HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2012_Council Workshop
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA
coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Tolbert
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Tolbert
ROLL CALL
Mayor Tolbert - Jan
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Oertle
WORKSHOP ITEMS ~ NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN
1. (20 min)Presentation by Community Transit on the Smokey Point
Transit Center Redevelopment – Todd Morrow & Project Manager
David True
Staff: Paul Ellis / Jim Kelly
Council Liaison: Debora Nelson
2. (10 min) Presentation on Engineering Library
Staff Presentation: Katie Heim
Council Liaisons: Debora Nelson / Randy Tendering / Dick Butner
3. (10 min) AECOMM Scope and Fee – Airport Blvd Phase 2
Staff Presentation: Eric Scott
Council Liaison: Debora Nelson
ATTACHMENT A
4. (10 min) 2013 Budget & Property Tax Resolution
Staff Presentation: Jim Chase
Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle
ATTACHMENT B
5. (10 min) Hotel Motel Tax Funding
Staff Presentation: Jim Chase
Council Liaison: Chris Raezer
ATTACHMENT C
6. (5 min) Short Term Interfund Loan
Staff Presentation: Jim Chase
Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle
ATTACHMENT D
Arlington City Council Workshop
TUESDAY, November 13, 2012 – 7 PM
City Council Chambers ~ 110 E. Third
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA
coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
7. (10 min) Transfer of Development Rights
Staff Presentation: Bill Blake
Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle
ATTACHMENT E
8. (5 min) Adoption of the Snohomish County Legislative Agenda
Staff Presentation: Kristin Banfield
Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle
ATTACHMENT F
9. (5 min) Olympic Avenue Road Closure for Santa Parade
Staff Presentation: Kristin Banfield
Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle
ATTACHMENT G
10. (10 min) Review of 2013 Prosperity Partnership Action Items
Council Presentation: Ken Klein
ATTACHMENT H
11. Miscellaneous Council Items
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Tolbert
For members of the public to speak to the Council regarding matters on the Council Workshop agenda.
Please limit your remarks to three minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Oertle
To open all attachments, click here
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #3
Attachment
A
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Airport Blvd Phase 2 Design Contract Amendment No. 1
ATTACHMENTS:
AECOMM Scope and Fee
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Public Works – Eric Scott
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $35,250
BUDGET CATEGORY: Transportation Improvement Fund, and
Airport Reserve Fund
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Scope and fee for Amendment No. 1 to AECOMM contract for design of Airport Blvd
Phase 2.
HISTORY:
The City is moving forward with finalizing the design of Airport Blvd Phase 2. The
original design was completed several years ago, however, some additional elements
within the project need to be revised based on the construction of Airport Blvd Phase 1
and the proposed 173rd alignment. AECOMM has submitted their scope and fee for
completing the design and assisting with bidding of the project.
ALTERNATIVES
- Do not accept Amendment No. 1 to the AECOMM contract
- Table for further discussion
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Council Workshop, no action at this time. At the November 19th Council Meeting, staff
will recommend the following motion, “I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the
AECOMM contract with the City of Arlington and authorize the mayor to sign the
contract, pending final review by the City Attorney.”
Airport Blvd. Improvements
City of Arlington
EXHIBIT A – DESIGN SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK
Page 1 of 4
Airport Boulevard Improvements Project – Phase 2
City of Arlington
Design Services
This work provides design services to finalize the Airport Boulevard Improvements Project – Phase 2
(hereinafter called “Project”). AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“Consultant”) will provide to the City of
Arlington, Washington (“Client”) design services for the project. These services include minor changes to
the plans, revised Bid Schedule and an updated Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs.
These services are as detailed below:
I. INTRODUCTION
The scope of services will provide for final plans and revised bid schedule which will allow the Client to
Bid, Advertise and Award the Airport Boulevard Road Improvements – Phase 2. The following scope of
services is broke down by design task as shown below.
II. DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1– Project Management
Consultant shall perform the following:
1.1 Perform project administration. This task consists of day to day communications with the
Client, invoicing, and design team coordination.
1.2 Kick-off meeting with the City to discuss the project objectives as noted herein.
Task 2 – Updated Bid Schedule/Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
The Consultant will update the current Bid Schedule and Estimate of Probable Construction Costs to
reflect revisions to the plans. This effort will include the following elements to be accomplished by the
Consultant:
2.1 Update the Bid Schedule within Part II of the contract documents. Updates will include
revised quantities and creating two bid schedules. One bid schedule will be for taxable items
and the other for untaxable items as described in WSDOT Standard Specifications Section 1-
07.2 State Tax. Bid Schedule will be per City of Arlington format.
2.2 Update the Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs to reflect quantity changes to
the construction plans and to reflect current construction costs. Client will provide line item
and cost if dewatering is added to the bid schedule.
The Client will be responsible for updating all sections of the Contact Documents with the exception of the
Bid Schedule.
Task 3 – Revisions to Plans
The Consultant will update the current plans to reflect the revisions. The design effort will include the
following elements:
Airport Blvd. Improvements
City of Arlington
EXHIBIT A – DESIGN SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK
Page 2 of 4
3.1 Update Cover Sheet to reflect the change of project name from “Phases 1A and 1B” to
“Phase 2”. Update Cover Sheet to reflect changes in City of Arlington Officials. Update
Cover Sheet plan index to reflect deletion of WP3 and addition of required trail and
intersection plans.
3.2 Update sheet C4.0 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision from 5 foot sidewalk along the
south/west side of the roadway to a 12 foot trail. Revise intersection of 173rd Place NE to
show industrial driveway on west leg of intersection.
3.3 Update sheet C4.1 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision from 5 foot sidewalk along the
south/west side of the roadway to a 12 foot trail. Eliminate west leg of intersection.
3.4 Update sheet C4.2 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision from 5 foot sidewalk along the
south/west side of the roadway to a 12 foot trail.
3.5 Update sheet C4.3 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision from 5 foot sidewalk along the
south/west side of the roadway to a 12 foot trail.
3.6 Update sheet C4.4 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision from 5 foot sidewalk along the
south/west side of the roadway to a 12 foot trail.
3.7 Update sheet C4.5 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision from 5 foot sidewalk along the
south/west side of the roadway to a 12 foot trail
3.8 Update Sheet RS1 to reflect the trail instead of sidewalk along the south/west side of
roadway and add section
3.9 Update Sheet PP1 to show trail, revised sanitary sewer stub lengths and 2” water services 10
feet from each of the sanitary sewer stubs. Sewer stubs and water services to extend 10
beyond edge of sidewalk or trail. Move waterline to 3 feet beyond edge of trail.
3.10 Update Sheet PP2 to show trail, revised sanitary sewer stub lengths and 2” water services 10
feet from each of the sanitary sewer stubs. Sewer stubs and water services to extend 10
beyond edge of sidewalk or trail. Move waterline to 3 feet beyond edge of trail.
3.11 Update Sheet PP3 to show trail
3.12 Revise symbol size on Sheet WP1 to be more in scale with drawing size
3.13 Revise Sheet SP1 to reflect increased length of sanitary sewer stubs
3.14 Revise hba's plan and profile sheet to show stub for future roadway – 173rd Street NE.
3.15 Provide intersection detail for 173rd Street NE
3.16 Revise medians as directed. Medians will be revised one time only
Airport Blvd. Improvements
City of Arlington
EXHIBIT A – DESIGN SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK
Page 3 of 4
Task 4 – 188th Street NE Intersection
The consultant shall provide the following for the intersection of 188th Street NE:
4.1 Prepare Traffic Analysis Memorandum that summarize AECOM’s traffic assumptions and
analysis for the intersection of 188th and Airport Blvd.
4.2 Analyze 188th/Airport Blvd. Intersection for Signal Warrants.
4.3 3 sketches of the intersection showing different alternatives for the intersection. The
sketches shall be drawn to scale.
4.4 Rough Orders of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for the 3 different alternatives.
4.5 Meet with City to discuss alternatives.
Task 5 – Submittals
The consultant shall:
5.1 Submit 100% Plans to City (2 half-size sets and PDF file).
5.2 Meet with City to discuss comments.
5.3 Revise plans and quantities per comments.
5.4 Submit final set for bidding.
Task 6 – Expenses
Consultant will incur expenses during the design and final delivery of the contract documents.
Breakdowns of these expenses are shown in Exhibit B. These expenses are based on the following
assumptions and deliverables:
6.1 Consultant will provide 1 signed half size and 1 signed full size set of Consultant’s plans to
the City. City shall provide the Consultant one complete half sized plan set for their records.
6.2 Consultant will provide all Consultant plans in ACAD format. Bid Schedule will be provided in
a combination of Excel and PDF format.
6.3 Mileage
6.4 Printing
Airport Blvd. Improvements
City of Arlington
EXHIBIT A – DESIGN SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK
Page 4 of 4
Task 7 – Bidding Support
The consultant shall:
7.1 Provide bidding support as requested.
Task 8 – Construction Services
8.1 To be negotiated at time of construction.
Assumptions:
• Each meeting to be four hours, including travel time.
• The Consultant shall have two people attend each meeting.
• No revisions to drainage report will be required.
• Revising hba’s sheets C4.0 through C4.5 to incorporate into Phase 2 plans will require the
following:
Revise hba’s digital files to show everything proposed to be constructed in Phase 1 as
existing. It is assumed that no survey work will be performed and what is shown in Phase
1 was actually constructed per the plans.
Updating hba line work to match Consultant’s plot style table.
Update callouts to reflect only new trail is being built.
• Intersections were constructed according to hba plans. No revisions to curb returns are required.
• Airport personnel to reconnect trail along 188th Street South to match new wheel chair ramps.
Client to Provide:
• Provide electronic copies of hba Sheets C4.0 through C4.5 and associated x-ref files.
• One set of plans and specifications for the earlier phase of Airport Way Blvd. currently under
construction.
• Direction on any changes to the medians and airport signing.
• All needed traffic counts.
• Provide copies of all traffic studies pertinent to Airport Boulevard, including the 173rd Street Traffic
Study.
PIC PM P Engr. EIT CAD Admin. Cost per
$255 $170 $170 $125 $110 $80 Subtask Task Totals
$4,070
1.1 Perform project administration 2 8 4 0 0 2 $2,710
1.2 Kick-off Meeting 0 4 4 0 0 0 $1,360
$3,060
2.1 Update Bid Schedule 0 0 6 0 0 0 $1,020
2.2
Update the Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction
Costs 0 0 12 0 0 0 $2,040
$8,670
3.1 Update Cover Sheet & Index 0 0 1 0 1 0 $280
3.2
Update sheet C4.0 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision
from 5 foot sidewalk along the south/west side of the
roadway to a 12 foot trail. Revise intersection of 173rd
Place NE to show industrial driveway on west leg of
intersection.
0 0 1 0 2 0 $390
3.3
Update sheet C4.1 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision
from 5 foot sidewalk along the south/west side of the
roadway to a 12 foot trail. Eliminate west leg of
intersection.
0 0 1 0 2 0 $390
3.4
Update sheet C4.2 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision
from 5 foot sidewalk along the south/west side of the
roadway to a 12 foot trail
0 0 1 0 2 0 $390
3.5
Update sheet C4.3 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision
from 5 foot sidewalk along the south/west side of the
roadway to a 12 foot trail
0 0 1 0 2 0 $390
3.6
Update sheet C4.4 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision
from 5 foot sidewalk along the south/west side of the
roadway to a 12 foot trail
0 0 1 0 2 0 $390
3.7
Update sheet C4.5 (hba Design Group) to reflect revision
from 5 foot sidewalk along the south/west side of the
roadway to a 12 foot trail
0 0 1 0 2 0 $390
3.8 Update Sheet RS1 to reflect the trail instead of sidewalk
along the south/west side of roadway and add section
0 0 2 0 2 0 $560
3.9
Update Sheet PP1 to show trail, revised sanitary sewer
stub lengths and 2” water services 10 feet from each of
the sanitary sewer stubs. Sewer stubs and water
services to extend 10 beyond edge of sidewalk or trail.
Move waterline to 3 feet beyond edge of trail.
0 0 2 0 3 0 $670
3.10
Update Sheet PP2 to show trail, revised sanitary sewer
stub lengths and 2” water services 10 feet from each of
the sanitary sewer stubs. Sewer stubs and water
services to extend 10 beyond edge of sidewalk or trail.
Move waterline to 3 feet beyond edge of trail.
0 0 2 0 3 0 $670
3.11 Update Sheet PP3 to show trail 0 0 0.5 0 2 0 $305
3.12 Revise symbol size on Sheet WP1 to be more in scale
with drawing size 0 0 0.5 0 1 0 $195
3.13 Revise Sheet SP1 to reflect increased length of sanitary
sewer stubs 0 0 1 0 1 0 $280
3.14 Revise hba's plan and profile sheet to show stub for
future roadway – 173rd Street NE 0 0 4 0 4 0 $1,120
3.15 Provide intersection detail for 173rd Street NE 0 0 8 0 4 0 $1,800
3.16 Revise medians as directed. Medians will be revised one
time only 0 0 2 0 1 0 $450
$10,040
4.1
Prepare Traffic Analysis Memorandum assumptions used
in the analysis of the intersection of 188th and Airport
Blvd.
6 0 0 12 0 0 $3,030
4.2 Analyze 188th/Airport Blvd. Intersection for Signal
Warrants 4 0 0 4 0 0 $1,520
4.3
3 sketches of the intersection showing different
alternatives for the intersection. The sketches shall be
drawn to scale
0 0 12 0 8 0 $2,920
4.4 Rough Orders of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for the
3 different alternatives 0 0 6 0 1 1 $1,210
4.5 Meet with City to discuss alternatives 0 4 4 0 0 0 $1,360
Task 3: Revisions to Plans
Task 4: 188th Street NE Intersection
Airport Boulevard Improvements - Phase 2
City of Arlington
Task 1: Project Management
Task 2: Updated Bid Schedule/Engineer's Estimate of Probable
PIC PM P Engr. EIT CAD Admin. Cost per
$255 $170 $170 $125 $110 $80 Subtask Task Totals
Airport Boulevard Improvements - Phase 2
City of Arlington
$4,070
5.1 Submit 100% Plans to City (2 half-size sets and PDF File)0 0 0 0 2 0 $220
5.2 Meet with City to discuss comments.0 0 8 0 0 0 $1,360
5.3 Revise plans and quantities per comments.2 0 4 0 8 0 $2,070
5.4 Submit final set for bidding.0 0 2 0 0 1 $420
$750
6.1
Consultant will provide 1 signed half size and 1 signed full
size set of Consultant’s plans to the City. City shall
provide the Consultant one complete half sized plan set
for their records
0 0 0 0 2 0 $220
6.2
Consultant will provide all Consultant plans in ACAD
format. Bid Schedule will be provided in a combination of
Word and PDF format
0 0 1 0 0 2 $330
6.3 Mileage - - - - - - $125
6.4 Printing - - - - - - $75
$4,590
7.1 Provide bidding support as requested.2 8 16 0 0 0 $4,590
Total Hours 16 24 108 16 55 6 -225
$4,080 $4,080 $18,360 $2,000 $6,050 $480 $200 $35,250
BASE FEE INCLUDING BIDDING SUPPORT $35,250
Task 5: Submittals
Task 6: Expenses
Task 7: Bidding Support
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #4
Attachment
B
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
2013 Budget & Property Tax Resolution
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Resolution for setting property tax levy
Information sheet received from the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Finance – Contact Jim Chase, 360-403-3422
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Per the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office, the Assessed Value of property within the city
limits of Arlington dropped in value by approx. 6%. Based in this information, the proposed
General property tax levy rate for 2013 will increase to $ 1.41 (from $1.31) per $ 1,000 of
assessed valuation and the EMS levy maximum is $0.50 per $1,000 of AV. The proposed levy
includes the tax from new construction, annexations, the amount we are allowed to recoup
from refunds and abated taxes due to destroyed property and a 1% increase (the lesser of 1%
or Implicit Price Deflator (IPD)). IPD for this calculation is 1.295%. Property taxes are used to
provide basic city services.
Staff will bring an updated 2013 Budget document for the Council that reflects any changes
made to the document since the preliminary budget was distributed on 9/29/12.
HISTORY:
The City Council is required, following public hearing, to set an annual property tax levy by
November 30th of each year. Public hearing is scheduled on November 5 as required by law.
The City Council is requested to adopt a resolution setting the levy for 2013 at the November
19 city council meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
Increase the General property tax levy by 1%, plus tax on new construction, annexations and
refunds.
Don’t increase the General property tax levy.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action at this time. Council will be asked to adopt the Resolution adopting the 2013
property tax levy at the November 19, 2012 meeting. In addition, Council will hold a public
hearing on the 2013 budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-xxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
TO INCREASE THE 2013 PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington has met and considered its budget for
the calendar year 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City’s actual levy amount from the previous year (2012) was $2,392,478 for
regular property taxes and $911,255 for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property taxes.
WHEREAS, the population of the City of Arlington is more than 10,000, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arlington after hearing and after duly considering
all relevant evidence and testimony, determined that the City of Arlington requires a 2013 regular
property tax levy in the amount of $ 2,455,518 (includes refunds), and an EMS tax levy in the
amount of $866,485 (includes refunds) and includes estimated amounts resulting from the
addition of new construction and improvements to property, any increases in the value of state-
assessed property, and amounts authorized by law as a result of any annexations that have
occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the
City and in its best interest; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arlington
Section 1. That an increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby authorized for the 2013
levy in the amount of $ 23,925, which is a percentage increase of 1% from the previous year.
Section 2. That a decrease in the EMS property tax levy is hereby calculated for the 2013 levy
in the amount of $44,770, which is a result of a reduction in Assessed Value from the previous
year and a maximum levy rate of 50 cents per $1,000 of Assessed Value.
Section 3. These increases are exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of
new construction and improvements to property and any increases in the value of state assessed
property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and
refunds made, also known as “add-ons”.
Section 4. If any provision, section, or part of this resolution shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the resolution as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
PASSED and APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington, at a
regular meeting held on the 19th day of November, 2012.
_____________________________
ATTEST: Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
___________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #5
Attachment
C
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Hotel Motel Tax Distributions for 2013
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Spreadsheet listing applications and funding recommendations
2) Minutes from the October 24th 2013 Committee meeting
3) Sample Contract
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Finance
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $77,929
BUDGET CATEGORY: Hotel-Motel Tax Fund
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
For the 2013 funding process, 13 applications were received totaling $131,853. The
Lodging Tax Committee met on October 24th to review and make recommendations for
funding. 8 applications were approved for funding totaling $77,929.
Organizations who are awarded the funds will be required to enter into a contract with
the City and abide by the terms.
The City received $73,394 in 2011 and is projected to receive about $75,000 in 2012.
HISTORY:
The City began collecting a 2% Hotel-Motel Tax in 2005. Revenues generated from the
tax are to be used for tourism promotion and tourism-related facilities.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Table for additional Review
2) Take no action
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action at this time. Council will be asked to approve the funding applications as
recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee at the November 19, 2012
Council meeting.
Hotel / Motel
Project Project Total Sponsor Tax 66.67% Limit Committee
Sponsor/Contracto Title Project Match Reques or requested Recommends
Arlington EAA Fly-in Promotion/advertising fly-in 57,200.00$ 32,200.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
Arlington Arts Council AAC's popular music concert's at BPAC 22,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
Arlington/Smokey Point C of C
4th of July Events (Carnival and Fireworks
Show), Peddle Paddle Puff Triathlon and Parade 12,453.00$ 3,753.00$ 8,700.00$ 8,293.70$ 8,294.00$
Arlington/Smokey Point C of C Smokey Point BBQ Cook-Off and Market Place 10,880.00$ 5,440.00$ 5,440.00$ 5,440.00$ 5,440.00$
Arlington/Smokey Point C of C Visitor Information Center 17,018.00$ -$ 14,018.00$ 11,333.99$ 5,700.00$
Arlington/Smokey Point C of C DABA Events 14,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
Arlington/Smokey Point C of C Self-Guided Cyber Tour of Arlington 13,510.00$ 8,355.00$ 5,155.00$ 5,155.00$ 5,155.00$
Olympic Ballet Theatre The Nutcracker in Arlington 70,350.00$ 66,350.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ -$
City of Arlington Eagle Festival 8,772.00$ 3,572.00$ 5,200.00$ 5,200.00$ -$
City of Arlington Entryway Signs into Arlington 22,400.00$ 7,400.00$ 15,000.00$ 14,918.40$ -$
City of Arlington Haller Park Access to the Centennial Trail 30,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ -$
City of Arlington Summer Events in the Parks 9,600.00$ 3,260.00$ 6,340.00$ 6,340.00$ 6,340.00$
City of Arlington Wayfinding Signs 9,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TOTALS 297,683.00$ 162,830.00$ 131,853.00$ 128,681.09$ 77,929.00$
Estimated amount available to Fund Projects 80,000.00$
Hotel / Motel Funding Applications for 2013
Meeting of the Arlington Lodging Tax Committee
October 24, 2012
Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm
Present at the meeting:
Chris Raezer, Chairperson – City Councilmember,
Laura Kuhl, Mary Ann Monty, Jessica Stickles – Committee members
Allen Johnson, City Administrator
Jim Chase, Finance Director
Absent: Marilyn Kirkpatrcik, Committee member
Mr. Chase had previously forwarded the applications electronically to all members. The applications
were reviewed and discussed.
Discussion was had regarding what could actually be called tourism promotion and what was not. In the
publication – A Revenue Guide for Washington Cities, tourism promotion is defined as:
Activities, operations, and expenditures designed to increase tourism, including but not limited to
advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting and
welcoming tourists; developing strategies to expand tourism; operating tourism promotion agencies;
and funding marketing of or the operating of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists.
There was over $126,683 in total applications with only $80,000 available to spend.
Legislation regarding the operations of tourism promotion facilities is scheduled to end in June 2013.
The legislature may elect to extend that date, but at this time we do not know that. In the past we have
provided funds to the Visitors Information Center (VIC) to pay the monthly rent and operate the facility.
Funding below for the VIC is half of what was requested.
The 2013 Eagle Festival’s funding is already in place since that applications was approved in April 2012.
The 2014 application will be reviewed with the rest of the applications in the fall of 2013.
The Committee approved funding for the following;
Fly-In for $25,000,
Arlington Art Council’s Music concerts at BPAC for $15,000,
Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for the 4th of July activities for $8,294,
Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for the BBQ Cook-Off and Market Place for $5,440,
Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for the V.I.C. for $5,700,
(In 2007 the Legislature expanded the use of the tax to include the operation of tourism related
facilities and their operation. This expanded use will expire on June 30, 2013. The VIC requested
more funding but we could not accommodate the request due this restriction.)
D.A.B.A. Events for $7,000,
Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for Self-Guided Cyber Tour of Arlington for $5,155,
City of Arlington Recreation for the Summer Events in the Park, $6,340.
These applications total $77,929.
Not funded due to availability of funds were the following:
Olympic Ballet Theatre for the Nutcracker performance, $4,000.
Not funded due to the committees interpretation of tourism promotion.
The committee felt several applications did not meet that definition. Those not receiving funding were;
City - Entryway Signs into Arlington, $14,918,
City - Haller Park Access to the Centennial Trail, $15,000, and
City - Wayfinding Signs, $6,000.
Although nice to have, they did not specifically promote tourism.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm.
Signed,
Jim Chase, Finance Director
1
(27-415 SJP/pb)
CONTRACTOR:
ADDRESS:
PROJECT:
AMOUNT: $
FUND SOURCE: City of Arlington Hotel Motel Tax
TERMINATION: December 31, 2013
CONTRACT FOR HOTEL/MOTEL FUND PROJECTS
THIS AGREEMENT between the City of Arlington (“City”) and Xxxxxx (“Contractor”);
WITNESSETH, that the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Services to be Performed by Contractor. As defined in Attachment A appended
hereto.
2. Time of Performance. The Contractor is to complete the work required by this Contract
no later than December 31, 2013.
3. Compensation. The City will pay the Contractor for services as set forth in Attachment
A, appended hereto. On completion of the work, the Contractor will submit properly executed
invoices indicating hours expended and/or work performed as appropriate and consistent with the
schedule of work outlined in Attachment A, “Scope of Work”. Total charges on this project shall
not exceed $.
4. Credit. Any publications or advertising produced as a result of this project will
prominently feature the following credit: MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY ASSISTANCE
FROM THE CITY OF ARLINGTON HOTEL-MOTEL TAX FUND.
5. Copyrights. Where activities supported by this contract produce original books, articles,
manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the Contractor may copyright such
materials upon obtaining the prior written approval of the City: PROVIDED that the City
receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or use such
material. Where such license is exercised, appropriate acknowledgment of Contractor's
contribution will be made.
6. Changes. This Contract may be modified as to terms of performance, terms relating to
compensation, or other matters upon mutual agreement of the parties, and shall become effective
only upon written amendment to this Contract, such amendment to be executed by both parties.
2
(27-415 SJP/pb)
7. City Review/Approval. Upon submittal of any report or other information required by the
scope of the work, the City may, following review by the City, accept such work or reject it, or
request such modification or additions as it deems appropriate. Payment for such work will not
be made until the work is accepted by the City.
8. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the books and
records of the Contractor relating to the performance of this Contract.
9. Hold Harmless. The Contractor shall protect, save harmless, indemnify and defend, at its
own expense, the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from
any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of this
Contract, including claims by Contractor's employees or third parties, except for those damages
solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its elected and appointed
officials, officers, employees or agents.
10. Legal Requirements. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and
local laws in performing this Contract.
11. Termination.
a. If the Contractor breaches any of its obligations hereunder, and fails to cure the same
within ten (10) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may terminate this Contract,
in which case the City shall pay the Contractor only for the costs of services accepted by the City
prior to the City's notice of termination, in accord with the schedule referenced in section 3.
b. The City may terminate this Contract upon thirty (30) days written notice to the
Contractor for any reason other than stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which case the
City shall pay the Contractor for all costs incurred by the Contractor in performing the Contract
in accord with the schedule referenced in section 3.
c. Termination shall not affect the rights of the City under section 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 hereunder.
12. Exercise of Rights or Remedies. Failure of either party to exercise any rights or remedies
under this Contract shall not be a waiver of any obligation by either party and shall not prevent
either party from pursuing that right at any future time.
13. Records. Contractor must maintain adequate records to support billings. Said records
shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after completion of this Contract by the
Contractor. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books,
documents or papers and records of the Contractor which are directly related to this Contract for
the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts or transcripts. Expenditures under this Contract
which are determined by audit to be ineligible for reimbursement and for which payment has
been made to the Contractor shall be refunded to the City by the Contractor.
3
(27-415 SJP/pb)
14. Independent Contractor. Contractor agrees that Contractor will perform the services
under this agreement as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee or servant of
the City. The parties agree that the Contractor is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by
employees of the City. Contractor specifically has the right to direct and control Contractor's
own activities in providing the agreed services in accordance with the specifications set out in
this agreement.
15. Consent to Delegate. The Contractor shall not subcontract, assign or delegate any of the
rights, duties or obligations covered by this agreement without the prior express written consent
of the City.
16. Entire Agreement. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
CONTRACTOR:
_____________________________________ Date: _________________________
CITY OF ARLINGTON
_____________________________________ Date: _________________________
James W. Chase, Finance Director
4
(27-415 SJP/pb)
ATTACHMENT A
______________________________
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET
CONTRACTOR:
PROJECT:
SCOPE OF WORK
1. Xxxxx (“Contractor”) will receive from City of Arlington (“City”) the amount of $ .
Funds will reimburse the Contractor for eligible expenses incurred in executing the project more
fully described in Attachment B appended hereto. Funds will reimburse the Contractor for
eligible expenses incurred in executing the project more fully described in Attachment B
appended hereto.
2. The period of this Contract shall run through December 31, 2013.
3. The Contractor will ensure that a substantial amount of any promotional materials
underwritten in whole or in part by City funds will be directed at recipients outside of City of
Arlington to ensure that out-of-city visitors are attracted. This will be accomplished by mailing
materials out of the city and/or by placing appropriate materials with the Snohomish County
Tourism Bureau. Any electronic advertising funded by this contract will be substantially directed
at audiences outside of City of Arlington.
4. For the purposes of this project, expenses eligible for reimbursement are defined as those
listed in the “CITY” column of the budget below. Invoices to the City from the Contractor will
include itemized receipts for all eligible expenditures for which the Contractor seeks
reimbursement. In addition, if City funds underwrite in whole or in part any printed materials,
print advertising or broadcast medium advertising, the Contractor will submit with the
Contractor's reimbursement request for associated costs incurred: three (3) copies of printed
materials; one copy of each print advertisement as printed; and one copy of the text of each
broadcast medium advertisement. City funds will not be used to reimburse any expenses
incurred by the Contractor which provide direct promotional benefit to a specific private business
entity. In order to ensure timely closeout of this project, the Contractor will submit final
invoicing to the City for this project no later than December 31, 2013. Also, by December
31, 2013, the Contractor will provide to City a final report summarizing project activity
and summarize how grant funds have enhanced cultural tourism in the City of Arlington.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #6
Attachment
D
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Short Term Interfund Loans
ATTACHMENTS:
Detail of Interfund Loans
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Finance Department, Jim Chase, Finance Director
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
At the end of October, the Equipment Rental Maintenance & Operations Funds needed an
additional loan to prevent a negative month-end cash balance. At the end of September and
again at the end of October, the Emergency Medical Services Fund also needed loans to prevent
a negative month-end cash balance. In accordance with Ord. 2012-005, allowing the Finance
Director to make such loans, the attached document (Exhibit 1) includes the loans made in
September and October.
HISTORY:
Previous to the Interfund Loan Program, various funds of the City were allowed to have
negative cash balance at the end of a month. With the Loan Program, funds that provide the
loans are paid interest by the borrowing funds.
ALTERNATIVES
Do nothing and allow funds to go into the red, thereby taking advantage of other funds by
“using” pooled funds and not paying interest. This could be in violation of RCW 43.09.210
which essentially states that no fund should unfairly benefit from another.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action at this time. Council will be asked to approve the following motion at the next
Council meeting: “I move to approve the short term Interfund Loans made in September and
October, as presented in Exhibit 1, and direct the loans to be repaid as soon as there are
sufficient funds to do so.”
2012 Interfund Loans Exhibit 1
Interest to be repaid at the Local Government Investment Pool monthly rate.
FROM:
Growth Fund Interest Payments Loan
TO:Date Loan Amount Charges Interest Principal Balance
General Fund 2/29/2012 92,700.00$ -$ -$ 92,700.00$
3/31/2012 32,284.00 10.56$ - - 124,994.56
4/30/2012 - 14.45$ 25.01 124,984.00 -
124,984.00
Cause: Expect Property Tax Revenues in May to repay the loan
FROM:
Growth Fund Interest Payments Loan
TO:Date Loan Amount Charges Interest Principal Balance
Emergency Medical Services Fund 2/29/2012 65,500.00$ -$ -$ 65,500.00$
3/31/2012 124,084.00 7.46$ - - 189,591.46
4/30/2012 26,672.00 23.37$ - - 216,286.83
5/31/2012 - 25.83$ 56.66 216,256.00 -
- -$ -
8/31/2012 39,000.00 -$ 39,000.00
9/30/2012 125,100.00 6.01$ 164,106.01
10/31/2012 25,906.00 24.71$ 190,036.72
406,262.00
Cause: Expect Property Tax Revenues in May and November to repay the loan
FROM:
Equip Rental Replacement Fund Interest Payments Loan
TO:Date Loan Amount Charges Interest Principal Balance
Equipment Rental M & O Fund 2/29/2012 14,000.00$ -$ -$ 14,000.00$
3/31/2012 6,662.00 1.59$ - - 20,663.59
4/30/2012 13,626.00 2.55$ - - 34,292.14
5/31/2012 12,332.00 4.10$ - - 46,628.24
6/30/2012 22,286.00 6.78$ - - 68,921.02
7/30/2012 1,840.00 10.13$ - - 70,771.15
8/31/2012 - 10.90$ - - 70,782.05
9/30/2012 - 10.66$ - - 70,792.71
10/31/2012 1,967.00 10.48$ 72,770.19
72,713.00
Cause: Annual Insurance bill paid in January and large Fire Truck repair bill paid in Feb.
Maintenance & repairs on aging vehicles (primarily in Police, Fire and EMS) and gas prices continue to be an issue.
Local Gov. Investment Pool Rate 1/31/2012 0.1213%
2/29/2012 0.1394%
3/31/2012 0.1367%
4/30/2012 0.1479%
5/31/2012 0.1433%
6/30/2012 0.1746%
7/30/2012 0.1764%
8/31/2012 0.1848%
9/30/2012 0.1807%
10/31/2012 0.1777%
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #7
Attachment
E
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
West Arlington/TDR Introduce the Draft updated TDR code(s)
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft TDR Zoning Language, Draft Interlocal resolution, Draft Policy Statement, Draft
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, TDR 365-198 WAC for Tax Increment Financing
through Regional Program
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Community & Economic Development / Public Works – Contact: Bill Blake; Paul Ellis
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A
BUDGET CATEGORY:
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Attached are the draft code changes provided by the consultant team and reviewed by
staff to incorporate the TDR program in to the West Arlington Planning Area. Included
is language to utilize the 365-198 WAC that allows Arlington to participate in the
regional TDR program without requiring a formal Interlocal agreement between the
City and all three Counties Participating in the regional program. Participation in the
regional program qualifies the City to utilize Tax Increment Financing within the TDR
planning area.
HISTORY:
The City was awarded a Dept. of Commerce grant September1, 2010 to create a new
TDR receiving area in the West Arlington Planning Area. The City contracted with a
consultant (Makers) that assisted with the Public Participation process and creation of
the Draft West Arlington Form based code. Makers was assisted by sub-consultants
that provided an Economic Analysis as well as updated TDR regulations to include
West Arlington and the regional program. The grant deadline is December 31, 2012,
with a request to extend that deadline to February 15, 2013.
ALTERNATIVES
Discussion Item
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action at this time.
Title 20 - ZONING
Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances
Page 1 of 6
Proposed Amendments to Arlington Municipal Code
for implementation of West Arlington Subarea Plan TDR policies, and
new form-based zoning.
Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Sections:
20.37.005 - Definitions.
20.37.010 - Overview of requirements for transfer of development rights (TDR) receiving areas.
20.37.020 - Development approvals within the Brekhus-Beach TDR overlay zone conditioned on use
of TDR certificates.
20.37.030 - Presentation and extinguishment of TDR certificates (Brekus-Beach Overlay).
20.37.040 - Number of TDR certificates required for development approvals. (Brekus-Beach TDR
Overlay Zone).
20.37.050 - Development standards and application requirements for the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay
Zone.
20.37.060 Use of TDR certificates for certain development approvals within the West Arlington
Subarea TDR overlay zone.
20.37.070 - Interlocal agreement for TDR receiving areas.
20.37.005 - Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "TDR overlay zone." A TDR overlay zone is that area depicted on the official zoning map of the
city that identifies the areas impacted by the interlocal agreement authorized in Section 20.37.060
(Interlocal Agreement for TDR Receiving Areas).
(2) "TDR receiving area." A TDR receiving area is that area to which development rights may be
transferred from other locations, pursuant to the city’s comprehensive plan or the interlocal
agreement authorized in Section 20.37.060 (Interlocal Agreement for TDR Receiving Areas).
(3) “Stillaguamish Sending Area” is the TDR sending area in the Stillaguamish River Valley
designated in the Snohomish County comprehensive plan Future Land Use Map as a “Pilot Sending
Area.”
(Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006)
Title 20 - ZONING
Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances
Page 2 of 6
20.37.010 - Overview of requirements for transfer of development rights (TDR) receiving areas.
(a) This chapter is adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, the
city’s comprehensive plan, including the West Arlington Subarea Plan, and any interlocal agreement
between the city of Arlington and Snohomish County concerning the Transfer of Development Rights
Program that may hereafter be adopted. Consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA and
Arlington Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of this chapter is to:
(1) Provide for urban development within portions of the Arlington Urban Growth Area that are
zoned as TDR receiving areas pursuant to Section 20.36.080 (TDR Overlay Zone Established) and
depicted on the city of Arlington's official zoning map.
(2) Help conserve valuable agricultural lands located in the Stillaguamish River Valley that are
designated as "sending areas" on the Snohomish County Future Land Use Map, an element of the
county's comprehensive plan.
(3) Help conserve floodplain function, agriculture and agricultural land through a variety of
planning techniques, regulations, incentives, and acquisition methods, an objective identified in the
Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Policy PL-19.10.
(b) To further these objectives, approval of the urban development applications listed in Section
20.37.020 (Development Approvals Within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone Conditioned on Use of
TDR Certificates) within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone requires the transfer of development
rights from designated sending areas. Subject to the requirements of this chapter, such transfers shall
occur through the use of TDR certificates, issued pursuant to Snohomish County Code Section
30.35A.050, in connection with city of approval of urban developments within the TDR Overlay Zone.
(c) To further these objectives and implement the West Arlington Subarea Plan, Section 20.37,060,
other provisions of this section, and the City’s form-based zoning for the subarea at Chapter 20.42, allow
certain uses, densities and other development allowances, if TDR certificates are purchased and utilized
in accordance with adopted city and County procedures for issuance and extinguishment of TDR
certificates.
(Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006)
20.37.020 - Development approvals within the Brekhus-Beach TDR overlay zone conditioned on
use of TDR certificates.
(a) Approval of the following urban development applications within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay
Zone requires the use of TDR certificates by the applicant pursuant to the requirements of Section
20.37.030 (Presentation and Extinguishment of TDR Certificates) and Section 20.37.040 (Number of
TDR Certificates Required for Development Approvals):
(1) Preliminary approvals for residential short and long subdivisions within the TDR Overlay Zone
shall include a condition requiring the applicant to provide TDR certificates issued by Snohomish
County pursuant to SCC Section 30.35A.050 prior to final plat approval.
(2) Approval of land use permits for non-subdivision development, either residential or
nonresidential, shall include a condition requiring the applicant to provide TDR certificates issued by
Snohomish County pursuant to SCC Section 30.35A.050 prior to the issuance of building permits.
(b) Permits for the following types of development or activities wtihin the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay
Title 20 - ZONING
Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances
Page 3 of 6
Zone are hereby exempt from this chapter (use class refers to those established in Table 20.40-2: Table
of Permissible Uses):
(1) Educational, Cultural, Religious, Philanthropic, Social, Fraternal uses (Use Class 5.00)
(2) Emergency Services (Use Class 13.000)
(3) Miscellaneous Public and Semi-Public Facilities (Use Class 15.000) Utility Facility (Use Class
17.000)
(4) Cemetery and Crematorium (Use Class 21.000)
(5) Bus Station, Train Station (Use Class 24.000)
(6) Grading, excavation, or filling (Use Class 31.000)
(7) Land clearing, logging (Use Class 32.000)
(8) Uses permissible in sensitive areas as per Chapter 20.88 (Environmentally Critical Areas)
(9) Single family dwellings on existing lots
(Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006)
20.37.030 - Presentation and extinguishment of TDR certificates (Brekhus-Beach Overlay).
(a) TDR certificates required as condition to development approval pursuant to Section 20.37.020
(Development Approvals Within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone Conditioned on Use of TDR
Certificates) shall be provided to the city, as follows:
(1) For long and short residential subdivisions within a TDR Overlay Zone, the required number of
TDR certificates specified in Section 20.37.040 (Number of TDR Certificates Required for
Development Approvals) shall be provided at time of final plat submittal. The staff recommendation
to the council on the final plat shall state whether the required number of certificates have been
provided.
(2) For long and short commercial subdivisions within a TDR Overlay Zone, the required number
of TDR certificates specified in Section 20.37.040 (Number of TDR Certificates Required for
Development Approvals) shall be provided at the time of building permit application.
(3) Except as provided in Section 20.37.020(b), for all other development applications, either
residential or nonresidential, the required number of TDR certificates specified in Section 20.37.040
shall be provided at the time of building permit application.
[(b) Reserved.]
(c) TDR certificates provided to the city pursuant to Subsection (a) of this section shall be extinguished
and deemed legally void by Snohomish County pursuant to the requirements of chapter 30.35A SCC
presently in effect or as hereafter amended, and pursuant to any interlocal agreement between the city of
Arlington and Snohomish County which may be hereafter adopted.
(d) For residential subdivisions of land the following statement shall be placed on the face of the final
plat: "Upon recordation of this plat, any future subdivision of land within this plat shall be subject to the
Title 20 - ZONING
Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances
Page 4 of 6
rules and regulation of AMC Chapter 20.37."
(Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006)
20.37.040 - Number of TDR certificates required for development approvals (Brekhus-Beach TDR
Overlay Zone).
(a) The number of TDR certificates required to be presented for development approvals pursuant to
Section 20.37.030 (Presentation and Extinguishment of TDR Certificates) shall be as follows:
Table.1
Number of Required
(b) Fractions that result from the calculation required by this section shall be rounded up to the next
whole number.
(Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006)
20.37.050 - Development standards and application requirements for the Brekhus-Beach TDR
Overlay Zone.
(a) Development within TDR Overlay Zone shall be subject to the development standards and
regulations for the underlying zoning classification, in addit ion to all other applicable requirements of
AMC Title 20. Compliance with the requirements for development approval imposed by this chapter shall
not result in additional lots or units.
(b) Applications for development approvals must be accompanied by a purchase and sale agreement,
or copy thereof, indicating that the applicant owns or has agreed to purchase the number of TDR
certificates required for development approval under Section 20.37.020 (Development Approvals Within
TDR Overlay Zone Conditioned on Use of TDR Certificates).
(Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006)
20.37.060 – Use of TDR Certificates for Certain development approvals within the West Arlington
Subarea TDR overlay zone.
(a) As an incentive to preserve and protect the Stillaguamish Valley, the zoning and development
standards for the West Arlington subarea require purchase of TDR certificates to obtain certain approvals
from the City. Where TDR certificates are required, the following applies:
(1) Development within the West Arlington Subarea TDR Overlay Zone shall be subject to the
development standards and regulations for the underlying zoning classification, in addition to all
Title 20 - ZONING
Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances
Page 5 of 6
other applicable requirements of AMC Title 20.
(2) Applications for development approvals must be accompanied by a purchase and sale
agreement, or copy thereof, indicating that the applicant owns or has agreed to purchase the
number of TDR certificates required for development approval under this section.
(3) The applicant shall provide the city the required number of TDR certificates, which are issued
by Snohomish County pursuant to County code prior to obtaining any final plat approval, final
binding site plan approval, building permit or certificate of occupancy, whichever land use approval
occurs earliest.
(4) Upon receiving the certificate, the city shall ensure the certificates are extinguished pursuant to
County code upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
(b) The permissible use tables governing development within the West Arlington Subarea area,
described in AMC 20.42.220, authorize certain uses only if the applicant complies with this section.
Where the use tables require compliance with this section, the applicant shall purchase TDR certificates
from the Stillaguamish Valley (Pilot Sending Area) or Regional Program TDR Sending Areas and
exchange purchased certificates per the ratio identified in Table.2 of this section.
(c) The density and dimensional standards governing development within the West Arlington
Subarea area, described in AMC 20.42.230, allow for certain specified increases in density or building
height, subject to the following requirements for purchase of TDR certificates:
(1) Where additional density is allowed through use of the TDR bonus, the City shall permit the
purchaser of TDR certificates to exchange those certificates and obtain bonus densities at the ratios
identified in Table. 2 of this section.
(2) Where additional building height is allowed through use of the TDR bonus, the City shall
permit the purchaser of TDR certificates to exchange those certificates at the ratios identified in
Table. 2 of this section, up to the maximum heights specified in AMC 20.42.230.
(3) [Reserved: Requirements within Master Planned Areas]
Table. 2 West Arlington Receiving Area TDR program Exchange Rates
–
–
Title 20 - ZONING
Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances
Page 6 of 6
Snohomish County regional
program areas. (Not Pilot
Sending Area)
Ordinances area ft. of gross floor area
SD – Single Purpose
Residential from Pierce
County.
See current
County
Ordinances
1 Certificate=1,800 sq.
ft. of gross floor area
1 Certificate=900 sq.
ft. of gross floor area
West Arlington T3 and T4
from King or Snohomish
county Regional Program.
(Not Pilot Sending Area)
See current
County
Ordinances
2 Additional
Units/acre/Certificate
1 Additional
Units/acre/Certificate
West Arlington T3 and T4
from Pierce County Regional
program.
See current
County
Ordinances
1 unit additional
Unit/acre/Certificate
0.5 unit additional
Unit/acre/Certificate
T = Transect SD = Special District
20.37.070 - Interlocal agreement for TDR receiving areas.
(a) Subject to approval by the city council, the mayor is authorized to negotiate and execute an
interlocal agreement (ILA) with Snohomish County for the purpose of ensuring that the use of TDR
certificates is required as a condition to development approvals within TDR receiving areas following
annexation, as provided in this chapter.
(b) An interlocal agreement executed pursuant to Subsection (a) of this section shall require the city to
adopt development regulations that:
(1) Require the use of TDR certificates issued by the county as provided in this chapter within TDR
receiving areas following annexation; and
(2) Include requirements that are substantially consistent with the requirements of the Snohomish
County Comprehensive Plan.
(Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006)
1
RESOLUTION No. ___
A RES0LUTION RELATING TO
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH
USE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to adopt by reference the
Washington State Department of Commerce interlocal terms and conditions for transferring
development rights from counties to cities, under the regional Transfer of Development Rights
program for the central Puget Sound region, thereby further allowing such transactions between
the City and King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties; and,
WHEREAS, the transfer of development rights (TDR) is one tool available to
Washington communities to encourage the preservation of working agricultural and forest land
while also promoting higher-density, infill development within incorporated cities, consistent
with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, and as
provided in the Regional Transfer of Development Rights Program, Chapter 43.362 RCW; and,
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature affirmed the regional TDR program in
2009 by directing the Washington State Department of Commerce to establish a regional TDR
program in Central Puget Sound; and,
WHEREAS, to further the goals set forth in the City of Arlington comprehensive plan
and development regulations, it is important to preserve working agricultural and forest land and
land whose conservation meets other state and regionally adopted priorities; and,
WHEREAS, the City’s participation in a regional TDR program would qualify the City to
use tax increment financing for targeted infrastructure improvements; and,
WHEREAS, RCW 43.362.050 authorizes cities in central Puget Sound to adopt by
reference interlocal agreement terms and conditions now adopted by the Washington State
Department of Commerce in Chapter 365-198 WAC in order to transfer development rights from
any in the central Puget Sound region to the City, as the alternative to entering into interlocal
agreements with those counties for transfer of development rights; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted comprehensive plan policies and development
regulations specifying the manner in which TDR credits may be used within the City; and,
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of this Resolution, the City Council held a public hearing
on ____________, 2012.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARLINGTON AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council supports the transfer of development rights from sending
areas designated by the central Puget Sound counties under the City’s TDR program, consistent
with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, and as
provided in the Regional Transfer of Development Rights Program, Chapter 43.362 RCW,
subject to the policies and regulations in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations.
Section 2. The City hereby adopts by reference the interlocal terms and conditions as
set forth in WAC 365-198-040 and 060 effective on the effective date of this Resolution (copies
of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference), thereby providing a
mechanism for the transfer of development rights from King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties
(“Counties”) to the City, with additional definitions of “sending areas” and “receiving areas” set
forth in the Arlington City Code, in addition to and complementary with those in WAC 365-198-
030.
Section 3. The City has adopted policies or regulations for sending and receiving
areas as shown in Ordinance Nos. _____________ and ______________, copies of which are
attached to this resolution (the “Ordinances -- TDR”);
Section 4. The City has made efforts at good faith consultation with the Counties, by
sending them a letter informing them of:
(i) Designated receiving areas in the City within which transferable
development rights or development rights credits may be used;
(ii) Specified receiving area ratios;
(iii) A process to notify the transferring county when the City has
approved the use of TDRs or development rights credits for a specific project in
the designated receiving area, to allow the transferring county to track and
extinguish credits as they are used; and
(iv) An adopted procedure for consulting with the transferring county
to ensure the validity of the TDR or development rights credit, prior to
development approval, as specified in the Ordinances – TDR.
Section 5. The City’s agreement to the indemnification and hold harmless provisions
against the City in WAC 365-198-040 and 060 are agreed to on the assurance that that the
Counties provide reciprocal protections in favor of the City.
Section 6. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cooperate with
representatives from the Counties to accomplish the policies set forth in this resolution and to
promote the development and overall effectiveness of the City’s TDR program.
Section 7. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon passage with
respect to those Counties that have also adopted resolutions incorporating WAC 365-198 by
3
reference. Nothing in this resolution is intended to preclude the City from utilizing a non-
regional TDR process in the event this Resolution is determined to be invalid in whole or in part,
or in the event it does not take effect with respect to one of more of the Counties.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this ___ day of
_________, 2012.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
_______________________
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Kristin Banfield, City Clerk
PL-16.92 The West Arlington Subarea is designated as a new TDR receiving area within
the City's Urban Growth area. Incentives for purchase of TDR certificates from
landowners in the Stillaguamish Valley and Regional program shall be included
in the City's development code for the subarea. These may include expanded
uses within a particular zone, additional density, reduced minimum lot sizes,
increased building heights, changes in parking and other development standards
or other incentives. This incentives approach is consistent with the City's
comprehensive plan policies for implementation of a TDR program and
preservation and protection of the Stillaguamish Valley.
WEST ARLINGTON SUBAREA
Chapter 7:
Land Use Element
7.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER .................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 MAJOR LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 7-1
7.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 7-222
7.3.1 Land Use Designations .................................................................................. 7-222
7.3.2 Residential Land Capacity Analysis (Buildable Lands) ................................... 7-888
7.3.3 Residential Density ................................................................................... 7-101010
7.3.4 Household Size ......................................................................................... 7-101010
7.3.5 Employment Land Capacity Analysis (Buildable Lands) ............................ 7-101010
7.3.6 Jobs/Housing Ratio ................................................................................... 7-101010
7.4 PROJECTED NEEDS ........................................................................................ 7-101010
7.4.1 2025 Population Target ............................................................................. 7-101010
7.4.2 Residential Land ....................................................................................... 7-101010
7.4.3 Employment Land ..................................................................................... 7-111111
7.4.4 Public Land ............................................................................................... 7-121212
7.5 WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE ............................................................... 7-131313
7.5.1 UGA Expansion ........................................................................................ 7-131313
7.5.2 Revised Land Use Map ............................................................................. 7-202019
7.5.3 Protection of the Stillaguamish River Valley .............................................. 7-212119
7.5.4 Subarea Plans .......................................................................................... 7-222220
7.5.5 Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation ……………………………………7-25
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 1 December 2011
7 Land Use Element
7.1 PURPOSE OF THIS
CHAPTER
―How shall we grow?‖ is a recurring theme
in communities throughout the United
States. Growth can take many forms: more
people, more homes, new job opportunities,
higher standards of living, increased family
wealth and so on. This Element is con-
cerned primarily with the accommodation of
the City of Arlington's spatial growth; that is,
the increased use and the mix of land uses
for urban activities.
This Land Use Element has been devel-
oped in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070
of the Growth Management Act to address
land use issues in the City of Arlington and
the adjacent Urban Growth Area that are
expected to arise over the next 20 years.
This Element, which is the City's policy plan
for growth, describes how the goals in the
other elements of this Comprehensive Plan
will be implemented through land use poli-
cies and regulations. Therefore, it is a key
element in implementing Arlington's Com-
prehensive Plan.
This Element has also been developed in
accordance with the County-Wide Planning
Policies, and has been integrated with all
other planning elements to ensure internal
consistency throughout the Comprehensive
Plan. A matrix showing the consistency be-
tween the countywide policies and Arling-
ton's Comprehensive Plan policies is locat-
ed in Appendix A of this plan. This section
inventories and analyzes the distribution
and location of existing land uses and con-
siders the appropriate intensity and density
of future development.
7.2 MAJOR LAND USE
CONSIDERATIONS
The biggest consideration that will arise at
every 10-year update of this plan, including
this one, will be: How do we want to grow?
Under the GMA, we will be obligated to plan
for and accommodate 20-years‘ worth of
projected growth, regardless of what local
sentiments are. The only control we have
over development is what it will look like.
Therefore, if we don‘t want to expand our
boundaries (if we want to remain the same
physical size), we will have to increase den-
sities. However, if we don‘t want to increase
densities in existing neighborhoods, then we
will have to expand our boundaries. In all
likelihood, we will end up doing a little of
both.
Whatever we end up doing, the other big
issues will normally be:
What infrastructure will be needed to
accommodate the growth, what‘s its
cost, and how will it be paid for? Where
should new roads go? What about sew-
er, water, or storm drainage mains?
What do we want development to look
like? Standard suburban plats? Tradi-
tional neighborhoods like Old Town?
Uniformly developed commercial areas?
Clean industrial areas? Where do we
want new commercial or job centers if
we grow?
What Levels of Service do we want to
provide? How many police officers?
What response time for fire service?
What type and how many parks, recrea-
tional, or cultural amenities? And, how
much does it all cost and are we willing
to pay for it?
What‘s our strategy for economic
growth, and are we obtaining it? Is there
something we can do better?
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 2 December 2011
Is our housing stock adequate in num-
bers and diversity to provide choices in
lifestyle and/or affordable housing? If
not, is there something we can do about
it?
7.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
7.3.1 Land Use Designations
The following is a list and descriptions of the
Land Use Designations in Arlington. Table
7-1: Land Use Designation Size by Subar-
ea, Existing (pre-2005 Update) Land Use
MapTable 7-1: Land Use Designation Size
by Subarea, Existing (pre-2005 Update)
Land Use MapTable 7-1: Land Use Desig-
nation Size by Subarea, Existing (pre-2005
Update) Land Use Map provides the num-
ber of acres of each and, page 7-555, pro-
vides a map of these designations prior to
this plan update.
7.3.1.1 Residential Designations
7.3.1.1.1 Suburban Residential
SR is a new designation, intended for sin-
gle-family residential, recreational, commu-
nity and public/quasi-public uses serving
those residential uses. These are areas that
typically have sewer and water facilities. SR
allows single-family (1 du/lot) and two-family
(duplex) residential and residential accesso-
ry uses with a maximum gross density
range of 4 dwelling units per acre.
There currently are no areas with this land
use designation.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated RLMD and still retain
compatibility with the comprehensive plan
include the Suburban Residential zoning
district (to be created) as well as the Pub-
lic/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District,
Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Man-
agement, and Planned Neighborhood De-
velopment Districts.
7.3.1.1.2 Residential Low/Moderate
Density (RLMD)
RLMD is intended for single-family residen-
tial, recreational, community and pub-
lic/quasi-public uses serving those residen-
tial uses. These are areas that typically
have sewer and water facilities. RLMD al-
lows single-family (1 du/lot) and two-family
(duplex) residential and residential accesso-
ry uses with a maximum gross density
range of 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre.
In 2005 Arlington had 1,561 acres of Resi-
dential Low/Moderate Density, only 436
acres of which was available for develop-
ment. (As of December 2005 most of this
had already been developed or was under
application for development).
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated RLMD and still retain
compatibility with the comprehensive plan
include the Residential-Low/Moderate Den-
sity zoning district as well as the Pub-
lic/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District,
Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Man-
agement, and Planned Neighborhood De-
velopment Districts.
Formatted: Check spelling and grammar
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 3 December 2011
Table 7-1: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Existing (pre-2005 Update) Land Use Map
Within City Limits & UGA Total %
Subarea SR RLMD RMD RHD OTRD NC OTBD1 OTBD2 OTBD3 GC HC BP LI GI P/SP MS AF MPN
Airport Industrial 20.8 38.6 29.2 46.5 1058.6 673.2 29.3 1896.1 32.7%
Arlington Bluff 251.0 67.2 8.2 32.8 155.3 31.5 546.0 9.4%
Burn Hill 0.0 0.0%
OTBD 1 5.1 36.0 41.0 0.7%
OTBD 2 0.5 46.0 46.4 0.8%
OTBD 3 45.6 45.6 0.8%
Hill Top 1030.9 15.3 25.9 1072.0 18.5%
Island Crossing 0.0 0.0%
Kent Prairie 45.3 76.9 98.9 6.9 47.4 17.7 12.0 305.2 5.3%
Old Town 143.7 52.4 49.8 234.9 29.7 6.1 95.7 612.3 10.6%
SmPt / SR 531 Corridor 77.3 282.2 229.0 78.1 666.6 11.5%
SmPt Neighborhood 331.3 331.3 5.7%
South Fork Neighborhood 69.8 69.8 1.2%
West Bluff 165.2 165.2 2.8%
Total 0.0 1561.3 566.4 148.8 247.3 52.6 65.7 46.0 45.6 204.0 282.2 0.0 1608.2 775.1 194.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5797.5
% of City 0.0% 26.9% 9.8% 2.6% 4.3% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 3.5% 4.9% 0.0% 27.7% 13.4% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Source: Arlington ArcView
7.3.1.1.3 Residential Moderate Den-
sity (RMD)
RMD is intended for single-family residential
(detached and attached), recreational,
community and public/quasi-public uses
serving those residential uses. These areas
have sewer and water facilities. RMD allows
single-family (1 du/lot) and two-family (du-
plex) residential and residential accessory
uses with a maximum gross density of 6
dwelling units per acre.
In 2005 Arlington had 566 acres of Residen-
tial - Moderate Density, only 167 acres of
which was available for development. (As of
March 2004, most of this had already been
developed or was under application for de-
velopment).
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated RMD and still retain com-
patibility with the comprehensive plan in-
clude the Residential Moderate Density zon-
ing district as well as the Public/Semi-
Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain
and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and
Planned Neighborhood Development Dis-
tricts.
7.3.1.1.4 Residential High Density
(RHD)
RHD is intended for higher density multi-
family developments as well as recreational,
community and public/quasi-public uses
serving those residential uses. These areas
have sewer and water facilities. RHD allows
any form of single-family, two-family, and
multi-family residential and residential ac-
cessory uses (detached, attached, 1 du/lot,
more than 1 du/lot, conversions, mo-
bile/manufactured homes, accessory
apartments, townhouses, condominiums,
apartments, duplexes, group homes, special
care homes, tourist homes, hotels, motels,
etc.) with no density limits, provided that the
project meets the site requirements of the
Land Use and other pertinent codes and
adopted development guidelines.
In 2005 Arlington had 149 acres of Residen-
tial - High Density, only 22 acres of which
was available for development. However, a
substantial portion (37 acres near the
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 4 December 2011
OTBD) is considered underdeveloped. This
undeveloped area contains older, single-
family residential uses. Theoretically these
areas could be redeveloped. However, the
fact that redevelopment is not already oc-
curring indicates that the market is probably
not there yet.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated RHD and still retain com-
patibility with the comprehensive plan in-
clude the Residential High Density zoning
district as well as the Public/Semi-Public,
Airport Protection District, Floodplain and
Floodway, Shoreline Management, and
Planned Neighborhood Development Dis-
tricts.
7.3.1.1.5 Old Town (OT)
OT is intended primarily for single-family
residences. OT allows single-family (1
du/lot) and two-family (duplex) residential
and residential accessory uses with a max-
imum gross density of 10 dwelling units per
acre. It also allows limited public/semi-
public, community, and recreational uses.
One of the urban design goals of this desig-
nation is to preserve the historic quality of
the traditional town center by promoting res-
idential development that is in character
with the older, existing homes in the area.
In 2005 Arlington had 247 acres of Old
Town, 180 acres of which was developed.
However, there is opportunity for in-fill de-
velopment as many of the older houses sit
on 2 to 3 lots. This zone also allows for ac-
cessory dwelling units, which would aid in
in-fill.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated OT and still retain com-
patibility with the comprehensive plan in-
clude the Old Town zoning district as well
as the Medical Services, Public/Semi-
Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain
and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and
Planned Neighborhood Development Dis-
tricts.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 5 December 2011
Figure 7-1: Pre-Update Land Use Map (1995-2005)
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 6 December 2011
7.3.1.2 Commercial Designations
7.3.1.2.1 Neighborhood Commercial
(NC)
This designation allows retail and service
businesses that serve the daily convenience
shopping and personal service needs of the
immediate surrounding neighborhood.
In 2005 Arlington had 53 acres of Neighbor-
hood Commercial, 47 acres of which was
available for development.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated NB and still retain com-
patibility with the comprehensive plan in-
clude the Neighborhood Commercial zoning
district as well as the Public/Semi-Public,
Airport Protection District, Floodplain and
Floodway, Shoreline Management, and
Planned Neighborhood Development Dis-
tricts.
7.3.1.2.2 Old Town Business District
(OTBD)
This designation allows customer-intensive
retail, dining, entertainment, personal ser-
vices, and similar businesses that are con-
ducted primarily indoors. Mixed-use (com-
mercial/high density residential) uses are
also allowed in this district. It is intended
that the OTBD remain, and in fact expand,
its role as a business and social hub for Ar-
lington, servicing residents while attracting
people outside the City as well.
The OTBD is further broken into three sub-
districts: OTBD-1, 2, and 3. OTBD-1 is in-
tended to cover N. Olympic—Arlington‘s
historic downtown. OTBD 2 and 3 allow a
slightly larger range of commercial uses,
including those more automobile-oriented,
while OTBD 3 has a larger range of residen-
tial uses. Special requirements, such as his-
toric design guidelines, have been adopted
in order to help implement the City‘s eco-
nomic development strategy for the OTBD.
In 2005 Arlington had 157 acres of OTBD,
only 16 of which was available for develop-
ment. However, a substantial portion (espe-
cially in OTBD 2 and 3) contains single-
family residential uses that at one time the
City hoped would redevelop into commercial
uses. Obviously the market is not yet ripe
for such redevelopment in Arlington.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated OTBD and still retain
compatibility with the comprehensive plan
include the Old Town Business District zone
as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Airport
Protection District, Floodplain and Flood-
way, Shoreline Management, and Planned
Neighborhood Development Districts.
7.3.1.2.3 General Commercial (GC)
This designation follows a suburban model
and allows more automobile-oriented retail
and service uses than allowed in the OTBD.
It is intended that this designation be placed
along arterials to cater to commuters or as a
transition in some areas between a Highway
Commercial zone and a residential zone.
General commercial uses may require some
outdoor display of merchandise.
In 2005 Arlington had 204 acres of General
Commercial, 144 acres of which was avail-
able for development.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated GC and still retain com-
patibility with the comprehensive plan in-
clude the General Commercial zoning dis-
trict as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Spe-
cial Purpose District, Floodplain and Flood-
way, Shoreline Management, and Planned
Neighborhood Development Districts.
7.3.1.2.4 Highway Commercial (HC)
This designation allows high-intensity, large-
scale, automobile-oriented commercial uses
that typically locate on major highways,
need larger sites, are used not only by local
residents but by those of other communities
as well, and should have more separation
from residential uses.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 7 December 2011
In 2005 Arlington had 282 acres of Highway
Commercial, 109 acres of which was avail-
able for development.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated HC and still retain com-
patibility with the comprehensive plan in-
clude the Highway Commercial zoning dis-
trict as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Air-
port Protection District, Floodplain and
Floodway, Shoreline Management, and
Planned Neighborhood Development Dis-
tricts.
7.3.1.3 Industrial Designations
7.3.1.3.1 General Industrial (GI)
This land use designation allows manufac-
turing (in particular resource-based), as-
sembly, and processing uses that involve a
great deal of activity and storage outside of
buildings.
In 2005 Arlington had 775 acres of General
Industrial, 430 acres of which was devel-
oped or under permit for development and
355 of which was available for development.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated GI and still retain compat-
ibility with the comprehensive plan include
the General Industrial zoning district as well
as the Public/Semi-Public, Airport Protection
District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline
Management, and Planned Neighborhood
Development Districts.
7.3.1.3.2 Light Industrial (LI)
Formerly called Airport Industrial (AI), the
Light Industrial (LI) designation allows man-
ufacturing, assembly, processing uses, and
storage that are completely inside of build-
ings. It is intended to have a cleaner, more
orderly environment than one would find in
a General Industrial district.
In 2005 Arlington had 1,682 acres of Light
Industrial, 952 acres of which was devel-
oped or under permit for development, leav-
ing 228 acres available for development.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated LI and still retain compati-
bility with the comprehensive plan include
the Light Industrial, Public/Semi-Public, Air-
port Protection District, Floodplain and
Floodway, Shoreline Management, and
Planned Neighborhood Development Dis-
tricts.
7.3.1.3.3 Business Park (BP)
The Business Park designation allows of-
fice, high technology research and devel-
opment, and related uses in a master-
planned, park-like setting.
In 2005 Arlington had 0 acres of the Busi-
ness Park land use designation, though 270
acres the Airport Industrial was zoned Busi-
ness Park, 268 acres of which was unde-
veloped. However, 124 acres is under per-
mit for development, leaving 144 available
for additional development.
Zoning districts that may be applied within
areas designated BP and still retain compat-
ibility with the comprehensive plan include
the Business Park zoning district as well as
the Public/Semi-Public, Floodplain and
Floodway, Shoreline Management, Airport
Protection District, and Planned Neighbor-
hood Development Districts.
7.3.1.4 Miscellaneous Designations
7.3.1.4.1 Public/Semi-Public (P/SP)
Formerly called Existing Public Use, the
Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) designation is
intended to accommodate public and semi-
public uses, such as schools, government
services and facilities, public utilities, com-
munity facilities, parks, etc. on publicly
owned land. Compatible zones include Pub-
lic/Semi-Public and Airport Protection Dis-
trict.
In 2005 Arlington had 194 acres of Pub-
lic/Semi-Public.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 8 December 2011
7.3.1.4.2 Aviation Flightline (AF)
This is a new designation and is intended to
cover the portions of the airport devoted to
aviation-related uses. It allows only aviation
related uses proximate to airport runways
and taxiways. Aviation related uses include
any uses related to supporting aviation that
require direct taxiway access as a neces-
sary part of their business operations, such
as aviation services, manufacturing of avia-
tion-related goods, general services whose
primary customers would be those engaged
in aviation-related activities (e.g., restau-
rants primarily catering to pilots, employees,
or passengers), or other uses that are clear-
ly related to aviation. Compatible zones in-
clude Aviation Flightline, Airport Protection
District, and Public/Semi-Public.
7.3.1.4.3 Master Planned Neighborhood
Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) is a
new land use designation intended to be
placed on large tracts of land (25 acres or
more) that are proposed to be brought into
the UGA where detailed planning would
benefit the public as well as all property
owners involved by allowing them to propor-
tionately share infrastructure planning and
financing. It achieves this by requiring that a
Master Development Plan be developed for
all contiguous parcels within a particular
overlay before any one parcel can be de-
veloped, and then that any parcel devel-
oped be so according to that plan. The im-
plementing zone for this designation shall
be Planned Neighborhood Development,
subject to AMC §20.36.050 (Planned
Neighborhood Development Districts Estab-
lished) and AMC §20.44.030 (Planned
Neighborhood Developments). The master
plan should address how the roads, sewer,
water, and other services and utilities would
be provided and paid for, determine the
types of uses would be allowed and at what
densities (including at least 50% in Subur-
ban Residential (4 du/ac)), and whatever
other issues need to be worked out prior to
development.
7.3.2 Residential Land Capacity
Analysis (Buildable Lands)
To determine the amount of capacity for
growth left in the UGA, the City has used
the 2002 SCT Buildable Lands Report.1 Al-
most all cities in Snohomish County worked
jointly on this report, and each city, including
Arlington, reviewed and agreed to the in-
formation prior to publishing. For information
on the method and assumptions used,
please refer to that report or its companion,
the SCT Buildable Lands Procedures Re-
port. Both can be found on Snohomish
County‘s Planning & Development Services
web page at
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departme
nts/PDS.
It should also be noted that there were two
versions of the Buildable Lands Report, the
SCT one (Scenario A), and an alternative
analysis done by the County Council (Sce-
nario B). The Arlington City Council moved
to accept Scenario B.
The results of that report were that as of
April 2001 (baseline date from when data
was collected), the Arlington UGA (including
city) could accommodate another 5,775
people from the population of 13,347 (for a
total of 19,122). See Table 7-2: Additional
Residential Capacity (BLR Scenario A).
1 Snohomish County Tomorrow, ‗2002 Growth
Monitoring/Buildable Lands Report,‘ January
2002.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 9 December 2011
Table 7-2: Additional Residential Capacity (BLR Scenario A)
Additional Misc. Market Additional
Total Unbuildable Buildable Housing Unit Pub. Purp Availability Population
Acres Acres Acres Capacity Redx (0%) Redx (0%) Capacity
City - Vacant Building Lots 186.9 15.7 171.8 1,026.0 1,026.0 1,026.0 2,757.0
City - Remaining Vacant Parcels 140.1 50.9 89.6 478.0 455.0 387.0 867.0
City - Partially-Used Parcels 305.3 84.5 220.8 513.0 488.0 342.0 875.0
City - Redevelopable Parcels 15.2 1.6 13.5 66.0 63.0 44.0 92.0
Subtotal - City 647.4 152.7 495.7 2,083.0 2,032.0 1,799.0 4,591.0
UGA - Vacant Building Lots 48.3 11.4 36.9 196.0 196.0 196.0 546.0
UGA - Remaining Vacant Parcels 32.7 0.4 32.4 107.0 102.0 86.0 241.0
UGA - Partially-Used Parcels 72.1 15.3 56.7 174.0 165.0 116.0 322.0
UGA - Redevelopable Parcels 18.3 5.9 12.4 41.0 39.0 27.0 76.0
Subtotal - UGA 171.3 33.0 138.4 518.0 502.0 425.0 1,185.0
Total 818.7 185.7 634.0 2,601.0 2,534.0 2,224.0 5,776.0
Table 7-3: Additional Employment Capacity (BLR Scenario A)
AddtnlEmpCap AddtnlEmpCap
Additional w/ Misc. w/ Market
Total Unbuildable Buildable Employment Pub. Purp. Availability
Acres Acres Acres Capacity Redx (5%) Redx (15%)
City - Vacant Parcels 807.6 61.1 746.5 10,386.0 9,866.0 8,388.0
City - Partially-Used Parcels 352.8 170.5 182.2 3,339.0 3,172.0 2,220.0
City - Redevelopable Parcels 23.2 0.8 22.3 196.0 186.0 131.0
Subtotal - City 1,183.6 232.5 951.1 13,921.0 13,224.0 10,739.0
UGA - Vacant Parcels 70.2 2.7 67.5 1,171.0 1,113.0 946.0
UGA - Partially-Used Parcels 156.8 42.2 114.6 2,166.0 2,058.0 1,440.0
Subtotal - UGA 227.0 44.9 182.1 3,337.0 3,171.0 2,386.0
Total 1,410.6 277.4 1,133.2 17,258.0 16,395.0 13,125.0
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 10 December 2011
7.3.3 Residential Density
During the period after the implementation
of the GMA (1995-2000), residential land
has developed at the densities listed in Ta-
ble 7-4: Residential Net Density Achieved,
1995 - 2000Table 7-4: Residential Net Density
Achieved, 1995 - 2000Table 7-4: Residential
Net Density Achieved, 1995 - 2000.
Table 7-4: Residential Net Density Achieved,
1995 - 2000
Zone Net Density (du/ac)
RLMD 5.3
RMD 5.2
RHD 23.25
OT 23.23
From the 2002 SCT Growth Moni-
toring Report
7.3.4 Household Size
The average household size in Arlington is
2.72. Of owner-occupied units, the average
household size is 2.82; of renter-occupied
units the average household size is 2.54.
The average household size is expected to
fall to 2.52 people per household in 2025
(combined owner- and renter-occupied). 2
7.3.5 Employment Land Capaci-
ty Analysis (Buildable
Lands)
The 2002 SCT Buildable Lands Report also
included an analysis of employment land
(commercial, industrial, business park, pub-
lic, etc.) capacity. (See Section 7.3.2 for
links to this document.)
The results of that report were that as of
April 2001 (baseline date from when data
was collected), the Arlington UGA (including
city) could accommodate another 13,123
jobs from the employment population of
2 Based on conversations with Mark Simonson,
Puget Sound Regional Council, January 19,
2005 and SCT projections.
9,521 (for a total of 22,644). See Table 7-3:
Additional Employment Capacity (BLR Sce-
nario A)Table 7-3: Additional Employment
Capacity (BLR Scenario A)Table 7-3: Addi-
tional Employment Capacity (BLR Scenario
A).
7.3.6 Jobs/Housing Ratio
Arlington has a job/housing ratio of 2.22.
(See §10.2.3, Jobs to Household Ratio,
for further information.)
7.4 PROJECTED NEEDS
7.4.1 2025 Population Target
Arlington‘s population target for the year
2025, as allocated through the SCT pro-
cess, accepted by City Council, and adopt-
ed by the County Council, is 30,538. Our
adopted revised 2012 population target is
13,608, and according to the 2002 SCT
Buildable Lands Report we could accom-
modate another 5,775. Thus, we would only
have to make room for another 11,155 peo-
ple in this plan.
Table 7-5: Additional Population to Plan For
High
2025 Population Target 30,538
Adopted Revised 2012 Tar-
get
13,608
Need to Find Room For: 16,930
Remaining Capacity (SCT
BLR)
5,775
Need to size UGA for an
additional:
11,155
7.4.2 Residential Land
Based on our average household size, the
above population target equates to 6,981
dwelling units. How much additional land we
need will depend on what land use designa-
tion is used (with its associated achieved
density) and whether we could increase
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 11 December 2011
densities within the existing UGA. At our
historic (1995 – present) achieved density of
5.2 dwelling units per acre in our SFR
zones, the high projection need would
roughly equate to 1,342 new acres if we do
not increase any existing densities. Were
we to create a new zone with a minimum
parcel size of 9,600 square feet (3.5 du/ac),
we would need 1,195 acres. Were we to
have a mix of densities (9,600 to multi-
family, ~6.01 du/ac) we would need 1,162
acres.
7.4.2.1 Single-Family Residential
Arlington has no shortage of single-family
residences; it‘s our predominant form of
housing, comprising 70.6% of the current
housing stock.
City Council has expressed a desire, how-
ever, to encourage more ―high end‖ hous-
ing. The average value of all owner-
occupied dwelling units in Arlington in 2000
was $168,200, according to the U.S. Cen-
sus, compared to a median of $188,600 for
all of Snohomish County. There is a per-
ceived lack of higher end housing, causing
families moving up on the economic ladder
to move away from Arlington. Council would
like there to be more choices so that fami-
lies are not forced to look elsewhere as their
income increases. To this end, Council has
expressed a desire to create a new land use
designation and zone with a minimum par-
cel size of 9,600 square feet, believing this
will aid their goal.
7.4.2.2 Multi-Family Residential
Multi-family residential uses comprise 23%
of Arlington‘s housing stock. This compares
to 23.8% for all of Snohomish County, about
the same. However, among the develop-
ment community there is a perceived lack of
multi-family zoned property, meaning that
the market is demanding more. We still
have about 37 acres designated RHD that
predominantly contain single-family resi-
dences and could be redeveloped, but the
ratio of property to structure value is not
high enough to cause this to happen.
The other part of the mix that seems to be
missing is ―upper end‖ multi-family residen-
tial. Most multi-family residential uses are
rental apartments; there are very few own-
er-occupied multi-family units (e.g., condo-
miniums).
7.4.2.3 Mixed Use
There is very little mixed-use development
in Arlington. What little there is is in the
OTBD; a few of the older buildings contain
apartments above non-residential uses.
One of the ways to increase the success of
businesses in commercial areas, as well as
to increase densities within the UGA without
affecting existing single-family neighbor-
hoods, is to allow and encourage mixed-
uses in commercial areas. This ―builds in‖
customers for the commercial uses, in-
creases the liveliness of the area, and ex-
tends the hours a commercial area is used
since more people are around at more
hours.
Thus, there is a desire on Arlington‘s part to
increase mixed uses in many of our com-
mercial areas. Council has already adopted
a land use code that permits mixed use in
most commercial zones. Ways should now
be found to encourage such projects to be
built.
7.4.3 Employment Land
7.4.3.1 Buildable Lands Estimate
Arlington‘s employment target for the year
2025 ranges from 12,920 to 14,730 jobs.
Our adopted revised 2012 target is 8,932.
And according to the 2002 SCT Buildable
Lands Report we could accommodate an-
other 17,194. Thus, we would still have
room in our current UGA for another 11,396
– 13,206 employees (the negative number
in the table implies that the UGA doesn‘t
need to be enlarged).
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 12 December 2011
Table 7-6: Additional Employment to Plan
For
BLR Scenar-
io A
BLR Scenar-
io B
Adopted Revised 2012 Target 8,932 8,932
2025 Employment Target 14,730 14,730
Actual # of 2002 Jobs 9,886 9,886
Need to Accommodate: 4,844 4,844
Remaining Capacity (BLR) 8,639 8,452
Need to size UGA for an additional: -3,795 -3,608
Therefore, we do not need to increase the
size of the UGA or designate more land as
commercial/industrial to meet either the low
or the high employment projection.
7.4.3.2 Alternative Method of As-
sessment
Please refer to §10.4.1, Employment Land,
for a different approach to determining em-
ployment land need. In a nutshell, if we as-
sume continuing the same job density (em-
ployees/acre) and the same jobs/housing
ratio, then we would need to start adding
employment land once we reach a popula-
tion of about 21,000.
7.4.3.3 Commercial Land
Commercial uses are defined as sales and
rental of merchandise, office uses, services,
and restaurants. These uses are permitted
in general in the NC, OTBD, GC, and HC
zones. There are 861 acres currently in the-
se zones in the City – 533.8 of these acres
are available for development. Another 72.3
acres would be added under the plan for
UGA expansion, for a total of 933 acres of
commercial property.
The current ratio of employment to residen-
tial land is 1.063. An additional 581 acres of
residential land, 72.3 acres of commercial
land, and no industrial land is proposed to
be added to the UGA. That would result in a
ratio of 0.894 for the planning period. If the
3 Ratio of residential to commercial = 0.25; ratio
of residential to industrial = 0.81 4 Ratio of residential to commercial = 0.23; ratio
of residential to industrial = 0.67
City wanted to retain the same 1.06 ratio of
residential to employment land then another
555 acres of employment land (for a total of
616 would need to be added, or we should
only take in a total of 57 residential acres.
Table 7-7: Land Zoned for Employment Uses
NC OTBD GC HC BP LI GI
City – Vacant 41.9 10.5 21.5 78.0 268.1 81.2 245.3
City - Partially
Used 4.9 1.8 18.8 28.6 18.3 109.8
City – Rede-
velopable 3.5 2.2
UGA – Vacant 37.3 30.2
UGA - Partially
Used 16.8 97.8
UGA – Rede-
velopable
Subtotal Build-
able Acres 46.8 15.7 94.4 108.8 268.1 227.5 355.1
Total Acres in
Zone 60.0 113.9 238.1 283.1 269.7 1179.1 786.1
Total Dev'd
Acres 13.2 98.2 143.7 174.3 1.6 951.6 431.0
Source: Arlington ArcView & SCT 2003 Buildable
Lands Report
7.4.3.4 Industrial Land
Industrial uses are defined as manufactur-
ing, processing, and assembling of goods,
merchandise and equipment. These uses
are permitted in general in the LI, GI, BP
and AF zones. There are 2,089 acres cur-
rently in these zones in the City – 582.6 of
these acres are available for development.
No industrial land is proposed to be added
to the UGA.
7.4.4 Public Land
7.4.4.1 Municipal Uses
Municipal uses (other than parks) currently
occupy approximately 66.8 acres of land
with City limits. Please see Figure 2-2: City
Owned Property for a map of these proper-
ties. Were we to maintain the same ratio of
public to non-public land as we grew, we
would need an additional 16 acres, for a
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 13 December 2011
total of 83, to serve the entire proposed
UGA.
7.4.4.2 Parks
There are 102.4 acres of city parks currently
as well as 8.6 miles of trails. Please refer to
Chapter 9, Parks, Recreation & Open
Space for an analysis of park needs.
7.4.4.3 Non-City Public Utilities
Public utilities not operated by the City in-
clude solid waste (contracted), electricity,
natural gas, and telecommunications. Only
a few acres are used for these purposes,
typically the substations.
7.4.4.4 Airport
The airport owns another 1,149 acres, but
much of this is available for lease for devel-
opment. It is not anticipated that the airport
will expand except to purchase some prop-
erties at the ends of runways so as to miti-
gate or reduce hazards.
7.4.4.5 Schools
Arlington School District No. 16 provides
public education throughout the planning
area, except Smokey Point, which is served
by Lakewood District No. 16. There are 59.3
acres of school facilities currently in the
planning area – most operated by the Ar-
lington School District. The remainder is op-
erated by the Lakewood School District.
The Arlington School District anticipates that
it will need two more elementary schools,
each on 9-10 acres, within the next ten
years to accommodate the growth in that
period (schools are on a six year planning
cycle and have not projected beyond the ten
years).5
5 Dr. Warren Hopkins, Asst Superintendent, Aug
2005
7.5 WHAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO ACHIEVE
7.5.1 UGA Expansion
7.5.1.1 Residential Land
The City Council has chosen to support ap-
proximately 520 acres of residential land
being added to the UGA. A list of these
properties/areas is shown in Table 7-8:
Properties Supported by Council for Inclu-
sion in the UGATable 7-8: Properties Sup-
ported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA-
Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council
for Inclusion in the UGA. Whether these ar-
eas get drawn in will be up to the
Snohomish County Council, who will not
make a final decision until late summer of
2005. Nevertheless, these properties are
being included in this document for analysis.
Inclusion of these lands will give the City a
planning population of approximately 24,487
to 30,538 (depending on the land use des-
ignations and zones applied), 3,767 to
9,818 more than the population target of
20,720 from the SCT 2003 Buildable Lands
Report, for which we would only need an
additional 92 acres (see §7.4.1, Projected
Needs, Residential Land).
7.5.1.2 Employment Land
The City Council has chosen to support ap-
proximately 60.7 acres of employment land
being added to the UGA. A list of these
properties/areas is shown in Table 7-8:
Properties Supported by Council for Inclu-
sion in the UGATable 7-8: Properties Sup-
ported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA-
Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council
for Inclusion in the UGA. Whether these ar-
eas get drawn in will be up to the
Snohomish County Council, who will not
make a final decision until late summer of
2005. Nevertheless, these properties are
being included in this document for analysis.
Inclusion of these lands will give the City an
employment target of approximately 14,800,
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 14 December 2011
about 60 more than the employment target
of 14,730 from the SCT 2003 Buildable
Lands Report (see §7.4.3, Projected Needs,
Employment Land). 6
7.5.1.3 Island Crossing Subarea
The City has supported the Island Crossing
subarea coming into the UGA and City
since the first CompPlan adopted in 1995.
The City has always viewed this area as a
part of the Arlington Community, and feels
for the plight of the farmers who say that
farming is no longer economically viable in
this area. In addition, there are some exist-
ing businesses at the I-5 x SR-530 inter-
change, and City sewer and water serve the
area.
Through this CompPlan update, the City
reaffirms its position that this area (as
shown in Figure 2-3: Land Use Map) should
be included in the UGA and annex to the
City.
7.5.1.4 Transfer of Development
Rights Program
The City has supported continued use of
the Stillaguamish Valley for farming and
other low intensity uses, through adop-
tion of Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) policies and regulations, and par-
ticipation in Snohomish County’s TDR
program. Under these programs, the
Valley is a designated “TDR Sending Ar-
ea.” Property owners in the Valley TDR
Sending Area have the opportunity to
sell their deve lopment rights in the form
of TDR certificates, recording a TDR
easement on their properties through
procedures established in the
Snohomish County Code and through an
interlocal agreement with the City. The
TDR certificates are then redeemable for
development credits in the City and
6 Based on the assumption that these areas will
achieve 6.3 jobs per acre average (except for
Smokey Point which will achieve 9.6/acre and
the OTBD which will achieve 19.4/acre). See the
Economic Development Element for discussion
of the jobs per acre.
elsewhere, in designated “TDR Receiv-
ing Areas.” The City continues to place
a high priority on the sending of TDR
credits from the Valley and creation of
incentives within City receiving areas for
the purchase of these Valley develop-
ment rights.
The City supports the regional TDR pro-
gram providing the ability to exchange
certificates with King and Pierce County
at a determined ratio. The additional TDR
participants may provide additional re-
sources to purchase development rights
from the Stillaguamish sending area, or
utilize certificate to support economic
redevelopment of the West Arlington
planning area.
Part I. Brekhus/Beach Receiving Area.
Earlier, the Council has indicated, through a
motion, a willingness and desire to partici-
pate with Snohomish County in their fledg-
ling Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program. As of the date of writing of this
plan, the The County hads created half of
the program, an ordinance designating
sending areas within the Stillaguamish Val-
ley and setting up the purchase of develop-
ment rights. The County and the City sub-
sequently designated
Later this year they plan on developing the
other half of the program, the ordinance
designating receiving areas and allowing for
how the purchased development rights can
be used.
The concept that has been discussed, and
is found in the County‘s draft plan, is to des-
ignate the Brekhus Arlington Group and
Beach7 areas as receiving areas, leave
them out of the UGA at this time, but allow-
ing the purchase of development rights at
7 At the time of adoption, the City Council has
also supported the Johnstone and Foster pro p-
erties being included in the program; however,
the County did is not supporting these properties
being in the UGA. and they are not found in their
draft plan.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Comment [b1]: Do we need to mention re-
gional program increased requirement of certifi-
cates?
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: No underline
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 15 December 2011
which time these areas would be drawn into
from Valley farmers as a prerequisite to ur-
ban developmenti within this portion of the
Arlington UGA.
The City and County action created this
Councils motion reads as follows, ―Partici-
pate in the County‘s Transfer of Develop-
ment Rights pilot program for the Stil-
laguamish Valley, with the intent of includng
other properties as receiving areas, follow-
ing subsequent planning.
[Note: Update Policies 16.66 through 16.68
for Burn Hill?]
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 16 December 2011
Part II. West Arlington Sub-Area.
In February 2011, the City Council adopted
the West Arlington Sub Area Plan, as an
element of the City‘s Comprehensive Plan,
following compliance with state law for envi-
ronmental review. The subarea plan estab-
lished the West Arlington Subarea as a se-
cond, new TDR receiving area, for use in
the City, and County and Regional TDR
programs, subject to City adoption of TDR
implementing regulations for this subarea.
In __________, 2012, the Council adopted
a Form-Based zoning code for the West Ar-
lington Subarea. One of the purposes of
this new code is to implement the West Ar-
lington Subarea TDR Receiving Area pro-
gram, by identifying development credits
and authorizations that may be obtained by
purchasing TDR certificates from properties
within the Stilliguamish Valley TDR Sending
Area. Through this action, the City contin-
ues to support the sending of TDR credits
from the Stilliguamish Valley, as a method
for preserving farming as the primary use
within the Valley, at the Gateway to the City
of Arlington. See, Section 7.5.3, below.
From time to time, it may be necessary for
the City to amend its regulations or policies
to promote the success of the TDR pro-
gram.
agreeing to designate the Brekhus Arlington
Group‘s property, the upland portion of the
Beach property, the Johnstone property,
and the upland area of Foster‘s property as
receiving areas under that program. We do
this understanding that these properties
would not be included in the UGA until such
time as the property owners transferred de-
velopment rights from identified sending ar-
eas in the Valley.‖
Comment [b2]: Do we need a paragraph on
the regional program?
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 17 December 2011
Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA
Name of Request Residential 7,200 Residential Mixed Density Residential 9,600 Commercial
Property Owner APN acres* du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop Acres
Beach
Beach, Vernon 31051200100500 17.57 5.2 91 2.72 249 6.01 106 2.72 287 3.5 61 2.72 167
Beach, Vernon 31051200101300 1.43 5.2 7 2.72 20 6.01 9 2.72 23 3.5 5 2.72 14
Subtotal 2 19.00 99 269 114 311 67 181 0.00
Brekhus, et al.
Steen, Fred 31051200300100 39.09 5.2 203 2.72 553 6.01 235 2.72 639 3.5 137 2.72 372
Putnam, Robert E 31051200402300 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Putnam, Robert E 31051200400200 19.41 5.2 101 2.72 275 6.01 117 2.72 317 3.5 68 2.72 185
Harvey, William C 31051200400300 10.00 5.2 52 2.72 141 6.01 60 2.72 163 3.5 35 2.72 95
Putnam, Larry D 31051200401000 5.91 5.2 31 2.72 84 6.01 36 2.72 97 3.5 21 2.72 56
Steen LLC 31051200300500 40.00 5.2 208 2.72 566 6.01 240 2.72 654 3.5 140 2.72 381
Putnam, Robert M 31051200400400 39.68 5.2 206 2.72 561 6.01 238 2.72 649 3.5 139 2.72 378
Osborn, Everett D, Jr 31051300200300 6.57 5.2 34 2.72 93 6.01 39 2.72 107 3.5 23 2.72 63
SnoCo PUD #1 31051300202100 0.12 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0
Meyers, Wayne C & Audrey J 31051300202400 15.00 5.2 78 2.72 212 6.01 90 2.72 245 3.5 53 2.72 143
SnoCo PUD #1 31051300201700 4.24 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0
Meyers, Wayne C & Audrey J 31051300202500 14.90 5.2 77 2.72 211 6.01 90 2.72 244 3.5 52 2.72 142
Heigert, Jody R 31051300202600 13.98 5.2 73 2.72 198 6.01 84 2.72 229 3.5 49 2.72 133
Brekhus, Donald B 31051300100200 39.99 5.2 208 2.72 566 6.01 240 2.72 654 3.5 140 2.72 381
Phillips, Robert M 31051300201500 11.44 5.2 59 2.72 162 6.01 69 2.72 187 3.5 40 2.72 109
Brekhus, Donald B 31051300100300 19.70 5.2 102 2.72 279 6.01 118 2.72 322 3.5 69 2.72 188
West Coast, Inc (Robinett) 31051300100400 19.70 5.2 102 2.72 279 6.01 118 2.72 322 3.5 69 2.72 188
Subtotal 17 304.73 1562 4,248 1,805 4,910 1,051 3,221 0.00
Galway
Larson, Oscar & Barbara 31051600302000 15.76 5.2 82 2.72 223 5.2 82 2.72 223 5.2 82 2.72 223
Subtotal 1 15.76 82 223 82 223 82 223 0
Deones, et al (Area South of 172nd)
Robertson, Paul E & Kari A 31052600100300 10.00 5.2 52 2.72 141 6.01 60 2.72 163 3.5 35 2.72 95
Sweet, Robert D 31052500200500 9.85 5.2 51 2.72 139 6.01 59 2.72 161 3.5 34 2.72 94
Schelbrack, Gerald H & Jean L 31052600100100 4.72 5.2 25 2.72 67 6.01 28 2.72 77 3.5 17 2.72 45
Markezinis, John J & Kelly J 31052600102300 6.59 5.2 34 2.72 93 6.01 40 2.72 108 3.5 23 2.72 63
Ervin, Gerald W 31052600101700 5.01 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Deones, Randy J & Gloria E 31052600102000 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Hale, David P 31052600102100 5.72 5.2 30 2.72 81 6.01 34 2.72 94 3.5 20 2.72 54
Markezinis, John 31052600102200 6.11 5.2 32 2.72 86 6.01 37 2.72 100 3.5 21 2.72 58
Lindsay, William & Joan 31052500200600 9.85 5.2 51 2.72 139 6.01 59 2.72 161 3.5 34 2.72 94
Carlson, Greg M & Pamela A 31052600100800 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Leger, Ken R & Judith A 31052600101800 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 18 December 2011
Name of Request Residential 7,200 Residential Mixed Density Residential 9,600 Commercial
Property Owner APN acres* du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop Acres
Basmic, Virl & Dianna M 31052600100200 5.01 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
VanWyck, Denise 31052600100400 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Brooks, Donald & Cynthia 31052600101500 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Pearson, Charles M 31052600101400 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Pearson, Charles M 31052600101900 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Subtotal 16 97.86 509 1,384 588 1,600 343 932 0.00
SR-9 x SR-531 (Hilltop/Thompson)
Smith, Geoffrey B, Estate of 31052500201900 7.04 23.25 164 2.72 445 23.25 164 2.72 445 23.25 164 2.72 445
Judy, Michael 31052500201600 7.06 23.25 164 2.72 446 23.25 164 2.72 446 23.25 164 2.72 446
Lindell, Bill 31052500102200 1.00 23.25 23 2.72 63 23.25 23 2.72 63 23.25 23 2.72 63
Evelyn Zahradnik Family 31052400300800 7.50 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474
Evelyn Zahradnik Family 31052400300700 7.50 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474
Allen, Charlene 31052400301000 2.50 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158
Allen, Charlene 31052400300900 2.50 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158
Smith, George B Test Trust 31052500201800 9.42 9.42
Charron, Debra 31052500200100 7.36 7.36
Thompson, James R 31052400300500 14.40 14.40
Hilltop Sports, LLC 31052500200400 19.70 19.70
Lee, Yong Ho & Yung Soon 31052500201200 0.83 0.83
Hilltop Sports, LLC 31052500200300 2.30 2.30
Subtotal 13 residential 35.10 816 2,220 816 2,220 816 2,220 54.01
commercial 54.01
Johnstone, Jack
SR-92 Associates (Johnston) 31052400201200 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48
Reneau, Thomas 31052400200400 4.90 5.2 25 2.72 69 6.01 29 2.72 80 3.5 17 2.72 47
Subtotal 2 9.90 51 140 59 162 35 94 0.00
Foster
Foster, Laurin 31051000300100 6.7 18.89
Subtotal 1 commercial 6.7 18.89
TOTAL 52 residential 482.35 3,119 8,484 3,465 9,425 2,393 6,871 72.9
commercial 60.71
SCT Pop Allocation 20,720 20,720 20,720
Acres Needed to Accommodate SCT
Allocation -65.00 5.2 -338 2.72 -919 6.01 -391 2.72 -1,063 3.5 -228 2.72 -619
Pop w/ Council Supported Re-
quests 30,123 31,208 28,209
* Total acres does not include roads, only area of parcels as derived from SnoCo Assessors data.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 19 December 2011
Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map
Current City Limits Current UGA UGA Expansion
Subarea SR RLMD RMD RHD OTRD NC OTBD1 OTBD2 OTB3 GC HC BP LI GI P/SP MS AF RLMD RHD LI P/SP RLMD RHD GC HC MPN Acres % of Total
Airport Industrial 8.4 112 143 83.4 764.1 36 749.4 1896.3 29.3%
Arlington Bluff 194.3 77.8 15.6 28 16.9 34.1 171.2 1.5 7.5 546.9 8.4%
Burn Hill 230.1 230.1 3.6%
OTBD 1 37.6 37.6 0.6%
OTBD 2 34.5 5.5 40.0 0.6%
OTBD 3 37.8 8.9 46.7 0.7%
Hill Top 946.1 16.3 19 90.8 40.2 64.8 100 1277.2 19.7%
Island Crossing 122 122.0 1.9%
Kent Prairie 44.5 72 93.6 3.1 72 14.6 5.1 304.9 4.7%
Old Town 61.9 37.2 230.6 2.8 4.6 91.6 14.7 141.2 27.1 611.7 9.4%
SmPt / SR 531 Corridor 41.1 2.3 197 274.6 148 40.8 703.8 10.9%
SmPt Neighborhood 305.2 23.9 1.7 330.8 5.1%
South Fork Neighborhood 69.1 96.6 165.7 2.6%
West Bluff 139.2 24.9 164.1 2.5%
Total 0 1184.9 558 157 233.7 40.3 37.6 34.5 37.8 436.3 274.6 143 231.4 826.4 277.7 19.8 749.4 381.5 27.1 139.2 24.9 1.5 40.2 72.3 122 426.7 6477.8 100.0%
% of current City 0.0% 22.6% 10.6% 3.0% 4.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 8.3% 5.2% 2.7% 4.4% 15.8% 5.3% 0.4% 14.3% 66.5% 4.7% 24.3% 4.3% 0.2% 6.1% 10.9% 18.4% 64.4%
% of City, UGA, & UGA Exp 0.0% 18.3% 8.6% 2.4% 3.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 6.7% 4.2% 2.2% 3.6% 12.8% 4.3% 0.3% 11.6% 5.9% 0.4% 2.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 1.9% 6.6%
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 20 December 2011
7.5.1.5 Master Planning New Areas
and the Use of Development
Agreements
Regarding the new areas being considered
for inclusion in the UGA Council has made
two motions expressing their desire to have
the areas master planned.
Motion 1: ―The City supports the requests
from the [Brekhus Arlington Group, Beach,
and Deones, et al.], but the area[s] should
be planned using the Planned Neighbor-
hood Development tool found in the Land
Use Code. Additionally, the City should de-
velop a new land use designation and zone
with a minimum parcel size of 9,600 square
foot for use in these areas. We should con-
sider a mix of densities in these new areas,
including some multi-family residential areas
as well as these new larger lots. We should
also pre-plan the transportation system, ar-
eas for community parks, utilities, and other
necessary infrastructure and land uses. The
City should enter into some sort of devel-
opment contract with the property owners to
implement this goal.‖
Motion 2: ―Work toward entering into a de-
velopment agreement between the City,
County, and Brekhus Arlington Group prop-
erty owners, and another with Mr. Beach,
that would:
a. Prohibit premature development of
the area (until such time it was
brought into the UGA and annexed),
b. Require that the property be devel-
oped pursuant to a master plan,
c. Make the property eligible as a re-
ceiving area for the TDR program
which would allow it to come into the
UGA before the next 10-year up-
date,
d. Specify how the population justifica-
tion and reasonable measures re-
quirements are met,
e. Spell out how the roads, sewer, wa-
ter, and other services and utilities
would be provided and paid for, in-
cluding the construction of 186th
Street from Crown Ridge Boulevard
to McElroy.
f. Provide the types of uses would be
allowed and at what densities, and
g. Whatever other issues that arise.‖
The Council has several concerns. They are
very concerned about how these areas
could develop were they to stay in the
County, and this is one of the main reasons
for bringing them into the UGA. Were they
to develop into 5-acre tracts or as rural clus-
ter developments it would make it very diffi-
cult to bring into them into the UGA at a lat-
er date and to plan for the utility, parks, and
transportation systems necessary to support
urban development. (Typically, people who
have just moved into an area oppose more
development, since they just moved in for
how it looks when they bought.)
As mentioned in the Housing Element,
Council is also concerned that Arlington
does not have enough higher-end housing
for people to move up into, thus the reason
for creating a new 9,600 sf lot.
Council also wants to make sure that the
infrastructure is in place for the potential
these areas have for growth, and that the
general taxpayer isn‘t subsidizing the
growth by helping to pay for improvements
that solely benefit development of these ar-
eas.
And lastly, we currently know that additional
work will need to be done on our water and
sewer systems, and we‘ll need to find more
water in order to serve these areas. We be-
lieve that the property owners, in exchange
for working with the City on achieving these
goals, would want some sort of guarantee
that we‘ll serve them; thus the reason for
development agreements.
7.5.2 Revised Land Use Map
The City hereby adopts Figure 2-4: Land Use
Map as its official land use map. Zoning des-
ignations shall be consisted with this map.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 21 December 2011
The sizes of the designations, by subarea,
are shown in
Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by
Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map
Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by
Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map
Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by
Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map.
7.5.3 Protection of the Stil-
laguamish River Valley
A major concern of the City Council is the
long-term protection of the Stillaguamish
River Valley from further development. Their
concerns are many-fold: They are con-
cerned for the well being of the farmers and
their ability to continue viable agricultural
endeavors. They are concerned for protect-
ing the critical areas, including habitat and
endangered species. They are concerned
for the aesthetic attributes the valley affords
the City. They are concern about protecting
property rights. They are concerned about
flooding impacts. And they are sensitive to
the Stillaguamish Tribe‘s desire for econom-
ic development and self-reliance.
Given this range of concerns, and the num-
ber of groups also interested in these is-
sues, the City proposes that a joint planning
effort be undertaken amongst all concern
parties to develop a master plan for the val-
ley. These parties would probably include
the City, Snohomish County, the Stil-
laguamish Tribe, the farmers, Futurewise,
the Diking Districts, and property owners.
Besides the Transfer of Development Rights
program, which is also working toward this
end (see §7.5.1.4), another idea germinat-
ing, but still needs discussion, is the use of
the GMA designation of ―Open Space Corri-
dor.‖8 Under this scenario, the City and
8 RCW 36.70A.160
Identification of open space corridors -- Pur-
chase authorized.
Each county and city that is required or chooses
to prepare a comprehensive land use plan under
RCW 36.70A.040 shall identify open space cor-
County could designate the valley (or por-
tions thereof) as an open space corridor and
obtain sufficient interest in key properties to
protect them from urban development. What
―sufficient interest‖ means or how it would
be obtained still needs to be worked out.
In creating such a master plan, especially
with so many varied and interested parties,
we realize that for everyone to obtain the
best ―deal‖ for the valley, each party may
have to make concessions. It may be that
certain parts of the valley are recognized as
developable in order to protect the majority
of it. It may be that the taxing structure
needs to be modified. Or it may be that cer-
tain properties are key to sustaining endan-
gered species. The point is there are end-
less visions and solutions for the valley, and
just like in Eastern Europe, each interested
party is going have to have an open mind,
and make their resources available, in order
to create an overall solution to this long-
standing land use issue.
ridors within and between urban growth areas.
They shall include lands useful for recreation,
wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical
areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030. Identifica-
tion of a corridor under this section by a county
or city shall not restrict the use or management
of lands within the corridor for agricultural or fo r-
est purposes. Restrictions on the use or man-
agement of such lands for agricultural or forest
purposes imposed after identification solely to
maintain or enhance the value of such lands as
a corridor may occur only if the county or city
acquires sufficient interest to prevent develop-
ment of the lands or to control the resource de-
velopment of the lands. The requirement for ac-
quisition of sufficient interest does not include
those corridors regulated by the interstate co m-
merce commission, under provisions of 16
U.S.C. Sec. 1247(d), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1248, or 43
U.S.C. Sec. 912. Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to alter the authority of the state, or a
county or city, to regulate land use activities.
The city or county may acquire by donation or
purchase the fee simple or lesser interests in
these open space corridors using funds autho r-
ized by RCW 84.34.230 or other sources.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 22 December 2011
7.5.4 Subarea Plans
(Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed
listing of all proposed amendments to the
land use designations.)
7.5.4.1 Old Town Subarea
Old Town is fairly well built out, and no new
subdivisions are anticipated (though a few
short plats are possible on a few lots). How-
ever, there is opportunity for infill develop-
ment with either accessory dwelling units or
new homes on existing lots. Such infill de-
velopment should be encouraged, since the
necessary infrastructure is already in place
(though some of it is in need of repair or re-
placement due to age). Increased densities
in the Old Town will also assist in the Old
Town Business District‘s revitalization, as
they would create more customers for the
downtown.
Because the Old Town has a unique char-
acter (having the historic grid and alley
street system and the older homes in town),
care should be given to maintaining this
character.
No changes are proposed to the existing
plan for the Old Town subarea. However,
desire has been expressed to try to reverse
the trend of this area becoming more and
more of a rental area, and try to encourage
more home ownership. Strategies that could
be used would be:
Revitalize the Old Town Business Dis-
trict, so that the Old Town Residential
District becomes more desirable to
homeowners.
Develop a program of rehabbing some
of the older, dilapidated streets, add
sidewalks where there are none, and
plant street trees throughout. Public in-
vestment in the streetscape of neigh-
borhoods often leads to private invest-
ment in private properties.
Develop some sort of incentives for re-
habbing some of the older, more run-
down structures.
7.5.4.2 Old Town Business District
Subarea
No land use changes are expected or pro-
posed to the existing plan for the Old Town
Business District subarea. However, several
action items or programs have been identi-
fied in the Economic Development Plan to
help revitalize the downtown and encourage
more development. Please refer to §10.5.3
Specific Actions from the Economic Devel-
opment Plan, for a list of those programs.
7.5.4.3 Arlington Bluff Subarea
No significant land use changes are ex-
pected or proposed to the existing plan for
the existing portion of the Arlington Bluff
subarea. However, the City is proposing to
add some properties to the UGA that would
be included in this subarea, and to amend
some properties‘ land use designation from
residential to Neighborhood Commercial to
conform to existing uses and/or the zoning
map.
It is anticipated that the Arlington Bluff will
remain predominantly a residential district,
with some commercial uses along 67th Ave-
nue and SR-530.
Much of the residential portion of the Arling-
ton Bluff is already built out. However, there
are portions remaining where additional de-
velopment can occur, though these are still
in the unincorporated portion of the UGA
(north of 188th Street, west of 47th Avenue).
Care should be given to ensure that the
neighborhoods match the rest of Arlington in
terms of the design. Care also needs to be
given to protect the environmentally critical
areas, especially the steep slopes and the
trees/habitat they support. There are also
significant wetlands at the base of these
slopes.
This subarea includes some commercially
designated areas. Most of these commercial
properties (located along 67th Avenue) are
already built, though there is opportunity for
some additional development. However, the
commercial properties along SR-530 remain
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 23 December 2011
undeveloped. It is anticipated that typical
General Commercial uses (suburban-style
strip malls, a medium-sized box or grocery
store, gas station(s), and/or some office
space) would locate here. Because SR-530
is a limited access highway, an internal road
system should be planned—running from
59th Avenue to 211th Avenue—so as to
manage access and get customers to all the
properties as best as possible.
The new property proposed to be included
in the UGA and this subarea is the Foster
properties (SW corner of SR-531 X 59th). It
is proposed to be General Commercial.
7.5.4.4 Kent Prairie Subarea
There are still a number of undeveloped
parcels, both commercial and High Density
Residential, though quite a few of them al-
ready have approved development permits
and should be developing soon.
Kent Prairie is well on its way to being a
well-integrated neighborhood of various use
types, including commercial, public, single-
family residential, and multi-family residen-
tial, built around the significant environmen-
tally critical areas (streams and wetlands)
found there.
Some changes are proposed to the existing
land use plan for the Kent Prairie subarea.
On the top of the bluff south of Highland
Avenue there are some fairly large, unde-
veloped or underdeveloped lots that are cur-
rently designated Residential/Moderate
Density. It is proposed that these properties
be re-designated to Residential High Densi-
ty to allow for multi-family residential (con-
dominiums or apartments) (Appendix A, No.
3). Obviously the slopes would have to be
protected, for which the current Environ-
mentally Critical Area regulations provide.
Another significant change would be to
change the land use designations of the
properties at the northwest corner of SR-9 x
204th from General Industrial to General
Commercial (No. 8). There have been long-
standing, on-going incompatible land use
issues between the residents on top of the
bluff and proposed industrial uses below.
Changing this area to commercial would
alleviate these issues and both parties (res-
idents and industrial property owners) sup-
port this solution.
Some minor changes would be:
Changing the land use designation of
the medical services properties to Medi-
cal Services (No. 1)
Changing some existing multi-family
residential properties from single-family
residential to High Density Residential
(No. 5)
Changing a portion of the school‘s prop-
erty from residential to Public/Semi-
Public (No. 6)
Making the boundary between the in-
dustrial and residential properties follow
property lines (No. 9)
Changing some of the High Density
Residential properties to General Com-
mercial (they‘re already zoned for and
developed as commercial (No. 10)
Changing an existing single-family resi-
dential neighborhood from High Density
Residential to Residential Low/Moderate
Density (No. 11)
Changing the Haggens site from Gen-
eral Industrial to General Commercial
(No. 12)
7.5.4.5 Airport/Industrial Subarea
While the airport accounts for more than
half of the land in this subarea, the subarea
is comprised of both privately and publicly
owned land. The character of this subarea
is dominated by the Arlington Municipal Air-
port.
The Airport/Industrial Subarea is envi-
sioned, and well on its way to being, the
City‘s primary family-wage employment ar-
ea. It has always been and will continue to
provide adequate land for general and light
industrial uses. Having a high jobs to hous-
ing ratio is one of the main ways in which
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 24 December 2011
Arlington remains a traditional community,
where people are involved to a higher de-
gree than in most bedroom communities
because of the time savings in not having to
commute long distances and because the
community affects their business (and vice-
versa).
The impetus for originally designating the
area for industrial uses was the fact that it
was adjacent to the Arlington Airport. (Hav-
ing a rail line traverse the area is an added
benefit.) The airport is still seen as a major
asset in attracting job-producing business-
es, and the City wishes to continue to foster
synchronicity between it and the employ-
ment lands. At the same time, the airport
wishes to promote only aviation-related
businesses on those lands with direct run-
way access. The Aviation Flightline zone
was created for this purpose.
This area has been designated for industrial
uses for many years, long before the resi-
dential areas grew up around it, and the
Council has been very protective of it in
terms of allowing the types of uses envi-
sioned to continue to grow, oftentimes to the
consternation of these newer residential
neighbors. It is anticipated that such protec-
tiveness will continue.
The siting of incompatible land uses adja-
cent to the airport is discouraged. See Land
Use Goals and Policies GL-34.
A few changes are proposed for the Air-
port/Industrial Subarea. These changes in-
clude:
Change the area bordered by 59th Ave-
nue, 188th Street, 67th Avenue, and 195th
Street from Light Industrial to General
Industrial. (No. 32)
Change the designations on the private-
ly owned Light Industrial parcels directly
north of the airport to General Industrial.
(No. 16)
Change the designation on the parcels
at the NW corner of SR-9 x 211th Street
from General Industrial to General
Commercial, and put this area in the
Kent Prairie subarea. (No. 8)
Changing most of the area to the north-
east of 204th x 67th from Neighborhood
Commercial to General Industrial to con-
form to the existing uses and zoning
map. (No. 14)
Changing the residential area south of
the cemetery from Residential Moderate
Density to General Industrial, and the
County maintenance yard from Existing
Public Use to General Industrial. (No.
15)
Changing the Airport 37 industrial plat
from Residential Moderate Density to
General Industrial. (No. 17)
Changing the airport property east of
47th Avenue from Residential Moderate
Density to Light Industrial (No. 19)
Changing the Airport business park
property from Airport Industrial to Busi-
ness Park. (No. 20)
The property owners to the north of
172nd between 59th and 67th have also
requested changing from General Indus-
trial to General Commercial (Nos. 24 &
25)
Changing the property on the northwest
corner of 172nd x 67th (Lumberman‘s)
from Neighborhood Commercial to
General Industrial as per the zoning
map. (No. 27)
Possibly changing the westerly the
properties north of 211th Street (Enter-
prise Lumber) from General Industrial to
Light Industrial.
7.5.4.6 Smokey Point/SR-531 Cor-
ridor Subarea
This subarea is seen as being one of the
primary entrances to Arlington, an important
east-west arterial for the City‘s and County‘s
road system, and a major generator of sale
tax revenue for the City, which will eventual-
ly build out into a major commer-
cial/industrial/aviation boulevard stretching
from I-5 to 67th Avenue NE allowing small to
large-scale commercial and industrial uses.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 25 December 2011
Concern has been raised by existing prop-
erty owners, and supported by Council, for
developing a subarea plan that includes a
unified design ―theme‖ for development
along this corridor, consideration of the mix
of uses, and an appropriate urban design
for SR-531.
Proposed land use changes in this area in-
clude:
Changing the land use designation on
all of National Food‘s property from
Light Industrial to General Commercial
(currently only the portion fronting on
172nd has this designation, though all of
it is zoned General Commercial). (No.
23)
Crown Properties has requested that
almost all of their property be re-
designated as GC. (No. 26)
7.5.4.7 Smokey Point Neighbor-
hood Subarea
This subarea was inherited through annexa-
tion (1999). It is planned to continue to be a
predominately single-family residential
neighborhood.
Only one land use change is proposed to
the existing plan for the Smokey Point
Neighborhood subarea:
Change the designation on the Smokey
Point Mobile Home Park from Residen-
tial Moderate Density to Residential
High Density. (No. 33)
7.5.4.8 West Bluff Industrial Subar-
ea
It is envisioned that this area will become a
light industrial area. This is seen as appro-
priate since it lies at the end of the Airport‘s
Runway number 11/29. General Industrial
does not seem appropriate since it is adja-
cent to a residential neighborhood and may
become a connecting route between the
Smokey Point Neighborhood and Island
Crossing (if it ever comes into the UGA/City
and develops as a commercial area).
No changes are proposed to the City‘s plan
for the West Bluff Industrial subarea.
7.5.4.9 Hilltop Neighborhood Sub-
area
The Hilltop subarea is rather large and sev-
eral components are planned for the subar-
ea. The plan for the majority of the area is
for it to be a predominately single-family
residential neighborhood, though some as-
sociated commercial and public uses exist
and are planned for. However, around the
intersection of 172nd Street x SR-9 the
Council would like to see an ―urban village.‖
This would include commercial, mixed use,
and multi-family residential development at
high densities on the corner parcels.
The UGA is proposed to expand to include
areas to the south of 172nd and around the
172nd x SR-9 intersection. It is also antici-
pated that future growth (for the next 100-
200 years) will go, in part, to this subarea
(toward the south and east of the current
city limits). This is assumed since the City is
constrained by floodplains, rivers, and
Marysville UGA on all other sides. Eventual-
ly, Arlington‘s city limits could encompass
our current water service area (Coordinated
Water System Plan area, see Figure 2-5:
Coordinated Water System Plan and Water
Service Area). Planning now for such an
eventual extension of city growth and ex-
pansion of this subarea would be prudent.
This would place the intersection of SR-9 x
SR-531 in the center of those future city lim-
its, surrounded by residential (and potential-
ly other) development. At the same time,
both of these state highways are planned to
be five-lane.
Thus, this intersection should be planned as
an urban village. There should be a com-
mercial core large enough to support the
future residential development, which could
be comprised of mixed uses (commercial,
business, high-density residential). Sur-
rounding this commercial center should be
more high-density residential uses, then
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 26 December 2011
transitioning to medium-density residential
neighborhoods.
For the area south of 172nd (Deones, et al.)
Council has discussed the creation of a new
land use designation and zone that would
allow 4 dwelling units per acre (9,600 sf
lots).
Attention would need to be paid to properly
pre-planning the transportation and park
systems. Adequate arterials, collectors and
local streets should be pre-planned in as
much of a grid system as possible. Given
that SR-9 is a limited access highway, ac-
cess to this road should and can only be
from arterials. The location of these access-
es should be laid out now.
Likewise, preferred locations for community
parks should be identified now so that the
capital planning can be done to ensure the
properties are obtained prior to their devel-
opment. These parks ought to be centrally
located to the future major neighborhoods,
easily accessible from the arterials and col-
lectors.
There are also a lot of environmentally criti-
cal areas, including streams, wetlands,
slopes, etc, that will need to be protected
and planned around.
Infrastructure is in good shape—at least
within the City limits—as this is one of the
newer developed areas in Arlington. How-
ever, it is anticipated that both state high-
ways will be widened within the next ten
years or so.
There are quite a few streams that run
through this area, as well as wetlands. Prai-
rie and Portage both have their headwaters
here. There are also some steep slopes
along some of the creeks‘ ravines.
For these reasons, Council has moved to
require that the area be master planned pri-
or to its development (see Section 7.5.1.5).
7.5.4.10 Southfork Subarea
It is anticipated that this subarea shall re-
main a single-family residential neighbor-
hood. No land use changes are proposed.
However, much of it is currently developed
as rather large lots and low densities and is
not annexed to the City. The city should
develop a plan to provide a second access
to this area so as to allow it to develop to it‘s
full, urban potential. Additionally, perhaps
the City ought to be proactive in promoting
the annexation and development of this
neighborhood.
In the future it may be that this subarea gets
expanded to include areas to the east,
along the edge of the Stilly Southfork.
7.5.4.11 Burn Road Subarea
This would be a new neighborhood to Ar-
lington, as it is currently in the County but
proposed to be brought into the UGA
through the Transfer of Development Rights
program (see Section 7.5.1.4).
Council envisions this area to be master
planned and predominately a single-family
residential neighborhood; though they have
said they would consider some higher den-
sity residential and some neighborhood
commercial development (see Section
7.5.1.5).
Additionally, before this area could develop,
the City would have to make major up-
grades to its sewer treatment plant and find
additional water. We would also need to
construct a new east-west arterial connect-
ing the area to SR-9. This is planned for
186th Street, just south of the Arlington High
School.
7.5.4.12 Island Crossing Subarea
The Council has long supported Island
Crossing being drawn into the UGA and an-
nexed to the City, and it is still their intent.
The plan has been, and remains, for it to be
designated and zoned as Highway Com-
mercial.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Background Materials
7 - 27 December 2011
It is recognized that there are development
hurdles to overcome, most notably the fact
that much of the area is within the 100-year
floodplain. However, the City has adopted
FEMA‘s model flood ordinance and believes
we could better manage development of this
area than other agencies. There would also
have to be substantial infrastructure im-
provements made; but under the City‘s rules
these must be borne by the developers.
It should be noted that it is believed that if
Island Crossing does not become part of the
City, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
could purchase it and lease it back to the
same people who are currently trying to de-
velop it. If it were placed in trust there would
be no local zoning, building, or other envi-
ronmental regulations with which the devel-
opment would have to adhere.
7.5.4.13 West Arlington Subarea
The City adopted a subarea plan for the
West Arlington portion of the Urban Growth
Area. This area is characterized by close
proximity to Interstate-5, the freeway on and
off ramps at 172nd Street, and close proximi-
ty to both the developing airport area and
rural areas near the Stillaguamish River.
The subarea plan provides guidance on fu-
ture development for this area, consistent
with form-based zoning, transfer of devel-
opment rights, and other innovative tech-
niques for achieving urban densities while
also maintaining the unique character of this
area.
7.5.5 Manufacturing/Industrial
Center Designation
The Arlington-Smokey Point Manufactur-
ing/Industrial Center (MIC) is a locally-
designated area with which includes all in-
dustrially-zoned land, the Arlington Munici-
pal Airport, Airport Business Park, and
some limited areas of commercial along
172nd St. NE (SR 531). The boundaries of
this area are shown in Figure 2-21 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The area encompasses approximately
2,291 acres, most of which is either zoned
General Industrial or Aviation Flightline.
The designation of this area as a MIC sup-
ports concentrated uses for high intensity
light and heavy manufacturing, while limiting
large areas of retail and residential. MIC‘s
are intended to accommodate a significant
amount of regional employment and should
be protected from incompatible uses. By
locally designating the area as a MIC, the
City will have access to Infrastructure Coor-
dinating Committee (ICC) funding, which
provides planning, funding and implementa-
tion of infrastructure and transportation sys-
tems.
A joint-MIC, including industrial areas within
the cities of Arlington and Marysville, may
be considered in the future for County and
regional designation once specific criteria
established by Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) are met.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Comment [b3]: Do we have to modify the
above references to Smokey Point, West Bluff,
etc.?
Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Not Highlight
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #8
Attachment
F
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
2013 Legislative Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
Snohomish County Legislative Agenda & transportation project list
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Executive; Contact – Kristin Banfield
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
The Snohomish County Managers and Administrators group (MAG) has united with Economic
Alliance Snohomish County (EASC), Snohomish County Citizens for Improved Transportation
(SCCIT) to develop a unified Legislative Agenda for the upcoming 2013 Legislative session. The
concept is to have government and businesses in Snohomish County demonstrate a united
front to our local legislators on key issues.
HISTORY:
The cities of Snohomish County have a strong desire to be unified in the past at the state
Legislature. In the past we have not always been united, which has resulted in very few
successes for our County.
MAG started preparing a united agenda for the 2011 legislative session and recommended a
revised agenda in 2012.
ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action at this time. Council will be asked to formally approve the legislative agenda at the
November 19, 2012 meeting.
UPDATED - 10/31/2012
Regional Priorities for Snohomish County
2013 State Legislative Agenda
Snohomish County Region: The Aerospace Capital of North America
• 45,000 direct jobs
• 172 aerospace companies
• $3.8 billion in wages
The Snohomish County Region respectfully requests the state’s assistance in Education & Workforce, Transportation &
Infrastructure, and Competitiveness – all necessary to continuing to make our region the Aerospace Capital of North America, and a
region where communities and businesses thrive.
Education & Workforce
- Expanding higher education opportunities in Snohomish County, specifically support for:
o increasing access at community colleges and universities by restoring funding, especially in high demand
programs;
o new programs from University Center partners such as WSU’s electrical engineering, hospitality, and
communications programs;
o the strategic plan authorizing the management transition of University Center to Washington State University.
- Increased investment in Edmonds and Everett Community Colleges to expand proven STEM training programs which
support our aerospace and advanced manufacturing sectors.
- Strengthening state and local initiatives to improve STEM educational outcomes in the early learning and
K-12 systems to ensure our children have the skills to engage in the 21st Century economy.
Transportation & Infrastructure
- Pass a robust, multimodal statewide transportation package that addresses the highway and transit investments outlined
in the 2013 Snohomish County Regional Transportation Priorities list, and allocates a significant portion of revenue to local
jurisdictions to meet system maintenance and operation demands.
- Expand local revenue options to assist local governments and transportation agencies, including transit, in addressing
the specific needs of their businesses and residents.
- Improve the Port of Everett’s ability to handle a variety of different cargos in support of our aerospace and advanced
manufacturing sectors, specifically roll-on/roll-off capabilities.
- Maintain sufficient funding in support of county and state Public Works Trust Funds (PWTF), Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB), County Road Administration Board (CRAB) and programs to ensure the county and all cities
have access to the funds necessary to make critical infrastructure improvements.
- Address communities impacted by growing freight train traffic by prioritizing grade separation projects.
Competitiveness
- Support Snohomish County’s efforts to maintain competitive property tax rates. Without legislative clarification, the County
will need to respond to a Department of Revenue audit by either raising property taxes or cutting the County general fund by
$3.4 million.
- Enable “value capture financing” to allow local governments to make the necessary infrastructure investments to reactivate
underutilized properties and promote long-term sustainability, as allowed by most other states.
- Provide additional flexibility to local governments to mitigate the impacts of costly mandates such as public records
abuses, indigent defense, and declining state-shared revenues.
- Maintain tax incentives and credits that help retain and attract aerospace and advanced manufacturing companies to
our region.
This Legislative Agenda expresses regional priorities from Economic Alliance Snohomish County, Snohomish County, Snohomish County Cities, and
Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation.
In partnership with Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation
Key Transportation Corridors & Projects
October 2012
Economic Alliance Snohomish County continues to collaborate with the Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation
(SCCIT), Snohomish County and our private and public sector investors to identify, prioritize and advocate for completion of projects
which support regional economic development goals.
The following highway and transit project list assumes a statewide transportation package of $15 billion dollars with Snohomish County
projects receiving approximately $1.75 billion of funding, as the County represents over 10% of the state’s total population. If either a
statewide package is not advanced in 2013 or the package is significantly smaller, we would seek a combination of funding for right of
way acquisition, engineering or design or of each of these projects.
Project Cost Impacts
(millions)
Aerospace Sector
US 2 Trestle (phase 1)
$250 • Critical E-W corridor connecting aerospace and military clusters with
workforce housing
• Community Transit “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
SR 531: 43rd Ave NE – SR 9 Widening $110 • Supports aerospace/advanced manufacturing incubator at Arlington
Airport by completing I-5 to SR 9 corridor
• Enhances freight mobility within Aerospace IPZ
• Community Transit “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
SR 526: Hardeson Rd Interchange
(Interchange Justification Report may be
required prior to proceeding with project,
est. $4 million)
$44 • Enhances freight mobility within Aerospace IPZ
• Reduces truck delay 815 hrs/day, general traffic 4,000 hrs/day
• Boeing and aerospace suppliers have endorsed the value of this project
in improving access to the SW Everett Industrial District
41st Street Freight Corridor/SR 529
Re-designation (phases 1 & 2)
$37 • Creates “freight-friendly” corridor between Port of Everett and I-5
• Reduces truck delay 502 hrs/day, general traffic 3,700 hrs/day
• FMSIB Corridor
I-5 NB Shoulder Lanes (phase 1):
Marine View Drive to SR 528
$35 • Improves throughput between Everett and Marysville
• Enhances freight mobility within Aerospace IPZ
• Community Transit “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
Everett Mall Way to SB I-5 Access $4 • Relieves stress on Everett Mall Way-SR 526 Intersection by providing
additional access or other system improvements
TOTAL Aerospace Sector: $480 million
East-West Job Corridors
SR 522: Paradise Lake Rd to
Snohomish River Bridge
$137 • Completes corridor linking US 2, I-405 and Seattle
• Community Transit “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
SR 524: 24th Ave W to SR 527
Widening
$100 • Complete E-W corridor connecting I-5 and SR 527
• Community Transit “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
US 2: Monroe Bypass (phase 1) $47 • Reduces strain on only alternative freight corridor to I-90
• Improves safety and congestion on US 2 through Monroe
• Community Transit “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
TOTAL East-West Job Corridors: $284 million
SR 9 Corridor
SR 9: Snohomish River Bridge $109 • Continues expansion of alternative N-S, FMSIB corridor
• Engineering work funded in 2012 transportation package
• CT “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
In partnership with Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation
SR 9 Corridor (cont.)
SR 9: 176th St SE to SR 96 – Add
additional NB lane
$65 • Completes 4-lanes from Sno-King line to City of Snohomish
• Continues expansion of alternative N-S, FMSIB corridor
• CT “Transit Emphasis Corridor”
TOTAL SR 9 Corridor: $174 million
Transit / BRT
Transit Operating & Maintenance
Assistance
$200 • Expands service Swift BRT on transit emphasis corridors
• Increases service connect employment centers
• Restores countywide Sunday service
SR 524: 48th Ave W to 37th Ave W
Widening
$14 • Supports BAT lanes on "Transit Emphasis Corridor"
• Increases connectivity between I-5 and SR 99
SWIFT II – Federal Feasibility &
Environmental Study
$1 • Evaluate and determines feasibility for a second BRT line to connect
employment centers with cost-effective high capacity transit (alignment
TBD)
TOTAL Transit/BRT: $215 million
Freight / Grade Separation
SR 104: Main St./Dayton St. $80 • Undercrossing removes at-grade crossing at WSF Edmonds Terminal
(second most productive WSF route)
• Increases access to Port of Edmonds employment center
• Creates vital EMS link to Port and W Edmonds
SR 529/SR 528 Half Diamond $60 • Increases freight mobility at Riverside Business Park and industrial
properties in North Everett and South Marysville
• Relieves major congestion SR 528/BNSF at-grade crossing
1-5: 156th St NE Interchange $42 • Removes stress at BNSF at-grade crossings which cannot be easily
mitigated (88th St NE, 116th St NE)
• Improves access to North Marysville, Quil Ceda Village and Smokey
Point employment centers
TOTAL Freight/Grade Separation: $182 million
Local Job Centers
1-5: 116th St NE Interchange $42 • Improves access to North Marysville and Quil Ceda Village employment
centers
• Construction ready
Poplar Way Extension Bridge $36 • Creates E-W link reducing congestion on I-5 & SR 524
• Supports PSRC Lynnwood Regional Growth Center
• Supports CT's “Transit Emphasis Corridor” on SR 524
Local Priority Project Fund ($1-6
million per project)
$30 • Supports small-scale local economic development infrastructure projects
to create jobs, improve mobility, and promote local economic vitality
TOTAL Local Job Centers: $108 million
Maintenance & Preservation
Countywide Bridge, Highway and
Arterial Maintenance and Preservation
$307 • Prevents catastrophic failure and necessary maintenance of previous
public infrastructure investments
• Assumes 25% of total Snohomish County package
TOTAL Maintenance & Preservation: $307 million
TOTAL SNOHOMISH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE: $1,750 million
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #9
Attachment
G
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Street Closure for Special Event – Santa Parade
ATTACHMENTS:
none
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Executive / Recreation – Contact: Sarah Lopez
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Council is requested to review the proposed street closure for the Santa Parade on
December 1, 2012. The closure of Olympic Avenue from Division to 5th Street would
begin at 11am for parade line up. The parade is a “moving parade” with police escort
that begins at 12pm and concludes around 12:30pm. Parade route is Olympic Avenue
from 5th Street to 1st Street.
HISTORY:
This event went through the special event application and permit process. This is an
annual event.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny street closure.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No action at this time. Council will be asked to approve the street closure for the Santa
Parade at the November 19, 2012 Council meeting.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #10
Attachment
H
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
November 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Review of 2013 Prosperity Partnership Action Items
ATTACHMENTS:
2013 Prosperity Partnership Action Items
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Legislative – Contact: Ken Klein
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0-
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Each year, the PSRC Economic Development District Board approves the Prosperity
Partnership’s Action Items, which is used as a work plan to guide the efforts of the
Prosperity Partnership as it implements the goals of the Regional Economic Strategy. The
strategy initially proposed 29 individual action items for the first year of
implementation. The list has since been reduced to a more realistic list of 20 action
items.
HISTORY:
The new Regional Economic Strategy was adopted in July 2012. The attached action items
come from the First Year Initiatives and were developed with the input and feedback of
the Economic Development District Board of Directors and the Regional Economic
Strategy Technical Advisory Group.
ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Information only.
EDD Board of Directors Agenda Page 5b-1 November 7, 2012
ACTION ITEM October 31, 2012
To: Economic Development District (EDD) Board of Directors
From: Chris Endresen Scott, Director of Economic Development
Subject: Approve 2013 Prosperity Partnership Action Items
AT ISSUE
Each year, the EDD Board approves the Prosperity Partnership’s Action Items, which is used as a
work plan to guide the efforts of the Prosperity Partnership as it implements the goals of the
Regional Economic Strategy. The EDD Board is being asked to review and approve the 2013
Action Items. As you know, the new Regional Economic Strategy was adopted in July 2012. These
action items come from the First Year Initiatives and were developed with the input and feedback of
the Economic Development District Board of Directors and the Regional Economic Strategy
Technical Advisory Group.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The board should approve the 2013 Prosperity Partnership Action Items.
DISCUSSION
The strategy proposed 29 individual action items for the first year of implementation. In
discussions with the EDD Executive Committee the following action items have been reduced to a
more realistic list. The original first year action plan is included for your reference. The strategies
that are reflected in the 2013 Action Items are highlighted for your convenience.
The draft 2013 Action Items are as follows:
Action Initiative
Action Initiative
Area Organization
1 Increase high-demand degree capacity
Including certain STEM degrees) at the
state's two and four year post-secondary
institutions.
Education &
Workforce
Prosperity Partnership
2 Work with the maritime industry to identify
skills to create a coordinated response for
high demand occupations.
Maritime/
Education &
Workforce
Prosperity Partnership
EDD Board of Directors Agenda Page 5b-2 November 7, 2012
3 Improve the transferability of training and
skills of military personnel transitioning to
higher education institutions and civilian
employer needs.
Military Prosperity Partnership,
Washington Defense
Partnership
4 Execute the development of the Northwest
Building Energy Technology Hub
(NBETH), formerly BETI.
Clean Technology Innovate Washington,
Prosperity Partnership, City of
Seattle, South Seattle
Community College, Cleantech
Open
5 Convene small business and women- and
minority-owned business organizations to
develop an action plan to help these
businesses thrive.
Business Climate Prosperity Partnership, Seattle
Chamber Multicultural and
Small Business Development
6 Convene international trade stakeholders to
review the International Competitiveness
Strategy to identify elements of regional
significance to include in Prosperity
Partnership work plan.
Transportation &
Logistics
Prosperity Partnership, Trade
Development Alliance &
Washington Council on
International Trade, Ports
7 Convene maritime industries to ensure
regional shipyards capture new shipbuilding
and modification work of large
catcher/processors and trawlers in order to
expand and modernize.
Maritime
/Transportation &
Logistics
Prosperity Partnership
8 Develop a statewide aerospace strategy to
ensure Washington remains the worldwide
center of aerospace innovation and
excellence.
Aerospace Washington Aerospace
Partnership, Governor's Office
of Aerospace
9 Authorize regions throughout Washington
to establish Cultural Access Funds to
increase access to our state's scientific and
cultural institutions for all residents.
Quality of
Life/Tourism &
Visitors
Cultural Access Fund, Prosperity
Partnership
10 Advocate for establishing a state level
military office to serve as liaison between the
state and the military.
Military Washington Military Alliance,
Washington Defense
Partnership
11 Work with regional partners to ensure the
state is prepared for a Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) process.
Military Washington Military Alliance,
Washington Defense
Partnership
EDD Board of Directors Agenda Page 5b-3 November 7, 2012
12 Develop policies to support a robust
tourism industry in the region.
Tourism & Visitors Washington Tourism Alliance
13 Convene ports and other stakeholders to
develop policy and then to educate leaders
on the importance of a national freight
strategy that meets the strategic interests of
the Puget Sound.
Transportation &
Logistics
Puget Sound Regional Council
14 Implement the Washington Global Health
Alliance strategic plan to establish the region
as a center for global health innovation.
Life Sciences &
Global Health
Washington Global Health
Alliance
15 Implement Transportation 2040 to improve
transportation service for people, freight and
goods.
Infrastructure PSRC
16 Educate policy makers on the need to
reform the Harbor Maintenance Tax to
ensure Puget Sound competitiveness.
Transportation &
Logistics/Maritime
Washington Council on
International Trade, Trade
Development Alliance, Ports
17 Implement the work of PSRC’s Growing
Transit Communities Partnership, which
supports multijurisdictional planning to
ensure jobs and opportunities are closer to
where current and future residents live.
Quality of Life PSRC, Growing Transit
Communities Partnership
18 Support initiatives such as High Skills High
Wages, Excellent Schools Now,
Eastside Pathways, the Community Center
for Education Results and other
similar programs to strengthen the K-12
education system.
Education &
Workforce
Development
Partnership for Learning
19 Support local jurisdictions in implementing
transfer and purchase of development rights
programs to ensure continued preservation
of important habitat, farm and forest lands.
Quality of Life PSRC
20 Support the renewal/continuation of tax
credits for organizations involved in
research and development.
IT/Life Sciences &
Global Health
WTIA, WBBA
EDD Board of Directors Agenda Page 5b-4 November 7, 2012
CONTACT
For more information, please contact Chris Endresen Scott at 206-971-3269 or cendresen@psrc.org.
EDD Board of Directors Agenda 5b-5 November 7, 2012
First-Year Action Plan
The first year action plan for implementation of the Regional Economic Strategy is presented here. This matrix
identifies the foundational area each action initiative is addressing, the lead and partner organizations that will be
spearheading each initiative, and the industry clusters that will be most impacted by its success. The items in the
first year action plan may be extended into later years due to funding and resource considerations.
YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Strategy
No.
Action Initiative Lead & Partner
Organizations
(lead org(s) in bold)
S1.1 Raise awareness and support for a more sustainable and
accountable higher education system.
The decline in state funding for higher education in Washington state
poses a serious threat to the economic competitiveness of the state
and region. The state of Washington currently trails many other
competing states in the production of bachelor’s degrees. The Higher
Education Coordinating Board set a 2018 goal of increasing the
number of bachelor’s degrees awarded annually in the state by 6,000.
In 2011, the state Legislature passed a new performance and
accountability framework that is currently being implemented. The
Prosperity Partnership and the region’s business community will work
to support expanding the state’s investment in higher education.
All clusters, especially Aerospace, Clean Tech, IT, Life Sciences and Global Health.
Prosperity Partnership
S1.1 Increase high-demand degree capacity (including certain STEM
degrees) at the state’s two and four year post-secondary
institutions.
Many of central Puget Sound’s high growth industries are requiring
workers with more advanced education and skills, especially in the
fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The
Prosperity Partnership will work to support increased high demand
degree production in the state by 2018.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative, especially Aerospace, Clean Tech, IT,
Life Sciences and Global Health.
Prosperity Partnership
S1.2 Support initiatives such as High Skills High Wages, Excellent Schools
Now, Eastside Pathways, the Community Center for Education
Results and other similar programs to strengthen the K-12
education system.
Partnership for Learning
EDD Board of Directors Agenda 5b-6 November 7, 2012
YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Strategy
No.
Action Initiative Lead & Partner
Organizations
(lead org(s) in bold)
Organizations such as the Excellent Schools Now coalition, Eastside
Pathways, the Community Center for Education Results and other
similar programs aim to achieve meaningful education reform that
increases student achievement, closes the achievement gap and
prepares students to be college and career-ready. The Prosperity
Partnership approves and supports their endeavors and will collaborate
with business, labor, workforce development boards and schools to ensure all
high school students have access to multiple pathways to career success by
implementing the goals of the High Skills, High Wages 2008-2018 initiative.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
S1.2 Implement state and local high school graduation requirements that
are aligned to college entrance requirements and provide a firm
foundation in math and science competency.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Partnership for Learning
S1.3 Identify skills needed for high demand, non-STEM, occupations in
the maritime, aerospace, tourism and visitors, and transportation
and logistics clusters.
Many of the region’s key industries clusters are facing a shortage of
workers with skills ranging from welding to pipefitting. Prosperity
Partnership will convene a working group consisting of ports,
industry, vocational and technical institutions, workforce
development councils and others to specifically identify these needs
and develop an action plan to ensure these needs are met.
Aerospace, Maritime, Transportation and Logistics, and Tourism and Visitors clusters
are affected by this action initiative.
Prosperity Partnership,
Ports, vocational and
technical institutions, WDCs,
industry associations,
apprenticeship programs
S1.5 Investigate improving transferability of training and skills in the
military to Washington higher education institutions and civilian
employer needs.
Veterans are facing his levels of unemployment while our region’s
employers are seeking a skilled and trained workforce. By improving
the transfer and acceptance of skills and certifications earned in the
military to align with the needs of civilian employers can help
improvement the employment outlook for veterans while also
Washington Defense
Partnership, Prosperity
Partnership
EDD Board of Directors Agenda 5b-7 November 7, 2012
YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Strategy
No.
Action Initiative Lead & Partner
Organizations
(lead org(s) in bold)
addressing perceived skills gaps in our region.
Military cluster is affected by this action initiative.
S2.1 Convene a working group to explore, reach consensus, and develop
action plans to pursue tools to support new economic development
projects that attract and grow new business and investment.
Compared to competing regions in other states, the Puget Sound
region is challenged by a lack of economic development tools.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Prosperity Partnership, EDD
board, labor, municipalities,
relevant industries, AWC,
WSAC, EDC’s, Growing
Transit Communities
Partnership – Affordable
Housing Steering Committee
S2.2 Advocate for establishing a state level military office to serve as a
liaison between the state and the military.
Most states with an equally high military presence have an office at
the state-level to serve as a liaison between the military and state
government. This office would be able to serve as a voice for the
military in the state government and as a point for the military when
they have questions for the state. This office could also better
prepare the state for future BRAC rounds.
Military cluster is affected by this action initiative.
Washington Defense
Partnership, Prosperity
Partnership
S2.2 Improve coordination of technical assistance to companies vying for
and obtaining federal contracts.
In an effort to increase defense contracting activity by companies in
Puget Sound, the Prosperity Partnership’s Military Cluster Strategy
identified several strategies for coordinating technical assistance by
support organizations in the region. The regional Procurement
Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs) and the Pacific Northwest
Defense Coalition (PNDC) should partner together to help more local
companies find and secure defense contracting opportunities.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative, especially Aerospace and Military.
Pacific Northwest Defense
Coalition (PNDC) and
Procurement Technical
Assistance Centers (PTACs),
Prosperity Partnership
S2.2 Work with regional partners to ensure Washington is prepared for
any upcoming Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Washington Defense
Partnership
EDD Board of Directors Agenda 5b-8 November 7, 2012
YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Strategy
No.
Action Initiative Lead & Partner
Organizations
(lead org(s) in bold)
S2.4 Work with member regions to evaluate International Regions
Benchmarking Consortium program and plan for long-term
sustainability.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Trade Development Alliance,
Prosperity Partnership
S2.5 Convene ports to identify key common infrastructure, funding and
legislation to increase regional competitiveness and develop joint
initiatives.
Maritime and Transportation and Logistics clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Prosperity Partnership,
Ports, related industries,
Trade Development Alliance,
Washington Council on
International Trade
S2.5 Market SeaTac Airport as an international hub for business and
travel, while supporting the Washington State Long-term Air
Transportation Study.
Transportation and Logistics and Tourism and Visitors clusters are affected by this
action initiative.
Ports, Trade Development
Alliance, Washington
Tourism Alliance
S2.5 Share information on the potential effects of changes to reform the
Harbor Maintenance Tax to ensure Puget Sound competitiveness.
Maritime and Transportation and Logistics clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Ports, Prosperity Partnership,
Washington Council on
International Trade
S2.5 Convene group of international trade stakeholders to review the
upcoming Trade Development Alliance and Washington Council on
International Trade’s international competitiveness strategy to
identify elements of regional economic significance to support.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Prosperity Partnership,
Trade Development Alliance,
Washington Council on
International Trade,
international trade
stakeholders
S2.5 Discuss possible Economic Development District support for
Washington Tourism Alliance legislative agenda.
Tourism and Visitors cluster is affected by this action initiative.
Washington Tourism
Alliance, EDD board, related
industries
EDD Board of Directors Agenda 5b-9 November 7, 2012
YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Strategy
No.
Action Initiative Lead & Partner
Organizations
(lead org(s) in bold)
S2.6 Convene maritime industries to ensure regional shipyards capture
new shipbuilding and modification work of large catcher/processors
and trawlers, in order to expand and modernize.
Recent federal legislation removed the 20-year prohibition on
rebuilding and replacing Bering Sea groundfish fleets. With many
catcher/processor vessels based in Puget Sound, regional shipyards
are well positioned to capture new shipbuilding opportunities.
However, to better compete with lower-cost shipyards located
primarily along the Gulf Coast, some regional shipyards will need new
investment in order to expand and modernize. This could entail the
use of industrial development bonds to help fund infrastructure
improvements and also raising awareness of such opportunities
within the region.
Maritime and Transportation and Logistics clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Prosperity Partnership, City
of Seattle, King County,
Pierce County
S2.7 Support the renewal/continuation of tax credits for organizations
involved in research and development.
Tax incentives for Research and Development (R&D) are important to
the Puget Sound region because they allow companies of all sizes to
invest in innovation, create more jobs, create new products and
expand markets.
IT, Life Sciences and Global Health clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Washington Technology
Industry Association, WBBA,
related industries
S2.8 Convene small business and women- and minority-owned business
organizations to develop an action plan to support programs that
will help these businesses thrive.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Prosperity Partnership,
Seattle Chamber’s
Multicultural and Small-
Business Development and
other related organizations
S3.3 Execute the development of a Building Energy-Efficiency Testing and
Integration Center and Demonstration Network.
The Building Energy-Efficiency Testing and Integration (BETI) Center
and Demonstration Network will be a place for innovators in the
energy-efficiency field to test their products, designs and services
prior to launching them into the marketplace, and learn about their
integration with the other aspects of the built environment. BETI is
Innovate Washington,
Prosperity Partnership, City
of Seattle, South Seattle
Community College,
Cleantech Open,
Battelle/PNNL, NEEA, UW,
WSU, State of WA
EDD Board of Directors Agenda 5b-10 November 7, 2012
YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Strategy
No.
Action Initiative Lead & Partner
Organizations
(lead org(s) in bold)
aimed at growing the energy efficiency industry in the central Puget
Sound region. By creating an atmosphere in which all companies have
a better chance to grow their customer base and market penetration,
BETI will help create jobs and import wealth into the region.
Clean Tech and IT clusters are affected by this action initiative.
S3.4 Monitor relevant state and local policy discussions regarding
technology procurement policies; as necessary, educate policy
makers on this issue.
Innovate and creative technologies are often developed for local,
state and regional governments to address specific needs. Currently,
the state has no procurement restrictions or mandates that would
prohibit agencies from seeking the most cost effective and efficient
technology for the intended purpose. This ability is the best way to
provide value, transparency and competition, and it promotes
innovation and vigorous competition among the broadest range of
suppliers.
IT is affected by this action initiative.
WTIA
S4.1 Encourage and support the implementation of Transportation 2040.
Transportation 2040, adopted in 2010, is an action plan for
transportation in the central Puget Sound region for the next 30
years. Transportation 2040 identifies multimodal investments to
support our expected growth and improve transportation service
provided to people (such as access to jobs and education) and
businesses and lays out a financing plan.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
PSRC
S4.2 Continue to work with regional stakeholders to refine and prioritize
scoring measures as part of Transportation 2040.
Transportation 2040 includes a commitment to better prioritize
transportation projects in the future. Work is underway to develop
the ways projects in the plan will be prioritized to best meet the
objectives of the region’s growth strategy – VISION 2040.
PSRC
EDD Board of Directors Agenda 5b-11 November 7, 2012
YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN MATRIX
Strategy
No.
Action Initiative Lead & Partner
Organizations
(lead org(s) in bold)
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
S4.3 Support the work of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership
to develop best practices that align regional transportation and land
use investments and ensure governments regionwide have access
to this information so they can apply as appropriate.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
PSRC, Growing Transit
Communities Partnership
S4.4
Convene ports, related industries and local governments to identify
aging port infrastructure regionwide and identify funding strategies.
Maritime and Transportation and Logistics clusters are affected by this action initiative.
Prosperity Partnership,
Ports, local, regional and
state government as
appropriate, related
industries
S5.1 Support and participate in the work of the Regional Open Space
Strategy project, a UW-led collaborative effort.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
University of WA, PSRC
S5.1 Support local jurisdictions in implementing transfer and purchase of
development rights programs to ensure continued preservation of
important habitat, farm and forest lands.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
PSRC
S5.2 Support the work of PSRC’s Growing Sustainable Communities
Partnership, which supports multijurisdictional planning to ensure
jobs and opportunities are closer to where current and future
residents live.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative.
PSRC, Growing Transit
Communities Partnership
S5.3 Support legislation that would authorize regions throughout
Washington to establish Cultural Access Funds to increase access to
the state's scientific and cultural institutions for all state residents.
All clusters are affected by this action initiative, especially Tourism and Visitors.
Education and Arts Access
Fund (EAAF), Prosperity
Partnership