Loading...
Snohomish County North Creek Comp. Plan Amendment - Final EIS 1983 it 11 "" :II> a 11 jJ a - dI * -. 11 ill lit II . II II"J II :,.-, Final Environmental Impact Statement PROPOSED NORTH CREEK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE Snohomish County Planning Department May 1983 J'''' I. .......;.- ....... ..----.. _.~. . -', "I .. . -. Section .1 !I .. ~I J 1 \ , \ t. t , , , Summary I I .~ I ".' : "s j 1'1 ~.' :1 i .1 . -, ~I, I ~ I I ~ ) I ~ 1 " ~I ~Ii I 1\ G ~ -. ,. " Action Sponsors Proposed Action Project Locati on Lead Agency .~ Responsible Official ............,.._._~._ H _. "_~"_' ....__~ _.__. ... ,.__......._ .....~___..._~___~__..'"~___n. 1 NTRODUCTl ON Plan Amendment: Snohomish County Planning Division Department of Planning and Community Development County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 Rezone: Roger Belanich 811 Skinner Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Plan Amendment: The proposed action is for adoption by the County Council of an amendment to the 1977 North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment involves the redesignation of 225 acres from Watershed Site-Sensitive to Business Park, 5 acres from Suburban to Water- shed Site-Sensitive, and retention of the 90 remaining acres in the study area as Watershed Site-Sensitive. Rezone: Mr. Belanich requests a rezone from Rural Con- servation to Business Park for an approximate 210-acre site near the intersection of 1-405 and SR-527 in Snohomish County. The maximum buildout would contain 2,212,000 sq. ft. of floor space. Pl an Amendment: The proposed 350-acre study area is located in the North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan. The area is approximately bordered by a Puget Power Transmission Line right-of-way on the north, Canyon Park Road (228th St. S.E.l on the south, the base of the slope west of Fitzgerald Road on the east, and SR 527 on the west. Rezone: The 2IO-acre rezone area includes approximately the western two-thirds of the study area. Snohomish County, Washington George F. Sherwin, Jr., Manager Planning Division Everett, Washington ~82D1 (206) 259-9311 i Lance Mueller & Associates Site Plan, Landscaping Plan, CC&R's Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc., P.S. Drainage Plan Amendment to North Creek Area Comprehensive P Rezone to Business Park Building and associated permits Hydraulic Permit Approval Date of Issue of Final EIS May 13, 1983 I 1\ :?) I-y :1 I I I. I 'I J I I .1 t I I, I 10 I Contact Person princi~al Contributors to EIS Background Data Licenses/Permits Required Cost of Document -, INTRODUCTION (continued) Jeff Kelley-Clarke Planning Division Shapiro & Associates, Inc,. 812 Smi th Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 Jill Shapiro, Ellen LaPorte Planning Oivision County Administration Building Everett, Washington 982D1 George Sherwin Jeff Kelley-Clarke Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff 600 - 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 405 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Doug Myhre, Pete Smith Errol Nelson - Air Quality and Noise $5.00 i i -_-z.' '. I , , f , , , , , , , '"') ....1 ,-:-<, I \..../ or. ._--....~--......-'---....--...,.~. .,-'-'----, ~~~ _.. ," . RECIPIENTS OF THE DOCUMENT 5nohomish County Office of Community Development 5nohomish County Public Works Department 5nohomish County Department of Parks and Recreation 5nohomish County Assessor's Office 5nohomish County Fire Marshall Snohomish County Economic Development Council Snohomish County Fire District #1 Snohomish County Airport Snohomish County Sheriff Office Snohomish Health District Snohomish County Public Utility District #l Alderwood Water/Sewer District Dffice of the Governor State Department of Natural Resources State Department of Game State Department of Fisheries State Department of Transportation State Department of Social and Health Services State Department of Motor Vehicles State Department of Ecology State Department of Commerce and Economic Development State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation =ederal Aviation Administration ?uget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ?uget Sound Governmental Council - Snohomish Subdivision ?uget Sound Governmental Council - Seattle ~.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Seattle ~.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ~.S. Army Corps of Engineers ~.S. Environmental Protection Agency City of Everett City of Mukilteo Ci ty of Edmonds City of Seattle ~verett School District ~orthshore School District ~verett Public Library (4 copies) Sno-Isle Regional Library ~dmonds Publ ic Library Seattle Post-Intelligencer Seattle Times - North'End Bureau ~verett Herald lDaily Journal of Commerce ~verett Chamber of Commerce Ecological Commission South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce City of Lynnwood Lynnwood Public Library SR-527 Group (Shirley A. Golll ~orth Creek Homeowners Seattle-King County Commuter Pool i i i ....- .....'... "";':~~'" -,- I ,I I ) I I ,I I '. I ,I II' I, II I I I I 10 I RECIPIENTS OF THE DOCUMENT (Cont'd) King County Community Development City of Bothe 11 METRO Bothell Public Library Snohomish County Health District J udi th Fi sher Mr. and Mrs. Perry Susan A. Selmar Northshore Citizen City of Redmond City of Kirkland South County Homeowners Association (Gretchen Doursl Alderwood Community Council Village Square Homeowners Association (Mike Groulundl -~ iv I I TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ I Draft Final Page Page I Introduction i i Recipients of This Document i i i i i i I Section I SUMMARY 2 2 A. Proposed Acti on 2 2 ~t B. Direct and Indirect Impacts, Mitigating 2 2 Measures C. Alternatives Considered 24 25 I Secti on II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 27 28 A. The Proposed Actions and Sponsors 28 29 I B. Location 32 34 C. Physi cal and Engineering Aspects 33 34 of the Proposed Actions I D. Relationship to Existing Plans & Policies 42 43 E. List of Elements of the Environment 51 52 Secti on III EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, MITIGATING ,I MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS A. Physical Environment t Earth '" '" Air .... '" Water .., F1 ora .... 0 ,I Fauna .... Noise ::r '" Light and Glare <:> ,I Land Use and Zoning .., '" Natural Resources .... .... , B. Human Environment fTI " Population and Employment - Vl Housing .... Transportation/Circulation 0 .., Public Services .... I Energy ::r '" Util i ti es III '" Aesthetics 't:l I Archaeological/Historical '" <0 Economi c/Fi scal '" III I Secti on IV -~ THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .t '.' . ..c.:' ., 'J , I v I I '.--:) I I I t ~I I :1 I I I I I I I .1 10 I ~.:!:ti on V S=!:ti on VI Se:tion VII ~mIll!ndi x A ,.\mpendi x B ~mpendi x C ~e:tion VIII S=!:tion IX Se:tion X "'~'I1ure 1 ;:-7~ure 2 r 7'I1Ure 3 r7:i!ure 4 rt.~ure5 r7.nure 6 r7'!Iure 7 r7'~ure 8 ~~, r rt.nure 10 rt;~ure 11 r7.:IIUre 12 Ft'!Iure 13 rt,!Wre 14 Ft':IIure 15 FTiure 16 Ft;~ure 17 Fi':IllJre 18 Fiiwre 19 Fi~re 20 Figwre 21 Fi~re 22 Fi gwre 23 Fiawre 24 - '~ Figwre 25 Figwre 26 Fiawre 27 Fiawre 28 Fi~re 29 ,.. o. ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ALTERNATIVES OF THE PROPOSAL REFERENCES Description of Amendment and Rezone Boundaries Servi ce Letters Codes, Covenants and Restrictions for the Proposed Rezone Area FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIS ERRATA SHEET APPENDICES Li st of Fi gures Vici nity Map Boundary Map Existing North Creek Plan Proposed North Creek Plan Amendment Rezone Plan Proposal 80' Right-of-Way Plan View 80' Right-of-Way Section 60' Right-of-Way Plan Views , . Approximate Peat and Fill Areas Soils Drainage North Creek Study Area Habitat Map Noise Measurement Locations PSCOG Planning Areas 7300 and 7400 Exi sti ng and Proposed Zoni ng , Existing and Proposed Land Uses in the Site Area Proposed Site Uses (Acreagesl Traffic Analysis Zones Existing 1982 Traffic 1984 Traffic Without Plan Amendment 1984 Traffic With Plan Amendment 1990 Traffic Without Plan Amendment 1990 Traffic With Plan Amendment 2000 Traffic Without Plan Amendment 2000 Traffic With Plan Amendment Alderwood Water District Comprehensive Plan Proposed Utilities Alderwood Sewer Plan Alternative Sites vi .,~...- Draft Fi nal Page Page 1'T1'" _I!> "'.... I!> ......, o ..,... o ... :T ... I!>:T VII!> I!> <:> "0'" "'''' 10 .... I!>'" VI 54 121 124 3 3 4 4 29 30 31 33 34 37 36 38 37 39 38 40 '" I!> .... I!> .., ... 0 ... :T I!> <:> .., '" .... ... I'T1 - '" .... 0 .., ... :T I!> VI I!> "0 '" 10 I!> VI r-- , ; ~) 'I , \ , , , , , , , , '~ u .....;. TABLE OF CONTENTS (continuedl Draft Final Page Page rigure 31 rigure 32 rigure 33 rigure 34 I ';'aDle Table Table TaDle 5 Tabl e 6 Table 7 Tab 1 e 8 Table 9 ';'at>le 10 ';'aole 11 7abl e 12 Table 13 Table 14 ';'able 15 Table 16 Table 17 7able 18 Table 19 Table 20 ';'able 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Harbour Pointe Site South Everett Site Lake Stevens/Hartford-Machais Site Marysvill e Si te List of Tables _ _Pro osed Land Uses 32 Hydrocar on an Xl es 0 1 Predicted CO Concentrations Existing Noise Levels Predicted Noise Levels Current and Projected Land Uses in PA 7300 and 7400 Land Uses in Study Area Vicinity Population Growth Profile Population by Commute Distance From Amendment Site Existing Jobs in LPA 7300 and 7400 Population/Employment Projections Housing in North Creek Planning Area Households by Commute Distance Study Area Roadway Conditions Existing Intersection Level of Service State Route Accident Summary North Creek Area 1990 Traffic Forecasts North Creek Area Proposed Roadway Improvements North Creek Rezone Area Trip Generation Intersection Critical Volumes 1990 Peak Hour Traffic 1990 Intersection Configurations With and Without Plan Amendment Estimated Valuation - Amendment and Rezone Areas Estimated Tax Revenues - Amendment and Rezone Areas Property Tax Revenues from BP Amendment Area Di rect and Induced _Pl!pul,ati on '. vii c::> '" "Cr-t'f'T'1C'D ~:r_ ...., to CD (.I) I'D ~VI .., VI~ -+> 0... .., 0 32 '" ~ -+> ~ .., ... o ... ::T ~ c::> .., C> -+> ... ,.., - V1 -+> o .., ... ::T ~ VI ~ '0 C> <0 ~ VI -----. '~ I '0 I - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH CREEK AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Redesignation of 225 acres from Watershed Site-Sensitive to Business Park AND PROPOSED REZONE of 210 acres from Rural Conservation to Business Park Snohomish County Planning ~ivision Department of Planning and Community Development Everett, Washington Prepared for the Review and Comments of Citizens, Interest Groups, and Governmental Agencies In Compliance With The State Environmental Policy Act of 1~71 Revised Code of Washington 43.21.C and Snohomish County Code, Title 23 DATE OF ISsUE: May 13, 1983 COST: $5.00 .~. ._ h ...__._____ ._......._.0. .._~. ' . .... Final C"~) Environmental Impact Statement I .1 I ~... .1 ~I I, ~ rl (I II I'..) I ,I PROPOSED NORTH CREEK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE Snohomish County Planning Department ~ May 1983 :........,... -.-,. ._.....-~-_..._------.. Section I SUMMARY The Summary and Description of the Proposal sections from the Draft EIS are reproduced in full in the following sections. Changes which have ~ occurred from the Draft' EIS are referenced with an asterisk (*1 in the left hand margin of this Final EIS. A. THE PROPOSED ACTION The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes an analysis of two distinct actions as described below. The actions are sequential in that the plan amendment must be approved prior to approval of the rezone request. If the amendment request is not approved, the rezone cannot be approved. This EIS covers the impacts of both actions. Plan Amendment: The proposed action is for adoption by the County Council of an amend- ment to the 1977 North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amend- ment involves the redesignation of 225 acres from Watershed Site-Sensitive to Business Park (BP), and retention of 35 acres of existing BP and 90 remaining acres in the study area as Watershed Site-Sensitive. The proposed 350-acre amendment study area is located within the boun- daries of the North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 11. The area is approximately bordered by a Puget Power Transmission Line right-of-way on the north, Canyon Park Road on the south, the base of the slope west of Fitzgerald Road on the east, and SR-527 on the west (see Figure 2). Rezone: Mr. Belanich requests a rezone from Rural Conservancy to Business Park for an approximate 21D-acre site near the intersection of I-405 and SR-527 in Snohomish County. Mr. Belanich has increased his rezone request by 10 acres in the northeastern portion of the site. The 10 acres is within the ~ original 225 acres proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment from Watershed Site-Sensitive to BP. The maximum square feet could be 5t higher than the 2,212,000 proposed, but would be within the maximum 2,432,000 square feet of building proposed for the entire amendment area. Therefore, the numbers specific to the rezone area would be 5t higher than originally shown in the Draft EIS but are within the maximum buildout figures discussed for the entire BP plan amendment area in the Draft EIS. The maximum buildout would include 2,212,OOO square feet of floor space. The 200-acre rezone area include~-approximately the western two-thirds of the amendment study area (see Figure 2). u 2 I I 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .-.-"", u AIR EARTH B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATING MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Impa::~s In::reased soil compaction and potential for soil erosion during con- stru::tion on site as well as other parts of the planning area and King and Snohomish Counties, where spinoff population and employment 1 o:a -:.es. Topographic changes, excavation and fill would be required for site development and may be required .at other areas where the spinoff population locates. Filling and clearing would be required for building foundations, utility trenches, roadbeds, and parking areas. Loss of some prime agricultural soils (as defined by the Soil Conservation service). . Mitigating Measures Business park development would not occur on the eastern valley slope of tne study area. Both t-amporary and permanent drainage facilities would be used to co1le::t and transfer excess water to control erosion. A tem?Orary erosion control plan would be established during initial roac construction and additionally for building construction as required. Unavoica~le Adverse Impacts Irretrievable loss of Class II and III soils considered prime agri- cultural soils by the Soil Conservation Service. Impacts Temporary emissions of pollutants consisting primarily of suspended particulates would occur during the construction phase. A business park development on the proposed site would generate addjtiona1 vehicle trips in the area from employees and secondary. population growth. The increased vehicle traffic would add trafflc- generated air pollutants, especially at major intersections. \ 1 lci Ii " 5 " I' r----- , ,~ , , , , , 11 , , II , , , , , ';-1 E --l ,.. . Light manufacturing and Hi-Tech users could generate small amounts of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. Mitigating Measures Transportation/corridor improvements would be part of rezone approval required by the developer and may alleviate points of congestion and pollution concentrations. A program of car and van pooling and staggered work hours could re- duce vehicle trips and congestion, which contribute to high pollutant levels. Dust (particulates) from temporary construction activity can be con- trolled by .watering or oiling of exposed areas. The current vehicle inspection/maintenance program was not included in the predicted emission rates and concentrations. An additional 9% reduction can be realized if 19B4 and 1990 predictions of this pro- gram are considered. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Incremental increases in traffic-generated air pollution (carbon monoxide) would occur as a result of site development as well as spinoff development. WATER. Impacts The loss of permeable surfaces to roads, parking areas, and buildings would result in increased rates and volumes ~f surface water runoff. Conversion of a natural area to a business park complex would decrease the quality of surface water runoff. An incremental decrease in water quality of North Creek would result due to pollutants which eventually drain into the creek. Covering the site with granular fill and impermeable surfaces would decrease groundwater recharge. The redesignation would increase growth in the planning area and other parts of Snohomish and King Counties. More intensive growth in the spinoff development areas would decrease surface water quality due to urban type pollutants, increase storm water runoff, and change water runoff patterns. 6 I I ~. I , . : .. I I ;1 .; il I ; 11 I I . I II i, !I ~ 1. :1 I I .~ u I -, Mitigating Measures ~ storm water detention system designed to control storm runoff peaks would be installed in the rezone area. This system would regulate on-site drainage to pre-development rates. iwo drainage ditches would be located on the exterior edge of the creek greenbelt to catch surface water before it reaches the" creek and carry it south to a detention pond. Enhancement of habitat values along North Creek would be provided by stream bank improvements and landscaping. Coliform bacteria counts may be reduced from removal of the cattle that are currently utilizing North Creek. The drainage ditches and detention ponds would allow natural infil- tration to occur, thus filtering some pollutants prior to discharge. . Tne County's Drainage Ordinance would reduce storm water impacts from new spinoff developments in the County. The county could require oil separators on all catch basins as a condition of approval. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ADout 69% of the rezone site would be covered with impermeable surfaces. Some stormwater runoff discharged from the site would contain pollu- tants associated with the industrial/office uses of the land. FLORA Impacts Other areas in which spinoff development occurs would have a reduc- tion or alteration in habitat types. Removal of existing vegetation for clearing and grading for road and utility corridors, buildings, and parking area within the rezone and comprehensive plan redesignation area. Destruction or alteration of some existing vegetation for landscaping and construction. Landscaping and vegetation management would result in a greater num- ber of native and non-native species. Trees and low ground cover would be planted along both sides of North Creek, thereby enhancing existing habitat value of the creek. 7 J I f J , f I ,. . . I , f f , f ~ ~ ~ I j ~ c-,\ .) D FAUNA -.> ," ...., '.. "- .., 69t of the rezone area would be cleared, graded, and developed as impervious surfaces (i.e., building or paving) and 28t would be landscaped and 3t would be retained as natural open space or for drainage. Mitigating Measures Restrictive covenants will apply to the property to require landscap- ing on all lots. to be maintained by a property owners' association. The zoning code requires that a landscaped setback be maintained between the business park area and all adjacent properties with lower density uses. A 200-foot corridor along North Creek would be maintained as a natural open space area. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment maintains 90 acres of the 350 acre study area as Watershed Site-Sensitive with Low-Density Residential permitted and 40 acres as Watershed Site-Sensitive with a BP overlay. Trees would be planted along both sides of the creek and low ground cover would be placed at the stream's edge. These measures would help reduce water temperature, create spawning habitat, and prevent erosion, all of which would improve the fisheries habitat of North Creek. The storm detention ponds for the site would be allowed to go back to a natural wetland type habitat. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Loss of much of the existing vegetation at the site and in other areas where spinoff development occurs. Change in species composition favoring non-native species, and decline in native species abundance and diversity. Possible disruption of streamside vegetation within greenbelt cor- ridor with increased human activity. Impacts Reduction of native habitat, and introduction of suburban and managed habi ta t types. Increase of human activities would drive out less-tolerant species which would eventually perish. Short-term construction impacts to the creek may affect the fisheries habitat of North Creek. s I I I'') I I I I 1 I I I I I I . I I lu I Removal of cattle from the site, thus improving fish spawning and rearing habitat value of North Creek. Change in species entire study area occurs. composition and decline in species diversity in the and in other areas where spinoff development Mitigating Measures Retention and creation of some habitat for species adapted to altered and managed habitats through the establishment of buffers from adja- cent uses, two detention ponds, and relandscaping. ~ Retention and enhancement of permanent open space of 200 feet along North Creek and enhancement of the stream channel. . Shading of the creek would prevent temperature increases of North Creek, and would help prevent growth of nuisance algal species and maintain dissolved oxygen content, which is necessary for the fish- eri es resource. The storm runoff detention plan would allow two areas to revert to a natural wetland type vegetation providing habitat for species depen- dent upon that habitat. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment maintains 40 acres of Watershed S i te-Sensiti ve wi th a BP overlay. These acres must be 1 eft as ope.n space or used as part of the drainage system. Ninety acres are maintained in the study area as Watershed Site-Sensitive with Low- Density Single-Family permitted, thereby precluding future business park use in these areas. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Outmigration and probable loss of less-tolerant animal species in habitats proposed for alteration or removal. Loss of animal species that are too small to migrate, such as small mammals and amphibians. Overall change in species composition and decline in species diversity. NOISE IlII!lacts Generally, noise impacts are not expected to increase more than 1 dBA as a result of business park development at the site. There would be noise increases of up to 3 dBA along SR-527 south of 220th Street representing slight changes in the existing level. 9 r:-"-~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~, I ;~ .,There would be temporary construction noise impacts affecting resi- dences closest to the site. Mitigating Measures There is limited potential for reducing construction noise. State and county noise regulations would'limit nighttime construction noise affecting residential zones. Additional restrictions during evening hours could be considered. Construction noise could also be limited by locating construction and staging areas as far away from adjacent residential uses as possible and by operation and maintenance of muffling devices on equipment. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be increases in noise levels on site and on adjacent roadways, primarily related to vehicular traffic and temporary impacts relating to construction activities. LIGHT AND GLARE Impacts Introduction of light sources to the valley would occur as a result of buildings, street lighting, parking lot lighting, and automobiles in a currently undeveloped area. This would be particularly notice- able in the first several years of development until landscaped vegetation matures. New light sources and glare potential would occur in other areas where the spinoff development would occur. Mitigating Measures Snohomish County would have ultimate review and approval authority over all proposed new developments in the County. Street lighting would be directed to rights-of-way and should incorporate shielded fixtures. Pedestrian lighting if used should be uniform "point-to-point" to identify walkways and limit spillover into other areas. Parking areas and access drives would be uniformly lighted to the extent required for pedestrian and traffic safety. Service area lighting would be confined to that area to minimize spillover occurring outside the area. Outdoor building lights and signs would be indirect and use shielding when possible (no visible light source). 10 1 I I) I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I "" u I . Landscaping would help screen street and lot lighting and reduce ~aytime glare from the development. Uncvoidab1e Adverse Impacts Tne developed site would emit light and glare which would be seen from the wooded slopes, parts of the upland plateau, and Highways 527 i!.nd 405. LAND USE AND ZONING Imc.acts Tne proposed amendment would convert 225 acres of Watershed Site- Sensitive to a Business Park designation. This would increase the percentage of industrial/business park land from the existing 2t to =~ of the total land in the planning area. Tne redesignation would accelerate direct and induced development and infrastructure improvements in other areas of Snohomish and King c.ounties. *. Land use conversions from undeveloped to residential and commercial/ business would be accelerated to accommodate the direct and induced p~pulation and employment. p." change in the existing 21O-acre rezone site from undeveloped grazed l.and to a busi ness park development. Tne proposed development would result in increased development p~essure within the commute zones. *. Z:O of the 350-acre amendment study area would be rezoned from Rural CDnservation (RC) allowing one du/2.3 acres to Business Park (BP). . Mi -:;; gati ng Measures Tne rezone includes 62 acres of greenbelt and landscaping. Ine codes, covenants, and restrictions of the rezone include land- s=aping and setback requirements. Tne combined open space and landscaping would result in about 62 a::res of non-impervious surface area. Tne amendment includes the retention of about 90 acres as Watershed S;te-Sensi ti ve. Market demand would probably stretch development of the site over a 17 year period, thus graduating impacts. 11 r---o'- , ,~ , , , , , , , , , , , "~.",'~ ':J Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The loss of 200+ acres of undeveloped, partially grazed land. Pressure for rezones or development in other areas where spinoff oeve10pment would occur sooner than anticipated under the current plan. NATURAL RESOURCES Im~acts Peat, sand and gravel deposits, and Class II and III soils, con- sidered prime agricultural soils by the Soil Conservation Service, would be lost. Loss of natural resources existing on other sites where spinoff c!!ve 1 opment may occur. Commitment of land, construction materials, and energy for site development and spinoff development. Mi~igating Measures The large peat area in the southern portion of the site would be &aintained as permanent open space and used as part of the drainage system for the site. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Commitment of construction material, energy, and land for site ceve10pment and spinoff development. Loss of unknown quantity of sand, gravel, peat deposits, and prime agricu1 tural soil s. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Imt-acts upon completion, the development would generate about 7,400 direct jobs. The direct employment would result in a projected regional population increase of 6,512 by 1990 and 16,280 by 2000. The_development would result in a projected regional induced employ- ment of 5,564 by 1990 and 13,912 by 2000 and a total population increase (including employees) of 12,242 by 1990 and 30,606 by 2000. The amendment area would reduce the land allocated for residential use in the 350 acre study area. The redesignation would accommodate 12 1 I I~ I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I 10 I j e total of about 350 residents compared to 748 under the existing ~lan designation, if a11'land is fully developable. . 7he development would increase the population growth in the commute ~ones associated with the site, including areas in Snohomish and King :ounties. Mi~;gating Measures . The plan amendment maintains the eastern slope and a portion of the southern study area for residential development. Some of the BP employees may reside there. Resulting development is projected to be phased over a number of J'ears, thereby reducing the impacts that would occur during anyone year. Ur.evoidab1e Adverse Impacts . ,ne increased population and demand for housing associated with the oevelopment could mean that the North Creek planning area and other areas where spinoff development occurs would experience greater p~essure for new housing development prior to that anticipated under current conditions. HOUSING Imc.acts . The plan amendment would redesignate 225 acres of Watershed Site- Sensitive to BP. This would reduce the ultimate number of sing1e- family homes that could be built in the study area from 229 under the existing plan to 140 under the amendment, if all lands are fully oeve1opab1e. The rezone request would result in ultimate development of the busi- mess park area which would create a regional demand for an additional 7.509 direct and indirect housing units by 1990 and 18,754 housing ~~its by the year 2000. Tne North Creek planning area would require a projected additional E38 housing units by 1990 and 2,016 by 2000 to accommodate both the c;rect and indirect or induced population associated with site oeve10pment. Mi~gating Measures . ~me proposed amendment maintains 30 acres as Watershed Site-Sensitive w4th the RR-9600 underlying zoning and 60 acres with a Rural Conser- '~tion underlying zoning. Combined, these areas, if fully deve10p- ~le, could accommodate 140 dwellings at a future date which may be ~ed by business park employees and/or induced employment. 13 ~ . 'u , ,.'J , , , , , 11 ,- , , , , , , , fo , . Development of the rezone site area is expected to be phased through the year 2000 thereby spreading new housing demands over that period. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ~ projected increase of 18,754 housing units would occur in the ~egion by the year 2000. TRANSPO~TATION/CIRCULATION Irin:.acts "he proposed amendment and rezone development would generate about 7,938 daily vehicle trip ends by 1990 plus 13,228 more by the year 2DOO, for a total of 21,166. It is Wo'ou1d ~90, estimated that total amendment and rezone business park area generate up to 1,047 p.m. and 1,049 a.m. peak hour trip ends by plus 2,793 p.m. and 2,794 a.m. peak hour trip ends by 2000. . Tihe combined traffic from completed development plus the proposed developments west of SR-527 would require roadway improvements to be completed by 1990 and further improvements by 2000. (Roadway im- provements would be required by 1990 with or without the rezone and amendment to accommodate the proposed developments west of SR-527 and genera1 traffic growth.) .' Tihe level of service (LOS) would be C or better at all intersections by 1990 and 2000 with implementation of necessary roadway improvements. ~ithout improvements, some roadways would be operating over capacity st LOS D and/or E. ~ajor traffic impacts attributable to the rezone and amendment would occur at the following SR-527 intersections: - 208th Street S.E. - 220th Street S.E. - 1-405 Northbound - 1-405 Southbound - 228th Street S.E. ~dditiona1 bus service would be required to serve the direct and indirect population associated with site development. ~ncreased potential for traffic hazards would occur in the site wicinity and at other locations where the spinoff development occurs. Mi~igating Measures Endividual tenants and/or employers could implement the following: - Provide incentives to carpools and vanpoo1s - Provide incentives to transit riders 14 1 1 ~) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I Improvements attributable to the plan amendment and rezone are as follows: ~ Required by 1990 at the intersections of SR-527 and: - 220th Street S.E. Add a right-turn lane to the south approach in order to accommodate heavy morning inbound traffic. A two-lane east approach would be required for evening outbound traffic. - 1-405 Northbound A two-lane east approach would be required (the existing unsigna1- ized intersection provides this). - 1-405 Southbound Due to high left-turn volumes from the west (1-405) approach in the morning peak hour, a two-lane left turn on the west approach and two through lanes on the south approach should be provided. Required by 2000: - A new signalized intersection at the northern site access road (214th Street S.E.) should be provided. Improvements would be required by 1990 with or without the proposed amendment and rezone. By the year 2000, a sixth through lane would be required south of 208th Street S.E. in order to provide LOS C operation. In order to provide the 100-foot width desired by the State for a five-lane arterial, along SR-527 a 20-foot strip is required on each side of the existing right-of-way. Abutting property owners would provide this right-of-way. The on-site pedestrian trail system would improve access to open space areas on site for employees and the general public. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The completed development would generate a maximum of 21,166 vehicle trip ends. Level of service on area roadways where the spinoff development locates would be reduced. ~ 15 I I "-'~-~'''''. ~",,'"'' PUBLIC SERVICES '?J Fire '~.'" , j. I- j. j. , , ':0 , Impacts The proposed business park and spinoff development would place increased fire service demands on departments which are currently understaffed. The Fire District anticipates the need for a 1,500 gpm pumper plus associated staff to adequately serve the development and spinoff population residing within the District's service area. The development would also place increased demands on Bothe11's Fire Department which is currently understaffed and would need new equip- ment for other industrial growth planned for the North Creek valley. Mitigating Measures The development would generate additional tax revenue to the county and a portion would be allocated to the Fire District. All structures would be equipped with fire detection and suppression devices. Access and fire flow would be subject to approval by the Fire District. The Fire District recommends that the developers purchase a ladder truck. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The completed development would result in increased service demands from spinoff development in other fire districts in Snohomish and King Counties and local municipal fire departments. Police Impacts The proposed development would place increased demands on Snohomish County Sheriff's South Precinct. The direct employment and population would result in the need for an additional 27 officers by 2000 to meet the Department's present County average. The South Precinct would require an additional eight offices by 2000. 16 I 1 I- I I I I I 'I I 1 I il I I I '\ '3 Mitigating Measures A portion of the tax revenues generated from the development would be allocated to the Sheriff's Department via the County budget process. T~ development could be equipped with a complete burglar alarm system and security guards. ~- Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Tne additional population associated with spinoff development would require additional service demands from the Sheriff's Department and limit their ability to prevent and respond to criminal activity. Schools Impa:ts Tne additional popula~ion growth associated with the development would contribute new students to all schools in the Northshore School District, and to a lesser extent to other school districts within the c:::lmmute zones. Tne direct impact from development would be 4,488 additional students to the Northshore School District by 2000. O~her school districts within the 25 and 35 minute commute zone would also experience increased enrollments by 2000. Mitigating Measures Tne School Districts would receive tax revenues which could be used to provide educational services or reduce the levy rate on property ~ners in the District. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ~ additional 4,488 students within the 15 minute commute zone would be generated by the year 2000. An increased demand would be placed on existing school facilities and require additional school facili- ties within the commute zones. Parks IlIIOacts ~o direct impact is expected; however, the additional population associated with the development would place demands on the existing park and recreational facilities within Snohomish and King Counties. ,he direct and indirect population and employment would result in the need for an additional 65 and 122 acres respectively of additional park 1 and. 17 --- ~ ,~ , , , ~ , , . . , . . . . . . .0 ~ Mitigating Measures . The proposed plan amendment specifies that a 100-foot buffer must be left on both sides of North Creek as permanent open spaces as well as a peat area of about 28 acres in the southern portion of the study area. This provides a total of 40 acres to be preserved as open space in the amendment area. ~- The proposed rezone includes 12 acres of open space along North Creek, a pedestrian trail system through the site, and 50 acres of landscaping. This landscaped area could be used by employees for open space or picnic type uses. Property taxes generated by the business park development would, in part, help to provide recreational facilities in the area. The County Park Ordinance would help to provide recreational facili- ties for new residential development. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed amendmentt and rezone would generate an increase in the overall population which would place an increased demand on parks and recreation within the North Creek planning area and the areas within the commute zones. Other Services Impacts Increased road and storm drainage maintenance would be required for the completed development. Increased demand for library facilities in Snohomish and King Counties. Increased demand for medical facilities would result from the development, potentially beginning with the construction phase. Mitigating Measures A portion of the property revenues generated by the business park development would be allocated to Snohomish County for street repair and maintenance, and library services. An owners' association would be set up to maintain all open space and landscaped areas which are not dedicated to the county. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be increased maintenance demands due to expanded 'public services and facilities 18 I I I,D I I I I I I, I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 11::-" V I ENERGY Innr.acts wevelopment of the land area according to the maximum allowable ~nsity permitted under the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and -ezone would result in an expenditure of energy for site preparation :nd ~onstruction work. It is estimated that this energy wo~l~ be 4.5 ~ 10 BTUs more than what would occur if the area is built out ac- =ording to existing land use designations. ~rations of the enterprises located in the business park and the ~ifferences between existing maximum allowable residences and pro- ~osed maximum a11owa~le residential units would result in the con- sumption of 720 x 10 BTUs of electricity annually (208 million kWh). Tne proposed amendment and rezone would result in an increase in ~ansportation requirements and petroleum consumption attributed to -::ne site area. Tne proposed amendment and rezone would result in a need to upgrade infrastructure serving the site and, consequently, would result in -::ne consumption of energy for the mining, manufacture, assembly and ~ration of infrastructure facilities. Mi -::-; gati ng Measures Tne deve10per(s) of the project area can incorporate a variety of energy conservation opportunities to reduce energy consumption in the ~iness park, including the following: properly-sized HVAC systems, ~ use of day1ighting, incorporation of control systems responsive tD human requirements, efficient appliances and equipment, optimal iT5u1ation levels, waste heat recovery, solar systems, c1imate- ~sponsive landscaping, and unified design. Tne development of ride-sharing programs would decrease energy for ~nsportation as commuters travel to and from the site area. ~nergy-efficient street lighting and area lighting systems should be i:n=orporated. Un~voidab1e Adverse Impacts . T.ne proposed amendment and rezone would lead ultimately to a relative im=rease in the amount of electricity, petroleum and probably natural ~ resources which would be consumed on the site. WATER Impa=ts '. Tme proposed development would increase water consumption on site. 19 ~ I:) I ~6 I ~ I. I. I. II- I. I. I. , II , , Ia'~ ~ Fire flow requirements of about 3,000 gpm would be necessary to serve the site. Annexation of a portion of the site to the District would be required prior to service extension. The indirect development associated with the proposed busines~ park would create additional demands for improvements. . Mitigating Measures The developers wou1 d pay a "fai r share" for the off-si te water im- provements necessary to serve the proposed development. The developers would pay for all on-site utility costs. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The additional population and employment associated with this development would accelerate infrastructure improvements. This impact would affect all water districts in which the direct and indirect population locates. SEWER Impacts The completed development would increase the effluent which would eventually be transported to Metro's West Point Treatment Plant. The completed development would aggravate A1derwood's capacity problem (expected south of the site in the next two years). The induced population and development associated with the proposed rezone would accelerate infrastructure improvements and lower excess capacities in existing sewage lines, pump sations and treatment plants. Mitigating Measures The developers would pay a "fair share" for the off-site sewer improvements necessary to serve the proposed development. The developers would pay for all on-site utility costs. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Sewer line, pump station, and treatment plant expansions and im- provements would be necessary earlier than under the existing plan designation. 20 I I I I I I I I 'I I I , I I I I I I I ~ o STORM WATER Impacts Approximately 69t of the rezone site would be converted to imperme- able surfaces such as parking areas and buildings which would result in increased rate and volume of storm runoff on site. ~ Storm runoff from the developed site and during construction would contain sediment, nutrients, and pollutants typical of urban uses (i.e., oil, grease). Mitigating Measures The completed development would be equipped with a complete storm drainage system to be approved by Snohomish County prior to development approval. The drainage plan would control the rate of downstream discharge to that of the existing undeveloped rate. The detention pond would act as a sedimentation basin to help decrease loads to off-site areas. The roadways could be equipped with curbs, gutters, and catch basins. Snohomish County's drainage ordinance would reduce drainage impacts in other areas where the spinoff development occurs. A temporary erosion and sedimentation plan would be developed prior to construction approval. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Increases in storm water runoff volumes, sediment and urban pollu- tants would occcur on site and in other areas where the direct and induced development occurs. TELEPHONE Impacts . Service to the proposed development and spinoff development would be required. Mitigating Measures The cost of on-site improvements would be borne by the developers of each lot. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . None are anticipated. 21 l. , _ '.'. ' . ~ " _ . -, r . \. ~ , ., ---'. SOLIO WASTE Impa::ts . The proposed development and spinoff development would increase tonnage input into the Cedar Hills Landfill. -. Mitigating Measures . None are proposed. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed development and induced growth would add solid waste to the disposal systems and reduce the life expectancy of landfills. AESTHETICS Impc:ts The complete development would change the visual character of the site from a grazed pasture land, to an urban density business park with low-rise buildings. Large landscaped areas would be visible from portions of the wooded slopes, eastern and western plateaus, and both highways 1-405 and SR-527. Mitigating Measures Restrictive covenants are being provided which ensure the long-term maintenance and upkeep of landscaping, storm drainage facilities, other private property improvements, and open space. Business park areas must, by code, be designed to include sufficient landscaped or natural open space to create a park-like atmosphere. The county may require landscaping in combination with earth berms for noise alternatives and visual screening. The county will require a buffer zone around the periphery of the site to help provide visual screening of the site from adjacent residential uses. . The rezone proposal includes a 100-foot greenbelt on both sides of North Creek which would be revegetated with native northwest species. The lower watershed site-sensitive area would remain as open space. The developer's CC&R's provide for unified architectural control and other restrictions beyond those in the County Code. 22 I I I .~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be a change in visual and aesthetic character of the site to intensive activity. The existing pastoral views of the valley would be lost for the life span of the development which is expected to be at least several generations. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ~- Impacts . None are expected. Mitigating Measures In the event that cultural remains are uncovered during construction, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued and the office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation should be notified. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . None are anticipated. ECONOMIC/FISCAL Impacts An additional annual expenditure of $1,599,937 for road improvements and maintenance would be required by 2000. An additional $375,105 in annual expenditures would be needed by 2000 for fire protection services. Total annual expenditures of $21,437,135 would be required by 2000 for schools. . Police service expenditures would be $587,537 by 2000. An additional $95,881 would be required for parks and recreation expenditure by 2000. Other governmental services would result in an additional $2,608,509 per year by 2000. Mitigating Measures The amendment area would generate property tax revenues and one time sales/use tax which would amount to a cumulative revenue of taxes and in sales/use taxes from 1984-2000 in property. Of this, $6,259,041 in property taxes and $3,298,275 in sales/use taxes would be attrib- utable to the amendment area. 23 .'.'r-, l tl I ~ ~ ~ d ~ II II j sa j , 1I II ~ II j i '""\ . The increased population would result in other revenues estimated at $320 per person or $13,503,040 by the year 2000. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . None are anticipated. ,-I 24 I I I:J I I - I I I I I I f I ,I il I I_ I, II. ~ I j.<.~." o C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED NO ACTION Under the No Action alternative, the North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan would not be amended and the rezone would not occur. The existing Watershed Site-Sensitive (and Business Park on 35 acres) designations would be retained as the most appropriate and suitable designations for the site . with low-density residential uses permitted on most of the site and business park on an areas west of North Creek. Under the current Comprehensive Plan designation, most of the site could be developed as a low-density residen- tial development. The existing 35 acres of Business park west of North Creek could be rezoned and built as a business park without approval of the plan amendment. Total development potential of the 250 acre amendment study area would be 299 single-family units under the existing plan. Maximum development potential of the site under the present comprehen- sive plan would be significantly less dense than under the proposed plan amendment. The difference in density can be expressed as a reduction in ultimate development impacts under the No Action alternative compared to the proposed plan. The existing environmental quality and characteristics of the site would remain unchanged until some time in the future when and if site development occurred. ALTERNATIVE SITE USES Commercial Under a commercial use, the Comprehensive Plan would redesignate a portion of the existing 315 acres of Watershed Site-Sensitive and 35 acres of Business Park to Community Business or Planned Community Business. Under the Community Business comprehensive plan designations, a rezone to Com- munity Business (CB) would also be required prior to development. The major differences in impacts between this alternative use and the proposed actions would be in traffic, water, air, and noise pollution, land duse, and aesthetics. Impacts to each of these specific elements would be greater than those discussed for the proposed amendment and rezone. Impacts to other elements of the environment would be similar to the proposed amend- ment and rezone. Residential The No Action alternative above discusses the impacts of development of the site for low-density residential use. Under this alternative, the site would be developed as a large planned residential development at a higher suburban density or up to 4 du/acre. This type of development would also require a comprehensive plan amendment from the existing Watershed Site- Sensitive to Suburban. 25 I d ~\ d' j I I j I - I I I , . , I I 1'0 I The major differences in impacts between this alternative and the pro- posed action would be in traffic, air and noise, land use, population and housing, aesthetics, and economics. Impacts to these specific elements would generally be less than the proposed amendment and rezone. Other environmental impacts would be similar to the proposed amendment and rezone. ALTERNATIVE BOUNDARY LINES ~- This alternative examines the impacts of a plan amendment similar to that proposed; however, with alternative boundary lines between the resi- dential and business park uses. It is assumed that the business park area would be reduced in size by designating the northern portion of the flat valley area for residential use. This would result in a reduction of about 20-60 acres of business park use over that proposed for a total of 200-240 acres of business park use and 110-150 for residential use. This compares to 26D acres of business park use and 90 for residential use under the proposed plan. The major differences between this alternative and the proposed plan would be in land use, population, housing, and aesthetics. This alternative would have the same type of impacts to other elements of the environment as the proposed plan, but to a lesser magnitude, particularly in respect to spinoff development. It would provide more housing for employees of the BP area and would not appear as dense as the proposed amendment and rezone. ALTERNATIVE SITES Harbour Pointe The site is about 304 acres south of Everett in the Possession Shores Master Plan area. It is designated Industrial, as is part of the surround- ing area. Industrial development around the site could adversely impact a BP-type development there. BP development would cause residential growth pressure; however, the Master Plan provides for development of 5,400 dwell- ing units over the next 20 years. The site has adequate water and limited power. Sewer service is available to "the site; however, capacity expansion will be required and is planned with or without BP development. Highway 99 and SR-525 in the site vicinity are congested at their intersection and improvements are planned with or without BP development. No creeks or water bodies requiring special protection are on site or in the site vicinity. Habitat value on-site is already diminished due to nearby industrial uses. South Everett The site is about 100 acres in an industrial area in South Everett north of the Boeing 747 plant. It is designated Industrial and is part of a larger Indus~rial area. However, the City of Everett is considering re- designation of the area to BP and residential uses. BP development could cause residential growth pressure and influence Everett's plans for the area. Adequate water and power are at the site. Sewer service is available with adequate treatment plant capacity but the interceptor is nearing capacity and will require expansion. The BP user would probably have to 26 I 'I I''") I 1 I I I 'I I ,~, I '. I I I I '. I 0 I participate in a ULIO for the expansion. Existing roads in the site vicinity are heavily congested, particularly the I-5/SR-526 intersection; the City and County are considering road improvements with or without BP development. Two creeks are near the site and would require special pro- tection to preserve water quality. Potential for erosion may be greater than at other sites because of steep slopes along the creek beds. Lake Stevens/Hartford-Machais The site is about 110 acres northeast of the City of LaKe Stevens. It is designated Industrial and is part of a larger industrially designated area partly in Lake Stevens. BP development could be adversely impacted by other industrial development in the area. Water, sewer, and power service are not presently at the site nor planned for near future. Site development would generate traffic on SR-92 and SR-9 and site access roads would require substantial improvements. Catherine CreeK borders the site and would re- quire 100-foot setbacks to protect water quality. About one-fifth of the site is designated Potential Site Sensitive Area by LaKe Stevens. The habi- tat on-site has been disturbed by residues of lumber operations. Marysvi 11 e The site could be one of at least two areas of 100 contiguous acres north of Marysville in a large area designated Industrial. Other industrial development in the area could adversely impact the BP development. BP development could cause residential growth pressure in the area; however, there is considerable area designated for Suburban Residential development in the site vicinity. Adequate water and power are at the industrial area. The Marysville sewage treatment plant is near capacity; planned 1981 expan- sion could accommodate the initial BP loads; additional expansion and sec- ondary treatment would be required to serve growth in the future, with or without the BP development. The site development would generate traffic in the area and would require improvements to the intersection of l16th and Highway 99 and to local access roads. There are no water bodies in the vicinity, so no special precautions to protect water quality would be required. Portions of the area are in agricultural use which would be eliminated with BP development. 27 ~~- ... - ..",.. ~ II I. II AI II . . ,.:.J ~ -~,,- ".. ".' - ~'-""~'-"'" Secti6n II Description I of the Proposal J t t t t t j t t t t t t I I I I 1 I ~l (J II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND SPONSORS This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes an analysts of two distinct actions as described below. The actions are sequential in that the plan amendment must be approved prior to approval of the rezone request. If the amendment request is not approved, the rezone cannot be approved. This EIS covers the impacts of both actions. Plan Amendment The first action is a request for adoption by the Snohomish County Council of an amendment to the 1977 North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan. The planning area vicinity is shown in Figure 1; the current plan in shown in Figure 3. The proposed amendment study area includes 35 acres of designated Business Park land, and 315 acres of Watershed Site-Sensitive land for a total of 350 acres (see Figure 4). The plan amendment proposes that an additional 225 acres be reclassified as Business Park for a total of 260 acres of Business Park with 90 acres remaining as Watershed Site- Sensitive. Of the proposed 260 Business Park acres, 40 would be classified as Business Park with a Watershed Site-Sensitive overlay; it may be zoned BP, but should be preserved as open space within a business park develop- ment. The remaining 90 acres of Watershed Site-Sensitive land would have Rural and Suburban development potentials, thereby restricting future development potential to the adjacent rural and/or surburban densities. The purpose of the Business Park (BP) designation is to provide for business/industrial uses which can be constructed and operated in a manner compatible with surrounding, less-intensive land uses such as residential or retail commercial development. The proposed comprehensive plan text change would replace paragraph 3, page 39, which previously read as follows: Junction of SR-527 and Interstate"405. About 240 acres have been shown in this location for Business Park development; 205 acres are on the west side of SR-527 and 35 acres on the east side. Access on the West side of SR~527 is to be either on SR-527 or oriented toward 209th Street S.E. No access is to be taken on 9th Avenue S.E., as that will remain a residentially developed street. The Business Park classified lands on the east side of SR-527 would have to access onto SR-527 and not onto 228th Street S.E., which is viewed to be a substandard arterial. The proposed amendment would replace paragraph 3, page 39, with the following: * Junction of SR-527 and Interstate 405. About 465 acres have been shown in this location for Business Park development; 205 acres are on the west side of SR-527, and 260 acres on the east side. Access on the 29 t I j ) rI I I I I -, II II II II III ~ * . ~. ...... Ia...- ~ II 11.3 , , "- ~ west side is to be either to SR-527 or 208th Street S.E. No access is to be taken on 9th Avenue S.E., as that will remain a residential street. The BP land east of SR-527 lies on both sides of North Creek. Access will be to SR-527 only, and a maximum of two access points should be allowed to serve BP uses. These should be coordinated with connections on the west wherever possible to minimize inters6Gtions. Stream crossings should be restricted to just one. Most of the BP area east of SR-527 has been determined through this amendment process to meet the criteria for maximum site utiliza- tion under the Upland Plateau-Greater Than Basic section of the Plan, and may be fully developed under the constraints of the BP zone. The only exceptions are those areas shown by the Watershed Site-Sensitive overlay on the amended map. This includes the creek corridor and a substantial and significant area of peat soils at the southeast end of the site. The exact limits of these areas should be determined in the field after consultation with resource agencies. The creek corridor is shown as 100-feet on each side of North Creek, but its borders may be adjusted to include the most appropriate areas. These areas"may be rezoned to BP; their use will be controlled by the Watershed Site- Sensitive portion of the Plan. They may be used to satisfy the BP open space requirement, and may be suitable for walking paths and vegetation enhancement. The BP area is flanked on three sides by an Open Space Buffer designation. This indicates the existence of buffers as required by the BP zone. The Watershed Site-Sensitive area east of the BP designa- ntion should be used, if at all, as an extension of the Rural Residen- tial area to the east. No roads are to be permitted to connect the BP area directly up the slopes to the Rural area. Private covenants must be provided to assure that site development is internally compatible, and visually attractive from off-site. Also, in recognition of the uncommon suitability of the site for large parcel users, the BP site plan must provide at least one large (5D+ acre) single-user site, to be reserved until the remainder of the BP amend- ment area is developed or under control by users, or until the large parcel has been purchased by a single user. Rezone The second action involves a rezone of 210 acres of the amendment area, from Rural Conservation (RC) to Business Park. The BP zone is designed to be applied in conjunction with private covenants and unified control of the land. Uses permitted in the BP zone are the same as those permitted in Light Industrial zones, except for retail commercial uses and uses requiring outside storage. Even with a BP zone, a contract rezone could be required to stipulate specific land use requirements and strict performance standards and development conditions. 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (~ 5 * The request for rezone has been made by Roger Belanich. The rezone area could potentially include a mixture of office, high tech- nology, warehousing, light manufacturing and commercial space. The completed development could contain a maximum of 2,212,000 gsf (+5~ maximum, see Summary section) of building space in one and two-story buildings. The development would meet the parking requirements as per Snohomish County Code (estimated by Lance Mueller & Associates at 9,765 spaces). The rezone and comprehensive plan amendment are expected to generate a maximum of 7,400 employees. Table 1 indicates the proposed land uses for both the amendment and rezone proposals. It is estimated that about 40~ of the proposed site would be developed by 1990. The timing of development will be determined by the actual market demand. The assumption has been made that all of the population and employment increases due to the re- designation of the site for business park and the subsequent full development of the rezone area will occur by 2000. Table 1 PROPOSED LAND USES Land Use Type Buildings Parking and Roads Landscaping CreeK Greenbelt Watershed Site-Sensitive With BP Overlay With Rural Overlay Approx. Acreage Rezonel ~omp. Plan2 Area Amendment Approx. ~ of Site Rezone ~omp Plan Area Area 51 87 62 (+5) 56 25.5 16.0 (+10) 97 43.5 28.0 (+5) 67 31.0 19.0 40 11.3 90 25.7 350 100 100 TOTAL 200 * ITen acres has been taken from the Comprehensive Plan area and added to the rezone area since issuance of the DEIS. The total Comprehensive Plan acreages have not changed. 21ndicates additional land designated in Comprehensive Plan amendment outside of the proposed rezone boundaries. Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, Snohomish County Planning Department and Shapiro and Associates, Inc. ~2 I I I I I I I I \1 , , ~ ,. l: " , . , i ":' 'J B. LOCATION The amendment study area is located in the North CreeK subarea of the Comprehensive Plan. The study area is approximately bordered by a Puget P~er transmission line or 212nd N.E. (extended) on the north, the base of the hillslope west of Fitzgerald Road on the east, Canyon Park Road (228th St~eet S.E.) on the south, and Bothell Highway (SR-527) on the wes~_(see location on Figures 1 and 2). It is located in the northeast quadrant of the 1-405 and SR 527 interchange. The rezone area is located within the larger amendment area and com- prises approximately 200 acres (see Figure 5). A complete legal description of the rezone site is contained in Appendix A. C. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSALS * The proposed amendment action does not include physical changes or en;ineering, although the eventual development occurring within the frame- wo~ of the proposal and secondary or spinoff growth and development would have physical and engineering implications. The proposed rezone would introduce.future business parK facilities to a site that is mostly undeveloped. About 69~ of the 210-acre rezone area would ultimately be covered with impervious materials while the remaining area would be dedicated to landscaping and passive open space. Grading and excavation would take place on the site during development phases. It is expected that the main utility and roadway placements would not require significant grading and that excavations and fill would be accommodated by existing on-site materials. The applicant would follow requirements of the business park zoning code. Bull di ngs The proposed rezone is estimated to contain a total of 2.2 million square feet of buildings. The type of expected and permitted uses include small commercial office and light assembly, light manufacturing, large hi-tech, light warehousing, and business park users. The amendment area includes an additional 20 acres of BP area which could contain another 220,000 square feet of building space for a total of 2,432,000 square feet of floor area in the BP amendment area. These estimates are based upon the maximum allowed building coverage in the BP zone and therefore represent the 'worst case" scenario. The maximum lot coverage for all structures would not exceed 35% and the buildings would not exceed a 50 foot maximum height. The minimum ~uilding setback from all road rights-of-way and private access roads would be adequate to provide a park-liKe atmosphere. Where abutting property is zoned or designated by the adopted comprehensive plan for residential use, tne minimum side and rear yard building setbacks would be 25 feet. The pro- visions of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by Snohomish County, shall 34 -~ I I 1:8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I () I oovern side and rear yard setbacks from lot lines which do not abut residen- tial zones or areas designated for residential uses by the adopted compre- nensive plan. The Zoning Code states that buildings shall be designed to be com- patible with their surroundings, both within and adjacent to the BP zone. A r~rther aesthetic consideration in the code is prohibition of outside stDrage areas within the BP zone except for vehicles used for transporting either raw or finished materials. The proposed covenants further control arcnitectural design and other aspects of site design. The Code also includes restrictions on signs and advertizing with the ~velopment. Parki ng The Zoning Code requires one parking space per employee or one per 400 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater, for manufacturing and industrial uses. Warehouse and storage buildings are required to have one space per employee or per 2000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. Office buildings require three spaces per 1,000 square feet. Preliminary estimates developed by Lance Mueller & Associates indicate tr~t a maximum of about 9,765 spaces would be required. The actual number will depend on the ultimate site uses. The developers of the site must meet ~e minimum code requirements. No on-street parking will be allowed. P=oestrian and Vehicle Access Vehicle access would be provided by two main access points, both off 5V:-527. . The ci rcul ati on pattern wi thi n the development woul d consi st of a main looped road running north-south. There would be one stream crossing at approximately 212th Street S.E. Eventually another looped roadway may be placed on the site connecting to the first roadway phase. . The maj or east-west roadways woul d consist of an 80-foot ri ght-of-way (~.) plus 25-foot landscaping strips on both sides of the roadway (see i"iaures 6 and 9). The ROW would include a 20-foot median (including land- s-;ping and turn lanes), four II-foot lanes and eight feet on each side for lCL~dscaping and utility easements (in addition to the 25 foot landscaping from the edge of the BO-foot ROW). There would be a meandering combined walking/jogging trail within the first 25 feet of landscaping. The major north-south road would be a 60-foot ROW including two l2-foot travel lanes, l8-foot landscaping and utility easement on each side or two aoaitional lanes and B feet landscaping on each side (see Figures 8 and 9). A 5-foot meandering walking/jogging trail would also be placed within the first 25 feet of landscaping. 36 .-..~ ~ ~ i ~- ~) ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ . .3 . -, Landscaping The Snohomish Zoning Code [18.55.120(9.a)] requires the following: . Areas zoned BP shall be designed to include sufficient landscaped or natural open space areas to create a park-like atmosphere. Open space shall not include areas devoted to buildings, parking or vehicular access. ~_ Landscaping materials and the maintenance thereof shall conform to and be installed in accordance with the final landscape plan and the provisions of Section 18.55.160, Performance Bond. The county may require landscaping in combination with berms for noise attenuation and visual screening. Landscaping shall be provided, as follows, within all required building setback areas to provide a park-like atmosphere. - A landscaping strip, consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and groundcovers, with a minimum width of 30 feet, shall be provided as a visual buffer between rights-of-way or private access roads and building or parking areas. - Where abutting property is zoned or designated'by the adopted comprehensive plan for residential use, a minimum 25 foot wide planting strip of evergreen trees and shrubs shall be provided and maintained to visually separate and buffer the dissimilar land uses. Said planting strip shall reach a height of 6 feet within two years after planting, cover the width of the planting strip, and obscure sight through the barrier. . Where a BP site has substantial numbers of trees, site development shall be sensitive to the preservation of such vegetation. In addition to the landscaping required in 18.55.120(9)(D), a minimum of 10~ of the balance of the site shall be landscaped. Landscaping required by 18.72.130 for parking may serve to fulfill a portion of this requirement. * Employee and public parking and loading dock areas shall be developed within the overall scheme of landscape treatments, berms and other means to minimize the visual impact of these areas. Of the 210-acre rezone site, a total of about 50 acres would be main- tained as 'formally landscaped areas. An additional 12 acres along North Creek would be left as permanent open space. Individual developers would be responsible for developing individual landscaping plans in accordance with Snohomish County Code and the private covenants. 41 . .- . . . . . . . k . . . ~ . . . ~ ~ D. RELATIDNSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES This section allows an opportunity to review existing comprehensive land use plans, community plans and policies and zoning regulations. The documents discussed in this section are not presented in their entirety. The discussions of plans and policies are exerpts of the documents that are pertinent to the proposed actions. Existing North Creek Comprehensive Plan This plan, adopted in 1977, covers approximately 74 square miles in South Snohomish County (see Figure 8). The plan includes six general policy categories, including growth management, planned land use mixture, envi- ronmental management, natural resources, transportation and community facilities. The Plan includes two broad environmental categories--upland plateau and watershed site-sensitive. The existing plan designates the site east of North Creek as Watershed Site-Sensitive. As such, it can be used only for residential and agricultural purposes, at a maximum density of one unit per 2.3 acres. An area west of the creek, east of SR-527 is designated business park, and south of the creek north of 228th is Suburban Residential. East of the site on the hilltop is shown as rural. Watershed Site-Sensitive was applied to the steep slopes and receiving areas of major drainage basins. A portion of the Plan text (pages 41-51) controls use of land within the designation. The goal of this section is "...to preserve and improve the environmental quality of the planning area." (page 41) In particular, its provisions try to minimize impacts on "...ground water runoff, water flows in creeks and drainage ways and water quality." (page 44) North Creek in particular is recognized as a vital community resource: a drainageway which will flood if over-utilized, a salmon-spawning ground and wildlife habitat, and a psychological symbol of, and reference point for, the community. The Plan includes three parts of a drainage system within the Water- shed Site-Sensitive designation. These are: 1. Side Slopes - areas greater than 15~ slope, generally forested and having soils with high erosion potential. ' 2. Creek Corridors - areas within 100-200 feet of major streams, usually subject to flooding, and featuring grass and forest cover. 3. Lowland Drainage - areas of flat or moderate slopes, with season- ally wet or prime agricultural soils, grass ground cover, and oftentimes flood potential. During initial plan development, generalized 'soils and slope maps were analyzed to determine the proper extent of the Watershed Site-Sensitive designation. The Plan implementation process provides the ability to con- firm through engineering studies whether a specific site actually does meet the site-sensitive criteria. 43 ~ II .~ 11 .. 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 10 I The ~~rth Creek Plan sets forth a number of policies to guide indus- trial development. These are as follows: 1. An ample number of sites suited for diversity of industrial uses should be identified and reserved in the North Creek Planning Area. 2. Tne clustering of industrial uses in planned industrial p~rks in areas adjacent to existing centers of development should be s~rongly encouraged. 3. Future industrial development should be located where it can take w~imum advantage of existing and planned utility systems in order to optimize the cost of providing essential public services. 4. Industries should be located in areas where they will have adequate expansion space to meet anticipated future needs. 5. Industrial development should be required to locate on soils which are suitable for such development. 6. Industrial development, in general, should be served by public u~ilities and urban services with possible exceptions made for industrial uses of rural or non-intensive nature that (a) must be located near raw materials or markets and (b) are not highly labor intensive. 7. Industrial areas should be located where direct access can be pro- vided to regional ground transportation systems including highways and railroads. Location of these areas near airports is also desirable, but not essential. 8. Industrial areas should be located so that they are readily access- ible from residential areas, but are functionally separate and compatible. 9. Industrial development should occur in a manner which provides the puolic and government adquate notice to review the design of the development to insure its impacts are internalized to the greatest extent possible. 10. Adequate buffers of landscaping, compatible-transitional land use and open space should be utilized to protect surrounding land areas from the adverse effects of industrial development. Particular attention should be given to protecting residential areas, parks, and other public-institutional land uses. 11. Existing and proposed industrial areas should be protected from encroachment by incompatible, non-industrial activities. Comment. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is for a change in the slte designation from Watershed Site-Sensitive to Business Park. The County has determined that most of the site does not meet the criteria for Watershed Site-Sensitive. This conclusion was reached after site inspec- tions and evaluation of soils data, and is elaborated below: 44 IJ ,,~ .I. .. II .I ~ " Ii at .I Ii wi Ii a II II II J.) i Side Slopes The eastern edge of the area, where the valley bottom rises sharply to higher ground, contains the only slopes greater than 15~. The area shown on the amended Plan map along the eastern site boundary has such slopes, is forested, and has slopes of high erosion poten- tial. The amendment requires that it be used, if at all, tor resi- dential purposes, as an extension of the Rural area to the east. The maximum density allowed in this area would be about one unit per 2.3 acres. It would remain designated Watershed Site-Sensitive. Creek Corri dors There is one stream within the study area: North Creek. Numerous small, mostly man-made drainageways also cross the site. The area immediately adjacent to the creek has vegetation cover which supports both animal and fish life. The amendment includes a 100 foot buffer on each side of the stream which would be designated BP with a Water- shed Site-Sensitive overlay. The exact limits of the buffer would be negotiable with the County during the rezone process. The flood plain of North Creek lies entirely within the 100-foot buffer, so no additional property is set aside in the amendment plan. Lowland Drainage Soils studies show the southern portion of the site to contain sub- stantial deposits of peat. This area lies in depression and is saturated during the wet months. It serves as an important part of the natural drainage system. The amendment recommends that construc- tion be avoided in this area, and that it may be enhanced for drain- age retention purposes. This area, identified on the map, would be designated BP to allow it to be included in a BP.rezone, but would have a Watershed Site-Sensitive overlay. Recent studies show. that the remainder of the site has some moderately-drained soils. These areas are considered eligible for maximum site utilization in the Comprehensive Plan amendment as allowed by the BP zone. There are other areas of peat soils on site which are much shallower (1-4 feet compared to 10-15 feet) and are not so closely tied to the creek. In the past, the County has allowed such areas to be excavated and filled, and used for building sites, where it can be shown that such actions will not seriously impact the natural function of the stream. Some of the soils on the site are Class II and Class III agriculturual soils. In more expansive amounts, these would be considered "prime agricul- tural soils." Business Park development west of SR-527, the Thrasher's Corner and Canyon Park shopping centers, and the Sno-King residential devel- opments are indications that the area's rural nature is changing. Upgrading of SR-527 and 22Bth is expected in the next decade. Such changes generally create conflicts with agricultural uses. Given the future developments, it does not appear that long-term agricultural use of the site would occur, even under the current plan designation. 45 1 I ~ I.. .) I I ,. I I ., j I I 1 I I I I ,I CJ I The North Creek Plan did not attempt to preserve any agricultural land for long-term use, recognizing that the viability of such activities in this area is "limited." The valley floor contains commercial, light industrial, and suburban residential designations, and not rural designations. The site will soon be bordered on three sides by suburban intensity development. The Agricultural Preservation Plan, which was adopted after the North Creek Plan and is an integral part of the County Comprehensive Plan, evaluated the site and did not consider it to be of even secondary importance for agric~ltural use. For these reasons, "prime agricultural soils" are not considered watershed site-sensitive in the proposed plan amendment. The location of the site, with good access to 1-405 and SR-527, similar neighboring uses, sufficient utilities, and minimal impacts on residential neighborhoods, satisfies the Industrial criteria in the North Creek Plan. Furthermore, its size adds diversity to the County's supply of industrial sites. The Plan Amendment review process is justified when changed circum- stances, such as the new soils data and recent demands for large sites, occur. In addition, the North Creek Plan states that the Plan should be reviewed and possible updated five years after its adoption. The Plan is now six years old. Snohomish County Zoning Code The purpose of the Zoning Code is to provide the authority for, and the procedures to be followed in, guiding and regulating the physical develop- ment of Snohomish County through coordinating public and private projects with respect to developing and servicing land. At the present time, the area of the proposed plan amendment is zoned Rural Conservation (RC) and Rural Residential (RR 9600). The RC zone has two purposes--l) to provide for those areas having less than prime agricul- tural soils but which, for reasons of relative isolation, rudimentary utili- ties and public services, steep slopes, or other natural conditions unsuited for intensive development, are projected by the comprehensive plan or other adopted plans and policies to remain in a rural low-density character in the foreseeable future, or 2) to act as a holding zone with a commercial or industrial rezone is proposed. This zone allows approximately one home per 2.3 acres. The purpose and function of the rural residential 9600 (RR 9600) zone is to provide for low density suburban residential use. This zone allows approximately 4 du/acre. The areas directly east and west of the site are also zoned RC. The area directly south of the site is zoned Rural Residential (RR 9600), with a Planned Residential Development (PRD 9600) adjacent to the southwestern site boundary. There are three commercially zoned areas in the site vicinity: a Planning Community Business (PCB) zone located south and west of highway 405; a Community Business (CB) zone northwest of the site south of Maltby Road, west of SR-527 and north of Malby Road east of SR-527. The CB zone specifies that the total building area shall not exceed 50~ of the lot area and building heights no greater than thirty-five feet. 46 . ";-"" rj , ... ~o) ~ , , ., , , " ~ , , , , II II 11 11 <) II Comment. The existing zoning would not permit industrial use of the proposed s1te. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would redesignate the site area to Business Park. The proposed rezone on the site to the Business Park zoning classification is intended to provide for those business/industrial uses of a professional office, wholesale, and manufac- turing nature which are capable of being constructed, maintained, and operated in a manner uniquely designed to be compatible with adjotning residential or other less intensive land uses. To accomplish this end, strict zoning controls must be applied in conjunction with private covenants and unified control of land. The proposed text change i ncl udes speci fi c development cr.; teri a for the site including: restriction of access points to either SR-527 or 20ath St. S.E., a 100 foot buffer on each side of North Creek, two watershed site- sensitive areas (one on the hillslope and one in the southern portion of the site), no roadways permitted to connect the BP area to the hillslope area and the provision of one 50 ~ acre parcel for a single user. Restrictions and controls are also included in the BP zone and others would be specified in private covenants to be reviewed and approved by the County. (See Mitigating Measures and Description of the Proposal sections.) Snohomish County Road Ordinance 26B This policy addresses the relationship between development applications and the adequacy of county road systems to serve developments. The purpose of this resolution is to provide for a traffic study focusing on potential traffic impacts associated with development applications. If transportation system impacts are expected, some method of mitigating the impacts will be required of the proponent. Comment. A detailed comprehensive traffic study was conducted for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone request and is contained in technical Aprendix C. A summary of the study is contained in the transpor- tation/circulation section of this document. Transportation system improve- ments would be necessary with or without the proposals, although mitigating measures are presented that would reduce impacts to acceptable levels. The future developer(s) of the proposed site would be responsible for financing a proportionate share of the cost of the mitigating measures, as would other developers on the west side of SR-527. The State Department of Transporta- tion will determine the extent, timing, and cost sharing arrangements for such improvements. As the development will take access directly onto a state road, the County Road Ordinance generally does not ap~ly. Drainage Ordinance The Snohomish County Comprehensive Drainage Ordinance is intended to control the impacts of drainage from new ~evelopments. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote practical and economical development policies and construction procedures which respect und preserve the County's water sources, minimizing water qual ity deg,oadation and controll ing sedimentation. The ordinance covers many topics related to storm drainage Jnd makes the policies more specific as stated in Sectinn 24.20.080 and which are as follows: -17 I I I:~ I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I .Ie) I The design storm peak discharge from the subject property may not be increased from conditions existing prior to the proposed development except where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that there is no adverse impact. Retention/detention facilities must be provided in order to maintain surface water discharge rates at or below the existing design storm peak discharge except where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that no adverse impact will result from not providing said facil i ti es. Downstream drainage ways and/or facilities between the subject property, and a well-definied creek or drainage channel of adequate capacity, shall be improved, to the extent necessary to bring them up to adequate capacity to accommodate project impacts where an increase in peak runoff is approved in subsections 2 and 3 above. Drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the County where the County assumes the responsibility of retention/detention or other drainage convey- ance systems. Requirements are generally as follows: All portions of the system must meet the standards and specifications of the Snohomish County Department of Public Works. The system must be inspected and accepted by the county after two years of operation in accordance with the Procedures Manual. The applicant must pay the County an operation and maintenance assessment based on a 10 year prorated cost to operate and maintain the permanent drainage facilities, which will be assessed by the County Engineer. Comment. Future development(s) on the site would be required to con- form to this drainage code, regardless of the exact type of development that occurs. Snohomish County Shoreline Management Master Program, 1974 The Shoreline Management Master Plan addresses seven basic land and water use elements including: shoreline use, economic development, public access, recreation, circulation, historical/cultural/scientific/educational, conservation, agricultural, and implementation. The Master Program utilizes a classification system that identifies shorelines of the County into five distinct environments: natural, con- servancy, rural, suburban, and urban. This sytem is designed to encourage uses in each environment which enhances the character of that environment. At the same time, the County will place reasonable standards and restric- tions on development so that such development does not disrupt or destroy the character of the environment. The site contains a portion of North Creek which is classified as Rural in the Shoreline Master Program. The Rural designation prohibits indus- trial, commercial (except farm produce sales) and extensive residential 43 1 ] I I,,) I, I, I. I ], I I t I, I, I . ~ ~ II I, 1'1 I I ~ ,,:'1 \".J ---l '.,,,,;;-. ~ ....-;...-.~ . . ......:.;--:.. .., - --- -~~. - ~ ~" ...:..0.0;,;,;;;,,:,_ ,,-.-..-. .~..- development on prime agricultural lands except where due to inadequate size, physical barriers or poor access, isolated parcels exist which are not prac- tical or feasible to farm. In these cases, development is allowed which is compatible with the Rural environment. The use activities allowed in the shoreline environment does not include industrial development as a category. Therefore, shoreline use activities not specifically identified andlfor which policies and regulations have not been developed will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. They will be required to satisfy the goals and gen- eral development poliCies of the master program, the policy of the Shoreline Management Act and shall be consistent with the management policy and character of the shoreline environment in which they propose to locate. Comment. The proposed amendment includes a 100 foot open-space buffer on both sides of North Creek. The uses within that 200 feet may include trails but would be limited to passive recreational uses upon approval by Snohomish County and both the Fish and Game Departments. In order to ensure the County's intent to permit full implementation of the existing North Crteek Area Plan, a Master Program amendment from a Rural to Urban Shoreline designation for North Creek is being considered separate from this plan amendment. This change would make it clear that the County intends the North Creek Plan's existing Residential, Business Park, and Watershed Site-Sensitive designations along portions of the creek to be the guiding land use policy while ensuring adequate stream protection measures in all developments. The Master Program amendment would provide for an approximate 100-foot setback for commercial and industrial developments near the creek, which is more restrictive than existing SMMP regulations, and continue the existing 50-foot setback for residential development. Snohomish County Agricultural Preservation Plan This program was developed by the Snohomish County Agricultural Committee from 1978 to 1980. The program is intended to meet three main objecti ves: To preserve and maintain prime farmlands in a productive agricultural capacity in a manner which is fair to both farmer and non-farmer, and which, for all practical purposes, can be considered permanent. To reduce significantly or eliminate conflicts between farmers and non-farming neighbors, whether the conflicts are of a physical, social, economic, or legal nature, and to improve understanding of the necessity and importance of farming and farm practices. To enhance the agriculturual environment in which th~ farmer operates by reducing unnecessary governmental intervention in agricultural affairs, promoting the formation and stabilization of agricultural markets and encouraging the entrance of new farners into agriculture. The plan identifies five agricultural districts within the County--the Lower and Upper Stillaguamich, the Marysville-Tulalip-Lakewood Plateau, the Snohomish and the Snoqualmie-Skykomish. 49 I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I ,c.-:) o l I I I Comment. The proposed amendment and rezone area is not included in lands ldentlfied for preservation in the plan. Therefore, development of this site for business park use would not be inconsistent with the Snohomish County Agricultural Preservation Plan. Snohomish County Growth Management Strategy The Snohomish County Growth Management Report is a response to_the dynamiCS of growth. The report recommends a series of actions which'; if taken together, will maximize benefits and minimize problems from the per- spective of the board public interest. The Growth Management Report has not as yet been adopted. It will be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission and the County Council and County Executive. Public hearings will be conducted before formal action is taken on the report. If adopted, this document will serve as the overriding framework for all comprehensive planning which occurs within the next twenty years. The strategy does not consider limiting the amount of growth expected to occur in Snohomish County, rather it recommends techniques to manage the growth which is expected to materialize. The plan identifies three regions within the county: Urban, Border, and Rural. The proposed amendment area lies within the Urban Region identified in the Plan. The primary objective of the Urban Region is the formation of a consolidated metropolitan area. This metropolitan area should be the county's center for major industrial and commercial facili- ties; major cultural and social activities; and educational and employment opportunities. The majority of the growth occurring in Snohomish County should con- tinue to occur in the Urban Region. The Urban Region should receive the highest'funding priorities for public services. Infrastructural investments should be sufficient to support growth, encourage private investment deci- sions, and should be consistent with comprehensive phasing objectives. Significantly more environmental alteration will be permitted in the Urban Region than other regions. Environmental quality will be maintained through development standards, protecting sensitive areas and retaining public open space areas. Regionally, concentration of growth in the metro- politan area will reduce disturbance to natural resources in the rest of the county. The policies which relate to the Urban Region and the proposed actions include but are not limited to the following: Pl. Encourage the majority of growth to continue to locate in the Urban Region. P8. Encourage large-scale residential, commercial, and industrial development to locate within the Urban Region rather than in the Border and Rural Regions. Comment. The proposed amendment and rezone area is within the area identlfied as Urban and therefore is generally consistent with the intent of 50 ~. :~~.:. . ~: ~ 7l j ~ I ~ I j a I I ,. , ~ I I , Ie) , development proposed for the Urban Region. jected spinoff population growth will also as Urban. In addition, much of the pro- be located in the area identified Plan for the North Creek Valley, City of Bothell This plan is a supplement to the existing 1971 Bothell Comprehensive Plan, is specific to the North Creek Valley and was -adopted in 1979. The goals, policies, and developmental standards of the plan are focused on the community concern of maintaining the residential and semi-rural atmosphere reflected in the quality of life in Bothell, while improving the local tax base. The plan delineates community goals by expressing in greater detail policies and development standards for the valley and the hillsides as a whole. ~ The plan recommends designating the portion of the North Creek planning area within Bothell as a Special District. The North Creek planning area is governed by the North Creek Valley Plan and Special District zone of the Bothell Code, Chapter 17.25, which encourages zoning changes as proposed projects are approved. The plan recommends that future development be accomplished through the PUD process as a means of limiting impervious sur- face coverage. '* The plan extends beyond the City limits and includes part of the southern portion of Snohomish County's North Creek planning area. In general the types of uses encouraged for the valley floor, including the area within Snohomish County, are: non-polluting manufacturing ". busi ness- professi onal uses educational facilities recreational facilities non-freeway-oriented public accommodations retail outlets hospitals, clinics, and professional buildings multi-family residential uses Comment. The proposed amendment and rezone area is not within Bothell's Jurisdiction, however, the proposed business park is consistent with the type of uses planned for the North Creek valley floor in Bothell. ~1 I LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT I (I) Eyery EIS shall have appended to it a list of the clements of the enyiron- _, ment in subsection (2), (3) and (4) of this section. The lead agency shall place I '...) "N/A" ("not applicable") next to an item when the proposal. including its indi- rect impacts. will notsignincantly arrect the area (or subarea) of tbe environment in question. Items marked "N/A" need not be mentioned in the body of the EIS. Subsections (2) and (3) of this section correspond in subject matter to the ques- I~' tions contained in the enyironmental checklist used for .threshold determination. and th. questions in the checklist may be used to int.rpret this outline listing. (Provided, this list of el.ments need not be appended to an EIS being pr.pared to satisfy both the National Enyironm.ntal Policy Act and SEPA.) 'I (2) ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL (3) ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT. ENVIRONMENT 1- (a) Earth. (a) Population/Employment (i) Geology. (b) Housing. (ii) Soils. (c) Transportation/circulation, I (ill) Topography. (i) V.hicular transportation g.n.rated. , [...) Unique physical features. (ii) Parking facilities. (..) Erosion. (Hi) Transportation syst.ms. ('il Accr.tion/ayulsion. N/A (iY) Moy.m.nt/circulation of p.opl. or I OO~ g~ (i) Air quality. (y) Wat.rborn.. rail and air traffic. N/A (ii) Odor. N/A (yi) Traffic hazards. (iii) Climat.. (d) Public s....ices. I' (c) Wat::r. (i) Fir., (i) Surfac. wat.r moy.m.nt. (ii) Police. (ii) Runoff/absorption. (Hi) Schools. I (iii) Floods. (iv) Parks or oth.r recreational facilities. [...) Surface wat.r quantity. (v) Maint.nance, , (..) Surface wat.r quaby. (vi) Oth.r goy.rnm.ntal s.rvices. (oil Ground wat.r moy.m.nt. (.) En.rgy. I (vii) Ground wat.r quantity. (i) , (..;ii) Ground wat.r quality. (ii) en) Public wal.r supplies. See 3f (Ui) (I) Utilities. I (d) Flon. (i) En.rgy. See 3e (i) Numbers or diy.rsity of species. (H) Communications. . (ii) Unique species. (Hi) Wat.r. (ill) Barri.rs and/or corridors, N/A (iv) S.w.r. 1- [...) Agricultural crops. See 2i (v) Storm water. (.) Faa=. (vi) Solid wast., (i) Numb.rs or diy.rsity of species. (g) Human health (including m.ntal health). N/A (ii) Unique species. (h) Aesth.tics. I (iii) Barri.rs and/or corridors, N/A (i) Recreation, See 3d (IV) [rv) Fish or wildlif. habitat. (j) Archeological/historical. , (I) Noi= (4) Th. following additional cl.m.nt shall be coy- (g) Ligbt and glar., .red in all EISs, .ith.r by being discuss.d or marked I (h) Lamd us.. "N/ A," but shall not be consid.red part of th. .nyiron- , (i) Nar::ral resources, m.nt for oth.r purposes: (i) Ral. of us., (a) Additional population charact.ristics, I (ii) Nonr.n.wabl. resources. (i) Distribution by ag.. s.. and .thnic (j) Risk of ..plosion or hazardous .missions. N/A charact.ristics of the r.sid.nts in the geographical area affected by th. en- I yironm.ntal impacts of Ih. proposal. I.) I Amount required. Sourc./ayailability, N/A 02 :.....,Yi{~ ~ I~ ,) I I * , , I I , , I I , I , 10 , Sectioll._ V III Format of the Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses , , i) , . , , . III " 111 ,. . ,. II III III tl3 Section VIII FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIS The following sections of the Draft EIS are reprinted on pages 2-52 Introduction Recipients of the Document Table of Contents Summary Description of the Proposal ~ Any technical changes required for the body of the text of the Draft EIS are acknowledged as part of the response to comments and/or are included in the Summa~y section of this Final EIS, and/or are included on the Errata Sheet which follows the comment letters and responses. Review Comments to the Draft EIS and Responses This section contains all the comments received from public agencies and private citizens that contained material relevant to the content or integrity of the Draft EIS for the proposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amenament and Rezone. ~ach comment is reproduced as received and is followed by the appro- pria~ response. Where comments result in changes to the text of the Draft EIS, the change is referenced in the response and incorporated in the re- sponse and/or on the Errata Sheet as such in this Final EIS. When possible, if tne response fits on the same page as the comment, it is included in a box at the bottom of the comment letter. If this was not possible, then the response is contained on the page following the comment letter. Comment letters were received from: U.S. Department of the Army .ashington State Department of Natural Resources Mashington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation .ashington State Department of Ecology _ashington State Department of Fisheries .ashington State Department of Game Mashington State Department of Transportation ?uget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency METRO Snohomish Health District Snohomish County Department of Public Works Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Division Alderwood Water District City of Bothell Commuter Pool SR-527 Group (Shirley A. Goll) South County Homeowne'rs Association (Gretchen Dours) J udi th Fi sher Mr. and Mrs. H.O. Perry Susan A. Selmar 54 .. ...;j DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P,O, BOX C.37!1!1 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 2 8 APR 1983 I I I I I I I I I I I I I '. I i. . ~', '--./ I Environmental Resources George F. Sherwin, Jr., Director Snohomish County Planning Department County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 Dear Mr. Sherwin: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the Proposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, Snohomish County, Washington, with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of responsibility for flood control, navigation, and regulatory functions. We have the following couunen t : All development proposed in the designated business park should be constructed in accordance with the 100-year floodplain requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program in which Snohomish County is participating. Thank you for the opportunity to couunent on this statement. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206) 764-3624, of my staff. Sincerely, !fu~ () Chief, Engineering Division '~:~~_., -~; .. ..: -'~'-:..-._-. , ' ,r' Ir". ., -....\' r-I ' /' I' , i "!'.-J ~ !......._l.L}. ..', .~,': ! -..- _I~.r I' 0) I .r,'-l I""..' ... I C.J~T',-\,.. '''''G 0 ' . -, ,..\", FF!CE ...-..-- 55 -, . . I I I I I I I J1. I I I I I I I I I I II II II II II II fI II II 11- II II II II II , II , '~~. , Response to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1. The development would be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Final site designs and build- ing specifications will be subject to review by Snohomish County prior to issuance of building permits. 56 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I Department of Natural Resources South Puget Sound Area P. O. Box 68 Enumclaw, Washington 98022-0068 BRIAN J, BOYLE Commiuiolller o( Public Lancb TO: Jeff Kelley-Clarke Snohomish County Planning Office Everett, Washington 98201 DATE: 4-1-83 I&flJ! ,q"~9fv?~ PI? 1 ~i?!J SHAPIRO 4/(0 1 198J!/jI ,fSSOe/ATES. . life, FROM: Donald Theoe Governmental Forester South Puget Sound Area SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONl-IENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ACTION SPONSOR Snohomish County Planning Office PROJECT Proposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone xx We do not have an interest in the above project and have no comments on the proposal. We do have an interest in the above project and wish to make the following comments: Response to Washinoton State Department of iJatura 1 Resources. No response required. RECEIVED k':) 81983 , " cc: DNR SEPA Center CO. PLANNING OFFICE L,,,(,f jl J'/u~/ Equal Opportunity Employer 57 ......~J ~ LJOHN SPW.MAN ... Governor II~ . I. ,. II I. II II. II II, II ~ II . . .0 ,. JACOB THO'" Director STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 111 West Twenty-First "venue, KL-11 . Olympia, Washington 98504 . (206) 753.4011 April 3, 1983 RECEIVED P.?R 11 1903 Mr. George F. Sherwin, Jr., Director CO. PLANNING OFFIcg Snohomish County Planning Office Everett, WA 98201 Log Reference: 394-C-SN-02 Re: Proposed North Creek Compre- hensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Dear Mr. Sherwin: A staff review has been completed of your draft environmental impact statement. The document exhibits a well considered concern for the cultural environment. Based on the' information provided for our review, in our opinion the proposed project will have no effect on cultural resources. In the event that cultural materials are inadver- tently discovered during construction, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued and this office notified. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ~J-~ Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. Archaeologist dj Resoonse to the Office of Archaeolooy and Historic Preservation. No response required. 58 ,...;::;:::t.... ] . IJOHN SPEllMAN Governor I-~\ I :1 ,I I I '. i il , '. :1 ;1 I I I I I,~ I STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY MdiJ Stop PV- t1 . ()Jympid, Wdshington 9850-1 . (JOb) -I59-6tXJV April 26, 19S3 ~r. Jeff Kelley-Clarke Snohomish County Planning Office County Administration Building =verett, Washington 98201 Cear Mr. Kelley~Clarke: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental nmpact statement for the proposed North Creek comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. From the information supplied in the draft =!S, it appears that no permits/approvals are required from the Department of Ecology for this proposal and, therefore, we have mo jurisdiction. }f you have any questions, please call me at 459-6025. Sincerely, ~,. '--" - '1 - U~'J.t. ,,7\.Lt61~ Barbara J. ' itchi e Environmental Review Section 3JR: ~esponse to Washinqton State Department of Ecoloqy, D< )NAlD w. M()()~ Dirt'(lor No response required. r--- ...._-,- ,i -n ~;-'rv"-, '~1-:': 'r'ti: .;.4.U~:,,\ ~t:~..'~~, ~ ~ 1,1 I ...... ",- ,.,. "'-' , l'iX,< I " i co. I'LM::,1NG OFFICE I 59 ,,~~"J ~i ,.~'. -.....,\W,n~~rrr G \983 l1~ ; fl..?R'l , ~'~/,~1~~ J.:'.U ~.~~;.':\~"(t'S. IlIC. - 175 Gene'dl Administwion Building 0 Olympid. Wdshington 98504 0 (206) 75]-6601) 0 (SCAN) 2]4-6600 I , I I , 'J , I , , f - )1 I I; I ROllAND A. SCHMITI! DirectOf" STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES April 19, 1983 ~- Snohomish County Planning Department :ounty Administration Building :verett, Washington 98201 IREC~F1"En I . '" "'. .' j CO. j'LANNING OFFlC!!; Attention Jeff Kelly-Clarke ;entlemen: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Amendment to the North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan, North Creek, Tributary to Sammamish River, WRIA B-08.0070 ~e have reviewed the above referenced Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ~ich will have both direct and indirect impacts upon North Creek. As indicated in the EIS, North Creek supports runs of both salmon and steel- head as well as resident trout. The establishment of a stream corridor 200 feet wide will help maintain a natural stream environment provided the development does not encroach into this area. The construction of retention ponds within this corridor could also have a negetive impact to the stream if not designed and constructed properly. Designing the ponds to allow vegetation growth within them will help reduce the impacts to the creek. However, the maintenance schedule fer the ponds could eliminate the vegetation, thus any benefits gained. 1. The EIS indicates that the streets and parking lots will be built with curbs and gutters. This will require collection of the storm runoff directly from the paved surface in a pipe system. This type of system including oil/water separator catch basins does not adequately filter the runoff water prior to discharge. The streets and parking lots should be designed in a manner that will allow the runoff water to sheet flow off the edge through vegetation and collected in shallow vegetation lined swales leading to the retention ponds. This type of system will also reduce maintenance of the retention ponds thus reducing water quality impacts to North Creek. 2 The impacts to North Creek from the street and pedestrian crossing will be d minimized if single span bridges are designed and constructed. The layout of the development should be such that an absolute minimum number of crossing ~. are required. We also wish to emphasize that a Hydraulic Project Approval will be reqUirJ from the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Game prior to the start of work activity within the ordinary high water 1 ine of North Creek 4 and its tributaries. This will include what appear to be drainages leading into North Creek. [) I ~I !I"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '~':.J'" -- '"" , Snohomish County Planning Department - 2 - April 19, 19S3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment concerning this proposal. If you have any questions please contact me at 753-29S0. Sincerely, ~~itat Habitat Mana gement JR: j bg cc: Game R. Belanich ~. Manager Oivision 61 b 411 .. ---- .) -- -. ill II *I b If. -. .. II II . .., ~ II .0 II Response to the Department of Fisheries 1. The ponds will not be constructed within the 200 foot buffer. As indicated in the DElS, the ponds would be allowed to revert to natural vegetation. Vegetation lost from periodic pond cleanout could be reestablished within a relatively short time. The frequency-of pond cleanout will be reduced by sediment removal at the check dams con- structed in the upstream drainage collection system and by street sweeping of paved areas. 2. Comment acknowledged. Parking lots will be constructed with overland sheet flow discharge where possible. The amendment area is within an urban area and therefore the pUblic streets are required by Snohomish County Ordinance to have concrete curb and gutters and a piped storm water collection system. 3. The proposed road network has been designed to limit the number of stream crossings to a maximum of one. As shown in the site plan, one crossing is proposed and future crossings are not planned and would not be permitted by the County under the proposed comprehensive plan amend- ment text (see page 30, 2nd paragraph of the OElS). A single span bridge will be considered by the developer during the design of the structure. The two pedestrian crossings will utilize single-span designs. The Departments of Fisheries and Game will have an opportunity to review bridge designs during the Hydraulic Project Approval process. 4. Comment acknowledged. See responses #1-3 above. 62 I IOHN SPElL"'V\." I Govemcr -, I' ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I () I \QJL?\lnlc.::, % Mr\'I3 - \983 fKANK LOCKARD Dlte<'IOf I ;i ;) bOO Nann CJpltol WdY. C/,II . Olyrnpld. Wdsning",,, ~85()4 . llil: ~1I11 ~SSllt\~m, ' l'h;'i;'l d'''''''A::':'' ;:.:-:::~""'~. , i,'" 1,-' ,', 1 H.', ;', I ::~ 'I~ 'a__~-:......,..:. ... ,I' ',,! ~j 11Ob)tSJ'5.-W, '_~h',' C'_,__,~ . .... I :-.~': -. (;;; '"{ 1 -~" I STATEOFW~SHINGTON Sl\~?\RO DEPARTMENT OF GAME April 28, 1983 C:). l;!..~\.;'JI'!:.':G OFFICE 'Alr. George F. Sherwi n, Jr. 3nohomish County Planning Office =verett, Washington 98201 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Proposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, North Creek, Section 29, Township 27 N., Range 5 E., Snohomish County ~ar Mr. Sherwin: '~Dur document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; our comments follow. ~his document accurately describes the existing habitat conditions and impacts ~ fish and wildlife from the proposal. Elimination of 200 acres of habitat on the site will eliminate the wildlife that uses those acres. lncreased ~uman disturbance on the site will affect wildlife use of the remaining ,7ffibitat. We strongly support the proposed mitigating measures which lessen ~hese impacts. These measures include: 1) designation of 100-foot vegetated buffers on both sides of No rth Creek; 2) enhancement of the existing vegetation within this riparian corridor with native plant species; 3) retention of the existing marsh in the south portion of the property under a watershed-sensitive designation; 4) reversion of storm water detention ponds to natural wetland vegeta ti on. 1. we cOJll7!end the county and project sponsor for including these measures in the pr-oposa 1. a~ of the mitigating measures needs some clarification. As mitigation for l=t habitat, "on-site detention ponds would be allowed to revert to natural wetland type habitats" (page 80). The document also states that "periodic ~lntenance of the ponds would be required...This would include cleaning of a=umul a ted sediment and control of hydrophyti c plant growth..." (page 72). How "periodic" will this maintenance be? What methods will be used? Frequent r~oval of the wetland vegetation from the detention ponds will lower their habitat value for wildlife. Chemical control of hydrophytes should not take pLace. 2 63 II , II It) II II 111 III III b .. III III . . II II II 11,8 II ..... Mr. George F. Sherwin, Jr. April 28, 1983 Page Two We recommend that several other mitigating measures be added to those already proposed. These additional measures are: 1) Vegetated swales should be incorporated into the drainage plan to act as sediment and pollutant traps. 2) A strong commitment is needed to the retention and revegetation with native plant species within the open space and landscaped areas. ~ 3) Recreational facilities which encourage concentrated human use should be located away from the riparian corridor and wetl and areas. Thank you for sending your document. We hope you find our comments helpful. BW:cv cc: Agencies Region Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME l~ W".e;..v Betsy Wolin, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division 64 I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 'I .. 11 , ':1 ; II i :,11 I 'I ') -":.. () Response to Department of Game 1. Cnmment acknowledged. Items 1-4 are proposed mitigating measures and will be included in the rezone negotiations and specifications. 2. The frequency of sediment removal is not known. It is expected that ~leanout during the first 2-3 years of project development will be required with less frequent cleanout required as the developmen~ is completed and site soils become stabilized. The frequency of removal of ~ccumulated sediment will be minimized by use of upstream check dams and sweeping of paved surfaces. Sediment will be removed by rubber-tired equipment during the dry season. Hydrophytic plant growth would have to be removed only when its quantity seriously reduces detention pond wolume. Chemicals would not be used to control hydrophytic plant growth. 3. Wegetated swales will be incorporated into the drainage design. Please see response #9 to the City of Bothell. The CC&R's contained in Appen- dix C of the DElS includes a section on landscaping. If the project is ~pproved, these CC&R's will be incorporated as part of the rezone ~pproval and will be placed in each lot owner's property title, lease, or other such rental or ownership agreements. ~~ present, the only proposed recreational type use is the trail system ~long the creek. The action sponsor will work with the Departments of Game and Fisheries during the detailed site design of the greenbelt,area ~ develop an acceptable trail system along the creek. The southern ~etland area is to remain as open space and may be incorporated into the mrainage system. No human uses are planned in this southern wetland iilrea. liS ,__O,!,," I.. I. I. '-..'.. , ' .J '-- -- -.-------' ,......' .. ~.__.' .. ~t.~ MAY 3 - ::::2.< DUANE BERENTSO Secretary ,-''''"''1_-- .-.-. STATE OF WASHINGTON SHAPlii. ..._1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ...... --,_~,--~-:-:~"'~:c'c\ _~.. I OffICe of OJ,met Admln/StWo' . 0.1, 64]1 Co,son Aye, So. C-8141O . 5eat\I": w.....i;;n8~ '~lDB ' _: '- \ April '8';' 19-8~~_ '" .~'~ .2 :, i -- \-_ c:;-:-{ :.,~::::,;:-. Co c: :,,:5< ~------ George F. Sherwin, Jr.; Director Snohomish County Planning Office Everett, Wa 98201 RE: Snohomish County SR 527 & 405 ElS Review SN 120 North Crepk Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone The subject comprehensive plan and rezone will create a severe traffic impact on the existing roadway network, especially SR 527, between SR 405 and 208th Street S.E. Because of the recent and rapid changes in land usage along the SR 527 corridor, the Washington State Department of Transportation has not been able to adequately assess the capabilities of its state highway system in meeting the changing traffic needs. An assessment based upon the 1. land development data-at-hand last year indicated at least a need for five-laning SR 527 between SR 405 and l64th Street S.E. Your North Creek Traffic Analysis shows that even a five-lane design may not be adequate to handle the projected traffic demand. This demand, is in large part, created by the proposed land developments, they should bear the major role in mitigating their traffic impacts. As right of way is the key in what actually gets built, sufficient right of way to construct a five-lane design will be necessary. All buildings should be setback from tt>e right of way line to allow flexibility should additional lanes be required to meet a desirable level of service. Presently, the donation of enough right of way to bring the right of way line out to 50 feet each side of right of way centerline will be necessary in order to construct a five-lane design. Additional slope 2 easement may be necessary if the grade differential exceeds! two and one- ' half feet. Provisions for setbacks or additional right of way, especially at intersection to allow for additional lane construction should be con- sidered in light of the Rezone Traffic Analysis. Highway capacity in large part is controlled by the number and location of public intersections and road approaches. Access control should be considered along SR 527 in order to maintain the highest traffic volume level possible. Therefore, the developers, county, and state need to agree on the number and locations of these access points and restrict as far as practical any other future access. Geometric improvements will be necessary with the improvement boundaries~ ~eing from SR 405 to 208th Street. As other land developers are actively ~ lnvolved in this area they can singly or jointly make appropriate im- ~, provements. The improvements should be oriented about the construction 66 ........;.-.....t I I il I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I .--:--. ,1 George F. Sherwin, Jr. April 28, 1 983 Page 2 on a synmetrical five lane design. Additional lanes at various road approaChesJ ~ should also be considered if it expedites the flow of traffic involved bound ", to a particular development. Signals appear to be warranted by 1990 at several key intersections. In a period of shrinking budgets this Department is finding it increasingly J difficul~~~~~d improvements. The traffic mitigation improvements necessary 4 for thishare no contained within our current six year operating program. ' Funding for these improvements will have to come from other sources. We look forward in working with the county and the developers to resolve our rllutual transportation concerns. Very truly yours, .Jj.1..~ G. L. GlLBERT, P.E. District Design Engineer PRL: db ;'w' :r. ;.. o 67 ~ ,~, I' , , ,. I. , i ,- I. . . ~ . . . .'~ 41 Washington State Department of Transportation 1. Tne need for a SR-527 design of more than five lanes was based on year 2000 travel projecti'ons and the design criterion of Level of Service [LOS) C operation. If LOS D is considered an acceptable operation of an wrban arterial in peak travel demand periods, a five-lane design would likely provide sufficient capacity north of 220th Street S.E. Between SR-405 and 220th Street S.E., intersection approach lane requirements as ~ell as through-lane needs will determine the appropriate cross section for this approximately 1000-foot section of SR-527. rt should be noted that traffic generation from the rezone area was based on an employment density of 40 per acre at full development. This oensity is considered to be a reasonable upper limit and actual density =t'full development may be significantly less. The Urban land lnstitute estimates 24+ employees per acre for highly intensive business indus- ~rial activities (see DEIS page 103). 2. The sponsor of the rezone action, Roger Belanich, proposes to enter into ~ road agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation =nd Snohomish County. This agreement will establish the basis for developer participation in offsite road improvements, as well as deter- ~ine the conditions for the timing of improvements. Similar agreements .'ill be signed between the DOT, the County, and other business park developers in the area, such as the ELDEC Corporation and Quadrant Corporation. An example of a type of cooperative agreement which has ~lready been made is contained as Appendix A to this FEIS. The North Creek rezone property will dedicate a 20-foot strip along the existing SR-527 right-of-way for additional transportation right-of-way, and will mave a building setback of 30 feet from this strip (see CC&R's in DEIS ~ppendix). Future provision of additional right-of-way for lane con- ~ruction at intersection approaches will be a subject of the road =greement. 3. 80th the Eldec and the Belanich developments provide for two access points each onto SR-527. Quadrant Corporation site access will be from ~he west approach of the 220th Street S.E. intersection and additional business park development north of the Eldec property will be served by ~he Eldec north entrance. Design of the intersection approaches and r.equired modification to SR-527 are being coordinated with WSDOT oper- =tions and design staffs. 4. lDeveloper participation in the timing and funding of traffic mitigation 1mprovements will be a subject of a road agreement with the Department and Snohomish County. 68 I I a,~ ~~:\C?~\ ~\:"'"5 '? ~ ~' ~~'Y:- 'J ~V:l I t~'+-~\~V:l I I I I I I I I I I 3El1'VING: ;'I~tU~er Sl. ~ 8oJ. 9863 ~-e."". 98109 :.'::6\ J.&.4.7330 ,t;:COUNTY : ralor lor Toll = NUmtlef Zel\llh 8385 jol'l".tIrldge ISland ReSIdents :J;a: JU.7330 .tE COUNTY ess BUlIOlng -...e ..980&02 .'\)6\ JS3.S851 rO"'L~'" COUNTY , '5\J . " '. "~ ~.~' > ""-' ',',' ".' .'.< <: ~-rJ~";'~"'::" . -, :.-y, , , .. : .. ',." ..- ": ~ ' " ,.~..".~. ' '.,'~",..,< .:~~_ _:~',~" "'~~J~.~.' ~..:-, ~~S~i;;:, ~0GEi1'SOUN.D;~::> , AIR POLLUTION" : CONTROL AGENCY 200 West Mercer Str..t, Room 205. P.O. 80x 9863 Seattle. Washington 98109 (206) 344,7330 April 20, 1983 ~~. George F. Sherwin, Jr., Director Snohomish County Planning Office Everett, WA 98201 1-- '",!-,,~- - -_. II'.! ...,.r-,.......T'.~._______ ~ . ," I I 'J ~.' r: ,. , . .,.,-. " .i.:. ~J.i .",' . ;.:1 . Ii ,~ I .....J l~ .~ _. '--"':". ,"" ,., ; I \' .\ I '-...., ' . ", " ...__.,;.~l , i ,;, '" " j I -- ",; ,; IdU] !.----~=:. - I <':0 1'; '\1'" . : .~, 'i,\1i\G OFFICE Dear Mr. Sherwin: North Creek Comprehensive Plan We have reviewed the subject draft environmental impact statement and are forwarding the following comments. A minor typographical error regarding the l-hour S02 ] 1 standard (page 61) should be corrected. The l-hour S02 standard is 0.40 ppm not 140 ppm as stated. In December of 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency redesignated the Puget Sound nonattainment areas. As a result, the carbon monoxide nonattainment area which had 2 comprised the entire federal aid urban area, became five smaller nonattainment areas. This project is located in an attainment classified area for carbon monoxide. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, ~' 0 fin '~ (Q,{,\u'L~~ A.R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer kc ',' . -~ l"RU OF DIRECTORS IRlo4AN H~NeyS Poll, Memt:"'!".~ la'w.. 0", alaal. Ci>mmlSSl0ner I(llsaP ~r.h ;.."d'o At''o'''Ue. tl,mg Counly Eu'K;u~"~ 69 .j:'ltm!~ 8 t1dlnos, Counr.llmiln 5nnhoml~11 County. (lou(j ~ulll",1.1nr'- M,IVI)' r,lCQrll3 VICE CHAIRMAN JOIl $Ion,nl, CounCilman rOI Boolh na.fjnel, Plorce County e.ecul..... William E Moore. Mayor EvellHl: A R namm~<H'hl..r. "" Pollul,onConlfOIOt1..::ef "CO"'!.' Da.....ms. MoWOf !ill'morton. ";~d'''5 ""V"'. MdyOl ~Mrllp. " II --) II II II II II -I Ii tI- II II t ElI II II ;I j:.; t Response to Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 1. Comment acknowledged. The correction is reflected in the Errata Sheet of this Final ElS. 2. Your comment is acknowledged and reflected in the Errata Sheet of this Fi nal ElS. ~ 70 I I .~ I,,' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I i !Io " II I I ~~mETRO ii Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Esr:bange Bldg. . 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104 ;':-=il 26, 1983 -.-...--"! .--~ .......;.----,~.,. ,!"..~,\, L,~t1~C"~'! t, 't: ,~.,: (, \ I,,' ~'t :r~~.....'.:.,,'" ~:L " -..., -..' I \ . '- ~ .: ; " I , ~ .--' \",'~.~l""G OFFICg , C.1J, i'L! I ..'-~' Y-=. George F. Sherwin, Director =~ohomish County Planning Office ~unty Administration Building E.erett, washington 98201 :---...-.. C=aft Environmental Impact Statement E=oposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone :::<:ar Mr. Sherwin: ~~e Proposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and :zzone DEIS came to our attention via the SEPA Register as M=~ro was not on the initial document circulation list. Be- cause this project proposal has the potential to impact several 1, a=eas of interest to Metro, we would appreciate being kept =:-prised of its progress through the review process. Metro s~aff has reviewed this document and offers the following =mrnents: Wa'::er Quality ~,::=th Creek has been designated as a water of major concern by M='::ro primarily because of its significance to the fisheries =esource of the Lake Washington drainage basin (North Creek =~eam Resource Inventory, Metro, 1982). Although there,are some recognized water quality problems associated with North C=eek, it remains important to supporting salmonids and contri- ==tes to spawning, rearing and migrating phases of their life =Tcle. North Creek is part of an on-going salmon enhancement :=ogram partially sponsored by Metro. Correlation exists between ~creased impervious surfaces in a watershed, increased peak ~ows/decreased base flows, and a reduction in spawning salmon ?opulations. Due to the large percentage (69%) of this 200 acre s~te proposed to be covered with an impervious surface, we are =::ncerned that a net loss to the salmonid resource can be ex- :~cted if this project is approved even with the implementation == mitigating. measures. We offer the following suggestions to ~dify or support specific aspects of the proposal. ...., page 44 of the DEIS states that the proposed plan amendment provides for, "a 100 foot buffer on each side of the stream (North Creek) which would be designated BP (Business Park) I 2 with a Watershed Site-Sensitive overlay". It is further 71 o Draft Environmental Impact Statement April 26, 1983 Page Two 2l ~ " l , , , & ,. , , ,~ LfJ 4, 5 suggested that the exact limits of this buffer would be negotiated with Snohomish County during the rezone process. In order to protect water quality and stream habitat, we stongly recommend that the proposed 100 foot buffer be maintained as a minimum distance~ The DEIS identifies (page 44) a lowland drainage area (peat and saturated soil). We concur that construction should be avoided here to preserve its benefit to ground and surface water hydrology. We also recommend that wherever other areas of peat soils are identified on the si te, that they be carefully examined to determine their suitability to support construction activities. Such areas represent potential erosion control problems, par- ticularly where excavation and fill are proposed. The proposed project is designed to include a drainage plan to control the rate and volume of downstream dis- charge consisting of drainage interceptor ditches above North Creek and two detention ponds along the western and southwestern portion of the site (page 41). We suggest that retention should be more fully considered as an option in the overall drainage control plan. Detention ponding is a common practice for stormwater control that concentrates runoff into a collector system and discharges it at one or two outfalls into the nearest receiving water (North Creek). This can actually create a pollutant point source with the potential to inundate North Creek with significant amounts of urban pollutants. For a site this large that is proposed to be intensively developed, several other drainage control options should be considered. . Division of the site into sub-catchments with a drainage plan for each which takes advantage of natural sub-basin features to control both the quality and quantity of runoff. . If one or two discharge points for a centralized collection system are chosen, a crossflow type coalescing plate oil-sediment-water separator system (properly sized for the drainage area and for detention time) should be installed ahead of each outfall. Although the controlled release overland sheet flow discharge method that is pro- posed has merit to mitigate water quality and quantity impacts, the volume of water collected from the large impervious areas on the site may frequently overload the outfall system and negate positive benefits. 72 I I .'-) I I I I I I I .,'. I I I I I I I I(~ ;1 10 n 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement April 26, 1983 Page Three 6 Under the section on "Flora" (pages 73-77) it is suggested that walking trails will be included in the site specific project design. We recommend that any trails within the proposed greenbelt be set back from the streambank a mini- mum of 30 to 50 feet. Native riparian vegetation should be retained wherever possible and we support the~roponent's intent to revegetate disturbed areas and enhance under-vegetate areas to provide adequate stream shading and bank protection. This is particularly important in the open pasture areas where we also recommend the use of blackberries to deter human and animal access to the streambank that can result in increased erosion. 7 Although this preliminary phase of the proposal does not include a detailed site-specific drainage control plan, the DEIS includes a number of mitigating measures that would be required (pages 71-72). We strongly recommend that all suggested mitigating measures be implemented and any additional measures noted above be given serious consideration. We look forward to, reviewing a more detailed proposal at a later date. For further information or assistance regarding water quality comments, please contact Dennis Wilson at 447-6361. 8 Wasterwater Treatment Facilities The DEIS addresses sewer facilities (pages 147-151) and correctly identifies projected trunk capacity problems in this area and on- going negotiations among the City of Bothell, the Alderwood Sewer District and Metro. The Alderwood Sewer District has proposed that Metro construct a permanent 42-inch diameter trunk to parallel Alderwood's 18-inch line. The timing of this 42-inch Metro facilit" extension will be based on a number of factors and a definite con- struction schedule cannot be anticipated at this time. 9 Public Transit System Metro transit only operates in portions of Snohomish County under contract with local transit authorities. Assuming such a contract could be negotiated with Community Transit to serve the proposed park-and-ride lot at the North Bothell interchange, this service would be substantially peak-hour oriented, carrying commuters south of King County in the morning and home again in the evening. The DE1S states that, "the provision of a large employment con- centration would create a demand for public transportation, and the density of employment and location adjacent to 1-405 should allow efficient and economical service", (page 129). We note, however, that the development will have a floor area ratio of less than 0.25 and parking spaces in excess of one per employee. Metro has found that transit demand at employment locations is largely a function of employment density as well as parking cost and availability. Large low-density developments with abundant free parking actually generate very little demand for transit service. While Metro could provide contract service for this 73 II ~- ,::) , , , 6 III , if- . . . AI II II II 11---,- , --.J II Draft Environmental Impact Statement April 26, 1983 Page Four Udevelopment, it appears that the market would be too small 10 to justify a higher level of service. For additional.. infor- mation regarding transit comments, please contact Roger Pence at 447-4708. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, ~S&~ Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division RGP:1db cc: Dennis Wilson Roger Pence Bob Hirsch 74 I I I') I I I I I I 1,- I I I I I I 1 I() I Response to METRO 1. METRO has been added to the distribution list in this FEIS. 2. Comment acknowledged. While the plan amendment text allows for nego- ti ati on in the 100 foot buffer, the rezone sponsor has indi cated.. that a 100 foot buffer would be provided on both sides of the creek. In' addi- tion, the setback requirements in the Codes Covenants and Restrictions (contained as an Appendix to the DElS) require an additional 20 foot setback for buildings and parking from the 100 foot greenbelt buffer. Therefore, no structures could occur within 120 feet of the stream. 3. Comment acknowledged. Detailed geotechnical studies, including test pits or soil borings have been and will be performed to assess the suitability of site soils for foundation support. In accordance with the Snohomish County Drainage Ordinance, a temporary erosion and sedi- mentation control system will be set up and maintained throughout pro- ject construction to minimize off-site impacts, particularly where excavation and fill are proposed. 4. A retention pond could have an adverse effect on the quantity of flow in North Creek. A combination of detention/retention pond may be more effective to control pollutants entering the creek. At the time of design, both detention and retention will be studied to determine the best solution to minimize pollutant entry into the creek. ,5. A crossflow type coalescing plate oil-sediment-water separator system, an overland sheet flow discharge method and any other recognized system wi 11 ,be analyzed in determi ni ng the best type of di scharge method or combination of methods to be used. 6. Comment acknowledged. Providing access points to the stream could reduce the formation of trails through the brush that would otherwise develop. 7. Comment acknowledged. See responses 4-5 above. 8. Comment acknowledged. Please also refer to response #1 to the Snohomish Health District. 9. Comment acknowledged and is incorporated as such into this Final EIS. Also please refer to the comments and responses to the Commuter Pool. 10. In developing 1990 vehicle trip' generation estimates for the rezone area, transit was not seen as a significant choice, and therefore no person-trips were assigned to this mode. The proximity of the site to the proposed Bothell 2 park-and-ride lot and to a freeway and primary arterial was, however, seen as advantageous in potentially providing transit access to the site at little incremental cost to transit operators. Measures other than transit to decrease peak hour vehicle trips to/from the rezone area are oiscussed below in reponse to comments from Seattle/King County Commuter Pool. 75 NOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT Courthouse verett. Washington 98201 Area Code 206 2S9-9440 URIS HYATT, M.D., M,P.H, ii..lr" Ollie.' AVID A. STOCKTON. M.P.A. ElI.cur;... Auistem DISTRICT MEMSERS COUNTY :~ = Snoham;,h Q CITIES AND TOWNS lr- a. I. III h II III II IIJ II Arlinglon Bn.r Olrringlcm Edmond, E....r.1I Gold Ba, GranIte Fait. Indell Lait.St.....n. Lynnwood Mary.ville Monroe MCllmUaller.rrlce Mullilleo Sl'lohomish 511nwood Sullen Wood......,. - ~@~~n M~lrmrry APR 2 51983 !W '9,,11 .]'~CEr~rll~"':D .;L~ . J...'lI_ III, =~ SHAPIRO AHD ASSOCIATES. INC. {" -.~:: lJG3 April 19, 1983 r co. l'L.-\N!\o'NG OFFICE ~~. George F. Sherwin, Jr., Director Snohocish County Planning Office Everett, Hashington 90201 Re: Draft EIS For Proposed Amendment to the North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan and Rezone for Proposed Belanich Business Park. Dear Sir: The Snohocish Health District staff has reviewed the above referenced document. The district is concerned about sewer availability. In a letter dated 2/10/83 from ~~. P. J. Blunck, District Engineer for the Alderwood Hater District, he states in part "until agreement is reached with METRO which may include Bothell...we cannot offer sewer service to your proposed development." The ,draft EIS makes it clear that Alderwood expects capacity problems within two years. Further elaboration are required on the probability, extent, duration and 1 peripheral impacts of these problems. It is reasonable to assume, given any delay in sewer availability, that pressure will be created for development utilizing onsite sewage disposal. This type of contingency needs adequate discussion in the EIS. We appreciate this opportunity to respond to this proposal. If you would like to discuss our concerns, you can contact this office at 259-0693. Very truly yours, (H-~~ C. H. Man~m. R.S., Director Environmental Health Division CHM: jsf 76 I I .') I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I Response to Snohomish Health District 1. As noted in the Draft ElS and comment #8 in the letter from METRO (contained in this Final EIS) the exact timing of the improvements in the system are not as yet known. However, preliminary discussions, to date, between the Alderwood Water District and METRO have included a preliminary estimate of construction in 1984. METRO has begun action on the proposed project by requesting a Land Use Certification letter from the planning jurisdictions which would be affected by the action, in- cluding King County, Snohomish County, and the Cities of Bothell and Everett. The certification process must occur prior to action by METRO on the project (as per Resolution 2933, Section 301). The letter of certification must be returned to METRO within 90 days. Again, the exact timing of the improvements are not known; however, to date, the indications are that the project will proceed, if not in 1984, then shortly thereafter. Also, please note that the letter from Mr. P.J. Blunk states that until an "agreement" is reached, service to the development would not be pro- vided. The City of Bothell, METRO, and the Alderwood District are con- tinuing negotiations which are expected to be completed in the near future (prior to building of the improvements, expected in 1984). Once an agreement is reached, sewer service could be provided to the site prior to the actual construction of downstream system improvements. lt should also be noted that the proposed Business Park is in an urban service area and would not be approved with a septic system. The County Business Park code also requires sewers. The development must be served with sewer service. 77 - II ,;:) fill " III fill fI ~ . ,. ,.. " fI fI fI . ,,~ tl830429 TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM PLANNING US, ENGINEERING MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT NT OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS ON THE "PROPOSED NORTH CREEK COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE, DEIS" APRIL 28, 1983 SUBJECT: DATE: The following comments are provided on subject matter A. B. ~T~ . :.-.-...... Draina9P- 1. The document intimates that the County will assume maintenance of the detention facilities. For this particular type of development, the owners of the properties are responsible for maintenance of the facilities. t 2. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Canyon Park Business Center contained at the back of the EIS should include a section addressing maintenance of storm drainage facilities contained on private property. Due to the magnitude of the development, mitigating measures by Fish and Game should also be included in any subsequent agreements such as rezones, etc. In this way, specific construction measures are clearly defined, thereby avoiding misunderstandings and delays when the drainage plans come in for review. 2 Traffic 1. The transportation/circulation section of the DEIS identifies road network deficiencies which will occur over the next 18 years if traffic volumes develop as projected. The DE IS also outlines the mitigation measures needed to provide capacity and safety for the projected volumes. The overall projection of traffic volumes, resultant capacity deficiencies and mitigation measures listed in the DEIS are resonably accurate comparing the analysis to other projections for the area(PSCOG, Transpo, etc.). ~ 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, if approved, will allow the Business Park rezone to occur. The BP rezone is reviewable under the provisions of Chapter 26B.55.01D(l) and requirements to implement identified mitigation measures can be assessed. Chapter 26B.55 requires mitigation of traffic impact on the road system serving 501 4. 78 . . I I I I I ,. :1 .. ,1 . ,. ,I I . I I I --, I <.J Jeff Kelley-Clark Page 2 April 28, 1983 the development. The Business Park plan indicates that the rezone area will have access solely to SR 527 and through Title 26B, the only requirement is to prevent level of service or hazardous conditions at the site interface with SR 527. } 3. The deficiencies forecasted for County roads such as 208th St SE, 228th St SE, and State highways such as SR 527 beyond the site and 1-405 are not within the Title 26B defined road system (26B.51.080), but will be to some degree exacerbated by the existence of the Business Park. 208th St and 228th St, both in the vicinity of SR 527 will very likely be placed on a six year Transportation Improvement Program unless properties with frontage on those road sections develop and improve the frontage through Title 26 B obligations. In any event, there is a projected impact from the proposed business park which under RCW 82.02.020 can be mitigated by means of a payment in lieu of construction of road improvements. 5 Since the jurisdiction of Title 26B happens in this case to be limited to the Business Park's interface with SR 527, the only regulatory device by which offsite traffic impact mitigation measures can be assessed, may be some form of a rezone contract or agreement. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment should address the projected roadway deficiencies and assign mitigation measures to the rezone stage of development. Since the projected traffic volumes are useful only to the extent that they are indicators of potential problems, the most equitable method of determining traffic impact is to analyze the road network at the time of each major phase of build out within the project. A rezone agreement similar to the Hewlett-Packard road improvement agreement would be applicable. 4. The following items are suggested changes, modifications, eliminations and general questions listed by page numbers. Page 2 6 Part A, third paragraph, replace Canyon Park Road Road with 31st Ave SE for clarity and consistency with 228th St SE and Fitzgerald Page 121-126 to be totally <elati_e to l7 The figures shown do not seem each other. 79 II II ~, ,.; II II II II II ,. tr- III II II II ~ ... ...4 II II 11'':-'':) . ':';; II Jeff Kelley-Clark Page 3 April 28, 1983 The impact created by the development of the rezone area should be quantified by subtracting the volume figure for any road segment on the Without Plan Amendment page from the corresponding volume figure for the same year forecast on the With Plan Amendment page. The figures do not add up when the total site generated volume is compared to the road segment volumes calculated as just 7 described. These figures are estimates only and cannot be used to assess a percentage share of road improvement costs. The figures therefore only indicate that capacity problems will exist and may be exacerbated by the rezone development if road improvements are not made in pace with new development. Pace 129-Miticating Measures The off site improvement list may, in fact, be more extensive than shown in that it could also include 228th 8 St SE and 208th St SE. If the phases of development within the BP are analyzed as they are applied for, a much more accurate description of direct impact can be made. RAB/eb cc: Ernie Berg Barold Wirch Tom Murdoch 80 I I I~') I I I I I I I I I I il , I :1 I il n I J I -, I I I Respomse to Snohomish County Department of Public Works 1. Tme developer has agreed to provide maintenance service to the site rather than dedication of the system to the County. The Codes, Cove- n&nts and Restrictions (CC&R's) have been redrafted to include a main- t=nance provision in response to your comments. A copy of the new ~ovision 5.6(d) in the CC&R's is contained in this Final EIS as AiIlpendix B. 2. ~ents acknowledged. The developers will continue to coordinate with tne Departments of Fish and Game in development of the drainage system amd during the Hydraulic Project approval process. Please also refer to tne comment letters and responses to the Departments of Fish and Game contained in this FEIS. 3. 4. ~ response required. Tne 1990 intersection configuration at 220th Street S.E. and SR-527 (3elanich property site access) will provide LOS C for the projected ~ak traffic demands. This is the design level of service specified by Title 26B of the Snohomish County Code. 5. The road improvement and other traffic impact mitigation responsibili- ~es of the rezone applicant (Roger Belanich) will be described in the ~~oposed road agreement. lt is anticipated that the terms of the road ~3reement will be a condition of rezone approval. Timing of the development of the business and industrial uses in the 200-acre rezone area will be determined by market conditions, but it is ~resently assumed the site will be 40 percent developed by 1990 and ~~lly developed by 2000. Traffic analyses will be performed as neces- sary at the time of major building phases in order to determine appro- ~riate mitigation requirements. 6. ~'our comment is incorporated in this Final EIS on page 2. 7. Sase 1990 daily traffic on SR-527 between SR-405 and 20ath Street S.E. ....;thout the rezone was obtained from the "1990 Transportation Pl an, Snohomi sh Subregi onal Transportation Study" (June 1981). An assumpti on ~as made that this volume included one-half of the traffic shown in the :::ldec Traffic Analysis "Figure 7" (full development on Eldec, Quadrant, ~nd North Creek Business Park No.2 sites) and one-half of full devel- opment generation which could occur east of SR-527 from the area pre- sently zoned BP. In order to be certain that intersection impacts were adequately addressed at the Belanich and Eldec approaches to SR-527, no reductions in site traffic were made on the site approaches. To prepare balanced volumes for the roadway links would require a detailed know- uedge of the zone structure, land use traffic generation rates, and ~oints of road network loading which is not available from the 1990 Plan or available working papers. 81 - ~.,....,"r: II 11 , III .....~ .. II ,. II III " .' , " ..... .r , " ~ r , '" ~ r ~ " ~ .. II II 11_-- : ) -. II During phased implementation of the proposed road agreement with the State, County, and other developers, a review of the individual develop- ments' contribution to areawide traffic will be made. 8. See response '5, above. ~- 82 I SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARKS and RECREATION OIVISION Departmant of Community and Educational Servicaa Ronald G. Martin, Parks and Recreation Manager WIUIS D. TUCKER Ccwnry Executive May 6, 1983 /!JJ@?(0:J ulJ ::S" /~J/, r f ., ". M.Ljy [) _ . '.?:~>, r" Iq:o' ."il/PI/? - c;} 04/(0 .(". . .....Je '. .. ". .. ..~. .'. Ms. Ellen LaPorte, Project Manager Shapiro & Associates, Inc. $12 Smith Tower 5D6 - 2nd Ave. Seattle, ViA 98104 .1 .I "J. SUBJECT: Draft E.I.S.: NORTH CREEK VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMMENDMENT and Business Park Development Dear Ms. LaPorte: 1 :;;<'eview of the proposed business park development to be located adjacent to North Creek and the Canyon Park/I-405 Interchange, has resulted in the following comments and sug- gestions regarding parks, recreation and public-accessible open space: I) Forrrer Snohomish County park planning has been forcused primarily upon the rural county areas. Only recently have significant efforts been made to deal with the rapid residential growth in the suburban, unincorporated portions of the county. In order to meet this present, and future recreation space and new facility demand, a specific park site selection process will be developed and incorporated into the soon-to-be revised Comprehensive Park Plan. Referring to Page 136 of the D.E.I.S., the most obvious impact of the proposed business park development will be removing the present open-field acreage from any future large-scale active recreation use, thus reducing the available stock of undeveloped, open, and relatively level sites which could be designated as playfield areas. 2 2) The City of Issaquah Parks and Recreation Department has completed a study which calculates the amount of recreation demand created by corporate/industrial entities upon a nearby municipality. The study concludes that there is a direct park acreage and facility demand relationship per 1,000 employees of each commercial develop- ment or complex. Our office will be happy to furnish the study data, or you may contact Mr. Kerry Anderson, Director, Issaquah Parks Department, P. O. Box M, Issaquah, Vi A 98027. {" The proposed impact mitigation measures for the project should reflect a conscious effort to not only maintain the identIfied sensitive creek bank corridor, but enhance it as well. I ) k 600 . 128'1, STREEl S.E. . EVERETT, WI\SHING-TON 98204 . /20l' 337.2550 83 IJ .11 II') II . . . . II If., . . . h II II II ."U) ...~ II Ms. Ellen LaPorte May 6, 1983 Page Two RECOMMENDATION: The 100-foot buffers should be regarded as a mInimum open space distance. Where possible, through strategic building siting, the area dimensions should be increased to accomodate various recreation elements 4 and 'substantial landscaping to be enjoyed by the employees and public alike. In addition to passive pedestrian trails and picnic areas, fitness or jogging trails and reduced-scale, playfield turf areas could utilize the larger spaces between buildings or parking lots. Examples or private/public open space utilization are the Bellefield Office Park (Bellevue), and the Koll Business Center site plan (just to the south of Canyon Park, near Bothell). This corporate recreation provision trend is firmly in place in Japan and elsewhere around the world, and could be utilized to a much greater extent in this region. Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposal. Should you require further infor- mation or discussions, please don't hesitate to contact our staff. .. Pat Kenyon Principal Planner RGM:PK:sr 84 CS-83-156 I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I '."" ".' ~ ,",,'J . " '. ........ . l ----, tl f f \ Response to Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Division 1. Comment acknowledged 2. The study, completed by the City of Issaquah, concluded that there is a need for 4-8 acres of recreational space per 1,000 employees. This in- cludes 4 acres for playing fields and associated open space, a~d 4 acres for indoor facilities and parking. On page 136, the DEIS indicated the need for an additional 187 acres of park-designated land which assumed 4 acres per 1,000 population. This estimate included both the direct and indirect, or induced, population and employment from the proposed BP ~ndment area. According to the Issaquah study, the demand may be as high as 8 acres per 1,000 employees. The DEIS estimate, however, is a reasonable one based on both the 1977 Snohomish County standards, al- though it is on the low end according to the Issaquah study. 3. The proposed rezone includes enhancement of the creek area as identified on pages 72, 76, and 80 of the DEIS. Please also see comments and responses to the Departments of Fisheries and Game and Susan A. Selmer in this FEIS. 4. Tne proposed rezone includes a 100-foot buffer on both sides of North Creek and a jogging/walking trail throughout the site including along the outermost edge (away form the creek) along the open space area. The CC&R's contained in the appendix of the DEIS also include an addi- tional 2D-foot setback for structures from the edge of the greenbelt open space area. The types of proposed landscape areas is described in the CC&R's in the appendix of the DEIS. 5. C~~ent acknowledged. 85 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 3626 - 156th St. S.W. L YNNWOOD. WASHINGTON 98036 743-4605 Serving South Snohomish County ~ SEWER SERVICE D Mr. George F. Sherwin, Jr., Director Snohomish County Planning Office County Administration Building Everett, Washington 98201 Dear Mr. Sherwin: /- :;;) !; 't " .,CJtn I ~ _ -_, CO. PLANNING OFFICE SUBJECT: Draft EIS - Proposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone We have received and reviewed the above Draft EIS and offer the following comments: Page 145 - Last paragraph 8" water line along SR 527 terminates at approximately 2l6th St. S.W. 12" water line along Maltby Road terminates at East boundary of Safeway site. Page 147 - 2nd paragraph Fire flow requirements are established by the Snohomish County Fire Marshall's Office. I. f- I. -I. I. L~ ..J ,. 1 Pages 147 and 149 Alderwood Water District has only one boundary. However, water and/or sewer service may not both be available to the same area. The entire amendment area is within the Dis- trict's Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Area but not all is presently within the District's boundaries. Page 149 - 2nd paragraph The statement regarding the 1966 study and "moving the sewage \Vest" is not meaningful in the context of this discussion. Page 183 - 1st paragraph Alderwood Water District Plant Expansion has been completed and a portion of the 16" supply main has b~en constructed. 86 I I I :1 , ; 1. i II t 1 III tl I I I! .:) o Mr. George F. Sherwin, Jr. -2- April 6, 1983 Thank you for the opportunity to review the report. Sincerely, ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT l!.i'B~ PJB:eh District Engineer Response to Alderwood Water District 1. Your comments are acknowledged and have been incorporated in the Errata Sheet of this Final EIS. 87 J f t -:i f t II 11 " , III I) III II II II II It 'lto ,. CITY OF BOTH ELL 18305 - 10lsI N,E. BOTHELL. WASHINGTON 98011 (206) 48b- 8152 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT May 3, 1983 - 1 j1i""'" "........-;"y-; /-'0-;["1 \ f'..~_!~~/~ - 1;"--; "'-~ " ." 1/ \~~ ~;-;~~ !J;~3~ ' \ 5:30 f'"",, \ CO. lLAN:'m~G OFFICE George F. Sherwin Jr., Director ~'oh~sh County Planning Office Coun~y Administration Building Evere~t, WA 98201 Dea: ~. Sherwin: ~~~:T: Proposed North Creek comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Environmental Impact Statement ~~~ you for the opportunity to review the EIS on the proposed North Creek ~rehensive Plan amendment and rezone. We find this a difficult impact s~~ement to respond to for several reasons. As you are aware, the City of BO~ell has been doing planning in the North creek Valley for a number of years. In 1958 the portion of North Creek Valley south of the County line w~ designated heavy industrial. Subsequently, in 1971 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designated the area agricultural. The Plan however noted ~~~ ~e area was suitable for a multiplicity of uses and when the need arose sho~d be considered for a change after intensive study and with the proper cO::l'':.rols. As you are aware, the Vitulli rezone followed soon thereafter which was a soce~.at similar situation to what you are doing now. The acreage was smaller, ~~, of course, it was a regional shopping center, which created proportion- a~el:y greater impacts. In any case, in II SAVE versus the City of Bothellll it was determined that the rezone the City approved which would have allowed the shopping center was essentially a large spot rezone and that we had not a~e~~tely addressed the needs of the two counties. This decision was based ~ially on input from Snohomish County. Sin=e that time, the City has gone through an extensive exercise lasting five yea:s to restudy the Valley and develop a plan, The Plan for the North Creek Valley, adopted in 1979 and amended in 1981. We have also adopted a Sewer and ~ater Comprehensive Plan which includes this area, approved the Koll ~~siness Park project located on the Vitulli farm, and are working on a tr~~portation study. Wi~h the exception of the Sewer and Water Comprehensive Pl~" impact statements were written for all of these, including three EISs on ~~e North Creek Valley Plan change alone. During all of this we have 88 I I I :j ....,.. I I I I I I I I :1 I I I I' - i I 0 I i CITY OF BOTHELL George F. Sherwin Jr. May 3, 1983 Page 2 1. received many negative letters from both your department and Public Works oepartment and more recently negative testimony at public hearings stressing the impact on Snohomish County of our actions and the lack of coordination by the City of Bo~~ell. The basis for many of these comments was your North creek Plan which we understood was a short range plan for five years and, t::-.e:efo::e, a plan in which we were in agreement. However, it began to be cocsidered as a longer range document and, therefore, conflicted with every- ~ing we were doing south of the County line in an area which is a natural growth center. [NO"", an =endment to this plan is being proposed for a heavier use than any- thing we have had, with the exception of the regional shopping center, and ~ ye~ very little consideration is given to the City of Bothell or any of the i=?acts south of the County line and perhaps more importantly, little thought se~ to be given to redoing the entire comprehensive plan. 3 The Environmental Impact Statement is almost adequate as a project EIS and is, therefo:e, very complete for a plan ElS. However, the entire premise it is based on seems to be wrong. We are not sure whether this is an appropriate use of the land or not -- it well might be -- but we would feel much more coo=ortable about the conclusion if you were reviewing your entire plan, and not a 350 acre section of it. I= you do pursue the route being taken now'and the land is replanned and re- zoned, then we feel very strongly that an additional EIS should be required ~=ore the project is acted upon or some comparable mechanism developed to e-~ure that all of the impacts are adequately addressed. Following are some general and specific comments on the EIS itse.lf: 4[" The use of acreage figures for various combinations of environmental ele- ments was difficult for us to follow and generally very confusing. We do not know if this can be simplified, but we feel this should be given con- sideration. 5 2. Page 43 - 45. This pertains to our major concern that the southern por- tion of the North Creek Comprehensive Plan was a short range plan. On page 43 it is stated the "County has determined that most of the site does not meet the criteria for Watershed Site Sensitive." On page 45 it is stated "the site will be bordered on three sides by suburban inten- sity development." Also, on page 45 it is stated that the plan "should be reviewed and possibly updated five years after its adoption." We recommend that at minimum the entire southern half of the planning area be reevaluated. Sf3' We assume there is no traffic study in Appendix C and that this is in error. In the last sentence of that same paragraph, it is that since the site access is directly onto a State road the Page 46. statement indicated 89 h .~ .1 . . ,. J. . . J.- . I. . AI . . II .':> 41 CITY OF BOTHELL 6 7 Be. 9 1{ 11 C' 12[ 13r George F. Sherwin Jr. May 3, 1983 Page 3 County Road Ordinance does not apply. We are concerned that the County ~y not take the initiative to request the developer pay for necessary o:f-site street improvements whether they are State or County~roads. The County should take the initiative to ensure this is a major condition for approval. Also, we are concerned that any necessary traffic improvements are identified in the areas to the south and east of the site. Page 50. It is important to not be misled by the term "semi-rural atmos- phere" as used in the Bothell North Creek Valley Plan. This should be viewed from the context of one living in an urban environment, not from a r~al environment. The uses listed on this page are urban in nature and reflect a definite suburban environment. The statement that indicates "zoning designations as previously identified on the City's zoning map are re::loved..." is incorrect as the City has essentially added an overlay zonL,g that encourages zoning changes as proposed projects are approved. Tnere is no mention of Bothell's Comprehensive Planning area which extends to ea,yon Park and I-405 in Snohomish County. Also, we are concerned that no mention is made here of the Bothell Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plan nor the Transportation Improvement Plan completed in June of 1982. Al- ~~ough the Transportation Plan is not' officially adopted by the City Council, it nevertheless is a functional document and contains valid data that should be addressed, if not here then somewhere in the EIS. 5. ?age 66 - 72. One of our major concerns is with the treatment of North Creek in terms of the eventual development of the site. As you are well aware, the City is taking extreme care to avoid adverse impacts on the creek. Tne Koll Company will be investing considerable amounts of money to realign the stream channel to enhance water quality, stream flow and ~~e fisheries resource. We hope the County will go to similar lengths to ensure little or no sedimentation problems due to site development will oc=~ daJnstream. It is essential that detention, retention and release 0: storm water into North Creek be carefully planned. Page 88. Did the PSCOG forecasts that were made for the local planning areas covering this proposal anticipate the eventual development of the project site? Or will the employment figures generated for this site be in addition to what was already allocated for these local planning areas? Page 91. It would be more accurate to indicate that WSDOT is considering construction of the park and ride lot, rather than Metro. Bothell's North Creek Valley development should be considered as surrounding development because of its expanse and similarities with the projects mentioned on t.~is page. Page 100 - 112. The discussion of Population, Employment and Housing appears not to address the Bothell area which is as close or closer to ~~e site than most of the North Creek Planning Area. Figure 19 on page lC2 indicates all of Bothell is within the 15 minute commute time. We go !~ Ul CITY OF BOTHELL George May 3, Page 4 ....'" "j 13.L 14[ 15 16 17 18L' ,.OJ.,, 'J F. Sherwin Jr. 1983 feel this project in conjunction with the surrounding development poses a significant influence on patterns in Bothell. The cumulative effect of creating a North Creek Valley employment center (Snohomis~County and 3othell) will affect local existing commute patterns. 9. page 112 - 129. The transportation section while extensive does not adequately address traffic volumes and concerns south of 1-405. We have basic concerns with the traffic figures on SR-527 extending into Bothell. Wriy was the Entranco study titled the Bothell Transportation Improvement Plan not consulted in the traffic analysis for this EIS? Traffic volumes are substantially less south of 1-405 then shown in this EIS. Entranco =orecasts indicate a need for signals at the I-405 Off-ramp and SR-527. On page 116 the earliest opening of the park and ride lot would be 1989 as indicated by WSDOT. It would be important to note the Bothell desig- nation as one of Metro's community transit centers. The eventual estab- lishment of a center in Bothell could lend itself to feeder transit ser- vice to the proposed employment site. On page 117, Table 17 should L~clude 228th Street forecasts. On page 118, Table 18, we note an apparent mistake on SR-527 improvements. We do not anticipate 4-5 lane ~provements from SR-522 through Bothell. As stated earlier in this letter we are concerned about the extent of improvements that should be :ade to the off-site road system and identification of who is to be re- sponsible. 10. Page 135. As you are aware, we have been concerned about the lag in parks and recreation facilities in the southern portion of your planning area. r~ mitigating measures you allude to potential opportunities available as part of the plan rezone. We would like to suggest that in any plan amend- -o~t this area be more specifically addressed. For example, with proper planning we could have a regional trail network along North Creek even- ~ually connecting Everett, Bothell, Redmond and Seattle. Developers of ~~siness parks could also help contribute to the imbalance of recreation =acilities in the area in a way which would augment their own plans, such as is being done with the Koll development and Quadrant proposal in Bothell. n. Page 151. No specific mitigating measures have been developed for the sewer problems. As you are aware, Alderwood Sewer District, the City of 3othell, Metro, and Koll Company have been working together to solve the p~oblem of the undersized Alderwood sewer line as it runs through Bothell. Perhaps a rezone is not appropriate until the sewer line does have the capacity. Certainly no development should be approved without the developer ~king a contribution to this line. Page 151. Under storm drainage no information is available regarding the =lood plain in the area which was mentioned earlier. However, we feel L~is is an important consideration. 91 t 1 .I I - I I I I II II -) ... ~ II II .. , ~ :..~. ~ " '" II ~ ~(:,~ '-- ....'~ ( ~ , "- . CITY OF BOTHELL George F. Sherwin Jr. May 3, 1983 Page 5 In summary, we feel this is not a bad EIS for a plan amendment and rezone. However, our basic feeling is that the action is the wrong one at this time. More appropriate would be a complete update of the North Creek Plan. If the ~ plan change and rezone is pursued, additional SEPA work should be required and a contract rezone approach used to make sure any development adequately addresses the off-site impacts both north and south of the County line. SD:Ju.- I Daniel W. TaYl~ector CoDUlluni ty Deve~~~~~~ DWT/JS/kjr 92 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ u Response to City of Bothell 1. The North Creek Comprehensive Plan for Snohomish County was written in 1977 and was intended as a guide to development for the area through 1990. The time period of the plan is specifically identified in Sec- tion 4.4, Plan Target Date, on page 22, where it states: ~. The plan takes into consideration the growth which has been projected for the study area through 1990. These projections have been established by the Snohomish County Planning Department in conjunction with Puget Sound Council of Government's Projections and other County back- ground studies and analyses. These projections may, over time, be modified by factors such as community goals and policies, public facilities, employment centers, and/or family size. Nevertheless, the plan does represent a way in which growth, presently anticipated to occur between now and 1990, can be directed in order to achieve a desirable living situation in the future. The existing plan designation for lands immediately abutting Bothell are not consistent with the land uses planned for the area south of the site within the city of Bothell. This inconsistency has been recog- nized and identified in previous comment letters. However, these lands are not part of the study area for this amendment. The study area is a mile north of the Bothell city limits. (Please also see the discussion on page 50 of the DEIS regarding the Plan for the North Creek Valley, City of Bothell.) 2. The proposed business park (BP) use is similar to the uses and densi- ties proposed for both the Koll and Quadrant developments within the city of Bothell. For example, Quadrant development proposed 650,000 gross square feet (gsf) of office space and 2,100,ODD gsf of clean light industrial on a 17B-acre site. The Koll development proposed 1,540,000 gsf of mixed commercial, office and light industrial uses on a 140-acre site. This would result in an overall average of 15,450 square feet of building space per acre for the Quadrant site and 11,000 square feet of building space per acre for the Koll site. The proposed 260-acre BP area of the Comprehensive Plan amendment would result in a maximum of 2,432,ODO gsf of building space or 9,353 square feet of building space per acre. While the City of Bothell has a restriction on the maximum impervious surface coverage for both these sites, the overall density as it relates to square feet of building space per acreage is actually less in the proposed North Creek amendment area than on both the Koll and Quadrant sites. Since the gsf of building space is used as the basis of employees and trip generation it would be reasonable to assume that the impacts associated with employment and trip generation would be similar for all those projects, though to slightly varying degrees, depending on the maximum density. The types of uses allowed in the BP amendment area are also similar in the 93 A., - & ,~\ It',.. , , It , I. 'It Ii" " ,It I. . II "6 A 110 t Snohomish North Creek amendment area as those proposed on both the Koll and Quadrant sites. The EIS specifically identifies impacts which would occur within the 15-, 25-, and 35-minute commute zones. The entire city of Bothell (including the City's planning area) is within the IS-minute commute zone. For example, on page 110, the DEIS (Table 13) identifies both the direct and induced households expected within the 15-minute commute zone. Since Bothell is entirely within this commute zone, it can be expected that a portion of the additional households identified in the 15-minute zone would occur within the city limits. Likewise, page 106 identifies the increase in population and employment expected within the commute zones as a result of the amendment. Again, a portion of both the direct and induced population and employment identified to occur within the IS-minute commute zone would occur within Bothell. As this analysis projects impacts up to seventeen years into the future, during which time the City of Bothell will probably expand its boun- daries, it was deemed more beneficial to analyze impacts in specific impact areas; i.e., the 15 minute commute zone, rather than base an analysis on the present city limits of a jurisdiction such as Bothell. The public service and facility impacts identified in the DEIS also identify impacts of both the direct and induced population and employ- ment both within Snohomish County and outside of Snoyhomish County within the commute zones. Please see Figure 19 on page 102 of the DEIS wnich identifies the commute zones. A quantitative analysis was included in the DEIS which identified both the direct and induced popu- lation, housing, and employment impacts expected from the proposed amendment and rezone. As can be seen, Figure 19 includes the geograph- ic areas north of Everett and south of Snohomi sh County, i ncl udi ng a portion of Seattle, Bellevue, and Renton. The DEIS also examines the land use, population, and housing changes expected within the entire North Creek Planning Area as a result of the proposed amendment. For example, on page 110, the DEIS identifies the expected number of households within the entire North Creek Planning Area by 1990 and 200D and identifies the impact of the proposed amend- &ent as a percentage of the projections. Also, on page 94, the DEIS indicates the expected change in total acreages of various land use categories within the entire North Creek Planning Area as a result of the proposed amendment. Therefore, while the area identified in the DEIS as the "study area" is identified as the 350-acre amendment area, the analysis is much more expansive and includes all areas within the 35-minute zones which again extend north of Everett and south of Bellevue and include Bothell. The commute zone methodology of analysis has been successfully applied by Snohomish County in a previous EIS (Honeywell Marine Systems Dpera- tions) and has been reviewed and approved by the Puget Sound Council of bovernments. 3. As indicated in response #2, impacts on the entire Comprehensive Plan area were included in the analysis of the DEIS. The County regularly reviews its comprehensive plans to determine whether a full reanalysis 94 I I I ~ " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '. u I of a particular plan is in order. At this time, this is not the case for the overall North Creek Comprehensive Plan. The County did deter- mine that consideration of this small area amendment was appropriate. The community sentiment is expressed in the comment letters received in response to the DEIS. Further community input will be provided during the public hearing phase. Both the plan and state planning statute provide for amendments or updates if changed circumstances occur as noted on page 70 of the plan under Section 6.3. In this particular case, the developer submitted soil borings to the County which were not available when the original plan designation for the amendment area was made, indicating that much of the site did not meet the criteria identified in the plan as Watershed Site-Sensitive. The County, therefo~e, reexamined the criteria in light of the new information and determined which areas of the site should in fact remain Watershed Site-Sensitive and which should be reclassified. The EIS serves as a tool to examine the potential impacts of the proposed land use change. The EIS closely examines various alternatives and their impacts, noting the degree to which they comply with the adopted plan map and policies. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the goals, poli- cies, and land use designations identified in the plan were based upon a set of assumptions which may, over time, be SUbject to revision. This is noted on page 17 of the plan where it states: If, over time, these assumptions are not borne out, then it will be necessary to either amend or update the plan. In either case, the community sentiment should be assessed at the time of update or amendment to determine what, if any, changes in attitudes may have occurred. 4. Comment acknowledged. The EIS includues an analysis of the impacts of both the proposed rezone and Comprehensive Plan amendment and, there- fore, is a complex document. The format and text were not intended to be confusing and efforts were made to present a concise, clear document while still providing a comprehensive analysis. Responses received reflect a generally good understanding of the impacts addressed. 5. Please see response #2 above. The statement regarding updating the plan in five years refers to the Plan Review and Update Element which occurs on page 70 of the North CreeK Plan. In1S sect10n states: Comprehensive plans are not static documents and are therefore subject to change. The impetus for plan modi- fication generally results from unanticipated developments or changes in community attitudes or public policy. Plan changes should be made only after careful reevaluation of goals and policies. If the change of circumstance is so substantial that an amendment will not be adequate, then a complete plan update should be undertaken. It is critical to the integrity of the plan that modification not be used as a means to circumvent the plan1s intent and that changes, when made, only occur within the context of 95 , , ,J I I- .- - it rII ,. II II , ..... ..... -' , " ~ :11 11 ,- ~ .... . , -,'~' .. :':1 \;.../ , .~ '~ ... n-l improving the entire plan. In order to insure that the plan is effectively current, the plan should be reviewed at least every five years by the County. As indicated in response #3 above, the County has determined that an amendment was necessary because of changed circumstances. The entire plan area was effectively studied in the DEIS as it was specifically included within the commute zones identified. The North Cr~k planning area is entirely within the is-minute commute zone. 6. The reference to Appendix C is in error. As noted in the introductory paragraph to the "Transportati on/Ci rcul ati on" secti on on page 112, the complete Traffic Analysis is available at the Snohomish County Planning Department. These concerns are addressed in the responses to comments of the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Snohomish County Department of Public Works, above. An agreement among the Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, and developers will identify the timing and extent of developer contributions to off-site road improve- ments necessary to mitigate development traffic impacts. 7. The comment regarding Bothell's zoning code (page SD of the DEIS) is acknowledged and has been modified in this FEIS to reflect your comment. Also please refer to the discussion on Bothell's North Creek Comprehensive Plan in this FEIS which has been expanded to include a dlScuSSlon Of tne Comprehensive Plan area which extends to Canyon Park on 1-405 in Snohomish County. None of the site is within Bothell's Transportation Planning Area. 'Nevertheless, findings in this EIS are generally consistent with those in the Bothell Transportation Plan (see #15 below), and the instant project does not conflict with any of the road improvement projects proposed therein. The site is entirely within Bothell's Water and Sewer Planning Area, but is served by the Alderwood Water District, not Bothell. Bothell's recently completed Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan include the following policies which relate to the proposed actions: 1. Costs of utility expansion should be shared equitably by those benefitting and not borne by existing customers. 4. (a) Water and sanitary sewer lines should be planned in accordance with the desired density within any given area, and should be sized accordingly, the plans being made in advance of the actual development. When the proposed density is higher than the existing density, the facilities should be constructed to accommodate the ultimate densities at such time as development occurs. 96 I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lu I The plan also has policies for utility extensions which cover allowable financing techniques (including developer extensions, ULID's and revenue bonds). The proposed rezone and amendment are generally consistent with these policies. As indicated in the response to the Snohomish County Health District, the downstream improvements to the METRD trunkline would be agreed upon prior to sewer service to the site by the Alderwood District. The lot developers of the rezone site would also share in equitable costs of on-site improvements. ' 8. See response #15 below. 9. The size and type of the detention/retention pond along with the con- trols for release of storm water from the pond will be constructed conforming to engineered plans and specifications approved by Snohomish County Department of Public Works and State Department of Fisheries. The release of water from the pond will be by sheet flow over natural vegetation and over revegetated areas where existing vegetation is inadequate or damaged. The minimum distance of overland flow of the release water before entering North Creek will be 100 feet. The storm detention system will aid in reducing sediment entering North Creek in two ways. Crushed rock check dams installed in the drainage swales will reduce flow velocities and act as sediment traps. These will be cleaned out periodically during construction activities. The detention ponds will also settle out sediment by use of filter fabric and flow reduction within the pond. Wetland vegetation will also filter out sediment and pollutants. In addition, best management practi ces at the constructi on site and i nsta 11 ati on and ma i ntenance of temporary erosion control measures will reduce off-site impacts., To minimize sediment in the drainage system, dirt and debris will be removed from asphalt areas on a regular basis by mechanical sweepers. 10. The PSCOG models are based on land use designations which exist at the time the projections are made. The 225-acre BP amendment was not proposed at the time the models were run; however, 35 acres west of North Creek were identified by BP uses in the current plan. Therefore, the forecasts made would have anticipated 35 acres of BP development and the type of residential development permitted under the Watershed Site-Sensitive designation for the remaining portion of the study area. The employment and population generated by the proposed amendment would be in addition to those allocated by the PSCOG projections, however, the population increases present less than 6~ of the population pro- jections expected for all commute zones. 11. The Bothell 2 park-and-ride lot will be constructed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (see last paragraph, DEIS, page 116) . 97 t , ~ _,.1 . - a - ,II III tI II .. , .... ..... II 11 11 ,< ~ .. Jlu .11 12. Comment acknowledged. Both the Koll and Quadrant developments have been added to the Surrounding Development discussion via the Errata Sheet of this FEI~. 13. As noted, the entire city of Bothell is within the IS-minute commute time. Therefore, it is inherent in the analysis that a portion of the impacts which would occur within the 15-minute commute zone would affect Bothell, as it is within this zone. The direct and lndirect population and employment generated by a BP development would result in increased housing demands and spinoff development within the commute zones. This would apply to the city of Bothell as well since it is within the 15-minute commute zone. Please also see response to comment 112. 14. See response '15 below. 15. The principal planning references used in the development of the North CreeK Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment traffic distribution and assignment were the "1990 Transportation Plan, Snohomish Subregional Transportation Study," travel times from the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) 1990 highway network, and travel time distribution from the PSCOG trip distribution model (February 1979). The use of these regional planning sources resulted in trip distributions and road assignments from the rezone site which were 24' to 1-405 south of SR-527 and 9' to SR-527 south of 228th Street S.E. The Entranco-prepared City of Bothell "Transportation Improvement Plan" does not provide traffic study area coverage in addition to that avail- abl e in the above sources. The Bothell "Transportati on Improvement Plan" contains 1990 volumes at the SR-527 intersection with 228th Street S.E. and the volumes are comparable with those on DEIS Figure 24, with the exception of SR-527 south of 228th Street S.E. The 9,600 daily traffic shown in the Bothell study indicates only a 4' increase over the 1980-1981 volume shown in that study, and may be a low estimate given historical traffic growth and projected 1980 to 1990 weeKday vehicle trip end increases of 93' in the Bothell planning area (City of Bothell, "Tranportation Improvement Plan," June 1982, page 53). A comparison of the existing and projected volumes at this intersection from the Bothell and Snohomish Subregional studies is as foll ows: Intersection Est. 1982 Bothell Study Snohomish Study Approach Volume 1990 Volume 1990 Volume North 15,500 25,100 N/A South 11,350 9,6DO 14,900 East 6,800 16,DDD 13,700 West 7.10D 11,000 8,600 Current operation of the stop sign-controlled 1-405 ramp intersections with SR-527 is at LOS E during peak demand (DEIS Table 15, page 114). The 1990 traffic impact analyses with and without the comprehensive 98 I I I .-:-:') . I I I I 'I 11 , I II i 11 i ~ 11 II I I I I 1 11 i I ! 1 J i ,~ ....~..., u I I plan amendment have analyzed these intersections under signalized conditions. The plan amendment area is outside of Metro's service area (King County) and therefore would require a jOint service agreement between Metro and Community Transit to provide feeder service from the proposed Bothell Transit Center. Such an agreement will also have to occur before the Bothell 2 lot at the 1-405 and SR-527 interchange t~ built. The widening of SR-527 to four and five lanes from SR-522 to Silver Lake is a recommended transportation project in the puget Sound Council of Governments "Regi onal Transportation Pl an" (September 1982). Improvements to this Washington State Department of Transportation facility are recommended to be implemented mid-term (1989 or later) in the year 2000 plan. As is noted in the WSDOT reponse letter above, there are currently no traffic mitigation projects in the vicinty of the rezone area contained in the Department's six-year program. Responsibility for traffic mitigation improvements will be the subject of a road agreement among the WSDDT, Snohomish County, and other developers. 16. The proposed plan amendment specifically defines open space areas along the Creek and in the southern portion of the site which could be incor- porated into the rezone plan for recreational purposes. The rezone sponsor has committed to a trail system along North Creek. This pro- vides for an eventual connection for a trail system from Everett to Seattle; however, there are many areas between Everett and Bothell which will also need to be incorporated into such a plan. Other poten- tial recreational amenities would be discussed with the eventual site developers during the plan review process. 17. Please see response #1 to the Snohomish County Health District. In addition, it should be noted that the hookup fees and any contributions to facility extentions would be paid by the action sponsor and/or even- tual site occupants. Hookup fees are standard for this type of devel- opment; however, any contributions or "fair share" fees for system improvements will be negotiated between the Sewer District and the site deve 1 opers. 18. As indicated on page 68 of the DEIS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified an area of approximately 1DO feet on either side of the creek as the approximate limits of flooding. The exact limits of the 100-year floodplain will be determined by engineering calculations and analysis at the time the overall proposed drainage collection and detention system is designed for the rezone application. 99 IJ II VAN POOLS ! SHARING INCENTIVES RIDEMATCHING ~IBLE WORKING HOURS ~KING MANAGEMENT .EERING COMMITTEE ' ~istrictAdministrator Washington Stale .rlmenl of Transportation .~ Traffic Engineer City 01 Renlon II Traffic Engineer King Counly , rector of Public Wo/1(s City of Kirkland It Manager of , ransit Development Metro IITransportation Engineer Clly of Bellevue ; . T....ffic Engineer I of Seattle II II II .. II " ... "--.. . ~a=.I=~~= CATTLE/KING COUNTY ,?"-'-1UTi:R POOL c~ J\I~nue. Room 300 . exl~r Herlon Budding .. Seallle. Wasnlngton 98104 I C206} 625.465' May 3, 1983 George F. Sherwin, Jr. Director Snohomish County Planning Office Everett, Washington 98201 Drar Mr. Sherwin: Seattle/King County Commuter Pool has completed review of the Draft Env i ronmenta I Impact Statement for the North Creek Comprehens i ve PI an Amendment And Rezone. The proposal signifies an intensification of land use. We have the following comments on the transportation and parking elements of the impact statement. 1. In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement the project sponsor deferred discussion of on-site measures to mitigate adverse traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. The magnitude of this development and its traffic/transportation impacts upon the surrounding community and major regional transportation corridors (i .e. 1-5, 1-405, SR 527> warrants that efforts to mitigate the adverse impacts be addressed and developed. 1 In King County major developments are proposing and being required to establish and maintain strong Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs to mitigate their adverse impacts. Koll Bothell development has specific rideshare requirements in addition to a traffic volume performance " standard. Quadrant Corporate Park development proposed an arry of TSM actions aimed at achieving a 33% reduction in peak hour trip ends. The kinds of TSM measures that have been developed and in many cases implemented include: require tenants of the site to participate in a TSM program obtain approval by local jurisdiction to provide less than minimum amount of parking allowed by zoning code. charge for parking, providing discounts for HOV's establish a transportation coordinator position encourage flexible work hours participate in an ongoing program of ride-sharing promotion provide incentives for transit ridership, i.e. subsidized transit passes 100 I I I) II (- I 1L 2 3 4 '0 George Sherwin Hay 3. 1983 Page 2 other ride-sharing incentives including employer sponsored vanpools, preferential parking location for carpooling employees, subsc-r.,iption bus service 2. Strong TSH measures are effective in both decreasing traffic generation and reducing parking demand. Commuter Pool recently conducted a parking uti liz- ation study in the greater Seattle metropolitan area to determine the effect the presence of an organized ridesharing program has on long term parking demand at suburban office sites. The study concludes that the demand for lohg term parking can be reduced up to 22% at locations that have active ridesharing programs that include the following elements as a minimum: on site employee transportation coordinator ridematch assistance convenient reserved parking for HOV's The parking utilization rates were observed to be .783 spaces per employee for non-ridesharing sites and .607 spaces per employee for ridesharing sites. Although the study findings were based on survey data obtained from office complexes, the results never the less indicate that an aggressIve ridesharing program can have a signi"ficant impact in reducing the demand for long-term parking at mixed use developments as well. 3. Peak hour trip production was estimated to be 13.2% of the daily trips, based on Arizona DOT studies (DEIS p. 1191. We do not feel that the 13.2% factor is appropriate for the proposed development in the North Creek area. We note that the antIcipated peak hour production for industrial and office parks in the North Creek area was estImated to be 15 to 20% 0' the dally trips for the Quadrant Corporate Park Development. There is no universally accepted factor to incorporate into the traffic analysis. However, one can clearly envi'sion the impact of an addItIonal 2 to 7% of the dally trIps occuring during the peak hour when bui'ldout occurs and the AWDT approaches 21,166. In I ight of thi's potential impact we strongly encourage the project sponsor and County to scrutInize the 13.2% factor used. 4. Our experience indicates that a one hour time period does not adequately cover the peak vehicular traffic generated by the type of development proposed. We encourage the project sponsor and County to evaluate the traffic impacts, particularly the trip distribution, of the 'shoulders' of the peak hour (i .e. 30 minutes before and after). We feel that such efforts would strengthen the impact analysis. 101 - 5 ~ a- 6 I. I. l- I. I. I. ~ II I. II II ...~1', ',J .. ._~. .~ George Sherwin May 3, 1983 Page 3 5. Discussion in the DEIS (p. 129) listed roadway and intersection ~fmprovements attributable to the plan amendment and rezone that are necessary to provide level of service (LDSl C operation in 1990 peak hour traffic. We note however, that there is no committment by the project sponsor to participate in the funding of such improvements. We encourage the County to seek firm convnittment by the sponsor to provide funding for the necessary capital improvements to the roadway network. I n add i t i on an ana I ys is shou I d be made of the LOS conditions without the improvements if those improvements cannot be guaranteed. 6. The trip distribution and traffic assignment discussion in the DEIS does not adequately address the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the North Creek Valley area of King County. We feel that further analysis of intercounty travel and the associated impacts of the proposed development on King County roadway facilities (J.e. 1-405, SR 527. Bothell areal is warranted. We hope you find our comments useful. Thank you for the opportunity to review th i s documen t . Sincerely, wtJt!:. ~~ Program Manager RJL 102 I I I I I I I I I I :1 , ,~ !I I I II II j I " 11 , -:1 il I I u Seattle/King County Commuter Pool 1. Rezone sponsor commitments to the establishment and maintenance of TSM programs could be an element of the road agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, and other developers. 2. It is anticipated that site traffic generation and parking demands char- acteristics will be monitored prior to major building phases in order to document traffic mitigation requirements. The effectiveness of in-place TSM programs can be assessed at these times and necessary revisions to these programs can be made. 3. The 13.2\ peak hour trip production reported in the Arizona DOT study was derived from a data base of 37 industrial parks, of which four were in the San Francisco area, three were in the San Diego area, 18 were in Connecticut, seven were in Florida, two each were in Delaware and Maryland, and one was in Kentucky. A 1977 survey of the Hewlett-Packard Cupertino, California manufacturing plant found the highest hourly trips to be 10.5\ of daily trips, and to occur between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. hourly trips to/from the plant during the morning and evening peak' traffic on adjacent streets were less than 10~ of daily trips. In view of the proposed mixed use of the site and available supporting data, the 13.2~ rate appears satisfactory for use in the initial impact analysis. Daily and peak hour trip rates can be monitored as the site is developed. 4. Peak trip generation rates are not reported outside of the peak one-hour morning and evening periods in the two most widely used sources-- the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" manual (1979) and the Arizona DOT "Trip Generation Intensity Factors." The Hewlett- Packard Cupertino, California survey shows a fairly uniform distribution of trips across a 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. period and during the 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. period. A peak period spread of traffic on SR-527 is likely to occur as volumes approach facility capacities and small increases in volumes result in significant marginal increases in travel time. 5. Sponsor commitments to funding traffic impact mitigation measures are discussed in the reponses to the Washington State Department of Trans- portation and to the Snohomish County Department of Public Works. 6. Site-generated trips were distributed to the North Creek Valley area and assignments were made to 1-405, SR~527 south of 228th Street S.E., and to 228th Street $.E. Trips were distributed on the basis of PSCOG 1990 highway network travel times. This concern is also addressed in response #6 to the City of Bothel'. 103 ...--- -- -. _J II -. -. II II II II. II II II III T ~ ~ ~ r ~ ..... . , ~ '- . ,- ~ I... , ',J , ~ '- . lRECFT~.(€D .' .. '::;n3 .. .. v I""u CO. l'L:\NNlNG OFFICE April 25,1983 Mr. G e 0 rg e F. She r win , Jr. Dire c tor S n 0 h 0 m ish Co un t y Pia n n in g 0 ff ice Everett, Wa sh in gton 98201 RESPONSE TO PROPOSED NCRTH CREEK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE DearMr. Sherwin: Bas e don the pro x i m i t Y 0 f the re z 0 net 0 I - 405 0 n d the a d jo c e n t busin ess park deisg nation, we would agree that the rezone is appropria te. Devel opi ng large parc els 0 f land especially bus- inesspark, commercial, etc., is preferable toa piece meal random situation. We feel busin ess park is more appropriate than a housing d evelopme nt for this partic ular area. In fact we wou Id opt fo r no deve I 0 pment os oppose d to sma II tracts or housing. [owever, we do expect that the boundary of the rezone not 1 encroach on the hi Ilside to the east which is site-sensitive. We find no problem with changing the site sensitive designation within the propose d boundary as th is is not en exreme Iy sensitive mite. North Creek will be addressed by the Shorelines Monage- 2 men tAct and the r ere a II y is no 0 the r sit e s ens i ti ve fe 0 t u res except th e small pockets of p eat and the marshy are a close to 228 which appears to be included in a green belt. Sincerely, 104 I -I I ;1 --.... '. ::J i I. II I II I ;1 , ~I . ; 'jl 11 , !I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I (] Response to the SR-527 Group (Shirley A. Goll) 1. The Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes BP in the same area as the proposed rezone. There are an additional 50 acres outside of the proposed rezone area which are within the BP plan amendment area. No other rezones to BP would be permitted by the County outside of the proposed BP plan amendment area. The area east of the rezon~-area is to remain as watershed site-s~nsitive with rural conservation zoning which would allow residential development of 1 du per 2.3 acres. 2. The 100 feet on either side of North Creek is identified as BP with a watershed site-sensitive overlay and would be left as permanent undevel- oped open space. The peat area in the southern portion of the site would be similarly designated to allow the area to to be incorporated into the drainage plan of the BP area. The amendment text specifically states that the area is to remain as permanent open space (except it may be incorporated in the drainage plan). Please also see page 30 of the Draft EIS which describes restrictions and uses allowed in each area proposed as part of the plan amendment. 105 ,---- II " TA~ II " " " tt " tI- ,,- t " " II t1 " , '0 , ~. -RECEl,r1@ .. . .. \,(;'\ : : ~~! ,.....' - , ~' April 28, 1983 - South County c/o Gretchen 21824 - 35th Bothell, WA 481-9419 Assoc Homeowners Dours Ave. S.E. 98011 V'C" ~lN1NG Of' - .:, \ CO. l'!...~ . .- Mr. George Sherwin, Director Snohomish County Planning Office County Adminis~ration Building Everett, WA 98201 RE: Response from South County Homeowners Association to Draft E.I.S. for Proposed Amendment to the North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan and Proposed Rezone Dear Mr. Sherwin: Thank you for ~he opportunity to respond to the above referenced Draft E.I.S. Our comments follow: 1. Page 28 states, "Of the proposed 260 Business Park acres, 40 would be classified as B.P. with a Watershed Site Sen- sitive overlay; it may be zoned B.P., but should be pre- served as open space within a business park development." A. The Hearing Examiner has stated, "The Watershed-Site Sensitive designation is not treated graphically as an overlay on the adopted plan map within said Plan; it is one of 19 mutually exclusive land use categories [Plan Y.ap, Plan, Figure 4-N, following p.63]. Strictly speaking, therefore, there are no Watershed-Site Sen- sitive areas designated for Commercial or Industrial use, nor for any other use, for that matter." (See Hearing Examiner Decision on North Creek Business Park Rezone, February 22, 1980, Part II: Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Comprehensive Plan - Findings, No.7, Page 3.) B. ~Vhy the need to give the 40 acres a Business Park desig- nation when a business park is permitted on WSS land (especially when this land is slated to be open space? 2 Please indicate where the proposed amendment shown on pages 28 and 29 of the Draft that would replace paragraph 3, page 39 of the Plan, ends. The indented form used to indicate the change is not consistent and its not possible to tell where the proposed wording change ends on page 29. 106 I I I I I I, I I ','I ., :, 'I t I I I I t I I -::J 3 . ,/ 3 o April 28, 1983 Page 2 The Plan text, paragraph 3, page 39, currently reads: "The B.P. classified lands on the east side of SR527 would have ,to access onto SR527 and not onto 228th St. SE., which is viewed to be a sub-standard arteriaL" -'.. A. The proposed changed paragraph does not include "..and not onto 228th St. S.E.". Why is this? 4 4. P3.ge 29 of the Draft states, "No roads are to be permitted to connect the B.P. area directly up the slopes to the Rural area.". A. Figure 5, page 34, contradicts this statement. It shows a future extension of 220th, labeled "Future Access Road" that would connect directly up the slopes to the Rural area. Please explain this contradiction. 5 Page 46, 2nd paragraph, gives specific development criteria for the site including: "restriction of access points to either SR527 or 208th St. S.E." A. It would not be possible for this property to access onto 208th (Filbert/Maltby Road). Please explain. 6 Pages 98 and 99 refer to the sand and gravel pits located at the site that have been used only for on-site private use. These pits are located at the base of the eastern hill. Residents at the top of the eastern hill are on wells and re- port a loss in their well water whenever the pits have been used in the past. These residents do not have access to city water, and in a number of cases, have had to dig deeper wells at great expense due to this loss. Past conversations with the Department of Ecology confirmed that activity at these pits could drain the aquifer charging these wells. A. Page 99 states the sand and gravel from these pits could be used as fill materials during construction of the development. Before this is allowed to happen, is. there a method available that can determine whether or not further removal of material from these pits will cause a significant loss of aquifer to the wells on the hill? This is an issue of great concern to a number of residents. The Draft states that a large island of land on this property is presently not included in the water district and there will be an application for annexation. 7 A. Will just the property in the study area be annexed into the water district, or will all of this island presently outside the district be annexed? will this annexation include the lands outside the district that are slated to remain Rural? 107 '. ~--~_.,~._.._~" , ,') , , , f , , , , , , . , 'f ,..' '.. .-'" - --- " ,. .... *" ,,~ ." . ' April 28, 1983 Page 3 I'n general, many re.ident. in the nearby area .eem to under.tand 7 the economic value of this land involved and while perhaps~pre- ferring another type of use, realistically feel it is suited for business park. Some of their basic concerns are itemized above. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. very truly, hen Dour~ South County Homeowners All:;''';' 108 '. I, I~ I I I, ,I I 'I, ,I I I t I I I I I' .. :....J I Response to South County Homeowners Association (Gretchen Dours) 1. The Watershed Site-Sensitive designation has in the past been confusing and subject to disagreement over intent. The proposed amendment would add an overlay, which has not been used previously in the North Creek area, to clarify that those areas should be part of a 8usiness Park (BP) development, but should be developed using the Site-Sensitive &riteria. This should eliminate any possible confusion. It does not resolve any other disputed areas within the North Creek area. Designation of the 40 acres as BP, along with the text changes, strongly encourages that the area be zoned BP along with the remainder of the site. This action would preclude its development for housing, as resi- dential uses are not permitted in the BP zone. These areas are best suited for open space use in connection with the business park. 2. The proposed text amendment ends on page 30 (Draft EIS) with the words .....has been purchsed by a single user." The final paragraph, headed "Rezone", is not part of the amendment. 3. The prop,osed text amendment requires that: "Access will be to SR-527 only...' (page 30, line 5). This precludes any access to 228th Street S.E. 4. The "Future Access Road" shown on the map is intended to serve the easternmost portion of the BP designated land, 10 acres of which lies east of the rezone area. It would not be allowed to continue up the slope beyond this 10-acre parcel (see page 30 of the DEIS). 5. In the early stages of the proposal, a road connection to the northeast was considered feasible. That possibility has now been discarded. The correction is noted. 6. The DEIS indicated (page 99) the possible use of on-site gravel as fill material. This statement did not necessarily refer to the gravel pit in the southern portion of the amendment area which is not included in the rezone area. The action sponsor would not rely on the gravel from this pit for fill material. However, if this material is desirable to use, then a detailed hdyrologic analysis will be performed to establish the relationship of the effects of groundwater levels from gravel removal. If the studies determine that use of this gravel is inappropriate, then it will not be used and other off-site sources would be used. 7. Only that portion of the unannexed land lying within the Business Park designation will be annexed. 109 , ft_ . . . , II 61 III . ~ ~ 2 . At 113 . 114 "iTj\ D ,.....,T,"T.r ~.,,...... ~ 'llt!.t'U~"~l "':/ l!/LJJ .. '" :~ ~ i9D3 audith F. Fisher 23205 35 Ave S.E. Bothell, WA 98011 Aprll 28, 1983 CO. l'LANl\,1NG OFFICE Mr. Jeff Kelley-Clarke Snohomish County Planning Office County Administration Office Everett, WA 98201 Mr. Kelley-Clarke. I have reviewed the Proposed North Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Draft Enviornmental Impact Statement, but it was not without considerable difficulty. When I heard by word of mouth that the document had been issued, I contacted the Bothell library which had no copy. I believe I spent more time after that trying to gain access to the document than I did reviewing it. The Bothell Office of Community Development had one copy which it needed for their response, although they were willing jz, loan it out for a few days. When I called your department in early Aprll and requested several copies for the Bothell library for the south Snohomlsh residents, only one copy was sent. I Checked almost daily with the reference librarlan until the copy arrived ~ weeks later (Aprll 19). If excluding the Bothell library from your receipent list, and thereby excauding access to the south Snohomish County residents nearest the study area, was an oversight, then I strongly object to the manner and delay in correcting it. State law requires jurisdictions to provide public access to such documents. One copy available for ten days prlor to response cut-off is sorely inadequate. For any future actions on property in this area I request that at\east three or four copies of related documents be sent to the Bothell library. ~ummary of the project The summary information of the public benefit in 9'P'!n space is too genenl even given the non-specific nature of the proposal. The 62 acres of "open space" is misleading. Please detail how much of that area is usable by the public. It appears that over 7~ of that area is for landscaping. Surely in a 200 plus acre business center more usable public space could be found for recreation (play fields, for example). The 12 acre creek corridor with its 100' buffers on either side is commendable but not a sufficient trade-off to the public for the loss of 190+ acres to a business center and its traffic. It appears that the benefit would be to the center employees, but not the public. Descrlption of the Proposal .ould you be specific in detailing how the detention pond will be constructed? How will it regress to wetlands? What maintaince will be required? Are there presently any wetlands on the site? PaEe:34. The map is nearly unreadable. "';:1Btinp; Enviornment Traffic is going to be one of the biggest problems associated with the rezones. The projected 21,000 trips generated seems very low for such a large business center. Were just emplo.l'ee trlps considered for the model used? Also, why are II', . the trips generated so much less than the ones projected for the North Creek ( "Valley in Bothell three miles to the south(60,ooo for the two combined)? liliWhat is the stacking capacity on the Bothell.'Higoway from the first center access road to the I-405 interchange? What is the stacking capacity between the two II access roads on the Bothell Highway? The soukhern access road appears to be too , 110 .. '. I I I 'I 1\ I I I I I II L ~I 1 Page 2 1 I ,'"' close to the interc~nge for peak time t:ravel. ,I 5 Canyon Park Business Park Landscape Narrative Would this be considered Appendix D? I have the following comments: 1. Make the site plan readable. ", 2. Define the distance of both access road intersections to the 1-405 interchange. J. Define the timing anticipated for the installation of the two t:raffic signals. Thank you for conside:ration of my comments. ~inCe1;'EllY , . .~. ,I.,', . 'Jo.I~ \ th F. Fisher U'," , ' 111 . -.....--.,.-.,,-.-......... ,- .--.-..-..- "',',~ Response to Judith Fisher ,~ 1. A single copy was sent to the Bothell Library within a day of Ms. Fisher's first inquiry. One copy was sent because copies were limited, and available at area libraries as noted in local nespapers. Initially, excluding the Bothel1 Library from the recipient list was an ov~!sight, which has been corrected in the Final EIS. 2. The main purpose of the open space are to provide recreational amenities for employees and visual amenities for the public in general. The creek buffer area and the jogging trail will be the major recreational facili- ties. They will be open to the general public, but will probably be utilized mainly by employees. Most of the open space will be in land- scaping, to provide a "campus" 'atmosphere. The site is no available for public access at present, and there is not intent within the BP zone that a developer must provide public recreation facilities. 3. The detention pond will be constructed of suitable earth material, lined with peat-soil mixture and revegetated with wetland type of plants. The pond will have gentle sideslopes of minimum three feet horizontal to one foot vertical drop. Construction will be in coordination with times specified by the Department of Fisheries. Maintenance consists of repair or replacement of filter fabric, removal of accumulated sediment when depth of pond would be reduced sufficiently to make the size of pond less than needed for adequate detention, re- placement of vegetation if needed, cleanout of discharge controls and any other maintenance needed to assure pond is functioning properly. The maintenance will be paid for through assessments on each lot owner. See response #1 to Snohomish County Public Works Department. There is an area in the southern portion of the site east of North Creek which has been identified on page 73 and 74 of the DEIS as a marsh. Most of this area is included in the watershed site-sensitive designa- tion in the proposed plan amendment and development would not be per- mitted in this area. o 4. The Koll, Quadrant, and North Creek rezone projects all used different methodologies to calculate their trip generation estimates. The Koll developers used a combination of trip generation, figures based upon trips per employee for the office (3.33 per day) and industrial (4.14 per day) uses and trips per thousand square feet for commercial uses (49.9 per square foot). The generation figures were based on the Bothell 0 & D Survey which were close to those presented in the Insti- tute of Transportation Engineers lITE Report). The Quadrant Corporate Park development utilized a generation figure of 3.33 per employee for office uses and 3.2 for light industrial uses. These figures were based on the ITE estimates. The North Creek proposal utilized the 3.3 trip ends per employee for the BP amendment area outside of the rezone area and a three variable regression equation for the rezone area which uses independent variables for employees, gross square foot and acreage. The generation rates for all three proposed developments are similar; how- ever, a direct correlation is not possible because of the slightly 1];' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I ~) (S'~ 'G ----1 different types of uses proposed (i.e., commercial included in the Koll development) and the different methodologies employed. A very basic view of the estimated trips generated for each of the proposals is presented below. Proposed Developments Total of Sq. Ft. of buildings Total Daily Vehicle Trip Ends 17,823 17,620 21,166 Koll Quadrant Snohomish Co. North Creek 1,540,000 2,750,000 2,432,000 ,.. The daily trips projected for the Snohomish County North Creek site include all employee, visitor, and delivery trips to and from the site on an average weekday. As the size of a development increases, the number of trips per employee to and from the site may decrease because the site can internally support services such as employee cafeterias. Reference studies used in the preparation of rezone area traffic gen- eration are discussed on pages 119, 120, and 127 of the OEIS, and in response #3 to Seattle-King County Commuter Pool. The 220th Street intersection serving the Belanich, Eldec, and Quadrant developments is approximately 1,000 feet north of the northbound 1-405 ramps intersections with SR-527. Design of the 220th Street inter- section will be coordinated with the Washington State Department of Transportation. At the time signalization of this intersection is required, its timing will likely be coordinated with other SR-527 signals in order to ensure good progression of traffic flow. The location of the southern access road is acceptable to the State Department of Transportation. 5. The landscape narrative is part of Appendix C. The site plan has been revised to provide more clarity. The southernmost access road to the ,site is approximately 1,000 feet from the 1-405 interchange. The 2nd or northernmost access road is approximately 3,000 feet from the 1-405 interchange. Exact timing of signalization will depend on how rapidly the area develops. The EIS makes the following projections: The 220th and SR-527 intersection will require signalization by 1990. The 214th and SR-527 intersection will require signalization by 2000. 113 J ' I ' \-;:r E(("i\:~'r7':~ :~,")l\ I \ 'I', "U-'-_":-~ -- .Tb/~&'G7~'tr f <<''':3 . j ~~ ~t:;tl~ \C6lL~'''",GO''''E 4 . ~ A'~~~~~- ~/L<-ry'l tZr &I PJ-~c.-~o,." ,,--" -" ' '. ..I.. ~ ~l!~~'~ ~ ~ &^:J! ,;t;d 4.--, ," .. ,,' Ju-~,~' ~ tV-L- ~,~ Ae/1u2~ II .. ti"~ ~!JAv.,t- ~ b ~~~c&it<u~ .L J-rHfd:~~~ ~~ . 7'<#::. _.'.. ~ --r:u:f~' t~~~~ i:tu-: kU?V '~,., -, ,'..__ ~A/I.Yf-/iP.~.. ' __~-~-u+'-"'.., - ,,' ...., .." ) t7 JI. I ' ~ -<-.. -, ~,..~,'i7tu- c if.'(.~~-' '--~1;/~~ -' ..._ -~<./.J-~~F=--n~ -,~, _,lf7!"---- If' jA_,.e,.,."./:odt-'-'~~~9.~ I~ff ... ... ,___.... ~~,l..v,.~~..~ ~Y2./~~~~! ~~., III .'.1 . ~/u-~ :br~~ (f~~' ,L" '/.-~ 7 to- -J;-~jyI,.:Ct:fJ..Nr '7to _ LIUt-~T'''-- (l1.<:t-,L;. U-v~UJAv '--&~ " i: . t:r};;:;~r.;;::.:: Xi ...... .... L ~1: I ~)-;U~-~~..~ 1t~'- ' _ ' _ ~ .1..~.. ,~ ,u-4~ ~~/~L"-' 1't cL-.---I. ,....-- 11---'" ~-, --J'M;-{"k ''-<-0f-c-e...- t..",: ,J1- ~" ,-jY~., , ,..-------' L>"- -~ --'"7' ~--:{;L~..~~ -,.....-.,- _~__,_ ,.~-,~"~ ,,~k~W~~"~&#-,..._:-: tI 114 I (j7 '1/ , ' I I:'~_~~~~~~~:d..< ,_(f~~~-~l2a --d~ ~ tUf.. ~ I ~L;r~ ~ tt,/.~~~I ~...f.L~ ~ ~r , ' ,~_-;tCu-,~,~~P(/~.rz" ,I ,~,juu ~. ~,"J7UL-t?7- tL- ~ ~ . ~-:z;(""'(j'~~d'M~ .~.~ -t;,.c< ,,? I' "C0 :4Qt:~"tf-/'~ f::-'(/~~.J~~ ~~~~~~W 12,' ,~~~~~~F I' ':t.~~- ~~(f~~ , ,,' , (C?6d,~(f~L_"" " ' I r~..u-; ~ ~:,~wrPrJ~ I~ L~-1u..'<::J~~" ~~ , 3 " ~<..,e.1J/L~ ~~ :;~~~ "1 --n.. J/)::;I"::; () - u:l /AL / ~'- f /,. ,<--I... L /_"'- il:::;;jr~~S;;~~i~Z; ~~7'<-<> , . (j'/lrl-C-~.w-i.Lt hc<!,A" , , , a-J 1fh.._p<Lr ,l)~ f'~~(f~u7f~ - ' . ~ d..f.u.,.,L~ ~ t:~V (j"--r"" /I>u-r4...L a-.LL.- tU..t ..u.../::[;t:t0 ~ tL- '-77Ui.e ' ~,' , / . b 4 A;o-;,~ tvLf -{LvJCf~ i, ' , ~ /7- ' ~ --t.,)zVV' It'-'/ ~ tt-' ~c . tb iJ-'-c'-:-- uf. ~ V~~-lt:.. ~ ~ ,1-{-~~A~~,~, ' {V..Lf?LW~~..6~ 115 '~",. -"'~~J:!" ~ ~L\g13 ~ ' I~: -~:;;;!:L .. ~ ~ ~~~( "'~r" ~~ ..I. u.-(f~ ~,..~~,.. ,;.1 rd ~, '" . .,(..{.Z~~ ::~~ ~ ~ 4J2t;i.;~~ " 4 "-<>... ~ """-~/'~ a..u.-- ~ ~r ~.. ~,~(j?~tv.~ ' w' ~~ ~-/;:J/~j "," ~ ,.. ..-~ .. ~'-"1f.J...-'~~.d..-r.J... _" , d<e~.6~' ..~:~,~ rY-f~ ~~<<~{//-<L'7~" " ,-. ~ {vq--~-~~~~ ll:t;:'7t/-tfi, ....~~ "- ~-~~-~~~--~,~.._"" , ,~~.. ~'~ C?~r-(f~- ~Jt(;..~___.. '~~::~~~~-Ld?4~' .10 ..au- &~ ,_~_~ ~,~_ _..l.<.co__, ..__, ,~~,~_ .. ..__ '" '__..,_,..___ '~ttd...~_~ -. __no_ "---'- ..~-(-ltr~....JiaJ-~7~--.. '~~,t0~"__,, '--""_..c;:l,I.,~;?-~~f _..,___,___"".... i6 -~..!f~//... ,.... ,.. ,--,.. :Ii.. ,I :& _..'~ .". .....-- .' -.. -'... ',.. --..,_,,_.... no '" _ ,_..,____, " ,_ ,_..__..,_..,.. "......... .. ,,_ '" _.. .... _..,.._..._ 6..-....... """'- '-'--'---.. -, ..._,- .......,..- ....... -", --",.. ...., ",.., ,---,-....,--,... ;.....-..---------.-..--....-. .--. -------_. - -.....--... -- ..-.. ._-- .. "'.-----..------.---.----- .. --. .~.- .-- --..-- . .-__. ,._u _._ "n___. .. ._. ... ._.."_ ..._. . . ----.. - --_.....-, .~_._~ -- .-- _. -...-- ._-..... ....--... . .-.". . .._____h.._._. _ "___'.m _.______..__., .it C..)--" ---,.,..._--,--- ,.. "'" ....---~6.. _-: .. "'--..--------..--- ---no, -----,- ::11' '--..--....,-,..,..--,-, '-_..--" "-,-,- --- ,-- '---....-------------.....-.. ......'..-'--- I I I) I I I 'I I I il I o Response to Mr. and Mrs. H.O. Perry 1. It is acknowledged that increased storm runoff accompanies urban devel- opments and can be a contributing factor to increased flooding. The proposed development will have a complete internal drainage collection and detention system installed which will control the rate of runoff. The rate of runoff from the fully developed project will not be greater than it is presently. The metered rate of discharge, therefore~ will not increase the occurrence of flooding, but on the other hand it will not decrease the existing flood hazard. Oil and grease traps and silt sumps could be provided to control the level of pollutant runoff. A 100 foot native landscape buffer would provide significantly more protection and habitat value than presently exi sts. 2. The proposed development would result in increased pollutants into North Creek as described in the DEIS on pages 69 to 71. Removal of the cattle from the site would help to reduce the colliform bacteria in the creek and would reduce stream bank damage as described on page 72 of the DEIS. The impacts to police and fire associated with the proposed BP develop- ment are described on pages 132 to 134 and 164. In addition, the con- cerns of both the Sheriff's department and Fire Department are described in the letters contained in Appendix A of the OEIS. The development would generate $6,259,000 in direct property taxes (from 1984 to 2000) from site development and one time sales use tax revenues estimated at $2,112,657. A portion of these revenues would be distrib- uted to both the police and fire departments. 3. The EIS identifies existing roadway capacities on page 114 of the DEIS, and expected improvements required with or without the development on pages 128 and 130 of the DEIS, the 1990 Transportation Plan, Snohomish County. Improvements attributable to the development will be made in accordance with requirements of the state and county. 4. The OEIS includes an analysis of the impacts of the proposed amendment for the immediate site vicinity, the North Creek planning area and the larger commute zones. The EIS discussed the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendment in addition to the development proposed on the west side of SR-527. The proposed BP developments west of SR-527 are con- sistent with the current North Creek Plan designation for the area. The proposed amendment is extending this BP area further east and would result in a consistent type of land use designation and development as that west of SR-527. The amendment area is the only area within the entire plan which would change. All other land use designations in the existing North Creek Plan would remain unchanged. 5. Please see response to your comment #1. 117 .,~.. . '7".: ...J 1RECEr\!ED I I [ co. l'L,\l'li'.'L'IG OFFICE , :' ,) 7 lj"'11 !.. .. oJ u.... ~. 19716 Filbert Rd. Bothell, WA 98011 April 25, 198) George F. Sherwin, Jr., Director Snohomish County Planning Office Snohomish County Administration Eldg. Everett, WA 98201 Dear Mr. Sherwin: In regard to the Proposed ~orth Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, dated March 25, 1983, I am most con- cerned that the water quality and wildlife habitat of North Creek be protected from further degradation. An unmapped tritutary of North Creek flows across my property, about two miles above the proposal area. For the 10 years I have lived on it, I have done what I could to properly protect my small section. This usually amounts to non- interference with the stream environment. The stream care guidelines recently published in the folder .City Streams, Guidelines for Survival," by the Washington State Dept. of Ecology and the Snohomish County Div. of Sur- face Water Management, state: "Do not 'landscape' the stream- siee, do not remove overhang:ng trees or shrubs from stream- banks, ... do not place riprap or fill on streambanks," etc. [However, some statements in the draft EIS seem to directly 2 contradict the stream care guidelines: p.6 - ..."decrease in water quality would result due to pollutants ~hich eventually drain into the creek." p.6 - "Enhancement of habitat values along l\orth Creek would be provided by stream bank improvements and landscaoing." (Emphasis is mine; these are the very procedures the guidelines denounce.) p.8 - "Unavoidable adverse impacts ... decline in native (plant) speCies at,undance and diversity." p.8 - "Fossible disruption of streamside vegetation"... 1 3[ 4[ 5 On p.76 it is stated that "the proponel,t intends to enhance the riparian area"... I feel that "intentions" are not a good enough guarantee of protection for North Creek. I am uneasy with vague statements like "of the 62 acres of land- scaping and creek greenbelt, it ~s unknown how much would be retained in native vegetation." 118 I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c) I Mr. Sherwin' -2- April 25, 198) 6 I also believe that the wildlife variety of the amendment area is being underestimated. A survey do~e in J~~. 198) is inadequate, because many migratory birds are not present in winter. Only 17 bird species are me~tioned by name, and some of these are only thought to be "expected." (On-my own two acres, of similcr habitat types, I have noted 57 s~ecies.) Hundreds of acres would indicate the likelihood of greater variety. Another statement is as in~dequate as it is vague: "Small mammals are probably abundant"... (p.78). 1;0 mention of amphibians or reptiles is made at all. I urge careful consideration of what is to happen to North Creek and its associated habitats. The folder "City Streams, Guidelir.es for Survival," tells us that urban streams (wnich North Creek is becoming) "are unique and valuable to the surrounding community." I feel that North Creek is a valuable natural resource, a,-d that the utmost care must be taken to see that it is preserved in a healthy condition. Sincerely, ~:JtOZ 11 ~tlLA-/' Susan A. Selmer 119 ..w.,~._~.~_. -. ........ .. .._ ......,,_w,__,..._...-.......... h_ , _P':"..~~r. " , .. ~ -. . Ib I if- -..' I - . II b -. ill II t1l~ II Response to Susan A. Selmer 1. The Department of Ecology's guidelines are excellent for streams which are in their natural condition. The shade of overhanging trees and shrubs provides good rearing habitat for fish. The caution to not landscape or riprap the streamside is also good providing t~re is sufficient riparian growth already existing. North Creek has been realigned and riprapped over much of the site and there are few trees along the corridor. Therefore, the riparian habitat is of little value to fish and wildlife. The proposal is to revegetate the streamside with native plants so that the corridor can return to a more healthy riparian ecosystem. Red alder, deciduous shrubs and ferns similar to those along other portions of the creek will ,be used to revegetate the streamside. 2. Comment acknowledged. 3. Please refer to comment #1 above and Mitigating Measures of the Flora section. 4. Comment acknowledged. The disturbance of streamside vegetation due to increased human activity may occur; however, the present condition has very low habitat value due to overgrazing by cattle and realignment of the creek. 5. See response to comment #1 above. Because much of the existing vege- tation along the stream corridor is of little value due to stream realignment, most of that area will be enhanced through revegetation. All areas identified as "greenbelt" would be maintained as open space. The landscaped areas would include "native vegetation" as well as ornamental plantings. All landscaping plans would be subject to Snohomish County review and approval and the CC&R's contained in the Appendix of the DEIS. 6. Comment acknowledged. Other animals may utilize the site throughout the year as indicated in the Fauna section. 120 II , t-) ,t , t I * i '., .'1 '. I I I I I I I I :-.J I Section -IX Errata Sheet -' I t -, 1"'" I t t t t 1 t , I .I I I I 1 .I :...) .I .........-_. Errata Sheet Page 61 Under Carbon Monoxide, add the following sentence: "The site area is in an attainment classified area for carbon monoxide which indicates it meets federal ai r qual i ty standards." ~ Under Sulfer Dioxide, change 1 hour hour standard from 140 ppm to .40 ppm. Page 91 Under Surrounding Development, add: South of Snohomish County within Bothell the proposed Koll development, located on the Vitulli Farm, a 140-acre mixed, commercial, office, and industrial development the proposed Quadrant Corporate Park development located immediately south of Koll includes 178 acres of clean-light industrial uses and offi ce pa rk uses Page 96, Tabl e 7 Under 2nd column, total SF of buildings and Proposed Amendment should be 2,432,000, not 2,613,600 SF. Page 146, Figure 27 The 12" line along Maltby Road should be extended to the east just past the intersection of SR-527. Fi gure 27 shoul d i ncl ude an 8" 1 i ne along SR-527 from the i ntersecti on of Maltby Road south to approximately 216th Street S.W. Page 147 2nd paragraph, delete the first sentence and add: "Fire flow require- ments are establ ished by the Snohomish County Fire Marshall's Office." The last p,aragraph, second and third sentences should read: The "service areas' are not identical; however, the sewer and water boundaries are the same. The entire amendment area is within the District's Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plan area but not all of the amendment area is presently within the District's boundaries. Page 149 1 st paragraph, del ete the sentence begi nni ng "However, the study wri t- ten in 1966, recognized..." 122 I t I j t t t t I t t t t I I I I I tVi I Page 183 1st paragraph, fourth sentence to the end of the paragraph should read: "This plant is operated by the Alderwood Sewer District and was recently expanded to 3 mgd capacity. One mgd is reserved for develop- ment within the Possession Shores Master plan area. Therefore~_ there is currently sufficient capacity to serve the entire area stated for industrial development. A 12-inch water main has been completed through the area connecting with Alderwood Water District mains to the south." 123 Sectien X . Appendices a__-......... ~- It , , I" , , A t j .- j ,t:~ t APPENDIX A Sample Roadway Agreement I',' , ,-, II ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I .. II II 11<] [I ---l .~.... "~'.'~:>"::~~".:;;':":":';:....,.- ~"-"'::'.~..:;.Ll::.." -'-- ..-. -~~"":':::_--""'-' '-~-'''''.". ; '\ ~ ,- , ' \ ~ni"'....rY ", ~- ELute (''''1''''''''''''' Inilk' I"" A.""".- \\'.", , I' (I II... '''', 1"",..,..1 W.''';''~I.", ',,,.. "', ;\"'" . "01,, :",. ,'11 ,II. 11.11 -. '~.H"'~' I \\'\ "111 'H"'.!/'i'l) C6104l:lMUS April 21, 19113 I . r """ .. ", 'C" \ , ". .', \, ,I , ' "', j.' . ,," ~ ",' ; I: ,.:', , I l-. \.. .:~ ., ".~ .' \ '... , .J.... _.. I.; Washington State D~partment of Transportation Design D~partmcnt 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA 91l10B I. l. '. ~: \i':....L.'~ 'if I'I( E C..ntlemen: 'fhe interested parties have Agl'~(H.I upon and :li<Jlled il <]uo- eral letter of agret:!ment for accuss to :.lit 527, bt!twuen I-'Ill'j and North Creek cros!>ing in Snoholllish County. I believe this meets with your requirements for .Iillliting access and also prOVides us rea50n~ble rout un for duvulop- ment of our properties. We at Er,DEC are further aloncJ with Our plalls ilnd <lL'e "K- peeting to break ~roun~ tho fj~bt ot Jun~ thi~ YUil~. Wu have hac.l COllVUr:idtiollS illong thi!> line for 'Iuite ';Ullh' till''', now it jl; timu to /lloAku LilJI'e ttlu 1I"C:USliilry thin.!s Ilill_''''''. Wu wuulcJ aI'I,ruC:idtc your dtisilJtUllC:U in ol'loAi/doc] I.ur"d I,:;, anti etc, Sincet"ely, ELDJ::C CORPOHA'l'ION ~::~ fe~ Facilitios Munagcr Atrac:lunellt cc: Hoad Acc.:esu A<JrCclIIl'nt Info Copy: Geor9t! Sherwin, SnoholOish County I'lilllni'''1 B304:~9J24 1--- I I ~~} I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IU I LETTER Of A~Rf..EMrNT fOil ACCCSS TO !I_~~,I,NGTON.,5.lI\TU!U!I~WJW, f,p- This Letter of Agreement establishes the !Jeneral tel'/II~ of i1!jn'elllellt for access to Washington State Highway 527 from its intersection wi th Inter- state 405 to its crossing of Nurth Creek in Snohomish County. _, The undersigned parties agree that: 1. The illter~ection of the propo~l'd "(LOfC South Acce~'; Ro..d" wi th Hi yhWdY 527 wi 11 be COliS trUl: ted ilt the 10c':II Ion shoWIl ill f i 'jure 9 (dttill:hed) of tht! Trdffic Allollysis Ileport by Uavid I. II.IIl1lin & Associates, Jdnuary, 19113. 'Jhe precht! "liglllllfmt is tu /IIf!et' Snohollllsh County and W..shlnyton State Depart/llellt of Trdllsportdtlon requi rements. 2. The ulldl!velul'ed ro..dwdY of "220th St. S.L" servillU the Ul'l..nkh property, will, a t the t lUll! of deve 1 oplllent, he d 1 i Ullcd wi I.h UII! Intl'l'scdlon of lIll! "[LU[C !.outh Access IlIl<llJ" dlld lIi~lhwdY !J;>] so dS not tu 'unn dn ulfset intersectiulI. 3. The "CLOre South Access Road" wi 11 ~erve dS ilCCt!!.!. to the QUddrolnt dlld [LDEC si tes. 4. The centerlille intersection of the prOflUSL!d "Cuullty I<uud" with Highway 527 as shown in figure 9 (ilttilch,!dl, will uccur ..t 1I,..st 600 feet north of the ccnterl ine illtcr'section uf "U lire ~;uutli ACl:es~ Road" allLl IIi yllway 527. ~;;~"'_.._--- Date I I I ~~o~AAff~f~j)lY-CU~tl'110- ~-,~-::i~ ~-') i/J-;// - --- /., 7 . 7 -R- !fli:~:.;:a ~(ffdl, U e~Jciilllll:h, , .-- ,----f//c)! !.f~/, , , 6,:/te /-~ -l , f ,3 , , , I I , ".. , ., , , , , J J '. " :0 I APPENDIX B Additional CC&R Number 5.6 (d) . " iii III II III II " " 11- . " II . , , 1 I\-.J , ~. 11;, (2) Cleaning, maintenance and relamping of any external lighting fixtures except such fixtures as may be the property of any public utility or government body: and (3) Performance of all necessary maintenance of all landscaping to maintain well groomed appearance. (c) Nothing contained herein shall preclude an Owner from recovering from any person, damages to which such Owner might be entitled for any act or failure to act requiring an expenditure by the Owner for the maintenance and repair of improvements on his lot. ~ * (d) Each owner will be assessed a charge for the maintenance of privately owned utilities such as the strom drainage system. Such charge will be paid to the Declarant, and shall equal an amount representing that portion of the total cost of maintenance as the area of the lot is proportionate to the total area of the subject property. This assessment will be paid on a periOdic basis as determined by Declarant, until and if such utility be made public by an Agreement for Acceptance of- Maintenance by the appropriate governmental body or pUblic utility. ' 5.7 Failure to Maintain and Repair. (a) Right of Remedy: If any Owner shall fail to pay the Maintenance Assessment or to perform the maintenance and repair required by Section 5.6, then Declarant, after fifteen days' prior written notice to such delinquent Owner, shall have the right, not the obligation, to pay the maintenance Assessment or to perform such maintenance and repair and to charge the delinquent Owner with costs of the work, together with interest thereon at the prevailing rate plus 2~ from the date of DeClarant's payment to the date of reimbursement of Declarant by Owner. If the delinquent Owner shall fail to reimburse Declarant for such costs within ten days after demand therefore, file for record, a claim of lien signed by Declarant for the amount of such charge together with interest thereon. The lien created by this section shall be effective to establish a lien against the interest of the delinquent Owner in his lot together with interest at the prevailing rate plus 2~ on the amount of such advance from the date thereof, in addition to recording fees, cost of title search obtained in connection with such lien or the foreclosure thereof and court costs and reasonable attorney'S fees Which may be incurred in the enforcement of such a lien. (b) Foreclosure of Lien: Subject to the proviSions of Article XII, such a lien, when so established against the lot described in said claim, shall be prior or superior to any right, title, interest, lien or claim which may be or may have been acquired in or attached to the real property interests subject to the lien subsequent to the time of filing Such claim for record. Such lien shall be for the benefit of Declarant and may be enforced and foreclosed in a like manner as a real estate mortgage is foreclosed in the state of Washington, but without redemption. 13