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

2013 Comprehensive Plan amendments include Point Wells

Saturday, January 26, 2013


From Shoreline Planning and Community Development

On February 7, the Planning Commission will review proposed 2013 Docket of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and will forward a recommendation to the City Council. The sole purpose of this recommendation is to specify which of the proposed amendments City staff should add to the work plan for further study and analysis in 2013. The State Growth Management Act generally limits the City to amending its Comprehensive Plan once a year and requires that it create a Docket (or list) of the amendments to be considered. Even though the Comprehensive Plan just underwent a major update, the City is permitted to amend the document once a year to reflect any changes in the community.

In anticipation of the City reaching an agreement with BSRE Point Wells, LP (BSRE) on conducting a Transportation Corridor Study on mitigating adverse impacts from its proposed development of Point Wells, City staff have submitted a proposal to amend the Point Wells Subarea Plan and the Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for consideration in 2013. Proposed amendments include increasing the total vehicle trips per day allowed on NW Richmond Beach Drive in conjunction with mitigation projects and funding needed to maintain adopted levels of service for this road, and reclassification of NW Richmond Beach Drive from a local street to a collector arterial.

Anyone can submit amendments to be considered for inclusion on the City’s annual Docket. City staff’s proposed amendments were the only amendment applications submitted for inclusion on the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket.

The amendment application will be reviewed at the February 7th Planning Commission meeting for the purposes of forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether or not this item should be placed on the 2013 Docket. City Council will confirm the content of the 2013 Docket in late February.

For more information about the 2013 Docket and upcoming meetings, visit this site.


Read more...

Appeals court sides with developer and Snohomish County over Point Wells

Friday, January 11, 2013

Corrected and updated 1-12-2013 2:22am

Proposed North Village at Point Wells

A State appeals court has ruled in favor of the developer of a proposed condominium project at the Point Wells site in a part of southwest Snohomish County accessible only through the Richmond Beach area of Shoreline.

The appeals court ruling overturned a late 2011 King County Superior Court ruling that the zoning under which Snohomish County had accepted the developer's application was illegal. The appeals court said that the County could issue a permit under a less restrictive rules in effect when it accepted the application rather than the more restrictive rules ordered by the State Growth Management Hearings Board.

After the developer proposed building 3,100 condominiums on the former industrial site in southwest Snohomish County, the County rezoned the site as an "urban center." The County accepted the proposal for the development under that designation, but the Growth Management Hearings Board later said that the site didn't fit that designation and ordered more restrictive zoning for the site.

A King County Superior Court ruled in November 2011 that the City of Shoreline and the "Save Richmond Beach" organization were correct in saying that the development had to follow the new, more restrictive zoning rules.

The appeals court now has overturned the Superior Court with its ruling that the development could go ahead under the rules in effect when the County accepted the original application.

The original petition for review, filed by Save Richmond Beach is available here. The ruling is posted here.

Read more...

Court of Appeals to hear Point Wells appeal on Wednesday

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Court of Appeals Hearing This Wednesday at 9:30AM


Last year, Save Richmond Beach and the Town of Woodway asked King County Superior Court to overturn the vesting and put an injunction on the Point Wells development project because it didn’t comply with the State Environmental Policy Act. We won and the developer appealed, citing the Washington State’s vested rights doctrine.

The appeal will be heard this Wednesday November 7 at 9:30am in the Washington State Court of Appeals.

Location
Court of Appeals Division I
Hearing session starts at 9:30 AM

One Union Square
600 University Street,
Seattle, WA

Judges
The Honorable Ronald Cox
The Honorable Linda Lau
The Honorable C. Kenneth Grosse

People are welcome and encouraged to attend. The courtroom is small, but if you can make it please come!

Read more...

Snohomish County designates Point Wells as Urban Village

Thursday, October 18, 2012

BSRE Point Wells designated as Urban Village
Artist's conception courtesy BSRE

Press release from BSRE Point Wells

Snohomish County Council expands its regulations and re-designates Point Wells as a less dense Urban Village

The Snohomish County Council this week adopted legislation which creates a new, less dense "Urban Village" alternative to development under its Urban Center regulations. The Council then changed the designation of Point Wells from Urban Center to Urban Village.

The County's actions were in part designed to bring it into compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Hearings Board decision in appeals of its earlier designation of Point Wells as an Urban Center.

The Board will review the sufficiency of the County's actions in a December hearing.

"We have followed and, where appropriate, supported the County's efforts to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Hearings Board," said Gary Huff, land use counsel for BSRE Point Wells. "We trust that the Board will approve of the County's actions so that our collective efforts moving forward can focus on further understanding and appropriately mitigating the impacts of our specific proposal."

The County's efforts to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Hearings Board order include the publication of an addendum to its 2009 urban center programmatic environmental impact statement. The addendum was written as if the analysis had been included in the County's 2009 programmatic EIS and reviews the impacts of a generic urban village-style
project.

Huff noted that the Board mandated "less dense alternative" addressed in the addendum does not reflect BSRE's proposal. More importantly, Huff emphasized that the specifics of BSRE's proposal will be thoroughly addressed in a future, project-specific environmental impact statement which will update and reflect the evolution of on-going discussions with interested parties regarding the optimal approach to limiting vehicle trips and most effectively mitigating project impacts.

"The upcoming project-specific EIS will include an expanded and updated traffic analysis. We are confident that project-related traffic can and will be effectively managed, limited and mitigated."

BSRE Point Wells is proposing to transform its 61 acre industrial site on Puget Sound into a signature mixed use community. The project will be developed in multiple phases over 20 years, beginning with clean-up of the aging petroleum facility. The new master-planned community would provide new public access opportunities to 2/3 mile of sandy beach, parks, a public pier, restored and enhanced habitat and other amenities.

Paramount Petroleum currently owns and operates a marine fuels distribution center and asphalt facility at the site.

More information on the proposed transformation at Point Wells.


Read more...

Hearing affecting future of Point Wells on Wednesday Sept 19

Friday, September 14, 2012

Developer's vision of one of the villages to be built on the site


The state Growth Management Hearing Board ruled last year that Snohomish County’s designation of Point Wells as an Urban Center was out of compliance with the state Growth Management Act (GMA) and the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). Snohomish County has had to revise their ordinances.

The new ordinances will be presented to the public and the Snohomish County Council next Wednesday, September 19 at 10:30am.

The new Urban Village ordinances were revised to allow for less intense development, but Snohomish County is also introducing other changes that loosen the definition of an Urban Village to fit the unique characteristics of Point Wells and give greater flexibility to the developer.

The proposed changes allow much larger Urban Villages containing more than twice as many dwelling units while reducing the size of the roads required to serve these dense urban developments. 

According to the group Save Richmond Beach, "The vague transportation language is what was at the root of our original legal challenge and the County and developer have not found a way to resolve that issue. Again, we are seeing the same squishy language to allow for dense development in locations not served by high capacity transportation options."

This is a public hearing, held by the Snohomish County Council on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in the Henry M. Jackson Board Room, 8th Floor, Robert J. Drewel Building, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett.


Read more...

Point Wells update

Sunday, September 2, 2012

BSRE Architect's conception of Point Wells development
By Jack Malek

The Growth Management Hearings Board met over the summer to hear Snohomish County's request for an extension to the compliance deadline of April 25, 2012. At that hearing were the following parties of record: Save Richmond Beach (SRB), the Town of Woodway, and the City of Shoreline as "Petitioners"; the Tulalip Tribes as "Friends of the Court"; Blue Square Real Estate Developer (BSRE) as "Intervenor"; and Snohomish County as "Respondent."

The Petitioners (SRB, et al) argued that Snohomish County's efforts appear focused on facilitating the BSRE project and not on the more important task they are charged with, and that is for their plan to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and with the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). The Petitioners requested the Board impose sanctions, but they were denied.

The Growth Management Hearings Board did however make the following statement that recognized the Petitioners concerns:

"The Board has little sympathy with [Snohomish] County's six-month, front-end delay while the County sought to ensure that the BSRE application was vested. In the Board's view, this dispute is about more than filling out the right paperwork to pass SEPA and GMA muster. All the parties anticipate that real people - perhaps thousands - will live at Point Wells. Their on-the-ground demands for roadways and other facilities and services must be realistically anticipated and resolved, without imposing gridlock on their neighbors. The Board understands [that] necessary decision-making takes time, but the County remains in non-compliance until it brings its Plan into accord with the Board's FDO [Final Decision and Order]."

A six month extension was granted to Snohomish County, and this past August, Snohomish County presented a revised plan for the area, changing the designation from "Urban Center" to "Urban Village."

By its present definition, an Urban Village is smaller than an Urban Center, is less dense, and requires that the Village be located next to a principal arterial road. While this sounds like progress, the County is simultaneously working to change the definition of an Urban Village to allow for greater size and to remove the requirement that a Village be next to a principal arterial road. 

The end result seems little more than a name change with no substantial gains towards solving the traffic issues and complying with the GMA and SEPA.

Snohomish County continues their effort to appeal King County Superior Court's December 2011 decision that prevented BSRE from vesting and building. If the decision is successfully appealed, BSRE's Urban Center project application would then be vested, and they could resume their original project of 3000+ condominiums. This hearing is expected to occur in mid to late November, 2012.

To support SRB’s efforts, become a member.
Useful Websites:
Calendar of upcoming events:
  • October 24, 2012 - Compliance with GMA and SEPA Due
  • November 7, 2012 - Compliance Report/Statement of Actions Taken to Comply and Index Compliance Record
  • November (TBD) - King County Court of Appeals Hearing
  • December 6, 2012 - Comp


Read more...

Metropolitan Park District idea to be explored at March RBCA meeting

Sunday, March 4, 2012

By Tom Petersen

The idea of creating a Metropolitan Parks District for part of Shoreline, Woodway, and, significantly, Point Wells, will get its first full public discussion at the Tuesday, March 13, RBCA meeting, at 7:30pm in the basement of the Richmond Beach Congregational Church.

City officials from Shoreline and Woodway, plus representatives from Save Richmond Beach and the Finn Hill Park and Recreation District will be on hand to discuss the costs, benefits, and strategic advantages of creating such a cross-boundary authority. At stake would be the new district’s authority to regulate the degree of development allowed at Point Wells, through the voters’ say on the appropriate use of the land and how much should be devoted to natural restoration, preservation, and recreation. 

What’s being researched is the impact on local taxation and also how intergovernmental agreements might bring state and federal clean-up assistance to the site of the aging asphalt depot at Point Wells, rather than having to trade an urban center for beach detoxification.

Polls show 94% of Richmond Beach residents oppose adding the equivalent of another Richmond Beach on the 64 acre sand spit at the end of Richmond Beach Drive. Many have said they would welcome a much smaller development, but strongly believe that the anticipated traffic and construction impacts be mitigated by road and parks improvements.

The idea of a Parks District had been going around informally among people who recalled the creation of the Finn Hill district in Kirkland in 2000 to save O.O. Denny Park and schemes that were proposed for old Port of Seattle sites and a gravel pit on Maury Island (that were later resolved by other means). 

The notion got a big boost during the 2011 election campaign when Shoreline Councilman Chris Eggen floated such a plan as a way to give Shoreline some leverage in negotiations with Blue Square Real Estate Point Wells LLC, which wants to build 18-story condos at the same latitude as Woodway, with Snohomish County’s blessings.

At the moment, the proposed Point Wells development has been stalled by a ruling that its “urban center” designation is in violation of the definitions in the state Growth Management Act. The decision said the plan cannot vest according to the rules in place at the time of the permit application if those rules were defective and illegal. BSRE is appealing.

See you there!



Read more...

Save Richmond Beach meeting Sunday, January

Thursday, January 5, 2012


Save Richmond Beach and Woodway scored a legal victory in November when Judge Dean Lum ruled that the developer’s Urban Center application was not legally vested and stopped Snohomish County from processing it further.

Supporters invite all interested parties to come celebrate this victory and hear an update on Point Wells, hosted by the board members of Save Richmond Beach.

January 8, 2012 at the Innis Arden Clubhouse,1430 NW 188th, Shoreline, WA 98177, from 4:00 – 6:00 pm.



Read more...

Save Richmond Beach urges City to adopt higher standard for road capacity

Friday, December 9, 2011

There will be a City of Shoreline Public Hearing on December 12 at 7:00pm for the Adoption of the Transportation Master Plan. The following statement is from the community organization Save Richmond Beach

"The City is revising its transportation master plan. This plan is directly linked to future development in all of Shoreline. As it relates to Point Wells it will determine the amount of traffic (and subsequent back-ups) that the City deems acceptable.

"Please join us on December 12 at Shoreline City Hall to communicate to the City Council the importance of improved levels of service in Richmond Beach.

"The details
The City is moving to change the acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for traffic from E (which is bad), to a LOS of D (which is better) for the entire City. This allows for less congestion and public safety issues. While this is encouraging and we are generally supportive of the changes to the transportation plan, we do have a suggested amendment.

"While the Richmond Beach community is just one of 14 neighborhoods in Shoreline, it is unique from the perspective of transportation access. Richmond Beach Road serves as the only arterial access to a neighborhood with more than 2,200 homes. While 20th Avenue W does provide additional circuitous connectivity to Edmonds via Woodway, Richmond Beach Road serves as the only connection between the neighborhood and the City of Shoreline.

"Local conditions such as steep topography, Puget Sound, and the County border prevent additional access from being developed and while local street connections that serve single-family lots within the community do provide internal circulation within the neighborhood, these streets are not designed to serve "through" traffic needs.

"A major collision on Richmond Beach Road between 8th Avenue W and 15th Avenue NW would not only block access out to the rest of the city, it would also effectively block fire/emergency response into the neighborhood should a resident living west of 15th NW have an emergency.

"Single arterial access makes circulation needs, fire/emergency vehicle access requirements, and acceptable congestion levels different for this neighborhood than for other residential areas within the city. We believe these unique conditions justify a higher level of service standard than other city neighborhoods.

"We strongly urge the City to go one step further and adopt a transportation LOS standard of C for the Richmond Beach community."



Read more...

Developer of proposed transformation of Point Wells to appeal ruling halting urban center application processing by Snohomish County

Thursday, November 24, 2011

The developer of the proposed mixed-use community at Point Wells will immediately appeal today's ruling by King County Superior Court halting further processing of its redevelopment application as an urban center.
"We will immediately appeal this decision. Our appellate courts have already addressed these issues and we are confident that the Court of Appeals will follow its prior rulings," said Gary Huff, an attorney representing developer BSRE Point Wells, LP. "We believe this decision is inconsistent with very clear anguage in our Growth Management Act and Washington's longstanding vesting rules."
The ruling by Judge Dean Lum suspends processing of the developer's application as an urban center until Snohomish County's comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations comply with the State Environmental Policy Act as directed by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board.


Judge Lum heard arguments by the Town of Woodway and neighborhood group Save Richmond Beach. The two parties have opposed the proposed transformation of the 61-acre site into a master-planned community based on concerns that traffic from the massive site would destroy adjoining Richmond Beach and place an unfair economic burden on surrounding cities.

The developer points out that the project would be "developed in phases over 20 years. Following clean-up, Point Wells would provide new public access opportunities to 2/3 mile of sandy beach, parks, a public pier, restored and enhanced habitat and other amenities."

"We anticipate previous concerns raised by the Growth Management Hearings Board will be addressed in the near future. Meanwhile, we will continue to work with Snohomish County on that effort during the pendency of this appeal," said Huff. "Compliance measures may be in place before a ruling from the Court of Appeals is received."

The Urban Center application was submitted by BSRE Point Wells in March 2011 and was accepted by Snohomish County. The developer and Snohomish County were named respondents in the complaint for declaratory judgment filed September 12.


Read more...

Judge halts Point Wells development

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Save Richmond Beach got an early Thanksgiving, when King County Superior Court Judge Dean Lum ruled Wednesday that Blue Square Real Estate's urban center application was not vested and enjoined Snohomish County from processing the development application.

It is expected that the developer and Snohomish County will appeal the ruling.



Read more...

Save Richmond Beach goes to court Wednesday, November 23

Friday, November 18, 2011

Point Wells Hearing
Wednesday, November 23, 10:30 a.m.
King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue, Room E-713, Seattle

According to a notice from the community organization Save Richmond Beach,
Zach Hiatt of Graham and Dunn, representative for Save Richmond Beach, and Wayne Tanaka of Ogden Murphy Wallace, representative for the Town of Woodway, will go before The Honorable Judge Dean Lum in King County Superior Court to be heard on a motion for summary judgment. 
In their brief, Hiatt and Tanaka argue that Snohomish County adopted their development regulations and land use designation for the Point Wells site while in violation of SEPA and GMA. Also, the developer filed applications and began work on the project with Snohomish County immediately prior to the Growth Management Hearings Board's final decision on the matter.
Save Richmond Beach is urging supporters to attend the hearing as a show of community support.

Read more...

Save Richmond Beach meeting Sunday, October 23

Saturday, October 22, 2011


Save Richmond Beach will hold a community meeting and membership drive this Sunday, October 23, 2011 from 4-6 pm at the Innis Arden Clubhouse, 1430 NW 188th St, Shoreline 98177.

The meeting (which is free) will be to update the community on our recent lawsuit filed against Snohomish County and Blue Square Real Estate and to discuss why we have moved to a paid membership structure and where the funds will be used.
For more information, register for the event or visit the webpage.


Read more...

City retains Foster Pepper to counsel on Point Wells legal strategy

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

From the City of Shoreline

Shoreline has retained Foster Pepper to review the City’s legal strategy regarding Point Wells. While the City feels confident that negotiating with Point Wells developer BSRE Point Wells is currently the City’s best option to protect the community’s interests, it is seeking Foster Pepper’s expertise and advice on all options.

In announcing the retention, City Attorney Ian Sievers stated, “We are pleased to have Foster Pepper join us in assessing opportunities both in the negotiations we are committed to try, or further litigation if those negotiations fail to reach the City’s objectives. We will have the participation of Steve DiJulio and Richard Settle, who have are well known experts in municipal law, SEPA and GMA. Steve successfully defended the SEPA/NEPA challenge to the Aurora Project for the City.”

It is expected the City Attorney and Foster Pepper will narrow the legal issues that are important in resolving the Shoreline community’s objections to the BSRE project with input from the Council. The Council will then be briefed on the review in executive session. As was discussed at the September 6th Council study session on the City’s Letter of Intent to BSRE, the questions for review by Foster Pepper and their responses and advice will be considered attorney/client privilege and will not be released to the public.


Read more...

Shoreline residents question Snohomish County Executive candidate

Friday, September 23, 2011

According to our News Partner, MyEdmondsNews, Shoreline residents attending the candidate forum for Snohomish County Executive were able to express their concerns about Point Wells and ask for a reaction from the candidate.

Incumbent Aaron Reardon, who sent word of a scheduling conflict, was not in attendance. So State Rep. Mike Hope had the room to himself.

Reardon, as County Executive, has been in office during all the County Council decisions which favored the development, designating the land as an Urban Center, and approving the application for permits.

Rep. Hope said the proposal clearly violated the Growth Management Act and that if he were County Executive, he wouldn’t support the project.

Read more...

Point Wells developer not stopping negotiations with Shoreline despite report in Everett Herald

Friday, September 16, 2011

Updated 9-16-2011 6:48pm

By Evan Smith

The developer of the proposed Point Wells condominium project says that it will continue to negotiate with the City of Shoreline over mitigation of traffic and other impacts of the project despite a report in the Everett Herald that it would no longer negotiate with Shoreline and Woodway.

The Herald reported Thursday that the developer would no longer negotiate with the cities after Woodway and the Save Richmond Beach organization sued the developer.

The Herald report said that the developer would work only with Snohomish County on plans for the development, but a news release from developer BSRE Point Wells called the Herald story incorrect.

The news release said that BSRE Point Wells was continuing discussions with the City of Shoreline “following the city’s August 24 publication of a Letter of Intent expressing a desire for a negotiated agreement.”

Shoreline’s intergovernmental-relations manager, Scott McColl, said Thursday that the City and BSRE were continuing to meet.

BSRE said that it still may seek project review under “the alternative application process established under Snohomish County’s Urban Centers Code.”

BSRE applied In March for a permit under Snohomish County’s zoning of the Point Wells area as an urban center. The County accepted the application shortly before the State Growth Management Hearings Board ruled that Snohomish County’s designation of the area as an urban center violated State growth laws.

The developer and county officials have said the project can move forward under the existing rules, though that's a point of contention in the lawsuit.

In the news release, BSRE said that even if it applies under the Snohomish County rules it intends to keep talking to the City of Shoreline.

The news release did not mention Woodway, I was unable to reach Woodway Town Administrator Eric Faison Thursday afternoon.

BSRE has proposed building a 3,081-unit condominium project on the former industrial site in unincorporated southwest Snohomish County.  The only access to the site is on a two-lane road through the Richmond Beach area of Shoreline.

The Town of Woodway and the Save Richmond Beach organization filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court early this week to stop the project from going ahead under the zoning rules that the State Growth Management Hearings Board later ruled to be in violation of State growth laws.

The Herald story had quoted an attorney for the developer as chastising the Town of Woodway for not participating in meaningful negotiations for several months.

The BSRE news release disputed the part of the Herald story that said the developer would now work only with Snohomish County,

The developer envisions a 20-year project to transform the old waterfront industrial site into a master-planned community with clusters of high rises reaching up to 17 stories.

Shoreline has proposed annexing the Point Wells area into the City, but Snohomish County has said that it opposes further cross-county annexations. Bothell is the only city that crosses the county line.

Point Wells is in Woodway’s urban growth area, but Woodway has been non-committal about annexing the area. An annexation would turn a town of 1,100 people into a city of nearly 6,000 people. 


Read more...

Point Wells statement from developer BSRE

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Press Release from BSRE Point Wells, LP

BSRE Point Wells, LP, considers alternative application review process as Town of Woodway files litigation to stop proposed transformation at Point Wells

Developer may seek alternative path established under Snohomish County's Urban Centers Code as Woodway abandons negotiations Snohomish County.

As the result of litigation filed September 12 by the Town of Woodway, BSRE Point Wells, LP, (BSRE Point Wells), proponent of the transformation of a 61-acre industrial site into a signature mixed-use community, will now consider formally withdrawing from the Municipal Agreement negotiation process established under Snohomish County's Urban Centers Code.  A neighborhood group, Save Richmond Beach, has joined Woodway in the litigation against BSRE Point Wells and Snohomish County. 

BSRE Point Wells is proposing a project developed in phases over 20 years, beginning with clean-up of the aging industrial site. The new master-planned community would provide new public access opportunities to 2/3 mile of sandy beach, parks, a public pier, restored and enhanced habitat and other amenities
.
"Unfortunately, Woodway has chosen to litigate rather than negotiate," said Gary Huff, an attorney representing BSRE Point Wells. He said the developer is now considering whether to request that its Urban Center Application be reviewed under an alternative application process, which includes a public meeting before the Snohomish County Design Review Board and a public hearing before the county's Hearing Examiner.

Dating back to April of this year, BSRE Point Wells has been engaged in on-going discussions with a goal of reaching a Municipal Agreement with both Woodway and the City of Shoreline.

"This is particularly disappointing given that Woodway has not participated in meaningful negotiations for several months," said Huff. "We have repeatedly requested written confirmation of specific concerns and suggested project revisions from town officials to allow us to undertake the appropriate analyses and consider the feasibility of their proposals. For whatever reason, Woodway has refused to provide us with any kind of reliable response."

"By filing this lawsuit, the Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach appear to believe they can overturn the long-standing constitutional and statutory bases for Washington's vesting doctrine," said Huff. "The vesting doctrine provides that the rules and regulations under which a project will be reviewed are those which are in place on the date of filing of a permit application. We are confident the court, as it has for over 50 years, will continue to uphold Washington's vesting rules."

A successfully negotiated Municipal Agreement--covering the manner in which the project would be developed and its impacts mitigated-would be submitted to Snohomish County for review and possible inclusion in a Development Agreement between the developer and the county.

Huff said BSRE Point Wells will continue discussions with the City of Shoreline following the city's August 24 publication of a Letter of Intent expressing a desire for a negotiated agreement.

"Our conversations with the City of Shoreline have been productive, resulting in a general agreement on the manner in which the traffic impacts of the proposal will be measured so that mitigation measures can be analyzed and established," said Huff. "While significant differences remain, we are encouraged by the progress to date."

"It's important to note that this is a long-term public process with many opportunities for public participation and input," said Mark Wells, Environmental Manager for Paramount Petroleum, which currently owns and operates a marine fuels distribution center and asphalt facility at the site. "Key considerations, including traffic, are among those to be addressed in the upcoming preparation of an environmental impact statement."


Read more...

Lawsuit filed in Point Wells development case

Press release from Save Richmond Beach

The Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach, an organization of Shoreline, Woodway, Edmonds and Seattle citizens, announced today that they filed suit against Snohomish County and BSRE‐Point Wells, the developer of a controversial condo/retail project, over development plans for the former refinery site on Puget Sound in unincorporated Snohomish County.

At the heart of the conflict is a 2009 decision by Snohomish County ‐ which altered its Comprehensive Plan policy and land use map ‐ to allow the re‐designation of Point Wells from Urban Industrial to Urban Center, the most dense development classification available in Snohomish County. In order to carry out the Urban Center designation, the County also adopted ordinances which amended its development regulations for Urban Centers to accommodate the proposed re‐development of Point Wells. The County’s actions, which were undertaken at the request of the developer, would pave the way for a high‐density urban development at Point Wells.

The Town of Woodway, Save Richmond Beach, and the City of Shoreline filed an appeal with the Growth Management Hearing Board (“Board”) challenging the County’s ordinances as well as the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) process utilized by the County. Among other things, Woodway, Save Richmond Beach, and Shoreline argued that the Point Wells site did not have adequate access or urban infrastructure for such a large development, and that Snohomish County had not adequately resolved conflicts with neighboring jurisdictions.

The Board agreed and found that the County’s designation of Point Wells as an Urban Center violated the Growth Management Act (“GMA”) and was declared invalid. The Board also found that the County failed to comply with SEPA with respect to the Comprehensive Plan amendments as well as the amendments to the development regulations. The Board ordered that the County comply with both GMA and SEPA.

After the hearing, but a few weeks prior to the Board’s decision, BSRE ‐ Point Wells filed applications to subdivide the Point Wells property and develop it as an Urban Center with approximately 3000 condominium units and 100,000 square feet of retail space. This application was filed to lock in their development application prior to an unfavorable ruling. Under the GMA, if an applicant submits a completed permit application prior to a Board decision, that application is considered “vested” to the regulations in question and the applicant may be able to proceed with the permit process under those regulations – even if they’re subsequently found to be invalid.

Both the County and BSRE‐Point Wells consider the BSRE‐Point Wells permit application complete and therefore vested to the ordinances that were found invalid under GMA and void under SEPA. Thus, despite the Board’s strong ruling rejecting the Point Wells Urban Center designation, the County continues to process the BSRE‐Point Wells permit application under the invalid ordinances adopted in violation of the SEPA.

“Snohomish County’s approach would allow development projects to vest to ordinances that have not only been found to be invalid under the GMA, but have been adopted in violation of the processes required by our state’s environmental laws – and that’s dangerous precedent.” Zach Hiatt, Graham & Dunn attorney representing Save Richmond Beach.

The vesting issue of GMA is not new to policy makers in Olympia and has been taken up by the Washington State legislature over the past few years. State Senator Adam Kline has tried several times to make Washington’s vesting law more like those in most other states, where building rights aren’t locked in until construction starts.

“Members of Save Richmond Beach appreciate the value of responsible development that benefits both the economy and the environment,” said Caycee Holt, Director of Save Richmond Beach. “We also fully understand and appreciate the value of and assurances that vesting provides to developers. However, in this case we are very concerned about Snohomish County and the developer’s apparent efforts to exploit the vesting rules to negate critical environmental protections.”

“This lawsuit seeks to address a local problem, but it is also part of a broader conversation about planning, environmental considerations, and sound public policy in our region,” said Hiatt. “And it’s a call for Snohomish County and the developer to respect the Growth Board decision and engage the local community in a meaningful discussion that can lead to a win‐win outcome at Point Wells rather than more litigation.”

"If the developer and Snohomish County would like to address our issues regarding the scope, density and transportation issues related to the site, we welcome a meaningful conversation about how to create an economically‐viable, appropriately‐sized development for that location," said Holt.

Read more...

RBCA meeting agenda changed: City of Shoreline to answer neighborhood's questions about Point Wells

Thursday, September 8, 2011

By Tom Petersen

The much-anticipated public meeting of the Richmond Beach Community Association scheduled for Tuesday, September 13, 2011 has a new agenda. The City of Shoreline's Director of Economic Development, Dan Eernessee, has had to postpone his presentation, but will be back later this fall. 

Meanwhile, what had been scheduled to be a brief Point Wells update by the City of Shoreline and by the RBCA Point Wells Subcommittee has been expanded so that the many, many questions submitted in recent weeks can be answered.

Dozens and dozens of questions and comments were left with the city manager at the huge August 31 meeting at City Hall, and more were added at the City Council’s study session on September 6. Since timely communication is one theme of the questions, the City staff is eager to try to address all the questions and answer them on September 13.

The meeting will be in the sanctuary at the Richmond Beach Congregational Church at the corner of Richmond Beach Road and 15th Avenue NW and will start at 7:30 p.m. 

It is open to all the public, not just Richmond Beach residents or RBCA members. (RBCA memberships and renewals will be available.)


Read more...

Unhappy Richmond Beach residents comment on City's negotiations with Point Wells developer

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Overflow crowd at Point Wells meeting.  Photo by Steven H. Robinson.
By Diane Hettrick

On Wednesday, August 31, the public was invited to a session held by Shoreline City Staff to update people on the just announced Letter of Intent (LOI) the City has been working on with the Point Wells developer, Blue Star Real Estate (BSRE).

Over 200 people, primarily Richmond Beach residents, overflowed the City Council chambers, to the extent that staff opened the walls to the outside courtyard and the inside lobby.

Present in the crowd, but not introduced, were five of the seven city council members, the public information staffer for BSRE, King County Councilmember Bob Ferguson's Shoreline legislative aide, the police chief, and all key Shoreline city department heads. Members of the local media were present, as well.

City Manager Julie Underwood gave a very brief introduction, explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to present the terms of the Letter of Intent (LOI) and hear what people had to say about it. In statements later, she explained that nothing had been finalized, nothing had been voted on, that it was still in process and that is why people were being asked for feedback.

Planning Director Joe Tovar and Public Works Director Mark Relph reviewed Point Wells from the City's viewpoint. It is a piece of land that juts into Puget Sound, formerly used for oil storage. The land is in unincorporated Snohomish County. There was formerly a road from Point Wells to Woodway, but it washed out about ten years ago and was deemed too expensive to replace. Currently the only road to Point Wells is through Shoreline and a small area of Woodway.

Planning Director Joe Tovar
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
Snohomish County approved a permit to the developer for an "urban center" about a month before the State Growth Management Board ruled that the development did not meet the growth management standards.

Joe Tovar explained that under the current state law, the permit overrules the GM board because it came first.

Snohomish County has every reason to approve the project. A large piece of isolated, contaminated land will be cleaned and developed, creating new tax revenues for Snohomish county.

If the project is developed as planned, the City of Shoreline will get all the impact of the project, including years of soil cleanup and construction vehicles on the streets, then a population which will eventually equal the size of two current Shoreline neighborhoods.  All this traffic will be traveling on small Shoreline roads, and the new residents will presumably be using Shoreline services like schools, parks, and libraries.

Snohomish County would get all the benefit and revenue and Shoreline would get all the impacts.

Public Works Director Mark Relph
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
Mark Relph said that there were three options available to Shoreline.
  • To negotiate with the developer to try to mitigate the impacts.
  • To litigate in Snohomish County Superior Court to try to overturn the development permit.
  • To comment on the project environmental impact statement to the Snohomish hearing examiner and the Snohomish County Council.

King County has no jurisdiction in Snohomish County.

Shoreline's proposed solution is to negotiate with BSRE. The proposal on the table is to annex Point Wells into Shoreline, cap traffic flows, and in return, Shoreline would not sue to stop or limit the development.

Citizens lined up to comment. It was clear that they had expected a different kind of meeting. They expected to see the city council in their seats, and they expected a full response to all their questions that evening.

Caycee Holt of Save Richmond Beach
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
Caycee Holt, leader of the citizen group Save Richmond Beach, pointed out that the terms of the permit will allow 2800 units on the site. Three buildings right at the waterfront would be three times the height of the Brightwater cranes. And toxic chemicals would be stirred up, dug up and transported through city streets.

The first half of the comment time brought questions about the process and timing of the LOI, and comments about things not mentioned in the presentation, like overflow parking, fire, police, and school busses. There were questions about property condemnations, relative to the narrow Richmond Beach Drive that leads to Point Wells.

Some present took the opportunity to make unrelated comments about issues which had not been answered by other methods.

As people started going to the microphones for the second, third, fourth, and fifth time, the mood turned emotional. 

People felt blind-sided that the annexation talks were going on when they didn't know about it. The mood of the speakers seemed to be against annexation, with some claiming it was just a ploy by the city to get more revenue.

Many people commenting were upset that there had been only seven days notice of the meeting.

Speaker after speaker urged the council to get a good attorney and fight the developer in the courts, using all the resources of the city to block the development. Many threatened city councilmembers that they could expect to be voted out of office if they didn't do what the citizens wanted and aggressively fight in the courts.

City staffers wrote down all the comments. On Tuesday, September 6, the City Council is in a study session with the primary topic Point Wells. City staff will make presentations to the council about the proposals, options, and the feedback from citizens at the August 31 meeting.  

Download the agenda or go to the council webpage.  City council meetings are broadcast live online and available afterwards on podcasts which can be viewed on your computer.

Citizens will, as usual, have the opportunity to comment.

City staff will be at the Richmond Beach Community Association meeting on September 13, 2011, at 7:30pm in the sanctuary of the Richmond Beach Congregational Church, 1512 NW 195th St.


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