Point Wells Monthly Updates

By RBCA Point Wells Subcommittee,
Bill Willard and Jack Malek

Written around the 15th of the preceeding month, to meet the publishing deadline for the Richmond Beach Community News

February 2012

Written this month by Save Richmond Beach

SaveRichmondBeach.org, a community-driven non-profit organization dedicated to preserving our communities and Puget Sound through responsible and sustainable planning, held a community meeting on January 8 to celebrate the second legal win of 2011 related to the controversial urban development plans for Point Wells.

In March, Save Richmond Beach, the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway filed an appeal with the Growth Management Hearings Board. The Growth Board ruled that Point Wells is not an appropriate location for an urban center for several reasons. They also ruled that Snohomish County had not complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Snohomish County and the developer chose to proceed with their development plans citing the Washington State vested rights doctrine.

When Snohomish County posted their notice of application, they very clearly stated in their public notice that the decision was not appealable. It is for that reason that the Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach file a declaratory action in King County Superior Court. Shoreline, however, decided not to join us as they wanted to attempt to negotiate with the developer.

Judge Lum ruled in our favor on November 23, declaring that you cannot be vested if you do not have valid SEPA. He overturned the vesting and enjoined Snohomish County from processing the application. Snohomish County and the developer immediately appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.

In addition to the appeal, we speculate that Snohomish County will also be creating a new land-use designation for the Point Wells site. There will be a public meeting on this in late January. The Snohomish County planning department will present options to Snohomish County Council.

What's coming up:

1. A public meeting where Snohomish County will decide what to do next based on a recommendation from the planning department and their legal advisors (the prosecuting attorney's office)
2. The Court of Appeals briefing
3. The Growth Management Hearings Board compliance hearing

How you can help

Become a Member of Save Richmond Beach: This ongoing effort is a marathon. It is important to remember that it's not likely that there will be a swift resolution to this issue anytime soon. If you haven't already done so, please become a member of Save Richmond Beach. How much we can accomplish is directly related to how much funding we have available. Visit www.SaveRichmondBeach.org to learn more about how to become a member.

Keep the pressure on: The elected officials who are making the decisions related to the Point Wells urban development project need to be held accountable for their actions. Write, call and email the Snohomish County Council, the Snohomish County Executive and the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney. (The attorney's office serves as the legal advisor to all county departments and agencies and the head of that department is elected to that position.)

• Snohomish County Council Brian Sullivan, Chair;
  Brian.Sullivan@co.snohomish.wa.gov; 425-388-3494
• Stephanie Wright, Council person for Woodway and Edmonds;
  Stephanie.Wright@co.snohomish.wa.gov; 425-388-3494
• Dave Somers;
  Dave.Somers@co.snohomish.wa.gov; 425-388-3494
• Dave Gossett;
  Dave.Gossett@co.snohomish.wa.gov; 425-388-3494
• John Koster;
  John.Koster@co.snohomish.wa.gov; 425-388-3494
• Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon;
  Aaron.Reardon@co.snohomish.wa.gov; 425-388-3460
• Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe;
  Mark.Roe@co.snohomish.wa.gov; 425-388-3333

RBCA is not responsible for the content of external sites.

back to top of page

January 2012

Developer appeals judge's November 23 ruling

On November 23, 2011, Judge Dean Lum ruled in King County Superior Court that Blue Square Real Estate's urban center application is not vested and ordered Snohomish County to suspend processing the development application as an urban center.

BSRE responded quickly with a press release stating, "The developer of the mixed-use community at Point Wells will immediately appeal today's ruling…" and they did.

BSRE Point Wells, LP and Snohomish County have formally appealed, seeking review by Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals. Then what happens? In the November 30, 2011, edition of Patch, The Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Newsletter editors commented, "No matter the ruling in the appellate court, no one expects the fight to be over." Patch editors went on to say that Judge Lum said that the case could go all of the way to the State Supreme Court.

Even though no appeal date has been set yet, typically the timeline for a ruling at the appellate level could be as far out as 12–18 months from now. Plus, you can add another 12–18 months to the timeline if the case is then appealed to the State Supreme Court.

It is important to report that, even though the legal battle may potentially stay tied up in the court system for several years, interest and energy invested in this controversial project will continue unabated on other fronts. For instance:

1. On December 12, 2011, the City of Shoreline held a public hearing on a proposed revision of the Transportation Master Plan. As this Plan relates to Point Wells, it will determine the amount of traffic (and subsequent back-ups) that the City concludes is an acceptable level.
2. On January 8, 2012, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., Save Richmond Beach will hold a "victory" celebration at the Innis Arden Clubhouse, and SRB Board members will provide the community an update about what they can expect next.

In addition to these formally scheduled meetings, community members have continued to hold informal discussions about alternative uses of the Point Wells property that could enrich the quality of life for all Shoreline citizens.

Most importantly, even though the final chapter of the Point Wells saga may be years away, community members and organized groups need to keep up with new chapters, ever vigilant of the twists and turns that pop up. RBCA is committed to doing its part in reporting current happenings.

back to top of page

December 2011

Judge rules developer's application is "not" vested

SUMMARY OF MONTHLY ACTIVITY

1. The City of Shoreline Staff and Mayor, in separate sessions, met in early November with the Richmond Beach Community Association (RBCA), Save Richmond Beach (SRB), and the Point Wells Developer.

2. Save Richmond Beach files a successful motion for summary judgement overturning the vesting of permits in at hearing before Judge Lum in King County Superior Court on November 23, 2011.

3. City of Shoreline Council of Neighborhoods to put Point Wells on the agenda in the near future, January or February 2012.

DETAILS OF MONTHLY ACTIVITY

1. The City of Shoreline Staff and Mayor held three separate meetings in early November with the Richmond Beach Community Association, the Save Richmond Beach Group, and with the Point Wells Developer.

The City desires to develop collaborative communication with the SRB and RBCA groups as we all have a mutual interest in preserving the quality of life in Shoreline neighborhoods.

Save Richmond Beach discussed in greater detail the scoping document for any future transportation corridor study. The organization has requested that any scoping document and corridor study be peer reviewed.

At present, the City and the Developer decided to put negotiations on hold until the outcome of the motion for summary judgment was heard November 23, 2011.

2. Zach Hiatt of Graham & Dunn, representative for Save Richmond Beach, and Wayne Tanaka of Ogden Murphy Wallace, representative for the Town of Woodway, went before the Honorable Judge Dean Lum in the King County Courthouse to be heard on a motion for summary judgment November 23, 2011. In their brief, Hiatt and Tanaka argued that Snohomish County adopted their development regulations and Urban Center land use designation for Point Wells while in violation of SEPA and GMA.

After considering the briefing and hearing oral arguments from the Point Wells Developer, the Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach, the Judge ruled that the developer's application as an urban center is "not" vested and that Snohomish County is ordered to cease processing the developer's application until Snohomish County's comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

Judge Lum's ruling follows on the final decision and order (FDO) made earlier this year by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). The developer and Snohomish County had tried pre-empting the GMHB by making and accepting the development application while the Board was still in the process of making its decision.

3. The City of Shoreline's Council of Neighborhoods will have Point Wells on the agenda in the early New Year, January or February 2012. Members from all 14 Shoreline neighborhoods are welcome to attend.

KEY WORDS

Summary Judgement, Motion, Vesting, GMA, SEPA, LUPA

Summary Judgment: is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Motion: is a formal step to introduce a matter for consideration by a group. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Vesting: is to give an immediately secured right of present or future enjoyment. In real estate, vesting is to create an entitlement to a privilege or a right. For example, one may cross someone else's property regularly and unrestrictedly for several years, and one's right to an easement becomes vested. The original owner still retains the possession, but can no longer prevent the other party from crossing. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

GMA: Washington State Growth Management Act was adopted because the Washington State Legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development and the quality of life in Washington. Known as the GMA, the Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) was adopted by the Legislature in 1990. In 1991 the GMA was amended to create the Growth Management Hearings Boards to hear and determine allegations of non-compliance with the GMA. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act is a state policy that requires state and local agencies to consider the likely environmental consequences of a proposal before approving or denying the proposal. (WA State Dept of Ecology website)

LUPA: Land Use Petition Act

WEBSITES

RBCA's Point Wells webpage

www.SaveRichmondBeach.org

City of Shoreline's Point Wells webpage

Snohomish County's Point Wells webpage

RBCA is not responsible for the content of external sites.

back to top of page

November 2011

Recent meetings for Point Wells and Candidate forums are attracting new faces from the community. More folks are wanting to get involved and some are offering to volunteer. They want to be a part of responsible development, preserving property values, quality of life and personal safety for ourselves and our loved ones. Some bring legal skills, others fund raising skills, and most bring lots of enthusiasm. All of which are needed and wanted.

Zach Hiatt with Save Richmond Beach is working towards filing a motion for a summary judgement and if successful, will result in the courts overturning the developers vested permit. Results of this motion will likely be reported sometime early next year.

The City of Shoreline recently met with Snohomish County's Director of Planning, Clay White, in response to the Growth Management Hearings Board remand (see the City of Shoreline's update article below).

Snohomish County Executive candidates speak up about Point Wells.
Mike Hope and incumbent candidate Aaron Reardon are agreed that the Point Wells project is too big and that infrastructure requires improvement before moving forward. Hope focuses on the impacts to Snohomish County residents and commented on a future imbalance of households to commercial development should the project succeed in it's current form. He further stated his reluctance to have the area serviced by King County emergency response resources.

Reardon showed concern for the impacts to the adjacent communities of Shoreline and Woodway. He's focused on the positive elements that an Urban Center project would bring. He commenting that if done right, an Urban Center project is a lower-cost alternative to sprawling growth and would clean up and replace the existing eyesore of the tank farm.

back to top of page

October 2011

Read the October issue of the Richmond Beach Community News (PDF) online for information concerning Point Wells, including:

1. Articles from many different stakeholders
2. Responses from Shoreline City Council candidates to the questionnaire they received from Save Richmond Beach

back to top of page

September 2011

At the end of Richmond Beach Drive is 61 acres of unincorporated land within Snohomish County known as Point Wells. It is currently home to an aging asphalt plant. The only access is through Richmond Beach.

In mid-2007, the owner of the property announced an intention to redevelop the site. The proposal required a change to the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan Designation from "Urban Industrial" to "Urban Center" and a zoning change that would create "Point Wells Urban Center."

The Point Wells development as proposed could host 3,000 new high density homes, 18 story towers (the tallest buildings between Seattle and Vancouver), plus 126,000 square feet of retail space. The project would house more people that the existing population of Richmond Beach and Woodway combined. This could mean 10,000 more car trips through Richmond Beach every day. Because the project would be in unincorporated Snohomish County, only Snohomish had any say in what was to be built. Shoreline has had no ability to modify the project even though the only access road is through the center of Richmond Beach, and Shoreline will bear the brunt of traffic and other adverse impacts with no additional tax revenue or input to what is built.

The Snohomish County Council approved the developer's requested changes to the Comprehensive Plan so as to allow the developer's proposed project. The City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway, and the local citizens group Save Richmond Beach appealed the County's actions to the State Growth Management. A hearing before the Board was held on March 2, 2011.

On April 25, 2011, the Washington State Growth Management Hearings board ruled that the Urban Center designation for Point Wells was invalid, as was the Environmental Review. However, the developer and Snohomish County insist that the development application has "vested".

Over the summer the parties have continued talks about the proposed project. The Point Wells Developer is currently in town and is negotiating with the City of Shoreline. It's hoped that an agreement will be reached soon though there may be further legal action, which could prolong the outcome.

You may have noticed the signs around town by Save Richmond Beach (SRB). The signs are part of SRB's awareness campaign. They are asking people to adopt a sign to maintain awareness about the Point Wells project and to remind people that they should let their elected officials, and those running for local elected office, know how they feel about the project.

Learn more at the RBCA September 13th general meeting. Representatives from the City of Shoreline, Save Richmond Beach and possibly the Point Wells Developer will be present. We also encourage you to attend the Candidates' Forum in October.

back to top of page

June 2011

BACKGROUND

Mid-2007:
Point Wells property owner announces intentions to redevelop the property. The change requires Snohomish County to revise their existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code from Heavy Industrial to Urban Center. Despite public testimony, Snohomish County accommodates those revisions.

2008 and 2009:
Appeals are filed by Save Richmond Beach, the City of Shoreline, and the Town of Woodway.

January 21, 2011:
Ruth Kagi drafts a bill to address potential traffic impacts from the Point Wells development on Richmond Beach roads. The bill lacks support by legislators and is withdrawn but was credited for having encouraged Snohomish County to cooperate with the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway and give them a louder voice in the process.

March 2, 2011:
Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) convened for a Hearing on Merits regarding appeals filed by Save Richmond Beach, City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway.

March 4, 2011:
Blue Square Real Estate (BSRE), owner/developer of Point Wells, submits project for mixed use community which is accepted as complete by Snohomish County.

RECENT EVENTS

April 25, 2011:
GMHB renders their long awaited Final Decision and Order (FDO). The GMHB evaluated Snohomish County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment and their Zoning Code Amendment. They assessed the two sets of amendments using the goals and the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Their four part decision is summarized below:

1. Comp Plan failed to meet GMA Goals
2. Comp Plan failed to meet GMA Requirements
3. Zoning Code failed to meet GMA Goals
4. Zoning Code uncertain if it meets the GMA Requirements

The upshot is that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments were invalidated, but the Zoning Code Amendments were left undetermined.

The City of Shoreline feels confident that they can provide clarification to the GMHB which will show the Zoning Code does not meet the requirements of the GMA. Until then, the situation remains in limbo.

Despite this, the BSRE Developer is claiming that their project is "grandfathered in" and that they can continue their project with the same rights afforded them prior to the appeal since the Zoning Code was not clearly invalidated.

The City of Shoreline has asked the GMHB to reconsider and has a window of opportunity in which to file an appeal if necessary.

WHAT'S NEXT

Staff from the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway will meet with representatives from the BSRE developer to negotiate an agreement that addresses traffic impacts, road maintenance and safety, noise and light pollution among other things.

The Save Richmond Beach (SRB) organization has become a membership-based organization in order to help raise awareness and funds for litigation. What's happening at present is only the beginning.

For additional information, contact:

Shoreline Planning Director
Joe Tovar, 206-801-2501
jtovar@shorelinewa.gov

Save Richmond Beach
Save Richmond Beach
PO Box 60191
Richmond Beach, WA 98177
206-356-5356
info@saverichmondbeach.org
www.SaveRichmondBeach.org

To see the entire GMHB FDO:
Final Decision and Order (PDF, 81 pages) of April 25, 2011
left-click the link to View or Print, right-click to Save

back to top of page

May 2011

Mark your calendar for the RBCA General Meeting on May 10, 2001 where Joe Tovar, the City of Shoreline's Planning Director will give us an up to the minute update on Point Wells and answer your questions.

In case you missed it, the Developer finally revealed its proposed project in a March 4th filing with Snohomish County. The plan calls for 3,081 homes at Point Wells with 6,100–7,100 residents. You can see concept drawings on the developer's website.

There would be a number of buildings of different heights; the tallest would be about 180 feet high. These would be the tallest buildings between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. The public comment period on the development proposal closed on March 11, 2011. Snohomish County is currently evaluating the project, among other things, "to determine if there is enough capacity on county roads to accommodate the project's traffic impacts, and [then] a concurrency determination will be made." The county will then send out a notice of the concurrency determination in the notice of project decision. If you wrote a comment letter you will receive the notice of decision as a party of record for the project.

The legal challenges by the City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach continue. Currently pending is an appeal of Snohomish County actions in designating Point Wells as an Urban Center. This appeal sets out that the County action was inconsistent with both the County's own Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. They further alleged that the County did not comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, (SEPA). This appeal is under review by the Growth Management Board. The hearing before the Board was on March 2, 2011. As we go to press the Board has yet to issue it decision. Because of the law in Washington about the vesting of certain rights the real importance of the Growth Management Board decision, if it is unfavorable to the developer, will be subject to debate.

We expect that there will be more action in the courts and with administrative bodies in the future. The State House and Senate bills that were advanced last month in an effort to pressure the developer into working with Shoreline and Woodway were shelved after a rather ambiguous deal was struck whereby Snohomish County is to be more communicative with Woodway and Shoreline.

The March 4, 2011 project application is expected to require another Environmental Impact Statement and will generate further analysis to define the impacts and mitigation requirements for the project.

There is likely to be opportunities for public comment in that process so keep your pencils sharp.

Take a few minutes to let your elected officials know what you think. Your voice could make a difference in the outcome of this project. Below are some sources for the latest on Point Wells.

back to top of page

April 2011

As of March 4th, we finally have a Point Wells project, on paper, to evaluate and contend with. No longer a mystery of unknown dimensions and qualities, the proposal for Point Wells redevelopment is available for our review, and was accepted as complete for permit review by Snohomish County officials last month. In addition to the impressive images many us of have seen, what do we know about it? The plans call for 3,081 homes. The tallest building would rise 17 stories and about 180 feet tall. Several other buildings would reach 16 and 14 stories. It is estimated that these buildings will become the tallest structures between Seattle and Vancouver, BC. The project would be built in four phases over 15 to 20 years, and would include a public pier and beach for mutual community benefit. However, very little beyond a modicum of parking will be available to those residing beyond the gate.

Eisenhower once said, "Plans are worthless, planning is essential." One may suppose he meant, among other things, that what is first drawn up is only rarely ever worthy of actualization, at least not without many edits and rewrites. Though "vesting law" (the right to pursue a project under policy in effect at the time of application acceptance) has historically held considerable legal sway in the determination of what land use proposals see fruition, we simply do not know at this time what will become of the Urban Center code, nor it's bearing on the ultimate scale of Point Wells redevelopment. Below is a status check of the separate tacks being pursued by private citizens and local officials challenging Snohomish County to listen to, and hear, the neighbors of Point Wells – the citizens who will actually be affected - while reviewing the BSRE proposal.

What is next for the Point Wells Development Application
According to an article on the development application in the Everett Herald, BSRE counsel Gary Huff is respectfully circumspect about the way forward. Said Huff, "what happens next is we have at least 45 days to see if we can reach an agreement with both Woodway and Shoreline. We talked about getting together next week to see if it's possible." Mr. Huff is quoting the Urban Center code, which requires that the developer attempt to find common ground with neighboring jurisdictions on the proposal before resorting to a largely Snohomish County-controlled design review process. Huff goes on to say those negotiations will mostly involve minimizing traffic from the project, and "everything is on the table."

Huff went on to tell the Herald: "It's possible we could, assuming it works financially, have fewer numbers but larger units. We just need to see how these conversations go, how the marketing studies continue to play out. But nothing's cast in concrete." Huff added: "It's going to take five or six years before we can get the approvals, get the site cleaned up and even start construction." How much of that time will be taken up by review of the project is unclear.

However, one might expect that for BSRE, the first 45 days will well be worth the wait. Also according to the Urban Center code, if the developer cannot reach an agreement with Woodway and Shoreline, the project review will move on to an appointed Snohomish County design review board, among other steps that will take oversight further away from local residents. So, how can Shoreline residents be heard now that the application bun is in the proverbial oven?

Getting a Seat at the Environmental Impact Review Table
Joe Tovar, Shoreline planning director, is counting on the State Environmental Protection Act as an ally in the ongoing struggle for official and private input to the Point Wells plan. Shoreline officials have complained that while Snohomish County can authorize the project, it's only Shoreline that will feel the impacts of traffic and the burden on our services. Especially on the two–lane road that is the only access in and out of Point Wells. Tovar has noted that legislation local Democratic Reps. Ruth Kagi of Lake Forest Park and Cindy Ryu of Shoreline produced, called House Bill 1265, would require Snohomish County to include Shoreline in the process of creating the environmental impact statement for the project. Tovar told the Herald: "They still, under current law, have the opportunity to say 'thank you, no, we don't care to do that. You simply may comment on the EIS [environmental impact statement] that we produce, you may appeal it ultimately if you don't agree to the outcome.'" Many put their best hopes on the legislation, which is still working its way through the WA State Senate, to turn the "opportunity" for Shoreline involvement in the EIS into a requirement.

Appealing to Shraga's Better Senses
Some have suggested that concerned locals go to the real source, and share their views with the Israeli ownership of BSRE. The project is thought to be the brainchild of Shraga Biran, an Israeli attorney and principal of Alon Group. The international energy and real-estate company headquartered in Israel, includes Blue Square Real Estate, the parent company for BSRE Point Wells.

As a man of ideas and a benefactor to the oppressed (his law career purportedly includes many cases helping less fortunate Israelis), Mr. Biran seems to be on the other side of that coin in this case. In choosing to work exclusively with Snohomish County regarding Point Wells, Biran's BSRE could be construed as an agent of oppression. Mr. Biran, who was recently in Seattle – a "thinking city" as he calls it - promoting the English language version of his 2008 Opportunism: How to Change the World One Idea at a Time, took some of that time to speak openly with interviewers about Point Wells. According to the Herald, he revealed that his vision for Point Wells is perhaps more of a gift (to whom you may ask) than a business goal. "We're not in a situation where we must develop it," he said. "It's just for pleasure. But you can't do such a pleasurable element without some economics to it."

As a thinker, it would also follow that Mr. Biran may be persuaded to reconsider the scale of this project. He alluded to a different outcome if the locals do not share his pleasure. "If they shall not like (it), we will not fight anybody," Biran said to the Herald. While Mr. Biran is also known to have made statements invoking "mercy of God" should Shoreline lose this opportunity, we encourage you to make and express your own choices.

Public Comment - Deadline April 11, 2011
April 11, 2011 is the deadline for public comment period regarding the capacity of county roads to accommodate the suggested Point Wells development.

The scale for this project is currently set at 3,081 dwelling units, 94,300 SF of retail space and 32,262 SF of commercial space. With approximately 2 to 2.3 people per household, the number of individuals living on site would be between 6,000 and 7,000 (give or take). The retail, commercial and open space would attract even more visitors which would further increase daily traffic.

The legal notice which solicits your comments can be found online at: http://12.104.73.60/Classified/legals/displaynotice_saxo.cfm?id=2011316155313

Send your written comments to Darryl Eastin, Project Manager:
darryl.eastin@co.snohomish.wa.us
425-388-3311 ext. 1068

A key term in the notice is "Concurrency." The definition for this term as it applies to a real estate development was found through an online Google search and is paraphrased below...

• "Concurrency" is a shorthand expression for a set of land use regulations that local governments are required to adopt to ensure that new development does not outstrip local government's ability to handle it. For a development to "be concurrent" or "meet concurrency" the local government must have enough infrastructure capacity to serve each proposed development. Specifically, concurrency regulations require that local government has the capacity in stormwater, parks, solid waste, water, sewer and mass transit facilities to serve each proposed development. Together, these seven public services are known as "concurrency facilities". The process through which a person goes to determine if a development is concurrent and to reserve capacity in public services is called a "concurrency review".

As always, the below are our recommended sources for the latest on Point Wells, and plenty of contact information is available to share your views with decision-makers.

City of Shoreline: Point Wells

SaveRichmondBeach.org

Lastly, please mark your calendars for another Point Wells Address by Joe Tovar, Shoreline Planning Director, at our monthly General Meeting, May 10, 2011.

RBCA is not responsible for the content of external sites.

back to top of page

March 2011

Here is our recap of activity regarding Point Wells redevelopment, occurring in January and up to mid February of the new year. A lot has happened in the last several weeks and a lot more is coming up! Please stay tuned.

1. BSRE files a short plat application

On February 15, 2011 the developer BSRE filed a short plat application in Snohomish County. As reported in the Everett Herald on February 16, 2011, BSRE filed an application to short plat the 61-acre property Point Wells into nine lots. This is an attempt to block the efforts in the state legislature and in the Growth Management Board appeals by vesting development rights. Vesting in Washington allows a developer to lock in development rights under existing rules. Development can go forward under those rules even if the rules are changed later. BSRE's attorney is quoted saying that the application allows the project to go forward under current building rules, so that any new zoning or legal changes would not apply. Shoreline's planning director, Joe Tovar, is quoted as saying the effect of BSRE's action "remains to be determined."

Even if "vested" the project would still have to clear numerous layers of approval by county planners and environmental impact review.

The Everett Herald story is at: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110216/NEWS01/702169793

For more about on vesting in Washington see Crosscut, Odd provision in state law severely undercuts growth management, http://crosscut.com/2011/01/12/environment/20527/Odd-provision-in-state-law-severely-undercuts-growth-management/?pagejump=2

2. City of Shoreline reclassifies street

The City of Shoreline Planning Commission on January 20th acted on concerns about traffic and safety impacts resulting from the Point Wells project and voted to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Point Wells subarea by changing the classification of Richmond Beach Drive from arterial to "local access street." The commission reportedly received some 250 letters and emails in favor of the limitation. The Commission meeting was well attended by people from the area. Many testified in favor of the change. The City Council met on February 14th and voted to approve the action by the Planning Commission.

The intent of the change is to limit traffic on Richmond Beach Drive to 4,000 trips per day, at least until the developer agrees to work with the City. In doing so the City hopes to gain some control over the amount and impact of the traffic from the Point Wells development.

According to a press release "The City does not oppose redevelopment of the Point Wells property with a mix of uses, public access to the waterfront, environmental cleanup, and cutting edge sustainable building practices" said Shoreline Planning Director Joe Tovar. "We are even fine with some taller buildings, but BSRE's proposed project, with 6,000 people creating over 10,000 car trips is way out of scale for this location." The City will continue to pursue every avenue possible to ensure any development at Point Wells more closely aligns with the City's vision and is of a scale that is reasonable and compatible with the surrounding communities.

In their comment letter to the Planning Commission, the developer BSRE, indicated their intent to fight any limitations on traffic along Richmond Beach Drive.

3. Tovar speaks at General Meeting

At the RBCA general meeting on January 11, 2011 Joe Tovar of the City of Shoreline and Zach Haitt of SRB spoke about a range of events, developments, and issues concerning the status of Point Wells. One of the possible avenues discussed was the City's efforts to negotiate directly with Snohomish County, joining with the Town of Woodway and the Tulalip Tribe in asking the Snohomish County Council to adopt a moratorium on development permits at Point Wells until meaningful two-way negotiations could occur. Unfortunately, the Snohomish County Council rejected these requests and insists that all concerns can be addressed after BSRE submits its application for development.

Please read Tom Petersen's article "You Should Have Been There - Timing is Critical in Pt. Wells Dispute" on page 1 in this month's paper for more details about the meeting: Richmond Beach Community News, March 2011

4. Kagi bill would limit density

In the State Legislature on January 18, 2011, Representatives Ruth Kagi and Cindy Ryu introduced a bill in the state house that would limit density at any Urban Center site, including Point Wells, unless the governing jurisdiction negotiates an "interlocal agreement" with neighboring communities to address the impacts of the development. Senator Chase sponsored an identical bill in the Senate. At the first hearing in Olympia on the House Bill Mayor McGlashan testified in favor of the house bill. More hearings were scheduled for February. Joe Tavor and Scott McCall, with the City, testified at the Senate Hearing.

In order for this bill to impact the development process, it must pass the State House and Senate, and then be signed by the governor.

5. BSRE Neighborhood Meeting held

A big event last month was the BSRE Point Wells' Neighborhood Meeting on January 27, 2011. More than 200 people attended this meeting. Unlike this past summer's open houses put on by BSRE this meeting was the first formal step toward the development of the new city at Point Wells.

After passing the armed Shoreline Police officers guarding the meeting, folks attending the meeting were shown a PowerPoint presentation by the developer's team focused on the amenities for residents of their new city by the Sound. If you missed the event, you can see the PowerPoint presentation slides on BSRE's website at www.pointwells.com.

Many features of the new urban development set out at the meeting were promoted as "green" or environmentally-friendly features. Green roofs, pedestrian friendly streets, on-site sewage treatment and on-site biomass generated power were among many green features for those who will live at Pont Wells. According to plan presented, Point Wells would have on–site shopping and services, including its own fire and police station with services provided by Snohomish County personnel.

Some of the positives for the larger community would be that the beach at Point Wells would be open for public use, with a boardwalk and path. The contamination from many years of industrial use would be cleaned up. A stream would be day-lighted and restored.

However, for those not living in the city at Point Wells there are many unanswered questions.

Buildings up to 180 feet high are planned. One of the 180 foot tall buildings would in the "South Beach" area next to the water, and within the view corridor provided by the City of Shoreline Subarea Plan for the site. The tower would be clearly visible from much of Richmond Beach.

According to the City of Shoreline the BSRE Point Wells proposal would have the thirteen tallest buildings between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., all located far from high capacity transit like bus rapid transit on State Route 99 or planned light rail along I-5. The tallest buidling in Everett is 12 stories high.

With more than 3,100 residential units and 100,000 square feet of commercial space the project could triple the number of people who currently live in the Richmond Beach area. These people would come and go from Point Wells using the only vehicular access available: Richmond Beach Drive. BSRE put forward an estimate of 10,000 more cars per day through Richmond Beach. Others looking at the project have estimated the new traffic volumes will be much larger.

In a Shoreline Patch article by Tony Dondero, he reported that Shoreline Councilmember Chris Roberts asked city staff to find out what streets had similar volumes of traffic to what BSRE set out as its estimate. According to Roberts, the City Staff's response was that North 200th near Costco has about 8,250 trips per day, 185th St. between Aurora and I-5 has about 10,000-plus as does 155th Street. The article is at http://shoreline.patch.com/articles/council-agrees-on-limits-on-richmond-beach-drive

Attendees were allowed to submit written questions. In answer to the question of who will pay for traffic mitigation, BSRE's attorney repeated his prior statement that BSRE will pay for traffic mitigation – what and how much are still unknown. However, there was no answer on whether anyone except Shoreline taxpayers would be footing the bill to maintain the roads.

BSRE's traffic engineer in his hurried and technical presentation said that no changes are really needed for Richmond Beach Drive in order to go from the current 500 cars a day to more than 10,000. In saying the road could handle the proposed level of traffic, he gave examples such as the two-lane section of Sandpoint Way and West Lake Sammamish Parkway as roads that currently handle similar traffic levels.

BSRE again offered some fanciful notions about how impacts to the community from the huge increase in traffic might be reduced. They spoke of how there could be a future ferry boat service, and that they may be selling units to people who do not drive much. One idea they talked about was selling units to young environmentally-minded people who only ride bikes, and old folks who add little traffic demand. One of the main traffic themes presented is that with substantial on-site services provided, interest in leaving the property will be lessened.

BSRE talked about having a van pool to Edmonds, Metro buses and Sound Transit stops at Point Wells at some undefined time. To our knowledge, no agency has announced plans to provide services at Point Wells. To service Sound Transit, a new station would have to be constructed. Given tight budget constraints, service expansion seems unlikely any time soon.

All parking inside the development is proposed to be underground, with street-level lanes designed to slow cars to minimal speeds, at least while they are at Point Wells. Off-site parking impacts to the neighborhood were not addressed at the meeting. This is a serious concern, as parking at Point Wells under the plan set out would be very limited with just one space per unit. The plan has few parking spaces for people shopping or visiting. There was no discussion of parking for visitors to the newly opened public beach or for bus and rail commuters--if there were stations someday.

During the presentation, concerns about traffic were not well addressed. The take-away was largely that as the project is built out, the developer will work to address increasing traffic impacts. They did say that "Impacts to neighborhood character will be addressed within design solutions developed collaboratively with all the neighbors on Richmond Beach Drive." Time will tell whether there is collaboration with the community.

6. Upcoming action

The Growth Management Board process continues on the appeals filed by the City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach. Basically, these appeals are an effort to try and force changes that could allow the local residents to exercise some control over the Point Wells development. Currently Snohomish County is the only jurisdiction with authority in granting permits to build the development and they have shown little respect for the interests of neighboring communities so far.

The next major action after the motions is scheduled to be the Hearing on the Merits of the Petitions on March 2, 2011 with the Final Decision and Order set to be issued by April 25, 2011.

Please attend meetings and write to your elected officials to help them understand the issues that are important to you.

RBCA is not responsible for the content of external sites.

back to top of page

February 2011

A lot is happening as this paper goes to press, and events are moving fast. Unfortunately, due to the publication requirements of the newspaper, we have to direct you to check the RBCA website for results and updates. Decisions are set to be made the end of January, in February and later this spring.

City proposes limiting traffic
First, the City of Shoreline has acted on the neighborhood's concerns about traffic and safety impacts resulting from the Point Wells project. The City Planning Commission held a hearing on January 20, 2011 to consider taking action. The proposed action was an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan for the Point Wells subarea which would limit traffic on Richmond Beach Drive.

This change was proposed because there is no restriction on the use of the road to Point Wells through Richmond Beach. While Richmond Beach Road has four lanes in some sections, the last segment of the corridor before the entrance to Point Wells, Richmond Beach Drive, is a narrow, two-lane road with no sidewalks.

The City's proposed change would limit traffic on Richmond Beach Drive to 4,000 trips per day, at least until the developer agrees to work with the City. In doing so, the City might gain some control over the amount of traffic allowed into and out of Point Wells. The City, in earlier planning, was considering a limit of 8,250 vehicle trips per day. For more details see http://shorelinewa.gov/ index.aspx?redordid=663&page=21.

The City encouraged people to provide oral and/or written comments in the open record public hearing. As we go to press it has been reported that numerous written comments have been submitted. Newspaper press time is before the hearing, but we expect that there will be a good turn out from our neighborhood at the January 20th hearing.

The second big event occurring in January will be the Blue Square Real Estate (BSRE) Point Wells' Neighborhood Meeting on January 27, 2011. [This article was written before the meeting; however, the newspaper will be out after the meeting has occurred. Refer to the RBCA Web site for a report on what occurred.]

Unlike the open houses put on by BSRE this summer, this meeting will be the first step toward a development application for the project at Point Wells. The developer has stated that at this meeting they will reveal what they intend to build at Point Wells. The stated purpose of the meeting was for the developer to share information about their proposed mixed use project and to seek additional public comment in preparation of the project application in accordance with the Snohomish County Urban Center Development Code.

The developer, on their website and in their mailing, has set out that they are working with the architecture firm of Perkins+Will to develop initial design concepts for the site. Peter Busby of Perkins+Will is scheduled share new information and visuals on the conceptual design process at the neighborhood meeting. He is set to be joined by Peter Walker, principal of PWP Landscape Architecture, Victor Salemann of DEA Traffic Engineering and other developer project team members.

According to the developer, presentations are to be given on their preliminary conceptual layout and design, the proposed mix of land uses, proposed building heights and floor area ratio, and public open space and access considerations. Presentations are set to include conceptual landscape and habitat restoration plans, planned environmental remediation (cleanup) of the site, conceptual sustainability features, public use features and amenities planned, traffic analysis planning to date and proposed transit features.

The developer has a moderator who is to facilitate a question and answer session, with written questions submitted by the public. The written comments submitted by the public are also to be summarized and included in the developer's application submittal to Snohomish County. Currently, Snohomish County holds sole authority to grant permission to the developer to build at Point Wells.

Appeals process continues
Third, the Growth Management Board process continues on the appeals filed by the City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach. Basically, these appeals are a major effort to try to force changes that could allow local residents to exercise some control over the Point Wells development.

Currently, Snohomish County is the only one with control over the development. Snohomish County approved a change to an Urban Center land use classification for Point Wells. According to the County, "Urban centers are compact, well-designed areas that concentrate a variety of land uses all in one place. Urban centers are also people-oriented living and working places that allow residents to walk to shops and a bus stop or other high capacity transit stations." For more information about Urban Centers see the Snohomish County website: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/ Departments/PDS/Divisions/ Code_Development/UDC/ucdemo.htm.

The designation of Point Wells as an urban center allows the developer to build as many as 3,500 new housing units and up to 100,000 square feet of retail and office space as reported by the Daily Journal of Commerce on July 15, 2010. The new regulations could allow buildings as tall as 180 feet. All traffic to and from the project would go through Richmond Beach.

The City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway and Save Richmond Beach all appealed the decision by Snohomish County to designate Point Wells as an urban center. The merits of the Appeals of the Urban Center Designation are being considered by the Growth Management Hearings Board as this article is being written. There are pending motions by the City of Shoreline and Snohomish County on procedural. The decisions on these motions may have significant effects on the appeals.

After the motions, the next major action is scheduled to be the Hearing on the Merits of the Petitions on March 2, 2011 with the Final Decision and Order set to be issued on April 25, 2011.

State Representative Kagi introduces bill regarding Point Wells
Finally, on January 18, 2011 our local State Representative, Ruth Kagi, introduced House Bill 1265 bill. As reported on the Everett Herald website, Kagi said her bill is intended to make Snohomish County work out a memorandum of understanding with Woodway and Shoreline on density and traffic, along with other issues related to the Point Wells project.

At the RBCA sponsored meeting on September 9, 2010 Joe Tovar of the City of Shoreline spoke about the City's ultimately futile efforts to try work out a similar agreement. The bill's co-sponsors are Representatives Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline), Marko Liias (D-Edmonds), Mary Helen Roberts (D-Lynnwood), Jay Rodne (R-North Bend), Norma Smith (R-Clinton) and Dave Upthegrove (D-Kent). In order to impact the development process, this bill must pass the state House and Senate, and then be signed by the governor.

Some of the key language in the bill:

• 9 (a) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, the maximum residential density of an unincorporated portion of an urban growth area may not exceed that of the immediately adjacent areas of the abutting city or cities.
• …
• (c) This subsection (9) does not apply to otherwise qualifying areas if the county has entered into an interlocal agreement under chapter 39.34 RCW with the city or cities surrounding the urban growth area that stipulates:
  • (i) Urban governmental services will be provided by the surrounding city or cities; and
  • (ii) limitations on and mitigation of transportation impacts on the roads and impacts on the park facilities of the surrounding city or cities.

Public input is needed
Please attend meetings to express your views and write to your local and state elected officials to help them understand the issues.

For more information:

The Developer Blue Square Real Estate

SaveRichmondBeach.org

City of Shoreline: Point Wells

RBCA is not responsible for the content of external sites.

back to top of page

January 2011

Grass Roots Activity in Richmond Beach

The recent December 8th meeting hosted by Save Richmond Beach (SRB) and Woodway was held at Swannies on the Alley and was well attended. Lots of familiar faces and many new faces ventured in as well. Caycee Holt and Zack Hiatt with SRB along with Mayor Keith McGlashen with the City of Shoreline and Mayor Carla Nichols with the Town of Woodway spoke at the event. They conducted a brief update and then addressed key concerns for the groups:

1. Increased traffic and public safety threat
2. Traffic mitigation limited to road improvements of existing narrow streets (no current plans for Sounder Station, Metro Stop, Community Transit)
3. No tax base for the City of Shoreline if no annexation
4. Property value impacts to Shoreline residents
5. Noise and air pollution and a potential for increased crime
6. Condemnation of private property may be required to improve the roadways
7. View corridor encroachment

SRB's extensive volunteer efforts have made them the face and legal arm of Richmond Beach and Shoreline in protecting local interests regarding Point Wells redevelopment. They handed out a contact list for our elected officials so that folks can write elected officials with influence about this critical issue impacting the quality of life in Richmond Beach (see below).

The Appeal to Snohomish County's Urban Center Designation for Point Wells Gets Underway

SRB along with the City of Shoreline and the Town of Woodway filed appeals to the Growth Management Hearing Board challenging Snohomish County Ordinances: 09-038, 09-051, 09-079, 09-080 in November 2009. Essentially, this legal action contends that Snohomish County's approval of an Urban Center designation and corresponding development guidelines for this remote, and very unique site adjacent to Puget Sound, does not meet the intent of the state Growth Management Act. After nearly a year of quiet since the original filing, in which time the Appeal was stayed to allow the parties to negotiate toward a settlement, it was mutually determined that the issues required hearing review and decision by Hearing Board officials.

A Prehearing for the appeal proceedings was held on December 9th with the Growth Management Board, and was well attended by the public. The GMHB officials outlined the process and scheduled the relevant milestones (see below). The Statement of Issues presented at the Prehearing has been printed below for your review. The Growth Management Board is state level organization which can address "cross county" issues such as ours. The Growth Management Board operates similarly to but separately from the courts, and includes both attorneys and non-attorneys as it's members. To learn more about them visit their website: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/

The next Point Wells update meeting is scheduled into the RBCA general meeting to be held February 8th. Stay current with the appeals process and other events via this webpage.

• December 9th, 2010
  Index Due (Respondent to file)
• December 9th
  Prehearing Conference – City of Shoreline
• December 13th
  Prehearing Order
• December 20th
  Deadline for dispositive motions and motions to supplement the record
• December 31st
  Deadline for responses to motions
• January 7th, 2011
  Deadline to reply to motions
• January 19th
  Anticipated date of order of motions
• January 27th
  Deadline for prehearing briefs of petitioners. Shoreline and Save Richmond Beach - Shoreline III
• February 2nd
  Deadline for petitioner's prehearing briefs – Shoreline IV
• February 11th
  Deadline for respondent's and intervenor's prehearing brief – Shoreline III
• February 16th
  Deadline for respondent's and intervenor's prehearing brief – Shoreline IV
• February 23rd
  Deadline for petitioner's reply briefs – Shoreline III & IV
• March 2nd
  Hearing on merits of petition (Location TBD)
• April 25th
  FINAL DECISION AND ORDER DEADLINE

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Exhibit A to Prehearing Order Case Nos. 09-3-0013c and 10-3-0011c

Exhibit A

Restated and Coordinated Legal Issues

Shoreline III and Shoreline IV

I. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

1. Did Snohomish County Ordinances 09-038, 09-051, 09-079, and 09-080 (collectively, the "Ordinances") fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.070, because they are internally inconsistent with Snohomish County GMACP/GPP, Goal LU 2, Policy LU 3.A.2, Policy LU 3.A.3, Glossary Appendix E, LU Policy 3.B.1 – 2, and provisions in the GMACP/GPP that establish access to high capacity transit as a criterion for designation as an Urban Center?1 If so, are the Ordinances invalid?

2. [SHORELINE III] Did Snohomish County Ordinances 09-038 and 09-051 (collectively, the "Shoreline III Ordinances") fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.070 (preamble), (3), (6) and (8) as they apply to Point Wells, because they are not consistent with the GMACP elements related to capital facilities, transportation, parks/open space, and recreational facilities?2 If so, are the Ordinances invalid?

3. [SHORELINE IV] Did Snohomish County Ordinances 09-079 and 09-080 (collectively, the "Shoreline IV Ordinances") violate RCW 36.70A.040(4) and RCW 36.70A.120 by adopting development regulations that were inconsistent with and failed to implement Snohomish County GMACP provisions in the "Centers" section of the LU Urban Center Chapter, LU Policy 3.A.3, FLUM Center Designation "Urban Center," and Glossary Appendix E, by designating Point Wells as an Urban Center zone where the location of Point Wells is not in proximity to existing or planned high capacity transit routes, transportation corridors, or public transportation stations?3

II. COORDINATION WITH NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS

4. Did the Ordinances fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.100 where:

a. TOWN OF WOODWAY: Point Wells is located within the Town's MUGA. The Town's Comprehensive Plan shows the property with an Industrial designation. The Ordinances are not coordinated or consistent with the Town’s existing Comprehensive Plan.4

b. CITY OF SHORELINE: The City of Shoreline Comprehensive Plan indicates a Mixed Use development with urban densities. However, the densities proposed in the challenged Ordinances far exceed the contemplation of the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan.5

c. KING COUNTY: The Point Wells designation is not consistent with the transportation element of King County's GMACP. (See King County GMACP, Technical Appendix C, Transportation.)6 If so, are the Ordinances invalid?

5. [SHORELINE III] Did the Shoreline III Ordinances fail to comply with RCW 36.70.110(3) and (4) as they apply to Point Wells because they designate urban growth in an area not adequately served by public facilities and services, and did not acknowledge, given the realities of access and proximity, that Shoreline and/or Woodway are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban services?7

III. GMA GOALS

6. Did the Ordinances fail to be guided by RCW 36.70A.010 and RCW 36.70A.020 (1) [compact urban development], (3) [transportation], (9) [parks], (11) [coordination with neighboring jurisdictions], and (12) [provision of capital facilities and services]?8 If so, are the ordinances invalid?

IV. PUBLIC NOTICE

7. Did the Ordinances fail to be guided by RCW 36.70A.020(11) and fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.140 and RCW 36.70A.035 where Snohomish County introduced and adopted new substantive amendments to the Ordinances at the end of the public comment period or after the public comment had period had closed, without providing further public notice or an opportunity to provide comment?9 If so, are the ordinances invalid?

V. SEPA

8. Did Snohomish County fail to comply with SEPA where the SEIS prepared for the project: 1) considered only the "do nothing" and high-density "Urban Center" alternatives;10 2) failed to identify the specific units of local government that would provide essential services to an Urban Center at Point Wells;11 3) failed to address the significant probable adverse impacts and required mitigation for existing essential services in Shoreline, including emergency services, transportation, and parks;12 and 4) failed to address how greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts from an Urban Center at Point Wells would be mitigated?13

9. [SHORELINE IV] Was the County's SEPA review process inconsistent with its Comprehensive Plan policies and in violation of RCW 36.70A.140, .040(4) and .120 in that the County adopted a SEPA review process for the Urban Center zoning district for Point Wells without a non-project EIS, an action inconsistent with and failing to implement LU Policy 5.B.12 and in violation of the early and continuous public participation contemplated by requiring the EIS as a planning tool?14

10. [SHORELINE IV] Did the County fail to comply with SEPA by issuing a DNS that 1) failed to identify the specific units of local government that would provide parks, police, fire and emergency services to an Urban Center at Point Wells; and 2) failed to address probable significant adverse impacts requiring an EIS under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) (including inadequate police, fire and emergency medical response to support projected growth, impacts to parks in Shoreline, and implementation of transportation projects in Shoreline to mitigate projected growth without interlocal agreements or development agreements for such projects), and the impacts are different than those addressed in the 2005 GMA Comprehensive Plan Update EIS or the 2009 SEIS for Point Wells?15

Footnotes

1 Shoreline III: Woodway Petition for Review ("PFR") ¶ 4.1, 4.1.1 – 4.1.4; Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.9; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 17. Shoreline IV: Woodway PFR ¶ 4.1, 4.1.1 – 4.1.4.

2 Shoreline III: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.5, 3.7, 3.9; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 13, 15.

3 Shoreline IV: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.8; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 3.8.

4 Shoreline III: Woodway PFR ¶ 4.2, 4.2.1; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 9. Shoreline IV: Woodway PFR ¶ 4.2, 4.2.1.

5 Shoreline III: Woodway PFR ¶ 4.2, 4.2.2; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 8; Shoreline PFR 3.1. Shoreline IV: Woodway PFR ¶ 4.2, 4.2.2.

6 Shoreline III: Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 10.

7 Shoreline III: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.4, 3.6; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 12, 14.

8 Shoreline III: Woodway PFR ¶ 4.3 [RCW 36.70A.020(1), (3), (11), (12)]; Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.2 [36.70A.010, 36.70A.020(3), (11)], 3.3 [36.70A.020(12)], 3.7 [36.70A.020(9)], 3.8 [36.70A.020(3)]; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 7 [36.70A.010, 36.70A.020(3), (11)], 11 [36.70A.020(12)], 13 [36.70A.020(9)]. Shoreline IV: Woodway PFR ¶ 4.3 [RCW 36.70A.020(1), (3), (11), (12)]; Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.1 [36.70A.010, 36.70A.020(3), (11)], 3.2 [36.70A.020(12)], 3.3 [36.70A.020(9)], 3.4 [36.70A.020(3)]; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 3.1 [36.70A.010, 36.70A.020(3), (11)], 3.2 [36.70A.020(12)], 3.3 [36.70A.020(9)], 3.4 [36.70A.020(3)].

9 Shoreline III: Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 20. Shoreline IV: Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 3.9.

10 Shoreline III: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.11; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 18.

11 Shoreline III: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.12.

12 Shoreline III: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.13.

13 Shoreline III: Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 19.

14 Shoreline IV: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.7; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 3.7.

15 Shoreline IV: Shoreline PFR ¶ 3.5, 3.6; Save Richmond Beach PFR ¶ 3.5, 3.6.

RBCA is not responsible for the content of external sites.

back to top of page

Older Point Wells Updates may be read online in the
Richmond Beach Community News