Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-22-21 Council Workshop
To join Zoom meeting, click here. Meeting ID: 856 8934 5709 Passcode: 236879 To join with mobile: 1-253-215-8782 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barb Tolbert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Barb Tolbert – Wendy APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Jason Biermann, Snohomish County DEM Director – Overview of Airport Vaccine Site Mayor Barb Tolbert WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN 1.Resolution Appointing Elected Officials to the Regional Fire Authority ATTACHMENT A Transition Board Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis Council Liaison: Jesica Stickles ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D 2.Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission Appointment Staff Presentation: Sarah Lopez Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle 3.Budget Amendment Request for a Network Assessment from Right Systems, Inc. Staff Presentation: Bryan Terry Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 4.Resolution to Adopt the Housing Action Plan Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles Arlington City Council Workshop Monday, March 22, 2021 at 7:00 pm 5. Sole Source Resolution for the Procurement and Servicing of ATTACHMENT E Cla-Val Pressure Reducing Valves Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Debora Nelson 6. Resolution to Support the WRIA 7 Watershed Restoration and ATTACHMENT F Enhancement Plan Staff Presentation: Mike Wolanek Council Liaison: Debora Nelson 7. February Financial Report ATTACHMENT G Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia 8. Community and Economic Development Monthly Report ATTACHMENT H Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council. Please limit your remarks to three minutes. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles / Mayor Barb Tolbert City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 22, 2021 SUBJECT: A Resolution Appointing Elected Officials to the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Transition Board ATTACHMENTS: Resolution DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Administration; Paul Ellis, City Administrator 360-403-4603 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The Service Plan calls for the appointment by the City Council of three elected officials to serve on the Transitional Board of the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCRFA) as Positions 7, 8 & 9, until commissioner districts are selected and elections can be held. The City Council is asked to appoint, pursuant to RCW 52.26.080 and the NCRFA Service Plan, the following officials to the NCRFA Transition Board: Mayor Barbara Tolbert to Position #7, to serve until December 31, 2023; City Councilmember Debora Nelson to Position #8, to serve until December 31, 2023; and City Councilmember Marilyn Oertle to Position #9, to serve until December 31, 2023. HISTORY: The voters of the City approved by election the annexation by the City to the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCRFA), pursuant to a Service Plan jointly adopted by the NCRFA and the City of Arlington. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the April 5, 2021 City Council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to appoint Mayor Barbara Tolbert to Position #7, City Councilmember Debora Nelson to Position #8, and City Councilmember Marilyn Oertle to Position #9, to serve on the NCRFA Transitional Board until December 31, 2023. RESOLUTION NO. 2021 – XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON APPOINTING ELECTED OFFICIALS TO THE REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY (RFA) TRANSITION BOARD WHEREAS, the voters of the City approved by election the annexation by the City to the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCRFA), pursuant to a Service Plan jointly adopted by the NCRFA and the City of Arlington; and WHEREAS, the Service Plan calls for the appointment by the City Council of three elected officials to serve on the Transitional Board of the NCRFA as Positions 7, 8 & 9 until commissioner districts are selected and elections can be held; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to appoint the elected officials; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington do hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City Council appoints, pursuant to RCW 52.26.080 and the NCRFA Service Plan, the following officials to the NCRFA Transition Board: a. Mayor Barbara Tolbert to Position #7, to serve until December 31, 2023; b. City Councilmember Debora Nelson to Position #8, to serve until December 31, 2023; and c. City Councilmember Marilyn Oertle to Position #9, to serve until December 31, 2023. ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 5th day of April, 2021. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #2 Attachment B interview. The interview committee recommends re-appointing Jennifer Harrington to PARC. Although Jennifer has served less than a year on PARC, during that time she has become very Jenni Harrington Arlington, WA 98223 same ✔ 01/25/21 Background - Education: Degree - Bachelors and Masters in Health, Exercise and Sports Sciences, Certified Exercise Physiologist with the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). work experience - Worked with Parks in College Worked from 2007- Present at the Boeing Activity and Recreation Center Planned 5ks for Boeing Volunteer with the Arlington Running Club to help with their 5k events in Arlington On the Chamber board - Love being part of our local community and help in anyway I can Personal Love parks! Utilize them all the time, very passionate about our parks, art and recreation programs! City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #3 Attachment C Network Assessment & Documentation Statement of Work Prepared for: City of Arlington Administration March 2, 2021 ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 1993, Right! Systems, Inc. has provided business-driven, multi-vendor IT solutions to clients worldwide. Drawing on deep industry expertise and a portfolio of interrelated consulting, application, and infrastructure services, our solutions can help you gain control of your enterprise-wide technology, increase productivity and end-user satisfaction, refocus talent and energies on your core business, and decrease total cost of ownership. Our ability to provide solutions that adapt to our customers’ ever-changing markets begins with a collaborative effort that allows you to seamlessly integrate technologies to meet your changing needs. As a leading technology services company and a comprehensive provider of consulting, integration, procurement and support services, Right! Systems professionals are there every step of the way. We work directly with you to provide insightful analysis and industry-specific counsel on strategy, best-practices, technology and management; from the design stage through implementation and beyond you can be sure we have a solution that will work for you. PROJECT OBJECTIVE City of Arlington Administration (Customer) has asked Right! Systems, Inc. (RSI) for a proposal of services, in the form of a Statement of Work (SOW), to assess and document their network infrastructure. RSI’s statement of work accomplishes the following objectives: • Configuration review of edge routers and switching infrastructure, benchmarked against industry recommended best practices • Document Network elements to accurately represent current configuration, including: o Visio drawings representing: ▪ How things are segmented (Layer 2) ▪ How things are routed (Layer 3) o Spreadsheet including: ▪ Subnet/VLAN matrix ▪ Circuit Info (where possible) ▪ Make/Model of network devices • Customer Review of findings and Next Steps planning meeting *Network assessment does not include firewalls beyond general network settings review as these devices are considered security appliances and require a different kind of assessment not included as part of this scope of work* At the conclusion of this engagement, City of Arlington Administration and RSI will meet to discuss any next steps and future engagements. ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 3 PROJECT SCOPE The following section defines the stages, activities, and deliverables associated with this project. STAGE 1 ACTIVITIES / DELIVERABLES REVIEW & STAGING Expected Activities: • Review existing topology with Customer team prior to start of assessment activities • Confirm access to all network equipment • Stage data collection tools Project Deliverables: • General review with Customer team complete: RSI/Customer • Required network access provided: RSI/Customer • Data collection tools staged and ready: RSI STAGE 2 ACTIVITIES / DELIVERABLES ASSESS & DOCUMENT Expected Activities: • Activate network data collection tools • Log into network devices to gather configurations and serial numbers for EOL status • Based on data gathered, create document package including: o Visio drawings detailing: ▪ Critical Uplinks ▪ VLAN Info ▪ Subnet Info o Inventory Data o Configuration Recommendations Project Deliverables: • Data collected across network elements: RSI • Documentation packages created based on data collected: RSI ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 4 STAGE 3 ACTIVITIES / DELIVERABLES PRESENT FINDINGS & DOCUMENT PACKAGE REVIEW Expected Activities: • Review findings with Customer team, including: o Key items uncovered during assessment and documentation effort ▪ Configuration optimization ▪ Hardware replacement ▪ Environment clean up o Documentation created as part of project, including: ▪ Visio diagrams Project Deliverables: • Findings review performed: RSI/Customer • Documentation package handoff: RSI/Customer ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 5 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS The following section defines the customer requisites needed at or prior to the start of this engagement. This list of requirements may expand based on discovery during the kickoff meeting and planning stage, as well as the ongoing work detailed in the project scope. CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS Prerequisites • Access to network hardware via Telnet, SSH, WebUI, and SNMP • Ability to place a network collection appliance in the environment • Ability to configure Port Mirror/SPAN ports (if required) Any technologies or deliverables other than those specifically noted in the project scope of this SOW are not included as part of this engagement. Activities listed in the project scope are subject to change as needed only to complete the explicit deliverables for each stage. For clarification purposes, some technologies that are out of scope for this engagement include, but are not limited to: CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS Out of Scope • This project is purely to assess and document the environment. No configuration changes will be made as part of this project • Firewall configuration beyond general network settings (interfaces, routes) • Physical cabling audit ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 6 The general assumptions listed below apply to this engagement unless specifically contradicted in the Project Purpose or Project Scope above. CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS General Assumptions • City of Arlington Administration may need to provide RSI with access to their offices, a convenient place to work, network connectivity and internet access while onsite. • Sufficient power, cooling, rack space, and cabling is required for any hardware related to this engagement and is the sole responsibility of City of Arlington Administration. • Hardware, software, or licensing needed for the solutions being deployed or upgraded in the environment is the sole responsibility of City of Arlington Administration. • Administrative-level permissions for particular hardware or software components of the environment may need to be provided to RSI for the duration of this engagement. • Service-impacting activities may require maintenance windows for scheduled downtimes. • City of Arlington Administration resources will need to be available as requested by RSI team members. Technical support from the provider of any hardware or software related to this engagement may be required, both during and after business hours. • RSI is not responsible for any hardware or software failures not caused directly or indirectly by RSI negligence or willful misconduct during this project which could potentially cause the schedule for project completion to be delayed. RSI may submit a Change Order to readjust the cost of this agreement based on the circumstances. • Project estimates do not include time or costs associated with hardware or software-related support incidents not caused directly or indirectly by RSI’s negligence or willful misconduct. Those incidents that result in RSI needing to open a vendor-related issue on behalf of City of Arlington Administration may be viewed as a Change Order to this agreement and will required a Change order to be executed RSI may need to pause the project until the Change Order is fully executed by both parties. • Expected Activities in the scope define a framework of activities for this engagement and are subject to minor alterations to effectively complete the project deliverables for each stage ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 7 CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS This statement of work may be amended upon agreement of both RSI and City of Arlington Administration and the execution of a modification to the statement of work (Change Order). Both RSI and City of Arlington Administration may request a Change Order to effect a change to the Project. All requests for a Change Order shall be made in writing to the other party. If the requested Change Order results in a deviation to the activities or deliverables, both RSI and City of Arlington Administration may agree to an adjustment of the price, as applicable, and as referenced in the Change Order. For services that do not affect the material effort to complete a stage of work, RSI will strive to complete these efforts without a Change Order if they do not impact the schedule or completion of a particular stage of the project. RSI will consider a Change Order necessary for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: An identified prerequisite is not complete Any prerequisites identified in this statement of work or subsequent discussions with City of Arlington Administration that are not complete prior to the start of this engagement (or particular stage of this engagement where those prerequisites are necessary) may require a change in schedule and Change Order to accommodate the time lost as a result of the prerequisite(s) not being met. The engagement cannot continue or complete If, during the project activities, RSI determines the project cannot continue without a Change Order, or can continue, but cannot complete without a Change Order, RSI will attempt in good faith to immediately reach City of Arlington Administration to discuss the impact and potential Change Order. Any delays in execution of a Change Order to address an activity or deliverable needed to continue or complete the project may result in scheduling delays. Architectural or environmental conditions not previously identified are a common reason for this potential Change Order. Additional services warranted If either RSI or City of Arlington Administration identify additional services outside the Project Scope that do not materially affect the successful completion of this project but are needed or wanted by City of Arlington Administration, a Change Order or new statement of work may be requested by either party. ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 8 PROJECT TEAM Project Engineer(s) The role of the Project Engineer is to plan and lead day -to-day project activities, making adjustments as needed during the progression of the work described in the project scope. Common Project Engineer tasks include, but are not limited to: • Performing daily activities that deliver the project scope. • Implementation of all technical solutions put forth in this SOW. • Creation and development of project documentation deliverables. • Leading meetings necessary for project deliverables • Technical review of progress with the team. Project Architect A Right! Systems Project Architect may be assigned to the project to assist with the technical accuracy of project deliverables. The Project Architect may oversee, review, and validate all technical details, participate in kickoff meetings, and work with the Project Engineer during any planning and design stages. Specific Project Architect tasks may include, but are not limited to: • Providing technical thought leadership to the team to ensure successful delivery of the project scope. • Review of service-related documentation and implementation of the project. • Orchestrate the technical efforts to deliver a comprehensive solution. Note: Project Architect activities will be conducted in a remote capacity Project Manager / Project Coordinator/Project Integrator RSI will assign a Project Manager (“PM”) or Project Coordinator (“PC”) or Project Integrator (“PI”) to act as a single point of contact for City of Arlington Administration, for the management of the services set forth in this SOW. The PM/PC/PI employs formal project management techniques and methodologies based on best practice and industr y standards. Project management tasks may include, but are not limited to: • Acting as the single point of contact and accountability for successful delivery of this Statement of Work, maintaining a focus on time, cost, and scope. • Coordination of kick-off, status, and closure meetings. • Establishing and managing the services schedule, deliverables, and status reporting. • Confirmation of delivered milestones and services in accordance with this SOW. • Obtaining service completion and project sign-off from City of Arlington Administration. Note: PM/PC/PI activities will be conducted primarily in a remote capacity ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 9 PROJECT PRICING Based on the requirements gathered from City of Arlington Administration and work plan detailed in the project scope section of this Statement of Work, the following represents the fixed pricing related to this project. ENGAGEMENT PRICE Network Assessment & Documentation $7,360.00 If additional work is required to complete any activities or deliverables not defined in this scope of work, an executed change order will be required. Pricing put forth in this SOW is based on normal working hours of Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM, with after-hours, weekend, and holiday rates taken into consideration as appropriate for specific portions of the engagement. Scheduled dates for performance of the services detailed within will be determined as part of the project kickoff. City of Arlington Administration acknowledges that RSI will confirm scheduling only upon receiving this signed, executed agreement, and an accompanying purchase order if required . Scheduling for qualified resources may require up to six (6) weeks lead time , and any changes or delays to the schedule by City of Arlington Administration will require additional lead time. Pricing does not include any associated costs for hardware, software, licensing, or materials directly or indirectly related to this engagement. TRAVEL AND EXPENSE In the event that RSI is required or requested to travel during this project it is expected and agreed to that City of Arlington Administration will reimburse RSI as described in the Terms and Conditions section below. T&E ESTIMATE OF COST Estimate No travel cost estimated for this engagement ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 10 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. PURPOSE AND MEANING OF SIGNATURES City of Arlington Administration signature on this document indicates that City of Arlington Administration agrees that the content, terms, conditions, and deliverables contained herein accurately reflect the services required by City of Arlington Administration. City of Arlington Administration decision to purchase the services described will be based on this document in its entirety. RSI signature on this document indicate that RSI’s obligation to undertake the services as defined in this Statement of Work, in the time frames described herein effective as of the date of City of Arlington Administration decision to purchase and providing that City of Arlington Administration provides appropriate purchase/payment commitments. 2. WARRANTIES RSI Warranties. RSI represents and warrants that (a) RSI has the power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement, and (b) RSI’s Services under this Agreement shall be performed in a workmanlike manner in accordance with the highest standards of quality, shall conform strictly to the requirements as set forth in this agreement, and shall be fit for their intended uses. RSI shall take all reasonable precautions to protect the equipment and data of City of Arlington Administration against loss, damage, theft, or disappearance while in the care, custody, or control of RSI, its representatives, agents, and subcontractors. City of Arlington Administration Warranties. City of Arlington Administration represents and warrants that it has the power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. Disclaimer of Warranty. Except for the limited warranty set forth previously, RSI makes no warranties hereunder, and RSI expressly disclaims all other warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. 3. INVOICING AND PAYMENT Payment. All invoices are to be paid to RSI in net 30 days. In addition, RSI and City of Arlington Administration mutually agree to a progressive invoicing schedule on weekly or bi-weekly basis. If City of Arlington Administration requires a purchase order to process payments, please provide a purchase order number during signature of this agreement. Late Payment. City of Arlington Administration shall pay to RSI all undisputed fees within 30 days of the date of the applicable RSI invoice. If City of Arlington Administration fails to pay any undisputed fees within 30 days from the date of an invoice, where applicable, late charges of 1.5% per month or the maximum allowable under applicable law shall also become payable by City of Arlington Administration to RSI. In addition, failure of City of Arlington Administration to fully pay any undisputed fees within forty- five 45 days after the applicable due date shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement, justifying suspension of the performance of the Services by RSI, and will be sufficient cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by RSI. Any such suspension does not relieve City of Arlington Administration from paying past undisputed due fees plus interest and in the event of collection ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 11 enforcement, City of Arlington Administration shall be liable for any costs associated with such collection, including, but not limited to, legal costs, attorneys’ fees, court costs and collection agency fees. Taxes. In any case or jurisdiction where RSI is required to charge tax for services provided pursuant to this Agreement, RSI shall invoice to and collect from City of Arlington Administration, and remit, such sales tax. Each party shall be responsible for any other taxes assessed against it. 4. TRAVEL AND EXPENSE In the event that RSI is required or requested to travel during this project, it is expected and agreed upon that City of Arlington Administration will reimburse RSI for any necessary travel expenses. All expenses for reimbursement will be documented and provided to City of Arlington Administration. These expenses may include airfare, rental car, parking, ground transportation, tolls, travel time, meals, and lodging. 5. NO HIRE During the course of this project and for a period of twelve months following the conclusion of this SOW, City of Arlington Administration shall not directly or indirectly hire, solicit, or encourage RSI employees or contractors to leave the employment of RSI in an effort to gain employment with City of Arlington Administration. 6. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Each party agrees that during the course of this Agreement, information that is confidential or reasonably understood to be proprietary, trade secret or similar designation due to its nature and circumstances of disclosure, may be disclosed to the other Party, including, but not limited to, software, technology, technical processes and formulas, source codes, business and product plans, email, voicemail, wireless communications, firewalls, passwords and other business, personal, or unique identifiers (“Confidential Information”). Confidential Information shall not include information that the receiving Party can demonstrate (a) is, as of the time of its disclosure, or thereafter becomes part of the public domain through a source other than the receiving Party, (b) was known to the receiving Party as of the time of its disclosure, (c) is independently developed by the receiving Party, or (d) is subsequently learned from a third party not under a confidentiality obligation to the providing Party. Except as provided for in this Agreement, each Party shall not make any disclosure of the Confidential Information to anyone other than its employees who have a need to know in connection with this Agreement. Each Party shall notify its employees of their confidentiality obligations with respect to the Confidential Information and shall require its employees to comply with these obligations. The confidentiality obligations of each Party and its employees shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Neither party shall disclose, advertise, or publish the terms and conditions of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Any press release or publication regarding this Agreement is subject to prior review and written approval of the parties. 7. LICENSE AND PROPRIETARY RIGHTS Proprietary Rights of City of Arlington Administration. As between City of Arlington Administration and RSI, City of Arlington Administration information shall remain the sole and exclusive property of City of Arlington Administration, including, without limitation, all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and any other proprietary rights. City of Arlington Administration hereby grants to RSI a non-exclusive, ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 12 worldwide, royalty-free license for the duration of this Agreement to edit, modify, adapt, translate, exhibit, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, and otherwise use City of Arlington Administration information as necessary to render the Services to City of Arlington Administration under this Agreement. Proprietary Rights of RSI. All materials, including but not limited to any computer software (in object code and source code form), data or information developed or provided by RSI or its suppliers under this Agreement, and any know-how, methodologies, equipment, or processes used by RSI to provide the Services to City of Arlington Administration, including, without limitation, all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and any other proprietary rights inherent therein and appurtenant thereto (collectively “RSI Materials”) shall remain the sole and exclusive property of RSI or its suppliers. To the extent, if any, that ownership of the RSI Materials does not automatically vest in RSI by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise, City of Arlington Administration hereby transfers and assigns to RSI all rights, title, and interest which City of Arlington Administration may have in and to the RSI Materials. City of Arlington Administration acknowledges and agrees that RSI is in the business of providing network protection services, and that RSI shall have the right to provide to third parties’ services which are the same or similar to the Services, and to use or otherwise exploit any RSI Materials in providing such services. 8. INDEMNIFICATION Both parties agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other party, its directors, officers, affiliates, employees and agents, and defend any action brought against same with respect to any claim, demand, cause of action, debt or liability, including reasonable attorneys, fees, to the extent that such action is based upon a claim that: (i) if true, would constitute a breach of any of the indemnifying party’s representations, warranties, or agreements hereunder; (ii) arises out of the indemnifying party’s negligence or willful misconduct; or (iii) hereunder results or arises from a party’s violation of the law or any rights of third parties, including without limitation, rights of publicity, rights of privacy, patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and/or licenses. Notice: In claiming any indemnification hereunder, the indemnified Party shall promptly provide the indemnifying party with written notice of any claim which the indemnified party believes falls within the scope of the foregoing paragraphs. The indemnified party may, at its own expense, assist in the defense if it so chooses, provided that the indemnifying Party shall control such defense and all negotiations relative to the settlement of any such claim and further provided that any settlement intended to bind the indemnified Party shall not be final without the indemnified Party’s written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Except for instances of RSI negligence or willful misconduct, RSI shall have no liability for unauthorized access to, or alteration, theft, or destruction of, City of Arlington Administration data files, programs or information through accident, fraudulent means, or devices. Neither party shall have liability for consequential, exemplary, special, incidental, or punitive damages even if RSI has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Except for instances of RSI negligence or willful misconduct, the liability of RSI to City of Arlington Administration for any reason and upon any cause of action shall be limited to the ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 13 amount actually paid to RSI by City of Arlington Administration under this Agreement during the four (4) months immediately preceding the date on which such claim occurred. 10. TERMINATION AND RENEWAL Term. This Agreement shall be effective when signed by the Parties and thereafter shall remain in effect for ninety (90) days or until the completion of this service engagement, unless earlier terminated as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement if a bankruptcy proceeding is instituted against the other Party which is acquiesced in and not dismissed within sixty (60) days, or results in an adjudication of bankruptcy, or the other Party materially breaches any of its representations, warranties or obligations under this Agreement, and such breach is not cured within ten (10) days of receipt of notice specifying the breach. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason by providing written notice of termination to the other party and a pro rata portion of the fees will be paid to RSI for Services not yet rendered on the date of termination. Termination and Payment. Upon any termination or expiration of this Agreement, City of Arlington Administration shall pay all unpaid and outstanding fees through the effective date of termination or expiration of this Agreement. 11. MISCELLANEOUS Entire Agreement. This Agreement and attached Schedules constitute the entire agreement between City of Arlington Administration and RSI with respect to the subject matter hereof and there are no representations, understandings or agreements which are not fully expressed in this Agreement. Cooperation. The Parties acknowledge and agree that successful completion of the Services shall require the full and mutual good faith cooperation of each of the Parties. Independent Contractors. RSI and its personnel, in performance of this Agreement, are acting as independent contractors and not employees or agents of City of Arlington Administration. Amendments. No amendment, change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the Party against which such amendment, change, waiver, or discharge is sought to be enforced. Customer Identification. RSI may use the name of and identify City of Arlington Administration as an RSI Customer in advertising, publicity, or similar materials distributed or displayed to prospective RSI Customers. Force Majeure. Except for the payment of fees by City of Arlington Administration, if the performance of any part of this Agreement by either Party is prevented, hindered, delayed, or otherwise made impracticable by reason of any flood, riot, fire, judicial or governmental action, labor disputes, act of God or any other causes beyond the control of either Party, that Party shall be excused from such to the extent that it is prevented, hindered, or delayed by such causes. Washington Law. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Washington without regard to its conflict of law’s provisions, and City of Arlington Administration and RSI agree that the sole venue and jurisdiction for disputes arising from this Agreement shall be the: appropriate state or ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 14 federal court located in the City of Seattle, and City of Arlington Administration and RSI hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such courts. Assignment. Both parties shall not assign, without the prior written consent of the other party, its rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement to any person or entity, in whole or in part, whether by assignment, merger, transfer of assets, sale of stock, operation of law or otherwise, and any attempt to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. Waiver. The waiver of failure of either Party to exercise any right in any respect provided for herein shall not be deemed a waiver of any further right hereunder. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, it is to that extent to be deemed omitted, and the balance of the Agreement shall remain enforceable. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute the entire agreement between the Parties hereto. Headings. The section headings used herein are for reference and convenience only and shall not enter into the interpretation hereof. Approvals and Similar Actions. Where agreement, approval, acceptance, consent or similar action by either Party hereto is required by any provision of this Agreement, such action shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. Survival. All provisions of this Agreement relating to City of Arlington Administration warranties, confidentiality, non-disclosure, proprietary rights, and limitation of liability, City of Arlington Administration indemnification obligations, and payment obligations shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 15 This SOW has been reviewed and approved for delivery to City of Arlington Administration by ______ ©2019 Right! Systems, Inc. - Confidential & Proprietary P a g e | 16 PROJECT AGREEMENT The signatures below indicate that Right! Systems, Inc. and City of Arlington Administration agree to the scope as provided, and all terms and conditions detailed in this Statement of Work. If a City of Arlington Administration purchase order number is required for invoicing by Right! Systems, Inc., City of Arlington Administration agrees to provide purchase order number and/or copy of purchase order with signed Statement of Work. CUSTOMER PO: ______________________ If no customer PO is provided, RSI will use the following PO for invoicing purposes: OPP95859 This Statement of Work is valid for signature 30 days from March 2, 2021. City of Arlington Administration Right! Systems, Inc. Name: Name: Signature: Signature: Title: Title: Date: Date: City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #4 Attachment DCOUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 22, 2021 SUBJECT: Adoption of the Housing Action Plan (HAP) ATTACHMENTS: Housing Action Plan (The resolution will be included prior to the April 5 meeting.) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The HAP is a document that identifies both current and future housing inventory in Arlington, by market demand, community needs, income level/affordability, housing type, functionality and location. This was accomplished by first creating a Housing Needs Assessment (an appendix to the HAP) which collected and then evaluated if our current housing strategies are in alignment or if we need to create new housing strategies to correct any insufficiencies or irregularities related to current development trends. These strategies are identified in Strategic Objectives 1-3, and then incorporated into an Implementation Plan monitored on an ongoing basis, to evaluate their individual outcomes. This document also defines what the City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #4 Attachment D The planning grant funding opportunity through Department of Commerce, was for the creation and adoption of action items as described in Engrossed Second House Bill (E2SHB) 1923. This bill was created with the intent to increase residential building capacity by utilizing a list of defined action items to be adopted by jurisdictions within the state. The two action items proposed by CED staff are 1) Action Item # 3- authorizing at least one duplex, triplex, or small garden style housing units (bungalows, cottages) on each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single-family residences. 2) Development of a Housing Action Plan, with a goal of encouraging construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a variety of housing types that are available to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies aimed at the for-profit single-family home market. Item # 1 was addressed through the zoning changes which occurred during the 2020 “docket” process, We are currently in the process of creating Old Town Residential District Development Standards, that will ensure that any “missing middle” housing types are constructed to resemble one of the six architectural designs prevalent in the OTRD. Item # 2 is the Housing Action Plan, presented within, that you are being asked to take action on for adoption. The HAP was presented to Planning Commission for recommendation on March 16, 2021, and approved unanimously for recommendation to City Council for adoption. The HOUSING ACTION PLAN CITY OF ARLINGTON APRIL 2021 in partnership with Blueline EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington executive summary In the fall of 2019, the City of Arlington applied for grant funding allocated by the Washington State Department of Commerce and funded through Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill (E2SHB) 1923. The grant funding has been used for the development of this Housing Action Plan (HAP) to recognize the housing needs of Arlington’s current and future populations, as well as outline goals, policies, and strategies to meet those needs. The Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) is the first step in the housing action plan development process. Completed in March 2020, it identifies the current and future housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The HNA shows that over one-third of Arlington’s population is cost-burdened, meaning those households pay more than 30 percent of their household income on housing costs. Low-income households, defined as those making less than 80 percent Area Median Income, make up 88 percent of the cost-burdened households. Renter- occupied units compose 35 percent of all occupied housing units in Arlington. This is partly due to the rising costs of homeownership. In 2018, the minimum household income required to afford the median sale price and not be cost-burdened was $74,862, which was only slightly less than the median household income of $76,097. The HNA guides Arlington to examine the city’s current mix of households by socioeconomic status to gauge what housing opportunities should be encouraged within the next twenty to thirty years. Arlington should focus on how to ensure stable housing for the households at the lowest income level, and it should implement actions to make affordable homeownership more widely available. Before writing the HAP, we engaged key stakeholders from the real estate, development, and non-profit industries by asking them to provide input about the Arlington’s barriers to housing through an online survey. We also received feedback from the general public through an online survey focused on the community’s perception of Arlington’s housing needs. Another preliminary step in the HAP process was a review of Arlington’s current housing policy framework. We studied the goals and policies of the housing element from the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update. By inventorying the outcomes of these policies along with contributing factors, we provide suggestions for striving toward further achievement. These suggestions have been incorporated into the actions outlined in the HAP. Like many other cities in the Puget Sound Region, Arlington is faced with a burgeoning need to address its potential for growth and its current housing shortfalls. The HAP lays the groundwork for the response by creating these three strategic objectives: 1. Expand opportunities for households to work, live, and play locally. 2. Preserve community and character. 3. Address the housing needs of everyone. Each strategic objective can be achieved through a set of actions. The actions are carried out through implementation steps in which the method of implementation is defined and the lead department is identified. With some actions encouraged for the near-term and others for the long-term, the City can monitor the plan’s progress and adapt accordingly. Through the strengthening of community partnerships and ongoing public engagement, the HAP can be amended to address Arlington’s shifting housing needs in perpetuity. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I 6 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE II 12 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE III 18 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 23 MONITORING PROGRAM 26 APPENDIX 28 Appendix A: Affordable Housing Glossary Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Appendix C: Community Engagement Cover Page Photo Credits (left to right): City of Arlington’s Old Town neighborhood - photo by Christopher Andersson via North Country Outook. Vancouver’s Cambie Village neighborhood - photo by Andrew Fyfe via Dwell. 4 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington introduction INTRODUCTION As cities across the Puget Sound Region continue to grow at historic rates, they have also become less affordable particularly for lower-income populations who have called the Pacific Northwest home for generations. As cities have struggled to keep pace with growing populations, we have seen households priced out, displaced, or even become homeless. The City of Arlington is no exception with over on-third of its households being cost-burdened, meaning over 30 percent of their household income is spent on housing alone. Low-income households are disproportionately affected with 88 percent of cost-burdened households making less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), and 100 percent of severely cost-burdened households (households that spend 50 percent of their income on housing costs) are low-income as well. This along with more information was discovered when the City produced its Housing Needs Assessment, which is contained in the appendix of this document. Clearly, Arlington must continue working to ensure that the housing needs of current and future populations are met. To keep Arlington from falling further behind in affordability, the City has prioritized the creation of this Housing Action Plan (HAP) to explore strategies that promote the preservation and creation of more affordable housing options for both renters and homeowners. In 2017, the City of Arlington adopted Mixed Use Development (MXD) Regulations for two reasons. The first is to accommodate the City’s growth projections as required by the Growth Management Act. The second is to ensure the growth comes in the form of mixed-use development that will lead to more attractive, sustainable neighborhoods with increased walkability and less automobile dependency. The MXD Regulations utilize Form Based Code to promote development that is compatible with the established form and function of existing uses. Recognition of the MXD Regulations is important prior to outlining the strategies of the HAP since the regulations represent one tool the City already possesses to address Arlington’s current and future housing needs. The regulations provide certain incentives for affordable housing development through height increases and decreased parking requirements. Additionally, the focus on reducing automobile dependency has potential to increase the city’s affordability by reducing transportation costs. The suggested strategies in the HAP will build upon the effort to combat housing issues in Arlington that was already initiated with the adoption of the MXD Regulations. The HAP creates three strategic objectives to guide decisions regarding the future of housing in Arlington: 1. Expand opportunities for households to work, live, and play locally. 2. Preserve community and character. 3. Address the housing needs of everyone. The first strategic objective draws on Arlington’s strength as an employment center and focuses on expanding affordable homeownership opportunities and increasing the quality of life for the residents of Arlington in the low to moderate income range. As the strategic objectives and actions are generally listed in order of priority, this strategic objective is Arlington’s highest priority for implementation. The second strategic objective introduction HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington 5introduction prioritizes preserving the small-town feel of Arlington, as well as ensuring existing residents continue to live in high-quality homes they can afford. Finally, the third strategic objective seeks to guide Arlington in addressing how it can provide housing opportunities for households in the lowest income range or for those that have no income at all. Each strategic objective will be achieved through a series of actions. Each action is prescribed to serve certain income level(s), intracity geographical area(s), and type(s) of households. The sections describing the actions are followed by an implementation plan and monitoring program that will lay the framework of the City’s response to meeting its housing needs moving forward. expand opportunites for households to work, live, & play locally 6 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I strategic objective I: expand opportunities Arlington has been expanding and is projected to continue doing so. As an employment center, jobs and businesses are increasing and prospering. As a desirable place to live, more and more people are seeking to build a life here. The goal of this strategic objective is to ensure those opportunities not only remain but thrive. The City has a high jobs-to-housing ratio. Although the City wishes for the high ratio to remain, it can still ensure people who work in Arlington also have the option to live here. The lack of affordable housing options (particularly for ownership) is supported by responses to the Arlington Housing Needs Survey. A goal of this objective is to alleviate the inadequate supply of affordable homeownership opportunities by connecting those interested in ownership with more resources. It can also expand the allowances for more affordable options to be built, so developers have the tools to meet this demand. If more people that work in Arlington also live there, intracity trips will increase, decreasing commute times and giving the City more reason to expand its multimodal transportation network. For some households, monthly transportation costs, usually tied to a long commute, can equal or exceed a household’s monthly housing costs. Transportation costs cannot be left out of the City’s discussion of Arlington’s affordability. Another goal of this objective is to leverage Arlington’s growth to increase quality of life in Arlington. The City should evaluate mechanisms for funding affordable housing in tandem with increased commercial and industrial investment. It should also figure out how to efficiently combine residential development with planned infrastructure improvements. This strategic objective serves as Arlington’s highest priority for implementation. All actions under this objective should be pursued within the next five years, with resources, such as staff time and budget allocations, that are specified in this plan being primarily devoted toward their completion. HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 1.1 explore potential of the East Hill Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay to offer affordable housing options 7strategic objective I: expand opportunities The East Hill Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay offers a unique opportunity to meet some of the affordable housing goals of the City. In approving the Master Planned Neighborhood Development (MPND), Arlington City Council may require the development to comply with site-specific development regulations. This could be accomplished using a few strategies, such as requiring a number of homes to be reserved and sold to households earning a certain percent of AMI. Leveraging densities within the East Hill MPN is another method, requiring smaller lot sizes and smaller footprint, single-family homes that would allow for a lower price point in the housing market. This would allow the developer to maintain their profitability by allowing additional units to make up for the lower price point of the affordable units. The City could also evaluate implementing a program that would exempt the city portion of property tax for the first 3 years, for qualified first-time home purchasers, allowing them the ability to purchase a home by reducing that tax burden until they can incorporate the tax payment into their budget. This program would provide an easier path to homeownership by reducing some of the upfront costs and begin to realize the benefits of building equity in home ownership. Income levels served: 120% AMI and below Geographic scale: East Hill Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay Renters or homeowners: Both 8 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 1.2 encourage more diverse types of housing development strategic objective I: expand opportunities Building a wider range of housing options is one way to support broader affordability within Arlington. Duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments and other similar medium-scale unit types are often referred to as the “missing middle” as they are middle-sized housing, aimed at people with middle incomes. They are also some of the most affordable forms of housing on a cost-per-square-foot basis. In general, these types are more affordable than detached single-family homes and offer a larger range of design and locational choices than apartment buildings do. They also deliver more flexible ways for communities to add compatible density into established neighborhoods and provide more opportunities for residents to have stability and build wealth through homeownership. Arlington already allows these smaller scale, more affordable housing products in some areas throughout the city. However, converting a single-family home into a duplex, triplex, or fourplex where those housing types are authorized could be increased by helping property owners to identify lenders and other resources to assist in the development process. This could be accomplished through the development of a local program that offers homeowners a combination of financing, design, permitting or construction support for their conversions. With the program, the City could also condition a requirement that newly created units be reserved, for a defined period of time, either for tenants in a housing subsidy program or for tenants whose income is less than 80 percent of the city median income. The affordability requirement should provide additional incentives such as density bonuses, height and bulk bonuses, fee waivers or exemptions, parking reductions, or expedited permitting. In addition to filling in the “missing middle” discussed above, the City can utilize a number of incentives to encourage single-family homeowners to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on their lot. This could include providing stock designs that would eliminate the need for a designer and would expedite the permit process. The City could also remove owner occupancy requirements. Since ADUs typically cost less to construct and maintain, they provide multiple benefits for affordability. They provide a rental option for renter households that would prefer to live in a single-family neighborhood. They also can provide seniors or families with a supplement to their household income. An area in Arlington where these more diverse types of housing can be built is the Smokey Point Boulevard Corridor. Recent zoning changes have established this area as a Commercial Corridor, which means development here can utilize incentives from the Mixed Used Development Regulations. This was completed in anticipation of the Community Transit bus rapid transit line planned to connect the Smokey Point Transit Center to Everett Station in the mid-to-late 2020s. The denser, more walkable neighborhoods that can be created through a greater diversity in housing types would complement this area’s anticipated access to high capacity public transportation. Income levels served: All Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Both HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 1.3 use value capture to generate and reinvest in neighborhoods experiencing increased private investment 9strategic objective I: expand opportunities Arlington can use “value capture” to capture a portion of economic gains from private investment and reinvest a portion of these gains back into communities. Value capture works well in areas where private investment is anticipated, like around large-scale public infrastructure improvements, or in designated Opportunity Zones like in Arlington’s Cascade Industrial Center. Arlington could establish special districts to leverage the economic growth created from private investments and lower overall development costs. Many of the value capture tools available in Washington state are better- suited to support infrastructure than housing production or preservation activities. For instance, tools like local revitalization financing or local infrastructure project area financing could assist with the cost of offsite, public- realm improvements. This can allay the need for these improvements to be funded by housing developers, which can add significant costs for development. In Washington state, the community revitalization financing statute authorizes cities to create a tax “increment area” and finance public improvements within the area by using increased revenues from local property taxes generated within the area. The best locations for such a program are underdeveloped areas because this program depends on an increase in property value. Permanently affordable housing is on the list of public improvements that can use program funds. A specific subarea in Arlington where these value capture tools could be implemented is along the Smokey Point Boulevard Corridor, previously mentioned in Action 1.2. Recent zoning changes have established this area as a Commercial Corridor, which means development here can utilize incentives from the Mixed Used Development Regulations. This was completed in anticipation of the Community Transit bus rapid transit line planned to connect the Smokey Point Transit Center to Everett Station in the mid-to-late 2020s. Both of these measures combined mean this area will be prime for private investment. Arlington could capture a portion of the increased private property values from public transit investments and redistribute them to subsidize affordable housing. Lastly, a commercial linkage fee is another tool that can be used to capture funds from private investments. As jobs are created, payment into a housing fund is collected. The fee is based on the square feet of new commercial development and is normally paired with a development incentive such as an allowance to increase building height. Income levels served: 80% AMI and below Geographic scale: Targeted, priorities can be created for areas with anticipated growth Renters or homeowners: Both 10 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington strategic objective I: expand opportunities action 1.4 increase participation in existing first- time homebuyer programs and resources for new homebuyers Homebuying is still an important avenue to build wealth, especially intergenerational wealth. Arlington should create homeownership programs to serve residents interested in purchasing a home. The City should also conduct outreach to promote the resources available for first-time homebuyers such as the Home Advantage Program administered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. The program offers homebuyer education services as well as down payment assistance. Because Arlington is an employment center, it should work with local anchor institutions and other large- scale employers to develop employer-assisted housing programs. Employer-assisted housing (EAH) is an employer-provided benefit, usually designed to assist employees in becoming homeowners near their places of employment. EAH programs often provide grants for down-payment assistance, low-interest loans, matched dollar savings plans, credit counseling, and homebuyer education. Local government typically enhance the probability of employer involvement in housing by offering financial incentives to supplement private contributions and by connecting local nonprofit organizations with interested employers to design and manage the housing benefit programs. As the jobs-to-housing ratio in Arlington is expected to increase further, ensuring employees who work in the city have the option to also live there will become even more important. Action 2.5, described later on, advises establishing a housing trust fund. Arlington could use this fund to supplement down-payment assistance, supplementing the gap between what existing public programs enable a family to purchase and market prices. The City could even prioritize its supplemental down-payment assistance in areas with higher for-sale prices. Additionally, this action can support Action 1.1, which encourages exploring the potential of the East Hill MPN to offer affordable homeownership opportunities. The homeownership programs that are created by Arlington can serve the potential residents of the East Hill MPN. Income levels served: 120% AMI and below Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Homeowners HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 1.5 create a process to coordinate public investments, like capital improvements, with affordable activities to reduce the overall cost of development 11strategic objective I: expand opportunities The City of Arlington invests millions of dollars in new sidewalks, pavement, curbs, and gutters across neighborhoods. Private developers also make these types of improvements—sometimes called “offsite improvements”—as part of individual projects. In these cases, the developer pays for these improvements. Affordable housing developers have said that these costs have a significant impact on their overall development costs, sometimes requiring them to implement cost-saving measures that may compromise the quality of the final product. The City should create a process to coordinate public investments, like installation of sidewalks or gutters, with affordable housing activities to help ease the cost of offsite improvements for developers. For instance, this process may prioritize capital improvements around planned affordable housing development, on publicly owned property reserved for affordable housing, or in other areas where opportunity exists. The process may also assess the compatibility of capital improvements for affordable housing (such as integration of housing into other community facilities, like libraries or community centers). Once established, this process could become part of developing the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and occur on an ongoing basis. Income levels served: 80% AMI and below Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Both 12 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington strategic objective II: preserve community & character preserve community and character STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE II Arlington prides itself on its historic downtown and its small-town appeal, but there are also two other areas in Arlington that are equally important in achieving a community in which to live, work, and play. There is the Smokey Point neighborhood, which is more urban and provides for an abundance of economic and residential opportunities. Then there is the Cascade Industrial Center, which is the dedicated employment center for the city. Arlington’s sense of place and community is one of the reasons why there are some residents who have lived here for generations and others who are attracted to the opportunities it offers. Although the city will inevitably grow due to its location and potential, there are many aspects of the city that can be preserved. The primary goal of this strategic objective is for Arlington to maintain and expand what makes it unique and what current residents treasure while still meeting the housing, employment, and recreational needs of a growing population. The HNA showed that the average age of the Arlington resident has been increasing. Because of this, one goal for this strategic objective is to determine how to allow residents to age in place without fear of being priced out of the homes in which they have lived for years, or ensuring they have the option to relocate to somewhere more affordable without leaving their community. This strategic objective also seeks to preserve the affordable housing that currently exists. This affordable housing can be defined as either income-restricted units with restrictions set to expire or units that are naturally affordable at risk of rising rents or being replaced. Lastly, a goal of this objective is to ensure new development or infill matches or adds to the city’s current character. The City of Arlington must focus on how to quell displacement of its current residents and preserve the city’s charm, while accommodating new residents. HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 2.1 preserve Arlington’s sense of place 13strategic objective II: preserve community & character Through the feedback received from the Arlington Housing Needs Survey, it is clear that preservation of Arlington’s current sense of place, and the character that represents, is important to residents. The Mixed Use Development (MXD) Regulations that were adopted by the City in 2017 attempt to achieve this goal while also accommodating Arlington’s growth projections. These regulations were applied as an overlay to all commercially zoned properties throughout the city. Currently, they are most successfully utilized, primarily in the Smokey Point and Kent Prairie neighborhoods. While more time is necessary to fully understand how successful these regulations will be in Arlington, positive results of similar implementations in other cities is promising. Form-based code, which is the organizing principle of the MXD Regulations, helps add housing by letting the market determine how many units of what size are feasible. A form-based approach emphasizes predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form and design rather than separation of uses and density limits. Because it aims to achieve a community’s specific vision for how private development appears, it can be used as a tool to allow infill development that is compatible with an existing neighborhood’s character. Depending on if the current MXD Regulations achieve development that is favored by the community in the areas of Arlington where they are currently allowed, they can either be revised or expanded into other areas of the city. One area of the city that residents are particularly interested in preserving that character of is Old Town. Because of Old Town’s current mixed-use nature and proximity to amenities, it is desirable for infill development. The City has recently adopted development design standards for its own Old Town Business District and Old Town Residential zones, along with other zones throughout the city. Permit applications must go through a design review process to check conformance with these standards. The City should monitor these standards to modify them and address concerns as they arise. Because the City recently adopted municipal code amendments to allow triplexes and courtyard apartments in the Old Town Residential zone, the City should adopt more design guidelines or even a form-based code to ensure compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood. Income levels served: All Geographic scale: Subareas important for preservation Renters or homeowners: Both 14 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington strategic objective II: preserve community & character action 2.2 target existing resources to improve the livability of existing owner-occupied homes Some homeowners in Arlington are burdened by housing costs that extend beyond a monthly mortgage. Property taxes, utility bills, and on-going maintenance costs are additional expenses that can increase the cost of owning a home quickly. Some homeowners, like seniors on fixed incomes, cannot make necessary repairs to their properties, and if their properties fall into disrepair, these homeowners may receive a code violation from the City. While Arlington already provides low-income senior and disabled residents with reduced rates on utility fees, the City should expand efforts to better connect homeowners who may qualify for existing need-based programs at the county and state level. This could be done by adding a list of resources to the City’s website or partnering with community-based organizations to conduct targeted outreach. A few of the programs and resources are detailed below. Need-based rehabilitation assistance helps low-income, disabled or senior residents make needed home repairs and safety upgrades by offering favorable financing terms or time-limited tax abatements to qualified homeowners. Projects that address weatherization and energy efficiency improvements can improve long-term affordability for the homeowners by reducing monthly energy costs. The Snohomish County Weatherization Program offers free home energy improvements and conservation education to qualifying low- income households, and the Snohomish County Energy Assistance Program provides a one-time per heating season assistance in paying the heat bill for eligible households. Foreclosure intervention counselors serve as intermediaries between homeowners and financial institutions to advocate for at-risk homeowners in need of budgeting assistance, refinanced loan terms or repaired credit scores. Cities can use a housing trust fund (advised in Action 2.5) to support these programs, or community land trusts can step in to purchase foreclosed property, helping to restore ownership for residents. The Washington State Foreclosure Fairness Program provides homeowners foreclosure assistance by offering free housing counseling, civil legal aid, and foreclosure mediation. Certain neighborhoods, typically undergoing redevelopment, experience dramatic increases to property values that result in proportional increases to property tax values. Longtime homeowners who wish to stay in their neighborhood may struggle to keep up with rising costs. These residents can be helped through a property tax exemption or deferral program to reduce the risk of displacement. The Washington State Department of Revenue offers programs for property tax exemptions or deferrals for qualified low-income households, senior citizens, and disabled persons. The City could also establish an affordable housing deferred loan or shared equity program where the eligible homeowner’s house is acquired then sold-back to the homeowner under terms that the homeowner can afford without spending greater than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. This also poses an opportunity to create terms that would ensure the unit remains affordable even if resold. The refinancing packages could be funded by the housing trust fund encouraged in Action 2.5. Income levels served: 80% AMI and below Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Homeowners HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 2.3 improve tracking and monitoring of existing subsidized and unsubsidized affordable housing 15strategic objective II: preserve community & character Affordable housing units typically have term limits that allow the unit’s affordability component to expire, causing the unit to become market-rate. Without a dynamic system in place that tracks when a program is set to expire, it is difficult to maintain an appropriate balance of affordable and market-rate housing. This action encourages the creation of a system that tracks properties at-risk of losing their affordability, due to expiring subsidies, opting out of local programs like a multifamily tax exemption program (if adopted by Arlington), or higher rents. The system can better assist the City and its partners to understand when and where subsidies are scheduled to expire and market conditions are changing (which could affect unsubsidized affordable properties). With this information, the City can work directly with individual property owners to understand their needs and either provide funding, public or private, or technical assistance. While the City is developing a more robust inventory and tracking system, it can use publicly available data from public sources, like the National Housing Preservation Database, to track federally subsidized properties in the immediate-term. Income levels served: All, if including unsubsidized affordable properties Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Both 16 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington strategic objective II: preserve community & character action 2.4 expand tenants’ protections through a comprehensive policy Arlington should adopt a comprehensive policy that expands the rights of tenants, especially as the number of renters in the city increases. A comprehensive policy to enhance tenants’ protections should: • Extend notice periods for rent increases; lease terminations; and the need to vacate due to renovations. • Prohibit discrimination based on source of income. • Require landlords to provide a summary of rights and past code violations to tenants. • Create an option to pay security deposits and last month’s rent in installments. • Establish a relocation assistance program. If this policy is adopted, the City of Arlington should partner with community-based organizations to educate tenants and landlords of their rights and responsibilities. The City could also explore ways of providing funds to the community-based organizations to serve as landlord-tenant liaisons that can enforce the policy. Money could be supplied from a housing trust fund (encouraged in Action 2.5). The trust fund could also be used to establish the relocation assistance program. Income levels served: All Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Renters HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 2.5 create a housing trust fund 17strategic objective II: preserve community & character The City of Arlington and its partners will need reliable access to funding in order to preserve housing at-risk of converting to market-rate rents. Having this funding will help public and mission-driven organizations act fast to stabilize a subsidized or otherwise affordable property. This action encourages a preservation fund, a dedicated source of funding that the City and its partners can use to acquire properties or offer low-interest financing to keep rents stable, make property improvements, and extend or attach affordability periods to these properties. This fund will ensure expiring units, along with unsubsidized affordable properties, are not lost due to deteriorating property conditions, expiring subsidies, or subsidy opt-outs. In many communities, private developers, financial institutions, or philanthropic foundations (or a combination of these entities) have led development of this type of fund. This fund can be supplemented by tapping into existing funding sources for affordable housing. The Washington State Housing Trust Fund provides amortized loans, deferred loans, and recoverable grants to local governments to support projects that acquire, build and/or rehabilitate affordable housing. Community Development Block Grant (CDBGs) programs provide federal funds to cities for projects that improve the economic, social, and physical environment. One of the allowable uses of CDBG funding is housing rehabilitation. The Snohomish County Affordable Housing Trust Fund provides funds to housing projects in the county that are affordable to households with incomes at or below 50 percent of AMI. Snohomish County also has the HOME Program which distributes funds for multiple housing activities including transitional housing and permanent rental housing, tenant-based rental assistance, home rehabilitation assistance for homeowners, and home purchase assistance. All HOME-assisted units must provide housing for households with incomes of less than 80 percent of AMI, and for certain activities, a portion of the funds must provide housing for households with less than 50 percent of AMI. Other options for funding a housing trust fund include a property tax levy, sales tax levy, and/or the imposition of a real estate excise tax. Each of these would require voter approval, so a campaign demonstrating the housing need would likely be necessary. Once the housing trust fund is created, outreach to existing property owners and local nonprofits should occur regarding the use of this resource. Lastly, a dedicated housing trust fund is flexible and could be used for more than just the preservation of affordable housing. Cities can structure their funds as either grants or revolving loans to fund a range of activities, including support services, rental production, and homeownership. There are other actions within this plan that reference the housing trust fund. Income levels served: 80% AMI and below Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Renters 18 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington strategic objective III: address the housing needs of everyone address the housing needs of everyone STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE III This final strategic objective primarily focuses on ensuring Arlington can support or encourage housing opportunities for households who are the least advantaged. While the housing action plan itself seeks to promote an increased housing supply and overall housing affordability in Arlington, this objective recognizes that for some households, opportunities for shelter are extremely limited or even nonexistent. In most instances, housing that is affordable to the lowest income households (50 percent of AMI and below) cannot be provided without public subsidies. To support housing opportunities for these households, Arlington should implement a combination of coordinated strategies. The City must explore solutions for those households or persons experiencing homelessness. Arlington should tap into existing county and state resources and seek out partnerships with interested community-based organizations. Arlington should work to reduce the affordable housing barriers for which it is responsible. This could be achieved through the streamlining of permitting processes that raise the cost of housing development or by creating fee waivers for the development of housing that is strictly affordable. The City can also assess publicly owned land to see if there are opportunities for donating or discounting vacant land or reusing underutilized land for affordable housing development. HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 3.1 leverage publicly and partner-owned land for public housing 19strategic objective III: address the housing needs of everyone Arlington should examine whether surplus or underutilized land it or other local public agencies own may be suitable for housing development. Washington law allows public agencies to discount or gift land they own for “public benefit,” which is defined as affordable housing (up to 80 percent of AMI). The agencies need to adopt rules to regulate the transfer of property. The land disposition policy should clearly outline its goals for use of publicly owned land, including creating a priority for affordable housing development. The policy should also articulate a consistent process for developers to access publicly owned land and surplus property. Before creating the policy, staff should inventory publicly owned available lands that may meet criteria for donation and assess environmental or other constraints that may inhibit project suitability prior to site selection. This inventory could also assess brownfields. The Washington Department of Ecology provides Integrated Planning Grants to local governments to investigate and plan cleanup properties that have potential for affordable housing development. Arlington could also study how to adapt vacant and abandoned properties into affordable housing. After buildings become disused or abandoned, adaptive reuse can be an effective way to put new uses into existing buildings, reusing existing infrastructure and preserving historic assets. Cities or agencies can help to assemble vacant properties and coordinate a sale to developers or non-profit organizations to develop affordable housing. This process of assembling is called land banking and often includes resolving ownership issues and/ or addressing tax liens or land encumbrances that otherwise deter developers from pursuing these properties. Lastly, the City should review land owned by the school district or churches/service groups. School district- owned land can be leased for affordable housing, and a recently passed state law removed recapture provisions for school district-owned land when used for affordable housing. As service groups and churches membership changes, they may be contemplating a divestment of their property and could be interested in providing the property for a benevolent use. Income levels served: 80% AMI and below Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Both 20 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 3.2 create incentives to develop affordable housing strategic objective III: address the housing needs of everyone The Mixed Use Development (MXD) Regulations in Arlington is already one tool the City has implemented that incentivizes affordable housing by allowing an increase in building height or a reduction in parking requirements for affordable housing developments. However, the City should expand these requirements or adopt more incentives. Instead of voluntary incentives, an inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that all new construction within a specified zone include income-restricted units. A city or county can define the percentage of units that must be subject to affordability requirements, as well as the target income level for affordability. Some communities offer an “in lieu” payment option as an alternative mode of compliance. The payment can be put into the housing trust fund, encouraged in Action 2.5, for use by the City in supporting affordable housing production elsewhere. Washington requires cities that establish inclusionary zoning to provide increases in residential capacity through zoning changes, bonus densities, height and bulk increase, parking reductions, or other regulatory changes or incentives. The goal is to partially or totally offset the costs of including affordable units with the potential increase in returns from additional height and density. Another incentive is a multifamily tax exemption (MFTE), which is a waiver of property taxes to encourage affordable housing production and redevelopment in “residential targeted areas” designated by cities. The goal of MFTE programs is to address a financial feasibility gap for desired development types in the target areas, specifically to develop sufficient available, desirable, and convenient residential housing to meet the needs of the public. MFTE programs are designed to encourage denser growth in areas with the greatest capacity and significant challenges to development feasibility. The MFTE could be paired with inclusionary zoning to improve the financial feasibility of a project under affordability requirements. Cities can even limit MFTEs specifically to projects that solely contain income-restricted units to encourage affordability most effectively. Income levels served: 50% AMI and below Geographic scale: Targeted, priorities can be created for areas with anticipated growth Renters or homeowners: Renters HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 3.3 explore innovative, low-cost housing solutions to serve people experiencing homelessness 21strategic objective III: address the housing needs of everyone Homelessness within Snohomish County and the Puget Sound Region is becoming increasingly pervasive and visible. Creating units for persons experiencing homelessness is a critical piece of helping more people move into permanent homes. New housing production from other actions are intended to help provide more homes for persons experiencing homelessness, at least in part. There are other housing solutions that can supplement these units and be provided more quickly to meet changing demands among the region’s homeless population at any given time. One solution is tiny homes, which refer to detached dwelling units generally between 150 and 400 square feet. They provide shelter, privacy, and limited secure storage space for small households at a relatively low cost compared to most other housing types. In recent years, the Washington State Legislature has passed multiple bills that make these low- cost, low-impact units more feasible. Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5383 expanded the subdivision statute to allow the creation of tiny house villages and stops cities from prohibiting tiny houses in manufactured/ mobile home parks. Arlington could adapt its code to allow tiny houses as an affordable housing option that is in line with community desires for sustainability, limited visual impact, and preservation of open space. It should be noted that a growing number of cities in Washington have pursued tiny house villages as a temporary housing solution for homeless individuals. The Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) has the Consolidated Homeless Grant program. The program provides resources to fund homeless crisis response systems to support communities in ending homelessness. Grants are made to local governments and nonprofits. Homeless crisis response systems respond to the immediacy and urgency of homelessness and make sure that everyone has a safe and appropriate place to live. Another Commerce program is the Emergency Solutions Grant program. The program utilizes federal funds to support communities in providing street outreach, emergency shelter, rental assistance, and related services. This program provides resources for adults and families with children experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. The Continuum of Care (CoC) Program is a HUD program. The Snohomish County Office of Community and Homeless Services (OCHS) administers grants to eligible organizations and is responsible for CoC planning activities, which address the housing and services needs for people who are experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. In many communities, housing solutions for homelessness have been generated and implemented by local nonprofits or faith-based institutions, often using more creative funding sources, like crowdsourcing on websites or gathering private sponsorship for each home. Arlington could develop a pilot program to encourage local organizations to pursue these types of solutions. Income levels served: 30% AMI and below Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Renters 22 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington action 3.4 create consistent standards for fee waiver eligibility and resources to offset waived fees strategic objective III: address the housing needs of everyone Fee waivers reduce the up-front cost of construction for residential development. Fees, such as impact fees, utility connection fees and project review fees, can add an extensive amount to the cost of development of residential units. Waiving some, or all, of these fees for income-restricted units can be a valuable incentive for encouraging the creation of income-restricted affordable units. Arlington should establish a process to support fee waiver policies for affordable housing. This could be done by creating standard guidelines that identify which affordable housing properties are eligible for fee waivers, a schedule to determine what portion of fees can be waived, and a formal application process for interested developers to request these funds. Outreach should be conducted to ensure developers are aware of these incentives. Another way to lower the cost of development, for both affordable and market-rate units, is to streamline the permit process. Providing an efficient, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process can encourage new housing construction by reducing potential confusion or perception of risk among developers as well as lowering their administrative carrying costs. The City should conduct a review of its permitting process and procedures to ensure they are straightforward and not overly burdensome. The City could also set up a process for expediting review for certain types of development the community wishes to encourage, such as infill development or affordable housing. The City should also modify its permissible uses table to allow housing for people with special needs to be permitted outright in residential zones instead of needing to go through the conditional use permit process. These allowances could be paired with an update to the development standards of these uses to ensure any conditions to mitigate impacts are already specified in the code. Income levels served: 80% AMI and below Geographic scale: Citywide Renters or homeowners: Both HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 23implementation plan To effectively achieve the goals of the HAP, Arlington requires an implementation plan. The implementation plan establishes steps to achieve action. The steps are combined with specified timelines, methods of implementation, lead departments within the City, and assisting departments and organizations. The timelines are split into three categories: near-term (0 – 2 years); medium-term (3 – 5 years); and long-term (6 – 10 years). Generally, the actions are assigned timelines based on City priority and level of effort required for implementation, which is determined by existing resources and the City’s estimated financial commitment. Actions within the first strategic objective are top priority for implementation followed by actions in the second then the third. The methods of implementation are divided into three action types: administrative; legislative; and partnership development. Each action type denotes who will be primarily involved in implementation. Administrative actions can be performed by City of Arlington departments. Legislative actions will require Arlington City Council approval. Actions that involve partnership development will be implemented through partnerships with community organizations and other local stakeholders. 24 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington implementation plan 25 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington implementation plan 26 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington monitoring program MONITORING PROGRAM Some of the actions within the strategic objectives are meant to be ongoing or are actions Arlington should consider in the long-term, focusing their attention on actions that should be developed in the short-term. While these long-term actions are meant to be fully implemented in about 6 – 10 years, the City can begin monitoring the indicators listed for each action immediately. This will allow the City to have a baseline measurement from which to judge progress and results achieved of the longer term actions. Aside from tracking when implementation steps within each action is completed, Arlington will also monitor and evaluate outcomes of the HAP through performance indicators. These indicators will be measured annually to show whether the desired results of the HAP are being achieved. Findings should be provided every three years in a report that describes progress toward implementation, the factors that led to a success, obstacles experienced, and recommendations for revisions and additions to the HAP. The Community & Economic Development department should produce the first HAP implementation and monitoring report in 2024. 27 HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington monitoring program Act ion Perf ormance I nd icat ors 1.1 •N um b er o f affo rd ab le unit s b ui lt in East Hi ll 1.2 •N um b er o f i ssued b ui ld ing p erm it s fo r "m issi ng m i d d le" ho usi ng and AD Us 1.3 • • N um b er o f value cap tur e techniq ues im p lem ent ed N um b er o f unit s d irect ly o r ind irect l y p ro d uced as a result o f value cap tur e 1.4 •N um b er o f first -t im e ho m eb uyers Jo b s-t o -ho using rat io •N um b er o f unit s cr eated t hro ug h em p l o yer assistance 1.5 •N um b er o f unit s d irect ly o r ind irect l y p ro d uced as a result o f a co o r d i nat ed p ub l ic i nvestm ent 2.1 •N um b er o f co d e enfo r cem ent vio lat io ns r el at ed t o ho m es falli ng i n d isrep air •Fo r ecl o sur es •Rat io o f rent ers t o h o m eo w ners acro ss Ci t y sub areas 2.2 •N um b er o f co d e enfo r cem ent vio lat io ns r el at ed t o ho m es falli ng i n d isrep air Fo r ecl o sur es Rat io o f rent ers t o h o m eo w ners acro ss Ci t y sub areas 2.3 •N um b er o f affo rd ab le ho using uni t s b ased o n affo rd ab il it y t im eli nes and exp iratio ns 2.4 •Pro t ect i o n p o li ci es ad o p t ed N um b er o f evi ctio ns 2.5 •N um b er o f affo rd ab le ho using uni t s •Co nt ri b ut io ns and so ur ces t o h o usi ng t rust fund •N um b er o f unit s/ho useho l d s d irect l y served b y t he ho using t rust fund 3.1 p ub l ic ho using . •N um b er o f unit s cr eated o n vacant o r und erut i lized l and •N um b er o f co st -b urd ened ho useho ld s •N um b er o f affo rd ab le ho using uni t s 3.3 •N um b er o f p eo p l e exp eri encing ho m elessness 3.4 •Per m it p ro cessing tim elines •N um b er o f unit s p r o d uced thro ug h fee waivers •Sel f-rep o rt ed d evelo p m ent co st s fro m lo cal d evelo p er s STRATEGI C O BJECTI VE 1 : EX PAN D O PPO RTUN I TIES FO R H O USEH O LD S TO W O RK, LIVE, AN D PLAY LO CALLY h o m eb uyer p ro g ram s and reso urces fo r new h o m eb uyer s. invest m ent s, like cap it al im p ro vem ent s, wi th affo rd ab l e act i vi ties t o r ed uce t he o ver all co st o f d evelo p m ent . Planned N eig hb o rho o d O ver lay t o o ffer affo rd ab l e h o usi ng o p t i o n s. neig h b o rh o o d s exp erien cing increased p rivat e invest m ent . el ig ib il it y and reso ur ces t o o ffset w aived fees. h o u si ng . STRATEGI C O BJECTI VE 3 : AD D RESS TH E H O USI N G N EED S O F EVERYO N E STRATEGI C O BJECTI VE 2 : PRESERVE CO M M UN I TY AN D CH ARACTER sub sid ized and unsub sid ized affo rd ab le ho using . li vab il it y o f exist i ng o wner-o ccup ied ho m es. co m p r ehensive p o l icy. t o ser ve p eo p l e exp eri encing ho m elessness. HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington appendix a APPENDIX A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING GLOSSARY i Affordable housing: Housing is typically considered to be affordable if total housing costs (rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc.) do not exceed 30 percent of a household’s gross income AMI: Area Median Income. The benchmark of median income is that of the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area median family income, also sometimes referred to as the HAMFI. The 2018 AMI, which was $103,400, is used in this report. This measure is used by HUD in administering its federal housing programs in Snohomish County. Cost-burdened household: A household that spends more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. Fair Market Rent: HUD determines what a reasonable rent level should be for a geographic area and sets this as the area’s fair market rent. Section 8 (Housing Choice Voucher program) voucher holders are limited to selecting units that do not rent for more than fair market rent. Housing Choice Vouchers: Also referred to as Section 8 Vouchers. A form of federal housing assistance that pays the difference between the Fair Market Rent and 30 percent of the tenant’s income. HUD funds are administered by Public Housing Agencies (PHA). Median income: The median income for a community is the annual income at which half the households earn less and half earn more. Severely cost-burdened household: A household that spends more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing costs. Subsidized housing: Public housing, rental assistance vouchers like Section 8, and developments that use Low- Income Housing Tax Credits are examples of subsidized housing. Subsidized housing lowers overall housing costs for people who live in it. Affordable housing and subsidized housing are different, even though they are sometimes used interchangeably. Workforce rental housing: Workforce rental units have rents which are set in order to be affordable to households at certain income levels. While a household may need to have income below a certain level to apply for a workforce rental unit, the rent level does not adjust to their actual income. A property may feature units with rents affordable to households with 50% AMI, but a household earning 30% AMI would still have to pay the same rent. HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington appendix b APPENDIX B: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ii City of Arlington Housing Needs Assessment March 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS 6 EMPLOYMENT 16 HOUSING PROFILE 19 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 32 HOUSING NEEDS & NEXT STEPS 37 HOUSING ELEMENT EVALUATION 40 APPENDICES Appendix A: Single-Family Home Sales Appendix B: Methodology EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Puget Sound Region has experienced extreme growth in the last decade. First, pressure was put on the major cities like Seattle and Tacoma, but this growth has now spread to smaller cities in the region such as Arlington. The rapid development has confronted cities with a multitude of complex challenges mainly in residential capacity and housing affordability for all income levels. As of 2019, Arlington’s total population was 19,740 with 7,254 housing units1. With a total of 9,654 housing units needed to accommodate a population of 26,390 by 20402, the City of Arlington will need to focus on providing a variety of housing options in order to meet the population’s diversifying needs. Arlington’s household median income is $76,000, which is 9.2% less than Snohomish County at large and 27% less than the Seattle-Bellevue area3. Because of this, allowing for more economic flexibility within the City’s housing stock should be a major priority. Over one-third of Arlington’s population is cost-burdened meaning those households pay more than 30% of their household income on housing costs4. Throughout this document, cost-burden and affordability are closely tied. In measuring affordability, housing costs are deemed unaffordable if they exceed more than 30% of the household’s income. While the share of cost-burdened households is down since the last Housing Profile was released in 2015, there is still a significant portion of the population whose needs are not being met. In Arlington, low- income households, defined as those making less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI), are disproportionately burdened by their housing costs, as 88% of cost-burdened households are low-income and 100% of severely cost-burdened households are low-income5. Table 1. Summary of Arlington by the Numbers, 2018. Population 19,154 Total households 7,083 Cost-burdened households 35% Households earning less than 50% AMI 33% Median household income $76,097 Minimum income to afford 2018 median home sale6 and not be cost-burdened $74,862 Section 8 housing choice vouchers 41 Other dedicated subsidized housing units 188 Workforce housing units 967 Total renter-occupied housing units 2,462 Total owner-occupied housing units 4,261 Total vacant housing units 384 1 OFM Population Estimates, 2019 2 PSRC Land Use Vision Version 2, 2017; OFM Population Estimates, 2019. 3 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates 4 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates 5 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data, 2016 (extrapolated to 2018) 6 Snohomish County Assessor Property Sales Data, 2018. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON ii Of Arlington’s occupied housing units, 35% are renter-occupied and 65% are owner-occupied7. In looking more closely at renters, 71% of renters in Arlington are considered low-income and 49% are cost-burdened. As for Arlington’s homeowners, 34% are considered low-income and 28% are cost-burdened. In Arlington, the number of cost-burdened households falls significantly as income levels rise. This is especially true for renters, as the percent of homeowners that are cost-burdened falls more gradually as income levels rise8. In evaluating the affordability of rental costs for households in Arlington, overall rental housing is affordable to all households earning above 50% of the AMI. However, rental housing becomes less affordable to households earning below 50%, especially as bedroom count rises. In 2018, the Snohomish County Assessor reported that Arlington’s median home sale price was $357,000. Assuming a 20% down payment and a mortgage interest rate of 4.58, the lowest monthly ownership cost, with a 30-year fixed loan, for the median home sale price would be $1,872. For a household to afford this monthly cost, and not be cost-burdened, an annual income of $74,862 is required, about $1,200 less that the median income. The majority of homes sold were generally affordable to those making 51% or above of the AMI. The 2014 Housing Profile observed that it may be likely that smaller households are purchasing larger homes simply since there is a very small share of units that are less than three bedrooms. While home-ownership appears affordable to a wide range of income levels, there are a number of aspects of homeownership that are not accounted, such as a lack of financing or a down payment. Arlington has a subsidized housing stock of 229 units and an additional 967 units that are considered affordable workforce housing9. However, with 2,311 households earning below 50% of the AMI, the current affordable housing supply is insufficient. In March of 2015, when Arlington published their first local housing profile, the City was projected to need an additional 2,725 housing units by 2035, but only had enough capacity for 2,564 units. At that time, most of the current capacity existed in parcels that were either partially used, had developmental barriers or had experienced inconsistent development patterns compared to vacant land. The previous housing profile also revealed that 37% of the projected housing units will need to serve households that are at or below 50% AMI. This means that while Arlington has a capacity deficit to address, the City will also need to be cognizant that the needs of the expected low-income population will also need to be met.Since the March 2015 Housing Profile, the remaining target to be built between 2020-2035 is 1,235 housing units. Properly planning for the remaining units, and future population growth through 2050 has become a major priority for the City of Arlington, to not only reach growth targets, but increase and maintain affordability for all income levels throughout the City. In the fall of 2019, the City of Arlington applied for and secured grant funding, provided by E2SHB 1923, to write a housing action plan. The goals of the plan are to take account of the existing housing needs with the city and to devise strategies to meet those demands. This report fulfills the first goal and serves as the Housing Needs Assessment. The assessment reveals the current social and economic characteristics of Arlington's residents and delves into the affordability issues with which they are confronted. The last portion of the document contains an evaluation of the City's Housing Element from the 2017 Comprehensive Plan update. This provides a measurement of the implementation of the goals and policies of the element so far and gives insight for how to define the focus for the next housing element update. 7 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates 8 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data, 2016 (extrapolated to 2018). 9 Data provided by City of Arlington and Housing Authority of Snohomish County HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 5 To better understand Arlington’s housing needs, it is critical to understand the dynamics of Arlington’s population first. The City last created a housing profile in 2014 (published in 2015) when the population was 18,36010. As of 2019, Arlington is home to 19,740 people representing a 7.5% increase11. By 2040, Arlington’s population is expected to exceed 26,000 residents, a 33.7% increase over today’s population, as shown in Figure 112. Figure 1. Arlington, Past and Projected Population Growth 19,740 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Po p u l a t i o n Past Growth Projected Growth 2019 Population Source: PSRC Land Use Vision Version 2, 2017; OFM Population Estimates, 2019. Figure 2. Arlington, Past and Projected Household Growth 7,524 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Ho u s e h o l d s Past Growth Projected Growth 2019 Households Source: PSRC Land Use Vision Version 2, 2017; OFM Population Estimates, 2019 10 OFM population estimate 2014 11 OFM population estimate 2019 12 PSRC Land Use Vision Version 2, 2017; OFM Population Estimates, 2019. POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 6 With continued steady growth expected in the coming years, the City will need to focus its attention on providing adequate housing for the incoming population. By 2040, it is expected there will be 9,654 households in Arlington (see Figure 2)13. Arlington’s growth target between 2010-2035, directed by Snohomish County, called for an additional 2,723 units14. At the end of 2019, 1,488 units have been built since 201015. This leaves a remainder of 1,235 that need to be built between 2020-2035 in order to meet the City’s current growth target. In order to better plan for these households, it is important to examine who is currently living within these households. As of 2018, there are 7,083 households in Arlington16. Of those households, 71% of them are families and 32% are families with children under the age of 1817. Snohomish County is quite similar to Arlington, where 69% of the households are families and 30% are families with children under the age of 18. Household and family size are also similar between Arlington and Snohomish County, both having an average household size of close to 2.7 and an average family size of nearly 3.218. Figure 3. Arlington, Snohomish County, and Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area, Median Household Income, 2000 – 2018 $46k $59k $76k $53k $66k $83k $66k $86k $103k $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 2000 2010 2018 Arlington Snohomish County Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census; 2018, 2010, and 2000 HUD Income Limits. As shown in Figure 3, Arlington’s median household income has trailed Snohomish County’s median household income consistently since 2000. In 2018, Arlington’s households were making about $7,000 less than Snohomish County households. 13 PSRC Land Use Vision Version 2, 2017; OFM Population Estimates, 2019 14 Snohomish County 2035 Housing Growth Targets for Cities 15 PSRC Residential Permit Summaries 2011-2017, City of Arlington permit data 2017-2019 16 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 17 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 18 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 7 The 2018 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) AMI for the Seattle-Bellevue, WA Metro Fair Market Rent Area was $103,40019. This is the standard AMI used throughout this report, as most of the data referenced in this report comes from the 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. This AMI is substantially different from the median household incomes reported in both Snohomish County and Arlington. In 2018 the Snohomish County annual median household income was $82,751, compared to $76,097 in Arlington20. At the county and city level, this represents a 25% increase and 30% increase since 2010, respectively. The Seattle-Bellevue AMI has seen a slightly smaller increase of 21% since 2010. The differences between the Seattle-Bellevue AMI and Snohomish County and the City of Arlington’s AMI is an important factor in understanding affordability because Furthermore, HUD uses the AMI as its benchmark for its federal housing programs. While Arlington’s median income has increased at a faster rate over the last 10 years than the Seattle-Bellevue area, it is still not enough to close the gap. Often, the discrepancy between HUD’s AMI for the larger metropolitan area and the City’s reported AMI can overestimate what households in the area can actually afford. It is also important to note that the AMI is calculated from the area’s median family income, while organizations use household income to qualify program participants for funding. This exacerbates the affordability issue because the median household income tends to be significantly lower than the median family income. In 2018, the median family income in Arlington was $15,000 more than median household income. Figure 4 shows the median family income for the City and County compared with the Seattle-Bellevue, WA AMI. Although the discrepancy is less, the AMI is still much higher than the City or County’s median family income. Figure 4. Arlington, Snohomish County, and Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area, Median Family Income, 2000 – 2018 $52k $64k $91k $61k $77k $97k $66k $86k $103k $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County & Arlington Median Family Income Arlington Snohomish County Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census; 2018, 2010, and 2000 HUD Income Limits. 19 HUD FY 2018 Income Limits Documentation. 20 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 8 In Arlington, 47% of households are low-income, earning 80% or less of the AMI, compared to Snohomish County where 41% of household incomes are considered low-income. Extremely low-income households earn 30% or less of the AMI. In Arlington, 18% of households are considered extremely low-income, while in Snohomish County that number is 14%. Overall, the income distribution as shown in Figures 5 and 6 between the County is similar with Arlington having a slightly higher number of those considered low-income in general21. The percentage of those households considered moderate to high income (80% or above AMI) has decreased from 57% to 53% since 201022. This is on trend with Snohomish County, who saw a 3% decrease between 2010 and 2018 in the moderate to high income range. While the percentage of moderate to high incomes earners was decreasing, the percentage of extremely low-income households was increasing. In Arlington in 2010, 13% of households were extremely low-income and by 2018 that number had risen to 18%. In Snohomish County, a similar situation occurred moving from 10% to 14% between 2010-2018. While this data can be useful in understanding the general income distribution within the City, it fails to account for household size. This means that a household that falls within a one of these low-income brackets may have no children or they could have three children. Both of these household would fall within the same bracket, but the household with children is likely to be much more financially constrained. Household size will be accounted for when determining affordability of the existing housing stock later in this report. Figure 5. Arlington, Income Distribution, 2018 Figure 6. Snohomish County, Income Distribution, 2018 14% 13% 14% 60% Snohomish County, 2018 Income Distribution Extremely low income (<30% AMI) Very low income (31% to 50% AMI) Low income (51% to 80% AMI) Moderate to high income (>80% AMI) 18% 15% 14% 53% Arlington, 2018 Income Distribution Extremely low income (<30% AMI) Very low income (31% to 50% AMI) Low income (51% to 80% AMI) Moderate to high income (>80% AMI) Source: 2016 CHAS Data (projected to 2018). Source: 2016 CHAS Data (projected to 2018). 21 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Data, 2016. This data has been extrapolated to 2018 as explained in Appendix C. 22 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 9 In looking at the breakdown between renters and homeowners, of the renter households in Arlington, 71% of them are low-income while 34% of homeowners in Arlington are low-income. In the County, the percentages are slightly lower, with 63% of renters being low-income and 28% of owners being low-income. This data is shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7. Arlington, Income Distribution, 2000 – 2018 13%13%18% 10%12%15% 24%18%14% 53%57%53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2000 2010 2018 Arlington Income Distribution, 2000 -2018 Extremely low-income (<30% AMI) Very low-income (>30% to 50% AMI) Low-income (>50% to 80% AMI) Moderate to high income (>80% AMI) Source: 2016 CHAS Data (projected to 2018); 2010 CHAS Data; 2000 CHAS Data. Figure 8. Snohomish County, Income Distribution, 2000 – 2018 9%10%14%10%11%13% 19%15%14% 61%63%60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County Income Distribution, 2000 -2018 Extremely low-income (<30% AMI) Very low-income (>30% to 50% AMI) Low-income (>50% to 80% AMI) Moderate to high income (>80% AMI) Source: 2016 CHAS Data (projected to 2018); 2010 CHAS Data; 2000 CHAS Data. POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 10 Cost-burdened households are defined as paying 30% or more of their household income on housing costs. Severely cost-burdened is defined as paying 50% or more of the household income on housing costs. Figure 9 shows that in 2018 35% of households in Arlington were cost-burdened, and 15% were severely cost-burdened. Snohomish County is comparable with 33% of households being cost-burdened and 14% being severely cost- burdened. Renters are more likely to be cost-burdened, in both Arlington and Snohomish County overall. In Arlington, 49% of renters are cost-burdened compared to 45% in the County. In contrast, 28% and 26% of owners are cost-burdened in the city and county respectively. Figure 9. Arlington and Snohomish County, Percent Cost-burdened Households by Tenure, 2018. 35% 49% 28% 15% 25% 10% 33% 45% 26% 14% 21% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% All households Renters Owners Arlington and Snohomish County, 2018 Percent Cost-burdened Households by Tenure Arlington cost-burdened Arlington severely cost-burdened Snohomish County cost-burdened Snohomish County severely cost- burdened Source: 2016 CHAS Data (projected to 2018). Tables 2 and 3 shows that housing costs in the area are a significant financial burden for low-income households, especially for the extremely low-income who make less than 30% of the AMI. Seventy-seven percent of extremely low-income households are cost-burdened, and 62% are severely cost-burdened. When the 2014 housing profile was completed, Arlington renters were more likely to be cost-burdened than in Snohomish County overall. As of 2018, Snohomish County renters were more likely to be cost-burdened, especially renters within the very low (31%-50%) and low income (51%-80%) categories. However, when looking at cost-burdened data for homeowners, owners are more likely to be cost-burdened in Arlington compared to Snohomish County, with the exception of the very low-income who are severely cost- burdened. Very low-income households who own their home in Snohomish County are more likely to be severely cost-burdened. Overall, cost-burdened households amongst owners and renters improves as income levels rise. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 11 Table 2. Arlington and Snohomish County, Percent Cost-burdened by Income and Tenure, 2018 Renters Owners All Households Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Extremely low-income (<30% AMI)76%77%80%75%77%76% Very low-income (31-50% AMI)74%77%61%59%68%69% Low-income (51-80% AMI)28%41%61%51%51%47% Moderate to high income (>80% AMI)4%7%9%13%8%12% Table 3. Arlington and Snohomish County, Percent Severely Cost-burdened by Income and Tenure, 2018 Renters Owners All Households Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Extremely low-income (<30% AMI)62%61%63%58%62%60% Very low-income (31-50% AMI)12%22%27%32%19%27% Low-income (51-80% AMI)0%3%14%14%10%9% Moderate to high income (>80% AMI)0%1%0%1%0%1% Low-income households appear to be the most cost-burdened demographic in terms of housing costs in both the City and the County; 88% of all cost-burdened households in Arlington are low-income while 100% of all severely cost-burdened households are low-income. The County has slightly lower percentages, where 78% of all low-income households are cost-burdened, and 95% of all low-income households are cost-burdened. Arlington’s household population by tenure has remained relatively unchanged since 2000, and only differs slightly from the County. In Arlington, 65% of households own their home while 35% are renters. In Snohomish County, 67% percent of households are owners, and 33% are renters. Figures 10 and 11 show this statistic and how it has changed between 2000, 2010, and now. Source: 2016 CHAS Data (projected to 2018). POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 12 Figure 10. Arlington, Households by Tenure, 2000 – 2018 62%63%65% 38%37%35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2000 2010 2018 Arlington Households by Tenure Renters Owners Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Figure 11. Snohomish County, Households by Tenure, 2000 - 2018 68%67%67% 32%33%33% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County Households by Tenure Renters Owners Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 13 Arlington’s average household size (Figure 12) has remained steady since 2000, becoming slightly smaller over time. It has remained larger than Snohomish County’s average household size, up until 2018 when the County’s average nearly equaled Arlington’s average. Overall, Snohomish County’s average household size has been growing, while Arlington’s has been shrinking. Figure 12. Arlington and Snohomish County, Average Household Size, 2000 – 2018 2.65 2.62 2.682.72 2.70 2.69 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County and Arlington Average Household Size Snohomish County Arlington Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. There is a bigger divide between the County and Arlington when average household size is examined between renters and owners. Figure 13 shows that in the City the average household size for renters has decreased, moving from 2.54 in 2000 to 2.26 in 2018. In the County, the opposite has occurred with the household size among renters increasing from 2.39 in 2000 to 2.52 in 2018. Figure 13. Arlington and Snohomish County, Average Household Size of Renter-occupied Unit, 2000 – 2018 2.39 2.44 2.522.54 2.48 2.26 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County and Arlington Average Household Size of Renter-occupied Unit Snohomish County Arlington Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 14 Figure 14 displays that Arlington’s household size among owners has grown from 2.82 in 2000 to 2.93 in 2018, while the County’s average has decreased slightly from 2.78 in 2000 to 2.75 in 2018. Figure 14. Arlington and Snohomish County, Average Household Size of Owner-occupied Unit, 2000 - 2018 2.78 2.71 2.752.82 2.83 2.93 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County and Arlington Average Household Size of Owner-occupied Unit Snohomish County Arlington Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Although both the City and the County have not seen significant change in average household since 2000, there have been some interesting changes amongst owners and renters. The trends show that average household size among renters has fallen in Arlington, while it has risen in Snohomish County. Among owners, the average household size has grown in Arlington while it has decreased slightly in Snohomish County. In evaluating housing needs for future populations, it is important to understand how the City’s population may be aging. In 2000, the largest portion of Arlington’s population was very young, between the ages of 0-9 years. The second largest portion of the population was between the ages of 30-39 years old. By 2010 all age categories saw significant growth, with the largest cohort being between 10-19 years old. Most cohorts saw growth between 2010 and 2018, except for the young cohorts of 0-9 and 20-29 which saw declines. The largest portion of the population in Arlington became residents between the ages of 40-49. Significant growth in the 60-69 cohort was also observed. As the City’s population seems likely to age in place, it will be critical to provide the necessary housing options for seniors and elderly citizens with special needs. Figures 15 and 16 show how the population has changed between 2000 and 2018. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS MARCH 2020 15 Figure 15. Arlington, Population Pyramid, 2000 – 2018 Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Figure 16. Snohomish County, Population Pyramid, 2000 – 2018 Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. EMPLOYMENT MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 16 The employment status of Arlington residents and the economic characteristics of the City as a whole can provide valuable insight into City’s housing market, particularly its affordability. According to the most recent American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2018, the unemployment rate for the City of Arlington is 4.8%, compared to 4.6% for Snohomish County. The most common occupations for Arlington residents are in management, business, science, and arts occupations, with 33% of the employed population, followed by sales and office occupations at 23% and service occupations at 18%23. The most common industry for Arlington residents to be employed in is Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance with 20% of the employed population, followed by Manufacturing at 16% and Retail Trade at 15%. See Figure 17. Figure 17. Arlington, Percent Employment of Arlington Residents by Industry, 2018 1%9% 16% 1% 15% 4%2%4%9% 20% 11% 4% 5% Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and warehousing, and utilities Information Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services Educational services, and health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Public administration Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. 23 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. EMPLOYMENT HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON MARCH 2020 EMPLOYMENT 17 The jobs-to-housing ratio for the City is 1.51 jobs for every occupied housing unit, which indicates Arlington is an employment center. For comparison, the County has .98 jobs for every occupied housing unit24. With 10,706 total jobs, the industry sector with the highest share of jobs in the City is Services at 24% followed by Manufacturing at 21% and Construction and Resources at 15%25. See Figure 18 for employment numbers by major industry sector. Figure 18. Arlington, Employment by Major Industry Sector, 2018 1,622 248 2,293 1,316 2,557 908 976 787 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Construction and Resources Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Manufacturing Retail Services Wholesale, Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Government Education Arlington, 2018 Employment by Major Industry Sector Source: PSRC Covered Employment Estimates, 2018. Although Arlington has a high jobs-to-housing ratio, 46% of employed residents have a commute time of 30 minutes or greater to work, suggesting there are many people who live in Arlington who do not work there26. This is supported by the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics 2017 data which showed that only 12% of Arlington residents worked in the City27. There are several factors that can influence where people work versus where they live. However, transportation costs can become an affordability issue when considering longer commute times because people do not live near where they work. An accurate measure of affordability accounts for both housing and transportation costs since after the cost of housing, the largest expense for most households is transportation. Automotive maintenance and fuel comprise the highest portion of the transportation cost for 81% of employed Arlington residents because that is the percentage that commute to work in a single occupancy vehicle28. Encouraging more people to live near where they work can help to achieve transportation and environmental goals as a reduction in commute times can limit the strain on transportation infrastructure and production of carbon. One way to do this is to increase the supply of the housing stock that is affordable to the Arlington workforce. 24 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates and 2018 Puget Sound Regional Council Covered Employment Estimates. (Note: Covered employment refers to jobs covered under the state’s Unemployment Insurance Program and constitutes 85-90% of total employment.) 25 2018 Puget Sound Regional Council Covered Employment Estimates. 26 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 27 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. 28 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. EMPLOYMENT MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 18 Ensuring housing options are affordable to the local workforce will become increasingly more important since the imbalance of jobs to total housing units in Arlington is projected to increase further over the next few decades as shown in Table 4. Part of this imbalance increase is due to Arlington’s continued role as an employment center. The City shares a 4,019-acre subarea with neighboring city Marysville, known as the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing/Industrial Center (AMMIC). This is where most of the future jobs within the city will be located. Propelled by a combined 2040 employment growth target for the AMMIC of 20,000 jobs, both cities have shown their commitment to industrial growth and development in the Center by adopting supportive policies and provisions within their comprehensive plans and infrastructure functional plans (water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and transportation) which are currently being implemented. Table 4. Arlington, Projected Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Number of households 7,083 7,752 8,425 8,901 9,309 9,652 Total employment 10,706 12,477 14,391 16,366 18,800 21,320 Jobs-to-housing ratio 1.51 1.61 1.71 1.84 2.02 2.21 Source: PSRC Land Use Vision Version 2, 2017; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON existing housing profile MARCH 2020 19 As of 2018, Table 5 shows that Arlington has a total of 7,467 housing units, 7,083 of which are occupied. Homeowner vacancy rates are low in the City at 1.9%, while rental vacancy rates are much higher at 7%. Snohomish County is experiencing similar vacancy rates, but lower overall. These are considered to be healthy rates. Table 5. Arlington and Snohomish County, Housing Occupancy, 2018 Housing Occupancy, 2018 Arlington Snohomish County Total housing units 7,467 306,420 Occupied housing units 7,083 289,737 Vacant housing units 384 16,683 Homeowner vacancy rate 1.9%0.8% Rental vacancy rate 7.0%3.5% Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Figure 19. Arlington and Snohomish County, Median Gross Rent, 2000 – 2018 $766 $994 $1,371 $736 $978 $1,195 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County & Arlington Median Rent Snohomish County Arlington Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census. existing housing profile existing housing profile MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 20 In Arlington, between 2000 and 2018 there was a 62% increase in median rent and a 69% increase in the median home value. Snohomish County saw more drastic increases, with the median rent increasing by 79% between 2000-2018 and the median home value increasing by 90%. County’s median rent price was nearly $200 more at $1,371 per month. Figure 20 displays that Arlington’s median home value was $295,000 and Snohomish County’s was $372,000. Figure 20. Arlington and Snohomish County, Median Home Value, 2000 – 2018 $196k $339k $372k $175k $283k $295k $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County & Arlington Median Home Value Snohomish County Arlington Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census. Figure 21 shows the discrepancies between the City and the County’s median rents by bedroom size, but it also shows the major discrepancy between how HUD views FMRs for Arlington. In a more urban environment with a higher cost of living like Seattle, these FMRs may fall below, or be on par with, what the actual expected rent may be for these unit types. However, in the case of Arlington, it may actually be benefiting residents participating in housing voucher programs. Since Arlington rents are lower than the HUD FMR, which determines subsidy caps, participants in Arlington may have greater access to housing options that are more expensive with higher access to opportunity. In evaluating affordability in Arlington, it is important to understand any changing market conditions that could have contributed to affordability, or more importantly, a lack of affordability. In looking at the percentage changes in median income, median gross rent, and median home value between 2000 and 2018 in both Snohomish County and Arlington, Figures 22 and 23 show no major concerns. These three areas seem to rising at similar rates, with home values rising slightly faster than rents, but only 5% more than the median household income. In Snohomish County, affordability in general may be more negatively affected because median income has not grown nearly as much as rent prices and home values since 2000. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON existing housing profile MARCH 2020 21 Figure 21. Arlington, Snohomish County, and Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area, Median Gross Rent by Bedroom Size, 2018 $7 3 4 $8 6 1 $1 , 1 4 6 $1 , 4 7 8 $1 , 8 1 0 $1 , 0 3 7 $1 , 0 8 1 $1 , 3 0 6 $1 , 7 1 6 $2 , 0 7 3 $1 , 3 6 3 $1 , 5 2 9 $1 , 8 7 8 $2 , 7 1 9 $3 , 2 1 9 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 No B e d r o o m One - B e d r o o m Two - B e d r o o m Thre e - B e d r o o m Fou r - B e d r o o m Snohomish County & Arlington 2018 Median Gross Rent Arlington Snohomish County HUD Fair Market Rent (Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro FMR Area) Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2018 HUD Fair Market Rents Figure 22. Arlington, Percent Change in Median Household Income, Median Gross Rent, and Median Home Value, 2000 – 2018 +64%+62%+69% Arlington Percent Change 2000 to 2018 Median Household Income Median Gross Rent Median Home Value Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census. Figure 23. Snohomish County, Percent Change in Median Household Income, Median Gross Rent, and Median Home Value, 2000 – 2018 +56% +79% +90% Snohomish County Percent Change 2000 to 2018 Median Household Income Median Gross Rent Median Home Value Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census. existing housing profile MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 22 Figures 24 and 25 show the trend broken out between 2000, 2010, and 2018. This gives a slightly better snapshot at monthly affordability since it considers the median mortgage and the monthly costs that households earning the median income can afford, i.e., not be cost-burdened. Although median home values have risen over the past two decades, median mortgages have not risen as steadily and have even decreased, as shown with the 8% drop in median mortgage in Arlington between 2010 and 2018. Because of the drop in the rate of the mortgage increase, the monthly costs that households earning the median income can afford has now propelled over the median mortgage in both Arlington and Snohomish County. This is assuredly a favorable display toward greater affordability of home ownership; however, it should be noted that the mortgage does not account for the total monthly costs incurred by homeowners. Property taxes and insurance, which would be other monthly ownership costs, can add approximately 30% more cost on top of the mortgage in calculating total monthly payment obligations. Therefore, the median monthly ownership costs are likely still above what households earning median income can afford. Figure 24. Arlington, Rise in Monthly Housing Costs vs. Rise in Median Income, 2000 – 2018 +33% +22% +45% -8% +27% +30% $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 $2,200 2000 2010 2018 Arlington, 2000 -2018 Rise in Monthly Housing Costs vs Rise in Median Income Median gross rent Median mortgage Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON existing housing profile MARCH 2020 23 Figure 25. Snohomish County Rise in Monthly Housing Costs vs. Rise in Median Income, 2000 – 2018 +30% +38% +40% +2% +25% +25% $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 $2,200 2000 2010 2018 Snohomish County, 2000 -2018 Rise in Median Monthly Housing Costs vs Rise in Median Income Median gross rent Median mortgage Monthly costs households earning median income can afford and not be cost- burdened Source: 2018 – 2014 ACS 5-year estimates; 2010 – 2006 ACS 5-year estimates; 2000 Census. Arlington’s distribution in housing types demonstrates a lack of diversity in housing options for its population. As of 2018, 75% of the housing in Arlington was single-family, 16% was multi-family housing in apartments with five or more units, 5% were either triplex or 4-plexes, 3% were duplexes, and 2% were mobile homes 29(Figure 26). Snohomish County data shows similar trends, but with lower proportions of single-family residences and triplexes/4-plexes, and higher proportions of apartments and mobile homes. 29 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. existing housing profile MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 24 Figure 26. Arlington and Snohomish County, Distribution of Housing Types, 2018 75% 3%16%2% 69% 2% 20% Single-family, attached or detached Duplex Triplex or 4-plex Apartment building (5 units or greater) Mobile home 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Snohomish County & Arlington, 2018 Distribution of Housing Types Arlington Snohomish County Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Table 6 demonstrates the distribution of bedrooms among the housing stock within Arlington and Snohomish County. As of 2018, 48% of the City’s housing stock was made up of three-bedroom units, accounting for most units in the City30. The lowest portions of units are those with no bedrooms and those with five or more bedrooms. Snohomish County is comparable with 41% of units containing three bedrooms, and the lowest proportions again being those with no bedrooms or five or more bedrooms31. Since Arlington has a high percentage of single-family homes which are typically larger in size, the data below correlates with this notion, demonstrating that 88% of units in Arlington have two or more bedrooms32. With 69% of the housing units containing three bedrooms or more, and the average household size in Arlington being 2.68, there may be a need for units with fewer bedrooms33. 30 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 31 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 32 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 33 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON existing housing profile MARCH 2020 25 Table 6. Arlington and Snohomish County, Percent Housing Units by Bedrooms, 2018 Table 7 shows the distribution of housing type by tenure as of 2018. In Arlington, 40% of renter-occupied units are single-family, while 42% are apartments.34 Among owner-occupied units, 95% of units are single-family and only 1% are apartments. It is clear in examining the table that there is a lack of diversity among occupied units in both Arlington and Snohomish County. Renter- occupied units in Arlington experience the greatest amount of diversity, but 84% of occupied units are still either single-family or apartments. Owner-occupied units in Arlington had the least amount of diversity with 95% of units being single-family and only 1% being apartments.35 The table below clearly demonstrates the lack of “missing middle” housing that closes the gap in availability of diverse housing options between apartments and single-family residences. Table 7. Arlington and Snohomish County, Distribution of Housing Stock by Tenure, 2018 Renter-occupied Owner-occupied Occupied Housing Units Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Single-family, attached or detached 40%33%95%89%76%70% Duplex 7%6%0%1%2%2% Triplex or 4-plex 11%8%0%1%4%3% Apartment building (5 units or greater)42%50%1%4%15%19% Mobile home 0%3%3%6%2%5% Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. As Figure 27 displays, with 35% of Arlington’s households being cost-burdened, especially among renters, a need for greater diversity in housing type could allow people to make more practical decisions when finding a home. Of the renters in Arlington, 49% of them are cost-burdened, signaling that the available housing stock may not be meeting their needs. A wider variety of rental options could provide households will more opportunity to spend less on their housing that still meets their needs. Of homeowners in Arlington, 28% of households are cost burdened with even more limited flexibility in housing options than renters. For households who are not yet ready financially to take on a higher mortgage, that a single-family detached house may require, they would be more able to opt for a smaller, cheaper attached unit such as a duplex or triplex. 34 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 35 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Arlington Snohomish County No bedroom 2%2% 1 bedroom 10%9% 2 bedrooms 19%23% 3 bedrooms 48%41% 4 bedrooms 16%20% 5 or more bedrooms 5%5% Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. existing housing profile MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 26 Figure 27. Arlington and Snohomish County, Percent Cost-burdened Households by Tenure, 2018 35% 49% 28% 15% 25% 10% 33% 45% 26% 14% 21% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% All households Renters Owners Arlington and Snohomish County, 2018 Percent Cost-burdened Households by Tenure Arlington cost-burdened Arlington severely cost-burdened Snohomish County cost-burdened Snohomish County severely cost- burdened Source: 2016 CHAS Data (extrapolated to 2018). Arlington’s 2015 Housing Profile reported that the City experienced a population boom after 1990, which continued into the 2000s, reflected in homes built during that time period. Table 8 shows that as of 2018, 36% of the homes in Arlington were built between 1980-1999, accounting for the majority of the housing stock. Another 2,434 units were built after 2000 making up 33% of the total housing stock.36 In total, 69% of Arlington’s housing stock is less than 40 years old, compared to Snohomish County where 62% of housing was built after 1980.37 The age distribution of housing stock represented in the chart below, does not account for the 425 units permitted in 2019.38 Table 8. Arlington and Snohomish County, Age Distribution of Occupied Housing Stock by Tenure, 2018 Renter-occupied Owner-occupied Occupied Housing Units Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Arlington Snohomish County Built 2000 or later 28%22%35%28%33%26% Built 1980 to 1999 33%40%39%36%37%38% Built 1960 to 1979 24%26%15%24%18%24% Built 1940 to 1959 6%7%4%8%5%7% Built 1939 or earlier 9%6%6%5%7%5% Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. 36 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 37 2018-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. 38 Permit Data 2017-2019, provided by the City of Arlington. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON existing housing profile MARCH 2020 27 Figure 28 shows Arlington’s net newly permitted units between 2010 and 2019, illustrating the City’s recent residential development patterns in relation to unit type. Arlington saw single-family residential unit growth relatively quickly after the 2008 Financial Crisis, adding 148 units between 2010-201239. Multifamily saw little growth during this time period, adding only four units.40 Between 2013 and 2016, there was a major lag in residential development for both single-family and multifamily, adding only 32 units during that time41. Single- family development experienced a small surge during 2017 primarily due to the completion of one 84-unit subdivision project42. Permitted single-family residences have since slowed with only 15 units added between 2018 and 201943. However, since 2017 Arlington has seen major growth in the number of permitted multifamily units, adding an additional 1,208 units by the end of 201944. Figure 28. Arlington, Net Newly-Permitted Units, 2010 – 2019 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2019201820172016201520142013201220112010 Arlington, 2010 -2019 Newly-Permitted Units Net new units New Single-family units New Multifamily units Source: PSRC Residential Building Permit Summaries 2010-2017; City of Arlington Permitting Data 2018-2019 The available data for newly permitted units at the County level is limited to 2017, so residential growth between 2018 and 2019 is unknown at this time. However, according to Figure 29, it appears residential development in Snohomish County overall has been more steady than in Arlington. Single-family units saw the steadiest growth between 2013 and 2016, with a slight decline in 2017 while multifamily units saw consistent growth between 2010 and 2013, with declines in 2014 and 2016.45 39 PSRC Residential Building Permit Summaries 2010-2017 40 PSRC Residential Building Permit Summaries 2010-2017 41 PSRC Residential Building Permit Summaries 2010-2017 42 PSRC Residential Building Permit Summaries 2010-2017 43 Permit Data 2017-2019, provided by the City of Arlington. 44 Permit Data 2017-2019, provided by the City of Arlington. 45 PSRC Residential Building Permit Summaries 2010-2017 existing housing profile MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 28 Figure 29. Snohomish County, Net Newly-Permitted Units, 2010 – 2017 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 20172016201520142013201220112010 Snohomish County, 2010 -2017 Newly-Permitted Units Net new units New Single-family units New Multifamily units Source: PSRC Residential Building Permit Summaries, 2010-2017 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON existing housing profile MARCH 2020 29 Housing Profile: City of Arlington, Prepared by the Alliance for Housing Affordability March 2015 Subsidized rental units are targeted toward households with the lowest incomes, typically less than 30% AMI. Populations targeted for subsidized rental units often include the disabled, elderly, and other populations living on fixed incomes with special needs. A subsidized property is one that receives funding, perhaps rental assistance or an operating subsidy, to ensure that its residents pay rents that are affordable for their income level. Some properties only apply their subsidy to select units. It is also common for subsidized units to be restricted to certain groups like families, the elderly, or homeless. A subsidized property may have also benefited from workforce-type housing subsidies, and it is also common for only a portion of a property’s units to receive an ongoing subsidy. Workforce rental units are targeted to working households that still cannot afford market rents. Workforce rental units and subsidized rental units are both considered “assisted” but differ in several areas. The key difference between subsidized and workforce units is that workforce units have a subsidy “built in” through the use of special financing methods and other tools, allowing (and typically requiring) the landlord to charge less for rent. An example of this would be when a private investor benefits from low income housing tax credits when building a new residential development. In exchange for the tax credit savings, the property owner would have to restrict a certain number of units to a certain income level for a certain period of time. When the owner is a for-profit entity, this often means that rents on restricted units will become market rate units when the period of restriction has ended. While nonprofit owners may also utilize workforce tools for capital funding, they are more likely to preserve restrictions on units longer than required. The distribution of Arlington’s assisted units by income level served, both subsidized and workforce, is presented in Table 2.1. Market rate rental units are the stock of all housing units available for rent in the open market. These are units that are privately owned and whose rents are determined by market supply and demand pressures. A market rate rental unit can also be a subsidized rental unit, as is the case with the Federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Section 8 vouchers can be used to rent any unit, as detailed below. Finally, home ownership includes all single-family homes for sale – detached and attached single family homes, condominiums, and manufactured homes. ARLINGTON'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK The City of Arlington has a total of 229 subsidized units, transitional and permanent units combined, with a range of funding sources shown in the table below. The majority of the units are provided through U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rental assistance and rural rental housing loan programs. The USDA Rural Development Rural Rental Housing Loans (Section 515) provides loans that are direct, competitive mortgage loans made to provide affordable multifamily rental housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities. existing housing profile MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 30 This is primarily a direct housing mortgage program; its funds may also be used to buy and improve land and to provide necessary facilities such as water and waste disposal systems. The USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Rental Assistance Program (Section 521) is available for some properties financed by the Section 515 Rural Rental or Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing programs of the USDA Rural Development Housing and Community Facilities Programs office (RD). It covers the difference between 30% of a tenant’s income and the monthly rental rate. As Table 9 shows, there are 40 units funded through the HUD Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program that provides interest-free advance capital to non-profit organizations to finance the development of supportive housing for seniors. Residency in these units is usually restricted to households earning 50% of the AMI or less with at least one member aged 62 years or older. Tenants pay rent based on household income. This rent is usually the highest of the following three amounts: either 30% adjusted monthly income, or 10% unadjusted monthly income, or, if receiving welfare assistance, the housing costs portion of this assistance. There are 41 units utilizing Section 8 Housing Vouchers administered through Public Housing Agencies (PHA) who determine eligibility, based on the total annual gross income and family size. Usually participating family’s income may not exceed 50% of the AMI for the county or metropolitan area. HUD sets Fair Market Rents (FMRs) annually, and PHAs determine their individual payment standards (a percentage of FMR) by unit bedroom size. The tenant pays rent equal to 30% of their income, and the PHA pays the difference directly to the landlord. PHAs are required to provide 75% of their allocated vouchers to families earning less than 30% of the AMI. The waitlists to receive these vouchers are typically very long. Currently, Snohomish County Housing Authority has a wait time of ten years if you are already on the waitlist, otherwise the program is closed at moment. Arlington also has ten transitional housing units that are funded through the HUD HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). This program assists in building, buying, and rehabilitating housing for rent or ownership or providing rental assistance to low-income people. At least 20% of these units must be occupied by families earning 50% or less of AMI. All other HOME-assisted units must be occupied by families earning 80% or less of AMI, but in practice most are reserved for families earning 60% or less of AMI. Maximum monthly rent is capped with a Low HOME Rent for less than 50% AMI units and a High HOME Rent for the remaining HOME-assisted units. Per Table 10, there are 967 workforce housing units in Arlington that have been funded through Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), which provides housing for low- to moderate-income renters in exchange for tax credits for the developers building the units. Some properties currently restrict occupancy of all of their units to low-income households, many other workforce housing properties only dedicate a portion of their units. Affordable housing requirements are limited to a certain period of time, typically 20 to 30 years, after which time the property owners can increase rents to market rates. Arlington has 10 transitional housing units. The main difference between permanent and transitional housing, is that transitional housing is meant to be temporary and tenants can only remain in their unit for a certain amount of time. Arlington’s transitional units development accepts Section 8 housing vouchers and is owned and operated by Housing Hope, a local non-profit operating throughout Snohomish County and Camano Island. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON existing housing profile MARCH 2020 31 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON Table 9. Arlington, Subsidized Units, 2019 Type of Subsidized Unit Funding Source Units Permanent USDA Rural Rental Housing/USDA Rental Assistance 138 HUD Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly 40 Section 8 Project Based Vouchers 41 Transitional HUD HOME Investment Partnerships Program 10 Total 229 Table 10. Arlington, Workforce Units, 2019 Workforce Units Funded by Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)967 Source: National Housing Presrevation Datasbase; HASCO; City of Arlington HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 32 As of 2018, there are a total of 2,423 occupied rental units paying rent in Arlington. Table 11 illustrates the number of units available at varying rent prices organized by number of bedrooms. The rent data below represents gross rent which includes utilities. Table 11. Arlington, Renter-occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, 2018 No bedroom %1-bedroom %2-bedroom % 3+ bedrooms % Less than $300 8 6%116 19%27 3%9 1% $300 to $499 27 22%114 18%25 3%0 0% $500 to $749 40 32%33 5%77 9%24 3% $750 to $999 14 11%130 21%210 25%76 9% $1,000 to $1,499 36 29%174 28%257 31%298 35% $1,500 or more -0%50 8%241 29%437 52% Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. To better understand what Arlington’s households could expect to pay when looking for a rental unit, Table 12 shows the minimum full time wage that can afford each average rent, both in terms of hourly rate and annual salary, as well as the number of hours per week needed to work to afford the unit, earning Washington’s minimum wage. It is important to note that this table represents the amount of time worked in a week and the required amount of money earned that is necessary to not be cost-burdened. The table clearly shows that households earning minimum wage cannot afford rental housing costs in Arlington, working within the standard of a 40-hour workweek, without being cost-burdened. Table 12. Arlington, Median Rent by Unit Size and Minimum Income Required to not be Cost-burdened, 2018 Median Gross Rent Minimum Income Required Per Year Per Hour Hours per Week at 2018 Minimum Wage Median gross rent $1,195 $47,800 $22.98 80 No bedroom $734 $29,360 $14.12 49 1 bedroom $861 $34,440 $16.56 58 2 bedrooms $1,146 $45,840 $22.04 77 3 bedrooms $1,478 $59,120 $28.42 99 4 bedrooms $1,810 $72,400 $34.81 121 Source: 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MARCH 2020 33 Table 13 displays the affordability distribution of median rents in Arlington by number of bedrooms. In this table, "No" means no household (adjusted for household size) within that income level can afford (pay less than 30% of their income in housing costs) the median gross rent for the size. "Yes" means all households (adjusted for household size) within that income level can afford the median gross rent for the size. Overall, Arlington’s rental housing is affordable to all households earning above 50% of the AMI. Rental housing becomes less affordable or unaffordable to households earning below 50%, especially as bedroom count rises. However, no rental units are affordable to the lowest income earners in Arlington. It should be noted that this table does not separate multifamily and single-family rental costs due to the limited data available. Table 13. Arlington, Affordable Median Rent by Size, 2018 Median gross rent No bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Extremely low-income (<30% AMI)No No No No No No Very low-income (31-50% AMI)Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Low-income (51-80% AMI)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Moderate to high income (>80% AMI)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: FY 2018 HUD User Income Limits; 2018-2014 ACS 5-year estimates. In 2018, 61% of homes sold in Arlington had three bedrooms, and 27% were four-bedroom units, representing 88% of the home sales that year. In the 2014 Housing Profile, the author explored the home sales from 2008- 2012 and found that 69% of homes sold during that time were three-bedrooms and 20% were four bedrooms, representing 89% of sales. Overall, Arlington has not experienced significant change in that the majority of units being sold are still three- or four-bedroom units. However, the percentage of three bedrooms units being sold is down, while the percentage of four-bedroom units being sold has risen. In 2018, the Snohomish County Assessor reported that Arlington’s median home sale price was $357,000. Assuming a 20% down payment and a mortgage interest rate of 3.75, the lowest monthly ownership cost, with a 30-year fixed loan, for the median home sale price would be $1,724. For a household to afford this monthly cost, and not be cost-burdened, an annual income of $68,960 is required, about $7,000 less that the median income. Table 14 evaluates the affordability of home sales to each income bracket by number of bedrooms in 2018. “Not affordable” means that the minimum income required to purchase the home and not be cost-burdened is greater than 120% of the AMI. The percentages shown demonstrate the share of homes of that size that are affordable to those within the income group, adjusted for household size. For example, in looking at the number of three-bedroom units sold in 2018, 0% of those homes were affordable for extremely low-income households, 16% of those homes were affordable to very low-income households, and 85% were affordable to low-income households. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 34 In reviewing this table, it becomes clear that the majority of homes sold were generally affordable to those making above 50% of the AMI. The 2014 Housing Profile observed that it may be likely that smaller households are purchasing larger homes simply since there is a very small share of units that are less than three bedrooms. Table 14. Arlington, Affordable Home Sales by Size, 2018 Bedrooms Extremely low-income (<30% AMI) Very low- income (31 to 50% AMI) Low- income (51 to 80% AMI) Moderate income (81 to 95% AMI) Middle income (95 to 120% AMI) Not Affordable Total Sales 1 0%0%33%33%67%33%3 2 0%20%79%96%100%0%18 3 0%16%85%96%99%1%222 4 3%8%71%95%99%1%95 5 5%18%79%100%100%0%19 6 0%0%0%100%100%0%2 Total 1%14%80%96%99%1%359 Source: FY 2018 HUD User Income Limits; Snohomish County Assessor Property Sales Data, 2018. Table 15 displays how the median home sale price within Arlington has increased between 2015 and 2019. It also shows what the minimum income required would be to afford the monthly ownership costs. The median sale price increased by 45% between 2015 and 2019, with the minimum income required to purchase the median sale price growing by 48%. Appendix B provides further detail regarding these sale price trends. If the rapid increase in price continues, it’s likely the cost of ownership will exclude even more households. Table 15. Arlington, Median Home Sale Price Affordability, 2015-2019 Median Sale Price Minimum Income Required Per Year Per Hour Hours/Week at Minimum Wage for that Year 2015 $255,000 $50,090 $24.08 102 2016 $280,000 $54,160 $26.04 110 2017 $319,475 $63,696 $30.62 111 2018 $357,000 $74,862 $35.99 125 2019 $370,750 $74,055 $35.60 119 Source: Snohomish County Assessor Property Sales Data, 2015-2019. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MARCH 2020 35 The Location Affordability Index (LAI) was developed by HUD and the US Department of Transportation (DOT) in 2013 to better understand housing and transportation costs for specific geographies. As discussed in the employment section, after housing costs, transportation costs are the largest type of expense for most households. The index models eight different household profiles that vary by percent of area median income, number of people, and number of commuters. The calculations account for twenty-four measures such as monthly housing costs, average number of rooms per housing unit, average vehicle miles traveled per year, walkability, street connectivity, and others. These eight model households are not meant to represent specific groups but are rather useful for relative comparison to the digester’s particular situation. Broken down to the neighborhood (census tract) level, the LAI offers what percentage of their income each household profile would typically spend on housing and transportation costs. This information can be useful to the general public, policymakers, and developers in determining where to live, work, and invest. Table 16. Arlington, HUD Location Affordability Index HOUSEHOLD PROFILE % OF AMI NUMBER OF PEOPLE NUMBER OF COMMUTERS % OF INCOME SPENT ON Median-Income Family 100% 48%25%24% Very Low-Income Individual National Poverty Level* 118%46%72% Working Individual 50% 57%28%29% Single Professional 135% 31%18%13% Retired Couple 80% 48%32%16% Single-Parent Family 50% 69%36%33% Moderate-Income Family 80% 51%29%22% Dual-Professional Family 150% 37%21%16% * $11,880 for a single person household in 2016 according to US Dept. of Health and Human Services Source: HUD Exchange Location Affordability Index, Version 3. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MARCH 2020 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON 36 Version 3, the most recent version of the LAI, was published in March 2019. Its data sources include the 2016- 2012 5-year American Community Survey, 2014 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, and a few others. Because the data is only available at the census tract level and not at the city level (Place in census terms) like most other data in this report, the numbers shown in Table 16 represent the average percentages of the census tracts that compose Arlington. The eight household profiles modeled for the LAI are displayed. Only three household profiles (Very Low-Income Individual, Retired Couple, and Single-Parent Family) are shown to be cost-burdened, or paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs. If this were the only measure of affordability under consideration, as it has been treated in this report thus far, Arlington would seem to be a reasonably affordable place to live. However, once transportation costs are brought into the conversation, the lack of affordability in Arlington becomes more concerning. All profiles spend over 30 percent of their income on housing and transportation costs combined, and all but two profiles spend over 45 percent, which is the maximum portion of income that should be spent on both types of costs. If this maximum is exceeded, HUD deems the location as unaffordable for the household profile in question. The most shocking number is the 72 percent of income spent on transportation costs by the Very Low-Income Individual profile, which brings their total spent on housing and transportation to 118 percent of their income. The LAI shows how accessibility to work and amenities cannot be overlooked when addressing a city’s affordability issues, especially when accessibility itself is one of the determinants of housing costs. The high accessibility of walkable, well-located neighborhood is normally added into the price of the rental and for sale housing there. Conversely, housing in a more rural area with lower access to opportunity will be priced at a discount. If a household living in a more rural area is paying only 20 percent of their income on housing but also 20 percent of their income on transportation and their urban counterpart is paying 30 percent of their income housing but only 10 percent on transportation, the more rural household should not be considered have a more affordable living situation. The LAI clearly shows that Arlington will need to consider how to make both housing and transportation costs more affordable for its citizens. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOUSING NEEDS & NEXT STEPS MARCH 2020 37 The City of Arlington will need to plan for a total of 9,654 housing units by 2035 to reach their allocated growth target. With the remaining target to be built between 2020 and 2035, another 1,235 housing units should be built with the City's population demographics in mind. Figure 30 projects the number of housing units that will be needed to serve the distribution of incomes in Arlington, assuming the City’s current mix of income stays constant. Nearly 47% of these new housing units will need to accommodate households earning less than 80% of the AMI. Figure 30. Arlington, Allocation of Projected New Housing Need Based on Income, 2019 219 184 175 657 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Projected New Units Arlington Allocation of Projected New Housing Need Based on Income Moderate to high income (>80% AMI) Low-income (>50% to 80% AMI) Very low-income (>30% to 50% AMI) Extremely low-income (<30% AMI) Source: 2016 CHAS Data (projected to 2018); City of Arlington Permitting Data Arlington’s median income has been on the rise since 2010 (growing at a faster rate than Snohomish County overall), and the City’s income distribution has not changed drastically since 2000. However, the proportion of total households that are very low to extremely low-income has risen. Since income levels in the City have risen, it could be reasonable to assume this is due in part to new lower income residents moving to Arlington who are seeking more affordable housing options. As of 2018, 47% of the City’s households were considered to be low- income, earning less than 80% of the AMI. Over one-third of the households in Arlington are considered cost-burdened, as they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. 88% of cost-burdened households are low-income and 100% of severely cost- burdened households are low-income. Furthermore, the very low to extremely low-income households are far more likely to be cost-burdened. While it is not unusual to see the number of cost-burdened households decrease as income levels rise, it does highlight a need to create more opportunity for the lowest earners to reduce their housing costs. Additionally, it was observed that renters are also more likely to be cost-burdened overall, as 49% of renters are cost-burdened compared to 28% of owners, again, especially low-income renters. The City will need to make their lowest income earners, especially low-income renters, a major priority when HOUSING NEEDS & Next steps HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOUSING NEEDS & NEXT STEPS MARCH 2020 38 developing housing strategies for the next 30 years in order to help stabilize these households. It was also important to observe how Arlington’s population was aging. Significant growth among Arlington’s residents within the 60-69 cohort was observed. As the City’s population seems likely to age in place, it will be critical to provide the necessary housing options for seniors and elderly citizens that is not only affordable, but also addresses any special needs the aging population may have. When evaluating employment in Arlington, it became clear that the City is an employment center, with 1.5 jobs for every housing unit. Forty-six percent of residents have a commute time longer than 30 minutes, indicating that many of Arlington’s residents do not work in Arlington. To accommodate the amount of jobs projected for Arlington, increasing the supply of housing affordable to the Arlington workforce should be another priority, as transportation costs are next largest household expense. Seventy-five percent of units in Arlington are single-family residences while 16% are apartments; overall, the housing stock lacks diversity. Sixty-nine percent of the housing units in Arlington have three or more bedrooms, and in 2018 of the 363 homes sold, 88% of them were three- or four-bedroom units. With the average household size being 2.68, there could be a need for units with fewer bedrooms. There has been significant residential growth between 2017 and 2019, but the vast majority of new units built in Arlington have been multifamily or senior apartments within large complexes. While home values and rent prices have been rising at similar rates to Arlington’s income levels, a lack of diverse housing options could be keeping residents stagnant in regard to their housing choices. When developing housing strategies moving forward, the City will need to focus on promoting the development of a variety of housing types to fill in the “missing middle”. Regarding housing affordability in Arlington, the City’s rental housing is affordable to all households earning above 50% of the AMI. Rental housing becomes less affordable or unaffordable to households earning below 50% AMI, especially as bedroom count rises. However, no rental units are affordable to the lowest income earners in Arlington. In terms of ownership, it becomes clear that the majority of homes sold were generally affordable to those making above 50% of the AMI. However, those falling below 50% AMI will find it very difficult to find a home they can afford to purchase in Arlington, especially when considering required down payments, interest rates, insurance, and any required maintenance costs. The City should consider strategies to help support homeownership among the lowest income earners in the City to allow a more diverse set of residents to access the housing market. In evaluating the overall affordability of Arlington, HUD’s Location Affordability Index shows that households in Arlington pay a large percentage of their income on transportation costs, at times nearly equal to or in excess of the percentage of their income they spend on housing costs. Housing in Arlington may be considered more affordable at the regional scale. However, when transportation costs are added into the affordability equation, it’s evident the City must address the disproportionately high transportation costs its citizens are facing if it wants to tackle the issue of affordability at large. Introducing more public transit options, encouraging greater density closer to commercial centers, and promoting the production of housing that is affordable to the City’s local workforce are some of the measures that could lead to lower transportation costs for Arlington residents. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOSUING ELEMENT EVALUATION MARCH 2020 39 The Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element evaluation that follows is an assessment of the housing policies formed during the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update. The purpose of this evaluation is to analyze the effectiveness of Arlington’s current housing policies by understanding the effect they have had on housing development from their adoption through the end of 2019. Numbers are based on available building permit data from PSRC for 2017 and data from the City of Arlington for 2018-2019. GOALS/POLICIES OUTCOME FACTORS SUGGESTIONS GH-1 Diversify the City’s housing stock. PH-1.1 A variety of housing types and densities should be encouraged on lands with a residential land-use designation. Since 2017, of the 1,311 units built, 92% have been 1-3 bedroom apartments mostly in high density residential zones. High density zones is where most of capacity exists. Provide a variety of residential zoning designations with varying degrees of density in order to achieve more varied housing development. PH-1.2 Detached Accessory Dwelling Units should be permissible in residential zones ADUs are allowed in all residential zones; however, none have been permitted during this planning period. Size and design of many existing SF homes may not accommodate ADUs under current regulations. Modify the SF restrictions to lower barriers for ADU development. PH-1.3 Mobile and manufactured home parks should be permissible in the City subject to specific site plan requirements. Mobile and manufactured homes are allowed in most residential zones; however, none have been developed during this planning period. Market conditions have shifted development from manufactured homes to more focused high density projects. Consider reducing utility connection fees for mobile or manufactured homes to lower barriers to access. PH-1.4 Adequate housing opportunities for residents with special housing needs should be provided within the City 43% of multifamily units built during this planning period have addressed special housing needs for low-income families and seniors. The City established partnerships with developers to accommodate diverse populations with varying needs. Continue strengthening partnerships and monitor changes in development and revise policy accordingly. PH-1.5 Different classes of group homes should be permissible in residential neighborhoods. No group homes have been developed during this planning period. Group homes are not allowed in all residential zones and, where allowed, require a special permit process. Better define varying classes of group homes; streamline permit processes. HOUSING ELEMENT EVALUATION HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOSUING ELEMENT EVALUATION MARCH 2020 40 GOALS/POLICIES OUTCOME FACTORS SUGGESTIONS GH-2 Ensure the development of new multi-family housing and small single-family units occur within close proximity to commercial areas within the City PH-2.1 Multi-family housing should be located close to commercial and employment centers, transportation facilities, public services, schools, and park and recreation areas. High density zones that support multifamily housing are clustered near medical services, commercial zones, and the Old Town District that also has commercial opportunities with parks and open space nearby. City strategically zoned high density areas to accommodate multifamily development near areas of opportunity. The City established a mixed-use overlay where a majority of new development has occurred. Continue permitting and monitoring housing development within the mixed-use overlay to ensure multifamily housing is located near areas of opportunities. PH-2.2 Cottage Housing should be incentivized in moderate and high density residential areas within the City. No cottage developments have been permitted during this planning period. Cottage developments require open space but provide no density bonuses. Consider offering density bonuses in the cottage housing code to incentive development. Streamline permit process. PH-2.3 Utilize Mixed Use mechanisms to incentivize housing within close proximity to commercial uses. 72% of the units built between 2017-2019 have been within the City’s recent Mixed-Use Overlay areas. City developed flexible mixed-use regulations that allowed for retail along street frontage and higher density residential on remainder of property. Continue monitoring usage of the mixed-use overlay and revise regulations as needed. GH-3 Ensure stable residential neighborhoods through public investment in infrastructure and by preserving existing housing stock. PH-3.1 Funds should be adequately budgeted for periodic maintenance of existing infrastructure in residential neighborhoods throughout the City The City has established a Pavement Preservation program that utilizes Arlington Transportation Benefit District sales tax for funding. The TBD focuses on roads that are in need of repair that will not see improvement through redevelopment in the near future. Continue collecting TBD sales tax to contribute to new projects within the Pavement preservation program. PH-3.2 A long-term plan should be developed for bringing neighborhoods that lack adequate infrastructure up to the City’s current design and streetscape standards, including trails for pedestrian connectivity. The City has established a 20 year Transportation Improvement Plan in 2019 for long term projects that includes motorized and non- motorized projects and the city also established a complete streets program. The City’s Complete Street program is to help address all modes of transit in addition to automobile traffic, to improve pedestrian and multi-modal trails and paths throughout the city. Continue developing 6 year TIPs in order to supplement the 20 year TIP to react better to market growth, and further implementation of the complete streets program. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOSUING ELEMENT EVALUATION MARCH 2020 41 GOALS/POLICIES OUTCOME FACTORS SUGGESTIONS GH-4 Encourage the development of special needs housing within the City. PH-4.1 The City should support the development of housing for the elderly, handicapped, and other special needs populations through the allowance of mixed-use housing, group housing, and other housing types. Between 2017-2019, 32% of housing units built were for seniors within the mixed-use overlay. An increased market demand for senior housing in the area has allowed for new projects to be submitted utilizing the mixed-use overlay for mixed use high density Senior housing. Identify special needs that may exist among the City’s population and if their special housing needs are being met sufficiently. PH-4.2 Senior housing should be located in close proximity to hospitals, public transportation routes, retail/ service centers, and parks. Between 2017-2019, 32% of housing units built were for seniors within the mixed- use overlay. These recent developments are near medical services and retail/ service centers but are lacking in public transportation and park access. The mixed-use overlay allows for a mix of commercial and residential development, which allows access to many of the goods and services seniors may need. As a whole, the city lacks ample public transportation options, so locating senior housing near public transportation routes is harder to accommodate. Continue promoting the utilization of the mixed use overlay for Senior housing in order to provide close proximity to hospitals, public transportation routes, retail/ service centers and parks. GH-5 Encourage a quality housing stock within the City. PH-5.1 The City should develop and maintain Development Design Guidelines/Standards that address aesthetic and environmental design issues for single-family and multifamily residential development. The City has established Design Review Standards that address the aesthetic and environmental design issues for residential development. The Design Standards are all encompassing and apply all standards to multiple zones with different building types. Continue refining the Design Review standards, and create subarea standards to address concerns within current standards. PH-5.2 The City should coordinate with willing neighborhood-based groups and other volunteer organizations to promote housing rehabilitation efforts. The City is open to working with neighborhood groups and volunteer organizations in order to promote and establish housing rehabilitation efforts. A low amount of these groups currently exist in the city, further out reach will improve the quantity and quality of these groups. Continue establishing new and maintaining existing relationships with non-profit organizations, especially those involved with first-time home buying or renter rights. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOSUING ELEMENT EVALUATION MARCH 2020 42 GOALS/POLICIES OUTCOME FACTORS SUGGESTIONS PH-5.3 The City should promote the conservation of housing through investment in the infrastructure serving residential areas (storm drainage, street paving, and recreation). The City has established a Pavement Preservation program that utilizes Arlington Transportation Benefit District sales tax for funding. The TBD focuses on roads that are in need of repair that will not see improvement through redevelopment in the near future. Continue collecting TBD sales tax to contribute to new projects within the Pavement Preservation program. PH-5.4 The City should maintain code enforcement programs to catch problems early, avoid extensive deterioration of housing units, and to motivate owners to repair and improve maintenance of their structures. The City has a code enforcement officer that responds to public comments and catches problems early in order to avoid extensive deterioration of housing units. The City has only one code enforcement officer. Continue code enforcement program to ensure the Municipal Code is maintained. PH-5.5 The “Old-Town” residential area of the City should be protected as a traditional, single-family neighborhood by allowing only single-family, accessory dwellings, and duplexes that are compatible with the neighborhood in terms of use, design, and setback. Between 2017-2019, there has been no development within the “Old Town” residential area of the City. Most of the Old Town Residential area has been previously built out as the historic residential area, within minimal lots available for redevelopment. To continue preserving this area of town, the City should consider adopting design guidelines or a form-based code specifically for the Old Town Residential District – building upon the existing design guideline for the City and the Old Town Business District. PH-5.6 The City should encourage weatherization of housing units and disseminate information regarding assistance available from the electric and gas utility companies, charitable organizations, and public agencies. The city’s Building Department requires all new structure meet current energy code and weatherization requirements. The City can only require updates on new structures or changes of use. Continue requiring all weatherization and energy requirements are meet, and continue working with electric and gas utility companies, charitable organizations and public agencies. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOSUING ELEMENT EVALUATION MARCH 2020 43 GOALS/POLICIES OUTCOME FACTORS SUGGESTIONS GH-6 Establish and maintain a streamlined permitting processing to help create predictability for customers. PH-6.1 The City should maintain streamlined permit processing procedures, centralized counter services, pre-application conferences, printed information summarizing permit approval requirements, standards and specifications, area-wide environmental assessments, concurrent permit and approval processing, permit and approval deadlines, and single hearings. Please find attached the spreadsheets that indicate both the project and the processing time for each type of permit. Both CUP and Zoning permits have decreased in process time from previous years. SUP’s have increased in processing time, but that is attributed to the sheer number of permits processed during that timeline. The most significant difference is that we request that all permits applied for go through concurrent review processes; land use, civil review and building review. This creates an environment that requires collaboration of all reviewing staff so that any issues identified during the review process can be addressed immediately and resolved with the applicant in a time sensitive manner. Streamline permit processes by eliminating the requirements for some conditional uses or zoning verifications frequently found in the permissible use table. GH-7 Increase the opportunity for all residents to purchase or rent safe, and sanitary housing through incentives and other programs. PH-7.1 The Planning Commission should review State and federal housing programs and make recommendations to City Council regarding future grant applications. The City applied for grant funding provided through E2SHB 1923 in 2019. No housing grant funds have been applied for during this timeline. This evaluation is a product of HB 1923 grant funding; this effort also includes a housing action plan to be adopted spring 2021. Expand grant finding efforts to Planning Commission. PL-7.2 The City should coordinate with willing neighborhood-based groups or other volunteer organizations to promote rehabilitation and community revitalization efforts. The city is open to working with neighborhood groups and volunteer organizations in order to promote and establish rehabilitation and community revitalization efforts. A low amount of these groups currently exist in the City, further out reach will improve the quantity and quality of these groups. Continue establishing new and maintaining existing relationships with non-profit organizations, especially those involved with first-time home buying or renter rights. PL-7.3 The City should support agency and nonprofit organizations in the creation of housing opportunities to accommodate the homeless, elderly, physically or mentally challenged, and other segments of the population who have special needs. While some of the recent units built between 2017-2019 have been for low-income seniors, none have been built for the homeless or disabled population. The City has an ongoing relationship with organizations such as the Housing Authority of Snohomish County who have helped build and maintain special housing options for low-income seniors in Arlington. Many of the special housing needs mentioned require a conditional use permit. This can add time and overall cost to a project. Continue and expand opportunities within the City for these organizations to maintain and build more special housing options. Monitor unit availability and population numbers with special housing needs and adjust policies accordingly as needs shift. Streamline permit processes. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOSUING ELEMENT EVALUATION MARCH 2020 44 GOALS/POLICIES OUTCOME FACTORS SUGGESTIONS GH-8 Promote and facilitate the provision of affordable housing in all areas and zoning districts of the City. PH-8.1 The City should work to ensure that housing options for low- and moderate-income households are: a) dispersed throughout the City to discourage a disproportionate concentration of such housing in any one geographical area of the City; b) are located near amenities such as commercial and employment areas, transportation facilities, and recreational opportunities and; c) are inclusive of a variety of housing types. Between 2017-2019, 567 affordable units were built for either seniors or families in various parts of the city near areas of opportunity. However, most of these units have been apartments catering to a small range of demographics. There is a lack of “missing middle” housing being built. Most of the development has taken place in commercial or high density zones which is where the readily available capacity exists. No maximum density in the RHD zone makes apartments an attractive option to maximize unit count. However, there is a lack of incentives for any other type of housing development. Continue locating affordable units in the mixed-use overlay areas, so they are paired with goods and services. Incentivize more variety in unit type such as duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments, or townhomes to provide units that are more affordable to a wider range of residents. PH-8.2 The City should continue to support and participate in regional housing cooperatives such as Snohomish County’s Alliance for Affordable Housing and other regional organizations that promote affordable housing. The City is an active member of local regional cooperatives and has worked with affordable housing partners in the area. A limited amount of these groups do work within the Arlington Area currently. Continue establishing new and maintaining existing relationships with regional cooperatives and affordable housing organizations. PH-8.3 The City should support and encourage private developers and organizations who seek to provide below-market housing units by utilizing various tools such as a) allowing alternative development type b) implementing regulatory tools c) providing general incentives d) financial help e) encouraging project level actions that help with affordability. The City should provide criteria and process for ensuring that those units remain affordable over time. a) Since 2017, of the 1,311 units built, 92% have been 1-3 bedroom apartments in mostly high density residential zones. 54% of the multi-family units built are affordable. b) 72% of the units built between 2017-2019 have been within the City’s recent Mixed- Use Overlay areas. c) No incentives for residential development are currently available. d) No ADUs have been permitted between 2017-2018. e) No long term affordability programs currently exist. That is something that we hope to identify as a part of this HAP. A lack of diversity in units built between 2017-2019 could be due to limited incentives for building units like duplexes, triplexes, cottages, or lower density apartments/condos. The City should consider ways to incentivize missing middle housing across all residential zones to diversify development patterns. Continue monitoring development within the mixed-use overlay areas to ensure long-term success. Explore flexible development standards that may aid in more diverse housing development. Streamline permit processes. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON HOSUING ELEMENT EVALUATION MARCH 2020 45 GOALS/POLICIES OUTCOME FACTORS SUGGESTIONS PH-8.4 As part of any rezone that increases residential capacity, the City should consider requiring a portion of units to be affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Villas at Arlington Rezone occurred in 2017. It consisted of a 14.95 acre parcel zoned Residential Moderate Density (RMD) rezoned to Residential High Density to allow construction of a 312 unit, 17 building, Multi-Family apartment project. These are affordable units(60% AMI). AVS Rezone occurred in 2019,. It consisted of a 9 acre parcel zoned General Industrial (GI) rezoned to General Commercial (GC) with a Mixed- Use Overlay to be applied to allow for an affordable Multi- Family apartment project. This project has been delayed for an undetermined time. The City has not implemented this policy. The City should consider taking this action when a rezone occurs in order to help leverage the market and build more affordable units. While this evaluation is based on the work completed between the 2017 Plan Update through the end of 2019, it is important to acknowledge work the City has on the docket for 2020. The City of Arlington has a total of seven items submitted under the 2020 Comprehensive Update docket cycle. Several of these items are parcel rezones initiated by private entities, but the bulk of zoning changes have been initiated by the City of Arlington. The most significant changes stem from a recognition that the existing residential zoning designations often no gradual transition between neighborhoods and do not facilitate a variety of housing types. There are currently three residential zones that exist: Suburban Residential with a maximum of four dwelling units an acre, Residential Moderate Density with a maximum of six dwelling units an acre, and Residential High Density that has no maximum density but must meet parking and open space requirements. The proposed changes will create a Residential Low Capacity zone that allows for 5 - 6 dwelling units per acre, a Residential Moderate Capacity zone that allows for 7 - 11 dwelling units per acre, a Residential Medium Capacity zone that allows for 12 - 16 dwelling units per acre, a Residential High Capacity zone that allows for 17 and greater dwelling units per acre, and an Old Town Residential zone which allows for lot sizes established with the original plats to be utilized but not less than 3,800 square feet. These new residential zones are designed to facilitate a variety of densities and housing types that are missing in Arlington’s existing house profile, as demonstrated in the evaluation completed above. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON APPENDIX MARCH 2020 i 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Median Sale Price $255,000 $280,000 $319,475 $357,000 $370,750 Average Sale Price $258,150 $287,220 $317,945 $357,638 $372,936 Number of Sales 373 440 454 356 288 Median Sale Price Home Affordability 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Mortgage Amount $204,000 $224,000 $255,580 $285,600 $296,600 Interest Rate 3.87%3.71%4.03%4.58%4.05% Total Monthly Payment Breakdown (Not Including Utilities) Mortgage Payment (Principal + Interest)$959 $1,032 $1,225 $1,461 $1,425 Taxes & Other Fees $213 $233 $266 $298 $309 Home Insurance $81 $89 $101 $113 $117 TOTAL $1,252 $1,354 $1,592 $1,872 $1,851 Minimum Annual Income to Afford $50,090 $54,160 $63,696 $74,862 $74,055 in 2019 Dollars $54,029 $57,692 $66,434 $76,218 First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Mortgage Amount $172,000 $193,600 $213,560 $244,800 $256,000 Interest Rate 3.87%3.71%4.03%4.58%4.05% Total Monthly Payment Breakdown (Not Including Utilities) Mortgage Payment (Principal + Interest)$808 $892 $1,023 $1,252 $1,230 Taxes & Other Fees $179 $202 $222 $255 $267 Home Insurance $68 $77 $85 $97 $101 TOTAL $1,055 $1,170 $1,330 $1,604 $1,598 Minimum Annual Income to Afford $42,210 $46,812 $53,200 $64,156 $63,920 in 2019 Dollars $45,530 $49,864 $55,487 $65,318 Source: Snohomish County Assessor Property Sales Data, 2015-2019. APPENDIX A: Single-Family home sales HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON APPENDIX MARCH 2020 ii Affordability – Adjustment for Household Size Where it is indicated that housing cost affordability is assessed adjusting for household size, several factors were considered. First, based on guidelines for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit which assumes 1.5 persons per bedroom, the appropriate size range that could inhabit the housing unit in question was determined. For example, a 1-bedroom unit would be large enough for one or two people. Next, because HUD adjusts the HUD adjusted median family income (HAMFI) 10% lower for each person less than 4 people and 8% more for each person greater than 4 people, the average adjustment for a 1-person household and 2-person household was used to determine if a 1-bedroom unit was affordable. This would be 75% of HAMFI since the 1-person HAMFI is 70% of the 4-person HAMFI and the 2-person HAMFI is 80% of the 4-person HAMFI1. Based on this, the household size adjustment factors for estimating affordability based on number of bedrooms is shown in Table C.1. Table C.1. Household Size Adjustment Factors for Estimating Affordability Number of Bedrooms Adjustment Factor 0 0.70 1 0.75 2 0.90 3 1.04 4 1.16 5 1.28 6 1.40 Source: HUD User CHAS Affordability Analysis Table C.2 shows the maximum a household within each income level can afford to spend on housing per month by household size. For example, a 5-person very low-income household can afford to spend $1,445 per month on housing costs. Table C.3 displays the maximum monthly expense that is affordable for the unit’s number of bedrooms, adjusted for household size. If a 3-bedroom rents for $835 a month, it is considered to affordable, on average, to an extremely low-income household. APPENDIX C: METHODOLOGYAPPENDIX B: METHODOLDY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON APPENDIX MARCH 2020 i HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON Table C.2. Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area, Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Income Level and Household Size, 2018 Number of Persons per Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely low-income (<30% AMI)$563 $643 $723 $803 $868 $931 $996 $1,060 Very low-income (31 to 50% AMI)$936 $1,070 $1,204 $1,338 $1,445 $1,553 $1,659 $1,766 Low-income (51 to 80% AMI)$1,405 $1,605 $1,806 $2,006 $2,168 $2,328 $2,489 $2,649 Moderate income (81 to 95% AMI)$1,720 $1,965 $2,213 $2,456 $2,653 $2,850 $3,048 $3,243 Middle income (95 to 120% AMI)$2,173 $2,483 $2,793 $3,102 $3,353 $3,600 $3,848 $4,095 Source: FY 2018 HUD User Income Limits. Table C.3. Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area, Maximum Monthly Cost that is Considered Affordable by Income Level and Number of Bedrooms (Adjusted for Household Size), 2018 Number of bedrooms 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Extremely low- income (<30% AMI) $562 $602 $722 $835 $931 $1,027 $1,124 Very low-income (31 to 50% AMI)$936 $1,003 $1,204 $1,391 $1,552 $1,712 $1,873 Low-income (51 to 80% AMI)$1,404 $1,505 $1,806 $2,087 $2,327 $2,568 $2,809 Moderate income (81 to 95% AMI)$1,719 $1,842 $2,210 $2,554 $2,849 $3,143 $3,438 Middle income (95 to 120% AMI)$2,171 $2,327 $2,792 $3,226 $3,598 $3,971 $4,343 Source: FY 2018 HUD User Income Limits Home Ownership Affordability Home ownership affordability was calculated using similar techniques to the California Association of Realtor’s Housing Affordability Index. First, property sale data was acquired from the Snohomish County Assessor, and single-family home sales in Arlington were separated. Next, the monthly payment for these homes was calculated using several assumptions: - Assuming a 20% down payment, the loan amount is then 80% of the total sale price - Mortgage term is 30 years. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON APPENDIX MARCH 2020 ii HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON - Interest rate is the national average effective composite rate for previously occupied homes as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Board. - Monthly property taxes are assumed to be 1% of the sale price divided by 12. - Monthly insurance payments are assumed to be 0.38% of the sale price divided by 12. These assumptions provided the monthly costs expected to be paid for the median home sale price from the Snohomish County Assessor data. The monthly costs were divided by .3 and multiplied by 12 to determine the minimum annual income needed to afford the median sale price. Note that monthly utility payments are not included because of lack of data for estimating these costs, so affordability may be overestimated. Household Income Levels Area Median Income, or AMI, is an important part of many housing affordability calculations. In Snohomish County, HUD uses the Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area median family income as AMI. Along with fair market rents, this is recalculated every year, both as an overall average and by household size up to 8 individuals. Standard income limit categories are as follows: - Extremely low income: <30% AMI - Very low income: between 30 and 50% AMI - Low income: between 50 and 80% AMI Table C.4. FY 2018 Seattle-Bellevue, WA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area Income Limits Median Family Income Income Limit Category Persons in Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $103,400 Extremely low-income 0-30% AMI $22,500 $25,700 $28,900 $32,100 $34,700 $37,250 $39,850 $42,400 Very low- income 31-50% AMI $37,450 $42,800 $48,150 $53,500 $57,800 $62,100 $66,350 $70,650 Low-income 51-80% AMI $56,200 $64,200 $72,250 $80,250 $86,700 $93,100 $99,550 $105,950 Source: FY 2018 HUD User Income Limits The HUD Income Limits Documentation System does not include the income limits for the moderate income (between 80 and 95% AMI) or middle income (between 95 and 120% AMI) categories. However, they were calculated from HUD AMI and included in the affordability calculations. One thing to note is the substantial difference between the AMI and the median household income within the City of Arlington, which was $76,097 in 2018. Even the median family income, from which the HUD calculations are based, was $91,002, which is still over $10,000 less than the AMI. Using the regional standard of the AMI likely causes some units that are affordable in the city to be overlooked while also overestimating what the average Arlington household can afford. Regardless of these limitations, the AMI is an important measure when determining the need for affordable housing since the federal housing programs use the HUD-defined HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON APPENDIX MARCH 2020 i HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON AMI to determine eligibility. Assumptions and Extrapolation To draw a better comparison between the HUD CHAS data and the 2018 ACS 5-year estimates data prominently used throughout this report, the 2016-2012 CHAS data was extrapolated to 2018. Assuming population and housing production grew linearly between 2016 and 2018, the 2016 CHAS data was multiplied by the household growth rate between those years (1.37% for Arlington and 3.99% for Snohomish County) to calculate the 2018 CHAS data. HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington appendix c APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT lvi Overview Arlington developed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) to outline goals and strategies to meet the needs of the city’s current and future populations. Those needs were partly evaluated through the Housing Needs Assessment. However, a public engagement effort was also led to hear about those needs from various stakeholders as well as the community at large. The input from the key stakeholders and the public was instrumental in developing the strategies and actions of the HAP. Community engagement effort This report summarizes the results of the community engagement activities. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic caused plans to shift regarding the original engagement approach of a focus group session and an in-person open house, a flexible team and online resources allowed the effort to receive substantial feedback at just under 240 responses. The primary form of engagement was through two online surveys. The first was a Barriers to Housing Survey that sought to identify barriers to affordable housing and housing development in general, as well as specifically within Arlington itself. At the beginning of May 2020, the survey was sent to a group of key stakeholders that had been identified by the City, and they were given two weeks to submit their responses. The stakeholders included real estate professionals, both market-rate and affordable housing developers, staff of non-profit organizations that specialize in addressing housing needs, and local religious group leaders. Of the group selected, 50 percent of stakeholders responded to the survey. The second survey was a Housing Needs Survey. The questions asked respondents to generally provide feedback about the current housing supply in Arlington and which housing needs they believe are the most salient. The survey was posted on the City’s website on the Housing Action Plan webpage. It was also posted on the City of Arlington Facebook page. From the beginning of June through the end of July 2020, the survey received a total of 230 responses. Response summary: Barriers to Housing Survey The Barriers to Housing Survey received a range of responses from the stakeholders, but there were a few themes that were repeated and deserve emphasizing. Here are the primary questions that were asked along with an answer that summarizes the general response received. • In general, what factors have you identified that tend to artificially raise the cost of housing or housing development? (impact fees, zoning/policy regulations, permit processes, etc.) The price of land is very high, and there is too much residential land that is solely zoned for single-family residential. The local permitting process and other required review procedures are too burdensome and sometimes redundant, which can be costly. Impact fees, frontage improvements, and off-street parking requirements are other contributing factors to the high cost of housing development. Lastly, there are not enough subsidies available to build and maintain non-market rate housing. HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington appendix clvii • Can you identify any cities that you believe have successfully implemented strategies to eliminate barriers to housing development or to maintaining housing that is affordable? If so, which cities? Please elaborate on any strategies utilized. Everett has implemented impact and connection fee waivers as well as reduced parking requirements for affordable housing developments. They as well as Seattle have made significant financial commitments to ensure affordable housing is developed. Minneapolis has abolished single-family zoning by allowing medium-density residential development in all single-family zones. Bellingham has expedited permitting for affordable housing. Snohomish has increased the SEPA thresholds for minor construction to the state maximum. • Are there any new/innovative strategies or polices for reducing barriers to housing development or maintaining housing that is affordable that you have encountered that are not widely utilized yet? Strategies include: setting a maximum lot size; allowing multiplexes in all residential zones; donating surplus publicly-owned land to affordable housing development; decreasing restrictions on accessory dwelling units; and implementing a form based code. • Do you foresee any impacts, positive or negative, in reducing or streamlining regulatory processes? If so, what kind? And how might these impacts be mitigated? Are there regulations that may delay processes, but are necessary for ensuring fairness and quality? If so, please identify. Does the permitting process pose a greater, comparable, or smaller barrier to building housing than do the land use regulations? (such as regarding timeliness and consistency of permitting decisions) Permitting processes pose a comparable barrier to building housing compared with land use regulations. A drawn-out review process can be costly because of the delay in return on investment. Redundant reviews are excessively an issue. The possibility to streamline permits for all projects should be assessed and should occur if feasible. Permit streamlining should definitely apply to reviews of affordable housing developments. • What are the most significant changes that would need to occur to develop other types of housing or ensure affordable housing in Arlington (e.g. policies, industry issues, economics, financing)? A housing strategy that commits to specific housing goals for different annual median income categories is necessary. Support from the City as well as the community at large is necessary for successful affordable housing goals. This includes financial support. Zones that are exclusively reserved for single-family residential should no longer exist. • Are there any barriers to housing development or to maintaining housing that is affordable that exist in Arlington but not in other cities in Snohomish County or the Puget Sound? If so, please elaborate. Funding is the largest hurdle. Arlington has to secure funding or financially commit to non-market housing. The limited availability of land that is zoned properly and environmentally feasible for housing development is also a large barrier. Arlington also lacks high capacity transit and has limited workforce housing compared to the size of its local workforce. • Which incentives typically help the most to facilitate housing development? If applicable, which do you typically utilize in your projects? Are any of these not available in the City of Arlington? The transfer of surplus publicly-owned land to non-profit affordable housing developers seems to be a successful HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington appendix clviii tool. Local tax dollars or a levy specifically committed to both the construction and operation of affordable housing is vital. This can be used to supplement the affordable housing developer’s funds. Impact fee waivers, an inter-local agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, reduced parking requirements, density bonuses, transit oriented development, and employment oriented development should also be prioritized by Arlington. • What role do you think local and/or state government should have in providing affordable housing? The local government needs to be a public funder, facilitator, and advocate of affordable housing. Cities should proactively work with nonprofit housing organizations to increase the supply of affordable housing. The State is leaving it to the cities for now, but if meaningful action is not taken, action will surely be mandated from the state, if not the federal, level before long. Local governments can play a substantial role in increasing the affordability of housing by having proper zoning/regulations and efficiencies in place to help increase the supply of housing in general. By encouraging increased supply at all levels, it will drive down cost and increase attainability across the board. Government must also have the courage to make the difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions to get this result to help everyone. Response summary: Housing Needs Survey Throughs its 230 responses, the Housing Needs Survey garnered feedback from a sample population of Arlington residents. In the ways that it does not totally represent the Arlington community, the Housing Needs Assessment hopefully fills those gaps adequately. Here is a snapshot of the population that was reached and their thoughts on the housing supply in Arlington. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS HOUSING ACTION PLAN City of Arlington appendix clix RESPONDENT THOUGHTS ON ARLINGTON HOUSING SUPPLY City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #5 Attachment E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 22, 2021 SUBJECT: Sole Source Resolution – Procurement and servicing of Cla-Val Pressure Reducing Valves from GC Systems ATTACHMENTS: Sole Source Resolution and Letter of Certification for GC Systems DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Public Works; Jim Kelly, Director 360-403-3505 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: Not to exceed $15,000 per year BUDGET CATEGORY: Operating BUDGETED AMOUNT: $15,000 per year LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Sole source resolution recognizing GC Systems as the authorized maintenance service provider for Cla-Val products and systems. HISTORY: The City of Arlington has nine Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) stations that control and regulate pressure across Arlington’s water distribution system. All nine stations are equipped with Cla-Val PRVs and require regular scheduled maintenance. GC-Systems is the Washington state authorized agent for servicing Cla-Val product and systems. As such, RESOLUTION NO. 2021 – XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON TO WAIVE BID REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERVICE, MAINTENANCE, OR REPAIR OF PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES FOR USE BY THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the City of Arlington Water Department provides its customers with potable water and relies on Pressure Reducing Valves to regulate water pressure; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to maintain a consistent infrastructure of the water system and to reduce costs associated with maintaining Cla-Val Pressure Reducing Valves within the City’s Pressure Reducing Valve stations; and WHEREAS, GC Systems is the Washington State authorized agent for servicing Cla-Val product and systems; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.23.352(9) permits the waiving of bidding requirements for the purchase of materials which are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply or services which are subject to special market conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arlington, as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Arlington hereby waives the bidding requirements for the service, maintenance, or repair of Pressure Reducing Valves for use by the City of Arlington Water Department. Section 2: This resolution will be effective for three (3) years from the date of adoption. APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this 5th day of April, 2021. CITY OF ARLINGTON _____________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney 1701 Placentia Avenue • Costa Mesa• CA • 92627 • Ph: 800.942.6326 • Fax: 949.548.5441 www.cla-val.com Authorization Letter We herewith authorize 3/12/2021 GC Systems As our agent to promote, negotiate, tender, sell, exhibit and responsible for all the after-sale service on behalf of Cla-Val in the whole territory of Washington State for our sales products and the service of said products Your faithfully, Justin Simmons Commercial Sales/Engineering Systems Manager Cla-Val Company 949-722-4834 jsimmons@cla-val.com City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #6 Attachment F draft Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan and request for Council Resolution supporting the draft plan. HISTORY: In January 2018, the Legislature passed the streamflow restoration law (RCW 90.94) to restore stream flows to levels necessary to support robust, healthy, and sustainable salmon populations while providing water for homes in rural Washington; this law was in response to the 2016 Hirst decision. This law directs the Dept. of Ecology to convene Committees in eight watersheds surrounding Puget Sound to develop watershed plans that will offset impacts from new domestic permit-exempt wells and achieve a net ecological benefit within the watershed. The City of Arlington’s southern boundary is within the Water Resource Inventory Area 7 watershed and staff has been part of the WRIA 7 regional planning process since October 2018. The draft Plan is RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON APPROVING AND SUPPORTING WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY’S SUBMISSION OF THE WRIA 7 WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, in response to the January 2016 Washington State Supreme Court Hirst decision, the state Legislature passed the streamflow restoration law (RCW 90.94) requiring restoration of stream flows to levels necessary to support robust, healthy, and sustainable salmon populations while providing water for homes in rural Washington; and WHEREAS, this law directs the Washington state Department of Ecology to convene Committees in eight watersheds surrounding Puget Sound to develop watershed plans that will offset impacts from new domestic permit-exempt wells and achieve a net ecological benefit within the watershed; and WHEREAS, Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 7 is included within the eight watersheds identified in the law and Arlington City limits extend into WRIA 7; and WHEREAS, City of Arlington Water Resources staff has been part of the WRIA 7 Committee since October 2018, contributing to the development and drafting of the WRIA 7 draft Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arlington, as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Arlington hereby approves and supports submittal to Ecology of the WRIA 7 draft Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan. APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this 5th day of April 2021. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney WRIA7 WREC Plan Review Memo to Planning Commission.docx 2 City of Arlington Review Process Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan - WRIA 7 – Snohomish Watershed Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 1 WRIA 7 Snohomish Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee Overview More information Visit the Streamflow Restoration webpage 1. Contact information Ingria Jones WRIA 7 Committee Chair ingria.jones@ecy.wa.gov 425-649-4210 ADA accommodations To request ADA accommodation including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6872 or visit ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. For TTY or Relay Service call 711 or 877-833-6341. Background In January 2018, the Legislature passed the Streamflow Restoration law to help restore streamflow levels. Its purpose is to support robust, healthy, and sustainable salmon populations while providing water for homes in rural Washington. The law calls for local watershed planning and project implementation that improve streamflows. The Department of Ecology funds implementation through its competitive grant program2. Specifically, the law directs Ecology to convene Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committees in eight watersheds surrounding Puget Sound. Each of these committees will develop a watershed restoration and enhancement plan (watershed plan). The plan must identify projects that: offset the potential impacts future permit-exempt domestic groundwater withdrawals will have on streamflows; and, provide a net ecological benefit 3 (NEB) to the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA). All members of the WRIA 7 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee must approve the watershed plan prior to submitting its plan to Ecology for review. Ecology must complete its review by June 30, 2021. If it meets the requirements of the law and guidance, Ecology will adopt the plan. 1 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Streamflow-restoration 2 https://ecology.wa.gov/StreamflowGrants 3 Final Guidance for Determining Net Ecological Benefit https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1911079.html Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 2 Committee Membership The Streamflow Restoration law instructed Ecology to chair the WRIA 7 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee 4 and invite entities in the watershed to participate, including tribal governments, county governments, city governments, Department of Fish and Wildlife, the largest non-municipal water purveyor, the largest irrigation district, and interest groups. Local governments on the Committee selected organizations to represent agricultural interests, the residential construction industry, and environmental interests through a nomination process. The WRIA 7 Committee also added "ex officio" members, who were not listed in the law but provide valuable information and perspective. Members include: Tulalip Tribes Snoqualmie Indian Tribe King County Snohomish County City of Arlington City of Carnation City of Duvall City of Everett City of Gold Bar Town of Index City of Lake Stevens City of Marysville City of Monroe City of North Bend City of Snohomish City of Snoqualmie City of Seattle - ex officio member Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Ecology Snohomish Public Utility District Washington Water Trust Snohomish Conservation District Master Builder Association of King and Snohomish Counties Snoqualmie Valley Watershed Improvement District Snoqualmie Watershed Forum - ex officio member Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum - ex officio member Approval Overview Ecology, the WRIA 7 Committee, and technical consultants have been developing the plan since October 2018. The Committee aims to finalize the plan for local review and Committee approval in late 2020 or early 2021. The law states that all members of the Committee must approve the plan prior to adoption. The law also requires that Ecology adopt the watershed plan by June 30, 2021, so Ecology must begin review of approved plans in early 2021. Committee members are expected to communicate frequently on Committee decisions and progress to their decision making bodies throughout the planning process. This includes thorough review and feedback of materials developed for the plan, such as technical memos and optional sections not required to be part of the plan. Ecology staff are available to support Committee members in preparing briefings, presentations, or other materials to ensure that decision making bodies are informed throughout the process and prepared to make a decision on the final plan. Reaching consensus on all plan components, when possible, will be critical for final plan approval. Only plans approved by all members of the Committee will move forward for Ecology review. 4 www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias__1962/37310/watershed_restoration_and_enhancement_-_wria_7.aspx Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 3 Steps to Completing the Plan Step 1. Delineate Subbasins – Mid/Late 2019 Divide the watershed into suitably sized areas that allow for meaningful analysis of the relationship between new consumptive water use and water offset projects. Step 2. Project Growth of New Permit-Exempt Domestic Wells – Mid/Late 2019 Estimate the number of new homes built between 2018 and 2038 that will rely on wells as their water source. Step 3. Estimate New Consumptive Water Use – Late 2019 Estimate the consumptive water use associated with new permit-exempt domestic wells for each subbasin. The consumptive water use estimate includes the indoor household use and outdoor use to maintain a noncommercial lawn or garden. Step 4. Identify Projects and Actions – Early/Mid 2020 Identify projects and actions that offset impacts associated with new consumptive water use. The Committee may, at their discretion, decide to include projects and actions that go above and beyond the minimum requirements as time and resources allow. Step 5. Additional Plan Components (Not Required) – Mid 2020 The statute and the NEB guidance suggest other plan components for the Committee to consider. For example, adaptive management and a NEB evaluation of the plan. Step 6. Plan Finalization and Committee Review – Late 2020 Compile technical memos summarizing methods, data and results, and additional plan components previously reviewed by the Committee. Step 7. Approve Plan and Submit to Ecology – Early 2021 The Committee must submit the locally approved watershed plan within a reasonable time (early first quarter 2021) for Ecology review prior to the adoption deadline of June 30, 2021. Step 8. Ecology Review – Early 2021 Ecology will begin its review after the plan is formally approved by the Committee. If Ecology adopts the plan by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021, the planning process is completed. Step 9. If Needed: Plan Finalization and Rulemaking – After June 30, 2021 If the Committee does not approve the plan or if Ecology determines that a locally approved plan does not meet the law’s requirements prior to June 30, 2021, then Ecology is required to finalize the plan and begin a rulemaking process. Per the statute, Ecology will prepare a draft plan to submit to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and request that the SRFB provide a technical review and recommendations to amend the final draft plan, if necessary, to result in a net ecological benefit to instream resources within the WRIA. Ecology will then consider the recommendations and finalize the plan. After adoption of the final plan, Ecology must initiate rule making within six months to incorporate recommendations into rules adopted under 90.94, 90.22 or 90.54 RCW. Ecology then has two years to adopt amended rules. Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 4 Timeline for Watershed Planning Process 2018 / Early 2019 Mid / Late 2019 Late 2019 Early 2020 Mid 2020 Steps 1 & 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 · Committees are formed · Agreement on operating principles · Project growth of new permit-exempt domestic wells consumptive water use actions Components (Not Required) Late 2020 Early 2021 Early 2021 After June 30, 2021 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Committee Review Local and Commitee Plan Approval · Submit approved plan to Ecology in early Quarter 1 of 2021 · Reviews and makes NEB determination · Adopts plan, if meets requirements of law and guidance, by June 30, 2021 · Prepares plan · Submits plan to SRFB for technical review and recommendations · Finalizes and adopts plan · Initiates rule making Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 1 WRIA 7 Snohomish Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee Overview More information Visit the Streamflow Restoration webpage 1. Contact information Ingria Jones WRIA 7 Committee Chair ingria.jones@ecy.wa.gov 425-649-4210 ADA accommodations To request ADA accommodation including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6872 or visit ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. For TTY or Relay Service call 711 or 877-833-6341. Background In January 2018, the Legislature passed the Streamflow Restoration law to help restore streamflow levels. Its purpose is to support robust, healthy, and sustainable salmon populations while providing water for homes in rural Washington. The law calls for local watershed planning and project implementation that improve streamflows. The Department of Ecology funds implementation through its competitive grant program2. Specifically, the law directs Ecology to convene Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committees in eight watersheds surrounding Puget Sound. Each of these committees will develop a watershed restoration and enhancement plan (watershed plan). The plan must identify projects that: offset the potential impacts future permit-exempt domestic groundwater withdrawals will have on streamflows; and, provide a net ecological benefit 3 (NEB) to the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA). All members of the WRIA 7 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee must approve the watershed plan prior to submitting its plan to Ecology for review. Ecology must complete its review by June 30, 2021. If it meets the requirements of the law and guidance, Ecology will adopt the plan. 1 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Streamflow-restoration 2 https://ecology.wa.gov/StreamflowGrants 3 Final Guidance for Determining Net Ecological Benefit https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1911079.html Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 2 Committee Membership The Streamflow Restoration law instructed Ecology to chair the WRIA 7 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee 4 and invite entities in the watershed to participate, including tribal governments, county governments, city governments, Department of Fish and Wildlife, the largest non-municipal water purveyor, the largest irrigation district, and interest groups. Local governments on the Committee selected organizations to represent agricultural interests, the residential construction industry, and environmental interests through a nomination process. The WRIA 7 Committee also added "ex officio" members, who were not listed in the law but provide valuable information and perspective. Members include: Tulalip Tribes Snoqualmie Indian Tribe King County Snohomish County City of Arlington City of Carnation City of Duvall City of Everett City of Gold Bar Town of Index City of Lake Stevens City of Marysville City of Monroe City of North Bend City of Snohomish City of Snoqualmie City of Seattle - ex officio member Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Ecology Snohomish Public Utility District Washington Water Trust Snohomish Conservation District Master Builder Association of King and Snohomish Counties Snoqualmie Valley Watershed Improvement District Snoqualmie Watershed Forum - ex officio member Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum - ex officio member Approval Overview Ecology, the WRIA 7 Committee, and technical consultants have been developing the plan since October 2018. The Committee aims to finalize the plan for local review and Committee approval in late 2020 or early 2021. The law states that all members of the Committee must approve the plan prior to adoption. The law also requires that Ecology adopt the watershed plan by June 30, 2021, so Ecology must begin review of approved plans in early 2021. Committee members are expected to communicate frequently on Committee decisions and progress to their decision making bodies throughout the planning process. This includes thorough review and feedback of materials developed for the plan, such as technical memos and optional sections not required to be part of the plan. Ecology staff are available to support Committee members in preparing briefings, presentations, or other materials to ensure that decision making bodies are informed throughout the process and prepared to make a decision on the final plan. Reaching consensus on all plan components, when possible, will be critical for final plan approval. Only plans approved by all members of the Committee will move forward for Ecology review. 4 www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias__1962/37310/watershed_restoration_and_enhancement_-_wria_7.aspx Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 3 Steps to Completing the Plan Step 1. Delineate Subbasins – Mid/Late 2019 Divide the watershed into suitably sized areas that allow for meaningful analysis of the relationship between new consumptive water use and water offset projects. Step 2. Project Growth of New Permit-Exempt Domestic Wells – Mid/Late 2019 Estimate the number of new homes built between 2018 and 2038 that will rely on wells as their water source. Step 3. Estimate New Consumptive Water Use – Late 2019 Estimate the consumptive water use associated with new permit-exempt domestic wells for each subbasin. The consumptive water use estimate includes the indoor household use and outdoor use to maintain a noncommercial lawn or garden. Step 4. Identify Projects and Actions – Early/Mid 2020 Identify projects and actions that offset impacts associated with new consumptive water use. The Committee may, at their discretion, decide to include projects and actions that go above and beyond the minimum requirements as time and resources allow. Step 5. Additional Plan Components (Not Required) – Mid 2020 The statute and the NEB guidance suggest other plan components for the Committee to consider. For example, adaptive management and a NEB evaluation of the plan. Step 6. Plan Finalization and Committee Review – Late 2020 Compile technical memos summarizing methods, data and results, and additional plan components previously reviewed by the Committee. Step 7. Approve Plan and Submit to Ecology – Early 2021 The Committee must submit the locally approved watershed plan within a reasonable time (early first quarter 2021) for Ecology review prior to the adoption deadline of June 30, 2021. Step 8. Ecology Review – Early 2021 Ecology will begin its review after the plan is formally approved by the Committee. If Ecology adopts the plan by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021, the planning process is completed. Step 9. If Needed: Plan Finalization and Rulemaking – After June 30, 2021 If the Committee does not approve the plan or if Ecology determines that a locally approved plan does not meet the law’s requirements prior to June 30, 2021, then Ecology is required to finalize the plan and begin a rulemaking process. Per the statute, Ecology will prepare a draft plan to submit to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and request that the SRFB provide a technical review and recommendations to amend the final draft plan, if necessary, to result in a net ecological benefit to instream resources within the WRIA. Ecology will then consider the recommendations and finalize the plan. After adoption of the final plan, Ecology must initiate rule making within six months to incorporate recommendations into rules adopted under 90.94, 90.22 or 90.54 RCW. Ecology then has two years to adopt amended rules. Water Resources Program Publication 20-11-071 February 2020 Page 4 Timeline for Watershed Planning Process 2018 / Early 2019 Mid / Late 2019 Late 2019 Early 2020 Mid 2020 Steps 1 & 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 · Committees are formed · Agreement on operating principles · Project growth of new permit-exempt domestic wells consumptive water use actions Components (Not Required) Late 2020 Early 2021 Early 2021 After June 30, 2021 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Committee Review Local and Commitee Plan Approval · Submit approved plan to Ecology in early Quarter 1 of 2021 · Reviews and makes NEB determination · Adopts plan, if meets requirements of law and guidance, by June 30, 2021 · Prepares plan · Submits plan to SRFB for technical review and recommendations · Finalizes and adopts plan · Initiates rule making City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #7 Attachment G General Fund Operating Statement City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #8 Attachment H COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 22, 2021 SUBJECT: Community and Economic Development Monthly Report ATTACHMENTS: Monthly Report, Smokey Point Conceptual Park Plan, Conceptual Mixed-Use Boulevard Design for Smokey point Blvd., Signed Letter from Planning Commission to City Council, Letter from Planning Commission Supporting Vision 2050 Elements Through Roadway Design, Memo from Perteet Engineering Re: SP Blvd. 2040 analysis DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Monthly department report to Council. HISTORY: To go over current development projects and work being conducted by the CED department, and address any questions that Council may have. ALTERNATIVES: Information only. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. 0 Community and Economic Development Monthly Status Report Reporting Period: March 2021 Staffing Report: • We have completed our interview process for a replacement of the Code Compliance position. Four final candidates were interviewed and we have made our selection of the most qualified candidate. Carey Lundstrom will begin employment with the City of Arlington the first week of April. Carey comes with significant experience, being a Code Enforcement Officer for both the City of Lynnwood and the City of Federal Way, as well as a Police Officer for the Hoquiam Police Department. Carey and his family reside in Arlington and they love it here. CED anxiously awaits his arrival. Update on Current Contracts: • BERK contract for Planned Action EIS for the Arlington portion of the Cascade Industrial Center has concluded, with the Planned Action being adopted at the January 19, 2021 City Council meeting. • Complete Streets project (59th Ave.) Design in progress. • Blueline Group contract for the Housing Action Plan (HAP). The final version will be presented to Planning Commission on March 16th for recommendation to City Council and City Council will be presented with the plan at the March 22nd Workshop and heard at a Public Hearing on March 29th for adoption. • Other work product being produced by Blueline is the Smokey Point conceptual park plan-see attachment. The Smokey Point Blvd. conceptual mixed-use roadway design-see attachments. And CAD design for the 59th Ave. Complete Streets project. Challenges: • There have been ongoing, internal, differences in opinion regarding roadway design and how correct design can attribute to the creation of desirable neighborhoods with roadways that provide for safe pedestrian walkability, bicycle friendly corridors, economic viability and the type of aesthetics that provide for “livable” human-scaled environments, a place where you want to be, not have to be, a roadway that addresses all users, not just vehicles. Or build roadways that are designed to just move traffic, with as much volume, and as rapidly as possible, just to meet outdated engineering metrics. The CED department and Planning Commission have been working diligently on the mixed-use development of Smokey Point Blvd. for the last five years, with the intention of creating a desirable neighborhood that will attract and sustain a vibrant economic base, as well as provide for varietal housing choices along this commercial corridor. As you may recall, this was always the intent from the original concept of the West Arlington Sub-area planning back in 2012, to the adoption of the Horizontal Mixed-Use Development Regulations, adopted in 2017, and the rezone of Smokey Point Blvd. in its entirety in 2020. We are starting to realize the tangible results to all of this planning, public participation and adoption of the regulatory tools to achieve that vision. This is a pivotal place in Arlington’s future, where we have the choice to make the Boulevard a desirable place, or just an continuation of the “Old Highway 99” type of roadway, and the subsequent type of development that comes with it. Please take a moment to read the letters from the Planning Commission, and their opinion as to the direction that Arlington needs to take. Also, provided for your information is the conceptual design of what CED/Planning Commission have long envisioned for the Smokey Point Blvd. corridor. Opportunities: • New Programs/General Information Meetings: • CED met with City of Marysville to discuss transportation issues related to development within the CIC, which affect both cities, and how better coordination and ongoing communication will help to alleviate any misunderstandings between the two jurisdictions. • CED met with the owners of Moe’s on Olympic, to discuss the proposed “parklet” in front of their store, which was recently installed. • CED met with a development group wishing to continue with development of the Portage Creek project on 207th St. with a proposed 60 townhomes and 29 detached condominiums. • CED met with an individual that is proposing a 140 unit apartment building adjacent to the Best Western in Smokey Point. The applicant did not provide for the required mixed use component in his proposal and left to redesign the building. • CED met with two separate individuals who are looking to build industrial buildings on property adjacent to Arlington Valley Road. Planning Commission: • February 2, 2021 Planning Commission Workshop 1. Lindsay Annexation 2 Discussion of changes to the AMC related to DOR Business License Services 3. Smokey Point Blvd. Corridor Design • February 18, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting 1. Smokey Point Blvd. Corridor Design 2. WRIA 7 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan Council Action Items: • February 8, 2021 City Council Meeting 1. Petition for 10% Lindsay Annexation 2. Proposed revisions to AMC Title 5 3. Ordinance to approve contract with DOR for Business Licensing Services 4. Dedication of ROW for Grandview SP. 5. Dedication of ROW for Swire Coca-Cola 6. Dedication of ROW for Gayteway Business Park - 197th and 74th. SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D . Date: 03-16-2021 0 4020 80 1 8 14 2 9A 15 3 16 4 6 10 9B 17 12 5 7 11 13 LEGEND TRELLIS GATEWAY WITH INTEGRAL PARK SIGN PLAZA WITH SEATING AND SHADE SAILS GREAT LAWN PLAZA PLAZA 178TH PL NE MEDIAN MEDIAN TRAFFIC LANE BIKE LANE R. O . W . PROPERTY LINE PARK SIGN Concept ENTRY PILLAR/SCULPTURE COVERED PERFORMANCE STAGE AGE 5-12 PLAYGROUND LOADING AREA/FOOD TRUCK PARKING CONCRETE SIDEWALK WATER FEATURE WITH TWIN “SMOKE STACK” CASCADING WATER COLUMNS BIKE RACKS AGE 2-5 PLAYGROUND RESTROOM BUILDING 90 DEGREE PARKING SYNTHETIC TURF PLAY MOUND SHADE TRELLIS BACK-IN ANGLE PARKING SEAT WALLS RESTROOM/CONCESSION BUILDING SMOKEY POINT PARK - CONCEPT PLAN SMOKEY POINT BLVD. AND 178TH PL NE 34 1 1 15 5 6 6 7 3 8 17 11 16 9A9B 10 14 12 13 13 16 R.O.W. ALLEY 2 2 • The park concept is based on two key local historical places of interest: Nearby Rex’s Corner, location of the Smoky Point Cafe, for which the local community is named; and the old oval horse track for which the local Pony Estates neighborhood is named. • Rex’s Corner was one of several named “corners” in Snohomish County and was a key rest stop for road trips in the 1920’s - 1960’s with its restaurant, tavern and gas station. The plaza entry trellises and rectilinear layout with several corners hearken back to the original Rex’s corner architecture and establish a strong corner visually. • A twin vertical ‘smoke stack’ water feature in the plaza with wa- ter flowing out the top of each column recalls the Smoky Point Cafe with its chimneys and the barbecue smoke they sent out. • The plaza ‘back yard’ provides opportunities for recreation and special events and recalls how Rex loved sports and allowed 10- acre property behind his restaurant to be converted to a baseball field. • The more formal oval layout of the “Great Lawn” and perimeter walking path recall the now vanished oval horse track. The covered performance stage with its adjacent berm and formal arc of trees provides a formal focal point for this large gathering and activity space and a backdrop for the entry plaza. • Additional gathering and activity spaces including shaded picnic plaza, playground, and restroom/concession building anchor the east end of the park. • 50 total parking stalls (48 standard + 2 disabled) City of Arlington Planning Commission February 22, 2021 Memorandum Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Policy Board Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Land Use Technical Advisory Committee Regarding: City of Arlington Smokey Point Corridor Development “For decades, we have been building transportation through communities, rather than creating communities through transportation. Streets designed only to move cars can work so much harder. They can certainly carry more people by more modes of transportation—but they can also become great places in their own right”1. The City of Arlington has shown a commitment to the formation of special places as it continues to grow population and economic activity. The creation of these quality, walkable, multi-modal neighborhoods is an outgrowth of both PSRC’s Vision 2040/2050 and the planning policies of Snohomish County. For our Smokey Point Corridor, that commitment is implemented through the standards expressed in the Mixed-Use Development Code, approved by the Arlington City Council in 2017. The intent of these regulations is to employ a Form Based design strategy in the creation of neighborhoods that imbody the best principles of urban design. We envision the potential for this corridor to be a mixed-use neighborhood, providing the opportunity for significant housing re-development with housing-adjacent commercial activity, primarily serving the needs of the local community. Only recently has the planning emphasis in this area evolved from early attempts to unify a bifurcated city to the creation of a special neighborhood with its own unique character. We can only realize this vision if the design of the primary North/South transportation corridor through this area is reflective of the pedestrian oriented requirements of a successful mixed-use, form based, neighborhood design. 1 From the Project for Public Spaces; February 12, 2021 We have concluded that the most land-use-compatible profile for the mile of Smokey Point Boulevard between 173rd and 188th streets is a multi-way boulevard with the following general characteristics: • Two center travel lanes; one each direction • Center median with left turn lanes at cross street intersections. • One slower access lane on each side of the roadway with back-in angle parking, clearly marked bicycle lanes and transit stops. The access lanes should be separated from travel lanes by a narrow, planted median. • Wide sidewalks on the outboard edge of the back-in parking. Careful consideration to the relationships among frontage zone, pedestrian through zone and street furniture zone. • Access lanes straight through intersections (see: Octavia Blvd. in San Francisco) • 25 MPH speed limit on the through lanes, slower in the access lanes. • Generous landscaping including the use of canopy trees in the median. While we understand that the design of multi-way boulevards is more complex than simple arterials or local streets, the long-term advantages of this design concept for Smokey Point development far outweigh the short-term design costs. The implementation of the land use projections for this area cannot be realized with conventional transportation solutions. A multi-way boulevard between 173rd and 188th along the Smokey Point corridor will provide the City the means to augment population absorption in a viable manner while at the same time providing the level of commercial and retail activity necessary to sustain the additional infrastructure generated by that development. The local vision for this neighborhood is further enhanced by providing a major transportation loop around the multi-way boulevard. Westbound 172nd, I-5 bound traffic (particularly north- bound) will be diverted to the north at Airport Boulevard. At 188th St, they will enter a roundabout westbound to join Smokey Point Boulevard just north of the mixed-use neighborhood (see attached map). The diversion at Airport Boulevard will significantly reduce the rush hour load on Smokey Point Blvd. south of 188th Street. The multi-way boulevard and surrounding mixed use development projected for Smokey Point in Arlington addresses both supportive and specific portions of Vison 2050. Our proposed form- based development in this area of the City directly addresses Vision 2050 goals and policies for development patterns, housing policies, and transportation imperatives. Roadway design in this one-mile corridor will be adaptive to future technological innovations, combining pick-up and drop-off lanes with a compact urban pedestrian catchment. In addition, the corridor is consistent with the following Vison 2050 transportation policies: • MPP-T-4 Improve the safety of the transportation system and, in the long term, achieve the state’s goal of zero deaths and serious injuries. It is well documented that slower speeds and physical separation of travel modes significantly reduces the frequency of traffic accidents, particularly car/pedestrian collisions. When accidents do occur in these protected areas, the resulting injuries are less severe and have a much lower fatality rate. The multi-way boulevard provides both of these design features; slow and separate, that will move Arlington closer to a Vision Zero traffic accident rate. • MPP-T-5 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to, and promotes, human health. Walkable neighborhoods have been shown to promote healthy lifestyles. Obesity, diabetes and other heart related morbidities have all decreased in cities that have provided its citizens the opportunity to walk in engaging, interesting urban places. • MPP-T-9 Implement transportation programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. Vision 2050 requires local jurisdictions to address issues of social equity. Transportation planning, including infrastructure, represents the most immediate area where urban design impacts equity concerns. The planned multi-way boulevard along Smokey Point provides a safe environment for pedestrians of all mobility ranges; provides improved conspicuity at crossing points; shortens crossing distances and provides refuge islands for mobility challenged pedestrians. In addition, the potential for sustainable transit service proportional to population density, connecting local residents to the Cascade Industrial Center and the downtown shopping area is improved with this boulevard configuration. • MPP-T-11 Design, construct, and operate a safe and convenient transportation system for all users while accommodating the movement of freight and goods, using best practices and context sensitive design strategies. Boulevard design is far more compatible with the planned-mixed use development than any other configuration of through lanes. Slower speeds and multi- modal safety in the access lanes and sidewalks will allow this neighborhood to develop on both sides of the thoroughfare in equal proportions. Typical street configurations with higher speed limits will likely bifurcate development, with more desirable activity on the east side and less attractive development on the freeway side. The street design of these neighborhoods provides for alleys in the rear of buildings facing the sidewalk. This configuration will allow for freight deliveries to business and residents without impeding the multi-modal activity on the front side of the buildings. • MPP-T-13 Increase the proportion of trips made by transportation modes that are alternatives to driving alone, especially to and within centers and along corridors connecting centers, by ensuring availability of reliable and competitive transit options. Access lanes allow safe access to a variety of future transportation alternatives. From transit to autonomous vehicles, the drop-off and pick-up areas provide safe and equitable access for residents seeking a reliable alternative to auto-centric transportation. For commuting the distance to employment in the Cascade Industrial Center, this street configuration provides the opportunity for a range of transit possibilities. From regional transit, connecting to the planned high-capacity bus routes from the south to local serving, micro-transit, transportation costs for residents of this neighborhood will be significantly reduced allowing for more affordable housing options. • MPP-T-15 Prioritize investments in transportation facilities and services in the urban growth area that support compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented densities and development. While this corridor is not envisioned with Transit Oriented Design criteria specifically, with the inclusion of a multi-way boulevard, it produces the same sustainable result. • MPP-T-16 Improve local street patterns – including their design and how they are used – for walking, bicycling, and transit use to enhance communities, connectivity, and physical activity. The multi-way boulevard, in conjunction with a system of cross streets, alleys and trails will provide true multi-modal connectivity to other employment, recreational, and shopping areas of the City. • MPP-T-17 Promote and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian travel as important modes of transportation by providing facilities and navigable connections. The success of commercial activity in mixed- use neighborhoods across the country is predicated on providing safe, engaging places for pedestrians to walk, relax, and shop. Businesses have found that building special places for people rather than automobiles can be far more profitable. While we cannot dictate which businesses will take advantage of this environment, we can provide the place for any business to thrive. Vision 2050 promotes development and redevelopment with the potential to achieve compact, mixed-use and walkable neighborhoods. In “Building Urban Communities”, Vision 2050 states that “growth in compact urban communities, especially near transit stations, can lead to a range of substantial social, environmental, and health benefits….” We could not agree more. We are aware that reductions in our carbon footprint, the direct mitigation of social equity issues, and the economic sustainability of cities is directly related to the quality of urban design. Our support for a form based urban environment is not new. There is sufficient documentation to convince us that Arlington’s future as a walkable, attractive and economically sustainable city is dependent on quality development that addresses the urban issues prioritized in Vision 2050. The design of our multi-way boulevard, while somewhat novel in this region, has been successfully employed in other cities to solve issues similar to ours. MEMORANDUM To: Jim Kelly, PE City of Arlington Public Works Director From: Dan Hansen, PE Mike Hendrix, PE, PTOE Jillian Backman, EIT Date: December 21, 2020 Re: Smokey Point Boulevard: 2040 Traffic Operations Analysis INTRODUCTION The City of Arlington has hired Perteet to design improvements along Smokey Point Boulevard from 174th Place NE to 200th Street NE. As part of this work, a traffic analysis is necessary to evaluate roadway sections, traffic control treatments, and intersection configuration to meet the city’s level of service and safety requirements. This memorandum documents Perteet’s traffic volume development process for evaluation of the design year (2040) analysis volumes of the five study intersections. It also includes any assumptions or calculations that were made as part of the traffic analysis process. Further, these numbers are then applied to the intersection operations to determine average delay and level of service for each of these intersections. This work will be utilized to determine the final configuration of Smokey Point Boulevard. EXISTING CONDITIONS Within the project limits, five intersections will undergo a traffic analysis. Table 1 details the cross streets that intersect Smokey Point Boulevard within the project limits. Table 1. Study Intersections Cross Street Speed Limit Intersection Control 174th Place NE 25mph Signal Local roadway 180th Street NE 25mph Local roadway 183rd Place NE 25mph Local roadway MEMORANDUM Cross Street Speed Limit Intersection Control 188th Street NE 35mph All-Way Stop Controlled Smokey Point Local Roadway Smokey Point Urban Major Collector 200th Street NE 25mph Local Roadway TRAFFIC VOLUMES ANALYSIS AND FORECAST This project traffic analysis will conduct review of intersection configurations under the following four conditions: 1. 2020 AM peak hour 2. 2020 PM peak hour 3. 2040 AM peak hour 4. 2040 PM peak hour Existing Traffic Volumes and Data The 2020 AM and PM peak hour volumes were established using collected turning movement count data. Due to COVID-19 related shutdowns, turning movement counts were not collected. Historical turning movement count data taken at 15-minute intervals were collected at the following cross streets of Smokey Point Boulevard: • 172nd Street NE (SR 531) • Smokey Point Drive / 174th Place NE • 35th Avenue NE • 180th Street NE • 186th Place NE • 188th Street NE • 200th Street NE No historical traffic count data was available for the intersection of Smokey Point Boulevard NE and 183rd Place NE. Patterns of similar intersections, specifically at the 180th Street NE and 186th Place NE intersections, were used to approximate the 183rd Place NE turning movement counts. See Table 3 for assumptions for this approximation. MEMORANDUM All of the counts were taken during PM peak hours except for Smokey Point Boulevard and 172nd Street NE (SR 531) where a 24-hour 15-minute interval count was conducted. This 24-hour count was used to evaluate the AM volumes compared to the daily volumes and PM peak volumes. It was found from this 24-hour count, that there were not two independent peaks in the AM and PM hours at this location. Rather, there was a steady increase of volume through the morning and afternoon to the PM peak before volumes decreased again. This trend can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1. Smokey Point Boulevard and 172nd Street NE (SR 531) 24-Hour Volumes The AM peak hour is simply the highest volume counts within the AM hours, which in this case is the 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM hour. Using the 24-hour volume count data, the percentage of daily vehicle counts for the AM and PM peak, found in Table 2, was derived. This allowed an approximation of AM volume counts to be determined from the historical PM turning movement counts for each study intersection. The expected growth rate, included in Table 2, was then applied to the AM and PM historic volumes to estimate anticipated 2020 turning movement counts without the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2040 Traffic Volumes and Data Forecast Methodology The City of Arlington developed a traffic model for the 2017 Comprehensive Plan update. This model projected traffic volumes to 2035. The intersections of Smokey Point Boulevard & 174th Place NE, Smokey Point Boulevard & 188th Street NE, and Smokey Point Boulevard & 200th Street 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Smokey Point Blvd @ 172nd St NE/SR 531 Daily Volumes MEMORANDUM NE were included in the model. To obtain 2040 traffic volumes, the 2035 traffic volumes were increased based on an annual growth rate, shown in Table 2. For the remaining intersections, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition was referenced to estimate future traffic volumes. It is expected both 180th Street NE and 183rd Place NE will be extended eastward to connect to Airport Boulevard by 2040. It was assumed the development along both of these new roadways for the parcels nearest to Smokey Point Boulevard would fall under Mid-Rise Residential with 1st-Floor Commercial, Land Use 231 in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Further from Smokey Point Boulevard, it was assumed the land use would fall under Business Park, Land Use 770, and Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise), Land Use 220. Twenty (20) units per acre were assumed for multifamily housing. These assumptions are supported by the City of Arlington Future Land Use Map and The City of Arlington Mixed Use Development Regulations. The mixed-use development (Land Use 231) requires additional information, such as gross floor area of the building and square footage of living units, to finalize the trips being generated. This information is typically not available until a development is being designed. Due to this, the traffic analysis team made a number of assumptions as summarized below: • 60% of the parcel would be utilized for gross floor area. The remaining 40% is assumed to be common space or parking. • Average dwelling unit is 900 square feet From these assumptions, as well as an approximate total square footage of the parcels on either side of the roadway, the number of trip ends could be determined using the fitted curve equations for AM and PM peaks of each of the land use code data. This number of trip ends was used to estimate the number of vehicles entering and exiting 180th Street NE and 183rd Place NE for the 2040 traffic analysis. Turning movement patterns from adjacent similar intersections were used to refine the development related volume distribution for each turning movement at each leg of the 180th Street NE and 183rd Place NE intersections. For example, it is predicted that approximately two- thirds of vehicles originating from side streets south of 188th Street NE are likely to travel southbound on Smokey Point Boulevard. Similarly, historic turning movement counts were evaluated to determine the direction and distribution of where vehicles originating from side streets were likely to exit the project limits. Turning movement counts at Smokey Point Boulevard and 172nd Street NE (SR 531) revealed that approximately one quarter of vehicles traveling southbound on Smokey Point Boulevard would ultimately head eastbound on 172nd Street NE (SR 531) and two-fifths would head westbound. This information, in conjunction with engineering judgment, was used to determine how many trips would utilize Smokey Point Boulevard versus Airport Boulevard from both 180th Street and 183rd Street. For these intersections, it was assumed 65% of vehicles would enter or exit the various developments on 180th Street and 183rd MEMORANDUM Street from Smokey Point. The remaining trips are anticipated to access these developments using Airport Boulevard. These projected development volumes were then added to the 2040 traffic volumes derived from applying the annual growth rate to the 2035 model traffic volumes. Table 2. Smokey Point Boulevard Traffic Analysis Volume Assumptions. Element for Analysis Value Reference/Notes Traffic Volume Growth Rates Annual 1% % ADT in AM Peak Hour 6.4% at Smokey Point Boulevard & % ADT in PM Peak Hour 7.6% at Smokey Point Boulevard & Design Year Traffic Volumes @ 174th Street NE 2035 Arlington Multi-Modal Model to estimate 2040 Arlington Multi-Modal Plan 2035 Synchro Model @ 180th Street NE General Light Industrial Land Use equations and 2040 volumes derived from annual ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition and historic TMC data @ 183rd Street NE General Light Industrial Land Use equations and 2040 volumes derived from annual ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition and historic TMC data @ 188th Street NE 2035 Arlington Multi-Modal Model to estimate 2040 Arlington Multi-Modal Plan 2035 Synchro Model @ 200th Street NE 2035 Arlington Multi-Modal Model to estimate 2040 Arlington Multi-Modal Plan 2035 Synchro Model Present Year Traffic Volumes @ 174th Street NE historic TMC data to estimate Historic TMCs @ 180th Street NE historic TMC data to estimate Historic TMCs MEMORANDUM Element for Analysis Value Reference/Notes @ 183rd Street NE originating from and accessing 183rd St NE using 1/2 186th Place NE peak hour volumes. Averaged incoming and outgoing volumes of TMC at 35th Ave NE and 180th Street NE to determine northbound Assumed same split of drivers originating on 183rd Place NE turning to travel north or south on Smokey Point Boulevard as 186th Place NE @ 188th Street NE historic TMC data to estimate Historic TMCs @ 200th Street NE historic TMC data to estimate Historic TMCs 2040 Traffic Volumes Forecast Utilizing the methodology described above, the 2040 traffic volumes were generated for the intersections of Smokey Point Boulevard with 200th Street NE, 188th Street NE, 183rd Place NE, 180th Street NE, and 174th Place NE/Smokey Point Drive. The PM peak hour counts were then used to approximate ADT volumes for each segment. The ADT volumes are intended to provide preliminary guidance for the corridor cross-section and are provided in Table 3. Table 3. 2040 Roadway Segment ADT Volumes Roadway Segment 174th Place NE to 180th Street NE 30,500 180th Street NE to 183rd Place NE 24,600 183rd Place NE to 188th Street NE 22,400 188th Street NE to 200th Street NE 21,000 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) produced a report titled Simplified Highway Capacity Calculation Method for the Highway performance Monitoring System in October 2017 to assist practitioners with a quick way to determine corridor level of service based on ADT volume information. For signalized highway’s, the inputs are the number of lanes, percent of green time for the main street, and the speed limit. Although the type of traffic control at the study intersections is still to be determined, it was assumed that roundabout control would MEMORANDUM result in an equivalent less percent green time for a 2-lane corridor since main line traffic would be required to yield to traffic already in the circle. For a 4-lane corridor, the equivalent green time would be more since roughly twice the number of vehicles on the main line would be able to enter the intersection at a time. Assumptions: • Speed limit is 35 miles per hour • For a 2-lane road, the percent green time would be roughly 50% • For a 4-lane road, the percent green time would be roughly 60% Therefore, a LOS D is reached when a 2-lane roadway has 20,700 vehicles per day (vpd). A 4-lane road reaches this threshold at 50,700 vpd. As shown in Table 3, traffic volumes exceed the 2- lane LOS threshold for all segments within the project limits. The segment from 188th Street NE to 200th Street NE is just over the threshold by 300 vehicles per day. The cross section on this segment should be determined by the intersection treatments at both 188th Street NE and 200th Street NE. The results of that analysis is below. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Traffic operations were reviewed for the five intersections noted above for the 2040 PM peak hour to assist in determining what the intersection configuration should be the accommodate the traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. Intersection Level of Service Analysis To determine the treatment, a stepped process was used. First, the roadway configuration for Smokey Point Boulevard (SPB) was used. This resulted in two-lane or four-lane alternatives. Then, the analysis of traffic control was reviewed. This reviewed the following types of traffic control: • Side street stop control (e.g. Smokey Point Boulevard would be free flowing) • Traffic signal control • Roundabout Table 4 shows a comparison of the two-lane and four-lane corridor alternatives for side street stop control. Note that the level of service (LOS) for stop controlled intersections is determined by the highest delay on an approach. LOS for traffic signal controlled intersections and intersections with roundabouts are an average control delay for the entire intersection. MEMORANDUM Table 4. 2040 PM Peak Hour Stop Control Delay (second/vehicle) and LOS. Intersection Control LOS Intersection Control LOS 180th Street NE 4,923.7 F 180th Street NE 2,883.9 F 183rd Place NE 1,138.8 F 183rd Place NE 721.2 F 188th Street NE See text for explanation 188th Street NE See text for explanation 200th Street NE 28.6 D 200th Street NE 28.6 D For the 188th Street NE intersection, the high volumes on the east leg of the intersection resulted in delays which was in excess of what could be calculated by Synchro. This is due to the high amount of through and left turning traffic which are were all over 300 vehicles per hour. These approaching volumes combined with the high volumes on northbound and southbound approaches (985 and 659, respectively) essentially render it impossible for vehicles to exit on to Smokey Point Boulevard during the PM peak hour. As such, this intersection should be considered to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The intersections of 180th Street NE and 183rd Place NE also operate at LOS F with substantial delays in both the two-lane and four-lane SPB configuration. The intersection with 200th Street NE operates at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak in the two-lane alternative. As such, an analysis for the four-lane option was not considered. Due to the high delays for the three of the four intersections, the traffic signal control option was reviewed. Again, this was done with both two-lane and four-lane SPB configurations. These results are shown in Table 5 below. Table 5. 2040 PM Peak Hour Traffic Signal Control Delays (second/vehicle) and LOS. Intersection Control LOS Intersection Control LOS 180th Street NE 39.0 D 180th Street NE 17.9 B 183rd Place NE 19.1 B 183rd Place NE 13.5 B 188th Street NE 57.7 E 188th Street NE 31.5 C 200th Street NE 8.1 A 200th Street NE 8.1 A Overall, in both SPB configurations, the intersections operated better than side street control. All of the intersections operated at LOS D or better in both configurations with the exception of MEMORANDUM the 188th Street NE intersection which operated at LOS F with a two-lane SPB. The intersection with 200th Street NE operated at LOS A in the two-lane SPB configuration. However, prior to installing a signal at 200th Street and SPB, a signal warrant analysis should be conducted. Based on projected volumes in 2040, the approach volumes on 200th Street would be roughly 150 vehicles. Of these, 104 vehicles are expected to turn right and head southbound. A traffic signal would be helpful for this movement but would add delay to through traffic and not necessarily reduce the delay for right turning traffic to compensate for the additional mainline delay. As such, a traffic signal is not considered an appropriate traffic control treatment for capacity reasons. Finally, a roundabout analysis was conducted to determine the impacts on delay. The results of this analysis is shown in Table 6. Table 6. 2040 PM Peak Hour Roundabout Control Delays (second/vehicle) and LOS. Intersection Control LOS Intersection Control LOS 180th Street NE 36.4 E 180th Street NE 9.3 A 183rd Place NE 23.6 C 183rd Place NE 8.3 A 188th Street NE 89.4 F 188th Street NE 18.0 B 200th Street NE 13.6 B 200th Street NE 13.6 B The roundabout analysis clearly indicated that the two-lane SPB configuration would not be acceptable for two of the four intersections. The intersections of 180th Street NE and 188th Street NE would operate at LOS E and LOS F, respectively. Due to their locations on the corridor, switching from a two-lane to four-lane corridor would not be efficient and would introduce merging conflicts along the corridor as the roadway section changed from four-lanes to two- lanes and back to four-lanes. Comparatively, the four-lane SPB configuration with roundabouts resulted in all intersections operating at LOS A or LOS B. In all cases, with the exception of 200th Street NE, the intersections operated at a higher LOS than with a traffic signal. Intersection Traffic Control Determination of the appropriate intersection traffic control is dependent on a number of factors including safety, warrants, and intersection capacity. From the analysis conducted, it is evident that a two-lane SPB corridor would not be able to effectively handle the expected traffic volumes in 2040. Further, with the exception of the intersection of SPB and 200th Street NE, side MEMORANDUM street stop control would not meet the City’s LOS standard. Therefore, the choice of traffic control for the intersections south of 200th Street is limited to traffic signals or roundabouts. Table 7 below summarizes the roundabout and traffic signal analysis for the 4-lane SPB configuration. Table 7. Comparison between Roundabout and Signal Control Intersection Control LOS Average Control LOS 180th Street NE 9.3 A 17.9 B 183rd Place NE 8.3 A 13.5 B 188th Street NE 18.0 B 31.5 C 200th Street NE 13.6 B 8.1 A From a delay perspective, the roundabout results in less delay with the exception of the 200th Street intersection. Even with the increased delay at the 200th Street intersection, the LOS meets the City’s concurrency standard. Further, the use of roundabouts on the SPB corridor would produce additional benefits that conventional signals cannot accommodate easily. These include: • Speed Control. A properly designed roundabout can control operating speeds on a corridor through a combination of horizontal curvature inherent to the roundabout design. Further, aesthetic treatments such as landscaping can prevent a driver seeing a line of green lights common to signal controlled corridors resulting in increased operating speeds. • Reduced number and severity of collisions. Roundabouts are commonly used to reduce collisions. Due to their design, collisions at roundabouts are often restricted to rear-end and sideswipe style of collisions. As such, these types of collisions result in more property damage collisions compared to severe injury or fatal collisions. Traffic signals, by comparison, can have more severe injury collisions since there is no deflection to slow approaching vehicles which may violate a traffic signal indication. • Reduced maintenance. Compared to a traffic signal, roundabouts do not have annual maintenance costs such as relamping. Emergency callouts for signal outages are also not required. The City does not have signal maintenance crews inhouse and utilizes Snohomish County forces for signal work. The use of roundabouts would allow in-house City maintenance crews to continue to maintain the infrastructure for lower costs. MEMORANDUM • Aesthetics. Roundabouts provide a community the opportunity to add landscaping or other treatments to soften the appearance of roadway infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following are the conclusions from a review of the traffic analysis. 1. A four-lane configuration on SPB between 174th Place NE and 188th Street would serve the projected 2040 traffic volumes to meet City concurrency standards. A two-lane configuration from 188th Street NE to 200th Street NE would be acceptable and meet City concurrency standards. 2. Intersection traffic control at the intersections of SPB with 180th Street NE, 183rd Place NE, and 188th Street NE should be via a roundabout. To accommodate the volume of traffic, these roundabouts would be a multi-lane roundabout. This would allow for minimal delay and maintain safety. 3. Intersection traffic control at SPB and 200th Street NE should be a side street stop sign. The delay will be within City concurrency standards and be the most cost- effective treatment for this intersection.