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

Olympic View Water and Sewer will be the provider for future Point Wells development

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

By Jamie Holter

The long battle over who provides sewer services to a future Point Wells development ended in the Washington State Supreme Court last week. The Court ruled that Olympic View Water and Sewer District, which services primarily Snohomish County, can provide sewer (and water) services to Point Wells if and when it is built.

Shoreline-based Ronald Wastewater had been in a legal battle with Olympic View for more than four years to try to place the area inside the Ronald Sewer District. At issue were future fees to provide services for up to 3,000 households.

Currently Olympic View provides water services to the area, a service Ronald does not provide. Olympic View contracts with the City of Edmonds to manage wastewater. Olympic View looks at providing both water and sewer as an efficiency issue.

The disagreement dates back to the mid-80’s when King County transferred the Richmond Beach Sewer District System to Ronald. However, follow-up legal action has demonstrated that this “transfer order” which affected property in Snohomish County, including Point Wells, into Ronald, was void because Snohomish County and Olympic View were never brought into the process.

What does this mean to Shoreline residents? It means future sewer fees for this possible project will go to Olympic View and not Ronald Wastewater, which is now part of the City of Shoreline. 

The City of Edmonds will receive from Olympic View additional revenue for treating this new flow from Point Wells. That will help all customers in Olympic View, Mountlake Terrace, Point Wells, and Edmonds keep sewer rates lower in the future.



Read more...

Shoreline Planning Commission public hearing on Point Wells subarea plan

Sunday, October 11, 2020

The Shoreline Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 15, 2020 includes a public hearing on the 2020 comp plan amendments and the subarea plan for Point Wells.

The meeting will be held on zoom at 7pm.

Point Wells is an approximately 61-acre area of unincorporated Snohomish County. It is bound on the west by Puget Sound, on the north and east by the Town of Woodway, and on the south by the City of Shoreline. 

An active rail line, owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), bisects a portion of the subarea on the east.

There is also an existing portal structure near the southern portion of the subarea as part of the Brightwater sewage treatment pipeline, owned by King County.

The only vehicle access to the subarea is through Shoreline via Richmond Beach Drive. The majority of the subarea is owned by BSRE and is used as an asphalt plant. The subarea has been in industrial use for more than 50 years.

Read more...

Planning Commission Public Hearing on Point Wells code amendments

Thursday, October 1, 2020

Point Wells Photo by Steven H. Robinson


Shoreline Planning Commission Public Hearing October 15, 2020 at 7:00pm

The Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on:
  • Amendments to the Point Wells Subarea Plan and Comprehensive Plan designation; and
  • Amendments to the Development Code establishing a Point Wells – Planned Area 4 zone and regulations to implement the Point Wells Subarea Plan

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/plancom

Written comments should be submitted to Andrew Bauer, Senior Planner, at abauer@shorelinewa.gov by no later than 4:00pm local time on October 15.

Anyone wishing to provide oral testimony at the hearing is encouraged to 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. The webpage will also provide additional participation information. A request to sign-up can also be made directly to the Planning Commission Clerk at 206-801-2514.

Full public hearing notice [pdf]




Read more...

Shoreline Planning Commission to review proposed amendments to Point Wells Subarea Plan

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Richmond Beach Drive is the only road to Point Wells.
Photo by Diane Hettrick


On September 17, 2020, the Shoreline Planning Commission will review proposed amendments to the Point Wells Subarea Plan and Development Code regulations.

The proposed amendments are the result of the ongoing coordination between the Town of Woodway and the City of Shoreline. 

Both Shoreline and Woodway have identified Point Wells, which is in unincorporated Snohomish County, as a potential area for annexation. 

Each agency currently has an adopted subarea plan that details a vision and policies that would direct future redevelopment of the Point Wells subarea.

A joint work group with staff representatives from Woodway and Shoreline have been working since October 2019 to prepare a shared set of subarea plan policies and development regulations, which would be implemented upon annexation by either. Woodway and Shoreline established this unified approach through the Settlement and Interlocal Agreement (ILA) signed in 2019.

As outlined in the ILA, the amendments to the subarea plan and development regulations address requirements for future development within the subarea including, but not limited to:
  • Vehicle trip generation limits on Richmond Beach Drive;
  • A secondary vehicle access requirement through Woodway for any new developments exceeding 250 average daily trips;
  • Base building height of 45 feet west of the BNSF rail line, with provision for a maximum of 75 feet upon completion of a view analysis demonstrating public views from Richmond Beach Drive to Admiralty Inlet are not impacted;
  • Mandatory public access to the Puget Sound shoreline; and
  • Allowable land uses.

Consistent with the ILA, the Woodway Planning Commission will consider similar amendments that are aligned with those being presented to the Shoreline Planning Commission.

September 17 Shoreline Planning Commission meeting agenda, staff report, and draft amendments

The Planning Commission webpage also contains instructions on how to attend the virtual meeting and provide comment.

Following a public hearing, tentatively scheduled in October, the Planning Commission will issue a recommendation on the amendments for consideration and potential adoption by the City Council.



Read more...

Snohomish County again denies BSRE application for Point Wells

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Point Wells from the north
Photo by Jo Simmons
From the Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition

Snohomish County has finally released its recommendation on BSRE's latest development application for Point Wells, and once again is saying "No".

The County had previously denied BSRE's application in 2018, but BSRE won the right to re-apply. 

Their new application submitted last December called for a slightly smaller development but did nothing to address many of the objections raised by the County back in 2018.

Still no mass transit and still building in a hazardous area 

The two biggest problems the County found with the original application were no access to mass transit and placing buildings in a landslide hazard area where buildings are not allowed. Instead of addressing these issues in the new application BSRE asked the County to grant them variances that would allow BSRE to just ignore those requirements. The County found that BSRE did not meet the requirements necessary to grant the variances so refused the request. As far as the County was concerned that essentially killed the application.

Next steps

The County's recommendation to deny the application now goes to the Hearing Examiner. By law the Hearing Examiner is not required to follow the County's recommendation and has the power to ignore the recommendation and approve the application with or without specific limitations. While possible, we believe approval in any condition is unlikely to happen since BSRE has not resolved the issues that caused the Hearing Examiner to deny the original application.

The Hearing Examiner will set a date for a public hearing and then issue a ruling. If the ruling is to deny the application, BSRE can ask for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider the ruling, then appeal the ruling to the County Council, then appeal the Council's ruling to Superior Court. BSRE took all these steps with the original application, so we should be prepared for the same extended process again.

1922 Photo by Chas Laidlaw in the MOHAI collection 

It's not clear when the current pandemic situation will ease enough to allow the date for the public hearing to be set. Complicating matters even more, BSRE has asked the Hearing Examiner to delay the public hearing until after the Court of Appeals issues a ruling on BSRE's appeal of the denial of their first application (yes, that first application is not officially totally dead yet).

The Hearing Examiner asked BSRE to submit a brief explaining why he should delay the public hearing so the decision on that request won't come until sometime in July.

Quick update on BSRE vs. Paramount Petroleum

We've heard nothing new on the parallel legal action between BSRE and Paramount Petroleum, the former owner and current tenant on the Point Wells property. As we covered in our last newsletter, BSRE is suing Paramount to force them to dismantle all the equipment on the site since Paramount's 10 year lease is ending. In turn, Paramount is suing BSRE to get back ownership of the property claiming BSRE did not fulfill all the terms of the sales contract. As far as we can tell there has been no resolution yet.



Read more...

Scene on the Sound: Point Wells at low tide

Friday, June 5, 2020

Low tide at Pt Wells
Photo by Lee Lageschulte

Lee took the low tide photo recently. Look at the Point Wells dock in background right. It looks like you can walk to the end of the dock.

Freighters routinely dock at the end of that pier. Hard to believe, unless there's a very steep drop off.
Photo by Steven H. Robinson

Now compare it to this more normal high tide in a file photo by Steve Robinson and you can see just how far out the tide is.

You may also notice the coal train with its uncovered loads of powdery coal.

--Diane Hettrick

Read more...

A surprising twist in the saga of Point Wells

Friday, April 24, 2020


BSRE Headed to Court Over Who Owns Point Wells Property

And Maybe Gives Up On Development??

While there has been no news yet from Snohomish County concerning BSRE's most recent development application, there have been some interesting legal actions taking place over the last few months. Much of the information below is gathered from legal filings made since February.

Point Wells


A little history

To understand the current legal action we have to go way back to May 7, 2010 when Paramount of Washington, then owner of Point Wells, entered into a purchase and development agreement with the current owner, BSRE. The purchase agreement sold the Pt. Wells property to BSRE for $19.5 million, but it also included a development agreement obligating the two parties to cooperate in the development and approval of a detailed plan for a mixed-use residential project designed to enhance the value of the property with the goal of maximizing proceeds from a future sale. BSRE was to lead the process of obtaining approval of the detailed plan including a development application and an Environmental Impact Statement. This agreement resulted in the original development application submitted by BSRE in early 2011.

The development agreement also gave Paramount a 10-year license to continue its petroleum business on the site while requiring Paramount to pay BSRE an additional $1.7 million a year to help pay for the development of the detailed plan. In return for these payments, the agreement stated that BSRE and Paramount would share in the profits if the plan was approved and the property was sold to a firm who would complete the construction. BSRE was to use its best efforts to obtain approval for the plan. If the property was finally sold, Paramount was responsible for clearing the site and cleaning up the contaminated soil using the proceeds from the sale. It should be noted here that back in 2010 both Paramount and BSRE were controlled by the same owner so it was a friendly deal.

Back to today

So here we are 10 years later. In the intervening years the former owner ran into financial trouble and had to sell off various parts to other owners, so Paramount and BSRE are now controlled by two different owners. And Paramount's 10 year license period runs out on June 1st this year.

In anticipation of this date, BSRE sent Paramount a letter in early January asking them to have the site cleared and decontaminated by the June 1 date. The two parties met to discuss this on February 4th but did not come to an agreement as to how to proceed. After another exchange of letters but still no agreement, BSRE filed suit demanding that Paramount be forced to remove their equipment and clean the site. Paramount then counter sued saying there is no detailed plan approved, there is no sale, there are no profits to share, so they can’t be forced to do any cleanup. In a further twist, Paramount claimed BSRE failed to "use its best efforts" to get the plan approved and demanded that the court invalidate the 2010 purchase agreement and return ownership of the property to Paramount.

Does BSRE finally admit defeat?

We found a very interesting allegation in Paramount’s counter suit. Paramount contends that “at the February 4th meeting, the BSRE representatives stated that BSRE did not expect to ever receive approval of a detailed plan, and that it was instead actively marketing the Property to third parties for industrial or other non-residential use". In a later reply, BSRE admitted that it stated that “it was uncertain that local government authorities would approve an economically viable detailed plan and that it was also considering other options."

Maybe BSRE has finally given up the idea of building a small city at the end of a two-lane road?? A big dose of caution here: we’ve seen multiple other instances in the long Point Wells saga where the parties did not agree on what was said in a meeting, but we can certainly hope this statement is accurate. It would be great news for the neighborhood.

The case will be heard in Snohomish County Superior Court. It should be entertaining to hear the arguments. No date has been set yet.



Read more...

Point Wells - developer BSRE beats the deadline and submits new plans

Friday, January 10, 2020

2018 designs - not the ones just submitted
The designs have been modified multiple times
Perkns + Wills



BSRE Submits New Plans
Report from Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition

In our last newsletter way back in July we reported that Judge McHale ruled that BSRE had a six month window in which to re-submit their Urban Center application to try to resolve the substantial conflicts found by Snohomish County in BSRE’s original application. The six month window was scheduled to run out on December 18, 2019. We haven’t sent out any newsletters since July because up to now we were waiting to see what BSRE would do. To the disappoint of many, BSRE just beat the deadline by submitting revised plans for their development a week before Christmas.

While the plans include some changes, including reducing the number of units from 3081 to 2846 and having fewer towers in the Upper Village (the area east of the train tracks), the plans look largely the same as their previous submission. On one hand this is somewhat surprising since the County rejected the original similar plans, but on the other hand it’s not surprising since BSRE seems determined to push for approval of their proposed tall towers no matter what the County Code allows.

The two biggest conflicts in the original plans were multiple towers well over 90 feet and the location of buildings in the Upper Village inside a landslide hazard area.

Tall Buildings

The original application was denied in part because BSRE did not meet the specific conditions that would allow buildings higher than 90 feet. Those conditions included showing the extra height is “necessary or desirable” and being located “near a high capacity transit route or station”. BSRE claimed merely having the Sound Transit rails go through the site was enough to meet the second condition, but the County said that wasn’t good enough because there had to be actual high capacity transit service at the site. BSRE admitted they hadn’t fulfilled the first condition but complained that no one at the County had told them they had to (ignoring that the condition is clearly stated in the County Code).

In their new application, BSRE again ignores the requirements for taller buildings and instead asks the County to grant a variance from the Code requirements. BSRE now claims they can’t build enough square feet of residential floor space without the taller towers. This is certainly not true, as BSRE proved when they submitted an alternate plan several years ago that had towers limited to 90 feet. They seemed to have forgotten about that plan (or can’t figure out how to do it again?).

Hazard Zone

The original application was also denied in part because the Upper Village (the area east of the railroad tracks) is partially in a landslide hazard area. The County Code permits construction in hazard areas only under specific conditions including demonstrating “there is no alternate location for the structure on the subject property” and that the landslide danger can be mitigated so that the risk of landslide damage is minimized. BSRE claimed they examined other possible locations for the Upper Village but none were as good as the proposed location. The County said it wasn’t sufficient to say that this was the preferred location, it had to be the only possible location. BSRE did provide some design information about risk mitigation, but the County felt the information was not complete enough for them to assess the remaining risk factors.

In their new application, BSRE purports to demonstrate that the Upper Village buildings must be located as specified on their application, but their new argument is not any more convincing. It still comes down to BSRE saying “we think these building work best here, so please let us build them here”. They do not provide any valid reason why the buildings could not be placed somewhere on the site outside the hazard area.

What's Next?

The County has been consistent in telling BSRE that if they want the application approved, they must meet the requirements listed in the County Code. We don’t believe the new application comes much closer to meeting the requirements than the original application, but it’s not our decision, it’s the County’s decision. We will continue to follow the application review process and continue to encourage the County to follow its own rules, and we’ll let you know once the County decides what to do with the application and how BSRE responds.



Read more...

Litigation between Ronald Wastewater District and Olympic View Water and Sewer District over Pt Wells to be reviewed by state Supreme Court

Thursday, December 19, 2019

In 1985, the King County Superior Court entered an order stating that Point Wells was annexed to the corporate boundary of Ronald Wastewater District (“Ronald”).

Since that date, Ronald has been the only sewer district that actually provided sewer service to Point Wells, and Ronald remains the only sewer district with an approved comprehensive sewer plan to serve new development in Point Wells.

Despite the 1985 court order and the long history of planning and service confirming Ronald as the sewer provider to Point Wells, Division I of the Court of Appeals recently issued a decision holding that Ronald’s corporate boundary does not include Point Wells.

 Ronald and King County filed petitions for review asking the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision.

On December 4, 2019, the Supreme Court granted petitions from Ronald and King County and accepted review of the case.

The Supreme Court has summarized the legal issues in the case as follows:

“Whether a 1985 King County Superior Court order annexing an area in Snohomish County to the Ronald Wastewater District was void when issued on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or statutory authority to order the annexation.” 

 The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case on March 19, 2020.



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting October 7, 2019: Fircrest and Point Wells

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Shoreline City Hall and Council Chamber
Photo by Steven H. Robinson

Shoreline City Council Meeting 
October 7, 2019
Notes by Pam Cross

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00pm
All councilmembers were present.

Report of the City Manager Debbie Tarry

Last Saturday, there was an enthusiastic group at Monster Mash Dash 5K. Thanks to our sponsors and everyone who attended.

Volunteers are needed for Shoreline’s first Emergency Weather Shelter. Volunteers over 18 years old are needed to be on call for a certain number of nights from Nov 1st to Mar 30th. Training provided. For information email staff@nuhsa.org or call 206-550-5626

Oct 12 from 10:00am - 2:00pm Celebrate Arbor Day by volunteering to help plant and maintain trees and shrubs in Darnell Park. No experience necessary. More information available online.

Public Reminders

Oct 9 There is a public hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, from 6:00pm to 8:00pm in the council chamber regarding Sound Transit’s petition to vacate portions of 7th Ave NE and 185th right of way

Oct 17 The planning commission will hold a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IronsBC rezone). We have instructed staff to follow up with the planning commission to confirm that the hearing will need to be continued to a date in November that will accommodate attendance by the IronsBC.

Council Reports

Deputy Mayor McConnell attended the Seashore Transportation Forum meeting. There was a report from Metro regarding the additional 65,000 annual service hours they put in last month while working on expansion routes, overcrowding and increased reliability.

There was a powerpoint presentation on the Pioneer Square Platform in preparation for the turning area for light rail.

Also there was a presentation regarding Initiative 976 which Shoreline Council already rejected. This is Tim Eyman’s initiative to bring back the $30 car tabs. It’s important for voters to recognize the impact this will have passed. We are one of the 60 cities that will see a big loss of money for road maintenance. There will be a loss of $1.9B revenue over 6 years in this area. Whatever road maintenance you thought we weren’t doing, we will be doing even less if this initiative passes.

Councilmember Scully. There is a late change in the Regional Homelessness Authority. The original plan had an organization something like a corporation: a board at the top that was comprised of elected officials, and then others who set policies. But another step has been inserted. The top level (elected officials) has little authority, the next level, comprised of a panel of experts, makes most of the operations decisions and steers the money. Councilmember Scully is not happy with this because he doesn’t feel comfortable turning decision making and money allocation over to a non governmental entity that is not accountable to voters. He will continue to follow this.

Councilmember Chang met with Katya Fels Smyth who is director of the Full Frames Initiative. It looks into how we can help a homeless person in a more complete way, rather than just offering housing or just providing drug treatment because choices offered may be untenable. This approach is something we need to implement as we move forward with Community Court.

Mayor Hall noted that they had the last meeting of the Governor’s OrcaTask Force. Draft recommendations were finalized for the second year of the work to try to protect the orcas, and it will be available for public review and comment in about a week. All recommendations were adopted unanimously which was a challenge with 40 people on the Task Force.

Council had a dinner meeting with the school board before this meeting and they talked about various issues of mutual concern, including how our community and our schools are changing.

Public Comment

Item 8a is Public Hearing and comments regarding it will be heard later.

Janet Way, Shoreline, mentioned that Seattle City Council wants to get rid of SEPA but she offers thanks to Shoreline for using this tool, the state environmental act, for issues like Point Wells (Item 8a) on agenda.

Joseph Irons, Shoreline, owner of IronsBC spoke regarding the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The notice of the public hearing was given to them late which put a two week delay in the process and he hoped they wouldn’t be penalized for this. However he did just learn that the hearing date will be changed (see comments by Debbie Tarry, City Manager).

Alley Johnson, Shoreline, is a student at Einstein. IronsBC came to the school and made a presentation that said you can pursue your dream and that anything is possible.

Venitia Irons, Shoreline, daughter of Joseph and Melissa. There are a number of people opposed to their amendment so they brought a lot of people with them tonight to show that there are a lot of people who support them and the amendment.

Neil Kappen, Edmonds, does business in Shoreline. He supports IronsBC and the quality of their small business. He talked about their contributions to the City of Shoreline.

Jack Malek, Shoreline, serves on the Planning Commission. Today he is here representing his own interests and his own thoughts on this issue.

He provided a North City sub area plan 2001 to Council. It appears that some commercial extends south of 172nd Street (the location of the IronsBC properties). The planned pedestrian city plan goes north from 175th. The city has grown since then, and it’s a lovely area. He is not a proponent for spot zoning but thinks it’s worth considering this segment on a broader scale, on a bigger plan. To go back and study it.

Cheryl Anderson, Shoreline. Things are happening that we have no control over such as Sound Transit and related rezones, building and remodeling schools, and tearing up Ronald Bog. She does not know the Irons personally, but sees their community contributions at various City events.

Melissa Irons, Shoreline, asks Council to review the facts of the case and the support they have garnered, that has been, in her opinion, overshadowed by emotions and objections by a few vocal neighbors. She asks Council to create a solution for their property that supports harmony for small business and residential neighborhoods.

The agenda was approved unanimously.
The Consent Calendar was adopted, without discussion, unanimously.

Action Item 8(a) Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance No. 868 – Establishing a Citywide Moratorium on the Filing, Acceptance, Processing, and/or Approval of Applications for Master Plan Development Permits and Applications for Essential Public Facility Special Use Permits

Staff report presented by Rachael Markle, Planning and Community Development Director

The Department of Social and Health Services is currently developing a Fircrest Master Development Plan permit application that includes expansion of existing uses and that may include new uses and the siting of a behavioral health facility which is considered an *Essential Public Facility (EPF). The Development Code identifies both the Special Use Permit and the Master Development Plan permit as processes to be used for the siting of EPFs.

*RCW 36.70A.200

(1) Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020.

(5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities.

This was last discussed at the September 16, 2019 Council meeting.

Why is staff recommending a moratorium?
  1. The City’s Master Development Plan permit decision criteria may be outdated
  2. The Master Development Plan permit criteria may not be adequate for siting an “Essential Public Facility”
  3. The Master Development Plan permit process may not be the best method to conduct multi-agency planning
  4. New uses from the State Legislature not yet defined and regulated locally
  5. City’s process for siting an Essential Public Facility is unclear
  6. Clear and robust decision criteria as a guide for the Hearing Examiner
This Moratorium will provide the City Council time to review these regulations and policies.
No questions from Council.

Public Hearing is opened
Public Comment

Janet Way, Shoreline, lives just a few blocks from Fircrest. She is an advisory board member for Friends of Fircrest and is well acquainted with the history. She has been an advocate for preserving Fircrest because of the unique needs of the residents.

Janet Way attended a meeting in Olympia where they talked about the draft Master Plan for Fircrest. She said they thought it was a pretty good plan. It showed development all over the grounds and all appropriate for current Fircrest residents. Fircrest should not be broken up.

Reverend Kristin Ellison Oslin, Pastor at Fircrest Chapel. Lives nearby in Lake Forest Park and grew up in Shoreline.

Friends of Fircrest have a statement where they have advocated for the betterment and enrichment of lives challenged with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We want to support the City of Shoreline as well as Fircrest. The Fircrest Master Plan has been an ongoing project since the 90’s. The current one comes principally from the. Governor’s office. We understand that possible addition of the Behavioral Health Facility may be a cause for some review - but 6 months? Washington State is 47th in the nation for care of people with mental crises. 3 or 4 months will be better.

Michael Abate, North Seattle, just one block from Shoreline. He is the representative of the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE). We have this conversation every few years. We haven’t endorsed the State’s Master Plan for Fircrest, we do not want to limit options of the State to serve the residents. The land should be used to help people and not be limited by the City of Shoreline or private interests.

Rod Palmquist, Seattle, is the organizing director of the Organization of Washington Federation of State Employees, the largest public employee union in Washington. We do not support the limitation of options for land use at Fircrest.

The Public Hearing is closed.

Discussion

There was a move and second to adopt the ordinance as stated.

The last plan we heard included a behavioral health facility without any description of what that is. We need to know what, exactly, is a “behavioral health facility” This is new to us. Who will live there? What services will be provided? And where in our City would we want it to be located. We need clear guidelines before we can consider. We should have the option of deciding where in Shoreline we want this and also we need to know how the community feels about it.

The State should have talked to us about it. The State legislature didn’t know about it either. There are multiple state agencies working on multiple things. We need to partner and work out any difference, if they exist, rather than be told “here’s what’s going to happen” without any input. Sometimes small changes can better integrate changes into the community. The State took a right turn from where our staffs were discussing the possibilities for the property. All of sudden, there is a new map. At this point we can’t trust our partners to know what the plans are going to be and how much is left for the City’s role

This is not a vote against behavioral health or anti mental health. But Shoreline should be able to use its usual process.

It is frustrating that the State agencies are not on the same page. A year ago we were approached by the State to use part of the land for affordable housing, and just a few months ago the plan showed Fircrest meeting all of its needs without including a lot of the land. Then, with a couple of days notice, we are given this new map that shows Fircrest using all of the property. Like it or not, the State gives local government use authority. That means Shoreline has the legal right, and the responsibility, to zone our city in a way that locates uses in places we have deemed appropriate for those uses.

This most recent map that occupies the whole site with new uses thwarts a budget proviso adopted by the state legislature and signed by the governor that calls for the allocation of some of that land to be available for open space and affordable housing.

Yes, we have a mental health crisis, and it’s embarrassing how Washington State is doing. But we also have an affordable housing crisis. But we need local government to have authority over it.

Two state agencies (DNR and DSHS) still meet with us separately - they won’t all sit down together. We need to know what everyone wants out of this site. We need to all sit down together. It is 85 acres and that is plenty of land to meet everyone’s needs.

Is a moratorium the right way to go? With multiple agencies, that may be the best option. This is a large part of our community and we have to be part of the decision making. While it appears they quietly have moved in a behavioral health facility, we are not getting feedback that we need.

Will another idea come back in a year or two? The staff report uses the work “may” frequently. This “may be outdated”, “may be inadequate”. A moratorium may become a way to stop a project that we don’t like. Could it be a bad precedent?

Vote in favor of citywide moratorium:
Passed by a vote of 5 to 2, with Councilmember Roberts and Mayor Hall dissenting.


Action Item 8(b)Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Settlement and Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway
Margaret King, City Attorney, presented the staff report

The Council discussed the draft Settlement and Interlocal Agreement, regarding Point Wells, at its September 23, 2019 meeting.

The proposed Settlement and Interlocal Agreement provides for clarification of SEPA responsibilities for the two cities and clarification related to Shoreline’s and Woodway’s roles in the provision of sewer services. Woodway is opposed to making changes to the agreement regarding the access road which would give any third parties an implied or perceived right to require that Woodway approve an access road. Woodway is also opposed to any change related to their traffic level of service

Staff Recommends Council authorize entering into interlocal agreement
Motion and second to authorize

Discussion

We’ve done a good job. Refined and retooled and improved upon. There is overwhelming support from the community. It will never be exactly perfect and it’s time to move on to the next stage.

What about the purchasing of property by Woodway for the access road? Isn’t that the responsibility of the developer? Yes, Woodway wanted to confirm they will not be condemning or acquiring property on behalf of the developer.

If Snohomish County rules to develop this property, then neither Woodway nor Shoreline will have their interests protected so the best approach is to do everything we can do to help provide annexation into a city to protect our interests.

Vote to authorize interlocal agreement
Agreed unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 8:06pm




Read more...

Hot Topics: Agenda for Shoreline council meeting includes Fircrest and Point Wells

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Shoreline City Hall and Council Chamber
Photo by Mike Remarcke
The agenda for the October 7, 2019 Shoreline Regular Council meeting features two Action Items. 

Action Item 8(a) Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance No. 868 – Establishing a Citywide Moratorium on the Filing, Acceptance, Processing, and/or Approval of Applications for Master Plan Development Permits and Applications for Essential Public Facility Special Use Permits

The Department of Social and Health Services is currently developing a Fircrest Master Development Plan permit application that includes expansion of existing uses and that may include new uses and the siting of a behavioral health facility which is considered an *Essential Public Facility (EPF). The Development Code identifies both the Special Use Permit and the Master Development Plan permit as processes to be used for the siting of EPFs.

This was last discussed at the September 16, 2019 Council meeting.

The City’s Master Development Plan permit and Special Use Permit decision criteria adopted in 2008 and 2000 respectively, may be outdated and not reflective of Shoreline’s current goals and policies; the City Council has significant concerns about development in the City under the current permit regulations in the context of the visions and goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; allowing the submittal of applications for these permits before the City can conduct a comprehensive analysis, may result in applications being approved that could not only violate the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan but also result in adverse impacts to the character of the City and its citizens.

This Moratorium will provide the City Council time to review these regulations and policies.

*RCW 36.70A.200

(1) Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020.

(5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities.

Action Item 8(b)Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Settlement and Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway

The Council discussed the draft Settlement and Interlocal Agreement, regarding Point Wells at its September 23, 2019 meeting. After discussing the proposed agreement, the City Council gave staff direction to talk with Woodway regarding potential edits to the Agreement to clarify SEPA responsibilities, required second access through Woodway when 25 or more housing units are proposed for development, and traffic levels of service. Staff have concluded these discussions and the proposed Settlement and Interlocal Agreement provides for clarification of SEPA responsibilities for the two cities and clarification related to Shoreline’s and Woodway’s roles in the provision of sewer services. Woodway is opposed to making changes to the agreement regarding the access road which would give any third parties an implied or perceived right to require that Woodway approve an access road. Woodway is also opposed to any change related to their traffic level of service.

Council is scheduled to either continue to discuss or adopt the proposed Settlement and Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Woodway.

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline Council meeting September 23, 2019 - including Point Wells discussion

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Shoreline City Hall and Council Chamber
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
Shoreline City Council Meeting
September 23, 2019
Notes by Pam Cross

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00pm

All councilmembers were present.

Report of the City Manager Debbie Tarry
The Shoreline Racial History Display continues through Sept 27 in Shoreline City Hall Lobby 8am to 5pm. Learn about the policies and practices that have impacted Shoreline’s racial history.

Sept 25, 7 - 9pm Proposition 1 Information Meeting at Shoreline Library, 345 NE 175th. This proposition will appear on the November general election ballot.

Oct 5, 8am - 10am - The 8th Annual Monster Mash Dash. This is a family 5K fun run and walk along Shoreline's Interurban Trail. Costumes are encouraged and prizes will be awarded for the best costume in each age group as well as best group costume. Details and registration information available online.

Public Reminders
The PRCS/Tree board meeting scheduled for Sept 26 has been cancelled. The next meeting will be Oct 3.

Council Reports

Councilmember Chang attended the KingCo Regional Transit Committee meeting. This is the group that helps KingCo Council oversee Metro. The Metro Transportation Equity Cabinet, which is made up of 22 community members, provided detailed recommendations about developing the mobility framework that will make sure Metro addresses the people who are most reliant on public transportation (disabled, no income, low income, immigrants etc).

Mayor Hall attended a symposium to discuss the success of the RADAR program that Shoreline has had for several years. (RADAR is an effort by the Shoreline Police Department to address the rights and needs of individuals with behavioral health issues and/or developmental disabilities/pac)

Public Comment
Gretchen Atkinson, President of the Board of the Ronald Wastewater District (RWD), spoke on behalf of the Board regarding City assumption of RWD and issues regarding Point Wells.

Wes Brandon, RWD Commissioner, said there are outstanding items that need to be wrapped up before finalizing the assumption of RWD by the City.

Laura Mork, RWD, pointed out that ratepayers (in Shoreline and Snohomish County) have paid for the equipment in the ground at Point Wells.

Geneva spoke in support of the Skip the Straws Pledge.

Tom Mailhot, past board member of Save Richmond Beach and current board member of its successor The Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition, talked about the proposed agreement with Woodway (Agenda Item 8a). He appreciates the united coordinated approach. He asks that Council carefully review Mike McCormick’s letter sent to Council. (letter available on line)

Alex Tsimerman stated that Seattle is Fascist and Shoreline should not follow that thinking. Stand Up America party member.

Fran Lilleness said that in the 1940’s there was a road from Point Wells through Woodway. We need to restore or rebuild it.

Laethan Were Invited Council and city staff to NW Golden Hearts luncheon 10/8 at Bell Harbor Convention Center in Seattle

The agenda was adopted unanimously.

The Consent Calendar was accepted unanimously.

STUDY ITEMS

Study Item 8a Discussion of Proposed Settlement and Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway

Recently the Court of Appeals overturned a favorable ruling by the Superior Court that had determined that Point Wells was part of the Ronald Wastewater District (RWD) service area. RWD is appealing this decision and has asked for review by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Margaret King, City Attorney,  provided the staff report

Point Wells, located in Snohomish County, has been identified as a future annexation area for both Shoreline and Woodway. Each city has adopted a vision for the area. In Jan 2019 both cities agreed to formal mediation to resolve their differences. The resultant settlement and interlocal agreement is what is before Council tonight. This must include annexation, development standards, traffic levels of service and sewer lift station 13 in Point Wells.

Requirements must include, at a minimum, that Point Wells be zoned as a primarily residential development with limited commercial uses, dark sky regulations (minimize glare while reducing light trespass and skyglow/ pac), mandatory public recreation that is available to residents of both Shoreline and Woodway, a traffic study for each city, and a maximum building height of 75’.

Once adopted, the cities agree to keep the adopted regulations in place for 2 years post annexation, unless agreed to by the other city.

Shoreline agrees to not annex Point Wells, nor to object to Woodway’s annexation of it. Shoreline agrees to affirmatively support Woodway’s annexation, and to not reduce the current 4,000 ADT (average daily trip) limitation on Richmond Beach Drive or restrict access to Point Wells via RB Drive unless necessary to protect the health and safety of its residents and the public or to implement emergency measures.

If Woodway decides not to annex, Woodway needs to formally advise Shoreline so that Shoreline can immediately attempt annexation with Woodway’s support.

Woodway must start the annexation process within 3 years. If they do not, then after 3 years, Shoreline can begin the annexation with Woodway’s support.

If Point Wells is annexed by Woodway, any development or redevelopment of 25 or more units requires Woodway to provide a general-purpose public access road, wholly within Woodway, that connects to Woodway’s transportation network, and provides a full second vehicular access to Point Wells.

The next step is for Council to review and discuss the proposed Settlement and Interlocal Agreement.

Discussion
If Woodway doesn’t annex within 3 years, Shoreline can proceed to the annexation process. The process is still required, correct? Yes.

What have been the barriers to annexation? Snohomish County has not recognized Point Wells as a potential of area of annexation in their Comprehensive Plan.

Upon annexation by Woodway, and development of 25 units, Woodway must provide an access road. In the same paragraph “This provision may not be relied upon by …”

This seems contradictory. Why is this sentence there? Reply: This is a negotiated agreement so our city attorney cannot really respond, except in an Executive Session, because she would be providing legal advice.
The intent may be that Woodway wants to retain the ability to approve the design and standards. Woodway does not want to approve a road that hasn’t been designed yet.

But we need a second road to be absolutely required. Should this be reworded? Reply: Council has the right to make any proposals to change the agreement. Our city attorney can provide legal advice if they would like to recess to an executive session.

In his written comments, Tom McCormick suggests Woodway’s level of service A be included in the Agreement. (Level of Service A means a 10 second delay or less at intersections/ pac). That would require mediation if a different level of service is desired, right?
Reply: This is an important issue for Woodway. Our city attorney can provide legal advice if they would like to recess to executive session.

By Shoreline giving up the right to go below the current 4,000 ADT (average daily trip) limitation on Richmond Beach Drive or restrict access to Point Wells via RB Drive, we are not supporting the development at Point Wells, but agreeing that Woodway gets to annex it. Correct?
Reply: We are saying that we support Woodway’s annexation and Woodway agrees to recognize our level of service on RB Drive.

Woodway probably won’t be able to continue a level of service A. It’s a little town now. We need to have a strong commitment to an access road through Woodway, but it doesn’t appear so now. Woodway shall provide an access road. The agreement does use the word “shall.”
Response: Woodway has indicated on several occasions that there will be a road through Woodway but they didn’t want it assumed that they agreed to something they haven’t yet seen.  Woodway can’t be forced to approve a road that doesn’t meet their standards.

The staff report states that any development application for Point Wells include a traffic study of Shoreline and Woodway roads. What are we thinking about for Shoreline?
Reply: What we were going for, is that each city, depending on which one annexes, must recognize the impact to the other city as well. The City Attorney defers to our traffic engineer for a more detailed response.

In his written comments, Tom McCormick suggests Shoreline be named as State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) lead agency for traffic and other impacts within our city, and Woodway be named as SEPA lead agency for traffic and other impacts within their city. Staff is ok with this. Did we get clarifying language for this?
Again, the City Attorney can answer legal questions only in an executive session.

Why not do this now?
Reply: There are some legal issues, including moving forward when neither city has an application before them. So the attorneys agreed on a broader brush approach and to focus on the issues of concern (traffic for Shoreline). We can enter into a SEPA agreement at a more appropriate time.

SEPA is under the Woodway section, but it sounds like a shared responsibility.
Reply: We will work on this issue since the question has been raised several times.

Woodway is having their public hearing tonight as well. What is the process from here?
Reply: We don’t know what took place in Woodway, but based on this meeting alone, an Oct 7 meeting might be delayed a week or two.

It’s good that both cities are on the same team, and by detailing it in this Agreement we know what being on the same team means.
We need to remember this is an agreement between only Shoreline and Woodway. It does not include Snohomish County and that is where the decision is now. 

Over the years the proposed development of Point Wells has caused a lot of anxiety leading to a lot of litigation, but when it comes down to it, Ronald Wastewater District and the cities of Shoreline and Woodway have similar interests.

We all want to control the scale of the development and control traffic through our communities. Snohomish County has fought Shoreline’s annexation of Point Wells at every step of the way so if Woodway has better potential to annex, and if Woodway can agree with what we want, then that’s better than trying to annex and failing. We do not want to let Snohomish County permit something that’s not acceptable to our community.

If staff can get us written responses to Council’s concerns, do we need another study session or can we move to this to an action item?
We absolutely need this agreement with Woodway in place so it depends on how soon staff can provide written responses.

The public has a right to follow this process out in the open, but Council has been silent for months.

It is probable that a level of service A in Woodway would send everybody to RB Drive. Woodway needs a decent level of service that will be tolerable for more traffic. Woodway is getting a lot of concessions from Shoreline so we should stay firm because traffic affects more than the Richmond Beach neighborhood. We need to take a look at how other roads are affected.

If we assume staff from Woodway and Shoreline get together tomorrow and identify the remaining issues, and they are unable to agree before Oct 7, we can change it from an Action to a Study item then.

The points we discussed aren’t difficult things. If both sides just have smaller items, then Oct 7 should be fine. We can always remove it from the Oct 7 agenda if necessary.

Decision: This will be brought on as an Action item for the Oct 7 meeting. That doesn’t guarantee action - just starts the process, and makes it predictable to the public while maintaining transparency. 


9B. Study Item 8b Discussing Ordinance No. 867 – Amending Section 8.12.395 of the Shoreline Municipal Code to Include E-cigarette’s (Vaping) as Prohibited Activities in parks (pac)

John Norris, Assistant City Mgr, provided the staff report.

This amendment would include e-cigarettes within SMC8.12.395’s prohibition of smoking and tobacco use in parks. Vaping would be prohibited only in city parks like tobacco was in 2012. Technically, vaping does not include tobacco, but nicotine. As a result current codes do not apply to it. News media has pointed out the medical dangers of vaping. When it comes to enforcement, Shoreline  relies on peer to peer pressure and education. Park signage will be addressed. And smoking or vaping is not in line with what we want to see in our community as a healthy city.

Discussion 

If I’m near, can I get second hand nicotine? Like with smoking? Yes.

What about places where there is a “no smoking” sign like in city buildings or other smoke free zones? Or will this apply just to parks? 
Reply: Haven’t worked out this detail yet.

There have been a lot of deaths in the short time they have been available but we do have to remember that cigarettes are more dangerous. Even very far away, the second hand smell is very strong. The signs need to be larger.
Will look into that. Staff can take care of signs and details.

Just curious, but what other cities have taken this step?
Reply: Don’t know but can find out.

Placed on the Oct 7 Consent Calendar.

8:25pm Council retired for an Executive session expected to last 20 minutes. Not expected to take action tonight.

9:09pm Meeting adjourned.




Read more...

Shoreline and Woodway release Draft Agreement regarding Point Wells

Friday, September 6, 2019

Courtesy City of Shoreline
From the City of Shoreline

In order to best represent the needs of our communities, the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway have agreed to unify our approach and work together to evaluate and address redevelopment of Point Wells. 

Earlier this year, both cities entered into mediation to develop an agreement to meet our mutual interests and concerns.

On Monday, Sept. 23, 2019 both city councils will review and discuss the proposed agreement at their respective council meetings. 

We encourage the public to review the agreement and provide comments. Woodway’s meeting will occur at 6pm and Shoreline’s will be at 7pm.

The agreement addresses numerous issues, including levels of service for transportation, annexation of Point Wells, development standards, and environmental considerations. We anticipate a final agreement will resolve existing areas of conflict between our two cities to the benefit of both communities and our taxpayers.

Although we are committed to resolving these issues in a collaborative manner, Point Wells is in unincorporated Snohomish County and BSRE’s Urban Center permit application is being processed by Snohomish County. 

Neither Shoreline nor Woodway are in control of the review and approval process. We also note a court recently ruled BSRE has until mid-December to attempt to correct deficiencies to their Urban Center permit application.

More information here

Settlement and Interlocal Agreement Between City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway



Read more...

Shoreline and Woodway negotiate an agreement on Point Wells concerns

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Courtesy of City of Shoreline
After years of working separately with Snohomish County and BSRE, the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway have agreed to unify their approach and work together to evaluate and address the impacts of BSRE’s proposed redevelopment of Point Wells. 

The cities believe there is a realistic way to achieve a successful and sustainable redevelopment of Point Wells that enhances the character of the surrounding communities. 

However, both cities agree that BSRE’s current “Urban Center” proposal does not adequately consider the environmental conditions at the site or the transportation infrastructure that will serve the site.

The cities agree that redevelopment of Point Wells must respect the transportation level of service standards mutually agreed upon by our communities.

A landslide brought down the road from Point Wells
to the Town of Woodway
Photo courtesy Dept of Ecology
 
Redevelopment must protect Puget Sound views, establish public access to the waterfront, and adequately address the landslide hazard risks associated with the site. Any redevelopment at Point Wells must also provide the infrastructure improvements needed to reduce the impacts of such redevelopment.

The road to Point Wells is a two lane blacktop with a hillside to the east
and a ten foot drop off to the railroad tracks on the west
Photo by Diane K. Hettrick


To achieve this goal, the cities have been working towards incorporating these concepts into an agreement. 

A final agreement will resolve existing areas of conflict between the cities to the benefit of both communities and their taxpayers. The proposed agreement will address traffic and transportation, development standards, annexation, and sewer utility service.

One of BSRE's concept drawings for Point Wells
Shoreline and Woodway recognize the importance of allowing the public to view and comment on any proposed Agreement. 

Accordingly, each city has scheduled a public discussion with their respective city Councils in open public session on Monday, September 23. 

A draft of the agreement will be available on each city’s website in early September for public review.

Although the cities are committed to resolve these issues in a collaborative manner, Point Wells is in unincorporated Snohomish County and BSRE’s Urban Center permit application is being processed by Snohomish County. 

The cities are not in control of the review and approval process. 

We also note that a court recently ruled that BSRE has until mid-December to attempt to correct deficiencies to their Urban Center permit application.




Read more...

Point Wells: Judge gives BSRE one more chance

Tuesday, July 30, 2019


Superior Court Judge John McHale has issued a disappointing ruling on BSRE's appeal of Snohomish County's denial of BSRE's project application for Point Wells. 

Judge McHale agreed with BSRE's argument that the County must give BSRE a six month window to resubmit their project application under the 2011 Urban Center rules.

BSRE's argument was based on a section of the Snohomish County Code that was in place when BSRE submitted their plans in 2011, but which the County deleted from the Code in 2013. The section in question allowed BSRE a six month window to resubmit an Urban Center application that was denied by the Hearing Examiner. The County argued that since that section is not part of the current County Code, BSRE could no longer rely on it.

Judge McHale based his ruling on the Review Completion Letter the County sent to BSRE in October of 2017. That letter listed a long series of problems in the application and indicated that BSRE must resolve the problems before application could be processed any further. The letter also included a reference to the disputed section, but instead of stating that the section was no longer in effect, the letter stated that it was, in fact, still in effect. Judge McHale recognized the significant public interest in the resolution of the application process, and while he agreed that the public interest carries great weight, he felt the County's message to BSRE that the section was still in effect outweighed the public interest.

Six month period starts now

Snohomish County also argued that even if the six month window was ruled as still valid, BSRE had missed the window because it has been more than six months since the Hearing Examiner denied the application. Judge McHale disagreed with the County because the Hearing Examiner explicitly stated that BSRE could not resubmit the application. Judge McHale ruled that it was not reasonable to expect BSRE to spend money to fix the application when the County clearly stated they would not accept it. Judge McHale set the beginning of the six month period as the date of his ruling; the six month period will run out later this year in mid-December.
Where does that leave things?

In an unexpected twist, Judge McHale did not issue any ruling on the five areas of "substantial conflict" the County identified in denying the application. His reasoning was that it did not make sense to spend any effort on resolving these issues since BSRE was likely to address these areas in any resubmitted plans.

It appears that the County is not going to appeal the ruling. The County is assuming that BSRE will attempt to fix and resubmit the application. The County has been consistent in telling BSRE that they must remove the "substantial conflicts" or the application will not be approved, so it seems that the County has decided that either the resubmitted application will meet all their requirements so the project should be allowed to move forward, or that BSRE will not be able to fix all the problems in six months and the application will be denied again.

One of the more interesting conflicts is BSRE placing the Upper Village buildings in a landslide hazard area when the County Code says that's permitted only if there is no other location on the property where the buildings could be located. If the County holds fast to their statement that no building can be placed in the hazard area, that would require a complete redesign of the project, making it even harder to complete it by December.

More worrisome is that the County did not include any consideration of traffic issues when listing their "substantial conflicts". The County felt they had other easily stated conflicts so they didn't want to get into the much more complex issue of how much traffic the project would generate and how much traffic Shoreline roads could handle before becoming gridlocked. 

If BSRE does manage to resubmit their application, traffic issues will again become a major point of contention between BSRE, the County, and the City of Shoreline.

Many of us were hoping that the Court would put in one more stake toward the end of the project, but that didn't happen. Instead we will have to wait and see what happens in the second half of this year.

The Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition is a citizen's group focused on the proposed mega housing development at Point Wells, just north of Shoreline in Snohomish county.



Read more...

Statement from Ronald Wastewater re Court ruling on Point Wells

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Chief Judge Marlin Appelwick of the Court of Appeals of the state of Washington has ruled against Ronald Wastewater's claim as service provider for Point Wells.

Statement from Ronald Wastewater:

In 1985, the King County Superior Court entered an order stating that Point Wells was annexed to Ronald’s corporate boundary. 

Since that date, Ronald has been the only sewer district or other entity that provided sewer service to Point Wells, and the only entity that adopted formal plans to serve new development in Point Wells.

Ronald issued the Certificate of Sewer Availability for the Urban Center Development proposed by the owner of the waterfront property at Point Wells. Ronald is also identified in Snohomish County’s land use plans as the sewer provider to Point Wells.

Olympic View Water and Sewer District formally consented to Ronald’s provision of sewer service to Point Wells when it adopted a sewer plan with a service area map showing the entire Point Wells area as “served by Ronald.”

Despite the 1985 court order annexing Point Wells to Ronald’s boundary and this long history of planning and service confirming Ronald as the sewer provider to Point Wells, the Court of Appeals decision (filed on July 1, 2019) held that Ronald’s corporate boundary does not include Point Wells.

Ronald is disappointed by the decision and believes that it was issued in error.

Ronald intends to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court identifying important legal authorities that were not considered by the Court. Ronald is hopeful that the Court will correct its error in response to Ronald’s Motion for Reconsideration.

If the Court does not, however, Ronald may choose to seek review by the Supreme Court.

Court document here


Read more...

Update on Point Wells: Snohomish county appeal hearing completed

Saturday, May 25, 2019

The Point Wells property has been used for oil storage and shipping.
This is an active asphalt storage on the site. The trees are on a
steep, landslide prone hillside where a road washed out.
Google Earth


For newer readers: Point Wells is a proposed development on Puget Sound directly north of Shoreline's Richmond Beach neighborhood. The developer proposed several "villages" of high rise buildings with around 3,000 units. There is only one small road into the development and it runs through Shoreline.

The report following was just issued by the Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition, a citizen's group formed to fight or at least mitigate the development.


Appeal Hearing Completed

BSRE's appeal hearing before Judge McHale took place on May 10th in the King County Courthouse. BSRE was appealing the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner's decision, later upheld by the Snohomish County Council, to deny BSRE's development application for constructing 3000+ housing units and over 100,000 square feet of commercial and retail space at Point Wells.

The Point Wells site includes Puget Sound shoreline, landslide hazard areas, and is currently served by a single two lane residential street. These characteristics brought into play regulations concerning shoreline development, development in hazardous areas, and transportation access requirements. These issues were all prominently mentioned during the hearing.

Shoreline development

The County has regulations controlling what kind of development can happen along shorelines, and how close to the shoreline any development is allowed. The key regulation in this case is a County requirement that any development not dependent on access to water be set back 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as the highest location on a beach where, due to consistent tidal action, the character of the beach is distinct from areas further inland.

The County described how BSRE failed to identify the OHWM in their initial application submitted in 2011 and did not correct that mistake until early 2018, just prior to the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. As a result of not identifying the OHWM, BSRE placed several of their buildings within the 150 foot buffer area, creating a substantial conflict with County regulations.

Hazardous areas

The eastern edge of the site includes steep slopes with a large landslide hazard area at the foot of the slope. County regulations do not permit any development inside landslide hazard areas unless there is no other place on the property to place those parts of the development, and unless the landslide hazard can be mitigated so that any part of the development inside the hazard area is as safe as if it were placed outside the area (this is usually done with retaining walls and other means of stabilizing the slope). BSRE's application showed what they labeled the Upper Village, including multiple tall buildings, a transit center, and police and fire stations, was to be constructed in the landslide hazard area.

The County argued that BSRE had admitted that there were other places on the property to place the buildings included in the Upper Village, but that BSRE preferred the site in the hazard area. The County further stated that while BSRE did present some plans to mitigate the potential hazards, the information was not complete enough to determine whether the mitigation was sufficient to make the Village safe. BSRE's failure to make use of other non-hazardous areas on the site for the Upper Village, and their incomplete plans for hazard mitigation both created a substantial conflict with County regulations.

Transportation access

The Urban Center regulations allowed BSRE to build up to a maximum of 180 feet (double to normal 90 foot limit) if the site was near a mass transit station or route and if BSRE demonstrated the additional height was necessary and desirable. The route for Sounder commuter rail does go right through the property, but Sound Transit has no plans to stop at Point Wells so the mere presence of the route would not allow any passengers to board the train.

The County argued that a route without a station violated several other provisions of the County Code that required Urban Centers to include mass transit access, that BSRE had not shown a good faith effort to get Sound Transit to agree to stop at a station should one be built, and in any case, BSRE had not submitted any documentation showing that the additional height was either necessary or desirable. The missing station and the missing documentation made any building over 90 feet in height a substantial conflict with County regulations.

Vesting question

BSRE presented one other claim that could end up outweighing all the other claims. BSRE argued that their vesting rights included the right to resubmit their application to the County within 6 months of the denial and preserve their right to develop under the old 2011 Urban Center regulations.

The County argued that the right to resubmit the application was repealed in 2013, that this right was not vested because it is an application processing regulation not a land use regulation (vesting only applies to land use regulations), and most importantly, the 6 month window ran out in February, 2019 without the County receiving a resubmitted application.

What's next?

Judge McHale promised to issue a decision by June 10, 2019. It's almost certain that no matter what the decision, it will be appealed to the State Court of Appeals; that will guarantee at least one more hearing.

If BSRE loses that appeal, they can then ask the State Supreme Court to review the case, but the Supreme Court is not required to review all appeals and tends to ignore cases where the decision is obvious and there are no new legal issues at question. The County probably believes there is no reason for the Supreme Court to get involved, but that remains to be seen.

~~~~~~~~~~
You can join their mailing list here: 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