community to statistically significant health risk. And then there is the dramatic increase in traffic. According to a recent Traffic Analysis conducted by the City of Shoreline, the intersection at 3rd Ave NW and NW Richmond Beach Road at present “ranks #1 in the City of Shoreline among intersections for reported frequency of collisions and by collision rate.” This intersection is a busy pedestrian area with multiple school bus stops. In the Traffic Analysis each intersection in the City was assigned a Level of Service (LOS) ranging from best (A) to failure (F) under different Point Wells development scenarios. Surprisingly, the LOS at the 3rd Ave intersection is rated “A” under current traffic conditions and “B” even under the maximum considered density. Again, the statistically most accident-prone intersection in the City of Shoreline is presently assigned a LOS of “A.” So what is going on here? What is going on is the City is trying to woo the developer. Shoreline City Council has made it clear that they want the Point Wells development to happen. Annexing Point Wells is in the City’s long-term growth plan. How can the City ENTICE the developer to choose Shoreline? By delivering up a cooperative Richmond Beach Community, by relaxing zoning standards, and by paying outside consultants to come up with traffic studies that purport to show how easily our community could accommodate increased traffic. This is what our City Council is doing. They are willing to sacrifice the Richmond Beach community for tax revenue which will be used throughout the rest of the city.
Please won’t you be my neighbor?
Brian and Shelby Cohee
***Please scroll to bottom of this page if you wish to see attachement for 2009 Traffic Study and/or to comment on this article***
---------
RELEVANT NEWS ARTICLES ON PT WELLS:
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090826/ETP03/708269918
http://www.enterprisenewspapers.com/article/20090826/ETP03/708269918/0
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090411/NEWS01/704119871&news01ad=1#Waterfront.condos.could.start.a.tussle.between.Snohomish.County.Shoreline
****************************************
Express your comments to:
*********************************************************************
SPEAKING POINTS SUMMARIZED:
•SIZE & SCOPE: Project could host some 3500 new high density homes plus 70 – 80,000 square feet of retail and office space and a 16,000 square foot marina… Paramount Developing has not yet proposed the actual project so it may be smaller or perhaps larger. If the project were to be the largest projected so far it would more than triple the existing population of Richmond Beach.
•TAX BASE: If the project is not annexed to Shoreline and a second roadway through Woodway or Edmonds were not opened up then the burden of traffic as well as the burden of providing Fire, Police, EMT, etc. would fall to Shoreline. The question remains, "how will Shoreline receive taxes from a Snohomish County Project"?
Also, without prior annexation, all approval and decision making regarding size and scope of project would be the purvue of Snohomish County / Woodway.
•TRAFFIC: Point Wells is currently a cul-de-sac at the end of Richmond Beach. Access to and from is via a narrow, 2-lane road through Richmond Beach. Traffic engineers have commented that our present roads have the potential to handle far more capacity than they already do and could likely sustain the additional increased traffic. The traffic would impact more than just the physics of asphalt degredation in that traffic patterns carry a bulk of commuters at 8am in the morning and 5pm at night.
The geography of the terrain between Richmond Beach and Edmonds is said to be too steep and narrow and a similar environmental/geographical arguement has been made against re-establishing 238th through Woodway as a second source of access/egress. See archive photo's under "Photo Tab - 1932 Standard Oil".
•CONTAMINATION: There's been 100 years of soil contamination (brown soil) due to oil storage, transfer and occassional spills. Estimates to clean it have been quoted at $20 – 30 Million. Some say it can be done in less than five years. Hydrology, wetlands biology, archeology considerations can add to that time frame.
•SHORELINE's CITY COUNCIL: The City of Shoreline needs a voice when Snohomish County moves forward with the zoning change from Urban Industrial to Urban Center. The Snohomish Zoning Commission needs one more vote to pass the change and then it goes before the Snohomish County Council for approval. The dates for these votes are not yet set.
**************************************************************************
Additional Contact Information for the City of Shoreline Council:
Council Member Shari Tacey 206-801-2201, straci@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Will Hall 206-801-2207, whall@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Chris Roberts 206-801-2205, croberts@shorelinewa.gov
Deputy Mayor Terry Scott 206-801-2202, tscott@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Chris Eggen 206-801-2206, ceggen@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Doris McConnell 206-801-2204, dmcconnell@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Keith McGlashan 206-801-2203,kmcglashan@shorelinewa.gov
Richmond Beach Community Association (RBCA), in keeping with its stated purpose of promoting the welfare of the community and the civic betterment of its residents, is dedicated to informing the neighborhood about events and issues concerning our community. The information and commentaries presented are for informational purposes only. Information gathered through meeting minutes and other sources are only as accurate as the information's authors/originators and/or note takers. Unless so stated, the opinions expressed through discussion and chat threads represent those of the individuals who post them and are in no way intended to represent the position of the RBCA subcommittee, the RBCA board, or the RBCA as a whole. We hope this website provides a dynamic way in which participants can inform, discuss, debate, and/or register public opinion. The thoughts and opinions of any individual may very well change with time and with the advent of new information and is a necessary consequence of having an open mind. Common courtesy and respect for one another is an expectation and everyone is welcome to speak their minds openly...
******************************
Snohomish County Council
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Re: Proposed Amendments to Urban Center Development Regulations
Ordinance 09-079
Dear Council Members:
Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on Ordinance No. 09-079 and proposed amendments thereto. Ordinance 09-079 and the proposed amendments address urban center development regulations, which are likely to shape the future development of the newly-designated urban center at Point Wells adjacent to the Richmond Beach neighborhood in Shoreline. Our office represents Save Richmond Beach.org and the Richmond Beach Preservation Association. These comments are submitted on behalf of both organizations and their individual members. SaveRichmondBeach.org is a non-profit community organization committed to preserving quality of life in Richmond Beach and the surrounding neighborhoods through responsible, sustainable planning. The Richmond Beach Preservation Association is a non-profit community organization comprised of concerned homeowners in the lower Richmond Beach neighborhood immediately adjacent to Point Wells. Members of both organizations stand to be adversely affected by Snohomish County’s proposal to concentrate development at the Point Wells site. We appreciate your willingness to consider and address their concerns. This letter is intended to supplement our previous testimony and comment letter dated September 30, 2009, which has already been submitted into the record for your consideration. On behalf of Save Richmond Beach, the Richmond Beach Preservation Association and their respective members (collectively, the “Community Organizations”), we adopt and incorporate the previous comments submitted on behalf of Save Richmond Beach regarding proposed Ordinance 09-079. All of the amendments discussed in this letter are newly proposed amendments related to
Ordinance 09-079. 30.91U.085 "Urban center”
The Community Organizations support proposed Amendment #10, which would change the definition of an “urban center” within the development code to require proximity to an “existing or planned station” for high capacity transit. The proposed definition better reflects the requirement that urban centers actually provide access to high capacity routes, rather than simply be located near a possible route. This amendment should be adopted. However, there are still a number of problems with the amendment’s proposed definition of “urban center” that need to be addressed. First, in order to ensure that access to high capacity transit is actually available within a reasonable time of any urban center development, the County needs to define what qualifies as a “planned station” for high capacity transit. This is particularly true at the Point Wells site where there is currently no “existing or planned” station, and where access to the site is a fundamental problem. Second, the definition proposed in Amendment #10 is not consistent with the definition of “urban center” in the County’s Comprehensive Plan - General Policy Plan (Appendix E). In order to comply with the Growth Management Act and make these definitions consistent, the County should amend its General Policy Plan to include the more transit-oriented definition of “urban center” reflected in proposed Amendment 10. If the County correctly clarifies the definition of “urban center” to require access to high capacity transit, then the older, inconsistent definition in the general policy plan should be updated also. Finally, the improved definition in Amendment 10 illustrates why the Point Wells site should not be zoned or designated as an “urban center.” Point Wells does not currently meet the definition of “urban center” proposed in Amendment 10. If the County adopts this amendment (as it should), then Point Wells must not be zoned as an “urban center” because it does not meet the transportation criteria stated in the definition. Furthermore, as part of amending Appendix E of its General Policy Plan to make the urban center definitions consistent, the County should repeal or stay the designation of Point Wells as an urban center until the definitional transportation criteria are met for that site. Point Wells has been designated as an urban center but does not meet the definition of “urban center” under the proposed zoning code. The County should correct this inconsistency by amending the “urban center” definition in the General Policy Plan and removing Point Wells as an urban center until the site meets the definitional transportation criteria.
30.34A.085 Access to Public Transportation
Under proposed Amendment #10A, a new section would be added to the urban center zoning code to reinforce the need for access to mass transit. While the Community Organizations support this addition, the County needs to clarify what qualifies as a “planned” stop or station. The County should also clarify what level of service must be provided at these “stops or stations.” For example, would a single bus stop with service only once every hour provide an adequate level of service for an “urban center”? The County should set forth criteria establishing what level of access to public transportation is required to meet the goal of “transit-oriented development” for urban centers. Simply adding a bus stop ¼ mile from Point Wells is not enough to meet the public transportation requirements of an urban center.
30.34A.170 Submittal Requirements
Any zoning applicable to the Point Wells site should require the developer to submit a comprehensive traffic impacts study for the corridor from Point Wells to Aurora Avenue and Interstate 5. The study should address the proposed development’s impacts on both traffic flow and public safety in the Richmond Beach neighborhood, and should be submitted to neighboring jurisdictions including the Town of Woodway, the City of Shoreline, and King County for review and comment.
30.34A.030 Floor Area Ratio
Because of the unique challenges associated with access to the Point Wells site, any zoning/development regulations applicable to that site should directly address and limit the number of vehicle trips per day generated to and from the site. For instance, the County should consider Shoreline’s traffic study and proposed pre-annexation zoning for Point Wells, which would regulate the scope of the development based on the expected number of additional vehicle trips generated to and from the site. This concept better addresses the unique access challenges associated with the Point Wells site. To limit the allowed density based on floor area ratio (FAR) or other criteria not directly tied to the number of vehicle trips generated would fly in the face of the Growth Management Act and the County’s own planning policies by failing to address the fundamental problem presented by the Point Wells urban center: traffic and access. Given the unique limitations related to traffic, access and topography for the Point Wells site, the portions of proposed Amendment Sheet 8B related to the use of TDR credits to obtain additional FAR “bonus” or payment in lieu of TDR credits for additional FAR should not apply to the Urban Center at Point Wells. 30.34A.165 Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting The Community Organizations support the requirement for a pre-application neighborhood meeting. However, the meeting should be required at least 90 days (rather than 30 days) before submitting an urban center development application in order to allow time for meaningful feedback from citizens. In short, Point Wells is unlike any other urban center in Snohomish County and presents its own unique set of challenges and limitations. It would be a mistake for the County to zone Point Wells in precisely the same manner as other urban centers. Thank you once again for the opportunity to share the Richmond Beach community’s concerns about this very important matter. Sincerely,
Graham & Dunn PC
Zachary R. Hiatt
zrh/zrh cc: Save Richmond Beach.org The Richmond Beach Preservation Association
******************************
SaveRichmondBeach.org, City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway
Appeal Urban Center Designation
By Caycee Holt – SaveRichmondBeach.org (November 2009)
The City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway, and SaveRichmondBeach.org (and friends) all filed appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board opposing Snohomish County’s recent Urban Center designation of Point Wells. Essentially, all three parties felt that Snohomish County erred when approving that designation. The Growth Management Hearings Board will review the petitions and schedule a hearing to review the noted grievances. You can read the full text of the petitions on the SaveRichmondBeach.org Web site.
SRB is also monitoring the City Of Shoreline’s own subarea plan and proposed zoning for Point wells. The subarea plan and proposed zoning for Point Wells will be relevant if Paramount chooses to annex to Shoreline. In the zoning document, Shoreline states that the development of Point Wells must not result in more than 8,500 additional vehicle trips per day on Richmond Beach Road and Richmond Beach Drive. In this way, Shoreline has attempted to tie the allowed density of the development to traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The 8,500 vehicle trips figure is based on Shoreline’s traffic study conducted earlier this year. You can get a rough sense of how many additional trips would impact the neighborhood, and what sort of mitigation would be required, by reading the Shoreline traffic analysis. While SRB is generally supportive of efforts to identify and limit traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, we are not sure yet exactly what Shoreline’s proposed limit would mean ‘on the ground’ or how it would be enforced. SaveRichmondbeach.org is a community-driven, volunteer-run, non-profit organization dedicated to preserving our neighborhood through responsible and sustainable planning.
***********************************
Shoreline's Sketch-up Model & Proposed Subarea Plan for Pt. Wells Now Online: http://www.shorelinewa.gov/index.aspx?page=176
October 19, 2009
Shoreline’s proposed draft Subarea Plan and Zoning for Point Wells available for review and comment
As directed by Shoreline City Council Resolution 285, the Shoreline Planning staff has prepared a draft amendment to the City of Shoreline Comprehensive Plan to clarify the City’s concerns and interests with respect to land use, traffic safety, service delivery and governance at Point Wells. The draft Point Wells Subarea Plan would constitute an amendment to the City of Shoreline’s Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would delete the Plan’s prior references to a “Potential Annexation Area” for the entire unincorporated island and add a new designation of “Future Service and Annexation Area” to apply only to the portion of the area that can only be accessed from Shoreline via Richmond Beach Drive.
The City staff will also issue proposed “Pre-annexation zoning” on October 20. The proposed zoning will be consistent with and implement the vision set forth in the Point Wells Subarea Plan. Both the Subarea Plan and Zoning would govern land use at Point Wells only if the City Council were to adopt them and if the land were to be annexed into the City of Shoreline. The staff will also be issuing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding these two items in the next few weeks. That document will be posted on Shoreline’s website and made available for public review.
The proposed Subarea Plan and Zoning will be presented to the Shoreline Planning Commission at a study meeting on Thursday, Nov. 5, at 7:00 p.m. in the Mt. Rainier Room of the Shoreline Center, 18560 1st Avenue NE. The public is welcome to attend that meeting, however, it is not a public hearing and no public testimony will be heard at that time. The Planning Commission public hearing on these items will take place on Thursday, Dec. 3, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at the same location.
For more information, contact Shoreline Planning Director Joe Tovar at jtovar@shorelinewa.gov or (206) 801-2501. Public comment letters on either the Subarea Plan or Zoning may be sent to the Planning Commission prior to the December 3 public hearing: Shoreline Planning Commission, 17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline, WA, 98133, Attention: Joe Tovar. After considering the public comment letters and testimony at the public hearing, the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council early in 2010.
***********************************
Recent Article From Richmond Beach Residents:
-----
September 21, 2009: Letter to the RBCA...
Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
Since World War I, the community of Richmond Beach has been a good neighbor to the Point Wells industrial facility. As good neighbors, we have lived with the noise and pollution of tanker trucks going up and down Richmond Beach Road, transporting petroleum products through our neighborhood. When in 2003 a spill at Point Wells dumped 4,700 gallons of heavy fuel oil into Puget Sound (resulting in the second largest fine ever issued by the State Dept. of Ecology and a 115-day $4.5 million cleanup), the community of Richmond Beach did not protest. When Richmond Beach was asked to support construction of the wastewater tunnel and Brightwater outflow facility, we were comforted to learn that excavated soil would be barged off-site, but only later did we find out that 18-wheelers carrying concrete tunnel liner would be making more than 2,000 round-trips up and down Richmond Beach Road. When we saw traffic steadily increase in our community, coupled with increased accidents and injuries to drivers AND pedestrians, we did not protest because we had faith that our elected representatives would balance the need for development and tax revenue with maintaining safe streets and a reasonable quality of life. Now our neighbors at Point Wells have proposed a mega-development which could double the number of residents in Richmond Beach, double the traffic on Richmond Beach Road, and increase traffic on some streets by ten times. The City of Shoreline finds itself in a tough situation. On the one hand, they want to minimize environmental impacts of such a development, but on the other hand there is significant tax revenue to be had if the property is annexed to the City of Shoreline. Because of this possible tax windfall, the City of Shoreline has stated in its long-term development plan the desire to annex Point Wells. However, according to State law, it is the property owner that must REQUEST to be annexed. How can the City entice the developer to request to be annexed while at the same time take a firm stand on the environmental impact of such a dense urban development? There are many potential impacts from this development. For one, tons of contaminated soil must be removed, in the process uncovering decades of buried pollution, exposing our community to statistically significant health risk. And then there is the dramatic increase in traffic. According to a recent Traffic Analysis conducted by the City of Shoreline, the intersection at 3rd Ave NW and NW Richmond Beach Road at present “ranks #1 in the City of Shoreline among intersections for reported frequency of collisions and by collision rate.” This intersection is a busy pedestrian area with multiple school bus stops. In the Traffic Analysis each intersection in the City was assigned a Level of Service (LOS) ranging from best (A) to failure (F) under different Point Wells development scenarios. Surprisingly, the LOS at the 3rd Ave intersection is rated “A” under current traffic conditions and “B” even under the maximum considered density. Again, the statistically most accident-prone intersection in the City of Shoreline is presently assigned a LOS of “A.” So what is going on here? What is going on is the City is trying to woo the developer. Shoreline City Council has made it clear that they want the Point Wells development to happen. Annexing Point Wells is in the City’s long-term growth plan. How can the City ENTICE the developer to choose Shoreline? By delivering up a cooperative Richmond Beach Community, by relaxing zoning standards, and by paying outside consultants to come up with traffic studies that purport to show how easily our community could accommodate increased traffic. This is what our City Council is doing. They are willing to sacrifice the Richmond Beach community for tax revenue which will be used throughout the rest of the city.
Please won’t you be my neighbor?
Brian and Shelby Cohee
***Please scroll to bottom of this page if you wish to see attachement for 2009 Traffic Study and/or to comment on this article***
---------
RELEVANT NEWS ARTICLES ON PT WELLS:
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090826/ETP03/708269918
http://www.enterprisenewspapers.com/article/20090826/ETP03/708269918/0
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090411/NEWS01/704119871&news01ad=1#Waterfront.condos.could.start.a.tussle.between.Snohomish.County.Shoreline
****************************************
Express your comments to:
Shoreline City Council: 206-801-2213,council@shorelinewa.gov / Website: http://www.cityofshoreline.com/index.aspx?page=1
City of Shoreline, 17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline, WA 98133-4921
Planning Director Joe Tovar, 206-801-2501 jtovar@shorelinewa.gov and
Senior Planner Steven M. Cohn 206-801-2511, scohn@shorelinewa.gov
Shoreline Plannig & Development Website: http://www.cityofshoreline.com/index.aspx?page=171
Snohomish County Council: 425-388-3898, contact.council@snoco.org / Website: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Council/
Snohomich County, 3000 Rockefeller Ave - Mail Stop 609, Everett, WA 98201
Snohomish County Planning & Development Steve Skorney, Project Manager, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett,
WA 98201, 425-388-3311.steve.skorney@co.Snohomish.wa.us
Craig Ladiser, Director of Planning and Development Services, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, WA
98201, 425-388-3311. craig.ladiser@co.Snohomish.wa.us
Bob Ferguson, King County 1st District Council Member, 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200, Seattle, WA
98104. 206-296-1024, fax 206-296-0198. bob.ferguson@kingcounty.gov.
Richmond Beach Community Association (Attention: Ed Adams), President@RichmondBeachWA.org;
Box 60186, Shoreline, WA 98160, www.richmondbeachwa.org
Paramount Northwest LLC (Attention: Mark Wells) mwells@ppcla.com
Save Richmond Beach Organization: http://www.saverichmondbeach.org/
City of Shoreline, 17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline, WA 98133-4921
Planning Director Joe Tovar, 206-801-2501 jtovar@shorelinewa.gov and
Senior Planner Steven M. Cohn 206-801-2511, scohn@shorelinewa.gov
Shoreline Plannig & Development Website: http://www.cityofshoreline.com/index.aspx?page=171
Snohomish County Council: 425-388-3898, contact.council@snoco.org / Website: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Council/
Snohomich County, 3000 Rockefeller Ave - Mail Stop 609, Everett, WA 98201
Snohomish County Planning & Development Steve Skorney, Project Manager, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett,
WA 98201, 425-388-3311.steve.skorney@co.Snohomish.wa.us
Craig Ladiser, Director of Planning and Development Services, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, WA
98201, 425-388-3311. craig.ladiser@co.Snohomish.wa.us
Bob Ferguson, King County 1st District Council Member, 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200, Seattle, WA
98104. 206-296-1024, fax 206-296-0198. bob.ferguson@kingcounty.gov.
Richmond Beach Community Association (Attention: Ed Adams), President@RichmondBeachWA.org;
Box 60186, Shoreline, WA 98160, www.richmondbeachwa.org
Paramount Northwest LLC (Attention: Mark Wells) mwells@ppcla.com
Save Richmond Beach Organization: http://www.saverichmondbeach.org/
*********************************************************************
SPEAKING POINTS SUMMARIZED:
•SIZE & SCOPE: Project could host some 3500 new high density homes plus 70 – 80,000 square feet of retail and office space and a 16,000 square foot marina… Paramount Developing has not yet proposed the actual project so it may be smaller or perhaps larger. If the project were to be the largest projected so far it would more than triple the existing population of Richmond Beach.
•TAX BASE: If the project is not annexed to Shoreline and a second roadway through Woodway or Edmonds were not opened up then the burden of traffic as well as the burden of providing Fire, Police, EMT, etc. would fall to Shoreline. The question remains, "how will Shoreline receive taxes from a Snohomish County Project"?
Also, without prior annexation, all approval and decision making regarding size and scope of project would be the purvue of Snohomish County / Woodway.
•TRAFFIC: Point Wells is currently a cul-de-sac at the end of Richmond Beach. Access to and from is via a narrow, 2-lane road through Richmond Beach. Traffic engineers have commented that our present roads have the potential to handle far more capacity than they already do and could likely sustain the additional increased traffic. The traffic would impact more than just the physics of asphalt degredation in that traffic patterns carry a bulk of commuters at 8am in the morning and 5pm at night.
The geography of the terrain between Richmond Beach and Edmonds is said to be too steep and narrow and a similar environmental/geographical arguement has been made against re-establishing 238th through Woodway as a second source of access/egress. See archive photo's under "Photo Tab - 1932 Standard Oil".
•CONTAMINATION: There's been 100 years of soil contamination (brown soil) due to oil storage, transfer and occassional spills. Estimates to clean it have been quoted at $20 – 30 Million. Some say it can be done in less than five years. Hydrology, wetlands biology, archeology considerations can add to that time frame.
•SHORELINE's CITY COUNCIL: The City of Shoreline needs a voice when Snohomish County moves forward with the zoning change from Urban Industrial to Urban Center. The Snohomish Zoning Commission needs one more vote to pass the change and then it goes before the Snohomish County Council for approval. The dates for these votes are not yet set.
**************************************************************************
Additional Contact Information for the City of Shoreline Council:
Council Member Shari Tacey 206-801-2201, straci@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Will Hall 206-801-2207, whall@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Chris Roberts 206-801-2205, croberts@shorelinewa.gov
Deputy Mayor Terry Scott 206-801-2202, tscott@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Chris Eggen 206-801-2206, ceggen@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Doris McConnell 206-801-2204, dmcconnell@shorelinewa.gov
Council Member Keith McGlashan 206-801-2203,kmcglashan@shorelinewa.gov
|
jmalek |
Latest page update: made by jmalek
, Dec 16 2009, 9:36 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by jmalek
17 words added 17 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| brianmixpo | "Letter to the Editor" to the Richmond Beach Community Newsletter | 1 | Sep 28 2009, 12:53 PM EDT by brianmixpo | ||
|
Thread started: Sep 25 2009, 11:56 PM EDT
Watch
The Richmond Beach Community Association refused to publish our "Letter to the Editor" (see above). I don't understand their objection or motivation. In my experience, a "Letter to the Editor" is just that, and does not represent in any way an endorsement by the Publisher (in this case RBCA). This is their email to me:
Brian, I ran your letter past the RBCA Information Officer and the Board officers, since the newspaper is published by the RBCA. I'm new to the newspaper job, so I am not familiar with their policies. They pointed out to me that the Community Association Bylaws do not permit publishing letters such as yours. The Bylaws, Article VII Publication Policy and Procedures, Section 6 Editorial Content state that: “The content of the newsletter shall be guided by the purpose of the Association. The newsletter shall not provide a forum for personal opinions regarding social, religious or political issues.” So, I'm very sorry, but I am unable to publish your letter.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
Keyword tags:
letter to the editor
point wells
RBCA
|
|||||
| whitneystorm | RICHMOND BEACH OPPOSES LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT | 4 | Aug 7 2009, 10:48 AM EDT by Scottmb | ||
|
Thread started: Apr 11 2009, 12:00 PM EDT
Watch
It is obvious that people pay extra in Richmond Beach to live in a quaint community. The light pollution and noise pollution are on the way. The scale of this project is larger than most residents think. Snohomish county is money hungry, especially after just getting rid of half of their staff. The land is going to be developed. But, why is it 2-3 times larger now than original projections? Why is Snohomish and Paramount not listening to our requests? I can't say I trust Shoreline to annex the property either. I feel it is our job as a RB community to get involved and have a voice about the size and design of this project. A united community like this could make a difference. It is really our only hope. I do not want to see the size of our community doubled overnight. Write your letters! Whitney Storm
|
|||||
| Scottmb | Access to Point Wells | 3 | Aug 6 2009, 9:46 PM EDT by whitneystorm | ||
|
Thread started: Mar 26 2009, 9:03 PM EDT
Watch
All:
I believe its important not to completely discount the potential that another means of access to the Point Wells property could be built from Woodway or Edmonds - they have existed before (E.g.: see the 1932 birdseye photo of the property from the collection on this site). Don't let the technocrats in SnoCo snow you!! The bottom line is the bottom line - for access to property that will be worth well over a billion dollars when it is built out, installing an access road down a steep slope is quite reasonable. There are many examples of similar challenges that have been met for profit in the past. To assume that the only possible way to access Point Wells is by the existing Richmond Beach Rd., and that therefore, Richmond Beach must take the burden of all transportation impacts, is perhaps precisely what the authorities in Snohomish County would prefer you think. Regardless of whether Shoreline has a chance of annexing Point Wells, or even maintaining a signifcant seat at the table of negotiating the sharing of costs for its proposed redevelopment, it is my opinion that Richmond Beach should not provide the conduit for all services and road transit to a property that will essentially form a new town, on practical, moral, as well as technical feasibility grounds. It isn't fair, nor is it necessary. Best regards, Scott Becker |
|||||
Showing 3 of 10 threads for this page
- view all
|
COS_Point_Wells_Traffic_Analysis_-_July_23,_2009.pdf (Adobe Portable Document Format - 866k)
posted by jmalek Sep 26 2009, 6:47 AM EDT
COS-Richmond Beach Traffic Study 2009
|
