Jerry Senner, representative from the Western Heritage Center, gave a terrific presentation at the last council meeting (4-3) on the prospect of having a new version of the Tourist Information Center in the form of a live steam engine on the east end of town, by which to lure tourists. As residents may recall, the original site for the Sky Valley Information Center was across from the Sultan Bakery, between the BNSF tracks and Route 2. However, due to safety concerns (largely because of the proposal being located so close to the railroad tracks), as well as future issues related to Route 2's enlargement to four lanes (which would wipe out the Sultan Bakery's parking area), the original plan has apparently died. Residents may also remember that late last summer, the council's instruction to Mayor Rowe was to move forward with that original plan, but apparently nothing has ever been done to carry out that direction.

Nonetheless, this new plan -- what I'm calling the "Choo-choo view" -- looks like it could be pretty exciting. There is a very rough sketch on our website (Something I did in PowerPoint from memory after viewing Mr. Senner's slide presentation) which shows the proposed layout of the Botting property asgiven during the 4-3 council meeting. I have hopes of doing a word-for-word transcription to ensure there's no misunderstanding of the proposal as it exists right now.

The plan is to have a classic steam engine transporting passengers round trip, beginning at the museum/tourist center in the far southeast corner of the property northward, then westward next to/through the Wagley's Creek buffer area (where there is a small stand of trees), then southward to McDonald's, making a stop to pick up passengers and continuing across the parking lot between McDonald's and a retail strip mall eastward back to the tourist info center.

The plans are to purchase a $175,000 steam engine which is located in Colorado. But in order that it won't be sold out from under us, we need to put a $17,500 down payment so the present owner will hold it pending further funding once the city's $375,000 grant has been received.

Promotional Donation Event This Weekend: There will be a PR/donation event this coming Saturday and Sunday at the Sultan Bakery. On display will be what Mr. Senner called a "yarder" which is a small gas-powered rail utility car. Folks will be invited to climb on board and ring the bell (or toot the horn, I forget which), then give a donation toward the $17,500 required for the down payment. A donation will entitle a person to have their name added to a spike that will eventually be used in the railway's construction.

I have three obvious concerns. The first was addressed at least partially in a brief conversation with Mr. Senner. The potential liability and insurance costs of a "live" steam engine operating in close quarters in a shopping mall in this day and age sends shivers up my spine. It's an unfortunate fact of life, but true, that we live in a litigious society. But Mr. Senner has said that Western Heritage will be paying for insurance with a $2 million liability cap.

The second concern is the ongoing costs of maintenance and operations. Mr. Senner told me that all of those costs would also be assumed by Western Heritage.

My last area of anxiety is that the city commission a comprehensive cost-benefit and legal contractual analysis on the entire project before committing any funding. Or perhaps this has already been done.

If those concerns can be addressed, then any other requirements, such as environmental or transportation licensing problems, should certainly be resolvable.

At the risk of putting myself into a minority of one, I would like to offer a couple of insights on this new plan. The first is that numerous public meetings/hearings were held on the formerly proposed site for this beleaguered project, most of them involving safety concerns, particularly related to its close proximity to Route 2 and the BNSF railroad tracks (even though both of those potential danger points were being addressed by fencing). Yet the folks who expressed the loudest objections have not expressed any misgivings about this new plan. Could the reasons be founded in each of the site's locations? The other point I think needs to be pointed out is that this project seems to be on a fast track (pun definitely intended). I've been getting the feeling that some railroading appears to be taking place, specifically in regard to the hurry-up-and-purchase-before-it's-gone approach that seems to be taking place associated with purchase of the steam engine.

Anyway, if you've ever wanted to blow your own horn, this Saturday or Sunday will be a great time to do it!

Believe it or not, some folks still don't know what one is. Or what a UGA is, either. Or a code or ordinance. We've been requested to do a glossary, but some of these basic terms are already on our comprehensive plan webpages. But for those of you who need basic, fundamental information in layman's terms (please, do NOT hold me to this definition as being "legally" correct; this is taken from the Land Use For Dummies manual), here's the fast food version of that term.

Comprehensive Plan: If you were going to build a home, then this would be your architect's plans and the bid/agreement he signs with the builder on the project. Think "Sim City." A comprehensive plan is a guideline and schematic of everything that goes into making a city (or a county, for that matter). Hence the term "comprehensive." It's like a blueprint for our future. And once approved by the city, it is what we have agreed to live with for 20 years. That's not say it's static, however. By law, it should be revised every five years. And other events may require that revisions be made to it, too. Like if we grow so large we'll need a new sewer plant.

But getting back to our update….in case you've been a bit out of touch, the long-overdue revision to our comp plan has been going on for several weeks and is entering its final stages, heading toward the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement…We'll save the definition of an EIS for another update!). But if you have not given your two cents' worth on this, we suggest you do so immediately, often and loudly. Because it appears that, while the developer/economic interests of the city are being well represented in this plan, just us regular folks are not doing so well at getting our points across, judging by the non-economic interests turn-out of residents we've been seeing.

There are currently three alternatives being considered, and YOUR INPUT will decide which one the city finally approves:

Low Growth Alternative: Things basically stay pretty much the same, at least as far as the UGA boundaries are concerned. (Oh, and here's yet another one of those tricky, sticky terms. The "Dummies'" version of the definition of a UGA -- which stands for "Urban Growth Boundary" -- is: The "growth cushion" of land between the city limits and where the county jurisdiction takes over, within which the city can expand without requiring a formal annexation of land. The larger our UGA, the more easily we can expand and add new developments; i.e., it facilitates development at a faster rate.)

The "Low Growth" alternative means that our UGA boundaries would stay pretty much the same as they are right now, requiring that most new developments be accomplished within already-existing territory (somewhere on the order of between 400-500 undeveloped acres), and if an owner wants his land to be located within the city limits of Sultan, he/she would have to accomplish this through a formal annexation process. Residential development of 400 acres, using low-to-medium density zoning represents between 1600 -2400 additional homes (4 homes/acre), or an estimated 4,591 to 6,887 more people, without annexing any additional land. Stated even more clearly, this would result in a future total city population of between 8,391 and 10,687 people. (Our Current "official" population stands at 3800.)

Moderate/Medium Growth Scenario: The Moderate growth alternative shows our UGA boundaries expanding almost in a line, from northwest to southeast, following the general direction of the Bonneville power transmission lines, including land above 124^th Street S. E.

High Growth Scenario: Our UGA boundary would include all east-west land from the Sultan River to the Sultan-Startup Road, and northward all the way to 116^th Street S. E. (Yikes! That's us! Oh, goodie. We can finally run for a council seat….) It also includes a relatively small area west of Old Owen Road on Route 2.

Rick Cisar, Planning Director
City of Sultan
P.O. Box 1199
Sultan, WA 98294

Or drop them off in person at:

319 Main Street, Sultan

Or via Fax: 360-793-3344

PLEASE REMEMBER: The only time your voice doesn't count is when you don't use it.

Many residents will recall that during the summer of 2000 Ed "Chico" Boucher had to stop work on his 4-lot his property at Trout Farm/Gohr Roads due to unauthorized activity in the Winters Creek buffer zone. The city finally required, among other things, that he have a mitigation/restoration/monitoring plan performed before moving forward on the project.

The city has resurrected this application, and this time around they are calling it a "re-notice" of application. The application requests approval for a total of four duplex units, which includes the duplex already constructed (people have been living there), as well as an partial excavation for the foundation of a second duplex that the Willow Run folks refer to as the "local swimming hole."

We have reviewed the file and plat map and can tell that Mr. Boucher and the city-paid engineer, Paul Inghram of Berryman & Henigar have tried to cross their t's and dot their i's on the paperwork. But there still remains one or two legal issues begging resolution, one of which is whether or not legal notice has been given for this "re-notice." For instance, mailed notices to adjoining property owners states that a plat map was attached, but there was none. Also, while there are two blue land use notice signs clearly posted on the property -- one facing Trout Farm Road and one facing Gohr Road -- it's not possible to discern any details without actually having to step foot onto Mr. Boucher's property; property posted with a very aggressive "No Trespassing" sign that threatens bodily harm. Does this constitute legal notice?

Well, luckily, I placed a public information request for this plat map, and hope to post a copy online shortly.

Last week following the council meeting, I asked Chico Boucher if he would be interested in being interviewed so that he could give his opinion on what happened with this controversial short plat. I offered him the following deal: He could communicate his positions and insights, and I would transcribe it word-for-word (omitting most of the uh's, um's, etc. from both of us), and post it on my website. I felt he would welcome the opportunity to comment on the occurrences of the summer of 2000, as well as anything else he felt was pertinent about this new application. His response was not overwhelmingly enthusiastic, but he has not yet given us a "yes" or a "no." The offer, meanwhile, remains open…

Boring, stuffy ol' updates. Here's something that might help break up the seriousness:

STUDENT MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL MAY SOON BE A REALITY
During the last council meeting, discussions on whether or not to add a non-voting student member to the council focused on form and timing of the concept rather than whether or not to do it. And although the council has not yet officially voted to approve the idea, it looks promising. I thought Councilmember Rob Criswell came up with a dynamite idea: Have the students hold an election to select who they'd like to represent them on council. Outstanding concept.

800 MHz System
For folks wanting the latest story on the "mutiny" planned by the east county rural cities in signing onto this fire district/police communication system being pushed by the county, you should check out our website for further details. In a nutshell, the county has been requesting ("arm-twisting"?) cities to purchase yesterday's technology at tomorrow's prices. In addition to the exorbitant initial start-up costs ($300K), the annual maintenance and operation (M&O) expenses are also prohibitive. Interestingly, most folks only consider the initial expense, not the financial burden of maintaining a system.

At the April 3, 2002 council meeting, a plat map was displayed of the approximately 30-acre Botting site east of Rice Road which showed a big box grocery store, a clinic, veterinarian, and several other retail stores. What I found to be a bit disturbing is that most of that map showed impervious surface on virtually the entire 30 acres. Am I the only one in Sultan who would like to see a bit more green frontage along with the greenbacks?

Remember: Once built, there forever. Has anyone ever heard of an acre of concrete being replaced by an acre of parkland?

Something interesting has been going on with the hearings and review process on this EIS.

First, the revision to the October draft EIS was received on Saturday, March 16^th, giving folks only three days to review and digest fairly technical details prior to the hearing. Numerous people on the list did not receive a copy at all. (As an example, the Tulalip Tribes were not on the distribution list, an egregious error.) There was a large stack of returned envelopes on the tape when we walked in, representing a not-insignificant amount of taxpayer dollars since each packet cost over $3.00 in posting to mail. Due to complaints during the hearing, the city agreed to hold a second, continued one April 2^nd.

During the March 19^th hearing, I requested that Tom Green, as an owner of property in the LID 97-1, recuse himself, which he did. However, at the continuation hearing on April 2^nd, Bart Dalmasso, who was chairing on behalf of absent Brandt Gerow, said the hearing could not be held without Tom's participation, since a quorum would not have been present. This raises some legal questions that Councilmember Raney requested (during the 4-3 council) be addressed by the city attorney, who was atypically not at that particular council meeting. Another legal question is the possible conflict of interest with both Bart Dalmasso and Tom Green as real estate agents participating as PC members -- IF -- they represent anyone owning land within the LID.

Another problem area with the EIS is that (according to a jump-the-gun printed brochure paid for by the Bonneville Power Administration) this project is supposed to be Master Planned, and "ready for permits," with "critical areas…delineated and accounted for," which they have not yet been. Additionally, this brochure indicates specific acreage for the three land use zones in the industrial area: Residential, HO (Highway Oriented, i.e., retail) and ED (Economic Development). Yet according to testimony from property owners during the two hearings, the zoning is subject to additional revision. (As an aside, during the 4-3-02 council meeting, Donna Murphy generously accepted complete responsibility for the content and early printing of this brochure. But does anyone really think she would have moved ahead on such an expensive pursuit without marching orders from someone else?)

Additionally, the traffic/transportation element of the EIS is woefully inadequate, perhaps even negligent.

And, oh, yes, one other teensy, weensy, insignificant item: The city has still not received official sign-off from the Department of Ecology on the Wagley's LID 97-1 restoration and mitigation.

TTFN, Loretta Storm

360-793-6683