HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-17 Council Meeting
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403‐3441 or 1‐800‐833‐8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Barb Tolbert
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Mayor Barb Tolbert – Kristin
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
SWEARING IN
Sergeant Mike Gilbert
Police Chief Jonathan Ventura/City Attorney Steve Peiffle
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT
For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council about any matter not on the Public Hearing
portion of the meeting. Please limit remarks to three minutes.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson
1. Minutes of the August 7 and September 11, 2017 council meetings ATTACHMENT A
2. Accounts Payable
3. Comprehensive Plan Amendments ATTACHMENT B
Ordinance adopting comprehensive plan amendments:
Urban Growth / ARL 3 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Land Use and Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
West Arlington Sub‐Area (WASA) Plan Language Removal
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Overlay Removal
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Elements
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Mixed Use Language Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Arlington City Council Meeting
Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm
City Council Chambers – 110 E 3rd Street
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403‐3441 or 1‐800‐833‐8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
4. Snohomish County Drug & Gang Task Force Interlocal Amendment (ILA) #1 ATTACHMENT C
Staff Presentation: Jonathan Ventura
Council Liaison: Jesica Stickles/Marilyn Oertle
5. Resolution approving Astound Broadband (Wave Cable) franchise transfer ATTACHMENT D
Staff Presentation: Kristin Banfield
Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson
PUBLIC HEARING
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of 2017‐2018 Budget Modification Calendar ATTACHMENT E
Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis
Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson
2. Professional Services Agreement ATTACHMENT F
Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis
Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson
DISCUSSION ITEMS
INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORT
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS – OPTIONAL
EXECUTIVE SESSION
RECONVENE
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Barb Tolbert
DRAFT
Page 1 of 3
Council Chambers
110 East Third St
August 7, 2017
Council Members Present: Mike Hopson, Jan Schuette, Debora Nelson, Chris Raezer, Sue
Weiss, Jesica Stickles, and Marilyn Oertle.
Council Members Absent:
City Staff Present: Mayor Barbara Tolbert, Paul Ellis, Heather Logan, Kristin Banfield,
Kristin Garcia, Jonathan Ventura, Jim Kelly, Kris Wallace, Erik Moon, Sgt. Mike Keating, Sgt.
Kay Schander, Mike Gilbert, Ken Thomas, Anthony Davis, Christopher Perisho, and City
Attorney Steve Peiffle.
Also Known to be Present: Maxine Jenft, Bob Nelson, Kathy Bullene, Aidan Keating, Joel
Moreno (KOMO TV), Doug Buell, Everett Lewis, and Greg Winter.
Mayor Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm, and the pledge of allegiance followed.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson moved and Councilmember Raezer seconded the motion to
approve the agenda as presented, which passed with a unanimous vote.
INTRODUCTIONS OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Police Chief Jonathan Ventura introduced Sergeant Mike Keating and recognized him for his
29 years of service to the citizens of Arlington. Sergeant Keating will be retiring from the City
of Arlington Police Department on September 1, 2017.
PROCLAMATIONS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Everett Lewis, Arlington, shared his recent conversations with the Washington State
Department of Transportation about the 211th Street NE intersection with SR 530. He also
expressed concerns of speeding on Division between Olympic and French.
Greg Winters, Arlington, expressed concerns about the community including crime and drug
activity. He also shared his perspective on the incident on the Centennial Trail Bridge over
the Stillaguamish River on Friday night.
Minutes of the Arlington
City Council Meeting
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting August 7, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Mike, Arlington, shared that he regularly witnesses young individuals coming to Arlington
seeking drugs, alcohol, and doing other things.
Russ Kilponen, Arlington, raised a code enforcement concern of the placement of a dumpster
behind Dollar Tree on Haller Avenue. He has requested action in the past and would like to
see a resolution to the issue.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson moved and Councilmember Chris Raezer seconded the
motion to approve the Consent Agenda which was unanimously carried to approve the
following Consent Agenda items:
1. Minutes of the July 17 and July 24, 2017 Council meetings
2. Accounts Payable: approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #91405 through
#91409 and #91414 through #91539 dated July 18, 2017 through August 7, 2017
for $513,921.11
3. Denying the comprehensive plan amendment relating to an Urban Center / Multi‐
Family Tax Exemption, as described in RCW 84.14.005
PUBLIC HEARING
None.
NEW BUSINESS
Hayden Park Utility Extension Agreement Amendment
Public Works Director James Kelly reviewed the requested amendment to the Hayden Park
Utility Extension Agreement. Discussion followed. Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson moved and
Councilmember Sue Weiss seconded the motion to approve the Hayden Park Utility
Extension Agreement Amendment and authorize the mayor to sign, pending final review by
the City Attorney. The motion passed unanimously.
Arlington Valley Road Right of Way Purchase
Public Works Director James Kelly reviewed the requested purchase of right of way for the
proposed Arlington Valley Road. Discussion followed. Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson moved
and Councilmember ________________________ seconded the motion to authorize the right of way
acquisition and purchase of the right of way for Arlington Valley Road, pending final review
by the City Attorney. The motion passed unanimously.
Murraysmith, Inc. (MSA) Contract for Water and Pavement Design Services
Public Works Director James Kelly reviewed the requested contract for water and pavement
design services with Murraysmith, Inc. for 2018 ‐2021 capital improvement projects. Mayor
Pro Tem Debora Nelson moved and Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion to
approve the MSA proposal for design of the water main replacement and pavement
preservation work planned for 2018‐2021 and authorize the mayor to sign the contract,
pending final approval by the City Attorney. The motion passed unanimously.
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting August 7, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Ordinance adopting Stay Out of Designated Area (SODA) Orders
Police Chief Jonathan Ventura reviewed the proposed ordinance adopting a new chapter in
the Arlington Municipal Code relating to Stay Out of Designated Area (SODA) Orders.
Discussion followed. Councilmember Marilyn Oertle moved and Councilmember Jesica
Stickles seconded the motion to adopt the proposed ordinance a new chapter in the
Arlington Municipal Code relating to Stay Out of Designated Area (SODA) Orders. The motion
passed unanimously.
Resolution Designating High Narcotics Trafficking Area(s) related to prohibited areas
in Arlington’s Stay Out of Designated Areas (SODA) Ordinance
Police Chief Jonathan Ventura reviewed the proposed resolution designating the retail
corridor located within the Smokey Point neighborhood community as a high narcotics
trafficking area as related to prohibited areas under Arlington’s Stay Out of Designated Areas
(SODA) Ordinance. Discussion followed. Councilmember Jesica Stickles moved and
Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion to adopt the proposed resolution
adopting a “Stay Out of Designated Area (SODA)” zone for the City of Arlington and authorize
the Mayor to sign it. The motion passed unanimously.
ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
City Administrator Paul Ellis reported that the City will offering passport acceptance services
starting September 5, 2017. The Finance staff will help applicants for new passports to
submit their applications by appointment only from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. More details on
this service will be available on our website.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Councilmembers Oertle, Stickles, Weiss, Raezer, Nelson, Schuette, and Hopson gave brief
reports.
MAYOR’S REPORT
Mayor Tolbert reminded Council that the next meeting will be Monday, September 11, 2017.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
City Attorney announced that there would be no need for an Executive Session.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:01
p.m.
______________________________________
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
DRAFT
Page 1 of 3
Council Chambers
110 East Third Street
September 11, 2017
Councilmembers Present: Mike Hopson, Jan Schuette, Debora Nelson, Chris Raezer, Sue
Weiss, Jesica Stickles, and Marilyn Oertle.
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mayor Barbara Tolbert, Paul Ellis, Heather Logan, Kristin Banfield, Sheri
Amundson, Jonathan Ventura, Marc Hayes, and City Attorney Steve Peiffle.
Also Known to be Present: Jeff Ketchel, Doug Buell, Sarah Arney, Julie Good, Josh Roundy,
Maxine Jenft, Craig Christianson, and Reid Shockey.
Mayor Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm, and the pledge of allegiance followed.
Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Chris Raezer
seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote.
Introduction of Special Guests and Presentations
With the use of a PowerPoint Presentation, Mr. Jeff Ketchel, Interim Administrator of the
Snohomish Health District provided updates of the Health District’s latest activities and
shared plans for 2018.
WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO ACTION WAS TAKEN
Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Final PSRC Certification
Interim Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes and consultant Reid
Shockey discussed the six Comprehensive Plan amendments for final submittal to Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for review and certification. In July 2015 Arlington submitted
their periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan to PSRC for review. During their review,
PSRC noted some inconsistencies in the plan and requested they be addressed per their plan
review report. Those inconsistencies included; reconciliation of our buildable lands analysis
with Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT); revisions to the Transportation Element
consistent with land use; Non‐motorized Transportation Plan and Multiyear Transportation
Financing Plan. PSRC granted Arlington “conditional certification” of its 2015
Comprehensive Plan update March of 2016 in the interim. Arlington adopted a work plan by
resolution April 2016 to address PSRC’s recommendations. Arlington staff worked with
Snohomish County PDS to address the reconciliation target process through a Mixed Use
Minutes of the Arlington
City Council Workshop
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop September 11, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Development strategy. Shockey Planning Group, in collaboration with City staff, have
addressed all other items of concern from PSRC. A Public Hearing was held on July 18, 2017,
with the only public comment coming from Brekhus‐Beach proponents related to Water,
Sewer and Transportation elements of the plan. Planning Commission voted to recommend
the amendments by a vote of 3‐0, with one recused and one absence. Discussion followed.
Council requested this item be placed on the September 18, 2017 meeting agenda under
consent.
Approval of the 2017‐2018 Budget Modification Calendar
City Administrator Paul Ellis reviewed the budget calendar to update the 2017‐2018 biennial
budget. State law requires the City go through a public process to modify the biennial budget.
An ordinance is required to modify the budget. In addition to modifying the 2017‐2108
budget, the City will also need to certify the 2018 property tax and EMS levies and adopt a
2018 Transportation Benefit District budget. The proposed calendar addresses all of these
items. Discussion followed. Council requested the adoption of the 2017‐2018 budget
modification calendar be placed on the September 18, 2017 meeting agenda under New
Business.
Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement for the Snohomish Regional Drug and
Gang Task Force
Police Chief Jonathan Ventura reviewed the first amendment to the Interlocal with the
Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force. The amendment to the agreement combines
the South Snohomish Drug Task Force with the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force. The
Interlocal Agreement allows participating jurisdictions to jointly coordinate selected law
enforcement activities, resources, and functions in order to disrupt illegal drug trafficking
systems and to remove drug traffickers through a cooperative program of investigation,
prosecution, and asset forfeiture. Discussion followed. Council requested the adoption of the
first amendment to the Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force be placed on the
September 18, 2017 meeting agenda under consent.
Resolution approving a transfer of ownership of a telecommunications franchise
presently held by Astound Broadband, LLC to Radiate HoldCo., LLC
City Clerk Kristin Banfield discussed the requested transfer of the current
telecommunications franchise held by Astound Broadband, LLC (Wave Cable) to Radiate
HoldCo., LLC. This is a housekeeping matter. The City’s current franchise with Astound
Broadband, LLC (Wave Cable) was approved in August 2013 and expires in August 2023.
Astound Broadband has agreed to an acquisition of their business by Radiate HoldCo., LLC.
The FCC requires any city affected by the acquisition to consent to the sale and transfer of
the franchise. The City would like to retain all elements of our current franchise with Wave
in the transfer to Radiate, which is best accomplished with a transfer of the franchise.
Discussion followed. Council requested the adoption of the resolution approving the transfer
of ownership of a telecommunications franchise presently held by Astound Broadband, LLC
to Radiate HoldCo., LLC be placed on the September 18, 2017 meeting agenda under consent.
Miscellaneous Council Items
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop September 11, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson announced she has been asked to chair the PSRC project
selection task force for grant allocations. Councilmember Jan Schuette also serves on the task
force.
Councilmember Jan Schuette provided a brief update on the work of the PSRC Growth
Management Board in relation to regional center designations and the Manufacturing
Industrial Center designation. A vote of the Growth Management Board may come in
October.
Councilmember Sue Weiss requested clarification on the schedule for Arlington City Council
retreats. Council retreats are the first Saturday in October and the weekend before Easter.
Councilmember Mike Hopson inquired about the study being developed on the gaps in social
services and when Council might receive a final copy. Mayor Tolbert indicated that the study
would be released in late September.
Mayor Tolbert announced that she has appointed Councilmember Sue Weiss as an alternate
to the Regional Fire Authority Planning Committee.
Public Comment
None.
Executive Session
City Attorney Steve Peiffle announced an Executive Session to review the performance of a
public employee [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)], estimating to take 15 minutes and that there
would be no action following the Executive Session. Council recessed to Executive Session
at 8:30 p.m. At 8:43 p.m. the Council reconvened the meeting.
Adjournment
Having no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
______________________________________
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
CA #3
Attachment
B
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
September 18, 2017
SUBJECT:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Final Certification
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance Amending Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps Under City Planning File Nos.
PLN 302, PLN 303, PLN 304, PLN 305, PLN 306 AND PLN 307
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Community and Economic Development – Marc Hayes, 360‐403‐3457
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: ‐0‐
BUDGET CATEGORY: ‐0‐
BUDGETED AMOUNT: ‐0‐
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Attached is the Ordinance adopting 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments for final submittal to Puget Sound
Regional Council for review and certification.
HISTORY:
In July of 2015 Arlington submitted their periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan to Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) for review. During their review, PSRC noted some inconsistencies in the plan and requested
they be addressed per their plan review report. Those inconsistencies included; reconciliation of our buildable
lands analysis with Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT); revisions to the Transportation Element consistent
with land use; Non‐motorized Transportation Plan and Multiyear Transportation Financing Plan. PSRC
granted Arlington “conditional certification” of its 2015 Comprehensive Plan update March of 2016 in the
interim. Arlington adopts a work plan by resolution April 2016 to address PSRC’s recommendations. Arlington
staff worked with Snohomish County PDS to address the reconciliation target process through a Mixed Use
Development strategy. Shockey Planning Group, in collaboration with City staff, have addressed all other
items of concern from PSRC. A Public Hearing was held on July 18, 2017, with the only public comment coming
from Brekhus‐Beach proponents related to Water, Sewer and Transportation elements of the plan. Planning
Commission voted to recommend the amendments by a vote of 3 in favor, 1 recused and 1 member absent.
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve as presented
Remand back to staff for additional information
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve the ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-XXX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2017--XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, MAKING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY
OF ARLINGTON AS REQUIRED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND
APPROVING AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED UNDER CITY PLANNING FILE NOS.
PLN 302, PLN 303, PLN 304, PLN 305, PLN 306 AND PLN 307
WHEREAS the City of Arlington is required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the authority to review and update the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan was conditionally adopted on
July 6, 2015; and
WHEREAS, according to accepted procedure, the Plan was submitted to the Puget Sound
Regional Council for certification which qualifies the City for certain state and federal
transportation funding. The Puget Sound Regional Council granted conditional certification in
2016 as conforming to the Growth Management Act and as “consistent with multicounty
planning policies and the regional transportation plan.” Full certification would require that
certain inconsistencies be addressed, resulting in certain amendments to the adopted 2015 Plan;
and
WHEREAS, under the schedule established by the Puget Sound Regional Council in the
March 31, 2016 report of certification recommendation, the deadline for the City of Arlington to
comply with the update required by RCW 36.70A.130(1) is December 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arlington contracted with the Shockey Planning Group to
conduct a thorough review of the City’s comprehensive plan and prepare with the assistance of
city staff analyses of the comprehensive plan currently in effect in the City of Arlington for
consistency with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Commission, the Parks, Art and Recreation
Commission, the Airport Commission, and City staff discussed and recommended proposed
revisions they concluded were needed to comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arlington Planning Commission reviewed the analyses and
proposed revisions and conducted workshops on June, 6, 2017 and June 27, 2017, and conducted
a public hearing on July 18, 2017 to receive public comments on proposed revisions to the
comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, based on its review of the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the
analysis and proposed revisions prepared, and the public comments received, the Planning
Commission modified the plan and forwarded a recommended draft plan to the City Council on
September 6, 2017; and
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-XXX 2
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public workshop on the proposed plan on September
11, 2017; and considered the matter at its September 18, 2017 regular meeting; and
WHEREAS, based on its review of the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the
analysis and proposed revisions prepared by their Boards and Commissions and staff, and the
public comments received, the City Council finds and declares that the review and needed
revisions have been prepared in conformance with applicable law, including Chapter 36.70A
RCW, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the approved public participation and adoption process; and
WHEREAS, based on its review of the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the
analysis and proposed revisions prepared by their Boards and Commissions and staff, the
recommended findings on review and proposed revisions forwarded by the Planning
Commission, and the public comments received, the City Council hereby finds and declares that
Arlington's comprehensive plan as revised by this ordinance complies with the requirements of
Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that portions of the comprehensive plan,
most particularly the water, wastewater and transportation elements, are still in process. The City
anticipates those plans being final not later than October 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to document its substantial compliance with the
December 31, 2017 deadline of the Puget Sound Regional Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. Findings. The Arlington City Council finds that:
a. The City has established and followed a public participation program in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), which program was formally adopted and followed by
the City via City of Arlington Resolution #2014-022.
b. The City Council believes that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) issued by the City’s Responsible Official adequately identified all known significant
environmental issues associated with the adoption of the updates to the comprehensive plan.
c. Notice of all amendments to the comprehensive plan adopted to fulfill the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.130 was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce at
least sixty days before the amendments were adopted, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106.
d. The City of Arlington’s existing development regulations comply with the
requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW.
e. The City Council finds that the review and needed revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan have been prepared in conformance with applicable law, including Chapter
36.70A RCW, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the approved public participation and adoption process
and, taken collectively, are in the best interests of all its citizens.
f. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #302,
which are changes related to the proposed Urban Growth Area-ARL 3 (King-Thompson)
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-XXX 3
proposed UGA expansion on Snohomish county Docket XVII dated March 2013 and withdrawn
in May 2016 by the City of Arlington, including removal of language adopted during the 2015
Comprehensive Plan update relating to the UGA Expansion known as ARL-3 (King-Thompson),
are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130.
g. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #303,
which are the Official Land Use Map changes relating to the removal of the ARL-3 (King-
Thompson) UGA Expansion, the merging of the RLMD zone category under the RMD zone
category, the removal of the TDR Overlay from the Burn Hill Subarea (also known as
Brekhus/Beach), and a private rezone request from Residential Moderate Density (RMD) to
Residential High Density (RHD) for the Villas at Arlington Rezone, are consistent with the
Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130.
h. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #304,
which are chapter changes relating to the West Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA), including
removal of language and references to the WASA due to the buildable lands reconciliation and
incorporation of the WASA into the Mixed Use Plan, the adoption of Form Based Codes as a
governing principle encompassing all areas currently zoned Highway Commercial (HC), General
Commercial (GC), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and the Commercial Corridor Designation
along Smokey Point Boulevard are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.130.
i. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #305,
which are chapter changes related to the Burn Hill subarea and the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) overlay designation mandated by the termination of the TDR Pilot Program
associated with the Brekhus/Beach area and the Inter-local Agreement (ILA) between
Snohomish County and the City, and conflict with current Countywide Planning Policies, which
exempt residential dwellings from mandatory participation in the TDR program, are consistent
with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130.
j. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #306,
which are chapter changes addressing several Comprehensive Plan Element recommendations
identified as needing revision by the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) review of the draft
2015 Comprehensive Plan, which recommendations were adopted as part of the PSRC Work
Plan in 2016 to address and add language to the Comprehensive Plan during the next update and
to allow the Plan to be officially approved rather than conditionally approved, are consistent with
the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130.
k. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #307,
which are chapter changes related to the Buildable Lands Reasonable Measures and
Reconciliation process, by which the Mixed Use concept is being implemented to accommodate
the need to comply with Vision 2040 and the Buildable Lands Analysis per Snohomish County
Ordinance 16-077, which showed that the City had insufficient land capacity to accommodate
the 2035 population estimates and had to reconcile this deficiency by other means besides a
proposed UGA expansion, together with resolving an identified deficiency in the amount of
diversified and multi-family housing available in the City and incorporating other Low Impact
Design, Multi-Modal, Mass Transit or Transit Oriented Development (TOD) to occur in the
proposed Mixed Use Overlay areas, are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.130.
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-XXX 4
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 1, Introduction, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference,
are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 2, Figures & Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this
reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 3, Goals and Policies, attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this
reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 4. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 4, Description of Planning Area, attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein
by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 5. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 5, Land Use, attached hereto as Exhibit “E” and incorporated herein by this reference,
are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 6, Housing, attached hereto as Exhibit “F” and incorporated herein by this reference, are
hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 7. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 8, Transportation, attached hereto as Exhibit “G” and incorporated herein by this
reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 8. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 9, Capital Facilities, attached hereto as Exhibit “H” and incorporated herein by this
reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 9. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW
36.70A.106 a copy of this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of
Commerce as required by law.
Section 10. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the
title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full
force five (5) days after publication.
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-XXX 5
PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 18th day of
September, 2017.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
______________________________
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Steven J. Peiffle
City Attorney
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-1 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
1 Introduction
1.1 LAYOUT OF THIS PLAN
The chapters following this introduction contain the 2015 Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Arlington as updated in 2015 and certified in 2017 by the Washington Department of Commerce
and Puget Sound Regional Council..
For ease of use, it the Plan is broken into three main components. The first component is
comprised of Chapters One through Three. These three chapters contain the City’s Vision
Statements, Maps, and Policies.
The second component is comprised of Chapters Four through Ten which contain the
background information behind the goals and policies.
The third component is Appendices A through E inclusive ofwhich include a glossary of terms,
the procedures for the siting of essential public facilities, plan consistency with countywide
planning policies, the Department of Commerce Checklist, information about Arlington’s natural
environment, and the environmental review of this plan (SEPA).
1.2 VISION STATEMENT
The City of Arlington will meet its challenge to accommodate regional growth by preserving
the best a small city has to offer and by extending this “best” into new development and
growth plans. The City will strive to balance growth by safeguarding our standards and
values as we encourage economic growth to safeguard our future.
Even as the City evolves into a stronger commercial center, it will continue to retain the feel
of its small town rural heritage. To this end, our vision focuses on the City’s setting, its
economy, social fabric, mobility and housing.
The Setting: Arlington is located where the north and south forks of the Stillaguamish River
join. The City’s northern/northwestern edge overlooks the Stillaguamish River Valley; its
eastern side looks toward the Cascade foothills.; and weWe border I-5 on to the west and
Marysville on to the south.
The Economy: Arlington’s future depends on its economic base keeping pace with other
development. Citizens thrive when jobs are available and the necessary amenities are in
place to improve their quality of life. To pay for this quality of life, our retail base must be
secure and growing. It must also be able to pay for the infrastructure needed to fuel
industrial growth.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-2 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
The Social Fabric: Citizens establish the City’s values, sense of place, and quality of life. In
return they need cultural opportunities, recreational activities, educational resources, and
entertainment for a full life.
Mobility: Our goal must be to provide mobility within the City and access to our county,
state and federal transportation systems.
Housing: Arlington values its neighborhoods and hopes to pass on these values as new
developments are built. We recognize the need to provide housing for all income ranges.
Summary: Because of Arlington’s proximity to population centers and the freeway, growth is
inevitable, but not necessarily as a bedroom community. Arlington will strive to maintain a
small city identity, a high jobs-to-housing ratio, thriving commercial districts, safe
neighborhoods, an expanding airport, a healthy hospital, a beautiful environment, great
services, ample recreational opportunities, and a pride that most cities seldom experience.
We want our citizens to continue to see Arlington as a caring community.
The principal theme of the Vision Statement is that the City of Arlington would like to maintain
its character and identity - the "small town" atmosphere. The overall goals listed in Section 3.2
are essential in maintaining a satisfactory quality of life for Arlington. These goals will endure as
the Comprehensive Plan is implemented. As the Comprehensive Plan is updated to account for
changing conditions the goals in the Vision Statement will provide direction for such revisions.
1.3 PLAN OBJECTIVES
In the 1995 Comprehensive Plan the City Council adopted a vision statement as presented by the
Select Committee established to write the plan. The Vision Statement, above, is still as
appropriate today as it was when it was first adopted. The principal theme of the Statement is
that the City of Arlington would like to maintain its character and identity, or simply put, a
“small town” atmosphere. The overall goals found in the third chapter of the plan are essential in
maintaining this atmosphere and a fine quality of life for our citizens. As the Plan is
implemented the goals will provide direction and guidance.
We would, as a City, like to remain the same, but on a larger scale with the same amenities now
treasured by our present citizens. We want to preserve our community-oriented character. We
want our citizens to be able to find the type of housing they want and can afford and insure that
they be able to work and shop locally. Excellent municipal services, facilities, and infrastructure
need to be provided without overtaxing our citizens.
To the West and North of our city limits lies the Stillaguamish Valley. It is fertile farmland
within the flood plain of the Stillaguamish River. As an awe inspiring entrance to our City, it is
unequalled.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-3 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
We will be tested at times during the next twenty years as we fit more citizens into less space.
But the rewards will be great as we look westward at a preserved Stillaguamish Valley and
inward to a balanced residential and job-creating community. Safe, well-kept neighborhoods
and commercial areas are the ultimate goal of this plan and will continue to be so as we step
forward into a bright future.
1.4 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The following chapters outline how well the City is positioned to achieve its goals and targets by
2035. The Growth Management Act requires that where targets are achievable, an
implementation strategy be presented, including proposed code revisions, projects, specific
policies and programs. Where targets (population, employment, housing, buildable lands, etc.)
are in some jeopardy, a set of “reasonable measures” should be developed. These may be the
same as implementation measures. The objective is to make the community’s plan workable.
In 2015 2017 the following Plan implementation strategies are adopted as part of the GMA
update. The list will be updated annually.
City Land-Use Code Changes (Title 20)
1. Reform the City’s entire Land-Use Code. Specifically:
Revise existing regulations to incentivize a diverse housing stock, to include Cottage
HousingCottage Housing.
Combine RMD and RMLD land use designations/regulations into one RMD land use
designation.
Develop and adopt a Design-Based CodeHorizontal Mixed Use (HMU) code for use in
attracting well planned developments to the City’s commercial land base. to implement
the adopted West Arlington Subarea Plan.
Revise the permissiblepermitted-use table to add clarity and consistency.
These code changes are not required for compliance with GMA requirements. They will be
developed after Plan adoption in JuneSummer, 20152017.
UGA Boundaries
1. Expand the City’s UGA boundary to include the King-Thompson area west of Interstate-5.
Land Use Map
1. Remove the TDR overlay designation from the Brekhus/Beach Subarea.
2. Combine the RLMD and RMD land-use designations into one RMD designation.
3. Provide for the addition of Horizontal Mixed Use overlay designations to the Land Use Map
based on approved development plans.
2.4. Revise, as needed, the Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC)
designation to reflect the PSRC Regional Centers Framework.
Neighborhood Plans
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-4 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
1. Develop design standards for the Old Town Business District and the Old Town Residential
District.
2. Develop “high-level” master plans for Brekhus/Beach Subarea and future Lindsay
Annexation area within the Hilltop Subarea.
3. Complete annexation in the Hilltop Subarea.
4. Review the following “emphasis areas” for further planning strategies:
a. West of I-5 in the proposed UGA expansion area.
b.a. SR9/172nd St, in the Lindsay annexation area.
c.b. Airport Business Park.
d.c. Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center.
e.d. Island Crossing and Stillaguamish tribal property.
Adopt Amend the West Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA) to include an implementation
plan.
e. West Bluff
f. Smokey Point
Environmental Protection
1. Identify areas of potential slide hazards (e.g. Burn Road/Stillaguamish Avenue) and
determine regulatory or other protections.
Economic Development
1. Participate inHelp implement the Stillaguamish Valley Economic Development Plan.
2. Participate in PSRC regional centers study.
3. Pursue conceptual master plan of Manufacturing Industrial Center with Marysville, EASC
and property owners.
4. Review zoning in underdeveloped commercial centers (e.g. Kent Prairie, Hilltop) to find
incentives for development (e.g. HMU zoning).
Transportation
1. Develop plans for street connectivity
2. Accommodate nonmotorized transportation modes (trails, sidewalks, etc)
3. Develop street networks within the Brekhus/Beach Subarea, and the future Lindsay
Annexation Area.
1.4.
Plan and Project Review
1. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by the City will contain an analysis of the
GMA Plan and policies to ensure consistency or describe variations.
2. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by adjacent jurisdictions will be reviewed
against the Comprehensive Plan, with comment being provided to the decision-makers.
The July 2015 GMA Comprehensive Plan was granted conditional certification by the Puget
Sound Regional Council, subject to completion of several items outlined in its March 2016
review (Appendix I). Certification is required for review of transportation funding requests
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-5 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
under the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, which Arlington will be pursuing over
the coming months and years. This 2017 Plan reflects changes based on that review.
1.5 DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE
The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan incorporates by reference the following documents:
2005 Arlington GMA Comprehensive Plan, except as otherwise amended by the 2015
Update.
West Arlington Subarea Plan.
Arlington Water Systems Plan.
Arlington Sewer Systems Plan.
Arlington 2016 Transportation Plan.
Stillaguamish Valley Economic Development Plan.
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies, June 2013.
Multi-County Planning Policies.
PSRC Vision 2040.
PSRC Transportation 2040.
PSRC Industrial Lands Analysis, 2015.
Updated Regional Transportation Demand Management Action Plan.
Updated Transportation 2040 financial strategy.
Coordination with planned Community Transit services.
Coordination with Sound Transit planning.
Puget Sound Cleans Air Agency Growth Management Policies.
Regional Open Space Strategy.
International Building Codes, including Fire Code.
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
NPDES Phase II Stormwater permit.
2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan.
Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan.
Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report, June 10, 2015
The documents listed will have direct influence on decision-making where provisions are
prescriptive. Where advisory only, the documents will be balanced with other policies,
regulations and priorities.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-6 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
1.6 RE-ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The Comprehensive Plan includes a Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9) and Transportation
Element (Chapter 8), each describing how infrastructure will be developed concurrently with
growth. The City may not be able to finance all proposed capital facility projects. This will be
assessed annually. Where capital facility shortfalls affect concurrency, the following are the
options available:
Increase Revenue
Decrease Level of Service Standards
Decrease the Cost of the Facility or Reduce the Scope of the Project
Decrease the Demand for the Public Service or Facility
Reassess the Land Use Element
In deciding how to address a particular shortfall, the City will balance the equity and efficiency
considerations associated with each of these options.
1.7 Growth Management Act
In 1990, the Legislature enacted the Growth Management Act (GMA) to guide and coordinate
local planning. The GMA recognizes the diversity of growth management challenges facing
Washington's large, urban, small, and rural cities/counties and establishes distinct planning
requirements for all cities/counties that vary depending upon population and growth rates. Local
plans must be consistent with and supportive of the planning goals outlined in State law:
1. Urban Growth - Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
2. Reduce Sprawl - Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low density development.
3. Transportation - Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based
on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city Comprehensive Plans.
4. Housing - Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population of this State; promote a variety of residential densities and housing types;
and encourage preservation of existing housing.
5. Economic Development - Encourage economic development throughout the State that is
consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans; promote economic opportunity for all
citizens of this State, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and
encourage growth -- all within the capacities of the State's natural resources, public
services, and public facilities.
6. Property Rights - Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected
from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-7 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
7. Permits - Applications for both State and local government permits should be processed
in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
8. Natural Resource Industries - Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries,
including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries.
9. Open Space and Recreation - Encourage the retention of open space and development of
recreational opportunities; conserve fish and wildlife habitat; increase access to natural
resource lands and water; and develop parks.
10. Environment - Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,
including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
11. Citizen Participation and Coordination - Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts.
12. Public Facilities and Services - Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary
to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards.
13. Historic Preservation - Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures that have historical or archaeological significance.
Against this policy backdrop, the GMA invests local government with significant decision-
making power. The City of Arlington strongly endorses the thrust of the GMA as an essential
and responsible series of planning and interlocal coordination measures that, when implemented,
will help direct community, regional, and statewide efforts to enhance Washington's quality of
life, environmental protection, and economic vitality. The City of Arlington continually works to
maintain a Comprehensive Plan that establishes a clear intent and policy base that can be used to
develop and interpret local regulations consistent with the GMA.
This Comprehensive Plan was developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 -- the Growth
Management Act -- to address growth issues in the City of Arlington, the adjacent Urban Growth
Area (UGA), and what is shown as our future growth areas. It represents the community's policy
plan for growth over the next 20 years, through 2035. The City of Arlington is interdependent
with many other communities. In such circumstances, the long-term planning for the City needs
to be adapted to unexpected or rapid changes. Therefore, rather than simply prioritizing actions,
this plan assists the management of the City by providing policies to guide decision-making. The
plan includes the following Elements:
Housing
Land Use
Transportation
Park, Recreation, and Open Space
Economic Development
Public Services and Capital Facilities
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-8 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
All of the planning elements have been integrated into a single, internally consistent plan,
updated to reflect changes since its last review in 2005. The City of Arlington believes the
Comprehensive Plan, as a whole, will be effective in working toward the community goals in an
economically feasible manner.
1.8 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS
State law requires, and Arlington supports coordination of its Plan with those of neighboring
communities and with regional and countywide planning policies.
1. Countywide Planning Policies
The GMA requires that each county planning under the act adopt countywide planning policies
to which all comprehensive plans developed within that county must conform. The Snohomish
County Countywide Planning Policies have provided guidance in the planning process and this
Comprehensive Plan is consistent with them; in fact, those policies are adopted as Appendix C to
this Comprehensive Plan.
2. County Comprehensive Plan
Snohomish County, like Arlington, must
update its comprehensive plan every ten
years. These processes took place
concurrently. Arlington was an active
participant in the work of the Planning
Advisory Committee (PAC), Infrastructure
Coordinating Committee (ICC) and
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
committees. Each is a component of the
County’s GMA planning effort. Arlington
also participated in the review of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan update and
provided comment to the Draft Plan and
environmental impact statement. The
updated Arlington Plan is consistent with
the County document.
3. Puget Sound Regional Council’s -
- Vision 2040
In October of 1990, the Puget Sound
Council of Government (PSRC) developed
and adopted a growth and transportation
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-9 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region known as Vision 2020. It was eventually updated as
Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040. This strategy is aimed at reducing sprawl, air pollution,
and traffic congestion by calling for the containment and densification of growth within
designated growth centers, thus limiting the extent of sprawl into surrounding farmlands, forests,
and open spaces. It concentrates new employment into about fifteen centers and connects the
centers with a regional transit system. The vision emphasizes the movement of people through
increased transit and ridesharing investments.
Through a collaborative process among jurisdictions in Snohomish County known as Snohomish
County Tomorrow (SCT), Arlington was originally given the designation of “Urban Small City”.
Subsequent to the 2005 Plan adoption it was re-classified to “Larger” cities along with
Marysville, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Monroe. Larger cities are intended to
absorb significant population and job growth, with “Small” cities absorbing growth in a less
intensive manner.
1.9 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
The Arlington Plan serves many purposes: to outline a vision for the community through 2035,
to outline specific actions to accomplish the vision, to assist in the review of land use or capital
investment decisions and to assist discussions by the City with neighboring communities on
issues of mutual interest.
Future public or private projects and decisions will require an analysis of this Plan to measure
consistency with the City’s vision and policies. To use this document as the City's
Comprehensive Plan, for the basic plan elements the reader is directed to the Chapter 1, the
Figures and Maps (Chapter 2), and the Goals and Policies (Chapter 3). This is all that is needed
to know what our future plans are. If one wishes to see the background supporting data and
analyses on how these plans, goals and policies were developed, he/she is directed to the
appropriate Element addressing the item being proposed.
The Plan is also an “integrated SEPA/GMA document” meaning that it serves both as a Plan and
an environmental impact statement. Future actions that are consistent with the Plan policies and
environmental findings will have reduced analysis needs and faster permit processing. To use
this document in its capacity as a supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan, the reader is
directed to the project description (Chapter 1, Introduction), the description of existing
conditions (Chapter 4, Description of Planning Area), the goals and policies (Chapter 3, Goals
and Policies), the analyses of the plan and its environmental impact and the environmental
findings (Appendix F, Environmental Impact Statement with Addendum).
Over time, it is possible that some of the information will have become outdated. Such
information may be updated during annual or eight-year periodic, Comprehensive Plan updates.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-10 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
Persons preparing an environmental checklist or other application document will be directed to
the description of existing conditions (Chapter 4, Description of Planning Area), and the
environmental impact analyses and environmental findings (Appendix F).
1.10 THE PAST AND PRESENT
Before looking forward to 2035, a brief look back will set the stage. The City of Arlington had
last updated its Plan in 2008 because the City had changed dramatically since the previous plan
was adopted in 2005. Recognition of the type of changes that are occurring and readiness to
make decisions in light of such changes will allow the City to take advantage of positive
opportunities and to address the effects on the quality of life.
In 2005, the population in the City has shifted away from the large single-family unit to include
many smaller family units. The balance between the number of jobs and the number of housing
units has shifted as the number of two-income families has increased. Concerns about
environmental quality had also created a change in traditional land use practices as well as a
preference for alternatives to the automobile. And, prior to the Great Recession, the economy
was shifting away from land-intensive industries to light manufacturing and service industries.
The end of the Recession will see those trends re-emerge.
In 2005, the City undertook an extensive public participation process to ensure the vision of the
community expressed in the Comprehensive Plan reflected the needs and desires of the local
population. In 2005, the City of Arlington was experiencing pressures from growth within its
boundaries as well as from the more urbanized areas in the County, State, and other statescities.
There was increasing demand for public facilities such as traffic improvements, police, utilities,
and fire protection.
In 2015, growth pressures continued. The City has chosen to take a proactive role in attracting
developments to meet the needs of the citizens, prioritizing alternative uses of land and public
resources, and identifying in explicit terms the impact proposed developments will have on the
community. This 2015 update continues the themes called out by the public in 2005 and adds
those facts and figures that keep it current with 2015 trends. The 2005 Vision remains.
Population is expected to grow to almost 2526,000 people by 2035, an almost 40% increase.
Jobs are forecasted to grow to 12,22420,884, although if the proposed Manufacturing Industrial
Center (See Chapter 5) develops to its potential, up to 8075,000 jobs will exist between
Arlington’s airport and central Marysville.
Where new residents will live is a significant issue in this 2015 Plan. In 2005 and 2008, because
of plans by the City and County to promote Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a tool for
agricultural preservation and more compact urban growth inside the City, the eastern City limits
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-11 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
(Burn Hill) were expanded. and a master planned community was proposed. In 20157, those
plans are still under discussion because of infrastructure issues. In its effort to show that
sufficient buildable lands exist to handle population and job needs (a GMA requirement), the
City is processing a UGA expansion west of I-5. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.
The City has updated it capital facility plans for transportation, water, wastewater and
stormwater in the past few years and the City’s ability to serve its customers (citizens, business
and are contracted service areas) seems secure through 2035 (See Chapter 9). Road funding will
present a challenge as the Burn Hill TDR area and future Manufacturing Industrial Center
(AMMIC) rely on future funding sources for SR 531 andmajor and local arterial streets serving
future development. With the recent Connecting Washington gas tax approval in November
2016, SR531 will be improved as a major access point for these areas. The City is cooperating
with the Stillaguamish Tribe in road and other improvements to accommodate each’s land use
planning along SR 530.
1.11 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Public Participation Plan is included as Appendix H.
In developing the 10-Year update in 2005, the Planning Commission and City Council held
numerous public workshops and hearings to take testimony from the public. Public notices and
articles were printed in the Arlington Times and Everett Herald for all meetings as well as
quarterly updates and announcements in the City’s newsletter and on the City’s website.
Through the visioning process the City identified the following opportunities that provide a basis
for planning and the 2005 Plan:
Maintain quality of life;
Reduce land use conflicts and haphazard development;
Maintain infrastructure;
Determine what public services the City wants to provide and decide at what level of
service it is willing to provide these services;
Determine how to finance and pay for these public services;
Determine how to acquire and spend public resources;
Anticipate future expenditures;
Build on current stewardship of land;
Build on and take full advantage of existing assets.
Because the 10-Year update for 2015 was intended to update information while adhering to the
1995 and 2005 Vision, a less extensive public outreach program was used. It was assumed that
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-12 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
the public was comfortable with the Vision and the greatest need was to ensure that current
trends and information supported it. Once the technical analysis (population, buildable lands,
employment forecasts, etc.) were confirmed and updated in the Plan, the Plan was taken to the
public for discussion.
The City employed several means of involving the public and other stakeholders. These
included use of the City’s website to post updates, the City’s Facebook and newsletter, posting
copies at the Arlington library and City Hall; and direct communication with inquiries via e-mail.
The City Planning Commission is the ongoing steward of the Comprehensive Plan. In this role
they provide advice and recommendations to the Mayor, Council, and City staff on planning
goals, policies and future plans. Throughout the update process, the Planning Commission
provided input to City staff with input regarding the Plan drafts, public participation, the
preliminary and final environmental review documents.
City staff was available to answer specific questions by the public on a day-to-day basis. Audio
recording of Commission and Council meetings were available to the public. Public hearings
were held by the Planning Commission in May and by the City Council in June. Each meeting
was preceded by a workshop to allow informal discussion of the Plan with citizens.
The data used to develop this Comprehensive Plan are to the greatest extent possible the best
available data. The City has also coordinated its plan with that of adjacent jurisdictions and
agencies and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), (which also acts as the Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) and Master Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO))`] in order to achieve compatibility and consistency. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan
has considered, and incorporated where applicable, the Growth Management Act's thirteen goals,
listed below.
As part of PSRC certification of its 2015 Plan, the City undertook a “reconciliation” process in
2016 to ensure that land use policies and assumptions were coordinated with the County
population, employment and housing targets for 2035. Upon successful conclusion of the
process, certain amendments were made to the Plan, which was adopted as an update on ______
, 2017 by City Council. This was followed by full certification of the City’s plan by the PSRC as
compliant with Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040.
Arlington’s Plan now conforms to:
-- established regional guidelines and principles,
-- the adopted long-range regional transportation plan, and
-- transportation planning requirements of RCW 47.80.026. The multicounty planning
policies in VISION 2040 encompass these requirements
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-13 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
1.12 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
Adopted plans must contain implementation and monitoring procedures developed in order to
establish a system for measuring progress in implementing the goals and policies. This process
also prepares the City for updates in the future. These procedures address:
Citizen participation in the process;
Updating appropriate base-line data and measurable objectives to be accomplished in
the first six-year period of the plan, and for the long-term period(2035);
Accomplishments in the first ten-year period, describing the degree to which the
goals and policies have been successively reached;
Obstacles or problems which resulted in the under achievement of goals and policies;
New or modified goals and policies needed to address and correct discovered
problems; and
A means of ensuring a continuous monitoring and evaluation of the plan during the
ten-year period.
Although adopted by ordinance, a Comprehensive Plan has traditionally been a policy document
with the implementation carried through by land development regulations and other ordinances.
However, the Growth Management Act has authorized action in a variety of innovative
regulatory and non-regulatory implementation methods that should be considered. The City will
continue its public education program following plan adoption in order to inform the entire
community about the rationale and goals of the plan as well as the changes that will take place in
the City because of the plan's implementation. Arlington believes that broad support for the plan
is crucial for effective implementation.
Development regulations must be updated to be consistent with the plan shortly after its
adoption. In reviewing regulations for consistency, the City should ensure that the development
patterns suggested in the plan are encouraged. In addition to the new development regulations
identified in the land use plan other regulations will be enacted as necessary to implement the
land use plan.
Planning is an on-going process, and improved data or changing circumstances will require
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the plan will be updated once every ten
eight years to reflect revisions to the Office of Financial Management population estimates and
revisions to the Capital Facilities Plan. The update will also address any specific concerns,
clarify inconsistencies that were identified during the decade, review the adequacy of the adopted
level of service standards, and update any environmental information. In addition, every ten eight
years the City will review the densities permitted and the usage of the land with the Urban
Growth Area.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
2016 Update Draft
1-14 JULY 2015
Revised March 2017
The City of Arlington is committed to following its adopted Comprehensive Plan and will allow
for an adequate period of time for policies and actions to take effect prior to considering changes
to it. The City is also committed to working with the County and other jurisdictions to coordinate
and resolve problems. As with other communities, Arlington allows the public to submit
requests for plan amendments once a year. The “docket process” ensures that changing
circumstances that warrant changes to policies, zoning or projects are adequately considered to
keep the Plan vibrant.
The City, through its monitoring and annual review process, will ensure that the Plan remains
concurrent with State, regional and local policies. If a concurrency issue arises, the re-
assessment process (See 1.6 above) will be initiated.
Chapter 2: Maps and Figures
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
92NDAVENE
19TH
DR
NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
TVEIT RD
97
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E5THST
180TH ST NE
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
171ST PLNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
MORAN RD
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
169TH PL NE
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
23RDDRNE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
PIONEER HWY E
SCHLOMANRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
234TH ST NE
SR 531
I-
5
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
NORTHST
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
79
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19TH
AVENE
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
80
T
H
D
R
N
E
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legen d
Arlin gto n City Limits
Arlin gto n UGA
Sta te Highwa y
Sta te Ro ute
Streets
Airp o rt
Ra il lin e
Rest a rea
City o f Ma rysville
µ
Wa terbo dies a n d strea ms p ro vided by Sn o ho mish Co un ty FTP site, do wn lo a ded Februa ry 2015.
Ma p s a n d GIS da ta a re distributed “AS-IS” witho ut wa rra n ties o f a n y k in d, either exp ress o r imp lied, in cludin gbut n o t limited to wa rra n ties o f suita bility fo r a p a rticula r p urp o se o r use. Ma p da ta a re co mp iled fro m a va riety o fso urces which ma y co n ta in erro rs a n d users who rely up o n the in fo rma tio n do so a t their o wn risk . Users a greeto in demn ify, defen d, a n d ho ld ha rmless the City o f Arlin gto n fo r a n y a n d a ll lia bility o f a n y n a ture a risin g o ut o fo r resultin g fro m the la ck o f a ccura cy o r co rrectn ess o f the da ta , o r the use o f the da ta p resen ted in the ma p s.
kdh
Figure2.1_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesSca le:
Da te:
File:
Ca rto gra p her:
Figure 2.1Arlin gto n UGA a n d Mun cip a l Bo un da ries(Pre-2015 Up da te)
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
Old TownBD # 1
MIC
KentPrairie
WestArlington
ArlingtonBluff
Hilltop
Old TownResidential
Brekhus/Beach
Old TownBD # 3
Old TownBD # 2
SouthFork
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR
5
3
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
SR 531
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E HIGHLAND DR
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
CEMETERY RD 200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
188TH ST NE
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
PORTAGE ST
180TH ST NE
186TH PL NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
WJENSEN ST
195THSTNE
I-5
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWK
DR
192ND PL NE
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPL NE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
DRNE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RDDRNE
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
MORAN RD
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSONRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19TH
AVENE
TVEIT RD
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
80TH
DR
NE
190TH PL NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE
W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWNRIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JORDANRD
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legen d
Arlin gton City Lim its
Arlin gton U GA
State Highw ay
State Route
Streets
Airport
Rail lin e
Rest area
City of Marysvilleµ
Waterbodies an d stream s provided by Sn ohom ish Coun ty FTP site, down loaded February 2015.
Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arran ties of an y k in d, either express or im plied, in cludin gbut n ot lim ited to w arran ties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety ofsources w hich m ay con tain errors an d users w ho rely upon the in form ation do so at their ow n risk . U sers agreeto in dem n ify, defen d, an d hold harm less the City of Arlin gton for an y an d all liability of an y n ature arisin g out ofor resultin g from the lack of accuracy or correctn ess of the data, or the use of the data presen ted in the m aps.
k dh
Figure2.2_11x17_17
1/19/2017
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figure 2.2Neighborhood Plan n in g Subareas
Neighborhoods
Arlin gton Bluff
Brek hus/Beach
Hilltop
Ken t Prairie
MIC
Old Tow n BD # 1
Old Tow n BD # 2
Old Tow n BD # 3
Old Tow n Residen tial
South Fork
West Arlin gton
SR
SR
GI
AF RLMD
HC LI
RMD
BP
LI
HC
LI
GC
OTRD
RLMD
GI
RHDRMD
RLMD
RMD
RMD
P/SP
RLMD
P/SP
RHD
GC
RMD
RMD
GIP/SP
GC
RHD
P/SP
MS
P/SP
LI
GC
P/SP
OTBD - 3
RHD
NC
RHD
OTBD - 2
GC
BP NC
NC
RMD
P/SP
GC
P/SP
P/SP
NC
NC
OTBD - 1
RLMD
P/SP
RHD
GC
RHD
P/SP
LI
HC
P/SP
RMD P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
MS
RLMD
RLMD
P/SP
RLMD
RLMD
RLMD
RHD
RHD
RLMD
P/SP
RHD
RLMD
RLMD
NC
HC
HC
BPBPRMD
P/SP
OTBD - 3
P/SP
P/SP
OTBD - 2
OTBD - 2
HC
RLMD
GC
GC
GC
SR SR
P/SP
RHD
«5
«3
«2
«4
«1
«2
«4
«3 «3
«1
«2
«4
«4
«2
«3
«3
«3
«1
«2
«1
«2
«5
«3
MPNTDR
GleneagleContract Rezone
Pioneer MeadowsContract Rezone
MPN
BoundaryFollowsTopofBank
from
c
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
«D
«C
«A
«B
«B
«C
«C
«D
«D
1200
'
850 '
800 '
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
SR
5
3
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 1ST ST
136TH ST NE
CEMETERYRD
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
200TH ST NE
148TH ST NE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
156TH ST NE
SR
9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
143RDPL NE
188TH ST NE
156TH ST NE
E 5THST
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 4TH ST
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
DRNE
190TH PLNE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
35TH
AVE
NE
168TH ST NE
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
184TH STNE
2N
D
A
V
E
N
W
194TH ST NW
182ND ST NE
158THSTNE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
172ND ST NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
144TH STNE
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
138TH ST NE
212TH ST NW
40
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
99
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
MCPHERSON RD
MARANATHARD
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
SCHLOMANRD
103RD AVENE
34THAVENE
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
6T
H
A
V
E
N
W
2N
D
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
115TH
AVE
NE
172ND ST NE
MCRAE RD NW
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
HEVLY RD 228TH ST NE
204TH ST NE
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
MORANRD
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
234TH ST NE
FORT
Y
F
I
V
E
R
D
SILLRD
106THAVENE
LAKEWOOD RD HWY 531
123RDAVENE
SR 531
188TH ST NE
142NDST
NE
3R
D
A
V
E
N
E
200TH ST NE
PIONEER HWY E
140TH ST NE
236TH ST NE
MCELROY
RD
81
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
4T
H
A
V
E
N
W
138TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
TVEITRD
59TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
111THAVENE
SR
9
SR
9
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226THPLNE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BUR
N
R
D
I-5
I-
5
I-
5
I-
5
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
81
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
3RDAVE
NE
59TH
DR
NE
160THST NE
ECOUNTRYCLUB
DR25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
6THAVENE
10
7
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
10
7
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
DIKERD
DIKE RD
TWIN
LAKES
AVE
JORDANRD
Land Use
SR = Surburban R e sid e ntial
R LMD = Low to Mod e rate De nsity R e sid e ntial
R MD = Mod e rate De nsity R e sid e ntial
R HD = Hig h De nsity R e sid e ntial
OTR D = Old Town R e sid e ntial District
NC = Ne ig hborhood Com m e rcial
OTBD - 1 = Old Town Busine ss District 1
OTBD - 2 = Old Town Busine ss District 2
OTBD - 3 = Old Town Busine ss District 3
GC = Ge ne ral Com m e rcial
HC = Hig hway Com m e rcial
BP = Busine ss Park
LI = Lig ht Ind ustrial
GI = Ge ne ral Ind ustrial
P/SP = Public/Se m i-Public
MS = Me d ical Se rvice s
AF = Aviation Flig htline
ExpansionAre a
Coord inate d Wate r Se rvice Are a
Contract R e zone
TDR Ove rlay Z one
8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8MPN - Maste r Planne d Ne ig hborhood Ove rlay Z one
Maps and GIS d ata are d istribute d “AS-IS” without w arrantie s of any kind , e ithe r e xpre ss or im plie d , includ ingbut not lim ite d to warrantie s of suitability for a particular purpose or use . Map d ata are com pile d from a varie ty ofsource s which m ay contain e rrors and use rs who re ly upon the inform ation d o so at the ir own risk. Use rs ag re eto ind e m nify, d e fe nd , and hold harm le ss the City of Arling ton for any and all liability of any nature arising out ofor re sulting from the lack of accuracy or corre ctne ss of the d ata, or the use of the d ata pre se nte d in the m aps.
"Arling ton City Lim its
Arling ton UGA
Public R OW
Private R OW
R ail line
APD Subd istricts
APD Safe ty Z one sABC D
Kristin BanfieldCity ClerkBarbara TolbertMayor City of ArlingtonFuture Land Use Map
7/16/2015 Fig ure 2.3_11x17_15
1 inch = 3,500 fe e tScale :
Date :File :
THIS IS A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OFAR LINGTON, WHICH WAS ADOPTED AS PAR T OF THE COMPR EHENSIVEPLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON 5 DECEMBER 2005 PUR SUANT TOOR DINANCE NO. 1375.
«5
«3
«2
«4
«1
«2
«4
«3 «3
«1
«2
«4
«4
«2
«3
«3
«3
«1
«2
«1
«2
«5
«3
«D
«C
«A
«B
«B
«C
«C
«D
«D
SR
SR
GI
AF RLMD
HC LI
RMD
BP
LI
HC
LI
GC
OTRD
RLMD
GI
RHDRMD
RLMD
RMD
RMD
P/SP
RLMD
P/SP
RHD
GC
RMD
RMD
GIP/SP
GC
RHD
P/SP
MS
P/SP
LI
GC
P/SP
OTBD - 3
RHD
NC
RHD
OTBD - 2
GC
BP NC
NC
RMD
P/SP
GC
P/SP
P/SP
NC
NC
OTBD - 1
RLMD
P/SP
RHD
GC
RHD
P/SP
LI
HC
P/SP
RMD P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
MS
RLMD
RLMD
P/SP
RLMD
RLMD
RLMD
RHD
RHD
RLMD
P/SP
RHD
RLMD
RLMD
NC
HC
HC
BPBPRMD
P/SP
OTBD - 3
P/SP
P/SP
OTBD - 2
OTBD - 2
HC
RLMD
GC
GC
GC
SR SR
P/SP
RHD
1200
'
850 '
800 '
!"`$
?Ô
?Ó
?|
Pioneer MeadowsContract Rezone
GleneagleContract Rezone
MP N
MP NTDR
204TH ST NE
SR
530
SR 530
SR 531
WADE RD
45THAVE
N
E
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 1ST ST
136TH ST NE
CEMETERY RD
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
200TH ST NE
148TH ST NE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
156TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
143RD PL NE
156TH ST NE
E 5THST
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
DRNE
158TH ST NE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
35TH
AVE
NE
168TH ST NE
157TH ST NE
23RD
DR
NE
KNUTSON
RD
2N
D
A
V
E
N
W
194TH ST NW
152ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
144TH ST NE
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
138TH ST NE
212TH ST NW
40
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
99
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
MCPHERSON RD
34TH
AVENE
SCHLOMANRD
103RD AVENE
123RDAVE
NE
228TH ST NE
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
6T
H
A
V
E
N
W
2N
D
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
115TH
AVE
NE
164TH ST NE
EAGLEFIELD DR
MCRAE RD NW
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
238TH ST NE
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS RD
MORAN RD
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
234TH ST NE
HEVLY RD
FORT
Y
F
I
V
E
R
D
106THAVENE
142NDSTNE
SILL
RD
188TH ST NE
LAKEWOOD RD HWY 531
3R
D
A
V
E
N
E
200TH ST NE
PIONEER HWY E
140TH ST NE
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
156TH STNE
4T
H
A
V
E
N
W
138TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
TVEIT RD59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
51ST
AVE
NE
SR
9
SR
9
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
190TH PLNE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-
5
I-
5
I-
5
I-
5
BURNRD
3RD
AVE
NE
81
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
MARANATHA
RD
160THST NE
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
AVE
NE
10
7
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
10
7
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
DIKE
RD
DIKE RD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
JORDAN RD
A B C D "
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tribute d “AS-IS” without warrantie s of any kind , e ithe r e xpre s s or im plie d , inc lud ing but notlim ite d to warrantie s of s uitability for a partic ular purpos e or us e . Map d ata are c om pile d from a varie ty of s ourc e swhic h m ay c ontain e rrors and us e rs who re ly upon the inform ation d o s o at the ir own ris k. Us e rs agre e to ind e m nify,d e fe nd , and hold harm le s s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature aris ing out of or re s ulting from thelac k of ac c urac y or c orre c tne s s of the d ata, or the us e of the d ata pre s e nte d in the m aps .
File :Date :
Sc ale :
City of ArlingtonFuture Land Use Map
1 inc h = 3,500 fe e t
Kristin BanfieldCity ClerkBarbara TolbertMayor
Land Use
SR = Surburban Re s id e ntial
RLMD = Low to Mod e rate De ns ity Re s id e ntial
RMD = Mod e rate De ns ity Re s id e ntial
RHD = High De ns ity Re s id e ntial
OTRD = Old Town Re s id e ntial Dis tric t
NC = Ne ighborhood Com m e rc ial
OTBD - 1 = Old Town Bus ine s s Dis tric t 1
OTBD - 2 = Old Town Bus ine s s Dis tric t 2
OTBD - 3 = Old Town Bus ine s s Dis tric t 3
GC = Ge ne ral Com m e rc ial
HC = Highway Com m e rc ial
BP = Bus ine s s P ark
LI = Light Ind us trial
GI = Ge ne ral Ind us trial
P /SP = P ublic /Se m i-P ublic
MS = Me d ic al Se rvic e s
AF = Aviation Flightline
Future P lanning Are a
Coord inate d Wate r Se rvic e Are a
Contrac t Re zone
MP N - Mas te r P lanne d Ne ighborhood Ove rlay Zone
TDR Ove rlay Zone
Com m e rc ial Corrid or Ove rlay
Horizontal Mixe d Us e Ove rlay
AP D Safe ty Zone s
AP D Subd is tric ts
City Lim its
Urban Growth Are a
6/9/2017 Figure 2.3aUpd ate _11x17_17
THIS IS A COP Y OF THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OFARLINGTON, WHICH WAS ADOP TED AS P ART OF THE COMP REHENSIVEP LAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON 5 DECEMBER 2005 P URSUANT TOORDINANCE NO. 1375.
Rail lineStre e ts
SR
HC
BP
LI
GC
HC
OTRD
GI
RHD
RLMD
GC
RMD
P/SP
RLMD
RHD
RMD
RMD
GI
RHD
P/SP
MS
P/SP
GC
P/SP
RHD
NC
RHD
GC
BP
NC
RMD
RLMD
GC
P/SP
P/SP
NC
LI
OTBD - 1
P/SP
RHD
GC
RHD
NC
P/SP
LI
HC
RMD
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
MS
RLMD
P/SP
RLMD
RHD
RLMD
BPRMDBP
GC
HC
RMD
RMD
GC
GI
LI
GCNC
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
P/SP
RHD
RLMD
RLMD
AF
OTBD - 2
OTBD - 3
RLMD
RLMD
RMD RLMD
GCSR
RLMD
P/SP
HC
RLMD
P/SP
OTBD - 3
P/SP
P/SP
OTBD - 2
OTBD - 2
HC
RLMD
RHD
GCSR
P/SP
GC
RHD!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
Proposedland usechange to RMD
Proposedland usechange to RMD
Proposedland usechange to RMD
Proposed color change to rezone
Proposedland usechange to RMD
Proposedannexation
Proposedland usechange to RMD
Proposed color change to rezone
MPN
MPN
Proposedland usechange to RHD
204TH ST NE
SR
5
3
0
SR 530 211THPLNE
SR 531
168TH ST NE
E HIGHLAND DR
CEMETERY RD
SR
9
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
188TH ST NE
166THPL NE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
172ND ST NE
EAGLEFIELD DR
PIONEER HWY E
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS RD
I-
5
236TH ST NE
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
TVEIT
RD
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
SR
9
BUR
N
R
D
W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
E
COUNTRYCLUB
DR
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JORDANRD
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
City of Arlington
Legend
Gleneagle Contract Rezone
Pioneer Mead ows Contract Rezone
Proposed change to RHD
Proposed change to RMD
Proposed 'Mixed Use' Overlay
Proposed annexation
Arlington City Lim its
Arlington UGA
State Highway
State Route
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Rest area
City of Mary svilleµWaterbod ies and stream s provid ed by Snohom ish County FT P site, d ownload ed February 2015.
Maps and GIS d ata are d istributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any k ind , either express or im plied , includ ingbut not lim ited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map d ata are com piled from a variety ofsources which m ay contain errors and users who rely upon the inform ation d o so at their own risk . Users agreeto ind em nify, d efend , and hold harm less the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out ofor resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the d ata, or the use of the d ata presented in the m aps.
kd h
Figure2.3b_11x17_17
6/14/2017
0 0.55 1.10.275 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figure 2.3bProposed Land UseChanges
Existing Land Use Designation
SR = Surburban Resid ential
RLMD = Low to Mod erate Density Resid ential
RMD = Mod erate Density Resid ential
RHD = High Density Resid ential
OT RD = Old T own Resid ential District
NC = Neighborhood Com m ercial
OT BD - 1 = Old T own Business District 1
OT BD - 2 = Old T own Business District 2
OT BD - 3 = Old T own Business District 3
GC = General Com m ercial
HC = Highway Com m ercial
BP = Business Park
LI = Light Ind ustrial
GI = General Ind ustrial
P/SP = Public/Sem i-Public
MS = Med ical Services
AF = Aviation Flightline
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
NORTH
ST
SR530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
186TH PL NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
I-5
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORT
DR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
MORAN RD
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTONHEIGHTS RD
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JO
R
D
A
N
R
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legend
Propos ed Manu factu ringand Ind u s trial Center
Arlington City Limits
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Rou te
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Res t area
City of Marysville
µ
Waterbod ies and s treams provid ed by Snohomis h Cou nty FTP s ite, d ow nload ed Febru ary 2015.
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tribu ted “AS-IS” w ithou t w arranties of any kind , either expres s or implied , inclu d ingbu t not limited to w arranties of s u itability for a particu lar pu rpos e or u s e. Map d ata are compiled from a variety ofsou rces w hich may contain errors and u s ers w ho rely u pon the information d o s o at their ow n risk. Us ers agreeto ind emnify, d efend , and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any natu re aris ing ou t ofor res u lting from the lack of accu racy or correctnes s of the d ata, or the u se of the d ata pres ented in the maps .
kd h
Figu re2.4_11x17_15
5/27/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figu re 2.4Propos ed Arlington MIC
!(!(
!(
XY
XY
!(
!(!(
XYXY
XY
XY
!(!(!(!(####
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
Roundabout intesection im provem ents extend to I-5, down Sm okey Point Blvd and up 27th Ave
R32 R40
R31
I2 I3
I5
I7
I8
I4I1
I10
I11
I12
I13
I6
I9
R29
R23
R24
R6
R3
R11
R16B
R10 R8
R35
R28
R22
R27
R21
R7 & R9
R16A
R19
R26
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR 530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVENE
211THPLNE
SR 531
207TH ST NE
N
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
E HIGHLAND DR
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
CEMETERY RD 200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR
9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
178TH PLNE
NOBLE DR
74TH
AVE
NE
I-
5
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
188TH ST NE
SR
9
E 5THST
KNOLL
DR
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
195THSTNE
171ST PLNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
173RDPL
23RDDRNE
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
DRNE
103RDDR
NE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
NEWPORT
DR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
N
D
U
N
H
A
M
A
V
E
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDS WAY
45TH
DR
NE
MORAN RD
E 5TH ST
WOODBINE
DR
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
ARLINGTON
HEIGHTSRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172NDST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
188TH ST NE
I-
5
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
EAGLEFIELD DR
200TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
234TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SR9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT
RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226THPLNE
80TH
DR
NE
190TH PL NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRIN
GLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
59TH
D
R
N
E
E
COUNTRYCLUB
DR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JORDANRD
JORDANRD
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
R39
R18
R17
R4
R13
R14A
R5
R20
R36
R38
R12
R30
R37
R15
R1
R14B
R2
City of Arlington
Legend
Arlington City Lim its
State Highway
State Route
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Rest area
City of Mary sville
5
Waterbodies and stream s provided by Snohom ish County FTP site, downloaded February 2015.
Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any k ind, either express or im plied, includingbut not lim ited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety ofsources which m ay contain errors and users who rely upon the inform ation do so at their own risk . U sers agreeto indem nify, defend, and hold harm less the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out ofor resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the m aps.
kdh
Figure2.5U pdate_11x17_17
6/9/2017
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figure 2.5Proposed Official Street Plan
Intersection Improvements
##Right In/Right Out
!(Roundabout
XY Signal
New Infrastructure
Off/On Ram ps
Overpass
Tunnel
Street Improvements
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4 Lanes
5 Lanes
New Roads
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
Projects labeled by project num berR = road projectI = intersection project 2017 U pdate
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
"P
"P
"P
"P
"P
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR 530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
186TH ST NE
CEMETERYRD 200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR
9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
88TH
DRNE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
192ND PL NE
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORT
DR
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
MORAN RD
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTONHEIGHTS RD
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SMOKEY
POINT
BLVD
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JO
R
D
A
N
R
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
1847
595
834
840
930
956
958
960
1037
2460
2521
2522
2530
2569
2625
2849
1448
1451
1453
1535
2090
2418
2482
2520
2526
2527
2570
2624
2846
2847
3008
161 162
205 207
265 266 267
384
518
2528 2529
2531
2626
1549 1550
1592 1594
1611
16471651
1652
1755
2143
2523 2524
2525
2619
2623
2627
City of Arlington
Legend
Arlington City Lim its
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Route
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Rest area
City of Mary sville
µ
Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arranties of any k ind, either express or im plied, includingbut not lim ited to w arranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety ofsources w hich m ay contain errors and users w ho rely upon the inform ation do so at their ow n risk . Users agreeto indem nify, defend, and hold harm less the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out ofor resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the m aps.
kdh
Figure2.6_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figure 2.6Com m unity Transit Stopsand Routes
Transit data provided by Com m unity Transit. CT_Routes&Stops_GISData_Feb2015.zip [com puter file].Com m unity Transi,. Everett W A, via em ail. [February 2015]
W aterbodies provided by Snohom ish County FTP site, dow nloaded February 2015.
Community Transit Stops and Routes
"P Park and Ride
Type of Bus Stop
!(Norm al Stops
!(Tim e Point Only
Type of Bus Route
Local
In-County Com m uter
Inter-County Com m uter
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
NORTH
ST
SR530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
186TH PL NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
I-5
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORT
DR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
MORAN RD
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTONHEIGHTS RD
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JO
R
D
A
N
R
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legend
Arlingto n City Limits
Arlingto n UGA
State Highway
State Ro ute
Streets
Airp o rt
Rail line
Res t area
City o f Marys ville
µ
Waterb o dies and s treams p ro vided b y Sno ho mis h Co unty FTP s ite, do wnlo aded Feb ruary 2015.
Map s and GIS data are dis trib uted “AS-IS” witho ut warranties o f any kind, either exp res s o r imp lied, includingb ut no t limited to warranties o f s uitab ility fo r a p articular p urp o s e o r us e. Map data are co mp iled fro m a variety o fs o urces which may co ntain erro rs and us ers who rely up o n the info rmatio n do s o at their o wn ris k. Us ers agreeto indemnify, defend, and ho ld harmles s the City o f Arlingto n fo r any and all liab ility o f any nature aris ing o ut o fo r res ulting fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectnes s o f the data, o r the us e o f the data p res ented in the map s .
kdh
Figure2.7_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Carto grap her:
Figure 2.7Trail & Walkway PlanTrails & Parks
Trails and Walkways
!!!!!!!!!!!!!Future Trails
Exis ting Parks
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
NORTH
ST
SR530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
186TH PL NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
I-5
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORT
DR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
MORAN RD
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTONHEIGHTS RD
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JO
R
D
A
N
R
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legend
Service Area
Arlington City Limits
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Rou te
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Res t area
City of Marysville
µ
Waterbod ies and s treams provid ed by Snohomis h Cou nty FTP s ite, d ow nload ed Febru ary 2015.
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tribu ted “AS-IS” w ithou t w arranties of any kind , either expres s or implied , inclu d ingbu t not limited to w arranties of s u itability for a particu lar pu rpos e or u s e. Map d ata are compiled from a variety ofsou rces w hich may contain errors and u s ers w ho rely u pon the information d o s o at their ow n risk. Us ers agreeto ind emnify, d efend , and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any natu re aris ing ou t ofor res u lting from the lack of accu racy or correctnes s of the d ata, or the u se of the d ata pres ented in the maps .
kd h
Figu re2.8_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figu re 2.8Sewer Service Area
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
SR
5
3
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
211THPLNE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E HIGHLAND DR
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
CEMETERY RD
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
200TH ST NE
148TH ST NE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
156TH ST NE
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
143RDPL NE
MOSE
R
D
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
188TH ST NE
156TH ST NE
E 5THST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
19TH
DRNE
99
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
190TH PLNE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
184TH STNE
99THDR
NE
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
OLYMPICPL
47TH
AVE
NE
2N
D
A
V
E
N
W
11
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
194TH ST NW
182ND ST NE
152ND ST NE
158THSTNE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
144TH STNE
KNUTSONRD 212TH ST NW
40
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
WADE R
D
SCHLOMANRD
103RD AVENE
2N
D
A
V
E
N
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
6T
H
A
V
E
N
W
4T
H
A
V
E
N
W
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
228TH ST NE
40T
H
D
R
N
E
123RDAVENE
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
238TH ST NE
MCRAE RD NW
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
MORANRD
234TH ST NE
FORT
Y
F
I
V
E
R
D
HEVLY RD
SILLRD
106THAVENE
142NDSTNE
SR 531
188TH ST NE
115TH
AVE
NE
I-5
LAKEWOOD RD HWY 531
3R
D
A
V
E
N
E
200TH ST NE
PIONEER HWY E
236TH ST NE
MCELR
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
4T
H
A
V
E
N
W
27TH
AVE
NE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
I-
5
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
111THAVENE
SR
9
SR
9
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH P
LNE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
13THAVENE
BURNRD
8T
H
A
V
E
N
W
160THST NE
ECOUNTRYCLUB
DR25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
6THAVENE
10
7
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLD
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
9
9
HARVEYCREEKRD
MARANATHARD
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
10
7
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
TWIN
LAKES
AVE
JORDANRD
Pendingadditionto CWSP
City of Arlington
Legen d
CWSP a n d Service Area
Arlin gto n City Limits
Arlin gto n UGA
Sta te Highw a y
Sta te Ro ute
Streets
Airp o rt
Ra il lin e
Rest a rea
City o f Ma rysville
µ
Wa terbo dies a n d strea ms p ro vided by Sn o ho mish Co un ty FTP site, do w n lo a ded Februa ry 2015.
Ma p s a n d GIS da ta a re distributed “AS-IS” w itho ut w a rra n ties o f a n y kin d, either exp ress o r imp lied, in cludin gbut n o t limited to w a rra n ties o f suita bility fo r a p a rticula r p urp o se o r use. Ma p da ta a re co mp iled fro m a va riety o fso urces w hich ma y co n ta in erro rs a n d users w ho rely up o n the in fo rma tio n do so a t their o w n risk. Users a greeto in demn ify, defen d, a n d ho ld ha rmless the City o f Arlin gto n fo r a n y a n d a ll lia bility o f a n y n a ture a risin g o ut o fo r resultin g fro m the la ck o f a ccura cy o r co rrectn ess o f the da ta , o r the use o f the da ta p resen ted in the ma p s.
kdh
Figure2.9_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.7 1.40.35 MilesSca le:
Da te:
File:
Ca rto gra p her:
Figure 2.9Co o rdin a ted Wa ter System Pla n a n d Wa ter Service Area
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
C|
CentennialPark
ForestTrailPark
HallerPark
High CloverPark
YorkMemorial Park
Jensen Park
Lebanon Park
LegionPark
Bill QuakeMemorial Park
Boys andGirls Club
CalKinneyField
TerracePark
Twin RiversPark
Waldo E.EvansField
WedgewoodPark
Woodway Park
StormwaterWetlandPark
CountryCharmPark
204TH ST NE
SR
53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
E HIGHLAND DR
186TH ST NE
CEMETERY RD 200TH ST NE
19TH
DR
NE
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-
5
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
SR
9
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
MORAN RD
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
182ND ST NE
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
188TH ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
EAGLEFIELDDR
200TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
SR 531
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
JORDAN
RD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
HospitalTrail
Portage/Kruger CreekTrail
Airport Trail
CentennialTrail
City of Arlington
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tribu ted “AS-IS” w ithou t w arranties of any kind , either expres s or implied ,inclu d ing bu t not limited to w arranties of su itability for a particu lar pu rpos e or u s e. Map d ata are compiledfrom a variety of sou rces w hich may contain errors and u s ers w ho rely u pon the information d o s o at theirow n ris k. Us ers agree to ind emnify, d efend , and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liabilityof any natu re aris ing ou t of or res u lting from the lack of accu racy or correctnes s of the d ata, or the u s e ofthe d ata pres ented in the maps .
kd h
Figu re2.10_11x17_15
5/28/2015
Scale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Waterbod ies provid ed by Snohomis h Cou nty FTP s ite, d ow nload ed Febru ary 2015.
Legend
!!!!!!!!!!!!!Trails
Parks
Arlington City Limits
Arlington UGA
State Highway
State Rou te
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Res t area
Figu re 2.10Parks and RecreationFacilities
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
µ
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
92NDAVENE
19TH
DR
NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
TVEIT RD
97
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E5THST
180TH ST NE
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
171ST PLNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
MORAN RD
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
169TH PL NE
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
23RDDRNE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
PIONEER HWY E
SCHLOMANRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
234TH ST NE
SR 531
I-
5
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
NORTHST
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
79
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19TH
AVENE
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
80
T
H
D
R
N
E
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legend
Fire Service Area Also Citylimits
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Rou te
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Res t area
City of Marys ville µ
Waterbod ies and s treams provid ed by Snohomis h Cou nty FTP s ite, d ow nload ed Febru ary 2015.
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tribu ted “AS-IS” w ithou t w arranties of any kind , either expres s or implied , inclu d ingbu t not limited to w arranties of s u itability for a particu lar pu rpos e or u s e. Map d ata are compiled from a variety ofsou rces w hich may contain errors and u s ers w ho rely u pon the information d o s o at their ow n risk. Us ers agreeto ind emnify, d efend , and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any natu re aris ing ou t ofor res u lting from the lack of accu racy or correctnes s of the d ata, or the u se of the d ata pres ented in the maps .
kd h
Figu re2.11_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figu re 2.11Fire Service Area
204TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E HIGHLAND DR
200TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
CEMETERY RD
19TH
DR
NE
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5 74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
SR
9
TVEIT RD
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
PIONEER HWY E
SCHLOMANRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
234TH ST NE
SR 531
I-
5
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVENE
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
80
T
H
D
R
N
E
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
µWaterbodies and s treams p rovided by Snohomis h County FTP s ite, dow nloaded February 2015.
Map s and GIS data are dis tributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arranties of any kind, either exp res s or imp lied, inc ludingbut not limited to w arranties of s uitability for a p artic ular p urp os e or us e. Map data are c omp iled from a variety ofs ourc es w hic h may c ontain errors and us ers w ho rely up on the information do s o at their ow n ris k. Us ers agreeto indemnify, defend, and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature aris ing out of or res ulting from the lac k of ac c urac y or c orrec tnes s of the data, or the us e of the data p res ented in the map s .
kdh
Figure2.12_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesSc ale:
Date:
File:
Cartograp her:
Figure 2.12City Ow ned Prop erties
Legend
Arlington City Limits
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Route
Streets
Airp ort
Rail line
Res t area
Airp ort p arc els 1,155 acres
City ow ned p arc els 313 acres
nnn
n
nn
n
n
Sk ag it Co un tySk ag it Co un ty
!"`$
172nd St NESR 531
I
5
SR 531
I
5
4th St
SR530
SR
9
SR 529
108th St NE
SR 529
64th St NE
Stanwood Bryant RdSR 532
88th St NE
MarineDrNE
300th St NW
PioneerHwy
Old 99 N
Lakewood Rd
SR 9284th St NE
GroveSt
N
MachiasRd
SR 92
51st
Ave
NE
84th St NE
228th St NE
140th St NE
300th St NW
152nd St NE
140th St NW BurnRd
68th
Ave
NW
SR 92
15th
Ave
NE
28th
Ave
NW
Sunnyside
Blvd
RobeMenzel
Rd
Forty Five Rd
JimCreek Rd
252nd St NE
99th
Ave
NE
NormanRd
Grandview Rd
Menzel
LakeRd
Marine
D
r
Mountain Loop Hwy
State
Ave
83rd
Ave
NE
67th
Ave
NE
Jord an Rd
SillRd
27th
Ave
NE
3rd
Ave
NE
115th
Ave
NE
123rd
Ave
NE
NewbergRd
STANWOOD NO 401
GRANITE FALLS NO 332
LAKEWOOD NO 306
MARYSVILLE NO 25
LAKE STEVENS NO 4
EVERETT NO 2
DARRINGTON NO 330
EVERETTEVERETT
GRANITE FALLSGRANITE FALLS
LAKE STEVENSLAKE STEVENS
MARYSVILLEMARYSVILLE
STANWOODSTANWOOD
City of Arlington
µWate rbod ie s and s tre am s provid e d by Snohom is h County FTP s ite , d ownload e d Fe bruary 2015.
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tribute d “AS-IS” without warrantie s of any kind , e ithe r e xpre s s or im plie d , includ ingbut not lim ite d to warrantie s of s uitability for a particular purpos e or us e . Map d ata are com pile d from a varie ty ofs ource s which m ay contain e rrors and us e rs who re ly upon the inform ation d o s o at the ir own ris k. Us e rs ag re eto ind e m nify, d e fe nd , and hold harm le s s the City of Arling ton for any and all liability of any nature aris ing out ofor re s ulting from the lack of accuracy or corre ctne s s of the d ata, or the us e of the d ata pre s e nte d in the m aps .
kd h
Fig ure 2.13_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 2.5 51.25 Mile sScale :
Date :
File :
Cartog raphe r:
Fig ure 2.13School Dis trict Bound arie s
Le g e nd
n P ublic Schools
Arling ton City Lim its
Surround ing SchoolDis tricts
Inte rs tate
State Route s
Major Road s
Citie s
Arling ton SchoolDis trict
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
NORTH
ST
SR530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
186TH PL NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STIL
LAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
I-5
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORT
DR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
MORAN RD
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTONHEIGHTS RD
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JORDANRD
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
µ
Waterb o dies and s treams p ro vided b y Sno ho mis h Co unty FTP s ite, do wnlo aded Feb ruary 2015.
Map s and GIS data are dis trib uted “AS-IS” witho ut warranties o f any kind, either exp res s o r imp lied, includingb ut no t limited to warranties o f s uitab ility fo r a p articular p urp o s e o r us e. Map data are co mp iled fro m a variety o fs o urces which may co ntain erro rs and us ers who rely up o n the info rmatio n do s o at their o wn ris k. Us ers agreeto indemnify, defend, and ho ld harmles s the City o f Arlingto n fo r any and all liab ility o f any nature aris ing o ut o fo r res ulting fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectnes s o f the data, o r the us e o f the data p res ented in the map s .
kdh
Figure2.14_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Carto grap her:
Figure 2.14To p o grap hy
Legend
Mo derate to s teep s lo p es
Arlingto n City Limits
Arlingto n UGA
State Highway
State Ro ute
Streets
Airp o rt
Rail line
Res t area
City o f Marys ville
20' co nto urs
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
NORTH
ST
SR530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
186TH PL NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STIL
LAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
I-5
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORT
DR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
MORAN RD
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTONHEIGHTS RD
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
226TH
PLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JORDANRD
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legen d
Arlin gto n City Lim its
Arlin gto n UGA
State Highway
State Ro ute
Streets
Airpo rt
Rail lin e
Rest area
City o f Marysville
µ
W aterbo dies an d stream s pro vided by Sn o ho m ish Co un ty FTP site, do wn lo aded February 2015.
Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” witho ut warran ties o f an y kin d, either express o r im plied, in cludin gbut n o t lim ited to warran ties o f suitability fo r a particular purpo se o r use. Map data are co m piled fro m a variety o fso urces which m ay co n tain erro rs an d users who rely upo n the in fo rm atio n do so at their o wn risk. Users agreeto in dem n ify, defen d, an d ho ld harm less the City o f Arlin gto n fo r an y an d all liability o f an y n ature arisin g o ut o fo r resultin g fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectn ess o f the data, o r the use o f the data presen ted in the m aps.
kdh
Figure2.15_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Carto grapher:
Figure 2.15U.S. So il Co n servatio nSo il Survey
Soil Units
Alderwo o d gravelly san dy lo am
Alderwo o d-Everett gravelly san dy lo am s
Bellin gham silty clay lo am
Cathcart lo am
Custer fin e san dy lo am
Everett gravelly san dy lo am
Kitsap silt lo am
Lyn n wo o d lo am y san d
McKen n a gravelly silt lo am
Mukilteo m uck
No rm a lo am
No rm a varian t lo am
Pastik silt lo am
Pilchuck lo am y san d
Pits
Puget silty clay lo am
Puyallup fin e san dy lo am
Ragn ar fin e san dy lo am
Riverwash
Sn o ho m ish silt lo am
Sulsavar gravelly lo am
Sultan silt lo am
Sum as silt lo am
Terric Medisaprists
To kul gravelly m edial lo am
To kul-Ogarty-Ro ck o utcro p co m plex
To kul-W in sto n gravelly lo am s
Urban lan d
W ater
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
92NDAVENE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
TVEIT RD
97
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E5THST
180TH ST NE
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
171ST PLNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
MORAN RD
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
169TH PL NE
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
23RDDRNE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
PIONEER HWY E
SCHLOMANRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
234TH ST NE
SR 531
I-
5
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
NORTHST
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
79
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19TH
AVENE
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
80
T
H
D
R
N
E
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
Bjorn Creek
Hayho
Creek
EagleCreek
SouthSlough
ditch
WestForkQuilcedaCreek
Edgecombe Creek
MarchCreek
PrairieCreek
StillaguamishRiver
Por
t
a
g
e
C
r
e
e
k
City of Arlington
Legen d
Arlin gton City Lim its
Arlin gton UGA
State Highw ay
State Route
Streets
Airport
Rail lin e
Rest area
City of Marysville
µ
W aterbodies an d stream s provided by Sn ohom ish Coun ty FTP site, dow n loaded February 2015.
Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arran ties of an y k in d, either express or im plied, in cludin gbut n ot lim ited to w arran ties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety ofsources w hich m ay con tain errors an d users w ho rely upon the in form ation do so at their ow n risk . Users agreeto in dem n ify, defen d, an d hold harm less the City of Arlin gton for an y an d all liability of an y n ature arisin g out ofor resultin g from the lack of accuracy or correctn ess of the data, or the use of the data presen ted in the m aps.
k dh
Figure2.16_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figure 2.16Major W aterbodies an dDrain age Basin s
Drainage Basins
Eagle CreekMF Quilceda CreekMarch CreekOther Low er MS Stillaguam ish RiverOther Low er SF Stillaguam ish River
Other Middle MS Stillaguam ish RiverOther Upper SF Stillaguam ish RiverPortage CreekUn n am ed Burn Road CreekUpper MS Stillaguam ish RiverW F Quilceda Creek
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
ARLINGTONHEIGHTS
RD
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR 9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
I-5
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STIL
LAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
E 2ND ST
162NDPLNE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
NEWPORT
DR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
MORAN RD
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
PIONEER HWY E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTONHEIGHTSRD
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
NORTHST
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PLNE
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
BURNRD
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUB DR
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JORDANRDDIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
RanneyWell
AirportWell Field
HallerWellField
City of Arlington
Legend
!(City Wells
Low aq uifer s ens itivity
Med ium aq uifer s ens itivity
High aq uifer s ens itivity
Arlington City Limits
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Route
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Res t area
City of Marys villeµ
Waterbod ies and s treams provid ed by Snohomis h County FTP s ite, d ow nload ed February 2015.
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arranties of any kind , either expres s or implied , includ ingbut not limited to w arranties of s uitability for a particular purpos e or us e. Map d ata are compiled from a variety ofs ources w hich may contain errors and us ers w ho rely upon the information d o s o at their ow n ris k. Us ers agreeto ind emnify, d efend , and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature aris ing out ofor res ulting from the lack of accuracy or correctnes s of the d ata, or the us e of the d ata pres ented in the maps .
kd h
Figure2.17_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figure 2.17Aq uifer Recharge Areasand City Wells
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
92NDAVENE
19TH
DR
NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
TVEIT RD
97
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E5THST
180TH ST NE
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
171ST PLNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
MORAN RD
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
169TH PL NE
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
23RDDRNE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
PIONEER HWY E
SCHLOMANRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
234TH ST NE
SR 531
I-
5
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
NORTHST
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
79
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19TH
AVENE
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
80
T
H
D
R
N
E
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legen d
Arlin gto n City Lim its
Arlin gto n UGA
State Highway
State Ro ute
Streets
Airpo rt
Rail lin e
Rest area
City o f Marysville
µ
Waterbo dies an d stream s pro vided by Sn o ho m ish Co un ty FTP site, do wn lo aded February 2015.
Maps an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” witho ut warran ties o f an y kin d, either express o r im plied, in cludin gbut n o t lim ited to warran ties o f suitability fo r a particular purpo se o r use. Map data are co m piled fro m a variety o fso urces which m ay co n tain erro rs an d users who rely upo n the in fo rm atio n do so at their o wn risk. Users agreeto in dem n ify, defen d, an d ho ld harm less the City o f Arlin gto n fo r an y an d all liability o f an y n ature arisin g o ut o fo r resultin g fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectn ess o f the data, o r the use o f the data presen ted in the m aps.
kdh
Figure2.18_ 11x17_ 15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Carto grapher:
Figure 2.18Critical Areas, Open Space & Resto ratio n Pro jects
Natio n al Wetlan d In ven to ry
City-Mapped Wetlan ds
NGPA & Critical Area Easem en ts
City Parks
Resto ratio n Pro jects
Mo derate to steep slo pes
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
92NDAVENE
19TH
DR
NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
TVEIT RD
97
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E5THST
180TH ST NE
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
171ST PLNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
MORAN RD
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
169TH PL NE
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
23RDDRNE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
PIONEER HWY E
SCHLOMANRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
234TH ST NE
SR 531
I-
5
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
NORTHST
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
79
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19TH
AVENE
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
80
T
H
D
R
N
E
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legend
Arlington City Limits
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Route
Streets
Airp ort
Rail line
Res t area
City of Marys ville
µ
Waterbodies and s treams p rovided by Snohomis h County FTP s ite, dow nloaded February 2015.
Map s and GIS data are dis tributed “AS-IS” w ithout w arranties of any kind, either exp res s or imp lied, inc ludingbut not limited to w arranties of s uitability for a p artic ular p urp os e or us e. Map data are c omp iled from a variety ofs ourc es w hic h may c ontain errors and us ers w ho rely up on the information do s o at their ow n ris k. Us ers agreeto indemnify, defend, and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature aris ing out of or res ulting from the lac k of ac c urac y or c orrec tnes s of the data, or the us e of the data p res ented in the map s .
kdh
Figure2.19_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesSc ale:
Date:
File:
Cartograp her:
Figure 2.19Geologic Hazards
Liquefaction Susceptibility
high
moderate to high
moderate
low to moderate
low
very low to low
very low
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
SR53
0
SR 530
E 3RD ST
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
207TH ST NE
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
92NDAVENE
19TH
DR
NE
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
I-5
74TH
AVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
71STDRNE
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
TVEIT RD
97
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E5THST
180TH ST NE
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STILLAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
171ST PLNE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
E 2ND ST
MORAN RD
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
S
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
169TH PL NE
19THDR
NE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
23RDDRNE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190TH PLNE
220TH ST NE
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEWDR
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEW DR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
WOODBINE
DR
MCPHERSON RD
PIONEER HWY E
SCHLOMANRD
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67TH
AVE
NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
234TH ST NE
SR 531
I-
5
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
NORTHST
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
79
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
S
OLYMPIC
AVE
19TH
AVENE
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226TH
PL
NE
CHAMPIONSDR
80
T
H
D
R
N
E
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE W
COUNTRY CLUBDR
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
ECOUNTRYCLUBDR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWN
RIDGE
BLVD
JORDANRD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
DIKERD
DIKE RD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legend
2011 Ad opted Flood way
2011 Ad opted Flood plain
Arlington City Limits
Arlington UGA
State Highw ay
State Rou te
Streets
Airport
Rail line
Res t area
City of Marysvilleµ
Waterbod ies and s treams provid ed by Snohomis h Cou nty FTP s ite, d ow nload ed Febru ary 2015.
Maps and GIS d ata are d is tribu ted “AS-IS” w ithou t w arranties of any kind , either expres s or implied , inclu d ingbu t not limited to w arranties of s u itability for a particu lar pu rpos e or u s e. Map d ata are compiled from a variety ofsou rces w hich may contain errors and u s ers w ho rely u pon the information d o s o at their ow n risk. Us ers agreeto ind emnify, d efend , and hold harmles s the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any natu re aris ing ou t ofor res u lting from the lack of accu racy or correctnes s of the d ata, or the u se of the d ata pres ented in the maps .
kd h
Figu re2.20_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Cartographer:
Figu re 2.20Ad opted Flood w ay and Flood plain
100 year floodplain as mapped by FEMA
!"`$
?Ó
?Ô
?|
204TH ST NE
168TH ST NE
NORTH
ST
SR530
SR 530
E 3RD ST
87TH
AVE
NE
211THPLNE
OSPREY
RD
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
207THST NE
E HIGHLAND DR
186TH ST NE
E 1ST ST
CEMETERY RD 200TH ST NE
92NDAVENE
19
T
H
D
R
N
E
SR
9
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
74THAVE
NE
51
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
207TH ST NE
71STDRNE
E UNION ST
59
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
188TH ST NE
S
H
A
Z
E
L
S
T
51
S
T
D
R
N
E
SR
9
PORTAGE ST
E 5THST
180TH ST NE
KNOLLDR
186TH PL NE
43RD
AVE
NE
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19TH
AVE
NE
S
STIL
LAGUAMISH
AVE
197TH ST NE
195THSTNE
I-5
171ST PL NE
88TH
DRNE
176TH PL NE
85
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
REDHAWKDR
GREYWALLSDR
E 2ND ST
89
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
33RD
AVE
NE
E BURKE AVE
192ND PL NE
S
F
R
E
N
C
H
A
V
E
196TH PL NE
166THPLNE
162NDPLNE
17
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
169TH PL NE
19TH
DRNE
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
103RDDR
NE
GLENEAGLEBLVD
190THPLNE
220TH ST NE
NEWPORTDR
35
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
168TH ST NE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
180TH ST NE
HAWKSVIEW
DR
23RD
DRNE
31
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
6TH
A
V
E
N
E
N
M
A
C
L
E
O
D
A
V
E
N
O
L
Y
M
P
I
C
A
V
E
MORAN RD
N
D
U
N
H
A
M
A
V
E
HIGHLAND
VIEWDR
182ND ST NE
95
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
WOODLANDSWAY
45TH
DR
NE
E 5TH ST
15
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
MCPHERSON RD
SCHLOMANRD
TW
I
N
L
A
K
E
S
A
V
E
47
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
PIONEER HWY E
43
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
40T
H
D
R
N
E
172ND ST NE
23
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
ARLINGTON HEIGHTSRD
E GILMAN AVE
164TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
OLDBURNRD
204TH ST NE
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
234TH ST NE
188TH ST NE
200TH ST NE
SR 531
I-5
236TH ST NE
MC
E
L
R
O
Y
R
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
SM
O
K
E
Y
P
O
I
N
T
B
L
V
D
27
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
19
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
TVEIT RD
N
W
E
S
T
A
V
E
59TH
AVE
NE
83
R
D
D
R
N
E
91
S
T
A
V
E
N
E
177THPL NE
226THPLNE
77
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
CHAMPIONSDR
80TH
DR
NE
79
T
H
D
R
N
E
67
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
VISTADR
37
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
OLYMPICPL
BUR
N
R
D
SPRINGLANEAVE
59
T
H
D
R
N
E
E
COUNTRY
CLUB
DR
25
T
H
A
V
E
N
E
63
R
D
A
V
E
N
E
CROWNRIDGE
BLVD
AIRPOR
T
B
L
V
D
JORDAN
RD
DIKERD
DIKERD
BOVEE LN
City of Arlington
Legend
Arlingto n City Limits
Arlingto n UGA
State Highway
State Ro ute
Streets
Airp o rt
Rail line
Res t area
City o f Marys ville
µ
Waterb o dies and s treams p ro vided b y Sno ho mis h Co unty FTP s ite, do wnlo aded Feb ruary 2015.
Map s and GIS data are dis trib uted “AS-IS” witho ut warranties o f any kind, either exp res s o r imp lied, includingb ut no t limited to warranties o f s uitab ility fo r a p articular p urp o s e o r us e. Map data are co mp iled fro m a variety o fs o urces which may co ntain erro rs and us ers who rely up o n the info rmatio n do s o at their o wn ris k. Us ers agreeto indemnify, defend, and ho ld harmles s the City o f Arlingto n fo r any and all liab ility o f any nature aris ing o ut o fo r res ulting fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectnes s o f the data, o r the us e o f the data p res ented in the map s .
kdh
Figure2.21_11x17_15
5/28/2015
0 0.5 10.25 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Carto grap her:
Figure 2.21Bro adb and In Arlingto n Area
Comcast (DetailedInformation)
Strand
Undergro und
Vault
Co nduit Ro ute
ApproximateLocation
Fro ntier
Wave
Data provided by Comcast, Frontier and Wave (May 2015)
""""""""
"
"
"
"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""
"""""""
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
!!
Pro p o sed Water Reservo ir
?|
79TH DR NE
81STDRNE
E
HIGHLAND
DR
87TH AVE NE215TH
PL
NE
E
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
80TH AVE NE
S OLYMPIC AVE
PEAK PL
84THAVENE
E
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
101ST DR
N
E
101ST AVE NE
BALLANTRAE DR
OLYMPIC PL
MCELROY RD
19
0
T
H
P
L
N
E
EAGLEFIELDDR
99THAVENE
101ST AVE NE
19
6
T
H
S
T
N
E
DUNHAM AVE
PORTAGE
ST
97TH AVE NE
KNOLLDR
S STILLAGUAMISH AVE
VALLEYVIEWDR
S FRENCH AVE
S MACLEOD AVE
89TH AVE NE
VISTADR
95TH AVE NE
BURN R
D
OLDBURNRD
SR 9
CROWN RIDGE BLVD
196TH
PLNE
20
7
T
H
S
T
N
E
20
0
T
H
S
T
N
E
18
6
T
H
S
T
N
E
92NDAVENE
195THSTNE
TV
E
I
T
R
D
TVEITRD
JENSENFARMLN 204THSTNE
MO
R
A
N
R
D
City of Arlington
Legen d
Pro p o sed Water Main s
Pro p o sed ROW
Un dergro un d Gas Lin e
Sew er Main s
Water Main s
"Po wer lin es
Public Right o f Way
Private Ro ads*
Assesso r p arcels
Brekhus/Beach Neighbo rho o d
Arlin gto n City Lim its
Arlin gto n UGA
µ*No t all p rivate ro ads sho w n
Waterbo dies an d stream s p ro vided by Sn o ho m ish Co un ty FTP site, do w n lo aded February 2015.
Map s an d GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” w itho ut w arran ties o f an y kin d, either exp ress o r im p lied, in cludin gbut n o t lim ited to w arran ties o f suitability fo r a p articular p urp o se o r use. Map data are co m p iled fro m a variety o fso urces w hich m ay co n tain erro rs an d users w ho rely up o n the in fo rm atio n do so at their o w n risk. Users agreeto in dem n ify, defen d, an d ho ld harm less the City o f Arlin gto n fo r an y an d all liability o f an y n ature arisin g o ut o fo r resultin g fro m the lack o f accuracy o r co rrectn ess o f the data, o r the use o f the data p resen ted in the m ap s.
kdh
Figure2.22_ 11x17_ 15
7/24/2015
0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesScale:
Date:
File:
Carto grap her:
Figure 2.22Brekhus Beach Pro p o sedIn frastructure
Planning Level Data
Chapter 3: Goals and Policies
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-1 JULY 2015
3 Goals and Policies
OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES
GO-1 Ensure City Goals and Policies are consistent with the Growth Management
Act.
GO-2 Continue to provide effective stewardship over the natural and built
environments within the City, ensuring harmony between both environments
through application of best practice techniques.
GO-3 Work towards promoting and maintaining an urban environment within the
City that enhances livability for its residents.
GO-4 Continue to use local resources and encourage local involvement in community
actions. This should include continued encouragement of public and private
involvement in community traditions, as well as encouragement of volunteerism.
GO-5 Diversify recreational opportunities and cultural activities within the City.
GO-6 Preserve and promote Arlington’s "small town" character.
Policies:
PO-6.1 Site design and building architecture in residential and commercial developments
should be human-scaled (i.e., pedestrian friendly) and conducive to social
interaction.
PO-6.2 Residential plats (subdivisions) should be designed to encourage pedestrian activity
through incorporation of amenities such as, but not limited to, sidewalks on both
sides of the street, street furniture, street trees, and pedestrian paths connecting the
plat to adjacent residential, commercial, educational, or recreational facilities.
PO-6.3 Mini Parks should be required in new residential developments or a “fee-in-lieu of”
paid to the City.
PO-6.4 Land-use developments should be conducive to social interaction.
PO-6.5 Both publicly and privately owned civic spaces should be included in both
commercial and residential neighborhoods to ensure adequate gathering places for
residents.
PO-6.6 Design Guidelines/Standards should be established, maintained, and enforced, in
order to ensure that all new development both within the Private and Public Realms
are in harmony with the desired character of each respective neighborhood subarea.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-2 JULY 2015
PO-6.7 All land use decisions and other relevant City decisions will be reviewed against
these planning goals and policies -- including Countywide Planning Policies and
Multi-County Planning Policies – to ensure internal and external consistency.
HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES
GH-1 Diversify the City’s housing stock.
Policies:
PH-1.1 A variety of housing types and densities should be encouraged on lands with a
residential land-use designation.
PH-1.2 Detached Accessory Dwelling Units should be permissible in residential zones.
PH-1.3 Mobile and manufactured home parks should be permissible in the City subject to
specific site plan requirements.
PH-1.4 Adequate housing opportunities for residents with special housing needs should be
provided within the City.
PH-1.5 Different classes of group homes should be permissible in residential neighborhoods.
PH-1.6 Pre-zoning designations within the City’s unincorporated Urban Growth Area greater
than fifty acres and slated for residential development should provide for a mix of
housing types and densities.
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.
Policies:
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.
PH-2.2 Cottage Housing should be incentivized in moderate and high density residential
areas within the City.
PH-2.3 Utilize Mixed Use mechanisms to incentivize housing within close proximity to
commercial uses.
GH-3 Ensure stable residential neighborhoods through public investment in
infrastructure and by preserving existing housing stock.
Policies:
PH-3.1 Funds should be adequately budgeted for periodic maintenance of existing
infrastructure in residential neighborhoods throughout the City.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-3 JULY 2015
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. .
GH-4 Encourage the development of special needs housing within the City.
Policies:
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.
PH-4.2 Senior housing should be located in close proximity to hospitals, public
transportation routes, retail/service centers, and parks.
GH-5 Encourage a quality housing stock within the City.
Policies:
PH-5.1 The City should develop and maintain Development Design Guidelines/Standards
that address aesthetic and environmental design issues for single-family and multi-
family residential development.
PH-5.2 The City should coordinate with willing neighborhood-based groups and other
volunteer organizations to promote housing rehabilitation efforts.
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).
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.
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.
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.
GH-6 Establish and maintain a streamlined permitting processing to help create
predictability for customers.
Policies:
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
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-4 JULY 2015
assessments, concurrent permit and approval processing, permit and approval
deadlines, and single hearings.
GH-7 Increase the opportunity for all residents to purchase or rent safe, and sanitary
housing through incentives and other programs.
Policies:
PH-7.1 The Planning Commission should review State and federal housing programs and
make recommendations to City Council regarding future grant applications.
PL-7.2 The City should coordinate with willing neighborhood-based groups or other
volunteer organizations to promote rehabilitation and community revitalization
efforts.
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.
GH-8 Promote and facilitate the provision of affordable housing in all areas and
zoning districts of the City.
Policies:
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.
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.
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 types (e.g. ADUs, Clusters, Cottage Housing,
Small Lots, Zero-Lot Lines, Bungalow Courts), b) implementing regulatory tools
(e.g. Mixed Use, Inclusionary Zoning, SEPA Exemption, Flexible Development
Standards, Performance Standards), c) providing general incentives (e.g. density
bonuses, parking reductions, permitting priority), d) financial help (e.g. reduced
permit and utility connection fees), e) encouraging project level actions that help
with affordability (affordability covenants). The City should provide criteria and
process for ensuring that those units remain affordable over time.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-5 JULY 2015
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.
PH-8.5 Consistent with the amended 2016 Snohomish County 2016 Countywide Planning
Policy Amendments:
PH-8.5.1 In advance of market activities that may limit future potential public
benefits, the county should pursue zoning and other strategies around
transit oriented development (TOD) sites to guide sustainable and
equitable development patterns that incorporate affordable housing
production. (CWPP LU Policy 3.H.3)
PH-8.5.2 Support the coordination of housing and service providers to serve
persons with special needs. (CWPP HO Policy 1.A.5)
PH-8.5.3 The county shall recognize the increasing diversity in the cultural and
economic backgrounds of its residents, and shall encourage a broad
range of affordable ownership and rental housing opportunities,
including opportunities for persons with special needs. (CWPP HO
Policy 1.B.2)
PH-8.5.4 The county shall encourage ((private)) for-profit and non-profit sector
production of new housing units that are affordable to and occupied by
low income households. (CWPP HO Policy 1.C.3 )
a. Explore and evaluate various fiscal and regulatory tools and funding
resources and strategies to encourage housing providers to increase the
supply of affordable housing units generally, and particularly within
mixed-income developments and communities.
b. Provide incentives that encourage for-profit and non-profit residential
developers to address low- and moderate-income housing needs, such
as priority permit processing and exemptions or reductions in impact
fee mitigation payments for low-income projects with affordability
commitments.
c. Evaluate the feasibility of reducing minimum permitted lot sizes in
non-PRD developments.
d. Encourage through incentives and other techniques a balance of
affordable and market-rate housing within urban centers and along
transit emphasis corridors. (CWPP HO Policy 1.C.3 )
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-6 JULY 2015
PH-8.5.5 (Track the provision of affordable housing units to assess whether an
adequate supply of housing affordable to the county’s lower income and
special needs residents, as defined in the Housing Characteristics and
Needs Report for Snohomish County, is being provided. (CWPP
Objective HO 4.B )
PH-8.5.6 In support of countywide housing policies, the county shall seek
partnerships with other jurisdictions, through the Alliance for Housing
Affordability, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish
County, Snohomish County Tomorrow and similar forums, to track the
provision of housing by type and affordability. This effort will include an
assessment of progress toward meeting the county’s housing goals,
including housing that addresses the needs of households within the
Under 30% AMI, 30-50% AMI and 51-80% AMI segments, as projected
in the current Housing Characteristics and Needs Report for Snohomish
County. (CWPP HO Policy 4.B.1)
PH-8.5.7 Based upon the monitoring and evaluation results from Policy 4.B.1, the
county shall evaluate the effectiveness of its zoning regulations to
produce housing developments that meet the diverse housing needs
identified in the Housing Characteristics and Needs Report for
Snohomish County. (HO Policy 4.B.2)
LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
General:
GL-1 Work to ensure that the character and location of land uses optimize the
economic benefit, enjoyment by residents, and protection of natural resources
while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards,
nuisances, incompatible land uses and environmental degradation through
implementation of the following:
a) Growth Management: Manage growth so that the delivery of public facilities
and services will occur in a fiscally responsible manner to support
development and redevelopment within the City.
b) Economic Development: Attain the highest level of economic well-being
possible for all citizens in Arlington through the achievement of a stable and
diversified economy offering a wide variety of employment opportunities.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-7 JULY 2015
c) Neighborhood Conservation: Achieve a well-balanced and well-organized
combination of open space, commercial, industrial, recreation and public uses
that are served by an efficient transportation network while protecting the
fabric and character of residential neighborhoods.
d) Environmental Preservation and Conservation: Through both preservation
and conservation ensure the proper management of the natural environment
and resources.
Policies:
PL-1.1 Suburban Residential (SR) – This designation should primarily provide for single-
family residential development, at a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, and
compatible uses where the full range of public facilities and services to support
suburban development exists. This designation may be implemented by more than
one zoning classification. Determination of the appropriate zoning classification shall
take into account the density of nearby existing development and the capacity of
existing and projected public facilities.
PL-1.15 Gateway Overlay Zone (GOZ) – This land use designation overlay should be applied
to properties (lots) that are adjacent to, or abutting right-of-ways classified as Arterial
or greater and that are at least partially within a quarter mile of City limits.
Development regulations specific to the Gateway Overlay Zone should be
established to address architecture, site design, screening, landscaping, and
appropriate land uses.
PL-1.2 Residential Moderate Density (RMD) – This designation should primarily provide
for single-family residential development (including duplexes), at a density of six (6)
dwelling units per acre, and compatible uses where the full range of public facilities
and services to support moderate density development exists. This designation may
be implemented by more than one zoning classification (such as Low/Moderate
Density). Generally, this designation is appropriate for land located convenient to
principle principal arterials and/or business and commercial activity centers where a
transition between higher densities and lower densities are warranted or where
critical areas, transportation systems, or other public facilities preclude higher
density. Determination of the appropriate zoning classification shall take into account
the density of nearby existing development and the capacity of existing and projected
public facilities.
PL-1.3 Old-Town Residential (OTR) – This designation should primarily provide for single-
family residential development (including duplexes), at a density of ten dwelling
units per acre, and compatible uses where the full range of public facilities and
services to support urban development exists. This designation may be implemented
by more than one zoning classification. This designation is to be used for the older
residential part of Arlington, which is mostly developed in a traditional, small-lot
grid pattern. Any new development in this designation should be compatible and
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-8 JULY 2015
consistent with this older-style development pattern. Design standards or other
special regulations aimed at preserving the historic quality of the traditional
residential may be applied in this designation.
PL-1.4 Residential High Density (RHD) – This designation should provide for multi-family
and other high-density residential development, with density limited only by
development parameters such as-but not limited to-building height, setbacks, parking
requirements, screening, open space and compatible uses where a full range of public
facilities and services that support urban development exist or can be provided.
Generally, this designation is appropriate for land that is located convenient to
principle arterialprincipal arterials and commercial areas.
PL-1.5 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) – This designation should provide for retail and
service businesses that serve the limited convenience shopping and personal service
needs to the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Generally this designation is
appropriate for lots that are located on the corner of an intersection where at least
one adjacent road is classified as an arterial or greater.
PL-1.6 Old-Town Business District (OTBD) – This designation is intended for the
traditional commercial center of old downtown Arlington, and should be used to
promote a dense, active, pedestrian-oriented commercial/service center. It should
provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial or business uses that attract large
numbers of customers and that are conducted primarily indoors, multi-family
residential uses upstairs from commercial uses (mixed use), and civic uses. This
designation may be implemented by more than one zoning classification. In
particular, there is a noticeable difference in the existing land use patterns between
N. Olympic and the other commercial parts of downtown, and special policies and
regulations may be implemented to enhance the historic nature of the former as a
way to increase commercial activities therein. In areas of the OTBD not directly on
N. Olympic, such policies and regulations may also be implemented, but should
allow for slightly more automobile-oriented design.
PL-1.7 General Commercial (GC) – The General Commercial designation is intended to
provide areas for a wide range of small to large footprint commercial uses, but
typically in areas that would be used predominantly by local users. Such uses
typically are conducted in individual buildings with large parking lots that are
located toward the block or site interior and have adequate landscaping and
screening. Mixed-use development (both vertical and horizontal) should be
permissible.
PL-1.8 Highway Commercial (HC) – This designation is intended to provide areas for a
wide range of large-scale, auto-oriented commercial and business uses that may
attract users from outside the Arlington area and that require highway access, larger
sites, and separation from residential uses.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-9 JULY 2015
PL-1.9 Business Park (BP) – The Business Park designation is intended to promote office,
high technology research and development, and related uses in a master-planned,
park-like setting.
PL-1.10 Light Industrial (LI) – This designation is intended to allow those types of industrial,
wholesale, or service uses that have minimal impacts on surrounding properties. This
is accomplished by having all activities done in completely enclosed structures. Due
to the proximity of this zone to the Arlington Airport, care should be taken to ensure
that uses are compatible with it, and that they will not impact airborne aircraft
because of the height of structures, smoke, glare, lights which shine upwards, radio
interferences from transmissions, nor any water impoundments or sanitary landfills
which would create potential hazards from waterfowl to airborne aircraft.
PL-1.11 General Industrial (GI) – This land use designation is intended to allow a full range
of industrial, wholesale, or service uses that traditionally may have impacts to
surrounding properties, as they involve a great deal of activity and storage outside
the building; large doors are open; and there may be more noise, light, heat, smoke,
dust, and odors detected beyond the property lines than in other zones.
PL-1.12 Aviation Flightline (AF) – This designation is intended to allow only aviation related
uses proximate to airport runways and taxiways. Aviation related uses include any
uses related to supporting aviation that require direct taxi-way access as a necessary
part of their business operations, such as aviation services, manufacturing of
aviation-related goods, general services whose primary customers would be those
engaged in aviation-related activities (e.g., restaurants primarily catering to pilots,
employees, or passengers), or other uses that are clearly related to aviation.
PL-1.13 Civic Space (CS) – This category is intended for use on all land that is publicly
owned and will in all likelihood remain publicly owned. It allows public buildings
and services, recreational uses, utilities, and transportation facilities.
PL-1.14 Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) This land use designation overlay should be
permissible on large tracts of land (25 acres or more) that are proposed to be brought
into the City’s Urban Growth Area where detailed planning would benefit the public
as well as all property owners involved by allowing them to proportionately share
infrastructure planning and financing. It achieves this by requiring that a Master Plan
be developed for all parcels within a particular overlay and approved by Council.
The Master Plan should address how the roads, sewer, water, and other services and
utilities would be provided and paid for, determine the types of uses would be
allowed and at what densities (including at least 50% of the lots in Low Density
Residential (4 du/ac), and whatever other issues need to be worked out prior to
development.
GL-2 Preserve and promote a safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing living
environment.
Policies:
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-10 JULY 2015
PL-2.1 Storage of soil, yard waste, refuse, machines and other equipment in rights-of-way
and building setbacks should be prohibited.
PL-2.2 Installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscape strips, and vegetated LID
facilities for all developments should be installed unless the permit-issuing authority
makes specific findings that such improvements would not be consistent with these
or other goals or policies. Curb cuts are permitted at bio-retention facilities to allow
stormwater runoff to enter the facility.
Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination
GL-3 Work with affected jurisdictions to address cross-jurisdictional growth issues.
Policies:
PL-3.1 The City should coordinate growth and development with adjacent jurisdictions to
promote and protect inter-jurisdictional interests.
PL-3.2 The City should enter into and maintain Interlocal Agreements with adjacent
jurisdictions that address joint planning, reciprocal mitigation and impact fees, and
other mutually beneficial issues.
PL-3.3 The City should enter into and maintain Interlocal Agreements with neighboring
municipalities regarding the future expansion of respective Urban Growth Area
boundaries. Such boundaries should take into consideration respective water service
areas and other special district boundaries in order to prevent future conflicts.
Growth and Growth Management
GL-4 Accommodate new development in a manner that supports a growth rate
consistent with the goals of the State Growth Management Act but also
preserves and enhances Arlington’s quality of life, its natural environment, and
its historical and cultural amenities.
Policies:
PL-4.1 The City’s Urban Growth Area should be sufficiently sized to accommodate
projected 20-year population and employment forecasts.
PL-4.2 The City should ensure that growth and development is consistent with the City's
Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks,
lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, parks and
recreational facilities, and schools.
PL-4.3 The City should adopt and maintain development regulations that ensure that growth
is consistent with State laws and the Community Vision.
PL-4.4 When proposing Urban Growth Area expansions, the City should only seek land to
be included within the City’s Urban Growth Area that is suitable for urban
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-11 JULY 2015
development consistent with the Growth Management Act and where utilities and
infrastructure can be provided at reasonable costs.
PL-4.5 All new commercial, industrial, and residential plat developments should provide
additional transportation infrastructure consistent with the City’s comprehensive
transportation plan and development regulations through installation, dedication, fee-
in-lieu or some other acceptable form of mitigation.
PL-4.6 Development patterns should be responsive to environmental critical areas with
resulting fragmentation of the built environment minimized to the greatest extent
feasible.
PL-4.7 The City should use Snohomish County Tomorrow’s Growth Monitoring Report as a
basis for monitoring growth.
PL-4.8 The City should plan for a balanced mix of land uses based on land availability and
the capacity to provide public services.
NEW Infrastructure capacity should be “concurrent” with new land development. Where
concurrency cannot be assured, the GMA and capital facility plans should be
reassessed and potentially amended accordingly.
PL-4.9 The City should strive to equitably allocate the cost of growth. Such tools as
mitigation and impact fees can provide funds for necessary infrastructure
improvements.
GL-5 Ensure that Neighborhood or Subarea Plans for unincorporated Urban Growth
Areas are established prior to annexation in order to ensure coordinated growth
and development patterns occur as the City expands.
Policies:
PL-5.1 The City should prepare neighborhood or subarea plans for unincorporated Urban
Growth Areas that address and coordinate future: land uses and development
standards, utility lines and other infrastructure, roads and road improvements,
protected open spaces, potential park space, trails, etc., prior to allowing annexation.
The City should enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to
ensure any development within the City’s unincorporated Urban Growth Area is
consistent with and coordinated with City plans for that area.
PL-5.2 City sewer lines should not be extended outside City limits into the City’s
unincorporated Urban Growth Area.
NEW The City will pursue designation of a Manufacturing Industrial Area in cooperation
with the City of Marysville for the unincorporated area between the two cities. If so
designated, a coordinated Subarea Plan will be developed.
GL-6 Annex all unincorporated Urban Growth Areas within the City’s Urban
Growth Area.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-12 JULY 2015
Policies:
PL-6.1 Annexations should include all land within the respective unincorporated Urban
Growth Area enclave.
PL-6.2 Unincorporated areas within the City’s Urban Growth Area should be pre-designated
on the City’s Future Land Use Map and pre-zoned on the City’s Official Zoning
Map.
PL-6.3 City utilities and services should be planned and made available for extension within
reasonable time after annexing land to the City.
PL-6.4 In considering annexations, the following criteria should be used to evaluate the
feasibility of the proposed annexation:
a) The existing levels (quantity and quality) of urban services and facilities in the
area to be annexed; and
b) The proximity to City utility lines; and
c) The quantity and quality of services that will be required after annexation; and
d) The costs of furnishing needed services; and
e) Any potential revenue generation that could be used to offset existing and future
service and infrastructure needs.
PL-6.5 After annexation, the City should honor pre-existing mitigation agreements,
conditions on permits, appropriate inter-jurisdictional studies, and agreed-upon
standards.
PL-6.6 Entire rights-of-way adjacent to the annexation areas should also be included within
the total area to be annexed unless there is an existing agreement between the City
and the County requiring otherwise.
Residential Land Use
GL-7 Encourage a mix of residential densities throughout the City.
Policies:
PL-7.1 All recommended changes in residential densities should be based on the following:
a) The overall impact to surrounding properties; and
b) The general impact to the existing transportation network; and
c) The feasibility of the site and its situation for the proposed density; and
d) The availability/capacity of urban services such as water and sewer to serve the
area; and
e) The vacant land supply within the City at the proposed density.
e)f) Consistency with GMA growth targets and buildable land supply.
PL-7.2 Higher density residential uses should be located around commercial areas.
PL-7.3 Vertical and horizontal mixed use developments with a residential component should
be permissible in commercial designated zones within the City.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-13 JULY 2015
GL-8 Preserve and promote the character, scale, and quality of existing
neighborhoods as new development occurs.
Policies:
PL-8.1 The City should develop design standards to ensure the orderly transition and
compatibility of adjacent residential densities.
Commercial Land Use
GL-9 Create pedestrian links between commercial and residential developments.
Policies:
PL-9.1 Where commercial and residential areas abut, new development proposals should
include the design and construction of walkways, and/or sidewalks or other non-
motorized features to integrate and link commercial activities and other
neighborhoods within the City.
GL-10 Promote Neighborhood Commercial uses in appropriate places.
Policies:
PL-10.1 A re-designation and rezoning of lots to neighborhood commercial may be approved
by the City (at the City’s discretion) when a lot meets all of the following criteria and
any others as listed in Title 20 of the AMC:
1. The lot is located at the intersection of two public rights-of-way, where at least
one right-of-way has a roadway classification (whether existing or proposed) of
arterial or greater OR is adjacent to another Neighborhood Commercial zoned lot
and has direct access to an arterial roadway and is within 660 feet of an
intersection.
2. The lot has existing and legal direct access to at least one arterial right-of-way
prior to the reclassification and rezone request. The lot is adjacent to or abutting
on at least one side to another lot zoned Neighborhood Commercial and/or
residential (RLD, RMD, RHD).
Industrial Land Use
GL-12 Maintain a sufficient industrial land base in order to support a high ratio of
jobs to households.
Policies:
PL-12.1 Industrial land uses should be located in the vicinity of Arlington Airport in order to
take advantage of existing and anticipated transportation systems.
PL-12.2 The amount of land planned and allocated for industrial use should be reasonably
scaled to meet the demonstrated demand.
PL-12.3 Industrial uses should be encouraged to share facilities such as internal roadways,
parking facilities, and rail access.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-14 JULY 2015
PL-12.4 Industries with high job numbers that support the local resource processing needs
should be encouraged.
PL-12.5 The City should pursue the designation of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing
Industrial Center (AMMIC) in the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies
and regional designation by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).
PL-12.6 The City should support the development and growth of the Arlington-Marysville
MICAMMIC by supporting a concentrated manufacturing and industrial base and by
planning for future growth and infrastructure improvements.
PL-12.7 The City should develop appropriate zoning, design review and landscaping
regulations so that manufacturing uses within the Arlington portion of the
MICAMMIC are buffered from adjacent or abutting residential uses.
PL-12.8 The City should ensure that at least 80% of the property within the MICAMMIC is
planned and zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses. Compatible non-industrial
uses shall be as allowed under PSRC certification and be conditioned to mitigate for
potential conflicts with current and future industrial uses.
GL-13 Minimize the adverse impacts of industrial uses to adjacent and abutting
residential properties.
Policies:
PL-13.1 Additional setbacks should be required for industrial buildings and uses that are
adjacent to or abut non-industrial zoned land in order to minimize impacts. Vegetated
Low Impact Development (LID) facilities may be located within these setbacks
PL-13.2 Full screen landscape buffers (which may consist of vegetated LID facilities) should
be required along industrial zoned property and non-industrial zoned properties
GL-14 Maintain a healthy, clean industrial district through the use of design standards
and adherence to environmental standards.
Policies:
PL-14.1 Outdoor storage areas should be screened from public rights-of-way through use of
both fencing and native vegetation.
PL-14.2 Landscape buffers should be installed and maintained along property lines adjacent
to rights-of-way.
PL-14.3 Landscape buffers should include the use or retention of native vegetation adequate
to serve as visual screens between rights-of-way and industrial uses. Landscape
buffers may also consist of vegetated LID facilities.
PL-14.4 Pollutants should be managed as much as possible through site design engineering
and source control. Site disturbance and soil compaction should be minimized during
construction. Implement source control best management practices (BMPs) to
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-15 JULY 2015
prevent soil and stormwater runoff contamination from operation and storage of
heavy equipment.
PL-14.5 Development Design Guidelines should be established for the Industrial Zones and
the AMMIC.
PL-14.6 Open space and recreation opportunities such as parks and non-motorized trails
should be incorporated in industrial areas.
SUBAREA SPECIFIC GOALS AND POLICIES
GL-15 Protect and enhance our various neighborhoods as follows:
Policies:
Old-Town Residential District
PL-15.1 The Old-Town Residential District should be protected as a traditional, single-family
neighborhood.
PL-15.2 Only single-family residential, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes that are
compatible with neighborhood in terms of use and design should be allowed in the
Old-Town Residential District.
PL-15.3 Design standards for new development in the Old-Town Residential District should
be established to ensure compatibility with the existing historical character.
PL-15.4 Improvements to the streetscapes (pedestrian ways, planter strips with approved
vegetation, vegetated LID facilities) should be made throughout the Old-Town
Residential District. Maintenance responsibilities should be assigned to encourage
ownership of the LID facilities.
Old-Town Business District
PL-15.8 The City should support continued revitalization of both the private and public
realms within the Old-Town Business District.
PL-15.9 The Old-Town Business District should be a vibrant, people-oriented district so as to
encourage civic engagement and support local business.
PL-15.10 Vertical mixed use with a residential component on upper floors should be allowed
and encouraged.
PL-15.11 Design Standards for both the public and private realms should be established in
order to promote a unified historic character among the three sub-districts within the
Old-Town Business District.
PL-15.12 The City should capitalize on its position along the Stillaguamish River by
developing a Riverfront Master Plan that addresses future land uses, motorized and
non-motorized transportation networks, and recreational opportunities.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-16 JULY 2015
PL-15.13 The City should develop and implement a plan (including funding) to improve Haller
Park.
PL-15.14 Public parking lots should incorporate historic design features.
PL-15.15 The City should provide incentives for commercial property owners to renovate
and/or improve their building facades consistent with their historic character.
PL-15.16 An active, diverse, and integrated "main street"-style central business district should
be encouraged in order to promote economic growth by attracting residents, visitors,
and businesses.
PL-15.17 A compact commercial district that facilitates easy pedestrian access between shops
and buildings should be encouraged.
.PL-15.18 A diverse array of commercial business types should be permissible in the Old-Town
Business District.
PL-15.19 Any on-site parking should be located to the side or rear of buildings.
PL-15.20 Additional public parking lots should be provided in the Old-Town Business District
to better accommodate motor-vehicles.
PL-15.21 The City should promote design elements in Old-Town Business District that reflect
the City's history, scale, and character by establishing Development Design
Standards specific to the Old-Town Business District.
PL-15.22 New commercial and multi-family developments in Old-Town Business Districts 1
and 2 should be required to provide bicycle racks.
PL-15.23 Commercial signage should be primarily pedestrian scaled and oriented.
PL-15.24 Street trees should be incorporated into the streetscape for newly renovated streets.
PL-15.25 Pedestrian facilities in adjacent residential neighborhoods should be connected to
those in the commercial district (and vice-versa) so that there is an integrated
pedestrian/alternative transportation network throughout the Old-Town Business
District.
PL-15.26 Building design and architecture should be human-scaled.
PL-15.27 The City should undertake efforts to beautify the Old-Town Business District with
street plantings, street furniture, pedestrian paths, decorative lighting and signing,
brick or textured streets, historical markers, etc.
PL-15.28 The City should encourage cooperative downtown improvement planning and
implementation efforts between the City, the Downtown Arlington Business
Association and the downtown merchants.
PL-15.29 The City should encourage businesses to improve deteriorating facades, poor signs,
and their general outside appearance in accordance with historical design character.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-17 JULY 2015
PL-15.30 The City should require new development to augment the historic look of downtown
by maintaining the existing building pattern (i.e., the continuous street wall,
permanent awnings, ground floor shops with many windows and large glass areas,
second floor professional services and/or apartments).
PL-15.31 Pedestrian-scaled commercial businesses should be encouraged in Old-Town
Business District 1 along Olympic Avenue in to Old-Town Business District 2 and 3.
PL-15.32 City Hall and other civic functions should be located within Old-Town Business
District 1.
PL-15.33 The City should encourage new indoor recreation facilities, restaurants and
entertainment functions in the Old-Town Business District.
PL-15.34 Street parking should be permissible along all streets within the OTBD to the extent
feasible, particularly along Olympic Avenue.
Arlington Bluff
PL-15.38 The City should encourage annexation of existing urban growth areas outside City
limits.
PL-15.39 In the Transportation 6-Year TIP, consideration should be given to improving
Cemetery Road, 47th Avenue, and 188th Street to their Local Collector standards.
PL-15.40 The forested steep slopes along the bluff should be protected for both environmental
and aesthetic purposes by prohibiting development within steep slope buffers and
requiring a minimum percentage of forest cover to be retained.
PL-15.41 Care should be taken to not increase discharge of stormwater runoff onto the
farmlands below.
Kent Prairie
PL-15.43 Kent Prairie has a very diverse range of uses and housing types; such diversity
should be protected.
PL-15.44 Through design, screening, and setbacks, impacts should be minimized between
residential and non-residential uses.
West Arlington (see also West Arlington Subarea Plan) (West Bluff, Island Crossing, Smokey
Point)
PL-15.45 The City should work to upgrade the streets in the West Arlington Subarea to City
standards. Where stormwater improvements are needed, encourage evaluation of LID
facilities.
PL-15.46 As much of the area is within the 100-year floodplain and floods rather frequently, a
drainage plan should be developed and implemented to alleviate this problem.
Stormwater improvements should be prioritized in the Island Crossing neighborhood
based on flood modeling and aligned with the South Slough and Portage Creek
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-18 JULY 2015
stream channels. There is potential for a regional system that also functions as flood
conveyance and compensatory storage during major events.
PL -15.xx Coordinate future revision of I-5 rest stop with access to Smokey Point Boulevard.
PP-4.1 Each subarea within the City should have at least one community park. A
neighborhood center park should be located within the Smokey Point neighborhood.
The City should identify and pursue opportunities for new parks within areas that are
added to the City’s Urban Growth Area.
South Fork
PL-15.47 The City should work with interested residents in annexing this subarea.
Brekhus-Beach
PL-15.48 A “high-level” Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea should be developed by
the City in consultation with subarea property owners and adopted by the City
Council prior to the subdivision of any land within the subarea. With regards to this
policy, “high-level” means the layout of arterial and collector roads (including
streetscape design standards), layout of water and sewer lines and their associated
facilities, and land-use designation. (See Figure 2-22 for preliminary plan)
PL-15.49 Prior to the adoption of a “high-level” Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea
by the City Council, one single-family dwelling unit and one accessory dwelling unit
should be permitted by the City to be constructed on any existing legal lot within the
subarea.
PL-15.50 After the adoption of a “high-level” Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea,
“large-lot” subdivisions should be permissible in those portions of the subarea where
the extreme cost or difficulty in extending sewer exists. With regards to this policy,
“large-lot” means the minimum lot size required by the Snohomish County Health
District for on-site sewage disposal systems. After the adoption of a “high-level”
Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea, shadow platting should be permissible
in those areas where sewer is not yet available so as not to preclude the allowed
underlying density at such a time when sewer becomes available. When sewer
becomes available to serve the shadow plat, all lots within the plat will be required to
connect to sewer.
Hilltop
PL-15.51 The properties around the SR-9 and SR-531 intersection should be planned to
become an urban village, with mixed commercial and high-density residential uses.
(Horizontal Mixed Use).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-19 JULY 2015
PL-15.52 The City should encourage the development of the Boyden 5-acre tract to urban
densities. This would probably take the formation of an LID Local Improvement
District (ULID) to fund the installation of sewer, water, and transportation systems.
The City should also help find a secondary access point.
Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea
PL-15.53 As this is the predominant location for future employment in Arlington, the City
should actively seek appropriate development of this area in accordance with
AMMIC and PSRC designation criteria..
PL-15.54 A road network should be developed that makes properties more accessible and
usable.
The Airport
GL-16 As an Essential Public Facility, protect the Arlington Municipal Airport from
encroaching non-compatible land uses so as to maintain its long-term viability.
Policies:
PL-16.1 Promote a compatible relationship between the airport industrial zone and
surrounding land uses.
PL-16.2 Secure airport approach zones through either land purchase, avigation easements, or
disclosure statements so that the City can enforce regulatory controls in those areas.
PL-16.3 Secure avigation easements from new developments that are proposed within the
Airport Protection District.
PL-16.4 The Arlington Airport is designated as an “Essential Transportation Facility.” This
designation provides leverage to maintain compatible zoning and land use options
and helps protect its airspace in the approach and transitional surface areas.
PL-16.5 Maintain an Airport Protection District to protect aviation interests by applying FAA
and WSDOT policies and land use restrictions.
PL-16.6 Obtain and maintain interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions to help
implement airport protection policies.
PL-16.7 Protect and control land critical to the future expansion of the airport as depicted in
the Airport Master Plan.
PL-16.8 Prohibit buildings, structures, or other objects from being constructed or altered so as
to project or otherwise penetrate the airspace surfaces (as defined in FAA Part 77),
except as necessary and incidental to airport operations.
PL-16.9 At the time of land use approval (i.e. subdivision of land) property disclosure
notices--notices on the face of the plat map and avigation easements dedicated to the
City of Arlington--should be recorded on areas within the Airport Protection District.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-20 JULY 2015
PL-16.10 Require that submittal requirements for proposed land use actions disclose potential
conflicts with airspace.
PL-16.11 Within the Airport Protection District require disclosure notice for potential negative
impacts from aviation operations and noise, unless mitigated by other measures.
PL-16.12 Residential use shall be prohibited on Airport property and within the Runway
Protection Zone 1. Residential use and/or density should be limited, within the Inner
Safety Zones 2, Inner Turning Zone 3, and Outer Safety Zone 4, and Runway
Sideline Zone 5 to reduce negative impacts on residents from aviation operations and
noise.
PL-16.13 Non-residential use and/or intensity may be limited, if such uses are deemed to be
noise sensitive, to reduce negative impacts on users from aviation operation noise.
PL-16.14 Prohibit the location of noise-sensitive land uses from areas of high noise levels,
defined by the 65 DNL (or higher) noise contour of Arlington Municipal Airport.
PL-16.15 All detention, retention and wetland construction in the Airport Protection District
needs to be planned to minimize attracting wildlife that is a hazard to aviation.
PL-16.16 To better ensure compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses:
Risks to surrounding people and property shall be minimized by applying more
stringent land use controls to geographic areas with greater potential risk.
Risks to people on the ground shall be minimized by restricting land uses so as to
limit the number of people likely to gather in areas most susceptible to aircraft
accidents and/or by reducing risks through special features of building design.
Discourage land uses that are of particular safety concern because of the reduced
mobility of occupants or their inability to respond to emergency situations in areas
most susceptible to aircraft accidents. Such uses include children’s schools, day care
centers, hospitals, nursing homes and/or other uses where the majority of occupants
are children, elderly or handicapped.
Discourage land uses in the vicinity of the airport that may cause visual, electronic or
bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight.
PL-16.17 The City and the airport shall make available to prospective purchasers of property in
the vicinity of the airport information about airport activity impacts so that they can
take this information into account in making purchase decisions.
PL-16.18 Any expansion of airport facilities that would result in a significant increase in noise,
hazard or glare shall include measures to reduce impacts to surrounding
neighborhoods.
GL-17 Development Airport Properties in an orderly fashion.
Policies:
PL-17.1 Develop and maintain airport property as depicted within the Airport Master Plan.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-21 JULY 2015
PL-17.2 Create conceptual development site plans for Airport properties that are not already
shown in the Master Plan.
PL-17.3 The Airport should maintain a green belt along residential portions of the perimeter
of the Airport property, subject to Part 77 restrictions and the possible requirement
for low-growing vegetation.
Resource Protection
GL-18 To safeguard communitywide environmental conditions and resources the City
will encourage the effective stewardship of the environment and protect critical
areas and conserve land, air, water, and energy resources.
Policies:
PL-18.1 The City should continue to amend and adopt land development regulations that
ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural
environment under all projected growth scenarios.
PL-18.2 Through the land planning and development review processes, the City should
require the provision of fish and wildlife habitat corridors, and restrict the
fragmentation of large natural plant communities that provide essential and
significant wildlife habitat.
PL-18.4 The City should work to ensure compatibility of land uses with topography, geology,
soil suitability, surface water, groundwater & aquifers, frequently flooded areas
wetlands, climate, and vegetation and wildlife.
PL-18.5 The City should utilize local resources whenever possible to encourage local
involvement in community actions and to enhance community pride.
PL-18.6 The City should promote reducing air pollution emissions associated with land uses
and transportation in accordance with national, State, regional, and local policies and
standards.
PL-18.7 The City should work to protect and enhance the natural environment while planning
for and accommodating growth.
PL-18.8 The City should maintain or restore aquatic ecosystems and associated habitats and
aquifers through the development and implementation of a comprehensive protection
program.
PL-18.9 The City should protect and maintain elements of the environment including clean
water, natural vegetation, and habitat corridors through adopted development
regulations and a variety of educational, voluntary and incentive programs.
PL-18.10 The City should work to help preserve agriculture and agricultural land outside the
City’s Urban Growth Area through a variety of planning techniques, regulations,
incentive, and acquisition methods.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-22 JULY 2015
PL-18.11 The City should identify and protect open space natural and scenic resources, and
shoreline areas.
GL-19 Require site-sensitive development to protect environmental resources.
Policies:
PL-19.1 Significant tTrees within the City should be preserved to the extent feasible. In
instances where it is not feasible to preserve significant trees, any significant tree cut
down should be mitigated for either through re-planting or payment of a fee-in-lieu.
PL-19.2 Existing and native vegetation should be preserved as much as possible due to its
vital role in the groundwater and wildlife systems of Arlington in order to prevent
additional storm water runoff or soil erosion from new developments and to provide
a habitat for wildlife. In newly developed and re-developed areas, site disturbance
should be minimized and native vegetation and duff should be retained.
PL-19.3 Salmonid streams, drainage ways, wetlands, and their buffers should be protected
from adverse impacts of land development that might decrease low flows or increase
high peak flows, reduce recharge areas for streams, increase bank or bed erosion, or
increase turbidity of the water.
PL-19.4 The City should work to protect, the following sensitive resources: wetlands, streams
and creeks, lakes and ponds, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, significant trees,
fish and wildlife habitat and corridors, archaeological and historical sites and
artifacts, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas. Other resources
may be included by amending the City's critical areas regulations.
PL-19.5 Since the Airport and surrounding property is are located above an aquifer that
provides the City of Arlington water, measures to protect that resource should be
established (See Water System Plan).
GL-20 Minimize storm water runoff and urban drainage impacts by utilizing the
natural drainage system where it is possible to do so without significantly
altering the natural drainage ways.
Policies:
PL-20.1 The City should encourage the design of developments to use natural drainage
patterns and incorporate means to entrap storm water and water pollutants before
they are carried down slope or before they enter wetlands and/or other bodies of
water.
PL-20.2 The City should work with residents and other jurisdictions to improve storm
drainage in and around Arlington.
PL-20.3 The City should adopt and keep current a stormwater comprehensive plan and
control ordinance requiring best management practices for stormwater control,
addressing such issues as detention, release, erosion and siltation, nutrients and toxic
pollutants, etc.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-23 JULY 2015
PL-20.4 To minimize impacts on natural resources, the evaluation of Low Impact
Development techniques should be evaluated as the preferred approach prior to
implementing traditional stormwater treatment and flow control facilities.
GL-21 Promote energy conservation by developing incentives and/or requirements for
energy-saving transportation, land development patterns and practices, and
building construction and operation methods and materials.
Policies:
PL-21.1 The City should encourage the development of paths and easements for non-
motorized transportation to encourage pedestrian and bicycle use throughout the
City.
PL-21.3 Encourage development patterns that are based on a grid system to increase
connectivity and reduce utility and transportation costs as well as energy
consumption.
PL-21.4 Encourage energy-saving construction and building operation practices and the use
of energy-conserving materials in all new construction and rehabilitation of
buildings.
GL-22 Encourage the protection of special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural
resources through the designation of historic landmarks and districts and the
adoption of appropriate incentives.
Policies:
PL-22.1 The City should encourage the rehabilitation and revitalize of the downtown by using
adaptive reuse of existing commercial structures, preservation of historic sites and
structures, and restoration of prominent places and features to ensure economic
viability and community stability. Many of the older structures in the downtown area
represent 90 years of the City's character and heritage. Consider adapting existing
structures identified in the 1980 Snohomish County Cultural Resource Inventory to
other appropriate uses for continued economic vitality of the historical structures.
This list can be expanded at any time.
American Legion Hall
Arlington State Bank
Arlington Times Building
Citizens State Bank
Eagan House/Weller Funeral Home
Masonic Hall
Methodist Church
Robertson Building
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-24 JULY 2015
Royal Hotel
World War II Navy Hangar
PL-22.2 The City should work with the Stillaguamish Tribe to develop rules and procedures
for protecting significant cultural and archaeological resources.
GL-23 Promote the identification, maintenance, and preservation of possible
geographical areas or structures that have special significance because of
historical, archaeological, architectural, recreational, social, cultural, and/or
scenic importance.
Policies:
PL-23.1 The City should work with other public agencies and/or a local historical society to
determine priorities and establish methods for public and private funding to develop
and operate such significant areas
PL-23.2 The City should encourage the development of written narratives and maps for self-
guided tours of significant areas and the provision for site markers to identify
significant sites.
PL-23.3 The City should encourage additions and alterations to significant architectural
buildings to conform to the style and period of the initial construction as much as
possible.
PL-23.4 The Arlington Airport is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This
designation should be used to promote aviation-related tourism activities.
PL-23.5 The City should work to protect those structures that led to the Airport being listed
on the Register.
PL-23.6 The City should prepare a documentation of the history of Arlington Naval Air
Station in a format that can be distributed to local schools, other organizations and
placed on the City of Arlington website.
PL-23.7 The City should actively seek grant funding for the rehabilitation of historic
buildings and other historic preservation opportunities on Airport property.
Public/Semi-Public Land Use
GL-25 Promote equality in development regulations between private and public lands.
Policies:
PL-25.1 Public and semi-public development should be held to the same development
standards as private development.
PL-25.2 New public/semi-public development proposals should include the design and
construction of walkways and/or sidewalks to integrate and link commercial
activities and other neighborhoods within the Urban Growth Area.
Minimizing Risk of Natural Disasters
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-25 JULY 2015
GL-26 Prepare for and be able to respond to natural disasters.
Policies:
PL-26.1 Arlington should maintain a current comprehensive emergency management plan
which shall be based on a hazard analysis and as a minimum include a basic
document with the elements listed in WAC 118-30-060 (1)-(8). Said plan shall
address all natural and man-made emergencies and disasters to which Arlington is
vulnerable, and shall specify the purpose, organization, responsibilities and facilities
of agencies and officials of the political subdivision in the mitigation of, preparation
for, response to, and recovery from emergencies and disasters (Paraphrased from
WAC 118-30-030 (9)).
PL-26.3 Geologically hazardous areas, especially forested steep slopes, should be protected.
PL-26.4 Soil stability and the use of the natural drainage systems should be promoted by
retaining existing native vegetation in critical areas.
PL-26.5 The City should prohibit development on unstable land and restrict development on
potentially unstable land to ensure public safety and conformity with natural
constraints.
TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES
The Transportation System
GT-1 Plan, develop and maintain a balanced transportation system for the efficient
movement of people, goods, and services within the City and between the
community and other activity centers in the region.
Policies:
PT-1.1 The City’s motorized and non-motorized transportation network should be designed
to distribute traffic evenly throughout the City.
PT-1.2 The City should establish labeled Truck Route(s).
PT-1.3 Encourage the use and growth of the Arlington Airport by ensuring easy access to
the Airport via City streets by both automobiles and trucks.
PT-1.4 New development and existing developments that are expanded should be required to
mitigate for impacts to the transportation network.
GT-2 Ensure that new road development meets the goals of the transportation
element and land-use element of the comprehensive plan.
Policies:
PT-2.1 A motorized and non-motorized transportation plan should be developed by the City
to ensure adequate transportation routes are created concurrent with new
development. Evaluate minimizing impervious surfaces and incorporating LID
facilities into these plans where feasible.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-26 JULY 2015
GT-3 Ensure concurrency by providing an effective roadway network with adequate
capacity to meet the demand for travel within the City at the adopted Level of
Service (LOS) standard.
Policies:
PT-3.1 The City should periodically review and revise, if necessary, existing levels of
service and the concurrency management system as part of the Comprehensive Plan
update.
PT-3.2 All development proposals should be reviewed to ensure coordination with the
Transportation Element.
PT-3.3 Ensure that all development permits that are approved require transportation
improvements that are in accordance with Arlington's ability to provide and/or
maintain the adopted Levels of Service.
PT-3.4 Traffic impacts of proposed projects should be determined through project-provided
impact assessment reports, which should be required of every project for which the
concurrency test must be applied. The City may waive this requirement where such
impacts may be determined administratively and/or the project applicant agrees to
mitigate any administratively determined impacts.
PT-3.5 Permits should not be issued for the development of any property until and unless the
transportation facilities identified in this plan are in place. This includes roads
(including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and planter strips), trails, or other transportation
facilities described in this Transportation Plan within the confines of that property.
GT-4 Consider the special needs of subarea transportation facilities including
appearance and safety.
Policies:
PT-4.1 Improving the appearance of existing corridors should be a primary objective in
designing and maintaining the street system in Arlington. Appropriate design
standards, including landscape requirements, for the construction of new streets shall
be maintained.
PT-4.2 Existing street trees should be preserved to the extent they don’t become a safety
hazard or disrupt the structural integrity of the roadway.
PT-4.3 Private streets should be prohibited in residential areas with private streets in
commercial areas allowed on a case-by-case basis upon approval of the City
Engineer. The City should only accept ownership and maintenance of existing
private streets if they are consistent with adopted design standards and their
acceptance will result in a benefit to Arlington.
PT-4.4 Residential lots should only take vehicular access from an Alley, Local Access Street
or Collector Street. Only in instances where the City Engineer determines there is no
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-27 JULY 2015
other feasible alternative should a residential lot take access from an arterial (or
higher classified) street.
PT-4.5 Block standards should be developed to ensure that the development and subdivision
of land results in greater connectivity both within the new development/subdivision
and to the existing street network.
PT-4.6 Culs-de-sacs should be prohibited to the extent feasible. Streets that must terminate
in a cul-de-sac should be limited to one block in length (330ft.).Where culs-de-sacs
are used, evaluate the installation of LID facilities in the center of the cul-de-sac.
PT-4.7 Whenever a cul-de-sac is utilized, pedestrian connectivity should be maintained by
providing a pathway that connects from the bulb of a cul-de-sac to the nearest
roadway (whether existing or proposed) outside the development.
PT-4.8 Design standards should be established to consolidate the number and location of
curb cuts on arterial streets. Curb cuts are permitted at bioretention facilities to allow
stormwater runoff to enter the facility.
PT-4.9 On-site parking requirements should be established to ensure land-uses can
adequately accommodate parking demand.
PT-4.10 Streets should be designed to accommodate multi-modal transportation options such
as motor-vehicles (including buses), bicycles, and pedestrians.
PT-4.11 New construction should include the construction of sidewalks, bicycle
storage/parking facilities, and access to mass transit where possible and in proportion
to the need generated by the proposal. Sidewalks should be included on at least one
side of a street and wide enough to meet American's with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements.
PT-4.12 New residential developments should provide pedestrian access between the
development and adjacent schools, parks, playgrounds, commercial areas or other
roads or facilities if such access is not conveniently provided by sidewalks adjacent
to the streets as required above. In such as case, the developer may be required to
reserve an unobstructed easement of at least ten feet in width to provide this access.
PT-4.13 All streetscapes should be designed and constructed to include at a minimum the
following: curbs, gutters, sidewalks or trail, and landscape strips with street trees.
Non-Motorized Transportation
GT-5 Develop transportation strategies that encourage the use of pedestrian, bicycle,
and mass transit facilities that will, among other things, conserve non-renewable
energy sources.
Policies:
PT-5.1 The City should develop a paved non-motorized transportation network that results
in connectivity between all subareas within the City.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-28 JULY 2015
PT-5.2 Bicycle lanes should be included with motor-vehicle lanes on all streets with a speed-
limit greater than 25mph unless a paved, non-motorized trail exists or is planned
within the right-of-way.
PT-5.3 Traffic safety design techniques should be integrated into the street design to assist in
safeguarding pedestrians, and cyclists, particularly near schools, playgrounds, and at
crosswalks.
PT-5.4 Sidewalk improvements should be prioritized to first facilitate safe movement for
elderly and handicapped persons between residences and shopping/social activity
centers, and facilitate safe movement for children to and from school facilities and
school bus stops.
PT-5.5 Existing sidewalks, including curb cuts and ramps, should be brought into
compliance with the American's with Disabilities Act if not already so.
PT-5.6 Street lighting should be designed to take into consideration the needs of motorists,
cyclists, and pedestrians.
PT-5.7 The City’s non-motorized transportation network should connect with regional
networks and with the networks of neighboring jurisdictions.
PT-5.8 Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, and Industrial developments should provide
bike racks to accommodate bicycle use by residents, employees, and customers.
PT-5.9 Parking lots should include stalls specifically designed for compact cars and
motorcycles.
GT-6 Support the use of transit and work with transit agencies to improve service in
order to help reduce traffic.
Policies:
PT-6.1 Coordinate with surrounding communities to support public education programs and
land use strategies to encourage the use of public transportation.
PT-6.2 Encourage and plan for "pedestrian-scale" neighborhoods and centers to enhance
access and mobility for public transportation users.
Safety and Maintenance
GT-7 Maintain and enhance the safety of the transportation system.
Policies:
PT-7.1 Traffic data such as traffic counts and accident data should be collected and analyzed
to support planning of traffic safety improvements.
PT-7.2 Design criteria should be established for the signing of streets, including uniform
lettering, colors, and placement of all new street signs.
PT-7.3 The City should adopt appropriate guidelines from the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) regarding maintenance of traffic control devices and
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-29 JULY 2015
perform regular and requested maintenance activities related to traffic control
devices and roadway material within those guidelines.
PT-7.4 The City should identify specific high accident intersections on both the collector
and arterial system and develop and implement appropriate plans to effectively lower
the accident rate.
GT-8 Develop transportation and safety policies that encourage the use of non-
motorized transportation (i.e., walking and biking).
Policies:
PT-8.1 Streetscapes for new and improved roads should be designed to accommodate multi-
modal transportation options such as motor-vehicles (including bus), bicycles, and
foot-traffic (pedestrians).
PT-8.2 Priority should be given to sidewalk and shoulder improvements in areas of high
traffic volumes or pedestrian activity to improve safety of pedestrians and drivers.
PT-8.3 Under special circumstances, the City Engineer should be permitted to install
temporary safety improvements (such as widened asphalt shoulders, etc.) in lieu of
full improvements where they are able to make at least the following findings:
a) There is a significant overwhelming public need to improve pedestrian safety
along the road on which the project is proposed, and the project will substantially
do so.
b) The project is intended to be a temporary solution until a full street improvement
project can be funded.
c) The project is designed in such a way as to not preclude eventual full-standard
development.
d) If the full street improvement project is listed on the City’s 6-year Transportation
Improvement Plan, it will not be removed from the TIP because of the temporary
improvements.
Transportation and the Environment
GT-9 Design and build roads that minimize negative impacts to protected critical
areas.
Policies:
PT-9.1 The adverse impacts of transportation facilities and services on designated critical
areas, resource lands, cultural resources, and parks should be minimized and
mitigated through the implementation of performance standards.
PT-9.2 Proposed roads should avoid being located in Critical Areas except in those instances
where it is necessary to cross through Critical Areas in order preserve or enhance
connectivity in the City’s motorized and non-motorized transportation networks.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-30 JULY 2015
PT-9.3 Proposed roads should result in the creation of a more connected transportation
network within the City in order to reduce the length of vehicular trips.
PT-9.4 All culverts, bridges, or other road crossings over or through critical areas should
incorporate Best Available Science in both design and construction.
PT-9.5 Proposed roads should avoid being located in areas prone to natural hazards.
GT-10 Allow for alternative design standards and/or materials to reduce impervious
surfaces and improve more natural forms of drainage.
Policies:
PT-10.1 Explore the feasibility of reducing the amount of total impervious surface used in
right-of-ways, sidewalks, parking lots and roads by using new pervious materials
(e.g., grasscrete, Essential Soil, etc.). Applications of these technologies will be
approved on a case-by-case basis by the City Engineer.
PT-10.2 Investigate modifications to detention requirements, including the use of new designs
and/or materials that improve drainage.
Inter-jurisdictional Coordination
GT-11 Ensure transportation planning is coordinated with adjacent and regional
jurisdictions.
Policies:
PT-11.1 The City should coordinate with Snohomish County and the City of Marysville in
planning interintra-jurisdictional roads and transportation facilities.
PT-11.2 The City should enter into Interl-Local Agreements with other government agencies
and special districts with regards to traffic mitigation and franchise agreements.
PT-11.3 The City’s transportation plansTransportation Plan should be coordinated with
County and regional plans.
PT-11.4 The City should actively lobby the State of Washington and Snohomish County to
implement those improvements necessary to their respective transportation facilities
in order to maintain the level of service standards adopted by the City.
6-Year TIP/Financing
GT-12 Prioritize and finance transportation improvements consistently with the capital
facilities estimate, and investigate all possible avenues of paying for the
improvements for availability and fairness.
Policies:
PT-12.1 The City should adopt a 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),that is
coordinated with the Transportation and Capital Facility Elements. The City should
update the TIP annually as projects are completed and re-prioritized on an annual
basis as part of the Transportation Element Update.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-31 JULY 2015
NEW The Transportation Element and Capital Facility Elements will be reviewed annually
for consistency with the adopted Transportation Plan and Utility Plans.
PT-12.2 New developments should be required to pay for improvements related to the
development, including upgrading of existing facilities, on a proportionate share
basis and according to calculated impacts to existing LOS.
NEW The City will accept latecomer agreements to allow new developments to recapture a
proportionate share of infrastructure costs from future developments proportionally
benefitting from those infrastructure improvements.
PT-12.3 Transportation improvement cost estimates should be updated annually to determine
appropriate shares from developers and users as established.
PT-12.4 The City should consider alternative methods of obtaining financing for
transportation improvements, including: local option taxes, bonding, Local
Improvement Districts, combining efforts with other agencies, investigate all
possible grant and loan opportunities such as the Public Works Trust Fund,
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act) funding, and inter-local agreements for mitigation
costs with Snohomish County.
PT-12.5 If funding is unavailable, or if development is progressing beyond the ability to
provide and maintain sufficient transportation facilities, the City should consider
development moratoriums, as necessary, until the transportation facilities can be
brought into alignment with approved LOS.
PT-12.6 Adequate resources should be provided to ensure that the existing transportation
system is properly maintained.
Air Quality
Minimize air quality impacts caused by the transportation system
Policies:
PT-13.1 The City commits to meeting federal and State air quality requirements and work
with the State, region and local agencies or jurisdictions to develop transportation
control measures and/or similar mobile source emission reduction programs that may
be warranted to attain or maintain air quality requirements.
PT-13.2 The City's transportation system will conform to the federal and State Clear Air Acts
by maintaining its conformity with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan of the Puget
Sound Regional Council and by following the requirements of Chapter 173-420 of
the Washington Administrative Code, which may include development of
transportation
Manufacturing/Industrial Center
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-32 JULY 2015
GT-14 Ensure that development of the AMMIC supports the movement of goods is
compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and promotes a multi-modal
transportation network.
Policies:
PT-14.1 The City should identify and implement short-term and long-range infrastructure
improvements that supports existing infrastructure and helps stimulate the
development of new manufacturing and industrial uses in the AMMIC.
PT-14.2 The City should work collaboratively with the City of Marysville to develop a
seamless and compatible road network in order to efficiently move goods and
services within and outside the MICAMMIC.
PT-14.3 A street design should be developed that incorporates low-impact development
standards which reduces surface water and enhances aesthetics of the area.
PT-14.4 A non-motorized network should be developed throughout the area that allows
pedestrians and cyclists to safely access places of employment.
PT-14.5 Landscaping along roadways and between properties that are adjacent to
neighborhoods should be required to reduce noise and visual impacts.
PT-14.6 The City should utilize available State and federal transportation infrastructure
funding in the MICAMMIC once MICAMMIC designation is obtained from PSRC.
PT-14.7 Roadway designs within the MICAMMIC should be sensitive to the needs and
movement of large trucks that will frequent the MICAMMIC, including the
installation of cueing areas for trucks delivering/receiving goods.
PT-14.8 The City should encourage existing and new businesses to utilize the BNSF railroad
spur as useful resource to move goods and services within and outside the
MICAMMIC.
PARKS AND RECREATION GOALS AND POLICIES
GP-1 Maintain and support existing and future recreational and cultural activities.
Policies:
PP-1.1 The following Level of Service Standards for parks, trails, and opens spaces should
be established throughout the City:
a) Regional Parks = 0 ac/1,000 people
b) Community Parks = 3.9 ac/1,000 people
--1.55 acres/1,000 people should be allocated
to ball fields, and
--2.35 used for the remainder of the
community park needs.
c) Neighborhood/Mini-Parks = 1.7 ac/1,000 people
d) Trails = 1.4 mi/1,000 people
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-33 JULY 2015
e) Open Space = 3 ac/1,000 people, or 0.008319 acres per dwelling
unit, to be applied to all new residential
development of 25 dwelling units or more.
PP-1.2 The development of existing parks, trails, and open spaces should be prioritized
based on need and available funding.
PP-1.3 The City should pursue short-term financing mechanisms (such as grants) and
establish long-term financing mechanisms (such as the creation of a Parks District) to
ensure that adequate parks, open space, and recreation facilities are funded and
available within the City.
PP-1.4 New residential development should be required to mitigate impacts to park,
recreation, and open space through the dedication and improvement of properties for
park and recreation uses, or where dedication is not feasible, payment of a fee-in-
lieu.
PP-1.5 Any required park, trail, and open space mitigation should be based on the City’s
adopted Level of Service Standard for the particular facility being impactedl and on
the City’s non-motorized transportation plan..
PP-1.6 All park land to be dedicated to the City should have all infrastructure improvements
in place concurrently with the implementation of a project or be bonded for
completion prior to acceptance by the City. For the purposes of this policy,
“concurrent” means at the time of final plat approval (for residential projects) or at
the time of final building inspection for multi-family.
PP-1.7 All existing park and recreation facilities owned and operated by the City that are not
in compliance with ADA accessibility requirements, should be upgraded to ensure
compliance with current ADA accessibility requirements.
PP-1.8 The City should identify desirable lands within its Urban Growth Area for parks,
trails, or open space and pursue their acquisition through dedication and purchase.
PP-1.9 The City should evaluate and begin implementation of mechanisms that will enhance
its ability to acquire properties and provide services including inter-
jurisdictional/inter-agency relationships, district designations, or other appropriate
mechanisms.
PP-1.10 The City should maintain its existing volunteer program for the maintenance of
parks, trails, and open spaces within the City.
PP-1.11 Each community park should have restroom facilities.
PP-1.12 New residential developments should provide adequate on-site park space or pay a
fee-in-lieu.
PP-1.13 The City should seek grants as a way to pay for and provide park and recreation
facilities at City-owned parks, trails, and open spaces.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-34 JULY 2015
GP-2 Provide a diverse range of recreational, cultural, and educational opportunities.
Policies:
PP-2.1 Multi-purpose use of public lands, facilities, and personnel services should be
encouraged.
PP-2.2 Each community park should be developed with activities and facilities for every age
group.
PP-2.3 City park facilities and services should provide an appropriate range of recreational
opportunities. Such facilities and services should be designed in a manner that
responds to the needs of the intended users.
PP-2.4 The City should continue to support the recreational, cultural, and educational
opportunities provided at the Byrnes Performing Arts Center.
PP-2.5 The City should encourage the provision of art, interpretive, and educational
facilities in parks and public buildings and spaces.
PP-2.6 Capital Funds should be used primarily to improve existing parks and provide for
new parks in newly annexed areas of the City’s Urban Growth Area.
PP-2.7 All parks, trails, and open spaces within the City should be well maintained.
PP-2.8 Only activities consistent with the original intent and/or conditions of acquisition of
respective park, trail, or open spaces should be allowed.
GP-3 Continue to work with other jurisdictions and/or agencies to establish joint use
agreements, thus increasing available parkland and facilities at minimum cost.
Policies:
PP-3.1 The City should continue to work with the County, Arlington School District, the
Lakewood School District, the Arlington Boys and Girls Club, the Little League, and
other public or private providers of recreation services and facilities, to cooperatively
provide joint facilities, meeting and classrooms, athletic fields, and other facilities.
PP-3.2 The City should continue to support continued cooperation between the City, non-
profit organizations, the Arlington School District, the Lakewood School District and
other agencies for continuation and development of recreation programming for
youth, senior citizens, and other segments of the population.
PP-3.3 Support and continue to work closely with the County Parks and Recreation
Department in their efforts to complete the Whitehorse Trail.
PP-3.4 The City should work with foundations, organizations, associations, trusts,
developers, landowners, others from the private sector and neighboring and regional
governments to develop and/or preserve parks, trails, and open space by encouraging
donations and dedications, conservation easements, innovative land use contractual
agreements and other methods.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-35 JULY 2015
GP-4 Strive for geographic and demographic equity in the provision of parks and
recreation facilities.
Policies:
PP-4.1 Each subarea within the City should have at least one community park. A
neighborhood center park should be located within the Smokey Point neighborhood.
The City should identify and pursue opportunities for new parks within areas that are
added to the City’s Urban Growth Area.
GP-5 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources.
Policies:
PP-5.1 Leash scoop and running-at-large laws should be enacted and enforced by the City in
order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of City residents and visitors.
PP-5.2 Land development should be designed in such a way as to prevent or minimize
impacts on natural open spaces.
PP-5.3 Park and recreation facilities should be located, planned and managed so that they
enhance wildlife habitat, minimize erosional impacts, and complement natural site
features.
PP-5.4 Scenic view sheds should be enhanced and preserved for public enjoyment when
siting park and recreation facilities.
PP-5.5 The City should strive to connect all City parks and open spaces by way of a trail
network.
PP-5.6 Passive recreational activities should be encouraged on non-critical area (usable)
open space lands.
PP-5.7 The City should inventory and protect significant non-tribal historical and cultural
resources.
PP-5.8 The City should establish criteria for accepting dedications and gifts of open space
and associated facilities and placement of artwork within them. Until such criteria is
formally established, the City may, at its discretion, accept dedication and gift of
open space and/or natural areas lands.
PP-5.9 Open space lands comprised of critical areas should be managed as native growth
areas and kept in a natural state to maintain existing habitat value. In the case of
degraded or impacted lands, these areas may be enhanced to provide a higher value.
GP-6 Provide for a trail system through the City and connecting to regional trails.
Policies:
PP-6.1 The City should try to achieve a continuous, connected system of parks and open
space via trails.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-36 JULY 2015
PP-6.2 Trails should be developed for the purpose of providing opportunity for non-
motorized transportation, recreation, and education.
PP-6.3 The City should develop a strategy for marketing the Centennial Trail so as to attract
more people to the downtown business district.
GP-7 Develop park and trail design and development standards.
Policies:
PP-7.1 The City should establish park, trail, and open space design standards.
PP-7.2 The City should develop a thematic signage program for City parks, trails, and open
space.
PP-7.3 Maintain an up to date map of the local trail system that is easily accessible to the
public to help encourage trail use.
GP-8 Remain a Tree City
Policies:
PP-8.1 The City should maintain at minimum those requirements necessary for qualifying to
be a Tree City under the National Arbor Day Foundation, including:
a) Maintain a tree board or department.
b) Maintain tree protection rules, regulating the removal of trees and requiring
appropriate replacement.
c) Maintain a Community Forestry Program with an annual budget of at least $2 per
capita.
d) Annually hold an Arbor Day observance and proclamation.
PP-8.2 The City should develop a voluntary neighborhood tree planting program.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
General
GE-1 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy, while
respecting the natural environment and preserving and enhancing the quality of
life in the City.
Policies:
PE-1.1 The City should encourage a diversified and vibrant economy in order to facilitate
high and stable rates of employment within the City.
PE-1.15 The City should enter into agreements with Broadband service providers so that they
may utilize City rights-of-way for installation of infrastructure.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-37 JULY 2015
PE-1.2 The City should maintain a favorable business climate through consistent
implementation of City regulations, a streamlined permit process, excellent customer
service, and through other available means and mechanisms.
PE-1.3 The City should work to ensure there is always a more than adequate employment
land base (both commercial and industrial) in order to maintain the City’s desired
high jobs/to household ratio.
PE-1.4 The City should work to ensure that there is always an adequate retail sales base (i.e.,
commercial land base) in order to provide financial support to the services the City
provides.
PE-1.5 The City should work to attract living wage job providers to locate in Arlington.
PE-1.6 The City should identify ways to improve current services and/or provide new
services that will improve the quality of life for its residents.
PE-1.7 The City should provide a predictable development atmosphere through consistent
application and interpretation of City regulations, and permit processing.
PE-1.8 The City should encourage economic development activities that take into
consideration the capacities of the area's natural resources, public services and
facilities.
PE-1.9 The City should promote a fair balance in the tax base to adequately serve needs of
residents and businesses.
PE-1.10 The amount and rate of land consumption for business, commercial and industrial
uses should be monitored by the City.
PE-1.11 The City should use the analysis in the Economic Development Plan to provide a
technical foundation upon which economic strategies and decision-making can be
based.
PE-1.12 The City should promote the viability of downtown as a commercial and social
center with the goal of having other commercial areas dispersed amongst our
neighborhoods so as to reduce traffic and air pollution.
PE-1.13 The City should develop a strategy for Smokey Point so as to better compete with the
potential commercial areas west of Interstate-5.
PE-1.14 The City should encourage business that process and sell locally-produced resources.
EMPLOYMENT
GE-2 Provide an adequate job-producing land base to ensure an adequate number of
jobs for citizens within the community and to aid the community in paying for
infrastructure and services.
Policies:
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-38 JULY 2015
PE-2.1 The City should work to ensure that the amount of land zoned for business and
industrial use is adequate to meet 20-year employment forecast within the planning
area boundaries.
PE-2.2 The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to housing ratio.
PE-2.3 The City should identify sectors of the economy within Arlington where opportunity
might exist to create additional jobs and identify potential strategies for attracting
employment. In particular, provide a supportive business environment for start-up,
light manufacturing and assembly businesses in the airport/industrial area.
UTILITIES
GE-3 Ensure adequate utility and transportation services to accommodate businesses
providing jobs.
Policies:
PE-3.1 The City should work to ensure adequate utilities (sewer, water, stormwater, solid
waste, electricity, gas, telecommunications, etc.) and transportation access (rail, road,
air) exist within the City to accommodate economic activity and growth.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
GE-4 Encourage active cooperation between the City and local businesses concerning
economic development issues, particularly of those businesses that have
specialized infrastructure, building design, transportation or other needs.
Policies:
PE-4.1 The City should provide sufficient and proactive investment in public infrastructure –
to improve the economic base and accommodate overall growth.
PE-4.2 The City should consider resources, service and infrastructure limitations before
reviewing applications for new commercial and industrial development.
PE-4.3 Ensure that new commercial development incorporates site and building design
features that accommodate alternate modes of transportation.
PE-4.4 The City should work with the Arlington/Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce, and
the Downtown Arlington Business Association to identify ways in which the City
and local businesses can cooperate on economic development issues and strategies
for addressing those issues.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-39 JULY 2015
PE-4.5 The City should plan transportation system improvements that ensure efficient
transport of goods and convenient access for employees and customers to and from
places of business.
PE-4.6 The City should promote commercial development that facilitates pedestrian activity
and is architecturally distinctive.
PE-4.7 Where appropriate, the City should participate or otherwise assist in business
sponsored activities to increase local awareness of goods and services available in
Arlington.
PE-4.8 The City should work to ensure that City licensing and permitting practices and
procedures are coherent, fair and expeditious. Where specialized industry
requirements call for the inspection by government agencies, coordinate with those
agencies to eliminate duplication of efforts.
SUBAREA SPECIFIC POLICIES
GE-5 Foster economic development throughout the City's many economic subareas.
Policies:
Old-Town Business District
PE-5.1 The City should encourage and promote the development or enhancement of retail,
service, civic, and mixed uses to achieve a vibrant shopping, dining and/or
entertaining experience in the Old-Town Business District.
PE-5.2 The City should promote the redevelopment of the Old-Town Business District by
developing a Master Plan for the central business district including urban design
standards, the identification of a central commons area near the Burlington Northern
Railroad tracks and the promotion of new retail and commercial businesses that
provide a diversity of goods and services.
PE-5.3 The City should explore ways in which the downtown retail shopping area might be
further enhanced and linked to the Stillaguamish River.
PE-5.4 When appropriate, the City should site new civic and cultural facilities in the Old-
Town Business District.
PE-5.5 The City should assist businesses within the Old-Town Business District in
developing a specific, in-depth economic development plan for the downtown.
PE-5.6 The City should involve merchants in ongoing economic development strategies for
the Old-Town Business District.
PE-5.7 The City should also become an active sponsor and promoter of new retail businesses
that offer a mix of goods and services that people in the area want and need, focusing
on the balance of factors that will result in an economically successful retail center
with the prospects for long-term economic health.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-40 JULY 2015
AIRPORT
GE-6 Ensure that the airport remains a viable employment and economic engine for
the City of Arlington.
Policies:
PE-6.1 The City should encourage the growth of the airport as an employment center by
considering innovative public/private partnerships, tax incentives, and economic
development planning to promote this growth.
PE-6.2 The City should promote the Arlington Municipal Airport as Washington’s Premier
General Aviation Airport. Encourage development of the Flight Line property.
PE-6.3 The City should develop a strategy to market the Airport to encourage aviation
economic development.
PE-6.4 The City should utilize the Airport to bring recognition to Arlington by encouraging
special events such as the NWEAA Fly-In and others.
TOURISM
PE-7.1 The City should support the development of the Whitehorse Trail to Darrington and
promote Arlington as the hub for trail users.
PE-7.2 The City should capitalize on its Stillaguamish riverfront, riverfront parks (existing
and potential), and trail systems and develop and promote Arlington as an outdoor
recreation area.
PE-7.3 The City should implement other action items in the Economic Development plan
aimed at achieving this goal.
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER
GE-8.0 Obtain regional PSRC designation of the Arlington-Marysville
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MICAMMIC), jointly with the City of
Marysville.
Policies:
PE-8.1 The City should work to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support existing
industrial/manufacturing uses and protect the MICAMMIC area from encroachment
by incompatible uses in order to attract new manufacturing and industrial businesses.
PE-8.2 The City should develop policies and regulations that are coordinated with economic
development strategies to encourage growth and sustain manufacturing and industrial
businesses within the AMMIC.
PE-8.3 The City should make every effort to provide up-front economic information, site
development data, and a streamlined permit process in order to assist existing and
new manufacturing and industrial businesses in the AMMIC.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-41 JULY 2015
PE-8.4 The City should work to obtain a joint Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing
Industrial Center (AMMIC) designation from the PSRC through collaboration with
the City of Marysville, Snohomish County, and the PSRC.
PE-8.5 The City should adopt a joint resolution with the City of Marysville that requests the
PSRC designate the AMMIC as a regional manufacturing industrial center and
authorizes staff to submit a joint application requesting designation to the PSRC.
PE-8.6 Work to ensure that the AMMIC is in harmony with the goals and expectations
established in the PSRC’s VISION 2040 and multi-county planning policies.
PE-8.7 Work to ensure the boundaries of the AMMIC are within Arlington’s and
Marysville’s respective Urban Growth Boundaries.
PE-8.8 The City should adopt an inter-local agreement with the City of Marysville that
establishes the mechanism by which both jurisdictions will jointly plan for the long-
term development of the AMMIC including a minimum employment capacity of
20,000 jobs.
PE-8.9 The City should develop a subarea plan for the Arlington portion of the AMMIC
within two years after receiving MICAMMIC designation from the PSRC. The
subarea plan should address the topics described in the Manufacturing Industrial
Center Plan Checklist in PSRC’s Plan Review Manual.
PE-8.10 The City should ensure that at least 80% of the land located within the Arlington
portion of the AMMIC boundaries have planned future land uses and current zoning
designations for industrial and manufacturing uses.
PE-8.11 The City should work to ensure that a minimum employment level of 10,000 jobs
exist within the proposed AMMIC boundaries in order to receive initial designation.
PE-8.11 Ensure that there is sufficient zoned development capacity within the AMMIC to
adequately accommodate the adopted target employment level.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES
GS-1 Develop and adopt a concurrency management system in order to coordinate
the orderly provision of public facilities with public and private development
activities in a manner that is compatible with the fiscal resources of the City.
Policies:
PS-1.1 All development permits should be conditioned on facilities being in place as the
impacts of the development occur, or within six years (or sooner, depending on the
facility), whichever is to the greatest benefit to the City. A development permit
includes any official City action that effects the permitting of land and which the
City is not obligated to approve per City regulations. The City should take into
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-42 JULY 2015
account the variation in the different types of development permits and be flexible in
adherence.
PS-1.2 The City should not preclude the siting of essential public facilities; however, it
should enforce its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure
reasonable compatibility with other land uses.
PS-1.3 The City should allow a variety of uses for public facilities or develop a centrally
located community center that could be used for day care, youth facilities, senior
activities, meetings and other functions.
PS-1.4 Public facilities and utilities should be located to: a) achieve a high level of public
accessibility; b) maximize the efficiency of services provided; c) minimize their
costs; and d) minimize their impacts upon the natural environment.
PS-1.5 The City of Arlington should not issue any development permits that result in a
reduction of the transportation Level of Service standard for the public facilities
identified in the Capital Facilities Element without mitigation.
PS-1.6 The location and construction of public facilities should be permitted in any land use
plan category.
PS-1.7 The City should require that new developments mitigate traffic impacts through at
least two of the following methods as deemed acceptable by the City: dedication of
right-of-way, frontage improvements, or traffic mitigation fees.
PS-1.8 Any infrastructure improvements needed to serve a proposed development should be
installed prior to the issuance of any building permit.
PS-1.9 City sewer service should not be provided to any property outside City limits except
where Council grants an exception to prevent or remedy significant environmental
impacts
PS-1.10 Serve new development within the urban growth area with sanitary sewer systems or
fit it with dry sewers in anticipation of connection to the sewer system. Alternative
technology to sewers should only be considered when it can be shown to produce
treatment at standards that are equal to or better than the sewer system and where a
long-term maintenance plan is in place. (Suggested by PSRC)
PS-1.1011 Any costs associated with water extensions or system requirements necessary to
provide that water shall be borne by the person(s) requesting such service.
GS-2 Site essential public facilities in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.200 and
Countywide Planning Policies.
Policies:
PS-2.1 Arlington shall develop regulations for the siting of essential public facilities
consistent with RCW 36.70A.200, the Countywide Planning Policies, and the SCT
Common Siting Process.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-43 JULY 2015
GS-3 Ensure Utility service provisions are consistent with the Growth Management
Act.
Policies:
PS-3.1 The City should not extend utility lines outside the City’s Urban Growth Area,
except in cases of emergencies, where it solves a grave environmental issue, or when
it would not contribute to urban growth.
PS-3.2 The City should avoid placing utilities within critical areas or their buffers except
when absolutely necessary. And then, they should only be allowed to cross
perpendicular to the critical areas in a manner requiring the least lineal impact to the
resource. Utilities should never run parallel with the critical area unless it is outside
of the buffer. LID facilities, however, are permissible in critical area buffers per the
land-use code.
GS-4 Coordinate service and facility provision with other jurisdictions.
Policies:
PS-4.1 The City should work with Marysville to adjust water and sewer service area
boundaries so that all properties within Arlington are served by Arlington water and
sewer.
PS-4.2 Work with Snohomish County and the developer(s) of the Brekhus/Beach area to
jointly plan, fund, and construct 172nd Street from 91st Avenue NE to McElroy
Road.
GS-5 Manage stormwater pursuant to current standards, preserving and
supplementing, as necessary, the natural drainage ways and other natural
hydrologic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development.
Policies:
PS-5.1 The City should maintain an up-to-date Stormwater Comprehensive Plan.
PS-5.2 The City should seek grants, loans, and other low-cost funding opportunities for
capital improvement projects.
PS-5.3 The City should ensure that monitoring requirements, treatment techniques, and
studies required by the State such as Total Maximum Daily Load, In-stream Flow
Rule, or other State and federal regulations are followed.
PS-5.5 The City should preform GIS and stormwater modeling activities to provide an
accurate analysis of our stormwater collection, conveyance and treatment system as
well as related facilities in order to provide information quickly to customers and
during emergency situations.
PS-5.6 The City should develop and maintain a stormwater strategy that reduces the
negative impacts to natural drainages and aquatic habitats that can occur during the
early stages of a development.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-44 JULY 2015
PS-5.7 The City should include Best Available Science/Best Management Practices in its
stormwater strategy.
PS-5.8 The City should utilize Low Impact Design standards that provide stormwater
benefits and support naturally occurring functions simultaneously.
PS-5.9 The City should develop programs to educate the public about illicit discharge
detection and elimination, controlling stormwater runoff, pollution prevention, and
operation and maintenance.
PS-5.10 The City should work to ensure stormwater standards and specifications reflect
current industry standards and to meet regulatory requirements.
PS-5.11 The City should work to increase residential and business awareness of harmful
discharges to the stormwater system and the resulting damages to infrastructure and
natural resources.
PS-5.12 The City should enforce stormwater utility regulations.
PS-5.13 The City should work to increase the frequency of maintenance for the City’s
stormwater collection, conveyance and treatment systems.
PS-5.14 Groundwater management should follow a strategy for facilities that protects
groundwater resources from development and uses.
PS-5.15 The City should obtain stream corridor dedications where reasonable.
GS-6 Provide excellent sewer service to our customers.
Policies:
PS-6.1 The City should continue the wastewater pretreatment program to assist in the
reduction of plant upsets, collection system troubles, and NPDES permit violations.
PS-6.2 The City should implement new stormwater monitoring requirements and treatment
techniques and conduct studies for compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load, In-
stream Flow Rule, and other State and federal regulations.
GS-7 Provide excellent water service to our customers.
Policies:
PS-7.1 The City should meet or exceed the minimum levels of service for water system
maintenance as identified in the Water Comprehensive Plan.
PS-7.2 The City should encourage water conservation, water reclamation and reuse among its
residents through education and by providing water conservation kits.
PS-7.3 The City should implement new monitoring requirements and treatment techniques
as well as conduct studies required by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
PS-7.4 Cross Connection Control Program site surveys should be completed annually as
required by the Department of Health. Demonstrate program progress in the annual
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
2016 Update Draft
3-45 JULY 2015
cross connection control report that we are required to submit to Department of
Health.
GS-8 Provide excellent solid waste service to our customers.
Policies:
PS-8.1 The City should work closely with Snohomish County and local haulers to expand
the type of recyclable materials that can be collected from homes and businesses.
PS-8.2 The City should continue its award-winning outreach and public education program
to improve solid waste and recycling practices at businesses by teaching them about
best management practices and providing technical support and resources.
PS-8.3 The City should provide recycling opportunities at public events such as the Fly-In
and Street Fair.
PS-8.4 The City should provide recycling opportunities in City-owned buildings.
PS-8.5 The City should partner with other municipalities and government agencies to
combine resources that benefit the solid-waste customers of Arlington.
[MH1]
Chapter 4: Description of
Planning Area
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-1 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
4 Description of Planning Area
4.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER
This chapter gives a description of the planning area, including existing political, physical,
and social conditions. The gathering, inventorying, and analysis of such information are the
starting point for developing any short or long-range plans. Additionally, it is essential (as
well as required by SEPA) as a basis for environmental impact analysis. Throughout, this
document will reference this chapter, directing the reader to turn to particular sections for
information they may need to make informed analyses, conclusions, and decisions. Much of
the information will also be useful to future drafters of project-level environmental
documents.
4.2 PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES
In this plan the City treats the City limits, and the 2008 Urban Growth Area (UGA), and the
expanded 2015 UGA as one, since under the GMA it is assumed that all area with the final
UGA will be annexed at some point to become a part of the City. All analyses include the
entirety of these areas.
4.3 CITY OF ARLINGTON
The City limits cover an area of approximately 9.7 square miles (see Figure 2-1). The City
has planning jurisdiction within its City limits; therefore, the City Council creates the
development policies and regulations and the City processes all permits for land
development. There are several interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to
address mutual interests and cross-boundary impacts, including reciprocal mitigation for
traffic. Additionally, any agency affected by a particular development or which has
responsibility for managing a particular resource also has rights to comment and
recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures for projects within the City limits. The
City also controls growth outside of the City by its policies regarding water utility extensions.
4.4 ARLINGTON URBAN GROWTH AREA
The GMA requires counties planning under the Act to designate an Urban Growth Area (UGA)
around each of its cities "within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which
growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature." The Act provides, "Each city that is located
in such a county shall be included within a UGA. A UGA may include territory that is located
outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-2 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
territory already characterized by urban growth." Unincorporated areas within the City’s UGA
will eventually be annexed into the City.
The location of the boundary for this area is based on land supply needs to meet expected
2035 development demands, natural geologic formations, topography, environmental constraints,
existing development beyond the City limits, and the availability of existing infrastructure and
services. Public sewer and water lines, drainage facilities, electricity and telecommunication
lines, and roadways can be extended to serve existing and future development over 20 years in the
planning area. Arlington's airport has also played a major role in the establishment of this area
because of the City's need to control land outside the current City limits to avoid future land use
conflicts with the City’s municipal airport. Discussions need to occur with other adjacent
jurisdictions regarding the protection of the Arlington Municipal Airport.
Within the UGA but outside of the City limits Snohomish County has planning jurisdiction. The
City Council, however, has adopted regulations that require annexation into the City prior to
obtaining sewer service. This ensures that development within the City’s Urban Growth Areas
conform to City standards and development regulations.
4.5 2015 URBAN GROWTH AREA
The Arlington UGA, first adopted in 1995 and subsequently amended several times
encompasses approximately 10.3 [RS2]square miles inclusive of the City of Arlington (see
Figure 2-1). As part of the State’s 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA), Urban Growth
Area boundaries were placed around municipalities for the purpose of concentrating urban
growth in urban areas and protecting resource and open space lands, and ensuring the
provision of urban services to urban and urbanizing areas.
The size and boundaries of the UGA must be consistent with the Buildable Lands Report
developed by Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT). The Buildable Lands policy states that
cities will ensure that sufficient usable residential, commercial and industrial lands exist
within the UGA to accommodate the population, housing and jobs. Totals expected to exist
in 2035 are as follows:
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38710
2011 2035 Capacity
Population 18,489 26,002 34,514
Housing 7,128 10,018
Employment 8,660 20,884
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-3 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Available buildable lands are shown on Figures 2.3a and 2.3b.
In 2016, the County Council amended its Countywide Planning Policies and added GPP 10,
which updated population and employment figures for Snohomish County jurisdictions,
including Arlington. It reconciled these figures with the buildable lands inventory for the
City. Among its findings, GPP10 confirms that the city and its unincorporated UGA (Figure 2-
1) can ould accommodate the 2035 population, employment and housing targets shown above.
currently adopted in Appendix D of the county’s GPP within the current Arlington UGA
boundaries . The finding assumes use of “through consideration of reasonable measures” to
increase capacity within the city. The City of Arlington’s revised employment capacity estimates
also indicate that the city and its unincorporated UGA could accommodate the 2035 employment
targets currently adopted in Appendix D of the county’s GPP within the current Arlington UGA
boundaries. (Employment targets do not yet consider a full buildout of a proposed Manufacturing
Industrial Center currently under consideration.)
Policies, regulations and reasonable measures to maximize use of these lands were then
developed, consistent with local, County and regional growth policies, including Vision
2040. These were adopted in 2017 as part of the City’s docket process and as part of the
PSRC final plan certification process.
Figure 4-1
Additional Housing Unit Capacity
June 2016
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-4 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Figure 4-2
Additional Employment Capacity
June 2016
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-5 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
As part of this 2015 periodic update the City is proposing an expansion of the Arlington UGA as
shown in Figure 2-3b to accommodate growth in our next 20-year planning cycle, 2015 - 2035.
This would add another 236 acres, for a total City/UGA size of 6,838 acres or 10.7 square miles.
In 2005, one planning subarea — Brekhus/Beach (Burn Hill) — was designated as a "TDR
Receiving Area." This area was permitted to come into the UGA as part of the 2005 update
of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan with the condition that the area was to be
designated as a TDR receiving area in the County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program. The intent was that if the property owners or developers bought development rights
from “sending areas” in the Stillaguamish Valley, they would be eligible to come into the
UGA and develop using the units transferred from the sendng areas. The primary intent,
though, was that farming and agricultural open space would be preserved in the
Stillaguamish Valley.
The Brekhus/Beach subarea was annexed into Arlington in 2007 and was designated for
future “master planned community” status in 2008. Zoning was adopted that would initially
allow Suburban Residential development (9600 square foot lots), but permit a much higher
density once TDR credits were purchased and applied, a master plan was approved, and
infrastructure installed.
The TDR approach stalled and Brekhus/Beach has yet to develop according to expectations.
The market has beenwas unable to produce both sellers and willing buyers of TDR
certificates. Also, the topography and geology of the area make the installation of infrastructure
such as roads and sewers very costly. In 2015-16, discussions continue regarding the status of the
Brekhus/Beach subarea. The City has withdrawn from and the TDR program. Zoning remains
that allows for a Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) and TDR credits will be accepted as one
factor in awarding density bonuses. Other bonus incentives will also be allowed to ensure that the
MPN zoning is successful, with or without TDR.
As noted in the table above, theThe Comprehensive Plan assumes that this area will not provide
the buildable land density necessary to accommodate the projected 2035 population. The area
will remain in low-density Suburban Residential zoning with a high-level Master Plan put
together by the City in consultation with local residents.
The only other Master Plan Neighborhood overlay besides Brekhus/Beach is the future
Lindsey Annexation south of 172nd Street NE and just west of Highway 9. The City also
plans to work with these land owners in developing a high-level master plan so that
development can occur here as well.
4.76 COORDINATED WATER SERVICE PLAN AREA
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-6 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Another planning boundary not referenced in the GMA is the Coordinated Water Service
Plan (CWSP) area. 1 It is larger than the City’s UGA (see Figure 2-5) at roughly 22.5 square
miles. This is an area within which Arlington has the first right to provide water service.
However, certain conditions on service may be placed on t h o s e services. Such conditions
differ depending on where the project is located and what type of development it is. Please refer
to the City code ( AMC 13.04) for these conditions.
4.6 7 FUTURE GROWTH AREAS
The following section includes a description and analysis of each neighborhood subarea. . The
City has worked with the County and Vision 2040 to ensure that the overall community can
accommodate 2035 population, housing and jobs. This more detailed review was carried out in
order to provide an analysis of planning issues unique to each subarea as each contributes to the
total. For the 2015 update, City staff and the Planning Commission reviewed the 2005 planning
issues and policies, compared them against current information and revised the issues and policies
accordingly. All areas were analyzed to ensure (1) that the 2015 UGA boundaries encompassed
an area that would accommodate the projected 2035 population and employment, (2) in an area
with sufficient buildable lands and (3) which can be served with adequate urban infrastructure.
With the adoption of Counywide Planning Polidy GPP 10 in November 2016, buildable lands
within the Arltington UGA were successfully reconciled with the 2036 population, housing and
employment forecasts.
To better organize growth and infill development west of the Arlington Municipal Airport, a West
Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA) was developed and adopted in 2011. The West Arlington
Subarea combines four former subareas—Smokey Point, SR 532 Corridor, West Bluff, and Island
Crossing. The West Arlington Subarea Plan provides for more innovative development types
through application of Form-Based Codes and more coordinated urban design patterns. The Plan
will become active once the implementing development regulations are established.
There is one area the City Council wishes to add to the City’s UGA to provide adequate buildable
lands for 2035. Currently under review by the County as part of its annual amendment process, is
the King-Thompson UGA proposal (County file “ARL3”) which would add 236 acres at a density
permitting up to 1800 residents. The area lies west of I-5 and shares a common border with
Marysville. Because of its adjacency to an urban utilities and its relatively flat geography, the
King-Thompson UGA can be served with new roads and utilities. As discussed elsewhere in this
comprehensive plan, this addition will balance the loss of buildable lands in the Brekhus/Beach
Subarea brought on by the unsuccessful TDR program.
4.7 COORDINATED WATER SERVICE PLAN AREA
1 RCW Chapter 70.116 -- Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-7 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Another planning boundary not referenced in the GMA is the Coordinated Water Service
Plan (CWSP) area. 2 It is larger than the City’s UGA (see Figure 2-5) at roughly 22.5 square
miles. This is an area within which Arlington has the first right to provide water service.
However, certain conditions on service may be placed. Such conditions differ depending on
where the project is located and what type of development it is. Please refer to the AMC for
these conditions.
4.8 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING SUBAREAS
The following subarea analysis includes a description and analysis of each subarea. This detailed
review was carried out in order to provide an analysis of planning issues unique to each subarea.
For the 2015 update, City staff and the Planning Commission reviewed the 2005 planning issues
and policies, compared them against current information and revised the issues and policies
accordingly. Four subareas were combined, one was added and one changed significantly. These
are discussed in more detail below. All were analyzed to ensure that the 2015 UGA boundaries
encompassed an area that would accommodate the projected 2035 population and employment,
within an area with sufficient buildable lands and which can be served with adequate urban
infrastructure. The detailed analysis of each of those factors can be found in other portions of the
Plan.
Old-Town Residential
Location: At 609 acres, the Old-Town Subarea makes up 8.9% of the 2015 planning area. It is
roughly bordered by the OTBD to the west, the Stillaguamish River valley to the east, Highland
Street and Kona Crest neighborhood to the south, and Gilman Street and the former Country
Charm dairy to the north. This older, more established neighborhood is the heart of old
Arlington's residential character.
Existing Uses: The predominant use is single-family residential, but there are a fair number of
duplexes, row-houses, and older apartments interspersed throughout. There are also four large
tracts that contain schools (two elementary and two middle schools), school administration, a
hospital, and associated medical services adjacent to the hospital. Its development pattern is that
of a traditional, alley-and-grid-system neighborhood, with many houses having front porches and
garages on the alley.
Houses vary in size and many of them sit on two or three small lots, typical of late 19th-early 20th
century town subdivisions. There are no large tracts of undeveloped land, but there are many
existing lots that can be made buildable through boundary line adjustments. Thus, there is the
potential to increase densities through in-fill development, redevelopment, and accessory
dwelling units.
2 RCW Chapter 70.116 -- Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-8 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Infrastructure: Infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, and storm drainage pipes) exists throughout
the subarea, but it is old, approaching the end of its useful life, and is in need of repair,
replacement, or upgrading. The storm system has been improved, having once drained directly
into the Stillaguamish River with no detention or treatment. Old-Town now drains into a
constructed wetland, (Old-Town Stormwater Wetland). The wetland was constructed in 2013.
Parks: There is one community park in the Old-Town: Terrace Park. In addition, there are four
school yards, some of which have play equipment, some of which have developed play fields, and
all which have unstructured play fields. Additional parks are still deemed necessary for this area.
See Chapter 7 for a thorough description of these recreation facilities.
Critical Areas: With the exception of a few steep slopes there are no Environmentally Critical
Areas on the upper plateau (essentially, the built area) since most were obliterated 100 years ago.
The steep slopes are currently forested and provide screening between the OTBD and the
residential uses of Old-Town and contribute environmentally in terms of habitat, climate control,
and stormwater infiltration.
There is one area of note that does contain critical areas, that being the Graafstra Farm. This area
was annexed to the City since the last Plan update. Most of the farm’s structures are set on an
upland hill that juts out into the floodplain. There are steep slopes here, as within other parts of
town. Additionally, most of the farmed land sits in the Stillaguamish Southfork floodplain and is
adjacent to the river. The lowlands are zoned Public/Semi-Public and the uplands are zoned High
Density Residential.
2015 Planning Issues: The Old-Town area is an area that could absorb higher densities through
in-fill, mixed use, cottage housing or similar mechanisms. Doing so, however, will require that
regulatory or other tools be put in place to preserve the historical architectural character that helps
to define Arlington’s community image.
Old-Town Business Districts
Location: At 198 acres, the Old-Town Business District (OTBD) subarea makes up 2.9% of the
planning area. The OTBD is generally bordered by the Stillaguamish River on the north, Highway
9 on the west, and the Old-Town subarea to the south and east. The Arlington Old-Town Business
District is comprised of three subdistricts: OTBD-1, OTBD-2, and OTBD-3. As described below,
there are land use and development distinctions between all three subdistricts that should be
considered in formulating the blueprint for downtown. But there are also some overall issues that
need to be addressed for the downtown as a whole.
OTBD-1 Existing Uses: This district represents the heart of Arlington and includes the City’s
historic “Main Street” (Olympic Avenue, which was formerly named Railroad Avenue). The
design of both its public realm (publicly owned spaces such as rights-of-way and parks) and
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-9 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
private realm (properties developed under private ownership), work together to create a strong
sense of place and identity. Olympic Avenue was upgraded in 2007 to include new wide
sidewalks, street furniture, unique street lighting and crosswalk design. The historic buildings
along Olympic Avenue are adjacent to the street and to each other, forming a contiguous street
wall that actively engages the street.
The OTBD-1 has historically held a variety of uses: national retail chains, small mom-&-pop
specialty stores, restaurants, mixed uses (residences on upper floors), civic and cultural uses,
entertainment, etc. In the last several decades, however, most of the larger, national chains have
relocated to the suburban commercial areas. Though there is little land available for development,
there is opportunity for redevelopment and improvement to existing buildings. The City owns
about four (4) acres of undeveloped land fronting on about two blocks of Olympic Avenue.
OTBD 2 Existing Uses: OTBD-2 basically runs along West Avenue, SR-9, and Division Street.
It is characterized by commercial buildings from the 1960s and 70s, older single-family houses
(some of which have been converted to commercial uses), and a few vacant parcels (though on
the west side of SR-9 there are some larger parcels currently housing farm and single-family
residential uses). Most commercial buildings accommodate parking off-street as opposed to on-
street like in OTBD-1.
OTBD-3 Existing Uses: OTBD-3 is generally that area between Division Street (or Burke
Avenue east of Broadway Street) and the Stillaguamish River. Uses include a mix of older single-
family residential homes, apartment buildings, mid-sized commercial buildings, a district court,
and other small businesses. The City’s water, sewer, and stormwater facilities are located here.
There isn’t much vacant land available; however, there is a lot of opportunity for infill and
redevelopment.
Infrastructure: Much of the infrastructure in the Old-Town Business District is in need of repair,
replacement, or upgrading. Olympic Avenue was remodeled in 2007 and other piecemeal
infrastructure improvements have occurred as funding becomes available.
Parks: There are two community parks in the OTBD: Haller Park and Legion Park. See Chapter
7 for a thorough description of these recreation facilities.
Critical Areas: With the exception of steep slopes there are no Environmentally Critical Areas in
the Old-Town Business District. The steep slopes are forested and provide screening between the
OTBD and the residential uses of Old-Town and contribute environmentally in terms of habitat,
climate control, and stormwater infiltration.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-10 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
2015 Planning Issues: The City will continue to pursue an economic development strategy for
OTBD-1. This will involve review of existing regulations and amendments to achieve the
economic and community vision. Topics of discussion include:
OTBD-1
1. Appropriate types of uses in OTBD-1, including the extent of civic and municipal
functions.
2. Remodeling, redevelopment, or new development that furthers the goals of our economic
development strategy.
3. Enforcement of existing rules, including building and property maintenance.
4. Attraction of more people to the downtown during more hours of the day.
5. More mixed uses (first floor commercial, upper floors residential) in OTBD-1.
6. Public infrastructure improvements, added or improved.
7. Availability of parking-both on-site and on-street.
8. Economic opportunities with Centennial Trail.
OTBD-2
1. Appropriate types of uses in OTBD-2.
2. District theme and building appearance (OTBD-1 may be the model).
3. Surface parking lots.
4. Mixed use development.
5. Riverfront commercial development.
6. Buffering the treatment plant from conflicting activities while providing for future
expansion.
OTBD-3
1. Stillaguamish Tribe claims that one of its largest ancestral villages lay where Haller Park
now is. Care will need to be taken in planning or developing this area, with appropriate
archaeological studies being conducted and consideration given to any findings.
2. Frontage on the river. Possible redevelopment into a riverfront commercial use.
3. Aesthetic improvements to public parking lots, making them more desirable to use.
4. Enforcement of existing rules, including building and property maintenance. Incentives
to get property owners to fix up their buildings.
5. Opportunities to provide more or better trails, sidewalks, and paths to connect parking,
shopping, jobs, schools, and the adjacent neighborhoods.
6. Bike trails to other areas of the City.
Arlington Bluff Subarea
Location: With 451 acres, the Arlington Bluff Subarea makes up 7.9% of the 2015 planning
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-11 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
area. Bordered on the north by steep slopes and the floodplain, and on the south by the industrial
area and airport, this scenic residential district meanders along the bluff overlooking the
Stillaguamish Valley.
Existing Uses: Some of the best view property in Arlington is found here. It contains
predominately single-family residential uses (some older, some newer), though there are some
undeveloped commercial properties along SR-530 and 211th Street. There are still some un-
annexed areas that are developed and undeveloped.
Infrastructure: Due to recent development, sewer, water, and other utilities are available in
most of this subarea. One exception is the area north of 188th Street, though it is anticipated
development will soon extend utilities to this area as well. There are still quite a few homes on
wells and septic systems in the area between the cemetery and SR-530 west of 67th Avenue.
Streets in the newer areas are generally up to standards, but there are several older County
subdivisions that have substandard roads, with no sidewalks or other frontage improvements.
Additionally, substantial portions of Cemetery Road/188th Street still need to be widened and
improved to bring it up to its Local Collector standard.
Parks: There is one community park in the Arlington Bluff subarea: High Clover Park. (See
Chapter 7).
Critical Areas: Environmentally, the biggest issues are the steep slopes and drainage on the
lower valley properties. The steep slopes are currently forested and provide screening between the
urbanizing area and the Stillaguamish Valley and contribute environmentally in terms of habitat,
climate control, and stormwater infiltration.
2015 Planning Issues: In the 2005 Plan, there was concern over future growth conflicting with
airport clear zone operations. These have been resolved and compatibility regulations are in
place.
As with other subareas, a major challenge it how to connect neighborhoods and road systems in
an effective and economical manner. There are numerous dead-end streets that should be
connected. Also, the City has developed trails in several locations and there should be a
continuous effort to link people with the commercial, park, school and other destinations.
Among other issues:
Annexing those portions of the subarea that haven’t been annexed into the City.
Minimize drainage impacts on valley properties.
Septic system failures in Pioneer Estates and elsewhere.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-12 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Kent Prairie Area Subarea
Location: At 353 acres, the Kent Prairie Subarea makes up 5.2% of the 2015 planning area. This
subarea is bordered by the top of the valley slope on the north, the City limits/UGA on the east,
the bottom of the valley slope on the south, and boundaries of the General Commercial zone just
west of SR-9 on the west. It basically includes the low-lying valley floor (once a working farm) as
well as some of the slopes surrounding it.
Existing Uses: This subarea has some unique strengths as well as challenges. One of its strengths
is its topography: Being in a small valley and surrounded on most sides by hills, it has the
appearance of being a neighborhood unto itself. It also has good access because it is located at the
intersection of a State highway and an arterial that serves a large rural area to the east. It has an
elementary school, a large park (though mostly undeveloped), and a commercial center. There is
also a good mix of residential types, including single-family residences, apartments, mobile
homes, and assisted care facilities. There are still a large number undeveloped parcels, both
commercial and high density residential.
Infrastructure: Utilities, streets, and other infrastructure are in good shape, being relatively new.
The City does have a water reservoir on the eastern slopes.
Parks: There is one community park in the Kent Prairie subarea: Jensen Park. In addition, there is
a schoolyard which has play equipment and unstructured play fields. (See Chapter 7).
Critical Areas: A strength that is also a challenge is that there are several important salmon-
bearing creeks and large wetlands throughout the area. These include Portage, Prairie, and Kruger
Creeks.
Since the 2014 Oso disaster, there has been increased attention to potential hazardous slide areas.
In 1994, a fairly large landslide occurred on property that was being developed east of
Burn/Stillaguamish Roads. There have been several discussions since 1994 on what could be
done with it, but as yet it seems infeasible (or too costly) to stabilize the slopes. This is indicative
of the need to identify where slide prone areas exist and what the regulatory response should be.
In the post-Oso period, Arlington will participate in efforts to protect these areas, including the
Burn Road property in the Kent Prairie subarea.
2015 Planning Issues: In the 2005 Plan, there was concern over future residential and
commercial growth conflicting with each other. The City is satisfied that protections exist for
this. Protections for creeks and wetlands have also been put in place. A mix of housing types –
a goal in 2005 – is meeting with success.
Again, a major challenge is how to connect neighborhoods and road systems. Physical
connections in the Kent Prairie area may be an insurmountable challenge because of past
development trends and the topography of the area. Additional development of the City’s trail
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-13 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
system may provide more bicycle and pedestrian links however. Special attention must be paid to
clean up and maintenance of the Zimmerman Hill Trail in the subarea.
Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC)[RS3]
The Manufacturing Industrial Center extends from the southern edge of downtown, beyond the
airport and 172nd into Marysville’s planning area. Comprised of 2135 acres (31% of the UGA),
the MIC is the center of activity not only in Arlington, but the whole north County area. It is in
fact a part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor which potentially targets the MIC
area for up to 77,000 jobs.
West Arlington Subarea
To better organize growth and infill development west of the Arlington Municipal Airport, a West
Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA) was developed and adopted in 2011. The 1057 acre Subarea
combined four former subareas—Smokey Point, SR 532 Corridor, West Bluff, and Island
Crossing. The 2011 Plan described the overall area as a “segregated mix of agriculture,
commercial and residential with most of the area zoned for highway commercial and moderate
residential density”. It envisioned a future with emphasis on “human place” and livable places in
harmony with the natural environment. It also described West Arlington as a future TDR
receiving area for higher density, mixed use development next to stable single-family
neighborhoods.
The overall subarea plan has now reverted back to the four prior subarea plans. Many of the
tools and concepts of the 2011 WASA Plan have been made a part of those smaller area plans,
however each smaller area has been planned in a manner that recognizes the unique
characteristics and needs for each.
The West Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA) was developed in 2011, combining three 2005
subareas: Smokey Point Neighborhood, West Bluff and Island Crossing. A portion of the 2005
SR-531 Corridor Subarea is also considered a part of the WASA area (to 51st Avenue NE)
because of its relationship to the other three. The total WASA area comprises 1057 acres.
The key planning issues identified for the area were generally as described below in the original
subareas:
Wetlands and floodplain within Island Crossing and West Bluff.
Steep slopes the eastern periphery.
Transportation infrastructure not up to urban standards.
Unsafe pedestrian “realm”.
And the need for:
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-14 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Community focus and connectivity with rest of Arlington.
Sprawl “repair”.
Limited arterials.
Parks and trails.
The 2016 Plan update considered these challenges and characteristics as well as the following
aspirations:
The WASA Plan lists several initiatives for the future, but without a specific implementation
strategy. Components would include:
Principles of new urbanism[MH4]:
Walkability.
Connectivity.
Mixing land uses.
Variety.
Quality architecture & urban design.
Traditional neighborhood.
Compact design.
Sustainability.
Preservation.
Form-based codes[MH5]
Regulating plan (zoning map).
Civic space standards.
Building configuration standards.
Building type standards.
Architectural standards.
“Public Realm” Improvements
Roads
o Road plan (See Figure 2-5).
o Roundabouts.
o I-5 interchange at 188th Street.
o Bicycle lanes.
o Streetscape standards.
o Prohibition of dead-end or gated streets.
o Landscape medians and street trees on arterials.
o Unique street lamp design.
o Traffic calming.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-15 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
o Underground utilities on arterials.
Block standards
o Different standards for different locations (“transects”).
o Intersection spacing to encourage pedestrian use.
o On-street parking.
o Bicycle Lanes.
o Landscape strips.
Gateways signing and other features for neighborhoods and major arterials.
Civic spaces
o Parks.
o Plazas.
“Private Realm” Standards
Density.
Lot configuration.
Building placement.
Building configurations and design.
Land use types.
Again, no specific code amendments or other implementation measures were recommended. The
City will adopt a more specific implementation as part of this 2015 Plan to be carried out over the
coming months, following Plan adoption. The Plan’s Implementation section recommends that
the WASA Plan be refined further into a specific action plan, involving codes, projects, public
improvements and development policies.
The 2005 Comprehensive Plan: In the City’s 2005 Plan, the following neighborhood
characteristics and issues in each West Arlington subarea now comprised of the West Arlington
Subarea were identified. In 2015 they exist as were identified:as follows:
Smokey Point/SR-531 Corridor
Enhance the area as an entrance to the City.
Better road and trail connections.
Transportation links to Marysville.
Widening of SR-531.
Corridor design and streetscape.
Improve access to bus service.
Coordinated services with Marysville.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-16 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Fire flow.
Protection of the Quilceda-Allen Creek.
Buffers between residential and commercial/industrial development.
Smokey Point Neighborhood
Mix of older and newer homes.
Variety of densities and building types.
Higher density housing potential.
Areas available for development.
Rural infrastructure.
Low water pressure.
Lack of street frontage.
One park. More needed.
No community focal point.
Connections to rest of community needed.
Noise mitigation needed along I-5.
Drainage facilities in neighborhoods and Smokey Point Boulevard.
Smokey Point Boulevard improvements needed: streetscape, widening, drainage.
West Bluff
Undeveloped or underdeveloped.
Older homes on large lots.
Sewer not extended to all of area.
Many homes are still on wells.
Roads not developed to City standards.
No curb, gutter, sidewalks, and planter strips.
No community parks.
Steep slopes.
Trails, bike trails and sidewalks.
Island Crossing
Relatively undeveloped agricultural land,
A few older farmhouses and barns.
Several highway oriented businesses.
Roads not up to urban standards.
Served by sewer and water with significant upgrades needed for development.
100-year floodplain. Frequent flooding..
No drainage facilities.
Fish bearing creeks and critical areas.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-17 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
The Stillaguamish Tribe property desires City sewer and water services and intersection
improvements.
The City’s Capital Improvements Plan and development regulations were updated in 2017 to
prioritize improvements and present a more organized development pattern in these four
neighborhoods and citywide. The City will adopt a more specific implementation as part of this
2017 Plan amendments, although these will occur over time on a prioritized basis.
Hilltop
Location: At 1,305 acres, the Hilltop Subarea makes up 19% of the 2015 planning area. This
subarea is roughly bordered by Portage Creek and SR-9 on the east, 168th Street on the south, 67th
Avenue on the west, and Kent Prairie subarea on the north.
Existing Uses: This subarea basically includes all the residential areas up on the plateau,
including Gleneagle, Crown Ridge, the Magnolias, etc. There is also undeveloped commercial
land at the intersection of SR-9 and SR-531, and a residential area and commercial/mixed use area
being brought into the UGA to the south and east of SR-531. Two schools (high and elementary)
are also located in this subarea.
Infrastructure: For the most part infrastructure is in good shape, as this is one of the newer
developed areas in Arlington. However, the whole area of Arlington Terrace, developed as 5-acre
lots, is on a private water system, septic systems, and private roads. This area could never develop
to its planned densities unless public infrastructure is installed. Also, it is anticipated that both
State highways will be widened in the future.
Parks: There are 14 neighborhood parks in the Hilltop subarea: Gleneagle IVE Park, Gleneagle
1-3 Parks, Wedgwood Park, Crown Ridge 1-5 Parks, Highland View Estates Park, Eagle Heights
Park, Zimmerman Trail, and Pioneer Park. In addition, there is Pioneer Elementary, which has
play equipment and developed and unstructured play fields. (See Chapter 7)
Critical Areas: There are quite a few streams that run through this area, as well as wetlands.
Prairie and Portage Creeks both have their headwaters here. There are also some steep slopes
along some of the creeks’ ravines.
2015 Planning Issues: The key planning issue in the Hilltop Subarea is to complete a “high-
level” master plan for the future Lindsay annexation. This represents an opportunity for mixed
use or mixed density housing. In 2004, the City Council voted to support the roughly 100 acres
south of 172nd being included in the UGA, with the following condition:
“The area should be planned using the Planned Neighborhood Development tool
found in the Land Use Code. Additionally, the City should develop a new land use
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-18 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
designation and zone with a minimum parcel size of 9,600 square foot for use in
these areas. We should consider a mix of densities in these new areas, including
some multi-family residential areas as well as these new larger lots. We should
also pre-plan the transportation system, areas for community parks, utilities, and
other necessary infrastructure and land uses. The City should enter into some sort
of development contract with the property owners to implement this goal.”
The City plans to work with property owners in developing a “high-level” master plan in order to
help the annexation and development process of this unincorporated area.
Towards the north end of the subarea in the Arlington Terrace Neighborhood, there is no pressing
need to resolve density increases or infrastructure improvements in the area, although these could
be considered density reserve area for the future.
Trail connections are also a priority for the Hilltop Subarea, particularly along 172nd Street where
pedestrians and vehicle co-exist in close proximity to one another.
Southfork
Location: At 72 acres, the Southfork Subarea makes up 1% of the planning area. This subarea is
located on the eastern edge of the City, just north of the Brekhus/Beach Subarea and Tveit Road,
and just east of the Old-Town Residential Subarea. At this time, the subarea is completely outside
of City limits but within the City’s Urban Growth Area.
Existing Uses: This area is comprised solely of single-family residential dwellings on relatively
large lots (half-acre plus).
Infrastructure: The majority of roads within this subarea are below urban standards as they lack
curb, gutter and sidewalk. The majority of lots are on septic as sewer lines don’t extend through
the subarea.
Parks: There are no parks within this subarea however Eagle Creek Elementary lies directly to
the north and has recreational facilities.
Critical Areas: There are steep slopes toward the eastern edge of the subarea that run north to
south. A portion of the subarea lies within the floodplain of the south fork of Stillaguamish River.
2015 Planning Issues: The key planning issues for this subarea are annexation and the extension
of sewer lines. Attempts are being made to annex the area into the City; however, if residents are
unable to agree to annexation, it may warrant further discussion of removal of this subarea from
the City’s Urban Growth Area. The extension of sewer lines throughout the area will be costly
and existing lots that are subdividable will only be able to yield a few lots because of their
relatively small size (for rural lots).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-19 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
Brekhus/Beach (formerly Burn Hill and portion of Southfork)
Location: At 337 acres, the Brekhus/Beach Subarea makes up 5% of the planning area. This
subarea is located on the eastern edge of the City, roughly bordered by Portage Creek on the west
(the chasm as it climbs the hill), 190th Street NE on the south, and Tveit Loop Road on the north.
In the 2005 Plan, this area was referred to as Burn-Hill and part of Southfork. This area annexed
in 2007 (see Ord. 1415) as part of the City and County’s TDR3 program (see discussion below
and Page 4-5).
Existing Uses: This subarea is comprised solely of single-family residential uses on large lots (5
to 40 acres).
Infrastructure: Currently the infrastructure in this area is developed to Snohomish County rural
standards and is maintained by the City. As a condition of annexation, a master development plan
was to be prepared by the owners, which would have included an infrastructure plan including a
financial element. The City plans to assistassisted land-owners in developing a “high-level”
master plan (Figure ___) to help guide development of the subarea. Until then the subarea will
remain rural in character. One neighborhood, Quall Ridge, has been developed at the south end of
the subarea because it was platted under the County’s jurisdiction prior to annexation by the City.
Parks: There are currently no parks in the Brekhus/Beach subarea. Open space will be planned at
such time as a master development plan is presented by owners.
Critical Areas: There are two fish-bearing streams (Portage Creek and Eagle Creek) that run
through this area, along with their associated wetlands. There are also some steep slopes along
some of the creeks’ ravines which will require sensitive design of roads as part of the master
development plan.
2015 Planning Issues: There are numerous planning issues with the Brekhus/Beach Subarea as a
result of a thus far failed TDR program for the Stillaguamish Valley. The Brekhus/Beach
Subarea was not originally slated to be included in the City’s UGA during the County’s 2005 Plan
update, but was designated as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Receiving Area. The
TDR plan was to allow the property owners to purchase development rights from the TDR
Sending Area (Stillaguamish Valley), which would allow the property to come into the UGA
sooner than the next 10-year (2015) update. The community would benefit from having
agricultural uses preserved in the Sending Area.
As noted on Page 4-5, In 2015, the TDR Plan has yet to workdid not have the intended effect. .
Developers in the Brekhus/Beach Receiving Area, who would purchase the development rights
from agricultural landowners in the Sending Area, have failed to reach agreement on the value
(price) of the TDR credits resulting in an inability of the Brekhus/Beach subarea to attract a
3 Transfer of Development Rights
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-20 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
master plan sponsor. Without a sponsor or a plan, higher density urban development and the
infrastructure needed to serve it is was not feasible.
In the meantime, the area was annexed to the City
and is now assumed to be a part of the buildable
lands inventory. The City faces a paradox where the
Growth Management Act requires that lands within
Urban Growth Areas be developed at urban densities
(4+ houses per acre), but there is no market or
infrastructure financing available to achieve that
level of development. Only a density of 20,000
square feet per parcel is permissible without sewer
or other facilities.
Until urban densities are feasible in this subarea, the
City cannot meet its standards for available
buildable lands, a requirement of the Growth
Management Act. As discussed in Chapter 5 (Land Use) and Chapter 9 (Public Services and
Facilities Element), an alternative area presently outside the City’s UGA – located west of I-5 –
will provide the land necessary to meet the standard and the City has asked the County to approve
an expansion4 as part of “Docket XVII” (the annual amendment process). The area is within the
Rural Urban Transition Area (RUTA). The County has opposed this request until now based on
its belief that an expansion is unnecessary, given lands available in the Brekhus/Beach Subarea.
This conundrum is one of the major planning issues for the City and is certainly the major issue
for the Brekhus/Beach Subarea. The solution is to retain the long term objective of urban
densities in the Subarea, but to add the UGA expansion west of I-5 to provide adequate area of
urban development with urban services. and to develop a “high-level” infrastructure and
development plan, so that when a master plan under the Master Planned Neighborhood zoning is
brought forward by a developer, the area is ready for development in a cohesive cost-effective
manner. The City will work with owners and future developers to achieve this buildable lands
goal.
King-Thompson
Location: The King-Thompson UGA proposal (County Docket XVII file “Arl3”) would add 239
acres with a residential density permitting up to 1800 residents. The area lies west of I-5 and
shares a common border with Marysville. The area can be served with new roads and utilities,
which will occur upon annexation by new development. As discussed elsewhere in this Plan, this
addition will balance the loss of buildable lands in the Brekhus/Beach (Brekhus/Beach) subarea.
4 Docket File No. ARL3
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area
4-21 JULY 2015
REVISED JANURARY 2017
The property lies within the Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA) and, once annexed to
Arlington would be zoned for medium density single-family residential.
Infrastructure: The proposal site is within Arlington’s water service system and would be served
with City sewer. Access from Arlington will be from 200th Street NE which crosses over I-5 from
the City into the north portion of the proposal site. Access from the south will be on 19th
Avenue NE, and will connect to the Marysville street system to 172nd Street NE (SR-531).
Again, roads and utilities will be improved concurrent with development according to City
standards and master capital facilities planning.
Critical Areas: The subarea contains streams and associated wetlands, although these have not
been rated. There are large areas of upland which are developable.
In 2014, the County’s review of the King Thompson addition argued that expansion is not
supported by a land capacity analysis. It stated that the expansion area would support an
additional population of 2,193 which exceeds any projected capacity shortfall for 2035. The City
disagrees and, as discussed elsewhere, the addition is needed to offset lowered expectations for
the TDR program in the Brekhus/Beach Subarea.
Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC)
The Manufacturing Industrial Center extends from the southern edge of downtown, beyond the
airport and 172nd into Marysville’s planning area. The Arlington portion of the MIC is
comprised of 2135 acres (31% of the UGA). The Marysville portion contains XXXX acres the
MIC is the center of activity not only in Arlington, but the whole north County area. It is in fact a
part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor which potentially targets the MIC area for
up to 77,000 jobs.
Chapter 5: Land Use Element
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-1 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
5 Land Use Element
5.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER
The Land Use Element is concerned primarily with the accommodation of the City of Arlington's
spatial growth; that is, the use and the mix of land uses that will serve future population,
employment, public service and recreational needs, and other aspects of city life.
This Land Use Element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth
Management Act. It responds to GMA guidelines for the update of the former 2005 Plan. In
2015, not only has the “horizon year” changed from 2025 to 2035, but and land use assumptions
have changed, all of which have been incorporated into the 2015 Plan’s Land Use Element. It
describes how the goals in the other elements of this Comprehensive Plan (Housing, Capital
Facilities, etc.) will be implemented through land use policies and regulations. It is a key element
in implementing Arlington's Comprehensive Plan.
This Element has also been developed in accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, the
region’s Vision 2040 and multi-county planning policies. A matrix showing the consistency
between the Countywide policies and Arlington's Comprehensive Plan policies is located in
Appendix C. This section inventories and analyzes the distribution and location of existing land
uses and considers the appropriate intensity and density of future development. The Plan is also
consistent with the updated Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan, including its
population, employment and housing targets1.
Finally, the Land Use Element has been developed in recognition of the subarea objectives
outlined in Chapter 4 and the Capital Faculties Element in Chapter 9. Every attempt has been
made to reconcile various growth projections with utility analyseis to ensure that infrastructure
improvements keep pace with growth to achieve required “concurrency”. Concurrency is a
Growth Management requirement that requires that facilities be in place by the time growth
impacts occur.
Key changes since 2005 are changes in approach to the TDR program in the Brekhus/Beach
Subarea, expansion of the UGA west of I-5 and future plans for the Manufacturing Industrial
Center extending from Old-Town, through the airport and south into Marysville.
Absent from the 2015 Plan is the TDR overlay zone. The 2005 Plan had included a Transfer of
Development Rights program to encourage agricultural protections in the Stillaguamish River
Valley through allowance of higher density (Master Planned Neighborhoods) in the Burn
Hill/South Fork (Brekhus/Beach) Subarea. This area was annexed in 2007, however the TDR
program proved unsuccessful. While the City continues to support high-level master planning in
this area to ensure efficient provision of infrastructure, the TDR component will be removed as a
1 See Snohomish Countywide Planning Policy GPP10, November 2016
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-2 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
pre-condition for development.
Added to the 2015 Plan is the proposed “King-Thompson” UGA expansion west of I-5. This is a
pending amendment request under review by Snohomish County (Docket title ARL3). The
expansion would add 239 acres of land which would be designated for RMD zoning. It is
intended to balance the buildable lands formerly proposed for the Brekhus/Beach area which will
be unavailable for higher density development until the property is master planned and serviced.
All three growth alternatives being studied by the County call for a significant increase in
Arlington employment from 8,660 in 2011 to 20,884 in 2035. This is a reflection of the expected
activity around the Arlington Airport. In the County as a whole, there will be a forecasted
surplus in employment land capacity in 2035.
The City is seeking formal designation of a Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) including
portions of Arlington and Marysville, from the airport to about 136th Street NE. The total area
comprises about 4,019 2900 acres with a future employment capacity of roughly 77,000
industrial jobs, most aerospace related. Of 4019 acres, 2287 lies in the Arlington UGA and 1732
in Marysville. The MIC area is a part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor as
designated by the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County. As the two cities seek formal MIC
designation by PSRC, they will jointly pursue master planning of the area, including
infrastructure.
The City will adopt Figure 2-3 (Future Land Use Map) as its official land use and zoning map.
The map includes the King-Thompson UGA expansion to indicate future zoning. It is
understood that the Snohomish County Docket XVII process must be concluded in 2017 before
the designation becomes official.
5.2 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS
The official Land Use Map shows how land uses will be distributed throughout Arlington to
accommodate 2035 population and employment projections, along with the public facilities to
serve them. It represents policy. The Zoning Map is a regulation that implements the Land Use
Map.
It is the intention of the council that …(the zoning code)…implement the planning
policies adopted by the council for the city and its urban growth area, as reflected in
the comprehensive plan, utility plans, airport plan, and other planning documents.
(AMC 20.04.060)
There is a very close relationship between the Land Use and Zoning maps. Different zones may
exist within similar land use designations. Map overlays for the Airport Protection District,
Airport Safety Zone, the Horizontal Mixed Use (HMU) and Master Planned Neighborhood
overlay zones further refine how development can occur within designated areas. Development
is also subject to restrictions where applicable per the Shoreline Master Plan. Finally, the Land
Use and Zoning maps depict the Contract Rezones in effect for the Gleneagle neighborhood in
the Hilltop Subarea and the Pioneer Meadows neighborhood in the Arlington Bluff Subarea.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-3 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Following is a brief description of the purpose of the different designations and zones on the
Land Use and Zoning maps:
7.2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
Suburban Residential (SR): The Suburban Residential designation consists primarily of a
suburban residential fabric. It is generally characterized as a quiet neighborhood environment
with detached single-family residences on relatively large lots situated along low-volume
thoroughfares. Building setbacks are deep with houses generally situated toward the center of the
lot they occupy and residential dwellings typically don’t exceed two stories in height. Lots are
usually served by City water and sewer.
The purpose of the Suburban Residential designation is to provide a low-density residential
environment (maximum four dwelling units per acre) for detached single-family homes (and
accessory dwellings) on relatively large lots which provide ample private outdoor space for each
residence. Residences are typically not within walking distance or close proximity to commercial
services or employment opportunities.
The Suburban Residential designation is usually initially applied to those areas of the City where
master planning is a prerequisite to development due to a lack of existing infrastructure in the
area.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Suburban Residential on the
City’s Official Land-Use Map include: Suburban Residential (SR), Residential Low Density
(RLD), and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). For areas with a Suburban Residential designation and a
Master Plan Neighborhood Overlay, Residential Moderate Density (RMD), Residential High
Density (RHD), and General Commercial (GC) may also be applied with an approved Master
Plan for the entire area within the respective MPN overlay.
Residential Low/Moderate Density (RLMD): The Residential Low/Moderate Density
designation consists primarily of a suburban/urban residential fabric. It is generally characterized
as a somewhat active pedestrian neighborhood environment with detached and some attached
single-family residences on moderate sized lots situated along low-volume thoroughfares.
Building setbacks are moderate with houses generally situated toward the center of the lot they
occupy with residential dwellings typically not exceeding two stories in height. Lots are served
by City water and sewer.
The purpose of the Residential Low/Moderate Density designation is to provide a moderate-
density residential environment (four to six dwelling units per acre) for detached and attached
single-family homes (and accessory dwellings) on moderate sized lots that provide some private
outdoor space for each resident. Some residences may be within walking distance of some
commercial services and employment opportunities as well as urban amenities such as parks and
trails.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Residential Low/Moderate
Density on the City’s Official Land-Use Map include: Residential Low/Moderate Density
(RLMD), Residential Moderate Density (RMD), and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-4 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Residential Moderate Density (RMD): The Residential Moderate Density designation
consists primarily of an urban residential fabric. It is generally characterized as an active
pedestrian neighborhood environment with detached and attached single-family residences on
moderate sized lots situated along low to moderate volume thoroughfares. Building setbacks are
moderately deep with houses generally situated toward the front of the lot they occupy with
residential dwellings typically not exceeding two stories in height. Lots are served by City water
and sewer.
The purpose of the Residential Moderate Density designation is to provide a comfortably spaced
residential environment (six dwelling units per acre) for detached and attached single-family
homes (and accessory dwellings) on moderate sized lots that provide some private outdoor space
for each resident. Residences may be within walking distance of some commercial services and
employment opportunities as well as urban amenities such as parks and trails.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Residential Moderate Density on
the City’s Official Land-Use Map include: Residential Moderate Density (RMD) and
Public/Semi-Public (P/SP).
Residential High Density (RHD): The Residential High Density designation consists
primarily of an urban residential fabric. It is generally characterized as a very active pedestrian
environment with attached multi-family residences on shared lots situated along moderate to
high-volume thoroughfares. Building setbacks are shallow with residential buildings generally
situated toward the front of the lot they occupy with residential buildings typically not exceeding
three stories in height. Residential developments in this designation are subject to design review.
Lots are served by City water and sewer.
The purpose of the Residential High Density designation is to provide a close-knit residential
environment (minimum ten dwelling units per acre) that can consist of detached, single-family
residences to multi-family complexes that generally have shared common outdoor space.
Residences are typically within walking distance of commercial services and employment
opportunities as well as urban amenities such as parks, trails, and transit service.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Residential High Density on the
City’s Official Land-Use Map include: Residential High Density (RHD) and Public/Semi-Public
(P/SP). The Horizontal Mixed Use (HMU) may also be applied where a master plan is approved.
Old-Town Residential (OTR): The Old-Town Residential designation consists primarily of
an urban residential fabric (exclusive of multi-family dwellings). It is generally characterized as
old-town Arlington’s historic residential neighborhood consisting of detached single-family
homes from the early 20th century forward. It is an active pedestrian environment with lots
situated along low-volume thoroughfares and are provided secondary access from alleys (from
which most residential garages are accessed from). Building setbacks are moderate with
residential buildings generally situated toward the front of the lot they occupy with buildings not
exceeding two stories in height. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Residential
developments in this designation are subject to design review.
The purpose of the Old-Town Residential designation is to preserve the historic look, feel, and
function of Arlington’s old-town residential neighborhood which generally consists of detached
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-5 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
single-family residences (and accessory dwelling units) on narrow 1/10th acre lots (ten dwelling
units per acre maximum). Some residences are situated on two or more of these lots. Residences
are within walking distance of Arlington’s Old-Town Business District which consists of
commercial services and employment opportunities. Residences within this designation are also
within walking distance of other urban amenities such as parks, trails, schools, and transit
service.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Old-Town Residential on the
City’s Official Land Use Map include: Old-Town Residential (OTR) and Public/Semi-Public
(P/SP).
5.3 COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS
Neighborhood Commercial (NC): The Neighborhood Commercial designation consists
primarily of a compact commercial urban fabric with small-scaled commercial retail and
professional services. It is generally characterized as an active pedestrian environment with
commercial buildings situated at the intersection of moderate to high-volume thoroughfares. Lots
are served by City water and sewer. Developments in this designation are subject to design
review.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial designation is to provide commercial amenities
and professional services within geographic areas that are generally zoned for residential or
industrial uses in order help ensure the daily convenience needs of the nearby residences and
employees can be met. Horizontal and vertical mixed uses with a residential or lodging
component may be acceptable.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designatedThe Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning classifications on the City’s Official Land Use Map includewill usually be applied to the
: Neighborhood Commercial designation on the Land Use Map..
General Commercial (GC): The General Commercial designation consists primarily of a sub-
urban commercial fabric with moderate-sized commercial, office, and professional service uses.
The purpose of the General Commercial designation is to provide a setting for commercial,
office, and professional service uses of a moderate sized format that rely on motor-vehicle
traffic. This designation is intended to be situated along arterials and to serve as a transition area
between Highway Commercial designations and residential designations. It is generally
characterized as an active automobile and pedestrian environment with commercial buildings
situated toward high-volume thoroughfares with parking located to the sides of buildings. Lots
are served by City water and sewer.
Developments in this designation are subject to design review. Zoning classifications that may
be applied to areas designated General Commercial on the City’s Official Land Use Map
include: General Commercial (GC) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). The Horizontal Mixed Use
concept will be encouraged in these area, again subject to master plan an design review..
The purpose of the General Commercial designation is to provide a setting for commercial,
office, and professional service uses of a moderate sized format that rely on motor-vehicle
traffic. This designation is intended to be situated along arterials and to serve as a transition area
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-6 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
between Highway Commercial designations and residential designations.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated General Commercial on the City’s
Official Land Use Map include: General Commercial (GC) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP).
Highway Commercial (HC): The Highway Commercial designation consists primarily of a
sub-urban commercial fabric with large format commercial uses. It is generally characterized as
an active automobile environment with commercial buildings situated toward the rear of the lot
they occupy with parking located in front of buildings. Lots are served by City water and sewer.
Developments in this designation are subject to design review.
The purpose of this Highway Commercial designation is to provide a setting for large-scale
commercial uses that typically locate on major thoroughfares and attract a regional customer
base.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Highway Commercial on the
City’s Official Land Use Map include: Highway Commercial (HC) and Public/Semi-Public
(P/SP).
Old-Town Business District (OTBD): The Old-Town Business District designation consists
primarily of an urban commercial fabric with small to medium format commercial uses. It is
generally characterized as an active pedestrian environment with traditional “Main Street”
character where low-rise buildings are placed adjacent to each other and enfront a right-of-way
which consists of wide sidewalks and on-street parking. Lots are served by City water and sewer.
Development projects in this designation are subject to design review.
The purpose of the Old-Town Business District is to preserve the look, feel, and function of
Arlington’s traditional commercial center. This designation provides a setting for small-scale
commercial uses that rely on both pedestrian and motor-vehicle traffic and vertical mixed uses
with a residential component. The Old-Town Business District also serves as the center for the
City’s civic activity.
The Old-Town Business District designation has been divided up into three sub-districts because
each sub-district has its own distinguishable development pattern. Old-Town Business District 1
consists of Arlington’s historic “Main Street” (Olympic Avenue) where commercial buildings
are located side by side to form a fairly continuous street wall. Old-Town Business District 2
consists of West Avenue and part of Division Street where commercial uses are separated and
some on-site parking is provided. Old-Town Business District 3 consists of Burke Avenue and
covers much of what was historically Haller City before it merged into Arlington. This
subdistrict consists of a mix of commercial and residential uses on blocks that are oriented east to
west as opposed to north to south like in subdistricts 1 and 2.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Old-Town Business District on the
City’s Official Land Use Map include: Old-Town Business District 1, 2, and 3 (OTBD-1, -2, or -
3); and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP).
5.4 INDUSTRIAL/AIRPORT DESIGNATIONS
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-7 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
General Industrial (GI): The General Industrial designation consists primarily of an urban
industrial fabric with small to large format industrial operations. It is generally characterized as
an active employment center where low rise buildings are situated toward the interior of lots and
building setbacks are variable. Parking is accommodated on-site. Lots are served by City water
and sewer. Development projects in this designation are subject to design review.
The purpose of the General Industrial designation is to provide a setting for industrial-type uses
that may utilize indoor and outdoor space; emit dust/smell, noise, or glare; or depends on major
thoroughfares and rail lines for shipment as part of their normal operations. Industrial operations
include manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning and
assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated General Industrial on the City’s
Official Land Use Map include: General Industrial (GI) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP).
Light Industrial (LI): The Light Industrial designation consists primarily of an urban light-
industrial fabric with small to large format industrial operations that occur within completely
enclosed low rise buildings. It is generally characterized as an active employment center with
attractive buildings, formal landscaping, clean appearance, and adequate screening from non-
industrial uses. Buildings are generally situated toward the street and have a clearly distinguished
entrance. Parking is accommodated on-site. Lots are served by City water and sewer.
Development projects in this designation are subject to design review.
The purpose of the Light Industrial designation is to provide a setting for less intense industrial-
type uses that utilize indoor space for manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating
painting, cleaning and assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment in a way that is not
likely to create external noise, smell, dust or glare as part of its normal operation. It is intended to
have a cleaner, more orderly environment than what would be found in a General Industrial
designation. For this purpose, the Light Industrial designation also serves as a buffer between
General Industrial and non-industrial land use designations.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Light Industrial on the City’s
Official Land Use Map include: Light Industrial (LI) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). The LI and
GI zones could be the principal implementing zones for a future Arlington-Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC), subject to an overall master plan.
Business Park (BP): The Business Park designation consists primarily of an urban fabric with
medium to large format operations that occur entirely within enclosed low to medium rise
buildings. It is generally characterized as a master planned upscale employment center with
attractive buildings, landscaping, and streets built to urban standards all working together to
create a “park-like” environment that accommodates informal outdoor recreation and enjoyment
between buildings. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Development projects in this
designation are subject to design review.
The purpose of the Business Park designation is to provide an upscale and enjoyable setting for
company offices, warehouse, and light-industrial uses. The Business Park designation also serves
as a buffer between residential and non-residential uses.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-8 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Business Park on the City’s
Official Land Use Map include: Business Park (BP) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP).
Aviation Flightline (AF): This is designation is intended to cover the portions of the airport
devoted to aviation-related uses. It allows only aviation-related uses proximate to airport
runways and taxiways. Aviation-related uses include any uses related to supporting aviation that
require direct taxiway access as a necessary part of their business operations, such as aviation
services, manufacturing of aviation-related goods, general services whose primary customers
would be those engaged in aviation-related activities (e.g., restaurants primarily catering to
pilots, employees, or passengers), or other uses that are clearly related to aviation. Compatible
zones include Aviation Flightline, Airport Protection District, and Public/Semi-Public.
5.5 CIVIC DESIGNATIONS
Public/Semi-Public (P/SP): The Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) designation consists of both
publicly owned open spaces (e.g. parks) and civic buildings (e.g. schools). It is generally
characterized as formally landscaped and usable open space. The purpose of the Public/Semi-
Publicthis designation is to provide a setting for public interaction, civic engagement, recreation
(both active and passive) and utility service providers. Quality Public/Semi-Public spaces
provide the City with a strong sense of identity and can function as economic assets. The
Public/Semi-Public designation is assigned to land used for municipal purposes (other than
parks), parks, non-City public utility providers, and schools.
Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Public/Semi-Public on the City’s
Official Land-Use Map include:The Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) zone implements the like-named
Plan designation. Public facilities may also be allowed as Conditional Uses..
5.6 LAND USE OVERLAYS
Airport Protection District: The Airport Protection District (APD) overlay consists of four
subdistricts (A, B, C, and D) and five safety zones (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) that are laid over the
existing land use designations and zoning classifications on the City’s Official Land Use Map
and Zoning Map (Figure 2-3). The APD overlay boundaries were determined by aircraft accident
data from the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77
Imaginary Surfaces and FAA AC 150/5200-33A, and Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near
airports.
The purpose of the Airport Protection District overlay is to protect the viability of the Arlington
Municipal Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land
uses and densities, reducing hazards to lives and properties, and ensuring a safe and secure flying
environment. The Airport Protection District Overlay modifies the density and land use
requirements of the underlying zoning districts to the extent that it protects the public health,
safety, and welfare of property owners residing within the overlay and airport users.
Contract Rezone: The Contract Rezone (CR) overlay consists of residential developments that
deviate from some of the underlying zoning regulations based on a mutually accepted agreement
between a developer and the City. These typically include master planned communities where
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-9 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
some of the densities and uses would not otherwise be permitted.
The purpose of the Contract Rezone overlay is to identify lands within the City that are subject to
modified development regulations based on an agreed upon contract between the City and a
developer. The Contract Rezone provides for flexibility in the City’s zoning regulations
generally in exchange for some benefit provided to the City. The City currently has two
residential developments under a contract rezone: Gleneagle and Pioneer Meadows.
Master Planned Neighborhood: The Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) overlay consists
of large areas of unimproved (or underutilized) land (25+ acres) that exist within the City for
which the planning and financing of infrastructure improvements is necessary. A master plan
must be established for the entire land area within a Master Plan Neighborhood overlay before
any development can occur.
The purpose of the Master Plan Neighborhood overlay is to ensure that development occurs in an
orderly and financially responsible manner, and that adequate infrastructure is put in place to
serve new development within the overlay. The City currently has two areas with a Master Plan
Neighborhood overlay: the Brekhus/Beach Subarea and the future Lindsay Annexation area
within the Hilltop Subarea. The City plans to assist property owners within these two areas by
creating a “high-level” master plan so that development can begin to occur in these areas.
Horizontal Mixed Use Overlay: A new HMU will be adopted by the City allowing a blend
of residential high density and commercial uses subject to master plan and design review. The
purpose of this zoning is to foster development of pedestrian oriented, mixed uses where homes
are located in close proximity to small retail and office uses. Communities adopting mixed use
zoning strive to achieve one or more objectives:
(a) Enhance the pedestrian environment.
(b) Encourage additional street level activity.
(c) Reducie automobile trips.
(d) Create a “sense of place.”
(e) Provide for the efficient use of land and services.
(f) Allow opportunities for economic vitality and diverse housing opportunities.
(g) Provide a transition between adjacent neighborhoods and commercial areas.
Density bonuses may be granted in exchange for exceptional urban design, infrastructure
improvements and other amenities.
Gateway Overlay Zone: The Gateway Overlay Zone is intended to apply to properties at and
near major entrances to the City. This generally includes all lots that are adjacent to or abutting
arterial or greater rights-of-way (both existing and proposed) that are also within close proximity
to City limits. The purpose of the Gateway Overlay Zone is to ensure that a) gateways into the
City are inviting and aesthetically pleasing, b) development of properties adjacent to or abutting
gateways are well designed in terms of building architecture, site layout, screening, and
landscaping; and c) appropriate land uses are permitted and located within designated gateways.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-10 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
5.7 MAJOR LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
The biggest consideration that arises at every periodic update of this Plan is: How do we want to
grow? Under the GMA, we are obligated to plan for and accommodate 20-years’ worth of
projected growth. As a regional partner, Arlington has accepted the 2035 population, housing
and employment targets adopted by the County and the Puget Sound Regional Council; however,
the community, through its local plan, has control over where development occurs and what it
will look like. It can, and has, proposed certain changes to its Urban Growth Area boundary; and
within that boundary can adopt a mix of land uses that accommodates growth and defines the
community’s character.
With a 2035 population growth of over 6,500 residents and thousands of new jobs, if existing
boundaries are retained, Arlington would have to increase densities to meet its target. If densities
are to bewere kept at historical levels kept at current levels, then we will would have to expand
our boundaries. The 2015 Plan does some of each, with expansion of our Urban Growth Area to
the west of I-5 and reduced development targets for the Brekhus/Beach (Burn Hill/South Fork)
Subarea. In its review of the City's request for 229-acre expansion of the Urban Growth Area to
the west, the County is considering whether to require a retraction of the UGA to exclude the 321
acres in Brekhus/Beach. The City reviewed its inventory of buildable lands (Section 5.9) in
cooperation with Snohomish County and concluded that with so-called “reasonable measures” to
increase densities in selected areas, existing urban growth boundaries could remain as drawn.
The boundaries include the Brekhus/Beach area, a former TDR receiving area and a current
Master Plan Neighborhood zone, one of the reasonable measures.
Other reasonable measures under development by the City include Horizontal Mixed Use,
cottage housing and some higher density rezones. , this to avoid hardships to those residents
who worked to make the TDR program a success. In the short term, without TDR program
success, the UGA expansion is necessary to meet growth targets. The City's 2015 Plan
emphasizes a more focused and interactive relationship between us and Marysville, especially in
the joint Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC). These are all features
added to the 2015 Plan to ensure that future jobs and residents are accommodated, while
preserving the character of our existing community.
In 2035, the City envisions most growth to occur in six nine areas:
Population:
1. West of I-5 in the proposed UGA expansion area.
1. SR9/172nd St, in the future Lindsey Annexation area.
2. Other areas depicted on Figure 4-1 (Residential Capacity)
Employment
3. Airport Business Park.
4. South of 172ndThe Arlington/Marysville (Manufacturing Industrial Center).(AMMIC)
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-11 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
5. Other areas depicted on Figure 4-2 (Employment Capacity)
Commercial
4.6. Island Crossing and Stillaguamish property.
7. National Foods property (within the West Arlington Subarea).
8. 172nd St. Corridor and the Smokey Point Boulevard Commercial Corridor.
9. Kent Prairie; 204th St./SR 9
5.10.
The Capital Facilities Element in Chapter 9 emphasizes these areas as those where the greatest
infrastructure impacts will be (water use, sewer discharge transportation, etc.).
Issues related to where and how we grow our land uses include, among others:
The infrastructure needed to accommodate growth including cost and financing.
The location of new roads and utility improvements.
Urban design—what the new growth will look like.
Preserving neighborhood character while accommodating growth.
Ensuring an economically viable industrial center.
5.8 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 5-1 shows the land use designations on the official land use map. The “Net Zoned” figures
exclude road rights of way, public lands and other undevelopable areas. The last column shows
the total land area in each planning subarea.
5.9 LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS (BUILDABLE LANDS)
The County’s third alternative involves a retraction of Brekhus/Beach area and inclusion of the
King-Thompson area into the City’s UGA. After talking with residents of Brekhus/Beach, the
City has concluded that the retraction of the Brekhus/Beach Subarea is not feasible based on the
wishes of landowners within the subarea. The City has therefore evaluated a preferred alternative
of including ARL3 into the City’s UGA. It has determined that this alternative would meet its
2035 Population Target. Table 4 shows dwelling unit and population estimates based on its BLA
and ability to provide services to the areas involved.
To analyze whether Arlington with its current City Limits and UGA has sufficient developable
land to accommodate its projected population (26,002) and employment (20,884) targets, a
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-12 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Building Lands Analysis (BLA) was completed in the summer of 2014 and finalized in 20162.
The objectives of the study were to identify, locate and characterize developed, developable and
undevelopable land area and parcels within the current City Limits, the UGA, and each of the
City’s neighborhood planning areas. Lands were categorized by use categories and distributed
within the respective zoning designations.
According to the City’s analysis,
An alternative excluding the King-Thompson/ARL3 expansion and no intensive
development in the Brekhus/Beach area would provide for a population of 22,694 which
would not meet the City’s 2035 planning target of 24,937.
Elimination of the Brekhus/Beach area from the UGA and expansion of the ARL3 UGA
would add a potential 805 housing units in ARL3 (King-Thompson UGA addition) and
2 County Council Ordinance 16-077
Table 5-1: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Existing Land Use Map
Subarea AF BP GC GI HC LI MS NC OTBD-3 OTBD-2 OTBD-1 OTRD P/SP RHD RLMD RMD SR
Net
Zoned*
Total
Area
Arlington
Bluff 35 20 31 226 66 378 540
Brekhus/
Beach 145 145 337
Hilltop 61 4 4 92 47 806 1,014 1,305
Kent Prairie 51 4 12 80 18 44 209 353
MIC 736 154 8 567 148 28 1,641 2,133
Old-Town 12 1 93 213 67 103 489 609
OTBD-3 27 6 33 115
OTBD-2 5 16 2 23 45
OTBD-1 25 1 26 37
South Fork 2 2 71
West
Arlington 12 64 486 4 2 25 281 874 1,054
Total 736 166 224 571 486 148 16 28 25 16 31 93 384 219 1,052 494 145 4,834 6,599
ARL3 169 169 211
* Public R/W, public lands, undevelopable land not included
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-13 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
reduce capacity in Brekhus/Beach by 963 housing units. The 963 figure was based on the
provision of urban infrastructure and services that no longer seem likely.
The City and County has concluded that the City retraction of the Brekhus/Beach area is not
feasible based on the wishes of the residents and the uncertainties of an actual UGA reduction. It
has therefore adopted a preferred alternative in this Plan of including ARL3 into the City’s UGA,
along with a lower density in the Brekhus/Beach subarea. It has determined that this the Plan
alternative would meet its 2035 Population Target. Table 5.4 shows dwelling unit and population
estimates based on its BLA buildable land supply and ability to provide services to the areas
involved.
Table 5-5 shows the developable vacant acreage within each zone and each subarea. It does not
show land that is underdeveloped and that would be available for higher density redevelopment
(“infill”). The figure totals about 9% of the “net zoned” area in the City.
5.10 DENSITY
Density standards are a combination of what the City’s development regulations allow3 and what
has actually occurred on the ground, that is, how many dwelling actually were built given the site
limitations, market conditions, etc. Using the information in Table 5- 2 to determine the land
needed through 2035 requires this “real world” analysis, regardless of actual regulations in the
City Code.
The County’s Buildable Lands report analyzed density on a gross density and net density basis.
Gross residential density is the number of housing units divided by total area. Net density
calculates the number of houses on land used for residential building lots only, excluding lands
used for roads, wetlands, Native Growth Protection Areas, recreational areas and detention
ponds, etc.
Gross residential density in the City’s residential zones (RHD, RLMD, RMD and SR) was 3.83
units per acre in 2014:
Table 5-2: Residential Density by Land Use Designation
SR 0.14 RMD 4.29 OTR 6.0
RLMD 3.66 RHD 8.73
3 See Chapter 20.48, Arlington Municipal Code
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-14 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
5.12 HOUSEHOLD SIZE
The average household size in Arlington is
2.624, a decline from 2.72 in 2005. Owner-
occupied units had 2.76 persons, down from
2.82 persons. Renter-occupied declined from
2.54 to 2.36. The 2005 estimate for 2025
average household size was 2.54 which has
proven to be very accurate. The County’s
estimated household size for 2035 in
Arlington is forecasted to be 2.7, which will
be used for this Plan at a rate of 2.84 for
owner-occupied units and 2.4 for renter units.
4 2013 Housing Characteristics and Needs Report, Snohomish County, 2014
Table 5-3: Permissible Residential Densities
Code
d/u per acre
Assumed1
SR,
with utilities
without utilities
4.5
2.0
4.5
2.0
RMD 6.0 6.0
RLMD 6.0 5.0
RHD 16.0 12.0
OTR 6.0 6.0
1For planning purposes, the “assumed” density figure was used
as a reflection of the actual development history and future
policies emphasizing the maximizing of development.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-15 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
5.13 FUTURE NEEDS
Population Capacity: Population within the established UGA is projected to grow from
18,38018,849 in 20141 to 24,93726,002 in 20355. Table 5.4 shows a future need for 2,890
housing units. The County’s adopted land capacity analysis adopted in October 2016 estimates a
surplus of buildable acres to accommodate that population and housing.
Table 5.4: Housing Unit Needs
2011 2035
Residential
Zoned
Area
(acres)
Dwelling
Units Population Population
Estimated
Additional
Dwelling Units6
City and UGA
City 2,250 6,931 17,966
UGA 244 197 523
2,494 7,128 18,489
2035 Estimate 26,002 2,890
Assumptions: Single Family Multi-Family
Housing Distribution: 82.1% 17.9%
Avg. Household Size: 2.8 2.4
Vacancy Rate: 4.7% 4.7%
The County’s Housing Report estimated a need of about 2,745 more units by 2035 with about
1,063 of those in the “affordable” range. Applying a similar ratio to the City’s estimate produces
an affordable housing need of 938 units.
5 Snohomish County Ordinance 16-077, October 2016
6 Ordinance 16-077
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-16 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
To determine the amount of capacity for growth left in the existing UGA, the City has used the
2012 SCT Buildable Lands Report7 and surveyed 2014 land uses using Assessor records (March
2014) and field observations. The project need of 2,421 dwelling units was compared with the
vacant, developable land
and the household size
and density standards for
each zone. Table 5.5
provides updated
information based on the
2014 analysis and the
2016 reconciliation effort
by the County and
Arlington.
Further, the County’s
estimated growth capacity
in the Brekhus/Beach area
(963 units8) was initially
used for this Plan. The
subsequent reconciliation
process yielded an
agreement of 606 units
based on a developed
density of 5.5 dwellings
per acre. The City
accepts this estimate
although over the short
term a significantly
reduced density (20,000
square feet/lot) will occur.
When a master plan developer proposes a higher density development, it will be based on a
detailed infrastructure plan, including financing. Thus for the long term, the capacity figure of
606 units is feasible.
As shown on Table 5.5, the net need for new capacity will be 762 units under this Plan.
Reasonable measures (HMU, cottage housing, Accessory Dwellings, etc.) and other tools will be
used. A Brekhus/Beach master planned development will be encouraged to provide greater than
5.5 du/acre, further ensuring that the City will meet its objective. With these infill and
redevelopment assumptions, the 2035 population estimate of 24,937 can be accommodated.
The County had found a potential population capacity shortfall in 2025 of about 1,533 persons in
Arlington. Assuming an average household size of 2.54, there needed to be found developable
7 Snohomish County Tomorrow, ‘2012 Growth Monitoring/Buildable Lands Report,’ June, 2013. For information on
the method and assumptions used, please refer to that report or its companion, the SCT Buildable Lands Procedures
Report. http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS.
8 Draft EIS, Page 3-96
Table 5.5 Available Land Capacity ()
Zoning
Vacant
Developable Density Units Population
2035 Need 2,421* 6227
Capacity
OTBD-3 0.98 12.0 12 32
OTBD-2 12.0
OTBD-1 0.86 12.0 10 27
OTRD 0.88 6.0 6 16
RHD 9.31 12.0 112 302
RLMD 67.34 5.0 337 909
RMD 3.26 6.0 20 54
SR 116.81 4.5 526 1420
Brekhus/Beach 110.20 5.5 606 1636
Other 6.61 4.5 30 81
Total Available 1659 4477
Infill or Redevelopment Capacity Need 762 2057
*Including vacancy rate
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-17 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
land for another 600 homes in the UGA. A surplus of 815 residential capacity was found inside
the City itself, however this included the Brekhus/Beach area, an area that will likely not build
out at urban densities in the near future.
In February 2014, Snohomish County released its EIS on the GMA Plan update, which included
a land capacity analysis. It estimated that an additional 805 housing units could develop in the
ARL3 (King-Thompson) addition. The City’s 2014 analysis showed results slightly higher than
the County estimate. It is assumed that the County figures were based on its Urban Medium
Density Residential (UMDR) zoning whereas Arlington's are based in its higher density RMD
zoning. For consistency, the County’s figure of 805 units was used for this analysis.
The County EIS growth
capacity in the
Brekhus/Beach area
(963 units9) assumes
urban infrastructure and
services. The ability of
the area to be served
anytime soon is open to
question, particularly
with no viable TDR
program in place. The
City proposes to retain
the area, with a
significantly reduced
density (20,000 square
feet/lot), based on
citizen desires.
The projected need of 2,421 dwelling units was compared with the vacant, developable land and
the household size and density standards for each zone. The available vacant and developable
land area without infill will accommodate a population of 2,010 future residents. This assumes
that the Brekhus/Beach area would not develop to full capacity because of infrastructure
limitations. The addition to the UGA of the King-Thompson area, west of I-5, would provide
9 Draft EIS, Page 3-96
Table 5.5 Available Land Capacity (No Infill)
Zoning
Vacant
Developable Density Units Population
OTBD-3 0.98 12.0 12 32
OTBD-2 12.0 0
OTBD-1 0.86 12.0 10 28
OTRD 0.88 5.0 4 12
RHD 9.31 12.0 112 302
RLMD 67.34 5.0 337 909
RMD 3.26 6.0 20 53
SR 116.81 250 675
Brekhus/Beach 110.20 2.0 220
Other 6.61 4.5 30
Total Available 2,010
King-Thompson
(ARL3) 805 2,174
TOTAL 1,550 4,184
Infill or Redevelopment Capacity Need 871
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-18 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
capacity for an additional 2,174 residents. This would still leave a shortfall of land for about
2,043 residents or 871 dwelling units. This would be accommodated through infill (mixed use,
cottage housing, redevelopment of older properties, etc.) Strategies are discussed in the Policy
and Implementation sections of the Plan.
In summary, the City accepts the Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report estimates, but
assumes a lower density of development in the Brekhus/Beach subarea and sees the need for
expansion of the UGA boundary west of I-5 to provide adequate area for growth. With the infill
and redevelopment assumptions, the 2035 population estimate of 24,937 can be accommodated.
Housing Implications: In May, 2013 each jurisdiction was asked by the County to report on
how current its plan was regarding housing strategies. Each was asked to re-cap the strategies
within the housing element of its 2005 comprehensive plan. Arlington reported that the overall
emphasis in City of Arlington’s housing element is to:
Preserve the “old-town” area.
Encourage more "high end" housing.
Encourage high density housing in areas currently moving in that direction.
Locate housing development in areas within existing sewer service areas.
Allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use projects in commercial centers.
Permit infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Reduce on-site parking requirements for residential developments.
Encourage the development of a variety of housing types in order to accommodate niches in
the market that aren’t currently being served.
As shown on Table 5.4, Tthe City will maintain a goal of providing a housing mix of 82%
(1,9852,370) single-family and 18% (436520) multi-family dwellings to meet the overall
objective of 2,421 2,890 new added housing units by 2035. It will work to attract affordable
housing as the market seems to be demanding (See Chapter 6) including as a requirement for
bonus density in the HMU or other residential zones.
Employment Land Capacity: In its 2005 Plan, Arlington’s employment target for the year
2025 ranged from 12,920 to 14,730 jobs. All three growth alternatives being studied by the
County for the 2015 Plan call for a significant increase in Arlington employment to 20,884 in
2035. This is a reflection of the expected activity around the Arlington Airport and the market
importance of Arlington in the North County area, where it provides job locations for citizens
from Skagit, Darrington, Marysville, Stanwood, and beyond.
In the County as a whole, there will be a forecasted surplus in employment land capacity in
2035. In Arlington, land capacity will be a function of available land, employment density and
the City's role in the North County market place. There are about 375 acres of available and
developable land in the seven commercial/industrial zoning categories. A 2007 Employment
Density Study being used for the Countywide Plan update adopts a density standard of 500
square feet per employee for industrial uses. However, the study noted that an analysis of
Arlington employment densities for industrial uses was a significantly higher 2,625 square feet
per employee. Applying that number to available lands in the AF, BP, GI and LI zoned lands
produces and industrial land capacity of about 5,750 employees. The Density Study also
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-19 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
recommended a figure of 400 square feet per employee for retail and office uses. Applied to the
GC, HC and NC zones produces a capacity figure of about 2,900.
The total land capacity of 8,650 for all commercial/industrial categories falls short of the
projected 12,224 new jobs in 2035. And doubtless, the high density of 2,625 square feet per
employee will lower as new industries come to town.The County’s land capacity analysis,
concluded in 2016 (Ordinance 16-077) found an excess capacity of industrial land of just 621
employees. However, tTwo factors suggest that additional industrials lands should be identified.
One factor is the location of Arlington in the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor, a
recognized area of emphasis by community and economic development leaders, where aerospace
and technology-related companies are being sought. The City is seeking formal designation of
an Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Area (AMMIC) including portions of
Arlington and Marysville, from the airport to about 136th Street NE. The total area comprises
about 4,000 acres (2900 acres in Arlington) with a future employment capacity of 77,000
industrial jobs (1600 square feet per employee), most aerospace related. The AMMIC area is a
part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor as designated by the Economic Alliance
of Snohomish County. As the two cities seek formal MIC designation by PSRC, they will jointly
pursue master planning of the area, including infrastructure.
The second factor is the North Stillaguamish Economic Development Plan, now under
development and due for adoptionadopted in mid-2015. The Plan comes in response to the Oso
disaster and is tasked with defining a strategy for economic growth along SR-530 from Arlington
to Darrington. With Arlington being a destination for Stilly Valley jobs and a waypoint for
supplying the corridor, sufficient lands must be readied for the likely growth to come.
Jobs/Housing Ratio: In 2005, Arlington had a job/housing ratio of 2.22. With the forecasted
population, housing and employment estimates described above, the ratio in 2035 would be
closer to 2.1 jobs for every household. This figure does not suggest that every household has
two employees living there. It is more a measure of how many households requiring public
services are matched by jobs in the community bringing tax revenue to the City. Any ratio above
2 is considered a good balance.
5.14 SUBAREA PLANS
The Land Use Element will be implemented in large part through the development strategies
pursued in each of the City's subareas. Following are brief descriptions of these subareas, the
2015 zoning and summaries of key issues and future strategies for 2015.
Old-Town Residential Subarea
The Old-Town Residential Subarea is the heart of Old-Town Arlington’s residential area. It is
largely developed, as much of the land was platted in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries in a
traditional grid pattern with alleys (consisting of MC Mahons, Giffords, Palmer, Clums, and
Cobbs Additions to Arlington). Typical lot size is 4,356 square feet (1/10th of an acre). Infill
development of single-family homes continues as older homes are demolished and vacant lots
are built on.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-20 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
The City will continue to encourage infill and redevelopment of residential lots in this subarea;
however, comprehensive design standards need to be established in order to preserve the historic
character of this neighborhood.
As infrastructure continues to age, the City will also need to continue investing in the area’s
public realm by improving streets, sidewalks, and City-owned utility lines.
Old-Town Business District Subarea
The Old-Town Business District is Arlington’s historic central business district and consists of
the original Town of Arlington and Haller City Plats. Arlington and Haller City were once
different towns but merged in 1903 when Arlington incorporated. Olympic Avenue (Arlington’s
“Main Street”) was remodeled in 2007. Centennial Trail runs though Old-Town, connecting
Arlington the Skagit County line to the north and the city of Snohomish to the south.
While the area is largely built-out, redevelopment and revitalization efforts continue to occur
over time as investments are made in both the public and private realms. The City will continue
to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts while enforcing design standards and
guidelines in order to preserve the area’s historic character.
The City is developing a Riverfront Master Plan to take advantage of the area’s position along
the Stillaguamish River. This plan will provide for more economic development and public use
of the riverfront.
Arlington Bluff Subarea
The Arlington Bluff Subarea includes the upland area just south of the Stillaguamish River
Valley and north of the Municipal Airport. It was once home to large homesteads that have since
been subdivided into a number of residential plats of varying sizes.
The Arlington Bluff Subarea is slated to remain a predominately single-family residential area
with some neighborhood commercial uses along 67th Avenue NE and Highway 530. While the
area is largely developed, there is still opportunity for some infill residential and commercial
development.
The City plans to continue to work to ensure that environmentally critical areas (such as steep
slopes and streams that are prevalent in the area) are protected.
The only proposed change to the land use in this subarea as part of the 2015 periodic update is a
rezone request of a one-acre parcel at the bottom of the bluff along 211th Place NE from
residential to commercial. The City Council will decide whether to approve or deny the request.
As for road improvements, the City is proposing to improve 211th Street NE and re-align the road
to connect directly to 59th Avenue NE (a westbound spur will still connect to the highway at its
current location). A trail will also be added to the streetscape, connecting Centennial Trail to the
Valley and at some future date to Island Crossing (see Figure 2-7).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-21 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Kent Prairie Subarea
The Kent Prairie Subarea is situated at the intersection of Highway 9 and 204th Street NE. It is a
well-integrated neighborhood of various use types, including commercial, public, single-family
residential, and multi-family residential, which are built around the environmentally critical areas
(streams and wetlands) found there.
The area presents some infrastructure challenges--mainly the discontinuous street system. There
are numerous dead-end streets that will likely never be connected.
The only proposed change to the land use in this subarea as part of the 2015 periodic update is a
rezone request of approximately 2 acres along 77th Avenue NE (south of 204th Street NE) from
commercial to residential. The City Council will decide whether to approve or deny the request.
Manufacturing/Industrial Center Subarea
The Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) Subarea includes the Arlington Municipal Airport
and surrounding lands that are zoned Industrial and Business Park. It extends from
approximately 136th Street NE in Marysville north to Cemetery Road in Arlington and roughly
from 51st Avenue NE to the west and 67th Avenue NE to the east. As the greater Seattle
metropolitan region continues to grow, with the need for living-wage jobs, the Cities of
Arlington and Marysville have identified an opportunity to work together in the formation of a
joint Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC).. The area lies within the North Puget Sound
Manufacturing Corridor, a targeted area for economic development and infrastructure
development. Currently, there is only one designated MIC in Snohomish County (Paine Field).
Obtaining MIC designation from the Puget Sound Regional Council would provide an
opportunity for both cities to obtain necessary funding to invest in new and existing
infrastructure that would strengthen industrial activity and lead to continued job creation.
The City envisions this joint Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing/Industrial Center (AMMIC) as
the region’s main industrial employment center on the north end. As part of the City’s strategy to
make this happen, the City is committed to continuing to ensure the area develops as a strong
manufacturing and industrial base by strictly limiting non-supportive land uses such as retail,
housing, and non-related offices and encouraging manufacturing, industrial, and advanced
technology uses. Within two years of receiving MIC designation, the City will develop a subarea
plan for the City’s portion of the AMMIC that will further the goals and objectives of the PSRC
and Multi-County Planning Policies with regards to MICs.
Joint MIC designation between the City of Arlington and the City of Marysville makes logical
sense because the industrial centers of both cities are only separated by jurisdictional boundaries.
In 2011 the Planning Commissions of both Arlington and Marysville signed a joint resolution
urging their respective city council’s to seek MIC designation from the PSRC for the purpose of
advancing the economic goals of each jurisdiction.
Subsequently, on December 11, 2011, the City of Arlington, City of Marysville, and Tulalip
Tribes adopted Joint Resolution 2011-001 supporting regional coordination of a
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-22 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Manufacturing/Industrial Center to support manufacturing expansion in the north Snohomish
County area.
The proposed AMMIC (see Figure 2-4) is a prime candidate for MIC designation and continued
investment because of its site and situation. Located entirely within Arlington’s and Marysville’s
urban growth areas, the proposed AMMIC encompasses 4,091 acres (6.4 square miles) inclusive
of many existing industrial businesses and room for additional capacity. Of that total area,
approximately 1,200 acres is undeveloped or under developed. Arlington’s portion of the
proposed AMMIC includes 2,291 acres that are primarily zoned industrial, business-park, and
aviation (as the site includes the Arlington Municipal Airport). A small portion is zoned
commercial along 172nd Street NE.
The proposed AMMIC is situated in northern Snohomish County, centrally located between two
major centers of commerce—Seattle, WA and Vancouver, BC. It is framed between I-5 on the
west and Highway 9 on the east and is served by the Santa Fe/Burlington Northern railroad. The
area is accessible from I-5 via 116th Street NE, 172nd Street NE, and Highway 530. The City of
Marysville is proposing an interchange at 156th Street NE that would provide additional access to
the area. Regional arterials that serve the proposed area include Smokey Point Boulevard, 172nd
Street NE 51st Avenue NE, 59th Avenue NE. and 67th Avenue NE.
Current employment within the proposed AMMIC is estimated to be 5,586, with 70% of those
jobs being industrial/manufacturing related, 20% retail, and 10% services and government. The
proposed AMMIC has an estimated employment capacity of 77,000 jobs.
The current ratio between jobs and manufacturing facility space in Arlington is one (1) job for
every 300 square feet. This is slightly higher than the national average mainly due to the large
consideration of highly technical manufacturing technology. The national average is 500 square
feet per employee. Assuming a blended median range of 400 square feet of manufacturing space
per employee and considering the available underdeveloped area with in the proposed MIC, the
total employment will reach 77,000 at full build out.
The cities of Arlington and Marysville are currently working to seek PSRC designation of a joint
Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing/Industrial Center Upon designation, the City would need to
put together a joint subarea plan for the MIC with the City of Marysville. The subarea plan
would address urban design elements such as land use, transportation, and architectural design
among other things.
Road improvements would be needed to existing arterial and collector roads such 172nd Street
NE and 59th Avenue NE. New roads are also planned to serve the area and improve connectivity.
They include: Arlington Valley Road, 63rd Avenue NE, 47th Avenue NE, and 168th Street NE.
The area is largely served by City water and sewer; however, mainline extensions would be
needed near the south end of the subarea as development occurs.
By 2035 the City envisions this area to be developed into an active employment center with a
high number of family-wage manufacturing and industrial jobs.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-23 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Hilltop Neighborhood Subarea
The Hilltop Subarea is located on the hill between 67th Avenue NE and Highway 9. This subarea
is slated to be a predominately single-family residential neighborhood with some commercial
activity around the intersection of Highway 9 and Highway 531 (172nd Street NE).
There is a large area of unincorporated land within this subarea that is located just south of
Highway 531 and west of Highway 9. The area currently has a Master Plan Neighborhood
Overlay, which requires a master plan for the area be established before the properties can annex
into the City. The City plans to assist property owners by developing a “high-level” master plan
so that annexation and development can occur. This “high-level” master plan will outline the
location of collector roads and placement of utilities.
A round-about was recently installed at the intersection of Highway 9 and Highway 531.
Highway 531 will eventually be widened to five lanes inclusive of a trail along the north side of
Highway 531. That trail will turn northward along the power-line easement at the 79th Avenue
right-of-way, then connect at the intersection of Highway 9 and Eaglefield Drive.
Water and sewer infrastructure improvements have recently been made to better serve
undeveloped areas at the south-end of the subarea; however, it remains difficult to extend these
services to the Arlington Terrace plat at the north-end of the subarea.
Preferred locations for community parks should be identified now so that the capital planning
can be done to ensure the properties are obtained prior to their development. Future parks are
anticipated as areas annex and urban clusters are developed. These parks ought to be centrally
located to the future major neighborhoods, easily accessible from the arterials and collectors.
There are several environmentally critical areas throughout the Hilltop Subarea—including
streams, wetlands, and steep slopes that will need to be protected and planned around. Prairie and
Portage both have their headwaters here.
Southfork Subarea
This subarea lies entirely outside of City limits but is within the City’s Urban Growth Area. The
pre-zoning designation for this area is Residential Low/Moderate density and it is anticipated this
area will remain a single-family neighborhood.
The subarea has only one access point via 87th Avenue NE; however, the area could easily be
served by Maple Street by extending that road through existing right-of-way to connect to 87th
Avenue NE.
Homes within this subarea are served by on-site sewage disposal systems. Extending sewer
through the subarea may prove difficult because existing lots are only subdividable through the
short platting process, making it hard to recover sewer extension costs.
Removal of this area from the City’s UGA should be considered if annexation attempts fail.
Brekhus/Beach Subarea
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-24 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
This subarea is located on the east side of the City, directly east of the Kent Prairie Subarea and
directly south of the Southfork Subarea. The entire area is zoned Suburban Residential and has a
Master Plan Neighborhood Overlay. and a TDR Receiving Area Overlay.
The Subarea is accessed primarily from Tveit Road and Burn Road. Additional roadway
infrastructure is needed within the subarea. The area is not currently served by City water and
sewer; however, it is within the City’s water and service area. Lack of infrastructure and
topographical realities will likely make future development within this area costly. In its 2015
Plan, the City has developed a high-level master plan for the area, outlining where major
thoroughfares will go along with water and sewer infrastructure at such time as a higher density
master plan is developed.
Land within this Subarea is largely undeveloped with existing homes situated on large lots. The
Subarea is traversed by steep terrain and wetlands. The City plans to work with property owners
to develop a high-level master plan for the area, outlining where major thoroughfares will go
along with water and sewer infrastructure. While awaiting a master plan proposal for the area,
the City will work with neighbors to implement a “Shadow Platting” process, which will allow
development at the current suburban residential density (20,000 sq. ft. lot size), but require the
logical design and placement of lots to enable future subdivision to smaller lots served by
infrastructure outlined in the high-level plan.
In the past, a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) density bonus program was attempted in
this area, allowing density bonuses in exchange for withdrawl of agriculutural lands from
development. It was developed as a master plan requirement, not an incentive. The City also
plans to work with the County to amend the TDR Inter-Local Agreement to remove this subarea
from being designated as a TDR receiving area. In practice, the TDR requirement became an
actual disincentive to attracting investment. It has been removed as a requirement for master
plan approval, but remains as a possible density bonus incentive, among others.
West Arlington Subareas (WASA)
In 2011, the City adopted drafted athe “West Arlington Subarea Plan” as an extension of its
2005 comprehensive plan and TDR program. to protect the greater community's agricultural
lands in the Stillaguamish Valley. It was the top priority planning project growing out of the
2005 Plan, meant to integrate four subarea plans (West Bluff, Island Crossing, Smokey Point
and SR 531) and employ new concepts in urban development (smart growth, sustainability, New
Urbanism, etc.). WASA would was to promote a blend of housing and business looking
forward, and to correct deficiencies of past growth. Key objectives in the WASA area included:
Mixed land uses.
Implementing Form-based codes.10
Upgrading the arterial and neighborhood transportation infrastructure to urban standards.
Improving pedestrian infrastructure and safety.
Better connections to areas with continuous roads (i.e. no dead-ends), trails, bike lanes, etc.
Acquisition of easements or right-of-way for this purpose.
10 Form based codes regulate land uses according to design and site planning ("form") setbacks, height limitations,
etc.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-25 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
Development of Island Crossing while protecting its critical areas.
Acquisition of more public space (i.e. parks).
Creating a TDR receiving area.
The Plan was reviewed as part of the 2015 update and a decision was made to return to the
original four subareas, adhere to the objectives shown above but tailor them to the unique aspects
of each area. Other mechanisms, such as Horizontal Mixed Use, with density incentives, are
seen as more likely to attract market investment than the TDR and Form Based Code approach.
The WASA is comprised of four former subareas. Each is discussed below for purposes of
comparison with the 2005 Plan.
Island Crossing
As envisioned in the 2005 Plan, Island Crossing was added to the City’s Urban Growth Area and
was subsequently annexed in 2008. The land south of SR-530 was the primary impetus because
of plans for a major auto dealership. Although there were recognized development hurdles (e.g.
flood potential), these have been addressed and will be managed as part of future development
projects in that area.
The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians owns the triangle formed by SR-530 and Smokey Point
Boulevard. Its plans for future development are being discussed in terms of access
improvements, utility improvements and coordinated master planning.
West Bluff
The 2005 Plan envisioned this area for light industrialhighway commercial with protections for
the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It was seen as a "connecting route" between the Smokey
Point neighborhoods and Island Crossing. It was not a part of the City in 2005, but now is.
No changes are proposed to the City’s plan for the West Bluff Industrial subarea. The City's and
WASA's key objective is to enhance road and pedestrian connections within the area and into
adjacent subareas.
Smokey Point
This subarea is planned to continue to be a predominately single-family residential area and,
according to the WASA plan, needs a community focal point to enhance its identity and unity.
Its greatest needs are protection from the noise from I-5 and infrastructure deficiencies, mainly
drainage and urban-standard roads.
Smokey Point Blvd. from approximately 175th St. to 200th St. is being proposed as a
“Commercial Corridor”. The City is working on preliminary design for Smokey Point Blvd.
streetscape and renderings of both the retail and high density housing along this corridor.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-26 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
One of zoning code amendments requested as part of the 2015 “docket” (map amendment)
process is located on the southeast corner of Smokey Point Boulevard/188th Street.
Smokey Point/SR-531
In the 2005 this subarea is seen as being one of the primary entrances to Arlington, an important
east-west arterial for the City’s and County’s road system, and a major generator of sale tax
revenue for the City, which would eventually build out into a major
commercial/industrial/aviation boulevard stretching from I-5 to 67th Avenue NE. Allowing
small to large-scale commercial and industrial uses. This has occurred in large part. There was
to be a more unified design theme, which did not occur to any significant extent.
In 2015, the most significant land use issue is the current effort to develop a manufacturing
industrial center (MIC) in cooperation with Marysville, WSDOT, business and others. The most
significant infrastructure need is the improvement of 172nd Street (SR-531). Both will help
prepare the City's industrial base for the expected employment increases discussed earlier in this
chapter. These improvements are key to maintaining the targeted employment totals and the
commercial/industrial land capacity.
Other utility improvements are needed including increasing and maintaining fire flows for new
business. The City supports and desires on-going discussions with Marysville to jointly plan and
execute mutually beneficial services and utilities.
The only proposed change to the land use in this subarea as part of the 2015 periodic update is a
rezone request of a one/third-acre parcel at the southeast corner of Smokey Point Boulevard and
188th Street NE from residential to neighborhood commercial. The City Council will decide
whether to approve or deny the request.
5.15 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS
King-Thompson UGA Expansion
As discussed in several parts of the 2015 Plan, two actions are being taken to ensure that
Arlington has sufficient land capacity to accommodate population growth through 2035. These
actions are taken because of the inability to spark interest in the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) program formed in 2010. Brekhus/Beach was originally intended to develop into a high
density Master Plan Neighborhood as a “receiving area” for development rights sold by
agricultural land owners in the Stillaguamish River Valley (the “sending area”). The effort was
unsuccessful, but the Brekhus/Beach (Burn Hill/South Fork) subarea has been annexed by the
City. Property owners still hold out hope for future success but in the short term, without master
planning and developer interest, the Brekhus/Beach Subarea cannot be assumed to provide
buildable lands at the urban density required to meet its buildable lands goal.
The City has requested expansion of the UGA to the west of I-5 to make up for the
Brekhus/Beach lands which will remain in a low density (SR) zoning category. The loss of
approximately 963 housing units planned for the area would be matched by an additional 805
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
5-27 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 20117
units in the King-Thompson UGA expansion area.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Chapter 6: Housing Element
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
6 Housing Element
6.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER
One of society's most basic needs is shelter. How we, as a society, preserve the housing stock we
have and how we plan to accommodate our future housing needs reflects upon the quality of life
we enjoy or want to enjoy. It is important to consider where we locate new residential areas, for
this decision will drive the determination as to where public infrastructure (roads, utilities, parks,
and schools) will be located.
As communities update their 2005 plans, they are instructed to consider several issues affecting
housing:
1. Inventory of existing housing and projected housing needs using latest population
projections.
2. Goals, policies for housing.
3. Location of sufficient land for housing.
4. Provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
This Chapter has been developed in accordance with these measures, with the Countywide
Planning Policies, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure consistency
throughout the comprehensive plan. In January 2014, the County issued the 2013 Housing
Characteristics and Needs Report, which implements Countywide Planning Policy HO-5. The
Policy called for a detailed analysis of current housing characteristics and a forecast of future
needs in each jurisdiction. The Housing Report (“HO-5 Report”) is a compilation and analysis
of information and is not a directive on what each community should do to address future needs
or estimates. It did, however, play a significant role in the development of the City’s Housing
Element. In November 2016, the County adopted Ordinance 16-077 which updated the
population, housing and employment targets for Snohomish County cities. The Ordinance made
the following finding reqarding Arlington:
“ Based on information provided by the City of Arlington subsequent to its request on
May 10, 2016, to withdraw its ARL3 proposal from the county's Final Docket XVII,
the GPP 10 proposal includes capacity revisions from the City of Arlington which
indicate that the city and its unincorporated UGA could accommodate the 2035
population and housing targets currently adopted in Appendix D of the county's GPP
within the current Arlington UGA boundaries through consideration of reasonable
measures to increase capacity within the city.”
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
-- Finding “0” -- Ordinance 16-077
The Housing Element is intended to provide City officials and the general public with the
information necessary to guide housing growth in the direction that best addresses the desires of
not only Arlington's existing and anticipated residents, but those with special housing needs as
well. The Housing Policies (See Chapter 3) will guide decision-making to achieve the
community's goals as articulated in the Vision Statement. The City's development regulations
(zoning, building codes, etc.) direct the private sector with regards to housing. The Housing
Element will set the conditions under which the private housing industry will operate, and
establishes both long-term and short-term policies to meet the community's housing needs and
achieve the community goals.
Several goals and policies at the State and County level give direction for this element including
the GMA:
(4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic
segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.1
The GMA describes what a housing element should include:
(2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential
neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and
projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to
manage projected growth; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives,
and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development
of housing, including single-family residences; (c) identifies sufficient land for
housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for
low income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group
homes and foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing
and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.2
6.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A 2014 report3 by Snohomish County to the Planning Advisory Committee listed several trends
that will affect future housing needs:
Population growth at a slower rate than in the past.
A significant aging of the county’s population.
Greater participation by older citizens in the labor force .
More demand for housing in urban/central residential locations.
1 RCW 30.70A.020
2 RCW 30.70A.070
3 Snohomish County Demographic Trends & Initial Growth Targets, Briefing to County Planning Commission,
February 25, 2014
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Household types in Snohomish County less dominated by married-couple families with
children.
Less demand for single family detached housing development than in the past.
More multi-family and rental demand.
More reliance on non-automobile modes of transport.
Arlington grew by about 6,000 residents between 2000 and 2010 and added only another 350
through 2013. About 220 housing units were added 2010-2013. Owner-occupied dwellings
grew from 62% to 64%, a slightly different trend than outlined in the County report. Arlington
in 2011 still had a lower percentage of home ownership than its peer “Large Cities” (68.9%) or
the County (67.9%).
The median income was also lower. There was a higher ratio of “cost burdened households”.
“A household (rental or with mortgage) is ‘burdened’ when it spends 30 percent or
more of its gross income on housing costs…Severe housing cost burden occurs when
a household must pay more than 50 percent of income on rent and utilities”
--Housing Report, Page 36
6.3 FUTURE NEEDS
Arlington’s housing situation appears to show growth occurring in proportion to population
growth with a likely upward pressure for more owner-occupied housing, but with a need for
more affordable housing in the owner and rental markets.
In May, 2013 each jurisdiction was asked by the County to report on how current its plan was
regarding housing strategies. Each was asked to re-cap the strategies within the housing element
of its 2005 comprehensive plan. Arlington reported as follows:
1. The overall emphasis in City of Arlington’s housing element is to:
A. Encourage the development of a range of housing types.
B. Provide fair and equal access to housing.
Figure 6-2 Cost Burdened Households
Cost Burdened
Households Arlington Large
Cities County
Owner 51.3% 45.8% 45.7%
Renter 54.3% 49.0% 50.2%
Figure 6-1 Median Income
Arlington $59,698
County $67,777
Larger Cities $72,443
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
C. Ensure strong, stable neighborhoods through infrastructure investment and housing
preservation.
2. Possible mechanisms or strategies to achieve their housing element include:
A. Preserving the “old-town” area.
B. Encouraging high density housing in areas currently moving in that direction.
C. Utilizing regional and federal funding programs to encourage housing ownership.
D. Locating housing development in areas within existing sewer service areas.
3. Implementation. The focus of Arlington’s housing element is on diversity, access,
affordability and preservation. Implementing strategies for these focal points include:
A. Regulate housing by building type instead of use.
B. Allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use projects in commercial centers.
C. Permit infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods.
D. Regulate density by using parameters other than by dwelling units per acre.
E. Reduce on-site parking requirements for residential developments.
4. Future Housing Issues. The City will continue to work toward encouraging the development
of a variety of housing types in order to accommodate niches in the market that aren’t
currently being served.
As part of the GMA plan updates, Snohomish County communities must address implementation
of the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) adopted by the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) in 2008. The 2008 RGS called for proportionately more growth toward cities
within regional growth centers – metropolitan (Everett) and core cities (Lynnwood, Bothell) –
and away from the unincorporated UGA.
Based on the 2014 HO-5 report, the
City’s analysis suggested that
Arlington needs to find room for about
2,421 more units by 2035. It suggests
that about 871 of those units need to
be in the “affordable” range with the
balance priced at “market rate”.
The County, in its 2016 reconciliation
report (Ordinance 16-077) now
estimates a need for 2890 additional
housing units in 2035. Applying the
HO-5 ratio from 2014, 1040 of those units should be in the “affordable” range.
Figure 6-3 Area Median Income -- 2014
30%
AMI
31-50%
AMI
51%-80%
AMI
Market
Rate
Owner 17 51 288 1339
Rental 65 167 282 212
Total 82 218 571 1550
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
In February 2014, Snohomish County released its EIS on the GMA Plan update, which included
a land capacity analysis. It estimates that an additional 805 housing units could develop in the
ARL3 (King-Thompson addition). It further estimates that with no significant infrastructure, the
Brekhus/Beach TDR area could see 963 fewer housing units than earlier estimates if the area was
removed from the City and UGA. The City’s 2014 analysis showed results slightly higher than
the County estimate for ARL3. It is assumed that the County figures were based on its Urban
Medium Density Residential (UMDR) zoning whereas Arlington's are based in its RMD zoning.
The average household size in Arlington is
2.624, a decline from 2.72 in 2005. Owner-
occupied units had 2.76 persons, down from
2.82 persons. Renter-occupied declined from
2.54 to 2.36. The 2005 estimate for 2025
average household size was 2.54 which has
proven to be very accurate. The County’s
estimated household size for 2035 in
Arlington is forecasted to be 2.7, which will
be used for this Plan at a rate of 2.84 for
owner-occupied units and 2.4 for renter units.
6.4 ALTERNATIVE HOUSING TYPES
Special needs housing includes both the elderly and those with disabilities. In 2011 about 16.1%
of the population was included in this category. Pro-rating those numbers to the 2035
population, of the 2,4212,890 future housing units needed, about 390 465 would fall into the
special needs category, with 13.3% (322384) serving the elderly and the balance (6881) other
special need individuals.
Arlington allows for adult family homes housing up to six people needing special care, defined
as “a regular family abode in which a person or persons provides personal care, special care,
room, and board to more than one but not more than six adults who are not related by blood or
marriage to the person or persons providing the services”.
6.5 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
To assist affordable housing efforts and to provide for density infill, the City allows Accessory
Dwelling Units under City Code 20.44.042. ADUs can be a part of or separate from the
principal residence, can be no larger than 800 square feet and must comply with certain design
requirements to ensure its “secondary” relationship to the main residence.
6.6 MOBILE AND MODULAR DWELLINGS
Mobile homes and mobile home parks are allowed within the Suburban Residential, Residential
Low/Moderate Density, Residential Moderate Density, and Residential High Density zones of
the City. Modular homes are allowed only in the RHD zone, but can be grouped in subdivision-
like settings with a land-use permit.
6.7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPES
4 2013 Housing Characteristics and Needs Report, Snohomish County, 2014
Figure 6-4 Household Size 2014
Arlington County
Owner 2.76 2.71
Renter 2.36 2.39
Total Households 2.62 2.61
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
The percentage of cost-burdened homes, as highlighted in Figure 6-2, illustrates the serious need
for affordable housing options within the City. While Arlington has no housing authority of its
own, the City can work to ensure its policies, development regulations, fees, and permitting
processes recognize and incentivize (and in some instances require) affordable housing
developments.
Chapter 8: Transportation Element
PSRC LETTER
Conformity with Transportation Planning Requirements (Part I)
1. The city should amend the plan to document consistent land use assumptions across
all elements.
PSRC Discussion:
“Use consistent future land use assumptions across all plan elements and
document how those assumptions align with adopted growth targets.
The transportation analysis in the adopted plan is not well documented and
does not make clear how forecasts of travel demand relate to adopted growth
targets or the land use element. The transportation element should be
amended to clearly document land use assumptions and to demonstrate
consistency with adopted growth targets.”
Response:
The City adopted its updated Transportation Plan in August 2016. As noted on
Page ES-1:
“ Arlington’s Transportation 2035 Plan follows PSRC’s integrated long-
range growth management, environmental, economic, and
transportation strategy contained in VISION 2040. It implements the
strategies developed in TRANSPORTATION 2040 focusing on
congestion and mobility, environment, and funding.”
Additionally, Appendix G of the GMA Plan (“Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement -- Response to Comments” – See Enclosure) addressed
some of the PSRC comments now included in the Conditional Certification. To
address your March 31 comments, we will refer to these two documents, as
well as Chapter 8 of the Plan. It is the City’s intent that the Integrated
SEPA/GMA Plan embrace the updated Transportation Plan in its entirety.
PSRC Discussion:
“The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the
transportation element include a financing plan that addresses:
Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified in the
plan as needed over the 20-year planning period.
Response (See Item 3)
An estimate of revenue available for transportation over the 20-year planning
period.
2. Inventory existing and planned nonmotorized facilities.
PSRC Discussion:
While the plan includes notable policies that address pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, additional work is needed to complete the pedestrian and bicycle
component of the transportation element. The plan should include
a map or list of sidewalks and bicycle facilities
identification of a network of nonmotorized facilities
a project list to construct the network within 20 years
Existing policies in Plan
PT-3.3 Ensure that all development permits that are approved require
transportation improvements that are in accordance with
Arlington's ability to provide and/or maintain the adopted Levels
of Service.
PT-3.4 Traffic impacts of proposed projects should be determined
through project-provided impact assessment reports, which
should be required of every project for which the concurrency
test must be applied. The City may waive this requirement
where such impacts may be determined administratively and/or
the project applicant agrees to mitigate any administratively
determined impacts.
PT-3.5 Permits should not be issued for the development of any
property until and unless the transportation facilities identified in
this plan are in place. This includes roads (including curb,
gutter, sidewalks, and planter strips), trails, or other
transportation facilities described in this Transportation Plan
within the confines of that property.
PT-12.2 New developments should be required to pay for improvements
related to the development, including upgrading of existing
facilities, on a proportionate share basis and according to
calculated impacts to existing LOS.
Policies:
PP-1.1 The following Level of Service Standards for parks, trails, and
opens space should be established throughout the City:
d) Trails = 1.4 mi/1,000 people
PP-1.5 Any required park, trail, and open space mitigation should be
based on the City’s adopted Level of Service Standard for the
particular facility being impacted.
PS-1.5 The City of Arlington should not issue any development permits
that result in a reduction of the transportation Level of Service
standard for the public facilities identified in the Capital
Facilities Element without mitigation.
PSRC Discussion:
“Policies would be strengthened through adoption of levels of service and a
concurrency approach that includes multiple modes”
On Page 1-10 2016 Transportation Plan states:
“ The Growth Management Act requires that transportation facilities are
to be in place at the time development is completed or that a
commitment has been made to complete the facilities within six years.
For transportation facilities, the City has adopted a transportation
impact fee to be assessed to all development projects within the city
based upon the PM peak hour trips generated by the project and to be
used for system improvements reasonably related to the new
development. As a part of the SEPA review of a project, potential
impacts to the transportation network are identified and mitigation is
required to ensure the City’s LOS standards are met concurrent with
the additional travel demand generated by each development project.
Nonmotorized, pedestrian, and other multimodal options are
considered and are included in required mitigation. The City of
Arlington also has entered into an interlocal agreement with
Snohomish County for reciprocal mitigation of transportation impacts.”
3. Include a complete and updated multiyear financing plan for transportation
PSRC Discussion:
“The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the
transportation element include a financing plan that addresses:
Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified in the
plan as needed over the 20-year planning period.
Response (See Item 3)
A reassessment strategy to document steps the city could take to close the gap, if
any, between costs and revenues, such as additional demand management
strategies, pursuing new revenues, reducing level-of-service standards, and land
use changes.
Response:
The County GMA Comprehensive Plan includes a section referred to as the
“Goal 12 Reassessment Policy” which outlines an approach when
transportation or other capital facilities may not meet concurrency requirements.
This Reassessment Policy and procedure will be amended into the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan during this recertification process.
1. The City will prepare a comprehensive “Non-Motorized Plan“ as part of the 2017
docket as requested in the letter of conditional approval.
2. A graphic showing an inventory of dedicated bike lanes in city streets has been
completed.
3. A table summarizing miles of sidewalks, multiuse trails, and bike lanes has been added.
4. A statement has been added to Section 3.7 that the City is producing a comprehensive
“Non-Motorized Plan”.
5. Section 3.7.3 has been revised (last sentence in first paragraph) to state that: “These
areas will be addressed in the City’s pending ”Non-Motorized Plan”.
6. A new table has been added to Section 6 for “Trail Projects” with cost estimates.
7. The 2030 Capital costs in Section 7 will include “Trail Projects” that were added to
Section 6
8. A ”Reassessment Strategy” will be added to Section 7
9. The current Plan now reflects the City’s decision not to expand west of I-5.
It is the City’s intent that the Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan embrace the updated
Transportation Plan in its entirety.
“The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the
transportation element include a financing plan that addresses:
Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified in the plan as
needed over the 20-year planning period.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-1 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
8 Transportation Element
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Transportation systems that facilitate access to employment, goods, services, and housing areas
are crucial to the economic and social vitality of cities, towns, and other urban areas. No other
public service so affects development patterns or is affected by them.
The relationship between land use and transportation is complex and ever changing. Any number
of projects can come under the heading of transportation: a regional mass transit system, local
transit services available to elderly or disabled residents, traffic impacts of a new shopping
center, pedestrian paths, bike trails and so on. Every transportation decision has implications for
land use (and vice-versa). Effective planning determines, as nearly as possible, how altering one
side of the equation will affect the other.
Under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) 13 goals were established, some affecting our
transportation planning:
Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services
exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be
adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy
This Transportation Element has been developed in line with these goals to address the
motorized and non-motorized transportation needs of Arlington. It represents the community's
policy plan regarding the provision of transportation facilities for the next 20 years.
The Transportation Element has been developed in accordance with the Countywide Planning
Policies of Snohomish County, and has been integrated with the other Comprehensive Plan
elements to ensure internal consistency. The Element specifically considers the location and
condition of the existing circulation system; the cause, scope, and nature of existing
transportation problems; the project needs; and plans for addressing these needs while meeting
Level of Service standards.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-2 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
2015 2017 Update
In concert with comprehensive plan updates – in both 2005 and 2015, the City has updated its
Transportation Plan. For 2015, the Transportation 2035 Plan -- 2016 Update, City of Arlington
2035 Transportation Plan has been adopted both by the City and, adopted by reference, as part of
this Plan. The 2035 Plan includes elements that have been used in the updates of Land Use,
Public Services and other elements of the GMA Comprehensive Plan. It updates several elements
of the 2005 Transportation Plan:
1. System inventory. Inventory of the roadway system, transit facilities, and trails network was
reviewed and updated with current information.
2. Level of service. The previously established LOS standards for the roadway system were
reviewed and revised to match the analysis that was used in the transportation model.
3. Existing transportation system LOS. The performance of the current transportation system
was described, based on the calibrated transportation model.
4. Future transportation system needs. The deficiencies in the roadway system were updated
using analysis from the transportation model.
5. Transportation goals and policies. These were reviewed for current relevancy and
appropriateness. The goals were revised and reorganized, and supporting policies were also
revised and augmented to supply implementation guidance.
The Transportation Plan is also consistent with regional and Countywide planning policies.
Arlington is a member of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) for King,
Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. PSRC is required to certify the transportation-related
provisions in local comprehensive plans. By doing so, PSRC confirms consistency with the
multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040, the adopted regional transportation plan
(Transportation 2040), and the requirements of GMA.
This Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan summarizes the relevant portions of the Transportation
Plan. Readers can find more detail by referring directly to the Plan itself.
8.2 SYSTEM INVENTORY
Roads
Road systems in a community are built according to a hierarchy of traffic volumes and
connections. The City’s “functional classification” map is of Arlington’s streets is shown on
Figure 2-5a.
Principal Arterials provide for movement across and between large subareas of the City
and predominantly serve through trips with minimum direct service to abutting land uses.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-3 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Minor Arterials provide for movement within large subareas of the City. They may
serve secondary traffic generators and traffic from neighborhood to neighborhood within
a large community.
Collectors promote the flow of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians from arterial roads to
lower-order roads. Secondary functions are to serve abutting land uses and accommodate
public transit. Traffic volumes typically range between 1,000 to 2,000 Average Daily
Traffic (ADT).
Local Access Roads are designed to convey vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles to and
from higher-order roads. Local access roads do not carry through traffic. Traffic
volumes of 250 ADT or less are typical.
The City also contains State highways carrying regional traffic and freight through the
community. These include I-5 to the west, SR-9 on the east, SR-530 to the north, and SR-531
(172nd St.) to the south. SR-530 connects the community of Darrington to I-5. These are also
classified as Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS), which include interstate highways and
other principal arterials that connect major communities in the state. Interstate 5, SR-9 from SR-
522 near Woodinville to SR-530, and SR-530 from I-5 to SR-9 are classified as HSS routes.
Designation assigns a somewhat higher priority for improvement funding as determined by the
State Department of Transportation.
Figure 2-5a is the Official Street Map for Arlington. It outlines the classification of Arlington’s
roads and highways. The condition of Arlington’s streets and its 20-year needs are discussed
below.
Public Transit
Community Transit operates 30 local routes, including Swift bus rapid transit and 23 commuter
routes to Seattle. Five bus routes currently serve the Arlington area, both for travel within the
City and for commuting:
Routes 201 and 202 travel on I-5 between the Lynwood Transit Center and the
Stillaguamish Senior Center, with stops at Smoky Point. Service is provided Monday
through Saturday between approximately 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
Route 227 provides commuter service between the Arlington Park and Ride and Everett
Boeing, with two trips in the early morning and two in the late afternoon. Service is
provided Monday through Friday.
Route 230 travels between Smoky Point and Darrington on SR-530. It provides early
morning and late afternoon service Monday through Saturday.
Route 240 provides approximate one-hour service between downtown Arlington and
Stanwood Monday through Saturday.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-4 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
After experiencing service cuts during the Great Recession, CT has continued to adopt new
agency size and service configurations for the future. The current CT Plan update (2015)
proposes Transit Emphasis Corridors, which are principal arterials and/or State Routes with a
mixture of core commercial, high-density residential, suburban and rural development.
Community Transit and the City of Arlington will assess the appropriate time to include the SR-
9 Corridor in Community Transit’s taxing area. When demand warrants, commute hour express
services will be provided to link Arlington and Bothell, with intermediate stops at nodes of
development along the corridor.
Community Transit also operates 21 park and ride centers throughout the County, including two
in Arlington: one at 17721 Smokey Point Boulevard and one at SR-9 and 4th Street in downtown
Arlington.
Airport
The Arlington Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Arlington. It consists of
1,200 acres within the City limits of Arlington. Uses at the airport include general aviation
facilities as well as industrial, commercial and public uses. The airport accommodates a variety
of users, ranging from single engine aircraft to business jets, and includes activity by helicopters,
gliders, and ultralights. The airport does not have scheduled passenger flights. Aircraft
operations averaged 367 per day for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010.
Rail
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) I-5 corridor carries both freight
and passenger rail traffic. The mainline in the I-5 corridor, from Vancouver, WA to Vancouver,
B.C. is owned by BNSF. Amtrak has rights to operate passenger service on this mainline.
Amtrak provides passenger service between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, B.C. on the same
tracks as the freight trains. It makes a limited number of stops, with Everett and Stanwood being
the closest stops to Arlington.
Bike and Pedestrian Trails
Arlington places high value on non-motorized transportation and has many improved trails for
cyclists. The Centennial Trail provides a direct bicycle and pedestrian connection from
downtown to residential neighborhoods. The City coordinates bicycle/pedestrian improvements
with neighboring jurisdictions to connect routes where possible. Exact locations and widths of
bike lanes are determined on a project specific basis by the City and consistent with adopted
roadway design standards.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-5 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Table 8-1
Functional Classification of Roadways, 2015
Route/Street Name Functional
Classification
Jurisdiction /
Responsible
Agency
Parking Comments
I-5 State Highway State Prohibited
SR-530 State Highway State Partially
Permitted
Main entrance into City from
Interstate
172nd St. NE (SR-531) State Highway City/County/State Prohibited
Main point of entry from
Interstate to City's industrial
area and Airport
SR-9 State Highway State Prohibited Primary N-S highway (aside
from Interstate)
Smokey Point Blvd.
(35th Ave NE) Arterial – 5 Lane City/County Limited Connects SR530 w/
172nd St. NE
67th Ave NE between
Bovee Lane and 168th
Street
Arterial – 4 Lane City Prohibited
211th St. NE Collector Arterial City Prohibited Connects SR530 with
67th Ave. NE
188th St. NE/47th Ave.
NE Collector Arterial City/County Limited
67th Ave. NE Collector Arterial City/County Prohibited Secondary N-S highway
59th Ave. Collector Arterial City/County Prohibited Serves Airport and industrial
area
51st Ave. Collector Arterial City/County Prohibited Serves Airport and industrial
area
Tveit Rd. Collector Arterial City/County Limited
83rd Ave N Collector Arterial
Limited Access City Permitted Between Tveit and Burn
Roads
Burn Rd. Collector Arterial
Limited Access City/County Prohibited Traverses through difficult
topography
204th St. NE/Cemetery
Rd.
Collector Arterial
Limited Access City Limited
207th St. Collector Arterial
Limited Access City Prohibited Connects 204th with Burn
Road
186th St Collector Arterial
Limited Access County Prohibited
McElroy St Collector Arterial
Limited Access County Prohibited
132nd St Collector Arterial
Limited Access County Prohibited
Olympic Ave. Local Collector City Permitted Main route through CBD
West Ave. Local Collector City Permitted Main route through CBD
Division St. Local Collector City Permitted Connects residential area to
CBD and to SR530
E. Highland Dr. Local Collector City Permitted /
Limited
Connects SR9 to residential
area
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-6 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Table 8-2: Arlington Trails
(See Figure 2-7)
Trail Length Description
Centennial Trail (city portion) 2.7 miles Trail is complete through City.
Airport Trail 5.5 miles Trail encircles the Arlington Municipal Airport through
natural, residential and industrial areas.
Kruger Creek Trail 0.4 miles
River Crest Trail 0.2 miles Gravel trail in natural area overlooking Portage Creek
and wetland
Zimmerman Trail 0.2 miles Stair climb
Total City Trails 8.6 miles
Centennial Trail (county portion) 16.0 miles Regional trail extending from King to Skagit County.
Remaining portions should be completed in 2011.
Whitehorse Trail 7.0 miles Regional trail from Arlington to Darrington
River Meadows Park Trails 1.6 miles Year round nature trails along the South Fork of the
Stillaguamish River
Total County Trails 17.6
miles
Sidewalks
Throughout the residential areas of Old-Town Arlington as well as the downtown area of the
City, there exists a comprehensive system of sidewalks to serve the walking public. Additionally,
current road standards require residential developers to install sidewalks both sides side of the
street. However, developments older than ten years of age typically have gaps between sidewalks
and other pedestrian facilities. Sidewalks are also generally lacking between residential
neighborhoods and between housing areas and commercial, recreational, industrial, and public
areas. Additionally, very few of the sidewalks have wheelchair ramps at street intersections.
8.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Much of this Transportation Element addresses the City’s roads. This is because the Growth
Management Act ties the ability of roads to handle traffic to the ability of the community to
grow. The City, in accordance with the Growth Management Act, must establish Level of
Service (LOS) standards for all roadways in Arlington. These standards are to be used as a
means of measuring the performance of the overall transportation network. The City has the
responsibility of prohibiting any development that would result in the LOS on any roadway not
being met, unless improvements are undertaken to mitigate these impacts concurrent with the
proposed development.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-7 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will
experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. It
ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). The City of Arlington has
adopted the following levels of service:
City arterials = LOS D
All other city streets = LOS C
Highways of Statewide Significance = LOS D
Regionally Significant State Highways = LOS D
Concurrency
The Growth Management Act requires that transportation facilities are to be in place at the time
development is completed or that a commitment has been made to complete the facilities within
six years. For transportation facilities, the City has adopted a transportation impact fee to be
assessed to all development projects within the City based upon the PM peak hour trips
generated by the project and to be used for system improvements reasonably related to the new
development. As a part of the SEPA review of a project, potential impacts to the transportation
network are identified and mitigation is required to ensure the City’s LOS standards are met
concurrent with the additional travel demand generated by each development project. Non-
motorized, pedestrian, and other multimodal options are considered and are included in required
mitigation. The City of Arlington also has entered into an interlocal agreement with Snohomish
County for reciprocal mitigation of transportation impacts.
Several goals and policies address concurrency, requiring assurances that improvements be put
in place concurrent with new development. The adopted 2016 Transportation Plan1
acknowledges the GMA requirement that transportation facilities be in place at the time
development is completed or that a commitment has been made to complete the facilities within
six years. The Comprhensive Plan further adopts by reference the County’s “Goal 12
Reassessment Policy” (Appendix J) requiring review of land use and development assumptions if
concurrency cannot be achieved.
8.4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LOS
Table 8-3 shows the existing Level of Service at several intersections. The intersection average
LOS is commonly used as the concurrency threshold for reviewing new development impacts.
Twenty-five of the 26 intersections meet or exceed the minimum allowable level of service of
LOS D, and one intersection falls below the standard. The intersection is at SR 530 at 211th
Place.
Volumes and level of service were also measured along road segments and all are estimated to be
at LOS C or above, with the majority at LOS A. The only segment estimated to be at LOS C is
172nd Street NE (SR-531). The highest volumes in the study area are estimated for the 172nd
Street NE (SR-531) and SR-530 corridors.
1 Page 1‐10
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-8 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Table 8-3: Existing Level of Service -- Intersections
Number Intersection Intersection
Control
LOS
1 E Burke Avenue (SR-530) /N Manhattan Ave Stop Sign C
2 W Burke Avenue (SR-530)/Hazel Street (SR-9) Stop Sign C
3 E Division Street/N Olympic Avenue Stop Sign C
4 W Division Street/Hazel Street (SR-9) Signal B
5 E Maple Street/S Olympic Avenue Stop Sign A
6 Lebanon Street/67th Avenue NE Stop Sign B
7 E Highland Drive/S Stillaguamish Avenue Signal B
8 211th Place NE/67th Avenue NE Stop Sign C
9 204th Street NE/SR-9 Signal C
10 204th Street NE/67th Avenue NE Signal B
11 211th Place NE/SR-530 Stop Sign F
12 SR-530/I-5 NB Ramps Signal B
13 SR-530/I-5 SB Ramps Signal B
14 Crown Ridge Blvd/Eaglefield Drive/SR-9 Signal B
15 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE Stop Sign C
16 188th St NE/Smokey Point Blvd. Stop Sign D
17 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/SR-9 Roundabout B
18 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/Gleneagle Blvd Stop Sign B
19 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/67th Avenue NE Signal C
20 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/59th Avenue NE Signal C
21 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/51st Avenue NE Signal C
22 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/43rd Avenue NE Signal B
23 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/Smokey Point Blvd Signal D
24 Smokey Point Boulevard/Smokey Point Drive Signal A
25 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/I-5 NB Ramps Signal A
26 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/I-5 SB Ramps Signal A
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-9 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
8.5 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Planned improvements in the City of Arlington transportation system include short term needs
identified in the Six-Year TIP as well as long-term needs based on conditions expected to
develop over the next 20 years. These are summarized from the 2035 Transportation Plan, as
follows:
Table 8-4 shows LOS deficiencies at certain intersections along with the LOS if improvements
are made as shown. These improvements vary by location, but typically include conversion to
signalized intersections or roundabouts and associated widening.
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The City of Arlington’s Six-Year TIP (2011-2016) identified a number of the roadway and
intersection deficiencies some of which have been improved or are scheduled for near-term
construction. The City updates its TIP annually, and the TIP is adopted as part of the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Table 8-4: LOS After Improvements
Map
No.
Intersection LOS w/o
Improvement
LOS with
Improvement
Improvement
2 W Burke Avenue (SR-530)/Hazel Street
(SR-9)
F C Signal
6 Lebanon Street/67th Avenue NE F D Stop Sign
8 211th Place NE/67th Avenue NE F A Signal
11 211th Place NE/SR-530 F C RIRO
15 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE F B Signal
16 188th St NE/Smokey Point Blvd. F B Signal
17 172nd Street NE (SR-531) /SR-9 F D Roundabout
19 172nd Street NE (SR-531) /67th Avenue
NE
E D Signal
20 172nd Street NE (SR-531) /59th Avenue
NE
F D Roundabout
21 172nd Street NE (SR-531) /51st Avenue
NE
E A Roundabout
22 172nd Street NE (SR-531) /43rd Avenue
NE
F A Roundabout
23 172nd Street NE (SR-531) /Smokey Point
Blvd
F E Signal
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-10 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Snohomish County Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
Snohomish County’s current Six-Year TIP includes two projects in the Arlington area:
Improving the intersection of 51st Avenue NE at 136th Street NE,
Installing a new signal and turn lanes at the 51st Avenue NE/100 Street NE intersection.
Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Improvement Program
The 2010-2013 TIP includes two projects within the City of Arlington:
67th Avenue NE roadway improvements, 204th Street NE to Lebanon Street
Gifford Avenue Sidewalk installation
Washington State Department of Transportation Highway Improvement Program and Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program
The 2011 to 2016 Washington State STIP includes:
67th Avenue NE roadway improvements from 204th St. NE to Lebanon Street.
The 2035 Transportation Plan (Table 8-5) has identified the long range projects that will have
priority through 2035. They would result in improved operations at all locations where
deficiencies were shown.
Table 8-5: 2035 Transportation Improvements
172nd St (SR-531) – 43rd Ave
NE to SR-9
Phase A (43rd to 67th) – Widen from 2-lane to 5-lane.
Phase B ( 67th Ave to SR-9) – Widen from 2-lane to 5-lane.
Status - Working with State legislatures to fund corridor study for this
project.
67th Ave Phase 3 – 204th St NE
to Lebanon St
Widen roadway to 3 lanes, include trail and sidewalks.
Smokey Point Blvd – 174th St
NE to SR-530
Phase A (174th to 188th) - Widen from 2-lane to 5-lane.
Phase B (188th to 200th) - Widen from 2-lane to 3-lane with
intersection at 200th/Smokey Point Blvd.
Phase C (200th to SR-530) - Widen from 2-lane to 3-lane with
intersection at 200th/Smokey Point Blvd.
Airport Blvd (51st St extension
from SR-531 to 188th St NE)
3-lane road extension of 51st St from SR-531 to 188th St N.
172nd St (SR-531) from SR-9 to
McElroy
(Joint COA-SnoCo Project)
Phase A – Widen existing roadway to 3 lanes, within City limits.
Phase B – New 3-lane road construction from intersection of
172nd/91st to McElroy St.
Arlington Valley Rd – 67th Ave
NE to 204th St NE
New 3 lane connection from 67th to 204th St (74th Ave).
SR-530, I-5 to SR-9 – Project
consists of improving sections
of SR-530 and various
Phase A: I-5 to Smokey Point Blvd – widen roadway to 4 lanes plus
channelization.
Phase B: SR-530/Smokey Point Blvd Intersection – Realign Smokey
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-11 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Table 8-5: 2035 Transportation Improvements
intersections; most of road to
remain 2-lane road.
Point Blvd to the east and install roundabout.
Phase C: SR-530/59th Ave Intersection – Signalize intersection with
left turn pockets on SR-530 .
Phase D: SR-530/211th St Intersection – Modify to right-in/right-out
only intersection
Phase E: SR-530/SR-9 (Division) Intersection – Intersection
improvements as identified in SR-9 Route Development Plan.
Phase F: SR-530/Burke Intersection – Intersection improvements as
identified in SR-9 Route Development Plan.
Cemetery Rd - 47th -188th
Improvements; this is an
identified arterial that consists of
several road sections that cross
City and County jurisdictions,
the road needs to be expanded
to increase traffic flow.
Phase A: 67th Ave to 47th Ave – Need to perform traffic study to time
need and construction. Widen roadway to 3 lanes, perform frontage
improvements, add channelization. This road section crosses into
County jurisdiction; work needs to be coordinated with SnoCo.
Phase B: 47th Ave from Cemetery Road to 188th St NE to Smokey
Point Blvd – Need to perform traffic study to time need and
construction. Widen roadway to 3 lanes, Airport to install frontage
on east side, add channelization.
Phase C: 188th St NE from 47th Ave NE to Smokey Point Blvd –
Need to perform traffic study to time need and construction.
Widen roadway to 3 lanes, install frontage improvements, add
channelization.
51st Ave-(SR-531 to 164th St)
Improvements
This road has been identified as a crucial transportation need in the
West Arlington Plan. Construct a three-lane road from SR-531
south to 164th (City Limit). Work needs to be coordinated with
Marysville.
211th St & 59th St
Improvements
Phase A – Improve 211th St (install road shoulder, bike lane, trail).
Phase B – Install a two lane road between 211th St and 59th Ave,
install an intersection at the new road and 59th Ave.
186th St-(SR-9 to 99th Ave)
New Road
Construct a two-lane road connecting SR-9 to McElroy. Project was
included in the Arl-SnoCo Circulation Study, and is a joint project
with SnoCo as it crosses from Arlington city limits into SnoCo.
63rd Ave-(from 186th to SR-531)
New Road
Construct a new internal industrial road in N-S direction, need to
acquire property, connect to SR-531 as right-in/right-out.
180th St NE – 59th Ave NE to
67th Ave
Phase A: 59th Ave NE to BNSF ROW, Rehab and expand an
existing private industrial road. Need dedication from private
properties.
Phase B: BNSF ROW to 67th Ave.
Tveit Rd – UGA Limit (92nd) to
Highland Dr
Expand existing road to two lane arterial, project is included in the
Arl-SnoCo Circulation Study.
36th Ave NE – 178th St NE to
183rd St NE
Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West
Arlington Plan.
180th St NE – Smokey Pt Blvd
to 36th Ave NE
Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West
Arlington Plan.
189th Pl – 43rd Pl to 188 St Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West
Arlington Plan.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
8-12 JULY 2015
REVISED JANUARY 2017
Table 8-5: 2035 Transportation Improvements
185th Pl – 31st Ave to Smokey
Point Blvd
Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West
Arlington Plan.
32nd Pl – 186th Ave to 184th Pl Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West
Arlington Plan.
173rd St NE – Smokey Point
Blvd to 43rd Ave
Construct 3-lane road. Part of West Arlington Plan.
43rd Ave – 172nd St to 164th St Construct a three-lane road from SR-531 south to 164th (City Limit).
Work needs to be coordinated with Marysville. Part of West Arlington
Plan.
47th Ave – 172nd (SR-531) to
164th
Construct a three-lane road from SR-531 south to 164th (City Limit).
Part of West Arlington Plan.
169th Pl – Smokey Point Blvd to
51st Ave
Construct a three-lane road from Smokey Point Blvd to 51st Ave.
SR-9/172nd St (SR-531)
Roundabout
Reconstruct intersection from signalized intersection to roundabout.
Intersection Improvement at
74th Ave & 204th
Signal at 74th Ave & 204th St.
Intersection Improvement at
SR-9 & 204th
Increase RT turn pocket on east bound approach.
Intersection Improvement Intersection signalization at 67th/188th.
Intersection Improvement Intersection signalization at Smokey Point Blvd/188th .
Brekhus/Beach N/S Road Construct new N/S connection.
Chapter 9: Capital Facilities and
Public Services Element
1. Include a complete and updated multiyear financing plan for transportation
PSRC Discussion:
“The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the
transportation element include a financing plan that addresses:
Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified in
the plan as needed over the 20‐year planning period.
Response (See Item 3)
A reassessment strategy to document steps the city could take to close the gap,
if any, between costs and revenues, such as additional demand management
strategies, pursuing new revenues, reducing level‐of‐service standards, and land
use changes.
Response:
The County GMA Comprehensive Plan includes a section referred to as the
“Goal 12 Reassessment Policy” which outlines an approach when
transportation or other capital facilities may not meet concurrency requirements.
This Reassessment Policy and procedure will be amended into the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan during this recertification process.
PSRC Discussion:
The plan contains many policies that support development of a
manufacturing/industrial center and a compact, mixed-use and pedestrian-
oriented business district. Policies that prioritize transportation, public realm,
and other investments in the city’s centers would strengthen the plan’s support
for development in these locations. Communities should prioritize infrastructure
funding within their identified centers.
Response:
Arlington has been an active participant in the PSRC Centers Framework
study which is still in process. The City, along with Marysville and Snohomish
County show a proposed Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) in the 4400
acres area between the two cities. Approximate 2275 acres is developable
as industrial land, with access to I-5, local arterials, the Arlington Airport and
the fast freight rail corridor extending from Canada through Puget Sound.
The proposed MIC is a part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing
Corridor. The 2015 Transportation Priorities for the Corridor are enclosed.
Final Centers designations are expected in Spring 2017.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-1 JULY 2015
09 Capital Facilities and Public
Services Element
9.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to prepare a Capital
Facilities Element consisting of:
An inventory of current capital facilities owned by public entities showing the location and
capacities of those public facilities;
A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities;
The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
At least a six-year plan that will finance capital facilities within the projected funding
capacities and clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes; and
A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting
existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities element, and finance
plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent.
This Element has been developed in accordance with Section 36.70A.070 of the Growth
Management Act to address the provision of local government services and capital facilities. The
City has prepared and maintained individual sewer, water, traffic, parks and other plans. These
are incorporated by reference and summarized in this Comprehensive Plan. They represent the
community's policy plan for provision of such services and facilities through 2035. The Capital
Facilities and Public Services Element describes how the goals in the other plan elements will be
implemented through policies and regulations, and is an important element in implementing the
comprehensive plan.
The Goals and Policies in Chapter 3 will guide decision-making to achieve the community goals
as articulated in the Vision Statement. The Capital Facilities and Public Services Element has
also been developed in accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies to ensure both internal
and external plan consistency.
For the purposes of this plan, a capital facility is defined as a structure or equipment that
generally costs $10,000 or more and has a useful life of ten years or more. Capital facilities
investments include major rehabilitation or maintenance projects on capital assets; construction
of new buildings, streets, and other facilities; acquisition of land for parks and other public
purposes. Equipment purchases exceeding $10,000 are not including in this CIP. They are
technically considered capital facilities, but not within the context of a community plan.
The Capital Facilities and Public Services Element is required to address all public facilities,
except transportation which are addressed separately under the Transportation Element (Chapter
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-2 JULY 2015
8). However, the discussion of finance for both capital facilities and transportation has been
combined in one location under this Chapter.
Urban services will be available only within the Urban Growth Area, particularly sewer service.
The City recognizes that planning for utilities is the primary responsibility of both City and non-
city providers. The City will incorporate plans prepared by other providers into its
comprehensive plan to coordinate their development and to identify ways of improving the
quality and delivery of services provided in the City and UGA.
For many public services, the Growth Management Act requires that local plans address
“concurrency”, the notion that sewer, water, roads, parks and fire services be adequate to handle
new growth within six years (RCW 36.70A.020, Policy 12). Appendix J outlines a
Reassessment Process where public services are reviewed once a year to ensure concurrency.
Where potential shortfalls may occur, the process outlines how the Plan or services will be
adjusted. These may involve finding additional revenues, reducing level of service standards,
finding efficiencies in provision of services or adjusting the land use plan to reduce serice
impacts.
9.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Municipal Services
The City of Arlington has a Mayor/Council form of government with seven Councilmembers, an
elected Mayor, and a City Administrator who reports directly to the Mayor.
The City's organizational structure has supervisors heading up seven departments:
Administration, Finance, Police, Fire/EMS, Community Development, Airport, and Public
Works. In addition there are contract employees providing legal, hearing examiner, and other
administrative services as needed.
The City provides the majority of municipal services either through its own staff or by contract
with other jurisdictions or private contractors. These services include: governance,
administration, planning and community development, land development permitting, building
permits, public works, engineering, sewer and water service, solid waste and recycling services,
financing, budgeting and accounting, grant development and management, parks planning and
maintenance, street maintenance, storm water management, environmental services and natural
resource management, airport management and maintenance, fire prevention and inspection,
emergency medical services, legal, police services, judicial, jail, and recreation programming.
Services provided directly by special purpose districts include health, school, power, judicial,
and library services. All the above-italicized operations are housed in an 8,578 square foot City
Hall.
Staffing
In 1989 the City had 39 full-time employees (FTEs); in 2003 118. In 2015, there are 118 full-
time employees and approximately 35 volunteer firefighters.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-3 JULY 2015
City-owned properties are indicated on Figure 2-12.
Fire
The Arlington Fire Department provides Fire and EMS service to the entire Arlington City
limits. The interlocal agreement with the Marysville Fire District 12 has expired. Additionally,
the City is no longer under contract to provide fire protection services to SCFD 21. There are two
fully staffed fire stations in the City. One is in old town at 115 N Macleod Ave and the second at
18824 Smokey Point Boulevard. A third station on the Arlington Airport houses Fire
Administration and a BLS aid car.
The City of Arlington's fire protection insurance classification is rated as a Class 5. The Fire
Department is striving to achieve a Class 3 rating. Numerous factors are taken into account when
moving into another rating. Just completed and appears to remain a class 5
The Arlington Fire Department's facility locations and inventories are shown in Table 9-1: Fire
and Emergency Medical Service InventoryTable 9-1: Fire and Emergency Medical Service
Inventory.
Table 9-1: Fire and Emergency Medical Service Inventory
Facility Name and Address Vehicle Type Inventory Total Area
(sq. ft)
Station #1 - 137
North Macleod
1 BLS Unit
1 Medic Unit
1 City Pumper
6,062
Station #2 –
6231 188th Street N.E.
Administration Bldg.
Arlington Airport
1 Pumper
(1) BLS Units
1 Chiefs Vehicle
1 Deputy Chiefs Vehicle
3,444
1,000
TOTAL 10,506
Level of Service. There are four elements associated with measuring fire protection levels of
service—water supply, personnel, response time, and facilities. The issue of proper water supply
is addressed in the Water Service section.
Currently the department employs 27 full-time fire fighters, one fire chief, one deputy chief,
approximately, 30 part-time employees.
Response time and facilities are used to establish formal LOS standards. Discussion of these
standards follows.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-4 JULY 2015
Response Time. Ideally, a fire station is located so that any call within the City limits can be
reached within a five-minute response time. Currently (2015), all areas of the City limits can be
served within a five-minute response time.
Facilities. Facilities require adequate square footage and equipment. A standard facility consists
of (1) Pumper or Aerial trucks, a Medic unit, and a basic life support unit, along with the
necessary square footage to support this equipment. If growth occurs through annexations in the
City’s geographic area, the City would need to add square footage and equipment for a new
facility in order to maintain a five-minute response time.
The existing LOS for the fire and emergency facility space can be calculated by dividing the
existing total inventory of space by the existing (2005) City assessed valuation of
$1,356,192,746. This yields a current LOS of 7.75 square feet of facility space per $1M
valuation. The Fire Department's recommended LOS is 42 square feet per $1M valuation.
The Department will consider updating its Capital Facilities Plan in 2015-2016 once the City and
County comprehensive plans are adopted. It will be based on a review of long range land use
and population projections, applied to current service areas and future LOS standards for
Emergency Medical (EMS) and fire protection services.
There will be a need to improve the water system to resolve existing system deficiencies as well
as to accommodate the increased demands created by growth.1 To meet the criteria mandated by
the Department of Health as well as City policies and design criteria, the following measures are
needed:
Existing water mains will require replacement in several areas due to low fire flows, aging
and undesirable materials.
An additional pressure reducing station is needed to improve fire flow in a localized area.
Police
The Arlington Police Department provides police services 24 hours a day employing 29 people
including the Public Safety Director, Deputy Chief, 22 Police Officers, and five non-sworn
support persons. The services include complaint response, investigations, traffic enforcement,
school safety, and records and evidence control. The Department also contracts some of its
services, including the following:
1 The Comprehensive Water System Plan assumes a 2025 population of 20,720.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-5 JULY 2015
Table 9-2: Contracted Police Services
Service Contracted Provider
Communications SNOPAC
Jail services City of Marysville and Snohomish County
Municipal Court Services City of Marysville
Prosecution Contract Prosecutor
Public Defender Contract Attorney
Narcotics Investigation Regional Task Force
Annual Training City of Everett
Applicant Testing Private Vendor
Gun Range Facility Private Vendor
Repair/Maintenance Various
The Department has 12 patrol vehicles, six staff cars plus a radar trailer and a Critical Response
Vehicle.
Level of Service. The indicators suggested as LOS standards for police services include the
following performance goals:
Indicator Goal Now
Crime Rate per 1000 pop. 55 62
Crime Clearance Rate % 18.4 28
Emergency Response Time in Minutes 3 3.6
Events per Officer per Year 1,000 1,319
Staffing Recommendations: In addition, to the above service goals, the department suggests the
addition of staff as outlined below:
1. Add a Detective that is assigned exclusively to investigate Crimes Against Businesses. This
detective would handle the workload of frauds, identity theft and theft against the business
community.
2. Add a Patrol Officer to balance patrol teams.
3. Add a Police Service Technician.
The Police Impound Lot and Property Building are part of the Public Works shop compound
leased from the Arlington Municipal Airport. This building has the storage capacity the police
station does not have. It also has the capability to process vehicles that are seized for evidence.
The security lot has the capability to store 12 vehicles and has been outgrown. There is a need
for a larger facility on a long term basis.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-6 JULY 2015
Utilities
Arlington has recently updated its water and sewer plans. These are summarized below and have
been adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Water
In 2014, the City provided service to approximately 5,444 customer connections, within a service
area, which extends beyond the City limits encompassing about 24.5 square miles. The 2014
population within the City limits was 18,360, while water service was provided to approximately
16,251 people. The largest water systems adjacent to the City’s water service area are
Marysville and the PUD. Eighteen smaller water
systems are located within or in the vicinity of the
City’s water service area.
Water supply to the City is provided by one
treatment plant that receives water from three
groundwater wells within the Haller Wellfield, a
groundwater well within the Airport Wellfield and
wholesale water purchased from the Snohomish
County PUD No. 1. Water storage is provided by
two reservoirs that have a total capacity of 4.0
million gallons (MG). In addition, the City’s
water system has four pressure zones with seven
pressure reducing stations, one booster pump station and approximately 91.4 miles of water
mains.
Much of the downtown area water system that consists of asbestos cement water mains and was
constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. The remaining water system is relatively new, with the
majority of the construction occurring within the last 30 years. The life expectancy of water
mains is generally 50 years. However, corrosion within water mains has been greatly reduced
through the development of cement mortar lined ductile iron pipe, which has a life expectancy in
excess of 75 years. Approximately 14 percent of water main within the system was constructed
in the 1950s and 1960s and is reaching or has reached its life expectancy. The majority of this
older water system is located in the old town and airport areas. The remainder of the system is
primarily 30 years old or less and is generally in good condition
Future system needs have been evaluated in light of the updated City Comprehensive Plan. For
the purposes of long-term water supply only, the Water Systems Plan assumes continued growth
within the City of 1.35 percent through 2065 to obtain a water service population of more than
35,000. The adopted City population target for 2035 is 24,936. The 50-year projection (2064) is
71,500. In the near-term, projections assume the City limits and UGA boundaries shown on the
Land Use Map. The City has filed a petition for expansion of the UGA west of I-5 (King-
Thompson area). The County is expected to rule on the petition in 2016. This WSP update
anticipates County approval and allocates growth to the expansion area.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-7 JULY 2015
The chart shows how water is used in Arlington. This information assists in projecting quantity
and facility needs based on the 2035 land use plan. The Water Plan assumes a consumption rate
of 80 gallons per day per resident. For business and industry an Equivalent Residential Unit
(ERU) measurement is used, ranging from 165-180 gallons per day, per equivalent household.
These were used to forecast the amount and location of water supplies consistent with anticipated
growth.
Fire flows deficiencies have been
called out by the City’s emergency
services as an issue needing
attention in future growth planning.
The Water System Plan has
forecasted needs based on fire flow
standards ranging from 900 gallons
per minute (gpm) for residential to
3500 gpm for industry and schools.
The Water System Plan devotes an
entire section (Chapter 5) to design
standards and operational policies.
These represent the overall Level
of Service standard and is adopted
by reference.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-8 JULY 2015
Table 9-4
Water System Plan
No. Project Cost Funding Year
Water Main Improvements
WM-1 Annual Water Main Replacement Program $5,500K City 2016-2025
WM-2 12" North Island Crossing Water Main $2,150K City/DF 2022-2023
WM-3 198th Place NE/Cemetery Road Water Main $1,641K City 2020-2021
WM-4 West I-5 Expansion Area Water Main $2,577K City/DF 2024-2025
WM-5 South of 172nd MIC Area Water Main $3,443K City/DF 2018-2019
Water Main Improvements $15,311k
Pressure Zone Improvements
PZ-1 Conversion of 710 Zone to 560 Zone (107th Ave NE) $90K City 2017-2020
PZ-2 Conversion of 540 Zone and 710 Zone to 615 Zone $90K City 2020
PZ-3 Conversion of 540 Zone to 520 Zone $90K City 2025
Pressure Improvements $270K
Facility Improvements
F-1 Demolish Old WTP $0 City 2030
F-2 Source of Supply Study $25,000 City 2025
F-3 Demolish Burn Road Reservoir $75,000 City 2026
F-4 New Supply Well No. 1 (Replace Airport Well) $2,6M City 2022-2024
F-5 New Supply Well No. 2 $1M City 2024-2025
F-6 Future 1.0 MG Reservoir (planned past 10-year
horizon) $0 City/DF 2018-2019
F-7 Gleneagle Reservoir Roof Replacement $350,000 City
F-8 520 Reservoir Improvements - Fence $25,000 City
F-9 Replace/Rehab Clearwell Pumps & Motors $200,000 City 2025
Facility Improvements $4,275K
Miscellaneous Improvements
M-1 Drive-by Read Meter Conversion $800K City 2024
M-2 Source Water Protection Program $30K
M-3 Comprehensive Water System Plan Update $100K City 2035
Miscellaneous Improvements $930K
Total Estimated Project Costs $20,786K
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-9 JULY 2015
In addition to capital improvements to the system, the City intends to address “Distribution
System Leakage (DSL) which is the loss of water due to facility deficiencies or inefficient use of
the system. The City will develop a water loss control action plan. A water loss control action
plan is required when the 3-year rolling average of DSL exceeds ten percent of system volume.
The City exceeded this criterion in 2014.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the 2015 Water System Plan estimated future water needs,
consistent with the assumptions of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan.
Sewer
Arlington owns and operates its sewer utility under an NPDES2 Permit. It is managed by the
Wastewater Department, in the City’s Public Works’ Utilities Division. The utility serves the
City and its Urban Growth Area (UGA) with the exception of a portion of the Smokey Point
neighborhood served by Marysville. Its total service area is about 9.45 square miles and with a
population of 16,121. In 2014, there were 4,297 residential customer connections and 394
connections serving commercial, industrial, and institutional customers.
Marysville provides water and sewer service to a southwest portion of the City of Arlington (the
Smokey Point neighborhood south of 180th Street and west of 43rd Avenue) and south of the
Arlington Airport (south of 172nd Street and west of 51st Avenue.
The City’s sewer system is comprised of one 2.67 MGD treatment plant (Water Reclamation
Plant), which is expandable to 4MGD, 12 sewer lift stations and approximately 68 miles of
collection pipes. The treatment plant employs MBR3 technology. Biosolids are either
composted with wood waste at a dedicated facility to create Class A compost, or is shipped to
Eastern Washington for agricultural use. The City’s average annual influent flow rate per capita
has been below 100 gpcd4 since at least 2009. Future sewer flow rates for commercial and
industrial developments are difficult to estimate without specific information about the proposed
developments. If the average annual gallons per capita day remains below Ecology’s
recommended guideline of 100 gpcd, it is likely that the water reclamation facility will not reach
capacity in the 21-year planning period.
Most of the City is served by sewer. A sewer main was recently installed to begin serving the
Star, Thompson, and Hilltop areas. Some unserved areas exist and have been considered in the
City’s ten-year plan for future improvement. Within the current UGA boundaries, the Brekhus
Beach neighborhood will remain an unserved area until such time as owners come forward with
a master development plan. The neighborhood was intended as a receiving area under a Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR) program, however, plans were unsuccessful and, because of
difficulties in providing municipal services to more traditional development in the area, zoning
will remain low-density suburban, with existing septic systems serving the residents. Septic
systems are allowed for single-family residences located outside of recognized aquifer protection
areas on 5-acre platted lots where connection to the sewer within 500 feet is not available. This
describes the Brekhus/Beach area. The City intends to add a UGA west of Interstate 5 (the King-
2 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
3 Membrane Bio-Reactor
4 Gallons per capital per day
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-10 JULY 2015
Thompson expansion) to accommodate the expected growth in population originally intended for
the area.
Table 9-5
Sewer System Plan
No. Project Cost Funding Year
Pipeline Improvements
P1 Flow Monitoring Study & Plans (Gleneagle Area) $40K City 2016-2017
P2A GE Improvements - Replace Existing 8-inch Pipe with 3,005 LF
of 12-inch Pipe Along Wedgewood Park, Along W Country Club
Drive and Along Cedarbough Loop
$811K City/DF 2018-2020
P2B GE Improvements - Replace Existing 8-inch with 3,075 LF of
12-inch Pipe Along Gleneagle Boulevard and Along Woodlands
Way
$306K City 2025
P3 Flow Monitoring Study & Plans (Primary Interceptor and Inflow
to Lift Stations) $80K City 2016-2017
P4 Replace Existing 8-inch Pipe with 1,710 LF of 15-inch Pipe and
2,810 LF of 24-inch Pipe Along 67th Avenue NE $1,567K City/DF 2018-2020
P5 Replace Existing 12-inch Pipe with 560 LF of 15-inch Pipe South
of 197th Street NE $440K City 2022
P6 Replace Existing 10-inch Pipe with 120 LF of 12-inch Pipe near
59th Avenue $32K City 2019-2020
P7 Replace Existing 8-inch and 10-inch Pipe with 220 LF of 15-inch
Pipe Along Cemetery Road and 47th Avenue NE $58K City 2021-2024
P8 West of I-5 Collection System $132K DF 2023-2025
P9 MIC, South of 172nd Improvement Focus Area Collection
System $3,240K City/DF 2023-2025
Pipeline Improvements $6,706k
Facility Improvements
F1 Lift Station 2 (1400 gpm) and Approximately 2,300 LF of Force
Main Replacement $1,426K City 2017-2020
F2A Lift Station 4 Upgrade $75K City 2020
F2A Lift Station 4 Replacement (1100 gpm) $750K City 2025
F3A Lift Station 7 Upgrade $200K City/DF 2023
F3B Lift Station 7 Replacement (1700 gpm) and Approx. 7,700 LF of
Force Main Replacement $2,200K City/DF 2026-2027
F4 Lift Station 8 Replacement (300 gpm) $100K City 2030
F5 Lift Station 11 Replacement & Expansion to 200 gpm $600K City/DF 2025
F6 Lift Station 12 Upgrade to 500 gpm $200K DF 2026
F7 Lift Station 14 New Construction (1,450 gpm) and Construction
of Approximately 9,000 LF of Force Main $3,780K DF 2022-2024
F8 Lift Station 15 New Construction (650 gpm) and Construction of
Approximately 2,000 LF of Force Main $1,621K DF 2024-2025
F9 Lift Station 3 Rehabilitation $50K City 2018-2019
F10 Membrane Upgrade for WRF $2,000K City 2025
Facility Improvements $13,002K
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-11 JULY 2015
Table 9-5
Sewer System Plan
No. Project Cost Funding Year
Facility Improvements
M1 2024 Sewer Plan Update $150K City 2024
M2 2035 Sewer Plan Update $150K City 2035
MISCELLANIOUS IMPROVEMENTS $200K
Total Estimated Project Costs $19,908K
Storm Drainage
The City of Arlington established the stormwater Utility in 2001 by Ordinance 1266. Funding
for the Stormwater Utility was adopted in in 2006 with a stormwater utility fee that was assessed
to all parcels within the City limits. At the time of this writing, the Stormwater Utility has two
full time employees. The primary purpose of the Stormwater Utility is to see to the successful
and full implementation of the City’s NPDES Phase-2 stormwater permit, as issued by the
Department of Ecology, and to see to the maintenance and improvements to the City’s
stormwater drainage system.
The Stormwater Utility has prepared, and the City of Arlington has adopted, a Comprehensive
Stormwater Plan (Oct 2010) which is incorporated into this Plan by reference. The City of
Arlington sits within two surface water basins, the Stillaguamish River basin to the north and the
Snohomish River basin to the south. Stormwater collected in City’s drainage structures is either
discharged to surface waters or infiltrated into the ground. The Comprehensive Stormwater Plan
details all of the sub-drainage basins within the City of Arlington, both natural and constructed,
and identifies the drainage structures serving those basins.
The drainage structures consist of a combination of storm sewers (piped conveyances), open
ditches, flood control or water quality facilities, retention/detention ponds and vaults, infiltration
systems (ditches and galleries), catch basins, sediment basins, natural drainages, and rain gardens
(biofiltration swales). The inventory of these features is included in the Comprehensive
Stormwater Plan and also incorporated in the City’s GIS asset management database. A
summary of infrastructure serving the City of Arlington and maintained by the Stormwater utility
include:
Inlets: 3,829 ea
Storm pipe: 48 miles
Detention/Infiltration structures: 139 ea
Ditches/Swales/Rain Gardens 22 miles
Stormwater Wetland – 1 ea (constructed stormwater wetland that receives
runoff from 286 acres of historic Old Town Arlington)
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-12 JULY 2015
Maintenance & Operations
The Public Works Maintenance & Operations division provides maintenance services for many
elements of the City’s infrastructure, including:
Airport
Cemetery
Equipment (except for police and fire)
City Facilities (except for water and wastewater)
Parks, athletic fields, and public spaces
Storm drainage system
Streets and sidewalks
The buildings associated with the maintenance functions of the City include a Maintenance Shop
and an Equipment Storage Building
Airport
The Arlington Municipal Airport is part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS), as well as of the transportation infrastructure serving the City of
Arlington, Snohomish County, and the northern portion of the Seattle-Tacoma Metropolitan
Area.
The Airport is located north of the Seattle-Tacoma Metropolitan Area, approximately three
miles southwest of the Arlington Central Business District (CBD), approximately one-third of
a mile from the Highway Commercial District, and twelve miles north of the City of Everett. It
is owned and operated by the City of Arlington and is contained within the corporate boundaries
of the City.
The airport is 1,200 acres and includes industrial, commercial, and public land uses, in
addition to the aviation operations. The majority of the existing general aviation facilities are
located along the east side of Runway 16/34, between 59th Avenue NE and Taxiway “A”. This
part of the airport is developed with aircraft storage facilities, including over 400 T-hangars and
apron area to accommodate over eighty tie-down spaces. The City of Arlington owns 108 of the
existing T-hangars. There are also many Fixed Base Operator (FBO), maintenance, and
individually owned aircraft storage hangars throughout this area.
Additional general aviation facilities are developing along the southwest side of Runway
11/29. These facilities include tie-down apron space for approximately 30 aircraft and
complexes of several new business-related aircraft storage hangars. The existing ultra-light
hangar complex is in the northwest quadrant of the airport and has storage for approximately
62 aircraft.
There are approximately 475 aircraft based at the airport (including 10 helicopters, 20 gliders,
and 23 ultra-lights). The airport’s hangar occupancy rate is 100 percent currently. There is
significant demand for the additional aircraft storage facilities (approximately 15 aircraft
owners are on file requesting space).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-13 JULY 2015
The Airport is home to one of the largest “Fly-Ins” in the Northwest, The Arlington Fly-
In. It has sufficient area to accommodate both aviation and non-aviation development in an
airport industrial park in addition to the area used for the) Fly-In. The industrial park is
approximately 102 acres and is located east of 59th Avenue NE, within the northeast quadrant.
There are approximately 130 businesses on airport property that lease land and/or facilities
from the City. Approximately 25% of these businesses involve aviation or aviation-related
uses associated with the airport. The remaining businesses are non-aviation Runway 16/34
between 59th Avenue NE in the industrial park and Taxiway “A”. This part of the airport is
developed with aircraft storage includes facilities, including over 400 T-hangars and apron
area to accommodate over eighty tie-down spaces. The City of Arlington owns 78 of the
existing T-hangars. There are also many Fixed Base Operator (FBO), maintenance, and
individually owned aircraft storage hangars throughout this area.
The GMA recognizes airports in two ways. Airports are considered essential public facilities
under the GMA5 and cities are required to plan accordingly to protect them. In addition, GMA
recognizes the potential conflict between airports and surrounding uses and directs that every
county, city and town to discourage siting of incompatible uses next to airports6.
Arlington’s Municipal Code permits airports and aviation-related uses in the Aviation Flightline
zoning district, thereby addressing the requirements of for Essential Public Facilities. To address
the potential conflict between the airport and other land uses, the City could consider policies
and regulations designed to head off conflict as the City grows.
Information Services
The Information Services Division provides the entire network and telephone communication
services for the City’s 118 full-time employees as well as approximately 35 volunteer
firefighters. It currently has two full time employee positions and two vehicles. The Division’s
192 square feet of offices are attached to the City Public Works Shop Compound.7
Transportation Facilities
Please refer to Chapter 8, the Transportation Element, for a description of these facilities.
Contracted Services
Library
Sno-Isle Libraries operates a branch at 135 N. Washington Avenue. The 5,140 square foot
library building had 54,046 items in 2004, which represents 3.77% of Sno-Isle’s total collection.
The library building is owned and maintained by the City. The library also offers free access to
subscription databases and the Internet on 8 computers, and provides wireless Internet
connectivity. The library has 21,516 registered users, who visited the library 112,040 times in
2014 (averaging about 380 people per day the library was open.) It had a 2014 budget of
5RCW 36.70A.200
6RCW 36.70A.510
7Bryan Terry, Information Services Manager, July 18, 2005.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-14 JULY 2015
$901,000. The library offers a variety of programs for children, teens and adults. Some of these
programs include: baby, toddler and preschool story times, reading programs, and a book
discussion group. In 2014, attendance at library programs (190 in all) was 6,842.
Solid Waste
Waste Management Northwest, Inc., provides solid waste and recycling services within the City
through a contract. Solid waste and recycling service is contracted out for a seven-year period
and this current contract will expire in 2010.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-15 JULY 2015
Table 9-3: Inventory of City Facilities
Facility Dept Address
SF Year Built Public? Use Original
Cost
City Hall Administration 238 N Olympic 8,578 1924 public admin, City
Police Station Police 110 E 3rd Street 18,000 2005 public Police annex
Library Administration 135 N Washington 5,140 1979 public Library $500,000
Butler House Administration 200 W Cox public meeting room
Butler Barn Administration 200 W Cox 8,500 public vacant
Butler Creamery Administration 200 W Cox 628 public vacant
Butler Loafing Shed Administration 200 W Cox 500 public vacant
Airport Office Airport 18204 59th Dr NE 1,397 1978 public admin, Airport
Cemetery Office &
Maintenance Building Finance 20310 67th Avenue 2,700 2000 public
admin, Cemetery,
& maintenance shop $165,000
Cemetery Storage/Well Building Finance 20310 67th Avenue 792 1952 public storage & well
Fire Admin Fire 115 N Macleod 1,125 public admin, Fire
Siren/Antenna Building Fire 3rd & Robin Hood 90 public fire siren & antenna
Fire Station 46 Fire 137 N Macleod 6,618 1962 public fire station
Fire Station 47 Fire 6231 188th Street NE 3,820 1984 public fire station
City Shop M&O 6205 188th Place NE 6,840 1944 public maintenance shop $30,000
Boy's & Girl's Club/
Community Room M&O 18513 59th Drive NE 17,222 1992 public Recreation, meeting room $889,000
Restroom, Evans Park M&O 18813 59th Drive NE 396 1977 public restroom, park
Restroom, Quake Park M&O 18501 59th Drive NE 385 1973 public restroom, park $6,000
Restroom, Haller Park M&O 1100 West Avenue 508 1968 public restroom, park $11,000
Restroom, Terrace Park M&O 809 E 5th Street 360 1974 public restroom, park $5,942
Restroom, Twin Rivers Park M&O SR-530 437 1982 public restroom, park $25,000
City Shop Storage M&O 6205 188th Place NE 1,104 1944 public storage $30,000
City Shop Equipment Shed M&O 6205 188th Place NE 2,832 1984 public storage
City Shop Equipment Shed M&O 6205 188th Place NE 2,372 public storage
York Park Garage M&O 3209 180th Street NE 720 public storage
Garage (Martin's) M&O 138 N Washington 720 public storage
York Park House M&O 3209 180th Street NE 1,000 public vacant
Utilities Office Utilities 816 N West Avenue 1,188 1992 public admin, Utilities $47,500
Waste Water Office Utilities 108 W Haller 1,396 1987 public admin, Utilities $50,600
Gleneagle Pump Station Utilities 17911 Oxford Drive 612 1993 public pump station $400,000
Burn Hill Reservoir Utilities 200 Burn Road 1,963 1962 public reservoir $150,000
Gleneagle Reservoir Utilities 17911 Oxford Drive 8,164 1975 public reservoir $400,000
Reservoir Utilities 17003 91st Avenue 13,267 1993 public reservoir $560,000
Waste Water Control Building Utilities 816 N West Avenue 2,592 1999 public utilities control building
Waste Water Dewatering/ Utilities 816 N West Avenue 1,722 1999 public utilities dewatering &
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-16 JULY 2015
Facility Dept Address
SF Year Built Public? Use Original
Cost
Lime Storage lime storage $1,500,000
Waste Water Electrical Building Utilities 816 N West Avenue 441 public utilities electrical building
Waste Water Head Works Utilities 816 N West Avenue 1,100 1999 public utilities head works
Waste Water Lab Utilities 816 N West Avenue 864 1992 public utilities lab $101,000
Utilities Shop Utilities 816 N West Avenue 1,584 1975 public utilities shop $75,000
Utilities Storage Building Utilities 816 N West Avenue 600 1999 public utilities storage $10,000
Waste Water Storage Building Utilities 816 N West Avenue 228 public utilities storage
Valve House Utilities 17003 91st Avenue 572 1993 public valve house $105,000
Water Treatment Plant (new) Utilities 816 N West Avenue 5,000 2001 public water treatment plant
$2,500,000
Water Treatment Plant (old) Utilities 816 N West Avenue 5,000 1924 public
water treatment plant
(decommissioned)
Airport Well Utilities 18300 59th Drive 112 public well
Well 2 Utilities 1100 West Avenue 513 2001 public well $300,000
Well 3 Utilities 1100 West Avenue 169 2001 public well
Aviation Inspection & Repair Airport 18928 59th Drive NE 3,686 1966 rented
airplane inspection &
repair
Navy Hanger Museum Airport 18008 59th Drive NE 25,746 1943 rented aviation museum $120,000
Hanger C Airport 17910 59th Drive NE 12,960 1971 rented hangers
Hanger D Airport 17908 59th Drive NE 12,960 1972 rented hangers $36,260
Hanger E Airport 17906 59th Drive NE 12,960 1974 rented hangers
Hanger G Airport 17818 59th Drive NE 12,000 1975 rented hangers
Hanger H Airport 17816 59th Drive NE 12,960 1976 rented hangers
Hanger J Airport 17814 59th Drive NE 12,960 1977 rented hangers
Hanger K Airport 17812 59th Drive NE 12,960 1978 rented hangers
Hangar 57A Airport 1,213 1943 rented hangar
Hangar 57B Airport
Building 44 Airport
Wild Blue Aviation Airport 18228 59th Drive NE 3,600 1965 rented manufacturing
Parachute Loft Airport 17998 59th Drive NE 7,341 1944 rented parachute company $61,500
Ellie’s at the Airport Airport 18218 59th Drive NE 2,004 1965 rented restaurant
Arlington Food Bank M&O 127 1/2 W Cox 1,544 rented food bank
Helping Hands Thrift Store M&O 127 W Cox 1,178 rented thrift store
Rental Apartment Utilities 115 W Haller 6,848 1990 rented apartment complex
Rental House Utilities 120 Cox Street 7,500 1918 rented house
Rental House Utilities 124 Cox Street 1915 rented house
Rental House Utilities 154 Cox Street 1,000 rented house
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-17 JULY 2015
Recycling – The solid waste cycle consumes an enormous amount of time, energy, petroleum,
money, and natural resources. Waste Management Northwest is providing curbside-recycling
service to City residential and multi-family customers using a wheeled all-in-one cart and a yard
waste cart. Collection at businesses is provided using large containers.
Other Utilities
Natural Gas
Natural gas service to Arlington is supplied by two companies: Puget Sound Energy (PSE),
which serves areas south of SR-531 (172nd Street NE), and Cascade Natural Gas Company,
serving all areas north of SR-531.
PSE’s system in Arlington – which is limited to areas south of SR-531 (172nd Street NE) - is
served primarily by the Granite Falls Gate Station, which interconnects with the Northwest
Pipeline east of the Marysville City limits on 84th Street NE. Cascade Natural Gas serves areas
north of SR -31. PSE’s distribution system is generally comprised of the following components:
Gas Supply Mains: Usually larger diameter steel wrapped mains (8” and over) designed to
operate at higher pressure (over 100 psig) to deliver natural gas from the supply source to
pressure reducing stations (district regulators).
Pressure Reducing Stations: Includes district regulators, which are located at various
locations throughout the system to reduce pressure to a standard distribution operating
pressure of approximately 60 psig.
Distribution Mains: Pipes that are fed from district regulators. These mains vary in size
(usually less than 8” in diameter) and material (typically polyethylene).
The average energy use for residential customers is 50 cubic feet per hour during winter heating
months. Energy use from office, commercial and industrial customers varies. The addition of
new hookups will trend similar to the residential and commercial growth rate within the City,
since the majority of developers request natural gas service.
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation serves communities outside larger metropolitan areas in the
Pacific Northwest. It serves the majority of the Arlington UGA north of SR-531.
Electricity
The City of Arlington is served by the Snohomish County Public Utilities District No. 1 (PUD),
which obtains approximately 80% of its power from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).
The remaining power is supplied from the PUD Jackson Hydro Project and other long-term
power contracts with various suppliers. The PUD serves all of Snohomish County and Camano
Island, including the communities of Everett, Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood,
Marysville, Mill Creek, Edmonds, Monroe, Snohomish, Stanwood, and Woodway. State law
authorizes PUDs, and their powers are exercised through an elected board of commissioners.
PUD electrical facilities of more than 55,000 volts (55 kV) are referred to as transmission
facilities. PUD electrical facilities of less than 55,000 volts (55 kV) are referred to as distribution
facilities. The majority of PUD transmission facilities operate at 115,000 volts.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-18 JULY 2015
The PUD uses three major BPA delivery points in Snohomish County as the source for the
115,000-volt transmission system. From these points the power is delivered via PUD's
transmission system to the District's substations. These substations transform the 115,000-volt
transmission voltage to 12,500-volt distribution system voltage.
PUD residential, commercial, and public customers within the City of Arlington are served only
by the distribution system, which originates from the distribution substations located within the
City limits and the UGA. The PUD “East Arlington substation” is located on 212th Street NE,
west of 87th Avenue NE. The PUD “Portage substation” is located on 199th Street NE, west of
63rd Avenue NE.
The PUD electrical transmission system within Arlington consists of above ground power lines.
These lines are typically located within most roadside easements. The PUD electrical distribution
system within Arlington consists of above and below ground power lines. These lines are
typically located within the road right-of-way.
According to the PUD, there is ample capacity to meet existing demand for the incorporated city
limits as well as the UGA. In the next 20 years, the PUD Long Range Plan identifies a new
substation capacity requirement to serve the Arlington area growth. The new substation is known
at this time as the Edgecomb substation, as it will be located in the Edgecomb area. In the current
PUD Long Range Plan the Edgecomb substation is listed for construction prior to the year 2022.
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) also owns and maintains a transmission corridor in the City of
Arlington that transports electricity across the City. This corridor, which extends in a north-south
direction on the east side of Arlington, contains two transmissions lines: the “Beverly – Beaver
Lake” 115 kV line and the “Sedro Woolley – SCL Bothell” 230 kV line. These transmission
lines serve the energy needs of areas to the north and south of Snohomish County. Under certain
conditions, PSE's transmission line could support the local distribution grid by providing
emergency back up to Snohomish PUD's system.
Public Schools
Two school districts serve the Arlington UGA, the Arlington School District and the Lakewood
School District. Both are described below.
Arlington School District
The Arlington School District (ASD) covers approximately 200 square miles, greatly exceeding
the boundaries of the Planning Area (see Figure 2-13: School District Boundaries). In September
2014, the District provided service to 5,154 students (full-time equivalent; FTE). They have a
fleet of 53 buses.
In its jurisdiction there are four elementary schools (Presidents, Eagle Creek, Kent Prairie and
Pioneer), two middle schools (Post and Haller), one high school (Arlington) one alternative
school (Weston) and one Parent Partnership Program (Stillaguamish Valley School). Although
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-19 JULY 2015
the District does not regard relocatable classrooms (portables) as a permanent solution for
housing students, the District currently uses 19 of these classrooms at various school sites.
The District owns 168 acres of vacant land.
Funding for capital improvements comes from a number of sources, including voter-approved
bonds, State Match funds and impact fees.
Lakewood School District
The Lakewood School District (LSD) covers approximately 23 square miles. As of March 2014,
the District provided service to 2,425 students. Less than 25% of the district is within the
Arlington UGA, near Smokey Point. (See Figure 2-13). In its jurisdiction there are three
elementary schools (Lakewood, English Crossing and Cougar Creek), one middle school
(Lakewood), and one high school (Lakewood). They have a fleet of 28 buses.
School Impact Fees
The City of Arlington has adopted school impact fee ordinances for both Arlington and
Lakewood School Districts. These fees are calculated based on projected capital needs (land,
facilities, and buses), and are updated every two years, based on the districts’ revised 6-Year
Capital Facilities Plans. The City causes all new residential development to pay their
proportionate fair share toward these capital needs.
Snohomish Public Hospital District No. 3
The District (dba Cascade Valley Hospital and Clinics) operates a 48-bed Acute Care Hospital
and a freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Center, both in Arlington, along with six medical clinics
located in north Snohomish County. The organization employs approximately 430 people and
has an annual budget of $40 million. Eighty-three percent of the hospital’s admissions come
from Arlington, Marysville, Stanwood, Granite Falls and Darrington. Forty-three percent of
these admissions come from the Arlington zip code.
Inpatient hospital services include general acute care, intensive care unit, obstetrics, pediatrics
and general, orthopedic and gynecological surgery. Outpatient services include emergency
services, day surgery, chemotherapy cancer care, sleep disorders unit, and a deep wound care
department. The hospital provides extensive diagnostic laboratory and imaging services
including MRI, CT scan, nuclear medicine, ultrasound, mammography and general radiology.
There are 118 physicians on the hospital medical staff.
Capital Facilities Plan
Table 9-4: 6-Year Capital Improvement PlanTable 9-4: 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan,
below, represents the City’s list of identified capital needs to support this Plan, and funding
mechanisms to pay for them. No new taxes or fees are proposed, except for the funding of a
stormwater utility through connection and service fees (Council has been studying this for a
couple of years now). However, it is anticipated that both park and traffic impact fees will
increase.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-20 JULY 2015
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element
9-21 JULY 2015
Table 9-4: 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan
No. Project Cost Funding Year
SEWER
Pipeline Improvements
P1 Old-Town Pipe Evaluation – Repair/Replace $1,900,000 City 2017-2023
P2 Collector/Interceptor System Flow Monitoring $27,000 City 2016-2023
P3 Gleneagle Basin Structural Repairs $371,000 City 2017-2020
P4 Replace Existing 8” Pipe Along 67th Avenue NE $2,095,000 City 2017-2019
P5 Replace Existing 24” Pipe Along West Avenue $449,000 City 2018-2020
P6 Replace Existing 8” Pipe Along Wedgewood Park,
West Country Club Dr and Cedarbough Loop $1,116,000 City 2016-2018
P7 Replace Existing 12” Pipe South of 197th Street NE $650,000 2018-2020
P8 Replace Existing 24” Pipe Along 67th Avenue NE.
Replace Existing 10” and 12” Pipe near 204th Street NE
and 67th Avenue NE
$2,407,000 2016-2018
P9 Replace Existing 24” Pipe Along West Avenue $302,000 2020-2022
P10 Replace Existing 24” Pipe Along Railroad Street $151,000 2020-2022
P11 Replace Existing 10” Pipe with near 59th Avenue $45,000 2019-2020
P12 Replace Existing 8” and 10” Pipe Along Cemetery Road
and 47th Avenue NE $85,000 2021-2013
P14 Smokey Point Sewage Drainage Basin Collection System $2,228,000 2022-2023
Facility Improvements
F1 Lift Station 2 – Upgrade Capacity $2,283,000 City 2016-2018
F2 Lift Station 4 – Upgrade Capacity $1,426,000 City 2017-2019
F3 Lift Station 7 – Upgrade Capacity $4,544,000 2019-2021
F7 Lift Station 14 Construction $3,781,000 City 2022-2023
F8 Lift Station 15 Construction $1,621,000 2023
F9 Lift Station 6 Force Main Re-route to LS 14 $1,588,000 2023
F3 Lift Station 3 Rehabilitation $168,000 2018-2019
Water
Roads
Parks
Other
Chapter 7 Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Element
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-1 JULY 2015
7 Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Element
7.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER
An element addressing the needs for parks, open space, and recreation is required by the Growth
Management Act and capital acquisitions, including property and facilities, need to be included
in the Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9). This Element provides an inventory of the City's
current park and recreation facilities and programs, analyzes the City's ability to provide
adequate parks, open space, and recreation services to its citizens, sets standards for such
services, and provides a strategy for providing additional services.
Preparation of this plan Element is guided by the Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA). It is further guided by goals and policies established by the Interagency Committee for
Outdoor Recreation (IAC). The IAC is a primary granting agency and author of the State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP).
7.2 REGULATORY/POLICY BACKGROUND
Numerous federal, State, and local agencies and organizations have been setting the stage for
park and recreation provision through development of policy, regulations, and advisory
standards. The following is a listing of these agencies and organizations, and the direction they
give.
Growth Management Act
General: "Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife
habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and
recreation facilities. (RCW 36.70A.020)." Open space corridors are further referenced in the
GMA requiring that land use plans include identification of "...open space corridors within
and… between urban growth areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife
habitat, trails, and connection for critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030” (RCW
36.70A.160).
Parks and Recreation: Capital improvements are included within the definition of
"Public Facilities," RCW 36.70A.070.
Fees: Cities may impose impact fees for the provision of public facilities including publicly
owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities (RCW 82.02.050). Impact fees must be
based on demands on existing facilities by new development, and additional improvements
required to serve new development (RCW 82.02.050).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-2 JULY 2015
Concurrency: Reassess Land Use Element or levels of service if probable funding falls
short of existing need.
Inter-Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation/ State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (IAC/SCORP)
General: Cities must provide plan components as outlined in The Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan Development Workbook. Plan demand assessment should incorporate
SCORP assessment data.
More specifically, to be eligible for IAC funding, plans must include the following:
Goals and Objectives.
Description of Current Conditions.
Demand and Need analysis.
Description of Public Involvement.
Public Opinion Survey.
6-year Capital Improvement Program.
Evidence of official adoption by authority most appropriate to plan’s scope.
This Element is designed to meet these requirements. The goals and objectives required by
those guidelines are set forth in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. The description of
current conditions is discussed below. The discussion of park and recreation demand and
needs analysis is also discussed below. The public opinion survey is described later. The 6-
year Capital Improvement Program, also required by the IAC, documents these goals and
projected needs, and schedules implementation of the facilities that will address those needs.
The Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9) contains that “schedule.” Please see that section
for a description of what specific projects are planned in the next few years.
To finalize all of the IAC requirements the City would need to show a discussion of the
City’s priorities and a description of how the decision was made by the city to implement
the specific projects shown in the 6-year CIP. In other words, the plan needs to answer the
questions, “What does the community want?” and “How do we know this to be true?”
National Recreation and Park Administration (NRPA)
General: The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) provides general park
and recreation standards that communities may incorporate into the comprehensive planning
process.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-3 JULY 2015
Parks[SL1] and Recreation Master Plan[RS2]
A supplemental document, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, contains the master plans of
each city owned park, including current conditions and plans for improvements, as well as the
priorities from the Parks, Art and Recreation Committee (PARC). commission. Commission.
7.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following is an inventory of the parks, open space tracts, recreational facilities, and cultural
programs and facilities found within the City and its vicinity. This inventory was not limited to
just those within the City since citizens also use adjoining jurisdictions' facilities just as the
citizens of other jurisdictions use the City's facilities. A map of the locations of these facilities is
shown as Figure 2-10: Park and Recreation Facility Locations and Figure 2-18: Critical Areas,
Open Space, & Restoration Projects. Figure 7-1 below shows acreage of parkland (excluding
community parks) in each subarea, and Table 7-4 show the amount of acres of park divided by
the acres of that subarea.
Public Parks
City Parks: The City owns roughly 257.1 acres of parks. (See Figure 2-10)In addition, the
Arlington School District has 59.3 acres of park-like facilities (fields & playgrounds) that
are available for public use during non-school hours.
Community Parks: Community parks are those parks that offer something that would
cause people to cross town to get to, i.e., something you can’t find in your own
neighborhood. This may be a special feature (such as a swimming area, boat launch, view or
ball fields), size (allowing for more varied or specialized play), scheduled group activities,
or whatever it is that would entice a family to walk, bike, or drive a farther distance than
their own neighborhood. It should be noted that Twin Rivers Park, though owned by
Snohomish County, is maintained and managed by the City through an Interlocal Agreement
and thus in essence is a City park. There are 187 acres of community parks in the UGA.
Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7-2:
Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities for a list of these parks and their
attributes.
Neighborhood/Mini-Parks: Neighborhood or mini- parks are those parks that typically
attract only those people who live within walking distance of the park. They may have such
amenities as children’s big toys, basketball hoops, picnic facilities, grassy play areas, etc.,
and attract neighbors and kids for informal play. Often they act as an informal neighborhood
meeting place where people get to know their neighbors. Public school grounds can also be
counted as neighborhood parks, as they are open to the public during non-school hours. The
term neighborhood park is used to denote a public park, while mini-park denotes a privately
owned park, usually owned by a Homeowners' Association. There are 12.1 acres of
neighborhood parks and 13.1 acres of mini-parks in the UGA. Please refer to Table 7-2:
Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park &
Recreation Facilities, for a list of these park and their attributes[SL3].Pocket Parks are
another element of recreation.Because downtowns and business corridors function as
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-4 JULY 2015
centers for employment, commercial activity and public gathering, these areas benefit
from smaller scale public spaces (pocket parks) that provide opportunity for visitors,
shoppers and employees to relax, congregate and recreate. As part of the Arlington-
Darrington Americas Best Communities Revitalization Plan, Arlington selected a site
in the downtown area for a model pocket park and plans to encourage established
business corridors and business areas, as well as employment areas to include pocket
parks.
County Parks
Regional Parks: Regional parks tend to be those parks that offer something that would
cause people to drive from one community to another to get to, i.e., something you can’t
find in your own town. This may be a special feature (such as a marina, salt water access,
tournament ball fields, unique natural features, camping, etc.). This special characteristic
may also include size (allowing for more varied or specialized play), scheduled group
activities, or another feature that would entice a family to drive from one part of the County
to another. There are 457.3 acres of regional parks within a short driving distance from the
UGA (all of them County-owned). Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park &
Recreation FacilitiesTable7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities, for a list
of these park and their attributes.
School Facilities
School playfields and playgrounds, though not owned by the City, are nevertheless owned
by a public agency and are generally open to the public during non-school hours. As schools
are typically spread out across cities in residential neighborhoods, they function much the
same as neighborhood parks and are herein counted as such. There are 59.3 acres of school
playfields and playgrounds in the UGA. Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing
Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities
for a list of these school facilities and their attributes.
Trails
City Trails: The City has built or coordinated the construction of several trails over the
past decade. The most notable is the City’s portion of the Centennial Trail. The City’s
section of the trail runs from 172nd Street NE along 67th Avenue NE north to Haller Park.
There is also a 5.5-mile trail circumnavigating the Airport and other smaller trails in various
neighborhoods and parks. There are 11.912.2 miles of City trails. Please refer to Table 7-2:
Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park &
Recreation Facilities for a list of these trails and their attributes.
County Trails: Snohomish County also has three regional trails in the Arlington area,
totaling 57.6 miles. River Meadows Park contains 1.6 miles of trails. The Whitehorse Trail
eventually will run 27 miles from Arlington to Darrington. Portions are currently usable, but
others are scheduled for completion as funding becomes available.[SL4] Snohomish County
has completed the Centennial Trail from City of Snohomish to Skagit County Line, 29
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-5 JULY 2015
paved miles. See Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7-2:
Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities for a list of these trails.
Recreation Programs
The City of Arlington provides recreation programs for our citizens. Currently, the City
provides a range of recreational programs by helping coordinate and publicize programs
provided by individuals and groups, including adult and children’s classes, coordination of
softball leagues for adults as well as sports camps for children. The City also offers seasonal
events (e.g. Arbor Day celebration, Easter Egg Hunt and Hometown Holiday, Outdoor
Movies and Concerts.
Open Space
Open space comes in many forms, and can include such areas as:
Natural or scenic areas.
Water supply protection areas and natural drainage easements.
Urban and rural landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses, cemeteries
and arboretums.
Land areas that enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks,
forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space.
Public/private low intensity park and recreation sites.
Cultural, archaeological, geological and historical sites.
Large reserve tracts, private parks, common ground, and buffer areas which result
from planned residential or rural and urban land use development.
Utility corridors.
Major multi-functional river corridors.
Water bodies.
Trail corridors that may function as wildlife corridors.
Agricultural land.
Critical areas such as floodplains, habitat, streams, wetlands, steep slopes, etc.
Some of these open spaces are usable to the public; others are best left protected in their
natural state.
The City currently does not have an adopted LOS for open space. However, under the Land
Use Code, each major residential plat must provide 5% of its land preserved as usable open
space. This is in addition to any natural open space protected because of its status as a
critical area. This 5% translates to an effective LOS of 3.0 acres per 1,000 people, or
0.008319 acres per dwelling unit.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-6 JULY 2015
The City generally accepts dedication of the critical area open space tracts or easements so
as to be able to better manage the resources that they protect. Usable open space, however, is
generally left under the ownership of Homeowners' Associations. Currently the City has
220.0 acres of protected open space – 150.0 of these acres are public and 70.0 acres are
privately owned. See Figure 2-18: Critical Areas, Open Space, & Restoration Projects for a
map of these areas as well as Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation
FacilitiesTable 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities for more detail on
these open spaces.
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include such things as museums, archaeological sites, historical sites, and
other similar places. Currently there is a 16,000 square foot historical museum owned and
operated by the Stillaguamish Pioneer Society. The Stillaguamish Tribe also claims that
there are significant archaeological sites in various areas of the City, but such sites are not
publicly revealed so as to prevent disturbance or desecration. The School District owns and
operates the Byrnes Performing Arts Center.
Offices, Maintenance, Etc.
It takes both staff and equipment to operate and maintain City parks and recreational
facilities. Park and recreational facility operations are overseen by one staff member in the
City’s Administration Office. Maintenance is provided by the City’s Maintenance and
Operations Division. of the City’s Community & Economic Development Department.
Equipment is housed at our Public Works Maintenance and Operations Shop and accounts
for approximately 8% of this 13,148 square foot facility. It is anticipated that as the
recreation program expands or the number of parks increases, additional space would be
needed to house the staff and equipment necessary to run these programs.
7.4 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
Our existing adopted Levels of Service—and what we’ve actually attained—for the various park
and recreational facilities are shown in Table 7-5: Adopted & Actual Parks Levels of
ServiceTable 9-37-5: Adopted & Actual Parks Levels of Service. The City has established levels
of service for community, neighborhood/mini- parks, trails and office facilities. As the table 5
shows, in all categories the City meets or exceeds [RS5]the levels of service for each type of park
and recreation facility currently.
7.5 IMPACT FEES
The City requires that new single and multi-family dwelling units pay an impact fee of $1,662
per single family residential and $1,497 per multi-family residential dwelling units.1 This fee
is[MH6] applied towards purchase and construction of community parks. Neighborhood parks are
required to be provided for residential developments having seven or more dwelling unit. For
1 AMC §20.90.400.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-7 JULY 2015
residential projects with less than seven units an in-lieu fee of $484 (single family) and $436
(multi-family) may be paid. Table 7-1: Current Impact Fees
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-8 JULY 2015
Table 7-1: Current Impact Fees shows the current impact fees for single and multi-family
residential dwelling units.
Table 7-1: Current Impact Fees
Facility Type
Fee per
SFR du
Fee per
MFR du
Regional Parks NA NA
Community Parks $1,662 $1,497
Neighborhood/Mini-Parks $484 $436
Trails NA NA
Open Space NA NA
Cultural Resources NA NA
Offices, Maintenance, etc. NA NA
Total $1,484 $1,086
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-9 JULY 2015
Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities
Facility Type/Name Su
b
a
r
e
a
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Si
z
e
Un
i
t
Parkland and School Recreation Land 719.6 acres
City Parks 188.1 acres
Community Parks 176.0 acres
Bill Quake Memorial Park Airport/Industrial Good 13.0 acres
Waldo E Evans Memorial Park Airport/Industrial Good 6.0 acres
Haller Park OTBD Good 3.0 .acres
Legion Memorial Park OTBD Good 1.0 acres
Twin Rivers Park Outside City Limits Good 50.0 acres
Terrace Park Old Town Good 4.0 acres
Country Charm Park & Cons. Old Town Undev. 89.0 acres
Storm Water Wetland Park Old tTown Good 10.0 acres
Neighborhood Parks 12.1 acres
Centennial Park OTBD Good 1.0 acres
Wedgewood Park Hilltop Good 2.0 acres
Woodway Park Hilltop Good .5 acres
Forest Trail Park Hilltop Good 2.0 acres
High Clover Park Arlington Bluff Good 2.0 acres
J Rudy York Memorial Park West Arlington Good 2.0 acres
Lebanon Park OTBD Good 0.5 acres
The Rockery OTBD Good 0.1 acres
Jensen Park Kent Prairie Good 2.0 acres
Mini-Parks 14.9 acres
Aspenwood Meadows West Arlington Fair 0.13 acres
Bovee Acres, Tract 997 Hilltop 0.40 acre
Brickwood West Arlington Fair 0.71 acres
Brickwood West Arlington Poor 0.24 acres
Claridge Court Arlington Bluff 0.12 acres
Country Manor 1, Tract 996 West Arlington Fair 0.11 acre
Country Manor 1, Tract 997 West Arlington Fair 0.09 acre
Country Manor 2, Tract 995 West Arlington Fair 0.09 acre
Crossing at Edgecomb vault Hilltop 0.69 acres
Crossing at Edgecomb Hilltop 0.28 acres
Crown Ridge 1 Hilltop Good 0.41 acres
Crown Ridge 2 Hilltop Fair 0.75 acres
Crown Ridge 3 Hilltop Fair 3.00 acres
Crown Ridge 4 Hilltop Fair 0.17 acres
Crown Ridge 5 Hilltop Fair 0.37 acres
Dogwood Meadows Hilltop 0.33 acre
Eagle Heights, 1 Tract 995 Hilltop 0.46 acre
Eagle Heights 1 Tract 998 Hilltop 0.01 acres
Eagle Heights 2 Tract 996 Hilltop 0.12 acre
Eagle Heights 2 Tract 998 Hilltop 0.10 Acre
Gleneagle 1 Hilltop Fair 0.10 acres
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-10 JULY 2015
Facility Type/Name Su
b
a
r
e
a
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Si
z
e
Un
i
t
Gleneagle 2 Hilltop Good 0.04 acres
Gleneagle 3 Hilltop Fair 0.07 acres
Heartland 1 Arlington Bluff Fair 1.05 acres
Heartland 2 Arlington Bluff Good 1.05 acres
High Clover Arlington Bluff Good 0.26 acres
Highland View Estates Hilltop Good 0.25 acres
Magnolia Estates, Tract 996 Hilltop 0.31 acre
Point Riley West Arlington Poor 0.14 acres
Rivercrest 1 Arlington Bluff Good 0.25 acres
Rivercrest 2 Arlington Bluff Good 0.21 acres
Rosecreek Kent Prairie Good 0.22 acres
Smokey Point Meadows West Arlington Poor 0.38 acres
Stoneway West Arlington Good 0.17 acres
Sweetwater, Tract 996 Arlington Bluff 0.32 acre
Terrah Marie, Tract 999 Arlington Bluff 0.22 acre
The Bluff Arlington Bluff Poor 0.03 acres
Trellis Court, Tract 996 West Arlington 0.08 acre
Twin Ponds 1 Kent Prairie Good 0.15 acres
Twin Ponds 2 Kent Prairie Fair 0.25 acres
Walnut Ridge 1 Arlington Bluff 0.14 acre
Whispering Breezes Arlington Bluff 0.61 acres
County/Regional Parks 457.3 acres
Wenberg County Park Outside UGA Good 46.0 acres
Gissberg Twin Lakes Outside UGA Good 54.3 acres
Portage Creek Wildlife Area Arlington Bluff 157.0 acres
River Meadows Outside UGA Good 200.0 Acres
Arlington Public School Facilities 59.3 acres
Arlington High School Hilltop 16.5 acres
Post Middle Old Town 8.2 acres
Haller Middle Old Town 11.0 acres
Presidents Elementary Old Town 6.5 acres
Eagle Creek Elementary Southfork 8.4 acres
Kent Prairie Elementary Kent Prairie 5.4 acres
Pioneer Elementary Hilltop 3.3 acres
Trails 69.8 miles
City Trails 12.2 miles
Centennial Trail (City Portion) Airport/Industrial, CBD paved 2.7 miles
Airport Trail Airport/Industrial mixed 6.5 miles
Kruger –Portage Creek Trail Kent Prairie path 0 .4 miles
Zimmerman Trail Hilltop, Kent Prairie stairs 0.2 miles
River Crest Trail Arlington Bluff Path 0.2 miles
Eagle Trail Old Town path .7 mile
Stormwater Park Trail Old Town gravel 1.0 Mile
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-11 JULY 2015
Facility Type/Name Su
b
a
r
e
a
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Si
z
e
Un
i
t
188th Street Connector Trail Airport Industrial Paved .5 mile
Count Trails 57.6 miles
River Meadows Park Trails Outside City Limits Good 1.6 miles
Centennial Trail Outside City Limits Good 29.0 miles
Whitehorse Trail Outside City Limits Fair 27.0 miles
Open Space 328.2 acres
Public 109.0 acres
Miscellaneous OS Tracts Throughout City 10.0 acres
Country Charm Park habitat Old Town 58.0 acres
Stormwater Wetland Park O.S. Old Town 10.0 acres
Arlington Cemetery Arlington Bluff 30.0 acres
Harwood Cemetery Old Town 1.0 acre
Private 219.2 acres
Miscellaneous OS Tracts Throughout City acres
Maureen Udman Envtl Center Old Town 70.0 Acres
Pioneer School Envtl area Hilltop Good 4.2 acres
Gleneagle Golf Course Hilltop 135.0 acres
Stilly Valley Pioneer Park Arlington Bluff 10.0 acres
Cultural Resources 38,444 sq ft
Pioneer Historical Museum Arlington Bluff 16,000 sq ft
Arlington Art Walk Old Town
Byrnes Performing Arts Center Hilltop 22,444 Sq ft
Indoor Recreation Facilities
Arlington Boys & Girls Club Arirport/Industrial
City Maint. Shop/Offices 13,148 sq ft
shop/office building #1 Airport/Industrial Fair 6,840 sq ft
storage building #2 Poor 1,104 sq ft
equipment storage shed #3 Good 2,832 sq ft
storage building #4 Fair 2,372 sq ft
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-12 JULY 2015
Table 7.3 Park Amenity Inventory
Facility Type/Name O
f-
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
Pi
c
n
i
c
T
a
b
l
e
s
Pi
c
n
i
c
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
Ba
r
b
e
q
u
e
Dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
F
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Be
n
c
h
e
s
Pl
a
y
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Ca
m
p
i
n
g
Bo
a
t
L
a
u
n
c
h
Fi
s
h
i
n
g
Be
a
c
h
/
S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g
Po
o
l
So
c
c
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
s
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
/
S
o
f
t
b
a
l
l
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
-
M
a
j
o
r
Ru
n
n
i
n
g
T
r
a
c
Fo
o
t
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
Sp
o
r
t
C
o
u
r
t
Gr
a
s
s
A
r
e
a
Te
n
n
i
s
Co
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
s
Bi
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
Eq
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
s
Na
t
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
In
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
A
r
e
a
Ga
r
d
e
n
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
Sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
P
a
r
Ha
r
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Di
s
c
g
o
l
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
St
a
g
e
Parks
City Parks
Community Parks
Bill Quake Memorial Park x 1 7 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Haller Park x 1 5 1 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 1
Jensen Community Park x 4 1 2 1 1 1
Legion Memorial Park x 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 2 2
Twin Rivers Park x 1 3 1 6 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1
W.E. Evans Field x 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Terrace Park x 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1
Country Charm Park & Cons. 10 1 1 1 1 1
Stormwater Wetland Park 6 1 1
Subtotal 7 6 43 4 2 5 36 8 1 1 3 3 0 8 5 2 0 0 1 7 0 2 5 0 0 4 3 0 2 1 0 1 1
Neighborhood Parks
Centennial Park 3 1 1
Wedgewood Par x 5 7 2 1
Woodway Par 1
Forest Trail Park x 7 1 1 1
High Clover Park 1
J Rudy York Memorial Park x 4 4 2 1 1
Lebanon Par x 1 1 1
The Rockery 1 1
Jensen Par
Subtotal 4 0 12 0 0 1 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Mini-Parks
spenwood Meadows 2 1 1
Bovee Acres 1
Brickwood 1 1
Brickwood 1 1
Claridge Court 2 1
Country Manor 1 2 1 1 1
Country Manor 2 1 1 1
Country Manor 2 1 1
Crossing at Edgecomb 2 3 1 2
Crown Ridge 1 1 1
Crown Ridge 2 1 1
Crown Ridge 3 2 2 1
Crown Ridge 4 1 1
Crown Ridge 5 1 1
Dogwood Meadows 1 2 1
Eagle Heights 1 Tract 3 2
Eagle Heights 1 Tract 995 2 1 1 1
Eagle Heights 2 Tract 996 2 1
Eagle Heights 2 Tract 998 3 2
Gleneagle 1 2 1 1
Gleneagle 2 1 1 1
Gleneagle 3 1 1
Heartland 1 1 1 1
Heartland 2 1 1
High Clover 1 1 1 1
Highland View Estates 4 1 1 1
Magnolia Meadows 1 PH 1 1 1 1 1 1
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-13 JULY 2015
Facility Type/Name O
f-
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
Pi
c
n
i
c
T
a
b
l
e
s
Pi
c
n
i
c
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
Ba
r
b
e
q
u
e
Dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
F
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Be
n
c
h
e
s
Pl
a
y
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Ca
m
p
i
n
g
Bo
a
t
L
a
u
n
c
h
Fi
s
h
i
n
g
Be
a
c
h
/
S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g
Po
o
l
So
c
c
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
s
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
/
S
o
f
t
b
a
l
l
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
-
M
a
j
o
r
Ru
n
n
i
n
g
T
r
a
c
Fo
o
t
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
Sp
o
r
t
C
o
u
r
t
Gr
a
s
s
A
r
e
a
Te
n
n
i
s
Co
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
s
Bi
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
Eq
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
s
Na
t
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
In
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
A
r
e
a
Ga
r
d
e
n
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
Sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
P
a
r
Ha
r
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Di
s
c
g
o
l
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
St
a
g
e
Point Riley 1 1
Rivercrest 1 1 1 1
Rivercrest 2 1 1 1
Rosecree 5 10 1
Smokey Point Meadows 1 1
StonewayGregory Park 1 1 1 1
Sweetwater Tract 996 1 1 1 1
Terrah Marie Tract 999 1 1 1
The Bluff 3 1 1
Trellis Court Tract 996 2
Twin Ponds 1 1 1 1 1 1
Twin Ponds 2 1 1 1 1 1
Walnut Ridge 1 2 1
Whispering Breezes 1
Subtotal 1 0 34 5 0 0 47 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 21 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
County Parks
Regional Parks
Wenberg County Park x 1 50 3 1 1 1 1 1
Gissberg Twin Lakes x 1 8 1 1 1
River Meadows x 1 50 3 1 1 1 1 1
Portage Creek Wildlife
Subtotal 3 3 158 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public School Facilities
Arlington School District
rlington High School 1 4 1 1 1 8
Post Middle 1 1 1
Haller Middle 2 1 1 1 2
Presidents Elementary 1 1 1 1 1 1
Eagle Creek Elementary 1 2 1 1
Kent Prairie Elementary 1 1 1
Pioneer Elementary 1 1 2 1 1
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 3 4 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Facility Type/Name Of
f
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
Pi
c
n
i
c
T
a
b
l
e
s
Pi
c
n
i
c
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
Ba
r
b
e
q
u
e
Dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
F
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Be
n
c
h
e
s
Pl
a
y
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Ca
m
p
i
n
g
Bo
a
t
L
a
u
n
c
h
Fi
s
h
i
n
g
Be
a
c
h
/
S
w
i
m
m
i
n
g
Po
o
l
So
c
c
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
s
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
/
S
o
f
t
b
a
l
l
Ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
-
M
a
j
o
r
Ru
n
n
i
n
g
T
r
a
c
Fo
o
t
b
a
l
l
F
i
e
l
d
Sp
o
r
t
C
o
u
r
t
Gr
a
s
s
A
r
e
a
Te
n
n
i
s
Co
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
s
Bi
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
Eq
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
s
Na
t
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
In
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
A
r
e
a
Ga
r
d
e
n
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
Sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
P
a
r
Ha
r
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Di
s
c
g
o
l
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
St
a
g
e
Trails
City Trails
Centennial Trail (City Portion) x x 20 1 1 1 1 1
irport Trail x 2 1 1 1
Portage-Kruger Creek Trail 1 1 1
Zimmerman Hill Trail 1 1
River Crest Trail 1 1
Eagle Trail 1 1
Stormwater Wetland Trail x 4 4 1 1 1
188th St. Connector Trail
Subtotal 3 0 4 1 0 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 1 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
County Trails
River Meadows Park Trails 1 1 1
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-14 JULY 2015
Centennial Trail x 1 1 1 1
Whitehorse Trail 1 1 1 1
Subtotal 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
Open Space
Public
Miscellaneous OS Tracts 1
Country Charm Park habitat 1
Stormwater Wetland O.S. 1
rlington Cemetery 1
Harwood Cemetery 1
Subtotal 1 1 8 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
Private
Maureen Udman Envtl Center 1
Pioneer School Envtl Center 1
Gleneagle Golf Course 1
Stilly Valley Pioneer Park 1 1
Miscellaneous OS Tracts 1
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-15 JULY 2015
Figure 7-1: Acres of Park per Subarea
6.26, 7%
32.3, 38%
8, 9%
35.7, 41%
4.1, 5%
Acres of Park per Subarea
Including neighborhood parks, mini parks and school rec. land
Table 7-4: Acres of Park per Acres of Subarea
Subarea Acres of
Subarea
Park Acres in
Subarea
Acre of Park per
Acre of Subarea
Arlington Bluff 450.9 6.26 0.01
Hilltop 1199.6 32.3 0.03
Kent Prairie 353.2 8 0.02
Old Town 714.9 35.7 0.05
West Arlington 1005.4 4.1 0.004
Totals 3724 86.36 0.02
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-16 JULY 2015
Table 7-5: Adopted & Actual Parks Levels of Service
Facility Type Current
2014 Pop
(1,000s)
Existing LOS (unit/1000)
Amount
needed at
2014 pop
2014
Deficit/ Surplus
(-/+)
2035
Projected
Population
24,900
Amount
needed Actual
What the Code
Requires
Regional Parks 457.3 acres 18.3 25.0 acres 0.0 Not required 457.3acres Not required
Community Parks 176.0 acres 18.3 9.6 acres 3.9 71.4 acres 104.6 acres 97.3 acres
Neighborhood and Mini-Parks 27 acres 18.3 1.4 acres 1.7 31.1 acres -5.9 acres 42.4 acres
Trails-City 12.2 miles 18.3 .66 miles 1.4 25.6 miles -13.4 miles 34.9 miles
Open Space 328.2 acres 18.3 17.9 acres 3.0 54.9 acres 273.3 acres 74.8 acres
Cultural Resources 38,444 sq ft 18.3 2100 sq ft 0.0 Not required 38,444 sq ft Not required
7.6 PROJECTED NEEDS
Public Parks:
As population increases so will our need for parkland. The rules are set up so that those
new residents moving to Arlington provide the new parks they will need (either through
having them built as a part of the development project, as with neighborhood parks, or
paid for through a park impact fee, as with our community parks). So, since we know that
we will get a particular population but we do not necessarily know which year (even
though fairly accurate guesses are made), rather than calculating the number of acres
needed for a particular year it is easier just to say how many acres will be needed for any
particular population. Below is calculated our park needs based on the recommended
LOS for the various park and recreation facilities.
The growth in population will increase the demand for all types of parks and recreational
facilities.
Community Parks: Our current adopted community parks LOS is 3.9 acres per 1,000
people. Assuming that we keep this LOS, by 2035, with projected population of 24,937
(26,002 total UGA population), we will need 97.3 acres of community parks. As we
already have 176 acres, we would have a surplus of 78.7 acres were we to not obtain any
more community parks.
This overall number doesn’t take into account geographic equity amongst our planning
subareas, nor does this overall number prevent future inequities in those areas that come
into the UGA in the future. Thus, a policy ought to be developed that causes new
community parks to be developed in new planning subareas and those currently “under
parked.”
Neighborhood/Mini Parks: Though the 1995 Comprehensive Plan adopted an LOS of
1.2 acres of neighborhood/mini- parks per 1,000 people, the subsequent Unified
Development Code adopted a standard of 1.7 acres per 1,000 people. Therefore, it is
assumed that this is the standard Council would like to continue using. This translates to
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-17 JULY 2015
an LOS of 0.004794 acres per SFR dwelling unit and 0.004318 acres per MFR dwelling
unit. Assuming that we keep this LOS, we will need this much more neighborhood
parkland for each new dwelling unit built. Note that through the code, an in lieu impact
fee is only allowed in certain circumstances; in most cases the park(s) must be provided.
The goal is that all residential areas have such parks that people can walk to.
By 2035 we will need approximately 42.4 acres of neighborhood parkland. As we already
have 27 acres, we would have a deficit of 15.4 acres were we to not obtain any more
neighborhood/mini parks.
And again, this overall number does not account for neighborhood inequities or new
neighborhoods. The City’s policy, as implemented in AMC Title 20, is that all new
residential developments need to provide their own neighborhood/mini parks.
City regulations require that new residential plats greater than ten lots provide
neighborhood/mini parks. This requirement helps ensure that mini-park space is provided
as residential development occurs. Proposed residential plats with fewer than ten lots pay
a fee-in-lieu for mini-parks.
County Parks
Regional Parks: Regional parks are provided by Snohomish County, not the City.
School Facilities
It is anticipated that the Arlington and Lakewood School Districts will continue to
provide school playfields and playgrounds at the LOS they set for themselves as the
population grows. Those playfields and playgrounds would continue to address some of
the demand for recreation in the City through 2017. Because the City is not the provider
of these facilities, however, this LOS is not formally adopted nor would the City
implement it.
Trails
Our current adopted trails LOS is 1.4 miles per 1,000 people, which works out to
0.003894 miles per single-family dwelling unit or 0.003556 miles per multi-family
dwelling unit. Assuming that we keep this LOS, we will need a total of 34.9 miles of
trails in 2035, 22.7 more miles of trail than currently exists.
Currently there is no adopted impact fee specifically for trails. Given this information, the
Council could adopt an impact fee specifically for trails, or trails could be funded by the
Community Park impact fee.
Recreation Programs
As the community grows there will be increased demand for recreational programs and
facilities over and above the current programs. In particular there would be a need for
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-18 JULY 2015
additional sports fields and indoor recreation facilities, including a community center, a
gym, a pool, a youth center and a facility for large community events.
The Arlington Boys and Girls Club have outgrown their facility. They are currently
applying for funding to expand the indoor facility space, to include an additional gym,
teen center, and computer lab. The Club uses Kinney field adjacent to their facility for
their outdoor sports program. The Club has outgrown this space and could use additional
field space and double the amount of existing parking. [SL7]The Arlington Boys and Girls
Club expanded their existing 13,000 S.F. facility in 2017 with a new 11,000 S.F.
gymnasium and a 1,800 S.F. teen center for a total of 25,800 S.F. of indoor facility space.
There were some additional parking spaces created as part of this expansion, but there
still exists a need for additional field space adjacent to the facility.
Open Space
Overall, the City has an ample supply of locally available open space. Even if no additional open
space were dedicated, the City would have a surplus of 208.3 acres of open space in 2035, based
on the recommended LOS. It is the City’s desire to also have open space spread evenly
throughout the City, as it adds to our quality of life, helps in managing stormwater, and helps
maintain wildlife populations, including endangered salmonids.2
Therefore, the City will continue to require that all residential projects of 25 dwelling units or
larger to dedicate 5% of the total area for open space so that new neighborhoods have adequate
access to their own local open space.
Cultural Resources
The City has no formally adopted LOS for cultural resources. Yet providing cultural resources
for the whole community is a priority. In 2004 the City dedicated $500,000 towards the
Arlington School District’s performing arts center. This is consistent with city goals to enhance
cultural opportunities and diversity in choices for the residents.3 It is consistent, also, with its
commitment to partner with other agencies in meeting the community’s needs and to create a
good economic climate through improving the quality of life. In the next 20 years meeting the
community’s demand for cultural resources would continue to be a City priority because of these
and other goals and policies.
Offices, Maintenance, Etc.
The Capital Facilities and Public Services Element discuss the need for building space as the
community grows. Please see Chapter 9 for a more detailed analysis of the need for park and
recreation offices and maintenance facilities.
2 On of the strategies of our Endangered Species Act plan is to maintain a 10% forested cover within the
UGA.
3 Goal OG-5
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-19 JULY 2015
7.7 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF PARKS AMONG SUBAREAS
How well parkland is distributed geographically is a way to measure the degree to which parks
are meeting the needs of the community. Figure 7-1: Acres of Park per Subarea shows the
number of acres of parkland in each subarea. Figure 7-1 shows the Acres of Park per Acres of
Subarea. Community Parks are not included. Figure 2-10: Park and Recreation Facility Locations
shows the location of parks throughout the UGA.
These figures show several things. Each subarea has some parkland. Old Town (a combination of
Central Business District and Old Town Neighborhoods) and Hilltop have a high number of
acres of park and a high percentage of their land area in parks. Arlington Bluff is at the low end
of the spectrum with only 1 percent or less of their land area in parks. West Arlington is very low
with only .4 percent of land in parks. The Airport/Industrial subarea does not have neighborhood
parks, but does have Quake and Evans Community Parks (community parks are not represented
in the chart).
Another potential measure of the degree to which a population is served by parks is the distance
that the majority must travel to get to a park. At this point 79% of the City’s parks, including
school facilities, are clustered in the Old Town and Hilltop subareas. Residents in other subareas
would have to travel further to get to a facility. To those residents parks are generally less
available.
Therefore, the City ought to adopt a policy and implement regulations that adjusts the current
inequity and prevents future inequities in new neighborhoods coming into the UGA.
7.8 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
In addition to the above staff analysis of future needs based on our adopted levels of service and
known requirements, a survey of Arlington’s residents was performed to find their priorities. The
survey was posted online on the City’s website in August 2014 and was promoted through the
City’s e-newsletter, social media and mailed newsletter. Due to the low response rate of the
survey, the feedback is not included here. The City will need to invest funds to conduct a survey
that will produce more results.
7.9 WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE
Levels of Service: The Council has considered the recommendations of the Parks, Art and
Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the community and adopts the Levels of
Service for parks and recreation facilities shown in Table 7-5.
New Parks: The analysis in Projected Needs, above, identifies the need for additional park
facilities as well as recreation programs. There would be a need, for instance, for approximately
31.242.4 acres of neighborhood parks by the year 2035 with a projected population of 24,952.
The City would need 71.697.3 acres of community parks and 25.734.9 [RS8]miles of trails.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-20 JULY 2015
Table 7-6: Adopted Levels of Service for Parks
Facility Type LOS (unit/1000)
Regional Parks 0.0
Community Parks 3.9
Nghrhd/Mini-Parks 1.7
Trails 1.4
Open Space 3.0
Cultural Resources 0.0
Priority should be given to establishing new parks in areas brought into the city and underserved
areas. In addition, City staff and the Parks, Art and Recreation Committee have identified the
need for a recreation facility.[RS9]
Impact Fees: Impact fees are set by resolution of City Council and are reviewed annually.
7.10 LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR NEW PARKS
As new areas are annexed into the City or brought into the UGA, the demand for parks and
recreational programs would will increase. It would be important to ensure that no areas were are
accepted unless the City’s LOS for parks could be maintained overall. This may require
conditions that a community park be dedicated as part of such an annexation. or expansion.
.Requiring that parks be centrally located within a subarea, in addition, through use of standards
established in this Element would address this issue as well as issues raised above.
7.11 TYPES OF FACILITIES NEEDED
The Parks, Art and Recreation Committee has identified the following new facilities as being
needed in Arlington:[RS10]
An indoor recreation center, appropriate for all ages. Arlington Boys & Girls Club have
expanded the area of the recreation center.
A regional sports complex in the Arlington area, including soccer, softball, and baseball
fields that can be used for tournaments.
A BMX park.
A river walk trail along the Stillaguamish.
A new boat ramp at Haller Park. Done This was completed in 2016.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
7-21 JULY 2015
A spray park. Will be complete fall 2017
A large outdoor event venue.
An outdoor fitness course.
A campground.
A City center park in West Arlington.
Ball Fields: In addition to the specific types of facilities the PARC has identified as being
needed, Council has decided in 2007 to specifically set an LOS for baseball fields within the
context (and LOS) of community parks.
According to the Stilly Valley Little League Association they have had up to 585 350 players (in
2015. count is approximately 350 players). They also estimated in 2007 that the total number of
ball players in the Arlington areas is roughly 1,500 (other leagues). These groups play on 19
fields, but could use one more at this point. Of those 20 fields, half are outside the City limits. If
we also assume that half of the players are non-City residents, then Arlington is providing
roughly 50% of the facilities needed for 50% of the ball playing population. This translates to an
existing LOS of 0.5 ball fields per 1,000 population, which seems to be adequate. This would
mean that at a population of 30,00024,000, we would need a total of 40 fields, and if the same
ratios are assumed, half, or 20, would be provided by the City and half would be provided by the
County. Each field takes about 3.1 acres (field, spectator area, parking, etc), thus we need 1.55
acres per 1,000 people.
Since the community park LOS is set at 3.9 acres, if we deduct 1.55 acres of this for ball fields,
then 2.35 could be allocated as the Council chooses through the annual budgeting process.
Obviously, this LOS would not provide all the ball fields necessary for the ball playing
community. But as mentioned, about half are currently provided in the County and the City of
Arlington expects the County to continue to provide this LOS. It would be our goal, in fact, to
enter into a partnership to jointly provide a sports field complex, either in the City or adjacent to.
Such a complex could be used for multiple tournaments (baseball, softball, soccer, football etc.)
as well as other uses. Such use would help the facility be maintained through its own revenue
generation.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
A - 1 JULY 2017
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit accessory to the principal dwelling wholly
contained inside of the principal residence with a separate entrance. This dwelling unit can
be located within a basement or an addition to the principal residence that will not change
the character of the principal residence.
Adequate Capital Facilities: Facilities which have the capacity to serve development
without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums.
Arterial (Urban Minor): A city street providing movement along significant corridors of
traffic flow. Traffic volumes, speeds, and trip lengths are high, although usually not as great
as those associated with principal arterials.
Arterial (Large Area and Urban Principal): A city street providing movement along
major corridors of traffic flow. Traffic volumes, speeds, and trip lengths are high, usually
greater than those associated with minor arterials.
Available Capital Facilities: Those facilities or services that are in place or for which a
financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services at the time of
development or within a specified time. In the case of transportation, the specified time is no
more than six years from the time of development.
Capacity: The measure of the ability to provide a level of service on a public facility.
Capital Budget: The portion of each local government's budget which reflects capital
improvements for a fiscal year.
Capital Facility: A physical structure owned or operated by a government entity which
provides or supports a public service.
Capital Improvement: Physical assets constructed or purchased to provide, improve, or
replace a public facility and which are large scale and high in cost. The cost of a capital
improvement is generally non-recurring and may require multi-year financing.
Commercial Uses: Activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the
sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of services.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
A - 2 JULY 2017
Comprehensive Plan: A generalized coordinated land use policy statement of the
governing body of a county or city that is adopted pursuant to this chapter.
Concurrency: Adequate capital facilities are available when the impacts of development
occur. This definition includes the two concepts of "adequate capital facilities" and of
"available capital facilities" as defined above.
Consistency: No feature of a plan or regulation is incompatible with any other feature of a
plan or regulation. Consistency is indicative of a capacity for orderly integration or operation
with other elements in a system.
Coordination: Consultation and cooperation among jurisdictions.
Contiguous Development: Development of areas immediately adjacent to one another.
Financial Commitment: Sources of public or private funds or combinations thereof have
been identified which will be sufficient to finance capital facilities necessary to support
development. There is assurance that such funds will be put to that end in a timely manner.
Critical Areas: Include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas.
Density: A measure of the intensity of development, generally expressed in terms of dwelling
units per acre. Density can also be expressed in terms of population density (i.e., people per
acre). It is useful for establishing a balance between potential local service use and service
capacities.
Domestic Water System: Any system providing a supply of potable water for the intended
use of a development which is deemed adequate pursuant to RCW 19.27.097.
Geologically Hazardous Areas: Areas, that because of their susceptibility to erosion,
sliding, earthquake or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial ,
residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
A - 3 JULY 2017
Growth Management: Method to guide development in order to minimize adverse
environmental and fiscal impacts and maximize the health, safety and welfare benefits to
the residents of the community.
Household: Includes all the persons who occupy a group of rooms or a single room which
constitutes a housing unit.
Impact Fee: Fee levied by a local government on new development so that the new
development pays its proportionate share of the cost of new or expanded facilities required
to service that development.
Industrial Uses: The activities predominantly connected with manufacturing, assembly,
processing or storage of products.
Infrastructure: Those man-made structures which serve the common needs of the
population, such as: sewage disposal systems, potable water wells serving a system, solid
waste disposal sites or retention areas, stormwater systems, utilities, bridges, and roadways.
Intensity: Measure of land use activity based on density, use, mass, size, and impact.
Land Development Regulations: Any controls placed on development or land use activities
by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances,
rezoning, building construction, sign regulations, binding site plan ordinances, or any other
regulations controlling the development of land.
Level of Service (LOS): Indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or
proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational
characteristics of the facility. LOS means an established minimum capacity of capital
facilities or services provided by capital facilities that must be provided per unit of demand
or other appropriate measure of need.
Manufactured Housing: Conventional housing utilizing pre-manufactured components.
Mobile Home: A single portable manufactured housing unit or a combination of two or
more such units connected on-site, that is:
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
A - 4 JULY 2017
1. designed to be used for living, sleeping, sanitation, cooking and eating purposes by
one family only and containing independent kitchen, sanitary and sleeping facilities;
2. designed so that each housing unit can be transported on its own chassis; placed on
a temporary or semi-permanent foundation; and
3. is over 32 feet in length and over 8 feet in width.
Multi-Family Housing: As used in this plan, all housing which is designed to accommodate
two or more households.
Owner: Any person or entity, including a cooperative or a public housing authority (PHA),
having the legal rights to sell, lease or sublease any form of real property.
Planning Period: Means the 20-year period following the adoption of a comprehensive plan
or such longer period as may have been selected as the initial planning horizon by the
planning jurisdiction.
Public Facilities: Include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting
systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks
and recreational facilities and schools.
Public Services: Include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health,
education, recreation, environmental protection and other governmental services.
Regional Transportation Plan: The plan for the regionally designated transportation system
which is produced by the Regional Transportation Planning Organization.
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO): The voluntary organization
conforming to RCW 47.80.020, consisting of local governments within a region containing
one or more counties which have common transportation interests.
Resident Population: Inhabitants counted in the same manner utilized by the US Bureau of
the Census, in the category of total population. Resident population does not include
seasonal population.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
A - 5 JULY 2017
Right-of-Way: Land in which the state, a county, or a municipality owns the fee simple title
or has an easement dedicated or required for a transportation or utility use.
Sanitary Sewer Systems: All facilities, including approved on-site disposal facilities, used in
the collection, transmission, storage, treatment, or discharge of any waterborne waste,
whether domestic in origin or a combination of domestic, commercial, or industrial waste.
Shall: A directive or requirement.
Should: An expectation.
Single-Family Housing: As used in this plan, a detached housing unit designed for
occupancy by not more than one household. This definition does not include mobile homes,
which are treated as a separate category.
Solid Waste Handling Facility: Any facility for the transfer or ultimate disposal of solid
waste, including landfills and municipal incinerators.
Transportation Facilities: Includes capital facilities related to air, water or land
transportation.
Transportation Level of Service Standards: A measure which describes the operational
condition of the travel stream, usually in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to
maneuver, comfort, convenience and safety.
Transportation System Management (TSM): Low capital expenditures to increase the
capacity of the transportation network. TSM strategies include, but are not limited to,
signalization, channelization and bus turn-outs.
Transportation Demand Management Strategies (TDM): Strategies aimed at changing
travel behavior rather than at expanding the transportation network to meet travel demand.
Such strategies can include the promotion of work hour changes, ride- sharing options,
parking policies and/or telecommuting.
Urban Collector: A city street providing service which is of relative moderate traffic volume,
moderate trip length and moderate operating speed. Collector roads collect and distribute
traffic between local roads or arterial roads.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
A - 6 JULY 2017
Urban Growth: Refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of
buildings, structures and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with
the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products or fiber
or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban
growth typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth"
refers to land having urban growth located on it or to land located in relationship to an area
with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth.
Urban Growth Area: Those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW
36.70A.110.
Urban Governmental Services: Include those governmental services historically and
typically delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic
water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit
services and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated
with nonurban areas.
Urban Local Road: A city street providing service which is of relatively low traffic
volume, short average trip length, or minimal through traffic movements.
Utilities: Facilities serving the public by means of a network of wires or pipes, and structures
ancillary thereto. Included are systems for the delivery of natural gas, electricity,
telecommunication services and water; and for the disposal of sewage.
Visioning: A process of citizen involvement to determine values and ideals for the future of a
community and to transform those values and ideals into manageable and feasible
community goals.
Wetland: Those areas of the city that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions or those areas identified as wetlands using the "Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Wetlands" currently used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Army Corps of
Engineers Regulation 33 CRF 328.3, 1988). Where the vegetation has been removed or
substantially altered, a wetland shall be determined by the presence or evidence of hydric or
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
A - 7 JULY 2017
organic soil, as well as other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation,
such as aerial photographs.
Zoning: Demarcation of an area by ordinance (text and map) into zones and the
establishment of regulations to govern the uses within those zones (commercial, industrial,
residential) and the location, bulk, height, shape and coverage of structures within each
zone.
Appendix B: Essential Public
Facility Siting Process
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B
B - 1 JULY 2017
PURPOSE
In accordance with the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act, and following
an extensive policy review process by the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee, the
Snohomish County Council has adopted a series of countywide planning policies to guide the
preparation of city and county comprehensive plans. Included therein are policies addressing the
siting of "public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature" (identified as Policies EPF-
1 through EPF-5), as specifically required by the GMA. These policies commit the GMA planning
jurisdictions of Snohomish County to develop a common siting process for these facilities.
The GMA further requires local governments to develop a process for identifying and siting
"essential public facilities" and to incorporate that process into their local comprehensive plans.
As indicated and defined by WAC 365-195-340 essential public facilities can be difficult to site,
and their location in a community may be locally unpopular. Local and state governments are
charged by GMA with the task of ensuring that such facilities, as needed to support orderly growth
and delivery of public services, are sited in a timely and efficient manner.
The process described here is intended to address the siting of essential public facilities not
already sited by a local comprehensive plan and for which discretionary land use action is
required. The siting process set forth below is also intended to meet GMA requirements, as well
as the intent of the countywide planning policies. A final objective is to enhance public participation
during the early stages of facility siting to reduce the time spent analyzing unacceptable sites and
thereby produce earlier siting decisions that are also consistent with community goals.
DEFINITION OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY
Any facility owned or operated by a unit of local or state government, by a public utility or
transportation company, or by any other entity providing a public service as its primary mission
may qualify as an "essential public facility" (or, EPF). In general, an essential public facility will be
characterized by the following:
1) It is a necessary component of a system or network which provides a public service or good
and
2) It may be difficult to site because of potential significant opposition.
Essential public facilities of a countywide nature are those which serve a population base
extending beyond the host community - which may include several local jurisdictions within
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B
B - 2 JULY 2017
Snohomish County or a significant share of the total County population. Such facilities may
include, but are not limited to, the following examples: airports, state education facilities, state or
regional transportation facilities, state or local correctional facilities, solid waste-handling facilities,
in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes.1
Other facilities meeting the basic definition above and whose sponsor desires to utilize this siting
process may be qualified as essential public facilities by completing the designation procedure
described below.
Essential public facilities of a regional or statewide nature may include, but are not limited to,
those facilities listed above which serve a multi-county population base; and other large public
facilities appearing on the OFM list to be maintained under RCW 36.70A.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR COMMON SITE REVIEW
Essential public facilities of a countywide or statewide nature that are not already sited in a local
comprehensive plan are eligible for review under the common siting process described below.
Candidate facility proposals may be submitted for review under this Common Siting Process by
either the project sponsor or by a local jurisdiction wishing to site the project (the "host
community").
A facility may be designated an essential public facility eligible for review under this process under
the following conditions:
1) The Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee or the governing board of the host
community makes a determination that the proposed facility meets the definition of an
essential public facility; or, the facility appears on the State, County, or the host
community's list of essential public facilities;
AND
2) Either the sponsoring agency or the host community determines that the facility will be
difficult to site.
COMMON SITE REVIEW PROCESS
1 The application of this definition for group homes and similar facilities, as well as of the siting process for these facilities, will be
within the legal parameters of fair housing laws.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B
B - 3 JULY 2017
Either the sponsor of an essential public facility within Snohomish County that is eligible for review
under the Common Site Review Process, or the proposed host community, may elect to follow
the process described herein. Alternatively, sponsors of such facilities having a preferred site
location already identified may choose to seek siting approval under the local process provided
by the host community (the jurisdiction having land use authority over that site), if that approach
is acceptable to the host community.
The Common Site Review Process will involve the steps described below.
1. Determination of Eligibility. The project sponsor must receive a determination of eligibility from
either the host community or the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee that the
proposed facility constitutes an essential public facility as defined above. This initial step will
also include a determination, as a threshold matter, of whether the facility in question presents
siting difficulties. If the facility does not present siting difficulties, it should be relegated to the
normal siting process, as recommended in WAC 365-195-340 (2)(a)(iii).
2. Site Search Consultation. As an optional service to project sponsors, the Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) and/or the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (ICC) will, upon request,
provide a forum for project sponsors prior to the initiation of the formal siting review process.
Sponsors will have the opportunity to present proposed projects involving essential public
facilities for the purpose of seeking information on potential sites within Snohomish County
and about potential concerns related to siting. Sponsors may also propose possible incentives
for host communities.
Through the PAC/ICC, local jurisdictions may be requested to provide information to sponsors
regarding potential sites within their communities. The sponsor of an eligible project electing
to utilize this siting process may initiate this communication by contacting Snohomish County
Tomorrow and requesting aid in the siting of its proposed facility.
3. Local Land Use Review. Following site consultation with the PAC and/or the ICC (when that
step is taken by the sponsor), the sponsor may then apply for site approval with the local land
use or permit authority, as required under local law. The local jurisdiction shall conduct its
review as required by this common siting process, as well its own codes and ordinances. This
shall include the conduct of public hearings required for any land use action that may be
needed by the proposal, including comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, conditional use
permit, or similar approval.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B
B - 4 JULY 2017
The local authority shall evaluate the proposal against the common siting criteria described
herein, as well as against any local criteria generally applicable to the type of action required,
in making its land use decision on the project proposal. Where no local land use action is
required the sponsor may proceed directly to the permit application stage.
4. Advisory Review Process. The local land use authority's decision, as it relates to matters
encompassed by the site evaluation criteria described below, is subject to an advisory review
process as provided herein. This process, if utilized, would occur prior to any appeal
processes already provided by local ordinance.
Within 21 days following the decision by the local land use authority required to approve the
proposal, an advisory review process may be utilized by the sponsor involving a three member
advisory review board appointed by the Snohomish County Tomorrow Executive Board.
Qualifications for board members, as well as procedures for board creation and conduct of
board business shall be governed by written guidelines to be established by Snohomish
County Tomorrow, provided that no official or employee of Snohomish County or any local
jurisdiction within Snohomish County shall be a board member.
The advisory review board shall not have the authority to overturn a local decision. The board,
on a review of the record, shall only find that the local decision does or does not accurately
reflect the evidence provided by the sponsor, or that adequate consideration was or was not
given to the evaluation criteria, and may recommend to the local agency that it reconsider its
decision.
A recommended alternative for host communities and sponsors would be to use arbitration as
the final recourse for resolution of differences. In cases where this option is agreed to in
advance, a pre-selected arbitrator would serve as the appeal agent for these parties.
Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the administrative appeal or legal remedies
otherwise available to sponsors, host communities or third parties.
5. Permit Application. Upon receipt of the required land use approvals by the local land use
authority, the sponsor may then apply for the required permits to construct the proposed
facility. When a permit is denied for reasons relating to this siting process, the permitting
authority will submit in writing the reasons for permit denial to the sponsor.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B
B - 5 JULY 2017
SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following criteria will be utilized by all county and city review authorities in evaluating siting
proposals made by sponsoring agencies seeking to site an essential public facility (EPF) in
Snohomish County. The sponsor shall provide the information needed for the reviewing body to
evaluate a site(s) and make a recommendation or decision on a specific proposal. These criteria
encompass an evaluation of regional need and local site suitability for the proposed and
designated essential public facility. Findings concerning the proposal's conformance with each
criterion shall be included in the documentation of the local authority's decision.
1. Documentation of Need. Project sponsors must demonstrate the need for their proposed
EPFs. Included in the analysis of need should be the projected service population, an
inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities and projected demand for this type of
essential public facility.
2. Consistency with Sponsor's Plans. The proposed project should be consistent with the
sponsor's own long-range plans for facilities and operations.
3. Consistency with Other Plans. The proposal must demonstrate the relationship of the project
to local, regional and state plans. The proposal should be consistent with the comprehensive
plan and other adopted plans of the prospective host community. In evaluating this
consistency, consideration shall be given to urban growth area designations and critical area
designations, population and employment holding capacities and targets, and the land use,
capital facilities and utilities elements of these adopted plans.
4. Relationship of Service Area to Population. The facility's service area population should
include a significant share of the host community's population, and the proposed site should
be able to reasonably serve its over-all service area population. [Note: linear transmission
facilities are exempt from this criterion]
5. Minimum Site Requirements. Sponsors shall submit documentation showing the minimum
siting requirements for the proposed facility. Site requirements may be determined by the
following factors: minimum size of the facility, access, support facilities, topography, geology,
and mitigation needs. The sponsor shall also identify future expansion needs of the facility.
6. Alternative Site Selection. In general, the project sponsor should search for and investigate
alternative sites before submitting a proposal for siting review. Additionally, the proposal
should indicate whether any alternative sites have been identified that meet the minimum site
requirements of the facility. The sponsor's site selection methodology will also be reviewed.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B
B - 6 JULY 2017
Where a proposal involves expansion of an existing facility, the documentation should indicate
why relocation of the facility to another site would be infeasible.
7. Concentration of Essential Public Facilities. In considering a proposal, the local review agency
will examine the overall concentration of essential public facilities within Snohomish County
to avoid placing an undue burden on any one community.
8. Public Participation. Sponsors should encourage local public participation, particularly by any
affected parties outside of the host community's corporate limits, in the development of the
proposal, including mitigation measures. Sponsors should conduct local outreach efforts with
early notification to prospective neighbors to inform them about the project and to engage
local residents in site planning and mitigation design prior to the initiation of formal hearings.
The sponsor's efforts in this regard should be evaluated.
9. Consistency with Local Land Use Regulations. The proposed facility must conform to local
land use and zoning regulations that are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies.
Compliance with other applicable local regulations shall also be required.
10. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. The sponsor's documentation should demonstrate
that the site, as developed for the proposed project, would be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
11. Proposed Impact Mitigation. The proposal must include adequate and appropriate mitigation
measures for the impacted area(s) and community(ies). Mitigation measures may include, but
are not limited to, natural features that will be preserved or created to serve as buffers, other
site design elements used in the development plan, and/or operational or other programmatic
measures contained in the proposal. The proposed measures should be adequate to
substantially reduce or compensate for anticipated adverse impacts on the local environment.
AMENDMENTS
This siting process may be amended, upon recommendation by the Snohomish County Tomorrow
Steering Committee, through established procedures for amending the comprehensive plan in
accordance with local code and the State Growth Management Act.
Appendix D: Arlington Responses to
Expanded Checklist for
Comprehensive Plan
Update
(2015)
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 1 JULY 2017
The Washington Department of Commerce provided a checklist to communities to guide
their 2015 Plan update. These are guidelines, not rules, but provide information on
updates to State law, regional policies, etc. so that communities can adopt the update
with confidence that their plans meet the requirements. The following summary informs
Arlington citizens of how the 2015 Plan was developed and provides a history to those
who will update the Plan in 2023.
In this 2017 update, responses differ only slightly from the 2015 document.
The Checklist and responses follow:
1. The Land Use Element should be consistent with countywide planning policies
(CWPPs) and RCW 36.70A.070(1), and should consider, WAC 365-196-400, WAC
365-196-405, WAC 365-196-300 through 345
a. The element integrates relevant county-wide planning policies into the local
planning process, and ensures local goals and policies are consistent. For
jurisdictions in the Central Puget Sound region, the plan is consistent with
applicable multicounty planning policies. WAC 365-196-305
Consistency with countywide planning policies
Consistency with multicounty planning policies, where applicable
1. The Arlington Plan is consistent with the Countywide Planning
Policies for Snohomish County, as amended in 2014. A
consistency analysis is contained in Appendix C of the Plan. It
includes a list of policies that are compatible with the updated
City Plan and those that, although not directly relevant to
Arlington, are adopted in principle.
2. Countywide Planning Policies and Multi-County Planning Policies
are adopted by Reference as Appendix C.
3. Implementation strategy includes requirement that land use
decisions and other relevant City decisions be reviewed against
planning policies, including Countywide Planning Policies and
MultiCounty Planning Policies. See proposed policies PO 6.7, PL
12.5 and PS 2.1.
b. The element includes a future land use map (or maps). Maps fulfill the
requirement to show the general distribution of land, where appropriate, for
agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open
spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land
uses. RCW 36.70A.070(1) and WAC 365-196-400(2)(d). The future land use map
shows city limits and urban growth area (UGA) boundaries. RCW 36.70A.110(6),
RCW 36.70A.130, WAC 365-196-310 and WAC 365-196-405(2)(i)(ii).
Land use map
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 2 JULY 2017
1. The 2015 Land Use Map is included in Chapter 2; and is
discussed in Chapters 4 (Planning Area Descriptions) and
Chapter 5 (Land Use).
2. The Land Use map is consistent with the population, employment
and buildable lands analysis.
c. The Land Use Element (Chapter 5) includes population densities, building
intensities, and estimates of future population growth. RCW 36.70A.070(1) WAC
365-196-405(2)(i) suggests including a table with the range of dwelling units per
acre allowed in each land use designation and implementing zone as a projection
of existing and projected development capacity.
1. All required elements are in the Plan: Chapters 5.
2. Future population, housing and job growth consistent with PSRC
allocations as part of Vision 2040.
3. Chapter 5 (Land Use) discusses land capacity and the effect of
reducing density in the Brekhus/Beach subarea. The City accepts
the Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report estimates. With
the infill and redevelopment assumptions, the 2035 population
estimate of 24,937 can be accommodated.
The plan should also indicate the population for which it is planning, which should
be consistent with the Washington Office of Financial Management’s forecast for
the county or the county’s sub-county allocation of that forecast, and should be
the same for all comprehensive plan elements, and is. If OFM population
projection is not used, the plan includes the rationale for using another figure.
RCW 43.62.035 and WAC 365-196-405(f)
1. All population and employment figures are consistent with Vision
2040, Transportation 2040, State and County forecasts. They are
also consistent with population and housing numbers in the
County’s 2013 Housing Characteristics and Needs Report,
Snohomish County.
Counties should indicate the percentage of county-wide population growth
allocated for urban growth areas. This allocation should be consistent with GMA
goals of encouraging urban growth in urban areas, reducing sprawl, and ensuring
public facilities and services are efficiently provided. WAC 365-196-405 (f)
Population projection uses latest forecast
1. County issue. The City Plan is consistent with adopted PSRC population
projections.
Urban densities and urban growth areas (UGAs) have been reviewed. RCW
36.70A.130(3)(a), (5), and (6) and WAC 365-196-310(2).
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 3 JULY 2017
By definition, urban growth areas all incorporated lands in cities and town, and
unincorporated urban growth areas designated by a county. A review should be
completed as part of the 8-year update under RCW 36.70A.130. Review WAC
365-196-310(2) for suggestions on evaluating and designating UGAs. Supporting
information should include: selected population growth forecast scenario RCW
43.62.035; population allocation and percentage of land devoted to urban, rural,
and resource uses (counties) RCW 36.70A.070(1); land capacity analysis for
UGAs, ability to provide urban services. RCW 36.70A.110, CWPPs and WAC 365-
196-310.
There should be a coordinated approach to planning for development in urban
growth areas, especially among adjacent jurisdictions. WAC 365-196-330 Urban
growth areas (incorporated or not) must plan for urban densities and urban
services. If a county designates a fully contained community (FCC), part of the
county’s population allocation should be reserved for the FCC. RCW
36.70A.350(2). If a potential UGA expansion area is within the 100-year flood
plain of major western Washington rivers, consider RCW 36.70A.110(8).
UGA review (required every 8 years)
1. The buildable lands analysis developed jointly by Arlington and
Snohomish County, shows measures needed to ensure appropriate
densities. Such measures are not needed immediately, but will be
considered as the need arises. RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365-196-
315 and the Buildable Lands Program Guidelines include a list of
measures.
Reasonable measures adopted if needed
Infill, rezones and other measures were considered and will meet
population, housing and employment needs through 2015. Additional
measures and mechanisms will be studied. The element considers planning
approaches that increase physical activity, such as neighborhood commercial
nodes to allow walking and cycling to local services, transit- or pedestrian-oriented
development, linear parks and trail networks, and siting schools and other public
facilities within neighborhoods to allow easy walking RCW 36.70A.070(1) and
WAC 365-196-405 (2)(j).
The City recently completed design guidelines for a proposed “Mixed Use
Overlay” district which will be used to guide in-fill, redevelopment and new
development in line with the buildable lands analysis and the City’s future vision.
Planning for physical activity
1. Plan emphasizes and encourages physical activity.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 4 JULY 2017
2. There are numerous mentions in neighborhood subareas of the
need for further bike and pedestrian trail connections between
residences, parks, community centers and retail areas.
3. The City’s trail system is integrated with sidewalks, other
pedestrian facilities, transit nodes to encourage physical activity
4. Goals and Policies (e.g. encourage physical activity in park
planning, street development, transportation improvements.
d. Lands useful for public purposes such as utility corridors, transportation corridors,
landfills, sewage treatment facilities, stormwater management facilities, recreation,
schools, and other public uses are identified. RCW 36.70A.150 requires that a
prioritized list of acquisitions be developed. [The list need not be part of the
comprehensive plan.] RCW 36.70A.150 and WAC 365-196-340
Public use lands
List of acquisitions
1. The riverfront Haller Park is designed around the City’s upgraded
sewage treatment plant.
2. The Plan emphasizes bike and pedestrian trail development. The
City will seek opportunities to combine trails with the capital
improvements outlined in Chapters 7, 8 and 9.
e. Open Space corridors within and between urban growth areas, including lands
useful for public purposes such as utility corridors, transportation corridors,
landfills, sewage treatment facilities, stormwater management facilities, recreation,
schools, and other public uses are identified. RCW 36.70A.150 RCW 36.70A.150
requires that a prioritized list of acquisitions be developed. [The list need not be
part of the comprehensive plan.] RCW 36.70A.150 and WAC 365-196-340
Open Space corridors
1. The Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AAMIC)
will be master planned to include an extensive pedestrian/bike
trail system integrated with the new roads that will be built.
f. If an airport is within or adjacent to the jurisdiction, the plan includes policies, land
use designations, and zoning to discourage the siting of incompatible uses
adjacent to general aviation airports. RCW 36.70.547 and WAC 365-196-455 See
www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/default for guidance. Any planning adjacent
to or within the “imaginary surface” areas of general aviation airports must consult
with the Aviation Division of WSDOT.
No incompatible uses near airports
WSDOT notified
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 5 JULY 2017
1. The Plan contains numerous citations regarding the Arlington
Airport and how it is to be protected from incompatible uses.
These conflicts were noted as a problem in the 2005 Plan; the
2015 Plan notes that these issues have all been addressed
through institution of the Airport Safety Overlay and Airport
Protection District, on the zoning and plan maps.
g. If a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) military base employing 100 or more
personnel is within or adjacent to the jurisdiction, the plan must include policies,
land use designations, and consistent zoning to discourage the siting of
incompatible uses adjacent to military base. RCW 36.70A.530(3) and WAC 365-
196-475 See Map of U.S. bases to help make determination of applicability. If
applicable, inform the commander of the base regarding amendments to the
comprehensive plan and development regulations on lands adjacent to the base.
No incompatible uses near US DOD bases
Base commander notified
1. Not applicable. The U.S. Navy Support Center is located
approximately three miles south of the southerly UGA boundary.
h. Where applicable, the Land Use Element includes a review of drainage, flooding,
and stormwater run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provides guidance
for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of
the state. RCW 36.70A.70(1); WAC 365-196-405(2)(c) . RCW 90.56.010(26)
defines waters of the state. Jurisdictions subject to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 1
and Phase 2, should comply with all permit requirements.
All local governments are also encouraged to:
Adopt the State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Manual for Eastern or
Western Washington or the equivalent.
Incorporate relevant land-use recommendations from adopted local
watershed plans. www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html.
Adopt a clearing and grading ordinance if not already existing (See
Technical Guidance Document for Clearing and Grading in Western
Washington).
1. The City uses the 2005 Western Washington Manual
2. The City has an adopted clearing and grading regulation related
to Appendix 33 of the adopted UBC. Provisions are contained in
the code to ensure protection of environmentally sensitive areas.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 6 JULY 2017
Stormwater planning
1. The City maintains a stormwater management program (SWMP) in
compliance with its NPDES II Stormwater Discharge Permit. The
program is established by code and affects all land use and
development decisions as appropriate.
i. Critical areas are designated RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-190-080 Best
available science (BAS) is used to protect the functions and values of critical
areas, and give “special consideration” to conservation or protection measures
necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. RCW 36.70A.172 and
WAC 365-195-900 through 925.
Plan policies should address the five critical areas listed in RCW 36.70A.030(5)
(a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable
water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas;
and (e) geologically hazardous areas. See Critical Areas Assistance Handbook
(2007) and Small Communities Critical Areas Ordinance Implementation
Guidebook (2007). Follow the process in WAC 365-195-915 to document
decisions.
Endangered Species: If there are anadromous fisheries, or if the jurisdiction
affected by an Endangered Species Act (ESA) 4(d) rule, the comprehensive plan
should contain policies guiding decisions which may impact listed species. Special
consideration may include:
Revisions to zoning to protect habitat
Revisions to the location of planned capital facilities
Revisions to stormwater regulations or clearing and grading ordinances
Establishment or maintenance of monitoring programs to ensure that habitat is
being maintained, See WAC 365-195-920.
BAS used to designate and protect critical areas
1. An Environmentally Critical Areas Regulation (AMC 20.88) is in effect
meeting the criteria outlined above.
j. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas:(Required if jurisdictions draw groundwater for
potable water or need to manage threats to exempt wells.): WAC 365-190-100
The plan protects the quality and quantity of ground water used for public
water supplies. RCW 36.70A.070(1) See Ecology’s guidance on Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs).
For water quality, policies and implementing regulations should regulate
hazardous uses in critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) and protect
wellhead areas. See Ecology’s Groundwater Quality Information.
For water quantity, policies and implementing regulations should limit
impervious surfaces, encourage water conservation measures, and consider
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 7 JULY 2017
Water Resource Inventory Assessment (WRIA) plans. See Ecology's
Stormwater Programs for more information.
CARAs protect water quality and quantity
1. The City’s Critical Area Ordinance contains significant provision for
aquifer protection.
2. The City has regulations for wellhead protection (AMC 13.04.260)
meeting the requirements of WAC 246-290-135. The Wellhead and
Watershed Protection Program are in the currently adopted in the city
Of Arlington Comprehensive Water System Plan.
3. Critical areas were documented as part of the Buildable Lands
calculations.
k. Natural Resource Lands (NRLs) designated and conserved: RCW 36.70A.170
RCW 36.70A.060. NRLs include forest, agricultural, and mineral resource lands.
See process to classify and designate at WAC 365-190-040.
If forest or agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance are designated
inside UGAs, they must be subject to transfer and/or purchase of development
rights (TDR, or PDR). RCW 36.70A.060(4)
TDR or PDR program for forest or agricultural lands inside UGAs
1. The City has withdrawn from the TDR program (AMC 20.38) because
of an unsuccessful attempt to implement a project at Brekhus/Beach.
It is hoped that future market demand will allow a new proposal to be
brought forward.
l. Designate and Conserve Forest Resource Land: RCW 36.70A.170 RCW
36.70A.060 Forest land is defined at RCW 36.70A.030(8). Review WAC 365-
190-060 for recommendations on forest lands.
Forest lands designated
1. Not Applicable. No forestry or agricultural lands.
m. Designate and conserve agricultural resource lands (ARLs): RCW 36.70A.170
and RCW 36.70A.060. ARLS are defined at RCW 36.70A.030(2). See WAC 365-
190-050 for recommendations to designate, and WAC 365-196-815 to protect
agricultural lands. Land use and policies should discourage incompatible uses
around natural resource areas.
RCW 36.70A.177(3) includes innovative techniques to conserve agricultural land
and permitted accessory uses.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 8 JULY 2017
Agricultural lands designated
Limit accessory uses on agricultural lands
1. Not Applicable. No forestry or agricultural lands.
n. Designate mineral resource lands:
RCW 36.70A.131 requires consideration of new information including data
available from the Department of Natural Resources relating to mineral resource
deposits when reviewing mineral resource land designations. Minerals defined in
RCW 36.70A.030(11) to include sand, gravel and valuable metallic substances.
See WAC 365-190-070 for guidance on designation.
Review mineral resource lands
1. Not Applicable. No mineral lands.
o. Development outside UGAs: If applicable, development planned outside UGAs
must be consistent with the following:
Major industrial development: RCW 36.70A.365 and WAC 365-196-435
Master planned development: RCW 36.70A.367 and WAC 365-196-470
Master planned resorts RCW 36.70A.360, RCW 36.70A.362, and WAC
365-196-460
If applicable, development outside UGA consistent with RCW
1. Not applicable
2. The Housing Element
1. Refer to housing sub-elements contained in Housing Chapter 6 and
Goals and Policy sections.
The Housing Element is intended to ensure the vitality and character of established
residential neighborhoods, encourage the availability of affordable housing to all
economic segments of the population, promote a variety of residential densities and
housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. It should be
consistent with relevant CWPPs, (RCW 36.70A.070 (2)), and should consider WAC
365-196-410.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 9 JULY 2017
a. Include an inventory of existing housing units and an analysis the number
(and type) of housing units necessary to provide for projected growth over
the planning period. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a) and WAC 365-196-410(2)(b) and
(c) and Commerce’s Assessing Your Housing Needs (1993, Updated by
March 2013)
Inventory of existing housing and projected housing needs using latest
population projection.
1. Chapter 6 includes inventory information, past trends, future
projections and reconciles the numbers with the population
forecasts for 2035. All projections are consistent with those
presented in the County’s 2013 Housing Report, which implements
Countywide Planning Policy HO-5. The projections divide future
housing needs among the three levels of affordability (50%, 80%
and 80+% MI).
b. Include goals, policies, and objectives for the preservation, improvement, and
development of housing. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(b) and WAC 365-196-
410(2)(a).
Goals, policies for housing
1. Chapter 3 contains Goal GH-8 and policies dealing with provision of
adequate and affordable housing.
2. Chapter 6 provides analysis in support of these policies.
c. Identify sufficient land for housing, including but not limited to, government-
assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing,
multifamily housing, group homes, and foster care facilities. RCW
36.70A.070(2)(c)
Identify sufficient land for housing
1. As shown on Table 5.4, the City will maintain a goal of providing a
housing mix of 82% (1,985) single-family and 18% (436) multi-family
dwellings to meet the overall objective of 2,421 new added housing
units by 2035. It will work to attract affordable housing as the market
seems to be demanding (See Chapter 6) including as a requirement for
bonus density in the HMU or other residential zones. Infill mechanisms
will also be explored and used to achieve the 762 additional units called
out in Table 5.5.
2. The City allows for manufactured homes on an equal footing with
other types of construction (AMC Table 20.40-1)
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 10 JULY 2017
d. Provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic
segments of the community. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)
Affordable housing is defined as when the total housing costs, including
basic utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the income limit (for renters,
50 percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family-
size, and for owners, 80 percent or less of the county median family
income, adjusted for family size for owners). WAC 365-196-410(e)(i)(C) (I-
V).
WAC 365-196-410(2)(e)(iii) recommends an evaluation of the extent to
which the existing and projected market can provide housing at various
costs and for various income levels, and an estimation of the present and
future populations that would require assistance to obtain housing they can
afford. This section should also identify existing programs and policies to
promote adequate affordable housing and evaluate their effectiveness.
If enacting or expanding affordable housing programs under RCW
36.70A.540, the plan should identify certain land use designations where
increased residential development will assist in achieving local growth
management and housing policies. Examples include: density bonuses
within urban growth areas, height and bulk bonuses, fee waivers or
exemptions, parking reductions, expedited permitting conditioned on
provision of low-income housing units, or mixed use projects.
Affordable housing planned
1. See Chapter 6 – Housing
2. The City will explore additional incentives to promote form-based and
mixed use developments in the West Arlington Subarea
3. The Capital Facilities Plan
The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element must be consistent with county-wide
planning policies and RCW 36.70A.070(3), should consider WAC 365-196-415, and
should serve as a check on the practicality of achieving other elements of the plan. This
element should cover all the capital facilities planned, provided, and paid for by public
entities including to local government and special districts, etc. This should include
water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and
recreational facilities, police and fire protection facilities. Capital expenditures from park
and recreation elements, if separate, should be included in the capital facilities plan
element. For additional information see Making Your Comprehensive Plan a Reality: A
Capital Facilities Preparation Guide Washington Department of Community Trade and
Economic Development (CTED), 1993.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 11 JULY 2017
a. Goals and policies relating to investment in capital facilities, levels of service and
regulatory strategies for concurrency to guide decisions. RCW 36.70A.120 and WAC
365-196-415
1. Chapter 9 contains the capital facilities plan for Arlington based on the
projections and policies contained in Chapters 3-8. Chapter 8 includes
the CIP for Transportation. Implementation of these CIPs will meet the
concurrency requirements of GMA.
2. Future projects will be required – through SEPA review and the City’s
Development Code – to show concurrency with the facilities in place at
the time of development.
b. Inventory showing the locations and capacities of existing capital facilities owned by
public entities RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) and WAC 365-196-415(2)(a) recommends the
inventory include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, solid waste management, school,
park, and recreation facilities, police and fire protection facilities. The element should
reference water or other system plans, indicate locations of facilities, and show where
systems currently have unused capacity. Public services and facilities are defined in
RCW 36.70A.030(12) and (13).
Inventory of existing facilities
1. Chapters 7-9 contain up-to-date inventories of all City facilities and an
analysis of future needs.
2. The Arlington and Lakewood School Districts have verified the Plan
narrative.
3. Other providers (Community Transit, energy providers, solid water
collection services, etc.) have adequate capacity to serve the City.
c. Adopted levels of service (LOS) for public services.
Adopted LOS.
1. Level of Service is discussed under each section of Chapters 7-8.
d. Forecast of future needs to maintain adopted levels of service over the planning period.
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b) requires a forecast of future needs, and WAC 365-196-415 (b)
recommends the forecast be based on projected population densities, and distribution
of growth over the planning period. This section should consider whether the
jurisdiction has sufficient water rights, sewage treatment, or other needed public
facilities to support the plan’s projected 20-year growth. This may also consider system
management or demand management strategies to meet forecast need.
Forecast of future needs
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 12 JULY 2017
1. The City has updated its Water, Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater
plans concurrent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan update.
2. No concurrency issues were detected during Plan development. Utilities
will serve growth targets.
e. Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. RCW
36.70A.070(3)(c) requires proposed locations and capacities, and WAC 365-196-415
(3)(C) suggests that the phasing schedule in the Land Use Element should dictate
when and where capital facilities will be needed over the 20-year life of the plan.
Consider if the concurrency ordinance or other mechanisms have been effective in
providing public facilities and services concurrent with development
Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new facilities.
1. Capital facilities are concurrent with present demand.
2. The City has updated its Water, Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater
plans concurrent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan update.
3. Other future improvements are targeted toward maintaining quality and
meeting level of service standards.
f. Six-year plan (at least) to finance planned capital facilities within projected funding
capacities, and identifies sources of public money for such purposes. RCW
36.70A.070(3)(d), RCW 36.70A.120 and WAC 365-196-415(c)(i)
This CFP should include all public expenditures for capital expenses including water,
sewer, transportation, etc. WAC 365-196-415(2)(c)(ii) suggests that the plan be
updated at least biennially so that financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of the
present for concurrency to be evaluated.
If impact fees are collected, the public facilities for which money is to be spent on must
be included in this element. RCW 82.02.050(4) and WAC 365-196-850
Six-year funding plan consistent with comp plan
Impact fees used only for projects included in the CFP
1. The City has updated its Water, Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater
plans concurrent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan update.
2. Six Year Plans will be finalized after Planning Commission and Council
Review.
3. Impact fees are collected under existing City code (AMC 20.90) for parks
and transportation. The City collects school impact fees, when
assessed, on behalf of the Arlington and Lakewood Districts, when
requested.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 13 JULY 2017
Policy to reassess the Land Use Element if probable funding falls short of meeting
existing needs and to ensure that the Land Use Element, Capital Facilities Element,
and financing plan within the Capital Facilities Element are coordinated and consistent.
[RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e) and WAC 365-196-415(2)(d)(iii)(F) recommends that the plan
set forth how pending applications for development will be affected while such a
reassessment is being undertaken.
Land Use reassessment policy included
1. See Page 1-5.
2. The Plan as prepared is “concurrent”. No reassessment is necessary.
3. The Implementation section (Chapter 1) and Appendix “I” discusses the
City’s reassessment approach, if and when an element is found to be
non-concurrent.
4. Utilities Element
The Utilities Element should relate to all services provided, planned for, paid for, and
delivered by providers other than the jurisdiction. This should be consistent with
relevant CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.070(4), and should consider WAC 365-195-420.
a. The general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed
utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and
natural gas lines. RCW 36.70A.070(4). WAC 365-195-420 recommends goals and
policies relating coordination in construction, permits, utility corridor use and
management. Counties and cities should evaluate whether any utilities should be
identified as essential public facilities in case of siting difficulties.
General location and capacity of existing and proposed facilities
1. Chapter 2 contains maps and descriptions of current utilities.
2. Non-City utility providers are being consulted; those responding thus
far confirm that they can serve the projected growth in housing,
population and employment.
5. Rural Element
1. Not applicable.
The Rural Element (counties only) should be consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5), RCW
36.70A.030(15) through (17), and consider RCW 36.70A.011 and WAC 365-196-425.
Rural lands are lands not designated for urban growth, or designated as agricultural,
forest, or mineral resource lands. For additional information, see Keeping the Rural
Vision: Protecting Rural Character & Planning for Rural Development, 1999.
a. A definition of rural character and rural development consistent with RCW 36.70A.030,
(15), (16), and (17). WAC 365-196-425(2) provides suggestions.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 14 JULY 2017
Definition of rural character
b. Allows forestry, agriculture, and a variety of rural densities and uses. RCW
36.70A.070(5). See WAC 365-196-425(3) for examples of rural densities. The plan may
include optional techniques such as limited areas of more intensive rural development
(LAMIRDs), clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, and conservation
easements to accommodate rural uses not characterized by urban growth as specified
in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). See WAC 365-196-425(5) for innovative zoning techniques.
Variety of densities
c. A written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals and
meets the requirements of the Growth Management Act. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a). WAC
365-196-425(1) A county may consider local circumstances in establishing patterns of
rural densities and uses, but must develop a written record of the rural element
harmonizes the planning goals and meets the requirements of the act.
A written record relating to rural character
d. A definition of rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and
uses, and a policy that limits urban services in rural areas RCW 36.70A.110(4). RCW
36.70A.030((17) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070 and WAC
365-196-425(4) recommends some definitions of rural services and provides
suggestions for appropriate level of service standards.
Definition of rural services
e. Measures protecting rural character. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c) Measures include
containing/controlling development, assuring visual compatibility, reducing
inappropriate conversion to low-density sprawl, protecting critical areas, and protecting
against conflicts with natural resource lands.
Measures to protect rural character
f. If designated, limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRDs) are
consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). See WAC 365-196-425(6) for guidance relating
to LAMIRDs.
Commerce suggests that jurisdictions consider Growth Management Hearings Board
cases and Commerce’s Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character &
Planning for Rural Development, 1999 for guidance on appropriate rural densities and
levels of governmental services in LAMIRDs.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 15 JULY 2017
LAMIRDs designated and regulated consistent with GMA
6. Transportation Element
1. Transportation section (Chapter 8) is updated consistent with an update
of the City’s Transportation Plan (2015). It has been adopted by
reference in the Comprehensive Plan and its findings incorporated into
the Plan.
2. The City has advised Snohomish County that its Draft EIS for the
County’s Plan update provides a consistent analysis of the City’s
transportation needs.
The Transportation Element should be consistent with relevant CWPPs and RCW
36.70A.070(6), RCW 36.70A.108, and should consider WAC 365-196-430 and Your
Community’s Transportation System: A Guide to Updating and Implementing your
Transportation Element (2012)
1. Snohomish County and Multi-County Planning Policies are adopted as
part of the updated Plan (Appendix C).
2. WAC 365-196-430
a. Land use, population and employment forecasts for 2035 were used
as inputs to the updated Transportation Plan.
b. Arlington is an active participant in countywide transportation
planning efforts, including membership on the Snohomish County
Committee for Improved Transportation (SCCIT), the Economic
Alliance of Snohomish County and the Growth Management
Steering Committee (SCT). Through collaboration among these
groups, the major multi-modal transportation priorities have been
identified, including those serving Arlington.
c. Projected growth will cause no direct change in impacts to State
owned facilities, although the longer term goal is to extend SR-531
to SR-9. This improvement is not concurrency related.
d. The City's transportation policies and most of its subarea
(neighborhood) plans emphasize multi-modal approaches including
pedestrian paths, bicycle lanes.
a. The element includes goals and policies for roadways; fixed route and demand
response public transit; bicycle and pedestrian travel; water, rail, air, and industrial port
and intermodal facilities; passenger and freight rail; and truck, rail, and barge freight
mobility. WAC 365-196-430(2)(b)].
The element should include policies and provisions consistent with regional efforts to
reduce criteria pollutants from mobile sources. WAC 173-420-080 If the planning area
is within a National Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainment area, WAC 365-196-
430(2)(d) recommends including a map of the nonattainment area, severity of the
violation, and measures to be implemented consistent with the state implementation
plan for air quality.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 16 JULY 2017
1. Arlington lies outside the nonattainment areas for CO and particulates.
Along with most other cities in Snohomish County, Arlington falls within
the maintenance area for Ozone.
2. The City has adopted a transportation demand management and CRT
program (AMC Chapter 10.80)
3. Policies will be added in support of regional efforts to reduce the effects
of all three categories.
b. An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including
transit alignments, state-owned transportation facilities, and general aviation airports to
define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning. RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A). WAC 365-196-430(2)(c) provides recommendations for
meeting inventory requirements.
Transportation inventory
1. See Chapter 8.
c. The element includes regionally coordinated level of service (LOS) standards for all
arterials and transit routes, LOS for highways of statewide significance, and LOS for
other state highways consistent with the regional transportation plan. RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B)
1. See Chapter 8.
WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(v) recommends LOS be set to reflect access, mobility, mode-
split and capacity goals. WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(vi) recommends that measurement
methodology and standards vary based on the urban or rural character of the
surrounding area. Also, balance community character, funding capacity, and traveler
expectations. In urban areas, WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(vii) recommends methodologies
for analyzing the transportation system from a comprehensive, multimodal perspective.
Levels of service for all facilities; local, regional, and state
1. See Chapter 8.
2. The “2035 Transportation Plan” will be adopted by reference and has
been integrated into the GMA Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City of Arlington has adopted the following levels of service:
City arterials = LOS D
All other City streets = LOS C
Highways of Statewide Significance = LOS D
Regionally Significant State Highways = LOS D
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 17 JULY 2017
The element identifies specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance
locally owned transportation facilities and services that are below an established LOS
standard. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(D) and WAC 365-196-430(2)(g).
Concurrency policies must be consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b), and consider
multimodal improvements RCW 36.70A.108. Strategies such as increased public
transit, ride sharing programs, and other multimodal strategies may be used to ensure
that development does not cause service to decline on a locally owned facility below
adopted levels of service.
Concurrency
d. The element describes existing and planned transportation demand management
(TDM) strategies, such as HOV lanes, parking policies, high occupancy vehicle
subsidy programs, etc. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vi). WAC 365-196-430(2)(i) provides
suggested TDM strategies.
If required, a commute trip reduction plan to achieve reductions in the proportion of
single-occupant vehicle commute trips has been adopted consistent with the
comprehensive plan and submitted to the regional transportation planning
organization. RCW 70.94.527.
TDM Strategies
1. The City's Transportation policies emphasize multi-modal approaches
including pedestrian paths, bicycle lanes and encouraging TDM
measures.
2. The City maintains a CTR and TDM program
3. Community Transit has opened a Park and Ride facility in the City to
add to its other services to the Arlington/Marysville area.
f. The element includes a pedestrian and bicycle component. RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(vii). WAC 365-196-430(2)(j) recommends jurisdictions inventory
existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and identify and plan improvements for
facilities. Improvements could focus on safe routes to school, hazard areas, or
pedestrian-generating areas, and should be funded in capital facility or transportation
improvement plans. See Bicycle and pedestrian planning information and resources at
www.wsdot.wa.gov/Walk/default.htm and www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/default.htm.
Bicycle and pedestrian planning
1. See previous discussion. City policies and inventories show a strong
commitment to pedestrian and bicycle users. (e.g. See Figure 2-7)
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 18 JULY 2017
g. The element includes a forecast of traffic for at least 10 years, based on the Land Use
Element, to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future
growth. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(E). WAC 365-196-430(2)(f) suggests including
bicycle, pedestrian or planned transit service in a multimodal forecast. Forecasts
should be consistent with regionally adopted strategies and plans.
The forecast should be based on assumptions in the land use element. RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(i). WAC 365-196-430(2)(a)(i) recommends counties and cities use
consistent land use assumptions, population forecasts, and planning periods for both
the land use and transportation elements.
10-year Traffic forecast
1. See previous discussion of the City’s 2035 Transportation Plan.
Land use element assumptions used to forecast travel
1. See previous discussion of the City’s 2035 Transportation Plan.
h. The element identifies state and local system expansion needs to meet current and
future demands. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(F). WAC 365-196-430(2)(f) recommends
including bicycle, pedestrian or planned transit service in needs.
WSDOT’s Ten-Year Capital Improvement and Preservation Program for state-owned
facilities (Required by RCW 47.05.030) is detailed in the Transportation Executive
Information System http://www.transinfo.state.wa.us/ Click on the current projects list,
select the most recent legislative final project list and you can select projects by
county.
Future needs
1. See prior discussion regarding Arlington’s involvement in regional
transportation planning efforts and its adoption of County, multi-county,
Vision 2040 policies.
i. A multiyear financing plan is included in the element based on the needs identified in
the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which serve as the basis for the six-
year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW
36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems. RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(B). WAC 365-196-430(2)(k)(ii) recommends that the horizon year
be the same as the time period for the travel forecast and identified needs.
The analysis should assess the identified needs against probable funding resources.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(A). WAC 365.196-430(2)(k)(iv) recommends counties and
cities consider the cost of maintaining facilities when considering new facilities.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 19 JULY 2017
1. See Chapter 8 and 9
2. See Transportation Plan.
3. The City has adopted policies emphasizing maintenance as a strategy
for cost efficiency in providing the maximum level of quality to its
transportation system. Examples:
a. MPP-T-2 Protect the investment in the existing system and lower
overall life-cycle costs through effective maintenance and
preservation programs.
b. PT-7.3 Prioritize the maintenance of roads according to
condition, putting the roads in poor condition ahead of others.
c. PT-12.6 Direct resources to ensure that existing transportation
system is maintained adequately.
If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, there is a discussion of how
additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to
ensure that LOS standards will be met. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(C). WAC 365-196-
430(2)(l)(ii) states that this review must take place, at a minimum, as part of the eight-
year periodic review and update and update of UGAs [eight years per 2011
amendments to RCW 36.70A.130]. Several choices for addressing funding shortfalls
are provided.
Funding program
Funding analysis
Funding shortfall strategy
1. See Chapters 8 and 9.
j. The element discusses intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an
assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the
transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(v). WAC 365-
196-430(2)(a)(iv) recommends developing transportation elements using the county-
wide planning policies to ensure they are coordinated and consistent with the
comprehensive plans of other counties and cities sharing common borders.
Intergovernmental coordination
1. The Plan update is consistent with Countywide and Multi-County
Planning Policies.
2. The Transportation Element is consistent with the Land Use Element
which forms the basis for future traffic estimates.
3. Arlington is an active participant in countywide transportation planning
efforts, including membership on the Snohomish County Committee for
Improved Transportation (SCCIT), the Economic Alliance of Snohomish
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 20 JULY 2017
County and the Growth Management Steering Committee (SCT).
Through collaboration among these groups, the major multi-modal
transportation priorities have been identified, including those serving
Arlington.
k. The element discusses how the transportation plan implements and is consistent with
the land use element, and how it is consistent with the regional transportation plan.
RCW 36.70A.070(6) and WAC 365-196-430 WAC 365-196-430(2)(a)(i) recommends
that consistent land use assumptions, population forecasts, and planning periods
should be used for both the land use and transportation elements.
1. The 2005 Plan was used as a principal input to the new Transportation
Plan
2. The Public Works Director has been an active participant in the Staff
team updating the Comprehensive Plan; while being the key coordinator
with the consultant team updating the Transportation Plan.
The transportation element must be certified by the regional transportation planning
organization. RCW 47.80.23(3) and RCW 47.80.026.
Plan certified by RTPO
1. The Plan will be submitted for certification to the Puget Sound Regional
Council.
2. From the Transportation Plan:
“The City of Arlington is a member of the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) for King, Kitsap, Pierce and
Snohomish Counties. PSRC is required to certify the transportation-related
provisions in local comprehensive plans. By doing so, PSRC assures
consistency with the multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040, the
adopted regional transportation plan (Transportation 2040), and the
requirements listed above for conformity with GMA.”
“The City of Arlington’s 2035 Transportation Plan supports the goals and
strategies presented in PSRC’s VISION 2040 and Destination 2030
Update. Regional Growth Strategies, Multicounty Planning Policies and
specific projects identified in the Destination 2030 Update have been
incorporated in this document, and include:
Sustainable transportation, including transit and non-motorized
improvements
Higher density land use near transportation centers
Improvements to support freight mobility
Multiple east-west and north-south corridors to address disaster
response
Access management
Context sensitive road standards
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 21 JULY 2017
Implementation of improvements of regional significance (trails, transit
centers, park and rides)
Complete streets providing for multi-modal transportation
Connectivity with adjacent jurisdictions
Transportation funding strategies”
7. Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element Is not currently required because funding
was not provided to assist in developing local elements when this element was
added to the GMA. However, provisions for economic growth, vitality, and a high
quality of life are important, and supporting strategies should be integrated with the
land use, housing, utilities, and transportation elements. RCW 36.70A.070(7). An
Economic Development Element should include:
a. A summary of the local economy such as population, employment, payroll, sectors,
businesses, and sales. RCW 36.70A.070(7)(a). WAC 365-196-435(2)(a) recommends
using population information consistent with the land use and housing elements.
Employment, payroll, and other economic information is available from state and
federal agencies. Consider gathering data and information for your community data
profile pertaining to business, transportation, labor, real estate, utilities, incentives,
regulatory, government, and quality of life.
b. A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy defined as the
commercial and industrial sectors and supporting factors such as land use,
transportation, utilities, education, work force, housing, and natural/cultural resources.
RCW 36.70A.070(7)(b). WAC 365-196-435(2)(b) recommends consulting with local
development organizations, economic development councils, or economic
development districts. Methods for identifying strengths and weaknesses include shift-
share analysis, identify of industry clusters, public input, and asset mapping.
c. Identification of policies, programs, and projects to foster economic growth and
development and to address future needs. RCW 36.70A.070(7)(c). WAC 365-196-
435(2)(c) recommends identify policies, programs and projects that address identified
weaknesses or capitalize on strengths identified by the community. Consider using
performance targets to measure success.
1. The City has integrated it economic goals and policies with the Land
Use, Employment, Capital Improvement and Planning Subarea analyses.
These other elements form the basis of an economic strategy.
2. A major emphasis in the 2015 Plan update is the “North Stillaguamish
Valley Economic Redevelopment Strategy”, which is in response to the
Oso tragedy. The study area extends from Darrington to Arlington. The
strategy will have a major impact on the area’s economic programs and
policies. The AAMIC1 area and master plan will figure prominently.
1 Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 22 JULY 2017
3. A second major emphasis in the 2015 Plan update is the AAMIC itself.
Designation as such by the Puget Sound Regional Council is a major
goal of the two cities and the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County.
A final decision is likely in 2017. Significant work and analysis will be
undertaken on this matter during that period. The Comprehensive Plan
has helped set the stage for these next steps.
8. Parks and Recreation Element
1. Chapter 7
2. Existing parks are to be maintained in current and quality condition.
3. The City will cooperate with Snohomish County on maintenance and
improvements to the Interurban Trail system.
A Parks and Recreation Element is not required because the state did not provide
funding to assist in developing local elements when this provision was added to the
GMA. However, park, recreation, and open space planning are GMA goals, and it is
important to plan for and fund these facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(8). Commerce’s
Guidebook Planning for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in your Community, can
provide step-by-step assistance. Also see www.rco.wa.go/doc_pages/index.shtml for
additional assistance. A Parks and Recreation Element should include:
a. Goals and policies to guide decisions regarding facilities. WAC 365-196-440(2)(b)
recommends a visioning process to engage the public in identifying needs,
evaluating existing recreational opportunities, and developing goals for the parks
and recreation element.
b. Estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year period based on
adopted levels of service and population growth. RCW 36.70A.070(8)(a). WAC
365-196-440(2)(c) recommends establishing levels of service standards that reflect
community goals. LOS should focus on those aspects that relate most directly to
growth and development.
c. An evaluation of facilities and service needs over the planning period. RCW
36.70A.070(8)(b). WAC 365-196-440(2)(d) lists factors to consider when estimating
demand for parks, open space and recreational services.
d. An evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to provide regional
approaches for meeting park and recreational demand. RCW 36.70A.070(8)(c).
WAC 365-196-440(2)(f) recommends identifying other local, statewide and regional
recreation plans for future facilities and opportunities for public and private
partnerships to meet regional demand.
e. The element is consistent with and is a part of the Capital Facilities Element as it
relates to park and recreation facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e). WAC 365-196-
440(2)(e) recommends identification of future facilities and services consistent with
the land use and capital facilities elements. WAC 365-196-440(2)(g)(iii)
recommends identifying strategies for financing in the parts and recreation
element, a separate parks plan, or the capital facilities element.
9. Shoreline Element
The Shoreline Element of the comprehensive plan is the goals and policies of the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP). RCW 36.70A.480 The SMP goals and policies may
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 23 JULY 2017
also be included in an Environmental Element. The SMP goals and policies should be
consistent with the rest of the comprehensive plan.
SMP goals and policies are included in the comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.480.
When a jurisdiction updates its SMP consistent with Ecology’s new guidelines
(Chapter 173-26 WAC), and according to a schedule in RCW 90.58.080, protection for
critical areas within shorelines is transferred from the critical areas ordinance to the
SMP. Protection must be at least equal to that from the CAO under the GMA.
SMP goals and policies.
1. The City updated its Shoreline Master Plan in 2012 (Ordinance 2012-015)
and requires no further adjustments as part of this GMA update.
10. Essential Public Facilities (EPFs)
Provisions for Siting Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) should be consistent with
CWPPs, RCW 36.70A.200, and should consider WAC 365-196-340 and 550. This
section can be included in the Capital Facilities Element, Land Use Element, or in its
own element. Sometimes the identification and siting process for EPFs is part of the
CWPPs.
a. The plan includes a process or criteria for identifying and siting essential public facilities
(EPFs). EPFs include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports,
state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW
47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and
local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities
including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure
community transition facilities(SCTF) (defined in RCW 71.09.020(14)). [RCW
36.70A.200(1)] WAC 365-196-550 provides a list of essential public facilities and
suggests a potential siting process.
EPF identification and siting process
b. Policies that address the statutory requirement that no comprehensive plan may
preclude the siting of essential public facilities. RCW 36.70A.200(5). WAC 365-196-
550(3) list types of comprehensive plan provisions or development regulations that
could make the siting of an essential public facility impossible or impractical.
No preclusion policy
c. Jurisdiction considered the Office of Financial Management’s list of essential state
public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. RCW
36.70A.200(4). (Instructions to find the list are available from GMS)
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 24 JULY 2017
List considered
1. See Appendix B
2. See Goals GS-2 and associated policies
3. Essential Public Facilities are acknowledged in the City Code.
11. Optional plan elements and sub-area plans
Additional elements are included in the plan, such as energy conservation, historic
preservation, natural hazards, or community design. [RCW 36.70A.080 and WAC 365-
196-445] These elements should be consistent with all other elements of the plan.
Resources: Historic Preservation: A Tool for Managing Growth, Commerce, 1994,
revised in 2005, Optional Comprehensive Plan Element for Natural Hazard Reduction,
Commerce, 1999.
If any sub-area plans included in the plan, they must be consistent with the other plan
elements. RCW 36.70A.080(2).
1. Not applicable
12. Consistency
Consistency is required by the GMA
a. All plan elements are consistent with relevant county-wide planning policies (CWPPs)
and the GMA. RCW 36.70A.100 and 210 and WAC 365-196-400(2)(c) and 520. WAC
365-197-400(2)(c) suggests CWPPs be referenced in each element, or be appended to
the plan to clearly show consistency. Some jurisdictions use a table to show
consistency.
CWPPs
The plan describes how all elements fit together, such as consistency of plan elements
and future land use map, and consistency of land use and capital facilities elements.
RCW 36.70A.070 (preamble). WAC 365-197-400(2)(f) recommends inclusion at the
beginning of the comprehensive plan a section which summarizes how the various
pieces of the plan fit together.
Internal consistency
Plan is coordinated with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.100.
WAC 365-196-520 suggests counties and cities circulate their proposed plans and
SEPA documents with other counties and cities with which they share a common border
or has related regional issues. Counties and cities are encouraged to resolve conflicts
through consultation and negotiation.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D
D - 25 JULY 2017
External consistency
1. See Appendix C.
2. Plan will be shared with Marysville and reviewed for consistency by the
County.
13. Public participation, plan amendments and monitoring
Plan ensures public participation in the comprehensive planning process. RCW
36.70A.020(11), .035, and 140. WAC 365-196-600(3) provides a list of possible public
participation choices.
Public participation
If the process for making amendments is included in the comprehensive plan:
The plan provides that amendments are to be considered no more often than
once a year, not including the exceptions described in RCW 36.70A.130(2).
WAC 365-196-640
The plan sets out a procedure for adopting emergency amendments and
defines emergency. RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) and RCW 36.70A.390, WAC 365-
196-650(4)
Broadly publicized plan amendment process.
Plan amendments no more than once a year.
a. Plan or program for monitoring how well comprehensive plan policies, development
regulations, and other implementation techniques are achieving the comprehensive
plan’s goals and the goals of the GMA. WAC 365-196-660 discusses a potential
review of growth management implementation on a systematic basis.
1. No major changes in City permit review procedures are anticipated.
2. The Plan will be reviewed each year for any specific language changes are
prompted by circumstances.
3. Citizens will have the opportunity to suggest changes each year as part of
the annual amendment (docket) process.
Appendix C: Plan Consistency with
MultiCounty Planning
Policies
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 1 JULY 2017
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY
ADOPTED JUNE 1, 2011
FROM THE CWPP
The Countywide Planning Policies are adopted by reference in this Comprehensive Plan. The
following list of policies was reviewed for consistency with the contents of the Plan.
GF-1 thru GF-7
JP-1 thru JP-7
DP-1 thru DP-39
HO-1 thru HO-14
ED-1 thru ED-15
TR-1 thru TR-24
ENV-1 thru ENV10
PS-1 thru PS-16
EPF-1 thru EPF-5
Consistency was found among these policies. Policies DP-20 thru DP-29 pertain either to South
Snohomish County (MUGA) or rural areas. These do not have direct application to Arlington.
Arlington
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 1 JULY 2017
Vision 2040 Multi-County Planning Policies
MPP-G-1 Coordinate planning efforts among jurisdictions, agencies, and federally
recognized Indian tribes where there are common borders or related regional
issues, to facilitate a common vision.
MPP-G-2 Update countywide planning policies, where necessary, prior to December 31,
2010, to address the multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040.
MPP-G-3 Monitor implementation of VISION 2040 to evaluate progress in achieving the
regional growth strategy, as well as the environment, development patterns,
housing, economy, transportation, and public services provisions.
FISCAL
MPP-G-4 Explore new and existing sources of funding for services and infrastructure,
recognizing that such funding is vital if local governments are to achieve the
regional vision.
MPP-G-5 Identify and develop changes to regulatory, pricing, taxing, and expenditure
practices, and other fiscal tools within the region to implement the vision.
ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Stewardship
Goal: The region will safeguard the natural environment by meeting the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
MPP-En-1 Develop regionwide environmental strategies, coordinating among local
jurisdictions and countywide planning groups.
MPP-En-2 Use integrated and interdisciplinary approaches for environmental planning and
assessment at regional, countywide and local levels.
MPP-En-3 Maintain and, where possible, improve air and water quality, soils, and natural
systems to ensure the health and well-being of people, animals, and plants.
Reduce the impacts of transportation on air and water quality, and climate
change.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 2 JULY 2017
MPP-En-4 Ensure that all residents of the region, regardless of social or economic status,
live in a healthy environment, with minimal exposure to pollution.
MPP-En-5 Locate development in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features.
Promote the use of innovative environmentally sensitive development practices,
including design, materials, construction, and on-going maintenance.
MPP-En-6 Use the best information available at all levels of planning, especially scientific
information, when establishing and implementing environmental standards
established by any level of government.
MPP-En-7 Mitigate noise caused by traffic, industries, and other sources.
EARTH AND HABITAT
Goal: The region will preserve the beauty and natural ecological processes of the
Puget Sound basin through the conservation and enhancement of natural
resources and the environment.
MPP-En-8 Identify, preserve, and enhance significant regional open space networks and
linkages across jurisdictional boundaries.
MPP-En-9 Designate, protect, and enhance significant open spaces, natural resources, and
critical areas through mechanisms, such as the review and comment of
countywide planning policies and local plans and provisions.
MPP-En-10 Preserve and enhance habitat to prevent species from inclusion on the
Endangered Species List and to accelerate their removal from the list.
MPP-En-11 Identify and protect wildlife corridors both inside and outside the urban growth
area.
MPP-En-12 Preserve and restore native vegetation to protect habitat, especially where it
contributes to the overall ecological function and where invasive species are a
significant threat to native ecosystems.
Water Quality
Goal: The region will meet or do better than standards established for water
quality. The quality of the water flowing out of the region – including Puget
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 3 JULY 2017
Sound – should be as good as or better than the quality of water entering
the region.
MPP-En-13 Maintain natural hydrological functions within the region's ecosystems and
watersheds and, where feasible, restore them to a more natural state.
MPP-En-14 Restore – where appropriate and possible – the region’s freshwater and marine
shorelines, watersheds, and estuaries to a natural condition for ecological
function and value.
MPP-En-15 Reduce the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers to the extent feasible and
identify alternatives that minimize risks to human health and the environment.
MPP-En-16 Identify and address the impacts of climate change on the region’s hydrological
systems.
Air Quality
Goal: The overall quality of the region's air will be better than it is today.
MPP-En-17 Maintain or do better than existing standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and
particulates.
MPP-En-18 Reduce levels for air toxics, fine particulates, and greenhouse gases.
MPP-En-19 Continue efforts to reduce pollutants from transportation activities, including
through the use of cleaner fuels and vehicles and increasing alternatives to
driving alone, as well as design and land use.
Climate Change
Goal: The region will reduce its overall production of harmful elements that
contribute to climate change.
MPP-En-20 Address the central Puget Sound region's contribution to climate change by, at a
minimum, committing to comply with state initiatives and directives regarding
climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases. Jurisdictions and
agencies should work to include an analysis of climate change impacts when
conducting an environmental review process under the State Environmental
Policy Act.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 4 JULY 2017
MPP-En-21 Reduce the rate of energy use per capita, both in building use and in
transportation activities.
MPP-En-22 Pursue the development of energy management technology as part of meeting
the region’s energy needs.
MPP-En-23 Reduce greenhouse gases by expanding the use of conservation and alternative
energy sources and by reducing vehicle miles traveled by increasing alternatives
to driving alone.
MPP-En-24 Take positive actions to reduce carbons, such as increasing the number of trees
in urban portions of the region.
MPP-En-25 Anticipate and address the impacts of climate change on regional water sources.
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
Urban Lands
Goal: The region will promote the efficient use of land, prevent urbanization of
rural and resource lands, and provide for the efficient delivery of services
within the designated urban growth area.
MPP-DP-1 Provide a regional framework for the designation and adjustment of the urban
growth area to ensure long-term stability and sustainability of the urban growth
area consistent with the regional vision.
MPP-DP-2 Encourage efficient use of urban land by maximizing the development potential
of existing urban lands, such as advancing development that achieves zoned
density.
Goal: The region, countywide planning bodies, and local jurisdictions will work
together to set population and employment growth targets consistent with
the regional vision.
MPP-DP-3 Use consistent countywide targeting processes for allocating population and
employment growth consistent with the regional vision, including establishing: (a)
local employment targets, (b) local housing targets based on population
projections, and (c) local housing and employment targets for each designated
regional growth center.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 5 JULY 2017
MPP-DP-4 Accommodate the region's growth first and foremost in the urban growth area.
Ensure that development in rural areas is consistent with the regional vision.
Centers
Goal: The region will direct growth and development to a limited number of
designated regional growth centers.
MPP-DP-5 Focus a significant share of population and employment growth in designated
regional growth centers.
MPP-DP-6 Provide a regional framework for designating and evaluating regional growth
centers.
MPP-DP-7 Give funding priority – both for transportation infrastructure and for economic
development – to support designated regional growth centers consistent with the
regional vision. Regional funds are prioritized to regional growth centers. County-
level and local funding are also appropriate to prioritize to regional growth
centers.
Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers
Goal: The region will continue to maintain and support viable regional
manufacturing/industrial centers to accommodate manufacturing,
industrial, or advanced technology uses.
MPP-DP-8 Focus a significant share of employment growth in designated regional
manufacturing/industrial centers.
MPP-DP-9 Provide a regional framework for designating and evaluating regional
manufacturing/industrial centers.
MPP-DP-10 Give funding priority – both for transportation infrastructure and for economic
development – to support designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers
consistent with the regional vision. Regional funds are prioritized to regional
manufacturing/industrial centers. County-level and local funding are also
appropriate to prioritize to these regional centers.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 6 JULY 2017
Other Centers, Including Countywide and Local Centers
Goal: Subregional centers, such as those designated through countywide
processes or identified locally, will also play important roles in
accommodating planned growth according to the regional vision. These
centers will promote pedestrian connections and support transit-oriented
uses.
MPP-DP-11 Support the development of centers within all jurisdictions, including town centers
and activity nodes.
MPP-DP-12 Establish a common framework among the countywide processes for designating
subregional centers to ensure compatibility within the region.
MPP-DP-13 Direct subregional funding, especially county-level and local funds, to centers
designated through countywide processes, as well as to town centers, and other
activity nodes.
Compact Urban Communities
MPP-DP-14 Preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods and create vibrant, sustainable
compact urban communities that provide diverse choices in housing types, a high
degree of connectivity in the street network to accommodate walking, bicycling
and transit use, and sufficient public spaces.
MPP-DP-15 Support the transformation of key underutilized lands, such as brownfields and
greyfields, to higher density, mixed-use areas to complement the development of
centers and the enhancement of existing neighborhoods.
Cities in Rural Areas
MPP-DP-16 Direct commercial, retail, and community services that serve rural residents into
neighboring cities and existing activity areas to prevent the conversion of rural
land into commercial uses.
MPP-DP-17 Promote transit service to and from existing cities in rural areas.
Unincorporated Urban Growth Area
Goal: All unincorporated lands within the urban growth area will either annex into
existing cities or incorporate as new cities.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 7 JULY 2017
MPP-DP-18 Affiliate all urban unincorporated lands appropriate for annexation with an
adjacent city or identify those that may be feasible for incorporation. To fulfill the
regional growth strategy, annexation is preferred over incorporation.
MPP-DP-19 Support joint planning between cities and counties to work cooperatively in
planning for urban unincorporated areas to ensure an orderly transition to city
governance, including efforts such as:
(a) establishing urban development standards,
(b) addressing service and infrastructure financing, and
(c) transferring permitting authority.
MPP-DP-20 Support the provision and coordination of urban services to unincorporated urban
areas by the adjacent city or, where appropriate, by the county as an interim
approach.
Rural Lands
Goal: The region will permanently sustain the ecological functions, resource
value, lifestyle, and character of rural lands for future generations by
limiting the types and intensities of development in rural areas.
MPP-DP-21 Contribute to improved ecological functions and more appropriate use of rural
lands by minimizing impacts through innovative and environmentally sensitive
land use management and development practices.
MPP-DP-22 Do not allow urban net densities in rural and resource areas.
MPP-DP-23 Avoid new fully contained communities outside of the designated urban growth
area because of their potential to create sprawl and undermine state and regional
growth management goals.
MPP-DP-24 In the event that a proposal is made for creating a new fully contained
community, the county shall make the proposal available to other counties and to
the Regional Council for advance review and comment on regional impacts.
MPP-DP-25 Use existing and new tools and strategies to address vested development to
ensure that future growth meets existing permitting and development standards
and prevents further fragmentation of rural lands.
MPP-DP-26 Ensure that development occurring in rural areas is rural in character and is
focused into communities and activity areas.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 8 JULY 2017
MPP-DP-27 Maintain the long-term viability of permanent rural land by avoiding the
construction of new highways and major roads in rural areas.
MPP-DP-28 Support long-term solutions for the environmental and economic sustainability of
agriculture and forestry within rural areas.
Resource Lands
Goal: The region will conserve its natural resource land permanently by
designating, maintaining, and enhancing farm, forest, and mineral lands.
MPP-DP-29 Protect and enhance significant open spaces, natural resources, and critical
areas.
MPP-DP-30 Establish best management practices that protect the long-term integrity of the
natural environment, adjacent land uses, and the long-term productivity of
resource lands.
MPP-DP-31 Support the sustainability of designated resource lands. Do not convert these
lands to other uses.
MPP-DP-32 Ensure that resource lands and their related economic activities are not
adversely impacted by development on adjacent non-resource lands.
Elements of Orderly Development and Design
Regional Design
Goal: The region will use design to shape the physical environment in order to
create more livable communities, better integrate land use and
transportation systems, and improve efforts to restore the environment.
MPP-DP-33 Identify, protect and enhance those elements and characteristics that give the
central Puget Sound region its identity, especially the natural visual resources
and positive urban form elements.
MPP-DP-34 Preserve significant regional historic, visual and cultural resources including
public views, landmarks, archaeological sites, historic and cultural landscapes,
and areas of special character.
MPP-DP-35 Develop high quality, compact urban communities throughout the region's urban
growth area that impart a sense of place, preserve local character, provide for
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 9 JULY 2017
mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage walking, bicycling, and
transit use.
MPP-DP-36 Provide a wide range of building and community types to serve the needs of a
diverse population.
MPP-DP-37 Support urban design, historic preservation, and arts to enhance quality of life,
improve the natural and human-made environments, promote health and well-
being, contribute to a prosperous economy, and increase the region’s resiliency
in adapting to changes or adverse events.
MPP-DP-38 Design public buildings and spaces that contribute to a sense of community and
a sense of place.
MPP-DP-39 Identify and create opportunities to develop parks, civic places and public
spaces, especially in or adjacent to centers.
MPP-DP-40 Design transportation projects and other infrastructure to achieve community
development objectives and improve communities.
MPP-DP-41 Allow natural boundaries to help determine the routes and placement of
infrastructure connections and improvements.
MPP-DP-42 Recognize and work with linear systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries –
including natural systems, continuous land use patterns, and transportation and
infrastructure systems – in community planning, development, and design.
The Built Environment and Health
Goal: The region's communities will be planned and designed to promote
physical, social, and mental well-being so that all people can live healthier
and more active lives.
MPP-DP-43 Design communities to provide an improved environment for walking and
bicycling.
MPP-DP-44 Incorporate provisions addressing health and well-being into appropriate
regional, countywide, and local planning and decision-making processes.
MPP-DP-45 Promote cooperation and coordination among transportation providers, local
government, and developers to ensure that joint- and mixed-use developments
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 10 JULY 2017
are designed to promote and improve physical, mental, and social health and
reduce the impacts of climate change on the natural and built environments.
MPP-DP-46 Develop and implement design guidelines to encourage construction of healthy
buildings and facilities to promote healthy people.
MPP-DP-47 Support agricultural, farmland, and aquatic uses that enhance the food system in
the central Puget Sound region and its capacity to produce fresh and minimally
processed foods.
Innovative Techniques
MPP-DP-48 Encourage the use of innovative techniques, including the transfer of
development rights, the purchase of development rights, and conservation
incentives. Use these techniques to focus growth within the urban growth area
(especially cities) to lessen pressures to convert rural and resource areas to
more intense urban-type development, while protecting the future economic
viability of sending areas and sustaining rural and resource-based uses.
MPP-DP-49 Support and provide incentives to increase the percentage of new development
and redevelopment – both public and private – to be built at higher performing
energy and environmental standards.
MPP-DP-50 Streamline development standards and regulations for residential and
commercial development, especially in centers, to provide flexibility and to
accommodate a broader range of project types consistent with the regional
vision.
Incompatible Land Uses
MPP-DP-51 Protect the continued operation of general aviation airports from encroachment
by incompatible uses and development on adjacent land.
MPP-DP-52 Protect military lands from encroachment by incompatible uses and development
on adjacent land.
MPP-DP-53 Protect industrial lands from encroachment by incompatible uses and
development on adjacent land.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 11 JULY 2017
Concurrency
MPP-DP-54 Develop concurrency programs and methods that fully consider growth targets,
service needs, and level-of-service standards. Focus level-of-service standards
for transportation on the movement of people and goods instead of only on the
movement of vehicles.
MPP-DP-55 Address nonmotorized, pedestrian, and other multimodal types of transportation
options in concurrency programs – both in assessment and mitigation.
MPP-DP-56 Tailor concurrency programs for centers and other subareas to encourage
development that can be supported by transit.
HOUSING
Housing diversity and affordability
MPP-H-1 Provide a range of housing types and choices to meet the housing needs of all
income levels and demographic groups within the region.
MPP-H-2 Achieve and sustain – through preservation, rehabilitation, and new development
– a sufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of low-income, moderate-
income, middle-income, and special needs individuals and households that is
equitably and rationally distributed throughout the region.
MPP-H-3 Promote homeownership opportunities for low-income, moderate-income, and
middle-income families and individuals.
Jobs-housing balance
MPP-H-4 Develop and provide a range of housing choices for workers at all income levels
throughout the region in a manner that promotes accessibility to jobs and
provides opportunities to live in proximity to work.
Centers housing
MPP-H-5 Expand the supply and range of housing, including affordable units, in centers
throughout the region.
MPP-H-6 Recognize and give regional funding priority to transportation facilities,
infrastructure, and services that explicitly advance the development of housing in
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 12 JULY 2017
designated regional growth centers. Give additional priority to projects and
services that advance affordable housing.
Best housing practices
MPP-H-7 Encourage jurisdictions to review and streamline development standards and
regulations to advance their public benefit, provide flexibility, and minimize
additional costs to housing.
MPP-H-8 Encourage the use of innovative techniques to provide a broader range of
housing types for all income levels and housing needs.
MPP-H-9 Encourage interjurisdictional cooperative efforts and public-private partnerships
to advance the provision of affordable and special needs housing.
ECONOMY
Business
Goal: The region's economy prospers by supporting businesses and job
creation.
MPP-Ec-1 Support economic development activities that help to retain, expand, or diversify
the region's businesses. Target recruitment activities towards businesses that
provide family-wage jobs.
MPP-Ec-2 Foster a positive business climate by encouraging regionwide and statewide
collaboration among business, government, education, labor, military, workforce
development, and other nonprofit organizations.
MPP-Ec-3 Support established and emerging industry clusters that export goods and
services, import capital, and have growth potential.
MPP-Ec-4 Leverage the region's position as an international gateway by supporting
businesses, ports, and agencies involved in trade-related activities.
MPP-Ec-5 Foster a supportive environment for business startups, small businesses, and
locally owned businesses to help them continue to prosper.
MPP-Ec-6 Ensure the efficient flow of people, goods, services, and information in and
through the region with infrastructure investments, particularly in and connecting
designated centers, to meet the distinctive needs of the regional economy.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 13 JULY 2017
MPP-Ec-7 Encourage the private, public, and nonprofit sectors to incorporate environmental
and social responsibility into their practices.
PEOPLE
Goal: The region's economy prospers by investing in all of its people.
MPP-Ec-8 Promote economic activity and employment growth that creates widely shared
prosperity and sustains a diversity of family-wage jobs for the region’s residents.
MPP-Ec-9 Ensure that the region has a high quality education system that is accessible to
all of the region's residents.
MPP-Ec-10 Ensure that the region has high quality and accessible training programs that
give people opportunities to learn, maintain, and upgrade skills necessary to
meet the current and forecast needs of the regional and global economy.
MPP-Ec-11 Address unique obstacles and special needs – as well as recognize the special
assets – of disadvantaged populations in improving the region's shared economic
future.
MPP-Ec-12 Foster appropriate and targeted economic growth in distressed areas to create
economic opportunity for residents of these areas.
MPP-Ec-13 Support the contributions of the region's culturally and ethnically diverse
communities in helping the region continue to expand its international economy.
MPP-Ec-14 Sustain and enhance arts and cultural institutions to foster an active and vibrant
community life in every part of the region.
PLACES
Goal: The region's economy prospers through the creation of great central
places, diverse communities, and high quality of life that integrates
transportation, the economy, and the environment.
MPP-Ec-15 Ensure that economic development sustains and respects the region's
environmental quality.
MPP-Ec-16 Utilize urban design strategies and approaches to ensure that changes to the
built environment preserve and enhance the region's unique attributes and each
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 14 JULY 2017
community's distinctive identity in recognition of the economic value of sense of
place.
MPP-Ec-17 Use incentives and investments to create a closer balance between jobs and
housing, consistent with the regional growth strategy.
MPP-Ec-18 Concentrate a significant amount of economic growth in designated centers and
connect them to each other in order to strengthen the region's economy and
communities and to promote economic opportunity.
MPP-Ec-19 Maximize the use of existing designated manufacturing and industrial centers by
focusing appropriate types and amounts of employment growth in these areas
and by protecting them from incompatible adjacent uses.
MPP-Ec-20 Provide an adequate supply of housing with good access to employment centers
to support job creation and economic growth.
MPP-Ec-21 Recognize the need for employment in cities in the rural areas and promote
compatible occupations (such as, but not limited to, tourism, cottage and home-
based businesses, and local services) that do not conflict with rural character and
resource-based land uses.
MPP-Ec-22 Support economic activity in rural and natural resource areas at a size and scale
that is compatible with the long-term integrity and productivity of these lands.
TRANSPORTATION
Maintenance, Management, and Safety
Goal: As a high priority, the region will maintain, preserve, and operate its
existing transportation system in a safe and usable state.
MPP-T-1 Maintain and operate transportation systems to provide safe, efficient, and
reliable movement of people, goods, and services.
MPP-T-2 Protect the investment in the existing system and lower overall life-cycle costs
through effective maintenance and preservation programs.
MPP-T-3 Reduce the need for new capital improvements through investments in
operations, pricing programs, demand management strategies, and system
management activities that improve the efficiency of the current system.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 15 JULY 2017
MPP-T-4 Improve safety of the transportation system and, in the long term, achieve the
state’s goal of zero deaths and disabling injuries.
Sustainable Transportation
MPP-T-5 Foster a less polluting system that reduces the negative effects of transportation
infrastructure and operation on the climate and natural environment.
MPP-T-6 Seek the development and implementation of transportation modes and
technologies that are energy-efficient and improve system performance.
MPP-T-7 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human
health.
MPP-T-8 Protect the transportation system against disaster, develop prevention and
recovery strategies, and plan for coordinated responses.
Supporting the Growth Strategy
Goal: The future transportation system will support the regional growth strategy
by focusing on connecting centers with a highly efficient multimodal
transportation network.
Coordination
MPP-T-9 Coordinate state, regional, and local planning efforts for transportation through
the Puget Sound Regional Council to develop and operate a highly efficient,
multimodal system that supports the regional growth strategy.
MPP-T-10 Promote coordination among transportation providers and local governments to
ensure that joint- and mixed-use developments are designed in a way that
improves overall mobility and accessibility to and within such development.
Centers and Compact Communities
MPP-T-11 Prioritize investments in transportation facilities and services in the urban growth
area that support compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented densities and
development.
MPP-T-12 Give regional funding priority to transportation improvements that serve regional
growth centers and regional manufacturing and industrial centers.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 16 JULY 2017
MPP-T-13 Make transportation investments that improve economic and living conditions so
that industries and skilled workers continue to be retained and attracted to the
region.
MPP-T-14 Design, construct, and operate transportation facilities to serve all users safely
and conveniently, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users,
while accommodating the movement of freight and goods, as suitable to each
facility’s function and context as determined by the appropriate jurisdictions.
MPP-T-15 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.
MPP-T-16 Promote and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian travel as important modes of
transportation by providing facilities and reliable connections.
Freight
MPP-T-17 Ensure the freight system meets the needs of: (1) global gateways, (2) producer
needs within the state and region, and (3) regional and local distribution.
MPP-T-18 Maintain and improve the existing multimodal freight transportation system in the
region to increase reliability and efficiency and to prevent degradation of freight
mobility.
MPP-T-19 Coordinate regional planning with railroad capacity expansion plans and support
capacity expansion that is compatible with state, regional, and local plans.
Context and Design
MPP-T-20 Design transportation facilities to fit within the context of the built or natural
environments in which they are located.
MPP-T-21 Apply urban design principles in transportation programs and projects for
regional growth centers and high-capacity transit station areas.
MPP-T-22 Implement transportation programs and projects in ways that prevent or minimize
negative impacts to low-income, minority, and special needs populations.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 17 JULY 2017
Greater Options and Mobility
Goal: The region will invest in transportation systems that offer greater options,
mobility, and access in support of the regional growth strategy.
MPP-T-23 Emphasize transportation investments that provide and encourage alternatives to
single-occupancy vehicle travel and increase travel options, especially to and
within centers and along corridors connecting centers.
MPP-T-24 Increase the proportion of trips made by transportation modes that are
alternatives to driving alone.
MPP-T-25 Ensure mobility choices for people with special transportation needs, including
persons with disabilities, the elderly, the young, and low-income populations.
MPP-T-26 Strategically expand capacity and increase efficiency of the transportation
system to move goods, services, and people to and within the urban growth area.
Focus on investments that produce the greatest net benefits to people and
minimize the environmental impacts of transportation.
MPP-T-27 Improve key facilities connecting the region to national and world markets to
support the economic vitality of the region.
MPP-T-28 Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in
rural and resource areas. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to
support safe and efficient travel through rural areas, appropriate rural
development regulations and strong commitments to access management should
be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to prevent
unplanned growth in rural areas.
MPP-T-29 Promote the preservation of existing rights-of-way for future high-capacity transit.
MPP-T-30 Encourage public and private sector partnerships to identify and implement
improvements to personal mobility and freight movement.
MPP-T-31 Support effective management of existing air transportation capacity and ensure
that future capacity needs are addressed in cooperation with responsible
agencies, affected communities, and users.
MPP-T-32 Integrate transportation systems to make it easy for people and freight to move
from one mode or technology to another.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 18 JULY 2017
MPP-T-33 Promote transportation financing methods, such as user fees, tolls, and pricing,
that sustain maintenance, preservation, and operation of facilities and reflect the
costs imposed by users.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Services in General
MPP-PS-1 Protect and enhance the environment and public health and safety when
providing services and facilities.
MPP-PS-2 Time and phase services and facilities to guide growth and development in a
manner that supports the regional vision.
MPP-PS-3 Promote demand management and the conservation of services and facilities
prior to developing new facilities.
MPP-PS-4 Do not provide urban services in rural areas. Design services for limited access
when they are needed to solve isolated health and sanitation problems, so as not
to increase the development potential of the surrounding rural area.
MPP-PS-5 Encourage the design of public facilities and utilities in rural areas to be at a size
and scale appropriate to rural locations, so as not to increase development
pressure.
MPP-PS-6 Obtain urban services from cities or appropriate regional service providers, and
encourage special service districts, including sewer, water, and fire districts, to
consolidate or dissolve as a result.
Services by Type
MPP-PS-7 Develop conservation measures to reduce solid waste and increase recycling.
MPP-PS-8 Promote improved conservation and more efficient use of water, as well as the
increased use of reclaimed water, to reduce wastewater generation and ensure
water availability.
MPP-PS-9 Serve new development within the urban growth area with sanitary sewer
systems or fit it with dry sewers in anticipation of connection to the sewer system.
Alternative technology to sewers should only be considered when it can be
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 19 JULY 2017
shown to produce treatment at standards that are equal to or better than the
sewer system and where a long-term maintenance plan is in place.
MPP-PS-10 Replace failing septic systems within the urban growth area with sanitary sewers
or alternative technology that is comparable or better.
MPP-PS-11 Use innovative and state-of-the-art design and techniques when replacing septic
tanks to restore and improve environmental quality.
MPP-PS-12 Promote the use of renewable energy resources to meet the region’s energy
needs.
MPP-PS-13 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through conservation and alternative
energy forms to extend the life of existing facilities and infrastructure.
MPP-PS-14 Plan for the provision of telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and
development in a manner that is consistent with the regional vision and friendly to
the environment.
MPP-PS-15 Coordinate, design, and plan for public safety services and programs.
MPP-PS-16 Encourage health and human services facilities to locate near centers and transit
for efficient accessibility to service delivery.
Goal: Residents of the region will have access to high quality drinking water that
meets or is better than federal and state requirements.
MPP-PS-17 Identify and develop additional water supply sources to meet the region's long-
term water needs, recognizing the potential impacts on water supply from climate
change and fisheries protection.
MPP-PS-18 Promote coordination among local and tribal governments and water providers
and suppliers to meet long-term water needs in the region in a manner that
supports the region's growth strategy.
MPP-PS-19 Reduce the per capita rate of water consumption through conservation,
efficiency, reclamation, and reuse.
MPP-PS-20 Protect the source of the water supply to meet the needs for both human
consumption and for environmental balance.
Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C
C - 20 JULY 2017
Siting Facilities
MPP-PS-21 Site schools, institutions, and other community facilities that primarily serve urban
populations within the urban growth area in locations where they will promote the
local desired growth plans.
MPP-PS-22 Locate schools, institutions, and other community facilities serving rural residents
in neighboring cities and towns and design these facilities in keeping with the
size and scale of the local community.
MPP-PS-23 Site or expand regional capital facilities in a manner that (1) reduces adverse
social, environmental, and economic impacts on the host community, (2)
equitably balances the location of new facilities, and (3) addresses regional
planning objectives.
MPP-PS-24 Do not locate regional capital facilities outside the urban growth area unless it is
demonstrated that a non-urban site is the most appropriate location for such a
facility.
Appendix E: Natural Environment
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E - 1 JULY 2017
Natural Environment
Air Quality
Three agencies have jurisdiction over the ambient air quality in the Puget Sound area: the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). These agencies establish regulations that govern both the
allowable concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air (i.e., ambient air) and allowable contaminant
emissions from air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in terms of stringency, each
agency has established its own standards.
Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent standards, the EPA standards apply.
Table E-1: National and State of Washington Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table E-1 lists the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) as adopted by
EPA and Ecology. The NAAQS consist of
primary standards designed to protect
public health and secondary standards
designed to protect public welfare (e.g.,
preventing air pollution damage to
vegetation). The more stringent
secondary standards are used to regulate
air quality.
Notes:
Annual standards never to be exceed-
ed. Short-term standards not to be ex-
ceeded more than once per year unless
noted.
ppm = parts per million
PM10 = particles 10 microns or less in
size
PM2.5 = particles 2.5 microns or less in
size
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
a = 0.25 ppm not to be exceeded more
than two times in 7 consecutive days.
b = Not to be exceeded on more than 1
day per calendar year as determined
under the conditions indicated in Chap-
ter 173-475 WAC.
National (EPA)
Pollutant Primary Secondary
Washington
State
Carbon Monoxide
8-hour average 9 ppm 9 ppm 9 ppm
1-hour average 35 ppm 35 ppm 35 ppm
Particulate Matter
PM10
Annual average 50 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
24-hour average 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
PM2.5
Annual average 15 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
24-hour average 65 µg/m3 65 µg/m3 65 µg/m3
Lead
Quarterly aver-
age 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual average 0.03 ppm No standard 0.02 ppm
24-hour average 0.14 ppm No standard 0.10 ppm
3-hour average No standard 0.50 ppm No standard
1-hour average No standard No standard 0.40 ppma
Ozone
8-hour averageb 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual average 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-2 JULY 2017
Ecology and PSCAA operate ambient air quality monitors throughout the Puget Sound region. Most of the
monitors have intentionally been placed at locations most likely to experience degraded air quality (e.g.,
near industrial facilities or at heavily-congested downtown areas). A few monitors have been operated in
outlying areas to measure ambient concentrations in typical suburban or rural settings where
concentrations are acknowledged to be low.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) monitors air quality. The entire UGA falls just within the
northeastern boundary of the Non-Attainment Area. According to that agency’s available documents air
quality in the Arlington area is generally good, though there are some localized concerns. Their data
shows that the largest emission sources include U.S. Marine (boat building), Subert & Walker Pre-
Finishing (wood kitchen cabinets), 23 gasoline stations, two auto body shops, and the airport and support
industries. In addition, diesel combustion sources such as school buses, trucks and heavy equipment
appear to emit air toxics of the greatest risk for harming human health in the region.
While no specific data exists for the immediate Arlington area, one can assume that air quality is better
than in the areas that are monitored. The Puget Sound region has only had non-attainment days for three
of the six major pollutants common to industrialized societies. These are:
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas
commonly formed when carbon-containing fuel is not
completely burned. It chemically combines with the
hemoglobin in the red blood cells to decrease the
oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. It also weakens
the contractions of the heart, thus reducing the
amount of blood pumped through the body.
Additionally it can affect the functioning of the lungs
and brain. People with heart disease and pregnant
women are particularly at risk. In the Puget Sound
region, motor vehicles are the principal source of
carbon monoxide. Highest levels occur mainly during
autumn and winter months, and usually around
congested transportation routes and other
concentrations of motor vehicles (e.g., shopping
centers). The monitor for CO is located in Everett near
Broadway and Hewitt Avenue. Federal standards for
CO (9 ppm averaged over 8 hours) have not been exceed since the 1989-90 monitoring year, when the
standard was exceeded on two days. In 1991, the federal standard was exceeded on one occurrence
(10.2 ppm); however, one exception is allowed under Federal policy. In 1992, there were no exceptions.
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Particulate Matter10 includes small ( 10 μm) particles of solid or aerosol particles of dust, soot, organic
matter and compounds containing sulfur, nitrogen, and metals. Particulates enter the air directly from
industrial operations, motor vehicles (automobiles, buses, and trucks), fuel combustion (woodstoves and
fireplaces), construction, and other sources. Particulates measuring 1 μm are especially associated with
a variety of adverse effects on public health and welfare. The small particles can be breathed deeply into
the lungs, producing injury by itself or in conjunction with gases. The elderly, those suffering from
respiratory illness, and young children are especially prone to the deleterious effects of particulates.
Soiling of buildings and other property, and reduced visibility are other results of high particulate matter
levels. Ambient levels change daily due to variances in weather and activity level. PM10 is monitored in
Marysville at the Junior High School. The Federal standard for PM10 is 150 μg/m3 for a 24-hour average
and 50 μg/m3 for an annual arithmetic mean. The highest PM10 levels where measured in 1991, when the
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-3 JULY 2017
monitoring station registered 123 μg/m3 in a 24-hour period. In both 1992 and 1993 the level has hovered
around 100 μg/m3.
Ozone (O3)
Ozone is a pungent smelling, colorless gas produced in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and
volatile organic compounds chemically react under the effect of strong sunlight. It is a pulmonary irritant
that affects lung tissues and respiratory functions. Ozone impairs the normal function of the lung and, at
concentration between 0.15 and 0.25 ppm, causes lung tightness, coughing, and wheezing. Other
oxidants that often accompany ozone cause eye irritation. Persons with chronic respiratory problems,
such as asthma, seem most sensitive to increases in ozone concentration. Ironically, ozone is beneficial
when it occurs very high in the atmosphere, miles above the earth, where it protects us from harmful
ultraviolet radiation. The highest levels are measured on hot days from mid-May to mid-September, and
because of weather patterns the highest ozone values normally occur south to southeast of the major
cities or source areas. There are no monitoring stations in Snohomish County; the closest are in Blaine
and Beacon Hill (Seattle). In 1987 the Puget Sound Region attained the ozone standard (0.12 ppm/hour/3
year average), but in 1990 the region was once again out of compliance. In 1991 the region again fell
below the standard. The Arlington area, however, is in compliance. Nevertheless, Arlington is in PSRC’s
designated “Ozone Maintenance Area.”
Attainment Status for Snohomish County
Based on measured ambient air quality data from the agencies’ network of air quality monitors, EPA and
Ecology designate all portions of the state as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” with respect to the
NAAQS standards. Areas designated as nonattainment have exceeded NAAQS standards for those
pollutants. If, as is the case of most of Washington State, the measured concentrations in a
nonattainment area improve so they are consistently below the NAAQS standards, Ecology and EPA can
reclassify the nonattainment area to a “maintenance area.” In that case, Ecology and the regional
planning agencies are required to implement a “maintenance plan” to ensure ongoing emission
reductions and continuous compliance with the NAAQS standards. Typical emission reduction
requirements specified in maintenance plans include continuation of motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs that were originally established while the area was designated as nonattainment.
In 1978, the central Puget Sound region (including much of Snohomish County) was classified as a
nonattainment area by the EPA for CO and O3. In 1987, the industrial areas of the Seattle Duwamish
River, Kent Valley, and Tacoma Tide flats were classified as nonattainment areas for PM10. None of
those PM10 nonattainment areas affect Snohomish County.
In 1996, having met the federal standards for several years, the region (including Snohomish County)
was re-designated by the EPA as a maintenance area for CO and O3. As required by the EPA, the Puget
Sound region has a maintenance plan for the CO and O3 maintenance areas. The EPA has approved all
of these plans.
Approval of the CO maintenance plan occurred on October 11, 1996; approval for the O3 maintenance
plan occurred on November 25, 1996. The three previous PM10 nonattainment areas within the Puget
Sound region (none were in affected Snohomish County) were also re-designated as maintenance areas.
See the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) map of Designated Maintenance Areas for Criteria
Pollutants Carbon Monoxide, O3, and Particulate Matter at www.psrc.org/datapubs/maps/index.htm. The
map shows the location of the maintenance area boundaries.
Air Quality Permitting Requirements for Snohomish County
This section describes air quality permitting requirements for proposed new public and private sector
projects in the County.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-4 JULY 2017
Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Air Emission Sources
Stationary air pollutant sources are regulated by either PSCAA or Ecology. New “minor sources” (facilities
that emit less than 100 tons per year of any single listed air pollutant are required to apply for a Notice of
Construction (NOC) air quality permit issued by PSCAA.
The application for an NOC permit requires the facility to install Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) to reduce emissions, to conduct computer modeling to demonstrate that the facility’s emissions
will not cause ambient concentrations to exceed the NAAQS limits, and to minimize the impacts of odors
and toxic air pollutants.
New “major sources” (facilities that emit more than 100 tons per year of any single air pollutant) are
required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit and an Air Operating Permit from
Ecology. The requirements for a PSD permit are more stringent than for an NOC permit. Facilities with a
PSD permit must comply with lower ambient air quality limits, and must demonstrate they will not cause
visibility or acid deposition problems at national parks and wilderness areas in the region.
Conformity Analyses for State or Federally Funded Transportation Projects
Cars and trucks on public roads are the largest single source of emissions in Snohomish County and the
Puget Sound region. However, until the early 1990s there were no air quality regulations applicable to
public roadway projects. In 1990, EPA and the Washington legislature enacted new regulations requiring
federally- or state-funded highway projects to evaluate their local and regional air quality impacts.
Transportation projects proposed for construction within nonattainment areas or maintenance areas are
subject to the Transportation Conformity regulations specified under federal regulations (40 CFR Part 93)
and state regulations (Chapter 173-420 WAC). The permitting agency must demonstrate conformity by
the following steps:
Confirm that the project is included in the regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
Confirm that the regional emissions (including the proposed project) described in the TIP are within
the allowable emission budget specified by Ecology.
Use an EPA-approved air quality dispersion model to assess CO concentrations at the most heavily
congested intersections.
Countywide and Puget Sound Regional Emissions
Table E-2 lists estimated Countywide and regional air pollutant emissions from various source categories
for the year 1996. The emission estimates demonstrate trends characteristic of the suburban and rural
nature of the County. Cars and trucks on public roads are major sources of NOx and hydrocarbons, which
are the precursors to regional O3 impacts. Industrial point sources might impact air quality adjacent to
each facility, but overall they are relatively small contributors to emissions within the County. During the
winter residential wood stoves and fireplaces are major contributors to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-5 JULY 2017
Table E-2: Air Pollutant Emissions in Snohomish County (tons per year)
Category PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NOx VOC CO
Architectural Surface Coating 0 0 0 0 926 0
Natural Biogenic Sources 0 0 0 487 22,892 0
Recreational Boats 65 65 13 154 1,576 4,719
Consumer/Commercial Solvents 0 0 0 0 2,101 0
Prescribed Burning 325 299 4 99 173 2,770
Non-road Mobile 260 251 206 2,447 3,147 26,397
On-road Mobile 630 498 643 18,017 12,504 117,593
Road Dust - Paved 1,977 184 0 0 0 0
Point Sources 89 80 508 1,727 1,409 738
Ships 101 98 738 1,900 163 1,114
Soil Ammonia Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Agricultural Tilling 311 63 0 0 0 0
Road Dust - Unpaved 880 132 0 0 0 0
Woodstoves and Fireplaces 2,409 2,332 36 226 6,108 17,946
Snohomish County Totals, tons per year 7,047 4,002 2,148 25,057 50,999 171,277
Puget Sound Regional Totals, tons per year 43,58323,63313,625 134,553 220,098 943,924
Source: PSAPCA 1996
Biological Resources
Wildlife
The Arlington area supports moderate numbers of numerous species of fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles,
and insects and other invertebrates, some of which are state and federal listed. Please refer to Table E-3:
WDFW Region 4 Species of Concern (including Arlington) for a listing of all such species that the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife knows of in Region 4, which includes Arlington, that are state
endangered, state threatened, state sensitive, state candidate, or species of concern, as well as species
listed or proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries
Service. This list does not include insects or mollusks.
Most species on this list do not live in Arlington, and there is low probability of finding them here.
However, some may have a relationship with the ecological functions affected by actions in Arlington,
such as feeding on salmon from our local streams.
Some sensitive species have been observed but are not on the DFW database, probably due to the
historical lack of reporting of such species.
Endangered species (listed under the Endangered Species Act), Threatened and other notable species
that are known to exist in the UGA include:
Bald Eagle (Haliæetus leucocephalus) – (federal and state threatened) Formerly an Endangered
Species, the Bald Eagle was removed from the ESA threatened list in 2007. It is still protected by the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act which does not create a land use restriction but prohibits
posession or harm to it.
Nests are known to exist at various locations on the main, south fork and north fork Stillaguamish.
Several are found along the north shore of the Stillaguamish River near the Dike Road. The Department
of Wildlife has developed Bald Eagle Site Management Guidelines for use when reviewing proposed
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-6 JULY 2017
development projects. Property owners are responsible for preparing and implementing a habitat and
nest management plan when a project falls within a management area.
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentis) – A federally listed threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act, bull trout have been identified using Arlington’s streams. These streams are identified on the
Snohomish County ESA maps1 as “presumed habitat.” The presumed use would be only rearing or
refuge, as Bull trout spawning is believed to occur in the upper reaches of the Stillaguamish watershed in
the cooler headwater streams.
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) – Chinook are considered to use the Stillaguamish
River, larger streams, side channels and riverine wetlands rather than the smaller streams traveling
through Arlington. Therefore, the areas of town that lay alongside the main stem and south fork
Stillaguamish River are considered areas of Chinook usage. The majority of Chinook spawning occurs in
the upstream areas but there are normally occasional redds found in lower areas of the river. A majority
of the juvenile population travel downriver during the spring high flows to spend time growing in the highly
productive estuary. A small percentage (5-8%) of the juveniles are considered riverine and will over-winter
to head for the estuary as a one-year old smolt. The current population of Chinook is around 1,400
annually returning adults2.
Steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) – May 7, 2007 Puget Sound Steelhead were listed as Threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. Steelhead are considered to use the Stillaguamish River, larger
streams, side channels and potentially the streams in Arlington’s City Limits. National Marine Fisheries
Service is beginning the development of a Steelhead Recovery Plan that will provide guidance to
jurisdictions on how to participate in the recovery of the species. Steelhead are different that salmon in
that they can return multiple times to spawn and move from freshwater to saltwater multiple times
throughout their life span. Similar to bull trout due to physical ability and habits a steelhead may travel
anywhere a coho salmon will travel.
Table E-3: WDFW Region 4 Species of Concern (including Arlington)
Common Name Status
State Federal
FOUND IN ARLINGTON
Bald Eagle T T
Bull Trout C T
Chinook Salmon C T
Steelhead T
A SMALL CHANCE OF BEING
FOUND IN ARLINGTON
Harlequin Duck SC
Larch Mountain Salamander C SC
Northern Goshawk C SC
Peregrine Falcon E SC
Purple Martin C
River Lamprey C SC
Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat C SC
Western Pond Turtle E SC
Western Toad C SC
1 Based on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data.
2 Technical Assessment and Recommendations for Chinook Salmon Recovery in the Stillaguamish
Watershed, Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group, September 2000.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-7 JULY 2017
Common Name Status
State Federal
LITTLE TO NO CHANCE OF
BEING FOUND IN ARLINGTON
Black Rockfish C
Bococcio Rockfish C
Brant’s Cormorant C
Brown Rockfish C
Canary Rockfish C
China Rockfish C
Columbia Spotted Frog C SC
Common Loon S
Common Murre C
Copper Rockfish C
Golden Eagle C
Gray Whale S
Gray Wolf E E
Green Striped Rockfish C
Grizzly Bear E T
Lynx T T
Marbled Murrelet T T
Merlin C
Olympic Mud Minnow S
Orca Whale C
Oregon Vesper Sparrow C SC
Pacific Cod C
Pacific Hake C
Pacific Harbor Porpoise C
Pacific Herring C
Pileated Woodpecker C
Pygmy Whitefish S
Quillback Rockfish C
Red Striped Rockfish C
Roosting Concentrations of
Myotis Bats (Keen’s)
C
Sandhill Crane E
Spotted Owl E T
Steller Sea Lion T T
Streaked, Horned Lark C C
Tiger Rockfish C
Tufted Puffin C SC
Vaux’s Swift C
Walleye Pollock C
West Slope Cutthroat SC
Widow Rockfish C
Wolverine C SC
Yellow Eye Rockfish C
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo C C
Yellowtail Rockfish C
Key: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, P = Proposed, S = Sensitive, SC = Species of
Concern
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-8 JULY 2017
Vegetation and Habitat
Disturbance of ecological communities and division into isolated habitats are the major causes for the
decline in animal and plant species. Conserving viable ecological habitats in an interconnected system is
the most effective way of conserving vegetation and wildlife. Many habitats that are conserved for
environmental or scenic reasons cannot survive division into small isolated land parcels. The concept of
managing wildlife habitat on a regional scale is one of the precepts on which the Growth Management Act
is based. The theory is that by concentrating growth within urbanized UGAs where significant habitat no
longer exists or is difficult to maintain due to the effects of growth, large, regionally significant habitats and
wildlife corridors would be protected by limiting development in the County.
The City and UGA supports deciduous and coniferous trees (Douglas fir, spruce, hemlock, cedar, alder,
cottonwood, and maple) as well as native shrubs, herbs, grasses, and wetland plants. Large and medium
animals such as deer, coyotes, skunks, opossums, beaver, and bald eagles are still found occasionally
within the City limits, but more frequently in some of the rural areas outside of the UGA. The riverine
habitat and streams support seasonal and year-round fish and waterfowl. Even though many of the
habitat areas had been greatly impacted by humans, many of our stream corridors (riparian areas) are
healing through the maturing of past stream and wetland restoration projects. It is important to minimize
further impacts, and review for potential impacts to wildlife and habitat is performed at the time of
development permit application review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's Environmentally
Critical Areas regulations are intended to protect wildlife and habitat.
The Washington Department of Wildlife has identified fourteen priority habitat types, two of which are
found in Arlington planning area. These are:
Wetlands – Wetlands are fragile ecosystems that assist in the reduction of erosion, flooding, and ground
and surface water pollution. Wetlands also provide an important habitat for wildlife, plants, and fisheries.
Numerous wetlands have been identified in Arlington and the UGA – some on a very general basis from
aerial mapping, some are shown by the soil survey of Snohomish County, and others have been precisely
mapped where development has occurred over the past few years. The City also utilized the 1997 DOE
Wetland Characterization of the Stillaguamish Watershed for inventory and ESA planning. Generally, as
properties develop the wetlands are more accurately delineated and mapped.
Review for potential impacts to wetlands is performed at the time of development permit application
review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance
protects wetlands and their buffers. Wetlands in the City of Arlington are protected because they are part
of an important natural biological/flood prevention/water provision system that should not be irreversibly
altered. Further, the wet soil severely limits structural development. Because of the specificity used in
defining wetlands and the quality of available maps, site-specific evaluations performed at the time of
project application are necessary for the evaluation of specific parcels per the Critical Areas Regulations.
Arlington will continue to restore or re-create wetlands to mitigate for those that were lost during the early
years of development.
Urban Natural Open Space – Land within an urban or urbanizing area that supports a priority species,
functions as a wildlife corridor, or is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 10 acres is
considered an urban natural open space by the State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. There are a
few such areas remaining in the City of Arlington or its UGA. Such areas would be appropriate for public
purchase as natural parks or protected habitat. Care should be taken when development projects are
proposed on such properties. Any areas determined to be wildlife corridors or habitat are subject to the
City's Environmentally Critical Areas regulations. It is important to recognize that there are distinct
differences between lands that have been identified as wildlife habitat open space and recreational open
space.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-9 JULY 2017
Water Resources
Ground Water
Ground water is derived from precipitation and surface water filtering through the ground to aquifers. The
ground where this filtering process takes place is called an aquifer recharge area. The quality of recharge
areas and surface waters needs to be protected to ensure the quality of the ground water used in the
immediate area, as well as the quality of water for users down gradient from the recharge zone. Ground
water pollution is very difficult, often impossible to clean. One of the functions of wetlands is to recharge
aquifers and purify the water running through them. Aquifer recharge areas can be found in areas other
than wetlands. The surficial geologies made up of recessional outwash found in areas around Arlington
provide excellent aquifer recharge and storage areas. (See Table E-4: Arlington Aquifers.)
Most drinking water in the UGA is provided by Arlington. Some of this water is derived from wells (see
Chapter 9 – Capital Facilities and Public Services Element, for a description of this system.) The Haller
well supplies approximately 92%, while the airport well is 2%, and Snohomish County PUD provides 6%.
Additionally, some residents use wells as their main source of drinking water. The aquifer for the City
wells is found in the central portion of the UGA, mostly under the airport and adjacent to the Stillaguamish
River at Haller Park (see Figure 2-1: Aquifer Recharge Area and City Wells). The depth of the shallow
aquifer is approximately 50 feet; however the deep aquifer is 150 feet3 (the airport well is 150’ and Haller
wells are 35 – 40’ deep) and most uses should not affect the water quality if best management practices
are used. The water quality is good if not overdrawn (whereupon iron may become a problem) and for
most of the year would not require chlorination were it not a state requirement to retain mandatory
residual chlorine levels.
Review for potential groundwater contamination is performed at the time of development permit
application review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Critical Areas
regulations protect wetlands and aquifer recharge zones providing groundwater replenishment and
filtration. And the WCP has a watershed and wellhead protection plan.
For a description of groundwater resources at the County level, please refer to the Final EIS for
Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update4.
Surface Water
Rivers, streams, lakes, and other surface waters may be important means of transportation or valuable
environmental, recreational, and/or scenic areas. The quality of water is important to the entire area's
habitat value. Reduction in water quality will not only reduce the environmental and recreational value of
the area, but it may also threaten the groundwater that is connected to the surface water system. (See
Table E-5: Arlington Streams and Table E-6: Arlington Wetlands.)
The most important body of surface water in the UGA is the Stillaguamish River. It is an important
regional habitat for various piscine, mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, and avian fauna and aquatic flora.
The Stillaguamish River and its conditions are directly linked to the upland uses that modify the historic
hydrological cycles. The river is also very important to the economic vitality of the City through the
associated outdoor recreation activities. The river is used by boaters and fisherman throughout the year
who utilize the entire Stillaguamish Valley, with Arlington being a key hub for those activities.
Other important bodies of water in the area include: Portage Creek, Prairie Creek, Kruger Creek,
Quilceda Creek, Eagle Creek, and March Creek (See Figure 2-16: Major Water Bodies and Drainage
Basins). There are also bodies of water outside of the UGA but with which the City is concerned as land
3The Ground-Water System and Ground-Water Quality in Western Snohomish County, Washington; U.S.
Geological Survey-Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4312.
4 Still being developed at the time of writing of this document.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-10 JULY 2017
uses in their vicinity may have impacts on the UGA. These include upstream and downstream reaches of
the tributaries listed above and their associated drainage basins and wetlands. There are also numerous
perennial and seasonal wetlands in the UGA (whose importance is discussed above under "Wetlands").
As with the Stillaguamish River, all of these waterways provide important social, economic, and natural
functions that contribute to a healthy living environment and high quality of life.
Such water systems can be delineated into drainage basins. The Arlington UGA encompasses four major
sub-basins: the Portage Creek sub-basin, the Quilceda Creek sub-basin, the Eagle Creek sub-basin, and
the March Creek sub-basin. These are in turn comprised of many minor basins. For instance, emptying
into the Portage sub-basin are the Prairie Creek and Kruger Creek sub-basins. The Edgecomb Creek
sub-basin drains in to the Quilceda Creek sub-basin of the Snohomish river system. A small tributary
locally referred to as Indian Creek drains in to the Eagle creek sub-basin. The remnant portions of March
creek that remain exist outside of the UGA down in the Stillaguamish floodplain. The approximate
boundaries of these drainage basins are also shown in Figure 2-20: Floodways & Floodplains. All waters
within the UGA eventually drain into Puget Sound, either draining directly into the Stillaguamish River or
via Quilceda Creek then into the Snohomish River Estuary.
In Arlington the surface water quality and quantity of riverine and riparian habitats are in a state of
recovery. Nevertheless, it is obviously of paramount importance that the river and other waterways be
protected and managed to improve listed species population status and recover their functionality. Any
development must be designed to minimize impacts to the quality and quantity of the water or in-stream
aquatic habitats. This includes preservation of the land that constitutes the waterways themselves and
their associated buffers, and management of the quality of the water that enters them. Future
development must consider point source discharges, non-point source discharges, and soil erosion, as
well as development that reduces the instream habitat or changes the flow of the water in ways which
damage the viability of the ecological system.
Regulatory Environment
There are a number of established laws with which the City of Arlington must comply when making land
use decisions that could influence surface water resources. Table E-7: Federal and State Laws and City
of Arlington Codes Affecting Land Use Decision Making Regarding Surface Water Resources identifies
some of these laws and describes consistency requirements.
Table E-4: Arlington Aquifers
Su
b
-
B
a
s
i
n
Re
a
c
h
UG
A
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
u
b
-
Ar
e
a
r
va
e
o
r
u
-
li
c
Fi
s
h
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
Sa
l
m
o
n
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
Ty
p
e
o
r
C
l
a
s
s
pe
r
A
M
C
2
0
.
8
8
Le
n
g
t
h
o
r
A
r
e
a
Un
i
t
Alluvial Northfork
Stillaguamish
Trafton upstream to Darrington out N/A pub
acres
Vashon
Recessional
Outwash Bryant
out N/A pub
acres
Vashon
Recessional
Outwash Marysville
trough (Airport
Aquifer)
in A/I pub
acres
Vashon
Recessional
Outwash Arlington
out N/A pub
acres
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-11 JULY 2017
Heights
Vashon Advance
Outwash Bryant
out N/A pub
acres
Vashon Advance
Outwash Getchell
out N/A pub
acres
TOTAL 0acres
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-12 JULY 2017
Table E-5: Arlington Streams
Su
b
-
B
a
s
i
n
Re
a
c
h
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
u
b
-
Ar
e
a
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
o
r
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fi
s
h
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
Sa
l
m
o
n
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
Le
n
g
t
h
o
r
A
r
e
a
Un
i
t
Fi
s
h
B
l
o
c
k
a
g
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
CA
P
E
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
?
Portage Creek 186th - 204th in pvt Yes Yes 2 8,000lin ft PFPFPF R yes
Portage Creek 204th - Highway 9 in Kent Prairie both Yes Yes 2 1,800lin ft PF R R R yes
Portage Creek Highway 9 - Sweetwater in A/I, Arl Bluf pvt Yes Yes 2 3,000lin ft PFPFPF R no
Portage Creek Sweetwater - Rivercrest in Arl Bluff pvt Yes Yes 2 1,200lin ft PFPFPF R no
Portage Creek Rivercrest - City Boundary in Arl Bluff pub Yes Yes 2 2,000lin ft PFPFPF R yes
Praire Creek west Deones - 172nd in Hilltop pvt 1,400lin ft NPNPNP R no
Praire Creek west 172nd - Jensen Bus. Park in Hilltop, A/I pvt Yes Yes/no 2 12,000lin ft AR RNP R both
Praire Creek west Jensen Bus. Park - Newell Machine in A/I pub Yes Yes 2 2,400lin ft ARPFPF R yes
Praire Creek west Newell Machince - Confluence w/Portagein A/I pvt Yes Yes 2 1,800lin ft AR R R R no
Praire Creek east 172nd - Crown Ridge Blvd in Hilltop pvt Yes 2/3 2,000lin ft AR R ?R
Praire Creek east Crownridge Blvd - Highway 9 east in Hilltop pub Yes No 3 2,000lin ft ARPFNP R no
Praire Creek east Highway 9 west - AVL confluence in Hilltop, A/I both Yes Yes 2 2,700lin ft ARNPNP R no
Kruger Creek Alternacare - Portage street in Kent Prairie both Yes Yes 2 1,000lin ft AR RPF R no
Kruger Creek Portage Street - 79th Ave NE in Kent Prairie pvt Yes Yes 2 1,400lin ft ARNPPF R yes
Kruger Creek 79th Ave NE - Confluence w/Portage in Kent Prairie pub Yes Yes 2 1,400lin ft PFPFPF R yes
Eagle Creek Brekhus/Beach addition in Burn Hill,
Southfork
pvt Yes Yes/no 2 21,800lin ft AR RNP R no
Eagle Creek Graafstra in Southfork, OT pvt Yes Yes 2 6,200lin ft ARNP R R no
Edgecomb Creek Deones addition east tributary in Hilltop pvt no no 4 1,900lin ft NPNPNPNP no
Edgecomb Creek Deones addition west tributary in Hilltop pvt Yes Yes 2 3,000lin ft AR R R R no
Edgecomb Creek Arlington Square - Copart east in SP/SR531 pvt Yes Yes 2 4,500lin ft NPNPNPNP both
Shoultes Tributary Copart west in SP/SR531 pvt Yes Yes 3 650lin ft NPNPNPNP yes
Smokey Point
Tributary
Country Manor in SP/SR531 Yes 3 2,900lin ft
NPNP NP
Stillaguamish,
Southfork
Graafstra - Centennial trail in Old Town both Yes Yes 1 2,800lin ft
NPNPPFNP no
Stillaguamish,
Mainstem
Centennial trail - Haller park in Old Town both Yes Yes 1 350lin ft
NPNPPFNP no
Stillaguamish,
Northfork
outN/A all lin ft x x x
Eagle creek outN/A lin ft x x x x x
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-13 JULY 2017
Edgecomb outN/A lin ft x x x x x
Kruger Creek outN/A lin ft x x x
March Creek outN/A lin ft x x x
Portage Creek outN/A lin ft x x x x x
Prairie Creek outN/A lin ft x x x
TOTAL 88,200lin ft
Table E-6: Arlington Wetlands
Su
b
-
B
a
s
i
n
Re
a
c
h
n
o
r
u
s
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
u
b
-
Ar
e
a
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
o
r
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fi
s
h
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
Sa
l
m
o
n
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
Ty
p
e
o
r
C
l
a
s
s
pe
r
A
M
C
2
0
.
8
8
Le
n
g
t
h
o
r
A
r
e
a
Un
i
t
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
ns
re
a
m
Fi
s
h
B
l
o
c
k
a
g
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
CA
P
E
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
?
Portage Creek High School Mitigation Wetlands in pubNo Good 3.0acres PF yes
Portage Creek Crown Ridge stair Climb in pub Good 8.1acres PF AR yes
Portage Creek Hecla in pvt Yes Good 2 4.3acres PF AR AR AR no
Portage Creek Pioneer Ponds in pvt Yes Good 2 2.0acres AR PF PF AR no
Portage Creek Klein farm in bothYes Good 2 173.2acres NP AR PF AR yes
Prairie Creek Chilelli - Magnolia Meadows-Gleneagle in pvt Yes Good 2/3 18.0acres NP NP AR AR no
Prairie Creek Arlington Valley Land EPA wetland in bothNo Good 7.5acres PF yes
Prairie Creek Anderson Hunter in pvt 2 5.3acres AR AR AR AR no
Prairie Creek Jensen Bus. Park created wetland in pubYes 2 1.0acres PF PF PF AR yes
Kruger Creek Wallace Ponds in pvt Yes 2 12.1acres AR AR PF AR no
Eagle Creek Beach floodplain property in pvt Yes 2 84.4acres NP NP AR AR no
Eagle Creek Post Middle School Clay Cliff Ponds in pubYes 2 50.0acres PF PF PF PF no
Eagle Creek Graafstra in pvt Yes 2 97.0acres NP NP AR AR no
Edgecomb Creek Incline-Attonement Lutheran-Arl. Squarein pvt 2.0acres AR AR no
Edgecomb Creek Crown Distributing land in pvt Yes 2 29.0acres NP NP NP NP both
Shoultes Tributary Copart west in pvt No 8.0acres AR AR yes
Smokey Point
Tributary
Crown Manor in 2/3 acres
NP NP
Portage/upstream Wetland # 1247 per DOE Inventory out N/A pvt 28.7acres
Portage/upstream Wetland # 1561 per DOE inventory out N/A pvt Yes Yes 26.5acres AR PF AR AR
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-14 JULY 2017
Portage/downstreamWetland # 1051 per DOE inventory out N/A pvt Yes Yes 140acres NP NP AR AR No
Prairie/upstream Wetland # 1144 per DOE inventory out N/A pvt Yes 8.3acres PF PF AR AR
March/downstream Valley Gem Farms out N/A pvt 70.8acres NP NP NP No
TOTAL 779.2acres
Type or Class subject to change as identified by most recent delineation and wetland assessment.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-15 JULY 2017
Table E-7: Federal and State Laws and City of Arlington Codes Affecting Land Use Decision
Making Regarding Surface Water Resources
Law or Policy Jurisdiction Effect on Comprehensive Plan Land Use Decisions
Growth Manage-
ment Act
State Reduce sprawl by concentrating development within urban growth
boundaries; protect natural resource within boundaries to extent
feasible by requiring the designation and protection of open spac-
es and critical areas.
Shoreline
Management Act
State Requires incorporation of goals and policies into comprehensive
plans that guide development regulations for specific shoreline
uses including measures for conservation, economic
development, recreation, housing, and others.
Endangered
Species Act
Federal Restricts activities that would significantly affect listed species
and their habitats. Activities that alter patterns of run-off, alter
water quality, or that physically alter streams or riparian corridors
are assumed to have harmful effects on fish. Provides 4(d) rule to
assure local governments that activities it authorizes or conducts
are legally permissible and consistent with the conservation of
listed species. In Snohomish County, the species protection that
most impacts development activities are Chinook and Bull Trout.
National Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES)
Federal/State The City has applied for and will soon operate under Phase II
NPDES permit requirements. Permit requirements include
stormwater quantity and quality controls; public education and
outreach; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction
site runoff; post construction runoff; and pollution prevention/good
housekeeping practices.
Clean Water Act Federal/State Directs establishment of State surface water quality standards
(SWQS), established the NPDES program, and identifies
impaired water bodies (303d list) and procedures for restoring
them (Total Maximum Daily Loads, TMDLs).
Puget Sound Water
Quality
Management Plan
Federal/State/
Tribal/Local
Develops coordinated set of intergovernmental actions to restore
and protect the health of Puget Sound. Requires every
municipality to develop and implement a comprehensive
stormwater management plan.
City Critical Areas
Regulations
City of
Arlington
Provides local regulatory control of streams, wetlands, lakes, fish
and wildlife habitat, and erosion-prone and geologically
hazardous areas. Defines resource values, buffers and setback
requirements, and other appropriate protective measures. AMC
20.88.
City Drainage
Regulations
City of
Arlington
Governs design and construction of drainage facilities for new
development and redevelopment in order to prevent or minimize
impacts to the City’s waters. AMC Title 16.
City Grading
Regulations
City of
Arlington
Controls soil movement originating on developing land to prevent
or minimize degradation of water quality, and to control the
sedimentation of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and other
surface water. AMC 20.48.
Total Maximum
Daily Loading
Requirements
State Establishes the maximum levels of discharge to water bodies
from all uses within a watershed.
To ensure high water quality within the City, a number of mechanisms have already been implemented to
provide this service. The City and Snohomish County manage the drainage basins within the Arlington
UGA. Additionally, watershed managers including the Tribes meet regularly at Stillaguamish Watershed
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-16 JULY 2017
Council meetings to implement basin wide recovery and protection strategies. These managers share
scientific inventories of watershed conditions, fish populations, water quality and other Stillaguamish
specific information that can help us all provide efficient solutions. There have also been active riparian
restoration projects occurring since 1995. In fact, there are very few stream reaches left in the Arlington
City limits that require planting. Maintenance of those buffers will be ongoing for a number of years until
the vegetation is sufficiently established. Enforcement of the Critical Areas regulations will then be the
limiting factor to success.
Development proposals within the City must also comply with AMC Chapter 20.64, Floodways,
Floodplains, Drainage and Erosion and 20.28 Stormwater Utility. These codes regulate the manner in
which stormwater is stored, released, and treated on-site before it enters the City's drainage system. The
City's Critical Areas regulations also require 25-150 (average is 50) foot buffers around all waterways and
wetlands so that any run-off entering the systems is filtered through vegetation (biofiltration). The City has
been implementing a program of placing watershed identification signs throughout the City. The naming
of these basins has helped with citizens being able to inform City staff with sub-basin reported activities.
The restoration partnerships with the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and Sound Salmon Solutions are
stretching available restoration dollars by utilizing local expertise and fisheries information.
The City is implementing regulations that allow the use of Low Impact Design (LID) for the management
of stormwater run-off. The LID Best Management Practices are a combination of preferred designs
based on site specific landscape characteristics, and optional types of LID system a landowner can
implement to provide additional treatment of their on-site stormwater. The City has implemented LID
projects such as rain gardens and the large old-town Stormwater Wetland as pilot projects that
landowners can visit to consider if that may work for their project.
The City recently developed a Geo-Spatial tool that using GIS allows a user to identify a parcel and the
tool will prescribe a LID practice that would best fit the site conditions. The tool incorporate GIS layers
that can include soils, surficial geology, slope, groundwater depth, proximity to wells, proximity to springs,
proximity to polluted sites, proximity to streams, proximity to wetlands and other characteristics that help
guide a landowner LID options with high likelihood of functioning in harmony with the natural hydrology.
Noise
By urban standards, Arlington is relatively quiet, and this is one of the amenities mentioned when people
talk about why they have moved here. Unfortunately, we have no measurements of ambient noise levels
within the City limits, or the means to conduct them. The most noise is generated by traffic, especially
along the federal and state highways and major arterials. This is particularly true along I-5 in Smokey
Point, where more houses have been built along the freeway and traffic has increased. Other noise is
generated by industrial uses within the industrial zone. Lastly, there are somewhat frequent sounds of
airplanes using the airport, including a few corporate jets. None of these noise sources has been a major
issue up to this point. However, it is anticipated that as more residential development occurs adjacent to
the highways or around the border of the industrial zone noise will become a greater concern (see Table
E-8: Origins of Most Frequent Noise Complaints). Additionally, we would expect that as the airport
receives more traffic and the areas surrounding develop airplane noise would become a bigger issue. The
land use plan should take into account any potential noise problems generated by incompatible land uses
and appropriate designators should be placed on subjected properties.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-17 JULY 2017
Table E-8: Origins of Most Frequent Noise Complaints
Area Complaints
Received From
Apparent Noise Source
Gleneagle StellaJones/McFarland Cascade
Highland View Estates Arlington Municipal Airport
Kona Crest and Jensen
Street
67th Avenue NE and Pro-build Lumber
Source: City’s Code Compliance Officer
Climate and Weather
Climate and weather, while not critical to land use planning, is a consideration in design and engineering.
For example, the condition of roadways, public transit, and pedestrian/bicycle pathways is affected by the
climate. Temperature variations are significant factors in the level of energy usage, and annual
precipitation provides a source of water. The climate also influences economic activity, most notably
agricultural production.
Summers in Arlington are mild and warm (average daytime temperature in the 70's) and winters are
comparatively mild (average daytime temperature in the mid-40's). The frost-free period for the City
generally begins in April and ends near the first of October. Precipitation is in the form of rain and snow,
averaging 46.86 inches annually (average low of 1.68 inches in July to an average high of 6.23 inches in
December)5 (see Figure E-2: Arlington Rainfall, Yearly Totals and Figure E-3: Arlington Rainfall, Average
Monthly totals). Relative humidity is fairly high due to the water influences. The prevailing wind is westerly
or northwesterly most of the year.
Climate Change
The City of Arlington is lucky in the various scenarios that are presented as to the potential impacts of
Climate Change. A 2014 study completed by NOAA Fisheries titled Influence of climate and land cover
on river discharge in the North Fork Stillaguamish River
(http://www.stillaguamishwatershed.org/Documents/Stillaguamish%20Flow%20Analysis%202014%20fina
l%20report-%20NOAA.pdf) displays how the current impacts are already impacting the watershed. The
records used go back to 1928 in providing documentation that precipitation levels and peak flows are
increasing, while at the same time snow levels in Darrington are reducing. Simply put the City of
Arlington can expect peak flood levels and storm intensities to continue to increase in to the future.
The City will continue to access any information that is relevant to the Stillaguamish and immediate
region. The City will implement actions and land use regulations that can help with the adaptation to
climate change. The City will seek grants and assistance from organizations like the University of
Washington Climate Impacts Group as the risks and impacts of climate change become better
understood. Examples of regulations that should allow for adaptive management tools include flood,
stormwater, landslide, vegetation species selection and wildfire or Firewise programs.
5 Arlington Utilities
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-18 JULY 2017
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-19 JULY 2017
Land Form, Topography, Geology, and Soils
The Arlington UGA occupies a Pleistocene glacial terrace or glacial outwash lobe from the Cordilleran ice
sheet recession, rising southeast from the flood plain of the Stillaguamish River and is in the foothills of
the north range of the Cascades. It is on a relatively level series of stepped terraces, rising first from the
Stillaguamish floodplain and then again east from the Quilceda-Allen drainage basin6. There are portions
of the City that exist in the floodplain, as well as the burn hill area which provides for some higher
elevation glacial till with steep slope topography. (Please refer to GIS maps for more accurate
elevations.)
The load-bearing capacity of soil, the hydric properties, erosion potential, and characteristics with respect
to shrink-swell potential all play a significant role in development of land. In particular, the hydric
properties determine the potential for stormwater infiltration (LID) usage, indicate the existence of
wetlands, and signal the potential for other environmental concerns.
The Soil Survey conducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service includes detailed soil maps that can be
used for site selection and planning. The survey explains in great detail each soil's suitability for uses
such as agricultural, residential, sanitary facilities (septic), recreational, woodland wildlife habitat and
other land uses.
The general soil types in the Arlington area are classified as Everett gravelly sandy loam and Tokul-
Pastik. These general soil types are moderately to very deep, moderately well to excessively drained, and
level to very steep. Such soils are generally found on till plains and terraces. This soil classification is
composed of various primary soils, each with various characteristics and limitations. The primary soils
found in the Arlington UGA are displayed in Figure 2-15: U.S. Soil Conservation Soil Survey Map, and
listed in Table E-9: Soil Types in the Arlington UGA, page E-21. Note that while development limitations
6 Which was at one time the route of the Stillaguamish River. The South fork Stilly and Pilchuck were connected.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-20 JULY 2017
are listed, these are not considered reasons for denying development permits, only that certain
precautions must be taken. Such issues are reviewed through the SEPA process during the development
permit application process. The Environmentally Critical Areas regulations also regulate development on
steep slopes, seismic areas, and other geologically hazardous areas. Site Potential Tree height,
indicating potential stream buffer width considerations, are provided in the soil survey. In addition, soil
suitability is used in determining the potential for development. The survey conducted by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service provides data that is specific enough to be used to determine site development
constraints for particular parcels.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-21 JULY 2017
Figure E-2: Arlington Rainfall, Yearly Totals
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
196
1
196
3
196
5
196
7
196
9
197
1
197
3
197
5
197
7
197
9
198
1
198
3
198
5
198
7
198
9
199
1
199
3
199
5
199
7
199
9
200
1
200
3
In
c
h
e
s
Figure E-3: Arlington Rainfall, Average Monthly totals
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
In
c
h
e
s
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-22 JULY 2017
Table E-9: Soil Types in the Arlington UGA
Soil Classification Soil Characteristics
(% Slopes) Depth Drainage Vegetation Elevation
(ft)
Permeability Development Limitations
72 – Tokul gravelly loam (0-8) Moderate Moderately well Conifers, subject to
windthrow
200-800 Moderate to hardpan, very slow
through
Wetness, reduced w/ drain tile; septic systems often fail
4 – Alderwood-Everett gravelly
sandy loam (25-70)
Moderate to
Very deep
Moderately well to
excessive
Coniferous Forest 0-550 Alderwood - Moderate to
hardpan, very slow through
Everett - Rapid
Steepness; seasonal perched water table; drainage needed for basements, crawlspaces;
sewer needed to prevent water contamination; soils need to be seeded after grading
13 – Custer fine sandy loam (0-
2)
Very deep Poor Conifers &
hardwoods
0-150 Moderate to hardpan, very slow
through
Seasonal high water table; ponding, moderate permeability for septic; cutbacks subject to
caving in
34 – Mukilteo muck Very deep Very poor Sedges & rushes 20-1,000 Moderate Not suitable; ponding & low soil strength; septic fails
30 – Lynnwood loamy sand (0-
3)
Very deep Excessive Conifers 50-500 Rapid Septic seepage; cutbacks subject to caving in
55 – Puget silty clay loam (0-2) Very deep Poor (must be
artificially drained)
Hardwoods 0-650 Slow Flood hazard and seasonal wetness
77 – Tokul-Winston gravelly
loams (25-65)
Moderate to
very deep
Moderately well to
excessive
Conifers, subject to
windthrow
200-900 Moderate to hardpan, slow
through
Run-off rapid; erosion high
17 – Everett gravelly sandy
loam (0-8)
Very deep Excessive Conifers 0-500 Rapid None
19 – Everett gravelly sandy
loam (8-15)
Very deep Excessive Conifers 0-500 Rapid Steepness of slope
39 – Norma loam (0-3) Very deep Poor Hardwood 20-600 Moderately rapid Not suitable; subject to ponding
32 – McKenna gravelly silt loam
(0-8)
Moderate Poor Conifers 100-800 Slow Ponding; drainage needed; septic needs long absorption lines
57 – Ragnar fine sandy loam
(0-8)
Very deep Well None (duff only) 300-1,000 Moderately rapid Few limitations, though septic seepage can be a problem
48 – Pastic silt loam (8-25) Very deep Moderately well Conifers 200-800 Slow Seasonal high water table, wetness, reduced w/ drain tile; steep slopes; erosion
49 – Pastic silt loam (25-50) Very deep Moderately well Conifers 200-800 Slow Seasonal high water table, wetness, reduced w/ drain tile; steep slopes; erosion
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-23 JULY 2017
Natural Hazards
The City of Arlington must be prepared for a significant emergency or region-wide disaster and be able to
respond using only those resources located within the City in the most efficient manner. A disaster or
emergency could cause the City to be isolated for a period of several days and exist solely on its own
resources. Because of this possibility, the City has adopted a disaster plan, which addresses roles,
responsibilities, and procedures to be followed in the case of an emergency (either natural or social).
Unlike in many other parts of the United States, the risk of natural disasters is relatively low in the
Arlington area. Tornados, hurricanes, extreme freezes, blizzards, locust infestation, debilitating heat
waves and pestilence are unknown in the region. However, the below listed natural events do have
various probabilities of occurring.
Earthquakes
The City of Arlington and its residence should be prepared for the occurrence of an earthquake, which the
area has experienced as recently as 2001 (6.8 on the Richter scale). Today's building code considers this
risk in its requirements. Every household should have in place and practice an earthquake response plan.
High Winds
Another exception might be the occurrence of high winds (~80 mph), which the region experienced in
1993, and which we will undoubtedly experience again. Typically with such events we experience some
minor building damage (e.g., roofs, awnings, etc.) and downed trees, which in turn causes short-term
power outages and road blockages.
Volcanic Explosion/Debris Flow
The last exception would be a volcanic explosion on Glacier Peak, which could send a huge
mudflow/flood (lahar) down the Stillaguamish Valley. (See USGS's Volcanic-Hazard Zonation for Glacier
Peak Volcano.) Glacier Peak, at 10,541 feet, is located roughly 45 air miles east of Arlington. It’s most
recent rumblings were about 6,000 years ago. During its most eruptive periods between 6,000 - 13,000
years ago, the debris caused by the eruptions flowed down the Stillaguamish channel to at least Arlington
and I-5. Its biggest explosion was about 12,500 years ago, when it discharged debris four to five times as
massive as the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. In fact, a debris dam created by the eruption caused
the White Chuck and Suiattle rivers to change course from the Stillaguamish to the Sauk at Darrington.
Flood Hazards
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has defined areas showing the extent of the 100-
year flood boundary in order to establish actuarial flood insurance rates and assist communities in efforts
to promote sound flood plain management. Development on flood plains retards their ability to absorb
water, restricts the flow of water, and causes hazards downstream by causing higher water and creating
flood debris.
FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) show only one 100-year flood plain within the City, that being
along the Stillaguamish River and generally defined by the toe of the slope of the plateau surrounding the
Stillaguamish Valley (though there are some areas of the valley that are high enough to be out of the
floodplain. Generally only small portions of the City limits extend into this area, as they are parts of
parcels mainly on the upper plateau. There is a large 110 acre portion referred to as Island Crossing that
is located in the 100-year floodplain. A copy of the FIRM is located at City Hall. However, the FEMA
maps though providing our regulatory flood elevations may be outdated and a new mapping exercise is
anticipated to reflect more up to date data on anticipated flood elevations and impacts of Climate change.
The City may require landowners to perform additional modeling of anticipated flood impacts for project
proposals in the floodplain.
Not being listed on the FIRM does not mean that some of the smaller creeks running through town
couldn’t also experience flooding during 100-year (or lesser or greater) storm events: FEMA just doesn’t
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-24 JULY 2017
map these smaller areas. All development permits are reviewed for potential flooding hazards at the time
of development permit application review. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Critical Area regulations
and flood prevention regulations (found in the land use code) prohibit most types of development within
the 100-year floodway, allowing only those types of uses that are non-impactive.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Arlington does contain areas of steep slopes, most notably along the two steps rising from the
Stillaguamish floodplain (see Figure 2-19: Geological Hazardous Area Map). We also have areas subject
to liquefaction. Everything within the floodplain of the Stillaguamish River (including Island Crossing) is
rated as high potential, and everything on the 2nd geologic tier (on which the airport and most of Arlington
sits) is rated as moderate potential7. (Figure E-4: Liquefaction Potential)
Due to instability, visual impacts, and fire hazard, areas of steep slopes or unstable soils are not
recommended for development without specific
measures being taken to reduce or eliminate these
potential impacts. AMC §20.88 contains restrictions on
development in these areas.
Figure E-4: Liquefaction Potential
5.1.1.1 Tsunamis
The Snohomish County Department of Emergency
Management has an identified Tsunami Risk Zone.
Based upon input from NOAA's Pacific Marine
Environmental Lab, a seventy-foot tsunami was used
as the worst-case event likely to affect Snohomish
County. The potentially flooded areas would thus
be most of the land below the 70-foot elevation
contour line (Figure E-6: SnoCo DEM Tsunami Hazard
Areas). This estimate was based on projections
from both NOAA and Washington State Department of
Natural Resources. Under this scenario, the inundation
zone would essentially be all of the Stillaguamish
Valley downstream of Arlington and the northern part of downtown Arlington. However, this estimate is
now considered excessive and would most likely not be as severe as originally projected.8
7 Draft EIS for Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update, May 2004
8 Michael A. McCallister, Coordinator - Plans and Operations, Snohomish County
Department of Emergency Management
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E
E-25 JULY 2017
Figure E-5: SnoCo DEM Tsunami Hazard Areas
F-1
Appendix F: Environmental Review
F-1: Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement -- 2015
F-2: Response to Comments --
2015
F-3: Addendum – June 2017
On April 22, 2015 the Arlington Comprehensive Plan Draft Update was issued with a
Supplemental EIS included as Appendix F-1. Comments were due on June 8, 2015.
One comment letter was received from the Puget Sound Regional Council. It is
included on the following pages, with responses from the City (F-2). Some changes
were made to the Plan where noted.
An Addendum to the SEIS (F-3) has been issued after certain adjustments were made
in June 2017.
F-2
Appendix F-1:
City of Arlington Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan
Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) --
2015
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-3
CITY OF ARLINGTON URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS)
Description of Proposal: The City of Arlington plans under the Washington Growth
Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.). The Act requires that
cities periodically update their plans with current information, new
rules and revised city codes. Arlington adopted its last plan in
2008, with forecasts and policies geared toward a Year 2025
vision. This updated Plan has a “horizon year” of 2035 and
embraces the Puget Sound region’s Vison 2040.
Requirements for an SEIS are governed by WAC 197-11-620:
An SEIS shall be prepared in the same way as a draft and final EIS
(WAC 197-11-400 to 197-11-600), except that scoping is optional.
The SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives, or
impacts that is in the previously prepared EIS.
The following document supplements the Final Environmental
Impact Statement adopted as part of the 2008 Plan adoption.
Objectives of the Proposal: This Comprehensive Plan was developed in accordance with the
GMA to address growth issues in the City of Arlington and the
adjacent UGA. It represents the community's policy plan for
growth over the next 20 years. It will assist the management of the
City by providing policies to guide decision-making for growth,
development and public services. Cities are required to update
their plans every ten years. The original Arlington GMA Plan was
adopted in 1994 and planned through the year 2015. The City
adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan in 2004 designed to carry
the community forward through 2025. This update plans for a
target year of 2035.
Proponent: City of Arlington
238 N. Olympic Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223
Phone: 360.403.3441
Fax: 360.403.4605
E-Mail: administration@arlingtonwa.gov
Location of Proposal: Arlington Urban Growth Area (UGA)
Lead Agency: City of Arlington
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-4
EIS Required: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was
deemed necessary under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The SEIS
contains new information and analysis, but also builds on data and
analysis contained in previous environmental documents prepared
as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
The lead agency identified the following elements of the
environment for discussion in the Supplemental EIS:
I. Natural Environment: Topography, soils, erosion, air quality, surface and groundwater,
public water supplies, plant and animal habitat, fisheries, energy
and natural resources.
II. Built Environment: Population, housing and employment through year 2035; land use,
housing, recreation, transportation, public services, and utilities.
Purpose of the Supplemental EIS
The purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to assist the public and agency decision-makers in
considering future decisions on land use patterns and Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and
development regulations for the City of Arlington as part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
These broad decisions will provide direction and support for more specific actions by the City,
such as capital improvements and implementing regulations.
The SEPA review of the Plan is a “planning level” analysis as opposed to a “project level”
analysis. The latter is done for specific projects on specific sites and is much more detailed. A
planning-level analysis is more general in nature. SEPA requires that analysis be as specific as
the information available. Because the comprehensive plan is more general in its discussion of
topics, the SEPA analysis will be more general than what might be found in a project level SEPA
review. It is assumed that as specific projects or decisions are made in the future, more detailed
information will be provided, and that the policies of this Plan will be considered in decision
making. This is referred to as “Phased Review” and will be a part of future decision making
using the 2015 updated Plan.
Programmatic Analysis
This Supplemental EIS provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts
appropriate to the general nature of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals. The
adoption of comprehensive plans or other long-range planning activities are classified by SEPA
as a non-project (i.e. programmatic) action. A non-project action is defined as an action that is
broader than a single site-specific project and involves decisions on policies, plans or programs.
An EIS for a non-project proposal does not require site-specific analysis; instead the EIS
discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the
level of planning for the proposal (WAC 197-11-442).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-5
Integrating Environmental Impact Analysis with Growth Management Planning
The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all State and local agencies to
use an interdisciplinary, integrated approach to build environmental factors into planning and the
decision-making processes.
During the development of this Comprehensive Plan update, the City of Arlington is required to
consider the potential environmental impacts of plan policies and alternatives. Cities and
counties planning under GMA may address environmental concerns during the growth planning
process by combining the requirements of GMA with those of SEPA, as specified by 1995
amendments to Chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), SEPA Rules.
Cities and counties planning under GMA have the option of combining analyses, documentation
and public involvement required under environmental and growth management laws. This
results in an “integrated document”, satisfying both GMA and SEPA requirements in one
document, with the Environmental Summary serving as the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) for this Plan.
A major benefit of this integrated approach is a more predictable process for development
review. Evaluation of environmental choices during the planning process should facilitate
analysis of potential environmental impacts as a result of development. This should result in
more certainty and predictability for developers and landowners in association with future
development proposals. The Comprehensive Plan and subsequent implementing regulations
should therefore result in a timelier and more focused environmental review process.
Public Comment
Public workshops will be held by the Planning Commission on at City Hall, 223 N. Olympic
Avenue, Arlington, Washington. The dates are April 21st, May 5th, May 18th (with Airport
Commission), and May 19th. A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on
June 2nd. Comments received at those meetings will be incorporated into the Final EIS. The
June 2nd public hearing may result in a recommendation to the City Council which will also be
incorporated into the Final EIS.
Analysis of Alternatives
No-Action Alternative
If the City Council takes no action to adopt a new comprehensive plan, the existing City of
Arlington Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008 will remain in effect. This alternative would
continue to have conflicting growth targets for 2025 and 2035, inconsistencies between policies
and improvement plans for Transportation and Utilities, buildable lands and other elements
required to be reviewed as part of the mandatory 2015 update.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-6
As a result, State funding of roads, parks, utilities and other infrastructure through the Public
Works Trust Fund, PSRC, IAC and other sources could be denied. Other sanctions could be
imposed if the Growth Management Hearings Board finds the City of Arlington to be out of
compliance with State-mandated update requirements.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action is adoption of the City of Arlington 2015 updated Comprehensive Plan.
The 2015 updated Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) provide an
updated land use plan and policies to address growth for a 20-year planning period through the
year 2035 within the Arlington Urban Growth Area. The Plan includes updates to certain
sections of the 2008 Plan and to ensure internal and external consistencies with Sewer, Water,
Transportation Vision 2040, Transportation 2040 Plans; and with Multi-County and Snohomish
County countywide planning policies.
A revised Critical Areas Ordinance using Best Available Science will also be adopted.
The Proposed Action consists of updates to the following components:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Maps and Figures
Chapter 3: Goals and Policies
Chapter 4: Description of Planning Area
Chapter 5: Land Use Element
Chapter 6: Housing Element
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element
Chapter 8: Transportation Element
Chapter 9: Capital Facilities and Public Services Element
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Appendix B: Essential Public Facility Siting Process
Appendix C: Consistency Matrix - Countywide Planning Policies
Appendix D: Comprehensive Plan Checklist
Appendix E: Natural Environment
Appendix F: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix G: Response to Comments on DSEIS
Appendix H: Public Participation Program
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-7
II. FACT SHEET
Proposed Action: Adoption of an update of the City of Arlington’s Comprehensive
Plan as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The
updated Comprehensive Plan provides an updated land use plan
and policies to address growth for a planning period through the
year 2035 within the Arlington Planning Area. The Plan includes
updates to certain sections of the 2008 Plan. Development
Regulations will be updated in 2015 to implement the policies of
the updated Plan.
Location of Proposal: The City of Arlington and its surrounding unincorporated urban
growth area (UGA). Arlington contains about 6600 acres of land
within its current City limits.
There is a pending proposal for a 239-acre addition to Arlington’s
UGA under consideration as part of the County’s Docket XVII
process, west of I-5.
Proponent: City of Arlington
Lead Agency: City of Arlington
238 N. Olympic Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223
Phone: 360.403.3441
Fax: 360.403.4605
Responsible Official: Paul Ellis, SEPA Responsible Official
Required Approvals: Planning Commission recommendation
City of Arlington City Council – Adoption
Washington Department of Commerce -- Acceptance
EIS Authors: City of Arlington
Shockey Planning Group
Date of Supplemental
EIS Issue: April 22, 2015
Date of Final Action: July 6, 2015
Location of Prior Environmental Documents and Background Information:
City of Arlington
Arlington, WA
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-8
Cost of Document: CD copies are available for free at City Hall at the address above.
The document is also available to view on the City’s website at:
www.arlingtonwa.gov.
SEPA Distribution List (To be Updated)
Federal Agencies
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
National Marine Fisheries Service
Natural Resource Conservation Service
NOAA Fisheries
NOAA Northwest Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Agencies via e-mail from Department of Commerce (reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov)
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation
- Department of Ecology
- Department of Fish and Wildlife
- Department of Health
- Department of Natural Resources
- Department of Transportation
- Parks and Recreation Commission
- Washington State Parks and Recreation
Regional Agencies
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Puget Sound Regional Council
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
Snohomish County
Local Government, Tribes and Utilities
Arlington Fire District
Arlington School District
BNSF Railway Company
Cascade Natural Gas
City of Arlington Police Department
City of Arlington Parks and Recreation Department
City of Arlington Public Works Department
City of Marysville
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-9
City of Stanwood
City of Darrington
Comcast
Frontier
Lakewood School District
Puget Sound Energy
Snohomish County Planning and Development Services
Snohomish County PUD
Snohomish County Sheriff
Snohomish Health District
Stillaguamish Tribe
Tulalip Tribe
Organizations and Interest Groups
Puget Sound Partnership
Media
Arlington Times
Everett Herald
Libraries
Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington Branch
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-10
SEPA Approach
The last complete update of the Comprehensive Plan occurred in 2005, which was an update of
the original 1995 Plan. The Plan was further updated in 2008 with incorporation of the revised
Stormwater Management Comprehensive Plan; the Sewer Comprehensive Plan; and the
Comprehensive Water System Plan. The Capital Facilities Elements of the Comprehensive Plan
were updated accordingly.
The following is a comparison of the 2005 and 2015 environmental impacts and mitigation
measures presented in a format similar to the 2005 document. As mentioned, the 2015 Plan is an
integrated SEPA/GMA document.
Following is a list of GMA and SEPA elements and their treatment in this 2015 Comprehensive
Plan update.
Update Topics
Element Compliant Update New
Land Use
Consistency with countywide planning policies X
Consistency with multi-county planning policies (PSRC) X
Land use map X
Population projection uses latest forecast X
UGA review (required every 8 years) X
Reasonable measures adopted if needed X
Planning for physical activity X
Public use lands – All documented X
List of acquisitions – Current and Planned X
No incompatible uses near airports X
Stormwater planning X
BAS used to designate and protect critical areas X
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) to protect water
quality and quantity
X
TDR or PDR program for forest or agricultural lands
inside UGAs
X
Forest lands designated X
Agricultural lands designated X
Limit accessory uses on agricultural lands X
Review mineral resource lands X
If applicable, development outside UGA consistent with
RCW
X
Housing
Inventory of existing housing and projected housing X
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-11
Update Topics
Element Compliant Update New
needs using latest population projection
Goals, policies for housing X
Identify sufficient land for housing X
Affordable housing planned X
Capital Facilities
Inventory of existing facilities X
Adopted LOS X
Forecast of future needs X
Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new
facilities.
X
Six-year funding plan consistent with comp plan X
Impact fees used only for projects included in the CFP X
Land Use reassessment policy included X
Utilities
General location and capacity of existing and proposed
facilities
X
Rural Element (NA)
Transportation
Transportation inventory X
Levels of service for all facilities; local, regional, and
state
X
Concurrency X
TDM Strategies X
Bicycle and pedestrian planning X
10-year Traffic forecast X
Land use element assumptions used to forecast travel X
Future needs X
Funding program X
Funding analysis X
Intergovernmental coordination X
Plan certified by RTPO Pending
Shoreline Management
SMP goals and policies X
Essential Public Facilities
EPF identification and siting process X
No preclusion policy X
List considered X
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-12
Update Topics
Element Compliant Update New
Consistency
CWPPs X
Internal consistency X
External consistency X
Public Outreach X
Broadly publicized plan amendment process X
Plan amendments no more than once a year
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
The various chapters and appendices of the updated plan are integrated with SEPA elements and
are updated as follows for this SEIS. A review of the 2005 EIS document is summarized along
with the nature of 2015 updates.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING
CONDITIONS
This update uses the same planning
subareas and updates land use,
housing, economic and other
SEPA-related information. These
are discussed in Chapters 4-6.
SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
MITIGATING EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT
As with 2005, this Supplemental EIS evaluates at a programmatic level the current conditions
and potential impacts of changes to past assumptions. The integrated analysis identified updated
development forecasts, determined where 2035 growth will occur, matched locations with the
available or planned infrastructure, avoided critical areas and identified other mitigation
measures that are embodied in the capital facilities plan, goals, policies and implementation
measures.
2025 Population
Projection
2035 Projection
Alt 1 24,487
24,937 Alt 2 24,487
Alt 3 30,538
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-13
ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS
Natural Environment
2005 Air Quality Resources Discussion
Construction Impacts
Localized Transportation Impacts at Congested Intersections
Emission Control and Permitting for Stationary Sources
Regional Air Quality Impacts Due to Transportation
Residential Wood Burning
Burning Brush and Other Vegetation
The 2005 Plan found that regional air quality impacts caused by population growth and
transportation emissions would not be significant because the forecasted population forecasts
were within the forecasted emissions for the four-county region. In 2015, population,
housing, employment and traffic forecasts are within estimates by Vision 2040.
2005 Biological Resources Discussion
The 2005 Plan found that under all alternatives studied, there would be a reduction in the
amount of wildlife habitat in the City and proposed UGA over time as currently planned
projects and future development projects are implemented.
Habitat types most likely to be lost would be forested and agricultural/grassland/pasture.
Existing agricultural/grassland/pasture may be converted to vegetated suburban
residential or a developed condition.
Development of currently vacant or underdeveloped parcels could lead to fragmentation
of wildlife habitat.
Indirect effects could include:
a reduction in wildlife habitat quality and function due to increased human
disturbance.
increases in noise and light in adjacent wildlife habitat.
increases in predatory species (crows, etc.).
an overall decrease in biodiversity and habitat.
Wetlands would receive some level of protection under the City’s environmentally critical
area regulations (AMC 20.88).
The 2005 Plan said that increased densification in the Arlington and other UGAs would
benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat regionally by relieving pressure to develop more rural
areas currently outside of the UGA. In addition, goals and policies would help minimize
potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. These policies have been retained in 2015.
Several existing regulations, in effect in 2005, help to minimize or avoid impact to wildlife
and wildlife habitat, including sections of AMC 20.88, Environmentally Critical Areas,
which require that such resources be protected.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-14
The former plan called for low-impact development, with emphasis on native plant retention
to retain habitat. In 2015, the City is implementing regulations that allow the use of Low
Impact Design (LID) for the management of stormwater run-off including Best Management
Practices with preferred designs and optional types of LID systems. The City has
implemented LID projects such as rain gardens and the large old-town Stormwater Wetland
as pilot projects that landowners can visit to consider if that may work for their project.
These methods will continue into the next planning period.
2005 Surface Water/Water Quality Discussion
The 2005 Plan noted that, as a programmatic EIS, no direct impacts would occur to water
resources, but that the Land Use map and development policies would direct development
into managed drainage basins. The Preferred Alternative would indirectly affect surface
water resources when development proposals affected the landscape patterns and surface
water protections.
Stream channel protections were identified including:
Strategies for facilities that preserves and supplements the natural drainage ways and
other natural hydrologic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development.
Federal NPDES regulations as well as City stormwater regulations that require
stormwater quantity and quality controls.
AMC 20.88, Environmentally Critical Areas which defines stream, flood hazard area, and
other critical area protections and applies regulations to adjacent developments.
The City’s SEPA authority and City codes that require mitigation for impacts to drainage,
habitat, and water quality.
AMC 13.28 containing stormwater management standards that require the detention of
stormwater for major development activity.
The City’s adherence to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Use of drainage systems that mimic natural drainage systems, such as vegetated swales,
wet ponds, and created wetlands.
Protective detention standards that require new development to detain larger volumes of
stormwater runoff on their sites and in such a way as to better mimic the pre-developed
stormwater patterns.
More protective water quality standards, such as more protective requirements for water
quality BMPs as identified in the City’s NPDES permit.
Reduced impervious surface area policies
Drainage/treatment systems on a sub-basin level that optimize treatment and manage
existing and future stormwater flows.
Retrofit of existing detention facilities to improve water quality treatment
Channel specific improvements to correct existing erosion problems and reduce the
potential for increased erosion in the future.
Stormwater quality monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater practices and
standards.
These measures are in place in 2015, with updates to the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan,
development standards or proposed capital improvements.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-15
2005 Groundwater Resources Discussion
The 2005 Plan called out the aquifer under the Arlington Airport as a key concern. The depth
of the is approximately 150 feet1 and the 2015 Plan finds that most uses should not affect the
water quality if best management practices are used.
In terms of quantity, drinking water in the UGA is provided by Arlington. Some of this water
is derived from wells. The Haller well supplies approximately 92%, while the airport well is
2%, and Snohomish County PUD provides 6%. Additionally, some residents use wells as
their main source of drinking water.
Impacts to groundwater quality result primarily from land uses that produce higher levels of
non-point source pollution, such as urban runoff or residential zoning with septic disposal;
and land uses associated with point source pollutants, such as industrial facilities and
stormwater infiltration facilities.
Review for potential groundwater contamination is performed at the time of development
permit application review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's
Environmentally Critical Areas regulations protect wetlands and aquifer recharge zones
providing groundwater replenishment and filtration. And the WCP has a watershed and
wellhead protection plan.
The 2005 Plan included potential mitigation measures such as case-by-case SEPA review,
code requirements under AMC Chapters 20.64 (Drainage, Erosion Control, Storm Water
Management), AMC 20.88 Part IX (Aquifer Recharge Areas). Those rules remain in effect
in 2015.
Table E-7 lists other laws related to surface water quality and quantity that are in effect in
Arlington and are part of all project reviews.
2005 Natural Disasters Discussion
Hazardous area protection and mitigation has heightened importance since the 2014 Oso
disaster. While the topic was discussed in the 2005 Plan, the updated Plan and related codes
were reviewed to ensure that the Land Use and other maps were sensitive to those conditions.
AMC 20.88 (Critical Areas) provides local regulatory control of streams, wetlands, lakes,
fish and wildlife habitat, and erosion-prone and geologically hazardous areas. It defines
resource values, buffers and setback requirements, and other appropriate protective measures.
The Natural Hazards section of Appendix E provide information on other susceptibilities and
their mitigation.
The Island Crossing area was a topic of flood hazard discussions in the 2005 Plan. The entire
area falls within the Stillaguamish 100-Year Floodplain. The Plan observed that any new
1The Ground-Water System and Ground-Water Quality in Western Snohomish County, Washington; U.S.
Geological Survey-Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4312.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-16
development would need to build to FEMA’s requirements. The Lane dealership land was a
concern at the time, but has since (2015) been issued development permits based on
floodplain mitigation and other construction requirements. Other developments may be
required to perform additional modeling of anticipated flood impacts for project proposals in
the floodplain.
Human Systems/Built Environment
A major goal and significant work effort in 2013-2015 has been to produce an update of the
2005 Plan to ensure that the land use, housing, employment, public facilities and other
community elements are updated to remain current. The City embraces the fundamentals of
what was adopted in 2005 because of its exhaustive effort to define a vison based on citizen
consensus. There was no attempt in 2015 to change the vision or direction of the community.
In line with Growth Management requirements, the principal objective has been to update
information to “stay the course” in implementing the goals and vision of 2005.
As in 2005, there are not great changes in the existing plan, with a few exceptions. The main
differences involve integration of the West Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA), interim density
standards for the Brekhus/Beach area addition of the King-Thompson area to the Urban
Growth Area (County docket: ARL3). Neighborhood Planning Subareas remain the primary
planning units, with goals, policies, land use and other elements keyed to each. No changes
are proposed to lands along the only Shoreline of Statewide Significance, that being the bank
of the Stillaguamish River. No significant changes are anticipated in the policies or
regulations governing development. Thus, there should be no significant changes in the type
of development already allowed.
The 2015 Plan has been reviewed against the multi-county planning policies of Vision 2040,
the Snohomish Countywide Planning Policies (2013), the County’s Housing (“HO-5) Study
and numerous other documents adopted by reference (Page 1-4). Care has been taken to meet
the internal and external consistency standards of GMA.
In each of the elements (Chapters 3-9) and appendices, we integrate how each differs from
the 2005 assumptions and how each change is consistent with SEPA-based mitigation or
local, regional, State or federal policy. The City’s integrated SEPA/GMA plan has also been
reviewed against the current draft of the County’s Draft EIS and is consistent, again with the
exception of the proposed King-Thompson (ARL3) UGA expansion. A final decision on that
matter will, by mutual agreement with the County, be taken up after the June adoption of
both plans.
2005 Public Utilities Discussion
Arlington does not control all public utilities—only water, sewer, solid waste, and storm
drainage. The other utilities are provided by either public utility districts or private
companies, each of whom must analyze the environmental impacts of their actions in
providing additional products or services. Thus, this analysis will only address those utilities
and service provided by Arlington. The other utilities were consulted for the 2015 update and
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-17
are prepared to provide services to the current and near term population levels. Each
continually assesses its needs and presumably will alert the City of any potential service
shortfalls. None have been indicated.
The City had several utility plans in effect in 2005 and those remain in effect today, after
recent updates.
Water Comprehensive Plan
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan
The results of these plan updates have been integrated into the Comprehensive Plan and are
discussed in Chapter 9.
The key utility concern in 2005 was the effect of utility extensions outside the UGA on urban
growth in rural areas. Current state and local codes and policies prohibit sewer extensions
beyond UGA boundaries. Water can be extended into the City’s water service area, but is not
considered an instigator of growth.
Another 2005 concern was the effect of utility extensions across environmentally sensitive
areas, impact on riparian buffers and water quality. As discussed in Appendix E, several of
these areas are healing through the maturing of past stream and wetland restoration projects.
In 2015, the City recognizes the importance of minimizing further impacts. Development
projects are reviewed for potential impacts to wildlife and habitat through the SEPA process.
The City's adopted Environmentally Critical Areas regulations (AMC Chapter 20.88) are
intended to protect wildlife and habitat. The rules prohibit the installation of utilities within
critical areas unless necessary and then only under certain design considerations to minimize
impacts.
Following are additional comments of particular relevance to the updating of the City’s 2005
environmental review of its Plan:
2005 2015
Transportation Avoid new roads through major Same policy
Recommended road improvements Table 9-3
Noise 65 dB noise contour within airport Same status
Incidental and temporary urban
noises acceptable AMC §20.44.210 (Noise)
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-18
The 2005 Plan and EIS is adopted by reference in this update, so that readers can delve deeper
into changes in the environmental analysis.
Recreation and Open
Space
-- Need --
Regional Parks 0.0 acres
Community Parks 65.8 acres
Neighborhood/
Mini-Parks 28.7 acres
Trails 33.0 miles
Open Space 50.2 acres
Cultural
Resources 20,148.1 sf
Regional Parks 0.0 acres
Community Parks 71.6 acres
Neighborhood/
Mini-Parks
5% of new
development area
Trails 25 miles
Open Space 0 acres
Cultural
Resources Grants pending
Housing Encourage some higher-end housing Same policy
Urban Form Critical area and tree protection
measures
In addition, WASA form-based plan
adopted
Historic/Archaeological
Resources
No identified significant sites within
UGA. Tribal review of permits
Same procedure and policy
Public Services
LOS and resources identified. Six-
year CIP presented. Concurrency
based
Same -- See Chapter 9
Public Utilities Agencies consulted Agencies consulted -- See Chapter 9
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-19
F-2: Response to Comments --
2015
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-20
APPENDIX F-2:
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
(FORMERLY APPENDIX G IN 2015 PLAN)
Response to Comments -- Puget Sound Regional Council
For the final plan, we have adjusted wording in several portions based on PSRC comments.
Where we wish to retain the existing language, explanations are provided.
PSRC Comment City Response
VISION 2040 context statement:
VISION 2040 calls for local plans to include a context
statement that describes how the plan addresses
regional policies and provisions adopted in VISION
2040. Examples of context statements are provided in
PSRC’s Plan Review Manual, page 2-1. PSRC staff is
also available to provide examples adopted in local
comprehensive plans.
The City has adopted the Vision
Statement contained in its 2005 Plan.
In a contextual sense, it does reflect
Vision 2040, as do several of the
goals and policies of Chapter 3, as
well as the substantive chapters
dealing with the natural environment,
housing, public services and capital
facilities.
In response to your comments, we
have added language to the Vision
Statement that borrows from the Plan
Review Manual model, to more
closely tie the City’s work to VISION
2040. We further emphasize in our
Implementation measures discussed
throughout the Plan, that each
decision made by the City that affects
transit, pedestrians, urban design
and other GMA-related topics will be
assessed against the policies of
Appendix C (See Section 1.4) and
the plans adopted by reference in
Section 1.5. This compulsory review
is our best assurance that the
numerous plans and policies are
considered in the City’s decision
making.
2035 Land Use and Land Capacity Assumptions
The land use element documents a shortfall in land
capacity within the city to accommodate allocated
2035 growth targets (9,654 housing units and 20,829
Your letter discusses correctly notes
that local plans, including Arlington,
must strive for consistency with
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-21
PSRC Comment City Response
jobs within the city in 2035). Growth targets represent
agreement on how growth will be accommodated
within the county, and are required to be consistent
with both the state population projections at the county
level and with the VISION 2040 regional growth
strategy at the regional geography level. Land use
assumptions in comprehensive plans, as a reflection of
the adopted growth target, are similarly bound by
consistency requirements given their effect on the
timing, location, and financing of public services, and
the provision of housing and other important public
facilities (e.g. transportation, wastewater). Further, the
Growth Management Act explicitly requires that local
comprehensive plans demonstrate sufficient capacity
of developable land within existing boundaries to
accommodate allocated housing and employment
growth (RCW 36.70A.115). Before the plan is finalized,
the city should ensure that the city’s land use
assumptions are consistent with the allocated growth
targets, are achievable given developable land
capacity, and are internally consistent throughout the
plan.
Vision 2040 and county population
and job estimates through 2035. As
discussed in Chapter 4, growth
targets were taken from future
population forecasts and are based
on the Puget Sound Regional
Council “Land Use Baseline”,
updated as of April 2014.
Employment forecasts on Table 4-5
also were based on PSRC estimates.
The City and Snohomish County
reached agreement on buildable land
figures and population targets in
2016. These are now a part of the
Plan.
Airport
We commend the plan’s excellent policies with respect
to the airport. Prior to finalizing the plan, we suggest
that you review the guidance contained in the PSRC
Airport Compatible Land Use Program
(http://www.psrc.org/transportation/airtrans/compatible)
as a basis for any needed additions or refinements. In
particular, the plan should provide direct references to
the PSRC program. In addition, to make the Land Use
Map more clear and representative of Plan Section 5.6
Land Use Overlays, Airport Protection District, we
suggest that you more clearly label the four Airport
Protection District subdistricts and five Safety Zones
(A, B, C, and D).
Thank you for your comments. The
Land Use Map will be changed after
Plan adoption to reflect ASO
overlays.
MIC Infrastructure
The plan contains many policies that support
development of a manufacturing industrial center and
a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented business
district, which are supportive of VISION 2040’s focus
on supporting a variety of central places throughout
the region. VISION 2040 also recommends that local
jurisdictions prioritize infrastructure funding within their
identified centers. Policies that prioritize transportation,
public realm, and other investments in the city’s
Thank you for your comments. The
City is working with PSRC as we
move forward with formal designation
of the Arlington Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center
(AMMIC) in South Arlington/North
Marysville. Part of that effort will be to
prioritize road, sewer, water, non-
motorized trails, parks, open space
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-22
PSRC Comment City Response
centers would strengthen the plan’s support for
development in these locations (MPP-DP-7, MPP-T-
11-12).
and other features of our Capital
Improvements Plan. The AMMIC
Plan will reflect the projects outlined
in Chapter 9.
Air Quality
We are pleased that the city recognizes the
importance of meeting federal and state air quality
requirements. We recommend strengthening air quality
policies PT-13.1 and PT-13.2 by using “will” instead of
“should”.
The wording has been strengthened.
Transportation Routes
Similarly, we encourage the strengthening of policy
PT-2.1 by replacing “should” with “will”. PT-2.1: A
motorized and non-motorized transportation plan
should be developed by the City to ensure adequate
transportation routes are created concurrent with new
development.
The City has two policies intended to
ensure that transportation routing is a
key part of its planning and decision
making:
PT-1.4 Design the street system to
distribute traffic evenly throughout
the City.
PT-1.5 Sign and maintain Truck
Route(s) and enforce their use.
Land Use Assumptions in Transportation Element
The Growth Management Act requires that travel
demand forecasts and transportation need
assessments be based on land use assumptions that
correspond with the most recently adopted growth
targets. These population and employment
assumptions must be consistent throughout the
comprehensive plan (i.e., land use element,
transportation element, and housing element) (RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(i)). Please add explanatory material
to more clearly document the land use assumptions in
the transportation element to demonstrate
consistency.
The Land Use plan was used to
develop “Focus Areas”. The Focus
Area population projections are
included in the 2035 Transportation
Plan (transportation model) and 8.1
Sidewalk and Bicycle Mapping
In addition to the map of trails, the plan should include
a map or list of sidewalks and bicycle facilities (RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A)). See the Washington State
Department of Commerce’s Transportation Element
Guidebook, pages 122-127, for information about how
to inventory existing facilities and conditions as part of
the pedestrian and bicycle component
Maps 2.5 and 2.7 present good
depictions of where current streets
lie, where new ones are planned and
where pedestrian/bicycle trails are
located. Policies PL 21.1, PT 4.10,
PT 5.2, PT 8.1 and others encourage
or require that bicycle lanes be
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-23
PSRC Comment City Response
provided with new road construction.
Additional mapping to show where
bicycle lanes do not exist could be
confusing and would not add to the
City’s commitment to provide them
where warranted.
Freight routes
Freight routes are an important part of the
transportation system, particularly for cities with
manufacturing industrial centers, and should be
inventoried and planned for in comprehensive plan
transportation elements. If you do not already have
designated freight routes, see the Washington State
Department of Commerce’s Transportation Element
Guidebook, pages 85-88, for how to consider freight in
your plan
See “Transportation Routes”
discussion above. The City has a
Freight Mobility section its
Transportation Plan and is currently
working with WSDOT to update the
State Freight Mobility Plan.
Non-Motorized LOS
The transportation and other plan elements have many
policies supportive of walking, biking and transit.
Implementation of these policies would be
strengthened through adoption of levels of service and
a concurrency approach that includes multiple modes.
The Growth Management Act requires level of service
standards for all locally owned arterials and transit
routes, and the MPPs call for other modes, such as
biking and walking, to be addressed through this
approach. This will help with the evaluation of needs
when comparing the inventories to the level of service
standards, as well as multimodal concurrency
requirements. The Washington State Department of
Commerce’s Transportation Element Guidebook has
information on how to set level of service standards
and identify system needs (pages 143-150 and 183-
189).
The City consulted the referenced
Guidebook and compared it to the
Transportation Plan. Policies in the
two documents are consistent. The
Transportation Plan is summarized in
the Comprehensive Plan and is
adopted by reference thereto. Future
public and private projects will be
reviewed against the Plan to
determine if and how various travel
modes will be accommodated.
Concurrency Standards for Non-Motorized Uses
The city is encouraged to tailor its concurrency
program to multimodal travel. For instance, as the city
adopts standards for its nonmotorized facilities and
transit, it could incorporate these into its concurrency
assessment. MPP-DP-56 calls for tailoring
concurrency programs, especially for centers, to
encourage development that can be supported by
transit.
“Concurrency” as a requirement does
not include non-motorized or multi-
modal elements. However, the City
will scrutinize proposed projects for
the means of providing multi-modal
accommodations in the design. For
example, when the Manufacturing
Industrial Center (MIC) is master
planned, multi-modal approaches will
be taken into account in laying out
circulation plan. The City will also
look for similar accommodations in
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-24
PSRC Comment City Response
existing centers as public
improvements are considered.
SR 530 and SR 531
SR 530 and SR 531 should be recognized as
highways of regional significance in the plan. The plan
correctly lists the level of service for these facilities as
LOS D.
Thank you for your comment.
Improvements to SR531 are currently
a part of the transportation revenue
package pending in Olympia.
Recommendations regarding both
highways are included in the
“Stillaguamish Valley Economic
Recovery Plan”, currently being
developed under and EDA Grant, in
response to the Oso disaster. These
roads are given the greatest priority
and attention by the City and others
with interest in the North Puget
Sound Manufacturing Corridor
(Economic Alliance of Snohomish
County).
Capital Financing Plan
The transportation element should include a financing
plan and analysis of funding capability that addresses
transportation facilities and strategy needs identified in
the plan. This financing plan should include cost
estimates for identified facilities and strategies as well
as estimated sources of revenue. The Washington
State Department of Commerce’s Transportation
Element Guidebook has information on developing a
financing plan for the transportation element (pages
202-213).
Discussion has been added to
Chapter 9. Additional detail is
available in the road, water and
sewer capital facilities plans,
currently in the City’s adoption
process and adopted by reference as
part of this Comprehensive Plan.
Housing Need
The housing element, particularly Figure 6-3, provides
valuable context for countywide housing need and
expected local action relative to affordable housing
goals set by Snohomish County. The housing element
should also provide a more locally-based housing
needs assessment that quantifies the unmet existing
and future housing need that is to be addressed in the
plan. For assistance calculating this need, please refer
to the Snohomish County Housing Characteristics and
Needs report, the PSRC Housing Element Guide, or
contact Giulia Pasciuto at gpasciuto@psrc.org. In
addition, please reference the land use capacity
analysis in the housing element.
Chapter 6 (Housing) uses information
taken from the Snohomish County
Housing Needs (“HO-5”) report,
which in turn is based on the Vision
2040 analysis. The Chapter is also
consistent with the County’s recently
finalized Environmental Impact
Statement on its comprehensive plan
update, particularly with regard to
housing needs resulting from the
Brekhus/Beach and King-Thompson
TDR issues.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-25
PSRC Comment City Response
Housing Timeline
The policies in the draft housing element go a long
way to advancing VISION 2040’s housing goals. Many
of the policies appear to rely on future work for
successful implementation. The city should consider
adding a discussion of strategies and timelines for
implementation of the policies in the housing element.
Upon adoption of the Plan, the City
will undertake various code or
program initiatives based on priorities
agreed to by the Mayor, Council,
Planning Commission and
community stakeholders. Some of
these will likely affect housing
(cottage housing ordinance, form-
based infill, mobile home/RV parks,
transit oriented development, etc).
These priorities will be assessed
each year as part of the budget
process.
Sewer Service
We commend the city for prioritizing sanitary sewer
service for development within the city. Please
consider formalizing this priority by adding a policy on
connection to the sewer system to address MPP-PS-9:
Serve new development within the urban growth area
with sanitary sewer systems or fit it with dry sewers in
anticipation of connection to the sewer system.
Alternative technology to sewers should only be
considered when it can be shown to produce treatment
at standards that are equal to or better than the sewer
system and where a long-term maintenance plan is in
place.
The City does require connection to
the sanitary sewer system as part of
new development. It also requires
connection once sewer systems are
available to areas currently served by
septic systems (AMC 13.08.130).
Policy MPP-PS 8 Water Conservation
The city has water conservation policies that help
address multicounty planning policies on long-term
water needs. These policies should be expanded to
include promoting the use of water reclamation and
reuse, as called for by MPP-PS-8.
Wording has been added to policy
PS 7.2 to include “water reclamation
and reuse”.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Climate Change.
The multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040 and
the strategies in Transportation 2040 call for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to impacts
related to climate change. See page 42 of VISION
2040 for an overview of climate change and related
policies and page 34 in Transportation 2040 for
information on the four-part greenhouse gas reduction
strategy (land use, user fees, choices, and
technology). The plan already includes some policies
that support positive actions to reduce greenhouse
gases, such as promoting transit and increasing
nonmotorized transportation options. However, the
The City embraces the Multi-County
Planning Policies, adopts them by
reference and calls for them to be
consulted as part of project, plan,
policy and SEPA reviews.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-26
PSRC Comment City Response
plan could be strengthened by directly addressing the
climate change-related multicounty planning policies
and including additional strategies such as emissions
reductions from municipal operations and additional
transportation demand management strategies.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-27
Appendix F - 3: Supplemental EIS
Addendum
June 2017
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F
F-28
CITY OF ARLINGTON URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2017 ADDENDUM TO
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS)
ADOPTED JUNE 30, 2015
An Addendum provides additional information or analysis
that does not substantially change the analysis of
significant impacts and alternatives in the existing
environmental document. It is allowed under WAC 197-11-
625.
Because it is an integrated SEPA/GMA document, the
2017 Plan update contains changes outlined in Appendix
G, which contains comments from the Puget Sound
Regional Council as part of it Certification Review.
Appendix G: Response to Certification Review
Puget Sound Regional Council
In Preparation
-
To Be Concluded Upon Plan Adoption
Appendix H: Public Participation
Program
1 PART I ‐ Introduction | City of Arlington
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
PROGRAM
Prepared by
Department of Community & Economic Development
And Shockey Planning Group
2015
Comprehensive Plan Update
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
PART I ‐ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3
What is a Public Participation Program? .................................................................................................. 3
Who can participate in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update? .............................................................. 3
How can I participate in the City’s Comprehensive Plan update? ............................................................. 3
What is a Comprehensive Plan? ................................................................................................................ 3
How is the Comprehensive Plan implemented? ........................................................................................ 4
What topics does the Comprehensive Plan address? ............................................................................... 4
Where can I find the City’s current Comprehensive Plan? ........................................................................ 5
Why do Comprehensive Plans have to be updated? ................................................................................. 5
How often do Comprehensive Plans Have to be updated? ....................................................................... 5
When is the City’s Comprehensive Plan update due? ............................................................................... 5
PART II – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE APPROACH ................................................................................ 5
What is the City’s plan for updating its Comprehensive Plan? ................................................................. 5
What items in the Comprehensive Plan will the City focus on in the update process? ............................. 6
PART III – OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................... 6
How will the City provide public notices regarding the update process? ................................................. 6
How can I follow the update process? ...................................................................................................... 6
Can I review documents in person? .......................................................................................................... 7
What role does the Planning Commission play in the update process? ................................................... 7
Who do I contact if I have a question or want to provide comment? ....................................................... 7
What if I miss a meeting? ......................................................................................................................... 8
PART IV – PROJECT STEPS & TIMELINE ......................................................................................................... 9
What steps are involved in the update process and what is the timeline for completion? ...................... 9
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
3 PART I ‐ Introduction | City of Arlington
PART I ‐ INTRODUCTION
What is a Public Participation Program?
This Public Participation Program (PPP) has been put together to help
you understand comprehensive planning and know how you can
participate in the update of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan. This PPP
describes what a comprehensive plan is, the state requirements for
comprehensive plan updates, the City’s approach to updating its
comprehensive plan, and, most importantly, how you can follow and
participate in the City’s Comprehensive Plan update process (see RCW
36.70A.140).
Who can participate in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update?
Anyone that has an interest in Arlington’s future is welcome to
participate in the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specific
participants include:
The General Public: Arlington residents, property owners, and
businesses.
Elected & Appointed Officials & City Staff: City Councilmembers,
Planning Commissions, Park Board Members, and City Departments.
Special Districts: Snohomish County PUD, Arlington School District,
Lakewood School District, Stillaguamish Flood Control District, etc.
Other Organizations: Arlington/Smokey Point Chamber of
Commerce, Downtown Arlington Business Association, Master
Builders of Snohomish County, Snohomish Conservation District, etc.
State, Regional, and Local Governments/Organizations:
Washington State Departments of Archeology and Historical
Preservation; Commerce, Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, Natural
Resources, Transportation; Puget Sound Regional Council;
Snohomish County; Snohomish County Tomorrow; Planning
Advisory Committee; and Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians.
How can I participate in the City’s Comprehensive Plan update?
You can participate in the update by reviewing draft documents and
providing the City with your comments, attending public meetings and
hearings and providing public comments. The City of Arlington thanks you
for your interest in the update process and we look forward to your
participation.
What is a Comprehensive Plan?
A comprehensive plan is a policy document that provides the City with a
framework for managing forecasted growth over the next twenty year
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
4 PART I ‐ Introduction | City of Arlington
period (from the date of adoption). The plan outlines how this growth will
be accommodated within the City and what that growth will look like. It
also gives members of the community an opportunity to have a say in the
City’s future in terms of its physical development.
While the Comprehensive Plan is ultimately adopted by the City Council,
it’s the City’s Planning Commission that has stewardship over the plan and
its content.
Local jurisdictions are required by law to have Comprehensive Plans (see
RCW 36.70A.040).
How is the Comprehensive Plan implemented?
The Comprehensive Plan provides the foundation for all development
regulations found in Arlington’s Municipal Code (the AMC). All of the
City’s development regulations are required to be in conformance with the
policies set forth in the Plan (see RCW 36.70A.100). Additionally, all City
capital budget decisions must be made in conformity with the adopted Plan
(see RCW 36.70A.120). When the City reviews both public and private
development proposals through its permitting process, proposals are
reviewed for compliance with both the development regulations and the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
What topics does the Comprehensive Plan address?
Knowing what topics are addressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan can
help you identify the subjects that are of most interest to you as you
participate in the update.
As required by State law (see RCW 36.70A.070), the City’s Comprehensive
Plan contains the following elements:
Land Use. This element covers topics such as geographic land use
designations, urban growth boundaries, residential density, land
capacity analyses, projected population, and future needs.
Housing. This element discusses housing inventory, affordability,
special housing, and future needs.
Capital Facilities. This element addresses existing public facilities, their
conditions, and anticipated needs and improvements.
Utilities. This element discusses existing utility infrastructure and
needed improvements to meet future demands.
Transportation. This element addresses the City’s road network,
transportation facilities, and needed improvements.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
5 PART II – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE APPROACH | City of Arlington
Economic Development. This element covers such topics as
employment, household income, tax revenue, industry and projected
needs.
Parks & Recreation. This element addresses existing park and
recreational opportunities and projected needs and improvements to the
City’s park system.
Where can I find the City’s current Comprehensive Plan?
To assist you in participating in the update process, we invite you to review
and become familiar the City’s current Comprehensive Plan adopted in
2005. It is accessible from the City’s website at www.arlingtonwa.gov.
Why do Comprehensive Plans have to be updated?
Comprehensive plans are intended to be living documents because they
must be responsive to the ever changing needs, characteristics, and desires
of the community they’re written for.
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City to
review and revise its comprehensive plan and implementing development
regulations periodically [RCW 36.70A.130(1)]. The GMA states:
How often do Comprehensive Plans Have to be updated?
Comprehensive Plans must be periodically updated once every eight years
(see RCW 36.70A.130.130(5)(a)). Since Comprehensive Plans are living
documents, amendments to Comprehensive Plans can also be made once
annually in-between periodic updates. These annual amendments can be
initiated by both the City and members of the public (see AMC Chapter
20.96).
When is the City’s Comprehensive Plan update due?
The City of Arlington adopted its updated comprehensive plan in 2015 (see
RCW 36.70A.130(5)(a)). Certain changes were made as part of the Plan
Certification process conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC). These changes are under review by the Planning Commission and
City Council. The amended Plan will be adopted by December 2017.
PART II – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE APPROACH
What is the City’s plan for updating its Comprehensive Plan?
Updating a comprehensive plan is a huge undertaking that involves a lot of
time, resources, and technical expertise. The City has contracted with
Shockey Planning Group to assist in the periodic update of the
Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
6 PART III – OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | City of Arlington
As part of the 2015 update, the City has formed an internal committee to
oversee the update process. This committee included City staff from
different departments, a member of the City Council, a member of the
Planning Commission, and Reid Shockey of Shockey Planning Group.
Since City resources are limited, the City’s first priority is to ensure the
comprehensive plan complies with Washington State Department of
Commerce requirements.
Also, individual memoranda were produced for each item in the
Comprehensive Plan that needed attention or revision. This created a record
of how each item was addressed and allowed the Staff, Commission,
Council, Commerce and the public to discuss them as they evolved. The
changes were incorporated into an updated Comprehensive Plan in June
2015.
What items in the Comprehensive Plan will the City focus on in the
update process?
The Washington State Department of Commerce put together a checklist of
mandatory items that must be updated order to be compliant with State
requirements (see Appendix D “Periodic Update Checklist for Cities” on the
State Department of Commerce webpage).
PART III – OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
How will the City provide public notices regarding the update
process?
in 2015 the City provided notice of public meetings and hearings, important
updates, and participation opportunities through the following methods:
The City Website (www.arlingtonwa.gov)
City Facebook Profile
The Arlington Update (quarterly newsletter mailed to residents)
The Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices
City Hall
The Arlington Library
The Daily Herald and Arlington Times (via legal notices)
Email (upon request)
How can I follow the update process?
For your convenience, the City utilizes its website as the focal point for
disseminating information regarding the 2015 update (see
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
7 PART III – OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | City of Arlington
www.arlingtonwa.gov). This will provide you with direct access to the
current comprehensive plan; draft documents for your review; a link to
submit any comments you may have; a list of public meetings with the date,
time, and location, as they are scheduled; staff reports; status updates; and
other relevant project information.
Can I review documents in person?
If you prefer to review documents in person, you may do so any time during
our regular office hours. We are open 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday through
Friday. Our office is located at 18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223
(Arlington Municipal Airport Office).
What role does the Planning Commission play in the update process?
The City Planning Commission (which consists of seven volunteer members
of the community appointed by the Mayor and City Council) is the steward
of the Comprehensive Plan. In this role they provide advice and
recommendations to the Mayor, Council, and City staff on planning goals,
policies and future plans. The commission focuses primarily on land-use
planning.
For the 2015 Plan Update, the Planning Commission provided City staff
with input regarding:
Public participation
Proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (before release for
public comment)
Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (before release for
public comment)
Preliminary Draft Plan (before release for public comment)
Preliminary Final Plan (before presentation to City Council)
For the 2017 amendments, the Planning Commission will review proposed
changes to comply with PSRC recommendations and will forward changes
to the City Council for approval prior to December 2017. The PSRC will
then finalize its certification.
Who do I contact if I have a question or want to provide comment?
City staff is available to answer any questions your may have and provide
you with any information regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes is the City’s
point of contact. He may be reached at mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov or at
360.403.3436.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
8 PART III – OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | City of Arlington
What if I miss a meeting?
The City records all public meetings. Audio recording of any meeting will be
made available to you upon request. The City also prepares written minutes
of all public meetings and these documents are also available upon request.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
9 PART IV – PROJECT STEPS & TIMELINE | City of Arlington
PART IV – PROJECT STEPS & TIMELINE
What steps are involved in the update process and what is the timeline for completion?
The comprehensive plan update process includes 5 number of major steps. The following table outlines the process and gives a
general timeline:
2014 2015
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
TA
S
K
Draft EIS 4/22/15
Final EIS 6/08/15
CC Workshop 6/08/15
Final PH 6/15/15
Adoption 6/15/15
APPENDIX I: Concurrency Review and
Reassessment Process
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I
I- 1 July 2017
Concurrency Review and Reassessment Process
“Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current
service levels below locally established minimum standards.”
RCW 36.70A.020
Goal 12
Local Comprehensive Plans must contain documentation of future facility needs along with a
proposed capital budget to provide those facilities over the next six and twenty years. Chapters
8 and 9 provide those financial plans. Where gaps occur between what was planned and what
funding is actually available in a particular year, there must be a strategy for closing those gaps.
The strategy is comprised of an annual assessment of infrastructure costs and revenues and
methods to be used where gaps occur. Those methods can include additional demand
management strategies, pursuing new revenues, reducing level-of-service standards, or
changing the land use maps to reduce demands on services and infrastructure.
Each year, Snohomish County issues a Growth Monitoring Report that compares population
and job trends with its planning assumptions and forecasts. The County issues a Statement of
Assessment as part of its Capital Improvements Plan1 indicating whether buildable lands, land
use, traffic or utility plans need adjustment to meet concurrency requirements. The County’s
Statement responds to the following criteria in reaching its findings:
1. Whether levels of service for public facilities necessary for development will be achieved
by the currently adopted Capital Improvements Plan.
2. If there are potential funding shortfalls vs. the assumptions and forecasts in the CIP.
3. Where shortfalls are possible, if other “reasonable measures” can be invoked to ensure
maintenance of level of service standards.
If such measures are not practicable, the County’s policy is to reassess its Plan to ensure that
services are balanced with growth. This is “concurrency”. Options may involve finding additional
revenue sources, reducing level of service standards or adjusting the land use plan to lessen
the rate of growth. All of these must be addressed carefully because the goals are to provide the
room for job and population growth; while ensuring a quality of life and quality of services.
1 Section IV and VI, Snohomish County 2016 – 2021 Capital Improvement Program, November 23, 2015
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I
I- 2 July 2017
ANNUAL REVIEW
Arlington will process a similar Statement of Assessment each year after the County’s Growth
Monitoring Report is issued and before the annual review of proposed Plan amendments
(docketing) is concluded. The annual plan review will be conducted in concert with adoption of
the City’s six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and before the City’s annual budget
process. The format and content of the Assessment will follow that of the County’s.
This approach to measuring concurrency or the need for Plan adjustments is consistent with
several Plan policies.
PL-4.8 The City should plan for a balanced mix of land uses based on land availability and
the capacity to provide public services.
NEW Infrastructure capacity should be “concurrent” with new land development. Where
concurrency cannot be assured, the GMA and capital facility plans should be
reassessed and potentially amended accordingly.
Policies:
PT-2.1 A motorized and non-motorized transportation plan should be developed by the City
to ensure adequate transportation routes are created concurrent with new
development. Evaluate minimizing impervious surfaces and incorporating LID
facilities into these plans where feasible.
GT-3 Ensure concurrency by providing an effective roadway network with adequate
capacity to meet the demand for travel within the City at the adopted Level of
Service (LOS) standard.
Policies:
PT-3.1 The City should periodically review and revise, if necessary, existing levels of
service and the concurrency management system as part of the Comprehensive
Plan update.
NEW The Transportation Element and Capital Facility Elements will be reviewed annually
for consistency with the adopted Transportation Plan; Water and Sewer Plans.
PT-12.2 New developments should be required to pay for improvements related to the
development, including upgrading of existing facilities, on a proportionate share
basis and according to calculated impacts to existing LOS.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I
I- 3 July 2017
PS-1.10 Serve new development within the urban growth area with sanitary sewer systems
or fit it with dry sewers in anticipation of connection to the sewer system. Alternative
technology to sewers should only be considered when it can be shown to produce
treatment at standards that are equal to or better than the sewer system and where
a long-term maintenance plan is in place.
EIGHT-YEAR UPDATE
While there is an annual amendment process to review minor adjustments or citizen requests
for changes to the Plan, a comprehensive update is completed every eight years. This update is
mandated by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130(5)) and is a time to bring the
comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations up to current standards. It is
also an opportunity to reassess the vision and progress toward achieving the vision a
community has determined for itself. Some general questions that should be raised include:
• Were our assumptions correct?
• Are we doing what we said we would do?
• Is it turning out as we had hoped?
• If not, why? What should be done to make the outcome better?
• What policy adjustments can be made if needed?
• Is our financial plan adequate to meet infrastructure expectations?
• Are levels of service standards consistent with our infrastructure needs and ability to pay
for infrastructure?
• Do we need to make changes to the land use plan if we are falling behind in funding
infrastructure?
Depending on the answers to those questions, more specific questions can be raised and
discussed publicly. It is important to include the public in these questions and throughout the
update process.
BASIC STEPS IN THE PERIODIC REVIEW
As far as capital facilities and public services go, the basic requirements of the update process
include:
• Update inventory
• Assess progress on implementation
• Update the forecast and identify any new needs
• Assess your findings
Are we keeping up with growth?
Are we falling behind in maintenance? Are we making progress on our other plans?
Can we provide our urban areas with the services needed?
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I
I- 4 July 2017
Are the assumptions used still valid?
Are the assumptions and timeframes of functional plans (sewer, water, stormwater,
etc.) – especially those of other entities – consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• Update the implementation plan. This must be done in light of any new population figures,
changes in growth patterns, annexations or new incorporations, or changes to the urban
growth boundary.
If the jurisdiction has assumed any special purpose districts, if new special purpose districts
have formed, or if the local situation has changed due to new information, policies, or changes
in Level of Service standards, the factors must be updated and addressed in the revised CFP.
The update must address any changes in statute since the pervious update as well. Changes to
the GMA, such as the provision to promote physical activity, may result in changes to the
comprehensive plan and that may impact the capital facilities element.1 The review and
assessment may show that the jurisdiction is on track to achieve its vision, it may show a
potential gap in one aspect of services, or it may highlight the need to improve the level of
operation and maintenance to certain facilities. Or it may show that a certain geographic area
has fallen below adopted LOS and strategies need to be developed to bring it back up to
standard. The importance of the update is that it provides a process by which the review occurs,
involving all stakeholders and special purpose districts as well as the public. It is an excellent
opportunity to educate newly elected officials about the importance of long term planning for
growth and the needed infrastructure to serve that growth. It is also a time to communicate with
the public about the costs of the existing systems and what will be needed to implement the
land use and related plans. These discussions can often lead to a willingness to accept higher
densities or different growth patterns so that limited infrastructure funding can be maximized to
serve a greater number of people at a lower cost.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
CA #4
Attachment
C
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
September 18, 2017
SUBJECT:
Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement for the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang
Task Force
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Interlocal Agreement Amendment No. 1
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Police; Jonathan Ventura 360‐403‐4621
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $1,230 for remainder of 2017
BUDGET CATEGORY: General Fund ‐ Police
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $5,000
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
The attached amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for participating in the Snohomish
Regional Drug & Gang Task Force (SRDGTF) for 2017. The amendment completes the
merger of the South County Drug Task Force with the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang
Task force.
The Interlocal Agreement allows participating jurisdictions to jointly coordinate selected
law enforcement activities, resources, and functions in order to disrupt illegal drug
trafficking systems and to remove drug traffickers through a cooperative program of
investigation, prosecution, and asset forfeiture.
HISTORY:
The City has been a longtime participant in the Task Force.
ALTERNATIVES
Not act as a participating jurisdiction with the Task Force.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement for the Snohomish
Regional Drug & Gang Task Force and authorize the mayor to sign it.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SNOHOMISH
REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE
This Amendment No. 1 To The Interlocal Agreement Establishing the Snohomish Regional
Drug and Gang Task Force, is entered into by and between Snohomish County, a political subdivision
of the State of Washington (the “County”), following jurisdictions (hereinafter collectively referred to
as the “Participating Jurisdictions”):
City of Arlington City of Lynnwood
City of Bothell City of Marysville
City of Brier City of Mill Creek
City of Darrington City of Monroe
City of Edmonds City of Mountlake Terrace
City of Everett City of Mukilteo
City of Gold Bar City of Snohomish
City of Granite Falls City of Stanwood
City of Index City of Sultan
City of Lake Stevens Washington State Patrol
City of Lake Forest Park Snohomish Health District
WITNESSES THAT:
WHEREAS, the County and the Participating Jurisdictions entered into an Interlocal
Agreement Establishing the Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force, recorded under
Snohomish County Auditor instrument number 201610040684 (the “Agreement”). The
original term of the Agreement is July 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2017, the Parties desire to revise certain sections of the
Agreement to reflect the assignment of additional investigative personnel and resources.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances, and promises
hereinafter contained, the parties mutually agree to amend the Interlocal Agreement as follows:
1. Section 1.2 of the Interlocal Agreement is amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:
1.2 The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2016, through December 31,
2017, unless earlier terminated or modified as provided in this Agreement. The
Snohomish County Sheriff may extend this Agreement for up to three additional one-
year terms by providing written notice to each of the participating jurisdictions along
with revised funding contribution rates described in Exhibit C, no later than September
30 of each year. In no event will the funding contribution increase more than 3% per
year.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SNOHOMISH
REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE
2. Section 2.2 of the Interlocal Agreement is amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:
2.2 The Task Force Executive Board shall be comprised of: one representative from
each Participating Agency that contributes at least one full-time employee to the Task
Force. Executive Board member votes shall be determined by the number of full-time
personnel their agency contributes to the Task Force. As an example; if the Snohomish
County Sheriff provides six employees and the City of Lynnwood provides three,
Snohomish County has six votes and the City of Lynnwood has three. Additional
Executive Board members, with one vote each include: the Snohomish County
Prosecuting Attorney, the Everett City Attorney, the Northwest HIDTA Director, and
one chief of police from the remaining Participating Jurisdictions chosen by the chiefs
of police of the remaining Participating Jurisdictions. Exhibit A details the Participating
Agencies that have assigned personnel to the Task Force in 2017. If a Participating
Agency that has no personnel assigned to the Task Force, as of the date of this
Agreement, assigns full-time personnel to the Task Force, a representative from that
agency will be added as an Executive Board member after the full-time personnel has
been assigned to the Task Force for three months. The Snohomish County Sheriff shall
serve as Chair of the Executive Board. The Task Force Executive Board may adopt
bylaws providing for appointment of alternates to attend Executive Board meetings in
the absence of members. At such meetings the alternate shall have the same rights as
the appointing member. Any action taken by the Task Force Executive Board under
this Agreement shall be based on simple majority of votes.
3. Section 2.3 of the Interlocal Agreement is amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:
2.3 Personnel assigned to the Task Force shall be directed in their Task Force duties
by the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) through the Task Force Commander.
The Task Force Commander will be an employee of Snohomish County for all
purposes, and, if not a commissioned law enforcement officer, will hold a special
commission for that purpose. Selection of the Task Force Commander will be
conducted in accordance with Exhibit E incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Section 3.5 of the Interlocal Agreement is amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:
3.5 Upon termination of the Task Force, all funds remaining in said special account
shall be disbursed pro rata to the then-current Participating Jurisdictions in proportion to
their total financial contribution to the Task Force for the calendar year prior to
termination.
5. A new Section 3.6 is hereby added to the Interlocal Agreement:
3.6 By January 31st of each year, each Participating Jurisdiction will submit to the
County an estimate of the jurisdiction’s anticipated contributions to Task Force for the
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SNOHOMISH
REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE
current year. Contribution is defined to include, but is not limited to, financial
contributions made to the Task Force under this Agreement, personnel costs to be paid
directly for investigative staff assigned full time to the Task Force, and Task Force
operating costs paid directly by the Participating Jurisdiction.
After the Participating Jurisdiction’s estimate is submitted, if the jurisdiction desires to
make a contribution that was not included in its estimate, the Participating Jurisdiction
must identify the additional contribution in writing and submit it to the Task Force
Commander. The Task Force Commander must review proposed contribution(s) and
may accept or reject it. Any additional contribution that is not approved by the Task
Force Commander is ineligible for inclusion in the final report of contributions.
Within 90 days of the end each calendar year, each Participating Jurisdiction shall
submit to the County a final report of its total financial contributions made to support
the Task Force for the prior year. Any reported contribution, plus any additional
contributions approved by the Task Force Commander, exceeding the estimate by more
than 15% will not be included in the allocation rate, unless approved by the Executive
Board.
Final reports will be used to establish the allocation rate for each Participating
Jurisdiction for the prior year. The allocation rate for each Participating Jurisdiction
shall be calculated by dividing the Participating Jurisdiction contributions by the total of
all participating jurisdictions’ contributions. An example follows:
Allocation rate for Agency A = Agency A reported contribution
Total of all reported contributions
The allocation rate for each Participating Jurisdiction shall be multiplied by the amount
of excess fund balance, described in Section 5.3 to determine the amount of proceeds to
be distributed to each Participating Jurisdiction. Any Participating Jurisdiction entitled
to receive an amount less than $1,000 agrees that the administrative burden of tracking
that asset forfeiture funding exceeds the value of receipt and therefore any distributions
below the threshold will not be distributed, but rather will be retained and reinvested in
Task Force operations.
6. Section 5.3 of the Interlocal Agreement is amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:
5.3 A portion of the net monetary proceeds of each asset forfeiture made by the
Task Force shall be distributed to the involved investigating agencies commensurate
with their participation as determined by prior agreement between the Task Force
Commander and said agencies, or in the absence of such agreement, by the Task Force
Executive Board, prior to dedication of the remaining proceeds to the Task Force as
specified in section 3.4.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SNOHOMISH
REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE
At the end of each calendar year, the amount of net monetary proceeds of asset
forfeiture shall be calculated. For purposes of this section, the term “net monetary
proceeds” means cash proceeds realized from real or personal property forfeited during
the term of this agreement that is not retained for use by the Task Force after deducting
all costs and expenses incurred in its acquisition, including but not limited to the cost of
satisfying any bona fide security interest to which the property may be subject at the
time of seizure, the cost of sale, reasonable fees or commissions paid to independent
selling agencies, amounts paid to satisfy a landlord’s claim for damages, or the amount
of proceeds (typically ten percent) payable to the State of Washington under RCW
69.50.505(9) or similar law.
From the net monetary proceeds, the operating expenditures of the Task Force for the
fiscal year shall be deducted, leaving the remaining fund balance. From the remaining
fund balance, the Task Force will retain an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the
Task Force’s next fiscal year estimated operating budget to ensure adequate cash flow
and reserves. Any excess fund balance shall be distributed to Participating Jurisdictions
on a pro rata basis based on their percentage of financial contribution to the Task Force
for the prior calendar year.
6. Section 5.6 of the Interlocal Agreement is deleted in its entirety.
7. Section 6.5 of the Interlocal Agreement is amended to read in its entirety:
Upon termination of the Task Force, the Task Force Executive Board shall dispose of
all acquired equipment in accordance with applicable federal, state and county
requirements. All real or personal property of the Task Force will by majority vote of
the Board be: 1) liquidated and disbursed pro rata to the then-current Participating
Jurisdictions in proportion to their contribution to the Task Force for the calendar year
prior to termination, or 2) transferred to any multi-jurisdictional Task Force in place
within Snohomish County.
8. Effective January 1, 2017, Exhibit E “Commander Selection” shall be added to the
Interlocal Agreement, attached to this Amendment No.1, and hereby incorporated by
reference.
9. Exhibit A is removed and replaced its entirety with Amendment No.1 Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Amendment No. 1 Exhibit A reflects
newly assigned full-time investigative staff from the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood.
10. Exhibit C is removed and replaced its entirety with Amendment No.1 Exhibit C,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Amendment No. 1 Exhibit C includes
the financial contribution from October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SNOHOMISH
REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE
11. Exhibit D is removed and replaced its entirety with Amendment No.1 Exhibit D,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Amendment No. 1 Exhibit D reflects
the revised Organizational Chart.
12. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment No.1, all of the terms and conditions
of the Interlocal Agreement are ratified and affirmed and remain in full force and effect.
13. This Amendment No 1 may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute
an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement.
In witness whereof, the parties hereby execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY:
County Executive
Approved as to Form:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
EVERETT POLICE DEPARTMENT FUNDIN
1 Lieutenant Everett PD
1 Sergeant Everett PD
1 Detective Everett PD
1 Detective Everett PD
1 Detective Everett PD
1 Detective Everett PD
1 Detective Everett PD
1 Detective Everett PD VACANT
1 Support Personnel Everett PD
SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFIC FUNDIN
1 Task Force Commande Justice Assistance Grant
1 Lieutenant Snohomish County Sherif
1 Sergeant Justice Assistance Grant
1 Sergeant Snohomish County Sherif
1 Detective Snohomish County Sherif
1 Detective Snohomish County Sherif
1 Detective Snohomish County Sherif
1 Detective Snohomish County Sherif
1 Detective Snohomish County Sherif VACANT
1 Detective Snohomish County Sherif
1 Information Deput Snohomish County Sherif
1 K9 Detective Snohomish County Sherif
1 Support Staff Snohomish County Sherif
EDMONDS POLICE DEPARTMEN
1 Detective Edmonds PD
LYNNWOOD POLICE DEPARTMEN
1 Sergeant Lynnwood PD
1 Detective Lynnwood PD
1 Detective Lynnwood PD
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE POLICE DEPARTMEN
1 Detective Mountlake Terrace PD VACANT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFIC FUNDIN
1 Deputy Prosecutor Seizure Funding
1 Support Staff Seizure Funding
Personnel Assigned by Jurisdictio
July 1, 2016 through December 31, 201
Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF WASHINGTO FUNDIN
1 Detective Washington State Patrol
1 Agen Department of Corrections
WA STATE GAMBLING COMMISSIO FUNDIN
1 Agen Washington State VACANT
NATIONAL GUAR FUNDIN
1 Intelligence Analys Washington National Guard VACANT
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES FUNDIN
1 Agent ATF VACANT
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENC FUNDIN
1 Agen Drug Enforcement Agenc
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVIC FUNDIN
1 Agen Internal Revenue Service VACANT
ICE / H.S.I.FUNDIN
1 Agen Immigration And Customs Enforcemen
NAVAL CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SERVIC FUNDIN
1 Agen NCIS VACANT
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FUNDING
1 Agen FBI
1 Agen FBI
Interlocal Agreement Establishing
Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
EXHIBIT C
Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
Local Contributions for July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017
JURISDICTION POPULATION
2016
BRIDGE
AMOUNT
OCT 2016-
SEPT 2017
AMOUNT
OCT 2017-
DEC 2017
AMOUNT
CONTRACT
GRAND
TOTAL
Arlington 18,490 $ 1,230 $ 4,918 $ 1,230 $ 7,378
Bothell 17,230 $ 1,146 $ 4,583 $ 1,146 $ 6,875
Brier 6,500 $ 432 $ 1,729 $ 432 $ 2,593
Darrington 1,350 $ 90 $ 359 $ 90 $ 539
Edmonds 40,490 $ 2,693 $ 10,770 $ 2,693 $ 16,156
Everett 105,800 $ 7,036 $ 28,142 $ 7,036 $ 42,214
Gold Bar 2,115 $ 141 $ 563 $ 141 $ 845
Granite Falls 3,390 $ 226 $ 902 $ 226 $ 1,354
Index 160 $ 11 $ 43 $ 11 $ 65
Lake Stevens 29,900 $ 1,988 $ 7,953 $ 1,988 $ 11,929
Lake Forest Park - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lynnwood 36,420 $ 2,422 $ 9,687 $ 2,422 $ 14,531
Marysville 64,140 $ 4,265 $ 17,061 $ 4,265 $ 25,591
Mill Creek 19,760 $ 1,314 $ 5,256 $ 1,314 $ 7,884
Monroe 17,620 $ 1,172 $ 4,687 $ 1,172 $ 7,031
Mountlake Terrace 21,090 $ 1,403 $ 5,610 $ 1,403 $ 8,416
Mukilteo 20,900 $ 1,390 $ 5,559 $ 1,390 $ 8,339
Snohomish 9,385 $ 624 $ 2,496 $ 624 $ 3,744
Snohomish County 330,260 $ 21,962 $ 87,847 $ 21,962 $ 131,771
Stanwood 6,585 $ 438 $ 1,752 $ 438 $ 2,628
Sultan 4,680 $ 311 $ 1,245 $ 311 $ 1,867
DSHS, CPS - $ - $ - $ -
Snohomish Health District - $ - $ - $ -
Washington State Patrol - $ - $ - $ -
PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS’
TOTALS:
$ 50,294 $ 201,162 $ 50,294 $ 301,750
7/18/17 by MK
Commander
Operational Lt.
Operations Sgt
4 Local LE
Detectives
DOC Agent
HSI Agent
Operations Sgt
5 Local LE
Detectives WSP Detective
P/T Volunteer IRS Agent
{part time}
WSLCB Agent
{pending}
WA State
Gambling SA
{pending}
FBI
Operations Sgt
Local Detective
Local Detective
Local Detective
2 DEA Agents
Admin Assistant
Admin Sgt
Financial Det ‐
{vacant}
CPS/DEC
Invest ‐Vacant
Educational
Deputy ‐SCSO
National Guard
Analyst {vacant}Health District
Care Taker
Tech Det ‐vacant EPD Financial Det
‐vacant
Administrative Lt.
Deputy
Prosecuting
Attorney
Legal Secretary
Secretary
SNOCAT
{1 Sgt, 4 Det}
SRDGTF Executive Board
Chief of Everett (Asst Chair), Chief of Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish County Sheriff (Chair), Snohomish County Prosecutor,
City of Everett Prosecutor, SRDGTF Commander
Interlocal Agreement Establishing
Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
EXHIBIT E
Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
Commander Selection
To fill the position of Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force Commander, the
Executive Board will propose three recommended candidates to the County Sheriff. Candidates
must demonstrate a strong leadership skill set, the ability to build consensus, and direct the
efforts of a multi-agency team to achieve established goals. He or she must be responsive to the
needs and direction of the Executive Board. The Sheriff will make the selection from the three
recommended candidates. The Drug Task Force Commander will report to and take direction
from the Executive Board and the Sheriff. The position of Drug Task Force Commander is an
“At Will” employee.
The Task Force Commander will serve for 4 years with a year by year extension thereafter.
Extensions will be based on meeting the performance objectives set by the Sheriff and Executive
Board, and may be granted by the Sheriff after consultation with the Executive Board.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
CA #5
Attachment
D
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
September 18, 2017
SUBJECT:
Resolution approving a transfer of ownership of a telecommunications franchise presently held by
Astound Broadband, LLC to Radiate HoldCo., LLC
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution approving a transfer of ownership of a telecommunications franchise presently held by
Astound Broadband, LLC
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Administration – Kristin Banfield, 360‐403‐3444
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
This is a housekeeping matter. The City of Arlington has a current franchise agreement with Astound
Broadband, LLC (Wave Cable). Astound Broadband has agreed to an acquisition of their business by
Radiate HoldCo., LLC. The FCC requires any city affected by the acquisition to consent to the sale and
transfer of the franchise. The City would like to retain all elements of our current franchise with
Wave in the transfer to Radiate, which is best accomplished with a transfer of the franchise.
HISTORY:
The City’s current franchise with Astound Broadband, LLC (Wave Cable) was approved in August
2013 and expires in August 2023.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not approve.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve the transfer of ownership of telecommunications franchise presently held by
Astound Broadband, LLC (Wave Cable), to Radiate HoldCo., LLC, and authorize the Mayor to sign the
resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-XXX 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
APPROVING A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FRANCHISE PRESENTLY HELD BY ASTOUND BROADBAND, LLC
WHEREAS, Astound Broadband, LLC, a Washington limited liability company d/b/a
Wave (“Franchisee”) currently holds a franchise (the “Franchise”) granted by Arlington, WA (the
“Community”) to own and operate a Telecommunications System in the Community; and
WHEREAS, Franchisee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (“WDH”); and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2017, Radiate HoldCo, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company controlled by Radiate Holdings, L.P. (“Radiate Parent”), WDH, and Wave Holdco, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability Company (“Wave Holdco”), the ultimate parent of WDH, entered into
a definitive securities purchase agreement for Radiate Holdco, LLC to acquire Wave Holdco from
its current owners (the “Transaction”); and
WHEREAS, Radiate Parent and Wave Holdco have filed FCC Form 394 with the
Community and have provide the Community with all information regarding the Transaction
required by applicable law (collectively, the “Application”); and
WHEREAS, the Community has reviewed the Application and determined that (i) Radiate
Parent has meets the legal, technical, and financial criteria to become the owner of Wave Holdco
and the indirect owner of Franchisee, and (ii) the Transaction is in the best interest of the
Community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Community consents to and approves of the Transaction to the extent required
by the terms of the Franchise and applicable law;
2. The Community confirms that the Franchise is valid and outstanding and in full
force and effect and there are no defaults under the Franchise. Subject to compliance with the terms
of this Resolution, any action necessary with respect to the Transaction has been duly and validly
taken;
3. To the best of the Community’s knowledge and belief, there are no existing facts
or circumstances that with or without the giving of notice or the passage of time, or both, would
constitute a default of any term or condition of the Franchise;
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-XXX 2
4. Effective upon the closing of the Transaction, the Franchisee shall remain
responsible for any obligations and liabilities under the Franchise in accordance with its terms;
and
5. This Resolution is adopted and approved in accordance with all applicable notice
and procedure requirements under all laws applicable to Community. This Resolution shall take
effect upon its passage in accordance with applicable law.
This Resolution shall have the force of a continuing agreement with Franchisee and Radiate
Parent, and Community shall not amend and or otherwise alter the Resolution without the
consent of Franchisee and Radiate Parent.
ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this ____day of
__________, 2017.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
_______________________________
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
NB #1
Attachment
E
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
September 18, 2017
SUBJECT:
Approve 2017‐2018 Budget Calendar
ATTACHMENTS:
2017‐2018 Budget Calendar
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Finance; Kristin Garcia – Finance Director, 360‐403‐3431
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
State law requires the City go through a public process to modify the biennial budget. A budget
ordinance is required to modify the budget. In addition to modifying the 2017‐2108 budget, the City
will also need to certify the 2018 property tax and EMS levies and adopt a 2018 Transportation Benefit
District budget. Please see the attached budget calendar for proposed dates.
HISTORY:
On November 23, 2016, the City adopted a biennial budget for 2017‐2018. State law allows for a
mid‐biennial review and modification of the budget by adopting an Ordinance. The modification
ordinance must be adopted before December 31, 2017. The property tax and EMS levies must be
certified and submitted to Snohomish County no later than November 30, 2017. The Transportation
Benefit District budget must be adopted before December 31, 2017.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not approve the budget calendar.
Select alternate dates for budget review, modification and adoption.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve the 2017‐2018 Budget Calendar.
2017 – 2018 Budget Calendar
Council Budget Retreat Review budget assumptions
Review proposed modifications
2018 TBD Budget
2018 Proposed Property Tax and EMS Levy
October 7
Council Workshop Review budget discussion from council retreat
Review 2018 TBD Budget
Review 2018 proposed Property Tax and EMS Levy
October 23
Council Meeting Public Hearing – Proposed 2017/2018 Budget Modifications
Public Hearing – Proposed 2018 TBD Budget
Public Hearing – Proposed 2018 Property Tax and EMS Levy
November 6
Council Meeting Approve 2017/2018 Budget Modification Ordinance
Approve 2018 TBD Budget Ordinance
Certifying the 2018 Property Tax and EMS Levy
November 20
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
NB #2
Attachment
F
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
September 18, 2017
SUBJECT:
Professional Services Agreement
ATTACHMENTS:
Professional Services Agreement with former Deputy Fire Chief Tom Cooper
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Administration – Paul Ellis, 360‐403‐4603
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: Not to exceed $120,000
BUDGET CATEGORY: Fire/EMS
BUDGETED AMOUNT: Salary savings
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Council is asked to approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with former Deputy Fire
Chief Tom Cooper to work as a consultant to the Fire Department.
HISTORY:
With the resignation of Fire Chief Bruce Stedman, Deputy Fire Chief Dave Kraski will be named
Acting Fire Chief. Former Deputy Fire Chief Tom Cooper will be working in a non‐uniformed role to
provide consulting support to the fire department.
ALTERNATIVES:
Do not approve the agreement.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to approve the professional services agreement with Tom Cooper, and authorize the Mayor
to sign the agreement.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into in duplicate this 18th day of September
2017 by and between the CITY OF ARLINGTON, a Washington municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and Tom Cooper, hereinafter referred to as the "SERVICE
PROVIDER."
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to have certain services and/or tasks performed as set forth
below requiring specialized skills and other supportive capabilities; and
WHEREAS, sufficient CITY resources are not available to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, the SERVICE PROVIDER represents that the SERVICE PROVIDER is
qualified and possesses sufficient skills and the necessary capabilities, including technical and
professional expertise, where required, to perform the services and/or tasks set forth in this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and
performance contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Scope of Services.
The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform such services and accomplish such tasks, including the
furnishing of all materials and equipment necessary for full performance thereof, as are identified
and designated as SERVICE PROVIDER responsibilities throughout this Agreement and as
detailed herein (Project). Project will begin on September 19th 2017.
2. Term.
The Project shall begin on September 19th 2017, and shall be completed no later than December
31st 2018, unless sooner terminated according to the provisions herein.
3. Compensation And Method of Payment.
3.1 Payments for services provided hereunder shall be made following the
performance of such services, unless otherwise permitted by law and approved in
writing by the CITY.
3.2 No payment shall be made for any service rendered by the SERVICE PROVIDER
except for services identified and set forth in this Agreement.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT 2
3.3 The CITY shall pay the SERVICE PROVIDER for work performed under this
Agreement as follows: SERVICE PROVIDER shall submit monthly invoices detailing
work performed and expenses for which reimbursement is sought. CITY shall approve all
invoices before payment is issued. Payment shall occur within thirty (30) days of receipt
and approval of an invoice. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall be paid an hourly rate of
$75.00 per hour for services provided as described in the scope of work subject to
approval of the City Administrator.
Service Provider will NOT participate in any health or wellness programs for the duration
of this agreement. Service Provider is NOT enrolled in any city sponsored retirement or
benefit compensation program.
4. Reports And Inspections.
4.1 The SERVICE PROVIDER at such times and in such forms as the CITY may
require, shall furnish to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data, and
information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this
Agreement.
4.2 The SERVICE PROVIDER shall at any time during normal business hours and
as often as the CITY or State Auditor may deem necessary, make available for
examination all of its records and data with respect to all matters covered, directly
or indirectly, by this Agreement and shall permit the CITY or its designated
authorized representative to audit and inspect other data relating to all matters
covered by this Agreement. The CITY shall receive a copy of all audit reports
made by the agency or firm as to the SERVICE PROVIDER'S activities. The
CITY may, at its discretion, conduct an audit at its expense, using its own or
outside auditors, of the SERVICE PROVIDER'S activities which relate, directly
or indirectly, to this Agreement.
5. Independent Contractor Relationship.
5.1 The parties intend that an independent SERVICE PROVIDER/CITY relationship
will be created by this Agreement. The CITY is interested primarily in the results
to be achieved; subject to paragraphs herein, the implementation of services will
lie solely with the discretion of the SERVICE PROVIDER. No agent, employee,
servant or representative of the SERVICE PROVIDER shall be deemed to be an
employee, agent, servant or representative of the CITY for any purpose, and the
employees of the SERVICE PROVIDER are not entitled to any of the benefits the
CITY provides for its employees. The SERVICE PROVIDER will be solely and
entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, servants,
subcontractors or representatives during the performance of this Agreement.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT 3
5.2 In the performance of the services herein contemplated the SERVICE
PROVIDER is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct
the performance of the details of the work, however, the results of the work
contemplated herein must meet the approval of the CITY and shall be subject to
the CITY'S general rights of inspection and review to secure the satisfactory
completion thereof.
6. Service Provider Employees/agents
The CITY may at its sole discretion require the SERVICE PROVIDER to remove any employee,
agent or servant from employment on this Project. The SERVICE PROVIDER may however
employ that (those) individual(s) on other non-CITY related projects.
7. Hold Harmless/Indemnification.
7.1 Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages,
losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts,
errors or omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except
for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
7.2 No liability shall attach to the CITY by reason of entering into this Agreement
except as expressly provided herein.
8. Treatment of Assets.
Title to all property furnished by the CITY shall remain in the name of the CITY and the CITY
shall become the owner of the work product and other documents, if any, prepared by the
SERVICE PROVIDER pursuant to this Agreement.
9. Compliance with Laws.
10.1 The SERVICE PROVIDER, in the performance of this Agreement, shall comply
with all applicable federal, state or local laws and ordinances, including
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and
accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as
described in this Agreement to assure quality of services.
10.2 The SERVICE PROVIDER specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and
occupation (B & 0) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement.
10. Nondiscrimination.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT 4
10.1 The CITY is an equal opportunity employer.
10.2 Nondiscrimination in Employment. In the performance of this Agreement, the
SERVICE PROVIDER will not discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital
status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap; provided
that the prohibition against discrimination in employment because of handicap
shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the
particular worker involved. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall ensure that
applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment
without discrimination because of their race, creed, color, national origin, sex,
marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap.
Such action shall include, but not be limited to: employment, upgrading, demotion
or transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of
pay or other forms of compensation, and programs for training including
apprenticeships. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall take such action with respect to
this Agreement as may be required to ensure full compliance with local, state and
federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment.
10.3 Nondiscrimination in Services. The SERVICE PROVIDER will not discriminate
against any recipient of any services or benefits provided for in this Agreement on
the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the
presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap.
10.4 If any assignment and/or subcontracting has been authorized by the CITY, said
assignment or subcontract shall include appropriate safeguards against
discrimination. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall take such action as may be
required to ensure full compliance with the provisions in the immediately
preceding paragraphs herein.
11. Assignment/subcontracting.
11.1 The SERVICE PROVIDER shall not assign its performance under this
Agreement or any portion of this Agreement without the written consent of the
CITY, and it is further agreed that said consent must be sought in writing by the
SERVICE PROVIDER not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of any
proposed assignment. The CITY reserves the right to reject without cause any
such assignment.
11.2 Any work or services assigned hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this
Agreement and proper bidding procedures where applicable as set forth in local,
state and/or federal statutes, ordinances and guidelines.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT 5
11.3 Any technical/professional service subcontract not listed in this Agreement, must
have express advance approval by the CITY.
12. Changes.
Either party may request changes to the scope of services and performance to be provided
hereunder, however, no change or addition to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon
either party unless such change or addition be in writing and signed by both parties. Such
amendments shall be attached to and made part of this Agreement.
13. Maintenance and Inspection of Records.
13.1 The SERVICE PROVIDER shall maintain books, records and documents, which
sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs related to the
performance of this Agreement and shall maintain such accounting procedures
and practices as may be necessary to assure proper accounting of all funds paid
pursuant to this Agreement. These records shall be subject at all reasonable times
to inspection, review, or audit, by the CITY, its authorized representative, the
State Auditor, or other governmental officials authorized by law to monitor this
Agreement.
13.2 The SERVICE PROVIDER shall retain all books, records, documents and other
material relevant to this agreement, for six (6) years after its expiration. The
SERVICE PROVIDER agrees that the CITY or its designee shall have full access
and right to examine any of said materials at all reasonable times during said
period.
14. Other Provisions.
If changes in state law necessitate that services hereunder be expanded, the parties shall negotiate
an appropriate amendment. If after thirty (30) days of negotiation, agreement can not be reached,
this Agreement may be terminated by the City no sooner than sixty (60) days thereafter.
a. City will provide Service Provider the use of an vehicle while conducting
city business when the need to travel occurs. Vehicle to include fuel,
maintenance and insurance.
b. City will provide works space, access to a computer and phone to conduct
city business.
c. This is a non-uniform position for the duration of this agreement.
15. Termination.
15.1 Termination for Convenience. The CITY may terminate this Agreement, in whole
or in part, at any time, by at least fifteen (15) days written notice to the SERVICE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT 6
PROVIDER.
15.2 Termination for Cause. If the SERVICE PROVIDER fails to perform in the
manner called for in this Agreement, or if the SERVICE PROVIDER fails to
comply with any other provisions of the Agreement and fails to correct such
noncompliance within five (5) days written notice thereof, the CITY may
terminate this Agreement for cause. Termination shall be effected by serving a
notice of termination on the SERVICE PROVIDER setting forth the manner in
which the SERVICE PROVIDER is in default. The SERVICE PROVIDER will
only be paid for services performed in accordance with the manner of
performance set forth in this Agreement.
16. Notice.
Notice provided for in this Agreement shall be sent by certified mail to the addresses designated
for the parties on the last page of this Agreement.
17. Attorneys Fees and Costs.
If any legal proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement, or because of a
dispute, breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, in addition to
any other relief to which such party may be entitled, reasonable attorney's fees and other costs
incurred in that action or proceeding.
18. Jurisdiction and Venue.
18.1 This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and
delivered within the State of Washington, and it is agreed by each party hereto
that this Agreement shall be governed by laws of the State of Washington, both as
to interpretation and performance.
18.2 Any action of law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of
this Agreement or any provisions thereof, shall be instituted and maintained only
in any of the courts of competent jurisdiction in Snohomish County, Washington.
19. Severability.
19.1 If, for any reason, any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by a court
of the United States to be illegal, void or unenforceable, the validity of the
remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the
parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the
particular provision held to be invalid.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT 7
19.2 If it should appear that any provision hereof is in conflict with any statutory
provision of the State of Washington, said provision which may conflict therewith
shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict
therewith, and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provisions.
20. Entire Agreement.
The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral
representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Further, any
modification of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. Failure to comply
with any of the provisions stated herein shall constitute material breach of contract and cause for
termination. Both parties recognize time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of
this Agreement. It is also agreed by the parties that the forgiveness of the nonperformance of any
provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of the provisions of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY: SERVICE PROVIDER:
CITY OF ARLINGTON Tom Cooper, Sole Proprietor
_ ____________________________________
Paul Ellis City Administrator Tom Cooper
Attest: Date: _______________________________
_______________________
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk