Point Wells - Issues

Suggested Issues for Public Comment

If you can't attend the hearings for public comment on May 17th and 18th, we urge you to voice your concerns via email to hearing.examiner@snoco.org. It would help to put "Comment for Point Wells Hearing" in the subject line.

The issues listed below are areas where the Pt. Wells development application is inaccurate or incomplete. You should consider mentioning one or two issues that are important to you when making your public comments.

When you pick an issue, you don’t need to include all the bullet points, just one to two of the points and then add the last bullet point (no more extensions, reject the application) as your conclusion. It’s even more effective if you put the issue in your own words and if possible, describe how it affects you personally.

Thanks to all of you who take the time to let the County know where you stand.

1. BSRE has had more than enough time to complete the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement).

  • The application was first submitted in 2011, seven long years ago.
  • The County identified 42 critical errors or missing details in 2013 but by the end of 2017 BSRE had completely resolved exactly one of these 42 issues and had still not even responded to 21 of these issues.
  • BSRE has already been granted 3 extensions totaling 4 years from the original due date for their reply to the 42 issues.
  • This lack of serious effort by BSRE does not deserve any more extensions.

2. The County identified 5 major areas where the application is seriously deficient.

  • Any one of these major deficiencies by itself is grounds to deny the application.
  • BSRE should be given no additional time and the application should be rejected.

3. The application fails to provide an adequate traffic report

  • The report acknowledges that the extra traffic from Pt Wells will cause a 3 lane Richmond Beach Road to fail, but Shoreline and BSRE have not yet agreed on a mitigation plan.
  • The mitigation offered by BSRE does not improve the traffic situation, it only asks Shoreline to ignore its level of service standards or to undo safety improvements.
  • The report greatly overestimates how many car trips will be avoided because residents will access services and shops on site. BSRE cannot even say what services or shops will be available so any estimate must be suspect.
  • The report asserts that 15% of trips from the site will be by bus. This is ridiculous since there is currently no transit service to the site and BSRE has not submitted any documentation that any transit organization has committed to providing service.
  • The report greatly underestimates the dates for completing the project, so it mistakenly ignores the extra background traffic that will be generated by the light rail stations opening in Shoreline by 2023, long before the first phase of this development is completed.
  • After waiting 5 years for a response there’s no reason to believe BSRE will be any more diligent if given another delay. These problems are critical enough for you to reject the application.

4. The application fails to prove the second access road can be built in compliance with County codes.

  • The proposed second road crosses the train tracks, a landslide hazard area, a creek, and a wetland. There is inadequate documentation about how the road will be engineered to successfully cross these sensitive areas.
  • The proposed second road crosses private property. There is no documentation about how BSRE plans to acquire the right to cross that property.
  • The drainage plan for the road is inadequate.
  • After waiting 5 years for a response there’s no reason to believe BSRE will be any more diligent if given another delay. These problems are critical enough for you to reject the application.

5. The application has many problems with the height of the planned buildings.

  • The proposed tall towers (up to 180 feet) are out of scale in a single family neighborhood.
  • The plans show more than 20 building over 90 feet in height even though the height limit is 90 feet unless the development is near high capacity transit. BSRE proposes to build a station as part of Phase 3 but does not explain why that should permit them to have buildings taller than 90 feet as part of Phase 1 or Phase 2.
  • The Urban Plaza is east of the railroad tracks and immediately next to low density zones. County code requires these buildings to be scaled down so that they are no more than a single story as they approach the zone boundary. All 6 of the buildings in the Upper Plaza are higher than allowed, some by more than 100 feet.
  • After waiting 5 years for a response there’s no reason to believe BSRE will be any more diligent if given another delay. These problems are critical enough for you to reject the application.

6. The application fails to have an adequate parking plan

  • The plan fails to provide for adequate parking for visitors. The plan calls for only 20 stalls for visitors to the beach; Richmond Beach Saltwater Park (a similar sized nearby beach) has over 100 stalls. This lack of parking will result in vehicles parking illegally on nearby Shoreline streets that are not wide enough for parked vehicles.
  • The plan fails to provide adequate parking for residents – it is over 500 stalls short of the minimum required by County code.
  • Multiple buildings have incomplete design for handicapped parking.
  • After waiting 5 years for a response there’s no reason to believe BSRE will be any more diligent if given another delay. These problems are critical enough for you to reject the application.

7. The application fails to show how onsite contamination will be cleaned up.

  • The application identifies some of the contaminants, but not all their locations.
  • The cleanup plan must be approved by the state Department of Ecology. There is no such plan submitted yet.
  • After waiting 5 years for a response there’s no reason to believe BSRE will be any more diligent if given another delay. These problems are critical enough for you to reject the application.

8. The application fails to meet the County's Shoreline Management Program (SMP) regulations that control development near the water.

  • There is no analysis of how the project will comply with SMP requirements.
  • The plan appears to have prohibited commercial uses on the pier.
  • After waiting 5 years for a response there’s no reason to believe BSRE will be any more diligent if given another delay. These problems are critical enough for you to reject the application.

9. The plan fails to properly document critical areas including landslide hazards and wetlands.

  • The plans ask for a deviation from landslide hazard setback requirements but offer no reason why alternate plans that follow the requirements are not possible.
  • The deviation request fails to demonstrate that ignoring the setback requirements will not result in a reduction in resident safety.
  • The application does not include a critical areas site plan.
  • After waiting 5 years for a response there’s no reason to believe BSRE will be any more diligent if given another delay. These problems are critical enough for you to reject the application.