Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Comments <br />CEMEX Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement <br />November 30, 2009 <br />Response: Mr. Easton, the author of the Everett Industrial Land Analysis that Mr. Gardiner <br />reviewed, was contacted regarding the above noted "discrepancy." Here is Mr. Easton's <br />response, "The data for table 10 (page 24) excluded parcels that had no developable area, while <br />the data in Table 9 (page 23) did include such parcels. As a result, the total developable acreages <br />in the right hand column of both tables are comparable, but the gross acreage figures are not. If <br />all parcels were included in the data for Table 10, the total gross acres in Table 10 would be <br />1,633, the same as Table 9." The net number of acres is more meaningful and is estimated at <br />721.6 acres. <br />Mr. Gardner concludes his comments with, "The onus of the study was not that residential uses <br />were not going be in demand' but rather that there will be ongoing demand for Office and <br />Industrial Parks land designation. It is our opinion that there will be demand for residential uses <br />in the Everett market, but we also agree that demand for industrially zoned land will revive over <br />time, and that the significant ongoing revenue streams that are associated with the existing land <br />uses warrant retaining the current zoning." <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. <br />18. Carter Timmerman, Aviation Planner. <br />WSDOT Aviation <br />Washington State Department of Transportation <br />Mr. Timmerman notes that the proposed development falls inside the Everett Comprehensive <br />Plan Airport Influence Area. He notes State regulatory guidance calling for jurisdictions such as <br />Everett to avoid "encroachment" by residential (sensitive) land uses into said areas. He <br />concludes by stating, ".. WSDOT recommends that the City of Everett continue to take proactive <br />steps to protect Snohomish County / Paine Field from the encroachment of incompatible uses. <br />Response: Thank you for your comments. <br />20. Robert A. Landles, Consultant <br />Representing Earth Holdings, LLC <br />Mr. Landles questions the Everett Industrial Land Analysis regarding data contained in Tables 9, <br />and 10, as Mr. Gardner has done previously. Mr. Landles is referred to comment / response 16 <br />above. Regarding Mr. Landles' comment that the EIS should show a 25 year supply of <br />remaining M -M zoned land. Mr. Landles goes on to state that absorption rates used in the <br />Industrial Lands Analysis is "optimistic." Meaning such lands will not in fact develop or be <br />redeveloped during the estimated consumption time period. <br />Chapter 3 — Land Use Policy Comments <br />1 Mr. Gardner states, "For disclosure, Gardner Economics prepared an analysis for Cemex in December of 2007." <br />21 <br />