HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-25 Council WorkshopSPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN
1. Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Commerce ATTACHMENT A
for the Encampment Resolution Program
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
2.Ordinance Amending the 2025 Budget and Modifying the 2026 Budget
3.
4.Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lake Stevens Re garding Grant
for Professional Services Agreement with Feldman and Lee
5.Memorandum of Understanding for the Staging Area Use
Between the Airport and Washington State Military Department
6.
7.Ordinance Amending Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Arlington City Council Workshop
Monday, December 8, 2025 at 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers – 110 E 3rd Street
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT G
6.Ordinance Adopting Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.90
7.Ordinance Adopting Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.93
ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORT
COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
PUBLIC COMMENT
For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council. Please limit your remarks to three minutes.
REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
EXECUTIVE SESSION
RECONVENE
ADJOURNMENT
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill WS #1 Attachment
December 8, 2025 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with WA State Dept of Commerce regarding Encampment
Memorandum of Understanding
Administration; Paul Ellis, City Administrator EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: participate in the Encampment Resolution Program (ERP). The program will provide social services services to unhouse people camping on public property.
The program was established in 2024 and used by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to provide social services to encampments located on WSDOT properties. The program has been extended to the City of Arlington and Everett for 2026. ALTERNATIVES:
be, “I move to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Washington State Department of Commerce and authorize the Mayor to sign.”
PROGRAM NAME
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Encampment Resolution Program – Public Rights of Way and Public
Jurisdiction Sites
PARTIES
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into by and between:
Washington State Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)
Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”)
Washington State Patrol (“WSP”)
[Insert Public Jurisdiction(s): City/County Government] (“Jurisdiction”)
PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to establish a shared commitment between the parties to resolve
encampments in identified public rights of way and on public jurisdiction property, and to
maintain those sites free from re-occupation. This MOU sets forth roles, responsibilities, and
expectations necessary to ensure the success of the Encampment Resolution Program (ERP).
By utilizing ERP resources and identifying a site for resolution, the jurisdiction and state
partners affirm that the site is not an appropriate or lawful place for individuals to reside, and
that this determination is not time-limited. Once cleared, the site must remain clear.
AUTHORITY
This agreement is authorized by:
RCW 39.34 – Interlocal Agreements between public agencies.
RCW 43.185C – Homeless Housing and Assistance.
Commerce budget provisos directing ERP implementation.
WSDOT and WSP statutory authority for property maintenance and law enforcement.
Local jurisdiction police powers for property management and public safety.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Resolution requires collaboration between state agencies, local governments, outreach
providers, law enforcement, and community partners.
Encampment resolution includes outreach, services, and housing referrals prior to
clearance.
Maintaining cleared sites requires sustained, coordinated enforcement and monitoring.
The ERP is designed to provide resources, but the responsibility to maintain sites after
clearance lies with the jurisdiction or agency that manages the property.
MEMORANDOM OF UNDERSTANDING – ENCAMPMENT RESOLUTION PROGRAM 2
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Commerce
Provide ERP resources consistent with state law, budget, and policy.
Ensure contract oversight with lead contractors and subgrantees.
Monitor compliance with this MOU.
WSDOT
For state rights of way: provide site cleaning, hazard removal, and site-hardening
measures after clearance.
Respond to Commerce or jurisdiction requests for additional site modifications to
prevent re-occupation.
Participate in monitoring and enforcement coordination.
WSP
For state rights of way: provide enforcement support, including notice and removal of
individuals unlawfully occupying WSDOT-managed property.
Assist local law enforcement, as appropriate, during clearance operations.
Public Jurisdiction (City/County)
When the encampment site is located on property owned or managed by a local jurisdiction,
that jurisdiction assumes the following responsibilities:
Staff Role Equivalent to WSDOT: Provide property management functions including
cleaning, removal of debris/vehicles, site preparation, and site-hardening measures to
prevent re-occupation.
Law Enforcement Role Equivalent to WSP: Local police/sheriff must assume primary
enforcement responsibility, including posting notices, conducting ongoing monitoring,
and removing trespassing individuals who refuse to leave after clearance.
Monitoring Requirement: Jurisdictions must ensure all previously cleared sites are
inspected at least once per week (or more frequently if needed). Any new encampments
must be addressed promptly, with individuals trespassing on cleared sites removed.
Commitment to Long-Term Maintenance: Jurisdictions affirm that once a site is
cleared, it will remain clear indefinitely.
Shared Responsibilities
Conduct coordinated outreach to individuals prior to clearance, offering services, shelter,
or housing.
Maintain collaborative communication to ensure cleared sites remain unoccupied.
Develop protocols for site selection, community communication, and stakeholder
engagement.
ROLES AND PROCESSES
The following section describes the collaborative process the parties will use to identify,
resolve, and maintain sites. These stages represent examples of expected timelines and
sequencing; the actual pace may vary based on site size, location, available resources, and
housing capacity. The shared goal is to ensure safety, dignity, and effective resolution.
MEMORANDOM OF UNDERSTANDING – ENCAMPMENT RESOLUTION PROGRAM 3
Identifying a Site
WSDOT or the jurisdiction identifies sites for resolution, in consultation with Commerce
and local partners.
Factors include safety risks, unsanitary conditions, construction conflicts, availability of
housing, and capacity of partners.
Priorities may shift if new sites present greater urgency.
Stage 1 – Initial Engagement (approx. 7+ days)
Outreach staff (not law enforcement) assess site population, begin engagement, and
map site conditions.
No promises of housing are made until a plan is confirmed.
Stage 2 – Site Review
Parties meet to confirm whether to proceed with resolution of the site.
Stage 3 – Identification and Assessment (approx. 10+ days)
Outreach staff build the by-names list of people on-site, conduct assessments, and
communicate the process.
Individuals absent during this period are not added later except under special
circumstances (e.g., hospitalization).
Shelter and housing may begin to be offered to identified individuals.
Stage 4 – Notices and Trespass Prevention
Highly visible No Trespassing signs are posted.
Written notices explain that only those identified during assessment are eligible for ERP
housing.
Stage 5 – Shelter and Housing Offers (approx. 5+ days)
Housing is prioritized for those on the by-names list who remain on-site.
Offers must represent an option meaningfully safer or more stable than the
encampment.
Individuals have a set period to accept offers before they are extended to others.
Local staff assist with transport of belongings and offer short-term storage.
Large or Complex Sites
For sites with 20+ residents or long closure timelines, weekly census tracking and
structure tagging will be used.
Sites may be closed in sections as housing becomes available.
Final Closure
72-hour legal notices are posted prior to final clearance.
Local law enforcement (or WSP for state sites) enforces trespass, prioritizing voluntary
exit and minimizing arrests.
WSDOT or the jurisdiction cleans and hardens the site post-closure.
MEMORANDOM OF UNDERSTANDING – ENCAMPMENT RESOLUTION PROGRAM 4
Ongoing Monitoring
Cleared sites must be inspected weekly at a minimum.
New arrivals are informed immediately the site is closed, and if necessary, trespass
enforcement occurs.
Jurisdictions report to Commerce and WSDOT/WSP any breaches, hazards, or
conditions that may lead to re-occupation.
CONSEQUENCES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
For Jurisdictions: Failure to maintain cleared sites—including the requirement of weekly
monitoring and enforcement—will result in suspension or withdrawal of ERP assistance.
TERM
This MOU is effective upon signature and remains in effect until terminated by mutual
agreement or upon ninety (90) days written notice by a party.
AMENDMENTS
This MOU may be amended by written agreement of all parties.
SIGNATURES
Washington State Department of Commerce ___________________ Date
Washington State Department of Transportation ___________________ Date
Washington State Patrol ___________________ Date
[City/County Government] ___________________ Date
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill WS #2 Attachment
December 8, 2025 Ordinance Amending the 2025 Budget & Modifying the 2026 Budget
Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2024-024 (Including Exhibits A and B) 2025 Budget Amendment Summary
Finance Department EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: modifications. A public hearing on the proposed 2025 budget amendments and 2026 budget modifications will be held December 15, 2025. Council will be asked to take action on the attached ordinance following the public hearing.
Most of the proposed amendments have been approved and/or discussed with council throughout the year. ALTERNATIVES:
will be, “I move to approve the ordinance amending the budget section of the 2025/2026 biennial budget for the City of Arlington and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.”
2025/2026 BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS
General Fund
•Police -Increase in Jail and Public Defender costs
•Police -Grant for Barricades
•CED -Personnel and new permitting software
•Airport city rent increases for 2026
•008-Opioid -Embedded Social Worker, previously paid by 001-general fund
Construction Capital Projects -Carryover from 2025
•Art Fund -Smokey Point Roundabout
•Burn Road Rehab
•180th -SPB Roundabout
•188th -SPB Roundabout
•Island Crossing Roundabout
•Police Impound/Sewer Facility
•Island Crossing Roundabout-received grant 11/2025
•Pump Track
•Commercial Kitchen
•Sewer Main Replacement
•Prairie Creek Culvert
•Airport Perimeters Fencing
Internal Operating Transfers
•CED -1-year Temp Employee paid by Permit Revenues
•Growth Fund -Transfer for Capital Projects
Expense Categories Funding Source
• Capital Projects • Transfers • Operations Personnel • Grants Transfers ■ Operating Reserves ■ Other
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2024-024 WHICH ADOPTED THE 2025-2026
BIENNIAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON BY PROVIDING SUPPLEMENT THERETO
AND PROVIDING TRANSFER AND ADJUSTMENT AU THORITY
FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2025 AND 2026
WHEREAS, staff has identified the need to make certain revisions to the
2025-2026 Biennial Budget that were not foreseen when Ordinance No. 2024-024 was
adopted on November 4, 2024, and
WHEREAS, this ordinance was introduced with proper notice and citizens have
been given the opportunity to comment, and
WHEREAS, because this will require increasing the appropriation level in one or
more funds, an amendment is needed, NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.34, the 2025 Budget section of the 2025-2026 biennial budget
is hereby amended to provide for adjustments to expenditures, and by providing authority for
any necessary transfers of money within or between funds as indicated in the “Amendment”
column on the attached document Exhibit A.
Section 2. That the attached is a summary of the amended budget for the year 2025 for the City
of Arlington and that copies of the detailed amended budget are available to any interested
taxpayer at the Finance Department, City Hall, Arlington, Washington.
Section 3. Pursuant to RCW 35A.34.130, the 2026 Budget section of the 2025 -2026 biennial
budget is hereby modified to provide for adjustments to expenditures, and by providing
authority for any necessary transfers of money within or between funds as indicated in the
“Modifications” column on the attached document Exhibit B.
Section 4. That the attached is a summary of the modified budget for the year 2026 for the City
of Arlington and that copies of the detailed modified budget are available to any interested
taxpayer at the Finance Department, City Hall, Arlington, Washington.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after its passage and
publication of a summary consisting of the ordinance title hereof as authorized by law.
Passed by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 15th day of December, 2025.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
_______________________________
Don E. Vanney, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Oskar Rey, City Attorney
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill WS #3 Attachment
December 8, 2025 Interlocal Agreement with City of Lake Stevens
Interlocal Agreement
Administration; Paul Ellis, City Administrator EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: Public Defense BUDGETED AMOUNT: $32,500 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: obtained a grant from the Office of Public Defense and both parties have entered into a professional services agreement (PSA) with Feldman & Lee, P.S. for public defense services. Grant funds shall be used to supplement local funding to hire additional attorneys to reduce caseloads according to public defense standards. The grant amount is $20,000 over two years requiring a $13,800 match currently budgeted.
The City of Lake Stevens and City of Arlington use the same law firm for public defense services. We have received this grant in prior years, and this will be the third update. ALTERNATIVES:
be, “I move to approve the interlocal agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign it.”
Interlocal Agreement – 2026 Lake Stevens and Arlington 1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this date by and
between the CITY OF LAKE STEVENS, a Washington municipal corporation (“CLS”), and the
CITY OF ARLINGTON, a Washington municipal corporation (“CA”), sometimes collectively
referred to as the “Parties”.
RECITALS
A. The Parties are public agencies, as defined in RCW 39.34.020(1) that wish to enter into an
Agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Washington Interlocal Cooperation Act.
B. The Parties have obtained a grant from the Office of Public Defense (the “Grant”) and CLS
has entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Feldman & Lee, P.S. (the “PSA”)
a public defense social services program (the “Program”), and both Parties have entered
into Professional Services Agreements with Feldman & Lee, P.S. for public defense
services.
C. The Parties need to memorialize between them the manner of administration of the Grant
and the PSA and the operation of the Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits contained herein, the
adequacy and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Incorporation. The Recitals set forth above are by this reference incorporated into this
Agreement and are binding commitments and representations of the Parties.
2. Administration. CLS shall be the lead agency and be responsible for receipt of Grant
funding, and for administering the Program and the PSA. CLS will coordinate all reporting
required by the Grant, monitor and enforce performance under the PSA, and using grant and match
funding only, pay all bills and obligations related to the Grant and the PSA.
2.1. The Parties agree to create a Review Committee (the “Committee”) which will
consist of two (2) individuals, one appointed by CLS and one appointed by CA. Any issues related
to performance under this Agreement shall be referred to the Committee for resolution.
2.2. It is anticipated that there may be an interim report or inquiries by the consultant
under the PSA. If CLS is uncertain how to administer the Program as a result of the report or
inquiry it may refer the issue to the Committee. The Committee agrees to meet or discuss the
progress of the Program at any time upon the request of either Party. All written communications
of the Committee shall be available to the Parties.
Interlocal Agreement – 2026 Lake Stevens and Arlington 2
3. Period of Performance. January 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. Two-thirds of the grant
award amount shall be disbursed to in January 2026 for intended use during calendar year 2026.
The remaining third shall be disbursed to in January 2027 for intended use through June 30th
during the calendar year 2027.
4. Funds for the Program.
4.1. Effective January 1, 2026, funds for the program shall include grant proceeds in the
amount of $20,000 and local match of $13,800. CA shall pay 60% of the local
match funds, $8,280, directly to Feldman & Lee, P.S. within (30) days of invoice
for match funds. CLS shall pay 40% of the local match funds, $5,520, in addition
to the grant funds within (30) days of invoice from Felman & Lee, P.S.
4.2. Effective January 1, 2027, through June 30, 2027, the funds for the Program shall
include grant proceeds in the amount of $10,000 and local match of $6,900. CA
shall pay 60% of the local match funds, $4,140, directly to Feldman & Lee, P.S.
within (30) days of invoice for the match funds. CLS shall pay 40% of the local
match funds, $2,760, in addition to the grant funds within (30) days of invoice from
Feldman & Lee, P.S.
5. Funds for Reduction of Public Defense Caseloads. Grant funds shall be used to
supplement local funding to hire additional attorneys to reduce caseloads according to public
defense standards.
5.1. Effective January 1, 2026, the funds for the reduction of public defense caseloads
shall include grant proceeds in the amount of $16,000. CA shall invoice CLS for
50% of the grant funds, $8,000. Both parties shall pay directly to Feldman & Lee,
P.S. within (30) days of invoice for increased public defense services.
5.2. Effective January 1, 2027, the funds for the reduction of public defense caseloads
shall include grant proceeds in the amount of $8,000. CA shall invoice CLS for
50% of the grant funds, $4,000. Both parties shall pay directly to Feldman & Lee,
P.S. within (30) days of invoice for increased public defense services.
6. Services under PSA. The services under the PSA shall be equally available to both parties
to improve their indigent defense services.
7. Termination. This Agreement shall conclude on June 30, 2027, and terminate when
closeout of all obligations under the Grant have occurred and been accepted by the granting
agency. Provided however, this Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event the grant
funding is discontinued or not received or if the portion which is to be match funding is not
appropriated through the budget process of either party. In the event of termination, any unused
funding shall be returned in proportion to the contributions of each party after payment of all
expenses.
Interlocal Agreement – 2026 Lake Stevens and Arlington 3
8. Powers. The Parties warrant that each holds the power, authority and/or authorization as
required by applicable law to enter into this Agreement.
9. Severability. In the event that any provision in this Agreement shall be determined to be
unenforceable or otherwise invalid for any reason, such provision shall be enforced and invalidated
to the extent permitted by law. All provisions of this Agreement are severable, and the
unenforceability or invalidity of a single provision hereof shall not affect the remaining provisions.
10. Applicable Law; Recording-Posting. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the state of Washington, and the venue of any dispute under this Agreement shall be in Snohomish
County. The Parties agree to either record this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor or
to electronically post a copy of this Agreement on their respective websites. If recorded, CLS shall
be responsible to use Program funds for the costs to record this Agreement. Each Party shall be
responsible for the costs of electronically posting this Agreement on their respective websites.
11. No Entity Created. The Parties agree that there is no separate organization or
administrative entity created or necessitated by this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed
the creation of a partnership or similar entity between the Parties.
12. Mutual Negotiation and Construction. This Agreement and each of the terms and
provisions hereof are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated between, and mutually drafted by,
the Parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed
according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either party.
13. Notice. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be sent to:
City of Lake Stevens City of Arlington
PO Box 257 238 N. Olympic Avenue
Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Arlington, WA 98223
Attn: City Clerk Attn: City Clerk
Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement
between the City and the Port regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement shall not be
altered, amended or modified in any way unless such modification, alteration or amendment is
reduced to writing, mutually agreed upon and signed by both Parties. The “effective date of this
Agreement” shall be deemed to be the date of the last signature set forth below. However, the
effective date of the Program is January 1, 2026.
Interlocal Agreement – 2026 Lake Stevens and Arlington 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Agreement the day and year written
below.
CITY OF LAKE STEVENS CITY OF ARLINGTON
By: By:
Brett Gailey, Mayor Don E. Vanney, Mayor
Dated: Date:
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
_________________________________ _________________________________
Greg Rubstello, City Attorney Oskar Rey, City Attorney
Attest: Attest:
_________________________________ _________________________________
Kelly Chelin, City Clerk Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill WS #4 Attachment
December 8, 2025 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Staging Area Use
Memorandum of Understanding
Airport; Monroe Whitman, Operations Manager 360-403-3471 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Washington State Military Department Emergency Management Division and Arlington Municipal Airport to use the property as necessary for a State Staging Area for emergency or disaster preparation, response, and recovery activities.
The current MOU was renewed in 2022 and is good for a term of five years from the start date 1/27/23. Historically the airport has offered the staging area to the Washington Military department to use in the event of a serious emergency or natural disaster and allows the storage and staging of emergency supplies and equipment on airport property to support the relief and response. ALTERNATIVES:
be, “I move to approve the Memorandum of Understanding and authorize the Mayor to sign it.”
1/27/2023
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill WS #5 Attachment
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 8, 2025 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Parks and Recreation Master Plan ATTACHMENTS: Council Overview, Ordinance, Exhibits, Findings of Fact, and Staff Report DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: revise the Cover Page, Chapter 3 Program Elements, Chapter 5 Plan Elements, Chapter 6 Park Plan Exhibits, Appendix B Existing Lands and Facilities, Appendix E Land and Facility Demand, and Appendix F Finances. The updates to these chapters and appendices includes the addition of Smokey Point Community Park, project lists, financial calculations, and community park impact fees. HISTORY: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 2024 without the implementation of community park development in the city. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information
Workshop; discussion only. At the December 15, 2025 Council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the ordinance amending the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance”.
Page 1 of 3
Revised Sections: Page numbers listed are the page numbers that correlate within the Parks and Recreation master plan at the bottom of each page.
• Exhibit A: Cover and Contents:
o Added an amended date to the cover page to know when the plan was amended.
• Exhibit B: Chapter 3 Program Elements:
o Page 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 updated the maps to include the Smokey Point Community Park
• Exhibit C: Chapter 5 Plan Elements:
o Page 41 updated map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 42 updated description of Middle Fork Quilceda Creek
o Page 46 removed Country Charm Park campsites and added Smokey Point Community Park picnic facilities
o Page 46 and 47 renumbering was required due to the addition of the Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 47 added the Food Truck Court to proposed improvements
o Page 48 updated picnic facilities map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 50 added 74th Avenue Trail as an existing trail
o Page 50, 51, and 52 renumbering was required due to the addition of the 74th Avenue Trail
o Page 52 removal of 74th Avenue trail from the proposed list and added to the existing list as shown on page 50
o Page 53 updated multiuse trails map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 55 added Smokey Point Community Park playground information
o Pages 55 and 57 renumbering was required due to the addition of the Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 56 updated playground map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 57 removed Country Charm Park and Smokey Point Park playground facilities from the proposed list and added Food Truck Court
o Page 58 updated map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 59 added pickleball court to Haller Middle School
o Page 62 updated map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 64 updated map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 66 removed Country Charm Park athletic �ields
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Appendix G Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Overview Summary - Amy Rusko, Director
Page 2 of 3
o Page 68 updated map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 71 updated title to include gathering spaces as depicted in other areas of the document, added Smokey Point Community Park assets, and removed Country Charm Park proposed special event spaces, along with renumbering the items
o Page 72 updated map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page 75 added J Rudy York Memorial Park dog park, renumbered items, and corrected a spelling error
• Exhibit D: Chapter 6 Park Plan Exhibits:
o Page 76 updated the table of contents adding Smokey Point Community Park and updating the page numbers
o Page 83 added fenced area for dogs to the J Rudy York Memorial Park existing improvements
o Page 87 added the Smokey Point Community Park description and existing improvements
o Page 98 updated a misplaced word
• Exhibit E: Appendix B Existing Lands and Facilities:
o Page B-2 updated map to include Smokey Point Community Park
o Page B-3 added Smokey Point Community Park
o Page B-3 and B-4 renumbering was required after the addition of the Smokey Point Community Park and 74th Avenue Trail
o Page B-4 added 74th Avenue Trail
• Exhibit F: Appendix E Land and Facility Demand:
o Page E-5 added Smokey Point
o Page E-8 removed campsites to be located at Country Charm Park and added picnic tables and shelters from Smokey Point Community Park and Food Truck Court
o Page E-9 updated language, added J Rudy York Memorial Park to the dog park list and updated playgrounds removing Country Charm Park and adding Smokey Point Community Park.
o Page E-10 updated playgrounds removing Country Charm Park and adding Smokey Point Community Park
o Page E-11 added pickleball court at Haller Middle School and removed the soccer �ields at Country Charm Park
o Page E-12 removed the baseball/softball �ields at Country Charm Park and update a ratio for recreation centers
o Page E-13 added Food Truck Court to Special Event Gathering Spaces and removed Country Charm Park
Page 3 of 3
o Page E-15 updated the Arlington Existing Level of Service (ELOS) tables to provide the correct information in each of the tables and amended the Proposed Level of Service (PLOS) table to the updated numbers per calculations from pages E-21, E-22 and E-24
o Page E-19 table to be removed and replaced with table on page E-21
o Page E-20 table to be removed and replaced with table on page E-22
o Page E-21 revised table showing updated calculations per PLOS
o Page E-22 revised table showing updated calculations per PLOS
o Page E-23 table to be removed and replaced with table on page E-24
o Page E-24 revised table showing updated projects and summarized calculations
o Page E-25 table to be removed and replaced with table on page E-26
o Page E-26 revised table showing updated �inancial strategies for 6 years
o Page E-27 table to be removed and replaced with table on page E-28
o Page E-28 revised table showing updated �inancial strategies for 20 years
o Page E-29 table to be removed and replaced with table on page E-30
o Page E-30 revised table showing updated park impact fee schedule
• Exhibit G: Appendix F Finances:
o Page F-13 updated numbers re�lecting the tables shown on F-17 and F-19
o Page F-14 updated numbers re�lecting the tables shown on F-17 and F-19
o Page F-15 updated numbers re�lecting the tables shown on F-17 and F-19
o Page F-16 table to be removed and replaced with table on page F-17
o Page F-17 revised table showing updated �inancial strategies for 6 years
o Page F-18 table to be removed and replaced with table on page F-19
o Page F-19 revised table showing updated �inancial strategies for 20 years
• The amendments follow State Regulations regarding impact fees, including what type of projects can receive funds from impact fees and ones that cannot. These regulations are under RCW 82.02.050 through .110 and WAC 365-196-850.
• The proposed amendments meet the nexus and rough proportionality between new development impacts and the fees necessary to support these impacts. This aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Sheetz v. County of El Dorado case.
Washington State Legislation or Other Requirements
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE PARKS
AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN UNDER CITY PLANNING NO. PLN 1289
WHEREAS, the city has proposed amendments to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Arlington Planning Commission considered the revisions on November 4
2025 and at a public hearing conducted on November 18, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made findings and provided its recommendations to
the City Council concerning the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, the Parks, Arts, Recreation Commission reviewed the same revisions on
November 25, 2025 and recommended the proposed changes to City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same at a workshop held on December 8, 2025,
their regular meeting on December 15, 2025, and considered them along with the Planning
Commission recommendations; and the City Council having determined approving said
amendment was in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the amendments were presented to the Department of Commerce for
comment and said Department had no comments on the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed amendment to the municipal
code and finds it to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Cover Page shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance;
Section 2. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Chapter 3 shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit B attached to this Ordinance;
Section 3. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Chapter 5 shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit C attached to this Ordinance;
Section 4. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Chapter 6 shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit D attached to this Ordinance;
Section 5. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Appendix B shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit E attached to this Ordinance;
Section 6. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Appendix E shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit F attached to this Ordinance;
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 2
Section 7. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Appendix F shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit G attached to this Ordinance;
Section 8. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state
or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 9. Effective Date. The title of this ordinance which summarizes the contents shall
be published in the official newspaper of the City. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force five (5) days after the date of publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Arlington and APPROVED by the Mayor this
______ day of _____________________, 2025.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
___________________________________
_ Don E. Vanney, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Oskar E. Rey, City Attorney
Arlington, Washington
Parks & Recreation Master Plan (PRMP)
Adopted July 2024
Amended December 2025
Exhibit A
Mayor and City Council
Don Vanney, Mayor
Heather Logan
Debora Nelson
Michele Blythe
Jan Schuette
Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam
Rob Toyer
Leisha Nobach
Previous Mayor and City Council
Barb Tolbert, Mayor
Mike Hopson
Marilyn Oertle
Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission (PARC)
Barbara Butner, Chair
Clayton Conway
Jennifer Harrington
Brittany Kleinman
Steve Maisch
Rick Sloan
City Staff
Sarah Lopez, Community Engagement Director
Marc Hayes, Director Community & Economic Development
Consultant
Tom Beckwith FAICP, Beckwith Consulting Group, Team Leader
Jennifer Kiusalaas ASLA, JKLA Landscape Architects
Dan Podoll AIA, ARC Architects
Michael Read PE, Trails Planner
Jennifer Hackett, GIS Analyst
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Objectives 1
Approach 1
Public involvement 2
Documentation 2
Chapter 2 Goals and Objectives
Goals and policies 3
Chapter 3 Program Elements
Population projections 11
Recreation demand 13
Recreation clearinghouse 21
Pricing and delivery criteria 22
Park service gaps 23
Social equity 24
Chapter 4 Public Opinions
Resident outreach survey 31
Chapter 5 Plan Elements
Conservancies 39
Resource parks 44
Trails 49
Athletic parks 54
Community facilities 67
Special use facilities 71
Support facilities 76
Chapter 6 Park Plan Exhibits
Bill Quake Memorial Park 78
Centennial Park 79
Forest Trail Park 81
Lebanon Park 86
City of Marysville Parks
Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex 92
Marysville School District
Soccer Complex 93
Snohomish County Parks
Gissberg Twin Lakes 95
Twin Rivers Park 97
Nonprofit
Arlington Boys & Girls Club 101
Chapter 7 Implementation
Adopt plan 103
Adopt program finance strategies 103
Adopt project finance strategies 104
Initiate PRMP projects 107
Appendix A Community Setting
Climate
Earth
Water
Wildlife habitats
Land use implications
Appendix B Existing Lands and Facilities
Arlington
Marysville
Snohomish County
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Arlington School District
Inventory implications
Appendix C Opportunities
Environmental resources
Conclusions
Appendix D Surveys
Resident outreach survey
PRMP priorities survey
Appendix E Land and Facility Demand
Land requirements
Appendix F Finances
Revenue and expenditure trends – general government
Revenue prospects – general government
Expenditures - PRMP functions
Revenue prospects – PRMP public sources
Implications
Appendix G Prototype Costs
Prototype facility development costs
Appendix H
SEPA Checklist
Arlington PRMP 11
Chapter 3: Program elements
The following proposals concerning elements of the recreational
programs approach are based on the results of demand analysis,
workshop planning sessions, and the survey of resident
households.
The proposals outline the vision developed for recreational
programs within Arlington for the next 6-20 years. The program
proposals are CONCEPTUAL, in some instances, subject to further
study and coordination with public and private participants that
may modify the eventual program particulars.
Population projections
Snohomish County’s population - in 1900 was 23,950 persons
located primarily along Possession Sound waterfront in Everett. The
county’s population increased to 59,209 persons by 1910 or by an
annual rate of growth of 9.5% as railroads extended into Snohomish
County and the area’s logging, agriculture, and fishing industries
grew in importance.
Snohomish County population increased over the decades due to
the development of the aircraft building industry, the advent of
World War 1and 2, and the location of military installations in the
area. Recent growth rates, however, have been gradual averaging
1.9% between 2010-2015 and 1.8% between 2015-2020 due largely
to the impact of the economic recession on area industries.
Washington State’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) expects
Snohomish County’s rate of growth will gradually decline from 1.8%
on an annual average basis between 2015 and 2020 to 0.7% by 2050
due to the aging of the population.
Population components - OFM expects the number of deaths in
Snohomish County will increase from 27,272 between 2010-2015 to
47,491 by 2035-2040 due to the aging of the county population
while births will only slightly increase from 50,303 between 2010-
2015 to 57,787 by 2035-2040 due to a declining proportion of the
population in child-bearing ages and a stable and low birth rate. Net
migration will decline from 61,367 in-migrating persons in 2015-
2020 to 38,043 persons by 2035-2040 contributing to Snohomish
County’s gradual resident population growth.
Age distribution – within Snohomish County will shift with a
slightly less proportion of the population in child ages 0-19 of
25.4% in 2020 versus 23.0% by 2050 and more in senior ages 65+ of
14.4% in 2020 versus 23.4% by 2050 reflecting the continued aging
of the population in the county like the trends nationally.
Arlington’s population – in 1910 was 1,476 people, located along
the Stillaguamish River. Arlington’s population fluctuated between
1,418 in 1920 and 1,635 by 1950 or by an annual average rate of -
0.4% to 1.1% as the city’s agriculture, logging, and fishing industries
stabilized.
Arlington’s population totals and rate of growth increased
significantly from 1960 to 1990 as the city’s natural resource
industries stabilized and retailing increased, and more significantly
from 2000 to 2020 as the area attracted housing developers and
warehouse and manufacturing industries.
The city’s population and annual average rate of growth are
expected to increase from 19,868 persons in 2020 to 36,584
persons by the year 2050 or by 184% due to the area’s urban
densification under GMA allocations and an assumption that the
city will gradually annex the residential developments within its
unincorporated urban growth area (UGA).
Population components – most of Arlington’s growth is expected
to be due to births and in-migration from households seeking to
live in Arlington’s emerging urban center.
Exhibit B
12 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 13
Age distribution – Arlington’s age distribution is generated by
determining the percent Arlington has attracted of each Snohomish
County age group then factoring the attraction rate forward through
the projection years and reducing the resulting combined age group
totals to match the city’s total population allocation for each year.
Arlington’s age distribution will gradually shift with an increasing
population in child ages 0-19 of 5,835 persons in 2020 to 9,449 by
2050 or by 162% and a significantly increasing proportion of the
population concentrated in senior ages 65+ of 3,086 persons in
2020 to 9,545 persons by 2050 or by 309% similar to what will
occur in Snohomish County.
Recreation demand
Washington State’s Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO) develops
a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) every
6 years to help decision-makers better understand recreation issues
statewide and to maintain Washington’s eligibility for federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funds.
RCO conducted a series of 12-month diary surveys of a random
sample of Washington State residents in 2000 and 2006, and an
annual survey in 2012 to determine the type of indoor and outdoor
recreation activities residents engaged in over the year including
the resident’s age, gender, ethnicity, income, and regional place of
residence.
The RCO SCORP surveys recorded what residents participated in of
140 different indoor and outdoor activities and special spectator
events including the participation rate and number of occasions per
year by season, month, week, and type of environment (urban,
rural, mountain). The surveys did not record the location of the
activity.
The 2006 RCO diary-based survey is used in this analysis
because it was the most comprehensive and age-specific of the
RCO surveys and used computer-assisted telephone interviews of
randomly sampled persons (with no more than 1 person per
household) during each month of the 12-month survey period from
each of the 10 tourism regions.
Snohomish County is in the Puget Sound Region that includes
Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. For projection purposes,
however, Arlington recreation behaviors are likely more
representative of the Seattle-King County Region given Arlington’s
level of urbanization and age distributed population groups.
The 2006 statewide survey was completed by 2,135 persons and
collated and weighted by age, gender, region, race, and income of
which 300 were completed from the Seattle-King County region and
weighted accordingly. The survey is within a +/-2.5% statewide and
+/-6.0% by region. Response by age, gender, region, race/ethnicity,
and income varies.
The 2006 RCO survey elicited what participants did for recreational
activities but not where the activity occurred. Survey participants
from Seattle-King County may engage in activities but possibly
outside of Seattle-King County, and conversely participants from
other regions may travel to engage in activities in Seattle-King
County. The survey did not control user transpositions between
regions.
Since the survey was taken in 2006, the survey may not completely
reflect recent regional activity trends in some select and emerging
activities such as skateboard parks, dog parks, lacrosse, or other
niche behaviors.
Arlington (Seattle-King County region)
Walking without a pet 62.9% 27.4
Picnic, BBQ, or cookout 48.4% 4.8
Sightseeing 48.1% 5.1
Bicycle riding 37.7% 8.2
14 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 15
16 Arlington PRMP
Annual participation rates Participation Frequency
Flower or vegetable gardening 33.6% 8.9
Aerobics/fitness activities 33.4% 9.6
Jogging or running 32.6% 11.7
Beachcombing 20.7% 2.8
Soccer 15.7% 6.1
Golf 10.1% 5.5
Baseball 8.9% 5.4
Fishing from a bank, dock, jetty 5.7% 3.2
Climbing or mountaineering 5.3% 1.0
Arts and crafts class or activity 5.0% 3.9
Skateboarding 3.1% 11.3
Volleyball 2.8% 4.4
Surfboarding 0.0% 0.0
Rugby 0.0% 0.0
Participation rate – the percent of the population that participates in a
recreational activity
Frequency – the number of times per year those that participate engage
in the activity
Source: 2006 SCORP RCO Diary Based Survey
Participation rates
The 2006 RCO survey found significant differences in the statewide
population’s participation in recreation activities including
distinctions for Arlington (Seattle-King County) participants.
Top 5 activities with the highest percent of the population
participating – in Arlington (Seattle-King County) included walking
without a pet, picnicking, barbequing, or cooking out, sightseeing,
bicycle riding, and social event indoors.
Bottom 5 activities with the lowest percent of the population
participating – in Arlington (Seattle-King County) included rugby,
surfboarding, wind surfing, lacrosse, and bicycle touring.
Organized team sports – involved lesser percentages of the
population of the Arlington (Seattle-King County) ranging from the
highest for soccer (15.7%) to the lowest for rugby (0.0%).
Indoor community center activities – involved a varying range of
percentages of the population participating from a social event
indoors (35.9%), aerobics/fitness activities (33.9%), swimming in a
pool (27.6%), weight conditioning at a facility (21.6%), class or
instruction (15.1%), activity center (11.5%), and arts and crafts class
or activity (5.0%). Generally, indoor or community center related
activities engage the population in greater percentages than
organized team sports.
Environmental or cultural activities – involved a varying range of
percentages of the population participating in sightseeing (48.1%),
observe or photograph wildlife or nature (34.2%), beachcombing
(20.7%), and visit a nature interpretive center (15.1%). Generally,
environmental, or cultural related activities engage the population
in greater percentages than indoor or community centers as well as
organized team sports.
Arlington PRMP 17
Annual frequencies
The 2006 RCO survey determined the number of times or the
annual frequency that an average participant would engage in each
activity. The frequency averages are for all kinds of participants.
Enthusiasts or organized team players may engage more frequently
than the average indicates but are included within the averaging,
nonetheless.
Activities with the highest annual frequencies of over 10.0
occasions – in Arlington (Seattle-King County) were for walking
without a pet (27.4 times per year), walking with a pet (18.0),
observing and photographing wildlife (16.3), jogging or running
(11.7), skateboarding (11.3), and playgrounds (10.5).
Activities with the lowest annual frequencies of less than 2.0
occasions – in Arlington (Seattle-King County) were for rugby (0.0
times per year), surfboarding (0.0), climbing or mountaineering
indoors (1.0), windsurfing (1.0), and visiting a nature or interpretive
center (1.7).
Organized team sports – in Arlington (Seattle-King County) ranged
from the highest for basketball (6.8 times) to the lowest for rugby
(0.0).
Indoor community center activities – in Arlington (Seattle-King
County) were activity center (7.7 times per year), class or
instruction (6.0), swimming in a pool (5.0), arts and crafts (3.9), and
social event (2.4). Generally, indoor or community center
frequencies are like the range of organized team sports.
Environmental or cultural activities – in Arlington (Seattle-King
County) were observing or photographing wildlife (16.3 times per
year), sightseeing (5.1), beachcombing (2.8), and visiting a nature or
interpretive center (1.7). Generally, environmental, or cultural
related activities that involve observing or photographing wildlife
occur in greater numbers per year than indoor or community
centers as well as organized team sports.
Arlington’s annual volumes 2020-2050
Arlington’s total volume of annual recreation activity is determined
by multiplying the age-specific participation and frequency or
occurrence rates by the number of persons projected to be in each
age-specific category for the projection years.
The following table itemizes the projected total annual volume in
2020, 2050, and the amount and percent of volume increase that
will occur between 2020-2050.
Activity 2020 2050 Add’l Pct
Observe/photograph wildlife 98,039 176,479 78,440 80%
Sail boating 1,214 2,056 841 69%
Bike riding – urban/rural trails 10,956 18,470 7,515 69%
Bike riding – day trip touring 148 238 90 61%
Swim – outdoor/indoor pool 27,503 48,195 20,693 75%
Roller/in-line skating – on trail 1,680 2,763 1,083 64%
18 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 19
Basketball – outdoor/indoor 21,067 34,844 13,778 65%
Tennis – outdoor/indoor 6,652 12,351 5,700 86%
Football 8,240 13,414 5,174 63%
Lacrosse 221 359 139 63%
Activity center 20,060 36,341 16,281 81%
Arts and crafts class/activity 3,594 6,213 2,619 73%
2040 – the total volume that will occur in 2040, Additional – the volume
increase in volume over 2020 by 2050, Pct – the percent increase the
additional volume between 2020-2050 represents
Source: RCO SCORP Survey 2006
Greatest annual volume in 2050 – will be observing wildlife
(176,479 occurrences) due to the high percentage of the population
that engage in the activity and the high number of times or
frequencies that they engage per year.
Significant but substantially less volumes in 2050 – will be
playground at a park or school (120,021 occurrences), aerobics or
fitness at a facility (112,822 occurrences) and walking in a park or
trail setting (103,046 occurrences).
Lowest annual volume in 2050 – will be for bike riding as a
daytrip tour (238 occurrences), lacrosse (359 occurrences), and
skateboarding on a trail or in a skateboard park (612 occurrences)
due to the low percentage of the population that engages in the
activity and the low annual frequency.
Percent would like to do more
In addition to participation and frequency, the 2006 survey also
asked respondents to indicate their preferences to engage in
activities they did not participate in or to engage more frequently in
activities that they did. Survey results were collated on a statewide
per person basis only due to the smaller respondent sample size.
Washington State
Sightseeing 50.6%
Hiking 38.4%
Picnicking 37.9%
Social event 29.5%
Swimming/wading at beach 28.5%
Walking without a pet 25.4%
Beachcombing 23.2%
Walking with a pet 16.0%
Visit nature/interpretive center 16.0%
Weight conditioning with equipment 11.8%
Arts/Crafts class or activity 11.4%
Playground activities 10.0%
Volleyball 7.2%
Bicycle touring 6.5%
Badminton 4.6%
Football 4.1%
20 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 21
Handball, racquetball, and squash 3.9%
Surfboarding 3.8%
Activities at indoor community 3.2%
Wind surfing 3.0%
Source: 2006 SCORP RCO Diary Based Survey
Generally, survey participants would like to do and if already
participating in, would like to do more of activities with the highest
participation rates already including sightseeing (50.6% do and do
more), hiking (38.4%), picnicking (37.9%), and so on.
Were survey participants to engage in activities and to engage more
in activities they are already participating in they could increase the
volume of activity but not change the overall rank order of activity
participation.
Recreational clearinghouse
Arlington could seek to operate a web-based recreational
clearinghouse coordinating recreational program offerings that
include as wide a variety of activities as there is an interest by city
residents and tourists, regardless of age, skill level, income – or
program provider.
Recreational program offerings offered through the clearinghouse
should include activities providing health, education, social,
recreational, and other welfare activities for children, teens, adults,
seniors, and special populations.
Parks and Recreation staff or contractors could conduct programs
to the extent possible, practical, and consistent with the city’s
mission. However, depending on demand, cost, and feasibility, the
clearinghouse can also coordinate programs to be conducted by
other public, non-profit, or for-profit organizations and even
vendors.
To the extent possible and practical, program offerings should
include activities that will be conducted in Arlington parks,
community centers, and trail facilities. However, depending on
demand, the clearinghouse may also include program offerings that
may be conducted in schools and other public facilities inside or
out of the city, as well as at non-profit sites and facilities.
Vision
The web-based recreational clearinghouse may be realized through
the coordination of:
Arlington programs – where there is sufficient demand to
meet the city’s park and recreation mission and pricing and
delivery objectives.
Other jurisdictions – including Snohomish County and
Arlington School District.
Non-profit organizations – such as YMCA, Boy and Girl Scouts,
Campfire USA, Arlington athletic leagues, Lions, Rotary, and Kiwanis
Clubs, among others.
Pricing and delivery criteria
Arlington will continuously assess the mission criteria illustrated in
the program formula for all program offerings the city is
considering of providing with staff, contract instructors, or
vendors:
1: Is the program consistent with the city’s park and recreation
mission and level of service proposals?
If not - the city does not offer the program but may facilitate the
program to be offered by other providers including the option of
partnering or brokering the program, and/or offering scholarships
or other services, and/or publishing the program offering on the
clearinghouse.
2: If yes – should the city directly provide the program?
If not – the city does not offer the program but may facilitate the
program to be offered by other providers including the option of
partnering or brokering the program, and/or offering scholarships
or other services, and/or publishing the program offering on the
clearinghouse.
22 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 23
3: If yes – what pricing policy or goal should the city establish
for the program on a public good or benefit versus private good
or benefit scale – full cost recovery, merit pricing, or full
subsidy?
Full cost recovery programs - will recover all direct costs
(including full and part-time staff, supplies, materials, maintenance,
and utilities) and indirect costs (including department overhead for
staff benefits).
Generally, full cost recovery programs will include services that
primarily provide private goods or benefits to a specialized user
group, such as golf courses, marinas, RV parks, gun and rifle
ranges, equestrian facilities, elite adult sports field rentals, and
classes.
In some instances, the city may add a surcharge to recover a slight
profit or return on investment with which to defray long-term life
cycle costs for maintenance and repair, and/or to reinvest in similar
facilities elsewhere in the system.
Merit pricing (partial cost recovery) programs – will partially
recover direct and indirect costs based on a policy decision about
the degree to which each program provides public versus private
goods or benefits. Merit pricing programs may also include the
providing of scholarships to eligible user individuals or user groups
that would prevent the program from realizing full cost recovery.
Merit pricing program determinations will consider the degree to
which the program provides a public benefit to the public at large
or to special users within the general population (such as teens or
seniors); whether the program can or is able to be offered by other
providers at a reasonable cost; and the practicality of collecting
fees for service.
Generally, merit price programs may include boat launches, facility
rentals, day camps and field activities, youth sports field rentals,
senior health and nutrition programs, and safety and instruction
programs of all kinds.
Subsidy (no or very low-cost recovery) programs – will not
attempt to recover costs as a fee, although it may ask for donations
or grants from using individuals, groups, or organizations who
benefit or are likely sponsors.
Generally, subsidy programs benefit the population at large
sufficiently to justify the use of public funding and/or include
activities that are not practical to effectively recover a fee or
charge, such as special events or festivals, special need programs
and playgrounds, interpretive exhibits, parks, and trail related
activities.
24 Arlington PRMP
Park service gaps
An effective park system should provide a park, trail, playground,
community center, or other recreation facility within a 5-minute
walk of any residential area measured by actual walking routes on
trails, paths, sidewalks, or other routes.
Natural features such as steep hillsides, water bodies, and other
obstacles as well as manmade obstacles like limited access
highways or major traffic corridors or the lack of safe paths, trails,
sidewalk improvements affect a 5-minute walk measurement.
Walkability maps are generated by Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) that calculate 5-minute walk distances using roads, sidewalks,
paths, and trails that account for natural and manmade obstacles
from existing park, recreation, school, and other community
facilities.
Service gaps are areas that are beyond the 5-minute walk distances
of residential developments indicating residents of these areas have
to walk further time-distances or commute by bike or vehicle or are
blocked by natural or manmade obstacles from or in order to
engage in a recreational activity.
A walkability map generated around existing city, Snohomish
County, Arlington School District, and Homeowner Association
(HOA) facilities indicates there are significant developed areas of
the city and UGA that lack effective park and recreational services:
Arlington employment center – including portions of the
designated manufacturing employment center south of the Airport.
Undeveloped lands – in the southwest of Smokey Point,
Residential neighborhoods – in the northeast central areas
where residential developments are providing open space but not
picnicking, playgrounds, sports courts, or other park amenities.
The plan proposes trails, parks, and recreation facilities to fill these
service gaps.
Social equity
An effective park system should also ensure that park and
recreational services and facilities, including those that provide
health, nutrition, childcare, education, employment, and
socialization as well as recreational activities are provided residents
in areas of the city that are less advantaged than the general
population due to:
Poverty – particularly for families with children under age 18
Single parent households – headed by a male or female with
children with no other spouse present
Non-English speaking – defined by immigrant households
where members do not speak English very well or not at all
Housing cost stressed – of households paying more than 35%
of gross income for rent or mortgage payments
GIS maps generated for the city using the US Census Bureau’s 2019
American Community Survey (ACS) Block Groups indicate:
Households with high housing costs – are more than 40% of
all households located in the older neighborhoods of the city east
of downtown.
Households headed by single parents – are 21-30% of all
households located in the southwest corner and northwest of
Smokey Point.
Households with incomes below poverty lines – more than
10% of all households located in the older neighborhoods east of
downtown.
Households of non-English speaking – are more than 4% of all
households located northwest of Smokey Point.
The plan proposes to increase trails, parks, and recreation
amenities in these areas to provide social equity.
Arlington PRMP 25
Updated Map
26 Arlington PRMP
Updated Map
Arlington PRMP 27
Updated Map
28 Arlington PRMP
Updated Map
Arlington PRMP 29
Updated Map
30 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 39
Chapter 5: Plan elements
The following proposals concerning elements of the parks,
recreation, and open space plan are based on the results of
environmental inventories, field analysis, demand analysis,
workshop planning sessions, and surveys of resident households.
The proposals outline the vision developed for parks, recreation,
and open spaces in Arlington for the next 20 years.
The proposals are CONCEPTUAL, in some instances, subject to
further study and coordination with public and private participants
that may modify the eventual project components.
The proposals refer to a site or property that may provide a major
type of park, recreation, or open space activity. A particular site or
property may include one or all of the described plan features. The
proposals in each section describe the improvements that will be
accomplished under each major type of plan element.
Conservancies
Resource conservancies or open spaces protect, preserve, and
conserve lands that have environmental features of critical area
significance (floodplains and landslide hazard), ecological
importance (shorelines, wetlands and watersheds), forestland (old
growth, woodland cover, and prime productive), wildlife habitat
(threatened and endangered species), and open space.
To the extent possible and practical, resource conservancy lands
will link preserved open spaces (even though these lands may not
be publicly accessible) to greenways and open space networks.
These linked areas will visually define the developed urban area in
accordance with the objectives of the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA).
Resource conservancy lands may provide nature and interpretive
trails, exhibits, and interpretive facilities to increase public
awareness and appreciation for significant and visually interesting
environmental, wildlife, and forest features.
Resource conservancy activities may be located on independent
properties or include portions of other sites that provide resource
activities, trail corridors, or other public facilities. Conservancies
may also be developed on other publicly owned lands subject to
public use agreements or easements; or on lands acquired for other
public purposes including storm water management, groundwater
recharge, potable water storage, and wastewater treatment.
Vision
Conservancies may be realized through:
Acquisition of development rights and/or title of resource
lands or historical sites - that would otherwise be developed
or used for other urban land use;
Provision for public access and interpretive use - that would
not be possible if the lands remained in private ownership
without such provisions.
Provisions for signing and interpretation - subject to
appropriate security measures and underlying property owner
agreements,
Conservancies – open space
Existing public conservancy sites
The following sites provide open space conservancy protection
through easements, land use agreements, or acquisitions by
Arlington, Marysville, Snohomish County, Washington State, and
Arlington School District. In most instances, the open spaces
conserve wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, and other features.
Existing public conservancy acreage
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 604 East Gilman Street.
Riparian habitat along South Fork Stillaguamish River
Extensive woodlands along river and south site
Large open fields suitable for major events
Exhibit C
40 Arlington PRMP
2 Stormwater Wetland Park 10.0
This community park is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
Riparian habitat along the Stillaguamish River
Wetland ponds and wildlife habitat
3 67th Avenue 6.0
67th Avenue NE.
Triangular parcel located along the west edge of 67th Avenue
north from SR-531/172nd Street NE
Wooded lot at the end of Hillside Court
Large woodland parcel located along 67th Avenue
Wooded lot located on the southeast corner of Highland View
Drive and 67th Avenue
4 Crown Ridge 5 10.8
the Crown Ridge Estates Subdivision.
Riparian habitat along Portage Creek
5 Old Burn Road 4.0
This open space is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea along Old
Burn Road south of Kent Prairie Elementary School.
Heavily wooded site
6 Portage Creek Wildlife Area Access 5.0
This open space is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea off 206th
Street NE adjoining Portage Creek Wildlife Area.
Wooded ravine
City of Marysville 122.9
This community park is located at 6100 152nd Avenue Street NE
southeast of Arlington city limits.
Quilceda Creek riparian habitat
8 Smokey Point Boulevard 50.9
156th Street NE adjacent to Arlington city limits.
Extensive wetlands
Snohomish County 256.9
9 Centennial Trail Park 8.3
This trailhead park is located along the Centennial Trail on 67th
Avenue NE across from and provides access to North County
Scrub woodland
10 Gissberg Twin Lakes 54.0
This regional park is located at 16324 Twin Lake Road at the
southwest Arlington city limits.
North Lake
South Lake
11 River Meadows 144.6
Stillaguamish River east of Arlington UGA.
Open meadows and woodlands
Fishing sites along the river
12 Twin Rivers Park 50.0
from Arlington at 8003 SR-530 NE near the confluence of the North
and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River.
Woodlands and riparian habitat along the river
Open meadows and fields
Washington State DNR 238.2
13 SR-9 238.2
This timber trust property is located across SR-9 south of 158th
Street NE.
Heavily wooded parcels on both sides of SR-9
Arlington School District 75.7
14 Post Middle School Open Space 58.4
adjacent and east of Post Middle School and adjacent to the south
boundary of Country Charm Park.
Wooded riparian habitat along South Fork Stillaguamish River
Open fields
15 Pioneer School Environmental Area 17.3
at 8213 Eaglefield Drive adjoining Pioneer Elementary School.
Extensive woodlands
Wetlands
Nature trails and exhibits
Total existing public conservancy acres 818.5*
* Total site acreage may also provide for other resources or recreational
activities.
Arlington PRMP 41
42 Arlington PRMP
Proposed corridor conservancies
Conserve and enhance the riparian habitat along Portage Creek
from that flows north through Arlington High School then west
through and around Portage Creek Wildlife Area to the
Stillaguamish River.
17 March Corridor tbd
Conserve and enhance the riparian habitat along March Creek
that flows west from SR-9 to the Stillaguamish River.
18 Middle Fork Quilceda Creek/Edgecomb Creek Corridor tbd
Conserve and enhance the riparian habitat along the Middle Fork
of the Quilceda Creek/Edgecomb Creek that comes from two
tributaries. One flows north through Gleneagle Golf Course then
heads west and runs south along SR-967th Avenue, crossing under
172nd Street. The second flows west along 172nd Street and
crosses under 67th Avenue. The tributaries converge southwest of
the 67th Avenue and 172nd Street intersection and then south
through industrial vacant land. and through a series of irrigation
canals. A re-alignment and rehabilitation project took the creek
from irrigation canals that zig-zagged through the property
south of the 67th Avenue and 172nd Street intersection to a habitat
corridor on the east side of the properties and on the west side
of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks.
Total proposed conservancy acres tbd
Tbd – proposed to be determined based on open space assets,
property boundaries, and conservation method.
Existing HOA conservancy sites
The following sites provide private open space conservancy
protection through land use agreements by Homeowner
Associations (HOA). In most instances, the open spaces conserve
wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, and other features.
Existing HOA conservancy acreage
HOA open spaces 128.22
1 Bovee Acres 0.56
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea on the corner of
Bovee Lane and 67th Avenue NE.
Grass lot
2 Carola Addition 0.49
access from 34th Drive NE to 180th Street NE.
Grass corridor
3 Claridge Court 0.13
These open spaces are co-located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea in
Tracts 996, 997, and 995 off 189th Place NE, 43rd Drive NE, and
44th Avenue NE.
Grass lots
4 Country Manor 1 6.93
This open space is located in the West Arlington Subarea as
perimeter open space from 168th Place NE to 165th Place NE.
Natural open space perimeter
5 Country Manor 2 0.09
This open space is located in the West Arlington Subarea as
perimeter open space around 42nd Avenue NE.
Natural open space perimeter
6 Crown Ridge 5A 0.31
Boulevard North.
Woodland corridor
7 Crown Ridge 5B 13.80
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea between Crown
Ridge Boulevard and SR-9 south of Vista Drive and adjacent to
Arlington High School.
Natural perimeter
Wetland
Stormwater pond
8 Dogwood Meadows / Magnolia Meadows 1.83
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea at the end of 81st
Drive NE adjacent to Middle Fork Quilceda Creek
Natural Perimeter
Wetland
Stormwater Pond
9 Eagle Creek Place 2.11
between the powerlines and houses located along 87th Avenue NE
adjoining the south boundary of Eagle Creek Elementary School.
Wooded corridor on the west
Open grass area adjacent to 87th Avenue NE
Arlington PRMP 43
10 Eagle Heights 1 5.61
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea between 179th
Place NE and 176th Place NE adjoining SR-9.
Woodland corridor
Stormwater pond at the end of 175th Street NE
11 Eagle Heights 2 2.71
NE south across 172nd Place NE to 172nd Street NE.
Wooded corridor
12 Gleneagle Division Phase 1 4.67
from Gleneagle Golf Course across West Country Club Drive
adjoining Wedgewood Park south across Gleneagle Boulevard to
Condor Drive.
Wooded corridor
Stormwater pond
13 Gleneagle Division Phase 3 0.84
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea at the end of
Troon Court.
Stormwater retention pond
14 Gleneagle Sector 3B 0.27
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea at the corner of
Inverness Drive and Ballantrae Drive adjoining the powerlines and
paved trail to Gleneagle Golf Course.
Dirt path access
15 Gregory Park 10.31
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea between SR-9 and
89th Avenue NE.
Woodland
Stormwater retention pond
16 High Clover 10.12
perimeter open space extending from High Clover Park north above
Portage Creek Wildlife Area to 200th Street NE.
Woodland corridor
17 High Clover Division 2 6.73
High Clover Boulevard from 45th Avenue NE to 48th Avenue NE.
Open grass areas
18 Highland View Estates 0.61
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea at the south end of
Hillside Court.
Wooded lot
19 Kona Crest 3.15
This open space is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
between Joann Lane and BNSF Railroad tracks along SR-9.
Wooded corridor
20 Magnolia Estates 2.24
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea off 79th
Avenue NE/172nd Place NE and 172nd Street NE/SR-530.
Grass open area
Fences and alley access
2 parking stalls
21 Meadowbrook 8.04
powerlines around the housing cluster on 89th Avenue NE off Tveit
Road.
Woodlands
Grass area under powerlines
22 River Crest Estates 1.01
This open space is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea off 206th
Street NE providing access to Portage Creek Wildlife Area.
Wooded corridor
Access trail
23 Smokey Point 1.20
interior of Smokey Point Drive behind Smokey Point Transit Center.
Wooded area
24 Stoneway 0.27
end of 174th Place NE.
Woodland
25 Terah/Marie 3.37
This open space is located in the West Arlington Subarea off 45th
Drive NE and 195th Place NE.
Woodland
26 The Bluff at Arlington Condo 3.21
Bluff Drive bordering the Portage Creek Wildlife Area.
Woodland
44 Arlington PRMP
27 The Colony Division – Rosecreek 1 5.92
This open space is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea off 207th
Street NE under the powerlines.
Grass area under powerlines
28 The Colony Division – Twin Ponds 9.96
This open space is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea off
Stillaguamish Avenue north of 207th Street NE.
2 large wetland ponds
29 The Colony Division – Rosecreek 2 6.09
This open space is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea under the
powerlines off Tveit Road.
Grass area under powerlines
30 Woodlands Sector 12.51
Way, Woodbine Drive, and Silverleaf Place.
Woodland corridors
31 Walnut Ridge 0.83
This open space is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea off 45th
Drive NE north of 191st Place NE.
Woodland area
32 Wedgewood at Gleneagle 1.69
Gleneagle Boulevard and 172nd Street NE/SR-531.
Natural open space perimeter
33 Whispering Breezes 0.61
interior lot from 35th Avenue NE north of 186th Place NE.
Woodland
Grass area
Private 144.9
34 Gleneagle Golf Course 138.2
This private facility is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 7619
Country Club Lane.
Woodland perimeter
Wetlands
35 Stilly Valley Pioneer Park 6.7
This nonprofit park is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea at
20722 67th Ave NE.
2 large wetland ponds
Wooded areas
Total existing conservancy acres 273.12*
* Total site acreage may also provide for other resources or recreational
activities.
Arlington PRMP 45
Resource parks
Resource parkland will be conserved in Arlington that provides
public access to significant environmental features including
shorelines, woodlands, and scenic areas. Where appropriate,
resource park sites will be improved with a variety of outdoor
facilities including group and individual campsites and picnic
facilities. Supporting services will include parking lots, restrooms,
and utilities.
Resource park activities may be located on independent properties
or include portions of other sites provided for environmental
conservancies, trail corridors, recreation, or other public facilities.
Resource park activities may also be developed on other publicly
owned lands subject to public use agreements or easements.
Vision
As described herein, the resource park vision will be realized
through:
Acquisition of resource parklands - that would otherwise be
developed for other land uses,
Provision of public access - and use of natural features which
would not be possible if the lands remained in private
ownership,
Conservation for public access - and use of unique and
available natural features that visually define and separate
developing urban areas.
Waterfront access
Existing waterfront access sites
The following sites provide access to significant freshwater access
points that include fishing, beach, boating, and other waterfront
access activities.
Existing waterfront access sites
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 604 East Gilman Street.
Riparian habitat along South Fork Stillaguamish River
Extensive dirt trails along river and looped in the south portion
2 Haller Park 1
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
Beach access to the Stillaguamish River
Boat launch adjacent to SR-9 bridge
3 Stormwater Wetland Park 1
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue. Access from West Cox Street through
Haller Park and under SR-9 bridge.
Riparian habitat along the Stillaguamish River
Trails through site and around ponds
Snohomish County 3
4 Gissberg Twin Lakes 1
southwest Arlington city limits.
Fishing sites on North Lake (age 14 years and under)
Fishing sites on South Lake (age 15 years and up)
Wading area (no lifeguards)
Paddling
Hand carry boating
Model boat racing
5 River Meadows 1
Stillaguamish River east of Arlington UGA.
Fishing sites along the river
1.6-miles of walking trails throughout the park and along the
shoreline
6 Twin Rivers Park 1
from Arlington at 8003 SR-530 NE near the confluence of the North
and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River.
Woodlands and riparian habitat along the river
Trail access to the shoreline
Arlington School District 1
7 Post Middle School Open Space 1
Residential Subarea adjacent and east of Post Middle School and
adjacent to the south boundary of Country Charm Park.
Wooded riparian habitat along South Fork Stillaguamish River
Total waterfront access sites 7
46 Arlington PRMP
Proposed waterfront access
Extend riverfront trail network from Country Charm Park
through this site and then to Post Middle School to increase
access to waterfront.
Total waterfront access sites -
Camping
Existing campsites
The following sites provide overnight tent, yurt, and RV camping
facilities in parks with appropriate natural features and attractions.
Existing campsites
1 River Meadows 20
This regional park is located at 20416 Jordan Road on the
Stillaguamish River east of Arlington UGA.
6 rental 16 and 20-foot yurts (1 ADA accessible) with heat,
electricity, and fire pits
14 rental campsites with water and firepits
Total existing campsites 20
Proposed campsites
Arlington 12
2 Country Charm Park 12
Develop a seasonal campground for dry camping for tents and
RVs.
Total proposed campsites 12
Picnic facilities
Existing picnic tables and shelters
The following sites provide day-use picnic tables and shelter
facilities for group activities in existing parks within a 5-minute
walk of most residential neighborhoods.
Existing picnic tables - shelters
This community park is located in the MIC Subarea at 18501 59th
Avenue.
Picnic tables
2 Forest Trail Park 2 - 0
This neighborhood park is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18005
Oxford Drive.
Picnic tables
3 Haller Park 2 - 1
This community park is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
4 J Rudy York Memorial Park 2 - 0
3209 180th Street NE.
Picnic tables
5 Jensen Park 3 - 1
This neighborhood park is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea at
7801 Jensen Farm Lane. Large open grass play area
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
6 Legion Park 4 - 0
This community park is located in the Old Town Business District 1
at 114 North Olympic Avenue.
Picnic tables
7 Smokey Point Community Park 11 - 2
11 picnic tables
2 covered shelters – 1 heated
78 Stormwater Wetland Park 4 - 1
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
4 picnic tables
Covered shelter suitable for picnics and special events
89 Terrace Park 4 - 1
Subarea at 809 East Fifth Avenue.
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
Arlington PRMP 47
910 Waldo E Evans Memorial Park 1 - 0
This community park is located in the MIC Subarea at 18813 59th
Avenue.
Picnic table
1011 Wedgewood Park 2 - 0
This neighborhood park is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 17510
Gleneagle Boulevard.
Picnic tables
Marysville parks 4 - 1
1112 Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex 4 - 1
This community park is located at 6100 152nd Avenue Street NE
southeast of Arlington city limits.
Picnic areas
Picnic shelter
Snohomish County parks 16 - 3
1213 Centennial Trail Park 2 - 0
This trailhead park is located along the Centennial Trail on 67th
Avenue NE across from and provides access to North County
Wildlife Area Park.
2 picnic tables
1314 Gissberg Twin Lakes 4 - 0
southwest Arlington city limits.
Picnic tables
1415 River Meadows 8 - 3
This regional park is located at 20416 Jordan Road on the
Stillaguamish River east of Arlington UGA.
Picnic tables
3 picnic shelters with water and electricity
1516 Twin Rivers Park 2 - 0
This regional park is located north across the Stillaguamish River
from Arlington at 8003 SR-530 NE near the confluence of the North
and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River.
Picnic tables
HOA miniparks 9 - 0
1617 Aspen Wood Meadows 1 - 0
This minipark is located in the West Arlington Subarea on 186th
Place NE.
Picnic table
1718 Crown Ridge 1 6 - 0
Drive and Crown Ridge Boulevard.
6 picnic tables
1819 High Clover Division 2 2 - 0
These open spaces are located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea along
High Clover Boulevard from 45th Avenue NE to 48th Avenue NE.
2 picnic tables
All total picnic tables
All total picnic shelters 810
Proposed picnic tables - shelters
Arlington 12 52 - 23
1820 Country Charm Park 6 - 1
Install picnic tables and shelter
Install picnic tables and shelter
1922 High Clover Park 6 - 1
Install picnic tables and shelter
Total proposed picnic tables
Total proposed picnic shelters
1252
23
48 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 49
Trails
Trail systems will be developed to link major environmental assets,
park and recreational facilities, schools, community centers, and
historical features throughout Arlington. Trails will provide for
several modes of recreational and commuters use including
bicycles and pedestrians where appropriate.
Park walking trails
Park walking trails will be developed within major parks and open
spaces to provide internal access to wetlands, woodlands, picnic
areas, courts, and fields with parking lots, restrooms, and other
supporting facilities.
Park walking trails will be developed to Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) or US Forest Service (USFS)
walking trail standards with a crushed rock, bark, or compacted dirt
base. Most trail segments will be ADA accessible and usable by all
age and skill groups. Walking trails will be developed in urban park
sites with an asphalt or concrete surface, ADA accessible, and
usable by all age and skill groups.
Vision
The parks walking trails vision will be realized by providing trail
opportunities in Arlington and the surrounding area that:
Access natural features – within major park sites and open
spaces,
Serve persons - with varied physical abilities and skills,
Establish high visibility and volume pedestrian routes -
through the most developed urban areas and park sites,
Existing parks trails
The following park trails have been developed within major park
sites in the city that access wetlands, ponds, lakes, woodlands, and
other park activities.
Existing parks trail miles
Arlington parks trails 3.7
1 Country Charm Park Trail 2.0
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 604 East Gilman Street.
Dirt trail from Gilman Avenue south around the wetlands then
north along the Stillaguamish River and across Eagle Creek to
Alcazar Avenue NE.
2 Eagle Trail/Stormwater Park Trail 1.7
This off-road trail network includes a portion developed by an Eagle
Scout project and is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea in Stormwater Wetland Park. The trail links with dirt trails
around the perimeter of the site.
Dirt trail around wetland ponds
Marysville 1.5
3 Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex 1.5
This community park is located at 6100 152nd Avenue Street NE
southeast of Arlington city limits.
Walking trails throughout park
Snohomish County 2.8
4 Gissberg Twin Lakes 0.5
southwest Arlington city limits.
Walking track around lakes
5 River Meadows 1.6
This regional park is located at 20416 Jordan Road on the
Stillaguamish River east of Arlington UGA.
1.6-miles of walking trails throughout the park
6 Portage Creek Wildlife Area 0.7
Avenue NE on the property previously owned by Gene Ammon for a
peat farm.
Wetland and meadow trail network around and through site
Parking access from 59th Avenue NE on the northeast boundary
Total existing park trail miles 8.0
50 Arlington PRMP
Multipurpose trails
Multipurpose on and off-road trails will be developed within
corridors separate from vehicular or other motorized forms of
transportation such as utility easements or in separate property
alignments. In some instances, an on-road trail may be developed
as improvements within the right-of-way of established vehicular or
other transportation corridors.
Multipurpose trails will be developed to Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and American Association
of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) trail
standards. The trails will be concrete, asphalt or very fine crushed
rock base, handicap accessible, and usable by all age and skill
groups.
Trail corridors will be improved with trailhead services including
rest stops, parking lots, restrooms, water, and air utilities. Where
the trail is located in another park and recreational improvement or
public facility, the trailhead may be improved with active picnic,
playgrounds, and play areas.
Multipurpose trail corridors will be independent properties or
include portions of other sites provided for resource conservancies,
resource activities, athletic facilities, and other park and
recreational or public facility properties.
Vision
As described, the multipurpose trails vision may be realized by
providing recreational trail opportunities that:
Access natural features - that may not be available otherwise,
Link open spaces - and other conservation areas into a
greenway system,
Serve persons - with varied physical abilities and skills,
Establish high visibility and volume pedestrian routes -
through the most developed urban areas and park sites,
Expand roadway corridors - to provide recreational and
commuter trail opportunities,
Existing off-road multipurpose trails
The following multipurpose trail systems have been developed to
provide combined hike and bike trail opportunities.
Existing multipurpose trail miles
1 74th Avenue Trail 1.1
This multipurpose trail is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea and
connects to the MIC Subarea from 204th Street south along 74th
Avenue and continues on Arlington Valley Road.
2 188th Street Connector Trail 0.5
boundary of the airport.
Connects the north segment of the Airport Trail using 188th
Street NE right of way to Centennial Trail
23 Airport Trail 6.5
This off-road trail is located in the MIC Subarea circumventing the
complete airport property. Trail access is provided by parking lots
located at:
Cemetery Road
Airport Office
Bill Quake Memorial Park
Weston High School
North County Fire Station #48
34 Centennial Trail (city portion) 2.7
This multipurpose bike and hike trail is located through the MIC,
Hilltop, Old Town Residential, and Old Town Business District 1,2 &
3 Subareas.
10-foot-wide multipurpose paved trail suitable for skating,
skateboarding/longboarding
Trailheads are located at:
Haller Park at 1100 West Avenue with restroom
Legion Park at 114 North Olympic with restroom
Arlington PRMP 51
45 Eagle Trail/Stormwater Park Trail 1.7
This off-road trail network includes a portion developed by an
Eagle Scout project and is located in the Old Town Business District
3 Subarea in Stormwater Wetland Park. The trail links with dirt
trails around the perimeter of the site.
Dirt trail around wetland ponds
Dirt trails through the site from West Cox Street to Dike Road
56 Kruger-Portage Creek Trail 0.4
This off-road trail is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea on
dedicated open space at 80th Avenue NE and 204th Street. The trail
links Zimmerman Hill Climb to Portage Street and loops through
the Jensen and Portage neighborhoods.
8-foot-wide paved trail suitable in some sections.
67 River Crest Trail 0.2
This off-road trail is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea at 6020
206th Street NE.
Benches
Off street parking
78 Zimmerman Hill Climb Trail 0.2
This off-road trail is located in the Hilltop/Kent Prairie Subarea at
Crown Ridge Boulevard. Accesses woodland and riparian habitat
along Portage Creek.
Benches
Wooden hill climb stairs and elevated walkway from Crown
Ridge Boulevard north to 80th Avenue to 204th Street NE.
Bridge across Portage Creek
Snohomish County 57.0
89 Centennial Trail (county portion) 30.0
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad track corridor
between Snohomish and Skagit County line. Trail construction
began during Washington State’s Centennial and was so named
accordingly. The 1890’s Machias Station railroad depot was
replicated and serves as a trailhead and rental facility in Machias.
10-foot-wide multipurpose paved trail suitable for skating,
skateboarding/longboarding
6-foot-wide natural surface parallel horse trail in most areas
Converted trail/railroad bridge over the Stillaguamish River
Picnic tables and benches
Picnic shelters at Machias Trailhead
Restrooms
CT North Trailhead at 32328 SR-9 Nakashima Barn in Arlington
Bryant Trailhead at SR-9 and Stanwood Bryant Road in Arlington
Haller Park Trailhead at 1100 West Avenue in Arlington
Legion Park Trailhead at 114 North Olympic Avenue in Arlington
Armar Road Trailhead at 15333 67th Avenue NE in Arlington
Getchell Trailhead at 8318 Westlund Road in Arlington
Lake Cassidy Trailhead at 6216 105th Avenue NE in Lake
Stevens
Rhododendron Trailhead at 10911 54th Place NE in Lake Stevens
SR-92 Overpass Trailhead at 3651 127th Avenue NE in Lake
Stevens
20th Street Trailhead at 13205 20th Street in Lake Stevens
Machias Park Trailhead at 1624 Virginia Street in Snohomish
Pilchuck Trailhead at 5801 South Machias Road in Snohomish
910 Whitehorse Trail 27.0
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad track corridor
between Arlington and Darrington through the Stillaguamish River
Valley. The trail originates with a junction with the Centennial
Regional Trail in Arlington then parallels SR-530 and the North Fork
Stillaguamish River through the backcountry corridor. Current
closures between the Centennial Trail and Trafton Trailhead, and
435th Avenue NE near Darrington are due to landslides and river
washouts.
Trafton Trailhead Park at 115th Avenue NE near the red barn
and blue silo
Miller Shingle Trailhead at 21021 SR-530 with equestrian
parking
C-Post Road Trailhead at 29415 SR-530
Hazel Hole Trailhead at Mile Post 38.8 SR-530
Fortson Mill Trailhead at Fortson Mill Road
Darrington Price Street Trailhead
1011 Portage Creek Wildlife Area
59th Avenue NE on the property previously owned by Gene Ammon
for a peat farm.
Wetland and meadow trail network around and through site
Parking access from 59th Avenue NE on the northeast boundary
Total existing multipurpose trail miles 66.267.3
52 Arlington PRMP
Proposed multipurpose trail miles
Extend trail from Centennial Trail east to SR-9 Trail.
213 Airport Trail Extensions 2.6
Extend spurs to connect the Airport Trail to residential
neighborhoods and employment centers on 1) 180th Street NE
west to J Rudy York Memorial Park – 0.7 miles, 2) 173rd Place
NE – 0.5 miles, 3) 43rd Avenue NE – 0.5 miles, 4) 51st Avenue
NE, - 0.5 miles and 5) 59th Avenue NE – 0.4 miles.
Add airport observation site along trail
414 Stormwater Park Trail/Dike Road 1.6
Extend the perimeter trail west onto Dike Road north along the
Stillaguamish River.
615 River Crest Trail Extension 1.4
Extend the trail west from SR-9 to Portage Creek Wildlife Area
along Portage Creek.
716 Zimmerman Hill Extension 0.8
Extend the trail south alongside SR-9 to Pioneer Elementary
School and a connection to 188th Street Connector Extension.
1117 Riverfront Trail 0.5
Improve and extend trail from Country Charm Park along
Stillaguamish River from Alcazar Avenue west under SR-530 to
the Centennial Trail and Haller Park.
1218 Post Middle School Trail 1.1
Develop trail from Eagle Creek Elementary School through Post
Middle School then down the slope to the Stillaguamish River
and north to connect with Country Charm Park Trail.
1319 Gilman Avenue Trail 0.5
Develop trail from Centennial Trail east along Gilman Avenue to
connect with Kruger-Portage Creek Trail at Terrace Park.
1420 First Street/Haller Middle Trail 0.4
Develop trail from Centennial Trail at Legion Park east past
Haller Middle School to Kruger-Portage Trail on Stillaguamish
Avenue.
1521 SR-531/172nd Street NE Trail 1.7
1622 59th Avenue Trail 1.1
Develop trail from Dike Road south on 59th
Road) to Portage Creek Wildlife Area trailhead.
1723 Smokey Point Boulevard Trail 1.8
Develop trail from SR-530/Pioneer Highway south on Smokey
Point Boulevard to 188th Street (Bjorn Road) then east to Airport
Trail at Airport Boulevard.
1824 63rd Avenue Trail 2.2
Develop trail from Cemetery Road south on 62nd Drive NE then
63rd Avenue NE extended south across SR-530/172nd Street NE
into the employment district.
19 174th Avenue Trail 1.1
Develop trail from 204th Street NE south on 174th Avenue NE to
191st Place NE and 67th Avenue NE.
2025 SR-9 Trail 2.8
Develop trail on SR-9 from Centennial Trail south to SR-
531/172nd Street NE.
2126 89th Avenue Trail 1.0
Develop trail from SR-9 east to 182nd Street NE then south on
89th Avenue NE to 172nd Street and SR-531.
2227 169th Street Trail 1.1
Develop trail from 43rd Avenue NE east on 169th Street NE
through the employment district to 63rd Avenue Trail.
Total proposed multipurpose trail miles 22.721.6
Arlington PRMP 53
54 Arlington PRMP
Athletic parks
Local or neighborhood parks – will be developed with
playgrounds, basketball, volleyball, grass play fields, and other
facilities that provide pickup games, youth sports, and leagues of
interest to neighborhood children and families. These local park
improvements will be combined with picnic shelters and tables,
trail systems, natural areas, local schools, and other facilities to
create an accessible neighborhood park system in Arlington.
Local or neighborhood parks will be sited as independent properties
or portions of other sites that include trail corridors, resource
parks, multi-use indoor centers or other public facilities. Where
practical, local or neighborhood playgrounds will be co-located with
elementary schools. Where feasible and appropriate, neighborhood
parks will be sited on lands that are owned and operated for other
public purposes.
Local or neighborhood parks will be located at sites serviced by
trails and local bicycling routes that are within a 5-10-minute walk
convenient to younger age neighborhood youth and families.
Local or neighborhood parks will be developed to provide flexible
play capabilities - typically providing 1 to 2 dirt or grass
rectangular fields with portable goal and backstop stanchions to
allow for varied age groups and activities.
Community or regional parks – will be developed with competitive
athletic court and field facilities to provide the highest quality
competitive playing standards and requirements. The competitive
regional athletic park complexes will include field activities that
satisfy the largest number of organized and older age recreational
league participants including skateboard, soccer, football, rugby,
lacrosse, softball, and baseball facilities.
Regional athletic parks will be developed for older youth and adult
league tournaments and other peak competition days, events, and
schedules thereby freeing fields located at elementary schools,
neighborhood parks, and other local sites for younger age clinics,
practices, neighborhood pickup play, and some youth league
participant games.
Regional recreational parks will be located on sites that can
accommodate high traffic volumes, evening lighted field use, noise,
and other activities without adversely impacting adjoining land
uses.
Regional competitive recreational areas will be developed to
provide sustained, high-capacity play capabilities typically
providing 3 to 5 full-size competition fields at a location. Most sites
will be designed to provide high capacity, rectangular field
configurations that include turf or all-weather fields with
permanent soccer goals and baseball diamond backstops at the
field ends with moveable perimeter fencing, spectator seating, and
night-lighting systems.
When practical and feasible, regional athletic parks will include
middle or high school facilities, particularly where the facilities are
located with other competition fields or when the facilities can be
used for recreational league tournaments or special events.
Local and regional athletic parks - will be improved with
restrooms, concessions, and parking lots including grass overflow
parking areas to accommodate peak events or schedules. Depending
on the location, some sites will include tennis, basketball, volleyball
courts, and other recreational facilities. Where appropriate, some
regionally competitive recreational sites will also be furnished with
group picnic shelters and possibly even recreational vehicle
overnight campsite services to support tournament events.
Vision
Local or neighborhood athletic parks with playgrounds, courts,
and fields will:
Provide flexible informal activity areas,
Suited to younger age and local neighborhood game activities,
In sites convenient to neighborhood youth and families,
At sites that may co-locate with elementary schools and
facilities.
Arlington PRMP 55
Regional athletic parks will:
Provide the highest quality competitive play athletic facilities,
Of the highest capacity facility improvement designs,
Within convenient proximity to organized adult and older age
recreational league playing populations,
At sites that do not disrupt adjacent land uses,
At sites that may co-locate with schools and/or utilize other
major public facilities,
To alleviate overcrowding on smaller, more local park and
elementary school fields so local sites can be used for younger
age league participant games, practice sessions, and
neighborhood pickup games.
Playgrounds
Under the proposed plan, the city will develop playgrounds and
play areas to provide access within a 5-minute walking distance of
most residential areas in the city. The proposal will design age-
appropriate features for young and older age children. The proposal
will upgrade some existing playground equipment to meet ADA
requirements, safety concerns, and new activity interests.
Existing playgrounds/play areas
The following covered and uncovered playground facilities and play
areas include some school and HOA facilities may not be available
for public use during school hours.
Existing playground/play facilities
Arlington 911
This community park is located in the MIC Subarea at 18501 59th
Avenue.
Children’s playground for ages 5-12
2 Forest Trail Park 1
This neighborhood park is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18005
Oxford Drive.
Children's play area for ages 5-12
3 Haller Park 1
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
Playground for ages 2-12
Splash Pad
4 J Rudy York Memorial Park 1
This neighborhood park is located in the West Arlington Subarea at
3209 180th Street NE.
Play equipment for ages 2-12
5 Jensen Park 1
7801 Jensen Farm Lane.
Children’s play equipment for ages 2-12
6 Smokey Point Community Park 2
67 Terrace Park 1
Subarea at 809 East Fifth Avenue.
Children's play area for ages 2-12
78 Waldo E Evans Memorial Park 1
Avenue.
Children’s play area - ages 5-12
89 Wedgewood Park 1
This neighborhood park is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 17510
Gleneagle Boulevard.
Children's play area for ages 5-12
910 Woodway Park 1
Woodway Heights Development at the intersection of 176th Place NE
& 74th Drive NE and adjacent to Wedgewood Park.
Small playground equipment
Arlington School District 9
1011 Eagle Creek Elementary School 2
This elementary school is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 1216 E 5th Street adjacent to Post Middle School.
Games on asphalt
1 small playground
1 large playground
Covered play shed
56 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 57
1112 Kent Prairie Elementary School 2
This elementary school is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea at
8110 - 207th Street NE.
Games on asphalt
2 playgrounds
Covered play shed
1213 Pioneer Elementary School 1
This elementary school is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 8213
Eaglefield Drive.
Games on asphalt
Playground
1314 Presidents Elementary School 2
Subarea at 505 East 3rd Street.
Games on asphalt
2 playgrounds
1415 Haller Middle School 1
600 East 1st Street.
Games on asphalt
1516 Stillaguamish Valley Learning Center 1
This learning center is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 1215 East 5th Street.
Playground
HOA 8
This minipark is located in the West Arlington Subarea on 186th
Place NE.
Playground
1718 Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 2 1
Playground
1819 Crown Ridge 3 1
Crown Ridge Boulevard under the powerlines.
Playground
1920 Gleneagle – Whitehawk Tot Lot 1
This minipark is located in the Hilltop Subarea on Whitehawk Drive.
Playground
2021 Heartland 2
These miniparks are located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea north of
46th Drive NE and 45th Avenue NE.
Playground north end of 46th Drive NE
Playground south end of 46th Drive NE
2122 Smokey Point Meadows 1
Avenue NE below 176th Place NE.
Playground
2223 Sweetwater 1
This minipark is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea on 206th
Place NE.
Playground
Total existing playgrounds 2628
Proposed playground/play facilities
Children’s playground for ages 5-12 designed with natural
materials to compliment the park’s attributes.
24 Food Truck Court 1
Children’s playground
25 High Clover Park 1
Children's play area for ages 5-12
25 Smokey Point Park 2
Children's playground for ages 2-5
Children’s playground for ages 5-12
Total proposed playgrounds 42
Skateboard/pump tracks
Existing skateboard court
Arlington 1
1 Bill Quake Memorial Park 1
This special use facility is located in the MIC Subarea at 18501 59th
Avenue.
Concrete contoured court with ramps, pipes, and terraces for
skateboard and BMX
Total existing skateboard court 1
58 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 59
Proposed skate dots and pump tracks
Skate dots - single pieces of skateboard equipment such as quarter
and half-pipes, rails, stairs, and concrete bowls will be distributed
throughout city parks to provide skateboard activity for younger
age groups within a convenient distance of residential
neighborhood.
Proposed skateboard dots
Arlington 6
Install skate dot in park activity area
Install skate dot in park activity area
4 J Rudy Memorial Park 1
Install skate dot in park activity area
5 Jensen Park 1
6 Terrace Park 1
Install skate dot in park activity area
7 The Rockery Park 1
Install skate dot in park activity area
Total proposed skate dots 6
Proposed pump track
A pump track composed of mounds and jumps for manually
pumped bicycles may be developed to support this growing
recreational activity.
Proposed pump track
Install skate dot in park activity area
Total proposed pump tracks 1
Sports courts – basketball/volleyball/pickleball
Sports or multi-use courts combine basketball, volleyball,
pickleball, and tennis as well as a variety of other activities in half
(25x50 feet) or full court (up to 50x100 feet) flexible layouts. The
city will develop sports courts to provide multiuse basketball,
pickleball, volleyball, and other activities within a 5-minute walking
distance of most residential areas in the city. The proposal will
upgrade some existing basketball courts to increase surface and
equipment durability, meet safety concerns and accommodate new
activity interests.
Existing sports courts
The following basketball, pickleball, volleyball, and tennis courts
have been developed in the city to support local neighborhood
recreational activities.
Existing courts
1 Forest Trail Park 1.0
This neighborhood park is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18005
Oxford Drive.
Sport court
2 J Rudy York Memorial Park 1.0
3209 180th Street NE.
Sport court with basketball hoop
3 Terrace Park 1.0
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 809 East Fifth Avenue.
Sport court with basketball hoop
Arlington School District 12.013.0
4 Eagle Creek Elementary School 1.0
This elementary school is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 1216 E 5th Street adjacent to Post Middle School.
Covered play shed
5 Kent Prairie Elementary School 2.0
8110 - 207th Street NE.
Covered play shed
Basketball court
6 Haller Middle School 1.02.0
at 600 East 1st Street.
Basketball court
Pickleball court
60 Arlington PRMP
Skate dot in Seattle
Arlington PRMP 61
Sport court – half-court basketball/pickleball/tennis Sport court – multiple basketball/tennis
Rectangular field – soccer/2 baseball fields
62 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 63
7 Arlington High School 8.0
This high school is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18821 Crown
Ridge Blvd.
8 tennis courts
HOA 7.0
8 Aspen Wood Meadows 1.0
This minipark is located in the West Arlington Subarea on 186th
Place NE.
Sport court - basketball
9 Brickwood 1.0
181st Street NE.
Sport court - basketball
10 Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 1 2.0
2 tennis courts
11 Crown Ridge 3 1.0
Crown Ridge Boulevard under the powerlines.
Sport court - basketball
12 High Clover Division 2 1.0
These open spaces are located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea along
High Clover Boulevard from 45th Avenue NE to 48th Avenue NE.
Basketball court
13 Point Riley 1.0
184th Place NE.
Sport court - basketball
Total existing sport courts
Total existing tennis courts
12
10
Proposed sport courts
14 Bill Quake Memorial Park 1
Install sport court in park activity area
15 High Clover Park 1
16 Jensen Park 1
Install sport court in park activity area
17 Wedgewood Park 1
Install sport court in park activity area
Total proposed sport courts 4
Athletic fields – soccer and baseball
Soccer fields
Rectangular grass fields support regulation (330x360 feet), youth
ages 12-13 (300x330 feet), youth ages 10-11 (180x240 feet), youth
ages 8-9 (90x150 feet) and youth ages 6-7 (75x120 feet) soccer
activities. The larger field areas can be subdivided to support
younger age players’ practice and games. For example, a regulation
field of 330x360 feet can be subdivided to support 12 age 6-7 fields
of 75x120 feet. Consequently, while the fields are counted by
regulation size the actual playing capacity of the fields can increase
depending on the players age and field requirements.
Baseball and softball fields
Baseball and softball field dimensions vary considerably by age and
league for baseline, infield, pitcher’s mound, and distance to
left/right and center field fences. The field-defining dimension,
however, is the distance to center field as the infield dimensions
can be modified to fit the player’s ages and league for baseball and
softball.
Center field baseball distances for Pinto and Little League are 200-
250 feet, Bronco 250 feet, Pony 300 feet, and high school and
college 350-400 feet. Softball center field distances are
proportionately less for youth ages 10 and under are 175 feet, high
school 225 feet, college and adult 220-250 feet, and adult slow
pitch 315 feet.
Baseball/softball fields may be dedicated with fixed skinned infield
diamonds and outfield fences or located at the ends of rectangular
fields where soccer fields can be overlaid with the grass outfield
areas.
The following athletic fields have been developed to support
various age group leagues in the city. Some of the listed school
facilities may not be suitable or available for public competitive
game play during school or school team use.
64 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 65
Existing athletic fields
This community park is located in the MIC Subarea at 18501 59th
Avenue.
2 grass lighted Little League field with turf infields
1 grass Little League field
1 multipurpose soccer field
2 Waldo E Evans Memorial Park 1
Avenue.
1 grass lighted 300-foot baseball field
Marysville 3
This community park is located at 6100 152nd Avenue Street NE
southeast of Arlington city limits.
3 lighted soccer fields
Additional athletic fields proposed
Marysville School District 4
4 Soccer Complex 4
This school property is located at 152nd Street NE and 51st Avenue
NE south of Arlington city limits.
Small rectangular grass field divided into 2 junior soccer
Large rectangular grass field divided into 2 full size or multiple
smaller size soccer
Snohomish County 9
5 Twin Rivers Park 9
This regional park is located north across the Stillaguamish River
from Arlington at 8003 SR-530 NE near the confluence of the North
and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River.
3 grass unlighted 250-foot softball fields
Multipurpose grass unlighted field – 6 soccer fields
Arlington School District 20
6 Eagle Creek Elementary School 2
This elementary school is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 1216 E 5th Street adjacent to Post Middle School.
Grass baseball field with backstop
Grass soccer field with standards
7 Kent Prairie Elementary School 1
This elementary school is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea at
8110 - 207th Street NE.
Grass baseball field with backstop
8 Pioneer Elementary School 3
This elementary school is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 8213
Eaglefield Drive.
Rectangular grass soccer field with 2 baseball diamonds with
backstops and bleachers at the corners
9 Presidents Elementary School 2
This elementary school is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 505 East 3rd Street.
Rectangular grass soccer field with baseball backstop in corner
10 Haller Middle School 3
at 600 East 1st Street.
Rectangular grass soccer field with 2 baseball diamonds with
backstops and bleachers in the corners
11 Post Middle School 2
at 1220 East 5th Street.
Grass baseball field with backstop
Grass multiuse soccer field with standards
12 Arlington High School 6
This high school is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18821 Crown
Ridge Blvd.
2 rectangular grass soccer fields
2 batting cages
1 grass 200-foot softball field with backstops and bleachers
1 grass 200-foot baseball field with backstops and bleachers
1 grass 250-foot baseball field with backstop and bleachers
1 grass 300-foot baseball field with backstop and bleachers
13
This alternative school is located in the MIC Subarea at 4407 -
172nd Street NE.
Rectangular grass soccer field
Total existing youth soccer 75-180x120-240-foot
Total existing competition soccer 300-330x360-foot
Total existing youth baseball/softball 200-250-foot
Total competition baseball 300-foot
7
15
17
2
66 Arlington PRMP
Proposed athletic fields
Arlington 15-19
3 Country Charm Park 15-19
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 604 East Gilman Street.
Multipurpose rectangular fields with baseball diamonds in
corners
Total proposed youth soccer 75-180x120-240-foot
Total proposed competition soccer 300-330x360-foot
Total proposed youth baseball/softball 200-250-foot
Total proposed competition baseball 300-foot
6-10
3
6
0
Arlington PRMP 67
Community facilities
Community centers provide indoor activities on a year-round basis
centrally accessible to residents for day and evening use. The
facilities may be developed within a market-oriented service
concept that protects the specialized investments that have already
been made in these facilities by school districts and private
organizations.
Community centers may not be developed where the using
population will not be of sufficient size to realistically support an
independent facility. In these circumstances, an existing center may
be expanded within the next closest or supportable service area to
provide facility requirements and programs.
Indoor community or recreation facilities may provide space for
swimming pools (including outdoor facilities), gymnasiums,
physical conditioning, arts and crafts, class and instruction rooms,
meeting facilities, kitchens and dining, daycare and latch key, teen
and senior center, and special population resource activities.
Community centers may also incorporate historic museums,
interpretive nature exhibits, and other buildings or constructions.
Independent community center buildings and sites may be
developed to provide space and services for teen, adult, or senior
center activities that occur during or conflict with school activities
and sites. These facilities may provide space and services that are
not suitably provided at school sites or that may not be duplicated
by school facilities and programs.
When community and recreation centers are developed independent
of school facilities, the buildings may be independent properties or
portions of other sites that include trail corridors, resource
activities, athletic or other public facilities such as civic centers and
libraries.
Vision
As described, the community and recreation center vision will:
Provide a variety of indoor activities,
Within a convenient proximity to using populations,
Within a facility and services concept that recognizes and
supports the investments that have already made in existing
city, county, and school facilities and programs, and
In cooperative ventures with other interested and participating
public and private agencies.
Assembly and meeting facilities
Meeting facilities including conference rooms, classrooms,
assembly rooms, and theaters support a variety of functions
including nutrition and health programs, education classes, music
and drama instruction, public presentations, and performances for
youth, teens, seniors, adults, and other community members. The
facilities may be dedicated spaces, as in theaters, or flexible and
divisible spaces that can be subdivided for a variety of activities.
The facilities may include kitchens or catering areas, dressing
rooms, or audio/visual supporting equipment in multipurpose or
independent buildings and ownerships.
The inventory does not include school classrooms and assembly
halls that may also be used for meeting activities after hours or
after other school hosted events.
Existing performance facilities
Arlington School District 22,444
This nonprofit facility is part of the Arlington School District and is
located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18821 Crown Ridge Blvd adjoining
Arlington High School.
Proscenium opening 40 feet wide, and 17 feet, 7 inches high
Stage depth is 34 feet and width 80 feet
Orchestra pit is 7 feet from the front edge to apron edge
Rigging includes 27 single pipe battens, 4 double, 2 side curtain
tabs, 6 side light ladders, and 3 overhead shells
Video projection screen is 15 feet, 8 inches
Dressing rooms for men and women
Greenroom area
Total existing performance facility square footage 22,444
68 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP 69
Existing meeting facilities
This public facility is located in the Old Town Business District 1
Subarea on a 0.18-acre lot at 238 N Olympic Avenue adjoining the
Police Station located at 110 East 3rd Street.
Council Chambers/public meeting room located in Police
Station off public outside courtyard access
2 Public Works 600
Subarea on a 3.90-acre site at 154 West Cox Avenue across from
Haller Park.
Stillaguamish Room – conference room available for public use
Nonprofit 1,500
3 Arlington Boys & Girls Club 10,000
This nonprofit facility is located in the MIC Subarea at 18513 59th
Avenue NE in Bill Quake Memorial Park.
Class and meeting rooms
Social activity areas
Teen Center
4 Stilly Valley Center 8,000
This nonprofit senior center is located in the West Arlington
Subarea at 18308 Smokey Point Boulevard.
Main hall, side rooms, arts and crafts, conference, and
commercial kitchen rentals for maximum 250 seating capacity
5 Stilly Valley Health Connections 2,000
This regional hospital facility (Public Hospital #District 3) is located
in the West Arlington Subarea at 3405 173rd Place NE.
Birch Room
Classroom and meeting areas
Private 600
6 Gleneagle Golf Course 600
Country Club Lane.
Family restaurant bar and grill with meeting room
Total existing meeting facility square footage 3,600
Gymnasiums
Indoor basketball courts vary in dimensions depending on the
players age and league play where college courts are 50x94 feet,
high school 50x84 feet, and middle school 42x74 feet not including
team benches, referee and game clock tables, bleachers, lockers,
showers, and restrooms. Gymnasium sizes can increase the overall
interior size from 6,000 square feet or less in elementary schools to
8,400 to 14,100 square feet in middle and high schools depending
on locker and shower accommodations.
Middle school and older ages play on hardwood floors while
elementary school students may play on a variety of surfaces in
multipurpose assembly rooms or in middle or high school
gymnasiums in subdivided courts with lowered backboards.
Full size basketball courts can be subdivided to provide backboards
along the sidelines to support 4 half courts for practice or for
younger age groups including elementary school games. The courts
can also be subdivided to support 1-2 volleyball (30x60 feet) or 4
badminton courts (20x44 feet).
Existing gymnasiums
Arlington School District 54,900
1 Eagle Creek Elementary School 6,000
Subarea at 1216 E 5th Street adjacent to Post Middle School.
Multipurpose hall
2 Kent Prairie Elementary School 6,000
This elementary school is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea at
8110 - 207th Street NE.
Multipurpose hall
3 Pioneer Elementary School 6,000
This elementary school is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 8213
Eaglefield Drive.
Multipurpose hall
4 Presidents Elementary School 6,000
Subarea at 505 East 3rd Street.
Multipurpose hall
5 Haller Middle School 8,400
This middle school is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 600 East 1st Street.
Gymnasium
70 Arlington PRMP
6 Post Middle School 8,400
This middle school is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 1220 East 5th Street.
Gymnasium
7 Arlington High School 14,100
This high school is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18821 Crown
Ridge Blvd.
2 gymnasiums
Nonprofit 16,800
8 Arlington Boys & Girls Club 16,800
Avenue NE in Bill Quake Memorial Park.
Gymnasium with basketball court
Total existing gymnasium square footage 71,700
Aquatic facilities
An Olympic sized swimming pool is 164 feet or 50 meters long, at
least 8-10 lanes 8 feet 2inches or 2.5 meters wide, and 6 feet 7
inches or 2.0 meters to 9 feet 10 inches or 3.0 meters deep. In
addition, they are usually at least 2 meters deep and hold at least
500,000 gallons of water although they can hold up to an average of
660,000 gallons as well. If touch panels are used in competition,
then the distance between touch panels should be either 25 or 50
meters to qualify for FINA recognition. This means that Olympic
pools are generally oversized, to accommodate touch panels used
in competition. The official dimensions of an Olympic swimming
pool are defined by FINA, the international governing body for the
sport of swimming.
This version of the Olympic-sized swimming pool debuted in the
2008 Beijing Summer Olympics. Beforehand, the Summer Olympics
featured a traditional 8-lane course with a depth of 7 feet, now the
minimum depth requirement.
The new Olympic-sized swimming pool increased the lane count
from 8 to 10 to give swimmers a "buffer lane", helping to absorb
waves generated by the swimmers' movements, allowing for less
resistance against the swimmers. Increasing the depth of the pool
gives swimmers another advantage, as the added depth assists the
lane lines in dissipating water churn from the swimmers, creating
less hydrodynamic drag.
Professional lap pools have a length of about 82 feet or 25 meters.
Apart from the gym, 40-foot-long pools are considered lap pools as
well. Widths may vary from 15 to 20 feet depending on the number
of lanes.
Playground variations of aquatic facilities include splash pads
where surface water features are designed for children to play.
Existing splash pads
This community park is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
Splash Pad
Concessions
Restrooms
Total existing splash pads 1
Existing swimming pools
This 27,176 square foot private facility is located in the MIC
Subarea at 4417 172nd St NE on city leased land.
Lap pool, hot tub, and dry sauna
Total existing swimming pools 1
Arlington PRMP 71
Special use facilities
Special use facilities may be acquired or developed to provide
activities or events for the general population on a limited or
special occasion and/or for special interest populations at
appropriate sites throughout Arlington. Special use facilities may
include plazas and streetscapes, arts centers, historical museums,
and similar special interest services.
Special use facilities may be independent properties or portions of
other sites that include trail corridors, resource park activities,
recreational areas or facilities, community facilities or centers or
other public facilities.
Special use facilities may be sited on other publicly owned lands or
under lease agreements with private landowners or organizations or
on purchased properties.
Special events, and landmarks and gathering
places
Special event spaces and urban accents provide small and large
gathering places for everyday as well as special festivals, art and
farmers’ markets, and other activities. The spaces may be designed
for small informal family or neighborhood gatherings, or larger for
community-wide or even regional events. Improvements may be
carried out entirely within the park site or be designed and
managed to spill over onto adjacent streets and public facility
parking lots.
Existing special event spaces
This neighborhood park is located in the Old Town Residential and
Old Town Business District 2 Subarea at 200 block of Division
Street.
Concrete walking path
Water fountain artwork depicting the Stillaguamish River and
Valley
2 Lebanon Park 1
District 1 Subarea at 105 Lebanon Avenue.
Labyrinth artwork
3 Legion Park 1
Subarea at 114 North Olympic Avenue. The park is located in the
center of downtown and the site for many of Arlington's events.
The park is decorated for the winter holidays.
Public artworks
Veteran’s Memorial
Gazebo and stage
Visitor Information Center
4 Smokey Point Park 1
178th Place NE in the West Arlington Subarea.
Concession and restrooms
Public artworks
45 Stormwater Wetland Park 1
This community park is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
Covered shelter suitable for picnics and special events
56 Terrace Park 1
Subarea at 809 East Fifth Avenue.
Amphitheater and stage
Total existing special event spaces 56
Proposed special event spaces
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 604 East Gilman Street.
Develop large open fields suitable for major events
87 Food Truck Court 1
Precast concrete restroom facility
Playground area with aviation related play structures
Total proposed special event spaces 31
72 Arlington PRMP
1
2
5
3
4
6
7
Arlington PRMP 73
Community gardens
A community garden is a single piece of land gardened collectively
by a group of people. Community gardens utilize individual or
shared plots to produce vegetables, fruits, flowers, or other plants
for the enjoyment of the gardeners including the option of selling
the products at farmers’ and other markets. Community gardens
increase the availability of nutritious foods, strengthen community
ties, reduce environmental hazards, reduce food miles, and create a
more sustainable system.
Community gardens are part of the sharing economy making it
possible for many people to enjoy a resource – in this case, land for
gardening – that they could not afford on their own.
Community gardens provide individual rentable garden plots
typically 10x20-40 feet with compost bins, a shed for storing tools,
irrigation hookups, a common gathering area sometimes covered
with benches or picnic tables, and a perimeter fence to control
wildlife.
Existing community garden
1 Third Street Garden 1
The 0.5-acre community garden is located on Presidents Elementary
School in the Old Town Residential Subarea at 505 East 3rd Street.
The garden is located on school grounds and managed by the city.
41 6x18-foot plots
11 6x6-foot plots
2 potting or work benches
Tool shed
Trellis vegetable sales area
Total existing community gardens 1
Proposed community garden
This neighborhood park is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea at
Cemetery Road and High Clover Boulevard NE.
Install pea patch garden plots and supporting improvements
3 Country Charm Park 1
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 604 East Gilman Street.
Install larger garden plots and supporting improvements
Total proposed community gardens 2
Dog parks
A dog park is a park for small and large dogs to exercise and play
off-leash in a controlled environment for small versus large dogs
under the supervision of the owners. Dog parks have varying
features, although they typically provide a 4 to 6-foot high fence,
separate double-gated entry and exit points, sand or gravel or grass
surface for adequate drainage and waste control, benches for
humans, shade for hot days, parking, water, pooper-scooper to pick
up and dispose of animal waste, and regular grounds maintenance
and cleaning. Dog parks may also offer wheelchair access, a pond
for swimming, and a variety of exercise equipment for small or
large dogs.
A public dog park is typically a 0.5-1.0-acre fenced outdoor area
where people and small or large dogs can play together. Similarly, a
dog run is a smaller fenced area, created for the same use, which is
often located within an existing park. Unless well-lit, most public
dog parks are open from dawn until dusk. Some public dog parks
have vaccination requirements but are not typically staffed or
enforced unless there is an incident that is reported to animal
control.
74 Arlington PRMP
Third Street Community Garden
Stormwater Wetland Park Dog Park Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex Dog Park
Arlington PRMP 75
Existing dog parks
This 0.4-acre dog park is located in the Smokey Point Subarea at
3209 180th Street NE.
Fenced area separated from the park for off-leash dog area
2 Stormwater Wetland Park 1
This 0.3-acre dog park is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue.
Upgrade fenced area with separation for small and large dogs
Install water fountain, exercise equipment amenities for dogs
Install benches, covered seating area, water fountain, pooper-
scooper for dog owners
Marysville 1
2 Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex 1
This community park is located at 6100 152nd Avenue Street NE
southeast of Arlington city limits.
Fended Fenced area for small and large dog exercise
Total existing dog parks 23
Proposed dog parks
1 Country Charm Park 1
This community park is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 604 East Gilman Street.
Designate open field for limited off-leash exercise area
Install fenced areas with separation for small and large dogs
Install splash pond, water fountain, exercise equipment
amenities for dogs
Install benches, covered seating area, water fountain, pooper-
scooper for dog owners
Total proposed dog parks 1
Museums
Museums collect, house, and exhibit artworks, manuscripts, photos,
clothes, tools, equipment, vehicles, and other artifacts to illustrate,
interpret, and educate the public about the history and culture of a
place, town, city, or region. Museums may conserve and exhibit in
or on the site of historic buildings or landmarks or in structures
specifically built to collect, house, exhibit, and interpret artifacts.
Existing museums
Museum
This nonprofit facility is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea at
20722 67th Ave NE. The complex includes a 6.72-acre site with
wetlands and 4 buildings including:
Welcome Center pole building with carved totems of 783 sf
Old Pioneer Hall of 3,060 sf
3-story museum of 15,300 sf
Storage building of 4,500
Total existing museum square footage 23,643
Golf courses
Golf is a club-and-ball sport in which players use various clubs to
hit balls into a series of holes on a course in as few strokes as
possible. Golf, unlike most ball games, cannot and does not utilize a
standardized playing area, and coping with the varied terrains
encountered on different courses is a key part of the game. The
game at the usual level is played on a course with an arranged
progression of 18 holes, though recreational courses can be
smaller, often having 9 holes.
Each hole on the course must contain a teeing ground to start from,
and a putting green containing the actual hole or cup 4 inches in
diameter. There are other standard forms of terrain in between,
such as the fairway, rough, bunkers, and various hazards but each
hole on a course is unique in its specific layout and arrangement.
Golf courses may be improved with a variety of facilities including
practice putting greens, driving ranges, pitch-n-put short golf
courses, equipment stores, lockers and showers, restaurants,
banquet rooms, and member lodges.
76 Arlington PRMP
Existing golf courses holes
This 138.2-acre private facility is located in the Hilltop Subarea at
7619 Country Club Lane. Gleneagle Golf Course was developed and
opened in 1993.
18-hole, par 70, 6,150 yards with 5 tees per hold
Driving range
Pitching/chipping area
Putting green
Pro shop
Family restaurant bar and grill
Total existing golf course holes 18
Support facilities
Support facilities include maintenance yards, plant nurseries, and
administrative activities necessary to support park, recreation, and
open space programs and facilities.
Support facilities may be independent properties or portions of
other sites that include other administrative offices, maintenance
yards and shops, as well as trail corridors, resource activities,
athletic facilities, indoor recreation centers or other park and
recreation facilities.
Vision
As described, the support facilities vision will:
Provide facilities necessary to service park, recreation, and
open space programs and activities for the general population,
In a manner that is functional and cost effective.
Administration offices/yard
Existing facilities square footage
1 City Maintenance Shops & Offices 13,148
This public facility is located in the MIC Subarea off 188th Street NE
and 63rd Avenue NE.
Shop/office building 1 – 6,840 sf
Storage building 2 – 1,104 sf
Equipment storage shed 3 – 2,832 sf
Storage building 4 – 2,372 sf
Total existing facilities square footage 13,148
Arlington PRMP 76
Chapter 6: Park plan exhibits
The following is an inventory of every public park, recreation, open
space, and trail property within or adjacent to Arlington.
Arlington Parks
Bill Quake Memorial Park 7877
High Clover Park 8382
Smokey Point Community Park 87
Terrace Park 89
Marysville Parks
Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex 92
Marysville School District
Soccer Complex 93
Snohomish County Parks
Centennial Trail Park 94
River Meadows 96
Centennial Trail 99
Nonprofit
Arlington Boys & Girls Club 101
Exhibit D
City of Arlington
Bill Quake Memorial Park
This 13.0-acre community park is located in the MIC Subarea at
18501 59th Avenue. Waldo E Evans Memorial Park (1) is located
north across 59th Avenue and the Arlington Boys & Girls Club (2) is
located in the south end of the Park under a lease agreement with
the city beginning in 1992.
Existing improvements:
Picnic tables
Children’s playground for ages 5-12
Skatepark with concrete bowl and full pipe
2 grass lighted fenced fields maintained by Little League
1 grass 250-foot baseball fields
1 small multipurpose soccer field
Restrooms
Off-street parking
Potential improvements:
Playground upgraded for ADA
Athletic field lights upgraded
Athletic field grass replaced with synthetic turf
Sport court adjacent to skatepark
Skate dots for younger age users
Upgrade restrooms
2
1
77
City of Arlington
Centennial Park
This 1.0-acre neighborhood park is located in the Old Town
Residential and Old Town Business District 2 Subareas at the 200
block of Division Street. The Park was built in 1989 to celebrate
Washington State's Centennial. The fountain was designed to depict
the Stillaguamish River and valley. The Park features a tile wall
designed by local school children.
The Park is incorporated into the streetscape median (1) on East
Division Street which adjoins the city’s portion of the Centennial
Trail (2) at the intersection of East Division Street and West Avenue,
and The Rockery (3) a landscape feature adjacent to the trail.
Existing improvements:
Concrete walking path
Water fountain artwork depicting the Stillaguamish River and
Valley
On-street parking
Potential improvements
Sidewalk replacement
Arlington PRMP
3
2
1
78
City of Arlington
Country Charm Park
This 89.0-acre community park is located in the Old Town
Residential Subarea at 604 East Gilman Street along the
Stillaguamish River. The property was a former dairy farm now
harvested for hay by tenant farmers. The Park adjoins the Post
Middle School open space to the south (1).
Existing improvements:
Riparian habitat along South Fork Stillaguamish River
Extensive woodlands along river and south site
Extensive dirt trails along river and looped in the south portion
Large open fields suitable for major events
Storm retention pond for housing on Gilman Street
Underground natural gas pipeline through center of site
Potential improvements
Master development plan
Shoreline access
Community garden with large plots
Perimeter hiking trails along Stillaguamish River and internal
wetland features and through Post Middle School open space
Dog park and trails
Improved access road with parking
Group picnic facilities
Playground furnished with natural materials
Sport court – sand volleyball
Athletic fields – rectangular multiuse
Open field activity area for major events and festivals
Seasonal campground
Restrooms
Trail and park directories
1
79
City of Arlington
Forest Trail Park
This 2.0-acre neighborhood park is located in the Hilltop Subarea at
18005 Oxford Drive. The Park adjoins the water tower (1) and
Gleneagle Golf Course (2).
Existing improvements:
Woodlands
Asphalt trail through park
Benches
Picnic tables
Children's play area for ages 5-12
Sport court
Drinking fountain
Off street parking
Potential improvements
Playground upgraded for ADA
1
2
80
City of Arlington
Haller Park
This 3.0-acre community park is located in the Old Town Business
District 3 Subarea at 1100 West Avenue. The Park hosts the 4th of
July Festival.
The Park adjoins the city (1) and county (2) portions of the
Centennial Trail with access to Stormwater Wetland Park (3).
Existing improvements
Beach access to the Stillaguamish River
Access to the Centennial and Whitehorse Trails
Boat launch adjacent to SR-9 bridge
Benches
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
Playground for ages 2-12
Splash Pad
Concessions
Restrooms
Off street parking
Wellheads and buildings in north portion of site
Potential improvements
Shade trees and shelters
Boat launch reconstruction for low water marks
Outdoor stage or performance area
Paved parking lot
Sidewalk replacement in north section
3
2
1
81
City of Arlington
High Clover Park
This 2.0-acre neighborhood park is located in the Arlington Bluff
Subarea at Cemetery Road and High Clover Boulevard NE. The Park
adjoins High Clover HOA open spaces (1) and the Snohomish
County’s Portage Creek Wildlife Area (2)
Existing improvements
Open grass area
Potential improvements
Community garden
Group picnic facilities
Inclusive playground
Sport court
Skate dot
Restrooms
Off-street parking
2
1 1
82
`
City of Arlington
J Rudy York Memorial Park
This 2.0-acre neighborhood park is located in the West Arlington
Subarea at 3209 180th Street NE. The Park adjoins Brickwood HOA
minipark (1) that includes neighborhood trail access to Smokey
Point Boulevard and a sport court for basketball.
Existing improvements
Paths
Picnic tables
Play equipment for ages 2-12
Sport court with basketball hoop
Off-street parking
Fenced area for dogs
Potential improvements
Playground upgrade for ADA
Sport court upgrade
Skate dot
1
83
City of Arlington
Jensen Park
This 2.0-acre neighborhood park is located in the Kent Prairie
Subarea at 7801 Jensen Farm Lane. The Park adjoins the city’s
Kruger-Portage Creek Trail (1) along Portage Creek.
Existing improvements
Large open grass play area
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
Children’s play equipment for ages 2-12
Off and on street parking
Proposed improvements
Undeveloped residential lot acquired on southeast corner (2)
Perimeter trail developed
Exercise equipment installed along path
Sport court
Skate dot
Pump track
Parking lot expanded
Restrooms
1
84
City of Arlington
Lebanon Park
This 0.5-acre neighborhood park is located in the Old Town Business
District 1 Subarea on East Maple Street. The Park adjoins the city’s
portion of the Centennial Trail (1), Legion Park (2), and BNSF
Railroad tracks (3).
Existing improvements
Access to Centennial Trail
Benches
Labyrinth artwork
Off street parking
Potential improvements
None proposed
3
1
2
City of Arlington
Legion Park
This 1-acre community park is located in the Old Town Business
District 1 Subarea at 114 North Olympic Avenue. The Park is located
in the center of downtown next to the city’s portion of the
Centennial Trail (1), Lebanon Park (2), the city’s Police Station and
City Hall complex (3), and BNSF Railroad tracks (4).
The Park is the host for many of Arlington's events and is decorated
for the winter holidays.
Existing improvements
Public artworks
Veteran’s Memorial
Benches
Picnic tables
Gazebo and stage
Visitor Information Center
Restrooms
Off and on street parking
Potential improvements
None proposed
3
2
1
4
City of Arlington
Smokey Point Community Park
This 2.23-acre community park is located in the Smokey Point
Subarea at 17903 Smokey Point Boulevard. The Park is located in the
center of the corridor between 172nd Street NE and 188th Street NE. As
Arlington’s newest park it is projected to host multiple public
events and become a community hub for the Smokey Point
neighborhoods.
Existing improvements
Public artwork
Benches
Picnic tables
Picnic shelters
Covered performance stage with elevated grass lawn seating
Gathering plaza areas with seat walls
Open grass lawn play area
Restrooms and Concession
Playgrounds for age 2-5 and 5-12 with synthetic surfacing
Paved walking track
Off and on street parking
Potential improvements
None proposed
87
City of Arlington
Stormwater Wetlands Park
This 10.0-acre community park is located in the Old Town Business
District 3 Subarea at 1100 West Avenue. Access is provided from
West Cox Street through Haller Park (1) under the SR-9 bridge and
from SR-530 via Dike Road.
Existing improvements
Riparian habitat along the Stillaguamish River
Wetland ponds and wildlife habitat
Trails through site and around ponds
4 picnic tables
Covered shelter suitable for picnics and special events
Fenced area used for dogs
Potential improvements
Master plan developed
Group picnic facility installed in covered shelter
Improve fenced area for social dog park activities with dog
owner shelter, water, and seating amenities
Residential building renovated for rental events and/or
caretaker
Park and trail directories
Off-street parking lot from Dike Road
1
City of Arlington
Terrace Park
This 4.0-acre community park is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 809 East Fifth Avenue. The Park was planted with
evergreen trees in 1925. A natural amphitheater was created in the
back of the park to host live performances and movies.
Existing improvements
Woodlands – Douglas Fir planted in 1925
Asphalt path
Amphitheater and stage – 200-300 seating capacity
Benches
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
Children's play area for ages 2-12
Sport court with basketball hoop
Restrooms – themed with birds and owls
Potential improvements
Amphitheater terrace stabilized
Amphitheater lighting and sound upgraded
Asphalt paths repaved with tree root removal
Playground update for inclusiveness and ADA
Sport court improved for multiuse
Skate dot
Restroom upgrade
Park and trail directory
Electric lines undergrounded
City of Arlington
Waldo E Evans Memorial Park
This 6.0-acre community park is located in the MIC Subarea at 18813
59th Avenue. Bill Quake Memorial Park (1) and the Arlington Boys &
Girls Club (2) are located south across 188th Street NE from the
Park.
Existing improvements
Benches
Picnic table
Children’s play area - ages 5-12
1 grass lighted fenced 300-foot baseball field
Restrooms
Off-street parking
Potential improvements
Playground updated for ADA
Athletic field lights upgraded
Grass surface replaced with synthetic turf
2
90
City of Arlington
Wedgewood and Woodway Parks
The 2.0-acre Wedgewood Park (1) is located in the Hilltop Subarea at
17510 Gleneagle Boulevard adjoining the 0.5-acre Woodway Park
accessed from 176th Place NE and 74th Drive NE (2). The Parks adjoint
the Gleneagle Division Phase 1 HOA open space (3).
Woodlands
Benches
Picnic tables
Children's play area for ages 5-12
Off street parking
Potential improvements
Playground upgraded for ADA
Trail connection between the 2 park sites
Sport court
1
2
3
3
91
City of Marysville
Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex
This 72.0-acre community park is located at 6100 152nd Avenue
Street NE southeast of Arlington city limits.
Existing improvements
Quilceda Creek riparian habitat
Walking trails
Picnic areas
Picnic shelter
3 lighted soccer fields
Restrooms
Proposed improvements
Additional athletic fields under consideration
92
Marysville School District
Soccer Complex
This school property is located at 152nd Street NE and 51st Avenue
NE south of Arlington city limits.
Existing improvements
Small rectangular grass field divided into 2 junior soccer
Large rectangular grass field divided into 2 full size or multiple
smaller size soccer
93
Snohomish County
Centennial Trail Park – Armar Road
This 8.3-acre trailhead park is located along the Centennial Trail (1)
at 15333 67th Avenue NE across from and provides access to the
county’s North County Wildlife Area Park (2).
Existing improvements
Scrub woodland
Paved access to Centennial Trail
Bench
2 picnic tables
19 parking spaces including 1 ADA
Sani-can
2
1
94
Snohomish County
Gissberg Twin Lakes Park
This 54.0-acre regional park is located at 16324 Twin Lake Road at
the southwest Arlington city limits. The Park was created from two
gravel pits excavated for the construction of I-5. The Park includes
the North Lake stocked by local fishing clubs and the South Lake
stocked with rainbow trout by the Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife.
Existing improvements
Walking track
Fishing sites on North Lake (age 14 years and under)
Fishing sites on South Lake (age 15 years and up)
Wading area (no lifeguards)
Paddling
Hand carry boating
Model boat racing
Picnic tables
Restrooms/Sani-cans
95
Snohomish County
River Meadows Park
This 144.6-acre regional park is located at 20416 Jordan Road on the
Stillaguamish River east of Arlington UGA. The Park was created by
the Tveit and Hovde family homesteads established in the 1800s.
Each August the Park hosts the Stillaguamish Tribe’s Festival of the
River and Pow Wow.
Existing improvements
Open meadows and woodlands available for rental for large
gatherings
Fishing sites along the river
1.6-miles of walking trails throughout the park
6 rental 16 and 20-foot yurts (1 ADA accessible) with heat,
electricity, and fire pits
14 rental campsites with water and firepits
Picnic tables
3 picnic shelters with water and electricity
96
Snohomish County
Twin Rivers Park
This 50.0-acre regional park is located north across the
Stillaguamish River from Arlington at 8003 SR-530 NE near the
confluence of the North and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River.
The County contracted Arlington to maintain and operate the park
until 2019 when Arlington transferred maintenance and operations
back to County.
The Park is across the Stillaguamish River from the city’s Country
Charm Park (1), Haller Park (2), Stormwater Wetland Park (3), the city
(4) and county (5) portions of the Centennial Trail, and county
Whitehorse Trail (6).
Existing improvements
Woodlands and riparian habitat along the river
Open meadows and fields
Picnic tables
Disc golf course sponsored by Arlington Rotary
3 grass unlighted 250-foot softball fields
Multipurpose grass unlighted field – 6 soccer field capacity
Soccer fields
Restrooms and Sani-cans
Potential improvements
Group picnic shelters
Playground ADA for all ages
6
4 3
2
1
5
97
Snohomish County
Portage Creek Wildlife Area
This 187.4-acre wildlife conservancy is located in Arlington Bluff at
20802 59th Avenue NE on the property previously owned by Gene
Ammon for a peat farm. Ammon restored the wetlands in the peat-
mined areas and enhanced the extensive field and wetland habitat
for deer, hawks, beaver, raccoons, mink, amphibians, and other
small animals and waterfowl. He referred to the site as Amen’s
Wildlife Sanctuary and hosted the public until 1995 when the
County acquired the property with Conservation Futures funds. The
County acquired an adjacent 137.0-acre dairy farm on the north
boundary for additional conservancy.
The Area adjoins the city’s Portage Creek Wildlife Area Access (1),
the Bluff at Arlington Condo HOA (2), an undesignated open space
along the county portion of Cemetery Road (3), High Clover Division
2 HOA (4), close to the city’s High Clover Park (5), and across
Cemetery Road from the city’s Airport Trail trailhead (6).
Existing improvements
My and Portage Creeks riparian habitat
Wetland and meadow trail network around and through site
Interpretive shelter
Picnic tables
Portable restrooms
Parking access from 59th Avenue NE on the northeast boundary
Parking access from Cemetery Road – closed for security
5
4 3
1
1
2
6
98
Arlington & Snohomish County
Centennial Trail
This 30.0-mile regional hiking, biking, and horse trail is located on
the former Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad track
corridor between Snohomish and Skagit County line. Trail
construction began during Washington State’s Centennial and was so
named accordingly. The 1890’s Machias Station railroad depot was
replicated and serves as a trailhead and rental facility in Machias.
Existing improvements
10-foot-wide multipurpose paved trail suitable for skating,
skateboarding/longboarding
6-foot-wide natural surface parallel horse trail in most areas
Converted trail/railroad bridge over the Stillaguamish River
Picnic tables and benches
Picnic shelters at Machias Trailhead
Restrooms
Trailheads at:
CT North Trailhead at 32328 SR-9 Nakashima Barn in Arlington
Bryant Trailhead at SR-9 and Stanwood Bryant Road in Arlington
Haller Park Trailhead at 1100 West Avenue in Arlington
Legion Park Trailhead at 114 North Olympic Avenue in Arlington
Armar Road Trailhead at 15333 67th Avenue NE in Arlington
Getchell Trailhead at 8318 Westlund Road in Arlington
Lake Cassidy Trailhead at 6216 105th Avenue NE in Lake Stevens
Rhododendron Trailhead at 10911 54th Place NE in Lake Stevens
SR-92 Overpass Trailhead at 3651 127th Avenue NE in Lake Stevens
20th Street Trailhead at 13205 20th Street in Lake Stevens
Machias Park Trailhead at 1624 Virginia Street in Snohomish
Pilchuck Trailhead at 5801 South Machias Road in Snohomish
Snohomish County
Whitehorse Trail
This 27.0-mile regional hiking, biking, and horse trail is located on
the former Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad track
corridor between Arlington and Darrington through the
Stillaguamish River Valley. The trail originates with a junction with
the Centennial Regional Trail in Arlington then parallels SR-530 and
the North Fork Stillaguamish River through the backcountry
corridor. Current closures between the Centennial Trail and Trafton
Trailhead, and 435th Avenue NE near Darrington due to landslides
and river washouts.
Trailheads
Trafton Trailhead Park at 115th Avenue NE near the red barn
and blue silo
Miller Shingle Trailhead at 21021 SR-530 with equestrian parking
C-Post Road Trailhead at 29415 SR-530
Hazel Hole Trailhead at Mile Post 38.8 SR-530
Fortson Mill Trailhead at Fortson Mill Road
Darrington Price Street Trailhead
Nonprofit
Arlington Boys & Girls Club
This 28,286 square foot nonprofit facility is located in the MIC
Subarea at 18513 59th Avenue NE in Bill Quake Memorial Park (1).
The club facility was developed with a long lease agreement with the
city in 1992.
The club operates an extension site at Presidents Elementary School.
The club provides a large variety of games, activities, educational
programs, and sports throughout the year for kids in K-12th grade.
Existing improvements
Class and meeting rooms
Social activity areas
2 gymnasiums with basketball courts
1 grass baseball field
1
101
Arlington PRMP B-1
Appendix B: Existing facilities
Arlington, Marysville, Snohomish County, Washington State,
Arlington and Marysville School Districts, Homeowner Associations
(HOA), and other public and private agencies have assembled a
significant amount of land within and directly adjacent to the city.
These lands provide a variety of park, recreation, and open space
activities including wildlife conservancies, waterfronts, picnic
facilities, multipurpose trail corridors, athletic fields, playgrounds,
community centers, and related park supporting administrative
and maintenance facilities.
Arlington
The city has assembled the following developed parks and
undeveloped properties and open spaces with future park
development potential.
Arlington Parks Acres
1 Bill Quake Memorial Park 13.0
This community park is located in the MIC Subarea at 18501 59th
Avenue.
Picnic tables
Children’s playground for ages 5-12
Skatepark with concrete bowl and full pipe
2 grass lighted Little League field with turf infields
1 grass Little League field
1 multipurpose soccer field
Restrooms
Off-street parking
2 Centennial Park 1.0
Old Town Business District 2 Subareas at 200 block of Division Street.
The park was built in 1989 to celebrate Washington State's
Centennial. The fountain was designed to depict the Stillaguamish
River and valley. The park features a tile wall designed by local
school children.
Concrete walking path
Water fountain artwork
On-street parking
3 Country Charm Park 89.0
at 604 East Gilman Street.
Riparian habitat along South Fork Stillaguamish River
Extensive woodlands along river and south site
Extensive dirt trails along river and looped in the south portion
Large open fields suitable for major events
4 Forest Trail Park 2.0
This neighborhood park is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18005
Oxford Drive.
Landscaping and trees
Asphalt trail through park
Benches
Picnic tables
Children's play area for ages 5-12
Sport court
Drinking fountain
Off street parking
5 Haller Park 3.0
This community park is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue. The park is used during the 4th of July
Festival.
Beach access to the Stillaguamish River
Access to the Centennial and Whitehorse Trails
Boat launch adjacent to SR-9 bridge
Benches
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
Playground for ages 2-12
Splash Pad
Concessions
Restrooms
Off street parking
Exhibit E
B-2 Arlington PRMP
Arlington PRMP B-3
6 High Clover Park 2.0
This neighborhood park is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea at
Cemetery Road and High Clover Boulevard NE.
Open grass area
7 J Rudy York Memorial Park 2.0
3209 180th Street NE.
Paths
Picnic tables
Play equipment for ages 2-12
Sport court with basketball hoop
Off-street parking
8 Jensen Park 2.0
Jensen Farm Lane. This neighborhood park is close to Kruger and
Portage Creeks and within walking distance of Kent Prairie Elementary.
Large open grass play area
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
Children’s play equipment for ages 2-12
Off and on street parking
9 Lebanon Park 0.5
Subarea at 105 Lebanon Avenue.
Adjacent to Centennial Trail
Benches
Labyrinth artwork
Off street parking
10 Legion Park 1.0
This community park is located in the Old Town Business District 1
Subarea at 114 North Olympic Avenue. The park is located in the
center of downtown and the site for many of Arlington's events. The
park is decorated for the winter holidays.
Public artworks
Veteran’s Memorial
Benches
Picnic tables
Gazebo and stage
Visitor Information Center
Restrooms
Off and on street parking
11 Smokey Point Community Park 2.2
This community park is located in the Smokey Point Subarea at 17903
Smokey Point Boulevard. The park is located in the center of the
corridor between 172nd Street NE and 188th Street NE. As Arlington’s
newest park it is projected to host multiple public events and become
a community hub for the Smokey Point neighborhoods.
• Benches
• Picnic tables
• Picnic shelters
• Covered performance stage with elevated grass lawn seating
•
• Open grass lawn play area
•
• Playgrounds for age 2-5 and 5-12 with synthetic surfacing
•
• Public artwork
• Off and on street parking
1112 Stormwater Wetland Park 10.0
Subarea at 1100 West Avenue. Access from West Cox Street through
Haller Park and under SR-9 bridge.
Riparian habitat along the Stillaguamish River
Wetland ponds and wildlife habitat
Trails through site and around ponds
4 picnic tables
Covered shelter suitable for picnics and special events
Fenced area used for dog park
1213 Terrace Park 4.0
809 East Fifth Avenue. The park was planted with evergreen trees in
1925. The natural amphitheater in the back of the park.
Asphalt path
Amphitheater and stage
Benches
Picnic tables
Picnic shelter
Children's play area for ages 2-12
Sport court with basketball hoop
Restrooms
B-4 Arlington PRMP
1314 Waldo E Evans Memorial Park 6.0
This community park is located in the MIC Subarea at 18813 59th
Avenue.
Benches
Picnic table
Children’s play area - ages 5-12
1 grass lighted 300-foot baseball field
Restrooms
Off-street parking
1415 Wedgewood Park 2.0
Gleneagle Boulevard.
Benches
Picnic tables
Children's play area for ages 5-12
Off street parking
1516 Woodway Park 0.5
Crossings Development at 17510 Gleneagle Boulevard adjacent to
Wedgewood Park.
Small playground equipment
Total acres 138.0140.2
Arlington Trails Miles
1 74th Avenue Trail 1.1
This multipurpose trail is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea and
connects to the MIC Subarea along 74th Avenue.
10-foot-wide multipurpose paved trail
2 188th Street Connector Trail 0.5
This off-road trail is located in the MIC Subarea on the northwest
boundary of the airport.
Connects the north segment of the Airport Trail using 188th
Street NE right of way to Centennial Trail
2 Airport Trail 6.5
complete airport property. Trail access is provided by parking lots
located at:
Cemetery Road
Airport Office
Bill Quake Memorial Park
Weston High School
North County Fire Station #48
3 Centennial Trail (city portion) 2.7
Old Town Residential, and Old Town Business District 1, 2 & 3
Subareas. This regional trail is located on the former Burlington
Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad track corridor between
Snohomish and Skagit County line.
10-foot-wide multipurpose paved trail suitable for skating,
skateboarding/longboarding
Trailheads are located at:
Haller Park at 1100 West Avenue with restroom
Legion Park at 114 North Olympic with restroom
4 Eagle Trail/Stormwater Park Trail 1.7
This off-road trail network includes a portion developed by an
Eagle Scout project and is located in the Old Town Business District
3 Subarea in Stormwater Wetland Park. The trail links with dirt
trails around the perimeter of the site.
Dirt trail around wetland ponds
Dirt trails through the site from West Cox Street to Dike Road
5 Kruger-Portage Creek Trail 0.4
dedicated open space at 80th Avenue NE and 204th Street. The trail
links Zimmerman Hill Climb to Portage Street and loops through
the Jensen and Portage neighborhoods.
8-foot-wide paved trail suitable in some sections.
6 River Crest Trail 0.2
206th Street NE.
Benches
Off street parking
7 Zimmerman Hill Climb Trail 0.2
This off-road trail is located in the Hilltop/Kent Prairie Subarea at
Crown Ridge Boulevard. Accesses woodland and riparian habitat
along Portage Creek.
Benches
Wooden hill climb stairs and elevated walkway from Crown
Ridge Boulevard north to 201st Street NE
Bridge across Portage Creek
Total miles 12.213.3
These 4 open space parcels are located in Hilltop Subarea along
67th Avenue NE at Cemetery Road.
Arlington PRMP B-5
Triangular parcel located along the west edge of 67th Avenue
south from Cemetery Road
Wooded lot at the end of Hillside Court
Large, wooded parcel located along 67th Avenue
Wooded lot located on the southeast corner of Highland View
Drive and 67th Avenue
2 Crown Ridge 5 10.8
This open space is located in Hilltop Subarea along Portage Creek
in the Crown Ridge Estates Subdivision.
Riparian habitat along Portage Creek
Improved with Kruger/Portage Creek Trail
3 Old Burn Road 4.0
Burn Road below Kent Prairie Elementary School.
Heavily wooded site
4 Portage Creek Wildlife Area Access 5.0
This open space is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea off 206th
Street NE adjoining Portage Creek Wildlife Area. The city open
space adjoins Belmont PAC Holdings and the trail access developed
between the parcels from 206th Street.
Wooded ravine
Trail improvement from Belmont PAC Holdings and 206th
Street
Total acres 25.8
Arlington public facilities Sq ft
1 City Hall & Police Station 34,812
This public facility is located in the Old Town Business District 1
Subarea on a 0.18-acre lot at 238 N Olympic Avenue adjoining the
Police Station located at 110 East 3rd Street.
2-story historic City Hall includes 750 sf basement, 3,905 sf
first floor, and 3,905 second floor or total of 8,560 sf
2-story Police annex includes 13,126 sf first floor and 13,126
second floor or total of 26,252 sf
Council Chambers/public meeting room located in Police
Station off public outside courtyard access
2 Public Works 7,591
This public facility is located in the Old Town Business District 3
Subarea on a 3.90-acre site at 154 West Cox Avenue directly across
from Haller Park.
Stillaguamish Room – conference room available for public use
3 City Maintenance Shops & Offices 13,148
This public facility is located in the MIC Subarea off 188th Street
NE and 63rd Avenue NE.
Shop/office building 1 – 6,840 sf
Storage building 2 – 1,104 sf
Equipment storage shed 3 – 2,832 sf
Storage building 4 – 2,372 sf
Total square feet 55,551
Marysville
This community park is located at 6100 152nd Avenue Street NE
southeast of Arlington city limits.
Quilceda Creek riparian habitat
Walking trails
Dog park
Picnic areas
Picnic shelter
3 lighted soccer fields
Restrooms
Additional athletic fields proposed
Total acres 72.0
Marysville open space Acres
This open space is located on Smokey Point Boulevard north of
156th Street NE adjacent to Arlington city limits.
Extensive wetlands
Total acres 50.9
Snohomish County
1 Centennial Trail Park 8.32
This trailhead park is located along the Centennial Trail on 67th
Avenue NE across from and provides access to North County
Wildlife Area Park.
Scrub woodland
Paved access to Centennial Trail
Bench
2 picnic tables
19 parking spaces including 1 ADA
Sani can
B-6 Arlington PRMP
2 Gissberg Twin Lakes 54.0
This regional park is located at 16324 Twin Lake Road at the
southwest Arlington city limits. The park was created from two
gravel pits excavated for the construction of I-5. The park includes
the North Lake stocked by local fishing clubs and the South Lake
stocked with rainbow trout by the Washington Department of Fish
& Wildlife.
Walking track
Fishing sites on North Lake (age 14 years and under)
Fishing sites on South Lake (age 15 years and up)
Wading area (no lifeguards)
Paddling
Hand carry boating
Model boat racing
Picnic tables
Restrooms/Sani cans
3 River Meadows 144.6
Stillaguamish River east of Arlington UGA. The park was created by
the Tveit and Hovde family homesteads established in the 1800s.
Ancient Olcott artifacts have been found on the park grounds
indicating the site was a trading and settlement destination along
with traces of an early farmhouse, apple trees, and ornamental
plants typical of a farmhouse yard. Each August the park hosts the
Stillaguamish Tribe’s Festival of the River and Pow Wow.
Open meadows and woodlands available for rental for large
gatherings
Fishing sites along the river
1.6-miles of walking trails throughout the park
6 rental 16 and 20-foot yurts (1 ADA accessible) with heat,
electricity, and fire pits
14 rental campsites with water and firepits
Picnic tables
3 picnic shelters with water and electricity
4 Twin Rivers Park 50.0
This regional park is located north across the Stillaguamish River
from Arlington at 8003 SR-530 NE near the confluence of the North
and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River. The County contracted
Arlington to maintain and operate the park until 2019 when
Arlington transferred maintenance and operations back to County.
Woodlands and riparian habitat along the river
Open meadows and fields
Picnic tables
Disc golf course sponsored by Arlington Rotary
3 grass unlighted 250-foot softball fields
Multipurpose grass unlighted field – 6 soccer
Soccer fields
Restrooms and Sani cans
Total acres 256.9
Snohomish County Trails Miles
1 Centennial Trail (county portion) 30.0
This regional hiking, biking, and horse trail is located on the
former Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad track
corridor between Snohomish and Skagit County line. Trail
construction began during Washington State’s Centennial and was
so named accordingly. The 1890’s Machias Station railroad depot
was replicated and serves as a trailhead and rental facility in
Machias.
10-foot-wide multipurpose paved trail suitable for skating,
skateboarding/longboarding
6-foot-wide natural surface parallel horse trail in most areas
Converted trail/railroad bridge over the Stillaguamish River
Picnic tables and benches
Picnic shelters at Machias Trailhead
Restrooms
Trailheads at:
CT North Trailhead at 32328 SR-9 Nakashima Barn in Arlington
Bryant Trailhead at SR-9 and Stanwood Bryant Road in
Arlington
Haller Park Trailhead at 110 West Avenue in Arlington
Legion Park Trailhead at 114 North Olympic in Arlington
Armar Road Trailhead at 15333 67th Avenue NE in Arlington
Getchell Trailhead at 8318 Westlund Road in Arlington
Lake Cassidy Trailhead at 6216 105th Avenue NE in Lake
Stevens
Rhododendron Trailhead at 10911 54th Place NE in Lake
Stevens
SR-92 Overpass Trailhead at 3651 127th Avenue NE in Lake
Stevens
20th Street Trailhead at 13205 20th Street in Lake Stevens
Machias Park Trailhead at 1624 Virginia Street in Snohomish
Pilchuck Trailhead at 5801 South Machias Road in Snohomish
Arlington PRMP B-7
2 Whitehorse Trail 27.0
This regional hiking, biking, and horse trail is located on the
former Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad track
corridor between Arlington and Darrington through the
Stillaguamish River Valley. The trail originates with a junction with
the Centennial Regional Trail in Arlington then parallels SR-530 and
the North Fork Stillaguamish River through the backcountry
corridor. Current closures between the Centennial Trail and Trafton
Trailhead, and 435th Avenue NE near Darrington due to landslides
and river washouts.
Trafton Trailhead Park at 115th Avenue NE near the red barn
and blue silo
Miller Shingle Trailhead at 21021 SR-530 with equestrian
parking
C-Post Road Trailhead at 29415 SR-530
Hazel Hole Trailhead at Mile Post 38.8 SR-530
Fortson Mill Trailhead at Fortson Mill Road
Darrington Price Street Trailhead
Total miles 57.0
Snohomish County open spaces Acres
This open space is located along the Centennial Trail south
between 162nd Street NE and 67th Avenue NE.
Open field
2 North County Wildlife Area Park 47.8
This wildlife conservancy is located along the Centennial Trail
south of 155th Street NE. The heavily wooded undeveloped site is
bordered on the south by an unnamed creek that drains westward
into Marysville’s Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex.
Woodland habitat
Riparian habitat along unnamed creek
Walk-in access from the Armar Trailhead to Centennial Trail
3 Portage Creek Wildlife Area 187.4
This wildlife conservancy is located in Arlington Bluff at 20802
59th Avenue NE on the property previously owned by Gene Ammon
for a peat farm. Ammon restored the wetlands in the peat-mined
areas and enhanced the extensive field and wetland habitat for
deer, hawks, beaver, raccoons, mink, amphibians, and other small
animals and waterfowl. He referred to the site as Amen’s Wildlife
Sanctuary and hosted the public until 1995 when the County
acquired the property with Conservation Futures funds. The
County acquired an adjacent 137.0-acre dairy farm on the north
My and Portage Creeks riparian habitat
Wetland and meadow trail network around and through site
Interpretive shelter
Picnic tables
Portable restrooms
Parking access from 59th Avenue NE on the northeast boundary
Total acres 235.2
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources
This timber trust property is located across SR-9 south of 158th
Street NE.
Heavily wooded parcels on both sides of SR-9
Total acres 238.2
Arlington School District
Arlington Schools Acres
1 Eagle Creek Elementary School 8.4
This elementary school is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 1216 E 5th Street adjacent to Post Middle School.
Games on asphalt
1 small playground
1 large playground
Covered play shed
Grass baseball field with backstop
Grass soccer field with standards
Multipurpose hall
2 Kent Prairie Elementary School 5.4
8110 - 207th Street NE.
Games on asphalt
2 playgrounds
Covered play shed
Basketball court
Grass baseball field with backstop
Multipurpose hall
B-8 Arlington PRMP
3 Pioneer Elementary School 3.3
This elementary school is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 8213
Eaglefield Drive.
Games on asphalt
Playground
Rectangular grass soccer field with 2 baseball diamonds with
backstops and bleachers at the corners
Multipurpose hall
4 Presidents Elementary School 6.5
This elementary school is located in the Old Town Residential
Subarea at 505 East 3rd Street.
Games on asphalt
2 playgrounds
Rectangular grass soccer field with baseball backstop in corner
Multipurpose hall
5 Haller Middle School 11.0
at 600 East 1st Street.
Games on asphalt
Basketball court
Rectangular grass soccer filed with 2 baseball diamonds with
backstops and bleachers in the corners
Grass lighted football field with bleachers
Dirt surface track and field
Gymnasium
6 Post Middle School 8.2
This middle school is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
at 1220 East 5th Street.
Grass baseball field with backstop
Grass multiuse soccer field with standards
Rubber surface track and grass field
Gymnasium
7 Arlington High School 16.5
Ridge Blvd.
8 tennis courts
2 rectangular grass soccer fields
2 batting cages
1 grass 200-foot softball field with backstops and bleachers
1 grass 200-foot baseball field with backstops and bleachers
1 grass 250-foot baseball field with backstop and bleachers
1 grass 300-foot baseball field with backstop and bleachers
1 turf football field with lights and stadium
1 rubber surface 8-lane field track
Gymnasium with bleachers
8 Weston High School 16.5
This alternative school is located in the MIC Subarea at 4407 -
172nd Street NE.
Grass area
9 Stillaguamish Valley Learning Center 16.5
at 1215 East 5th Street.
Playground
Total acres 69.8
Arlington School District open space Acres
1 Post Middle School Open Space 58.4
Residential Subarea adjacent and east of Post Middle School and
adjacent to the south boundary of Country Charm Park.
Wooded riparian habitat along South Fork Stillaguamish River
Open fields
2 Pioneer School Environmental Area 17.3
at 8213 Eaglefield Drive adjoining Pioneer Elementary School.
Extensive woodlands
Wetlands
Nature trails and exhibits
Total acres 75.7
Marysville School District
This school property is located at 152nd Street NE and 51st Avenue
NE south of Arlington city limits.
Small rectangular grass field divided into 2 junior soccer
Large rectangular grass field divided into 2 full size or multiple
smaller size soccer
Total acres 34.4
Arlington PRMP B-9
B-10 Arlington PRMP
Homeowner Associations (HOA) Parks
HOA miniparks Acres
1 Aspen Wood Meadows 0.25
Place NE.
Path
Picnic table
Playground
Sport court - basketball
2 Brickwood 1.87
181st Street NE on the north boundary of J Rudy York Memorial
Park.
Paved trail to Smokey Point Boulevard
Sport court - basketball
3 Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 1 2.48
This minipark is located in the Hilltop Subarea off 172nd Avenue
NE.
Wooded open space
2 tennis courts
4 Crossing at Edgecomb Creek 2 0.29
Paved trail
Playground
5 Crown Ridge 3 3.55
Crown Ridge Boulevard under the powerlines.
Dirt paths
2 benches
Playground
Sport court - basketball
6 Crown Ridge 1 3.93
This minipark is located in the Hilltop Subarea between Valley View
Drive and Crown Ridge Boulevard.
Paved trail
4 benches
6 picnic tables
7 Gleneagle – Whitehawk Tot Lot 0.09
Playground
8 Heartland 0.56
46th Drive NE and 45th Avenue NE. The miniparks are part of a
larger 37.17-acre property that extends east of the housing
development on 45th Drive NE and below the bluff into farmland.
Playground north end of 46th Drive NE
Playground south end of 46th Drive NE
Wooded lot between 45th Drive NE and 191st Place NE
9 High Clover Division 2 6.73
These open spaces are located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea along
High Clover Boulevard from 45th Avenue NE to 48th Avenue NE.
Open grass areas
2 picnic tables
Basketball court
10 Point Riley 0.26
This minipark is located in the West Arlington Subarea at the end of
184th Place NE.
Sport court - basketball
11 Smokey Point Meadows 0.80
Avenue NE below 176th Place NE.
Access path
Playground
Arlington PRMP B-11
B-12 Arlington PRMP
12 Sweetwater 1.32
This minipark is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea on 206th
Place NE.
Woodland
Access paths
Playground
13 Trellis Court 0.14
Place NE.
Grass area
2 benches
Tetherball court
Total acres 22.27
HOA open spaces Acres
14 Bovee Acres 0.56
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea on the corner of
Bovee Lane and 67th Avenue NE.
Grass lot
15 Carola Addition 0.49
This open space is located in the West Arlington Subarea with
access from 34th Drive NE to 180th Street NE.
Grass corridor
16 Claridge Court 0.13
Tracts 996, 997, and 995 off 189th Place NE, 43rd Drive NE, and
44th Avenue NE.
Grass lots
17 Country Manor 1 6.93
perimeter open space from 168th Place NE to 165th Place NE.
Natural open space perimeter
18 Country Manor 2 0.09
perimeter open space around 42nd Avenue NE.
Natural open space perimeter
19 Crown Ridge 5A 0.31
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea from Crown Ridge
Boulevard North.
Woodland corridor
20 Crown Ridge 5B 13.80
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea between Crown
Ridge Boulevard and SR-9 south of Vista Drive and adjacent to
Arlington High School.
Natural perimeter
Wetland
Stormwater pond
21 Dogwood Meadows / Magnolia
Meadows
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea at the end of 81st
Drive NE adjacent to Middle Fork Quilceda Creek
Natural Perimeter
Wetland
Stormwater Pond
22 Eagle Creek Place 2.11
This open space is located in the Old Town Residential Subarea
between the powerlines and houses located along 87th Avenue NE
adjoining the south boundary of Eagle Creek Elementary School.
Wooded corridor on the west
Open grass area adjacent to 87th Avenue NE
23 Eagle Heights 1 5.61
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea between
179th Place NE and 176th Place NE adjoining SR-9.
Woodland corridor
Stormwater pond at the end of 175th Street NE
24 Eagle Heights 2 2.71
NE south across 172nd Place NE to 172nd Street NE.
Wooded corridor
25 Gleneagle Division Phase 1 4.67
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea extending south
from Gleneagle Golf Course across West Country Club Drive
adjoining Wedgewood Park south across Gleneagle Boulevard to
Condor Drive.
Wooded corridor
Stormwater pond
26 Gleneagle Division Phase 3 0.84
Troon Court.
Stormwater retention pond
Arlington PRMP B-13
27 Gleneagle Sector 3B 0.27
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea at the corner of
Inverness Drive and Ballantrae Drive adjoining the powerlines and
paved trail to Gleneagle Golf Course.
Dirt path access
28 Gregory Park 10.31
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea between SR-9 and
89th Avenue NE.
Woodland
Stormwater retention pond
29 High Clover 10.12
perimeter open space extending from High Clover Park north above
Portage Creek Wildlife Area to 200th Street NE.
Woodland corridor
30 Highland View Estates 0.61
of Hillside Court.
Wooded lot
31 Kona Crest 3.15
between Joann Lane and BNSF Railroad tracks along SR-9.
Wooded corridor
32 Magnolia Estates 2.24
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea off 79th Avenue
NE/172nd Place NE and 172nd Street NE/SR-530.
Grass open area
Fences and alley access
2 parking stalls
33 Meadowbrook 8.04
This open space is located in South Fork Subarea under powerlines
around the housing cluster on 89th Avenue NE off Tveit Road.
Woodlands
Grass area under powerlines
34 River Crest Estates 1.01
This open space is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea off 206th
Street NE providing access to Portage Creek Wildlife Area.
Wooded corridor
Access trail
35 Smokey Point 1.20
interior of Smokey Point Drive behind Smokey Point Transit Center.
Wooded area
36 Stoneway 0.27
end of 174th Place NE.
Woodland
37 Terah/Marie 3.37
Drive NE and 195th Place NE.
Woodland
38 The Bluff at Arlington Condo 3.21
This open space is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea on Circle
Bluff Drive bordering the Portage Creek Wildlife Area.
Woodland
39 The Colony Division – Rosecreek 1 5.92
Street NE under the powerlines.
Grass area under powerlines
40 The Colony Division – Twin Ponds 9.96
Stillaguamish Avenue north of 207th Street NE.
2 large wetland ponds
41 The Colony Division – Rosecreek 2 6.09
This open space is located in the Kent Prairie Subarea under the
powerlines off Tveit Road.
Grass area under powerlines
42 Woodlands Sector 12.51
Way, Woodbine Drive, and Silverleaf Place.
Woodland corridors
43 Walnut Ridge 0.83
This open space is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea off 45th
Drive NE north of 191st Place NE.
Woodland area
44 Wedgewood at Gleneagle 1.69
This open space is located in the Hilltop Subarea at the corner of
Gleneagle Boulevard and 172nd Street NE/SR-531.
Natural open space perimeter
45 Whispering Breezes 0.61
interior lot off 35th Avenue NE north of 186th Place NE.
Woodland
Grass area
Total acres 121.49
B-14 Arlington PRMP
Private/nonprofit parks
Private parks and facilities Acres
1 Gleneagle Golf Course 138.2
This private facility is located in the Hilltop Subarea at 7619
Country Club Lane. Gleneagle Golf Course was developed and
opened in 1993.
18-hole, par 70, 6,150 yards with 5 tees per hold
Driving range
Pitching/chipping area
Putting green
Pro shop
Family restaurant bar and grill
2 Stilly Valley Pioneer Park 6.7
20722 67th Ave NE. The site includes the 4 buildings of the
Stillaguamish Pioneer Historical Museum.
2 large wetland ponds
Wooded areas
Path and footbridge access and viewpoints of ponds
Total acres 144,9
Private/nonprofit facilities
Private facilities Sq ft
1 Arlington Boys & Girls Club 28,286
This nonprofit facility is located in the MIC Subarea at 18513 59th
Avenue NE in Bill Quake Memorial Park. The club facility was
developed with a long lease agreement with the city in 1992. The
club operates an extension site at Presidents Elementary School.
The club provides a large variety of games, activities, educational
programs, and sports throughout the year for kids in K-12th grade.
Before and after school care
Sports, day, and summer camps
Class and meeting rooms
Social activity areas
Teen Center
Gymnasium with basketball court
2 Byrnes Performing Arts Center 22,444
located in the Hilltop Subarea at 18821 Crown Ridge Blvd adjoining
Arlington High School. The facilities, which are available for rent
include:
Proscenium opening 40 feet wide, and 17 feet, 7 inches high
Stage depth is 34 feet and width 80 feet
Orchestra pit is 7 feet from the front edge to apron edge
Rigging includes 27 single pipe battens, 4 double, 2 side
curtain tabs, 6 side light ladders, and 3 overhead shells
Video projection screen is 15 feet, 8 inches
Dressing rooms for men and women
Greenroom area
3 Stillaguamish Pioneer Historical
Museum
23,643
This nonprofit facility is located in the Arlington Bluff Subarea at
20722 67th Ave NE. The complex includes a 6.72-acre site with
wetlands and 4 buildings including:
Welcome Center pole building with carved totems of 783 sf
Old Pioneer Hall of 3,060 sf
3-story museum of 15,300 sf
Storage building of 4,500
4 Stillaguamish Athletic Club 27,176
This private facility is located in the MIC Subarea at 4417 172nd St
NE on city leased land. The membership facility provides aerobic
classes, personal training, specialty group training, and swimming
classes.
Aerobics equipment and training rooms with mats
Lap pool, hot tub, and dry sauna
Social activity area
Arlington PRMP B-15
B-16 Arlington PRMP
5 Stilly Valley Center 25,858
This nonprofit senior center is located in the West Arlington
Subarea at 18308 Smokey Point Boulevard. The 16,738 square foot
senior center complex of buildings provides activities, classes,
entertainment, health and social, and caretaker services as well as
housing referrals for senior and low-income households. A separate
9,120 square foot thrift shop is located 2 lots south of the center.
Main hall, side rooms, arts and crafts, conference, and
commercial kitchen rentals for maximum 250 seating capacity
6 Stilly Valley Health Connections 2,000
in the West Arlington Subarea at 3405 173rd Place NE. The district
provides mental health, health and wellness, drug and alcohol
awareness and abuse prevention reservices to the residents of
Arlington and Darrington.
Birch Room
Classroom and meeting areas
Total square footage 129,407
Inventory implications
Arlington, Marysville, Snohomish County, Arlington and
Marysville School Districts, Homeowner Associations (HOA), and
other public and private agencies have amassed an impressive
amount of acreage - that includes every conceivable kind of
parkland within or directly adjacent to Arlington city limits
including nature conservancies, wildlife corridors and habitats,
trail systems, athletic sites, and indoor facilities.
Almost every kind of park, recreation, and open space
activity - is presently provided by these public and private
agencies combined within or directly adjacent to Arlington city
limits including picnicking, hiking and multipurpose trails, youth
and adult recreational courts and fields, indoor swimming pool,
community centers, and meeting rooms.
A significant portion of the inventory are regional facilities -
that are used by populations who reside inside and outside of
Arlington though the maintenance and operation of these sites has
and is being financed by local agencies.
However, not all of these facilities are available for public
use or jointly scheduled - between the cities, county, school
districts to meet city, school, and league requirements. Interlocal
agreements need to resolve equitable allocations with all potential
users. The agreements could share use, operation, maintenance,
and development funds.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-1
Appendix E: Land and facility demand
Park, recreation, and open space land and facility demands can be
estimated using population ratios, participation models, level-of-
service (LOS) measurements, and/or questionnaire survey
methodologies.
Ratios
The demand for park, recreation, and open space land can be
estimated using a ratio of a required facility to a standard unit of
population, such as 3.1 acres of athletic fields and playgrounds per
1,000 residents. The ratio method is relatively simple to compute
and can be compared with national or local park, recreation, and
open space measurements.
However, the method cannot account for unique age, social or
interest characteristics that may affect the park, recreation, and
open space activity patterns within a specific community. Nor can
the method compensate for unique climatic or environmental
features that may cause seasonal or geographical variations in park,
recreation, and open space use patterns.
The ratio method is frequently used to estimate land requirements.
However, a number of factors may significantly influence the
amount of land a community may wish to set aside for park,
recreation, and open space purposes. Such factors may include the
presence of sensitive environments, scenic viewpoints, historical or
cultural assets, trailheads, and other features that may increase
land set-asides along a non-motorized transportation or trail
corridor.
The National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) compiles data on
the amount of land and facilities that have developed over time by
major parks, recreation, and open space departments across the
country. Depending on the agency arrangements within the
participating cities, the ratios may or may not include the lands and
facilities that are provided by all public sponsors including city,
school, county, state, federal agencies, and private operators within
each measuring jurisdiction.
Note - the NRPA began publishing a comprehensive list of ratios in
1985 that have subsequently been updated and qualified to account
for local methodologies in the years since. NRPA’s most recent data
has been published in the 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review.
The 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review was collected from
1,075 unique park and recreation agencies across the US based on
reports between 2016 and 2018 and is published with medians
along with data responses at the lower-quartile (lowest 25%) and
upper-quartile (highest 25%). The NRPA Park Metrics (formerly
PRORAGIS) report compiles survey data for type, size, geography,
and other agency characteristics.
The benchmarks used here are based on the NRPA Park Metrics
results for agencies serving populations of 15,000-25,000 and the
median responses to the 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review
when Park Metrics data is not available.
Note - the ratios are based on parks properties and facilities
owned by cities and not on a composite ratio that may include
other public, nonprofit, and private or school district facilities
available for public use.
Participation models
Park, recreation, and open space facility requirements can also be
determined using variations of participation models – refined,
statistical variations of a questionnaire or survey method of
determining recreational behavior.
Participation models are usually compiled using activity diaries,
where a person or household records their participation in specific
recreational activities over a measurable period. The diary results
are compiled to create a statistical profile that can be used to
project the park, recreation, and open space behavior of
comparable persons, households, or populations.
Participation models are most accurate when the participation
measurements are determined for a population and area that is
local and similar enough to the population that is to be projected by
the model. The most accurate participation models are usually
controlled for climatic region and age, and periodically updated to
measure changes in recreational behavior in activities or areas over
time.
Properly done, participation models can be perfectly accurate
predictors of an area's facility requirements in terms that are
specific and measurable. However, though accurate, participation
models can be somewhat abstract, and if not combined with other
Exhibit F
E-2 Arlington PRMP Plan
methods of gathering public opinion, can fail to determine
qualitative issues of an area's demands in addition to a facility's
quantitative requirements.
For example, an area might provide the exact facility quantities that
are required to meet the resident population’s park, recreation, and
open space demands, such as a mile of walking trail. However, the
facility might not be provided with the proper destination, in a
quality or safe corridor, or other important, but less measurable
aspect that makes the facility quantity effective and the activity a
pleasurable experience. The walking trail, for example, might be
located in an area of uninteresting scenery and/or in an
inaccessible location.
This planning effort utilizes the results of the Washington State
Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO) surveys for 6 age groups
(male and female) for the northeast region of the state (east of the
Cascade Mountains) that were accomplished in 2001, 2006, and
2012.
The estimates were developed for each activity demand for the
peak season periods that would most impact facility capacities and
thereby the level of service to residents. The estimated demands
were converted into facility units based on assumed high capacity
and turnover rates common to most urban areas of the state. The
projected facility unit requirements were then converted into a
simple facility unit per 1,000 resident’s ratio to allow comparison
with similar ratios developed by the NRPA and found to be the
existing facility level-of-service (ELOS) for each activity.
Note - participation models can account for facility capacity ratios
that may be expressed through management policies or local
population preferences concerning volume of use or the degree of
crowding that is satisfactory. However, the model cannot account
for all Proposed variations in crowding or volume of use that may
vary over the length of a trail, season, or by a different user
population at the same time. Nor can the model account for
communities that may be impacted by tourists or regional users
from outside the modeling area.
Existing and Proposed level-of-service (ELOS/PLOS)
Facility requirements may also be determined by expressing the
supply of existing park, recreation, and open space land and
facilities as a ratio to the resident existing population (as a unit
ratio per 1,000 persons).
The existing level-of-service (ELOS) condition or ratio can define an
existing standard for each type of park, recreation, and open space
provided within the existing inventory. ELOS ratios can be
calculated for specialized types of activities for which there are no
comparable national or state definitions.
Ultimately, department staff with public assistance through
telephone or mailed or internet questionnaires can develop
Proposed level-of-service (PLOS) ratios for a specific type of facility
by determining the quantity that is surplus or deficient in quantity
or condition within the existing inventory.
For example, the existing supply of beach trails in a jurisdiction of
10,000 persons may be 20 miles, or an existing level-of-service
(ELOS) standard of 2.00 miles per 1,000 persons or population. The
public may determine, however, that under present conditions the
existing trails are overcrowded and located in areas that are of little
interest for beach walking purposes.
Ideally, the public would like to add 10 more miles to the existing
inventory in order to reduce crowding and provide access to more
interesting sites. The proposal would increase the overall supply to
30 miles and the Proposed level-of-service (PLOS) standard to 3.00
miles per 1,000 persons.
Note – this plan compares all 3 methodologies. However, the plan
considers the ELOS/PLOS comparison approach to be the most
accurate method of resolving final level-of-service requirements
since it can account for impacts of:
Out-of-area tourist and regional users,
Combined public and private facility inventories,
Unique environmental or market area dynamics, and
Other variables not proposed to quantify in a participation
model or ratio.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-3
Land requirements
Total park land
The RCO does not have a benchmark for park, recreation, and open
space land. According to National Recreation & Park Association
(NRPA) 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review agencies serving
populations of 15,000-25,000 provided a median of 12.6 acres per
1,000 persons in the population that gradually declined as the
population increased up to 250,000.
Acres 172.9 1,349.8 1,350.8
* All proposed identifies 2050 requirements including additional land or
facilities that are recommended to be added and the level-of-service per
1,000 persons that will result from the addition and the projected
population increase over the next 20-year planning period. The level-of-
service ratio will decline due to additional population increase (13,784
persons in the city by 2050) if no additional land or facilities are
recommended.
** Ratio is expressed per 1,000 residents within Arlington (year 2020 city
population of 22,800) under Arlington and for all public and private
facilities under “All total” and “Recommended additional” standard.
By comparison, Arlington owns 172.9 acres of parkland or a ratio of
7.58 city park acres per 1,000 residents and the city, county, school
districts, state, and HOAs own 1,349.8 acres or 59.20 acres per
1,000 city residents.
Select acquisitions of additional parkland to be described in
following pages, may provide another 1.0 city park acres equal to a
ratio of 36.92 of all park acres per 1,000 city residents by the year
2050.
The existing supply of park land is sufficient if all sites were
developed to capacity. Therefore, the resulting standard should be
sufficient to provide equal park distribution for local needs and to
conserve important regional attributes in the city for the reasons
listed in the following descriptions considering the amount of land
provided in or near the city by other public agencies.
Resource conservancies
Open space preservation or resource conservancies are designed to
protect and manage a natural and/or cultural feature, environment,
or facility - such as a wetland or unique habitat, a natural landmark,
or a unique cultural setting. Resource conservancies are defined by
areas of natural quality for nature-oriented outdoor recreation, such
as viewing and studying nature, wildlife habitat, and conservation.
Open space preservations or resource conservancies should be
located to encompass diverse or unique natural resources, such as
lakes, streams, marshes, flora, fauna, and topography. Recreational
use may be a secondary, non-intrusive part of the property - such
as an interpretative trail, viewpoint, exhibit signage, picnic area or
other feature.
In practice, there aren’t minimum or maximum benchmarks
concerning conservancies - a site should provide whatever is
necessary to protect the resource.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Acres 62.4 821.9 821.9
Arlington presently provides 62.4 acres of open space and resource
conservancies or a ratio of 2.74 acres per 1,000 residents and the
city, county, state, school districts, and HOAs provide 821.9 acres
or a ratio of 36.05 acres per 1,0000 city residents.
The ratio includes portions of the city’s Country Charm, Stormwater
Wetland, 67th Avenue, Crown Ridge 5, Old Burn Road, and Portage
Creek Parks as well as parks and open spaces owned by the City of
Marysville, Snohomish County, Washington State DNR, Arlington
School District, and HOAs.
While the present supply (existing level-of-service (ELOS) standard)
does not need to be increased through purchase, the city’s critical
areas ordinance should continue to protect these important
resource conservancies and if necessary, acquire development
rights if portions of these private landholdings are in jeopardy of
development or to provide public access for Proposed wildlife
habitat and trail corridors.
Sites that merit consideration for acquisition if necessary to
conserve riparian habitat, wetlands, ponds, streams, and wooded
hillsides include Portage Creek, March Creek, and the Middle Fork
Quilceda Creek corridors.
E-4 Arlington PRMP Plan
Resource activities
Resource activities are defined by areas of natural or ornamental
quality for outdoor recreation such as picnicking, boating, fishing,
swimming, camping, and local parks trail uses. The site may also
include play areas, such as playgrounds and open grassy play fields
if these areas support the primary outdoor recreational features.
The site should be contiguous to or encompassing natural resources
including resource conservancies.
In practice, there aren’t minimum or maximum benchmarks
concerning conservancies - a site should provide whatever is
necessary to protect the resource.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Acres 62.4 319.3 319.3
Arlington presently provides 62.4 acres of resource active parks or
a ratio of 2.74 parks per 1,000 residents and the county, state, and
HOAs provide 319.3 acres or 14.00 acres per 1,000 city residents.
The ratio includes portions of the city’s Country Charm, Haller, and
Stormwater Wetland Parks as well as parks owned by Snohomish
County.
The existing supply is adequate even as the standard declines to
8.73 acres per 1,000 city residents if these sites are developed to
provide resource activities of interest and suitable to each property.
Linear trails
Linear trails are built or natural corridors, such as abandoned or
surplus railroad lines, undeveloped road-rights-of-way, and active
utility rights-of-way or natural areas defined by drainage features,
topographical changes, wooded areas, or vegetation patterns that
can link schools, libraries, or commercial areas with parks.
Generally, linear trails may be developed for multiple modes of
recreational travel such as hiking, biking or horseback riding. The
trail system may parallel established vehicular or other
transportation systems, but apart from and usually within a
separate right-of-way. Linear trail corridors may also include active
play areas or trailhead development located in other types of
parkland.
Trail systems should be anchored by public facilities, like a school
or park that may serve as a destination or trailhead and extend into
the surrounding residential areas using natural features or
established roads, sidewalks, or other safe travel corridors.
Ideally, a minimum trail system should be at least 3-5 miles long
and provide the ability to loop back to the point of origin. The trail
should be sufficiently wide enough to provide for the type of trail
user(s) that it is accommodating, preserve the features through
which the trail is traveling, and buffer adjacent land use activities.
In practice, there aren’t benchmarks concerning linear trails. An
agency should provide as many miles as proposed considering the
trail opportunities a city’s geography provides.
Arlington presently provides 8.5 dedicated acres of linear trail
corridor or a ratio of 0.37 acres per 1,000 residents consisting of
the city’s portion of the Centennial Trail, Airport Trail, and an
extensive system of trails in resource parks that are not counted as
separate acreages. Arlington and Snohomish County provide 287.6
acres including the county portion of the Centennial and
Whitehorse Trails or a ratio of 12.61 acres per 1,000 residents.
Arlington has considerable and sufficient trail acreage resources
were these trail segments as well as the individual resource park
trails integrated into a citywide network of on and off-road trails
through existing parks and city rights-of-way even as the ratio
declines to 7.86 acres per 1,000 residents.
Playgrounds and athletic fields
Athletic fields and playgrounds are designed for intense
recreational activities like field and court games, playground
apparatus areas, picnicking, wading pools, and the like. A suitable
athletic field and playground site should be capable of sustaining
intense recreational development. The site should be easily
accessible to the using population and ideally should be linked to
the surrounding area by walking and biking trails and paths.
Typically, athletic fields and playgrounds may be included within
or jointly developed in association with an elementary, middle, or
high school facility.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-5
The desired service area for an athletic field or playground complex
depends on the competitive quality to which the facility is
developed and the resident using population that the site is
intended to serve. Regionally oriented athletic sites may include 4
or more competitive, high-quality soccer, baseball or softball fields
serving organized leagues drawn from surrounding communities or
areas - which may include the approximate service area for a high
school.
Local (community or neighborhood) oriented athletic fields and
playgrounds may consist primarily of a playground and a grassy
play area, possibly including 1 or more practice or non-regulation
athletic fields. Local athletic fields and playgrounds serve residents
of an immediately surrounding residential area from a quarter to
half-mile radius - the service area for an elementary school.
In practice, there aren’t minimum or maximum benchmarks
concerning athletic fields and playgrounds. An agency should
provide sufficient playgrounds within a 0.5-mile walking distance
of most residents and athletic fields to accommodate most league
activities of local, younger age residents.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Arlington presently provides 23.5 acres or a ratio of 1.03 acres per
1,000 residents of playgrounds and athletic fields. All agencies
combined including the city, school district, and HOAs provide
222.0 acres or 9.74 acres per 1,000 city residents.
The city’s playground and athletic assets include Bill Quake
Memorial, Forest Trail, Haller, J Rudy York, Jensen, Smokey Point,
Terrace, Waldo E Evans Memorial, Wedgewood, and Woodway Parks
as well as the facilities located on the city of Marysville, Marysville,
and Arlington School Districts.
Generally, the existing picnic, playground, sports court, and field
sites are evenly distributed within a 5 or 10-minute walk of all
residential neighborhoods and if maintained and developed to
capacity will be able to sustain the future population even as the
ratio declines to 6.07 acres per 1,000 city residents.
Recreation centers/pools
Recreation centers and pools are indoor and outdoor facilities
providing swimming pools, physical conditioning, gymnasiums,
arts and crafts, classrooms, meeting rooms, kitchen facilities, and
other spaces to support public recreation programs for school-age
children (but not students), teens, senior, and other resident
populations on a full-time basis. For the purposes of this PRMP Plan,
recreation centers and pools are defined to include all city, county,
school-owned, non-profit, and private facilities that are available
for public use.
The desired service area for a recreation center/pool depends on
the extent of the recreational program services to be offered in the
facility and the building's potential size and site relationships.
Community oriented recreation centers may include a variety of
competitive swimming pools, gymnasiums, or courts along with/or
in place of a series of public classroom and meeting facilities, a
teen and/or senior center and/or a daycare facility providing indoor
building space.
And/or a community-oriented recreation center may be jointly sited
with an athletic park or playground, or in association with a library,
civic center, or other public meeting facility. Community oriented
recreation centers may be jointly shared with school districts or a
part of other city or county building complexes that serve a city or
larger surrounding community area.
Local recreation centers may consist primarily of a single facility
use - like a classroom or gymnasium complex and/or that may be
sited as a lone building oriented to a single user group - like a teen
or senior center. Local recreation centers serve residents of an
immediately surrounding residential area from a quarter to half-
mile radius - which is the approximate service area for an
elementary school.
In practice, there aren’t minimum or maximum benchmarks
concerning recreation and community center acreages. An agency
should provide sufficient land considering the availability of other
public, nonprofit, and private facilities within the local area.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
E-6 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington does not presently provide any indoor recreation facilities
though the city leases a portion of Bill Quake Memorial Park to the
Arlington Boys & Girls Club for a recreation center or 6.5 acres or
0.29 acres per 1,000 city residents.
Other nonprofit agencies, including the Byrnes Performing Arts
Center, Stillaguamish Pioneer Historical Museum, Stilly Valley
Center, and Still Valley Health Connections as well as private
operators including the Stillaguamish Athletic Club and Gleneagle
Golf Course own and operate a variety of indoor meeting,
performing, and classroom-oriented facilities.
The existing level of service would likely exceed recreation center
objectives were the inventory to include indoor space provided by
Arlington School District. However, school facilities are not
available for use during school hours to meet the needs of seniors,
parents, or pre-school children and the private clubs do not provide
facilities for low-income participants.
The city proposes to possibly develop 1.0 acres for a community
center that could include meeting and classroom facilities for day
use activities and will be sufficient to meet all future needs even as
the ratio declines to 0.21 acres per 1,000 city residents.
Special use facilities
Special use facilities are single-purpose recreational activities like
arboreta, display gardens, nature centers, golf courses, marinas,
zoos, conservatories, arenas, outdoor theaters, and gun and archery
ranges. Special use facilities may include areas that preserve,
maintain, and interpret buildings, sites, and other objects of
historical or cultural significance, like museums, historical
landmarks, and structures. Special use areas may also include
public plazas or squares or commons in or near commercial centers
or public buildings.
There aren’t benchmarks concerning the development of special use
facilities - demand being defined by opportunity more than a ratio.
Nor are there minimum or maximum facility or site sizes - size
being a function of the facility rather than a separately established
design standard.
Acres 2.5 2.5 2.5
/1,000 Na Na 0.11 0.11 0.07
Arlington provides 2.5 acres or a ratio of 0.11 acres per 1,000 city
residents consisting of Centennial, Lebanon, and Legion Parks.
Arlington does not plan to provide any additional special use
facilities other than proposed improvements to existing park sites
such as Terrace and J Rudy York Parks which should be sufficient to
meet future needs.
Support facilities
Support facilities include administrative office space, indoor
meeting rooms, shop and equipment maintenance yards, plant
nurseries, and other buildings and sites necessary to service the
park system that are located outside of park properties.
There aren’t benchmarks concerning the development of support
use facilities - demand being defined by functional operating
requirements more than a ratio. Nor are there minimum or
maximum facility or site sizes - size being a function of the type of
facility space required and whether the facility space is shared with
other jurisdiction support functions rather than a separately
established design standard.
Arlington provides 7.1 acres of support facilities or 0.31 acres per
1,000 residents of supporting facilities including the Public Works
facility located next to Haller Park and the City Maintenance Yard
located in the MIC Subarea – park administrative offices are in
Arlington City Hall. The current acreage is sufficient to meet
current and projected needs.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-7
Facility requirements
Number of parks
The RCO does not have a benchmark for the number of parks that
should be provided per 1,000 residents. According to National
Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2020 NRPA Agency
Performance Review agencies serving populations under 20,000
provided a 1 park per 1,300 residents or 0.77 parks per 1,000
persons.
/1,000 0.77 Na 0.66 1.49 0.96
Arlington currently provides 15 parks including resource
conservation sites, resource, linear trails, athletic fields and
playgrounds, recreation and community centers, special uses, and
maintenance facilities or a ratio of 0.66 parks per 1,000 city
residents. The city, Marysville, Marysville School District, county,
and HOAs provide a total of 34 parks or 1.49 parks per 1,000 city
residents
The plan could add 1 more park site for a community center that
will provide geographic distribution of local parks within a 5 and
10-minute walking distance of all residential neighborhoods within
the city and UGA that will realize a ratio of 0.96 parks per 1,000 city
residents which is more than sufficient to meet future needs.
Community gardens
There is no behavioral data with which the participation model can
project community garden or pea patch requirements – meaning
specific areas set aside for the planting of ornamental and
vegetable plots.
According to the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA)
2020 Agency Performance Review agencies serving populations
under 20,000 provided a community garden per 7,914 residents or
0.13 garden sites per 1,000 persons in the population.
Arlington currently provides Third Street Community Garden at
Presidents Elementary School or a ratio of 0.04 per 1,000 city
residents.
The plan proposes to provide 2 additional city sponsored
community garden plots at High Clover and County Charm Parks or
a ratio of 0.08 gardens per 1,000 residents by 2040 which should be
sufficient.
Waterfront access
There is no behavioral data with which the participation model can
project waterfront access requirements – meaning shoreline access
for fishing and swimming purposes. The NRPA does not have a
benchmark for waterfront access.
/1,000 Na Na 0.13 0.31 0.19
Arlington provides waterfront access at 3 sites or 0.13 sites per
1,000 residents including Country Charm, Haller, and Stormwater
Wetland Parks. The city, county, and school district provide 7 sites
at Gissberg Twin, River Meadows, Twin Rivers Parks, and Post
Middle School Open Space or 0.31 sites per 1,000 city residents.
The current available sites provide adequate access to the
waterfronts if each site were developed to capacity even though the
ratio of waterfront sites will decline to 0.19 sites per 1,000
residents by 2040.
Kayaking, canoeing, and rowboat
There are no participation model standards for kayak or canoe
hand-carry launch sites or facilities. The NRPA does not have a
benchmark for kayaking or hand-carry craft launching facilities.
Arlington provides non-motorized or hand-carry craft (kayak,
canoe, or rowboat) access sites at Country Charm, Haller, and
Stormwater Wetland Parks. The city and county provide 5 sites
E-8 Arlington PRMP Plan
including River Meadows and Twin Rivers Parks or 0.22 sites per
1,000 city residents.
The current available sites provide adequate hand carry access to if
each site were developed to capacity even though the ratio of
waterfront sites will decline to 0.14 sites per 1,000 residents by
2040.
Boating
There are no participation model standards for boat launch ramps,
floating platforms or docks, and boat moorage slips. The NRPA does
not have a benchmark for boating facilities.
Arlington provides 1 boat launch ramp at Haller Park or a ratio of
0.04 launch ramps per 1,000 residents. No other agency provides
boat launch ramps on this stretch of the Stillaguamish River.
This should be sufficient if the Haller Park boat launch ramp were
upgraded even though the ratio will decline to 0.03 launch ramps
per 1,000 residents by 2040.
Camping
There are no participation model standards for tent and RV
campsites. The NRPA does not have a benchmark for boating
facilities.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Arlington does not provide campsites though Snohomish County
provides 14 tent campsites and 6 yurts at River Meadows Park or a
ratio of 0.88 campsites per 1,000 residents.
Arlington may develop 12 campsites at County Charm Park for a
total of 32 campsites or a ratio of 0.87 per 1,000 residents by 2040.
Picnic tables and shelters
Participation model projections indicate public agencies should be
providing a ratio of 1.77 picnic tables and benches of all types
(open and under shelters) per every 1,000 residents then gradually
decline to 1.67 as the population ages. The NRPA does not have a
benchmark for picnic facilities.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Arlington presently provides 30 picnic tables and 4 picnic shelters
or a ratio of 1.32 picnic tables and 0.18 picnic shelters per 1,000
residents at Bill Quake Memorial, Forest Trail, Haller, J Rudy
Memorial, Jensen, Legion, Stormwater Wetland, Terrace, and
Wedgewood Parks. The city, Marysville, county, and HOAs provide
59 picnic tables and 8 picnic shelters or a ratio of 2.59 tables and
0.35 shelters per 1,000 residents.
In general, Arlington parks do not provide enough tables and
shelters within a 5 to 10-minute walking distance in a distributed
pattern across the city and UGA.
Consequently, another 12 23 picnic tables and 2 4 picnic shelters
will be provided at Country Charm, and High Clover Park and
Smokey Point Park, along with 40 picnic tables and 1 picnic shelter
at the Food Truck Court for a ratio of 1.943.34 tables and 0.270.36
shelters per 1,000 residents to meet future population growth,
distribute facilities across the city, meet group facility user needs,
and resident interests by 2040.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-9
Park and multipurpose trails
Participation model projections indicate public agencies should be
providing a ratio of 0.15 miles of walking or hiking trails within
existing parks or in a separated multipurpose trail corridor per
every 1,000 city residents. The NRPA does not have a benchmark
for trails per 1,000 residents.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Arlington presently provides 3.7 miles of park trails and 9.2 miles
of multipurpose trails or a ratio of 0.16 miles or park trails and 0.40
miles of multipurpose trails per 1,000 residents including the city’s
portion of Centennial and all the, along with 188th Street
Connector, Eagle/Stormwater Wetland, Kruger Park, River Crest,
Zimmerman Hill Climb, and Airport Trails. All agencies combined
provide 8.0 miles of park trails and 66.2 miles of multipurpose
trails or a ratio of 0.35 miles of park trails and 2.90 miles of
multipurpose trails per 1,000 residents including the rest of the
Centennial and all of Whitehorse Trails.
An additional 22.7 miles of multipurpose trail or a ratio of 2.43
miles per 1,000 residents will be added when the proposed
multipurpose trail network will extend the Airport, Centennial, and
other existing trails to connect with parks, schools, and the
downtown throughout the city by 2040.
Off-leash dog parks
There are no RCO participation model standards for off-leash dog
parks or trails. According to National Recreation & Park Association
(NRPA) 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review all agencies
provided 0.0226 dog parks per 1,000 persons in the population.
/1,000 0.02 Na 0.040.09 0.080.13 0.080.11
Arlington provides a designated off-leash dog park in Stormwater
Wetland Park or a ratio of 0.04 per 1,000 residents. Marysville
provides a dog park in Strawberry Fields Athletic Complex or a ratio
of 0.08 dog parks per 1,000 residents.
Off-leash dog parks are unique facilities reserved exclusively for
pet exercise, training, and social interaction. Generally, such
facilities cannot be shared with other park activities. Off-leash dog
trails may be shared with limited other trail activities if the volumes
are relatively low, and the animals are well trained.
An additional dog park or off-leash area could be in Country Charm
Park and J Rudy York Memorial Parks or a ratio of 0.080.11 dog
parks per 1,000 residents by 2040.
Separately, Arlington may consider designating some portions of
park trails for shared off-leash dog use where shared use will not
detract from other users or create hazards between dogs.
Playgrounds
The participation model projections indicate public agencies should
be providing a ratio of 0.60 playgrounds and tot lots of all types per
every 1,000 residents then gradually decline to 0.53 playgrounds as
the population ages.
According to National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2019
NRPA Agency Performance Review agencies serving populations of
20,000-49,999 provided 0.56 playgrounds and tot lots per 1,000
persons.
Miles 9 26 3028
Arlington presently provides 9 playgrounds or a ratio of 0.39
playgrounds per 1,000 residents at 9 city parks including Bill Quake
Memorial, Forest Trail, Haller, J Rudy York, Jensen, Terrace, Waldo E
Evans Memorial, Wedgewood, and Woodway Parks. All public and
private agencies combined including elementary schools, provide
26 covered and uncovered playgrounds or a ratio of 1.14
playgrounds per 1,000 residents.
All public and private agency facilities combined provide a
significant inventory to provide for playground activities assuming
the school facilities are available for public use and located in safe
and secure areas for after school activities.
E-10 Arlington PRMP Plan
However, the present supply is not evenly distributed throughout
the city or UGA to provide equal access to all city neighborhood
areas. Additional playgrounds and play areas will be provided in 3 2
parks, including Country Charm, High Clover, and Smokey Point
Parks or a ratio of 0.820.77 playgrounds per 1,000 residents by
2040.
Skateboard courts and pump tracks
There are no RCO participation model standards for skateboard
courts or skate dots or climbing walls - or similar rollerblade or in-
line skating activities. According to National Recreation & Park
Association (NRPA) 2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review all
agencies provided 0.02 skateparks per 1,000 persons.
/1,000 0.02 Na 0.04 0.04 0.19
Arlington provides a skateboard park or skate facility at Bill Quake
Memorial Park or a ratio of 0.04 per 1,000 residents. No other
agency provides skateboard facilities within the city or UGA.
The demand for these facilities will increase to meet the needs of
younger age residents for beginner, experienced, and some
competitive or advanced activities at locations distributed across
the city and adjacent to developed areas where skateboarders are
now using unauthorized public and private properties for this
activity.
At least 6 skateboard fixtures or ramps or “skate dots” should be
installed across the city in Forest Trail, High Clover, J Rudy
Memorial, Jensen, Terrace, and the Rockery Parks or a ratio of 0.19
skateboard options per 1,000 residents by 2040.
In addition, a “Pump Track” or a circuit of rollers, banked turns, and
features designed to be ridden completely by riders "pumping"—
generating momentum by up and down body movements, instead of
pedaling or pushing should be developed at Jensen Park or a ratio
of 0.03 tracks per 1,000 residents by 2040 to meet the growing
interests of this emerging youth activity.
Outdoor basketball/sports courts
Participation model projections indicate public agencies should be
providing a ratio of 0.10 basketball/sports courts of all types per
every 1,000 residents and then gradually decline to a ratio of 0.09
as the population ages.
According to National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2019
NRPA Agency Performance Review agencies serving populations of
20,000-49,999 provided 0.10 basketball and 0.04 multiuse or sports
courts per 1,000 persons.
Arlington presently provides 3 outdoor uncovered courts in Forest
Trail, J Rudy York, and Terrace Parks or a ratio of 0.13 courts per
1,000 residents. All public and private agencies combined provide
12 uncovered courts or a ratio of 0.53 courts per 1,000 residents in
elementary schools and HOA parks.
However, these facilities are not evenly distributed across the city
and currently improved only for basketball. Consequently, the
existing courts should be reconfigured into sports courts to
accommodate basketball, pickleball, and volleyball and 4 more
sports courts should be added at Bill Quake Memorial, High Clover,
Jensen, and Wedgewood Parks for a ratio of 0.44 courts per 1,000
residents by 2040.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-11
Tennis/pickleball courts – in/outdoor
Participation model projections indicate public agencies should be
providing a ratio of 0.24 tennis/pickleball courts per every 1,000
residents then gradually decline to 0.22 as the population ages.
According to National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2019
NRPA Agency Performance Review agencies serving populations of
20,000-49,999 provided 0.23 outdoor tennis courts per 1,000
persons. However, neither standard effectively accounts for the
growing use and popularity of pickleball, particularly for older age
groups.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Tennis 0 10 10
Arlington does not provide tennis courts though the school district
and HOAs provide 10 tennis courts or a ratio of 0.44 tennis courts
per 1,000 residents.
Pickleball overlays will be added to the existing and proposed
sports court, particularly at city parks, to reflect the growing
interest in this activity. Pickleball overlays will be added at Forest
Trail, J Rudy York, and Terrace Parks sports courts and
incorporated into new sports courts at Bill Quake Memorial, High
Clover, Jensen, and Wedgewood Parks. A new pickleball court will
be added through the school district. These combined courts result
in for a ratio of 0.190.22 pickleball courts per 1,000 residents by
2040.
Soccer/lacrosse fields
Participation model projections indicate public agencies should be
providing a ratio of 0.32 competition or regulation soccer/lacrosse
fields per every 1,000 residents then gradually decline to 0.29 as
the population ages. The projections do not estimate youth or
practice field requirements.
According to National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2019
NRPA Agency Performance Review all agencies provided 0.39
rectangular competition fields for soccer and lacrosse and 0.08
multipurpose synthetic and overlay fields per 1,000 persons or 0.47
fields in total. NRPA standards do not estimate youth or practice
field requirements.
Youth 1 7 137
/1,000 Na Na 0.04 0.31 0.360.19
Adult 0 15 1815
Arlington presently provides 1practice or multipurpose youth field
at Bill Quake Memorial Park or a ratio of 0.04 fields per 1,000
residents and no adult or competition soccer field.
All agencies combined including Marysville, Marysville School
District, Snohomish County, and Arlington School District provide 7
youth or practice and 15 regulation fields or a ratio of 0.31 youth or
practice and 0.66 regulations fields per 1,000 residents.
Several of the existing park and school fields should be improved
with drainage, irrigation, and lighting on some fields to provide
adequate and safe practice and competition events.
An additional 6 youth or practice and 3 adult fields should be
developed in a complex of multipurpose rectangular fields at
County Charm Park to meet local youth and practice needs and
regional competition games for a ratio of 0.36 youth and 0.49 adult
soccer fields by 2040.
E-12 Arlington PRMP Plan
Baseball/softball fields
Participation model projections indicate public agencies should be
providing a ratio of 0.53 regulation (250+ feet) baseball and softball
fields of all per every 1,000 residents then gradually decline to 0.49
as the population ages. Participation models do not estimate T-Ball
or youth field requirements.
According to National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2019
NRPA Agency Performance Review agencies serving populations of
20,000-49,999 provided 0.30 regulation baseball/softball youth and
0.08 adult fields per 1,000 persons.
Youth 3 17 2317
/1,000 0.30 Na 0.13 0.75 0.630.46
Adults 1 2 2
Arlington presently provides 3 youth baseball fields at Bill Quake
Memorial and 1 adult baseball field at Waldo E Evans Memorial
Parks or a ratio of 0.13 youth and 0.04 adult baseball fields per
1,000 residents.
All agencies combined including Snohomish County and Arlington
School District provide 17 youth and 1 regulation fields or a ratio of
0.75 youth and 0.08 regulations fields per 1,000 residents.
The supply includes many un-improved school fields that can
provide safe or functional practice use let alone regulation game
fields for youth or adult play. These fields should be improved with
drainage, irrigation, grass, or turf surfaces, and possibly lighting on
some fields to provide adequate and safe practice and competition
events.
An additional 6 youth fields should be developed in a complex of
multipurpose rectangular fields at County Charm Park to meet local
youth and practice needs and regional competition games for a
ratio of 0.63 youth baseball fields by 2040.
Swimming pool
Participation model projections indicate public agencies should be
providing a ratio of 541 square feet of swimming pool area or 0.04
of 13,454 square feet of an Olympic sized swimming pool per every
1,000 residents declining to 503 square feet as the population ages.
According to National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2019
NRPA Agency Performance Review all agencies provided 0.03
outdoor swimming pools per 1,000 persons.
Arlington provides an outdoor splash pad at Haller Park that is a
popular attraction at the park though the pad does not qualify as an
aquatic facility under this criterion.
The Stillaguamish Athletic Club provides an indoor lap pool at or a
ratio of 0.03 pools per 1,000 residents. No other agency is currently
considering developing an aquatic facility.
Recreation centers
There are no comparable participation model data with which to
project demand for indoor recreation center facilities.
According to National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) 2019
NRPA Agency Performance Review all agencies provided 0.03
recreation centers per 1,000 persons.
Youth 0 5 5
/1,000 0.03 Na 0.00 0.22 0.14
Arlington does not provide gymnasium facilities though the
Arlington School District and the Arlington Boys & Girls Club
provide 5 youth and 4 adult or regulation gymnasiums or a ratio of
0.22 youth and 0/180.18 adult gyms per 1,000 residents.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-13
The youth gymnasiums are school cafeteria facilities that may not
all be playable for league games by youth-aged teams. Most of the
gymnasium inventory is in public schools that are not available for
use by the public during daytime and some evening hours or in the
Boys & Girls Club that is not available for adults.
Existing facilities may not be sufficient to provide public access to
recreational facilities by retired persons, at-home mothers, or
workers during school hours. Therefore, a community/recreation
center may be developed by the city to provide physical
conditioning and a gymnasium for adult day and evening use.
Community centers
There is no comparable RCO participation model data with which to
project demand for public indoor community center facilities.
According to the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA)
2019 NRPA Agency Performance Review all agencies provided 0.03
community centers per 1,000 persons or 1,612 square feet where an
average community center is 53,725 square feet.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Center 1,500 3,600 10,750
/1,000 1,612 Na 66 158 294
Arlington provides 1,500 square feet or 66 square feet of meeting
room facilities per 1,000 residents at City Hall and the Public Works
complex. All public and nonprofit agencies combined provide 3,600
square feet or 158 square feet per 1,000 residents at the Arlington
Boys & Girls Club, Stilly Valley Center, Stilly Valley Health
Connections, and Gleneagle Golf Course.
Some of the meeting room inventory is in nonprofit and private
facilities that may not be available for public use without a
membership or rental fee and may not be available for public use
during normal day or evening hours.
An additional 7,150 square feet of meeting facilities including an
art, crafts, classroom, meeting facilities, large assembly space,
kitchen, daycare/childcare, and administration office facility may
be developed to provide for day and evening use for adults for a
ratio of 294 square feet per 1,000 residents by 2040.
Performance facilities
There are no comparable participation model data or NRPA
standards with which to project demand for publicly accessible
performance facilities.
Meeting 0 22,444 22,444
/1,000 Na Na 0.00 982 613
Byrnes Performing Arts Center on the Arlington High School site
provides 22,444 square feet of stage, orchestra pit, video projection
screen, dressing rooms, and seating or a ratio of 982 square feet per
1,000 residents.
The Center is sufficient to meet all performing interests even as the
ratio declines to 613 square feet per 1,000 residents by 2040.
Special event gathering spaces
There are no RCO participation model standards with which to
project special event gathering spaces nor does the NRPA have a
benchmark.
Gathering 4 4 6
/1,000 Na Na 0.18 0.18 0.16
Arlington provides 4 special event gathering spaces at Centennial,
Lebanon, Legion, and Terrace Parks or a ratio of 0.18 spaces per
1,000 residents.
Additional spaces will be provided at Smokey Point Parks and the
Food Truck Court to provide distribution of gathering areas in the
city and for major event activities at Country Charm Park for a ratio
of 0.16 sites per 1,000 residents by 2040.
E-14 Arlington PRMP Plan
Museums
There are no RCO participation model standards with which to
project museum requirements nor does the NRPA have a
benchmark.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Stillaguamish Pioneer Historical Museum provides 23,643 square
feet of museum space or a ratio of 1,037 square feet of museum per
1,000 residents. The facility is sufficient to meet future needs even
as the ratio declines to 646 square feet per 1,000 residents by 2040.
Golf
There are no participation model standards with which to project
museum requirements nor does the NRPA have a benchmark.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Gleneagle Golf Course provides 18 holes of golf, driving range,
pitching and chipping area, putting green, pro shop, and a
restaurant for a ratio of 0.79 holes per 1,000 residents. The facility
is sufficient to meet future needs even as the ratio declines to 0.49
holes per 1,000 residents by 2040.
Support facilities
There are no RCO participation model standards with which to
project supporting administrative office, equipment and shop
maintenance yards, and plant nursery requirements. The NRPA does
not have a benchmark for park supporting facilities.
NRPA RCO Arlington All total All proposed
Arlington provides 7.1 acres and 13,148 square feet of support
facilities from the Public Works Maintenance Yard and Operations
Center or 0.31 acres and 577 square feet per 1,000 residents.
The facilities should be sufficient to meet present and future needs
even as the ratio declines to 359 square feet per 1,000 residents by
2040.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-15
Future growth implications
The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) and the
Arlington Community Development Department expect the
population of the city within the urban growth area will increase
from 22,800 persons in 2022 to an estimated 36,584 persons by the
year 2050 – or by 13,784 or 60% more persons.
This forecasted population increase will create significant
requirements for all types of parks, recreation, and open space
lands and facilities in the city especially within the downtown area
scheduled for higher density development.
The population forecasts do not include expected increases in
regional tourists and users who also frequent city parks,
recreational facilities, trails, and open spaces.
Arlington ELOS value 2022
Supply Value
Land acres 172.9 $ 48,206,970
Facility units 14,749 $ 38,738,068
Value/capita $ 3,813
Value/household* $ 10,067
* Household of 2.64 persons per single family residential unit
Arlington ELOS (existing level-of-service) requirement 2022-
2050
2022 Supply 2050 Deficit 2050 Cost
Land acres 172.9 104.5 $ 29,144,073
Facility units 14,749 8,917 $ 23,419,541
Value/capita $ 3,813
Value/household* $ 10,067
* Household of 2.64 persons per single family residential unit
Under the existing level-of-service (ELOS) for Arlington owned park
land and facilities in the city, the forecasted population increase
will create a city-wide need for an additional 104.5 acres of land
and 8,917 facility units (square feet, courts, fields, etc.) by the year
2050.
The continuation of the city's existing level-of-service (ELOS) could
require an expenditure of $52,563,614 by the year 2050 simply to
remain current with present standards - not accounting for any
maintenance, operation, or repair costs.
The approximate cost of sustaining the city's existing level-of-
service (ELOS) standard would be equal to about $3,813 per every
new person added to the city's population or about $10,067 for
every new single family residence housing unit. This assumes
Arlington would continue to maintain the same ratio of
parklands and facilities for the future population that the city
had in the past.
Composite PLOS (Proposed level-of-service) requirement 2022-
2050
2022 Supply 2050 Add’l 2050 Cost
Land acres 172.9 173.9 $ 850,000
Facility units 14,749 29,16526,639.7 $ 61,238,856
49,916.989
Total cost $ 62,088,856
50,766,989
Arlington PROS cost $ 42,103,127
26,483,652
Arlington PROS % 68%52%
Value/capita $ 1,921.33
Value/household* $ 5,072.31
* Household of 2.64 persons per single family residential unit from the
Arlington PROS cost
Under the proposed level-of-service (PLOS) for all park land and
facilities in the city, the forecasted population increase will create a
city-wide proposal for an additional 1.0 acres of land and 29,165
26,639.7 facility units (square feet, courts, fields, etc.) by the year
2050.
This assumes Arlington would supplement the existing
inventory as described within this chapter rather than simply
extending the same ratios into the future.
The realization of the proposed level-of-service (PLOS) could require
a total of $62,088,856$50,766,989 by the year 2050 - not
accounting for any maintenance, operation or repair costs.
Based on the project proposals described in the plan chapters,
Arlington’s parks, recreation, and open space (PROS) share (not
including multipurpose trails to be built on city right-of-way by
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funds) of the cost
would be $42,103,127$26,483,652 or 68%52%.
E-16 Arlington PRMP Plan
Built encroachments
However, if these proposals are not realized soon the present trend
of increasing developments may:
Encroach upon - or preclude the preservation and public
accessibility of the more sensitive and appealing environmental
sites, particularly those proposed for cross city trail corridors and
additional sensitive land preservations along riparian corridors and
shorelines, and
Develop - or otherwise preclude the development of suitable
lands for playgrounds, picnic shelters, waterfront access, and other
neighborhood facilities.
Forcing city residents to:
Use crowded - picnic areas, playgrounds, community centers,
and hike and bike on crowded trails,
Commute to play - at overcrowded existing facilities in the city
and/or organized recreational programs may have to be reduced,
and
Commute to use - available facilities in other areas of the city,
particularly out of Arlington and/or to other jurisdictions, parks
and/or programs may have to be curtailed to prevent severe
overcrowding conditions in the facilities that do provide such
services.
Such actions would be to the detriment of city residents who have
paid the costs of developing and operating these facilities.
Financial implications
These levels of facility investment may not be solely financed with
the resources available to Arlington if the city pursues an
independent delivery approach or uses traditional methods of
funding. Arlington will not be financially able to develop, manage,
and maintain a comprehensive, independent park, recreation, and
open space system using only traditional financing methods
considering the needs projected.
These needs require a citywide financing approach by Arlington and
where appropriate in partnership with Arlington School District and
Snohomish County, as well as proposed nonprofit or for-profit
partners.
A citywide approach may use a combination of shared user fees,
excise taxes, joint grant applications, impact fees, and voter
approved property tax levies to maintain and improve facilities in
the face of continued city population increases.
Arlington PRMP Plan E-17
E-18 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan E-19
E-20 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan E-21
E-22 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan E-23
E-24 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan E-25
E-26 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan E-27
E-28 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan E-29
Arlington PRMP Plan E-1
Arlington PRMP Plan F-1
Appendix F: Finances
An analysis was accomplished of recent financial trends in
Arlington and the impact federal and state program mandates,
revenue sharing, and the city's urbanization have on the
discretionary monies available for park, recreation, and open space.
The analysis also reviewed trends in Arlington revenues and the
affect alternative revenue sources may have on financial prospects.
Revenue and expenditure trends - general
government
Arlington’s annual general governmental expenditures are derived
from the combination of general, special revenue, debt service, and
enterprise funds.
General fund
The General Fund is derived from property and sales taxes, licenses
and permits, intergovernmental revenues including state and
federal grants, service charges and fees, fines and forfeitures, and
other miscellaneous revenues. General funds are used to finance
most government operations including staff, equipment, capital
facility, and other requirements.
Property tax - under Washington State’s constitution cities may
levy a property tax rate not to exceed $3.60 per $1000 of the
assessed value of all taxable property within incorporation limits.
The total of all property taxes for all taxing authorities, however,
cannot exceed 1.0% of assessed valuation, or $10.00 per $1,000 of
value. If the taxes of all districts exceed 1.0% or $10.00 amount,
each is proportionately reduced until the total is at or below the
1.0% limit.
In 2001, Washington State law was amended by Proposition 747, a
statutory provision limiting the growth of regular property taxes to
1.0% per year, after adjustments for new construction. Any
proposed increases over this amount are subject to a referendum
vote.
The statute was intended to control local governmental spending by
controlling the annual rate of growth of property taxes. In practice,
however, the statute can reduce the effective property tax yield to
an annual level far below a city's levy authorization, particularly
when property values are increasing rapidly.
Property tax rates
Year Assessed value Levy rate Levied property taxes
2019 $2,779,067,708 1.526 $4,242,206
Source: 2019 Financial Statement
In 2019, for example, Arlington’s effective regular property tax rate
had declined to $1.526 per $1,000 of assessed value because of the
1% lid limit on annual revenue or about 42% of what the city is
authorized to assess.
Sales tax - is the city's largest single revenue source and may be
used for any legitimate city purpose. However, the city has no
direct control over the taxing policy of this source of revenue. The
sales tax is collected and distributed by the state and may fluctuate
with general economic and local business conditions.
Utility and other taxes – are collected from the charges
assessed on all city utilities including electric, telephone, garbage,
telecommunications cable, natural gas, gambling, vehicle fees,
admissions, leasehold excise, and other taxes. The utility taxes are
collected by the city and may fluctuate depending on what
infrastructure upgrades each utility is paying to update utility
systems and operations.
Licenses and permits – includes revenues generated from
business and occupational licenses and taxes, operating, and
building permits. Generally, these fees are used to pay for the
inspections, processing, and other charges necessary to perform
supporting services.
Intergovernmental revenue – includes state and federal grants
or pass-through revenues, usually earmarked for specific programs,
as well as funds from Arlington to finance improvements the city
wishes to accomplish.
Exhibit G
F-2 Arlington PRMP Plan
Intergovernmental revenue can be significant, depending on the
program, Arlington competitiveness, and the extent to which the
program is adequately funded at the state and federal levels. To
date, however, Arlington has not received any significant federal or
state grant for recreation, park, or open space acquisition or
development.
Given present economic conditions, Arlington should not depend
on grants as a viable or major source of financing for facility
acquisition and development over the short term.
Charges for services – includes revenue generated to pay for
garbage, landfill, utility, and other operating services provided by
the city or a city concession or licensee including the following
recreation and swimming pool programs.
Fines and forfeits – include monies generated from business
fines, code violations, traffic fines, property forfeitures, and other
penalties.
General Fund Revenue Sources 2022
Taxes $ 14,439,914 77.1%
Licenses and permits 303,552 1.6%
Total revenue $
18,732,662
Source: 2022 Budget – does not include beginning fund balance
General Fund Expenditures 2019
Expenditures Amount Percent
General government
3,108,079
20.9%
Public safety 9,706,250 65.2%
Utilities 13,727 0.1%
Total
14,894,497
100.0%
Source: 2019 Financial Statement
Special revenues
Special revenues are derived from state and local option taxes
dedicated to specific expenditure purposes, such as the motor
vehicle tax, motor excise tax, real estate excise tax, motel and hotel
tax, public art, criminal justice, paths and trails, convention center,
and the like.
Some special revenues may be used to finance limited capital
facilities, such as roads or parks, where the local option allows –
such as the local real estate excise tax (REET) and/or under special
circumstances Motel/Hotel or Tourism Taxes or Stormwater Utility
Taxes where a project or program can be expensed as a direct
extension or beneficiary of these accounts.
Debt service funds
Debt service funds are derived from a dedicated portion of the
property tax or general fund proceeds to repay the sale of general
obligation (voted) and Councilmanic (non-voted) bonds. Both types
of bonds may be used to finance park facility improvements – but
not maintenance or operational costs.
Councilmanic (limited or non-voted) bonds - may be issued
without voter approval by the Council for any facility development
purpose. The total amount of all outstanding non-voted general
obligation debt may not exceed 1.5% of the assessed valuation of all
city property.
Limited general obligation bonds must be paid from general
governmental revenues. Therefore, debt service on these bonds
may reduce the amount of revenue available for current operating
expenditures and the financial flexibility the Council may need to
fund annual budget priorities. For this reason, Councilmanic bonds
are usually only used for the most pressing capital improvement
issues.
Arlington PRMP Plan F-3
Total debt capacity
Arlington debt capacity – 31 December 2019
2019 assessed valuation = $2,779,067,708
Councilmanic bond 1.5% $ 41,686,015
GO bond 2.5% 69,476,692
Utility bond 2.5% 69,476,692
PRMP bond 2.5% 69,476,692
Total allowable 8.5% 236,220,755
Debt principal $ 21,071,088
* Percent of the total estimated assessed valuation.
** Includes installment contracts and debt service funds.
General Obligation (GO), Utility, and Park/Open Space Bonds require 60%
voter validation where voter turnout equals at least 40% of the total
votes cast in the last general election.
Unlimited general obligation (GO) bonds - must be approved
by at least 60% of resident voters during an election that has a
turnout of at least 40% of those who voted in the last state general
election. The bond may be repaid from a special levy, which is not
governed by the 1.0% statutory limitation on the property tax
growth rate. Total indebtedness as a percent of the assessed
valuation that may be incurred by limited and unlimited general
obligation bonds together, however, may not exceed:
2.5% - if indebtedness exceeds 1.5% is for general purposes,
5.0% - if indebtedness exceeds 2.5% is for utilities, and
7.5% - if indebtedness exceeds 5.0% is for parks and open space
development.
Monies authorized by limited and unlimited types of bonds must be
spent within 3 years of authorization to avoid arbitrage
requirements unless invested at less than bond yield. In addition,
bonds may be used to construct but not maintain or operate
facilities. Facility maintenance and operation costs must be paid
from general governmental revenue or by voter authorization of
special annual or biannual operating levies or by user fees or
charges.
Enterprise funds
Enterprise funds are derived from the user fees and charges levied
for utility operations including water and sewer, storm drainage,
regional water, solid waste, and cemetery. The enterprise revenues
are used to pay operating costs, retire capital facility debt, and plan
future replacement and expansion projects. Enterprise funds may
be created for a park or recreation activity that has a revenue
source sufficient to finance all costs.
Capital improvements funding implications
Generally, the city has not appropriated very much of the annual
budget for capital improvements. The city has building and
infrastructure construction requirements but given the declining
buying power of annual city budgets, not had the capital resources
available to initiate major construction projects from the general
funds or non-dedicated funds accounts.
The 1% statutory limit on local property tax yields combined with
the sporadic and undependable nature of federal and state grants
and revenue sharing prevents or discourages the city from making
long-term capital investments in infrastructure necessary to
support the city’s development.
The 1% statutory limit on the general fund levy, severely curtails
the city's ability to operate and maintain park, recreation, and open
space facilities and services even if the city only utilized unlimited
general obligation bonds as a means of providing capital financing.
Revenue Prospects - general government
Arlington could use the following options to deal with future capital
needs:
User fees and charges
Arlington may elect to use an increasing array of special user fees,
charges, and special assessments to pay facility operating and
maintenance capital requirements. The user fee approach may be
difficult to impose on facilities that don't have readily identifiable
or chargeable users - like some passive park or trail systems. The
approach may be very responsive, however, for facilities and
F-4 Arlington PRMP Plan
services that have an identifiable user group receiving a direct
proportional benefit for the charge – like aquatic facilities.
Special legislation
Local government representatives can seek state enabling
legislation authorizing new or special revenue sources. Senate Bill
5972 (RCW 82.46) is an example of one possible legislative solution.
The 1982 bill gave city governments the option of adding an
additional 0.0025% increment to the real estate excise tax (REET) for
the sole purpose of financing local capital improvement projects
including parks, utilities, and other infrastructure except
governmental buildings.
Like bonds, Senate Bill 5972 funds may not be used to finance
operation and maintenance requirements.
Unlimited general obligation bonds
Arlington may come to depend on voter referendums as a means of
financing a larger portion of the capital improvement program,
since unlimited obligation bonds are not paid from the property tax
subject to the 1.0% limitation.
Voter approved capital improvements may be more representative
of actual resident priorities than some other methods of validating
capital expenditures, and will at the least, ensure referendum
submittals provide widespread benefits. However, bond revenue
cannot be spent for maintenance and operational issues – and bond
referendums must be approved by a margin over 60% of the
registered voters who participated in the last election.
General levy rate referendums
Proposition 747, the statutory provision limiting the growth of
regular property taxes to 1.0% per year, can be waived by
referendum approval of a simple (50%) majority of Arlington’s
registered voters. Voters can be asked to approve a resetting of the
property tax levy rate that would adjust the amount of revenue the
city can generate.
The new total revenue that can be generated by a resetting of the
rate would be subject to the same 1.0% limitation, however, and the
total amount of revenue and the resulting property tax rate would
start to decline again in accordance with the Proposition.
However, the adjusted rate and revenue could finance specific
capital improvement projects – or programs that involve
construction, maintenance, and operations aspects that a majority
of the voters are willing to pay for under the adjusted rate.
The resetting of the rate can be permanent, subject to the
provisions of Proposition 747. Or temporary, where the rate is
adjusted until a specific amount of revenue has been generated to
finance a project or program – whereupon the rate reverts to the
original or a specified amount defined in the referendum.
Expenditures – PRMP functions
Parks, recreation, and open space property development and
programming services are provided by the Community Engagement
Director while the Public Works Department provides maintenance.
General Fund PRMP Expenditures 2022 PRMP Percent
Holiday/community events 17,000 38.5%
Park amenities 10,000 22.6%
Total $ 44,194 100.0%
Source: 2022 Budget
The 2022 budget provides $44,194 for miscellaneous PRMP
expenditures not including staff of which holiday/community
events (38.5%), athletic field maintenance (22.6%), and park
amenities (22.6%) were the major items.
Ideally, Arlington should recover as much of its PRMP planning and
operational costs as possible to avoid using General Fund property
taxes or other city discretionary monies or Arlington will not have
sufficient funds left with which to fund critical annual and cyclical
maintenance, repair, and replacement of existing facilities, and
acquisition and development of new parks lands and facilities
required to offset population growth and raise level of service
standards.
Arlington PRMP Plan F-5
Project expenditures as of 31 December 2019
Jensen Farm Waterline Repair $
294,863
Total $
1,208,689
Source: 2019 Financial Statement
Note: Does not include refinancing of $3,200,000 for purchase of
Country Charm Park (Graafstra property).
As of 31 December 2019, the city spent $1,208,689 on park projects
for the Jensen Farm, Haller Park Splash Pad, and Terrace Park
Renovations mostly from General Funds.
Ideally, Arlington should be able to leverage grants, donations, and
other sources to finance projects other than relying on General
Funds accounts.
Revenues – PRMP functions
Parks, recreation, and open space revenues may be provided by a
combination of allocations from the General Fund and well as
special revenue sources including the Path & Trails, Real Estate
Excise Tax (REET), Parks Impact Fees, and grants.
Possible PRMP revenue sources 2022
Source Revenues
Public Art Fund $ 123,500
Lodging Tax Fund 111,000
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 1 503,000
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 2 508,000
Capital Facilities/Building Fund 55,000
Park Improvement 12,480
Total $ 1,335,480
Source: 2022 Operating Budgets
Note: Public Art and Lodging Tax Funds may be used for projects and
programs other than at park sites and facilities.
Note: REET 1 may be used for PRMP but is primarily defined to support
roads and other infrastructure, while REET 2 is defined to be primarily
PRMP functions.
Funding implications
Arlington has acquired a quality park, recreation, and open space
inventory using land donations, grants, project development
mitigation, impact fees, and a healthy allocation of property and
sales tax derived general funds.
However, these sources will not continue to yield enough money
with which to initiate major facility development and/or with which
to accomplish major cyclical maintenance requirements.
In addition, considering the 1.0% statutory limit on local property
tax yield's effect on discretionary funding in general, the city can
no longer depend entirely on traditional revenue sources as a
means of funding capital improvement projects.
Arlington must devise new financial strategies for the development
and maintenance of facilities if it is to meet the park, recreation,
and open space interests of city residents.
Revenue Prospects – PRMP public sources
The following options could be used to deal with future Arlington
PRMP capital needs:
Washington State grants
Washington State, through the Resource Conservation Office (RCO -
formerly the Interagency for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)) funds and
administers several programs for parks and recreation, and non-
motorized transportation and trails purposes using special state
revenue programs.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) - a Department of Ecology
administered water quality program provides grants for up to 75%
of the cost of water quality/fish enhancement studies. Referendum
39 monies can be applied to park and open space developments
that propose to restore, construct, or otherwise enhance fish
producing streams, ponds, or other water bodies.
F-6 Arlington PRMP Plan
Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP) – provides
funds for the acquisition and development of conservation and
recreation lands. The Habitat Conservation Account of the WWRP
program provides funds to acquire critical habitat, natural areas,
and urban wildlife categories. The Outdoor Recreation Account of
the WWRP program provides funds for local parks, state parks,
trails, and water access categories.
Capital Projects Fund for Washington Heritage – initiated on a
trial basis in 1999, and since renewed, provides funds for the
restoration and renovation projects for historical sites and
buildings by local governments and nonprofit agencies. The
Heritage Resource Center (HRC) administers the program.
Boating Facilities Program – approved in 1964 under the state
Marine Recreation Land Act, the program earmarks motor vehicle
fuel taxes paid by watercraft for boating-related lands and facilities.
Program funds may be used for fresh or saltwater launch ramps,
transient moorage, and upland support facilities.
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act (ALEA) - initiated on a trial
basis in 1985, and since renewed and expanded, uses revenues
obtained by the Washington Department of Natural Resources from
the lease of state-owned tidal lands. The ALEA program is
administered by the RCO for the development of shoreline related
trail improvements and may be applied for up to 50% of the
proposal.
Washington State Public Works Commission - initiated a
program that may be used for watercraft sanitary pump-out
facilities.
Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF) – provides grants to cities,
counties, and qualified nonprofit organizations for the
improvement and maintenance of existing, and the development of
new athletic facilities. The Community Outdoor Athletic Fields
Advisory Council (COAFAC) of the RCO administers the program.
Non-Highway & Off-Road Vehicle Activities Program (NOVA) –
provides funding to develop and manage recreation opportunities
for users of off-road vehicles and non-highway roads. An allocation
(1%) from the state Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT) and off-road
vehicle (ORV) permit fees fund the program. NOVA funds may be
used for the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, and
operation of off-road vehicle and non-highway road recreation
opportunities.
Firearms and Archery Range Recreation Program (FARR) –
provides funds to acquire, develop, and renovate public and private
nonprofit firearm and archery training, practice, and recreation
facilities. The program is funded from a portion of the fees charged
for concealed weapons permits.
Federal grants
Federal monies are available for the construction of outdoor park
facilities from the National Park Service (NPS) Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF). The Washington State Resource
Conservation Office (RCO) administers the grants.
NPS (National Park Service) grants - usually do not exceed
$150,000 per project and must be matched on an equal basis by the
local jurisdiction. The RCO assigns each project application a
priority on a competitive statewide basis according to each
jurisdiction's need, population benefit, natural resource
enhancements and a number of other factors.
In the past few years, project awards have been extremely
competitive as the federal government significantly reduced the
amount of federal monies available to the NPS program. The state
increased contributions to the program over the last few years
using a variety of special funds, but the overall program could be
severely affected by pending federal deficit cutting legislation.
Applicants must submit a detailed comprehensive park, recreation,
and open space plan to be eligible for NPS funding. The
jurisdiction's plan must demonstrate facility need and prove that
the jurisdiction's project proposal will adequately satisfy local
parks, recreation, and open space needs and interests.
Due to diminished funding, however, RCO grants have not been a
significant source of project monies for city or other local
jurisdictions in recent years.
TEA21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century - can
be used to finance on and off-road non-motorized trail
enhancements along major and minor arterial collector roads or
Arlington PRMP Plan F-7
sometimes, within separate trail corridors. The program was
adopted in 1993 and is administered by the Regional
Transportation Organization on behalf of the US Department of
Transportation.
Applicants must demonstrate the proposed trail improvements will
increase access to non-motorized recreational and commuter
transportation alternatives.
National Recreational Trails Program (NRTP) – is the successor
to the National Recreational Trails Act (NRFTA). Funds may be used
to rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails that provide a
backcountry experience. In some cases, the funds may be used to
create new “linking” trails, trail relocations, and educational
programs.
Boating Infrastructure Grant Program (BIG) – supports
development and renovation of areas for non-trailer-able
recreational boats over 26 feet, and related support elements on US
navigable waters. Funds may be used to produce and distribute
information and educational materials. The federal program
compliments the state-funded Boating Facilities Program (BFP)
administered for smaller vessels.
Environmental impact mitigation – subdivision regulations
Arlington subdivision policies can require developers of
subdivisions in the city to provide suitably designed and located
open spaces, woodland preserves, trail systems, tot lots,
playgrounds, and other park or recreational facilities. Such facilities
may include major components of the park or recreational system
that may be affected by the project's location or development.
Arlington may also consider requiring developers to provide
acceptable long-term methods of managing and financing
maintenance requirements. Attractive management systems could
include:
Ownership by a private organization - like a tennis, swimming
or golf club, who assumes responsibility for all maintenance
responsibilities and costs,
Ownership by a homeowners or common property owners’
association (HOA) - who may contract maintenance responsibilities
and assess property owner's annual costs, or
Dedication of property - to Arlington or the Arlington School
District who assumes maintenance responsibilities using local city
or school funds.
Arlington should not accept title and maintenance responsibility
unless the land or facility will be a legitimate park or recreation or
open space element that may be supported using public financing.
Arlington may be contracted by any of the other agencies to provide
or oversee a maintenance contract on the owner's behalf provided
all Arlington costs are reimbursed by an approved method of local
financing.
Growth impact fees
Arlington adopted a park growth impact fee in accordance with the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). A park impact fee
applies to all proposed residential and industrial developments in
the city as a means of maintaining existing park, recreation, and
open space levels-of-service (ELOS).
The ordinance estimates the impact each residential development
project has on park, recreation, and open space facilities within the
project's local service zone and makes provisions for setting aside
the resources, including lands or monies, necessary to offset the
project's local or neighborhood and community or regional facility
impacts.
The Arlington-Marysville MIC Subarea Plan estimates the impact of
each industrial development project has on trail and open space
facilities within the project’s local service zone and makes
provisions for improvements that are necessary to offset the
project’s local or neighborhood and community or regional facility
impacts.
The dollar value of the project's park, recreation, and open space
impact can be offset by the project developer of an amount equal to
the combined facility acquisition and development costs that
Arlington would incur to maintain the same existing level-of-service
(ELOS).
A developer may be allowed to choose any combination of land or
cash mitigation measures including credit for any park or recreation
facilities to be included within the project development. The
Arlington ordinance considers the following when determining the
F-8 Arlington PRMP Plan
types of mitigation measures or development credits to be made
available to the developer:
Will the facility - be available to the public,
Have a designated owner - responsible for continuing
operation and maintenance (the owner may be a common property
owner's association, school district or other agency), and
Correspond to and not exceed or vary from - the types of
park, recreation, and open space facilities that are being impacted
(a developer could provide but should not able to take full credit
value for facilities for which there is no shortage, impact or local
interest).
Land contributions can be accepted in lieu of monies if the lands
will be suitable sites for future facilities. Land and monies
accumulated under the proposed ordinance must be invested within
a reasonable time of impact assessment or be returned to the
contributing developer.
Arlington conducts periodic program reviews with residents, user
groups, school district, and other agencies to decide the most
efficient and representative way of delivering the facilities
mitigated by the ordinance. Alternative delivery methods include:
Acquisition of suitable sites - in conjunction with other public
or school facilities including title transfer if other public or school
agencies enter into special agreements assuming development,
operation, and maintenance responsibilities and costs,
Development of facilities - on other public or school sites if
other public or school agencies enter into agreements assuming
future operation and maintenance responsibilities and costs, or
Any other alternative - including development, operation or
maintenance proposals by user groups or private concessionaires or
developers that provide a viable facility in accordance with the
park, recreation, and open space strategies outlined.
Facility user fees and charges
Arlington could charge an array of special user fees, charges, and
special assessments to pay facility operating and maintenance
capital requirements. Proposals to recover recreation program costs
could be augmented with additional or higher user fees on picnic
shelters, athletic courts and fields, meeting rooms, and other
facilities.
Arlington could also increase the number of activities subject to
user fees and charges and use the proceeds to purchase land,
develop, operate, and maintain facilities where all costs are
reimbursed by the revenue obtained. Essentially, Arlington would
become a facility developer/operator providing whatever facilities
or services the market will support from user revenue.
User fees have and could be used to provide facilities for park and
recreation activities whose profit margins are too low to sustain
commercial operations or whose benefiting user group may extend
beyond city boundaries. Possible user fee financed facilities could
continue to include recreational vehicle parks and tent
campgrounds, and any other facility where demand is sizable
enough to warrant a user fee financing approach.
In essence, the market determines which facility's revenues equal
costs, and thereby, which programs Arlington would provide on a
direct costs/benefit basis. While important, this source of finance
will likely never pay full costs for all programs, or any operation,
maintenance, or development costs.
Some programs designed for youth and family activities may never
generate fees large enough to finance full costs and will require
Arlington to determine to what extent the public benefits merit the
subsidized fee revenues.
The user fee approach may also be difficult to impose on facilities
that don't have readily identifiable or chargeable users - like some
passive park or trail systems. The approach may be very
responsive, however, for facilities and services that have an
identifiable user group receiving a direct proportional benefit for
the charge.
Special legislation – Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
Local government representatives can seek state enabling
legislation authorizing new or special revenue sources. Senate Bill
5972 (RCW 82.46) is an example of one possible legislative solution.
RCW 82.46 authorizes local governments to enact up to 0.25% of the
annual sales for real estate for capital facilities. The Growth
Management Act authorizes another or 2nd 0.25% for capital
Arlington PRMP Plan F-9
facilities. Revenues must be used solely for financing new capital
facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities, as
specified in the capital facilities plan.
An additional option 3rd REET is available under RCW 82.46.070 for
the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas if approved
by a majority of voters of a county.
The first and second REET may be used for the following capital
facilities:
The planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair,
replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads,
highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic
signals, bridges, domestic water systems, and storm and
sanitary sewer systems, or
The planning, construction, repair, rehabilitation, or
improvement of parks and recreational facilities.
In addition, the second REET may be used for the following:
The acquisition of parks and recreational facilities, or
The planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement,
rehabilitation, or improvement of law enforcement facilities,
and the protection of facilities, trails, libraries, administrative
and judicial facilities, and river and/or floodway/flood control
projects and housing projects subject to certain limitations.
Like bonds, REET funds may not be used to finance operation and
maintenance requirements.
Unlimited general obligation (GO) bonds
Arlington may use voter referendums as a means of financing a
larger portion of the capital improvement program, since unlimited
obligation bonds are not paid from the property tax subject to the
1.0% limitation.
Voter approved capital improvements may be more representative
of actual resident priorities than some other methods of validating
capital expenditures, and will at the least, ensure referendum
submittals provide widespread benefits.
However, bond revenue cannot be spent for maintenance and
operational issues – and bond referendums must be approved by a
margin over 60% of at least a turnout of 40% of the registered voters
who participated in the last election.
General levy lid lift referendums
Proposition 747, the statutory provision limiting the growth of
regular property taxes to 1.0% per year, can be waived by
referendum approval of a simple (50%) majority of Arlington’s
registered voters. Voters can be asked to approve a resetting of the
property tax levy rate or of approving a special purpose limited
duration (typically 6-9 years) dedicated property tax levy that would
adjust the amount of revenue Arlington can generate.
The new total revenue that can be generated by a resetting of the
rate or of approving a special dedicated and limited duration levy
would be subject to the same 1.0% limitation, however, and the total
amount of revenue and the resulting property tax rate would start
to decline again in accordance with the Proposition.
However, the adjusted rate and revenue could finance specific
capital improvement projects – or programs that involve
construction, maintenance, and operations aspects that a majority
of voters are willing to pay for under the adjusted rate or a
specially approved levy.
The resetting of the rate can be permanent, subject to the
provisions of Proposition 747, or temporary, where the rate is
adjusted until a specific amount of revenue has been generated to
finance a project or program – whereupon the rate reverts to the
original or a specified amount defined in the referendum.
Metropolitan Park district (MPD) (SB 2557)
In 2002, the state legislature authorized the establishment of
metropolitan park districts (MPD) as special units of government
that may be independent of any involvement with a city, county, or
any other local public agency or jurisdiction.
Metropolitan Park districts may provide recreational facilities that
are specific to the district’s boundaries in return for the district
residents’ agreement to pay the special development, operation,
and maintenance costs utilizing special financing devices.
Metropolitan Park districts must be initiated by local government
resolution or citizen petition following hearings on feasibility and
F-10 Arlington PRMP Plan
costs studies of the proposed district’s facility development or
operation costs.
The proposal must ultimately be submitted for voter approval (50%)
including all provisions relating to any special financing
agreements. The voters must initially approve the formation of the
district, and may designate existing elected officials, or a body
appointed by existing elected officials or elect district
commissioners or officers solely responsible for park and
recreation policy.
Voters must also approve the establishment of a continuous levy
as a junior taxing district – compared with 3-year levies under a
recreation service district to provide maintenance, repair,
operating costs, and facility acquisition and development projects.
Metropolitan Park districts can be flexible and used to provide local
or citywide recreational facilities in the same variety of custom
service choices with the exception that the financing levy may be as
a junior taxing district with a continuous levy.
The Tacoma Metropolitan Park District was established in 1909 and
is the largest and oldest recreation park district in the State of
Washington. Seattle was the most recent and authorized the City
Council to perform as the Metropolitan Park District
Commissioners.
Revenue Prospects – PRMP private
Special use agreements
Special property agreements can often be used instead of property
purchases to secure public use rights for land or property at no cost
or a nominal fee, particularly where the possible public use is of
benefit to the private landowner. Some forms of special use
agreements can provide favorable tax benefits if the use agreement
can be shown to have an assigned value.
Arlington could expand the use agreement concept to include
complete development, operation, or maintenance responsibilities.
Package lease agreements will usually provide more effectively
maintained facilities than possible where Arlington must staff
specialized, small work crews.
Sometimes package lease agreements covering use and maintenance
aspects may be the only way of resolving an equitable agreement
with the private ownership. This may include trails on utility
corridors where the ownership may prefer to control development
and maintenance activities, and Arlington may prefer to avoid any
implied responsibility or liability for the utility worthiness that
Arlington's maintenance of a trail system could imply.
Public/private service contracts
Private market skills and capital may be employed in a variety of
ways including the use of public/private services contracts where a
private party can be contracted to operate and maintain a facility
for a fixed fee cost. Service contracts can be very efficient where
the activities are small, scattered in location, seasonal, expert, or
experimental. Service contracts are also relatively easy to initiate or
terminate if area demand fails to provide sufficient use or revenue
to justify continued operation.
Service contracts may be very flexible and can include agreements
with the county, school district or local user groups who can or
would be interested in sustaining the activity on a subsidized or
sweat-equity basis in exchange for the facility.
Public/private concessions
Arlington could lease a portion of a site or facility to a private party
in exchange for a fixed fee or a percentage of gross receipts. The
private operator assumes operation and maintenance
responsibilities and costs in exchange for a profit. For certain types
of facilities, such as enterprise fund account facilities like a golf
course, campground, marina, indoor tennis courts, or community
center Arlington's portion of the profits may be used to pay facility
development and/or operation and maintenance costs at the same
or for similar facility developments.
Arlington may save considerable monies on concessions where the
activities are specialized, seasonal, experimental, or unproven.
Concessions can be easily initiated, provide direct user benefit/cost
reimbursements, and relieve Arlington of a capital risk should
market or user interest fail to materialize to at least break-even
levels.
Arlington PRMP Plan F-11
Concessionaires could operate a wide variety of park and
recreational facilities including boating and bicycle rentals, special
group and recreational vehicle campgrounds, athletic field and
court facilities, and swimming pools and beaches, among others.
Public/private joint development ventures
Arlington can enter into an agreement with a private or public
developer to jointly own or lease land for an extended period. The
purpose of the venture would be to allow the development,
operation, and maintenance of a major recreational facility or
activity in exchange for a fixed lease cost or a percentage of gross
receipts.
The developer assumes development, operation, and maintenance
responsibilities, costs, and all market risks in exchange for a market
opportunity providing a profitable return not otherwise available.
Arlington realizes the development of a facility not realized
otherwise in exchange for a low minimum capital return and no or
very little capital risk.
Joint development agreements represent an ultimate benefit/cost
resolution that may also provide public revenue that Arlington
could use for other development opportunities. Examples include
the possible joint development on Arlington lands of recreational
vehicle campgrounds, seminar retreats, special resorts, swimming
pools and water parks, golf courses, and gun and archery ranges,
among others.
Self-help land leases
There are instances where an activity is so specialized in appeal or
of a service area so broad in scope that it cannot be equitably
financed using public funds. Specialized user groups should be
provided with options for developing or maintaining facilities in
ways that account for equitable public cost reimbursements.
Examples include the use of land leases where Arlington may lease
land at low or no cost where a user group or club assumes
responsibility for the development, operation, and maintenance of
the facility. The club could provide volunteer help or use club
finances to develop, operate and maintain the facility as a means of
meeting user benefit/cost objectives.
Land lease agreements could accommodate organized athletics like
soccer, baseball, football, softball, and rugby; or very specialized
facilities like shooting ranges, archery fields, OHV trails, and ultra-
light aircraft parks, among others.
Self-help contract agreements
Arlington can purchase land, develop, operate, and maintain a
specialized facility under a negotiated contract agreement where a
special interest group agrees to defray all costs in addition to or in
lieu of a user fee as a means of meeting user benefit/cost
objectives. The agreements can be quite flexible and could contract
the city, school district, the user group, another public agency or a
private operator to be developer/operator.
Contract agreements could accommodate a range of more expensive
special purpose facility developments including high quality
athletic competition facilities for league organizations; and
specialized facility developments like shooting ranges and OHV
trail systems, or historical or children’s museums, or railroad train
excursions when and where the user organization can provide
financial commitments.
PRMP funding strategies
Using the strategies described above, PRMP funding sources should
generally be matched to specific needs to avoid duplication and
take advantage of each fund's specific possibilities. For example:
Program services
Fees and charges should be used to finance program services to the
maximum extent possible and practical to provide cost/benefit
equities and efficiencies. Property tax levy funds should be used to
cover shortages where fees cannot be readily collected, as in most
special events, or where fees may not be easily raised to cover all
operating costs for programs Arlington deems to have special social
benefits to the public.
Facility operation, maintenance, and minor construction
Property tax levy funds should be used to pay operation and
maintenance costs for facilities and activities that cannot be
financed with fees and charges or financed with other funding
methods. Property tax levy funds are flexible and can be adjusted to
meet annual programming variations or priorities.
F-12 Arlington PRMP Plan
Where appropriate, maintenance and operation funds for facilities
that are impacted by urban growth should be reimbursed or
provided by Arlington and the Arlington School District subject to
the pending resolution of an inter-local agreement on planning and
services.
The funds collected from the excise tax on real estate sales (REET)
should be used to finance minor construction improvements to
existing properties. The money should also be used to help
purchase sites when opportunities arise that cannot await other,
less flexible funding methods. Like property tax levy funds, the
monies collected from REET are flexible and can be adjusted to
meet annual programming needs or sudden changes in priorities or
opportunities.
Recreational facility development
Recreational facilities and athletic fields are important to
Arlington's programs but satisfy relatively small proportions of the
population compared with parks and trails.
Bonds, levies, and other fixed forms of financing should be used to
pay for the development of parks, trails, and other facilities that
residents assign as high priorities. Recreational facilities with low
to moderate priorities should be financed with property tax levy
funds, REET, and other more flexible sources of financing.
Arlington should investigate the possibility of implementing a wide
range of joint recreational facility developments with the Arlington
School District. Such ventures could finance acquisition and
development costs using open space and school facility
development bonds, or conservation futures and REET - and
Arlington could finance operating and maintenance using service
charges and property tax levy funds.
Joint venture agreements could better match costs/benefits with
users, avoid duplication, save cost, increase service, and allow each
agency to make the best use of funds.
Parks, natural areas and trail development
Parks and trails benefit the largest percentage of the population and
will probably be easier to obtain voted bond or property tax levy
issues for than other more specialized uses. General obligation
bond or special property tax levy packages could finance the high
priority conservancies and trail acquisition and development
proposals contained within the development plan chapter of this
document.
When necessary and appropriate, Councilmanic bonds could be
used to purchase sites when opportunities require fast action, or to
match possible Washington State RCO state or federal grants for
park and trail developments.
Special developments
Some proposed projects represent unique facilities that may not be
easily financed with conventional funding methods. Arlington
should explore the opportunities that may be available for the
development and funding of joint public/private facilities with
private property owners or developers.
Joint ventures could save costs, reduce program requirements, and
provide city residents with services and facilities not available
otherwise.
Growth impact fee mitigation
Continued residential development within Arlington's service area
will severely stress existing Arlington facilities and services.
Consequently, Arlington should institute growth impact fee
mitigation measures in accordance with the Washington Growth
Management Act to preserve unique sites and require land
developers to help finance facility developments offsetting project
impacts.
Financial strategies 2022-2028
An Arlington financial strategy for the next 6-year period (2022-
2028) must generate sufficient revenue to provide recreational
program services, maintain and renovate facilities, and implement
priority projects chosen from the 20-year (CFP) capital facility
program.
Three alternative financial strategies illustrate the choices available
Arlington under an integrated funding strategy. The strategies
combine possible scenarios concerning general funds from property
taxes, recreation program cost recovery, residential and industrial
Arlington PRMP Plan F-13
growth impact fees, REET, and approval of a property tax levy lid
lift.
The forecasts are conservative, based on the average trends
indicated in capital facility program fund expenditures by Arlington
during the 2022-2028 budgeted year but are adjusted to account for
expected inflationary increases in the tax and revenue base
valuations over the 6-year period.
All alternatives would finance $20,047,512$11,643,526 in
combined park administration, recreation programs, maintenance,
deferred repairs and replacements, and proposed level-of-service
(PLOS) facility improvements over the 6-year period with:
Proposed 6-yr expenditures
Administration $ 680,191
Recreation and public arts 241,468
Parks maintenance 459,129
Repair & replacement (R&R) 4,347,634
PLOS additions/enhancements (17% of
total)
Total $
13,842,57311,643,526
Alternative 1 proposed 6-year revenues
General Fund allocation $ 4,978,051
REET 1&2 (0%) 0
Property tax levy 853,6071,784,650
Total $
13,842,57311,643,526
Per median $323,200 value $ 2.38
Alternative 1 would generate revenues as follows:
General Funds property tax – if the annual revenue per year
because of proposition 747 or the 1% tax limitation would remain
relatively constant,
Recreation program cost recovery – would recover an average
50% of all program costs,
Residential park impact fee – would capture 40% of
$3,8131,921.33 cost per person of maintaining Arlington’s existing
level-of-service (ELOS) standards through additional population
increases,
Industrial park impact fee – would capture 40% of $4,187 cost
per non-resident CIC employee of maintaining Arlington’s existing
level-of-service (ELOS) standards through additional employment
increases,
Arlington Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) – which captures REET
1 and 2 of $0.00125 per $1.00 of sales value for each REET would
be utilized 0% for park and recreation purposes,
Supplemental special purpose (limited duration) or property
tax levy lid lift – would be sought to finance remaining costs
necessary to realize Arlington’s portion of the combined proposed
level-of-service (PLOS) standard equal to an annual property tax
levy assessment of $2.38 per year for 6 years for a median house
value of $323,200.
F-14 Arlington PRMP Plan
Alternative 2 proposed 6-year revenues
General Fund allocation $ 4,978,051
REET 1&2 (0%) 0
Property tax levy (131,051)1,191,254
Total $ 13,842,57311,643,526
Annual cost for tax levy
Per median $323,200 value $ (0.37)
Alternative 2 would retain recreation cost recovery at 50%, increase
the residential and industrial growth impact fees to 45%, allocate 0%
of REET 1&2 over the 6-year period to reduce the balance remaining
to $131,051 meaning the other options would generate more money
than necessary to fund the proposed level of service (PLOS) without
a levy requirement.
Alternative 3 proposed 6-year revenues
General Fund allocation $ 4,978,051
Rentals 12,924
Recreation cost recovery (50%) 120,734
Residential Growth Impact Fee (50%) 7,884,5443,972,350
Total $ 13,842,57311,643,526
Annual cost for tax levy
Alternative 3 would retain recreation cost recovery at 50%, increase
the residential and industrial growth impact fees to 50%, allocate 0%
of REET 1&2 over the 6-year period to reduce the balance remaining
to $1,115,708 meaning the other options would generate more
money than necessary to fund the proposed level of service (PLOS)
without a levy requirement.
Financial strategies 2022-2042
An Arlington financial strategy for the next 20-year period (2022-
2042) must generate sufficient revenue to provide administration,
recreation programs, park maintenance, renovate facilities, and
implement priority projects chosen from the 20-year (CFP) capital
facility program.
The same 3 alternative financial strategies defined under the 6-year,
or 2022-2028 strategy illustrate the choices available Arlington
under an integrated funding strategy. The 20-year strategies
combine the same possible scenarios concerning recreation
program cost recovery, residential and industrial growth impact
fees, REET, and approval of a property tax levy lid lift.
Total expenditures for the 20-year or 2022-2042 time periods would
be $97,456,426$71,701,094 of the proposed level-of-service (PLOS).
All alternatives would finance $97,456,426$71,701,094 in
combined park administration, recreation programs, park
maintenance, park deferred repairs and replacements, and
Arlington’s share of proposed composite level-of-service (PLOS)
facility improvements over the 20-year period with:
Proposed 20-yr expenditures
PLOS additions/enhancements 69,609,00343,853,672
Total $ 97,456,42671,701,094
Alternative 1 proposed 20-year revenues
General Fund allocation $ 79,533,440
Recreation cost recovery (50%) 586,921
Residential park impact fee (40%) 21,025,45210,593,445
Total $ 97,456,42671,701,094
Annual cost for tax levy
Arlington PRMP Plan F-15
Alternative 1 would generate revenues as follows:
General Funds property tax – if the annual revenue per year as
a result of proposition 747 or the 1% tax limitation would remain
relatively constant,
Recreation program cost recovery – would retain an average
50% of all programs costs,
Residential park impact fee – would capture 40% of
$3,813$1,921.33 cost per person of maintaining Arlington’s existing
level-of-service (ELOS) standards through additional population
increases,
Industrial park impact fee – would capture 40% of $4,187 cost
per non-resident CIC employee of maintaining Arlington’s existing
level-of-service (ELOS) standards through additional employment
increases,
Arlington Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) – which captures REET
1 and 2 of $0.00125 per $1.00 of sales value for each REET would
continue to be utilized 0% for park and recreation purposes,
Supplemental special purpose (limited duration) or property
tax levy lid lift – would not have to be sought to finance
remaining costs necessary to realize Arlington’s portion of the
combined proposed level-of-service (PLOS) standard since the other
options would generate $8,920,541 more than necessary to meet
the proposed level of service (PLOS) requirement.
Alternative 2 proposed 20-year revenues
General Fund allocation $ 79,533,440
Total $ 97,456,42671,701,094
Per median $323,200 value $ (2.18)
Alternative 2 would retain recreation cost recovery at 50%, increase
the residential and industrial growth impact fees to 45%, allocate 0%
of REET 1&2 over the 6-year period to generate a surplus of
$12,202,616 more than necessary to finance the proposed level-of-
service (PLOS) requirement.
Alternative 3 proposed 20-year revenues
General Fund allocation $ 79,533,440
Recreation cost recovery (50%) 586,921
Residential park impact fee (50%) 26,281,81513,241,806
Total $ 97,456,42671,701,094
Annual cost for tax levy
Alternative 3 would retain recreation cost recovery at 50%, increase
the residential and industrial growth impact fees to 50%, allocate 0%
of REET 1&2 over the 6-year period to generate a surplus of
$15,484,692 more than necessary to finance the proposed level-of-
service (PLOS) requirement.
Implications
Alternatives 1-3 are all feasible for a 6 and 20-year Arlington
financial strategy to realize the combined administration,
programs, maintenance, repair and replacement (R&R), and
proposed level of service (PLOS) projects outlined in this plan.
A choice between the alternatives depends on how the City Council
would prefer to balance allocations between the General Fund,
recreation cost recovery, residential and industrial park impact
fees, REET 1&2, and a property tax levy or levy lid lift.
F-16 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan F-17
F-18 Arlington PRMP Plan
Arlington PRMP Plan F-19
Staff Report & Recommendation
PRMP – PLN#1042
Page 1 of 4
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From: Amy Rusko, Director
Meeting Date: December 8, 2025
Date Prepared: December 1, 2025
Regarding: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Amendment – PLN#1289
A. INTRODUCTION The proposed Parks and Recreation Master Plan is a City-initiated amendment to the Arlington Municipal Comprehensive Plan Appendix G of supporting documents.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Arlington
Project Description: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Amendment
Requested Action: City Council Approval
B. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION The City of Arlington has proposed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Appendix G – Park and Recreation Master Plan to revise the Cover Page, Chapter 3 Program Elements, Chapter 5 Plan Elements, Chapter 6 Park Plan Exhibits, Appendix B Existing Lands and Facilities, Appendix E Land and Facility Demand, and Appendix F Finances. The updates to these chapters and appendices includes the addition of Smokey Point Community Park, project lists, financial calculations, and community park impact fees.
C. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
Type of Determination Issued Date Distribution and Public Notice
SEPA Determination on Non-Significance (DNS) 10/30/2025 City Public Notice Website Emailed to Review Agencies Posted at City Hall and Arlington Library The Herald Published Date – 10/30/2025 Comment Period – 10/30/2025 to 11/13/2025
Planning Division th
Staff Report & Recommendation
PRMP – PLN#1289
Page 2 of 4
Public comments received during the public comment period.
Comment Summary City Response No comments received to date. Not Applicable
2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT:
Public Notice and
Meeting Type Meeting Date(s) Distribution and Public Notice
Park, Art, and Recreation Committee (PARC) 11/25/2025 Park, Art, and Recreation Committee Agenda Online Park, Art, and Recreation Committee Email Distribution List Planning Commission Public Meeting Presentations 11/4/2025 & 11/18/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List
Washington State Department of Commerce (RCW 36.70A.106) N/A Date Sent for 60-Day Review – 10/13/2025 Deadline for 60-Day Review – 12/12/2025
Planning Commission Public Hearing 11/18/2025 City Public Notice Website Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List The Herald Published Date – 10/30/2025
PARC Meeting 11/25/2025 PARC Agenda Online PARC Email Distribution List City Council Public Meeting Presentations
Workshop: 12/8/2025 Meeting: 12/15/2025 City Council Agenda Online City Council Email Distribution List
3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE:
Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary
H-4.3 Ensure impact fee programs add no more to the cost of each housing unit produced than a fairly derived proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities necessary to accommodate the housing unit as determined by the impact fee provisions of the Growth Management Act cited in chapter 82.02 RCW.
P-3.1 Require new residential development to mitigate impacts through payment of GMA parks impact fees, dedications of properties, and improvements for public use to serve the growing demand on the parks, recreation, and open space system citywide.
P-3.3 Follow the level-of-service standards and participation demands and needs identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan when planning and acquiring funding for the expansion and enhancement of Arlington’s parks and recreation system.
Staff Report & Recommendation
PRMP – PLN#1289
Page 3 of 4
Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary
P-4.2 To meet level-of-service standards and participation demands, use Capital Funds to improve existing parks and recreation facilities and provide for new parks and facilities citywide and in future annexation areas.
CFU-3.5 Plan for growth and development to be consistent with the City’s most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and parks and recreational facilities.
CFU-3.9 Coordinate on the data, analysis, and methodologies relating to capital facilities plans and level-of-service standards for all public facilities and services that are required by the Growth Management Act within the Urban Growth Area. The City is responsible for monitoring its own level-of-service standards in accordance with its adopted comprehensive plan.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH AMC CHAPTER 20.96 - AMENDMENTS
Regulation Meets 20.96.010 Amendments in General. (a) Amendments to the text of this title may be made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. followed the provision of Chapter 20.96 by being processed through the 2025 Docket as a Development Regulation Amendment.
or Zoning Map Amendments. (a) An open recode public hearing shall be held before the planning commission for all amendments to the comprehensive plan. (c) The city shall give public notice of all public hearings as required per §20.24.020. (d) Staff shall transmit to the department of commerce copies of all proposed amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning map at least sixty days in advance of prior adoption, as required by RCW 36.70A.106.
hearing at the November 18, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting. The public notice is described under Section 2 above. The proposed amendment was sent to the Department of Commerce on October 13, 2025 for the standard 60-day review.
Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. The planning commission shall issue for each docket item a recommendation for approval, approval subject to recommended modifications or conditions of approval, continuance, or a decision for denial, which decision shall be forwarded to the city council for review and decision.
Findings of Fact that is signed by the Chair. City Staff then includes the Findings of Fact within the City Council packet for review prior to the City Council workshop and meeting.
Staff Report & Recommendation
PRMP – PLN#1289
Page 4 of 4
Regulation Meets Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. (a) Considering that the comprehensive plan and zoning maps were developed after significant study and public participation, the principles, goals, objectives, and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering any proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan or zoning map of the city rests with the applicant. The city council’s approval, modification, deferral, or denial of an amendment proposal shall be based on the following criteria: appropriately addressed through the comprehensive plan, and the proposed amendment demonstrates a public benefit and enhances the public health, safety, and welfare of the city.
Master Plan provides an enhanced public benefit by ensuring the vision for parks is analyzed for future park, trail, and opens space facilities.
use issues that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing work program approved by the city council. issues, since the intent of the plan is to provide current and future park facilities. Development of parks require permitting at the time of development.
significantly changed conditions since the last time the pertinent comprehensive plan map or text was amended. “Significantly changed conditions” are those resulting from unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy or changed conditions on the subject property or its surrounding area, or changes related to the pertinent comprehensive plan map or text, where such change has implications of magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole.
information that considers the demand on the current park system and looks at the increases to the city’s populations over the next 20 years.
the comprehensive plan and other goals and policies of the city, the countywide planning policies, the Growth Management Act, other state or federal law, and the Washington Administrative Code and other applicable law.
impact fees and ensures the Parks and Recreation Master Plan remains in compliance with the adopted City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan.
(d) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Amendments, PLN#1289
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill WS #6 Attachment
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 8, 2025 SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving Amendment to AMC Chapter 20.90 Concurrency and Impact Fees ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, PC Findings of Fact, and Staff Report DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: concurrency and impact fees chapter of the code. The city updated the concurrency and impact fees for community parks to ensure compliance with the amended Parks and Recreation Master Plan. HISTORY: The AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendments were proposed with the 2024 Docket. The proposed zoning code amendment is required to comply with the updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The code amendment was placed on hold at the July 15, 2024 City Council meeting and again after the November 19, 2024 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for city staff to Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and provide additional information regarding the proposed fee and to verify the nexus between the facility improvements/costs and the proposed impact fee. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information
Workshop; discussion only. At the December 15, 2025 Council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the ordinance amending AMC Chapter 20.90 and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.”
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING CHAPTER 20.90
OF THE ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CONCURRENCY AND
IMPACT FEES UNDER CITY PLANNING NO. PLN 1040
WHEREAS, the city has proposed an update to the Concurrency and Impact Fees
regulations in the City zoning code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the same at workshops held on
November 4, 2025and public hearings conducted on November 18, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made findings and provided its recommendations to
the City Council concerning the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, the Parks, Arts, Recreation Commission reviewed the same revisions on
November 25, 2025 and recommended the proposed changes to City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same at a workshop held on December 8, 2025
and their regular meeting on December 15, 2025, and considered them along with the Planning
Commission recommendations; and the City Council having determined approving said
amendment was in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the amendments were presented to the Department of Commerce for
comment and said Department had no comments on the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed amendment to the municipal
code and finds it to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Arlington Municipal Code Chapter 20.90 Part III – 20.90.400 shall be and
hereby amended as follows:
Part III. Neighborhood and Community Parks Impact Fees.
20.90.400 Community and Neighborhood/Mini Parks Impact Fee.
(a) Residential developments shall pay a Community Park Impact Fee of $1,662 for each single-
family dwelling unit and $1,497 for each multi-family dwelling unit prior to issuance of a
building permit.
(b) Residential developments which do not set aside for a Neighborhood/Mini-Park per
§20.52.010 (Mini-Parks Required) or existing lots shall pay a Neighborhood/Mini Park In Lieu
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 2
Fee of $484 per single family dwelling unit and $436 per multi-family dwelling unit, prior to
issuance of a building permit.
(a) Established. All residential developments shall pay a Community Park Impact Fee, as allowed
per RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090. The per person rate is based on the average occupants
(persons) per residential housing type per the Washington State Office of Financial
Management Department (2021) as shown in Exhibit E of the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
(b) Applicability. The community park impact fee is calculated based on the number and type of
residential dwelling units permitted at the time of building permit issuance. The community
park impact fees are not subject to vesting and are calculated from the fee in place at the time
of building permit submittal. Impact fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance.
(c) Exemptions.
(1) A credit must be provided for redevelopment sites or subdivisions for the number of
residential units existing on the site prior to redevelopment.
(2) The reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of existing buildings, structures, mobile
homes, or manufactured homes, which does not result in any new units.
(3) Conversions of apartment complexes to condominium ownership where no new dwelling
units are created.
(4) A credit must be provided for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or
new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer, to facilities
that are identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and that are required by the
city as a condition of approving the development activity.
(5) In the event the amount of any credit exceeds the amount of the impact fee due, the city
is not required to reimburse the difference to the owner.
(d) Establishment of Service Areas. The city establishes as the service area for park impact fees
all areas in which development may occur that would impact the city’s park, open space, or
recreational system, including all property located within the corporate limits of the city as
now existing or may be amended by annexation.
(e) The community park impact fee component must be calculated using the following formula:
PIF = (C / P) x R x O
Example: Single Family Residential Home Community Park Impact Fee
$2,536.16 = ($26,483,652 / 13,784) x 50% x 2.64
(f) In the formula above:
(1) “PIF” means the total community park impact fee per housing type.
(2) “C” means the total cost required to maintain the existing level of service of city facilities
($26,483,652.00 as shown in Appendix E of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan).
(3) “P” means the total expected increase of population to the city (13,784 as shown on
sheet E-17 of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan).
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 3
(4) “C / P” means the total community park impact fee per person. ($1,921.33 as shown in
Appendix E of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan).
(5) “R” means an adjustment to the rate portion of the anticipated revenues resulting from
a development that is proportional to system improvements contained in the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The adjustment for park impacts is determined to be fifty (50)
percent for market rate developments
(6) “O” means the average number of occupants per dwelling unit as provided by the
Washington State Office of Financial Management for the City of Arlington at the time of
the most current Parks and Recreation Master Plan, shown in the Table-1.
Average Number of Occupants per Dwelling Type: Table-1
Residential Housing Type
Multiplex
(g) A residential development shall pay the established fee of $1,921.33.00 per person per unit
based on the residential unit type in Table-1, at a fifty percent (50%) rate per Table-2, unless
a reduction is allowed for alternative housing types as adopted by Arlington Municipal Code
or State regulations.
Residential Community Park Impact Fee Table-2
Residential Housing Type Per Person Per Unit Charged Unit
Single Family Residence $1,921.33 2.64 50% $2,536.16
Manufactured Home $1,921.33 2.37 50% $2,276.78
Duplex $1,921.33 2.05 50% $1,969.36
Triplex and Quadplex $1,921.33 2.01 50% $1,930.94
Multiplex – 5 Units or More $1,921.33 2.00 50% $1,921.33
Section 2. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 4
ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state
or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 3. Effective Date. The title of this ordinance which summarizes the contents shall
be published in the official newspaper of the City. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force five (5) days after the date of publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Arlington and APPROVED by the Mayor this
______ day of _____________________, 2025.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
____________________________________
Don E. Vanney, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Oskar E. Rey, City Attorney
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN#1040
Page 1 of 4
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From: Amy Rusko, Director
Meeting Date: December 8, 2025
Date Prepared: December 1, 2025
Regarding: AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN#1040
A. INTRODUCTION The AMC Chapter 20.90 – Concurrency and Impact Fees Zoning Code Amendments is a City-initiated amendment to the Arlington Municipal code that includes updates to Part III for the currency and impact fees for Community Parks.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Arlington
Project Description: AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment
Requested Action: City Council Approval
B. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION The AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment includes updates to Part III of the concurrency and impact fees chapter of the code. The city updated the concurrency and impact fees for community parks to ensure compliance with the revised Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
Type of Determination Issued Date Distribution and Public Notice
SEPA Determination on Non-Significance (DNS) 5/28/2024 City Public Notice Website Emailed to Review Agencies Posted at City Hall and Arlington Library The Herald Published Date – 5/30/2024 Comment Period – 5/30/2024 to 6/13/2024
Revised SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) 10/30/2025 City Public Notice Website Emailed to Review Agencies Posted at City Hall and Arlington Library Party of Record List The Herald Published Date – 10/30/2025 Comment Period – 10/30/2025 to 11/13/2025
Planning Division th
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN#1040
Page 2 of 4
Public comments received during the public comment period.
Comment Summary City Response David Toyer submitted an email and letter regarding the Park and Recreation Master Plan, increase of the community park impact fee, impact fee vesting, and nexus of proportionality for new development versus the citizens that already live in the city. Original comments are attached with this staff report.
7/8/2024
council and November 2024 planning commission meetings. Mr. Toyer was also present at the July city council meetings and the November 19, 2024 planning commission meeting and provided oral testimony. The comments were considered and city staff removed the item from the city council agenda to take a closer look at the information within the Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, submitted a letter regarding the increase to the community park impact fee and the nexus of proportionality for development. Original comments are attached within this staff report.
7/9/2024, 11/6/2024 and 11/14/2024
and November 2024 planning commission meetings. Mr. Joe was present at the July city council meetings. He was also at the November 5, 2024 planning commission meeting and provided oral testimony. The comments were considered and city staff removed the item from the city council agenda to take a closer look at the information within the Park and Recreation Master Plan. 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT:
Public Notice and
Meeting Type Meeting Date(s) Distribution and Public Notice Planning Commission Public Meeting 11/5/2024, 11/19/2024, Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List Washington State Department of Commerce (RCW 36.70A.106) N/A Date Sent for 60-Day Review – 4/19/2024 Deadline for 60-Day Review – 6/18/2024 Date Sent for 60-Day Review – 10/13/2025 Deadline for 60-Day Review – 12/12/2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing No. 1 6/18/2024 Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List The Herald Published Date – 5/30/2024
Planning Commission Public Hearing No. 2 11/19/2024 City Public Notice Website Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List The Herald Publishing Date – 11/1/2024 Posted at City Hall and Sno-Isle Library – 11/1/2024
Planning Commission Public Hearing No. 3 11/18/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List Party of Record List The Herald Publishing Date – 10/30/2025
PARC Meeting 11/25/2025 PARC Agenda Online PARC Email Distribution List Public Meeting
7/8/2024, 7/15/2024, 12/8/2025, 12/15/2025 City Council Agenda Online City Council Email Distribution List
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN#1040
Page 3 of 4
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL (a) The city received the following comments for the City Council Workshop and Meeting on July 8, 2024 and July 15, 2024. The relative same comments were also provided for the Planning Commission Workshop and Meeting on November 5, 2024 and November 19, 2024. i. David Toyer submitted an email and letter regarding the Park and Recreation Master Plan, increase of the community park impact fee, impact fee vesting, and nexus of proportionality for new development versus the citizens that already live in the city. These documents are attached as Exhibit A to this staff report. ii. Russell Joe, on behalf of Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, submitted a letter regarding the increase to the community park impact fee and the nexus of proportionality for development. This document is attached as Exhibit B to this staff report.
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE:
Goal or Policy Goal or Policy Description Summary
H-4.3 Ensure impact fee programs add no more to the cost of each housing unit produced than a fairly derived proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities necessary to accommodate the housing unit as determined by the impact fee provisions of the Growth Management Act cited in chapter 82.02 RCW.
P-3.1 Require new residential development to mitigate impacts through payment of GMA parks impact fees, dedications of properties, and improvements for public use to serve the growing demand on the parks, recreation, and open space system citywide.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH AMC CHAPTER 20.96 - AMENDMENTS
Regulation Meets (a) Amendments to the text of this title may be made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. has followed the provision of Chapter 20.96 by being processed through the 2024 Docket as a Development Regulation Amendment. Development Regulations. (a) All proposed text amendments to the development or zoning regulations shall be developed, submitted, and presented by the city staff, based on direction from the city council, planning commission, or the director of community and economic development.
process. The City Council approved the 2024 Final Docket through Resolution 2024-008.
Staff shall transmit to the department of commerce copies of all proposed amendments to the city’s development regulations at least sixty days in advance of adoption, as required by RCW 36.70A.106.
Department of Commerce on April 19, 2024 for the standard 60-day review, with the review comment period ending on June 18, 2024. The modified amendment was sent to the Department of Commerce on October 13, 2025 for the standard 60-day review, with the review comment period ending on December 12, 2025. No comments have been received.
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN#1040
Page 4 of 4
Regulation Meets 20.96.120 Public Hearings on Development Regulation Amendments. (a) An open record public hearing shall be held before the planning commission for all amendments. (c) The city shall give public notice of all public hearings as required by section 20.24.020.
hearing at the November 18, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting. The public noticing is described under Section 2 above.
Development Regulation Amendments. The planning commission shall issue a recommendation for approval, approval subject to recommended modifications or conditions of approval, continuance, or a decision of denial, which decision shall be forwarded to the city council for review and decision.
Findings of Fact that is signed by the Chair. City Staff then includes the Findings of Fact within the City Council packet for review prior to the City Council workshop and meeting.
Development Regulation Amendments. The city council’s approval, modification, deferral, or denial of a development regulations amendment proposal shall be based on the following criteria: (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Multi-County Planning Policies, County Planning Policies, and the Growth Management Act, RCW Chapter 36.70A; and (2) The proposed change is necessary to further the public interest based on present needs and conditions.
provided by staff and considers the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, County Planning Policies, the Growth Management Act, and RCW Chapter 36.70A, along with the overall public interest prior to considering a decision.
(d) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve AMC Chapter 20.90 Zoning Code Amendment, PLN #1040, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill WS #7 Attachment
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 8, 2025 SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving Amendment to AMC Chapter 20.93 Critical Area Ordinance ATTACHMENTS: Code Amendment Overview, Ordinance, Planning Commission Findings of Fact, and Staff Report DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Amy Rusko, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: complete rewrite of the entire chapter to ensure compliance with updated state regulations and guidance. HISTORY:
Comprehensive Plan Update. Future comprehensive plan updates will budget for updates to the Critical Area Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information.
“I move to approve the ordinance amending AMC Chapter 20.93 and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.”
Page 1 of 3
New or Renamed Table of Contents Code Sections:
• The Table of Contents and Code Sections were rearranged and updated:
o Purpose and Intent was combined with De�initions
o General Provisions was update and sections were added to other sections where they were more applicable.
o A Critical Areas Review Procedures section was added
o The sections under each part were revised to have similar sections. This provides consistency throughout the entire document.
o The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) and Streams, Creeks, Rivers, Lakes, and Other Surface Water were combined into one Part.
o Added a new Part for Frequently Flooded Areas, though most of the section refers back to AMC 20.64 Floodplain Development Regulations.
o Added a new Part for Cultural Resources.
New Language Sections:
• Part I – Purpose, Intent and De�initions. The purpose and intent was re-written to incorporate updated language. The De�initions section remained mostly unchanged with some de�initions that were added, updated, or removed based on Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife recommendations.
• Part II – General Provisions. This section was completely updated with new language to provide clear and concise regulations. The following are the most notable additions to the section:
o Protection measures.
o Project evaluation steps.
o Exempt activities description and addition of new tables for clarity.
o Permitted Alterations description and addition of new tables for clarity.
o Reasonable Use Exception and Critical Area Variance requirements.
o Building setback description and addition of a �igure for visual depiction.
• Part III – Critical Areas Review Procedures. This section was completely updated with new language to provide clear and concise procedures. The following are the most notable additions to the section:
o Critical Area Evaluation Form
o Critical Area Report – speci�ic information.
o Detailed Application requirements.
AMC Chapter 20.93 – Critical Area Ordinance
Zoning Code Amendment Overview Summary - Amy Rusko, Director
Page 2 of 3
o Mitigation Plan Requirements and Monitoring Reports – speci�ic requirements.
o Requirement for Title Noti�ication for future property owners to know that a critical area is located on the property.
o Critical area protection area signage requirements with a �igure depicting what the signage should look like.
o Financial Guarantee requirements for bonding of critical area improvements, when necessary.
o Unauthorized critical area alterations – speci�ic process.
• Part IV – Wetlands. Much of the existing information was utilized. The information was restructured and reorganized throughout the section to ensure clear and concise requirements. There were no new updates to the Wetland Buffer Width Requirements. This was already adopted by the city in 2022. Minor amendments were made per the Department of Ecology comments received.
• Part V – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs). This section was completely re-written to follow the Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance and best available science. The following are the most notable additions to the section:
o Description and purpose of the �ish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
o Designation of �ish and wildlife habitat conservations areas.
o Mapping information was updated to show where maps can be found for the information needed for permitting.
o General development standards for FWHCAs
o Speci�ic standards for Type F, Type Np and Type Ns Waters. This includes new Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) widths and buffer requirements. New table for visual reference. RMZs for Type F streams were updated from 150 feet to Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) at 200 years. RMZs for Type Np and Type Ns were updated from 50 feet to 100 feet.
o Speci�ic riparian management zone standards, including �igures to help visualize the requirements.
o Speci�ic standards for Other Species including Eagles and Swans.
o Speci�ic standards for critical area report requirements and mitigation.
• Part VI – Geologically Hazardous Areas. This section was updated to include additional information and re-written in parts to ensure the most current information was utilized. The following are the most notable additions to the section:
o Designations was updated to include more types.
o Mapping information was updated to show where maps can be found for the information needed for permitting.
o Speci�ic development standards update for required setbacks. This was changed from the current code and �igures are provided to have a visual depiction of the requirements.
Page 3 of 3
• Part VII – Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. This entire section has new language with updated references. The following are the most notable additions to the section:
o New Hazardous Materials Questionnaire requirement.
o Speci�ic development standards for properties within the aquifer recharge area.
o New Table with WAC and RCW regulations for permitting requirements.
• Part VIII – Frequently Flooded Areas. This entire section is new language. This section is calling out frequently �looded areas as a critical area. The section provides and overview and references FEMA and Chapter 20.64 – Floodplain Development Regulations.
• Part IV – Cultural Resources. This entire section is new language. This section provides information on the importance of preserving cultural resources, requirements for completing cultural resource reports and site assessments, management plans, and inadvertent discovery, along with State, Tribal, and Federal agency approvals. The language within the chapter and its sections follows updated materials and publications from the following:
o Department of Ecology for Wetlands
o Department of Fish and Wildlife for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) for Streams, Creeks, Rivers, Lakes, and Other Surface Waters
o Washington Geological Survey (WGS) and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for Geologically Hazardous Areas
o Research and materials from similar sized cities that have approved critical area ordinances within the past year.
• The Critical Area Ordinance located in Chapter 20.93 was required to be updated per GMA. It should have been updated with our Comprehensive Plan in 2024, but was not included in the consultant budget.
• There was no new legislation; however, there are many WAC’s that support the proposed amendment. These are listed throughout the document. Staff also utilized the Best Available Science recommendations from the following documents:
o WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications
o WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations
o WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
Washington State Legislation or Other Requirements
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING CHAPTER 20.93
OF THE ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE UNDER CITY
PLANNING NO. PLN 1179
WHEREAS, the City has proposed an update to the Critical Area Ordinance regulations to
the City zoning code; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has engaged in a comprehensive review and has proposed to
update to the entire critical area ordinance to comply with state guidance; and
WHEREAS, the Arlington Planning Commission considered the revisions on August 5, 2025
and at a public hearing conducted on August 19, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made findings and provided its recommendations to
the City Council concerning the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same at a workshop held on December 8, 2025,
a meeting on December 15, 2025, and considered them along with the Planning Commission
recommendations; and the City Council having determined approving said amendment was in
the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the amendments were presented to the Department of Commerce for
comment and said Department had no comments on the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed amendment to the municipal
code and finds it to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Arlington Municipal Code section 20.93 shall be and hereby adopted to read
as set forth on the attached “Exhibit A”.
Section 2. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state
or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 3. Effective Date. The title of this ordinance which summarizes the contents shall
be published in the official newspaper of the City. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full
force five (5) days after the date of publication as provided by law.
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Arlington and APPROVED by the Mayor this
______ day of _____________________, 2025.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
___________________________________
_ Don E. Vanney, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Oskar E. Rey, City Attorney
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 1 Revised December 2025
Chapter 20.93
CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE
Sections:
Part I – Purpose, Intent and Definitions
20.93.100 Purpose and Intent.
20.93.110 Definitions.
Part II - General Provisions
20.93.200 Applicability.
20.93.210 Identification, Classification, and Rating of Critical Areas.
20.93.220 Protection of Critical Areas.
20.93.230 Project Evaluation.
20.93.240 Critical Area Review.
20.93.250 Exempt Activities.
20.93.260 Permitted Alterations.
20.93.270 Reasonable Use Exception and Critical Area Variance.
20.93.280 Building Setbacks.
Part III - Critical Areas Review Procedures
20.93.300 Critical Area Evaluation Form.
20.93.310 Critical Area Report.
20.93.320 Application Requirements.
20.93.330 Mitigation and Mitigation Plan Requirements.
20.93.340 Title Notification.
20.93.350 Field Marking.
20.93.360 Construction Plan Review, Monitoring, and Inspection.
20.93.370 Financial Guarantee Requirements.
20.93.380 Unauthorized Critical Area Alterations.
20.93.390 Final Decision and Appeals.
Part IV - Wetlands
20.93.400 Description and Purpose.
20.93.410 Identification, Designation, and Rating.
20.93.420 Mapping and Delineation.
20.93.430 General Development Standards.
20.93.440 Specific Wetland Category Development Standards.
20.93.450 Required Wetland Buffers.
20.93.460 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
20.93.470 Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards and Requirements.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 2 Revised December 2025
Part V - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
20.93.500 Description and Purpose.
20.93.510 Designation.
20.93.520 Mapping.
20.93.530 General Development Standards for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
20.93.540 Specific Standards for Type F, Type Np and Type Ns Waters.
20.93.550 Specific Riparian Management Zones Standards.
20.93.560 Specific Standards for other Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
20.93.570 Stormwater Management Facilities.
20.93.580 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
20.93.590 Mitigation Performance Standards and Requirements.
Part VI - Geologically Hazardous Areas
20.93.600 Description and Purpose.
20.93.610 Designation.
20.93.620 Mapping.
20.93.630 General Development Standards.
20.93.640 Specific Development Standards.
20.93.650 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
Part VII - Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
20.93.700 Description and Purpose.
20.93.710 Applicability and Hazardous Materials Questionnaire.
20.93.720 Designation.
20.93.730 Mapping.
20.93.740 General Development Standards.
20.93.750 Specific Development Standards for Regulated Facilities.
20.93.760 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
Part VIII - Frequently Flooded Areas
20.93.800 Description and Purpose.
20.93.810 Designation.
20.93.820 Mapping.
20.93.830 General Development Standards.
20.93.840 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
Part IX – Cultural Resources
20.93.900 Description and Purpose.
20.93.910 Preservation of Cultural Resources.
20.93.920 Cultural Resource Report and Site Assessment.
20.93.930 Cultural Resource Management Plan.
20.93.940 Inadvertent Discovery.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 3 Revised December 2025
Part I – Purpose, Intent and Definitions
20.93.100 – Purpose and Intent
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to designate critical areas and to establish standards for the protection of their
functions and values, in compliance with the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act
of 1990 (Chapter 36.70A RCW), and be consistent with the goals and policies of the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
(b) By identifying and regulating development and alterations to critical areas and their buffers, this chapter
seeks to accomplish the following goals:
(1) Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property
damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, or flooding.
(2) Protect, maintain and restore healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile,
and valuable elements of the environment, including, but not limited to, ground and surface waters,
wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal
species.
(3) Direct activities not dependent on critical area resources to less environmentally sensitive sites and
mitigate unavoidable impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas.
(4) Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat,
and the overall net loss of wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas.
(5) Alert owners, potential purchasers, real estate agents, appraisers, lenders, builders, developers and other
members of the public to natural conditions that pose a hazard or may otherwise limit development.
(6) Serve as a basis for exercise of the city’s substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA).
(c) The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth
Management Act, through the application of best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-
195-900 through 365-195-925 and in consultation with state and federal agencies and other qualified
professionals.
(d) This chapter is intended to be administered with limited flexibility and attention to site-specific
characteristics. It is not the intent of this chapter to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner
reasonable economic use of the property, or to prevent the provision of public facilities and services
necessary to support existing development and that planned for by the community without decreasing
current service levels below minimum standards.
(e) The city’s enactment or enforcement of this chapter must not be construed for the benefit of any individual
person or group of persons other than the general public.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 4 Revised December 2025
20.93.110 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
"Agricultural Activities, Existing and Ongoing – Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW
84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops and livestock, including but not limited
to operation, maintenance and conservation measures of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation
systems, changes between agricultural activities, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing
serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not
part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area in which it was conducted is
proposed for conversion to nonagricultural use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years unless the
idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program.
"Alteration(s)". Any human-induced change in the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer.
Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, channelizing, dredging, clearing of vegetation,
construction, compaction, excavation, or any other activity that changes the character of the critical area.
"AMC". The Arlington Municipal Code.
"Applicant". A person who applies for any permit or approval to do anything governed by this code and
who is either the owner of the subject property, the authorized agent of the owner, or the city.
“Atypical Wetland”. A wetland whose “design” does not match the type of wetland that would be found
in a geomorphic setting of the proposed site (i.e., the water source and hydroperiod proposed for the mitigation
site are not typical for the geomorphic setting). Designs that provide exaggerated morphology or require a
berm or other engineered structures to hold back water would also be considered atypical. Note: An atypical
wetland resulting from an inappropriate hydrogeomorphic class is different from the “atypical situation”
defined in the Corps 1987 wetland delineation manual
"Best Available Science”. Current scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or
restore critical areas; that is, derived from a valid scientific process as defined WAC 365-195-900 through 925.
“Best Management Practices (BMPs)”. Conservation practices or systems of practices and management
measures that:
(a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high concentrations of nutrients,
animal waste, toxics, or sediment;
(b) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and circulation patterns and to
the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands;
(c) Protect trees, vegetation, and soils designated to be retained during and following site construction
and use native plant species appropriate to the site for re-vegetation of disturbed areas; and
(d) Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical areas.
“Bog”. See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
"Buffer or Buffer Zone”. Vegetated areas adjacent to wetland or other aquatic resources and any geological
hazard areas that can reduce impacts from adjacent land uses through various physical, chemical, and/or
biological processes.
“Calcareous Fens”. See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
“Carbon Sequestration”. The process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide through
biologic, chemical, geologic, or physical processes (RCW 70A-45-010).
“Channel Migration Zone” (CMZ) means the area within which a river channel is likely to migrate and
occupy over a specified time period (e.g., 100 years).
"Classes". Taxonomic classification system of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et
al 1978).
“Clean Water Act (CWA)”. The federal law that establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges
of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under the
CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented pollution control programs such as
setting wastewater standards for industry. The EPA has also developed national water quality criteria
recommendations for pollutants in surface waters.
"Coastal Lagoon”. See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 5 Revised December 2025
"Commercial". Activity with goods, merchandise, or services for sale or rent.
“Compensatory Mitigation”. The restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), establishment (creation),
enhancement, and/or in certain circumstances preservation of wetlands for the purposes of offsetting
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has
been achieved.
"Constructed stormwater wetland". A stormwater management system that is designed and built to
function similar to the naturally occurring wetland including native trees and shrubs allowed to grow to
maturity.
“Cowardin Classification”. A commonly used classification system for wetlands. It was first developed in
1979 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and updated in 2013 (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013).
The Cowardin system classifies wetlands based on water flow, substrate types, vegetation types, and dominant
plant species. It is used for wetland classification in the National Wetland Inventory.
“Credit-Debit Method”. A tool to provide applicants and regulators a way to determine whether actions
taken to mitigate an impact to wetlands will adequately replace the functions and values lost. It is based on the
Washington State Wetland Rating System.
"Critical areas". Any of the following areas or ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging
effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded
areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. “Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas” does not include
such artificial features or constructs as irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals,
or drainage ditches that lie within the boundaries of and are maintained by a port district or an irrigation district
or company. (WAC 365-196-200(6) (a-e)).
“Critical Habitat”. A term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It is specific geographic areas
that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and may require
special management and protection. Critical habitat may also include areas that are not currently occupied by
the species but are needed for its recovery.
“Creation”. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop a
wetland that did not previously exist at an upland site. Creation results in a gain in wetland area and function.
A typical action is the excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod and
hydric soils and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
“Cumulative Impacts or Effects”. The combined, incremental effects of human activity on ecological or
critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or
interact with the effects of other actions in a particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination
of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact
analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions.
"Dedication". Deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for public use or purpose, reserving no other
rights than those that are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public use or purpose to which
the property has been devoted.
"Degraded wetland". A wetland in which the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology have been adversely
altered, resulting in lost or reduced functions and values.
"Developable area". Land outside of critical areas and environmentally critical area setbacks and buffers.
"Development" A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; grading,
dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings;
or any project of a temporary or permanent nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and
which does not fall within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code.
"Development permit". Any permit or approval under this code or the AMC that must be issued before
initiating a use or development activity.
"Ditch". A long narrow excavation dug in the earth for drainage with its top width less than ten feet at
design flow and that does not meet the definition of a stream. A ditch may be regulated if it conveys stream
flow.
"Easement". Land which has specific air, surface or subsurface rights conveyed for use by an entity other
than the owner of the subject property or to benefit some property other than the subject property.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 6 Revised December 2025
“Ecosystem Functions” are the products, physical and biological conditions, and environmental qualities
of an ecosystem that result from interactions among ecosystem processes and ecosystem structures. Ecosystem
functions include but are not limited to sequestered carbon, attenuated peak streamflow, aquifer water level,
reduced pollutant concentrations in surface and ground waters, cool summer in-stream water temperatures, and
fish and wildlife habitat functions.
“Ecosystem Values” are the cultural, social, economic, and ecological benefits attributed to ecosystem
functions.
"Edge". The boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the criteria contained in this chapter.
“Emergencies”. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or
welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventive
action in a timeframe too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of the critical areas regulations.
"Emergent wetland". See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
"Enhancement". The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland to
heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other function(s).
Enhancement does not result in a gain in wetland area.
"Erosion hazard area". A landform or soil type subject to being worn away by the action of water, wind,
freeze-thaw, or ice.
“Establishment”. See Creation.
"Exotic species". Plants or animals that are not native to the Puget Sound Lowlands region.
"Extraordinary hardship". Prevention of all reasonable economic use of the parcel due to strict application
of this chapter and/or programs adopted to implement this chapter.
“Fish Habitat” means habitat which is used by any fish at any life stage at any time of the year, including
potential habitat likely to be used by fish which could be recovered by restoration or management and includes
off-channel habitat.
"Fish and wildlife habitats (of local importance)". A seasonal range or habitat element with which a given
species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain
and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of relative density
or species richness, breeding habitat, seasonal range, and movement corridors. These also include habitats of
limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs and wetlands.
"Forested wetland". See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
"Forest land". Land used for growing trees, not including Christmas trees, for commercial purposes (as
shown by record of any income) that has long-term (six years or more) commercial significance.
"Functions and Values”. The ecosystem services provided by critical areas to society, including, but not
limited to, improving, and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitat, supporting terrestrial
and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive flows, wave attenuation, carbon sequestration, thermal
refugia, historical or archaeological importance, cultural uses and significance, educational opportunities, and
recreation.
"Geologically hazardous areas". Includes areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, seismic activity, or other
geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when used as sites for incompatible
commercial, residential, or industrial development is sited in areas of significant hazard (WAC 365-190-120)
"Grading". The physical manipulation of the earth's surface and/or drainage pattern in preparation of an
intended use or activity.
“Growth Management Act”. Chapters 36-70A and 36-70B RCW, as amended.
“Habitat Corridor”. A legally protected, relatively undisturbed and vegetated area (e.g., Priority Habitats,
other compensation sites, wildlife areas/refuges, or national, county and state parks where they have
management plans with identified areas designated as Natural, Natural Forest, or Natural Area Preserve).
Including an area that is the site of a Watershed Project identified within and fully consistent with a Watershed
Plan (as these terms are defined by RCW 89-08-460), an area where development is prohibited per the
provisions of the local shoreline master program, or an area with equivalent habitat quality that has
conservation status in perpetuity, in consultation with WDFW.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 7 Revised December 2025
“Hazard Tree” is defined as a threat to life, property, or public safety. Require that the method of hazard
tree removal not adversely affect riparian ecosystem functions to the extent practicable, encourage the creation
of snags (priority habitat features) rather than complete tree removal, involve avoidance and minimization of
damage to remaining trees and vegetation within the RMZ and require a qualified arborist to evaluate requests
for hazard tree removal.
"Hazardous Substances”. Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product,
commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the physical, chemical, or biological properties
described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-100.
"High quality native wetlands" will be classified by the state wetland rating system for Western
Washington. However, the following elements may be considered when identifying locally important functions
of a wetland:
(a) No, or isolated, human alteration of the wetland topography;
(b) No human-caused alteration of the hydrology or else the wetland appears to have recovered from the
alteration;
(c) Low cover and frequency of exotic plant species;
(d) Relatively little human-related disturbance of the native vegetation, or recovery from past disturbance;
(e) If the wetland system is degraded, it still contains a viable and high-quality example of a native
wetland community; and
(f) No known major water quality problems.
"Hydric soil". Soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined following the methods
as defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. The presence of hydric soil shall be
determined following the methods described in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region.
"Hydrophyte or hydrophytic vegetation". Plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least
periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation
shall be determined following the methods described in the federal manual per RCW 90.58.380: Adoption of
Wetland Manual.
"Impervious Surface”. A surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil or other
substrate that would occur under natural conditions prior to development. A non-vegetated surface area that
causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present
under pre-development or pre-developed conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited
to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads,
packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam, or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration
of stormwater.
“In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Program”. An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or local) and a
single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit organization. Under an in-lieu-fee
agreement, the sponsor collects funds from individuals and/or entities required to conduct compensatory
mitigation under a wetland regulatory program. The sponsor uses the funds pooled from multiple permittees
to create one or more mitigation sites under the authority of the agreement to satisfy the permittee’s required
mitigations.
“Infiltration”. The downward entry of water into the soil.
“Intermittent Streams” means those segments of streams that normally go dry.
"Improvement". Any structure or manmade feature.
"In-Kind Compensation”. To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose characteristics and
functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity.
“Interdunal Wetland”. See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
"Landslide hazard areas". Areas potentially subject to risk of mass movement due to a combination of
factors, including historic failures.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 8 Revised December 2025
“Low Impact Development (LID) Methodology”. A stormwater and land-use management strategy that
tries to mimic natural hydrologic conditions by emphasizing the following techniques: conservation, use of on-
site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater best management practices (BMPs) integrated
into project design.
"Mineral resource lands". Lands primarily devoted to the extraction of gravel, sand, other construction
materials, or valuable metallic or mineral substances.
"Mitigation Sequence”. A prescribed order of steps taken to reduce the impacts of activities on wetlands.
As defined in WAC 197-11-768, mitigation means:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce the impacts;
(c) Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action;
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments; and/or
(f) Monitoring the impact and taking remedial action when necessary.
"Monitoring”. Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological, hydrological, and
geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of required mitigation measures through
the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting
changes in natural ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering baseline data.
“National Wetland Inventory (NWI)”. A publicly available resource provided by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service that provides detailed information and maps showing the abundance, characteristics, and
distribution of wetlands in the U.S.
"Native vegetation". Plant species that occur naturally in a particular region or environment and were
present before European colonization.
"Natural condition". Lands that retain native vegetation, forest duff and naturally occurring contours and
drainage patterns not modified by human activity.
"Natural resource lands". Includes lands that are significant for long-term commercial purposes, such as
agriculture, forest, and mineral resource lands and follow the criteria of WAC 365-196-480.
"Nonconforming". Any use, structure, lot, condition, activity, or any other feature or element of private
property or the use or utilization of private property that does not conform to any of the provisions of this code
or that was not approved by the city through the appropriate decision-making process required under this code.
“Non-Federally Regulated Wetland”. A wetland that is not jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water
Act. Sometimes referred to as “isolated wetlands,” these wetlands remain regulated under state and local laws
and rules, whether or not they are protected by federal law.
“Non-Natural Water Course” means constructed vegetated swales and ditches that are designed and
installed for the express purpose of periodically moving stormwater not associated with naturally occurring
streams.
“Off-Site Compensatory Mitigation”. Replacement of critical areas away from the site on which a critical
area has been impacted.
“On-Site Compensatory Mitigation”. Replacement of critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a
critical area has been impacted.
"Open space". Land not covered by buildings, roadways, parking areas, or other surfaces through which
water cannot percolate into the underlying soils.
"Ordinary high-water mark". Under the Shoreline Management Act, that mark which is found by
examining the bed and banks of water bodies and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so
common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a character distinct from that
of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation.
"Palustrine wetland". See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 9 Revised December 2025
"Pond". Any inland body of water, either naturally or artificially formed or increased, that has a surface
area of one thousand square feet or more, except: These do not include ponds deliberately designed and created
from dry sites such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape
amenities.
"Practicable alternative". An alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and having less
impacts to environmentally critical areas. It may include an area not owned by the applicant that can reasonably
be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity.
“Preservation”. The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action
in or near a wetland. This term includes activities commonly associated with the protection and maintenance
of wetlands through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms (such as recording and
providing structural protection like fences and signs). Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland area
and functions (but may result in a gain of functions over the long term).
“Priority Area”. Known limiting habitats (e.g., breeding areas) or areas that support a relatively high
number of individuals (e.g., regular concentrations) identified in WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species List.
"Priority Habitats". As defined by WDFW, habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a
diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type (e.g., shrub-steppe)
or dominant plant species (e.g., juniper savannah), a described successional stage (e.g., old-growth forest), or
a specific habitat feature (e.g., cliffs).
"Priority Species". As defined by WDFW, State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate
species; animal aggregations (e.g., heron colonies, bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of
recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable.
"Project Area”. All areas, including those within fifty (50) feet of the area, proposed to be disturbed,
altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed structures. When the action binds
the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the
project area shall include the entire parcel, at a minimum.
“Qualified Professional Engineer”. A person with professional engineering experience that meets the
following criteria:
(a) Hold a degree from an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accredited
engineering program or demonstrate equivalent education and experience, and
(b) Accumulate at least four years of progressive engineering experience under a licensed PE, and
(c) Passed the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exams.
A person certified as a Professional Engineer through the Washington State Board of Registration meeting the
requirements of WAC 196-12.
“Qualified Professional Geologist”. A person with professional geology experience that meets the
following criteria:
(a) A bachelor’s degree in geology, engineering geology, hydrogeology, or geological sciences,
including successful completion of core classes, and
(b) At least five years of geological experience after completion of the educational requirements. At least
three years of geological experience must be obtained under the supervision of state-licensed
geologists, and
(c) Passed the National Association of State Boards of Geologists (ASBOG) Fundamentals of Geology
and the ASBOG Practice of Geology examinations.
A person certified as a Professional Geologist through the Washington State Geologist Licensing Board
meeting the requirements of WAC 308-15.
“Qualified Wetland Professional”. A person with professional wetland experience that meets the following
criteria:
(a) A Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts or equivalent degree in hydrology, soil science, botany,
ecology, resource management, or related field, or four years of full-time work experience as a
wetland professional may substitute for a degree, and
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 10 Revised December 2025
(b) At least two additional years of full-time work experience as a wetland professional; including
delineating wetlands, preparing wetland reports, conducting function assessments, and developing
and implementing mitigation plans, and
(c) Completion of additional wetland-specific training programs. This could include a more
comprehensive program such as the University of Washington Wetland Science and Management
Certificate Program or individual workshops on topics such as wetland delineation, function
assessment, mitigation design, hydrophytic plant or hydric soil identification.
A person certified as a Professional Wetland Scientist through the Society of Wetland Scientists professional
certification program meets the above criteria.
"Re-establishment”. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with
the goal of returning natural/historical functions and environmental processes to a former
wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in wetland area and
functions.
“Rehabilitation”. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with
the goal of repairing natural/historic functions and environmental processes to a degraded wetland.
Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres.
“Repair or Maintenance”. An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable
area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition. Activities that change the
character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter
critical areas are not included in this definition.
“Restoration”. Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including:
(a) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, or their buffers to the
functioning condition that existed prior to an unauthorized alteration; and
(b) Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics of a critical area that have
been lost by alteration, past management activities, or catastrophic events.
"Riparian habitat". An ecosystem that occurs in the transition zone between aquatic and upland
environments.
“Riparian Management Zone” (RMZ) means the area that has the potential to provide full riparian
functions. In many forested regions of the state, this area occurs within one 200-year site-potential tree height
measured from the edge of the stream channel. In situations where a CMZ is present, this occurs within one
site potential tree height measured from the edges of the CMZ. In non-forested zones, the RMZ is defined by
the greater of the outermost point of the riparian vegetative community or the pollution removal function, at
100 feet.
"Revised Code of Washington (RCW)”. A compilation of all permanent Washington state laws currently
in force.
"Scrub-shrub wetlands". See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
"Seismic hazard areas". Areas subject to the risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground
shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction or surface faulting. Ground shaking is a primary risk,
followed by some unstable slopes causing damage below them.
“SEPA”. Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43-21C RCW.
"Service Area”. The geographic area within which impacts can be mitigated at a specific mitigation bank
or an in-lieu-fee program, as designated in its instrument.
“Shoreline Management Act (SMA)”. Chapter 90-58 RCW, which is the law that requires all counties,
towns, and cities with shorelines to develop and implement shoreline master programs.
“Site-Potential Tree Height (SPTH200)” means the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees
(200 years) and site class.
“Slope”. See Section 20.93.600 (Geological Hazardous Areas – Classification).
“Soil Survey”. The most recent Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps for the local area or
county by the National Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“Species”. Any group of animals or plants classified as a species or subspecies as commonly accepted by
the scientific community.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 11 Revised December 2025
“Species, Listed”. Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or state endangered,
threatened, and sensitive, or priority lists (see WAC 220-610-110 or current “Priority Habitat and Species
List,” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)
"Sphagnum". Any of a large genus of mosses that grows only in wet acidic soils and whose remains
become compacted with other plant debris to form peat.
"Stream". An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not including irrigation
ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, unless they are
used by salmonids or are used to convey a watercourse that was
naturally occurring prior to construction. A channel or bed need not contain water year-round, provided there
is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of normal rainfall.
"Steep slope". See Section 20.93.600 (Geological Hazardous Areas—Classification).
"Structure". Anything which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of
work artificially built-up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. Not included are fences
less than six feet in height, retaining wall, rockeries, and similar improvements of a minor character less than
three feet in height.
“Temporal Loss”. The time lag between the loss of wetland functions caused by the permitted or
unpermitted impacts and the replacement of wetland functions at the compensatory mitigation site.
“Thermal Refugia”. Sites within a landscape that are relatively protected from temperature extremes and
warming trends.
“Type F Water” Segments of natural waters other than Type S waters, which are within the bankfull widths
of defined channels and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or
impoundments having a surface area of 0.5 acre or greater at seasonal low water, as more fully described in
WAC 222-16-030.
“Type Np Water” means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that
are perennial nonfish habitat streams. Perennial streams are flowing waters that do not go dry any time of a
year of normal rainfall and include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost
point of the perennial flow.
“Type Ns Water” means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the defined channels
that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not
present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream
reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be physically connected by an above-ground channel system
to Type S, F, or Np Waters.
“Type S Water” means all waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as “shorelines of the state”
under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically
inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
"Unavoidable Impacts”. Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and
minimization have been achieved.
"Use." "Development" as that term is defined in Chapter 90.58 RCW. It also means the nature of the
activities taking place on private property or within structures thereon.
“Washington Administration Code (WAC)”. Administrative rules implementing state laws.
“Watercourse”. Any portion of a stream or river channel, bed, bank, or bottom waterward of the ordinary
high water line of waters of the state. Watercourse also means areas in which fish may spawn, reside, or pass,
and tributary waters with defined bed or banks that influence the quality such waters whether or not the water
is at peak level. A watercourse includes all surface-water-connected wetlands that provide or maintain habitat
that supports fish life. This definition does not include irrigation ditches, canals, stormwater treatment and
conveyance systems, or other entirely artificial watercourses, except where they exist in a natural watercourse
that has been altered by humans.
"Water-dependent". A use for which the use of surface water would be essential in fulfilling the purpose
of the proposed project.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 12 Revised December 2025
“Watershed Approach”. A watershed approach means an analytical process for making compensatory
mitigation decisions that support the sustainability or improvement of wetlands in a watershed. It involves
consideration of watershed needs, and how locations and types of compensatory mitigation projects address
those needs. A landscape perspective is used to identify the types and locations of compensatory mitigation
projects that will benefit the watershed and offset losses of wetland functions and services caused by authorized
activities. The watershed approach may involve consideration of landscape scale, historic and potential wetland
conditions, past and projected wetland impacts in the watershed, and terrestrial connections between wetlands
when determining compensatory mitigation requirements.
“Watershed Plan”. A plan developed by federal, tribal, state, and/or local government agencies and/or
appropriate non-governmental organizations, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, for the specific goal
of aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and preservation. A watershed plan addresses
aquatic resource conditions in the watershed, multiple stakeholder interests, and land uses. Watershed plans
may also identify priority sites for aquatic resource restoration and protection. Examples of watershed plans
include special area management plans, advance identification programs, and wetland management plans.
"Wetlands". Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including,
but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that
were unintentionally created as a result of the
construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created
from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
“Wetland Delineation”. The method used to establish the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of
a wetland for purposes of federal, state, and local regulations.
“Wetland of High Conservation Value”. See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
“Wetland Mitigation Bank”. A site or suite of sites where resources are restored, created, enhanced, and/or
preserved, for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for impacts. In general, a mitigation bank
sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is
then transferred to the mitigation bank sponsor. The operation and use of a mitigation bank are governed by a
mitigation banking instrument.
“Wetland Mosaic”. An area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which each patch of
wetland is less than one acre; patches are less than 100 feet from each other; and areas delineated as wetland
are more than 50% of the total area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water.
“Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons”. See Wetlands with Special Characteristics.
“Wetlands with Special Characteristics for Western Washington”. Bogs, estuarine wetlands, forested
wetlands, interdunal wetlands, wetlands in coastal lagoons, and Wetlands of High Conservation Value.
Detailed information about these individual wetland types is found in the Washington State Wetlands Rating
System for Western Washington: 2014 Update, Version 2.0 (Ecology Publication #23-06-009), or as revised
and approved by Ecology.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 13 Revised December 2025
Part II – General Provisions
20.93.200 Applicability.
(a) Unless explicitly exempted, the provisions of this chapter apply to all land uses, development activity, and
all structures and facilities within the city of Arlington that are within the critical area, within the maximum
buffer distance of, likely to affect the functions and values of, one or more critical areas.
(b) Relationship to other regulations.
(1) Shorelines of the state and shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030, and critical areas occurring within
the jurisdiction of shorelines of the state and shorelands (“shoreline jurisdiction”), are regulated and
protected through the Arlington Shoreline Master Program, as amended. Activities occurring within
shoreline jurisdiction are reviewed through the shoreline permit review and issuance process.
Shoreline Master Program incorporates by reference portions of this chapter, however, certain
provisions of this chapter that are not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.85
RCW, and supporting Washington Administrative Code chapters do not apply in shoreline
jurisdiction.
(2) These critical areas regulations apply in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the city.
In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations of the city, the
regulations apply that provide greater protection to the critical areas’ functions and values, as
determined by the Director.
(3) When any provision of this chapter or any existing easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts
with this chapter, the provision with the most protection to the critical areas applies.
(4) Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state,
or local regulations and permit requirements that may be required. The applicant is responsible for
complying with other agency requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter.
20.93.210 Identification, Classification, and Rating of Critical Areas.
(a) Critical Area Maps.
(b) Actual Site Conditions. Regardless of whether a critical area is shown on the critical areas map, the actual
presence or absence of the features defined in this code as critical areas will govern. Prior to acting on any
development permit the city may require an applicant to submit technical information to indicate whether
critical areas actually exist on or adjacent to the applicant’s site based on the definitions of critical areas
in this code. This will be administered as a critical area evaluation form (AMC 20.93.300) included with
appropriate permit forms.
(c) Classification and Rating. To promote consistent application of the standards and requirements of this
chapter, critical areas within the city will be rated or classified using best available science according to
their characteristics, function and value, and/or sensitivity to disturbance.
(1) Classification of critical areas will be determined by the city using the following tools:
(A) Application of the criteria contained in these regulations;
(B) Consideration of the critical area reports submitted by qualified professionals in connection with
applications subject to these regulations; and
(C) Review of maps and other resources adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(2) Rating categories will not change due to illegal modifications. If the development proposal site
contains or is within a critical area suspected of illegal modifications the rating will be based on
premodification conditions of the critical area. Abatement of the unauthorized modification will be
required prior to authorization of the current development proposal being processed for the subject
site.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 14 Revised December 2025
20.93.220 Protection of Critical Areas.
(a) Critical areas and their required buffers may not be altered except as allowed by this chapter.
(b) Any action taken pursuant to this chapter must result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the
critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science.
(c) All actions and development must be designed and constructed in accordance with mitigation sequencing
per AMC 20.93.330 to achieve no net loss of critical area functions and values.
(d) Applicants must first demonstrate an actual inability to avoid or reduce impacts before restoration and
compensation of impacts will be allowed.
(e) No activity or use may be allowed that results in net loss of the functions or value of the critical areas.
(f) Any individual critical area adjoined by another type of critical area must have the buffer and meet the
requirements that provide the most protection to the critical area involved.
(g) Violations of this chapter are subject to AMC Chapter 20.28, Enforcement and Review and AMC Title 11,
Violations and Abatement. Where a violation occurs within a suspected protected critical area or as depicted
on city adopted mapping, the property owner must provide an appropriate critical area report to determine
impacts. The report may be subject to third party review at the property owner’s expense.
20.93.230 Project Evaluation
(a) As part of the review, the city will:
(1) Verify the information submitted by the applicant;
(2) Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas;
(3) Determine whether the proposed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas; and
(4) Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses the impacts and avoids impacts to the critical
area associated with the project.
(b) If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the city will:
(1) Require a critical area report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional, to
be reviewed and evaluated;
(2) Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of
this chapter, including the criteria in AMC 20.93.240, Critical Areas Review;
(3) Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized; and
(4) Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values
of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes,
objectives, and requirements of this chapter.
(5) The city may require third party review of any critical area report at the expense of the applicant.
20.93.240 Critical Areas Review
(a) When Required. A proposal to modify any critical area and/or required buffer including, but not limited to,
clearing, grading, draining, removal or alteration of vegetation, construction of structures, utilities and
related infrastructure, must require a critical area evaluation unless it qualifies as an exemption, as provided
in AMC 20.93.250. Except that, for within shoreline jurisdiction, administration of this chapter shall be
through the Shoreline Master Program and appropriate shoreline permit administration process.
(b) Best Management Practices. All activities, including those allowed without critical areas review, must be
conducted using the best management practices appropriate for that activity that result in the least amount
of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices must be used for tree and vegetation protection,
construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of
chemical applications. The use of best management practices is required to ensure that the activity does not
result in degradation to the critical area. Appropriate BMP sources include Ecology’s Construction
Stormwater General Permit and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Practices. Any incidental
damage to, or alteration of, a critical area and/or buffer must be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the
responsible party’s expense.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 15 Revised December 2025
(c) Modifications to Existing Nonconforming Structures and Uses. In these provisions the burden of proof is
on the applicant to bring evidence in support of their position. Existing structures, activities, and uses that
were established legally but do not meet the current critical area, buffer, or buffer setback requirements
may continue in accordance with AMC 20.32, Nonconforming Situations, and may be modified as follows:
(1) Routine maintenance and repairs;
(2) Structural modifications or additions that do not intensify the nonconformity of the structure or increase
the area of hardscape lying within the critical area or buffer. The Director may require an updated
critical area report to confirm location of buffers and that the addition is located entirely outside the
critical area or buffer;
(3) Vertical additions above the ground floor that do not encroach further into the critical area or buffer
beyond the existing exterior walls, except those critical areas review are required for additions in
landslide hazard areas or buffers;
(4) Restoration or replacement of a structure that is damaged by fire, natural disaster or other calamity
when:
(A) A complete application for reconstruction or replacement is submitted within one year of the
damage; and
(B) The restoration or replacement is made to conform to the current critical areas regulations, or if
such regulations cannot be physically met without reducing the size of the building, the restoration
or replacement may not intensify any nonconformity that existed prior to the damage;
(C) Except that critical area review is required for restoration and replacement in landslide hazards
areas or buffers;
(d) Demolition. Demolition of structures located within critical areas or their buffers is permitted, excluding
demolition of structures necessary to support or stabilize landslide hazard areas, and will be subject to
approval of a stormwater pollution prevention plan consistent with the adopted stormwater management
manual and clearing limits that will adequately protect the critical area.
20.93.250 Exempt Activities.
(a) General Requirements for All Exempt Activities. Activities listed in this section are exempt from the rest
of the provisions of this chapter only if they meet the specific terms of this section.
(b) To be exempt from this chapter does not give permission to degrade a critical area or buffer or to ignore
risk from natural hazards. All exempt activities must use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to
critical areas and buffers. In every case, disturbance to the critical area must be minimized through best
management practices and the use of low-impact equipment.
(c) Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area or buffer that is not a necessary outcome of the
exempted activity must be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense.
(d) This chapter may not exempt an activity from the provisions of other city permits such as clearing and
grading for vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities, or agency permit requirements such as
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic permit, or Army Corps of Engineers regulatory
requirements.
(e) Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant to bring forth evidence that the activity meets the
precise description of the exemption.
(f) Table 20.93.250-1 describes activities that must meet the precise description to be allowed without
following a critical area process. Activities are divided into categories of permitted in the critical area and
permitted in the buffer, marked by a yes or no in the appropriate column.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 16 Revised December 2025
Table 20.93.250-1 – Exempt Activities
EXEMPT ACTIVITIES: No review required, must strictly meet standards Critical Area Buffer
Alterations in response to emergencies which threaten the public health, safety, and
welfare or which pose an imminent risk of damage to private property, and that require remedial or
preventative action in a time frame too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this
chapter, if the following requirements are met:
(a) Only the minimum intervention necessary to reduce the risk to public health, safety, or welfare
and/or the imminent risk of damage to private property may be authorized by this exemption.
(b) The alteration undertaken must be reported to the Director no later than 30 days after the
alteration has occurred. Once notified, the Director must confirm that an emergency existed and
determine what, if any, additional applications and/or measures are required of the property owner
to protect the critical area(s) consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and to repair any damage
to a pre-existing resource.
(c) After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action must fully fund and conduct
necessary site evaluations and critical area reports, mitigation plans, and restoration for any
impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the emergency action. The person or agency
undertaking the action must meet the review procedures contained herein. Mitigation activities
must be initiated within one year of the date of the emergency or as directed by the Department.
(d) If the Director determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the
scope of an allowed emergency action, or any required mitigation, the Director may take action to
enforce this chapter consistent with AMC Chapter 20.28, Enforcement and Review and AMC Title
11, Violations and Abatement.
Yes Yes
Yard and garden activities. Maintenance or repair activities including, but not limited to, cutting,
mowing, weeding, hand removal of noxious and invasive species, harvesting and replanting of garden
crops, pruning and planting of noninvasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to
maintain the general condition and extent of such areas; provided, that such maintenance or repair
activities are limited to legally existing landscaping improvements and do not further expand into
critical areas or associated buffers, do not alter topography, do not destroy or clear native vegetation,
do not remove non-hazard trees in the buffer or critical area, and do not diminish water quality or
quantity.
(a) Native growth protection areas, mitigation sites, or other areas protected via permit conditions,
conservation easements or similar restrictive covenants (as defined in AMC 20.93.340) are not
covered by this exemption.
(b) If an activity has ceased for one year or more any future use of such land, building or structure
must thereafter be in conformity with this chapter and the zone in which it is located.
No Yes
Site Investigation. Minimal site investigative work and studies necessary for preparing land use
applications, including, but not limited to, surveys, soil logs and borings, percolation tests, water
quality studies, scientific research, wildlife studies, and similar tests and investigations; provided
that such activities do not require clearing, filling, construction of new roads, or heavy equipment,
and only minimal amounts of excavation and disturbed areas must be immediately restored.
Yes Yes
Outdoor Recreation Activities. Outdoor recreation activities that do not involve modifying the land
or vegetation, and that will not adversely affect the functions and values of critical areas. Yes Yes
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 17 Revised December 2025
EXEMPTIONS: That require a letter of exemption to be obtained from the Community and
conditions by the Director to ensure compliance with this chapter.
Critical Area Buffer
Public water, electric, and natural gas
distribution, public stormwater and sewer collection, cable communications, telephone, utility and
related activities undertaken pursuant to city-approved best management practices, and best available
science with regard to protection of threatened and endangered species, as follows:
(a) Normal and routine maintenance or repair of existing utility structures or rights-of-way; when
the activity does not involve the expansion of facilities or improvements into a previously
unimproved portion of critical areas or required buffers;
(b) Replacement, operation, repair, modification, installation or construction in an improved city
road right-of-way or city-authorized private roadway of all electric facilities, lines, equipment
or appurtenances, not including substations, with an associated voltage of 55,000 volts or less;
to include relocation only when required by the city of Arlington, which approves the new
location of the facilities;
(c) Relocation of public sewer or stormwater local collection, public water local distribution,
natural gas, cable communication or telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or
appurtenances, only when required by the city of Arlington, which approves the new location
of the facilities;
(d) Replacement, operation, repair, modification, relocation, installation or construction of public
communication, or telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances when
such facilities are located within an improved public right-of-way or city-authorized private
roadway;
(e) Repair and maintenance of existing private connections to public utilities and private
stormwater management facilities;
(f) Regular maintenance of stormwater facilities that are within a segment of a regulated stream,
such as conveyance ditches/swales within the right-of-
easements.
Yes Yes
Transportation Infrastructure Operation, Maintenance, Repair, or Replacement.
Maintenance, operation, repair, modification, or replacement of publicly improved roadways or city-
authorized private roadways, including the road prism and associated stormwater management
improvements into previously unimproved rights-of-way or portions of rights-of-way and does not
alter a critical area or required buffer, or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges, or result in the
transport of sediment or increased stormwater. Retention and replanting of native vegetation must
occur whenever possible along the right-of-way improvement and resulting disturbance.
Yes Yes
Recreation Areas Operation, Maintenance, Repair, or Replacement.
Maintenance, operation, repair, modification, or replacement of existing trails, and existing facilities
within publicly improved recreation areas, and public parks, may be performed subject to the
following:
(a) The activity does not involve the expansion of facilities and disturbance to adjacent areas is
minimized and disturbed areas must be immediately restored;
(b) Work is conducted using best management practices;
(c) Flow and circulation patterns and biological characteristics are not impaired and adverse
impacts are minimized;
(d) Where trail relocation is the least impactful method of repair, trail relocation further away from
the critical area is not to be considered a new trail but is included in the exemption for operation,
maintenance, repair, or replacement.
Yes Yes
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 18 Revised December 2025
EXEMPTIONS: That require a letter of exemption to be obtained from the Community and
conditions by the Director to ensure compliance with this chapter.
Critical Area Buffer
Vegetation Management, including:
(1) Removal of noxious weeds or invasive vegetation, as identified by the Washington State or
Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control Board, in a wetland buffer, stream buffer, other fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas and buffers, is allowed when:
(a) Undertaken with hand labor, including handheld mechanical tools, and integrated pest
management;
(b) Plants that appear on the Washington State or Snohomish County Noxious Weed Control
Board lists must be handled and disposed of in accordance with the best management
practices appropriate to that species and approved by the city
applicable;
(c) Areas cleared by removal of noxious and/or invasive plant species must be revegetated with
site-appropriate native species at natural densities and the site must be stabilized against
erosion in accordance with the stormwater manual adopted by the city;
(d) All work performed is above the ordinary high water mark and above the top of a stream
bank; and
(e) The following limits may not be exceeded: Within city-owned property, no more than 3,000
square feet of soil may be exposed at any one time; and within private property, not more
than 500 square feet of area may be cleared, as calculated cumulatively, over one year,
without a permit and critical area report prepared by a qualified professional.
restoration, remediation, or enhancement plan that requires ongoing maintenance and vegetation
management beyond final inspection and the required monitoring period for the permitted
project.
(3) Hazard Trees.
(a) The falling of hazard trees may be permitted when necessary to:
(i) Control fire; or
(ii) Halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with Chapter 76.09 RCW;
(iii) Avoid a threat to existing structures, above-ground utility lines or other facilities; or
(iv) Remove an actual threat to life or property from slope instability that would be caused
by toppling.
(b) Unless there is an emergency pursuant to emergency exemptions above, the landowner must
first obtain prior written approval from the Department. A tree risk assessment prepared by
an ISA certified arborist must be submitted by the applicant to the Department that includes
the following information:
(i) Identification of the tree(s) proposed to be removed;
(ii) The conclusion that the condition constitutes an actual threat to life or property;
(iii) An assessment of whether a portion of the tree suitable for a snag for wildlife habitat
may be safely retained;
(iv) If a tree to be removed provides priority habitat, such as an eagle perch or occupied
nest, a description of timing and methods of removal that will minimize and mitigate
impacts;
(v) If a tree to be removed is located within a landslide hazard area or buffer, an evaluation
of potential impacts on slope stability must be completed by a qualified professional,
including recommendations for replanting and other measures to avoid adverse impacts
to slope stability.
(c) All work must be done using handheld implements only, unless the property owner requests
and the Director approves otherwise in writing.
(d) Any removed tree or vegetation must be replaced in-kind, with similar or appropriate native
species, within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan including species,
size, and maintenance plan.
Yes Yes
Clearing, grading, and the construction of fences are allowed along the edge of a critical area
buffer to install Native Growth Protection Area fencing and is allowed within the building setback. No Yes
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 19 Revised December 2025
20.93.260 Permitted Alterations
(a) Applicability. An applicant may seek an alteration of a critical area and/or critical area buffer through a
permitted alteration when application of the standards in this chapter would result in the denial of all
reasonable and economically viable use of the property and the proposed development meets the specific
terms of this section.
(b) General Requirements. The actions in the permitted alteration table below must be considered permitted
alterations, unless as otherwise specified under AMC 20.93.440 Specific Wetland Category Development
Standards, and provided they are consistent with the general standards for mitigation sequencing and other
applicable requirements established in this chapter.
(c) Review Process.
(1) A zoning permit with public notice must be required for all permitted alterations. Requests for such
permits must be reviewed using the procedures outlined in AMC Chapter 20.16. No permit shall be
issued unless it can be shown that the proposed development is fully consistent with the requirements
of this chapter.
(2) In addition to other project-related documents, all permitted alterations must require a critical area
assessment report per AMC 20.93.310, Critical Area Report, to evaluate the permitted alteration. The
report must include:
(A) A description of the function and condition of the critical area and/or buffer that would be altered;
(B) An analysis of the effect of the development proposal on the critical area and/or buffer;
(C) A description of actions that can be taken to modify the development proposal to avoid or reduce
the alteration of the critical area and/or buffer and a discussion of whether these modifications are
practical and reasonable;
(D) A mitigation plan as required by this chapter.
(3) Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the
application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application.
(4) Public Comment. Consistent with AMC Chapter 20.16.220, the city must ensure the opportunity for
public comment, including that from appropriate federal, state, and tribal natural resource agencies, to
ensure the use of best available science before deciding an approval.
(d) Decision Criteria. A permit for alterations of a critical area and/or buffer width required of this chapter may
only be issued if the applicant demonstrates that all of the following criteria are met:
(1) Special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, or topography, and the
strict application of this chapter is found to deprive the subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity; provided, however, that the fact that those surrounding properties
have been developed under regulations in force prior to the adoption of this chapter may not be the sole
basis for granting approval;
(2) The issuance of a variance to zoning requirements (setback, height, coverage, etc.) by itself will not
provide sufficient relief to avoid the need for a permitted alteration to the critical area and/or buffer and
other requirements for the critical areas regulated by this chapter;
(3) Mitigation sequencing per AMC 20.93.330(a), Mitigation Sequencing, has been applied;
(4) The proposed alteration is supported by best available science as outlined in WAC 365-195-915; and
(5) The proposed alteration allows for development of the subject parcel with the least impact on critical
areas while providing a reasonable use of the property.
(e) Conditions may be required. In granting any approval, conditions and safeguards may be prescribed as are
necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, protect adjacent property,
and ensure conformity with this chapter.
(f) Table 20.93.260-1 describes activities that must meet the precise description to be allowed following the
prescribed critical area process. Activities are divided into the categories of permitted in the critical area
and permitted in the buffer, marked by a yes or no in the appropriate column.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 20 Revised December 2025
Table 20.93.260-1 Permitted Alterations
Permitted Alterations: Zoning Permit Required Administrative Decision with Public Notice Critical Area Buffer
Buffer Modifications, including increased buffer width, buffer averaging, and buffer alterations as
described specifically in this chapter. No Yes
Public Services. To protect wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat and other sensitive critical areas while
allowing services when the strict application of the standards in this chapter would otherwise
unreasonably prohibit the provision of public services and amenities.
(a) “Public Services” include, but are not limited to, water supply, sewer and stormwater management
facility; electric power, telecommunication and natural gas lines; and public road and multimodal
transportation corridors.
(b) Public services may be allowed to alter critical areas and buffers when:
(1) Mitigation sequencing per AMC 20.93.330(a) has been applied;
(2) The application of the critical areas regulations would unreasonably restrict the ability to
provide public services;
(3) There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the
critical area;
(4) The proposed development does not create a health or safety hazard on or off the development
site, and must not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity;
previously disturbed areas;
(6) Designs for crossings, boardwalks, bridges, and culverts are consistent with Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service best available science
for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. These structures shall not interfere with fish
passage, the flow and circulation of water, or other wetland or stream processes, and shall be
located at a 90-degree angle, or as close as possible thereto, to the stream, wetland, or buffer.
In streams with salmonid habitat, bridges, bottomless culverts, or other alternatives that will
allow for fish passage are required. Bridge piers or abutments may not be placed within
wetlands, streams, or stream banks unless there is no feasible alternative;
(7) Construction of crossings will occur during work windows and time limits established by
state and federal agencies with jurisdiction to decrease impacts to protected species;
(8) Any alterations permitted to the critical area and buffer are mitigated in accordance with
AMC 20.93.330
impacted critical area(s) type;
(9) The proposal is consistent with the Arlington comprehensive plan and other applicable
regulations.
(c) Conditions Authorized. Conditions may be established as necessary to mitigate impacts to
critical areas and to conform to the standards required in this chapter.
(d) It will be a condition of any alteration granted to a public agency and services exception that
only the portion of the alteration that must be located in a critical area may be so located.
Yes Yes
Conservation, Restoration, and Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects. Conservation or restoration
activities aimed at protecting or enhancing the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife; including voluntary
fish, wildlife, and wetland restoration or enhancement activities not required as project mitigation
that have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington State Department of
Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or other appropriate local, state, federal,
or tribal jurisdiction and/or that meet the criteria of RCW 77.55.181(1) and that are reviewed and
approved according to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. A biological evaluation report is required
to determine whether the proposal would conserve, preserve, or enhance critical area functions in the
long term to minimize temporary environmental impacts.
Yes Yes
Chemical Application. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral-derived fertilizers,
or other hazardous substances, if necessary for the control of nuisance weeds and algae; except that their
use will be restricted in accordance with the State Department of Ecology and State Department of Fish
and Wildlife Management recommendations, and regulations of the State Department of Agriculture
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Yes Yes
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 21 Revised December 2025
Permitted Alterations: Zoning Permit Required Administrative Decision with Public Notice Critical Area Buffer
Recreational Areas/Facilities. Low impact activities which are consistent with the purpose and
function of the critical area buffer and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted within the
buffer depending on the sensitivity of the critical area.
(a) Limited public park or public recreational access including trails, viewing platforms, fishing
access (no wider than six feet), and foot bridges; provided that all of the following are
satisfied:
(1) The area/facility is part of a public park that is dependent on its location for recreational
function; and
(2) The areas/facility are limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the recreational
function; and
(3) The removal of trees and native vegetation is minimized; and
(4) The balance of the development is consistent with other requirements of this chapter; and
(5) The project is identified in the Arlington comprehensive plan or parks and recreation
master plan.
(b) Private pedestrian walkways and public trails must meet the following standards:
(1) The trail is generally parallel to the perimeter of the critical area;
(2) The trail is located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer area and is designed to avoid
removal of trees and native vegetation;
(3) The trail does not exceed six feet in width and is limited to native soils or pervious
surfaces. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable; and
(4) The trail may be subject to closure during critical spawning, migration or breeding time
periods of sensitive species that are present.
(c) Informational Signs. Construction and placement of informational signs or educational
demonstration facilities no more than nine square feet surface area and four feet high, as long
as there is no permanent infringement on hydrology or stream flow and nontreated wood is
used;
(d) Limited excavation and filling necessary for the repair and maintenance of piers, walkways,
observation decks, wildlife management shelters, boathouses, and other similar water related
structures, provided they are built on pilings to allow unobstructed flow of water and preserve
the natural contour of the critical area.
No Yes
Single-Family Residences and Normal Appurtenances. New single-family dwellings on existing
legal lots may intrude into critical areas buffers when all of the following conditions are met:
(a) It is demonstrated that it is not feasible to avoid the buffer through avoidance or buffer
averaging, or reconfiguration of lots in the same ownership at the date of adoption of this
chapter, and the development is the minimum necessary to achieve reasonable use of the lot
as determined by the decision-maker; and
(b) Alteration of critical areas buffers including all clearing, grading, structures, and
appurtenances are outside all minimum buffer requirements for the specific critical area listed
in Part V – Wetlands, Part VI – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and VII –
Geologically Hazardous Areas; and
(c) This action does not allow critical areas buffers to be converted to lawn or residential
landscaping beyond a minimal area needed to maintain an approved structure; and
(d) Mitigation sequencing provided in this chapter under AMC 20.93.330 is applied and the
proposal includes on-site mitigation to the extent feasible as determined by the critical area
report.
(e) Normal appurtenances included in this provision including attached garages, decks, and
walkways incidental to residential living and that do not constitute a special privilege.
No Yes
Critical Area Aquifer Recharge Areas. All regulated activities listed under AMC 20.93.710,
Applicability and Hazard Materials Questionnaire. Yes Yes
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 22 Revised December 2025
20.93.270 Reasonable Use Exception and Critical Area Variance.
(a) Applicability. If the application of this chapter would result in denial of all reasonable and economically
viable use of a property, and if such reasonable and economically viable use of the property cannot be
obtained by consideration of a permitted alteration pursuant to AMC 20.93.260, then a landowner may
seek a reasonable use exception from the standards of this chapter. Reasonable use exceptions are
considered a critical area variance and are intended as a last resort and only when a variance can meet the
requirements of this chapter.
(b) General Requirements. Reasonable use is a legal concept articulated by federal and state courts in
regulatory takings cases. Within the context of these cases and for the purposes of this title, reasonable use
means uses allowed by the underlying zoning designation and subdivision of property is not allowed. When
no possible alternative exists, a reasonable use exception must be considered a critical area variance,
provided they are consistent with the general standards for variances under AMC 20.20.030 and other
applicable requirements established in this chapter.
(c) Procedures for Review.
(1) A variance permit must be required for all reasonable use exceptions. Requests for such permits must
be reviewed using the procedures application to an Administrative Variance as outlined in AMC
20.20.030. A permit shall not be issued unless it can be shown that the proposed development is fully
consistent with the variance approval criteria enumerated in AMC 20.20.030 (variance criteria) as well
as all of the requirements of this chapter.
(2) In addition to other project related documents, all critical area variances must require a critical area
report per AMC 20.93.310 to evaluate the proposed disturbance. The report must include:
(A) A description of the function and condition of the critical area and/or buffer that would be altered;
(B) An analysis of the effect of the development proposal on the critical area and/or buffer;
(C) A description of actions that can be taken to modify the development proposal to avoid or reduce
the alteration of the critical area and/or buffer and a discussion of whether these modifications are
practical and reasonable;
(D) A mitigation plan as required by this chapter.
(3) Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the
application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application.
(4) Public Comment. Consistent with AMC 20.16.220(d) the city must ensure the opportunity for public
comment, including that from appropriate federal, state, and tribal natural resource agencies, to ensure
the use of best available science before a decision is made.
(d) Variance Criteria.
(1) The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable economic use of the property and that there
is no reasonable economically viable use with a lesser impact on the critical area than that proposed;
and
(2) Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent
in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands subject of the provisions of this chapter; and
(3) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the
current or previous owner in subdividing the property or adjusting a boundary line, thereby creating the
undevelopable condition, after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; and
(4) Any proposed modification to a critical area will be evaluated through consideration of a critical area
report and mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional pursuant to the requirements of this
chapter and will be the minimum necessary to allow reasonable and economically viable use of the
property. The critical area report and mitigation plan must be prepared utilizing best available science;
and
(5) Mitigation sequencing per AMC 20.93.330 had been applied, and the proposal mitigation impacts on
the critical area to the maximum extent possible, while still allowing reasonable use of the lot, and
(6) The proposed development does not pose a threat to adjacent property or to the public health and safety;
and
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 23 Revised December 2025
(7) The applicant has demonstrated that the criteria in AMC 20.20.030, Variance Criteria are met; and
(8) Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
this chapter or other lands, structures, or building under similar circumstances; and
(9) The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Arlington
comprehensive plan, and planning policies.
(e) Conditions. Conditions of approval may be included as part of the decision, including modifications to the
size and placement of structures and facilities to minimize impacts to critical areas and associated buffers
and mitigation requirements that ensure that all impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible
utilizing best available science.
(f) Variances – Geologically Hazardous Areas. A variance must not authorize development within a
geologically hazardous area or required setback or buffer from a geologically hazardous area unless a
qualified professional has determined the development will not pose a threat to public safety or property.
20.93.280 Building Setbacks.
(a) Unless otherwise provided, buildings and other structures must be set back 15 feet from the edges of all
critical area buffer boundaries. The following may be allowed in the building setback area:
(1) Landscaping;
(2) Uncovered decks;
(3) Building overhangs if such overhangs do not extend more than 18 inches into the setback area; and
(4) Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; such improvements are subject to water
quality regulations as adopted in AMC Chapter 13.28.
Figure 20.93.280-1: Buffer and Setback Areas
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 24 Revised December 2025
Part III - Critical Areas Review Procedures
20.93.300 Critical Area Evaluation Form
Prior to the city’s consideration of any proposed activity found not to be exempt under AMC 20.93.250, the
applicant must submit to the Department a completed form identifying suspected critical areas on, and within
300 feet, of the site.
20.93.310 Critical Area Report.
(a) Report Required. When the Director determines a proposed development is within, abutting, or is likely to
adversely affect a critical area or buffer pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the Director may require
a critical areas assessment report that is prepared by a qualified professional. The assessment of critical
areas and analysis of impacts must be commensurate with the value or sensitivity of a particular critical
area and relative to the scale and potential impacts of the proposed activity. This provision is not intended
to expand or limit an applicant’s other obligations under WAC 197-11-100.
(b) Third Party Review of Critical Area Reports. The Director may require, at the applicant’s expense, a third
party review of a critical area report by a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the city
in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The project requires a critical area permit, or critical area variance; or
(2) Third party review is specifically required by the provisions of this chapter for the critical area(s) or
critical area buffer(s) potentially being impacted; or
(3) When the Director determines that such services are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
standards and guidelines of this chapter or other appropriate regulations.
(c) Critical Area Report Types or Sections. Critical area report requirements may be met in stages through
multiple reports or combined in one report. A critical area report must include one or more of the following
sections or report types unless exempted by the Director based on the extent of the potential critical area
impacts. The scope and location of the proposed project will determine which report(s) alone or combined
are sufficient to meet the critical area report requirements for potentially impacted critical area type(s). The
typical sequence of required sections or reports that will fulfill the requirements of this section include:
(1) Reconnaissance. The existence, general location, and type of critical areas on, adjacent to, or likely to
be impacted by activities on a project site. Determination of whether the project will adversely impact
or be at risk from the potential critical areas based on maximum potential buffers for the particular
critical area type. Possible application of exemptions should also be addressed;
(2) Delineation. The extent, boundaries, rating or classification, and applicable standard buffers of critical
areas where the project area could potentially impact the critical area or its buffer including an
assessment of the characteristics of functions and values of the critical area and buffers identified;
(3) Analysis. The proposal and impact assessment report documenting the potential project impacts to the
critical area and buffers including a discussion of the efforts taken to avoid, minimize, and reduce
potential impacts to those areas per AMC 20.93.330(a);
(4) Mitigation. The measures that prevent or compensate for the potential impacts of the project designed
to meet the requirements of this chapter, AMC 20.93.330, Mitigation Plan Requirements, and the
standards for the specific critical areas impacted. Mitigation includes, but is not limited to, adjustments
to required buffer sizes, best practices to minimize impacts, and critical area or buffer enhancement,
restoration, or preservation plans. Mitigation plans include but are not limited to habitat management
plans, revegetation or replanting plans, and restoration plans;
(5) Maintenance and Monitoring. The goals of the mitigation proposed, performance standards for success,
monitoring methods and reporting schedule, and contingency actions. Maintenance and monitoring
plans must be consistent with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of this chapter,
including the specific mitigation plan requirements outlined in each critical area type section.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 25 Revised December 2025
(d) Minimum Report Requirements. At a minimum, critical area reports must contain the following
information:
(1) The names and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork
performed on the site;
(2) A description of the proposal, proposal location including address and parcel number(s), and a vicinity
map for the project;
(3) Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers on or within
300 feet of the proposed project area. The Director may require critical area and buffer dimensions to
be accurately surveyed, depending on the scope of the project;
(4) Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets, for delineations,
rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, site photos, etc.;
(5) A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon;
(6) A description of methodologies used to conduct the critical areas investigation, including references;
(7) A scaled drawing of critical areas and buffers identified in the report including buffers for off-site
critical areas that extend onto the project site.
(e) Existing Reports. Critical areas assessment reports shall generally be valid for a period of five years. Unless
otherwise provided, a critical area report may incorporate, be supplemented by , or composed of any reports
or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the
development proposal site, as approved by the Director. At the discretion of the Director, reports previously
compiled or submitted as part of a proposal for a development may be used as a critical area report to the
extent that the requirements of this section and the requirements for each specific critical area type are met.
Supplemental critical area report(s) may be required to provide information or analysis to address changes
to the project scope, potential impacts to or changes to applicable regulations that have been made
subsequent to existing, valid critical area reports, or other circumstances.
(f) Modifications to Report Requirements. The applicant may consult with the Director, prior to or during
preparation of the critical area report, to obtain approval of modifications to the required contents of the
report where, in the judgement of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately
address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation.
(1) In some cases, such as when it is determined that no specific critical area is present, a full report may
not be necessary to determine compliance with the critical area regulations, and in those cases a letter
or reconnaissance-only report may be required.
(2) Limitations to Study Area. The Director may limit the required geographic area of the critical area report
as appropriate if:
(A) The applicant, with assistance from the city of Arlington, cannot obtain permission to access
properties adjacent to the project area; or
(B) The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the project site.
20.93.320 Application Requirements.
(a) A complete application for a permitted alteration permit or reasonable use exception/variance permit must
include the following information and materials on a form provided by the Director. For the purpose of this
section, a complete application includes:
(1) The name and contact information of the applicant;
(2) Adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of the critical area regulations,
including a critical area report, impact and hazard assessment, and mitigation requirements specific to
each critical area type, as indicated in the corresponding sections of this chapter;
(3) Identification of the development permit(s) requested and all other local, state, and/or federal critical
area-related permits required for the project;
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 26 Revised December 2025
(4) Site plan, a scaled drawing of the development proposal including:
(A) Property and project site boundaries;
(B) An accurate depiction of all critical areas, including off-site critical areas and buffers that extend
onto the project site; a desk survey is acceptable when access to the adjacent property has been
denied;
(C) The development proposal including grading and clearing limits and areas of proposed impacts to
critical areas and/or buffers (including square footage estimates);
(D) A scaled depiction and description of the proposed stormwater pollution prevention plan consistent
with the adopted stormwater manual, for the development and consideration of impacts to critical
areas due to drainage alterations;
(E) An assessment of probable impacts to the critical areas resulting from the proposed development
of the site based upon identified findings;
(F) A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to AMC
20.93.330, Mitigation Requirements, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; and
(G) Plans for mitigation required to offset any critical areas impacts, in accordance with AMC
20.93.330, Mitigation Plan Requirements, and the corresponding mitigation performance standards
sections of this chapter, including a discussion of the applicable development standards and cost
estimates for determination of financial guaranteed requirements.
(b) Additional Requirements. The Director may require additional information to be included in the critical
areas permit submittal when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in accordance
with this chapter. Additional information that may be required includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, historical aerial photographs, data
compilations and summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at
the site;
(2) Grading and stormwater management plans; and
(3) Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area.
20.93.330 Mitigation and Mitigation Plan Requirements.
(a) Mitigation must be sufficient to restore impacted functions and values, or compensate for the impacted
functions and values, of the critical area and to prevent risk from a hazard posed to a critical area by the
proposed activity. Mitigation must not be implemented until after the decision-maker has provided approval
of a critical area report that includes a mitigation plan.
(1) Mitigation Sequencing. This section applies to mitigation required with all critical areas reviews,
approvals, and enforcement pursuant to this chapter. This section is supplemented with specific
measures under parts for particular critical area types. Mitigation for specific development proposals
may include a combination of the measures below and must be designed and constructed in accordance
with the provisions of this section. Before impacting any critical areas, an applicant must demonstrate
that the following actions have been taken in the following sequential order:
(A) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions;
(B) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation,
or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
(C) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment or by
restoring or stabilizing the critical area through natural, engineering, or other methods;
(D) Reducing or eliminating the impacts or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
(E) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments; and/or
(F) Monitoring, measuring and reporting the impact to the decision-maker and taking appropriate
corrective measures.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 27 Revised December 2025
(2) Applicants must first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts before the use of actions to
mitigate potential impacts will be allowed. No activity or use may be allowed that results in a net loss
of the functions or values of a critical area.
(A) Type, Location and Timing of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that higher levels of ecological
functioning or greater reduction of hazard risk would result from an alternative approach or as
otherwise allowed in this chapter, mitigation for adverse impacts must be based on best available
science and must be in-kind, on site, and prior to the activities that will disturb the critical area.
Mitigation measures that cannot be implemented prior to the critical area impacts must be
completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or
development. Construction of mitigation projects must be timed to reduce impacts to existing
fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
(i) The decision-maker may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or
installation of the mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified
professional as to the rationale for the delay and satisfactory financial guarantee that the
installation will occur. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the
environmental conditions that could produce a high probability of failure or significant
construction difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing plants
should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater survival of installed materials).
The delay must not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or
degradation, and the delay must not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
public.
(b) When mitigation is required, the applicant must submit for approval by the city a mitigation plan as part of
the critical area report. The mitigation plan must include:
(1) Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan must identify environmental goals and
objectives of the mitigation proposed and including:
(A) A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas, the mitigation actions proposed, and
the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of
compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and dates for beginning and completion
of site compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives must be related to the
functions and values of the impacted critical area; and
(B) A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and description of the
report author’s experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed.
(2) Performance Standards. The mitigation plan must include measurable specific criteria for evaluating
whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained at the
end of the required monitoring period and whether or not the requirements of this chapter have been
met.
(3) Detailed Construction Plans. In order to convey proposed construction techniques and anticipated final
outcome, the mitigation plan must include written specifications, descriptions, and drawings of the
mitigation proposed, including:
(A) The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;
(B) Best management practices including erosion and sediment control features to be implemented;
(C) Site plans showing grading and excavation details, slope gradient, and final grade elevations with
minimum two-foot contour intervals.
(D) Cross-sectional drawings;
(E) A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and
(F) Measures to protect and maintain plants until they are established.
(4) Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan. A monitoring and contingency plan are required for all
project requiring mitigation.
(A) The mitigation plan must include a monitoring program to be implemented by the applicant to
determine the success of the mitigation project and any necessary corrective actions. This program
must determine if the original goals and objectives of the mitigation plan are being met.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 28 Revised December 2025
(5) Monitoring Reports.
(A) The as-built report, required prior to final inspection, must, at a minimum, include
documentation of the following:
(i) Departures from the original approved plans;
(ii) Construction supervision provided by the qualified professional;
(iii) Approved project goals and performance standards;
(iv) Baseline data for monitoring per the approved monitoring methods;
(v) Photos from established photo points; and
(vi) A site plan showing final mitigation as constructed or installed, monitoring points, and
photo points.
(B) Subsequent monitoring reports must, at a minimum, include:
(i) Monitoring visit observations, documentation, and analysis of monitoring data collected;
(ii) Photos from established photo points;
(iii) Determination whether performance standards are being met; and
(iv) Maintenance and/or contingency action recommendations to ensure success of the project
at the end of the monitoring period.
(C) The applicant is responsible for reimbursement of the cost of reviewing monitoring reports and site
inspections during the monitoring period which are completed by the city or a qualified
professional under contract with or employed by the city.
(6) Cost Estimates. The mitigation plan must include cost estimates that will be used by the city to calculate
the amounts of financial guarantees, if necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully
implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring
program, and any contingency measures must be posted in accordance with AMC 20.93.470, Financial
guarantee requirements.
(7) Approved Mitigation Projects – Signature. On completion of construction, an as-built report for any
approved mitigation project must be prepared and signed off by the applicant’s qualified professional
and approved by the city. Signature of the qualified professional on the required as-built report and
approval by the Director indicates that the construction has been completed as planned.
20.93.340 Title Notification.
(a) Generally. A critical area notice on title is required, as a condition of permit issuance or project approval,
when a permit or development application is submitted for development on any property containing a
critical area or buffer. The purpose is to inform subsequent purchasers of real property of the existence of
critical areas.
(1) The title notice requirement can be met through recording of a title notice on forms prepared by the
city, establishment of a critical area tract, or recording of a native growth protection area easement,
consistent with subsections (b) through (d) of this section, as applicable.
(2) The following must be noted on all critical area title notice documents:
(A) Identification of ownership and long-term maintenance responsibility of critical areas, buffers, and
permanent field markings (e.g., fencing, signage);
(B) Restrictions on development, vegetation removal, and application of hazardous substances
(pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers) within the critical areas and buffers;
(C) The right of the city to enforce the terms of the restrictions.
(b) Title Notice. The title notice applicable to the property must be approved by the decision-maker and City
Attorney for compliance with this provision and be filed by the property owner, at their expense, with the
Snohomish County Auditor’s Office. The title holder will have the right to challenge this notice and to
have it extinguished if the critical area designation no longer applies. However, the titleholder is responsible
for completing a critical area report, subject to approval by the decision-maker, before the notice on title
can be extinguished. The title notice runs with the land.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 29 Revised December 2025
(c) Critical Area Tract. Subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans must establish a separate
critical area tract as a permanent protective measure for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas, and geological hazard areas and their buffers. The plat or binding site plan for the project must note
the long-term ownership/maintenance responsibility as well as clearly depict the critical area tract,
including all of the subject critical area, any required buffer, and any additional lands included voluntarily
as part of the project. Should the critical area tract include several types of critical areas, separate critical
area tracts must be identified.
(d) Native Growth Protection Easements (NGPE). NGPE easements are required on a property where no
subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan is proposed or required. Unless otherwise required in
this chapter, NGPE easements must be recorded on title for all affected parcels prior to approval of a
development application or building permit, when two or more dwelling units and/or nonresidential
developments are proposed on one parcel, to delineate and protect critical areas and their buffers. The
easement to be recorded must clearly depict the critical area(s), required buffer(s) and the limits of the
NGPE easement.
20.93.350 Field Marking.
(a) Temporary Field Marking During Construction. The outer perimeter of the critical area buffer and the
clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization must be marked in the field with temporary
“clearing limits” fencing in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking
is subject to inspection by the Director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary
marking and fencing must be maintained throughout construction and may not be removed until permanent
fencing and/or signs, if required, are in place.
(b) Permanent Field Marking. The decision-maker may require installation of permanent signs, markers, and
fencing along the outer perimeter of a critical area or its buffer when it is determined necessary to protect
the critical areas’ functions and values. Permanent markings must be installed prior to final project approval
or occupancy, as determined by the decision-maker.
(1) Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter, the Community
and Economic Development Director shall require the applicant to install permanent signs along the
boundary of the critical area. All critical areas, tracts, easements, and dedications should be clearly
marked on the site using permanent markings, as follows:
(A) Permanent 12” x 18” signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face attached to a metal post
or another non-treated material of equal durability. Signs shall be posted at an interval of one (1)
every fifty (50) feet, or one (1) per lot if property owner in perpetuity. The signs shall be worded
as follows or with alternative language approved by the Community and Economic Development
Director:
Figure 1: Critical Area Protection Area Sign
(B) The provisions of Subsection (A) may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive
features or wildlife.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 30 Revised December 2025
(2) Fencing.
(A) The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence along the boundary of the wetland
buffer when adjacent activities could degrade the wetland or its buffer (e.g., domestic animal
grazing, unauthorized access by humans or pets, etc.).
(B) Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed
so as to not interfere with species migration or wildlife movement, including fish runs, and shall
be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat. Proposed
fencing types and materials will be determined on a case-by-case basis; however, the typical is
split rail fencing. All fencing shall be approved by the decision-maker prior to installation.
(3) Maintenance and Replacement. It is the responsibility of the landowner, successors, or as otherwise
assigned to maintain in perpetuity and replace, if necessary, all permanent fencing and field markings.
20.93.360 Construction Plan Review, Monitoring, and Inspection.
(a) The Director may require project building and construction plans to be reviewed by a qualified professional
for confirmation of consistency with the critical area report and recommendations prior to approval of
construction plans.
(b) The Director may require monitoring by a qualified professional during site alteration activities within, or
adjacent to, critical areas or buffers, and/or a final inspection report by the qualified professional stating
that construction has or has not implemented the design recommendations provided in the project critical
area report, and evaluation of any deviation from the recommendations.
(c) When the Director determines that such services are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
standards and guidelines of this chapter, they will be at the applicant’s expense.
20.93.370 Financial Guarantee Requirements.
When determined necessary by the Director, bonds, and other financial guarantees, and associated performance
agreements or maintenance/defect/monitoring agreements are required for projects with required mitigation or
restoration of impacts to critical areas or critical area buffers consistent with the following:
(a) A performance agreement and bond, or other acceptable financial guarantees, are required from the
applicant when mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to final
permit approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection. The amount of the performance
bond(s) must equal 150 percent of the cost of the mitigation project.
(b) A performance agreement and bond, or other acceptable financial guarantees, are required from the
applicant when restoration is required for remediation of a critical area violation. The amount of the
performance bond(s) must equal 150 percent of the cost of the mitigation project.
(c) A maintenance/defect/monitoring agreement and bond, or other acceptable financial guarantees, are
required to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of the approved mitigation plan pursuant
to a development proposal or restoration plan for remediation of a violation. The amount of the maintenance
bond(s) must equal 150 percent of the cost of the mitigation project in addition to the cost for monitoring
for a minimum of five years. The monitoring portion of the financial guarantee may be reduced in
proportion to work successfully completed over the period of the bond. The bonding period must coincide
with the monitoring period.
20.93.380 Unauthorized Critical Area Alterations.
(a) When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this chapter, all work must stop, and the
critical area and buffer must be restored. The Director may issue a stop work order to cease all work, and
order restoration measures at the owner’s or other responsible party’s expense to remediate the impacts of
the violation of the provisions of this chapter. The city may take formal enforcement action under AMC
Title 11, Violations and Abatement, to ensure the violation is abated.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 31 Revised December 2025
(b) Requirement for Restoration Plan.
(1) All work must remain stopped until a restoration plan is provided by the party responsible and approved
by the city. Such a plan must be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science
and must describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsection
(c) of this section.
(2) The Director may, at the responsible party’s expense, seek expert advice, including but not limited to
third party review by a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the city, in
determining if the plan meets the minimum performance standards for restoration.
(3) Submittal, review, and approval of required restoration plan for remediation of violations of this chapter
must be completed through a site development permit application process, either after the fact for
regulated activities, or as a restoration permit for activities not allowed under these provisions.
(c) Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration.
(1) For alterations to critical aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas, the following minimum performance standards must be met for the restoration:
(A) The pre-violation function and values of the affected critical areas and buffers must be restored,
including but not limited to hydrologic, water quality and habitat functions;
(B) The pre-violation soil types and configuration must be replicated;
(C) The critical area and buffers must be replanted with a native vegetation community that reproduces
the structure, species content and condition of the pre-violation vegetation community. Based on
the historical or pre-violation vegetation community, native plant species must be replaced at
minimum of a five-to-one ratio or installed at a density of five-feet-on-center unless approved by
the decision-maker. The pre-violation functions and values should be replicated at the location of
the alteration; and
(D) Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in AMC 20.93.330, Mitigation Plan
Requirements, and the applicable mitigation sections for the affected type(s) of critical area(s) and
their buffer(s) must be submitted to the decision-maker with a complete site development permit
application.
(E) These standards may be modified by the decision-maker when it can be demonstrated that greater
functional and habitat values can be obtained.
(2) For alterations to special flood hazard and geologically hazardous areas, the following minimum
performance standards must be met for the restoration of a critical area:
(A) The hazard must be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre-violation hazard;
(B) Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration must be eliminated or minimized; and
(C) The hazard area and buffers must be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the
hazard.
(D) These standards may be modified by the decision-maker if the violator can demonstrate that greater
safety can be obtained.
(d) Site Investigation. The Director is authorized to take such actions as are necessary to enforce this chapter.
The Director (or Director’s authorized representative) must present proper credentials and obtain
permission before entering onto private property.
(e) Penalties. Any responsible party violating the provisions of this chapter may be subject to applicable
penalties per AMC Title 11, Violations and Abatement.
20.93.390 Final Decision and Appeals.
(a) Completion of the Critical Area Review. The city’s determination regarding critical areas pursuant to this
chapter is final concurrent with the final decision to approve, condition, or deny the underlying permit for
the development proposal or other activity involved.
(b) Appeals. Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development activity proposal or other activity
based on the requirements of this chapter may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure
for the underlying permit or approval involved.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 32 Revised December 2025
Part IV - Wetlands
20.93.400 Description and Purpose.
(a) Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands, which include, but are not
limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and
discharging ground water; contributing to stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks
and shorelines; storing storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; carbon sequestration;
thermal refugia, and improving water quality through biofiltration, adsorption, retention, and
transformation of sediments, nutrients, and toxicants.
(b) Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions and values of wetlands
through the City of Arlington.
(c) Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to wetlands.
(1) Compliance with the provisions of this Chapter does not necessarily constitute compliance with other
federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example,
Shoreline permits, Hydraulic Project Approval permits, Clean Water Act Section 404 permits and 401
certifications, Ecology Administrative Orders, or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the
processes established in this Chapter.
20.93.410 Identification, Delineation, Designation, and Rating.
(a) Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to
this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and
applicable regional supplement. All areas within the city meeting the wetland definition and designation
criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this
Chapter. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a
revision or additional assessment is necessary. Wetland delineations will be documented on a ground-
verified map using either professional surveying methods or an equivalent professional method using GPS
with sub-meter accuracy.
(b) Designation. All areas meeting the definition of a wetland and the wetland identification criteria pursuant
to this chapter, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject
to the provisions of this chapter.
(c) Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington state Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication 14-06-029 or as revised). Wetland ratings are valid for
five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional rating is necessary.
(1) Category I. Category I wetlands are those that represent unique or rare wetland types, are more sensitive
to disturbance than most wetlands, are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are
impossible to replace within a human lifetime or provide a high level of functions. The following types
of wetlands are Category I:
(A) Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre;
(B) Wetlands of high conservation value identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/Department of Natural Resources (DNR);
(C) Bogs;
(D) Mature forested wetlands larger than 1 acre;
(E) Wetlands in coastal lagoons; and
(F) Wetland that performs many functions well and has a total score of 23 points or more in the
wetland rating.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 33 Revised December 2025
(2) Category II. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that are difficult, though not impossible, to
replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category II:
(A) Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre;
(B) Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions and a total score of 20 to 22 points in the
wetland rating;
(C) Wetlands in coastal lagoons that are relatively undisturbed and equal to or smaller than one-tenth
acre (4,350 square feet).
(3) Category III. Category III wetlands are those with a moderate level of functions, generally have been
disturbed in some ways, can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project, and
are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II
wetlands. The following types of wetlands are Category III:
(A) Wetlands with a moderate level of functions with a total score of 16 to 19 points in the wetland
rating.
(4) Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions and are often heavily disturbed,
with a total score of 15 points or less in the wetland rating. The functions provided by Category IV
wetlands are generally easier to replace, and in some cases can be improved. However, experience has
shown that replacement of functions cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may
provide some important functions that need to be protected.
(d) Illegal Modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modification made to the
wetland.
20.93.420 Mapping and Delineation
(a) Mapping. The approximate location and extent of potential wetlands are shown in the wetland data layer
maintained in the city of Arlington geographic information system (GIS). In addition, the following maps
and inventories, that depict areas of hydric soils and potential wetland areas, are hereby adopted by
reference as amended:
(1) Soil maps produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service;
and
(2) The National Wetlands Inventory, produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(b) Reference Only. The maps and resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the Department, project
applicants, and/or property owners and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified.
They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation.
(c) Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to
this chapter must be done in accordance with the adopted federal wetland delineation manual and applicable
regional supplements per WAC 173-22-035. The exact location of a wetland’s boundary must be
determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified professional. Evidence
documenting the results of the boundary survey, including evidence of a lack of wetland indicators if no
wetlands are identified, must be submitted to the city.
20.93.430 General Development Standards
(a) All development activities and uses are prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, unless administered
through the permit procedures above, and the performance standards described herein, and only when it is
demonstrated that the activity will not result in a loss of function and values of the wetland through the
application of mitigation sequencing in AMC 20.93.330(a), Mitigation Requirements.
(b) Exemptions. Exemptions to this chapter are listed in the provisions established in AMC 20.93.250, Exempt
Activities.
(c) Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers are
subject to the following:
(1) Land that is located wholly within a wetland and/or its buffer may not be subdivided; and
(2) Land that is located partially within a wetland and/or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, each lot
will meet all zoning standards in AMC Chapter 20.48, Density and Dimensional Standards without
encroaching into the wetland or buffer.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 34 Revised December 2025
20.93.440 Specific Wetland Category Development Standards
(a) Category I Wetlands. Development activities and uses that result in alteration of Category I wetlands and
their associated buffers are prohibited, unless the denial will prevent all reasonable economic use of the
property. The development may be permitted through a critical area variance if it is determined to be the
minimum impact possible and a reasonable use as prescribed in AMC 20.93.270, Reasonable Use
Exception and Critical Area Variance.
(b) Category II, III, and IV Wetlands. Development activities that result in alteration of Category II, III, or IV
wetlands may be permitted upon demonstration, through a critical area report meeting the requirements of
this chapter, that:
(1) Mitigation sequencing has been applied per AMC 20.93.330(a);
(2) The proposed alteration will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functioning of the wetland, or
that any degradation can be adequately mitigated to protect or compensate for the wetland functions
that are lost;
(3) Small, Hydrologically Isolated Category IV Wetlands (Less than 1,000 Square Feet). The decision-
maker may allow small, hydrologically isolated Category IV wetlands to be exempt from the
requirement to avoid impacts (AMC 20.93.330(a)(1)), and allow alteration of such wetlands if all of
the following conditions are met:
(A) The remaining mitigation sequencing actions of AMC 20.93.330(a)(2) through AMC
20.93.330(a)(6) are followed;
(B) The wetland is less than 1,000 square feet in area;
(C) The wetland does not have unique characteristics that would be difficult to replace through
standard compensatory mitigation practices;
(D) The wetland is a low-quality Category IV wetland with a habitat score of less than five points in
the adopted rating system;
(E) The wetland does not provide significant suitable breeding habitat for native amphibian species.
Suitable breeding habitat may be indicated by adequate stable and seasonal inundation that is
persistent from February to at least through April and presence of thin-stemmed emergent
vegetation and/or clean water;
(F) The wetland does not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of priority species
identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or species of local importance
which are regulated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation area in Part 3 FWHCA;
(G) The wetland is not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers;
(H) The wetland is not associated with riparian areas or buffers;
(I) The wetland is not part of a wetland mosaic; and
(J) A mitigation plan to replace lost wetland functions and values is developed, approved, and
implemented consistently with AMC 20.93.330, Mitigation Plan Requirements.
(K) In order to verify that the wetland meets these exemption conditions, a critical area report for
wetlands meeting the requirements in this chapter must be submitted.
(4) Small, Hydrologically Isolated Category IV Wetlands (Less than 1,000 Square Feet). Wetlands less
than 1,000 square feet that meet the criteria in subsection (b)(3) of this section and that do not contain
federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this
chapter. In order to verify that the wetland meets this exemption, a critical area report for wetlands
meeting the requirements in this chapter must be submitted.
20.93.450 Required Buffer Areas.
(a) Buffer Requirements. Wetland buffers must be established to protect the integrity, functions and values of
the wetland. The buffer tables below have been established in accordance with the best available science.
They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score (for options 1 and 2) as determined by a
qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised).
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 35 Revised December 2025
(b) Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers must be measured horizontally from the edge of the wetland
boundary as surveyed in the field. The width of the buffer must be determined according to the buffer
options chosen below.
(c) Buffer Standards. The buffer standards required by this chapter presume the existence of a dense vegetation
community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate
vegetation, the decision-maker may increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or other
enhancements, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging.
(1) Buffer Width Tables.
(A) Option 1
(i) Table 20.93.450-1: Wetland Buffer Width Requirements, in Feet, if Table 20.93.450-2 is
Implemented and a Habitat Corridor is Provided.
Category of Wetland Habitat Score
3-5 Points
Habitat Score
6-7 Points
Habitat Score
8-9 Points
Buffer Width Based on
Special Characteristics
Category I or II:
Based on Rating of Wetland
Functions (and not listed below)
75 110 225 NA
Category I:
Bogs and Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
NA NA 225 190
Category I:
Interdunal NA NA 225 NA
Category I:
Forested 75 110 225 NA
Category II:
Interdunal NA NA NA 110
Category III:
All Types Except Interdunal 60 110 225 NA
Category III:
Interdunal NA NA NA 60
Category IV:
All Types 40 40 40 NA
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 36 Revised December 2025
(ii) Table 20.93.450-2: Developments that Produce the Listed Disturbances and are Requesting a
Buffer Reduction are Required to Address the Disturbance Through the Use of Applicable
Minimization Measures.
This is not a complete list of measures, nor is every example measure required. Though not every measure is
required for all situations, all effort should be made to implement as many measures as possible when the
activities or uses are present on the site. Regulatory staff should determine, in coordination with the applicant,
which measures are applicable and practicable.
Examples of
Disturbance Activities and Uses that Cause Disturbances Examples of Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights
• Parking lots
• Commercial/Industrial
• Residential
• Recreation (e.g., athletic fields)
• Agricultural Buildings
• Direct lights away from wetland
• Only use lighting where necessary for public safety
and keep lights off when not needed
• Use motion-activated lights
• Use full cut-off filters to cover light bulbs and
direct light only were needed
• Limit use of blue-white colored lights in favor of
red-amber hues
• Use lower-intensity LED lighting
• Dim light to the lowest acceptable intensity
Noise
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Recreation (athletic fields, bleachers, etc.)
• Residential
• Agriculture
• Locate activity that generates noise away from
wetlands
• Construct a fence to reduce noise impacts on
adjacent wetland and buffer
• Plant a strip of dense shrub vegetation adjacent to
wetland buffer
Toxic runoff
• Parking lots
• Roads
• Commercial/Industrial
• Residential areas
• Application of pesticides
• Landscaping
• Agriculture
• Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland
while ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides
within 150 ft of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
• These examples are not necessarily adequate for
minimizing toxic runoff if threatened or
endangered species are present at the site
Stormwater runoff
• Parking lots
• Roads
• Residential areas
• Commercial/Industrial
• Recreation
• Landscaping/lawns
• Other impermeable surfaces,
compacted soil, etc.
• Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for
roads and existing adjacent development
• Prevent channelized or sheet flow from lawns that
directly enter the buffer
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse new runoff
from impervious surfaces and lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
• Residential areas
• Recreation
• Use privacy fencing
• Plant dense native vegetation to delineate buffer
edge and to discourage disturbance.
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract
• Place signs around the wetland buffer every 50 -
200 feet and for subdivisions place signs at the
back of each residential lot
• When platting new subdivisions, locate greenbelts,
stormwater facilities, and other lower intensity
uses adjacent to wetland buffers
Dust • Tilled fields
• Roads
• Use best management practices to control dust
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 37 Revised December 2025
(iii)Table 20.93.450-3: Wetland Buffer Width Requirements, in Feet, for Applications Not
Providing Habitat Corridor or Implementing Measures in Table 20.93.450-2.
Category of Wetland Habitat Score
3-5 Points
Habitat Score
6-7 Points
Habitat Score
8-9 Points
Buffer Width Based on
Special Characteristics
Category I & II:
Based on Rating of
Wetland Functions (and
not listed below)
100 150 300 NA
Category I:
Bogs and Wetlands of
High Conservation Value
NA NA 300 250
Category I:
Interdunal NA NA 300 NA
Category I:
Forested 100 150 300 NA
Category II:
Interdunal NA NA NA 150
All Types Except 80 150 300 NA
Category III:
Interdunal NA NA NA 80
Category IV:
All 50 50 50 50
(iv) Conditions for Implementing Tables 20.93.450-1, 20.93.450-2, and 20.93.450-3
(a) Wetlands that score 6 points or more for habitat function: the buffers in Table 20.93.450-
1 can be used only if all of the following criteria are met:
(1) A relatively undisturbed, habitat corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between
the wetland and:
(A) A legally protected, undisturbed and vegetated area (e.g., Priority Habitats,
compensatory mitigation sites, wildlife areas/refuges, federal, county, and
state parks) where they have management plans with identified areas
designated as Natural, Natural Forest, or Natural Area Preserve, or
(B) An area that is the site of a Watershed Project identified within, and fully
consistent with, a Watershed Plan is defined by RCW 89-08-460, or
(C) An area where development is prohibited according to the provisions of the
local shoreline master program, or
(D) An area with equivalent habitat quality that has conservation status in
perpetuity, in consultation with WDFW.
(2) The corridor is permanently protected for the entire distance between the wetland
and the shoreline or legally protected area by a conservation easement, deed
restriction, or other legal site protection mechanisms.
(3) Presence or absence of the shoreline or Priority Habitat must be confirmed by a
qualified biologist or shoreline Administrator.
(4) The measures in Table 20.93.450-2 are implemented, as applicable, to minimize the
impact of the adjacent land uses.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 38 Revised December 2025
(b) For wetlands that score 5 or fewer habitat points, only the measures in Table 20.93.450-
2 are required for the use of the buffers in Table 20.93.450-1.
(c) If an applicant does not apply the mitigation measures in Table 20.93.450-2 or is unable
to provide a protected corridor, then the buffers in Table 20.93.450-3 shall be used.
(d) The buffer widths in Tables 20.93.450-1 and 20.93.450-3 assume that the buffer is
vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing
buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not
perform needed functions, the buffer must either be planted to create the appropriate
native plant community or be widened to ensure that the buffer provides adequate
functions to protect the wetland.
(2) Increased Wetland Buffer Width. Buffer widths shall be increased on a case-by-case basis as
determined by the decision-maker when a wider buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and
values. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is
reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland. The documentation shall
include but not be limited to the following criteria:
(A) The wetland is used by plant or animal species listed by the federal government or the state as
endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or documented priority species or
habitats, or the wetland is essential or outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting
or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or
(B) The adjacent land has slopes greater than 15 percent and is susceptible to severe erosion, and
erosion-control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
(C) The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover on slopes greater than 30 percent. In lieu of
increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland
functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer
restoration/enhancement plan in accordance with AMC 20.93.470, Compensatory Mitigation
Performance Standards and Requirements may be substituted.
(3) Averaging Buffer Widths. The decision-maker may allow averaging of wetland buffers on a case-to-
case basis when the critical area report demonstrates that the following criteria are met:
(A) There is not a feasible alternative to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer
averaging;
(B) The buffer averaging improves the functions or values of the wetland, either through preservation
of total buffer area or enhancement of buffer areas including the creation of connectivity or
corridors;
(C) The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than that which would be
contained within the standard buffer;
(D) The wetland contains variation in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics, or the
character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a
wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrow buffer in other places;
(E) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the standard width.
(4) Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers must be measured perpendicularly from the wetland
boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as a
compensation for approved wetland alteration must be the same as the buffer required for the category
of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland.
(5) Buffers on Mitigation Sites. Buffer widths must be applied to mitigation sites consistent with the
wetland rating and buffer requirements of this chapter for subsequent development proposals based on
expected category of the wetland once the mitigation actions are taken. Only fully vegetated buffers
with predominantly native plants will be included in the new buffer area. Lawns, walkways, driveways,
and other mowed or paved areas will not count towards the required buffer calculations.
(6) Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this chapter, wetland
buffers must be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. In the case of compensatory
mitigation sites, removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation
bond.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 39 Revised December 2025
(7) Buffer Impacts. When buffer impacts occur, compensatory mitigation must be provided at a minimum
ratio of one-to-one for the area impacted. The mitigation must occur on the same site when feasible or
within the same wetland system preferably. The mitigation must ensure that the wetland functions and
values are not diminished due to the buffer impacts.
(8) Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management facilities may be allowed in Category III
and IV wetland buffers if they meet all of the criteria identified below:
(A) The wetland is classified as a Category III or a Category IV wetland with a habitat score of three
to five points or less; and
(B) There will be “no net loss” of functions and values of the wetlands; and
(C) The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species; and
(D) The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as outlined in questions 3, 4, and 5 of
Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, and 4 of Chart 5 in the Department of Ecology, “Guide for Selecting
Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach”, or the wetland is part of a priority restoration plan
that achieves restoration goals identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or regional
watershed plan; and
(E) The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the discharge follows the natural routing;
and
(F) All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not
limited to local and state wetland and stormwater codes, manual, and permits; and
(G) Modifications will require permits. Existing functions and values that are lost would have to be
compensated/replaced through an approved mitigation plan.
(9) Setbacks From Buffers. Buildings and structures must be set back a minimum distance of 15 feet, while
paving and other hard surfacing must be set back a minimum distance of 10 feet from the edge of the
wetland buffer, or edge of the wetland if no buffer is required, unless otherwise determined by the
decision-maker that a smaller distance would meet the intent of this subsection. This setback is to avoid
conflicts with tree branches and/or critical root zones of trees that are in the buffer or will be planted in
the buffer. The following may be allowed in the building setback from the buffer if they do not cause
damage to the critical root zone of the trees in the buffer:
(A) Landscaping;
(B) Uncovered decks, roof eaves and overhangs, unroofed stairways and steps;
(C) Pervious ground surfaces, such as driveways, patios, and parking may be allowed; provided, that
it is engineered as a permeable pavement system as defined in this chapter. Such improvements
are subject to the requirements in AMC Title 13.
(10) Functionally Separated and Isolated Buffers. Consistent with the definition of “buffer” in this chapter,
areas that are functionally isolated and physically separated from a wetland due to existing, legally
established roadways, railroads or other legally established structures or paved areas eight feet or more
in width that occur between the area in question, and the wetland must be considered physically
isolated and functionally separated buffer. One determined by the Director, based on a submitted
critical area report; to be a physically separated and functionally isolated wetland buffer, development
proposals are allowed in these areas.
20.93.460 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
(a) Additional Report Contents for Wetlands. In addition to the minimum report contents required per
AMC Critical area reports, wetland reports must also include:
(1) For each wetland identified on site and off site within 300 feet of the project site provide: the
wetland rating, including a description of and score for each function, per wetland ratings (AMC
20.93.410); required buffers (AMC 20.93.450); hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage
based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on-site portion and entire
wetland area including off-site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities;
habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and to
the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets (if they
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 40 Revised December 2025
can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod
patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage
estimates, classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion
present on the proposed project site;
(2) A discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s) associated with anticipated hydroperiod
alterations from the project;
(3) A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands
and buffers based on the field delineation and survey and an analysis of site development
alternatives, including a no-development alternative;
(4) An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the
proposed development;
(5) A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to AMC
20.93.330(a)(1) Mitigation Requirements, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical
areas and a discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and compensation,
proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the
current proposed land-use activity;
(6) A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that addresses methods to protect and
enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions; and
(7) An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the
method used and data sheets.
(b) Additional Information. When appropriate due to the proposed impacts or the project area conditions,
the Director may also require the critical area report to include:
(1) A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), local Native American tribes, and/or other
appropriate agency;
(2) Copies of the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) and related approvals, such as
a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), when applicable to the project; and
(3) Detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent to the site.
20.93.470 Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards and Requirements
(a) Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or buffer impacts, a
compensatory mitigation plan must be included as part of the required critical area report.
Compensatory wetland mitigation plans must meet the minimum requirements of AMC 20.93.330(a),
Mitigation Requirements, and demonstrate compliance with AMC 20.93.330(b), Mitigation plan
requirements. Full guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 -
Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 2.0) (Ecology Publication No. 23-06-009 or as revised and
approved by Ecology). The mitigation plan must meet the following additional standards:
(1) Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be impacted. Include acreage (or
square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and
functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic
classification, and wetland rating, based on wetland ratings (AMC 20.93.410);
(2) Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection.
Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and uplands,
water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and
functions. Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation actions are not
undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession);
(3) A description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by
the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted
functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, categories of wetlands, and mitigation ratios applied (if
ratio approach used);
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 41 Revised December 2025
(4) A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities, construction/installation notes, and
timing of activities;
(5) A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has
been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for remaining
wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands);
(6) Proof of establishment of notice on title for the wetlands and buffers on the project site, including
the compensatory mitigation areas; and
(7) The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum:
(A) An accurate depiction of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed areas of wetland and/or
buffer impacts, location of proposed wetland and/or buffer compensation actions;
(B) Existing topography, ground-proofed, at two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the
proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed to create the compensation
area(s). Also, existing cross-sections of on-site wetland areas that are proposed to be impacted
and cross-section(s) (estimated one-foot intervals) for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer
compensation;
(C) Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed
hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Also,
illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the
estimates of future hydrologic conditions;
(D) Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including future hydrogeomorphic
types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future
water regimes;
(E) Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. Also,
identify any zones where buffers are proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the
standards identified in this chapter;
(F) A plant schedule for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community
type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical
clustering patterns, typical plant installation details and notes, total number of each species by
community type, timing of installation; and
(G) Performance standards (measurable standards reflective of years post-installation) for upland
and wetland communities, monitoring plan, contingency plan, and maintenance schedule, and
actions. Standards for success must be established based on the performance standards
identified and the functions and values being mitigated based on the guidance in Wetland
Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 - Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 2.0) (Ecology
Publication #23-06-009 or as revised and approved by Ecology).
(b) Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation.
(1) Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands may be used only for impacts that cannot be
avoided or minimized, except as otherwise exempted in AMC 20.93.440, Specific Wetland Category
Development Standards, and must achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory
mitigation plans must be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 -
Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 2) (Ecology Publication #23-06-009 or as revised and
approved by Ecology).
(2) Mitigation ratios must be consistent with subsection (j) of this section.
(3) Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in
"Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington: Final Report, March 2012" (Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011, March 2012, or as
revised) consistent with subsection (h) of this section.
(c) Compensating for Lost or Impacted Wetland Functions. Compensatory mitigation must address the
functions and values affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve functional
equivalency or improvement of functions and values. The goal for the compensatory mitigation must
be to provide similar wetland functions and values as those lost, except when either:
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 42 Revised December 2025
(1) The lost wetland provides minimal functions and values, and the proposed compensatory
mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions and values or will provide functions
and values shown to be limited within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed
assessment plan or protocol; or
(2) Out-of-kind replacement of wetland type or functions and values will best meet watershed goals
formally identified by the city, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.
(d) Preference of Mitigation Actions. Methods to achieve compensation for wetland functions and values
must be approached in the following order of preference:
(1) Restoration. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with
the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. Restoration of
wetlands includes reestablishment and rehabilitation.
(A) Reestablishment. Returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland.
Reestablishment results in a gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include
removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles.
(B) Rehabilitation. Repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation
results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities
could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal
influence on a wetland.
(2) Creation. Creation (establishment) of wetlands on disturbed upland sites, such as those with
vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative species. This should be attempted only when
there is an adequate source of water, and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic
regime is conducive to the wetland community that is anticipated in the design.
(3) Preservation. Preservation of high-quality, at-risk wetlands as compensation is generally
acceptable when done in combination with restoration, creation, or enhancement; provided, that a
minimum of one-to-one acreage replacement is provided by reestablishment or creation.
Preservation of high-quality, at-risk wetlands and habitat may be considered as the sole means of
compensation for wetland impacts when the following criteria are met
(A) Proposed wetland impacts will not have a significant adverse impact on habitat for listed fish,
or other Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species;
(B) There is no net loss of habitat functions within the watershed or basin;
(C) Mitigation ratios for preservation as the sole means of mitigation must generally start at 20-
to-one. Specific ratios should depend upon the significance of the preservation project and
the quality of the wetland resources lost;
(D) The impact area is small (generally less than one-half acre) and/or impacts are occurring to a
low- functioning system (Category Ill or IV wetland); and
(E) All preservation sites must include buffer areas adequate to protect the habitat and its
functions from encroachment and degradation.
(4) Enhancement. Enhancement of significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or
creation. Enhancement alone will result in a loss of wetland acreage and is less effective at replacing
the functions and values lost. Enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes
replacing the impacted area and meeting appropriate ratio requirements.
(5) Wetland Bank or Advanced Wetland Mitigation. For future use since no current banks have a service
area in Arlington.
(e) Type and Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of
ecological functioning would result from an alternative mitigation approach, compensatory
mitigation for ecological functions should be either in-kind and on site, or in-kind and within the same
stream reach, sub-basin, or drift cell (if estuarine wetlands are impacted). Compensatory mitigation
actions must be conducted within the same sub- basin or on the site of the alteration, except when the
following apply:
(1) The conditions in subsection (b) of this section are met.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 43 Revised December 2025
(2) There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub-basin (e.g., on-site options would
require elimination of high-functioning upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub-
basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site
to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include:
(A) Anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation;
(B) Buffer conditions and proposed widths;
(C) Water available to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored;
(D) Proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts
(such as connectivity);
(E) Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions
than the impacted wetland;
(F) Off-site locations must be in the same sub-basin, unless watershed goals for water quality,
flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the
city and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; and
(G) The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be appropriate for its location
(i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore, compensatory mitigation should not result in the
creation, restoration, or enhancement of an atypical wetland. An atypical wetland refers to a
compensation wetland (e.g., created or enhanced) that does not match the type of existing
wetland that would be found in the geomorphic setting of the site (i.e., the water source(s)
and hydroperiod proposed for the mitigation site are not typical for the geomorphic setting).
Likewise, it should not provide exaggerated morphology or require a berm or other engineered
structures to hold back water. For example, excavating a permanently inundated pond in an
existing, seasonally saturated or inundated wetland is one example of an enhancement project
that could result in an atypical wetland. Another example would be excavating depressions in
an existing wetland on a slope, which would require the construction of berms to hold the
water.
(f) Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700
WAC may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the
mitigation bank instrument, if:
(1) The proposal would provide appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts;
(2) The impact site is located in the service area of the bank;
(3) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified mitigation
bank instrument; and
(4) Replacement ratios using bank credits are consistent with replacement ratios specified in the
certified mitigation bank instrument.
(g) Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. This type of mitigation is defined in 33 CFR 332 as "an aquatic
resource restoration, establishment, enhancement and/or preservation activity undertaken by the
permittee (or an authorized agent or contractor) to provide compensatory mitigation for which the
permittee retains full responsibility." The permittee performs the mitigation either before the project
impact occurs and before any project impact permit is issued (advance permittee-responsible
mitigation) or at the same time as the project impact is occurring after the project impact permit is
issued (concurrent permittee-responsible mitigation). The permittee is ultimately responsible for
implementation and success of the mitigation. For advance mitigation, the permittee generates
mitigation credits that may be used to compensate for future wetland or buffer impacts. Only the
permittee may use the advance mitigation credits. Permittee-responsible mitigation may occur at the
site of the permitted impacts or at an off-site location within the same watershed. Permittee-
responsible mitigation must be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland professional
demonstrates to the decision-maker's satisfaction that the proposed approach is ecologically
preferable to use of a bank or ILF program, consistent with the criteria in this section.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 44 Revised December 2025
(h) Alternative Mitigation Plan. The decision-maker may approve an alternative wetland mitigation plan
that is based on best available science. Proposed alternative mitigation plans must provide an
equivalent or better level of protection of wetland functions and values than would be provided by the
strict application of this chapter.
(1) The following will be considered in the approval of an alternative mitigation plan:
(A) The plan uses a watershed approach consistent with "Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a
Watershed Approach (Western Washington)" (Ecology Publication No. 09-06-032, Olympia, WA,
December 2009).
(B) Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open space is preferable to the
preservation of many individual small habitat areas.
(C) Mitigation according to subsection (d) of this section is not feasible due to site constraints
including but not limited to parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologically
hazardous areas.
(D) There is a clear potential for success of the proposed compensation at the identified site.
(E) The plan must contain clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the
specific provisions of the plan, consistent with AMC 20.93.330, Mitigation Plan Requirements.
(F) The plan must be reviewed and approved as part of the overall approval of the proposed use.
(G) A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or functions and values;
the replacement ratios may not be reduced or eliminated unless the reduction results in a
preferred environmental alternative.
(H) Mitigation guarantees must meet the minimum requirements as outlined in AMC 20.93.370,
Financial Guarantee Requirements.
(I) Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed must prepare the plan.
(J) The city may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over the critical areas
during the review to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance
measures that adequately safeguard critical areas.
(i) Wetland Mitigation Ratios. The ratios below assume that the rehabilitation or enhancement actions
implemented represent the average degree of improvement possible for the site. Proposals to
implement more effective rehabilitation or enhancement actions may result in a lower ratio, while
less effective actions may result in a higher ratio. The distinction between rehabilitation and
enhancement is not clear-cut. Instead, rehabilitation and enhancement actions span a continuum.
Proposals that fall within the gray area between rehabilitation and enhancement will result in a
ratio that lies between the ratios for rehabilitation and the ratios for enhancement.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 45 Revised December 2025
Table 20.93.470-1: Wetland Mitigation Ratios
Category of
Impacted Wetland
Reestablishment or
Creation Rehabilitation Preservation Enhancement
Category I
Forested 6:1 12:1 24:1 24:1
Bogs NA NA 24:1 NA
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value Consult with DNR Consult with
DNR 24:1 Consult with
DNR
Category I
Interdunal
Wetlands
4:1
8:1
(limited
circumstances)
16:1 Not Considered
an Option
Category II
Interdunal
Wetlands
2:1
4:1
(limited
circumstances)
8:1 Not Considered
an Option
Category III and IV
Interdunal
Wetlands
1.5:1
3:1
(limited
circumstances)
6:1 Not Considered
an Option
(j) Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers must be mitigated at a one-to-one ratio. Compensatory
buffer mitigation must replace those buffer functions lost from development.
(k) Mitigation Performance Standards. Wetland mitigation plans must be consistent with AMC 20.93.330
Mitigation and Mitigation Plan Requirements, and "Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 1 -
Agency Policies and Guidance" (Version 2.0, Publication #23-06-009), or as revised and approved by
Ecology.
(l) Minimum Standards. The design standards in this section must be incorporated into mitigation plans
submitted to the city for impacts to wetlands and/or wetland buffers. The following standards apply
to any mitigation proposed within Category I, II, III and IV wetlands and their buffers. Modifications
to these design standards consistent with the guidance in "Wetland Mitigation in Washington State:
Part 2 - Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 2.0)" (Ecology Publication #23-06-009, or as revised and
approved by Ecology) may be considered for approval by the decision-maker as alternatives to the
following standards:
(1) Plants native to the region (not introduced, nonnative or exotic species) must be used.
(2) Plant species selection must be consistent with the existing or projected hydrologic regime,
including base water levels and stormwater event fluctuations.
(3) Plant species selection must be consistent with the site environmental conditions such as slope,
aspect, soils and exposure to sun, wind and rain.
(4) Plants should be commercially available or available from local sources.
(5) Native plant species high in food and cover value for fish and wildlife should be prioritized as
appropriate for the site.
(6) Plant selection must be approved by a qualified professional.
(7) The following standards apply to wetland design and construction:
(A) For wetland creation sites, preliminary investigations of existing hydrology at the site must
be completed to confirm that the site has adequate source hydrology (e.g., high groundwater,
precipitation or riverine flooding) to support wetland conditions.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 46 Revised December 2025
(B) Water depth in areas of seasonal or occasional inundation must not exceed three feet (0.914
meters), unless the proposed mitigation is compensating for impacts to unvegetated/open
water areas.
(C) If creating or rehabilitating a slope wetland, the grade or slope within the wetland must not
exceed six percent, unless otherwise approved by the decision-maker.
(D) Slopes within the wetland contributing basin and the buffer zone must not be steeper than
three-to-one (horizontal to vertical).
(E) The wetland (excluding the buffer area) should not contain more than 20 percent
unvegetated/open water areas as measured at the seasonal high water mark, unless the
mitigation is compensating for vegetation.
(F) Site soils must be free of contamination and/or hazardous materials and must have adequate
organic content and porosity to support the proposed native plant community.
(G) Planting densities and placement of plants should be determined by a qualified professional
and shown on the design plans.
(8) The planting plan must be approved by the city.
(9) Stockpiling soil and construction materials should be confined to upland areas and contract
specifications should limit stockpiling of earthen materials to durations in accordance with city
clearing and grading standards, unless otherwise approved by the city.
(10) Planting instructions must be submitted which describe placement, diversity, and spacing of seeds,
tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, sprigs, plugs, and transplanted stock.
(11) Controlled release fertilizer (if required) must be used in upland areas only (buffers and other non-
wetland areas) and must be installed into the planting hole only at the time of planting. No fertilizer
must be applied to the ground surface.
(12) An irrigation system must be installed or watering afforded by trucks or hoses to provide water for
installed plants and seeded areas to supplement rainfall to ensure that plants receive approximately
one-half inch of water per week during the dry season of the first two years after plant installation.
(13) All construction specifications and methods must be approved by a qualified professional and the
city.
(14) Construction management provided must be provided by a qualified professional. Ongoing work on
site must be inspected by the city.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 47 Revised December 2025
Part V. – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
20.93.500 Description and Purpose.
(a) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are lands managed for maintaining populations of species
in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that the habitat available is sufficient
to support viable populations over the long term and isolated subpopulations are not created. In
addition to their intrinsic value, certain species of fish and wildlife represent important historic,
cultural, recreational and economic resources.
(b) It is the purpose of this chapter to protect fish and wildlife populations and their associated habitats
and provide special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or
enhance anadromous species.
20.93.510 Designation.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas are designated as follows and per WAC 365-190-130:
(a) Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
association.
(1) Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that are in danger of
extinction or are threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service may be consulted as necessary for current listing status.
(2) State designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native
to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that are in
danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to
become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without
cooperative management or removal of threats. State designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species are periodically recorded in WAC 222-12-014 (state endangered species), and WAC 232-12-
011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
maintains the most current listing and may be consulted as necessary for current listing status.
(b) State Priority Habitats and the Habitats of State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species are priorities
for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due
to their population states; sensitivity to habitat alteration; and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal
importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse
assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species,
a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitats and species are identified
by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; maps and reports can be obtained by contacting the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Species Program.
(c) Waters of the State and waters of the city of Arlington. These waters include all lakes, ponds, streams,
inland waters, underground waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses with the jurisdiction of the
state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031.
(d) Naturally Occurring Ponds under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under 20 acres
with submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds
intentionally created from dry areas to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do not
include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, farm
ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities, unless such artificial ponds were
intentionally created for mitigation.
(e) State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas. Natural area preserves and
natural resource conservation areas are defined, established, and managed by the Washington
Department of Natural Resources.
(f) Land essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces.
(g) Riparian management zones (RMZs), which include areas that have the potential to provide full
riparian functions.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 48 Revised December 2025
20.93.520 Mapping.
(a) Mapping. The following maps and inventories are hereby adopted by reference, as amended:
(1) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Map;
(2) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species: Riparian Ecosystems and
the Online Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) Map Tool.
(3) Washington Geological Survey, Official Water Type Reference Maps;
(4) Washington Geological Survey, Natural Heritage Program Mapping Data;
(5) Anadromous and resident fish distribution maps contained in the habitat limiting factors reports
published by the Washington Conservation Commission and others;
(6) Washington Geological Survey, Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Area
Maps; and
(7) NOAA Northwest Region Critical Habitat Mapper.
(b) Reference Only. The maps and resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Arlington
Community and Economic Development Department, project applicants, and/or property owners and may
be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical area designation.
20.93.530 General Development Standards for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
(a) All new development activities and uses are prohibited from fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas and their buffers except in accordance with this chapter, unless within shoreline jurisdiction and
hereby regulated by the city of Arlington Shoreline Master Program.
(b) Alterations. Alterations of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and its buffers may occur only
if the proposed alteration of the habitat and any associated mitigation proposed does not degrade the
functions and values of the habitat.
(c) Exemptions. Exemptions to this chapter are listed in the provisions established in AMC 20.93.250,
Exempt Activities.
(d) Approvals and the Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area must be supported by the best available science as described in the required
critical area report and meet the requirements of WAC 365-195-915.
(e) Approvals of Activities May Be Conditioned. The decision-maker may condition approvals of
activities allowed within or adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area as necessary to
minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions will be based on the best available
science and may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Establishment of buffers;
(2) Preservation of important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed wood
specific to the priority wildlife species in the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area;
(3) Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access;
(4) Seasonal restriction of construction activities;
(5) Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities; and
(6) Requirement of a performance bond, when necessary, to ensure completion and success of
proposed mitigation.
(f) Seasonal Restrictions. When a species is more susceptible to adverse impacts during specific periods
of the year, seasonal restrictions may apply. Larger buffers may be required, and activities may be
further restricted during the specified season.
(g) Subdivisions. The subdivision and short subdivision of land in fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas and associated buffers is subject to the following:
(1) Land that is located wholly within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and its buffers may
not be subdivided;
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 49 Revised December 2025
(2) Land that is located partially within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area may be subdivided
only if an accessible and contiguous portion of each new lot that meets the minimum lot size
requirements for the zone is located outside of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and
its buffer.
(3) Access roads and utilities serving a proposed subdivision may be permitted within the fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area and associated buffers only if the applicant's qualified
professional(s) demonstrate, and the decision-maker determines that no other feasible alternative
exists, all unavoidable impacts are fully mitigated, and the use is consistent with this chapter;
(4) This subsection does not authorize new access roads and utilities in fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas and associated buffers for existing subdivisions.
20.93.540 Specific Standards for Type F, Type Np and Type Ns Waters.
(a) Type F, Type Np and Type Ns waters are critical areas for streams, creeks, and other surface water.
(b) To retain the natural functions of streams and stream corridors, the minimum riparian management zone
widths listed in the below table shall be maintained on both sides of the waterway. All existing native
vegetation within these areas shall be preserved.
(c) Riparian management zones must:
(1) Leave native vegetation undisturbed and include identified areas for restoration, sufficient to protect
the integrity, functions, and values of the affected stream, creek, or other surface water.
(2) Reflect the sensitivity of critical area and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be
conducted nearby;
(3) Be consistent with the applicable species-specific management recommendations issued by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Figure 20.93.540-1: Riparian Management Zone Widths*
*There are streams or creeks located within the floodplain and shoreline jurisdiction that are subject to the
City of Arlington Shoreline Master Program.
(d) Development activities and uses that result in unavoidable impacts are prohibited except as otherwise
allowed by this chapter and may occur in habitat areas and associated buffers only if the proposed
alteration does not degrade the functions and values of the creek, stream, or other surface water in
accordance with an approved critical area report with habitat assessment/management plan, and only if
the proposed activity is the least impactful alternative that will still maintain economic viability of the
property. Full compensation for the loss of acreage and functions of habitat and buffer areas must be
provided in compliance with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of these regulations.
(e) Activities that impact a stream, creek, river, lakes, and other surface water must provide a critical areas
report prepared by a qualified professional describing the functions and values of the critical area and
buffer.
(f) Required Stream and Creek Enhancement Measures. Only those enhancement measures deemed most
applicable and/or appropriate for enhancement projects will be considered in a modification proposal and
must be supported by best available science and a critical area report. These include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Removal of fish barriers to restore accessibility to fish;
(2) Removal of all invasive plants (hand removal only);
Stream Type Required Riparian Management Zone Width Building Setback from RMZ
Type F SPTH200 or 100 Feet, whichever is greater 15 Feet
Type Np 100 Feet 15 Feet
Type Ns 100 Feet 15 Feet
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 50 Revised December 2025
(3) Planting native vegetation within the buffer area, especially vegetation that would increase value for
fish and wildlife, increase stream bank or slope stability, improve water quality, or provide
aesthetic/recreation value;
(4) Removal or modification of existing stream culverts (such as road crossings) to improve fish passage,
stream habitat, and flow capacities; or
(5) Upgrading of retention/detention facilities or other stormwater management facilities beyond required
levels.
(g) To protect the natural functions and aesthetics qualities of a stream and RMZ, a detailed temporary erosion
control plan that identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to
protect the water from vegetation removal, erosion, siltation, landslides, and hazardous construction
materials shall be required. The city of Arlington shall review and approve the plan with the appropriate
state, federal and tribal agencies, and any adjacent jurisdiction.
20.93.550 Specific Riparian Management Zone Standards.
(a) A riparian management zone (RMZ) is a critical area; specifically, it is a type of fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area. The RMZ consists of a watercourse and the area adjacent to the watercourse that has the
potential to provide full riparian ecosystem functions for bank stability, shade, pollution removal,
contributions of detrital nutrients, recruitment of large woody debris, and wildlife habitat. A project site’s
riparian management zone buffer is associated with each aquatic species upstream and downstream from
the project site.
(1) All new development adjacent to Type F streams must utilize the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) site potential tree height (SPTH) mapping tool to determine appropriate RMZ width.
The RMZ must be equal to the height of the tallest 200-year-old site-potential tree (SPTH200) or 100
feet, whichever is greater. The RMZ is measured from whichever of the following features is
furthest from the center of the watercourse: (a) the ordinary high-water mark, (b) the top of bank,
or (c) the outer edge of the channel migration zone (if one exists). All new development adjacent
to Type N streams must apply a minimum 100-foot buffer to ensure pollution-removal functions
are maintained.
(2) Riparian Management Zones for state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species must be established per an approved habitat management plan as described in Section
20.93.580.
(3) Activities that may impact the riparian management zone provide a critical areas report prepared
by a qualified professional describing the functions and values of the RMZ. For Type F streams the
report must include the 200-year-old Site- Potential Tree Height (SPTH200) as determined by
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at:
https://gispublic.dfw.wa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/SPTH/SitePotentialTreeHeightPublic/MapServer
If SPTH200 was also calculated using site-scale data, that information must also be included. The
report must describe the inner measurement point (e.g., ordinary high-water mark) and the extent
of the RMZ with sufficient detail to allow field delineation. The report must demonstrate that the
project will result in no net loss of the ecosystem functions for the RMZ and associated species.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 51 Revised December 2025
Figure 20.93.550-1: Arial Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) Delineation
Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Riparian Ecosystems,
Volume 2: Management Recommendations.
The diagram depicts an aerial view of variable width RMZ delineation process for forested (A) and
dryland (B) systems.
• Step 1: Identify the SPTH or full extent of the riparian vegetative community (green);
• Step 2: Overlay the 100-foot pollution removal distance (yellow);
• Step 3: Delineate the RMZ (black) as the greater of the two distances.
Figure 20.93.550-2: Cross Section Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) Delineation
Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Riparian Ecosystems,
Volume 2: Management Recommendations.
The diagram depicts a cross section of the riparian management zone (RMZ) for both forested (left) and
dryland (right) ecoregions. The RMZ is coincident with the riparian ecosystem, which consists of the
riparian zone (riparian vegetative community) and the zone of influence. The riparian zone extends
from the edge of the active channel towards the uplands and it includes areas where vegetation is
influenced at least periodically by flowing waters. The zone of influence includes areas where ecological
processes significantly influence the stream, at least periodically.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 52 Revised December 2025
(b) Development Standards for Parcels Containing an RMZ.
(1) Application of Standards and Regulatory Intent.
(A) The provisions of this section apply to all development on parcels containing an RMZ as
defined in subsection (a)(1) of this section.
(B) It is the long-term goal of the city to restore the city's RMZs and to protect fish passage where
scientifically justified. The city has determined that best available science supports protecting
these RMZs as described in this section.
(2) Watercourse. Development is prohibited within or over the riparian watercourse, except as
provided in this subsection. The Director may approve of access over the riparian watercourse, if
the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
(A) No other access is available.
(B) The access is provided by a freestanding structure that maintains the natural channel and
floodway of the watercourse.
(C) The coverage of the watercourse and disturbance of the RMZ and any other adjacent
environmentally critical area or buffer are kept to a minimum.
(D) The material used to construct the access is durable and nontoxic to the maximum extent
feasible. If using untreated wood is infeasible, wood treated with pentachlorophenol,
creosote, chromate copper arsenate, or comparably toxic compounds is prohibited. Treated
wood and other material shall be the least toxic and shall be applied and used according to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries guidelines for using treated
wood in or over aquatic environments.
(E) In the water course, any action detrimental to habitat or actions affecting trees and vegetation,
including but not limited to clearing or removal, is prohibited, except as provided in this
subsection (b)(2).
(3) Riparian Management Zone. The RMZ is defined in subsection (a)(1) of this section. Existing
improved areas of public or private streets/driveways are excluded from the regulations for the
RMZ. Development is prohibited in the RMZ, except as follows:
(A) To provide the minimum necessary access if no other access is available to development
approved under subsection (b)(2)(B) of this section.
(B) On existing developed lots and platted lots existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance that
satisfies one or more of the provisions within Table 20.93.250-1, Exempt Activities, or Table
20.93.260-1, Permitted Alterations, if the applicant demonstrates that:
(i) None of the development occurs within or over the watercourse except as provided in
subsection (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) The development complies with stormwater flow control and water quality requirements,
regardless of whether the project would trigger the requirements based on the thresholds
for area of land disturbing activity, size of the addition, or replacement of impervious
surfaces provided in the DOE Stormwater Management Manual adopted in AMC Title
13.
(iii) Any development, including but not limited to coverage by impervious surface, does not
exceed 35 percent of the total lot area, and provided further, that the maximum lot
coverage does not exceed that allowed under AMC Chapter 20.48 Density and
Dimensional Standards.
(iv) When compliance with stormwater flow control and water quality requirements is
required solely based on subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii) of this section, the Director may approve
a restoration plan in lieu of compliance with subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii) if the applicant
demonstrates that the plan meets the following criteria:
(a) The watercourse and/or RMZ ecological function will be restored so that it prevents
harmful erosion, protects water quality, and provides diverse habitat; and
(b) The restoration results in greater protection of the watercourse and RMZ than
compliance with subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii) of this section.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 53 Revised December 2025
(C) In the RMZ any action detrimental to habitat and any action affecting trees and vegetation,
including but not limited to clearing or removal, are prohibited, except as provided in
subsection (b)(3)(A) or (B) of this section.
(D) Standard RMZ widths presume the buffer is densely vegetated with a native plant community
appropriate for the ecoregion, consisting of an average of 80 percent native cover comprised
of trees, shrubs and groundcover plants. If the existing buffer is sparsely vegetated or
vegetated with invasive species, the buffer must either be enhanced through an approved
mitigation plan pursuant to AMC 20.93.330 or increased by 33 percent.
(E) If the development is authorized per AMC 20.32, Nonconforming Situations. or Table
20.93.250-1, Exemptions, or Table 20.93.260-1, Permitted Alterations, the Director must
require that the degraded portion of the RMZ be restored by removing existing nonnative and
invasive plant species, and replanting with native trees and vegetation, and providing a five-
year monitoring and maintenance plan consistent with the requirements of AMC based on a
critical area restoration plan.
(c) Functionally Separated and Isolated Riparian Management Zones. Consistent with the definition of
"riparian management zone" in this chapter, RMZs are places that potentially provide riparian
ecosystem functions. Portions of the RMZ that are functionally isolated and physically separated from
a watercourse due to existing, legally established public roadways, railroads or other legally
established structures or paved areas eight feet or more in width that occur between the area in
question, and the watercourse may be excluded from the RMZ. If such an area provides any of the
five primary RMZ functions (bank stability, shade, pollution removal, contributions of detrital
nutrients, or recruitment of large woody debris) it will be retained within the RMZ; if it provides none
of these functions it may be excluded. The exclusion is only exempt as long as the legally existing
structure, roadway, etc. physically exists on the site. After an RMZ is determined by the decision-
maker, based on a submitted critical area report, to be physically separated and functionally isolated,
the area is no longer considered an RMZ critical area. If the legally existing structure, roadway, etc.
that determined the physical separation or isolated area is removed, then the area previously
considered separated or isolated would return to the original RMZ designation.
(d) Piped Watercourses. It is recognized that within the urban environment there may be historical streams
that have been substantially modified to accommodate development. Any of the regulated or mapped
watercourses within the city of Arlington that pass through natural reaches, modified reaches, piped
reaches, or manmade roadside ditches shall meet the following requirements.
(1) Development along piped watercourses that do not meet the definition of a fish habitat are subject
to a 30-foot setback from the centerline of the piped watercourse and are subject to the recording
of a utility easement granted to the city for access and maintenance of the watercourse
infrastructure.
(A) If the piped watercourses meet the definition of a fish habitat then all regulations of this section
shall apply.
(2) The voluntary opening and restoration or rehabilitation of a previously channelized, culverted, or
piped watercourse is highly encouraged and may be approved by the decision-maker, when the
following is demonstrated within a critical area report
(A) The restoration will result in a net gain in FWHCA functions, including an improvement in
water quality and ecological functioning;
(B) Opened channels must be designed to support fish and wildlife habitat and uninhibited fish
access, unless demonstrated to be infeasible;
(C) A reduction to the standard riparian management zone is allowed to a minimum of 25 feet, or
as recommended by a qualified professional in the critical area report. Measured from the
Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) and which includes habitat improvements, and
measures to prevent erosion, landslide and water quality impacts;
(D) The proposal will not significantly increase the threat of erosion, flooding, slope stability or
other hazards on the site or on adjacent properties;
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 54 Revised December 2025
(E) The proposal must demonstrate that the conveyance will maintain the flow capacity and not
create flooding elsewhere in the drainage basin.
(e) Riparian Management Zone Enhancement Measures. Only those enhancement measures deemed most
applicable and/or appropriate for RMZ enhancement projects will be considered in a RMZ
modification proposal and must be supported by best available science and a critical area report. These
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Removal of fish barriers to restore accessibility to fish;
(2) Removal of all invasive plants (hand removal only);
(3) Enhancement of fish habitat using log structures incorporated as part of a fish habitat enhancement
plan;
(4) Enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including
wood duck houses, bat boxes, nesting platforms, snags, rootwads/stumps, birdhouses, and heron
nesting areas;
(5) Planting native vegetation within the buffer area, especially vegetation that would increase value
for fish and wildlife, increase stream bank or slope stability, improve water quality, or provide
aesthetic/recreational value; or
(6) Creation of a surface channel where a watercourse was previously underground, in a culvert or
pipe. Surface channels which are "daylighted" must be located within a riparian management zone
and must be designed with energy dissipating functions or channel roughness features such as
meanders and rootwads to reduce future bank failures or nearby flooding;
(7) Removal or modification of existing stream culverts (such as road crossings) to improve fish
passage, stream habitat, and flow capacities; or
(8) Upgrading of retention/detention facilities or other stormwater management facilities beyond
required levels.
20.93.560 Specific Standards for Other Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
(a) Other Priority Habitats and Species. Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffers with species that are
not anadromous fish species are subject to the following:
(1) Development activities and uses that result in unavoidable impacts are prohibited except as
otherwise allowed by this chapter and may occur in priority species habitat areas and associated
buffers only if the proposed alteration of the habitat does not degrade the functions and values of
the habitat in accordance with an approved critical area report with habitat
assessment/management plan, and only if the proposed activity is the only reasonable alternative
that will accomplish the applicant's objectives. Full compensation for the loss of acreage and
functions of habitat and buffer areas must be provided in compliance with the mitigation
performance standards and requirements of these regulations.
(b) Required Buffer for Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
(1) Wildlife Habitat Buffers. Buffers from wildlife habitat conservation areas must be established to
protect the functions and values of the critical area from the impacts of proposed adjacent activities.
(A) Buffer widths for wildlife habitat areas must be based on consideration of the following factors:
species-specific recommendations of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife;
recommendations contained in a habitat management plan submitted by a qualified professional;
and the nature and intensity of land uses and activities occurring on the land adjacent to the site.
Buffers must:
(i) Consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation, or areas identified for restorations,
sufficient to protect the integrity, functions, and values of the affected habitat;
(ii) Reflect the sensitivity of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to
be conducted nearby;
(iii)Be consistent with the applicable species-specific management recommendations issued by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(B) Nesting bald eagles and bald eagle habitats must be protected consistent with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) national bald eagle management guidelines, or the state or
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 55 Revised December 2025
federal regulations in place at the time of application. Whenever activities are proposed
adjacent to a confirmed nest territory or communal roost, a bald eagle habitat management
plan must be developed by a qualified professional. Activities are adjacent to managed bald
eagle sites when they are within 660 feet of a nest or within one-half mile (2,640 feet) of a
shoreline foraging area. Approval of the activity must not occur prior to consultation with
the state or federal agency with authority on bald eagle pairs and their nest.
(C) Swan Winter Feeding Sites. Swan winter feeding sites must be protected consistently with
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations and/or guidance.
20.93.570 Stormwater Management Facilities.
Establishment of low-impact stormwater management facilities, such as stormwater dispersion outfalls
and bioswales, may be allowed within fish and wildlife habitat conservation area buffers consistent with
the adopted stormwater manual; provided, that:
(a) No other location is feasible;
(b) There will be "no net loss" of functions and values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area;
(c) The critical area lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and discharge follows the natural routing;
(d) Stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales, bioretention facilities, and other low-impact facilities
consistent with the adopted stormwater manual may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of the
riparian management zone when determined by a qualified professional that the location of the
facilities will enhance the riparian management zone and protect the watercourse; and
(e) Such facilities are designed consistently with the requirements of AMC Title 13.
20.93.580 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
(a) Additional Report Contents for FWHCAs. In addition to the minimum report contents required per
AMC 20.93.310, Critical Area Report, FWHCA reports must also include:
(1) Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets for delineations,
water typing and other habitat conservation area classification, baseline hydrologic data, site
photos, etc.;
(2) A description of the methodologies used to conduct the delineations, classifications, or impact
analyses, including references;
(3) A discussion of the potential impacts to the critical area or buffer associated with the proposed
development including an assessment of cumulative impacts.
(b) Habitat Assessment/Management Plan for FWHCAs and Streams, Creeks, and Other Surface Water.
A habitat assessment/management plan is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the potential
presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat. A critical area report for a
fish and wildlife habitat conservation area must contain an assessment of habitats including the
following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
(1) Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer;
(2) Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened,
sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the
project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species;
(3) A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have
been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area;
(4) A detailed discussion of the direct and indirect potential impacts on habitat by the project,
including potential impacts to water quality;
(5) A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to
preserve existing habitats and restore any habitat that was degraded prior to the current proposed
land use activity and to be conducted in accordance with AMC 20.93.330, Mitigation and
Mitigation Plan R equirements;
(6) A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect habitat after the project site has
been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 56 Revised December 2025
(c) Additional Technical Information Requirements for RMZs. If no project impacts are anticipated and
standard riparian management zone widths are retained, a RMZ delineation report, general critical
area report or other reports, alone or in combination, may be submitted as consistent with the specific
requirements of this section. In addition to the general critical area report requirements for fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas provided in subsections (a) through (d) of this section, technical
information on RMZs must include the following information at a minimum:
(1) A written assessment and accompanying maps of the stream and associated hydrologic features on
and off site within 300 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum:
(A) RMZ survey showing the field delineated ordinary high water mark(s);
(B) Standard RMZ boundary as determined by Figure 20.93.540-1, Riparian Management Zone
Widths;
(C) Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;
(D) Soil and substrate conditions; and
(E) Topographic elevations at two-foot contours.
(2) A detailed description and functional assessment of the watercourse channel and riparian
management zone under existing conditions pertaining to the protection of the RMZ functions,
fish habitat and, in particular, potential anadromous fisheries;
(3) A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and
enhance on-site habitat and RMZ functions;
(4) Proposed RMZ enhancement, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps
and planting plans for RMZ areas to be enhanced, including the following information at a
minimum:
(A) A description of existing RMZ conditions;
(B) A description of proposed RMZ conditions and how proposed conditions will increase RMZ
functions in terms of RMZ and fish habitat protection;
(C) Performance standards for measuring enhancement success through a monitoring period of
at least five years;
(D) Provisions for monitoring and submission of monitoring reports documenting RMZ
conditions, as compared to performance standards, for enhancement success; and
(E) A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect RMZ functions and habitat
value through maintenance of vegetation density within the RMZ.
(d) Additional FWHCA Information. When appropriate, due to the type of habitat or species present, or
the project area conditions, the decision-maker may also require the critical area report to include:
(1) A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), local Native American tribes or other appropriate
agency;
(2) Copies of the joint aquatic resource permit application (JARPA) and related approvals, such as a
hydraulic project approval (HPA) from the WDFW, when applicable to the project; and
(3) Detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent to the site.
20.93.590 Mitigation Performance Standards and Requirements.
(a) Compensatory mitigation for FWHCAs, Streams, Creeks, and Other Surface Waters must follow the
plan requirements described under AMC 20.93.330 Mitigation and Mitigation Plan Requirements.
(b) Riparian management zones and existing buffers that are degraded from past development or other
uses shall be re-vegetated.
(c) All riparian management zones and buffers are required to be fully vegetated, at a minimum, in
accordance to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife best available science as depicted in
Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 57 Revised December 2025
Part VI. Geologically Hazardous Areas
20.93.600 Description and Purpose.
(a) Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquakes, liquefaction, or
other geological events. They pose a threat to health and safety of citizens when incompatible development
is sited in areas of significant hazard.
(b) The primary purpose of these regulations is to avoid and minimize potential impacts to life and property
from geologically hazards, conserve soil resources, and minimize structural damage relating to these
hazards. The purpose is accomplished through appropriate levels of study and analysis, application of
sound engineering principles, and regulation or limitation of land uses, including maintenance of existing
vegetation, regulation of clearing and grading activities, and control of stormwater.
20.93.610 Designation.
(a) Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards are designated as geologically hazardous
area:
(1) Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas include areas likely to become unstable, such as bluffs,
steep slopes, and areas with unconsolidated soils. The following are considered known or suspected
erosion hazards:
(A) Areas located within the following soil maps: Areas as defined by the USDA Soil Conservation
Service Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area (1983) and USGS National Geologic Map
Database. or DNR Washington Geologic Information Portal.
(B) Areas susceptible to rapid stream incision and stream bank erosion.
(2) Landslide hazard areas shall include areas subject to severe risk of landslide based on a combination of
geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any
combination of bedrock, soil, slope, structure, hydrology, or other factors. The following are known or
suspected landslide hazards:
(A) Areas designated in the U.S. Landslide Inventory and Susceptibility (1-8 point system) and DNR
Washington Geologic Information Portal.
(B) Areas of previous failure such as earth slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, debris flows,
rockslides, landslides or other failures as observed in the field or as indicated on maps or in
technical reports published by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Washington Geological Survey,
or other documents authorized by government agencies.
(C) Any shoreline designation or mapped as U (unstable), UB (unstable bluff), UOS (unstable old
slide), or URS (unstable recent slide) by the Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas.
(D) Slopes having gradients of 15 percent or greater;
(i) That intersect geologic contacts with permeable sediments overlying low-permeability
sediment or bedrock and springs or groundwater seepage are present; or
(ii) That are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes, joint systems,
and fault planes) in subsurface materials.
(E) Areas with a slope of 33 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except
areas composed of consolidated rock.
(F) Areas that have shown movement during the Holocene Epoch (from 10,000 years ago to the
present) or that are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of that epoch.
(G) Slopes having gradients steeper than 80 percent subject to rock fall during seismic shaking.
(H) Potentially unstable areas resulting from rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, or
undercutting by wave action.
(3) Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are lands that, due to a combination of soil and
groundwater conditions, are subject to risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking,
slope failure, settlement or subsidence, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. The following are known
suspected seismic hazards;
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 58 Revised December 2025
(A) Areas having “high” or “moderate to high” risk of liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction
Susceptibility and Site Class Maps of Western Washington State by County published by the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. These are typically underlain by
cohesionless soils of low density typically and must have a low groundwater table.
(B) Areas located within one-quarter mile of an active fault as indicated on investigative maps or
described in studies by the U.S. Geologic Survey, Washington Geological Survey, or other
documents authorized by government agencies, or identified during site inspection.
(C) Those known or suspected landslide hazards referenced in subsection (a)(2) of this section.
(4) Volcanic Hazards Areas. Volcanic hazard areas are areas subject to pyroclastic flows, lava flows, debris
avalanche, and inundation by debris flows, lahars, mudflows, or related flooding resulting from
volcanic activity. Though there are no significant risks identified for the city and immediate
surrounding area, other than airborne particulate impacts from an eruption.
(5) Other Hazard Areas. Geologically hazardous areas may also include areas determined by the Director
to be susceptible to other geological events including mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and
differential settlement.
(b) All areas within the city meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are
hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provision of this chapter.
20.93.620 Mapping.
(a) The following maps and resources providing information on the location and extent of geologically
hazardous areas are hereby adopted by reference as amended:
(1) Snohomish County, Planning & Development Services Critical Areas Map;
(2) U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Maps, Landslide Hazard Maps and Seismic Hazard Map;
(3) Washington Geological Survey – Geologic Information Portal
(4) Washington Geological Survey – Geologic Planning Page
(5) U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service Soil Maps;
(6) U.S. Landslide Inventory and Susceptibility (1–8-point system)
(b) Reference Only. The maps and resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Arlington
Community and Economic Development Department, project applicants, and/or property owners and may
be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical area designation.
20.93.630 General Development Standards.
(a) All development activities and uses are prohibited in geologically hazardous areas and their buffers, except
as provided for in this chapter, and only when it is demonstrated that the activity will not create undue risk
of life, health, and safety.
(b) Exemptions and Allowed Activities. Exemptions are listed in the provisions established in AMC 20.93.250,
Exempt Activities.
(c) Approvals. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur pursuant to
this chapter, and as determined by a qualified professional with concurrence by a third party review, for
activities that:
(1) Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre-development
conditions;
(2) Will not adversely impact other critical areas;
(3) Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than
pre-development conditions; and
(4) Are determined to be safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified professional,
licensed in the state of Washington.
(d) Mitigation. Proposed mitigation techniques are considered to provide long-term hazard reduction only if
they do not require regular maintenance or other actions to maintain their function. Mitigation may be
required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexisting conditions, including following abandonment
of the activity.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 59 Revised December 2025
(e) Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities may not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless
there is no other practical alternative.
(f) International Building Code. All development must conform to the provisions of the currently adopted
International Building Code as amended by the city of Arlington, including submittal of a critical area
report.
20.93.640 Specific Development Standards.
(a) Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing moderate or high erosion or landslide
hazards must meet the following requirements:
(1) Setback Required. A setback must be established from all edges of moderate or high erosion or
landslide hazard areas. The size of the setback must be determined by the city to eliminate or minimize
the risk of property damage, death or injury resulting from erosion and landslides caused in whole or
part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a geotechnical report prepared
by a qualified professional.
(A) Minimum Setback. At the base of a slope, the setback must be equal to one-half the height of
the slope (as measured vertically from the toe to the top of the slope). For slopes less than 100
percent, the setback must be measured from the toe of slope. For slopes greater than 100 percent,
the setback must be measured from a projection of a 100 percent slope from the top of the slope
rather than the actual toe of slope. See Figure 20.93.640-1 and Figure 20.93.640-2.
(B) At the top of a slope, the setback must be equal to one-third of the height of the slope. For slopes
less than 100 percent, this setback must be measured from the top of the slope. For slopes greater
than 100 percent, this setback must be measured from the project of a 100 percent slope
originating at the toe.
Figure 20.93.640-1: Building Setbacks From Slopes < 100%
Figure 20.93.640-2: Building Setbacks From Slopes ≥ 100%
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 60 Revised December 2025
(2) Buffer Reduction. The decision-maker may reduce the standard buffer by a maximum of 25 percent
when the critical area report demonstrates that all of the following criteria are met:
(A) No reasonable alternative to the buffer reduction exists;
(B) Modified or reduced buffers, through design and engineering solutions, will provide protection
to the proposed development and adjacent properties equal to that of the standard buffer;
(C) The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond pre-development conditions;
(D) The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties;
(E) The proposed reduction will not adversely impact other critical areas;
(F) The critical area report makes recommendations regarding planting of vegetation or other
measures to minimize impacts and resist erosion.
(G) When a buffer reduction is requested, at the applicant's expense, a third party review of a critical
area report by a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the city is required.
(3) Increased Buffer. The standard buffer may be increased by the decision-maker based on a critical area
report prepared by a qualified professional that indicates a greater buffer is necessary to protect the
proposed development and/or adjacent properties.
(4) Alterations.
(A) Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffers may only occur for activities for
which a critical area report that contains a hazards analysis is submitted which determines:
(i) The activity will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond pre-development conditions;
(ii) The activity will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties;
(iii) Such alteration will not adversely impact other critical areas or pose a potential threat risk
to life, health, and safety.
(B) Alterations must be designed to meet the following basic requirements:
(i) The proposed alteration must not decrease the slope stability. The factor of safety against
landslide occurrences for residential and commercial developments must be one and one
half for static conditions and one and two-tenths for dynamic conditions, unless approved
by the decision- maker. Analysis of dynamic conditions must be based on a minimum
horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the International Building
Code;
(ii) Structures and improvements must be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and
other critical areas;
(iii) Structures and improvements must minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope,
and foundations must be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography;
(iv) Structures and improvements must be located to preserve the most critical portion of the
site and its natural landforms and vegetation;
(v) The proposed development must not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on
neighboring properties;
(vi) Development must be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage;
(vii) The decision-maker may accept an alternative design that deviates from one or more of
these standards if a report by a qualified professional demonstrates that greater long-term
slope stability can be achieved while meeting all other provisions of this title. The
requirement for long-term slope stability must exclude designs that require regular and
periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function.
(C) Addition Requirements for Alteration of Landslide Hazard Areas and Buffers. Prior to permit
issuance, the property owner must sign and record a notice on title, at the owner's sole expense,
a covenant in a form acceptable to the city, which:
(i) Acknowledges and accepts the risks of development in the landslide hazard area;
(ii) Waives any rights to claims against the city;
(iii) Indemnifies and holds harmless the city against claims, losses, and damages; and
(iv) Informs subsequent owners of the property of the risks and the covenant.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 61 Revised December 2025
(5) Vegetation Retention and Maintenance. Removal of vegetation from a landslide hazard area or related
buffer is prohibited, except when allowed as follows:
(A) As part of an approved alteration, that follows the criteria and process outlined in subsection
(a)(4) of this section.
(B) Normal nondestructive pruning and trimming of vegetation for maintenance purposes or thinning
of limbs of individual trees to provide a view corridor when a plan prepared by an ISA-certified
arborist is provided and approved by the decision-maker and there are no other critical areas
present.
(C) All activity proposed on marine bluffs must be regulated and reviewed under the Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) and required shoreline permitting.
(6) Seasonal Restriction. Clearing within an erosion or landslide hazard area or buffer may be allowed
only from May 1st to October 1st of each year; provided that the decision-maker may extend or shorten
the dry season on a case-by-case basis depending on actual weather conditions and other factors
deemed relevant.
(7) Utility Lines and Pipes. Utility lines and pipes may be permitted in landslide hazard areas and buffers
only when the applicant demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe
must be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed with the intent to function in the
event of an underlying slide.
(8) Stormwater Management. Prior to any development activity, a plan for the collection, transport,
treatment, and discharge of stormwater in accordance with the requirements of AMC Title 13 or as
amended, and in accordance with the adopted DOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington, must be submitted meeting the following requirements:
(A) All infiltration systems, such as stormwater detention and retention facilities, and curtain drains
utilizing buried pipe or French drains, are prohibited in landslide hazard areas and their buffers
unless the critical area report determines such facilities or systems will not adversely affect slope
stability.
(B) Stormwater may not be directed across the face of a landslide hazard or related buffer (including
marine bluffs or ravines) except as follows:
(i) Stormwater may be discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with
adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater
runoff in the predeveloped state;
(ii) Stormwater may be dispersed upslope of the landslide hazard area onto a low-gradient
undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and stormwater
runoff, if the critical area report determines such facilities or systems will not adversely affect
slope stability;
(iii) If demonstrated that no other practical alternative is available, stormwater may be discharged
from the hazard area into adjacent waters, provided it is collected above the hazard and
directed to the water by a tight line drain (constructed of high-density polyethylene pipe with
fuse-welded joints, or similar product that is technically equal or superior) and provided with
an energy dissipating device at the point of discharge.
(9) Prohibited Development. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, are prohibited
within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers.
(10) Subdivisions.
(A) The division of land in landslide hazard areas and associated buffers is subject to the following:
(i) Land that is located wholly within a landslide hazard area or its buffer may not be subdivided.
Land that is located partially within a landslide hazard area or its buffer may be divided;
provided, that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of, and will not affect,
the landslide hazard or its buffer;
(ii) Access roads and utilities may be permitted within the landslide hazard area and associated
buffers if the decision-maker determines that no other feasible alternative exists, and if the
critical area report determines such development will not adversely affect slope stability.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 62 Revised December 2025
(B) Division of land within erosion hazard areas must comply with the following additional
requirements:
(i) Except as otherwise provided in this section, existing vegetation must be retained on all lots
until building permits are approved for development on individual lots;
(ii) If any vegetation on the lots is damaged or removed during construction of the subdivision
infrastructure, the applicant must implement a revegetation plan in those areas that have been
impacted prior to final inspection of the site development permit or the issuance of any
building permit for the subject property;
(iii) Clearing of vegetation on individual lots may be allowed prior to building permit approval
if the decision-maker determines that:
(a) Such clearing is a necessary part of a large-scale grading plan,
(b) It is not feasible to perform such grading on an individual lot basis, and
(c) Stormwater output from the graded area will meet established water quality standards.
(b) Seismic Hazard Areas.
(1) Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas must meet the standards of AMC 20.93.630(b)
and 20.93.630(e).
20.93.650 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
(a) Additional Report Contents for Geologically Hazardous Areas. In addition to the minimum report contents
required per AMC 20.93.310, Critical Areas Report, reports must also include applicable information
outlined in this section.
(b) Third Party Review Required. Critical areas report on geologically hazardous areas are subject to third
party review at the owner's sole expense as provided in AMC 20.93.310(b) and in any of the following
circumstances:
(1) A buffer reduction or alteration of a landslide hazard area is proposed.
(2) Under any circumstances the city believes additional review is necessary based on the proposal.
(c) Minimum Report Contents for Geologically Hazardous Areas. The written critical area report(s) must
contain the following information, at minimum:
(1) The report must generally follow the Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines for
Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006) and at a minimum report contents
required per AMC 20.93.310, Critical Area Report;
(2) A detailed overview of the field investigations, exploration locations, site photos, published data and
references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site; investigations or studies that support
the identification of geologically hazardous areas;
(3) A description of the methodologies used to conduct the geologically hazardous areas evaluations,
classification, hazards assessments, and/or analyses of the impacts of the proposal, including
references.
(4) Assessment of Geological Characteristics. The assessment must include the following:
(A) Classification of the type of geologic hazard(s) present in accordance with AMC 20.93.610,
Designation;
(B) An assessment of the geologic characteristics of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project
area and potentially affected adjacent properties, and a review of the site history regarding
landslides, erosion, and prior grading. Soils analysis must be accomplished in accordance with
accepted classification systems in use in the region;
(C) A description of load intensity, surface and groundwater conditions, public and private sewage
disposal systems, fills, excavations, and all structural development;
(D) A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; and
(E) An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to
erosion.
(5) Analysis of Proposal. The report must include a detailed description of the project, its relationship to
the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the project, the subject property,
and affected adjacent properties.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 63 Revised December 2025
(6) Minimum Buffer and Building Setback. The report must make a recommendation for the minimum no-
disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the
geotechnical analysis.
(7) Additional Technical Information Requirements for Specific Hazards.
(A) Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. The technical information required in a critical area report
for a project within an erosion or landslide hazard area must also include the following:
(i) An estimate of the present stability of the subject property, the stability of the subject property
during construction, the stability of the subject property after all development activities are
completed, and a discussion of the relative risks and slide potential relating to adjacent
properties during each stage of development, including the effect of construction and
placement of structures, clearing, grading, and removal of vegetation will have on the slope
over the estimated life of the structures. Quantitative analysis of static and seismic slope
stability, modeling, and/or seismic displacement analysis may be required by the decision-
maker;
(ii) A trend analysis of prior rates of erosion, if available;
(iii) Consideration of the run-out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run-
out on downslope properties;
(iv) Recommendations for stormwater improvements, locations and methods of erosion control,
vegetation management, and/or other means for maintaining long-term soil stability;
(v) Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate foundations and retaining
structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and
lateral loads, installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance;
(vi) Earthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement
and compaction criteria, temporary and permanent slope inclinations and protection, and
temporary excavation support, if necessary; and
(vii) Recommendations for mitigation measures to be implemented in order to minimize the risk
to the site and adjacent properties, including slope stabilization measures, if appropriate.
(B) Seismic Hazard Areas. The technical information required in a critical area report for a project
within a seismic hazard area must also include the following:
(i) A complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity on the site (for example,
liquefaction, lateral spreading, fault rupture);
(ii) An evaluation of the subsurface soil and groundwater profile, physical properties of the
subsurface profiles, and the liquefaction potential of the site;
(iii) Recommendations for mitigation measures to be implemented in order to minimize the risk
to the project, and adjacent properties if appropriate.
(C) Marine Bluffs. A geotechnical engineering report will be required when development is proposed
within 50 feet (in all directions) of or to the crest of a marine bluff, or a distance equal to the height
of the slope up to a distance of 100 feet from the crest (measured from the top), whichever is
greater.
(i) The report must be based on best available science, existing and proposed uses, risks of slope
failure, and coastal erosion rates over the last 75 years, if applicable.
(ii) All proposed development on a marine bluff or in the required buffer must be prohibited,
except as may be allowed per the city of Arlington Shoreline Master Program, and applicable
shoreline master program development regulations for marine bluffs, or minor development
to provide public access (e.g., public trails, stairs or viewpoints); provided that impacts are
mitigated and the development can be shown to be safe.
(d) All Geologically Hazardous Areas. The Director may require additional information deemed necessary to
adequately review the proposal.
(1) Site and Construction Plans. The critical area submittal for geologically hazardous areas must include
a copy of the site plans for the proposal, drawn at an engineering scale, showing:
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 64 Revised December 2025
(A) The type and extent of geological hazard areas, any other critical areas, and recommended and
required buffers on, adjacent to, off site within 200 feet of, or that are likely to impact or be affected
by the proposal;
(B) Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, filling, clearing
limits, significant trees to be removed, vegetation to be removed, proposed material stockpile
locations, and stormwater management facilities;
(C) The topography, in two-foot contours of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the
report;
(D) Height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area indicating the stratigraphy of
the site;
(E) The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater on or off site within
200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to affect or be affected by the proposal;
(F) The location and description of surface water on or off site within 200 feet of the project area or
that has the potential to be affected by the proposal.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 65 Revised December 2025
Part VII. – Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
20.93.700 Description and Purpose.
(a) Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) provide the public with clean, safe, and available drinking water
and contribute base flows to protect aquatic resources. Once groundwater is contaminated or depleted, it
is difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up or to recharge.
(b) The purpose of this section is to protect critical aquifer recharge areas from degradation or depletion
resulting from new and redeveloping land use activities. Due to the potential vulnerability of groundwater
underlying certain aquifer recharge areas to contamination and the importance of such groundwater as
sources of public water supply, it is the intent of this section to safeguard groundwater resources by
mitigating or precluding future discharges of contaminants from new development activities and
redevelopment activities.
20.93.710 Applicability and Hazardous Materials Questionnaire.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to regulated facilities that are within or adjacent to those
portions of the city of Arlington designated critical aquifer recharge areas of the city of Arlington critical
areas map. Regulated activities/facilities are defined as those commercial, industrial and home occupation
uses that:
(1) Process or handle hazardous materials in regulated quantities; and
(2) Treat or store regulated quantities of hazardous materials.
(b) Hazardous Materials Questionnaire Required. Applications for development or redevelopment of
regulated facilities within the boundaries of critical aquifer recharge areas must be accompanied by a
completed hazardous materials questionnaire to determine the regulatory status of the applicant facility.
The decision-maker must review the questionnaire to determine whether the facility is regulated under this
chapter. If it is determined that the proposal includes a regulated facility that processes, handles, treats,
and/or stores hazardous substances as defined by this chapter, the applicant must submit a critical area
report pursuant to this chapter.
20.93.720 Designation.
(a) Critical aquifer recharge areas include:
(1) Areas served by groundwater which have been designated as a “sole source aquifer area” under the
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act;
(2) Areas within a “closed” or “low flow” stream watershed designated by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to RCW Chapter 22.
(3) Areas designated as “wellhead protection areas” pursuant to Chapter 246-290 WAC and the
groundwater contribution area pursuant to WAC 246-291-125(3)(d)(iii) or otherwise recognized by the
Director as needing wellhead protection. Wellhead protection areas include, for the purpose of this
regulation, the identified recharge areas associated with:
(A) The 10 year groundwater time-of-travel for all Group A public water supply wells; or
(B) The five year groundwater time-of-travel for all Group B public water supply wells with a wellhead
protection plan files with the Snohomish County Health Department; or
(C) Plats serviced by five or more individual wells where the average lot size is equal to or less than
two acres for which a wellhead protection plan has been completed and filed with the Snohomish
County Health Department; or
(D) The 1,000 foot radius for individual private drinking water supply wells, as identified by map
criterion in AMC 20.93.730.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 66 Revised December 2025
20.93.730 Mapping.
(a) The approximate location and extent of critical aquifer recharge areas are shown on the city of Arlington
critical aquifer recharge areas and city wells map, part of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan, Book 1:
Environment, Figure E-02. In addition, the following maps and resources providing information on the
location and extent of critical aquifer recharge areas are hereby adopted by reference as amended:
(1) Areas with soils that have moderate to rapid permeability (greater than two inches per hour) as listed
in the Soil Survey of Snohomish County.
(2) Source for identifying drinking water supply wells identified by agencies such as Washington
Department of Ecology and Snohomish County Health Department
(b) Reference Only. The maps and resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Arlington
Community and Economic Development Department, project applicants, and/or property owners and may
be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical area designation.
20.93.740 General Development Standards.
(a) Regulated activities/facilities may be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area only if the applicant can
demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer and that the proposed
activity will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer.
(b) The proposed regulated activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and
recommendations of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, State Department of Health, and the
Snohomish County Health Department.
(c) Storage Tank Permits. The city of Arlington specifically regulates and authorizes permits for underground
storage tanks pursuant to the International Fire Code and this chapter. The Washington Department of
Ecology also regulates and authorizes permits for underground storage tanks (Chapter 173-360 WAC). The
Building Official and North County Regional Fire Authority regulate and authorize permits for the removal
of underground storage tanks.
(d) Owners and operators of facilities with existing underground storage tanks that are located within a critical
aquifer recharge area must comply with all release detection requirements as specified in Chapter 173-360
WAC.
(e) Spreading or Injection of Reclaimed Water. Water reuse projects for reclaimed water must be in accordance
with the adopted water or sewer comprehensive plans that have been approved by the Washington
Department of Ecology and Snohomish County Health Department.
(1) Surface spreading must meet the groundwater recharge criteria given in RCW 90.46.010(10) and
90.46.080.
(2) Direct injection must be in accordance with the standards developed by authority of RCW 90.46.042.
(f) Prohibited Activities and Land Uses. The following land uses and activities for new development or
redevelopment are prohibited within or adjacent to critical aquifer recharge areas:
(1) Landfill activities as defined in Chapters 173-304 and 173-351 WAC;
(2) All underground injection wells as defined in Chapter 173-218 WAC;
(3) Disposal of hazardous or dangerous wastes;
(4) Mining, including:
(A) Metals and hard rock mining;
(B) Sand and gravel mining are prohibited in critical aquifer recharge areas determined to be highly
susceptible or vulnerable unless a stormwater quality management plan is approved and followed
by the applicant;
(5) Wood Treatment Facilities. Wood treatment facilities that allow any portion of the treatment process
to occur over permeable surfaces (both natural and manmade);
(6) Storage, processing, or disposal of radioactive substances;
(7) Dry cleaning establishments using the solvent perchloroethylene; and
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 67 Revised December 2025
(8) Other:
(A) Activities that would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers currently or potentially used as
a potable water source;
(B) Activities that would significantly reduce the recharge to aquifers that are a source of significant
baseflow to a regulated stream;
(C) Activities that are not connected to an available sanitary sewer system are prohibited from critical
aquifer recharge areas associated with sole source aquifers
20.93.750 Specific Development Standards for Regulated Facilities.
(a) The following mitigation measures, as applicable, are required for development of regulated facilities
within a critical aquifer recharge area:
(1) Floor drains must not be allowed to drain to the stormwater system and must be designed and installed
to meet the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC).
(2) If any roof venting carries contaminants, then the portion of the roof draining this area must go through
pretreatment pursuant to UPC.
(3) All nonresidential vehicle washing must be self-contained or be discharged to a sanitary sewer system,
if approved by the sewer utility, and is subject to UPC.
(4) Utilize Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for pest control and best management practices
(BMPs) for the use of fertilizers as described by the Snohomish County Health Department.
(5) Facilities Installing New Underground Tanks. All new underground storage facilities used or to be used
for the underground storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes must meet the requirements
of Chapter 173-360 WAC and be designed and constructed so as to:
(A) Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of the tank;
(B) Be protected against corrosion, constructed of noncorrosive material, steel clad with a
noncorrosive material, or designed to include a secondary containment system to prevent the
release or threatened release of any stored substance; and
(C) Use material in the construction or lining of the tank which is compatible with the substance to be
stored.
(6) Above-Ground Tanks. All new above-ground storage facilities/tanks containing hazardous substances
within a critical aquifer recharge area must be constructed, installed, used and maintained to:
(A) Prevent the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, or groundwater;
(B) Include an impervious containment area enclosing or underlying the tank or part thereof;
(C) Include a secondary containment system either built into the tank structure or a dike system built
outside the tank. The secondary containment system or dike system must have a capacity of at
least 110 percent of the primary tank and conform to the requirements of the International Fire
Code (IFC).
(7) Vehicle Repair and Servicing.
(A) Commercial vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a
covered structure capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions. Chemicals used
in the process of vehicle repair and servicing must be stored in a manner that protects them from
weather and provides containment should leaks occur.
(B) Dry wells are not allowed on sites used for vehicle repair and servicing. Dry wells existing on the
site prior to facility establishment must be abandoned using techniques approved by the state
Department of Ecology prior to commencement of the proposed activity.
(8) Additional protective measures may be required if deemed necessary by the city of Arlington.
(9) State and Federal Regulations. The uses listed below will be conditioned as necessary to protect
critical aquifer recharge areas in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 68 Revised December 2025
Table 20.93.750 – 1: Statutes, Regulations and Guidance
Pertaining to Groundwater Impacting Activities
Activity Statute – Regulation - Guidance
Above-Ground Storage Tanks WAC 173-303-640
Animal Feedlots Chapter 173-216 WAC, Chapter 173-220 WAC
Automobile Washers Chapter 173-216 WAC, Best Management Practices
for Vehicle and Equipment Discharges
Below-Ground Storage Tanks Chapter 173-360 WAC
Chemical Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities Chapter 173-303 WAC
Hazardous Waste Generator (Boat Repair
Shops, Biological Research Facility, Dry
Cleaners, Furniture Stripping, Motor Vehicle
Service Garages, Photographic Processing,
Printing and Publishing Shops, etc.)
Chapter 173-303 WAC
Injection Wells Federal 40 CFR Part 144 and Chapter 173-218 WAC
Junk Yards and Salvage Yards
Chapter 173-304 WAC, Best Management Practices
to Prevent Stormwater Pollution at Vehicle Recycler
Facilities.
Oil and Gas Drilling WAC 332-12-450, Chapter 173-218 WAC
Wastewater Facilities Chapter 173-240 WAC
On-Site Sewage Systems (< 3,500 gallons/day) Chapter 246-272A WAC, Local Health Ordinances
Large On-Site Sewage Systems
(3,500 to 1,000,000 gallons/day) Chapter 246-272B WAC, State Health Ordinances
Pesticide Storage and Uses Chapter 17.21 RCW
Sawmills
Chapter 173-303 WAC, Chapter 173-304 WAC, Best
Management Practices to Prevent Stormwater
Pollution at Log Yards
Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Facilities Chapter 173-304 WAC
Surface Mining Chapter 332-18 WAC
Wastewater Application to Land Surface
Chapter 173.200 WAC, Chapter 173-216 WAC, DOE
Land Application Guideline, Best Management
Practices for Irrigated Agriculture.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 69 Revised December 2025
20.93.760 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
(a) Additional Report Contents for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, (CARAs). In addition to the minimum report contents required per AMC 20.93.310, Critical Area Report, CARA reports must also include the applicable information outlined in this section. (b) Minimum Report Contents. A critical area report must include a hydrogeologic assessment including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Information sources; (2) Geologic and hydrologic setting including available recharge, permeability/transmissive information; (3) Available well logs, borings, seeps/springs within 1,000 feet of the project areas; (4) Available water quality information; (5) Groundwater depth, flow direction and gradient based on available information; (6) Surface water location and recharge potential; (7) Water source supply to the site; (8) Any sampling scheduled necessary; (9) Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on the groundwater resources; (10) Description of potential mitigation measures, should it be determined that the proposed project may have an adverse impact on groundwater resources, and (11) Other information as required by the city. (c) If the hydrogeologic assessment determines that the facility will have no effect on groundwater resources, the facility is exempt from the development standards requirements in AMC 20.93.750. (d) If the hydrogeologic assessment determines that the facility could have an effect on groundwater resources, the decision-maker will require implementation of applicable development standards in AMC 20.93.750.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 70 Revised December 2025
Part VIII. Frequently Flooded Areas
20.93.800 Description and Purpose.
(a) Frequently flooded areas perform important functions and may present a risk to persons and property.
(b) It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize
public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas caused by flooding, while protecting the
functions and values of floodplains, including special consideration for anadromous fish habitat in
combination with the provisions for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in this chapter.
20.93.810 Designation.
(a) Frequently flooded areas include those areas established as special flood hazard areas under AMC Chapter
20.64, Floodplain Development Regulations, including those areas of special flood hazard identified by the
most current Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), as prepared by FEMA.
(b) Climate change and sea level rise are affecting many coastal communities and some within Puget Sound.
Applicants are urged to become familiar with potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise if
development is proposed near shorelines or associated low-lying areas.
20.93.820 Mapping.
(a) Reference Only. The maps and resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of Arlington
Community and Economic Development Department, project applicants, and/or property owners and may
be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical area designation.
20.93.830 General Development Standards.
(a) All development proposals must comply with AMC Chapter 20.64, Floodplain Development Regulations,
for general and specific flood hazard protection.
(b) Development may not reduce the base flood water storage ability. Construction, grading or other regulated
activities that would reduce the flood water storage ability must be mitigated by creating compensatory
storage on or off the site.
(c) Alteration of Watercourses.
(1) Projects that propose to relocate a watercourse must also submit a request for Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR), where required by FEMA. The project may not be approved unless FEMA
issues the CLOMR (which requires Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation) and the provisions of
the letter are made part of the permit requirements.
(2) The decision-maker must notify adjacent communities (if applicable) and the Department of Ecology
prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse and submit evidence of such notification to FEMA.
(3) Maintenance must be provided within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse so that flood
carrying capacity is not diminished. It the maintenance program does not call for cutting of native
vegetation, the system must be oversized at the time of construction to compensate for said vegetation
growth or any other natural factor that may need future maintenance.
(d) Base flood data and flood hazard notes must be shown on the face of any recorded plat or binding site plan,
including but not limited to, base flood elevations, flood protection elevation, boundary of floodplain, and
zero rise floodway.
(e) All developments must conform to the provisions of the currently adopted International Building Code,
including submittal of a critical area report.
20.93.840 Critical Area Report Additional Requirements.
(a) Additional Report Contents for frequently flooded areas. In addition to the minimum report contents
required per AMC 20.93.310, Critical Area Report, frequently flooded area reports must also include the
applicable information outlined in this section.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 71 Revised December 2025
(b) Minimum Report Contents. A critical area report must include a habitat assessment prepared in accordance
with Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation (FEMA Region X, 2013, or as
hereafter amended. The assessment must determine if the project would adversely affect:
(1) The primary constituent elements identified with a species are listed as threatened or endangered;
(2) Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service;
(3) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(4) Vegetation communities and habitat structures;
(5) Water quality;
(6) Water quality, including flood and low flow depths, volumes and velocities;
(7) The channel’s natural planform pattern and migration processes;
(8) Spawning substrate, if applicable; and/or
(9) Floodplain refugia, if applicable.
(c) If the assessment concludes that the activity is expected to have an adverse effect on water quality and/or
aquatic or riparian habitat or habitat functions, the project must be designed in a way to offset those impacts.
Project mitigation will not be permitted in accordance with Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat
Assessment and Mitigation, FEMA Region X, 2013
(d) The following activities do not require completion of a habitat assessment:
(1) Repair of existing building in its existing footprint, including damage by fire or other casualties unless
the repair constitutes substantial improvement or is necessitated by substantial damage;
(2) Removal of noxious weeds;
(3) Replacement of nonnative vegetation with native vegetation;
(4) Ongoing activities such as lawn and garden maintenance;
(5) Removal of hazard trees;
(6) Normal maintenance of public utilities and facilities;
(7) Restoration or enhancement of floodplains, riparian areas and streams that meet federal and state
standards.
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 72 Revised December 2025
Part IX. Cultural Resources
20.93.900 Description and Purpose.
(a) The purposes of this section are to:
(1) Establish clear procedures and specific standards for preservation of cultural resources.
(2) Recognize that cultural resources may be found throughout the city and are valuable resources because
they are limited and irreplaceable.
(3) Ensure coordination and consistency with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA), the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the RCW Chapters 27.34, 27.44,
27.48, and 27.53.
(b) This section applies to all areas within the City of Arlington and all applications for any permits issued by
the Community and Economic Development Department.
20.93.910 Preservation of Cultural Resources
(a) An owner of property containing identified or probable cultural resource sites is encouraged to coordinate
well in advance of application for development to ensure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected Tribes, and historic preservation
groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources.
(b) The Department must provide notice of application for a project permit consistent with AMC 20.16.230
(c) The Director may condition approval of a project permit to comply with this chapter when:
(1) The project site contains known cultural resources, as identified by any of the following;
(A) Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP);
(B) A Tribal government;
(C) National Register of Historic Places;
(D) Washington Heritage Register;
(2) The property is listed by DAHP as eligible for listing in either the National Register of Historic Places
or the Washington Heritage Register;
(3) The property is listed in any city register of historic places;
(4) When the city determines that reliable and credible information indicates the probable existence of an
archaeological resource or site;
(5) When a permit or approval is required for any ground-disturbing activities.
(d) The Director may condition approval of a project permit to require:
(1) Consultation with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation and any
affected Tribal governments;
(2) Preservation or conservation of cultural resources as required by applicable federal, state, and local
statutes.
(e) An inadvertent discovery plan shall be prepared by a professional archeologist or using the community and
economic development department’s template for all ground disturbing project permits not exempted by
AMC 20.16.105.
(f) An application for development in an area known to be significant must provide for Tribal notification and
monitoring of any site disturbance, including archaeological field work and any development activity for
previously unidentified cultural resources.
20.93.920 Cultural Resource Report and Site Assessment
(a) The Director may require a Cultural Resource Report and Site Assessment prior to approval of development
on a property within 500 feet of a site known to contain or in an area identified as having the potential for
the presence of cultural resources or when requested by an entity identified in 20.93.910 (c)(1).
(b) Exception: A Cultural Resource Report and Site Assessment is not required when a Cultural Resource
Management Plan is prepared pursuant to 20.93.930.
(c) A Cultural Resources Report and Site Assessment must:
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 73 Revised December 2025
(1) Be performed by a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional whose
documentation and methodology should be replicable by another archaeologist to reach a similar
conclusion;
(2) Use best available technology and archaeological techniques;
(3) Be based on a thorough review of records, documentation, and other relevant literature;
(4) Describe any cultural resources that are discovered on the site, using any relevant maps, written
descriptions, and photographs;
(5) Asses whether the proposed use would affect any cultural resources discovered;
(6) Be submitted to the city, DAHP, Tribal governments, and to any other interested governmental agency.
20.93.930 Cultural Resource Management Plan
(a) A Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) must be prepared when a Cultural Resource Site
Assessment identifies the presence of significant cultural resources.
(b) A CRMP must be prepared by a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional.
(c) To prepare recommendations for a CRMP, the author must solicit comments from the Washington
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and any affected Tribal government. Any comments
received must be incorporated into the conclusions and recommendations of the CRMP to the maximum
extent practicable.
(d) A CRMP must contain at least the following elements:
(1) Purpose of the project; a site plan; the depth and location of all ground disturbing activities including,
but not limited to, utilities, driveways, clearing and grading; an examination of project on-site design
alternatives; an explanation of why the proposed activity requires location on or access through a
historic or significant archaeological resource;
(2) A description of the cultural resources affected by the proposal;
(3) An evaluation of the cultural resource and an analysis of the potential adverse impacts as a result of the
activity;
(4) An analysis of how these impacts have been avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, how these
impacts have been or will be mitigated or minimized; and
(5) A recommendation of appropriate mitigation measures for the impacts to cultural resources, which may
include but are not limited to the following:
(A) Recording the site with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation;
listing the site in the National Register of Historic Places, Washington Heritage Register, or any
locally developed historic registry;
(B) Preservation in place;
(C) Reinternment in the case of grave sites;
(D) Covering an archaeological site with a nonstructural surface to discourage pilferage (i.e.,
maintained grass or pavement);
(E) Excavation and recovery of archaeological resources;
(F) Inventorying prior to covering of archaeological resources with structures or development; and
(G) Monitoring of construction excavation.
(6) The Director must use the recommendations and conclusions of the CRMP in determining the presence
and extent of cultural resources and appropriate mitigation measures.
(7) The Director may reject or request revision of the conclusions reached in a CRMP when the Director
can demonstrate that the assessment is inaccurate or does not fully address the cultural resource.
20.93.940 Inadvertent Discovery
(a) If archaeological, cultural, or historical sites or artifacts of potential significance, or human skeletal remains
are discovered in the process of development:
(1) Work on that portion of the site must be stopped immediately;
(2) The site must be secured;
Title 20—Land Use Code Chapter 20.93: Critical Area Ordinance
City of Arlington 20.93 - 74 Revised December 2025
(3) The discovery must be reported as soon as possible to the Community and Economic Development
Director, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected Tribes, and
other appropriate agencies, per the approved Inadvertent Discovery Plan.
(4) The Director must require the applicant to immediately prepare a Cultural Resources Site Assessment
to determine the significance of the discovery and the extent of damage to the resource.
(b) If a Cultural Resources Site Assessment is required per subsection (a):
(1) The Director must distribute the assessment to the Washington Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation and affected Tribes to determine the significance of the discovery.
(2) The Director must allow 15 days for review, or 30 days in the case of inadvertent discovery of human
remains.
(3) At the conclusion of the review period:
(A) If the site has been determined not to be significant by the above listed agencies or governments,
or if the above listed agencies or governments have failed to respond, such stopped work may
resume;
(B) If the site is determined to be significant, a Cultural Resources Management Plan must be
prepared per Section 20.93.930.
(c) Treatment of cultural artifacts or human skeletal remains must comply with RCW 27.44.055, 68.50.645,
and 68.60.055.
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1179
Page 1 of 5
Community and Economic Development Planning Division th
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: City Council
From: Amy Rusko, Director
Meeting Date: December 8, 2025
Date Prepared: December 1, 2025
Regarding: AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1179
A. INTRODUCTION The AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendments is a City-initiated amendment to the Arlington Municipal code that includes updates to the Critical Area Ordinance chapter.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Arlington
Project Description: AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment
Requested Action: City Council Approval
B. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION The 2025 AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment includes a complete rewrite of the chapter to ensure compliance with updated state regulations and guidance.
C. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
Type of Determination Issued Date Distribution and Public Notice
SEPA Determination on Non-Significance (DNS) 7/22/2025 City Public Notice Website Emailed to Review Agencies Posted at City Hall and Arlington Library The Herald Published Date – 7/22/2025 Comment Period – 7/22/2025 to 8/5/2025
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1179
Page 2 of 5
Public comments received during the public comment period.
Comment Summary City Response The Tulalip Tribes submitted comments regarding the FWHCA (stream) buffer widths, language clarifying “functionally separated RMZ areas”, and language clarifying piped water sources. 7/21/2025 9, 2025 that we would take a look at the suggestions and incorporate in the final draft of the code amendment.
submitted comments that consisted of a list of items that were good to see and provided several suggestions to update language regarding geologically hazardous areas
7/23/2025 8/12/2025
2025 that we would incorporate all suggestions into the final draft of the code amendment. After the response there was an additional edit requested and the city responded on August 12, 2025 that the document would be updated.
Fish and Wildlife submitted a letter of support for the efforts made in the update to the Critical Area Ordinance. 7/28/2025 their letter of support.
and Snohomish Counties (MBAKS) submitted a comment letter regarding concerns with the Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) and the effect it could have on future development. The comments include encouraging the city to consider how the proposed changes may unintentionally hinder housing production. They are endorsing buffer averaging provisions.
8/13/2025
these comments. The Site Potential Tree Height is the best available science that has been put out by Washington State Fish and Wildlife. The city’s existing standard buffer is 150 feet for all streams within the city limits, regardless of trees or habitat. The proposed code amendments treat properties differently pending the current conditions. There are only small portions of the city that are affected by streams. These areas should protect the existing habitat and enhance the conditions. The minimum buffer with no trees on a property is 100 feet, which actually provides a reduction due to existing conditions. All properties that have a stream will need to provide a Critical Areas Study and this does not add additional time for development on the site, just a different approach. Fish and Wildlife and The Tulalip Tribes Email Communication on clarity and minor adjustments to ensure compliance with intended regulations. the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and The Tulalip Tribes to ensure agreement in the approach to the new Critical Area Ordinance.
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1179
Page 3 of 5
2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT:
Public Notice and
Meeting Type Meeting Date(s) Distribution and Public Notice Planning Commission Public Meeting Presentations Workshop: 8/5/2025 Meeting: 8/19/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List Washington State Department of Commerce (RCW 36.70A.106) N/A Date Sent for 60-Day Review – 7/7/2025 Deadline for 60-Day Review – 9/5/2025
Planning Commission Public Hearing 8/19/2025 City Public Notice Website Planning Commission Agenda Online Planning Commission Email Distribution List The Herald Published Date – 7/22/2025 Public Meeting
Workshop: 9/8/2025 Meeting: 9/15/2025 City Council Agenda Online City Council Email Distribution List 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE:
Goal or
Policy Goal Description Summary E-1 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources and strive for equitable geographic and demographic distribution. E-1.1 Protect and enhance the natural environment while planning for and accommodating growth. E-1.2 Protect critical areas and other sensitive resources, such as archaeological and historical sites, as defined in the City’s critical areas regulations using best available science and give special consideration to anadromous fisheries. E-1.3 Protect and mitigate geologically hazardous areas, especially forested steep slopes, for both environmental and aesthetic purposes if appropriate. E-1.4 Protect groundwater resources, including the aquifer located under the airport which provides water to the City of Arlington. E-1.5 Locate development in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features. Promote the use of innovative environmentally sensitive development practices, including design, materials, construction, and on-going maintenance. E-1.6 Protect, enhance, restore ecosystems in order to meet tribal treaty rights and conserve culturally important consumptive and non-consumptive resources including foods, medicinal plants, and materials that could be adversely impacted by climate change. E-2 Promote environmental justice by not creating or worsening environmental health disparities and ensuring equal access to environmental resources. E-2.3 Reduce the use of toxic pesticides, fertilizers, and other products to the extent feasible and identify alternatives that minimize risks to human health and the environment. E-5 Identify, protect, and enhance natural areas to foster resiliency to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration. E-5.1 Designate and protect fish and wildlife habitat corridors and restrict the fragmentation of large natural plant communities that provide essential and significant wildlife habitat. E-5.3 Manage open space lands comprised of critical areas as native growth areas and kept in a natural state to maintain existing habitat value. In the case of degraded or impacted lands, these areas may be enhanced to provide a higher value. E-5.4 Preserve existing and native vegetation as much as possible to support wildlife systems, increase groundwater infiltration, and prevent stormwater runoff.
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1179
Page 4 of 5
Goal or
Policy Goal Description Summary
E-5.5 Protect salmonid streams, drainage ways, wetlands, and their buffers from adverse impacts of land development that might decrease low flows or increase high peak flows, reduce recharge areas for streams, increase bank or bed erosion, or increase turbidity of the water. E-5.6 Obtain stream corridor dedications where reasonable. E-5.7 Coordinate regionwide environmental strategies with adjacent jurisdictions, tribes, and the County. E-5.8 Use integrated and interdisciplinary approaches for environmental planning and assessment. E-5.9 Use the best information available at all levels of planning, especially scientific information, when establishing and implementing environmental standards.
E-5.10 Support and incentivize environmental stewardship on private and public lands to protect and enhance habitat, water quality, and other ecosystem services, including protection of watersheds, groundwater quantity, and wellhead areas that are sources of the region’s drinking water supplies. E-5.12 Preserve and enhance habitat to support healthy wildlife and accelerate the recovery of threatened and endangered species and species of local importance. E-5.15 Support programs that manage and work to reduce the spread of invasive species that are harmful to natural ecological function and habitat throughout the city. E-5.16 Protect and restore wetlands and corridors between wetlands to provide biological and hydrological connectivity that fosters resilience to climate impacts. E-5.17 Increase the climate resilience of native species by reducing the threat of invasive species (e.g., fish, plants, insects, etc.). E-5.18 Protect and restore watershed-scale processes to maximize the ecological benefits and climate resilience of riparian ecosystems. E-5.19 Restore the structure, function, and water quality of streams, floodplains, and other local ecosystems to increase habitat climate resilience for cold-water fish and recover the health of Puget Sound. E-5.21 Ensure no net loss of ecosystem composition, structure, and functions, especially in Priority Habitats and Critical Areas, and strive for net ecological gain to enhance climate resilience. E-5.22 Coordinate all programs that can affect fish and wildlife habitat to optimize the ability of local policies, rules, and management activities to protect habitats, and look for gaps or inefficient practices that could impede climate resilience. LU-6 Identify, protect, and enhance community resiliency to climate change impacts, including social, economic, and built environment factors, that support adaptation to climate change impacts consistent with environmental justice. LU-6.1 Amend and adopt land development regulations as needed to adequately protect the attributes, functions, and amenities of the natural environment in all projected growth scenarios for the city. LU-6.2 Ensure land development patterns minimize or prevent impacts on natural open spaces and resource lands. LU-6.3 Development patterns shall be responsive to critical areas and other environmental factors, while minimizing the fragmentation of the built environment. LU-6.5 Establish best management practices that protect the long-term integrity of the natural environment and adjacent land uses. PS-2 Protect community members from hazards associated with critical areas and specific land uses. PS-2.1 Regularly review critical areas, including geologic hazards, as part of the development review process. Require consistent compliance with critical area provisions. PS-2.2 Prohibit development on unstable land.
Staff Report & Recommendation
AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment – PLN #1179
Page 5 of 5
4. COMPLIANCE WITH AMC CHAPTER 20.96 - AMENDMENTS
Regulation Meets (a) Amendments to the text of this title may be made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. has followed the provision of Chapter 20.96 by being processed through the 2024 Docket as a Development Regulation Amendment. Development Regulations. (a) All proposed text amendments to the development or zoning regulations shall be developed, submitted, and presented by the city staff, based on direction from the city council, planning commission, or the director of community and economic development.
process. The City Council approved the 2024 Final Docket through Resolution 2024-008.
Staff shall transmit to the department of commerce copies of all proposed amendments to the city’s development regulations at least sixty days in advance of adoption, as required by RCW 36.70A.106.
Department of Commerce on July 7, 2025, for the standard 60-day review.
Regulation Amendments. (a) An open record public hearing shall be held before the planning commission for all amendments. (c) The city shall give public notice of all public hearings as required by section 20.24.020.
hearing at the August 19, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. The public noticing is described under Section 2 above.
Development Regulation Amendments. The planning commission shall issue a recommendation for approval, approval subject to recommended modifications or conditions of approval, continuance, or a decision of denial, which decision shall be forwarded to the city council for review and decision.
Findings of Fact that is signed by the Chair. City Staff then includes the Findings of Fact within the City Council packet for review prior to the City Council workshop and meeting.
Development Regulation Amendments. The city council’s approval, modification, deferral, or denial of a development regulations amendment proposal shall be based on the following criteria: (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Multi-County Planning Policies, County Planning Policies, and the Growth Management Act, RCW Chapter 36.70A; and (2) The proposed change is necessary to further the public interest based on present needs and conditions.
provided by staff and considers the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, County Planning Policies, the Growth Management Act, and RCW Chapter 36.70A, along with the overall public interest prior to considering a decision.
(d) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that City Council to approve the AMC Chapter 20.93 Zoning Code Amendment, PLN #1179.
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4
Region 4 information: 16018 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek, WA 98012 | phone: (425)-775-1311
July 28, 2024
City of Arlington
238 N Olympic Ave #1337
Arlington, WA 98223
RE: The City of Arlington’s Proposed Amendments relating to the Critical Area Ordinance
Update
Dear Planning Staff, Planning Commissioners, and Members of the City Council,
My name is Morgan Krueger, and I am the Regional Land Use Lead for this area representing
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Thank you for the opportunity to
comment in support of the proposed stream-related amendments to the City of Arlington’s
Critical Area Ordinance (CAO).
Under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195-925),
jurisdictions are required to include Best Available Science (BAS) when updating their critical
area regulations. This ensures that regulations are grounded in science, whi ch helps achieve the
state requirement for no net loss of ecological functions and values (WAC 365-196-830, WAC
365-190-080).
As an example, the importance of adhering to BAS is underscored by the legal case involving
the City of Anacortes. Anacortes’ updated CAO was challenged at the Growth Management
Hearings Board (GMHB) due to concerns that its stream buffer widths did not fu lly reflect BAS.
The GMHB ultimately required the city to revise its regulations and align them with BAS.
Following this decision, Anacortes adopted revised stream buffers informed by WDFW’s BAS
recommendations.
Recognizing the importance of WDFW’s BAS, jurisdictions, including Clark, Pierce, Kitsap, Skagit,
and King counties, have developed stream buffer updates that incorporate WDFW’s science. By
building on the same foundation, Arlington is taking meaningful steps to align with broader
regional efforts and support watershed-wide goals.
It is important to note that riparian areas are essential in maintaining ecosystem services that
directly benefit communities by:
• Filtering pollutants,
• Reducing flood risks,
• Stabilizing streambanks, and
• Supporting critical habitat for fish and wildlife, including salmon.
Protecting riparian areas is not simply a state mandate; it is a fundamental investment in public
health, safety, and ecosystem resilience.
We commend the City of Arlington for valuing the health of local communities and the
environment by incorporating WDFW’s BAS into its Critical Areas Ordinance update. If
additional technical assistance or clarification is needed, I am available to support your efforts.
Thank you,
Morgan Krueger
Regional Land Use Lead
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Cc:
Kara Whittaker, Land Use Conservation and Policy Section Manager (Kara.Whittaker@dfw.wa.gov)
Marian Berejikian, Land Use Conservation and Policy Planner (Marian.Berejikian@dfw.wa.gov)
Marcus Reaves, Regional Habitat Program Manager (Marcus.Reaves@dfw.wa.gov)
Kirk Lakey, Assistant Regional Habitat Program Manager (Stewart.Reinbold@dfw.wa.gov)
Ryan Shaw, Habitat Biologist (Ryan.Shaw@dfw.wa.gov)
Region 4 Central District planning inbox (R4CPlanning@dfw.wa.gov)
Jeff Aken, WA Department of Commerce (Jeff.Aken@commerce.wa.gov)
This message is from an External Sender
This message came from outside the City of Arlington
From:Russell Joe
To:Don Vanney
Cc:Amy Rusko
Subject:Comment Letter on CAO August 5th Planning Commission Workshop
Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2025 10:16:01 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
CAO Letter .pdf
Dear Mayor Vanney,
Please find attached a MBAKS’ comment letter regarding the City of Arlington’s August 5, 2025,
Planning Commission meeting and draft update to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).
MBAKS appreciates the City’s commitment to aligning its CAO with best available science and
evolving state requirements. We support thoughtful updates that protect natural resources
while also enabling flexibility for the creation of urgently needed housing. Our comments focus
on ensuring the ordinance reflects a balanced approach to environmental stewardship and
housing feasibility.
Key Points of Feedback:
Concerns with Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH):
SPTH-based buffer calculations may not reflect actual site conditions in urbanized
or previously disturbed areas.
Applying large buffers based on theoretical canopy height could unnecessarily
restrict development, especially on small infill lots.
The scientific foundation for SPTH is largely derived from forested environments
and may not be directly applicable to Arlington’s urban landscape.
SPTH requirements could reduce predictability, increase technical review burdens,
and add consultant costs and delays for homebuilders.
Endorsement of Buffer Averaging Provisions:
Buffer averaging allows site-specific flexibility while preserving ecological function.
Maintains total buffer area and ensures no portion is reduced below 75% of the
standard width.
Supports smart growth and helps unlock buildable land on constrained or irregular
lots.
MBAKS values Arlington’s efforts to balance environmental goals with housing needs and looks
forward to continued collaboration to ensure the final ordinance supports both sustainability
and housing opportunity.
We look forward to continued collaboration with the City to ensure a balanced and effective
ordinance. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions.
Regards,
Russell Joe
Russell JoeSnohomish County Manager
Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties p 425.460.8213
335 116th Ave. SE | Bellevue, WA 98004mbaks.com
We believe everyone deserves a place to call home.
August 13, 2025
Mayor Don Vanney
City of Arlington
238 North Olympic Ave.
Arlington, WA 98223
RE: Draft Critical Areas Ordinance – August 5, 2025, Version
Dear Mayor Vanney:
The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBAKS),
representing over 2400 members throughout the region, appreciates the City of
Arlington’s efforts to update its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in alignment with best
available science and evolving state requirements. We recognize the importance of
protecting natural resources, and we support thoughtful updates that reflect those
values while maintaining the flexibility needed to address the urgent demand for
housing.
At the same time, we encourage the City of Arlington and the Planning Commission to
carefully consider how proposed changes may unintentionally hinder housing
production, especially for infill and middle housing projects. As the Growth
Management Act (GMA) outlines, environmental protection must be balanced with
other planning goals, including promoting urban residential growth, improving
housing affordability, protecting property rights, and ensuring timely permitting.
Based on our review of the August 5th Planning Commission materials, we offer the
following comments and concerns:
1. Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) and Speculative Buffer Calculations
The draft code introduces potential Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) standards that
appear to rely on Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) to determine buffer widths and
vegetation retention requirements. In urbanized or previously disturbed areas,
modeled tree height assumptions often do not reflect actual site conditions. Applying
large buffers based on theoretical canopy height can unnecessarily restrict
development on parcels that are otherwise suitable for both housing and ecological
restoration.
For example, a small infill lot near a narrow, degraded stream corridor with minimal
vegetation could become undevelopable if a large buffer is applied based on
speculative tree height—despite redevelopment opportunities that could enhance the
site’s environmental function. We strongly urge the City to rely on observed, site-
specific conditions and retain existing buffer widths unless robust, localized science
justifies a change.
It is also important to recognize that the basis for SPTH is primarily drawn from
forested contexts and may not be appropriate for Arlington’s urban environment
within the Growth Management Area. The City retains discretion to interpret and
apply Best Available Science in a manner that reflects local infrastructure, land use
conditions, and engineered systems that can support riparian function.
Finally, adopting SPTH-based requirements would reduce predictability compared to
current standards. It would also add complexity, additional layers of technical review,
increased consultant costs, and likely longer pre-development timelines—all of which
pose significant barriers to urgently needed housing production.
2. Buffer Averaging
We commend the buffer averaging provisions outlined in the draft ordinance as a
thoughtful, balanced, and pragmatic approach that supports both homebuilding and
environmental protection. Allowing site-specific flexibility in applying buffer widths—
provided ecological function is preserved—enables more efficient use of land,
particularly on constrained or irregular parcels.
This flexibility can unlock additional buildable areas without compromising critical
area protections, enhancing both feasibility and affordability. The clear standards and
safeguards—such as maintaining total buffer area and ensuring no portion is reduced
below 75% of the standard width—promote predictability and consistency in the
permitting process.
We strongly support the retention of buffer averaging as an option. It encourages
smart growth, fosters collaboration with qualified environmental professionals, and
empowers home builders to deliver housing that meets community needs while
respecting natural systems.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft ordinance. We look
forward to continued engagement with the City of Arlington and the Planning
Commission as this important update moves forward.
Sincerely,
Russell Joe
Russell Joe
Snohomish County Government Affairs Manager
Everyone deserves a place to call home.
cc: Amy Rusko, Community and Economic Department Director
This message is from an External Sender
This message came from outside the City of Arlington
From:Russell Joe
To:Don Vanney
Cc:Rob Toyer; Heather Logan; Debora Nelson; Michele Blythe; Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam; Jan Schuette; Leisha
Nobach; Amy Rusko
Subject:CAO Stream Buffers and SPTH
Date:Monday, September 8, 2025 8:20:51 AM
Attachments:CAO Letter .pdf
Dear Mayor Vanney,
I am sending a letter concerning Stream Buffers and Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) over to
you and cc’ing Council. The letter was originally sent to the Planning Commission last month.
Master Builders is concerned the adoption of SPTH will severely limit middle housing in
Arlington. We would encourage a careful examination of the current buffers and evaluate
whether they continue to preserve the streams and waterways or if a change is truly needed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Russell Joe
Snohomish County Government Affairs Manager
Get Outlook for iOS
This message is from an External Sender
This message came from outside the City of Arlington
From:Russell Joe
To:Don Vanney
Cc:Rob Toyer; Heather Logan; Debora Nelson; Michele Blythe; Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam; Jan Schuette; Leisha
Nobach; Amy Rusko
Subject:CAO Stream Buffers and SPTH
Date:Monday, September 8, 2025 8:20:51 AM
Attachments:CAO Letter .pdf
Dear Mayor Vanney,
I am sending a letter concerning Stream Buffers and Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) over to
you and cc’ing Council. The letter was originally sent to the Planning Commission last month.
Master Builders is concerned the adoption of SPTH will severely limit middle housing in
Arlington. We would encourage a careful examination of the current buffers and evaluate
whether they continue to preserve the streams and waterways or if a change is truly needed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Russell Joe
Snohomish County Government Affairs Manager
Get Outlook for iOS