The proposed phases of the Eastview Village development from the site application submitted in 2023.
SNOHOMISH — On Dec. 30, Snohomish County’s Hearing Examiner convened a session to discuss the Eastview Village development next to Glacier Peak High School. The meeting addressed environmental concerns raised during a previous public hearing on Dec. 3.
Pacific Ridge Homes is proposing a mixed-use development to fill 145 acres of forest land for a project called Eastview Village. It will include 1,312 homes, 61,000 square feet of commercial space, and 30,000 square feet designated for retail. The development would be constructed in 12 phases and complies with existing zoning regulations. Primary access will be via extensions of Puget Park Drive and 144th Place SE, with additional connections to 79th Ave SE and future developments. A variance is also being requested for private driveways in some phases.
Developer Defends Environmental Compliance
Duana Koloušková, legal counsel representing Pacific Ridge Homes, emphasized the project aligns with the definition of infill development under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
“The project is consistent with the definition of infill development, which is discussed in our written materials as a mixed-use infill development. As a result, this project falls within a category of urban infill development that is exempt under SEPA per county code,” Koloušková said.
She clarified that while the project is exempt from certain environmental reviews under SEPA, this does not mean it is free from all environmental oversight. Koloušková explained that SEPA encourages environmental reviews to occur early in the process, particularly during the County Council’s zoning and long-range planning decisions.
There have been many voices of opposition against the project.
Debbie Wetzel, a Clearview activist, is one of the more than 100 citizens who have voiced concerns.
Wetzel believes the county has committed a violation.
“This property was marketed for sale just like the Cathcart Crossing site with a vision for an Urban Village, much like downtown Mill Creek. That vision has been replaced with only 1-1/2 acres of commercial/residential and the county violates its Comprehensive Plan,” said Wetzel.
She also explained that the previous lead transportation development reviewer for Snohomish County planning provided documentation and testimony addressing traffic concerns and this project exposing the long-standing failure of WSDOT and the County to adhere to an interlocal agreement.
Wetzel believes that the area of development is a high-accident area along state Route 9, and the added traffic from this development would not be a positive contribution. According to Wetzel and Washington State Patrol Data, more than 160 traffic accidents have occurred along that corridor in the last two years.
Wetzel also expresses concerns that the property does not fall under one that fits “infill” development.
Wetzel believes that the project’s re-submission and the “infill development” was an attempt to qualify for SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act.
Several experts were brought in to address environmental concerns raised during the prior public hearings.
Kimberly Busteed, an engineer with Core Design, said the Eastview Village project meets environmental standards and the development would have minimal impact on wetlands.
Michael Moody, also with Core Design, discussed potential downstream impacts.
“The native downstream impacts we want to avoid are erosion, sedimentation, and flooding,” Moody said.
He further noted that the use of a vault in the project would likely improve water flow compared to the existing forested area.
Matt DeCaro of Soundview Consultants addressed concerns about drainage and wetlands. He confirmed that his work complied with Snohomish County’s drainage code. Responding to questions about wetland mosaics in the project area, DeCaro stated that there were not enough wetland areas on the property to qualify as a mosaic.
“We conducted an extensive study that looked at all seasons of the year, which we believe exceeded county expectations,” DeCaro said. “Our study addressed critical area concerns, and we believe it meets the benchmarks set by Snohomish County.”
Following the hearing, Peter Camp, the County Hearing Examiner, said that he would conduct a more thorough review of the materials before making his decision. Koloušková, representing the applicants, requested that the Examiner approve the plat with the proposed conditions listed in the staff report and additional requested conditions.
At the Dec. 30 meeting, Camp indicated that his decision is would be still to come in the next few weeks.
