Laserfiche WebLink
Dave Koenig <br /> From: Dave Koenig <br /> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 12:42 PM <br /> To: Arlan Hatloe; Bob Overstreet; Brenda Stonecipher; Deb Williams; Doug Campbell; Marian <br /> Krell; Mark Olson; Ron Gipson; Mayor Stephanson <br /> Cc: Larry Crawford; Sharon Marks; Bob Larsen; Bob Landless Gerry Ervine; Allan Giffen; Jim Iles <br /> Subject: FW: CB0404-18 Proposed amendment to Shoreline Master Program amendment Ordinance <br /> 2713-03 <br /> Below is a email we received on the Shoreline Amendment before Council tomorrow and a <br /> response. <br /> Thanks. <br /> David Koenig <br /> Original Message <br /> From: EXT-Bellrichard, Bradley G <br /> [mailto:bradley.g.bellrichard@boeing.corn] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:48 AM <br /> To: dkoenig@ci.everett.wa.us <br /> Cc: Bellrichard Brad [home] (E-mail) <br /> Subject: CB0404-18 Proposed amendment to Shoreline Master Program <br /> amendment Ordinance 2713-03 <br /> My name is Brad Bellrichard and I reside at 1002 Grand Ave in Everett. I have been <br /> following the North Marina Project for several years and have written letters and attended <br /> several meetings on the project. <br /> After the Council approval, the Port did an EIS Scoping effort and showed a conceptual <br /> preferred alternative which was substantially different from the pictures we were shown <br /> last year. And yet, you would think that the Port could have shown us conceptually and <br /> written what exactly the three alternatives that they would be analyzing in the EIS. But <br /> instead, all we received was a generic discussion of the three alternatives such as a <br /> range of the various densities we proposed in the development agreement. <br /> We think the "minor" change could really be major, but we don't have enough information to <br /> really see if it is or not because of all the changes the Port is making to the plan. <br /> In fact, the City staff is also concerned whether the original contract will be amended <br /> when they used the following words in their response to the Port: <br /> Page 2, "The EIS should highlight any components of the currently adopted Planned Overlay <br /> District Design Standards and Guidelines that must be modified through Planning Commission <br /> and Council action". In other words, the staff isn't even sure of the changes the Port is <br /> anticipating. <br /> We suggest this go to Planning Commission for review and comment. Every Planning <br /> Commission meeting has had excellent attendance, as well as the single City Council <br /> meeting which were held in the evening. <br /> 1. Why is this considered a "minor" change? <br /> 2. Why shouldn't/didn't this go to the Planning Commission? <br /> 3. What are the implications of this "minor" change? <br /> I, along with my neighbors are more than a little concerned because of the Port actions, <br /> or lack thereof, after the September meeting. <br /> We have in evidence an EIS Scoping Request without alternatives, the promised amphitheater <br /> being moved to the 10th Street Boat Launch, parking for the 10th Street yachts taking away <br /> parking from the 10th Street Boat Launch. We are also worried about the 17 acre recreation <br /> impact on the multiple family residences, and the extra parking the luxury condos will <br /> require. We also think that the proposed change will allow condos and/or required parking <br /> and recreation to be put in the 200 foot Shoreline area and take needed parking away from <br /> the existing marina on the south side. Many, many questions and very few answers. <br /> Thank you for allowing us to comment on this proposal. <br /> 1 <br />