Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Comments <br />CEMEX Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement <br />November 30, 2009 <br />38. Mr. & Mrs. Loren Dreyer <br />Speak in opposition to the proposal based on school overcrowding and traffic which is already <br />"awful." Mrs. Dreyer says there are times of the day when they can't leave their house due to <br />traffic congestion in the area. <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. <br />40. David Spivey - October 6, 2009 testimony before Everett Planning Commission <br />CEMEX <br />Mr. Spivey noted low interest in industrial land, based on recent inquiries received. He noted the <br />change in plans for the site between 1994 and today, with the current proposed mixed use being a <br />good idea at this time. He noted "positive reactions" to the proposal from surrounding <br />neighbors. <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. <br />41. CJ Ebert - October 6, 2009 testimony before Everett Planning Commission <br />Harbor Mountain Development, for CEMEX <br />Mr. Ebert noted the time and effort that has gone into the CEMEX proposal. He pointed out that <br />Tiscareno Associates who created the draft Development Standards for the site also worked on <br />the Edmonds Town Center and the Mill Creek Town Center. He thought the proposed project <br />would be good for the area and that studies and other work done to date would provide <br />predictability. <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. <br />42. Tina Hokanson - October 6, 2009 testimony before Everett Planning Commission <br />Asked for more information on bulk and density of proposed buildings. She said it would be <br />easier to add housing throughout the City, vs replacing industrial land once it is lost. She would <br />like to see improvements to industrial land use standards, including landscaping standards, and <br />changes that would lead to more "quality jobs." She sees promise for the Evergreen Way <br />corridor study due to availably of transit. She supports the diversity of neighborhoods but would <br />like to see this area remain an industrial park. <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. Regarding the density and bulk question, projected <br />density based on 700 residential units would be approximately 16.4 units per acre overall. In the <br />area near the commercial center density would likely be higher, while the single family areas <br />would be lower density. Building bulk is well characterized in the images contained in the <br />Design Guidelines in Appendix E of the DSEIS. <br />Chapter 1 — General Comments <br />