LOG NUMBERS / / MANAGEMENT ROUTING: TO: COUNCIL …

LOG NUMBERS

BGT. / / CEO

MANAGEMENT ROUTING: TO: COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON: John Lovick SNOHOMISH COUNT' COUNCIL Stephen Clifton z

1 '?D Clay White C EXECUTIVE RECOMMENIDATION: I. _ Planning & Dev Services ' Approve No Recommendation

I Barb Mock Further Processing 1 Planning and Technology Requc;tcd By ( Steve SI:orncy

December 8, 2014 a 2207 I -.kcutiye OlErce Sioaature Cl.O Staff Review Received at Council Office

GRANT APPLICATION

ORDINANCE

C

PLAN

X OTHER Motion dispensing Final Docket XVII Proposal ARl,3

DOCUMENT TYPE: BUDGET ACTION:

Emergency Appropriation

Supplemental Appropriation

Budget Transfer

CONTRACT:

New Amendment

DOCUMENT / AGENDA TITLE: DISPENSATION OF THE FINAL DOCKET XVII PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF ARLINGTON (ARL3) REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE GMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

APPROVAL, AUTHORITY:

II- XFC:IJI J ; (')I, X CITI, 4:, :; ' Chapters 1.02, 2.48, 30.10, 30.73 & 30.74 SCC

HANID ,ING : NORMAL. X EXPEDPIE:

URGENT

DEADLINE? DATE

PURPOSE: Defer final action on the Final Docket XVII proposal by the City of Arlington (ARL3) to 2016.

BACKGROUND: The County Council adopted Amended Motion No. 13-138, a list of proposed non-county initiated comprehensive plan amendments for further processing and final action on Final Docket XVII as part of the 2015 GMA Update including a proposal by the City of Arlington to adjust its Urban Growth Area (UGA).

The City of Arlington requested that final action on the Final Docket XVII proposal (ARL3) be deferred to 2016 in order to allow the city to complete an update of its comprehensive plan in 2015, which may result in an amended proposal.

The ARL3 proposal that was placed on Final Docket XVII consisted of an addition of 239 acres to the Arlington UGA on the west side of Interstate-S and a removal of 321 acres on the east side of the UGA. The west side VGA expansion location would change the plan designation from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Medium Density Residential (UMDR) with a rezone from R-5 to Low Density Multiple Residential (ILDMR). The east side UGA reduction is an area known as Brekhus-Beach that is within Arlington's city limits. A city approved de-annexation in order to remove the land from the UGA and redesignate to RR has not occurred and prevents a concurrent expansion and contraction of the VGA to comply with policies in the General Policy Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

EXPEND: FUND, AGY, ORG, ACTY, OBJ, AU CURRENT YR 2ND YR 1ST 6 YRS 193

I TOTAL I 0J 0! 0

REVENUE: FUND, AGY, ORG, REV, SOURCE CURRENT YR 2ND YR 1ST 6 YRS 193

TOTAL 1 01 01 0

DEPARTMENT FISCAL IMPACT NOTES: (S ,e attached forms regarding capital facility and affordable housing impacts.)

%t UDUET REVIEW: Ana1y Administrator Recommend Approval

CONTRACT INFORMATION: ORIGINAL CONTRACT # AMOUNT

AMENDMENT CONTRACT # AMOUNT $

CONTRACT PERIOD: ORIGINAL Start End AMENDMENT Start End

CONTRACT / PROJECT TITLE:

CONTRACTOR NAME & ADDRESS (City/State only):

APPROVED:

RISK MAN es i No

COMMENTS

PROSECUTING ATTY - AS TO FORM: Yes No

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENTS: G:AECAF\ ept - ARL3\ECAF A L3.docx G _Job Matrix ARL3.docx G:AECAF\ _ EARL3\Capita1Faei1ityCostAnalysis ARL3.docx G:AECAF\ _ {--*F ARL3\ARL3 fnaldocketXVII PDS rec 092414.pdf G:AECAF\ ARL3\FinalDocketXVII Letter_PCrec.pdf G:AECAF\ ARL3\Fina1DocketXVII Letter PCrec_Attachl.pdf G:AECAF\ - ARL3\FinalDocketXVA Letter PCrec Attach2.pdf G:AECAF\ - ARL3\Motion defer ARL3 Fina1DoeketXNIT.doex

NON-ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENTS: Housing Job Matrix Cost Summary Matrix Staff Report to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Recommendation Letter Planning Commission Minutes from Oct. 7 and Oct. 14, 2014 Motion

2

WHEREAS, on July 17, 2013, the Snohomish County Council (County Council) adopted Amended Motion No.13-138, a list of proposed non-county initiated comprehensive plan amendments for further processing and final action on Final Docket XVII in 2015, and authorized the county executive, through PDS, to process Final Docket XVII consistent with chapters 30.73 and 30.74 SCC; and

WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has requested that their Final Docket XVII proposal (ARL3) to amend the Arlington Urban Growth Area (UGA) be deferred to 2016 for final action as a continuation of Final Docket XVII in order to allow the City to complete an update of its comprehensive plan in 2015, which may result in an amended proposal;

NOW, THEREFORE, ON MOTION, the County Council hereby directs that Final Docket XVII action on the ARL3 proposal by the City of Arlington be deferred to 2016, and authorizes the county executive, through PDS, to continue to process the ARL3 proposals consistent with chapters 30.73 and 30.74 SCC.

PASSED this _ day of , 2015.

070=1041

A

Asst. Clerk of the Council

Snohomish County: Analysis of Building and Land Use Regulation Effects on Housing and Jobs

Proposed MOTION NO. 15-_, DISPENSATION OF THE FINAL DOCKET XVII PROPOSAL BY Regulation: THE CITY OF ARLINGTON (ARL3) REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE GMA

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

Date: December 8, 2014

Staff Contact: Steve Skorney, PDS, extension 2207

Increase Decrease Neutral Uncertain Comments rirr

Capacity/Targets X Not impacted by proposal Cost of housing dvpt: X Not impacted by proposal • Infrastructure X Not impacted by proposal • Site X Not impacted by proposal • Building const. X Not impacted by proposal • Fees X Not impacted by proposal • Yield X Not impacted by proposal Timing X Not impacted by proposal

it

Capacity/Targets X Not impacted by proposal Cost of com'l/ind dvpt: X Not im acted by proposal • Infrastructure X Not impacted by proposal • Site X Not impacted by proposal • Building const. X Not impacted by proposal • Fees X Not impacted by proposal • Yield X Not impacted by proposal Time to Create Jobs X Not impacted by proposal_ # Family Wage Jobs X Not impacted by proposal

Discussion:

The planning commission recommended, on October 14, 2014, deferring final action on the ARL3 — City of Arlington Final Docket XVII proposal for one year to 2016. The city requested that final action on the ARL3 proposal be deferred to 2016 in order to allow the city to complete an update of its comprehensive plan in 2015, which may result in an amended proposal.

This motion will not affect current or future housing or jobs.

Snohomish County Capital Facility Development Cost Analysis Summary

Project/Document Title: MOTION NO. 15-_, DISPENSATION OF THE FINAL DOCKET XVII PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF ARLINGTON (ARL3) REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE GMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

Date: December 8, 2014 Primary Staff Contact: Steve Skorney, ext. 2207

General Cost Analysis Summary: The planning commission recommended, on October 14, 2014, deferring final action on the ARL3 — City of Arlington Final Docket XVII proposal for one year to 2016. The city requested that final action on the ARL3 proposal be deferred to 2016 in order to allow the city to complete an update of its comprehensive plan in 2015, which may result in an amended proposal. The proposed motion to defer final action on the ARL3 proposal until 2016 will not increase the demand for county capital facilities.

Necessary Quantification/Qualification of Anticipated Cost: Facility Parks County Funded Impacts — None anticipated

Other Fund Sources Impacts — None Roads & County Funded Impacts — None anticipated Transit

Other Fund Sources Impacts — None Surface County Funded Impacts — None anticipated Water

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

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

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

Other Fund Sources Impacts — None Wastewater County Funded hnpacts — None, funding of wastewater treatment is the responsibility of

the local district or city.

Other Fund Sources Impacts — None

Snohomish County PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

M/S #604

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Snohomish County Planning Commission Clay White, Planning Commission Secretary FROM: Steve Skorney, Senior Planner Planning and Development Services DATE: September 24, 2014 SUBJECT: Final Docket XVII PDS Staff Recommendation – City of Arlington (ARL3) Introduction: Planning and Development Services (PDS) is providing this staff report and recommendation on a proposal by the city of Arlington to amend the Future Land Use (FLU) Map of the General Policy Plan (GPP). This proposal (ARL3) is part of Final Docket XVII. The proposal consists of a concurrent expansion and contraction of the Arlington UGA (otherwise known as a “swap,” “exchange,” or “adjustment”) that would not result in a net gain of population capacity. The adjustment would add 239 acres to the UGA on the west side of Interstate-5 and subtract 321 acres on the east side of the UGA (see attached maps). This proposal is supported by Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) DP-3 which provides direction on UGA adjustments. The west side UGA expansion location would change the plan designation from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Medium Density Residential (UMDR) with a rezone from R-5 to Low Density Multiple Residential. The east side UGA reduction is an area known as Brekhus-Beach that is within Arlington’s city limits. A de-annexation approved by the city would need to occur prior to the county approving a contraction of the UGA at this location and subsequently putting the land into a rural land use designation. The city originally submitted a docket application in 2012 that only proposed the 239 acre UGA expansion. PDS determined that this proposal did not meet CPP DP-2, which contains the criteria for allowing a UGA expansion, and that it should not be placed on the final docket. The city submitted a letter to the county council during the public hearing process to set the final docket in 2013. The city said it was interested in exploring the concept of exchanging an equal portion of land from the east side of the city for the west side

expansion. The county council placed the ARL3 proposal on Final Docket XVII and directed PDS to work with the city to explore options for a final proposal including a potential de-annexation as part of the UGA adjustment. PDS worked with the city through subsequent communications to further refine the expansion and contraction areas to be evaluated during environmental review of the proposal. The city agreed that the 239 acre expansion area and the 321 acre Brekhus-Beach contraction area should be analyzed under Alternative 3 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 2015 GMA Comprehensive Plan Update which was issued on September 8, 2014. The city has had continued discussions with PDS regarding options for adjusting the Arlington UGA boundary. At this time, the city has not proceeded with a de-annexation process to complete the UGA exchange that was evaluated in the DEIS. The city now requests a one-year deferral of a final county decision on the ARL3 proposal in order to explore alternative solutions for a UGA exchange. PDS is recommending that the planning commission defer the city of Arlington’s ARL3 proposal for one year. The planning commission will have an opportunity at that time to review and make recommendations to the county council for final action in 2016 on the ARL3 proposal and any alternative proposals brought forward through a public hearing process.

Background: The ARL3 proposal was originally submitted to the county by the October 31, 2012, docket deadline as a 239-acre expansion of the UGA along its northwest boundary. The above deadline was the last opportunity to submit a major docket proposal (e.g. alteration of a UGA or a substantial policy change), for possible final action coinciding with the 2015 update of the comprehensive plan. The ARL3 UGA expansion proposal was evaluated by PDS for consistency with the initial docket review criteria in chapter 30.74 SCC. PDS concluded that the ARL3 proposal did not meet all of the initial review criteria including inconsistency with the state Growth Management Act (GMA), the Multi-County Planning Policies (MPPs), and the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) and recommended to the county council that the proposal not be further processed. The mayor of Arlington submitted a letter to the county council on June 20, 2013, that agreed to explore the option of a concurrent UGA expansion and contraction. A concurrent expansion and contraction can be considered a UGA boundary adjustment that does not increase the UGA population capacity. On July 17, 2013, the county council placed the ARL3 proposal on Final Docket XVII by Amended Motion No. 13-138 for final action in 2015. The proposal placed on Final Docket XVII included consideration of an expansion of the Arlington UGA to the west side of the city, concurrent with a contraction of the Arlington UGA from the east side of the city. Subsequent communications between county and city staff further refined the expansion and contraction areas to be evaluated during environmental review of the proposal. The city agreed that the proposal to be evaluated would include an expansion

2

to the west side of the city of 239 acres, and a contraction from the east side of the city that would include 321 acres consisting of the Brekhus-Beach area. PDS sent a letter to Arlington on August 25, 2014, advising the city of the option of seeking a deferral of county council final action on the ARL3 docket proposal in order to allow adequate time to accomplish the de-annexation prior to the county’s final consideration of the city’s UGA adjustment proposal. In a letter from the mayor of Arlington addressed to PDS on August 28, 2014, the city requested a one-year deferral of a county decision on the ARL3 proposal in order to explore alternative solutions for a UGA exchange. The planning commission was briefed on the ARL3 proposal by PDS on September 9, 2014.

Site Information: Residences within both the Arlington UGA removal and addition areas are currently using on-site sewage disposal systems. According to the city, it would be difficult and costly to serve the Brekhus-Beach UGA removal area with city utilities, particularly sanitary sewer service. The city asserts that it can more easily and cost-effectively provide sewer and water service to the addition area.

The primary access to the proposed UGA addition area from Arlington is via 200th St. NE which crosses over I-5 from the city into the north portion of the addition area, at which point it becomes a rural local access road. The primary access to the addition area from the south is via 19th Ave. NE, a rural local access road which becomes a Marysville street further south where it intersects with 172nd St. NE (SR 531).

Potential transportation impacts can be expected for the ARL3 proposal addition area. Potential arterial segment impacts are expected to occur only on state routes. Potential impacts and mitigation measures were identified for three intersections that serve the UGA addition area. One of the impacted intersections is Smokey Point Blvd. and SR 530/Pioneer Highway E. The second impacted intersection is SR 531 and 19th Ave. NE. The third impacted intersection is SR 531 and Smokey Point Blvd. The proposed Brekhus-Beach UGA removal area is served by two roadways in the county arterial circulation system: Burn Road, a major rural collector, and by 95th Ave. NE, a minor rural collector. Eagle Creek and several unnamed tributaries are located in the Brekhus-Beach removal area. Unnamed tributaries of Portage Creek and associated wetlands are located in the proposed UGA addition area.

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Action:

All SEPA requirements with respect to this non-project programmatic proposal have been satisfied. PDS issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan 2015 Update on September 8, 2014. A final

3

EIS will be issued in 2015. The analysis in the DEIS was used to review environmental impacts of the ARL3 UGA proposal that consisted of a concurrent 239-acre Arlington UGA expansion to the west side of the city and a 321-acre contraction from the east side of the city.

Final Docket Evaluation

PDS is required to prepare a report including a recommendation on the final docket proposal and forward the report to the planning commission. PDS is required to recommend approval if the proposal is consistent with all of the following criteria listed in SCC 30.74.060(2). Although PDS is recommending that the city be granted a one-year deferral of the ARL3 docket proposal, PDS is obligated to complete an evaluation of this proposal and provide the results to the planning commission. The planning commission has the discretion to either agree to recommend a deferral or it can still make a recommendation on the proposal based on the conclusions of the final docket evaluation. Criterion “a”: The proposed amendment and any related proposals on the current final docket maintain consistency with other plan elements or development regulations. No. Arlington has not de-annexed the Brekhus-Beach removal area portion of the ARL3 proposal placed on Final Docket XVII. PDS is unable to evaluate the ARL3 proposal as a UGA adjustment of unincorporated land under county jurisdiction since the proposed UGA removal area is still within the corporate limits of the city. The ARL3 proposal is not consistent with GPP LU Policy 1.A.14 which provides the process for a UGA adjustment:

“Any action to expand an UGA while contracting the same UGA in another area without resulting in a net increase of population or employment land capacity shall comply with the Growth Management Act, be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and comply with Countywide Planning Policy DP-3.”

Criterion “b”: All applicable elements of the comprehensive plan, including but not limited to the capital plan and the transportation element, support the proposed amendment. No. Arlington has not de-annexed the Brekhus-Beach removal area portion of the ARL3 proposal placed on Final Docket XVII. PDS is unable to evaluate the ARL3 proposal as a UGA adjustment of unincorporated land under county jurisdiction since the proposed UGA removal area is still within the corporate limits of the city. At this time, the ARL3 proposal is not consistent with GPP LU Policy 1.A.14 which provides the process under the GPP for a UGA adjustment.

4

Criterion “c”: The proposed amendment more closely meets the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan than the relevant existing plan or code provision. No. Arlington has not de-annexed the Brekhus-Beach removal area portion of the ARL3 proposal placed on Final Docket XVII. PDS is unable to evaluate the ARL3 proposal as a UGA adjustment of unincorporated land under county jurisdiction since the proposed UGA removal area is still within the corporate limits of the city. At this time, the ARL3 proposal is not consistent with GPP LU Policy 1.A.14 which provides the process under the GPP for a UGA adjustment. Criterion “d”: The proposed amendment is consistent with the countywide planning policies (CPPs). No. Arlington has not de-annexed the Brekhus-Beach removal area portion of the ARL3 UGA adjustment proposal that was placed on Final Docket XVII. PDS is unable to evaluate the ARL3 proposal as a UGA adjustment of unincorporated land under county jurisdiction since the proposed UGA removal area is still within the corporate limits of the city. At this time, the ARL3 proposal is not consistent with the CPPs. The most relevant CPP policy for evaluation of the proposal is 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: 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.”

Here, the fact that the Brekhus-Beach area remains within the incorporated city limits prevents a concurrent expansion and contraction to comply with CPP policy DP-3. Criterion “e”: The proposed amendment complies with the GMA.

No. The ARL3 proposal does not comply with the GMA as Arlington has not de-annexed the Brekhus-Beach removal area portion of the ARL3 UGA adjustment proposal that was placed on Final Docket XVII. PDS is unable to evaluate the ARL3 proposal as a UGA adjustment of unincorporated land under county jurisdiction since the proposed UGA removal area is still within the corporate limits of the city.

5

The proposal is not consistent with RCW 36.70A.110(1) since an adjustment of the Arlington UGA without an approved de-annexation of the Brekhus-Beach area would place an incorporated portion of the city outside of its UGA into a rural area. That GMA provision requires that each city that is located within Snohomish County be included in a UGA:

“Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within an urban growth area. An urban growth area may include more than a single city. An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350.”

Further, the proposal is not consistent with RCW 36.70A.110(4) while the Brekhus-Beach area remains within the city limits. That GMA section provides

“In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development.”

An adjustment of the Arlington UGA at this time would place an incorporated portion of the city outside of the UGA into a rural area where urban governmental services are not appropriate. Criterion “f”: New information is available that was not considered at the time the relevant comprehensive plan or development regulation was adopted that changes the underlying assumptions and supports the proposed amendment. Yes. New information is available that would not have been considered at the time of the adoption of the last major update of the county comprehensive plan in 2005 that changes the underlying assumptions and supports the ARL3 proposal. The city has determined that the proposed UGA removal area cannot be cost-effectively served with sewer and water due to topographic constraints and that the proposed UGA addition area is adjacent to existing water and sewer lines in urban areas that can be easily extended. However, Arlington has not de-annexed the Brekhus-Beach removal area portion of the ARL3 UGA adjustment proposal that was placed on Final Docket XVII. PDS is unable to evaluate the ARL3 proposal as a UGA adjustment of unincorporated land under

6

county jurisdiction since the proposed UGA removal area is still within the corporate limits of the city.

Summary of the ARL3 proposal’s consistency with SCC 30.74.060(2) (a) Maintains consistency with other plan elements

(b) All applicable plan elements support the proposal

(c) More closely meets the goals, objectives, policies of the plan

(d) Consistent with the CPPs

(e) Complies with the GMA

(f) New information not previously considered under a prior plan adoption

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Consistency with the Multicounty Planning Policies (MPP):

The ARL3 proposal is not consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies, particularly DP-1, since Arlington has not de-annexed the Brekhus-Beach removal area portion of the ARL3 UGA adjustment proposal that was placed on Final Docket XVII.

“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.”

By only expanding the UGA to add 239 acres and not concurrently removing 321 acres from the city and the UGA, the ARL3 proposal does not allow for an adjustment to the Arlington UGA in order to plan for more efficient land uses and infrastructure to better accommodate urban population growth.

Recommendation: Based on the city’s request, PDS recommends that the planning commission recommend that the ARL3 final docket proposal be DEFERRED one year for final action by the county council in 2016. Attachments: Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map

7

SR 9

172ND ST NE

67TH

AVE N

E

SR 530

BURN RD

SMOK

EY P

OINT

BLV

D

SR 53

0

51ST

AVE

NE

JORD

AN R

D

CEMETERY RD

188TH ST NE

204TH ST NE

19TH

AVE N

E

47TH

AVE N

E

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS RD

95TH AVE NE

236TH ST NE

211TH PL NE E HIGHLAND DR

N OL

YMPI

C AV

E

E BURKE AVE

19TH DR NE

156TH ST NE

SR 53

0

Portage Creek

Stillag

uamish

River

Eagle

Cree

k

ditch

Edge

comb

e Cree

k

South

Slou

ghHa

yho C

reek

Olaf Strad CreekMarch Creek

West Fork Quilceda Creek

Bjorn Creek

South Fork Stillaguamish River

North Fork Stilla

guamish

River

Armstrong Creek

ditch

ditch

Town

ship

31

Range 5

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000FeetProposed FLU Map Am end m ent:

ARL3Proposed U GA Ad d ition

U GA Bound aryInc orporated CitiesAssessor Parc elsTribal Trust & Oth er Ind ian Land s

Riv erway Com m erc ial Farm landRural Resid ential-10 (1 DU /10 Ac res)Rural Resid ential-5 (1 DU /5 Ac res)Rural Resid ential-5 (1 DU /5 Ac res Basic )U rban Low Density Resid ential Public /InstitutionalRec reational LandRural Freeway Serv ic eU rban Ind ustrial

µPDS

Snohomish County

City of Arlington (ARL3)Final Docket XVII

Proposed Future Land Use MapComprehensive Plan Amendment

Produced by Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services, Cartography/GISAll m aps, d ata, and inform ation set forth h erein (“Data”), are for illustrativ e purposes only and are not to bec onsid ered an offic ial c itation to, or representation of, th e Snoh om ish County Cod e. Am end m ents and upd atesto th e Data, tog eth er with oth er applic able County Cod e prov isions, m ay apply wh ic h are not d epic ted h erein.Snoh om ish County m ak es no representation or warranty c onc erning th e c ontent, ac c urac y, c urrenc y, c om pletenessor quality of th e Data c ontained h erein and expressly d isc laim s any warranty of m erc h antability or fitness for anypartic ular purpose. All persons ac c essing or oth erwise using th is Data assum e all responsibility for use th ereof andag ree to h old Snoh om ish County h arm less from and ag ainst any d am ag es, loss, c laim or liability arising out of anyerror, d efec t or om ission c ontained with in said Data. Wash ing ton State Law, Ch . 42.56 RCW, proh ibits state andloc al ag enc ies from prov id ing ac c ess to lists of ind iv id uals intend ed for use for c om m erc ial purposes and , th us, noc om m erc ial use m ay be m ad e of any Data c om prising lists of ind iv id uals c ontained h erein.

City of Arlington

Red esig nate Rural Resid ential(1 DU /5 Ac . Basic ) with Rural/U rban Transition Area Ov erlay toU rban Med ium Density Resid ential.

City of Marysville

Rural/U rban Transition Area Ov erlayTransfer of Dev elopm ent Rig h ts Send ing Area Ov erlay

Map: W:\plng \c arto\d oc k et\Doc k et_XVII\FinalMaps\Ind iv id ual\CityofArling ton_ARL3_FLU _12-2013.m xd Date: 12/6/2013

ARL3Proposed U GA Rem ov alDe-annex to uninc orporated County andd esig nate as Rural Resid ential(1 DU /5 Ac res Basic )

Future Land U se

!"̀$

?|@

?Ó@

UGA Removal

UGA Addition

SR 9

NE

172ND ST NE

67TH

AVE N

E

SR 530 NE

BURN RD

SMOK

EY P

OINT

BLV

D

SR 53

0

51ST

AVE

NE

JORD

AN R

D

CEMETERY RD

188TH ST NE

204TH ST NE

19TH

AVE N

E

47TH

AVE N

E


95TH

AVE N

E

236TH ST NE


N OL

YMPI

C AV

E

E BURKE AVE

19TH DR NE

156TH ST NE

TVEIT RD

SR 53

0 NE

Portage Creek

Stillag

uamish

River

Eagle

Cree

k

ditch

Edge

comb

e Cree

k

South

Slou

ghHa

yho C

reek



Bjorn Creek


North Fork Stilla

guamish

River

Armstrong Creek

ditch

ditch

Town

ship

31

Range 5

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000Fe e tPropose d Re zone :

ARL3

µPDS

Snohomish County


Produced by Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services, Cartography/GISAll m aps, d ata, and inform ation se t forth h e re in (“Data”), are for illustrative purpose s only and are not to beconsid e re d an official citation to, or re pre se ntation of, th e Snoh om ish County Cod e . Am e nd m e nts and upd ate sto th e Data, toge th e r w ith oth e r applicable County Cod e provisions, m ay apply w h ich are not d e picte d h e re in.Snoh om ish County m ak e s no re pre se ntation or w arranty conce rning th e conte nt, accuracy, curre ncy, com ple te ne ssor quality of th e Data containe d h e re in and e xpre ssly d isclaim s any w arranty of m e rch antability or fitne ss for anyparticular purpose . All pe rsons acce ssing or oth e rw ise using th is Data assum e all re sponsibility for use th e re of andagre e to h old Snoh om ish County h arm le ss from and against any d am age s, loss, claim or liability arising out of anye rror, d e fe ct or om ission containe d w ith in said Data. Wash ington State Law , Ch . 42.56 RCW, proh ibits state andlocal age ncie s from provid ing acce ss to lists of ind ivid uals inte nd e d for use for com m e rcial purpose s and , th us, nocom m e rcial use m ay be m ad e of any Data com prising lists of ind ivid uals containe d h e re in.

City of Arlington

City of Marysville

Map: W:\plng\carto\d ock e t\Dock e t_XV II\FinalMaps\Ind ivid ual\CityofArlington_ARL3_ae rial_12-2013.m xd Date : 12/6/2013

ARL3

!"̀$

?|@

?Ó@

UGA Removal

UGA Addition

Aerial Photo

Ae rial Ph oto: 2012

UGA Bound ary

Incorporate d Citie s

Asse ssor Parce ls

Propose d UGA Ad d itionRe d e signate Rural Re sid e ntial(1 DU/5 Ac. Basic) w ith Rural/Urban Transition Are a Ove rlay toUrban Me d ium De nsity Re sid e ntial.

Propose d UGA Re m ovalDe -anne x to unincorporate d County andd e signate as Rural Re sid e ntial(1 DU/5 Acre s Basic)

SR 9

172ND ST NE

67TH

AVE N

E

SR 530

BURN RD

SMOK

EY P

OINT

BLV

D

SR 53

0

51ST

AVE

NE

JORD

AN R

D

CEMETERY RD

188TH ST NE

204TH ST NE

19TH

AVE N

E

47TH AVE NE


95TH AVE NE

236TH ST NE


N OL

YMPI

C AV

E

E BURKE AVE

19TH DR NE

156TH ST NE

SR 53

0

Portage Creek

Stillag

uamish

River

Eagle

Cree

k

ditch

Edge

comb

e Cree

k

South

Slou

ghHa

yho C

reek


Bjorn Creek

ditch



North Fork Stilla

guamish

River

Armstrong Creek

ditch

Town

ship

31

Range 5

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000Fe e tPropos e d Re zone :

ARL3Propos e d UGA Ad d ition

UGA Bound a ryIncorpora te d Citie sAs s e s s or Pa rce lsTriba l Trus t & Othe r Ind ia n La nd s

Ag riculture -10 AcreAg riculture -10 Acre TDR S e nd ing Are aFore s try a nd Re cre a tionInd us tria l Pa rkLig ht Ind us tria lMine ra l Cons e rva tionPRD S uburba n Ag riculture -1 AcreRura l-5 AcreRe s id e ntia l 9,600 s q. ft.Re s id e ntia l 7,200 s q. ft.Rura l Fre e wa y S e rvice

µPDS

Snohomish County


Produced by Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services, Cartography/GISAll m a ps , d a ta , a nd inform a tion s e t forth he re in (“Da ta ”), a re for illus tra tive purpos e s only a nd a re not to becons id e re d a n officia l cita tion to, or re pre s e nta tion of, the S nohom is h County Cod e . Am e nd m e nts a nd upd a te sto the Da ta , tog e the r with othe r a pplica ble County Cod e provis ions , m a y a pply which a re not d e picte d he re in.S nohom is h County m a ke s no re pre s e nta tion or wa rra nty conce rning the conte nt, a ccura cy, curre ncy, com ple te ne s sor qua lity of the Da ta conta ine d he re in a nd e xpre s s ly d is cla im s a ny wa rra nty of m e rcha nta bility or fitne s s for a nypa rticula r purpos e . All pe rs ons a cce s s ing or othe rwis e us ing this Da ta a s s um e a ll re s pons ibility for us e the re of a nda g re e to hold S nohom is h County ha rm le s s from a nd a g a ins t a ny d a m a g e s , los s , cla im or lia bility a ris ing out of a nye rror, d e fe ct or om is s ion conta ine d within s a id Da ta . Wa s hing ton S ta te La w, Ch. 42.56 RCW, prohibits s ta te a ndloca l a g e ncie s from provid ing a cce s s to lis ts of ind ivid ua ls inte nd e d for us e for com m e rcia l purpos e s a nd , thus , nocom m e rcia l us e m a y be m a d e of a ny Da ta com pris ing lis ts of ind ivid ua ls conta ine d he re in.

City of Arlington

Re zonefrom Rura l-5 Acre toLow De ns ity Multiple Re s id e ntia l.

City of Marysville

Ma p: W:\plng \ca rto\d ocke t\Docke t_ XVII\Fina lMa ps \Ind ivid ua l\CityofArling ton_ ARL3_ Zoning _ 12-2013.m xd Da te : 12/9/2013

ARL3Propos e d UGA Re m ova lDe -a nne x to unincorpora te d County a ndre zone to Rura l-5 Acre .

Zoning

!"̀$

?|@

?Ó@

UGA Removal

UGA Addition

Proposed Rezones

Snohomish County PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES M/S #604

SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 2014 The Honorable John Lovick, County Executive County Administration Building Everett, WA 98201 SUBJECT: Snohomish County Planning Commission Recommendations on Final Docket XVII Dear Mr. Lovick:

The Snohomish County Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 7, 2014, to consider Final Docket XVII proposals to amend the Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. The Planning Commission considered oral and written testimony received during the hearing. The Planning Commission conducted deliberations on the Final Docket XVII proposals on October 14, 2014.

The Planning Commission makes the following recommendations to the Snohomish County Council, which are supported by findings of fact and conclusions after considering testimony and information presented during the public hearing process.

• EVR1 – City of Everett: Recommend Approval [Motion passed 7-0 with 1 abstention] of a proposed expansion of the Southwest Urban Growth Area (UGA) to add 21 acres that would remain designated Riverway Commercial Farmland on the Future Land Use (FLU) Map of the General Policy Plan (GPP) and remain zoned Agricultural-10 Acre. The recommendation is based on the findings in the September 22, 2014, PDS staff report.

• GF2 – City of Granite Falls: Recommend Approval [Motion passed 7-1] of a proposed expansion of the west boundary of the Granite Falls UGA to add 28.62 acres that would be redesignated from Rural Residential and Rural Urban Transition Area to Public/Institutional Use on the FLU Map of the GPP and rezoned from Rural-5 Acre to R-9,600. The recommendation is based on the findings in the September 22, 2014, PDS staff report.

• STAN5 – City of Stanwood: Recommend Approval as Amended [Motion passed 6-1

with 1 abstention] of a proposed adjustment of the Stanwood UGA to (1) remove 116 acres from the northwest boundary of the UGA that would be redesignated from Urban Low Density Residential on the FLU Map of the GPP to Local Commercial Farmland (Removal Area 1a) and Rural Residential-5 (Removal Area 1b) and, as amended, rezone both Removal Areas 1a and 1b from R-7,200 to Rural-5 Acre; and (2) add 133 acres in two locations on the east boundary of the UGA that would be redesignated from Rural Residential-5 to Urban Low Density Residential and rezoned from Rural-5 Acre to R-9,600.

Planning Commission Recommendation Final Docket XVII

The STAN5 recommendation is based on the findings in the September 22, 2014, PDS staff report with the following additional findings identified by the Planning Commission to support the amendment to rezone Removal Area 1a from R-7,200 to Rural-5 Acre:

o The rezone is consistent with the rezone of the adjacent Removal Area 1b. o The rezone is consistent with the R-5 zoning of the surrounding Local

Commercial Farmland designated properties. o The rezone is consistent with the underlying parcel pattern and the existing land

uses.

• SLN2 – City of Sultan: Recommend Approval as Amended [Motion passed 6-2] of a proposed adjustment of the Sultan UGA that would (1) remove 380 acres from the northwest boundary of the UGA that would be redesignated from Urban Low Density Residential on the FLU Map of the GPP to Rural Residential and rezoned from R-7,200 and R-9,600 to Rural-5 Acre and (2) reject adding the 214 acres of Addition Areas 1 and 2 to the UGA. The SLN2 recommendation is based on the following findings identified by the Planning Commission to support only the above described contraction of the Sultan UGA:

o The removal area should be removed as the topography and distance would make it very costly to extend city utilities to this area which, in turn, would make it very costly to develop.

o The addition areas are not needed at this time due to the lack of current growth and the existing buildable areas currently within the city that are available should growth occur in the future.

o Overwhelming opposition to the proposed UGA addition areas was expressed by residents of these areas and included concerns regarding the impacts to the rural character and the natural environment.

o Testimony was received that the county provides better service (particularly roads and law enforcement) than the city can provide.

• ARL3 – City of Arlington: Recommend Deferring Final Action for One Year to 2016 [Motion passed 8-0] of a proposed adjustment of the Arlington UGA to (1) add 239 acres to the west boundary of the UGA that would be redesignated from Rural Residential and Rural Urban Transition Area to Urban Medium Density Residential on the FLU Map of the GPP and rezoned from Rural-5 Acre to Low Density Multiple Residential and (2) remove 321 acres from the east boundary of the UGA that is within Arlington’s city limits.

Respectfully submitted, SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Guy Palumbo, Chairman

2

Planning Commission Recommendation Final Docket XVII Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes of October 7 and 14, 2014 Planning Commission Recommended Ordinances for the following Final Docket XVII proposals:

City of Everett (EVR1) City of Granite Falls (GF2) City of Stanwood (STAN5) City of Sultan (SLN2)

Copy to: Merle Ash, Planning Commissioner

Simon Farretta, Planning Commissioner Angeline Fowler, Planning Commissioner Doug Hannam, Planning Commissioner Ben Kaufman, Planning Commissioner Darrel McLaughlin, Planning Commissioner Tom Norcott, Planning Commissioner Guy Palumbo, Planning Commissioner Cheryl Stanford, Planning Commissioner Dan Strandy, Planning Commissioner Ed Taft, Planning Commissioner

Stephen Clifton, AICP, Executive Director Clay White, PDS Director Barb Mock, PDS Manager Will Hall, AICP, Legislative Analyst

3

Snohomish County

PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S #604, Everett, WA 98201 (425) 388-3285, FAX (425) 388-3670 Clerk Email: [email protected]

SPECIAL SESSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 7, 2014

MINUTES

A. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL Chairman Palumbo called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Ten (10) of the currently appointed commissioners (11) were in attendance (both a quorum and a majority being six (6) members). Merle Ash Darrel McLaughlin Simon Farretta Tom Norcott Angeline Fowler Guy Palumbo Doug Hannam Cheryl Stanford Ben Kaufman Dan Strandy Commissioner Taft had an excused absence. Jacqueline Reid, PDS PAT Division Supervisor, served as Commission Secretary for this meeting. B. NEW BUSINESS

Public Hearing on the 2015 Update of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan Chairman Palumbo opened the hearing to public testimony at 5:36 p.m., with testimony being received as follows: Name General Comments Paula Crandall Requested boundary line adjustment; concerned about traffic and

new homes; children are walking to school in dangerous areas. Craig VanLewderen 85% of his neighbors agree with above statements. Randall Bird Supports Alternative 3; wants a zoning change in the Greenleaf area

(current zoning is RC). Scott Greeley Opposed to Alternative 3; wants to retain 40 acres of forestry as per

FTA; LDMR out of character with surrounding area; rezone to R9600

1

Name General Comments for consistency; doesn’t want connecting roads to cut through to Cathcart (from the Greenleaf Area).

Kathy Putt Concerned about Alternative 3 and brought petition from Highlands East; 10 year moratorium should last until rezoned; wants rezone to R9600; streets can’t accommodate more traffic.

Keri Moore Wants safe places for walking and biking in order to improve health and decrease disease.

Don Brekhus Does not support de-annexing in City of Arlington. His property is already in the city with access to utilities. Proposes reducing urban sprawl.

Dolores Brekhus Delay consideration of de-annexing from Arlington; wants to develop the property; TDR is not workable as the cost is prohibitive and the program will not be successful as now structured

Jean Roberts Opposed to both Sultan docket proposals; the city should build within their boundaries; proposed UGAs are rural and agricultural.

Wayne Thurman Prefers option E for the Cathcart L. John Poole Taxes will go up if city (Stanwood) develops. Ursula Andrews Do not expand Stanwood UGA; Church Creek is protected; 64th is not

good for traffic. Kristin Kelly Futurewise recommends Alternative 1; less cost; opposed to docket

requests; eliminate RUTAs; need density in urban areas to bring in transit; listed what is included in her letter.

Stanley McGuire Has no access to Cathcart Way; PAWS has blocked them; Cathcart L should be in UGA right now

Ryan Larsen Represented City of Stanwood and spoke for their docket proposal. Bruce Lavers 40 acres north of Glacier Peak; Highlands Association does not want

to be rezoned; keep low density residential; traffic very serious; width of roads cannot handle more traffic; don’t change the zoning.

Erica Erdozain Traffic concerns in Highlands East; don’t change the zoning as it would make the neighborhood a cut-through; dangerous to build on a slope, against additional growth.

John Ruybal In favor of zoning change, go a step further; want LDMR Penelope Prethero Lots of wetland on the church property in Granite Falls, oppose

building; expanded park area for community as there are homeless people and trash that doesn’t get cleaned up; if park area can’t be clean, don’t expand it.

Mary Lowry Sultan does not need more room to build houses – already have areas to build.

Brian Ashbaugh Sultan doesn’t need more land to develop – has plenty; whole process has not been very open; don’t expand the UGA.

Tom Winde Supports Alternative 3; proposed road in Cathcart L will alleviate additional traffic; allows for growth for current and future residents and provides strong economic support

Stan Heydrick Opposed to Sultan proposals 1 and 2; no notice to property owners; city consulted special interests; want to remain in the county; growth can be accommodated within city limits; inconsistent with GMA planning goals; approve a hybrid

Shannon Malinowsky Don’t rezone property in Granite Falls; promised to maintain in natural condition in the past; opposed to access road in swap; wants to know

2

Name General Comments if ulterior motive.

Michael Malinowsky Opposed to Granite Falls UGA; already beautiful land that needs to be taken care of by owners.

Robert Gamache Questioning church in Granite Falls; middle of property has no access to any roads; lots of wetlands and wildlife; questioning motive.

William Stankus Objects to “inappropriate development” of Wellington Hills park. Linda Gray Flawed parks LOS; capacity not a good plan; Parks misrepresented

white paper. Vicki Marshall Opposed to sports complex in Wellington Hills park; excessive noise,

lights, and traffic – negatively impact the quality of life; ill-conceived plan not suited for the location; not in the best interest of either the city or the county – put this before the votes and find an appropriate piece of property suited to this type of development.

Janet Littlefield Opposed to proposed plan of Wellington Hills park; community had no input to park design; park located outside the UGA and zoned as rural; proposed plan is wholly inappropriate; unnecessary commercial endeavor.

Jim Willett Spoke in opposition to Wellington Hills Park; no public input; inappropriate place for sports complex; no road lights, and county has no plans to make improvements.

Tina Stewart Concerned with all alternatives; gave definitions of active and passive recreation; doesn’t like passive definition of trails; make PRE definitions more general and inclusive.

Heidi Ondrasik Over 300 people opposed to the Wellington Hills park; no input from neighborhood; access limited and steep slope.

Gerry Gibson Does not support Sultan UGA expansion; population allocation to the city by the county was reduced; now no need for expansion; no public input.

Mike Smith Supports Alternative 3. David Winde Supports Alternative 3. Mike O’Grady Opposes Wellington Park proposal; master plan developed without

citizen input. Nancy Bacon Opposes Wellington Park proposal; no commercial sports park in

rural area and without consulting the neighborhood; no collaboration; back door deals; traffic.

Jim Hanson Supports the Union Slough restoration project; consistent with CPP MPP and meets requirements of RCW

Chris Schriver Has Woodinville property he wants added to Maltby UGA; rezone – only a minor change; make property more in line with actual use; across from Brightwater.

Sonja Wanichek Voice Opposes making the Lake Serene area LDMR ; need a moratorium on rezoning and/or variances; someone needs to take accountability; in the Mukilteo MUGA

Mark Fussell Need moratorium on LDMR in the Lake Serene area where there is flooding and lack of drainage.

Margaret Hockenson Opposed to Sultan annexation area; cannot be developed because of power lines and gas pipeline.

Lance Wheeler Opposed to Arlington docket land swap to de-annex on east side and add on west side; bought because the area was R5; City of Marysville

3

Name General Comments cannot manage growth.

Joshua Golston, Mayor Explained the Granite Falls proposal; disputed arguments against it. Ray Sturtz Further explained Granite Falls proposal; disputed arguments against

it. William Mumaw Objects to rezone on 25th Ave. S.E.; only one access to the south. Robert Renz Highlands East cut-through is unsafe; rolled curbs and narrow streets;

teen drivers unsafe; renew the development plan and renew access through the other side; make MC Town Center type pf area to keep quality of life.

Ed Scullywest Has property on North Creek; house across the street drains to north creek; has Artesian well; development uphill will destroy or degrade the springs.

Stanley Thomas Snohomish Co. sheriffs not doing their job in Granite Falls; need to fix sidewalks and make the city nice; keep its natural habitat.

Ron Savage Opposes rezoning to higher density in Lake Serene area; overflow and flooding; surface water drains into lake.

James Gardner Owns property in Cathcart L; zone back to R5 is inappropriate – mixed use urban more appropriate in area

Carol Frey In RUTA but borders new UGA (Stanwood docket); when land is developed will drain onto her property.

Shahrzad Khatibi Part property owner in Cathcart L; wants option E mixed urban. Leo Fiorini County needs to follow own guideline (with respect to Cathcart L);

surrounded by commercial area; only place in other designation; only access from Hwy. 9; wants option E

Heather Nordell Supports alternative 1; opposed to unnecessary expansion; keep rural growth slow; concerned with habitat and wildlife loss; spoke regarding displaced wildlife; wants strong Natural Environment chapter and good parks; request new park goal to establish wildlife network across parks.

Mark Dolan Opposed to Arlington de-annexation Annette Laico Explained plan for PAWS facility in Cathcart L; purchased as a result

of R5 zoning designation; PAWS doesn’t plan to densely populate – want peaceful environment for recuperating animals; not actively opposing any zoning change.

Laura Yoshihara Ruggs Lake belongs to the landowners; lots of wildlife; any development between there and the City of Everett should not be allowed, the water comes from Silver Lake; too much congestion around Bothell-Everett Highway.

Sonya Wells Has equestrian property on Lake Serene; – 1 acre; peaceful 2 lane road with no sidewalks; don’t rezone to 10-12 homes per acre –will not be consistent with the neighborhood (Shelby Road); drainage a problem too.

Doris Renshaw Cathcart L property diminished by county facility; not happy about PAWS facility as it will bring more traffic; rezone area to mixed use.

Timothy Johnson Way too much traffic in Wellington Hills park area; do not put a regional sports complex in a rural area; park needs to fit the neighborhood it was designed for.

Mary Duell Dense housing is not appropriate in the Lake Serene area; do not use Lake Serene as a holding pond.

4

Name General Comments Ken Bercher Agrees with previous speakers about Lake Serene; additional

concerns: essential facilities adversely impacted includes electricity – need to provide additional capacity; illegal parking on Shelby road; parking a problem – need a moratorium until all concerns are addressed; need mass transportation.

Robert Ruckman Favors Alternative 3 rezoning; owns property in Cathcart. Vernon Beach All property owners are opposed to Arlingotn Docket item; Arlington

TDR area restricted to receiving area; posting of this meeting not done until September 27; no response to written comment.

Jeanann Honaker Cathcart L should be rezoned as urban mixed use – only 5 minutes walking from future transit area.

Laura Pearson Want urban low density zoning, rather than R5 (Granite Falls docket). Terry Robertson Supports the STAN5 Docket proposal; wants to move the Josephine

facility to an area that does not flood. Yvonne Bergenheim Wellington Hills park should not be developed as there is lots of

wildlife in park; Maltby wants more facilities; could be county destination park with a few improvements.

Valerie Powell Opposed to Sultan docket; west of Trout Farm Road is in a flood zone and dam holds back Spada Lake - not a good idea to put houses there; keep UGA; roads inadequate for added traffic; infrastructure inadequate; crime rate up.

Grady Helseth RUTA ridiculous; signage needs to go back up – notification signs instead of postcards and mail outs; no LDMR by Tom Thumb – get rid of it.

There being no other persons wanting to speak, Chairman Palumbo closed the hearing to public testimony at 9:10 p.m. Commission Request for Additional Information Commissioners requested the following additional information be provided or arrangements made prior to their October 14, 2014, deliberations:

• Parks Department staff should attend the deliberations. • More information regarding the City of Arlington request to delay its docket proposal. • Clarify decision points regarding Wellington Hills, such as, what impact would the

decision points have. • Surface Water Management staff should attend the deliberations and provide

clarification regarding the issues brought up about Lake Serene. • Information regarding the 10-year Greenleaf moratorium. • Implications to comp plan and DEIS process (as well as cost) of the individual parcel

rezones not proposed. • Explanation of the plan for a new road through the Cathcart site that was talked about. • What are the sports franchises talked about for Wellington – the commercial plan • Explanation of why the City of Sultan is making its docket proposal. • Definition of mitigation for Brightwater.

5

• Explanation of the discrepancies the Mayor of Granite Falls said speakers were describing.

• Explanation of the implications option E would have on development in Cathcart L. • More information on a road to County facilities in the Cathcart area. Why was a road

denied in the past? • Need clarification regarding the church area in the Granite Falls docket proposal. Is part

being used for a stormwater system? • Need more information regarding rezoning to light industrial across from Brightwater • Need more information regarding the Crystal Springs neighborhood. • Need more information regarding a wildlife corridor plan mentioned by one of the

speakers. What might be a viable plan for the county? • What implication does the RUTA designation have on the utilization or development of

property? • Need more information regarding the proposed LOS service methodology for Parks,

including an explanation of option 2. This public hearing, including all testimony and discussion, is on file (via recording) in PDS. C. ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

6

Snohomish County

PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S #604, Everett, WA 98201 (425) 388-3285, FAX (425) 388-3670 Clerk Email: [email protected]

SPECIAL SESSION

HEARING DELIBERATIONS OCTOBER 14, 2014

MINUTES

A. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE AGENDA Chairman Palumbo called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Eight (8) of the currently appointed commissioners (11) were in attendance (a quorum being six (6) members and a majority being six (6) members). Merle Ash Ben Kaufman Simon Farretta Darrel McLaughlin

Angeline Fowler Guy Palumbo Doug Hannam Cheryl Stanford (arrived 5:38 p.m.)

Commissioners Norcott, Strandy, and Taft had excused absences. Barbara Mock, PDS PAT Division Manager, served as Planning Commission Secretary for this meeting. Chairman Palumbo reviewed the meeting agenda, which included only hearing deliberations on the 2015 Update of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan. The public hearing was held on October 7, 2014. Verbal testimony received at that time, as well as written testimony received through 5:00 p.m. on October 8, 2014, was considered during the following deliberation meetings held on October 14, 15, and 16, 2014. David Killingstad, PDS Principal Planner, facilitated the Planning and Development Services (PDS) portions of the discussions that took place during these deliberations. He was assisted by Steve Skorney, Senior Planner; Ryan Countryman, Senior Planner; and Steve Toy, Principal Demographer.

1

B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DELIBERATIONS ON THE 2015 UPDATE OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

1. Docket Proposal: City of Everett (EVR1) Steve Skorney, PDS Senior Planner, reviewed the details of the docket request by the City of Everett. The city is proposing an expansion of the SWUGA to add approximately 21 acres of city-owned property that is being used for environmental mitigation and restoration. The Riverway Commercial Farmland (RCF) Future Land Use map designation and Agriculture-10 acre (A-10) zoning on the property would remain unchanged. Following discussion: Motion was made by Commissioner Fowler and seconded by Commissioner McLaughlin to recommend approval of the City of Everett docket proposal as presented by staff, including findings listed in the staff report. Vote: 7 in favor (Ash, Farretta, Fowler, Hannam, Kaufman, McLaughlin, Palumbo) 0 opposed 1 abstention (Stanford) Motion passed 2. Docket Proposal: City of Granite Falls (GF2) Steve Skorney, PDS Senior Planner, reviewed the details of the docket request by the City of Granite Falls. The city’s proposal would add 28.62 acres to the Granite Falls Urban Growth Area (UGA) and re-designate from Rural Residential (RR) and Rural Urban Transition Area (RUTA) overlay to Public/Institutional Use (P/IU) on the Future Land Use map of the General Policy Plan. The proposal site would be rezoned from R-5 to R-9,600 to implement the plan re-designation. Following discussion (during which Ray Sturtz, long range planner for the City of Granite Falls, responded to questions): Motion was made by Commissioner Hannam and seconded by Commissioner Ash to recommend the City of Granite Falls docket proposal as presented by staff, including findings listed in the staff report. Vote: 7 in favor (Ash, Farretta, Fowler, Hannam, Kaufman, McLaughlin, Stanford) 1 opposed (Palumbo) 0 abstentions Motion passed 3. Docket Proposal: City of Stanwood (STAN5) Steve Skorney, PDS Senior Planner, reviewed the details of the docket request by the City of Stanwood. The city’s proposal would adjust the Stanwood Urban Growth Area (UGA) by removing 116 acres from the north boundary of the UGA that are designated Urban Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use map of the General Policy Plan and zoned R-7,200. The majority of the removal area (95 acres) would be re-designated Local Commercial Farmland with a rezone to A-10 and the remainder of the removal area (21) acres would be re-designated Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) with a rezone to R-5. The proposed adjustment would add 133 acres in two locations on the east boundary of the UGA. Addition areas 1 and 2 would be re-

2

designated from Rural Residential to ULDR and rezoned from R-5 to R-9,600. The UGA removal and addition areas, considered together, would not increase residential capacity. The primary purpose of the city’s proposed adjustments to its UGA boundaries is to include only those areas where infrastructure, particularly roads, sewer, and water, can be adequately provided. Following discussion, during which Commissioner Ash expressed opposition to any property downzoning in UGA removal area 1a to A-10: Motion was made by Commissioner McLaughlin and seconded by Commissioner Hannam to recommend approval of the City of Stanwood docket proposal as presented by staff. Commissioner Hannam expressed concern regarding a potential law suit. Mr. Skorney explained there is no de-annexation currently proposed, and all of the land is in unincorporated Snohomish County. The city has no jurisdiction over it. Vote: 3 in favor (Kaufman, McLaughlin, Stanford) 4 opposed (Ash, Fowler, Hannam, Palumbo) 1 abstention (Farretta) Motion failed Motion was made by Commissioner Hannam and seconded by Commissioner Ash to recommend approval of the changes in the UGA for Stanwood with the amendment that the UGA removal area (1.a) be rezoned to R-5 to be more consistent with current use; UGA removal area (1.b) would continue to be rezoned to R-5. Lengthy discussion on this motion ensued. Commissioner Kaufman referenced testimony numbers 12, 13, and 15. Findings to be included with respect to this motion include:

• Consistency with what is proposed to be rezoned for UGA removal area 1.b • Consistency with the surrounding zoning • Consistency with the parcel pattern and existing land use of that area

Vote: 6 in favor (Ash, Fowler, Hannam, Kaufman, McLaughlin, Stanford) 1 opposed (Palumbo) 1 abstention (Farretta) Motion passed 4. Docket Proposal: City of Sultan (SLN2) Steve Skorney, PDS Senior Planner, reviewed the details of the docket request by the City of Sultan. The city’s proposal would adjust the Sultan Urban Growth Area (UGA) by removing 380 acres from the northwest boundary of the UGA that are designated Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) on the Future Land Use map of the General Policy Plan and re-designate to Rural Residential (RR). The proposal would rezone the removal area from R-7,200 and R-9,600 to R-5 to implement the proposed RR designation. The proposed adjustment would add 214 acres to the northeast and east boundaries of the UGA and re-designate from RR to ULDR and rezone from R-5 to R-7,200. The UGA removal and addition areas, considered together, would not increase residential capacity. The primary purpose of the proposed adjustments, according to the city, is to amend its UGA boundaries to include only those areas where

3

infrastructure, particularly roads, sewer, and water, can be adequately provided. Following discussion: Motion was made by Commissioner Kaufman and seconded by Commissioner Fowler to recommend an amendment to the City of Sultan docket request by rejecting the two proposed additions and accepting the proposed removal. Vote: 6 in favor (Farretta, Fowler, Hannam, Kaufman, McLaughlin, Stanford) 2 opposed (Ash, Palumbo) 0 abstentions Motion passed Mr. Killingstad, who had conferred with Mr. Toy, stated that the Snohomish County Tomorrow reconciliation process would resolve any needed adjustments to population and employment growth targets that would occur as a result of this motion. Findings to be included with respect to this motion are:

• The “removal” area should be removed as the topography and distance would make it very costly to extend city utilities to the area which, in turn, would make it very costly to be developed.

• The “addition” area does not seem to be needed at this time due to the lack of current growth and the existing large areas currently within the City of Sultan that are available should growth occur in the future.

• Overwhelming opposition to the proposed UGA addition areas was expressed by residents, even if it would benefit them.

• Currently there are many buildable lots and homes for sale. • Significant number of members of the public expressed concern that they had no

opportunity to participate in the process. • Proposal seems to benefit one large developer. • Residents expressed concern about effects to the rural character and natural

environment, and that some agricultural programs would be put at risk by the proposal. • Testimony was received that the county provides better service (particularly sheriff and

roads) than the city can provide. 5. Docket Proposal: City of Arlington (ARL3) Steve Skorney, PDS Senior Planner, reviewed the details of the docket request by the City of Arlington. The city’s proposal consists of a concurrent expansion and contraction of the Arlington UGA that would not result in a net gain of population capacity. Mr. Skorney explained that in a letter from the Mayor of Arlington addressed to PDS on August 28, 2014, the city requested a one-year deferral of a county decision on the ARL3 proposal to allow the City and County to explore alternative solutions for a UGA exchange. Following discussion (including potential future expansion across I-5): Motion to recommend a one-year deferral for the City of Arlington (ARL3) docket proposal was made by Commissioner McLaughlin and seconded by Commissioner Palumbo.

4

Vote: 8 in favor (Ash, Farretta, Fowler, Hannam, Kaufman, McLaughlin, Palumbo, Stanford) 0 opposed 0 abstentions Motion passed Deliberations on the above portion of the 2015 Update of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan, including discussion and questions/answers, are on file (via recording) in PDS. Chairman Palumbo recessed the meeting at 7:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:14 p.m. 6. Growth Targets: Alternative 1, 2, or 3 Steve Toy, Principal Demographer, described key differences in the three growth allocation alternatives that deal with population growth from 2011-2035 and that are the basis of the comprehensive plan update alternatives. All three alternatives use same employment growth allocations, so there are no differences between them. Therefore, Mr. Toy’s presentation focused only on population growth allocation. He shared this information via charts and graphs that showed growth impact on all county jurisdictions. A summary explanation of the three alternatives, as included in an August 25, 2014, memorandum (page 3) from Terri Strandberg, 2015 Update Project Manager, to the Planning Commission, follows: Alternative 1 This alternative utilizes the Council-adopted initial growth targets and represents a commitment to VISION 2040’s Regional Growth Strategy, allocating relatively low growth to the unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs) and rural/resource areas, while directing most of the growth to incorporated cities and towns. About 92% of new population growth would go into unincorporated/incorporated urban areas and about 8% in the rural areas. Within all UGAs combined, about one-quarter of the growth would go to the unincorporated UGA and three-quarters to the incorporated cities and towns. Most of the urban growth would go to the City of Everett. All of the General Policy Plan policy amendments would be made under this alternative. Alternative 2 This alternative includes the initial population growth targets recommended by Snohomish County Tomorrow and assumes no changes to the land uses as currently shown on the county’s future land use map. No general policy plan changes are proposed under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative meets the requirements as a county “no action” alternative under SEPA. About 90% of new growth would be located in urban areas and 10% in the rural and resource areas. Within all UGAs combined, about one-third of the growth would be in the unincorporated UGA and about two-thirds in incorporated cities and towns. The population growth in the incorporated cities and towns would be distributed primarily to the City of Everett, but at a lower rate compared to Alternative 1,

5

Alternative 3 This alternative includes the initial population growth targets recommended by Snohomish County Tomorrow. The amount of growth allocated to the unincorporated UGA and cities and towns is almost the same as in Alternative 2. The notable difference is in the Arlington urban growth area, where there is a decrease in population as a result of the proposed docket proposal to remove land from the incorporated city limits. Alternative 3 includes the proposed general policy plan amendments that are also proposed under Alternative 1. This alternative includes several future land use map changes. First, there are infill changes to increase development capacity predominantly in the unincorporated Southwest UGA. Second, the proposed docket requests are included. Lastly a number of technical map amendments are proposed. Alternative 3 also includes county-initiated area-wide rezones to implement the proposed infill changes as well as technical zoning map corrections. The three alternatives share some common features such as relying on the State Office of Financial Management Medium Forecast (which projects that 238,281 new persons will reside in Snohomish County between 2011 and 2035) and the need to adopt a version of a Parks and Recreation Plan, Transportation Element, and Capital Facilities Plan. It is their differences that provide the contrast between each alternative. With respect to Alternative 1, Mr. Toy reported that:

• Alternative 1 is consistent with the vision established in the regional growth strategy and subsequently supported by the membership of the Puget Sound Regional Council

• According to the draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative 1 appears to have the least impact on the natural environment in unincorporated areas by focusing the growth into cities where the natural landscape has already been altered to support urban growth

• Alternative 1 also results in the least impact to unincorporated county from a land use, capital facility, and infrastructure perspective

Mr. Toy then said that while the vision embodied in Alternative 1 has received broad regional support, the detail in it creates some concern for the county that should not be overlooked. Following is the basis for the PDS recommendation of Alternative 3 (taken from a 9/23/14 memo to the Planning Commission from Terri Strandberg, 2015 Update Project Manager):

• Alternative 3 allows the county to make substantial progress toward regional growth strategy goals on a more probable timeline than Alternative 1 and allows the county to prepare a capital facilities plan reflecting a phased shift toward the regional growth strategy population distribution.

• Even if light rail is extended to Everett, it will not occur until too late in the planning period for Everett to reach the Alternative 1 population target by 2035. No other change capable of catalyzing the required market shift is on the immediate horizon.

• The population growth targets under Alternatives 2 and 3 are supported by the cities and represent a regional growth strategy-consistent option as supported by the Puget Sound Regional Council. While Alternative 2 probably represents more population distribution than Alternative 1, it does not take steps to support long term urban growth area stability.

• Alternative 3 combines a more probable population distribution and infill within the existing urban growth area to gain capacity while the opportunity is still available.

• The infill proposed as part of Alternative 3 within the existing unincorporated southwest urban growth area will help to minimize urban growth area expansion in the next update.

6

Much discussion of this information took place, with the planning commissioners providing the following reactions (listed in the order stated by individual commissioners) to the three alternatives:

• The regional growth strategy is important, as it is a vision that Puget Sound Regional Council has been working on with four counties for several years.

• While doubt was expressed that Alternative 1 will be able to be met, some commissioners were concerned with Alternative 3 because it is “what’s going on now”, saying that current growth in the SW UGA is unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue for the next twenty years.

• The aspirational goal and what we are trying to accomplish over the next twenty years needs to be carefully considered. The fact that we are right now doing a certain thing, does not mean that we should not make plans for how to do it better, how to build communities better, how to focus growth in cities that have more revenue tools to provide transportation, to provide better built environments, to provide the amenities that go along with density. We should make a plan that recognizes where we are now and tries to push us in the right direction.

• Historically people have shown they want to live in the unincorporated urban growth areas, which is why we need to plan for growth in those areas now. Even when in support of putting growth in the cities, keeping people out of the rural areas, and assuring environmental protection, we still have to plan for the reality of where growth is happening and what people are choosing to do.

• Potential “catalysts” were discussed with respect to Alternative 1 including: light rail coming to Lynnwood in 2023, “baby boomer” aging, Boeing 777X is here now and will bring business spin-offs. These are happening in the next twenty years in Everett. Alternative 3 has no catalyst for meeting the regional growth strategy.

• The perception is that the county does not always have revenue to provide services at the urban level. We need to focus growth in cities that are best able to deal with urban growth. We need to look at how we want our county to look in 20 years and then make a plan for how to get there.

• The Planning Commission does not nearly have the information or expertise that county staff has; therefore, commissioners should be paying more attention to the staff recommendation. The staff report indicates concerns about how the county will be past its capacity for growth and capital improvements in six years.

• Alternative 1 will increase the cost of housing, and affordable housing will become scarce.

• With respect to Alternative 3, concern was expressed that, in twenty years, there will be no infrastructure north of Lynnwood to support Vision 2040 and the regional growth strategy.

• Concern was expressed about the $101M backlog in the transportation element and that allocating growth per Alternative 3 would not provide the infrastructure needed to support the transportation plan. It was stated that any political solutions to this are “untenable”.

• Doubt was expressed that light rail will have the real impact expected with respect to eliminating cars from the road and decreasing the need for parking spaces. People who have families don’t want to live in dense areas, and still need/want their cars. More pressure should be put on the cities for growth.

• One suggestion was made that Alternative 2 should be “tweaked” to be more like Alternative 1.

7

• Adopting Alternative 3 would send a message to the cities that the county is not concerned with the PSRC regional growth strategy. There would be no mechanism for Bothell, Everett, or Lynnwood to upzone.

• The point was made that the Master Builders Association has indicated its belief that the current buildable lands report is incorrect and that there is no capacity left in the SW UGA. One commissioner expressed skepticism that the historic growth pattern of 48% in the SW UGA will change 22% if Alternative 3 is adopted.

• Alternative 3 allows a compromise between three goals: 1) putting pressure on Everett, 2) allowing people to go where they want to go, and 3) maintaining the vision wanted for the general region.

• The Planning Commission needs to be forward looking, rather than backward looking by recommending the more aggressive path of Alternative 1. Keeping growth in urban areas (with some possible adjustments on a case-by-case basis) will help prevent a sprawl situation. The task of the commission is, as private citizens, to provide guidance to staff, and the more aggressive stance of Alternative 1 is needed.

• The core function of strategic planning is finding a compromise between trends of the past and vision for the future. For most people, finding this right point between the two is very important.

• Alternative 3 includes many upzones, which will cause problems with drainage, transportation, flooding etc. Upzoning will cause the county to have to deal with those problems without all the revenue tools the cities have. Concern was expressed that the county won’t be able to support the needed infrastructure. Growth needs to be put into the cities that are better able to deal with urban areas.

• Difference of opinion was stated that the county is financially better-off than the cities. In particular, Everett is financially challenged.

Clay White, asked why PDS staff recommends Alternative 3 rather than Alternative 1, stated that:

• Alternative 1 does not recommend what has already occurred prior to the regional growth strategy being passed.

• The county already has capacity within the unincorporated urban growth area to take much more growth than would be allocated under the regional growth strategy. Based on the number of applications already in PDS today, the county already has 77% of that growth and would hit the target in 2021.

• Where the Planning Commission recommends targets be set will not change where people move. Some actions were taken prior to the regional growth strategy being adopted and PDS recognizes the result of those actions. • If you want to achieve the regional growth strategy, you should be downzoning the entire

urban growth area. • The PDS recommendation of Alternative 3 is simply a recognition of current on-the-

ground circumstances. • PDS does not believe that Alternative 3 undermines the regional growth strategy. There

is nothing in county policies that requires adoption of the regional growth strategy in strict percentages; rather, the county needs to “go toward” the regional growth strategy and PSRC agrees we are currently headed in the right direction. We don’t want to under-plan for things like capital facilities as we recognize that actions taken prior to the regional growth strategy created capacity. Unless there is a proposal to constrict that capacity, PDS thinks that Alternative 1 would be turning a blind eye to things that are actually going to occur unless we make them not occur.

8

• A recommendation for Alternative 1 will not change the reality of how much capacity exists. Alternative provides recognition of “what is”. Following further discussion (on file via recording in PDS): Motion was made by Commissioner Farretta and seconded by Commissioner McLaughlin to recommend approval of the population allocation and growth targets as included in Alternative #1. Vote: 5 in favor (Farretta, Kaufman, McLaughlin, Palumbo, Stanford) 3 opposed (Ash, Fowler, Hannam) 0 abstentions Motion failed Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Commissioner Farretta, but was not seconded. Motion failed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ash and seconded by Commissioner Fowler to recommend approval of the population allocation and growth targets as included in Alternative #3.

Vote: 3 in favor (Ash, Fowler, Hannam) 5 opposed (Farretta, Kaufman, McLaughlin, Palumbo, Stanford) 0 abstentions Motion failed Clay White and Will Hall, Council Legislative Analyst, said that capturing the discussion held tonight would be very helpful to Council. Mr. Killingstad stated that PDS staff will write a letter detailing the results of motions made, as well as discussion held. He stated that there will be separate letters for all actions that the commission takes. Discussion of the process for deliberations to be held on October 15, 2014, took place.

Deliberations on the above portion of the 2015 Update of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan, including discussion and questions/answers, are on file (via recording) in PDS. C. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

9

LOG NUMBERS / / MANAGEMENT ROUTING: TO: COUNCIL …

Documents

Transcript of LOG NUMBERS / / MANAGEMENT ROUTING: TO: COUNCIL …