Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance No. 2017-011 Making Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the City of Arlington
ORDINANCE NO. 2017-011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF ARLINGTON AS REQUIRED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED UNDER CITY PLANNING FILE NOS. PLN 302, PLN 303, PLN 304, PLN 305, PLN 306 AND PLN 307 WHEREAS the City of Arlington is required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the authority to review and update the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington's Comprehensive Plan was conditionally adopted on July 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, according to accepted procedure, the Plan was submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council for certification which qualifies the City for certain state and federal transportation funding. The Puget Sound Regional Council granted conditional certification in 2016 as conforming to the Growth Management Act and as "consistent with multicounty planning policies and the regional transportation plan." Full certification would require that certain inconsistencies be addressed, resulting in certain amendments to the adopted 2015 Plan; and WHEREAS, under the schedule established by the Puget Sound Regional Council in the March 31, 2016 report of certification recommendation, the deadline for the City of Arlington to comply with the update required by RCW 36.70A.130(1) is December 31, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington contracted with the Shockey Planning Group to conduct a thorough review of the City's comprehensive plan and prepare with the assistance of city staff analyses of the comprehensive plan currently in effect in the City of Arlington for consistency with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission, the Parks, Art and Recreation Commission, the Airport Commission, and City staff discussed and recommended proposed revisions they concluded were needed to comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington Planning Commission reviewed the analyses and proposed revisions and conducted workshops on June, 6, 2017 and June 27, 2017, and conducted a public hearing on July 18, 2017 to receive public comments on proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, based on its review of the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the analysis and proposed revisions prepared, and the public comments received, the Planning Commission modified the plan and forwarded a recommended draft plan to the City Council on September 6, 2017; and 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-011 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public workshop on the proposed plan on September 11, 2017; and considered the matter at its September 18, 2017 regular meeting; and WHEREAS, based on its review of the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the analysis and proposed revisions prepared by their Boards and Commissions and staff, and the public comments received, the City Council finds and declares that the review and needed revisions have been prepared in conformance with applicable law, including Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the approved public participation and adoption process; and WHEREAS, based on its review of the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the analysis and proposed revisions prepared by their Boards and Commissions and staff, the recommended findings on review and proposed revisions forwarded by the Planning Commission, and the public comments received, the City Council hereby finds and declares that Arlington's comprehensive plan as revised by this ordinance complies with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that portions of the comprehensive plan, most particularly the water, wastewater and transportation elements, are still in process. The City anticipates those plans being final not later than October 31, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to document its substantial compliance with the December 31, 2017 deadline of the Puget Sound Regional Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DOES MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. Findings. The Arlington City Council finds that: a. The City has established and followed a public participation program in accordance with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), which program was formally adopted and followed by the City via City of Arlington Resolution#2014-022. b. The City Council believes that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) issued by the City's Responsible Official adequately identified all known significant environmental issues associated with the adoption of the updates to the comprehensive plan. C. Notice of all amendments to the comprehensive plan adopted to fulfill the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130 was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce at least sixty days before the amendments were adopted, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106. d. The City of Arlington's existing development regulations comply with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW. e. The City Council finds that the review and needed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan have been prepared in conformance with applicable law, including Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the approved public participation and adoption process and,taken collectively, are in the best interests of all its citizens. f. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #302, which are changes related to the proposed Urban Growth Area-ARL 3 (King-Thompson) ORDINANCE NO. 2017-011 2 proposed UGA expansion on Snohomish county Docket XVII dated March 2013 and withdrawn in May 2016 by the City of Arlington, including removal of language adopted during the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update relating to the UGA Expansion known as ARL-3 (King-Thompson), are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. g. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #303, which are the Official Land Use Map changes relating to the removal of the ARL-3 (King- Thompson) UGA Expansion, the merging of the RLMD zone category under the RMD zone category, the removal of the TDR Overlay from the Burn Hill Subarea (also known as Brekhus/Beach), and a private rezone request from Residential Moderate Density (RMD) to Residential High Density (RHD) for the Villas at Arlington Rezone, are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. h. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #304, which are chapter changes relating to the West Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA), including removal of language and references to the WASA due to the buildable lands reconciliation and incorporation of the WASA into the Mixed Use Plan, the adoption of Form Based Codes as a governing principle encompassing all areas currently zoned Highway Commercial (HQ, General Commercial (GC), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and the Commercial Corridor Designation along Smokey Point Boulevard are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. i. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #305, which are chapter changes related to the Burn Hill subarea and the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) overlay designation mandated by the termination of the TDR Pilot Program associated with the Brekhus/Beach area and the Inter-local Agreement (ILA) between Snohomish County and the City, and conflict with current Countywide Planning Policies, which exempt residential dwellings from mandatory participation in the TDR program, are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. j. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #306, which are chapter changes addressing several Comprehensive Plan Element recommendations identified as needing revision by the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) review of the draft 2015 Comprehensive Plan, which recommendations were adopted as part of the PSRC Work Plan in 2016 to address and add language to the Comprehensive Plan during the next update and to allow the Plan to be officially approved rather than conditionally approved, are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. k. The City Council finds that those amendments considered under PLN #307, which are chapter changes related to the Buildable Lands Reasonable Measures and Reconciliation process, by which the Mixed Use concept is being implemented to accommodate the need to comply with Vision 2040 and the Buildable Lands Analysis per Snohomish County Ordinance 16-077, which showed that the City had insufficient land capacity to accommodate the 2035 population estimates and had to reconcile this deficiency by other means besides a proposed UGA expansion, together with resolving an identified deficiency in the amount of diversified and multi-family housing available in the City and incorporating other Low Impact Design, Multi-Modal, Mass Transit or Transit Oriented Development (TOD) to occur in the proposed Mixed Use Overlay areas, are consistent with the Growth Management Act and in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. ORDINANCE NO. 2017-011 3 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction, attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Figures & Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, Goals and Policies, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 4. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4, Description of Planning Area, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 5. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Land Use, attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 6. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, Housing, attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 7. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8, Transportation, attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 8. The revisions to and restatement of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, Capital Facilities, attached hereto as Exhibit "H" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted and approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Section 9. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 a copy of this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of Commerce as required by law. Section 10. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-011 PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 18t" day of September, 2017. CITY OF ARLINGTON 4'4' -- /'/'�L. Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Attest: CA��- -- CL Kristi Banfie , City Clerk Approved as to form: 4/e5rK)K:— Ste<en jAe'iffle City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 2017-011 5 Chapter 1 : Introduction City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft i 1 Introduction 1.1 LAYOUT OF THIS PLAN The chapters following this introduction contain the 241-5 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Arlington as updated in 2015 and certified in 2017 by the Washington Department of Commerce and Puget Sound Regional Council... For ease of use, 4--the Plan is broken into three main components. The first component is comprised of Chapters One through Three. These three chapters contain the City's Vision Statements, Maps, and Policies. The second component is comprised of Chapters Four through Ten which contain the background information behind the goals and policies. The third component is Appendices A through E i„ 4which include a glossary of terms, the procedures for the siting of essential public facilities, plan consistency with countywide planning policies, the Department of Commerce Checklist, information about Arlington's natural environment, and the environmental review of this plan (SEPA). 1.2 VISION STATEMENT The City of Arlington will meet its challenge to accommodate regional growth by preserving the best a small city has to offer and by extending this "best" into new development and growth plans. The City will strive to balance growth by safeguarding our standards and values as we encourage economic growth to safeguard our future. Even as the City evolves into a stronger commercial center, it will continue to retain the feel of its small town rural heritage. To this end, our vision focuses on the City's setting, its economy, social fabric, mobility and housing. The Setting:Arlington is located where the north and south forks of the Stillaguamish River join. The City's northern/northwestern edge overlooks the Stillaguamish River Valley; its eastern side looks toward the Cascade foothills_; and weWe border I-5 en-to the west and Marysville on-to the south. The Economy: Arlington's future depends on its economic base keeping pace with other development. Citizens thrive when jobs are available and the necessary amenities are in place to improve their quality of life. To pay for this quality of life, our retail base must be secure and growing. It must also be able to pay for the infrastructure needed to fuel industrial growth. 1-1 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft The Social Fabric: Citizens establish the City's values, sense of place, and quality of life. In return they need cultural opportunities, recreational activities, educational resources, and entertainment for a full life. Mobility: Our goal must be to provide mobility within the City and access to our county, state and federal transportation systems. Housing. Arlington values its neighborhoods and hopes to pass on these values as new developments are built. We recognize the need to provide housing for all income ranges. Summary:Because of Arlington's proximity to population centers and the freeway, growth is inevitable, but not necessarily as a bedroom community. Arlington will strive to maintain a small city identity, a high jobs-to-housing ratio, thriving commercial districts, safe neighborhoods, an expanding airport, a healthy hospital, a beautiful environment, great services, ample recreational opportunities, and a pride that most cities seldom experience. We want our citizens to continue to see Arlington as a caring community. The principal theme of the Vision Statement is that the City of Arlington would like to maintain its character and identity - the "small town" atmosphere. The overall goals listed in Section 3.2 are essential in maintaining a satisfactory quality of life for Arlington. These goals will endure as the Comprehensive Plan is implemented. As the Comprehensive Plan is updated to account for changing conditions the goals in the Vision Statement will provide direction for such revisions. 1.3 PLAN OBJECTIVES In the 1995 Comprehensive Plan the City Council adopted a vision statement as presented by the Select Committee established to write the plan. The Vision Statement, above, is still as appropriate today as it was when it was first adopted. The principal theme of the Statement is that the City of Arlington would like to maintain its character and identity, or simply put, a "small town" atmosphere. The overall goals found in the third chapter of the plan are essential in maintaining this atmosphere and a fine quality of life for our citizens. As the Plan is implemented the goals will provide direction and guidance. We would, as a City, like to remain the same, but on a larger scale with the same amenities now treasured by our present citizens. We want to preserve our community-oriented character. We want our citizens to be able to find the type of housing they want and can afford and insure that they be able to work and shop locally. Excellent municipal services, facilities, and infrastructure need to be provided without overtaxing our citizens. To the West and North of our city limits lies the Stillaguamish Valley. It is fertile farmland within the flood plain of the Stillaguamish River. As an awe inspiring entrance to our City, it is unequalled. 1-2 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft We will be tested at times during the next twenty years as we fit more citizens into less space. But the rewards will be great as we look westward at a preserved Stillaguamish Valley and inward to a balanced residential and job-creating community. Safe, well-kept neighborhoods and commercial areas are the ultimate goal of this plan and will continue to be so as we step forward into a bright future. 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The following chapters outline how well the City is positioned to achieve its goals and targets by 2035. The Growth Management Act requires that where targets are achievable, an implementation strategy be presented, including proposed code revisions, projects, specific policies and programs. Where targets (population, employment, housing, buildable lands, etc.) are in some jeopardy, a set of"reasonable measures" should be developed. These may be the same as implementation measures. The objective is to make the community's plan workable. In 2015-2017 the following Plan implementation strategies are adopted as part of the GMA update. The list will be updated annually. City Land-Use Code Changes (Title 20) 1. Reform the City's entire Land-Use Code. Specifically: • Revise existing regulations to incentivize a diverse housing stock, to include Cottage Housingr ��& • Combine RMD and RMLD land use designations/regulations into one RMD land use designation. Develop and adopt a Horizontal Mixed Use (HMU) code for use in attractingplanned developments to the City's commercial land base. the adopted West Arlington Subarea Xai+-. • Revise the plepermitted-use table to add clarity and consistency. These code changes are not required for compliance with GMA requirements. They will be developed after Plan adoption in AmeSummer,241�52017. 1. E�Taad the City's UGA boundafy to inelude the King Thempsen area west of later-state 5. Land Use Map 1. Remove the TDR overlay designation from the Brekhus/Beach Subarea. 2_Combine the RLMD and RMD land-use designations into one RMD designation. 3. Provide for the addition of Horizontal Mixed Use overlay designations to the Land Use Map based on approved development plans. 2L.4. Revise, as needed, the Arlington/MMsville Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) designation to reflect the PSRC Regional Centers Framework. Neighborhood Plans 1-3 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft 1. Develop design standards for the Old Town Business District and the Old Town Residential District. 2. Develop "high-level" master plans for Brekhus/Beach Subarea and future Lindsay Annexation area within the Hilltop Subarea. 3. Complete annexation in the Hilltop Subarea. 4. Review the following "emphasis areas" for further planning strategies: area.a. West of 15 in the pr-eposed UGA expansion b a.SR9/172"d St, in the Lindsay annexation area. Eb.Airport Business Park. �c.Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center. e d.Island Crossing and Stillaguamish tribal property. Adopt Amend the West Ar-lington Subar-ea Plan (WASA) to ifieltide an implementation e. West Bluff f. Smoked Environmental Protection 1. Identify areas of potential slide hazards (e.g. Burn Road/Stillaguamish Avenue) and determine regulatory or other protections. Economic Development 1. Paffieipa4e inHelp implement the Stillaguamish Valley Economic Development Plan. 2. Participate in PSRC regional centers study. 3. Pursue conceptual master plan of Manufacturing Industrial Center with Marysville, EASC and property owners. 4. Review zoning in underdeveloped commercial centers (e.g. Kent Prairie, Hilltop) to find incentives for development(e.a. HMU zoning). Transportation 1. Develop plans for street connectivity 2. Accommodate nonmotorized transportation modes (trails, sidewalks, etc) 3. Develop street networks within the Brekhus/Beach Subarea, and the future Lindsay Annexation Area. 4-4. Plan and Project Review 1. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by the City will contain an analysis of the GMA Plan and policies to ensure consistency or describe variations. 2. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by adjacent jurisdictions will be reviewed against the Comprehensive Plan, with comment being provided to the decision-makers. The July 2015 GMA Comprehensive Plan was granted conditional certification by the Puget Sound Regional Council, subject to completion of several items outlined in its March 2016 review (Appendix I). Certification is required for review of transportation funding requests 1-4 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft under the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, which Arlington will be pursuing over the coming months and years. This 2017 Plan reflects changes based on that review. 1.5 DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan incorporates by reference the following documents: • 2005 Arlington GMA Comprehensive Plan, except as otherwise amended by the 2015 Update. • Arlington Water Systems Plan. • Arlington Sewer Systems Plan. • Arlington 2016 Transportation Plan. • Stillaguamish Valley Economic Development Plan. • Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies, June 2013. • Multi-County Planning Policies. • PSRC Vision 2040. • PSRC Transportation 2040. • PSRC Industrial Lands Analysis, 2015. • Updated Regional Transportation Demand Management Action Plan. • Updated Transportation 2040 financial strategy. • Coordination with planned Community Transit services. • Coordination with Sound Transit planning. • Puget Sound Cleans Air Agency Growth Management Policies. • Regional Open Space Strategy. • International Building Codes, including Fire Code. • Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. • NPDES Phase II Stormwater permit. • 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. • Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan. • Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan. • Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report, June 10, 2015 The documents listed will have direct influence on decision-making where provisions are prescriptive. Where advisory only, the documents will be balanced with other policies, regulations and priorities. 1-5 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft 1.6 RE-ASSESSMENT PROCESS The Comprehensive Plan includes a Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9) and Transportation Element (Chapter 8), each describing how infrastructure will be developed concurrently with growth. The City may not be able to finance all proposed capital facility projects. This will be assessed annually. Where capital facility shortfalls affect concurrency, the following are the options available: • Increase Revenue • Decrease Level of Service Standards • Decrease the Cost of the Facility or Reduce the Scope of the Project • Decrease the Demand for the Public Service or Facility • Reassess the Land Use Element In deciding how to address a particular shortfall, the City will balance the equity and efficiency considerations associated with each of these options. 1.7 Growth Management Act In 1990, the Legislature enacted the Growth Management Act (GMA) to guide and coordinate local planning. The GMA recognizes the diversity of growth management challenges facing Washington's large, urban, small, and rural cities/counties and establishes distinct planning requirements for all cities/counties that vary depending upon population and growth rates. Local plans must be consistent with and supportive of the planning goals outlined in State law: 1. Urban Growth - Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 2. Reduce Sprawl - Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development. 3. Transportation - Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city Comprehensive Plans. 4. Housing - Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this State; promote a variety of residential densities and housing types; and encourage preservation of existing housing. 5. Economic Development - Encourage economic development throughout the State that is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this State, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and encourage growth -- all within the capacities of the State's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. 6. Property Rights - Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. 1-6 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft 7. Permits - Applications for both State and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. 8. Natural Resource Industries - Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. 9. Open Space and Recreation - Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities; conserve fish and wildlife habitat; increase access to natural resource lands and water; and develop parks. 10.Environment - Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. 11. Citizen Participation and Coordination - Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. 12.Public Facilities and Services - Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. 13.Historic Preservation - Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. Against this policy backdrop, the GMA invests local government with significant decision- making power. The City of Arlington strongly endorses the thrust of the GMA as an essential and responsible series of planning and interlocal coordination measures that, when implemented, will help direct community, regional, and statewide efforts to enhance Washington's quality of life, environmental protection, and economic vitality. The City of Arlington continually works to maintain a Comprehensive Plan that establishes a clear intent and policy base that can be used to develop and interpret local regulations consistent with the GMA. This Comprehensive Plan was developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 -- the Growth Management Act -- to address growth issues in the City of Arlington, the adjacent Urban Growth Area (UGA), and what is shown as our future growth areas. It represents the community's policy plan for growth over the next 20 years, through 2035. The City of Arlington is interdependent with many other communities. In such circumstances, the long-term planning for the City needs to be adapted to unexpected or rapid changes. Therefore, rather than simply prioritizing actions, this plan assists the management of the City by providing policies to guide decision-making. The plan includes the following Elements: ■ Housing ■ Land Use ■ Transportation ■ Park, Recreation, and Open Space ■ Economic Development ■ Public Services and Capital Facilities 1-7 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft All of the planning elements have been integrated into a single, internally consistent plan, updated to reflect changes since its last review in 2005. The City of Arlington believes the Comprehensive Plan, as a whole, will be effective in working toward the community goals in an economically feasible manner. 1.8 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS State law requires, and Arlington supports coordination of its Plan with those of neighboring communities and with regional and countywide planning policies. 1. Countywide Planning Policies The GMA requires that each county planning under the act adopt countywide planning policies to which all comprehensive plans developed within that county must conform. The Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies have provided guidance in the planning process and this Comprehensive Plan is consistent with them; in fact, those policies are adopted as Appendix C to this Comprehensive Plan. 2. County Comprehensive Plan s Snohomish County, like Arlington, must SNOHOMGM COUNTY update its comprehensive plan every ten years. These processes took place concurrently. Arlington was an active E_�an - participant in the work of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (ICC) and 'l Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) Ly committees. Each is a component of the i G`o KMC0Uf ,, County's GMA planning effort. Arlington \ also participated in the review of the County's Comprehensive Plan update and KITSAP COUNTY - r provided comment to the Draft Plan and j' environmental impact statement. The p updated Arlington Plan is consistent with the County document. 3. Puget Sound Regional Councils -Vision 2040 In October of 1990 the Puget Sound Council of Government (PSRC) developed and adopted a growth and transportation 1-8 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region known as Vision 2020. It was eventually updated as Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040. This strategy is aimed at reducing sprawl, air pollution, and traffic congestion by calling for the containment and densification of growth within designated growth centers, thus limiting the extent of sprawl into surrounding farmlands, forests, and open spaces. It concentrates new employment into about fifteen centers and connects the centers with a regional transit system. The vision emphasizes the movement of people through increased transit and ridesharing investments. Through a collaborative process among jurisdictions in Snohomish County known as Snohomish County Tomorrow SCT , Arlington was on_ig nallX given the designation of"Urban Small City". Subsequent to the 2005 Plan adoption it was re-classified to "Larger" cities along with Marysville, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Monroe. Larger cities are intended to absorb significant population and job growth, with "Small" cities absorbing growth in a less intensive manner. 1.9 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT The Arlington Plan serves many purposes: to outline a vision for the community through 2035, to outline specific actions to accomplish the vision, to assist in the review of land use or capital investment decisions and to assist discussions by the City with neighboring communities on issues of mutual interest. Future public or private projects and decisions will require an analysis of this Plan to measure consistency with the City's vision and policies. To use this document as the City's Comprehensive Plan, for the basic plan elements the reader is directed to the Chapter 1, the Figures and Maps (Chapter 2), and the Goals and Policies (Chapter 3). This is all that is needed to know what our future plans are. If one wishes to see the background supporting data and analyses on how these plans, goals and policies were developed, he/she is directed to the appropriate Element addressing the item being proposed. The Plan is also an "integrated SEPA/GMA document" meaning that it serves both as a Plan and an environmental impact statement. Future actions that are consistent with the Plan policies and environmental findings will have reduced analysis needs and faster permit processing. To use this document in its capacity as a supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan, the reader is directed to the project description (Chapter 1, Introduction), the description of existing conditions (Chapter 4, Description of Planning Area), the goals and policies (Chapter 3, Goals and Policies), the analyses of the plan and its environmental impact and the environmental findings (Appendix F, Environmental Impact Statement with Addendum). Over time, it is possible that some of the information will have become outdated. Such information may be updated during annual or eight-year periodic, Comprehensive Plan updates. 1-9 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft Persons preparing an environmental checklist or other application document will be directed to the description of existing conditions (Chapter 4, Description of Planning Area), and the environmental impact analyses and environmental findings (Appendix F). 1.10 THE PAST AND PRESENT Before looking forward to 2035, a brief look back will set the stage. The City of Arlington had last updated its Plan in 2008 because the City had changed dramatically since the previous plan was adopted in 2005. Recognition of the type of changes that are occurring and readiness to make decisions in light of such changes will allow the City to take advantage of positive opportunities and to address the effects on the quality of life. In 2005, the population in the City has shifted away from the large single-family unit to include many smaller family units. The balance between the number of jobs and the number of housing units has shifted as the number of two-income families has increased. Concerns about environmental quality had also created a change in traditional land use practices as well as a preference for alternatives to the automobile. And, prior to the Great Recession, the economy was shifting away from land-intensive industries to light manufacturing and service industries. The ead of the Reeession will see these tfends r-e emerge. In 2005, the City undertook an extensive public participation process to ensure the vision of the community expressed in the Comprehensive Plan reflected the needs and desires of the local population. In 2005, the City of Arlington was experiencing pressures from growth within its boundaries as well as from the more urbanized areas in the County, State, and other sta4escities. There was increasing demand for public facilities such as traffic improvements, police, utilities, and fire protection. In 2015, growth pressures continued. The City has chosen to take a proactive role in attracting developments to meet the needs of the citizens, prioritizing alternative uses of land and public resources, and identifying in explicit terms the impact proposed developments will have on the community. This 2015 update continues the themes called out by the public in 2005 and adds those facts and figures that keep it current with 2015 trends. The 2005 Vision remains. Population is expected to grow to almost 2-526,000 people by 2035, an almost 40% increase. Jobs are forecasted to grow to 12,22420,884, although if the proposed Manufacturing Industrial Center (See Chapter 5) develops to its potential, up to 8-075,000 jobs will exist between Arlington's airport and central Marysville. Where new residents will live is a significant issue in this 2015 Plan. In 2005 and 2008, because of plans by the City and County to promote Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a tool for agricultural preservation and more compact urban growth inside the City, the eastern City limits 1-10 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft (Burn Hill) were expanded_ . In 201-57, those plans are still under discussion because of infrastructure issues. I its off rt *A ��, ,.�, fhat suffieien4 buildable lands exist to handle population and job needs (a GMA r-e ment), the City is pr-oeessing a UGA expansion west of 15. This is disetissed in gr-ea4er-detail in Chapter-5, The City has updated it capital facility plans for transportation, water, wastewater and stormwater in the past few years and the City's ability to serve its customers (eit zees business and are eentfaEted-ser-viee am•e-as) seems secure through 2035 (See Chapter 9). Road funding will present a challenge as the Burn Hill urea and future Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) rely on future funding sources for aP «�dma'or and local arterial streets serving future development. With the recent Connecting Washington gas tax approval in November 2016, SR531 will be improved as a major access point for these areas. The City is cooperating with the Stillaguamish Tribe in road and other improvements to accommodate each's land use planning along SR 530. 1.11 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Public Participation Plan is included as Appendix H. In developing the 10-Year update in 2005, the Planning Commission and City Council held numerous public workshops and hearings to take testimony from the public. Public notices and articles were printed in the Arlington Times and Everett Herald for all meetings as well as quarterly updates and announcements in the City's newsletter and on the City's website. Through the visioning process the City identified the following opportunities that provide a basis for planning and the 2005 Plan: ■ Maintain quality of life; ■ Reduce land use conflicts and haphazard development; ■ Maintain infrastructure; ■ Determine what public services the City wants to provide and decide at what level of service it is willing to provide these services; ■ Determine how to finance and pay for these public services; ■ Determine how to acquire and spend public resources; ■ Anticipate future expenditures; ■ Build on current stewardship of land; ■ Build on and take full advantage of existing assets. Because the 10-Year update for 2015 was intended to update information while adhering to the 1995 and 2005 Vision, a less extensive public outreach program was used. It was assumed that 1-11 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft the public was comfortable with the Vision and the greatest need was to ensure that current trends and information supported it. Once the technical analysis (population, buildable lands, employment forecasts, etc.) were confirmed and updated in the Plan, the Plan was taken to the public for discussion. The City employed several means of involving the public and other stakeholders. These included use of the City's website to post updates, the City's Facebook and newsletter, posting copies at the Arlington library and City Hall; and direct communication with inquiries via e-mail. The City Planning Commission is the ongoing steward of the Comprehensive Plan. In this role they provide advice and recommendations to the Mayor, Council, and City staff on planning goals, policies and future plans. Throughout the update process, the Planning Commission provided input to City staff with input regarding the Plan drafts, public participation, the preliminary and final environmental review documents. City staff was available to answer specific questions by the public on a day-to-day basis. Audio recording of Commission and Council meetings were available to the public. Public hearings were held by the Planning Commission in May and by the City Council in June. Each meeting was preceded by a workshop to allow informal discussion of the Plan with citizens. The data used to develop this Comprehensive Plan are to the greatest extent possible the best available data. The City has also coordinated its plan with that of adjacent jurisdictions and agencies and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC),—(which also acts as the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) and ter—Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)E} in order to achieve compatibility and consistency. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan has considered, and incorporated where applicable, the Growth Management Act's thirteen goals, listed below. As part of PSRC certification of its 2015 Plan, the City undertook a "reconciliation" process in 2016 to ensure that land use policies and assumptions were coordinated with the County population, employment and housing targets for 2035. Upon successful conclusion of the process, certain amendments were made to the Plan, which was adopted as an update on , 2017 by City Council. This was followed by full certification of the City's plan by the PSRC as compliant with Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040. Arlington's Plan now conforms to: -- established regionalguidelines and principles, -- the adopted long-range regional transportation plan, and -- transportation planning requirements of RCW 47.80.026. The multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040 encompass these requirements 1-12 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft 1.12 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING Adopted plans must contain implementation and monitoring procedures developed in order to establish a system for measuring progress in implementing the goals and policies. This process also prepares the City for updates in the future. These procedures address: ■ Citizen participation in the process; ■ Updating appropriate base-line data and measurable objectives to be accomplished in the first six-year period of the plan, and for the long-term period 2035 ; ■ Accomplishments in the first ten-year period, describing the degree to which the goals and policies have been successively reached; ■ Obstacles or problems which resulted in the under achievement of goals and policies; ■ New or modified goals and policies needed to address and correct discovered problems; and ■ A means of ensuring a continuous monitoring and evaluation of the plan during the ten-year period. Although adopted by ordinance, a Comprehensive Plan has traditionally been a policy document with the implementation carried through by land development regulations and other ordinances. However, the Growth Management Act has authorized action in a variety of innovative regulatory and non-regulatory implementation methods that should be considered. The City will continue its public education program following plan adoption in order to inform the entire community about the rationale and goals of the plan as well as the changes that will take place in the City because of the plan's implementation. Arlington believes that broad support for the plan is crucial for effective implementation. Development regulations must be updated to be consistent with the plan shortly after its adoption. In reviewing regulations for consistency, the City should ensure that the development patterns suggested in the plan are encouraged. In addition to the new development regulations identified in the land use plan other regulations will be enacted as necessary to implement the land use plan. Planning is an on-going process, and improved data or changing circumstances will require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the plan will be updated once every ten eight years to reflect revisions to the Office of Financial Management population estimates and revisions to the Capital Facilities Plan. The update will also address any specific concerns, clarify inconsistencies that were identified during the decade, review the adequacy of the adopted level of service standards, and update any environmental information. In addition, every ten-eight years the City will review the densities permitted and the usage of the land with the Urban Growth Area. 1-13 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction 2016 Update Draft The City of Arlington is committed to following its adopted Comprehensive Plan and will allow for an adequate period of time for policies and actions to take effect prior to considering changes to it. The City is also committed to working with the County and other jurisdictions to coordinate and resolve problems. As with other communities, Arlington allows the public to submit requests for plan amendments once a year. The "docket process" ensures that changing circumstances that warrant changes to policies, zoning or projects are adequately considered to keep the Plan vibrant. The City, through its monitoring and annual review process, will ensure that the Plan remains concurrent with State, regional and local policies. If a concurrency issue arises, the re- assessment process (See 1.6 above)will be initiated. 1-14 JULY 2015 Revised March 2017 Chapter 2: Maps and Figures = N 234TH ST NE �j City of Arlington i z m o Z j �' w Z a 19T a Z Figure 2.1 < m y = Arlington UGA and Z m 9 z - Muncipal Boundaries E-BURKE•AVE Pre-2015 Update) - b E GILMAN AVE NV i DIKE-RD A u, > > E 5TH ST E 5� + 220TH ST NE z =i a O a E 3RD ST z 11 1 N z z-Z l- E 2ND Legend ST ?� a Wry -EISTST 2NDST 1 = > u w z� J - Z Q Arlington City Limits SR'530 530 r O PV PIONEER HWY E IP 2I1• a LL a � Arlington UGA Typ( F p 1�rVEIT RD MORAN RC NE a State Highway p' �SH-ST N State Route 204TH ST NE Streets w Z J z > 204TH TINE > w Airport 200TH ST NE m a 9 Z Rail line Q Q 197TH-ST-NE J Rest area 196TH PL NE `< w o ��q z 5CN.5CNE °P Cu City of Marysville 0 19 w 2 M Z x a �ND PL NE Z U© a N o . x > -� 190TH P(NE c x z ' T 188TH ST NE > yy �'`I,V 1% 188TH ST NE 186TH PL NE x F v LP I M C 2 J uu O � 186TH ST r.� > O w Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County 0o N A ^� �y FTP site,downloaded February 2015. m OO y0 w 2A o m > BRA A a a � 180TH ST NE� OqT 182ND ST NE z eta — 16oTH sr NE W Scale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles > ��jT O BOVEE LN o a y PL-NE m I I I I w� . z z �� 176TH PL NE DR O- -`� > G w '�/ o CRY C ob OR 0 z w o Q ate: > ` Q Z� Z M F m 5/28/2015 Z x D = O Z m HIG F °' v F F 0 531 °< i-F 7ile: I SR•531-17.2ND ST•NE o ce 171ST PL-z' Z z Figure2.1_11x17_15 169TH PL NE a z z > w > = artographer: -i 168TH ST NE a a F F �68TH ST NE 1y5 kdh •.r z 'z rn z Z v�i 166T - "~' O1 Q > tiq c F- m <NE MCPHER N N SON RD Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including G� O1 but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of m sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of 164TH ST-N E or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. 236TH-ST-N E— ZOCity ofArlington Neighborhoods % Figure 2.2 Y w � � Z N Arlington Bluff MIC Old Town Residential a Neighborhood Brekhus/Beach Old Town BD # 1 South Fork �; Planning Subareas Old Town BD #3 E•BURKE•AVE Hilltop Old Town BD # 2 West Arlington t 4;�4 EGILMAN-AVE Old To , Old Town Kent Prairie Old Town BD # 3 BD #2 Residential p Y1�J Old Town E"D'ST L�igellU '• " E 211ITST� BD# 1 I II - E—ST Arlington City Limits South r Z N Fork J��� Arlington UGA LL ¢ �J ��A PIONEERHWYE 530 �J 1A l �� �� State Highway 2i O-E HIGHLAND•DR a TVEIT. �R MORP N D_ Arlin t o i 1 'L r �� State Route g WVfNSEN ST `ORTAGE ST�J�/ n Bluff Streets /Kerit zoaTH Sr NE I Prairie �Brekhus/Beach Airport Z � J 204TH-ST-NE � w Z Rail line 200TH-ST-NE �1� w i a w z � z-CEMETERY-RD ° Rest area a a o 0 200TH-ST-NE 197TH-ST-NE J J z -y-196TH-PL-NE� fl �RO� p! City of Marysville > z i ti O z r ,= z LgSjN S�N w �Po �o a N > ( z 9 a I I a Z ` W PQ > ;D-PL--NE 1 o w o a N \( Z SURN W . E F� DR ¢ RO '190.TH-pt_�/f� m a 188TH-ST-NE j-13 TH•ST NE h S 86TH PL NE = 188TH-ST-NE 'MIC \ O wl DO _Wof D, 186TH-ST-NE Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County West 0 0; UPm �� >� I I FTP site,downloaded February 2015. Z a Arlin T, O /z AY_0 A Hilltop 82 N D-ST-N E— 1 _ e4 I 180THST- E— ati a BOVEE•LIN Scale: = D� w w 0 0. 0. 1 Miles 176TH PL NE o\ 1 c I z lk � � z N kP w Q z I ""RY-C1UB�D�1m z z a _ k �lw Date: z m HIG= �c ��� o Q 1/19/2017 0 531 SR•531 <_� a 172 ND•ST NE p File: Z Y � Z Figure2.2_11x17_17 a 168TH-ST-NE a J 8TH-ST- _ oN 166Ty N NE Z Cartographer: At-NE MCPHERSONRD� N kdh z w Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS'without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including a164TH-ST--NE but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree 1 H to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of mor resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. ' . w u !r 236THST N ;--_ -- // 1 Arlington City Limits Y N w O'AZ a W w Z O y = o ? I �"'�=sy�34TH=ST-NE= -.__ — w Arlington UGA �` v > ~ o > ¢ z S > 2 = ?�> o P ��_ Public ROW -9 • • Private ROW /1 HEVLY%RD�_ NF �( — b 9 / �� �OMPN P/P Ps > Rail line �� O 1�6T F� II SCN P �RSP H=¢ 228TH'-ST=NEB APD SUbdIStrICtS IN q --- DIKE•RD BD Nc % 1 APD Safet Zones � O O oSDI, mm P/se jj t 0 oraD- E�iTH-ST Eesl Er4TH•ST — _ E RD PS ` ¢ E 3RD ST PrsP - Land Use _ �I Pioneer Meadows arao�-�iU VoraD M II ¢ Contract Rezone oreD- �II11(Tl lO \ II isT sr "'MD 1 1 ° ROANRp SR=Surburban Residential 212TH ST-NW I . I! P RLMD=Low to Moderate Density Residential - PIONEER=HW.Y-E SR•530 5'� Gc:. aL P MD RL�IVID RLMD 3 � G` • RMD rrs T.v.EIT►Rv f=MORA/V RMD=Moderate Density Residential a RHD=High Density Residential Q OTRD=Old Town Residential District TDR I1 `�° � �, •s 204TH•ST-NE-- V.— ' - !yl r r Nc 204TH ST NE N SIR —1 NC=Neighborhood Commercial RLM P/SP A I Yi 200TH=ST=NE _ � ' �i iO RHo • • OTBD-1=Old Town Business District 1 1 11 p 1 �1(RL @I I RLMD CEV ETERv�O P%SP 1 ` II 1 1 •)OTHST•NE ��� o �� � OTBD-2=Old Town Business District 2 IPrsP .00 R.D.AVE \ OTBD-3=Old Town Business District 3 194TH`ST'NW z "�� r a u ` ♦♦� ¢ __ \, ` 2RD � I _ GC=General Commercial > RLMD �♦ - )t »" `_ +LM; (I _� C HC=Highway Commercial II Z BP 1 �. 'f O'TH:p�N --188TH=ST-NE rvc > BP MD 188TH•ST•NE t j _ f� P/sP — — ^�= 2F• BP=Business Park ¢ 4 ` O v - —188TH ST NE iL Z m ♦O �� P/sP LI=Light Industrial I II L RHD �. It* AR 5 LSE gtMD o RtM Con gie \ o �— Ea GI=General Industrial Q ,— J e \,'� eontractRezone _ / h m z m Z' 't �184TH=,p a zJ I O -,- j�� �� `` 182ND-ST=NE o NE-4 !? P/SP=Public/Semi-Public 'AI� ?'O BP f 1PP m 1� I� "yG • EM MS=Medical Services arQ %", ! I, �' z/ �yRL D I '\ 2 P N _ o '- AF=Aviation Flightline z o �,QJ I = ExpansionArea D I 531 2 • RHD 1 tj LAKEWOOD•RD-HWV531 SR 533 172ND ST NE- ..� I Coordinated Water Service Area > rsi 172ND-SC'NE MPN SIR � A ��� ® Contract Rezone = o46STH ST NF u 1 //_ _ � ® TDR Overlay Zone z • MCPHERsON- z z A _RpI Z I !j > o s ` MPN-Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay Zone MCRAE•RD•NW I THIS IS A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OF 164Th�T NE - - -- ? o V ARLINGTON,WHICH WAS ADOPTED AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE �� PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON 5 DECEMBER 2005 PURSUANT TO j160 ORDINANCE NO.1375. 14, m` 1 ¢ II \ yST'NE• C' v y0 I v y - L n � r O o ti III 6TH=5T=NE 156TH-ST-NEm Z � '. . U 1S8T�sT•N%" Barbara Tolbert Kristin Banfield `ay a �F II Mayor City Clerk w I' I� w —1 - >ag aFigure 2.3 City of Arlington CEO z �148TH ST=NE c Q Future Land Use Map z w = Z o r a Z > Q� Z cale: Z N = 1aaTHsrtvE \ z > z 1 inch = 3,500 feet 9 r 1I40THST NE _ � !i 142ND, ate: ile: I _ 1 „^ Z w 7/16/2015 Figure2.3_11x17 15 w L_ II A > z = 138TH=ST-NE z II z =138TH•ST-NE_,;I l o " II =� / /rI u Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including \FZ 1 o 136TH�ST=NEI Q II ? but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of �I� sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree on _ I� ul to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. 1 z 238TH-ST NE p \GHTS RD ®City Limits 236T'H-ST-N Zr— —� i /� w v oN 9� w Urban Growth Area A w r �j('' a Q234TH-ST-NE NPR\\N ¢ P = iflFz \ v� Streets Rail line p r z ti O APD Subdistricts ES LY—RD y ma�\v S / OTBD-3 TBD-- P RPHD ~�' I OA_ AOPDL./Safety�ZonesHE ` �L W2 O D � 2 ¢ SN P/SP N O RHD NC e-1 Land Use 22 OTBD- f oTH-sr-NEJ Pioneer Meadows PSP ( RHo SR=Surburban Residential � P/SP KNUTS02 Contract Rezone DTB BD E 1ST ST 7ORI) RMD R RLMD=Low to Moderate Density Residential Alv GC RLMD �O RMD=Moderate Density Residential P _ TH-S RHD=High Density Residential 212 -T-NW�pIONEER-HWYE _ 530 $R-530 O1 Re D S_RO N� RMD I I I RM` R NEI MD,_ ,E "ORAN� F OTRD=Old Town Residential District w © R IN =Neighborhood Commercial �o� QR D RHD P/SP ` — _ _ = RLMD P/sP © OTBD- 1 =Old Town Business District 1 204TH-S-T-NE i64*TH �/� RMD w�� i sT NE; � � OTBD-2=Old Town Business District 2 P/5P R"°� - MPN 200TH ST-NE �i ® OTBD-3=Old Town Business District 3 � r 00 RH RLMD CEMI TDR 9 TH-S-T-NE ErER� R/sP - 0�0 `10 GC=General Commercial 200 o�� w \�� _ _�j I ��3RD q� \9♦ HC=Highway Commercial z 194TH-ST-NW Z He C �Q d?G ¢ Nf BP=Business Park - a .r' /RL D �."' o Ro m LI=Light Industrial z 5P H ,Z B 1'90TH,p, � � GI =General Industrial BP LMD �Nf 188TH-ST-NE u u'n�c�j Qj 4 P/sP w ` N P/SP=Public/Semi-Public Z F— 4� p N Q ` O,'♦- � a 00• P P w \'9G = MS=Medical Services >♦ S� ♦ � _ � RLMID RLM F ° AF Z o DR Gleneagle Q 1 m AF=Aviation Flightline 1�Contract Rezone 'a Z RM =► O © �P o `Future Planning Area Coordinated Water Service Area RHD a e♦;♦ z RLMD ® Contract Rezone MPN-Master Planned Neighborhood Overlay Zone ', sR. 53 "` RP 531 TDR Overlay Zone L-AK -RD-HWY-531 1 - -���72ND ST Nf<-- Z w / r /D 4 ^ B u c "c D SR Commercial Corridor Overlay a = 1 MPN Z NMD * Horizontal Mixed Use Overlay �c r l c1.HER50N RD z I THIS IS A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OF s ARLINGTON, WHICH WAS ADOPTED AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE 3 MCRAE-RD-NW F z a 164TH-ST-NE I PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON 5 DECEMBER 2005 PURSUANT TO Z z I a �2) ORDINANCE NO.1375. y'ST-NE 1-58TH-ST NF / Barbara Tolbert Kristin Banfield 6FH-ST NE ➢0 56TH-ST NE Sj-NE I S Mayor City Clerk 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T z City of Arlington I L52ND ST NE w Future Land Use Map ¢ Z z I I l = 0 w w 3 z 148TH-ST-NE z I v Scale: N Z s\ 1 inch = 3,500 feet 144TH ST NE z I 2� z = r 143RD- ;NE w Q w 1 File: Date: 14VH ST NE w Figure2.3aUpdate_11x17_17 6/9/2017 z Q w at � WADE—R�D- I A Ma sand GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of an kind either express or implied,including but not w 2 �`Z I P Y P P 9 \ Q D a 1.38TH-$T-NEl 13STH-ST-NE- limited to warranties of suitability fora particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify, t defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the 13'6TH-ST-N E Z ti m lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. .- - Existing Land Use Designation ,HEIGHTS—RD City of f Arling tOn 0 SR= Surburban Residential - GC = General Commercial RLMD = Low to Moderate Density Residential HC = Highway Commercial Figure 2.3b 0 RMD = Moderate Density Residential BP= Business Park Proposed i N Proposed Land Use RHD = High Density Residential LI = Light Industrial annexation P�sP P Changes 0 OTRD = Old Town Residential District E GI = General Industrial P/sP� o NC = Neighborhood Commercial E�W P/SP = Public/Semi-Public SP P/SP P/SP 013, 0 OTBD - 1 = Old Town Business District 1 7 MS = Medical Services a - �_ RHDOTBD-3 R'HD Legend OTBD -2 = Old Town Business District 2 AF =Aviation Flightline p�sp � ` `n -2 � I ^ 1 OTBD - 3 = Old Town Business District 3 OTBD orBD-z' Proposed Gleneagle Contract Rezone p/SP RHD Proposed color P/sP land use ��� Pioneer Meadows Contract Rezone RLMD change to rezone OTBD-1 OTRD change to RMD i oTBD-2 RMD Proposed change to RHD - GC P/SP RLMo RL D MS Proposed change to RMD 530 Proposed sR•53 Ms PLM� —PIONEER land use Ty Proposed 'Mixed Use' Overlay o GC GC 211� A/ E-HIGHIANID DR P/SP HC change to RMD NE RMD RMD m Z NC r Proposed annexation LT / RHD ° Proposed P sP _ w land use RLMD RHo P/r5P r— Arlington City Limits 204TH-ST--NE- change to RMD It RMD i P/sP 204TH ST.NE SIR Arlington UGA INC � RLMD RHD w P/SP �� State Highway ® _ GI 9 RHD MPN RLMD ,p/sPt RLMD CEMETERY RD P/sP I\,, State Route ------- P/SP I Streets z � HIZ u Airport RLMD v w RLMD Proposed Rail line P/Sp HC land use RMD BP BP RLMD I GI F change to RMD Rest area �G NC - 188TH-ST-NE NC — Pao ■ City of Marysville m 1 V P/SP p/Sp N I LI � RLMD RLMD RHD O AF , Waterbodies and streams provided by Proposed 0O z <) W E Snohomish County FTP site, land use 9i a �SE�p 2� downloaded February 2015. change to RHD P/SP RMD RAo�T Proposed color g e eG r c change to rezone a I� I t s z ^n P/SP BP ° A RLMD Cale. 0 0.275 0.55 1.1 Miles a �c RHD o �-�i/7yJ�C�U�K1R � • I I I I I p GC t ate: �- 531 SR•534 NC GC RHD i 5- 6/14/2017 , GC SR HC GC GC P/SP I w HC File: 18TST NE LI SR MPN GC Proposed RHD +i, Figure2.3b 11x17 17 q RMD z GI land use z Cartographer: n/ NE GG a change to RMD z kd h r � F a �< w ^' y. Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including O but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree �^ to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. ' 236TH ST NE z 234TH•ST-NE / Vt�1 jON-NE o City of Arlington LijI? ? J / PR )>> Figure m 9Ty _ Y I Proposed Arlin ton m / micSGNVOMPN�K4' ' N E-BURKE•AVE E•GILMAN-AVE - DIKE RD S W ->>-E-5TH-STI E 5, N2 _ Legend I 20TH ST 01 a _"-0-}- / .NE-w � a O Z w -o-Q E 3RD•ST Z Z E21ND-ST Proposed Manufacturing ; E-is T-ST A and Industrial Center N W � a W Z�-OJ �FR =— Q I� � Arlington City Limits PIONEER-HWY-E SR•530 530 w rn LL < P c Arlington UGA 211TyP4 NE ^ (D VNEIT-RC' MORAN'RD State Highway _ v • �N ST-"E,c State Route - 204TH ST NE _ Streets N 204TH ST NE Airport — ----200TH-ST-NE 1 Q 9 L Rail line Z Z a ¢ I ol� / / - � ,1 - 200TH ST NE,I _ = F 197TH ST NE 1 'rP Rest area w s z -196TH z O O z -o �> y95jN5 N z , N P �oz City of Marysville _ o a /> a ND-PL-NE rJ�� aR.m > Ro N 188TH ST-NE TQ_ ,P w 6Ei j ��' - 188TH ST NE - 186TH-PL-NE j ( u� II O�WOO w .00 —186TH-ST-NE \ S Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County FTP site,downloaded February 2015. 9jR / o WAY—z o a 180TH-ST NE 09 2 182ND•ST-NE— T l BlL� / 180TH ST NE gOVEE•LN c P Cale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles i W�1-De' ij z I w Z 176THr NE N IT z I I l I l N y > G z� Y-GVUB'DRm z \, a 1 Z Q z m1W ate: HIG m / / �� -� Q 5/27/2015 0 531 SR.531 1.7.2ND•ST•NE �p s- � O ile: > Z �r 2 Figure2.4_11x17— 15 o a I }168TH-ST-NE n �68TH ST-NE w �; artographer: 0-166 kdh o r ! NE > MCP > _ Q HERSON1 RD w < QO Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including m > 64TH-ST-NE _ but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of t ¢ 1 160 NO P� = sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of m ^ or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. 1 w 234T o z Intersection Improvements Street Improvements New Roads ,'' City ofAYlington Right In/Right Out 2 Lanes - - - 1 2 Lanes z z° w � tiN O Roundabout 3 Lanes - - - 3 Lanes N�o j 1, cy Figure 2.5 Signal 4 Lanes SG�`oMP ' Ro Proposed 5Lanes 17 530 �, Official Street Plan -� - New Infrastructure DIK�� SR� E-B iURKE AVE /, • Off l Ramps _=r__E GILMAN AVE CA, Projects labeled by project number 16 Q Q a l; E 5TH ST E 5�� Ro Overpass R = road project a Flo _ I' 2��7 Update I = intersection project ° w Tunnel -w 2 IZ w E 3RD ST \ z O o LLE2NDST =� az z Iz z z El T ST o �' _ UJ w w ' Legend u 00 = 11 SR530 15 Z PIONEER HWY E N L- tip° Arlington City Limits 530 14 W R4 _ R5 N °° ;� R38` MORPN 211Typ 1 IE HIGHLAND DR RD � State Highway Roundabout intesection improvements NE F extend to 1-5,down Smokey Point Blvd L ^ N;� ti �� State Route and up 27th Ave _ R6 N ST NE- 1 Streets z204TH ST NE ~� , 18 N 1 t w , Airport 110 19�z O 2oorli sr NE _ - - 9 F Rail line w M Q z R1 CEMETERY RD ` 200TH ST NE Rest area a � x 'v' r� R3 196TH PL NE �R10 .R$ . . r�� Piz O�� w w City of Marysville — z O z a si NE' 0 92 z of LU w , R7& R9. oR o _ _- v > 0 I...^ Ln N / F 2 W Q _ C e 01 /♦ � . UJ ■ z z UR�Ro i t N LU R314.`a O R2 = m 90TH c� ko 1 6 I r~{ Pt NE r 188TH ST NE 12 z 13 188TH ST NE MA' L' m t, w R36 112 � ` R32 a" W E 188TH STINELn N z "'— �OODg7 0 oR R11 R39 186TH ST NE S aO mv�09 r) LEF1E Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County m O z R1 5 z p� �G ; � FTP site,downloaded February 2015. w _ `� - ,z„ - R29 z z IAY HP� s'< �182ND ST NE a- z R30 qi > R17 i > x w �� 90 ¢ _-_-_ is BOVEE LN c > 0,Q x 180TH ST NE _ C° ` Scale: re ° R12 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles ti t o Ln `° ^ A I I I I I H PL,NE w / I I w N �176TH,PL NE ¢ R16A : oR zz Z ^I. O!NF W 2 �P R28 M R27 v Cuo 0 0, z > ate: z . �. . . . � ■ I x w H l 6/9/2017 SR 531 113 R14A ~ 173RDe� R14B N ss NE ! 0 a ° 0 1�2 ° _ R37 - File: a z R26v � SR u W 2 R35 I s R13 Figure2.5Update 11x17 17 R16B W — —a m !• •••�• • • R21 R18 R24 �_,,,�. . . . . . . artographer: z 166T I ♦ w . . . . . . . . . . . . ■1� z z N A R22♦ R20 W R19 BTH ST NE 115 w kd h _ a NE' ¢ ` MCPHERSON RD w R23■ o 0) � Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including O u1 CZ) but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of T 164TH 5T NE '-f sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree _ to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of \ or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. Community Transit Stops and Routes City of Arlington z �PR�tNG�ON A a - z Q Park and Ride Type of Bus Route Figure 2.6 518 Communityrk Transit Stops Type of Bus Stop Local Ali Rod ~ SCNVOMPN and Routes O Normal Stops In-County Commuter 3008'1.755 SR•530 2418 834 384 O Time Point Only Inter-County Commuter `OjKE-R°` 10 2849 i 5 E STH ST E 5"�� z 2846 + I 220TH-ST-NE-uw ¢ �EI3RD w 2847 •5' Legend z > R 1549' a s3o 1550 �X Arlington City Limits N ` w a 161 162 z e0 f o e0 > < —I Q � Arlington UGA PIONEER-HWY-E SR•530 530 1535 1037 �1 ati� m �211Typ�Nf N O 4NEIT RD MORPN Ro �� State Highway z 2570 2569 a _ State Route r - 840 Y 1652 Streets g 2143 595 o4TH5T NE 2525 1651 2627 1647 Airport 265 266 2626 267 J9Rail line 200THSTNE _ _ 2523 2524 z w _ za�tGEN1ETERY�RD 200TH S Rest area 'a ? 2528 0 2529 — _ = F 197TH-ST-NE - ? - - - - 196TH PL-NE� N I z ?�., City of Marysville a z NSSNEt o l �o 0 2522 N = 2527 II > z 1��� P� - N - a z o > NND PL-NE- Jl\ w E m r, m 9 J m z UR/V © 2624 262 q ao 1611 z'9°TH p� Oc ¢ �I�• L� 188TH ST NE 253,1 2623 252 n % NE VV V. - 2482 L2530 2526 188TH-ST-NE S�7 Transit data provided by Community Transit. a O o 186TH ST NE CT Routes&Stops_GISData_Feb2015.zip[computer file. 1451 958 z 0o WO0 w ' ,,., I ry Community Transi,.Everett WA,via email.[February 2015] a -5 -A 9 2520 -��_ 0 2 m o �qi - _ Waterbodies provided by Snohomish County ,_-, J �S wAY 6o-NPR p FTP site,downloaded February 2015. > r gi9A ^ 1 <, 2' 182ND ST-NE— a w 180TH-ST-NE 0,1 /I _ n a = z ST( I - el/ I 180TH-ST-NE— c > BOVEE L A T Scale: = 1453 �� �,D r, I w 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles ? 1 z 'RY-G1.U8-ORm z o a 1847 2460 — a g =_� =_o �Lz ate: 2619 HIG= c 9� ^ o > 5/28/2015 205 207 1594 956 531 dp �� �= 0 1592 1448 SR.531 1.72ND-ST NE p 0 z I File: 2090 :E Figure2.6_11 x17_15 z 168TH-ST-NEB,f - ,� r-- 68TH z S166T Z T NE Z z Cartographer: _ 96O A� NE a MCPHERSON RD YZ < QQ kdh Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including Q - —— but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of 164TH ST NE 16LND p4 _ sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree Z to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of In or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. 236TH ST NE S RD GO a , /; PRV\NG�ON k"\N z City of Arlington = o A Z Trails & Parks z A �G O m Figure 2.7 a 1 �L Trails and Walkways Existing Parks Trail & Walkway Plan � SCNVOMPN�o r E•BURKE•AVE . • .• Future Trails �_� •� •*EGILMANAVEJ D KE RD -> E STH ST E w C_Z = a> ? 220TH ST NE- v-� I� > a w z3 o-¢E13RDST Legend Q ;� uO1i z z-Z E 2ND ST 1ST-ST - Arlington City Limits u Z M: a ��� Arlington UGA —PIONEER-HWY-E SRs3o— — 530 a < w n = r a LL __ - 21:1T ..�.,u..,�—I State Highway j F/pl O 4TVEIT RD MORPN R •�: I NEB -( �; i„ ¢ D State Route I _ Streets ST-NE-, —204THt5Tii N E,�•••••••••..� ; Airport • •Y 204THHtST-N E Rail line -200THtST NE'. • _, 9 Rest area •'� � ^� 200TH S = x 197TH-ST-NE _� y w City of Marysville z 196TH PL NE ti z l • C z 5i lklEl o > _ N S Q W A PO E5N a ¢ w ND PL--NE- z ¢ m 9 m z BURN ?'90TH PL NE W o < E V, 188TH ST NE" '..•>... - _ a 188THIST•NE •••' - 186TH PL NE _ • •F_ z WO q 186TH ST-NE • O : 00. O 3 �y9 Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County FTP site,downloaded February 2015. m : SWAY-z-N r- ZA p - > IIw • 9p : ?<� Q 182ND ST-NE— a w )180TH-ST-NE= �O,PT : = z i • rT ��l/ -180TH-ST-NE— \ c > I • --y �.� BOVEE LN o : Scale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles —rat+' �76TH PL NE-�< • o J z z > c .w 2 o Y-G1.0> \l z w ate: >z • 77 _ HIGM > 5/28/2015 0 •531 SRiI 33-172N -SINE••••'•' o" O z File: z J Figure2.71U17_15 4111 �......•..•.•••••.}168TH-ST NEB.1 N �68TH ST NE ZCartographer z 6T- z o v �•• A�NE .a MCPHERSON RD c, a Q kdh ry m Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS'without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including m 6tiN0 > -164TH ST NE but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of 1 pl = sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree Z F- to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of �^ or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. -236TH-ST-NE P w ¢ I /• �jON'N o City of Arlington z x Ao z 234TH-ST--NE D Q 7l m 19r a ��- _ Figure 2.8 x Lij > / r z j m � o Sewer Service Area N \N � �--• r:_ _� —-_ 1 - _ f E•GILMAN-Al ♦ DIKE Rp —>>-E-STH-ST E 5S� Legend r , a a f �220TH ST-NE-LbLTH z , z-9 2 E+3RD-SI Service Area Lij E 2ND-ST = �_ F •\`•-\ `-- ; E-1ISTis TF Arlington City Limits Arlington UGA a_ a u w xxi� Q AVE �SR-530 r �� PIONEER-HWY-E- -� LL TU o,'L v7 a State Highway 211TyP NE N O - NEIT.RD MORAN'RD D _N State Route -ST-NE-c Streets 204TH-ST--N E t Airport 204TH-ST-NE - - —1 L Z - Rail line 200TH-ST-NE Q 9 Z Z Rest area Z 200TH•ST-NE x x w I F 197TH-ST-NE rq N z o _ �196TH•PL NE1 9 z o z City of Marysville 0 I \— j O 5 _Q z 19"t" a w o N z Z G lG a o j / NND•PL--NE- sl. uu g �I1 p v m > VRiy� © J OR.m j RO i x ti 7 Oc ¢ `I 7 90TH•p(NEB rn Vv v E oo i88TH-ST-NE— ( a 188TH-ST-NE \186TH-PL-NE x� —II un p NO0 3 q 186TH-ST-NE Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County FTP site,downloaded February 2015. WAY--�-" a _ F_ 180TH•ST-NE 0,PTT182ND-ST-NE— el/� I 180TH ST NEB BOVEE-LN� o P IScale: D w� 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Q� 176THr NE N ? w N wzY-GVUg�pRmz oz � ate: Z HIG= D 9 F x N - ° 'o� Too 5/28/2015 o w J 531 _ SR•531 172NMT NE o 0 Ile: z m - o Figure2.8_11x17_15 168TH5TNE 8TH-ST-NE w �� Cartographer: ^' z i ` 0-166Fy z I\ ? ? v A�NE a \M6PHERSON Rp a o kdh H W H Q m m Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including m tiN Q 164TH-ST-NE but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of _ 16 D pl x sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree - Z F.- to indemnify,d fo efend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington r any and all liability of any nature arising out of \ m ^ or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. w a City of Arlington � 11 ieREF, �S �o I Z tOTID -7, F z .NP��1 kq0 u w Z z w z Figure 2.9 v m = ¢ C 238TH-ST-NE �� D 236�HSTNET—�—�N m / o°� F� Coordinated Water System Plan y w 234TH•STNE� ; �Q I and Water Service Area 1yTy 2\ = HEVLY-RD tiF OP `•t ti VOMPNf > SOH F—2.28TH-ST-N E EGILMA DIKE-RD Legend z a . E•5TH ST E-5- 1 CWSP and Service Area E-3RD-ST _o > m z O E2NDST RD KNUTSO� a Y/ z Arlington City Limits 21.2TH•ST-NW�'PIONEER HWy E 5R'530 530 Arlington UGA 3 Pending ari•Ty-p�Nf EIHIGHLAND-DR TVEIT•RD MORAN•RD Z addition I o �� State Highway e to cwsP 204TH-ST-NE State Route 204TH-ST NE Streets PO• __ 200TH•ST-N E 9 ETERYRD I Airport CEM 200TH-ST-N E Z I sP c o z `'03ROA� 1p Rail line w I F yE Z —194TH ST NW !� a w > z x x z ? ((((���� m 2RD 1 Rest area I� x © ra a o f m O6Ty9 L��� Ir m I 90TH•Pt-Nf I F2 City of Marysville 188TH-ST NE 188TH-ST NE 188TH-ST-N E / P2 z 'v �z w � RO z I• �w z �tOp n 186TH•ST-NE j Q N a > °� o I1 a l ��� a —182ND ST NE NE w E 180TH-ST-NE- a E a o z O = m I = > ^ o z do —a z�r a', / S x L v O m w � Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County 531 FTP site,downloaded February 2015. LAKEWOOD•RD•HWY•534 x SR -72ND•ST•NE J z � I � � m a = 168TH-ST-NF NScale: ? z MCPHERSON-RD 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 Miles > ? Li Q a M > cF� GRAE-RD�NW = z Q -i I FL1u64TH ST NE p Z co �Z j u 00 z Q z �9p m ate: _— qT`'�F I m Q x (16pTtiS NE 5/28/2015 v q0� x F- i �6 TH-ST-NE ~ ~ 156TH-ST-NE E-m ^ ~^ I File: w 9F� J Figure2.9_11x17_15 z 152ND-ST-NE Q z Cartographer w kd h 3 Z 148TH-ST-NE —.m- a f z > v Z H w Q o N w z ti O a S P Ma s and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of an kind either express or implied,including Q _> _ I w ,y P Y P P 9 � _.. > but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of z �_ —144THrST•NE q0 Q 26` sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree z --- 143RD —NE I F = to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of RD m or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. z z \ City of Arlington h z 1 Twin Rivers a ¢ �\ �p Park Country Charm ui F- Haller Park ParkFigure oz 2. 10 wetlandStormwat Parks and Recreation z Park Facilities ,V E GILMAN AVE• 'gyp DIKE RD r P� 9 —/ ; { Terrace SRO > E 5TH ST, Park z a� Centennial — Legend • E Park 1 _ E 3RD-ST Legion Trails \ Park ^� Lebanon :p Parks Park �y .p 5so 5R•530 ' :Z. Arlington City Limits 'E HIGHLAND DR- ' • .L T'p0:1..• MORPH RD Arlington UGA 01. + ' J� �v� Jensen Park �� State Highway —204TH-ST-NE 1 i 204TH-ST-NE— State Route - High Clover Park z 200THST-NE _ i • Streets Q CEMETERY RD,,,• 200TH-ST-N E Airport o z z Paz a P o Z Rail line a Waldo E. ?Q � • w a , w a z Field a m BURN_R Rest area s _ © c O �o�A z raili1 9 o N —188TH ST NE O—ri,- ..�:i-AL:-�7ort�,.i��.• - 2� a ..••'188TH'-ST-NE W E Bill Quake M Memorial Park z .O0 1 \ + ; 0 186TH-ST-NE S York ,~,� •• O 1 I I •z Cal : _`i O > 11 ,! if �'S' IIr{') Waterbodies provided by Snohomish County � Boys and Kinney , e o , �� 9 U FTP site,downloaded February2015. z Memorial Park m •� Girls Club �Q Feld `^ �I �o qi ` I x ►j qy-- -^ O� 2 Scale: EAGV� Trailt _ 182ND ST NE 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 180TH ST-NE Park `BOVEE LN� _ F, y'L NE �'- -'�. 1 w w� z Date: ~ J ' Z Z u N • '� z � Woodway Park o o � 5/28/2015 GHQ ................... ; • ~ �� z File: N a. Wedgewood a f + 531 Park S Figure2.10_11x17_15 y R�531• '__-••••L72 N D•ST•N E O I_ Cartographer: o z g w z oY-168TH•S T NE � / kd h1-5 z w Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied, x T I MCPH � z including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled mv� ERSON RD— j from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their ti Q own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability m �— N of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. 1 _ �' 164TH ST NE City of Arlington w v z w Z ¢ T7234TH-ST-NE // Figure 2. 11 c. z I on s = f �y � � N Rp _- Fire Service Area i Zfn �,w 1 SCHt'OMP" " I zz _ E•BURKE•AVE 70R�gN, b E Gli AVE gyp\ DIKEiRD > >-E STH•ST E 5 LL ¢ Legend I > ¢ _�220TH-ST-NE-w a -a I w I 2 3-�-Q-E H3RD•ST Z Z-z E iNDI ST _ r� _ Also City F > LLET-ST 11 F 11Y11 Fire Service Area -1S limits � f Q U Q w xQ Arlington UGA SR•530 530 -5 x �p Av PIONEER-HWY E >. j � A-1 21�1.T J NE �' g� T.VEIT RD �MORAN..RD Q N State Highway i T� _ ASH-ST-NE r � State Route �O Z �r 204TH-ST-NE w f I � , , Streets 204TH-ST-N E- Q a ! i10Airport --200TH-ST-NE Rail line x 197TH-ST-NE x F. - H H w S u - - 196TH-PL-NEB TI z Rest area a z I 95j"s Z.NE cp G �> \ 1 w °� City of Marysville a z o O m NND-PL-NE- � w a LJl z a� N o w x m w Q I -NE Z f/ �R/ , E 188TH 8T NE JIB ¢ W � 188TH-ST-NE 186TH PL-NE x� m � C OR9, w Fq 186TH-ST-NE \ Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County _ ¢ z O > O 'n �'y j FTP site,downloaded February 2015. — O o, �� z O / o 182ND ST-NE- 180TH•ST-N E O,QT J 180TH'ST-NE A Q Scale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I r -� BOVEE•LN� o a 'yPL NEI " ' I I I I (—� ,-DR n w w t J� 176TH•PL-NE Q\ i O g IQ J ¢ ZRwG�U ;R Z _ ate: 5/28/2015 H IG' � � a F -F- �¢ o 0 J 531 SR•531��—„ o Ile: m 172NDiST NE o 0 v1sT-PLm 11- Z �T Z Figure2.11_11x17_15 169TH PL >NE- a I z ( + Z ¢ artographer: > a x I �oz vm QI—16Ty8TAH-- ~¢ 1\ Co u�t�w r TH-ST- 1� >¢ kd h166NE VICPHERSO n N RD ti Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including — —--- -- i but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of m1 sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of / 164TH-ST-N E or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. w = 234THST-NEB/ z City of Arlington m z w Z w Airport parcels 1, 155 acres 0 1 Figure 2. 12 owned parcels 313 acres City Owned Properties City p , J°RI)lV E GILMAN-AVE/ a —j-a ESTHST a Z a—U•�_ _ Q F- ��_1 Legend x �-Q-E 3RD S T z z Z z E15TSTP Arlington City Limits w t _ - - R530 Arlington UGA S - PIONEER HWY E - • ��a � r E HIGHLAND•DR--g TVEIT-RD ' \ State Highway o �� State Route —204TH ST-NE ' A� ■ Streets — / O I �- 204TH ST NE f Airport \ z 200TH-ST-NE n� 200TH-ST-NE Rail line Q Z�—w C4,, pG - z Z w P2 Rest area 1 F_ a z 9Q m a N o -;0 w � u, 188TH ST NE O—j—- W v e E+ 188TH ST-NE :?, F� LQ m O I 7 s -Z / S �OQ �' 186TH ST NE — Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County Q Z O m n FTP site,downloaded February 2015. 9 ? m F wqy m-0Pf /2� p f 782ND ST-NE— � Cale: z e6L 180TH ST NE-^ BOVEE-LN 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 1 'yPL NEB -�DR z w I I I I F- w O z > N > Q G w K ¢ ` aRv c��e oR � I Q ? ate: 5/28/2015 SR 531 T ile: 17-2ND-ST•NE o o Z Figure2.12_11x17_15 ' w I artographer: o—168TH ST NE 7 a kdh wr D m T, I Z N MCPHER$° m �+ RD > Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including < but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of —— — 164TH ST NE or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. City of Arlington Figure 2. 13 Skagit County School District Boundaries TAN OD NO 401 z Legend 2 300th St NW 300th St NW FLU' S CO 00 W Gtardview Rd z Q DARRINGTON NO 330 j Public Schools N on SR 532 � � Wood Bryant Rd � Arlington City Limits p/ Arlington School o�eer Hwy 252nd St NE iS D District Creek Rd orman Surrounding School N �a m Districts 28th St NE Interstate N. State Routes �a W _ /—` Major Roads z cs > a Cities akew od Rd o M SR 531 1 2n t NE LAKE OOD O 306 1 N Ge 2 n E w th St NW z 140th St E a) w W E� z Q � G�� > a Mountain Loop ytyy S y 0�. Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County © U-1 �d�R FTP site,downloaded February 2015. z a 108ti St NE > RANITE FALLS NO 332 MARYSVILLE NO 25 z MARYSVILLE Cr) GRANITE FALLS Scale: 0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles Q> ;88t t NE C) I I 84th St NE 84th St NE N 06 ate: 0 Gr v 5� z m 5/28/2015 eOCNE St 64th St NE > m Ile: > N �,ti �� Figure2.13_11x17_15 70 t" A E STEV NO 4 artographer: N W z a kd h o- S v EVERETTNO 2 0 Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS'without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including OIN but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of _ S Z sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of �q. or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. -236TH•ST-NE �S RD ILI �� , \\ t�' ��'.S; 1 City of Arlington kl z = 4 0 \\z • �' 234TH•ST-NE o B , � P V\NIS \\, �_ 2� _- w� ��- - - W o 1' Figure 2. 14 B m���, �� a I ��� Topography a , 6- 7 �D 111 rV � E•BURKE•AVE - — •� `�- - E GILMAN AVE �O c � DIKE-RD-- „p9 �� i3..s.i• .�` �� � ., ,� c. ;¢ E-STH•ST� -E_5•(�S� Legend 1 A z > a a �— r Qt e F•�o _ - �` �a_> 11S, zO..atiW " io220TH ST NE Z ;w 1� 20+ contours sJ E3RDST- z < III z z E zND sr � •� EISTST r� - - 0 Moderate to steep slopes �] N -._f _ - • _ WPQ a W Arlington City Limits a U w FV --PIONEER HWY E SR-530 530 _� a N e, a IP c!Ie 211Ty - / -}' �-:, a °aNEIT-RD Arlington UGA NE p� O �� 1� MORPN RD I - / J w ¢� i �� _• , N 0 State Highway - r'� 1 �,(N ST N E State Route `rs - -204TH ST NE - - - /. -� l/. ;` i �•� II \.. J 204TH ST NE o- ` •\ `i i�.I Streets 1 f ` a 200TH ST NE 9 a -z '�,. Airport - ,�� w > 00TH-ST-NE a Rail line W r i f /� ,�• Qo 197TH-ST-NE. 196TH PL NE N C7 .0 D O ) z a �!< `�� z w ,�CD a _�a -TIE, s S cq �GP ' �.' Rest area 0 0 z r: �l l 9SIN S O �� 1 ,14 p 0 1 P a _� - I. a z �{ \ o o City of Marysville z _� a �NDPL:NE- s9 m Z \ c,u _� o r� ORW RO �\ N z _ _ NE E ST NE a— 188TH-ST NE- VV 186TH PL NE f v f OO WOO t4zi o \` L86TH-ST NE S O z s l p `� Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County 0 p I �.I, Z PF`^ p ® 9� FTP site,downloaded February 2015. z - q m I ' SwAV-z-N<; 2�•- Q O , a > /I9.o v mac ' yi 182ND''ST NE < - uJ - �180TH ST NE .%. _ z r f I Tel( 1801H�ST-NE^t:. --- m > `-� 1 ..` O,� BOVEE LN �� 4 0_, �', , Cale: D� i- A II w � 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles AT ~n Q 176TH-PL NE �,.. N [y W \ r > r z �,�� ¢ CRY CLUB DR=�o z o a < <. 1 _ _ z '' ate: HI�=r �j co Q L\ o a 1 5/28/2015 531 l+ - o SR•531 < A F- } - J 1.72ND•ST-NE o Ir, O � File: a j ` z ,1 ✓ G I 1 \ � Figure2.14 11x17 15 +I +.,'„ T 168TH ST-NE yCJ - ti ` z N `< �• ,�. 0.166T ' I� - �68TH ST NE W q' �, artographer: z z ? NE' MCPHERSON HD < ` C 1\ kdh Maps and GIs data are distributed AS IS without warranties of any kind either express or implied including < �4 64TH STONE but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use Map data are compiled from a variety of v U sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk Users agree '1•=_=_- Z H > to indemnify,defend and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. Soil Units C RD City of Arlington pR�tNGj � TA Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Norma loam Sulsavar gravelly loam 5 Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams Norma variant loam Sultan silt loam f w Figure 5 m Bellingham silty clay loam Pastik silt loam Sumas silt loam > U.S. Soil Conservation a Cathcart loam Pilchuck loamy sand Terric Medisaprists Custer fine sandy loam Pits Tokul gravelly medial loam S�HVoMPN/ Soil Survey Everett gravelly sandy loam Puget silty clay loam Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex Kitsap silt loam Puyallup fine sandy loam Tokul-Winston gravelly loams E ug R<E•AVE '✓ E•GILMAN-AVE/ p• Lynnwood loamy sand Ragnar fine sandy loam Urban land -RD S�� °y2 McKenna gravelly silt loam Riverwash Water j w Q Q-E-5TH-ST E 5 1� Ro � a Mukilteo muck Snohomish silt loam - o G a o 9 Le end z a E 3RD-ST z Z EzIN lsr Arlington City Limits _ E-1ST-ST N Arlington UGA w � a-p x a J�J �1�2 u wState Highway IONEER HWY E— 530 - LL �� J 'L L-bVEIT-RD MpRpN R State Route w Qt _ h ' T_� SN ST INC '�� Streets 204T HIS T NE I Airport 204TH ST NE w Rail line Z 200TH ST NE— a 9 Rest area Z 200TH-ST-NE _ = w I197TH-ST-NE `rP, City of Marysville z '1-196TH•PL--NE-1 `0 z O Q w z o �• AND PL NE v B, O a LI K ¢ m 9 m z V/j/� z i L E 188TH ST NE ?J I 00 w 188TH-ST-NE _ 1-4 H•PL-NE x� pO w0� 3 q 186TH ST NE Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County �0 9� FTP site,downloaded February 2015. > 180TH�ST-NE R'� `^ WAY �-� Z' 182ND ST-NE ¢ O,PT l n o t= z el/� �\ I 180TH ST NE gOVEE LN cL � � 76T Cale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles PF' 1H•PL NE W� ° z z I r I r N [y Z ate: 5/28/2015 J 531 SR 531 172ND ST NE o s a"o � File: z m o Figure2.15_11x17_15 a 168TH ST NE Y J68TH ST NE w 4 Cartographer: z 0 166Ty z z 2 o ! Al NE a MCPHERSON RD a Q i kdh x D " w Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including -' r" Q 1647H ST NE but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of —•—-- 16�'N�pl = sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree Z F- to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of r^ or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. Drainage Basins Other Middle MS Stillaguamish River City Of Arlington Eagle Creek Other Upper SF Stillaguamish River o. Z MF Quilceda Creek Portage Creek o a /; Figure 2. 16 March Creek Unnamed Burn Road Creek �I' R� Major Waterbodies and Upper Stilla s/N�OMPN �` Other Lower MS Stillaguam Upp MS uamish River River g Drainage Basins Other Lower SF Stillaguamish River wF Quilceda Creek \ E,B 'oRoq j a E STH ST E e - 220TH ST NE O w J Legend 2 3 J Q E 3RD ST z m z z z z z Arlington City Limits Arlington UGA Q O U a > c U Z 2 Q SR•530 a U w u7 530 a LL 2 State Highway 211Typ�NE N - i TVEIT RD MORAN RD 'youth Slo - w 5 State Route O p1SH ST-NE-r 17� ti Streets q 204TH ST NE w A I Y n w z Airport z 204TH-ST-NE o c�ek I _ Rail line ITII 200TH-ST-NE M / a 9 < - I�"T Rest area 197TH•ST--NE J 196TH-P NE % w - z City of Marysville o q z z 5SH"Sj,NE % m O o > 19 z z 9 GP = a NND PL-NE- Gl w o ri U �, Z N © m w m I90T H-Pt,NE\ z �- °' W E 188TH ST NE - 188TH ST NE oo� 186TH PL NE y I m z O p 2 186TH-ST-NE Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County z O O ;� �y FTP site,downloaded February 2015. O 0 v p 9 Bjorn Creek o 182ND ST NE 180TH ST NE RAO'f'l N � z �� °coo 180TH ST NE A c Scale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles > >T BOVEE LN o a 'yPLNE W�DR w w 176TH PL NE z N � G w � Z ate: _ 5/28/2015 a s HIG C ^ > 00 531 File: m SR 631 172ND ST NE o ll-1S T PL 1- w z w Figure2.16_1 1 x1 715 169TH PL NE m a z Z � � w a Cartographer: � a 168TH ST NE a � i- 1, w '68TH ST NE 11' z kdh m �NE MCPHERS. � � rn ON RD Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of m sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of 164TH ST N E— or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. > 236THnST NE NE�G O ARLINGr z ? Ao Z 234THSTNE Wellney AR\NG°N Oi City of Arlington 7 w w Z G Q A � ry,� Gl w w w Figure 2. 17 Haller Well Field Aquifer Recharge Areas z M s F s c� P Q i'll N Rp Q ciand City Wells _ N 6BURKE•AVE E GILMAN AVE DIKE RD w Oj > Q E 5TH ST E 5"�� Legend S Q- U O 220TH S7 NEu N1 a O a w2j O o a E 3RD sr City Wells w r.O1i z z z E 2ND ST Low aquifer sensitivity E 1ST ST = - N Q > W w Q Z� o = a Medium aquifer sensitivity E �sR s3o 530 N c �� �ti� High aquifer sensitivity PIONEER HWY E 211TyP(NE w O Y' - Z) LTVEIT-RD MORANRD w Q Arlington City Limits N ti Z ,.KH ST NE ! Arlington UGA � O 04TH ST NE w Z � �� State Highway w o 204TH ST NE D o � Z State Route 200TH ST NE M m a 9 Streets w w Z 200TH ST NE 197TH ST NE `fy ti w ��'O 196TH PL NE o % Z Airport gSjNSj'NE� ro c9o� "I a Rail line _ z Rest area L a ^ z o > NND Pi,NE m w BU q = W w RD © a City of Marysville x c a 1-9OTH p(NE = TT w m 1V Z � 188TH ST NE > 188TH-ST-NE 1 186TH Pi NE x f- w M 0 � � �� W E z Airport o woo q 186TH ST NE a Well Field o W > ° m `y v7 m o 0 11 w m / OS WAY o HP u, - '- 9�z Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County a 180TH•ST NE A'OO,PT a a` 182ND ST NE FTP site,downloaded February 2015. 180TH ST NE C BOVEE LN Scale: a P ti >T 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles NE 4 DR h L n A I I I �� -NE z 6TH• o z N = Z o �2Ry CIpB pF a z z o a > a ��o o m ate: Z 0 - x - n 2 2 � oo z m H c 7 Q o 5/28/2015 IG 531 „ w J SR.531--��172ND ST!NE o w Ile: ce Q o ' z Figure2.17_11x17_15 = a 1, 168TH Sr NE � �° N Y 5 68TH ST NE"11 artograp er: z 0 166Th, z z z m _+ 'n A( NE < MCPHERSON RD ? QO kdh Ny N M Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including mbut not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of 161N10 p 164TH ST NE sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree ( to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of 2rn or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. = w 234TH ST NE , / ` ' City of Arlington Q National Wetland Inventory City Parks a "; , Figure 2.18 City-Mapped Wetlands • Restoration Projects PNR°� Critical Areas, Open Space °M & Restoration Projects NGPA & Critical Area Easements O Moderate to steep slopes E.BUR(E.AVE °RDgN E GILMAN-AVE _ 90 z j S� A� j > E 5TH ST > ¢ a t(t 220TH ST NE z =,a U p V H D Q � - F o aE3RDST _ _- ✓ E 2ND ST z f rc - L1vwr .. E1ST-ST �' �z ��` Legend I' > t— ..._. Z 1 �F Arlington City Limits PIONEER HWY E 530---- __ - 2 g 233Typ p `TVEIT RD Arlington UGA NE a - _ r N f �� State Highway zoo (H 5T NE State Route '204TH ST NE __ ��1!'"- �..; ��,rLx•. . �, 1l Imo:_ W Streets Z 204TH ST NE a % Airport -200TH ST-NE 9 Rail line Q Q 197TH ST NE , Rest area 196TH PL NE NE a W City of Marysville o S O a �lq ••,f z u,f 195jHj W �OzC - z x T G F _ I I a w. i .. ND PL NE 1 V © ` m m ; n i oc a cot_ IyOT H Pt NE _ 0 Ca. - z 188TH?ST•NE w __ W ' E -188TH ST NE 186TH PL NE' F F S .'• ` OQ 186TH ST NE Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County °o N o ^� �y FTP site,downloaded February 2015. 2� 2 SC1 }180TH ST NEB O A P'`' `r 182ND ST NE - RT Scale: e!/�� I -- 180TH ST NE i•. w 0 0.25 COY ,� 1 Miles > >>T - BOVEE LN o a yPL NE \ / 14 DR A I 176TH PL NE �C "' O z z {J ut `..,� > C w cc N -w ✓' z �Ry CWg DR W o a J ate: Q g =� Z l 5/28/2015 z o x c m z ` rc HIG = 531 File: SR•531-17, m I I 2ND-ST•NE o O 171ST PL I- II W Figure2.18 11x17 15 a � — — 169TH PL NE a z w --- t z Q Cartographer:w � o� _ r -I yo 168TH ST NE- a -~1 Z ~ �68TH ST NE �_5 ^ z kdh MCPHERSON N :-"... ,n RD Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of ^l m� sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of 164TH ST NE or resulting from the Zack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. LiLiquefaction Susceptibility _ city of Arlington q /' w Figure 2.19 IL A high low Geologic Hazards moderate to high very low to low r � S�H�OMPN RO h E BURKE AVE �OROgN moderate very IOW EGILMANAVE E7low to moderate y > a a ESTHST 220TH ST NE w x a ❑ x 3 J Q E 3RD ST ' ) A a s o� r � Z Z Z E 2ND ST �� _ x W EISTST Legend w o a w z Arlington City Limits PIONEER HWY E SR 530 530 Arlington UGA 21LTy.l�\1V E ^ g NETT RD MORAN RD State Highway oil SH ST-NE State Route 204TH ST NE w l V Streets w Z I _o Z 204TH•ST-N E > a I Q Airport - - Z 200TH ST NE M c 41 w - a 9 m Rail line a Q I ❑ 197TH-ST-NE Rest area NE-PL-NE-J �!Q w f o rf I Z a ��< Z--W 5jN SjNE City of Marysville o o 1g Z Oz P2P0 BG�2 x '~ U v o �ND•PL NE m Z w N © m W w m `° I90TH P,tNE x w H 00 W E Z - rA 188TH ST NE 1 ¢� 188TH ST-NE 186TH-PL-NE x� C OQ - w q 186TH ST NE Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County FTP site,downloaded February 2015. f 180TH•ST--NE /I 182ND ST NE Z °Z1, I 180TH-ST-NE-- Scale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles ��j2 BOVEE LN o r l w W Z� JF' 1.76TH•PL-NE > � w � w N � Z CRY e pR Z ate: z o n =H o Z i" 5/28/2015 cc � G' C � x w 531 File: m SR•531� 1,72NDrST NE _ v 1715T-PLm Z I - Z Figure2.19_11x17_15 ZT Z 169TH-PL-NE� a a Cartographer: I > O� _i Q-168TH•ST--NEVI a F w Z � `\}\ 58TH-ST NE ti� °' Z kdh 1 o v �-166TyA� a NE--� ( MCPHERSO rn N RD Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including -- - but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of m sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of 164TH ST NE or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented 1n the maps. z 234TH-ST-NE��- City of Arlington z m w v 1 w Z a / � b� ¢ u, Figure 2.20 o M Z m oy , a z M Adopted Floodway m z and Floodplain - E•BURKE•AVE vR�gN <o E-GILMAN•AVE/ PO DIKE-RD� T ] w ��S Q-Q-EWH•ST E 5 `-220TH-STNE z -'� 1 -V-O Legend -?n-Q•E 31RMT z �♦ z Z-Z E-2ND•ST 2011 Adopted Floodway a w E-isr-sT �_ w a a w z X 2011 Adopted Floodplain � 100 year flood lain as mapped b FEMA SR1530 530 _� w ' Av Y p pp Y PIONEER•HWY E ti 21 LTy p O ��`NEIT RD t 4NE I �MORAN F Arlington City Limits N Arlington UGA oilSH-ST-NE-C State Highway -O 204TH ST NE w I n � w q w 204TH-ST-NE �� State Route 10 o s z + 200TH-ST-NE ^ e Streets M g w m IL `\ Z w Z ^p \ m Airport 197TH-ST-NE T ~ z 196TH-PL--NE� I �l0 w Rail line l z O z`> 195tNSC Rest area ND-P E- C L-N \1 oj w O w City of Marysville © o pc ° N w � I90T H NE F- eo Z m 188TH-ST-NE w I ¢— 188TH-ST-NE `iT° E 186TH-PL-NE x� Vv OO�� m-o - 186TH-ST-NE 1\ ¢ O Z 0O > R' n$ f o J a ~ OO Q' � o � �o Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County z m rw z�P a _ ,q� a, ( gy�rI a 2 FTP site,downloaded February 2015. o 182ND ST-NE- 180TH ST NE ROOQT JN A a 180TH'ST-NE BOVEE•LN W Scale: 0 0.25 0.5 1 Mlles O � a 'yPL NEI / t�� 176TH•PL-NE Q\ I O 8 IQ w Z �Rv-c�� �R � � Z � = i Date: z o = > =-o ��Z 5/28/2015 N - HIG' QnX so f1p � ile:531 R.s31 NDSNE 1 72 1sT-PL 1, 2 Z I - Figure2.20_11x17_15 ' T u w 169TH-PL--NE- Za z ¢> -. l w > - artographer: ' I o = Y-168TH-ST-NE ¢ � � � w '68TH kdh o i-166Ty _ \ ¢ 4 NE MCPHERs f 1 ONIRD Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree ' to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of ��1154TH-ST-NE- or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. �a0 ' NE`GN�S z Comcast (Detailed Approximate City of Arlington 0 Information) Location 0 o Figure 2.21 Strand Frontier o Broadband In Arlington Area Underground Wave `, ` E BURKEAVL Vault /1 EGILMAN V -AVE Data provided by Comcast, 4DIKE•Ro—� Frontier and Wave (May 2015) E srA sr' E��5� Conduit Route o . 220TH ST NE 0 > t;++ffw x E3RDST Z'< Z E2NDST =� ¢� �, z E15TST _ Legend 0 UNION ST x a w � ENE Arlington City Limits —SR-5300, z x > O P PIONEER HWYE 530 W - C5 Arlington UGA 211?y u ¢ TVEIT RC MORANRD A�NE E HIGHLAND DR w State Highway N' y a o PORTAGE-ST N 207,TH ST NF _ I � oA,�HST_NE State Route i Jn 'V r 204TH ST NE Streets 204TH ST NE 0 m Airport w 200TH ST N E - m �a z z wCEMETERYRD 9 Rail line z 200TH ST NE 0 197TH ST NE � ,rP 196TH PL NE Rest area z p W NE o 92 z > �� z z 1g5j."S GPI o City of Marysville a < w oR �¢ o Z ¢ O PL NE < m m d' a = G\ Q w .� d90' p! w eN 188TH ST NE z O1 188TH ST NE I + — 188TH ST NE YV E 186TH FIL NE t o w ►rv� O O z Z O z� m 186TH ST NE o w � S q a _ O j z �z Y A �9 Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County w m O = w Hoo m �-o� FTP site,downloaded February 2015. 182ND ST NE 180TH ST NE r aP z J YID ;� BOVEE LN Cale: Q c 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles "n = Q� 1,TyPL NE 176TH PL NE -' '~ —� 6) Z w P w z p Q o III o =jo o-� m ate: a n v�w _ oo �z m a F 2 w SR 531 a HIGH j F O�Q °'o. �¢ 5/28/2015 o 0 531 s 172ND ST NE �(A t � o_ 171ST PL m o �eD 'o ile: 169THtP,L NE `Z s Z z Figure2.21_11x17_15 11111' W I �Ew 168TH ST NE w O� w > Z OY 166TyA �68TH ST NE Iti Z 2 artographer: o z —� NE N MCPHERS N RD O ° a kdh z a m 162 j 164TH ST NE Maps and GIS data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including P Q but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of 2 = sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk.Users agree rn ^ to indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. -107— F ! i RN City of Arlington 101ST AVE_NE Proposed Water Reservoir .'' Figure 2.22 I ■ . 101STAVE NE Brekhus Beach Proposed Z. ''� Infrastructure a GELROY RD PlanningLevel Data N � U Legend - -VE.NE — �. Proposed Water Mains j Proposed ROW 95TH.AVE NE Underground Gas Line 2 J - - �-- - - I - - -- - -� - -� �� I Sewer Mains Water Mains — — — — — l Power lines Z Public Right of Way 100, Private Roads* cc Assessor parcels �z •I __ _89THAVE j Brekhus/Beach Neighborhood a I _ ol u, Ln x j Arlington City Limits • j - // J�� j Arlington UGA 1 s •�.� III �,��•�� \ �' 'Not all private roads shown -�� �'�— • ` .� Waterbodies and streams provided by Snohomish County FTP site,downloaded February 2015. S'STILLAGU II ISH VE-- L �—� j •- I I o II •J' •�• - Scale: •,i 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Miles ,CROWN RIDGE BLVD� •�;�= 1 i�I ��•�_•_._I �� .� �'s�"_ •�i•�•�• c� i ate: -•• "�'��. gzsro - — 9 E�NI I �'�• 0 7/24/2015 CL j a 11 u m� ��. 6�Po� �_� File: —.T--S IENCHFAVEz �——x ( l �2_ ►t�i/ ��•—•� O`I Syg v �— - �hI ��`�i � •�zoQ� I j PEAK1PL 5 Figure2.22_11 x17_15 80TH AVILNE Q-DUNHAMAVEr �O�j ( ����`• h aJ � Cartographer: � � LO 9THDRNE!B , kd h�� =S MACLE �I : ( /? j — _�CIAVE=_j �I •� i ) I� p� BALLANTRAE!DR Maps and GIs data are distributed"AS-IS"without warranties of any kind,either express or implied,including r' , I -� I I I I I Il but not limited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use.Map data are compiled from a variety of ` •1 '` IlP,�' + I / I I ~ sources w ich may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk Users agree SALYM 1 l p\ � � nto indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of • • I I �, �.�.I or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness of the data,or the use of the data presented in the maps. Chapter 3: Goals and Policies City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft 3 Goals and Policies OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES GO-1 Ensure City Goals and Policies are consistent with the Growth Management Act. GO-2 Continue to provide effective stewardship over the natural and built environments within the City, ensuring harmony between both environments through application of best practice techniques. GO-3 Work towards promoting and maintaining an urban environment within the City that enhances livability for its residents. GO-4 Continue to use local resources and encourage local involvement in community actions. This should include continued encouragement of public and private involvement in community traditions, as well as encouragement of volunteerism. GO-5 Diversify recreational opportunities and cultural activities within the City. GO-6 Preserve and promote Arlington's "small town" character. Policies: PO-6.1 Site design and building architecture in residential and commercial developments should be human-scaled (i.e., pedestrian friendly) and conducive to social interaction. PO-6.2 Residential plats (subdivisions) should be designed to encourage pedestrian activity through incorporation of amenities such as, but not limited to, sidewalks on both sides of the street, street furniture, street trees, and pedestrian paths connecting the plat to adjacent residential, commercial, educational, or recreational facilities. PO-6.3 Mini Parks should be required in new residential developments or a "fee-in-lieu of' paid to the City. PO-6.4 Land-use developments should be conducive to social interaction. PO-6.5 Both publicly and privately owned civic spaces should be included in both commercial and residential neighborhoods to ensure adequate gathering places for residents. PO-6.6 Design Guidelines/Standards should be established, maintained, and enforced, in order to ensure that all new development both within the Private and Public Realms are in harmony with the desired character of each respective neighborhood subarea. 3-1 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PO-6.7 All land use decisions and other relevant City decisions will be reviewed against these planning goals and policies -- including Countywide Planning Policies and Multi-County Planning Policies—to ensure internal and external consistency. HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES GH-1 Diversify the City's housing stock. Policies: PH-1.1 A variety of housing types and densities should be encouraged on lands with a residential land-use designation. PH-1.2 Detached Accessory Dwelling Units should be permissible in residential zones. PH-1.3 Mobile and manufactured home parks should be permissible in the City subject to specific site plan requirements. PH-1.4 Adequate housing opportunities for residents with special housing needs should be provided within the City. PH-1.5 Different classes of group homes should be permissible in residential neighborhoods. P14 1.6 We zoning designations within the City's unineor-par-ated Urban Growth Area gfeatef than fifty aer-es and slated for- residential development shettid pr-evide for- a mi* of hotising types and densities. GH-2 Ensure the development of new multi-family housing and small single-family units occur within close proximity to commercial areas within the City. Policies: PH-2.1 Multi-family housing should be located close to commercial and employment centers, transportation facilities, public services, schools, and park and recreation areas. PH-2.2 Cottage Housing should be incentivized in moderate and high density residential areas within the City. PH-2.3 Utilize Mixed Use mechanisms to incentivize housing within close proximity to commercial uses. GH-3 Ensure stable residential neighborhoods through public investment in infrastructure and by preserving existing housing stock. Policies: PH-3.1 Funds should be adequately budgeted for periodic maintenance of existing infrastructure in residential neighborhoods throughout the City. 3-2 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PH-3.2 A long-term plan should be developed for bringing neighborhoods that lack adequate infrastructure up to the City's current design and streetscape standards, including trails for pedestrian connectivity. - GH-4 Encourage the development of special needs housing within the City. Policies: PH-4.1 The City should support the development of housing for the elderly, handicapped, and other special needs populations through the allowance of mixed-use housing, group housing, and other housing types. PH-4.2 Senior housing should be located in close proximity to hospitals, public transportation routes, retail/service centers, and parks. GH-5 Encourage a quality housing stock within the City. Policies: PH-5.1 The City should develop and maintain Development Design Guidelines/Standards that address aesthetic and environmental design issues for single-family and multi- family residential development. PH-5.2 The City should coordinate with willing neighborhood-based groups and other volunteer organizations to promote housing rehabilitation efforts. PH-5.3 The City should promote the conservation of housing through investment in the infrastructure serving residential areas (storm drainage, street paving, and recreation). PH-5.4 The City should maintain code enforcement programs to catch problems early, avoid extensive deterioration of housing units, and to motivate owners to repair and improve maintenance of their structures. PH-5.5 The "Old-Town" residential area of the City should be protected as a traditional, single-family neighborhood by allowing only single-family, accessory dwellings, and duplexes that are compatible with the neighborhood in terms of use, design, and setback. PH-5.6 The City should encourage weatherization of housing units and disseminate information regarding assistance available from the electric and gas utility companies, charitable organizations, and public agencies. GH-6 Establish and maintain a streamlined permitting processing to help create predictability for customers. Policies: PH-6.1 The City should maintain streamlined permit processing procedures, centralized counter services, pre-application conferences, printed information summarizing permit approval requirements, standards and specifications, area-wide environmental 3-3 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft assessments, concurrent permit and approval processing, permit and approval deadlines, and single hearings. GH-7 Increase the opportunity for all residents to purchase or rent safe, and sanitary housing through incentives and other programs. Policies: PH-7.1 The Planning Commission should review State and federal housing programs and make recommendations to City Council regarding future grant applications. PL-7.2 The City should coordinate with willing neighborhood-based groups or other volunteer organizations to promote rehabilitation and community revitalization efforts. PL-7.3 The City should support agency and nonprofit organizations in the creation of housing opportunities to accommodate the homeless, elderly, physically or mentally challenged, and other segments of the population who have special needs. GH-8 Promote and facilitate the provision of affordable housing in all areas and zoning districts of the City. Policies: PH-8.1 The City should work to ensure that housing options for low- and moderate-income households are: a) dispersed throughout the City to discourage a disproportionate concentration of such housing in any one geographical area of the City; b) are located near amenities such as commercial and employment areas, transportation facilities, and recreational opportunities and; c) are inclusive of a variety of housing types. PH-8.2 The City should continue to support and participate in regional housing cooperatives such as Snohomish County's Alliance for Affordable Housing and other regional organizations that promote affordable housing. PH-8.3 The City should support and encourage private developers and organizations who seek to provide below-market housing units by utilizing various tools such as a) allowing alternative development types (e.g. ADUs, Clusters, Cottage Housing, Small Lots, Zero-Lot Lines, Bungalow Courts), b) implementing regulatory tools (e.g. Mixed Use, Inclusionary Zoning, SEPA Exemption, Flexible Development Standards, Performance Standards), c) providing general incentives (e.g. density bonuses, parking reductions, permitting priority), d) financial help (e.g. reduced permit and utility connection fees), e) encouraging project level actions that help with affordability (affordability covenants). The City should provide criteria and process for ensuring that those units remain affordable over time. 3-4 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PH-8.4 As part of any rezone that increases residential capacity, the City should consider requiring a portion of units to be affordable to low- and moderate-income households. PH-8.5 Consistent with the amended 2016 Snohomish County 2016 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments: PH-8.5.1 In advance of market activities that may limit future potential public benefits, the county should pursue zoning and other strategies around transit oriented development (TOD) sites to guide sustainable and equitable development patterns that incorporate affordable housing production. (CWPP LU Policy 3.H.3) PH-8.5.2 Support the coordination of housing and service providers to serve persons with special needs. (CWPP HO Policy 1.A.5) PH-8.5.3 The county shall recognize the increasing diversity in the cultural and economic backgrounds of its residents, and shall encourage a broad range of affordable ownership and rental housing opportunities, including opportunities for persons with special needs. (C)NPP HO Policy 1.B.2) PH-8.5.4 The county shall encourage ((private)) for-profit and non-profit sector production of new housing units that are affordable to and occupied by low income households. (CWPP HO Policy LC.3 ) a. Explore and evaluate various fiscal and regulatory tools and funding resources and strategies to encourage housing providers to increase the supply of affordable housing units generally, and particularly within mixed-income developments and communities. b. Provide incentives that encourage for-profit and non-profit residential developers to address low- and moderate-income housing needs, such as priority permit processing and exemptions or reductions in impact fee mitigation payments for low-income projects with affordability commitments. c. Evaluate the feasibility of reducing minimum permitted lot sizes in non-PRD developments. d. Encourage through incentives and other techniques a balance of affordable and market-rate housing within urban centers and along transit emphasis corridors. (CWPP HO Policy 1.C.3 ) 3-5 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PH-8.5.5 (Track the provision of affordable housing units to assess whether an adequate supply of housing affordable to the county's lower income and special needs residents, as defined in the Housing Characteristics and Needs Report for Snohomish County, is being provided. (CWPP Objective HO 4.13 ) PH-8.5.6 In support of countywide housing policies, the county shall seek partnerships with other jurisdictions, through the Alliance for Housing Affordability, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, Snohomish County Tomorrow and similar forums, to track the provision of housing by type and affordability. This effort will include an assessment of progress toward meeting the county's housing goals, including housing that addresses the needs of households within the Under 30% AMI, 30-50% AMI and 51-80% AMI segments, as projected in the current Housing Characteristics and Needs Report for Snohomish County. (CWPP HO Policy 4.13.1) PH-8.5.7 Based upon the monitoring and evaluation results from Policy 4.B.1, the county shall evaluate the effectiveness of its zoning regulations to produce housing developments that meet the diverse housing needs identified in the Housing Characteristics and Needs Report for Snohomish County. (HO Policy 4.B.2) LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES General: GL-1 Work to ensure that the character and location of land uses optimize the economic benefit, enjoyment by residents, and protection of natural resources while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses and environmental degradation through implementation of the following: a)Growth Management: Manage growth so that the delivery of public facilities and services will occur in a fiscally responsible manner to support development and redevelopment within the City. b) Economic Development: Attain the highest level of economic well-being possible for all citizens in Arlington through the achievement of a stable and diversified economy offering a wide variety of employment opportunities. 3-6 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft c)Neighborhood Conservation: Achieve a well-balanced and well-organized combination of open space, commercial, industrial, recreation and public uses that are served by an efficient transportation network while protecting the fabric and character of residential neighborhoods. d) Environmental Preservation and Conservation: Through both preservation and conservation ensure the proper management of the natural environment and resources. Policies: PL-1.1 Suburban Residential (SR) — This designation should primarily provide for single- family residential development, at a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, and compatible uses where the full range of public facilities and services to support suburban development exists. This designation may be implemented by more than one zoning classification. Determination of the appropriate zoning classification shall take into account the density of nearby existing development and the capacity of existing and projected public facilities. PL-1.15 Gateway Overlay Zone (GOZ)—This land use designation overlay should be applied to properties (lots) that are adjacent to, or abutting right-of-ways classified as Arterial or greater and that are at least partially within a quarter mile of City limits. Development regulations specific to the Gateway Overlay Zone should be established to address architecture, site design, screening, landscaping, and appropriate land uses. PL-1.2 Residential Moderate Density y(RMD) — This designation should primarily provide for single-family residential development (including duplexes), at a density of six (6) dwelling units per acre, and compatible uses where the full range of public facilities and services to support moderate density development exists. This designation may be implemented by more than one zoning classification (such as Low/Moderate Density). Generally, this designation is appropriate for land located convenient to ale-principal arterials and/or business and commercial activity centers where a transition between higher densities and lower densities are warranted or where critical areas, transportation systems, or other public facilities preclude higher density. Determination of the appropriate zoning classification shall take into account the density of nearby existing development and the capacity of existing and projected public facilities. PL-1.3 Old-Town Residential (OTR)—This designation should primarily provide for single- family residential development (including duplexes), at a density of ten dwelling units per acre, and compatible uses where the full range of public facilities and services to support urban development exists. This designation may be implemented by more than one zoning classification. This designation is to be used for the older residential part of Arlington, which is mostly developed in a traditional, small-lot grid pattern. Any new development in this designation should be compatible and 3-7 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft consistent with this older-style development pattern. Design standards or other special regulations aimed at preserving the historic quality of the traditional residential may be applied in this designation. PL-1.4 Residential High Densily RHD) — This designation should provide for multi-family and other high-density residential development, with density limited only by development parameters such as-but not limited to-building height, setbacks, parking requirements, screening, open space and compatible uses where a full range of public facilities and services that support urban development exist or can be provided. Generally, this designation is appropriate for land that is located convenient to ^.„le ai4er-a principal arterials and commercial areas. PL-1.5 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) — This designation should provide for retail and service businesses that serve the limited convenience shopping and personal service needs to the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Generally this designation is appropriate for lots that are located on the corner of an intersection where at least one adjacent road is classified as an arterial or greater. PL-1.6 Old-Town Business District (OTBD) — This designation is intended for the traditional commercial center of old downtown Arlington, and should be used to promote a dense, active, pedestrian-oriented commercial/service center. It should provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial or business uses that attract large numbers of customers and that are conducted primarily indoors, multi-family residential uses upstairs from commercial uses (mixed use), and civic uses. This designation may be implemented by more than one zoning classification. In particular, there is a noticeable difference in the existing land use patterns between N. Olympic and the other commercial parts of downtown, and special policies and regulations may be implemented to enhance the historic nature of the former as a way to increase commercial activities therein. In areas of the OTBD not directly on N. Olympic, such policies and regulations may also be implemented, but should allow for slightly more automobile-oriented design. PL-1.7 General Commercial (GC) — The General Commercial designation is intended to provide areas for a wide range of small to large footprint commercial uses, but typically in areas that would be used predominantly by local users. Such uses typically are conducted in individual buildings with large parking lots that are located toward the block or site interior and have adequate landscaping and screening. Mixed-use development (both vertical and horizontal) should be permissible. PL-1.8 Highway Commercial (HQ — This designation is intended to provide areas for a wide range of large-scale, auto-oriented commercial and business uses that may attract users from outside the Arlington area and that require highway access, larger sites, and separation from residential uses. 3-8 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-1.9 Business Park (BP) — The Business Park designation is intended to promote office, high technology research and development, and related uses in a master-planned, park-like setting. PL-1.10 Light Industrial (LI)—This designation is intended to allow those types of industrial, wholesale, or service uses that have minimal impacts on surrounding properties. This is accomplished by having all activities done in completely enclosed structures. Due to the proximity of this zone to the Arlington Airport, care should be taken to ensure that uses are compatible with it, and that they will not impact airborne aircraft because of the height of structures, smoke, glare, lights which shine upwards, radio interferences from transmissions, nor any water impoundments or sanitary landfills which would create potential hazards from waterfowl to airborne aircraft. PL-1.11 General Industrial (GI) — This land use designation is intended to allow a full range of industrial, wholesale, or service uses that traditionally may have impacts to surrounding properties, as they involve a great deal of activity and storage outside the building; large doors are open; and there may be more noise, light, heat, smoke, dust, and odors detected beyond the property lines than in other zones. PL-1.12 Aviation Fli htg line (AF)—This designation is intended to allow only aviation related uses proximate to airport runways and taxiways. Aviation related uses include any uses related to supporting aviation that require direct taxi-way access as a necessary part of their business operations, such as aviation services, manufacturing of aviation-related goods, general services whose primary customers would be those engaged in aviation-related activities (e.g., restaurants primarily catering to pilots, employees, or passengers), or other uses that are clearly related to aviation. PL-1.13 Civic Space (CS) — This category is intended for use on all land that is publicly owned and will in all likelihood remain publicly owned. It allows public buildings and services, recreational uses, utilities, and transportation facilities. PL-1.14 Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) This land use designation overlay should be permissible on large tracts of land (25 acres or more) inte the ' where detailed planning would benefit the public as well as all property owners involved by allowing them to proportionately share infrastructure planning and financing. It achieves this by requiring that a Master Plan be developed for all parcels within a particular overlay and approved by Council. The Master Plan should address how the roads, sewer, water, and other services and utilities would be provided and paid for, determine the types of uses would be allowed and at what densities (including at least 50% of the lots in Low Density Residential (4 du/ac), and whatever other issues need to be worked out prior to development. GL-2 Preserve and promote a safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing living environment. Policies: 3-9 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-2.1 Storage of soil, yard waste, refuse, machines and other equipment in rights-of-way and building setbacks should be prohibited. PL-2.2 Installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscape strips, and vegetated LID facilities for all developments should be installed unless the permit-issuing authority makes specific findings that such improvements would not be consistent with these or other goals or policies. Curb cuts are permitted at bio-retention facilities to allow stormwater runoff to enter the facility. Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination GL-3 Work with affected jurisdictions to address cross-jurisdictional growth issues. Policies: PL-3.1 The City should coordinate growth and development with adjacent jurisdictions to promote and protect inter jurisdictional interests. PL-3.2 The City should enter into and maintain Interlocal Agreements with adjacent jurisdictions that address joint planning, reciprocal mitigation and impact fees, and other mutually beneficial issues. -Pb 3.3 The City should enter- into and maintain latef:leeal Agr-eements with neighbor-ing Growth and Growth Management GL-4 Accommodate new development in a manner that supports a growth rate consistent with the goals of the State Growth Management Act but also preserves and enhances Arlington's quality of life, its natural environment, and its historical and cultural amenities. Policies: PL-4.1 The City's Urban Growth Area should be sufficiently sized to accommodate projected 20-year population and employment forecasts. PL-4.2 The City should ensure that growth and development is consistent with the City's Capital Facilities Plan for providing public facilities including streets, sidewalks, lighting systems, traffic signals, water, storm and sanitary sewer, parks and recreational facilities, and schools. PL-4.3 The City should adopt and maintain development regulations that ensure that growth is consistent with State laws and the Community Vision. PL-4.4 When proposing Urban Growth Area expansions, the City should only seek land to be included within the City's Urban Growth Area that is suitable for urban 3-10 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft development consistent with the Growth Management Act and where utilities and infrastructure can be provided at reasonable costs. PL-4.5 All new commercial, industrial, and residential plat developments should provide additional transportation infrastructure consistent with the City's comprehensive transportation plan and development regulations through installation, dedication, fee- in-lieu or some other acceptable form of mitigation. PL-4.6 Development patterns should be responsive to environmental critical areas with resulting fragmentation of the built environment minimized to the greatest extent feasible. PL-4.7 The City should use Snohomish County Tomorrow's Growth Monitoring Report as a basis for monitoring growth. PL-4.8 The City should plan for a balanced mix of land uses based on land availability and the capacity to provide public services. NEW Infrastructure capacity should be "concurrent" with new land development. Where concurrency cannot be assured, the GMA and capital facility plans should be reassessed and potentially amended accordingly. PL-4.9 The City should strive to equitably allocate the cost of growth. Such tools as mitigation and impact fees can provide funds for necessary infrastructure improvements. GL-5 Ensure that Neighborhood or Subarea Plans for unincorporated Urban Growth Areas are established prior to annexation in order to ensure coordinated growth and development patterns occur as the City expands. Policies: PL-5.1 The City should prepare neighborhood or subarea plans for unincorporated Urban Growth Areas that address and coordinate future: land uses and development standards, utility lines and other infrastructure, roads and road improvements, protected open spaces, potential park space, trails, etc., prior to allowing annexation. The City should enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to ensure any development within the City's unincorporated Urban Growth Area is consistent with and coordinated with City plans for that area. PL-5.2 City sewer lines should not be extended outside City limits into the City's unincorporated Urban Growth Area. NEW The Ci , will pursue designation of a Manufacturing Industrial Area in cooperation with the City of Marysville for the unincorporated area between the two cities. If so designated, a coordinated Subarea Plan will be developed. GL-6 Annex all unincorporated Urban Growth Areas within the City's Urban Growth Area. 3-11 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft Policies: PL-6.1 Annexations should include all land within the respective unincorporated Urban Growth Area enclave. PL-6.2 Unincorporated areas within the City's Urban Growth Area should be pre-designated on the City's Future Land Use Map and pre-zoned on the City's Official Zoning Map. PL-6.3 City utilities and services should be planned and made available for extension within reasonable time after annexing land to the City. PL-6.4 In considering annexations, the following criteria should be used to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed annexation: a) The existing levels (quantity and quality) of urban services and facilities in the area to be annexed; and b) The proximity to City utility lines; and c) The quantity and quality of services that will be required after annexation; and d) The costs of furnishing needed services; and e) Any potential revenue generation that could be used to offset existing and future service and infrastructure needs. PL-6.5 After annexation, the City should honor pre-existing mitigation agreements, conditions on permits, appropriate inter jurisdictional studies, and agreed-upon standards. PL-6.6 Entire rights-of-way adjacent to the annexation areas should also be included within the total area to be annexed unless there is an existing agreement between the City and the County requiring otherwise. Residential Land Use GL-7 Encourage a mix of residential densities throughout the City. Policies: PL-7.1 All recommended changes in residential densities should be based on the following: a) The overall impact to surrounding properties; and b) The general impact to the existing transportation network; and c) The feasibility of the site and its situation for the proposed density; and d) The availability/capacity of urban services such as water and sewer to serve the area; and e)The vacant land supply within the City at the proposed density. e)f)Consistency with GMA growth targets and buildable land supply. PL-7.2 Higher density residential uses should be located around commercial areas. PL-7.3 Vertical and horizontal mixed use developments with a residential component should be permissible in eemmefeial designated zones within the City. 3-12 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft GL-8 Preserve and promote the character, scale, and quality of existing neighborhoods as new development occurs. Policies: PL-8.1 The City should develop design standards to ensure the orderly transition and compatibility of adjacent residential densities. Commercial Land Use GL-9 Create pedestrian links between commercial and residential developments. Policies: PL-9.1 Where commercial and residential areas abut, new development proposals should include the design and construction of walkways1 and/or- sidewalks or other non- motorized features to integrate and link commercial activities and other neighborhoods within the City. GL-10 Promote Neighborhood Commercial uses in appropriate places. Policies: PL-10.1 A re-designation and rezoning of lots to neighborhood commercial may be approved by the City(at the City's discretion) when a lot meets all of the following criteria and any others as listed in Title 20 of the AMC: 1. The lot is located at the intersection of two public rights-of-way, where at least one right-of-way has a roadway classification (whether existing or proposed) of arterial or greater OR is adjacent to another Neighborhood Commercial zoned lot and has direct access to an arterial roadway and is within 660 feet of an intersection. 2. The lot has existing and legal direct access to at least one arterial right-of-way prior to the reclassification and rezone request. The lot is adjacent to or abutting on at least one side to another lot zoned Neighborhood Commercial and/or residential (RLD, RMD, RHD). Industrial Land Use GL-12 Maintain a sufficient industrial land base in order to support a high ratio of jobs to households. Policies: PL-12.1 Industrial land uses should be located in the vicinity of Arlington Airport in order to take advantage of existing and anticipated transportation systems. PL-12.2 The amount of land planned and allocated for industrial use should be reasonably scaled to meet the demonstrated demand. PL-12.3 Industrial uses should be encouraged to share facilities such as internal roadways, parking facilities, and rail access. 3-13 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-12.4 Industries with high job numbers that support the local resource processing needs should be encouraged. PL-12.5 The City should pursue the designation of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) in the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies and regional designation by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). PL-12.6 The City should support the development and growth of the Arlington-Marysville MWAMMIC by supporting a concentrated manufacturing and industrial base and by planning for future growth and infrastructure improvements. PL-12.7 The City should develop appropriate zoning, design review and landscaping regulations so that manufacturing uses within the Arlington portion of the IWAMMIC are buffered from adjacent or abutting residential uses. PL-12.8 The City should ensure that at least 80% of the property within the MIGAMMIC is planned and zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses. Compatible non-industrial uses shall be as allowed under PSRC certification and be conditioned to mitigate for potential conflicts with current and future industrial uses. GL-13 Minimize the adverse impacts of industrial uses to adjacent and abutting residential properties. Policies: PL-13.1 Additional setbacks should be required for industrial buildings and uses that are adjacent to or abut non-industrial zoned land in order to minimize impacts. Vegetated Low Impact Development(LID)facilities may be located within these setbacks PL-13.2 Full screen landscape buffers (which may consist of vegetated LID facilities) should be required along industrial zoned property and non-industrial zoned properties GL-14 Maintain a healthy, clean industrial district through the use of design standards and adherence to environmental standards. Policies: PL-14.1 Outdoor storage areas should be screened from public rights-of-way through use of both fencing and native vegetation. PL-14.2 Landscape buffers should be installed and maintained along property lines adjacent to rights-of-way. PL-14.3 Landscape buffers should include the use or retention of native vegetation adequate to serve as visual screens between rights-of-way and industrial uses. Landscape buffers may also consist of vegetated LID facilities. PL-14.4 Pollutants should be managed as m,,e as pes. �through site design engineering and source control. Site disturbance and soil compaction should be minimized during construction. Implement source control best management practices (BMPs) to 3-14 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft prevent soil and stormwater runoff contamination from operation and storage of heavy equipment. PL-14.5 Development Design Guidelines should be established for the Industrial Zones and the AMMIC. PL-14.6 Open space and recreation opportunities such as parks and non-motorized trails should be incorporated in industrial areas. SUBAREA SPECIFIC GOALS AND POLICIES GL-15 Protect and enhance our various neighborhoods as follows: Policies: Old-Town Residential District PL-15.1 The Old-Town Residential District should be protected as a traditional, single-family neighborhood. PL-15.2 Only single-family residential, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes that are compatible with neighborhood in terms of use and design should be allowed in the Old-Town Residential District. PL-15.3 Design standards for new development in the Old-Town Residential District should be established to ensure compatibility with the existing historical character. PL-15.4 Improvements to the streetscapes (pedestrian ways, planter strips with approved vegetation, vegetated LID facilities) should be made throughout the Old-Town Residential District. Maintenance responsibilities should be assigned to encourage ownership of the LID facilities. Old-Town Business District PL-15.8 The City should support continued revitalization of both the private and public realms within the Old-Town Business District. PL-15.9 The Old-Town Business District should be a vibrant, people-oriented district so as to encourage civic engagement and support local business. PL-15.10 Vertical mixed use with a residential component on upper floors should be allowed and encouraged. PL-15.11 Design Standards for both the public and private realms should be established in order to promote a unified historic character among the three sub-districts within the Old-Town Business District. PL-15.12 The City should capitalize on its position along the Stillaguamish River by developing a Riverfront Master Plan that addresses future land uses, motorized and non-motorized transportation networks, and recreational opportunities. 3-15 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-15.13 The City should develop and implement a plan (including funding) to improve Haller Park. PL-15.14 Public parking lots should incorporate historic design features. PL-15.15 The City should provide incentives for commercial property owners to renovate and/or improve their building facades consistent with their historic character. PL-15.16 An active, diverse, and integrated "main street"-style central business district should be encouraged in order to promote economic growth by attracting residents, visitors, and businesses. PL-15.17 A compact commercial district that facilitates easy pedestrian access between shops and buildings should be encouraged. .PL-15.18 A diverse array of commercial business types should be permissible in the Old-Town Business District. PL-15.19 Any on-site parking should be located to the side or rear of buildings. PL-15.20 Additional public parking lots should be provided in the Old-Town Business District to better accommodate motor-vehicles. PL-15.21 The City should promote design elements in Old-Town Business District that reflect the City's history, scale, and character by establishing Development Design Standards specific to the Old-Town Business District. PL-15.22 New commercial and multi-family developments in Old-Town Business Districts 1 and 2 should be required to provide bicycle racks. PL-15.23 Commercial signage should be primarily pedestrian scaled and oriented. PL-15.24 Street trees should be incorporated into the streetscape for newly renovated streets. PL-15.25 Pedestrian facilities in adjacent residential neighborhoods should be connected to those in the commercial district (and vice-versa) so that there is an integrated pedestrian/alternative transportation network throughout the Old-Town Business District. PL-15.26 Building design and architecture should be human-scaled. PL-15.27 The City should undertake efforts to beautify the Old-Town Business District with street plantings, street furniture, pedestrian paths, decorative lighting and signing, brick or textured streets, historical markers, etc. PL-15.28 The City should encourage cooperative downtown improvement planning and implementation efforts between the City, the Downtown Arlington Business Association and the downtown merchants. PL-15.29 The City should encourage businesses to improve deteriorating facades, poor signs, and their general outside appearance in accordance with historical design character. 3-16 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-15.30 The City should require new development to augment the historic look of downtown by maintaining the existing building pattern (i.e., the continuous street wall, permanent awnings, ground floor shops with many windows and large glass areas, second floor professional services and/or apartments). PL-15.31 Pedestrian-scaled commercial businesses should be encouraged in Old-Town Business District 1 along Olympic Avenue in to Old-Town Business District 2 and 3. PL-15.32 City Hall and other civic functions should be located within Old-Town Business District 1. PL-15.33 The City should encourage new indoor recreation facilities, restaurants and entertainment functions in the Old-Town Business District. PL-15.34 Street parking should be permissible along all streets within the OTBD to the extent feasible, particularly along Olympic Avenue. Arlington Bluff PL-15.38 The City should encourage annexation of existing urban growth areas outside City limits. PL-15.39 In the Transportation 6-Year TIP, consideration should be given to improving Cemetery Road, 47th Avenue, and 188th Street to their Local Collector standards. PL-15.40 The forested steep slopes along the bluff should be protected for both environmental and aesthetic purposes by prohibiting development within steep slope buffers and requiring a minimum percentage of forest cover to be retained. PL-15.41 Care should be taken to not increase discharge of stormwater runoff onto the farmlands below. Kent Prairie PL-15.43 Kent Prairie has a very diverse range of uses and housing types; such diversity should be protected. PL-15.44 Through design, screening, and setbacks, impacts should be minimized between residential and non-residential uses. West Arlington (West Bluff, Island Crossing, Smokey Point PL-15.45 The City should work to upgrade the streets in the West Arlington Subarea-to City standards. Where stormwater improvements are needed, encourage evaluation of LID facilities. PL-15.46 As much of the area is within the 100-year floodplain and floods rather frequently, a drainage plan should be developed and implemented to alleviate this problem. Stormwater improvements should be prioritized in the Island Crossing neighborhood based on flood modeling and aligned with the South Slough and Portage Creek 3-17 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft stream channels. There is potential for a regional system that also functions as flood conveyance and compensatory storage during major events. PL -15.xx Coordinate future revision of I-5 rest stop with access to Smokey Point Boulevard. PP-4.1 Each subarea within the City should have at least one community park. A neighborhood center park should be located within the Smokey Point neighborhood. The City should identify and pursue opportunities for new parks within areas that are added to the City's Urban Growth Area. South Fork PL-15.47 The City should work with interested residents in annexing this subarea. Brekhus-Beach PL-15.48 A "high-level" Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea should be developed by the City in consultation with subarea property owners and adopted by the City Council prior to the subdivision of any land within the subarea. With regards to this policy, "high-level" means the layout of arterial and collector roads (including streetscape design standards), layout of water and sewer lines and their associated facilities, and land-use designation. (See Figure 2-22 for preliminary plan) PL-15.49 Prior to the adoption of a "high-level" Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea by the City Council, one single-family dwelling unit and one accessory dwelling unit should be permitted by the City to be constructed on any existing legal lot within the subarea. PL-15.50 After the adoption of a "high-level" Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea, "large-lot" subdivisions should be permissible in those portions of the subarea where the extreme cost or difficulty in extending sewer exists. With regards to this policy, "large-lot" means the minimum lot size required by the Snohomish County Health District for on-site sewage disposal systems. After the adoption of a "high-level" Master Plan for the Brekhus-Beach Subarea, shadow platting should be permissible in those areas where sewer is not yet available so as not to preclude the allowed underlying density at such a time when sewer becomes available. When sewer becomes available to serve the shadow plat, all lots within the plat will be required to connect to sewer. Hilltop PL-15.51 The properties around the SR-9 and SR-531 intersection should be planned to become an urban village, with mixed commercial and high-density residential uses. (Horizontal Mixed Use). 3-18 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-15.52 The City should encourage the development of the Boyden 5-acre tract to urban densities. This would probably take the formation of an L4B—Local Improvement District (ULID)to fund the installation of sewer, water, and transportation systems. The City should also help find a secondary access point. Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea PL-15.53 As this is the predominant location for future employment in Arlington, the City should actively seek appropriate development of this area in accordance with AMMIC and PSRC designation criteria... PL-15.54 A road network should be developed that makes properties more accessible and usable. The Airport GL-16 As an Essential Public Facility, protect the Arlington Municipal Airport from encroaching non-compatible land uses so as to maintain its long-term viability. Policies: PL-16.1 Promote a compatible relationship between the airport industrial zone and surrounding land uses. PL-16.2 Secure airport approach zones through either land purchase, avigation easements, or disclosure statements so that the City can enforce regulatory controls in those areas. PL-16.3 Secure avigation easements from new developments that are proposed within the Airport Protection District. PL-16.4 The Arlington Airport is designated as an "Essential Transportation Facility." This designation provides leverage to maintain compatible zoning and land use options and helps protect its airspace in the approach and transitional surface areas. PL-16.5 Maintain an Airport Protection District to protect aviation interests by applying FAA and WSDOT policies and land use restrictions. PL-16.6 Obtain and maintain interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions to help implement airport protection policies. PL-16.7 Protect and control land critical to the future expansion of the airport as depicted in the Airport Master Plan. PL-16.8 Prohibit buildings, structures, or other objects from being constructed or altered so as to project or otherwise penetrate the airspace surfaces (as defined in FAA Part 77), except as necessary and incidental to airport operations. PL-16.9 At the time of land use approval (i.e. subdivision of land) property disclosure notices--notices on the face of the plat map and avigation easements dedicated to the City of Arlington--should be recorded on areas within the Airport Protection District. 3-19 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-16.10 Require that submittal requirements for proposed land use actions disclose potential conflicts with airspace. PL-16.11 Within the Airport Protection District require disclosure notice for potential negative impacts from aviation operations and noise,unless mitigated by other measures. PL-16.12 Residential use shall be prohibited on Airport property and within the Runway Protection Zone 1. Residential use and/or density should be limited, within the Inner Safety Zones 2, Inner Turning Zone 3, and Outer Safety Zone 4, and Runway Sideline Zone 5 to reduce negative impacts on residents from aviation operations and noise. PL-16.13 Non-residential use and/or intensity may be limited, if such uses are deemed to be noise sensitive, to reduce negative impacts on users from aviation operation noise. PL-16.14 Prohibit the location of noise-sensitive land uses from areas of high noise levels, defined by the 65 DNL (or higher)noise contour of Arlington Municipal Airport. PL-16.15 All detention, retention and wetland construction in the Airport Protection District needs to be planned to minimize attracting wildlife that is a hazard to aviation. PL-16.16 To better ensure compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses: Risks to surrounding people and property shall be minimized by applying more stringent land use controls to geographic areas with greater potential risk. Risks to people on the ground shall be minimized by restricting land uses so as to limit the number of people likely to gather in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents and/or by reducing risks through special features of building design. Discourage land uses that are of particular safety concern because of the reduced mobility of occupants or their inability to respond to emergency situations in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents. Such uses include children's schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes and/or other uses where the majority of occupants are children, elderly or handicapped. Discourage land uses in the vicinity of the airport that may cause visual, electronic or bird strike hazards to aircraft in flight. PL-16.17 The City and the airport shall make available to prospective purchasers of property in the vicinity of the airport information about airport activity impacts so that they can take this information into account in making purchase decisions. PL-16.18 Any expansion of airport facilities that would result in a significant increase in noise, hazard or glare shall include measures to reduce impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. GL-17 Development Airport Properties in an orderly fashion. Policies: PL-17.1 Develop and maintain airport property as depicted within the Airport Master Plan. 3-20 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-17.2 Create conceptual development site plans for Airport properties that are not already shown in the Master Plan. PL-17.3 The Airport should maintain a green belt along residential portions of the perimeter of the Airport property, subject to Part 77 restrictions and the possible requirement for low-growing vegetation. Resource Protection GL-18 To safeguard communitywide environmental conditions and resources the City will encourage the effective stewardship of the environment and protect critical areas and conserve land, air, water, and energy resources. Policies: PL-18.1 The City should continue to amend and adopt land development regulations that ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment under all projected growth scenarios. PL-18.2 Through the land planning and development review processes, the City should require the provision of fish and wildlife habitat corridors, and restrict the fragmentation of large natural plant communities that provide essential and significant wildlife habitat. PL-18.4 The City should work to ensure compatibility of land uses with topography, geology, soil suitability, surface water, groundwater & aquifers, frequently flooded areas wetlands, climate, and vegetation and wildlife. PL-18.5 The City should utilize local resources whenever possible to encourage local involvement in community actions and to enhance community pride. PL-18.6 The City should promote reducing air pollution emissions associated with land uses and transportation in accordance with national, State, regional, and local policies and standards. PL-18.7 The City should work to protect and enhance the natural environment while planning for and accommodating growth. PL-18.8 The City should maintain or restore aquatic ecosystems and associated habitats and aquifers through the development and implementation of a comprehensive protection program. PL-18.9 The City should protect and maintain elements of the environment including clean water, natural vegetation, and habitat corridors through adopted development regulations and a variety of educational, voluntary and incentive programs. PL-18.10 The City should work to help preserve agriculture and agricultural land outside the City's Urban Growth Area through a variety of planning techniques, regulations, incentive, and acquisition methods. 3-21 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-18.11 The City should identify and protect open space natural and scenic resources, and shoreline areas. GL-19 Require site-sensitive development to protect environmental resources. Policies: PL-19.1 Significant tTrees within the City should be preserved to the extent feasible. In instances where it is not feasible to preserve significant trees, any significant tree cut down should be mitigated for-either through re-planting or payment of a fee-in-lieu. PL-19.2 Existing and native vegetation should be preserved as much as possible due to its vital role in the groundwater and wildlife systems of Arlington in order to prevent additional storm water runoff or soil erosion from new developments and to provide a habitat for wildlife. In newt developed and re-developed areas, site disturbance should be minimized and native vegetation and duff should be retained. PL-19.3 Salmonid streams, drainage ways, wetlands, and their buffers should be protected from adverse impacts of land development that might decrease low flows or increase high peak flows, reduce recharge areas for streams, increase bank or bed erosion, or increase turbidity of the water. PL-19.4 The City should work to protect, the following sensitive resources: wetlands, streams and creeks, lakes and ponds, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, significant trees, fish and wildlife habitat and corridors, archaeological and historical sites and artifacts, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas. Other resources may be included by amending the City's critical areas regulations. PL-19.5 Since the Airport and surrounding property mare located above an aquifer that provides the City of Arlington water, measures to protect that resource should be established (See Water System Plan). GL-20 Minimize storm water runoff and urban drainage impacts by utilizing the natural drainage system where it is possible to do so without significantly altering the natural drainage ways. Policies: PL-20.1 The City should encourage the design of developments to use natural drainage patterns and incorporate means to entrap storm water and water pollutants before they are carried down slope or before they enter wetlands and/or other bodies of water. PL-20.2 The City should work with residents and other jurisdictions to improve storm drainage in and around Arlington. PL-20.3 The City should adopt and keep current a stormwater comprehensive plan and control ordinance requiring best management practices for stormwater control, addressing such issues as detention, release, erosion and siltation, nutrients and toxic pollutants, etc. 3-22 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PL-20.4 To minimize impacts on natural resources, the evaluation of Low Impact Development techniques should be evaluated as the preferred approach prior to implementing traditional stormwater treatment and flow control facilities. GL-21 Promote energy conservation by developing incentives and/or requirements for energy-saving transportation, land development patterns and practices, and building construction and operation methods and materials. Policies: PL-21.1 The City should encourage the development of paths and easements for non- motorized transportation to encourage pedestrian and bicycle use throughout the City. PL-21.3 Encourage development patterns that are based on a grid system to increase connectivity and reduce utility and transportation costs as well as energy consumption. PL-21.4 Encourage energy-saving construction and building operation practices and the use of energy-conserving materials in all new construction and rehabilitation of buildings. GL-22 Encourage the protection of special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural resources through the designation of historic landmarks and districts and the adoption of appropriate incentives. Policies: PL-22.1 The City should encourage the rehabilitation and revitalize of the downtown by using adaptive reuse of existing commercial structures, preservation of historic sites and structures, and restoration of prominent places and features to ensure economic viability and community stability. Many of the older structures in the downtown area represent 90 years of the City's character and heritage. Consider adapting existing structures identified in the 1980 Snohomish County Cultural Resource Inventory to other appropriate uses for continued economic vitality of the historical structures. This list can be expanded at any time. American Legion Hall Arlington State Bank Arlington Times Building Citizens State Bank Eagan House/Weller Funeral Home Masonic Hall Methodist Church Robertson Building 3-23 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft Royal Hotel World War II Navy Hangar PL-22.2 The City should work with the Stillaguamish Tribe to develop rules and procedures for protecting significant cultural and archaeological resources. GL-23 Promote the identification, maintenance, and preservation of possible geographical areas or structures that have special significance because of historical, archaeological, architectural, recreational, social, cultural, and/or scenic importance. Policies: PL-23.1 The City should work with other public agencies and/or a local historical society to determine priorities and establish methods for public and private funding to develop and operate such significant areas PL-23.2 The City should encourage the development of written narratives and maps for self- guided tours of significant areas and the provision for site markers to identify significant sites. PL-23.3 The City should encourage additions and alterations to significant architectural buildings to conform to the style and period of the initial construction as much as possible. PL-23.4 The Arlington Airport is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This designation should be used to promote aviation-related tourism activities. PL-23.5 The City should work to protect those structures that led to the Airport being listed on the Register. PL-23.6 The City should prepare a documentation of the history of Arlington Naval Air Station in a format that can be distributed to local schools, other organizations and placed on the City of Arlington website. PL-23.7 The City should actively seek grant funding for the rehabilitation of historic buildings and other historic preservation opportunities on Airport property. Public/Semi-Public Land Use GL-25 Promote equality in development regulations between private and public lands. Policies: PL-25.1 Public and semi-public development should be held to the same development standards as private development. PL-25.2 New public/semi-public development proposals should include the design and construction of walkways and/or sidewalks to integrate and link commercial activities and other neighborhoods within the Urban Growth Area. Minimizing Risk of Natural Disasters 3-24 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft GL-26 Prepare for and be able to respond to natural disasters. Policies: PL-26.1 Arlington should maintain a current comprehensive emergency management plan which shall be based on a hazard analysis and as a minimum include a basic document with the elements listed in WAC 118-30-060 (1)-(8). Said plan shall address all natural and man-made emergencies and disasters to which Arlington is vulnerable, and shall specify the purpose, organization, responsibilities and facilities of agencies and officials of the political subdivision in the mitigation of, preparation for, response to, and recovery from emergencies and disasters (Paraphrased from WAC 118-30-030 (9)). PL-26.3 Geologically hazardous areas, especially forested steep slopes, should be protected. PL-26.4 Soil stability and the use of the natural drainage systems should be promoted by retaining existing native vegetation in critical areas. PL-26.5 The City should prohibit development on unstable land and restrict development on potentially unstable land to ensure public safety and conformity with natural constraints. TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES The Transportation System GT-1 Plan, develop and maintain a balanced transportation system for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the City and between the community and other activity centers in the region. Policies: PT-1.1 The City's motorized and non-motorized transportation network should be designed to distribute traffic evenly throughout the City. PT-1.2 The City should establish labeled Truck Route(s). PT-1.3 Encourage the use and growth of the Arlington Airport by ensuring easy access to the Airport via City streets by both automobiles and trucks. PT-1.4 New development and existing developments that are expanded should be required to mitigate for impacts to the transportation network. GT-2 Ensure that new road development meets the goals of the transportation element and land-use element of the comprehensive plan. Policies: PT-2.1 A motorized and non-motorized transportation plan should be developed by the City to ensure adequate transportation routes are created concurrent with new development. Evaluate minimizing impervious surfaces and incorporating LID facilities into these plans where feasible. 3-25 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft GT-3 Ensure concurrency by providing an effective roadway network with adequate capacity to meet the demand for travel within the City at the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard. Policies: PT-3.1 The City should periodically review and revise, if necessary, existing levels of service and the concurrency management system as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. PT-3.2 All development proposals should be reviewed to ensure coordination with the Transportation Element. PT-3.3 Ensure that all development permits that are approved require transportation improvements that are in accordance with Arlington's ability to provide and/or maintain the adopted Levels of Service. PT-3.4 Traffic impacts of proposed projects should be determined through project-provided impact assessment reports, which should be required of every project for which the concurrency test must be applied. The City may waive this requirement where such impacts may be determined administratively and/or the project applicant agrees to mitigate any administratively determined impacts. PT-3.5 Permits should not be issued for the development of any property until and unless the transportation facilities identified in this plan are in place. This includes roads (including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and planter strips), trails, or other transportation facilities described in this Transportation Plan within the confines of that property. GT-4 Consider the special needs of subarea transportation facilities including appearance and safety. Policies: PT-4.1 Improving the appearance of existing corridors should be a primary objective in designing and maintaining the street system in Arlington. Appropriate design standards, including landscape requirements, for the construction of new streets shall be maintained. PT-4.2 Existing street trees should be preserved to the extent they don't become a safety hazard or disrupt the structural integrity of the roadway. PT-4.3 Private streets should be prohibited in residential areas with private streets in commercial areas allowed on a case-by-case basis upon approval of the City Engineer. The City should only accept ownership and maintenance of existing private streets if they are consistent with adopted design standards and their acceptance will result in a benefit to Arlington. PT-4.4 Residential lots should only take vehicular access from an Alley, Local Access Street or Collector Street. Only in instances where the City Engineer determines there is no 3-26 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft other feasible alternative should a residential lot take access from an arterial (or higher classified) street. PT-4.5 Block standards should be developed to ensure that the development and subdivision of land results in greater connectivity both within the new development/subdivision and to the existing street network. PT-4.6 Culs-de-sacs should be prohibited to the extent feasible. Streets that must terminate in a cul-de-sac should be limited to one block in length (330ft.).Where cuts-de-sacs are used, evaluate the installation of LID facilities in the center of the cul-de-sac. PT-4.7 Whenever a cul-de-sac is utilized, pedestrian connectivity should be maintained by providing a pathway that connects from the bulb of a cul-de-sac to the nearest roadway(whether existing or proposed) outside the development. PT-4.8 Design standards should be established to consolidate the number and location of curb cuts on arterial streets. Curb cuts are permitted at bioretention facilities to allow stormwater runoff to enter the facility. PT-4.9 On-site parking requirements should be established to ensure land-uses can adequately accommodate parking demand. PT-4.10 Streets should be designed to accommodate multi-modal transportation options such as motor-vehicles (including buses),bicycles, and pedestrians. PT-4.11 New construction should include the construction of sidewalks, bicycle storage/parking facilities, and access to mass transit where possible and in proportion to the need generated by the proposal. Sidewalks should be included on at least one side of a street and wide enough to meet American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. PT-4.12 New residential developments should provide pedestrian access between the development and adjacent schools, parks, playgrounds, commercial areas or other roads or facilities if such access is not conveniently provided by sidewalks adjacent to the streets as required above. In such as case, the developer may be required to reserve an unobstructed easement of at least ten feet in width to provide this access. PT-4.13 All streetscapes should be designed and constructed to include at a minimum the following: curbs, gutters, sidewalks or trail, and landscape strips with street trees. Non-Motorized Transportation GT-5 Develop transportation strategies that encourage the use of pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit facilities that will, among other things, conserve non-renewable energy sources. Policies: PT-5.1 The City should develop a paved non-motorized transportation network that results in connectivity between all subareas within the City. 3-27 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PT-5.2 Bicycle lanes should be included with motor-vehicle lanes on all streets with a speed- limit greater than 25mph unless a paved, non-motorized trail exists or is planned within the right-of-way. PT-5.3 Traffic safety design techniques should be integrated into the street design to assist in safeguarding pedestrians, and cyclists, particularly near schools, playgrounds, and at crosswalks. PT-5.4 Sidewalk improvements should be prioritized to first facilitate safe movement for elderly and handicapped persons between residences and shopping/social activity centers, and facilitate safe movement for children to and from school facilities and school bus stops. PT-5.5 Existing sidewalks, including curb cuts and ramps, should be brought into compliance with the American's with Disabilities Act if not already so. PT-5.6 Street lighting should be designed to take into consideration the needs of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. PT-5.7 The City's non-motorized transportation network should connect with regional networks and with the networks of neighboring jurisdictions. PT-5.8 Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, and Industrial developments should provide bike racks to accommodate bicycle use by residents, employees, and customers. PT-5.9 Parking lots should include stalls specifically designed for compact cars and motorcycles. GT-6 Support the use of transit and work with transit agencies to improve service in order to help reduce traffic. Policies: PT-6.1 Coordinate with surrounding communities to support public education programs and land use strategies to encourage the use of public transportation. PT-6.2 Encourage and plan for "pedestrian-scale" neighborhoods and centers to enhance access and mobility for public transportation users. Safety and Maintenance GT-7 Maintain and enhance the safety of the transportation system. Policies: PT-7.1 Traffic data such as traffic counts and accident data should be collected and analyzed to support planning of traffic safety improvements. PT-7.2 Design criteria should be established for the signing of streets, including uniform lettering, colors, and placement of all new street signs. PT-7.3 The City should adopt appropriate guidelines from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) regarding maintenance of traffic control devices and 3-28 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft perform regular and requested maintenance activities related to traffic control devices and roadway material within those guidelines. PT-7.4 The City should identify specific high accident intersections on both the collector and arterial system and develop and implement appropriate plans to effectively lower the accident rate. GT-8 Develop transportation and safety policies that encourage the use of non- motorized transportation (i.e.,walking and biking). Policies: PT-8.1 Streetscapes for new and improved roads should be designed to accommodate multi- modal transportation options such as motor-vehicles (including bus), bicycles, and foot-traffic (pedestrians). PT-8.2 Priority should be given to sidewalk and shoulder improvements in areas of high traffic volumes or pedestrian activity to improve safety of pedestrians and drivers. PT-8.3 Under special circumstances, the City Engineer should be permitted to install temporary safety improvements (such as widened asphalt shoulders, etc.) in lieu of full improvements where they are able to make at least the following findings: a) There is a significant overwhelming public need to improve pedestrian safety along the road on which the project is proposed, and the project will substantially do so. b) The project is intended to be a temporary solution until a full street improvement project can be funded. c) The project is designed in such a way as to not preclude eventual full-standard development. d) If the full street improvement project is listed on the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, it will not be removed from the TIP because of the temporary improvements. Transportation and the Environment GT-9 Design and build roads that minimize negative impacts to protected critical areas. Policies: PT-9.1 The adverse impacts of transportation facilities and services on designated critical areas, resource lands, cultural resources, and parks should be minimized and mitigated through the implementation of performance standards. PT-9.2 Proposed roads should avoid being located in Critical Areas except it these inst nees where it- necessary to thr-,,,g Gr-itieal Areas i order preserve or enhance connectivity in the City's motorized and non-motorized transportation networks. 3-29 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PT-9.3 Proposed roads should result in the creation of a more connected transportation network within the City in-e��to reduce the length of vehicular trips. PT-9.4 All culverts, bridges, or other road crossings over or through critical areas should incorporate Best Available Science in both design and construction. PT-9.5 Proposed roads should avoid being located in areas prone to natural hazards. GT-10 Allow for alternative design standards and/or materials to reduce impervious surfaces and improve more natural forms of drainage. Policies: PT-10.1 Explore the feasibility of reducing the amount of total impervious surface used in right-of-ways, sidewalks, parking lots and roads by using new pervious materials (e.g., grasscrete, Essential Soil, etc.). Applications of these technologies will be approved on a case-by-case basis by the City Engineer. PT-10.2 Investigate modifications to detention requirements, including the use of new designs and/or materials that improve drainage. Inter jurisdictional Coordination GT-11 Ensure transportation planning is coordinated with adjacent and regional jurisdictions. Policies: PT-11.1 The City should coordinate with Snohomish County and the City of Marysville in planning inter: jurisdictional roads and transportation facilities. PT-11.2 The City should enter into Interl-Local Agreements with other government agencies and special districts with regards to traffic mitigation and franchise agreements. PT-11.3 The City's Transportation Plan should be coordinated with County and regional plans. PT-11.4 The City should actively lobby the State of Washington and Snohomish County to implement those improvements necessary to their respective transportation facilities in order to maintain the level of service standards adopted by the City. 6-Year TIP/Financing GT-12 Prioritize and finance transportation improvements consistently with the capital facilities estimate, and investigate all possible avenues of paying for the improvements for availability and fairness. Policies: PT-12.1 The City should adopt a 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),that is coordinated with the Transportation and Capital Facility Elements. The City should update the TIP annually as projects are completed and re-prioritized on an annt a basis aspart of the Transportation Element Update. 3-30 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft NEW The Transportation Element and Capital Facility Elements will be reviewed annually for consistency with the adopted Transportation Plan and Utili . Plans. PT-12.2 New developments should be required to pay for improvements related to the development, including upgrading of existing facilities, on a proportionate share basis and according to calculated impacts to existing LOS. NEW The City will accept latecomer agreements to allow new developments to recapture a proportionate share of infrastructure costs from future developments proportionally benefitting from those infrastructure improvements. PT-12.3 Transportation improvement cost estimates should be updated annually to determine appropriate shares from developers and users as established. PT-12.4 The City should consider alternative methods of obtaining financing for transportation improvements, including: local option taxes, bonding, Local Improvement Districts, combining efforts with other agencies, investigate all possible grant and loan opportunities such as the Public Works Trust Fund, inter-modal Surf spy tte #'ieieney-Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) funding, and inter-local agreements for mitigation costs with Snohomish County. PT-12.5 If funding is unavailable, or if development is progressing beyond the ability to provide and maintain sufficient transportation facilities, the City should consider development moratoriums, as necessary, until the transportation facilities can be brought into alignment with approved LOS. PT-12.6 Adequate resources should be provided to ensure that the existing transportation system is properly maintained. Air Quality Minimize air quality impacts caused by the transportation system Policies: PT-13.1 The City commits to meeting federal and State air quality requirements and work with the State, region and local agencies or jurisdictions to develop transportation control measures and/or similar mobile source emission reduction programs that may be warranted to attain or maintain air quality requirements. PT-13.2 The City's transportation system will conform to the federal and State Clear Air Acts by maintaining its conformity with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan of the Puget Sound Regional Council and by following the requirements of Chapter 173-420 of the Washington Administrative Code, which may include development of transportation Manufacturing/Industrial Center 3-31 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft GT-14 Ensure that development of the AMMIC supports the movement of goods is compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and promotes a multi-modal transportation network. Policies: PT-14.1 The City should identify and implement short-term and long-range infrastructure improvements that supports existing infrastructure and helps stimulate the development of new manufacturing and industrial uses in the AMMIC. PT-14.2 The City should work collaboratively with the City of Marysville to develop a seamless and compatible road network in order to efficiently move goods and services within and outside the MWAMMIC. PT-14.3 A street design should be developed that incorporates low-impact development standards which reduces surface water and enhances aesthetics of the area. PT-14.4 A non-motorized network should be developed throughout the area that allows pedestrians and cyclists to safely access places of employment. PT-14.5 Landscaping along roadways and between properties that are adjacent to neighborhoods should be required to reduce noise and visual impacts. PT-14.6 The City should utilize available State and federal transportation infrastructure funding in the MWAMMIC once MICAMMIC designation is obtained from PSRC. PT-14.7 Roadway designs within the MWAMMIC should be sensitive to the needs and movement of large trucks that will frequent the MICAMMIC, including the installation of cueing areas for trucks delivering/receiving goods. PT-14.8 The City should encourage existing and new businesses to utilize the BNSF railroad spur as useful resource to move goods and services within and outside the MIGAMMIC. PARKS AND RECREATION GOALS AND POLICIES GP-1 Maintain and support existing and future recreational and cultural activities. Policies: PP-1.1 The following Level of Service Standards for parks, trails, and opens spaces should be established throughout the City: a) Regional Parks = 0 ac/1,000 people b) Community Parks = 3.9 ac/1,000 people --1.55 acres/1,000 people should be allocated to ball fields, and --2.35 used for the remainder of the community park needs. c) Neighborhood/Mini-Parks = 1.7 ac/1,000 people d) Trails = 1.4 mi/1,000 people 3-32 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft e) Open Space = 3 ac/1,000 people, or 0.008319 acres per dwelling unit, to be applied to all new residential development of 25 dwelling units or more. PP-1.2 The development of existing parks, trails, and open spaces should be prioritized based on need and available funding. PP-1.3 The City should pursue short-term financing mechanisms (such as grants) and establish long-term financing mechanisms (such as the creation of a Parks District)to ensure that adequate parks, open space, and recreation facilities are funded and available within the City. PP-1.4 New residential development should be required to mitigate impacts to park, recreation, and open space through the dedication and improvement of properties for park and recreation uses, or where dedication is not feasible, payment of a fee-in- lieu. PP-1.5 Any required park, trail, and open space mitigation should be based on the City's adopted Level of Service Standard for the particular facility being impactedl and on the City's non-motorized transportation plan.: PP-1.6 All park land to be dedicated to the City should have all infrastructure improvements in place concurrently with the implementation of a project or be bonded for completion prior to acceptance by the City. For the purposes of this policy, "concurrent" means at the time of final plat approval (for residential projects) or at the time of final building inspection for multi-family. PP-1.7 All existing park and recreation facilities owned and operated by the City that are not in compliance with ADA accessibility requirements, should be upgraded to ensure compliance with current ADA accessibility requirements. PP-1.8 The City should identify desirable lands within its Urban Growth Area for parks, trails, or open space and pursue their acquisition through dedication and purchase. PP-1.9 The City should evaluate and begin implementation of mechanisms that will enhance its ability to acquire properties and provide services including inter- jurisdictional/inter-agency relationships, district designations, or other appropriate mechanisms. PP-1.10 The City should maintain its existing volunteer program for the maintenance of parks, trails, and open spaces within the City. PP-1.11 Each community park should have restroom facilities. PP-1.12 New residential developments should provide adequate on-site park space or pay a fee-in-lieu. PP-1.13 The City should seek grants as a way to pay for and provide park and recreation facilities at City-owned parks, trails, and open spaces. 3-33 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft GP-2 Provide a diverse range of recreational, cultural, and educational opportunities. Policies: PP-2.1 Multi-purpose use of public lands, facilities, and personnel services should be encouraged. PP-2.2 Each community park should be developed with activities and facilities for every age group. PP-2.3 City park facilities and services should provide an appropriate range of recreational opportunities. Such facilities and services should be designed in a manner that responds to the needs of the intended users. PP-2.4 The City should continue to support the recreational, cultural, and educational opportunities provided at the Byrnes Performing Arts Center. PP-2.5 The City should encourage the provision of art, interpretive, and educational facilities in parks and public buildings and spaces. PP-2.6 Capital Funds should be used primarily to improve existing parks and provide for new parks in newly annexed areas of the City's Urban Growth Area. PP-2.7 All parks, trails, and open spaces within the City should be well maintained. PP-2.8 Only activities consistent with the original intent and/or conditions of acquisition of respective park, trail, or open spaces should be allowed. GP-3 Continue to work with other jurisdictions and/or agencies to establish joint use agreements, thus increasing available parkland and facilities at minimum cost. Policies: PP-3.1 The City should continue to work with the County, Arlington School District, the Lakewood School District, the Arlington Boys and Girls Club, the Little League, and other public or private providers of recreation services and facilities, to cooperatively provide joint facilities, meeting and classrooms, athletic fields, and other facilities. PP-3.2 The City should continue to support continued cooperation between the City, non- profit organizations, the Arlington School District, the Lakewood School District and other agencies for continuation and development of recreation programming for youth, senior citizens, and other segments of the population. PP-3.3 Support and continue to work closely with the County Parks and Recreation Department in their efforts to complete the Whitehorse Trail. PP-3.4 The City should work with foundations, organizations, associations, trusts, developers, landowners, others from the private sector and neighboring and regional governments to develop and/or preserve parks, trails, and open space by encouraging donations and dedications, conservation easements, innovative land use contractual agreements and other methods. 3-34 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft GP-4 Strive for geographic and demographic equity in the provision of parks and recreation facilities. Policies: PP-4.1 Each subarea within the City should have at least one community park. A neighborhood center park should be located within the Smokey Point neighborhood. The City should identify and pursue opportunities for new parks within areas that are added to the City's Urban Growth Area. GP-5 Preserve and enhance open space, natural, and cultural resources. Policies: PP-5.1 Leash scoop and running-at-large laws should be enacted and enforced by the City in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of City residents and visitors. PP-5.2 Land development should be designed in such a way as to prevent or minimize impacts on natural open spaces. PP-5.3 Park and recreation facilities should be located, planned and managed so that they enhance wildlife habitat, minimize erosional impacts, and complement natural site features. PP-5.4 Scenic view sheds should be enhanced and preserved for public enjoyment when siting park and recreation facilities. PP-5.5 The City should strive to connect all City parks and open spaces by way of a trail network. PP-5.6 Passive recreational activities should be encouraged on non-critical area (usable) open space lands. PP-5.7 The City should inventory and protect significant non-tribal historical and cultural resources. PP-5.8 The City should establish criteria for accepting dedications and gifts of open space and associated facilities and placement of artwork within them. Until such criteria is formally established, the City may, at its discretion, accept dedication and gift of open space and/or natural areas lands. PP-5.9 Open space lands comprised of critical areas should be managed as native growth areas and kept in a natural state to maintain existing habitat value. In the case of degraded or impacted lands, these areas may be enhanced to provide a higher value. GP-6 Provide for a trail system through the City and connecting to regional trails. Policies: PP-6.1 The City should try to achieve a continuous, connected system of parks and open space via trails. 3-35 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PP-6.2 Trails should be developed for the purpose of providing opportunity for non- motorized transportation, recreation, and education. PP-6.3 The City should develop a strategy for marketing the Centennial Trail so as to attract more people to the downtown business district. GP-7 Develop park and trail design and development standards. Policies: PP-7.1 The City should establish park, trail, and open space design standards. PP-7.2 The City should develop a thematic signage program for City parks, trails, and open space. PP-7.3 Maintain an up to date map of the local trail system that is easily accessible to the public to help encourage trail use. GP-8 Remain a Tree City Policies: PP-8.1 The City should maintain at minimum those requirements necessary for qualifying to be a Tree City under the National Arbor Day Foundation, including: a) Maintain a tree board or department. b) Maintain tree protection rules, regulating the removal of trees and requiring appropriate replacement. c) Maintain a Community Forestry Program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita. d) Annually hold an Arbor Day observance and proclamation. PP-8.2 The City should develop a voluntary neighborhood tree planting program. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES General GE-1 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy,while respecting the natural environment and preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the City. Policies: PE-1.1 The City should encourage a diversified and vibrant economy in order to facilitate high and stable rates of employment within the City. PE-1.15 The City should enter into agreements with Broadband service providers so that they may utilize City rights-of-way for installation of infrastructure. 3-36 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PE-1.2 The City should maintain a favorable business climate through consistent implementation of City regulations, a streamlined permit process, excellent customer service, and through other available means and mechanisms. PE-1.3 The City should work to ensure there is always a more than adequate employment land base (both commercial and industrial) in order to maintain the City's desired high jobs/to household ratio. PE-1.4 The City should work to ensure that there is always an adequate retail sales base (i.e., commercial land base) in order to provide financial support to the services the City provides. PE-1.5 The City should work to attract living wage job providers to locate in Arlington. PE-1.6 The City should identify ways to improve current services and/or provide new services that will improve the quality of life for its residents. PE-1.7 The City should provide a predictable development atmosphere through consistent application and interpretation of City regulations, and permit processing. PE-1.8 The City should encourage economic development activities that take into consideration the capacities of the area's natural resources, public services and facilities. PE-1.9 The City should promote a fair balance in the tax base to adequately serve needs of residents and businesses. PE-1.10 The amount and rate of land consumption for business, commercial and industrial uses should be monitored by the City. PE-1.11 The City should use the analysis in the Economic Development Plan to provide a technical foundation upon which economic strategies and decision-making can be based. PE-1.12 The City should promote the viability of downtown as a commercial and social center with the goal of having other commercial areas dispersed amongst our neighborhoods so as to reduce traffic and air pollution. PE-1.13 The City should develop a strategy for Smokey Point so as to better compete with the potential commercial areas west of Interstate-5. PE-1.14 The City should encourage business that process and sell locally-produced resources. EMPLOYMENT GE-2 Provide an adequate job-producing land base to ensure an adequate number of jobs for citizens within the community and to aid the community in paying for infrastructure and services. Policies: 3-37 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PE-2.1 The City should work to ensure that the amount of land zoned for business and industrial use is adequate to meet 20-year employment forecast within the planning area boundaries. PE-2.2 The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to housing ratio. PE-2.3 The City should identify sectors of the economy within Arlington where opportunity might exist to create additional jobs and identify potential strategies for attracting employment. In particular, provide a supportive business environment for start-up, light manufacturing and assembly businesses in the airport/industrial area. UTILITIES GE-3 Ensure adequate utility and transportation services to accommodate businesses providing jobs. Policies: PE-3.1 The City should work to ensure adequate utilities (sewer, water, stormwater, solid waste, electricity, gas, telecommunications, etc.) and transportation access (rail, road, air) exist within the City to accommodate economic activity and growth. CAPITAL FACILITIES GE-4 Encourage active cooperation between the City and local businesses concerning economic development issues, particularly of those businesses that have specialized infrastructure,building design, transportation or other needs. Policies: PE-4.1 The City should provide sufficient and proactive investment in public infrastructure— to improve the economic base and accommodate overall growth. PE-4.2 The City should consider resources, service and infrastructure limitations before reviewing applications for new commercial and industrial development. PE-4.3 Ensure that new commercial development incorporates site and building design features that accommodate alternate modes of transportation. PE-4.4 The City should work with the Arlington/Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Arlington Business Association to identify ways in which the City and local businesses can cooperate on economic development issues and strategies for addressing those issues. 3-38 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PE-4.5 The City should plan transportation system improvements that ensure efficient transport of goods and convenient access for employees and customers to and from places of business. PE-4.6 The City should promote commercial development that facilitates pedestrian activity and is architecturally distinctive. PE-4.7 Where appropriate, the City should participate or otherwise assist in business sponsored activities to increase local awareness of goods and services available in Arlington. PE-4.8 The City should work to ensure that City licensing and permitting practices and procedures are coherent, fair and expeditious. Where specialized industry requirements call for the inspection by government agencies, coordinate with those agencies to eliminate duplication of efforts. SUBAREA SPECIFIC POLICIES GE-5 Foster economic development throughout the City's many economic subareas. Policies: Old-Town Business District PE-5.1 The City should encourage and promote the development or enhancement of retail, service, civic, and mixed uses to achieve a vibrant shopping, dining and/or entertaining experience in the Old-Town Business District. PE-5.2 The City should promote the redevelopment of the Old-Town Business District by developing a Master Plan for the central business district including urban design standards, the identification of a central commons area near the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the promotion of new retail and commercial businesses that provide a diversity of goods and services. PE-5.3 The City should explore ways in which the downtown retail shopping area might be further enhanced and linked to the Stillaguamish River. PE-5.4 When appropriate, the City should site new civic and cultural facilities in the Old- Town Business District. PE-5.5 The City should assist businesses within the Old-Town Business District in developing a specific, in-depth economic development plan for the downtown. PE-5.6 The City should involve merchants in ongoing economic development strategies for the Old-Town Business District. PE-5.7 The City should also become an active sponsor and promoter of new retail businesses that offer a mix of goods and services that people in the area want and need, focusing on the balance of factors that will result in an economically successful retail center with the prospects for long-term economic health. 3-39 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft AIRPORT GE-6 Ensure that the airport remains a viable employment and economic engine for the City of Arlington. Policies: PE-6.1 The City should encourage the growth of the airport as an employment center by considering innovative public/private partnerships, tax incentives, and economic development planning to promote this growth. PE-6.2 The City should promote the Arlington Municipal Airport as Washington's Premier General Aviation Airport. Encourage development of the Flight Line property. PE-6.3 The City should develop a strategy to market the Airport to encourage aviation economic development. PE-6.4 The City should utilize the Airport to bring recognition to Arlington by encouraging special events such as the NWEAA Fly-In and others. TOURISM PE-7.1 The City should support the development of the Whitehorse Trail to Darrington and promote Arlington as the hub for trail users. PE-7.2 The City should capitalize on its Stillaguamish riverfront, riverfront parks (existing and potential), and trail systems and develop and promote Arlington as an outdoor recreation area. PE-7.3 The City should implement other action items in the Economic Development plan aimed at achieving this goal. ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER GE-8.0 Obtain regional PSRC designation of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MICAMMIC), jointly with the City of Marysville. Policies PE-8.1 The City should work to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support existing industrial/manufacturing uses and protect the MWAMMIC area from encroachment by incompatible uses in order to attract new manufacturing and industrial businesses. PE-8.2 The City should develop policies and regulations that are coordinated with economic development strategies to encourage growth and sustain manufacturing and industrial businesses within the AMMIC. PE-8.3 The City should make every effort to provide up-front economic information, site development data, and a streamlined permit process in order to assist existing and new manufacturing and industrial businesses in the AMMIC. 3-40 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PE-8.4 The City should work to obtain a joint Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) designation from the PSRC through collaboration with the City of Marysville, Snohomish County, and the PSRC. PE-8.5 The City should adopt a joint resolution with the City of Marysville that requests the PSRC designate the AMMIC as a regional manufacturing industrial center and authorizes staff to submit a joint application requesting designation to the PSRC. PE-8.6 Work to ensure that the AMMIC is in harmony with the goals and expectations established in the PSRC's VISION 2040 and multi-county planning policies. PE-8.7 Work to ensure the boundaries of the AMMIC are within Arlington's and Marysville's respective Urban Growth Boundaries. PE-8.8 The City should adopt an inter-local agreement with the City of Marysville that establishes the mechanism by which both jurisdictions will jointly plan for the long- term development of the AMMIC including a minimum employment capacity of 20,000 jobs. PE-8.9 The City should develop a subarea plan for the Arlington portion of the AMMIC within two years after receiving MIGAMMIC designation from the PSRC. The subarea plan should address the topics described in the Manufacturing Industrial Center Plan Checklist in PSRC's Plan Review Manual. PE-8.10 The City should ensure that at least 80% of the land located within the Arlington portion of the AMMIC boundaries have planned future land uses and current zoning designations for industrial and manufacturing uses. PE 8.11 The City should work to enstit!e that a minimum employment level of 10,000 ji-Abs exist within the pr-opesed AMMIC boundar-ies in order-to reeeive initial designation. PE-8.11 Ensure that there is sufficient zoned development capacity within the AMMIC to adequately accommodate the adopted target employment level. PUBLIC SERVICES AND CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES GS-1 Develop and adopt a concurrency management system in order to coordinate the orderly provision of public facilities with public and private development activities in a manner that is compatible with the fiscal resources of the City. Policies: PS-1.1 All development permits should be conditioned on facilities being in place as the impacts of the development occur, or within six years (or sooner, depending on the facility), whichever is to the greatest benefit to the City. A development permit includes any official City action that effects the permitting of land and which the City is not obligated to approve per City regulations. The City should take into 3-41 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft account the variation in the different types of development permits and be flexible in adherence. PS-1.2 The City should not preclude the siting of essential public facilities; however, it should enforce its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure reasonable compatibility with other land uses. PS-1.3 The City should allow a variety of uses for public facilities or develop a centrally located community center that could be used for day care, youth facilities, senior activities, meetings and other functions. PS-1.4 Public facilities and utilities should be located to: a) achieve a high level of public accessibility; b) maximize the efficiency of services provided; c) minimize their costs; and d)minimize their impacts upon the natural environment. PS-1.5 The City of Arlington should not issue any development permits that result in a reduction of the transportation Level of Service standard for the public facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Element without mitigation. PS-1.6 The location and construction of public facilities should be permitted in any land use plan category. PS-1.7 The City should require that new developments mitigate traffic impacts through at least two of the following methods as deemed acceptable by the City: dedication of right-of-way, frontage improvements, or traffic mitigation fees. PS-1.8 Any infrastructure improvements needed to serve a proposed development should be installed prior to the issuance of any building permit. PS-1.9 City sewer service should not be provided to any property outside City limits except where Council grants an exception to prevent or remedy significant environmental impacts PS-1.10 Serve new development within the urban growth area with sanitary sewer systems or fit it with dry sewers in anticipation of connection to the sewer system. Alternative technology to sewers should only be considered when it can be shown to produce treatment at standards that are equal to or better than the sewer system and where a long-term maintenance plan is in place. (Suggested by PSRC) PS-1.4-911 Any costs associated with water extensions or system requirements necessary to provide that water shall be borne by the person(s)requesting such service. GS-2 Site essential public facilities in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.200 and Countywide Planning Policies. Policies: PS-2.1 Arlington shall develop regulations for the siting of essential public facilities consistent with RCW 36.70A.200, the Countywide Planning Policies, and the SCT Common Siting Process. 3-42 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft GS-3 Ensure Utility service provisions are consistent with the Growth Management Act. Policies: PS-3.1 The City should not extend utility lines outside the City's Urban Growth Area, except in cases of emergencies, where it solves a grave environmental issue, or when it would not contribute to urban growth. PS-3.2 The City should avoid placing utilities within critical areas or their buffers except when absolutely necessary. And then, they should only be allowed to cross perpendicular to the critical areas in a manner requiring the least lineal impact to the resource. Utilities should never run parallel with the critical area unless it is outside of the buffer. LID facilities, however, are permissible in critical area buffers per the land-use code. GS-4 Coordinate service and facility provision with other jurisdictions. Policies: PS-4.1 The City should work with Marysville to adjust water and sewer service area boundaries so that all properties within Arlington are served by Arlington water and sewer. PS-4.2 Work with Snohomish County and the developer(s) of the Brekhus/Beach area to jointly plan, fund, and construct 172nd Street from 91st Avenue NE to McElroy Road. GS-5 Manage stormwater pursuant to current standards, preserving and supplementing, as necessary, the natural drainage ways and other natural hydrologic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development. Policies: PS-5.1 The City should maintain an up-to-date Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. PS-5.2 The City should seek grants, loans, and other low-cost funding opportunities for capital improvement projects. PS-5.3 The City should ensure that monitoring requirements, treatment techniques, and studies required by the State such as Total Maximum Daily Load, In-stream Flow Rule, or other State and federal regulations are followed. PS-5.5 The City should preform GIS and stormwater modeling activities to provide an accurate analysis of our stormwater collection, conveyance and treatment system as well as related facilities in order to provide information quickly to customers and during emergency situations. PS-5.6 The City should develop and maintain a stormwater strategy that reduces the negative impacts to natural drainages and aquatic habitats that can occur during the early stages of a development. 3-43 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft PS-5.7 The City should include Best Available Science/Best Management Practices in its stormwater strategy. PS-5.8 The City should utilize Low Impact Design standards that provide stormwater benefits and support naturally occurring functions simultaneously. PS-5.9 The City should develop programs to educate the public about illicit discharge detection and elimination, controlling stormwater runoff, pollution prevention, and operation and maintenance. PS-5.10 The City should work to ensure stormwater standards and specifications reflect current industry standards and to meet regulatory requirements. PS-5.11 The City should work to increase residential and business awareness of harmful discharges to the stormwater system and the resulting damages to infrastructure and natural resources. PS-5.12 The City should enforce stormwater utility regulations. PS-5.13 The City should work to increase the frequency of maintenance for the City's stormwater collection, conveyance and treatment systems. PS-5.14 Groundwater management should follow a strategy for facilities that protects groundwater resources from development and uses. PS-5.15 The City should obtain stream corridor dedications where reasonable. GS-6 Provide excellent sewer service to our customers. Policies: PS-6.1 The City should continue the wastewater pretreatment program to assist in the reduction of plant upsets, collection system troubles, and NPDES permit violations. PS-6.2 The City should implement new stormwater monitoring requirements and treatment techniques and conduct studies for compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load, In- stream Flow Rule, and other State and federal regulations. GS-7 Provide excellent water service to our customers. Policies: PS-7.1 The City should meet or exceed the minimum levels of service for water system maintenance as identified in the Water Comprehensive Plan. PS-7.2 The City should encourage water conservation, water reclamation and reuse among its residents through education and by providing water conservation kits. PS-7.3 The City should implement new monitoring requirements and treatment techniques as well as conduct studies required by the Safe Drinking Water Act. PS-7.4 Cross Connection Control Program site surveys should be completed annually as required by the Department of Health. Demonstrate program progress in the annual 3-44 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 2016 Update Draft cross connection control report that we are required to submit to Department of Health. GS-8 Provide excellent solid waste service to our customers. Policies: PS-8.1 The City should work closely with Snohomish County and local haulers to expand the type of recyclable materials that can be collected from homes and businesses. PS-8.2 The City should continue its award-winning outreach and public education program to improve solid waste and recycling practices at businesses by teaching them about best management practices and providing technical support and resources. PS-8.3 The City should provide recycling opportunities at public events such as the Fly-In and Street Fair. PS-8.4 The City should provide recycling opportunities in City-owned buildings. PS-8.5 The City should partner with other municipalities and government agencies to combine resources that benefit the solid-waste customers of Arlington. 3-45 JULY 2015 [MH1] Chapter 4: Description of Planning Area City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area 4 Description of Planning Area 4.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER This chapter gives a description of the planning area, including existing political, physical, and social conditions. The gathering, inventorying, and analysis of such information are the starting point for developing any short or long-range plans. Additionally, it is essential (as well as required by SEPA) as a basis for environmental impact analysis. Throughout, this document will reference this chapter, directing the reader to turn to particular sections for information they may need to make informed analyses, conclusions, and decisions. Much of the information will also be useful to future drafters of project-level environmental documents. 4.2 PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES In this plan the City treats the City limits,- and the 2-OWUrban Growth Area (UGA+,-and4he- randea 2015 U n as one, since under the GMA it is assumed that all area with the final UGA will be annexed at some point to become a part of the City. All analyses include the entirety of these areas. 4.3 CITY OF ARLINGTON The City limits cover an area of approximately 9.7 square miles (see Figure 2-1). The City has planning jurisdiction within its City limits; therefer-e, the City Council creates the development policies and regulations and the City processes all permits for land development. There are several interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to address mutual interests and cross-boundary impacts, including reciprocal mitigation for traffic. Additionally, any agency affected by a particular development or which has responsibility for managing a particular resource also has rights to comment and recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures for projects within the City limits. The City also controls growth outside of the City by its policies regarding waterutility extensions. 4.4 ARLINGTON URBAN GROWTH AREA The GMA requires counties planning under the Act to designate an Urban Growth Area (UGA) around each of its cities "within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature." The Act provides, "Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within a UGA. A UGA may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to 4-1 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area territory already characterized by urban growth." Unincorporated areas within the City's UGA will eventually be annexed into the City. The location of the boundary for this area is based on land supply needs to meet expected 2035 development demands, natural geologic formations, topography, environmental constraints, existing development beyond the City limits, and the availability of existing infrastructure and services. Public sewer and water lines, drainage facilities, electricity and telecommunication lines, and roadways can be extended to serve existing and future development over 20 years in the planning area. Arlington's airport has also played a major role in the establishment of this area because of the City's need to control land outside the current City limits to avoid future land use conflicts with the City's municipal airport. Discussions need to occur with other adjacent jurisdictions regarding the protection of the Arlington Municipal Airport. Within the UGA but outside of the City limits Snohomish County has planning jurisdiction. The City Council, however, has adopted regulations that require annexation into the City prior to obtaining sewer service. This ensures that development within the City's Urban Growth Areas conform to City standards and development regulations. 4.5 2015 URBAN GROWTH AREA The Arlington UGA, first adopted in 1995 and subsequently amended several times encompasses approximately I10.3 [RS21square miles inclusive of the City of Arlington (see Figure 2-1). As part of the State's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA), Urban Growth Area boundaries were placed around municipalities for the purpose of concentrating urban growth in urban areas and protecting resource and open space lands, and ensuring the provision of urban services to urban and urbanizing areas. The size and boundaries of the UGA must be consistent with the Buildable Lands Report developed by Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT). The Buildable Lands policy states that cities will ensure that sufficient usable residential, commercial and industrial lands exist within the UGA to accommodate the population, housing and jobs. Totals expected to exist in 2035 are as follows: 2011 2035 Cqpacily Population 18,489 26,002 34,514 Housing 7,128 10,018 EMployMent 8,660 20,884 htlp:Hsnohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38710 4-2 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area Available buildable lands are shown on Figures 2.3a and 2.3b. In 2016, the County Council amended its Countywide Planning Policies and added GPP 10, which updated population and employment figures for Snohomish County jurisdictions, including Arlington. It reconciled these figures with the buildable lands inventory for the City. Among its findings, GPP 10 confirms that the city and its unincorporated UGA Fi ure 2- j) can eu4d accommodate the 2035 population, employ and housing targets shown above. ettffenfly adopted in Appendix D of t4e eounty's GPP within the ettfT-efft Arlington UGA bet . The finding assumes use of " reasonable measures" to increase capacity within the city. The City of Arlington's revised employment eapaeity estimates betHidafies. (Employment targets do not yet consider a full buildout of a proposed Manufacturing Industrial Center currently under consideration.) Policies, regulations and reasonable measures to maximize use of these lands were then developed, consistent with local, County and regional growth policies, including Vision 2040. These were adopted in 2017 as part of the City's docket process and as part of the PSRC final plan certification process. Figure 4-1 Additional Housing Unit Capacity June 2016 4-3 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area Figure 4-2 Additional Employment Capacity June 2016 4-4 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area As part of this 2015 periedie update the City is 11 expansion of the Arlington UGA as shown in Figufe 2 3b to aeeemmedate gf:ewth in atir- next 20 year- planning eyele, 2015 20 > > . In 2005, one planning subarea — Brekhus/Beach (Bum Hill) — was designated as a "TDR Receiving Area." This area was permitted to come into the UGA as part of the 2005 update of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan with the condition that the area was to be designated as a TDR receiving area in the County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The intent was that if the property owners or developers bought development rights from "sending areas" in the Stillaguamish Valley, they would be eligible to come into the UGA and develop using the units transferred from the sendng areas. The primary intent; _was that farming and agricultural open space would be preserved in the Stillaguamish Valley. The Brekhus/Beach subarea was annexed into Arlington in 2007 and was designated for future "master planned community" status in 2008. Zoning was adopted that would initially allow Suburban Residential development (9600 square foot lots), but permit a much higher density once TDR credits were purchased and applied, a master plan was approved, and infrastructure installed. The TDR approach stalled and Brekhus/Beach has yet to develop according to expectations. The market he&-beenwas unable to produce both sellers and willing buyers of TDR certificates. Also, the topography and geology of the area make the installation of infrastructure such as roads and sewers very costly. In 2015-16, discussions continue regarding the status of the BrekhusBeach subarea. The City has withdrawn from the TDR program-. Zoning remains that allows for a Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) and TDR credits will be accepted as one factor in awardingdensity ensity bonuses. Other bonus incentives will also be allowed to ensure that the MPN zoning is successful, with or without TDR. As noted in the table above, theT4L-_Comprehensive Plan assufnes thm this area will provide the buildable land density necessary to accommodate the projected 2035 population. The area will remain in low-density Suburban Residential zoning with a high-level Master Plan put together by the City in consultation with local residents. The only other Master Plan Neighborhood overlay besides Brekhus/Beach is the future Lindsey Annexation south of 172nd Street NE and just west of Highway 9. The City also plans to work with these land owners in developing a high-level master plan so that development can occur here as well. 4.76 COORDINATED WATER SERVICE PLAN AREA 4-5 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area Another planning boundary not referenced in the GMA is the Coordinated Water Service Plan (CWSP) area. ' It is larger than the City's UGA (see Figure 2-5) at roughly 22.5 square miles. This is an area within which Arlington has the first right to provide water service. However certain conditions may be placed on t h o s e services. Such conditions differ depending on where the project is located and what type of development it is. Please refer to the Cijy code -AMC 13.04 for these conditions. 4.6--7 FUTURE GROWTH AREAS The following section includes a description and analysis of each neighborhood subarea. . The City has worked with the County and Vision 2040 to ensure that the overall community accommodate 2035 population, housing and jobs. This more detailed review was carried out in order to provide an analysis of planning issues unique to each subarea as each contributes to the total. For the 2015 update, City staff and the Planning Commission reviewed the 2005 planning issues and policies, compared them against current information and revised the issues and policies accordingly. All areas were analyzed to ensure (1) that the 2015 UGA boundaries encompassed an area that would accommodate the projected 2035 population and employment, (2) in an area with sufficient buildable lands and (3) which can be served with adequate urban infrastructure. With the adoption of Counywide Planning Polidy GPP 10 in November 2016, buildable lands within the Arltington UGA were successfully reconciled with the 2036 population, housing and employment forecasts. Cfessing. The West Arlington S4afea Plan pr-evides for- more inaova4ive development types thr-eugh appliea4ien ef Fafm Based Codes and more eaer-dinated urban design pa#efas. The Pla will beeeme aetive enee the implementing development regulations are established. There is one area the City Ceti*eil wishes to add to the City's UGA to provide ade"me builda !a-nds for-2035. GufT-e*dy under-Feview by the Gount-y as paf4 of its annual amendment pr-eeess, is the King Thempsen UGA pr-epesal (Cetifity file "ARL3") whieh would add 236 aer-es a4 a density pemitting up to 1800 residents. The at!ea lies west of 1 5 and shares a eammen border- wit.h. King Thompson UGA ean be sefved with new r-eads and ttfilifies. As diseussed elsewhere in this eampfehensive plan, this addition will balaftee the less of biAdable lands in the BfekhtWBeaeh Subarea brought on by the unsueeessful TDR pf!ogram. A 7 /`t1(1Qn1A1ATrn \A/AT CC \/1� C �1 AAIREA RCW Chapter 70.116--Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977 4-6 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area 4.8 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING SUBAREAS The following s4afea analysis ineltides a deser-iption and analysis of eaeb s4ar-ea. This detailed - .- - - eaffied out in order- to provide an analysis of planning issu tmi"e to eaeb s4afe-a. Fof the 2015 "date, City staff and the Pimaing Commission feviewed the 2005 p! i — i S. are diseussed in more detail below. All were analyzed to ensure that the 2015 UGA bottada within an area with suffieient buildable lands and whieh ean be served with adequa4e urb inffastfuetufe. The detailed analysis of eaeh of those faetor-s ean be found in other-poi4ions of t PtRYY. Old-Town Residential Location: At 609 acres, the Old-Town Subarea makes up 8.9% of the 2015 planning area. It is roughly bordered by the OTBD to the west, the Stillaguamish River valley to the east, Highland Street and Kona Crest neighborhood to the south, and Gilman Street and the former Country Charm dairy to the north. This older, more established neighborhood is the heart of old Arlington's residential character. Existing Uses: The predominant use is single-family residential, but there are a fair number of duplexes, row-houses, and older apartments interspersed throughout. There are also four large tracts that contain schools (two elementary and two middle schools), school administration, a hospital, and associated medical services adjacent to the hospital. Its development pattern is that of a traditional, alley-and-grid-system neighborhood, with many houses having front porches and garages on the alley. Houses vary in size and many of them sit on two or three small lots, typical of late 19th-early 20th century town subdivisions. There are no large tracts of undeveloped land, but there are many existing lots that can be made buildable through boundary line adjustments. Thus, there is the potential to increase densities through in-fill development, redevelopment, and accessory dwelling units. 2 RGW Chapter 70.116 PubliG\Avrrc-ate. S ste Coordination Aet of 1977 4-7 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area Infrastructure: Infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, and storm drainage pipes) exists throughout the subarea, but it is old, approaching the end of its useful life, and is in need of repair, replacement, or upgrading. The storm system has been improved, having once drained directly into the Stillaguamish River with no detention or treatment. Old-Town now drains into a constructed wetland, (Old-Town Stormwater Wetland). The wetland was constructed in 2013. Parks: There is one community park in the Old-Town: Terrace Park. In addition, there are four school yards, some of which have play equipment, some of which have developed play fields, and all which have unstructured play fields. Additional parks are still deemed necessary for this area. See Chapter 7 for a thorough description of these recreation facilities. Critical Areas: With the exception of a few steep slopes there are no Environmentally Critical Areas on the upper plateau (essentially, the built area) since most were obliterated 100 years ago. The steep slopes are currently forested and provide screening between the OTBD and the residential uses of Old-Town and contribute environmentally in terms of habitat, climate control, and stormwater infiltration. There is one area of note that does contain critical areas, that being the Graafstra Farm. This area was annexed to the City since the last Plan update. Most of the farm's structures are set on an upland hill that juts out into the floodplain. There are steep slopes here, as within other parts of town. Additionally, most of the farmed land sits in the Stillaguamish Southfork floodplain and is adjacent to the river. The lowlands are zoned Public/Semi-Public and the uplands are zoned High Density Residential. 2015 Planning Issues: The Old-Town area is an area that could absorb higher densities through in-fill, mixed use, cottage housing or similar mechanisms. Doing so, however, will require that regulatory or other tools be put in place to preserve the historical architectural character that helps to define Arlington's community image. Old-Town Business Districts Location: At 198 acres, the Old-Town Business District (OTBD) subarea makes up 2.9% of the planning area. The OTBD is generally bordered by the Stillaguamish River on the north, Highway 9 on the west, and the Old-Town subarea to the south and east. The Arlington Old-Town Business District is comprised of three subdistricts: OTBD-1, OTBD-2, and OTBD-3. As described below, there are land use and development distinctions between all three subdistricts that should be considered in formulating the blueprint for downtown. But there are also some overall issues that need to be addressed for the downtown as a whole. OTBD-1 Existing Uses: This district represents the heart of Arlington and includes the City's historic "Main Street" (Olympic Avenue, which was formerly named Railroad Avenue). The design of both its public realm (publicly owned spaces such as rights-of-way and parks) and 4-8 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area private realm (properties developed under private ownership), work together to create a strong sense of place and identity. Olympic Avenue was upgraded in 2007 to include new wide sidewalks, street furniture, unique street lighting and crosswalk design. The historic buildings along Olympic Avenue are adjacent to the street and to each other, forming a contiguous street wall that actively engages the street. The OTBD-1 has historically held a variety of uses: national retail chains, small mom-&-pop specialty stores, restaurants, mixed uses (residences on upper floors), civic and cultural uses, entertainment, etc. In the last several decades, however, most of the larger, national chains have relocated to the suburban commercial areas. Though there is little land available for development, there is opportunity for redevelopment and improvement to existing buildings. The City owns about four(4) acres of undeveloped land fronting on about two blocks of Olympic Avenue. OTBD 2 Existing Uses: OTBD-2 basically runs along West Avenue, SR-9, and Division Street. It is characterized by commercial buildings from the 1960s and 70s, older single-family houses (some of which have been converted to commercial uses), and a few vacant parcels (though on the west side of SR-9 there are some larger parcels currently housing farm and single-family residential uses). Most commercial buildings accommodate parking off-street as opposed to on- street like in OTBD-1. OTBD-3 Existing Uses: OTBD-3 is generally that area between Division Street (or Burke Avenue east of Broadway Street) and the Stillaguamish River. Uses include a mix of older single- family residential homes, apartment buildings, mid-sized commercial buildings, a district court, and other small businesses. The City's water, sewer, and stormwater facilities are located here. There isn't much vacant land available; however, there is a lot of opportunity for infill and redevelopment. Infrastructure: Much of the infrastructure in the Old-Town Business District is in need of repair, replacement, or upgrading. Olympic Avenue was remodeled in 2007 and other piecemeal infrastructure improvements have occurred as funding becomes available. Parks: There are two community parks in the OTBD: Haller Park and Legion Park. See Chapter 7 for a thorough description of these recreation facilities. Critical Areas: With the exception of steep slopes there are no Environmentally Critical Areas in the Old-Town Business District. The steep slopes are forested and provide screening between the OTBD and the residential uses of Old-Town and contribute environmentally in terms of habitat, climate control, and stormwater infiltration. 4-9 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area 2015 Planning Issues: The City will continue to pursue an economic development strategy for OTBD-1. This will involve review of existing regulations and amendments to achieve the economic and community vision. Topics of discussion include: OTBD-1 1. Appropriate types of uses in OTBD-1, including the extent of civic and municipal functions. 2. Remodeling, redevelopment, or new development that furthers the goals of our economic development strategy. 3. Enforcement of existing rules, including building and property maintenance. 4. Attraction of more people to the downtown during more hours of the day. 5. More mixed uses (first floor commercial,upper floors residential) in OTBD-1. 6. Public infrastructure improvements, added or improved. 7. Availability of parking-both on-site and on-street. 8. Economic opportunities with Centennial Trail. OTBD-2 1. Appropriate types of uses in OTBD-2. 2. District theme and building appearance (OTBD-1 may be the model). 3. Surface parking lots. 4. Mixed use development. 5. Riverfront commercial development. 6. Buffering the treatment plant from conflicting activities while providing for future expansion. OTBD-3 1. Stillaguamish Tribe claims that one of its largest ancestral villages lay where Haller Park now is. Care will need to be taken in planning or developing this area, with appropriate archaeological studies being conducted and consideration given to any findings. 2. Frontage on the river. Possible redevelopment into a riverfront commercial use. 3. Aesthetic improvements to public parking lots, making them more desirable to use. 4. Enforcement of existing rules, including building and property maintenance. Incentives to get property owners to fix up their buildings. 5. Opportunities to provide more or better trails, sidewalks, and paths to connect parking, shopping,jobs, schools, and the adjacent neighborhoods. 6. Bike trails to other areas of the City. Arlington Bluff Subarea Location: With 451 acres, the Arlington Bluff Subarea makes up 7.9% of the 2015 planning 4-10 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area area. Bordered on the north by steep slopes and the floodplain, and on the south by the industrial area and airport, this scenic residential district meanders along the bluff overlooking the Stillaguamish Valley. Existing Uses: Some of the best view property in Arlington is found here. It contains predominately single-family residential uses (some older, some newer), though there are some undeveloped commercial properties along SR-530 and 211th Street. There are still some un- annexed areas that are developed and undeveloped. Infrastructure: Due to recent development, sewer, water, and other utilities are available in most of this subarea. One exception is the area north of 188th Street, though it is anticipated development will soon extend utilities to this area as well. There are still quite a few homes on wells and septic systems in the area between the cemetery and SR-530 west of 67th Avenue. Streets in the newer areas are generally up to standards, but there are several older County subdivisions that have substandard roads, with no sidewalks or other frontage improvements. Additionally, substantial portions of Cemetery Road/188th Street still need to be widened and improved to bring it up to its Local Collector standard. Parks: There is one community park in the Arlington Bluff subarea: High Clover Park. (See Chapter 7). Critical Areas: Environmentally, the biggest issues are the steep slopes and drainage on the lower valley properties. The steep slopes are currently forested and provide screening between the urbanizing area and the Stillaguamish Valley and contribute environmentally in terms of habitat, climate control, and stormwater infiltration. 2015 Planning Issues: In the 2005 Plan, there was concern over future growth conflicting with airport clear zone operations. These have been resolved and compatibility regulations are in place. As with other subareas, a major challenge it how to connect neighborhoods and road systems in an effective and economical manner. There are numerous dead-end streets that should be connected. Also, the City has developed trails in several locations and there should be a continuous effort to link people with the commercial,park, school and other destinations. Among other issues: • Annexing those portions of the subarea that haven't been annexed into the City. • Minimize drainage impacts on valley properties. • Septic system failures in Pioneer Estates and elsewhere. 4-11 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area Kent Prairie Area Subarea Location: At 353 acres, the Kent Prairie Subarea makes up 5.2% of the 2015 planning area. This subarea is bordered by the top of the valley slope on the north, the City limits/UGA on the east, the bottom of the valley slope on the south, and boundaries of the General Commercial zone just west of SR-9 on the west. It basically includes the low-lying valley floor(once a working farm) as well as some of the slopes surrounding it. Existing Uses: This subarea has some unique strengths as well as challenges. One of its strengths is its topography: Being in a small valley and surrounded on most sides by hills, it has the appearance of being a neighborhood unto itself. It also has good access because it is located at the intersection of a State highway and an arterial that serves a large rural area to the east. It has an elementary school, a large park (though mostly undeveloped), and a commercial center. There is also a good mix of residential types, including single-family residences, apartments, mobile homes, and assisted care facilities. There are still a large number undeveloped parcels, both commercial and high density residential. Infrastructure: Utilities, streets, and other infrastructure are in good shape, being relatively new. The City does have a water reservoir on the eastern slopes. Parks: There is one community park in the Kent Prairie subarea: Jensen Park. In addition, there is a schoolyard which has play equipment and unstructured play fields. (See Chapter 7). Critical Areas: A strength that is also a challenge is that there are several important salmon- bearing creeks and large wetlands throughout the area. These include Portage, Prairie, and Kruger Creeks. Since the 2014 Oso disaster, there has been increased attention to potential hazardous slide areas. In 1994, a fairly large landslide occurred on property that was being developed east of Burn/Stillaguamish Roads. There have been several discussions since 1994 on what could be done with it, but as yet it seems infeasible (or too costly) to stabilize the slopes. This is indicative of the need to identify where slide prone areas exist and what the regulatory response should be. In the post-Oso period, Arlington will participate in efforts to protect these areas, including the Burn Road property in the Kent Prairie subarea. 2015 Planning Issues: In the 2005 Plan, there was concern over future residential and commercial growth conflicting with each other. The City is satisfied that protections exist for this. Protections for creeks and wetlands have also been put in place. A mix of housing types — a goal in 2005 —is meeting with success. Again, a major challenge is how to connect neighborhoods and road systems. Physical connections in the Kent Prairie area may be an insurmountable challenge because of past development trends and the topography of the area. Additional development of the City's trail 4-12 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area system may provide more bicycle and pedestrian links however. Special attention must be paid to clean up and maintenance of the Zimmerman Hill Trail in the subarea. Manufa(Aurinn 1ndustrmal Center /11AIP`\� i.rc�,-rurcrr.c c,-rcrrvcr rc�[R53] The Ma+mfaetur-ifig la&stfial Center- extends fFom the settthem edge of downtown, beyond ef the , faet a part of the North Puget Sound Matmfaet-ur-iag Coffidef whieh potentially tafg-e4s the Mlc_. afea for-up to 77,000 the MIC is the eenter- of aetivity not only in Arlington, but the whole nofffi County area. it is in West Arlington Subarea To better organizegrowth and infill development west of the Arlington Municipal Airport, a West Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA) was developed and adopted in 2011. The 1057 acre Subarea combined four former subareas—Smokey Point, SR 532 Corridor, West Bluff, and Island Crossing. The 2011 Plan described the overall area as a "segregated mix of agriculture, commercial and residential with most of the area zoned for highway commercial and moderate residential density". It envisioned a future with emphasis on "human place" and livable places in harmony with the natural environment. It also described West Arlington as a future TDR receiving area for higher density, mixed use development next to stable single-family neighborhoods. The overall subarea plan has now reverted back to the four prior subarea plans. Many of the tools and concepts of the 2011 WASA Plan have been made a part of those smaller area plans, however each smaller area has been planned in a manner that recognizes the unique characteristics and needs for each. The W—qt Arlington Subarea D1,., was de�ve eped in 2011, eembining t1ireez0J � s4ar-eas: Smokey Point Neighbefhood, West Bluff and island Crossing. A peAien of the 2005 The key planning issues identified for the area were generally as described below in the original subareas: • Wetlands and floodplain within Island Crossing and West Bluff. • Steep slopes the eastern periphery. • Transportation infrastructure not up to urban standards. • Unsafe pedestrian"realm". And the need for: 4-13 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area • Community focus and connectivity with rest of Arlington. • Sprawl "repair". • Limited arterials. • Parks and trails. The 2016 Plan update considered these challenges and characteristics as well as the following aspirations: stfategy Components would elude • Walkability. • Connectivity. • Mixing land uses. • Variety. • Quality architecture &urban design. • Traditional neighborhood. • Compact design. • Sustainability. • Preservation. • Regulating plan(zoning map), • Building eonfigufation standards. • Building type standaMs. • "Public Realm" Improvements • Roads o Road plan (See Figure 2-5). o Roundabouts. 0 1-5 interchange at 1881h Street. o Bicycle lanes. o Streetscape standards. o Prohibition of dead-end or gated streets. o Landscape medians and street trees on arterials. o Unique street lamp design. o Traffic calming. 4-14 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area o Underground utilities on arterials. • Block standards o Different standards for different locations ("transects"). o Intersection spacing to encourage pedestrian use. o On-street parking. o Bicycle Lanes. o Landscape strips. • Gateways signing and other features for neighborhoods and major arterials. • Civic spaces o Parks. o Plazas. •ovate Realm" c tandafds Bttildifig eonfigttr-ations and design. G4y will adopt a fner-e speeifie implementation as pat4 of t4is 2015 Plan to be eaffied etit over-the- . - ffths, following Plan adoption. The Plan's implementation seefien feeemmends tha the WASA Plan be fefined further- into a speeifie aetion plan, involving codes, pr-qjeets, public- tits and development polietes. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan: In the City's 2005 Plan, the following neighborhood characteristics and issues in each West Arlington N-ea new eempfised of the West Ar-fingto Sea were identified. in 2015 they exist as were identified:as fo Smokey Point/SR-531 Corridor • Enhance the area as an entrance to the City. • Better road and trail connections. • Transportation links to Marysville. • Widening of SR-531. • Corridor design and streetscape. • Improve access to bus service. • Coordinated services with Marysville. 4-15 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area • Fire flow. • Protection of the Quilceda-Allen Creek. • Buffers between residential and commercial/industrial development. Smokey Point Neighborhood • Mix of older and newer homes. • Variety of densities and building types. • Higher density housing potential. • Areas available for development. • Rural infrastructure. • Low water pressure. • Lack of street frontage. • One park. More needed. • No community focal point. • Connections to rest of community needed. • Noise mitigation needed along I-5. • Drainage facilities in neighborhoods and Smokey Point Boulevard. • Smokey Point Boulevard improvements needed: streetscape, widening, drainage. West Bluff • Undeveloped or underdeveloped. • Older homes on large lots. • Sewer not extended to all of area. • Many homes are still on wells. • Roads not developed to City standards. • No curb, gutter, sidewalks, and planter strips. • No community parks. • Steep slopes. • Trails,bike trails and sidewalks. Island Crossing • Relatively undeveloped agricultural land, • A few older farmhouses and barns. • Several highway oriented businesses. • Roads not up to urban standards. • Served by sewer and water with significant upgrades needed for development. • 100-year floodplain. Frequent flooding.. • No drainage facilities. • Fish bearing creeks and critical areas. 4-16 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area • The Stillaguamish Tribe property desires City sewer and water services and intersection improvements. The City's Cqpital Improvements Plan and development regulations were updated in 2017 to prioritize improvements and present a more organized development pattern in these four neighborhoods and citywide. The City will adopt a more specific implementation as part of this 2017 Plan amendments, although these will occur over time on a prioritized basis. Hilltop Location: At 1,305 acres, the Hilltop Subarea makes up 19% of the 2015 planning area. This subarea is roughly bordered by Portage Creek and SR-9 on the east, 168th Street on the south, 67th Avenue on the west, and Kent Prairie subarea on the north. Existing Uses: This subarea basically includes all the residential areas up on the plateau, including Gleneagle, Crown Ridge, the Magnolias, etc. There is also undeveloped commercial land at the intersection of SR-9 and SR-531, and a residential area and commercial/mixed use area being brought into the UGA to the south and east of SR-531. Two schools (high and elementary) are also located in this subarea. Infrastructure: For the most part infrastructure is in good shape, as this is one of the newer developed areas in Arlington. However, the whole area of Arlington Terrace, developed as 5-acre lots, is on a private water system, septic systems, and private roads. This area could never develop to its planned densities unless public infrastructure is installed. Also, it is anticipated that both State highways will be widened in the future. Parks: There are 14 neighborhood parks in the Hilltop subarea: Gleneagle IVE Park, Gleneagle 1-3 Parks, Wedgwood Park, Crown Ridge 1-5 Parks, Highland View Estates Park, Eagle Heights Park, Zimmerman Trail, and Pioneer Park. In addition, there is Pioneer Elementary, which has play equipment and developed and unstructured play fields. (See Chapter 7) Critical Areas: There are quite a few streams that run through this area, as well as wetlands. Prairie and Portage Creeks both have their headwaters here. There are also some steep slopes along some of the creeks' ravines. 2015 Planning Issues: The key planning issue in the Hilltop Subarea is to complete a "high- level" master plan for the future Lindsay annexation. This represents an opportunity for mixed use or mixed density housing. In 2004, the City Council voted to support the roughly 100 acres south of 172nd being included in the UGA, with the following condition: "The area should be planned using the Planned Neighborhood Development tool found in the Land Use Code. Additionally, the City should develop a new land use 4-17 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area designation and zone with a minimum parcel size of 9,600 square foot for use in these areas. We should consider a mix of densities in these new areas, including some multi family residential areas as well as these new larger lots. We should also pre plan the transportation system, areas for community parks, utilities, and other necessary infrastructure and land uses. The City should enter into some sort of development contract with the property owners to implement this goal. " The City plans to work with property owners in developing a "high-level" master plan in order to help the annexation and development process of this unincorporated area. Towards the north end of the subarea in the Arlington Terrace Neighborhood, there is no pressing need to resolve density increases or infrastructure improvements in the area, although these could be considered density reserve area for the future. Trail connections are also a priority for the Hilltop Subarea, particularly along 172nd Street where pedestrians and vehicle co-exist in close proximity to one another. Southfork Location: At 72 acres, the Southfork Subarea makes up 1% of the planning area. This subarea is located on the eastern edge of the City,just north of the Brekhus/Beach Subarea and Tveit Road, and just east of the Old-Town Residential Subarea. At this time, the subarea is completely outside of City limits but within the City's Urban Growth Area. Existing Uses: This area is comprised solely of single-family residential dwellings on relatively large lots (half-acre plus). Infrastructure: The majority of roads within this subarea are below urban standards as they lack curb, gutter and sidewalk. The majority of lots are on septic as sewer lines don't extend through the subarea. Parks: There are no parks within this subarea however Eagle Creek Elementary lies directly to the north and has recreational facilities. Critical Areas: There are steep slopes toward the eastern edge of the subarea that run north to south. A portion of the subarea lies within the floodplain of the south fork of Stillaguamish River. 2015 Planning Issues: The key planning issues for this subarea are annexation and the extension of sewer lines. Attempts are being made to annex the area into the City; however, if residents are unable to agree to annexation, it may warrant further discussion of removal of this subarea from the City's Urban Growth Area. The extension of sewer lines throughout the area will be costly and existing lots that are subdividable will only be able to yield a few lots because of their relatively small size (for rural lots). 4-18 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area Brekhus/Beach (formerly Burn Hill and portion of Southfork) Location: At 337 acres, the Brekhus/Beach Subarea makes up 5% of the planning area. This subarea is located on the eastern edge of the City, roughly bordered by Portage Creek on the west (the chasm as it climbs the hill), 190th Street NE on the south, and Tveit Loop Road on the north. In the 2005 Plan, this area was referred to as Burn-Hill and part of Southfork. This area annexed in 2007 (see Ord. 1415) as part of the City and County's TDR3 program (see discussion below and Page 4-5). Existing Uses: This subarea is comprised solely of single-family residential uses on large lots (5 to 40 acres). Infrastructure: Currently the infrastructure in this area is developed to Snohomish County rural standards and is maintained by the City. As a condition of annexation, a master development plan was to be prepared by the owners, which would have included an infrastructure plan including a financial element. The City plans to as assisted land-owners in developing a "high-level" master plan—(Eigure ) to help guide development of the subarea. Until then the subarea will remain rural in character. One neighborhood, Quall Ridge, has been developed at the south end of the subarea because it was platted under the County's jurisdiction prior to annexation by the City. Parks: There are currently no parks in the Brekhus/Beach subarea. Open space will be planned at such time as a master development plan is presented by owners. Critical Areas: There are two fish-bearing streams (Portage Creek and Eagle Creek) that run through this area, along with their associated wetlands. There are also some steep slopes along some of the creeks' ravines which will require sensitive design of roads as part of the master development plan. 2015 Planning Issues: There are numerous planning issues with the Brekhus/Beach Subarea as a result of a thus fiif failed TDR program for the Stillaguamish Valley. The Brekhus/Beach Subarea was not originally slated to be included in the City's UGA during the County's 2005 Plan update, but was designated as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Receiving Area. The TDR plan was to allow the property owners to purchase development rights from the TDR Sending Area (Stillaguamish Valley), which would allow the property to come into the UGA sooner than the next 10-year (2015) update. The community would benefit from having agricultural uses preserved in the Sending Area. As noted on Page 4�-5, In 2015, the TDR Plan s Bette werkdid not have the intended effect. . Developers in the Brekhus/Beach Receiving Area, who would purchase the development rights from agricultural landowners in the Sending Area, have to reach agreement on the value (price) of the TDR credits resulting in an inability of the BrekhusBeach subarea to attract a s Transfer of Development Rights 4-19 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area master plan sponsor. Without a sponsor or a plan, higher density urban development and the infrastructure needed to serve it is-was not feasible. In the meantime, the area was annexed to the City cur or nnmei and is now assumed to be a part of the buildable lands inventory. The City faces a paradox where the ffifiN Growth Management Act requires that lands within Urban Growth Areas be developed at urban densities (4+ houses per acre), but there is no market or !� 1 infrastructure financing available to achieve that , , { _ . firms► r_ _ _ level of development. Only a density of 20,000 square feet per parcel is permissible without sewer . C - or other facilities. - - are City cannot meet its standat!ds for- availa buildable lands, aze"ir-emefi of the Gre w to Management Aet. As disetissed in Chapter- 5 (Land Use) and Chapter- 9 (Publie Sefviees an will provide the land neeessafy to meet the standard and the City has asked the County to approve a � i}Si)44-as paA of`DeeketX N�' vir (the annual amendment pr-oeess)— The area is within the Rufal Urban Transition Area (RUTA). The Getmty has opposed this Fe"est until now based on its belief tha4 a*e"ansi ,ssar-y, given lands available in the Br-ekhus/Beaeh S4afea. This conundrum is one of the major planning issues for the City and is certainly the major issue for the BrekhusBeach Subarea. The solution is to retain the long term objective of urban densities in the Subarea, but to add the UGA ex. t of 15 to provide adeqtiate area of and to develop a "high-level" infrastructure and development plan, so that when a master plan under the Master Planned Neighborhood zoning is brought forward by a developer, the area is ready for development in a cohesive cost-effective manner. The City will work with owners and future developers to achieve this buildable lands goal. Loeation! The King Thompson UGA proposal (County Doeket XV11 file cc » aefes with a r-esideatial density pefmitting up to 1800 r-esidents. The afea lies west of 15 and ) would add 23-9 whieh will eeeuf!upon annexation by new develepmenA. As diseussed elsewhere in this Plan, this addition will balanee the loss of bttildable lands in the Br-ek4us/Beaeh (Br-ekhtts�Beaeh) sttbar-ea-. 4 Docket File No 4R1 2 4-20 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Description of Planning Area The pr-opefty lies within the kufa!44-ban Tfansition Area (RUTA) and, enee annexed Arlington would be zoned f,-,Y,edium density single family residential. lnf-Fastmetwe! The proposal site is within Arlington's water setwiee system and wotild be serve with City sewer, Aeeess 4em Arlington will be fiem )-O-Wh Stfeet INE;whieh em-esses over-15 ftoffl- the City inte the nefth peffien ef the proposal site. Aeeess from the setith will be an 19t.h. Avenue NE, and will eenneet to the Marysville street systeni to 172nd Street NE (SR 531). Again, r-eads and titilities will be impr-oved eenetw-ent with development aeeer-ding to City Crifleal Areasi The sOafea eentains stfeams and asseeiated wetlands, although these have been rated. Thefe—aflat!ge—areas f upland,,h eh are developable, in 2014, the County's fvview of the King Thompson addition argtied that expansion is no s"pet4ed by a !a-ad eapa&y analysis. it stated that the expansion afea would suppeft disagrees and, as diseussed elsewhere, the addition is needed to offiet lowered expeetations the T�g`m in the Br-€ Re-aeh Suba-Fe-a Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) The Manufacturing Industrial Center extends from the southern edge of downtown, beyond the airport and 172nd into Marysville's planning area. The Arlington portion of the MIC is comprised of 2135 acres (31% of the UGA). The Marysville portion contains XXXX acres the MIC is the center of activity not only in Arlington, but the whole north County area. It is in fact a part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor which potentially targets the MIC area for Lip to 77,000 jobs. 4-21 JULY 2015 REVISED JANURARY 2017 Chapter 5: Land Use Element City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element 5 Land Use Element 5.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER The Land Use Element is concerned primarily with the accommodation of the City of Arlington's spatial growth; that is, the use and the mix of land uses that will serve future population, employment,public service and recreational needs, and other aspects of city life. This Land Use Element has been developed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act. It responds to GMA guidelines for the update of the former 2005 Plan. In 2015, the "horizon year" changed from 2025 to 2035, wand land use assumptions have changed, all of which have been incorporated into the 2015 Plan's Land Use Element. It describes how the goals in the other elements of this Comprehensive Plan (Housing, Capital Facilities, etc.) will be implemented through land use policies and regulations. It is a key element in implementing Arlington's Comprehensive Plan. This Element has also been developed in accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, the region's Vision 2040 and multi-county planning policies. A matrix showing the consistency between the Countywide policies and Arlington's Comprehensive Plan policies is located in Appendix C. This seetion ifwenter-ies a-ad analyzes the distr-ibtAiefi and leeation of existing !and uses and eonsider-s the appropriate intensity and density of fu4ufe development. The Plan is also consistent with the updated Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan, including its population, employment and housing targets I. Finally, the Land Use Element has been developed in recognition of the subarea objectives outlined in Chapter 4 and the Capital Faculties Element in Chapter 9. Every attempt has been made to reconcile various growth projections with utility analyses to ensure that infrastructure improvements keep pace with growth to achieve required "concurrency". Concurrency is a Growth Management requirement that requires that facilities be in place by the time growth impacts occur. Key ehanges since 2005 are ehang eh to the TDR progfam in the Brekhus�Beaeh Centef!extending from Old Town, through the air-port and sou4h into Marysville. Absent from the 2015 Plan is the TDR overlay zone. The 2005 Plan had included a Transfer of Development Rights program to encourage agricultural protections in the Stillaguamish River Valley through allowance of higher density (Master Planned Neighborhoods) in the Burn Hill/South Fork (BrekhusBeach) Subarea. This area was annexed in 2007, however the TDR program proved unsuccessful. While the City continues to support high-level master planning in this area to ensure efficient provision of infrastructure, the TDR component will be removed as a See Snohomish Countywide Planning Policy GPP10, November 2016 5-1 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element pre-condition for development. Added to the 2015 Plan is the proposed "King Thompson" UGA expansion west of 15. This is -a pending amendment fequest undef! review by Snohomish County (Dooket title ARL3). The would add 239 aer-es of land whieh would be designated for- RN4D zoning. it is to balanee the buildable lands formerly proposed f6r the Br-ekhus/Beaeh area whieh be tina-vailable for-higher-density development until the pr-epefty is mastef planned and sen,ieed, All three growth alternatives being studied by the County call for a significant increase in Arlington employment from 8,660 in 2011 to 20,884 in 2035. This is a reflection of the expected activity around the Arlington Airport. In the County as a whole, there will be a forecasted surplus in employment land capacity in 2035. The City is seeking formal designation of a Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) including portions of Arlington and Marysville, from the airport to about 136th Street NE. The total area comprises about 4,019 2900-_acres with a future employment capacity of roughly 77,000 industrial jobs, most aerospace related. Of 4019 acres, 2287 lies in the Arlington UGA and 1732 in Marysville. The MIC area is a part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor as designated by the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County. As the two cities seek formal MIC designation by PSRC, they will jointly pursue master planning of the area, including infrastructure. The City will adopt Figure 2-3 (Future Land Use Map) as its official land use and zoning map. under-stood that the Snohomish County Deeket XVII proeess must be eeneluded in 2017 be the designation beeofnes offieial. 5.2 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS The official Land Use Map shows how land uses will be distributed throughout Arlington to accommodate 2035 population and employment projections, along with the public facilities to serve them. It represents op licy. The Zoning Map is a regulation that implements the Land Use Map. It is the intention of the council that ...(the zoning code)...implement the planning policies adopted by the council for the city and its urban growth area, as reflected in the comprehensive plan, utility plans, airport plan, and other planning documents. (AMC 20.04.060) There is a very close relationship between the Land Use and Zoning maps. Different zones may exist within similar land use designations. Map overlays for the Airport Protection District, Airport Safety Zone, the Horizontal Mixed Use (HMU)and Master Planned Neighborhood overlay zones further refine how development can occur within designated areas. Development is also subject to restrictions where applicable per the Shoreline Master Plan. Finally, the Land Use and Zoning maps depict the Contract Rezones in effect for the Gleneagle neighborhood in the Hilltop Subarea and the Pioneer Meadows neighborhood in the Arlington Bluff Subarea. 5-2 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Following is a brief description of the purpose of the different designations and zones on the Land Use and Zoning maps: 7.2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS Suburban Residential (SR): The Suburban Residential designation consists primarily of a suburban residential fabric. It is generally characterized as a quiet neighborhood environment with detached single-family residences on relatively large lots situated along low-volume thoroughfares. Building setbacks are deep with houses generally situated toward the center of the lot they occupy and residential dwellings typically don't exceed two stories in height. Lots are usually served by City water and sewer. The purpose of the Suburban Residential designation is to provide a low-density residential environment (maximum four dwelling units per acre) for detached single-family homes (and accessory dwellings) on relatively large lots which provide ample private outdoor space for each residence. Residences are typically not within walking distance or close proximity to commercial services or employment opportunities. The Suburban Residential designation is usually initially applied to those areas of the City where master planning is a prerequisite to development due to a lack of existing infrastructure in the area. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Suburban Residential on the City's Official Land-Use Map include: Suburban Residential (SR), Residential Low Density (RLD), and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). For areas with a Suburban Residential designation and a Master Plan Neighborhood Overlay, Residential Moderate Density (RMD), Residential High Density (RHD), and General Commercial (GC) may also be applied with an approved Master Plan for the entire area within the respective MPN overlay. Residential Low/Moderate Density (RLMD): The Residential Low/Moderate Density designation consists primarily of a suburban/urban residential fabric. It is generally characterized as a somewhat active pedestrian neighborhood environment with detached and some attached single-family residences on moderate sized lots situated along low-volume thoroughfares. Building setbacks are moderate with houses generally situated toward the center of the lot they occupy with residential dwellings typically not exceeding two stories in height. Lots are served by City water and sewer. The purpose of the Residential Low/Moderate Density designation is to provide a moderate- density residential environment (four to six dwelling units per acre) for detached and attached single-family homes (and accessory dwellings) on moderate sized lots that provide some private outdoor space for each resident. Some residences may be within walking distance of some commercial services and employment opportunities as well as urban amenities such as parks and trails. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Residential Low/Moderate Density on the City's Official Land-Use Map include: Residential Low/Moderate Density (RLMD), Residential Moderate Density(RMD), and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). 5-3 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Residential Moderate Density (RMD): The Residential Moderate Density designation consists primarily of an urban residential fabric. It is generally characterized as an active pedestrian neighborhood environment with detached and attached single-family residences on moderate sized lots situated along low to moderate volume thoroughfares. Building setbacks are moderately deep with houses generally situated toward the front of the lot they occupy with residential dwellings typically not exceeding two stories in height. Lots are served by City water and sewer. The purpose of the Residential Moderate Density designation is to provide a comfortably spaced residential environment (six dwelling units per acre) for detached and attached single-family homes (and accessory dwellings) on moderate sized lots that provide some private outdoor space for each resident. Residences may be within walking distance of some commercial services and employment opportunities as well as urban amenities such as parks and trails. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Residential Moderate Density on the City's Official Land-Use Map include: Residential Moderate Density (RMD) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). Residential High Density (RHD): The Residential High Density designation consists primarily of an urban residential fabric. It is generally characterized as a very active pedestrian environment with attached multi-family residences on shared lots situated along moderate to high-volume thoroughfares. Building setbacks are shallow with residential buildings generally situated toward the front of the lot they occupy with residential buildings typically not exceeding three stories in height. Residential developments in this designation are subject to design review. Lots are served by City water and sewer. The purpose of the Residential High Density designation is to provide a close-knit residential environment (minimum ten dwelling units per acre) that can consist of detached, single-family residences to multi-family complexes that generally have shared common outdoor space. Residences are typically within walking distance of commercial services and employment opportunities as well as urban amenities such as parks, trails, and transit service. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Residential High Density on the City's Official Land-Use Map include: Residential High Density (RHD) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). The Horizontal Mixed Use (HMU) mgy also be applied where a master plan-is approved. Old-Town Residential (OTR): The Old-Town Residential designation consists primarily of an urban residential fabric (exclusive of multi-family dwellings). It is generally characterized as old-town Arlington's historic residential neighborhood consisting of detached single-family homes from the early 20th century forward. It is an active pedestrian environment with lots situated along low-volume thoroughfares and are provided secondary access from alleys (from which most residential garages are accessed from). Building setbacks are moderate with residential buildings generally situated toward the front of the lot they occupy with buildings not exceeding two stories in height. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Residential developments in this designation are subject to design review. The purpose of the Old-Town Residential designation is to preserve the historic look, feel, and function of Arlington's old-town residential neighborhood which generally consists of detached 5-4 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element single-family residences (and accessory dwelling units) on narrow 1/10t' acre lots (ten dwelling units per acre maximum). Some residences are situated on two or more of these lots. Residences are within walking distance of Arlington's Old-Town Business District which consists of commercial services and employment opportunities. Residences within this designation are also within walking distance of other urban amenities such as parks, trails, schools, and transit service. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Old-Town Residential on the City's Official Land Use Map include: Old-Town Residential (OTR) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). 5.3 COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS Neighborhood Commercial (NC): The Neighborhood Commercial designation consists primarily of a compact commercial urban fabric with small-scaled commercial retail and professional services. It is generally characterized as an active pedestrian environment with commercial buildings situated at the intersection of moderate to high-volume thoroughfares. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Developments in this designation are subject to design review. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial designation is to provide commercial amenities and professional services within geographic areas that are generally zoned for residential or industrial uses in order help ensure the daily convenience needs of the nearby residences and employees can be met. Horizontal and vertical mixed uses with a residential or lodging component may be acceptable. Zoning gelassifteations that may be applied to areas design The Neighborhood Commercial Zoning classifications will usually be gpplied to the Neighborhood Commercial designation on the Land Use Map_: General Commercial (GC): The General Commercial designation consists primarily of a sub- urban commercial fabric with moderate-sized commercial, office, and professional service uses. The purpose of the General Commercial designation is to provide a setting for commercial, office, and professional service uses of a moderate sized format that rely on motor-vehicle traffic. This designation is intended to be situated along arterials and to serve as a transition area between Highway Commercial designations and residential designations. It is generally characterized as an active automobile and pedestrian environment with commercial buildings situated toward high-volume thoroughfares with parking located to the sides of buildings. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Developments in this designation are subject to design review. Zoning classifications that in be applied to areas designated General Commercial on the City's Official Land Use Map include: General Commercial (GC) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). The Horizontal Mixed Use concept will be encouraged in these area, again subject to master plan an design review.. , tr-affie. This designa4ion is ifAefided to be situated along after-ials and to sefve as a transition afe 5-5 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Zoning elassifieations that fna-y be applied to afeas designa4ed Genefal Ceffimefeial en the City's Highway Commercial (HC): The Highway Commercial designation consists primarily of a sub-urban commercial fabric with large format commercial uses. it :s generally ehar-aeter-ized as they eeeupy withp.,,.kiag ',,eatea i font of buildings. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Developments in this designation are subject to design review. The purpose of this Highway Commercial designation is to provide a setting for large-scale commercial uses that typically locate on major thoroughfares and attract a regional customer base. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Highway Commercial on the City's Official Land Use Map include: Highway Commercial (HQ and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). Old-Town Business District (OTBD): The Old-Town Business District designation consists primarily of an urban commercial fabric with small to medium format commercial uses. It is generally characterized as an active pedestrian environment with traditional "Main Street" character where low-rise buildings are placed adjacent to each other and enfront a right-of-way which consists of wide sidewalks and on-street parking. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Development projects in this designation are subject to design review. The purpose of the Old-Town Business District is to preserve the look, feel, and function of Arlington's traditional commercial center. This designation provides a setting for small-scale commercial uses that rely on both pedestrian and motor-vehicle traffic and vertical mixed uses with a residential component. The Old-Town Business District also serves as the center for the City's civic activity. The Old-Town Business District designation has been divided up into three sub-districts because each sub-district has its own distinguishable development pattern. Old-Town Business District 1 consists of Arlington's historic "Main Street" (Olympic Avenue) where commercial buildings are located side by side to form a fairly continuous street wall. Old-Town Business District 2 consists of West Avenue and part of Division Street where commercial uses are separated and some on-site parking is provided. Old-Town Business District 3 consists of Burke Avenue and covers much of what was historically Haller City before it merged into Arlington. This subdistrict consists of a mix of commercial and residential uses on blocks that are oriented east to west as opposed to north to south like in subdistricts 1 and 2. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Old-Town Business District on the City's Official Land Use Map include: Old-Town Business District 1, 2, and 3 (OTBD-1, -2, or - 3); and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). 5.4 INDUSTRIAL/AIRPORT DESIGNATIONS 5-6 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element General Industrial (GI): The General Industrial designation consists primarily of an urban industrial fabric with small to large format industrial operations. It is generally characterized as an active employment center where low rise buildings are situated toward the interior of lots and building setbacks are variable. Parking is accommodated on-site. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Development projects in this designation are subject to design review. The purpose of the General Industrial designation is to provide a setting for industrial-type uses that may utilize indoor and outdoor space; emit dust/smell, noise, or glare; or depends on major thoroughfares and rail lines for shipment as part of their normal operations. Industrial operations include manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning and assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated General Industrial on the City's Official Land Use Map include: General Industrial (GI) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). Light Industrial (LI): The Light Industrial designation consists primarily of an urban light- industrial fabric with small to large format industrial operations that occur within completely enclosed low rise buildings. It is generally characterized as an active employment center with attractive buildings, formal landscaping, clean appearance, and adequate screening from non- industrial uses. Buildings are generally situated toward the street and have a clearly distinguished entrance. Parking is accommodated on-site. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Development projects in this designation are subject to design review. The purpose of the Light Industrial designation is to provide a setting for less intense industrial- type uses that utilize indoor space for manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating painting, cleaning and assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment in a way that is not likely to create external noise, smell, dust or glare as part of its normal operation. It is intended to have a cleaner, more orderly environment than what would be found in a General Industrial designation. For this purpose, the Light Industrial designation also serves as a buffer between General Industrial and non-industrial land use designations. Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Light Industrial on the City's Official Land Use Map include: Light Industrial (LI) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). The LI and GI zones could be the principal implementing zones for a future Arlington-Ma . sr Manufacturing Industrial Center(AMMIC), subject to an overall master plan. Business Park (BP): The Business Park designation consists primarily of an urban fabric with medium to large format operations that occur entirely within enclosed low to medium rise buildings. It is generally characterized as a master planned upscale employment center with attractive buildings, landscaping, and streets built to urban standards all working together to create a "park-like" environment that accommodates informal outdoor recreation and enjoyment between buildings. Lots are served by City water and sewer. Development projects in this designation are subject to design review. The purpose of the Business Park designation is to provide an upscale and enjoyable setting for company offices, warehouse, and light-industrial uses. The Business Park designation also serves as a buffer between residential and non-residential uses. 5-7 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Zoning classifications that may be applied to areas designated Business Park on the City's Official Land Use Map include: Business Park(BP) and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). Aviation Flightline (AF): This is designation is intended to cover the portions of the airport devoted to aviation-related uses. It allows only aviation-related uses proximate to airport runways and taxiways. Aviation-related uses include any uses related to supporting aviation that require direct taxiway access as a necessary part of their business operations, such as aviation services, manufacturing of aviation-related goods, general services whose primary customers would be those engaged in aviation-related activities (e.g., restaurants primarily catering to pilots, employees, or passengers), or other uses that are clearly related to aviation. Compatible zones include Aviation Flightline, Airport Protection District, and Public/Semi-Public. 5.5 CIVIC DESIGNATIONS Public/Semi-Public (P/SP): The Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) designation consists of both publicly owned open spaces (e.g. parks) and civic buildings (e.g. schools). It is generally characterized as formally landscaped and usable open space. The purpose of the P„ 1i /S- i Ptt this designation is to provide a setting for public interaction, civic engagement, recreation (both active and passive) and utility service providers. Quality Public/Semi-Public spaces provide the City with a strong sense of identity and can function as economic assets. The P41ie/Semi P41ie designation is assigned to !and used for- ffmnieipal pufpeses (other- tha arks, non City publie utilityrovidefs, andsehools--. Zoning elassifieations that may be applied to areas designated P41ie/Semi Publie on the City's Offieial Land Use Map ;,,,. The Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) zone implements the like-named Plan designation. Public facilities may also be allowed as Conditional Uses... 5.6 LAND USE OVERLAYS Airport Protection District: The Airport Protection District (APD) overlay consists of four subdistricts (A, B, C, and D) and five safety zones (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) that are laid over the existing land use designations and zoning classifications on the City's Official Land Use Map and Zoning Map (Figure 2-3). The APD overlay boundaries were determined by aircraft accident data from the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces and FAA AC 150/5200-33A, and Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near airports. The purpose of the Airport Protection District overlay is to protect the viability of the Arlington Municipal Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses and densities, reducing hazards to lives and properties, and ensuring a safe and secure flying environment. The Airport Protection District Overlay modifies the density and land use requirements of the underlying zoning districts to the extent that it protects the public health, safety, and welfare of property owners residing within the overlay and airport users. Contract Rezone: The Contract Rezone (CR) overlay consists of residential developments that deviate from some of the underlying zoning regulations based on a mutually accepted agreement between a developer and the City. These typically include master planned communities where 5-8 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element some of the densities and uses would not otherwise be permitted. The purpose of the Contract Rezone overlay is to identify lands within the City that are subject to modified development regulations based on an agreed upon contract between the City and a developer. The Contract Rezone provides for flexibility in the City's zoning regulations generally in exchange for some benefit provided to the City. The City currently has two residential developments under a contract rezone: Gleneagle and Pioneer Meadows. Master Planned Neighborhood: The Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) overlay consists of large areas of unimproved (or underutilized) land (25+ acres) that exist within the City for which the planning and financing of infrastructure improvements is necessary. A master plan must be established for the entire land area within a Master Plan Neighborhood overlay before any development can occur. The purpose of the Master Plan Neighborhood overlay is to ensure that development occurs in an orderly and financially responsible manner, and that adequate infrastructure is put in place to serve new development within the overlay. The City currently has two areas with a Master Plan Neighborhood overlay: the BrekhusBeach Subarea and the future Lindsay Annexation area within the Hilltop Subarea. The City plans to assist property owners within these two areas by creating a"high-level"master plan so that development can begin to occur in these areas. Horizontal Mixed Use Overlay: A new HMU will be adopted by the City allowing a blend of residential high density and commercial uses subject to master plan and design review. The purpose of this zoning is to foster development of pedestrian oriented, mixed uses where homes are located in close proximity to small retail and office uses. Communities adopting mixed use zoning strive to achieve one or more objectives: (a) Enhance the pedestrian environment. (b) Encourage additional street level activity. (c) Reducie automobile trips. (d) Create a"sense of place." (e) Provide for the efficient use of land and services. (f) Allow opportunities for economic vitality and diverse housing opportunities. (g) Provide a transition between adjacent neighborhoods and commercial areas. Density bonuses may be granted in exchange for exceptional urban design, infrastructure improvements and other amenities. Gateway Overlay Zone: The Gateway Overlay Zone is intended to apply to properties at and near major entrances to the City. This generally includes all lots that are adjacent to or abutting arterial or greater rights-of-way (both existing and proposed) that are also within close proximity to City limits. The purpose of the Gateway Overlay Zone is to ensure that a) gateways into the City are inviting and aesthetically pleasing, b) development of properties adjacent to or abutting gateways are well designed in terms of building architecture, site layout, screening, and landscaping; and c) appropriate land uses are permitted and located within designated gateways. 5-9 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element 5.7 MAJOR LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS The biggest consideration that arises at every periodic update of this Plan is: How do we want to grow? Under the GMA, we are obligated to plan for and accommodate 20-years' worth of projected growth. As a regional partner, Arlington has accepted the 2035 population, housing and employment targets adopted by the County and the Puget Sound Regional Council; however, the community, through its local plan, has control over where development occurs and what it will look like. It can, and has,proposed certain changes to its Urban Growth Area boundary; and within that boundary can adopt a mix of land uses that accommodates growth and defines the community's character. With a 2035 population growth of over 6,500 residents and thousands of new jobs, if existing boundaries are retained, Arlington would have to increase densities to meet its target. If densities afe4oiaewere kept at historical levels kept at ,.,,,.molevels, then we w341 would have to expand our boundaries. The 2015 Plan does some of eaeh, w44 expansionf,,,,r T rb A,.-ea to the west of 15 and redueed development tar-gets for- the Br-ekhus/Beach (Bufn Hill/Setith Fork) Subar-ea. in its Feview of the City's r-e"est for- 229 aer-e expansion of the Urban Growth Area the west, the Coun4y is considering whether-to require a r-etr-aetion of the UGA to exelude the 3 2 t aer-es in Br-el eaeh. The City reviewed its inventory of buildable lands (Section 5.9) in cooperation with Snohomish County and concluded that with so-called "reasonable measures" to increase densities in selected areas, existing urban growth boundaries could remain as drawn. The boundaries include the Brekhus/Beach area, a former TDR receiving area and a current Master Plan Neighborhood zone, one of the reasonable measures. Other reasonable measures under development by the City include Horizontal Mixed Use, cottage housing and some higher density rezones. , who worked to make the TDR program a sueeess. in the shoA tefm, without TDR progr--ain The Cit_y's 2015 Plan emphasizes a more focused and interactive relationship between us and Marysville, especially in the joint Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center(AMMIC).These are all features added to the 2015 Plan to ensure that future jobs and residents are accommodated, while preserving the character of our existing community. In 2035, the City envisions most growth to occur in six-nine areas: Population: i West of 15 i the proposed U n expansion area. 1_SR9/172"d St, in the future Lindsey Annexation area. 2. Other areas depicted on Figure 4-1 (Residential Capacity) Employ 3. Airport Business Park. 4_South of 17 0The Arlington/Marysville-(Manufacturing Industrial Center). AMMIC 5-10 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element 5. Other areas depicted on Figure 4-2 (Employment Capacity) Commercial 4.6. Island Crossing and Stillaguamish property. 7_National Foods property (within the West Arlington Subarea). 8. 172"d St. Corridor and the Smokey Point Boulevard Commercial Corridor. 9. Kent Prairie; 204th St./SR 9 -5-.10. The Capital Facilities Element in Chapter 9 emphasizes these areas as those where the greatest infrastructure impacts will be (water use, sewer discharge transportation, etc.). Issues related to where and how we grow our land uses include, among others: • The infrastructure needed to accommodate growth including cost and financing. • The location of new roads and utility improvements. • Urban design—what the new growth will look like. • Preserving neighborhood character while accommodating growth. • Ensuring an economically viable industrial center. 5.8 EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 5-1 shows the land use designations on the official land use map. The "Net Zoned" figures exclude road rights of way, public lands and other undevelopable areas. The last column shows the total land area in each planning subarea. 5.9 LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS (BUILDABLE LANDS) King Thempsen afea iiato the City's UGA. After- talking wA residents of , City has eeneluded thal I of the Bfekhus/Beaeh Subarea is not feasible based on the wishes of!a-ndowner-s within the s4afea. The City has ther-efer-e evaluated a prefefT-ed aftemati of ineluding ARL3 into the City's UGA. it has determined that this altefflative would meet 2035 Population Target. Table 4 shows d-welling unit and poptilation estifna4es based on its BLA and ability to provide ser-viees to the areas involved. To analyze whether Arlington with its current City Limits and UGA has sufficient developable land to accommodate its projected population (26,002) and employment (20,884) targets, a 5-11 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Building Lands Analysis (BLA) was completed in the summer of 2014 and finalized in 20162. The objectives of the study were to identify, locate and characterize developed, developable and undevelopable land area and parcels within the current City Limits, the UGA, and each of the City's neighborhood planning areas. Lands were categorized by use categories and distributed within the respective zoning designations. Table 5-1: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Existing Land Use Map Net Total Subarea AF BP GC GI HC LI NS NC OTBa3 OTBa2 OTBal OIRD P/SP RHD RLIVD RIvD SR ned* Area Arlington 35 20 31 226 66 378 540 Bluff ekhus/ ach 145 145 337 Be Whop 61 4 4 92 47 806 1,014 1,305 Kent Prairie 51 4 12 80 18 44 209 353 C 736 154 8 567 148 28 1,641 2,133 Old-Town 12 1 93 213 67 103 489 609 TBa3 27 6 33 115 TBa2 5 16 2 23 45 OTBal 25 1 26 37 South Fork 2 2 71 est 12 64 486 4 2 25 281 874 1,054 Arlington Total 736 166 224 571 486 148 16 28 25 16 31 93 394 219 1,052 494 145 4,834 6,599 ARL3 169 169 211 *Public R/W public lands,undevelopable land not included A....e-ding to the C ty's analysis, development in the Br-ek-hus/Beaeh area would pr-evide for- a popula4ion of 22,694 W ,v�,ottld not,soot the C t yes 2035 planning target of 24,937. would add a potential 905 housing units in AR4=3 (King Thompson UGA addition) and 2 County Council Ordinance 16-077 5-12 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element provision of ffr-ban inffastndet-ur-e and sefviees tha4 no longer-seem likely. The City and County4ias concluded that the City retmetion of Br- Be-aeh area is not feasible based on t4e wishes of t4e residents and the tmeeftaifAies of an aettial UGA r-e"efio has therefore adopted a pt!efeffed afte-mative in this Plan of ineluding ARL3 into the City's UCYA-, along with a lower- density in the Br-ekhus/Beaeh subarea. it has detel:fflifled that the Plan altemativ ould meet its 2035 Population Target. Table 5.4 shows dwelling unit and population estimates based on its RL�buildable land supply and ability to provide services to the areas involved. Table 5-5 shows the developable vacant acreage within each zone and each subarea. It does not show land that is underdeveloped and that would be available for higher density redevelopment ("infill"). The figure totals about 9% of the "net zoned" area in the City. 5.10 DENSITY Density standards are a combination of what the City's development regulations allow3 and what has actually occurred on the ground, that is, how many dwelling actually were built given the site limitations, market conditions, etc. Using the information in Table 5- 2 to determine the land needed through 2035 requires this "real world" analysis, regardless of actual regulations in the City Code. The County's Buildable Lands report analyzed density on a gross density and net density basis. Gross residential density is the number of housing units divided by total area. Net density calculates the number of houses on land used for residential building lots only, excluding lands used for roads, wetlands, Native Growth Protection Areas, recreational areas and detention ponds, etc. Gross residential density in the City's residential zones (RHD, RLMD, RMD and SR) was 3.83 units per acre in 2014: Table 5-2: Residential Density by Land Use Designation SR 0.14 RMD 4.29 OTR 6.0 RLMD [3.66 LRHD 18.73] -F s See Chapter 20.48, Arlington Municipal Code 5-13 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Table 5-3: Permissible Residential Densities Code Assumed' 5.12 HOUSEHOLD SIZE d/u per acre The average household size in Arlington is SR, 2.624, a decline from 2.72 in 2005. Owner- with utilities 4.5 4.5 occupied units had 2.76 persons, down from without utilities 2.0 2.0 2.82 persons. Renter-occupied declined from RMD 6.0 6.0 2.54 to 2.36. The 2005 estimate for 2025 average household size was 2.54 which has RLMD 6.0 5.0 proven to be very accurate. The County's estimated household size for 2035 in RHD 16.0 12.0 Arlington is forecasted to be 2.7, which will OTR 6.0 6.0 be used for this Plan at a rate of 2.84 for owner-occupied units and 2.4 for renter units. 'For planning purposes,the"assumed"density figure was used as a reflection of the actual development history and future policies emphasizing the maximizing of development. 4 2013 Housing Characteristics and Needs Report, Snohomish County, 2014 5-14 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element 5.13 FUTURE NEEDS Population Capacity: Population within the established UGA is projected to grow from 18,38018,849 in 20141 to '^�26,002 in 20355. Table 5.4 shows a future need for 2,890 housing units. The County's adopted land capacity analysis adopted in October 2016 estimates a surplus of buildable acres to accommodate that population and housing_ Table 5.4: Housing Unit Needs 2011 2035 Residential Zoned Dwelling Estimated Area Units Population Population Additional (acres) Dwelling Units6 City and UGA City 2,250 6,931 17,966 UGA 244 197 523 2,494 7,128 18,489 2035 Estimate 26,002 2,890 Assumptions: Single Family Multi-Family Housing Distribution: 82.1% 17.9% Avg. Household Size: 2.8 2.4 Vacancy Rate: 4.7% 4.7% The Cetmly's Housing Repeft estimated a need of about 2,745 mefe units by 2035 with about. 1,063 of those in the "affordable" range. Applying a similaf ratio to the City's estifnate pfedue an ,& .1able housing need of 938 units. 5 Snohomish County Ordinance 16-077, October 2016 6 Ordinance 16-077 5-15 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element To detemine the amouiiA of eapaeity for- growth left in the existing UGA, the City has used 2012 SGT Buildable Lands Rei3e-+-7 and stifveyed 2014 !and uses using Assessor-Feeefds (Mar-eh 201^field observations. The project need of 2,421 dwelling units was compared with the Table 5.5 Available Land Capacity () vacant, developable land and the household size Vacant and density standards for Zoning Developable Density Units Population each zone. Table 5.5 provides updated 2035 Need 2,421* 6227 information based on the Capacity 2014 analysis and the 2016 reconciliation effort OTBD-3 0.98 12.0 12 32 by the County and OTBD-2 12.0 Arlington. OTBD-1 0.86 12.0 10 27 Further, the County's OTRD 0.88 6.0 6 16 estimated growth capacity in the Brekhus/Beach area RHD 9.31 12.0 112 302 (963 units') was initially RLMD 67.34 5.0 337 909 used for this Plan. The RMD 3.26 6.0 20 54 subsequent reconciliation SR 116.81 4.5 526 1420 process yielded an agreement of 606 units Brekhus/Beach 110.20 5.5 606 1636 based on a developed Other 6.61 4.5 30 81 density of 5.5 dwellings per acre. The City Total Available 1659 4477 accepts this estimate Infill or Redevelopment Capacity Need 762 2057 although over the short term a significantly *Including vacancy rate reduced density y(20,000 square feet/lot)will occur. When a master plan developer proposes a higher density development, it will be based on a detailed infrastructure plan, including financing. Thus for the long term, the capacityfigure of 606 units is feasible. As shown on Table 5.5, the net need for new capacity will be 762 units under this Plan. Reasonable measures (HNW, cottage housing, Accessory Dwellings, etc.) and other tools will be used. A Brekhus/Beach master planned development will be encouraged to provide ,greater than 5.5 du/acre, further ensuring that the City will meet its objective. With these infill and redevelopment assumptions, the 2035 population estimate of 24,937 can be accommodated. 7 2—nn—hommsh County Tomorrow, '2012 Growth Mon'toring/Buildable Lands Report,' june, 2013. For information on the methed and assumptions used, please refer to that repert er its Gernpanion, the SGT Buildable Lands Preeedur Report. htto.--Ilwww!.E;o.snehomish.wa.usIDegadmentslpDs. B Draft EIS, Page 3-96 5-16 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element land for- another 600 homes in the UGA. A sufplus of 815 residential eapnity was fa�d inside the City > > an afea that will likely not build out at ufban densities in the near-future. in Febfuafy > Snohomish County feleased its EIS on the GMA Plan upda4e, a land eapaeity analysis. it estimated that an additional 905 housing units eould develop in the ARL3 (King Thompson) addition. The City's 2014 analysis showed fesults slightly highef than. the County estimate. it is assumed that the County figures were based an its Ufban Mediu Density Residential (UMDR) zoning whefeas Aflington's afe based in its highef density RMP zoning. For eansisteney, the Coun4y's figwe of 805 units was used faf this anal, Table 5.5 Available Land Capacity(No Infill) VaGan The County EIS grow zonin Develop Density Units Populatkm e"wity in the ATD-3 0,99 42—0 4 -32 (963 tmits') asrscifn 8T13D4 8:96 4z?8 48 the afea to be sere c ATRD 8,98 �9 4 42 anytime seen is open to R#D 934 4�0 442- 392 with no viable TD BLAND 67.34 �9 337 699 RRAD 3-.2-6 29 -3 City proposes to retai the with a fedueea 440.20 2-.9 229 r �4 4� 39 1 Flo- Othe 6 sedon eitizen desif Total Avagable LC'nr,_Thamncon 306 0 TOTAL 4-, 8 4 94 Infill nr RofJo„olnr,mon4 CapaGifi, mood 874 The pfojeeted need of >421 dwelling units was eempafed > area, developable land and the household size and defisit-y standaMs fef eaeh zone. The available vaeant and developable land area without infill will neemmodate a population of 2,010 futufe residents. This assumes limitations. The addition to the UGA of the King Thompson west of 1 > would pfovi 8-er-afftEIS,Pate 5-17 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element housing,eapaoity for an additional 2,174 residents. This would still leave a shoftfall of land for- abo 2,043 residents or- 871 dwelling units. This wotild be meommodated thr-Ough infill (Mixed tfse� eottage > ete.) Strategies are disetissed in the Poliey and implemefftation seetions of the Plan. in > the City aeeepts the Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report estimates, assumptions,assumes a lower- density of development in the Br-ekhus/Beaeh s4ar-ea and sees the need f0f of the UGA boundary west of 15 to pr-ovide adequate area f0f growth. With the infi the 2035 population estimate of 24,937 • Housing Implications: In May, 2013 each jurisdiction was asked by the Gou-Ay to ro oA how eiiffent its plan was regarding housing strategies. was asked to re-cap the strategies within the housing element of its 2005 comprehensive plan. Arlington reported that the overall emphasis in City of Arlington's housing element is to: • Preserve the "old-town" area. • Encourage more "high end" housing. • Encourage high density housing in areas currently moving in that direction. • Locate housing development in areas within existing sewer service areas. • Allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use projects in commercial centers. • Permit infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. • Reduce on-site parking requirements for residential developments. • Encourage the development of a variety of housing types in order to accommodate niches in the market that aren't currently being served. As shown on Table 5.4, Tthe City will maintain a goal of providing a housing mix of 82% (4-,9852,370) single-family and 18% (436520) multi-family dwellings to meet the overall objective of 2,z2r 2,890 new added housing units by 2035. It will work to attract affordable housing as the market seems to be demanding (See Chapter 6) including as a requirement for bonus density in the HMU or other residential zones. Employment Land Capacity: In its 2005 Plan, Arlington's employment target for the year 2025 ranged from 12,920 to 14,730 jobs. All three growth alternatives being studied by the County for the 2015 Plan call for a significant increase in Arlington employment to 20,884 in 2035. This is a reflection of the expected activity around the Arlington Airport and the market importance of Arlington in the North County area, where it provides job locations for citizens from Skagit, Darrington, Marysville, Stanwood, and beyond. in the County as a whole, there will be a fareeasted sW!us in employment land eapaeity i 2035. in Ar-lington, land eapae4y will be a fi±netion of available !a-ad, empley+nefit density-and the City's role in the North County market plaee. There are about 375 aeres of available and developable land in the seven eemmer-eialhadustfial zoning eateger-ies. A 2007 Empleymen Density Study being used for- the Countywide Plan update adepts a density standard of 500 squar-e feet per- employee for- indust+ial uses. However-, the study noted that an analysis of Arlington employment densities for industfial uses was a signifieantly higher 2,625 square feet per- employee. Applying that fiu�er- to available lands in the AF, BP, G! and h! zoned !a pfeduees and industfial land eapaeity of about 5,750 employees. The Density Study also 5-18 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element r-eeommended a figure of 400 square feet per employee fet!fetail and offiee uses. Applied to t 2,900. doubtless,The total land eapaeity of 8,650 for- all eammer-eial/industrial eategar-ies falls short of the pr-ejeeted 12,224 new jobs in 2035. And the high density of 2,625 per- employee will lower- as new industries eeme to town.The County's land capacity concluded in 2016 (Ordinance 16-077) found an excess capacity of industrial land of just 621 employ 14owevef,zTwo factors suggest that additional industrials lands should be identified. One factor is the location of Arlington in the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor, a recognized area of emphasis by community and economic development leaders, where aerospace and technology-related companies are being sought. The City is seeking formal designation of an Arlington/Ma . sry ville Manufacturing Industrial Area (AMMIC) e' r-tiens o€ Arlington and , from the airport to about 136th Street NE. The total area comprises about 4,000 acres (2900 acres in Arlington) with a future employment capacity of 77,000 industrial jobs , most aerospace related. The AMMIC pis a part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor as designated by the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County. As the two cities seek formal MIC designation by PSRC, they will jointly pursue master planning of the area, including infrastructure. The second factor is the North Stillaguamish Economic Development Plan, now==tmde deve ,,. meii* and due for- adeptiongdopted in mid-2015. The Plan comes in response to the Oso disaster and is tasked with defining a strategy for economic growth along SR-530 from Arlington to Darrington. With Arlington being a destination for Stilly Valley jobs and a waypoint for supplying the corridor, sufficient lands must be readied for the likely growth to come. Jobs/Housing Ratio: In 2005, Arlington had a job/housing ratio of 2.22. With the forecasted population, housing and employment estimates described above, the ratio in 2035 would be closer to 2.1 jobs for every household. This figure does not suggest that every household has two employees living there. It is more a measure of how many households requiring public services are matched by jobs in the community bringing tax revenue to the City. Any ratio above 2 is considered a good balance. 5.14 SUBAREA PLANS The Land Use Element will be implemented in large part through the development strategies pursued in each of the City's subareas. Following are brief descriptions of these subareas, the 2015 zoning and summaries of key issues and future strategies for 2015. Old-Town Residential Subarea The Old-Town Residential Subarea is the heart of Old-Town Arlington's residential area. It is largely developed, as much of the land was platted in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries in a traditional grid pattern with alleys (consisting of MC Mahons, Giffords, Palmer, Clums, and Cobbs Additions to Arlington). Typical lot size is 4,356 square feet (1/10th of an acre). Infill development of single-family homes continues as older homes are demolished and vacant lots are built on. 5-19 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element The City will continue to encourage infill and redevelopment of residential lots in this subarea; however, comprehensive design standards need to be established in order to preserve the historic character of this neighborhood. As infrastructure continues to age, the City will also need to continue investing in the area's public realm by improving streets, sidewalks, and City-owned utility lines. Old-Town Business District Subarea The Old-Town Business District is Arlington's historic central business district and consists of the original Town of Arlington and Haller City Plats. Arlington and Haller City were once different towns but merged in 1903 when Arlington incorporated. Olympic Avenue (Arlington's "Main Street") was remodeled in 2007. Centennial Trail runs though Old-Town, connecting Arlington the Skagit County line to the north and the city of Snohomish to the south. While the area is largely built-out, redevelopment and revitalization efforts continue to occur over time as investments are made in both the public and private realms. The City will continue to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts while enforcing design standards and guidelines in order to preserve the area's historic character. The City is developing a Riverfront Master Plan to take advantage of the area's position along the Stillaguamish River. This plan will provide for more economic development and public use of the riverfront. Arlington Bluff Subarea The Arlington Bluff Subarea includes the upland area just south of the Stillaguamish River Valley and north of the Municipal Airport. It was once home to large homesteads that have since been subdivided into a number of residential plats of varying sizes. The Arlington Bluff Subarea is slated to remain a predominately single-family residential area with some neighborhood commercial uses along 67th Avenue NE and Highway 530. While the area is largely developed, there is still opportunity for some infill residential and commercial development. The City plans to continue to work to ensure that environmentally critical areas (such as steep slopes and streams that are prevalent in the area) are protected. The only proposed ehange to the !and tise in this subarea as paA of the 2015 per-iodie ttpda4e is h Phl e N12 :F Am residential to eemmer-eial. The City Cotmeil wili deeide whether-to appr-eVe or deny the r-eqttest. As for road improvements, the City is proposing to improve 211th Street NE and re-align the road to connect directly to 59th Avenue NE (a westbound spur will still connect to the highway at its current location). A trail will also be added to the streetscape, connecting Centennial Trail to the Valley and at some future date to Island Crossing (see Figure 2-7). 5-20 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Kent Prairie Subarea The Kent Prairie Subarea is situated at the intersection of Highway 9 and 204th Street NE. It is a well-integrated neighborhood of various use types, including commercial, public, single-family residential, and multi-family residential, which are built around the environmentally critical areas (streams and wetlands) found there. The area presents some infrastructure challenges--mainly the discontinuous street system. There are numerous dead-end streets that will likely never be connected. The only proposed ehange to the land use in this subar-ea as pat4 of the 2015 per-iodie "da4e is rezone request of approximately 2 aeres along '77 n„1-1 NE (South inn Street NE) fte Manufacturing/Industrial Center Subarea The Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) Subarea includes the Arlington Municipal Airport and surrounding lands that are zoned Industrial and Business Park. It extends from approximately 136th Street NE in Marysville north to Cemetery Road in Arlington and roughly from 51" Avenue NE to the west and 67th Avenue NE to the east. As the greater Seattle metropolitan region continues to grow, with the need for living-wage jobs, the Cities of Arlington and Marysville have identified an opportunity to work together in the formation of a joint Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC)._ The area lies within the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor, a targeted area for economic development and infrastructure development. Currently, there is only one designated MIC in Snohomish County (Paine Field). Obtaining MIC designation from the Puget Sound Regional Council would provide an opportunity for both cities to obtain necessary funding to invest in new and existing infrastructure that would strengthen industrial activity and lead to continued job creation. The City envisions this joint Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing/Industrial Center (AMMIC) as the region's main industrial employment center on the north end. As part of the City's strategy to make this happen, the City is committed to continuing to ensure the area develops as a strong manufacturing and industrial base by strictly limiting non-supportive land uses such as retail, housing, and non-related offices and encouraging manufacturing, industrial, and advanced technology uses. Within two years of receiving MIC designation, the City will develop a subarea plan for the City's portion of the AMMIC that will further the goals and objectives of the PSRC and Multi-County Planning Policies with regards to MICs. Joint MIC designation between the City of Arlington and the City of Marysville makes logical sense because the industrial centers of both cities are only separated by jurisdictional boundaries. In 2011 the Planning Commissions of both Arlington and Marysville signed a joint resolution urging their respective city council's to seek MIC designation from the PSRC for the purpose of advancing the economic goals of each jurisdiction. Subsequently, on December 11, 2011, the City of Arlington, City of Marysville, and Tulalip Tribes adopted Joint Resolution 2011-001 supporting regional coordination of a 5-21 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Manufacturing/Industrial Center to support manufacturing expansion in the north Snohomish County area. The proposed AMMIC (see Figure 2-4) is a prime candidate for MIC designation and continued investment because of its site and situation. Located entirely within Arlington's and Marysville's urban growth areas, the proposed AMMIC encompasses 4,091 acres (6.4 square miles) inclusive of many existing industrial businesses and room for additional capacity. Of that total area, approximately 1,200 acres is undeveloped or under developed. Arlington's portion of the proposed AMMIC includes 2,291 acres that are primarily zoned industrial, business-park, and aviation (as the site includes the Arlington Municipal Airport). A small portion is zoned commercial along 172nd Street NE. The proposed AMMIC is situated in northern Snohomish County, centrally located between two major centers of commerce—Seattle, WA and Vancouver, BC. It is framed between I-5 on the west and Highway 9 on the east and is served by the Santa Fe/Burlington Northern railroad. The area is accessible from I-5 via 116th Street NE, 172nd Street NE, and Highway 530. The City of Marysville is proposing an interchange at 156th Street NE that would provide additional access to the area. Regional arterials that serve the proposed area include Smokey Point Boulevard, 172nd Street NE 51st Avenue NE, 59th Avenue NE. and 67th Avenue NE. Current employment within the proposed AMMIC is estimated to be 5,586, with 70% of those jobs being industrial/manufacturing related, 20% retail, and 10% services and government. The proposed AMMIC has an estimated employment capacity of 77,000 jobs. The current ratio between jobs and manufacturing facility space in Arlington is one (1)job for every 300 square feet. This is slightly higher than the national average mainly due to the large consideration of highly technical manufacturing technology. The national average is 500 square feet per employee. Assuming a blended median range of 400 square feet of manufacturing space per employee and considering the available underdeveloped area with in the proposed MIC, the total employment will reach 77,000 at full build out. The cities of Arlington and Marysville are currently working to seek PSRC designation of a joint Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing/Industrial Center Upon designation, the City would need to put together a joint subarea plan for the MIC with the City of Marysville. The subarea plan would address urban design elements such as land use, transportation, and architectural design among other things. Road improvements would be needed to existing arterial and collector roads such 172nd Street NE and 59th Avenue NE. New roads are also planned to serve the area and improve connectivity. They include: Arlington Valley Road, 63rd Avenue NE, 47th Avenue NE, and 168th Street NE. The area is largely served by City water and sewer; however, mainline extensions would be needed near the south end of the subarea as development occurs. By 2035 the City envisions this area to be developed into an active employment center with a high number of family-wage manufacturing and industrial jobs. 5-22 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Hilltop Neighborhood Subarea The Hilltop Subarea is located on the hill between 67th Avenue NE and Highway 9. This subarea is slated to be a predominately single-family residential neighborhood with some commercial activity around the intersection of Highway 9 and Highway 531 (172nd Street NE). There is a large area of unincorporated land within this subarea that is located just south of Highway 531 and west of Highway 9. The area currently has a Master Plan Neighborhood Overlay, which requires a master plan for the area be established before the properties can annex into the City. The City plans to assist property owners by developing a "high-level" master plan so that annexation and development can occur. This "high-level" master plan will outline the location of collector roads and placement of utilities. A round-about was recently installed at the intersection of Highway 9 and Highway 531. Highway 531 will eventually be widened to five lanes inclusive of a trail along the north side of Highway 531. That trail will turn northward along the power-line easement at the 79th Avenue right-of-way, then connect at the intersection of Highway 9 and Eaglefield Drive. Water and sewer infrastructure improvements have recently been made to better serve undeveloped areas at the south-end of the subarea; however, it remains difficult to extend these services to the Arlington Terrace plat at the north-end of the subarea. Preferred locations for community parks should be identified now so that the capital planning can be done to ensure the properties are obtained prior to their development. Future parks are anticipated as areas annex and urban clusters are developed. These parks ought to be centrally located to the future major neighborhoods, easily accessible from the arterials and collectors. There are several environmentally critical areas throughout the Hilltop Subarea—including streams, wetlands, and steep slopes that will need to be protected and planned around. Prairie and Portage both have their headwaters here. Southfork Subarea This subarea lies entirely outside of City limits but is within the City's Urban Growth Area. The pre-zoning designation for this area is Residential Low/Moderate density and it is anticipated this area will remain a single-family neighborhood. The subarea has only one access point via 87th Avenue NE; however, the area could easily be served by Maple Street by extending that road through existing right-of-way to connect to 87th Avenue NE. Homes within this subarea are served by on-site sewage disposal systems. Extending sewer through the subarea may prove difficult because existing lots are only subdividable through the short platting process, making it hard to recover sewer extension costs. Removal of this area from the City's UGA should be considered if annexation attempts fail. Brekhus/Beach Subarea 5-23 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element This subarea is located on the east side of the City, directly east of the Kent Prairie Subarea and directly south of the Southfork Subarea. The entire area is zoned Suburban Residential and has a Master Plan Neighborhood Overlay_and ., TDR Re eivi g Area Overlay. The Subarea is accessed primarily from Tveit Road and Burn Road. Additional roadway infrastructure is needed within the subarea. The area is not currently served by City water and sewer; however, it is within the City's water and service area. Lack of infrastructure and topographical realities will likely make future development within this area costly. In its 2015 Plan, the City has developed a high-level master plan for the area, outlining where major thoroughfares will go along with water and sewer infrastructure at such time as a higher density master plan is developed. Land within this Subarea is largely undeveloped with existing homes situated on large lots. The Subarea is traversed by terrain and wetlands. The City plans to wer4 with pr-ope4y ow-aer-s to develop a high level master- plan for- the area, outlining where major ther-aughfares will go along with water- and sewer- iaf+astPde While awaiting a master plan proposal for the area, the City will work with neighbors to implement a "Shadow Platting" process, which will allow development at the current suburban residential density(20,000 sq. ft. lot size), but require the logical design and placement of lots to enable future subdivision to smaller lots served bX infrastructure outlined in the high-level plan. In the past, a Transfer of Development Rights. (TDR) density bonus program was attempted in this area, allowing density bonuses in exchange for withdrawl of agriculutural lands from development. It was developed as a master plan requirement, not an incentive. The City also plans to wer4 with the Gotiat-y to amend the TDR 44er- beeal Agr-eement to r-emeve this subar-e-a from Lein, designate ., TDR o o ea-. In practice, the TDR requirement became an actual disincentive to attracting investment. It has been removed as a requirement for master plan approval, but remains as a possible density bonus incentive, among others. West Arlington Subareas (WASA) In 2011, the City drafted athe_ "West Arlington Subarea Plan" as an extension of its 2005 comprehensive plan and TDR program_ to pr-oteet the grea4er- I I agrietiltur--all lands in the Sfillagiianiish Nlalle�- It was 200 _meant to integrate four subarea plans (West Bluff, Island Crossing, Smoke and SR 531) and employ new concepts in urban development (smart growth, sustainability, New Urbanism, etc.). WASA wotrk-was to promote a blend of housing and business looking forward, and to correct deficiencies of past growth. Key objectives in the WASA area included: • Mixed land uses. • Implementing Form-based codes.10 • Upgrading the arterial and neighborhood transportation infrastructure to urban standards. • Improving pedestrian infrastructure and safety. • Better connections to areas with continuous roads (i.e. no dead-ends), trails, bike lanes, etc. Acquisition of easements or right-of-way for this purpose. io Form based codes regulate land uses according to design and site planning("form")setbacks,height limitations, etc. 5-24 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element • Development of Island Crossing while protecting its critical areas. • Acquisition of more public space (i.e. parks). • Creating a TDR receiving area. The Plan was reviewed as part of the 2015 update and a decision was made to return to the original four subareas, adhere to the objectives shown above but tailor them to the unique aspects of each area. Other mechanisms, such as Horizontal Mixed Use, with density incentives, are seen as more likely to attract market investment than the TDR and Form Based Code approach. Island Crossin_q As envisioned in the 2005 Plan, Island Crossing was added to the City's Urban Growth Area and was subsequently annexed in 2008. The land south of SR-530 was the primary impetus because of plans for a major auto dealership. Although there were recognized development hurdles (e.g. flood potential), these have been addressed and will be managed as part of future development projects in that area. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians owns the triangle formed by SR-530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. Its plans for future development are being discussed in terms of access improvements, utility improvements and coordinated master planning. West Bluff The 2005 Plan envisioned this area for light induct,is highway commercial with protections for the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It was seen as a "connecting route" between the Smokey Point neighborhoods and Island Crossing. It was not a part of the City in 2005,but now is. No changes are proposed to the City's plan for the West Bluff ln"stfi-al subarea. The City's and WASA's key objective is to enhance road and pedestrian connections within the area and into adjacent subareas. Smokey Point This subafea is planned to eei4intte to be a pfedeminately single family r-esidential afea and, aeeer-ding to the 3ALASA plan, needs a eomfntmity feeal point to enhanee its identity and drainage and ufban standard r-eads. Smokey Point Blvd. from approximately 175th St. to 200th St. is being proposed as a "Commercial Corridor". The City is working on preliminary design for Smokey Point Blvd. streetscape and renderings of both the retail and high density housing along this corridor. 5-25 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element One of zoning code amendments requested as part of the 2015 "docket" (map amendment) process is located on the southeast corner of Smokey Point Boulevard/I88th Street. Smokey PoinbSR-531 In the 2005 this subarea is seen as being one of the primary entrances to Arlington, an important east-west arterial for the City's and County's road system, and a major generator of sale tax revenue for the City, which would eventually build out into a major commercial/industrial/aviation boulevard stretching from I-5 to 67th Avenue NE. Allowing small to large-scale commercial and industrial uses. This has occurred in large part. There was to be a more unified design theme, which did not occur to any significant extent. In 2015, the most significant land use issue is the current effort to develop a manufacturing industrial center (MIC) in cooperation with Marysville, WSDOT, business and others. The most significant infrastructure need is the improvement of 172nd Street (SR-531). Both will help prepare the City's industrial base for the expected employment increases discussed earlier in this chapter. These improvements are key to maintaining the targeted employment totals and the commercial/industrial land capacity. Other utility improvements are needed including increasing and maintaining fire flows for new business. The City supports and desires on-going discussions with Marysville to jointly plan and execute mutually beneficial services and utilities. The only pfopesed ehange to the !and use in this siibafea as paft of the 2015 per-iedie tipdate is whether-to approve or-deny the request-. 5.15 URBAN N GROWTH BOUNDARY DV Ail USTAIENTC Konn_Thmmpcnn I GA Expansion As disetissed in sever-al pafts of the 2015 Plan, two aetions af e being taken to efisiffe that. aetions afe taken beeause of the inability to spark i*ter-est in t4e Tfansfer- of Development Rig density Master- Plan Neighbor-hood as a cc " for- development rights sold by agrieuittual land owners in the Stillaguamish River Valley (the ccsending oe unstteeessfidl, but the Br-ek4us�Beaeh (Bum Hill/South Fork) s4afea has been a*nexed by City. Propefty owners still hold out hope for-future sueeess but in the short tefffl, without fflas planning and developer- interest, the Br-ekhtts,'Beaeh S4ar-ea eannot be assufned to provide buildable lands at the urban density r-equifed to meet its buildable lands eal. The City has r-equested expansion of the UGA to the west of 15 to make up fef the Brekhus/Beaeh lands whieh will remain in a law density (SR) zoning eategefy. The less of 4ely 963 housing tmits planned for- the afea would be matehed by an additional 805 5-26 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element nits i the King rrt,,,,,,,-,so 7 Tr_n e 5-27 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 20117 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Chapter 6 : Housing Element City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 6 Housing Element 6.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER One of society's most basic needs is shelter. How we, as a society, preserve the housing stock we have and how we plan to accommodate our future housing needs reflects upon the quality of life we enjoy or want to enjoy. It is important to consider where we locate new residential areas, for this decision will drive the determination as to where public infrastructure (roads, utilities, parks, and schools) will be located. As communities update their 2005 plans, they are instructed to consider several issues affecting housing: 1. Inventory of existing housing and projected housing needs using latest population projections. 2. Goals,policies for housing. 3. Location of sufficient land for housing. 4. Provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. This Chapter has been developed in accordance with these measures, with the Countywide Planning Policies, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure consistency throughout the comprehensive plan. In January 2014, the County issued the 2013 Housing Characteristics and Needs Report, which implements Countywide Planning Policy HO-5. The Policy called for a detailed analysis of current housing characteristics and a forecast of future needs in each jurisdiction. The Housing Report ("HO-5 Report") is a compilation and analysis of information and is not a directive on what each community should do to address future needs or estimates. It did, however, play a significant role in the development of the City's Housing Element. In November 2016, the County adopted Ordinance 16-077 which updated the population, housing and employment targets for Snohomish County cities. The Ordinance made the following finding regarding Arlington: "Based on information provided by the City of Arlington subsequent to its request on May 10, 2016, to withdraw its ARL3 proposal from the county's Final Docket AVII, the GPP 10 proposal includes capacity revisions from the City of Arlington which indicate that the city and its unincorporated UGA could accommodate the 2035 population and housing targets currently adopted in Appendix D of the county's GPP within the current Arlington UGA boundaries through consideration of reasonable measures to increase capacity within the city." City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element -- Finding"0" -- Ordinance 16-077 The Housing Element is intended to provide City officials and the general public with the information necessary to guide housing growth in the direction that best addresses the desires of not only Arlington's existing and anticipated residents, but those with special housing needs as well. The Housing Policies (See Chapter 3) will guide decision-making to achieve the community's goals as articulated in the Vision Statement. The City's development regulations (zoning, building codes, etc.) direct the private sector with regards to housing. The Housing Element will set the conditions under which the private housing industry will operate, and establishes both long-term and short-term policies to meet the community's housing needs and achieve the community goals. Several goals and policies at the State and County level give direction for this element including the GMA: (4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state,promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.' The GMA describes what a housing element should include: (2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single-family residences; (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.2 6.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS A 2014 report' by Snohomish County to the Planning Advisory Committee listed several trends that will affect future housing needs: • Population growth at a slower rate than in the past. • A significant aging of the county's population. • Greater participation by older citizens in the labor force . • More demand for housing in urban/central residential locations. RCW 30.70A.020 2 RCW 30.70A.070 Snohomish County Demographic Trends& Initial Growth Targets, Briefing to County Planning Commission, February 25, 2014 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element • Household types in Snohomish County less dominated by married-couple families with children. • Less demand for single family detached housing development than in the past. • More multi-family and rental demand. • More reliance on non-automobile modes of transport. Arlington grew by about 6,000 residents between 2000 and 2010 and added only another 350 through 2013. About 220 housing units were added 2010-2013. Owner-occupied dwellings grew from 62% to 64%, a slightly different trend than outlined in the County report. Arlington in 2011 still had a lower percentage of home ownership than its peer "Large Cities" (68.9%) or the County (67.9%). Figure 6-1 Median Income Figure 6-2 Cost Burdened Households Arlington $59,698 Cost Burdened Large Households Arlington Cities County County $67,777 Owner 51.3% 45.8% 45.7% Larger Cities $72,443 Renter 54.3% 49.0% 50.2% The median income was also lower. There was a higher ratio of"cost burdened households". "A household(rental or with mortgage) is `burdened'when it spends 30 percent or more of its gross income on housing costs...Severe housing cost burden occurs when a household must pay more than 50 percent of income on rent and utilities" --Housing Report, Page 36 6.3 FUTURE NEEDS Arlington's housing situation appears to show growth occurring in proportion to population growth with a likely upward pressure for more owner-occupied housing, but with a need for more affordable housing in the owner and rental markets. In May, 2013 each jurisdiction was asked by the County to report on how current its plan was regarding housing strategies. Each was asked to re-cap the strategies within the housing element of its 2005 comprehensive plan. Arlington reported as follows: 1. The overall emphasis in City of Arlington's housing element is to: A. Encourage the development of a range of housing types. B. Provide fair and equal access to housing. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element C. Ensure strong, stable neighborhoods through infrastructure investment and housing preservation. 2. Possible mechanisms or strategies to achieve their housing element include: A. Preserving the "old-town" area. B. Encouraging high density housing in areas currently moving in that direction. C. Utilizing regional and federal funding programs to encourage housing ownership. D. Locating housing development in areas within existing sewer service areas. 3. Implementation. The focus of Arlington's housing element is on diversity, access, affordability and preservation. Implementing strategies for these focal points include: A. Regulate housing by building type instead of use. B. Allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use projects in commercial centers. C. Permit infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. D. Regulate density by using parameters other than by dwelling units per acre. E. Reduce on-site parking requirements for residential developments. 4. Future Housing Issues. The City will continue to work toward encouraging the development of a variety of housing types in order to accommodate niches in the market that aren't currently being served. As part of the GMA plan updates, Snohomish County communities must address implementation of the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in 2008. The 2008 RGS called for proportionately more growth toward cities within regional growth centers — metropolitan (Everett) and core cities (Lynnwood, Bothell) — and away from the unincorporated UGA. Based on the 2014 HO-5 report, the Figure 6-3 Area Median Income-- 2014 City's analysis suggested that Arlington needs to find room for about 30% 31-50% 51%-80% Market 2,421 more units by 2035. It suggests AMI AMI AMI Rate that about 871 of those units need to be in the "affordable" range with the Owner 17 51 288 1339 balance priced at"market rate". Rental 65 167 282 212 The County, in its 2016 reconciliation report (Ordinance 16-077) now Total 82 218 571 1550 estimates a need for 2890 additional housing units in 2035. Applying the HO-5 ratio from 2014, 1040 of those units should be in the "affordable"range. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element in Februar-y > > a land eapaeivy analysis. it estimates that an additional 805 housing units eetild develop in t ARL3 (King Thempsen addition). it f4thef esfima4es that with no signifieant inftastmetufe, the Br-ek4us/Beaeh TDR area eould see 963 fewer-housing units than earlier-estifna4es if the area w removed ftem the City and UGA. The City's 2014 analysis showed r-esults slightly higher- tha the County esfifna4e for- APt:L3. it is assumed tha4 the Gotm4y figtifes were based on its Ur-b Medftfm Deasi:�y Residential (UMDR) zoning whereas Arlington's are based in its RMD zoning, Figure 6-4 Household Size 2014 The average household size in Arlington is 2.624, a decline from 2.72 in 2005. Owner- occupied units had 2.76 persons, down from Arlington County 2.82 persons. Renter-occupied declined from 2.54 to 2.36. The 2005 estimate for 2025 Owner 2.76 2.71 average household size was 2.54 which has proven to be very accurate. The County's Renter 2.36 2.39 estimated household size for 2035 in Arlington is forecasted to be 2.7, which will Total Households 2.62 2.61 be used for this Plan at a rate of 2.84 for owner-occupied units and 2.4 for renter units. 6.4 ALTERNATIVE HOUSING TYPES Special needs housing includes both the elderly and those with disabilities. In 2011 about 16.1% of the population was included in this category. Pro-rating those numbers to the 2035 population, of the 2-,4242,890 future housing units needed, about 390-465 would fall into the special needs category, with 13.3% (322384) serving the elderly and the balance (6981) other special need individuals. Arlington allows for adult family homes housing up to six people needing special care, defined as "a regular family abode in which a person or persons provides personal care, special care, room, and board to more than one but not more than six adults who are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services". 6.5 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS To assist affordable housing efforts and to provide for density infill, the City allows Accessory Dwelling Units under City Code 20.44.042. ADUs can be a part of or separate from the principal residence, can be no larger than 800 square feet and must comply with certain design requirements to ensure its "secondary"relationship to the main residence. 6.6 MOBILE AND MODULAR DWELLINGS Mobile homes and mobile home parks are allowed within the Suburban Residential, Residential Low/Moderate Density, Residential Moderate Density, and Residential High Density zones of the City. Modular homes are allowed only in the RHD zone, but can be grouped in subdivision- like settings with a land-use permit. 6.7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPES 4 2013 Housing Characteristics and Needs Report, Snohomish County, 2014 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Housing Element The percentage of cost-burdened homes, as highlighted in Figure 6-2, illustrates the serious need for affordable housing options within the City. While Arlington has no housing authority of its own, the City can work to ensure its policies, development regulations, fees, and permitting processes recognize and incentivize (and in some instances require) affordable housing developments. Chapter 8 : Transportation Element PSRC LETTER Conformity with Transportation Planning Requirements (Part 1) 1. The city should amend the plan to document consistent land use assumptions across all elements. PSRC Discussion: "Use consistent future land use assumptions across all plan elements and document how those assumptions align with adopted growth targets. The transportation analysis in the adopted plan is not well documented and does not make clear how forecasts of travel demand relate to adopted growth targets or the land use element. The transportation element should be amended to clearly document land use assumptions and to demonstrate consistency with adopted growth targets." Response: The City adopted its updated Transportation Plan in August 2016. As noted on Page ES-1: " Arlington's Transportation 2035 Plan follows PSRC's inteqrated lonq- range growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation strategy contained in VISION 2040. It implements the strategies developed in TRANSPORTATION 2040 focusing on congestion and mobility, environment, and funding." Additionally, Appendix G of the GMA Plan ("Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement -- Response to Comments" — See Enclosure) addressed some of the PSRC comments now included in the Conditional Certification. To address your March 31 comments, we will refer to these two documents, as well as Chapter 8 of the Plan. It is the City's intent that the Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan embrace the updated Transportation Plan in its entirety. PSRC Discussion: "The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the transportation element include a financing plan that addresses: — Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified in the plan as needed over the 20 arplanning period. Response (See Item 3) — An estimate of revenue available for transportation over the 20-year planning period. 2. Inventory existing and planned nonmotorized facilities. PSRC Discussion: While the plan includes notable policies that address pedestrian and bicycle facilities, additional work is needed to complete the pedestrian and bicycle component of the transportation element. The plan should include — a map or list of sidewalks and bicycle facilities — identification of a network of nonmotorized facilities — a project list to construct the network within 20 years Existing policies in Plan PT-3.3 Ensure that all development permits that are approved require transportation improvements that are in accordance with Arlington's ability to provide and/or maintain the adopted Levels of Service. PT-3.4 Traffic impacts of proposed projects should be determined through project-provided impact assessment reports, which should be required of every project for which the concurrency test must be applied. The City may waive this requirement where such impacts may be determined administratively and/or the project applicant agrees to mitigate any administratively determined impacts. PT-3.5 Permits should not be issued for the development of any Property until and unless the transportation facilities identified in this plan are in place. This includes roads (including curb, putter, sidewalks, and planter strips), trails, or other transportation facilities described in this Transportation Plan within the confines of that property. PT-12.2 New developments should be required to pay for improvements related to the development, including upgrading of existing facilities, on a proportionate share basis and according to calculated impacts to existing LOS. Policies: PP-1.1 The following Level of Service Standards for parks, trails, and opens space should be established throughout the City: d) Trails = 1.4 mi/1,000 people PP-1.5 Any required park, trail, and open space mitigation should be based on the City's adopted Level of Service Standard for the particular facility being impacted. PS-1.5 The City of Arlington should not issue any development permits that result in a reduction of the transportation Level of Service standard for the public facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Element without mitigation. PSRC Discussion: "Policies would be strengthened through adoption of levels of service and a concurrency approach that includes multiple modes" On Page 1-10 2016 Transportation Plan states: " The Growth Management Act requires that transportation facilities are to be in place at the time development is completed or that a commitment has been made to complete the facilities within six years. For transportation facilities, the City has adopted a transportation impact fee to be assessed to all development projects within the city based upon the PM peak hour trips generated by the protect and to be used for system improvements reasonably related to the new development. As a part of the SEPA review of a protect, potential impacts to the transportation network are identified and mitigation is required to ensure the City's LOS standards are met concurrent with the additional travel demand generated by each development project. Nonmotorized, pedestrian, and other multimodal options are considered and are included in required mitigation. The City of Arlington also has entered into an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County for reciprocal mitigation of transportation impacts." 3. Include a complete and updated multiyear financing plan for transportation PSRC Discussion: "The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the transportation element include a financing plan that addresses: — Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified in the plan as needed over the 20-year planning period. Response (See Item 3) — A reassessment strategy to document steps the city could take to close the gap, if any, between costs and revenues, such as additional demand management strategies, pursuing new revenues, reducing level-of-service standards, and land use changes. Response: The County GMA Comprehensive Plan includes a section referred to as the "Goal 12 Reassessment Policy" which outlines an approach when transportation or other capital facilities may not meet concurrency requirements. This Reassessment Policy and procedure will be amended into the Arlington Comprehensive Plan during this recertification process. 1. The Cityprepare a comprehensive "Non-Motorized Plan" as part of the 2017 docket as requested in the letter of conditional approval. 2. A graphic showing an inventory of dedicated bike lanes in city streets has been completed. 3. A table summarizing miles of sidewalks, multiuse trails, and bike lanes has been added. 4. A statement has been added to Section 3.7 that the City is producing a comprehensive "Non-Motorized Plan". 5. Section 3.7.3 has been revised (last sentence in first par�ph) to state that: "These areas will be addressed in the Ci y's pending "Non-Motorized Plan". 6. A new table has been added to Section 6 for"Trail Projects"with cost estimates. 7. The 2030 Capital costs in Section 7 will include "Trail Projects" that were added to Section 6 8. A "Reassessment Strategy"will be added to Section 7 9. The current Plan now reflects the City's decision not to expand west of I-5. It is the City's intent that the Integrated SEPA/GMA Plan embrace the updated Transportation Plan in its entirety. "The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the transportation element include a financing plan that addresses: Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycleprovements identified in the plan as needed over the 20-year planning period. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 8 Transportation Element 8.1 INTRODUCTION Transportation systems that facilitate access to employment, goods, services, and housing areas are crucial to the economic and social vitality of cities, towns, and other urban areas. No other public service so affects development patterns or is affected by them. The relationship between land use and transportation is complex and ever changing. Any number of projects can come under the heading of transportation: a regional mass transit system, local transit services available to elderly or disabled residents, traffic impacts of a new shopping center, pedestrian paths, bike trails and so on. Every transportation decision has implications for land use (and vice-versa). Effective planning determines, as nearly as possible, how altering one side of the equation will affect the other. Under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) 13 goals were established, some affecting our transportation planning: • Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. • Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. • Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy This Transportation Element has been developed in line with these goals to address the motorized and non-motorized transportation needs of Arlington. It represents the community's policy plan regarding the provision of transportation facilities for the next 20 years. The Transportation Element has been developed in accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies of Snohomish County, and has been integrated with the other Comprehensive Plan elements to ensure internal consistency. The Element specifically considers the location and condition of the existing circulation system; the cause, scope, and nature of existing transportation problems; the project needs; and plans for addressing these needs while meeting Level of Service standards. 8-1 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2015 2017 Update In concert with comprehensive plan updates in both 2005 and 2015, the City has-updated its Transportation Plan. For 2015, the Transportation 2035 Plan -- 2016 Update, L'it y ofArlington Plan-has been adopted beth-by the City and,adopted-by reference,as part of this Plan. The 2035 Plan includes elements that have been used in the updates of Land Use, Public Services and other elements of the GMA Comprehensive Plan. It updates several elements of the 2005 Transportation Plan: 1. System inventory. Inventory of the roadway system, transit facilities, and trails network was reviewed and updated with current information. 2. Level of service. The previously established LOS standards for the roadway system were reviewed and revised to match the analysis that was used in the transportation model. 3. Existing transportation system LOS. The performance of the current transportation system was described,based on the calibrated transportation model. 4. Future transportation system needs. The deficiencies in the roadway system were updated using analysis from the transportation model. 5. Transportation goals and policies. These were reviewed for current relevancy and appropriateness. The goals were revised and reorganized, and supporting policies were also revised and augmented to supply implementation guidance. The Transportation Plan is also consistent with regional and Countywide planning policies. Arlington is a member of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) for King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. PSRC is required to certify the transportation-related provisions in local comprehensive plans. By doing so, PSRC confirms consistency with the multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040, the adopted regional transportation plan (Transportation 2040), and the requirements of GMA. This Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan summarizes the relevant portions of the Transportation Plan. Readers can find more detail by referring directly to the Plan itself. 8.2 SYSTEM INVENTORY Roads Road systems in a community are built according to a hierarchy of traffic volumes and connections. The City's "functional classification" map is of Arlington's streets is shown on Figure 2-5a. • Principal Arterials provide for movement across and between large subareas of the City and predominantly serve through trips with minimum direct service to abutting land uses. 8-2 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element • Minor Arterials provide for movement within large subareas of the City. They may serve secondary traffic generators and traffic from neighborhood to neighborhood within a large community. • Collectors promote the flow of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians from arterial roads to lower-order roads. Secondary functions are to serve abutting land uses and accommodate public transit. Traffic volumes typically range between 1,000 to 2,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). • Local Access Roads are designed to convey vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles to and from higher-order roads. Local access roads do not carry through traffic. Traffic volumes of 250 ADT or less are typical. The City also contains State highways carrying regional traffic and freight through the community. These include I-5 to the west, SR-9 on the east, SR-530 to the north, and SR-531 172nd St. to the south. SR-530 connects the community of Darrington to I-5. These are also classified as Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS), which include interstate highways and other principal arterials that connect major communities in the state. Interstate 5, SR-9 from SR- 522 near Woodinville to SR-530, and SR-530 from I-5 to SR-9 are classified as HSS routes. Designation assigns a somewhat higher priority for improvement funding as determined by the State Department of Transportation. Figure 2-5a is the Official Street Map for Arlington. It outlines the classification of Arlington's roads and highways. The condition of Arlington's streets and its 20-year needs are discussed below. Public Transit Community Transit operates 30 local routes, including Swift bus rapid transit and 23 commuter routes to Seattle. Five bus routes currently serve the Arlington area, both for travel within the City and for commuting: • Routes 201 and 202 travel on I-5 between the Lynwood Transit Center and the Stillaguamish Senior Center, with stops at Smoky Point. Service is provided Monday through Saturday between approximately 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. • Route 227 provides commuter service between the Arlington Park and Ride and Everett Boeing, with two trips in the early morning and two in the late afternoon. Service is provided Monday through Friday. • Route 230 travels between Smoky Point and Darrington on SR-530. It provides early morning and late afternoon service Monday through Saturday. • Route 240 provides approximate one-hour service between downtown Arlington and Stanwood Monday through Saturday. 8-3 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element After experiencing service cuts during the Great Recession, CT has continued to adopt new agency size and service configurations for the future. The current CT Plan update (2015) proposes Transit Emphasis Corridors, which are principal arterials and/or State Routes with a mixture of core commercial, high-density residential, suburban and rural development. Community Transit and the City of Arlington will assess the appropriate time to include the SR- 9 Corridor in Community Transit's taxing area. When demand warrants, commute hour express services will be provided to link Arlington and Bothell, with intermediate stops at nodes of development along the corridor. Community Transit also operates 21 park and ride centers throughout the County, including two in Arlington: one at 17721 Smokey Point Boulevard and one at SR-9 and 4th Street in downtown Arlington. Airport The Arlington Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Arlington. It consists of 1,200 acres within the City limits of Arlington. Uses at the airport include general aviation facilities as well as industrial, commercial and public uses. The airport accommodates a variety of users, ranging from single engine aircraft to business jets, and includes activity by helicopters, gliders, and ultralights. The airport does not have scheduled passenger flights. Aircraft operations averaged 367 per day for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2010. Rail The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) I-5 corridor carries both freight and passenger rail traffic. The mainline in the I-5 corridor, from Vancouver, WA to Vancouver, B.C. is owned by BNSF. Amtrak has rights to operate passenger service on this mainline. Amtrak provides passenger service between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, B.C. on the same tracks as the freight trains. It makes a limited number of stops, with Everett and Stanwood being the closest stops to Arlington. Bike and Pedestrian Trails Arlington places high value on non-motorized transportation and has many improved trails for cyclists. The Centennial Trail provides a direct bicycle and pedestrian connection from downtown to residential neighborhoods. The City coordinates bicycle/pedestrian improvements with neighboring jurisdictions to connect routes where possible. Exact locations and widths of bike lanes are determined on a project specific basis by the City and consistent with adopted roadway design standards. 8-4 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 8-1 Functional Classification of Roadways, 2015 Functional Jurisdiction/ Route/Street Name Classification Responsible Parking Comments Agency 1-5 State Highway State Prohibited SR-530 State Highway State Partially Main entrance into City from Permitted Interstate Main point of entry from 172nd St. NE(SR-531) State Highway City/County/State Prohibited Interstate to City's industrial area and Airport SR-9 State Highway State Prohibited Primary N-S highway(aside from Interstate Smokey Point Blvd. Arterial—5 Lane City/County Limited Connects SR530 w/ 35 Ave NE 172nd St. NE 67th Ave NE between Bovee Lane and 168th Arterial—4 Lane City Prohibited Street 211th St. NE Collector Arterial City Prohibited Connects SR530 with 67th Ave. NE 188th St. NE/47th Ave. Collector Arterial City/County Limited NE 67th Ave. NE Collector Arterial City/County City/County Prohibited Secondary N-S highway 59th Ave. Collector Arterial City/County Prohibited Serves Airport and industrial area 51 st Ave. Collector Arterial City/County Prohibited Serves Airport and industrial area Tveit Rd. Collector Arterial City/County City/County Limited 83'd Ave N Collector Arterial City Permitted Between Tveit and Burn Limited Access Roads Burn Rd. Collector Arterial City/County Prohibited Traverses through difficult Limited Access topography 204th St. NE/Cemetery Collector Arterial Rd. Limited Access City Limited 207th St Collector Arterial City Prohibited Connects 204th with Burn Limited Access Road 186th St Collector Arterial County Prohibited Limited Access McElroy St Collector Arterial County Prohibited Limited Access 132"1 St Collector Arterial County Prohibited Limited Access Olympic Ave. Local Collector City Permitted Main route through CBD West Ave. Local Collector City Permitted Main route through CBD Division St. Local Collector City Permitted Connects residential area to CBD and to SR530 E. Highland Dr. Local Collector City Permitted/ Connects SR9 to residential Limited area 8-5 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 8-2: Arlington Trails (See Figure 2-7) Trail Length Description Centennial Trail (city portion) 2.7 miles Trail is complete through City. Airport Trail 5.5 miles Trail encircles the Arlington Municipal Airport through natural, residential and industrial areas. Kruger Creek Trail 0.4 miles River Crest Trail 0.2 miles Gravel trail in natural area overlooking Portage Creek and wetland Zimmerman Trail 0.2 miles Stair climb Total City Trails 8.6 miles Centennial Trail (county portion) 16.0 miles Regional trail extending from King to Skagit County. Remaining portions should be completed in 2011. Whitehorse Trail 7.0 miles Regional trail from Arlington to Darrington River Meadows Park Trails 1.6 miles Year round nature trails along the South Fork of the Stillaguamish River Total County Trails 17.6 miles Sidewalks Throughout the residential areas of Old-Town Arlington as well as the downtown area of the City, there exists a comprehensive system of sidewalks to serve the walking public. Additionally, current road standards require residential developers to install sidewalks both sides side of the street. However, developments older than ten years of age typically have gaps between sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities. Sidewalks are also generally lacking between residential neighborhoods and between housing areas and commercial, recreational, industrial, and public areas. Additionally, very few of the sidewalks have wheelchair ramps at street intersections. 8.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE Much of this Transportation Element addresses the City's roads. This is because the Growth Management Act ties the ability of roads to handle traffic to the ability of the community to grow. The City, in accordance with the Growth Management Act, must establish Level of Service (LOS) standards for all roadways in Arlington. These standards are to be used as a means of measuring the performance of the overall transportation network. The City has the responsibility of prohibiting any development that would result in the LOS on any roadway not being met, unless improvements are undertaken to mitigate these impacts concurrent with the proposed development. 8-6 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or highway during a specific time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). The City of Arlington has adopted the following levels of service: • City arterials=LOS D • All other city streets =LOS C • Highways of Statewide Significance=LOS D • Regionally Significant State Highways =LOS D Concurrence The Growth Management Act requires that transportation facilities are to be in place at the time development is completed or that a commitment has been made to complete the facilities within six years. For transportation facilities, the City has adopted a transportation impact fee to be assessed to all development projects within the City based upon the PM peak hour trips generated by the project and to be used for system improvements reasonably related to the new development. As a part of the SEPA review of a project, potential impacts to the transportation network are identified and mitigation is required to ensure the City's LOS standards are met concurrent with the additional travel demand generated by each development project. Non- motorized, pedestrian, and other multimodal options are considered and are included in required mitigation. The City of Arlington also has entered into an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County for reciprocal mitigation of transportation impacts. Several goals and policies address concurrency, requiring assurances that improvements be put in place concurrent with new development. The adopted 2016 Transportation Planl acknowledges the GMA requirement that transportation facilities be in place at the time development is completed or that a commitment has been made to complete the facilities within six years. The Comprhensive Plan further adopts by reference the County's "Goal 12 Reassessment Policy" (Appendix J) requiring review of land use and development assumptions if concurrency cannot be achieved. 8.4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LOS Table 8-3 shows the existing Level of Service at several intersections. The intersection average LOS is commonly used as the concurrency threshold for reviewing new development impacts. Twenty-five of the 26 intersections meet or exceed the minimum allowable level of service of LOS D, and one intersection falls below the standard. The intersection is at SR 530 at 211th Place. Volumes and level of service were also measured along road segments and all are estimated to be at LOS C or above, with the majority at LOS A. The only segment estimated to be at LOS C is 172"d Street NE (SR-531). The highest volumes in the study area are estimated for the 172"d Street NE (SR-531) and SR-530 corridors. 1 Page 1-10 8-7 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 8-3: Existing Level of Service -- Intersections Number Intersection Intersection LOS Control 1 E Burke Avenue (SR-530)/N Manhattan Ave Stop Sign C 2 W Burke Avenue (SR-530)/Hazel Street (SR-9) Stop Sign C 3 E Division Street/N Olympic Avenue Stop Sign C 4 W Division Street/Hazel Street (SR-9) Signal B 5 E Maple Street/S Olympic Avenue Stop Sign A 6 Lebanon Street/67th Avenue NE Stop Sign B 7 E Highland Drive/S Stillaguamish Avenue Signal B 8 211th Place NE/67th Avenue NE Stop Sign C 9 204th Street NE/SR-9 Signal C 10 204th Street NE/67th Avenue NE Signal B 11 211th Place NE/SR-530 Stop Sign F 12 SR-530/1-5 NB Ramps Signal B 13 SR-530/1-5 SB Ramps Signal B 14 Crown Ridge Blvd/Eaglefield Drive/SR-9 Signal B 15 671h Avenue NE/1881h Street NE Stop Sign C 16 188th St NE/Smokey Point Blvd. Stop Sign D 17 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/SR-9 Roundabout B 18 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/Gleneagle Blvd Stop Sign B 19 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/671h Avenue NE Signal C 20 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/59th Avenue NE Signal C 21 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/51 st Avenue NE Signal C 22 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/43rd Avenue NE Signal B 23 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/Smokey Point Blvd Signal D 24 Smokey Point Boulevard/Smokey Point Drive Signal A 25 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/1-5 NB Ramps Signal A 26 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/1-5 SB Ramps Signal A 8-8 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 8.5 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Planned improvements in the City of Arlington transportation system include short term needs identified in the Six-Year TIP as well as long-term needs based on conditions expected to develop over the next 20 years. These are summarized from the 2035 Transportation Plan, as follows: Table 8-4 shows LOS deficiencies at certain intersections along with the LOS if improvements are made as shown. These improvements vary by location, but typically include conversion to signalized intersections or roundabouts and associated widening. Table 8-4: LOS After Improvements Map Intersection LOS w/o LOS with Improvement No. Improvement Improvement 2 W Burke Avenue (SR-530)/Hazel Street F C Signal (SR-9 6 Lebanon Street/67th Avenue NE F D Stop Sign 8 1 211th Place NE/67th Avenue NE F A Signal 11 211th Place NE/SR-530 F C RIRO 15 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE F B Signal 16 188th St NE/Smokey Point Blvd. F B Signal 17 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/SR-9 F D Roundabout 19 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/67th Avenue E D Signal NE 20 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/59th Avenue F D Roundabout NE 21 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/51 st Avenue E A Roundabout NE 22 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/43,d Avenue F A Roundabout NE 23 172nd Street NE (SR-531)/Smokey Point F E Signal Blvd Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The City of Arlington's Six-Year TIP (2011-2016) identified a number of the roadway and intersection deficiencies some of which have been improved or are scheduled for near-term construction. The City updates its TIP annually, and the TIP is adopted as part of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 8-9 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Snohomish County Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Snohomish County's current Six-Year TIP includes two projects in the Arlington area: • Improving the intersection of 51 st Avenue NE at 1361h Street NE, • Installing anew signal and turn lanes at the 5lst Avenue NE/100 Street NE intersection. Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Improvement Program The 2010-2013 TIP includes two projects within the City of Arlington: • 67th Avenue NE roadway improvements, 204th Street NE to Lebanon Street • Gifford Avenue Sidewalk installation Washington State Department of Transportation Highway Improvement Program and Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program The 2011 to 2016 Washington State STIP includes: • 67th Avenue NE roadway improvements from 204th St. NE to Lebanon Street. The 2035 Transportation Plan (Table 8-5) has identified the long range projects that will have priority through 2035. They would result in improved operations at all locations where deficiencies were shown. Table 8-5: 2035 Transportation Improvements 172nd St(SR-531)—431d Ave Phase A (431 to 67th)—Widen from 2-lane to 5-lane. NE to SR-9 Phase B ( 67th Ave to SR-9)—Widen from 2-lane to 5-lane. Status-Working with State legislatures to fund corridor study for this project. 67th Ave Phase 3—2041h St NE Widen roadway to 3 lanes, include trail and sidewalks. to Lebanon St Smokey Point Blvd— 174th St Phase A (1741h to 1881h)-Widen from 2-lane to 5-lane. NE to SR-530 Phase B (188th to 2001h)-Widen from 2-lane to 3-lane with intersection at 2001h/Smokey Point Blvd. Phase C (200th to SR-530)-Widen from 2-lane to 3-lane with intersection at 2001h/Smokey Point Blvd. Airport Blvd (51 It St extension 3-lane road extension of 51It St from SR-531 to 188th St N. from SR-531 to 188th St NE) 172nd St(SR-531)from SR-9 to Phase A—Widen existing roadway to 3 lanes, within City limits. McElroy Phase B— New 3-lane road construction from intersection of (Joint COA-SnoCo Project) 172nd/91St to McElroy St. Arlington Valley Rd—67th Ave New 3 lane connection from 67th to 204th St (74th Ave). NE to 204th St NE SR-530, 1-5 to SR-9— Project Phase A: 1-5 to Smokey Point Blvd—widen roadway to 4 lanes plus consists of improving sections channelization. of SR-530 and various Phase B: SR-530/Smokey Point Blvd Intersection—Realign Smokey 8-10 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 8-5: 2035 Transportation Improvements intersections; most of road to Point Blvd to the east and install roundabout. remain 2-lane road. Phase C: SR-530/591h Ave Intersection—Signalize intersection with left turn pockets on SR-530 . Phase D: SR-530/211th St Intersection— Modify to right-in/right-out only intersection Phase E: SR-530/SR-9 (Division) Intersection — Intersection improvements as identified in SR-9 Route Development Plan. Phase F: SR-530/Burke Intersection— Intersection improvements as identified in SR-9 Route Development Plan. Cemetery Rd -47th-188th Phase A: 67th Ave to 47th Ave— Need to perform traffic study to time Improvements; this is an need and construction. Widen roadway to 3 lanes, perform frontage identified arterial that consists of improvements, add channelization. This road section crosses into several road sections that cross County jurisdiction; work needs to be coordinated with SnoCo. City and County jurisdictions, Phase B: 47th Ave from Cemetery Road to 188th St NE to Smokey the road needs to be expanded Point Blvd— Need to perform traffic study to time need and to increase traffic flow. construction. Widen roadway to 3 lanes, Airport to install frontage on east side, add channelization. Phase C: 188th St NE from 47th Ave NE to Smokey Point Blvd — Need to perform traffic study to time need and construction. Widen roadway to 3 lanes, install frontage improvements, add channelization. 51 st Ave-(SR-531 to 164th St) This road has been identified as a crucial transportation need in the Improvements West Arlington Plan. Construct a three-lane road from SR-531 south to 1641h (City Limit). Work needs to be coordinated with Marysville. 211th St& 59th St Phase A— Improve 2111h St (install road shoulder, bike lane, trail). Improvements Phase B— Install a two lane road between 211th St and 59th Ave, install an intersection at the new road and 59th Ave. 186th St-(SR-9 to 99th Ave) Construct a two-lane road connecting SR-9 to McElroy. Project was New Road included in the Arl-SnoCo Circulation Study, and is a joint project with SnoCo as it crosses from Arlington city limits into SnoCo. 63rd Ave-(from 186th to SR-531) Construct a new internal industrial road in N-S direction, need to New Road acquire property, connect to SR-531 as right-in/right-out. 1801h St NE—59th Ave NE to Phase A: 591h Ave NE to BNSF ROW, Rehab and expand an 671h Ave existing private industrial road. Need dedication from private properties. Phase B: BNSF ROW to 671h Ave. Tveit Rd— UGA Limit(92nd)to Expand existing road to two lane arterial, project is included in the Highland Dr Arl-SnoCo Circulation Study. 361h Ave NE— 178th St NE to Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West 183'd St NE Arlington Plan. 180th St NE—Smokey Pt Blvd Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West to 36th Ave NE Arlington Plan. 189th PI —43,d PI to 188 St Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West Arlington Plan. 8-11 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 8-5: 2035 Transportation Improvements 1851h PI—31 It Ave to Smokey Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West Point Blvd Arlington Plan. 32nd PI— 186th Ave to 184th PI Residential two lane roadway, developer funded. Part of West Arlington Plan. 173rd St NE—Smokey Point Construct 3-lane road. Part of West Arlington Plan. Blvd to 43,d Ave 43rd Ave— 172nd St to 164th St Construct a three-lane road from SR-531 south to 164th (City Limit). Work needs to be coordinated with Marysville. Part of West Arlington Plan. 471h Ave— 172nd (SR-531)to Construct a three-lane road from SR-531 south to 164th (City Limit). 164th Part of West Arlington Plan. 169th PI — Smokey Point Blvd to Construct a three-lane road from Smokey Point Blvd to 51 It Ave. 51 It Ave SR-9/172nd St (SR-531) Reconstruct intersection from signalized intersection to roundabout. Roundabout Intersection Improvement at Signal at 741h Ave &204th St. 74th Ave &2041h Intersection Improvement at Increase RT turn pocket on east bound approach. SR-9 &204th Intersection Improvement Intersection signalization at 671h/188th Intersection Improvement Intersection signalization at Smokey Point Blvd/188th Brekhus/Beach N/S Road Construct new N/S connection. 8-12 JULY 2015 REVISED JANUARY 2017 Chapter 9 : Capital Facilities and Public Services Element 1. Include a complete and updated multiyear financing plan for transportation PSRC Discussion: "The Growth Management Act (see RCW 36.70A.070(6)) requires that the transportation element include a financing plan that addresses: — Cost estimates for roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements identified in the plan as needed over the 20-year planning period. Response (See Item 3) — A reassessment strategy to document steps the city could take to close the gap, if any, between costs and revenues, such as additional demand management strategies, pursuing new revenues, reducing level-of-service standards, and land use changes. Response: The County GMA Comprehensive Plan includes a section referred to as the "Goal 12 Reassessment Policy" which outlines an approach when transportation or other capital facilities may not meet concurrence requirements. This Reassessment Policy and procedure will be amended into the Arlington Comprehensive Plan during this recertification process. PSRC Discussion: The plan contains many policies that support development of a manufacturing/industrial center and a compact, mixed-use and pedestrian- oriented business district. Policies that prioritize transportation, public realm, and other investments in the city's centers would strengthen the plan's support for development in these locations. Communities should prioritize infrastructure funding within their identified centers. Response: Arlington has been an active participant in the PSRC Centers Framework study which is still in process. The City, along with Marysville and Snohomish County show a proposed Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) in the 4400 acres area between the two cities. Approximate 2275 acres is developable as industrial land, with access to I-5, local arterials, the Arlington Airport and the fast freight rail corridor extending from Canada through Puget Sound. The proposed MIC is a part of the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor. The 2015 Transportation Priorities for the Corridor are enclosed. Final Centers designations are expected in Spring 2017. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element 09 Capital Facilities and Public Services Element 9.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to prepare a Capital Facilities Element consisting of: • An inventory of current capital facilities owned by public entities showing the location and capacities of those public facilities; • A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; • The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; • At least a six-year plan that will finance capital facilities within the projected funding capacities and clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes; and • A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities element, and finance plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. This Element has been developed in accordance with Section 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act to address the provision of local government services and capital facilities. The City has prepared and maintained individual sewer, water, traffic, parks and other plans. These are incorporated by reference and summarized in this Comprehensive Plan. They represent the community's policy plan for provision of such services and facilities through 2035. The Capital Facilities and Public Services Element describes how the goals in the other plan elements will be implemented through policies and regulations, and is an important element in implementing the comprehensive plan. The Goals and Policies in Chapter 3 will guide decision-making to achieve the community goals as articulated in the Vision Statement. The Capital Facilities and Public Services Element has also been developed in accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies to ensure both internal and external plan consistency. For the purposes of this plan, a capital facility is defined as a structure or equipment that generally costs $10,000 or more and has a useful life of ten years or more. Capital facilities investments include major rehabilitation or maintenance projects on capital assets; construction of new buildings, streets, and other facilities; acquisition of land for parks and other public purposes. Equipment purchases exceeding $10,000 are not including in this CIP. They are technically considered capital facilities,but not within the context of a community plan. The Capital Facilities and Public Services Element is required to address all public facilities, except transportation which are addressed separately under the Transportation Element (Chapter 9-1 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element 8). However, the discussion of finance for both capital facilities and transportation has been combined in one location under this Chapter. Urban services will be available only within the Urban Growth Area, particularly sewer service. The City recognizes that planning for utilities is the primary responsibility of both City and non- city providers. The City will incorporate plans prepared by other providers into its comprehensive plan to coordinate their development and to identify ways of improving the quality and delivery of services provided in the City and UGA. For mmy public services, the Growth Management Act requires that local plans address "concurrency", the notion that sewer, water, roads, parks and fire services be adequate to handle new growth within six years RCW 36.70A.020, Policy 12). Appendix J outlines a Reassessment Process where public services are reviewed once a year to ensure concurrency. Where potential shortfalls may occur, the process outlines how the Plan or services will be adjusted. These may involve finding additional revenues, reducing level of service standards, finding efficiencies in provision of services or adjusting the land use plan to reduce serice impacts. 9.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Municipal Services The City of Arlington has a Mayor/Council form of government with seven Councilmembers, an elected Mayor, and a City Administrator who reports directly to the Mayor. The City's organizational structure has supervisors heading up seven departments: Administration, Finance, Police, Fire/EMS, Community Development, Airport, and Public Works. In addition there are contract employees providing legal, hearing examiner, and other administrative services as needed. The City provides the majority of municipal services either through its own staff or by contract with other jurisdictions or private contractors. These services include: governance, administration, planning and community development, land development permitting, building permits, public works, engineering, sewer and water service, solid waste and recycling services, financing, budgeting and accounting, grant development and management, parks planning and maintenance, street maintenance, storm water management, environmental services and natural resource management, airport management and maintenance, fire prevention and inspection, emergency medical services, legal, police services, judicial, jail, and recreation programming. Services provided directly by special purpose districts include health, school, power, judicial, and library services. All the above-italicized operations are housed in an 8,578 square foot City Hall. Staffing In 1989 the City had 39 full-time employees (FTEs); in 2003 118. In 2015, there are 118 full- time employees and approximately 35 volunteer firefighters. 9-2 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element City-owned properties are indicated on Figure 2-12. Fire The Arlington Fire Department provides Fire and EMS service to the entire Arlington City limits. The interlocal agreement with the Marysville Fire District 12 has expired. Additionally, the City is no longer under contract to provide fire protection services to SCFD 21. There are two fully staffed fire stations in the City. One is in old town at 115 N Macleod Ave and the second at 18824 Smokey Point Boulevard. A third station on the Arlington Airport houses Fire Administration and a BLS aid car. The City of Arlington's fire protection insurance classification is rated as a Class 5. The Fire Department is striving to achieve a Class 3 rating. Numerous factors are taken into account when moving into another rating. Just completed and appears to remain a class 5 The Arlington Fire Department's facility locations and inventories are shown in Table 9-1: Fire and Emergency Medical Service Invento Table 1: Fire and Emer-geney Medieal Se � inventery• Table 9-1: Fire and Emergency Medical Service Inventory Facility Name and Address Vehicle Type Inventory Total Area (sq. ft) Station#1 - 137 1 BLS Unit 6,062 North Macleod 1 Medic Unit 1 City Pumper Station#2— 1 Pumper 6231 188th Street N.E. (1) BLS Units 3,444 1 Chiefs Vehicle 1 Deputy Chiefs Vehicle _ Administration Bldg. 1,000 Arlington Airport TOTAL 10,506 Level of Service. There are four elements associated with measuring fire protection levels of service—water supply, personnel, response time, and facilities. The issue of proper water supply is addressed in the Water Service section. Currently the department employs 27 full-time fire fighters, one fire chief, one deputy chief, approximately, 30 part-time employees. Response time and facilities are used to establish formal LOS standards. Discussion of these standards follows. 9-3 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Response Time. Ideally, a fire station is located so that any call within the City limits can be reached within a five-minute response time. Currently (2015), all areas of the City limits can be served within a five-minute response time. Facilities. Facilities require adequate square footage and equipment. A standard facility consists of (1) Pumper or Aerial trucks, a Medic unit, and a basic life support unit, along with the necessary square footage to support this equipment. If growth occurs through annexations in the City's geographic area, the City would need to add square footage and equipment for a new facility in order to maintain a five-minute response time. The existing LOS for the fire and emergency facility space can be calculated by dividing the existing total inventory of space by the existing (2005) City assessed valuation of $1,356,192,746. This yields a current LOS of 7.75 square feet of facility space per $lM valuation. The Fire Department's recommended LOS is 42 square feet per$1 M valuation. The Department will consider updating its Capital Facilities Plan in 2015-2016 once the City and County comprehensive plans are adopted. It will be based on a review of long range land use and population projections, applied to current service areas and future LOS standards for Emergency Medical (EMS) and fire protection services. There will be a need to improve the water system to resolve existing system deficiencies as well as to accommodate the increased demands created by growth.' To meet the criteria mandated by the Department of Health as well as City policies and design criteria, the following measures are needed: • Existing water mains will require replacement in several areas due to low fire flows, aging and undesirable materials. • An additional pressure reducing station is needed to improve fire flow in a localized area. Police The Arlington Police Department provides police services 24 hours a day employing 29 people including the Public Safety Director, Deputy Chief, 22 Police Officers, and five non-sworn support persons. The services include complaint response, investigations, traffic enforcement, school safety, and records and evidence control. The Department also contracts some of its services, including the following: The Comprehensive Water System Plan assumes a 2025 population of 20,720. 9-4 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Table 9-2: Contracted Police Services Service Contracted Provider Communications SNOPAC Jail services City of Marysville and Snohomish County Municipal Court Services City of Marysville Prosecution Contract Prosecutor Public Defender Contract Attorney Narcotics Investigation Regional Task Force Annual Training City of Everett Applicant Testing Private Vendor Gun Range Facility Private Vendor Repair/Maintenance Various The Department has 12 patrol vehicles, six staff cars plus a radar trailer and a Critical Response Vehicle. Level of Service. The indicators suggested as LOS standards for police services include the following performance goals: Indicator Goal Now Crime Rate per 1000 pop. 55 62 Crime Clearance Rate % 18.4 28 Emergency Response Time in Minutes 3 3.6 Events per Officer per Year 1,000 1,319 Staffing Recommendations: In addition, to the above service goals, the department suggests the addition of staff as outlined below: 1. Add a Detective that is assigned exclusively to investigate Crimes Against Businesses. This detective would handle the workload of frauds, identity theft and theft against the business community. 2. Add a Patrol Officer to balance patrol teams. 3. Add a Police Service Technician. The Police Impound Lot and Property Building are part of the Public Works shop compound leased from the Arlington Municipal Airport. This building has the storage capacity the police station does not have. It also has the capability to process vehicles that are seized for evidence. The security lot has the capability to store 12 vehicles and has been outgrown. There is a need for a larger facility on a long term basis. 9-5 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Utilities Arlington has recently updated its water and sewer plans. These are summarized below and have been adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Water In 2014, the City provided service to approximately 5,444 customer connections, within a service area, which extends beyond the City limits encompassing about 24.5 square miles. The 2014 population within the City limits was 18,360, while water service was provided to approximately 16,251 people. The largest water systems adjacent to the City's water service area are Marysville and the PUD. Eighteen smaller water systems are located within or in the vicinity of the City's water service area. Water supply to the City is provided by one treatment plant that receives water from three groundwater wells within the Haller Wellfield, a groundwater well within the Airport Wellfield and wholesale water purchased from the Snohomish County PUD No. 1. Water storage is provided by Hydrant P-mift `..S&h 11In two reservoirs that have a total capacity of 4.0 0.7'M 4% million gallons (MG). In addition, the City's water system has four pressure zones with seven pressure reducing stations, one booster pump station and approximately 91.4 miles of water mains. Much of the downtown area water system that consists of asbestos cement water mains and was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. The remaining water system is relatively new, with the majority of the construction occurring within the last 30 years. The life expectancy of water mains is generally 50 years. However, corrosion within water mains has been greatly reduced through the development of cement mortar lined ductile iron pipe, which has a life expectancy in excess of 75 years. Approximately 14 percent of water main within the system was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s and is reaching or has reached its life expectancy. The majority of this older water system is located in the old town and airport areas. The remainder of the system is primarily 30 years old or less and is generally in good condition Future system needs have been evaluated in light of the updated City Comprehensive Plan. For the purposes of long-term water supply only, the Water Systems Plan assumes continued growth within the City of 1.35 percent through 2065 to obtain a water service population of more than 35,000. The adopted City population target for 2035 is 24,936. The 50-year projection (2064) is 71,500. In the near-term, projections assume the City limits and UGA boundaries shown on the Land Use Map. The City has filed a petition for expansion of the UGA west of I-5 (King- Thompson area). The County is expected to rule on the petition in 2016. This WSP update anticipates County approval and allocates growth to the expansion area. 9-6 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element The chart shows how water is used in Arlington. This information assists in projecting quantity and facility needs based on the 2035 land use plan. The Water Plan assumes a consumption rate of 80 gallons per day per resident. For business and industry an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) measurement is used, ranging from 165-180 gallons per day, per equivalent household. These were used to forecast the amount and location of water supplies consistent with anticipated growth. Fire flows deficiencies have been called out by the City's emergency services as an issue needing attention in future growth planning. 55.E MANS) The Water System Plan has i # forecasted needs based on fire flow; - - - 2010.� standards ranging from 900 gallons 0000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If°W j per minute (gpm) for residential to 3500 gpm for industry and schools. 00 400,,,, _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SpM The Water System Plan devotes an entire section (Chapter 5) to design 1,� standards and operational policies. These represent the overall Level tu..mwT ara....d wwe.u'wu[ �M.mum n.v o.w.e wro wv[ y-rowhirm wmr.u.u.m of Service standard and is adopted by reference. 9-7 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Table 9-4 Water System Plan No. Project Cost Funding Year Water Main Improvements WM-I Annual Water Main Replacement Program $5,500K City 2016-2025 WM-2 12"North Island Crossing Water Main $2,150K City/DF 2022-2023 WM-3 198th Place NE/Cemetery Road Water Main $1,641K City 2020-2021 WM-4 West 1-5 Expansion Area Water Main $2,577K City/DF 2024-2025 WM-5 South of 172nd MIC Area Water Main $3,443K City/DF 2018-2019 Water Main Improvements $15,311k Pressure Zone Improvements PZ-1 Conversion of 710 Zone to 560 Zone 107th Ave NE $90K City 2017-2020 PZ-2 Conversion of 540 Zone and 710 Zone to 615 Zone $90K City 2020 PZ-3 Conversion of 540 Zone to 520 Zone $90K City 2025 Pressure Improvements $270K Facility Improvements F-1 Demolish Old WTP $0 City 2030 F-2 Source of Supply Study $25,000 City 2025 F-3 Demolish Burn Road Reservoir $75,000 City 2026 F-4 New Supply Well No. 1 (Replace Airport Well $2,6M City 2022-2024 F-5 New Supply Well No. 2 $1M City 2024-2025 F-6 Future .0 MG Reservoir(planned past 10 year City/DF 2018-2019 horizF-7 Glenea le Reservoir Roof Replacement $350,000 City F-8 520 Reservoir Improvements-Fence $25,000 City F-9 Replace/Rehab Clearwell Pumps&Motors $200,000 City 2025 Facility Improvements $4,275K Miscellaneous Improvements M-1 Drive-by Read Meter Conversion $800K City 2024 M-2 Source Water Protection Program $30K M-3 Comprehensive Water System Plan Update $100K City 2035 Miscellaneous Improvements $930K Total Estimated Project Costs $20,786K 9-8 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element In addition to capital improvements to the system, the City intends to address "Distribution System Leakage (DSL) which is the loss of water due to facility deficiencies or inefficient use of the system. The City will develop a water loss control action plan. A water loss control action plan is required when the 3-year rolling average of DSL exceeds ten percent of system volume. The City exceeded this criterion in 2014. Based on the foregoing analysis, the 2015 Water System Plan estimated future water needs, consistent with the assumptions of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Sewer Arlington owns and operates its sewer utility under an NPDES2 Permit. It is managed by the Wastewater Department, in the City's Public Works' Utilities Division. The utility serves the City and its Urban Growth Area (UGA) with the exception of a portion of the Smokey Point neighborhood served by Marysville. Its total service area is about 9.45 square miles and with a population of 16,121. In 2014, there were 4,297 residential customer connections and 394 connections serving commercial, industrial, and institutional customers. Marysville provides water and sewer service to a southwest portion of the City of Arlington (the Smokey Point neighborhood south of 180th Street and west of 43rd Avenue) and south of the Arlington Airport (south of 172"d Street and west of 5Is'Avenue. The City's sewer system is comprised of one 2.67 MGD treatment plant (Water Reclamation Plant), which is expandable to 4MGD, 12 sewer lift stations and approximately 68 miles of collection pipes. The treatment plant employs MBR3 technology. Biosolids are either composted with wood waste at a dedicated facility to create Class A compost, or is shipped to Eastern Washington for agricultural use. The City's average annual influent flow rate per capita has been below 100 gpcd4 since at least 2009. Future sewer flow rates for commercial and industrial developments are difficult to estimate without specific information about the proposed developments. If the average annual gallons per capita day remains below Ecology's recommended guideline of 100 gpcd, it is likely that the water reclamation facility will not reach capacity in the 21-year planning period. Most of the City is served by sewer. A sewer main was recently installed to begin serving the Star, Thompson, and Hilltop areas. Some unserved areas exist and have been considered in the City's ten-year plan for future improvement. Within the current UGA boundaries, the Brekhus Beach neighborhood will remain an unserved area until such time as owners come forward with a master development plan. The neighborhood was intended as a receiving area under a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, however, plans were unsuccessful and, because of difficulties in providing municipal services to more traditional development in the area, zoning will remain low-density suburban, with existing septic systems serving the residents. Septic systems are allowed for single-family residences located outside of recognized aquifer protection areas on 5-acre platted lots where connection to the sewer within 500 feet is not available. This describes the Brekhus/Beach area. The City intends to add a UGA west of Interstate 5 (the King- 'National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 3 Membrane Bio-Reactor 'Gallons per capital per day 9-9 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Thompson expansion) to accommodate the expected growth in population originally intended for the area. Table 9-5 Sewer System Plan No. Project Cost Funding Year Pipeline Improvements P1 Flow Monitoring Study&Plans Glenea le Area $40K City 2016-2017 P2A GE Improvements-Replace Existing 8-inch Pipe with 3,005 LF of 12-inch Pipe Along Wedgewood Park,Along W Country Club $811K City/DF 2018-2020 Drive and Along Cedarbou h Loop P2B GE Improvements-Replace Existing 8-inch with 3,075 LF of 12-inch Pipe Along Gleneagle Boulevard and Along Woodlands $306K City 2025 Way P3 Flow Monitoring Study&Plans(Primary Interceptor and Inflow $80K City 2016-2017 to Lift Stations P4 Replace Existing 8-inch Pipe with 1,710 LF of 15-inch Pipe and $1,567K City/DF 2018-2020 2,810 LF of 24-inch Pipe Along 67th Avenue NE P5 Replace Existing 12-inch Pipe with 560 LF of 15-inch Pipe South $440K City 2022 of 197th Street NE P6 Replace Existing 10-inch Pipe with 120 LF of 12-inch Pipe near $32K City 2019-2020 59th Avenue P7 Replace Existing 8-inch and 10-inch Pipe with 220 LF of 15-inch $58K City 2021-2024 Pipe Along Cemetery Road and 47th Avenue NE P8 West of 1-5 Collection System $132K DF 2023-2025 P9 MIC, South of 172nd Improvement Focus Area Collection $3,240K City/DF 2023-2025 System Pipeline Improvements $6,706k Facility Improvements F1 Lift Station 2(1400 gpm)and Approximately 2,300 LF of Force $1,426K City 2017-2020 Main Replacement 172A Lift Station 4 Upgrade $75K city 2020 F2A Lift Station 4 Replacement 1100 m $750K city 2025 173A Lift Station 7 Upgrade $200K City/DF 2023 F3B Lift Station 7 Replacement(1700 gpm)and Approx. 7,700 LF of $2,200K City/DF 2026-2027 Force Main Replacement F4 Lift Station 8 Replacement 300 m $100K city 2030 F5 Lift Station 11 Replacement&Expansion to 200 gpm $600K City/DF 2025 F6 Lift Station 12 Upgrade to 500 gpm $200K DF 2026 F7 Lift Station 14 New Construction(1,450 gpm)and Construction $3,780K DF 2022-2024 of Approximately 9,000 LF of Force Main Lift Station 15 New Construction(650 gpm)and Construction of F8 Approximately 2,000 LF of Force Main $1,621K DF 2024-2025 F9 Lift Station 3 Rehabilitation $50K city 2018-2019 F 10 Membrane Upgrade for WRF $2,000K City 2025 Facility Improvements $13,002K 9-10 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Table 9-5 Sewer System Plan No. Project Cost Funding Year Faci ty Improvements MI 2024 Sewer Plan Update $150K City 2024 M2 2035 Sewer Plan Update $150K City 2035 MISCELLANIOUS IMPROVEMENTS $200K Total Estimated Project Costs $19,908K Storm Drainage The City of Arlington established the stormwater Utility in 2001 by Ordinance 1266. Funding for the Stormwater Utility was adopted in in 2006 with a stormwater utility fee that was assessed to all parcels within the City limits. At the time of this writing, the Stormwater Utility has two full time employees. The primary purpose of the Stormwater Utility is to see to the successful and full implementation of the City's NPDES Phase-2 stormwater permit, as issued by the Department of Ecology, and to see to the maintenance and improvements to the City's stormwater drainage system. The Stormwater Utility has prepared, and the City of Arlington has adopted, a Comprehensive Stormwater Plan (Oct 2010) which is incorporated into this Plan by reference. The City of Arlington sits within two surface water basins, the Stillaguamish River basin to the north and the Snohomish River basin to the south. Stormwater collected in City's drainage structures is either discharged to surface waters or infiltrated into the ground. The Comprehensive Stormwater Plan details all of the sub-drainage basins within the City of Arlington, both natural and constructed, and identifies the drainage structures serving those basins. The drainage structures consist of a combination of storm sewers (piped conveyances), open ditches, flood control or water quality facilities, retention/detention ponds and vaults, infiltration systems (ditches and galleries), catch basins, sediment basins, natural drainages, and rain gardens (biofiltration swales). The inventory of these features is included in the Comprehensive Stormwater Plan and also incorporated in the City's GIS asset management database. A summary of infrastructure serving the City of Arlington and maintained by the Stormwater utility include: Inlets: 3,829 ea Storm pipe: 48 miles Detention/Infiltration structures: 139 ea Ditches/Swales/Rain Gardens22 miles Stormwater Wetland— I ea (constructed stormwater wetland that receives runoff from 286 acres of historic Old Town Arlington) 9-11 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Maintenance & Operations The Public Works Maintenance & Operations division provides maintenance services for many elements of the City's infrastructure, including: • Airport • Cemetery • Equipment(except for police and fire) • City Facilities (except for water and wastewater) • Parks, athletic fields, and public spaces • Storm drainage system • Streets and sidewalks The buildings associated with the maintenance functions of the City include a Maintenance Shop and an Equipment Storage Building Airport The Arlington Municipal Airport is part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (N P I A S), as well as of the transportation infrastructure serving the City of Arlington, Snohomish County, and the northern portion of the Seattle-Tacoma Metropolitan Area. The Airport is located north of the Seattle-Tacoma Metropolitan Area, approximately three miles southwest of the Arlington Central Business District (CBD), approximately one-third of a mile from the Highway Commercial District, and twelve miles north of the City of Everett. It is owned and operated by the City of Arlington and is contained within the corporate boundaries of the City. The airport is 1,200 acres and includes industrial, commercial, and public land uses, in addition to the aviation operations. The majority of the existing general aviation facilities are located along the east side of Runway 16/34, between 59t'Avenue NE and Taxiway"A". This part of the airport is developed with aircraft storage facilities, including over 400 T-hangars and apron area to accommodate over eighty tie-down spaces. The City of Arlington owns 108 of the existing T-hangars. There are also many Fixed Base Operator (FBO), maintenance, and individually owned aircraft storage hangars throughout this area. Additional general aviation facilities are developing along the southwest side of Runway 11/29. These facilities include tie-down apron space for approximately 30 aircraft and complexes of several new business-related aircraft storage hangars. The existing ultra-light hangar complex is in the northwest quadrant of the airport and has storage for approximately 62 aircraft. There are approximately 475 aircraft based at the airport (including 10 helicopters, 20 gliders, and 23 ultra-lights). The airport's hangar occupancy rate is 100 percent currently. There is significant demand for the additional aircraft storage facilities (approximately 15 aircraft owners are on file requesting space). 9-12 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element The Airport is home to one of the largest"Fly-Ins" in the Northwest, The Arlington Fly- In. It has sufficient area to accommodate both aviation and non-aviation development in an airport industrial park in addition to the area used for the) Fly-In. The industrial park is approximately 102 acres and is located east of 59th Avenue NE,within the northeast quadrant. There are approximately 130 businesses on airport property that lease land and/or facilities from the City. Approximately 25% of these businesses involve aviation or aviation-related uses associated with the airport. The remaining businesses are non-aviation Runway 16/34 between 59th Avenue NE in the industrial park and Taxiway "A". This part of the airport is developed with aircraft storage includes facilities, including over 400 T-hangars and apron area to accommodate over eighty tie-down spaces. The City of Arlington owns 78 of the existing T-hangars. There are also many Fixed Base Operator (FBO), maintenance, and individually owned aircraft storage hangars throughout this area. The GMA recognizes airports in two ways. Airports are considered essential public facilities under the GMA5 and cities are required to plan accordingly to protect them. In addition, GMA recognizes the potential conflict between airports and surrounding uses and directs that every county, city and town to discourage siting of incompatible uses next to airports6. Arlington's Municipal Code permits airports and aviation-related uses in the Aviation Flightline zoning district, thereby addressing the requirements of for Essential Public Facilities. To address the potential conflict between the airport and other land uses, the City could consider policies and regulations designed to head off conflict as the City grows. Information Services The Information Services Division provides the entire network and telephone communication services for the City's 118 full-time employees as well as approximately 35 volunteer firefighters. It currently has two full time employee positions and two vehicles. The Division's 192 square feet of offices are attached to the City Public Works Shop Compound. Transportation Facilities Please refer to Chapter 8, the Transportation Element, for a description of these facilities. Contracted Services Library Sno-Isle Libraries operates a branch at 135 N. Washington Avenue. The 5,140 square foot library building had 54,046 items in 2004, which represents 3.77% of Sno-Isle's total collection. The library building is owned and maintained by the City. The library also offers free access to subscription databases and the Internet on 8 computers, and provides wireless Internet connectivity. The library has 21,516 registered users, who visited the library 112,040 times in 2014 (averaging about 380 people per day the library was open.) It had a 2014 budget of SRCW 36.70A.200 6RCW 36.70A.510 7Bryan Terry, Information Services Manager, July 18, 2005. 9-13 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element $901,000. The library offers a variety of programs for children, teens and adults. Some of these programs include: baby, toddler and preschool story times, reading programs, and a book discussion group. In 2014, attendance at library programs (190 in all) was 6,842. Solid Waste Waste Management Northwest, Inc., provides solid waste and recycling services within the City through a contract. Solid waste and recycling service is contracted out for a seven-year period and this current contract will expire in 2010. 9-14 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Table 9-3: Inventory of City Facilities Facility Dept Address SF Year Built Public? Use Original Cost City Hall Administration 238N Olympic 8,578 1924 _public admin, City Police Station Police 110 E 3rd Street 18,000 2005 _public Police annex Library Administration 135 N Washington 5,140 1979 ublic Libra $500,000 Butler House Administration 200 W Cox public meeting room Butler Barn Administration 200 W Cox 8,500 public vacant Butler Creamery Administration 200 W Cox 628 public vacant Butler Loafing Shed Administration 200 W Cox 500 public vacant Airport Office Airport 18204 59th Dr NE 1,397 1978 _public admin, Airport Cemetery Office & admin, Cemetery, Maintenance Building Finance 20310 67th Avenue 2,700 2000 _public &maintenance shop $165,000 Cemetery Storage/Well Building Finance 20310 67th Avenue 792 1952 ublic stora e &well Fire Admin Fire 115 N Macleod 1,125 -public admin, Fire Siren/Antenna Building Fire 3rd&Robin Hood 90 -public fire siren& antenna Fire Station 46 Fire 137N Macleod 6,618 1962 public fire station Fire Station 47 Fire 6231 188th Street NE 3,820 1984 public fire station City Shop M&O 6205188th Place NE 6,840 1944 ublic maintenance shop $30,000 Boy's & Girl's Club/ Community Room M&O 18513 59th Drive NE 17,222 1992 _public Recreation, meeting room $889,000 Restroom, Evans Park M&O 18813 59th Drive NE 3961 1977 public restroom, park Restroom, Quake Park M&O 1850159th Drive NE 385 1973 _public restroom, park $6,000 Restroom, Haller Park M&O 1100 West Avenue 508 1968 _public restroom, park $11,000 Restroom, Terrace Park M&O 809 E 5th Street 360 1974 public restroom, park $5,942 Restroom, Twin Rivers Park M&O SR-530 437 1982 public restroom, park $25,000 City Shop Storage M&O 6205188th Place NE 1,104 1944 public storage $30,000 City Shop Equipment Shed M&O 6205188th Place NE 2,832 1984 ublic storage City Shop Equipment Shed M&O 6205188th Place NE 2,372 public storage York Park Garage M&O 3209180th Street NE 720 -public storage Garage Martin's M&O 138N Washington 720 -public storage York Park House M&O 3209180th Street NE 1,000 -public vacant Utilities Office Utilities 816N West Avenue 1,188 1992 public admin, Utilities $47,500 Waste Water Office Utilities 108 W Haller 1,396 1987 _public admin,Utilities $50,600 Glenea le Pump Station Utilities 17911 Oxford Drive 612 1993 _public pump station $400,000 Burn Hill Reservoir Utilities 200 Burn Road 1,963 1962 _public reservoir $150,000 Glenea le Reservoir Utilities 17911 Oxford Drive 8,164 1975 public reservoir $400,000 Reservoir Utilities 17003 91 st Avenue 13,267 1993 _public reservoir $560,000 Waste Water Control Building Utilities 816N West Avenue 2,592 1999 public utilities control building Waste Water Dewaterin / Utilities 816N West Avenue 1,722 1999 public utilities dewaterin & 9-15 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Facility Dept Address SF Year Built Public? Use Original Cost Lime Storage lime storage $1,500,000 Waste Water Electrical Building Utilities 816 N West Avenue 441 —public utilities electrical building Waste Water Head Works Utilities 816N West Avenue 1,100 1999 public utilities head works Waste Water Lab Utilities 816N West Avenue 864 1992 public utilities lab $101,000 Utilities Shop Utilities 816N West Avenue 1,584 1975 public lutilities shop $75,000 Utilities Storage Building Utilities 816 N West Avenue 600 1999 public utilities storage $10,000 Waste Water Storage Building Utilities 816N West Avenue 228 —public utilities storage Valve House Utilities 17003 91st Avenue 572 1993 _public valve house $105,000 Water Treatment Plant (new) Utilities 816N West Avenue 5,000 2001 public water treatment plant $2,500,000 water treatment plant Water Treatment Plant(old) Utilities 816N West Avenue 5,000 1924 ublic decommissioned Airport Well Utilities 18300 59th Drive 112 public well Well 2 Utilities 1100 West Avenue 513 2001 public well $300,000 Well 3 Utilities 1100 West Avenue 169 2001 public well airplane inspection& Aviation Inspection & Repair Airport 18928 59th Drive NE 3,6861 1966 rented repair Navy Hanger Museum Airport 18008 59th Drive NE 25,746 1943 rented aviation museum $120,000 Hanger C Airport 17910 59th Drive NE 12,960 1971 rented hangers Hanger D Airport 17908 59th Drive NE 12,960 1972 rented hangers $36,260 Hanger E Airport 17906 59th Drive NE 12,960 1974 rented hangers Hanger G Airport 17818 59th Drive NE 12,000 1975 rented hangers Hanger H Airport 17816 59th Drive NE 12,960 1976 rented —hangers Hanger J Airport 17814 59th Drive NE 12,960 1977 rented hangers Hanger K Airport 17812 59th Drive NE 12,960 1978 rented hangers Hangar 57A Airport 1,213 1943 rented hangar Hangar 57B Airport Building 44 Airport Wild Blue Aviation Airport 18228 59th Drive NE 3,600 1965 rented manufacturing Parachute Loft Airport 17998 59th Drive NE 7,341 1944 rented -parachute company $61,500 Ellie's at the Airport Airport 18218 59th Drive NE 2,004 1965 rented restaurant Arlington Food Bank M&O 127 U2 W Cox 1,544 rented food bank Helping Hands Thrift Store M&O 127 W Cox 1,178 rented thrift store Rental Apartment Utilities 115 W Haller 6,848 1990 rented -apartment complex Rental House Utilities 120 Cox Street 7,500 1918 rented house Rental House Utilities 124 Cox Street 1915 rented house Rental House Utilities 154Cox Street 1,000 rented house 9-16 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Recycling — The solid waste cycle consumes an enormous amount of time, energy, petroleum, money, and natural resources. Waste Management Northwest is providing curbside-recycling service to City residential and multi-family customers using a wheeled all-in-one cart and a yard waste cart. Collection at businesses is provided using large containers. Other Utilities Natural Gas Natural gas service to Arlington is supplied by two companies: Puget Sound Energy (PSE), which serves areas south of SR-531 (172nd Street NE), and Cascade Natural Gas Company, serving all areas north of SR-531. PSE's system in Arlington — which is limited to areas south of SR-531 (172nd Street NE) - is served primarily by the Granite Falls Gate Station, which interconnects with the Northwest Pipeline east of the Marysville City limits on 84th Street NE. Cascade Natural Gas serves areas north of SR-31. PSE's distribution system is generally comprised of the following components: • Gas Supply Mains: Usually larger diameter steel wrapped mains (8" and over) designed to operate at higher pressure (over 100 psig) to deliver natural gas from the supply source to pressure reducing stations (district regulators). • Pressure Reducing Stations: Includes district regulators, which are located at various locations throughout the system to reduce pressure to a standard distribution operating pressure of approximately 60 psig. • Distribution Mains: Pipes that are fed from district regulators. These mains vary in size (usually less than 8" in diameter) and material (typically polyethylene). The average energy use for residential customers is 50 cubic feet per hour during winter heating months. Energy use from office, commercial and industrial customers varies. The addition of new hookups will trend similar to the residential and commercial growth rate within the City, since the majority of developers request natural gas service. Cascade Natural Gas Corporation serves communities outside larger metropolitan areas in the Pacific Northwest. It serves the majority of the Arlington UGA north of SR-531. Electricity The City of Arlington is served by the Snohomish County Public Utilities District No. 1 (PUD), which obtains approximately 80% of its power from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The remaining power is supplied from the PUD Jackson Hydro Project and other long-term power contracts with various suppliers. The PUD serves all of Snohomish County and Camano Island, including the communities of Everett, Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mill Creek, Edmonds, Monroe, Snohomish, Stanwood, and Woodway. State law authorizes PUDs, and their powers are exercised through an elected board of commissioners. PUD electrical facilities of more than 55,000 volts (55 kV) are referred to as transmission facilities. PUD electrical facilities of less than 55,000 volts (55 kV) are referred to as distribution facilities. The majority of PUD transmission facilities operate at 115,000 volts. 9-17 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element The PUD uses three major BPA delivery points in Snohomish County as the source for the 115,000-volt transmission system. From these points the power is delivered via PUD's transmission system to the District's substations. These substations transform the 115,000-volt transmission voltage to 12,500-volt distribution system voltage. PUD residential, commercial, and public customers within the City of Arlington are served only by the distribution system, which originates from the distribution substations located within the City limits and the UGA. The PUD "East Arlington substation" is located on 212th Street NE, west of 87th Avenue NE. The PUD "Portage substation" is located on 190 Street NE, west of 63rd Avenue NE. The PUD electrical transmission system within Arlington consists of above ground power lines. These lines are typically located within most roadside easements. The PUD electrical distribution system within Arlington consists of above and below ground power lines. These lines are typically located within the road right-of-way. According to the PUD, there is ample capacity to meet existing demand for the incorporated city limits as well as the UGA. In the next 20 years, the PUD Long Range Plan identifies a new substation capacity requirement to serve the Arlington area growth. The new substation is known at this time as the Edgecomb substation, as it will be located in the Edgecomb area. In the current PUD Long Range Plan the Edgecomb substation is listed for construction prior to the year 2022. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) also owns and maintains a transmission corridor in the City of Arlington that transports electricity across the City. This corridor, which extends in a north-south direction on the east side of Arlington, contains two transmissions lines: the "Beverly — Beaver Lake" 115 kV line and the "Sedro Woolley — SCL Bothell" 230 kV line. These transmission lines serve the energy needs of areas to the north and south of Snohomish County. Under certain conditions, PSE's transmission line could support the local distribution grid by providing emergency back up to Snohomish PUD's system. Public Schools Two school districts serve the Arlington UGA, the Arlington School District and the Lakewood School District. Both are described below. Arlington School District The Arlington School District (ASD) covers approximately 200 square miles, greatly exceeding the boundaries of the Planning Area(see Figure 2-13: School District Boundaries). In September 2014, the District provided service to 5,154 students (full-time equivalent; FTE). They have a fleet of 53 buses. In its jurisdiction there are four elementary schools (Presidents, Eagle Creek, Kent Prairie and Pioneer), two middle schools (Post and Haller), one high school (Arlington) one alternative school (Weston) and one Parent Partnership Program (Stillaguamish Valley School). Although 9-18 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element the District does not regard relocatable classrooms (portables) as a permanent solution for housing students, the District currently uses 19 of these classrooms at various school sites. The District owns 168 acres of vacant land. Funding for capital improvements comes from a number of sources, including voter-approved bonds, State Match funds and impact fees. Lakewood School District The Lakewood School District (LSD) covers approximately 23 square miles. As of March 2014, the District provided service to 2,425 students. Less than 25% of the district is within the Arlington UGA, near Smokey Point. (See Figure 2-13). In its jurisdiction there are three elementary schools (Lakewood, English Crossing and Cougar Creek), one middle school (Lakewood), and one high school (Lakewood). They have a fleet of 28 buses. School Impact Fees The City of Arlington has adopted school impact fee ordinances for both Arlington and Lakewood School Districts. These fees are calculated based on projected capital needs (land, facilities, and buses), and are updated every two years, based on the districts' revised 6-Year Capital Facilities Plans. The City causes all new residential development to pay their proportionate fair share toward these capital needs. Snohomish Public Hospital District No. 3 The District (dba Cascade Valley Hospital and Clinics) operates a 48-bed Acute Care Hospital and a freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Center, both in Arlington, along with six medical clinics located in north Snohomish County. The organization employs approximately 430 people and has an annual budget of $40 million. Eighty-three percent of the hospital's admissions come from Arlington, Marysville, Stanwood, Granite Falls and Darrington. Forty-three percent of these admissions come from the Arlington zip code. Inpatient hospital services include general acute care, intensive care unit, obstetrics, pediatrics and general, orthopedic and gynecological surgery. Outpatient services include emergency services, day surgery, chemotherapy cancer care, sleep disorders unit, and a deep wound care department. The hospital provides extensive diagnostic laboratory and imaging services including MRI, CT scan, nuclear medicine, ultrasound, mammography and general radiology. There are 118 physicians on the hospital medical staff. Capital Facilities Plan Table 9-4: 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan , below, represents the City's list of identified capital needs to support this Plan, and funding mechanisms to pay for them. No new taxes or fees are proposed, except for the funding of a stormwater utility through connection and service fees (Council has been studying this for a couple of years now). However, it is anticipated that both park and traffic impact fees will increase. 9-19 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element 9-20 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Public Services and Capital Facilities Element Table 9-4: 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan No. Project Cost Funding Year SEWER Pipeline Improvements P1 Old-Town Pipe Evaluation—Repair/Replace $1,900,000 city 2017-2023 P2 Collector/Interceptor System Flow Monitoring $27,000 city 2016-2023 P3 Glenea le Basin Structural Repairs $371,000 City 2017-2020 P4 Replace Existing 8" Pipe Along 67th Avenue NE $2,095,000 city 2017-2019 P5 Replace Existing 24" Pipe Along West Avenue $449,000 city 2018-2020 P6 Replace Existing 8" Pipe Along Wedgewood Park, West CountryClub Dr and Cedarbou h Loop $1,116,000 City 2016-2018 P7 Replace Existing 12" Pie South of 197th Street NE $650,000 2018-2020 P8 Replace Existing 24" Pipe Along 67th Avenue NE. Replace Existing 10" and 12"Pipe near 204th Street NE $2,407,000 2016-2018 and 67th Avenue NE P9 Replace Existing 24" Pipe Along West Avenue $302,000 2020-2022 P 10 Replace Existing 24" Pipe Along Railroad Street $151,000 2020-2022 PH Replace Existing 10" Pipe with near 59th Avenue $45,000 2019-2020 P12 Replace Existing 8" and 10"Pipe Along Cemetery Road $85,000 2021-2013 and 47th Avenue NE P14 Smokey Point Sewage Drainage Basin Collection System $2,228,000 2022-2023 Facility Improvements F1 Lift Station 2—Upgrade Capacity $2,283,000 city 2016-2018 F2 Lift Station 4—Upgrade Capacity $1,426,000 city 2017-2019 F3 Lift Station 7—Upgrade Capacity $4,544,000 2019-2021 F7 Lift Station 14 Construction $3,781,000 city 2022-2023 F8 Lift Station 15 Construction $1,621,000 2023 F9 Lift Station 6 Force Main Re-route to LS 14 $1,588,000 2023 F3 Lift Station 3 Rehabilitation $168,000 2018-2019 Water Roads Parks Other 9-21 JULY 2015 Chapter 7 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element 7 Parks , Recreation and Open Space Element 7.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER An element addressing the needs for parks, open space, and recreation is required by the Growth Management Act and capital acquisitions, including property and facilities, need to be included in the Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9). This Element provides an inventory of the City's current park and recreation facilities and programs, analyzes the City's ability to provide adequate parks, open space, and recreation services to its citizens, sets standards for such services, and provides a strategy for providing additional services. Preparation of this plan Element is guided by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). It is further guided by goals and policies established by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). The IAC is a primary granting agency and author of the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan(SCORP). 7.2 REGULATORY/POLICY BACKGROUND Numerous federal, State, and local agencies and organizations have been setting the stage for park and recreation provision through development of policy, regulations, and advisory standards. The following is a listing of these agencies and organizations, and the direction they give. Growth Management Act General: "Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. (RCW 36.70A.020)." Open space corridors are further referenced in the GMA requiring that land use plans include identification of"...open space corridors within and... between urban growth areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connection for critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030" (RCW 36.70A.160). Parks and Recreation: Capital improvements are included within the definition of "Public Facilities," RCW 36.70A.070. Fees: Cities may impose impact fees for the provision of public facilities including publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities (RCW 82.02.050). Impact fees must be based on demands on existing facilities by new development, and additional improvements required to serve new development(RCW 82.02.050). 7-1 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Concurrency: Reassess Land Use Element or levels of service if probable funding falls short of existing need. Inter-Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation/ State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (IAC/SCORP) General: Cities must provide plan components as outlined in The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan Development Workbook. Plan demand assessment should incorporate SCORP assessment data. More specifically, to be eligible for IAC funding, plans must include the following: • Goals and Objectives. • Description of Current Conditions. • Demand and Need analysis. • Description of Public Involvement. • Public Opinion Survey. • 6-year Capital Improvement Program. • Evidence of official adoption by authority most appropriate to plan's scope. This Element is designed to meet these requirements. The goals and objectives required by those guidelines are set forth in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. The description of current conditions is discussed below. The discussion of park and recreation demand and needs analysis is also discussed below. The public opinion survey is described later. The 6- year Capital Improvement Program, also required by the IAC, documents these goals and projected needs, and schedules implementation of the facilities that will address those needs. The Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9) contains that "schedule." Please see that section for a description of what specific projects are planned in the next few years. To finalize all of the IAC requirements the City would need to show a discussion of the City's priorities and a description of how the decision was made by the city to implement the specific projects shown in the 6-year CIP. In other words, the plan needs to answer the questions, "What does the community want?" and"How do we know this to be true?" National Recreation and Park Administration (NRPA) General: The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) provides general park and recreation standards that communities may incorporate into the comprehensive planning process. 7-2 J U LY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element �Parks�[SLI] and Recreation Master PlankS2] A supplemental document, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, contains the master plans of each city owned park, including current conditions and plans for improvements, as well as the priorities from the Parks, Art and Recreationee(PARC). Commission. 7.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS The following is an inventory of the parks, open space tracts, recreational facilities, and cultural programs and facilities found within the City and its vicinity. This inventory was not limited to just those within the City since citizens also use adjoining jurisdictions' facilities just as the citizens of other jurisdictions use the City's facilities. A map of the locations of these facilities is shown as Figure 2-10: Park and Recreation Facility Locations and Figure 2-18: Critical Areas, Open Space, & Restoration Projects. Figure 7-1 below shows acreage of parkland (excluding community parks) in each subarea, and Table 7-4 show the amount of acres of park divided by the acres of that subarea. Public Parks City Parks: The City owns roughly 257.1 acres of parks. (See Figure 2-10)ln-additieff,44e Arlington Sehool Distfiet has 59.3 aeres of park like f6eilities (fields & playgrounds) th Community Parks: Community parks are those parks that offer something that would cause people to cross town to get to, i.e., something you can't find in your own neighborhood. This may be a special feature (such as a swimming area, boat launch, view or ball fields), size (allowing for more varied or specialized play), scheduled group activities, or whatever it is that would entice a family to walk, bike, or drive a farther distance than their own neighborhood. It should be noted that Twin Rivers Park, though owned by Snohomish County, is maintained and managed by the City through an Interlocal Agreement and thus in essence is a City park. There are 187 acres of community parks in the UGA. Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7-2.! laven . of Existing Par4 &Reer-e-ation Faeilities for a list of these parks and their attributes. Neighborhood/Mini-Parks: Neighborhood or mini- parks are those parks that typically attract only those people who live within walking distance of the park. They may have such amenities as children's big toys, basketball hoops, picnic facilities, grassy play areas, etc., and attract neighbors and kids for informal play. Often they act as an informal neighborhood meeting place where people get to know their neighbors. Public school grounds can also be counted as neighborhood parks, as they are open to the public during non-school hours. The term neighborhood park is used to denote a public park, while mini-park denotes a privately owned park, usually owned by a Homeowners' Association. There are 12.1 acres of neighborhood parks and 13.1 acres of mini-parks in the UGA. Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable-7 2! in entefy of Existing P Ree fe atio Faeil ties, for a list of these park and their attributesl[SB].Pocket Parks are another element of recreation.Because downtowns and business corridors function as 7-3 J U LY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element centers for employment, commercial activity and public gathering, these areas benefit from smaller scale public spaces (pocket parks) that provide opportunity for visitors, shoppers and employees to relax, congregate and recreate. As part of the Arlington- Darrington Americas Best Communities Revitalization Plan, Arlington selected a site in the downtown area for a model pocket park and plans to encourage established business corridors and business areas, as well as employment areas to include pocket parks. County Parks Regional Parks: Regional parks tend to be those parks that offer something that would cause people to drive from one community to another to get to, i.e., something you can't find in your own town. This may be a special feature (such as a marina, salt water access, tournament ball fields, unique natural features, camping, etc.). This special characteristic may also include size (allowing for more varied or specialized play), scheduled group activities, or another feature that would entice a family to drive from one part of the County to another. There are 457.3 acres of regional parks within a short driving distance from the UGA (all of them County-owned). Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable7 2.inventory of Existing Park &Reer-eatien Facilitie-s, for a list of these park and their attributes. School Facilities School playfields and playgrounds, though not owned by the City, are nevertheless owned by a public agency and are generally open to the public during non-school hours. As schools are typically spread out across cities in residential neighborhoods, they function much the same as neighborhood parks and are herein counted as such. There are 59.3 acres of school playfields and playgrounds in the UGA. Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7-2. inventory of Existing k &Recreation Faeilities for a list of these school facilities and their attributes. Trails City Trails: The City has built or coordinated the construction of several trails over the past decade. The most notable is the City's portion of the Centennial Trail. The City's section of the trail runs from 172nd Street NE along 67th Avenue NE north to Haller Park. There is also a 5.5-mile trail circumnavigating the Airport and other smaller trails in various neighborhoods and parks. There are 44-.912.2 miles of City trails. Please refer to Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTable 7 2.inventory of Existing Dark & Deereatio,, F-,, ,.hies for a list of these trails and their attributes. County Trails: Snohomish County also has three regional trails in the Arlington area, totaling 57.6 miles. River Meadows Park contains 1.6 miles of trails. The Whitehorse Trail eventually will run 27 miles from Arlington to Darrington. Portions are currently usable, but others are scheduled for completion as funding becomes availablel.I[sL4] Snohomish County has completed the Centennial Trail from City of Snohomish to Skagit County Line, 29 7-4 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element paved miles. See Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation FacilitiesTabl 7 inve *^n, of Existing PaFk .e. Reer-e do Faeil ties for a list of these trails. Recreation Programs The City of Arlington provides recreation programs for our citizens. Currently, the City provides a range of recreational programs by helping coordinate and publicize programs provided by individuals and groups, including adult and children's classes, coordination of softball leagues for adults as well as sports camps for children. The City also offers seasonal events (e.g. Arbor Day celebration, Easter Egg Hunt and Hometown Holiday, Outdoor Movies and Concerts. Open Space Open space comes in many forms, and can include such areas as: • Natural or scenic areas. • Water supply protection areas and natural drainage easements. • Urban and rural landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses, cemeteries and arboretums. • Land areas that enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space. • Public/private low intensity park and recreation sites. • Cultural, archaeological, geological and historical sites. • Large reserve tracts, private parks, common ground, and buffer areas which result from planned residential or rural and urban land use development. • Utility corridors. • Major multi-functional river corridors. • Water bodies. • Trail corridors that may function as wildlife corridors. • Agricultural land. • Critical areas such as floodplains, habitat, streams,wetlands, steep slopes, etc. Some of these open spaces are usable to the public; others are best left protected in their natural state. The City currently does not have an adopted LOS for open space. However, under the Land Use Code, each major residential plat must provide 5% of its land preserved as usable open space. This is in addition to any natural open space protected because of its status as a critical area. This 5% translates to an effective LOS of 3.0 acres per 1,000 people, or 0.008319 acres per dwelling unit. 7-5 J U LY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element The City generally accepts dedication of the critical area open space tracts or easements so as to be able to better manage the resources that they protect. Usable open space, however, is generally left under the ownership of Homeowners' Associations. Currently the City has 220.0 acres of protected open space — 150.0 of these acres are public and 70.0 acres are privately owned. See Figure 2-18: Critical Areas, Open Space, & Restoration Projects for a map of these areas as well as Table 7-2: Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities for more detail on these open spaces. Cultural Resources Cultural resources include such things as museums, archaeological sites, historical sites, and other similar places. Currently there is a 16,000 square foot historical museum owned and operated by the Stillaguamish Pioneer Society. The Stillaguamish Tribe also claims that there are significant archaeological sites in various areas of the City, but such sites are not publicly revealed so as to prevent disturbance or desecration. The School District owns and operates the Byrnes Performing Arts Center. Offices, Maintenance, Etc. It takes both staff and equipment to operate and maintain City parks and recreational facilities. Park and recreational facility operations are overseen by one staff member in the City's Administration Office. Maintenance is provided by the City's Maintenance and Operations Division_ of the & EeenefnieDevelopment Depaftment. Equipment is housed at our Public Works Maintenance and Operations Shop and accounts for approximately 8% of this 13,148 square foot facility. It is anticipated that as the recreation program expands or the number of parks increases, additional space would be needed to house the staff and equipment necessary to run these programs. 7.4 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE Our existing adopted Levels of Service—and what we've actually attained—for the various park and recreational facilities are shown in Table 7-5: Adopted & Actual Parks Levels of ServiceTable 9 37_ . The City has established levels of service for community, neighborhood/mini- parks, trails and office facilities. As the table -5 shows, in all categories the City meets or exceeds I[RS5]the levels of service for each type of park and recreation facility currently. 7.5 IMPACT FEES The City requires that new single and multi-family dwelling units pay an impact fee of$1,662 er single family residential and $1,497 per multi-family residential dwelling units.' This fee 1 [MH6] applied towards purchase and construction of community parks. Neighborhood parks are required to be provided for residential developments having seven or more dwelling unit. For AMC §20.90.400. 7-6 J U LY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element residential projects with less than seven units an in-lieu fee of $484 (single family) and $436 (multi-family) may be paid. Table 7-1: Current Impact Fees 7-7 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Table 7 1: Guffent ltnpaetees shows the current impact fees for single and multi-family residential dwelling units. Table 7-1: Current Impact Fees Fee per Fee per Facility Type SFR du MFR du Regional Parks NA NA Community Parks $1,662 $1,497 Neighborhood/Mini-Parks $484 $436 Trails NA NA Open Space NA NA Cultural Resources NA NA Offices, Maintenance, etc. NA NA Total $1,484 $1,086 7-8 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Table 7-2: Inventory of Exis ing Park& Recreation Facilities Facility Type/Name Parkland and School Recreation Land 719.6 acres City Parks 188.1 acres Community Parks 176.0 acres Bill Quake Ntmorial Park Airport/Industrial Good 13.0 acres Waldo E Evans Ntmorial Park Airport/Industrial Good 6.0 acres Haller Park OTBD Good 3.0 acres Legion Amorial Park OTBD Good 1.0 acres Twin Rivers Park Outside City Limits Good 50.0 acres Terrace Park Old Town Good 4.0 acres Country Charm Park&Cons. Old Town Undev. 89.0 acres Storm Water Wetland Park Old tTown Good 10.0 acres Neighborhood Parks 12.1 acres Centennial Park OTBD Good 1.0 acres Wedgewood Park Hilltop Good 2.0 acres WoodwayPark hilltop Good .5 acres Forest Trail Park Hilltop Good 2.0 acres High Clover Park Arlington Bluff Good 2.0 acres J Rudy York N tmorial Park West Arlington Good 2.0 acres Lebanon Park OTBD Good 0.5 acres The Rockery OTBD Good 0.1 acres Jensen Park Kent Prairie Good 2.0 acres Mni-Parks 14.9 acres Aspenwood Ntadmm West Arlington Fair 0.13 acres Bovee Acres,Tract 997 Hilltop 0.40 acre Brickwood West Arlington Fair 0.71 acres Brickwood West Arlington Poor 0.24 acres Claridge Court Arlington Bluff 0.12 acres Country Nhnor 1,Tract 996 West Arlington Fair 0.11 acre Country Mmor 1,Tract 997 West Arlington Fair 0.09 acre Country Manor 2,Tract 995 West Arlington Fair 0.09 acre Crossing at Edgecomb vault Hilltop 0.69 acres Crossing at Edgecomb IDhop 0.28 acres Crown Ridge 1 Hilltop Good 0.41 acres Crown Ridge 2 HIM Fair 0.75 acres Crown Ridge 3 Hilltop Fair 3.00 acres Crown Ridge 4 Hilltop Fair 0.17 acres Crown Ridge 5 Hlltop Fair 0.37 acres Dogwod 1V1 adows Hilltop 0.33 acre Eagle Heights, 1 Tract 995 Hilltop 0.46 acre Eagle Heights 1 Tract 998 Hilltop 0.01 acres Eagle Heights 2 Tract 996 Hilltop 0.12 acre Eagle Heights 2 Tract 998 FMkop 0.10 Acre Gleneagle 1 Hilltop Fair 0.10 acres 7-9 J U LY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Facility Type/Name Gleneagle 2 Fatop Good 0.04 acres Gleneagle 3 Fatop Fair 0.07 acres Heartland 1 Arlington Bluff Fair 1.05 acres Heartland 2 Arlington Bluff Good 1.05 acres Hgh Clover Arlington Bluff Good 0.26 acres Hghland View Estates Hlltop Good 0.25 acres Mrgnolia Estates,Tract 996 Hlltop 0.31 acre Point Riley West Arlington Poor 0.14 acres Rivercrest 1 Arlington Bluff Good 0.25 acres Rivercrest 2 Arlington Bluff Good 0.21 acres Rosecreek Kent Prairie Good 0.22 acres Smokey Point Nbadows West Arlington Poor 0.38 acres Stoneway West Arlington Good 0.17 acres Sweetwater,Tract 996 Arlington Bluff 0.32 acre Terrah Mrrie,Tract 999 Arlington Bluff 0.22 acre 'Ihe Bluff Arlington Bluff Poor 0.03 acres Trellis Court,Tract 996 West Arlington 0.08 acre Twin Ponds 1 Kent Prairie Good 0.15 acres Twin Ponds 2 Kent Prairie Fair 0.25 acres Walnut Ridge 1 Arlington Bluff 0.14 acre Whispering Breezes Arlington Bluff 0.61 acres County/Regional Parks 457.3 acres Wenberg County Park Outside UGA Good 46.0 acres Gissberg Twin Lakes Outside UGA Good 54.3 acres Portage Creek Wildlife Area Arlington Bluff 157.0 acres River Nbadm% Outside UGA Good 200.0 Acres Arlington Public School Facilities 59.3 acres Arlington Hgh School Hilltop 16.5 acres Post Mddle Old Town 8.2 acres Haller Mddle Old Town 11.0 acres Presidents Elementary Old Town 6.5 acres Eagle Creek Elementary Southfork 8.4 acres Kent Prairie Elementary Kent Prairie 5.4 acres Pioneer Elementary Hilltop 3.3 acres Trails 69.8 miles City Trails 12.2 miles Centennial Trail(City Portion) Airport/Industrial,CBD paved 2.7 miles Airport Trail Airport/Industrial mixed 6.5 miles Kruger Portage Creek Trail Kent Prairie path 0.4 miles Znnmemian Trail Hlltop,Kent Prairie stairs 0.2 miles River Crest Trail Arlington Bluff Path 0.2 miles Eagle Trail Old Town path .7 mile Stomiwater Park Trail Old Town gravel 1.0 Mle 7-10 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element � g Facility Type/Name 18P Street Connector Trail Airport Industrial Paved .5 mile County Trails 57.6 miles River Nbadows Park Traits Outside City Iimrts Good. 1.6 miles Centennial Trail Outside City Limits Good 29.0 miles Whitehorse Trail Outside City Limits Fair 27.0 miles Open Space 328.2 acres Public 109.0 acres Miscellaneous OS Tracts Throughout City 10.0 acres Country Charm Park habitat Old Town 58.0 acres Stomrwater Wetland Park O.S. Old Town 10.0 acres Arlington Cemetery Arlington Bluff 30.0 acres Harwood Cemetery Old Town 1.0 acre Private 219.2 acres Mscellaneous OS Tracts Throughout City acres Maureen Udman Envtl Center Old Town 70.0 Acres Pioneer School Envd area hilltop Good 4.2 acres Gleneagle Golf Course Mop 135.0 acres Stilly Valley Pioneer Park Arlington Bluff 10.0 acres Cultural Resources 38,444 sq ft Pioneer Historical Miseum Arlington Bluff 16,000 sq ft Arlington Art Walk Old Town Byrnes Perfamvng Arts Center ITilltop 22,444 Sq ft Indoor Recreation Facilities Arlington Boys&Girls Club Arnport/lndustrial City Maint. Shop/Offices 13,148 sq ft shop/office building#1 Airporbindustrial Fair 6,840 sq$ storage building#2 Poor 1,104 sq$ equipment storage shed 43 Good 2,832 sq 11 storage building 94 Fair 2,372 sq ff 7-11 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Table 7.3 Park Amenity Inventor cAa � � � y •� cn � � W � ca �oq a � � Q .ks � .b � •� � ca `� � Facility Type/Name p . Q1 a. 8 w g n N14 ° F= Cg a Oa 13 v Parks City Parks Community Parks Bill Quake NEmorial Park x 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Haller Park x 1 5 1 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 1 Jensen Community Park x 1 2 1 1 1 Legion NEmorial Park x 1 1 6 1 1 Twin Rivers Park x 1 1 6 1 1 7 3 It I 1 1 1 W.E.Evans Field x l 1 2 1 11 1 Terrace Park x 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 Country Charm Park&Cons. 10 1 1 1 1 1 Stomiwater Wetland Park 6 1 1 1 Subtotal 7 6 43 2 36 8 1 1 1 7 D 5 0 0 D 1 0 1 1 Neighborhood Parks Centennial Park 3 1 1 Wedgewood Park x 5 7 2 1 Woodway Park 1 ForestTraflPark x 7 1 1 1 High Clover Park 1 1 J Rudy York NEmorial Park 1 1 Lebanon Park x 1 1 1 The Rockery 1 1 Jensen Park Subtotal 4 0 12 0 0 1 19 Mni-Parks Aspenwood NEadows 2 1 1 Bovee Acres 1 Brickwood 1 1 Brickwood 1 1 Claridge Court 2 1 Country Nhnor 1 2 1 1 1 Country Nhnor 2 1 1 1 Country Nhnor 2 1 1 Crossing at Edgecomb 3 1 Crown Ridge 1 1 1 Crown Ridge 2 1 1 Crown Ridge 3 2 2 1 Crown Ridge 4 1 1 Crown Ridge 5 1 1 Dogwood Nv adows 1 2 1 Eagle Heights 1 Tract Eagle Heights 1 Tract 995 1 1 1 Eagle Heights 2 Tract 996 1 Eagle Heights 2 Tract 998 Gleneagle 1 2 1 1 Gleneagle 2 1 1 1 Gleneagle 3 1 1 Heartland 1 1 1 1 Heartland 2 1 1 High Clover 1 1 1 1 Highland View Estates 4 1 1 1 Nhgnolia Nt adows 1 PH 1 1 1 1 1 1 7-12 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element M Facility Type/Name r N U) A G Point Riley 1 1 Rivererest 1 1 1 1 Rivercrest 2 1 1 1 Rosecreek 5 10 1 Smokey Point Ntadows 1 1 StemvayCs gM Park 1 1 1 1 Sweetwater Tract 996 1 1 1 1 Tenah Nbrie Tract 999 1 1 1 The Bluff 1 1 Trellis Court Tract 996 Twin Ponds 1 1 1 1 1 1 Twin Ponds 2 1 1 1 1 1 Walnut Ridge 1 21 Whispering Breezes 1 Subtotal 1 4 5 7 3 16 1 1 County Parks Regional Parks Wenberg County Park x 1 50 1 1 1 1 1 Gissberg Twin Lakes 1 8 1 1 1 River N1 adows 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 Portage Creek WrlM Subtotal 3 158 Public School Facilities Arlington School District Arlington Lligh School 1 1 1 1 Post Middle 1 1 1 Haller Nkddle 2 1 1 1 Presidents Elementary 1 1 1 1 1 1 Eagle Creek Elementary 1 21 1 Kent Prairie Elementary 1 1 1 Pioneer Elementary 1 111 1 1 Subtotal 0 11 10of 5 a Facility Type/Mune0.. °o o Trails City Trails Centennial Trail(City Portion) x x 20 1 1 1 1 1 Aaport Trail x 2 1 1 1 Portage-Kruger Creek Trail 1 1 1 Zimmerman MR Trail 1 1 River Crest Trail 1 1 Eagle Trail 1 1 Stomwvater Wetland Trail 1 1 1 188"h St.Connector Trail Subtotal 3 24 0 0 0 0 D 0 1 County Trails River Nbadows Park Trails 1 1 1 7-13 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Centennial Trail 1 1 1 1 Whitehorse Trail 1 1 1 1 Subtotal 0 0 1 Open Space Public Miscellaneous OS Tracts 1 Country Charm Park habitat 1 Storm vatcr Wetland O.S. 1 Arlington Cemetery 1 Harwood Cemetery 1 Subtotal 1 1 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 Private Mrureen Udmman Envtl Center 1 Pioneer School Envtl Center 1 Gleneagle Golf Course 1 Stilly Valley Pioneer Park 1 1 Mscellaneous OS Tracts 1 Subtotal 0 —0 t-0 0 �20 0 0 0 7-14 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Figure 7-1: Acres of Park per Subarea Acres of Park per Subarea Including neighborhood parks, mini parks and school rec.land ■ ■ Table 7-4: Acres of Park per Acres of Subarea Subarea Acres of Park Acres in Acre of Park per Subarea Subarea Acre of Subarea Arlington Bluff 450.9 6.26 0.01 Hilltop 1199.6 32.3 0.03 Kent Prairie 353.2 8 0.02 Old Town 714.9 35.7 0.05 West Arlington 1005.4 4.1 0.004 Totals 3724 86.36 0.02 7-15 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Table 7-5: Adopted &Actual Parks Levels of Service 2035 Existing LOS unit/1000 Projected Population Amount 2014 24,900 2014 Pop at the Code needed at Deficit/Surplus Amount Facility Type Current 1,00 sActual quires 2014 pop (-/+) needed Regional Parks 457.3 acres 18.3 25.0 acres 0.0 Notrequired 457.3acres Not required Conmmity Parks 176.0 acres 18.3 9.6 acres 3.9 71.4 acres 104.6 acres 97.3 acres Neighborhood and Mni-Parks 27 acres 18.3 1.4 acres 1.7 31.1 acres -5.9 acres 42.4 acres Trails-Cky 12.2 miles 18.3 .66 miles 1.4 25.6 miles -13.4 miles 34.9 miles Open Space 328.2 acres 18.3 17.9 acres 3.0 54.9 acres 273.3 acres 74.8 acres Ctitbml Resources 38,444 sq It 18.3 1 2100 sq fi 0.0 Notrequired 38,444 sq$ Not required 7.6 PROJECTED NEEDS Public Parks: As population increases so will our need for parkland. The rules are set up so that those new residents moving to Arlington provide the new parks they will need (either through having them built as a part of the development project, as with neighborhood parks, or paid for through a park impact fee, as with our community parks). So, since we know that we will get a particular population but we do not necessarily know which year (even though fairly accurate guesses are made), rather than calculating the number of acres needed for a particular year it is easier just to say how many acres will be needed for any particular population. Below is calculated our park needs based on the recommended LOS for the various park and recreation facilities. The growth in population will increase the demand for all types of parks and recreational facilities. Community Parks: Our current adopted community parks LOS is 3.9 acres per 1,000 people. Assuming that we keep this LOS, by 2035, with projected population of 24,937 (26,002 total UGA population), we will need 97.3 acres of community parks. As we already have 176 acres, we would have a surplus of 78.7 acres were we to not obtain any more community parks. This overall number doesn't take into account geographic equity amongst our planning subareas, nor does this overall number prevent future inequities in those areas that come into the UGA in the future. Thus, a policy ought to be developed that causes new community parks to be developed in new planning subareas and those currently "under parked." Neighborhood/Mini Parks: Though the 1995 Comprehensive Plan adopted an LOS of 1.2 acres of neighborhood/mini- parks per 1,000 people, the subsequent Unified Development Code adopted a standard of 1.7 acres per 1,000 people. Therefore, it is assumed that this is the standard Council would like to continue using. This translates to 7-16 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element an LOS of 0.004794 acres per SFR dwelling unit and 0.004318 acres per MFR dwelling unit. Assuming that we keep this LOS, we will need this much more neighborhood parkland for each new dwelling unit built. Note that through the code, an in lieu impact fee is only allowed in certain circumstances; in most cases the park(s) must be provided. The goal is that all residential areas have such parks that people can walk to. By 2035 we will need approximately 42.4 acres of neighborhood parkland. As we already have 27 acres, we would have a deficit of 15.4 acres were we to not obtain any more neighborhood/mini parks. And again, this overall number does not account for neighborhood inequities or new neighborhoods. The City's policy, as implemented in AMC Title 20, is that all new residential developments need to provide their own neighborhood/mini parks. City regulations require that new residential plats greater than ten lots provide neighborhood/mini parks. This requirement helps ensure that mini-park space is provided as residential development occurs. Proposed residential plats with fewer than ten lots pay a fee-in-lieu for mini-parks. County Parks Regional Parks: Regional parks are provided by Snohomish County, not the City. School Facilities It is anticipated that the Arlington and Lakewood School Districts will continue to provide school playfields and playgrounds at the LOS they set for themselves as the population grows. Those playfields and playgrounds would continue to address some of the demand for recreation in the City through 2017. Because the City is not the provider of these facilities, however, this LOS is not formally adopted nor would the City implement it. Trails Our current adopted trails LOS is 1.4 miles per 1,000 people, which works out to 0.003894 miles per single-family dwelling unit or 0.003556 miles per multi-family dwelling unit. Assuming that we keep this LOS, we will need a total of 34.9 miles of trails in 2035, 22.7 more miles of trail than currently exists. Currently there is no adopted impact fee specifically for trails. Given this information, the Council could adopt an impact fee specifically for trails, or trails could be funded by the Community Park impact fee. Recreation Programs As the community grows there will be increased demand for recreational programs and facilities over and above the current programs. In particular there would be a need for 7-17 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element additional sports fields and indoor recreation facilities, including a community center, a gym, a pool, a youth center and a facility for large community events. The Arlington Boys and Girls Club have outgrown their facility. They are currently applying for funding to expand the indoor facility space, to include an additional gym, teen center, and computer lab. The Club uses Kinney field adjacent to their facility for their outdoor sports program. The Club has outgrown this space and could use additional field space and double the amount of existing parking. I[SL71The Arlington Boys and Girls Club expanded their existing 13,000 S.F. facility in 2017 with a new 11,000 S.F. gymnasium and a 1,800 S.F. teen center for a total of 25,800 S.F. of indoor facility space. There were some additional parking spaces created as part of this expansion, but there still exists a need for additional field space adjacent to the facility. Open Space Overall, the City has an ample supply of locally available open space. Even if no additional open space were dedicated, the City would have a surplus of 208.3 acres of open space in 2035, based on the recommended LOS. It is the City's desire to also have open space spread evenly throughout the City, as it adds to our quality of life, helps in managing stormwater, and helps maintain wildlife populations, including endangered salmonids.2 Therefore, the City will continue to require that all residential projects of 25 dwelling units or larger to dedicate 5% of the total area for open space so that new neighborhoods have adequate access to their own local open space. Cultural Resources The City has no formally adopted LOS for cultural resources. Yet providing cultural resources for the whole community is a priority. In 2004 the City dedicated $500,000 towards the Arlington School District's performing arts center. This is consistent with city goals to enhance cultural opportunities and diversity in choices for the residents.3 It is consistent, also, with its commitment to partner with other agencies in meeting the community's needs and to create a good economic climate through improving the quality of life. In the next 20 years meeting the community's demand for cultural resources would continue to be a City priority because of these and other goals and policies. Offices, Maintenance, Etc. The Capital Facilities and Public Services Element discuss the need for building space as the community grows. Please see Chapter 9 for a more detailed analysis of the need for park and recreation offices and maintenance facilities. 2 On of the strategies of our Endangered Species Act plan is to maintain a 10% forested cover within the UGA. s Goal OG-5 7-18 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element 7.7 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF PARKS AMONG SUBAREAS How well parkland is distributed geographically is a way to measure the degree to which parks are meeting the needs of the community. Figure 7-1: Acres of Park per Subarea shows the number of acres of parkland in each subarea. Figure 7-1 shows the Acres of Park per Acres of Subarea. Community Parks are not included. Figure 2-10: Park and Recreation Facility Locations shows the location of parks throughout the UGA. These figures show several things. Each subarea has some parkland. Old Town (a combination of Central Business District and Old Town Neighborhoods) and Hilltop have a high number of acres of park and a high percentage of their land area in parks. Arlington Bluff is at the low end of the spectrum with only 1 percent or less of their land area in parks. West Arlington is very low with only .4 percent of land in parks. The Airport/Industrial subarea does not have neighborhood parks, but does have Quake and Evans Community Parks (community parks are not represented in the chart). Another potential measure of the degree to which a population is served by parks is the distance that the majority must travel to get to a park. At this point 79% of the City's parks, including school facilities, are clustered in the Old Town and Hilltop subareas. Residents in other subareas would have to travel further to get to a facility. To those residents parks are generally less available. Therefore, the City ought to adopt a policy and implement regulations that adjusts the current inequity and prevents future inequities in new neighborhoods coming into the UGA. 7.8 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY In addition to the above staff analysis of future needs based on our adopted levels of service and known requirements, a survey of Arlington's residents was performed to find their priorities. The survey was posted online on the City's website in August 2014 and was promoted through the City's e-newsletter, social media and mailed newsletter. Due to the low response rate of the survey, the feedback is not included here. The City will need to invest funds to conduct a survey that will produce more results. 7.9 WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE Levels of Service: The Council has considered the recommendations of the Parks, Art and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the community and adopts the Levels of Service for parks and recreation facilities shown in Table 7-5. New Parks: The analysis in Projected Needs, above, identifies the need for additional park facilities as well as recreation programs. There would be a need, for instance, for approximately 34-142.4 acres of neighborhood parks by the year 2035 with a projected population of 24,952. The City would need 74-.697.3 acres of community parks and,�34.9 I[Rssimiles of trails. 7-19 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Table 7-6: Adopted Levels of Service for Parks Facility Type ]LOS unit/1000 Regional Parks 0.0 Connmity Parks 3.9 N dA4ni-Parks 1.7 Trafls 1.4 Open Space 3.0 Cultural Resources 0.0 Priority should be given to establishing new parks in areas brought into the city and underserved areas. In addition, City staff and the Parks, Art and Recreation Committee have identified the need for a recreation facility.I[RS9] Impact Fees: Impact fees are set by resolution of City Council and are reviewed annually. 7.10 LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR NEW PARKS As new areas are annexed into the City or- brought into the U the demand for parks and recreational programs twill increase. It would be important to ensure that no areas were-are accepted unless the City's LOS for parks could be maintained overall. This may require conditions that a community park be dedicated as part of such an annexation_ or- ex ie�r _Requiring that parks be centrally located within a subarea, in addition, through use of standards established in this Element would address this issue as well as issues raised above. 7.11 TYPES OF FACILITIES NEEDED The Parks, Art and Recreation Committee has identified the following new facilities as being needed in IArlington:I[RS10] • An indoor recreation center, appropriate for all ages. ArlingtonBoys & Girls Club have expanded the area of the recreation center. • A regional sports complex in the Arlington area, including soccer, softball, and baseball fields that can be used for tournaments. • A BMX park. • A river walk trail along the Stillaguamish. • A new boat ramp at Haller Park. Done This was completed in 2016. 7-20 JULY 2015 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element • A spray park. Will be complete fall 2017 • A large outdoor event venue. • An outdoor fitness course. • A campground. • A City center park in West Arlington. Ball Fields: In addition to the specific types of facilities the PARC has identified as being needed, Council has decided in 2007 to specifically set an LOS for baseball fields within the context(and LOS) of community parks. According to the Stilly Valley Little League Association they have had up to 5m350 players fin 2015_ . They also estimated in 2007 that the total number of ball players in the Arlington areas is roughly 1,500 (other leagues). These groups play on 19 fields, but could use one more at this point. Of those lids, half are outside the City limits. If we also assume that half of the players are non-City residents, then Arlington is providing roughly 50% of the facilities needed for 50% of the ball playing population. This translates to an existing LOS of 0.5 ball fields per 1,000 population, which seems to be adequate. This would mean that at a population of 30,00)24,000, we would need a total of 40 fields, and if the same ratios are assumed, half, of 20, would be provided by the City and half would be provided by the County. Each field takes about 3.1 acres (field, spectator area, parking, etc), thus we need 1.55 acres per 1,000 people. Siftee the eemffrdnity park LOS is set at 3.9 aer-es, if we deduet 1.55 aer-es of this for-ball , Obviously, this LOS would not provide all the ball fields necessary for the ball playing community. But as mentioned, about half are currently provided in the County and the City of Arlington expects the County to continue to provide this LOS. It would be our goal, in fact, to enter into a partnership to jointly provide a sports field complex, either in the City or adjacent to. Such a complex could be used for multiple tournaments (baseball, softball, soccer, football etc.) as well as other uses. Such use would help the facility be maintained through its own revenue generation. 7-21 JULY 2015 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit accessory to the principal dwelling wholly contained inside of the principal residence with a separate entrance. This dwelling unit can be located within a basement or an addition to the principal residence that will not change the character of the principal residence. Adequate Capital Facilities: Facilities which have the capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums. Arterial (Urban Minor): A city street providing movement along significant corridors of traffic flow. Traffic volumes, speeds, and trip lengths are high, although usually not as great as those associated with principal arterials. Arterial (Large Area and Urban Principal): A city street providing movement along major corridors of traffic flow. Traffic volumes, speeds, and trip lengths are high, usually greater than those associated with minor arterials. Available Capital Facilities: Those facilities or services that are in place or for which a financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services at the time of development or within a specified time. In the case of transportation, the specified time is no more than six years from the time of development. Capacity: The measure of the ability to provide a level of service on a public facility. Capital Budget: The portion of each local government's budget which reflects capital improvements for a fiscal year. Capital Facility: A physical structure owned or operated by a government entity which provides or supports a public service. Capital Improvement: Physical assets constructed or purchased to provide, improve, or replace a public facility and which are large scale and high in cost. The cost of a capital improvement is generally non-recurring and may require multi-year financing. Commercial Uses: Activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of services. A- 1 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A Comprehensive Plan: A generalized coordinated land use policy statement of the governing body of a county or city that is adopted pursuant to this chapter. Concurrency: Adequate capital facilities are available when the impacts of development occur. This definition includes the two concepts of "adequate capital facilities" and of "available capital facilities" as defined above. Consistency: No feature of a plan or regulation is incompatible with any other feature of a plan or regulation. Consistency is indicative of a capacity for orderly integration or operation with other elements in a system. Coordination: Consultation and cooperation among jurisdictions. Contiguous Development: Development of areas immediately adjacent to one another. Financial Commitment: Sources of public or private funds or combinations thereof have been identified which will be sufficient to finance capital facilities necessary to support development. There is assurance that such funds will be put to that end in atimely manner. Critical Areas: Include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. Density: A measure of the intensity of development, generally expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre. Density can also be expressed in terms of population density (i.e., people per acre). It is useful for establishing a balance between potential local service use and service capacities. Domestic Water System: Any system providing a supply of potable water for the intended use of a development which is deemed adequate pursuant to RCW 19.27.097. Geologically Hazardous Areas: Areas, that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial , residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. A-2 JULY2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A Growth Management: Method to guide development in order to minimize adverse environmental and fiscal impacts and maximize the health, safety and welfare benefits to the residents of the community. Household: Includes all the persons who occupy a group of rooms or a single room which constitutes a housing unit. Impact Fee: Fee levied by a local government on new development so that the new development pays its proportionate share of the cost of new or expanded facilities required to service that development. Industrial Uses: The activities predominantly connected with manufacturing, assembly, processing or storage of products. Infrastructure: Those man-made structures which serve the common needs of the population, such as: sewage disposal systems, potable water wells serving a system, solid waste disposal sites or retention areas, stormwater systems, utilities, bridges, and roadways. Intensity: Measure of land use activity based on density, use, mass, size, and impact. Land Development Regulations: Any controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, rezoning, building construction, sign regulations, binding site plan ordinances, or any other regulations controlling the development of land. Level of Service (LOS): Indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. LOS means an established minimum capacity of capital facilities or services provided by capital facilities that must be provided per unit of demand or other appropriate measure of need. Manufactured Housing: Conventional housing utilizing pre-manufactured components. Mobile Home: A single portable manufactured housing unit or a combination of two or more such units connected on-site, thatis: A-3 JULY2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A 1. designed to be used for living, sleeping, sanitation, cooking and eating purposes by one family only and containing independent kitchen, sanitary and sleeping facilities; 2. designed so that each housing unit can be transported on its own chassis; placed on a temporary or semi-permanent foundation; and 3. is over 32 feet in length and over 8 feet in width. Multi-Family Housing: As used in this plan, all housing which is designed to accommodate two or more households. Owner: Any person or entity, including a cooperative or a public housing authority (PHA), having the legal rights to sell, lease or sublease any form of real property. Planning Period: Means the 20-year period following the adoption of a comprehensive plan or such longer period as may have been selected as the initial planning horizon by the planning jurisdiction. Public Facilities: Include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities and schools. Public Services: Include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection and other governmental services. Regional Transportation Plan: The plan for the regionally designated transportation system which is produced by the Regional Transportation Planning Organization. Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO): The voluntary organization conforming to RCW 47.80.020, consisting of local governments within a region containing one or more counties which have common transportation interests. Resident Population: Inhabitants counted in the same manner utilized by the US Bureau of the Census, in the category of total population. Resident population does not include seasonal population. A-4 JULY2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A Right-of-Way: Land in which the state, a county, or a municipality owns the fee simple title or has an easement dedicated or required for a transportation or utility use. Sanitary Sewer Systems: All facilities, including approved on-site disposal facilities, used in the collection, transmission, storage, treatment, or discharge of any waterborne waste, whether domestic in origin or a combination of domestic, commercial, or industrial waste. Shall: A directive or requirement. Should: An expectation. Single-Family Housing: As used in this plan, a detached housing unit designed for occupancy by not more than one household. This definition does not include mobile homes, which are treated as a separate category. Solid Waste Handling Facility: Any facility for the transfer or ultimate disposal of solid waste, including landfills and municipal incinerators. Transportation Facilities: Includes capital facilities related to air, water or land transportation. Transportation Level of Service Standards: A measure which describes the operational condition of the travel stream, usually in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience and safety. Transportation System Management (TSM): Low capital expenditures to increase the capacity of the transportation network. TSM strategies include, but are not limited to, signalization, channelization and bus turn-outs. Transportation Demand Management Strategies (TDM): Strategies aimed at changing travel behavior rather than at expanding the transportation network to meet travel demand. Such strategies can include the promotion of work hour changes, ride- sharing options, parking policies and/or telecommuting. Urban Collector: A city street providing service which is of relative moderate traffic volume, moderate trip length and moderate operating speed. Collector roads collect and distribute traffic between local roads or arterial roads. A-5 JULY2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A Urban Growth: Refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products or fiber or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land having urban growth located on it or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth. Urban Growth Area: Those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110. Urban Governmental Services: Include those governmental services historically and typically delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with nonurban areas. Urban Local Road: A city street providing service which is of relatively low traffic volume, short average trip length, or minimal through traffic movements. Utilities: Facilities serving the public by means of a network of wires or pipes, and structures ancillary thereto. Included are systems for the delivery of natural gas, electricity, telecommunication services and water; and for the disposal of sewage. Visioning: A process of citizen involvement to determine values and ideals for the future of a community and to transform those values and ideals into manageable and feasible community goals. Wetland: Those areas of the city that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions or those areas identified as wetlands using the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Wetlands" currently used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Army Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CRF 328.3, 1988). Where the vegetation has been removed or substantially altered, a wetland shall be determined by the presence or evidence of hydric or A-6 JULY2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix A organic soil, as well as other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation, such as aerial photographs. Zoning: Demarcation of an area by ordinance (text and map) into zones and the establishment of regulations to govern the uses within those zones (commercial, industrial, residential) and the location, bulk, height, shape and coverage of structures within each zone. A-7 JULY2017 Appendix B: Essential Public Facility Siting Process Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B PURPOSE In accordance with the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act, and following an extensive policy review process by the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee, the Snohomish County Council has adopted a series of countywide planning policies to guide the preparation of city and county comprehensive plans. Included therein are policies addressing the siting of"public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature" (identified as Policies EPF- 1 through EPF-5), as specifically required by the GMA. These policies commit the GMA planning jurisdictions of Snohomish County to develop a common siting process for these facilities. The GMA further requires local governments to develop a process for identifying and siting "essential public facilities" and to incorporate that process into their local comprehensive plans. As indicated and defined by WAC 365-195-340 essential public facilities can be difficult to site, and their location in a community may be locally unpopular. Local and state governments are charged by GMA with the task of ensuring that such facilities, as needed to support orderly growth and delivery of public services, are sited in a timely and efficient manner. The process described here is intended to address the siting of essential public facilities not already sited by a local comprehensive plan and for which discretionary land use action is required. The siting process set forth below is also intended to meet GMA requirements, as well as the intent of the countywide planning policies.A final objective is to enhance public participation during the early stages of facility siting to reduce the time spent analyzing unacceptable sites and thereby produce earlier siting decisions that are also consistent with community goals. DEFINITION OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY Any facility owned or operated by a unit of local or state government, by a public utility or transportation company, or by any other entity providing a public service as its primary mission may qualify as an "essential public facility" (or, EPF). In general, an essential public facility will be characterized by the following: 1) It is a necessary component of a system or network which provides a public service or good and 2) It may be difficult to site because of potential significant opposition. Essential public facilities of a countywide nature are those which serve a population base extending beyond the host community - which may include several local jurisdictions within B- 1 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B Snohomish County or a significant share of the total County population. Such facilities may include, but are not limited to, the following examples: airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities, state or local correctional facilities, solid waste-handling facilities, in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes.' Other facilities meeting the basic definition above and whose sponsor desires to utilize this siting process may be qualified as essential public facilities by completing the designation procedure described below. Essential public facilities of a regional or statewide nature may include, but are not limited to, those facilities listed above which serve a multi-county population base; and other large public facilities appearing on the OFM list to be maintained under RCW 36.70A. ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR COMMON SITE REVIEW Essential public facilities of a countywide or statewide nature that are not already sited in a local comprehensive plan are eligible for review under the common siting process described below. Candidate facility proposals may be submitted for review under this Common Siting Process by either the project sponsor or by a local jurisdiction wishing to site the project (the "host community"). A facility may be designated an essential public facility eligible for review under this process under the following conditions: 1) The Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee or the governing board of the host community makes a determination that the proposed facility meets the definition of an essential public facility; or, the facility appears on the State, County, or the host community's list of essential public facilities; AND 2) Either the sponsoring agency or the host community determines that the facility will be difficult to site. COMMON SITE REVIEW PROCESS 'The application of this definition for group homes and similar facilities,as well as of the siting process for these facilities,will be within the legal parameters of fair housing laws. B-2 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B Either the sponsor of an essential public facility within Snohomish County that is eligible for review under the Common Site Review Process, or the proposed host community, may elect to follow the process described herein. Alternatively, sponsors of such facilities having a preferred site location already identified may choose to seek siting approval under the local process provided by the host community (the jurisdiction having land use authority over that site), if that approach is acceptable to the host community. The Common Site Review Process will involve the steps described below. 1. Determination of Eligibility. The project sponsor must receive a determination of eligibility from either the host community or the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee that the proposed facility constitutes an essential public facility as defined above. This initial step will also include a determination, as a threshold matter, of whether the facility in question presents siting difficulties. If the facility does not present siting difficulties, it should be relegated to the normal siting process, as recommended in WAC 365-195-340 (2)(a)(iii). 2. Site Search Consultation. As an optional service to project sponsors, the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and/or the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (ICC) will, upon request, provide a forum for project sponsors prior to the initiation of the formal siting review process. Sponsors will have the opportunity to present proposed projects involving essential public facilities for the purpose of seeking information on potential sites within Snohomish County and about potential concerns related to siting. Sponsors may also propose possible incentives for host communities. Through the PAC/ICC, local jurisdictions may be requested to provide information to sponsors regarding potential sites within their communities. The sponsor of an eligible project electing to utilize this siting process may initiate this communication by contacting Snohomish County Tomorrow and requesting aid in the siting of its proposed facility. 3. Local Land Use Review. Following site consultation with the PAC and/or the ICC (when that step is taken by the sponsor), the sponsor may then apply for site approval with the local land use or permit authority, as required under local law. The local jurisdiction shall conduct its review as required by this common siting process, as well its own codes and ordinances. This shall include the conduct of public hearings required for any land use action that may be needed by the proposal, including comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, conditional use permit, or similar approval. B-3 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B The local authority shall evaluate the proposal against the common siting criteria described herein, as well as against any local criteria generally applicable to the type of action required, in making its land use decision on the project proposal. Where no local land use action is required the sponsor may proceed directly to the permit application stage. 4. Advisory Review Process. The local land use authority's decision, as it relates to matters encompassed by the site evaluation criteria described below, is subject to an advisory review process as provided herein. This process, if utilized, would occur prior to any appeal processes already provided by local ordinance. Within 21 days following the decision by the local land use authority required to approve the proposal, an advisory review process may be utilized by the sponsor involving a three member advisory review board appointed by the Snohomish County Tomorrow Executive Board. Qualifications for board members, as well as procedures for board creation and conduct of board business shall be governed by written guidelines to be established by Snohomish County Tomorrow, provided that no official or employee of Snohomish County or any local jurisdiction within Snohomish County shall be a board member. The advisory review board shall not have the authority to overturn a local decision. The board, on a review of the record, shall only find that the local decision does or does not accurately reflect the evidence provided by the sponsor, or that adequate consideration was or was not given to the evaluation criteria, and may recommend to the local agency that it reconsider its decision. A recommended alternative for host communities and sponsors would be to use arbitration as the final recourse for resolution of differences. In cases where this option is agreed to in advance, a pre-selected arbitrator would serve as the appeal agent for these parties. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the administrative appeal or legal remedies otherwise available to sponsors, host communities or third parties. 5. Permit Application. Upon receipt of the required land use approvals by the local land use authority, the sponsor may then apply for the required permits to construct the proposed facility. When a permit is denied for reasons relating to this siting process, the permitting authority will submit in writing the reasons for permit denial to the sponsor. B-4 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA The following criteria will be utilized by all county and city review authorities in evaluating siting proposals made by sponsoring agencies seeking to site an essential public facility (EPF) in Snohomish County. The sponsor shall provide the information needed for the reviewing body to evaluate a site(s) and make a recommendation or decision on a specific proposal. These criteria encompass an evaluation of regional need and local site suitability for the proposed and designated essential public facility. Findings concerning the proposal's conformance with each criterion shall be included in the documentation of the local authority's decision. 1. Documentation of Need. Project sponsors must demonstrate the need for their proposed EPFs. Included in the analysis of need should be the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities and projected demand for this type of essential public facility. 2. Consistency with Sponsor's Plans. The proposed project should be consistent with the sponsor's own long-range plans for facilities and operations. 3. Consistency with Other Plans. The proposal must demonstrate the relationship of the project to local, regional and state plans. The proposal should be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans of the prospective host community. In evaluating this consistency, consideration shall be given to urban growth area designations and critical area designations, population and employment holding capacities and targets, and the land use, capital facilities and utilities elements of these adopted plans. 4. Relationship of Service Area to Population. The facility's service area population should include a significant share of the host community's population, and the proposed site should be able to reasonably serve its over-all service area population. [Note: linear transmission facilities are exempt from this criterion] 5. Minimum Site Requirements. Sponsors shall submit documentation showing the minimum siting requirements for the proposed facility. Site requirements may be determined by the following factors: minimum size of the facility, access, support facilities, topography, geology, and mitigation needs. The sponsor shall also identify future expansion needs of the facility. 6. Alternative Site Selection. In general, the project sponsor should search for and investigate alternative sites before submitting a proposal for siting review. Additionally, the proposal should indicate whether any alternative sites have been identified that meet the minimum site requirements of the facility. The sponsor's site selection methodology will also be reviewed. B-5 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix B Where a proposal involves expansion of an existing facility, the documentation should indicate why relocation of the facility to another site would be infeasible. 7. Concentration of Essential Public Facilities. In considering a proposal, the local review agency will examine the overall concentration of essential public facilities within Snohomish County to avoid placing an undue burden on any one community. 8. Public Participation. Sponsors should encourage local public participation, particularly by any affected parties outside of the host community's corporate limits, in the development of the proposal, including mitigation measures. Sponsors should conduct local outreach efforts with early notification to prospective neighbors to inform them about the project and to engage local residents in site planning and mitigation design prior to the initiation of formal hearings. The sponsor's efforts in this regard should be evaluated. 9. Consistency with Local Land Use Regulations. The proposed facility must conform to local land use and zoning regulations that are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. Compliance with other applicable local regulations shall also be required. 10. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. The sponsor's documentation should demonstrate that the site, as developed for the proposed project, would be compatible with surrounding land uses. 11. Proposed Impact Mitigation. The proposal must include adequate and appropriate mitigation measures for the impacted area(s)and community(ies). Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, natural features that will be preserved or created to serve as buffers, other site design elements used in the development plan, and/or operational or other programmatic measures contained in the proposal. The proposed measures should be adequate to substantially reduce or compensate for anticipated adverse impacts on the local environment. AMENDMENTS This siting process may be amended, upon recommendation by the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee, through established procedures for amending the comprehensive plan in accordance with local code and the State Growth Management Act. B-6 JULY2017 Appendix D: Arlington Responses to Expanded Checklist for Comprehensive Plan Update (2015) Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D The Washington Department of Commerce provided a checklist to communities to guide their 2015 Plan update. These are guidelines, not rules, but provide information on updates to State law, regional policies, etc. so that communities can adopt the update with confidence that their plans meet the requirements. The following summary informs Arlington citizens of how the 2015 Plan was developed and provides a history to those who will update the Plan in 2023. In this 2017 update, responses differ only slightly from the 2015 document. The Checklist and responses follow: 1. The Land Use Element should be consistent with countywide planning policies (CWPPs) and RCW 36.70A.070(1), and should consider, WAC 365-196-400, WAC 365-196-405, WAC 365-196-300 through 345 a. The element integrates relevant county-wide planning policies into the local planning process, and ensures local goals and policies are consistent. For jurisdictions in the Central Puget Sound region, the plan is consistent with applicable multicounty planning policies. WAC 365-196-305 ❑ Consistency with countywide planning policies ❑ Consistency with multicounty planning policies, where applicable 1. The Arlington Plan is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies for Snohomish County, as amended in 2014. A consistency analysis is contained in Appendix C of the Plan. It includes a list of policies that are compatible with the updated City Plan and those that, although not directly relevant to Arlington, are adopted in principle. 2. Countywide Planning Policies and Multi-County Planning Policies are adopted by Reference as Appendix C. 3. Implementation strategy includes requirement that land use decisions and other relevant City decisions be reviewed against planning policies, including Countywide Planning Policies and MultiCounty Planning Policies. See proposed policies PO 6.7, PL 12.5 and PS 2.1. b. The element includes a future land use map (or maps). Maps fulfill the requirement to show the general distribution of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. RCW 36.70A.070(1) and WAC 365-196-400(2)(d). The future land use map shows city limits and urban growth area (UGA) boundaries. RCW 36.70A.110(6), RCW 36.70A.130, WAC 365-196-310 and WAC 365-196-405(2)(i)(ii). ❑ Land use map D- 1 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D 1. The 2015 Land Use Map is included in Chapter 2; and is discussed in Chapters 4 (Planning Area Descriptions) and Chapter 5 (Land Use). 2. The Land Use map is consistent with the population, employment and buildable lands analysis. c. The Land Use Element (Chapter 5) includes population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. RCW 36.70A.070(1) WAC 365-196-405(2)(i) suggests including a table with the range of dwelling units per acre allowed in each land use designation and implementing zone as a projection of existing and projected development capacity. 1. All required elements are in the Plan: Chapters 5. 2. Future population, housing and job growth consistent with PSRC allocations as part of Vision 2040. 3. Chapter 5 (Land Use) discusses land capacity and the effect of reducing density in the Brekhus/Beach subarea. The City accepts the Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report estimates. With the infill and redevelopment assumptions, the 2035 population estimate of 24,937 can be accommodated. The plan should also indicate the population for which it is planning, which should be consistent with the Washington Office of Financial Management's forecast for the county or the county's sub-county allocation of that forecast, and should be the same for all comprehensive plan elements, and is. If OFM population projection is not used, the plan includes the rationale for using another figure. RCW 43.62.035 and WAC 365-196-405(f) 1. All population and employment figures are consistent with Vision 2040, Transportation 2040, State and County forecasts. They are also consistent with population and housing numbers in the County's 2013 Housing Characteristics and Needs Report, Snohomish County. Counties should indicate the percentage of county-wide population growth allocated for urban growth areas. This allocation should be consistent with GMA goals of encouraging urban growth in urban areas, reducing sprawl, and ensuring public facilities and services are efficiently provided. WAC 365-196-405 (f) ❑ Population projection uses latest forecast 1. County issue. The City Plan is consistent with adopted PSRC population projections. Urban densities and urban growth areas (UGAs) have been reviewed. RCW 36.70A.1 30(3)(a), (5), and (6) and WAC 365-196-310(2). D-2 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D By definition, urban growth areas all incorporated lands in cities and town, and unincorporated urban growth areas designated by a county. A review should be completed as part of the 8-year update under RCW 36.70A.130. Review WAC 365-196-310(2) for suggestions on evaluating and designating UGAs. Supporting information should include: selected population growth forecast scenario RCW 43.62.035; population allocation and percentage of land devoted to urban, rural, and resource uses (counties) RCW 36.70A.070(1); land capacity analysis for UGAs, ability to provide urban services. RCW 36.70A.110, CWPPs and WAC 365- 196-310. There should be a coordinated approach to planning for development in urban growth areas, especially among adjacent jurisdictions. WAC 365-196-330 Urban growth areas (incorporated or not) must plan for urban densities and urban services. If a county designates a fully contained community (FCC), part of the county's population allocation should be reserved for the FCC. RCW 36.70A.350(2). If a potential UGA expansion area is within the 100-year flood plain of major western Washington rivers, consider RCW 36.70A.110(8). ❑ UGA review (required every 8 years) 1. The buildable lands analysis developed jointly by Arlington and Snohomish County, shows measures needed to ensure appropriate densities. Such measures are not needed immediately, but will be considered as the need arises. RCW 36.70A.215 and WAC 365-196- 315 and the Buildable Lands Program Guidelines include a list of measures. ❑ Reasonable measures adopted if needed Infill, rezones and other measures were considered and will meet population, housing and employment needs through 2015. Additional measures and mechanisms will be studied. The element considers planning approaches that increase physical activity, such as neighborhood commercial nodes to allow walking and cycling to local services, transit- or pedestrian-oriented development, linear parks and trail networks, and siting schools and other public facilities within neighborhoods to allow easy walking RCW 36.70A.070(1) and WAC 365-196-405 (2)(j). The City recently completed design guidelines for a proposed "Mixed Use Overlay" district which will be used to guide in-fill, redevelopment and new development in line with the buildable lands analysis and the City's future vision. ❑ Planning for physical activity 1. Plan emphasizes and encourages physical activity. D-3 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D 2. There are numerous mentions in neighborhood subareas of the need for further bike and pedestrian trail connections between residences, parks, community centers and retail areas. 3. The City's trail system is integrated with sidewalks, other pedestrian facilities, transit nodes to encourage physical activity 4. Goals and Policies (e.g. encourage physical activity in park planning, street development, transportation improvements. d. Lands useful for public purposes such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, stormwater management facilities, recreation, schools, and other public uses are identified. RCW 36.70A.150 requires that a prioritized list of acquisitions be developed. [The list need not be part of the comprehensive plan.] RCW 36.70A.150 and WAC 365-196-340 ❑ Public use lands ❑ List of acquisitions 1. The riverfront Haller Park is designed around the City's upgraded sewage treatment plant. 2. The Plan emphasizes bike and pedestrian trail development. The City will seek opportunities to combine trails with the capital improvements outlined in Chapters 7, 8 and 9. e. Open Space corridors within and between urban growth areas, including lands useful for public purposes such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, stormwater management facilities, recreation, schools, and other public uses are identified. RCW 36.70A.150 RCW 36.70A.150 requires that a prioritized list of acquisitions be developed. [The list need not be part of the comprehensive plan.] RCW 36.70A.150 and WAC 365-196-340 ❑ Open Space corridors 1. The Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AAMIC) will be master planned to include an extensive pedestrian/bike trail system integrated with the new roads that will be built. f. If an airport is within or adjacent to the jurisdiction, the plan includes policies, land use designations, and zoning to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to general aviation airports. RCW 36.70.547 and WAC 365-196-455 See www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Planning/default for guidance. Any planning adjacent to or within the "imaginary surface" areas of general aviation airports must consult with the Aviation Division of WSDOT. ❑ No incompatible uses near airports ❑ WSDOT notified D-4 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D 1. The Plan contains numerous citations regarding the Arlington Airport and how it is to be protected from incompatible uses. These conflicts were noted as a problem in the 2005 Plan; the 2015 Plan notes that these issues have all been addressed through institution of the Airport Safety Overlay and Airport Protection District, on the zoning and plan maps. g. If a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) military base employing 100 or more personnel is within or adjacent to the jurisdiction, the plan must include policies, land use designations, and consistent zoning to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to military base. RCW 36.70A.530(3) and WAC 365- 196-475 See Map of U.S. bases to help make determination of applicability. If applicable, inform the commander of the base regarding amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations on lands adjacent to the base. ❑ No incompatible uses near US DOD bases ❑ Base commander notified 1. Not applicable. The U.S. Navy Support Center is located approximately three miles south of the southerly UGA boundary. h. Where applicable, the Land Use Element includes a review of drainage, flooding, and stormwater run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provides guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state. RCW 36.70A.70(1); WAC 365-196-405(2)(c) . RCW 90.56.010(26) defines waters of the state. Jurisdictions subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 1 and Phase 2, should comply with all permit requirements. All local governments are also encouraged to: • Adopt the State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual for Eastern or Western Washington or the equivalent. • Incorporate relevant land-use recommendations from adopted local watershed plans. www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html. • Adopt a clearing and grading ordinance if not already existing (See Technical Guidance Document for Clearing and Grading in Western Washington). 1. The City uses the 2005 Western Washington Manual 2. The City has an adopted clearing and grading regulation related to Appendix 33 of the adopted UBC. Provisions are contained in the code to ensure protection of environmentally sensitive areas. D-5 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D ❑ Stormwater planning 1. The City maintains a stormwater management program (SWMP) in compliance with its NPDES II Stormwater Discharge Permit. The program is established by code and affects all land use and development decisions as appropriate. i. Critical areas are designated RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-190-080 Best available science (BAS) is used to protect the functions and values of critical areas, and give "special consideration" to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. RCW 36.70A.172 and WAC 365-195-900 through 925. Plan policies should address the five critical areas listed in RCW 36.70A.030(5) (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. See Critical Areas Assistance Handbook (2007) and Small Communities Critical Areas Ordinance Implementation Guidebook (2007). Follow the process in WAC 365-195-915 to document decisions. Endangered Species: If there are anadromous fisheries, or if the jurisdiction affected by an Endangered Species Act (ESA) 4(d) rule, the comprehensive plan should contain policies guiding decisions which may impact listed species. Special consideration may include: • Revisions to zoning to protect habitat • Revisions to the location of planned capital facilities • Revisions to stormwater regulations or clearing and grading ordinances Establishment or maintenance of monitoring programs to ensure that habitat is being maintained, See WAC 365-195-920. ❑ BAS used to designate and protect critical areas 1. An Environmentally Critical Areas Regulation (AMC 20.88) is in effect meeting the criteria outlined above. j. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas:(Required if jurisdictions draw groundwater for potable water or need to manage threats to exempt wells.): WAC 365-190-100 • The plan protects the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies. RCW 36.70A.070(1) See Ecology's guidance on Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs). • For water quality, policies and implementing regulations should regulate hazardous uses in critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) and protect wellhead areas. See Ecology's Groundwater Quality Information. • For water quantity, policies and implementing regulations should limit impervious surfaces, encourage water conservation measures, and consider D-6 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D Water Resource Inventory Assessment (WRIA) plans. See Ecology's Stormwater Programs for more information. ❑ CARAs protect water quality and quantity 1. The City's Critical Area Ordinance contains significant provision for aquifer protection. 2. The City has regulations for wellhead protection (AMC 13.04.260) meeting the requirements of WAC 246-290-135. The Wellhead and Watershed Protection Program are in the currently adopted in the city Of Arlington Comprehensive Water System Plan. 3. Critical areas were documented as part of the Buildable Lands calculations. k. Natural Resource Lands (NRLs) designated and conserved: RCW 36.70A.170 RCW 36.70A.060. NRLs include forest, agricultural, and mineral resource lands. See process to classify and designate at WAC 365-190-040. If forest or agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance are designated inside UGAs, they must be subject to transfer and/or purchase of development rights (TDR, or PDR). RCW 36.70A.060(4) ❑ TDR or PDR program for forest or agricultural lands inside UGAs 1. The City has withdrawn from the TDR program (AMC 20.38) because of an unsuccessful attempt to implement a project at Brekhus/Beach. It is hoped that future market demand will allow a new proposal to be brought forward. I. Designate and Conserve Forest Resource Land: RCW 36.70A.170 RCW 36.70A.060 Forest land is defined at RCW 36.70A.030(8). Review WAC 365- 190-060 for recommendations on forest lands. ❑ Forest lands designated 1. Not Applicable. No forestry or agricultural lands. m. Designate and conserve agricultural resource lands (ARLs): RCW 36.70A.170 and RCW 36.70A.060. ARLS are defined at RCW 36.70A.030(2). See WAC 365- 190-050 for recommendations to designate, and WAC 365-196-815 to protect agricultural lands. Land use and policies should discourage incompatible uses around natural resource areas. RCW 36.70A.177(3) includes innovative techniques to conserve agricultural land and permitted accessory uses. D-7 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D ❑ Agricultural lands designated ❑ Limit accessory uses on agricultural lands 1. Not Applicable. No forestry or agricultural lands. n. Designate mineral resource lands: RCW 36.70A.131 requires consideration of new information including data available from the Department of Natural Resources relating to mineral resource deposits when reviewing mineral resource land designations. Minerals defined in RCW 36.70A.030(11) to include sand, gravel and valuable metallic substances. See WAC 365-190-070 for guidance on designation. ❑ Review mineral resource lands 1. Not Applicable. No mineral lands. o. Development outside UGAs: If applicable, development planned outside UGAs must be consistent with the following: Major industrial development: RCW 36.70A.365 and WAC 365-196-435 Master planned development: RCW 36.70A.367 and WAC 365-196-470 Master planned resorts RCW 36.70A.360, RCW 36.70A.362, and WAC 365-196-460 ❑ If applicable, development outside UGA consistent with RCW 1. Not applicable 2. The Housing Element 1. Refer to housing sub-elements contained in Housing Chapter 6 and Goals and Policy sections. The Housing Element is intended to ensure the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods, encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. It should be consistent with relevant CWPPs, (RCW 36.70A.070 (2)), and should consider WAC 365-196-410. D-8 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D a. Include an inventory of existing housing units and an analysis the number (and type) of housing units necessary to provide for projected growth over the planning period. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a) and WAC 365-196-410(2)(b) and (c) and Commerce's Assessing Your Housing Needs (1993, Updated by March 2013) ❑ Inventory of existing housing and projected housing needs using latest population projection. 1. Chapter 6 includes inventory information, past trends, future projections and reconciles the numbers with the population forecasts for 2035. All projections are consistent with those presented in the County's 2013 Housing Report, which implements Countywide Planning Policy HO-5. The projections divide future housing needs among the three levels of affordability (50%, 80% and 80+% MI). b. Include goals, policies, and objectives for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(b) and WAC 365-196- 410(2)(a). ❑ Goals, policies for housing 1. Chapter 3 contains Goal GH-8 and policies dealing with provision of adequate and affordable housing. 2. Chapter 6 provides analysis in support of these policies. c. Identify sufficient land for housing, including but not limited to, government- assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, and foster care facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c) ❑ Identify sufficient land for housing 1. As shown on Table 5.4, the City will maintain a goal of providing a housing mix of 82% (1,985) single-family and 18% (436) multi-family dwellings to meet the overall objective of 2,421 new added housing units by 2035. It will work to attract affordable housing as the market seems to be demanding (See Chapter 6) including as a requirement for bonus density in the HMU or other residential zones. Infill mechanisms will also be explored and used to achieve the 762 additional units called out in Table 5.5. 2. The City allows for manufactured homes on an equal footing with other types of construction (AMC Table 20.40-1) D-9 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D d. Provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d) Affordable housing is defined as when the total housing costs, including basic utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the income limit (for renters, 50 percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family- size, and for owners, 80 percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family size for owners). WAC 365-196-410(e)(i)(C) (I- V). WAC 365-196-410(2)(e)(iii) recommends an evaluation of the extent to which the existing and projected market can provide housing at various costs and for various income levels, and an estimation of the present and future populations that would require assistance to obtain housing they can afford. This section should also identify existing programs and policies to promote adequate affordable housing and evaluate their effectiveness. If enacting or expanding affordable housing programs under RCW 36.70A.540, the plan should identify certain land use designations where increased residential development will assist in achieving local growth management and housing policies. Examples include: density bonuses within urban growth areas, height and bulk bonuses, fee waivers or exemptions, parking reductions, expedited permitting conditioned on provision of low-income housing units, or mixed use projects. ❑ Affordable housing planned 1. See Chapter 6 — Housing 2. The City will explore additional incentives to promote form-based and mixed use developments in the West Arlington Subarea 3. The Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element must be consistent with county-wide planning policies and RCW 36.70A.070(3), should consider WAC 365-196-415, and should serve as a check on the practicality of achieving other elements of the plan. This element should cover all the capital facilities planned, provided, and paid for by public entities including to local government and special districts, etc. This should include water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection facilities. Capital expenditures from park and recreation elements, if separate, should be included in the capital facilities plan element. For additional information see Making Your Comprehensive Plan a Reality: A Capital Facilities Preparation Guide Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED), 1993. D- 10 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D a. Goals and policies relating to investment in capital facilities, levels of service and regulatory strategies for concurrency to guide decisions. RCW 36.70A.120 and WAC 365-196-415 1. Chapter 9 contains the capital facilities plan for Arlington based on the projections and policies contained in Chapters 3-8. Chapter 8 includes the CIP for Transportation. Implementation of these CIPs will meet the concurrency requirements of GMA. 2. Future projects will be required — through SEPA review and the City's Development Code — to show concurrency with the facilities in place at the time of development. b. Inventory showing the locations and capacities of existing capital facilities owned by public entities RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) and WAC 365-196-415(2)(a) recommends the inventory include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, solid waste management, school, park, and recreation facilities, police and fire protection facilities. The element should reference water or other system plans, indicate locations of facilities, and show where systems currently have unused capacity. Public services and facilities are defined in RCW 36.70A.030(12) and (13). ❑ Inventory of existing facilities 1. Chapters 7-9 contain up-to-date inventories of all City facilities and an analysis of future needs. 2. The Arlington and Lakewood School Districts have verified the Plan narrative. 3. Other providers (Community Transit, energy providers, solid water collection services, etc.) have adequate capacity to serve the City. c. Adopted levels of service (LOS) for public services. ❑ Adopted LOS. 1. Level of Service is discussed under each section of Chapters 7-8. d. Forecast of future needs to maintain adopted levels of service over the planning period. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b) requires a forecast of future needs, and WAC 365-196-415 (b) recommends the forecast be based on projected population densities, and distribution of growth over the planning period. This section should consider whether the jurisdiction has sufficient water rights, sewage treatment, or other needed public facilities to support the plan's projected 20-year growth. This may also consider system management or demand management strategies to meet forecast need. ❑ Forecast of future needs D- 11 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D 1. The City has updated its Water, Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater plans concurrent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan update. 2. No concurrency issues were detected during Plan development. Utilities will serve growth targets. e. Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(c) requires proposed locations and capacities, and WAC 365-196-415 (3)(C) suggests that the phasing schedule in the Land Use Element should dictate when and where capital facilities will be needed over the 20-year life of the plan. Consider if the concurrency ordinance or other mechanisms have been effective in providing public facilities and services concurrent with development ❑ Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new facilities. 1. Capital facilities are concurrent with present demand. 2. The City has updated its Water, Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater plans concurrent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan update. 3. Other future improvements are targeted toward maintaining quality and meeting level of service standards. f. Six-year plan (at least) to finance planned capital facilities within projected funding capacities, and identifies sources of public money for such purposes. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d), RCW 36.70A.120 and WAC 365-196-415(c)(i) This CFP should include all public expenditures for capital expenses including water, sewer, transportation, etc. WAC 365-196-415(2)(c)(ii) suggests that the plan be updated at least biennially so that financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of the present for concurrency to be evaluated. If impact fees are collected, the public facilities for which money is to be spent on must be included in this element. RCW 82.02.050(4) and WAC 365-196-850 ❑ Six-year funding plan consistent with comp plan ❑ Impact fees used only for projects included in the CFP 1. The City has updated its Water, Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater plans concurrent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan update. 2. Six Year Plans will be finalized after Planning Commission and Council Review. 3. Impact fees are collected under existing City code (AMC 20.90) for parks and transportation. The City collects school impact fees, when assessed, on behalf of the Arlington and Lakewood Districts, when requested. D- 12 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D Policy to reassess the Land Use Element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the Land Use Element, Capital Facilities Element, and financing plan within the Capital Facilities Element are coordinated and consistent. [RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e) and WAC 365-196-415(2)(d)(iii)(F) recommends that the plan set forth how pending applications for development will be affected while such a reassessment is being undertaken. ❑ Land Use reassessment policy included 1. See Page 1-5. 2. The Plan as prepared is "concurrent". No reassessment is necessary. 3. The Implementation section (Chapter 1) and Appendix "I" discusses the City's reassessment approach, if and when an element is found to be non-concurrent. 4. Utilities Element The Utilities Element should relate to all services provided, planned for, paid for, and delivered by providers other than the jurisdiction. This should be consistent with relevant CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.070(4), and should consider WAC 365-195-420. a. The general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines. RCW 36.70A.070(4). WAC 365-195-420 recommends goals and policies relating coordination in construction, permits, utility corridor use and management. Counties and cities should evaluate whether any utilities should be identified as essential public facilities in case of siting difficulties. ❑ General location and capacity of existing and proposed facilities 1. Chapter 2 contains maps and descriptions of current utilities. 2. Non-City utility providers are being consulted; those responding thus far confirm that they can serve the projected growth in housing, population and employment. 5. Rural Element 1. Not applicable. The Rural Element (counties only) should be consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5), RCW 36.70A.030(15) through (17), and consider RCW 36.70A.011 and WAC 365-196-425. Rural lands are lands not designated for urban growth, or designated as agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands. For additional information, see Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character & Planning for Rural Development, 1999. a. A definition of rural character and rural development consistent with RCW 36.70A.030, (15), (16), and (17). WAC 365-196-425(2) provides suggestions. D- 13 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D ❑ Definition of rural character b. Allows forestry, agriculture, and a variety of rural densities and uses. RCW 36.70A.070(5). See WAC 365-196-425(3) for examples of rural densities. The plan may include optional techniques such as limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs), clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, and conservation easements to accommodate rural uses not characterized by urban growth as specified in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). See WAC 365-196-425(5) for innovative zoning techniques. ❑ Variety of densities c. A written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals and meets the requirements of the Growth Management Act. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a). WAC 365-196-425(1) A county may consider local circumstances in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, but must develop a written record of the rural element harmonizes the planning goals and meets the requirements of the act. ❑ A written record relating to rural character d. A definition of rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses, and a policy that limits urban services in rural areas RCW 36.70A.110(4). RCW 36.70A.030((17) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070 and WAC 365-196-425(4) recommends some definitions of rural services and provides suggestions for appropriate level of service standards. ❑ Definition of rural services e. Measures protecting rural character. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c) Measures include containing/controlling development, assuring visual compatibility, reducing inappropriate conversion to low-density sprawl, protecting critical areas, and protecting against conflicts with natural resource lands. ❑ Measures to protect rural character f. If designated, limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRDs) are consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). See WAC 365-196-425(6) for guidance relating to LAMIRDs. Commerce suggests that jurisdictions consider Growth Management Hearings Board cases and Commerce's Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character & Planning for Rural Development, 1999 for guidance on appropriate rural densities and levels of governmental services in LAMIRDs. D- 14 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D ❑ LAM IRDs designated and regulated consistent with GMA 6. Transportation Element 1. Transportation section (Chapter 8) is updated consistent with an update of the City's Transportation Plan (2015). It has been adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and its findings incorporated into the Plan. 2. The City has advised Snohomish County that its Draft EIS for the County's Plan update provides a consistent analysis of the City's transportation needs. The Transportation Element should be consistent with relevant CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.070(6), RCW 36.70A.108, and should consider WAC 365-196-430 and Your Community's Transportation System: A Guide to Updating and Implementing your Transportation Element (2012) 1. Snohomish County and Multi-County Planning Policies are adopted as part of the updated Plan (Appendix C). 2. WAC 365-196-430 a. Land use, population and employment forecasts for 2035 were used as inputs to the updated Transportation Plan. b. Arlington is an active participant in countywide transportation planning efforts, including membership on the Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation (SCCIT), the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County and the Growth Management Steering Committee (SCT). Through collaboration among these groups, the major multi-modal transportation priorities have been identified, including those serving Arlington. c. Projected growth will cause no direct change in impacts to State owned facilities, although the longer term goal is to extend SR-531 to SR-9. This improvement is not concurrency related. d. The City's transportation policies and most of its subarea (neighborhood) plans emphasize multi-modal approaches including pedestrian paths, bicycle lanes. a. The element includes goals and policies for roadways; fixed route and demand response public transit; bicycle and pedestrian travel; water, rail, air, and industrial port and intermodal facilities; passenger and freight rail; and truck, rail, and barge freight mobility. WAC 365-196-430(2)(b)]_ The element should include policies and provisions consistent with regional efforts to reduce criteria pollutants from mobile sources. WAC 173-420-080 If the planning area is within a National Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainment area, WAC 365-196- 430(2)(d) recommends including a map of the nonattainment area, severity of the violation, and measures to be implemented consistent with the state implementation plan for air quality. D- 15 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D 1. Arlington lies outside the nonattainment areas for CO and particulates. Along with most other cities in Snohomish County, Arlington falls within the maintenance area for Ozone. 2. The City has adopted a transportation demand management and CRT program (AMC Chapter 10.80) 3. Policies will be added in support of regional efforts to reduce the effects of all three categories. b. An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments, state-owned transportation facilities, and general aviation airports to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A). WAC 365-196-430(2)(c) provides recommendations for meeting inventory requirements. ❑ Transportation inventory 1. See Chapter 8. c. The element includes regionally coordinated level of service (LOS) standards for all arterials and transit routes, LOS for highways of statewide significance, and LOS for other state highways consistent with the regional transportation plan. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B) 1. See Chapter 8. WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(v) recommends LOS be set to reflect access, mobility, mode- split and capacity goals. WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(vi) recommends that measurement methodology and standards vary based on the urban or rural character of the surrounding area. Also, balance community character, funding capacity, and traveler expectations. In urban areas, WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(vii) recommends methodologies for analyzing the transportation system from a comprehensive, multimodal perspective. ❑ Levels of service for all facilities; local, regional, and state 1. See Chapter 8. 2. The "2035 Transportation Plan" will be adopted by reference and has been integrated into the GMA Comprehensive Plan. 3. The City of Arlington has adopted the following levels of service: ❑ City arterials = LOS D F1 All other City streets = LOS C F Highways of Statewide Significance = LOS D F- Regionally Significant State Highways = LOS D D- 16 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D The element identifies specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities and services that are below an established LOS standard. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(D) and WAC 365-196-430(2)(g). Concurrency policies must be consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b), and consider multimodal improvements RCW 36.70A.108. Strategies such as increased public transit, ride sharing programs, and other multimodal strategies may be used to ensure that development does not cause service to decline on a locally owned facility below adopted levels of service. ❑ Concurrency d. The element describes existing and planned transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, such as HOV lanes, parking policies, high occupancy vehicle subsidy programs, etc. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vi). WAC 365-196-430(2)(i) provides suggested TDM strategies. If required, a commute trip reduction plan to achieve reductions in the proportion of single-occupant vehicle commute trips has been adopted consistent with the comprehensive plan and submitted to the regional transportation planning organization. RCW 70.94.527. ❑ TDM Strategies 1. The City's Transportation policies emphasize multi-modal approaches including pedestrian paths, bicycle lanes and encouraging TDM measures. 2. The City maintains a CTR and TDM program 3. Community Transit has opened a Park and Ride facility in the City to add to its other services to the Arlington/Marysville area. f. The element includes a pedestrian and bicycle component. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vii). WAC 365-196-430(2)(j) recommends jurisdictions inventory existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and identify and plan improvements for facilities. Improvements could focus on safe routes to school, hazard areas, or pedestrian-generating areas, and should be funded in capital facility or transportation improvement plans. See Bicycle and pedestrian planning information and resources at www.wsdot.wa.gov/Walk/default.htm and www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/default.htm. ❑ Bicycle and pedestrian planning 1. See previous discussion. City policies and inventories show a strong commitment to pedestrian and bicycle users. (e.g. See Figure 2-7) D- 17 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D g. The element includes a forecast of traffic for at least 10 years, based on the Land Use Element, to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(E). WAC 365-196-430(2)(f) suggests including bicycle, pedestrian or planned transit service in a multimodal forecast. Forecasts should be consistent with regionally adopted strategies and plans. The forecast should be based on assumptions in the land use element. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(i). WAC 365-196-430(2)(a)(i) recommends counties and cities use consistent land use assumptions, population forecasts, and planning periods for both the land use and transportation elements. ❑ 10-year Traffic forecast 1. See previous discussion of the City's 2035 Transportation Plan. ❑ Land use element assumptions used to forecast travel 1. See previous discussion of the City's 2035 Transportation Plan. h. The element identifies state and local system expansion needs to meet current and future demands. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(F). WAC 365-196-430(2)(f) recommends including bicycle, pedestrian or planned transit service in needs. WSDOT's Ten-Year Capital Improvement and Preservation Program for state-owned facilities (Required by RCW 47.05.030) is detailed in the Transportation Executive Information System http://www.transinfo.state.wa.us/ Click on the current projects list, select the most recent legislative final project list and you can select projects by county. ❑ Future needs 1. See prior discussion regarding Arlington's involvement in regional transportation planning efforts and its adoption of County, multi-county, Vision 2040 policies. i. A multiyear financing plan is included in the element based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which serve as the basis for the six- year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(B). WAC 365-196-430(2)(k)(ii) recommends that the horizon year be the same as the time period for the travel forecast and identified needs. The analysis should assess the identified needs against probable funding resources. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(A). WAC 365.196-430(2)(k)(iv) recommends counties and cities consider the cost of maintaining facilities when considering new facilities. D- 18 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D 1. See Chapter 8 and 9 2. See Transportation Plan. 3. The City has adopted policies emphasizing maintenance as a strategy for cost efficiency in providing the maximum level of quality to its transportation system. Examples: a. MPP-T-2 Protect the investment in the existing system and lower overall life-cycle costs through effective maintenance and preservation programs. b. PT-7.3 Prioritize the maintenance of roads according to condition, putting the roads in poor condition ahead of others. c. PT-12.6 Direct resources to ensure that existing transportation system is maintained adequately. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, there is a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that LOS standards will be met. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(C). WAC 365-196- 430(2)(1)(ii) states that this review must take place, at a minimum, as part of the eight- year periodic review and update and update of UGAs [eight years per 2011 amendments to RCW 36.70A.130]. Several choices for addressing funding shortfalls are provided. ❑ Funding program ❑ Funding analysis ❑ Funding shortfall strategy 1. See Chapters 8 and 9. j. The element discusses intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(v). WAC 365- 196-430(2)(a)(iv) recommends developing transportation elements using the county- wide planning policies to ensure they are coordinated and consistent with the comprehensive plans of other counties and cities sharing common borders. ❑ Intergovernmental coordination 1. The Plan update is consistent with Countywide and Multi-County Planning Policies. 2. The Transportation Element is consistent with the Land Use Element which forms the basis for future traffic estimates. 3. Arlington is an active participant in countywide transportation planning efforts, including membership on the Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation (SCCIT), the Economic Alliance of Snohomish D- 19 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D County and the Growth Management Steering Committee (SCT). Through collaboration among these groups, the major multi-modal transportation priorities have been identified, including those serving Arlington. k. The element discusses how the transportation plan implements and is consistent with the land use element, and how it is consistent with the regional transportation plan. RCW 36.70A.070(6) and WAC 365-196-430 WAC 365-196-430(2)(a)(i) recommends that consistent land use assumptions, population forecasts, and planning periods should be used for both the land use and transportation elements. 1. The 2005 Plan was used as a principal input to the new Transportation Plan 2. The Public Works Director has been an active participant in the Staff team updating the Comprehensive Plan; while being the key coordinator with the consultant team updating the Transportation Plan. The transportation element must be certified by the regional transportation planning organization. RCW 47.80.23(3) and RCW 47.80.026. ❑ Plan certified by RTPO 1. The Plan will be submitted for certification to the Puget Sound Regional Council. 2. From the Transportation Plan: "The City of Arlington is a member of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) for King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. PSRC is required to certify the transportation-related provisions in local comprehensive plans. By doing so, PSRC assures consistency with the multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040, the adopted regional transportation plan (Transportation 2040), and the requirements listed above for conformity with GMA." "The City of Arlington's 2035 Transportation Plan supports the goals and strategies presented in PSRC's VISION 2040 and Destination 2030 Update. Regional Growth Strategies, Multicounty Planning Policies and specific projects identified in the Destination 2030 Update have been incorporated in this document, and include: • Sustainable transportation, including transit and non-motorized improvements • Higher density land use near transportation centers • Improvements to support freight mobility • Multiple east-west and north-south corridors to address disaster response • Access management • Context sensitive road standards D-20 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D • Implementation of improvements of regional significance (trails, transit centers, park and rides) • Complete streets providing for multi-modal transportation • Connectivity with adjacent jurisdictions • Transportation funding strategies" 7. Economic Development Element The Economic Development Element Is not currently required because funding was not provided to assist in developing local elements when this element was added to the GMA. However, provisions for economic growth, vitality, and a high quality of life are important, and supporting strategies should be integrated with the land use, housing, utilities, and transportation elements. RCW 36.70A.070(7). An Economic Development Element should include: a. A summary of the local economy such as population, employment, payroll, sectors, businesses, and sales. RCW 36.70A.070(7)(a). WAC 365-196-435(2)(a) recommends using population information consistent with the land use and housing elements. Employment, payroll, and other economic information is available from state and federal agencies. Consider gathering data and information for your community data profile pertaining to business, transportation, labor, real estate, utilities, incentives, regulatory, government, and quality of life. b. A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy defined as the commercial and industrial sectors and supporting factors such as land use, transportation, utilities, education, work force, housing, and natural/cultural resources. RCW 36.70A.070(7)(b). WAC 365-196-435(2)(b) recommends consulting with local development organizations, economic development councils, or economic development districts. Methods for identifying strengths and weaknesses include shift- share analysis, identify of industry clusters, public input, and asset mapping. c. Identification of policies, programs, and projects to foster economic growth and development and to address future needs. RCW 36.70A.070(7)(c). WAC 365-196- 435(2)(c) recommends identify policies, programs and projects that address identified weaknesses or capitalize on strengths identified by the community. Consider using performance targets to measure success. 1. The City has integrated it economic goals and policies with the Land Use, Employment, Capital Improvement and Planning Subarea analyses. These other elements form the basis of an economic strategy. 2. A major emphasis in the 2015 Plan update is the "North Stillaguamish Valley Economic Redevelopment Strategy", which is in response to the Oso tragedy. The study area extends from Darrington to Arlington. The strategy will have a major impact on the area's economic programs and policies. The AAMIC' area and master plan will figure prominently. 1 Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center D-21 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D 3. A second major emphasis in the 2015 Plan update is the AAMIC itself. Designation as such by the Puget Sound Regional Council is a major goal of the two cities and the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County. A final decision is likely in 2017. Significant work and analysis will be undertaken on this matter during that period. The Comprehensive Plan has helped set the stage for these next steps. 8. Parks and Recreation Element 1. Chapter 7 2. Existing parks are to be maintained in current and quality condition. 3. The City will cooperate with Snohomish County on maintenance and improvements to the Interurban Trail system. A Parks and Recreation Element is not required because the state did not provide funding to assist in developing local elements when this provision was added to the GMA. However, park, recreation, and open space planning are GMA goals, and it is important to plan for and fund these facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(8). Commerce's Guidebook Planning for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in your Community, can provide step-by-step assistance. Also see www.rco.wa.go/doc pages/index.shtml for additional assistance. A Parks and Recreation Element should include: a. Goals and policies to guide decisions regarding facilities. WAC 365-196-440(2)(b) recommends a visioning process to engage the public in identifying needs, evaluating existing recreational opportunities, and developing goals for the parks and recreation element. b. Estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year period based on adopted levels of service and population growth. RCW 36.70A.070(8)(a). WAC 365-196-440(2)(c) recommends establishing levels of service standards that reflect community goals. LOS should focus on those aspects that relate most directly to growth and development. c. An evaluation of facilities and service needs over the planning period. RCW 36.70A.070(8)(b). WAC 365-196-440(2)(d) lists factors to consider when estimating demand for parks, open space and recreational services. d. An evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreational demand. RCW 36.70A.070(8)(c). WAC 365-196-440(2)(f) recommends identifying other local, statewide and regional recreation plans for future facilities and opportunities for public and private partnerships to meet regional demand. e. The element is consistent with and is a part of the Capital Facilities Element as it relates to park and recreation facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e). WAC 365-196- 440(2)(e) recommends identification of future facilities and services consistent with the land use and capital facilities elements. WAC 365-196-440(2)(g)(iii) recommends identifying strategies for financing in the parts and recreation element, a separate parks plan, or the capital facilities element. 9. Shoreline Element The Shoreline Element of the comprehensive plan is the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). RCW 36.70A.480 The SMP goals and policies may D-22 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D also be included in an Environmental Element. The SMP goals and policies should be consistent with the rest of the comprehensive plan. SMP goals and policies are included in the comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.480. When a jurisdiction updates its SMP consistent with Ecology's new guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC), and according to a schedule in RCW 90.58.080, protection for critical areas within shorelines is transferred from the critical areas ordinance to the SMP. Protection must be at least equal to that from the CAO under the GMA. ❑ SMP goals and policies. 1. The City updated its Shoreline Master Plan in 2012 (Ordinance 2012-015) and requires no further adjustments as part of this GMA update. 10. Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) Provisions for Siting Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) should be consistent with CWPPs, RCW 36.70A.200, and should consider WAC 365-196-340 and 550. This section can be included in the Capital Facilities Element, Land Use Element, or in its own element. Sometimes the identification and siting process for EPFs is part of the CWPPs. a. The plan includes a process or criteria for identifying and siting essential public facilities (EPFs). EPFs include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities(SCTF) (defined in RCW 71.09.020(14)). [RCW 36.70A.200(1)] WAC 365-196-550 provides a list of essential public facilities and suggests a potential siting process. ❑ EPF identification and siting process b. Policies that address the statutory requirement that no comprehensive plan may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. RCW 36.70A.200(5). WAC 365-196- 550(3) list types of comprehensive plan provisions or development regulations that could make the siting of an essential public facility impossible or impractical. ❑ No preclusion policy c. Jurisdiction considered the Office of Financial Management's list of essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. RCW 36.70A.200(4). (Instructions to find the list are available from GMS) D-23 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D ❑ List considered 1. See Appendix B 2. See Goals GS-2 and associated policies 3. Essential Public Facilities are acknowledged in the City Code. 11. Optional plan elements and sub-area plans Additional elements are included in the plan, such as energy conservation, historic preservation, natural hazards, or community design. [RCW 36.70A.080 and WAC 365- 196-445] These elements should be consistent with all other elements of the plan. Resources: Historic Preservation: A Tool for Managing Growth, Commerce, 1994, revised in 2005, Optional Comprehensive Plan Element for Natural Hazard Reduction, Commerce, 1999. If any sub-area plans included in the plan, they must be consistent with the other plan elements. RCW 36.70A.080(2). 1. Not applicable 12. Consistency Consistency is required by the GMA a. All plan elements are consistent with relevant county-wide planning policies (CWPPs) and the GMA. RCW 36.70A.100 and 210 and WAC 365-196-400(2)(c) and 520. WAC 365-197-400(2)(c) suggests CWPPs be referenced in each element, or be appended to the plan to clearly show consistency. Some jurisdictions use a table to show consistency. ❑ CWPPs The plan describes how all elements fit together, such as consistency of plan elements and future land use map, and consistency of land use and capital facilities elements. RCW 36.70A.070 (preamble). WAC 365-197-400(2)(f) recommends inclusion at the beginning of the comprehensive plan a section which summarizes how the various pieces of the plan fit together. ❑ Internal consistency Plan is coordinated with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.100. WAC 365-196-520 suggests counties and cities circulate their proposed plans and SEPA documents with other counties and cities with which they share a common border or has related regional issues. Counties and cities are encouraged to resolve conflicts through consultation and negotiation. D-24 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix D ❑ External consistency 1. See Appendix C. 2. Plan will be shared with Marysville and reviewed for consistency by the County. 13. Public participation, plan amendments and monitoring Plan ensures public participation in the comprehensive planning process. RCW 36.70A.020(11), .035, and 140. WAC 365-196-600(3) provides a list of possible public participation choices. ❑ Public participation If the process for making amendments is included in the comprehensive plan: • The plan provides that amendments are to be considered no more often than once a year, not including the exceptions described in RCW 36.70A.130(2). WAC 365-196-640 • The plan sets out a procedure for adopting emergency amendments and defines emergency. RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) and RCW 36.70A.390LWAC 365- 196-650(4) ❑ Broadly publicized plan amendment process. ❑ Plan amendments no more than once a year. a. Plan or program for monitoring how well comprehensive plan policies, development regulations, and other implementation techniques are achieving the comprehensive plan's goals and the goals of the GMA. WAC 365-196-660 discusses a potential review of growth management implementation on a systematic basis. 1. No major changes in City permit review procedures are anticipated. 2. The Plan will be reviewed each year for any specific language changes are prompted by circumstances. 3. Citizens will have the opportunity to suggest changes each year as part of the annual amendment (docket) process. D-25 JULY 2017 Appendix C : Plan Consistency with MultiCounty Planning Policies Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY ADOPTED JUNE 1, 2011 Multicounty Planning a> Policies iv <. ' - - - i o Cn ots G) N o m M0 Countywide XCD 0 CDPlanning CD c Policies o" N _ cn m - - � 3 I P. �+ - Local Local i Arlington Plan Plan i -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FROM THE CWPP The Countywide Planning Policies are adopted by reference in this Comprehensive Plan. The following list of policies was reviewed for consistency with the contents of the Plan. • GF-1 thru GF-7 • JP-1 thru JP-7 • DP-1 thru DP-39 • 1-10-1 thru HO-14 • ED-1 thru ED-15 • TR-1 thru TR-24 • ENV-1 thru ENV10 • PS-1 thru PS-16 • EPF-1 thru EPF-5 Consistency was found among these policies. Policies DP-20 thru DP-29 pertain either to South Snohomish County (MUGA) or rural areas. These do not have direct application to Arlington. C- 1 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C Vision 2040 Multi-County Planning Policies MPP-G-1 Coordinate planning efforts among jurisdictions, agencies, and federally recognized Indian tribes where there are common borders or related regional issues, to facilitate a common vision. MPP-G-2 Update countywide planning policies, where necessary, prior to December 31, 2010, to address the multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040. MPP-G-3 Monitor implementation of VISION 2040 to evaluate progress in achieving the regional growth strategy, as well as the environment, development patterns, housing, economy, transportation, and public services provisions. FISCAL MPP-G-4 Explore new and existing sources of funding for services and infrastructure, recognizing that such funding is vital if local governments are to achieve the regional vision. MPP-G-5 Identify and develop changes to regulatory, pricing, taxing, and expenditure practices, and other fiscal tools within the region to implement the vision. ENVIRONMENT Environmental Stewardship Goal: The region will safeguard the natural environment by meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. MPP-En-1 Develop regionwide environmental strategies, coordinating among local jurisdictions and countywide planning groups. MPP-En-2 Use integrated and interdisciplinary approaches for environmental planning and assessment at regional, countywide and local levels. MPP-En-3 Maintain and, where possible, improve air and water quality, soils, and natural systems to ensure the health and well-being of people, animals, and plants. Reduce the impacts of transportation on air and water quality, and climate change. C- 1 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-En-4 Ensure that all residents of the region, regardless of social or economic status, live in a healthy environment, with minimal exposure to pollution. MPP-En-5 Locate development in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features. Promote the use of innovative environmentally sensitive development practices, including design, materials, construction, and on-going maintenance. MPP-En-6 Use the best information available at all levels of planning, especially scientific information, when establishing and implementing environmental standards established by any level of government. MPP-En-7 Mitigate noise caused by traffic, industries, and other sources. EARTH AND HABITAT Goal: The region will preserve the beauty and natural ecological processes of the Puget Sound basin through the conservation and enhancement of natural resources and the environment. MPP-En-8 Identify, preserve, and enhance significant regional open space networks and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries. MPP-En-9 Designate, protect, and enhance significant open spaces, natural resources, and critical areas through mechanisms, such as the review and comment of countywide planning policies and local plans and provisions. MPP-En-10 Preserve and enhance habitat to prevent species from inclusion on the Endangered Species List and to accelerate their removal from the list. MPP-En-11 Identify and protect wildlife corridors both inside and outside the urban growth area. MPP-En-12 Preserve and restore native vegetation to protect habitat, especially where it contributes to the overall ecological function and where invasive species are a significant threat to native ecosystems. Water Quality Goal: The region will meet or do better than standards established for water quality. The quality of the water flowing out of the region — including Puget C-2 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C Sound — should be as good as or better than the quality of water entering the region. MPP-En-13 Maintain natural hydrological functions within the region's ecosystems and watersheds and, where feasible, restore them to a more natural state. MPP-En-14 Restore — where appropriate and possible — the region's freshwater and marine shorelines, watersheds, and estuaries to a natural condition for ecological function and value. MPP-En-15 Reduce the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers to the extent feasible and identify alternatives that minimize risks to human health and the environment. MPP-En-16 Identify and address the impacts of climate change on the region's hydrological systems. Air Quality Goal: The overall quality of the region's air will be better than it is today. MPP-En-17 Maintain or do better than existing standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates. MPP-En-18 Reduce levels for air toxics, fine particulates, and greenhouse gases. MPP-En-19 Continue efforts to reduce pollutants from transportation activities, including through the use of cleaner fuels and vehicles and increasing alternatives to driving alone, as well as design and land use. Climate Change Goal: The region will reduce its overall production of harmful elements that contribute to climate change. MPP-En-20 Address the central Puget Sound region's contribution to climate change by, at a minimum, committing to comply with state initiatives and directives regarding climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases. Jurisdictions and agencies should work to include an analysis of climate change impacts when conducting an environmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act. C-3 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-En-21 Reduce the rate of energy use per capita, both in building use and in transportation activities. MPP-En-22 Pursue the development of energy management technology as part of meeting the region's energy needs. MPP-En-23 Reduce greenhouse gases by expanding the use of conservation and alternative energy sources and by reducing vehicle miles traveled by increasing alternatives to driving alone. MPP-En-24 Take positive actions to reduce carbons, such as increasing the number of trees in urban portions of the region. MPP-En-25 Anticipate and address the impacts of climate change on regional water sources. DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Urban Lands Goal: The region will promote the efficient use of land, prevent urbanization of rural and resource lands, and provide for the efficient delivery of services within the designated urban growth area. MPP-DP-1 Provide a regional framework for the designation and adjustment of the urban growth area to ensure long-term stability and sustainability of the urban growth area consistent with the regional vision. MPP-DP-2 Encourage efficient use of urban land by maximizing the development potential of existing urban lands, such as advancing development that achieves zoned density. Goal: The region, countywide planning bodies, and local jurisdictions will work together to set population and employment growth targets consistent with the regional vision. MPP-DP-3 Use consistent countywide targeting processes for allocating population and employment growth consistent with the regional vision, including establishing: (a) local employment targets, (b) local housing targets based on population projections, and (c) local housing and employment targets for each designated regional growth center. C-4 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-DP-4 Accommodate the region's growth first and foremost in the urban growth area. Ensure that development in rural areas is consistent with the regional vision. Centers Goal: The region will direct growth and development to a limited number of designated regional growth centers. MPP-DP-5 Focus a significant share of population and employment growth in designated regional growth centers. MPP-DP-6 Provide a regional framework for designating and evaluating regional growth centers. MPP-DP-7 Give funding priority — both for transportation infrastructure and for economic development — to support designated regional growth centers consistent with the regional vision. Regional funds are prioritized to regional growth centers. County- level and local funding are also appropriate to prioritize to regional growth centers. Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Goal: The region will continue to maintain and support viable regional manufacturing/industrial centers to accommodate manufacturing, industrial, or advanced technology uses. MPP-DP-8 Focus a significant share of employment growth in designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers. MPP-DP-9 Provide a regional framework for designating and evaluating regional manufacturing/industrial centers. MPP-DP-10 Give funding priority — both for transportation infrastructure and for economic development — to support designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers consistent with the regional vision. Regional funds are prioritized to regional manufacturing/industrial centers. County-level and local funding are also appropriate to prioritize to these regional centers. C-5 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C Other Centers, Including Countywide and Local Centers Goal: Subregional centers, such as those designated through countywide processes or identified locally, will also play important roles in accommodating planned growth according to the regional vision. These centers will promote pedestrian connections and support transit-oriented uses. MPP-DP-11 Support the development of centers within all jurisdictions, including town centers and activity nodes. MPP-DP-12 Establish a common framework among the countywide processes for designating subregional centers to ensure compatibility within the region. MPP-DP-13 Direct subregional funding, especially county-level and local funds, to centers designated through countywide processes, as well as to town centers, and other activity nodes. Compact Urban Communities MPP-DP-14 Preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods and create vibrant, sustainable compact urban communities that provide diverse choices in housing types, a high degree of connectivity in the street network to accommodate walking, bicycling and transit use, and sufficient public spaces. MPP-DP-15 Support the transformation of key underutilized lands, such as brownfields and greyfields, to higher density, mixed-use areas to complement the development of centers and the enhancement of existing neighborhoods. Cities in Rural Areas MPP-DP-16 Direct commercial, retail, and community services that serve rural residents into neighboring cities and existing activity areas to prevent the conversion of rural land into commercial uses. MPP-DP-17 Promote transit service to and from existing cities in rural areas. Unincorporated Urban Growth Area Goal: All unincorporated lands within the urban growth area will either annex into existing cities or incorporate as new cities. C-6 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-DP-18 Affiliate all urban unincorporated lands appropriate for annexation with an adjacent city or identify those that may be feasible for incorporation. To fulfill the regional growth strategy, annexation is preferred over incorporation. MPP-DP-19 Support joint planning between cities and counties to work cooperatively in planning for urban unincorporated areas to ensure an orderly transition to city governance, including efforts such as: (a) establishing urban development standards, (b) addressing service and infrastructure financing, and (c) transferring permitting authority. MPP-DP-20 Support the provision and coordination of urban services to unincorporated urban areas by the adjacent city or, where appropriate, by the county as an interim approach. Rural Lands Goal: The region will permanently sustain the ecological functions, resource value, lifestyle, and character of rural lands for future generations by limiting the types and intensities of development in rural areas. MPP-DP-21 Contribute to improved ecological functions and more appropriate use of rural lands by minimizing impacts through innovative and environmentally sensitive land use management and development practices. MPP-DP-22 Do not allow urban net densities in rural and resource areas. MPP-DP-23 Avoid new fully contained communities outside of the designated urban growth area because of their potential to create sprawl and undermine state and regional growth management goals. MPP-DP-24 In the event that a proposal is made for creating a new fully contained community, the county shall make the proposal available to other counties and to the Regional Council for advance review and comment on regional impacts. MPP-DP-25 Use existing and new tools and strategies to address vested development to ensure that future growth meets existing permitting and development standards and prevents further fragmentation of rural lands. MPP-DP-26 Ensure that development occurring in rural areas is rural in character and is focused into communities and activity areas. C-7 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-DP-27 Maintain the long-term viability of permanent rural land by avoiding the construction of new highways and major roads in rural areas. MPP-DP-28 Support long-term solutions for the environmental and economic sustainability of agriculture and forestry within rural areas. Resource Lands Goal: The region will conserve its natural resource land permanently by designating, maintaining, and enhancing farm, forest, and mineral lands. MPP-DP-29 Protect and enhance significant open spaces, natural resources, and critical areas. MPP-DP-30 Establish best management practices that protect the long-term integrity of the natural environment, adjacent land uses, and the long-term productivity of resource lands. MPP-DP-31 Support the sustainability of designated resource lands. Do not convert these lands to other uses. MPP-DP-32 Ensure that resource lands and their related economic activities are not adversely impacted by development on adjacent non-resource lands. Elements of Orderly Development and Design Regional Design Goal: The region will use design to shape the physical environment in order to create more livable communities, better integrate land use and transportation systems, and improve efforts to restore the environment. MPP-DP-33 Identify, protect and enhance those elements and characteristics that give the central Puget Sound region its identity, especially the natural visual resources and positive urban form elements. MPP-DP-34 Preserve significant regional historic, visual and cultural resources including public views, landmarks, archaeological sites, historic and cultural landscapes, and areas of special character. MPP-DP-35 Develop high quality, compact urban communities throughout the region's urban growth area that impart a sense of place, preserve local character, provide for C-8 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. MPP-DP-36 Provide a wide range of building and community types to serve the needs of a diverse population. MPP-DP-37 Support urban design, historic preservation, and arts to enhance quality of life, improve the natural and human-made environments, promote health and well- being, contribute to a prosperous economy, and increase the region's resiliency in adapting to changes or adverse events. MPP-DP-38 Design public buildings and spaces that contribute to a sense of community and a sense of place. MPP-DP-39 Identify and create opportunities to develop parks, civic places and public spaces, especially in or adjacent to centers. MPP-DP-40 Design transportation projects and other infrastructure to achieve community development objectives and improve communities. MPP-DP-41 Allow natural boundaries to help determine the routes and placement of infrastructure connections and improvements. MPP-DP-42 Recognize and work with linear systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries — including natural systems, continuous land use patterns, and transportation and infrastructure systems— in community planning, development, and design. The Built Environment and Health Goal: The region's communities will be planned and designed to promote physical, social, and mental well-being so that all people can live healthier and more active lives. MPP-DP-43 Design communities to provide an improved environment for walking and bicycling. MPP-DP-44 Incorporate provisions addressing health and well-being into appropriate regional, countywide, and local planning and decision-making processes. MPP-DP-45 Promote cooperation and coordination among transportation providers, local government, and developers to ensure that joint- and mixed-use developments C-9 JULY2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C are designed to promote and improve physical, mental, and social health and reduce the impacts of climate change on the natural and built environments. MPP-DP-46 Develop and implement design guidelines to encourage construction of healthy buildings and facilities to promote healthy people. MPP-DP-47 Support agricultural, farmland, and aquatic uses that enhance the food system in the central Puget Sound region and its capacity to produce fresh and minimally processed foods. Innovative Techniques MPP-DP-48 Encourage the use of innovative techniques, including the transfer of development rights, the purchase of development rights, and conservation incentives. Use these techniques to focus growth within the urban growth area (especially cities) to lessen pressures to convert rural and resource areas to more intense urban-type development, while protecting the future economic viability of sending areas and sustaining rural and resource-based uses. MPP-DP-49 Support and provide incentives to increase the percentage of new development and redevelopment — both public and private — to be built at higher performing energy and environmental standards. MPP-DP-50 Streamline development standards and regulations for residential and commercial development, especially in centers, to provide flexibility and to accommodate a broader range of project types consistent with the regional vision. Incompatible Land Uses MPP-DP-51 Protect the continued operation of general aviation airports from encroachment by incompatible uses and development on adjacent land. MPP-DP-52 Protect military lands from encroachment by incompatible uses and development on adjacent land. MPP-DP-53 Protect industrial lands from encroachment by incompatible uses and development on adjacent land. C- 10 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C Concurrency MPP-DP-54 Develop concurrency programs and methods that fully consider growth targets, service needs, and level-of-service standards. Focus level-of-service standards for transportation on the movement of people and goods instead of only on the movement of vehicles. MPP-DP-55 Address nonmotorized, pedestrian, and other multimodal types of transportation options in concurrency programs— both in assessment and mitigation. MPP-DP-56 Tailor concurrency programs for centers and other subareas to encourage development that can be supported by transit. HOUSING Housing diversity and affordability MPP-H-1 Provide a range of housing types and choices to meet the housing needs of all income levels and demographic groups within the region. MPP-H-2 Achieve and sustain — through preservation, rehabilitation, and new development — a sufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of low-income, moderate- income, middle-income, and special needs individuals and households that is equitably and rationally distributed throughout the region. MPP-H-3 Promote homeownership opportunities for low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income families and individuals. Jobs-housing balance MPP-H-4 Develop and provide a range of housing choices for workers at all income levels throughout the region in a manner that promotes accessibility to jobs and provides opportunities to live in proximity to work. Centers housing MPP-H-5 Expand the supply and range of housing, including affordable units, in centers throughout the region. MPP-H-6 Recognize and give regional funding priority to transportation facilities, infrastructure, and services that explicitly advance the development of housing in C- 11 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C designated regional growth centers. Give additional priority to projects and services that advance affordable housing. Best housing practices MPP-H-7 Encourage jurisdictions to review and streamline development standards and regulations to advance their public benefit, provide flexibility, and minimize additional costs to housing. MPP-H-8 Encourage the use of innovative techniques to provide a broader range of housing types for all income levels and housing needs. MPP-H-9 Encourage interjurisdictional cooperative efforts and public-private partnerships to advance the provision of affordable and special needs housing. ECONOMY Business Goal: The region's economy prospers by supporting businesses and job creation. MPP-Ec-1 Support economic development activities that help to retain, expand, or diversify the region's businesses. Target recruitment activities towards businesses that provide family-wage jobs. MPP-Ec-2 Foster a positive business climate by encouraging regionwide and statewide collaboration among business, government, education, labor, military, workforce development, and other nonprofit organizations. MPP-Ec-3 Support established and emerging industry clusters that export goods and services, import capital, and have growth potential. MPP-Ec-4 Leverage the region's position as an international gateway by supporting businesses, ports, and agencies involved in trade-related activities. MPP-Ec-5 Foster a supportive environment for business startups, small businesses, and locally owned businesses to help them continue to prosper. MPP-Ec-6 Ensure the efficient flow of people, goods, services, and information in and through the region with infrastructure investments, particularly in and connecting designated centers, to meet the distinctive needs of the regional economy. C- 12 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-Ec-7 Encourage the private, public, and nonprofit sectors to incorporate environmental and social responsibility into their practices. PEOPLE Goal: The region's economy prospers by investing in all of its people. MPP-Ec-8 Promote economic activity and employment growth that creates widely shared prosperity and sustains a diversity of family-wage jobs for the region's residents. MPP-Ec-9 Ensure that the region has a high quality education system that is accessible to all of the region's residents. MPP-Ec-10 Ensure that the region has high quality and accessible training programs that give people opportunities to learn, maintain, and upgrade skills necessary to meet the current and forecast needs of the regional and global economy. MPP-Ec-11 Address unique obstacles and special needs — as well as recognize the special assets — of disadvantaged populations in improving the region's shared economic future. MPP-Ec-12 Foster appropriate and targeted economic growth in distressed areas to create economic opportunity for residents of these areas. MPP-Ec-13 Support the contributions of the region's culturally and ethnically diverse communities in helping the region continue to expand its international economy. MPP-Ec-14 Sustain and enhance arts and cultural institutions to foster an active and vibrant community life in every part of the region. PLACES Goal: The region's economy prospers through the creation of great central places, diverse communities, and high quality of life that integrates transportation, the economy, and the environment. MPP-Ec-15 Ensure that economic development sustains and respects the region's environmental quality. MPP-Ec-16 Utilize urban design strategies and approaches to ensure that changes to the built environment preserve and enhance the region's unique attributes and each C- 13 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C community's distinctive identity in recognition of the economic value of sense of place. MPP-Ec-17 Use incentives and investments to create a closer balance between jobs and housing, consistent with the regional growth strategy. MPP-Ec-18 Concentrate a significant amount of economic growth in designated centers and connect them to each other in order to strengthen the region's economy and communities and to promote economic opportunity. MPP-Ec-19 Maximize the use of existing designated manufacturing and industrial centers by focusing appropriate types and amounts of employment growth in these areas and by protecting them from incompatible adjacent uses. MPP-Ec-20 Provide an adequate supply of housing with good access to employment centers to support job creation and economic growth. MPP-Ec-21 Recognize the need for employment in cities in the rural areas and promote compatible occupations (such as, but not limited to, tourism, cottage and home- based businesses, and local services) that do not conflict with rural character and resource-based land uses. MPP-Ec-22 Support economic activity in rural and natural resource areas at a size and scale that is compatible with the long-term integrity and productivity of these lands. TRANSPORTATION Maintenance, Management, and Safety Goal: As a high priority, the region will maintain, preserve, and operate its existing transportation system in a safe and usable state. MPP-T-1 Maintain and operate transportation systems to provide safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people, goods, and services. MPP-T-2 Protect the investment in the existing system and lower overall life-cycle costs through effective maintenance and preservation programs. MPP-T-3 Reduce the need for new capital improvements through investments in operations, pricing programs, demand management strategies, and system management activities that improve the efficiency of the current system. C- 14 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-T-4 Improve safety of the transportation system and, in the long term, achieve the state's goal of zero deaths and disabling injuries. Sustainable Transportation MPP-T-5 Foster a less polluting system that reduces the negative effects of transportation infrastructure and operation on the climate and natural environment. MPP-T-6 Seek the development and implementation of transportation modes and technologies that are energy-efficient and improve system performance. MPP-T-7 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human health. MPP-T-8 Protect the transportation system against disaster, develop prevention and recovery strategies, and plan for coordinated responses. Supporting the Growth Strategy Goal: The future transportation system will support the regional growth strategy by focusing on connecting centers with a highly efficient multimodal transportation network. Coordination MPP-T-9 Coordinate state, regional, and local planning efforts for transportation through the Puget Sound Regional Council to develop and operate a highly efficient, multimodal system that supports the regional growth strategy. MPP-T-10 Promote coordination among transportation providers and local governments to ensure that joint- and mixed-use developments are designed in a way that improves overall mobility and accessibility to and within such development. Centers and Compact Communities MPP-T-11 Prioritize investments in transportation facilities and services in the urban growth area that support compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented densities and development. MPP-T-12 Give regional funding priority to transportation improvements that serve regional growth centers and regional manufacturing and industrial centers. C- 15 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-T-13 Make transportation investments that improve economic and living conditions so that industries and skilled workers continue to be retained and attracted to the region. MPP-T-14 Design, construct, and operate transportation facilities to serve all users safely and conveniently, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, while accommodating the movement of freight and goods, as suitable to each facility's function and context as determined by the appropriate jurisdictions. MPP-T-15 Improve local street patterns — including their design and how they are used —for walking, bicycling, and transit use to enhance communities, connectivity, and physical activity. MPP-T-16 Promote and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian travel as important modes of transportation by providing facilities and reliable connections. Freight MPP-T-17 Ensure the freight system meets the needs of: (1) global gateways, (2) producer needs within the state and region, and (3) regional and local distribution. MPP-T-18 Maintain and improve the existing multimodal freight transportation system in the region to increase reliability and efficiency and to prevent degradation of freight mobility. MPP-T-19 Coordinate regional planning with railroad capacity expansion plans and support capacity expansion that is compatible with state, regional, and local plans. Context and Design MPP-T-20 Design transportation facilities to fit within the context of the built or natural environments in which they are located. MPP-T-21 Apply urban design principles in transportation programs and projects for regional growth centers and high-capacity transit station areas. MPP-T-22 Implement transportation programs and projects in ways that prevent or minimize negative impacts to low-income, minority, and special needs populations. C- 16 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C Greater Options and Mobility Goal: The region will invest in transportation systems that offer greater options, mobility, and access in support of the regional growth strategy. MPP-T-23 Emphasize transportation investments that provide and encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel and increase travel options, especially to and within centers and along corridors connecting centers. MPP-T-24 Increase the proportion of trips made by transportation modes that are alternatives to driving alone. MPP-T-25 Ensure mobility choices for people with special transportation needs, including persons with disabilities, the elderly, the young, and low-income populations. MPP-T-26 Strategically expand capacity and increase efficiency of the transportation system to move goods, services, and people to and within the urban growth area. Focus on investments that produce the greatest net benefits to people and minimize the environmental impacts of transportation. MPP-T-27 Improve key facilities connecting the region to national and world markets to support the economic vitality of the region. MPP-T-28 Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in rural and resource areas. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and efficient travel through rural areas, appropriate rural development regulations and strong commitments to access management should be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to prevent unplanned growth in rural areas. MPP-T-29 Promote the preservation of existing rights-of-way for future high-capacity transit. MPP-T-30 Encourage public and private sector partnerships to identify and implement improvements to personal mobility and freight movement. MPP-T-31 Support effective management of existing air transportation capacity and ensure that future capacity needs are addressed in cooperation with responsible agencies, affected communities, and users. MPP-T-32 Integrate transportation systems to make it easy for people and freight to move from one mode or technology to another. C- 17 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C MPP-T-33 Promote transportation financing methods, such as user fees, tolls, and pricing, that sustain maintenance, preservation, and operation of facilities and reflect the costs imposed by users. PUBLIC SERVICES Services in General MPP-PS-1 Protect and enhance the environment and public health and safety when providing services and facilities. MPP-PS-2 Time and phase services and facilities to guide growth and development in a manner that supports the regional vision. MPP-PS-3 Promote demand management and the conservation of services and facilities prior to developing new facilities. MPP-PS-4 Do not provide urban services in rural areas. Design services for limited access when they are needed to solve isolated health and sanitation problems, so as not to increase the development potential of the surrounding rural area. MPP-PS-5 Encourage the design of public facilities and utilities in rural areas to be at a size and scale appropriate to rural locations, so as not to increase development pressure. MPP-PS-6 Obtain urban services from cities or appropriate regional service providers, and encourage special service districts, including sewer, water, and fire districts, to consolidate or dissolve as a result. Services by Type MPP-PS-7 Develop conservation measures to reduce solid waste and increase recycling. MPP-PS-8 Promote improved conservation and more efficient use of water, as well as the increased use of reclaimed water, to reduce wastewater generation and ensure water availability. MPP-PS-9 Serve new development within the urban growth area with sanitary sewer systems or fit it with dry sewers in anticipation of connection to the sewer system. Alternative technology to sewers should only be considered when it can be C- 18 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C shown to produce treatment at standards that are equal to or better than the sewer system and where a long-term maintenance plan is in place. MPP-PS-10 Replace failing septic systems within the urban growth area with sanitary sewers or alternative technology that is comparable or better. MPP-PS-11 Use innovative and state-of-the-art design and techniques when replacing septic tanks to restore and improve environmental quality. MPP-PS-12 Promote the use of renewable energy resources to meet the region's energy needs. MPP-PS-13 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through conservation and alternative energy forms to extend the life of existing facilities and infrastructure. MPP-PS-14 Plan for the provision of telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and development in a manner that is consistent with the regional vision and friendly to the environment. MPP-PS-15 Coordinate, design, and plan for public safety services and programs. MPP-PS-16 Encourage health and human services facilities to locate near centers and transit for efficient accessibility to service delivery. Goal: Residents of the region will have access to high quality drinking water that meets or is better than federal and state requirements. MPP-PS-17 Identify and develop additional water supply sources to meet the region's long- term water needs, recognizing the potential impacts on water supply from climate change and fisheries protection. MPP-PS-18 Promote coordination among local and tribal governments and water providers and suppliers to meet long-term water needs in the region in a manner that supports the region's growth strategy. MPP-PS-19 Reduce the per capita rate of water consumption through conservation, efficiency, reclamation, and reuse. MPP-PS-20 Protect the source of the water supply to meet the needs for both human consumption and for environmental balance. C- 19 JULY 2017 Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix C Siting Facilities MPP-PS-21 Site schools, institutions, and other community facilities that primarily serve urban populations within the urban growth area in locations where they will promote the local desired growth plans. MPP-PS-22 Locate schools, institutions, and other community facilities serving rural residents in neighboring cities and towns and design these facilities in keeping with the size and scale of the local community. MPP-PS-23 Site or expand regional capital facilities in a manner that (1) reduces adverse social, environmental, and economic impacts on the host community, (2) equitably balances the location of new facilities, and (3) addresses regional planning objectives. MPP-PS-24 Do not locate regional capital facilities outside the urban growth area unless it is demonstrated that a non-urban site is the most appropriate location for such a facility. C-20 JULY 2017 Appendix E : Natural Environment City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Natural Environment Air Quality Three agencies have jurisdiction over the ambient air quality in the Puget Sound area: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). These agencies establish regulations that govern both the allowable concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air (i.e., ambient air) and allowable contaminant emissions from air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in terms of stringency, each agency has established its own standards. Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent standards, the EPA standards apply. Table E-1: National and State of Washington Ambient Air Quality Standards National (EPA) Table E-1 lists the national ambient air Washington quality standards (NAAQS) as adopted by Pollutant Primary Secondary State EPA and Ecology. The NAAQS consist of Carbon Monoxide primary standards designed to protect 8-hour average 9 ppm 9 ppm 9 ppm public health and secondary standards designed to protect public welfare (e.g., 1-hour average 35 ppm 35 ppm 35 ppm preventing air pollution damage to Particulate Matter vegetation). The more stringent PM10 secondary standards are used to regulate Annual average 50 pg/m3 50 tag/m3 50 pg/m3 air quality. 24-hour average 150 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 PM2.5 Notes: • Annual standards never to be exceed- Annual average 15 pg/m3 15 pg/m3 15 pg/m3 ed. Short-term standards not to be ex- 24-hour average 65 pg/m3 65 pg/m3 65 pg/m3 ceeded more than once per year unless Lead noted. Quarterly aver- . ppm = parts per million age 1.5 pg/m3 1.5 pg/m3 1.5 pg/m3 . PM10 = particles 10 microns or less in Sulfur Dioxide size Annual average 0.03 ppm No standard 0.02 ppm . PM2.5 = particles 2.5 microns or less in 24-hour average 0.14 ppm No standard 0.10 ppm size 3-hour average No standard 0.50 ppm No standard • p9/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1-hour average No standard No standard 0.40 ppma • a = 0.25 ppm not to be exceeded more Ozone than two times in 7 consecutive days. 8-hour averageb 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm • b = Not to be exceeded on more than 1 Nitrogen Dioxide day per calendar year as determined under the conditions indicated in Chap- Annual average 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm ter 173-475 WAC. E- 1 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Ecology and PSCAA operate ambient air quality monitors throughout the Puget Sound region. Most of the monitors have intentionally been placed at locations most likely to experience degraded air quality (e.g., near industrial facilities or at heavily-congested downtown areas). A few monitors have been operated in outlying areas to measure ambient concentrations in typical suburban or rural settings where concentrations are acknowledged to be low. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) monitors air quality. The entire UGA falls just within the northeastern boundary of the Non-Attainment Area. According to that agency's available documents air quality in the Arlington area is generally good, though there are some localized concerns. Their data shows that the largest emission sources include U.S. Marine (boat building), Subert & Walker Pre- Finishing (wood kitchen cabinets), 23 gasoline stations, two auto body shops, and the airport and support industries. In addition, diesel combustion sources such as school buses, trucks and heavy equipment appear to emit air toxics of the greatest risk for harming human health in the region. While no specific data exists for the immediate Arlington area, one can assume that air quality is better than in the areas that are monitored. The Puget Sound region has only had non-attainment days for three of the six major pollutants common to industrialized societies. These are: Carbon Monoxide(CO) Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas commonly formed when carbon-containing fuel is not completely burned. It chemically combines with the p�oa hemoglobin in the red blood cells to decrease the 50�0 oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. It also weakens the contractions of the heart, thus reducing the ' amount of blood pumped through the body. Additionally it can affect the functioning of the lungs rw,ss and brain. People with heart disease and pregnant women are particularly at risk. In the Puget Sound region, motor vehicles are the principal source of carbon monoxide. Highest levels occur mainly during Carbon Monoodd*^ autumn and winter months, and usually around 0 " ~a Asp congested transportation routes and other RionsnaimwnlAtea concentrations of motor vehicles (e.g., shopping centers). The monitor for CO is located in Everett near Broadway and Hewitt Avenue. Federal standards for CO (9 ppm averaged over 8 hours) have not been exceed since the 1989-90 monitoring year, when the standard was exceeded on two days. In 1991, the federal standard was exceeded on one occurrence (10.2 ppm); however, one exception is allowed under Federal policy. In 1992, there were no exceptions. Particulate Matter(PM90) Particulate Matter10 includes small (<_ 10 pm) particles of solid or aerosol particles of dust, soot, organic matter and compounds containing sulfur, nitrogen, and metals. Particulates enter the air directly from industrial operations, motor vehicles (automobiles, buses, and trucks), fuel combustion (woodstoves and fireplaces), construction, and other sources. Particulates measuring<_ 1 pm are especially associated with a variety of adverse effects on public health and welfare. The small particles can be breathed deeply into the lungs, producing injury by itself or in conjunction with gases. The elderly, those suffering from respiratory illness, and young children are especially prone to the deleterious effects of particulates. Soiling of buildings and other property, and reduced visibility are other results of high particulate matter levels. Ambient levels change daily due to variances in weather and activity level. PM10 is monitored in Marysville at the Junior High School. The Federal standard for PM10 is 150 pg/m3 for a 24-hour average and 50 pg/m3 for an annual arithmetic mean. The highest PM10 levels where measured in 1991, when the E-2 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E monitoring station registered 123 pg/m3 in a 24-hour period. In both 1992 and 1993 the level has hovered around 100 pg/m3. Ozone(03) Ozone is a pungent smelling, colorless gas produced in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds chemically react under the effect of strong sunlight. It is a pulmonary irritant that affects lung tissues and respiratory functions. Ozone impairs the normal function of the lung and, at concentration between 0.15 and 0.25 ppm, causes lung tightness, coughing, and wheezing. Other oxidants that often accompany ozone cause eye irritation. Persons with chronic respiratory problems, such as asthma, seem most sensitive to increases in ozone concentration. Ironically, ozone is beneficial when it occurs very high in the atmosphere, miles above the earth, where it protects us from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The highest levels are measured on hot days from mid-May to mid-September, and because of weather patterns the highest ozone values normally occur south to southeast of the major cities or source areas. There are no monitoring stations in Snohomish County; the closest are in Blaine and Beacon Hill (Seattle). In 1987 the Puget Sound Region attained the ozone standard (0.12 ppm/hour/3 year average), but in 1990 the region was once again out of compliance. In 1991 the region again fell below the standard. The Arlington area, however, is in compliance. Nevertheless, Arlington is in PSRC's designated "Ozone Maintenance Area." Attainment Status for Snohomish County Based on measured ambient air quality data from the agencies' network of air quality monitors, EPA and Ecology designate all portions of the state as either "attainment" or "nonattainment" with respect to the NAAQS standards. Areas designated as nonattainment have exceeded NAAQS standards for those pollutants. If, as is the case of most of Washington State, the measured concentrations in a nonattainment area improve so they are consistently below the NAAQS standards, Ecology and EPA can reclassify the nonattainment area to a "maintenance area." In that case, Ecology and the regional planning agencies are required to implement a "maintenance plan" to ensure ongoing emission reductions and continuous compliance with the NAAQS standards. Typical emission reduction requirements specified in maintenance plans include continuation of motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs that were originally established while the area was designated as nonattainment. In 1978, the central Puget Sound region (including much of Snohomish County) was classified as a nonattainment area by the EPA for CO and 03. In 1987, the industrial areas of the Seattle Duwamish River, Kent Valley, and Tacoma Tide flats were classified as nonattainment areas for PM10. None of those PM10 nonattainment areas affect Snohomish County. In 1996, having met the federal standards for several years, the region (including Snohomish County) was re-designated by the EPA as a maintenance area for CO and 03. As required by the EPA, the Puget Sound region has a maintenance plan for the CO and 03 maintenance areas. The EPA has approved all of these plans. Approval of the CO maintenance plan occurred on October 11, 1996; approval for the 03 maintenance plan occurred on November 25, 1996. The three previous PM10 nonattainment areas within the Puget Sound region (none were in affected Snohomish County)were also re-designated as maintenance areas. See the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) map of Designated Maintenance Areas for Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide, 03, and Particulate Matter at www.psrc.org/datapubs/maps/index.htm. The map shows the location of the maintenance area boundaries. Air Quality Permitting Requirements for Snohomish County This section describes air quality permitting requirements for proposed new public and private sector projects in the County. E-3 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Air Emission Sources Stationary air pollutant sources are regulated by either PSCAA or Ecology. New"minor sources" (facilities that emit less than 100 tons per year of any single listed air pollutant are required to apply for a Notice of Construction (NOC)air quality permit issued by PSCAA. The application for an NOC permit requires the facility to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce emissions, to conduct computer modeling to demonstrate that the facility's emissions will not cause ambient concentrations to exceed the NAAQS limits, and to minimize the impacts of odors and toxic air pollutants. New "major sources" (facilities that emit more than 100 tons per year of any single air pollutant) are required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit and an Air Operating Permit from Ecology. The requirements for a PSD permit are more stringent than for an NOC permit. Facilities with a PSD permit must comply with lower ambient air quality limits, and must demonstrate they will not cause visibility or acid deposition problems at national parks and wilderness areas in the region. Conformity Analyses for State or Federally Funded Transportation Projects Cars and trucks on public roads are the largest single source of emissions in Snohomish County and the Puget Sound region. However, until the early 1990s there were no air quality regulations applicable to public roadway projects. In 1990, EPA and the Washington legislature enacted new regulations requiring federally- or state-funded highway projects to evaluate their local and regional air quality impacts. Transportation projects proposed for construction within nonattainment areas or maintenance areas are subject to the Transportation Conformity regulations specified under federal regulations (40 CFR Part 93) and state regulations (Chapter 173-420 WAC). The permitting agency must demonstrate conformity by the following steps: • Confirm that the project is included in the regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). • Confirm that the regional emissions (including the proposed project) described in the TIP are within the allowable emission budget specified by Ecology. • Use an EPA-approved air quality dispersion model to assess CO concentrations at the most heavily congested intersections. Countywide and Puget Sound Regional Emissions Table E-2 lists estimated Countywide and regional air pollutant emissions from various source categories for the year 1996. The emission estimates demonstrate trends characteristic of the suburban and rural nature of the County. Cars and trucks on public roads are major sources of NOx and hydrocarbons, which are the precursors to regional 03 impacts. Industrial point sources might impact air quality adjacent to each facility, but overall they are relatively small contributors to emissions within the County. During the winter residential wood stoves and fireplaces are major contributors to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. E-4 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Table E-2: Air Pollutant Emissions in Snohomish County(tons per year) Category PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NOx VOC CO Architectural Surface Coating 0 0 0 0 926 0 Natural Biogenic Sources 0 0 0 487 22,892 0 Recreational Boats 65 65 13 154 1,576 4,719 Consumer/Commercial Solvents 01 0 01 0 2,1011 0 Prescribed Burning 325 299 4 99 173 2,770 Non-road Mobile 260 251 206 2,447 3,147 26,397 On-road Mobile 630 498 643 18,017 12,504117,593 Road Dust- Paved 1,977 184 0 0 0 0 Point Sources 89 80 5081 1,727 1,4091 738 Ships 101 98 738 1,900 163 11114 Soil Ammonia Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agricultural Tilling 311 63 0 0 0 0 Road Dust- Unpaved 880 132 0 0 0 0 Woodstoves and Fireplaces 2,409 2,332 361 2261 6,1081 17,946 Snohomish County Totals, tons per year 7,047 4,002 2,1481 25,057 50,999171,277 Puget Sound Regional Totals, tons per year 43,58323,63313,625134,553220,098943,924 Source: PSAPCA 1996 Biological Resources Wildlife The Arlington area supports moderate numbers of numerous species of fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects and other invertebrates, some of which are state and federal listed. Please refer to Table E-3: WDFW Region 4 Species of Concern (including Arlington) for a listing of all such species that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife knows of in Region 4, which includes Arlington, that are state endangered, state threatened, state sensitive, state candidate, or species of concern, as well as species listed or proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. This list does not include insects or mollusks. Most species on this list do not live in Arlington, and there is low probability of finding them here. However, some may have a relationship with the ecological functions affected by actions in Arlington, such as feeding on salmon from our local streams. Some sensitive species have been observed but are not on the DFW database, probably due to the historical lack of reporting of such species. Endangered species (listed under the Endangered Species Act), Threatened and other notable species that are known to exist in the UGA include: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)—(federal and state threatened) Formerly an Endangered Species, the Bald Eagle was removed from the ESA threatened list in 2007. It is still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act which does not create a land use restriction but prohibits posession or harm to it. Nests are known to exist at various locations on the main, south fork and north fork Stillaguamish. Several are found along the north shore of the Stillaguamish River near the Dike Road. The Department of Wildlife has developed Bald Eagle Site Management Guidelines for use when reviewing proposed E-5 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E development projects. Property owners are responsible for preparing and implementing a habitat and nest management plan when a project falls within a management area. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentis) — A federally listed threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, bull trout have been identified using Arlington's streams. These streams are identified on the Snohomish County ESA maps' as "presumed habitat." The presumed use would be only rearing or refuge, as Bull trout spawning is believed to occur in the upper reaches of the Stillaguamish watershed in the cooler headwater streams. Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) — Chinook are considered to use the Stillaguamish River, larger streams, side channels and riverine wetlands rather than the smaller streams traveling through Arlington. Therefore, the areas of town that lay alongside the main stem and south fork Stillaguamish River are considered areas of Chinook usage. The majority of Chinook spawning occurs in the upstream areas but there are normally occasional redds found in lower areas of the river. A majority of the juvenile population travel downriver during the spring high flows to spend time growing in the highly productive estuary. A small percentage (5-8%)of the juveniles are considered riverine and will over-winter to head for the estuary as a one-year old smolt. The current population of Chinook is around 1,400 annually returning adults'. Steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) — May 7, 2007 Puget Sound Steelhead were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Steelhead are considered to use the Stillaguamish River, larger streams, side channels and potentially the streams in Arlington's City Limits. National Marine Fisheries Service is beginning the development of a Steelhead Recovery Plan that will provide guidance to jurisdictions on how to participate in the recovery of the species. Steelhead are different that salmon in that they can return multiple times to spawn and move from freshwater to saltwater multiple times throughout their life span. Similar to bull trout due to physical ability and habits a steelhead may travel anywhere a coho salmon will travel. Table E-3: WDFW Region 4 Species of Concern (including Arlington) Common Name Status State Federal FOUND IN ARLINGTON Bald Eagle T T Bull Trout C T Chinook Salmon C T Steelhead T A SMALL CHANCE OF BEING FOUND IN ARLINGTON Harlequin Duck SC Larch Mountain Salamander C SC Northern Goshawk C SC Peregrine Falcon E SC Purple Martin C River Lamprey C SC Townsend's Big-Eared Bat C SC Western Pond Turtle E SC Western Toad C SC ' Based on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data. Z Technical Assessment and Recommendations for Chinook Salmon Recovery in the Stillaguamish Watershed, Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group, September 2000. E-6 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Common Name Status State Federal LITTLE TO NO CHANCE OF BEING FOUND IN ARLINGTON Black Rockfish C Bococcio Rockfish C Brant's Cormorant C Brown Rockfish C Canary Rockfish C China Rockfish C Columbia Spotted Frog C SC Common Loon S Common Murre C Copper Rockfish C Golden Eagle C Gray Whale S Gray Wolf E E Green Striped Rockfish C Grizzly Bear E T Lynx T T Marbled Murrelet T T Merlin C Olympic Mud Minnow S Orca Whale C Oregon Vesper Sparrow C SC Pacific Cod C Pacific Hake C Pacific Harbor Porpoise C Pacific Herring C Pileated Woodpecker C Pygmy Whitefish S Quillback Rockfish C Red Striped Rockfish C Roosting Concentrations of C M otis Bats Keen's Sandhill Crane E Spotted Owl E T Steller Sea Lion T T Streaked, Horned Lark C C Tiger Rockfish C Tufted Puffin C SC Vaux's Swift C Walleye Pollock C West Slope Cutthroat SC Widow Rockfish C Wolverine C SC Yellow Eye Rockfish C Yellow-Billed Cuckoo C C Yellowtail Rockfish C Key: E = Endangered, T= Threatened, C = Candidate, P = Proposed, S = Sensitive, SC = Species of Concern E-7 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Vegetation and Habitat Disturbance of ecological communities and division into isolated habitats are the major causes for the decline in animal and plant species. Conserving viable ecological habitats in an interconnected system is the most effective way of conserving vegetation and wildlife. Many habitats that are conserved for environmental or scenic reasons cannot survive division into small isolated land parcels. The concept of managing wildlife habitat on a regional scale is one of the precepts on which the Growth Management Act is based. The theory is that by concentrating growth within urbanized UGAs where significant habitat no longer exists or is difficult to maintain due to the effects of growth, large, regionally significant habitats and wildlife corridors would be protected by limiting development in the County. The City and UGA supports deciduous and coniferous trees (Douglas fir, spruce, hemlock, cedar, alder, cottonwood, and maple) as well as native shrubs, herbs, grasses, and wetland plants. Large and medium animals such as deer, coyotes, skunks, opossums, beaver, and bald eagles are still found occasionally within the City limits, but more frequently in some of the rural areas outside of the UGA. The riverine habitat and streams support seasonal and year-round fish and waterfowl. Even though many of the habitat areas had been greatly impacted by humans, many of our stream corridors (riparian areas) are healing through the maturing of past stream and wetland restoration projects. It is important to minimize further impacts, and review for potential impacts to wildlife and habitat is performed at the time of development permit application review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Critical Areas regulations are intended to protect wildlife and habitat. The Washington Department of Wildlife has identified fourteen priority habitat types, two of which are found in Arlington planning area. These are: Wetlands —Wetlands are fragile ecosystems that assist in the reduction of erosion, flooding, and ground and surface water pollution. Wetlands also provide an important habitat for wildlife, plants, and fisheries. Numerous wetlands have been identified in Arlington and the UGA— some on a very general basis from aerial mapping, some are shown by the soil survey of Snohomish County, and others have been precisely mapped where development has occurred over the past few years. The City also utilized the 1997 DOE Wetland Characterization of the Stillaguamish Watershed for inventory and ESA planning. Generally, as properties develop the wetlands are more accurately delineated and mapped. Review for potential impacts to wetlands is performed at the time of development permit application review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance protects wetlands and their buffers. Wetlands in the City of Arlington are protected because they are part of an important natural biological/flood prevention/water provision system that should not be irreversibly altered. Further, the wet soil severely limits structural development. Because of the specificity used in defining wetlands and the quality of available maps, site-specific evaluations performed at the time of project application are necessary for the evaluation of specific parcels per the Critical Areas Regulations. Arlington will continue to restore or re-create wetlands to mitigate for those that were lost during the early years of development. Urban Natural Open Space — Land within an urban or urbanizing area that supports a priority species, functions as a wildlife corridor, or is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 10 acres is considered an urban natural open space by the State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. There are a few such areas remaining in the City of Arlington or its UGA. Such areas would be appropriate for public purchase as natural parks or protected habitat. Care should be taken when development projects are proposed on such properties. Any areas determined to be wildlife corridors or habitat are subject to the City's Environmentally Critical Areas regulations. It is important to recognize that there are distinct differences between lands that have been identified as wildlife habitat open space and recreational open space. E-8 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Water Resources Ground Water Ground water is derived from precipitation and surface water filtering through the ground to aquifers. The ground where this filtering process takes place is called an aquifer recharge area. The quality of recharge areas and surface waters needs to be protected to ensure the quality of the ground water used in the immediate area, as well as the quality of water for users down gradient from the recharge zone. Ground water pollution is very difficult, often impossible to clean. One of the functions of wetlands is to recharge aquifers and purify the water running through them. Aquifer recharge areas can be found in areas other than wetlands. The surficial geologies made up of recessional outwash found in areas around Arlington provide excellent aquifer recharge and storage areas. (See Table E-4: Arlington Aquifers.) Most drinking water in the UGA is provided by Arlington. Some of this water is derived from wells (see Chapter 9 — Capital Facilities and Public Services Element, for a description of this system.) The Haller well supplies approximately 92%, while the airport well is 2%, and Snohomish County PUD provides 6%. Additionally, some residents use wells as their main source of drinking water. The aquifer for the City wells is found in the central portion of the UGA, mostly under the airport and adjacent to the Stillaguamish River at Haller Park (see Figure 2-1: Aquifer Recharge Area and City Wells). The depth of the shallow aquifer is approximately 50 feet; however the deep aquifer is 150 feet3 (the airport well is 150' and Haller wells are 35 —40' deep) and most uses should not affect the water quality if best management practices are used. The water quality is good if not overdrawn (whereupon iron may become a problem) and for most of the year would not require chlorination were it not a state requirement to retain mandatory residual chlorine levels. Review for potential groundwater contamination is performed at the time of development permit application review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Critical Areas regulations protect wetlands and aquifer recharge zones providing groundwater replenishment and filtration. And the WCP has a watershed and wellhead protection plan. For a description of groundwater resources at the County level, please refer to the Final EIS for Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update'. Surface Water Rivers, streams, lakes, and other surface waters may be important means of transportation or valuable environmental, recreational, and/or scenic areas. The quality of water is important to the entire area's habitat value. Reduction in water quality will not only reduce the environmental and recreational value of the area, but it may also threaten the groundwater that is connected to the surface water system. (See Table E-5: Arlington Streams and Table E-6: Arlington Wetlands.) The most important body of surface water in the UGA is the Stillaguamish River. It is an important regional habitat for various piscine, mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, and avian fauna and aquatic flora. The Stillaguamish River and its conditions are directly linked to the upland uses that modify the historic hydrological cycles. The river is also very important to the economic vitality of the City through the associated outdoor recreation activities. The river is used by boaters and fisherman throughout the year who utilize the entire Stillaguamish Valley, with Arlington being a key hub for those activities. Other important bodies of water in the area include: Portage Creek, Prairie Creek, Kruger Creek, Quilceda Creek, Eagle Creek, and March Creek (See Figure 2-16: Major Water Bodies and Drainage Basins). There are also bodies of water outside of the UGA but with which the City is concerned as land 3The Ground-Water System and Ground-Water Quality in Western Snohomish County, Washington; U.S. Geological Survey-Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4312. 4 Still being developed at the time of writing of this document. E-9 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E uses in their vicinity may have impacts on the UGA. These include upstream and downstream reaches of the tributaries listed above and their associated drainage basins and wetlands. There are also numerous perennial and seasonal wetlands in the UGA (whose importance is discussed above under "Wetlands"). As with the Stillaguamish River, all of these waterways provide important social, economic, and natural functions that contribute to a healthy living environment and high quality of life. Such water systems can be delineated into drainage basins. The Arlington UGA encompasses four major sub-basins: the Portage Creek sub-basin, the Quilceda Creek sub-basin, the Eagle Creek sub-basin, and the March Creek sub-basin. These are in turn comprised of many minor basins. For instance, emptying into the Portage sub-basin are the Prairie Creek and Kruger Creek sub-basins. The Edgecomb Creek sub-basin drains in to the Quilceda Creek sub-basin of the Snohomish river system. A small tributary locally referred to as Indian Creek drains in to the Eagle creek sub-basin. The remnant portions of March creek that remain exist outside of the UGA down in the Stillaguamish floodplain. The approximate boundaries of these drainage basins are also shown in Figure 2-20: Floodways & Floodplains. All waters within the UGA eventually drain into Puget Sound, either draining directly into the Stillaguamish River or via Quilceda Creek then into the Snohomish River Estuary. In Arlington the surface water quality and quantity of riverine and riparian habitats are in a state of recovery. Nevertheless, it is obviously of paramount importance that the river and other waterways be protected and managed to improve listed species population status and recover their functionality. Any development must be designed to minimize impacts to the quality and quantity of the water or in-stream aquatic habitats. This includes preservation of the land that constitutes the waterways themselves and their associated buffers, and management of the quality of the water that enters them. Future development must consider point source discharges, non-point source discharges, and soil erosion, as well as development that reduces the instream habitat or changes the flow of the water in ways which damage the viability of the ecological system. Regulatory Environment There are a number of established laws with which the City of Arlington must comply when making land use decisions that could influence surface water resources. Table E-7: Federal and State Laws and City of Arlington Codes Affecting Land Use Decision Making Regarding Surface Water Resources identifies some of these laws and describes consistency requirements. Table E-4: Arlington Aquifers 00 CO c N w a� L O L V Q c0 CO U N L +J oU E c ¢ _r_ O Q N E Q cn iL m a� U) Q J lluvial Northfork Trafton upstream to Darrington out N/A pub acres Stillaguamish ashon out N/A pub acres Recessional Outwash Bryant ashon in A/I pub acres Recessional Outwash Marysville rough (Airport Aquifer) ashon out N/A pub acres Recessional Outwash Arlington E-10 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Heights ashon Advance out N/A pub acres Outwash Bryant ashon Advance out N/A pub acres Outwash Getchell TOTAL nacres E-11 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Table E-5: Arlington Streams a a) a) L C: L C L f � it U LL M CZ L LL L o G C = m y.., �'�"� LL (0 C a) C Q c ii U Portage Creek 186th -204th in pvt Yes Yes 2 8,OOOIin ft PF PF PF R yes Portage Creek 204th - Highway 9 in Kent Prairie bothYes Yes 2 1,8001in ft PF R R R yes Portage Creek Highway 9 -Sweetwater in A/I, Arl Bluf pvt Yes Yes 2 3,OOOIin ft PF PF PF R no Portage Creek Sweetwater- Rivercrest in Arl Bluff pvt Yes Yes 2 1,2001in ft PF PF PF R no Portage Creek Rivercrest- City Boundary in Arl Bluff pub Yes Yes 2 2,OOOIin ft PF PF PF R es Praire Creek west Deones - 172nd in Hilltop pvt 1,4001in ft NPNPNP R no Praire Creek west 172nd -Jensen Bus. Park in Hilltop, A/I pvt YesYes/no 2 12,OOOIin ft ARARNPAR both Praire Creek west Jensen Bus. Park- Newell Machine in A/I pub Yes Yes 2 2,4001in ft ARPF PF R yes Praire Creek west Newell Machince - Confluence w/Portagein A/I pvt Yes Yes 2 1,8001in ft ARARARAR no Praire Creek east 172nd - Crown Ridge Blvd in Hilltop pvt Yes 2/3 2,OOOIin ft ARAR ? AR Praire Creek east Crownridge Blvd - Highway 9 east in Hilltop pub Yes No 3 2,OOOIin ft ARPFNP R no Praire Creek east Highway 9 west-AVL confluence in Hilltop, A/I bothYes Yes 2 2,7001in ft ARNPNP R no Kruger Creek Alternacare - Portage street in Kent Prairie bothYes Yes 2 1,OOOIin ft ARARPF R no Kruger Creek Portage Street- 79th Ave NE in Kent Prairie pvt Yes Yes 2 1,4001in ft ARNPPF R yes Kruger Creek 79th Ave NE - Confluence w/Portage in Kent Prairie pub Yes Yes 2 1,4001in ft PF PF PF R yes Eagle Creek Brekhus/Beach addition in Burn Hill, pvt YesYes/no 2 21,8001in ft ARARNPAR no Southfork Eagle Creek Graafstra in Southfork, OT pvt Yes Yes 2 6,2001in ft ARNPARAR no Edgecomb Creek Deones addition east tributary in Hilltop pvt no no 4 1,9001in ft NPNPNPNP no Edgecomb Creek Deones addition west tributary in Hilltop pvt Yes Yes 2 3,OOOIin ft ARARARAR no Edgecomb Creek Arlington Square- Copart east in SP/SR531 pvt Yes Yes 2 4,5001in ft NPNPNPNP both Shoultes Tributary Copart west in SP/SR531 pvt Yes Yes 3 6501in ft NPNPNPNP yes Smokey Point Country Manor in SP/SR531 Yes 3 2,9001in ft Tributary NPINPI NP Stillaguamish, Graafstra - Centennial trail in Old Town bothYes Yes 1 2,8001in ft Southfork NPNPPFNP no Stillaguamish, Centennial trail - Haller park in Old Town bothYes Yes 1 3501in ft Mainstem NPNPPFNP no Stillaguamish, outN/A all lin ft Northfork x x x Eagle creek outN/A lin ft x x x x x E-12 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Edgecomb outN/A lin ft x x I x x x Kruger Creek outN/A lin ft x x x March Creek outN/A lin ft x x x Portage Creek outN/A lin ft x x x x x Prairie Creek outN/A lin ft x x x TOTAL 88,2001in ft Table E-6: Arlington Wetlands U) CR N _ N L L U L U O (6 fB p Q C (6 (0 (6 U L 0' � a- L O (D �, O = m O O w i- cIL D Ev (D a�i U Mn Q U) U- U Portage Creek High School Mitigation Wetlands in pub No Good 3.Oacres PF yes Portage Creek Crown Ridge stair Climb in pub Good 8.1acres PF AR yes Portage Creek Hecla in pvt Yes Good 2 4.3acres PF AR AR AR no Portage Creek Pioneer Ponds in pvt Yes Good 2 2.Oacres AR PF PF AR no Portage Creek Klein farm in bothYes Good 2 173.2acres NP AR PF AR yes Prairie Creek Chilelli - Magnolia Meadows-Gleneagle in pvt Yes Good 2/3 18.0acres NP NP AR AR no Prairie Creek Arlington Valley Land EPA wetland in both No Good 7.5acres PF yes Prairie Creek Anderson Hunter in pvt 2 5.3acres AR AR AR AR no Prairie Creek Jensen Bus. Park created wetland in pub Yes 2 1.0acres PF PF PF AR yes Kruger Creek Wallace Ponds in pvt Yes 2 12.1acres AR ARIPFIARI no Eagle Creek Beach floodplain property in pvt Yes 2 84.4acres NP NP AR AR no Eagle Creek Post Middle School Clay Cliff Ponds in pub Yes 2 50.Oacres PF PF PF PF no Eagle Creek Graafstra in pvt Yes 2 97.Oacres NP NP AR AR no Edgecomb Creek Incline-Attonement Lutheran-Arl. Squarein pvt 2.Oacres AR AR no Edgecomb Creek Crown Distributing land in pvt Yes 2 29.Oacres NP NP NP NP both Shoultes Tributary Copart west in pvt No 8.Oacres AR AR yes Smokey Point Crown Manor in 2/3 acres Tributary NP NP Portage/upstream Wetland# 1247 per DOE Inventory out N/A pvt 28.7acres Portage/upstream Wetland# 1561 per DOE inventory out N/A pvt Yes Yes 26.5acres AR PF AR AR E-13 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Portage/downstreamWetland # 1051 per DOE inventory out N/A pvt Yes Yes 140acres NP NP AR AR No Prairie/upstream Wetland# 1144 per DOE inventory out N/A pvt Yes 8.3acres PF PF AR AR March/downstream Valley Gem Farms out N/A pvt 70.8acres NP NP NP No TOTAL 779.2acres Type or Class subject to change as identified by most recent delineation and wetland assessment. E-14 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Table E-7: Federal and State Laws and City of Arlington Codes Affecting Land Use Decision Making Regarding Surface Water Resources Law or Policy Jurisdiction Effect on Comprehensive Plan Land Use Decisions Growth Manage- State Reduce sprawl by concentrating development within urban growth ment Act boundaries; protect natural resource within boundaries to extent feasible by requiring the designation and protection of open spac- es and critical areas. Shoreline State Requires incorporation of goals and policies into comprehensive Management Act plans that guide development regulations for specific shoreline uses including measures for conservation, economic development, recreation, housing, and others. Endangered Federal Restricts activities that would significantly affect listed species Species Act and their habitats. Activities that alter patterns of run-off, alter water quality, or that physically alter streams or riparian corridors are assumed to have harmful effects on fish. Provides 4(d) rule to assure local governments that activities it authorizes or conducts are legally permissible and consistent with the conservation of listed species. In Snohomish County, the species protection that most impacts development activities are Chinook and Bull Trout. National Pollutant Federal/State The City has applied for and will soon operate under Phase II Discharge NPDES permit requirements. Permit requirements include Elimination System stormwater quantity and quality controls; public education and (NPDES) outreach; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site runoff; post construction runoff; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping practices. Clean Water Act Federal/State Directs establishment of State surface water quality standards (SWQS), established the NPDES program, and identifies impaired water bodies (303d list) and procedures for restoring them Total Maximum Daily Loads, TMDLs . Puget Sound Water Federal/State/ Develops coordinated set of intergovernmental actions to restore Quality Tribal/Local and protect the health of Puget Sound. Requires every Management Plan municipality to develop and implement a comprehensive stormwater management plan. City Critical Areas City of Provides local regulatory control of streams, wetlands, lakes, fish Regulations Arlington and wildlife habitat, and erosion-prone and geologically hazardous areas. Defines resource values, buffers and setback requirements, and other appropriate protective measures. AMC 20.88. City Drainage City of Governs design and construction of drainage facilities for new Regulations Arlington development and redevelopment in order to prevent or minimize impacts to the Cit 's waters. AMC Title 16. City Grading City of Controls soil movement originating on developing land to prevent Regulations Arlington or minimize degradation of water quality, and to control the sedimentation of streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and other surface water. AMC 20.48. Total Maximum State Establishes the maximum levels of discharge to water bodies Daily Loading from all uses within a watershed. Requirements To ensure high water quality within the City, a number of mechanisms have already been implemented to provide this service. The City and Snohomish County manage the drainage basins within the Arlington UGA. Additionally, watershed managers including the Tribes meet regularly at Stillaguamish Watershed E-15 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Council meetings to implement basin wide recovery and protection strategies. These managers share scientific inventories of watershed conditions, fish populations, water quality and other Stillaguamish specific information that can help us all provide efficient solutions. There have also been active riparian restoration projects occurring since 1995. In fact, there are very few stream reaches left in the Arlington City limits that require planting. Maintenance of those buffers will be ongoing for a number of years until the vegetation is sufficiently established. Enforcement of the Critical Areas regulations will then be the limiting factor to success. Development proposals within the City must also comply with AMC Chapter 20.64, Floodways, Floodplains, Drainage and Erosion and 20.28 Stormwater Utility. These codes regulate the manner in which stormwater is stored, released, and treated on-site before it enters the City's drainage system. The City's Critical Areas regulations also require 25-150 (average is 50)foot buffers around all waterways and wetlands so that any run-off entering the systems is filtered through vegetation (biofiltration). The City has been implementing a program of placing watershed identification signs throughout the City. The naming of these basins has helped with citizens being able to inform City staff with sub-basin reported activities. The restoration partnerships with the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and Sound Salmon Solutions are stretching available restoration dollars by utilizing local expertise and fisheries information. The City is implementing regulations that allow the use of Low Impact Design (LID) for the management of stormwater run-off. The LID Best Management Practices are a combination of preferred designs based on site specific landscape characteristics, and optional types of LID system a landowner can implement to provide additional treatment of their on-site stormwater. The City has implemented LID projects such as rain gardens and the large old-town Stormwater Wetland as pilot projects that landowners can visit to consider if that may work for their project. The City recently developed a Geo-Spatial tool that using GIS allows a user to identify a parcel and the tool will prescribe a LID practice that would best fit the site conditions. The tool incorporate GIS layers that can include soils, surficial geology, slope, groundwater depth, proximity to wells, proximity to springs, proximity to polluted sites, proximity to streams, proximity to wetlands and other characteristics that help guide a landowner LID options with high likelihood of functioning in harmony with the natural hydrology. Noise By urban standards, Arlington is relatively quiet, and this is one of the amenities mentioned when people talk about why they have moved here. Unfortunately, we have no measurements of ambient noise levels within the City limits, or the means to conduct them. The most noise is generated by traffic, especially along the federal and state highways and major arterials. This is particularly true along 1-5 in Smokey Point, where more houses have been built along the freeway and traffic has increased. Other noise is generated by industrial uses within the industrial zone. Lastly, there are somewhat frequent sounds of airplanes using the airport, including a few corporate jets. None of these noise sources has been a major issue up to this point. However, it is anticipated that as more residential development occurs adjacent to the highways or around the border of the industrial zone noise will become a greater concern (see Table E-8: Origins of Most Frequent Noise Complaints). Additionally, we would expect that as the airport receives more traffic and the areas surrounding develop airplane noise would become a bigger issue. The land use plan should take into account any potential noise problems generated by incompatible land uses and appropriate designators should be placed on subjected properties. E-16 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Table E-8: Origins of Most Frequent Noise Complaints Area Complaints Apparent Noise Source Received From Glenea le StellaJones/McFarland Cascade Highland View Estates Arlington Municipal Airport Kona Crest and Jensen 67th Avenue NE and Pro-build Lumber Street Source: City's Code Compliance Officer Climate and Weather Climate and weather, while not critical to land use planning, is a consideration in design and engineering. For example, the condition of roadways, public transit, and pedestrian/bicycle pathways is affected by the climate. Temperature variations are significant factors in the level of energy usage, and annual precipitation provides a source of water. The climate also influences economic activity, most notably agricultural production. Summers in Arlington are mild and warm (average daytime temperature in the 70's) and winters are comparatively mild (average daytime temperature in the mid-40's). The frost-free period for the City generally begins in April and ends near the first of October. Precipitation is in the form of rain and snow, averaging 46.86 inches annually (average low of 1.68 inches in July to an average high of 6.23 inches in December)' (see Figure E-2: Arlington Rainfall, Yearly Totals and Figure E-3: Arlington Rainfall, Average Monthly totals). Relative humidity is fairly high due to the water influences. The prevailing wind is westerly or northwesterly most of the year. Climate Change The City of Arlington is lucky in the various scenarios that are presented as to the potential impacts of Climate Change. A 2014 study completed by NOAA Fisheries titled Influence of climate and land cover on river discharge in the North Fork Stillaguamish River (http://www.stiIlaguamishwatershed.org/Documents/Stillaguamish%20Flow%2OAnalysis%202014%20fina 1%20report-%20NOAA.pdf) displays how the current impacts are already impacting the watershed. The records used go back to 1928 in providing documentation that precipitation levels and peak flows are increasing, while at the same time snow levels in Darrington are reducing. Simply put the City of Arlington can expect peak flood levels and storm intensities to continue to increase in to the future. The City will continue to access any information that is relevant to the Stillaguamish and immediate region. The City will implement actions and land use regulations that can help with the adaptation to climate change. The City will seek grants and assistance from organizations like the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group as the risks and impacts of climate change become better understood. Examples of regulations that should allow for adaptive management tools include flood, stormwater, landslide, vegetation species selection and wildfire or Firewise programs. s Arlington Utilities E-17 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Figure 1: 1-day maximum flow by water year,with linear regression trend line. O 0 0 0 v 0 O O CO CO 0 0 U- CDU- CO U O 3 0 0 0 LO U- N r0 O O Q N O O O N O O O O O O O O V O V O V O V O V O V O V O V O N M M V V U7 U') (O (0 r-- r` 00 OD O a) O O O O O O O Q1 O O O O O Q2 O O 41 N N Water Year Figure 4:Total annual precipitation at Arlington,WA by water year,with linear regression trend line. 0 O 0 O m E ° O 0 E O O 00 0 0 0 L 0 ° 0 c V O d c o 0 0 0 0 ° n 0 0 ° V O O 0 N ° O d O ° O O O 0 O O 0 0 O C C 0 ° O O O ° 0 O Q C O 0 0 ° 0 O � 0 O 0 O O O O O 00 O V O V 0) V O) V O) V O V O) V O V O (n (T (T T LO m !T (T (T 00) T O O N N Water Year E-18 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Figure 5:Total annual snowfall at Darrington,WA by water year,with linear regression trend line. 0 0 N O O O O O N O O O ° 0 0 O L C O O d a O c O UQ 0 N O ° d o 0 0 00 0 0 c 0 0 c Q 0 0 00 ° o uoi 0 ° 0 ° o°0 0 0 0 ° o O O O O 0 0 0 0 o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn c rn v rn 0 0 v rn v rn v rn c rn 0 o rn rn Cl) rn �i oni P.- 00 CO 0) 0) o 0 N N Water Year Land Form, Topography, Geology, and Soils The Arlington UGA occupies a Pleistocene glacial terrace or glacial outwash lobe from the Cordilleran ice sheet recession, rising southeast from the flood plain of the Stillaguamish River and is in the foothills of the north range of the Cascades. It is on a relatively level series of stepped terraces, rising first from the Stillaguamish floodplain and then again east from the Quilceda-Allen drainage basin'. There are portions of the City that exist in the floodplain, as well as the burn hill area which provides for some higher elevation glacial till with steep slope topography. (Please refer to GIS maps for more accurate elevations.) The load-bearing capacity of soil, the hydric properties, erosion potential, and characteristics with respect to shrink-swell potential all play a significant role in development of land. In particular, the hydric properties determine the potential for stormwater infiltration (LID) usage, indicate the existence of wetlands, and signal the potential for other environmental concerns. The Soil Survey conducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service includes detailed soil maps that can be used for site selection and planning. The survey explains in great detail each soil's suitability for uses such as agricultural, residential, sanitary facilities (septic), recreational, woodland wildlife habitat and other land uses. The general soil types in the Arlington area are classified as Everett gravelly sandy loam and Tokul- Pastik. These general soil types are moderately to very deep, moderately well to excessively drained, and level to very steep. Such soils are generally found on till plains and terraces. This soil classification is composed of various primary soils, each with various characteristics and limitations. The primary soils found in the Arlington UGA are displayed in Figure 2-15: U.S. Soil Conservation Soil Survey Map, and listed in Table E-9: Soil Types in the Arlington UGA, page E-21. Note that while development limitations 6 Which was at one time the route of the Stillaguamish River.The South fork Stilly and Pilchuck were connected. E-19 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E are listed, these are not considered reasons for denying development permits, only that certain precautions must be taken. Such issues are reviewed through the SEPA process during the development permit application process. The Environmentally Critical Areas regulations also regulate development on steep slopes, seismic areas, and other geologically hazardous areas. Site Potential Tree height, indicating potential stream buffer width considerations, are provided in the soil survey. In addition, soil suitability is used in determining the potential for development. The survey conducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service provides data that is specific enough to be used to determine site development constraints for particular parcels. TOW E-20 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Figure E-2: Arlington Rainfall, Yearly Totals 65 60 55 N 50 -- A m u c — 45 VV V V 40 35 30 �N 1A A0, �N 0"3 �4D �'� �°' �N 0' �<3 0A �°' ON 03 '0 �0 �0 �0 �0 �0 �0 �0 �0 �0 �0 �0 tiO tiO Figure E-3: Arlington Rainfall, Average Monthly totals 7 6 5 4 N N L V C 3 2 1 0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec E-21 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Table E-9: Soil Types in the Arlington UGA Soil Classification Soil Characteristics (% Slopes) Depth Drainage Vegetation Elevation Permeability Development Limitations (ft) 72—Tokul gravelly loam (0-8) Moderate Moderately well Conifers, subject to 200-800 Moderate to hardpan, very slow Wetness, reduced w/drain tile; septic systems often fail windthrow through 4—Alderwood-Everett gravelly Moderate to Moderately well to Coniferous Forest 0-550 Alderwood - Moderate to Steepness; seasonal perched water table; drainage needed for basements, crawlspaces; sandy loam (25-70) Very deep excessive hardpan, very slow through sewer needed to prevent water contamination; soils need to be seeded after grading Everett- Rapid 13—Custer fine sandy loam (0- Very deep Poor Conifers & 0-150 Moderate to hardpan, very slow Seasonal high water table; ponding, moderate permeability for septic; cutbacks subject to 2) hardwoods through caving in 34—Mukilteo muck Very deep Very poor Sedges & rushes 20-1,000 Moderate Not suitable; ponding & low soil strength; septic fails 30—Lynnwood loamy sand (0- Very deep Excessive Conifers 50-500 Rapid Septic seepage; cutbacks subject to caving in 3) 55—Puget silty clay loam (0-2) Very deep Poor(must be Hardwoods 0-650 Slow Flood hazard and seasonal wetness artificially drained) 77—Tokul-Winston gravelly Moderate to Moderately well to Conifers, subject to 200-900 Moderate to hardpan, slow Run-off rapid; erosion high loams (25-65) very deep excessive windthrow through 17—Everett gravelly sandy Very deep Excessive Conifers 0-500 Rapid None loam (0-8) 19—Everett gravelly sandy Very deep Excessive Conifers 0-500 Rapid Steepness of slope loam (8-15) 39—Norma loam (0-3) Very deep Poor Hardwood 20-600 Moderately rapid Not suitable; subject to ponding 32—McKenna gravelly silt loam Moderate Poor Conifers 100-800 Slow Ponding; drainage needed; septic needs long absorption lines (0-8) 57— Ragnar fine sandy loam Very deep Well None (duff only) 300-1,000 Moderately rapid Few limitations, though septic seepage can be a problem (0-8) 48—Pastic silt loam (8-25) Very deep Moderately well Conifers 200-800 Slow Seasonal high water table, wetness, reduced w/drain tile; steep slopes; erosion 49—Pastic silt loam (25-50) Very deep Moderately well Conifers 200-800 Slow Seasonal high water table, wetness, reduced w/drain tile; steep slopes; erosion E-22 J U LY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Natural Hazards The City of Arlington must be prepared for a significant emergency or region-wide disaster and be able to respond using only those resources located within the City in the most efficient manner. A disaster or emergency could cause the City to be isolated for a period of several days and exist solely on its own resources. Because of this possibility, the City has adopted a disaster plan, which addresses roles, responsibilities, and procedures to be followed in the case of an emergency (either natural or social). Unlike in many other parts of the United States, the risk of natural disasters is relatively low in the Arlington area. Tornados, hurricanes, extreme freezes, blizzards, locust infestation, debilitating heat waves and pestilence are unknown in the region. However, the below listed natural events do have various probabilities of occurring. Earthquakes The City of Arlington and its residence should be prepared for the occurrence of an earthquake, which the area has experienced as recently as 2001 (6.8 on the Richter scale). Today's building code considers this risk in its requirements. Every household should have in place and practice an earthquake response plan. High Winds Another exception might be the occurrence of high winds (-80 mph), which the region experienced in 1993, and which we will undoubtedly experience again. Typically with such events we experience some minor building damage (e.g., roofs, awnings, etc.) and downed trees, which in turn causes short-term power outages and road blockages. Volcanic Explosion/Debris Flow The last exception would be a volcanic explosion on Glacier Peak, which could send a huge mudflow/flood (lahar) down the Stillaguamish Valley. (See USGS's Volcanic-Hazard Zonation for Glacier Peak Volcano.) Glacier Peak, at 10,541 feet, is located roughly 45 air miles east of Arlington. It's most recent rumblings were about 6,000 years ago. During its most eruptive periods between 6,000 - 13,000 years ago, the debris caused by the eruptions flowed down the Stillaguamish channel to at least Arlington and 1-5. Its biggest explosion was about 12,500 years ago, when it discharged debris four to five times as massive as the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. In fact, a debris dam created by the eruption caused the White Chuck and Suiattle rivers to change course from the Stillaguamish to the Sauk at Darrington. Flood Hazards The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has defined areas showing the extent of the 100- year flood boundary in order to establish actuarial flood insurance rates and assist communities in efforts to promote sound flood plain management. Development on flood plains retards their ability to absorb water, restricts the flow of water, and causes hazards downstream by causing higher water and creating flood debris. FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) show only one 100-year flood plain within the City, that being along the Stillaguamish River and generally defined by the toe of the slope of the plateau surrounding the Stillaguamish Valley (though there are some areas of the valley that are high enough to be out of the floodplain. Generally only small portions of the City limits extend into this area, as they are parts of parcels mainly on the upper plateau. There is a large 110 acre portion referred to as Island Crossing that is located in the 100-year floodplain. A copy of the FIRM is located at City Hall. However, the FEMA maps though providing our regulatory flood elevations may be outdated and a new mapping exercise is anticipated to reflect more up to date data on anticipated flood elevations and impacts of Climate change. The City may require landowners to perform additional modeling of anticipated flood impacts for project proposals in the floodplain. Not being listed on the FIRM does not mean that some of the smaller creeks running through town couldn't also experience flooding during 100-year (or lesser or greater) storm events: FEMA just doesn't E-23 JULY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E map these smaller areas. All development permits are reviewed for potential flooding hazards at the time of development permit application review. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Critical Area regulations and flood prevention regulations (found in the land use code) prohibit most types of development within the 100-year floodway, allowing only those types of uses that are non-impactive. Geologically Hazardous Areas Arlington does contain areas of steep slopes, most notably along the two steps rising from the Stillaguamish floodplain (see Figure 2-19: Geological Hazardous Area Map). We also have areas subject to liquefaction. Everything within the floodplain of the Stillaguamish River (including Island Crossing) is rated as high potential, and everything on the 2` geologic tier (on which the airport and most of Arlington sits) is rated as moderate potential'. (Figure E-4: Liquefaction Potential) Due to instability, visual impacts, and fire hazard, areas of steep slopes or unstable soils are not recommended for development without specific measures being taken to reduce or eliminate these potential impacts. AMC §20.88 contains restrictions on development in these areas. - -- Figure E-4: Liquefaction Potential 5.1.1.1 Tsunamis The Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management has an identified Tsunami Risk Zone. Based upon input from NOAA's Pacific Marine SR 531 Environmental Lab, a seventy-foot tsunami was used 4 172nd St E as the worst-case event likely to affect Snohomish County. The potentially flooded areas would thus 15 nd be most of the land below the 70-foot elevation St N contour line (Figure E-6: SnoCo DEM Tsunami Hazard Areas). This estimate was based on projections from both NOAA and Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Under this scenario, the inundation zone would essentially be all of the Stillaguamish Valley downstream of Arlington and the northern part of downtown Arlington. However, this estimate is now considered excessive and would most likely not be as severe as originally projected.' 'Draft EIS for Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update,May 2004 'Michael A. McCallister,Coordinator-Plans and Operations, Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management E-24 J U LY 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Figure E-5: SnoCo DEM Tsunami Hazard Areas 1 :"lib•W 122''10'0'W "_i'W 1 fi'lUi'21 I' 1 I a8°Sb•N ... .SVO'N j 122°200•W E-25 JULY 2017 Appendix F : Environmental Review F-1 : Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement -- 2015 F-2 : Response to Comments -- 2015 F-3 : Addendum — June 2017 On April 22, 2015 the Arlington Comprehensive Plan Draft Update was issued with a Supplemental EIS included as Appendix F-1. Comments were due on June 8, 2015. One comment letter was received from the Puget Sound Regional Council. It is included on the following pages, with responses from the City (F-2). Some changes were made to the Plan where noted. An Addendum to the SEIS (F-3) has been issued after certain adjustments were made in June 2017. F-1 Appendix F-1 : City of Arlington Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) -- 2015 F-2 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F CITY OF ARLINGTON URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) Description of Proposal: The City of Arlington plans under the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.). The Act requires that cities periodically update their plans with current information, new rules and revised city codes. Arlington adopted its last plan in 2008, with forecasts and policies geared toward a Year 2025 vision. This updated Plan has a "horizon year" of 2035 and embraces the Puget Sound region's Vison 2040. Requirements for an SEIS are governed by WAC 197-11-620: An SEIS shall be prepared in the same way as a draft and final EIS (WAC 197-11-400 to 197-11-600), except that scopin is optional. The SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previouslXprepared EIS. The following document supplements the Final Environmental Impact Statement adopted as part of the 2008 Plan adoption. Objectives of the Proposal: This Comprehensive Plan was developed in accordance with the GMA to address growth issues in the City of Arlington and the adjacent UGA. It represents the community's policy plan for growth over the next 20 years. It will assist the management of the City by providing policies to guide decision-making for growth, development and public services. Cities are required to update their plans every ten years. The original Arlington GMA Plan was adopted in 1994 and planned through the year 2015. The City adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan in 2004 designed to carry the community forward through 2025. This update plans for a target year of 2035. Proponent: City of Arlington 238 N. Olympic Avenue Arlington, WA 98223 Phone: 360.403.3441 Fax: 360.403.4605 E-Mail: administrationgarlin_tog nwa. Location of Proposal: Arlington Urban Growth Area (UGA) Lead Agency: City of Arlington F-3 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F EIS Required: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was deemed necessary under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). The SEIS contains new information and analysis, but also builds on data and analysis contained in previous environmental documents prepared as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The lead agency identified the following elements of the environment for discussion in the Supplemental EIS: I. Natural Environment: Topography, soils, erosion, air quality, surface and groundwater, public water supplies, plant and animal habitat, fisheries, energy and natural resources. II. Built Environment: Population, housing and employment through year 2035; land use, housing, recreation, transportation,public services, and utilities. Purpose of the Supplemental EIS The purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to assist the public and agency decision-makers in considering future decisions on land use patterns and Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and development regulations for the City of Arlington as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. These broad decisions will provide direction and support for more specific actions by the City, such as capital improvements and implementing regulations. The SEPA review of the Plan is a "planning level" analysis as opposed to a "project level" analysis. The latter is done for specific projects on specific sites and is much more detailed. A planning-level analysis is more general in nature. SEPA requires that analysis be as specific as the information available. Because the comprehensive plan is more general in its discussion of topics, the SEPA analysis will be more general than what might be found in a project level SEPA review. It is assumed that as specific projects or decisions are made in the future, more detailed information will be provided, and that the policies of this Plan will be considered in decision making. This is referred to as "Phased Review" and will be a part of future decision making using the 2015 updated Plan. Programmatic Analysis This Supplemental EIS provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts appropriate to the general nature of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals. The adoption of comprehensive plans or other long-range planning activities are classified by SEPA as a non-project (i.e. programmatic) action. A non-project action is defined as an action that is broader than a single site-specific project and involves decisions on policies, plans or programs. An EIS for a non-project proposal does not require site-specific analysis; instead the EIS discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC 197-11-442). F-4 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F Integrating Environmental Impact Analysis with Growth Management Planning The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all State and local agencies to use an interdisciplinary, integrated approach to build environmental factors into planning and the decision-making processes. During the development of this Comprehensive Plan update, the City of Arlington is required to consider the potential environmental impacts of plan policies and alternatives. Cities and counties planning under GMA may address environmental concerns during the growth planning process by combining the requirements of GMA with those of SEPA, as specified by 1995 amendments to Chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), SEPA Rules. Cities and counties planning under GMA have the option of combining analyses, documentation and public involvement required under environmental and growth management laws. This results in an "integrated document", satisfying both GMA and SEPA requirements in one document, with the Environmental Summary serving as the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for this Plan. A major benefit of this integrated approach is a more predictable process for development review. Evaluation of environmental choices during the planning process should facilitate analysis of potential environmental impacts as a result of development. This should result in more certainty and predictability for developers and landowners in association with future development proposals. The Comprehensive Plan and subsequent implementing regulations should therefore result in a timelier and more focused environmental review process. Public Comment Public workshops will be held by the Planning Commission on at City Hall, 223 N. Olympic Avenue, Arlington, Washington. The dates are April 21 st, May 5th, May 18th (with Airport Commission), and May 19th. A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on June 2nd. Comments received at those meetings will be incorporated into the Final EIS. The June 2nd public hearing may result in a recommendation to the City Council which will also be incorporated into the Final EIS. Analysis of Alternatives No-Action Alternative If the City Council takes no action to adopt a new comprehensive plan, the existing City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008 will remain in effect. This alternative would continue to have conflicting growth targets for 2025 and 2035, inconsistencies between policies and improvement plans for Transportation and Utilities, buildable lands and other elements required to be reviewed as part of the mandatory 2015 update. F-5 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F As a result, State funding of roads, parks, utilities and other infrastructure through the Public Works Trust Fund, PSRC, IAC and other sources could be denied. Other sanctions could be imposed if the Growth Management Hearings Board finds the City of Arlington to be out of compliance with State-mandated update requirements. Proposed Action The Proposed Action is adoption of the City of Arlington 2015 updated Comprehensive Plan. The 2015 updated Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) provide an updated land use plan and policies to address growth for a 20-year planning period through the year 2035 within the Arlington Urban Growth Area. The Plan includes updates to certain sections of the 2008 Plan and to ensure internal and external consistencies with Sewer, Water, Transportation Vision 2040, Transportation 2040 Plans; and with Multi-County and Snohomish County countywide planning policies. A revised Critical Areas Ordinance using Best Available Science will also be adopted. The Proposed Action consists of updates to the following components: Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Maps and Figures Chapter 3: Goals and Policies Chapter 4: Description of Planning Area Chapter 5: Land Use Element Chapter 6: Housing Element Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Element Chapter 8: Transportation Element Chapter 9: Capital Facilities and Public Services Element Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Appendix B: Essential Public Facility Siting Process Appendix C: Consistency Matrix- Countywide Planning Policies Appendix D: Comprehensive Plan Checklist Appendix E: Natural Environment Appendix F: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Response to Comments on DSEIS Appendix H: Public Participation Program F-6 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F II. FACT SHEET Proposed Action: Adoption of an update of the City of Arlington's Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The updated Comprehensive Plan provides an updated land use plan and policies to address growth for a planning period through the year 2035 within the Arlington Planning Area. The Plan includes updates to certain sections of the 2008 Plan. Development Regulations will be updated in 2015 to implement the policies of the updated Plan. Location of Proposal: The City of Arlington and its surrounding unincorporated urban growth area (UGA). Arlington contains about 6600 acres of land within its current City limits. There is a pending proposal for a 239-acre addition to Arlington's UGA under consideration as part of the County's Docket XVII process, west of I-5. Proponent: City of Arlington Lead Agency: City of Arlington 238 N. Olympic Avenue Arlington, WA 98223 Phone: 360.403.3441 Fax: 360.403.4605 Responsible Official: Paul Ellis, SEPA Responsible Official Required Approvals: Planning Commission recommendation City of Arlington City Council—Adoption Washington Department of Commerce -- Acceptance EIS Authors: City of Arlington Shockey Planning Group Date of Supplemental EIS Issue: April 22, 2015 Date of Final Action: July 6, 2015 Location of Prior Environmental Documents and Background Information: City of Arlington Arlington, WA F-7 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F Cost of Document: CD copies are available for free at City Hall at the address above. The document is also available to view on the City's website at: www.arlingtonwa.gov. SEPA Distribution List (To be Updated) Federal Agencies Bonneville Power Administration(BPA) Bureau of Indian Affairs Federal Aviation Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resource Conservation Service NOAA Fisheries NOAA Northwest Regional Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.D.A. Forest Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Agencies via e-mail from Department of Commerce (reviewteam(acommerce.wa.gov) - Department of Agriculture - Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation - Department of Ecology - Department of Fish and Wildlife - Department of Health - Department of Natural Resources - Department of Transportation - Parks and Recreation Commission - Washington State Parks and Recreation Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Snohomish County Local Government, Tribes and Utilities Arlington Fire District Arlington School District BNSF Railway Company Cascade Natural Gas City of Arlington Police Department City of Arlington Parks and Recreation Department City of Arlington Public Works Department City of Marysville F-8 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F City of Stanwood City of Darrington Comcast Frontier Lakewood School District Puget Sound Energy Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Snohomish County PUD Snohomish County Sheriff Snohomish Health District Stillaguamish Tribe Tulalip Tribe Organizations and Interest Groups Puget Sound Partnership Media Arlington Times Everett Herald Libraries Sno-Isle Regional Library, Arlington Branch F-9 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F SEPA Approach The last complete update of the Comprehensive Plan occurred in 2005, which was an update of the original 1995 Plan. The Plan was further updated in 2008 with incorporation of the revised Stormwater Management Comprehensive Plan; the Sewer Comprehensive Plan; and the Comprehensive Water System Plan. The Capital Facilities Elements of the Comprehensive Plan were updated accordingly. The following is a comparison of the 2005 and 2015 environmental impacts and mitigation measures presented in a format similar to the 2005 document. As mentioned, the 2015 Plan is an integrated SEPA/GMA document. Following is a list of GMA and SEPA elements and their treatment in this 2015 Comprehensive Plan update. Update Topics Element Compliant Update New Land Use Consistency with countywide planning policies X Consistency with multi-county planning policies (PSRC) X Land use map X Population projection uses latest forecast X UGA review(required every 8 ears) X Reasonable measures adopted if needed X Planning for physical activity X Public use lands—All documented X List of acquisitions—Current and Planned X No incompatible uses near airports X Stormwater planning X BAS used to designate and protect critical areas X Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA)to protect water X quality and quantity TDR or PDR program for forest or agricultural lands X inside UGAs Forest lands designated X Agricultural lands designated X Limit accessory uses on agricultural lands X Review mineral resource lands X If applicable, development outside UGA consistent with X RCW Housing Inventory of existing housing and projected housing X F-10 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F Update Topics Element Compliant Update New needs using latest population projection Goals,policies for housing X Identify sufficient land for housing X Affordable housing planned X Capital Facilities Inventory of existing facilities X Adopted LOS X Forecast of future needs X Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new X facilities. Six-year funding plan consistent with comp plan X Impact fees used only for projects included in the UP X Land Use reassessment policy included X Utilities General location and capacity of existing and proposed X facilities Rural Element A Transportation Transportation inventory X Levels of service for all facilities; local, regional, and X state Coneurrency X TDM Strategies X Bicycle and pedestrian planning X 10- ear Traffic forecast X Land use element assumptions used to forecast travel X Future needs X Funding program X Funding analysis X Intergovernmental coordination X Plan certified by RTPO Pending Shoreline Management SMP goals and policies X Essential Public Facilities EPF identification and siting process X No preclusion policy X List considered X F-11 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F Update Topics Element Compliant Update New Consistent CWPPs X Internal consistency X External consistency X Public Outreach X Broadly publicized plan amendment process X Plan amendments no more than once a year ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY The various chapters and appendices of the updated plan are integrated with SEPA elements and are updated as follows for this SEIS. A review of the 2005 EIS document is summarized along with the nature of 2015 updates. 2025 Population 2035 Projection DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING Projection CONDITIONS This update uses the same planning subareas and updates land use, Alt 1 24,487 housing, economic and other Alt 2 24,487 24,937 SEPA-related information. These Alt 3 30,538 are discussed in Chapters 4-6. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS MITIGATING EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT As with 2005, this Supplemental EIS evaluates at a programmatic level the current conditions and potential impacts of changes to past assumptions. The integrated analysis identified updated development forecasts, determined where 2035 growth will occur, matched locations with the available or planned infrastructure, avoided critical areas and identified other mitigation measures that are embodied in the capital facilities plan, goals, policies and implementation measures. F-12 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICs Natural Environment 2005 Air Quality Resources Discussion ■ Construction Impacts ■ Localized Transportation Impacts at Congested Intersections ■ Emission Control and Permitting for Stationary Sources ■ Regional Air Quality Impacts Due to Transportation ■ Residential Wood Burning ■ Burning Brush and Other Vegetation The 2005 Plan found that regional air quality impacts caused by population growth and transportation emissions would not be significant because the forecasted population forecasts were within the forecasted emissions for the four-county region. In 2015, population, housing, employment and traffic forecasts are within estimates by Vision 2040. 2005 Biological Resources Discussion The 2005 Plan found that under all alternatives studied, there would be a reduction in the amount of wildlife habitat in the City and proposed UGA over time as currently planned projects and future development projects are implemented. ■ Habitat types most likely to be lost would be forested and agricultural/grassland/pasture. ■ Existing agricultural/grassland/pasture may be converted to vegetated suburban residential or a developed condition. ■ Development of currently vacant or underdeveloped parcels could lead to fragmentation of wildlife habitat. ■ Indirect effects could include: ■ a reduction in wildlife habitat quality and function due to increased human disturbance. ■ increases in noise and light in adjacent wildlife habitat. ■ increases in predatory species (crows, etc.). ■ an overall decrease in biodiversity and habitat. Wetlands would receive some level of protection under the City's environmentally critical area regulations (AMC 20.88). The 2005 Plan said that increased densification in the Arlington and other UGAs would benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat regionally by relieving pressure to develop more rural areas currently outside of the UGA. In addition, goals and policies would help minimize potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. These policies have been retained in 2015. Several existing regulations, in effect in 2005, help to minimize or avoid impact to wildlife and wildlife habitat, including sections of AMC 20.88, Environmentally Critical Areas, which require that such resources be protected. F-13 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F The former plan called for low-impact development, with emphasis on native plant retention to retain habitat. In 2015, the City is implementing regulations that allow the use of Low Impact Design (LID) for the management of stormwater run-off including Best Management Practices with preferred designs and optional types of LID systems. The City has implemented LID projects such as rain gardens and the large old-town Stormwater Wetland as pilot projects that landowners can visit to consider if that may work for their project. These methods will continue into the next planning period. 2005 Surface Water/Water Quality Discussion The 2005 Plan noted that, as a programmatic EIS, no direct impacts would occur to water resources, but that the Land Use map and development policies would direct development into managed drainage basins. The Preferred Alternative would indirectly affect surface water resources when development proposals affected the landscape patterns and surface water protections. Stream channel protections were identified including: ■ Strategies for facilities that preserves and supplements the natural drainage ways and other natural hydrologic systems to minimize runoff impacts from development. ■ Federal NPDES regulations as well as City stormwater regulations that require stormwater quantity and quality controls. ■ AMC 20.88, Environmentally Critical Areas which defines stream, flood hazard area, and other critical area protections and applies regulations to adjacent developments. ■ The City's SEPA authority and City codes that require mitigation for impacts to drainage, habitat, and water quality. ■ AMC 13.28 containing stormwater management standards that require the detention of stormwater for major development activity. ■ The City's adherence to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. ■ Use of drainage systems that mimic natural drainage systems, such as vegetated swales, wet ponds, and created wetlands. ■ Protective detention standards that require new development to detain larger volumes of stormwater runoff on their sites and in such a way as to better mimic the pre-developed stormwater patterns. ■ More protective water quality standards, such as more protective requirements for water quality BMPs as identified in the City's NPDES permit. ■ Reduced impervious surface area policies ■ Drainage/treatment systems on a sub-basin level that optimize treatment and manage existing and future stormwater flows. ■ Retrofit of existing detention facilities to improve water quality treatment ■ Channel specific improvements to correct existing erosion problems and reduce the potential for increased erosion in the future. ■ Stormwater quality monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater practices and standards. These measures are in place in 2015, with updates to the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, development standards or proposed capital improvements. F-14 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F 2005 Groundwater Resources Discussion The 2005 Plan called out the aquifer under the Arlington Airport as a key concern. The depth of the is approximately 150 feet' and the 2015 Plan finds that most uses should not affect the water quality if best management practices are used. In terms of quantity, drinking water in the UGA is provided by Arlington. Some of this water is derived from wells. The Haller well supplies approximately 92%, while the airport well is 2%, and Snohomish County PUD provides 6%. Additionally, some residents use wells as their main source of drinking water. Impacts to groundwater quality result primarily from land uses that produce higher levels of non-point source pollution, such as urban runoff or residential zoning with septic disposal; and land uses associated with point source pollutants, such as industrial facilities and stormwater infiltration facilities. Review for potential groundwater contamination is performed at the time of development permit application review through the SEPA process. Additionally, the City's Environmentally Critical Areas regulations protect wetlands and aquifer recharge zones providing groundwater replenishment and filtration. And the WCP has a watershed and wellhead protection plan. The 2005 Plan included potential mitigation measures such as case-by-case SEPA review, code requirements under AMC Chapters 20.64 (Drainage, Erosion Control, Storm Water Management), AMC 20.88 Part IX (Aquifer Recharge Areas). Those rules remain in effect in 2015. Table E-7 lists other laws related to surface water quality and quantity that are in effect in Arlington and are part of all project reviews. 2005 Natural Disasters Discussion Hazardous area protection and mitigation has heightened importance since the 2014 Oso disaster. While the topic was discussed in the 2005 Plan, the updated Plan and related codes were reviewed to ensure that the Land Use and other maps were sensitive to those conditions. AMC 20.88 (Critical Areas) provides local regulatory control of streams, wetlands, lakes, fish and wildlife habitat, and erosion-prone and geologically hazardous areas. It defines resource values, buffers and setback requirements, and other appropriate protective measures. The Natural Hazards section of Appendix E provide information on other susceptibilities and their mitigation. The Island Crossing area was a topic of flood hazard discussions in the 2005 Plan. The entire area falls within the Stillaguamish 100-Year Floodplain. The Plan observed that any new 'The Ground-Water System and Ground-Water Quality in Western Snohomish County, Washington; U.S. Geological Survey-Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4312. F-15 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F development would need to build to FEMA's requirements. The Lane dealership land was a concern at the time, but has since (2015) been issued development permits based on floodplain mitigation and other construction requirements. Other developments may be required to perform additional modeling of anticipated flood impacts for project proposals in the floodplain. Human Systems/Built Environment A major goal and significant work effort in 2013-2015 has been to produce an update of the 2005 Plan to ensure that the land use, housing, employment, public facilities and other community elements are updated to remain current. The City embraces the fundamentals of what was adopted in 2005 because of its exhaustive effort to define a vison based on citizen consensus. There was no attempt in 2015 to change the vision or direction of the community. In line with Growth Management requirements, the principal objective has been to update information to "stay the course" in implementing the goals and vision of 2005. As in 2005, there are not great changes in the existing plan, with a few exceptions. The main differences involve integration of the West Arlington Subarea Plan (WASA), interim density standards for the Brekhus/Beach area addition of the King-Thompson area to the Urban Growth Area (County docket: ARL3). Neighborhood Planning Subareas remain the primary planning units, with goals, policies, land use and other elements keyed to each. No changes are proposed to lands along the only Shoreline of Statewide Significance, that being the bank of the Stillaguamish River. No significant changes are anticipated in the policies or regulations governing development. Thus, there should be no significant changes in the type of development already allowed. The 2015 Plan has been reviewed against the multi-county planning policies of Vision 2040, the Snohomish Countywide Planning Policies (2013), the County's Housing ("HO-5) Study and numerous other documents adopted by reference (Page 1-4). Care has been taken to meet the internal and external consistency standards of GMA. In each of the elements (Chapters 3-9) and appendices, we integrate how each differs from the 2005 assumptions and how each change is consistent with SEPA-based mitigation or local, regional, State or federal policy. The City's integrated SEPA/GMA plan has also been reviewed against the current draft of the County's Draft EIS and is consistent, again with the exception of the proposed King-Thompson (ARL3) UGA expansion. A final decision on that matter will, by mutual agreement with the County, be taken up after the June adoption of both plans. 2005 Public Utilities Discussion Arlington does not control all public utilities—only water, sewer, solid waste, and storm drainage. The other utilities are provided by either public utility districts or private companies, each of whom must analyze the environmental impacts of their actions in providing additional products or services. Thus, this analysis will only address those utilities and service provided by Arlington. The other utilities were consulted for the 2015 update and F-16 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F are prepared to provide services to the current and near term population levels. Each continually assesses its needs and presumably will alert the City of any potential service shortfalls. None have been indicated. The City had several utility plans in effect in 2005 and those remain in effect today, after recent updates. ■ Water Comprehensive Plan ■ Wastewater Comprehensive Plan ■ Stormwater Comprehensive Plan The results of these plan updates have been integrated into the Comprehensive Plan and are discussed in Chapter 9. The key utility concern in 2005 was the effect of utility extensions outside the UGA on urban growth in rural areas. Current state and local codes and policies prohibit sewer extensions beyond UGA boundaries. Water can be extended into the City's water service area, but is not considered an instigator of growth. Another 2005 concern was the effect of utility extensions across environmentally sensitive areas, impact on riparian buffers and water quality. As discussed in Appendix E, several of these areas are healing through the maturing of past stream and wetland restoration projects. In 2015, the City recognizes the importance of minimizing further impacts. Development projects are reviewed for potential impacts to wildlife and habitat through the SEPA process. The City's adopted Environmentally Critical Areas regulations (AMC Chapter 20.88) are intended to protect wildlife and habitat. The rules prohibit the installation of utilities within critical areas unless necessary and then only under certain design considerations to minimize impacts. Following are additional comments of particular relevance to the updating of the City's 2005 environmental review of its Plan: it ®. 2005 2015 Transportation Avoid new roads through major Same policy Recommended road improvements Table 9-3 Noise 65 dB noise contour within airport Same status Incidental and temporary urban AMC §20.44.210(Noise) noises acceptable F-17 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F Regional Parks 0.0 acres Regional Parks 0.0 acres Community Parks 65.8 acres Community Parks 71.6 acres Recreation and Open Neighborhood/ Neighborhood/ 5%of new Space Mini-Parks 28.7 acres Mini-Parks development area --Need-- Trails 33.0 miles Trails 25 miles Open Space 50.2 acres Open Space 0 acres Cultural Cultural Resources 20,148.1 sf Resources Grants pending Housing Encourage some higher-end housing Same policy Urban Form Critical area and tree protection In addition,WASA form-based plan measures adopted Historic/Archaeological No identified significant sites within Resources UGA. Tribal review of permits Same procedure and policy LOS and resources identified. Six- Same-- See Chapter 9 Public Services year CIP presented. Concurrency based Public Utilities Agencies consulted Agencies consulted-- See Chapter 9 The 2005 Plan and EIS is adopted by reference in this update, so that readers can delve deeper into changes in the environmental analysis. F-18 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F F-2 : Response to Comments -- 2015 F-19 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F APPENDIX F-2: SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS (FORMERLY APPENDIX G IN 2015 PLAN Response to Comments -- Puget Sound Regional Council For the final plan, we have adjusted wording in several portions based on PSRC comments. Where we wish to retain the existing language, explanations are provided. PSRC Comment City Response VISION 2040 context statement: The City has adopted the Vision Statement contained in its 2005 Plan. In a contextual sense, it does reflect Vision 2040, as do several of the goals and policies of Chapter 3, as well as the substantive chapters VISION 2040 calls for local plans to include a context dealing with the natural environment, statement that describes how the plan addresses housing, public services and capital regional policies and provisions adopted in VISION facilities. 2040. Examples of context statements are provided in In response to your comments, we PSRC's Plan Review Manual, page 2-1. PSRC staff is have added language to the Vision also available to provide examples adopted in local Statement that borrows from the Plan comprehensive plans. Review Manual model, to more closely tie the City's work to VISION 2040. We further emphasize in our Implementation measures discussed throughout the Plan, that each decision made by the City that affects transit, pedestrians, urban design and other GMA-related topics will be assessed against the policies of Appendix C (See Section 1.4) and the plans adopted by reference in Section 1.5. This compulsory review is our best assurance that the numerous plans and policies are considered in the City's decision making. 2035 Land Use and Land Capacity Assumptions The land use element documents a shortfall in land Your letter discusses correctly notes capacity within the city to accommodate allocated that local plans, including Arlington, 2035 growth targets 9,654 housing units and 20,829 must strive for consistency with F-20 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F PSRC Comment City Response jobs within the city in 2035). Growth targets represent Vision 2040 and county population agreement on how growth will be accommodated and job estimates through 2035. As within the county, and are required to be consistent discussed in Chapter 4, growth with both the state population projections at the county targets were taken from future level and with the VISION 2040 regional growth population forecasts and are based strategy at the regional geography level. Land use on the Puget Sound Regional assumptions in comprehensive plans, as a reflection of Council "Land Use Baseline", the adopted growth target, are similarly bound by updated as of April 2014. consistency requirements given their effect on the Employment forecasts on Table 4-5 timing, location, and financing of public services, and also were based on PSRC estimates. the provision of housing and other important public The City and Snohomish County facilities (e.g. transportation, wastewater). Further, the reached agreement on buildable land Growth Management Act explicitly requires that local figures and population targets in comprehensive plans demonstrate sufficient capacity 2016. These are now a part of the of developable land within existing boundaries to Plan. accommodate allocated housing and employment growth (RCW 36.70A.115). Before the plan is finalized, the city should ensure that the city's land use assumptions are consistent with the allocated growth targets, are achievable given developable land capacity, and are internally consistent throughout the plan. Airport We commend the plan's excellent policies with respect Thank you for your comments. The to the airport. Prior to finalizing the plan, we suggest Land Use Map will be changed after that you review the guidance contained in the PSRC Plan adoption to reflect ASO Airport Compatible Land Use Program overlays. (http://www.psrc.org/transportation/airtrans/compatible) as a basis for any needed additions or refinements. In particular, the plan should provide direct references to the PSRC program. In addition, to make the Land Use Map more clear and representative of Plan Section 5.6 Land Use Overlays, Airport Protection District, we suggest that you more clearly label the four Airport Protection District subdistricts and five Safety Zones (A, B, C, and D). MIC Infrastructure The plan contains many policies that support Thank you for your comments. The development of a manufacturing industrial center and City is working with PSRC as we a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented business move forward with formal designation district, which are supportive of VISION 2040's focus of the Arlington Marysville on supporting a variety of central places throughout Manufacturing Industrial Center the region. VISION 2040 also recommends that local (AMMIC) in South Arlington/North jurisdictions prioritize infrastructure funding within their Marysville. Part of that effort will be to identified centers. Policies that prioritize transportation, prioritize road, sewer, water, non- public realm, and other investments in the city's motorized trails, parks, open space F-21 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F PSRC Comment City Response centers would strengthen the plan's support for and other features of our Capital development in these locations (MPP-DP-7, MPP-T- Improvements Plan. The AMMIC 11-12). Plan will reflect the projects outlined in Chapter 9. Air Quality We are pleased that the city recognizes the The wording has been strengthened. importance of meeting federal and state air quality requirements. We recommend strengthening air quality policies PT-13.1 and PT-13.2 by using "will" instead of "should". Transportation Routes Similarly, we encourage the strengthening of policy The City has two policies intended to PT-2.1 by replacing "should" with "will". PT-2.1: A ensure that transportation routing is a motorized and non-motorized transportation plan key part of its planning and decision should be developed by the City to ensure adequate making: transportation routes are created concurrent with new development. PT-1.4 Design the street system to distribute traffic evenly throughout the City. PT-1.5 Sign and maintain Truck Route(s) and enforce their use. Land Use Assumptions in Transportation Element The Growth Management Act requires that travel The Land Use plan was used to demand forecasts and transportation need develop "Focus Areas". The Focus assessments be based on land use assumptions that Area population projections are correspond with the most recently adopted growth included in the 2035 Transportation targets. These population and employment Plan (transportation model) and 8.1 assumptions must be consistent throughout the comprehensive plan (i.e., land use element, transportation element, and housing element) (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(i)). Please add explanatory material to more clearly document the land use assumptions in the transportation element to demonstrate consistency. Sidewalk and Bicycle Mapping In addition to the map of trails, the plan should include Maps 2.5 and 2.7 present good a map or list of sidewalks and bicycle facilities (RCW depictions of where current streets 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A)). See the Washington State lie, where new ones are planned and Department of Commerce's Transportation Element where pedestrian/bicycle trails are Guidebook, pages 122-127, for information about how located. Policies PL 21.1, PT 4.10, to inventory existing facilities and conditions as part of PT 5.2, PT 8.1 and others encourage the pedestrian and bicycle component or require that bicycle lanes be F-22 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F PSRC Comment City Response provided with new road construction. Additional mapping to show where bicycle lanes do not exist could be confusing and would not add to the City's commitment to provide them where warranted. Freight routes Freight routes are an important part of the See "Transportation Routes" transportation system, particularly for cities with discussion above. The City has a manufacturing industrial centers, and should be Freight Mobility section its inventoried and planned for in comprehensive plan Transportation Plan and is currently transportation elements. If you do not already have working with WSDOT to update the designated freight routes, see the Washington State State Freight Mobility Plan. Department of Commerce's Transportation Element Guidebook, pages 85-88, for how to consider freight in your plan Non-Motorized LOS The transportation and other plan elements have many The City consulted the referenced policies supportive of walking, biking and transit. Guidebook and compared it to the Implementation of these policies would be Transportation Plan. Policies in the strengthened through adoption of levels of service and two documents are consistent. The a concurrency approach that includes multiple modes. Transportation Plan is summarized in The Growth Management Act requires level of service the Comprehensive Plan and is standards for all locally owned arterials and transit adopted by reference thereto. Future routes, and the MPPs call for other modes, such as public and private projects will be biking and walking, to be addressed through this reviewed against the Plan to approach. This will help with the evaluation of needs determine if and how various travel when comparing the inventories to the level of service modes will be accommodated. standards, as well as multimodal concurrency requirements. The Washington State Department of Commerce's Transportation Element Guidebook has information on how to set level of service standards and identify system needs (pages 143-150 and 183- 189). Concurrency Standards for Non-Motorized Uses The city is encouraged to tailor its concurrency "Concurrency" as a requirement does program to multimodal travel. For instance, as the city not include non-motorized or multi- adopts standards for its nonmotorized facilities and modal elements. However, the City transit, it could incorporate these into its concurrency will scrutinize proposed projects for assessment. MPP-DP-56 calls for tailoring the means of providing multi-modal concurrency programs, especially for centers, to accommodations in the design. For encourage development that can be supported by example, when the Manufacturing transit. Industrial Center (MIC) is master planned, multi-modal approaches will be taken into account in laying out circulation plan. The City will also look for similar accommodations in F-23 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F PSRC Comment City Response existing centers as public improvements are considered. SR 530 and SR 531 SR 530 and SR 531 should be recognized as Thank you for your comment. highways of regional significance in the plan. The plan Improvements to SR531 are currently correctly lists the level of service for these facilities as a part of the transportation revenue LOS D. package pending in Olympia. Recommendations regarding both highways are included in the "Stillaguamish Valley Economic Recovery Plan", currently being developed under and EDA Grant, in response to the Oso disaster. These roads are given the greatest priority and attention by the City and others with interest in the North Puget Sound Manufacturing Corridor (Economic Alliance of Snohomish County). Capital Financing Plan The transportation element should include a financing Discussion has been added to plan and analysis of funding capability that addresses Chapter 9. Additional detail is transportation facilities and strategy needs identified in available in the road, water and the plan. This financing plan should include cost sewer capital facilities plans, estimates for identified facilities and strategies as well currently in the City's adoption as estimated sources of revenue. The Washington process and adopted by reference as State Department of Commerce's Transportation part of this Comprehensive Plan. Element Guidebook has information on developing a financing plan for the transportation element (pages 202-213). Housing Need The housing element, particularly Figure 6-3, provides Chapter 6 (Housing) uses information valuable context for countywide housing need and taken from the Snohomish County expected local action relative to affordable housing Housing Needs ("HO-5") report, goals set by Snohomish County. The housing element which in turn is based on the Vision should also provide a more locally-based housing 2040 analysis. The Chapter is also needs assessment that quantifies the unmet existing consistent with the County's recently and future housing need that is to be addressed in the finalized Environmental Impact plan. For assistance calculating this need, please refer Statement on its comprehensive plan to the Snohomish County Housing Characteristics and update, particularly with regard to Needs report, the PSRC Housing Element Guide, or housing needs resulting from the contact Giulia Pasciuto at gpasciuto@psrc.org. In Brekhus/Beach and King-Thompson addition, please reference the land use capacity TDR issues. analysis in the housing element. F-24 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F PSRC Comment City Response Housing Timeline The policies in the draft housing element go a long Upon adoption of the Plan, the City way to advancing VISION 2040's housing goals. Many will undertake various code or of the policies appear to rely on future work for program initiatives based on priorities successful implementation. The city should consider agreed to by the Mayor, Council, adding a discussion of strategies and timelines for Planning Commission and implementation of the policies in the housing element. community stakeholders. Some of these will likely affect housing (cottage housing ordinance, form- based infill, mobile home/RV parks, transit oriented development, etc). These priorities will be assessed each year as part of the budget process. Sewer Service We commend the city for prioritizing sanitary sewer The City does require connection to service for development within the city. Please the sanitary sewer system as part of consider formalizing this priority by adding a policy on new development. It also requires connection to the sewer system to address MPP-PS-9: connection once sewer systems are Serve new development within the urban growth area available to areas currently served by with sanitary sewer systems or fit it with dry sewers in septic systems (AMC 13.08.130). anticipation of connection to the sewer system. Alternative technology to sewers should only be considered when it can be shown to produce treatment at standards that are equal to or better than the sewer system and where a long-term maintenance plan is in place. Policy MPP-PS 8 Water Conservation The city has water conservation policies that help Wording has been added to policy address multicounty planning policies on long-term PS 7.2 to include "water reclamation water needs. These policies should be expanded to and reuse". include promoting the use of water reclamation and reuse, as called for by MPP-PS-8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Climate Change. The multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040 and The City embraces the Multi-County the strategies in Transportation 2040 call for reducing Planning Policies, adopts them by greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to impacts reference and calls for them to be related to climate change. See page 42 of VISION consulted as part of project, plan, 2040 for an overview of climate change and related policy and SEPA reviews. policies and page 34 in Transportation 2040 for information on the four-part greenhouse gas reduction strategy (land use, user fees, choices, and technology). The plan already includes some policies that support positive actions to reduce greenhouse gases, such as promoting transit and increasing nonmotorized transportation options. However, the F-25 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F PSRC Comment City Response plan could be strengthened by directly addressing the climate change-related multicounty planning policies and including additional strategies such as emissions reductions from municipal operations and additional transportation demand management strategies. F-26 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F Appendix F - 3 : Supplemental EIS Addendum June 2017 F-27 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix F CITY OF ARLINGTON URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2017 ADDENDUM TO SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) ADOPTED JUNE 30, 2015 An Addendum provides additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. It is allowed under WAC 197-11- 625. Because it is an integrated SEPA/GMA document, the 2017 Plan update contains changes outlined in Appendix G, which contains comments from the Puget Sound Regional Council as part of it Certification Review. F-28 Appendix G: Response to Certification Review Puget Sound Regional Council In Preparation To Be Concluded Upon Plan Adoption Appendix H : Public Participation Program G �Al o ING� PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM Prepared by Department of Community & Economic Development And Shockey Planning Group * 2015 * Comprehensive Plan Update PART I�ntroduction I City of Arlington - - TABLE OF CONTENrS Table of Contents PART I - INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................3 What is a Public Participation Program?..................................................................................................3 Who can participate in the City's Comprehensive Plan Update?..............................................................3 How can 1 participate in the City's Comprehensive Plan update?.............................................................3 What is a Comprehensive Plan?................................................................................................................3 How is the Comprehensive Plan implemented?........................................................................................4 What topics does the Comprehensive Plan address? ...............................................................................4 Where can 1 find the City's current Comprehensive Plan?........................................................................5 Why do Comprehensive Plans have to be updated?.................................................................................5 How often do Comprehensive Plans Have to be updated?.......................................................................5 When is the City's Comprehensive Plan update due?...............................................................................5 PART II—COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE APPROACH................................................................................5 What is the City's plan for updating its Comprehensive Plan?.................................................................5 What items in the Comprehensive Plan will the City focus on in the update process?.............................6 PART III—OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .....................................................................................6 How will the City provide public notices regarding the update process?.................................................6 How can 1 follow the update process?......................................................................................................6 Can I review documents in person?..........................................................................................................7 What role does the Planning Commission play in the update process?...................................................7 Who do 1 contact if 1 have a question or want to provide comment?.......................................................7 Whatif 1 miss a meeting?.........................................................................................................................8 PART IV—PROJECT STEPS &TIMELINE .........................................................................................................9 What steps are involved in the update process and what is the timeline for completion?......................9 2 1 P a g e _ = PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM PART I - INTRODUCTION What is a Public Participation Program? This Public Participation Program (PPP) has been put together to help you understand comprehensive planning and know how you can participate in the update of Arlington's Comprehensive Plan. This PPP describes what a comprehensive plan is,the state requirements for comprehensive plan updates,the City's approach to updating its comprehensive plan,and,most importantly,how you can follow and participate in the City's Comprehensive Plan update process (see RCW 36.70A.140). Who can participate in the City's Comprehensive Plan Update? Anyone that has an interest in Arlington's future is welcome to participate in the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan.Specific participants include: ✓ The General Public:Arlington residents,property owners,and businesses. ✓ Elected &Appointed Officials &City Staff: City Councilmembers, Planning Commissions,Park Board Members,and City Departments. ✓ Special Districts:Snohomish County PUD,Arlington School District, Lakewood School District,Stillaguamish Flood Control District,etc. ✓ Other Organizations:Arlington/Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce,Downtown Arlington Business Association,Master Builders of Snohomish County,Snohomish Conservation District,etc. ✓ State,Regional,and Local Governments/Organizations: Washington State Departments of Archeology and Historical Preservation; Commerce,Ecology,Fish&Wildlife,Natural Resources,Transportation;Puget Sound Regional Council; Snohomish County;Snohomish County Tomorrow;Planning Advisory Committee; and Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. How can I participate in the City's Comprehensive Plan update? You can participate in the update by reviewing draft documents and providing the City with your comments,attending public meetings and hearings and providing public comments. The City of Arlington thanks you for your interest in the update process and we look forward to your participation. What is a Comprehensive Plan? A comprehensive plan is a policy document that provides the City with a framework for managing forecasted growth over the next twenty year PART I - Introduction I City of Arlington PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM period (from the date of adoption). The plan outlines how this growth will be accommodated within the City and what that growth will look like. It also gives members of the community an opportunity to have a say in the City's future in terms of its physical development. While the Comprehensive Plan is ultimately adopted by the City Council, it's the City's Planning Commission that has stewardship over the plan and its content. Local jurisdictions are required by law to have Comprehensive Plans (see RCW 36.70A.040). How is the Comprehensive Plan implemented? The Comprehensive Plan provides the foundation for all development regulations found in Arlington's Municipal Code (the AMC). All of the City's development regulations are required to be in conformance with the policies set forth in the Plan (see RCW 36.70A.100). Additionally, all City capital budget decisions must be made in conformity with the adopted Plan (see RCW 36.70A.120). When the City reviews both public and private development proposals through its permitting process,proposals are reviewed for compliance with both the development regulations and the City's Comprehensive Plan. What topics does the Comprehensive Plan address? Knowing what topics are addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan can help you identify the subjects that are of most interest to you as you participate in the update. As required by State law (see RCW 36.70A.070), the City's Comprehensive Plan contains the following elements: ✓ Land Use.This element covers topics such as geographic land use designations,urban growth boundaries,residential density,land capacity analyses,projected population,and future needs. ✓ Housing. This element discusses housing inventory,affordability, special housing,and future needs. ✓ Capital Facilities. This element addresses existing public facilities,their conditions, and anticipated needs and improvements. ✓ Utilities. This element discusses existing utility infrastructure and needed improvements to meet future demands. ✓ Transportation. This element addresses the City's road network, transportation facilities, and needed improvements. PART I - Introduction I City of Arlington PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM ✓ Economic Development. This element covers such topics as employment,household income,tax revenue,industry and projected needs. ✓ Parks &Recreation. This element addresses existing park and recreational opportunities and projected needs and improvements to the City's park system. Where can I find the City's current Comprehensive Plan? To assist you in participating in the update process,we invite you to review and become familiar the City's current Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2005. It is accessible from the City's website at www.arlin tog nwa.gov. Why do Comprehensive Plans have to be updated? Comprehensive plans are intended to be living documents because they must be responsive to the ever changing needs,characteristics, and desires of the community they're written for. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City to review and revise its comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations periodically [RCW 36.70A.130(1)]. The GMA states: How often do Comprehensive Plans Have to be updated? Comprehensive Plans must be periodically updated once every eight years (see RCW 36.70A.130.130(5)(a)). Since Comprehensive Plans are living documents,amendments to Comprehensive Plans can also be made once annually in-between periodic updates. These annual amendments can be initiated by both the City and members of the public (see AMC Chapter 20.96). When is the City's Comprehensive Plan update due? The City of Arlington adopted its updated comprehensive plan in 2015 (see RCW 36.70A.130(5)(a)). Certain changes were made as part of the Plan Certification process conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). These changes are under review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The amended Plan will be adopted by December 2017. PART II — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE APPROACH What is the City's plan for updating its Comprehensive Plan? Updating a comprehensive plan is a huge undertaking that involves a lot of time,resources,and technical expertise. The City has contracted with Shockey Planning Group to assist in the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan. PART 11—COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE APPROACH I City of Arlington PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM As part of the 2015 update, the City has formed an internal committee to oversee the update process. This committee included City staff from different departments, a member of the City Council,a member of the Planning Commission, and Reid Shockey of Shockey Planning Group. Since City resources are limited, the City's first priority is to ensure the comprehensive plan complies with Washington State Department of Commerce requirements. Also,individual memoranda were produced for each item in the Comprehensive Plan that needed attention or revision. This created a record of how each item was addressed and allowed the Staff, Commission, Council, Commerce and the public to discuss them as they evolved. The changes were incorporated into an updated Comprehensive Plan in June 2015. What items in the Comprehensive Plan will the City focus on in the update process? The Washington State Department of Commerce put together a checklist of mandatory items that must be updated order to be compliant with State requirements (see Appendix D"Periodic Update Checklist for Cities" on the State Department of Commerce webpage). PART III - OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION How will the City provide public notices regarding the update process? in 2015 the City provided notice of public meetings and hearings,important updates,and participation opportunities through the following methods: ✓ The City Website (www.arlingtonwa.gov) ✓ City Facebook Profile ✓ The Arlington Update (quarterly newsletter mailed to residents) ✓ The Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices ✓ City Hall ✓ The Arlington Library ✓ The Daily Herald and Arlington Times (via legal notices) ✓ Email (upon request) How can I follow the update process? For your convenience,the City utilizes its website as the focal point for disseminating information regarding the 2015 update (see PART III—OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I City of Arlington - = PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM www.arlingtonwa.gov). This will provide you with direct access to the current comprehensive plan; draft documents for your review;a link to submit any comments you may have;a list of public meetings with the date, time, and location, as they are scheduled; staff reports; status updates; and other relevant project information. Can I review documents in person? If you prefer to review documents in person,you may do so any time during our regular office hours. We are open 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday through Friday. Our office is located at 18204 59th Ave NE,Arlington,WA 98223 (Arlington Municipal Airport Office). What role does the Planning Commission play in the update process? The City Planning Commission (which consists of seven volunteer members of the community appointed by the Mayor and City Council) is the steward of the Comprehensive Plan. In this role they provide advice and recommendations to the Mayor, Council, and City staff on planning goals, policies and future plans. The commission focuses primarily on land-use planning. For the 2015 Plan Update, the Planning Commission provided City staff with input regarding: ✓ Public participation ✓ Proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan ✓ Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement(before release for public comment) ✓ Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement(before release for public comment) ✓ Preliminary Draft Plan (before release for public comment) ✓ Preliminary Final Plan (before presentation to City Council) For the 2017 amendments,the Planning Commission will review proposed changes to comply with PSRC recommendations and will forward changes to the City Council for approval prior to December 2017. The PSRC will then finalize its certification. Who do I contact if I have a question or want to provide comment? City staff is available to answer any questions your may have and provide you with any information regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update. Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes is the City's point of contact. He may be reached at mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov or at 360.403.3436. PART III—OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I City of Arlington PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM What if I miss a meeting? The City records all public meetings. Audio recording of any meeting will be made available to you upon request. The City also prepares written minutes of all public meetings and these documents are also available upon request. PART III—OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I City of Arlington y - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM PART IV — PROJECT STEPS & TIMELINE What steps are involved in the update process and what is the timeline for completion? The comprehensive plan update process includes 5 number of major steps. The following table outlines the process and gives a general timeline: 2014 2015 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Y Draft EIS 4/22/15 Q Final EIS 6/08/15 ~ CC Workshop 6/08/15 Final PH 6/15/15 Adoption 6/15/15 • PART IV—PROJECT STEPS&TIMELINE I City of Arlington APPENDIX I: Concurrency Review and Reassessment Process City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I Concurrency Review and Reassessment Process "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." RCW 36.70A.020 Goal 12 Local Comprehensive Plans must contain documentation of future facility needs along with a proposed capital budget to provide those facilities over the next six and twenty years. Chapters 8 and 9 provide those financial plans. Where gaps occur between what was planned and what funding is actually available in a particular year, there must be a strategy for closing those gaps. The strategy is comprised of an annual assessment of infrastructure costs and revenues and methods to be used where gaps occur. Those methods can include additional demand management strategies, pursuing new revenues, reducing level-of-service standards, or changing the land use maps to reduce demands on services and infrastructure. Each year, Snohomish County issues a Growth Monitoring Report that compares population and job trends with its planning assumptions and forecasts. The County issues a Statement of Assessment as part of its Capital Improvements Plan' indicating whether buildable lands, land use, traffic or utility plans need adjustment to meet concurrency requirements. The County's Statement responds to the following criteria in reaching its findings: 1. Whether levels of service for public facilities necessary for development will be achieved by the currently adopted Capital Improvements Plan. 2. If there are potential funding shortfalls vs. the assumptions and forecasts in the CIP. 3. Where shortfalls are possible, if other"reasonable measures" can be invoked to ensure maintenance of level of service standards. If such measures are not practicable, the County's policy is to reassess its Plan to ensure that services are balanced with growth. This is "concurrency". Options may involve finding additional revenue sources, reducing level of service standards or adjusting the land use plan to lessen the rate of growth. All of these must be addressed carefully because the goals are to provide the room for job and population growth; while ensuring a quality of life and quality of services. 1 Section IV and VI, Snohomish County 2016—2021 Capital Improvement Program, November 23, 2015 I- 1 July 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I ANNUAL REVIEW Arlington will process a similar Statement of Assessment each year after the County's Growth Monitoring Report is issued and before the annual review of proposed Plan amendments (docketing) is concluded. The annual plan review will be conducted in concert with adoption of the City's six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and before the City's annual budget process. The format and content of the Assessment will follow that of the County's. This approach to measuring concurrency or the need for Plan adjustments is consistent with several Plan policies. PL-4.8 The City should plan for a balanced mix of land uses based on land availability and the capacity to provide public services. NEW Infrastructure capacity should be "concurrent" with new land development. Where concurrency cannot be assured, the GMA and capital facility plans should be reassessed and potentially amended accordingly. Policies: PT-2.1 A motorized and non-motorized transportation plan should be developed by the City to ensure adequate transportation routes are created concurrent with new development. Evaluate minimizing impervious surfaces and incorporating LID facilities into these plans where feasible. GT-3 Ensure concurrency by providing an effective roadway network with adequate capacity to meet the demand for travel within the City at the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard. Policies: PT-3.1 The City should periodically review and revise, if necessary, existing levels of service and the concurrency management system as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. NEW The Transportation Element and Capital Facility Elements will be reviewed annually for consistency with the adopted Transportation Plan; Water and Sewer Plans. PT-12.2 New developments should be required to pay for improvements related to the development, including upgrading of existing facilities, on a proportionate share basis and according to calculated impacts to existing LOS. 1- 2 July 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I PS-1.10 Serve new development within the urban growth area with sanitary sewer systems or fit it with dry sewers in anticipation of connection to the sewer system. Alternative technology to sewers should only be considered when it can be shown to produce treatment at standards that are equal to or better than the sewer system and where a long-term maintenance plan is in place. EIGHT-YEAR UPDATE While there is an annual amendment process to review minor adjustments or citizen requests for changes to the Plan, a comprehensive update is completed every eight years. This update is mandated by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130(5)) and is a time to bring the comprehensive plan and implementing development regulations up to current standards. It is also an opportunity to reassess the vision and progress toward achieving the vision a community has determined for itself. Some general questions that should be raised include: • Were our assumptions correct? • Are we doing what we said we would do? • Is it turning out as we had hoped? • If not, why? What should be done to make the outcome better? • What policy adjustments can be made if needed? • Is our financial plan adequate to meet infrastructure expectations? • Are levels of service standards consistent with our infrastructure needs and ability to pay for infrastructure? • Do we need to make changes to the land use plan if we are falling behind in funding infrastructure? Depending on the answers to those questions, more specific questions can be raised and discussed publicly. It is important to include the public in these questions and throughout the update process. BASIC STEPS IN THE PERIODIC REVIEW As far as capital facilities and public services go, the basic requirements of the update process include: • Update inventory • Assess progress on implementation • Update the forecast and identify any new needs • Assess your findings • Are we keeping up with growth? • Are we falling behind in maintenance? Are we making progress on our other plans? • Can we provide our urban areas with the services needed? 1- 3 July 2017 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Appendix I • Are the assumptions used still valid? • Are the assumptions and timeframes of functional plans (sewer, water, stormwater, etc.) — especially those of other entities — consistent with the comprehensive plan? • Update the implementation plan. This must be done in light of any new population figures, changes in growth patterns, annexations or new incorporations, or changes to the urban growth boundary. If the jurisdiction has assumed any special purpose districts, if new special purpose districts have formed, or if the local situation has changed due to new information, policies, or changes in Level of Service standards, the factors must be updated and addressed in the revised CFP. The update must address any changes in statute since the pervious update as well. Changes to the GMA, such as the provision to promote physical activity, may result in changes to the comprehensive plan and that may impact the capital facilities element.1 The review and assessment may show that the jurisdiction is on track to achieve its vision, it may show a potential gap in one aspect of services, or it may highlight the need to improve the level of operation and maintenance to certain facilities. Or it may show that a certain geographic area has fallen below adopted LOS and strategies need to be developed to bring it back up to standard. The importance of the update is that it provides a process by which the review occurs, involving all stakeholders and special purpose districts as well as the public. It is an excellent opportunity to educate newly elected officials about the importance of long term planning for growth and the needed infrastructure to serve that growth. It is also a time to communicate with the public about the costs of the existing systems and what will be needed to implement the land use and related plans. These discussions can often lead to a willingness to accept higher densities or different growth patterns so that limited infrastructure funding can be maximized to serve a greater number of people at a lower cost. 1- 4 July 2017 CERTIFICATION OF ORDINANCE I, Kristin Banfield, being the duly appointed and acting Clerk of the City of Arlington, Washington, a municipal corporation, do hereby certify that the following Ordinance No. 2017-011 was approved at the September 18, 2017 City Council meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 2017-011 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF ARLINGTON AS REQUIRED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED UNDER CITY PLANNING FILE NOS. PLN 302, PLN 303, PLN 304, PLN 305, PLN 306 AND PLN 307" A true and correct copy of the original ordinance is attached. Dated this 20th day of September, 2017. Krisd'& Banfield City Clerk for the City of Arlington