Dear Supporters - the following is Debbie Wetzel's public comment for Eastview Village. I know it is long, sorry about the formatting(can't attach a document), but it contains many items you may want to use for your comments. Please feel free to do so. You can also just send in her comment as is telling them you also agree. Send to joshua.machen@snoco.org, remember to ask to be a party of record, include your address and ask for email confirmation. You have until Monday, Nov 28th to send in your commentsEastview Village
PROJECT NOS. 22 113955 SPA, 22 114101 SPA, 22 117447 SPA, 22 117395 PSD,
22 117398 PSD/SPA, 22 117404 PSD
PROJECT NAME: EASTVIEW VILLAGE (FKA CATHCART WEST)
I am a party of record and submit my public comment below:
This project application, originally submitted as Cathcart West under 22 -111523-000-00-PS, has been resubmitted as Eastview Village. This resubmission occurred after the County Council amended its codes in late September to address "infill development" SEPA exemptions. The Eastview Village resubmittal is an attempt to be exempt from SEPA regulations as an "infill development." Infill development is "the process of developing vacant or under-utilized parcels within existing urban areas that are already largely developed. Most communities have significant vacant land within their city limits, which, for various reasons, has been passed over in the normal course of urbanization."
The parcels in this project do not fall under the definition of infill because the property is 144 primarily forested acres, wholly undeveloped and on a steep slope towards the Snohomish River. The project would require a massive landfill and horrific stormwater drainage issues. These issues are essential since homes on the other side of Cathcart Way have already shifted up to 2 feet from their original structure. The project would obliterate the hillside substructure, possibly
causing a landslide like the one in Oso. Eastview Village would be on the fringe of the UGA, just like Cathcart Crossing is. Again, NOT in the definition of "infill."
The County capriciously argued that the urban village language in the Comprehensive Plan did not apply to the Cathcart Crossing site but did apply to the Eastview Village site. Nonetheless, The County already allowed the destruction and development of the 47 acres now known as
Cathcart Crossing and Cathcart park and ride. Unfortunately, it appears that now they want to destroy this too.
The County prepared a Memorandum of Offering that clearly sets forth parameters and zoning for the parcels. Per the County website, the Eastview Village project is a mixed-use phased development project located off Cathcart Way in unincorporated Snohomish County. A total of 1,301 residential units are proposed, with less than 30,000 square feet of commercial space. The project comprises eight parcels totaling approximately 145 acres for development in 12 phases with commercial and residential uses. The project area encompasses multiple zones, including Neighborhood Businesses, Business Parks, Multiple Residential, and Low Density Multiple Residential.
The Applicant should not be allowed to give the county millions of dollars for traffic mitigation and not make appropriate improvements in the area. Internal county emails describe the project's traffic impact on Cathcart Way like that of an Alderwood Mall-type project. The County is violating its Comprehensive Plan: failure to adhere to current zoning, failure to provide over 30 acres of commercial/light residential, and failure to provide 25 acres of neighborhood businesses. Where are the amenities? Now the retail is less than three-quarters of an acre, and there is no commercial space.
The Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan(SCCP) states in the Housing Chapter under 1.B.5: “The county shall allow for new residential development at the county Cathcart site that incorporates a mix of housing types and densities and is supported by public and private infrastructure, including transit, pedestrian facilities, and adequate parking. This development shall provide complementary housing types not generally available within the neighborhood.”
The SCCP states in the Land Use Chapter under 3.C.6: “The urban village at the county Cathcart site will be developed with principles of sustainability that conserve resources, use materials that consider occupant health, and provide opportunities for physical activity, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Built Green, to serve as a vibrant
community focal point for the surrounding neighborhoods in the northeast areas of the Southwest UGA. Neighborhood-serving businesses and service providers – including public services such as the library and postal service - will be especially encouraged to locate at the village.”
The SCCP further states in the Land Use Chapter 3.G.10: “The county shall pursue lease, purchase and/or development agreements with all development partners at the county Cathcart site to support that county objectives for the site, generally, and the urban village in particular, are achieved.”
The SCCP states in Land Use Chapter 5.B.6: “The county shall develop an action program for the county’s Cathcart site to guide the development of a mix of public and private uses. Consideration will be given to the following objectives:
•provide a model for environmentally-sensitive development practices in
Snohomish County;
•create a mix of uses that complements and strengthens the predominantly single-family residential neighborhood that surrounds the site;
•create a model "urban village," following the policy direction of GPP
Objective LU 3.C by providing a neighborhood focal point with a mix of
community services, retail opportunities, and expanded residential choices;
•provide opportunities for local employment that can help reduce commuter
traffic in the local area;
•through partnerships with local transit agencies, develop new transit facilities and enhanced transit services for the area; and
•protect natural areas of the site to preserve wildlife habitat and enhance open space opportunities for local residents;
•assess the need for a year-round farmers market and ball fields for kids (either
public or private) during development planning, and provide opportunities to
address identified unmet needs; and
•undertake an affordable housing demonstration project.
The county shall keep area residents and the general public informed of
progress made in implementing the action program.
In creating this program the county will address on-site and off-site circulation for all forms of motorized and non-motorized travel modes, land use, public services and utilities, design and development standards, and other factors related to the development of the site. [Emphasis added]
RCW 43.21C.229(1)(b) does not exempt government action related to development that is inconsistent with the applicable comprehensive plan or would clearly exceed the density or intensity of use called for in the goals and policies of the applicable comprehensive plan. The Cathcart property is specifically addressed in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and, as such, the project should be required to comply with the criteria contained therein.
RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) clearly limits the types of actions included as categorical exemptions in the rules shall be limited to those types which are not major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The project is a major action and, therefore, does not meet this criterion either.
WAC 197-11-060(5)(d)(ii) states that phase review is not appropriate when it would merely divide a larger system into exempted fragments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts. The fact that the Applicant has “agreed” to combine all phases of the proposed project into one larger project is merely an attempt to circumvent this requirement.
SCC 30.61.035(2)(b) requires that the proposed uses are among those listed as permitted uses in chapter 30.22 SCC for the zone in question. As indicated both on the County’s project website, as well as in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, over 43 acres zoned Business Park and over 24 acres zoned Neighborhood Business. Exhibit 2.
By the County’s own zoning this project does not comply with the current zoning. The Applicant cannot simply do away with the approximate 67 acres of neighborhood business and business park zoning in an effort to circumvent the requirements. See Exhibit 3 Applicant’s Site Plan.
SCC 30.70.100(1) Pursuant to RCW 30.70B.040, the county shall review all project permit applications for consistency with applicable county development regulations or, in the absence of adopted development regulations, with the appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW. In the consistency review, the county shall
consider the following factors:
(a) The type of land use permitted;
(b) The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;
(c) Infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the development; and
(d) The characteristics of the development, such as development standards.
On December 21, 2020, Steve Dickson, Director of Transportation and Environmental Services for Snohomish County sent an internal email that stated: “Unfortunately we are in a situation at present where high density residential is consuming property that is intended for service businesses at a number of places because our codes allow it and there is currently more short term profit in 2 housing than in retail.” He further went on to state: “As County government it is our role to achieve the land use and transportation vision that is documented in our comprehensive plan. Where we are in the fortunate position to be owners of land we should maximize our ability to achieve these goals.”
He also stated: “As County government it is our role to achieve the land use and transportation vision that is documented in our comprehensive plan. Where we are in the fortunate position to be owners of land we should maximize our ability to achieve these goals.” Exhibit 4
Just because this is county “surplus property” doesn’t mean the county should sell to a developer for its own financial gain, without first providing the public an opportunity to have a say in what happens to it. This was county-owned property – meaning the people’s property.
The county admitted in internal emails that a portion of the properties was earmarked for the Snohomish School District. Exhibit 5. This has disappeared. The schools in the area are already at capacity and the developer should be required to apportion part of the properties for school purposes. SCC 4.46.181 clearly states how the County should handle surplus property as follows:
(1) Public sale;
(2) Negotiated sale if the county offered the property for public sale and did not receive a bid within advertised minimum value and terms;
(3) Negotiated sale, lease, or trade to a governmental agency for consideration sufficient to comply with RCW 43.09.210;
(4) Negotiated sale pursuant to a competitive selection process approved by the council that requires the purchaser to contract with the county to develop the property within parameters set by the selection process;
(5) Negotiated sale or lease for on-site development of affordable housing pursuant to a request for proposals approved by the council
SCC 30.61.030(4) states: The department has the option to withdraw a determination that a proposal is exempt based on new information or further review of existing information. Clearly, this project requires a further review of existing information and should not be exempt based on the clear definitions and requirements identified above.
Submitted this 25th day of November, 2022.
/s/
Deborah L. Wetzel
Party of Record
debbieleewetzel@gmail.com
206-261-0941