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.
Glad to see people in Shoreline are willling to step up to protect the community. Too bad the city government doesn't have the same will. Once again, they can't see the forest for the trees. We need better leadership. Currently we have "followship".
ReplyDeleteProtect the community - you mean their neighborhood. The city government has a special meeting planned for Tues. 9/13 in Richmond Beach, something no other neighborhood has ever received.
ReplyDeleteWhen the jail was proposed in Aldercrest by the city staff, affecting Lake Forest Park & Mountlake Terrace, where was Richmond Beach in protecting Shoreline?
You're fooling yourself if you think this is a Richmond Beach issue and not a city-wide problem. If you think the traffic on Aurora is bad now, or if you think the traffic on Greenwood at the community college at 8am is bad, just wait until 7000 more people live at Point Wells.
ReplyDeleteOur City Council has been remiss in trying to pass this off as a small issue in Richmond Beach. They SHOULD be meeting with each community and presenting their views and reasoning behind not filing a lawsuit with BSRE. They're hoping that this can be dismissed as a small deal. The question is why are they acting so powerless?
It is a Richmond Beach problem, Richmond Beach is a bunch of whining NIMBYs if they are crying about traffic on Aurora. They seem to have missed the memo about the Town Center Sub-Area Plan on the increases in density that are planned, not to mention the planning for the Sound Transit Station at 185th. If Richmond Beach is so concerned about traffic, why did they sit by while the Crista Master Plan added traffic at 185th & Aurora, the Town Center Sub-Area Plan added traffic, and Sound Transit will add traffic.
ReplyDeleteRichmond Beach only cares about Richmond Beach, just a bunch of NIMBYs who want to hijack the entire agenda of the city council and efforts of the city staff to get their way.
In fact, the city took over and used the city attorneys to fight their GMA lawsuit, yet Save Richmond Beach has the gall to complain that the City of Shoreline hasn't done anything for them. Talk about a sense of entitlement...
Seadog...you've got an axe to grind...
ReplyDeletePersonal attacks! The hallmark of the Innis Arden & Richmond Beach neighborhoods when the facts get in their way!
ReplyDeleteMe thinks it is Save Richmond Beach who not only has an axe to grind but chainsaws when they state that the City of Shoreline has betrayed them and then goes back to court for the second time.
BTW, the traffic studies done by Snohomish County, the developer, Woodway, and the City of Shoreline show no traffic being directed past Shoreline Community College, but hey, facts never mattered to the Richmond Beach neighborhood.
To those who think that this is just a NIMBY issue, consider some facts.
ReplyDeleteThe only access to Point Wells is through Shoreline. This includes all public services - fire, police, ambulance - as well as the thousands of prospective residents.
This affects not just the immediate access road through the Richmond Beach neighborhood because although all this traffic would be funneled through it, it originates elsewhere and has to get to Richmond Beach via other Shoreline streets and neighborhoods.
Most importantly, we know that the Snohomish County process by which the permit was granted was deliberately designed to flout the laws of the state.
Snohomish County needs to be brought to account not only for dealing in bad faith on this issue but for knowingly violating important protective state law. Shoreline City Council should join the suit.