UPDATED 1/10/11 From Gary Huff, Attorney Save NE Tacoma
Here’s an update regarding our continuing efforts to preserve and protect the North Shore Golf Course and its open spaces. Our attention over the past few months has been focused on several areas. As explained below, that focus will soon narrow considerably:
I. The developer’s and golf course owners’ appeals to Superior Court regarding our victories before the city Hearing Examiner and City Council.
The trial date for these appeals is set for March 11. The appeals will consist of legal arguments by counsel based on the record created during city review of the applications. There will be no witness or public testimony, nor will new documents be allowed. The primary focus is whether the record contains sufficient evidence to justify the decisions reached and whether controlling law was properly applied. The burden is on the applicant and owners to show that the record and legal precedents do not support the decisions.
II. The recent Court of Appeals decision.
Those who have followed the legal proceedings are aware that we appealed a small portion of the Superior Court decision regarding the continuing enforceability of the open space restriction. While the judge ruled that the open space restrictions remained in place and were enforceable, we disagreed with the judge’s characterization of the type of interest held by the city and, by extension, the surrounding residents. The decision to appeal was in part motivated by a desire to keep this issue alive while the city reviewed and eventually acted on the developer’s application. The appeal was part of our “back up” plan. Fortunately, we haven’t needed it.
Strictly viewed, the Court of Appeals rejected our argument. The result is not surprising in that the city decided not to appeal this issue. Thus, the Court of Appeals had serious reservations regarding our ability to argue the nature of the city’s interest when the city did not appeal. Thus we are not surprised by the ruling. There are other aspects of the decision which are favorable to us in the long run. However, I am likely the only person on our side who finds these details interesting so I will spare you further discussion. Regardless, we see no benefit in continuing to argue over matters which, given the actions of the Examiner and City Council, are no longer of particular relevance. Thus, the decision was made not to further appeal this decision.
III. Settlement discussions.
Most of you know that we have participated in discussions regarding a permanent, long term settlement which would forever secure the future of the golf course. Many of you participated in a recent survey which was intended to gauge community interest in several general approaches to ensuring that result. The responses were generally very positive. A large majority of those who responded expressed an interest in a golf course or social membership. Any even larger majority stated a willingness to be assessed relatively modest amounts to help defray the potential cost of some sort of governmental acquisition of the course.
The survey was a huge help in moving discussions forward. However, this is not to say that I am optimistic regarding settlement possibilities. Settlement requires the willing participation and agreement of all parties. I have my own reservations regarding the feasibility of achieving that result prior to the March 11 trial date. Several very large obstacles remain. Thus, I believe we should proceed with a cautious willingness to settlement possibilities. However, we must also proceed based on the more realistic proposition that the Pierce County Superior Court will soon review and rule upon the “legality” of the Examiner and Council decisions.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
UPDATED 03/13/10 We just won a major victory when the City Hearing Examiner threw out the developer’s application to put houses on the golf course. But it’s complicated, and it’s not over.
The Examiner has full authority over routine land use issues. The developer requested approval of a site plan, a preliminary plat, some variances and some exemptions, and the Hearing Examiner denied every last one of them. But it’s not over because the developer and the owners have appealed to Superior Court. SaveNETacoma has intervened in this appeal to make the case that the denials should be upheld.
And there is big issue remaining with City Council. The developer also applied for a rezone modification to remove the current requirement that the golf course must remain a golf course or open space. Without this rezone modification the development is stopped dead. Only the City Council can approve or disapprove rezone modifications. The Hearing Examiner’s job, in this case, is to make a recommendation to the City Council, and he recommended the rezone modification be denied. But the developer and the owners appealed that recommendation. Again, we intervened. Both sides will argue this issue at the City Council meeting April 13th. A big turnout is important to show the City Council we want them to keep the golf course as a golf course or open space.
But all decisions can be appealed. If, or better when, the City Council votes against the developer and owners, we expect them to appeal to Superior Court. We plan to intervene again in this appeal, or, if we lose, to appeal on our own. Either way, we are headed for Superior Court.
In football terms, we’re in the red zone but we haven’t scored.
We need your attendance at the City Council meeting on April 13, and we need your continued financial support.
Updated 10/17/09 - The hearing before the City of Tacoma Hearing Examiner is complete. The Examiner will review the information presented by the City, the Applicant and SaveNETacoma Attorney and Citizens, making a recommendation to the City Council to either allow the rezone and application or reject the rezone and application. We expect a decision in November or December of this year. The final vote will go before the newly elected City Council. It is very important we elect council members who support our cause. It is our expectation the Examiner will decide the NE Tacoma major design element is the golf course and it's open space and make a recommendation to save our community and our neighborhood.
Update 05/04/2009 - The City of Tacoma has released the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. We have 45-days to make public comments
Update 02/05/2009 - Superior Court Judge Russell Hartman has granted the City of Tacoma's motion for summary judgement. The North Shore Concomitant Zoning Agreement (CZA) and The Open Space Taxation Agreement (OSTA) are binding and enforceable by the City of Tacoma. - HURRAY! -
As we expected Save NE Tacoma members were not allowed to join the action as third party beneficiaries. It is our orginzations belief the neighborhoods and homes around the course were built and developed as a "golf course" community, therefore we as a community are parties to the CZA and OSTA. We will be asking the judge to review the decision based on this fact and will appeal if needed.
A request may be presented to the Tacoma City Council allowing the owners and developer to remove our open space and develop the course. It is our intention to hold the City and it's elected officials accountable to the CZA and OSTA agreements signed by prior councilmembers.
This is where we need you help -
WHAT CAN EACH OF US DO -
2. Be prepared to voice your concerns and opinions to City Officials
3. We will need voices in upcoming City Council meetings and during public forums,
we ask that you show your support and join us.
5. We should not contact council members at this time - hold your opinions until public forum or open comment periods.
6. We encourage you to make comments regarding the current plan
- see the update from 9/3/08 for details -
7. Make contributions to our legal fees.
We have won 2/3 of this battle and need to see this through the end.