Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
_10-20-25 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 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Don Vanney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Don Vanney – Shawn APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS 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 Michele Blythe 1. Minutes of the October 3 Council retreat and October 6 and ATTACHMENT A October 13 Council meetings 2. Accounts Payable ATTACHMENT B 3. Employee Handbook Policy Updates ATTACHMENT C PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 1. Police Department Lateral Hiring Incentives Program ATTACHMENT D Staff Presentation: Shawn Friang Council Liaison: Michele Blythe 2. Ordinance Adopting Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action ATTACHMENT E Staff Presentation: Amy Rusko Council Liaison: Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam 3. Ordinance Adopting Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.119 ATTACHMENT F Staff Presentation: Amy Rusko Council Liaison: Jan Schuette Arlington City Council Meeting Monday, October 20, 2025 at 6:00 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 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. 4. Change Order No. 1 for Division-Broadway Restoration Project ATTACHMENT G Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Heather Logan COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS INFORMATION/ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe / Mayor Don Vanney DRAFT Page 1 of 1 Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Friday, October 3, 2025 Councilmembers Present: Heather Logan, Rob Toyer, Debora Nelson, Michele Blythe Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, Leisha Nobach, and Jan Schuette. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Mayor Don Vanney, Paul Ellis, Sarah Lopez, Shawn Friang, Bryan Terry, Sheri Amundson, Peter Barrett, Mike Gilbert, Jim Kelly, Amy Rusko, Marty Wray, and Wendy Van Der Meersche. Also Known to be Present: Kathy Vanney, Tim Abrahamson, Drew Bono, and Randy Nobach. City Administrator Paul Ellis acted as facilitator and began the retreat at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Ellis welcomed everyone. With the use of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Ellis reviewed the 2025 budget amendments. He presented the three 2025/2026 strategic priorities: public safety, fiscal sustainability, and economic development. Additional capital projects were discussed. Financial assumptions were reviewed from the general fund. Discussion followed with Mr. Ellis and Directors answering Council questions. Prior to the lunch hour, Council dismissed to join North County Regional Fire Authority firefighters for a live burn sprinkler demonstration in the parking lot adjacent to City Hall. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Ellis received a Council request prior to the retreat to discuss the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee selection. After introducing the item, discussion followed with Mr. Ellis answering Council questions. ADJOURNMENT With nothing further, the retreat was adjourned at 1:10 p.m. _________________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor Minutes of the Arlington City Council Budget Retreat DRAFT Page 1 of 3 Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Monday, October 6, 2025 Councilmembers Present: Heather Logan, Rob Toyer, Debora Nelson, Michele Blythe Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, Leisha Nobach, and Jan Schuette. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Mayor Don Vanney, Paul Ellis, Sarah Lopez, Amy Rusko, Debbie Strotz, Peter Barrett, City Attorney Oskar Rey, Chelsea Brewer, and Wendy Van Der Meersche. Also Known to be Present: Kathy Vanney, Drew Bono, Steve Maisch, Holly Sloan-Buchanan, Heather Watland, Tim Abrahamson, Nathan Senf, Joe Beardslee, Randy Nobach, Kim Casteel, Dave Kraski, Xander Andersen and family, and others. Mayor Don Vanney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Heather Logan seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. PROCLAMATIONS Councilmember Heather Logan read the Leadership Day proclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT Joe Beardslee, Arlington, provided comments. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe moved, and Councilmember Heather Logan seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda that was unanimously carried: 1. Minutes of the September 15 and September 22, 2025 Council meetings 2. Accounts Payable: Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #114206 through #114325 and Petty Cash check #2047, 2048 dated September 3rd, 2025, through September 15, 2025, in the amount of $1,372,316.25. PUBLIC HEARING None. Minutes of the Arlington City Council Meeting Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting October 6, 2025 Page 2 of 3 NEW BUSINESS Youth Council Appointments Community Engagement Director Sarah Lopez requested Council consent to the reappointments of Elinor Richardson, Lyla Morzelewski, and Holland Nobach and appointments of Natalie Terry, Xander Andersen, Gaven Pichardo, and Diesel King to Youth Council. Councilmember Rob Toyer moved, and Councilmember Debora Nelson seconded the motion to consent to the appointments and re-appointments of the 2025-2026 youth council members, as proposed. The motion passed unanimously. Waiver Request for Permit Fees Community Engagement Director Sarah Lopez requested Council approve the permit fee waiver requests for the tent/canopy for Hispanic Heritage event on September 13, 2025, for the Jensen Park restroom facility, and for the new electronic sign and pole replacement at Merchants parking lot. Councilmember Heather Logan moved, and Councilmember Michele Blythe seconded the motion to approve waiving permit fees for city projects including the operating permit for the event tent, the building permit for Jensen Park restroom, and the building permit for the new public sign. The motion passed unanimously. Smokey Point Community Park Phase I Final Acceptance Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko requested Council approve final acceptance of Smokey Point Park Phase I project that was completed by Reece Construction Company. Councilmember Debora Nelson moved, and Councilmember Heather Logan seconded the motion to final acceptance of the Smokey Point Park Phase I project completed by Reece Construction Company, in the amount of $ 2,431,667.30, and authorized the Mayor to sign the Letter of Acceptance. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution Declaring Property as Surplus Procurement/Contracts Analyst Debbie Strotz requested Council approve a resolution declaring certain property as surplus. The City currently has items that are beyond their useful life and currently being replaced. All require surplus resolution to be properly auctioned. Councilmember Leisha Nobach moved, and Councilmember Michele Blythe seconded the motion to approve the resolution declaring the property as surplus and authorize the Mayor to sign the resolution. The motion passed unanimously. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Councilmember Logan thanked North County Fire and EMS for the live burn sprinkler demonstration at Friday’s Council retreat. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting October 6, 2025 Page 3 of 3 ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS None. MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Vanney spoke about two events he attended over the weekend. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Oskar Rey announced the need for an executive session to discuss potential sale or lease of real estate [RCW 42.30.110(1)(c)] to last 15 minutes. No action will be taken afterward. Council dismissed at 6:13 p.m. Council reconvened at 6:28 p.m. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:28 _________________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor DRAFT Page 1 of 3 Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Monday, October 13, 2025 Councilmembers Present: Rob Toyer, Michele Blythe, Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, Leisha Nobach, and Jan Schuette. Council Members Absent: Heather Logan and Debora Nelson, excused. Staff Present: Mayor Don Vanney, Paul Ellis, Shawn Friang, Amy Rusko, and Chelsea Brewer. Also Known to be Present: Kathy Vanney, Randy Nobach, Drew Bono, Tim Abrahamson, Heather Watland, and Nathan Senff. Mayor Don Vanney called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm, and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Michele Blythe moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Rob Toyer seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO ACTION WAS TAKEN Employee Handbook Policy Updates Human Resources Director Shawn Friang reviewed proposed policy updates to the employee handbook. Update of City policies as a part of a full review of the Employee Handbook. The updates for this approval pertain to: Policy 217 –Termination of Employment Policy 504 – Holidays Policy 508 – Non-Represented Employee Deferred Compensation Policy 707 – Meal Breaks The Employee Handbook was last updated in March of 2017. Throughout the last seven years, many practices and new laws have changed surrounding these policies and updates have been put into place, but not formally adopted and updated in the Employee Handbook. A complete review and update to the Employee Handbook will be completed in 2026. Council will be brought sets of policy changes in phases throughout 2025 and 2026. Minutes of the Arlington City Council Workshop Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop October 13, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Policy updates are process heavy and must be reviewed and approved by the City Administrator, City Attorney, Directors, Bargaining Units (where applicable) and then Council. Discussion followed with Ms. Friang answering Council questions. Ordinance Adopting Island Crossing Subarea Plan Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko reviewed the proposed ordinance to adopt the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. In preparation for the Island Crossing Subarea Plan the City implemented a development moratorium over properties within the subarea, north of South Slough under Ordinance No. 2023-006 (4-23-2023), Ordinance No. 2023-017 (12-04-2023), Ordinance No. 2024-007 (6-3-2024), Ordinance No. 2024-027 (11-18-2024), and Ordinance No. 2025-001 (5-5-2025). The City contracted with MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design in the amount of $328,908.50 to develop and assist in the completion of the subarea plan, draft environmental impact statement, final environmental impact statement, planned action ordinance, development regulations, public outreach and participation. Discussion followed with Ms. Rusko answering Council questions. Ordinance Adopting Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.119 Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko reviewed the proposed ordinance to adopt Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.119 Island Crossing Subarea Plan Development Standards. The AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment establishes a new chapter in the zoning code that provides development standards for the Island Crossing Subarea. The development standards include regulations for zoning designations, permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design standards, parking standards, landscaping standards, flooding and compensatory storage. The design standards include the theme, site planning, vehicular access and parking, pedestrian access, amenities, open space, and building design. The establishment of the new AMC Chapter 20.119 code amendment is directly correlated to the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance. The development standards are required to ensure the predicted built environment of the subarea. The City of Arlington started the Island Crossing Subarea Plan in 2023. A consultant was hired to complete the necessary studies, data review, and documents, along with facilitating public engagement presentations, open houses, stakeholder meetings, and public engagement ensuring comprehensive input. Discussion followed with Ms. Rusko answering Council questions. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS None. MAYOR’S REPORT None. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Councilmember Blythe stated she went on a police ride along. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop October 13, 2025 Page 3 of 3 COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmembers had nothing to report this evening. PUBLIC COMMENT None. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Councilmembers discussed and agreed to have Item No. 1 Employee Handbook Policy Updates on the consent agenda for the October 20, 2025, Council meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. _________________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill CA #2 Attachment October 20, 2025 SUBJECT: Accounts Payable Claims Approval Claims Approval Finance; Sheri Amundson, Interim Finance Director 360-403-3426 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Claims approval for October 20, 2025. HISTORY: ALTERNATIVES: City of Arlington October 20, 2025 Council Meeting Claims Certification: We, the undersigned City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington, do hereby certify that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and that: Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #114326 through #114429 and Petty Cash check #2049 dated September 16, 2025, through October 6, 2025, in the amount of $905,597.38 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill CA #3 Attachment October 20, 2025 Employee Handbook Policy Updates Policies: 217,504,508,706 Human Resources; Shawn Friang, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: pertain to: Policy 217 –Termination of Employment Policy 504 – Holidays Policy 508 – Non-Represented Employee Deferred Compensation Policy 707 – Meal Breaks The Employee Handbook was last updated in March of 2017. Throughout the last seven years, many practices and new laws have changed surrounding these policies and updates have been put into place, but not formally adopted and updated in the Employee Handbook. A complete review and update to the Employee Handbook will be completed in 2025. Council will be brought sets of policy changes in phases throughout the year. Policy updates are process heavy and must be reviewed and approved by the City Administrator, City Attorney, Directors, Bargaining Units (where applicable) and then Council. the City of Arlington Employee Handbook. City of Arlington Record of Policy Update Policy Number and Title Policy 217 Termination of Employment Change request submitted New language adopted Clarification of job abandonment Employees who are absent from work for three consecutive days without being excused or giving proper notice will be considered as having abandoned their position and will be terminated voluntarily quit. The Human Resources Department, through the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), will notify terminateding employees covered by the City’s health plan, of their right to continue coverage under that plan at their own expense. Review Process Sent for review Edits returned Directors AFSCME APOA Council City of Arlington Record of Policy Update Policy Number and Title 504 Holiday Change request submitted New language adopted Adding new holidays and clarification of language for application of working on holiday The City of Arlington observes the following holidays (8 hours each) per calendar year: New Year’s Day January 1st Martin Luther King Day 3rd Monday in January President’s Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Juneteenth June 19th Independence Day July 4th Labor Day 1st Monday in September Veteran’s Day November 11th Thanksgiving Day 4th Thursday in November Day after Thanksgiving Friday after Thanksgiving Christmas Day December 25th 2 Floating or Personal Holidays See Below A holiday that occurs on a Saturday will be observed on the preceding Friday. A holiday that occurs on a Sunday will be observed the following Monday. Shift workers observe holidays on the actual day it occurs. If a holiday occurs during an employee’s vacation period, the employee will be required to record the day as holiday pay on their timesheet. Those employees that work shifts other than eight (8) hours will be required to use accrued vacation hours. When an employee’s regularly scheduled day off is the day the holiday is observed, the employee shall schedule and take another day off by the end of the next pay period. Non-exempt employees not on-call and required to work on a holiday because of City needs shall be paid two times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. Review Process Sent for review Edits returned Directors Complete AFSCME N/A APOA N/A Council City of Arlington Record of Policy Update Policy Number and Title 508 Non-represented Employee Deferred Compensation Change request submitted New language adopted officially documented and adopted into policy. Non-represented employees shall have the option of participating in any deferred compensation plan offered by the City. Employees may defer a portion of their taxable income, into a retirement savings plan that is subject to federal rules and regulations governing deferral limits, tax liability and restrictions on withdrawals. The City shall match up to two percent (2%) of the gross base wage (consisting of base salary only) of each participating non-represented employee. The employer contribution will always be pre-taxed even if the employee is contributing to a post tax program option. Employees may choose to increase their portion of the contribution should they choose to defer up to the maximum allowable amount. However, the total amount deferred monthly may not exceed the maximum allowable per the Deferred Compensation Program regulations and IRS rules. It is the responsibility of the employee to complete enrollment forms on the Department of Retirement Systems Deferred Compensation Program website, before any match can occur and in order to initiate changes to their monthly-deferred amounts. Sufficient time must also be given to the City's Finance Department for processing. Review Process Sent for review Edits returned Directors Completed 2022 and 2024 APOA N/A AFSCME N/A Council City of Arlington Record of Policy Update Policy Number and Title 707 Meal Breaks Change request submitted New language adopted Correction of missing language Lexis/Nexis Risk Solutions The City of Arlington provides meal breaks during the course of each workday. Full-time employees are allowed given a minimum of a 30 minute a unpaid meal break near the middle of the workday. Part-time employees scheduled to work more than five consecutive hours during any workday will receive a meal break of the same duration as full-time employees in their department. Supervisors are responsible for balancing workload and scheduling meal breaks and should take into consideration of the workload and the nature of the job performed. Whenever necessary, the duration and time of meal periods may be changed Nonexempt employees (those covered by the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act) will not be compensated for their meal breaks unless they are required to work during their breaks. Employees are not permitted to skip their lunch and arrive late or leave early. Employees on meal breaks are not permitted to interfere with other employees who are continuing to work. Review Process Sent for review Edits returned Directors AFSCME APOA Council Formatted Table WSWW City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #1 Attachment D COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2025 Police Department Lateral Hiring Incentives Program Limited Term Lateral Police Officer Incentive Program, Lateral Police Officer Hiring Incentive and Repayment Agreement (for WA state candidates), Lateral Police Officer Hiring Incentive and Repayment Agreement (for out of state candidates) Human Resources; Shawn Friang, Human Resources Director 360-403-3443 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: police officer positions were significantly down in 2025, Washington State regarding recruitment of qualified lateral police officer candidates. The proposed Lateral Police Officer Incentive program for 2025 and 2026 would offer different maximum incentive payments based on Washington State or out-of-state certification. This reflects current incentives in the hiring market and provides additional incentives for qualified in-state certified candidates that will be able to be assigned shifts The City previously had a lateral hire incentive program in place between 2018 and 2020, which did not differentiate between Washington State certified lateral police officer candidates and out-of-state lateral police officer candidates. The prior program offered a maximum amount of up to $10,000.00, prorated based on level of experience, distributed in two installments – one half at time of hire, and one half at the time of completion of probation. The program was successful in attracting qualified lateral candidates and was 2025, and sunset December 31, 2026, unless revoked, modified or canceled prior. 10/09/2025 Page 1 of 3 Limited Term Lateral Police Officer Incentive Program* *(Program begins October 20,2025, and sunsets December 31,2026, unless revoked, modified, or cancelled prior) Overview The City of Arlington Police Department is recently experiencing a shortage of police officers and currently has multiple vacant police officer positions. More vacancies are anticipated in the next few years due to pending anticipated retirements. Lateral hire police officers are currently highly desirable to the Arlington Police Department due to the significantly reduced amount of time between their date of hire and when they are independent, fully functional police officers. While entry level officers require a minimum of one year before working as fully functional police officers in the field, lateral hire police officers only take two to six months to be fully operational. The Police Department also anticipates immediate benefits from the experience lateral hire police officers bring from their previous employment, which is paramount when losing experienced officers to retirement. Finally, there are anticipated budget savings from hiring lateral police officers because of the cost and current scheduling delays when sending entry level candidates through the Washington State Basic Law Enforcement Academy. This program may provide a monetary incentive of up to $20,000.00, paid in two equal installments, to qualified lateral hire police officers who successfully complete at least 2.5 years of continuous service from their most recent date of hire into the Arlington Police Department. The first installment shall be made on the next full pay period after hire. The second installment shall be made on the next full pay period upon successful completion of probation. Repayment shall be required in any circumstance in which a lateral police officer hire is terminated for any reason or voluntarily separates employment with the City as a police officer prior to working 2.5 years from their most recent date of hire and shall be required to repay a prorated amount of the incentive received, according to the repayment schedule listed below. Scope/Limitations of Program • The City of Arlington retains the right to revoke, modify or cancel this program at any time. • Participation in this program is voluntary and subject to all conditions, obligations and limitations thereto. 10/09/2025 Page 2 of 3 • City hiring officials shall have and retain full discretion to determine the conditions of any employment offer, including any lateral officer incentive amount. • Employees must sign the attached Arlington Police Department Lateral Police Officer Hiring Incentive and Repayment Agreement and complete one full workday of service before any payment is made. • Employees receiving the maximum amount (up to $20,000.00 paid in two $10,000.00 installments for candidates possessing current Washington State Peace Officer Certification and/or current Basic Law Enforcement Academy certification and up to $10,000.00 paid in two $5,000.00 installments for candidates eligible for Washington State equivalency) of incentive pay shall for which they are eligible shall be subject to the repayment schedule as indicated below. The amounts indicated shall be prorated in the case of any incentive offer in an amount less than the maximum $20,000.00 or $10,000.00. Lateral Police Officer Incentive Repayment Schedule In-State** **Amounts prorated if less than maximum $20,000.00 incentive amount. Payment Installments Repayment Timeframe Repayment Amount 1st $10,000.00 First day of work < 6 months $10,000.00 2nd $10,000.00 (1 year) $17,500.00 (1.5 years) $12,500.00 (2 years) $7,500.00 (2.5 years) $2,500.00 After completion of 2.5 years $0 10/09/2025 Page 3 of 3 Lateral Police Officer Incentive Repayment Schedule Out-of-State*** ***Amounts prorated if less than maximum $10,000.00 incentive amount. Payment Installments Repayment Timeframe Repayment Amount 1st $5,000.00 First day of work < 6 months $5,000.00 2nd $5,000.00 (1 year) $8,750.00 (1.5 years) $6,250.00 (2 years) $3,750.00 (2.5 years) $1,250.00 After completion of 2.5 years $0 1 of 2 Arlington Police Department Lateral Police Officer Hiring Incentive And Repayment Agreement This Agreement made on this ____ day of ____________________, 20___ between the City of Arlington (City) and _________________________________, a lateral hire Police Officer. Whereas, the City offers a hiring incentive to attract lateral Police Officers with experience; and Whereas, acceptance of the hiring incentive is voluntary and is not condition of employment with the City of Arlington; and Whereas, I acknowledge that I have been offered a position as a Police Officer; and Whereas, I acknowledge that I am qualified for the hiring incentive for lateral Police Officers with experience; and Whereas, I wish to accept the hiring incentive; it is therefore agreed by and between the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual promises herein and other good and valuable consideration, that: 1. The City will pay me $10,000.00 on the next full pay period after my most recent date of hire, and $10,000.00 on the next full pay period upon my successful completion of probation. 2. If I am terminated for any reason or voluntarily separate employment with the City as a Police Officer prior to working 2.5 years from my (most recent) date of hire, I will be required to repay a prorated amount of the incentive back to the City of Arlington. The Repayment Schedule is attached. 3. My final paycheck will be reduced by the final prorated amount owed should termination for misconduct or voluntary separation occur and repayment is required. If the final paycheck is insufficient to cover the balance owed, I acknowledge that I am responsible for payment of the remaining balance owed to the City within 12 months of separation. Name of Recipient: _______________________________ Signature of Recipient: ____________________________ Date: ________________ 2 of 2 REPAYMENT SCHEDULE Payment Installments Repayment Timeframe Repayment Amount 1st $10,000.00 First day of work < 6 months $10,000.00 2nd $10,000.00 6 months to < 12 months (1 year) $17,500.00 12 months to < 18 months (1.5 years) $12,500.00 18 months to < 24 months (2 years) $7,500.00 24 months < 30 months (2.5 years) $2,500.00 After completion of 2.5 years $0 1 of 2 Arlington Police Department Lateral Police Officer Hiring Incentive And Repayment Agreement This Agreement made on this ____ day of ____________________, 20___ between the City of Arlington (City) and _________________________________, a lateral hire Police Officer. Whereas, the City offers a hiring incentive to attract lateral Police Officers with experience; and Whereas, acceptance of the hiring incentive is voluntary and is not condition of employment with the City of Arlington; and Whereas, I acknowledge that I have been offered a position as a Police Officer; and Whereas, I acknowledge that I am qualified for the hiring incentive for lateral Police Officers with experience; and Whereas, I wish to accept the hiring incentive; it is therefore agreed by and between the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual promises herein and other good and valuable consideration, that: 1. The City will pay me $5,000.00 on the next full pay period after my most recent date of hire, and $5,000.00 on the next full pay period upon my successful completion of probation. 2. If I am terminated for any reason or voluntarily separate employment with the City as a Police Officer prior to working 2.5 years from my (most recent) date of hire, I will be required to repay a prorated amount of the incentive back to the City of Arlington. The Repayment Schedule is attached. 3. My final paycheck will be reduced by the final prorated amount owed should termination for misconduct or voluntary separation occur and repayment is required. If the final paycheck is insufficient to cover the balance owed, I acknowledge that I am responsible for payment of the remaining balance owed to the City within 12 months of separation. Name of Recipient: _______________________________ Signature of Recipient: ____________________________ Date: ________________ 2 of 2 REPAYMENT SCHEDULE Payment Installments Repayment Timeframe Repayment Amount 1st $5,000.00 First day of work < 6 months $5,000.00 2nd $5,000.00 6 months to < 12 months (1 year) $8,750.00 12 months to < 18 months (1.5 years) $6,250.00 18 months to < 24 months (2 years) $3,750.00 24 months < 30 months (2.5 years) $1,250.00 After completion of 2.5 years $0 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #2 Attachment COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2025 SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving Island Crossing Subarea Plan ATTACHMENTS: Overview, Ordinance, Subarea Plan, Final EIS, Hearing Examiner Recommendation, and Staff Report DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: strategy for the Island Crossing Subarea. The city proposes to adopt an Island Crossing Subarea Plan, Zoning Code Development Standards, and Planned Action Ordinance. These documents will provide the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the area. The subarea plan was developed for consistency with the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning Policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is a proactive effort to build on existing assets and shape Island Crossing’s future, guiding its transformation from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe, and well-connected gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley. The plan identifies a long-term vision and strategies for resilience to flooding, identity-strengthening and better-connected development, an SR 530 design concept that celebrates Island Crossing as a gateway and improves flooding resilience, and economic development strategies that respect its agricultural roots, natural resources, and cultural significance. priorities: 1) adopt zoning and design standards to ensure new development reflects community values and strengthens neighborhood identity, 2) coordinate with property owners and set funding strategy for a regional compensatory storage facility to support flood resilience, 3) coordinate with WSDOT to secure funding and implement SR 530 improvements, and 4) attract desired businesses through proactive relationship building with developers, property owners, and businesses. The Development Standards establish a new chapter in the zoning code (AMC Chapter 20.119) that provides development standards for the Island Crossing Subarea. The development standards include regulations for zoning designations, permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design standards, parking standards, landscaping standards, flooding and compensatory storage. The design standards include the theme, site planning, vehicular access and parking, pedestrian access, amenities, open space, and building design. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #2 Attachment HISTORY: In preparation for the Island Crossing Subarea Plan the city implemented a development moratorium over properties within the subarea, north of South Slough under Ordinance No. 2023-006 (4-23-2023), Ordinance No. 2023-017 (12-04-2023), Ordinance No. 2024-007 (6-3-2024), Ordinance No. 2024-027 (11-18-2024), and Ordinance No. 2025-001 (5-5-2025). The City contracted with MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design in the amount of $328,908.50 to develop and assist in the completion of the subarea plan, draft environmental impact statement, final environmental impact statement, planned action ordinance, development regulations, public outreach and participation. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information I move to approve the ordinance adopting the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance. Page 1 of 1 Subarea Plan Sections and Layout: Introductory Chapters: • Introduction – Purpose, Key Considerations, Existing Conditions and Community Engagement Summaries • Vision and Plan Concepts – Vision and Guiding Principles, Framework Plan, Goals and Objectives Strategies Chapters: • Natural Environment – Context and Strategies • Land Use and Urban Design – Context and Strategies • Transportation – Context and Strategies • Public Services and Utilities – Context and Strategies Implementation Chapter: • Implementation outlines critical �irst steps and summarizes the recommended actions and identi�ies responsible parties, timing, potential funding sources, and relationships between actions. Appendices: • Appendix A: Existing Conditions • Appendix B: Public Engagement Summaries • Appendix C: Major Concepts Options Evaluation • Appendix D: Zoning and Development Standard Recommendations State Regulations: • There were no state laws that forced the city to implement the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. • The Subarea Plan and Planned Action was prepared meeting the following State regulations: o RCW 36.70A.130 o RCW 43.21C.420 o RCW 43.21C.440 o RCW 43.21C.031 o WAC 197-11-164 to 172 Presentation: A PowerPoint Presentation at the City Council Workshop will cover all of the proposed items in detail. Island Crossing Subarea Plan Subarea Plan Overview Summary - Amy Rusko, Director City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington, establishing a planned action for Island Crossing pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through designation of “Planned Actions” by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, Section 43.21C.440 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Sections 197-11-164 through 172 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) allow for and govern the adoption and application of a planned action designation under SEPA; and WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement (EIS), and thereby encourages desired growth and economic development; and WHEREAS, a subarea of the city consisting of the Island Crossing Subarea as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, has been identified as a planned action area for future redevelopment (Planned Action Area); and WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on September 16, 2025 before the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner considered public comment and recommended approval of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan, development regulations, and design guidelines; and WHEREAS, to guide Island Crossing’s growth and redevelopment within the Planned Action Area, the City is adopting the Island Crossing Subarea Plan; and WHEREAS, the City is adopting the Island Crossing zoning map, zoning code development standards, and design guidelines, to regulate development within the Planned Action Area; and WHEREAS, the City desires to designate a Planned Action for the Island Crossing; and WHEREAS, after public participation and coordination with affected parties, the City, as lead SEPA agency, issued the Island Crossing Subarea Plan Planned Action Final Environmental Impact Statement dated October 9, 2025 (FEIS), which identifies the impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned development in the Future Planned Action Area; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations and ordinances which will help protect the environment; and City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 2 WHEREAS, the City’s SEPA Rules, set forth in AMC 20.98.020 provide for Planned Actions within the City; and WHEREAS, adopting a Planned Action for the Island Crossing Subarea Plan with appropriate standards and procedures will help achieve efficient permit processing and promote environmental quality protection; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington finds that adopting this Ordinance and its Exhibits is in the public interest and will advance the public health, safety, and welfare. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Combine environmental analysis, land use plans, development regulations, City codes and ordinances together with the mitigation measures in the Island Crossing Planned Action EIS to mitigate environmental impacts and process planned action development applications in the Planned Action Area; B. Designate the Island Crossing as a Planned Action Area for purposes of environmental review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C.440; C. Confirm that the Planned Action EIS meets the requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA; D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine whether subsequent projects within the Planned Action Area qualify as Planned Actions; E. Provide clear definition as to what constitutes a Planned Action Project within the Planned Action Area, identify the criteria for Planned Action Project approval, and determine how development project applications that qualify as Planned Action Projects will be processed by the City; F. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by relying on the Planned Action EIS; and G. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the EIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development contemplated by this Ordinance. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. The procedural and substantive requirements of SEPA (RCW 43.21C) have been complied with. B. The procedural requirements of GMA (RCW 36.70A) have been complied with. C. The proposed action is consistent with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. D. All necessary public meetings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with State law and the City’s municipal code. E. The Arlington City Council finds and determines that regulation of land use and development is subject to the authority and general police power of the City, and the City reserves its powers and authority to appropriately amend, modify, and revise such land use controls in accordance with applicable law. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 3 F. An EIS has been prepared for the Planned Action Area, and the City Council finds that the EIS adequately identifies and addresses the probable significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned Action Area. G. The mitigation measures identified in the Island Crossing Planned Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference, together with adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action Area. H. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Island Crossing Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action. I. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development. J. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public involvement and review in the Community Plan and Planned Action EIS processes, including a community meeting consistent with RCW 43.21C.440; has considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments. K. Essential public facilities as defined in RCW 36.70A.200 are excluded from the Planned Action as designated herein and are not eligible for review or permitting as Planned Action Projects unless they are accessory to or part of a project that otherwise qualifies as a Planned Action Project. L. The designated Planned Action Area is located entirely within an Urban Growth Area and is smaller than the overall City boundaries. M. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS will provide for adequate public services and facilities to serve the proposed Planned Action Area. SECTION 3. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Planned Action Projects within Planned Action Area. A. Planned Action Area. This Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific project application within the Planned Action Area shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B of this Ordinance, are based upon the findings of the Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to apply appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects within the Planned Action Area. C. Planned Action Projects Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in Subsection 3.D and the mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. A development application for a site-specific project located within the Planned Action Area that meets the criteria in Subsections 3.D and 3.E may be designated a Planned Action Project pursuant to the process in Subsection 3.G. D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Planned Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action Project and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS: (1) Qualifying Land Uses. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 4 (a) Planned Action Categories: The following general categories/types of land uses are defined in the Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards (AMC 20.119) and can qualify as Planned Actions: i. Commercial, retail, restaurant, services, open air markets (consistent with zone requirements) ii. Hotels (varies by zone) iii. Vehicle and heavy equipment sales (varies by zone) iv. Industrial (varies by zone) v. Electric vehicle infrastructure, energy, and utility facilities vi. Open space, parks, trails, recreation, gathering spaces vii. Cultural, social, civic (consistent with zone requirements) viii. Street and non-motorized circulation improvements consistent with the Transportation evaluation in the Planned Action EIS, Subarea Plan, and Development Standards ix. Other uses allowed in the Zoning regulations applicable to the Island Crossing Subarea Plan Area that are similar to studied uses as determined by the responsible official or designee. x. Enlargement or intensification of uses existing at the time the Planned Action Area is approved, so long as such enlargement or intensification complies with the Zoning Code and Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards. (b) Planned Action Project Land Uses: A land use shall be considered a Planned Action Project Land Use when: i. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in Exhibit A; ii. it is within one or more of the land use categories described in the Island Crossing Zones in subsection D(1)(a) above; and iii. it is listed in development regulations applicable to the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action Area. A Planned Action may be a single Planned Action use or a combination of Planned Action uses together in a mixed use development. Planned Action uses include accessory uses. (c) Public Services: The following public services, infrastructure and utilities are also Planned Action Projects: Multi-modal transportation improvements, water and sewer improvements, and stormwater improvements, considered in capital plans associated with the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. i. Applicants for public services, infrastructure and utilities projects shall demonstrate consistency with all applicable city, county, state, and federal laws, regulations, and permitting requirement, including but not limited to the Island Crossing Subarea Plan, Arlington Shoreline Master Program, Arlington Critical Areas Ordinance, and Floodplain Development Regulations. ii. Essential public facilities defined in RCW 47.06.140 are excluded from the Planned Action and not eligible for review or permitting as Planned Actions unless they are accessory to or part of a project that otherwise qualifies as a planned action. (2) Development Thresholds: (a) Land Use: The following maximum amounts of new land uses are contemplated by the Planned Action: City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 5 Table D2a-1. Planned Action Development Limits 2025-2044: Preferred Alternative Net Growth and Total Existing (2025)* Net Change Total Jobs 215 610 825 Dwelling 5 -3** 2 * Existing jobs source: 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report with modifications to account for recent development; MAKERS, 2025. ** Represents the loss of existing legal non-conforming residential dwellings as redevelopment occurs. (b) Shifting development amounts between land uses in Subsection 3(D)(2)(a) may be permitted when the total build-out is less than the aggregate amount of development reviewed in the EIS; the traffic trips for the preferred alternative are not exceeded; and, the development impacts identified in the Planned Action EIS are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B. (c) Further environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11- 172, if any individual Planned Action or combination of Planned Actions exceed the development thresholds specified in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS. (3) Transportation Thresholds: (a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The maximum number of PM peak hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the EIS is as follows: Table D3a-1. PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips Generated, Preferred Alternative Land Use No Action Total Trips Preferred Alternative Total Trips Residential 3 2 Office 27 0 Retail 1,228 3,507 Total 1,258 3,509 Source: Transpo Group, 2025. (b) Concurrency. All Planned Actions shall meet the transportation concurrency requirements and the level of service (LOS) thresholds established in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and AMC Chapter 20.56. (c) Traffic Impact and Mitigation. The responsible City official shall require documentation by Planned Action Project applicants demonstrating that the total trips identified in Subsection 3.D(3)(a) are not exceeded, that the project meets the concurrency standards of Subsection 3.D(3)(b), and that the project has mitigated impacts consistent with Exhibit B. Planned action applicants shall provide the following documentation at a minimum unless otherwise required to address standards of AMC 20.04.120 and AMC 20.56: (i) Trip generation and total trips in relation to the trip bank in Subsection 3.D(3)(a) and (d). City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 6 (ii) Site-specific access design and consistency with City standards. (iii) Implementation of required frontage improvements consistent with applicable City engineering standards. (iv) Share of cost on areawide mitigation per Exhibit B-2. (d) Discretion. The City Engineer or his/her designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual accepted by the City Engineer at his or her sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action. (4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of adverse impacts to any element(s) of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, would not qualify as a Planned Action. (5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. (6) Substantive Authority. Pursuant to SEPA Substantive Authority at AMC 20.98.200 and Comprehensive Plan Policies, impacts shall be mitigated through the measures included in Exhibit B. E. Planned Action Review Criteria. (1) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate as “planned actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions: (a) The proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance; (b) The proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Subsection 3.D of this ordinance; (c) The proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Subsection 3.D of this ordinance; (d) The proposal is consistent with the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the Island Crossing Subarea Plan; (e) The proposal’s significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; (f) The proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) The proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and (h) The proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to or part of a development that is designated as a planned action under this ordinance. (2) The City shall base its decision on review of a Planned Action SEPA checklist (Exhibit B), or an alternative form approved by state law, and review of the application and supporting documentation. (3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030, WAC 197-11-164 et seq., and this ordinance. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 7 F. Effect of Planned Action. (1) Designation as a Planned Action Project by the SEPA Responsible Official means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance and found to be consistent with the development parameters and thresholds established herein, and with the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. (2) Upon determination by the City’s SEPA Responsible Official that the proposal meets the criteria of Subsection 3.D and qualifies as a planned action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to SEPA. G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process: (1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). Applications for planned actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include the Planned Action SEPA checklist (Exhibit B). (2) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in AMC Chapter 20.98. (3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. (a) The decision of the City’s SEPA Responsible Official regarding qualification of a project as a Planned Action is an administrative decision. The SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant of his/her decision. Notice of the determination on zoning permit decisions per AMC 20.16.100 involving a planned action shall also be mailed or otherwise verifiably delivered to federally recognized tribal governments and to agencies with jurisdiction over the planned action project, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. (b) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in AMC Chapter 20.16, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. (c) Notice of the application for a planned action project shall be consistent with Chapter 20.98 AMC. (4) If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance. See Subsection 3.G(3)(a) regarding notice of the zoning permit decision. (5) To provide additional certainty about applicable requirements, the City or applicant may request consideration and execution of a development agreement for a Planned Action project, consistent with RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. (6) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the SEPA Responsible Official shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action. (7) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 8 SECTION 4. Monitoring and Review. A. The City should monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action area as deemed appropriate to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Planned Action Area. B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed by the SEPA Responsible Official no later than five years from its effective date. The review shall determine the continuing relevance of the Planned Action assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. The SEPA Responsible Official shall also consider the implementation of Public Agency Actions and Commitments in Exhibit C. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 5. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed thereto, and any Ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, except that the provision of any International Building Code shall supersede. SECTION 6. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2025 Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2025 _________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Oskar E. Rey, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2025 EFFECTIVE the _________day of ______________________, 2025 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 9 Exhibit A: Island Crossing Planned Action Area Source: MAKERS, 2025. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 10 Exhibit B. SEPA Checklist and Mitigation Measures Exhibit B: Example Environmental Checklist and Required Mitigation Document INTRODUCTION The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non-project proposals that are likely to have adverse impacts upon the environment. In order to meet SEPA requirements, the City of Arlington issued the Island Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on August 1, 2025, and the Final EIS was issued on October 9, 2025. The Draft and the Final EIS together are referenced herein as the “EIS”. The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with future development, along with measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts in the Planned Action Area On October 20, 2025, the City of Arlington adopted Ordinance No. 2025-XXX establishing a planned action designation for the Island Crossing Subarea studied as Planned Action in the EIS (see Exhibit A). SEPA Rules indicates review of a project proposed as a planned action is intended to be simpler and more focused than for other projects (WAC 197-11-172). In addition, SEPA allows an agency to utilize a modified checklist form that is designated within the planned action ordinance (see RCW 43.21c.440). This Exhibit B-1 provides a modified checklist form adopted in the Island Crossing Planned Action Ordinance. MITIGATION MEASURES The Mitigation Measures are provided in Exhibit B-2, and also summarized in the environmental checklist. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in the EIS, and which are located within the Island Crossing Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). APPLICABLE PLANS AND REGULATIONS The EIS identifies specific regulations that act as mitigation measures. These are summarized in Exhibit B-3 by EIS topic, and are advisory to applicants. All applicable federal, state, and local regulations shall apply to Planned Actions, including the regulations that are adopted with the Preferred Alternative. Planned Action applicants shall comply with all adopted regulations where applicable including those listed in the EIS and those not included in the EIS. INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City of Arlington will use this checklist to determine whether the project is consistent with the analysis in the Island Crossing Planned Action EIS and qualifies as a planned action or would otherwise require additional environmental review under SEPA. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own project plans and the Planned Action EIS without the need to hire experts. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 11 Exhibit B-1 Modified SEPA Checklist A. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Date: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Address Street: City, State, Zip Code: Parcel Information Assessor Parcel Number: Property Size in Acres: Give a brief, complete description of your proposal. Property Zoning District Name: Building Type: Permits Requested (list all that apply) Land Use: Building: Engineering: Other: All Applications Deemed Complete? Yes __ No __ Explain: Are there pending governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes __ No __ Explain: Existing Land Use Describe Existing Uses on the Site: Proposed Land Use – Check All That Apply Commercial, retail, restaurant, services, open air markets Hotels Vehicle and heavy equipment sales Industrial Electric vehicle infrastructure, energy, and utility facilities Open space, parks, trails, recreation, gathering spaces Cultural, social, civic Street and non-motorized circulation improvements Other Non-residential Uses: Building Square Feet Existing: Proposed: Net Change Employment in Ordinance: 610 Total Employment in Ordinance: 825 Job Remainder as of 20__ Building square feet: Jobs: City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 12 Building Height Existing Stories: Existing Height in feet Proposed Stories: Proposed Height in feet: Parking Spaces Existing: Proposed: Impervious Surfaces Existing Square Feet: Proposed Square Feet: PM Peak Hour Weekday Vehicle Trips Existing Estimated Trips Total: Future Estimated Trips Total: Net New Trips: Source of Trip Rate: ITE Manual ___ Other ____ Transportation Impacts Determined Consistent with AMC 20.04.120 and Chapter 20.56. Yes ____ No ____ Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing). Describe plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to this proposal. List any available or pending environmental information directly related to this proposal. B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND MITIGATION MEASURES Earth Checklist and Mitigation Measure Earth Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering earth questions 1 a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Staff Comments: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Temporary erosion and sediment controls Compliance with grading and fill standards Compliance with critical area regulations Explain: 1 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-earth City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 14 Air Checklist and Mitigation Measure Air Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering air questions 2 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Staff Comments: b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Water Checklist and Mitigation Measure Water Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering water questions 3 d. Surface: Find help answering surface water questions 4 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. See AMC 20.64 Floodplain Development Regulations. Staff Comments: 2 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-Air 3 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water 4 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental-elements-Surface-water City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 15 Water Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering water questions 3 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface discharge. b. Ground: Find help answering ground water questions 5 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. d. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with floodplain development requirements Compliance with critical areas regulations Compliance with construction-related stormwater requirements, including temporary erosion and sediment control, and development and implementation of a stormwater pollution and spill prevention plan. Determination of necessary permanent, long-term water quality treatment requirements. Implementation of on-site or street frontage green infrastructure Low Impact Development (LID) techniques employed, consistent with AMC 13.28? Impact fee and SEPA mitigation fee for fair share of capital improvements Fee for regional floodwater compensatory storage facility Other: Explain: 5 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-3-Water/Environmental-elements-Groundwater City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 16 Plants Checklist and Mitigation Measure Plants Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering plants questions 6 See the Island Crossing Planned Action FEIS Section 3.4.1 Affected Environment for information about species and vegetation found in Island Crossing. a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☐ shrubs ☐ grass ☐ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation Staff Comments: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance with Shoreline Master Program Implementation of on-site or street frontage green infrastructure Other: Explain: e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. 6 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-4-plants City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 17 Animals Checklist and Mitigation Measure Animals Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering animal questions 7 See the Island Crossing Planned Action FEIS Section 3.4.1 Affected Environment for information about species and vegetation found in Island Crossing. a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Staff Comments: b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance with Shoreline Master Program Other: Explain: e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Energy and Natural Resources Checklist and Mitigation Measure Energy and Natural Resources Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering energy and natural resource questions 8 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Staff Comments: 7 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-5-Animals 8 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-6-Energy-natural-resou City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 18 Energy and Natural Resources Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering energy and natural resource questions 8 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Environmental Health Checklist and Mitigation Measure Environmental Health Checklist and Mitigation Measures Health Find help with answering environmental health questions 9 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Staff Comments: b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long- construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 9 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-7-Environmental-health City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 19 Land and shoreline use Checklist and Mitigation Measure Land and Shoreline Use Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering land and shoreline use questions 10 c. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Staff Comments: a. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm land normal pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? b. Describe any structures on the site. c. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? d. What is the current zoning classification of the site (IC-1, IC-2, or IC-3)? e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? f. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? g. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. h. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? i. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? j. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. k. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with Island Crossing Subarea Plan. Compliance with the Island Crossing Development Standards Compliance with other applicable land use and shoreline policies and development regulations. Other Explain: 10 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-8-Land-shoreline-use City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 20 Land and Shoreline Use Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering land and shoreline use questions 10 l. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. Describe how the proposal avoids light and shadow impacts on working agricultural land. Aesthetics Checklist and Mitigation Measure Aesthetics Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering aesthetics questions 11 See the AMC 20.119 Island Crossing Development Standards. a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Staff Comments: b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Describe how the proposal considers view celebration/preservation (see AMC 20.119.110(b)(2))? c. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with Island Crossing Subarea Plan. Compliance with the Island Crossing Development Standards Other Explain: Light and Glare Checklist and Mitigation Measure Light and Glare Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering light and glare questions 12 d. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Staff Comments: e. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 11 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-10-Aesthetics 12 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-11-Light-glare City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 21 Light and Glare Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering light and glare questions 12 f. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? g. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Recreation Checklist and Mitigation Measure Recreation Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering recreation questions 13 h. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Staff Comments: i. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. j. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Historic and Cultural Preservation Checklist and Mitigation Measure Historic and Cultural Preservation Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions 14 k. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Staff Comments: l. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. m. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. 13 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-12-Recreation 14 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-13-Historic-cultural-p City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 22 Historic and Cultural Preservation Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions 14 n. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Transportation Checklist and Mitigation Measure Transportation Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help with answering transportation questions 15 o. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Staff Comments: p. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? q. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). r. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? s. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. t. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Evaluate and mitigate roadways consistent with Planned Action Ordinance Section 3.D(3). Street frontage standards Impact fee and SEPA mitigation fee for fair share of capital improvements Other: Explain: 15 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist-guidance/SEPA- Checklist-Section-B-Environmental-elements/Environmental-elements-14-Transportation City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 23 Public Services Checklist and Mitigation Measure Public Services Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering public service questions 16 u. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Staff Comments: v. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Utilities Checklist and Mitigation Measure Utilities Checklist and Mitigation Measures Find help answering utilities questions 17 w. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Staff Comments: x. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See the Island Crossing Subarea Plan Chapter 6 Public Services and Utilities. y. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-3 regarding Mitigation Measures and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Capital Facility Plan has been considered, and development provides its fair share of the cost of improvements consistent with applicable local government plans and codes. Developer has coordinated with City to ensure that sewer lines, water lines, or stormwater facilities will be extended to provide service to proposed development site where required. General facility charges have been determined to ensure cumulative impacts to utilities are addressed. Other Measures to reduce or control public services and utilities impacts: Explain: 16 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-15-public-services 17 https://ecology.wa.gov/regulations-permits/sepa/environmental-review/sepa-guidance/sepa-checklist-guidance/sepa- checklist-section-b-environmental-elements/environmental-elements-16-utilities City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 24 C. APPLICANT SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: D. REVIEW CRITERIA Review Criteria The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate “planned actions” consistent with criteria in Ordinance No. 2025-XXX Subsection 3.E. Criteria Discussion (a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this Ordinance; are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 3.D of this Ordinance; Action thresholds and other criteria of Section 3.D of this Ordinance; the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the Island Crossing Subarea Plan; environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 25 Criteria Discussion (h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to or part of a development that is designated as a planned action under this Determination Criteria Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the process in Ordinance No. 2025-XXX Section 3.G. Applications for planned actions were made on forms provided by the City including this Island Crossing Checklist and Mitigation Document. complete in accordance with AMC Planned Action Area pursuant to Section 3.D of the Ordinance and City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 26 E. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL DETERMINATION A. Qualifies as a Planned Action: The application is consistent with the criteria of Ordinance 2025-XXX and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. It shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in AMC 20.16, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. Notice shall be made pursuant to AMC Chapter 20.98. as part of notice of the underlying permits and shall include the results of the Planned Action determination. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required. See Section 3.G(3)(a) regarding notice of the zoning permit decision. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in AMC Chapter 20.16. NOTE: If it is determined during subsequent detailed permit review that a project does not qualify as a planned action, Signature Date: B. Does not Qualify as Planned Action: not qualify as a Planned Action project for the following reasons: Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SEPA Process Prescribed: C. Responsible Official Signature Signature: City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 27 Exhibit B-2 Mitigation Measures This section includes Mitigation Measures referenced in the Planned Action EIS, and where not otherwise incorporated into the Subarea Plan and Code. Mitigation measures incorporated into the Subarea Plan and Code, including the Island Crossing Development Standards, are part of applicable regulations and not necessary in the SEPA mitigation measures. The mitigation measures in this Exhibit B-2 shall apply to Planned Action Project applications that are consistent with the Alternative range reviewed in the Planned Action EIS and which are located within the Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that measure in Planned Action Project application plans is mandatory to qualify as a Planned Action Project. Where “should”, “would”, or “may” appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned Action Project. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. The City’s SEPA Responsible Official’s authorized designee shall determine consistency with this mitigation document. LAND USE & URBAN FORM Planned Action Projects along SR 530 that develop prior to SR530 improvements may request and the City may consider a fee-in-lieu for some or all of the frontage improvements that are the responsibility of the property owner consistent with the criteria in AMC 20.56.170 and agreements pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 or other instrument deemed acceptable to the City and applicant. Or, the project shall incorporate landscape design measures to minimize impacts on Cascade Range views, including: a. Along the western portion of SR 530 (within approximately 400 feet of the I-5 interchange), provide strategic space between trees and select narrow, columnar trees to preserve views. b. Along the eastern portion of SR 530, select short tree species (crown width is flexible), reducing obstruction of views from the interchange/gateway area. c. Select trees in accordance with the City of Arlington Tree List. Planned Action Projects along SR 530 that develop after SR 530 improvements must provide frontage improvements (if required) in accordance with the SR 530 view study and landscape design guidance. TRANSPORTATION The SR 530 street design project shall include a view study and landscape design guidance to preserve Cascade Mountain views. Planned Action Projects shall pay applicable transportation impact fees (TIF) for improvements included in the current TIF program. In addition, the Planned Action shall pay its fair share of system improvements not included in the TIF through a SEPA fair share fee program determined by the proportion of the person trips generated to support necessary improvements identified in the Planned Action EIS and listed in Table B.2-1. a. Mitigation fees consistent with the proportionate share of costs shall be payable in addition to the TIF until the improvements in Table B.2-1 are incorporated into the City’s TIF program. b. A Planned Action’s trips calculated per Section 3.D(3)(d) will be used to determine a development’s demand and mitigation payment. Fees shall be subject to biennial review to affirm the cost basis including a construction cost index or an equivalent as determined by the City. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 28 Table B.2 -1. Summary of Mitigation and Preferred Alternative Pro-Rata Cost Percent Pro-Rata Share 1 (Pro-Rata Cost in millions of $)2 Improvement Estimated Cost (2024 dollars) Preferred Alternative Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 Expand to a two-lane roundabout. The city is currently designing and included in the TIF a one-lane roundabout that can be expanded. $6.73 million 20% ($1.35) SR 530 Improvements Improve SR 530 including elevating road, constructing compensatory floodwater storage and new culvert, consolidating driveways, and providing a cross-section of 12-foot shared use path on both sides, a center landscape median, and one through travel lane in each direction with right-turn lanes at access points. $20.38 million 20% ($4.08) Construct single-lane roundabout along SR 530 to provide access and circulation. $6 million 20% ($1.20) Total Costs $6.63 Source: Transpo Group, 2025 1. Based on the overall growth in trip ends for the Subarea. 2. Percent Pro-Rata Share x Estimated Total Cost FLOOD WATER The City, in coordination with Snohomish County and property owners, plans to study, design, and construct a regional floodwater compensatory storage facility to minimize flooding on SR 530 and nearby properties. The SEPA fair share fee program identified under Transportation mitigation measure 4 funds SR 530-related flood mitigation. In addition, if a feasibility study and hydraulic modeling confirm that a regional floodwater facility would efficiently mitigate flooding on properties near SR 530, the City would study financing options and may consider facilitating the formation of a Community Facilities District, Local Improvement District, or similar cost-sharing mechanism (“district”) for funding the regional floodwater facility and potential associated park. In combination with City, grant, and/or other funds, this would fund the design, construction, and long-term maintenance of the facility. District boundaries and fees would be determined through facility design and financing studies to ensure properties benefiting from the flood facility are included in the district. Fees would likely be defined with a proportionate share cost- per-volume metric (e.g., cubic feet of storage) determined by the district’s assessment, accounting for costs such as the feasibility study, land acquisition, facility design and construction (including park features if applicable), and native habitat restoration. Planned Action Projects shall provide compensatory flood storage or pay into a district’s regional flood storage facility as follows: a. For projects that develop prior to district formation and regional floodwater compensatory storage facility construction, development must provide floodwater compensatory storage per existing Flood Hazard regulations. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 29 b. For projects that develop after district formation and regional floodwater compensatory storage facility construction, properties within the district: i. Would pay a proportionate share to benefit from the flood protection. ii. That previously provided onsite compensatory storage may pay a proportionate share to develop that portion of their property. Would pay an annual maintenance fee based on the property’s volume of floodwater compensated by the facility. The district shall periodically review and adjust payment rates to ensure adequacy of funding to maintain the facility in compliance with best available science and floodplain management standards. As part of the City’s design and construction of the regional floodwater compensatory storage facility: a. The City shall restore or enhance wetland habitat within or adjacent to the facility to restore native habitat. b. If facility construction occurs prior to the SR 530 improvement, the design and siting shall be coordinated to ensure compatibility and shall not preclude future SR 530 improvements. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The City may establish a state and federally certified in-lieu fee (ILF) mitigation program for sites within the subarea to provide pre-permitted, consolidated wetland mitigation within the subarea or watershed. A Planned Action Project that has unavoidable wetland impacts is encouraged to participate in the ILF mitigation program— if the City establishes the program—by paying an established in-lieu fee in accordance with program requirements. If a Planned Action Project impacts a shoreline or other non-floodplain critical area, preferred mitigation options include: a. Restoring degraded critical areas and buffers to support wildlife habitat. b. Maintaining and improving migratory corridors, including fish passage barriers, for fish and wildlife. c. Improving climate resilience of natural areas, including forest patches, using a regional landscape approach. UTILITIES The City may develop an Island Crossing Stormwater Plan to address stormwater management in the area. Planned Action applications shall demonstrate implementation of their fair share of water and sewer improvements identified in the Subarea Plan’s Chapter 6 Public Services and Utilities. The fair share shall be determined by the Public Works Director or their designee based on the proposal’s contribution to stormwater runoff and water quality treatment. Planned Actions shall meet City standards for adequate water and sewer service, pay applicable general facility charges, and incorporate water and sewer infrastructure improvements in street frontage improvements as appropriate. Planned Action Applicants shall demonstrate all feasible use of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) that utilize trees (such as Silva Cells) before other water quality BMPs. Planned Action Projects may use stormwater facilities and green infrastructure beyond the regulatory requirements to improve conditions for ground and surface water quality. Planned Actions should incorporate water- and energy-efficient technologies and practices to reduce overall resource consumption. This may include the use of low- or no-flow plumbing fixtures, high-efficiency equipment, and other emerging technologies that lower per-capita demand. Planned Action Projects benefiting from public investment in the compensatory floodwater storage facility shall include solar panels in parking lot design as a renewable energy source and shade structure, unless the applicant demonstrates infeasibility. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 30 Exhibit B-3 Applicable Regulations and Advisory Notes In addition to the Island Crossing Subarea Plan goals and policies and the Arlington Land Use Code development regulations, the following regulations may apply. All applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met regardless of whether they are highlighted in this Exhibit or not. LAND USE AND URBAN FORM Arlington’s Municipal Code contains regulations that help to ensure land use compatibility. Title 20 Land Use Code. AMC Chapter 20.119 – Island Crossing Development Standards. AMC Chapter 20.46 – Arlington Design Standards. Arlington Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Airport Master Plan: contains regulations applicable to Flightline zone areas. Arlington Tree List Cultural Resources In terms of historic and cultural resources the following local, state, and federal laws or rules apply: Arlington’s SMP includes policies and regulations that would require appropriate cultural review by tribal and other agencies. State funded capital projects require Governor’s Executive Order 0505 review. Implementation of the Executive Order requires all state agencies implementing or assisting capital projects using funds appropriated in the State's biennial Capital Budget to consider how future proposed projects may impact significant cultural and historic places. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that each federal agency identify and assess the effects its actions may have on historic buildings. TRANSPORTATION The following regulations address transportation: Travel Demand Management (TDM): Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law requires employers with 100 or more employees and located in high-population counties to implement TDM programs. Arlington Complete Streets Program Arlington and Snohomish County Traffic Mitigation Agreements Arlington Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Improvement Program The following regulations and standards: AMC Chapter 20.119 – Island Crossing Development Standards AMC Chapter 10.80 – Commute Trip Reduction AMC Chapter 20.56 – Streets and Sidewalks AMC Chapter 20.90 – Concurrency and Impact Fees Arlington Engineering Standards AMC Chapter 20.44.098 – Electric Vehicle Infrastructure City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 31 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Development and redevelopment projects within the study area that have the potential to impact environmentally sensitive natural resources will require compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts is typically required for all applicable permitting reviews and authorizations. The table below provides a regulatory permit matrix for actions requiring local, state, and federal authorizations. Appropriate mitigation measures specific to project alternatives will need to be proposed when alternatives are farther along in the planning process. This may include preservation, enhancement, and restoration of wetland and marine shoreline buffer. Table B.4-1. Environmental Regulations Jurisdictional Agency Regulations/Authorizations City of Arlington Pre-application submittal conference SEPA Determination (No Action Alternative) Planned Action Consistency Determination (Action Alternatives) City of Arlington Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance City of Arlington Floodplain Development Regulations Compliance City of Arlington Stormwater Code Compliance Washington State Department of Ecology CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) WAC 220 Fish and Wildlife Regulations National Marine Fisheries Services Magnuson-Stevens Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Migratory Bird Treaty U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Section 404 Clean Water Act CWA Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Requires Compliance with: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act Sources: City of Arlington Municipal Code; Herrera, 2025. PUBLIC SERVICES The following regulations address public services: Comprehensive Plan – Addresses levels of service and capital improvements for fire, police, and parks. This is updated every eight years with the Comprehensive Plan. Title 15 Fire – Includes requirements for fire suppression. Parks and Recreation Master Plan and 6-year Capital Improvement Plan. Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – Addresses Capital Replacement projects to ensure proper function of current schools. City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Page 32 UTILITIES The following regulations and standards: • 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) • Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under this set of regulations, the City maintains measures to protect and improve runoff conditions in relation to the receiving waters. • Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington • City of Arlington Municipal Code Title 13 – Water and Sewers • City of Arlington Municipal Code Title 21 – Cable Systems Regulations • City of Arlington Municipal Code Title 6 – Health and Sanitation • City of Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.93 – Critical Areas Ordinance • Snohomish County Code • Snohomish County Drainage Manual • Stormwater Management Program Plan • City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Update—Book 8: Capital Facilities and Utilities Supporting Analysis (November 2024) • Electric vehicle (EV)-related regulations in AMC 20.114.415, WAC 51-50-0429, RCW 19.27.540, and RCW 46.08.185 • Arlington Water Systems Plan • Arlington 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan I wa ISLAND CROSSING SUBAREA PLAN DRAFT February 17 , 202 5 City of Arlington MAKERS architecture and urban design Community Attributes, Inc. Herrera Perteet Transpo Group October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan ii Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge everyone in the Arlington community who supported this effort by attending meetings, taking surveys, providing feedback, and helping shape the vision. We thank you for contributing your time and effort to the development of this plan. ADVISORY GROUP Andrew Albert Brian Kooy Santosh Kumar Stuart Skelton Christie Strotz Jacobs Trevor Strotz Toby Strotz Debbie Strotz Evan Russel Casey Steven Linda Neunzig Dave Nelson Kory Glove TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL GROUP Chris Simmons, Community Transit Kathryn Boris, Community Transit Dawn Anderson, WSDOT Evan Russel, Snohomish County CITY OF ARLINGTON Amy Rusko, Community & Economic Development Director Jen Haugen, Planning Manager Thad Newport, Development Services Engineering Manager CONSULTANTS MAKERS architecture and urban design, LLP Transpo Group Perteet Inc. Herrera Environmental Consultants Community Attributes Inc. Land Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge that the indigenous Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla people as the original caretakers of the waters and landscape that are known today as Arlington. With gratitude, we honor the land, the water, and its people. October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan iii Contents Acknowledgements ii Contents iii Exhibits iv Executive Summary v 1 Introduction 12 1.1 Purpose 12 1.2 Existing Conditions 14 1.3 What We Heard 16 2 Vision and Plan Concepts 18 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles 18 2.2 Framework Plan 19 2.3 Goals and Objectives 21 3 Natural Environment 24 3.1 Context 24 3.2 Strategies 25 4 Land Use and Urban Design 27 4.1 Context 27 4.2 Strategies 29 5 Transportation 40 5.1 Context 40 5.2 Strategies 41 6 Public Services and Utilities 49 6.1 Context 49 6.2 Strategies 51 7 Implementation 55 7.1 Action Summary 58 8 Appendices 67 Appendix A: Existing Conditions A-1 Appendix B: Public Engagement Summaries B-1 Appendix C: Major Concepts Options Evaluation C-1 Appendix D: Zoning and Development Standard Recommendations D-1 October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan iv Exhibits Exhibit 1 Island Crossing Conceptual Redevelopment Vision vi Exhibit 1-1 Island Crossing Subarea Plan Process 13 Exhibit 1-2 Top Takeaways – Island Crossing Existing Conditions 14 Exhibit 1-3 Engagement Summary 16 Exhibit 2-1 Island Crossing Framework Plan 20 Exhibit 4-1 Zoning Standards Concepts 31 Exhibit 4-2 Zoning Concept Map 32 Exhibit 4-3 Island Crossing Conceptual Site Plan 38 Exhibit 5-1 SR 530 Street Design Concept Plan View 42 Exhibit 5-2 SR 530 Concept Cross-section 43 Exhibit 5-3 Summary of Island Crossing Improvements 46 Exhibit 6-1 Island Crossing Subarea Easements Map 50 Exhibit 7-1 Actions Summary 59 October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan v Executive Summary Background and Purpose Island Crossing is an 87-acre area in northwest Arlington, well-connected to the region and the economic centers of Old Town and the Cascade Industrial Center, and a gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley and Snohomish County's agricultural lands. Though it has the potential to play a vital role in the region's commercial, agritourism, and outdoor recreation economies, it has been developing as a highway-oriented convenience stop. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is a proactive effort to build on existing assets and shape Island Crossing’s future, guiding its transformation from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe, and well-connected gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley. The plan identifies a long-term vision and strategies for resilience to flooding, identity-strengthening and better- connected development, an SR 530 design concept that celebrates Island Crossing as a gateway and improves flooding resilience, and economic development strategies that respect its agricultural roots, natural resources, and cultural significance. October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan vi Top Actions Arlington will foster Island Crossing’s transformation into a celebrated gateway by focusing on four key priorities: 1) adopt zoning and design standards to ensure new development reflects community values and strengthens neighborhood identity, 2) coordinate with property owners and set funding strategy for a regional compensatory storage facility to support flood resilience, 3) coordinate with WSDOT to secure funding and implement SR 530 improvements, and 4) attract desired businesses through proactive relationship building with developers, property owners, and businesses. Exhibit 1 Island Crossing Conceptual Redevelopment Vision Note: This concept is an example only and illustrates just one of many ways that portions of the subarea could be developed consistent with the plan’s goals and policies. Source: MAKERS, 2025. Plan Organization Introductory chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 convey the background, purpose, and overarching vision for Island Crossing. They include: 1 Introduction (purpose, key considerations, existing conditions, and community engagement summaries) and 2 Vision and Plan Concepts (vision, framework plan, and goals and policies). Strategies. Chapters 3-6 outline strategies, organized by topic area, to achieve the goals. Chapters include 3 Natural Environment (NE), 4 Land Use and Urban Design (LU)), 5 Transportation (T), and 6 Public Services and Utilities (PSU). Implementation. Chapter 7 Implementation outlines critical first steps and summarizes the recommended actions and identifies responsible parties, timing, potential funding sources, and relationships between actions. Appendices. Additional information to support the plan. October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan vii Major Concepts Source: MAKERS, 2024. October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan viii Recommendations Overview The following chart identifies how the Island Crossing Subarea Plan achieves the vision outlined in 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles. Relevant actions are listed in parentheses (e.g. NE-1). The full list of actions can be found in the Action Summary Table starting on page 57. Protect life and property from flooding hazards. Plan Direction: Invest in a regional compensatory storage facility (NE-1 and NE-2). Elevate SR 530, expand culvert to accommodate future flood events and improve safety, and consider the Olympic Pipeline during planning and construction (NE-3, NE-4, and Olympic Pipeline). Support viability of surrounding agricultural lands. Plan Direction: Protect farmlands from flooding and avoid extensive use of farmland for flood mitigation (Flooding/Compensatory Storage). Establish an agritourism hub through public- private partnerships and attract businesses that honor agricultural legacy, like farm-to-table experiences and agriculture-oriented businesses (Agritourism Hub and Retail Hub). Finnriver Farm & Cidery in Chimacum, WA captures the community vision for agritourism. Source: MAKERS Expand Island Crossing’s compensatory storage system and recreational fields. October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan ix Support farmstands by reducing permitting barriers, accommodating farms stands in the right-of-way, and encouraging relationship building with property owners for shared parking solutions (LU-15 and Farm Stands). Promote a safe, well-connected, multimodal transportation system. Plan Direction: Coordinate and invest in SR 530 improvements, ensuring alignment with the Complete Streets Program; accommodate truck and farm equipment maneuvers; and support the gateway concept (SR 530 Street Design and Other Transportation Projects). Partner with developers to improve circulation and multimodal access between properties (LU-6, LU-10, LU-12, LU-21, and Street Design Standards/Inter-site Connectivity). Promote transportation options, including biking, transit, and electric vehicles (EV Parking, Bike Parking, and Transit Support). Celebrate the scenic landscape. Plan Direction: Adopt new zoning standards to preserve Cascade Mountain and farmland views (LU-1 to LU-2). Design SR 530 to protect views of the Cascade Mountains and act as a gateway into the Stillaguamish Valley through landscaping (SR 530 Street Design). SR 530 design improves non-motorized access and safety and ensures convenient . , Cascade Mountain Range, and amish River. Source: Deborah Roundabouts facilitate circulation, enhance non-motorized crossings, and gateway features. Promote opportunities for farm stands within the area. Source: Google October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan x Encourage developments to orient plazas and seating areas toward farmland and the Stillaguamish River when feasible (LU-3). Enhance Island Crossing’s identity as a gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley through design standards for architecture to reference agricultural legacy; public art, wayfinding, and signage; and collaboration with local artists during planning and design (Design Standards, LU-9 and LU-11) Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity. Plan Direction: Adopt zoning standards to promote a diverse mix of commercial uses (LU-1 and LU-5). Attract an agriculture-focused anchor tenant and other small businesses (LU-15, LU-16, and Development Incentives). Expand recreational opportunities to attract people to the area and enhance business vitality (Development Incentives and NE-2). Encourage retail clusters at key locations and along SR 530 and apply Island Crossing Design Standards along SR 530 to ensure a vibrant, human-oriented environment (LU-4 and Design Standards). Ensure public utilities are adequate to support potential growth (City of Arlington Water, City of Arlington Sewer, and Electric). Creative placemaking energizes both public and private spaces, enhances business vitality, and fosters community connection. The Island Crossing design standards will incorporate agriculturally inspired architecture with human-scale bays and Source: North 40 October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan xi Enhance the natural environment. Plan Direction: Design the compensatory flood storage facility, expanded culvert, and recreational fields to enhance and protect the natural environment during and between floods (Flooding/Compensatory Storage). Integrate green stormwater management approaches (e.g., raingarden, bioretention) in public and private developments and SR 530 design (SR 530 Street Design and Stormwater). Promote green building and design and explore solar/wind power opportunities along I-5 and in private developments (Energy-efficient Building Design and Renewable Energy). Green stormwater infrastructure can help floodplain management while enhancing Introduction ·October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan A-12 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The Island Crossing subarea encompasses approximately 87 acres in northwest Arlington, nestled within the agricultural and natural land of the Stillaguamish River Valley. This location serves as a vital transition point between the urban fabric of Arlington and the surrounding rural and tribal lands. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is a proactive effort to shape the future of this area by balancing flooding resilience, agricultural protection, environmental stewardship, community needs, and economic development. The plan identifies a long-term vision for development, an SR 530 design concept, addresses infrastructure needs, and recommends strategies to achieve the vision. It creates a framework that encourages the subarea to thrive while respecting its agricultural roots, natural resources, and cultural significance. Source: Deborah Nelson Introduction · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 13 As the subarea faces increasing pressures from development, flooding risks, and infrastructure demands, the plan focuses on the following key considerations: Key Considerations risks Protect properties while achieving desired development Street design concepts that are resilient to flooding and Gateway concepts Street design for safety and comfort of all people walking, bicycling, rolling (e.g., wheelchair), driving, and riding a bus Economic needs What types of uses should be encouraged, attracted, and supported for economic vitality? How? Considering air and noise impacts, what land uses are Street network and supporting infrastructure With different types of uses envisioned, and large parcels with What does “at capacity” mean for highways and streets? What infrastructure constraints are there to envisioned Steps of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan process are shown below in Exhibit 1-1. Exhibit 1-1 Island Crossing Subarea Plan Process Introduction · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 14 1.2 Existing Conditions The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is supplemented by the Appendix A Existing Conditions which explored a range of natural and built environments specific to the Island Crossing. The key conditions are summarized in Exhibit 1-2 Exhibit 1-2 Top Takeaways – Island Crossing Existing Conditions TOPIC SUMMARY Natural Environment Stillaguamish River flooding routinely impacts SR 530 and private properties, posing safety and property protection challenges. Preliminary analysis suggests that river modifications alone will not sufficiently reduce flooding risks. Raising the highway, SR 530 culvert expansion, and additional compensatory floodwater storage areas— and mitigation measures for any of these potential projects—should be explored to prevent routine inundation. Snohomish County’s and Arlington’s Critical Areas Ordinances will restrict development around protected fish species. Land Use Highway-oriented commercial land uses are clustered around SR 530. Agricultural land surrounds Island Crossing, and some is within the subarea. Island Crossing is zoned Highway Commercial, allowing a broad range of commercial activities and is intended for employment growth. While most community members agree on the desire to protect the viability of agricultural land in the valley and reduce flooding, there are conflicting visions for future land uses in the subarea. Island Crossing’s position at the urban-rural transition presents an opportunity to leverage agri- and recreational tourism. The floodplain and flood mitigation requirements present significant development feasibility constraints in the subarea. Transportation SR 530, a strategic freight corridor, and Smokey Point Blvd are the two roadways within Island Crossing. Safety issues along SR 530 are related to lack of access control, numerous driveways, and congestion along the corridor. Planned growth will increase traffic volumes, resulting in increased congestion and the I-5/SR 530 interchange operating below its level of service (LOS) standard. Introduction · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 15 TOPIC SUMMARY The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update has identified a need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities on SR 530 and Smokey Point Blvd. SR 530 street design should consider access control and driveway consolidation, safety and comfort improvements for active modes, gateway and scenic view celebration, the floodplain, and the Olympic Gas Pipeline. Public Services and Utilities The critical Olympic Gas Pipeline runs diagonally through the subarea, crossing beneath SR 530 near the topographical low point which floods frequently, posing a risk to the pipeline. SR 530 street design and options relating to grade changes and any work within the pipeline’s easement must include coordination with the Olympic Pipeline Company. Market and Real Estate Island Crossing’s location on major transportation routes and as the city’s northwest gateway, combined with several vacant or redevelopable parcels, present opportunities for strategic investment to catalyze desired economic activity and support a gateway concept. Retail trade is the dominant industry in the subarea, accounting for about 40% of all jobs. Gas stations represent one third of all businesses in Island Crossing, a significantly higher share than the city and county. Arlington’s industrial and multifamily sector growth, along with office demand, may create spillover effects in Island Crossing, including support for retail, food, or businesses that support those uses. Retail growth in Arlington has been slow and steady, but less stable than Snohomish County. Agriculture is a key legacy industry in the region. The subarea’s proximity to agricultural land in unincorporated Snohomish County presents an opportunity to capture revenue and support local businesses in this sector. Research to assess the viability and opportunities to support agricultural and/or agritourism uses should be pursued. Introduction · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 16 1.3 What We Heard From May through November 2024, the City gathered stakeholders’ and community members’ ideas and goals for the subarea. This engagement included workshops, surveys, and advisory group meetings with business and property owners. Additionally, technical meetings with Snohomish County representatives, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Community Transit informed the design considerations for SR 530. A summary table of this plan’s public engagement activities is below. Exhibit 1-3 Engagement Summary Event Date Audience What we learned Kick-off tour and meeting Mar. 2024 Elected officials Flooding is a major issue, particularly flooding across 530. Herrera to research feasibility and impact of a side channel along the edge of the County-owned park property. Conversations with property owners between 530 and the river may be needed. Interventions are unlikely to get the entire area out of the floodplain. Access control along 530 is an issue; road improvements are needed. Potential to bring activity/assets to the highway frontage. Visioning Open House May 2024 Arlington community Flooding impacts to properties and roads are a major concern. Diverging visions for future land uses include additional auto- oriented commercial uses, preservation of agricultural land, and promotion of agritourism. Transportation challenges include truck traffic and lack of access control to businesses. Differing opinions on SR 530 design. Community survey May- June 2024 Arlington community Desire to preserve culturally significant farmland and agricultural scenery. Desire to maintain the subarea’s current level of development to minimize impact on farmland and avoid noise, traffic, and light pollution. Appreciation for businesses that support agricultural uses and encourage agritourism. Worry that increased development could intensify flood risk and impact wildlife habitat. Using farmland for flood mitigation is viewed negatively as it reduces agricultural capacity. Concerns for traffic congestion and related safety impacts. Concerns that increased development and additional truck stops will strain infrastructure. Introduction · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 17 Event Date Audience What we learned oriented and uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists. Strong support for shared-use paths and regional bike connections. Stakeholder interview July 2024 Subarea property owner Desire for City-owned regional compensatory storage strategy. Vision for development of properties facing SR 530 included aesthetically pleasing truck stop combined with other uses. Truck stop considered an economically feasible option. Interest in an east-west path connecting Silvana to Centennial Trail for bringing community together and supporting tourism. Interest in supporting agritourism, but unsure about its feasibility if it has to pay for floodwater storage. Advisory Groups Aug. and Sept. 2024 Subarea property owners and other stakeholders Desire for farmland and agricultural heritage preservation and to address flooding. Mixed interest in truck-stop development. Interest in street improvements to reduce speed and improve compatibility with pedestrian and bike mobility. Design roundabouts to accommodate freight and farm vehicles. Mixed views on park-and-ride/transit station, particularly feasibility. Divided views on compensatory storage: Some interest in compensatory storage north of the subarea (and in southern tip) Several interested in individual mitigation Strong views on avoiding storage on farmland Strong interest in agritourism and hotel, recreation, restaurant, and retail/grocery/service follows North/northeastern area identified as ideal location for new development Identified “pin” locations generally align with land use options Transportation Technical Group July and Nov. 2024 Agency partners Traffic congestion is a major concern. Roundabouts are preferred by WSDOT rather than signalized intersections. Consolidated driveways (as opposed to frontage roads) is the preferred option which allows for piecemeal development and easier grade transition to private properties if SR 530 is elevated. The lack of population in the subarea reduces feasibility of transit service regardless of commercial growth. Microtransit is a viable alternate. Concerns with landscape maintenance. Vision and Plan Concepts · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 18 2 Vision and Plan Concepts 2.1 Vision and Guiding Principles The vision for Island Crossing is to accomplish the guiding principles listed below as laid out in the Island Crossing Framework Plan. The following guiding principles summarize community members’ priorities for Island Crossing and were used to evaluate and prioritize the strategies described in the following chapters: Protect life and property from flooding hazards Support viability of surrounding agricultural lands Promote a safe, well-connected, multimodal transportation system Celebrate the scenic landscape Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity Enhance the natural environment’s health Vision and Plan Concepts · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 19 2.2 Framework Plan The following are Arlington’s top priorities to support Island Crossing’s evolution from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe gateway into the Stillaguamish Valley: Invest in a regional compensatory storage facility To address existing flooding challenges and make development more feasible throughout the subarea, especially along SR 530, and support agricultural viability. Design it to double as floodable recreational fields and a community gathering place. Improve SR 530 To elevate the highway out of flood risk, expand the culvert, and add a median, roundabouts, landscape strips, sidewalks, and gateway features to improve safety, flood resilience, and aesthetics. Update zoning and design standards For coordinated development that aligns with the community vision for a welcoming entry into Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley and an economic hub to support agri- and recreational tourism. Attract desired businesses Emphasizing agritourism, such as distillery, restaurants, large farm-oriented retailer, and hotel. Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the vision and major proposals for Island Crossing. Vision and Plan Concepts · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 20 Exhibit 2-1 Island Crossing Framework Plan Source: MAKERS, 2024. Vision and Plan Concepts · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 21 2.3 Goals and Objectives Natural Environment GOALS 1. Reduce flooding impacts on SR 530 and adjacent properties. 2. Restore the Stillaguamish River’s natural systems’ health. 3. Protect fish and wildlife habitat in the subarea. 4. With any infrastructure, layer co-benefits for safety, community goals, environmental health, and economic vitality. OBJECTIVES 1. Identify possible compensatory floodwater storage area(s) to serve future development. 2. Support multi-purpose compensatory storage area(s), such as floodable agricultural or recreational uses. 3. Elevate or protect SR 530 to prevent routine inundation. 4. Improve flow and connectivity to creeks and compensatory storage south of SR 530. 5. Restrict development of frequently flooded areas near Stillaguamish River and adjacent riparian areas. Land Use GOALS 1. Express the community vision of a scenic gateway into Arlington with any new development. 2. Protect viability of regional agricultural land. 3. Creatively promote economic development while balancing flooding risks, environmental sustainability, and economic resilience. 4. Capture tourism from regional recreation. 5. Accommodate future job growth planned for the subarea. 6. Limit land uses that are incompatible with riverine flooding in this area. Vision and Plan Concepts · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 22 OBJECTIVES 1. Update land use, development, and design regulations to better align with a community- supported vision for a scenic gateway into Arlington. 2. Improve commercial development feasibility through regional flood mitigation solution(s). 3. Promote emerging agritourism industry to support agriculture. 4. Support recreational tourism and Arlington connectivity with trail networks. Transportation GOALS 1. Enhance multimodal—walking, biking, rolling (e.g., wheelchair), and driving—safety and connectivity throughout Island Crossing. 2. Accommodate expected multimodal needs including transit, trucks, farming vehicles, walking, biking, and general vehicles. 3. Facilitate business access and farming vehicle and truck mobility. 4. Use street design to enhance Island Crossing’s identity as a gateway to Arlington and the surrounding region. OBJECTIVES 1. Design SR 530 to improve business access, accommodate growth, improve safety, and enhance Island Crossing as a scenic gateway. 2. Update street frontage and through-block connection requirements to achieve safe and comfortable multimodal connections. 3. Connect to regional trail systems. Public Services and Utilities GOALS 1. Reduce risks to the Olympic Gas Pipeline from flooding and future development. 2. Manage storm and floodwater safely and as a holistic approach to a healthy natural environment and functional infrastructure. 3. Serve the area with adequate infrastructure. Vision and Plan Concepts · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 23 OBJECTIVES 1. Coordinate with the Olympic Pipeline Company (OPLC) during evaluation of SR 530 street design options and compensatory storage planning. 2. Manage stormwater with green stormwater infrastructure where possible. 3. Coordinate with utilities to adequately serve the area Economic Development GOALS 1. Promote Island Crossing as a gateway to Arlington and the surrounding region. 2. Support the regional agricultural industry. 3. Provide opportunities for agritourism within the subarea. OBJECTIVES 1. Support the gateway concept through strategic investment in select industries. 2. Incentivize development that supports agricultural uses and agritourism. Natural Environment · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 24 3 Natural Environment 3.1 Context The Island Crossing subarea is within the 100-year floodplain and the historical channel migration zone of the Stillaguamish River. The Stillaguamish River is host to a range of important species, including all the species of salmon native to the Pacific Northwest. It is also an unregulated river (i.e., has no major dams or other structures controlling the river’s flow), which means that flooding is a result of natural processes and is expected to worsen with climate change. Climate change is expected to increase the flood peaks around 30%, increasing both the magnitude and frequency of inundation of the subarea. The flooding occurs primarily through a large swale that connects the northern half of the subarea to the southern half of the subarea across SR 530. At this location, there is a culvert, but it is severely undersized and prone to clogging from debris. When the culvert is overwhelmed, which occurs every few years, SR 530 floods, creating an extremely hazardous situation. Natural Environment · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 25 However, the river itself is outside of the planning area and is not a direct focus of planning actions. That said, flooding of the subarea and SR 530 from the river is an issue that must be addressed. It also needs to be addressed separately for the area north of SR 530 and the area south of SR 530 because the highway creates distinct pockets of flooding on each side of the highway. Agriculture also remains an important part of the subarea and its surroundings. It is also important to the community to not detract from existing agricultural production and provide opportunities for visitors to connect with this heritage. 3.2 Strategies Flooding/Compensatory Storage A key component to the future development of Island Crossing is planning for future flooding. Flood regulations dictate that no development can trigger an off-site rise in flood water surface elevations. Given that any new development in the floodplain would need to have a finished floor higher than the 100-year water surface elevation, this means placement fill, which would have to be mitigated. As such compensatory storage is required for most properties to be developed. Although a few properties are mostly out of the floodplain, most have significant portions of them that are partially or completely encumbered. The City recognizes this challenge and is promoting a regional flood compensatory facility north of SR 530. The facility should be placed in close proximity to the floodplain swale where floodwaters from the Stillaguamish River are currently directed. Other options for facility locations were explored throughout the planning process. However, most of these options would impair the agricultural productivity of adjacent agricultural lands or were shown to produce flood benefits insufficient for adequate compensation of flood impacts (or both). In combination with the flood facility, the existing culvert underneath SR 530 should also be expanded. Since raising SR 530 would likely require compensatory storage itself, WSDOT is a necessary partner. The City could also pursue private partners to develop the facility, since the facility will have to be located on private property. With expansion of the culvert, greater flood flows would be delivered to the existing network of flood compensatory facilities south of SR 530. Improvements may need to be made to the existing network of flood compensatory facilities south of SR 530 to accommodate increased flood flow and compensate for future development south of SR 530. Existing culvert underneath SR 530. Source: Hererra Natural Environment · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 26 Hydraulic studies will be required to size the flood compensatory facility, size the expanded SR 530 culvert, and establish the enhancements to the existing network of flood compensatory facilities south of SR 530. NE-1 NE-2 NE-3 NE-4 Collaborate with property owners and Snohomish County to confirm interest in and pursue a regional compensatory floodwater storage facility in the vicinity of the flood swale, likely on the north side of SR 530. Seek funding to study feasibility through extensive hydraulic modeling of the subarea, acquire property if mutually agreed with property owners, and design and construct the facility. Coordinate with Parks to include recreational uses. Design SR 530 (coordinating with WSDOT) to reduce flooding risks, increase connectivity and emergency access, and improve safety. Elevate SR 530 to accommodate future flood events from climate change, setting the base flood elevation higher than current FEMA recommendations to account for increasing flood magnitudes. Expand the culvert under SR 530 to eliminate SR 530 overtopping and better utilize flood storage areas south of SR 530. Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 27 4 Land Use and Urban Design 4.1 Context Island Crossing, with scenic views of the Cascade Mountain Range, Snohomish County agricultural land, and the Stillaguamish River, serves as a gateway to the city and the region. Well-connected and surrounded by economic hubs, it is positioned to balance thoughtful economic growth with its rural charm. Its current uses are primarily gas stations, convenience stores, truck stop and supporting uses, restaurants, hotels, car sales, and small retail. Development pressure for additional truck stops, a contentious use for this area, prompted this plan’s land use analysis and collaboration with community members to envision Island Crossing’s optimal land uses. Nearby economic centers. While the subarea itself has no housing, industrial, or major office uses, it is close to strong industrial, retail, and office clusters that increase its potential for additional commercial uses. Historic downtown Arlington is a destination for dining, retail, and small businesses. To the southeast, the Arlington Municipal Airport and the Cascade Industrial Center (designated a significant regional center by PSRC) are significant manufacturing and industrial drivers for the region. Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 28 Finally, the Smokey Point/Lakewood area at I-5 and SR 531 intersection to the south has a cluster of big box retail, restaurants, and hotels. While these nearby centers are major competitors for certain land use activities, their proximity may create opportunities for Island Crossing to capture spillover activities. Recreation and agriculture. Island Crossing is a key entry point to the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway and the North Cascades National Park, priming it to play a significant role in the region’s tourism and outdoor recreation ecosystem. Agriculture is also vital to the region, and community members are strongly interested in supporting its viability. In addition, growth within the neighboring economic centers creates market support for additional commercial uses. This combination of factors makes Island Crossing an opportune location for agri- and recreational tourism-supportive businesses and activities. These tourism-related land uses may include retail, hotel, restaurants, services, activity-based businesses (e.g., pumpkin patches, zip lines), potentially with large-scale activities on adjacent farmland; and/or may include public recreational uses (e.g., athletic fields). While agritourism is a popular land use option in the community, it may add burden to farmers (i.e., pull busy farmers away from production work) and competition to existing farmers markets within the region. Thus, it must be done carefully to complement nearby agritourism efforts. Flood risks. Floodwater mitigation is needed for the area and impacts economic growth and potential for development. Community members emphasize the need for floodwater management strategies that minimize impacts on agricultural land. In an advisory group made up of local shareholders, none want to see compensatory storage as a primary land use on agricultural land and are wary of its efficacy. Because of the perceived risk to any new development, floodwater management must be prioritized to incentivize desired development in the subarea. View of Stillaguamish Valley. Source: MAKERS Recent flooding (2024) impacting agricultural lands. Source: Toby and Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 29 Community views on future land use. Community members hold differing views about Island Crossing’s future. While some see highway interchange developments like truck stops as opportunities to leverage the freeway location, others express concerns that such developments would negatively impact the area’s scenic views, agricultural identity, and character. Most Advisory Group members expressed concern about any uses that impact agricultural or remove agricultural land from production. Supported uses include agritourism, restaurants, retail, hotels, and recreational tourism, with limited support for truck stops or car dealerships along SR 530. 4.2 Strategies Zoning and Development Regulations Island Crossing is currently zoned for Highway Commercial (HC), primarily featuring auto- oriented uses, including gas stations and truck stops. The proposed Island Crossing (IC) subdistricts—IC-1, IC-2, and IC-3—are intended to provide specific guidance for zoning and development regulations. These updates reflect community priorities to create a built environment that supports nearby agricultural lands, promotes desired commercial uses, and creates a welcoming entrance into Arlington. The goal is to encourage development that positively contributes to a vibrant, functional, people-friendly commercial center, while also addressing flooding and visual impacts between urban and agricultural areas. Exhibit 4-2 illustrates proposed subdistricts boundaries within Island Crossing, each with unique regulations. These distinctions set a framework for nuanced development that can meet both community goals and regional needs. Detailed information on the specific use types, height allowances, and design standards for each subdistrict is provided in Exhibit 4-1. Finnriver Farm & Cidery in Chimacum, WA captures the community vision for agritourism. Source: MAKERS Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 30 LU-1 Adopt new zoning standards for Island Crossing’s commercial zones to accomplish the concepts shown in Exhibit 4-1, such as: Adjust the height limit within the IC-1 zone to allow for taller hotel developments, leveraging the areas proximity to I-5 and location to provide distinctive views. Adopt tiered height restrictions to preserve mountain and open space views. LU-2 Analyze scenic views, and if needed, apply setback and/or upper story step back standards to protect community-valued views of the Cascade Mountain Range from SR 530. LU-3 Encourage development to celebrate views (e.g., locate plazas and seating areas in places with a view, preserve northward views from new north-south connections) toward farmland and the Stillaguamish River as possible. LU-4 Encourage growth of retail businesses and services in clusters at key locations to create economic relationships and places for people to mix and mingle. Support ground floor shopfront development along SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. LU-5 Maintain flexibility in commercial land uses to allow for a variety of businesses, sizes, types, and placement within the subarea, to optimize views and connect to the natural environment and surrounding agricultural land. Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 31 Exhibit 4-1 Zoning Standards Concepts See Exhibit 4-2 Zoning Concept Map for applicable areas. IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 Intent Accommodate highway-oriented commercial activities along I-5 to cater to commuters, tourists, and commerce. Promote low- to mid- intensity commercial activities, including agri-commercial use. This area also allows for public/semi-public uses in partnership with the City. Accommodate general commercial such as car and heavy equipment sales. Generalized Allowed Uses Permissible uses include retail, restaurant, hotels, and some public and semi public facilities except for hospitals and schools. Vehicle services like car washes are allowed, but gas stations are not. Residential uses and offices are not permitted. Uses allowed here include those allowed in IC-1, except for hotels or similar overnight accommodations. Vehicle services and fuel sales are not permitted. Uses allowed here include those allowed in IC-1, except for hotels or similar overnight accommodations and beverage-related businesses such as breweries. IC-3 also permits heavy equipment sales and car dealerships. Vehicle services like car washes are allowed, but gas stations are not. Height 50 feet Hotels only – 100 feet 50 feet 50 feet Setbacks and Parking Orientation Encourages buildings to locate close to SR 530 when possible and orient toward side streets and new connections Encourages buildings to locate close to SR 530 when possible and orient toward side streets and new connections Flexibility for buildings to locate further from the right-of-way Parking No changes in parking standards; See AMC Chapter 20.72 Parking Design Standards Comply with Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards. Comply with Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards. Comply with Citywide Development Design Standards Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 32 Exhibit 4-2 Zoning Concept Map Source: MAKERS, 2024. Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 33 INTER-SITE CONNECTIVITY Inter-site connectivity is essential for improving accessibility and ensuring the efficient movement of people and goods. As development occurs, a finer grained multimodal network becomes critical to make it easier for people to engage in activities across sites, creating a more cohesive commercial center. Enhanced connectivity also attracts investment by increasing accessibility and making locations more appealing to developers and businesses. See the Transportation chapter for additional recommendations regarding Street Design Standards/Inter-site Connectivity. LU-6 Require inter-site connections with new development. This could come in the form of streets, landscaped pathways, woonerfs (low volume streets where vehicles share space with people walking, biking, and rolling (e.g., wheelchair), and alleys. Work with property owners to establish access easements. Note: Proposed street connection locations are conceptual and will be designed with redevelopment. Design Standards The Stillaguamish Valley has long been a fruitful area for settlement. The Stillaguamish and Tulalip Tribes have called the Stillaguamish Valley home for millennia. More recently, pioneers began farming in the area in the late 19th century. Farms and agricultural operations remain a primary land use in the Stillaguamish Valley region surrounding Island Crossing. Agricultural uses in the Stillaguamish Valley. Source: Deborah Nelson Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 34 The proposed design standards intend to honor the agricultural and scenic setting of Island Crossing. Design standards applied to the subarea will supplement the City of Arlington’s citywide Development Design Standards. They will require development within Island Crossing to incorporate elements of architectural character, massing, and exterior finish materials that reflect the region’s agricultural heritage. LU-7 Apply design standards to the proposed Island Crossing zones surrounding SR 530. Draw inspiration from existing structures and include requirements or incentives for architectural elements such as: Barn-like roof form Horizontal siding, board and batten, metal siding, or masonry Overhanging eaves, decorative braces, and brackets Other decorative enhancements such as shutters, windmills, weathervanes, or similar details associated with historic regional agricultural structures. LU-8 Development in the floodplain will need to be elevated, as will SR 530. Varying elevations could make accessing properties and buildings more challenging for people walking, biking, and rolling. Design should consider the relationship of the building and sidewalk elevations to accommodate non- motorized travel and maximize accessibility. Red barn in the Stillaguamish Valley. Source: Deborah Nelson barn-like form with a pitched (top), utilizing a mix of materials and featuring pitched roofs with -scale bays and entries (bottom). MAKERS Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 35 Urban/Rural Gateway As an entry point for travelers accessing the North Cascades National Park via the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway, Island Crossing is poised to play a key role in the region's tourism and outdoor recreation ecosystem. Its landscape is a blend of open land, low-density retail structures, and numerous surface parking lots, with several vacant or redevelopable parcels, according to Snohomish County. Fostering this area as a gateway—aesthetically and functionally—would support economic and community goals. LU-9 Adopt updated zoning and development and design standards to support the gateway concept (see Recommendation LU-1). LU-10 Pursue street design and connectivity standards that encourage people (consumers, workers, pedestrians, bicyclists, tourists, etc.) and goods moving safely and comfortably between the SR 530 zone parcels. LU-11 Invest in public art, wayfinding, and signage to welcome visitors and residents to Arlington and encouraging them to continue into the heart of Arlington. a. Work with local artists and artisans to design and install a sign welcoming travelers to Arlington. b. Implement additional wayfinding signs at businesses and gas stations within the subarea directing visitors to downtown and other local destinations. LU-12 Foster public-private partnerships to create welcoming new street connections and especially public open places integrated with surrounding development, ranging from floodwater compensatory storage, parks, and agritourism uses. Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 36 Agricultural Viability and Agritourism To support the viability of the local agricultural industry, a few strategies align economic growth with the legacy agricultural industry: 1) Attract desired businesses through flood and transportation improvements and proactive relationship-building; 2) Partner with developers to create an agritourism hub, and 3) Generally avoid farmland for flood compensatory storage addressed in Flooding/Compensatory Storage on page 25. RETAIL HUB This approach seeks to balance growth with the preservation of the region's agricultural heritage, creating opportunities for economic diversification while maintaining the area's agricultural identity. Businesses and investments into the area should add to the regional agricultural viability, and any new economic activities should not compete with neighboring farms and businesses. The anchor concept—recruiting a big box or large-scale retailer or other business to the area may help catalyze small business development nearby—may be particularly effective given the large undeveloped parcels of land in the subarea. In addition, an agricultural-adjacent or -focused business both honors the economic history of the region and supports its future. LU-13 Recruit an agriculture-focused big box anchor tenant for the subarea, leveraging the public investment in the floodwater storage facility and associated recreational uses and SR 530. LU-14 Encourage a range of small businesses to fill out around the anchor tenant. LU-15 Reduce permitting barriers to farm stands. LU-16 Work with Parks, Arts, and Recreation to study the demand and feasibility of designating space within the subarea for flexible recreation uses; consider impact on flood management. Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 37 AGRITOURISM HUB Agritourism plays a vital role in preserving agricultural heritage, protecting farmland, and bolstering local economies, particularly helping sustain farmers. By attracting tourists, agritourism not only supports nearby businesses but also promotes agricultural industry and environmental awareness through educational opportunities about farming, food production, and sustainable practices. Community members identified the northeastern-most site as an opportunity to foster agritourism, as it is less impacted by flooding and benefits from its proximity to rich agricultural lands. Investing in agritourism can enhance community resilience, preserve cultural traditions, and strengthen connections between urban and rural communities. LU-17 Work with local and regional economic development organizations and staff to recruit an agritourism business to the subarea, with a focus on farm-to-table or local producers. LU-18 Pursue public-private partnerships to incentivize or recruit agricultural or agritourism businesses or uses that contribute to the agricultural character of the subarea, including family-friendly, educational, or recreational land uses. LU-19 Work with subarea landowners and local businesses to create pop-up commercial or experiential opportunities in vacant spaces in the subarea. Agritourism activities varies to passive or active recreation, including farm tours, brewery, worshops, or event space. MAKERS Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 38 Exhibit 4-3 Island Crossing Conceptual Site Plan Note: This concept is one example of how the subarea could develop in line with the plan’s goals. Building layout and uses are subject to change based on private development. Source: MAKERS, 2024. Land Use and Urban Design · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 39 Development Incentives Development feasibility in Island Crossing is currently challenged by expensive flood mitigation and a lack of residential population. Several recommendations in this plan act as development incentives, including: Public investment in regional floodwater compensatory storage (Recommendation NE-1). This leads to significant savings on permitting and construction costs, FEMA flood insurance, and improved sense of safe private investment (i.e., peace of mind). Public investment in SR 530 street design and construction (Recommendation T-1). Elevating the highway out of flooding risks, combined with other mobility and connectivity improvements, vastly improves Island Crossing’s safety and economic viability. Public investment in athletic fields at the floodwater compensatory storage facility (Recommendation NE-2). The addition of ballfields would bring more consumers to Island Crossing, likely increasing revenues. The City may consider additional development incentives. LU-20 Invest in the public benefits listed above to make it easier to develop in Island Crossing. LU-21 Consider additional public-private partnerships to build new inter-site street connections or other needed infrastructure. LU-22 Study and consider waiving impact fees for recreational or agritourism uses. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 40 5 Transportation 5.1 Context SR 530, a strategic freight corridor, and Smokey Point Blvd are the two roadways within Island Crossing. Safety issues have been identified along SR 530 due to lack of access control, numerous driveways, congestion, and lack of safe and comfortable paths for people to walk, bike, and roll (e.g., wheelchair) along the corridor. Island Crossing has a high volume of trucks, which also impacts the operations of SR 530 and Smokey Point Blvd. In addition, planned growth will increase traffic volumes, resulting in increased congestion and the I-5/SR 530 interchange operating below its LOS standard. The City of Arlington’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has identified a need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities on SR 530 and Smokey Point Blvd as well as improvements to the I-5/SR 530 interchange such as roundabout traffic control. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 41 The SR 530 street design should consider access control and driveway consolidation, safety and comfort improvements for active modes, gateway and scenic view celebration, the floodplain, and the Olympic Gas Pipeline. The street design should also accommodate bus, truck and farm equipment while balancing the needs of other modes. 5.2 Strategies The Island Crossing transportation strategies are intended to implement the Subarea Plan consistent with the goals and policies of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. SR 530 Street Design The street design is intended to enhance Island Crossing’s identity as a gateway to Arlington. It provides enhanced multimodal facilities to accommodate walking, biking, rolling and driving (including trucks and buses). The design increases capacity to accommodate expected growth in traffic and provides access to the adjacent properties. The street design for SR 530 consolidates the property access points to reduce the number of driveways along SR 530. Exhibit 5-2 shows the street cross section. The cross section has a 12- foot shared use path on both sides of SR 530, a center landscape median, one through travel lane in each direction with right-turn lanes at access points. The center median restricts driveways along SR 530 to right-in/right-out movements to reduce conflicts and reduces speeds along the corridor to improve safety. Exhibit 5-1 illustrates the plan view for the SR 530 street design and shows a central roundabout between the I-5/SR 530 interchange and the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 intersection that allows for vehicles to turn and access businesses on both sides of the street. Midblock crossings that would include traffic control such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) are also planned on SR 530 to improve pedestrian safety along the corridor and facilitate movement of pedestrians to businesses on both sides of the street. The improved pedestrian access will allow for visitors to park once and access multiple users on foot rather than driving within Island Crossing. Exhibit 5-3 provides a summary of the improvements and estimated costs. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 42 T-1 Coordinating with WSDOT, design and construct SR 530 to: a. Be consistent with the Complete Street Program and include shared use paths to support and encourage non-motorized travel and reduce vehicle miles traveled. b. Ensure the design accommodates truck, farm equipment, and transit maneuvers. c. Provide landscape and gateway features along SR 530 to improve the corridor appearance, enhance Island Crossing’s identity as a gateway to Arlington and the surrounding region (e.g., protect views of Cascade Mountains), and manage stormwater to the extent feasible. Exhibit 5-1 SR 530 Street Design Concept Plan View Source: Perteet, 2025. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 43 Exhibit 5-2 SR 530 Concept Cross-section View of SR 530 Looking North Source: MAKERS, 2025. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 44 View of SR 530 Looking East Source: MAKERS, 2025. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 45 Other Transportation Projects Along with improving SR 530, there are key improvements to intersections and the multimodal transportation system within Island Crossing that are recommended to improve safety, comfort, connectivity and travel through and within the area. Exhibit 5-3 provides a summary of the improvements and estimated costs. T-2 Work with WSDOT to design and construct improvements at the I-5/SR 530 interchange to accommodate growth and improve safety. T-3 Complete the design and construct the SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard roundabout. Ensure the roundabout accommodates truck, bus, and farm equipment maneuvers. T-4 Design and construct a roundabout approximately midway between I-5 and Smokey Point Boulevard along SR 530 to facilitate circulation and non-motorized crossings within Island Crossing. T-5 Design and construct multimodal improvements along Smokey Point Boulevard between 200th Street NE and SR 530 to accommodate growth and support non- motorized travel. T-6 Incorporate Island Crossing intersection improvements along SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard into the City of Arlington traffic impact fee program or determine another cost sharing approach to assist with funding. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 46 Exhibit 5-3 Summary of Island Crossing Improvements Location Description of improvement Cost (2024 dollars) SMOKEY POINT BLVD/SR 530 Smokey Point Blvd/ SR 530 (T-3) Construct roundabout. This project is currently being designed by the City of Arlington. $6.73 million Smokey Point Blvd (200th Street NE to SR 530) (T-5) Widen to 3-lanes, provide sidewalks and accommodate bicycles. South Slough bridge and culvert expansion Portage Creek bridge and culvert expansion $13.93 million SR 530 IMPROVEMENTS SR 530 Redesign (T-1) Improve SR 530 including elevating road, constructing new culvert, consolidating driveways and providing a cross-section of 12-foot shared use path on both sides a center landscape median, one through travel lane in each direction with right-turn lanes at access points. $20.38 million I-5/SR 530 Interchange (T-2) Construct roundabouts at the I-5 northbound and southbound ramps at SR 530. $87 million SR 530 Midblock Roundabout (T-4) Construct single-lane roundabout along SR 530 to provide access and circulation. $6 million Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 47 Regulatory Updates STREET DESIGN STANDARDS/INTER-SITE CONNECTIVITY Connectivity between properties within Island Crossing is important to facilitate circulation within the area without having to rely solely on SR 530 and improve safety. Access roads should be provided connecting between properties to facilitate connections between sites for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. T-7 Provide midblock crossings along SR 530 to improve walking, biking, and rolling connectivity within Island Crossing and across SR 530. T-8 Promote connectivity between parcels within Island Crossing to improve safety and circulation. T-9 Work with developers as part of permitting to include a multimodal connection between properties and facilitate walking, biking, rolling, and driving without needing to rely solely on SR 530. See Inter-site Connectivity (LU-6) for conceptual locations of streets to be dedicated to the City for the City to construct and maintain. EV PARKING The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan transportation policy T-7.10 requires installation of electric vehicle charging facilities with new multifamily and commercial developments. The Island Crossing subarea would follow this policy. T-10 Require installation of electric vehicle charging facilities within Island Crossing for new development including consideration of charging for freight vehicles. BIKE PARKING Transportation policy T-6.1 encourages facilities within developments that support alternate modes of transportation, such as showers/dressing rooms, lockers, and secure bike parking. This policy should be applied to Island Crossing and bicycle parking requirements should be consistent with the current Arlington Municipal Code. T-11 Encourage measures or facilities in both private and public development that support alternate modes of transportation, such as showers/dressing rooms, lockers, and secure bike parking. Transportation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 48 Farm Stands The community's vision for Island Crossing emphasizes development in the agricultural and agritourism sectors (see Agricultural Viability and ). Supporting farm stands along the SR 530 corridor is key to fostering this vision, as they connect communities with fresh, locally grown produce and promote sustainable agriculture. To accommodate farm stands, it is important to plan for safe access for both vehicles and pedestrians, provide ample parking space, and enhance visibility for passing traffic while minimizing disruptions to traffic flow. These efforts will not only support farm stands but also strengthen Island Crossing's appeal and accessibility in agritourism. T-12 Encourage easy access to locations designated for farm stands (see Strategy LU-14 about opportunity site concepts). T-13 Support existing informal use of right-of-way for farm stands (see Strategy LU-15 about permitting) and facilitate relationships between property owners and farm stands and other small retail to collocate uses and parking. Transit Support There are no current or planned transit stops within Island Crossing. The SR 530 street design does not identify transit infrastructure, but it does not preclude future infrastructure and accommodates transit vehicles. Journey 2050 Community Transit Long Range Plan Update identifies the potential for microtransit to support travel in Arlington. Transit connectivity with microtransit to and from Island Crossing for key destinations like the Smokey Point Transit Center and downtown Arlington would help reduce vehicle dependency for this area the of the city. T-14 Explore opportunities with Community Transit to provide microtransit services to/from Island Crossing. T-15 Design and construct facilities such that opportunities for transit service are not precluded. Farm stands along SR 530. Source: Google, 2024 Public Services and Utilities · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 49 6 Public Services and Utilities 6.1 Context Existing Utility Infrastructure In order to support potential proposed development, public service and utility infrastructure must be considered for the future, especially in areas such as Island Crossing with development and growth potential. While there is existing development present within the subarea currently, future needs may outgrow the existing infrastructure. There are existing water, sewer, gas, stormwater, power, and communications facilities present in Island Crossing. Olympic Pipeline One infrastructure constraint within the subarea is the presence of the Olympic Gas Pipeline. The Olympic Gas Pipeline Company (OPLC) has one 16” and one 20” pipeline running Public Services and Utilities · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 50 diagonally from southeast to northwest across the Island Crossing area, as shown in the exhibit below. Exhibit 6-1 Island Crossing Subarea Easements Map Source: MAKERS, 2024. Public Services and Utilities · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 51 6.2 Strategies Olympic Pipeline The Olympic Gas Pipe is a critical piece of infrastructure for the larger region that runs through Island Crossing. Any planned development adjacent to or over the pipeline must coordinated closely with the Olympic Gas Pipeline Company (OPLC) to ensure protection of the pipeline while also considering feasibility of proposed improvements in these areas. This coordination can include, but is not limited to, easement negotiation, design review, on-site meetings, and construction observation. PSU-1 Coordinate closely with OPLC throughout planning, design, and construction of development within public right-of-way and on private property. PSU-2 Consider placement of the proposed roundabout, stormwater conveyance, and culvert in relation to the existing pipeline when designing SR 530. Stormwater All development within Island Crossing will be subject to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWM). Within the proposed roadway cross section of SR 530, there is a center median as well as wide landscape areas on each side of the street that could be used to implement bioretention and compost amended filter vegetation strips (CAFVS) treatments for stormwater management. Additionally, the upsizing of the existing culvert under SR 530 will be imperative for stormwater and floodplain management within the subarea. PSU-3 Develop an Island Crossing Stormwater Plan that addresses the stakeholder involvement in stormwater management in the area. PSU-4 Consider incorporating preferred stormwater management approaches for public and private development within Island Crossing in City Development Design Standards and Municipal Code. City of Arlington Water Given the potential growth and development within Island Crossing, the City of Arlington will need to ensure existing public water facilities are adequate, or plan for necessary upgrades through Comprehensive Planning. The existing water infrastructure within the subarea was installed around 1973 and is located in a more remote area of the distribution system. Overall, some mains are undersized for the demand and the system lacks looping or redundancy. Public Services and Utilities · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 52 The City adopted a Comprehensive Water System Plan (WSP) in 2015, with amendments to the Plan being adopted in 2017 and 2019. Island Crossing was identified as a focus area with the projection that in 2035, land use within the subarea will be 100 percent commercial with 40 percent of the total area contributing to water demand. In the Comprehensive Plan, there are two (2) water improvement projects identified in Island Crossing: CIP WM2 - 12” Water Main in 204th Street NE for North Island Crossing. This project involves installing a new 12-inch ductile iron water main in 204th Street NE, 43rd Avenue NE, and Cemetery Road from 47th Avenue NE to Smokey Point Boulevard. This new water main will supplement the existing 10-inch water main in Smokey Point Boulevard to improve fire flow and reliability in the Island Crossing area. This project has been identified as 75% developer-funded. CIP WM6 - Island Crossing Utility Local Improvement District. Developer proposals within Island Crossing have revealed potential commercial growth with high demand for potable water, outpacing what was anticipated in the 2015 Comprehensive Water System Plan. This project proposed to install 5,100 linear feet of 12-inch ductile iron water main along the western boundary of the Island Crossing subarea. This project could be coordinated with CIP WM2, described above. This project has been identified as fully developer-funded. City of Arlington Sewer Given the potential growth and development within Island Crossing, the City of Arlington will need to ensure existing public sewer facilities are adequate, or plan for necessary upgrades through Comprehensive Planning. The City adopted a Comprehensive Wastewater Plan (CWP) in 2015, with amendments to the Plan being adopted in 2017. Island Crossing was identified as one of five (5) focus areas that is driving flow increases across the wastewater system. The CWP was based on the projection that in 2035, land use within the subarea will be 100 percent commercial with 40 percent of the total area contributing to wastewater loading. In the Comprehensive Plan, there are two (2) improvement projects identified in Island Crossing: F5 – Lift Station 11 Improvements. Future development will exceed the existing pumping capacity. This project will construct a new submersible pump station with a 250 gallon per minute capacity. This project has been identified as both City-funded and developer-funded, and is currently scheduled to be in construction. F7 – Lift Station 14 Construction. This project involves constructing a new submersible pump station with a 750 gallon per minute capacity, and construction 9.000 LF of fore Public Services and Utilities · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 53 main. This project will help serve areas with Island Crossing that cannot be served by gravity sewer. This project has been identified as both City-funded and developer-funded. PSU-5 Model this Plan’s proposed land use in future Comprehensive Plans, and ensure the City’s Capital Planning, including the Water System Plan and Wastewater Plan, incorporates necessary capital improvements within Island Crossing. PSU-6 Develop a Utility Master Plan for the Island Crossing area that would identify specific utility improvements that would be tied to development of key parcels within the subarea. Electric Given the potential growth and development within Island Crossing, the City of Arlington will need to continue coordinating with the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) to ensure existing and future power facilities are adequate, and PUD should plan for necessary upgrades. PSU-7 Model this Plan’s proposed land use for future electric/power needs for the area and encourage PUD’s Capital Planning to incorporate necessary capital improvements within Island Crossing. PSU-8 Develop policy regarding placement (along street frontage vs. along alleys behind parcels) and type of facility (overhead vs. underground). Renewable Energy Island Crossing’s I-5-adjacent land is impacted by traffic-generated air and noise pollution (primarily within 500 feet of the highway), as well as flooding risks. This makes it an appropriate area for land uses not oriented toward humans or food production. Renewable energy generation (i.e., solar and wind farms) would be an appropriate use and would implement Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Solar power, especially over parking lots, may also double as shade structures that reduce heat impacts. Solar and wind power infrastructure may be designed for resilience to flooding. PSU-9 On sites benefiting from public investment in the compensatory floodwater storage facility, consider requiring solar panels in parking lot design both as a renewable energy source and as shade structures. PSU-10 Consider attracting solar and/or wind power generation to the Island Crossing Subarea, especially along I-5. Public Services and Utilities · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 54 Energy-efficient Building Design Buildings designed for energy and water efficiency and with renewable energy production help reduce development’s impacts on the environment and climate through reduced carbon emissions. Several building certification programs encourage minimal or no carbon emissions, such as LEED and Living Building Challenge. Because this subarea will benefit from public investment in SR 530 and the flood compensatory storage facility, it may be appropriate to require public benefits in exchange. PSU-11 On sites benefiting from public investment in the compensatory floodwater storage facility and/or SR 530 improvements, consider requiring LEED-certified (or similar) building and site design for energy and water efficiency and renewable energy. Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 55 7 Implementation This chapter describes the key steps to achieve the vision for Island Crossing. Realizing this plan will require a collaborative effort between public and private entities. Recent trends demonstrate that without deliberate action, private investments alone are unlikely to fully deliver on the Subarea Plan’s vision, goals, and strategies. To bridge this gap, Arlington must dedicate staff resources to update code and secure funding. The following steps establish a solid foundation for attracting private investment and shaping the built environment in alignment with community priorities. Top priority steps (marked with “Immediate action” in the Actions Summary Table notes) include: Adopt new zoning, development, and design standards. These code updates increase development capacity while ensuring new development reflects the identity and values of Island Crossing. Regulatory changes include: Zoning and development code updates (LU-1) to allow taller hotels and focus auto- oriented or large energy infrastructure uses along I-5 and more human-oriented uses Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 56 along SR 530. Island Crossing Design Standards (LU-7) to honor Island Crossing’s setting in the Stillaguamish Valley and foster a more human-oriented development pattern. Address flood control. In coordination with property owners, Parks and Recreation, Snohomish County, WSDOT, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes, explore opportunities to purchase land that can serve dual purposes—a regional compensatory flood storage facility and open recreational space (e.g., ballfields, trails, viewing areas, Parks concession stand, and playground activated by adjacent businesses). The facility will address essential flood management needs, while also enhancing community recreational opportunities and supporting the area's agritourism vision. To fund land acquisition and the facility’s design and construction, the City should secure public funding, as well as develop private funding mechanisms. Potential funding resources include: Create a flood control district to collect property taxes for flood protection projects and a flood mitigation bank for developers to contribute funds for the regional compensatory flood storage facility instead of providing flood storage on their project site. Develop a parks and open space fee-in-lieu program for required open space that allows developers to pay a fee for the City to develop and maintain parkland strategically throughout the city—including in conjunction with Island Crossing’s flood storage facility—instead of providing their required open space onsite. Secure federal, state, and local grants dedicated to flood mitigation (e.g., FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)), transportation resilience (e.g., USDOT’s Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost- saving Transportation (PROTECT)), environmental protection (e.g., Floodplains by Design (FbD)), community development (e.g., USDA’s Rural Economic Development Loan & Grant Program and business programs), and recreational enhancement (e.g., Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)). Improve SR 530. Collaborate with WSDOT to secure funding and implement improvements to SR 530, ensuring the infrastructure can support future development, address flooding, and enhance connectivity. Seek grants (e.g., WSDOT Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) and USDOT’s Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) grants). Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 57 Foster relationships and build partnerships. Continue to collaborate with property owners and businesses to hone the vision for the agritourism and retail hubs and attract appropriate businesses. Actively seek partnerships to support farmstands and other public-private ventures that align with community goals. Other steps that could show progress quickly, but may be less impactful than the above, are noted with “Quick win” in the Actions Summary Table Notes column. Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 58 7.1 Action Summary The following Actions Summary Table summarizes the actions found in Chapters 3-6. Action Summary Table Key TIMING S Short term (by approximately 2028) M Mid term (approximately 2029-2034) L Long term (approximately 2035-2044) S-L Ongoing O Opportunistic (as funding is available) PRIORITIES H High priority M Medium priority L Low priority COST ESTIMATE $ Low or existing staff resources (<$1 mil) $$ Medium ($1-7 mil) $$$ High (>$7 mil) POTENTIAL RESOURCES/FUNDING Grant State and/or federal grant funding may be available (e.g., RCO, infrastructure resiliency, economic development, etc) Public City may use public funding, including existing staff resources, citywide taxes or fees (e.g., place project on 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)), and localized taxes like a local improvement district, a flood control district, or tax increment financing (TIF) Private Developer driven and funded (e.g., street frontage requirement), flood mitigation bank, latecomer agreement, or other private funding source RESPONSIBLE PARTIES CED Community & Economic Development CT Community Transit OPLC Olympic Gas Pipeline Company PAR Arlington Parks, Arts, & Recreation PO Property owners PUD Snohomish County Public Utility District PW Public Works SCAO Snohomish County Agriculture Office SCFB Snohomish County Farm Bureau SCED Snohomish County Economic Development SCP Snohomish County Parks ST Stillaguamish Tribe SWM Snohomish County Surface Water Management TT Tulalip Tribes WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Implementation ·October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan A-59 Exhibit 7-1 Actions Summary Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related Natural Environment NE-1 Property owner collaboration to pursue regional compensatory floodwater storage facility S-L H CED, PO, SWM, WSDOT, ST, TT $ Public First step. Immediate action. NE-2 Study, design, and construct floodwater storage facility S, O H CED, PW, SWM, WSDOT, ST, PAR, SCP, OPLC, TT $$$ Grant, Public, Private Second step. Coordinate with T-1 SR 530 design and construction. NE-3 Address environment in SR 530 design and construction S-M H PW, SWM, WSDOT, OPLC, ST, TT N/A N/A Address in T-1 SR 530 design and construction. NE-4 Expand culvert M-L H PW, WSDOT, OPLC, PO N/A N/A Address in T-1 SR 530 design and construction. Land Use and Urban Design LU-1 Adopt new zoning standards S H CED $ Public Immediate action. LU-2 Analyze and protect Cascade Mountain Range views S L CED, PW, WSDOT $ Public Include analysis in SR 530 design (T-1) and update development and design standards (LU-1 and LU-7) if needed following study. LU-3 Celebrate farmland and Stillaguamish River views S-L M CED $-$$ Public (regulations), Private (implementati on) Incorporate in development and design standards (LU-1 and LU-7). Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 60 Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related LU-4 Encourage retail clusters S-L H CED $-$$ Public (regulations), Private (implementati on) Incorporate in development and design standards (LU-1 and LU-7). LU-5 Allow for commercial land use variety S-L M CED $ Public (regulations) Incorporate in development and design standards (LU-1 and LU-7). LU-6 Inter-site connections S H PW, CED, WSDOT $-$$ Public (regulations); Public, Private, and Grants (implementati on) Also see T-9. LU-7 Adopt Island Crossing Design Standards S H CED $ Public LU-8 Consider accessibility in grade changes between sidewalk and building S-L M CED $-$$ Public (regulations); Private (implementati on) Incorporate in development and design standards (LU-1 and LU-7). LU-9 Support gateway concept S-L H CED, PW $-$$ Public (regulations); Private (implementati on) Incorporate in development and design standards (LU-1 and LU-7). LU-10 Street design and connectivity standards S H PW, CED $-$$ Public (regulations); Private, Public, and Grant (implementati on) Incorporate in development and design standards (LU-1 and LU-7) and inter-site connectivity Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 61 Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related standards (LU-6 and T-9). LU-11 Invest in public art and wayfinding signage O L CED, PW, SCED $ Grant, Public, Private Incorporate in street design (e.g., roundabout entry sign treatment) (T-1 and T-4). LU-12 Foster public- private partnerships for welcoming public realm S-L, O M CED, PW, WSDOT $-$$ Public, Private, Grant LU-13 Recruit agriculture-focused anchor tenant S H CED, SCAO, SCFB $ Public LU-14 Attract small businesses S-M H CED, SCAO, SCED $ Public LU-15 Reduce permitting barriers to farm stands S M CED $ Public Quick win. LU-16 Study feasibility of future recreation use S H PAR, SCP, CED. SWM, PW $ Public, Grant Immediate action. This is the first step in achieving a floodable recreation center in Island Crossing. Do with flood compensatory storage feasibility study (NE-2). LU-17 Recruit agritourism business M H CED, SCAO, SCED $ Public LU-18 Pursue public- private partnerships for agricultural or agritourism businesses S-L M CED, PW, PAR, SCP $- $$$ Public, Private, Grant Public investments likely to include regional flood compensatory storage facility (NE-1 Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 62 Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related and NE-2), street improvements (LU- 6 and T-9), and public space (NE-2 and LU-12). LU-19 Create pop-up commercial in vacant spaces S-L L CED, PO, SCAO $ Grant Use federal economic development funds to avoid State of WA limitations on “gifting” to businesses. LU-20 Invest in public benefits—flood facility, SR 530, recreation S-M, O H CED, PW, WSDOT, ST, TT $$$ Grant, Public, Private Same as regional flood compensatory storage facility (NE-1 and NE-2), SR 530 improvements (T-1), and floodable recreation fields/open space (NE-2). LU-21 Consider additional public- private partnerships for other infrastructure O M CED, PW $- $$$ Grant, Public, Private Options include street improvements (LU- 6 and T-9) and public space (NE-2 and LU-12). LU-22 Consider waiving impact fees for recreational or agritourism uses S L CED $ Public Transportation T-1 Design and construct SR 530 improvements S-M H PW, CED, WSDOT, SWM, OPLC, ST, TT, CT $$$ Grant, Public Immediate action. Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 63 Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related T-2 I-5/SR 530 interchange S-M H PW, CED, WSDOT, SWM, ST, TT, CT $$$ Grant, Public Do in conjunction with T-1 SR 530 design. T-3 SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard roundabout S-M H PW, CED, WSDOT, SWM, ST, TT $$ Grant, Public Do in advance of or in conjunction with T-1 SR 530 design and construction. T-4 Roundabout between I-5 and Smokey Point Blvd S-M H PW, CED, WSDOT, SWM, ST, TT $$ Grant, Public, Private (frontage improvement s) Do in conjunction with T-1 SR 530 design and construction. T-5 Multimodal improvements along Smokey Point Boulevard between 200th Street NE and SR 530 S-M M PW, CED, WSDOT, SWM, ST, TT $$$ Grant, Public, Private (frontage improvement s) T-6 Add Island Crossing projects to citywide traffic impact fee program or identify other cost-sharing approach S H PW $ Public Immediate action. T-7 SR 530 midblock crossings S, O M PW, CED, PO $ Grant, Public, Private (frontage improvement s) Quick win. This can occur prior to SR 530 redesign or with SR 530 redesign and construction (T-1), whichever comes first. T-8 Promote connectivity to improve safety and circulation S-L M PW, CED, PO $ Grant, Public, Private This could occur by working with property owners even without redevelopment. Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 64 Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related Other inter-site connectivity actions LU-6 and T-9 will be required with redevelopment. T-9 Work with developers to achieve inter-site multimodal connectivity S-L, O H PW, PO $-$$ Private, Public, Grant See conceptual locations in LU-6. T-10 Electric vehicle charging facilities S H PW, CED, PO $ Public (regulations), Private (implementati on), Grant Include with code update (LU-1 and LU-7). T-11 Require/incentivize bicycle amenities S M CED, PW $ Public (regulations), Private (implementati on), Grant Include with code update (LU-1 and LU-7). T-12 Encourage easy access to farm stands S M CED, PW, SCAO $ Public, Private, Grant Consider during SR 530 design (T-1), multimodal connections design (T-9), and public space integration with redevelopment (LU-12). See conceptual site plan under agritourism hub strategies (e.g., LU-18). T-13 Support informal ROW use and private partnerships for farm stands S-L, O M CED, PO, PW, SCAO $ Private, Public, Grant Quick win. See LU- 15 about farm stand permitting and conceptual site plan for ideal locations (under LU-18). Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 65 Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related T-14 Explore microtransit services M M CED, CT, PW $ Public, Grant T-15 Include opportunities for future transit service S M PW, WSDOT, CT $ Public, Grant, Private (frontage requirements) Consider during SR 530 design (T-1) and multimodal connections design (T-9). Public Services and Utilities PSU-1 Coordinate with OPLC S H PW, OPLC, PO $ Public Coordinate for SR 530 design (T-1) and flood compensatory storage facility design (NE-1 and NE-2) or other development on affected property. PSU-2 Consider pipeline location S H PW, OPLC, WSDOT $ Public, Grant Consider during SR 530 design (T-1). PSU-3 Develop Island Crossing Stormwater Plan S-M H PW, PO, WSDOT, SWM $ Public, Grant Consider during SR 530 design (T-1). PSU-4 Consider updating code with preferred stormwater management approaches S-M M PW, CED, SWM $ Public, Grant May follow other code updates (LU-1 and LU-7) but ideally is in place before any major private development begins. PSU-5 Update Water System Plan and Wastewater Plan to accommodate planned development M-L M PW, CED $ Public, Grant Implementation · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 66 Action Ti m i n g ( S , M , L , O ) Responsible Parties/ Partners (lead bold Potential Resources/ Related PSU-6 Develop an Island Crossing Utility Master Plan M M PW, CED, PUD $ Public, Grant Most useful pre- redevelopment, but other policies and code should be adequate in the meantime PSU-7 Encourage PUD Capital Planning to accommodate planned development M-L H PW, PUD, CED $ Public, Grant Coordinate with renewable energy strategies (PSU-9 and PSU-10) PSU-8 Develop power facility placement policy S H PW, PUD, WSDOT $ Public Consider during SR 530 design (T-1) and multimodal connections design (T-9). PSU-9 Require/incentivize solar carports S M CED, PW, PUD $ Public (regulations); Private and Grant (implementati on) Include in code update (LU-1 and LU-7) and flood storage financial strategy (NE-2 and LU-20) PSU-10 Attract solar and wind power generation S-L M CED, PO, PW, PUD $-$$ Public; Private and Grant (implementati on) Consider during PUD’s Capital Planning (PSU-7) and powerline placement policy development (PSU-8). PSU-11 Require/incentivize energy-efficient building design S M CED, PW $ Public (regulations); Private and Grant (implementati on) Include in code update (LU-1 and LU-7). Appendices · October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan 67 8 Appendices Appendix A. Existing Conditions Appendix B. Public Engagement Summaries • Visioning Survey May 2024 • Open House May 2024 • Transportation Technical Group 1 June 2024 • Advisory Group 1 Transportation August 2024 • Advisory Group 2 Land Use October 2024 • Transportation Technical Group 2 November 2024 Appendix C. Major Concepts Options Evaluation Appendix D. Zoning and Development Standard Recommendation Appendices ·October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan A-1 Appendix A: Existing Conditions A-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT Island Crossing Subarea · June 2024 Prepared for the City of Arlington Prepared by MAKERS architecture and urban design Community Attributes, Inc. Herrera Perteet Transpo Group June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary A-7 1.1 Subarea Planning Purpose and Process A-7 1.2 Study Area A-7 1.3 Summary A-8 2.0 Natural Environment A-11 2.1 Floodplain Constraints A-111 2.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas A-13 2.3 Environmental Policies A-13 2.4 Key Findings and Implications for Plan A-14 3.0 Land Use A-15 3.1 Regional Context and Location A-15 3.2 Subarea Context A-17 3.3 Land Use Patterns A-18 3.4 Goals and Policies A-22 3.5 Key Findings and Implications for Plan A-24 4.0 Transportation A-26 4.1 Roadway Network A-26 4.2 Traffic Volumes and Operations A-27 4.3 Traffic Safety A-27 4.4 Freight Network A-30 4.5 Non-Motorized Facilities A-31 4.6 Transit Network A-33 4.7 Street Design Considerations A-33 4.8 Goals and Policies A-34 4.9 Key Findings and Implications for Plan A-35 5.0 Utilities A-36 5.1 Stormwater Infiltration Capacities A-36 5.2 Stormwater Challenges and Considerations A-36 5.3 Olympic Gas Pipeline A-36 5.4 Goals and Policies A-39 5.5 Key Findings and Implications for Plan A-40 6.0 Market and Real Estate A-41 6.1 Market Area Economics A-41 June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-4 6.2 Real Estate Analysis A-50 6.3 Goals and Policies A-62 6.4 Key Findings and Implications for Plan A-63 7.0 References A-66 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1-1 Island Crossing Subarea Plan Process A-8 Exhibit 1-2 Island Crossing Subarea A1-8 Exhibit 1-3 Top Takeaways – Island Crossing Conditions A-9 Exhibit 2-1 Flood Risk Map A-12 Exhibit 3-1 Arlington Region Map A-15 Exhibit 3-2 Arlington Region Eastward Perspective Map A-16 Exhibit 3-3 Island Crossing Context Map A-17 Exhibit 3-4 Island Crossing Subarea Map A-19 Exhibit 3-5 Zoning Map A-20 Exhibit 3-6 HC Density and Dimension Standards A-20 Exhibit 3-7 Buildable Lands Map A-21 Exhibit 3-8 Buildable Lands Capacity Table A-21 Exhibit 4-1 Island Crossing Subarea Crash History A-29 Exhibit 4-2 Island Crossing Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Map A-32 Exhibit 5-1 Olympic Pipeline Map A-37 Exhibit 5-2 Island Crossing Subarea Easement Map A-39 Exhibit 6-1 Employment Total by Major Industry, Island Crossing Subarea, 2024 A-43 Exhibit 6-2 Number of Businesses by Major Industry Comparison, Island Crossing Subarea and City of Arlington, 2024 A-43 Exhibit 6-3 Employment Change by Industry, Arlington & Snohomish County, 2010 & 2022 A-44 June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-5 Exhibit 6-4 Industry Location Quotient, Snohomish County and Washington, 2022 A-46 Exhibit 6-5 Commute Patterns, Island Crossing Subarea, 2024 A-47 Exhibit 6-6 Establishments and Annual Sales by Major Sector, Island Crossing Subarea, 2023 A-48 Exhibit 6-7 Quarterly Taxable Retail Sales, Arlington, 2006-2022 A-49 Exhibit 6-8 Total Taxable Retail Sales by NAICS, Arlington, 2022 A-50 Exhibit 6-9 Total Properties by Type & Square Footage, Island Crossing Subarea, 2024 A-51 Exhibit 6-10 Island Crossing Subarea Parcel Map by Land Use Type A-52 Exhibit 6-11 Taxable Value and Land Value by Parcel, Island Crossing Subarea and Snohomish County, 2024 A-53 Exhibit 6-12 Total Retail Inventory and Establishments, Arlington, 2006-2024 A-54 Exhibit 6-13 Total Retail Inventory and Establishments, Snohomish County, 2006-2024 A-55 Exhibit 6-14 Retail Direct Vacancy and Asking Rents, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 A-56 Exhibit 6-15 Total Office Inventory, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 A-57 Exhibit 6-16 Office Direct Vacancy and Gross Direct Asking Rents, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 A-58 Exhibit 6-17 Total Multifamily Inventory and Average Unit Size, Arlington, 2006-2024 A-59 Exhibit 6-18 Total Multifamily Inventory and Average Unit Size, Snohomish County, 2006-2024 A-59 Exhibit 6-19 Multifamily Vacancy and Asking Rents, Arlington, 2006-2024 A-60 Exhibit 6-20 Total Industrial Inventory, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 A-61 Exhibit 6-21 Industrial Direct Vacancy and Overall Asking Rents, Arlington, 2006-2024 A-62 A-6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Introduction and Executive Summary · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-7 1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary 1.1 Subarea Planning Purpose and Process Island Crossing is Arlington’s northwestern-most subarea and a gateway to Arlington and the Stillaguamish River Valley. The plan will identify a long-term vision for development, an SR 530 design concept, address infrastructure needs, and recommend strategies to achieve the vision. A first implementing step will likely be updates to the zoning and development standards. This document is part of the first stage to summarize existing conditions in the Island Crossing subarea. This analysis will inform options development and evaluation for inclusion in the subarea plan. Key considerations include: Increasing flooding risks Gateway concepts Street design for safety and comfort of all people walking, bicycling, rolling (e.g., wheelchair), driving, and riding a bus into agricultural and Tribal resource land Economic needs What types of uses should be encouraged, attracted, and supported for economic vitality? How? -5? Street network and supporting infrastructure With different types of uses envisioned, and large parcels with development potential, what should the street network be? does “at capacity” mean for highways and streets? Introduction and Executive Summary · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-8 The Island Crossing Subarea Plan process is shown in Exhibit 1-1. Exhibit 1-1 Island Crossing Subarea Plan Process 1.2 Study Area The Island Crossing subarea is 87 acres in the northwest portion of Arlington, Washington, south of the Stillaguamish River and within its floodplain. The area includes primarily agricultural and commercial land uses. 1.3 Summary A range of natural and built environment subjects specific to the Island Crossing subarea are considered in this report. Natural Environment Land Use Transportation Public Services and Utilities Market and Real Estate Exhibit 1-2 Island Crossing Subarea Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS 2024 The key conditions found in this report are summarized in Exhibit 1-3. & V I S I O N I N G Existing Conditions Vision & guiding principles Ideas/options OP T I O N S EV A L U A T I O N Options development and evaluation Draft Plan Outline PL A N Draft Plan Public Hearings Final Plan Development standards Introduction and Executive Summary · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-9 Exhibit 1-3 Top Takeaways – Island Crossing Conditions TOPIC SUMMARY Natural Environment Stillaguamish River flooding routinely impacts SR 530 and private properties, posing safety and property protection challenges. Preliminary analysis suggests that river modifications alone will not sufficiently reduce flooding risks. Raising the highway, SR 530 culvert expansion, and additional compensatory floodwater storage areas—and mitigation measures for any of these potential projects—should be explored to prevent routine inundation. Snohomish County’s and Arlington’s Critical Areas Ordinances will restrict development around protected fish species. Land Use Highway-oriented commercial land uses are clustered around SR 530. Agricultural land surrounds Island Crossing, and some is within the subarea. Island Crossing is zoned Highway Commercial, allowing a broad range of commercial activities and is intended for employment growth. While most community members agree on the desire to protect the viability of agricultural land in the valley and reduce flooding, there are conflicting visions for future land uses in the subarea. Island Crossing’s position at the urban-rural transition presents an opportunity to leverage agri- and recreational tourism. The floodplain and flood mitigation requirements present significant development feasibility constraints in the subarea. Transportation SR 530, a strategic freight corridor, and Smokey Point Blvd are the two roadways within Island Crossing. Safety issues along SR 530 are related to lack of access control, numerous driveways, and congestion along the corridor. Planned growth will increase traffic volumes, resulting in increased congestion and the I-5/SR 530 interchange operating below its LOS standard. Introduction and Executive Summary · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-10 TOPIC SUMMARY The TMP update has identified a need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities on SR 530 and Smokey Point Blvd. SR 530 street design should consider access control and driveway consolidation, safety and comfort improvements for active modes, gateway and scenic view celebration, the floodplain, and the Olympic Gas Pipeline. Public Services and Utilities The critical Olympic Gas Pipeline runs diagonally through the subarea, crossing beneath SR 530 near the topographical low point which floods frequently, posing a risk to the pipeline. SR 530 street design and options relating to grade changes and any work within the pipeline’s easement must include coordination with the Olympic Pipeline Company. Market and Real Estate Island Crossing’s location on major transportation routes and as the city’s northwest gateway, combined with several vacant or redevelopable parcels, present opportunities for strategic investment to catalyze desired economic activity and support a gateway concept. Retail trade is the dominant industry in the subarea, accounting for about 40% of all jobs. Gas stations represent one third of all businesses in Island Crossing, a significantly higher share than the city and county. Arlington’s industrial and multifamily sector growth, along with office demand, may create spillover effects in Island Crossing, including support for retail, food, or businesses that support those uses. Retail growth in Arlington has been slow and steady, but less stable than Snohomish County. Agriculture is a key legacy industry in the region. The subarea’s proximity to agricultural land in unincorporated Snohomish County presents an opportunity to capture revenue and support local businesses in this sector. Research to assess the viability and opportunities to support agricultural and/or agritourism uses should be pursued. Natural Environment · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-11 2.0 Natural Environment 2.1 Floodplain Constraints Nearly the entire subarea is within the mapped 100-year floodplain. The only exception is a small “island” that straddles SR 530 near the junction with Smokey Point Boulevard. Island Crossing is near the upstream extent of tidal influence during low-water periods. Flooding occurs across SR 530 (from north to south) at events significantly smaller than the 100-year event. The last known occurrence was in December 2023. The main location of the overtopping is a swale near the middle of the subarea. A culvert at this location is hydraulically undersized, which is frequently further impaired by debris. Preliminary analysis suggests river modifications alone are insufficient to lower flood elevations to eliminate routine overtopping of SR 530. This means that the highway will have to be raised to prevent routine inundation. This effort should include improvement (expansion) of the culvert. The improvement of the culvert would also improve the function of the compensatory flood storage area south of SR 530. An equivalent area must be constructed to compensate for the road raising and any additional fill north of SR 530. Mitigation may be required for a northern compensatory storage area, which may be similar to the river modifications originally proposed to lower flood elevations. These flood compensatory storage areas should factor in climate change, which will increase flood water surface elevations due to sea level rise and heightened flood magnitudes. Natural Environment · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-12 Exhibit 2-1 Flood Risk Map Source: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer, City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2024 Natural Environment · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-13 2.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas Salmon use a variety of habitats in the Stillaguamish basin, including the mainstem and major forks, large and small tributaries, beaver ponds, riparian wetlands and side channels, estuary sloughs, and salt marshes. Many of those habitats have been reduced significantly, both in size and quality, over the past 150 years. Causes of habitat loss include, for example, channel sedimentation from natural landslides and natural and human-induced erosion, diking and stream channelization, removal of beaver and their dams, removal of riparian vegetation and in-stream wood, and pollution that degrades water quality. In general, adjacent forested areas provide habitat for many wildlife species, and there are a variety of forest stand types that give protection and cover to terrestrial wildlife and birds. Wildlife use of the adjacent forests just north of the subarea are used for foraging, refuge, and reproduction. Large trees support more wildlife species than earlier successional stages. Amphibians are particularly associated with closed canopies that may occur in adjacent areas to the north or in the stream corridors that bisect the site. Younger tree stands with herb, shrub, and sapling layers are especially important for birds and mammals. Year-round bird species characteristic of westside coniferous forests include chestnut-backed chickadees (Poecile rufescens), varied thrushes (Ixoreus naevius), pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), winter wren (Troglodytes pacificus), and golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa). Common migrants include Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), and hermit warbler (Setophaga occidentalis). Three federally listed fish species occur in the Stillaguamish River adjacent to Island Crossing: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and steelhead (O. mykiss). Chinook use low-velocity habitats of the main stem during their freshwater residence. Bull trout use primarily the mainstem for migration; there are also resident freshwater populations of bull trout elsewhere in the watershed. Steelhead use the North Fork and South Fork of the Stillaguamish River, as well as major tributaries, for spawning. The Stillaguamish River next to the subarea is within designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The presence of these species in the river and adjacent riparian areas mean that development will be restricted near these areas through the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance. Details of the buffer widths will need to be worked out through the permitting process of any new development, but those buffers are expected to be large (several hundred feet) due to the ecological value of the river and its surroundings. 2.3 Environmental Policies The Arlington Comprehensive Plan includes policies that identify environmental hazards and outlines goals to protect natural resources. Relevant goals and policies from the existing Natural Environment · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-14 Comprehensive Plan are summarized below. As the Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated with expected adoption in 2025, these goals and policies are subject to change. Land Use Element ISLAND CROSSING SUBAREA As much of the Island Crossing subarea is within the 100-year floodplain, the Comprehensive Plan recommends improvements to stormwater infrastructure and development of a drainage plan to alleviate frequent flooding. A regional system to coordinate flood conveyance and compensatory storage should be considered to reduce flood risk in the subarea and the surrounding region. RESOURCE PROTECTION The Comprehensive Plan encourages environmental stewardship to protect the City’s natural resources. The Stillaguamish River, undeveloped lands, agricultural lands, and other natural features should be safeguarded to protect critical areas and conserve natural resources. Significant historic and cultural resources should be identified, maintained, and preserved. 2.4 Key Findings and Implications for Plan Floodplain challenges. Flooding routinely impacts Island Crossing, particularly SR 530 and adjacent properties. Since the majority of the subarea lies within the 100-year floodplain, flooding is a major consideration in future development in the subarea. Flood prevention and river restoration. Preliminary analysis suggests river modifications— that would also restore the river to a more natural and healthy state—alone will not sufficiently lower flood elevations to prevent routine overtopping of SR 530. Raising the highway, SR 530 culvert expansion, and additional compensatory floodwater storage areas—and mitigation measures for any of these potential projects—should be explored to prevent routine inundation. Fish and wildlife habitat protection. Because of the presence of protected species in the Stillaguamish River and adjacent riparian areas, development near these areas will be restricted according to the City of Arlington’s Critical Areas Ordinance. Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-15 3.0 Land Use 3.1 Regional Context and Location The Island Crossing subarea, located in northwest Arlington, Washington, is set within the agricultural and natural land of the Stillaguamish River valley. Arlington is bounded by Port Susan in the Puget Sound to the west, the Stillaguamish River to the north, and the Cascade Mountain Range to the east. Arlington is roughly 40 miles north of Seattle and 10 miles north of Everett, home to Snohomish County’s Paine Field Airport. According to the 2020 US Census, the city of Arlington’s population is roughly 20,000 people. The population of the Island Crossing subarea is around 40. Unincorporated Snohomish County abuts Island Crossing to the west, north, and east. Surrounding land uses include agriculture, low density residential, undeveloped forest lands, and open space. Major routes connecting Island Crossing to the region include the following: Interstate 5 (I-5) to Mt Vernon, Burlington, Bellingham, and British Columbia to the north and Marysville, Everett, the Seattle area, Oregon, and California further south State Route (SR) 530 eastward to Old Town Arlington, Darrington, and the Cascade Range SR 531 west to Warm Beach and Port Susan on the Puget Sound SR 9 to Lake Stevens, Bothell, and Bellevue Exhibit 3-1 Arlington Region Map Source: Google Earth, MAKERS, 2024 Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-16 The land is the traditional homeland of the Stillaguamish, Tulalip, Upper Skagit, Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Tribes, and falls within the Treaty of Point Elliott area. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians owns property in the Island Crossing Subarea, at the intersection of SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. The Stillaguamish Reservation is located north of the Stillaguamish River, about 1.5 miles northeast of the subarea. The Tulalip Indian Reservation is about 4 miles southwest of the subarea. Exhibit 3-2 Arlington Region Eastward Perspective Map Source: Google Earth, MAKERS, 2024 Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-17 3.2 Subarea Context Island Crossing, comprised of approximately 87 acres, is four miles west of Arlington’s Old Town Business District, or a 7-minute drive, 28-minute bike ride, or 90-minute walk. Island Crossing is accessible from I-5 by exit 208. SR 530 connects Island Crossing to Old Town Arlington and the surrounding region. Due to its proximity to the Stillaguamish River, Island Crossing regularly experiences river flooding, impacting transportation along SR 530 and the surrounding agricultural land. See the Natural Environment chapter for more information about flood risk in the subarea. Exhibit 3-3 Island Crossing Context Map Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2024 A-18 3.3 Land Use Patterns 3.3.1 Existing Land Uses River Valley. Agricultural land uses cover much of the Island Crossing subarea and its surroundings, and most of the subarea is in the Stillaguamish River floodplain. Eastward views of the Stillaguamish Valley and the Cascade Mountain Range beyond can be seen throughout the subarea. The Natural Environmental chapter provides additional information on flooding and other natural hazards. Highway commercial. Most of the subarea’s commercial land uses are clustered along SR 530, primarily catering to vehicle traffic. At the eastern end of this commercial corridor, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians owns a property and convenience store at the intersection of SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. An auto dealership is located in the south end of the subarea, between I-5 and Smokey Point Boulevard. Utilities easements. A utilities easement for the Olympic Pipeline runs from the north to the southeast portion of the subarea. The Public Services and Utilities chapter includes details about this easement. Eastward view from the Island Crossing subarea. Photo courtesy of Deborah Nelson Eastbound SR 530 in the Island Crossing ubarea. Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-19 Exhibit 3-4 Island Crossing Subarea Map Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2024 A-20 3.3.2 Future Land Uses Comprehensive Plan The City of Arlington is currently updating its 2024 Comprehensive Plan, which may impact Arlington’s Future Land Use Map, land use designations, and zoning. Arlington’s current Future Land Use Map generally aligns with its zoning. Zoning The Island Crossing subarea is zoned Highway Commercial, allowing a broad range of commercial activities. Island Crossing also has a Mixed Use Overlay, which generally allows a mix of commercial and residential high density uses in order to create a pedestrian-friendly, mixed use zone near employment opportunities. However, in Island Crossing, it does not allow residential uses. Exhibit 3-5 Zoning Map Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2024 Exhibit 3-6 HC Density and Dimension Standards Zone Highway Commercial Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 0 Minimum Residential Densities N/A Minimum Lot Width (feet) 70 Building Setback Requirements – Minimum Distance, in feet from: Street Right of Way Line Right of Way Line Boundary Line Accessory – 5 Freestanding Sign Source: City of Arlington Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-21 Airport Protection Subdistrict The majority of Island Crossing lies within the Airport Protection Subdistrict D, which restricts uses that would interfere with airport and flight operations, limits building/structure heights to 166 feet, and does not limit residential or employment intensities. The southeast corner of the subarea falls within the Airport Protection Subdistrict C, which, in addition to the restricted uses of Subdistrict D, also restricts uses that would increase bird populations. Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report Arlington and Snohomish County are not planning for residential growth in Island Crossing, but are planning for employment growth to double, from approximately 201 jobs in 2024 to 397 by 2035 (Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report, 2021). See Exhibit 3-7 Buildable Lands Map . Exhibit 3-8 Buildable Lands Capacity Table Source: Snohomish County, MAKERS, 2024 Exhibit 3-7 Buildable Lands Map Source: Snohomish County, MAKERS, 2024 Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-22 3.4 Goals and Policies 3.4.1 Arlington Comprehensive Plan The Arlington Comprehensive Plan includes policies to ensure the subarea develops in a way that is consistent with the community’s vision. Relevant goals and policies from the existing Comprehensive Plan are included below. As the Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated with expected adoption in 2025, these goals and policies are subject to change. Land Use Element GROWTH AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Arlington Comprehensive Plan includes several policies that promote and manage growth consistent with targets for community and economic development, goals of the State Growth Management Act, and Snohomish County Buildable Lands projections. While the City of Arlington and Snohomish County are not planning for residential growth in Island Crossing, there is significant employment growth planned, with jobs in the subarea expected to double by 2035. This growth should be congruent with improvements to quality of life, protection of the natural environment, and preservation of historical and cultural amenities. COMMERCIAL LAND USE While diverging visions exist for the future of land use and development in Island Crossing, the subarea’s Highway Commercial land use designation intends to allow a range of large- scale, auto-oriented uses that attract users from outside Arlington. The General Commercial land use designation, applied elsewhere in the city, provides for a broader range of commercial use sizes that typically serve local users. Commercial development should be served by an efficient transportation network, and that pedestrian infrastructure links commercial developments. RESOURCE PROTECTION The Comprehensive Plan recommends improvements to infrastructure that aid in the protection of natural resources. See the Natural Environment chapter for details on goals and policies related to resource protection in Island Crossing. MINIMIZING RISK OF NATURAL DISASTERS While flooding in the Island Crossing subarea has been a significant issue in recent years, the Comprehensive Plan aims to improve preparation for and response to natural disasters. In Island Crossing, this goal would prioritize flood risk mitigation and flood response to minimize property damage and transportation disruptions. Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-23 Parks and Recreation Element The Comprehensive Plan aims to support and enhance opportunities for community members to recreate, learn, and celebrate cultural heritage in Arlington’s parks and open spaces. An equitable, collaborative strategy to increase access to and quality of open spaces should be pursued. Arlington would like to develop a more continuous and connected system of parks and open spaces through trails, that could connect to regional trail systems. Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-24 3.5 Key Findings and Implications for Plan Assets Gateway to the Stillaguamish River Valley. Sited between major transportation routes, the Stillaguamish River, and unincorporated Snohomish County, Island Crossing benefits from—and provides a transition between—urban and rural places. The Cascade Mountains and surrounding landscape provide an aesthetically unique setting. Agricultural land. The land surrounding Island Crossing, and some of the land within the subarea, is owned and operated by local farmers for agriculture. Agriculture has economic and historical significance to Arlington and the region. Transportation connectivity. Island Crossing’s proximity to I-5, SR 530, and Smokey Point Blvd makes the subarea well connected to the rest of the city and within the region. Existing businesses make use of this regional and local traffic. Existing businesses. Several businesses provide restaurant, lodging, retail, and gas/transportation services to local and regional customers, creating a small node of commercial activity. Challenges and Opportunities Flooding. Island Crossing’s floodplain location impacts existing businesses and makes development challenging in terms of safety, property protection, permitting, and development and insurance costs. Aligning zoning with community vision. The subarea’s existing Highway Commercial zoning allows uses and building and site design that may not align with the community’s long-term vision for the area. Most community members envision future land uses that enhance Island Crossing’s unique position as a gateway to agricultural land, the valley, and the North Cascades. Updating the permitted land uses and development and design standards may be needed to better align to a community-supported vision. However, property owners, business owners, residents, and neighbors hold a range of views. While some property owners are eager to develop their properties with highway- oriented commercial uses (i.e., truck stops) consistent with current zoning, other stakeholders believe agritourism; a limited range of restaurant, retail, grocery, and lodging uses; recreational; and/or other non-truck-oriented uses may be more appropriate. Most stakeholders agree on the desire to protect the viability of agricultural land in the valley and reduce flooding. Employment target. The Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report suggests that 196 new jobs (to reach a total of 397 jobs) may be accommodated in the subarea. This number may be hard to achieve if development is economically infeasible in the floodplain. Development feasibility. Several factors constrain development feasibility in Island Crossing, primarily the floodplain location, as well as the Olympic Pipeline that runs through the Land Use · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-25 subarea. Flood mitigation is expected to require large land areas for compensatory storage. A regional solution that could be jointly funded through cost sharing amongst property owners/developers and the City could improve development feasibility. The Subarea Plan should recommend strategies to creatively promote desired growth while balancing environmental resilience. Agritourism. Island Crossing’s position at the urban-rural transition presents the opportunity to attract visitors who want to experience the region’s agricultural traditions and innovations. This emerging industry could help accommodate employment growth anticipated in Arlington and support existing agricultural land uses. Connection to recreation. Due to Island Crossing’s location just off I-5 and Arlington’s proximity to the Cascade Range, much of the subarea’s through traffic is recreation- based. Island Crossing has the opportunity to capture vehicles traveling to and from regional recreation. The Subarea Plan should also consider how Island Crossing can support connections with regional trail networks. Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-26 4.0 Transportation This chapter provides an understanding of the transportation system within the Arlington Island Crossing subarea, highlights connections to the local and regional system, and identifies key transportation implications for the Subarea Plan. 4.1 Roadway Network The two roadways located within the Island Crossing subarea are SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. SR 530 runs east/west and is classified by the City of Arlington as a principal arterial. Within the Island Crossing subarea, the speed limit of SR 530 is 35 mph. Existing weekday PM peak- hour volumes on SR 530 in the subarea are between 1,400 and 1,900 vehicles. This portion of SR 530 is designated by WSDOT as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) and by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) a Highway of Statewide Regional Significance due to its importance to regional freight movement. SR 530 within the city has a level of service (LOS) standard of D; however, east and west of the City limits the LOS standard is C. SR 530 through the subarea is currently a 35-foot-wide roadway with one travel lane in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. The existing roadway does not have on-street parking, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or dedicated bicycle facilities. There are paved shoulders for pedestrian and bicycle travel, with the nearest pedestrian crossings located at the intersection with I-5 at the western boundary of the subarea, and at the west fork of the intersection with Smokey Point Boulevard. Drainage is provided by roadside ditches. Smokey Point Boulevard runs north/south and is classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Existing weekday PM peak-hour volumes on Smokey Point Boulevard in the subarea are approximately 600 vehicles. The LOS standard on Smokey Point Boulevard within the subarea is D. Smokey Point Boulevard through the subarea is currently a 22-foot- wide roadway with one through vehicle travel lane in each direction. The existing roadway is paved to rural standards without curbs, gutters, shoulders, or other active mode facilities. The only pedestrian crossings on Smokey Point Boulevard within Island Crossing are located midway along the eastern fork of the intersection with SR 530, and across the western fork of the intersection of SR 530 at the intersection. Drainage is provided by roadside ditches. Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-27 4.2 Traffic Volumes and Operations Average daily traffic (ADT) on SR 530 east of Smokey Point Blvd totaled 22,160 vehicles per day in 2022.1 In 2023, ADT on SR 530 west of Smokey Point Blvd totaled 22,825 vehicles per day.2 Increases in traffic volumes have caused operational issues and safety concerns due to the many uncontrolled driveways along SR 530. Traffic volumes are anticipated to continue to increase with growth planned in the city and region. Weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes are projected to increase by 25 to 55 percent through the Island Crossing subarea with approximately 1,900 to 2,400 vehicles along SR 530 and 970 vehicles along Smokey Point Boulevard projected by 2044. The SR 530/I-5 Northbound ramp intersection is congested and currently operates at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. Both the SR 530/I-5 Southbound ramp and the Smokey Point Boulevard intersections meet the LOS standard. To improve the safety and operations of the SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard intersection, the City plans construct a roundabout to handle the expected 4,500 plus vehicles per day that the intersection serves. It is anticipated in 2044 with the roundabout the SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS A. There are no improvements identified at the SR 530 interchange and with the anticipated growth the intersections would become more congested and fall below the LOS standard. 4.3 Traffic Safety A review of the collision records for the years 2017 – 2022 showed that the total number of crashes reported in the Island Crossing subarea was 111, with 39 of the crashes resulting in injuries, 3 of which were serious. There were no fatal crashes reported during the analysis period. The majority (80) of crashes resulted in property damage only. No pedestrians or cyclists were involved in the reported crashes. A visual summary of the crash analysis is shown in Exhibit 4-1. Of the 111 total crashes in the Island Crossing subarea, 98 occurred on SR 530, (between I-5 and Smokey Point Boulevard), with 28 of the crashes resulting in injury. Most reported crashes along SR 530 in Island Crossing were rear-ends (62). Other frequently reported crash types were angle (15) and sideswipe (5). The crash types are common for congested conditions and areas with frequent driveways. An examination of the primary contributing circumstances reported for the common crash types showed that following too closely and 1 June 2022 Traffic Counts for Transportation Master Plan 2 WSDOT Traffic Counts Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-28 inattention or distraction were the first and second most frequently cited contributing factors in rear-end crashes. Not granting the right-of-way and improper turning or merging were the most frequently cited contributing factors in the angle crashes, and inattention and not granting the right-of-way were the most frequently cited factors in the sideswipe crashes. The angle and sideswipe contributing factors are related to the frequent driveways along the corridor. Spatial analysis of the crashes reported on SR 530 revealed that the driveways to the Pilot Travel Center Truck Stop were closely associated with dense clusters of rear-end crashes, the majority of which were associated with personal vehicles and not trucks. Incidents of angle crashes were more densely grouped along the driveways associated with retail, food, and travel services nearer to I-5, west of the truck stop. The analysis shows that the lack of access control and number of driveways along SR 530 is a contributing factor for crashes given the concentration of crashes near Pilot and other commercial driveways and the rear-end and angle type crashes related to following too closely, inattention, and not granting right-of-way. Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-29 Exhibit 4-1 Island Crossing Subarea Crash History Source: City of Arlington, Transpo, 2024 Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-30 Crash types varied along Smokey Point Boulevard (between SR 530 and King-Thompson Road), with angle crashes concentrated at intersections and fixed object crashes concentrated at horizontal offsets in the roadway geometry. The number of crashes reported along Smokey Point Boulevard during the analysis period was 23, with 11 of those resulting in an injury, 3 of which were serious. Angle (7), fixed object (5), and rear-end (5) crashes were the three most frequently reported crash types along Smokey Point Boulevard. Inattention and distraction, and not granting the right-of-way tied as the most frequently cited contributing circumstances in the angle crashes while exceeding the speed limit and improper turning or merging tied for second most frequently cited contributors. Fixed object crashes on Smokey Point Boulevard were primarily associated with drivers under the influence of alcohol, as were 2 of the 3 serious injury crashes. Following too closely and speeding were cited as the first and second most frequently contributing circumstances in the rear end crashes on Smokey Point Boulevard. Spatial analysis of crashes on Smokey Point Boulevard within Island Crossing showed that angle crashes and rear ends are clustered at the intersections of SR 530 and 204th Street NE, and fixed object crashes are clustered at horizontal offsets in the roadway geometry. Based on the analysis of contributing factors driver behavior plays a more significant role in crashes along Smokey Point Boulevard within Island Crossing than infrastructure design. Analysis of crash rates for the period between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2022 indicated that there are approximately 16 crashes per year for the 0.5-mile segment along SR 530 between I-5 (milepost 17) and Smokey Point Boulevard (milepost 17.5). Comparatively, Smokey Point Boulevard, for the same 5-year period, had about 4 crashes per year for the 0.8-mile segment reviewed. This comparison reveals safety issues along SR 530 with a significantly higher volume of crashes along SR 530 within the shorter segment. 4.4 Freight Network Truck routes are classified using the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) according to the average annual gross truck tonnage they carry. The FGTS classifies roadways using five freight tonnage classifications, T-1 through T-5. Routes classified as T-1 or T-2 are considered strategic freight corridors. The classifications are as follows: T-1: Over 10,000,000 annual gross tonnage T-2: 4,000,000 to 10,000,000 annual gross tonnage T-3: 300,000 to 4,000,000 annual gross tonnage T-4: 100,000 to 300,000 annual gross tonnage T-5: Over 20,000 gross tonnage in a 60-day period. Within the Island Crossing subarea, there are three designated freight routes: I-5, SR 530, and Smokey Point Boulevard. I-5 is designated as a T-1 facility and SR 530 is a T-2 roadway, which are both strategic freight corridors. Smokey Point Boulevard is designated as a T-3 corridor. Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-31 4.5 Non-Motorized Facilities Existing non-motorized facilities in the Island Crossing subarea include pedestrian crossings located at the signalized intersection of the I-5 on and off ramps and SR 530, across SR 530 at the west fork of the Smokey Point Boulevard intersection, and midway along the east fork of the Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 intersection. Paved shoulders along SR 530 may be wide enough to accommodate non-motorized travelers, including bicyclists, though the volume, proximity, and speed of adjacent vehicle traffic may discourage this use. The Arlington Complete Streets Program (November 2018) addresses the needs of all users of the transportation system as development and redevelopment occurs within the city. The Complete Streets Program maintains policy documents such as the Bicycle Plan and the Pedestrian Plan. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans (both dated October 2018) establish citywide direction in key areas related to the walking and biking system and connectivity. While most pedestrian traffic on SR 530 is thought to be generated by employees and visitors of the food and commercial services on either side of SR 530 visiting adjacent food and beverage vendors and is localized, the city has identified Smokey Point Boulevard as critical to citywide non-motorized connectivity. As part of the Arlington Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update the City is developing level of service (LOS) standards used to guide the development of non-motorized facilities needed to support the city’s growth including the development of the Island Crossing subarea. The multimodal LOS standards emphasize system completion of sidewalks, pathways, or multi- use trails on arterial and collector roadways. Based on the review of the multimodal LOS, the City has identified the need for non-motorized facilities along Smokey Point Boulevard and SR 530 within the subarea to support walking and biking. In addition, the City’s Smokey Point Boulevard and SR 530 roundabout will support walking and biking with the inclusion of crosswalks, sidewalks, and street lighting. Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-32 Exhibit 4-2 Island Crossing Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Map Source: City of Arlington, Transpo Group, MAKERS, 2024 Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-33 4.6 Transit Network Transit is provided through Island Crossing by Community Transit, though there are no bus stops in the area. Route 201 travels north-south along Smokey Point Boulevard and route 227 travels east-west along SR 530. Together these routes provide connection between the Smokey Point Transit Center south of the subarea and historic downtown Arlington to the east. 4.7 Street Design Considerations Gateway and place celebration. The Island Crossing subarea serves as a gateway to the City of Arlington and the North Cross Highway, provides scenic views of the Stillaguamish Valley and mountains, while also having the potential to be a destination in and of itself. It is important that the street design within the subarea not only accommodates all users, but incorporates all users. These users can vary in their purpose and duration of visit to the Island Crossing subarea, and in the modes in which they are traveling. Access control and safety. One existing challenge of SR 530 is that there are many uncontrolled driveway entrances and exits to business on either side of the road, contributing to a high number of rear-end crashes. The two-way left turn is used for a variety of movements by drivers along SR 530, some of which create conflicts. Aside from using the two-way left turn lane as a waiting spot before turning left into a driveway, drivers will often use the two-way left turn lane to exit driveways in two movements while waiting for breaks in traffic. Drivers will also use the left turn lane to travel between driveways to avoid getting into the through traffic lanes. Each of these movements can create conflicts as there is a high concentration of driveways located in a condensed area along SR 530, and so, many users are trying to make each of these movements. The street design should consider: Consolidated and defined driveways, Frontage roads to help control the ingress and egress points for the numerous driveways along this stretch of SR 530, and/or Removal of the left turn lane with the implementation of the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 roundabout and right-in/right-out access control (and considerations for turn around on the west side). Pedestrian crossings. Another observation is that pedestrians attempting to cross SR 530 get stuck in the two-way left turn lane until there is a break in traffic. Street design should consider more frequent, marked, illuminated pedestrian crossings of SR 530. Any crossings proposed should be placed strategically to connect with the businesses and parcels that are pedestrian traffic drivers, and should consider the location of transit stops and trails in the area. I-5/SR 530 interchange. WSDOT capacity improvement projects are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-34 Olympic Pipeline. The Olympic Gas Pipeline runs diagonally through the Island Crossing subarea. As discussed in Chapter 5, there are requirements regarding construction in and around the gas pipeline that will need to be considered as part of the street design. Farmstands. Several informal farmstands pop up along SR 530. Consider consolidation and to support this activity as a destination. 4.8 Goals and Policies Arlington is currently updating its Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan, including refining goals and policies related to transportation that affect Island Crossing. Relevant goals and policies from the existing Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan are summarized below. The policies supply the direction needed to prioritize the efficient and safe movement of freight and people while stewarding the environment. This complex task is accomplished by advancing floodplain protection, disaster mitigation and climate change resiliency, managing transportation impacts related to stormwater management and air quality, all while balancing the need for safe and well-connected access via multiple modes of travel. The policies guide development to avoid building roads in sensitive areas prone to natural hazards including erosion and flooding and direct the City to build facilities that improve existing safety and accessibility conditions and facilitate economic development and regional mobility for all travelers. Emphasis is placed on improving safety conditions for active mode travelers, and for incorporating placemaking strategies that improve the comfort and aesthetic appeal of active mode facilities needed to support mode shifts toward transit and non-motorized modes. Transportation · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-35 4.9 Key Findings and Implications for Plan Planned growth will increase traffic volumes in Island Crossing, resulting in increased congestion and the SR 530 interchange operating below LOS standard. Interchange capacity improvements are identified in the draft TMP. Safety issues along SR 530 are related to lack of access control, numerous driveways, and congestion along the corridor. Street design should consider access control and driveway consolidation along the SR 530 corridor. Freight will need to be a key consideration in the design for SR 530, which is designated as a T-2 facility and is a strategic freight corridor. The need for pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements has been identified along SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard to meet the non-motorized LOS standard that is being developed through the TMP update. Consistent with the transportation goals and policies, emphasis should be placed on improving safety for active modes and incorporating placemaking strategies that improve the comfort and aesthetic appeal for active mode facilities. Street design should consider gateway and scenic view celebration. Street design will need to consider the Olympic Gas Pipeline. See Chapter 2 Natural Environment for floodplain considerations. Utilities · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-36 5.0 Utilities 5.1 Stormwater Infiltration Capacities On the nearby Smokey Point Boulevard project, which runs from 174th Ave at the south to 200th Ave at the north, geotechnical explorations during design found that it was feasible to infiltrate all of the stormwater runoff on the project. This infiltration is taking place through a treatment train of CDS units to filter out solids, then BioPod units to meet water quality requirements, then infiltrating into the native soil through underground underdrain pipe systems six to eight feet below finished grade. On the nearby proposed Island Crossing/SR 530 roundabout project, located at the eastern limits of the Island Crossing subarea, the stormwater system is a conveyance system that outfalls into a detention pond that is using a 1.5 inch/hour infiltration rate for sizing. Based on this information, it appears the infiltration rates are not as high as the Smokey Point Boulevard corridor, but infiltration could still be considered as part of a stormwater system within the subarea. Further geotechnical explorations will be required in the area in order to properly design and size any proposed facilities. 5.2 Stormwater Challenges and Considerations As the Island Crossing subarea is located in a floodplain, floodplain and compensatory storage requirements will need to be considered when designing and sizing proposed stormwater facilities on projects in the subarea. Additionally, the Olympic Gas Pipeline runs through the subarea and requirements around the pipeline, discussed in subsequent sections, will need to be considered. 5.3 Olympic Gas Pipeline The Olympic Pipeline Company (OPLC), operated by BP Pipelines North America, Inc., is a 400-mile pipeline that runs from Whatcom County, Washington to Portland, Oregon. Exhibit 5-1 illustrates the Olympic Pipeline system map. The pipeline transports refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Utilities · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-37 Exhibit 5-1 Olympic Pipeline Map Source: BP, 2023 Utilities · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-38 The pipeline runs southeast through the subarea, crossing SR 530. Exhibit 5-2 demonstrates the pipeline easement within the subarea. The pipeline in the subarea consists of both 20’’ pipe and a 16’’ pipe. The OPLC requires submission of detailed construction plans, for any work within the pipeline easement, 10 business days before construction. A representative/inspector from the OPLC must be on site when any work is being performed within 10 feet of the pipeline, or if the reach of the mechanized equipment can extend within 10 feet of the pipeline. General constraints posed by the OPLC include the following: Excavation near the pipeline requires prior communication and on-site permission from OPLC Construction equipment must cross the pipeline at a 90-degree angle and adhere to specific standards No permanent structures allowed on the pipeline right-of-way; minimum cover of five and one-half feet required for all road crossings and three feet for residential driveways, subject to a stress factor calculation performed by OPLC Restrictions on concrete pavement, certain structures (including fences), and landscaping to prevent interference Foreign utility crossing must meet specific guidelines for separation and protection, including crossing the pipeline right-of-way at or near to a 90-degree angle, when feasible Utilities · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-39 Exhibit 5-2 Island Crossing Subarea Easement Map Source: City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2024 5.4 Goals and Policies The Arlington Comprehensive Plan includes policies considering stormwater and utility infrastructure. Relevant goals and policies from the existing Comprehensive Plan are included below. As the Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated with expected adoption in 2025, these goals and policies are subject to change. Utilities · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-40 Economic Development Element UTILITIES The Comprehensive Plan aims to ensure utility and transportation services can adequately accommodate businesses and employment centers. Land Use Element ISLAND CROSSING SUBAREA The Comprehensive Plan recommends infrastructure improvements to alleviate frequent flooding in Island Crossing. 5.5 Key Findings and Implications for Plan The Olympic Gas Pipeline is a critical pipeline in the Northwestern United States. In the Island Crossing subarea, two large pipeline facilities run diagonally across SR 530 in the vicinity of the topographical low point. At this low point, flooding has occurred during large storm events as the flow becomes greater than the culvert under SR 530 can handle. This flooding can pose a risk as the water adds significant weight on top of the gas pipeline and can erode the road and soil covering the pipeline. Coordination with OPLC will be essential when evaluating options for street design within the subarea. Any options related to changing the grade over the pipeline will need to be vetted with OPLC, as well as understanding what work can be done within the easement that runs along the alignment of the pipeline. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-41 6.0 Market and Real Estate Market and real estate analysis can illuminate strong industry and employment clusters within the Island Crossing subarea. Existing economic activity can convey the history of economic activity and trends within the subarea. Data can also inform potential land use changes and support municipal goals within Island Crossing. Data sources include ESRI Business Analyst and CoStar commercial real estate data. Data available on businesses and land use within the subarea are estimates and rely on a small sample size and may increase the margin of area for data estimates. This may limit the accuracy of representing existing conditions within the subarea. 6.1 Market Area Economics 6.1.1 Local Context The Island Crossing subarea has no housing, industrial, or office uses.3 However, Island Crossing is located near areas within Arlington with strong industrial, retail, and office clusters. Approximately four miles to the east, historic downtown Arlington is a destination for dining, retail, and small businesses. To the southeast of Island Crossing, the Arlington Municipal Airport and the Cascade Industrial Center (designated a significant regional center by PSRC) are significant manufacturing and industrial drivers for the region. Finally, the I-5 and SR 531 intersection to the south has a cluster of big box retail, restaurants, and hotels. In addition to these local economic centers and drivers, the I-5 and SR 530 interchange is also located at one end of the Mountain Loop Scenic Byway. Island Crossing and the city of Arlington are also important gateways for many travelers accessing the North Cascades National Park from the west. These neighboring economic centers and Island Crossing’s importance within the region’s tourism and outdoor recreation ecosystem are important to understanding local conditions and potential demand for land use in Island Crossing. While downtown, Smokey Point, and Arlington Municipal Airport and industrial center are major competitors for certain land use activities, their proximity may create opportunities for Island Crossing to capture spillover activities and to carve out a niche for certain economic activities. 3 City of Arlington staff report that the Arlington Motor Inn, located within Island Crossing, may have long-term residents. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-42 6.1.2 Businesses and Employment Eighteen businesses employ approximately 200 workers in the Island Crossing subarea (Exhibit 6-1 and Exhibit 6-2). The largest industry sector in the subarea, by employment and establishments, is retail trade. Approximately 40% of all jobs are in retail (78 total jobs) across six businesses. An additional 32% of jobs are in construction and resources (63 total), excluding agricultural jobs. Four agricultural jobs are captured within the subarea, with the bulk of the County’s agricultural related roles located in unincorporated Snohomish County. The accommodation and food services industry, comprising three businesses, employs 22 workers (11% of all subarea jobs). The retail sector has a higher concentration of businesses and jobs in the subarea compared to Arlington as a whole. Retail represents one-third of all businesses in the subarea compared to 18% of all businesses in the city. However, employment in retail in the subarea is lower than the city (25% in the city compared to 11% of employment in the subarea), indicating that retail businesses in the subarea are more likely to have smaller employee numbers than across the city. There are no big box retailers or chains within the subarea, outside of service stations. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-43 Exhibit 6-1 Employment Total by Major Industry, Island Crossing Subarea, 2024 Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2023; CAI, 2024 Exhibit 6-2 Number of Businesses by Major Industry Comparison, Island Crossing Subarea and City of Arlington, 2024 Source: ESRI Business Analyst; PSRC Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-44 On the whole, employment in Arlington has increased by 47% from 2010 to 2022, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.2% (Exhibit 6-3). While the services and manufacturing sectors make up the most employment in Arlington in 2022, the fastest growing industry sectors by employment were construction, and wholesale, transportation and utilities (WTU) sectors, both of which show employment more than doubling over that time. Employment grew more slowly in Snohomish County, with a total change of 20% from 2010 – 2022, and a CAGR of 1.5%. The top employing industries in Snohomish County are also services and manufacturing, much like Arlington. Snohomish County also shares the top growing industry sectors with Arlington – the construction and WTU sectors grew the fastest from 2010 -2022 with CAGRs of 5.4% and 3.1% respectively. Two major industry sectors, government and finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE), declined slightly in Arlington from 2010 to 2022. The government sector also saw a slight decrease in Snohomish County from 2010 to 2022, but the FIRE sector showed some growth over the time frame. Exhibit 6-3 Employment Change by Industry, Arlington & Snohomish County, 2010 & 2022 Source: PSRC, 2023; CAI, 2024 6.1.3 Subarea Clusters Industry clustering can indicate a local economy's competitive advantages and specialization. Understanding both local and contextual industry clustering is important to identify local strengths and opportunities. Location quotient (LQ) is a measure which can help understand industry clustering by comparing the frequency of an industry in a specific study area to that of the nation. Hence, LQ values higher than 1 show a greater concentration of that industry in the study area than in the nation. According to Exhibit 6-4, the construction and manufacturing industries are the two industries within Snohomish County with the highest industry concentration, with LQs of 1.8 2010 2022 Total Change CAGR (2010-2022)2010 2022 Total Change CAGR (2010-2022) Services 2,237 2,958 32% 2.4% 159,097 207,437 30% 2.2% Manufacturing 1,728 2,364 37% 2.6% 69,848 72,495 4% 0.3% Construction & Resources 524 1,815 246% 10.9% 27,759 52,181 88% 5.4% Wholesale, Transportation, and Utilities 764 1,578 107% 6.2% 21,606 31,259 45% 3.1% Retail 1,051 1,385 32% 2.3% 58,367 68,410 17% 1.3% Government 972 834 -14% -1.3% 43,678 41,189 -6%-0.5% Education 590 805 36% 2.6% 33,259 36,874 11% 0.9% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 331 289 -13% -1.1% 21,366 23,890 12% 0.9% Total 8,198 12,028 47% 3.2% 470,088 565,025 20% 1.5% Snohomish County Major Sector Arlington Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-45 and 1.6 respectively. In Washington state, however, an LQ of 3.1 indicates that the agriculture industry is much more concentrated in the state than it is in the nation, suggesting a high level of specialization. While the LQ for agriculture in Snohomish County is comparatively lower, an additional sector that does not bear out in publicly available data are temporary and informal agricultural land uses. Agriculture related activities are an important economic driver for Snohomish County, worth an estimated $1.2 million in market value per farm as of 2022.4 It is also a legacy industry in the region and one that contributes to the “county’s quality of life and economic health.”5 City of Arlington staff report anecdotally that property owners often allow local farms and producers to sell their goods through temporary stalls or out of privately owned vehicles. Temporary or informal uses like these will not appear in national aggregated data; however, investment in permanent land uses to support local farms and producers can help support a legacy industry as well as contribute to the gateway concept. Other industries which Washington State specializes in include the information and management industries. While these industries might not be as important or prevalent in the county, the state's high LQ indicates existing resources and expertise which could serve as a foundation for future growth, if desirable. Finally, Snohomish County also specializes in retail trade, with a LQ of 1.3. Within the Island Crossing subarea in Arlington, service stations are identified as an important cluster within the retail industry. There are five service stations along SR 530, including national chains like Pilot Travel Center and Chevron, as well as tribal businesses like River Rock Tobacco and Fuel. 4 USDA 2022 Census of Agriculture. 5 Snohomish County government, Washington. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-46 Exhibit 6-4 Industry Location Quotient, Snohomish County and Washington, 2022 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022; PSRC, 2023; CAI, 2024 6.1.4 Worker Inflow Exhibit 6-5 shows the home origins of subarea workers, or where those who hold jobs in the subarea live. Darker shades indicate the areas with the highest concentration of where workers live. The northeast end of the City of Arlington has the greatest concentration of workers, while areas with moderate to high concentrations of workers lie within and westward of the Arlington and Marysville city limits. Far-reaching home origins in cities like Woodinville or Burlington indicate that the small businesses within the subarea have an important role to play within the broader regional economy, particularly given its location at the confluence of major transportation routes. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-47 Exhibit 6-5 Commute Patterns, Island Crossing Subarea, 2024 Source: LEHD, 2021; CAI, 2024 Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-48 6.1.5 Comparative Annual Sales In total, the Island Crossing subarea saw almost $117M in total annual sales in 2023. Almost all sales in the Island Crossing subarea can be attributed to just four major sectors, indicating market concentration. The wholesale trade, transportation, and utilities (WTU) sector is detailed in Exhibit 6-6. These sales can be attributed to just 2 business establishments. In contrast, the services sector has the most establishments, with 8, but it only accounts for 4% of 2023 sales. Other sectors which heavily impact total annual sales in the Island Crossing subarea are retail, which is responsible for 27% of 2023 sales, and construction, making up 7% of 2023 sales. Exhibit 6-6 Establishments and Annual Sales by Major Sector, Island Crossing Subarea, 2023 Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2023; CAI, 2024 Sales By Major Sector Establishments Share of Establishments 2023 Sales Share of Sales Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (WTU) 2 11% 72,722,562$ 62% Retail 5 26% 31,414,830$ 27% Construction and Resources 3 16% 8,267,721$ 7% Services 8 42% 4,342,521$ 4% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services (FIRE)1 5% 191,357$ 0% Total 19 116,938,991$ Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-49 In Arlington, taxable retail sales spiked following the pandemic (Exhibit 6-7). This increased spending may be due to pandemic related spending, stimulus checks, or other highly localized economic trends in that time. Since then, taxable retail sales have dropped back down to a more typical, but still high value reaching $221M by Q4 of 2023. The consistent trend towards increasing taxable retail sales may suggest long-term economic growth and business opportunities. Exhibit 6-7 Quarterly Taxable Retail Sales, Arlington, 2006-2022 Source: WA Department of Revenue, 2023; CAI, 2024 In 2022, Arlington’s total annual taxable retail sales was over 1.05 B. compared to the Island Crossing subarea, the wholesale, transportation, and utilities industries play a much smaller role in Arlington, making up only about 6.5% of taxable retail sales. Instead, the largest proportion (42%) of Arlington’s taxable retail sales are attributable to the retail trade sector (Exhibit 6-8). Another large proportion (31%) can be attributed to the construction sector, and about 7% came from arts, entertainment, & hospitality industries. A high concentration of taxable retail sales in these three industries—retail trade, construction, and arts, entertainment, and hospitality—suggests that Arlington overall has a specialized economy, which may lead to efficiencies and a strong reputation in those sectors. However, concentration may also introduce risks in which the local economy may be less resilient to economic shifts, regulatory changes, or external events. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-50 Exhibit 6-8 Total Taxable Retail Sales by NAICS, Arlington, 2022 Source: WA Department of Revenue, 2022; CAI, 2024 6.2 Real Estate Analysis Island Crossing falls within the Arlington Urban Growth Area Boundary. Snohomish County, in its 2021 Buildable Lands Report, found that four of the parcels on the site are redevelopable.6 The County did not find the subarea suitable for additional housing. However, many of the individual parcels within the subarea can support upwards of 100 additional jobs. Zoned capacity does not appear to be a constraint on future growth opportunities within the subarea. The City has placed a moratorium on development in the Island Crossing Subarea in anticipation of subarea plan adoption and subsequent zoning and development standard updates. However, proposals for truck stop, strip mall, and hotel developments have been submitted for properties along SR 530, indicating ongoing development interest in Island Crossing. This section further looks at existing land use, structure, and market data for retail, office, and other land uses. 6.2.1 Island Crossing Subarea The Island Crossing subarea includes seven retail structures, eight land parcels and one hospitality development, totaling more than 42,000 square feet (Exhibit 6-9). 6 Snohomish County 2023 Buildable Lands Report, November 2021. Industry Taxable Retail Sales 2022 Share Retail 440,220,182$ 42% Construction and Resources 329,460,830$ 31% Services 172,260,510$ 16% Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 69,120,648$ 7% Manufacturing 20,006,128$ 2% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services 18,277,573$ 2% Education 1,456,107$ 0% Government 60,800$ 0% Total 1,050,862,778$ Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-51 Asking rents for all retail structures in the subarea ranged from between $17.53 per square foot per year to $27.70 per square foot. According to CoStar, all retail structures have been fully occupied since Q2 2019. The seven retail buildings within the subarea are between 1,481 and 8,458 square feet in size, are all classified as Class C structures by CoStar, and were built predominantly between 1961 and 1970. The Dwayne Lane’s Arlington Chevrolet Service Department at 20410 Smokey Point Boulevard was built in 2015 and increased the retail inventory by 8,458 square feet. Given that other dealerships are located just south of the subarea along I-5, there is an indication that the area is suitable for automotive businesses. The existing concentration of dealerships might encourage similar businesses to set up nearby, as agglomeration can attract more customers with a variety of choices. However, there are factors that could limit the number of dealerships in close proximity. Franchise agreements and local regulations often restrict how close car dealerships can be to each other, which could prevent brands like Honda, Subaru, or Chrysler from opening new locations nearby. Despite these constraints, the successful establishment of the Chevrolet dealership suggests that there could be interest from other brands looking to benefit from the area's automotive market. Of the seven retail structures in the subarea, three are classified as Service Stations by CoStar, three are designated as Restaurants, and one (Dwayne Lane’s) is a Freestanding structure. Arlington Motor Inn, the lone hospitality structure, contains nearly 12,500 square feet of commercial space and was built in 1986. Exhibit 6-9 Total Properties by Type & Square Footage, Island Crossing Subarea, 2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 There are no properties or businesses in the Island Crossing subarea that are captured in CoStar real estate data for industrial or multifamily data. Comparisons to these land uses are included in the following section to identify trends that may impact future land use changes within the subarea. Current land uses and valuations of the parcels in the Island Crossing subarea are explored in Exhibit 6-10, which shows that a significant amount of acreage in the subarea is currently undeveloped land which offers potential for future development. Island Crossing’s undeveloped land is clustered, creating contiguous groupings. Three clusters of undeveloped land are located north of SR530, in the center of the subarea, and on the southern tip of the area. Property Type # Properties Total SF Asking Rents Retail 7 30,203 $17.53 - $27.70 Land 8 N/A N/A Hospitality 1 12,471 N/A Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-52 Exhibit 6-10 Island Crossing Subarea Parcel Map by Land Use Type Source(s): Snohomish County Assessor, 2024; CAI, 2024. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-53 While the Island Crossing subarea's high-value land, like retail, eating establishments, and hotels, may offer substantial tax revenue, their high acquisition costs pose challenges for redevelopment. On the other hand, areas with lower land values, such as undeveloped land and residential, might present more feasible opportunities for redevelopment. The median land value for undeveloped land in the Island Crossing subarea is relatively low at $1.97 per acre as of 2024 (Exhibit 6-11). However, in Snohomish County, the median land value for undeveloped land is even lower at just $0.07 per acre, possibly due to a larger supply of available space. It is noteworthy that in the Island Crossing subarea, the median land value for undeveloped land is slightly higher than for residential land, which is valued at $1.66 per acre. This could be influenced by the presence of the motorhome park as well as data inconsistencies due to the small sample size. Retail (with $49.42), eating establishments (with $32.11), and hotels (with $69.11) in the Island Crossing subarea have the highest median land and taxable values, indicating higher property worth and tax revenue potential from these types of land use. Conversely, undeveloped land, motor vehicles, and residential land have the lowest median land values, suggesting they might be more attractive for redevelopment due to lower land acquisition costs. Similarly, in Snohomish County, hotels have the highest taxable value per acre. However, the lowest taxable value per acre is found in undeveloped land ($0.03) and agriculture ($0.24). Although there is no land classified as agricultural land by the County Assessor in the Island Crossing subarea, some undeveloped land is farmed, and the data for Snohomish County indicates that agricultural land generally has a low land value per acre ($0.33), which is consistent with its lower tax revenue potential. Exhibit 6-11 Taxable Value and Land Value by Parcel, Island Crossing Subarea and Snohomish County, 2024 Source(s): Snohomish County Assessor, 2024; CAI, 2024. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-54 6.2.2 City and County Comparison Broader city and county market trends provide context and influence local conditions within the Island Crossing subarea. The Island Crossing subarea is affected by the land uses and market trends in the city of Arlington and the wider Snohomish County. These market trends have been explored and analyzed in detail below by market type. Retail Sector The retail sector plays an important role in both the city of Arlington and in the Island Crossing subarea. Contextual information for both the city and county introduces some of the challenges and complexities faced in the retail market in recent years, driven by shifts in consumer behavior, the rise of e-commerce, and other evolving trends. From 2006-2024, retail inventory in Arlington has grown slowly but steadily, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.6% (Exhibit 6-12). This is a slightly faster rate than retail has grown in Snohomish County, which had a CAGR of 1.1% for the same time period (Exhibit 6-13). While retail buildings continue to be delivered, since 2010 in particular, the rate of growth for Arlington’s retail inventory dropped as the city saw development of only smaller retail buildings. Exhibit 6-12 Total Retail Inventory and Establishments, Arlington, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-55 Exhibit 6-13 Total Retail Inventory and Establishments, Snohomish County, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Retail vacancies and triple net asking rents in Arlington have been volatile, long before the arrival of the pandemic (Exhibit 6-13). Since the pandemic, the retail vacancy rate has been lower, hovering around 5%. However, at the same time, retail asking rents decreased, reaching $16.26 per square foot by 2024, more than $2 lower than retail asking rents in 2006. A low vacancy rate generally indicates a stable market with most spaces occupied. However, if asking rents are decreasing, it could suggest that while the existing retail spaces are occupied, there's a slowdown in demand for new or upcoming spaces. This may happen due to broader economic trends, shifts in consumer behavior, or increased competition. Retail spaces, in particular, might be facing pressures from online retail or e-commerce, leading to downward pressure on rents even though the overall vacancy rates are low. Broader economic conditions can also play a role. If there's uncertainty in the economy, tenants might be more cautious about expanding or renewing at higher rates, leading to more conservative pricing even in a low-vacancy environment. While retail inventory has grown more slowly in Snohomish County as a whole, retail vacancy and triple net asking rents suggest that the retail sector in Snohomish County is more stable than that of Arlington. By 2024, Snohomish County’s retail vacancy is a very low 2.9%, and asking rents have reached a peak, landing at $21.47 per square foot. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-56 Exhibit 6-14 Retail Direct Vacancy and Asking Rents, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Office Sector In Arlington, office inventory has been climbing steadily since 2006 with over 687,000 square footage of office space spread between 54 office buildings by 2024 (Exhibit 6-15). The last major delivery of office space in Arlington occurred in late 2022, suggesting that Arlington’s office market continues to experience some demand following the pandemic. Further growth in the office sector may be appropriate in Downtown Arlington or in the Smokey Point area. Demand for new office space in Snohomish County is growing as well, though the rate of growth since 2014 is lower than it was prior and the total number of buildings has declined slightly since 2011. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-57 Exhibit 6-15 Total Office Inventory, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Following the pandemic, low vacancy rates for office space coupled with rising asking rents suggest that Arlington’s office market is growing, and it may continue to experience some demand moving forward. While office vacancy rates have varied greatly in Arlington from 2006-2024, recent values reflect the lowest rates since at least 2006 (Exhibit 6-16). Asking rents have also increased, reaching the peak value of $30.70 per square foot in Q1 of 2024. While Snohomish County’s office market has seen net positive growth, vacancies are higher and asking rents are lower, suggesting that demand for office space may be slower in Snohomish County. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-58 Exhibit 6-16 Office Direct Vacancy and Gross Direct Asking Rents, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Multifamily Sector While growth in the multifamily sector may not be desirable for the Island Crossing subarea, contextual city or county-wide trends in multifamily real estate offer insights into broader market dynamics, population growth, and economic patterns that can affect other types of development, including agritourism and retail. Since 2019, the number of multifamily units in Arlington have increased at a high rate, adding about 1M square feet of new multifamily deliveries (Exhibit 6-17). However, multifamily unit sizes have decreased over time in Arlington, reaching about 809 square feet per unit in 2024. Snohomish County shows steady and consistent growth in the multifamily market sector, though the growth rate is not as pronounced as that of Arlington. Meanwhile, the average size of units has actually increased over the period and units in Snohomish County remain, on average, notably larger than those found in Arlington. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-59 Exhibit 6-17 Total Multifamily Inventory and Average Unit Size, Arlington, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Exhibit 6-18 Total Multifamily Inventory and Average Unit Size, Snohomish County, 2006- 2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-60 Asking rents for multifamily units have increased steadily in Arlington since 2010, despite the pandemic (Exhibit 6-19). After 2020, the multifamily vacancy rate spiked as high as 20.2%, an increase typical as a large quantity of new units have come online since 2020. In that time, asking rents were largely unaffected, continuing a steady positive climb. By 2024, the multifamily vacancy rate in Arlington had reached 5.5%, which falls within a healthy range for multifamily vacancies and suggests that there is a good balance between multifamily housing supply and demand in Arlington. Exhibit 6-19 Multifamily Vacancy and Asking Rents, Arlington, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-61 Industrial Sector City or county-wide trends in the industrial sector can reflect broader economic activity, logistics, and manufacturing patterns that may influence activity, demand, or uses within the Island Crossing subarea. Spillover effects from industrial growth may present opportunities or challenges for the subarea moving forward. Arlington’s industrial market has grown intensely in the past few years (Exhibit 6-20). In 2022 and 2023, the industrial inventory in Arlington jumped 3.4M square feet with the delivery of six new industrial buildings, reaching 7.0M square feet of total inventory. Exhibit 6-20 Total Industrial Inventory, Arlington and Snohomish County, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Rapidly rising asking rents for industrial space coupled with dropping vacancy rates also show that Arlington’s industrial space is in demand (Exhibit 6-21). The trend for industrial delivery following the pandemic is also prevalent in Snohomish County. The industrial sector in Snohomish County as a whole has slightly higher asking rents and a more volatile vacancy than Arlington. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-62 Exhibit 6-21 Industrial Direct Vacancy and Overall Asking Rents, Arlington, 2006-2024 Source: CoStar, 2023; CAI, 2024 Note: Asking Rents is displayed as triple net rent values. 6.3 Goals and Policies The Arlington Comprehensive Plan includes policies promoting strategic growth in the retail, office, industrial, and multifamily residential sectors. Relevant goals and policies from the existing Comprehensive Plan are included below. As the Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated with expected adoption in 2025, these goals and policies are subject to change. Snohomish County’s 2023 Annual report and Economic Development Initiative also includes strategies to support expansion of agricultural uses. Economic Development Element EMPLOYMENT The Comprehensive Plan supports adequate jobs in a variety of sectors and identifying opportunity sectors that could expand to provide additional jobs. Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-63 TOURISM City goals promote tourism within Arlington and position Arlington as an outdoor recreation area. 6.4 Key Findings and Implications for Plan 6.4.1 Island Crossing Subarea Market Gateway redevelopment opportunity. The Island Crossing subarea encompasses 87 acres and is home to 18 businesses. The landscape is characterized by a mix of open land, low- density retail structures, and numerous surface parking lots. According to Snohomish County, there are several parcels within the subarea that are vacant or redevelopable. The impact of targeted public investments in partnership with local businesses and landowners may catalyze development and increase economic activity in the subarea. Furthermore, the location of the subarea on major transportation routes and as the northwest gateway to the City of Arlington presents opportunities for strategic investment in select industries to support the gateway concept. Concentration of retail and gas stations. High economic concentration of the same industries in both the Island Crossing subarea and in Arlington can suggest both opportunities and weaknesses—a specialized economy may lead to efficiencies and a strong reputation; however, concentration may also introduce risks in which the local economy may be less resilient to economic shifts, regulatory changes, or external events. Retail trade is the dominant industry by the number of jobs and businesses, accounting for about 40% of all jobs, with 78 positions spread across six businesses. In addition, retail makes up significant portions of annual sales for Arlington as a whole. Wholesale, transportation, and utilities (WTU) industries play an important role in the Island Crossing subarea’s annual sales, but only make up a small portion of Arlington’s annual taxable retail sales. This suggests that Island Crossing has a local economic specialization in WTU industries, largely due to the concentration of gas stations and service centers. Gas stations represent roughly one-third of all businesses in Island Crossing, a significantly higher proportion compared to both the City of Arlington and Snohomish County. Other impactful industries in Arlington by total annual taxable retail sales were construction and arts, entertainment, and hospitality. Opportunity to support legacy industries. Agriculture is a key legacy industry in the region and in Snohomish County. The Island Crossing subarea itself is an extension of the City of Arlington into agricultural land in unincorporated Snohomish County and presents an opportunity to capture revenue and support local businesses in this sector. While the community’s vision for Island Crossing includes a variety of land uses, it includes Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-64 development in the agricultural and agritourism industries. Research to assess the viability of and opportunities to support agricultural and/or agritourism uses should be pursued. Outreach to local businesses and policymakers can help identify the appropriate approach to incentivizing development or permanent uses that are additive to existing businesses and industry and could also support the gateway concept. 6.4.2 Real Estate and Market Trends Arlington industrial and multifamily growth. The Island Crossing subarea is affected by the land uses and market trends of the surrounding areas, including the city of Arlington and the wider Snohomish County. In particular, Arlington and Snohomish County’s industrial and multifamily residential markets have seen significant growth since the pandemic which could present spillover effects for the subarea even if they are not likely to be growth sectors within Island Crossing. Spillover effects could include market support for retail, food, or other uses for an increase in residents living in multifamily developments or workers in industrial centers like the Arlington Municipal Airport or Cascade Industrial Center. In addition, business development can be supportive of industrial subsectors in these areas or improve supply chain management. Growing office sector demand. Another trend which may affect the future of the Island Crossing subarea is growing demand in the office sector in Arlington, which may create some spillover demand in the subarea, coupled with lingering volatility in the retail sector since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While much of the current employment in the Island Crossing subarea is composed of retail businesses, if current trends continue, development in retail is likely to be geared towards smaller businesses and locations. Market trends have been summarized in more detail below by market type. Retail Sector The overall retail market trend in Arlington is one of slow growth. The city has seen development of only smaller retail buildings since 2010. Volatile retail vacancy rates and decreasing asking rents in Arlington suggest that there may be a slowdown in demand for new or upcoming spaces or that the retail sector in Arlington is facing challenges due to broader economic trends, such as e-commerce, shifts in consumer behavior, or increased competition. Office Sector Office asking rents in both Arlington & Snohomish County increased from 2006-2024, despite experiencing a brief drop due to the pandemic. Asking rents in both geographies have since surpassed pre-pandemic values suggesting that the office market has recovered. Adjacent hubs of office activity likely have a competitive advantage over the Island Crossing subarea. Office may not be a suitable land use with the current zoning of Market and Real Estate · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-65 Highway Commercial. Multifamily Sector The multifamily housing market is strong in Arlington, with new units coming online and demand for these units trending high. While housing may not be a suitable land use with Highway Commercial zoning, market strength indicates potential spillover impacts of new residents into the subarea. Industrial Sector The industrial market in both Arlington and Snohomish County has grown notably since 2022, with both locations showing large deliveries of new industrial space and indicating further demand through low vacancies and rising asking rents. With the Arlington Municipal Airport and Cascade Industrial Center to the southeast and areas of significant public and private investment, industrial and manufacturing land uses may not be a suitable area of investment within Island Crossing. References · June 2024 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea | Existing Conditions Report A-66 7.0 References City of Arlington. 2024. Draft Comprehensive Plan. Accessed June 7, 2024: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/784/Comprehensive-Plan-Update-2024. Snohomish County. 2021. Buildable Lands Report. Accessed June 7, 2024: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/84919/Letter-to-Dept-of-Commerce- --Snohomish-County-Buildable-Lands-Report?bidId=. Snohomish County. 2024. “About Farming.” Accessed June 7, 2024: https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/1443/About-Farming. United States Department of Agriculture. 2022. Census of Agriculture. Accessed June 7, 2024: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US /usv1.pdf. Washington State Department of Transportation. 2023. Traffic count data. Accessed May 31, 2024: https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/transportation-data/travel-data/traffic-count-data. Appendices ·October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan B-1 Appendix B: Public Engagement Summaries City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan MAY 2024 VISIONING SURVEY SUMMARY B-2 Visioning Survey Summary Respondents answered visioning questions presented during the May Open House. These included: “What aspect of the Island Crossing do you love the most?” “What are your main concerns about the Island Crossing?” “What do you hope happens with the Island Crossing in the next 50 years?” The survey was live between May and June and received 281 responses. Themes that arose include the following: • Agricultural/rural land. Respondents highly value the rich, culturally significant farmland, open fields, views, nature, floodplains, and beautiful scenery. There is a strong desire to preserve the rural landscape of Island Crossing. o Residents enjoy the scenic route to Downtown and view of the Stillaguamish River and Cascade Mountains • Development. There is desire to maintain the current level of development in Island Crossing’s to minimize impact on the area, especially farmlands. o Concerns that over-development (e.g., similar to Smokey Point) could lead to the loss of rural/agricultural community and introduce more noise, traffic, and light pollution in the area o Respondents recommend improving aesthetics and possibly retrofitting derelict buildings. o Residents appreciate the supportive farming stores (equipment, feeds) and farming stands, and encourage agrotourism to support local farmers. o Gas stations are conveniently located and low-cost • Floodplain. Residents perceived that more development in the area could intensify flood risk and impact wildlife habitat. Using farmland for flood mitigation is viewed negatively as it reduces agricultural capacity. • Ease of access. SR 530 is an important throughfare and provides access to I-5, Downtown, and Smokey Point. • Traffic/Congestion. Traffic and congestion are major concerns for Island Crossing. Residents describe that congestion leads to safety concerns, with drivers compelled to make risky maneuvers due to traffic issues (e.g., lane blocking, driving on the center turn lane). o Residents currently appreciate that SR 530 is one of the less congested routes into Arlington. o During rush hours, cars wait along the highway to turn right on 530, and traffic back- ups from the freeway exit to the Pilot o Concerns about the strain on infrastructure due to development and more truck stops. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan MAY 2024 VISIONING SURVEY SUMMARY B-3 o Respondents call for better traffic management and infrastructure improvements to handle future needs. • Pedestrian access. The lack of sidewalks and crosswalks makes the area auto-oriented and uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists. There is strong support for creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment through shared-use paths. o Interest in a regional bike route from Silvana towards Arlington Survey Analysis Mentions of a particular word or phrases were analyzed to understand the survey’s theme, reflecting the general feedback received from the community. Aspects of Island Crossing People Enjoy Farmland/Farm. Words such as “farmland” (111 mentions), “farm” (96 mentions), and “fields” (61 mentions) were highly frequent, highlighting the value placed on the area’s agricultural land. Scenic Views. Mentions of “open” (53 mentions), “land” (79 mentions), and “love” (60 mentions) suggest an appreciation for open space and the natural beauty of the landscape Main Concerns Traffic/Congestion.!The most common concern mentioned is related to "traffic" (301 mentions) and "congestion". Development. “Development” (88 mentions) was frequently mentioned, revealing concerns about potential overdevelopment and its impacts, including increased flood risk, impact on wildlife habitat, strain on infrastructure, and noise and light pollution. Hopes for the Future of Island Crossing Preservation. Phrases like "preserving farmland areas" (89 mentions - mentioned in various form) were frequent, suggesting a hope to maintain the agricultural nature of Island Crossing. Minimal Change. Terms like "not" (70 mentions) and "as" (93 mentions) were frequently used to compare current and future development, with preference to maintain the current state of the area. Traffic Management. The frequent mention of the word "traffic" indicates a need for improved traffic management to address growing traffic concerns. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-4 Major Takeaways The following themes/notes arose during conversation and from participants’ post-it notes placed on posters around the room (see photos at the end of this document). • Flooding o Many stories about several properties along SR 530 flooding (even under 3’ of water) o Deep concerns about downstream flooding in Silvana o Property owners south of SR 530 are exploring a compensatory storage on adjacent Snohomish farmland o Address flooding while protecting fish health • Diverging views on land use vision o Leverage the freeway location with highway interchange type commercial (strip malls, truck stops, etc). Consider uses such as food/restaurants, grocery, recreation/ball fields Viable development proposals on SR 530 properties for truck stop/strip mall/hotel developments. Truck stops is ideal due to large undeveloped parcels within Island Crossing which does not exist further north of I-5 o No more truck stops; traffic impacts and character of truck stops make this use incompatible with Island Crossing o Protect agriculture o Agritourism and/or recreational tourism Consolidated farm stands on SR 530 Challenge: Successful agritourism often includes event space, but people want to be more than ¼ mile from I-5 to feel immersed in ag/natural environment • Transportation o Trucks are a major traffic impact on Smokey Point Blvd where trucks exit Pilot and at the I-5 interchange. Roundabout should help with the afternoon backup near Pilot. o Interest in consolidating driveways o Interest in a roundabout on the west side of the subarea o Diverging views on right-in/right-out only access. Some feel strongly that a center turn lane works best (on both SR 530 and Smokey Point). o Add bike facilities on SR 530 to support recreational tourism o Interest in a Local Improvement District (LID) to share costs of street improvements • Desire to move quickly and not overcomplicate. Belief that viable solutions for flooding already exist. Lift the moratorium on development as soon as possible. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-5 Top Priorities Each attendee was given three pink post-it notes to indicate their top priorities. These priorities are summarized by topic area below. • Natural environment/flooding o Ensure developments at SR 530 (e.g., hotel, truck stop) include compensatory floodwater storage, potentially on agricultural lands north of SR 530 o Uncertain future of the river and flood severity. Address flood risks by evaluating river dredging, expanding river capacity, and storing floodwater for drought resilience. o Protect steelhead habitat and maintain access to existing Henken/Smith compensatory storage areas. o Will the new expanded culvert increase flooding on the south side of SR 530? • Transportation and SR 530 Street Design o Non-motorized east/west access – Island Crossing, cross I-5, to N-S Centennial Trail o Desire for four lanes on SR 530 from Smoke shop triangle to freeway o Preference for alternative street design that omits center landscaped median • Market and Real Estate o Make subarea attractive to investors Paper Survey Responses Four surveys were completed. Bold indicates multiple answers in that subject area. • What do you love about Island Crossing? o Agriculture o View o Easy access o Gateway to downtown Arlington • What are your concerns for Island Crossing? o Flooding o Congestion/traffic control o Growth/too much development/shrinking farmland o Truck stops/hotels/gas stations o Compensatory storage o 530 access to current Henken/Smith compensatory storage • What are your hopes for Island Crossing? o Keep farmland o Control flooding o Turning lanes for tractors/farm equipment o Intelligent development • What did we miss? o The meeting felt like it was more for owners and businesses in the subarea, not for people passing through. [City note: The open house was intended for all community members.] City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-6 Results Photos City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-7 City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-8 City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-9 City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-10 City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY May 8, 2024 B-11 City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL GROUP 1 B-12 Transportation Technical Group 1 June 5, 2024 | 3-4 pm Meeting Objectives: • Meet staff, consulting team, and transportation technical group members • Introduce Island Crossing Subarea Plan project • Set bounds around SR530 design concepts and identify shared goals Attendees: City: Marc Hayes, Amy Rusko, Raelynn Jones, Consultant Team: Rachel Miller, Queenie Gipaya, Stefanie Herzstein, Erin Routledge Advisory Committee: Chris Simmons - Community Transit, Kathryn Boris - Community Transit Dawn Anderson - WSDOT Evan Russel - Snohomish County SR 530/1-5 Interchange • A slip lane near the triangle/interchange could be explored • Westbound movement to the interchange is problematic • WSDOT usually owns about 300’ of limited access on either side of offramps • Roundabouts are recommended at both sides of the interchange Frontage Road Concept • Signalization may be needed at key intersections • Accustomed to “Michigan lefts”, informing design approach • The frontage road would allow two-way traffic on each side with no on-street parking. • Each side of the frontage road would have a single access point, similar to the layout around the Taj property. SR 530 Considerations • SR 530 reclassified as Class 3 between I-5 and 22nd Ave: o Speed: Urban 30–40 mph, Rural 35–45 mph o Intersection spacing: ½ mile o Driveway spacing: 330 feet o Planned restrictive medians, 2-way left turns may be used where special conditions warrant mainline traffic volumes lower than 25,000 ADT • New traffic signals would not be allowed; the existing signal at Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 is already problematic. • Ongoing maintenance of medians and landscaping is a concern City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL GROUP 1 B-13 • Key recommendation: clearly define and limit access points to manage traffic flow and safety. Flooding & Mitigation • The entire site is located within the 100-year floodplain and experiences flooding approximately every two years. • FEMA requires a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and a zero -rise analysis to demonstrate that proposed development will not increase flood risk. • Consider elevating low sections of the road or travel lanes to address flooding impacts. • Existing culverts under SR 530 are undersized; improving culvert capacity may eliminate the need to raise the highway. • Compensatory flood storage is a supported strategy, particularly if the land remains suitable for agricultural use • There is agreement that the existing river side channel alone is scientifically insufficient to manage flood impacts. • A cooperative, multi-landowner approach could address both compensatory flood storage and offset channel needs. Ensure design support proper drainage and flood mitigation and salmon restoration goals. Traffic Conditions • High AM/PM volumes, with most trips being pass-through. • Passenger vehicle traffic is easier to manage than trucks. • Big box stores would generate higher traffic. Pipeline • Pipes are buoyant regardless of contents (e.g., jet fuel, natural gas). • Erosion from fast-moving floodwaters is a concern. Transit • Transit not viable in Island Crossing due to low residential density. o Skagit Transit (SKAT) and Community Transit Swift Gold Line are not planned to expand to Island Crossing. • Explore micro transit options such as flyer stop and shuttle service to connect to Old Town and Smokey Point. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan ADVISORY GROUP 1 – TRANSPORTATION B-14 Advisory Group 1 Summary – Transportation August 12, 2024 | 11:30am-1pm Meeting Objectives: • Project overview and important considerations • Review the evaluation criteria and discuss transportation options Attendees: City: Marc Hayes, Amy Rusko, Raelynn Jones, Consultant Team: Rachel Miller, Queenie Gipaya, Stefanie Herzstein, Erin Routledge Advisory Committee: Brian Kooy, Santosh Kumar, Stuart Skelton, Christie Strotz Jacobs, Trevor Strotz, Toby Strotz, Debbie Strotz, Evan Russel, Casey Steven, Andrew Albert, Linda Neunzig, Dave Nelson, Kory Glove Vision for Island Crossing • Advocates for preserving the farmland, open space, and agricultural heritage, noting the importance of maintaining these for future generations. o Highlights the value of local agriculture, with all farmlands in production, and in high demand, quoting that farming is economically viable and there are opportunities for agritourism. o Recommend maintaining the open space and scenic drive into town to attract people, especially young families, to live or visit Arlington. • Flooding is a key issue. Concerns about expanding development in floodplain areas could further impact adjacent farmlands. Flooding has become more frequent and costly for farmers. o Consider culvert improvements or other flooding mitigation approach o Toby S. shared flood images noting that, “water has never been this high to the house since the Pilot went in.” https://imgur.com/a/pqJM0AU • Discourage eastward expansion on Snohomish County agricultural land, citing irreplaceable soils and threat to food production, and in respect of Stillaguamish Tribe land • Concerns about inadequate infrastructure, particularly roads, underscore the need to improve traffic management to reduce congestion • Stresses the importance of balancing infrastructure and development with a realistic approach to flood risk. • Opposing views on additional truck stops. Some committee members note the lack of interest from other types of businesses in coming to Island Crossing, while others express the importance of prioritizing farmland conservation and existing fueling and service stations are sufficient. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan ADVISORY GROUP 1 – TRANSPORTATION B-15 Evaluation Criteria • General support of the evaluation criteria with added considerations for truck/pedestrian compatibility, park and ride opportunities, and environmental health, particularly salmon habitat, which is a significant concern for the Stillaguamish Tribe. Transportation Options • Slow traffic to improve safety and reduce collisions which can be achieved through the proposed median and roundabout design • Include driveways for the undeveloped lots north of SR 530 to provide connectivity with future development. • Park and Ride. One committee member expresses the need to extend transit service from Smokey Point with a transit center or park and ride option. There’s opposition to making Island Crossing resemble a transit hub (i.e., Smoke Point) and suggests parking facilities are not viable investments to generate revenue • Roundabout Design. Ensure roundabouts are designed with softer curve to accommodate freight traffic and farm equipment and include appropriate marking/signage to reduce confusion at roundabouts o Some view the existing roundabout at 59th are poorly constructed, being narrow and too small, causing backups to Island Crossing. • Shared Path. Questioning the need for a large, shared path since there are not many pedestrians or cyclists in the area. • Elevate Roads. Raising the road could divert water to farmlands, necessitating the expansion of channels/culverts to manage water exit, which may impact both farmland and residents. • Flood Management. Need to address flooding concerns to plan traffic flow effectively. o Although opening the slough (purple arrow) by removing gravel within the channel has been cited as a successful flood mitigation measure in the past, it may not solve the flooding issue within Island Crossing. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan ADVISORY GROUP 2 – LAND USE B-16 Advisory Group 2 – Land Use September 11, 2024 | 11:30am-1pm Meeting Objectives: • Recap Advisory Group 1 • Evaluate land use and flood options Attendees City: Marc Hayes, Amy Rusko, Raelynn Jones, Consultant Team: Rachel Miller, Queenie Gipaya, Jeff Parsons, Cassie Byerly Advisory Committee: Brian Kooy, Santosh Kumar, Christie Strotz Jacobs, Trevor Strotz, Toby Strotz, Debbie Strotz, Evan Russel, Andrew Albert, Linda Neunzig, Dave Nelson, Kory Glove Flooding • Discussion on the effectiveness and environmental impact of river channel dredging highlighted significant negative effects on salmon habitats, concluding that dredging is not a viable long-term solution. • There is potential to incorporate culvert improvements on SR 530 into a broader set of WSDOT facility upgrades. As traffic increases and flooding issues worsen, WSDOT will likely need to address flooding along SR 530 to maintain road safety and capacity. • One participant expressed interest in reopening the South Slough east channels where the Stillaguamish River bends near SR 530. o Snohomish County personnel noted that this area is still owned and maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, meaning their approval would be required. It would be a larger undertaking than any current Arlington capital projects and could potentially affect property owners near the channel and the South Slough. Compensatory Storage Poll and Discussion • Interest in compensatory storage north of the subarea in unincorporated Snohomish County (flood mitigation option B) (7 pins) and in the southern tip of the subarea (4 pins), but discussion revealed that most participants don’t want it on farmland. The mapping was anonymous, so it’s unclear if any of the pins placed up north represented those particular property owners’ views. (Though we can guess that 3 of the pins up there are the real estate agent’s.) • No pins were placed on our option C area. • No pins were placed to the east, even though one participant really wanted to add the South Slough and its upstream connections to the options. Jeff and Evan cited reasons why this would be very complicated. (see Flooding notes above) City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan ADVISORY GROUP 2 – LAND USE B-17 • Several participants seemed to lean toward letting each property owner figure out their mitigation on their own. Land Use Poll and Discussion • There appeared to be alignment around the following (participants were allowed to place up to 3 pins on a map for each use we asked about; we had 8 participants, so up to 24 pins total were possible for each use): o Strongest interest in agritourism, mostly in the north/northeastern area (17 pins) o Strong interest in hotel, evenly spread the length of SR 530 (13 pins) – no comments about height (showed image up to 9 stories) o Interest in recreational uses, mostly in the north/northeastern area (10 pins) o Interest in restaurants, especially along SR 530 (9 pins) o Interest in retail, grocery, and service (strip mall) along SR 530, especially near I-5 (8 pins) o Modest interest in allowing car dealerships north of SR 530 and in the southern tip (7 pins) o Minimal interest in truck stops, but all north of SR 530 (4 pins, 3 of which were from 1 participant) City staff noted that Pilot got a special use permit for convenience store, gas station, and private parking. Truck stops are currently not a permitted use in IC as private parking is not allowed. Other Discussion • Discussions are ongoing with the Snohomish County Farmland Preservation group regarding strategies to preserve agricultural land. Previous efforts, such as the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) pilot in Arlington, have not been successful. • There is support for promoting agritourism and/or recreational developments near SR 530, as these initiatives are seen as having the least damaging impact on the land and surrounding areas, while offering economic benefits. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan B-18 Transportation Technical Group 2 November 5, 2024 | 1 – 2:30 pm Meeting Objectives: • Refine SR530 concept design evaluation • Confirm and refine preferred option • Identify further information needs Attendees: Marc Hayes, Amy Rusko, Raelynn Jones, Rachel Miller, Queenie Gipaya, Stefanie Herzstein, Erin Routledge Chris Simmons - Community Transit, Dawn Anderson - WSDOT Evan Russel - Snohomish County • Raising SR 530 is preferred, as it allows for smoother grade transitions compared to frontage roads. • Frontage roads are challenging to implement incrementally through redevelopment, making them less feasible over time. City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea Plan B-19 • Coordinate with the Smokey Point design to ensure views are preserved. • Roadside vendors have a lot of driveway space. Explore how to co-locate use with driveway consolidation and redevelopment • Include a well-marked for pedestrian safety. • All designs fall under and should align with their standards. • Raise public awareness about flooding and safety risks, and incorporate proofing to address increasing flood risk. Vegetation • Include a with low-profile plantings visibility and safety. • Select to protect views Roundabout • Roundabout alignment may need to shift to , which could increase maintenance complexity. • Construct the for greater efficiency • Roundabouts will help calm traffic and support a target speed of 35 mph. • Design roundabouts to Appendices ·October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan C-1 Appendix C: Major Concepts Options Evaluation October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-2 Island Crossing Major Concepts Evaluation The following concepts explore potential approaches to SR 530 design, land use, and flood mitigation. Each concept is developed and evaluated based on community priorities identified through public outreach and input from the Advisory Group and Technical Advisory Group. Concept Options The options below were explored as part of the evaluation process. Preferred options are marked with a star ( ). SR 530 Conceptual Design Options • Option 1: Frontage Roads • Option 2: Consolidated Driveways Land Use Options • Option 1: Current Zoning • Option 2: Limit Allowed Uses • Option 3: Limit Allowed Uses plus Incentives for Community Vision Flood Mitigation Approach • Option 1: Properties address individually • Option 2: Regional storage on farmland near river • Option 3: Regional storage within Subarea • Other Options Considered o Option 4: Reconnect South Slough o Option 5: Pape compensatory storage Evaluation Criteria • Protect life and property from flooding hazards • Support viability of surrounding agricultural lands • Promote a safe, well-connected multimodal transportation system • Celebrate the scenic landscape • Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity • Enhance the natural environment’s health • Comprehensive Plan consistency • Implementability October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-3 SR 530 Conceptual Design Options Option 1. Frontage Roads Two-lane highway with single lane roundabouts at the intersection of I-5 and SR 530 and near Pilot (avoids gas pipeline and low point and provides access to Pilot). Single lane frontage roads on both sides, except east of second roundabout on the south side. Consolidate driveways. Travel lanes (and frontage roads) could be elevated. Buffered shared use paths on both sides. October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-4 October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-5 Option 2. Consolidated Driveways (Preferred) Two-lane highway with right-turn pockets to access driveways; business entrances could be consolidated. This concept includes a series of roundabouts, a buffered shared use path on both sides, and a median with pedestrian refuges. The channel/culvert could be moved to connect to southern compensatory storage area. (Buildings would be allowed to develop to the front lot line, i.e., no front setback required.) October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-6 October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-7 Evaluation Key considerations are in bold. Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Frontage Roads Option 2. Consolidated Driveways Pros Cons/Considerations Pros Cons/Considerations Protect life and property from flooding hazards Roadway improvements would include culvert upsizing under SR 530. Raising of SR 530 travel lanes would remove them improvement would include culvert upsizing under SR 530. Raising of SR 530 travel lanes would remove them Allows for elevation transitions to properties if SR 530 is elevated Support viability of surrounding agricultural lands All improvements will occur within existing WSDOT right-of-way and will not require acquisition from adjacent parcels. Design will accommodate farm vehicles and will occur within existing WSDOT right-of-way and will not require acquisition from adjacent parcels Design will accommodate farm vehicles and freight. businesses east of the three- pronged roundabout or on private property Promote a safe, well- connected, multimodal transportation system Eliminates driveway conflicts along SR 530 and reduces conflicts related to turning to improve safety. Provides separate Likely a need to provide some midblock crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bikes. Results in essentially right- in/right-out access for businesses. Would need to consider truck turning conflicts related to driveways along SR 530. Improves I-5 interchange traffic operations. Likely a need to provide some midblock crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bikes. If there is a center median down the corridor then access will essentially be right-in/right- out access for businesses. October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-8 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Frontage Roads Option 2. Consolidated Driveways Pros Cons/Considerations Pros Cons/Considerations bikes. Improves I-5 interchange traffic operations. Improves operations for through traffic along the corridor. movements for frontage road transitions. facilities for pedestrians and bikes. Makes it easier to cross as a pedestrian. site connectivity (alley connections) on back side of properties. Celebrate the scenic landscape Potential to add center median landscaping to complement natural scenery center median landscaping to complement natural scenery Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access Improves transportation access Improves transportation access Enhance the natural environment’s health Less impervious surface area than Comp Plan consistency Implementability Hard to implement piecemeal over time with redevelopment given the grade changes. WSDOT would not want to transition grade between varying properties. Consider development incentives for driveway consolidation October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-9 Land Use Options Option 1. Current Zoning Continue to allow all currently permitted uses, plus truck stops (no longer a permissible use because of private parking limitation). This option assumes the job growth shown in Snohomish County’s Buildable Lands Report. October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-10 Option 2. Limit Allowed Uses In response to community interests, limit allowed uses to retail, restaurant, grocery, agri- and recreational tourism, and recreation throughout, plus hotels close to I-5. October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-11 Option 3. Limit Allowed Uses plus Incentives for Community Vision (with updates, Preferred) Limit allowed uses like in Option 2 and use public-private partnerships or other strategies to fill the financing gap for agritourism or recreational uses. Height: Generally 50’ height limit; Zone B hotels allowed height is 100’ Design Standards: Zone C will follow the Citywide Design Standards. Island Crossing Design Standards will only apply to Zone A and B. Topics to be explored: - Farm theme - Intersite connectivity October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-12 Evaluation Key considerations are in bold. Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Current Zoning Option 2. Limit Allowed Uses plus Incentives for Community property from flooding hazards During flood events, commercial property at risk. If long-term truck parking is engaged by a flood, trucks may float away and endanger others. During flood events, commercial property at risk Pairing compensatory storage with public private partnerships for public benefits (as outlined in the subarea plan) creates the greatest potential for a proactive, regional flood mitigation During flood events, smaller areas of commercial property at risk; recreational and/or agritourism fields at risk. Support viability of surrounding agricultural lands Potential for agriculture- supportive land uses, such as: • Agricultural- related retail (e.g., North 40) would be required to treat stormwater before draining to agricultural land and mitigate flooding impacts. Same as Option 1.Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1, plus PPP and other strategies increase the viability of agritourism, further Same as Option 1, but slightly less risk of flooding impacts due to lesser intensity development. October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-13 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Current Zoning Option 2. Limit Allowed Uses plus Incentives for Community • Farm-to- table or similar restaurants • Hotels to support agritourism • Roadside farm stand nearby agriculture. Promote a safe, well-connected, multimodal transportation system Allows for a greater intensity of uses than exists today, which could increase walking/biking between uses if sites are designed to encourage this travel. increase in trucks accessing the area with truck stop uses, which increases vehicle and human conflicts with trucks. More auto - oriented uses like truck stop could encourage driving between sites even for short trips depending on the location of the truck stop uses and connectivity Small reduction in overall vehicle traffic along the corridor. Reduction in trucks turning to/from driveways by eliminating the ability to provide truck stops (reduces conflicts with trucks). Provides a balance of supportive land uses that will likely encourage walking between sites rather than driving. Some uses would continue to be more auto-oriented; site designs will need to consider connectivity to encourage walking/biking rather than driving between uses. Same as Option 2 Same as Option 2 October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-14 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Current Zoning Option 2. Limit Allowed Uses plus Incentives for Community between other uses. scenic landscape Hotels could make use of the scenic views. redevelopment under any alternative could block existing views, SR 530 corridor design and IC design standards could transform the area’s current highway feel into a more human- scaled, comfortable atmosphere that celebrates the Stillaguamish River scenic views and setting. Hotels could make use of the scenic views. Barring truck stops throughout, limiting hotels to close to I-5, and limiting car dealerships to the southern area away from SR 530 may reduce view conflicts along SR 530 looking east. Same as Option 1 Same as Option 2, plus potential for lower intensity agritourism or recreational development to maintain and celebrate the natural setting. Meets City goals for parkland in each subarea. Same as Option 1 Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity Continues to allow uses, such as hotels, truck stops, and regional commercial, Like Option 1, allows a mix of uses that benefit from excellent highway access, but the non-truck stop focus leans into the Same as Option 2, Although this option encourages more tourism- related and October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-15 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Current Zoning Option 2. Limit Allowed Uses plus Incentives for Community that can benefit from excellent highway access and proximity to the Cascade Industrial Area Stillaguamish Valley setting rather than the Cascade Industrial Area proximity. uses, supportive of local agricultural economy. Direct connection between farmers and natural environment’s health More single purpose commercial/auto- oriented uses could encourage greater vehicular trips. Inundation of truck/vehicle parking areas contributes to pollution. As development increases, so does the expansion of impervious surfaces, which, potential for reducing/shortening vehicle trips depending on proximity of destinations (e.g., grocery store near gas station) and site connectivity/design. recreational tourism uses would likely have smaller impervious surface areas and could include floodable areas. Impacts of agri and recreational development are dependent on site design and materials (e.g., synthetic rec field materials could be problematic in flood events). October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-16 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Current Zoning Option 2. Limit Allowed Uses plus Incentives for Community without mitigation, impacts stormwater runoff quality, quantity, and speed, vegetation and tree canopy, urban heat islands, and flooding. Comp Plan consistency Meets the 20 - year (2044) employment target for the subarea. Same as Option 1.Slightly lower employment capacity than Options 1 and 2. Implementability Truck stops are a low- hanging fruit. Slightly harder to implement with less developer interest in regional commercial than truck stops implement; requires greater City funding and property owner coordination for joint development October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-17 Flood Mitigation Approach Option 1. Properties address individually No regional compensatory storage approach. Option 2. Regional storage on farmland near river Lower agricultural land to develop regional compensatory storage* in unincorporated Snohomish County north of the subarea. Option 3. Regional storage within subarea (Preferred) Utilize Skelton Trust parcel north of SR 530 and improve culvert to connect to existing Pilot compensatory storage. At a minimum, this regional storage facility* would likely protect properties in the northwestern portion of the subarea, and with greater effort, may be able to protect more of the subarea. *Regional storage facilities could include parkland, either recreational fields or natural areas, and a small, elevated area for a playground or other year-round use. If on un-incorporated County agricultural land, the intent would be to remain agricultural, pending viability with increased flood risk. year flood map Science and Engineering, 2022. -added diagram: •Blue dashed line: ideal area for potential storage •Blue arrows: ideal places to connect water flows •Orange hatch: Pilot area elevated after modeling October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-18 Other options considered • Option 4. Reconnect South Slough across SR 530 – This option is complicated because it would likely require the construction of two new large bridges and increase flooding on farmland all along the South Slough, especially west of I-5 where property owners would otherwise not be directly impacted by the project. The I-5 culvert may also need to be upsized. • Option 5. Pape compensatory storage area east of subarea – would not address flooding in bulk of subarea Evaluation Key considerations are in bold. Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Properties address individually Option 2. Regional storage on farmland near river Option 3. Regional storage within subarea Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations Protect life and property from flooding hazards actions tend to be less effective Separates developed and undeveloped Better integration of flood protection with overall plan Support viability of surrounding agricultural lands Likely impacts viability of adjacent agricultural lands because of the inefficacy of piecemeal actions Does not – likely impacts to farmland More effective at controlling flood impacts well-connected, multimodal transportation system Likely piecemeal actions will interrupt traffic flow and circulation due developed and undeveloped uses, would allow for more streamlined of flood control with overall plan and multimodal system October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-19 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Properties address individually Option 2. Regional storage on farmland near river Option 3. Regional storage within subarea Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations different timelines for SR 530 cross section Celebrate the scenic landscape Generally piecemeal actions are Likely no effect if ag lands remain viable If properly designed and located, yes. Floodable recreational fields or natural areas would aesthetically fit in the landscape. Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity Likely would impact the ability of small parcels to address flood issues It would by separating developed and undeveloped areas would integrate necessary flood protection into plan. Floodable recreational fields or natural areas would bolster the subarea as a gateway into the valley’s agricultural and recreational tourism. October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-20 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Properties address individually Option 2. Regional storage on farmland near river Option 3. Regional storage within subarea Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations Enhance the natural environment’s health disconnects habitats Does not because it would limit off- channel habitat dependent on design Comp Plan consistency Consistent Impacts to adjacent ag lands is inconsistent, though within the City, limited Consistent Implementability Easiest Needs willing property owners. Financially viable option for property owners. Selling severely encumbered land for a regional floodwater facility is likely more lucrative than selling it for the limited development that would be allowed. Also, a small portion of the site could be used for a commercial use. Challenging from a coordination perspective. Requires significant planning. Needs willing property owner. October 14, 2024 Island Crossing Subarea Plan | Major Concepts Evaluation C-21 Evaluation Criteria Option 1. Properties address individually Option 2. Regional storage on farmland near river Option 3. Regional storage within subarea Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations Pros Cons/ Considerations RCO funds are likely for this site with its fish habitat. Appendices ·October 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan D-1 Appendix D: Zoning and Development Standard Recommendations Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 1 October 2025 Chapter 20.119 ISLAND CROSSING SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sections: Part I: Island Crossing General Standards 20.119.010 Purpose and Intent 20.119.020 General Requirements and Applicability 20.119.030 Zoning Designations 20.119.040 Permissible Uses 20.119.050 Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards 20.119.060 Street Design Standards 20.119.070 Parking Standards 20.119.080 Landscaping Standards 20.119.090 Flooding and Compensatory Storage Part II: Island Crossing Design Standards 20.119.100 Interpretation 20.119.110 Island Crossing Theme: Farm & Agrarian Design Set in Stillaguamish Valley Site Planning 20.119.120 Relationship to Street Front 20.119.130 Building Orientation 20.119.140 Blank Walls Vehicular Access and Parking 20.119.150 Internal Roadways 20.119.160 Vehicular Entrances and Driveways 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design Pedestrian Access, Amenities, and Open Space 20.119.180 Internal Pedestrian Network 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces Building Design 20.119.200 Architectural Style and Character 20.119.210 Building Corners 20.119.220 Building Material D-2 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 2 October 2025 Part I. Island Crossing General Standards 20.119.010 – Purpose and Intent. Island Crossing is an 87-acre area in northwest Arlington, well-connected to the region and the economic centers of Old Town and the Cascade Industrial Center, and a gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley and Snohomish County's agricultural lands. It has the potential to be a celebrated, safe, and unique gateway to Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley and play a vital role in the region's commercial, agritourism, and outdoor recreation economies. The intent of this chapter is to implement the vision for Island Crossing as provided in the adopted Island Crossing Subarea Plan and ensure that redevelopment contributes to the following goals: (a) Support the viability of surrounding agricultural lands by managing the floodplain, allowing for farmstands, and guiding development into an agriculture-oriented business hub. (b) Promote a safe, well-connected, multimodal transportation system. (c) Celebrate the scenic landscape by: (1) Enhancing Island Crossing’s identity as a gateway into Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley. (2) Preserving, enhancing, and/or creating community-valued views of the Stillaguamish Valley, Snohomish County's agricultural lands, and the Cascade Mountains. (d) Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity through allowances for desired commercial businesses and design standards for a vibrant, human-oriented environment. (e) Enhance the natural environment through floodplain management, green stormwater management (e.g., raingardens, bioretention), and green building and site design. 20.119.020 – General Requirements and Applicability. (a) This chapter establishes specific regulations for development within the Island Crossing Subarea consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. Where a conflict exists between this chapter and other sections of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Title 20 – Zoning, the provisions of this chapter take precedence. For all other topics not specifically addressed herein, the applicable standards of AMC Title 20 shall continue to apply. (b) Part I Island Crossing General Standards apply to the Island Crossing-1 (IC-1), Island Crossing-2 (IC-2), and Island Crossing-3 (IC-3) zones. (See Figure 1 Island Crossing Zoning Map for subdistricts boundaries) (c) Part II Island Crossing Design Standards apply to properties within IC-1 and IC-2 zones. Development within the IC-3 zone is subject to the citywide Development Design Standards. (d) Extension or Enlargement of Nonconforming Situations shall follow the regulations established under AMC Chapter 20.32.030, with the following exception: (1) A gas or fueling station that existed prior to the adoption of these regulations may be fully redeveloped on the same lot (no changes to lot size) if the purpose of the improvements is to construct a new building structure outside of the floodplain. (e) Repair, Maintenance and Reconstruction shall follow the regulations established under AMC Chapter 20.32.040, with the following exception: (1) A gas or fueling station that existed prior to the adoption of these regulations may replace, repair, or reconstruct fuel pumps, islands, and canopies following the original construction design or an updated design with a building permit. D-3 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 3 October 2025 20.119.030 – Zoning Designations. Island Crossing includes three subdistricts, IC-1, IC-2, and IC-3, each with unique regulations. These distinctions set a framework for nuanced development that can meet both community goals and regional needs. (a) The Island Crossing-1 (IC-1) zone is established to accommodate highway-oriented commercial activities near the I-5 and SR 530 interchange to cater to commuters, tourists, and commerce and improve the human environment and connectivity along existing and future streets. (b) The Island Crossing-2 (IC-2) zone is established to promote low-intensity commercial activities, including agri-commercial ventures such as farm-to-table restaurants and farm equipment stores. This zone also allows public and semi-public uses. IC-2 is intended to support a well-connected, people-friendly, vibrant community hub that enhances the local economy and recreational opportunities. (c) The Island Crossing-3 (IC-3) zone is established to accommodate general commercial to support the regional economy, such as car and heavy equipment sales/rentals and renewable energy facilities. It is intended to be a flexible zone following the citywide development design standards. (d) Zone boundaries are shown in Figure 1 Island Crossing Zoning Map. D-4 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 4 October 2025 Figure 1 Island Crossing Zoning Map D-5 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 5 October 2025 20.119.040 – Permissible Uses. (a) The purpose of this section is to establish the uses generally permitted in each zone which are compatible with the purpose and other uses allowed within the zone. All project and/or developments are required to meet all provisions listed in AMC 20.40.020 - 100. (b) Island Crossing Table of Permissible Uses. Z = Zoning Permit ZSC = Zoning, Special Use or Conditional Use Use Descriptions 1,2 Cultural, Social, or Fraternal Uses Art Galley or Center ZS ZS ZS Museum ZS ZS ZS Social, Fraternal Clubs and Lodges, Union ZS ZS ZS 3 Industry, Manufacturing, Processing, Repairing, Renovating, Assembly of Goods, Brewery, Distillery, Craft Beverage Production with Tasting Room or Restaurant (No Drive-ZS ZS Motor Vehicle-Related Sales and Service D-6 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 6 October 2025 Use Descriptions 1,2 Car Wash ZS ZS Electric Vehicle Infrastructure 4 Painting and Body Work with No Storage of ZS Repair and Maintenance, Not Including Substantial Body Work, and No Storage of ZS Sales with Installation of Motor Vehicle Parts Commercial Greenhouse with On-Premises Z Z Z D-7 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 7 October 2025 Use Descriptions 1,2 Fire Stations ZS ZS ZS Military Reserve, National Guard Centers ZS ZS ZS Police Stations ZS ZS ZS Post Office ZS ZS ZS Public Parking Lot or Parking Garage ZS ZS ZS Rescue Squad, Ambulance Service ZS ZS ZS Special Events 5 Outdoor Recreation: Athletic Fields, Tennis Courts, Miniature Golf Courses, Skateboard Indoor Recreation: Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Indoor Tennis and Squash Courts, Billiards and Pool Halls, Indoor Athletic and ZS ZS ZS Hotels, motels, and similar businesses or institutions providing overnight ZSC Carry-Out and Delivery Service; No Drive- Thru Service; Consumption Outside Fully ZS ZS ZS Carry-Out and Delivery Service; Drive-Thru Service; Service or Consumption Outside Fully ZS ZS ZS No Substantial Carry-Out or Delivery Service; No Drive-Thru Service; Service or Consumption Inside or Outside Fully Enclosed ZS ZS ZS D-8 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 8 October 2025 Use Descriptions 1,2 Retail Trade – No Outside Storage of Goods 6 Sales / Rentals Incidental to a Non-Retail 7 ZS ZS ZS Retail Trade – Outside Storage of Goods and 8 4 9 Footnotes of Island Crossing Table of Permissible Uses 1 Subject to Section 20.38.080 – Performance Standards and Miscellaneous Restrictions 2 Subject to Section 20.38.070 – Restrictions on Certain Use Classifications on Arlington Airport Property 3 Subject to Section 20.44 Part II – Land Clearing, Grading, Filling and Excavation and Chapter 20.80 Forest Land Conversion D-9 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 9 October 2025 4 Subject to Section 20.114 – Alternative Energy Systems and Technologies 5 Subject to Chapter 5.44 – Parades, Athletic Events and other Special Events 6 Only allowed within existing residential uses and subject to Section 20.44.082 – Home Occupations 7 Subject to Section 20.40.050 Accessory Uses 8 Subject to Section 20.44.080 – Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Mobile Sales and Delivery 9 Subject to Section 20.44.034 – Wireless Communications Facilities 20.119.050 – Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards. (a)The Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards table addresses the form and intensity of development specific to individual zones. See 20.119.170 (d) Figure 12 for lot diagram examples, illustrating setbacks requirements. (b)AMC Chapter 20.48 provides clarification and exceptions to the density and dimensional standards outlined in 20.119.050 (g). (c)Building Setback Requirements. Locate development in IC-1 and IC-2, \adjacent, as feasible, to the sidewalk(s). Development in IC-3 may be located in the best location on the site for the type of use proposed. (d)Building Height Limitation. Hotels or other similar overnight lodging within IC-2 zone shall be 100 feet tall or less. (e)Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards Table. Zone Minimum Lot Size and Width Building Setback Requirements – Minimum Distance, in feet, from: Non-Arterial Street Right- of-Way1 Line Arterial Street Right- of-Way1 Line Rear Lot Boundary Line Side Lot Boundary Line or Alley ECA Buffer Bu i l d i n g Bu i l d i n g Building Building and Freestanding Sign IC-1 02 0-103 5 0-254 5 5 5 15 506 100 IC-2 02 0-103 5 0-254 5 5 5 15 50 100 IC-3 02 05 5 05 5 5 5 15 50 100 Footnotes of Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards. 1 As used in this table, “right-of-way” means the street’s ultimate right-of-way according to its classification, not existing, actual right-of-way. 2 A “0” in this column means that there is no minimum parcel size or width required. One can subdivide into as small of lots as one wants, as long as a permissible use can fit on the lot while meeting the rest of the requirements of this code (e.g., parking, landscaping, screening, setbacks, drainage, etc.). 3 Buildings may be set further from right-of-way if providing a pedestrian-oriented space (see XXX) between the sidewalk and the building front. 4 Exception: Buildings may locate further from an arterial when orienting to a non-arterial. 5 A “0” in this column means that there are no minimum or maximum setbacks from the right-of-way line 6 Maximum height limit for hotels or similar overnight lodging is 100 feet. D-10 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 10 October 2025 20.119.060 – Street Design Standards. New street regulations are established to enhance Island Crossing inter-site connectivity and support the development envisioned within the subarea. Required new street and through-block connections are to be built by developers as development occurs. (a)New streets are required: (1)To meet the Public Works Design and Construction Standards. (2)To meet all sections of AMC 20.56, unless otherwise adjusted within these standards. (b)Authority to require dedication. If a right-of-way abutting the applicable site has inadequate width, the applicant will dedicate a portion of the subject property for the required right-of-way widening. In some instances, due to road alignment needs, more right-of way may be required from one side of a street than the other. (c)Provide inter-site connectivity per Figure 2 Street Network below. Specific alignments for new or extended street connections and through-block connections will be developed during the development review process for applicable sites Note that Figure 2 Street is different than the Figure 8 block frontages designation map in AMC 20.119.120 Relationship to Street Front. The street type designations and standards regulate the design of the roadway, sidewalks, and planting strips within the right-of-way. Block-frontage designations and standards set forth in in AMC 20.119.120 regulate the development frontages, which includes the building and associated site development that occur within the property boundary. Figure 2 Street Network Note: The dashed lines indicate proposed street or connection conceptual locations. Applicants may propose (d)Maximum block length. New developments on large sites (over 2 acres) are to facilitate good pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Specifically, blocks are to be designed to provide publicly accessible pedestrian and/or vehicular connections at intervals no greater than indicated in AMC 20.119.060(e) by zone. D-11 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 11 October 2025 (1) Vehicular connections shall be designed as shown in AMC 20.119.060 (f). (2) Pedestrian or shared connections shall be designed to comply with one of the three types of through- block connections shown in AMC 20.119.060 (g). (e) Maximum Block Face and Perimeter Length Table. Zone IC-1 300 1,200 IC-2 400 1,800 Maximum block dimensions example Each block face A, B, C, and D must meet the maximum block face length standard. The maximum block perimeter is determined by the cumulative block face lengths (A+B+C+D). Before/After Adjustments to the dimensional standards in AMC 20.119.060 (e) are allowed with Director approval for up to 25%, or adjust the type and design of vehicular and/or pedestrian connection provided the design meets the Subarea Plan’s goals and policies. For example, to compensate for larger block sizes, the quality of on- site pedestrian connections should exceed the minimum requirements. The Director may also approve a departure from the dimensional standards in AMC 20.119.060 (e) where topography, right-of-way, uses that require large site/building footprints, existing construction or physical conditions, or other geographic conditions prevent compliance or impose an unusual hardship on the applicant, provided the proposed design maximizes pedestrian and vehicular connectivity on the site given the constraints. (f) Streetscape Classifications. Figure 2 Street Network above illustrates the configuration of three classifications for planned streets in the Subarea. Subsections 1-3 below provide the regulation for each streetscape type. D-12 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 12 October 2025 Adjustments to the streetscape classifications regulation in subsections 1-3 below and the street cross sections are allowed with Director approval provided the design meets the Subarea Plan’s goals and policies (1)Arterial Streets. This includes SR 530, a high-traffic corridor that serves as a gateway to the subarea and into Arlington. As redevelopment occurs, it is expected to accommodate a growing number of pedestrians. Internal streets and driveways will be designed and constructed at grade with the elevated SR 530 to ensure vehicular and pedestrian accessibility. Figure 3 below illustrates the concept for SR 530 improvement. Design will be determined by Public Works in consultation with WSDOT to ensure compliance with applicable standards (e.g., flood and stormwater compliance). (Note, though Smokey Point Blvd is an arterial, its design is addressed through the Smokey Point Blvd improvement project outside of these design standards.) Figure 3 Cross-section options for SR 530 D-13 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 13 October 2025 (2) High Priority Streets. High Priority Streets are intended to function as the Subarea’s primary commercial center street and are subject to AMC 20.119.150 Internal Roadways. Back-in angled parking, landscape strips, or sidewalk is acceptable in place of parallel parking, subject to approval. Figure 4 below illustrates optional streetscape cross sections. Figure 4 Cross-section options for High Priority Streets Require landscape strips to function as green stormwater infrastructure unless applicant shows stormwater is managed elsewhere more efficiently and with a cohesive site design. See AMC 20.119.120 Relationship to Street Front, (1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths for areas where wider sidewalks/landscape are required. D-14 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 14 October 2025 (3)Other Streets. These streets are designed to be pedestrian-friendly corridors that support commercial and retail uses and are regulated under AMC 20.119.150 Internal Roadways. Figure 5 illustrates a standard cross-section option for Other Streets. Figure 5 D-15 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 15 October 2025 (g) Through-block connection types. Figure 2 Street Network above illustrates several “through-block connections” intended to improve pedestrian circulation, provide optional vehicular access to on-site parking, enhance site design, and break up building mass along long blocks. Specific alignments for the through- block connections will be developed during the development review process for applicable sites. These connections may take any of the forms described in the subsections below. A mix of connection types may be used for each location. (1) Woonerf. Woonerf is a shared lane, creating a low-speed, pedestrian-focused environment. (A) 30-foot minimum public access easement. (B) 20-foot wide two-way travel lane featuring asphalt, concrete, unit paving, or other similar decorative and durable surface material. (C) 10-foot minimum landscape areas Figure 6 Cross-section of minimum regulations for a woonerf design through-block connection. (2) Alley. The traditional alley design option is permitted on blocks featuring storefronts. (A) 25-foot minimum public access easement. (B) 20-foot wide two-way travel lane featuring asphalt, concrete, unit paving, or other similar decorative and durable surface material. (C) A total of 5-foot buffer should be provided for separation and clearance. (D) Alleys may be closed to traffic during non-delivery hours to allow for outdoor seating or other flexible uses. Use bollards or street furniture to define shared space and minimize conflicts between users. D-16 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 16 October 2025 Figure 7 Cross-section of minimum regulations for alley design through-block connection. Right image source: NACTO (h)Pathways. Pedestrian-only access connecting entries and public streets or parks. These pathways typically include trail or wide sidewalks with landscaping and other pedestrian-friendly features such as lighting and seating. Pathways can overlap with AMC 20.119.120(b)(1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths and AMC 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (A)Include planting strips to improve the pedestrian environment. These may consist of continuous landscaped areas or tree pits integrated into the pavement, designed to accommodate both vegetation and pedestrian flow. 20.119.070 – Parking Standards. Applicants must comply with AMC 20.72 Parking, except minimum parking space shall contain a rectangular area at least 18 feet long and 8 feet wide (modification to 20.72.030 – Parking space dimensions). Also see AMC 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design. 20.119.080 – Landscaping Standards. Applicants must comply with AMC 20.76 Screening and Trees. Street trees along SR 530 are to be planted closer to the sidewalk to preserve views of the Cascade Mountain Range and provide shade for pedestrians. 20.119.090 – Flooding and Compensatory Storage. Applicants must comply with AMC 20.64 Floodplain Development Regulations. Once a regional facility and fee structure are adopted, individual properties may apply to participate in the regional system and be relieved of on- site storage requirements, subject to City approval and fee payment. D-17 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 17 October 2025 Part II. Island Crossing Design Standards 20.119.100 – Interpretation (a) Purpose statements are overarching objectives. For example, one of the purpose statements for the sub- section on Building Orientations is “to create pedestrian-friendly frontages that support a safe and active streetscape.” (b) Standards use words such as “must”, “shall”, “is/are required”, or “is/are prohibited” and signify required actions. Provisions that use words such as “should” or “is/are recommended” to signify voluntary measures (c) Departures may be allowed for specific standards. They allow alternative designs provided the Director or City Planner determines the resulting design and overall development meets the “purpose” of the standards and other applicable criteria. Departure opportunities are signaled by the capitalized word DEPARTURE. 20.119.110 – Island Crossing Theme: Farm and Agrarian Design Set in Stillaguamish Valley. The Stillaguamish and Tulalip Tribes have called the Stillaguamish Valley home for millennia. More recently, pioneers began farming in the area in the late 19th century, shaping a strong agricultural identity that remains central to the area today. Farms and agricultural operations remain the primary land use in the Stillaguamish Valley region surrounding Island Crossing. The Island Crossing Design Standards supplement the City of Arlington’s citywide Development Design Standards. These guidelines establish a design framework that reflects the area’s agricultural heritage, leverages transportation improvements, creates more pedestrian-oriented spaces, and encourages people-friendly, human- scaled, and high-quality development. (a) Purpose (1) To reinforce and honor the Island Crossing agricultural heritage. (2) To enhance Island Crossing’s role as a welcoming gateway. (b) Developers are encouraged to draw inspiration from the Stillaguamish Valley’s agricultural history and rural context when designing buildings, public spaces, and streetscapes. The following elements help maintain Island Crossing’s distinct identity: (1) Farm and Agrarian Theme: Designs must honor the region’s setting in the Stillaguamish Valley by incorporating elements inspired by farm structures and landscapes. See AMC 20.119.200 Architectural Style and Character for requirements. (2) Celebration and Preservation of Views: Island Crossing offers expansive views of farmland and the Cascade Mountains, which are integral to the visual identity of the area. Development is encouraged to frame, preserve, and enhance these views. (A) Vantage points: Orient buildings and public spaces to take advantage of views from key sightlines. Consider views from a driver/passenger viewpoint in the street and a pedestrian on a sidewalk or path. Locate and design features such as open space, plazas, and transparent facades that open up sightlines toward the mountains and valley. Key view may be: (1) Views on SR 530 looking eastward close to I-5 (2) New views in larger developments looking northwards towards the agricultural fields (3) Eastwards and northeastward views on the eastern half of the Subarea to agricultural lands and mountains (B) Trees and landscape species selection: Select species for height and canopy shape to preserve, enhance, and frame key views. D-18 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 18 October 2025 (c) Trees and landscaping: Use trees and vegetation to soften the visual appearance of paving and building edges and walls, enhance public spaces, frame key views, provide shade, and manage stormwater. (See AMC 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design, 20.119.080 Landscaping Standards, and 20.119.060 Street Design Standards ) Site Planning The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design 2.2 Screening Blank Walls and Retaining Walls, 5.2 Orienting the Building to the Street, 10.1 Articulation and Modulation, 10.2 Architectural Scale, 11.3 Entries, and 14.1 Site and Building Design. 20.119.120 – Relationship to Street Front. (a) Purpose (1) To create an active and safe pedestrian environment by encouraging development to orient towards the street. (2) To ensure new development integrates pedestrian friendly frontages and public spaces that promote street- level activity and walkability (b) Figure 8 Block Frontage Type designates select frontage segments as Pedestrian-Oriented Paths (orange) and Signature Roads (blue) to guide site design and building orientation. These designations enhance the property’s visibility, attractiveness, and interaction with its adjoining streetscape and building, creating an active pedestrian environment in key designated areas. Note the difference between the block frontage type map and proposed street network map. Figure 8 Block Frontage Type shows block frontage designations and regulations apply to development frontages, which includes the building and associated site development that occurs within the property line. Figure 2 Street Network sets standards for streetscape designations and regulations, regulating the design of sidewalks and planting strips within the public right-of-way. (1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths. Select frontages are designated as Pedestrian-Oriented Paths to promote human-scale development with active ground-floor uses such as storefronts or cafes that contribute to a vibrant public realm. These frontages are intended to create the feel of an “outdoor room” that encourages gathering, supports agritourism, and enhances commercial activity. On lots larger than 1 acre prior to any subdivision, new development must designate at least 400 lineal feet of block frontages as Pedestrian-Oriented Paths, with flexibility to designate along SR 530, an internal street, the proposed park, and/or a Pedestrian-Oriented Open Space (see 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces). If the site is adjacent to the proposed park, at least 15 lineal feet of the Pedestrian-Oriented Paths must be located within 68 feet of the park boundary. Cluster Pedestrian-Oriented Path designations together for greater activation and walkability between businesses and public spaces. On properties less than 1 acre, new development must integrate no less than 75% of the length of the applicable Pedestrian-Oriented Paths illustrated in Figure 8. The alignment of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths may be adjusted during the development review process provided the configuration meets the goals and policies of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. For example, if a site includes approximately 100-lineal feet of a Pedestrian-oriented Path-designated block-frontage, the new development must integrate at least 75- lineal feet of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths block-frontage compliant development. Figure 8 illustrates an example of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths designations at key streets to encourage active uses, create a synergy of activity particularly at and near the proposed park, and double-sided retail (i.e., businesses on both sides of a street, open space, or path) for greater concentration of people activity and sense of enclosure. The alignment of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths may be adjusted during the development D-19 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 19 October 2025 review process provided the configuration meets the goals and policies of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. Developments may exceed the amount of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths block-frontages illustrated in Figure 8. Properties fronting Pedestrian-Oriented Paths are subject to the following specific provisions: (A)Building Design (B)20.119.130 Building Orientation. (C)20.119.140 Blank Walls. (D)20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design. (E)20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (F)Sidewalk must include a minimum 6 feet frontage zone (i.e., widened sidewalk for café seating or flexible use to accommodate social gathering and greater volumes of pedestrian traffic), 6 feet pedestrian clear zone (i.e., no signs, street furniture, or mobile device parking to allow for multiple people to pass each other, including people in wheelchairs), and 6 feet landscape/furniture zone. (2)Signature Roads. This designation encourages attractive development edges abutting SR 530, leveraging Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity and reinforcing a lively gateway to Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley. Development along Signature Roads can help create welcoming focal points that draw foot traffic and activate the streetscape. Properties fronting Signature Roads must adhere to: (A)Building Design (B)20.119.140 Blank Walls. (C)20.119.160 Vehicular Entrances and Driveways. (D)20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design. (E)20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (F)Farm stands. Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate how temporary farm stands could be safely accommodated along SR 530 and relate to permanent buildings on private property. Figure 8 D-20 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 20 October 2025 Figure 8 Note: The dashed lines indicate proposed streets or connections. Locations are conceptual and applicants may 20.119.130 – Building Orientation. (a) Purpose (1) To create pedestrian-friendly frontages that support a safe and active streetscape. (2) To enhance Island Crossing’s visual identity and perceived scale of buildings through thoughtful design. (b) All new buildings on “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths” must feature pedestrian-friendly façades (see Figure 9), including the following elements: (1) Weather protection at least 6 feet deep on average along at least 60% of the façade. (2) Building façades and primary entries shall be oriented toward the high priority street bordering the lot. For corner buildings, primary entrances for ground-level uses may face either street or street corner. (3) Transparent window area along at least 60% of the ground floor façade between 30 inches and 10 feet above the sidewalk level. DEPARTURE: Instead of windows, agritourism and light industrial uses may provide garage doors, open air stalls, or other feature(s) that allow for safe visual and/or auditory experience of interior operations (provided the use meets noise requirements in AMC 20.44.210). D-21 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 21 October 2025 Figure 9 Pedestrian-oriented façade requirements. (c) Building Modulations. All buildings located on “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths” or “Signature Roads” with facades longer than 100 feet measured horizontally along the street front must include at least three of the following features to break up the massing of the building and add visual interest at intervals of no more than 40 feet: (1) Providing building modulation of at least 12 inches in depth if tied to a change in roofline or a chance in building material, siding style, and/or color. (2) Repeating distinctive window patterns at intervals less than the articulation interval. (3) Providing a covered entry or separate weather protection feature for each articulation interval. (4) Change of roofline, including a change in the height of a cornice by at least two feet or integration of a pitched roof form that is at least 20 feet wide with a minimum slope of 5:12. (5) Changing materials or siding style. (6) Providing lighting fixtures, trellis, tree, or other landscape feature within each interval. (7) Alternative methods that meet the purpose of the standards. D-22 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 22 October 2025 20.119.140 – Blank Walls. (a)Purpose (1)To reduce the impacts of blank walls located adjacent to the street or public space. (2)To support a more inviting pedestrian environment and contributes to a vibrant public realm. (b)“Blank wall” means a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over 10 feet in height and a horizontal length greater than 15 feet and does not include a transparent window or door. Figure 10 Blank wall requirements (c)Untreated blank walls adjacent to a public street, new internal street (public or private), publicly accessible outdoor space, common outdoor space, or pedestrian pathway are prohibited. Methods to treat blank walls can include: (1)Display windows at least 16 inches of depth to allow for changeable displays. Tack-on display cases (see Figure 11 below) do not qualify as a blank wall treatment. (2)Landscape planting bed at least 5 feet deep or a raised planter bed at least 2 feet high and 3 feet deep in front of the wall with planting materials that are sufficient to obscure or screen at least 60% of the wall’s surface within 3 years. (3)Installing a vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plant materials. (4)Installing a mural as approved by the Director. Commercial advertisements are not permitted on such murals. (5)Special building detailing that adds visual interest at a pedestrian scale. Such detailing must use a variety of surfaces; monotonous designs will not meet the purpose of the regulations. For large visible blank walls, a variety of treatments shall be required to meet the purpose of the regulations. D-23 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 23 October 2025 Figure 11 Blank wall treatment examples. Buildings A-C feature acceptable treatments including a combination of high quality materials and landscaping (A), landscaping and trellis (B), decorative lighting/sculptural element (C), and decorative artwork. The display cases in Vehicular Access and Parking The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design Standards 2.4 Screening Parking Lots, 2.6 Parking Garage and Driveways, 3.2 Parking Lots, and 7.2 Siting Parking Areas. 20.119.150 – Internal Roadways. (a)Purpose (1)To support a connected, convenient street and path network that enhances access, reduces traffic conflicts, and encourages walkable developments. (b) All newly created, widened, or improved streets must be constructed in accordance with the street standards set forth in AMC 20.119.060 Street Design Standards. (c)If on-street parking is provided and stormwater is treated elsewhere, then the planting strip may be in the form of tree pits within the pavement and accommodate adequate root barrier based on the City of Arlington Tree List. D-24 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 24 October 2025 (d) Sidewalks must meet requirements in AMC 20.119.060 Street Design Standards and AMC 20.119.120 (b)(1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths to accommodate expected pedestrian volumes. (e) Include traffic calming measures such as small traffic circles, raised crosswalks and curb extensions (sidewalk bulbs), chicanes, curves, or shared people/vehicular/bicycle streets (i.e., woonerfs) at least every 300 feet to reduce vehicle speed and increase safety. (f) Provide the opportunities for future connections to adjacent parcels by providing road stub-outs, easements, or other methods to ensure convenient vehicular network. (g) The Director may require modification of proposed vehicle access points and internal circulation to minimize traffic conflicts. 20.119.160 – Vehicular Entrances and Driveways. (a) Purpose (1) To minimize negative impacts of vehicular access on the streetscape and pedestrian environment (b) Properties adjacent to Signature Roads are encouraged, where feasible, to locate driveways where they can be shared with adjacent properties in accordance with SR 530 improvements and/or internal streets. 20.119.170 – Parking Layout and Design. (a) Purpose (1) To minimize negative impacts of parking lots on the streetscape and pedestrian environment. (2) To promote shared parking between compatible uses. (b) Development must comply with parking and general design requirements set forth in AMC Chapter 20.72 Parking. (c) Where unavoidable, any parking lots located adjacent to a street is limited to 50% of the street front or 65 feet, whichever is narrower, except when necessary to allow the building to orient toward a Pedestrian- oriented Path or high priority street or path. (d) On Signature Roads (SR 530), surface parking areas shall be screened from street level views per Citywide Design Standards 2.4 Screening Parking Lots. (e) Provide landscaping within parking lots per Citywide Design Standards 3.2 Parking Lots. (f) Provide pedestrian pathways through parking lots connecting businesses on the same development site per AMC 20.119.180 Internal Pedestrian Network. (g) Bicycle Parking. The minimum number of short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces required is outlined in subsection 20.119.170 (g)(6). When bicycle parking ratios are expressed as a number of spaces per square feet, they shall be calculated using net floor area. The resulting number of required off-street bicycle parking spaces must be rounded to the nearest whole number. If the calculation results in less than one space, at least one bicycle parking space is required. DEPARTURE: The Director may reduce bicycle parking facilities required in 20.119.170 (g)(6) when it is demonstrated that bicycle activity will not occur at that location. (1) Short-term bicycle parking spaces consist of outdoor bike racks. Designs should allow either a bicycle frame or wheels to be locked to a structure attached to the pavement or building. Short term bicycle parking spaces may be located in the following areas: (A) Indoors or outdoors on the development site. (B) On a public sidewalk or street outside the development, within 100 ft of the building entrance. D-25 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 25 October 2025 (2) Short-term bicycle spaces on a public sidewalk or street serving multiple businesses or properties may be consolidated on a public sidewalk or street, where practical. (3) Long-term bicycle parking spaces include the following types: (A) Racks in an indoor, lockable bike room (B) Racks in a covered, lockable bike enclosure (C) Bike lockers (4) Indoor long-term bicycle storage must be located on the ground-floor or on a floor with elevator access (5) All bicycle parking and storage shall be located in safe, visible areas that do not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic flow, and shall be well lit for nighttime use. (6) Bicycle Parking Spaces Required Use Minimum Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces Minimum Long-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces general service, and 0.25 per 1,000 square feet 0 Industrial/artisan 0.10 per 1,000 square feet 0 Overnight lodging 0.5 per 10 guest rooms 0.3 per 10 guest rooms (h) For development facing a Pedestrian-Oriented Path, parking must be located to the side or rear of buildings. Along other streets, parking location is more flexible, provided it complies with the requirements of this section. Figure 12 Lot Layout and Acceptable Parking Locations Examples illustrates required setbacks (see AMC 20.119.050 (e)) and acceptable parking locations. D-26 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 26 October 2025 Figure 12 CORNER LOTS D-27 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 27 October 2025 Figure 12 OTHER LOCATIONS D-28 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 28 October 2025 (i) Site located on intersections. Avoid locating parking lots adjacent to intersections except when necessary to allow the building to orient toward a Pedestrian-Oriented Path or higher priority street or path. Install substantial landscaping (at least 400 square feet of area adjacent to the street corner) utilizing a combination of decorative ground cover, shrubs, and/or trees. Install a trellis or other similar architectural element that incorporates landscaping or public art. Designs that reference the agrarian, river, Stillaguamish Tribe, or other Stillaguamish Valley context or history are encouraged. (j) All sites, where applicable: Applicants of multiple building commercial developments shall demonstrate how they’ve organized parking in a manner that provides for shared parking between uses on the site. Figure 13 Illustrating desirable vehicular access and parking lot configuration for a large retail site D-29 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 29 October 2025 Pedestrian Access, Amenities, and Open Space The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design 5.1 Creating Streetscape Continuity, 5.3 Compatibility within Emerging Centers, and 14.1 Site and Building Design. 20.119.180 – Internal Pedestrian Network. (a) Purpose (1) To improve pedestrian environment by making it easier and comfortable to walk throughout Island Crossing. (2) To promote connectivity between uses and properties where desirable. (3) To enhance quality of new developments. (b) Developments should include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open spaces, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk network. (c) Sites with multiple buildings. Provide pedestrian paths or walkways that connect all commercial building entries on the same development site. Routes shall minimize walking distances to the extent practical. (d) New developments must provide direct pedestrian access to adjacent properties unless the Director determines it is undesirable or infeasible due to a safety (e.g., industrial operations) or physical (e.g., topography) constraint. (e) New developments shall provide for the opportunity for future pedestrian connections to adjacent properties through the use of pathway stub-outs, building configuration, and parking area layout. Remodels of existing facilities are encouraged to provide these opportunities, where feasible. (f) Pedestrian pathways through parking lots. Include a 5-foot paved walkway or sidewalk to provide safe pedestrian access through parking lots greater than 150 feet long (measured either parallel or perpendicular to the street front). Install pathways for every three parking aisles or at least every 200 feet (whichever is more restrictive). Use contrasting paving materials to visually and physically separate pedestrian routes from parking spaces and vehicle travel lanes. (1) All sites, where applicable: Crosswalks are required when a walkway crosses a paved area accessible to vehicles. (2) All sites, where applicable: Applicants shall continue the sidewalk pattern and material across driveways. D-30 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 30 October 2025 Figure 14 Example site plan with internal and external pedestrian connections. 20.119.190 – Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (d) Purpose (1) To provide a variety of pedestrian-oriented areas to attract shoppers to commercial areas and enrich the pedestrian environment. (2) To create gathering space for the community (3) To create inviting space that encourage pedestrian activity. (e) New development on “Signature Roads” and “Pedestrian-oriented Paths” with a total site area greater than 1 acre must provide “pedestrian-oriented open space” equal to at least 1% of the ground floor building footprint plus 1% of the site area. The open space may be in the form of plaza, outdoor eating, display, play area or other open space feature that serves both as a visual amenity and a place for human activity. Portions of sidewalks that are wider than required under 20.20.119.060 Street Design Standards may be counted toward this requirement. In addition, if the development relates to and activates an adjacent public park, the area of activation counts toward this open space requirement. (b) Definition and requirements of pedestrian-oriented open spaces. (1) To qualify as a pedestrian-oriented space, an area is required to include the following: (A) Pedestrian access (including ADA compliant access) to the abutting structures from the street, D-31 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 31 October 2025 private drive, or a non-vehicular courtyard. (B) Pedestrian-scaled lighting (no more than 14 feet in height) at a level averaging at least 2 foot candles throughout the space. Lighting may be on-site or building-mounted lighting. (C) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. (D) Position such spaces in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security – such as adjacent to a building entry. (E) Landscaping components that add seasonal interest to the space, such as planting beds and potted plants. (2) Three or more of the following elements are required in a pedestrian-oriented open space: (A) Pedestrian amenities such as a water feature, drinking fountain, and/or distinctive paving or artwork. (B) Decorative elements such as windmills, weather vanes, water towers, or other similar details associated with historic regional agricultural structures. (C) Provide pedestrian-oriented building facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (D) Consideration of views, sun angle at noon, and wind patterns in the design of the space. (E) Transitional zones along building edges to allow for outdoor eating areas and a planted buffer. (F) Movable seating. (3) The following features are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented open space: (A) Asphalt or gravel pavement. (B) Adjacent unscreened parking lots. (C) Adjacent chain link fences. (D) Adjacent blank walls. (E) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas. (c) Building corners present valuable opportunities for pedestrian-oriented open spaces due to their high visibility and accessibility from multiple streets. These locations naturally draw foot traffic, making them ideal for active public areas such as plazas, seating nodes, or landscaped gathering spaces. Refer to AMC 20.119.210 Building Corners for specific architectural corner treatments. (d) Allow for small temporary structures, stands, and food trucks, especially on corners, for small businesses such as flower shops and produce stands to create a more active street. D-32 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 32 October 2025 Figure 15 Example of Pedestrian-Oriented Space D-33 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 33 October 2025 Building Design The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design 5.1 Creating Streetscape Compatibility, 5.2 Orienting the Building to the Street, 11.1 Human Scale, 11.3 Entries, 12.1 Appropriate Materials, and 14.1 Site and Building Design. 20.119.200 – Architectural Style and Character. (a) Purpose (1) To promote the integration of design forms, themes, and/or details associated with historic regional agricultural heritage. (2) To reinforce Island Crossing gateway character through visually distinctive design. (b) Integrate regional farm and agrarian-inspired design themes and/or elements into the façades of all new buildings and major remodels facing “Signature Roads” and “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths”. At least three of the following elements must be incorporated in the design: (1) Barn-like roof form including gambrel or simple gable roof featuring overhanging eaves (minimum of 24 inches for non-residential buildings), decorative braces, and brackets. (2) Horizontal siding, board and batten, metal siding (excluding flat metal panels), brick, masonry, wood, or combination. This includes exposed wood structure components. (3) Symmetrical window fenestration pattern with vertical (min 2:1) or square window shape. (4) Other enhancements (each item integrated counts as one “element”): Decorative shutters, proportional dormers, exposed rafter tails, geometric patterns, windmills, cupola, weather vanes, water towers, or other similar details associated with historic regional agricultural structures. DEPARTURE. The integration of only two elements will be considered provided the design composition meets the purpose of the standards and is approved by Director. (c) Commercial developments with multiple buildings must employ a variety of colors, building materials, and architectural treatments to reduce monotony and reinforce the City’s sense of scale and independent rural character. D-34 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 34 October 2025 Figure 16 Examples of building form and materials that reference regional agricultural structures Upper left (Hickory Circle)= Gabled roof, metal siding, shed awning, gooseneck lamps, neutral color scheme with contrasting trim, reflects historic agricultural style. Upper right (Woodinville Whiskey Co.) = Bright contrasting trim, varying materials, creative use of windows, awning. Bottom (Art in Motion, MN) = Cupolas, 20.119.210 – Building Corners. Building corners, located at street intersections particularly along Signature Road, are highly visible and naturally attract foot traffic. Thoughtful design of building corners can create public focal points for gathering on non-arterials and temporary or seasonal commercial activities such as food stands and produce stands (primarily along SR 530) that enhance the Island Crossing farm and agrarian theme. Pairing these locations with AMC 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces standards enhances their role as active, welcoming spaces that contribute to a vibrant public realm. (a) Purpose (1) To enhance the pedestrian environment (2) To encourage creativity in the design of building facades to add visual interest. (b) All new buildings located at intersections in “Signature Roads” and “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths” shall employ three or more of the following design elements or treatments to architecturally accentuate building corners facing the intersection: (1) A corner entrance to courtyard, building lobby, atrium, or pedestrian pathway. (2) A significant corner bay window or turret. D-35 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 35 October 2025 (3) Roof deck or balconies on upper stories. (4) Building core setback "notch" or curved façade surfaces. (5) Sculpture or artwork, either bas-relief, figurative, or distinctive use of materials as part of the building. (6) Change of materials. (7) Corner windows. (8) Special lighting. (9) Significant feature such as a windmill and water towers. (10) Special treatment of the pedestrian weather protection canopy at the corner of the building. (11) Other similar treatment or element approved by the Director. Figure 17 Example of building corner treatment Top Left (St. Honore Bakery, Lake Oswego, OR)= Timber framed gable, upper deck balconies, and stone materials, reflect agricultural style. Top Right (University Book Store, Mill Creek, WA) = Bright contrasting trim, varying materials, and wooden awning showcase a modern interpreation of agricultural style. Bottom = D-36 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 36 October 2025 20.119.220 – Building Material. (a) Purpose (1) To encourage high quality building materials that enhance the character and identity of Island Crossing (2) To discourage materials and design treatments that create a false sense of historicism in new development. (b) Applicants should use high quality durable materials. This is most important for the base of buildings, particularly for commercial buildings where the façade is sited close to sidewalks. Stone, brick, or tile masonry, architectural concrete, or other similar highly durable materials are expected to be used for at least the bottom 2 feet of the first-floor façade (excluding window and door areas). (c) All buildings: Treatment of building materials that creates a false sense of historicism in new buildings is strongly discouraged. For example, buildings following the farm and agrarian architectural theme (see AMC 20.119.200 Architectural Style and Character) may be inspired by farm architecture, but should not design a barn replica used for a non-agricultural purpose. D-37 City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea PLANNED ACTION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1 October 2025 City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 ii City of Arlington Community & Economic Development 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B - Arlington, WA, 98223 - 360-403-3551 – www.arlingtonwa.gov October 9, 2025 Subject: City of Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement Dear Reader, The City of Arlington has developed a Subarea Plan and completed a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing potential impacts from implementation of the plan. The Draft EIS was published on August 1, 2025, and the City provided a 30-day comment period and a hearing. The attached Final EIS builds on the Draft EIS, and Chapter 5 includes responses to comments on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS is available here: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/867/Island-Crossing-Subarea-Plan. As the City creates new subarea plans it is important to understand how the subarea fits into the City’s and Snohomish County’s long-term plans for growth, employment, and infrastructure investments and what environmental impacts may occur from such growth. A programmatic EIS provides a broad assessment of potential environmental impacts that may occur related to various planning policies and planning-level decisions. The Draft EIS analyzed three different alternatives for the subarea, and the City selected Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative: Alternative 1: No Action – Existing codes remain in place except for some updates related to recent state legislation, and infrastructure projects already planned in the Transportation Master Plan and utilities comprehensive plans are included. This alternative is required under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and studies what would happen if no subarea plan were to be adopted. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation – Implementation of development code changes proposed in draft Island Crossing Subarea Plan, but only some of the proposed infrastructure investments. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative – Implementation of development code changes and infrastructure projects proposed in draft Island Crossing Subarea Plan. This EIS analyzed potential impacts related to the following topics: Land Use and Urban Form, Transportation, Natural Environment, Water, and Utilities. Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Please see the Fact Sheet for more information about getting involved in the planning process. Thank you for your interest in the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and FEIS. Sincerely, Amy Rusko, Community & Economic Development Director and SEPA Official Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Fact Sheet Project Title Island Crossing Planned Action Proposed Action and Alternatives The City of Arlington is conducting a subarea planning process in Island Crossing to position the area for economic growth, address flooding hazards, and strengthen connections to Stillaguamish Valley agricultural heritage. The City is proposing to adopt a Subarea Plan and development regulations for the subarea. The City is also considering adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance under RCW 43.21C.440 and associated SEPA Rules in WAC 197-11. Future proposals consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, Subarea Plan, and development regulations would have a streamlined environmental review and permitting process. The Planned Action EIS reviews current plans and regulations (No Action Alternative required under the State Environmental Policy Act or SEPA) and two action alternatives: Alternative 2, which would implement some of the subarea features, and Alternative 3, which would fully implement the Subarea Plan. The City selected Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. Proponent and Lead Agency City of Arlington Location Island Crossing is located in northwest Arlington in a triangular area bounded by I-5 to the west and Smokey Point Blvd and 27th Ave NE to the east, with the northern boundary running about 800 feet north of SR 530. The subarea comprises the City of Arlington area northwest of the point 48°10'40"N 122°11'36"W. Tentative Date of Implementation/Action Fall 2025 Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Responsible SEPA Official Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98233 arusko@arlingtonwa.gov 360-403-3550 Contact Person Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98233 arusko@arlingtonwa.gov 360-403-3550 Required Approvals The following City of Arlington actions would be required to implement the Proposal: Adoption of Island Crossing Subarea Plan and associated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Adoption of Zoning and Development Regulation Amendments Approval of the Final EIS as a document that is adequate for SEPA compliance, decision- making, and implementation of the upfront SEPA process Adoption of a Planned Action ordinance Prior to City action, the State of Washington Department of Commerce will coordinate state agency review of the legislative proposal. After City action, the likely permits to be acquired by individual development proposals include but are not limited to land use permits, construction permits, building permits, and right-of-way use permits. These include documentation on how the development proposal meets AMC 20.64 - Floodplain Development Regulations, along with Tribal, County, and State regulations. Principal EIS Authors and Contributors Under the direction of City of Arlington Community and Economic Development, the team prepared the EIS as follows: MAKERS: Land use and urban form: Relationship to land use plans, policies, and regulations; aesthetics/scenic resources Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Transpo Group: Transportation Herrera: Water, natural environment City of Arlington Community and Economic Development: Utilities Draft EIS Date of Issuance August 1, 2025 Public Comments on the Draft EIS The City received 4 comments during the 30-day public comment period that was held from August 1, 2025 to September 2, 2025. Prior Environmental Review The City of Arlington developed an EIS in association with its Comprehensive Plan in 2024. See the Comprehensive Plan Appendix O: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Subsequent Environmental Review If the Planned Action Ordinance is adopted, project-specific review would follow procedures outlined in the Planned Action Ordinance. Location of Background Data You may review the project website for more information at the project website below. If you desire clarification or have questions, please see the contact person above. Purchase/Availability of Final EIS This Final EIS is posted on the website below. Print copies of the document are available for purchase at cost at City of Arlington, Community and Economic Development, 18204 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA, 98233. Please arrange the copies with the contact person above. Project website: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/867/Island-Crossing-Subarea-Plan Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Distribution List The following agencies and organizations are receiving a notice that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for review. State Agencies Department of Agriculture Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Department of Commerce Department of Corrections Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Health Department of Natural Resources Department of Social and Health Services Department of Transportation Department of Transportation - Management of Mobility Division Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) Farm Bureau Parks and Recreation Commission Puget Sound Partnership Puget Sound Regional Council WSDOT Aviation Division Federal & Tribal Agencies Arlington Postmaster & Office Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Tulalip Tribes Regional & County Agencies Snohomish County – Agriculture Snohomish County – Public Works Snohomish County – Parks Snohomish County – Planning Snohomish County – Surface Water Management Arlington, Adjacent Jurisdictions, Service Providers Arlington Police Department Arlington School District North County Regional Fire Authority Snohomish County PUD Snohomish Health District Waste Management Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Contents 1 Summary 1 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Organization of the Final EIS 2 1.3 Purpose 2 1.4 Study Area 3 1.5 SEPA Process 5 1.5.1 Environmental Review 5 1.5.2 Public Comment Opportunities 5 1.5.3 Elements not addressed 5 1.6 Objectives and Alternatives Summary 6 1.6.1 Objectives 6 1.6.2 Alternatives Summary 7 1.7 Key Issues & Options 8 1.8 Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures 8 1.8.1 Land Use & Urban Form 9 1.8.2 Transportation 10 1.8.3 Water 11 1.8.4 Natural Environment 12 1.8.5 Utilities 14 1.9 Significant Adverse Impacts 15 2 Proposal & Alternatives 16 2.1 Introduction 17 2.1.1 Proposal Overview 17 2.1.2 Study Area 17 2.2 SEPA Process 17 2.2.1 Environmental Review Process 17 2.2.2 Scope of Environmental Review 18 2.3 Planning Context 18 2.3.1 Arlington Comprehensive Plan 18 2.3.2 Arlington Municipal Code 20.44.032 19 2.4 Public Engagement 19 2.5 Objectives and Alternatives 22 2.5.1 Proposal Objectives 22 2.5.2 Description of Alternatives 22 Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 3 Environment, Impacts & Mitigation 33 3.1 Land Use & Urban Form 34 3.1.1 Affected Environment 34 3.1.2 Potential Impacts 46 3.1.3 Mitigation Strategies 50 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 52 3.2 Transportation 54 3.2.1 Affected Environment 54 3.2.2 Potential Impacts 60 3.2.3 Mitigation Strategies 72 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 79 3.3 Water 80 3.3.1 Affected Environment 80 3.3.2 Potential Impacts 86 3.3.3 Mitigation Strategies 91 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 93 3.4 Natural Environment 94 3.4.1 Affected Environment 94 3.4.2 Potential Impacts 99 3.4.3 Mitigation Strategies 103 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 105 3.5 Utilities 107 3.5.1 Affected Environment 107 3.5.2 Potential Impacts 107 3.5.3 Mitigation Strategies 108 3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 109 4 Corrections and Clarifications 110 4.1 Introduction 111 4.2 Chapter 1 Summary 111 4.3 Chapter 2 Proposal & Alternatives 111 4.4 Chapter 3 Environment, Impacts & Mitigation 111 4.4.1 Section 3.1 Land Use & Urban Form 111 4.4.2 Section 3.2 Transportation 111 4.4.3 Section 3.3 Water 111 4.4.4 Section 3.4 Natural Environment 112 4.4.5 Section 3.5 Utilities 112 4.5 Appendices 112 5 Comments and Responses 113 Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 5.1 Introduction 114 5.2 Response to Individual Comments 115 6 Acronyms & References 120 6.1 Acronyms 121 6.2 References 121 Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Exhibits Exhibit 1.4-1 Island Crossing Site Plan 4 Exhibit 1.5.1-1 Planned Action Process 5 Exhibit 1.8.1-1 Summary of Potential Land Use and Urban Form Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 9 Exhibit 1.8.2-1 Summary of Potential Transportation Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 10 Exhibit 1.8.3-1 Summary of Potential Water Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 11 Exhibit 1.8.4-1 Summary of Potential Natural Environment Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 12 Exhibit 1.8.5-1 Summary of Potential Utilities Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts 14 Exhibit 2.4-1 Engagement Summary 20 Exhibit 2.5.2-1 Alternative 1: No Action – Jobs Capacity 23 Exhibit 2.5.2-2 Alternative 2 – Jobs Capacity 24 Exhibit 2.5.2-3 Alternative 2 Zoning Concepts 24 Exhibit 2.5.2-4 Zoning Concept Map 26 Exhibit 2.5.2-5 Alternative 3 – Jobs Capacity 28 Exhibit 2.5.2-6. Alternative 3 Zoning Concepts 29 Exhibit 2.5.2-7 Zoning Concept Map 30 Exhibit 2.5.2-8 Alternative 3 Conceptual Site plan 32 Exhibit 3.1.1-1 HC Density and Dimension Standards 38 Exhibit 3.1.1-2 Buildable Lands Report and Comprehensive Plan Growth Projections 43 Exhibit 3.1.1-3 2044 Comprehensive Plan Jobs Targets 43 Exhibit 3.1.1-4 Buildable Lands Map 44 Exhibit 3.1.1-5 Comprehensive Plan Development Assumptions 44 Exhibit 3.1.1-6. Typical eastward view from the I-5/SR 530 Interchange. 45 Exhibit 3.1.1-7. Eastward view from the subarea featuring Three Fingers Mountain (center-right). 46 Exhibit 3.1.1-8 Eastbound traffic on SR 530 near the entrance to Pilot Travel Center. 46 Exhibit 3.1.2-1 Alternative 1 2044 Job Growth Projection Compared to Comprehensive Plan Target 48 Exhibit 3.1.2-2 Alternative 2 2044 Job Growth Projection Compared to Comprehensive Plan Target 48 Exhibit 3.1.2-3 Cross-section of proposed SR 530 conceptual design 49 Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 Exhibit 3.1.2-4 Alternative 3 2044 Job Growth Projection compared to Comprehensive Plan Target 50 Exhibit 3.1.3-1 SR 530 tree height and spacing considerations. 52 Exhibit 3.2.1-1 Study Area 55 Exhibit 3.2.1-2 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 57 Exhibit 3.2.1-3 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 58 Exhibit 3.2.1-4 Five Year Collision Summary – 2020 to 2024 58 Exhibit 3.2.2-1 2044 Island Crossing Subarea No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 63 Exhibit 3.2.2-2 2044 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 63 Exhibit 3.2.2-3 2044 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 64 Exhibit 3.2.2-4 SR 530 Street Design Concept Plan View 65 Exhibit 3.2.2-5 SR 530 Concept Cross-section 66 Exhibit 3.2.2-6 Comparison of No Action and Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 67 Exhibit 3.2.2-7 Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 67 Exhibit 3.2.2-8 Comparison of No Action and Alternative 2 2044 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service 68 Exhibit 3.2.2-9 No Action and Action Alternatives Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 69 Exhibit 3.2.2-10 Alternative 3 Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 70 Exhibit 3.2.2-11 Comparison of No Action and Action Alternatives 2044 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary 71 Exhibit 3.2.3-1 Summary of Mitigation and Alternative Pro-Rata Cost 74 Exhibit 3.2.3-2 Street Network 78 Exhibit 3.3.1-1 FEMA 100-year floodplain 81 Exhibit 3.3.1-2 Flooding across SR 530 in December 2023 82 Exhibit 3.3.1-3 City of Arlington Stormwater Facility Map 84 Exhibit 3.3.1-4 National Wetlands Inventory Map of the Subarea 85 Exhibit 3.3.3-1 Federal, State and Local Laws, Plans and Policies. 92 Exhibit 3.4.1-1 National Wetlands Inventory Map of the Subarea 95 Exhibit 3.4.1-2 Fish Use of South Slough and Portage Creek. 96 Exhibit 3.4.1-3 Mapped ESA Wildlife Species. 99 Exhibit 3.4.3-1 Federal, State and Local Laws, Plans and Policies. 103 Exhibit 5.2-1 Responses to Individual Comments. 115 Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 1 1 Summary Chapter 1 | Summary | Introduction Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 2 1.1 Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) completes the environment review process for the City of Arlington’s Island Crossing Subarea Plan, development and design standards, and Planned Action Ordinance. It incorporates the comments received on the Draft EIS and applies the necessary corrections or clarifications. The Final EIS presents the Preferred Alternative, which is Alternative 3 Subarea Plan Full Implementation. 1.2 Organization of the Final EIS The Final EIS builds on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) by providing updates since the Draft EIS was issued. Because the Preferred Alternative is the same as the Draft EIS’s Alternative 3 Subarea Plan Full Implementation, no new analyses have been conducted. The Final EIS adds Chapter 4 Corrections and Clarifications, Chapter 5 Comments and Reponses, and Appendix D Comment Letters. Appendix D Comment Letters provides a copy of the comments received during the Draft EIS comment period. In the Final EIS’s Chapters 1 through 3, text deletions are shown with strikethrough, and new texts are underlined. 1.3 Purpose The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Arlington in Motion 2024 & Beyond, was adopted in December 2024. The plan identifies Island Crossing as one of Arlington’s fourteen designated subarea with the potential to become a unique economic and cultural hub. Subareas are intended to serve both residents of both nearby areas and the broader region. In 2024, the City of Arlington began conducting a community planning process for Island Crossing to guide its transformation from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe, and well-connected gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) is intended to: (1) satisfy the requirements of the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA) for Arlington to plan for forecasted growth; (2) support the goals of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan; and (3) comply with Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.44.032 – Subarea plans. Once adopted, the Subarea Plan will be integrated into the City’s development code and guide future land use decisions. As part of the planning process, and consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules, the City intends to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance, which would streamline environmental review of development proposals when consistent with the proposed Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance. The following alternatives are different approaches to achieve the proposal’s objective and serve as the basis for environment analysis. The City selected Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. The three alternatives under consideration in this EIS are described in Section 2.5.2 and summarized below: Chapter 1 | Summary | Study Area Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 3 Alternative 1: No Action. Maintains current Highway Commercial zoning and Mixed Use and Flood District overlays. City commitments and capital improvement plans would continue as planned over the next 20 years. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation. Implement the land use and urban design, transportation, and public services and utilities actions of the Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan, but not the regional flooding/compensatory storage facility actions. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative. Include all other actions in Alternative 2, as well as investment in regional floodwater compensatory storage infrastructure to address vulnerability to Stillaguamish River flooding and increase development capacity in the Subarea. 1.4 Study Area The Island Crossing area (or Subarea), comprised of about 87 acres in northwest Arlington, is set within the Snohomish County agricultural and natural lands with views to the east of the Cascade Mountain Range. The Subarea is accessible from I-5 by exit 208, and serves as a gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley and Old Town Arlington by SR 530. The area is primarily auto-oriented commercial, with uses such as retail, gas stations, and truck stops. Several factors constrain development feasibility in the Subarea, particularly the floodplains, critical areas, and the Olympic Pipeline. Chapter 1 | Summary | Study Area Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 4 Exhibit 1.4-1 Island Crossing Site Plan Source: MAKERS, 2024. Chapter 1 | Summary | SEPA Process Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 5 1.5 SEPA Process 1.5.1 Environmental Review The City of Arlington is designating the Island Crossing Subarea as a Planned Action area under RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164. Instead of conducting project-by-project environmental reviews, this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides a comprehensive, subarea-wide analysis to support adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. The ordinance will establish mitigation requirements for both the City and future developers. Development proposals that are consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance and Subarea Plan will not require a new SEPA threshold determination or additional environmental review of topics analyzed in the EIS. This process offers regulatory certainty, streamlines permitting, and advances the goals of SEPA and the GMA. Following completion of the EIS, the City will consider adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance and Subarea Plan. Future permits will be reviewed for consistency with these adopted plans. Exhibit 1.5.1-1 Planned Action Process 1.5.2 Public Comment Opportunities The City led community engagement activities and informal conversations from May 2024 through July 2025 to inform the Subarea Plan and the alternative concepts studied in the Draft EIS. These included several advisory and transportation technical group meetings and two community meetings. In June 2025, the city held a 21-day scoping comment period and community meeting. A public engagement summary is found in Section 2.4. 1.5.3 Elements not addressed SEPA elements of the environment considered but not analyzed in this Draft EIS include the following: Earth. Consideration of landforms is integrated into the analysis of the Water element. As a floodplain environment, land and water constantly interact and intermingle in Island Crossing. Air. Air quality and Greenhouse gas emissions were not analyzed because the Subarea Plan alternatives are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on Air. Plants and Animals are analyzed as part of the Natural Environment element. 1. Prepare & Issue Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 2. Consider Adoption of Planned Action Ordinances and Subarea Plan 3. Review Future Permits for Consistency with Ordinances and Subarea Plan Chapter 1 | Summary | Objectives and Alternatives Summary Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 6 Energy and Natural Resources. The Subarea Plan does not anticipate significant changes to energy use outside of the range planned for by utility providers. Electric power and natural gas will be addressed in project-level SEPA review, and any properties with the Olympic Pipeline easement will coordinate with the Olympic Pipeline. Green energy facilities are encouraged in Island Crossing and their impact on the energy system would need to be determined at the project level. Environmental Health is considered in the Natural Environment element. Shoreline Use. There are no designated shorelines within the subarea. Flooding of the Stillaguamish River (a designated shoreline of the state) is addressed under Water. Housing. There are few housing units present in the subarea, which is designated for job growth under the Comprehensive Plan. New housing is not generally allowed in Island Crossing and under draft code implementing the Subarea Plan is proposed to be explicitly prohibited. Light and glare. Existing building and street standards prevent impacts from redevelopment. Recreation. No recreation amenities are present within the subarea at this time, therefore no impacts to recreation are expected. The Subarea Plan includes recommendations for recreation and open space improvements. Historic and cultural preservation. The area’s rural aesthetic character is considered within the Land Use and Urban Form element, but historic and cultural preservation more broadly should be addressed with project-specific review. Public services. Drinking water, sewer, and stormwater facilities are addressed under the Utilities element. There are no expected significant adverse impacts on Public Services including Schools, Police, and Fire Emergency Services. Those public services continually plan for future growth in the subarea through their own planning efforts. Scoping comments did not reveal any specific concerns other than those already planned for analysis. See Appendix A for the Scoping Notice & Comment Summary. 1.6 Objectives and Alternatives Summary 1.6.1 Objectives SEPA requires a statement of objectives describing the purpose and need for the proposal. The following objectives apply to the alternatives evaluated in this EIS: Bring property and business owners, nearby residents, and other interested parties together to shape a shared vision for the future of Island Crossing compatible with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Evaluate environmental hazards, infrastructure needs, and growth potential, and align Chapter 1 | Summary | Objectives and Alternatives Summary Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 7 future infrastructure investment plans with the shared vision. Develop recommendations for new land use and zoning standards, design standards, and adjustments to other city regulations for City Council consideration. 1.6.2 Alternatives Summary Alternatives represent different ways of achieving a project’s purpose and serve as the basis for environmental analysis. Each alternative is evaluated for its potential impacts on elements of the environment such as water, habitats, land use, or transportation. The alternatives are described in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIS. Under SEPA, an EIS must include an alternative that represents “no action” and one or more alternatives that include changes to land use or policies, called the “Action Alternatives.” Action Alternatives allow the City to understand the impacts of a range of growth scenarios and test ideas, implications, benefits, impacts, and trade-offs of potential changes when compared to the No Action baseline. This EIS analyzes three alternatives: • Alternative 1: No Action assumes future development would occur within the Subarea based on the current Comprehensive Plan land use, zoning, and development standards. • Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation would implement the land use and urban design, transportation, and public services and utilities actions of the Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan, but not the regional flooding/compensatory storage facility actions. Chapter 1 | Summary | Key Issues & Options Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 8 • Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative, includes all actions in Alternative 2, as well as investment in regional floodwater compensatory storage infrastructure to address vulnerability to Stillaguamish River flooding and increase development capacity in the subarea. Analyzing different alternatives, and especially the differences among them, allows decision- makers and the public to compare the effects of different options and ultimately to select a Preferred Alternative. The alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives. 1.7 Key Issues & Options Key issues facing Arlington decision makers include: Approval of a Subarea Plan Update including a vision, guiding principles, goals and strategies for land use, transportation, natural systems, public services and utilities, proposed infrastructure investments, and programmatic recommendations. Approval of a new set of development regulations. Level of growth to be included within the scope of a Planned Action. Type, location, cost, and financing of transportation, floodwater/stormwater, and park infrastructure. 1.8 Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures This section highlights the alternative proposals’ potential environmental impacts analyzed in this Draft EIS. See the complete discussion of the affected environment, impacts, and mitigation measures in Chapter 3. Chapter 1 | Summary | Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 9 1.8.1 Land Use & Urban Form Exhibit 1.8.1-1 Summary of Potential Land Use and Urban Form Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Impacts Relationship to Existing Plans/Estimated Population & Employment: Projected job growth in Alternative 1 is much lower than the adopted growth targets in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Aesthetics/scenic resources: Alternative 1 continues the gradual transition toward a more developed landscape with an increase in paved areas, gas stations, hotels, restaurants, and retail. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts None Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Impacts Similar to Alternative 1: Relationship to Existing Plans/Estimated Population & Employment: Projected job growth in Alternative 2 is lower than the adopted growth targets in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Aesthetics/scenic resources: Alternative 2 continues the gradual transition toward a more developed landscape with an increase in paved areas, hotels, restaurants, and retail. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Island Crossing-specific design standards would be applied to new development to improve its appearance and align with the rural character of the area. Elevation of SR 530 and careful placement of street trees will improve views of Cascade peaks and farmland and mitigate view blockage potentially caused by taller buildings. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative Impacts Relationship to Existing Plans/Estimated Population & Employment: Alternative 3 would nearly meet the Comprehensive Plan’s job growth targets. Aesthetics/scenic resources: With more development under Alternative 3 there is likely to be a more significant shift away from a rural aesthetic landscape than other alternatives. More numerous, taller buildings may obscure views of Cascade peaks in places. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Similar to alternative 2: Island Crossing-specific design standards would be applied to new development to improve its appearance and align with the rural character of the area. Elevation of SR 530 and careful placement of street trees will improve views of Cascade peaks and farmland and mitigate view blockage potentially caused by taller buildings. Chapter 1 | Summary | Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 10 1.8.2 Transportation Exhibit 1.8.2-1 Summary of Potential Transportation Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Impacts Intersections: Increases in vehicle traffic would result in intersections serving the Subarea not meeting level of service (LOS) standards including the I-5/SR 530 Interchange. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Coordinate with WSDOT to on improvements to the I-5/SR 530 Interchange. Collect transportation impact fees. Implement complete streets policy. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Impacts Intersections: Increases in vehicle traffic would result in intersections serving the Subarea not meeting level of service (LOS) standards including the I-5/SR 530 Interchange. Multimodal Access and Connectivity: Additional density results in increases in pedestrian, bike and vehicle activity and conflicts that could be potential safety issues. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Consider LOS policy changes. Coordinate with WSDOT to improvements at the I-5/SR 530 Interchange Require payment of a proportional cost share towards SR 530 roadway improvements. Implement new street design standards for SR 530 that consolidates access points, constructs midblock crossings and roundabouts, and provides a shared multimodal path. Adopt transportation strategies in the IC Subarea Plan to improve safety, comfort, connectivity, and multimodal travel. Collect transportation impact fees. Implement complete streets policy. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative Impacts Intersections: Increases in vehicle traffic would result in intersections serving the Subarea not meeting level of service (LOS) standards including SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd and I-5/SR 530 Interchange. Multimodal Access and Connectivity: Additional development results in increases in pedestrian, bike and vehicle activity and conflicts that could be potential safety issues. Chapter 1 | Summary | Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 11 Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Same as Alternative 2: Consider LOS policy changes. Coordinate with WSDOT on improvements at the I-5/SR 530 Interchange Require payment of a proportional cost share towards SR 530 roadway improvements including SR 530/ Smokey Point Blvd intersection. Implement new street design standards for SR 530 that consolidates access points, constructs midblock crossings and roundabouts, and provides a shared multimodal path. Adopt transportation strategies in the IC Subarea Plan to improve safety, comfort, connectivity, and multimodal travel. Collect transportation impact fees. Implement complete streets policy. 1.8.3 Water Exhibit 1.8.3-1 Summary of Potential Water Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Impacts Floodplain: Increased flood depths and frequency and increased overtopping of SR 530. Increased flood-related business damage and risk to public safety. Increase in pollutant generating surfaces and flooding will decrease water quality. Surface Water: Inefficient stormwater conveyance due to a degraded SR 530 culvert. Inadequate site drainage for new development. Groundwater: Groundwater rise may impact resources in the area and the performance of existing stormwater infrastructure. Wetlands: Existing wetlands may expand due to increased flood and groundwater. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts On-site stormwater storage would be required for new development. Permits and compensatory mitigation would be required for any stream, wetland, or buffer impacts. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Impacts Floodplain: Increased flood depths and frequency (less than Alternative 1). Reduced overtopping of SR 530. Increased flood-related business damage and risk to public safety (less than Alternative 1). Surface Water: Inadequate site drainage for new development. Groundwater: Groundwater rise may impact resources in the area and the performance of existing stormwater infrastructure. Wetlands: Existing wetlands may expand due to increased flood and groundwater. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts On-site stormwater storage would be required for new development. Permits and compensatory mitigation would be required for any stream, wetland, or buffer impacts. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative Chapter 1 | Summary | Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 12 Impacts Floodplain: Increased flood depths and frequency significantly reduced for northern parcels. SR 530 overtopping may be eliminated. Public safety risks minimized. Surface Water: None, regional floodwater facility would improve conveyance and will provide treatment for much of the subarea. Groundwater: Minor groundwater rise (less than Alternatives 1 and 2). Wetlands: The regional floodwater facility would improve wetland hydrologic functions. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Permits and compensatory mitigation would be required for any stream, wetland, or buffer impacts. Multi-functional regional floodwater facility would help reduce flooding impacts on SR 530 and nearby properties, while also improving water quality, minimizing infrastructure damage, enhancing habitat connectivity, and supporting ecological functions. 1.8.4 Natural Environment Exhibit 1.8.4-1 Summary of Potential Natural Environment Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Impacts Habitat Loss: Potential for low-quality undeveloped terrestrial vegetation to be converted to commercial area. Development pressure less than other alternatives and therefore less likely to impact existing wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. Indirect Habitat Impacts: Increased risk of fish stranding after flood events. No change to poorly functioning habitat connectivity due to roads and traffic levels. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Permits and compensatory mitigation would be required for any stream, wetland, or buffer impacts. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Impacts Habitat Loss: Potential for low-quality undeveloped terrestrial vegetation to be converted to commercial area. Wetland and riparian areas may be more vulnerable to encroachment (compared to Alternative 1). Off-site mitigation may lead to habitat loss and reduced ecological functions within the subarea. Indirect Habitat Impacts: Less risk of fish stranding after flood events (compared to Alternative 1). Increased traffic and potential new roads increases wildlife movement barriers and risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Permits and compensatory mitigation would be required for any stream, wetland, or buffer impacts. Routing high flows to riparian corridors and areas like connected ditches helps prevent fish from becoming stranded after flood events. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative Chapter 1 | Summary | Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 13 Impacts Habitat Loss: Potential for low-quality undeveloped terrestrial vegetation to be converted to commercial area. Regional floodwater facility maintains or improves existing habitat functions within the subarea. Indirect Habitat Impacts: Less risk of fish stranding after flood events. Increased traffic and potential new roads increases wildlife movement barriers and risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Permits and compensatory mitigation would be required for any stream, wetland, or buffer impacts. Routing high flows to riparian corridors and areas like connected ditches helps prevent fish from becoming stranded after flood events. Regional floodwater facility provides opportunity for compensatory mitigation to occur within the subarea. Regional floodwater facility could provide new opportunities to improve wildlife connectivity. Chapter 1 | Summary | Summary of Impacts & Mitigation Measures Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 14 1.8.5 Utilities Exhibit 1.8.5-1 Summary of Potential Utilities Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Impacts Small increase in water and sewer demand and stormwater runoff. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Utilities improvements described in utility-specific comprehensive plan (i.e., Water System Comprehensive Plan, etc.) will address general growth. Code requires project specific upgrades with new development when necessary to maintain service standards. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Impacts Similar to Alternative 1, with small increases in water and sewer demand and stormwater runoff. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Utilities improvements described in utility-specific comprehensive plan (i.e., Water System Comprehensive Plan, etc.) will address general growth. Code requires project specific upgrades with new development when necessary to maintain service standards. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, Preferred Alternative Impacts Greatest increase in water and sewer demand. Measures to reduce or eliminate impacts Utilities improvements described in utility-specific comprehensive plan (i.e., Water System Comprehensive Plan, etc.) will address general growth. Code requires project specific upgrades with new development when necessary to maintain service standards. Chapter 1 | Summary | Significant Adverse Impacts Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 15 1.9 Significant Adverse Impacts Based on the full analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS, implementation of the alternatives would result in the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following elements of the environment: Land Use and urban form: Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely not meet the 2044 job growth targets adopted in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives 1 and 2 are projected to produce just 292 and 375 jobs, compared to the Comprehensive Plan target of 935. Not meeting the adopted target could be considered a significant adverse impact unless the City is able to accommodate job growth elsewhere. Transportation: With implementation of the planned improvements in the study area and proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts related solely to the proposed alternatives. Water: In Alternative 1, ongoing unregulated flooding and fragmented stormwater management lead to increasing flood impacts, unsafe conditions for drivers and low-lying development and declining water quality all of which would be significant adverse impacts. Natural Environment: Alternatives 1 and 2 could lead to habitat loss and degradation, which would be considered a significant adverse impact. Uncontrolled flooding under Alternative 1 increases risk of fish stranding which would be a significant adverse impact. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, development near riparian areas or habitat patches may further fragment habitat, limit wildlife movement, and increase the risk of wildlife- vehicle collisions which would be a significant adverse impact. Utilities: None. Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 16 2 Proposal & Alternatives Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Introduction Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 17 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Proposal Overview This document is a draft non-project environmental impact statement (EIS) that provides both qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts associated with the Island Crossing Subarea Plan proposal and its alternatives. The purpose of this EIS is to inform and assist the public and City of Arlington decision-makers in evaluating options for future growth, multimodal transportation improvements, and policy/code appropriate within the Subarea. Following the issuance of the Draft EIS on August 1, 2025, and review of comments received, the City selected Alternative 3 Subarea Plan Full Implementation as the Preferred Alternative. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is a proactive effort to build on existing assets and shape Island Crossing’s future, guiding its transformation from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe, and well-connected gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley. The plan identifies a long-term vision and strategies for resilience to flooding, identity-strengthening and better- connected development, an SR 530 design concept that celebrates Island Crossing as a gateway and improves flooding resilience, and economic development strategies that respect its agricultural roots, natural resources, and cultural significance. Arlington will foster Island Crossing’s transformation into a celebrated gateway by focusing on four key priorities: 1) adopt zoning and design standards to ensure new development reflects community values and strengthens neighborhood identity, 2) coordinate with property owners and set funding strategy for a regional compensatory storage facility to support flood resilience, 3) coordinate with WSDOT to secure funding and implement SR 530 improvements, and 4) attract desired businesses through proactive relationship building with developers, property owners, and businesses. 2.1.2 Study Area Island Crossing is an 87-acre area in northwest Arlington, well-connected to the region and the economic centers of Old Town and the Cascade Industrial Center, and a gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley and Snohomish County's agricultural lands. Though it has the potential to play a vital role in the region's commercial, agritourism, and outdoor recreation economies, it has been developing as a highway-oriented convenience stop. 2.2 SEPA Process 2.2.1 Environmental Review Process Under RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164, the City of Arlington is designating the Island Crossing Subarea as a Planned Action area. This EIS provides a cumulative, subarea-wide Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Planning Context Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 18 environmental analysis to support adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, which will define City and developer mitigation responsibilities. Future development that is consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance and Island Crossing Subarea Plan would not have to repeat the environmental review completed in this EIS. This provides regulatory certainty and predictability for developers and the community, supports streamlined environmental review for permitting, and aligns with the goals of SEPA and the Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A). The EIS process includes the following steps: (1) scoping the EIS content with input from agencies, tribes, and the public; (2) preparing a draft EIS and allowing for public comments; (3) responding to comments and establishing a preferred alternative; (4) issuing the Final EIS; and (4) adopting supporting legislation aligned with the EIS. A Final EIS will be issued in October 2025 and will include responses to public comments received during the Draft EIS comment period. Following the EIS process, the City will consider adoption of the Subarea Plan. 2.2.2 Scope of Environmental Review The City of Arlington held a joint community workshop and SEPA EIS scoping meeting July 9, 2025 (see Public Engagement). Following scoping, the City identified the following elements and associated environmental topics to be analyzed in the EIS: • Land Use and Urban Form: Relationship to existing land use plans and aesthetics/scenic resources • Transportation: Non-motorized facilities; traffic volumes, operations, and safety • Water: Floodplain, surface water, groundwater, wetlands • Natural Environment: Stream, riparian, wetland, and terrestrial habitats; priority species and habitats • Utilities: Water, sewer, stormwater, electrical power, and natural gas These elements are presented in Chapter 3 of the EIS, respectively, including an analysis of the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. 2.3 Planning Context 2.3.1 Arlington Comprehensive Plan The City’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 2024. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Island Crossing as one of fourteen subareas that “distinguish specific geographical areas and existing neighborhoods within the community.” The plan emphasizes the importance of Subarea Planning in partnership with community members. The Island Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Public Engagement Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 19 Crossing Subarea Plan furthers several plan goals related to economic development and strategic targeting of growth to areas with appropriate infrastructure. SELECTED LAND USE GOALS • Goal LU-1 Provide unique places and context for the growth of social capital and community resiliency. • Goal LU-3 Address cross-jurisdictional growth, social, and cultural issues by working with affected jurisdictions. • Goal LU-6 Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to climate change impacts, including social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. SELECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS • Goal ED-1 Support a range of employment options at different income levels and a variety of amenities are available throughout the city. • Goal ED-2 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy. • Goal ED-3 Actively cooperate with other agencies and local businesses to support economic development. • Goal ED-6 Guide economic development practices within the city that protect and support the natural environment. • Goal ED-7 Encourage the development of unique economic hubs at various scales throughout the city to adequately serve residents and the region. • Goal ED-8 Support economic development activities that enhance the quality of life for Arlington residents The City of Arlington and Snohomish County are planning for residential growth and expect no housing growth in Island Crossing. See section 2.5.2 for employment growth projections. 2.3.2 Arlington Municipal Code 20.44.032 Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.44.032 – Subarea plans lays out the parameters for subarea planning for the fourteen designated subareas in Arlington. City-initiated subarea plans, such as the Island Crossing Subarea Plan, are subject to a public hearing before the hearing examiner (following the procedures of AMC 20.24), who reviews and may choose to recommend the plan to City Council for the final ordinance. Approved subarea plans are recorded with the Snohomish County auditor office and future land use permit applications must comply with the development regulations established with the plan. 2.4 Public Engagement From May through November 2024, the City gathered stakeholders’ and community members’ ideas and goals for the subarea. This engagement included workshops, surveys, and advisory group meetings with business and property owners. Additionally, technical Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Public Engagement Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 20 meetings with Snohomish County representatives, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Community Transit informed the design considerations for SR 530. A summary table of this plan’s public engagement activities is below. Exhibit 2.4-1 Engagement Summary Event Date Audience What we learned Kick-off tour and meeting Mar. 2024 Elected officials Flooding is a major issue, particularly flooding across 530. Herrera to research feasibility and impact of a side channel along the edge of the County-owned park property. Conversations with property owners between 530 and the river may be needed. Interventions are unlikely to get the entire area out of the floodplain. Access control along 530 is an issue; road improvements are needed. Potential to bring activity/assets to the highway frontage. Visioning Open House May 2024 Arlington community Flooding impacts to properties and roads are a major concern. Diverging visions for future land uses include additional auto- oriented commercial uses, preservation of agricultural land, and promotion of agritourism. Transportation challenges include truck traffic and lack of access control to businesses. Differing opinions on SR 530 design. Commu nity survey May- June 2024 Arlington community Desire to preserve culturally significant farmland and agricultural scenery. Desire to maintain the subarea’s current level of development to minimize impact on farmland and avoid noise, traffic, and light pollution. Appreciation for businesses that support agricultural uses and encourage agritourism. Worry that increased development could intensify flood risk and impact wildlife habitat. Using farmland for flood mitigation is viewed negatively as it reduces agricultural capacity. Concerns for traffic congestion and related safety impacts. Concerns that increased development and additional truck stops will strain infrastructure. Lack of sidewalks and crosswalks makes the area auto- oriented and uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists. Strong support for shared-use paths and regional bike connections. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Public Engagement Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 21 Event Date Audience What we learned Stakehol der interview July 2024 Subarea property owner Desire for City-owned regional compensatory storage strategy. Vision for development of properties facing SR 530 included aesthetically pleasing truck stop combined with other uses. Truck stop considered an economically feasible option. Interest in an east-west path connecting Silvana to Centennial Trail for bringing community together and supporting tourism. Interest in supporting agritourism, but unsure about its feasibility if it has to pay for floodwater storage. Advisory Groups Aug. and Sept. 2024 Subarea property owners and other stakeholders Desire for farmland and agricultural heritage preservation and to address flooding. Mixed interest in truck-stop development. Interest in street improvements to reduce speed and improve compatibility with pedestrian and bike mobility. Design roundabouts to accommodate freight and farm vehicles. Mixed views on park-and-ride/transit station, particularly feasibility. Divided views on compensatory storage: o Some interest in compensatory storage north of the subarea (and in southern tip) o Several interested in individual mitigation o Strong views on avoiding storage on farmland Strong interest in agritourism and hotel, recreation, restaurant, and retail/grocery/service follows North/northeastern area identified as ideal location for new development Identified “pin” locations generally align with land use options Transpor tation Technical Group July and Nov. 2024 Agency partners Traffic congestion is a major concern. Roundabouts are preferred by WSDOT rather than signalized intersections. Consolidated driveways (as opposed to frontage roads) is the preferred option which allows for piecemeal development and easier grade transition to private properties if SR 530 is elevated. The lack of population in the subarea reduces feasibility of transit service regardless of commercial growth. Microtransit is a viable alternative. Concerns with landscape maintenance. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 22 Event Date Audience What we learned Scoping Commu nity Meeting July 2025 Arlington community Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans, Transportation, and Utilities (sewer, water, stormwater, and street lighting), were considered the most important topic. Request for additional study of proposed floodable park/compensatory storage site. Consider other alternatives (Pape’s compensatory mitigation site). Consider economic viability of truck stops, Request for additional hydraulic analysis to promote balanced development while protecting floodplain habitat Continue coordination with the Tribe for the Smokey Point roundabout and future development. Strong interest in recreational facilities such as trails with views, and an event/community center 2.5 Objectives and Alternatives 2.5.1 Proposal Objectives SEPA requires the statement of objectives describing the purpose and need for the proposals. The following objectives apply to the alternatives considered in this EIS: 1. Bring property and business owners, nearby residents, and other interested parties together to shape a shared vision for the future of Island Crossing compatible with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 2. Evaluate environmental hazards, infrastructure needs, and growth potential and align future infrastructure investment plans with the shared vision. 3. Develop recommendations for new land use and zoning standards, design standards, and adjustments to other city regulations for City Council consideration. 2.5.2 Description of Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1: No Action assumes no change to current regulations and that City commitments, policies, and capital improvement plans would continue as planned over the next 20 years. The Highway Commercial zoning and Mixed Use and Flood District overlays would remain in place, allowing a broad range of commercial uses and no residential development. Under No Action Island Crossing is expected to add about 97 new jobs and no new residences. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 23 Exhibit 2.5.2-1 Alternative 1: No Action – Jobs Capacity Existing (2025) Net New Jobs Total Jobs 215 183 292 Existing jobs source: 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report with modifications to account for recent development. TRANSPORTATION The No Action alternative would implement projects currently in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP): Multimodal improvements along Smokey Point Blvd between 200th St and SR 530 (add sidewalks and bicycle accommodations and widen to three lanes) A roundabout at SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd (currently being designed by City) Improvements at the I-5/SR 530 interchange, including potential roundabouts on each side of I-5 WATER No major actions. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT No major actions. UTILITIES The No Action alternative would implement two water service improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Island Crossing: 12” Water Main 204th Street NE Local improvement district (LID) to coordinate developer-funded installation of a 12-inch ductile iron water main along the western boundary of the subarea. The No Action alternative includes planned construction of Lift Station 11 and Lift Station 14 submersible pump stations to provide adequate sewer capacity to accommodate growth. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation would implement the land use and urban design, transportation, and public services and utilities actions of the Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan, but not the regional flooding/compensatory storage facility actions. The combination of more generous height limits near I-4 and investments in SR-530 reconstruction is expected to modestly increase development relative to Alterative 1. Under Alternative 2 Island Crossing is expected to add about 97 new jobs and no new residences. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 24 Exhibit 2.5.2-2 Alternative 2 – Jobs Capacity Existing (2025) Net New Jobs Total Jobs 215 160 375 Existing jobs source: 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report with modifications to account for recent development. LAND USE AND URBAN FORM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Alternative 2 would implement new zoning and design standards for Island Crossing to encourage the growth of retail businesses and agritourism in clusters at key locations. The standards seek to promote a development pattern with buildings that are closer together and easier to access from adjacent sites. Design standards would encourage visual connections to the surrounding agricultural landscape and attempt to mitigate accessibility impacts from roadways and building pads that have been elevated as a flood mitigation measure. Exhibit 2.5.2-3 Alternative 2 Zoning Concepts IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 Intent Accommodate highway- oriented commercial activities along I-5 to cater to commuters, tourists, and commerce. Promote low- to medium- intensity commercial activities, including agri- commercial use. This area also allows for public/semi-public uses in partnership with the City. Accommodate general commercial such as car and heavy equipment sales. Generalized Allowed Uses Permitted uses include retail, restaurant, hotels, and some public and semi- public facilities except for hospitals and schools. Vehicle services like car washes are allowed, but gas stations are not. Residential uses and offices are not permitted. Uses allowed here include those allowed in IC-1, except for hotels or similar overnight accommodations. Vehicle services and fuel sales are not permitted. Uses allowed here include those allowed in IC-1, except for hotels or similar overnight accommodations and beverage-related businesses such as breweries. IC-3 also permits heavy equipment sales and car dealerships. Vehicle services like car washes are allowed, but gas stations are not. Height 50 feet Hotels only – 100 feet 50 feet 50 feet Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 25 Setbacks and Parking Orientation Encourages buildings to locate close to SR 530 when possible and orient toward side streets and new connections Encourages buildings to locate close to SR 530 when possible and orient toward side streets and new connections Flexibility for buildings to locate further from the right- of-way Parking No changes to parking standards: see AMC 20.72 Parking Design Standards Comply with Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards (to be adopted with Subarea Plan) Comply with Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards (to be adopted with Subarea Plan) Comply with Citywide Development Standards Intent Accommodate highway- oriented commercial activities along I-5 to cater to commuters, tourists, and commerce. Promote low- to medium- intensity commercial activities, including agri- commercial use. This area also allows for public/semi-public uses in partnership with the City. Accommodate general commercial such as car and heavy equipment sales. Height 50 feet Hotels only – 100 feet 50 feet 50 feet Source: 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report with modifications to account for recent development. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 26 Exhibit 2.5.2-4 Zoning Concept Map Source: MAKERS, 2024 Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 27 URBAN/RURAL GATEWAY Alternative 2 would implement Island Crossing Subarea Plan actions to encourage an aesthetic experience for people travelling through Island Crossing that is inviting and links the area with surrounding river valley and mountain landscapes. These actions include an improved SR 530 streetscape with public art, wayfinding, and signage, and updated development regulations and design standards to better integrate buildings and streets with the surrounding environment. TRANSPORTATION SR 530 RECONSTRUCTION The City will coordinate with WSDOT to design and construct SR 530 and related road improvements to support all road users, including non-motorized users as well as trucks, farm equipment, and buses, and provide landscaping and gateway features. This project would also include a single-lane roundabout midway between I-5 and Smokey Point Blvd. WATER Alternative 2 would include two important water-related actions related to SR 530 reconstruction: Elevating the roadway to accommodate future climate change-influenced flood events by setting the base flood elevation higher than current FEMA recommendations. Expanding the culvert under SR 530 to eliminate SR 530 overtopping and better utilize flood storage areas south of SR 530. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT No major actions. UTILITIES Same as Alternative 1. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 28 Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation – Preferred Alternative Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation, the Preferred Alternative, would include all other actions in Alternative 2, as well as investment in floodwater compensatory storage infrastructure to address vulnerability to Stillaguamish River flooding and increase development capacity in the subarea. The creation of the regional compensatory flood facility is expected to significantly increase development feasibility, resulting in the creation of more jobs than Alternative 2. Exhibit 2.5.2-5 Alternative 3 – Jobs Capacity Existing (2025) Net New Jobs Total Jobs 215 610 825 Existing jobs source: 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report with modifications to account for recent development. LAND USE AND URBAN FORM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Alternative 32 would implement new zoning and design standards for Island Crossing to encourage the growth of retail businesses and agritourism in clusters at key locations. The standards seek to promote a development pattern with buildings that are closer together and easier to access from adjacent sites. Design standards would encourage visual connections to the surrounding agricultural landscape and attempt to mitigate accessibility impacts from roadways and building pads that have been elevated as a flood mitigation measure. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 29 Exhibit 2.5.2-6. Alternative 3 Zoning Concepts IC-1 IC-2 IC-3 Intent Accommodate highway- oriented commercial activities along I-5 to cater to commuters, tourists, and commerce. Promote low- to medium- intensity commercial activities, including agri- commercial use. This area also allows for public/semi-public uses in partnership with the City. Accommodate general commercial such as car and heavy equipment sales. Generalized Allowed Uses Permitted uses include retail, restaurant, hotels, and some public and semi public facilities except for hospitals and schools. Vehicle services like car washes are allowed, but gas stations are not. Residential uses and offices are not permitted. Uses allowed here include those allowed in IC-1, except for hotels or similar overnight accommodations. Vehicle services and fuel sales are prohibited. Uses allowed here include those allowed in IC-1, except for hotels or similar overnight accommodations and beverage-related businesses such as breweries. IC-3 also permits heavy equipment sales and car dealerships. Vehicle services like car washes are allowed, but gas stations are not. Height 50 feet Hotels only – 100 feet 50 feet 50 feet Setbacks and Parking Orientation Encourages buildings to locate close to SR 530 when possible and orient toward side streets and new connections Encourages buildings to locate close to SR 530 when possible and orient toward side streets and new connections Flexibility for buildings to locate further from the right- of-way Parking No changes to parking standards: see AMC 20.72 Parking Design Standards Comply with Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards (to be adopted with Subarea Plan) Comply with Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards (to be adopted with Subarea Plan) Comply with Citywide Development Standards Intent Accommodate highway- oriented commercial activities along I-5 to cater to commuters, tourists, and commerce. Promote low- to medium- intensity commercial activities, including agri- commercial use. This area also allows for public/semi-public uses in partnership with the City. Accommodate general commercial such as car and heavy equipment sales. Height 50 feet Hotels only – 100 feet 50 feet 50 feet Source: 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report with modifications to account for recent development. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 30 Exhibit 2.5.2-7 Zoning Concept Map Source: MAKERS, 2024 Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 31 URBAN/RURAL GATEWAY Alternative 2 3 would implement Island Crossing Subarea Plan actions to encourage an aesthetic experience for people travelling through Island Crossing that is inviting and links the area with surrounding river valley and mountain landscapes. These actions include an improved SR 530 streetscape with public art, wayfinding, and signage, and updated development regulations and design standards to better integrate buildings and streets with the surrounding environment. TRANSPORTATION SR 530 RECONSTRUCTION Like Alternative 2, the City will coordinate with WSDOT to design and construct SR 530 and related road improvements to support all road users, including non-motorized users as well as trucks, farm equipment, and buses, and provide landscaping and gateway features. This project would also include a single-lane roundabout midway between I-5 and Smokey Point Blvd. WATER Collaborate with property owners to design, fund, and build a regional compensatory flood facility north of SR 530. This facility will compensate for impacts from new development that would otherwise increase flood exposure for nearby properties. The facility would be co- located with a regional park and sports fields. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT No major actions. UTILITIES In addition to the Alternate 1 No Action projects, Alternative 3 includes development of an Island Crossing Stormwater Plan to address stormwater management in the area. Chapter 2 | Proposal & Alternatives | Objectives and Alternatives Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 32 Exhibit 2.5.2-8 Alternative 3 Conceptual Site plan Source: MAKERS Note: This is a conceptual rendering – actual location, size, and type of buildings will differ. Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 33 3 Environment, Impacts & Mitigation Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 34 This chapter describes the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for the following topics: Section 3.1 Land Use & Urban Form Section 3.2 Transportation Section 3.3 Water Section 3.4 Natural Environment Section 3.5 Utilities After reviewing the affected environment, this analysis compares alternatives and offers mitigation measures for identified impacts. It also summarizes whether any significant adverse impacts are unavoidable. 3.1 Land Use & Urban Form 3.1.1 Affected Environment Relationship to Existing Plans This section provides a summary of State, Region, County, and City plans and policies relevant to the Island Crossing Planned Action. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In 2024 the City of Arlington adopted a new Comprehensive Plan. There were no changes to land use designations or zoning in Island Crossing relative to the previous version of the plan. Zoning and land use designations are summarized in the Zoning and Future Land Use Designation section below. SELECTED LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES • Goal LU-1 Provide unique places and context for the growth of social capital and community resiliency. • LU-1.1 Ensure both publicly- and privately-owned civic spaces are included throughout the City to provide adequate gathering spaces. • LU-1.2 Establish development standards and regulations based on the availability and serviceability of developable lands to maintain a balanced mix and arrangement of land uses in the City. • LU-1.4 Encourage development patterns that provide safe and welcoming environments for walking and bicycling. • Goal LU-2 Ensure equitable access to City resources and programs through proactive and transparent outreach efforts, completed on multiple platforms, and where appropriate, in multiple languages. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 35 • LU-2.1 Regularly review existing development regulations to remove requirements that unnecessarily hinder the development process. • LU-2.3 Employ outreach efforts to gain input from residents and business owners on public improvements and land use actions that have the potential to affect the identity of existing neighborhoods. • LU-2.4 Review city projects to mitigate displacement risk and minimize impacts to private property owners, including consideration of projects that may necessitate property condemnation, right-of-way acquisition, and/or eminent domain. • Goal LU-3 Address cross-jurisdictional growth, social, and cultural issues by working with affected jurisdictions. • LU-3.5 Recognize and work with contiguous systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries, including natural systems, land use patterns, and transportation and infrastructure systems, in community planning, development, and design. • Goal LU-4 Encourage local businesses through the continued application of mixed- use residential corridors and multiple locations for neighborhood serving businesses. • LU-4.2 Promote the development of new retail, service, and civic mixed-uses and promote the enhancement of existing spaces to create urban centers. • LU-4.3 Support the transformation of key underutilized lands, such as surplus public lands or environmentally contaminated lands, to higher density, mixed-use areas to enhance and complement the development of neighborhood centers. • LU-4.5 Tailor concurrency programs for urban centers and other subareas to encourage development that can be supported by transit. • LU-4.6 Encourage developments that place employment areas and living areas in close proximity in order to maximize transportation choices, minimize vehicle miles traveled, optimize the use of existing and planned transportation systems and capital facilities, and improve the jobs-housing balance. • LU-4.7 Encourage coordination among the City, transportation providers, and developers to ensure that joint- and mixed-use developments are designed to promote and improve physical, mental, and social health, and reduce the impacts of climate change on the natural and built environments. • Goal LU-6 Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to climate change impacts, including social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. • LU-6.2 Ensure land development patterns minimize or prevent impacts on natural open spaces and resource lands. • LU-6.3 Development patterns shall be responsive to critical areas and other environmental factors, while minimizing the fragmentation of the built environment. • LU-6.5 Establish best management practices that protect the long-term integrity of the natural environment and adjacent land uses. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 36 • LU-6.6 Encourage the protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies. • Goal LU-7 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. • LU-7.3 Use innovative development standards, design guidelines, regulatory incentives, and applicable low-impact development measures to provide compact, high-quality communities SELECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES • Goal ED-1 Support a range of employment options at different income levels and a variety of amenities are available throughout the city. • ED-1.1 Encourage a diversified and vibrant economy in order to facilitate high and stable rates of employment within the city, available at a range of income levels. • ED-1.2 Establish and support economic development activities that help to attract, retain, expand, and diversify businesses throughout the city, particularly those that provide living-wage jobs. • ED-1.3 Promote diverse and sustainable employment sectors to support and encourage residents to live and work in Arlington. • ED-1.4 Foster an equitable business and regulatory environment that supports the establishment and growth of startups, small businesses, locally owned, and women- and minority-owned businesses. • Goal ED-2 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy. • ED-2.1 Plan for adequate land capacity to support commercial and industrial uses and to provide sufficient employment meeting the 20-year employment targets for Arlington. • ED-2.2 Plan for adequate retail sales base (i.e., commercial land base) to provide financial support for the services the City provides. • ED-2.5 Leverage Arlington’s visibility from Interstate-5 and encourage the development and enhancement of the city’s gateways to attract additional consumer base. • ED-2.9 Identify sectors of the economy within Arlington where opportunities might exist to create additional jobs and identify potential strategies for attracting employment in those fields. • Goal ED-3 Actively cooperate with other agencies and local businesses to support economic development. • ED-3.4 Participate or otherwise assist in business sponsored activities to increase local awareness of goods and services available in Arlington. • ED-3.7 Coordinate with Snohomish County on potential tourism grants to support citywide and regional tourism efforts. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 37 • Goal ED-6 Guide economic development practices within the city that protect and support the natural environment. • ED-6.2 Encourage economic development activities that take into consideration the capacities of the area’s natural resources, public services, and facilities. • Goal ED-7 Encourage the development of unique economic hubs at various scales throughout the city to adequately serve residents and the region. • ED-7.1 Promote the viability of Old-Town Business District, Smokey Point Boulevard, the Cascade Industrial Center, and Island Crossing as regional economic draws, while maintaining and improving upon smaller neighborhood hubs to serve local residents. • ED-7.7 Develop economic development strategies to differentiate and enhance the different subareas of the city. • Goal ED-8 Support economic development activities that enhance the quality of life for Arlington residents • ED-8.2 Encourage businesses that process and sell locally produced resources, particularly healthy food products. • ED-8.3 Develop a variety of strategies aimed at enhancing the diversity of Arlington’s tourism base, with particular focus on agritourism, farm-to-table, and local crafts industry products. ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION The Island Crossing subarea is zoned Highway Commercial, allowing a broad range of commercial activities. Island Crossing also has a Mixed Use Overlay, which in other parts of the city allows a mix of commercial and residential high density uses in order to create a pedestrian-friendly, mixed use zone near employment opportunities. However, in Island Crossing the mixed-use overlay prohibits residential development. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 38 Exhibit 3.1.1-1 HC Density and Dimension Standards Zone Highway Commercial Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 0 Minimum Residential Density N/A Minimum Lot Width (feet) 70 Building Setback Requirements – Minimum Distance, in feet from: Right of Way Line 10 if building < 10,000 sf of Way Line 10 if building < 10,000 sf Line Accessory – 5 Line or Alley Freestanding Sign 5 Source: City of Arlington Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 39 AIRPORT PROTECTION SUBDISTRICT The majority of Island Crossing lies within the Airport Protection Subdistrict D, which restricts uses that would interfere with airport and flight operations, limits building/structure heights to 166 feet, and does not limit residential or employment intensities. The southeast corner of the subarea falls within the Airport Protection Subdistrict C, which, in addition to the restricted uses of Subdistrict D, restricts uses that would increase bird populations. PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL VISION 2050 (2020) In 2020, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) adopted VISION 2050, a regional plan for coordinated transportation and land use planning. Metropolitan Planning Policies (MPPs) are required under the Growth Management Act to guide the planning of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. A series of goals and policies identify the need for healthy, equitable and vibrant communities with compact housing and walkable neighborhoods, active and connected transportation, healthy environments, rural and natural area conservation, and access to parks and open space. Selected goals and policies are listed below. Regional Growth Strategy Goal: The region accommodates growth in urban areas, focused in designated centers and near transit stations, to create healthy, equitable, vibrant communities well-served by infrastructure and services. Rural and resource lands continue to be vital parts of the region that retain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle opportunities over the long term. MPP-RGS-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 and the goals of the Regional Open Space Conservation Plan. MPP-RGS-6 Encourage efficient use of urban land by optimizing the development potential of existing urban lands and increasing density in the urban growth area in locations consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Development Patterns Goal: The region creates healthy, walkable, compact, and equitable transit-oriented communities that maintain unique character and local culture, while conserving rural areas and creating and preserving open space and natural areas. MPP-DP-1 Develop high-quality, compact urban communities throughout the region’s urban growth area that impart a sense of place, preserve local character, provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. MPP-DP-6 Preserve significant regional historic, visual, and cultural resources, including public views, landmarks, archaeological sites, historic and cultural landscapes, and areas of special character. Economy Goal: The region has a prospering and sustainable regional economy by supporting businesses and job creation, investing in all people and their health, sustaining Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 40 environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities, and high quality of life. SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Development Patterns Goal: The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will provide livable communities for all residents by directing growth into designated urban areas to create urban places that are equitable, walkable, compact, and transit oriented, preserve and create open space, and protect rural and resource lands. URBAN GROWTH AREAS AND LAND USE DP-5 The County and cities shall adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations (RCW 36.70A.040). In Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), such plans and regulations shall: a. Achieve urban uses and densities; b. Provide for urban governmental services and capital facilities sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth; and c. Permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the succeeding twenty-year period (RCW 36.70A.110(2)). DP-15 The County and cities should adopt policies, development regulations, and design guidelines that allow for infill and redevelopment of underutilized lands and other appropriate areas. DP-16 Jurisdictions should encourage the use of innovative development standards, design guidelines, regulatory incentives, and applicable low impact development measures to provide compact, high quality communities COMMUNITY DESIGN DP-33 Jurisdictions should minimize the adverse impacts on resource lands and critical areas from new developments through the use of environmentally sensitive development and land use practices DP-36 Jurisdictions should develop high quality, compact urban communities that impart a sense of place, preserve local character, provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use DP-41 The County and cities should adopt policies that create opportunities for: a. Supporting urban food production practices, distribution, and marketing such as community gardens and farmers markets; and b. Increasing the local agricultural economy’s capacity to produce, market, and distribute fresh and minimally processed foods. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Goal: Cities, towns, and Snohomish County government will encourage coordinated, sustainable economic growth by building on the strengths of the Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 41 county’s economic base and diversifying it through strategic investments in infrastructure, education and training, and sound management of land and natural resources ED-5 Jurisdictions should promote economic and employment growth that creates a countywide economy that consists of a diverse range of living wage jobs for all of the county’s residents. ED-15 Jurisdictions should ensure that economic development sustains and respects the county’s natural environment and encourages the development of existing and emerging industries, technologies, and services that promote environmental sustainability, especially those addressing climate change and resilience 2019 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND RELATED DOCUMENTS Arlington’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and supporting documents were updated in 2019. Shoreline Master Programs include comprehensive shoreline plans, mutually adopted by local governments and the Washington State Department of Ecology that regulate shoreline use and development in areas subject to regulation under the State Shoreline Management Act. Under the provisions of the Act, local governments must base SMP provisions on an analysis of the most relevant and accurate scientific and technical information. This includes meeting the mandate of “no net loss” of shoreline ecological functions, as well as providing mechanisms for restoration of impaired shoreline functions. The original SMP for the City of Arlington (City) was approved in 1974 and was updated in 2019. All SMP documents are located here: Arlington Shoreline Master Program Documents. 2019 AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN The City’s Water System Plan (WSP) fulfills state law (WAC 246-290-100) by detailing how the City will safely and efficiently operate its water system for the next 10 years. In 2019, the City amended the 2017 amended version of the 2015 WSP for consistency with other City and Snohomish County planning documents, and the City was supported by RH2 and FCS Group consultants in this work. The 2019 amendments were completed for consistency with state regulations when changes are made to the City’s Water Service Area (WSA) boundary after the City acquired 17.89 acres of the City of Marysville’s WSA in Smokey Point in order to meet a developer’s service requirements. The WSP is provided here in multiple documents: 2019 Amended Water System Plan (one volume for the plan, one volume for maps, and appendices). 2018 COMPLETE STREETS POLICY AND PROGRAM Arlington’s Complete Streets Program aims to address the needs of all users when development and redevelopment of traffic corridors are proposed within the City of Arlington, including people who drive, family and commuter cyclists, pedestrians, people with accessibility needs, and people who use transit. It also focuses on the aesthetics of our streets. More information is available here, including the City’s Adopted Complete Streets Policy document: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/574/Complete-Streets. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 42 2017 AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER PLAN The City of Arlington adopted the 2017 amendments to the 2015 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan (CWP), and the City was supported by RH2 and FCS Group consultants in this work. The CWP fulfills state law (WAC 173-240-050) by detailing how the City will safely and efficiently operate our sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment systems for the next 10 to 20 years. The amendment is necessary to assure consistency with a concurrent amendment to the City’s overall Comprehensive Plan update, which defines how the City is planning to grow. The 2017 plan is available here: 2017 Amended Comprehensive Wastewater Plan. The City conducts capital improvements planning on a biennial basis and recently updated wastewater system and facility needs for the CIP, as noted in the Capital Facilities Book of the Comprehensive Plan. The City will be updating its overall Comprehensive Wastewater Plan as an outcome of the comprehensive planning process to ensure alignment with planned growth through 2044. 2014 ARLINGTON RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN Through the creation and adoption of the 2014 Arlington Riverfront Master Plan, the City Council recognized the special role the Stillaguamish River plays in the Arlington. The river provides many quality of life benefits for Arlington residents and visitors to the city including recreation, employment, tourism, and habitat preservation. The plan provides a pro-active vision for the riverfront area north of downtown Arlington. Although the plan addresses a different section of the Stillaguamish River, it provides context for the City’s approach to the river in other areas, including Island Crossing. The Riverfront Master Plan and supporting documentation is available here: Arlington Riverfront Master Plan. 2005 STILLAGUAMISH WATERSHED CHINOOK SALMON RECOVERY PLAN The Stillaguamish Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan is intended to provide guidance to local stakeholders in a collaborative effort to restore and protect Chinook salmon populations in the Stillaguamish River watershed – Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 5. The plan identifies lower Stillaguamish River floodplain, including Island Crossing, as a priority for floodplain restoration. Employment Capacity BUILDABLE LANDS REPORT The Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report (BLR) was used by Arlington and Snohomish County to set baseline assumptions for future growth based on current conditions. The BLR shows total employment doubling by 2035, from approximately 201 jobs in 2024 to 397 by 2035 (Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report, 2021). Growth targets developed for the Arlington Comprehensive Plan document how the City’s growth strategy is expected to play out in different areas, including an elevated role for designated subareas like Island Crossing in attracting jobs and (in other subareas) housing Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 43 growth. The Comprehensive Plan projected significant increase in jobs to 935 and a slight reduction in the number of housing units in Island Crossing by 2044. Exhibit 3.1.1-2 Buildable Lands Report and Comprehensive Plan Growth Projections Existing Housing Units Housing Unit Capacity Total Housing Potential Existing Jobs Net New Jobs Total Job Potential 5 (2019) 2 7 201 (2019) 196 397 5 (2020) 0 2 249 (2020) 686 935 Source: Snohomish County, 2019; City of Arlington, 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Exhibit 3.1.1-3 2044 Comprehensive Plan Jobs Targets Existing (2025) Net New Jobs Total Jobs 2044 Comprehensive Plan 215 720 935 Source: City of Arlington, 2024 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 44 Exhibit 3.1.1-4 Buildable Lands Map Source: Snohomish County, MAKERS, 2024 Exhibit 3.1.1-5 Comprehensive Plan Development Assumptions Source: City of Arlington, 2024 Aesthetics/Scenic Resources Island Crossing is located immediately east of the I-5/SR 530 interchange, which provides the most direct access to downtown Arlington from I-5. From the interchange to downtown SR 530 passes through farmland and by the Stillaguamish River and forestlands to the north, with views to the east of Whitehorse Mountain, Three Fingers Mountain, and Mount Pilchuck in the Cascade Range. As a result, Island Crossing plays a unique role as the gateway into this scenic landscape. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 45 Exhibit 3.1.1-6. Typical eastward view from the I-5/SR 530 Interchange. Numbered peaks are #1 Whitehorse Mountain, #2 Mt Bullon, #3 Three Fingers Mountain. Mt. Pilchuck out of frame to the right. Source: MAKERS, 2024 Within Island crossing many parcels are dedicated to agricultural uses, with broad open views, tree lines and hedgerows between fields, and small agricultural buildings. A small number of houses, some associated with farms, built many decades ago are present in the subarea. The agricultural fields vary in appearance significantly depending on the season, with lush green plantings, mature golden crops, or bare stubble, depending on the time of year or type of production pursued by the farmer. This type of rural or pastoral landscape, with a mix of open vistas and groves of trees, has been shown to produce positive feelings in people across cultures.1 1 See literature review in: Bennett, K. (2019). The Savanna Hypothesis and Landscape Preferences. In: Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3726-1 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 46 Exhibit 3.1.1-7. Eastward view from the subarea featuring Three Fingers Mountain (center- right). Photo courtesy of Deborah Nelson Within Island Crossing the immediate scenery is typical of low-density commercial development near freeway interchanges, with one-story commercial buildings surrounded by paved surface parking areas. There are few trees and small landscaped islands along the roadway. Utility poles and lines are the primary vertical feature visible. In the eastern half of the subarea, farmland is visible to the north of SR 530 and to the east of Smokey Point Blvd. Exhibit 3.1.1-8 Eastbound traffic on SR 530 near the entrance to Pilot Travel Center. Source: MAKERS, 2024 3.1.2 Potential Impacts Thresholds of Significance Thresholds of significance are here used to define impacts that would have adverse effects prior to or without any mitigation. Thresholds of significance include: Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 47 Relationship to existing land use plans/estimated population and employment. Alternative is inconsistent with PSRC VISION 2050 Growth Strategy, Countywide Planning Policies, city growth targets, or Comprehensive Plan policies. Aesthetics/scenic resources. Completely obscured views of Cascade peaks from SR 530. Complete loss of rural visual and cultural landscape. Impacts Common to All Alternatives RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS/ESTIMATED POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT All alternatives would see some increase in jobs in Island Crossing, generally strengthening the local job base, in line with Comprehensive Plan and regional plan economic development goals. This would involve the conversion of some vacant and under-utilized land within city limits to more productive uses, and would support the diversification of businesses in the city, in line with Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Goal 2. However, under all alternatives, development would be primarily oriented towards employment uses, with no new residences added. This could potentially conflict with goals and policies related to mixed-use development, and increasing the proximity of jobs and amenities that are within walking or biking distance of rural homes, such as Land Use Goal 4, VISION 2050- police MPP-DP-1, and Snohomish County Planning Policy DP-36. AESTHETICS/SCENIC RESOURCES Construction of buildings, parking areas, floodwater storage facilities, and other site improvements on working farmland or vacant sites is likely to occur under all alternatives. This will likely result in aesthetics in the subarea continuing to transition from a rural crossroads with a pastoral ambience, to a more developed landscape featuring fewer trees, seasonal plantings, and open spaces, and more human-made surfaces and structures including buildings and parking lots. Under all alternatives taller buildings may in some cases obscure views of Cascade mountain peaks to the east from certain specific vantage points. Alternative 1: No Action RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS/ESTIMATED POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT Alternative 1 would see modest job growth under existing development regulations and with no major investments in regional floodwater storage. Job growth would be significantly below the Comprehensive Plan targets. Existing zoning supports the growth of highway-oriented businesses like gas stations, restaurants, and big-ticket retail operations like automotive dealerships and machinery sales. However, the requirement for on-site floodwater storage will add significant cost to development, inhibiting development. Job growth estimates for Alternative 1 are based on Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 48 the 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report projection, reflecting market trends instead of the updated, aspirational Comprehensive Plan growth targets, with updates to the existing jobs total to account for recent development and vacancies. Exhibit 3.1.2-1 Alternative 1 2044 Job Growth Projection Compared to Comprehensive Plan Target Existing (2025) Net New Jobs Total Jobs 2044 Comprehensive Plan 215 720 935 Alternative 1: No Action 77 292 Source: 2019 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report, Arlington 2044 Comprehensive Plan, MAKERS, 2025 AESTHETICS/SCENIC RESOURCES Under Alternative 1 the aesthetics of the subarea will likely continue to gradually transition from a rural/crossroads landscape to a developed landscape with typical “sprawl” development patterns featuring large paved areas, gas stations, restaurants, and retail stores. Views of Cascade Range mountain peaks are unlikely to be impeded by predominantly one- story construction. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS/ESTIMATED POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT Alternative 2 would feature updates to development regulations and design standards in line with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other city and regional plans. Under Alternative 2, Island Crossing would see a modest increase in job growth relative to No Action, due to the better calibration of development regulations to local market conditions and bonus height for new hotel development. The types of jobs created would be better aligned with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan than under Alternative 1, with a stronger focus on linkages in with the local agricultural economy and agritourism. However, actual job growth is likely to be well below targets in the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 3.1.2-2 Alternative 2 2044 Job Growth Projection Compared to Comprehensive Plan Target Existing (2025) Net New Jobs Total Jobs 2044 Comprehensive Plan 215 720 935 Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation 160 375 Source: Arlington 2044 Comprehensive Plan, MAKERS, 2025 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 49 AESTHETICS/SCENIC RESOURCES Alternative 2 would see a level of new development similar to Alternative 1, gradually transitioning the area towards are more developed landscape. However, Alternative 2 includes adoption of design standards that would improve the appearance of commercial development along the primary view corridor on SR 530. This alternative also includes reconstruction and elevation of SR 530 through the subarea to reduce vulnerability to floods and improve aesthetics. The rebuilt roadway would feature the addition of trees and landscaped areas along the roadway, as well as shared use paths for walking, rolling, and cycling. These would improve the aesthetic experience for motorists on SR 530 and for pedestrians on the paths. The elevated roadway would have improved views of Cascade peaks to the east and surrounding farmland and riverine landscapes. Some of the mountain views may be obscured as the trees mature, but relatively narrow and short tree species could be selected to limit view impacts. Exhibit 3.1.2-3 Cross-section of proposed SR 530 conceptual design Note: Not to scale; conceptual design for planning purposes only. Source: MAKERS, 2025 Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation – Preferred Alternative RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS/ESTIMATED POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT Under Alternative 3 the development regulation updates and transportation improvements included in Alternative 2 are augmented with investment in a regional floodwater compensatory storage facility, reducing development costs for most properties in the subarea. As a result, Alternative 3 would likely see significant job growth in sectors like hospitality, agritourism, dining, and retail. Overall job growth under Alternative 3 is similar to (though somewhat below) what was projected for the area under the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 50 Alternative 3 aligns well with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, especially economic development goals and policies related to economic diversification (goals ED-1 and ED-2 and related policies), developing tourism (ED 3.7 and 8.3), growing distributed economic hubs (ED 7.1 and 7.7), and pursuing businesses that can improve quality of life in Arlington (goal ED-8). It aligns well with land use goals and policies related to creating unique community centers in different parts of the city (LU 4.2 and 4.3), more comfortable environments for walking and biking (LU 1.4), compact, high-quality communities (LU 7.3), and improving and revising development regulations to remove unnecessary hinderances to development (LU 2.1). Exhibit 3.1.2-4 Alternative 3 2044 Job Growth Projection compared to Comprehensive Plan Target Existing (2025) Net New Jobs Total Jobs Comprehensive Plan 215 720 935 Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation 610 825 Source: Arlington 2044 Comprehensive Plan, MAKERS, 2025 AESTHETICS/SCENIC RESOURCES Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 includes design standards that, with redevelopment, would help improve the appearance of commercial development along the SR 530 view corridor. It also includes rebuilding SR 530 and the addition of trees, landscaped areas, and shared use paths along the roadway, with similar aesthetic benefits and impacts as Alternative 2. Because Alternative 3 would see significantly more development than Alternative 2, with more numerous and likely taller buildings, there is more potential for views of Cascade Range peaks to be obscured by multi-story buildings, including from the SR 530 corridor and the I-5 interchange/gateway area. 3.1.3 Mitigation Strategies Incorporated Plan Features ESTIMATED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT The Subarea Plan features a range of measures to increase commercial development feasibility. These measures include: Updates to development regulations to reduce barriers to desired development. Design standards requiring new street connections, improving connectivity in areas not currently well served by the street grid. Investment in regional floodwater compensatory storage to reduce development costs for individual property owners. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 51 Investment in streetscape and roadway infrastructure to improve the functionality, resilience, and attractiveness of the public realm. Other utility improvements to support new development. With all planned measures in place, the projected employment for the subarea nearly achieves the targets of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The employment mix, which would feature more agritourism and hospitality sector jobs, is better aligned with the Comprehensive Plan than the Alternative 1 employment mix. AESTHETICS/SCENIC RESOURCES CASCADE VIEWS The Subarea Plan incorporates a conceptual design (see Exhibit 3.2.2-5 SR 530 Concept Cross-section) for the reconstruction of SR 530 to limit vulnerability of the roadway to closure due to flooding by elevating the roadway above flood levels. Elevation of the roadway will also help mitigate the impact of taller and more numerous buildings on scenic views of Cascade Range peaks to the east from SR 530. DESIGN STANDARDS Design standards to be adopted with the Subarea Plan will require development within Island Crossing to incorporate elements of architectural character, massing, and exterior finish materials that reflect the region’s agricultural heritage. These standards will help to mitigate impacts of new development on the area’s rural aesthetic landscape. Regulations and commitments State and local law require new development to conform to minimum standards for safety, compatibility, and consistent with adopted infrastructure plans. Arlington’s Zoning Code (AMC Title 20: Zoning) and citywide Development Design Standards regulate land use, landscaping, parking, design, and other aspects of development to ensure development meets the City’s long-term vision. Arlington’s Engineering Standards regulate street design. Also see 3.4.3 Mitigation Strategies for environmental regulations that impact land use and development. As required by GMA (RCW 36.70A.106), the City must submit proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and updated regulations for review and comment by the State prior to final adoption. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 52 Other Potential Mitigation Measures SR 530 TREE SPACING AND SPECIES SELECTION In addition to roadway elevation, the conceptual designs for SR 530 would include landscaping, a shared use path, and trees planted along both sides of the roadway. As these trees mature their crowns will expand in height and width, potentially obscuring views of the Cascade peaks from SR 530. Along the elevated portion of SR 530 near the I-5 interchange, D designs for tree planting with sufficient spacing between trees, and use of tree species that maintain a narrow, columnar crown would mitigate the potential for impacts to cascade views. Use of tree species with a lower height (and any crown width) and broader crown for portions of the roadway to the east would help avoid blocking mountain views from the interchange/gateway area. Avoiding the planning of street trees along elevated portion of SR 530 that rises towards the interchange would also limit view impacts. Exhibit 3.1.3-1 SR 530 tree height and spacing considerations. Source: MAKERS, 2025 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Alternatives 1 and 2 fail to align with adopted growth targets under the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, creating a significant impact under the threshold established in section 3.1.2. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Land Use & Urban Form Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 53 With implementation of the planned improvements in the study area and proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts related solely to the proposed alternatives. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 54 3.2 Transportation This chapter provides an understanding of current transportation conditions and the potential transportation-related impacts of the development alternatives for the Arlington Island Crossing Subarea. 3.2.1 Affected Environment This section describes existing transportation conditions and key facilities near the Island Crossing Subarea. Information is provided regarding the non-motorized facilities, transit service and facilities, traffic volumes, traffic operations and traffic safety in the study area. The study area defined for this analysis is as follows: I-5 Southbound Ramps/SR 530 I-5 Northbound Ramps/SR 530 Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 Smokey Point Boulevard/Smokey Point Boulevard Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE A map of the subarea location and study area intersections is shown on Exhibit 3.2.1-1. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 55 Exhibit 3.2.1-1 Study Area Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 56 NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES Existing non-motorized facilities in the Island Crossing subarea include pedestrian crossings located at the signalized intersection of the I-5 on and off ramps and SR 530 (intersection #1 and #2 on Exhibit 3.2.1-1), across SR 530 at the west fork of the Smokey Point Boulevard intersection (between #3 and #6), and midway along the east fork of the Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 intersection (between #3 and #4). There are no sidewalks or bicycle facilities along SR 530 or Smokey Point Boulevard within the Island Crossing subarea. Paved shoulders along SR 530 may be wide enough to accommodate non-motorized travelers, including bicyclists, though the volume, proximity, and speed of adjacent vehicle traffic may discourage this use. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans (both dated October 2018) identify Smokey Point Boulevard as critical to citywide non-motorized connectivity. Connectivity to the Smokey Point Transit Center is also identified as a high priority. The project identified to enhance connectivity to the Smokey Point Transit Center is a multi-use trail along Smokey Point Boulevard from 188th Street to SR 530. TRANSIT Transit in this area is provided through Island Crossing by Community Transit, though there are no bus stops in Island Crossing. Route 201 travels north-south along Smokey Point Boulevard to Smokey Point Transit Center south of the subarea, where routes 220 and 230 connect to historic downtown Arlington to the east. ROADWAY NETWORK The key roadways serving the Island Crossing subarea are described below. Interstate 5 (I-5) is a north-south interstate with speed limits of 60-70 mph that provides regional access to the Island Crossing subarea via SR 530. I-5 is a designated freight route and strategic freight corridor within the study area. SR 530 is an east-west other principal arterial that connects I-5 to the west and SR 9 to the east. It is a two-lane roadway within the study area with posted speed limits of 35 to 55 mph. No parking is allowed and there are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities provided within the study area except for the crosswalk across SR 530 at the west fork of the Smokey Point Boulevard intersection (between #3 and #6). SR 530 is a designed freight route and strategic freight corridor within the study area. Smokey Point Boulevard is a north-south arterial that meets SR 530 on the east boundary of the Island Crossing subarea. It is a two-lane roadway within the study area with posted speed limits of 35 to 40 mph. Smokey Point Boulevard is a designated freight route. No parking is allowed and there are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities provided within the study area except for the crosswalk midway along the east fork of the Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 intersection (between #3 and #4). Smokey Point Boulevard currently meets SR 530 at two separate locations, which will be reconfigured with the planned improvement to provide a Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 57 roundabout at the east intersection (#3) and change the west intersection (#4) to a one-way southbound for the fork between SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. 200th Street is an east-west roadway located west of the City of Arlington boundary in unincorporated Snohomish County. It is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph just south of the study area. No parking is allowed and there are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities provided within the study area. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing traffic counts were collected in June 2022 for the study intersections. The weekday PM peak hour (one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.) is typically used by the City in evaluating transportation system needs as it represents the highest travel activity experienced during the day. The detailed traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Existing weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibit 3.2.1-2. The weekday PM peak hour traffic volume along SR 530 within the Subarea is about 1,400 vehicles per hour and along Smokey Point Boulevard is about 500 vehicles per hour. Exhibit 3.2.1-2 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transpo Group, 2025 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Weekday PM peak hour traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections based on level of service (LOS). The analysis was based on procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition using Synchro 12.0. For signalized intersections, LOS is Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 58 measured in average delay per vehicle and is reported for the intersection as a whole. At side- street stop-controlled intersections LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle during the peak hour of traffic and is reported for the worst operating approach or movement of the intersection. Traffic operations and average vehicle delay for an intersection can be described qualitatively with a range of levels of service (LOS A through LOS F), with LOS A indicating free-flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. The study intersections are in the City of Arlington and WSDOT jurisdictions. The City of Arlington has adopted LOS D for City arterials. WSDOT has an adopted LOS C standard for I-5 and SR 530 in the study area. Exhibit 3.2.1-3 summarizes the existing weekday PM peak hour intersection operations at the study intersections. Exhibit 3.2.1-3 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary Intersections Traffic Control LOS Standard LOS1 Delay2 WM3 1. I-5 Southbound Ramps/SR Signal C C 25.5 - 2. I-5 Northbound Ramps/SR Signal C F 91.7 - 3. Smokey Point Two-Way Stop C C 22.0 NBR 4. Smokey Point Boulevard/Smokey Point Two-Way Stop C A 9.7 EBR 5. Smokey Point Two-Way Stop D B 12.8 EB Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Notes: Red bold indicates LOS standard is not met. 1. Level of service (LOS) based on Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections where NBR = northbound right-turn, EBR = eastbound right-turn, and EB = eastbound. As shown in Exhibit 3.2.1-3, the intersection of the I-5 Northbound Ramps at SR 530 does not meet the adopted LOS C standard during the weekday PM peak hour and is operating at LOS F. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. TRAFFIC SAFETY Collision data for the most recent five-year period for intersections was reviewed to identify potential safety issues within the study area. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) reported collision data between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024 is summarized in Exhibit 3.2.1-4. Exhibit 3.2.1-4 Five Year Collision Summary – 2020 to 2024 Number of Collisions Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 59 Location Traffic Control 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Annual Average Collisions per MEV1 1. I-5 Southbound Signal 7 5 5 7 8 32 6.40 1.49 2. I-5 Northbound Signal 7 6 2 8 4 27 5.40 0.71 3. Smokey Point Two-Way 2 1 1 3 4 11 2.20 0.35 4. Smokey Point Boulevard/Smokey Two-Way Stop 1 0 1 1 2 5 1.00 0.43 5. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Two-Way Stop 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.20 0.09 1. Collisions per million entering vehicles Study intersections with a collision rate greater than one collision per million entering vehicles (MEV) should be considered for further review to determine if a safety issue may exist. As shown on Exhibit 3.2.1-4, all study intersections have collisions per MEVs less than one except for I-5 Southbound Ramps/SR 530. Based on the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, a roundabout is the recommended improvement to be installed in the future at this location. A roundabout would improve safety conditions at the intersection by reducing vehicle speeds to and through the intersection, along with creating one-way travel and reducing conflict points. Along with a review of intersections, SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard collisions were also reviewed. Spatial analysis of the crashes reported on SR 530 revealed that the driveways to the Pilot Travel Center Truck Stop were closely associated with dense clusters of rear-end crashes, the majority of which were associated with personal vehicles and not trucks. Incidents of angle crashes were more densely grouped along the driveways associated with retail, food, and travel services nearer to I-5, west of the truck stop. The analysis shows that the lack of access control and number of driveways along SR 530 is a contributing factor for crashes given the concentration of crashes near Pilot and other commercial driveways and the rear-end and angle type crashes related to following too closely, inattention, and not granting right-of-way. Spatial analysis of crashes on Smokey Point Boulevard within Island Crossing showed that angle crashes and rear ends are clustered at the intersections of SR 530 and 204th Street NE, and fixed object crashes are clustered at curves in the roadway. Based on the analysis of contributing factors, driver behaviors, like speeding and inattention, plays a more significant role in crashes along Smokey Point Boulevard within Island Crossing than infrastructure design. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 60 3.2.2 Potential Impacts The transportation impacts of the No Action and Action Alternatives are described in this section. Transportation impacts are identified through a comparison of the No Action Alternative to the Action Alternatives. Thresholds of Significance The Arlington Draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has established vehicular and non- motorized LOS standards. VEHICULAR The study intersections are within Arlington and WSDOT jurisdictions. The vehicular LOS standards for the study area are described as follows: City of Arlington LOS Standards. The City of Arlington has adopted LOS D for arterials and collectors. The City of Arlington further recognizes and adopts the most current LOS standard along state highways. WSDOT. I-5 and SR 530 are considered rural facilities and have an adopted LOS C. NON-MOTORIZED Non-motorized LOS standards are based on providing the future sidewalk, pathway, and trail system within the City. This non-motorized system considers the Complete Streets Program, which identifies a Pedestrian Plan and a Bike Plan for the City. The Draft TMP indicates locations where the adopted LOS standard is to have pedestrian or bicycle facilities that complete the City’s network. The standard for SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard within the Island Crossing subarea is to have pedestrian facilities on both sides of the streets and provide for bicycle facilities. It is noted that these roadways currently do not meet this standard within the subarea. Impacts Common to All Alternatives The following conditions and impacts are common to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Several transportation improvement projects are currently planned in and around the study area. Key projects are discussed below. SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd intersection. Construction of a roundabout at the SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd intersection. This project is being coordinated with WSDOT, Stillaguamish Tribe, City of Arlington, and Snohomish County. The project is part of the City of Arlington 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) 2025-2030. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 61 I-5/SR 530 Interchange. This interchange has been identified in Comprehensive Plan Appendix H Draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP), June 2024 for improvements. Potential improvements include providing a roundabout at both the northbound and southbound ramps and bridge improvements and widening to include sidewalks and bike facilities. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE. Improvements were identified in Comprehensive Plan Appendix H Draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP), June 2024 for this intersection. Potential improvements include providing a roundabout. Smokey Point Boulevard 200th Street NE to SR 530. Widen to a 3-lane facility including sidewalks. Smokey Point Boulevard 200th Street NE to SR 530. Provide a multi-use trail along the Smokey Point Boulevard. The improvements described above were assumed as part of the analysis to address LOS issues consistent with those identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the year 2044. TRANSIT As described in the Affected Environment, transit is not provided within the study area. Journey 2050: Community Transit Long Range Transit Plan, December 2023 does not identify plans for new fixed route transit services within the study area and serving Island Crossing. Journey 2050 does discuss alternative transit like microtransit, which could be an option for Island Crossing in the future where services are on-demand. With all the alternatives, there could be additional demand for transit services and without transit travelers would use other modes. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Future (2044) weekday PM peak hour traffic forecasts for all the Alternatives were developed using the City of Arlington travel demand model. The land use (outside of the Island Crossing subarea) and transportation system assumptions are the same for all Alternatives. The Island Crossing subarea land use and quantities were adjusted within the City’s travel demand model for each Alternative. The City’s travel demand model is used for the Island Crossing subarea trip distribution and assignment to the study area. Future 2044 forecasts are developed by adding intersection volume growth identified between the model base and future years to the existing traffic volumes. Adjustments are made to the traffic volumes for balancing. This methodology is an industry standard practice for post-processing raw travel demand model results into forecast traffic volumes. Alternative 1: No Action The No Action Alternative transportation impacts are described in this section. The No Action scenario reflects no regulatory changes resulting in lower density of land use and no Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 62 additional investments beyond what is identified in the TMP as described in the previous section. NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES Along with the planned improvements described previously, the No Action Alternative would provide the Island Crossing Trail, which is a multi-use trail along SR 530 between Smokey Point Boulevard and the I-5 interchange. This improvement was identified in the TMP. It is assumed that frontage improvements would be provided as properties develop to provide sidewalks and bicycle facilities to meet the non-motorized LOS standard. TRAFFIC VOLUMES No Action Alternative volume forecasts for the Island Crossing subarea assumes 292 jobs. Volumes for the No Action Alternative were developed using the Arlington travel demand model. Exhibit 3.2.2-1 provides a summary of the forecast No Action Alternative weekday PM peak hour trip generation. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 63 Exhibit 3.2.2-1 2044 Island Crossing Subarea No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use Total Trips Office 27 Total 1,258 Source: Arlington Travel Demand Model, Transpo Group, June 2025 As shown in Exhibit 3.2.2-1, a total of 1,258 weekday PM peak hour trips are anticipated to be generated under the No Action Alternative. The travel demand model was used to distribute and assign the Subarea trip generation. The total 2044 No Action Alternative volumes (2044 forecast plus No Action Alternative trips) are shown on Exhibit 3.2.2-2. Exhibit 3.2.2-2 2044 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 64 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic operations were evaluated based on intersection operations within the defined study area. For roundabout controlled intersections, LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle and is reported for the intersection as a whole. In addition, the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is reported for roundabouts. WSDOT typically considers a v/c of 0.90 as the threshold for a roundabout. Exhibit 3.2.2-3 provides a summary of the intersection operations with the planned and proposed roundabouts installed. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Exhibit 3.2.2-3 2044 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary Intersections Traffic Control LOS Standard 2044 No Action LOS1 Delay2 WM3 or v/c4 1. I-5 Southbound Proposed C B 13.1 0.64 2. I-5 Northbound Proposed C B 11.4 0.91 3. Smokey Point Planned C C 23.1 1.03 4. Smokey Point Boulevard/Smokey Two-Way Stop C B 10.7 EB 5. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Proposed Roundabout D A 6.0 0.48 Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Notes: Bold indicates LOS standard is not met or V/C ratio higher than 0.90 threshold. 2. Level of service (LOS) based on Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition methodology unless otherwise noted. 3. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 4. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections where EB = eastbound. 5. v/c (volume/capacity) reported for roundabout intersections. As shown in Exhibit 3.2.2-3, all study intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday PM peak hour with the No Action meeting the LOS standard. The Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 and I-5 Northbound Ramps/SR 530 intersections would have a v/c ratio higher than 0.90; therefore, widening may be needed with the No Action Alternative to accommodate the growth if it is desired to maintain the 0.90 threshold. The Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 roundabout is currently being designed to allow for future expansion. A northbound right-turn lane may be needed at the I-5 Northbound Ramps/SR 530 intersection as part of the roundabout improvement. Transportation mitigation measures are described in section in 3.2.3. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 65 TRAFFIC SAFETY Traffic generated by the No Action Alternative results in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions. However, the planned non-motorized facilities would enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and roundabouts at major intersections would help reduce travel speeds and severity of collisions. The No Action Alternative is not proposing specific access control or consolidation of driveways; therefore, conflicts are likely to increase along SR 530 and safety issues may also proportionally increase. In addition, this alternative would not elevate SR 530 so periodic flooding would continue, which could result in flood related safety challenges. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Alternative 2 transportation impacts are described in this section. Alternative 2 would have regulatory changes that accommodate additional density within the Subarea and additional transportation improvements beyond what is planned in the TMP. Exhibit 3.2.2-4 illustrates the street design concept including a new roundabout controlled intersection SR 530 between I-5 and Smokey Point Boulevard and consolidation of driveways. Exhibit 3.2.2-5 shows the proposed street concept with Alternative 2. The cross section has a 12-foot shared use path on both sides of SR 530, a center landscape median, one through travel lane in each direction with right-turn lanes at access points. Exhibit 3.2.2-4 SR 530 Street Design Concept Plan View Source: Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 66 Exhibit 3.2.2-5 SR 530 Concept Cross-section Source: Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES Alternative 2 would provide an enhanced environment for non-motorized travel compared to the No Action Alternative. The street design for SR 530 consolidates the property access points to reduce the number of driveways along SR 530 resulting in fewer crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. The center median restricts driveways along SR 530 to right- in/right-out movements to reduce conflicts and reduces speeds along the corridor to improve safety. Midblock crossings with traffic control such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) are also planned on SR 530 to improve pedestrian safety along the corridor and facilitate movement of pedestrians to businesses on both sides of the street. The improved pedestrian access will allow for visitors to park once and access multiple users on foot rather than driving within Island Crossing. Alternative 2 would meet the non-motorized LOS standards. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Alternative 2 volume forecasts for the Island Crossing subarea reflects 375 jobs compared to 292 jobs with the No Action Alternative. Trip generation for Alternative 2 was determined using the Arlington travel demand model consistent with the No Action Alternative. Exhibit 3.2.2-6 provides a comparison of the No Action and Alternative 2 weekday PM peak hour trip generation. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 67 Exhibit 3.2.2-6 Comparison of No Action and Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use No Action Total Trips Alternative 2 Total Trips Office 27 0 Total 1,258 1,613 Source: Arlington Travel Demand Model, Transpo Group, June 2025 As shown in Exhibit 3.2.2-6, a total of 1,613 weekday PM peak hour trips are anticipated to be generated under the Alternative 2, which is 385 trips more than the No Action Alternative. The travel demand model was used to distribute and assign the Subarea trip generation. The total Alternative 2 volumes (2044 forecast plus Alternative 2 trips) are shown on Exhibit 3.2.2-7. Exhibit 3.2.2-7 Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transpo Group, 2025 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic operations were evaluated based on intersection operations within the defined study area. Exhibit 3.2.2-8 provides a comparison of the No Action and Alternative 2 traffic operations. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 68 Exhibit 3.2.2-8 Comparison of No Action and Alternative 2 2044 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Intersections Traffic Control LOS Standard No Action Alternative 2 LOS1 Delay2 WM3 or v/c4 LOS1 Delay2 WM3 or v/c4 1. I-5 Southbound Proposed C B 13.1 0.64 B 13.2 0.65 2. I-5 Northbound Proposed C B 11.4 0.91 B 13.2 0.94 3. Smokey Point Planned C C 23.1 1.03 C 27.7 1.06 4. Smokey Point Boulevard/Smokey Two-Way Stop C B 10.7 EB B 10.7 EB 5. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Proposed Roundabout D A 6.0 0.48 A 6.0 0.47 6. Island Crossing New C - - - A 6.6 0.84 Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Notes: Bold indicates LOS standard is not met or V/C ratio higher than 0.90 threshold. 1. Level of service (LOS) based on Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections where EB = eastbound. 4. v/c (volume/capacity) reported for roundabout intersections. As shown in Exhibit 3.2.2-8, Alternative 2 would result in some increase in intersection delay compared to the No Action Alternative but all study intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better meeting the LOS standard. Similar to the No Action Alternative, with Alternative 2, the Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 and the I-5 Northbound Ramps/SR 530 intersections would have a v/c ratio higher than 0.90. As discussed previously, widening the roundabout may be needed to accommodate future growth to maintain the 0.90 threshold. The Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 roundabout is currently being designed to allow for future expansion and a northbound right-turn lane may need to be considered for the I-5 Northbound Ramps. Transportation mitigation measures are described in section in 3.2.3. TRAFFIC SAFETY Traffic generated by Alternative 2 could result in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions; however, Alternative 2 incorporates street design features to address existing safety issues. The street design for SR 530 consolidates the property access points to reduce the number of driveways along SR 530 resulting in fewer conflict points along the corridor. The center median restricts driveways along SR 530 to right-in/right-out movements to Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 69 reduce conflicts and reduces speeds along the corridor to improve safety. Roundabouts along the corridor will also help slow speeds, reduce conflicts and enhance safety. In addition, midblock crossings that would include traffic control such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) are planned on SR 530 to improve pedestrian safety. This alternative would elevate SR 530 so safety issues related to flood would be eliminated. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation – Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 impacts are described in this section. Alternative 3 would see increased development activity, resulting in more job density than the other alternatives. The planned SR 530 street design would be the same as Alternative 2. NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES Alternative 3 would have the same non-motorized impacts of Alternative 2 except the number of pedestrians and bicyclists within the Subarea could be higher with more density. The planned non-motorized facilities would accommodate additional pedestrians and bicyclists with Alternative 3. In addition, it is anticipated with a higher level of development it is anticipated that there would be interconnectivity between properties providing greater improvement in pedestrian and bicycle mobility within the subarea. Alternative 3 would meet the non-motorized LOS standards. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Alternative 3 allows for additional development resulting in up to 825 jobs (533 more jobs than No Action and 475 more jobs than Alternative 2). Alternative 3 trip generation was determined using the Arlington travel demand model. Exhibit 3.2.2-9 provides a summary of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation for all the Alternatives. Exhibit 3.2.2-9 No Action and Action Alternatives Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use No Action Total Trips Alternative 2 Total Trips Alternative 3 Total Trips Total 1,228 1,258 1,613 3,509 Source: Arlington Travel Demand Model, Transpo Group, June 2025 As shown in Exhibit 3.2.2-9, a total of 3,509 weekday PM peak hour trips are anticipated to be generated under Alternative 3, which is about three times more than the No Action and two times more than Alternative 2. The total Alternative 3 volumes (2044 forecast plus Alternative 3 trips) are shown on Exhibit 3.2.2-10. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 70 Exhibit 3.2.2-10 Alternative 3 Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 71 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic operations were evaluated based on intersection operations within the defined study area. Exhibit 3.2.2-11 provides a summary of the intersection operations for Alternative 3 compared to the No Action and Alternative 2 conditions. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Exhibit 3.2.2-11 Comparison of No Action and Action Alternatives 2044 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary Intersections Traffic Control LOS Standar d No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 LOS1 Delay2 WM3 or v/c4 LOS Delay WM or v/c LOS Delay WM or v/c 1. I-5 SB Prop. C B 13.1 0.64 B 13.2 0.65 B 13.3 0.66 2. I-5 NB Prop. C B 11.4 0.91 B 13.2 0.94 C 21.4 1.05 3. Smokey Point Boulevard/ SR Planned RAB C C 23.1 1.03 C 27.7 1.06 D 43.9 1.16 4. Smokey Point Boulevard/ Smokey Point Two- Way Stop C B 10.7 EB B 10.7 EB B 11.5 EB 5. Smokey Point Boulevard/ 200th Street Prop. RAB D A 6.0 0.48 A 6.0 0.47 A 6.2 0.56 6. Island Crossing New RAB C - - - A 6.6 0.84 B 16.8 0.96 Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Notes: Red bold indicates LOS standard is not met or V/C ratio higher than 0.90 threshold. 1. Level of service (LOS) based on Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections where EB = eastbound. 4. v/c (volume/capacity) reported for roundabout intersections. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 72 As shown in Exhibit 3.2.2-11, Alternative 3 would result in increases in intersection delay compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2. The Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 intersection would operate at LOS D and not meet the LOS C standard. The Smokey Point Boulevard/SR 530 and I-5 Northbound Ramps/SR 530 intersections would have a v/c ratio higher than 0.90 like the evaluation of the other alternatives and widening may be needed to maintain the 0.90 threshold. Transportation mitigation measures are described in section in 3.2.3. TRAFFIC SAFETY Traffic generated by Alternative 3 could result in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions. However, like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 incorporates street design features to address existing safety issues. Traffic safety impacts for Alternative 3 are anticipated to be similar to Alternative 2. This alternative would elevate SR 530 so safety issues related to flood would be eliminated. 3.2.3 Mitigation Strategies This section presents mitigation measures that would offset or reduce potential transportation impacts of the Alternatives. Mitigation measures include physical improvements to intersections and roadways to facilitate vehicular traffic. Potential Policy Changes Consideration could also be given to changes to the jurisdictions LOS policy and/or v/c ratio threshold. Increasing capacity at intersections and along the roadway system may improve LOS for vehicles; however, it could create impacts for other modes. The City and/or WSDOT may desire to revisit LOS policies to have a more multimodal LOS that gives priority to other modes and considers connectivity of the pedestrian and bicycle network and/or minimizing barriers for non-auto modes. For example, a v/c ratio over 0.90 and/or a LOS standard of D instead of C may be considered acceptable allowing for a single-lane roundabouts to accommodate growth in the Island Crossing Subarea. Intersection and Roadway Improvements Based on the identified impacts under the Alternatives, SR 530 within the Subarea should be improved and intersection improvements are recommended at key intersections along the SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard corridors. Arlington’s TMP identified improvements at the study intersections that have been assumed as part of the analysis; however, funding is uncertain at the I-5/SR 530 interchange and additional improvements at the SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard intersection are needed beyond those included in the traffic impact fee (TIF) program. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 73 I-5/SR 530 INTERCHANGE The analysis of the alternatives assumes roundabouts are constructed at the SR 530 interchange. The need for roundabouts was identified based on the evaluation completed for the City’s TMP as well as a review of the affected environment. In addition, the analysis of alternatives identifies the potential for a v/c ratio greater than 0.90 in 2044 resulting in the need for the single-lane roundabout with an additional northbound right-turn lane at the I-5 northbound ramps to provide a v/c ratio less than 0.90. With the roundabout improvements and the right-turn lane, the interchange would meet the LOS C standard and have a v/c ratio of less than 0.90. Funding for the interchange improvements is uncertain, and this project is not included in the City’s TIF program. Planning level cost estimates indicate that roundabout improvements at the ramp terminals without widening the underpass would be approximately $14 million. Specific mitigation for the interchange would need to be coordinated with WSDOT and could include payment of an impact or proportional share fee or other agreed upon mitigation. The proportional share of the alternatives at the intersection is 2% for the No Action, 5% for Alternative 2 and 20% for Alternative 3. SR 530 ROADWAY AND SR 530/SMOKEY POINT BLVD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Alternatives 2 and 3 improve SR 530 including elevating the road and constructing a new culvert as part of mitigation for flood and safety. Additional detail on the SR 530 improvement is provided in the street improvement discussion under incorporated plan features. Improvements along SR 530 would need to be developed as one project to allow for elevating the road and constructing culvert; therefore, rather than frontage improvements along SR 530 with Alternatives 2 and 3, the city would collect proportional share fees to complete SR 530 improvements as a capital project. Arlington’s 6-Year TIP 2025-2030 includes construction of a roundabout at the SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard intersection. Construction of the single-lane roundabout at the SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd intersection is included in the City’s TIF. The analysis of the alternatives shows that for the No Action and Action Alternatives the v/c ratio would be greater than 0.90 and with Alternative 3 the SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd intersection would not meet the LOS C standard. The roundabout is being designed for potential expansion to two lanes along SR 530. With the expansion of the roundabout, the SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd intersection would operate at LOS A and have a v/c ratio of 0.51. There are no current funded projects that expand the SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard proposed roundabout. Improvements will be needed at this intersection with or without Alternatives 2 and 3. To mitigate the impacts of the Alternatives, it is recommended that developments within the study area contribute a percent proportionate share of identified transportation improvement projects. PROPORTIONAL COST SHARE Exhibit 3.2.3-1 provides a summary of the mitigation and the Alternatives pro-rata cost estimates. The pro-rata is calculated based on the net new Subarea trips and the total Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 74 projected traffic at the intersections based on the alternative. Alternative 1, No Action, is not part of the proportional share cost since it would not implement the SR 530 improvements and it is assumed that the v/c threshold does not result in required improvements at the Smoke Point Blvd/SR 530 intersection. Exhibit 3.2.3-1 Summary of Mitigation and Alternative Pro-Rata Cost Percent Pro-Rata Share1 (Pro-Rata Cost in millions of $)2 Improvement Estimated Cost (2024 dollars) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 Expand to a two-lane roundabout. The city is currently designing and included in the TIF a one-lane roundabout that can be expanded. $6.73 million NA NA 20% ($1.35) SR 530 Improvements Improve SR 530 including elevating road, constructing compensatory floodwater storage and new culvert, consolidating driveways and providing a cross-section of 12-foot shared use path on both sides a center landscape median, one through travel lane in each direction with right-turn lanes at access points. $20.38 million NA 5% ($1.02) 20% ($4.08) Construct single-lane roundabout along SR 530 to provide access and circulation. $6 million NA 5% ($0.30) 20% ($1.20) Total Costs NA $1.32 $6.63 Source: Transpo Group, 2025 Notes: NA = Not applicable to alternative. 1. Based on the overall growth in trip ends for the Subarea. 2. Percent Pro-Rata Share x Estimated Total Cost The total proportional share of the mitigation improvement cost could be charged using a per trip fee. Considering the total cost of the Island Crossing development share and the new trips generated by the Subarea, the fee per trip would be between approximately $2,300 and $2,700 per new PM peak hour trip. Incorporated Plan Features STREET IMPROVEMENTS The No Action Alternative includes frontage improvements following City and State design standards. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 75 Alternatives 2 and 3 would incorporate the street design outlined in the Island Crossing Subarea Plan, 2025. Improvements along SR 530 would need to be developed as one project to incorporate elevating the road and constructing a culvert; therefore, rather than frontage improvements along SR 530 with Alternatives 2 and 3, the City would collect proportional share fees to complete SR 530 improvements as a capital project. The street design provides enhanced multimodal facilities to accommodate walking, biking, rolling and driving (including trucks and buses). The design increases capacity to accommodate expected growth in traffic and provides access to the adjacent properties. The street design for SR 530 under Alternatives 2 and 3 consolidates the property access points to reduce the number of driveways along SR 530 and improve safety. Exhibit 3.2.2-5, presented in the impacts section, shows the street cross section. The cross section has a 12- foot shared use path on both sides of SR 530, a center landscape median, one through travel lane in each direction with right-turn lanes at access points. The center median restricts driveways along SR 530 to right-in/right-out movements to reduce conflicts and reduces speeds along the corridor to improve safety. Exhibit 3.2.2-6 illustrates the plan view for the SR 530 street design and shows a central roundabout between the I-5/SR 530 interchange and the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 intersection that allows for vehicles to turn and access businesses on both sides of the street. Midblock crossings that would include traffic control such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) are also planned on SR 530 to improve pedestrian safety along the corridor and facilitate movement of pedestrians to businesses on both sides of the street. The improved pedestrian access will allow for visitors to park once and access multiple uses on foot rather than driving within Island Crossing. Proportional share cost related to SR 530 and the midblock roundabout are described in Exhibit 3.2.3-1. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 76 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES The City of Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan, 2025 includes transportation strategies to improve safety, comfort, connectivity and multimodal travel through and within the area. The strategies also help to encourage non-auto travel within Island Crossing to help reduce the traffic impacts related to vehicles. The strategies are described below. SR 530 STREET DESIGN AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS These strategies overlap with the mitigation measures described in the intersection improvements and incorporated plan features. T-1 Coordinating with WSDOT, design and construct SR 530 to: a. Be consistent with the Complete Street Program and include shared use paths to support and encourage non-motorized travel and reduce vehicle miles traveled. b. Ensure the design accommodates truck, farm equipment, and transit maneuvers. c. Provide landscape and gateway features along SR 530 to improve the corridor appearance, enhance Island Crossing’s identity as a gateway to Arlington and the surrounding region (e.g., protect views of Cascade Mountains), and manage storm water to the extent feasible. T-2 Work with WSDOT to design and construct improvements at the I-5/SR 530 interchange to accommodate growth and improve safety. T-3 Complete the design and construct the SR 530/Smokey Point Boulevard roundabout. Ensure the roundabout accommodates truck, bus, and farm equipment maneuvers. T-4 Design and construct a roundabout approximately midway between I-5 and Smokey Point Boulevard along SR 530 to facilitate circulation and non-motorized crossings within Island Crossing. T-5 Design and construct multimodal improvements along Smokey Point Boulevard between 200th Street NE and SR 530 to accommodate growth and support non- motorized travel. T-6 Incorporate Island Crossing intersection improvements along SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard into the City of Arlington traffic impact fee program or determine another cost sharing approach to assist with funding. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 77 STREET DESIGN STANDARDS/INTER-SITE CONNECTIVITY T-7 Provide midblock crossings along SR 530 to improve walking, biking, and rolling connectivity within Island Crossing and across SR 530. T-8 Promote connectivity between parcels within Island Crossing to improve safety and circulation. T-9 Work with developers as part of permitting to include a multimodal connection between properties and facilitate walking, biking, rolling, and driving without needing to rely solely on SR 530. See Subarea Plan strategy LU-6 Inter-site Connectivity for conceptual locations of streets to be dedicated to the City for the City to construct and maintain. BIKE PARKING T-10 Encourage measures or facilities in both private and public development that support alternate modes of transportation, such as showers/dressing rooms, lockers, and secure bike parking. TRANSIT SUPPORT T-11 Explore opportunities with Community Transit to provide microtransit services to/from Island Crossing. T-12 Design and construct facilities such that opportunities for transit service are not precluded. LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN – INTER-SITE CONNECTIVITY LU-6 Require inter-site connections with new development. This could come in the form of streets, landscaped pathways, woonerfs (low volume streets where vehicles share space with people walking, biking, and rolling (e.g., wheelchair), and alleys. Work with property owners to establish access easement. AMC CHAPTER 20.119.060 – STREET DESIGN STANDARDS New Island Crossing standards to be adopted with the Subarea Plan will require street and through-block connections to be built with redevelopment as mapped Exhibit 3.2.3-2 Standards include maximum block face and length and street design by classifications, also mapped in Exhibit 3.2.3-2. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 78 Exhibit 3.2.3-2 Street Network Note: The dashed lines indicate proposed street or connection conceptual locations. Applicants may propose alternate locations that meet the purpose of AMC section 20.119.060(c) and intent of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. Source: AMC Chapter 20.119 Island Crossing Development Standards, Figure 2 Street Network, City of Arlington, MAKERS, 2025 Regulations and Commitments TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Mitigation will be collected in the form of transportation impact fees. The City of Arlington has a traffic impact fee (TIF) program. Impact fees will be determined at a project level when permit applications are filed. The following projects with the Island Crossing Subarea are included in the current TIF program: SR 530/Smokey Point Blvd intersection. Construction of a single-lane roundabout. This project is being coordinated with WSDOT, Stillaguamish Tribe, City of Arlington, Snohomish County. The project is part of the City of Arlington 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) 2025-2030. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE. Single-lane roundabout. Smokey Point Boulevard 200th Street NE to SR 530. Widen to a 3-lane facility including sidewalks. Smokey Point Boulevard 200th Street NE to SR 530. Provide a multi-use trail along Smokey Point Boulevard. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Transportation Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 79 TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENTS SR 530 also serves as a major regional route for Snohomish County. The Arlington travel demand model estimates about 40 to 50% of the growth at the study intersections would be related to travel from outside of the City of Arlington. Arlington has an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County related to mitigation of transportation impacts 2. Per the agreement, Arlington can determine transportation impacts of County developments in transportation service area (TSA) A on City streets including state highways. The City may request that County development contribute a proportionate share of programmed capacity improvements to mitigate impacts to City streets. Given the amount of growth outside the Subarea that is anticipated to impact the study area intersections, it is recommended that County development pay a proportional share towards the improvements identified in Exhibit 3.2.3-1. The amount paid should be calculated based on the current interlocal agreement and the fee per trip identified as part of the Final EIS. COMPLETE STREETS Arlington Complete Streets Policy (November 2018) would need to be followed as part of the subarea development. The policy addresses the needs of all users of the transportation system. As noted previously, the City has identified Smokey Point Boulevard as critical to citywide non-motorized connectivity. 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of the planned improvements in the study area and proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts related solely to the proposed alternatives. 2 1999 Agreement on Reciprocal Mitigation of Transportation Impacts accessed June 27, 2025 https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6740/Arlington--1999-Agreement?bidId= Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 80 3.3 Water 3.3.1 Affected Environment STILLAGUAMISH RIVER FLOODPLAIN The subarea lies just south of the Stillaguamish River. Nearly the entire subarea is within the mapped 100-year floodplain of the river, the only exception being a small portion of high ground at the northeast corner of the subarea and the approaches to the State Route (SR) 530 interchange to I-5 (Exhibit 3.3.1-1). In addition to nearly the entire area being within the 100-year floodplain, smaller flood events from the Stillaguamish River routinely inundate portions of the subarea (Exhibit 3.3.1-2), though it is outside the floodway. In particular, a swale extends through the middle of the subarea from north to south in the northern half of the subarea. Water from the swale is conveyed across State Route (SR) 530 where the swale intersects the roadway. A culvert at this location is intended to carry flood water from the Stillaguamish River under SR 530. However, the culvert is undersized and frequently plugs, as it did in December 2023, causing floodwaters to flow over the roadway (Exhibit 3.3.1-2). When the culvert is operating, flow is delivered to a series of stormwater facilities, which function both stormwater and flood compensatory functions, south of SR 530 and described in the next section. Flooding during modest flood events sometimes results in inundation of existing development and pollutant generating surfaces, including flow over SR 530. It is also a significant human health hazard to the driving public on SR 530 (Exhibit 3.3.1-2) due to fast- flowing water over the roadway. The uncontrolled inundation in developed areas is also an ongoing impact to the fisheries in the Stillaguamish River (see next section for details). The inundation of developed areas also impacts water quality. Finally, it also impacts economic activity, as flooding can damage low-lying structures throughout the subarea, triggering closure of businesses, even for floods smaller than the 100-year event. In addition to floodwater entering the subarea directly from the river to the north, floodwater further upstream on the Stillaguamish River enters both South Slough and Portage Creek, overwhelming these streams. The flooding from the north and these streams is generally separate except during the largest (100-year event and larger) events. During flood events, both South Slough and Portage Creek swell with this influx of water from upstream and overtop their banks flooding surrounding low-lying land in the southern portion of the subarea. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 81 Exhibit 3.3.1-1 FEMA 100-year floodplain Source: FEMA, 2025 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 82 Exhibit 3.3.1-2 Flooding across SR 530 in December 2023 Source: Don Vanney, 2023 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 83 SURFACE WATER Most surface water in the northern half of the subarea is routed through a series of constructed ditches to a series of stormwater facilities constructed to support the Pilot Truck Stop (Exhibit 3.3.1-3). This flow is complicated by the introduction of Stillaguamish River floodwater when flood events occur. The subarea includes a culvert crossing at SR 530. There are several other smaller stormwater facilities scattered just south of SR 530 and in the eastern part of the subarea. In the southern portion of the subarea, near South Slough and Portage Creek, there is very little formal stormwater infrastructure (Exhibit 3.3.1-3). When the Stillaguamish River is flooding, water flow from the river through the subarea is much larger than runoff. The flow is driven from the two primary sources of Stillaguamish overbank flow: 1) local overbank that arrives from the north primarily through the low-lying swale that bisects the subarea (discussed above in previous subsection), 2) flow via South Slough and Portage Creek from overbank much further upstream (east of) the subarea. The local overbank flow primarily flows north to south, whereas South Slough and Portage Creek flows primarily from east to west. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 84 Exhibit 3.3.1-3 City of Arlington Stormwater Facility Map Source: City of Arlington, 2025 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 85 GROUNDWATER Groundwater throughout the subarea is closely connected to the water levels present in the Stillaguamish River. As a result, the groundwater table is close to the ground surface throughout the subarea. In some places in the subarea ground level elevation has been increased by the addition of fill material, increasing the separation of the groundwater table from the land surface. WETLANDS The only mapped wetlands in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) are those associated with South Slough and Portage Creek (NWI 2025, Exhibit 3.3.1-4). However, the hydrology of the area is such that ponded water is common, particularly through the swales (natural and constructed) that are located throughout the subarea. These features typically have wetland characteristics with standing water from both local runoff and Stillaguamish River inputs frequently throughout the year. Exhibit 3.3.1-4 National Wetlands Inventory Map of the Subarea Source: NWI, 2025 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 86 3.3.2 Potential Impacts Impacts Common to All Alternatives Climate change will impact all the alternatives. The Stillaguamish River is an unmanaged (i.e., lacks flood-control dams) river; therefore, it is the subject to precipitation changes associated with climate change (Tohver et al. 2013). As described in numerous scientific publications regarding climate change, including Tohver et al. (2013), this will mean larger, more frequent flood events in the fall and winter and lower flows during the dry summertime. The Stillaguamish River, as a river delta in this area, will also aggrade (sediment will be deposited) over time, slowly raising the river bed. This will increase out-of-bank flow during flood events, regardless of changes to the hydrology of the river itself and may be exacerbated by sea level rise. Ongoing hydrologic changes caused by existing development will also continue. In particular, SR 530 hydrologically separates the northern portion of the subarea from the southern portion during non-flood flows. I-5 will also continue to focus Stillaguamish River floodwater through existing crossings on the mainstem Stillaguamish River, South Slough, and Portage Creek. Heightened runoff from existing impervious surfaces will continue in all the alternatives. STILLAGUAMISH RIVER FLOODPLAIN More frequent large flood events in the Stillaguamish River are expected to occur in the future. Flooding intensity and frequency will be exacerbated by ongoing sedimentation in the lower Stillaguamish River, triggering out-of-bank flow more regularly than has occurred in the past. South Slough and Portage Creek are less understood. Their inputs are a combination of local runoff, groundwater, and residual overtopping and flooding from the Stillaguamish River. As a result, high/flood flows will likely increase, but the magnitude of that increase is highly uncertain since it is dependent on development outside of the City and geomorphic changes in the river itself. SURFACE WATER More intense precipitation events are expected as a result of climate change. These increases may overwhelm existing stormwater infrastructure and trigger local inundation on some existing developed parcels that were developed prior to modern stormwater regulations. GROUNDWATER On average, groundwater levels are expected to increase throughout the subarea over time, primarily because of aggradation in the Stillaguamish River, raising the bed of the river and therefore the groundwater table. Seasonal variation is also expected to increase with higher groundwater levels in the winter than current conditions, while summer lows may be lower Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 87 than historical levels due to decreased summer precipitation. These variations are included in an overall increase in average annual levels. WETLANDS Impacts to wetlands or their regulatory buffers as defined by the Arlington code, may require permits and compensatory mitigation from the City of Arlington, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). See section 3.3.3 for an overview of applicable regulations. Under all alternatives, some degree of wetland loss may occur due to development activities, including grading, filling, and construction within or near jurisdictional areas. While mitigation would be required, the loss or degradation of these aquatic resources could reduce the overall water storage capabilities and water quality within the subarea. It is unclear what changes will occur to wetlands from climate change. Wetland areas are expected to be wetter in the fall and winter and drier in the summer. Ongoing degradation from water quality impacts from SR 530 and other pollutant generating surfaces is expected. Alternative 1: No Action STILLAGUAMISH RIVER FLOODPLAIN As in existing conditions, flooding will impact the subarea. These impacts will continue to occur and likely increase over time as flow increases in the Stillaguamish River, increasing flooding inundation and frequency. Flooding will also likely increase due to aggradation in the river channel itself. This means that flood waters will overtop SR 530 more frequently. As a result, businesses will be flooded more often and to greater depth. Exposure to additional pollutant generating surfaces will decrease water quality of the flood water over time. It will also continue to endanger traffic on SR 530 during flood events. Flooding may increase to the point where existing low-lying development becomes economically infeasible. SURFACE WATER Surface water will continue to be routed as it is now. The primary system south of SR 530 is generally oversized for local heavy rain events, even accounting for precipitation increases due to climate change. Although built to accommodate some unknown amount of Stillaguamish River input, it is often not engaged properly due to the frequent blockage of the SR 530 culvert. The culvert, already poorly performing, is expected to continue to degrade, increasing overtopping of the roadway over time, regardless of flood input changes. On-site stormwater storage would be required for any new development, however increased Stillaguamish flooding would make adequate drainage runoff management challenging. It is likely that regulatory and site constraints will discourage new development. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 88 GROUNDWATER Average annual groundwater level increases would be modest under this alternative. It is unclear whether the groundwater elevation increases associated with Stillaguamish River aggradation will have significant impacts on the resources in the area, or the performance of existing stormwater infrastructure. WETLANDS Wetlands could expand on those parcels incapable of being developed, partly due to increased flood inundation and rising groundwater levels. These wetlands may be disturbed by past fills and land uses, fragmented due to surrounding development, and provide minimal ecological connectivity in terms of habitat, hydrologic, and water quality functions. However, development may increase their value in maintaining the baseline hydrologic and water quality functions in the subarea. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation STILLAGUAMISH RIVER FLOODPLAIN Improvements to SR 530 will eliminate routine overtopping of SR 530 by raising the roadway and improving conveyance across it by expanding the culvert. This will better engage the large stormwater system on the south side of SR 530. The improvements might not eliminate all overtopping, since portions of the highway mostly outside of the City’s jurisdiction might remain below the 100-year water surface elevation, but the risks to the driving public would be reduced compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1. These improvements will also improve water quality when flooding occurs. The lack of a new regional compensatory floodwater/stormwater storage facility means that flooding will likely continue to impact existing businesses, but flooding will be reduced compared to Alternative 1 and existing conditions due to the improved culvert, particularly on the north side of SR 530 where impoundment (i.e., water collecting on the upstream/north side) on the highway prism is common. There will be very little impact to the southern portion of the subarea since it is hydrologically distinct from the SR 530 improvement area. On-site flood storage or elevation of structures would be required for any new development (in addition to the stormwater storage discussed below). Such measures are expensive and may not be feasible in all cases. It is likely that these constraints will dissuade new development from being constructed SURFACE WATER With improvements to the SR 530 culvert, the primary stormwater facility south of Pilot serving the SR 530 area will see increased use as both a stormwater facility and compensatory flood storage facility. However, over time the increases in flood magnitude Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 89 and frequency, both from existing and increased out-of-bank flow, may eventually overwhelm the facility. It is unclear what impact if any this would have on adjacent development. On-site floodwater/stormwater storage would be required for any new development (in addition to the compensatory floodwater storage discussed above), but it would be complicated by the inability or expense to meet regulatory requirements for stormwater management. It is likely that these constraints will dissuade new development from being constructed. Water quality will be improved due to reduced SR 530 overtopping and associated contamination. Somewhat lower flood elevations on the north side of SR 530 (due to improved culvert to the southside facility) may facilitate better function of local stormwater facilities on this side of the highway. Lower flood elevations in developed areas will also reduce flood damage to existing development, though it will not eliminate it. Otherwise, drainage patterns during non-flood events are unlikely to change significantly. GROUNDWATER No significant additional stormwater storage capacity will be added in this alternative compared to Alternative 1, so there will not be an increase in recharge. Like Alternative 1, groundwater changes would be modest. It is unclear whether the groundwater elevation increases associated with Stillaguamish River aggradation will have significant impacts on the resources in the area, or the performance of existing stormwater infrastructure. WETLANDS Changes to wetland hydrology would generally be modest and similar to Alternative 1, at least on those properties that remain undeveloped. Wetlands could expand on those parcels incapable of being developed, partly due to increased flood inundation and rising groundwater levels. These wetlands may be disturbed by past fills and land uses, fragmented due to surrounding development, and provide minimal ecological connectivity in terms of habitat, hydrologic, and water quality functions. However, development may increase their value in maintaining the baseline hydrologic and water quality functions in the subarea. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation – Preferred Alternative STILLAGUAMISH RIVER FLOODPLAIN Full implementation of the Subarea Plan will reduce flooding on existing developed properties throughout the northern half of the subarea by storing floodwater and better conveying it across SR 530. It will likely not significantly impact the southernmost end of the subarea, since these southern areas are generally hydrologically disconnected from northern-originated flooding during most flood events. It will also significantly reduce risk to the driving public on SR 530. It may be sufficient to eliminate all overtopping of SR 530 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 90 (unlike the other alternatives). It also will be more able to accommodate the increasing flooding due to climate change. Finally, it will improve water quality of floodwater, which would also likely have habitat benefits (discussed in detail in the next section). SURFACE WATER During non-flood precipitation events the new regional floodwater/stormwater storage facility will address all the runoff treatment in the subarea, regardless of the expected increased development. The improvements will improve groundwater recharge and likely wetland function. The regional floodwater/stormwater facility will assist the management of Stillaguamish River floodwater. It will reduce impact of heightened flooding on the existing stormwater network south of SR 530. It will reduce flood elevations in developed portions of the subarea, increasing the feasibility of new development and reducing flood exposure of existing properties. The facility will improve water quality by more efficiently addressing runoff and floodwater as required by current regulatory requirements. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 91 GROUNDWATER Groundwater recharge would increase in this alternative and may raise the groundwater water slightly and locally, assuming that the design can accommodate rising annual average groundwater levels over time. The floodwater/stormwater facility and associated infrastructure would likely cause total infiltration to increase during flood events. This increased recharge would store more floodwater underground and mediate the larger seasonal variations expected to occur due to climate change. WETLANDS The proposed regional floodwater/stormwater facility will likely have a wetland component. Although it is likely that some of the facility area is already a wetland, the facility would likely incorporate wetland features and include greater wetland areas than currently exist north of SR 530. These would be enhanced over time by a rising groundwater table. More formal connection to the Stillaguamish River would further enhance the function of the wetlands. 3.3.3 Mitigation Strategies Incorporated Plan Features All alternatives will incorporate applicable regulations and require compensatory mitigation for new development to minimize impacts on wetlands, streams, floodplain function and water quality as described in the Regulations and Commitments section. As part of the draft Subarea Plan in Alternative 3, mitigation measures include identifying and supporting multi- purpose compensatory floodwater storage areas, such as floodable organic agricultural or recreational lands, to reduce flooding impacts on SR 530 and adjacent properties while improving water quality, reducing damage to infrastructure from flooding, enhancing habitat connectivity, and maintaining ecological function. Alternatives 2 and 3 will be aligned with the current Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW), as revised. The ICSM will also coordinate all stormwater treatment in the subarea, both existing and future development. All future development in Alternative 1 will also have to meet the requirements of SMMWW, though it will be implemented on a piecemeal basis – and not for the entire subarea (i.e., not for those areas that have existing development and it will not be coordinated across the subarea). 530 LANDSCAPING Landscaping along SR 530 will incorporate green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) features, slowing stormwater flows. Regulations and commitments Exhibit 3.3.3-1 includes a list of regulations and commitments related to water quality and flooding for development actions. A more detailed list is provided in the Natural Environment Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 92 section that addresses other natural resources concerns. Existing regulations requiring mitigation of impacts to water resources would continue to apply under all alternatives. Exhibit 3.3.3-1 Federal, State and Local Laws, Plans and Policies. REGULATORY PROGRAM LEAD AGENCY DESCRIPTION Clean Water Act Section 404 - 33 USC 1251– 1387 (CWA) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The CWA is the primary federal law governing water pollution and fill with the objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Hydraulic Code RCW Chapter 77.55 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Work that affects the flow or bed of freshwater or marine waters, including areas above the bank, requires an hydraulic project approval (HPA). WDFW issues general HPAs for routine maintenance and preservation activities. This may include any number of the swales, ditches and side channels in the subarea. Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 20.93 Critical Areas Ordinance City of Arlington Arlington regulates trees, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetlands, and other critical areas under Chapter 20.93 of AMC. The also City regulates shoreline use, development, and ecological protection through its Shoreline Master Program, adopted under the Shoreline Management Act. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) City of Arlington SEPA identifies and analyzes environmental impacts associated with governmental decisions. SEPA can be used to modify or deny a proposal to avoid, reduce, or compensate for probable impacts. Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.64 Floodplain Development Regulations City of Arlington Most of the subarea is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Exhibit 3.3.1-1) and is therefore regulated by Chapter 20.64. Any new development within the 100-year floodplain, in whole or in part, would be required to obtain a flood hazard permit, as described in Section 20.64.125. This will likely entail significant documentation of how flooding will be addressed by the development. Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 13.28 Stormwater Utility City of Arlington Any new construction in any of the alternatives would have to comply with Section 13.28.210, which requires a Construction Drainage Permit. This document may have to be combined with Flood Hazard Permit mentioned in the row above. Other Potential Mitigation Measures The City of Arlington has an opportunity to protect City water quality from additional impacts by providing space for floodwaters and separating developed uses from common flow pathways. Specific actions could include: Encouraging restoration of degraded critical areas and buffers to support slowing of flow, water storage, and infiltration. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Water Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 93 Working with neighboring jurisdictions to restore floodplain areas to slow flow from the Stillaguamish River and reduce flood water surface elevations. Implementing opportunities to use stormwater facilities and green stormwater infrastructure beyond the regulatory requirements that can improve groundwater recharge and surface water quality. Encourage infiltration of runoff as a part of new development where feasible to improve and provide storage volume during extreme events. Planning for climate resilience of natural areas, using a regional landscape-scale approach. 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts In Alternative 1, there remains significant and increasing flood impacts associated with unregulated flooding and piecemeal stormwater and flood management for existing and new development. These impacts are not only to the natural environment but produce unsafe conditions for the driving public and users of the low-lying development in the area. They also degrade water quality through piecemeal stormwater management and unregulated flooding. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 94 3.4 Natural Environment 3.4.1 Affected Environment SEPA elements of the Natural Environment include streams, wetlands, terrestrial habitat, and priority habitats that support species listed by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or of local importance. Mapped habitat areas are primarily identified using the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) data, the Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution (SWIFD) dataset, and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), supplemented by aerial imagery review and field observations. STREAM, RIPARIAN, AND WETLAND HABITAT Within the subarea, South Slough and Portage Creek are both designated as Type S, fish- bearing Streams (Exhibit 3.4.1-1). Based on WDFW and WSDOT fish passage inventories, all mapped culverts in the subarea are currently passable to fish (WDFW 2025a). Documented fish use and federal and Endangered Species Act (ESA) status is summarized in Exhibit 3.4.1-2 (WDFW, 2025b, 2025c; NWIFC, 2025). In addition, Portage Creek is designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Steelhead trout in accordance with the ESA (NOAA Fisheries, 2025). Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 95 Exhibit 3.4.1-1 National Wetlands Inventory Map of the Subarea Source: City of Arlington, 2019 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 96 Exhibit 3.4.1-2 Fish Use of South Slough and Portage Creek. Species Scientific Name Federal Status South Slough Documented Use Portage Creek Documented Use Chum Oncorhynchus keta None Gradient accessible Gradient accessible Chinook O. tshawytscha Threatened Documented Gradient accessible Coho O. kisutch None Gradient accessible Documented rearing Pink O. gorbuscha None Gradient accessible Gradient accessible Sockeye O. nerka None Documented None Steelhead O. mykiss Threatened Gradient accessible Documented rearing Coastal cutthroat O. clarkii None Documented Documented Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened None Presumed Table Note: "Gradient accessible" means the stream is passable for salmon, and while none have been documented, they may still reach the area. Source: WDFW, 2025b, 2025c; NWIFC, 2025 Both streams lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Stillaguamish River and within the subarea. They are designated under the City of Arlington Shoreline Master Program as follows: South Slough: Natural. This designation prioritizes long-term ecological functions with limited development. Portage Creek: Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity. This designation allows low-density development while maintaining shoreline ecological functions. In accordance with the Shoreline Master Program, a 150-foot buffer is required for all regulated activities adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas that support ESA- listed fish species (City of Arlington, 2019). The buffer consists of: A 100-foot inner zone where no human activity is permitted except specific approved uses (see SMP.430); and A 50-foot outer management zone where vegetation may be modified only for public health and safety concerns. However, buffer widths may be increased on a case-by-case basis when needed to protect critical area functions as described in Chapter 20.93. Instream habitat in both watercourses is low gradient and generally low in complexity with minimal large woody debris. The streams interact with the surrounding floodplains and wetlands and therefore provide some flood flow refugia for fish. However, large flood events can lead to fish stranding (i.e. trapped in places where they can’t get back to the main channel). This stranding may occur for fish coming from the South Slough and Portage Creek systems as well as from the Stillaguamish River directly. Instream shading from riparian vegetation is variable. At South Slough the riparian canopy is primarily deciduous including Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 97 black cottonwood, red alder, and willows. Common invasive species include Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass are also prevalent. At Portage Creek the riparian vegetation community is similar but incorporates some small conifers such as western red cedar in some reaches. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identifies riverine wetlands associated with both streams in the study area (USFWS, 2025a). No other wetlands are mapped in the study area, however review of aerial imagery indicates the likely presence of seasonal depressional wetlands in undeveloped or agricultural portions of the subarea. These wetlands appear disturbed, often lacking native vegetation and habitat complexity. However, they may still offer functional habitat to birds (e.g. foraging and loafing habitat for swans) and other species accustomed to human activity. Floodplain functions, including in Island Crossing, are of high importance to ESA-listed Chinook salmon. The Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan identifies lower Stillaguamish River floodplain as a priority for floodplain restoration (Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee, 2005). Unconstrained floodplains provide important off- channel refuge habitat during high flows, support nutrient cycling, filter floodwaters, and deposit fine sediment essential to aquatic food webs. TERRESTRIAL HABITAT Upland areas within the study area are visibly disturbed and characterized by weedy, non- native or naturalized vegetation, such as Himalayan blackberry and other noxious weeds. While these terrestrial areas may offer limited habitat functions, they are generally considered to have low habitat value due to the prevalence of invasive species and lack of native plant diversity. HABITAT CONNECTIVITY Habitat connectivity is essential for maintaining healthy wildlife populations, allowing animals to move freely across the landscape to access food, water, shelter, and breeding habitat. In areas fragmented by major highways and roads, connectivity is often severely reduced, leading to isolated populations, increased wildlife-vehicle collisions, and limited genetic exchange (Forman and Alexander, 1998). In the study area, most terrestrial connectivity occurs in relatively undeveloped areas, where natural habitats remain contiguous and are not interrupted by dense development. In addition, bridges and elevated roadways play a key role in facilitating wildlife movement by allowing animals to pass beneath highways and major roads, which helps to maintain healthy breeding populations . These underpasses can be especially important near riparian corridors, floodplains, and wetlands, where wildlife tends to concentrate. Preserving and enhancing these landscape linkages is important to reducing the barrier effects of road infrastructure and supporting regional biodiversity (Morrison and Matthewson, 2015; Dramstad et al., 1996). Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 98 The Portage Creek Wildlife Area, located upstream of the subarea, about 1.3 miles to the east, as well as the forested riparian corridor associated with the Stillaguamish River provides additional protected habitat and ecological connectivity. While located outside of the subarea, these resources emphasize the regional importance of the study area for providing habitat connectivity in the landscape. PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES WDFW defines priority habitats as habitats with elements unique or significant value to a large number of species (WDFW, 2021). A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or a specific habitat feature. Priority habitats in the subarea include riparian areas, instream habitats, freshwater wetlands, and potentially forested areas rich in snags and logs (WDFW, 2025c). In the subarea, as with much of Western Washington, development has significantly altered habitat conditions from the historical condition. However, undeveloped areas in the subarea, such as the riparian and wetland areas retain some valuable habitat functions. Notably, WDFW mapping indicates that agricultural fields north of SR 530 support regular concentrations of swans, which is considered a Priority Habitat requiring protection under Arlington’s critical area and SMP regulations (WDFW, 2025c). ESA listed wildlife species potentially occurring in or near the subarea and their listing statuses are provided in Exhibit 3.4.1-3. Due to the specific and often narrow habitat requirements of the listed species, combined with the high levels of existing disturbance within the study area, it is unlikely that these species occur in the project vicinity. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 99 Exhibit 3.4.1-3 Mapped ESA Wildlife Species. Species Scientific Name Federal Status Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Northwestern pond turtle Actinemys marmorata Threatened Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Proposed Threatened Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee Bombus suckleyi Proposed Endangered Table note: ESA fish species are noted in Exhibit 3.4.1-2. Source: USFWS, 2025b South Portage Creek is mapped as designated critical habitat for steelhead [Puget Sound DPS], specifically for juvenile rearing (NOAA Fisheries, 2025). No other designated critical habitats are located within the subarea. 3.4.2 Potential Impacts This section evaluates the potential ecological impacts of each alternative, focusing on how changes in land use, development intensity, and infrastructure may affect habitat quality, connectivity, and species of concern. Because certain topics (e.g. wetland loss or edge effects) are not equally relevant to all alternatives, not every topic is addressed under each alternative. Instead, the analysis emphasizes the most applicable impacts based on the nature and extent of development proposed in each alternative. Impacts Common to All Alternatives STREAM, RIPARIAN, AND WETLAND HABITAT Under all alternatives, wetlands may expand as rising groundwater and increased flooding from river aggradation raises the water table and inundates adjacent low-lying areas. Impacts to wetlands or their regulatory buffers as defined by the Arlington code, may require permits and compensatory mitigation from the City of Arlington, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). See section 3.4.3 for an overview of applicable regulations. Under all alternatives, some degree of wetland and stream loss may occur due to development activities, including grading, filling, and construction within or near jurisdictional areas. While mitigation would be required, the loss or degradation of these aquatic resources could reduce habitat availability and ecological functions such as water filtration and flood attenuation as described in section 3.3, specifically within the subarea. This Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 100 is because compensatory mitigation has a high likelihood of occurring out of the subarea due to the limited available space within the subarea. Climate change will also cause impacts to wetlands. Wetland areas are expected to be wetter in the fall and winter and drier in the summer. This change could influence species that use the wetland habitat. The degradation and fragmentation of floodplain habitat due to increased development would result in the loss of floodplain functions including off-channel refuge habitat for salmon during high flows, nutrient cycling, floodwaters filtration, and deposition of fine sediment essential to the aquatic food web. TERRESTRIAL HABITAT The transition zones between developed and natural areas can produce "edge effects," where habitat conditions at the margins differ from those in the interior (Dramstad et al. 1996; Haddad et al. 2015). These differences, such as greater human disturbance, noise pollution, artificial light, and introduced nonnative plants, can negatively impact sensitive species and ultimately reduce biodiversity (Forman and Alexander 1998). Increased development introduces more noise pollution from vehicles, machinery, and construction. Potential increases in traffic levels and duration, particularly around dawn and dusk, have the potential to increase wildlife and vehicle collisions. Lights associated with increased development may also increase light pollution which could negatively impact wildlife in natural areas. Development activities or associated landscaping may cause the introduction of nonnative plant species to increase which may be exacerbated by the increasing quantity of edge habitat. In addition, under all alternatives, development intensities would increase throughout Western Washington, which would increase the impacts to plants and animals throughout the region and would therefore be considered a cumulative impact within the City. HABITAT CONNECTIVITY Increased land use intensity can lead to habitat fragmentation, breaking up large, contiguous perennially vegetated areas (i.e. riparian areas or low intensity agricultural areas which offer seasonal habitat to swans and other species) into smaller, isolated patches (Dramstad et al. 1996; McKinney 2008; Fahrig 2003; Forman and Alexander 1998; Haddad et al. 2015). This fragmentation disrupts ecosystems, restricts species movement, and reduces genetic diversity within populations (Dramstad et al. 1996; Fahrig 2003; Forman and Alexander 1998; Haddad et al. 2015). The severity of these impacts depends on the location of new development, land use intensity, habitat patch size, landscape connectivity in terms of habitat, as well as the regulations put in place to protect these resources. While federal, state, and local protections for sensitive species and critical areas like wetlands will likely remain, increased development will still accelerate fragmentation and connectivity loss. In particular, roads and traffic associated with growth may act as barriers to wildlife movement, reducing habitat connectivity and increase mortality from collisions (Forman and Alexander 1998). Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 101 PRIORITY SPECIES AND HABITATS Priority species and habitats are protected under Arlington code. Protections include buffer widths and construction timing, which should be identified in a site-specific Habitat Management Plan (HMP) prepared by a qualified biologist for any development proposals that may impact this habitat in accordance with Arlington code. See section 3.4.3 for an overview of applicable development regulations. Higher land use densities often convert natural habitats into urban, industrial, or agricultural areas, leading to substantial loss of native vegetation and biodiversity, which can hinder species reproduction (McKinney 2008). While mitigation or minimization measures may be required to reduce impacts to protected species and habitats they may not fully compensate for the permanent loss of habitat structure, connectivity, and ecological function. Alternative 1: No Action HABITAT LOSS Under the No Action Alternative, the lowest amount of new development would occur compared to the action alternatives. While development would still likely occur, there would be likely fewer direct impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Existing habitats such as streams, wetlands, and riparian corridors, would face less pressure from land conversion. Although disturbed areas dominated by invasive vegetation would remain of low habitat value, the overall degradation of sensitive habitats would be minimized, supporting continued ecological function and minimizing cumulative impacts within the City and region. INDIRECT HABITAT IMPACTS Indirect impacts from increased human activity, traffic, and light or noise pollution would be less severe compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Lack of flow under SR 530 raises the risk of fish becoming stranded when water recedes after flood events. Habitat connectivity and ecological functions within riparian areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands would generally remain unchanged under this alternative. While existing connectivity is limited in some areas and could benefit from targeted improvements, this alternative would introduce the fewest new barriers to wildlife movement through increasing traffic volumes. However, because it does not include any major infrastructure or land use changes, it also offers no opportunity, beyond what is already required through regulatory protections, to actively improve or enhance connectivity. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation HABITAT LOSS Under Alternative 2, areas of primarily low-quality undeveloped terrestrial vegetation are at risk of conversion to commercial development. While any conversion to hardened Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 102 infrastructure would result in some habitat loss, the ecological value of these areas is comparatively low compared to wetland or riparian areas. However, new development may also encroach into nearby wetland, riparian, and priority habitats or their buffers. Under Alternative 2 remaining habitat is more vulnerable to both hydrologic impacts and uncoordinated, piecemeal development because it is more likely that growth will encroach incrementally into sensitive areas without the benefit of integrated design elements, such as connectivity between wetlands and riparian buffers. Because compensatory mitigation may occur off-site, more direct habitat loss and degradation may occur within the subarea itself, reducing local ecological function and resilience. While new development and traffic levels would be higher than under Alternative 1 and lower than under Alternative 3, the absence of the large compensatory flood storage area proposed in Alternative 3 means that some of the most sensitive natural resources, such as wetlands, streams, and priority habitat for swans, could experience greater degradation under Alternative 2 because floodwaters would be more dispersed and more likely to end up it in developed areas, as opposed to habitat- forming pools (as would occur in natural conditions). INDIRECT HABITAT IMPACTS There would be a reduction in the risk of fish stranding under Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative because flow will be more intentionally directed to areas that are permanently wetted and undeveloped. This includes routing high flows toward riparian corridors and areas that provide temporary refuge habitat such as connected ditches, which reduces the likelihood of fish becoming trapped or isolated in dewatering areas after peak flows recede. Alternative 2 would involve an increase in land use intensity, primarily through additional commercial development in areas that are already partially developed or disturbed by past land use. Habitat in these areas is generally limited and of low ecological function. The moderate increase in traffic would primarily occur along existing arterials, which are already established barriers to wildlife movement, and therefore would not significantly increase the extent of barrier effects. However, construction of and increased traffic on commercial driveways and private roads, particularly those near riparian corridors or undeveloped patches, may introduce new localized barriers or increase the severity of existing barriers which can increase wildlife-vehicle collisions, and further degrade adjacent habitat quality. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation – Preferred Alternative HABITAT LOSS Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would primarily allow the conversion of low-quality undeveloped terrestrial vegetation to developed commercial area. However, Alternative 3 would also include the construction of large compensatory flood storage areas, which overlap with mapped wetlands, stream corridors, and WDFW priority habitat for swans. These flood storage areas could provide opportunities for restoration or enhancement of Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 103 habitat functions in these sensitive areas, partially offsetting some of the adverse impacts of development. Although Alternative 3 would have the highest overall increase in land use intensity, it would concentrate new development in areas that are more ecologically appropriate, avoiding impacts to the most sensitive habitats. INDIRECT HABITAT IMPACTS Alternative 3 may reduce fish stranding by better reconnecting floodplain habitats and providing refuge in undeveloped areas during high flows. Alternative 3 would involve the highest increase in land use intensity, with new commercial development occurring in both previously disturbed areas and areas that are currently less developed, particularly north of SR 530. The associated increase in traffic would impact both major arterials and non-arterial roads, potentially expanding the extent of barrier effects for wildlife similar to Alternative 2. Roads near riparian corridors, wetlands, or other natural areas would be of particular concern, as increased traffic could elevate the risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions and further degrade adjacent habitat through noise, light pollution, and edge effects. The compensatory flood storage areas could provide new opportunities to improve wildlife connectivity and may provide wildlife refugia, however if secondary recreational uses are planned for these areas, the extent of this benefit would be limited. 3.4.3 Mitigation Strategies Incorporated Plan Features All alternatives will incorporate applicable regulations and require compensatory mitigation for new development to minimize impacts on floodplain and wetland function, habitat, and water quality as described in the Regulations and Commitments section. Floodplain compensatory mitigation will be required and addressed by each development proposal within Island Crossing, as they occur. As part of the draft Subarea Plan in Alternative 3, mitigation measures include identifying and supporting multi-purpose compensatory floodwater storage areas, such as floodable agricultural or recreational lands, to reduce flooding impacts on SR 530 and adjacent properties while enhancing habitat connectivity and maintaining ecological function. Regulations and Commitments Exhibit 3.4.3-1. identifies the regulations and commitments relevant to development actions occurring in the study area. Existing regulations requiring mitigation of impacts to plants and animals would continue to apply under all alternatives. Exhibit 3.4.3-1 Federal, State and Local Laws, Plans and Policies. REGULATORY PROGRAM LEAD AGENCY DESCRIPTION Endangered Species Act - 16 USC 1531 (ESA) National Marine Fisheries Service; The ESA aims to protect and recover imperiled species and their ecosystems. USFWS oversees Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 104 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service salmon. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act - 16 USC 38 1801 (MSA) National Marine Fisheries Service The MSA, enacted in 1976, governs marine fisheries in U.S. federal waters to prevent overfishing, rebuild stocks, and ensure long-term biological, economic, and social sustainability of seafood resources. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act - 16 USC 668–668c (BGEPA) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The BGEPA prohibits the taking, possession, or transport of bald and golden eagles, or their parts, nests, or eggs without a permit. Migratory Bird Treaty Act - 16 USC 703–712 (MBTA) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The MBTA prohibits killing, capturing, selling, trading, or transporting protected bird species, including harm from construction that affects individuals or active nests. Clean Water Act Section 404 - 33 USC 1251–1387 (CWA) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The CWA is the primary federal law governing water pollution and fill with the objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Hydraulic Code RCW Chapter 77.55 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Work that affects the flow or bed of freshwater or marine waters, including areas above the bank, requires a hydraulic project approval (HPA). WDFW issues general HPAs for routine maintenance and preservation activities. Washington Regulations for Fish and Wildlife - WAC 220 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State sets its own criteria for listing species and has rules to protect them and their habitats, including definitions for suitable habitat, dispersal areas, buffers, critical habitat, and nesting seasons. Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 20.93 Critical Areas Ordinance City of Arlington Arlington regulates trees, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetlands, and other critical areas under Chapter 20.93 of AMC. The also City regulates shoreline use, development, and ecological protection through its Shoreline Master Program, adopted under the Shoreline Management Act. State Environmental Policy Act City of Arlington SEPA identifies and analyzes environmental impacts associated with governmental decisions. SEPA can be used to modify or deny a proposal to avoid, reduce, or compensate for probable impacts. Other Potential Mitigation Measures The City of Arlington has an opportunity to protect habitat from additional impacts by strengthening protections for habitats and species of local importance. Specific actions could include: • Encouraging restoration of degraded critical areas and buffers to support wildlife habitat. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 105 • Identification, protection, and improvement of migratory corridors, including fish passage barriers, for fish and wildlife. • Working with neighboring jurisdictions to maintain and improve migration corridors. • Implementing opportunities to use stormwater facilities and green infrastructure beyond the regulatory requirements that can improve conditions for ground water and surface water quality. • Planning for climate resilience of natural areas, including forests patches, using a regional landscape-scale approach. • For Alternative 3, native habitat restoration should be integrated into the design of the regional compensatory floodwater storage facility by restoring or enhancing wetland habitat within or adjacent to the facility, which will improve ecological function while meeting regulatory requirements. To further maximize ecological benefits and regulatory efficiency, the City could develop a state and federally certified in-lieu fee (ILF) mitigation program that would include sites within the subarea. This approach would allow the City, or a qualified sponsor, to provide pre- permitted, consolidated mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts elsewhere in the subarea or surrounding watershed. An ILF program offers ecological advantages by enabling larger, contiguous restoration areas with greater functional lift than small, fragmented off-site mitigation parcels. It would also help ensure mitigation occurs within the same landscape context as the impacts, preserving local hydrology and habitat connectivity. 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the following significant unavoidable impacts may occur: • Degradation of Sensitive Habitats and Localized Habitat Loss: Without the regional flood storage facility included in Alternative 3, wetlands, streams, and priority habitat for swans are more vulnerable to degradation from uncontrolled or piecemeal development. Although focused in areas of previously disturbed or low-quality terrestrial vegetation, development may still encroach on higher-quality habitat areas. Since compensatory mitigation may occur outside of the subarea, this could result in permanent habitat loss within the subarea, diminishing local ecological function and resilience. Alternative 1 also results in uncontrolled flooding, which places floodwaters in developed locations that can trigger fish stranding and water quality degradation. • Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity Loss: Increased development, particularly near riparian corridors or remaining patches of habitat, may result in additional barriers to wildlife movement and increased wildlife-vehicle collisions. There are no significant unavoidable impacts anticipated under Alternative 3, due to its more coordinated design, inclusion of large flood storage and stormwater treatment areas, and greater opportunity for integrated habitat mitigation and restoration. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Natural Environment Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 106 Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Utilities Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 107 3.5 Utilities 3.5.1 Affected Environment DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER Utilities were analyzed by considering how the proposed alternatives, including changes with building structures and jobs would affect water demand, wastewater generation, and the quantity of stormwater runoff. 3.5.2 Potential Impacts Thresholds of Significance Increased demand for drinking water, increased wastewater generation, and changes in surfaces that generate the need for additional stormwater infrastructure. Impacts Common to All Alternatives STORMWATER There is no substantial difference between the No Action Alternative 1, Alternative 2, or Alternative 3, from the standpoint of stormwater flow generation and the ability of the stormwater system to convey the flow. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 includes some additional employment and some new building structures that will occur naturally as property is developed or redeveloped, resulting in a small increase in water and sewer demand and stormwater runoff. Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation Alternative 2 provides a slight increase of employment over Alternative 1, so Alternative 2 would result in somewhat larger increases in water demand and wastewater generation. Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation – Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 expects a substantial increase of employment growth for the subarea. Based on application of planning level estimates of water demand and wastewater generation per employee, Alternative 3 is expected to result in the greatest increase in water demand and wastewater generation; however, water use can vary significantly by industry. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Utilities Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 108 3.5.3 Mitigation Strategies Regulations and commitments The City has developed comprehensive plans for all three utilities and these plans are updated regularly to reflect system needs. The Capital Improvement Plan includes the following improvements: 12” Water Main 204th Street NE Local improvement district (LID) to coordinate developer-funded installation of a 12-inch ductile iron water main along the western boundary of the subarea. The capital project needed to support redevelopment of the study area are similar in scale to projects that the utilities execute on a regular basis. The costs of these improvements would be partially offset by general facility connection charges and rates for service. The Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Water System Comprehensive Plan, Wastewater Comprehensive Plan and Stormwater Comprehensive Plan address levels of service and capital improvements for water, wastewater and stormwater. • Water: When evaluating new construction, Arlington Public Works and Utilities Department personnel determine the ability of the water system to meet fire flow requirements at that location with a minimum of 20 psi residual pressure throughout the distribution system. If the water system cannot provide the required fire flow for the specific project, the developer is required to revise building construction and/or make the necessary improvements to the distribution system to meet the project’s fire flow requirements as established by the Building Official and/or Fire Code Official. The available fire flow will be determined by the City’s engineering staff using the water system hydraulic model. AMC Chapter 13.08 includes provisions for service connections and mains to be upgraded by developers during redevelopment if required to meet engineering design and construction standards. Chapter 13.08 also includes provisions for installation of pumps if required to achieve adequate pressure during peak demands. • Wastewater: AMC Chapter 13.36 includes provisions for wastewater service connections and extensions when existing connections are inadequate or sewer mains are not present along the frontage of a property. • Stormwater: AMC Chapter 13.28 includes provisions that require redevelopment to meet stormwater management requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, which requires low impact development BMPs, flow control, and water quality treatment. Under all the alternatives these requirements are expected to result in a net improvement in the quality of stormwater that is discharged into the Stillaguamish River, Portage Creek, and South Slough. Chapter 3 | Environment, Impacts & Mitigation | Utilities Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 109 Other Potential Mitigation Measures In addition to adopted plans and codes, other measures could include: • Developments may reduce water demand by using new technologies that would reduce per-capita water use (and therefore wastewater service demand) by using newer, low- or no-flow plumbing fixtures and equipment. • The City could incentivize or require participation in regional stormwater when concepts are developed to help spur development and water quality and stormwater management. 3.5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated for the water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities under any of the alternatives. Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 110 4 Corrections and Clarifications Chapter 4 | Corrections and Clarifications | Introduction Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 111 4.1 Introduction Corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIS are listed in this section and tracked with underlines (added text) and strikethroughs (deleted text) in the prior chapters. Throughout the document, mentions of Alternative 3 Subarea Plan Full Implementation have been updated to note that Alternative 3 is the "Preferred Alternative." 4.2 Chapter 1 Summary No corrections or clarifications. 4.3 Chapter 2 Proposal & Alternatives No corrections or clarifications. 4.4 Chapter 3 Environment, Impacts & Mitigation 4.4.1 Section 3.1 Land Use & Urban Form Page 52: Clarified SR 530 tree spacing and species selection considerations to protect Cascade Mountain range views. 4.4.2 Section 3.2 Transportation Page 71: Corrected the No Action Total Trips sum. Page 74: Clarified that the cost estimate includes compensatory floodwater storage for the SR 530 roadway project. Page 78-79: Added the Plan’s supportive land use policy (LU-6) for inter-site connections and the Island Crossing Subarea Development Standard 2.119.060(c) and associated Street Network map that requires streets to be built with redevelopment and designed to support their street classification. These edits clarify how the plan and development regulations address the need for improved connectivity between parcels and SR 530, responding to Comments 1 and 2. 4.4.3 Section 3.3 Water No corrections or clarifications. Chapter 4 | Corrections and Clarifications | Appendices Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 112 4.4.4 Section 3.4 Natural Environment No corrections or clarifications. 4.4.5 Section 3.5 Utilities No corrections or clarifications. 4.5 Appendices No corrections or clarifications. Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 113 5 Comments and Responses Chapter 5 | Comments and Responses | Introduction Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 114 5.1 Introduction This chapter includes the responses to public comments received on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was issued on August 1, 2025, and included a 30-day comment period, which ended on September 2, 2025. During the Draft EIS comment period, the City received 4 emailed comments. Appendix D Comment Letters include all comments received. As shown in Exhibit 5.2-1, responses are provided for each comment and are intended to provide clarification and refinement of information presented in the EIS, and if needed, correct or update information in the EIS. See Chapter 4 for revisions and additions to the DEIS integrated in the Final EIS. Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 115 5.2 Response to Individual Comments Exhibit 5.2-1 Responses to Individual Comments. No Name Comment Response 1 Ron Henken parcel(#31050800302700) needs access or road that connects at HWY 530 and runs south to our property. connected street system that provides access to all Island Crossing parcels in the “Inter-site Connectivity” section with strategy LU-6 and the “Street Design Standards/Inter-Site Connectivity” section with strategies T-8 and T-9. LU-6 has been revised to support working with property owners to facilitate access easements. In addition, the Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards section 20.119.060(c) requires inter-site connectivity as mapped in the Street Network map with redevelopment, including streets connecting to the property in question. These references have been added to the Transportation Mitigation Measures under the Incorporated Plan Henken Dwayne Lane Chevrolet, south of Hwy 530, east of Interstate 5 and west of Pilot/TEC. Access connecting our parcel to Hwy 530 is needed along with an off-site solution for compensatory flood storage. This approximately 16 acre site could then be developed providing a significant benefit to the City of Arlington and our group. parcel. Comment about the off-site compensatory mitigation is noted. The Preferred Alternative includes strategies to study and, if feasible, pursue a regional Chapter 5 | Comments and Responses | Response to Individual Comments Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 116 No Name Comment Response 3 Kory Glover First of all I want to say there is not one plan outlined that will satisfy all parties involved and the city is in a tough position trying to meet economic, environmental and community goals within the subarea. However, I hope some of the major concerns I outline will be taken into consideration. looking through all 3 alternatives I found myself thinking none of them address the two glaring concerns that are present now, those being traffic and flooding. If there was no further development these would still be major issues with increasing levels of concern due to climate change and other changes within the stillaguamish watershed (increased runoff from development and other impervious surfaces). I would like to see a plan that attacks these issues before further commercial development is considered. As outlined in option 3, a regional stormwater facility was mentioned many times. However there was no mention into the specifics of what this would look like in practice. I have to imagine with the increased fill elevations and impervious surface combined with higher water flows from the Stilly during flood events this would be a massive facility. Incurring a huge cost and limited success in regards to its effects in handling flood water surrounding island crossing and property up stream. There's also the issue of what happens if the regional stormwater facility does not have the intended result. As seen with the addition of the pilot truck stop and other commercial sites, the rules can be followed and there is still a very negative impact during flood events. Personally I see a bright future for Island crossing, but there are a lot of natural factors that make this an extremely 530 including turn restrictions and a roundabout midway within the Subarea along SR 530. In addition, the DEIS identifies transportation improvements that would be needed as part of the mitigation with the alternatives, including improvements at the SR 530 interchange and at Smokey Point Blvd. The Plan reccomends a feasibility study for the compensatory storage (strategy NE-2), including hydraulic modeling of the Subarea, to inform siting, design, and construction of the facility. Even under Alternative 1 No Action (i.e., existing zoning), commercial development is allowed in Island Crossing. Toyer retained by Pape Properties parcels within and immediately adjacent to the municipal boundaries of Arlington (see attached map), which includes parcels that will fall within the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and/or be affected by same. We have very similar questions and comments regarding the DEIS Chapter 5 | Comments and Responses | Response to Individual Comments Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 117 No Name Comment Response flood storage facility north of SR 530, but it does not appear the city (through the subarea plan or otherwise) has adequately evaluated other viable alternatives such as Papé’s proposed compensatory flood storage site to the south, especially considering: • Papé’s regional flood mitigation project would not impact adjacent properties as demonstrated by HEC-RAS 2D modeling. • The Papé site has been studied and designed such that it could accommodate regional compensatory storage while maintaining the land’s agricultural use in a manner that benefits the broader community. Papé has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would allow the Arlington Community Food Bank (in partnership with area farmers) to manage the agricultural lands to be a source for local, fresh produce needed by the members of the community they serve. • Papé has offered to sell the City its mitigation project (once permitted)—subject to the parties agreeing to mutually acceptable terms. • What’s the rationale for the City not studying Papé’s site as an alternative that can achieve similar results? It is correct that the southern portion of the subarea was not evaluated as much as the northern portion. However, flooding was investigated enough to determine the flooding for those areas north of SR 530 were distinctly different than those areas further south, particularly those areas near and south of Portage Creek (where the Pape proposed compensatory flood storage site is located). Most of the floodwater that inundates the northern portion of the subarea and overtops SR 530, a key consideration for the subarea plan, originates directly from the Stillaguamish River to the north. Areas further south receive floodwater from much further upstream (east) and, in the case of Portage Creek, from upland sources not directly fed by the Stillaguamish River. Finally, the proposed regulatory changes were to be focused on these northern areas, not areas at the southern end of the subarea. Although it was not modeled directly, it is known that the Pape facility would not be able to compensate for flooding north of SR 530 because these areas further south have little if any influence on floodwater at and north of SR 530. The best example, which is shown in Exhibit 3.3.1-2, is that flow is directed from north to south across SR 530 (right to left in the photo). The roadway serves as the hydraulic control for that flow meaning that the only way to prevent the overtopping and flooding in this area is by intercepting this water from the north. Chapter 5 | Comments and Responses | Response to Individual Comments Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 118 facility north of SR 530, Papé has the following questions and comments related to the DEIS’s evaluation of probable significant impacts: Has there been a hydraulic analysis performed that ensures no adverse impacts to adjacent properties, as well as properties generally located within the entirety of Island Crossing? This would include impacts due to flood elevation changes and scouring velocities. Has there been a volume calculation performed to ensure the proposed compensatory flood storage basin can adequately displace development impacts from fill activities within the floodplain as planned? This would include determining the seasonal-high ground water elevation to establish the flood basin’s floor elevation. The proposed mitigation site appears to propose a compensatory flood mitigation site that does not have a viable outlet, which proposal does not recognize that waters naturally flow north and south during flood events. The proposal does not contemplate “daylighting” the mitigation basin to the north toward the Stillaguamish River; instead, page vii of the Subarea Plan shows a proposed expansion of a culvert under SR 530 that would redirect flood waters south. What analysis has been done (or will be done) to evaluate whether redirecting flood waters south will impact other properties? The culvert under I-5 at South Slough is known to have inadequate capacity to convey flood waters to the west, acting as a choke point for flood waters in the area. Has analysis been done to determine if redirecting floodwaters to the south under 530 has the potential to impact I-5? Comparing alternatives, Papé’s regional flood mitigation project will not impact adjacent properties as demonstrated by HEC-RAS 2D modeling, but construction of the culvert under SR 530 and redirection of flood waters to the south may have significant, adverse impacts to Papé’s mitigation project and surrounding properties. The Subarea plan does not include mitigation considerations for probable significant impacts to existing compensatory flood mitigation basins for Pilot or Dwayne Lane Chevrolet, yet these significant areas of land are zoned commercial, included within the City’s Comprehensive Plan for development, served by City utilities, accessed by roads within City ROW, and integral to the City’s future economic development goals. sufficient to determine that the plan does not impact other properties has not be been done. This is typically done much later in the design process – not at this planning stage. However, this analysis will have to be done later to comply with flood regulations. That said, it is expected that no adverse impacts to areas further south will be achieved. Like the first question, this is a design question. For the project to move forward, it will have to be compliant with flood regulations which mandate that the compensatory facility will have to offset development (fill) impacts. The third question brings up an important point. This has not been factored in as of yet. However, there are several options. One option (the most probable) is for the exit to return water to the north and under the I-5 Stillaguamish River Bridge. However, other options will be considered, such as via the South Slough culvert, possibly improved as a result. WSDOT will have to be a partner and this may prove to be advantageous to all parties. With regards to the last three comments and as mentioned above, whatever alternative is chosen, it will have to make sure not to impact adjacent properties in a negative way. Chapter 5 | Comments and Responses | Response to Individual Comments Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 119 No Name Comment Response If future floodwaters are directed south, and they impact properties like Papé’s, how will the City mitigate and/or compensate property owners for these impacts and/or additional development costs? 4.3. It is not clear that the DEIS fully addresses probable significant impacts such as: The approvals required for the City’s proposed mitigation basin if it directs flood waters to outlet at the Stillaguamish River and/or south to the South Slough culvert at I-5 (WSDOT, USACE, NOAA, etc.). The potential ESA and/or turbidity impacts related to directing the compensatory storage north to an outlet into the Stillaguamish River. How does the current proposal reconcile with the NEPA application already completed for the Highway 530 roundabout which specifically identifies mitigating flood impacts to a compensatory flood mitigation site south of 530? these are important points that will be considered during the design process, not at this planning stage. The SR 530 roundabout currently being developed is outside the 100-year floodplain and therefore has no nexus with this flood discussion. 4.4 The proposed mitigation site as identified in the Subarea Plan and DEIS appears to conflict with the City’s intended effort to maximize the development potential of Island Crossing even as it focuses most of its attention north of SR 530. Thus, the subarea plan does not account for all development alternatives and potential economic development benefits that can be achieved from alternatives (including Papé’s compensatory mitigation site) that can support development in the south portion of this subarea. The identified mitigation site is based on a preliminary investigation (see comment response 4.1 and Island Crossing Subarea Plan Appendix C Major Concepts Options Evaluation). The City has updated the Subarea Plan action NE-2 about studying feasibility of a compensatory flood storage facility to clarify that the study should include extensive hydraulic modeling of the full subarea. Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 120 6 Acronyms & References Chapter 6 | Acronyms & References | Acronyms Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 121 6.1 Acronyms AMC = Arlington Municipal Code BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act CWA = Clean Water Act Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology ECDC = Edmonds Community Development Code ESA = Endangered Species Act HPA = Hydraulic Project Approval I-5 = Interstate 5 MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEV = Million entering vehicles MSA = Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SEPA = State Environmental Protection Act SR 530 = Washington State Route 530 USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC = United States Code; USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service WAC = Washington Administrative Code WDFW = Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 6.2 References 1999 Agreement on Reciprocal Mitigation of Transportation Impacts accessed June 27, 2025 https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6740/Arlington--1999- Agreement?bidId= City of Arlington. 2019. Shoreline Master Program: Appendix B – Shoreline Environmentally Critical Areas. Accessed June 11, 2025 at <https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/593/Shoreline-Master- Program> Chapter 6 | Acronyms & References | References Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 122 Dramstad, W.E., Olson, J.D., Forman, R.T.T. 1996. Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning. Harvard University Graduate School of Design, American Society of Landscape Architects, and Island Press, Washington, D.C. 80 pp. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 487-515. FEMA. 2025. FEMA Flood Map Service Center website. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Forman, R. T. T., & Alexander, L. E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 207-231. Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. SPB Academic Publishing bv, Amsterdam. Landscape Ecology vol 10, no 3 pp 133-142. Haddad, N. M., L. A. Brudvig, J. Clobert, K. F. Davies, A. Gonzalez, R. D. Holt, T. E. Lovejoy, J. O. Sexton, M. P. Austin, C. D. Collins, W. M. Cook, E. I. Damschen, R. M. Ewers, B. L. Foster, C. N. Jenkins, A. J. King, W. F. Laurance, D. J. Levey, C. R. Margules, B. A. Melbourne, A. O. Nicholls, J. L. Orrock, D.-X. Song, and J. R. Townshend. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances 1. McKinney, M. L. 2008. Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11(2), 161-176. NOAA Fisheries. 2025. Species and Habitat App. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries West Coast Region. GIS data downloads & services. Accessed August 12, 2024 <https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/species-and-habitat-app>. NWI. 2025. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) website. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. NWIFC. 2025. Statewide Fish Integrated Fish Distribution Web Map. Northwest Indian Fisheries Committee. Accessed March 26, 2024. <https://geo.nwifc.org/swifd/>. Simenstad, C. A., & Cordell, J. R. 2000. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous salmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering, 15(3-4), 283-302. doi:10.1016/s0925-8574(00)00082-3. Smallwood, S.K. 2015. Chapter 7 Habitat Fragmentation and Corridors excerpt form Wildlife Habitat Conservation: Concepts, Challenges, and Solutions. Edited by Michael L. Morrison, and Heather A. Mathewson, Johns Hopkins University Press. 84-101 pp. Tohver, I.M., A.F. Hamlet, and S.-Y. Lee. 2014. Impacts of 21st Century Climate Change on Hydrologic Extremes in the Pacific Northwest Region of North America. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 50(6):1461-1476. USFWS. 2025a. National Wetland Inventory Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper>. USFWS. 2025b. IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed August 7, 2024 https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. Chapter 6 | Acronyms & References | References Island Crossing Planned Action Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS October 2025 ▪ Volume 1 ▪ October 2025 123 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Priority Habitats and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 291pp. Updated 2023. WDFW. 2021. Priority Habitat and Species List. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Originally published August 2008; revised February 2021. <https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165.pdf>. WDFW. 2025a. Washington State Fish Passage Mapper. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed March 26, 2024. <https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/fishpassage/index.html>. WDFW. 2025b. SalmonScape Mapping System. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed March 26, 2024. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html>. WDFW. 2025c. Priority Species and Habitat Database. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed March 26, 2024. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/>. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2025a. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Accessed December March 26, 2024. <https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/2d-view#activity?-14572852,-12811743,5561169,6486975>. WDNR. 2025b. Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) Data Explorer. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Accessed March 26, 2024. <https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/174566100f2a47bebe56db3f0f78b5d City of Arlington | Island Crossing Subarea PLANNED ACTION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 2 - Appendices October 2025 City of Arlington Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume 2 - Appendices ▪ October 2025 2 Appendices List of Appendices A Scoping Notice & Comment Summary B Traffic Counts C LOS Worksheets D Comment Letters Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume 2 - Appendices ▪ October 2025 A-1 Appendix A Scoping Notice & Comment Summary A-2 Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance, and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS Permit Number: PLN #1366 Date of Issuance: June 20, 2025 Date of Publication: June 24, 2025 Date of Application: February 2, 2024 Lead Agency: City of Arlington Agency Contact: Amy Rusko, Deputy Director, arusko@arlingtonwa.gov, (360) 403-3551 Applicant: City of Arlington Description of proposal: The City of Arlington is conducting a community planning process to develop a vision, plan, and implementation strategies for the Island Crossing Subarea. The City is proposing to adopt an Island Crossing Subarea Plan, development code, design standards, and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). These will lay the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the area. The subarea plan is being developed for consistency with the Growth Management Act, County-wide planning policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Planned Action EIS will review a range of alternatives including comparing the current plan and regulations (Alternative 1: No Action, required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)) to two action alternatives (Alternative 2: Subarea Plan Partial Implementation and Alternative 3: Subarea Plan Full Implementation). Alternative 2 includes an increased height limit near I-5 for hotels, improvements to SR 530, and no public investment in a regional floodwater compensatory storage facility. Alternative 3 includes the same height limit increase and SR 530 improvements as Alternative 2, and also includes public investment in a regional floodwater compensatory storage facility and floodable park to address flooding and increase development capacity. Location of proposal: The Island Crossing subarea is in the northwest corner of Arlington, bounded by I-5, Smokey Point Boulevard, 27th Avenue, and the northern edge of properties directly north of SR 530. Determination: The City of Arlington as lead agency under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) has determined that this proposal could potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c) and will be prepared under the City’s direction. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: •Water: floods, surface water, groundwater, and wetlands •Natural environment: Plants and animals, natural resources A-3 •Land use and urban form: Relationship to existing plans, estimated population/ employment, and aesthetics/scenic resources •Transportation •Utilities: Sewer, water, stormwater, electrical power, and natural gas Arlington Ordinance 2023-016, incorporated as AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans, requires that subarea plans be processed in conjunction with a Planned Action EIS. The PAO will be developed under RCW 43.21C.440 and associated SEPA rules in WAC 197-11 based on the EIS. Future proposals consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, Subarea Plan, and development regulations would have a streamlined environmental review and permitting process. Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us your comments are: Send written comments by 5:00 pm on Tuesday , July 15, 2025 to the contact below. Email comments are preferred. Email: arusko@arlingtonwa.gov (Subject: Island Crossing Subarea EIS Scoping Comments) Mail: City of Arlington Attn: Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Deputy Director 18204 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98233 Community Meeting: As part of the community planning process and to meet the Planned Action community meeting provisions in RCW 43.21C.440(3)(b), the City is holding a public neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, July 9 , 2025 at Putnam Hall in the Community and Economic Development Office (18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223), from 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm , with a presentation at 5:10 pm. If you need special accommodations for the meeting, please contact the City of Arlington at 360-403-3551. For more information, please see the City of Arlington project website: https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/867/Island-Crossing-Subarea-Plan. Permits and Documents Required: Subarea Plan, EIS, and Planned Action Ordinance SEPA Responsible Official: Amy Rusko, Deputy Community and Economic Development Director, City of Arlington, arusko@arlingtonwa.gov, 360-403-3457 6/20/2025 Signature Date Appeal Process An agency or person may appeal the City’s procedural compliance with WAC 197-11. The appeal shall meet the requirements of AMC 20.98.210, AMC 20.20, and AMC 20.24. The appeal period commences on the date of publication of notice. Any appeal to the Hearing Examiner must be addressed to the City Hearing Examiner, accompanied by an application, written findings, a filing fee (plus the actual cost of the Hearing Examiner), and be filed in writing at the City of Arlington, Community and Economic Development Department, 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223. A-4 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan Summary of Comments A-5 Summary of Comments From May through November 2024, the City gathered stakeholders’ and community members’ ideas and goals for the subarea. This engagement included workshops, surveys, and advisory group meetings with business and property owners. Additionally, technical meetings with Snohomish County representatives, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Community Transit informed the design considerations for SR 530. A summary table of this plan’s public engagement activities is below. Exhibit 1-1 Engagement Summary Event Date Audience What we learned Kick-off tour and meeting Mar. 2024 Elected officials Flooding is a major issue, particularly flooding across 530. Herrera to research feasibility and impact of a side channel along the edge of the County-owned park property. Conversations with property owners between 530 and the river may be needed. Interventions are unlikely to get the entire area out of the floodplain. Access control along 530 is an issue; road improvements are needed. Potential to bring activity/assets to the highway frontage. Visioning Open House May 2024 Arlington community Flooding impacts to properties and roads are a major concern. Diverging visions for future land uses include additional auto- oriented commercial uses, preservation of agricultural land, and promotion of agritourism. Transportation challenges include truck traffic and lack of access control to businesses. Differing opinions on SR 530 design. Community survey May- June 2024 Arlington community Desire to preserve culturally significant farmland and agricultural scenery. Desire to maintain the subarea’s current level of development to minimize impact on farmland and avoid noise, traffic, and light pollution. Appreciation for businesses that support agricultural uses and encourage agritourism. Worry that increased development could intensify flood risk and impact wildlife habitat. Using farmland for flood mitigation is viewed negatively as it reduces agricultural capacity. Concerns for traffic congestion and related safety impacts. ·DRAFT July 29, 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan A-6 Event Date Audience What we learned stops will strain infrastructure. Lack of sidewalks and crosswalks makes the area auto- oriented and uncomfortable for pedestrians and cyclists. Strong support for shared-use paths and regional bike connections. Stakeholder interview July 2024 Subarea property owner Desire for City-owned regional compensatory storage strategy. Vision for development of properties facing SR 530 included aesthetically pleasing truck stop combined with other uses. Truck stop considered an economically feasible option. Interest in an east-west path connecting Silvana to Centennial Trail for bringing community together and supporting tourism. Interest in supporting agritourism, but unsure about its feasibility if it has to pay for floodwater storage. Advisory Groups Aug. and Sept. 2024 Subarea property owners and other stakeholders Desire for farmland and agricultural heritage preservation and to address flooding. Mixed interest in truck-stop development. Interest in street improvements to reduce speed and improve compatibility with pedestrian and bike mobility. Design roundabouts to accommodate freight and farm vehicles. Mixed views on park-and-ride/transit station, particularly feasibility. Divided views on compensatory storage: Some interest in compensatory storage north of the subarea (and in southern tip) Several interested in individual mitigation Strong views on avoiding storage on farmland Strong interest in agritourism and hotel, recreation, restaurant, and retail/grocery/service follows North/northeastern area identified as ideal location for new development Identified “pin” locations generally align with land use options Transportation Technical Group July and Nov. 2024 Agency partners Traffic congestion is a major concern. Roundabouts are preferred by WSDOT rather than signalized intersections. Consolidated driveways (as opposed to frontage roads) is the preferred option which allows for piecemeal development and easier grade transition to private properties if SR 530 is elevated. The lack of population in the subarea reduces feasibility of transit service regardless of commercial growth. Microtransit is a viable alternate. · DRAFT July 29, 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan A-7 Event Date Audience What we learned Scoping Community Meeting July 2025 Arlington community Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans, Transportation, and Utilities (sewer, water, stormwater, and street lighting), were considered the most important topic. Request for additional study of proposed floodable park/compensatory storage site. Consider other alternatives (Pape’s compensatory mitigation site). Consider economic viability of truck stops, Request for additional hydraulic analysis to promote balanced development while protecting floodplain habitat Continue coordination with the Tribe for the Smokey Point roundabout and future development. Strong interest in recreational facilities such as trails with views, and an event/community center Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume 2 - Appendices ▪ October 2025 B-1 Appendix B Traffic Counts www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 Date: 06/02/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 14.9%0.98 TOTAL 10.5%0.96 TH RT WB 8.1%0.93 NB -- Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 9.5%0.80 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 I-5 SB Ramps I-5 SB Ramps 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT 0 94 58 0 0 0 80 0 9 302 0 4:15 PM 0 0 33 13 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 38 16 0 105 54 83 1 8 273 0 4:45 PM 0 0 43 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 0 4:30 PM 0 0 29 16 0 76 60 0 0 0 81 0 9 299 1,162 5:00 PM 0 0 24 19 0 78 53 0 0 0 79 0 12010240000 0 89 44 0 0 0 88 2 3 267 1,127 5:15 PM 0 0 32 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 16 279 1,123 5:45 PM 0 0 26 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 1,117 5:30 PM 0 0 24 15 0 88 53 0 0 0 84 1 12 262 1,086000841808442000 Count Total 0 0 249 135 0 716 404 662 5 77 2,248 0 Peak Hour All 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 10 122 02200000 38 1,162 0 HV 0 0 19 1 0 26 0 0 0 0 323 168037721200 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total --14%0%26%10%7%10%----HV%--13%1%- 0 0 4:15 PM 4 13 0 11 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 5 14 0 19 38 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 6 11 0 10 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:30 PM 5 10 0 14 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5:15 PM 6 5 0 12 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5:00 PM 6 10 0 12 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 7 8 0 11 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 7 4 0 11 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 4 1 Peak Hour 20 48 0 54 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 46 75 0 100 221 0 1000004 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 N I-5 SB Ramps SR-530 SR-530 I-5 S B R a m p s SR-530 I-5 S B R a m p s 1,162TEV: 0.96PHF: 38 1 32 3 36 2 0 0 0 212 377 589 4660 000 044 6 0 68 143 0 211 250 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-2 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 I-5 SB Ramps I-5 SB Ramps 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound 15 0 4 38 0 4:15 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 5 0 0 9 5 UT LT TH RT UT LT 28 0 4:30 PM 0 0 5 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 10 0 1067000 0 7 4 0 0 0 12 0 2 29 0 4:45 PM 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 28 112 5:15 PM 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 122 5:00 PM 0 0 3 3 0 6 4 0 0 0 7 0 3 23 107 5:30 PM 0 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 0 5023000 0 2 6 0 0 0 8 0 3 22 100 5:45 PM 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 99000902 79 0 21 221 0 Peak Hour 0 0 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 32 14 0 38 37 0 04:00 PM RT 122 0 Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 I-5 SB Ramps I-5 SB Ramps 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 0 0 0 44 0 1002622000 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 5:00 PM 0000 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 00000004:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0000000 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 THLT 0000000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-3 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 Date: 06/02/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB -- TOTAL 9.1%0.97 TH RT WB 5.0%0.92 NB 9.0%0.93 Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 13.7%0.98 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 I-5 NB Ramps I-5 NB Ramps 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT 0 0 124 7 0 25 0 0 0 413 0 4:15 PM 0 7 110 0 9 0 31 0 122 04:00 PM 0 10 109 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 390 0 4:45 PM 0 8 111 0 4 0 22 0 134 0 416 0 4:30 PM 0 10 103 0 0 0 117 2 141 0 0 0 0 393 1,612 5:00 PM 0 6 107 0 0 0 104 1 125 0 0 0 0001197022 0 0 113 13 0 18 0 0 0 366 1,565 5:15 PM 0 8 105 0 4 0 29 0 116 0 0 0 0 383 1,539 5:45 PM 0 3 104 0 4 0 21 0 127 0 397 1,546 5:30 PM 0 3 109 0 0 0 119 1 139 0 0 0 0 354 1,5000118000000983028 Count Total 0 55 858 0 0 0 926 0 0 0 3,112 0 Peak Hour All 0 35 433 51 0 196 4 1,022 0 0 0 0 0 146 0260023033 0 1,612 0 HV 0 16 48 0 0 0 100 3 522 0 0 0000492270 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 6%----9%-5%0%-23%0%HV%-46%11%-- 0 1 4:15 PM 16 6 12 0 34 0 90 115 0 0 115 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 19 9 12 0 40 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 12 7 18 0 37 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 17 4 14 0 35 0 133 0 0 0 90 0 0 2 0 0 5:15 PM 11 4 2 0 17 0 109 117 0 0 117 0 0 0 1 0 5:00 PM 14 6 7 0 27 0 0 121 0 0 121 0 5:45 PM 13 2 11 0 26 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 10 2 2 0 14 0 86 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 008100810 3 1 Peak Hour 64 26 56 0 146 0 459 852 0 0 852 0 0Count Total 112 40 78 0 230 0 100459003 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 459 0 0 3 1 0 0 N I-5 NB Ramps SR-530 SR-530 I-5 N B R a m p s SR-530 I-5 N B R a m p s 1,612TEV: 0.97PHF: 0 0 0 0 65 0 27 492 0 519 9550 52 2 3 10 0 62 5 0 0 0 433 35 468 592 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-4 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 I-5 NB Ramps I-5 NB Ramps 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound 0 0 0 40 0 4:15 PM 0 4 12 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 5 14 0 0 0 9 UT LT TH RT UT LT 34 0 4:30 PM 0 4 13 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 0006007 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 35 0 4:45 PM 0 3 9 0 0 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 27 133 5:15 PM 0 4 7 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 37 146 5:00 PM 0 2 12 0 0 0 6 0 13 0 0 0 0 17 116 5:30 PM 0 2 8 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0004001 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 14 95 5:45 PM 0 2 11 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 26 84050000 0 0 0 230 0 Peak Hour 0 16 48 0 0 0 36 0 42 0Count Total 0 26 86 0 0 0 40 115 04:00 PM RT 146 0 Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 I-5 NB Ramps I-5 NB Ramps 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 0 33 0 0 0 000260023 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 459 5:00 PM 121000 133 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 900000004:15 PM 0 0 133 0 0 121 86 433 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 480 5:30 PM 109000000 117 461 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 393810000000 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 THLT 459000000 852 00000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 0000001150 0 00 0 0 0 0 117 0 0 90 0 000 0 0 459 000 0 0 852 0 0 86 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-5 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00008000 0 0 Peak Hr 34 19 3 0 56 0 8 8 0 0 8 0 0Count Total 62 47 7 0 116 0 0 0 00000005:45 PM 4 4 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 7 6 0 0 13 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 8 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 9 3 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 10 8 1 0 19 0 0 0 ---HV%--5%0%- 0 0 4:15 PM 9 8 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 13 10 3 4 0 0 188 0 0 03012870700 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 2%----3%3%2%- Peak Hour All 0 0 703 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 0 0 0 56 01500003 0 1,729 0 HV 0 0 34 0 0 Count Total 0 0 1,393 5 0 245 1,318 0 0 0 3,323 0 347 1,5960480000024119000 0 0 0 423 1,694 5:45 PM 0 0 155 1 0 0 0 0 43 0 421 1,729 5:30 PM 0 0 198 0 0 29 153 0 47 0 0 0 0029153000 0 0 0 405 1,703 5:15 PM 0 0 191 1 0 0 0 0 43 0 445 1,727 5:00 PM 0 0 149 1 0 39 173 0 48 0 0 0 0030187000 0 0 0 458 0 4:45 PM 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 395 0 4:30 PM 0 0 183 1 0 30 194 0 42 0 0 0 0027155000 0 0 0 429 0 4:15 PM 0 0 170 1 0 0 0 0 41 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 167 0 0 37 184 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 Smokey Point Blvd E 0 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB -- TOTAL 3.2%0.94 WB 2.3%0.93 NB 1.6%0.94 Peak Hour: 4:30 PM 5:30 PM HV %:PHF EB 4.8%0.92 Date: 06/02/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 0 0 00 8 0 0 0 0 0 N Smokey Point Blvd E SR-530 SR-530 Sm o k e y P o i n t Bl v d E SR-530 1,729TEV: 0.94PHF: 707 128 835 8910 18 8 0 18 8 13 1 0 3 703706 707 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-6 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 8 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8000000 0 8 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 56 0 Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 Smokey Point Blvd E 0 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 0 3 0 0 0 00415000 0 0 0 116 0 Peak Hour 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 7 0Count Total 0 0 62 0 0 10 37 9 40010000013000 0 0 0 8 50 5:45 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 56 5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0006000 0 0 0 10 60 5:15 PM 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 76 5:00 PM 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0044000 0 0 0 14 0 4:45 PM 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 0 4:30 PM 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0035000 0 0 0 26 0 4:15 PM 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 13 0 0 0 10 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start SR-530 SR-530 Smokey Point Blvd E 0 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-7 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 WB 2.8%0.87 NB 7.4%0.95 Peak Hour: 4:30 PM 5:30 PM HV %:PHF EB -- Date: 06/02/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 3.1%0.93 TOTAL 5.5%0.94 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start 0 Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT 0 35 0 2 0 0 0 36 0 169 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 54 42 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 27 0 149 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 45 48 0 156 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 51 32 0 1 35 0 150 624 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 36 47 0 0 32 00320300 0 38 0 3 0 0 0 34 0 167 622 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 52 44 0 0 31 0 137 622 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 39 35 0 168 634 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 54 39 0 0 34 0 137 6093255002400240200 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 257 0 1 253 0 1,233 0 Peak Hour All 0 0 0 17 0 0 363 342 0 0 0 4 0 35 00000225 0 634 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 187 178 0 0 127001310110 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%--3%-6%3%-0%--12%HV%----- 0 0 4:15 PM 0 3 9 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 0 1 7 1 9 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 0 4 8 4 16 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4:30 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5:00 PM 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 3 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 2 1 Peak Hr 0 4 27 4 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Count Total 0 12 46 12 70 0 1000022 N Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd Sm o k e y P o i n t Bl v d Sm o k e y P o i n t Bl v d 634TEV: 0.94PHF: 12 7 0 12 7 19 8 0 11 131 142 178 0 17 8 18 7 36 5 25 8 0 0 0 00 0 0 2 1 2 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-8 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start 0 Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound 0 1 0 9 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT 15 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 0030000 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 6 42 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 16 45 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 4 0 8 35 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 1 0 0 0 0000000 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 37 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 25110010 0 12 0 70 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 8 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 35 0 Interval Start 0 Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 22 5 0 0 4 0040000 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-9 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 WB -- NB 2.8%0.92 Peak Hour: 4:15 PM 5:15 PM HV %:PHF EB 3.4%0.85 Date: 06/02/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 3.6%0.89 TOTAL 3.2%0.93 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start 200th St NE 0 Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 60 11 164 0 4:15 PM 0 12 0 5 0 0 9 73 0 04:00 PM 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 39 9 136 0 4:45 PM 0 7 0 8 0 0 4 69 0 0 154 0 4:30 PM 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 56 9 168 622 5:00 PM 0 7 0 4 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 56 10000009 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 58 12 168 626 5:15 PM 0 6 0 7 0 0 9 78 0 0 0 46 6 136 615 5:45 PM 0 5 0 3 0 0 10 58 0 0 143 615 5:30 PM 0 11 0 5 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 45 3 125 57270000378000002 Count Total 0 60 0 46 0 0 0 0 397 68 1,194 0 Peak Hour All 0 33 0 0 0 66 557 0 0 0 0 8 1 20 0000090 40 626 0 HV 0 2 0 0 0 0 33 286 0 0 0 2092500000 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total ---4%3%3%----0%3%HV%-6%-0%- 0 0 4:15 PM 1 0 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 0 0 2 2 4 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 1 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 1 0 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 3 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 Peak Hr 2 0 9 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Count Total 3 0 14 18 35 0 0000010 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 0 N Smokey Point Blvd 200th St NE Sm o k e y P o i n t Bl v d Sm o k e y P o i n t Bl v d 200th St NE 626TEV: 0.93PHF: 40 20 9 24 9 31 9 0 28 633 31 9 23 4 0 25 3358 73 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-10 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start 200th St NE 0 Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound 0 1 1 4 0 4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT 5 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 8 20 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 16 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 20 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 23 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19000000 0 16 2 35 0 Peak Hour 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0Count Total 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 20 0 Interval Start 200th St NE 0 Smokey Point Blvd Smokey Point Blvd 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 9 0 0 0 8 1000000 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 project.manager.wa@idaxdata.com B-11 Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume 2 - Appendices ▪ October 2025 C-1 Appendix C LOS Worksheets HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington sland Crossing EIS 7: I-5 SB Ramps & SR-530 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 145 70 375 210 0 0 0 0 325 5 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 145 70 375 210 0 0 0 0 325 5 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1752 1752 1781 1781 0 1678 1678 1678 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 151 73 391 219 0 339 5 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 10 10 8 8 0 15 15 15 Cap, veh/h 0 671 568 676 1039 0 372 5 46 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.58 0.00 0.30 0.27 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1752 1483 1697 1781 0 1384 20 172 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 151 73 391 219 0 386 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1752 1483 1697 1781 0 1576 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.8 3.2 13.5 5.8 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.8 3.2 13.5 5.8 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.88 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 671 568 676 1039 0 424 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.22 0.13 0.58 0.21 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 671 568 676 1039 0 728 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.8 20.0 13.7 9.9 0.0 33.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.5 1.2 5.1 2.3 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 21.6 20.5 14.8 10.3 0.0 47.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C B B D Approach Vol, veh/h 224 610 386 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 13.2 47.3 Approach LOS C B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 44.3 35.7 64.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 6 5.8 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.5 * 19 49.2 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.5 7.8 25.6 7.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 4.2 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 25.5 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-2 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Island Crossing EIS 8: I-5 NB Ramps & SR-530 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 435 0 0 490 485 100 5 520 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 35 435 0 0 490 485 100 5 520 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 0 0 1826 1826 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 448 0 0 505 500 103 5 536 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 0 0 5 5 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 330 1117 0 0 1045 883 357 17 332 Arrive On Green 0.06 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1612 1693 0 0 1826 1543 1608 78 1497 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 448 0 0 505 500 108 0 536 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1612 1693 0 0 1826 1543 1686 0 1497 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 20.5 5.3 0.0 22.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 20.5 5.3 0.0 22.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 1117 0 0 1045 883 374 0 332 V/C Ratio(X)0.11 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.57 0.29 0.00 1.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 383 1117 0 0 1045 883 374 0 332 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.97 0.97 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 13.5 32.3 0.0 38.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.6 0.7 0.0 289.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 7.3 2.2 0.0 34.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 8.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 16.1 33.1 0.0 328.2 LnGrp LOS A A B B C F Approach Vol, veh/h 484 1005 644 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.6 15.2 278.7 Approach LOS A B F Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 72.0 8.8 63.2 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 5.6 * 6 5.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.0 6.4 * 54 22.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 2.9 22.5 24.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 0.0 9.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 91.7 HCM 7th LOS F Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-3 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 9: Smokey Point Blvd & SR-530 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 705 5 130 705 0 190 Future Vol, veh/h 705 5 130 705 0 190 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 350 - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 750 5 138 750 0 202 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 755 0 - 753 Stage 1 --- - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy --4.12 - - 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - - 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 855 - 0 410 Stage 1 - - - - 0 - Stage 2 --- - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 855 - - 410 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 --- - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 1.56 22.03 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)410 - - 855 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.493 - - 0.162 - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 22 - - 10 - HCM Lane LOS C - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.6 - - 0.6 - C-4 HCM 7th TWSC 10: Smokey Point Blvd /Smokey Point Blvd Arlington Island Crossing EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 125 185 180 130 10 Future Vol, veh/h 0 125 185 180 130 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 0 0 2 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 7 7 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 133 197 191 138 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 146 151 0 - 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy -6.23 4.17 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.327 2.263 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 899 1400 - - - Stage 1 0 - - - - - Stage 2 0 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 897 1397 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.71 4.05 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)912 - 897 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 - 0.148 - - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8 0 9.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 0.5 - - C-5 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 14: 200th St NE & Smokey Point Blvd Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 25 35 285 210 40 Future Vol, veh/h 35 25 35 285 210 40 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 4 4 Mvmt Flow 38 27 38 306 226 43 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 631 249 270 0 - 0 Stage 1 248 - - - - - Stage 2 383 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 443 787 1288 - - - Stage 1 791 - - - - - Stage 2 687 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 427 785 1287 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 427 - - - - - Stage 1 762 - - - - - Stage 2 687 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v12.78 0.86 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)197 - 527 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - 0.122 - - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 0 12.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 - - C-6 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Island Crossing EIS 7: I-5 SB Ramps & SR-530 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 1 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 180 110 425 230 0 0 0 0 395 5 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 180 110 425 230 0 0 0 0 395 5 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1752 1752 1781 1781 0 1678 1678 1678 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 188 115 443 240 0 411 5 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 10 10 8 8 0 15 15 15 Cap, veh/h 0 503 426 616 964 0 425 5 59 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.90 0.00 0.34 0.31 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1752 1482 1697 1781 0 1369 17 190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 188 115 443 240 0 473 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1752 1482 1697 1781 0 1575 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 8.6 6.0 19.1 1.7 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 8.6 6.0 19.1 1.7 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.87 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 503 426 616 964 0 489 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.37 0.27 0.72 0.25 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 503 426 616 964 0 561 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 28.5 27.5 14.8 2.3 0.0 32.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.1 1.6 2.9 0.4 0.0 29.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.9 2.3 5.7 0.6 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 30.6 29.1 17.8 2.7 0.0 61.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C B A E Approach Vol, veh/h 303 683 473 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.0 12.5 61.5 Approach LOS C B E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.4 34.7 39.9 60.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 6 5.8 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.9 * 24 38.6 49.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.1 10.6 31.5 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.7 2.6 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 32.0 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-7 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Island Crossing EIS 8: I-5 NB Ramps & SR-530 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 1 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 525 0 0 510 600 145 5 590 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 525 0 0 510 600 145 5 590 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 0 0 1826 1826 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 541 0 0 526 619 149 5 608 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 0 0 5 5 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 201 829 0 0 723 610 639 21 587 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1612 1693 0 0 1826 1542 1630 55 1497 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 541 0 0 526 619 154 0 608 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1612 1693 0 0 1826 1542 1685 0 1497 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 24.4 39.6 6.1 0.0 39.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 24.4 39.6 6.1 0.0 39.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 829 0 0 723 610 661 0 587 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.73 1.01 0.23 0.00 1.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 221 829 0 0 723 610 661 0 587 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 25.6 30.2 20.3 0.0 30.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 6.3 40.1 0.3 0.0 46.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 11.5 20.8 2.4 0.0 21.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 32.0 70.3 20.6 0.0 77.2 LnGrp LOS B A C F C F Approach Vol, veh/h 593 1145 762 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.5 52.7 65.7 Approach LOS A D E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.0 9.4 45.6 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 5.6 * 6 5.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.0 5.1 * 39 39.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 3.8 41.6 41.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 45.5 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-8 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 10: Smokey Point Blvd /Smokey Point Blvd Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 1 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 140 0 525 225 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 140 0 525 225 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 3 3 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 7 7 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 149 0 559 239 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 246 243 0 - 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy -6.23 4.17 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.327 2.263 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 790 1294 - - - Stage 1 0 - - - - - Stage 2 0 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 785 1289 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.66 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1289 - 785 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.19 - - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v)0 - 10.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.7 - - C-9 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 14: 200th St NE & Smokey Point Blvd Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 1 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 19.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 115 110 145 400 370 190 Future Vol, veh/h 115 110 145 400 370 190 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 4 4 Mvmt Flow 124 118 156 430 398 204 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1244 502 603 0 - 0 Stage 1 501 - - - - - Stage 2 743 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 191 567 970 - - - Stage 1 607 - - - - - Stage 2 469 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 151 566 969 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 151 - - - - - Stage 1 478 - - - - - Stage 2 468 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 111.48 2.51 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)479 - 235 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.161 - 1.03 - - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v)9.4 0 111.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 10 - - C-10 NETWORK LAYOUT Network: N101 [SR 530_I-5 Ramps Network_Alt 1 (Network Folder: General)] New Network Network Category: (None) Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. SITES IN NETWORK Site ID CCG ID Site Name SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:14:12 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-11 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 7 [7. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 1)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530_I-5 Ramps Network_Alt 1 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 443 8.0 443 8.0 0.500 9.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 32.0 6 T1 All MCs 240 8.0 240 8.0 0.500 3.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 33.0 Approach 682 8.0 682 8.0 0.500 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 32.3 North: I-5 SB Ramp 7 L2 All MCs 411 15.0 411 15.0 0.642 20.3 LOS C 5.9 166.2 0.85 0.95 1.23 24.6 4 T1 All MCs 5 15.0 5 15.0 0.642 14.2 LOS B 5.9 166.2 0.85 0.95 1.23 29.4 14 R2 All MCs 57 15.0 57 15.0 0.642 14.4 LOS B 5.9 166.2 0.85 0.95 1.23 29.1 Approach 474 15.0 474 15.0 0.642 19.5 LOS B 5.9 166.2 0.85 0.95 1.23 25.5 West: SR 530 2 T1 All MCs 188 10.0 188 10.0 0.535 15.2 LOS B 4.5 121.9 0.94 0.91 1.21 26.3 12 R2 All MCs 115 10.0 115 10.0 0.535 15.4 LOS B 4.5 121.9 0.94 0.91 1.21 30.6 Approach 302 10.0 302 10.0 0.535 15.3 LOS B 4.5 121.9 0.94 0.91 1.21 28.4 All Vehicles 1458 10.7 1458 10.7 0.642 13.1 LOS B 5.9 166.2 0.47 0.78 0.65 29.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:14:09 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-12 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 8 [8. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 1)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530_I-5 Ramps Network_Alt 1 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: I-5 NB Ramp 3 L2 All MCs 149 9.0 149 9.0 0.906 31.1 LOS D 17.9 478.6 1.00 1.36 2.17 20.9 8 T1 All MCs 5 9.0 5 9.0 0.906 25.1 LOS D 17.9 478.6 1.00 1.36 2.17 26.8 18 R2 All MCs 608 9.0 608 9.0 0.906 25.2 LOS D 17.9 478.6 1.00 1.36 2.17 24.1 Approach 763 9.0 763 9.0 0.906 26.3 LOS C 17.9 478.6 1.00 1.36 2.17 23.7 East: SR 530 6 T1 All MCs 526 5.0 526 5.0 0.451 5.1 LOS A 3.2 84.2 0.54 0.49 0.54 28.7 16 R2 All MCs 619 5.0 619 5.0 0.444 5.2 LOS A 3.3 86.4 0.51 0.53 0.51 33.6 Approach 1144 5.0 1144 5.0 0.451 5.1 LOS A 3.3 86.4 0.52 0.51 0.52 32.2 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 52 14.0 52 14.0 0.459 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 33.7 2 T1 All MCs 541 14.0 541 14.0 0.459 3.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 32.1 Approach 593 14.0 593 14.0 0.459 4.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 32.2 All Vehicles 2500 8.4 2500 8.4 0.906 11.4 LOS B 17.9 478.6 0.54 0.75 0.90 28.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:14:09 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-13 SITE LAYOUT Site: 9 [9. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 1)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:15:02 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-14 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 9 [9. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 1)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: Smokey Point Blvd 3 L2 All MCs 239 2.0 239 2.0 0.601 24.2 LOS C 5.9 149.7 1.00 0.99 1.30 26.3 8 T1 All MCs 21 2.0 21 2.0 0.601 18.2 LOS B 5.9 149.7 1.00 0.99 1.30 28.1 18 R2 All MCs 298 2.0 298 2.0 0.499 13.0 LOS B 5.1 130.4 1.00 0.88 1.12 31.6 Approach 559 2.0 559 2.0 0.601 18.0 LOS B 5.9 149.7 1.00 0.93 1.20 29.1 East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 223 2.0 223 2.0 1.034 41.2 LOS F 42.6 1082.6 1.00 1.68 2.33 23.8 6 T1 All MCs 915 2.0 915 2.0 1.034 35.2 LOS F 42.6 1082.6 1.00 1.68 2.33 22.8 16 R2 All MCs 16 2.0 16 2.0 1.034 35.3 LOS F 42.6 1082.6 1.00 1.68 2.33 24.0 Approach 1154 2.0 1154 2.0 1.034 36.4 LOS D 42.6 1082.6 1.00 1.68 2.33 23.0 North: 27th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.205 26.7 LOS C 1.6 41.1 1.00 0.88 1.00 27.9 4 T1 All MCs 21 2.0 21 2.0 0.205 20.7 LOS C 1.6 41.1 1.00 0.88 1.00 28.4 14 R2 All MCs 21 2.0 21 2.0 0.205 20.8 LOS C 1.6 41.1 1.00 0.88 1.00 26.9 Approach 53 2.0 53 2.0 0.205 22.0 LOS C 1.6 41.1 1.00 0.88 1.00 27.8 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 21 5.0 21 5.0 0.845 15.8 LOS B 14.5 378.0 0.97 0.78 1.17 31.9 2 T1 All MCs 910 5.0 910 5.0 0.845 9.8 LOS A 14.5 378.0 0.97 0.78 1.17 32.7 12 R2 All MCs 5 5.0 5 5.0 0.845 10.0 LOS A 14.5 378.0 0.97 0.78 1.17 32.3 Approach 936 5.0 936 5.0 0.845 10.0 LOS A 14.5 378.0 0.97 0.78 1.17 32.6 All Vehicles 2702 3.0 2702 3.0 1.034 23.1 LOS C 42.6 1082.6 0.99 1.20 1.67 27.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specif ied in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:13:15 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-15 SITE LAYOUT Site: 14 [14. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 1)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. C-16 SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:15:03 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-17 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 14 [14. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 1)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: Smokey Point Boulevard 3 L2 All MCs 156 3.0 156 3.0 0.456 10.5 LOS B 3.3 84.2 0.40 0.49 0.40 34.0 8 T1 All MCs 430 3.0 430 3.0 0.456 4.5 LOS A 3.3 84.2 0.40 0.49 0.40 34.8 Approach 586 3.0 586 3.0 0.456 6.1 LOS A 3.3 84.2 0.40 0.49 0.40 34.6 North: Smokey Point Boulevard 4 T1 All MCs 398 4.0 398 4.0 0.484 4.8 LOS A 3.4 88.4 0.44 0.47 0.44 35.3 14 R2 All MCs 204 4.0 204 4.0 0.484 4.9 LOS A 3.4 88.4 0.44 0.47 0.44 35.0 Approach 602 4.0 602 4.0 0.484 4.8 LOS A 3.4 88.4 0.44 0.47 0.44 35.2 West: 200th Street NE 5 L2 All MCs 124 3.0 124 3.0 0.231 11.6 LOS B 1.3 33.2 0.54 0.64 0.54 33.2 12 R2 All MCs 118 3.0 118 3.0 0.231 5.8 LOS A 1.3 33.2 0.54 0.64 0.54 33.6 Approach 242 3.0 242 3.0 0.231 8.8 LOS A 1.3 33.2 0.54 0.64 0.54 33.4 All Vehicles 1430 3.4 1430 3.4 0.484 6.0 LOS A 3.4 88.4 0.44 0.51 0.44 34.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:13:48 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-18 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Island Crossing EIS 7: I-5 SB Ramps & SR-530 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 2 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 180 105 425 230 0 0 0 0 410 5 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 180 105 425 230 0 0 0 0 410 5 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1752 1752 1781 1781 0 1678 1678 1678 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 188 109 443 240 0 427 5 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 10 10 8 8 0 15 15 15 Cap, veh/h 0 511 432 598 947 0 441 5 59 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.89 0.00 0.35 0.32 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1752 1482 1697 1781 0 1376 16 184 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 188 109 443 240 0 489 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1752 1482 1697 1781 0 1576 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 8.5 5.6 18.5 2.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 8.5 5.6 18.5 2.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.87 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 511 432 598 947 0 505 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.37 0.25 0.74 0.25 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 511 432 598 947 0 570 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 28.1 27.1 16.2 2.7 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.0 1.4 3.4 0.4 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.8 2.1 6.0 0.7 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 30.2 28.5 19.5 3.2 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C B A E Approach Vol, veh/h 297 683 489 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.5 13.8 61.3 Approach LOS C B E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 35.2 40.8 59.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 6 5.8 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 * 25 39.2 49.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.5 10.5 32.5 4.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.7 2.5 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 32.8 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-19 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Island Crossing EIS 8: I-5 NB Ramps & SR-530 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 2 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 540 0 0 510 630 145 5 610 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 540 0 0 510 630 145 5 610 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 0 0 1826 1826 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 557 0 0 526 649 149 5 629 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 0 0 5 5 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 193 812 0 0 704 595 655 22 602 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1612 1693 0 0 1826 1541 1630 55 1497 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 557 0 0 526 649 154 0 629 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1612 1693 0 0 1826 1541 1685 0 1497 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 3.9 0.0 0.0 24.9 38.6 6.0 0.0 40.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 3.9 0.0 0.0 24.9 38.6 6.0 0.0 40.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 812 0 0 704 595 677 0 602 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.09 0.23 0.00 1.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 812 0 0 704 595 677 0 602 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 26.5 30.7 19.7 0.0 29.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 4.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 64.3 0.3 0.0 49.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 11.9 24.3 2.4 0.0 22.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 33.6 95.0 20.0 0.0 78.9 LnGrp LOS B A C F B F Approach Vol, veh/h 609 1175 783 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 67.5 67.3 Approach LOS A E E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.0 9.4 44.6 46.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 5.6 * 6 5.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 5.1 * 38 40.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 3.8 40.6 42.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 53.0 HCM 7th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. *HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-20 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 10: Smokey Point Blvd /Smokey Point Blvd Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 2 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 140 0 540 225 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 140 0 540 225 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 3 3 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 7 7 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 149 0 574 239 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 246 243 0 - 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy -6.23 4.17 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.327 2.263 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 790 1294 - - - Stage 1 0 - - - - - Stage 2 0 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 785 1289 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.66 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1289 - 785 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.19 - - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v)0 - 10.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.7 - - C-21 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 14: 200th St NE & Smokey Point Blvd Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 2 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 18.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 115 110 145 395 360 185 Future Vol, veh/h 115 110 145 395 360 185 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 4 4 Mvmt Flow 124 118 156 425 387 199 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1225 489 587 0 - 0 Stage 1 488 - - - - - Stage 2 738 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 197 577 983 - - - Stage 1 615 - - - - - Stage 2 471 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 576 982 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 155 - - - - - Stage 1 487 - - - - - Stage 2 471 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 102.02 2.51 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)483 - 242 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.159 - 1.001 - - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v)9.4 0 102 - - HCM Lane LOS A A F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 9.5 - - C-22 NETWORK LAYOUT Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 2 (Network Folder: General)] New Network Network Category: (None) Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. SITES IN NETWORK Site ID CCG ID Site Name SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:22:42 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-23 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 7 [7. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 2)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 2 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 443 8.0 430 8.2 0.487 9.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 32.0 6 T1 All MCs 240 8.0 233 8.2 0.487 3.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 33.0 Approach 682 8.0 663 8.2 0.487 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 32.3 North: I-5 SB Ramp 7 L2 All MCs 427 15.0 427 15.0 0.654 20.2 LOS C 6.2 172.6 0.85 0.96 1.23 24.6 4 T1 All MCs 5 15.0 5 15.0 0.654 14.1 LOS B 6.2 172.6 0.85 0.96 1.23 29.5 14 R2 All MCs 57 15.0 57 15.0 0.654 14.3 LOS B 6.2 172.6 0.85 0.96 1.23 29.2 Approach 490 15.0 490 15.0 0.654 19.4 LOS B 6.2 172.6 0.85 0.96 1.23 25.5 West: SR 530 2 T1 All MCs 188 10.0 188 10.0 0.532 15.3 LOS B 4.5 120.9 0.94 0.91 1.21 26.2 12 R2 All MCs 109 10.0 109 10.0 0.532 15.4 LOS B 4.5 120.9 0.94 0.91 1.21 30.6 Approach 297 10.0 297 10.0 0.532 15.3 LOS B 4.5 120.9 0.94 0.91 1.21 28.4 All Vehicles 1469 10.7 1449 10.9 0.654 13.2 LOS B 6.2 172.6 0.48 0.78 0.66 29.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:23:07 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-24 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 8 [8. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 2)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 2 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: I-5 NB Ramp 3 L2 All MCs 149 9.0 149 9.0 0.942 36.3 LOS D 21.5 575.5 1.00 1.53 2.49 19.1 8 T1 All MCs 5 9.0 5 9.0 0.942 30.3 LOS D 21.5 575.5 1.00 1.53 2.49 25.2 18 R2 All MCs 629 9.0 629 9.0 0.942 30.4 LOS D 21.5 575.5 1.00 1.53 2.49 19.1 Approach 784 9.0 784 9.0 0.942 31.6 LOS C 21.5 575.5 1.00 1.53 2.49 19.2 East: SR 530 6 T1 All MCs 526 5.0 506 5.1 0.436 5.1 LOS A 3.1 80.2 0.53 0.49 0.53 28.8 16 R2 All MCs 649 5.0 625 5.1 0.449 5.2 LOS A 3.4 88.0 0.51 0.53 0.51 33.6 Approach 1175 5.0 1131 5.1 0.449 5.1 LOS A 3.4 88.0 0.52 0.51 0.52 32.2 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 52 14.0 52 14.0 0.471 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 33.8 2 T1 All MCs 557 14.0 557 14.0 0.471 3.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 30.6 Approach 608 14.0 608 14.0 0.471 4.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 31.2 All Vehicles 2567 8.4 2523 8.5 0.942 13.2 LOS B 21.5 575.5 0.54 0.80 1.01 26.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:23:07 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-25 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 34 [34. IC Access/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 2)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 2 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: IC Access 3 L2 All MCs 68 2.0 68 2.0 0.245 18.6 LOS B 1.8 46.5 0.97 0.81 0.97 25.9 8 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.245 12.7 LOS B 1.8 46.5 0.97 0.81 0.97 30.7 18 R2 All MCs 42 2.0 42 2.0 0.245 12.8 LOS B 1.8 46.5 0.97 0.81 0.97 25.9 Approach 112 2.0 112 2.0 0.245 16.4 LOS B 1.8 46.5 0.97 0.81 0.97 26.0 East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 47 2.0 45 2.0 0.804 11.7 LOS B 10.7 271.4 0.75 0.54 0.75 32.7 6 T1 All MCs 984 2.0 940 2.0 0.804 5.7 LOS A 10.7 271.4 0.75 0.54 0.75 29.0 16 R2 All MCs 47 2.0 45 2.0 0.804 5.8 LOS A 10.7 271.4 0.75 0.54 0.75 33.2 Approach 1079 2.0 1031 2.0 0.804 6.0 LOS A 10.7 271.4 0.75 0.54 0.75 29.6 North: IC Access 7 L2 All MCs 42 2.0 42 2.0 0.230 17.8 LOS B 1.7 43.1 0.95 0.80 0.95 27.0 4 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.230 11.8 LOS B 1.7 43.1 0.95 0.80 0.95 31.5 14 R2 All MCs 68 2.0 68 2.0 0.230 11.9 LOS B 1.7 43.1 0.95 0.80 0.95 27.0 Approach 112 2.0 112 2.0 0.230 14.1 LOS B 1.7 43.1 0.95 0.80 0.95 27.1 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 74 2.0 74 2.0 0.842 11.1 LOS B 13.7 348.2 0.73 0.48 0.73 32.2 2 T1 All MCs 979 2.0 979 2.0 0.842 5.2 LOS A 13.7 348.2 0.73 0.48 0.73 27.3 12 R2 All MCs 74 2.0 74 2.0 0.842 5.3 LOS A 13.7 348.2 0.73 0.48 0.73 32.7 Approach 1126 2.0 1126 2.0 0.842 5.6 LOS A 13.7 348.2 0.73 0.48 0.73 28.5 All Vehicles 2428 2.0 2380 2.0 0.842 6.6 LOS A 13.7 348.2 0.76 0.54 0.76 28.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:23:07 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-26 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 9 [9. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 2)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 2 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: Smokey Point Blvd 3 L2 All MCs 255 2.0 255 2.0 0.654 26.4 LOS C 6.8 172.4 1.00 1.03 1.38 21.8 8 T1 All MCs 27 2.0 27 2.0 0.654 20.4 LOS C 6.8 172.4 1.00 1.03 1.38 27.4 18 R2 All MCs 298 2.0 298 2.0 0.501 13.1 LOS B 5.2 131.0 1.00 0.88 1.13 31.5 Approach 580 2.0 580 2.0 0.654 19.3 LOS B 6.8 172.4 1.00 0.96 1.25 27.5 East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 218 2.0 218 2.0 1.062 51.4 LOS F 48.4 1228.6 1.00 1.89 2.81 21.5 6 T1 All MCs 926 2.0 926 2.0 1.062 45.4 LOS F 48.4 1228.6 1.00 1.89 2.81 15.6 16 R2 All MCs 16 2.0 16 2.0 1.062 45.5 LOS F 48.4 1228.6 1.00 1.89 2.81 21.7 Approach 1160 2.0 1160 2.0 1.062 46.5 LOS D 48.4 1228.6 1.00 1.89 2.81 17.2 North: 27th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 16 2.0 16 2.0 0.261 26.5 LOS C 2.1 52.1 1.00 0.89 1.00 27.9 4 T1 All MCs 27 2.0 27 2.0 0.261 20.6 LOS C 2.1 52.1 1.00 0.89 1.00 28.4 14 R2 All MCs 27 2.0 27 2.0 0.261 20.7 LOS C 2.1 52.1 1.00 0.89 1.00 22.9 Approach 69 2.0 69 2.0 0.261 22.0 LOS C 2.1 52.1 1.00 0.89 1.00 26.7 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 27 5.0 27 5.0 0.843 15.8 LOS B 14.4 373.3 0.96 0.78 1.16 31.9 2 T1 All MCs 904 5.0 904 5.0 0.843 9.8 LOS A 14.4 373.3 0.96 0.78 1.16 32.7 12 R2 All MCs 5 5.0 5 5.0 0.843 9.9 LOS A 14.4 373.3 0.96 0.78 1.16 32.3 Approach 936 5.0 936 5.0 0.843 10.0 LOS A 14.4 373.3 0.96 0.78 1.16 32.7 All Vehicles 2745 3.0 2745 3.0 1.062 27.7 LOS C 48.4 1228.6 0.99 1.29 1.87 23.9 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:23:07 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-27 SITE LAYOUT Site: 14 [14. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 2)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. C-28 SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:25:10 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-29 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 14 [14. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 2)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: Smokey Point Boulevard 3 L2 All MCs 156 3.0 156 3.0 0.452 10.5 LOS B 3.2 82.8 0.40 0.49 0.40 34.0 8 T1 All MCs 425 3.0 425 3.0 0.452 4.5 LOS A 3.2 82.8 0.40 0.49 0.40 34.8 Approach 581 3.0 581 3.0 0.452 6.1 LOS A 3.2 82.8 0.40 0.49 0.40 34.6 North: Smokey Point Boulevard 4 T1 All MCs 387 4.0 387 4.0 0.471 4.8 LOS A 3.3 84.5 0.44 0.47 0.44 35.3 14 R2 All MCs 199 4.0 199 4.0 0.471 4.9 LOS A 3.3 84.5 0.44 0.47 0.44 35.0 Approach 586 4.0 586 4.0 0.471 4.8 LOS A 3.3 84.5 0.44 0.47 0.44 35.2 West: 200th Street NE 5 L2 All MCs 124 3.0 124 3.0 0.229 11.6 LOS B 1.3 32.7 0.54 0.64 0.54 33.2 12 R2 All MCs 118 3.0 118 3.0 0.229 5.7 LOS A 1.3 32.7 0.54 0.64 0.54 33.6 Approach 242 3.0 242 3.0 0.229 8.7 LOS A 1.3 32.7 0.54 0.64 0.54 33.4 All Vehicles 1409 3.4 1409 3.4 0.471 6.0 LOS A 3.3 84.5 0.44 0.51 0.44 34.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:21:23 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-30 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Island Crossing EIS 7: I-5 SB Ramps & SR-530 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 3 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 205 95 435 230 0 0 0 0 405 5 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 205 95 435 230 0 0 0 0 405 5 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1752 1752 1781 1781 0 1678 1678 1678 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 214 99 453 240 0 422 5 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 10 10 8 8 0 15 15 15 Cap, veh/h 0 504 426 577 940 0 430 5 74 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.88 0.00 0.35 0.32 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1752 1482 1697 1781 0 1325 16 229 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 214 99 453 240 0 500 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1752 1482 1697 1781 0 1570 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 9.9 5.1 18.5 2.1 0.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 9.9 5.1 18.5 2.1 0.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.84 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 504 426 577 940 0 510 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.23 0.79 0.26 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 504 426 577 940 0 553 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 28.9 27.2 17.3 2.9 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.6 1.3 4.2 0.4 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 4.5 1.9 6.5 0.7 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 31.5 28.5 21.5 3.3 0.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C A E Approach Vol, veh/h 313 693 500 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 15.2 65.0 Approach LOS C B E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s24.0 34.7 41.3 58.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 6 5.8 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.5 * 26 38.2 50.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s20.5 11.9 33.5 4.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 1.9 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 34.9 HCM 7th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. *HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-31 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington Island Crossing EIS 8: I-5 NB Ramps & SR-530 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 3 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 550 0 0 520 700 145 5 680 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 550 0 0 520 700 145 5 680 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1693 1693 0 0 1826 1826 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 567 0 0 536 722 149 5 701 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 14 14 0 0 5 5 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 183 795 0 0 681 575 672 23 617 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.41 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1612 1693 0 0 1826 1541 1630 55 1497 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 567 0 0 536 722 154 0 701 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1612 1693 0 0 1826 1541 1685 0 1497 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 6.1 0.0 0.0 26.1 37.3 5.9 0.0 41.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 6.1 0.0 0.0 26.1 37.3 5.9 0.0 41.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 183 795 0 0 681 575 694 0 617 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.79 1.26 0.22 0.00 1.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 197 795 0 0 681 575 694 0 617 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 27.8 31.4 19.0 0.0 29.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 129.0 0.3 0.0 80.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 12.7 33.9 2.3 0.0 27.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 36.8 160.4 19.3 0.0 109.5 LnGrp LOS C A D F B F Approach Vol, veh/h 629 1258 855 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 107.7 93.2 Approach LOS A F F Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.0 9.7 43.3 47.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 5.6 * 6 5.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 5.0 * 37 41.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 4.3 39.3 43.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 80.3 HCM 7th LOS F Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. C-32 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 10: Smokey Point Blvd /Smokey Point Blvd Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 3 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 210 0 600 235 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 210 0 600 235 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 3 3 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 7 7 3 3 Mvmt Flow 0 223 0 638 250 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 257 254 0 - 0 Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy -6.23 4.17 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.327 2.263 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 779 1282 - - - Stage 1 0 - - - - - Stage 2 0 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 774 1278 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 -- - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 11.53 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1278 - 774 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.289 - - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v)0 - 11.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.2 - - C-33 HCM 7th TWSC Arlington Island Crossing EIS 14: 200th St NE & Smokey Point Blvd Future (2044) PM Peak Hour - Baseline Alt 3 Transpo Group Synchro 12 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 43.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 130 105 145 460 450 195 Future Vol, veh/h 130 105 145 460 450 195 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 1 1 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, %0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 4 4 Mvmt Flow 140 113 156 495 484 210 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1397 591 695 0 - 0 Stage 1 590 - - - - - Stage 2 807 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 155 505 896 - - - Stage 1 552 - - - - - Stage 2 437 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 117 504 896 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 117 - - - - - Stage 1 419 - - - - - Stage 2 437 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 266.09 2.36 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)431 - 178 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.174 - 1.417 - - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v)9.9 0 266.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 15.4 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon C-34 NETWORK LAYOUT Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 3 (Network Folder: General)] New Network Network Category: (None) Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. SITES IN NETWORK Site ID CCG ID Site Name SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:34:55 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-35 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 7 [7. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 3 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 453 8.0 423 8.4 0.476 9.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 31.9 6 T1 All MCs 240 8.0 224 8.4 0.476 3.8 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 33.0 Approach 693 8.0 646 8.4 0.476 7.7 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.60 0.00 32.3 North: I-5 SB Ramp 7 L2 All MCs 422 15.0 422 15.0 0.660 20.0 LOS C 6.3 175.8 0.85 0.95 1.23 24.7 4 T1 All MCs 5 15.0 5 15.0 0.660 14.0 LOS B 6.3 175.8 0.85 0.95 1.23 29.6 14 R2 All MCs 73 15.0 73 15.0 0.660 14.1 LOS B 6.3 175.8 0.85 0.95 1.23 29.3 Approach 500 15.0 500 15.0 0.660 19.1 LOS B 6.3 175.8 0.85 0.95 1.23 25.8 West: SR 530 2 T1 All MCs 214 10.0 214 10.0 0.552 15.5 LOS B 4.8 128.5 0.94 0.92 1.23 26.1 12 R2 All MCs 99 10.0 99 10.0 0.552 15.6 LOS B 4.8 128.5 0.94 0.92 1.23 30.5 Approach 313 10.0 313 10.0 0.552 15.5 LOS B 4.8 128.5 0.94 0.92 1.23 28.0 All Vehicles 1505 10.7 1459 11.1 0.660 13.3 LOS B 6.3 175.8 0.49 0.79 0.69 29.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:35:18 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-36 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 8 [8. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 3 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: I-5 NB Ramp 3 L2 All MCs 149 9.0 149 9.0 1.046 60.7 LOS F 36.3 973.1 1.00 2.14 3.85 13.6 8 T1 All MCs 5 9.0 5 9.0 1.046 54.7 LOS F 36.3 973.1 1.00 2.14 3.85 19.8 18 R2 All MCs 701 9.0 701 9.0 1.046 54.8 LOS F 36.3 973.1 1.00 2.14 3.85 13.6 Approach 856 9.0 856 9.0 1.046 55.8 LOS E 36.3 973.1 1.00 2.14 3.85 13.6 East: SR 530 6 T1 All MCs 536 5.0 496 5.2 0.435 5.2 LOS A 3.0 78.4 0.53 0.50 0.53 28.8 16 R2 All MCs 722 5.0 668 5.2 0.483 5.2 LOS A 3.7 96.7 0.53 0.54 0.53 33.5 Approach 1258 5.0 1164 5.2 0.483 5.2 LOS A 3.7 96.7 0.53 0.52 0.53 32.3 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 62 14.0 62 14.0 0.487 9.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 33.7 2 T1 All MCs 567 14.0 567 14.0 0.487 3.9 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 30.5 Approach 629 14.0 629 14.0 0.487 4.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.41 0.00 31.2 All Vehicles 2742 8.3 2649 8.6 1.046 21.4 LOS C 36.3 973.1 0.56 1.02 1.48 22.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:35:18 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-37 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 34 [34. IC Access/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 3 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: IC Access 3 L2 All MCs 137 2.0 137 2.0 0.673 33.7 LOS C 7.3 184.9 1.00 1.09 1.46 19.6 8 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.673 27.7 LOS C 7.3 184.9 1.00 1.09 1.46 25.6 18 R2 All MCs 105 2.0 105 2.0 0.673 27.8 LOS C 7.3 184.9 1.00 1.09 1.46 19.6 Approach 243 2.0 243 2.0 0.673 31.1 LOS C 7.3 184.9 1.00 1.09 1.46 19.6 East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 111 2.0 99 2.0 0.898 18.3 LOS D 18.6 473.7 1.00 0.92 1.34 30.5 6 T1 All MCs 937 2.0 843 2.0 0.898 12.4 LOS D 18.6 473.7 1.00 0.92 1.34 25.4 16 R2 All MCs 111 2.0 99 2.0 0.898 12.5 LOS D 18.6 473.7 1.00 0.92 1.34 30.9 Approach 1158 2.0 1042 2.0 0.898 12.9 LOS B 18.6 473.7 1.00 0.92 1.34 27.0 North: IC Access 7 L2 All MCs 100 2.0 100 2.0 0.572 25.2 LOS C 5.6 141.2 1.00 0.99 1.29 23.0 4 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.572 19.2 LOS B 5.6 141.2 1.00 0.99 1.29 28.5 14 R2 All MCs 137 2.0 137 2.0 0.572 19.3 LOS B 5.6 141.2 1.00 0.99 1.29 23.0 Approach 238 2.0 238 2.0 0.572 21.8 LOS C 5.6 141.2 1.00 0.99 1.29 23.0 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 137 2.0 134 2.0 0.961 21.6 LOS E 29.1 739.8 1.00 1.08 1.40 28.2 2 T1 All MCs 932 2.0 910 2.0 0.961 15.6 LOS E 29.1 739.8 1.00 1.08 1.40 21.0 12 R2 All MCs 137 2.0 134 2.0 0.961 15.7 LOS E 29.1 739.8 1.00 1.08 1.40 28.6 Approach 1205 2.0 1177 2.0 0.961 16.3 LOS B 29.1 739.8 1.00 1.08 1.40 23.6 All Vehicles 2844 2.0 2700 2.1 0.961 16.8 LOS B 29.1 739.8 1.00 1.01 1.37 24.3 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:35:18 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-38 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 9 [9. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 530 (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Network: N101 [SR 530 Network_Alt 3 (Network Folder: General)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of QueueMov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: Smokey Point Blvd 3 L2 All MCs 293 2.0 293 2.0 0.537 19.3 LOS B 5.8 146.1 1.00 0.91 1.18 25.0 8 T1 All MCs 37 2.0 37 2.0 0.537 13.3 LOS B 5.8 146.1 1.00 0.91 1.18 29.9 18 R2 All MCs 309 2.0 309 2.0 0.693 22.1 LOS C 7.6 192.4 1.00 1.07 1.46 27.9 Approach 638 2.0 638 2.0 0.693 20.3 LOS C 7.6 192.4 1.00 0.98 1.31 27.0 East: SR 530 1 L2 All MCs 218 2.0 218 2.0 1.156 89.9 LOS F 71.2 1807.2 1.00 2.64 4.49 15.8 6 T1 All MCs 952 2.0 952 2.0 1.156 83.9 LOS F 71.2 1807.2 1.00 2.64 4.49 10.4 16 R2 All MCs 27 2.0 27 2.0 1.156 84.0 LOS F 71.2 1807.2 1.00 2.64 4.49 15.9 Approach 1197 2.0 1197 2.0 1.156 85.0 LOS F 71.2 1807.2 1.00 2.64 4.49 11.7 North: 27th Ave NE 7 L2 All MCs 21 2.0 21 2.0 0.348 25.6 LOS C 2.8 70.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 28.3 4 T1 All MCs 37 2.0 37 2.0 0.348 19.6 LOS B 2.8 70.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 28.8 14 R2 All MCs 43 2.0 43 2.0 0.348 19.7 LOS B 2.8 70.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 23.4 Approach 101 2.0 101 2.0 0.348 20.9 LOS C 2.8 70.0 1.00 0.89 1.00 27.0 West: SR 530 5 L2 All MCs 43 5.0 42 5.1 0.828 15.3 LOS B 13.3 346.6 0.93 0.75 1.10 31.9 2 T1 All MCs 894 5.0 877 5.1 0.828 9.3 LOS A 13.3 346.6 0.93 0.75 1.10 32.7 12 R2 All MCs 5 5.0 5 5.1 0.828 9.4 LOS A 13.3 346.6 0.93 0.75 1.10 32.4 Approach 941 5.0 924 5.1 0.828 9.6 LOS A 13.3 346.6 0.93 0.75 1.10 32.7 All Vehicles 2878 3.0 2860 3.0 1.156 43.9 LOS D 71.2 1807.2 0.98 1.60 2.56 19.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Override Site Data tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:35:18 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-39 SITE LAYOUT Site: 14 [14. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 3)] Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings. C-40 SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Created: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:36:21 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-41 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 14 [14. Smokey Point Boulevard/200th Street NE (Site Folder: Future (2044) - Alternative 3)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Future (2044) PM Peak Hour Improvement Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Demand Flows Arrival Flows 95% Back Of Queue Mov ID Turn Mov Class Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service Prop. Que Eff. Stop Rate Aver. No. of Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total HV ][ Total HV ][ Veh.Dist ] veh/h %veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: Smokey Point Boulevard 3 L2 All MCs 156 3.0 156 3.0 0.515 10.7 LOS B 4.1 103.7 0.46 0.50 0.46 33.9 8 T1 All MCs 495 3.0 495 3.0 0.515 4.7 LOS A 4.1 103.7 0.46 0.50 0.46 34.7 Approach 651 3.0 651 3.0 0.515 6.1 LOS A 4.1 103.7 0.46 0.50 0.46 34.5 North: Smokey Point Boulevard 4 T1 All MCs 484 4.0 484 4.0 0.560 4.9 LOS A 4.5 114.8 0.50 0.48 0.50 35.1 14 R2 All MCs 210 4.0 210 4.0 0.560 5.0 LOS A 4.5 114.8 0.50 0.48 0.50 34.8 Approach 694 4.0 694 4.0 0.560 5.0 LOS A 4.5 114.8 0.50 0.48 0.50 35.0 West: 200th Street NE 5 L2 All MCs 140 3.0 140 3.0 0.261 12.2 LOS B 1.5 39.6 0.62 0.67 0.62 32.9 12 R2 All MCs 113 3.0 113 3.0 0.261 6.3 LOS A 1.5 39.6 0.62 0.67 0.62 33.3 Approach 253 3.0 253 3.0 0.261 9.6 LOS A 1.5 39.6 0.62 0.67 0.62 33.1 All Vehicles 1597 3.4 1597 3.4 0.560 6.2 LOS A 4.5 114.8 0.50 0.52 0.50 34.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA HCM. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:33:56 PM Project: M:\23\1.23264.01 - Island Crossing EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Existing_Future_RABs.sip9 C-42 Island Crossing Planned Action Final EIS ▪ Volume 2 - Appendices ▪ October 2025 D-1 Appendix D Comment Letters This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington From:Ron Henken To:Amy Rusko Subject:Re: City of Arlington - Notice of Island Crossing Subarea Planned Action DEIS Date:Sunday, August 3, 2025 7:43:31 AM Attachments:image001.png image001.png Good morning Amy. Thanks for your email. I've pointed this out during public meetings previously. Our parcel(#31050800302700) needs an access or road that connects at HWY 530 and runs south to our property. Thanks for your consideration. Ron Henken 360.770.7279 On Fri, Aug 1, 2025, 8:43 AM Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> wrote:Dear Party of Record – The City of Arlington has issued a Notice of Island Crossing Subarea Planned Action DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) under permit number PLN #1366. All related documents can be found on both the project webpage at: Island Crossing SubareaPlan | Arlington, WA and on the Public Notices webpage at: Public Notices / Public Hearings |Arlington, WA Written Public Comment Due Date: 5:00 pm on Tuesday, September 2, 2025. If you own property within the subarea or within 500’ of the subarea properties you will alsoreceive a postcard notice in the mail. If you are with an agency, you will also receive thepublic notice through an agency notice email. Thank you! Comment 1 D-2 Sincerely, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | www.arlingtonwa.gov Note: Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. D-3 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington From:Amy Rusko To:Ron Henken Cc:Dana Smith; Craig Smith; Tiffany Henken Subject:RE: City of Arlington - Notice of Public Hearing - Island Crossing Subarea Plan - PLN #1366 & AMC Chapter 20.119 - PLN #1184 Date:Friday, August 29, 2025 10:57:00 AM Attachments:image001.png Ron, Thank you for the email comments for the public hearing. I will read your comments, as well as add your comments to the record with the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | www.arlingtonwa.gov Note: Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. From: Ron Henken <ronhenken1934@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:52 AM To: Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> Cc: Dana Smith <smith__ds@msn.com>; Craig Smith <macraecastle@gmail.com>; Tiffany Henken <tiff7737@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: City of Arlington - Notice of Public Hearing - Island Crossing Subarea Plan - PLN #1366 & AMC Chapter 20.119 - PLN #1184 Thank you for your email Amy. Our group owns parcel #31050800302700 located in the area north of Dwayne Lane Chevrolet, south of Hwy 530, east of Interstate 5 and west of Pilot/TEC. Access connecting our parcel to Hwy 530 is needed along with an off-site solution for compensatory flood storage. This approximately 16 acre site could then be developed providing a significant benefit to the City of Arlington and our group. Comment 2 D-4 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington Thanks for your consideration. Ron Henken 360.770.7279 On Fri, Aug 29, 2025, 10:33 AM Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> wrote: To me is fine.Sincerely, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | www.arlingtonwa.gov Note: Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. From: Ron Henken <ronhenken1934@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:32 AM To: Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: Re: City of Arlington - Notice of Public Hearing - Island Crossing Subarea Plan - PLN #1366 & AMC Chapter 20.119 - PLN #1184 Thanks Amy...Do I email comments to you or someone else for the September 16th meeting? Ron Henken 360.770.7279 D-5 On Fri, Aug 29, 2025, 2:44 AM Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> wrote: Dear Party of Record – You are receiving this email as a Party of Record for the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action DEIS – PLN #1366 and AMC Chapter 20.119 – Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards – PLN #1184 Please see the two attached Notice of Public Hearing Documents for both public hearings regarding the Island Crossing Subarea. Notice of Public Hearing for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 10:00 am via Teams. This public hearing will address the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS. You may comment on anything within these documents during this Public Hearing. Notice of Public Hearing for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:30 pm, in person. This public hearing will only address AMC Chapter 20.119 Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards Zoning Code Amendment. The Planning Commission has authority over the zoning code, but not the general Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS. You may only comment on the AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment at this public hearing, comments regarding the other documents will not be taken. Written comments for both hearings have a deadline of Monday, September 15, 2025 at 5:00 pm. If you have already provided written comments they will be included with the Hearing Examiner Staff Report and as an Exhibit. All hearing information can be found within the attached notices as well as on the City’s website under two webpages (the same information will be on both pages). The links to these pages are below: City of Arlington Public Notice Website:https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/310/Public-Notices-Hearings City of Arlington Subarea Plan Website:https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/867/Island-Crossing-Subarea-Plan If you would like view or receive a printed copy of the Notice(s) and/or materials you D-6 are welcome to come to the Community and Economic Development Department located at 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223 between the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (closed for lunch from 12-1 pm). Printed copies are charged $0.15 per page per the City of Arlington Fee Resolution. You may view the documents at no charge. The documents will be available upon demand and may not leave the office. If you own property within the subarea or within 500’ of the subarea properties, you will also receive two postcard public hearing notices (one for each hearing) in the mail. Sincerely, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | www.arlingtonwa.gov Note: Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. D-7 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington From:Amy Rusko To:Kfarming 2017 Subject:RE: Island Crossing Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:26:00 AM Attachments:image001.png Kory, Thank you for your comments. I will send them to our consultant and include them with the Public Hearing documents. Sincerely, Amy Rusko Amy Rusko, AICP, CNU-ACommunity & Economic Development Director18204 59th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223O: 360-403-3550arusko@arlingtonwa.gov | www.arlingtonwa.gov Note: Emails and attachments sent to and from the City of Arlington are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. From: Kfarming 2017 <kglover1599@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:29 AM To: Amy Rusko <arusko@arlingtonwa.gov> Subject: Island Crossing Good morning Amy, Just wanted to submit my formal comment on the proposed actions within the Island crossing subarea. First of all I want to say there is not one plan outlined that will satisfy all parties involved Comment 3 D-8 and the city is in a tough position trying to meet economic, environmental and community goals within the subarea. However, I hope some of the major concerns I outline will be taken into consideration. looking through all 3 alternatives I found myself thinking none of them address the two glaring concerns that are present now, those being traffic and flooding. If there was no further development these would still be major issues with increasing levels of concern due to climate change and other changes within the stillaguamish watershed (increased runoff from development and other impervious surfaces). I would like to see a plan that attacks these issues before further commercial development is considered. As outlined in option 3, a regional stormwater facility was mentioned many times. However there was no mention into the specifics of what this would look like in practice. I have to imagine with the increased fill elevations and impervious surface combined with higher water flows from the Stilly during flood events this would be a massive facility. Incurring a huge cost and limited success in regards to its effects in handling flood water surrounding island crossing and property up stream. There's also the issue of what happens if the regional stormwater facility does not have the intended result. As seen with the addition of the pilot truck stop and other commercial sites, the rules can be followed and there is still a very negative impact during flood events. Personally I see a bright future for Island crossing, but there are a lot of natural factors that make this an extremely difficult area to develop now and in the future. Thank you, Kory Glover (property owner) D-9 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington From:David Toyer To:Amy Rusko Cc:Mike Pati; Eric Weden Subject:Island Crossing Subarea DEIS Comments Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:00:08 AM Attachments:TSA-Pape Draft DEIS Comments.pdf Amy, Attached please find electronic copy of our DEIS comments. Thank you! DAVID K. TOYER, PRESIDENT TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1, EVERETT, WA 98201 425-344-1523 toyerstrategic.com Subscribe to “Permitted with Conditions” - Our Newsletter, Blog, & Podcast NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not permitted to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, use or act upon the contents of this message including any attachments. Please promptly notify the sender of this error and immediately delete this message and any attachments, as well as any copies thereof. Delivery of this message, including attachments, to an unintended recipient is not intended to waive any rights or privileges. Comment 4 D-10 TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1 | EVERETT, WA 98201 toyerstrategic.com | 425-322-5226 September 2, 2025 Ms. Amy Rusko Community Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98233 ISLAND CROSSING SUBAREA DEIS COMMENTS Dear Ms. Rusko: Our firm has been retained by Papé Properties, Inc. which owns parcels within and immediately adjacent to the municipal boundaries of Arlington (see attached map), which includes parcels that will fall within the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and/or be affected by same. We have very similar questions and comments regarding the DEIS that we had during the scoping period. These include: 1. The subarea plan has focused on a regional compensatory flood storage facility north of SR 530, but it does not appear the city (through the subarea plan or otherwise) has adequately evaluated other viable alternatives such as Papé’s proposed compensatory flood storage site to the south, especially considering: o Papé’s regional flood mitigation project would not impact adjacent properties as demonstrated by HEC-RAS 2D modeling. o The Papé site has been studied and designed such that it could accommodate regional compensatory storage while maintaining the land’s agricultural use in a manner that benefits the broader community. Papé has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would allow the Arlington Community Food Bank (in partnership with area farmers) to manage the agricultural lands to be a source for local, fresh produce needed by the members of the community they serve. o Papé has offered to sell the City its mitigation project (once permitted)—subject to the parties agreeing to mutually acceptable terms. o What’s the rationale for the City not studying Papé’s site as an alternative that can achieve similar results? 2. Specific to regional compensatory flood storage proposed at a facility north of SR 530, Papé has the following questions and comments related to the DEIS’s evaluation of probable significant impacts: o Has there been a hydraulic analysis performed that ensures no adverse impacts to adjacent properties, as well as properties generally located within the entirety of Island Crossing? This would include impacts due to flood elevation changes and scouring velocities. o Has there been a volume calculation performed to ensure the proposed compensatory flood storage basin can adequately displace development impacts from fill activities within the floodplain as planned? This would include determining the seasonal-high ground water elevation to establish the flood basin’s floor elevation. o The proposed mitigation site appears to propose a compensatory flood mitigation site that does not have a viable outlet, which proposal does not recognize that waters naturally flow north and south during flood events. The proposal does not contemplate “daylighting” the mitigation basin to the north D-11 toward the Stillaguamish River; instead, page vii of the Subarea Plan shows a proposed expansion of a culvert under SR 530 that would redirect flood waters south. What analysis has been done (or will be done) to evaluate whether redirecting flood waters south will impact other properties? o The culvert under I-5 at South Slough is known to have inadequate capacity to convey flood waters to the west, acting as a choke point for flood waters in the area. Has analysis been done to determine if redirecting floodwaters to the south under 530 has the potential to impact I-5? o Comparing alternatives, Papé’s regional flood mitigation project will not impact adjacent properties as demonstrated by HEC-RAS 2D modeling, but construction of the culvert under SR 530 and redirection of flood waters to the south may have significant, adverse impacts to Papé’s mitigation project and surrounding properties. o The Subarea plan does not include mitigation considerations for probable significant impacts to existing compensatory flood mitigation basins for Pilot or Dwayne Lane Chevrolet, yet these significant areas of land are zoned commercial, included within the City’s Comprehensive Plan for development, served by City utilities, accessed by roads within City ROW, and integral to the City’s future economic development goals. o If future floodwaters are directed south, and they impact properties like Papé’s, how will the City mitigate and/or compensate property owners for these impacts and/or additional development costs? 3. It is not clear that the DEIS fully addresses probable significant impacts such as: o The approvals required for the City’s proposed mitigation basin if it directs flood waters to outlet at the Stillaguamish River and/or south to the South Slough culvert at I-5 (WSDOT, USACE, NOAA, etc.). o The potential ESA and/or turbidity impacts related to directing the compensatory storage north to an outlet into the Stillaguamish River. o How does the current proposal reconcile with the NEPA application already completed for the Highway 530 roundabout which specifically identifies mitigating flood impacts to a compensatory flood mitigation site south of 530? 4. The proposed mitigation site as identified in the Subarea Plan and DEIS appears to conflict with the City’s intended effort to maximize the development potential of Island Crossing even as it focuses most of its attention north of SR 530. Thus, the subarea plan does not account for all development alternatives and potential economic development benefits that can be achieved from alternatives (including Papé’s compensatory mitigation site) that can support development in the south portion of this subarea. Thank you for your time and consideration. As this process moves forward, we anticipate having addition questions. Sincerely, David Toyer President D-12 This message is from an External Sender This message came from outside the City of Arlington From:David Toyer To:Amy Rusko Cc:Eric Weden; Mike Pati Subject:Island Crossing Subarea DEIS Comments Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:09:25 AM Attachments:Pape Parcels - Subarea.pdf Pape Parcels.pdf Amy, My apologies. These two maps should have accompanied the comment letter I just emailed a few minutes ago. Thanks! DAVID K. TOYER, PRESIDENT TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1, EVERETT, WA 98201 425-344-1523 toyerstrategic.com Subscribe to “Permitted with Conditions” - Our Newsletter, Blog, & Podcast NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not permitted to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, use or act upon the contents of this message including any attachments. Please promptly notify the sender of this error and immediately delete this message and any attachments, as well as any copies thereof. Delivery of this message, including attachments, to an unintended recipient is not intended to waive any rights or privileges. D-13 DRAFT February 17, 2025 Arlington Island Crossing Subarea Plan v Executive Summary Background and Purpose Island Crossing is an 87-acre area in northwest Arlington, well-connected to the region and the economic centers of Old Town and the Cascade Industrial Center, and a gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley and Snohomish County's agricultural lands. Though it has the potential to play a vital role in the region's commercial, agritourism, and outdoor recreation economies, it has been developing as a highway-oriented convenience stop. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is a proactive effort to build on existing assets and shape , guiding its transformation from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe, and well-connected gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley. The plan identifies a long-term vision and strategies for resilience to flooding, identity-strengthening and better- connected development, an SR 530 design concept that celebrates Island Crossing as a gateway and improves flooding resilience, and economic development strategies that respect its agricultural roots, natural resources, and cultural significance. Pape's Parcels D-14 Pape Parcels Map Generated On:07/08/2025 Legend Administrative Boundaries City Limits Cadastral Parcels Aerial Imagery Road Labels (white) Aerial 2024 Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services (PDS) All maps, data, and information set forth herein (“Data”), are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered an official citation to, or representation of, the Snohomish County Code. Amendments and updates to the Data, together with other applicable County Code provisions, may apply which are not depicted herein. Snohomish County makes no representation or warranty concerning the content, accuracy, currency, completeness or quality of the Data contained herein and expressly disclaims any warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. All persons accessing or otherwise using this Data assume all responsibility for use thereof and agree to hold Snohomish County harmless from and against any damages, loss, claim or liability arising out of any error, defect or omission contained within said Data. 0 250 500 ft Scale 1 :7425 1 2 3 4 D-15 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 1 of 24 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF ARLINGTON In the Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN#1366 ) The City of Arlington Community and ) Island Crossing Subarea Plan Economic Development Department ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, For a City-Initiated Subarea Plan ) AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposed City-initiated subarea plan for the Island Crossing Subarea complies with all procedural and substantive requirements under state law and the municipal code, and because the plan was developed through a process providing the opportunity for extensive input from members of the public and other stakeholders and adequately addresses community concerns, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Arlington City Council (City Council) APPROVE the subarea plan. SUMMARY OF RECORD Hearing Date: The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on September 16, 2025. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: Amy Rusko, City Community and Economic Development Director Jeff Parsons, Project Hydraulic Engineer David Toyer Kory Glover Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report 2. Draft Island Crossing Subarea Plan, with Appendices, dated August 2025 3. Island Crossing Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Volume 1, dated August 1, 2025 4. Island Crossing Planned Action Draft EIS Volume 2 - Appendices, dated August 1, 2025 5. Notice of Public Hearing, published August 29, 2025 6. Comment from Ron Henken, dated August 3, 2025 7. Notice of Draft EIS, issued August 1, 2025 8. Comment from Eric Weden, dated June 24, 2025 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 2 of 24 9. Comment from Rebecca Goodell, Stuart Skelton, and Craig Skelton, received July 7, 2025 10. Comment from David Toyer, Toyer Strategic Advisors, Inc., on behalf of Papé Properties, Inc., dated July 8, 2025 11. Comment from Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, dated July 14, 2025 12. Comment from Dana Sue Smith, received July 15, 2025 13. Comment from Washington State Department of Transportation, dated July 15, 2025 14. Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance, and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS, issued June 20, 2025, published June 24, 2025 15. Party of Record List 16. Mailing Labels and Vicinity Map 17. Comment from Ron Henken, dated August 29, 2025 18. Comment from Kory Glover, dated September 2, 2025 19. Comment from David Toyer, Toyer Strategic Advisors, Inc., on behalf of Papé Properties, Inc., dated September 2, 2025 20. Updated Proposed Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards (Draft Island Crossing Subarea Plan Appendix D) 21. Comment from Rebecca Goodell, dated September 15, 2025 22. Comments from Rebecca Goodell, Stuart Skelton, and Craig Skelton, dated September 15, 2025 23. City Staff Presentation The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS Background 1. The City of Arlington (City) Comprehensive Plan “designates fourteen subareas that distinguish specific geographical areas and existing neighborhoods within the community,” within which development is guided by specific subarea plans. Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.44.032(a). The intent of creating subareas is to develop a subarea plan for each area of the city that contains specific policies and criteria to guide land development, incorporate missing middle housing options, transportation facilities, community facilities, infrastructure and capital improvement decisions that provide for a more coordinated, efficient, and effective structure for predictable neighborhood planning. The subarea plans encompass both newly created subareas and those that work with existing neighborhoods to provide criteria for infill and redevelopment purposes. AMC 20.44.032(a). Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 3 of 24 Apart from two designated subareas, the East Hill and Lindsay Annexation subareas, these subarea plans are to be produced by the City. AMC 20.44.032(b). Application and Notice 2. In accordance with the provisions above, and the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the City proposed adoption of a subarea plan for the Island Crossing Subarea, which was developed through a process providing the opportunity for participation by members of the public and other interested stakeholders. Specifically, the City hosted an open house style public meeting, while the City’s consultant, MAKERS, hosted the Advisory Group, Stakeholder, and Technical Group meetings on development of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan:1 • Kick-off meeting held on March 25, 2024 • Open house held on May 8, 2024 • Island Crossing Subarea online survey conducted from May 12, 2024, to August 1, 2024 • Transportation Technical Group meeting held on June 5, 2024 • Stakeholder interviews conducted on July 31, 2024 • Advisory Group 1 (Transportation) meeting held on August 12, 2024 • Advisory Group 2 (Land Use) meeting held on September 11, 2024 • Transportation Technical Group meeting held on November 5, 2024 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 3, 10, and 11; Exhibit 2. 3. On June 24, 2025, the City provided notice of the application and associated community neighborhood meeting by mailing or emailing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the designated subarea and to interested agencies, by posting notice on-site and at designated City locations, and by publishing notice in The Herald, with a comment deadline of July 15, 2025. On August 29, 2025, the City provided notice of the open record public hearing associated with the application in the same manner. The City’s notice of the open record public hearing stated that written comments could be provided by September 15, 2025. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 16. 4. The City received several comments on the proposed subarea plan from members of the public and interested agencies during the application comment period in response to its notice materials: • Eric Weden, of Weden Engineering, LLC, requested additional information about a potential future compensatory flood mitigation facility that was mentioned in the proposed subarea plan. 1 The proposed Island Crossing Subarea Plan contains a detailed summary of the engagement activities that were included as part of the subarea plan’s production and of the information obtained during these engagement activities. Exhibit 2, pages 15 and 16. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 4 of 24 • Rebecca Goodell, Stuart Skelton, and Craig Skelton expressed concerns about the change in zoning envisioned in the proposed subarea plan, noting that the area would be more well suited for the transportation-related service uses allowed under the current zoning of the area. They also raised concerns about the costs of infrastructure improvements envisioned in the proposed subarea plan. • David Toyer, of Toyer Strategic Advisors, Inc., on behalf of Papé Properties, Inc., expressed concerns about the location of a potential future compensatory flood mitigation facility north of SR 530, as mentioned in the proposed subarea plan, and he requested that the City evaluate other viable alternatives, such as locating compensatory flood storage on Papé’s property to the south of SR 530. • Dana Smith expressed support for the proposed subarea plan, noting her interest in continued development in the Island Crossing area. • The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians expressed concerns that the future development envisioned in the proposed subarea plan would increase flood risks to the area and potentially impact ESA-listed salmon habitat, noting that it has not seen a sufficient hydraulic analysis to determine whether additional development in the subarea would be advisable in light of the more frequent flooding that would occur with a changing climate. • The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provided information on the WSDOT standards for work within the WSDOT right-of-way. The City later received the following comments on the proposal from members of the public during the open record hearing written comment period: • Ron Henken stated that his property needs an access road connecting to SR 530, noting that such access, together with off-site compensatory flood storage, would provide a developable area of approximately 16 acres within the subarea. • Kory Glover raised concerns that the proposed subarea plan does not adequately address traffic and flooding issues in the area and requested that a more specific analysis of the envisioned compensatory flood mitigation facility be conducted prior to allowing further development in the area. • David Toyer reiterated his earlier concerns regarding the location of a potential future compensatory flood mitigation facility north of SR 530. • Rebecca Goodell reiterated her earlier concerns about the change in zoning envisioned in the proposed subarea plan and about her desire to have the area remain as a transportation hub with zoning supporting transportation-related service uses. She noted in this regard that she and her neighbors have received numerous offers from transportation entities wishing to purchase their property to develop a truck stop. Although Ms. Goodell expressed support for the City’s desire to address flood mitigation and to create a functional and visually pleasing gateway to Arlington, she expressed concerns that the compensatory flood mitigation facility envisioned in the proposed subarea plan would be inadequate to address flooding issues in the area. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 5 of 24 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11 and 14; Exhibit 6; Exhibits 8 through 13; Exhibits 17 through 19; Exhibit 21; Exhibit 22. State Environmental Policy Act 5. AMC 20.44.032(e) provides: Subarea plans are to be processed in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A planned action is a development project whose impacts have been identified and addressed through an EIS associated with the subarea plan for the specific geographical area before individual projects are proposed. A planned action involves detailed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with subarea plans, consistent with RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197-11-172. The up front analysis of impacts and mitigation measures then facilitates environmental review of subsequent individual development projects. In accordance with the environmental review requirements, above, the City acted as lead agency; analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW; and issued a Determination of Significance (DNS) on July 30, 2025. The City provided notice of the DNS together with notice of the application and community neighborhood meeting, as described above, with a comment deadline of July 15, 2025. The City’s consolidated notice materials stated that the City would prepare an EIS, as required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), and that the City had identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: • Water: floods, surface water, groundwater, and wetlands • Natural environment: Plants and animals, natural resources • Land use and urban form: Relationship to existing plans, estimated population/employment, and aesthetics/scenic resources • Transportation • Utilities: Sewer, water, stormwater, electrical power, and natural gas Exhibit 14. The City’s consolidated notice materials further stated that members of the public and interested agencies and tribes could provide comments on the on the scope of the EIS, including “alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required.” Exhibit 14. The City received several comments from members of the public, WSDOT, and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, during the applicable comment period, as described above. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 11, 13, and 14; Exhibit 14. 6. Following the consolidated comment period, the City issued its Draft Planned Action EIS on August 1, 2025. The Draft Planned Action EIS provides a comprehensive analysis of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 6 of 24 the environmental impacts, and measures to reduce or eliminate such impacts, with regard to three alternatives, including: (1) “No Action,” in which the proposed subarea plan would not be adopted and future development of the subarea would be subject to current zoning and development standards; (2) “Subarea Plan Partial Implementation,” in which components of the proposed subarea plan, not including the regional flooding/compensatory storage facility, would be implemented; and (3) “Subarea Plan Full Implementation,” in which all components of the proposed subarea plan would be implemented, including the regional flooding/compensatory storage facility. The City provided notice of the Draft Planned Action EIS on August 1, 2025, by mailing or emailing notice to property owners within 500 feet of the designated subarea and to interested agencies, by posting notice on-site and at designated City locations, and by publishing notice in The Herald, with a comment deadline of September 2, 2025. The City received one comment on the Draft Planned Action EIS from a member of the public, Ron Henken, in response to its notice materials. Mr. Henken’s comment did not raise any specific concerns about the Draft EIS but stated that his property needs an access road connecting to SR 530. As of the date of the hearing, the City has not yet issued a Final Planned Action EIS for the proposal, but the City anticipates that completion of the Final EIS would occur prior to the City Council’s consideration of the proposed subarea plan. Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 7; Testimony of Amy Rusko. Comprehensive Plan 7. The City Comprehensive Plan provides a description of the existing conditions, vision, and neighborhoods for the City’s various subareas. As it pertains to the Island Crossing Subarea, the Comprehensive Plan states: Existing Conditions Island Crossing is located in the northwest corner of the City at the junction of I-5 and State Route 530. I-5 runs along the west boundary of Island Crossing and State Route 530 runs east west in the northern portion of the subarea. Bus route 227 runs along Smokey Point Boulevard which creates the eastern boundary of the subarea. The subarea is generally triangle-shaped measuring approximately 0.20 square miles. Each boundary of Island Crossing is also the city limits, surrounded by unincorporated county. There is an entryway sign along State Route 530 welcoming visitors to Arlington. The vast majority of Island Crossing is zoned Highway Commercial. Along Smokey Point Boulevard at the southern tip of the subarea it is zoned Commercial Corridor District. Most of the Island Crossing subarea lies within the 100-year floodplain. A sliver of the subarea falls within the 500-year floodplain. Lower Portage Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 7 of 24 Creek runs through the southern portion of Island Crossing and South Slough runs through the center of the subarea. There are also a few steep slopes sprinkled around the subarea. There are no parks, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, or heritage trees in Island Crossing. Vision In 2044, Island Crossing is the initial gateway into Arlington, but also serves as the southern gateway to the North Cascades from I-5. It is an attractive, functional, and commercially viable entryway into the City from I-5 with an iconic panoramic view of agricultural lands and the Cascade foothills. Island Crossing serves as a commercial, retail, and accommodation hub that serves not only the greater Arlington community but those travelling along I-5 as well. Neighborhoods There are no specific neighborhoods in Island Crossing. Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A, page 62; see also Comprehensive Plan, Section III: Subareas, page 14. 8. City staff determined that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, identifying the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as relevant: • Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. [Goal E-1] • Protect and enhance the natural environment while planning for and accommodating growth. [Policy E-1.1] • 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. [Policy E-1.5] • Promote eco-tourism and/or agri-tourism. [Goal E-3] • Encourage local food production, distribution, and choice through the support of community gardens, farmers markets, and other small-scale initiatives. [Policy E-3.2] • Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation patterns. [Goal E-6] • Identify and address the impacts of climate change on the region’s hydrological systems. [Policy E-6.2] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 8 of 24 • Remain a Tree City and encourage an increased tree canopy. [Goal E-7] • Enhance urban tree canopy to support ecological function, community resilience, mitigate urban heat, manage stormwater, conserve energy, improve mental and physical health, and strengthen economic prosperity. [Policy E-7.3] • Work towards and maintain an aesthetically pleasing environment that enhances livability for residents. [Goal E-10] • Incorporate and preserve street trees in the streetscape where they don’t adversely affect roadway capacity, safety, or structural integrity. [Policy E-10.1] • Provide unique places and context for growth of social capital and community resiliency. [Goal LU-1] • Ensure both publicly- and privately-owned civic spaces are included throughout the City to provide adequate gathering spaces. [Policy LU-1.1] • Establish development standards and regulations based on availability and serviceability of developable lands to maintain a balanced mix and arrangement of land uses in the City. [Policy LU-1.2] • Encourage designs of public buildings and spaces that contribute to a sense of community and a sense of place. [Policy LU-1.3] • Encourage development patterns that provide safe and welcoming environments for walking and bicycling. [Policy LU-1.4] • Address cross-jurisdictional growth, social, and cultural issues by working with affected jurisdictions. [Goal LU-3] • Coordinate growth and development with adjacent jurisdictions to promote and protect inter-jurisdictional interests. [Policy LU-3.1] • Recognize and work with contiguous systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries, including natural systems, land use patterns, and transportation and infrastructure systems, in community planning, development, and design. [Policy LU-3.5] • Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to climate change impacts, including social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. [Goal LU-6] • Amend and adopt land development regulations as needed to adequately protect the attributes, functions, and amenities of the natural environment in all projected growth scenarios for the City. [Policy LU-6.1] • Ensure land development patterns minimize or prevent impacts on natural open spaces and resource lands. [Policy LU-6.2] • Development patterns shall be responsive to critical areas and other environmental factors, while minimizing the fragmentation of the built environment. [Policy LU-6.3] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 9 of 24 • Support a range of employment options at different income levels and a variety of amenities are available throughout the city. [Goal ED-1] • Encourage a diversified and vibrant economy in order to facilitate high and stable rates of employment within the city, available at a range of income levels. [Policy ED-1.1] • Establish and support economic development activities that help to attract, retain, expand, and diversify businesses throughout the city, particularly those that provide living-wage jobs. [Policy ED-1.2] • Promote diverse and sustainable employment sectors to support and encourage residents to live and work in Arlington. [Policy ED-1.3] • Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy. [Goal ED-2] • Plan for adequate land capacity to support commercial and industrial uses and to provide sufficient employment meeting the 20-year employment targets for Arlington. [Policy ED-2.1] • Plan for adequate retail sales base (i.e., commercial land base) to provide financial support for the services the City provides. [Policy ED-2.2] • Provide sufficient and proactive investments in public infrastructure to improve the City’s economic base and accommodate overall growth. [Policy ED-2.4] • Leverage Arlington’s visibility from Interstate-5 and encourage the development and enhancement of the city’s gateways to attract additional consumer base. [Policy ED-2.5] • Recognize the contributions and support the growth of Arlington’s and the surrounding area’s culturally and ethnically diverse communities, including the Stillaguamish Tribe, to assist in the continued expansion of the local and regional economic base. [Policy ED-2.6] • Coordinate economic development plans with the City’s transportation, housing, and land use policies and plans, and the Regional Growth Strategy, to support economic development that is compatible citywide. [Policy ED-2.7] • Maintain land use patterns and available infrastructure to allow for a high jobs-to-housing ratio. [Policy ED-2.8] • Actively cooperate with other agencies and local businesses to support economic development. [Goal ED-3] • Collaborate with businesses to identify specialized infrastructure, building design, transportation, or other needs required to maintain business operations. [Policy ED-3.2] • Provide opportunities to include local business owners and associations in economic development plans, strategies, and decision-making processes. [Policy ED-3.5] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 10 of 24 • Strive to equitably allocate the cost of growth by utilizing mitigation and impact fees to provide funds for necessary infrastructure improvements. [Policy ED-3.6] • Coordinate with Snohomish County on potential tourism grants to support citywide and regional tourism efforts. [Policy ED-3.7] • Guide economic development practices within the city that protect and support the natural environment. [Goal ED-6] • Encourage the development of existing and emerging industries and services that promote environmental sustainability, particularly those addressing climate change and resilience. [Policy ED-6.1] • Encourage economic development activities that take into consideration the capacities of the area’s natural resources, public services, and facilities. [Policy ED-6.2] • Support the expeditious processing of development applications. Continue requiring development activities to meet all applicable environmental protection, land use, and other applicable provisions and standards. [Policy ED-6.5] • Encourage the development of unique economic hubs at various scales throughout the city to adequately serve residents and the region. [Goal ED-7] • Promote the viability of Old-Town Business District, Smokey Point Boulevard, the Cascade Industrial Center, and Island Crossing as regional economic draws, while maintaining and improving upon smaller neighborhood hubs to serve local residents. [Policy ED-7.1] • Develop economic development strategies to differentiate and enhance the different subarea of the city. [Policy ED-7.7] • Invest in transportation and other infrastructure needed to support and provide connections the various commercial centers throughout the city. [Policy ED-7.8] • Support economic development activities that enhance the quality of life for Arlington residents. [Goal ED-8] • Encourage businesses that process and sell locally produced resources, particularly healthy food products. [Policy ED-8.2] • Develop a variety of strategies aimed at enhancing the diversity of Arlington’s tourism base, with particular focus on agritourism, farm-to- table, and local crafts industry products. [Policy ED-8.3] • Ensure the equity and availability of potential funding streams and provide transportation improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. [Goal P-2] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 11 of 24 • Identify desirable lands within the Urban Growth Area for parks, trails, and open space, and pursue acquisition through dedication and purchase. [Policy P-2.1] • Develop at least one community park within each subarea and provide a new central community park within the Smokey Point neighborhood. [Policy P-2.2] • Utilize the parks and recreation system to protect unique environmental qualities, natural amenities, wildlife habitats, forest lands, and scenic areas within the city. [Goal P-5] • Enhance the resilience of the parks and recreation system by assessing and addressing climate hazards and impacts. [Policy P-5.1] • Locate, plan, and manage parks and recreation facilities so they enhance wildlife habitat, minimize erosion impacts, and complement the natural site features. [Policy P-5.2] • Enhance and preserve scenic viewpoints for public enjoyment when siting parks and recreation facilities. [Policy P-5.5] • Ensure capital facilities and utilities achieve efficient delivery of services, support equitable distribution of services, minimize environmental impacts, and maximize value for the community. [Goal T-1] • Minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts of transportation facilities including culverts, bridges, or other road crossing on designated critical areas, resource lands, cultural resources, or parks through the implementation of performance standards and design guidelines in accordance with WDFW current Fish Passage, and WSDOT Cultural Resources and Archaeology guidelines. [Policy T-1.1] • Ensure the equity and availability of potential funding streams and provide transportation improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. [Goal T-2] • Require developers to construct those streets directly serving new development and to pay a proportionate share of the costs for specific off- site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. [Policy T-2.3] • Implement Travel Demand Management and Transit Oriented Design to create a more walkable city. [Goal T-6] • Encourage transit-oriented development and multi modal planning in new developments through the permitting process. [Policy T-6.3] • Encourage and plan for “pedestrian-scale” neighborhoods and centers to enhance access and mobility for active transportation users. [Policy T-6.5] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 12 of 24 • Create a resilient transportation system, minimize environmental impacts caused by the transportation system, and 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. [Goal T-7] • Retrofit existing roadways to meet or exceed current stormwater requirements where possible. [Policy T-7.6] • Provide for the efficient movement of traffic through advanced traffic control measures, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies, speed management, access management, channelization improvements and multimodal design features. Use advanced technologies to better manage traffic volumes on major arterials and improve the efficiency and coordination of traffic signals. Aggressively pursue improvements to the state highways through or near Arlington. [Policy T-7.9] • Require installation of electric vehicle charging facilities with new multifamily and commercial developments. [Policy T-7.10] • Assess and plan for adaptive transportation responses to potential threats and hazards arising from climate change. [Policy T-7.14] • Plan, develop, and maintain a balanced multimodal 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. [Goal T-8] • Ensure that safe, convenient, and efficient multimodal transportation facilities are provided for all residents and visitors to the City, including accessibility improvements to existing facilities as well as improvements to serve growth areas. [Policy T-8.1] • Design the street system to enable walkability. Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips and distribute vehicle trips along appropriate corridors. [Policy T-8.2] • Implement the adopted Complete Streets Program to ensure that all transportation projects include safe and appropriate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users accommodating persons of all ages and abilities. [Policy T-8.4] • Maintain a safe, convenient, and efficient multimodal transportation system for people and freight that allows freight to support the continued growth in goods movement and the growing needs of global trade and state, regional and local distribution of goods and services. [Policy T-8.5] • Maintain and enhance the safety of the transportation system, including non-motorized networks, and reduce the chance of accidents. [Goal T-10] • Prioritize sidewalk and shoulder improvements in areas of high traffic volumes or pedestrian activity to improve safety. [Policy T-10.4] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 13 of 24 • Coordinate the planning and implementation of the City’s multimodal transportation system with adjacent and regional jurisdictions and agencies. [Goal T-12] • Work with WSDOT, Snohomish County and Marysville in planning transportation-related facilities within and adjacent to the UGA. [Policy T-12.1] • Review impacts to the City created by the actions of other agencies. Actively solicit action by the State of Washington and Snohomish County to implement those improvements necessary to their respective facilities to maintain the level of service standards adopted by the City. [Policy T- 12.2] • Consider the special needs of subarea transportation facilities including appearance and safety. [Goal T-13] • Improving the appearance of existing corridors shall be a priority and 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. [Policy T-13.2] • Consider adopting alternative road standards for built neighborhoods, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighborhoods and provide safe alternative modes of travel. [Policy T-13.3] • Ensure capital facilities and utilities are provided consistent with Growth Management Act provisions and the concurrency management system provides public facilities through public and private development activities in a manner that is compatible with the fiscal resources of the City. [Goal CFU-3] • Any infrastructure improvements needed to serve a proposed development should be installed prior to the issuance of the related building permit. [Policy CFU-3.2] • The City of Arlington should not issue any development permits that result in a reduction of the transportation level-of-service standards for the public facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Book without mitigation. [Policy CFU-3.3] • Require that new developments mitigate traffic impacts through at least two of the following methods as deemed acceptable by the City or as many as are deemed necessary through the permitting process and supporting traffic analysis: dedication of right-of-way, frontage improvements, or traffic mitigation fees. [Policy CFU-3.4] • Plan for growth and development to be consistent with the City’s most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and parks and recreation facilities. [Policy CFU-3.5] Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 14 of 24 • Any costs associated with water extensions or system requirements necessary to provide that water, shall be borne by the person(s) requesting such service. [Policy CFU-3.12] • Promote the use of renewable energy resources to meet Arlington’s energy needs. [Goal CFU-6] • Promote the use and investment in renewable and alternative energy sources to meet energy needs. [Policy CFU-6.2] • Support electric vehicle charging infrastructure to help reduce carbon emissions of the transportation sector. [Policy CFU-6.3] • Support permitting processes related to energy efficiency upgrades. [Policy CFU-6.5] • Manage stormwater pursuant to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington as adopted by Arlington, preserving and supplementing, as necessary, the natural drainage ways and other natural hydraulic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development. [Goal CFU-7] • Utilize Low Impact Development standards that provide stormwater benefits and support naturally occurring functions simultaneously. [Policy CFU-7.5] • Enforce stormwater utility regulations. [Policy CFU-7.7] • Meet or exceed sewer service standards in providing ongoing services to customers. [Goal CFU-10] • Permit new development in urban areas only when sanitary sewers are available. [Policy CFU-10.5] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4 through 8. 9. City staff also identified the following countywide planning goals as relevant to the proposed subarea plan:2 • The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will provide livable communities for all residents by directing growth into designated urban areas to create urban places that are equitable, walkable, compact, and transit oriented, preserve and create open space, and protect rural and resource lands. [Countywide Development Patterns Goal] • Cities, towns, and Snohomish County government will encourage coordinated, sustainable economic growth by building on the strengths of the county’s economic base and diversifying it through strategic investments in infrastructure, education and training, and sound 2 In addition to the goals listed below, the City identified the following countywide planning policies as relevant to the proposal: GF-3, GF-4, GF-5, GF-6, JP-3, JP-5, DP-5, DP-12, DP-15, DP-16, DP-33, DP- 34, DP-37, DP-40, DP-41, ED-2, ED-5, ED-6, ED-8, ED-9, ED-10, ED 12, ED-13, ED-15, TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7, TR-8, TR-12, Env-1, Env-2, Env-4, Env-5, Env-7, CC-7, PS-1, PS-2, PS- 4, PS-11, PS 15, PS-16, and PS-19. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 and 9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 15 of 24 management of land and natural resources. [Countywide Economic Development and Employment Goal] • The County and cities will work proactively with transportation planning agencies and service providers to plan, finance, and implement an efficient, affordable, equitable, inclusive, and safe multi-modal transportation system that supports state-level planning, the Regional Growth Strategy, and local comprehensive plans and promotes economic vitality, environment sustainability, and human health. [Countywide Transportation Goal] • Snohomish County and local jurisdictions will act as a steward of the natural environment in an effort to project and restore natural systems and public health and mitigate climate change. This will be achieved through natural resource and habitat conservation, water quality improvement, and air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Planning for the future will include addressing climate change and resilience at local and regional levels of government to protect the natural environment and meet the economic and social needs of all residents. [Countywide Natural Environment and Climate Change Goal] • Snohomish County and its cities will coordinate and develop and provide adequate and efficient public facilities and services to ensure the health, safety, conservation of resources, and economic vitality of our communities and all residents. [Countywide Public Service and Facilities Goal] In addition, City staff identified the following multi-county planning goals as relevant to the proposed subarea plan:3 • The region plans collaboratively for a healthy environment, thriving communities, and opportunities for all. [Multi-County Regional Collaboration Goal] • The region accommodates growth in urban areas, focused in designated centers and near transit stations, to create healthy, equitable, vibrant communities well-served by infrastructure and services. Rural and resource lands continue to be vital parts of the region that regain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle opportunities over the long term. [Multi-County Regional Growth Strategy Goal] 3 In addition to the goals listed below, the City identified the following multi -county planning policies as relevant to the proposal: MPP-RC-1, MPP-RGS-2, MPP-RGS-4, MPP-RGS-5, MPP-RGS-13, MPP-En-2, MPP-En-5, MPP-En-6, MPP-En-9, MPP-En-11, MPP-En-18, MPP-DP-3, MPP-DP-5, MPP-DP-9, MPP- DP 10, MPP-DP-12, MPP-DP-14, MPP-DP-15, MPP-DP-20, MPP-DP-36, MPP-DP-42, MPP-DP-52, MPP-DP-53, MPP-DP-54, MPP-Ec-1, MPP-Ec-7, MPP-Ec-9, MPP-Ec-13, MPP-Ec-14, MPP-Ec-18, MPP- T 1, MPP-T-4, MPP-T-8, MPP-T-9, MPP-T-10, MPP-T-11, MPP-T-16, MPP-T-17, MPP-T-21, MPP-T-25, MPP-T-32, MPP-PS-1, MPP-PS-3, MPP-PS-7, MPP-PS-10, MPP-PS-11, and MPP-PS-13. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 16 of 24 • The region cares for the natural environment by protecting and restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, and reducing air pollutants. The health of all residents and the economy is connected to the health of the environment. Planning at all levels considers the impacts of land use, development, and transportation on the ecosystem. [Multi- County Environment Goal] • The region creates healthy, walkable, compact, and equitable transit- oriented communities that maintain unique character and local culture, while conserving rural areas and creating and preserving open space and natural areas. [Multi-County Development Patterns Goal] • The region has a prospering and sustainable regional economy by supporting businesses and job creation, investing in all people and their health, sustaining environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities, and high quality of life. [Multi-County Economy Goal] • The region has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system, with specific emphasis on an integrated regional transit network that supports the Regional Growth Strategy and promotes vitality of the economy, environment, and health. [Multi- County Transportation Goal] • The region supports development with adequate public facilities and services in a timely, coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that supports local and regional growth planning objectives. [Multi-County Public Services Goal] Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 and 9. Proposed Subarea Plan 10. The stated purpose of the proposed Island Crossing Subarea Plan is as follows: The Island Crossing subarea encompasses approximately 87 acres in northwest Arlington, nestled within the agricultural and natural land of the Stillaguamish River Valley. This location serves as a vital transition point between the urban fabric of Arlington and the surrounding rural and tribal lands. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is a proactive effort to shape the future of this area by balancing flooding resilience, agricultural protection, environmental stewardship, community needs, and economic development. The plan identifies a long-term vision for development, an SR 530 design concept, addresses infrastructure needs, and recommends strategies to achieve the vision. It creates a framework that encourages the subarea to thrive while respecting its agricultural roots, natural resources, and cultural significance. Exhibit 2, page 11. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 17 of 24 11. Appendix A of the proposed Island Crossing Subarea plan contains a detailed existing conditions report, which describes the subarea’s current conditions related to the natural environment, land use, transportation, public services and utilities, and market and real estate. As summarized in the proposed subarea plan, these conditions include: • Natural Environment: o Stillaguamish River flooding routinely impacts SR 530 and private properties, posing safety and property protection challenges. o Preliminary analysis suggests that river modifications alone will not sufficiently reduce flooding risks. Raising the highway, SR 530 culvert expansion, and additional compensatory floodwater storage areas— and mitigation measures for any of these potential projects—should be explored to prevent routine inundation. o Snohomish County’s and Arlington’s Critical Areas Ordinances will restrict development around protected fish species. • Land Use: o Highway-oriented commercial land uses are clustered around SR 530. Agricultural land surrounds Island Crossing, and some is within the subarea. o Island Crossing is zoned Highway Commercial, allowing a broad range of commercial activities and is intended for employment growth. o While most community members agree on the desire to protect the viability of agricultural land in the valley and reduce flooding, there are conflicting visions for future land uses in the subarea. o Island Crossing’s position at the urban-rural transition presents an opportunity to leverage agri- and recreational tourism. o The floodplain and flood mitigation requirements present significant development feasibility constraints in the subarea. • Transportation: o SR 530, a strategic freight corridor, and Smokey Point Blvd are the two roadways within Island Crossing. o Safety issues along SR 530 are related to lack of access control, numerous driveways, and congestion along the corridor. o Planned growth will increase traffic volumes, resulting in increased congestion and the I-5/SR 530 interchange operating below its level of service (LOS) standard. o The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update has identified a need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities on SR 530 and Smokey Point Blvd. o SR 530 street design should consider access control and driveway consolidation, safety and comfort improvements for active modes, Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 18 of 24 gateway and scenic view celebration, the floodplain, and the Olympic Gas Pipeline. • Public Services and Utilities: o The critical Olympic Gas Pipeline runs diagonally through the subarea, crossing beneath SR 530 near the topographical low point which floods frequently, posing a risk to the pipeline. o SR 530 street design and options relating to grade changes and any work within the pipeline’s easement must include coordination with the Olympic Pipeline Company. • Market and Real Estate: o Island Crossing’s location on major transportation routes and as the city’s northwest gateway, combined with several vacant or redevelopable parcels, present opportunities for strategic investment to catalyze desired economic activity and support a gateway concept. o Retail trade is the dominant industry in the subarea, accounting for about 40% of all jobs. Gas stations represent one third of all businesses in Island Crossing, a significantly higher share than the city and county. o Arlington’s industrial and multifamily sector growth, along with office demand, may create spillover effects in Island Crossing, including support for retail, food, or businesses that support those uses. Retail growth in Arlington has been slow and steady, but less stable than Snohomish County. o Agriculture is a key legacy industry in the region. The subarea’s proximity to agricultural land in unincorporated Snohomish County presents an opportunity to capture revenue and support local businesses in this sector. Research to assess the viability and opportunities to support agricultural and/or agritourism uses should be pursued. Exhibit 2, pages 13 and 14. 12. In consideration of the existing conditions of the subarea and the priorities for the subarea expressed by community members during the engagement activities associated with the subarea plan’s development, the proposed Island Crossing Subarea Plan provides a vision to accomplish several guiding principles, including: (1) protecting life and property from flooding hazards; (2) supporting viability of surrounding agricultural lands; (3) promoting a safe, well-connected, multimodal transportation system; (4) celebrating the scenic landscape; (5) leveraging Island Crossing’s setting and transportation for economic prosperity; and (6) enhancing the natural environment’s health. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 19 of 24 The proposed subarea plan also contains a framework plan to achieve this vision, with the following expressed as the top priorities for supporting “Island Crossing’s evolution from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe gateway into the Stillaguamish Valley:” • Invest in a regional compensatory storage facility To address existing flooding challenges and make development more feasible throughout the subarea, especially along SR 530, and support agricultural viability. Design it to double as floodable recreational fields and a community gathering place. • Improve SR 530 To elevate the highway out of flood risk, expand the culvert, and add a median, roundabouts, landscape strips, sidewalks, and gateway features to improve safety, flood resilience, and aesthetics. • Update zoning and design standards For coordinated development that aligns with the community vision for a welcoming entry into Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley and an economic hub to support agri- and recreational tourism. • Attract desired businesses Emphasizing agritourism, such as distillery, restaurants, large farm-oriented retailer, and hotel. Exhibit 2, pages 17 and 18. Testimony4 13. City Community and Economic Development Director Amy Rusko testified generally about the proposed subarea plan and associated zoning code changes, new development standards, and planned action ordinance, and how they would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and with the priorities and vision for the subarea as determined by advisors, City staff, members of the public, and other stakeholders during various engagement activities leading to the draft subarea plan’s creation. She provided a detailed description of the subarea, its current conditions, and the proposed subarea plan’s conceptual redevelopment vision for the subarea. Director Rusko noted that the proposed subarea plan focuses on four key priorities, which include: (1) adopting zoning and design standards to ensure new development reflects community values and strengthens neighborhood identity; (2) coordinating with property owners and setting a funding strategy for a regional compensatory storage facility to support flood resilience; (3) coordinating with WSDOT to secure funding and implement SR 530 improvements; and (4) attracting desired businesses through proactive relationship building with developers, property owners, and businesses. She described how the proposed subarea plan is 4 Due to technical issues, the recording of the hearing does not contain any audio. Accordingly, the testimony findings are based on the Hearing Examiner’s notes and recollection. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 20 of 24 organized, noting that Chapters 1 and 2 provide the background, purpose, and overarching vision for the Island Crossing Subarea; that Chapters 3 through 6 outline strategies to achieve the subarea plan’s goals; and that Chapter 7 outlines critical first steps, summarizes recommended actions, and identifies responsible parties, timing, potential funding sources, and relationships between actions. Director Rusko also described the zoning changes that would be associated with the proposed subarea plan, noting that the current Highway Commercial (HC) zoning of the subarea allows primarily automobile-oriented uses, such as gas stations, and that the proposed rezoning of the subarea would create three subdistricts: (1) IC-1, which would accommodate highway-oriented commercial activities along I-5 in the northwest portion of the subarea; (2) IC-2, which would promote low- to mid-intensity commercial activities, including agri-commercial activities, in the northeast portion of the subarea; and (3) IC-3, which would accommodate general commercial uses, including car and heavy equipment sales uses, in the southern portion of the subarea. She noted that, under the zoning changes, gas stations would no longer be an allowed use in the subarea, but she noted that existing gas stations would be allowed to remain and would be allowed to redevelop at existing service levels when such redevelopment is in association with elevating property above the floodplain. Director Rusko provided a detailed description of the proposed subarea plan’s concept for a new street design for SR 530 and explained how the street design would address flooding and traffic issues for the subarea, as well as accommodate safe pedestrian travel. Regarding concerns raised in written comments about the zoning changes that would occur with the proposal, she noted that the commentor desires to develop property with a truck stop, which is a use that is not currently addressed by the City’s zoning code. Director Rusko noted that the City Planning Commission had provided technical revisions to the proposed new development standards included as Appendix D of the subarea plan, which the Hearing Examiner admitted as Exhibit 20. Testimony of Amy Rusko. 14. Hydraulic Engineer Jeff Parsons testified that he worked with the City’s consultant team on the regional compensatory storage facility components of the subarea plan. In response to concerns raised by members of the public prior to the hearing regarding the proposed location of the storage facility and about its feasibility to address flooding issues in the subarea, he stated that the proposed facility is only conceptual at this stage of planning and that design issues could be addressed when specific development projects are initiated. Testimony of Jeff Parsons. 15. David Toyer, of Toyer Strategic Advisors, Inc., on behalf of Papé Properties, Inc., reiterated the concerns he raised in his written comments that there has not been sufficient analysis about an alternative compensatory flood storage facility to the south of SR 530. He noted that the Papé site in the southern portion of the subarea has been Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 21 of 24 studied and designed to accommodate compensatory flood storage for the region and could be utilized by the City for this purpose. Mr. Toyer stated that the proposed subarea plan’s vision for a compensatory storage facility to the north of SR 520 is not supported by a hydraulic analysis and does not adequately address flooding issues in the southern portion of the subarea. He also noted that he shares the concerns raised by the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians that, absent additional hydraulic analysis, further development in the subarea as envisioned in the subarea plan could adversely impact floodplain habitat for Chinook Salmon. Testimony of David Toyer. 16. Kory Glover testified that he has concerns that there has not been sufficient analysis to determine whether the proposed regional compensatory storage facility would adequately address flooding issues in the area, and he inquired about whether there would be additional funding in the future to support a more detailed analysis prior to new development. Testimony of Kory Glover. 17. In response to the concerns raised at the hearing, Mr. Parsons stressed that the focus has been on addressing flooding in the northern portion of the subarea along SR 530 and that funding limitations at the planning stage have prevented extensive analysis of flood mitigation potential in the southern portion of the subarea. He also stressed that a more extensive analysis of flood impacts would be addressed with future development and that such development would be required to comply with all applicable floodplain and stormwater regulations. Testimony of Mr. Parsons. 18. Director Rusko noted her agreement with Mr. Parsons’ testimony, stressing that the focus has been on compensatory flood mitigation for properties along SR 530, an area where flooding issues have created traffic safety issues and where there is more intense development on smaller lots, whereas larger lots in the southern portion of the subarea are more suitable for providing flood mitigation on-site. Testimony of Amy Rusko. Staff Recommendation 19. City staff, having determined that the proposal would comply with the City Comprehensive Plan and all applicable procedural and substantive requirements for development of a subarea plan, recommends that the Hearing Examiner forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11 through 15; Testimony of Amy Rusko. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted the authority to hear and to provide a recommendation to the City Council on adoption of a city-initiated subarea plan. AMC 20.44.032. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 22 of 24 Criteria for Review The municipal code does not provide any specific criteria upon which the Hearing Examiner is to rely in forwarding a recommendation to the City Council on adoption of a city-initiated subarea plan. In the absence of such specific review criteria, the Hearing Examiner determines that the role of the Hearing Examiner is to review the proposal for compliance with applicable procedural and substantive requirements of the municipal code and state law and to provide guidance to the City Council with respect to concerns raised by members of the public and interested agencies and tribes. Conclusions Based on Findings The proposed Island Crossing Subarea Plan complies with all procedural and substantive requirements of the municipal code and state law and sufficiently addresses community concerns. The municipal code’s supplemental use regulations provide a framework for development of a subarea plan. AMC 20.44.032. In accordance with this framework, the City produced a proposed subarea plan for the entire Island Crossing subarea, which contains specific policies to guide future land development in a coordinated and effective manner. AMC 20.44.032(a)-(c). The City’s proposed subarea plan also contains proposed development standards specific to the subarea, which include elements of form-based code addressing building placement, building design, creation of blocks, and street frontage improvements that would provide a predictable design and development pattern for the Island Crossing subarea. AMC 20.44.032(d),(i). In developing the proposed subarea plan and establishing a vision for future development and infrastructure improvements in the Island Crossing Subarea, the City and its consultants hosted several engagement activities providing opportunities for input from members of the public and other interested stakeholders. After completing the proposed subarea plan, the City provided reasonable notice of the application and opportunity to comment on the proposal. The City received several comments on the proposed subarea plan and associated environmental review from members of the public, WSDOT, and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, and members of the public testified at the associated open record hearing. Comments and testimony on the proposed subarea plan generally raised concerns about the zoning changes that would occur through the plan’s implementation and about the location and feasibility of a conceptual compensatory flood mitigation facility to address flooding issues in the area. With regard to the change in zoning, City staff notes that the concerns raised were in association with a desire to develop a truck stop in the subarea, a use that is not currently included under the City’s existing zoning code. The Hearing Examiner determines that the zoning changes associated with the proposed subarea plan, which have been designed to transform the current automobile-oriented uses of the subarea to commercial uses supporting nearby agricultural lands, were developed through a process providing extensive opportunity for community input and that these proposed zoning changes are responsive to the vision and priorities for the subarea that were established through this process. Regarding the subarea plan’s vision for a future compensatory flood mitigation facility, City staff and its consultants have reasonably focused its attention on the northern portion of the subarea surrounding SR 530, which experiences flooding events causing safety and traffic concerns Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 23 of 24 along this corridor. The proposed subarea plan’s vision for a future compensatory flood mitigation facility is purely conceptual at this point for planning purposes, and the feasibility of such a facility to address flooding issues would be further explored with future development projects that would be required to comply with all applicable regulations for development within the floodplain and for stormwater management. Following its issuance of the DNS, and in accordance with the environmental review requirements of AMC 20.44.032(e) and chapter 43.21C RCW, the City issued a Draft Planned Action EIS on August 1, 2025. Although the City had received comments regarding the scoping of the forthcoming Draft EIS from members of the public and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians during the consolidated comment period, the City received only one comment on the completed Draft Planned Action EIS from a member of the public, which did not raise any specific concerns about the Draft EIS but, rather, noted the need for an access connection between the commentor’s property and SR 530. Although not pertinent to the Draft EIS, the Hearing Examiner notes that the proposed subarea plan contains goals and policies addressing street connectively and requiring inter-site connections with new development. City staff anticipate completion of as Final Planned Action EIS prior to City Council’s consideration of the proposal. RCW 36.70A.080(2) requires that subarea plans are consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. City staff determined that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with numerous goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including goals and policies of the environmental; land use; economic development; parks, recreation, and open space; transportation; and capital facilities and utilities elements of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff further determined that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with numerous countywide and multi-county planning goals and policies. The Hearing Examiner concurs with City staff’s assessment and determines that the proposed subarea plan would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as required under the State Growth Management Act. Following approval of the subarea plan by City Council, the approved subarea plan would be required to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, in accordance with AMC 20.44.032(j), and, following recordation, all future development within the Island Crossing Subarea would be required to comply with the subarea plan and associated Planned Action Ordinance and development regulations under chapter 20.119 AMC, in accordance with AMC 20.44.032(k). Because the City-initiated subarea plan for the Island Crossing Subarea complies with all procedural and substantive requirements under state law and the municipal code, and because the plan was developed through a process providing the opportunity for extensive input from members of the public and other stakeholders and adequately addresses community concerns, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council APPROVE the subarea plan as proposed. Findings 1 – 19. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Arlington Hearing Examiner Island Crossing Subarea Plan No. PLN#1366 Page 24 of 24 RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council APPROVE the proposed subarea plan for the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September 2025. PEREGRIN K. SORTER Hearing Examiner Laminar Law, PLLC Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 1 of 15 Community and Economic Development Planning Division 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223 STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Island Crossing Subara Plan and Planned Action EIS – PLN #1366 Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 2 of 15 A. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The City of Arlington has conducted a community planning process to develop a vision, plan, and implementation strategy for the Island Crossing Subarea. The city proposes to adopt an Island Crossing Subarea Plan, Zoning Code Development Standards, and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). These documents will provide the groundwork for continued, coordinated, and efficient growth of the area. The subarea plan was developed for consistency with the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning Policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Island Crossing Subarea Plan is a proactive effort to build on existing assets and shape Island Crossing’s future, guiding its transformation from a convenience stop into a celebrated, safe, and well-connected gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley. The plan identifies a long-term vision and strategies for resilience to flooding, identity-strengthening and better-connected development, an SR 530 design concept that celebrates Island Crossing as a gateway and improves flooding resilience, and economic development strategies that respect its agricultural roots, natural resources, and cultural significance. The Draft Non-Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides both qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts associated with the Island Crossing Subarea Plan proposal and its alternatives. The purpose of this EIS is to inform and assist the public and City of Arlington decision-makers in evaluating options for future growth, multimodal transportation improvements, and policy/code appropriate within the Subarea. Arlington will foster Island Crossing’s transformation into a celebrated gateway by focusing on four key priorities: 1) adopt zoning and design standards to ensure new development reflects community values and strengthens neighborhood identity, 2) coordinate with property owners and set funding strategy for a regional compensatory storage facility to support flood resilience, 3) coordinate with WSDOT to secure funding and implement SR 530 improvements, and 4) attract desired businesses through proactive relationship building with developers, property owners, and businesses. The Development Standards will establish a new chapter in the zoning code (AMC Chapter 20.119) that provides development standards for the Island Crossing Subarea. The development standards include regulations for zoning designations, permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design standards, parking standards, landscaping standards, flooding and compensatory storage. The design standards include the theme, site planning, vehicular access and parking, pedestrian access, amenities, open space, and building design. PROJECT HISTORY The City of Arlington issued a combined Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on June 20, 2025 and was published in the city’s official newspaper (The Herald), posted on site, mailed and emailed to required parties, and posted on the City’s website on June 24, 2025. The Community Neighborhood and Scoping Meeting was held on July 9, 2025. The public comment period ended on July 15, 2025. The City issued a Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on July 30, 2025. The notice was published in The Herald, posted on site, mailed and emailed to required parties, and posted on the City’s website on August 1, 2025. The public comment period ended on September 2, 2025. A Public Hearing is to be held before the Hearing Examiner on September 16, 2025. The city issued the Notice of Public Hearing on August 27, 2025. Notice of Public Hearing was posted on the site, mailed and emailed to required parties, posted on the City’s website, and published in The Herald on August 29, 2025. The City of Arlington adopted Ordinance 2023-016, incorporated as AMC 20.44.032 Subarea Plans, which provides the process and regulations for the development of a subarea plan. The code section requires that subarea plans be processed in conjunction with a Planned Action EIS. The Planned Action Ordinance will be developed under RCW 43.21C.440 and associated with SEPA rules in WAC 197-11 based on the EIS. Future proposals consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance, Subarea Plan and development standards will have a streamlined environmental review and permitting process. Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 3 of 15 B. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Proposal Name: Island Crossing Subarea Plan 2. Applicant: City of Arlington, Community and Economic Development Department 3. Contact: Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Development Director 4. Date of Application: February 2, 2024 5. Property Tax ID Numbers: 31050800201200, 31050800200700, 31050800200600, 31050800201000, 31050800200900, 31050800200800, 31050800201100, 31050800200200, 31050800201600, 31050800300100, 31050800300200, 31050800300202, 31050800302200, 31050800302100, 31050800301200, 31050800301500, 31050800301600, 31050800301900, 31050800301300, 31050800301700, 31050800300500, 31050800300600, 31050800302300, 31050800302400, 31050800301400, 31050800302000, 31050800301800, 31050800302700, 31050800302600, 31050800300900, 31050800301000, 31051700201600 6. Acreage: Approximately 87 Acres 7. Applicable Zoning Code Regulations: AMC Chapter 20.16 Permits and Land Division Approval AMC Chapter 20.24 Hearing and Pre-Hearing Procedures for Appeals and Applications AMC Chapter 20.44 Supplemental Use Regulations AMC Chapter 20.98 State Environmental Policy Act 8. General Location: The Island Crossing Subarea includes approximately 87 acres in the northwest portion of Arlington. The area is bound by Interstate 5 to the west, Smokey Point Boulevard/27th Avenue NE to the east, 200th Street to the south, and includes properties abutting State Route 530 to the north. Outline of Island Crossing Subarea Plan Area Subject Site Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 4 of 15 9. Surrounding Land Uses: The Island Crossing Subarea is the northwest boundary of the city limits of Arlington and the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The subarea is surrounding by properties under Snohomish County jurisdiction. 10. Compatibility with the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, County Planning Policies, and Multi-County Planning Policies: City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Section III Subareas and Appendix A The City of Arlington has provided additional information in the Comprehensive Plan with a dedication section for subareas in Section III and a more detailed look at each subarea in Appendix A. Both sections provide information regarding the Island Crossing Subarea. E-1 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. E-1.1 Protect and enhance the natural environment while planning for and accommodating growth. E-1.5 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. E-3 Promote eco-tourism and/or agri-tourism. E-3.2 Encourage local food production, distribution, and choice through the support of community gardens, farmers markets, and other small-scale initiatives. E-6 Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation patterns. E-6.2 Identify and address the impacts of climate change on the region’s hydrological systems. E-7 Remain a Tree City and encourage an increased tree canopy. E-7.3 Enhance urban tree canopy to support ecological function, community resilience, mitigate urban heat, manage stormwater, conserve energy, improve mental and physical health, and strengthen economic prosperity. E-10 Work towards and maintain an aesthetically pleasing environment that enhances livability for residents. E-10.1 Incorporate and preserve street trees in the streetscape where they don’t adversely affect roadway capacity, safety, or structural integrity. LU-1 Provide unique places and context for growth of social capital and community resiliency. LU-1.1 Ensure both publicly- and privately-owned civic spaces are included throughout the City to provide adequate gathering spaces. LU-1.2 developable lands to maintain a balanced mix and arrangement of land uses in the City. LU-1.3 Encourage designs of public buildings and spaces that contribute to a sense of community and a sense of place. LU-1.4 Encourage development patterns that provide safe and welcoming environments for walking and bicycling. LU-3 Address cross-jurisdictional growth, social, and cultural issues by working with affected jurisdictions. LU-3.1 inter-jurisdictional interests. LU-3.5 Recognize and work with contiguous systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries, including natural systems, land use patterns, and transportation and infrastructure systems, in community planning, development, and design. Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 5 of 15 City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies LU-6 social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. LU-6.1 attributes, functions, and amenities of the natural environment in all projected growth LU-6.2 resource lands. LU-6.3 while minimizing the fragmentation of the built environment. ED-1 are available throughout the city. ED-1.1 employment within the city, available at a range of income levels. ED-1.2 and diversify businesses throughout the city, particularly those that provide living-wage jobs. ED-1.3 live and work in Arlington. ED-2 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy. ED-2.1 sufficient employment meeting the 20-year employment targets for Arlington. ED-2.2 for the services the City provides. ED-2.4 economic base and accommodate overall growth. ED-2.5 enhancement of the city’s gateways to attract additional consumer base. ED-2.6 Recognize the contributions and support the growth of Arlington’s and the surrounding area’s culturally and ethnically diverse communities, including the Stillaguamish Tribe, to assist in the continued expansion of the local and regional economic base. ED-2.7 Coordinate economic development plans with the City’s transportation, housing, and land use policies and plans, and the Regional Growth Strategy, to support economic development that is compatible citywide. ED-2.8 ratio. ED-3 development. ED-3.2 transportation, or other needs required to maintain business operations. ED-3.5 development plans, strategies, and decision-making processes. ED-3.6 provide funds for necessary infrastructure improvements. ED-3.7 regional tourism efforts. ED-6 environment. ED-6.1 environmental sustainability, particularly those addressing climate change and resilience. Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 6 of 15 City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies ED-6.2 the area’s natural resources, public services, and facilities. ED-6.5 development activities to meet all applicable environmental protection, land use, and other applicable provisions and standards. ED-7 to adequately serve residents and the region. ED-7.1 Promote the viability of Old-Town Business District, Smokey Point Boulevard, the Cascade Industrial Center, and Island Crossing as regional economic draws, while maintaining and improving upon smaller neighborhood hubs to serve local residents. ED-7.7 subarea of the city. ED-7.8 connections the various commercial centers throughout the city. ED-8 residents. ED-8.2 food products. ED-8.3 with particular focus on agritourism, farm-to-table, and local crafts industry products. P-2 Ensure the equity and availability of potential funding streams and provide transportation improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. P-2.1 pursue acquisition through dedication and purchase. P-2.2 community park within the Smokey Point neighborhood. P-5 amenities, wildlife habitats, forest lands, and scenic areas within the city. P-5.1 climate hazards and impacts. P-5.2 minimize erosion impacts, and complement the natural site features. P-5.5 recreation facilities. T-1 distribution of services, minimize environmental impacts, and maximize value for the community. T-1.1 bridges, or other road crossing on designated critical areas, resource lands, cultural resources, or parks through the implementation of performance standards and design guidelines in accordance with WDFW current Fish Passage, and WSDOT Cultural Resources and Archaeology guidelines. T-2 improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritize programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 7 of 15 City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies T-2.3 a proportionate share of the costs for specific off-site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. T-6 Implement Travel Demand Management and Transit Oriented Design to create a more walkable city. T-6.3 through the permitting process. T-6.5 and mobility for active transportation users. T-7 transportation system, and 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. T-7.6 Retrofit existing roadways to meet or exceed current stormwater requirements where possible. T-7.9 intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies, speed management, access management, channelization improvements and multimodal design features. Use advanced technologies to better manage traffic volumes on major arterials and improve the efficiency and coordination of traffic signals. Aggressively pursue improvements to the state highways through or near Arlington. T-7.10 commercial developments. T-7.14 arising from climate change. T-8 movement of people, goods, and services within the City and between the community and other activity centers in the region. T-8.1 for all residents and visitors to the City, including accessibility improvements to existing facilities as well as improvements to serve growth areas. T-8.2 vehicle trips and distribute vehicle trips along appropriate corridors. T-8.4 include safe and appropriate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users accommodating persons of all ages and abilities. T-8.5 freight that allows freight to support the continued growth in goods movement and the growing needs of global trade and state, regional and local distribution of goods and services. T-10 networks, and reduce the chance of accidents. T-10.4 pedestrian activity to improve safety. T-12 with adjacent and regional jurisdictions and agencies. T-12.1 facilities within and adjacent to the UGA. T-12.2 the State of Washington and Snohomish County to implement those improvements necessary to their respective facilities to maintain the level of service standards adopted by the City. Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 8 of 15 City of Arlington 2024 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies T-13 safety. T-13.2 designing and maintaining the street system in Arlington. Appropriate design standards, including landscape requirements, for the construction of new streets shall be maintained. T-13.3 Consider adopting alternative road standards for built neighborhoods, where necessary, to preserve the character of neighborhoods and provide safe alternative modes of travel. CFU-3 provisions and the concurrency management system provides public facilities through public and private development activities in a manner that is compatible with the fiscal resources of the City. CFU-3.2 Any infrastructure improvements needed to serve a proposed development should be installed prior to the issuance of the related building permit. CFU-3.3 the transportation level-of-service standards for the public facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Book without mitigation. CFU-3.4 following methods as deemed acceptable by the City or as many as are deemed necessary through the permitting process and supporting traffic analysis: dedication of right-of-way, frontage improvements, or traffic mitigation fees. CFU-3.5 Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and parks and recreation facilities. CFU-3.12 that water, shall be borne by the person(s) requesting such service. CFU-6 CFU-6.2 energy needs. CFU-6.3 transportation sector. CFU-6.5 Support permitting processes related to energy efficiency upgrades. CFU-7 Washington as adopted by Arlington, preserving and supplementing, as necessary, the natural drainage ways and other natural hydraulic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development. CFU-7.5 naturally occurring functions simultaneously. CFU-7.7 Enforce stormwater utility regulations. CFU-10 Meet or exceed sewer service standards in providing ongoing services to customers. CFU-10.5 Permit new development in urban areas only when sanitary sewers are available. Snohomish County Planning Policies General Framework Policies: GF-3, GF-4, GF-5, and GF-6 Joint Planning Policies: JP-3 and JP-5 Development Patterns. Goal: The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will provide livable communities for all residents by directing growth into designated urban areas to create urban places that are equitable, walkable, compact, and transit oriented, preserve and create open space, and protect rural and resource lands. Policies: DP-5, DP-12, DP-15, DP-16, DP-33, DP-34, DP-37, DP-40, and DP-41 Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 9 of 15 Snohomish County Planning Policies Economic Development and Employment. Goal: Cities, towns, and Snohomish County government will encourage coordinated, sustainable economic growth by building on the strengths of the county’s economic base and diversifying it through strategic investments in infrastructure, education and training, and sound management of land and natural resources. Policies: ED-2, ED-5, ED-6, ED-8, ED-9, ED-10, ED-12, ED-13, and ED-15 Goal: The County and cities will work proactively with transportation planning agencies and service providers to plan, finance, and implement an efficient, affordable, equitable, inclusive, and safe multi-modal transportation system that supports state-level planning, the Regional Growth Strategy, and local comprehensive plans and promotes economic vitality, environment sustainability, and human health. Policies: TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7, TR-8, and TR-12 The Natural Environment and Climate Change. Goal: Snohomish County and local jurisdictions will act as a steward of the natural environment in an effort to project and restore natural systems and public health and mitigate climate change. This will be achieved through natural resource and habitat conservation, water quality improvement, and air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Planning for the future will include addressing climate change and resilience at local and regional levels of government to protect the natural environment and meet the economic and social needs of all residents. Policies: Env-1, Env-2, Env-4, Env-5, Env-7, and CC-7 Public Service and Facilities. provide adequate and efficient public facilities and services to ensure the health, safety, conservation of resources, and economic vitality of our communities and all residents. Policies: PS-1, PS-2, PS-4, PS-11, PS-15, PS-16, and PS-19 Multi-County Planning Policies (Vision 2050) Regional Collaboration. Goal: The region plans collaboratively for a healthy environment, thriving communities, and opportunities for all. Policies: MPP-RC-1 Goal: The region accommodates growth in urban areas, focused in designated centers and near transit stations, to create healthy, equitable, vibrant communities well-served by infrastructure and services. Rural and resource lands continue to be vital parts of the region that regain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle opportunities over the long term. Policies: MPP-RGS-1, MPP-RGS-2, MPP-RGS-4, MPP-RGS-5, and MPP-RGS-13 Goal: The region cares for the natural environment by protecting and restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, and reducing air pollutants. The health of all residents and the economy is connected to the health of the environment. Planning at all levels considers the impacts of land use, development, and transportation on the ecosystem. Policies: MPP-En-2, MPP-En-5, MPP-En-6, MPP-En-9, MPP-En-11, and MPP-En-18 Goal: The region creates healthy, walkable, compact, and equitable transit-oriented communities that maintain unique character and local culture, while conserving rural areas and creating and preserving open space and natural areas. Policies: MPP-DP-3, MPP-DP-5, MPP-DP-9, MPP-DP-10, MPP-DP-12, MPP-DP-14, MPP-DP-15, MPP-DP-20, MPP-DP-36, MPP-DP-42, MPP-DP-52, MPP-DP-53, and MPP-DP-54 Goal: The region has a prospering and sustainable regional economy by supporting businesses and job creation, investing in all people and their health, sustaining environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities, and high quality of life. Policies: MPP-Ec-1, MPP-Ec-7, MPP-Ec-9, MPP-Ec-13, MPP-Ec-14, and MPP-Ec-18 Goal: The region has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system, with specific emphasis on an integrated regional transit network that supports the Regional Growth Strategy and promotes vitality of the economy, environment, and health. Policies: MPP-T-1, MPP-T-4, MPP-T-8, MPP-T-9, MPP-T-10, MPP-T-11, MPP-T-16, MPP-T-17, MPP-T-21, MPP-T-25, and MPP-T-32 Public Services. timely, coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that supports local and regional growth planning objectives. Policies: MPP-PS-1, MPP-PS-3, MPP-PS-7, MPP-PS-10, MPP-PS-11, and MPP-PS-13 Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 10 of 15 11. Procedural Public Notification: Notice Type Issuance Date Meeting Date Distribution Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 6/20/2025 7/9/2025 Property Owners (within subarea) Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record On-Site, City Website, City Hall & Library Affected Agencies The Herald-published – 6/24/2025 Comment Period: 6/24/2025 – 7/15/2025 Department of Commerce: Subarea Plan and Development Standards 7/18/2025 N/A 60-Day Comment Period from 7/18/2025 to 9/16/2025 Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 7/30/2025 N/A Property Owners (within subarea) Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record On-Site, City Website, City Hall & Library Affected Agencies The Herald-published – 8/1/2025 Comment Period: 8/1/2025 – 9/2/2025 Planning Commission Workshop for Development Standards (Chapter 20.119) 8/26/2025 9/2/2025 Planning Commission Agenda City Website Planning Commission Email Distribution Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing for Development Standards (Chapter 20.119) 8/27/2025 9/16/2025 Property Owner (within subarea) Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record On-Site, City Website, City Hall & Library The Herald-published –8/29/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Planning Commission Email Distribution Notice of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing for Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS 8/27/2025 9/16/2025 Property Owner (within subarea) Property Owners (within 500 ft) Party of Record On-Site, City Website, City Hall & Library The Herald-published –8/29/2025 City Council Workshop for Subarea Plan, Planned Action Ordinance, and Development Standards 10/8/2025 10/13/2025 City Council Agenda City Website & City Hall City Council Email Distribution City Council Meeting and Decision for Subarea Plan, Planned Action Ordinance, and Development Standards 10/15/2025 10/20/2025 City Council Agenda City Website & City Hall City Council Email Distribution Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 11 of 15 12. Public Engagement and Advisory Meetings: The city hosted the open house style public meeting, while MAKERS hosted the Advisory Group, Stakeholder, and Technical Group meetings for the Island Crossing Subarea Plan: • Kick-Off Meeting on March 25, 2024 • Open House May 8, 2024 • Island Crossing Subarea Online Survey from May 12, 2024 to August 1, 2024. • Transportation Technical Group June 5, 2024 • Stakeholder Interviews July 31, 2024 • Advisory Group 1 – Transportation August 12, 2024 • Advisory Group 2 - Land Use September 11, 2024 • Transportation Technical Group November 5, 2024 13. Public Comments: The city received six written comments during the Island Crossing Subarea Plan Notice of Application, Community Neighborhood Meeting, SEPA Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) public comment period and one written comment during the Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public comment period. After reviewing the comments, city staff forwarded the comments to the consultant for their review. The public comments are summarized in Section E. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The city issued a SEPA Determination of Significance on June 20, 2025. The 21-day comment period concluded on July 15, 2025. The city issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on July 30, 2025. The 30-day comment period concluded on September 2, 2025. The public comments are summarized in Section E. D. FINDINGS OF FACT Sections “A” through “D” are incorporated into the Finding of Fact, Applicable Review Criteria, and Process: The Conditional Use Permit request is subject to review for conformity with the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC), including but not limited to the following: Regulation Analysis Meets Chapter 20.16 AMC, Permits and Land Division Approval(a) The city is allowed to exempt certain permit types in accordance with RCW 36.70B.140. The following types of permits are exempt from the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 through *36.70B.090, 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130, and the consolidated permit review procedures. However, other permitting processes are required and shall meet certain sections of Title 20 – Zoning and other titles of the Arlington Municipal Code: (4) Subarea Plans Plan is exempt from the permit review procedures, along with permit timelines. Yes Chapter 20.24 AMC, Hearing and Pre-Hearing Procedures for Appeals and ApplicationsApplications. (a) Before making a decision on an application for a conditional use permit, a hearing shall be held on the matter by the appropriate hearing body. Action EIS are subject to a Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Yes Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 12 of 15 Regulation Analysis Meets Economic Development Director shall give public notice of any hearing required by 20.24.010 or 20.16.230 for special use permits, conditional use permits or variances, or any other required public notices. Hearing on August 27, 2025. The notice was advertised in the Everett Herald, posted on the site, city website, city hall, Arlington library, mailed to all property owners within the subarea, property owners within 500 feet of the subarea, and emailed Party’s of Record on August 29, 2025. The Public Hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2025. Yes Chapter 20.44 AMC, Supplemental Uses Regulations, Part I (a) The Comprehensive Plan designates fourteen subareas that distinguish specific geographical areas and existing neighborhoods within the community. The intent of creating subareas is to develop a subarea plan for each area of the city that contains specific policies and criteria to guide land development, incorporate missing middle housing options, transportation facilities, community facilities, infrastructure and capital improvement decisions that provide for a more coordinated, efficient, and effective structure for predictable neighborhood planning. The subarea plans encompass both newly created subareas and those that work with existing neighborhoods to provide criteria for infill and redevelopment purposes. The City of Arlington has proposed the Island Crossing Subarea Plan in correlation with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. The subarea plan provides a document to guide development in this area, along with an existing conditions report, goals and objectives, natural environment strategies, land use and urban design, transportation, public services and utilities, and implementation. The development standards include zoning designations, permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design, parking, landscaping, flooding and compensatory storage, and design standards. Yes with the exception of two areas designated on the City’s Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map with the Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) Overlay. These two areas are known as East Hill and Lindsay Annexation (portion of Hilltop). The list of subareas is listed below: (10) Island Crossing proposed Island Crossing subarea plan. Yes encompass the entire subarea, however under certain circumstances it may be developed to include only specific neighborhoods, corridors, downtown, or other types of special districts that show cohesive characteristics. The East Hill and Lindsay Annexation subareas shall be developed in their entirety. Plan encompasses the entire area designated as the subarea per the map and description of the subarea as adopted in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan under Section III. Yes based code are proposed to be included to provide the community with a predictable design and development pattern that is customized for the specific area. Plan has included element of form based code with building placement, building design, creation of blocks and street frontage improvements. Yes Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 13 of 15 Regulation Analysis Meets conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A planned action is a development project whose impacts have been identified and addressed through an EIS associated with the subarea plan for the specific geographical area before individual projects are proposed. A planned action involves detailed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with subarea plans, consistent with RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197-11-172. The up front analysis of impacts and mitigation measures then facilitates environmental review of subsequent individual development projects. Plan is being processed concurrently with a Planned Action EIS and Ordinance. The planned action incorporates a Draft EIS (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS) and has been prepared following the requirements of RCW 43.21C.031, WAC 197-11-164 through 197-11-172. The EIS has provided an analysis of all known impacts, mitigation measures, and environmental review for the entire subarea. Yes Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner (following the procedures of §20.24 – Hearing and Pre-Hearing Procedures and Appeals and Applications), with a recommendation to City Council for the final ordinance. Plan is subject to a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The public hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2025. The subarea plan is scheduled at City Council in October of 2025. Yes require the plan to comply with site specific development regulations that the city deems appropriate and approved by the hearing examiner. Plan has included Development Standards to be adopted under AMC Chapter 20.119. Yes recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor Office. Plan will be recorded after the final decision from City Council. Yes civil permits, and building permits are required to be submitted and approved prior to development on any lots. Procedures for these permits are found in the Arlington Municipal Code. Crossing Subarea is required to comply with the recorded Subarea Plan, Planned Action Ordinance and AMC Chapter 20.119. Yes Chapter 20.98 AMC, State Environmental Policy Act required to meet the provision of Part Four – Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) WAC 197-11-400 through 197-11-490. requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, including WAC 197-11-400 to 197-11-490 Yes Information (a) Preparation of draft and final EISs (DEIS and FEIS) is the responsibility of the city staff under the direction of the responsible official. Before the city issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and WAC Chapter 197-11. preparation of the DEIS and FEIS documents with the consultant that is working in coordination with the city to complete the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. The EIS has complied with this chapter and WAC Chapter 197-11 Yes Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 14 of 15 E. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public Comment Date Received Eric Weden provided a comment about receiving contact information for the person who is responsible for planning the future compensatory flood mitigation facility that is mentioned in the plan and would like to know what properties would benefit from this storage facility. Original comments attached as Exhibit #8. 6-24-2025 concerns include, but are not limited to: Current Highway Commercial zoning, no nearby residential or pedestrian infrastructure, area long serviced by the traveling public with uses such as truck stops, gas stations, hotels, quick-serve restaurants, and coffee stands, reshaping Island Crossing into a walkable, mixed-use community is inconsistent with the locations natural role and historical development patterns, deeply concerned with the significant infrastructure improvements and the costly upgrades that would be expected to be funded largely by future landowners and developers, reducing the permitted uses in the area, restriction of freeway-serving uses like truck stops would diminish the areas functionality and value and could divert these essential services to other communities. Original comments attached as Exhibit #9. 7-7-2025 concerns includes the subareas focus on a regional compensatory flood storage facility on the north side of SR 530 but did not adequately evaluate other viable alternative such as Pape proposal site to the south. The subarea plan does not account for all development alternatives and potential economic development benefits that can be achieved from other alternatives. Original comments attached as Exhibit #10. 7-8-2025 plan. A summary of these concerns includes the conceptual plans for further development of Island Crossing, especially regarding increasing flood risks to surrounding properties and further degradation of designated critical habitat for Endangered Species Act listed Stillaguamish Chinook Salmon populations. The subarea plan runs counter to the 2005 Stillaguamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan. Have not seen sufficient hydraulic analysis showing if additional development of this subarea is advisable in the facing of a changing climate with larger and more frequent floods. Original comments attached as Exhibit #11. 7-14-2025 A summary of this includes support for continued development in the Island Crossing area, along with tax dollar generation from commercial businesses to support city services and the school district. She strongly suggests the city revisit the area designated as compensatory storage on her family’s property (parcel #31050800302600) and that compensatory storage can be reassigned to other pieces of land more conducive to this type of land use to allow for the highest and best use of her family’s property. Original comments attached as Exhibit #12. 7-15-2025 state highway will need to comply with WSDOT standards and hydraulics. There are some floodplain concerns, along with compensatory storage, barriers, and the culvert. Original comments attached as Exhibit #13. 7-15-2025 needing an access or road that connects to SR 530 and runs south to the property. Original comments attached as Exhibit #6. 8-3-2025 Island Crossing Subarea Plan – PLN #1366 Page 15 of 15 F. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS City staff have recommended approval of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan, per the Staff Report, analysis in Sections A-D and Exhibits #1 - 16 presented at the Public Hearing. G. EXHIBITS Hearing Exhibits are listed in the Exhibit List #1-16 were distributed to the Hearing Examiner and posted on the city website for public view. Distributed to the Following Parties: • Peregrin Sorter of Laminar Law, Hearing Examiner • Yoshi Kumara of Laminar Law • Paul Ellis, City Administrator • Amy Rusko, CED Director • Jen Haugen, Planning Manager • Thad Newport, Development Services Manager • Rachel Miller, MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design • Queenie Gipaya, MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #3 Attachment F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2025 SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving AMC Chapter 20.119 Island Crossing Subarea Plan Development Standards ATTACHMENTS: Code Amendment Overview, Ordinance & Exhibit, Planning Commission Findings of Fact, and Staff Report DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment establishes a new chapter in the zoning code that provides development standards for the Island Crossing Subarea. The development standards include regulations for zoning designations, permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design standards, parking standards, landscaping standards, flooding and compensatory storage. The design standards include the theme, site planning, vehicular access and parking, pedestrian access, amenities, open space, and building design. HISTORY: The establishment of the new AMC Chapter 20.119 code amendment is directly correlated to the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance. The development standards are required to ensure the predicted built environment of the subarea. The City of Arlington started the Island Crossing Subarea Plan in 2023. A consultant was hired to complete the necessary studies, data review, and documents, along with facilitating public engagement presentations, open houses, stakeholder meetings, and public engagement ensuring comprehensive input. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information I move to approve the ordinance adopting AMC Chapter 20.119 and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance. Page 1 of 2 New Table of Contents Code Sections: Part I: Island Crossing General Standards 20.119.010 Purpose and Intent 20.119.020 General Requirements and Applicability 20.119.030 Zoning Designations 20.119.040 Permissible Uses 20.119.050 Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards 20.119.060 Street Design Standards 20.119.070 Parking Standards 20.119.080 Landscaping Standards 20.119.090 Flooding and Compensatory Storage Part II: Island Crossing Design Standards 20.119.100 Interpretation 20.119.110 Island Crossing Theme: Farm & Agrarian Design Set in Stillaguamish Valley Site Planning 20.119.120 Relationship to Street Front 20.119.130 Building Orientation 20.119.140 Blank Walls Vehicular Access and Parking 20.119.150 Internal Roadways 20.119.160 Vehicular Entrances and Driveways 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design Pedestrian Access, Amenities, and Open Space 20.119.180 Internal Pedestrian Network 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces Building Design 20.119.200 Architectural Style and Character 20.119.210 Building Corners 20.119.220 Building Material AMC Chapter 20.119 – Island Crossing Subarea Plan Development Standards Zoning Code Amendment Overview Summary - Amy Rusko, Director Page 2 of 2 New Language Sections: • This is a new Chapter to Title 20 Zoning Code which provides the development standards to implement the Island Crossing Subarea Plan to ensure the proposed built environment is constructed as planned. Updated Language Sections: • None Removed Language Sections: • None • There were no state laws that forced the city to implement the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. • The Subarea Plan and Planned Action was prepared meeting the following State regulations: o RCW 36.70A.130 o RCW 43.21C.420 o RCW 43.21C.440 o RCW 43.21C.031 o WAC 197-11-164 to 172 Washington State Legislation or Other Requirements ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON ADOPTING CHAPTER 20.119 OF THE ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ISLAND CROSSING SUBAREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER CITY PLANNING NO. PLN 1184 WHEREAS, the city has proposed a new Chapter 20.119 Island Crossing Subarea Plan Development Standards to the City zoning code; and WHEREAS, the Arlington Planning Commission considered the new chapter on September 2, 2025 and at a public hearing conducted on September 16, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made findings and provided its recommendations to the City Council concerning the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same at a workshop held on October 13, 2025, a meeting on October 20, 2025, and considered them along with the Planning Commission recommendations; and the City Council having determined approving said amendment was in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the amendments were presented to the Department of Commerce for comment and said Department had no comments on the ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed amendment to the municipal code and finds it to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.119 shall be adopted as shown in Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance. Section 2. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Effective Date. The title of this ordinance which summarizes the contents shall be published in the official newspaper of the City. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Arlington and APPROVED by the Mayor this ______ day of _____________________, 2025. ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 2 CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________________ Don E. Vanney, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ Oskar E. Rey, City Attorney Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 1 October 2025 Chapter 20.119 ISLAND CROSSING SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sections: Part I: Island Crossing General Standards 20.119.010 Purpose and Intent 20.119.020 General Requirements and Applicability 20.119.030 Zoning Designations 20.119.040 Permissible Uses 20.119.050 Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards 20.119.060 Street Design Standards 20.119.070 Parking Standards 20.119.080 Landscaping Standards 20.119.090 Flooding and Compensatory Storage Part II: Island Crossing Design Standards 20.119.100 Interpretation 20.119.110 Island Crossing Theme: Farm & Agrarian Design Set in Stillaguamish Valley Site Planning 20.119.120 Relationship to Street Front 20.119.130 Building Orientation 20.119.140 Blank Walls Vehicular Access and Parking 20.119.150 Internal Roadways 20.119.160 Vehicular Entrances and Driveways 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design Pedestrian Access, Amenities, and Open Space 20.119.180 Internal Pedestrian Network 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces Building Design 20.119.200 Architectural Style and Character 20.119.210 Building Corners 20.119.220 Building Material Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 2 October 2025 Part I. Island Crossing General Standards 20.119.010 – Purpose and Intent. Island Crossing is an 87-acre area in northwest Arlington, well-connected to the region and the economic centers of Old Town and the Cascade Industrial Center, and a gateway to the Stillaguamish Valley and Snohomish County's agricultural lands. It has the potential to be a celebrated, safe, and unique gateway to Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley and play a vital role in the region's commercial, agritourism, and outdoor recreation economies. The intent of this chapter is to implement the vision for Island Crossing as provided in the adopted Island Crossing Subarea Plan and ensure that redevelopment contributes to the following goals: (a) Support the viability of surrounding agricultural lands by managing the floodplain, allowing for farmstands, and guiding development into an agriculture-oriented business hub. (b) Promote a safe, well-connected, multimodal transportation system. (c) Celebrate the scenic landscape by: (1) Enhancing Island Crossing’s identity as a gateway into Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley. (2) Preserving, enhancing, and/or creating community-valued views of the Stillaguamish Valley, Snohomish County's agricultural lands, and the Cascade Mountains. (d) Leverage Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity through allowances for desired commercial businesses and design standards for a vibrant, human-oriented environment. (e) Enhance the natural environment through floodplain management, green stormwater management (e.g., raingardens, bioretention), and green building and site design. 20.119.020 – General Requirements and Applicability. (a) This chapter establishes specific regulations for development within the Island Crossing Subarea consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. Where a conflict exists between this chapter and other sections of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Title 20 – Zoning, the provisions of this chapter take precedence. For all other topics not specifically addressed herein, the applicable standards of AMC Title 20 shall continue to apply. (b) Part I Island Crossing General Standards apply to the Island Crossing-1 (IC-1), Island Crossing-2 (IC-2), and Island Crossing-3 (IC-3) zones. (See Figure 1 Island Crossing Zoning Map for subdistricts boundaries) (c) Part II Island Crossing Design Standards apply to properties within IC-1 and IC-2 zones. Development within the IC-3 zone is subject to the citywide Development Design Standards. (d) Extension or Enlargement of Nonconforming Situations shall follow the regulations established under AMC Chapter 20.32.030, with the following exception: (1) A gas or fueling station that existed prior to the adoption of these regulations may be fully redeveloped on the same lot (no changes to lot size) if the purpose of the improvements is to construct a new building structure outside of the floodplain. (e) Repair, Maintenance and Reconstruction shall follow the regulations established under AMC Chapter 20.32.040, with the following exception: (1) A gas or fueling station that existed prior to the adoption of these regulations may replace, repair, or reconstruct fuel pumps, islands, and canopies following the original construction design or an updated design with a building permit. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 3 October 2025 20.119.030 – Zoning Designations. Island Crossing includes three subdistricts, IC-1, IC-2, and IC-3, each with unique regulations. These distinctions set a framework for nuanced development that can meet both community goals and regional needs. (a) The Island Crossing-1 (IC-1) zone is established to accommodate highway-oriented commercial activities near the I-5 and SR 530 interchange to cater to commuters, tourists, and commerce and improve the human environment and connectivity along existing and future streets. (b) The Island Crossing-2 (IC-2) zone is established to promote low-intensity commercial activities, including agri-commercial ventures such as farm-to-table restaurants and farm equipment stores. This zone also allows public and semi-public uses. IC-2 is intended to support a well-connected, people-friendly, vibrant community hub that enhances the local economy and recreational opportunities. (c) The Island Crossing-3 (IC-3) zone is established to accommodate general commercial to support the regional economy, such as car and heavy equipment sales/rentals and renewable energy facilities. It is intended to be a flexible zone following the citywide development design standards. (d) Zone boundaries are shown in Figure 1 Island Crossing Zoning Map. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 4 October 2025 Figure 1 Island Crossing Zoning Map Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 5 October 2025 20.119.040 – Permissible Uses. (a) The purpose of this section is to establish the uses generally permitted in each zone which are compatible with the purpose and other uses allowed within the zone. All project and/or developments are required to meet all provisions listed in AMC 20.40.020 - 100. (b) Island Crossing Table of Permissible Uses. Z = Zoning Permit ZSC = Zoning, Special Use or Conditional Use Use Descriptions 1,2 Cultural, Social, or Fraternal Uses Art Galley or Center ZS ZS ZS Museum ZS ZS ZS Social, Fraternal Clubs and Lodges, Union ZS ZS ZS 3 Industry, Manufacturing, Processing, Repairing, Renovating, Assembly of Goods, Brewery, Distillery, Craft Beverage Production with Tasting Room or Restaurant (No Drive-ZS ZS Motor Vehicle-Related Sales and Service Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 6 October 2025 Use Descriptions 1,2 Car Wash ZS ZS Electric Vehicle Infrastructure 4 Painting and Body Work with No Storage of ZS Repair and Maintenance, Not Including Substantial Body Work, and No Storage of ZS Sales with Installation of Motor Vehicle Parts Commercial Greenhouse with On-Premises Sales Z Z Z Insurance / Stockbroker ZS ZS ZS Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 7 October 2025 Use Descriptions 1,2 Fire Stations ZS ZS ZS Military Reserve, National Guard Centers ZS ZS ZS Police Stations ZS ZS ZS Post Office ZS ZS ZS Public Parking Lot or Parking Garage ZS ZS ZS Rescue Squad, Ambulance Service ZS ZS ZS Special Events 5 Outdoor Recreation: Athletic Fields, Tennis Courts, Miniature Golf Courses, Skateboard Indoor Recreation: Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Indoor Tennis and Squash Courts, Billiards and Pool Halls, Indoor Athletic and ZS ZS ZS Hotels, motels, and similar businesses or institutions providing overnight ZSC Carry-Out and Delivery Service; No Drive- Thru Service; Consumption Outside Fully ZS ZS ZS Carry-Out and Delivery Service; Drive-Thru Service; Service or Consumption Outside Fully ZS ZS ZS No Substantial Carry-Out or Delivery Service; No Drive-Thru Service; Service or Consumption Inside or Outside Fully Enclosed ZS ZS ZS Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 8 October 2025 Use Descriptions 1,2 Retail Trade – No Outside Storage of Goods 6 Sales / Rentals Incidental to a Non-Retail 7 ZS ZS ZS Retail Trade – Outside Storage of Goods and Display Allowed 8 4 9 Footnotes of Island Crossing Table of Permissible Uses 1 Subject to Section 20.38.080 – Performance Standards and Miscellaneous Restrictions 2 Subject to Section 20.38.070 – Restrictions on Certain Use Classifications on Arlington Airport Property 3 Subject to Section 20.44 Part II – Land Clearing, Grading, Filling and Excavation and Chapter 20.80 Forest Land Conversion Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 9 October 2025 4 Subject to Section 20.114 – Alternative Energy Systems and Technologies 5 Subject to Chapter 5.44 – Parades, Athletic Events and other Special Events 6 Only allowed within existing residential uses and subject to Section 20.44.082 – Home Occupations 7 Subject to Section 20.40.050 Accessory Uses 8 Subject to Section 20.44.080 – Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Mobile Sales and Delivery 9 Subject to Section 20.44.034 – Wireless Communications Facilities 20.119.050 – Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards. (a) The Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards table addresses the form and intensity of development specific to individual zones. See 20.119.170 (d) Figure 12 for lot diagram examples, illustrating setbacks requirements. (b) AMC Chapter 20.48 provides clarification and exceptions to the density and dimensional standards outlined in 20.119.050 (g). (c) Building Setback Requirements. Locate development in IC-1 and IC-2, \adjacent, as feasible, to the sidewalk(s). Development in IC-3 may be located in the best location on the site for the type of use proposed. (d) Building Height Limitation. Hotels or other similar overnight lodging within IC-2 zone shall be 100 feet tall or less. (e) Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards Table. Zone Minimum Lot Size and Width Building Setback Requirements – Minimum Distance, in feet, from: Non-Arterial Street Right- of-Way1 Line Arterial Street Right- of-Way1 Line Rear Lot Boundary Line Side Lot Boundary Line or Alley ECA Buffer Bu i l d i n g Bu i l d i n g Building Building and Freestanding Sign 02 0-103 5 0-254 5 5 5 15 506 100 IC-2 02 0-103 5 0-254 5 5 5 15 50 100 IC-3 02 05 5 05 5 5 5 15 50 100 Footnotes of Island Crossing Density and Dimensional Standards. 1 As used in this table, “right-of-way” means the street’s ultimate right-of-way according to its classification, not existing, actual right-of-way. 2 A “0” in this column means that there is no minimum parcel size or width required. One can subdivide into as small of lots as one wants, as long as a permissible use can fit on the lot while meeting the rest of the requirements of this code (e.g., parking, landscaping, screening, setbacks, drainage, etc.). 3 Buildings may be set further from right-of-way if providing a pedestrian-oriented space between the sidewalk and the building front. 4 Exception: Buildings may locate further from an arterial when orienting to a non-arterial. 5 A “0” in this column means that there are no minimum or maximum setbacks from the right-of-way line 6 Maximum height limit for hotels or similar overnight lodging is 100 feet. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 10 October 2025 20.119.060 – Street Design Standards. New street regulations are established to enhance Island Crossing inter-site connectivity and support the development envisioned within the subarea. Required new street and through-block connections are to be built by developers as development occurs. (a) New streets are required: (1) To meet the Public Works Design and Construction Standards. (2) To meet all sections of AMC 20.56, unless otherwise adjusted within these standards. (b) Authority to require dedication. If a right-of-way abutting the applicable site has inadequate width, the applicant will dedicate a portion of the subject property for the required right-of-way widening. In some instances, due to road alignment needs, more right-of way may be required from one side of a street than the other. (c) Provide inter-site connectivity per Figure 2 Street Network below. Specific alignments for new or extended street connections and through-block connections will be developed during the development review process for applicable sites Note that Figure 2 Street is different than the Figure 8 block frontages designation map in AMC 20.119.120 Relationship to Street Front. The street type designations and standards regulate the design of the roadway, sidewalks, and planting strips within the right-of-way. Block-frontage designations and standards set forth in in AMC 20.119.120 regulate the development frontages, which includes the building and associated site development that occur within the property boundary. Figure 2 Street Network Note: The dashed lines indicate proposed street or connection conceptual locations. Applicants may propose (d) Maximum block length. New developments on large sites (over 2 acres) are to facilitate good pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Specifically, blocks are to be designed to provide publicly accessible pedestrian and/or vehicular connections at intervals no greater than indicated in AMC 20.119.060(e) by zone. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 11 October 2025 (1) Vehicular connections shall be designed as shown in AMC 20.119.060 (f). (2) Pedestrian or shared connections shall be designed to comply with one of the three types of through- block connections shown in AMC 20.119.060 (g). (e) Maximum Block Face and Perimeter Length Table. Zone IC-1 300 1,200 IC-2 400 1,800 Maximum block dimensions example Each block face A, B, C, and D must meet the maximum block face length standard. The maximum block perimeter is determined by the cumulative block face lengths (A+B+C+D). Before/After Adjustments to the dimensional standards in AMC 20.119.060 (e) are allowed with Director approval for up to 25%, or adjust the type and design of vehicular and/or pedestrian connection provided the design meets the Subarea Plan’s goals and policies. For example, to compensate for larger block sizes, the quality of on- site pedestrian connections should exceed the minimum requirements. The Director may also approve a departure from the dimensional standards in AMC 20.119.060 (e) where topography, right-of-way, uses that require large site/building footprints, existing construction or physical conditions, or other geographic conditions prevent compliance or impose an unusual hardship on the applicant, provided the proposed design maximizes pedestrian and vehicular connectivity on the site given the constraints. (f) Streetscape Classifications. Figure 2 Street Network above illustrates the configuration of three classifications for planned streets in the Subarea. Subsections 1-3 below provide the regulation for each streetscape type. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 12 October 2025 Adjustments to the streetscape classifications regulation in subsections 1-3 below and the street cross sections are allowed with Director approval provided the design meets the Subarea Plan’s goals and policies (1) Arterial Streets. This includes SR 530, a high-traffic corridor that serves as a gateway to the subarea and into Arlington. As redevelopment occurs, it is expected to accommodate a growing number of pedestrians. Internal streets and driveways will be designed and constructed at grade with the elevated SR 530 to ensure vehicular and pedestrian accessibility. Figure 3 below illustrates the concept for SR 530 improvement. Design will be determined by Public Works in consultation with WSDOT to ensure compliance with applicable standards (e.g., flood and stormwater compliance). (Note, though Smokey Point Blvd is an arterial, its design is addressed through the Smokey Point Blvd improvement project outside of these design standards.) Figure 3 Cross-section options for SR 530 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 13 October 2025 (2) High Priority Streets. High Priority Streets are intended to function as the Subarea’s primary commercial center street and are subject to AMC 20.119.150 Internal Roadways. Back-in angled parking, landscape strips, or sidewalk is acceptable in place of parallel parking, subject to approval. Figure 4 below illustrates optional streetscape cross sections. Figure 4 Cross-section options for High Priority Streets Require landscape strips to function as green stormwater infrastructure unless applicant shows stormwater is managed elsewhere more efficiently and with a cohesive site design. See AMC 20.119.120 Relationship to Street Front, (1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths for areas where wider Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 14 October 2025 (3) Other Streets. These streets are designed to be pedestrian-friendly corridors that support commercial and retail uses and are regulated under AMC 20.119.150 Internal Roadways. Figure 5 illustrates a standard cross-section option for Other Streets. Figure 5 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 15 October 2025 (g) Through-block connection types. Figure 2 Street Network above illustrates several “through-block connections” intended to improve pedestrian circulation, provide optional vehicular access to on-site parking, enhance site design, and break up building mass along long blocks. Specific alignments for the through- block connections will be developed during the development review process for applicable sites. These connections may take any of the forms described in the subsections below. A mix of connection types may be used for each location. (1) Woonerf. Woonerf is a shared lane, creating a low-speed, pedestrian-focused environment. (A) 30-foot minimum public access easement. (B) 20-foot wide two-way travel lane featuring asphalt, concrete, unit paving, or other similar decorative and durable surface material. (C) 10-foot minimum landscape areas Figure 6 Cross-section of minimum regulations for a woonerf design through-block connection. (2) Alley. The traditional alley design option is permitted on blocks featuring storefronts. (A) 25-foot minimum public access easement. (B) 20-foot wide two-way travel lane featuring asphalt, concrete, unit paving, or other similar decorative and durable surface material. (C) A total of 5-foot buffer should be provided for separation and clearance. (D) Alleys may be closed to traffic during non-delivery hours to allow for outdoor seating or other flexible uses. Use bollards or street furniture to define shared space and minimize conflicts between users. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 16 October 2025 Figure 7 Cross-section of minimum regulations for alley design through-block connection. (h) Pathways. Pedestrian-only access connecting entries and public streets or parks. These pathways typically include trail or wide sidewalks with landscaping and other pedestrian-friendly features such as lighting and seating. Pathways can overlap with AMC 20.119.120(b)(1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths and AMC 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (A) Include planting strips to improve the pedestrian environment. These may consist of continuous landscaped areas or tree pits integrated into the pavement, designed to accommodate both vegetation and pedestrian flow. 20.119.070 – Parking Standards. Applicants must comply with AMC 20.72 Parking, except minimum parking space shall contain a rectangular area at least 18 feet long and 8 feet wide (modification to 20.72.030 – Parking space dimensions). Also see AMC 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design. 20.119.080 – Landscaping Standards. Applicants must comply with AMC 20.76 Screening and Trees. Street trees along SR 530 are to be planted closer to the sidewalk to preserve views of the Cascade Mountain Range and provide shade for pedestrians. 20.119.090 – Flooding and Compensatory Storage. Applicants must comply with AMC 20.64 Floodplain Development Regulations. Once a regional facility and fee structure are adopted, individual properties may apply to participate in the regional system and be relieved of on- site storage requirements, subject to City approval and fee payment. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 17 October 2025 Part II. Island Crossing Design Standards 20.119.100 – Interpretation (a) Purpose statements are overarching objectives. For example, one of the purpose statements for the sub- section on Building Orientations is “to create pedestrian-friendly frontages that support a safe and active streetscape.” (b) Standards use words such as “must”, “shall”, “is/are required”, or “is/are prohibited” and signify required actions. Provisions that use words such as “should” or “is/are recommended” to signify voluntary measures (c) Departures may be allowed for specific standards. They allow alternative designs provided the Director or City Planner determines the resulting design and overall development meets the “purpose” of the standards and other applicable criteria. Departure opportunities are signaled by the capitalized word DEPARTURE. 20.119.110 – Island Crossing Theme: Farm and Agrarian Design Set in Stillaguamish Valley. The Stillaguamish and Tulalip Tribes have called the Stillaguamish Valley home for millennia. More recently, pioneers began farming in the area in the late 19th century, shaping a strong agricultural identity that remains central to the area today. Farms and agricultural operations remain the primary land use in the Stillaguamish Valley region surrounding Island Crossing. The Island Crossing Design Standards supplement the City of Arlington’s citywide Development Design Standards. These guidelines establish a design framework that reflects the area’s agricultural heritage, leverages transportation improvements, creates more pedestrian-oriented spaces, and encourages people-friendly, human- scaled, and high-quality development. (a) Purpose (1) To reinforce and honor the Island Crossing agricultural heritage. (2) To enhance Island Crossing’s role as a welcoming gateway. (b) Developers are encouraged to draw inspiration from the Stillaguamish Valley’s agricultural history and rural context when designing buildings, public spaces, and streetscapes. The following elements help maintain Island Crossing’s distinct identity: (1) Farm and Agrarian Theme: Designs must honor the region’s setting in the Stillaguamish Valley by incorporating elements inspired by farm structures and landscapes. See AMC 20.119.200 Architectural Style and Character for requirements. (2) Celebration and Preservation of Views: Island Crossing offers expansive views of farmland and the Cascade Mountains, which are integral to the visual identity of the area. Development is encouraged to frame, preserve, and enhance these views. (A) Vantage points: Orient buildings and public spaces to take advantage of views from key sightlines. Consider views from a driver/passenger viewpoint in the street and a pedestrian on a sidewalk or path. Locate and design features such as open space, plazas, and transparent facades that open up sightlines toward the mountains and valley. Key view may be: (1) Views on SR 530 looking eastward close to I-5 (2) New views in larger developments looking northwards towards the agricultural fields (3) Eastwards and northeastward views on the eastern half of the Subarea to agricultural lands and mountains (B) Trees and landscape species selection: Select species for height and canopy shape to preserve, enhance, and frame key views. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 18 October 2025 (c) Trees and landscaping: Use trees and vegetation to soften the visual appearance of paving and building edges and walls, enhance public spaces, frame key views, provide shade, and manage stormwater. (See AMC 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design, 20.119.080 Landscaping Standards, and 20.119.060 Street Design Standards ) Site Planning The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design 2.2 Screening Blank Walls and Retaining Walls, 5.2 Orienting the Building to the Street, 10.1 Articulation and Modulation, 10.2 Architectural Scale, 11.3 Entries, and 14.1 Site and Building Design. 20.119.120 – Relationship to Street Front. (a) Purpose (1) To create an active and safe pedestrian environment by encouraging development to orient towards the street. (2) To ensure new development integrates pedestrian friendly frontages and public spaces that promote street- level activity and walkability (b) Figure 8 Block Frontage Type designates select frontage segments as Pedestrian-Oriented Paths (orange) and Signature Roads (blue) to guide site design and building orientation. These designations enhance the property’s visibility, attractiveness, and interaction with its adjoining streetscape and building, creating an active pedestrian environment in key designated areas. Note the difference between the block frontage type map and proposed street network map. Figure 8 Block Frontage Type shows block frontage designations and regulations apply to development frontages, which includes the building and associated site development that occurs within the property line. Figure 2 Street Network sets standards for streetscape designations and regulations, regulating the design of sidewalks and planting strips within the public right-of-way. (1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths. Select frontages are designated as Pedestrian-Oriented Paths to promote human-scale development with active ground-floor uses such as storefronts or cafes that contribute to a vibrant public realm. These frontages are intended to create the feel of an “outdoor room” that encourages gathering, supports agritourism, and enhances commercial activity. On lots larger than 1 acre prior to any subdivision, new development must designate at least 400 lineal feet of block frontages as Pedestrian-Oriented Paths, with flexibility to designate along SR 530, an internal street, the proposed park, and/or a Pedestrian-Oriented Open Space (see 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces). If the site is adjacent to the proposed park, at least 15 lineal feet of the Pedestrian-Oriented Paths must be located within 68 feet of the park boundary. Cluster Pedestrian-Oriented Path designations together for greater activation and walkability between businesses and public spaces. On properties less than 1 acre, new development must integrate no less than 75% of the length of the applicable Pedestrian-Oriented Paths illustrated in Figure 8. The alignment of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths may be adjusted during the development review process provided the configuration meets the goals and policies of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. For example, if a site includes approximately 100-lineal feet of a Pedestrian-oriented Path-designated block-frontage, the new development must integrate at least 75- lineal feet of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths block-frontage compliant development. Figure 8 illustrates an example of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths designations at key streets to encourage active uses, create a synergy of activity particularly at and near the proposed park, and double-sided retail (i.e., businesses on both sides of a street, open space, or path) for greater concentration of people activity and sense of enclosure. The alignment of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths may be adjusted during the development Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 19 October 2025 review process provided the configuration meets the goals and policies of the Island Crossing Subarea Plan. Developments may exceed the amount of Pedestrian-Oriented Paths block-frontages illustrated in Figure 8. Properties fronting Pedestrian-Oriented Paths are subject to the following specific provisions: (A) Building Design (B) 20.119.130 Building Orientation. (C) 20.119.140 Blank Walls. (D) 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design. (E) 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (F) Sidewalk must include a minimum 6 feet frontage zone (i.e., widened sidewalk for café seating or flexible use to accommodate social gathering and greater volumes of pedestrian traffic), 6 feet pedestrian clear zone (i.e., no signs, street furniture, or mobile device parking to allow for multiple people to pass each other, including people in wheelchairs), and 6 feet landscape/furniture zone. (2) Signature Roads. This designation encourages attractive development edges abutting SR 530, leveraging Island Crossing’s setting and transportation access for economic prosperity and reinforcing a lively gateway to Arlington and the Stillaguamish Valley. Development along Signature Roads can help create welcoming focal points that draw foot traffic and activate the streetscape. Properties fronting Signature Roads must adhere to: (A) Building Design (B) 20.119.140 Blank Walls. (C) 20.119.160 Vehicular Entrances and Driveways. (D) 20.119.170 Parking Layout and Design. (E) 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (F) Farm stands. Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate how temporary farm stands could be safely accommodated along SR 530 and relate to permanent buildings on private property. Figure 8 Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 20 October 2025 Figure 8 Note: The dashed lines indicate proposed streets or connections. Locations are conceptual and applicants may 20.119.130 – Building Orientation. (a) Purpose (1) To create pedestrian-friendly frontages that support a safe and active streetscape. (2) To enhance Island Crossing’s visual identity and perceived scale of buildings through thoughtful design. (b) All new buildings on “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths” must feature pedestrian-friendly façades (see Figure 9), including the following elements: (1) Weather protection at least 6 feet deep on average along at least 60% of the façade. (2) Building façades and primary entries shall be oriented toward the high priority street bordering the lot. For corner buildings, primary entrances for ground-level uses may face either street or street corner. (3) Transparent window area along at least 60% of the ground floor façade between 30 inches and 10 feet above the sidewalk level. DEPARTURE: Instead of windows, agritourism and light industrial uses may provide garage doors, open air stalls, or other feature(s) that allow for safe visual and/or auditory experience of interior operations (provided the use meets noise requirements in AMC 20.44.210). Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 21 October 2025 Figure 9 Pedestrian-oriented façade requirements. (c) Building Modulations. All buildings located on “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths” or “Signature Roads” with facades longer than 100 feet measured horizontally along the street front must include at least three of the following features to break up the massing of the building and add visual interest at intervals of no more than 40 feet: (1) Providing building modulation of at least 12 inches in depth if tied to a change in roofline or a chance in building material, siding style, and/or color. (2) Repeating distinctive window patterns at intervals less than the articulation interval. (3) Providing a covered entry or separate weather protection feature for each articulation interval. (4) Change of roofline, including a change in the height of a cornice by at least two feet or integration of a pitched roof form that is at least 20 feet wide with a minimum slope of 5:12. (5) Changing materials or siding style. (6) Providing lighting fixtures, trellis, tree, or other landscape feature within each interval. (7) Alternative methods that meet the purpose of the standards. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 22 October 2025 20.119.140 – Blank Walls. (a) Purpose (1) To reduce the impacts of blank walls located adjacent to the street or public space. (2) To support a more inviting pedestrian environment and contributes to a vibrant public realm. (b) “Blank wall” means a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over 10 feet in height and a horizontal length greater than 15 feet and does not include a transparent window or door. Figure 10 Blank wall requirements (c) Untreated blank walls adjacent to a public street, new internal street (public or private), publicly accessible outdoor space, common outdoor space, or pedestrian pathway are prohibited. Methods to treat blank walls can include: (1) Display windows at least 16 inches of depth to allow for changeable displays. Tack-on display cases (see Figure 11 below) do not qualify as a blank wall treatment. (2) Landscape planting bed at least 5 feet deep or a raised planter bed at least 2 feet high and 3 feet deep in front of the wall with planting materials that are sufficient to obscure or screen at least 60% of the wall’s surface within 3 years. (3) Installing a vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plant materials. (4) Installing a mural as approved by the Director. Commercial advertisements are not permitted on such murals. (5) Special building detailing that adds visual interest at a pedestrian scale. Such detailing must use a variety of surfaces; monotonous designs will not meet the purpose of the regulations. For large visible blank walls, a variety of treatments shall be required to meet the purpose of the regulations. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 23 October 2025 Figure 11 Blank wall treatment examples. Buildings A-C feature acceptable treatments including a combination of high quality materials and landscaping (A), landscaping and trellis (B), decorative lighting/sculptural element (C), and decorative artwork. The display cases in Vehicular Access and Parking The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design Standards 2.4 Screening Parking Lots, 2.6 Parking Garage and Driveways, 3.2 Parking Lots, and 7.2 Siting Parking Areas. 20.119.150 – Internal Roadways. (a) Purpose (1) To support a connected, convenient street and path network that enhances access, reduces traffic conflicts, and encourages walkable developments. (b) All newly created, widened, or improved streets must be constructed in accordance with the street standards set forth in AMC 20.119.060 Street Design Standards. (c) If on-street parking is provided and stormwater is treated elsewhere, then the planting strip may be in the form of tree pits within the pavement and accommodate adequate root barrier based on the City of Arlington Tree List. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 24 October 2025 (d) Sidewalks must meet requirements in AMC 20.119.060 Street Design Standards and AMC 20.119.120 (b)(1) Pedestrian-Oriented Paths to accommodate expected pedestrian volumes. (e) Include traffic calming measures such as small traffic circles, raised crosswalks and curb extensions (sidewalk bulbs), chicanes, curves, or shared people/vehicular/bicycle streets (i.e., woonerfs) at least every 300 feet to reduce vehicle speed and increase safety. (f) Provide the opportunities for future connections to adjacent parcels by providing road stub-outs, easements, or other methods to ensure convenient vehicular network. (g) The Director may require modification of proposed vehicle access points and internal circulation to minimize traffic conflicts. 20.119.160 – Vehicular Entrances and Driveways. (a) Purpose (1) To minimize negative impacts of vehicular access on the streetscape and pedestrian environment (b) Properties adjacent to Signature Roads are encouraged, where feasible, to locate driveways where they can be shared with adjacent properties in accordance with SR 530 improvements and/or internal streets. 20.119.170 – Parking Layout and Design. (a) Purpose (1) To minimize negative impacts of parking lots on the streetscape and pedestrian environment. (2) To promote shared parking between compatible uses. (b) Development must comply with parking and general design requirements set forth in AMC Chapter 20.72 Parking. (c) Where unavoidable, any parking lots located adjacent to a street is limited to 50% of the street front or 65 feet, whichever is narrower, except when necessary to allow the building to orient toward a Pedestrian- oriented Path or high priority street or path. (d) On Signature Roads (SR 530), surface parking areas shall be screened from street level views per Citywide Design Standards 2.4 Screening Parking Lots. (e) Provide landscaping within parking lots per Citywide Design Standards 3.2 Parking Lots. (f) Provide pedestrian pathways through parking lots connecting businesses on the same development site per AMC 20.119.180 Internal Pedestrian Network. (g) Bicycle Parking. The minimum number of short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces required is outlined in subsection 20.119.170 (g)(6). When bicycle parking ratios are expressed as a number of spaces per square feet, they shall be calculated using net floor area. The resulting number of required off-street bicycle parking spaces must be rounded to the nearest whole number. If the calculation results in less than one space, at least one bicycle parking space is required. DEPARTURE: The Director may reduce bicycle parking facilities required in 20.119.170 (g)(6) when it is demonstrated that bicycle activity will not occur at that location. (1) Short-term bicycle parking spaces consist of outdoor bike racks. Designs should allow either a bicycle frame or wheels to be locked to a structure attached to the pavement or building. Short term bicycle parking spaces may be located in the following areas: (A) Indoors or outdoors on the development site. (B) On a public sidewalk or street outside the development, within 100 ft of the building entrance. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 25 October 2025 (2) Short-term bicycle spaces on a public sidewalk or street serving multiple businesses or properties may be consolidated on a public sidewalk or street, where practical. (3) Long-term bicycle parking spaces include the following types: (A) Racks in an indoor, lockable bike room (B) Racks in a covered, lockable bike enclosure (C) Bike lockers (4) Indoor long-term bicycle storage must be located on the ground-floor or on a floor with elevator access (5) All bicycle parking and storage shall be located in safe, visible areas that do not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic flow, and shall be well lit for nighttime use. (6) Bicycle Parking Spaces Required Use Minimum Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces Minimum Long-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces general service, and personal service 0.25 per 1,000 square feet 0 Industrial/artisan 0.10 per 1,000 square feet 0 Overnight lodging 0.5 per 10 guest rooms 0.3 per 10 guest rooms (h) For development facing a Pedestrian-Oriented Path, parking must be located to the side or rear of buildings. Along other streets, parking location is more flexible, provided it complies with the requirements of this section. Figure 12 Lot Layout and Acceptable Parking Locations Examples illustrates required setbacks (see AMC 20.119.050 (e)) and acceptable parking locations. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 26 October 2025 Figure 12 CORNER LOTS Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 27 October 2025 Figure 12 OTHER LOCATIONS Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 28 October 2025 (i) Site located on intersections. Avoid locating parking lots adjacent to intersections except when necessary to allow the building to orient toward a Pedestrian-Oriented Path or higher priority street or path. Install substantial landscaping (at least 400 square feet of area adjacent to the street corner) utilizing a combination of decorative ground cover, shrubs, and/or trees. Install a trellis or other similar architectural element that incorporates landscaping or public art. Designs that reference the agrarian, river, Stillaguamish Tribe, or other Stillaguamish Valley context or history are encouraged. (j) All sites, where applicable: Applicants of multiple building commercial developments shall demonstrate how they’ve organized parking in a manner that provides for shared parking between uses on the site. Figure 13 Illustrating desirable vehicular access and parking lot configuration for a large retail site Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 29 October 2025 Pedestrian Access, Amenities, and Open Space The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design 5.1 Creating Streetscape Continuity, 5.3 Compatibility within Emerging Centers, and 14.1 Site and Building Design. 20.119.180 – Internal Pedestrian Network. (a) Purpose (1) To improve pedestrian environment by making it easier and comfortable to walk throughout Island Crossing. (2) To promote connectivity between uses and properties where desirable. (3) To enhance quality of new developments. (b) Developments should include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open spaces, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk network. (c) Sites with multiple buildings. Provide pedestrian paths or walkways that connect all commercial building entries on the same development site. Routes shall minimize walking distances to the extent practical. (d) New developments must provide direct pedestrian access to adjacent properties unless the Director determines it is undesirable or infeasible due to a safety (e.g., industrial operations) or physical (e.g., topography) constraint. (e) New developments shall provide for the opportunity for future pedestrian connections to adjacent properties through the use of pathway stub-outs, building configuration, and parking area layout. Remodels of existing facilities are encouraged to provide these opportunities, where feasible. (f) Pedestrian pathways through parking lots. Include a 5-foot paved walkway or sidewalk to provide safe pedestrian access through parking lots greater than 150 feet long (measured either parallel or perpendicular to the street front). Install pathways for every three parking aisles or at least every 200 feet (whichever is more restrictive). Use contrasting paving materials to visually and physically separate pedestrian routes from parking spaces and vehicle travel lanes. (1) All sites, where applicable: Crosswalks are required when a walkway crosses a paved area accessible to vehicles. (2) All sites, where applicable: Applicants shall continue the sidewalk pattern and material across driveways. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 30 October 2025 Figure 14 Example site plan with internal and external pedestrian connections. 20.119.190 – Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces. (d) Purpose (1) To provide a variety of pedestrian-oriented areas to attract shoppers to commercial areas and enrich the pedestrian environment. (2) To create gathering space for the community (3) To create inviting space that encourage pedestrian activity. (e) New development on “Signature Roads” and “Pedestrian-oriented Paths” with a total site area greater than 1 acre must provide “pedestrian-oriented open space” equal to at least 1% of the ground floor building footprint plus 1% of the site area. The open space may be in the form of plaza, outdoor eating, display, play area or other open space feature that serves both as a visual amenity and a place for human activity. Portions of sidewalks that are wider than required under 20.20.119.060 Street Design Standards may be counted toward this requirement. In addition, if the development relates to and activates an adjacent public park, the area of activation counts toward this open space requirement. (b) Definition and requirements of pedestrian-oriented open spaces. (1) To qualify as a pedestrian-oriented space, an area is required to include the following: (A) Pedestrian access (including ADA compliant access) to the abutting structures from the street, Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 31 October 2025 private drive, or a non-vehicular courtyard. (B) Pedestrian-scaled lighting (no more than 14 feet in height) at a level averaging at least 2 foot candles throughout the space. Lighting may be on-site or building-mounted lighting. (C) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. (D) Position such spaces in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security – such as adjacent to a building entry. (E) Landscaping components that add seasonal interest to the space, such as planting beds and potted plants. (2) Three or more of the following elements are required in a pedestrian-oriented open space: (A) Pedestrian amenities such as a water feature, drinking fountain, and/or distinctive paving or artwork. (B) Decorative elements such as windmills, weather vanes, water towers, or other similar details associated with historic regional agricultural structures. (C) Provide pedestrian-oriented building facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (D) Consideration of views, sun angle at noon, and wind patterns in the design of the space. (E) Transitional zones along building edges to allow for outdoor eating areas and a planted buffer. (F) Movable seating. (3) The following features are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented open space: (A) Asphalt or gravel pavement. (B) Adjacent unscreened parking lots. (C) Adjacent chain link fences. (D) Adjacent blank walls. (E) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas. (c) Building corners present valuable opportunities for pedestrian-oriented open spaces due to their high visibility and accessibility from multiple streets. These locations naturally draw foot traffic, making them ideal for active public areas such as plazas, seating nodes, or landscaped gathering spaces. Refer to AMC 20.119.210 Building Corners for specific architectural corner treatments. (d) Allow for small temporary structures, stands, and food trucks, especially on corners, for small businesses such as flower shops and produce stands to create a more active street. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 32 October 2025 Figure 15 Example of Pedestrian-Oriented Space Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 33 October 2025 Building Design The following standards supplement the citywide Development Design 5.1 Creating Streetscape Compatibility, 5.2 Orienting the Building to the Street, 11.1 Human Scale, 11.3 Entries, 12.1 Appropriate Materials, and 14.1 Site and Building Design. 20.119.200 – Architectural Style and Character. (a) Purpose (1) To promote the integration of design forms, themes, and/or details associated with historic regional agricultural heritage. (2) To reinforce Island Crossing gateway character through visually distinctive design. (b) Integrate regional farm and agrarian-inspired design themes and/or elements into the façades of all new buildings and major remodels facing “Signature Roads” and “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths”. At least three of the following elements must be incorporated in the design: (1) Barn-like roof form including gambrel or simple gable roof featuring overhanging eaves (minimum of 24 inches for non-residential buildings), decorative braces, and brackets. (2) Horizontal siding, board and batten, metal siding (excluding flat metal panels), brick, masonry, wood, or combination. This includes exposed wood structure components. (3) Symmetrical window fenestration pattern with vertical (min 2:1) or square window shape. (4) Other enhancements (each item integrated counts as one “element”): Decorative shutters, proportional dormers, exposed rafter tails, geometric patterns, windmills, cupola, weather vanes, water towers, or other similar details associated with historic regional agricultural structures. DEPARTURE. The integration of only two elements will be considered provided the design composition meets the purpose of the standards and is approved by Director. (c) Commercial developments with multiple buildings must employ a variety of colors, building materials, and architectural treatments to reduce monotony and reinforce the City’s sense of scale and independent rural character. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 34 October 2025 Figure 16 Examples of building form and materials that reference regional agricultural structures Upper left (Hickory Circle)= Gabled roof, metal siding, shed awning, gooseneck lamps, neutral color scheme with contrasting trim, reflects historic agricultural style. Upper right (Woodinville Whiskey Co.) = Bright contrasting trim, varying materials, creative use of windows, awning. Bottom (Art in Motion, MN) = Cupolas, 20.119.210 – Building Corners. Building corners, located at street intersections particularly along Signature Road, are highly visible and naturally attract foot traffic. Thoughtful design of building corners can create public focal points for gathering on non-arterials and temporary or seasonal commercial activities such as food stands and produce stands (primarily along SR 530) that enhance the Island Crossing farm and agrarian theme. Pairing these locations with AMC 20.119.190 Pedestrian-Oriented Open Spaces standards enhances their role as active, welcoming spaces that contribute to a vibrant public realm. (a) Purpose (1) To enhance the pedestrian environment (2) To encourage creativity in the design of building facades to add visual interest. (b) All new buildings located at intersections in “Signature Roads” and “Pedestrian-Oriented Paths” shall employ three or more of the following design elements or treatments to architecturally accentuate building corners facing the intersection: (1) A corner entrance to courtyard, building lobby, atrium, or pedestrian pathway. (2) A significant corner bay window or turret. Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 35 October 2025 (3) Roof deck or balconies on upper stories. (4) Building core setback "notch" or curved façade surfaces. (5) Sculpture or artwork, either bas-relief, figurative, or distinctive use of materials as part of the building. (6) Change of materials. (7) Corner windows. (8) Special lighting. (9) Significant feature such as a windmill and water towers. (10) Special treatment of the pedestrian weather protection canopy at the corner of the building. (11) Other similar treatment or element approved by the Director. Figure 17 Example of building corner treatment Top Left (St. Honore Bakery, Lake Oswego, OR)= Timber framed gable, upper deck balconies, and stone materials, reflect agricultural style. Top Right (University Book Store, Mill Creek, WA) = Bright contrasting trim, varying materials, and wooden awning showcase a modern interpreation of agricultural style. Bottom = Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.119: Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards City of Arlington 20.119 - 36 October 2025 20.119.220 – Building Material. (a) Purpose (1) To encourage high quality building materials that enhance the character and identity of Island Crossing (2) To discourage materials and design treatments that create a false sense of historicism in new development. (b) Applicants should use high quality durable materials. This is most important for the base of buildings, particularly for commercial buildings where the façade is sited close to sidewalks. Stone, brick, or tile masonry, architectural concrete, or other similar highly durable materials are expected to be used for at least the bottom 2 feet of the first-floor façade (excluding window and door areas). (c) All buildings: Treatment of building materials that creates a false sense of historicism in new buildings is strongly discouraged. For example, buildings following the farm and agrarian architectural theme (see AMC 20.119.200 Architectural Style and Character) may be inspired by farm architecture, but should not design a barn replica used for a non-agricultural purpose. City of Arlington Community & Economic Development 18204 59th Avenue NE - Arlington, WA, 98223 - 360-403-3551 – www.arlingtonwa.gov FINDING OF FACTS Gayle Roeber, Vice-Chair FINDING OF FACTS 360.403.3551 Regarding: PLN #1184 2024 AMC CHAPTER 20.119, Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards. Zoning Code Amendment • This is a city-initiated zoning code amendment that creates a new chapter to Title 20. This new chapter is in correlation with the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action Environment Impact Statement. Summary: 2024 AMC Chapter 20.119, Zoning Code Amendment establishes a new chapter that provides development standards and design standards for the Island Crossing Subarea. The development standards include: • regulations for zoning designations • permissible uses • density and dimensional standards • street design standards • parking standards • landscape standards • flooding and compensatory storage The design standards include: • the theme • site planning • vehicular access and parking • pedestrian access • amenities • open space • building design The Planning Commission therefore transmits the following findings and recommendations to City Council: Findings: 1. SEPA Compliance: Notice of Draft Environment Impact Statement, (DEIS) in correlation with the Subarea Plan was issued on August 1, 2025. Distribution and Public Notices were posted: on the City Public Notice Website, at City Hall, and the Arlington Library. Emails were sent to Review Agencies and Party’s of Record. Mailed to property owners within 500ft. The Herald published a notice on August 1, 2025. The comment period was August 1, 2025 to September 2, 2025. A comment was received from Ron Henken on August 3, 2025. City staff forwarded Mr. Henken’s comments to the subarea consultant, which is the process for comments received during the DEIS public comment period. 2. Public Notification/Involvement: Planning Commission Public Meeting Presentations: a workshop on September 2, 2025, and a public hearing on September 16, 2025. Distribution and Public Notices were posted on the Planning Commission Agenda Online and emails were distributed to those on the Planning - 2 - Commission Email Distribution List. 3. Washington State Department of Commerce (RCW 36.70A.106). 60-day review notice was sent on July 18, 2025. The deadline for the 60-day review was September 16, 2025. 4. Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on September 16, 2025. Public Notices were done via the City Public Notice Website, at City Hall and at the Arlington Library. Notices were also posted on the Planning Commission Agenda Online and emails sent to those on the Planning Commission Email Distribution List. Emails were sent to Party’s of Record and mailings were done to those property owners within 500ft. The Herald published a notice on July 22, 2025. Written comments were received from: • Rebecca Skelton Goodell on September 15, 2025 • Rebecca Skelton Goodell, Stuart Skelton & Craig Skelton on September 15, 2025 • David Toyer on September 16, 2025 A public comment was presented by Rebecca Skelton Goodell at the September 16, 2025, public hearing. 5. City Council Public Meeting Presentations will be done via a Workshop on October 13, 2025 and a Meeting on October 20, 2025. Distribution and Public Notice will be posted on the City Council Agenda Online and emails will be sent to those on the City Council Email Distribution List. 6. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: These amendments comply with the following City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals: E-1, E-1.1, E-1.2, E-1.5, E-1.6, E-2, E-2.4, E-3, E-3.2, E-5 through E-11, E-5.13, E-5.16, E-5.18, E-5.19, E-21, E-23, E-6, E-6.1, E-6.2, LU-1 through LU-1.4, LU-6 through LU-6.5, LU-10 LU-10.1, LU-10.2, ED-1, ED-1.2, ED-1.3, ED-1.8, ED-2, ED-2.1, ED-2.2, ED-2.4, ED-2.5, ED-2.9, ED-7,ED-7.1, ED-7.3, ED-7.5, ED-7.8, ED-8 through ED-8.3, T-1, T-1.1, T-2, T-2.3, T-7, T-7.2, T-7.6,T-7.13, T-7-14, T-8, T-8.1, T-8.2, T-8.4, T-8.5, T-9, T-9.1, T-10, T-10.3, T-10.4, T-11, T-11.1, T-12, T-12.1, T-12.2, T-12.3, T-13, T-13.2, PS-5, PS-5.4, PS-5.5, PS-5.6, PS-8, PS-8.6, PS-8.8, CFU-3 through CFU-3.7, CFU-3.12, CFU-7, CFU-7.3, CFU-7.4, CFU-7.5, CFU-7.7, CFU-10, CFU-10.5, CFU-11, CFU-11.2 7. Compliance with AMC Chapter 20.96, Amendments. Amendment complies with: 20.96.010(a), 20.96.100(a), 20.96.110, 20.96.120(a)(c), 20.96.130, 20.96.140(1)(2). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing findings: two “yes” votes, one “no” vote and one “abstain,” the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the proposed zoning code amendment to AMC Chapter 20.119, Island Crossing Subarea Plan Development Standard, PLN #1184. Attachments: Explanations for both ‘no’ and ‘abstention’ vote. Respectfully submitted through the Department of Community and Economic Development to the City Council This_24th Day of September 2025 Gayle Roeber __________________________________ Gayle Roeber Arlington City Planning Commission Vice-Chair Attachments(2) City of Arlington Community & Economic Development 18204 59th Avenue NE - Arlington, WA, 98223 - 360-403-3551 – www.arlingtonwa.gov FINDING OF FACTS From: Gayle Roeber Vice-Chair Arlington Planning Commission Subj: Reasons for ‘abstain’ vote during September 16, 2025 Public Hearing Ref: AMC Chapter 20.119 The reason for my ‘abstain’ vote was a sense of lack of information and/or understanding on my behalf, brought about by a last-minute receipt of an email sent by Mr. Toyer. I felt that I had missed something in my reading and understanding of AMC Chapter 20.119. Two points that stood out to me: (1) The phrase “thus, my presumption..” While I am still new to understanding policy and code, when someone uses a word like “presumption,” questions immediately come to mind: -What did I miss while reading this code, that this person caught? -Did I presume/assume something, as well? -Why does anyone have to ‘presume’ when reading our codes? -Shouldn’t our codes be blatantly clear? -If we have left some part of a code open to interpretation, does that not leave it open for future challenges (based on whoever is doing the interpretation? I could not in good conscience answer these questions, based on my reading and understanding of the code. If I, or Mr. Toyer or any citizen or developer read this code, how would they presume/assume its intent? I felt I needed time to re- read and digest the code with more specificity in mind. I felt this code should be easily read and clearly understood by anyone wanting to read it. (2) Mr. Toyer’s request for clarification of “No Storage of Vehicles.” I thought that was a valid concern. I knew the verbiage came from the 20.40 Land Use Tables-Commercial (category). I knew 20.08 provided definitions for Storage, but I could not remember the definitions for storage of vehicles, at that moment. Was his concern justified? Was this phrase “No Storage of Vehicles” left to interpretation as well? Amy did provide the commissioners with answers to Mr. Toyer’s email. However, my thought was, maybe we have something in 20.40 or 20.08 that should have been better defined so its meaning was not dependent on interpretation or intent. Can we make the verbiage in 20.119 clearer if we are using verbiage that might be unclear in 20.40? How would we phrase that verbiage? Had we received Mr. Toyer’s email at least a day in advance I would have researched our codes (20.40.130 and 20.08) and put together a list of my own questions and concerns to be asked at our meeting. Unfortunately, timing did not allow that. As in the past, had I had an opportunity to formulate my list of questions and ask my questions of Amy, she would have educated me and address all my questions/concerns, prior to a vote. I felt I was needing more information, more conversation, to vote either yes or no. I believed my vote to abstain, was my best choice. Gayle Roeber Vice-Chair Arlington Planning Commission Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 1 of 10 Community and Economic Development Planning Division th CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION To: City Council From: Amy Rusko, Director Meeting Date: October 13, 2025 Date Prepared: October 7, 2025 Regarding: 2024 AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 A. INTRODUCTION The AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendments is a City-initiated amendment to the Arlington Municipal code that creates a new chapter to Title 20 for the Island Crossing Subarea Development Standards in correlation with the Island Crossing Subarea Plan and Planned Action Environment Impact Statement (EIS). Included with this staff report is the proposed code chapter (Attachment A). GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Arlington Project Description: 2024 AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment Requested Action: City Council Approval B. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION The 2024 AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment establishes a new chapter in the zoning code that provides development standards for the Island Crossing Subarea. The development standards include regulations for zoning designations, permissible uses, density and dimensional standards, street design standards, parking standards, landscaping standards, flooding and compensatory storage. The design standards include the theme, site planning, vehicular access and parking, pedestrian access, amenities, open space, and building design. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 2 of 10 C. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: Type of Determination Issued Date Distribution and Public Notice Notice of Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) in correlation with the Subarea Plan 8/1/2025 City Public Notice Website Emailed to Review Agencies and Party’s of Record Mailed to 500’ Property Owners Posted at City Hall and Arlington Library The Herald Published Date – 8/1/2025 Comment Period – 8/1/2025 to 9/2/2025 Public comments received during the Notice of DEIS public comment period. Comment Summary City Response Ron Henken submitted comments addressing the overall subarea plan documents. He stated that he has previously pointed out in public meetings that his parcel (31050800302700) needs to have an access or road delineated that connects at SR530 and runs south to the property. 8/3/2025 City staff forwarded these comments to the subarea consultant, as this is the process for comments received during the DEIS public comment period. 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT: Public Notice and Meeting Type Meeting Date(s) Distribution and Public Notice Planning Commission Public Meeting Presentations Workshop: 9/2/2025 Meeting: 9/16/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List Washington State Department of Commerce (RCW 36.70A.106) N/A Date Sent for 60-Day Review – 7/18/2025 Deadline for 60-Day Review – 9/16/2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing 9/16/2025 City Public Notice Website Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List Emailed to Party’s of Record Mailed to 500’ Property Owners Posted at City Hall and Arlington Library The Herald Published Date – 7/22/2025 City Council Public Meeting Presentations Workshop: 10/13/2025 Meeting: 10/20/2025 City Council Agenda Online City Council Email Distribution List Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 3 of 10 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary E-1 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. E-1.1 Protect and enhance the natural environment while planning for and accommodating growth. E-1.2 Protect critical areas and other sensitive resources, such as archaeological and historical sites, as defined in the City’s critical areas regulations using best available science and give special consideration to anadromous fisheries. E-1.5 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. E-1.6 Protect, enhance, restore ecosystems in order to meet tribal treaty rights and conserve culturally important consumptive and non-consumptive resources including foods, medicinal plants, and materials that could be adversely impacted by climate change. E-2 Promote environmental justice by not creating or worsening environmental health disparities and ensuring equal access to environmental resources. E-2.4 Increase resilience by identifying and addressing the impacts of climate change and natural hazards on water, land, infrastructure, health, and the economy. Prioritize actions to protect the most vulnerable of populations. E-3 Promote eco-tourism and/or Agri-tourism. E-3.2 Encourage local food production, distribution, and choice through the support of community gardens, farmers markets, and other small-scale initiatives. E-5 Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration. E-5.1 Designate and protect fish and wildlife habitat corridors and restrict the fragmentation of large natural plant communities that provide essential and significant wildlife habitat. E-5.2 Maintain and, where possible, improve air and water quality, soils, and natural systems to reduce impacts of climate change and ensure the health and well-being of people, animals, and plants. E-5.3 Manage open space lands comprised of critical areas 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. E-5.4 Preserve existing and native vegetation as much as possible to support wildlife systems, increase groundwater infiltration, and prevent stormwater runoff. E-5.5 Protect salmonid streams, drainage ways, wetlands, and their buffers 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. E-5.6 Obtain stream corridor dedications where reasonable. E-5.7 Coordinate regionwide environmental strategies with adjacent jurisdictions, tribes, and the County. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 4 of 10 Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary E-5.8 Use integrated and interdisciplinary approaches for environmental planning and assessment. E-5.9 Use the best information available at all levels of planning, especially scientific information, when establishing and implementing environmental standards. E-5.10 Support and incentivize environmental stewardship on private and public lands to protect and enhance habitat, water quality, and other ecosystem services, including protection of watersheds, groundwater quantity, and wellhead areas that are sources of the region’s drinking water supplies. E-5.11 Support the Regional Open Space Conservation Plan by working with adjacent jurisdictions to identify, preserve, and enhance significant open space networks and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries. E-5.13 Reduce stormwater impacts from transportation and development through watershed planning, redevelopment and retrofit projects, and low impact development. E-5.16 Protect and restore wetlands and corridors between wetland to provide biological and hydrological connectivity that fosters resilience to climate impacts. E-5.18 Protect and restore watershed-scale processes to maximize the ecological benefits and climate resilience of riparian ecosystems. E-5.19 Restore the structure, function, and water quality of streams, floodplains, and other local ecosystems to increase habitat climate resilience for cold water fish and recover the health of Puget Sound. E-21 Ensure no net loss of ecosystem composition, structure, and functions, especially in Priority Habitats and Critical Areas, and strive for net ecological gain to enhance climate resilience. E-23 Support natural resource management plans that address existing stressors, consider climate change impacts, emphasize taking a precautionary approach to reduce risk of environmental harm, and guide adaptive management. E-6 Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation patterns. E-6.1 Promote soil stability and the use of the natural drainage systems by retaining existing native vegetation in critical areas. E-6.2 Identify and address the impacts of climate change on the region’s hydrological systems. LU-1 Provide unique places and context for the growth of social capital and community resiliency. LU-1.1 Ensure both publicly- and privately-owned civic spaces are included throughout the City to provide adequate gathering spaces. LU-1.2 Establish development standards and regulations based on the availability and serviceability of developable lands to maintain a balanced mix and arrangement of land uses in the City. LU-1.3 Encourage designs of public buildings and spaces that contribute to a sense of community and a sense of place. LU-1.4 Encourage development patterns that provide safe and welcoming environments for walking and bicycling. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 5 of 10 Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary LU-6 Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to climate change impacts, including social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate change impacts consistent with environmental justice. LU-6.1 Amend and adopt land development regulations as needed to adequately protect the attributes, functions, and amenities of the natural environment in all projected growth scenarios for the city. LU-6.2 Ensure land development patterns minimize or prevent impacts on natural open spaces and resource lands. LU-6.3 Development patterns shall be responsive to critical areas and other environmental factors, while minimizing the fragmentation of the built environment. LU-6.4 Encourage the use of existing and new tools and strategies to address vested development rights in a way that ensures future growth meets existing permitting and development standards. LU-6.5 Establish best management practices that protect the long-term integrity of the natural environment and adjacent land uses. LU-10 Future growth in the City will be accommodated and served consistent with the PSRC Regional Growth Strategy. LU-10.1 Regularly assess the land with the City’s limits to ensure there is sufficient space to accommodate projected 20-year population and employment forecasts. LU-10.2 Adopt and maintain development regulations that ensure growth is consistent with State and County laws; and ensure growth monitoring is based on Snohomish County Tomorrow’s most recent Growth Monitoring Report and Buildable Land Analysis. ED-1 Support a range of employment options at different income levels and a variety of amenities are available throughout the city. ED-1.2 Establish and support economic development activities that help to attract, retain, expand, and diversify businesses throughout the city, particularly those that provide living-wage jobs. ED-1.3 Promote diverse and sustainable employment sectors to support and encourage residents to live and work in Arlington. ED-1.8 Foster economic development activities in areas with historically low access to opportunities that improve opportunities for current and future residents. ED-2 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy. ED-2.1 Plan for adequate land capacity to support commercial and industrial uses and to provide sufficient employment meeting the 20-year employment targets for Arlington. ED-2.2 Plan for adequate retail sales base (i.e., commercial land base) to provide financial support for the services the City provides. ED-2.4 Provide sufficient and proactive investments in public infrastructure to improve the City’s economic base and accommodate overall growth. ED-2.5 Leverage Arlington’s visibility from Interstate-5 and encourage the development and enhancement of the city’s gateways to attract additional consumer base. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 6 of 10 Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary ED-2.9 Identify sectors of the economy within Arlington where opportunities might exist to create additional jobs and identify potential strategies for attracting employment in those fields. ED-7 Encourage the development of unique economic hubs at various scales throughout the city to adequately serve residents and the region. ED-7.1 Promote the viability of Old-Town Business District, Smokey Point Boulevard, the Cascade Industrial Center, and Island Crossing as regional economic draws, while maintaining and improving upon smaller neighborhood hubs to serve local residents. ED-7.3 Encourage and promote a diversity of retail, restaurants, craft industries, services, civic facilities, and mixed uses to achieve a vibrant shopping, dining, and entertaining experience in both Old Town and along the Smokey Point Boulevard corridor and other developing districts. ED-7.5 Become an active sponsor and promoter of attracting new retail businesses to Arlington that provide a mixture of goods and services, which would allow residents to shop locally without leaving Arlington. ED-7.8 Invest in transportation and other infrastructure needed to support and provide connections to the various commercial centers throughout the city. ED-8 Support economic development activities that enhance the quality of life for Arlington residents. ED-8.1 Identify and implement ways to provide services that will improve the quality of life for residents. ED-8.2 Encourage businesses that process and sell locally produced resources, particularly healthy food products. ED-8.3 Develop a variety of strategies aimed at enhancing the diversity of Arlington’s tourism base, with particular focus on agritourism, farm-to-table, and local crafts industry products. T-1 Ensure capital facilities and utilities achieve efficient delivery of services, support equitable distribution of services, minimize environmental impacts, and maximize value for the community. T-1.1 Minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts of transportation facilities including culverts, bridges, and other road crossings on designated critical areas, resource lands, cultural resources, or parks through the implementation of performance standards and design guidelines in accordance with T-2 Ensure the equity and availability of potential funding streams and provide transportation improvements consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan in prioritizing and financing. Prioritizing programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. T-2.3 Require developers to construct those streets directly serving new development and to pay a proportionate share of the costs for specific off-site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. T-7 Create a resilient transportation system, minimize environmental impacts caused by the transportation system, and 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. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 7 of 10 Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary T-7.2 Investigate modifications to detention requirements, including the use of innovative designs and/or materials that improve drainage. T-7.6 Retrofit existing roadways to meet or exceed current stormwater requirements where possible. T-7.13 Advance the resilience of the transportation system by incorporating redundancies, preparing for disasters and other impacts, and coordinated planning for system recovery. T-7.14 Assess and plan for adaptive transportation responses to potential threats and hazards arising from climate change. T-8 Plan, develop, and maintain a balanced multimodal 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. T-8.1 Ensure that safe, convenient, and efficient multimodal transportation facilities are provided for all residents and visitor to the City, including accessibility improvements to existing facilities as well as improvements to serve growth areas. T-8.2 Design the street system to enable walkability. Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips and distribute vehicle trips along appropriate corridors. T-8.4 Implement the adopted Complete Streets Program to ensure that all transportation projects include safe and appropriate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users accommodating persons of all ages and abilities. T-8.5 Maintain a safe, convenient, and efficient multimodal transportation system for people and freight that allows freight to support the continued growth in goods movement and the growing needs of global trade and state, regional and local distribution of goods and services. T-9 Ensure concurrency by providing an effective multimodal transportation network with adequate capacity to meet the demand for travel within the City at the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard. T-9.1 Ensure that all development permits require transportation improvements in accordance with Arlington’s ability to provide and/or maintain the adopted levels of service. Transportation dedications and improvements for projects that exceed the existing level of service shall be in place with the final approval of a subdivision or short plat or at the time of final building inspection for non-subdivision projects. In lieu of immediate installation of such improvements, and as a condition of permit approval by the City, a performance bond or other security mechanism may be provided by the developer guaranteeing installation within six years of final approval. T-10 Maintain and enhance the safety of the transportation system, including non-motorized networks, and reduce the chance of accidents. T-10.3 Prioritize the maintenance of the multimodal transportation system according to condition, putting the facilities with poor condition as the highest priority. T-10-4 Prioritize sidewalk and shoulder improvements in areas of high traffic volumes or pedestrian activity to improve safety. T-11 Future growth in the City will be accommodated and served consistent with the PSRC Regional Growth Strategy. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 8 of 10 Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary T-11.1 Focus transportation system improvements on connecting transportation centers and supporting existing and planned development consistent with future growth strategy. T-12 Coordinate the planning and implementation of the City’s multimodal transportation system with adjacent and regional jurisdictions and agencies. T-12.1 Work with WSDOT, Snohomish County and Marysville in planning transportation-related facilities within and adjacent to the UGA. T-12.2 Review impacts to the City created by the actions of other agencies. Actively solicit action by the State of Washington and Snohomish County to implement those improvements necessary to their respective facilities to maintain the level of service standards adopted by the City. T-12.3 Consider designating transportation service areas that provide geographic basis for joint projects, maintenance, level of service methods, coordinated capital and mitigation programs and finance methods for transportation facilities and services. T-13 Consider the special needs of subarea transportation facilities including appearance and safety. T-13.2 Improving the appearance of existing corridors shall be a priority and 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. PS-5 Minimize the risks to life and property caused by fire, floods, and geologic hazards. PS-5.4 Continue to be in full compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance Program. PS-5.5 Provide surface water management planning and related GIS analysis and stormwater modeling to reduce and minimize flooding risks and provide information to customers in emergency situations. PS-5.6 Provide surface water management planning and related GIS analysis and stormwater modeling to reduce and minimize flooding risks. PS-8 Foster safety and community involvement in all Arlington neighborhoods. PS-8.6 Identify high-risk accident locations and develop countermeasure strategies to improve the safety at these locations as funding allows. PS-8.8 Provide local safety improvements and traffic-calming measures. CFU-3 Ensure capital facilities and utilities are provided consistent with Growth Management Act provisions and the concurrency management system provides public facilities through public and private development activities in a manner that is compatible with the fiscal resources of the City. CFU-3.1 Condition development permits on facilities being in place as the impacts of the development occur, or within six years (or sooner, depending on the facility), whichever is the greatest benefit to the City. A development permit includes any official City action that affects the permitting of land, and the City is not obligated to approve per City regulations. The City should take into account the variation in the different types of development permits and be flexible in adherence. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 9 of 10 Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary CFU-3.2 Any infrastructure improvements needed to serve the proposed development should be installed prior to the issuance of the related building permit. CFU-3.3 The City of Arlington should not issue any development permits that result in a reduction of the transportation level-of-service standards for the public facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Book without mitigation. CFU-3.4 Require that new developments mitigate traffic impacts through at least two of the following methods as deemed acceptable by the City or as many as are deemed necessary through the permitting process and supporting traffic analysis: dedication of right-of-way, frontage improvements, or traffic mitigation fees. CFU-3.5 Plan for growth and development to be consistent with the City’s most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and parks and recreational facilities. CFU-3.6 Plan so that infrastructure capacity remains concurrent with development. Where concurrency cannot be assured, the capital facility plans should be reassessed and potentially amended accordingly. CFU-3.7 Time and phase services and facilities to guide growth and development in a manner that supports the Regional Growth Strategy. CFU-3.12 Any costs associated with water extensions or system requirements necessary to provide that water, shall be borne by the person(s) requesting such service. CFU-7 Manage stormwater pursuant to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington as adopted by Arlington, preserving and supplementing, as necessary, the natural drainage ways and other natural hydrologic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development. CFU-7.3 Develop and maintain a stormwater management strategy that reduces the negative impacts to natural drainage and aquatic habitats that can occur during the early stages of a development. CFU-7.4 Include Best Available Science/Best Management Practices in the City’s stormwater strategy and work to ensure stormwater standards and specifications reflect current industry standards and meet regulatory requirements. CFU-7.5 Utilize Low Impact Development standards that provide stormwater benefits and support naturally occurring functions simultaneously. CFU-7.7 Enforce stormwater utility regulations. CFU-10 Meet or exceed sewer service standards in providing ongoing services to customers. CFU-10.5 Permit new development in urban areas only when sanitary sewers are available. CFU-11 Protect and enhance the environment and public health and safety when providing services and facilities. Locate public facilities and utilities to: a) Achieve a high level of public accessibility b) Maximize the efficiency of services provided c) Minimize costs to the public; and d) Minimize impacts to the natural environment CFU-11.2 Avoid placing utilities within critical areas and critical areas 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 resources. Utilities should never run parallel with the critical area unless outside of critical areas buffers. Low impact development (LID) facilities, however, are permissible in critical area buffers per the land use code. Staff Report & Recommendation AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1184 Page 10 of 10 4. COMPLIANCE WITH AMC CHAPTER 20.96 - AMENDMENTS Regulation Meets (a) Amendments to the text of this title may be made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. amendment has followed the provision of Chapter 20.96 by being processed through the 2024 Docket as a Development Regulation Amendment. Development Regulations. (a) All proposed text amendments to the development or zoning regulations shall be developed, submitted, and presented by the city staff, based on direction from the city council, planning commission, or the director of community and economic development. process. The City Council approved the 2024 Final Docket through Resolution 2024-008. Staff shall transmit to the department of commerce copies of all proposed amendments to the city’s development regulations at least sixty days in advance of adoption, as required by RCW 36.70A.106. Department of Commerce on July 18, 2025, for the standard 60-day review. Regulation Amendments. (a) An open record public hearing shall be held before the planning commission for all amendments. (c) The city shall give public notice of all public hearings as required by section 20.24.020. hearing at the September 16, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. The public noticing is described under Section 2 above. Development Regulation Amendments. The planning commission shall issue a recommendation for approval, approval subject to recommended modifications or conditions of approval, continuance, or a decision of denial, which decision shall be forwarded to the city council for review and decision. Findings of Fact that is signed by the Commission Chair. City Staff then includes the Findings of Fact within the City Council packet for review prior to the City Council workshop and meeting. Development Regulation Amendments. The city council’s approval, modification, deferral, or denial of a development regulations amendment proposal shall be based on the following criteria: (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Multi-County Planning Policies, County Planning Policies, and the Growth Management Act, RCW Chapter 36.70A; and (2) The proposed change is necessary to further the public interest based on present needs and conditions. provided by staff and considers the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, County Planning Policies, the Growth Management Act, and RCW Chapter 36.70A, along with the overall public interest prior to considering a decision. (d) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington City Council approves AMC Chapter 20.119 Zoning Code Amendment, PLN #1184. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill NB #4 Attachment October 20, 2025 Division-Broadway Restoration Project, Change Order No. 1 Engineer’s Estimate for Change Order No. 1 Public Works; Jim Kelly, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $299,135.90 BUDGET CATEGORY: Grant and TBD funds BUDGETED AMOUNT: $1,442,000 (2025 Amendment included) LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Correction of incomplete project construction drawings. HISTORY: Public Works publicly bid the Division-Broadway Restoration Project in January 2025. The contract was awarded to Reece Construction. After award, the City and Reece Construction performed preliminary project staking and found that there were several serious grade discrepancies. Upon further evaluation of the construction drawings, staff discovered even more errors in the construction drawings (missing sidewalks, missing ADA curb ramps, missing alley driveways, lack of slope for drainage, etc.). The City’s engineering department corrected the drawings errors. The correction changed quantities (+/-) on 33 bid items and added 12 new bid items (see Engineer’s Estimate). Since this is a federally funded project, this change order is being processed through WSDOT. ALTERNATIVES: I move to approve Contract Change Order No. 1 to the Division-Broadway Restoration Project and authorize the Mayor to sign it. NEW ITEM QUANTITY CHANGE Item No.DESCRIPTION Ref Sect. Original Quantity REVISED Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price PREPARATION 1 MINOR CHANGE SP 1-04.4 (1)1 EST 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ -$ 2 ADA FEATURES SURVEYING SP 1-05.4 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ -$ 3 SPCC PLAN 1-07.15 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 275.00$ 275.00$ 275.00$ -$ 4 MOBILIZATION 1-09.7 1 LS 116,658.46$ 116,658.46$ 79,372.90$ 79,372.90$ 79,372.90$ -$ 5 CLEAR AND GRUB 2-01 0.26 ACRE 2,200.00$ 572.00$ 28,750.00$ 7,475.00$ 28,750.00$ -$ 6 SAWCUTTING SP 2-02.3 1,351 4,890 LF 10.00$ 13,510.00$ 5.50$ 7,430.50$ 5.50$ 19,464.50$ 7 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS SP 2-02.3 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ -$ 8 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB SP 2-02.3 603 1,519 LF 25.00$ 15,075.00$ 12.00$ 7,236.00$ 12.00$ 10,992.00$ 9 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER SP 2-02.3 951 1,190 LF 25.00$ 23,775.00$ 8.00$ 7,608.00$ 8.00$ 1,912.00$ 9a REMOVE CEMENT CONC. ROLLED CURBING SP 2-02.3 0 410 LF 12.00$ 4,920.00$ 10 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK SP 2-02.3 553 550 SY 40.00$ 22,120.00$ 15.50$ 8,571.50$ 15.50$ (46.50)$ 11 REMOVING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SP 2-02.3 2 4 EA 1,800.00$ 3,600.00$ 636.00$ 1,272.00$ 636.00$ 1,272.00$ 12 REMOVING DRAINAGE PIPE SP 2-02.3 22 26 LF 35.00$ 770.00$ 29.00$ 638.00$ 29.00$ 116.00$ EROSION CONTROL AND ROADSIDE RESTORATION 13 EROSION / WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 8-01 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 3,400.00$ 3,400.00$ 3,400.00$ -$ 14 ESC LEAD 8-01 50 DAY 1,100.00$ 55,000.00$ 85.00$ 4,250.00$ 85.00$ -$ 15 INLET PROTECTION 8-01 29 25 EA 125.00$ 3,625.00$ 63.00$ 1,827.00$ 63.00$ (252.00)$ GRADING 16 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2-03 605 1,209 CY 13.00$ 7,865.00$ 42.00$ 25,410.00$ 42.00$ 25,368.00$ UTILITIES 17 SCHEDULE A STORM SEWER PIPE 12" DIAM.7-04 24 0 LF 95.00$ 2,280.00$ 152.00$ 3,648.00$ 152.00$ (3,648.00)$ 18 ADJUST., ABAND., & CONNECTIONS TO EX. STRUCTURES SP 7-05 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$ -$ 19 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 SP 7-05 2 3 EA 4,400.00$ 8,800.00$ 1,400.00$ 2,800.00$ 1,400.00$ 1,400.00$ 19A 6-IN PCV DRAIN PIPE 0 69 LF 110.00$ 7,590.00$ 20 ADJUST EX.STRUCTURE RIM TO FINISHED GRADE SP 7-05 22 EA 950.00$ 20,900.00$ 1,200.00$ 26,400.00$ 1,200.00$ -$ 21 INSTALL SOLID LOCKING STORM LID & RING SP 7-05 2 9 EA 700.00$ 1,400.00$ 1,700.00$ 3,400.00$ 1,700.00$ 11,900.00$ 22 INSTALL ADA FRAMES FOR RECTANGULAR GRATE SP 7-05 1 EA 1,100.00$ 1,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ -$ 23 ADJUST WATER VALVE BOX SP 7-05 16 EA 850.00$ 13,600.00$ 600.00$ 9,600.00$ 600.00$ -$ 23A INSTALL LOCKING SEWER LIDS & RINGS 0 7 EA 1,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 23B TRENCH DRAIN 0 31 LF 175.00$ 5,425.00$ 23C REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 0 4 EA 980.00$ 3,920.00$ PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION 25 PLANNING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (2" DEPTH)5-04 5769 5089 SY 5.50$ 31,729.50$ 3.75$ 21,633.75$ 3.75$ (2,550.00)$ 26 HMA CL. 1/2 IN. PG. 58H-22 5-04 1045 1301 TN 260.00$ 271,700.00$ 130.00$ 135,850.00$ 130.00$ 33,280.00$ TRAFFIC 27 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL SP 1-10 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 61,000.00$ 61,000.00$ 61,000.00$ -$ 28 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS SP 1-10 3 EA 12,500.00$ 37,500.00$ 2,200.00$ 6,600.00$ 2,200.00$ -$ 29 WORK ZONE SAFETY CONTINGENCY SP 1-10.5(2)1 FA 1,875.00$ 1,875.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ -$ Division-Broadway Restoration Project Change Order #1 - Engineers Estimate COA Estimate CO-#1REVISION DATE: 09/02/2025 Engineer's Estimate Reece Construction BidBid Opening: 01/09/2025 Page 1 of 2 NEW ITEM QUANTITY CHANGE Item No.DESCRIPTION Ref Sect. Original Quantity REVISED Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price Change Order #1 - Engineers Estimate COA Estimate CO-#1REVISION DATE: 09/02/2025 Engineer's Estimate Reece Construction BidBid Opening: 01/09/2025 30 CEMENT CONCRETE RIVER ROCK SP 5-05 316 312 SY -$ -$ 300.00$ 94,800.00$ 300.00$ (1,200.00)$ 31 COLORED TEXTURED CEMENT CONCRETE SP 5-05 577 590 LF 170.00$ 98,090.00$ 312.00$ 180,024.00$ 312.00$ 4,056.00$ 32 CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER TYPE 1 8-04 2478 1382 LF 60.00$ 148,680.00$ 60.00$ 148,680.00$ 60.00$ (65,760.00)$ 32a CEMENT CONC GUTTER SWALE W/REBAR 0 180 LF 50.00$ 9,000.00$ 33 9" TRAFFIC CURB SP 8-04 164 0 LF 35.00$ 5,740.00$ 65.00$ 10,660.00$ 65.00$ (10,660.00)$ 33a MOUNTABLE CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB SP 8-04 0 2200 LF 60.00$ 132,000.00$ 34 ROUNDABOUT TRK APRON - CURB 1 8-04 346 343 LF 40.00$ 13,840.00$ 60.00$ 20,760.00$ 60.00$ (180.00)$ 34a ROUNDABOUT TRK APRON - CURB 2 0 291 LF 60.00$ 17,460.00$ 35 RELOCATE RRFB POST, SIGN & FOUNDATION SP 8-05 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 4,100.00$ 4,100.00$ 4,100.00$ -$ 36 37 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 8-14 504 319 SY 140.00$ 70,560.00$ 110.00$ 55,440.00$ 110.00$ (20,350.00)$ 38 CEMENT CONC. PEDESTRIAN CURB 8-04 390 400 LF 80.00$ 31,200.00$ 60.00$ 23,400.00$ 60.00$ 600.00$ 39 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PERPENDICULAR 8-14 7 EA 3,500.00$ 24,500.00$ 4,800.00$ 33,600.00$ 4,800.00$ -$ 40 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP PARALLEL 8-14 3 4 EA 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$ 4,600.00$ 13,800.00$ 4,600.00$ 4,600.00$ 41 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE COMBINATION 8-14 2 1 EA 3,500.00$ 7,000.00$ 4,800.00$ 9,600.00$ 4,800.00$ (4,800.00)$ 42 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION 8-14 1 0 EA 4,600.00$ 4,600.00$ 4,600.00$ (4,600.00)$ 43 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 8-14 422 394 SF 200.00$ 84,400.00$ 85.00$ 35,870.00$ 85.00$ (2,380.00)$ 44 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK D/W (6" THICK)8-14 71 169 SY 160.00$ 11,360.00$ 128.00$ 9,088.00$ 128.00$ 12,544.00$ 45 RED MMA (METHYL METHACRYLATE)SP 8-14 5166 5594 SF 2.00$ 10,332.00$ 12.00$ 61,992.00$ 12.00$ 5,136.00$ 46 PERMANENT SIGNING 8-21 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 23,750.00$ 23,750.00$ 23,750.00$ -$ 47 PAINT LINE (yellow & white)8-22 6611 4860 LF 10.00$ 66,110.00$ 0.90$ 5,949.90$ 0.90$ (1,575.90)$ 48 PAINTED 12" WIDE LINE 8-22 443 225 LF 10.00$ 4,430.00$ 1.15$ 509.45$ 1.15$ (250.70)$ 48A PAINTED 12" WIDE SKIP LINE 0 225 LF 0.90$ 202.50$ 49 PLASTIC 12" CROSSWALK LINE 8-22 1267 1365 SF 10.00$ 12,670.00$ 9.00$ 11,403.00$ 9.00$ 882.00$ 50 PAINTED TRAFFIC ARROW 8-22 1 5 EA 280.00$ 280.00$ 280.00$ 1,120.00$ 51 51A 51B OTHER 52 LANDSCAPING 9-14 1 1.15 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 37,000.00$ 37,000.00$ 37,000.00$ 5,550.00$ 52a PLANT SELECTION INCLUDING PLANT ESTABLISHMENT 8-02.3(13)0 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 53 RECORD DRAWINGS, MIN BID $2000 SP 1-05.18 1 LS 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ -$ 54 CONTRACTOR SURVEYING - ROADWAY SP 1-05.4 1 LS -$ -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ -$ 55 FORCE ACCOUNT 0 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Total 1,453,926.96$ Total 1,290,092.00$ Total CO#1 299,135.90$ Page 2 of 2