2010/05/26 Council Agenda Packet

Response to Comments CEMEX Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement November 30, 2009 The second issue of odor is addressed in the zoning code. In section 19.39.140(C) EMC the code states, "Any odor which injures or endangers the health or safety of persons or interferes with the use of abutting properties or streets is a violation of this title. Emissions to air shall comply with the standards of the State Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority." If the rezone of the CEMEX site is successful, the developer intents build out the property with a mix of commercial and residential uses. The potential for odor complaints about existing industrial operations will likely increase due to the greater sensitivity of residential and commercial tenants over today's industrial users." A note -worthy thrust of the comment is that StockPot intends to operate within existing noise and odor guidelines established under State Law and City Code. Cambell's seeks an easement to ensure future property owners in the CEMEX project area are made aware of and agree to the Company's right to operate, the by-product of which may include off-site noise and odor impacts. Response: If the development is approved then the City would work with Stockpot and other interested Southwest Everett property owners on easement wording. 16. Mathew Gardner, Principle Gardiner Economics (Attached to StockPot letter) In his comment letter Mr. Gardiner reports on his review of the Everett Industrial Land Analysis conducted by Property Counselors of Seattle, a study of supply and demand for industrial lands in SW Everett, which was undertaken at the request of, and paid for by, the City of Everett. Mr. Gardiner was commissioned to examine the Analysis by Campbell's (Stockpot), to take measure of the relevance and competence of the Analysis. In summary, Mr. Gardner found that, "Property Counselors' analysis of office and industrial park (M-1) and light industry (M -M) indicates broader availability of land, with 16.7 years supply ... for M-1 zoned land, and 25 years supply ... for M -M zoned land." He states, "Overall, we agree that the argument relative to current land supply as it pertains to a twenty-year planning horizon is appropriate, and that it is clear that there is a significant shortage of developable M-2 land. Mr. Gardner questioned Tables 9 and 10 in the Analysis, (found at Appendix C of the Draft EIS). He states, "We did note that there is a discrepancy relative to the current supply of industrially zoned land. On page 25 (page 23 of the Analysis in appendix C in the DEIS), it was stated that current inventory — per a City of Everett analysis — was 1,663 acres, yet the Property Counselors' report suggests on page 26 (page 24, Appendix C) that the gross acreage is substantially less (721.6). This is a major discrepancy and one that would appear to require further analysis, although the balance of developable land is suggested to be almost identical. Chapter 3 — Land Use Policy Comments 20