Showing posts with label point wells. Show all posts
Showing posts with label point wells. Show all posts

Settling lawsuit, BSRE sells Point Wells back to the oil company Paramount—commercial oil operations could resume in 2026

Friday, July 12, 2024

Point Wells from Google Earth
By Tom McCormick

Historically used as a marine fuel and asphalt oil terminal, Point Wells is a low-lying property on Puget Sound located directly north of the Richmond Beach neighborhood in the City of Shoreline. 

The only access to Point Wells is a two-lane road through Richmond Beach. 

The Town of Woodway annexed Point Wells in May 2024.

Prior to 2010, Paramount of Washington, LLC (“Paramount") owned all of Point Wells, and a sister company, Paramount Petroleum Corporation, conducted marine fuel and asphalt oil terminal operations at the site. 

Seeing the potential for re-purposing the site into a large-scale residential development, Paramount asked Snohomish County to designate Point Wells as an Urban Center. 

The County Council designated the site as requested, re-zoned it, and in May 2010 enacted an updated Urban Center Development Code. 

A few days later, Paramount sold Point Wells to BSRE Point Wells, L.P. (“BSRE”), a sister company newly formed to develop Point Wells. BSRE acquired the real property (the land), but not the pier, the fuel and oil tanks, pipes, equipment, and structures. 

As part of the deal, BSRE granted Paramount Petroleum Corporation a 10-year license to keep using the property until June 2020 to conduct its historical marine fuel and asphalt oil operations. 

In June 2020, those operations stopped—there have been no transfers of marine fuel or asphalt oil since then, though the facility’s permits have been kept active, and a caretaker staff has been maintaining the property and providing security.

In 2011, BSRE submitted land use applications to Snohomish County to develop Point Wells as a high-density Urban Center. BSRE proposed to build about 3,000 residential units, in buildings as tall as 180 feet, plus over 100,000 square feet of commercial space. Snohomish County twice denied BSRE's applications due to substantial conflicts with the County's development code. 

The County's most recent denial of BSRE's applications was upheld by the state Court of Appeals in 2022, and in 2023 the Washington Supreme Court denied BSRE's petition for review. BSRE's proposed Urban Center at Point Wells is dead.

The BSRE vs. Paramount lawsuit and its settlement—Paramount once again owns all of Point Wells.

While in the midst of seeking approval for its proposed Urban Center, BSRE filed a lawsuit in 2020 against Paramount (no longer a sister company, due to it being sold), asking the court to order Paramount to remove the fuel and oil tanks, pipes, equipment, and structures owned by Paramount, and to clean up (remediate) the site. 

Responding to BSRE’s lawsuit, Paramount acknowledged its responsibility to clean up the site, if and when cleanup becomes necessary. Then Paramount asked the court to order BSRE to pay its fair share of the cleanup costs, and asked for other relief, including rescission of the 2010 purchase agreement that resulted in BSRE acquiring the property.

Trial was scheduled to start in June, but on May 31, 2024, BSRE and Paramount notified the court that, "all claims against all parties in this action have been resolved,” so the trial was cancelled. On July 3, the judge signed a court order dismissing the case with prejudice.

While the full terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, the Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit that BSRE and Paramount filed with Snohomish County on July 2, 2024, along with the Bargain and Sale Deed, reveal that BSRE sold Point Wells back to Paramount for $10 million (fourteen years ago, in 2010, BSRE acquired the property from Paramount for $19.5 million). 

As a result of the just-completed sale, Paramount once again owns all of Point Wells—the real property (the land), and the pier, the fuel and oil tanks, pipes, equipment, and structures.

Photo by Steven H. Robinson 2018

Signs that commercial oil operations could resume in 2026.

Indications are strong that the oil company (now called Alon Asphalt) may seek to re-start commercial oil operations at Point Wells, possibly as early as 2026.

To comply with new Department of Ecology rules, Alon Asphalt recently advised the Department of Ecology that by mid-2026, it intends to construct a massive (and costly) secondary containment berm to contain oil spills from reaching Puget Sound should an oil tank leak or burst. 

Alon’s proposed secondary containment berm, nearly four football fields in length, will be sized to achieve a total height of 15 survey feet above a tidal bench mark known as the NAVD88 datum. Based on existing grade, the berm will range from one to four feet in height. 

Alon’s letter to Ecology, dated June 26, 2024, states that “the initial estimated project schedule of 24 months is still intact.”

From its submittals to the Department of Ecology, one can infer that Alon Asphalt has a vision of re-starting commercial oil operations at Point Wells as early as 2026. Another indicator of Alon Asphalt’s intent to re-start commercial oil operations is that in 2023, it completed costly repairs to the pier, replacing sixty 14-inch diameter deteriorated creosote-wood piles with sixty new 14-inch diameter galvanized steel piles. According to estimates, the work cost approximately $2.2 million.

If the Town of Woodway determines that Alon Asphalt’s nonconforming use rights have expired, the Town could deny Alon the permits it needs to construct the massive secondary containment berm.

Point Wells zoning and the Town of Woodway

Point Wells is currently zoned for development as an Urban Village. The historical use of Point Wells as a marine fuel and asphalt oil terminal is a “grandfathered” nonconforming use. 

Applicable law provides that “grandfathered” nonconforming use rights may be lost (expire), if a nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months. 

Because there have been no transfers of marine fuel or asphalt oil at Point Wells since June 2020, it is possible that Alon Asphalt’s nonconforming use rights have expired, and that Alon is therefore prohibited from re-starting its commercial oil operations. 

Alon Asphalt will likely argue otherwise, saying that its nonconforming use rights have not expired, because it kept the facility’s permits up to date, and a caretaker staff has been maintaining the property and providing security.

When Alon Asphalt submits permit applications to the Town of Woodway to build the massive secondary containment berm, the Town will need to decide the threshold issue of whether Alon’s nonconforming use rights have expired. If the Town determines that Alon’s nonconforming use rights have expired, then it follows that the Town would deny Alon the permits it needs to build the massive secondary containment berm.

Whatever the Town decides on the nonconforming use issue and Alon’s permit applications, its decision is likely to be appealed to the courts.

Alon Asphalt would likely appeal if the Town decides that Alon ’s nonconforming use rights have expired and denies Alon's permit applications, while area residents and environmental groups who oppose the re-starting of commercial oil operations would likely appeal if the Town decides that Alon’s nonconforming use rights have not expired and approves Alon’s permit applications. 

It appears likely that the City of Shoreline would side with area residents and environmental groups who oppose the re-starting of commercial oil operations—a 2023 agreement entered into by the Town and the City provides that if the Town is called upon to make a decision on the nonconforming use issue, the Town must provide City of Shoreline "with standing to administratively appeal any such decision as an aggrieved party.”

Stayed tuned for further developments.


Read more...

Public hearing in Woodway May 20, 2024 regarding annexation of Point Wells

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

Town of Woodway. Point Wells is lower left with the large dock
Google maps

Town of Woodway
Public Hearing on annexation of Point Wells
Monday, May 20, 2024,  6:00pm at Town Hall

On May 20, 2024 the Town Council will host a public hearing at Town Hall 23920 113th Pl W, Woodway, WA 98020, on whether to adopt an ordinance annexing Point Wells into the Town. The meeting will start at 6pm, and there will be an opportunity for residents to express their opinion as to the pros and cons of annexation. The council may or may not act on the ordinance following the public hearing.

Mayor Mike Quinn stated, "As you know, the issue of whether the Town can and should annex Point Wells has been a topic of discussion since the Town’s incorporation in 1958.'; 
"For the past fifteen years, the Town has invested substantial time and resources into protecting our interests through policy development and litigation. And for the past two years, the Council and I have solicited public comment, obtained expert legal opinions and financial analysis, and engaged with our governmental partners to resolve any operational issues."

Monday night is an additional opportunity for residents to provide feedback. 

Additional information can be found (including a Q&A)  on their website. Written comments can be emailed to: heidi@townofwoodway.com.


Read more...

Woodway Town Council to hold public hearing on Point Wells Monday October 2, 2023

Monday, October 2, 2023

Point Wells is at sea level. Town of Woodway is on the cliff above
Photo by Steven H. Robinson

Point Wells Public Hearing Monday October 2, 2023 6:00pm at Town Hall 23920 113th Pl W, Woodway, WA 98020

Since 1999, with the Town Council’s creation of the Point Wells Advisory Committee, the Town has been planning for the potential annexation of Point Wells. 

Last October, Council directed staff to focus more intentionally on gathering information and identifying options that would provide Council with the ability to thoughtfully consider an annexation in 2023. 

This has included information on public opinion, financial considerations, potential Town liability and legal risks, and options to complete an annexation. At each Council meeting since January, staff has provided Council and the public with updates on these topics, and Council has provided residents with an opportunity to comment.

The Town has engaged the property owner regarding their vision for Point Wells, as well as the Town’s potential annexation of the site. 

Simultaneously, we have engaged Snohomish County, the City of Shoreline, and Olympic View Water and Sewer District in negotiations on an interlocal agreement (ILA) that would provide the Town with the option of annexing Point Wells under RCW 35A.14.296. 

The statute provides a process through which the Town can complete the annexation of Point Wells by mutual agreement, without the property owner’s consent.

Negotiations with our government partners are now complete. As a result, Council will hold a public hearing on the ILA on October 2, 2023 at 6pm. 

You can find a copy of the draft ILA and additional information related to annexation on the Point Wells page of the Town’s website

Testimony is being accepted in person at the public hearing or by submitting written comment. Written comments must be submitted to at heidi@townofwoodway.com no later than 4:00pm PST on October 2, 2023.

After hearing from the public at the meeting, Council will consider a resolution that authorizes Mayor Quinn to sign the ILA and to submit a “Notice of Intent” to annex Point Wells to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. 

If the Board authorizes the annexation, final approval of an annexation would not occur until Council holds another public hearing and approves an annexation ordinance.

If you have any questions or comments (other than written comments for the public hearing), or if you’re unable to attend the Council meeting, please feel free to email Mayor Mike Quinn at mquinn@townofwoodway.com. Also, please feel free to check out our Point Wells Q/A, located on the Point Wells webpage.

--Town of Woodway Mayor Mike Quinn


Read more...

No Urban Center at Point Wells

Thursday, July 13, 2023

Point Wells from Google Earth

By Tom McCormick

BSRE’s attempt to develop Point Wells as a high-density Urban Center is officially dead.

Since about 1900, Point Wells has been a tank farm. Point Wells is a low-lying property on Puget Sound in unincorporated Snohomish County, directly north of Shoreline. The only road to Point Wells is through Shoreline.

BSRE Point Wells, LP (BSRE) owns the land at Point Wells (about 61 acres). An unrelated oil company owns the pier, the fuel and oil tanks, pipes, and other structures. 

Marine fuel and asphalt oil operation and loading dock
Photo copyright Marc Weinberg

Since June 2020, the marine fuel and asphalt oil operations have been quiet. No vessels have offloaded or loaded marine fuel as they had in the past, no trains have offloaded asphalt oil, and no tanker trucks have transported it.

In 2011, BSRE submitted land use applications to Snohomish County to develop Point Wells as a high-density Urban Center. BSRE proposed to build about 3,000 residential units, in buildings as tall as 180 feet, plus over 100,000 square feet of commercial space. Since 2011, BSRE has spent over $10 million attempting to get its applications approved.

Snohomish County twice denied BSRE's applications due to substantial conflicts with the County's development code. The County's most recent denial of BSRE's applications was upheld by the state Court of Appeals in December 2022.

In March 2023, BSRE filed a petition for review with the Washington Supreme Court, hoping that the Court would accept its petition and reverse the Court of Appeals decision. That did not happen.

On July 11, 2023, the Washington Supreme Court denied BSRE's petition for review. As a result, BSRE’s attempt to develop Point Wells as a high-density Urban Center is officially dead. The County's denial of BSRE's applications, as upheld by the state Court of Appeals, is final.

Now we must wait to see what BSRE, and the unrelated oil company, will try to do next.

Will BSRE try to gain approval to develop Point Wells as a smaller-scale Urban Village, with perhaps 400 to 800 residential units, plus a second access road? As long as Point Wells remains unincorporated--that is, as long as it is not annexed by the Town of Woodway or the City of Shoreline--any application by BSRE to develop Point Wells as an Urban Village must be submitted to the County for processing.

Or will BSRE work with the oil company, and try to resume the site’s marine fuel and asphalt oil storage and distribution operations, a nonconforming use under the site's current Urban Village zoning? Under the County's code, if the oil company's marine fuel and asphalt oil operations are determined to have been "discontinued" for more than 12 months, the oil company cannot resume its "nonconforming" operations. 

While there are strong arguments that operations have been discontinued, the oil company could try to argue that, even though there has been no offloading, loading, or distribution of marine fuel and asphalt oil since June 2020, operations were never completely discontinued because it continues to employ a small crew, apparently to oversee management of the storm water system, and maintenance and repair of the equipment to keep it in running order.

Meanwhile, annexation lurks. Pursuant to a 2019 Settlement and Interlocal Agreement between the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway, the Town has the first opportunity to annex Point Wells. As an initial annexation hurdle, the Town must successfully negotiate an annexation interlocal agreement with the City of Shoreline, the County, and Olympic View Water and Sewer District. 

If the Town is successful, then the Town’s elected Council would need to vote in favor of annexation. If the Town fails to annex Point Wells, then the City of Shoreline will have an opportunity to annex it.

Stay tuned for further developments.


Read more...

Town of Woodway continues outreach to residents about potential annexation of Point Wells

Saturday, March 11, 2023

Mike Quinn, Mayor
Town of Woodway
Point Wells Update from Mayor Mike Quinn's newsletter

For the past six weeks, at each Council meeting, Council has provided residents with an opportunity to discuss the Town’s potential annexation of Point Wells. 

It’s been a good discussion. We’ve received clarification on a number of issues, answers to a number of questions, and we’ve identified areas needing additional research/analysis.

We will be hosting two open houses in April. These will be additional opportunities for residents to learn more and provide feedback. We will announce the dates/times in the next Woodway Whisper town newsletter. 

If you have any questions or comments in the meantime, but you’re unable to attend a Council meeting, please feel free to email me at mayor@townofwoodway.com

Also, please check out our Point Wells Q/A, located on our website here: Point Wells Annexation Q/A - Feb 2023.


Read more...

Town of Woodway begins discussions on possible annexation of Point Wells

Thursday, February 2, 2023

Town of Woodway is on the bluff directly above Point Wells
Google Earth

From Town of Woodway Mayor Mike Quinn

The Town Council has begun the process of evaluating whether to annex Point Wells. The method of annexation the Council is considering is a very detailed process that begins with the Council’s adoption of an agreement with Snohomish County (called the “interlocal agreement method”). This method of annexation does not require the property owner’s consent.

The adoption of the interlocal agreement can only take place after a public hearing. This hearing is tentatively scheduled for May. If the interlocal agreement is approved, the Town would then submit a notice of intent to annex to the County’s Boundary Review Board in early June. Final approval of an annexation may take months after submission of the notice to the Board.

We do not intend to wait until May to hear from our residents on this important topic. Beginning at the Council’s February 6 Council meeting, we have added a “Point Wells Public Discussion” topic to each Council meeting agenda. The meetings start at 6 pm. Remote (virtual) participation is available for most Council meetings – more information can be found in individual calendar events on the Town's website. Click here to visit the calendar.

This agenda topic will provide an opportunity for residents to come speak with the Council about the potential annexation of Point Wells. We will provide updates at these meetings, but we won’t always have new information to share. Nevertheless, it is important to Council that we provide as many opportunities as possible for residents to ask questions, provide opinions, and come to understand the pros and cons associated with an annexation. We also expect to host residents at a couple of open houses in April, where we expect to be able to provide additional information.

Finally, I want to emphasize two points. First, starting this process does not mean that an annexation will take place. Second, starting this process under the interlocal agreement method of annexation does not mean that an annexation will take place against the property owner’s wishes. We have had and will continue to have conversations with the property owner throughout this process.

If you are unable to attend a meeting but would like to provide a question or comment, please do not hesitate to email me at mayor@townofwoodway.com.


Read more...

Point Wells: Disappointment and uncertainty in the wake of decision by state Court of Appeals

Saturday, December 31, 2022

By Tom McCormick

On December 27, 2022, the state Court of Appeals upheld Snohomish County’s denial of BSRE’s applications to develop Point Wells as an Urban Center. See my earlier article at: https://www.shorelineareanews.com/2022/12/point-wells-court-of-appeals-upholds.html

The court's decision is great news for our community and the environment, but in its wake there is disappointment and uncertainty.

Architectural site drawing from BSRE 
Disappointment: Wasted time and money.

When BSRE submitted its applications to the County in 2011, its plans included many buildings taller than the County's 90-foot maximum for Urban Centers (some as tall as 180 feet). BSRE assumed that the County would allow its 180-foot towers. BSRE assumed that it could satisfy the “additional height” conditions in the County Code: 

"A building height increase up to an additional 90 feet may be approved … when the additional height is documented to be necessary or desirable when the project is located near a high capacity transit route or station …." 

In its project narrative, BSRE stated: "The Point Wells Urban Center Plan assumes full use of this provision."

BSRE assumed wrong. 

In 2018 and again in 2021, the County denied BSRE’s applications because they substantially conflicted with Code requirements. One conflict stood out: BSRE’s plans included many buildings taller than the County’s 90-foot maximum. This was a Code conflict because the County concluded that BSRE did not satisfy the Code's “additional height” conditions necessary to permit buildings taller than 90 feet. The state Court of Appeals agreed. Relying solely on the building height conflict, it upheld the County’s denial of BSRE’s applications.

It is a mystery why, in 2011, BSRE did not ask the County for written confirmation that its assumption was correct. It could have asked the County for a formal Code Interpretation on the maximum building height— perhaps BSRE's single most important critical path issue. The entirety of its plans depended on having buildings taller than 90 feet.

"Central Village" site concept drawing from BSRE
Even after the County alerted BSRE in 2015 of concerns about whether BSRE satisfied the Code's “additional height” conditions, BSRE continued to assume that 180-foot buildings were allowable. (The County alerted BSRE promptly after receiving input from the public arguing that, due to the lack of high capacity transit access, buildings taller than 90 feet were not permitted.) It is a mystery why, even after the County alerted BSRE in 2015, BSRE did not ask the County for a formal Code Interpretation on the maximum building height  (or perhaps the County could have issued a Code Interpretation on its own initiative?).

If a Code Interpretation had been sought, and if the County had responded by confirming that 90 feet was the maximum building height due to BSRE not satisfying the high capacity transit and other conditions, everyone would have known years ago that 180-foot buildings were not permitted at Point Wells. 

BSRE would have revised its plans years ago, with no buildings taller than 90 feet. The parties would have avoided the years-long fight over the maximum building height and various dependent issues. The County, the public, the City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway, and BSRE all would have saved vast amounts of time and money.

Uncertainty about what’s next: More court proceedings? Will BSRE apply to develop Point Wells as an Urban Village?

BSRE can ask the state Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision upholding the denial of BSRE’s applications, and/or BSRE could petition the state Supreme Court to review the decision (there is no appeal of right). We should know by late January how BSRE decides to proceed. 

If the decision by the state Court of Appeals stands, and if BSRE still wishes to develop Point Wells, it would need to start over, and apply to develop the site as an “Urban Village” (the site’s current designation). Urban Villages are not required to provide direct access to high capacity transit.

1. If Point Wells remains part of unincorporated Snohomish County.

Assuming Point Wells continues to be a part of unincorporated Snohomish County, BSRE would submit its Urban Village plans to the County for approval under the County’s development code governing Urban Villages (SCC 30.31A.115). Three provisions of interest are: 

— The maximum building height is 75 feet, but the County’s planning director may recommend a height increase in appropriate locations within the Urban Village of up to an additional 50 feet when the applicant prepares an environmental impact statement, and where such increased height in designated locations does not unreasonably interfere with the views from nearby residential structures. 

— The County’s more protective post-OSO landslide hazard rules will apply to any development at Point Wells.

— Maximum residential density is 44 residential units per gross acre. If all of Point Wells were considered as one site, the maximum density would be 2,684 residential units (= 44 X 61 acres). 

Importantly, this theoretical maximum density is subject to other restrictions and requirements that likely would reduce the density considerably. For instance, SCC 30.31A.115(9) provides special requirements applicable to Point Wells, including the following: 

"The applicant shall successfully negotiate binding agreements for public services, utilities or infrastructure that are to be provided by entities other than the county [(for example, the City of Shoreline)] prior to the county approving a development permit that necessitates the provision of public services, utilities or infrastructure; [and] The intensity of development shall be consistent with the level of service standards adopted by the entity identified as providing the public service, utility or infrastructure.” 
 

Transportation Corridor Study
Since the City of Shoreline has adopted a 4,000 average daily trip limit for the 2-lane Richmond Beach Drive (currently the only access to Point Wells), this limit alone could reduce the number of permitted residential units considerably. 

Further, the number of units could possibly be reduced as a result of the environmental review required by Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

2. If Point Wells is annexed by the Town of Woodway or the City of Shoreline.

A few years ago, the Town of Woodway and the City of Shoreline entered into an agreement that gives the Town the first right to annex Point Wells, provided it takes certain steps by June 11, 2023. If the Town fails to act by the deadline, then the City gets the right to annex Point Wells. 

The Woodway Town Council will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, January 3, 2023, at 4:00pm, at the Woodway Town Hall, to discuss Point Wells.

BSRE could wait to see if either the Town or the City annexes Point Wells, and then submit to the annexing jurisdiction an application to develop the site as an Urban Village under the annexing jurisdiction’s Urban Village rules. 

As part of the agreement between the Town and the City, the parties have adopted nearly identical development code provisions that will apply to proposals to develop Point Wells as an Urban Village following annexation. Three provisions of interest are (see Town of Woodway Municipal Code Chapter 14.40, and City of Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 20.94):

— The maximum building height is 45 feet, except for areas east of the BNSF railroad right-of-way, where the maximum building height is 35 feet. The maximum building height may be increased to 75 feet west of the BNSF railroad right-of-way if the applicant conducts a view analysis demonstrating certain public views from Richmond Beach Drive to Admiralty Inlet are not impacted. 

— Rules similar to the County’s post-OSO landslide hazard rules will apply to any development at Point Wells.

— Maximum residential density is 44 units per "net acre," excluding roads, drainage detention/retention areas, biofiltration swales, areas required for public use, tidelands, and critical areas and their required buffers. Assuming 18 net acres at Point Wells, that is a maximum residential density of 792 units.

Point Wells would need environmental remediation before construction.
Photo by Steven H. Robinson

Site remediation

BSRE must remediate (clean up) the Point Wells site before commencing construction of an Urban Village. Remediation will take many years and cost millions of dollars.

In 2020, BSRE filed a lawsuit against the oil company, demanding that the oil company remediate the site. The oil company then filed claims against BSRE. The lawsuit is ongoing. Trial is set for late 2023. It is possible that the parties could settle the matter before then.

Resumption of oil operations?

Instead of developing the site as an Urban Village, could the marine fuel and asphalt oil storage and distribution operations at Point Wells be resumed? Snohomish County has not ruled on the matter.

The oil company at Point Wells had been operating marine fuel and asphalt oil storage and distribution operations until June 2020, when its lease with BSRE ended. About a year later, the public asked the County to rule that oil operations can never be resumed. The public cited a special Code provision prohibiting nonconforming uses from resuming if such uses have been discontinued for more than a year (oil operations are a nonconforming use under the site’s current Urban Village zoning). 

In November 2022, the County’s Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS) sent the oil company a letter that described the public’s concerns, and what PDS might do:

"Upon learning about [a recent] pier maintenance project, several members of the public expressed concern to PDS regarding the possibility that uses of the site, considered nonconforming under Snohomish County Code, have been abandoned and may not resume. ...

Although PDS is not currently requesting information from you related to prior or current uses at Richmond Beach Terminal, please know that the issue raised by the public regarding nonconforming and abandoned uses may be raised again in the future. At such point PDS may be required to directly respond to the question."

Stay tuned for further developments.



Read more...

Point Wells: Court of Appeals upholds Snohomish County’s denial of BSRE’s applications to develop Point Wells as an Urban Center

Thursday, December 29, 2022

Point Wells photo courtesy Google Earth
By Tom McCormick

On December 27, 2022, the state Court of Appeals upheld the County’s denial of BSRE’s applications to build an Urban Center at Point Wells.

Point Wells is a low-lying property on Puget Sound in unincorporated Snohomish County, directly north of Shoreline. The only road to Point Wells is through Shoreline. The property abuts a steep cliff directly below the Town of Woodway. 

The Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision of the King County Superior Court, and dismissed BSRE's land-use petition. 

A PDF copy of the Court of Appeals decision can be accessed at https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/838202.pdf .

Background

BSRE owns the land at Point Wells (about 61 acres). An unrelated oil company owns the pier, the oil tanks and pipes, and other structures.

In 2010, at the request of BSRE’s predecessor, Snohomish County designated Point Wells as an Urban Center, re-zoned it, and enacted an updated Urban Center Development Code. Various parties challenged the County’s action, arguing, among other things, that the Urban Center designation was invalid because the site lacked access to high capacity transit. The State’s Growth Management Hearings Board agreed. As stated in its May 2011 decision and order,

"the Board finds the County's Urban Center policies as a whole require ready access to both the road system and transit services. Mere location on an inaccessible transit route is not sufficient and not consistent with these policies.”

The Board invalidated the site’s Urban Center designation, and required the County to take corrective action. The County responded in 2012 by re-designating Point Wells as an Urban Village (generally less density, lower building heights, and no requirement for high capacity transit).

Meanwhile, in February 2011, BSRE submitted to the County its initial applications to develop Point Wells as an Urban Center. BSRE proposed a development with about 3,000 residential units in buildings as tall as 180 feet, and more than 100,000 square feet of office and retail space.

Opponents argued that BSRE’s applications should be rejected because the Growth Management Hearings Board had declared the County’s designation of Point Wells as an Urban Center to be invalid. 

The Washington Supreme Court disagreed, saying that "BSRE's rights vested when it submitted its applications [in February 2011]. [The] later finding of noncompliance [and invalidity by the Growth Management Hearings Board in May 2011] does not affect BSRE's already vested rights."

The maximum building height: 90 feet or 180 feet?

In BSRE’s 2011 application materials, BSRE states:
  • “[The County’s] Urban Center Code ... contains the following provision[]:
  • Maximum building height is 90 feet.
  • An additional 90 feet of building height may be approved under specific conditions.
  • ► The Point Wells Urban Center Plan assumes full use of this provision.” (emphasis added.)

BSRE assumed wrong. The specific conditions for an additional 90 feet of building height are set forth in Former Snohomish County Code 30.34A.040(1):

“The maximum building height in the UC zone shall be 90 feet. A building height increase up to an additional 90 feet may be approved . . . when the additional height is documented to be necessary or desirable when the project is located near a high capacity transit route or station.” (emphasis added).

In 2018, the County denied BSRE’s applications for the first time because of substantial conflicts with County Code. One conflict stood out: many of BSRE’s planned buildings were taller than the County Code’s 90-foot maximum (some as tall as 180 feet). The County concluded that BSRE failed to satisfy the Code’s conditions to get an additional 90 feet approved. The Hearing Examiner said this:

“BSRE contends that it need only be "near a high capacity transit route” [to qualify for an additional 90 feet in building height]. … While BSRE is correct that a high capacity transit route is near the project, proximity alone is not enough. [Also, to] give meaning to the words "approval" and "necessary or desirable", it must mean necessity or desirability for some reason other than the applicant's desire. 
"The record lacks any evidence to support a finding or conclusion that the additional height is necessary or desirable from a public, aesthetic, planning, or transportation standpoint."

BSRE appealed the Hearing Examiner’s decision. The King County Superior Court gave BSRE an opportunity to re-activate and re-submit its applications. BSRE corrected some shortcomings, and re-submitted its applications in 2019. But several substantial conflicts remained.

Significantly, many of BSRE’s planned buildings remained taller than the County Code’s 90-foot maximum. As a result, in 2021 the County again denied BSRE’s applications. BSRE appealed.

In early 2022, the King County Superior Court (a different judge than before) gave BSRE another opportunity to re-submit its applications. Both the County and BSRE appealed the court's 2022 decision, both wanting the Court of Appeals to rule on the maximum building height issue and other issues.

Court of Appeals says the County’s interpretation stands — the maximum building height is 90 feet; BSRE’s applications were appropriately denied.

On December 27, 2022, the Court of Appeals ruled against BSRE on the maximum building height issue, finding it unnecessary to address any of the other substantial conflicts that the County identified. On the building height issue, the court concluded:

"BSRE did not carry its burden in establishing that the County erroneously interpreted or clearly erroneously applied its own Code.”
 
The Court of Appeals found "BSRE’s arguments unpersuasive”:

"BSRE’s focus on one phrase in the Code (“. . . located near a high capacity transit route or station. . .”) ignores the repeated statements of legislative intent for residents of a high-density urban centers to have ready access, not just proximity, to mass transit stops and stations. The statute is replete with such references. …

[Also,] BSRE’s interpretation ignores the prior additional qualifying phrase that the increase [in building height of an additional 90 feet] must be “necessary or desirable.” Former SCC 30.34A.040(1). On appeal, BSRE argues, without citing any authority, that “desirable” means subjectively desirable to it, the developer. We agree with the County, that the subject to whom the building increase must be desirable is the County. … [An] Urban Zone without a high capacity transit system of any kind would be understandably undesirable to the County. …

For these [and other] reasons, we interpret Former SCC 30.34A.040(1) in the larger statutory context in which it was adopted and conclude that the County’s intent is, not only proximity to high capacity transit, but the ability of its future residents to use and access the high capacity transit.”

The Court of Appeals found that BSRE did not carry its burden in establishing that the County erroneously interpreted or applied its own Code as to the maximum building height. Based on this one substantial conflict, it denied BSRE’s petition, thereby upholding the County’s denial of BSRE’s applications to develop Point Wells as an Urban Center.

While the Court of Appeals decision upholding the County’s denial of BSRE’s applications is great news for our community and the environment, there is disappointment and uncertainty too.

These will be discussed in a companion article to be posted tomorrow.

(see previously published articles on Point Wells here)



Read more...

Dock maintenance project at Point Wells

Friday, November 4, 2022

Photo by John Slomnicki

At the end of October 2022, Snohomish County issued a permit for the replacement of a number of the rotting pilings that support the pier.

The work is in process now.



Read more...

Point Wells: Snohomish County to appeal the February 22 Remand Order issued by King County Superior Court judge

Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Point Wells photo by Tim Davis

By Tom McCormick

As reported in an earlier article https://www.shorelineareanews.com/2022/02/point-wells-court-gives-bsre-yet.html , Snohomish County twice denied BSRE’s application to develop a huge urban center at Point Wells, because its application substantially conflicted with the County’s code. Among other conflicts, numerous buildings exceeded the code’s 90-foot height limit, and several buildings violated the code’s residential setback requirement.

In 2021, BSRE (the developer) petitioned the King County Superior Court to review and reverse the most recent denial. BSRE argued in part that the County’s code allowed buildings taller than 90 feet because of the site’s proximity to a high capacity transit route (the Sounder train passes through the site, though it doesn’t stop there), and that the code’s residential setback rules do not apply to its project. BSRE also argued that the County failed to exercise good faith in reviewing and processing its application.

Point Wells aerial view copyright Marc Weinberg

On February 22, 2022, a King County Superior Court judge issued an order remanding the matter. After finding that there was "a lack of good faith [by Snohomish County] in the processing and review” of BSRE’s application, the judge gave BSRE a do-over—an opportunity to revise its application to address the substantial code conflicts that gave rise to the County’s denial.

The judge gave BSRE six months to submit its initial revisions. But the judge did not rule on the substantial conflicts. The judge, for example, did not rule on whether the maximum building height is 90 feet or 180 feet, or whether the residential setback rules apply.

"Central Village" site drawing from BSRE
Just one of many building clusters planned for the site.

Snohomish County is going to appeal the judge’s remand order. Likely triggered by the judge's "lack of good faith" finding, and/or by the judge’s failure to decide whether BSRE’s application does indeed substantially conflict with the County's code, the Snohomish County Council passed a motion on March 7, 2022, to authorize the County Attorney’s office to file an appeal.

It is possible that BSRE too will file an appeal. The deadline for filing an appeal is March 24, 2022.

According to the judge’s remand order, if anyone appeals her order, then "all of the deadlines herein shall be automatically stayed while the appeal is pending.” This means that BSRE’s re-submission opportunity will be put on hold until after the Court of Appeals issues its decision, perhaps by late 2023.



Read more...

Point Wells: Court gives BSRE yet another chance to fix and resubmit its applications to develop Point Wells as an Urban Center

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Point Wells photo by Steven H. Robinson

By Tom McCormick

Point Wells, located at the northern end of Richmond Beach Drive, is home to a contaminated marine fuel and asphalt oil storage and distribution facility. 

In 2009-2010, at the urging of the oil company that owned Point Wells, Snohomish County designated the site as an Urban Center, re-zoned it, and enacted an updated Urban Center Development Code—the County’s code.

Prior to 2010, Paramount of Washington, LLC, owned all of Point Wells, including the land and the oil tanks, pipelines, equipment, etc. A related company, Paramount Petroleum Corporation, used the site to run its marine fuel and asphalt oil storage and distribution business. Together, these entities are referred to as "Paramount".

In 2010, Paramount sold the land at Point Wells to BSRE Point Wells, LP (BSRE) for $19.5 million, but not the oil tanks, pipelines, equipment, etc. As part of the purchase agreement, BSRE gave Paramount a 10-year license to continue using the site to operate its marine fuel and asphalt oil storage and distribution business (operations were discontinued in June 2020). Also in 2010, BSRE and Paramount entered into a development agreement, whereby BSRE agreed to seek Snohomish County's approval of a proposed urban center at Point Wells.
Architectural drawings from Perkins+Wells

In 2011, BSRE submitted development applications to Snohomish County for a massive urban center with more than 3,000 residential units, in towers as tall as 180 feet, and more than 100,000 square feet of commercial space.

Both the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway opposed the County’s 2009-2010 designation of Point Wells as an urban center, concerned that their infrastructures could not possibly handle a massive urban center there. They, along with Save Richmond Beach, filed a petition with the Growth Management Hearings Board asking it to invalidate the County’s action. 

The Board did invalidate the County’s urban center designation in April 2011, but by then BSRE had submitted its development applications to the County, thereby acquiring vested status to proceed. The City, the Town, and Save Richmond Beach filed a lawsuit in 2011 asking for a ruling that BSRE was not vested. But in 2014, the Washington Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision confirmed BSRE’s vested status.

In recent years, the City, the Town, and local residents have continued their opposition to BSRE's proposed urban center, all having submitted materials and testimony to the county and its Hearing Examiner in support of denying BSRE's applications.

2018 hearing 

Because BSRE failed to make numerous corrections required by the County, the County in 2018 denied BSRE’s applications. It based its denial on a provision in the County’s code that allows for denial of a proposal without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when the proposal is in “substantial conflict with adopted plans, ordinances, regulations or laws.”

In the 2018 denial, the County’s Hearing Examiner identified seven substantial conflicts:
  1. 21 buildings exceeded the County’s 90-foot maximum building height, and did not qualify for a 90-foot height bonus available for projects with nearby access to high capacity transit (HCT);
  2. multiple buildings in the proposed urban plaza did not comply with the County’s setback requirements because they were not stepped down in height according to each building's distance from the adjacent low-density residential zones;
  3. plans for a secondary access road substantially conflicted with the County’s landslide hazard rules;
  4. the proposed urban plaza buildings were impermissibly located in a landslide hazard area;
  5. the geotechnical report failed to confirm the site's suitability for the proposed development—virtually the entire site is susceptible to high liquefaction;
  6. several buildings are impermissibly located within the marine buffer, less than 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark; and
  7. the proposal to mitigate impacts to critical areas by innovative development design substantially conflicted with County requirements.

2019 court ruling
 
BSRE appealed the Hearing Examiner’s 2018 denial of its applications by filing a Land Use Petition with the King County Superior Court. Rather than rule on whether the above seven substantial conflicts were valid reasons for the County to deny BSRE’s applications, the court’s Judge John McHale ruled on procedural grounds that BSRE should be given a "one-time reactivation opportunity." BSRE was given six months to fix and resubmit its applications to address the seven substantial code conflicts.

Point Wells from Google Earth

2019-2021 resubmittal and hearing

BSRE resubmitted its applications in late 2019. A second hearing was held in November 2020. BSRE fixed two of the seven substantial conflicts — it relocated several buildings so that none were within 150 feet of the ordinary high water mark, and it revised its proposal to mitigate impacts to critical areas by its innovative development design. BSRE failed to fix to the County’s satisfaction the other five substantial conflicts (items 1 through 5 above). As a result, on January 29, 2021, the County’s Hearing Examiner for a second time denied BSRE’s applications. BSRE again appealed, filing a second Land Use Petition with the King County Superior Court.

2022 court ruling

On February 22, 2022, the court’s Judge Josephine Wiggs-Martin issued her decision, kicking the can down the road yet again. Rather than ruling on whether BSRE’s applications substantially conflicted with the County's code, the judge gave BSRE additional time to try to fix the five remaining substantial conflicts.

"The Court finds that there was a lack of good faith [by the County] in the processing and review of the application upon reactivation and thus, a lack of compliance with Judge McHale’s Order on Remand. Reactivation is meaningless if a full and fair process and review does not occur. A fair and meaningful process and review on reactivation must occur.

A meaningful reactivation also means that the same things are not resubmitted with minor tweaks. The Court agrees with the County that “hope is not a plan.” The identified issues need to be addressed; the review process is not going to go on ad infinitum."

New Timeline
  • BSRE gets six months, until August 22, 2022, to submit its "initial revisions" to the applications. Parties must engage in a back-and-forth during this time ("BSRE shall have the opportunity to meet at least once with the County and correspond with the County during this period to discuss any questions or comments BSRE may have.”).
  • The County gets four months, until December 26, 2022, to provide a "comment letter" to BSRE based on the revisions submitted. Parties must engage in a back-and-forth during this time.
  • BSRE gets two months from the date of receipt of the County’s comment letter to revise its plans and make its final submission. Parties must engage in a back-and-forth during this time. The whole process must be complete by February 27, 2023.
  • After BSRE’s final submission, it is expected that the County will review BSRE’s applications one last time. If any substantial conflicts with the County's code remain, one would expect that the County would again deny BSRE’s applications without the preparation of an EIS. If all conflicts are resolved, one would expect that the County would continue to process BSRE’s applications, and resume the previously suspended preparation of an EIS.

Commentary

It seems that Judge Wiggs-Martin’s 2022 ruling puts BSRE in the same dilemma it was in after Judge McHale issued his ruling in 2019. BSRE gets additional time to fix and resubmit its applications to address the five remaining substantial code conflicts, but without the help of a court ruling that BSRE says it needs on two critical path issues: the maximum building height (BSRE contends it is 180 feet, not 90 feet), and the applicability of the required residential setback (BSRE contends the setback rules do not apply).

Consider, for example, the dilemma presented by the maximum building height. When BSRE resubmits its applications in six months, will it unconditionally reduce the height of all buildings to 90 feet thereby acquiescing to the County’s interpretation that the maximum building height is 90 feet, and that a 90-foot bonus height is unavailable due to the lack of HCT access, or, will BSRE resubmit with buildings as tall as 180 feet, thereby all but guaranteeing that the County will again deny BSRE's applications due to a substantial conflict with the County’s maximum building height provision?

I would not be surprised if BSRE, the County, or the intervenor City of Shoreline, asks Judge Wiggs-Martin to reconsider her ruling, to rule specifically on the two critical path issues (maximum building height, and required residential setback). 

Will history repeat itself? 

After Judge McHale issued his 2019 ruling, the City of Shoreline asked Judge McHale to reconsider his ruling. The City asked him to rule on the merits of the maximum building height issue. Without explanation, Judge McHale declined to do so. Separately, BSRE appealed Judge McHale’s 2019 reactivation ruling to the Court of Appeals, asking the court to rule on the merits of the two critical path issues (maximum building height, and required residential setback). The court declined to do so, saying that the appeal was not yet ripe for review.

We will soon know whether Judge Wiggs-Martin will be asked to reconsider her decision (motions for reconsideration must be filed by March 4, 2022). The question then becomes will she grant the motion, and agree to rule on whether the Hearing Examiner was correct or incorrect in concluding that the maximum building height under the County’s code is 90 feet due to the lack of HCT access, and second, whether the Hearing Examiner was correct or incorrect in concluding that the code’s residential setback provisions do indeed apply to Point Wells.

Judge Wiggs-Martin's remand to give BSRE time to fix its applications, without the benefit of a ruling on the merits of the two critical path issues, returns the parties to where they were after Judge McHale’s 2019 ruling -- which also gave BSRE time to fix its applications. 

We know how that turned out. BSRE did not acquiesce to the county’s interpretation of the two critical path issues. In late 2019, BSRE resubmitted its applications with numerous buildings remaining taller than 90 feet, and with several buildings violating the residential setback requirements.

2-25-22 revision of final paragraph


Read more...

Point Wells: Will the oil operations at Point Wells be shut down forever?

Friday, August 6, 2021

Point Wells photo courtesy Google maps

From the Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition

For more than 100 years, Point Wells has been a petroleum products terminal, and for part of that time an asphalt plant. Most recently, Point Wells has been used to receive, store and distribute marine fuel and asphalt oil, a "nonconforming use" not permitted under the site's current zoning, or under Snohomish County’s Shoreline Management Program. 

Nonconforming uses are uniformly disfavored. The Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the desirability of eliminating such uses.

In 2010, coinciding with the County rezoning Point Wells an Urban Center as requested by the oil company, the oil company sold to BSRE Point Wells, LP ("BSRE") the land at Point Wells, but retained ownership of all tanks, pipelines, equipment, buildings, fencing, the pier, etc. As part of the deal, BSRE gave the oil company a 10-year license, enabling the oil company to continue its operations following the sale.

The 10-year license period expired last year, on June 1, 2020. About five months before the license period expired, BSRE notified the oil company that it had to vacate the site when the license period expired.

Though it did not vacate the site, the oil company drained its storage tanks to their heels, and stopped receiving, storing, and distributing marine fuel and asphalt oil. It laid off many of its employees. 

Through a series of extension agreements with the oil company, BSRE let the remaining employees continue their work at the site beyond June 1, 2020, providing 24/7 security, doing environmental compliance work, doing some site upkeep, etc.

Point Wells photo by Steven H. Robinson

A recent filing in Snohomish County by Richmond Beach resident Tom McCormick contends that because the oil company has discontinued receiving, storing, and distributing marine fuel and asphalt oil for more than 12 months, it has forfeited the right to resume those "nonconforming" operations.

Mr. McCormick filed a Code Interpretation request, asking the County to interpret and enforce the "nonconforming use" provisions of County Code section 30.67.450(5), so that Point Wells can never again be used as a petroleum products terminal or asphalt plant.

It is expected that later this month the County will publish a notice in the Everett Daily Herald, inviting the public to comment on the Code Interpretation request. After the comment period expires, the County will review the comments, then issue its Code Interpretation. Stay tuned.

The supporting documents for the Code Interpretation request can be accessed here [ https://www.dropbox.com/s/fjlhc1wyziqagun/2021-07-30%20CI%20request%20re%20nonconforming%20use%20lttr%26exhs.pdf?dl=0 ].



Read more...

Shoreline Fire responds to medical emergency on boat off Point Wells

Monday, December 21, 2020

A pretty white cabin cruiser floats just offshore. Two people in yellow rainsuits and boots are knee deep in water, floating a small rubber boat between them. Two people in yellow rain jackets are on shore. The whole scene is lit with floodlights. Tiny waves are breaking on the beach.
Fire crews prepare to transport a patient from boat to hospital
Photo courtesy Shoreline Fire


At approximately 1:45am Sunday, Shoreline Fire was dispatched to a vessel off Point Wells that couldn’t make it into shore because of the low tide.

One of the three individuals on the boat called 911 for a medical emergency.

At Point Wells, crews were able to drive close to the scene
Photo courtesy Shoreline Fire

After 30 minutes of working with several agencies: USGS, Norcom, Edmonds PD, and SCM16, they transported the female by medics to a local hospital.




Read more...

Public Hearing - Amendments to Proposed Development Regulations for the Point Wells Subarea

Saturday, December 5, 2020

Point Wells from the north
Photo by Steven H. Robinson


Shoreline City Council Public Hearing
Monday, Dec. 14, 2020
7:00pm


Shoreline City Council will hold a second electronic public hearing to consider citizens’ comments on Proposed Ordinance No. 908 amending the Development Code to establish a “Point Wells – Planned Area 4” zone and regulations to implement the Point Wells Subarea Plan. 

The City’s Comprehensive Plan has designated the Point Wells Subarea as a Future Service and Annexation Area and this hearing is in accordance with RCW 35A.14.340.

All interested persons are encouraged to listen and/or attend the remote online public hearing and to provide oral and/or written comments. Information on how to join the meeting is posted at shorelinewa.gov/councilmeetings.

Written comments should be submitted to Andrew Bauer, Senior Planner, at abauer@shorelinewa.gov by no later than 4:00pm local time on the date of the hearing.

Any person wishing to provide oral testimony at the hearing should register via the Remote Public Comment Sign-in form on the City’s webpage at least thirty (30) minutes before the start of the meeting. A request to sign-up can also be made directly to the City Clerk at (206) 801-2230.

Any person requiring a disability accommodation should also contact the City Clerk in advance for more information. For TTY telephone services call 206-546-0457. Each Request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment.

Full public hearing notice [pdf]

--Information from City of Shoreline



Read more...

Comment on Point Wells by midnight November 24, 2020

Friday, November 20, 2020

Point Wells
Google Earth

What is Point Wells?

BSRE is the owner of Point Wells, which is a 64-acre property located on the shore of Puget Sound in the extreme southwestern corner of Snohomish County, immediately north of the City of Shoreline. Point Wells has been used as an asphalt refinery and light petroleum products and lube oil distribution terminal for over a century. The only road into Point Wells goes through Shoreline.

The BNSF train runs through Point Wells. The only road is a narrow two lane road in Shoreline.
Photo courtesy Brightwater


Update from the Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition

The Snohomish County Hearing Examiner held a public hearing during the last two weeks on BSRE's revised application for a large development at Point Wells. The Snohomish County Planning and Development Services department again recommended denial of the revised application because it still does not address several of the issues that caused BSRE's original application to be denied. While the county and BSRE have completed their presentations, there's still time for you to enter your comments about the proposal. More on that below...

A narrow road leads to Point Wells
Photo by Steven H. Robinson

Some history

Here's an extremely brief history to make sure everyone is up to date. BSRE submitted their original application in 2011. The county sent BSRE a letter in 2013 identifying a large number of problems with the application, such as missing data or design elements that did not follow the county plans, codes, or regulations. BSRE provided minimal response to the letter, so in 2017 the county sent a follow up letter indicating the problems had not yet been resolved and that BSRE had until January 2018 to submit the missed data or corrected plans.

BSRE did manage to submit some additional material by the January 2018 deadline, but after reviewing the application the county identified numerous instances where the plans were still in substantial conflict with county plans, codes, or regulations, so the county recommended that the application be denied.

A landslide from the Town of Woodway, which is on the hill above Point Wells.
This photo was possibly just north of Point Wells. Photo courtesy MOHAI

 
After a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the Examiner agreed with the county's recommendation and denied the application. The County Council upheld the denial, but BSRE filed suit to try to overturn the decision. They were unsuccessful, but they did convince the court that a decision to deny the application came with the right to submit a revised application. BSRE submitted a revised application in December 2019; it is this revised application that the Hearing Examiner is now considering.

Still no attempt to resolve the main issues

The two main issues with the January 2018 application were lack of access to high capacity transit (which if present would allow buildings taller than 90 feet) and placing buildings in a landslide hazard area.

Instead of resolving these issues in the December 2019 application, BSRE took the approach of asking the county to grant a variance to allow them to ignore those rules so they could construct the tall buildings without access to transit, and could build in the hazard area. The county reviewed the variance requests and found they did not meet the requirements to allow them to be granted. Without the variances, the county found the application still in substantial conflict with provisions of the county code or regulations, hence the recommendation for denial again.

A coal train passes. Point Wells is in the background
Photo by Steven H. Robinson


Your chance to comment

You still have until midnight on November 24, 2020 to submit your comments about the project. You can submit them via email by sending them to hearing.examiner@snoco.org or you can join a remote Zoom session at 10am on the 24th to read your statement into the record (use the link shown below).

November 24, 2020 @ 10 am Zoom link:
https://zoom.us/j/98527133238?pwd=UFh5dGJvaEtsT0JWSUpyVDRXRHA4Zz09

Here are some potential topics you can comment on. You do not need to be technical, the Hearing Examiner is interested in hearing how local residents feel about the proposal.
  • Building height (proposing towers that are up to 180 feet tall).
  • View corridors (the towers block the views of RB and Woodway residents who live near the site).
  • Landslide risk (proposing to place buildings within a landslide hazard area that had a major slide within the last 100 years).
  • Second access road (unapproved design, lack of land rights needed to build the road, and lack of landslide mitigation).
  • Undesirable and maxed out traffic for the Richmond Beach Road corridor, especially now that much of RB Road is only 3 lanes.
  • A Traffic Corridor Study started in 2014 that has yet to be completed (probably because it will show that RB Road can't handle the projected traffic from the site).
  • Lack of public transportation to the site.
  • Density and number of residences (still over 2800 units in the latest plan).
  • Environmental distress for the shoreline other critical areas.
  • 10 years of non-compliance and lack of responsiveness to the County Planners (the original plans were submitted in 2011 and the county identified a list of problems in 2013 that were not addressed until the end of 2017, and even then some of the issues were still ignored).
  • 10 years of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars of Snohomish County, Shoreline, and Woodway staff time, participation in court appeals, lawsuits, high priced consultants (BSRE has had multiple opportunities to get this right and has failed every time).
Now is the time

If you ever thought about commenting on the project but never quite got around to it, or if you have commented in the past but want just one more time to let the Examiner know how you feel, now is the time to do it.

Not on our mailing list yet?

Add your name to our email list to get our periodic updates and alerts.
Your address will only be used by us and not shared with any other individual or organization.

Sign up for our list



Read more...
ShorelineAreaNews.com
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the Follow.it email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP