bJ EXEJ:UTIVE RECOMMENDATION: DEPARTMENT

BGT. J •• ,,}l! I CE0-2.6> 0S-8' 3 6 / ,

EXECUTIVE/COUNCIL APPROVAL FORM

MANAGEMENT ROUTING: EXECUTIVE

EXEC. DIR. DIRECTOR/ELECTED DEPARTMENT DIV. MGR.

Dave Somerst'.:k Ken Klein

Barb Mock bJ""""

TO: COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON: SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL

EXEJ:UTIVE RECOMMENDATION:

~ Aoorove No Recommendation ___ Further Processing ___ Requested Bv DIVISION

ORIGINATOR DATE March 24 2017

KEN KLEIN Executive Director

) ; °)I 1/) Executive Office Signature CEO Staff Review 0~ Received at Council Office @£d :)5- '¥' 3 l-31! Cl

DOCUMENT TYPE: BUDGET ACTION:

Emergency Appropriation Supplemental Appropriation

Budget Transfer

GRANT APPLICATION ORDINANCE

Amendment to Ord. # PLAN

CONTRACT: X OTHER Motion setting Final Docket XIX per Chapter 30.74 SCC

New Amendment

DOCUMENT I AGENDA TITLE: MOTION NO. 17- . A MOTION OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL LIST OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (GMACP) AND GMA DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR DOCKET XIX

APPROVAL AUTHORITY: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

CITE BASIS sec 30.74

X

-----------------HANDLING: NORMAL X EXPEDIIl: URGENT DEADLINE DATE

PURPOSE: The county council shall review the PDS recommendations on proposed amendments to the Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and determine in a public hearing whicn of the proposed amendments should be further processed on Final Docket XIX for final action by the County Council in 2019.

BACKGROUND: • PDS conducted initial evaluations of three non-county initiated (docket) applications to amend the comprehensive

plan and implementing development regulations submitted by the October 31, 2016, deadline.

• The three Docket XIX applications were submitted by: Paula Crandall (SW2), LDC, Inc. (SW3), and Northshore School District (SW4). The three docket applications are considered major amendments to the comprehensive plan as each proposes to alter one or more urban growth area boundaries.

• PDS evaluated the docket proposals for consistency with each of the applicable initial docket review criteria in SCC 30.74.030 and 30.74.040 including whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the countywide planning policies, the multicounty planning policies and the GMA. PDS can only recommend further processing if a proposal meets all of the applicable docket criteria.

• PDS recommends that only the SW4 proposal be further processed as it meets all of the applicable initial docket review criteria. PDS recommends that the SW2 and SW3 docket proposals not be further processed.

• The county council is required to review the PDS recommendations and has the legislative discretion to detennine in a public hearing which of the docket proposals should be further processed on the final docket.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

EXPEND: FUND, AGY. ORG, ACTY, OBJ. AU CURRENT YR 2NDYR 1ST 6 YRS

I TOTAL 0

REVENUE: FUND. AGY. ORG REV SOURCE CURRENT YR 2NDYR 1ST 6 YRS

I TOTAL NIA NIA N/A

DEPARTMENT FISCAL IMPACT NOTES: No fiscal impacts anticipated and 9{l budget action needed as this motion only determines if a proposal shall be further processed by PDS. . (AN 1 c...--· BUDGET REVIEW: '· J\nalyst ffi'Y Administrator //A Recommend Approval __

CONTRACT INFORMATION: ORIGINAL AMENDMENT

CONTRACT PERIOD: ORIGINAL AMENDMENT

Start Start

CONTRACT I PROJECT TITLE:

CONTRACT # CONTRACT #

End End

CONTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS (City/State only):

APPROVED:

RISK MANAGEMENT Yes '1\/?v No __ _

COMMENTS

PROSECUTING A HY-AS TO FORM: Yes N/A No __ _

OTHER DEPARTMENT AL REVIEW/ COMMENTS: None.

AMOUNT AMOUNT

$

$

ELECTRONIC ATTAC EN S: (List & incl~ path & filename for each, e.g. G:\ECAF\deptname\docname_Motion) G:\ECAF\crept\05_:fldsmeck@t Xl~ECAF.docx

g~(~~~~~~~!!; =~~:~~~~: ~:t;!!~~~::::li~ _ Cost_ Analysis.docx

G:\ECAF\<k:pt'105yds\DocketXl~Memo.docx _ 5W.Z.~~~ ::J-~ G:\ECAF\"1@f:)t\05:J9ssm0el<:et XIX\~P>l2_Pattht G1a:11daH f&lti& (PDS staffrepo maps, application) __:z._J t, _,

G:\ECAF\d~605:pds\Docket XIX\S'.VS_bDC,li,e,, feleiCT - sv .3 _ ~c... ~. 7r~ G,\ECAF\d.,,ll-05~dslfiockct XIXISW<IJ>lo,t"'"- School Dishict fillder 5 W r _ ~ NON-ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENTS:

SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohomish County, Washington

MOTION NO. 17-117

A MOTION OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL LIST OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (GMACP) AND GMA

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR DOCKET XIX

WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council (County Council) adopted chapter 30.74 SCC, "Growth Management Act Public Participation Program Docketing," to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130 and 36.70A.470 in order for interested persons to propose amendments and revisions to the comprehensive plan or development regulations; and

WHEREAS, the County Council has determined that the consideration of such proposed amendments to the GMACP or development regulations would promote a county purpose as established under RCW 36. 70A.130 and 36. 70A.4 70 and Chapter 30.74 sec; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS) has processed three non-county initiated docket proposals received by the October 31, 2016, deadline as major docket amendments and has evaluated the proposed major docket amendments for consistency with the initial docket review criteria in sec 30.74.030(1) and 30.74.040;

NOW, THEREFORE, ON MOTION, the County Council hereby approves the attached list of docket proposals for inclusion on Final Docket XIX and authorizes the County Executive, through PDS, to further process the proposed major docket amendments consistent with Chapters 30.73 and 30.74 sec, including environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for final consideration in 2019.

PASSED this __ day of ___ , 2017.

ATTEST:

Asst. Clerk of the Council

Motion No. 17-117

SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohomish County, Washington

Council Chair

Approving the Final List of Amendments to the GMA Comprehensive Plan (GMACP) and GMA Development Regulations for Docket XIX Page 1 of 2

ID# Applicant Proposed Amendments

UGA Expansions/Adjustments

SW2

SW3

SW4

Paula Crandall UGA, GPP FLU Map & Rezone

LDC, Inc. UGA, GPP FLU Map & Rezone

UGA, GPP FLU Map & Northshore School District Rezone

Motion No. 17-117 Approving the Final List of Amendments to the GMA Comprehensive Plan (GMACP) and GMA Development Regulations for Docket XIX Page 2 of 2

Place on Do Not Final Process Docket Further

Snohomish County Capital Facility Development Cost Analysis Summary

Project/Document Title: MOTION NO. 17 - _ A MOTION OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL LIST OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (GMACP) AND GMA DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR DOCKET XIX

Date: March 24, 2017

Primary Staff Contact: Steve Skorney, ext. 2207

General Cost Analysis Summary: Snohomish County PDS conducted an initial review and evaluation of three proposals to amend the GMACP and implementing development regulations. The County Council is required to review the PDS evaluations and, at a public hearing, determine which of the docket proposals should be further processed as part of Final Docket XIX. The three docket proposals were submitted by Paula Crandall (SW2), LDC Inc. (SW3), and the Northshore School District (SW4). The three docket proposals are considered major amendments to the GMACP as each proposal would alter urban growth area (UGA) boundaries. This capital facilities development cost analysis summary is a non-project programmatic review. A more detailed review of county funded impacts to county capital facilities would occur ifthere is a future site-specific land use or building permit application that is an outcome of these proposals.

Necessary Quantification/Qualification of Anticipated Cost: Facility

Parks County Funded Impacts Potential increase in collected park impact fees due to potentially higher population densities in previously rural areas. Potential increase in county expenditures to maintain level of service commitments.

Other Fund Sources Impacts None Roads & County Funded Impacts - Potential increases in costs to develop, improve and maintain Transit roads. Potential ncrease in collected transportation impact fees due to potentially higher

population densities in previously rural areas.

Other Fund Sources Impacts - None anticipated Surface County Funded Impacts Potential increases in costs to build and maintain drainage Water facilities to mitigate impacts. Potential increases in collected drainage fees due to

potentially greater impervious surfaces.

Other Fund Sources Impacts - None anticipated Public County Funded Impacts None, funding of schools is responsibility of local district. Schools

Other Fund Sources Impacts None Electric County Funded Impacts None, funding of electric power is responsibility of local district Power or city.

Other Fund Sources Impacts - None Public County Funded Impacts None, funding of public water is responsibility of local district or Water city.

Other Fund Sources Impacts - None Wastewater County Funded Impacts None, funding of wastewater is responsibility of local district or

city.

Other Fund Sources Impacts - None

Snohomish County Planning and Development Services

Dave Somers County Executive

Barb Mock, Director 3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S #604

Everett, WA 98201-4046

(425) 388-3311 FAX (425) 388-3832

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

MEMORANDUM

Snohomish County Council

Steve Skorney, Senior Planner

March 24, 2017

SUBJECT: Motion to Approve a List of Amendments to the GMA Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Development Regulations for Final Docket XIX

The purpose of this memo is to transmit a motion for the County Council to determine at a public hearing which of the proposed non-county initiated docket proposals listed in the motion will be further processed as Final Docket XIX. The motion contains three proposals to amend the GMA Comprehensive Plan and implementing development regulations as follows:

• Paula Crandall (SW2} - The applicant proposes three options:

o Option 1: Adjust the Southwest Urban Growth Area (SWUGA) to remove 230 acres from an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) to Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) with rezones; add 146 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from Rural Residential (RR) and Rural Urban Transition Area (RUTA) to U_LDR with rezones.

o Option 2: Adjust two UGAs to remove 161 acres from an unincorporated portion of the Granite Falls UGA and redesignate this area from ULDR to RR-5 with rezones; add 146 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from RR and RUTA to ULDR with rezones; amend GPP policies and code to allow adjustments to separate UGAs that do not result in a net increase of capacity.

o Option 3: Expand the SWUGA to add 146 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from RR and RUTA to ULDR with rezones; amend GPP policies and code to allow minor UGA expansions that provide a distinct boundary between rural and urban areas.

• LDC, Inc. (SW3) - The applicant proposes three options:

o Option 1: Adjust the SWUGA to remove 230 acres from an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) to Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) with rezones; add 135 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from Rural Residential (RR) and to ULDR with rezones.

o Option 2: Adjust two UGAs to remove 161 acres from an unincorporated portion of the Granite Falls UGA and redesignate this area from ULDR to RR-5 with rezones; add 135 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from RR to ULDR with rezones; amend GPP policy and code to allow adjustments to separate UGAs that do not result in a combined net increase of capacity.

o Option 3: Expand the SWUGA to add 135 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate this area from RR to ULDR with rezones; amend GPP policies and code to allow minor UGA expansions that provide a distinct boundary between rural and urban areas.

• Northshore School District (SW4) - 31.2 acre expansion of an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA that consists of school district property and redesignate this area from RR and RUTA to Public/Institutional (P/IU) with rezone. (Note: the school district property that is contained within the SW4 proposal area is also included within the SW2 area for proposed expansion of the SWUGA.)

The three docket applications are considered major amendments to the comprehensive plan as each proposes to alter one or more urban growth area boundaries. PDS recommends that SW4 be placed on Final Docket XIX for further processing as this proposal is consistent with all of the applicable initial review evaluation criteria in sec 30.74.030(1) and 30.74.040.

PDS recommends that SW2 and SW3 not be further processed as these two proposals are not consistent with all of the applicable initial review criteria in SCC 30.74.030(1) and 30.74.040.

The County Council is required to review the PDS recommendations according to the schedule established in sec 30.74.015(2). The County Council has the legislative discretion to determine in a public hearing which of the docket proposals should be further processed on Final Docket XIX.

Notice of a County Council public hearing to set a final docket, at a minimum, requires a one-time publication of the hearing notice in the official county newspaper and posting of the hearing notice on the official county website.

The County Council has the discretion to direct the Council Clerk, under SCC 30.73.070(3), to use additional methods to provide notice in order to obtain public participation. Past County Council hearings to set a final docket have included a mailing of public hearing notices to property owners within areas impacted by a proposed change to the Future Land Use Map of the GMA Comprehensive Plan or a proposed area wide rezone.

PDS recommends that notices of the County Council's hearing to set the final docket be mailed to property owners affected by the proposed SWUGA and Granite Falls UGA changes according to the requirements of SCC30.73.070(3). As a reminder, docket applicants are responsible for the costs associated with the printing, publishing, and mailing of notice for any public hearing required for the applicant's docket proposal according to sec 30.74.050(3).

The cities of Bothell, Everett, Granite Falls and Mill Creek are directly affected by the three Docket XIX proposals. PDS will provide these cities an early notice letter containing the PDS docket recommendations shortly after transmittal of the recommendations to the County Council. A hearing notice will be sent to these cities and other affected agencies after the County Council sets a time and date for the docket hearing.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 425-262-2207, or Steve. [email protected].

cc: Ken Klein, Executive Director, Office of the Executive Tom Rowe, Special Projects Director, Office of the Executive Barb Mock, Director, PDS lkuno Masterson, Manager, PDS Yorik Stevens-Wadja, Senior Legislative Analyst, County Council

Attachment: Motion No. 17-

Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Docket XIX Initial Review and Evaluation of Docketing

Proposal to the GMA Comprehensive Plan March 31, 2017

Applicant: Paula Crandall File: SW2 16-118919-DA

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

General Policy Plan (GPP) Option 1: Proposed adjustment to the Southwest Urban Growth Area (SWUGA) to remove 230 acres from an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate from Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) to Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) and add 146 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate from Rural Residential (RR) and Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA) to ULDR.

Future Land Use (FLU) Map Amendments:

Rezones:

Option 2:

Option 3:

Proposed adjustment to two UGAs that would remove 161 acres from an unincorporated portion of the Granite Falls UGA and redesignate from ULDR to Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) and add 146 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate from RR to ULDR.

Proposed expansion of an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA to add 146 acres and redesignate from RR to ULDR.

Option 1 : Proposed 230 acre rezone of the unincorporated SWUGA removal area from R-7,200, R-9,600, and Planned Residential Development (PRO) -9,6007 to R-5 and rezone of the 146 acre unincorporated SWUGA addition area from R-5 to R-7,200.

Option 2: Proposed 161 acre rezone of the unincorporated Granite Falls UGA removal area from R-9,600 to R-5 and rezone of the 146 acre unincorporated SWUGA addition area from R-5 to R-7,200.

Option 3 Proposed 146 acre rezone of the unincorporated SWUGA expansion area from R-5 to R-7,200.

Page 1 of 23

GPP Policy Amendments: Option 1: No policy amendments proposed.

Code Amendments:

Option 2: Amend GPP Policy LU 1.A.14 to allow net capacity neutral UGA adjustments between separate UGAs.

Option 3: Amend LU 1.A.1, LU 1.C.1, and LU 1.0.1 to allow a minor UGA expansion that provides a distinct boundary between urban and rural areas. Add a new LU policy under Objective LU 1.A that identifies the criteria for allowing minor UGA expansions.

Option 1: No code amendments proposed.

Option 2: Amend sec 30.74.020(2) to allow net capacity neutral UGA adjustments between separate UGAs.

Option 3: Amend sec 30.74.020(2) to allow a minor UGA expansion that provides a distinct boundary between urban and rural areas subject to criteria.

SITE RELATED INFORMATION

Location: Option 1: The UGA removal area is located within the unincorporated SWUGA along the west and southwest side of Lowell Larimer Road from the Everett city limits on the north to the intersection of Seattle Hill Road and Lowell Larimer Road. The SWUGA addition area is bounded on the north by 188th St. SE, on the west by 39th Ave SE and the new North Creek High School, on the south by Jewell Rd./196th St. SE, and on the east by a powerline corridor that would be comparable to 45th Ave. SE.

Option 2: The UGA removal area is located within the unincorporated southeast portion of the Granite Falls UGA and bounded on the north by Menzel Lake Road and Granite Falls city limits; on the west by city limits, on the east by Menzel Lake Road; and on the south, in

Page 2 of 23

Existing Land Use:

Adjacent Land Use:

Adjacent GPP FLUM Designation:

part, by 84 St. NE. The SWUGA addition area is bounded on the north by 1881h St. SE, on the west by 39th Ave SE and the new North Creek High School, on the south by Jewell Rd./1961h St. SE, and on the east by a powerline corridor that would be comparable to 45th Ave. SE.

Option 3: The SWUGA addition area is bounded on the north by 1881h St. SE, on the west by 39th Ave SE and the new North Creek High School, on the south by Jewell Rd./1961h St. SE, and on the east by a powerline corridor that would be comparable to 45th Ave. SE.

The proposed SWUGA addition area consists of single family residences with individual septic systems on rural sized parcels. The proposed SWUGA removal area consists of single family residences on rural sized lots with individual septic systems. The proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area consists of a mix of large undeveloped parcels as well as several single family residences with individual septic systems on smaller rural sized lots.

Adjacent land uses to the proposed SWUGA addition area consist of: West - the new North Creek High School; North - single family detached subdivisions; and East and South - single family residential on rural lots. Adjacent land uses to the proposed SWUGA removal area consist of: West and South- single family residential plats on sanitary Sewor- Nnrth - tho l"'ih, of E"er0 tt· i=ast anri,..., ,ltural lanri -•, 1 - 11'-' .._,ILJ V IVl.t.., L- ~IIVU IIU.

Adjacent land uses to the proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area consist of: North and West - single family residential development served by sanitary sewer; and South and East - primarily large rural parcels with single family residences and one rural cluster subdivision.

Adjacent plan designations for the proposed SWUGA expansion area consist of: West - Public/Institutional Use (P/IU) and Urban Medium Density Residential (UMDR); North - ULDR; South and East - RR. Adjacent plan designations for the proposed SWUGA removal area consist of: West - ULDR; North - city of Everett; South -ULDR; East - Riverway Commercial Farmland. Adjacent plan designations for the proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area consist of: North and West - city of Granite Falls; South and East - Rural Residential-5 and Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA).

Page 3 of 23

Site Characteristics: The proposed SW2 SWUGA addition area consists of a mix of wooded and pastured areas. The site primarily slopes east into tributaries of Little Bear Creek. A small portion of the northwesterly portion of the site slopes west into the North Creek basin. Little Bear Creek supports several species of salmon and trout with good water quality and stream habitat. The basin starts in Snohomish County and extends into King County. Snohomish County's portion covers 13 square miles. Stormwater runoff on the SW2 SWUGA addition area site is primarily collected in drainage ditches and open channels. In order to protect Little Bear Creek's valuable water quality and habitat resources,

Snohomish County Surface Water Management (SWM) is preparing a basin plan for the county's portion of Little Bear Creek to better understand how to manage stormwater in this basin as required by the county's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

The proposed SW2 SWUGA removal area consists of wooded areas on steep slopes that drain east into the Snohomish River basin. There are numerous small intermittent and permanent streams that flow off of the hillside within the proposed SWUGA removal area.

The proposed SW2 Granite Falls UGA removal area is primarily wooded with pastured areas along the north and west portion of the site where houses are located. The westerly portion of the proposed removal area is adjacent to the Pilchuck River floodplain.

Page 4 of 23

Infrastructure: The proposed SW2 SWUGA addition area is within the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District boundaries and would be eligible for sanitary sewer service if the proposed addition area were added to the SWUGA. The residences within the proposed addition area are currently on individual septic systems. The district provides water service to the UGA addition area. The proposed SW2 SWUGA removal area is almost entirely within the Cross Valley Water District service area. The only service that Cross Valley provides at this time to the proposed removal area is public water. The proposed SW2 Granite Falls UGA removal area is within the city of Granite Falls sewer and water system planning area. Currently, there is limited water service within the unincorporated UGA. Sanitary sewer service would be extended to properties within the unincorporated Granite Falls UGA after annexation.

According to the Arterial Circulation map in the Transportation Element of the GMA comprehensive plan, the proposed SW2 SWUGA addition area is primarily accessed by 43rd Ave. SE, a minor collector that bisects the proposed area. The northwest corner of the addition area is accessed by 188th St. SE, a minor collector. The south portion of the proposed addition area is bordered by 195th St. SE/Jewell Rd., a minor collector. Key offsite county roads serving the proposed addition area include 35th Ave. SE, a minor arterial, and Grannis Rd., a major collector. Currently at risk of going into arrears is 35th Ave SE which is at a level of service (LOS) "E."

Snohomish County Public Works is beginning a design study to evaluate improvements to 43rd Ave. SE including widening the street to a two lane rural roadway section from SR 524/Maltby Road to 188th St. SE. Construction on this project would begin in 2021. The county has temporarily closed 43rd Ave. SE at 188th St. SE to thru traffice due to inadequate road width and rising traffic volumes. The closure will remain in effect until improvements are completed on 43rd Ave. SE.

The SWUGA removal area is bordered by Lowell Larimer Road, a minor arterial. The Granite Falls UGA removal area includes Robe Menzel Road, a minor collector, and Menzel Lake Road, a major collector.

Page 5 of 23

EVALUATION

PDS shall recommend to the county council that an amendment be further processed only if all of the following criteria are met.

Initial Review and Evaluation Criteria (SCC 30.74.030(1)):

Criterion "a": The proposed amendments are consistent with the countywide planning policies (CPPs), the multicounty planning policies (MPPs), the Growth Management Act (GMA), and other applicable state and federal laws.

SW2 Option 1: No. The SW2 Option 1 proposal to adjust the boundary of the SWUGA to achieve a no net increase of population land capacity will result in a net increase of population land capacity. Option 1 is inconsistent with the GMA, the MPPs and the CPPs as described below.

GMA The Option 1 proposal, which results in an expansion of the SWUGA, is inconsistent with the UGA requirements in RCW 36.70A.110(2):

(2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses.

Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. In the case of urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve, the city may restrict densities, intensities, and forms of urban growth as determined to be necessary and appropriate to protect the physical, cultural, or historic integrity of the reserve. An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and counties may consider local circumstances. Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating growth.

The expansion of the SWUGA is inconsistent with the requirements of the GMA as documented in the Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report as amended on October 12, 2016. The Report states that all individual cities, unincorporated UGAs, and unincorporated MUGAs within the SWUGA have sufficient population capacity within the composite UGA to accommodate the 2035 growth targets. The Report also states that the additional composite UGA population capacity

Page 6 of 23

(the UGA population safety factor) exceeds the projected 2035 UGA population growth by 33.6%.

MPPs The Option 1 proposal, which results in an expansion of the SWUGA, is inconsistent with the following Vision 2040 MPPs:

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.

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.

Vision 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy were developed with the assumption that, with good planning and efficient land use, existing urban growth areas can accommodate the population and employment growth expected by 2040. The MPPs which implement Vision 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy, including MPP DP-2 and DP-4, make it clear that any expansion of a UGA within the region's planning horizon should get only limited consideration.

The Option 1 proposal is inconsistent with DP-2 and DP-4 as it allows residential development at urban densities outside of the existing SWUGA without first evaluating opportunities to maximize residential development potential within existing urban areas.

CPPs --The Option 1 proposal, which results in an expansion of the SWUGA, is inconsistent with CPPs DP-2 and DP-3:

DP-2 An expansion of the boundary of an individual Urban Growth Area (UGA) that results in a net increase of residential, commercial or industrial land capacity shall not be permitted unless:

a. The expansion is supported by a land capacity analysis adopted by the County Council pursuant to RCW 36. 70A. 11 O;

b. The resulting additional population capacity within the Snohomish County composite UGA as documented by both City and County comprehensive plans does not exceed the total 20-year forecasted UGA population growth by more than 15 percent;

c. The expansion otherwise complies with the Growth Management Act;

d. Any UGA expansion should have the support of affected cities. Prior to issuing a decision on a UGA boundary change, the County shall consult with affected cities and give substantial weight to a city's position on the matter. If the County Council approves an expansion or contraction of a UGA boundary that is not supported by an affected city, it shall include in its findings how the public interest is served by the UGA expansion or contraction despite the objection of an affected city; and

Page 7 of 23

e. One of the following conditions is met:

1. The expansion is a result of the most recent buildable lands review and evaluation required by RCW 36. lOA.215 and performed per policy GF-7 following the procedures in Appendix E.

2. The expansion is a result of the review of UGAs at least every eight years to accommodate the succeeding twenty years of projected growth, as projected by the State Office of Financial Management, and adopted by the County as the 20-year urban allocated population projection as required by RCW 36. 70A. 130(3).

3. Both of the following conditions are met for expansion of the boundary of an individual UGA to include additional residential land:

(a) Population growth in the UGA (city plus unincorporated UGA) since the start of the twenty-year planning period, equals or exceeds fifty percent of the additional population capacity estimated for the UGA at the start of the planning period. Acceptable sources of documentation are the most recent Snohomish County Tomorrow (SGT) Growth Monitoring Report (GMR) or the buildable lands review and evaluation (Buildable Lands Report [BLRJ), and

(b) An updated residential land capacity analysis conducted by city and County staff for the UGA confirms the accuracy of the above finding using more recent residential capacity estimates and assumptions, and any new information presented at public hearings that confirms or revises the conclusions is considered.

4. Both of the following conditions are met for expansion of the boundary of an individual UGA to include additional employment land:

(a) Employment growth in the UGA (city plus unincorporated UGA) since the start of the twenty-year planning period, equals or exceeds fifty percent of the additional employment capacity in the UGA at the start of the planning period. Acceptable sources of documentation are the most recent SGT GMR or the buildable lands review and evaluation (BLR), and

(b) An updated employment land capacity analysis conducted by city and County staff for the UGA confirms the accuracy of the above finding using more recent employment capacity estimates and assumptions.

5. The expansion will correct a demonstrated mapping error. (Errors where the UGA line incorrectly bisects an existing building or parcel, where it inadvertently follows an arbitrary feature such as a section line, or where the boundary is on the wrong site of a right-of-way that is expected to be annexed to a city.)

6. Schools (including public, private and parochial), churches, 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 should be located in an urban growth area. In the event that it is demonstrated that no site within the UGA can reasonably or logically accommodate the proposed facilities, urban growth area expansions may

Page 8 of 23

take place to allow the development of these facilities provided that the expansion area is adjacent to an existing UGA.

7. In UGAs where the threshold in Condition 4 has not been reached, the boundary of an individual UGA may be expanded to include additional industrial land if the expansion is based on the criteria contained in RCW 36. lOA.365 for the establishment of a major industrial development. This assessment shall be based on a collaborative County and city analysis of large developable industrial site needs in relation to land supply. "Large developable industrial sites" may include land considered vacant, redevelopable, and/or partially-used by the Buildable Lands Program (per GF-7 and Appendix E of these CPPs) and may include one or more large parcels or several small parcels where consolidation is feasible.

8. The expansion will result in the realization of a significant public benefit as evidenced by Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) to the expansion area from Agriculture or Forest lands designated as TOR sending areas. The expansion area shall not be a designated forest or agricultural land of longterm significance.

9. The expansion will permanently preserve a substantial land area containing one or more significant natural or cultural feature(s) as open space adjacent to the revised UGA boundary and will provide separation between urban and rural areas. The presence of significant natural or cultural features shall be determined by the respective legislative bodies of the county and the city or cities immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion, and may include, but are not limited to, landforms, rivers, bodies of water, historic properties, archeological resources, unique wildlife habitat, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.

10. The expansion is a response to a declaration by the County Executive, or the County Council by resolution, of a critical shortage of affordable housing which is uncurable in a timely manner by the implementation of reasonable measures or other instrumentality reasonably available to the jurisdiction, and the expansion is reasonably calculated to provide affordable housing.

11. The expansion will result in the economic development of lands that no longer satisfy the designation criteria for natural resource lands and the lands have been redesignated to an appropriate non-resource land use designation. Provided that expansions are supported by the majority of the affected cities and towns whose UGA or designated MUGA is being expanded and shall not create a significant increase in total employment capacity (as represented by permanent jobs) of an individual UGA, as reported in the most recent Snohomish County Tomorrow Growth Monitoring Report in the year of expansion.

Criterion "a": The Option 1 proposal which results in a UGA expansion is not supported by a land capacity analysis. PDS determined that the UGA expansion would result in an additional population of 363 to the SWUGA, which already has a projected surplus of 60,114, based on the current 2035 growth forecast.

Page 9 of 23

Criterion "b": The UGA expansion provides additional population capacity which is not supported by the county composite UGA population safety factor. The county composite safety factor currently exceeds the total 20-year forecasted UGA population growth by more than 15%. Recent amendments to the CPPs adopted by the County Council in 2016 included amendments to DP-2. These amendments recognize that the UGA population safety factor limit of 15% for surplus capacity of the composite county UGA is more appropriately applied when UGA expansions to create additional capacity are being considered. The intent of the limit on surplus capacity is to prohibit oversizing of UGAs. According to the Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report, amended in 2016, the composite UGA population safety factor is 33.6%.

Criterion "c": The UGA expansion does not comply with GMA provisions in RCW 36.70A.110(2) as the county currently has sufficient areas and densities to accommodate growth for the 2015 to 2035 planning period.

Criterion "d": The UGA expansion and reduction areas are adjacent to the cities of Mill Creek's and Everett's municipal urban growth area (MUGA), respectively. Mill Creek and Everett will be notified of the SW2 docket proposal as required by the public participation procedures in chapter 30.74 SCC in advance of a county council public hearing to consider the SW2 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Mill Creek and Everett will occur if the SW2 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

Criterion e: The UGA expansion is not supported by any of the applicable conditions under Criterion "e" for expansion of a UGA in order to increase residential capacity. The most applicable conditions are:

• Condition 1: The expansion is not the result of the most recent buildable lands review.

• Condition 2: The expansion is not the result of a county review of UGAs as part of the eight year comprehensive plan update.

• Condition 3: The expansion is not the result of population growth in the SWUGA that equals or exceeds fifty percent of the additional population capacity estimated for the UGA since the start of the planning period. Only 6% of the additional population capacity estimated for the SWUGA has been used since the start of the 2015 to 2035 planning period.

• Condition 5: The expansion does not correct a demonstrated mapping error. • Condition 9: The expansion does not preserve significant natural or cultural

features. • Condition 10: The expansion is not in response to a declaration by the county

executive of a critical shortage of affordable housing.

DP-3 Following consultation with the affected city or cities, the County may adjust urban growth areas - defined in this policy as concurrent actions to expand an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in one location while contracting the same UGA in another location - without resulting in net increase of population or employment land capacity. Such action may be permitted when consistent with adopted policies and the following conditions:

Page 10 of 23

a. The area being removed from the UGA is not already characterized by urban development, and without active permits that would change it to being urban in character; and

b. The land use designation(s) assigned in the area removed from the UGA shall be among the existing rural or resource designations in the comprehensive plan for Snohomish County.

The SW2 Option 1 docket proposal was submitted as a SWUGA adjustment that would result in a no net increase of population land capacity under DP-3. The proposed SWUGA removal area along Lowell Larimer road would result in a population reduction of 368. The proposed SWUGA addition area would add a population of 731. The proposed SWUGA adjustment is considered a UGA expansion as there would be a net increase of population capacity by 363 and, therefore, is inconsistent with DP-3.

The cities of Everett and Mill Creek are the nearest cities, respectively, to the SWUGA removal area and the SWUGA addition area. Both cities will need to be consulted in advance of the county council public hearing and action on a motion to consider the SW2 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Everett and Mill Creek will occur if the SW2 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

Although the SW2 Option 1 proposal is not consistent with the UGA adjustment requirement in DP-3 of a no net increase of population, the Option 1 proposal is consistent with DP-3 conditions "a" and "b". Under condition "a", the proposed removal area is not characterized by urban development as the area contains single family residences on rural lots that are served by individual on-site sewage disposal systems. There are no active permits for urban development as the area is not served by urban infrastructure, including sanitary sewers. Consistent with condition "b", the RR-5 land use designation assigned to the area proposed for removal from the UGA is an existing rural land use designation in the GPP.

SW2 Option 2: No. The SW2 Option 2 proposal to: a) amend GPP Policy LU 1.A.14 and Snohomish County Code (SCC) 30.74.020(2) to allow a concurrent expansion of a UGA while contracting a UGA in another area without resulting in a net increase in population or employment capacity; and b) amend the FLU map and zoning to adjust both the SWUGA and the Granite Falls UGA to achieve a no net increase of population land capacity that will result in a net increase of population land capacity, is inconsistent with the GMA, the MPPs and the CPPs as described below.

GMA The Option 2 proposal, which results in an expansion of the SWUGA, is inconsistent with the UGA requirements in RCW 36.70A.110(2):

(2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and

Page 11 of 23

uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses.


The expansion of the SWUGA is inconsistent with the requirements of the GMA as documented in the Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report as amended on October 12, 2016. The Report states that all individual cities, unincorporated UGAs, and unincorporated MUGAs within the SWUGA have sufficient population capacity within the composite UGA to accommodate the 2035 growth targets. The Report also states that the additional composite UGA population capacity (the UGA population safety factor) exceeds the projected 2035 UGA population growth by 33.6%.





The Option 2 proposal is inconsistent with DP-2 and DP-4 as the proposal promotes residential development at urban densities outside of the existing SWUGA without first evaluating opportunities to maximize residential development potential within existing urban areas.

Page 12 of 23

CPPs The Option 2 proposal, which results in an expansion of the SWUGA, is inconsistent with CPPs DP-2 and DP-3:


c. The expansion is supported by a land capacity analysis adopted by the County Council pursuant to RCW 36. 70A. 11 O;

d. The resulting additional population capacity within the Snohomish County composite UGA as documented by both City and County comprehensive plans does not exceed the total 20-year forecasted UGA population growth by more than 15 percent;




1. The expansion is a result of the most recent buildable lands review and evaluation required by RCW 36.lOA.215 and performed per policy GF-7 following the procedures in Appendix E.





Page 13 of 23





6. Schools (including public, private and parochial), churches, 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 should be located in an urban growth area. In the event that it is demonstrated that no site within the UGA can reasonably or logically accommodate the proposed facilities, urban growth area expansions may take place to allow the development of these facilities provided that the expansion area is adjacent to an existing UGA.

7. In UGAs where the threshold in Condition 4 has not been reached, the boundary of an individual UGA may be expanded to include additional industrial land if the expansion is based on the criteria contained in RCW 36. 70A. 365 for the establishment of a major industrial development. This assessment shall be based on a collaborative County and city analysis of large developable industrial site needs in relation to land supply. "Large developable industrial sites" may include land considered vacant, redevelopable, and/or partially-used by the Buildable Lands Program (per GF-7 and Appendix E of these CPPs) and may include one or more large parcels or several small parcels where consolidation is feasible.


9. The expansion will permanently preserve a substantial land area containing one or more significant natural or cultural feature(s) as open space adjacent to the revised UGA boundary and will provide separation between urban and rural areas. The presence of significant natural or cultural features shall be determined by the respective legislative bodies of the county and the city or cities immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion, and may include, but are not limited to, landforms, rivers,

Page 14 of 23

bodies of water, historic properties, archeological resources, unique wildlife habitat, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.



Criterion "a": The Option 2 proposal which results in a UGA expansion is not supported by a land capacity analysis. PDS determined that the UGA expansion would result in an additional population of 31 to the SWUGA, which already has a projected surplus of 60,114, based on the current 2035 growth forecast.


Criterion "c": The UGA expansion does not comply with GMA provisions in RCW 36. 70A.110(2) as the county currently has sufficient areas and densities to accommodate growth for the 2015 to 2035 planning period.

Criterion "d": The UGA expansion is adjacent to the city of Mill Creek's municipal urban growth area (MUGA). The UGA reduction area is within the city of Granite Falls UGA. Mill Creek and Granite Falls will be notified of the SW2 docket proposal as required by the public participation procedures in chapter 30.74 SCC in advance of a county council public hearing to consider the SW2 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Mill Creek and Granite Falls will occur if the SW2 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.


Page 15 of 23







DP-3 Following consultation with the affected city or cities, the County may adjust urban growth areas - defined in this policy as concurrent actions to expand an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in one location while contracting the same UGA in another location - without resulting in net increase of population or employment land capacity. Such action may be permitted when consistent with adopted policies and the following conditions: c. The area being removed from the UGA is not already characterized by

urban development, and without active permits that would change it to being urban in character; and

d. The land use designation(s) assigned in the area removed from the UGA shall be among the existing rural or resource designations in the comprehensive plan for Snohomish County.

DP-3 is a recently adopted policy as part of the 2011 update of the CPPs that provides cities a process for concurrently expanding and contracting the boundaries of their own UGA without resulting in a net increase of population or employment capacity. This adjustment process allows cities to more efficiently plan the land uses and infrastructure within their UGAs in order to accommodate their adopted growth targets.

Amendments to CPP DP-3 would be required in order to achieve consistency with the Option 2 proposal. Revising CPP DP-3 to allow net population and employment capacity neutral adjustments between UGAs would be a major change in the countywide vision in the CPPs for managing future growth in both the county and the cities.

If there was an established CPP policy direction that would allow a GPP policy allowing a net capacity neutral UGA adjustment between different UGA boundaries, the proposed Option 2 UGA adjustments between the Granite Falls UGA and the SWUGA would not be consistent with such a policy. The Option 2 proposal, as submitted, would result in a net increase of population capacity. For the proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area, there would be a population reduction of 700. The proposed SWUGA addition area would add a population of 731. This adjustment would result in a slight increase in the SWUGA population capacity by 31 persons.

Page 16 of 23

A reduction of 700 in the Granite Falls UGA population capacity would result in a population capacity shortfall of 522 for the Granite Falls UGA relative to its reconciled 2035 population target. Adoption of the SW3 Option 2 proposal would necessitate the need for the city of Granite Falls to work with the county through Snohomish County Tomorrow to consider either reducing the Granite Falls UGA 2035 population growth target and/or increasing the population capacity through upzoning of remaining areas within the Granite Falls UGA to compensate for the SW3 UGA reduction.

The cities of Granite Falls and Mill Creek are the nearest cities, respectively, to the Granite Falls removal area and the SWUGA addition area. Both cities will need to be consulted in advance of the county council public hearing and action on a motion to consider the SW2 proposal for placement on the Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Granite Falls and Mill Creek will occur if the SW2 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

Although the SW2 Option 2 proposal is not consistent with the UGA adjustment requirement in DP-3 of a no net increase of population capacity for only individual UGAs, the Option 2 proposal is consistent with DP-3 conditions "a" and "b". Under condition "a", the proposed removal area is not characterized by urban development as the area contains single family residences on rural lots that are served by individual on-site sewage disposal systems. There are no active permits for urban development as the area is not served by urban infrastructure, including sanitary sewers. Under condition "b", the RR-5 land use designation assigned to the area proposed for removal from the UGA is an existing rural land use designation in the GPP.

SW2 Option 3: No. The SW2 Option 3 proposal to: a) amend GPP Policies LU 1.A.1, LU 1.C.1, and LU 1.D.1 and add a new GPP Policy under Objective LU 1.A and amend implementing regulations that together would allow a minor expansion of a UGA that would not be subject to the 15% county composite UGA population safety factor limitation, if the expansion creates a more definable and distinct edge between urban and rural areas or the expansion and b) amend the FLU map, and implementing zoning, to expand the SWUGA to add 146 acres of residential capacity, is inconsistent with the GMA, MPPs and CPPs as described below.

GMA The Option 3 proposal is inconsistent with the UGA requirements in RCW 36. 70A.110(2):

(2). Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twentyyear period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential uses.

Page 17 of 23


The Option 3 SWUGA expansion proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the GMA as documented in the Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report as amended on October 12, 2016. The Report states that all individual cities, unincorporated UGAs, and unincorporated MUGAs with the SWUGA have sufficient population capacity within the composite UGA to accommodate the 2035 growth targets. The Report also states that the additional composite UGA population capacity (the UGA population safety factor) exceeds the projected 2035 UGA population growth by 33.6%.

MPPs The Option 3 proposal is inconsistent with the following Vision 2040 MPPs:





CPPs The Option 3 proposal is inconsistent with CPP DP-2:


Page 18 of23

e. The expansion is supported by a land capacity analysis adopted by the County Council pursuant to RCW 36. 70A. 11 O;

f. The resulting additional population capacity within the Snohomish County composite UGA as documented by both City and County comprehensive plans does not exceed the total 20-year forecasted UGA population growth by more than 15 percent;




1. The expansion is a result of the most recent buildable lands review and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215 and performed per policy GF-7 following the procedures in Appendix E.







Page 19 of 23




7. In UGAs where the threshold in Condition 4 has not been reached, the boundary of an individual UGA may be expanded to include additional industrial land if the expansion is based on the criteria contained in RCW 36. lOA.365 for the establishment of a major industrial development. This assessment shall be based on a collaborative County and city analysis of large developable industrial site needs in relation to land supply. "Large developable industrial sites" may include land considered vacant, redevelopable, and/or partially-used by the Buildable Lands Program (per GF-7 and Appendix E of these CPPs) and may include one or more large parcels or several small parcels where consolidation is feasible.


9. The expansion will permanently preserve a substantial land area containing one or more significant natural or cultural feature(s) as open space adjacent to the revised UGA boundary and will provide separation between urban and rural areas. The presence of significant natural or cultural features shall be determined by the respective legislative bodies of the county and the city or cities immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion, and may include, but are not limited to, landforms, rivers, bodies of water, historic properties, archeological resources, unique wildlife habitat, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.


Page 20 of 23


The SWUGA expansion proposal under Option 3 together with proposed amendments to GPP Policies LU 1.A.1, LU 1.C.1, and LU 1.D.1 and the addition of a new GPP Policy under Objective LU 1.A, and amendments to implementing regulations, is not supported by the criteria and conditions listed below for expansion of a UGA that results in a net increase of residential land capacity under CPP DP-2. The proposed expansion would result in an increased SWUGA population capacity of 731. Amendments to CPP DP-2 that mirror the proposed GPP policy amendments would first need to be adopted in order for the proposal to be consistent with the CPPs.

Criterion "a": The UGA expansion proposal is not supported by a land capacity analysis. PDS determined that the expansion area would support an additional population of 731 to the SWUGA, which already has a projected surplus of 60,114, based on the current 2035 growth forecast.

Criterion "b": The UGA expansion proposal and supporting GPP policy changes exempting minor UGA expansions from the population safety factor is not supported by this criterion, unless amended. The county composite safety factor currently exceeds the total 20-year forecasted UGA population growth by more than 15%. Recent amendments to the CPPs adopted by the County Council in 2016 included amendments to DP-2. These amendments recognize that the UGA population safety factor limit of 15% for surplus capacity of the composite county UGA is more appropriately applied when UGA expansions to create additional capacity are being considered. The intent of the limit on surplus capacity is to prohibit oversizing of UGAs. According to the Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report, amended in 2016, the composite UGA population safety factor is 33.6%.

Criterion "c": The UGA expansion proposal does not comply with GMA provisions in RCW 36. 70A.110(2) as the county currently has sufficient areas and densities to accommodate growth for the 2015 to 2035 planning period.

Criterion "d": The UGA expansion proposal is adjacent to the city of Mill Creek's municipal urban growth area (MUGA). Mill Creek will be notified of the SW2 docket proposal as required by the public participation procedures in chapter 30.74 SCC in advance of a county council public hearing to consider the SW2 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Mill Creek will occur if the SW2 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

Criterion e: The UGA expansion proposal is not supported by any of the applicable conditions under Criterion "e" for expansion of a UGA in order to increase residential capacity. The most applicable conditions are:

Page 21 of 23







Policy DP-2 replaced a previous CPP policy (UG-14) in the 2011 update of the CPPs. DP-2 is a major modification to the pre-2011 CPP UG-14 policy criteria for considering expansions of UGAs to accommodate projected growth. One UG-14 expansion criteria that was considerably narrowed in DP-2 was condition "5" which addresses corrections to UGA boundaries. In the prior CPP UG-14.d.6, minor UGA expansions were allowed for technical correction purposes in order to create a more identifiable UGA boundary as long as the expansion did not increase total residential capacity by the lesser of 0.5% or 20 acres. Condition "5" in DP-2 now limits this type of expansion to only correct a demonstrated mapping error. The intent of this now very limited condition of expansion under DP-2 was to increase consistency with multicounty planning policies in Vision 2040.

The applicant has stated that CPP DP-2 would have to be amended to allow this type of UGA expansion. Revising DP-2 to allow a minor expansion of the boundary of an individual UGA would be a major change in the countywide vision in the CPPs for managing future growth in both the county and the cities. More importantly, this revision to DP-2 would have to be consistent with the GMA and the MPPs.

Criterion "b": Any proposed change in the designation of agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands is consistent with the designation criteria of the GMA and the comprehensive plan. NIA. This criterion is not applicable. The SW2 proposal will not change any GMA resource lands designation.

Criterion "c": If the proposed amendments have been reviewed by the planning commission or county council as part of a previous proposal, circumstances related to the current proposal have significantly changed and support a plan or regulation change at this time. N/A. This criterion is not applicable. The SW2 proposed amendments have not been previously reviewed by the planning commission or county council as part of a previous proposal.

Criterion "d": If the next docket cycle to be set is limited to minor amendments by sec 30.74.015(2)(a), the proposal satisfies all of the following conditions:

Page 22 of 23

N/A. This criterion is not applicable to the SW2 proposal since Docket XIX, the next docket cycle to be set, is scheduled for processing of both major and minor amendments according to sec 30.74.015(2)(c).

Initial Review of Rezone Requests (SCC 30. 7 4.040):

(1) The rezone request is for an implementing zone consistent with a concurrent proposed amendment to the future land use map that meets the criteria of SCC 30.74.030. No. Since the SW2 rezone requests are for zones that implement concurrent proposed future land use map amendments that do not meet all of the criteria of SCC 30.74.030(1 ), the proposed rezones are not consistent with this criterion.

(2) Public facilities and services necessary for development of the site, as defined in applicable capital facilities plans, are available or programmed to be provided consistent with the comprehensive plan and development regulations as determined by applicable service providers. No. The SW2 proposal has not demonstrated that public facilities and services to serve urban levels of development, particularly urban transportation improvements, are available or programmed to serve the proposed SWUGA addition area. The county has temporarily closed 43rct Ave.SE, the primary access to the proposed SWUGA addition area, to thru traffic due to inadequate road width and rising traffic volumes. Only rural road improvements are currently planned for 43rct Ave. SE.

(3) Site plan approval would not be required concurrent with the rezone under chapters 30.31A, 30.318, or 30.31F sec. Yes, site plan approval would not be required concurrent with the rezone under chapters 30.31A, 30.31 B, or 30.31 F sec.

Summary of Consistency with Review Criteria

Consistent with Initial Docket Review Criteria: Consistent with Rezone Criteria: sec 30.74.030(1) sec 30. 14.040

"a" "b" "c" "d" 11111 "2" "3" N N/A N/A N/A N N y

Recommendation:

According to SCC 30.74.030 and 30.74.040, PDS is required to recommend to the county council that proposed docket amendments be further processed only if all of the initial review and evaluation criteria are met. Options 1, 2 and 3 of the SW2 docket proposal do not meet all of the initial review and evaluation criteria; therefore, PDS recommends that the SW2 proposal not be further processed.

Page 23 of 23

~ Docket XIX • Initial Review

Paula Crandall (SW2) · Option 1 Proposed Future Land Use Map

Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Snohomish County

N

-'.:CA.~[j·· ~ -_J

j

Proposed Future Land Use

IZJ

CSI

CJ r_,

Proposed SWUGA Addition: Redesignate Rura l Residential ( 1 DU/5 acres) to Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR)

Proposed SWUGA Removal: Redesignate Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) to Rural Residential- 5 (1 DU/5 acres)

Incorporated City

Urban Growth Area (Current)

/'v Streams

L

0.5

EVERETT

SWUGA Addition

Current Future Land Use

Riverway Commercial Farmland Rural Residential (1 DU/5 Acres Basic)

Urban Low Density Residential

Public.1nstitutional

~ Urban Village

Urban Medium Density Residential

, "'-.' Rural/Urban Transition Area Overlay

Jl,na:• ea.,o """'""°""" Nll,>fft,... .... f');i,-°},•<•: ...... Aa> .... pulf(l>ff.,....t,~:•••nc.lll>M .,.,,_..,,.1.,,Qll'.:::oal ,1?i:11 .. "''4f"•.....,t.olool.d ••S~-.. ~c .... ~.t,,C<>ik. ...,.. .. _ rdyp:ia:.u 10tiMC.,...,~11tMo1-.,-...,_,... .... cO'.et,Cookpro.-. fl'la\la pp1·,-·ar•-ic•1u:~1,., __ s...,.~n11CG,Jn!1""'loff""'-~-«-.a.,.u:r1~....,,..,.es.,:...t..:_r.,,.,..,.. - lot~ .... °'.....,."'t"l40.:.o.cot:b-Mr•.,.,...•.,.•...,.. •b•lo-u1-.~•my~,,...,.,.,.,..,w.,o,11L..,.ul.,. .,.r """""',.. c,.,pgw . ...aP*"""o.ec.,o,,,ge•c:,w,..n.u....., ,,.a.a • ..,...,.. .. ,.-... ... ~~!c.1 ""'11 ~ ,...,a...i ~ .. i.hoHS,..,r,;,,,w,C..-t,....._ .. .,..., ... ~a"11.,.~•a.,..:o~.lol1.•.._ool~'l.1ty•••<"'S°""'ol al'I' ... .., ca16<!0f........C'l--..cl...t.,,.. _ C•~ Vh ... "": .... 51.li.Ll-.:Cli.-O.S'J~p,~ -E..IY at'ld bclt~-·f,-~"'9·"""'·"' .... :1..-... w. ....... 1or"1•f<J<1.-..... .. ~.,.. ........... o>.n ..... =-... --~it..ffiK<l<IW'"l-0-~ .. ,..,.u.., .. ,,__~-.....

D N

Proposed Zoning

Proposed SWUGAAddition: Rezone R-5 to R-7 ,200

Proposed SWUGARemoval :

Doc!l<et X DX a Hnitial Review Paula Crandall (SW2) - Option 1

Proposed Rezone

Current Zoning

A-10

0.5

EVERETT

R-9,600 Residential-9,600 sq. ft.

PRD-9,600

Snohomis h County

SWUGA Addition /

//,

RC Rural Conservation

PRO SA-1

. '/

Rezone R-9,600, PRD-9,600, and R-7,200, to R-5 --Agriculture 10-Acre

LDMR

Planned Residential Development 9.600 sq. ft.

R-8,400

Planned Residential Development Suburban Agriculture 1-Acre

CJ Incorporated City

r.:, Urban Growth Area (Current)

/'./ Streams

Low Density Multiple Residential

R- 5 Rural 5-Acre

Residentia l-8,400 sq. ft.

R-7,200 Residentia l-7,200 sq. fl

1Jfn~H,dlU.,9"4-,IPll'.lonHl-llon>ln('~lll"l, .. •f«11;;-p,,,;i,cwlt:,'\l,,1!Wlr•no\lON <4fl1l:.,•"•• Ol'lcal•u-\O,<Mr~"'•Ml>:loel"'·""'~t>Cw,,..-codt . ........,..,.,,1111.-.d"l'(!Mf'I »:1-, o,t.a. 1<:~~L'•"41-•~~!:l<oc-.ti,•Coc!1p,....W. ... ~··P?flr ·.t>ldl.-1~014qi<:ffh ... l\. &t<:il"°"'&..\CoU"1'¥"""1.•-ror,._......,,....Ql ... ~r,,ey--..~~-i.At,.;.ci;•>c1,c ... ,r1<-,,..c...,._..,.,, « ,q,,,~ ¢t. it• o,~c.c;,.,.11~.t4 ~-* ..,~ .... ,..,. ""•"' .. .,,,~·...-ii~•-~d ,.. .. ,c:~,,1.tAlyo,1.,.,.u 11>1" .MoJ' .,.,tt...ti,,-,,p,:, ... #,fp.,saH a.e,:,,u;,..; o,,C>' • ...,r.A, ~Wlf"&O~•»=• .. ,.-.!Wly !oro,N :r.•tec!ae,1 ~-~lool,lS.~sll.Co"'11Yh.,.fnnd<«11a11d-c1il:.&t .. ~~ (~1,b,..,t:t,;,,,,..i;...~t.,a,..-11..,.r:l.ar.; •t10t.cll'teto,~00lc:on!.H>ld,._~t$1~:,.\\ .. 1,'1~$\awl,.h(C11.0.$1RCYl_......_w,.,a,:~ ~:al~-"Q11~~-~t~li$11.di\t,,.., ... lr,~t ,r...S,,~ro, ... wfD!.,,_,dal.,..,.,.,:u,ar,4,.l. ....... M -~-.,,.yM,r.<>d•oln,~0.,Uci:,,,,p ... gltltcirnfl',Mlua.coo-.alMd~Mffl.

6 Docket XIX - Initial Review Paula Crandall (SW2) - Option 2

Proposed Future Land Use Map Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Snohomish County

N


CZI Proposed SWUGAAddition: Redesignate Rural Residential (1 DU/5 acres) to Urban Low Density! Residential (ULDR)

Proposed Granite Falls UGA Removal: Redesignate Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) to Rural Residential - 5 (1 DUIS acres)

Incorporated City


/v' Streams

D Road Right of Way


Rural Residential· 5 (1 DU/5 Acres)

Rural Residential (1 DUIS Acres Basic) Urban Low Density Residential (Please See Map 6 of the GPP)

11111 Urban Medium Density Residential

Public/Institutional ;m Urban Village

"'. Rural/Urban Transition Area Over1ay

""'' " "" ~ ......... -'f,.Mt !~ .. ...,.-ro,tt·•.•··'"'""Wot. .... ,.. 'l'UOOO'Wa"=•·•-!Obo ~tl~t1ff111Ql',;,iol< ·-~ ot1~•--lll 1"•&i-.....,,Co,n,t,Coa4. ,.,,._,,>t-.. ~~p:!N• ~~C.....\o.W>t<W""""•a,l.b~C~~•o•,r,-.,.,,..,,~1;,-:1,.,,"0ld..,,c.t.;:.,....,._ ~ ,i,C-,..rrt""lo"-tt..o•~=~~--,,tyc"""""~.,.,..l,.~•c-"V-••q'°"""''""'" •q,,,ll;tr~U..~-ota,;,Md"""".,"''<P'ttsti,d111:,L,.-,,.,l'""""'ntr~• .... o:.."""-t1Mlforu,,.,..,..,,,,.r o,"""'lw""''llOW- ,,~ .. --...-11c,~~ ....... ,te~W11"'"~•"·- .. ~-.. ~,...,.,...,,.,,:ot>M t,;;• .. ~hotl er-... cov.lJ~""'""'°'tr,:,,,'...i a,~;.•: .,_rd~~ klli'l.d• .. e<lillilllfo/4 •·•G -'-' ~...,. ... ..,..~.r.\~-IO'l~·IJ_..__,..,~u,d0-,1*- w.,._'fflgt.,ASu•_.L_".:l\4!.~ ACW;O'-·""'kbc.al,g,o~•"-l"O<l~~ le<,ao.•IOM~~-fo,._,c!cd ra~ula,1'c-11.1al~u1J,C•H•,.,I •u•"" ,:.,....,.....c,9!-~~ .. -~•dM,~O->:•~~ti:"'ol"'..,.°''"'"c::,,,1-~-...

'"'""ctd ~ybot,c.,.,u c ...... ryo.,...i .. ,..., .,,,.,._..n"'11 •""0•,..1op.,tt1 S""""• ... CN'tograt>hl'l'OIS.

Ii N

Proposed Zoning

ca C

Proposed Granite Falls UGA Removal: Rezone R9,600 to R-5

Proposed SWUGA Addition: Rezone R-5 to R-7 ,200

Incorporated City

,:I Urban Growth Area {Current)

D Road Right of Way

/\/ Streams

Docket X.DX - lnitia~ Review Paula Crandall SW2) - Option 2

Proposed Rezone

Snohomish County

Current Zoning

-A-10 Agriculture 10-Acr0

LOMR Low Density Multiple Residential

R-5 Rural 5-Acre

D -

UGA Removal

R-9,600 Residential-9,600 sq. ft. PRD-9,600


PRO SA-1 Planned Residential Development 9,600 sq. ft.

Planned Residential Developmenl Suburban Agriculture 1-Acre R-8,400

Res idential-8,400 sq. ft.

R-7,200 Res idential-7,200 sq. ft.

~ ... -~at.l,11114<nl;,,<N,.W,$ttk,!IMt"11iCh::t'\N,l!lftbW«.t,eN'11')1Wl~·nd•··-IOW W<1N1<0<1 a ndf.o-.alc~IO. lll lotlu t - ~d, lhtSMl!~CN,111CO!lt. /.Jl\tft~11ti11'a.,,,.i?C.:t1 ~ "'" c.u, q,1111«...U d!-.,. a;j:Cobl:kCQ,.,.,. c.,,c,, ,iwlw.•. fUV•-.,1)'•..t>.lurt r.~o.-jN';.-4 htroM'\ s,.......,,. .. , c-11 .... a..s~.o tot,• u,tl.:1.,ri.:,,..,,..t,~it0."Kcf~.tq l\a c .. "'.t.'la-.,:•.-ncf.wr•11Clll e.>fflP\il1..,,u Ol'<i".lll.e,,c1 NC.~Qr.:Ob,tl\.e"'"'..,1t,pocnt/di1<:'lllkM at.,'-DU1'd-~~Ofl7-i.1-1 put~..,,.,,,po ... M,,..,c.,,Keen:..,orol~•l'wil•,~"'11 .. il0o!aus_, i.l u. ~-..., t:11"wfltrtd,N •a-'"'""" s,.,,...i..:,,..,e_ , ~....,_,. ,,..,....,d ~a;,,s::anr ~~ I. bu tbioo orN- 1a1ilil:9 -ofwe1 •·-,c,.de!..:1.0,or.i,~~ .. ori.~M...._..,. w idOa;!;i. W,o/"I~ S- L,-,i,GII. 41.U ~C'>: f"<*ltf.SIOl~ ar.l tc.,.i~o,ct.:m~a~• !<>bs d .. ~~alllr.kr.6"di.....w1ot~~MIMd"_L'loll,IIO ._.,,,.,..""°" '' ,...,.,t,,, .,.~t!.of ,.,~ o~·• ~"'•t<1,"1t-""· ·akc..,•1''1-!'!MI'•.,.

6 N


Proposed SWUGA Expansion:

Docket XIX - Initial Review Paula Crandall (SW2) - Option 3


Future Land Use D Road Right of Way

Snohomish County

Redesignate Rural ResidenUal (1 DU/5 acres) to Urban Low Density! Residential 0 2,000 -----c:::====Feet 500 1,000

(ULDR)

c:::J Incorporated City

f. Urban Growth Area (Current)

/'-/ Streams

Rural Residential (1 DU/5 Acres Basic) Urban Low Density Residential , . ,,.. ,.., d~to • 4 """.-~:,o..,l'""'t'"'" (':J.1-.;.t1• !~t4<al!i ~ ~......,Mlo,,r,.,¥ 1ar•rie!;:,bo,

- - ... ,.,,., ... ,~··-"" •• .,,,. . .... -.d.t"•S."""'"'·"eo.""e."' .. ""'- ··Q-~po,"'11 11111 Urban Medium Density Residential :.:==-,;:,,:;:::_:;::-!;:.;:;~-=;:~~!::.:-~!~:;:;:0!::-1 .....

Public/Institutional 0!"'1¥1j,Cl ... C.. .o -~-..J ~e ••-, - •~1,0.Kl,,.,,,a.~y-..... ti,d .... lU'_.r:a- ,o,ll(:.'91!of•~, ~,...,._ Al~""' """"',.....il °'~-~.,,.,.,. D.a!;aH...,... .. ,.._.cu.r r.,.-...., =-,«u.,,<1 "7 .. !Q -s,,o,..,,..,1,ec;;r11~......, ... ~"""'~~ .. , .,.., ""7dt<1,qn Ion dart 'el ar ~ 1,a .. t OU1ct..,,. ........ ....ict ... _...__._,1".-,..icn. -wa-;<,;,r.~L-0-.~2.YRC'#, r,~ ~11, i.r.~

, "' Rural/Urban Transition Area Overlay =.:: .. -:::;:::;:!.1.~:::~~~~1!:,-=:.::-=.i;:;: .,.," .. "" e-·,•"" f.l.lp \\" , •l••fat11>'doti<~1a..-_1n .. :..N).xk• illlJC-~:".U:.A_P.-,, ...,,,.D,,J,~•P....,qc,.,,P•_o~-._l_ft..,...r.:10.,. 112'1'X1l

6 N

Proposed Zoning

El C]

r.:,

Proposed SWUGA Expansion: Rezone R-5 to R-7 ,200

Incorporated City


/'-./ Streams

D Road Right of Way

Docket XIX - Initial Review Paula Crandall (SW2) - Option 3

Proposed Rezone

Current Zoning -LDMR Low Density Multiple Residential

R-5 Rural $-Acre

R-20,000 Residenlial-20 ,000 sq. ft.


R-9 ,600 (PRD) Residential·9,600 sq. ft Planned Residential Development


R-7,200 (PRD) Residential-7,200 sq. ft. Planned Residential Development

Snohom ish County

0 2,000 - -----======Feet

500 1,000

Mm.apt,,d.11~-·!lfc>,-ion~·~ .... ""("Oa~~' .1•4"1f.t.w,_py.';iOHt~.;,,~•-•n!l.)N ""'"'..-adfn-... ~•'O'IIO.Ol-t'S""l:,o,""~• .... S-,-..151t~~l)IC:o<lt. ""'-Vt5Wf~pd!IUI t>~.:'I,, ._ IIOQ<.,._......_,.,.J>t,"PPQ~Cc>l,o,~CCIIH-"-"-"'~~ ,~---dttl(.INI ..... M. ~,..,ot,~">li.t•...,,_........,_ .. ._,,,""°,."'""°',,."9,,e~T4~t-K)' f·~•ar,:t~-· ~ q'.<OM) d""- 0•t• t-Q,l',l,0 .... ,1 ~ ....... .o<'4 D.,.-4wt,. ~ .. ...._ ... ,,_t_t/ ol _,,, .... _, t.l .!MM !bl ti:)

f>l"' ·"i.rru-.M••·-·••='•"" J=•~--· """"'-o.:.o.__,.,_~,111,i,u."•'c.ot•~J a.i-~~ ~~Co~,-.Ml,....»r'tlfl>,:><:"9ll -~~~'~' a.a, dt-"IIOl'MDo~ a-;ci..tc:,•"I' .,,~. ~;c.,,_....,.1,:ir,,•~~1,11.:0- ..,,._..,,.S_l~C~. •~.Sffl:Cn! lt"-•~lolld b<;al,~1t.,..,Jfq,i'4"'9-,t<fN~W."~IIM<~~-,O.,-,ri.,1)91•• ' P0Mt ... ~ 1"111. flO ~rN10.i,.,,..,r,;i1t...1N'MrJ"" l°"""_....,..,~aic.1--,•-""'~«,11 l'ro411C(\\\I t ~ Sa6l>Ofllf.11 Co~nt, Depa.,.,.t~I ot P1Mn~9 ~d 0.-.10",nnl hMfU, Qfto{;r~bylOIS



Applicant: LDC, Inc. File: SW3 16-118928-DA


General Policy Plan (GPP) Option 1: Proposed changes to the Southwest Urban Growth Area (SWUGA) to remove 230 acres from an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate from Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) to Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) and add 135 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate from Rural Residential (RR) and Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA) to ULDR.

Future Land Use (FLU) Map Amendments:

Rezones:

Option 2:

Option 3:

Proposed changes to two UGAs that would remove 161 acres from an unincorporated portion of the Granite Falls UGA and redesignate from ULDR to RR-5 and add 135 acres to an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA and redesignate from RR to ULDR.

Proposed expansion of an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA to add 135 acres and redesignate from RR to ULDR.

Option 1 : Proposed 230 acre rezone of an unincorporated portion of the SWUGA removal area from R-7,200, R-9,600, and Planned Residential Development (PRO) -9,6007 to R-5 and rezone of the 135 acre SWUGA addition area from R-5 to R-7,200.

Option 2 Proposed 161 acre rezone of an unincorporated portion of the Granite Falls UGA removal area from R-9,600 to R-5 and rezone the 135 acre SWUGA addition area from R-5 to R-7,200.

Page 1 of 20

Option 3 Proposed 135 acre rezone unincorporated portion of the expansion area from R-5 to R-7,200.

of an SWUGA

GPP Policy Amendments: Option 1: No policy amendments proposed.

Code Amendments:

Option 2: Amend GPP Policy LU 1.A.14 to allow net capacity neutral UGA adjustments between separate UGAs.

Option 3: Amend LU 1.A.1, LU 1.C.1, and LU 1.0.1 to allow a minor UGA expansion that provides a distinct boundary between urban and rural areas. Add a new LU policy under Objective LU 1.A that identifies the criteria for allowing minor UGA expansions.

Option 1: No code amendments proposed.

Option 2: Amend sec 30.74.020(2) to allow net capacity neutral UGA adjustments between separate UGAs.

Option 3: Amend sec 30.74.020(2) to allow a minor UGA expansion that provides a distinct boundary between urban and rural areas subject to criteria.


Location: Option 1: The UGA removal area is located within the unincorporated SWUGA along the west and southwest side of Lowell Larimer Road from the Everett city limits the intersection of Seattle Hill Road and Lowell Larimer Road. The SWUGA addition area is bounded on the north by Jewell Rd./196th St. SE, on the west by the existing SWUGA, on the south by Maltby Road (SR 524), and on the east by a powerline corridor that would be comparable to 45th Ave. SE.

Option 2: The UGA removal area is located within the unincorporated southeast portion of the Granite Falls UGA and bounded on the north

Page 2 of 20

Existing Land Use:

Adjacent Land Use:

by Menzel Lake Road and Granite Falls city limits; on the west by city limits, on the east by Menzel Lake Road; and on the south, in part, by 84 St. NE. The SWUGA addition area is bounded on the north by Jewell Rd./196th St. SE, on the west by the existing SWUGA, on the south by Maltby Road (SR 524), and on the east by a powerline corridor that would be comparable to 45th Ave. SE.

Option 3: The SWUGA addition area is bounded on the north by Jewell Rd./196th St. SE, on the west by the existing SWUGA, on the south by Maltby Road (SR 524), and on the east by a powerline corridor that would be comparable to 45th Ave. SE.

The proposed SW3 SWUGA addition area consists of single family residences with individual septic systems on a mix of suburban to larger rural sized parcels. The proposed SWUGA removal area consists of single family residences on rural sized lots with individual septic systems. The proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area consists of a mix of large undeveloped parcels as well as several single family residences with individual septic systems on smaller rural sized lots.

Adjacent land uses to the proposed SW3 SWUGA addition area consist of: West - a mix of large lot single family residential, a church, and an elementary school; North -single family residential on rural lots; East and South -single family residential on rural lots. Adjacent land uses to the proposed SW3 SWUGA removal area consist of: West and South- single family residential plats on sanitary sewer; North - the city of Everett; East - agricultural land. Adjacent land uses to the proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area consist of: North and West - single family residential development served by sanitary sewer; and South and East - primarily large rural parcels with single family residences and one rural cluster subdivision.

Page 3 of 20

Adjacent GPP FLUM Designation:

Site Characteristics:

Adjacent plan designations for the proposed SW3 SWUGA expansion area consist of: West - Public/Institutional Use (P/IU), Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR), Urban Medium Density Residential (UMDR) and Urban Village (UV); North-Rural Residential (RR); South-P/IU and RR, East - RR. Adjacent plan designations for the proposed SW3 SWUGA removal area consist of: West - ULDR; North - city of Everett; South - ULDR; East - Riverway Commercial Farmland. Adjacent plan designations for the proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area consist of: North and West - city of Granite Falls; South and East - Rural Residential-5 and Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA).

The proposed SW3 SWUGA addition area is primarily wooded, slopes east, and contains a tributary of Little Bear Creek. Little Bear Creek supports several species of salmon and trout with good water quality and stream habitat. The basin starts in Snohomish County and extends into King County. Snohomish County's portion covers 13 square miles. Stormwater runoff on the SW2 SWUGA addition site is primarily collected in drainage ditches and open channels. In order to protect Little Bear Creek's valuable water quality and habitat resources, Snohomish County Surface Water Management (SWM) is assessing the county's portion of Little Bear Creek to better understand how to manage stormwater as required by the county's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

The proposed SW3 SWUGA removal area consists of wooded areas on steep slopes that drain east into the Snohomish River basin. There are numerous small intermittent and permanent streams that flow off of the hillside within the proposed SWUGA removal area.

The proposed SW3 Granite Falls UGA removal area is primarily wooded with pastured areas along the north and west portion of the site where houses are located. The westerly portion of the proposed removal area is adjacent to the Pilchuck River floodplain.

Page 4 of 20

Infrastructure: The proposed SW3 SWUGA addition area is within the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District boundaries and would be eligible for sanitary sewer service if the proposed addition area were added to the SWUGA. The residences within the proposed addition area are currently on individual septic systems. The district currently provides water service to the proposed UGA addition area.

The proposed SW3 SWUGA removal area is almost entirely within the Cross Valley Water District service area. The only service that Cross Valley provides at this time to the proposed UGA removal area is public water.

The proposed SW3 Granite Falls UGA removal area is within the city of Granite Falls sewer and water system planning area. Currently, there is limited water service within the unincorporated UGA. Sanitary sewer service would be extended to properties within the unincorporated Granite Falls UGA after annexation.

According to the Arterial Circulation map in the Transportation Element of the GMA comprehensive plan, the proposed SW3 SWUGA addition area is primarily accessed on the north by Jewell Rd./196th St. SE, a minor collector, and on the south by Maltby Road (SR 524), a minor arterial. Interior access to the addition area is provided by 43rd Ave SE, a minor collector.

Snohomish County Public Works is beginning a design study to evaluate improvements to 43rd Ave. SE including widening the street to a two lane rural roadway section from SR 524/Maltby Road to 188th St. SE. Construction on this project would begin in 2021. The county has temporarily closed 43rd Ave. SE at 188th St. SE to motor vehicles due to inadequate road width and rising traffic volumes. The closure will remain in effect until improvements are completed on 43rd Ave. SE. The SWUGA removal area is bordered by Lowell Larimer Road, a minor arterial.

The SWUGA removal area is bordered by Lowell Larimer Road, a minor arterial. The Granite Falls UGA removal area includes Robe Menzel Road, a minor collector, and Menzel Lake Road, a major collector.

Page 5 of 20

EVALUATION

PDS shall recommend to the county council that an amendment be further processed only if all of the following criteria are met.


Criterion "a": The proposed amendments are consistent with the countywide planning policies (CPPs), the multicounty planning policies (MPPs), the Growth Management Act (GMA), and other applicable state and federal laws.

SW3 Option 1: No. The SW3 Option 1 proposal to adjust the boundary of the SWUGA to achieve a no net increase of population land capacity will result in a net increase of population land capacity. Option 1 is inconsistent with the GMA, the MPPs and the CPPs as described below.

GMA The Option 1 proposal, which results in an expansion of the SWUGA, is inconsistent with the UGA requirements in RCW 36.?0A.110(2):

(2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses.


The expansion of the SWUGA is inconsistent with the requirements of the GMA as documented in the Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report as amended on October 12, 2016. The Report states that all individual cities, unincorporated UGAs, and unincorporated MUGAs within the SWUGA have sufficient population capacity within the composite UGA to accommodate the 2035 growth targets. The Report also states that the additional composite UGA population capacity

Page 6 of 20

(the UGA population safety factor) exceeds the projected 2035 UGA population growth by 33.6%.





The Option 1 proposal is inconsistent with DP-2 and DP-4 as it allows residential development at urban densities outside of the existing SWUGA without first evaluating opportunities to maximize residential development potential within existing urban areas.

CPPs

The Option 1 proposal, which results in an expansion of the SWUGA, is inconsistent with CPPs DP-2 and DP-3:






Page 7 of 20





(a) Population growth in the UGA (city plus unincorporated UGA) since the start of the twenty-year planning period, equals or exceeds fifty percent of the additional population capacity estimated for the UGA at the start of the planning period. Acceptable sources of documentation are the most recent Snohomish County Tomorrow (SGT) Growth Monitoring Report (GMR) or the buildable lands review and evaluation (Buildable Lands Report [BLR]), and






6. Schools (including public, private and parochial), churches, 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 should be located in an urban growth area. In the event that it is demonstrated that no site within the UGA can reasonably or logically accommodate the proposed facilities, urban growth area expansions may

Page 8 of 20

take place to allow the development of these facilities provided that the expansion area is adjacent to an existing VGA.

7. In VGAs where the threshold in Condition 4 has not been reached, the boundary of an individual VGA may be expanded to include additional industrial land if the expansion is based on the criteria contained in RCW 36. 70A. 365 for the establishment of a major industrial development. This assessment shall be based on a collaborative County and city analysis of large developable industrial site needs in relation to land supply. "Large developable industrial sites" may include land considered vacant, redevelopable, and/or partially-used by the Buildable Lands Program (per GF-7 and Appendix E of these CPPs) and may include one or more large parcels or several small parcels where consolidation is feasible.


9. The expansion will permanently preserve a substantial land area containing one or more significant natural or cultural feature(s) as open space adjacent to the revised VGA boundary and will provide separation between urban and rural areas. The presence of significant natural or cultural features shall be determined by the respective legislative bodies of the county and the city or cities immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion, and may include, but are not limited to, landforms, rivers, bodies of water, historic properties, archeological resources, unique wildlife habitat, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.


11. The expansion will result in the economic development of lands that no longer satisfy the designation criteria for natural resource lands and the lands have been redesignated to an appropriate non-resource land use designation. Provided that expansions are supported by the majority of the affected cities and towns whose VGA or designated MVGA is being expanded and shall not create a significant increase in total employment capacity (as represented by permanent jobs) of an individual VGA, as reported in the most recent Snohomish County Tomorrow Growth Monitoring Report in the year of expansion.

Criterion "a": The Option 1 proposal which results in a UGA expansion is not supported by a land capacity analysis. PDS determined that the UGA expansion would result in an additional population of 244 to the SWUGA, which already has a projected surplus of 60, 114, based on the current 2035 growth forecast.

Page 9 of 20


Criterion "c": The UGA expansion does not comply with GMA provisions in RCW 36. ?OA.110(2) as the county currently has sufficient areas and densities to accommodate growth for the 2015 to 2035 planning period.

Criterion "d": The UGA expansion and reduction areas are adjacent to the city of Bothell's and the city of Everett's municipal urban growth areas (MUGAs), respectively. Both cities will be notified of the SW3 docket proposal as required by the public participation procedures in chapter 30.74 SCC in advance of a county council public hearing to consider the SW3 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Bothell and Everett will occur if the SW3 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.








DP-3 Following consultation with the affected city or cities, the County may adjust urban growth areas - defined in this policy as concurrent actions to expand an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in one location while contracting the same UGA in another location - without resulting in net increase of population or employment land capacity. Such action may be permitted when consistent with adopted policies and the following conditions:

Page 10 of 20

a. The area being removed from the UGA is not already characterized by urban development, and without active permits that would change it to being urban in character; and


The SW3 Option 1 docket proposal was submitted as a SWUGA adjustment that would result in a no net increase of population land capacity under DP-3. The proposed SWUGA removal area along Lowell Larimer road would result in a population reduction of 368. The proposed SWUGA addition area would add a population of 612. The proposed SWUGA adjustment is considered a UGA expansion as there would be a net increase of population capacity by 244 and, therefore, is inconsistent with DP-3.

The cities of Everett and Bothell are the nearest cities, respectively, to the SWUGA removal area and the SWUGA addition area. Both cities will need to be consulted in advance of the county council public hearing and action on a motion to consider the SW3 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Everett and Bothell will occur if the SW3 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

Although the SW3 Option 1 proposal is not consistent with the UGA adjustment requirement in DP-3 of a no net increase of population, the Option 1 proposal is consistent with DP-3 conditions "a" and "b". Under condition "a", the proposed removal area is not characterized by urban development as the area contains single family residences on rural lots that are served by individual on-site sewage disposal systems. There are no active permits for urban development as the area is not served by urban infrastructure, including sanitary sewers. Consistent with condition "b", the RR-5 land use designation assigned to the area proposed for removal from the UGA is an existing rural land use designation in the GPP.

SW3 Option 2: No. The SW3 Option 2 proposal to: a) amend GPP Policy LU 1.A.14 and Snohomish County Code (SCC) 30.74.020(2) to allow no net gain in population or employment capacity as the result of adjustments between separate UGAs; and b) amend the FLU map and implementing zoning to adjust both the SWUGA and the Granite Falls UGA and not result in a net increase of population land capacity for the two UGAs combined, is consistent with the GMA and MPPs and inconsistent with the CPPs as described below.

GMA The Option 2 proposal is consistent with the UGA requirements in RCW 36. ?OA.110(3):

(3) Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW 36. 70A.350.

Page 11 of 20

The proposed combined SWUGA and Granite Falls UGA adjustments would remove a designated urban area that is not currently provided with urban infrastructure, including sanitary sewer, and would add a rural area where nearby urban infrastructure, including sanitary sewer, can be extended to service this area. The proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area is within the city's sanitary sewer service area boundaries. Given the city's sewer extension policies, there would be no consideration of extending sewer service to this area unless annexed to the city. Urban services, including sanitary sewer, could be extended to the proposed SWUGA addition as this area is within the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District boundaries.

MPPs The Option 2 proposal is consistent with the following Vision 2040 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.

The proposed adjustments to the SWUGA and the Granite Falls UGA are consistent with MPP DP-1 which allows for adjustments to UGAs in order to plan for more efficient land uses and infrastructure to better accommodate population and growth within UGAs.


Following consultation with the affected city or cities, the County may adjust urban growth areas - defined in this policy as concurrent actions to expand an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in one location while contracting the same UGA in another location - without resulting in net increase of population or employment land capacity. Such action may be permitted when consistent with adopted policies and the following conditions: a. The area being removed from the UGA is not already characterized by

urban development, and without active permits that would change it to being urban in character; and


The Option 2 proposal to adjust both the SWUGA and Granite Falls UGA and proposed amendments to GPP Policy LU 1.A.14 and implementing regulations to allow UGA adjustments between separate UGAs that would not increase land capacity is inconsistent with CPP DP-3.

DP-3 is a recently adopted policy as part of the 2011 update of the CPPs that provides cities a process for concurrently expanding and contracting the boundaries of their individual UGA without resulting in a net increase of population or employment capacity. This adjustment process allows cities to more efficiently plan the land uses and infrastructure within their UGAs in order to accommodate their adopted growth targets.

Page 12 of20

Amendments to CPP DP-3 would be required in order to achieve consistency with the Option 2 proposal. Revising CPP DP-3 to allow net population capacity neutral adjustments between separate UGAs would be a major change in the countywide vision in the CPPs for managing future growth in both the county and the cities.

If there was an established CPP policy direction that would allow a net capacity neutral UGA adjustment between different UGA boundaries, the proposed Option 2 UGA adjustments between the Granite Falls UGA and the SWUGA would be consistent with such a policy. The Option 2 proposal, as submitted, would result in a net decrease of population capacity for the two UGAs combined. For the proposed Granite Falls UGA removal area, there would be a population reduction of 700. The proposed SWUGA addition area would add a population of 612. This adjustment would result in a decrease in the net combined population capacity of the two UGAs by 88 persons.

A population reduction of 700 in the Granite Falls UGA population capacity would result in a population capacity shortfall of 522 for the Granite Falls UGA relative to its reconciled 2035 population target. Adoption of the SW3 Option 2 proposal would necessitate the need for the city of Granite Falls to work with the county through Snohomish County Tomorrow to consider either reducing the Granite Falls UGA 2035 population growth target and/or increasing the population capacity through upzoning of remaining areas within the Granite Falls UGA to compensate for the Granite Falls UGA reduction.

The cities of Granite Falls and Bothell are the nearest cities, respectively, to the Granite Falls removal area and the SWUGA addition area. These two cities will need to be consulted in advance of the county council public hearing and action on a motion to consider the SW3 proposal for placement on the Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Bothell and Granite Falls will occur if the SW3 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

The Option 2 proposal is consistent with DP-3 conditions "a" and "b". Under condition "a", the proposed removal area is not characterized by urban development as the area contains single family residences on rural lots that are served by individual on-site sewage disposal systems. There are no active permits for urban development as the area is not served by urban infrastructure, including sanitary sewers. Under condition "b", the RR-5 land use designation assigned to the area proposed for removal from the UGA is an existing rural land use designation in the GPP.

SW3 Option 3: No. The SW3 Option 3 proposal: a) amends GPP Policies LU 1.A.1, LU 1.C.1, and LU 1.D.1 and adds a new GPP Policy under Objective LU 1.A and amends implementing regulations that together would allow a minor expansion of a UGA that would not be subject to the 15% county composite UGA population safety factor limitation, if the expansion creates a more definable and distinct edge between urban and rural areas; and b) amends the FLU map, and implementing zoning, to expand the SWUGA to add 135 acres of residential capacity. The Option 3 proposal is inconsistent with the GMA, MPPs and CPPs as described below.

GMA The Option 3 proposal is inconsistent with the UGA requirements in RCW 36. 70A.110(2):

Page 13 of 20

(2). Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twentyyear period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential uses.


The Option 3 SWUGA expansion proposal is inconsistent with the GMA and Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report amended on October 12, 2016. The Report states that all individual cities, unincorporated UGAs, and unincorporated MUGAs with the SWUGA have sufficient population capacity within the composite UGA to accommodate the 2035 growth targets. The Report also states that the additional composite UGA population capacity (the UGA population safety factor) exceeds the projected 2035 UGA population growth by 33.6%.

MPPs The Option 3 proposal is inconsistent with the following Vision 2040 MPPs:



Vision 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy were developed with the assumption that, with good planning and efficient land use, existing urban growth areas can accommodate the population and employment growth expected by 2040. The MPPs which implement Vision 2040 and the Regional Growth Strategy, including MPPs DP-2 and MPP DP-4, make it clear that any expansion of a UGA within the region's planning horizon should get only limited consideration.

Page 14 of 20



An expansion of the boundary of an individual Urban Growth Area (UGA) that results in a net increase of residential, commercial or industrial land capacity shall not be permitted unless:

c. The expansion is supported by a land capacity analysis adopted by the County Council pursuant to RCW 36. 70A. 11 O;

d. The resulting additional population capacity within the Snohomish County composite UGA as documented by both City and County comprehensive plans does not exceed the total 20-year forecasted UGA population growth by more than 15 percent;







(a) Population growth in the UGA (city plus unincorporated UGA) since the start of the twenty-year planning period, equals or exceeds fifty percent of the additional population capacity estimated for the UGA at the start of the planning period. Acceptable sources of documentation are the most recent Snohomish County Tomorrow (SGT) Growth Monitoring Report (GMR) or the buildable lands review and evaluation (Buildable Lands Report [BLR]), and

(b) An updated residential land capacity analysis conducted by city and County staff for the UGA confirms the accuracy of the above finding

Page 15 of 20

using more recent residential capacity estimates and assumptions, and any new information presented at public hearings that confirms or revises the conclusions is considered.






7. In UGAs where the threshold in Condition 4 has not been reached, the boundary of an individual UGA may be expanded to include additional industrial land if the expansion is based on the criteria contained in RCvV 36. 70A.365 for the establishment of a major industrial development. This assessment shall be based on a collaborative County and city analysis of large developable industrial site needs in relation to land supply. "Large developable industrial sites" may include land considered vacant, redevelopable, and/or partially-used by the Buildable Lands Program (per GF-7 and Appendix E of these CPPs) and may include one or more large parcels or several small parcels where consolidation is feasible.


9. The expansion will permanently preserve a substantial land area containing one or more significant natural or cultural feature(s) as open space adjacent to the revised UGA boundary and will provide separation between urban and rural areas. The presence of significant natural or cultural

Page 16 of 20

features shall be determined by the respective legislative bodies of the county and the city or cities immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion, and may include, but are not limited to, landforms, rivers, bodies of water, historic properties, archeological resources, unique wildlife habitat, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.



The proposed SWUGA expansion under Option 3, which includes proposed amendments to GPP Policies LU 1.A.1, LU 1.C.1, and LU 1.0.1 and the addition of a new GPP Policy under Objective LU 1.A, and amendments to implementing regulations, is not supported by the criteria and conditions for expansion of a UGA that results in a net increase of residential land capacity under CPP DP-2. The proposed expansion would result in an increased SWUGA population capacity of 612. Amendments to CPP DP-2 that mirror the proposed GPP policy amendments would first need to be adopted in order for the proposal to be consistent with the CPPs.

Criterion "a": The UGA expansion proposal is not supported by a land capacity analysis. PDS determined that the expansion area would result in an additional population of 612 to the SWUGA which already has a projected surplus of 60,114, based on the current 2035 growth forecast.

Criterion "b": The proposed UGA expansion and supporting GPP policy changes exempting minor UGA expansions from the population safety factor are not supported by this criterion, unless amended. The county composite safety factor currently exceeds the total 20-year forecasted UGA population growth by more than 15%. Recent amendments to the CPPs adopted by the County Council in 2016 included amendments to DP-2. These amendments recognize that the UGA population safety factor limit of 15% for surplus capacity of the composite county UGA is more appropriately applied when UGA expansions to create additional capacity are being considered. The intent of the limit on surplus capacity is to prohibit oversizing of UGAs. According to the Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report, amended in 2016, the composite UGA population safety factor is 33.6%.

Criterion "c": The UGA expansion proposal does not comply with GMA provisions in RCW 36. 70A.110(2) as the county currently has sufficient land area within the SWUGA

Page 17 of 20

to permit urban growth that is projected to occur during the 2015 to 2035 planning period.

Criterion "d": The UGA expansion proposal is adjacent to the city of Bothell's municipal urban growth area (MUGA). Bothell will be notified of the SW3 docket proposal as required by the public participation procedures in chapter 30.74 SCC in advance of a county council public hearing to consider the SW3 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Further consultation with Bothell will occur if the SW3 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

Criterion e: The UGA expansion proposal is not supported by any of the applicable conditions under Criterion "e" for expansion of a UGA in order to increase residential capacity. The most applicable conditions are:







Policy DP-2 replaced a previous CPP policy (UG-14) in the 2011 update of the CPPs. DP-2 is a major modification to the pre-2011 CPP UG-14 policy criteria for considering expansions of UGAs to accommodate projected growth. One UG-14 expansion criteria that was considerably narrowed in DP-2 was condition "5" which addresses corrections to UGA boundaries. In the prior CPP UG-14.d.6, minor UGA expansions were allowed for technical correction purposes in order to create a more identifiable UGA boundary as long as the expansion did not increase total residential capacity by the lesser of 0.5% or 20 acres. Condition "5" in DP-2 now limits this type of expansion only to correct a demonstrated mapping error. The intent of this now very limited condition of expansion under DP-2 was to increase consistency with multicounty planning policies in Vision 2040.

The applicant has stated that CPP DP-2 would have to be amended to allow this type of UGA expansion. Revising DP-2 to allow a minor expansion of the boundary of an individual UGA would be a major change in the countywide vision in the CPPs for managing future growth in both the county and the cities. More importantly, this revision to DP-2 would have to be consistent with the GMA and the MPPs.

Criterion "b": Any proposed change in the designation of agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands is consistent with the designation criteria of the GMA and the comprehensive plan.

Page 18 of20

N/A. This criterion is not applicable. The SW3 proposal will not change any GMA resource lands designation.

Criterion "c": If the proposed amendments have been reviewed by the planning commission or county council as part of a previous proposal, circumstances related to the current proposal have significantly changed and support a plan or regulation change at this time. N/A. This criterion is not applicable. The SW3 proposed amendments have not been previously reviewed by the planning commission or county council as part of a previous proposal.

Criterion "d": If the next docket cycle to be set is limited to minor amendments by sec 30.74.015(2)(a), the proposal satisfies all of the following conditions: N/A. This criterion is not applicable to the SW3 proposal since Docket XIX, the next docket cycle to be set, is scheduled for processing of both major and minor amendments according to sec 30.74.015(2)(c).

Initial Review of Rezone Requests (SCC 30.74.040):

(1) The rezone request is for an implementing zone consistent with a concurrent proposed amendment to the future land use map that meets the criteria of sec 30.74.030. No. Since the SW3 rezone requests are for zones that implement concurrent proposed future land use map amendments that do not meet all of the criteria of SCC 30.74.030(1), the proposed rezones are not consistent with this criterion.

(2) Public facilities and services necessary for development of the site, as defined in applicable capital facilities plans, are available or programmed to be provided consistent with the comprehensive plan and development regulations as determined by applicable service providers. No. The SW3 proposal has not demonstrated that public facilities and services to serve urban levels of development, particularly urban transportation improvements, are available or programmed to serve the proposed SWUGA addition area. The county has temporarily closed 43rd Ave.SE, the primary access to the proposed SWUGA addition area, to thru traffic due to inadequate road width and rising traffic volumes. Only rural road improvements are currently planned for 43rd Ave. SE.

(3) Site plan approval would not be required concurrent with the rezone under chapters 30.31A, 30.318, or 30.31F sec. Yes, site plan approval would not be required concurrent with the rezone under chapters 30.31A, 30.31 B, or 30.31 F sec.


Consistent with Initial Docket Review Criteria: Consistent with Rezone Criteria: sec 30.74.030(1) sec 30.74.040

"a" "b" "c" "d" "1" "2" "3" N N/A N/A N/A N N y

Page 19 of 20

Recommendation:

According to SCC 30.74.030 and 30.74.040, PDS is required to recommend to the county council that proposed docket amendments be further processed only if all of the initial review and evaluation criteria are met. Options 1, 2 and 3 of the SW3 docket proposal do not meet all of the initial review and evaluation criteria; therefore, PDS recommends that the SW3 proposal not be further processed.

Page 20 of 20

~ N

Docket .XOX - Initial Review LDC, Inc. (SW 3) - Option 1 Proposed Future Land Use Map


Snohomish County


IZJ

CSI

C]

li'.,.'1

Proposed SWUGAAddition: Redesignate Rural Residential (1 DU/5 acres) to Urban Lt>w Density! Residential (ULDR)

Proposed SW\.JGA Removal: Redesignate Urban Low Density Residentia l (ULDR) to Rural Residential - 5 ( 1 DU/5 acres)

Incorporated City


/'./ Streams

Future Land Use

RiveM1ay Commercial Farmland

Rural Residential- 5 (1 DU/5 Acres) Urban Low Density Residential (Please See Map 6 of the GPP)

c:J Urban Medium Density Residential

Public/Institutional

W. Urban Village

, '\. • Rural/Urban Transition Area Overlay

SWUGA Addition

0.5

;J..,.,,<b,..,.a.~~lnfoi,r.i,fo,,w1/~"'*H1~111,•·•19t.lo,,t(laM,.,11,w•...,..,._1,#t111ti:,u o:w,,13,,._.a,,C>ll<:aldUM~arr~~qr,d, 1'•$1"moll'.i>~-ivcoc:... ,,,1u:\J/'MMlM1~1,'30:.t to (>,o C,,:1,, !~ell,•; '"""'OU- ~;,,::alllaCO<,,r, c«, ., .. ,~. r.\ffr nf11·1 ... "Wdl "' Mil np.c,...ti..i-. 5"olo0ffl1,1:C:~m,muu1,cr'"""'1¥~o<w•ru"'Y ~-~.,_.ccr.:'Ml~.~•nc')'~le:~tu or flllillllr 1/1~ ~ - ':1,N~h:•"' IM,..-,,...,. :n,;:tt.,.~ .. ,,-.,,~\o c' ,r,ocl"J~:,WNer :il.. ..... u lor •·•l' ~-~1',.r,P')i.t.Alll>tl10nf..CU'5t:1c.c:t..r~n,~""Oll,ifO.uH6or.M .. ,t1_,_,._..,wwtl.t,.«H•II :;oi; rff\9lllllrl~l,l1C9""1)~nlt~•~ar.>.io1:""'f (&rr.,.,.I.MS.c.lwnot"8Wt,,~O\ll.r:l•"' "'"'- <tfo:;10< 0~ """°'"'d ... ~h'! UO'J02i,.. W,'-'l,o,S!~~ Sil~L~'(QI, •J S4RCW.p-<>h:bu,uwir.d tx:.l~1tnc:S., f•Of10 pr,..;i..,occ..,.10r1-:.~ ....,.,,...,...,...,.nc,e, ,. .. 1wutM>t~i:,dr::ou••r>d.,.,.•,..., o;.-,:~ ,1M -rff ..,.,,",n~O~~~tlphRo'1~~»,c.-t_,....,,.,,., Produuo bW s ...,i,°'"'it,11 Co1.>11ty o~p:wtJOou.1111 Pbn•int !Wld o.--.~P.'lltM Stt'lllcts. c an ogr3,,..,ro1s

D N

osed Zoning Prop WU GA Addition:

Proposed S o R-7 .200 IZ:] Rezone R-5 t

GA Removal: R 7 200 Proposed S~0 PRD-9,600, and • • ,._ Rezone R-9,6 , - toR-5

c::J Incorporated City

h Area (Current) Ii"_:, Urban Growl

/',/ Streams

XIX - Initial R~vie1w Docket {SW 3) _ Option LDC Inc. _

' ed Rezone Propos

Current Zoning -A-10 A re Agriculture 10- c -LDMR . Multiple Residential Low Density

R-5 Rural 5-Acre

Snohomish County

:~ral Conservation

PRD SA-1 sidential Ptanned Re t Suburban Developmen Agriculture 1·Acre

~:ighborhood Business

[\ N

Docket XIX • nnitiaO Review LDC, Inc (SW3) - Option 2 Snohomish County


CZI Proposed SWUGAAddition: Redesignate Rural Residential (1 DU/5 acres) to Urban Low Density! Residential (ULDR)

Proposed Granite Falls UGA Removal: Redesignate Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) to Rural Residential - 5 (1 DU/5 acres)

lncorporaled City

r .,,:P Urban Growth Area (Current)

/'v Streams

D Road Right of Way


Rural Residential- 5 ( 1 DUIS Acres)

Rural Residential (1 OU/5 Acres Basic) Urban Low Density Residential (Please See Map 6 of the GPP)

,a Urban Medium Density Residential

Public/Ins titutional

~ Urban Village

"-, Rural/Urban Transition Area Overtay

>lr.a~t.Clti,-lr"Jl.m:a~M!W'llllt<fdl('Ollll). " •19t""'U-ll'~;ro10~-lltfl0t130I "101ti'lfit~andl'lc:aldH~N. or1+111n«>~¢.M~~nC-t,Coc:,r. hMIIOtf.~• w.4~~llu IO~tOl1A.!0$etl:«~Ol/'lt1.,...$~~Coc:tP'00..~ ..... 1'*1"'~111h~tll(i:"l1~MIMIM. SMtefttr.O,,#t)./ma,,, .,.1..,,.,~~""-'•"1-,,..-a :i,~: .. t 1cn,c'/; N1trcy ~li:+Mtt or~ol11 .. ea:a~11..-,;,w,-<p1tT1,\d11:bin1, 1•1wion1r.t,OlnwKt.u.:aW,.o,fM.lu.lctu~ ~~w,..i.-,w..A:1...,w,,i1~110<~r""""l--......,t>is0itll t w.mtlll~o~lolwwdw.1to1"'~ -SI* 10 1161:l s,.._.,_111, Ct,.,.,l)'Nlrf'ft»f,-...., ~W!ll ... )'~~!13:,tt. IMS. dabOfb ~ j,<fa.,~ ,.itof In,, c,rll(, <!Ur.c Of OffloM.Olf.CO'IUs'IH ..::hl<o u~ 01:a. Y.l.tn~ 61..li. l#,t, Cl\. 42.~ Fl-CW. ~~~.c.~~.m w,(

bc.llae,,,,.:lH i,- ,. ... >2<t'IIJ ,::c,u;o r.~ ~ .. ~ ·HII !r,:ai,6" :~;,11fe-1CCl!•IIUC•M ~;/t)OlU ~ ... 11'-,s. ~ ~"--........ ,u~o1v., O,:.>c-.~l~o1;,.« ~·,11t,c,•u:""11e•"'-

D N

Proposed Zoning

Cl CJ

Proposed Grani te Falls UGA Removal: Rezone R9,600 to R-5

Proposed SWUGAAddition: Rezone R-5 to R-7 ,200

Incorporated City

..:J Urban Growth Area (Current)

D Road Right of Way

/'-./ Streams

Docket XIX - Initial Review LDC, Inc (SW3) - Option 2

Proposed Rezone

Snohomish County

Current Zoning --A-10 Agriculture 10-Acre

LDMR Low Density Multiple Residential

R-5 Rural 5-Acre

I ,--1 SWUGA Addition I R-9,600 Residentia~9.600 sq. ft

PRD-9,600


PRO SA-1 Planned Residential Development 9,600 sq. ft.

Planned Residential Development Suburban Agriculture 1-Acre R-8,400

Residential-8,400 sq. ft.


,.,..._.d.llu "'i -..~ .. ,,..._~•••1(09ro"t f<1l,;,i .. ~w, ,.hl"lhW"I~~ « d•t.tw:,1D t... c;ori,,! .. .c11~dlc'"lc.t.1i-1<1,ur.,,.,....:-,,,..<ll\.'w~:1Ql'i-,.4-,'1'CoGt ....,_fl!Mli_vl>,!...,.• "'"• 0..e,o..'"J"""_.. ,..c,,..,_.,.,,X!,c.,"W~C«•ll"o.",;:,. .. INl'~"" Mtt,l<l<'jll:ltdbe,_, ... ~ -.i.,...,.... -l..o•n= ,e;•es.onia.""'~-·~"' .. <-•11 v,.. :~-S-IKf(lo;~t"tt ~ 1 ... ,u « ~~~ d \. ... '-'~IJ"-"'"-~ M"'OI - · ·~•Hl)/di:'4 .. <ns:io,,~·· ... ~~y ;:t ..... 'Cl'l~i;tWql OI J.:,,.0 .. lOI II>)' ,p,a,te1,br,...,pcw.,,,po,...:.oi,a:«~ • ..,.,. .... ~,_.~.._.,..,.,_or.a u,-•••-,.,c,L :,.,,._ 1'~o,:!'•r.o IO""'t.""-t!S,,~"""'~eo,,.,.11..,.....,1,..,.,a11c1'°'-"""'(v,att1..a1 .-o, ... _ ,a•"'9o.Jt:;t.•n; ..... , <lr'oc1 or ,:,m.1• ,.. "" -..:! .._._~..Jo,... w,-a-,011 SQ .. Lr,, Cl\ q U RC.'1.' p,..,. ., , 111.a:4 •~= l"al1:>+· • •~t<'flpr.....-l.nJ•""tt•::O"''" '1t ....,~, .. •14f>t4, f~ ~M b CO"'.,..lt.M"'"lpc.w~...,,1 1""'1 ..i C-.... ,..,, .. ,,.,.,rr~·•b,,l'".,e,, ~o.(). .. C..-.,.1'1~ ~ -"'~'!Ir •,ts •.O-I J·Md ~"'4"'.

~ N

Proposed SWUGAAddition:

Docket XIX· Dnifial IF(eview

LDC, Inc. (SW3) - Option 3 Proposed Future Land Use Map


Future Land Use D Road Right of Way

Snohomish County

IZJ Redesignate Rural Residential (1 DU/5 acres) to Urban Low Densityl Residential

Riverway Commercial Farmland

Rural Residential- 5 (1 DU/5 Acres) Urban Low Density Residential (Please See Map 6 of the GPP)

0 1,000 -----====:::iFeet

250 500 {ULDR)

CJ Incorporated City

ft'~ Urban Growth Area {Current)

/'v Streams


Public/lnstitutional

Urban Village

"" Rural/Urban Transition Area Overlay

l l1N,<:1.i:aa.ar-t~ir4:.o,,Htf-l!erelft('0,11oi.1·1~.,1!!'M.'vtp,,..,ut....i,,a.,~.,. eoe "M co,,,w...,.,_ or6:ial u ,_to ~H~Ht""t<.llof.t-1S,,,).~~c~,M/CC1$. .............. .Cl>U ~~d~i:dr.. 1 »-!»tt,~1!1>«'f4'1fll',e,r¥,:,t:c,!111C-1;Coo:111'Q''IIW"l,"".il'•~-dl.,. netCto;''i.1&~~aMI. :!l'IOMll\t>ICOUftf)'-IMl~---~-,.N'f'C-/'""9 ... ,0,,tt,r,\,c-~,..:y. c-.. ,.~, COr.lJlll:n,n eoq,11W..,'1(1M O~t:l-lltlt,IIMll .... ln<lnt,A,~LK~Mf ..... ~r-1ro1 .... "'~Wfy~,1.1,.,.,,1,;,r ,~, p&J10,,tao ~,1'<)U.M,.r1-acoa1.i!tet11Jo!:Ml',,51"V"tNO..~u,"'"''.a"'~':H:1y1~ .... t"M,...,,o,:1 .,.~1ar.u ~""""C<11nfMIMe .. i.-a.,..,._a.<)'4-t• , . lou,di- .. Nbli:),arv,9 -r:;tHf ... ow, M'...:ieo ..-»MiM _ .. Md..,..:M.i u !o! Oa:a. wn,, ,.,,i,.• ~:r.. L~ c~. ~'?.:!4 IIC-"'1 rro~ • ~tot -bc:ll•,-n<tt:'l ..... p,c,•liltKol:Ht r.::~oli',~ftW"""'4"0f~-w t.y. ~_,...,. .. ,olili>'~ ••~d,l!':·n,r6 V_.......l<W\IUINVIMll'IU•alV)°"'l <4NflllW.$1mc• ~.~,:,,,t.liiw;tl'>ai•h.

6. N

Proposed Zoning

Proposed SWUGA Expansion: Rezone R-5 to R-7 ,200

Incorporated City

'.::J Urban Growth Area (Current)

/'-./ Streams

D Road Right of Way

Docket XIX - Initial Review LDC, Inc. (SW3) - Option 3

Proposed Rezone

Snohomish Coun ty

Current Zoning R-9,600 Residential-9,600 sq. ft.

PRD-9,600


PRO SA-1 --A-10 Agriculture 10-Acre

LDMR Low Density Multiple Residential

R-5 Rural 5-Acre

Planned Residenlial Development 9,600 sq. f t.

R-8,400 Residential-8,400 sq. ft

R-7,200 Residential-7,200 sq. ft. -

Planned Residential Development Suburban Agriculture 1-Acre

NB Neighborhood Business

.o,i;,....,,, d:o~ -.r<-·..-:"" '"'"c..••• "'-" f"D~1. •·•'t• ,tu..-.--,.;,u,~,, .. ,,, • .,.,:u~

.......... , ... . ,,"'-c.1, ......... 1.:a .. ,<'P'•tot'CWl..,ol.tt,.,$,,,ol',..,,., ... Qoor<-... t;q# .. ""'........., ___ J':t1

:, " • •. a ""II<'""'~ ~"'' au:1-ea!H C.,...,l), Co,:• l"<N'°'·""' "''"" a~gly ,.t,,ct, ~'4 "'II'! IHJatd ~e,1 ,

olllllii100.,2iii:oo:::::::::'o•o lllli6icoo=::is~e<!t s..:,. ....... t1oeo.,,~,,....,., ,..., ,_~ ... ._,~~(,l'K•"""'J •oe,....,~.~ -acyc.,,."' ,w.,.,..,.i-,tt, Na.al.l),d,.,.C.u....,.1ot.....iw,a .. oo,1J••,..o•~•".....,'""•-·,...,,q1 .....,.1u.~ 1 Of&:~•n!G,' ,.11, pa,,,,.,1a1r,o,,1>".u. AA;1411.,.,cx.r•11°"u-•-•u""'ll _ °""" _ ,... ,. ,~..,.,~...,.. 1c,~MN't.rt'ld 90,w~ho!V~~-"'C=~~-;~,,..... ,,...,"l~"'".,,.,,......,.~ i.x, d..,oo tou.lcl.,,,-.-cta,., ou;:ic.'5t'!.«Ot0t''4..-.,C"'1.'*'"'>M -.l'~ -;:i.:..,•-.r..,,S~ S-l-C,, t • lff..W p,.:,~ _.,_N -·~ ··,,_~"<:•>d"' """ .. t~ k ac! M-\l!<lf - ~!Ol' \IW(~r~· ..,IJl'»<POWt""d l"ff ,,0 ....,...,..,,o., __ 1~,.,...,.~.,,,o.r.,~.ill-..~.,_.11,,«i-~« .. l"fod~CH • 'I SAOIIOll!"I CO~III\' 01,-n1 Off PIMIIIIIO ..,0 De<elopalftt ISl<'Ykt t., CUIOQl~~y101S



Applicant: Northshore School District File: SW4


16-118842-DA

General Policy Plan (GPP) Proposed: Expansion of the SWUGA to add 31.2 acres Future Land Use (FLU) and redesignate to Public/Institutional Use Map Amendments: (P/IU)

Existing: Rural Residential (RR) with a portion of the site in Rural Urban Transition Area (RUTA)

UGA Expansion: Yes- SW UGA

Zoning: Proposed: R-9,600

Existing: R-5

GPP Policy Amendments No policy amendments proposed


Location:

Existing Land Use:

Adjacent Land Use:

The SWUGA addition area (SW4) lies east of 35th Avenue SE and south of 1881h St. SE and is adjacent to the Mill Creek Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA) to the west and adjacent to the Bothell MUGA to the south.

The SW4 site is part of the new North Creek High School campus which is scheduied to open in the faii of 2017. The site contains recently built outdoor athletic fields and sport courts to serve the high school students.

Directly west of the SW4 site is the new North Creek High School facility, within the SWUGA, consisting of three main structures, two-story in height, and totals 225,000 sq. ft. with a 1,600 student capacity. To the east is single family residential development on individual septic systems and located outside of the SWUGA. To the south is the Northshore School District's Fernwood Elementary School within the SWUGA. To the north is single family residential development on sanitary sewer within the SWUGA.

Page 1 of 6

Adjacent GPP FLUM Designations:

Site Characteristics including Critical Areas:

Infrastructure:

EVALUATION

Adjacent plan designations consist of: West -Public/Institutional Use (P/IU) and Urban Medium Density Residential (UMDR); North - Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR); South - P/IU; and East - RuralResidential (RR).

The topography is flat to moderate in gradient and developed with various outdoor athletic fields and sport courts. The very north portion of the site is within the North Creek drainage basin, while the remainder of the site is within the Little Bear Creek drainage basin. There are several wetlands within the south portion of the site.

The site is within the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District service area boundaries and would be eligible for sanitary sewer if the proposed addition area were added to the SWUGA. The district currently provide water service to the site.

Vehicle access to the site is via 188th St. SE, an existing minor collector on the north side of the site, 192nd St. SE, a new local road that connects west to 35th Ave SE, and 39th Ave. SE, an existing local road that was improved to provide access to the south to Jewell Road.

PDS shall recommend to the county council that an amendment be further processed only if a!I of the following criteria are met, except as provided in SCC 30.74.040.


Criterion "a": The proposed amendment is consistent with the countywide planning policies (CPPs), the multicounty planning policies (MPPs), the Growth Management Act (GMA), and other applicable state and federal laws. Yes. The SW4 proposal by the Northshore School District to expand the SWUGA to include 31.2 acres, re-designate to Public/Institutional Use and rezone to R-9,600 is consistent with the GMA, the MPPs, and the CPPs.

GMA The proposal was analyzed for consistency with the following UGA requirements in RCW 36.70A.110(2):

(2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth

Page 2 of 6

that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve. As part of this planning process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses.

The proposed UGA expansion is consistent with the requirement in RCW 36. 70A.110(2) that the county must include sufficient area to accommodate a broad range of needs and uses to accompany the projected urban growth including institutional uses such as schools. The proposed SWUGA expansion area is entirely owned by the Northshore School District and is primarily developed as athletic fields and sports courts to serve the adjacent new North Creek High School facility, which is within the SWUGA.

The proposal was also analyzed for consistency with the following UGA requirements in RCW 36.?0A.110(3):

(3) Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW 36. lOA.350.

Existing public facilities and services, including sewer and water services, within the UGA can be extended to serve the proposed UGA expansion, consistent with the requirements in RCW 36.?0A.110(3).

MPPs The proposal is consistent with the following MPP:

DP-39: Identify and create opportunities to develop parks, civic places and public spaces, especially in or adjacent to centers.

The proposal is consistent with MPP DP-39 which addresses the need to develop public spaces, in this case high school athletic fields and sports courts, in order to create more livable communities.

CPPs The proposed SWUGA expansion and re-designation from RR to P/IU that is primarily developed as high school athletic fields and sport courts, is consistent with CPP DP-2 which establishes conditions for expansion of a UGA boundary.


Page 3 of 6



c. The expansion otherwise complies with the Growth Management Act; d. Any UGA expansion should have the support of affected cities. Prior to issuing

a decision on a UGA boundary change, the County shall consult with affected cities and give substantial weight to a city's position on the matter. If the County Council approves an expansion or contraction of a UGA boundary that is not supported by an affected city, it shall include in its findings how the public interest is served by the UGA expansion or contraction despite the objection of an affected city; and


6. Schools (including public, private, and parochial), churches, 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 should be located in an urban growth area. In the event that it is demonstrated that no site within the UGA can reasonably or logically accommodate the proposed facilities, urban growth area expansions may take place to allow the development of these facilities provided that the expansion area is adjacent to an existing UGA.

The most relevant CPP for purposes of evaluating this proposal is DP-2. Although the purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for UGA expansion proposals that would result in a net increase of residential, commercial, or industrial capacity, one of the conditions (Condition "6'') that can be met for a UGA expansion applies to uses such as schools, churches and community facilities which do not increase residential, commercial or industrial capacity.

Criterion "a": The P/IU future land use map designation in the GPP is applied to lands used or planned for public or institutional purposes. Lands designated P/IU are not intended to accommodate population or employment capacity within UGAs and, therefore, no land capacity analysis is required.

Criterion "b": The proposed UGA expansion does not result in additional population capacity within the county composite UGA, therefore, the 15% population safety factor does not apply.

Criterion "c": The proposed UGA expansion is consistent with requirements of the GMA as described in this report.

Criterion "d": The proposed UGA expansion is adjacent to the city of Bothell's and the city of Mill Creek's municipal urban growth areas (MUGAs). Bothell and Mill Creek will be notified of the SW4 docket proposal as required by the public participation procedures in Chapter 30.74 SCC in advance of a county council public hearing to consider the SW4 proposal for placement on Final Docket XIX. Consultation with both Bothell and Mill

Page 4 of 6

Creek will occur in advance of a final County Council decision on the SWUGA boundary change proposal, if the SW4 proposal is placed on Final Docket XIX.

Condition "6'': The SW4 proposal is consistent with Condition No. 6 of CPP DP-2(d) for expansion of an individual UGA since the UGA expansion area consists entirely of property owned and developed by the Northshore School District. The proposed expansion area is a logical location for inclusion in the SWUGA as it is an integral part of the adjacent North Creek High School facility, which is located inside the SWUGA. The proposed expansion area contains athletic fields and facilities which primarily serve the student population that attends North Creek High School, which is located in the SWUGA.

Criterion "b": Any proposed change in the designation of agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands is consistent with the designation criteria of the GMA and the comprehensive plan. N/A. This criterion is not applicable. The proposal will not change any GMA resource lands designation.

Criterion "c": If the proposed amendment has been reviewed by the planning commission or county council as part of a previous proposal, circumstances related to the current proposal have significantly changed and support a plan or regulation change at this time. N/A. This criterion is not applicable. The SW4 proposal has not been previously reviewed by the planning commission or county council as part of a previous proposal.

Criterion "d": If the next docket cycle to be set is limited to minor amendments by sec 30.74.015(2)(a), the proposal satisfies all of the following conditions: N/A. This criterion is not applicable to the proposal since Docket XIX, the next docket cycle to be set, is scheduled for processing of both major and minor amendments according to sec 30.74.015(2)(c).

Initial Review of Rezone Requests (SCC 30.74.040):

(1) The rezone request is for an implementing zone consistent with a concurrent proposed amendment to the future land use map that meets the criteria of sec 30. 14.030. Yes. Since the rezone request is for an implementing zone consistent with the concurrent proposed future land use map amendment that meet the criteria of SCC 30.74.030, the proposed rezone is consistent with this criterion.

(2) Public facilities and services necessary for development of the site, as defined in applicable capital facilities plans, are available or programmed to be provided consistent with the comprehensive plan and development regulations as determined by applicable service providers. Yes. Public facilities and services including sewer and water are available to the proposal site. The proposal site is within the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District which would provide the sewer and water services.

Page 5 of 6

(3) Site plan approval would not be required concurrent with the rezone under chapters 30.31A, 30.318, or 30.31F sec. Yes. A site plan approval would not be required concurrent with the rezone under chapters 30.31A, 30.31 B, or 30.31 F sec.


Consistent with Initial Docket Review Criteria: Consistent with Rezone Criteria: sec 30.74.030(1) sec 30.74.040

"a" "b" "c" "d" "1" "2" "3" y N/A N/A N/A y y y

Recommendation:

According to SCC 30.74.030 and 30.74.040, PDS is required to recommend to the county council that proposed docket amendments be further processed only if all of the initial review and evaluation criteria are met. The SW4 docket proposal by the Northshore School District does meet all of the initial review and evaluation criteria; therefore, PDS recommends that the proposal be further processed.

Page 6 of 6

6 N

Docket XIX - Initial Review Northshore School District (SW4)


Snohomi.sh County

185th St SE


Proposed SWUGA Expansion: Redesignate Rural Residential (1 OU/5 acres) to Public/ Institutional

c:::J Incorporated City

r,,:J Urban Growth Area (Current)

/V' Streams

Future Land Use

Rural Residentia~ 5 (1 DU/5 Acres) Urban Low Density Residential (Please See Map 6 of the GPP)


Publidlnstitutional W Urban Village

0 6 ~ 130 260 390 520 ---===--c:=::,Fe~t Rural/Urban Transition Area Overlay

Road Right of Way

,.a- ,:a.1, a,-4wlfo,o--Q'I .. H-N,_('"OaQ"'l ttt,fOl ... o'-'IWtwP"_.,..•u~ o•~t.,•k'lto.,_ _ ... ....,..!•~~ "''!• ll111!0 .. 1-ec,,ae,,:1MU1tJ,t!'t$rl-. .... ~eo,,,,.¢es!t. .i.,,,.,~,-.,,..11..,_~~¢t1n b l!>eO,U.~wl~IIINtApfll~t,IIC-)""!tC.:.e'tJ>'!IY•.W0.1 "1,1\o'IFQlt .... .,,,,,~ctd•>-=:.dMr .... Sr..!>",,.u,Cc;o.-1,,...-1<10,'""°"'.,.!-.,or_ .. _'°'l',.....:•·M',Jr,troc~..,...,-=~, . ..,,-",o.:-'~•.o· .. , Olq<, ...... d"" 0.U«>r~--~ - ... -...-?""...i, l!._.,.,,1"1 .... ' "'"<J""'IU>l~Ct.,. y~•t.l'wW IOl~~J' ;;,.~"'I*' i,;,,p,..-...AI:,.,-., '"".,.~ .. ff' <>'M~'-*"" "9••0.:t~n,.·~•• 11 .. sw ... bt.rtc, ,..., :i,-wh-.: Y,<N!9"""'=6,,GI .... W,Cc.A"'t11<1 ...... ~. w.naH~M· o,\y tl-Q•• lo:,;a d,._.,,~l.al.>,l.,..,,....,o~1dll<\'00 M!.-;.tc, lt"s._.,~,:o,,u, .. dw.- 1...aOa!> wa.-.. :u,.i~•L- Cl'. •?.XIRC'~ .....,,,~.U.lotlOC( bcal•S-,._,.1/,ot"P,;J>d "'l,lil«ffi.t<>-!*,/l.......,.Nl1 .. : ... i!o't<.,., .. f,:c""""""~.olp,,t-poK1•~<11 t!:<11 ... "'"'~,.,cui ........ ,.bo~.,...,,..,, o.ut.>r,p1:ib'.; • •of~a .....,1o,"'1.. ,o1~ .....

14~ W ljll.~·,~~',G,><h:V:i.:•'\.,l"d,._,..~~ l!I\_Xl11'.uG1._Ple ..... A'1~1,ll,PS.'.S,"4_0~ : ~1J'llt; ,.,..i<:JCi:.. 1.i;>~.~1

~ N

Proposed Zoning Proposed SWUGA Expansion : Rezone Rural-5 Acre to R-9,600

Incorporated City

Urt>an Growth Area (Current)

/'v Streams

D Road Right of Way

Docket XIX - Initial Review Northshore School District (SW4)

Proposed Rezone

Current Zoning

LDMR

R-5 Rural 5-Acre


R-7,200 Residentia~7.200 sq. ft.

R-7,200 (PRD) Residential-7,200 sq. ft.

Snohomish County

- Low Density Muttiple Residential Planned Residential Development

O 62.5125 250 375 500 -11111oc::= ::::11-m:::::::=iFeet

IJl11,- •=-- -«o,-:.o,o .,.11;>rt, 1w1-ro-"l. :1,. ,~.a..w .. ..,,,.p .. rpo,u•"""' ~·•••• IIOtHIM cu,MM,fH•~<l'T"Laff:C.lr:klo'l!.!i.flr lcJlr-bt~ t,/.-S,-,,.,,.,h C;,uet,c« .. ......_lt_w~ .. •• 11,"""0.ia ~--·- eti1eC.-~~•"'°""orn."'-rar<>frwhd,¥ll""1•&,c.tN~ ...... Slullo,,,,tl'tCew-t,,-""ll11<;<q,<.....,.tll<lll.,'-•~<Cill<..,~ t,eco,,,t<.~.-..a.;y. ... ,e<'<:,:«..,,..,-• e, ~.illll) d ir.C.u t6rl= ... c """•" • 'td .,,..., .. ti, ~~ ..... • ._'1' _,..,~ .., - ~ ~·~•.,. o, lNwtC>r ...,) ~-i.a. ii,.,,p,iw.M~a.ocuu.. l 6'lll.'llt,_• ~'"'"fl "ilCr.aa......,,.•••~ •,~..,, ~,.~c .. rafd a,;'":,,;, t.::111 ~.t,-·--c.,.,.....,_,,,u• IIW><•<>d ~u·,llf ..,~4•--;H Nn 0- "• A*1, • •4""9 C>UI d ..,, *'<.:J<',Nf...:t«-e::ni.se~,.;,-" .. U OII 0. 1, V..:Ol'"\flOl'IS......L~C,,,.•:."3ACW,,..,.... u ou.Nbei,t•~-,!1<:mP,°">d"'51-«t•s1<> ... •el~'UI t,o..e'Nlb .... i..-;.,,.,..,.._"'""'°',..-._,-.,. "" ~--yN,,..,$o r:J .,,10-~~,-.,1 .... \doek«'f>-.St,., • .,i

f'r«iucu l!ylllMoa,.~ CO\lft ,Y O.p-r,\ olP111111,ng l nO o. ... io.,. .... 1 ~tt.Cl"09r~l'tyl'OIS

bJ EXEJ:UTIVE RECOMMENDATION: DEPARTMENT

Documents

Transcript of bJ EXEJ:UTIVE RECOMMENDATION: DEPARTMENT