The proposed phases of the Eastview Village development from the site application submitted in 2023.
CATHCART — Four separate parties, including the developer, have filed motions asking the Snohomish County hearing examiner to reconsider his approval of plans for a large housing development across 144 acres bordering the north side of Glacier Peak High and Little Cedars Elementary schools.
Hearing Examiner Peter Camp ruled Feb. 28 that development of Eastview Village, a mix of residential and commercial structures, could proceed subject to some technical stipulations.
In response, two citizens and two organizations have formally asked Camp to reconsider.
They allege the examiner made errors of fact and accuse him of favoring data from developers and county planners over statistics presented by qualified opposition.
David Irwin, a former lead transportation development review engineer for Snohomish County Planning and Development Services (PDS), maintains that the developers, county and state DOT performed an incomplete traffic analysis.
This led to errors in their conclusions and could result in “undocumented and unmitigated transportation impacts” on county intersections, his motion for reconsideration states. He was hired as an expert by a neighboring HOA concerned of cut-through traffic.
Gary Brandstetter, an attorney representing the Marshland Flood Control District, claims Camp made three separate factual errors in ruling not to require a conditional assessment covenant between Marshland and the developers. Brandstetter notes such covenants to address downstream effects have successfully been included in at least three recent smaller developments by the same developer.
Thirteen wetlands and four streams lie on or within 300 feet of the Eastview Village site. Marshland, which hired its own experts, wants the project’s engineering reports remanded to PDS to be triple-checked by state Department of Ecology authority experts in water flow and control. Eastview’s sheer size of developing on 144 acres — much larger than anything filed in the past five years — means “even small mistakes will have significant, perhaps even catastrophic, impacts on Marshland’s floodplain agriculture,” Brandstetter wrote.
And the developers, Pacific Ridge LLC, chided Camp for stating incorrect numbers of planned townhomes and single-family residences in his decision, leading to further errors regarding the amount of mitigation fees to be paid based on those numbers.
As proposed, when completed Eastview Village would have 360 townhouse units and 574 detached single-family residences, as well as 61,000 square feet of commercial development.
The project is on the north side of Cathcart Way, between Cathcart Park and Little Cedars Elementary and Glacier Peak High schools. It wraps around the high school and the park on its eastern borders.
Work would be completed in 14 stages and is expected to take about six years.
“The biggest concern is this project will add between 10,000 to 20,000 more daily trips to the already heavily congested roads in the area, without any improvements to the road system,” said Debbie Wetzel, another citizen who has filed a motion for reconsideration.
In her motion, Wetzel cites a lack of conditions in Camp’s decision for pedestrian safety at a new roundabout proposed for Puget Park Drive and Cathcart Way.
She also noted that there are no planned pedestrian routes to cross Cathcart Way from Eastview Village and reach a new park-and-ride lot being constructed about a mile away.
Wetzel also raised environmental concerns, claiming “it is apparent that there is still an active landfill occurring adjacent and/or on project property and measures must be taken to protect the public.”
Camp’s decision said “a portion” of the site was once planned to be a landfill, but “it was never used as a landfill and never accepted refuse.”
In addition to factual errors, Irwin’s motion claims Camp gave “substantial deference” to PDS staff and developers’ consultants.
Wetzel accuses Camp of blatant favoritism.
“We are not asking the Examiner to impose stricter requirements than applicable county code; we are asking that he imposes requirements based on clear and convincing evidence submitted by experts and the public that the evaluation of this project is inadequate/deficient,” her motion stated.
Irwin, who left county PDS last year in an ethical dispute, said in his motion his objections are based on compliance with county code and with an interlocal traffic-impact mitigation agreement between Snohomish County, the state DOT and other local agencies.
“I have no intention of stopping this development,” Irwin wrote, “if it complies with the law.”
At press time, Camp had not ruled on any of the reconsideration motions.
Wetzel and Irwin are planning a public meeting to further inform citizens on Eastview Village. For more information, email savecathcart@outlook.com.
